You misrepresent economic rationality, which is not defined based on some particular accounting standards. You also sound like you've read enough to know better.
It sounds to me like your problem is other people don't share your values, and you are calling this "rationality", whereas other people have the same issue, but often call it "irrationality". Yet you are saying at the same time that rationality is orthogonal to values. If so, then it doesn't oppose them. It all seems incoherent yet cliched to me.
Well, if what you're saying is that for a decision (say, to pursue a certain path which leads to innovation) you need to have both rationality and values, then you're already admitting that rationality is not enough, and therefore you need (at least a little bit of) irrationality.
But I think the paradox is deeper, and it ultimately means that we cannot really define "rationality", it is contradictory. And I think that's what economists are trying to do (and what they teach MBAs), to make a theory of how to make the best decision, regardless of values. The paradox seems to be that you cannot follow any theory like that blindly.
Perhaps it is cliched, I don't know. I wish Yanis would write a popular book about the paradox (he is certainly fond of it, see his book Economic Indeterminacy).
It sounds to me like your problem is other people don't share your values, and you are calling this "rationality", whereas other people have the same issue, but often call it "irrationality". Yet you are saying at the same time that rationality is orthogonal to values. If so, then it doesn't oppose them. It all seems incoherent yet cliched to me.