Some critics of CSR, such as Milton Friedman, argue that a corporation’s principal purpose is to maximize returns to its shareholders, whilst obeying the laws of the countries within which it works. Others argue that the only reason corporations put in place social projects is utilitarian; that they see a commercial benefit in raising their reputation with the public or with government.

It is clear that a CSR activity generally can only be effective at achieving social or environmental outcomes to the extent that it maximizes profits: hence the CSR slogan – «doing well by doing good». This requires that the resources applied to CSR activities must generate a higher return than those resources could obtain if applied anywhere else, e.g. capital investment, lobbying for tax relief, outsourcing, fighting against unionization, or taking market risks.

Some argue that it is self-evidently «good» that businesses should seek to minimize any negative social and environmental impact of their economic activity. It can be beneficial for a company’s reputation to publicize any environmentally friendly business activities. A company which develops new engine technology to reduce fuel consumption will be able to promote its CSR credentials as well as increase profits.

A conflict can arise when a corporation espouses CSR and its commitment to Sustainable Development on the one hand, whilst damaging revelations about its business practices emerge on the other. The McDonald’s Corporation has been criticized by CSR campaigners for unethical business practices, including mistreatment of workers, misleading advertising, and unnecessary cruelty to animals. Similarly Shell has a much-publicized CSR policy and was a pioneer in triple bottom line reporting, but was involved in 2004 in a scandal over the misreporting of its oil reserves, which seriously damaged its reputation and led to charges of hypocrisy.