It is not issue of agreement or that of disagreement. Economic theories had established the fact that profit maximisation is the main driven force in market economy, though there are order goals that a firm could aim at. It is equally agreed in finance that profit maximasation as a financial goal of a firm is difficult to measure as there are varying yardsticks to measure it, moreso, this goal fails to take into consideration the time value of money hence the best goal for firms stand to be 'shareholders' wealth maximisation.

On entrepreneurship, to think of other goal than profit will stand to negate the principle of entrepreneurship as suggested by Richard Charlition. Entrepreneurship is built on risk and profit and so a successful entrepreneur will be measured with overall returns achieved then it will be difficult to blame any of these for personal woe(s)

The beautify of modern entrepreneurship is the identification of need for social responsibilities which most of the named entrepreneurs are known with world-wide.

I therefore assert that to seek for maximum is not anti-social

The civilization that is based on only two related ideas - profit and growth of consumption, did not provide economic growth that increases moral sentiment and injustice in society. The neoliberal reform did not reduce the inequality and the poverty. The dilemma can not be reduced to a ratio of the free market and state intervention. The most important question from which we can not escape, derives the identifing place of the man in the system.

The system which persistently tries turn man into the good, in which the economy does not serve the people, in which the economy controls the society and the society does not control the economy, sooner or later, will end badly with the massacre. The illusion that the societes which go against humanity can not be controled by the police, the army, the secret services, or laws that every social combustion want to declare from the terrorism is dangerous.

The old texts and new experiences perhaps suggest that the exit from the chaos is located in a small, not larger consumption, that people need to work and have less and live more. The reformed system can not eliminate the market, but it must be controlled. In the interest of society is that the government (and not the banks and large corporations) controls the market. Social democracy is still the best of all economic models.

In one of my publication, Corporate and State Social Responsibility: A Long-Term Perspective, that you can find in my record, we deal with this topic. Companies have caught the changes in consumer perceptions and have developed corporate social responsibility (CSR) as long run survival strategy. The CSR signals that companies are overcoming the logic of the short term. The question is whether an evolution towards something similar that we call State social responsibility (SSR) is possible. State social responsibility is exerted when the State, in absence (or in case of ineffectiveness) of a formal supranational law, protects the rights of current and future generations of its citizens and citizens of other states and/or raises the current genera-tions' awareness regarding the opportunities reduction generated in space and time by meta-externalities. States would signal the tendency to overcome their short-sighted logic if the meta-externalities became a crucial question in their agenda.

Hope it was useful.

Here the link to the paper

Article Corporate and State Social Responsibility: A Long-Term Perspective