I kind of see your point here. Most software is written and maintained by organizations, but not all. A recent example is when a software developer removed all of his packages from NPM, breaking every package with a dependency on his (which was apparently in the thousands).
There's some argument here. You could make the argument that everyone who used this as a dependency was leaving themselves open to risk of the developer doing something like this for any reason. At the same time, there was some level of implicit trust in the community.
I believe what this section is saying to me is that it is ethically wrong of me to, for example, destroy a software dependency that would impact many projects. It may be better to leave the software available and unmaintained for the greater good, allowing others to use it per whatever license is granted to them or to build alternatives on their own.
I think that I would like to see this worded from the perspective of an individual and not an organization. If I'm in an organization, I may have the responsibility to speak up to protect a greater interest of stakeholders or even the general public. If I'm an individual, I have the responsibility to monitor my creations and consider the greater good.
I would also like to point out that I'm opposed to a specific section targeting leaders. Anyone can be a leader of an organization. My ethical responsibilities don't necessarily change, but the methods and capability that I have to drive ethical decision making does.