An interesting question then follows: are those companies where you can take larger and larger risks without adversely affecting people, actually adding anything of real value? Or is it all broken window fallacy?
This is not to say that e.g. Google is a useless company. Surely its products have provided a lot of benefit from people. But it is also clear that taking risks as Google can cause clear negative consequences for people. So the question is more for a hypothetical company that can take arbitrarily large risks.
Taking risks is working on new products to expand the company. Possibly refined versions of existing products, possibly explorations of related offerings. Could be green field recreation of what you have to see if you can make it better. Could be isolated improvements.
Such that, if you think it is only risky to possibly harm someone... I don't think we are talking about the same things.
Excess perks, I don't care about. I can buy my own drinks and coffee. But a company that isn't taking bigger and bigger risks is a company that is at risk and just ignoring it.