Here is one of my favorite, if treacly, poems:

He drew a circle that shut me out —

Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout.

But Love and I had the wit to win:

We drew a circle that took him in!

(Edwin Markham, "Outwitted.")

None of these "alternatives" contradict Friedman. They all describe ways in which a corporation of a certain size and social importance can maximize its profits. Happy workers, positive brand image, and a sustainable planet are all good for the biggest companies. That's what Charlie Wilson meant when he said that what's good for America is good for General Motors and vice versa. It was a statement about the company's identity of interest with the country, not a declaration of his ideological position.

It is the proper role of the consuming public, labor organizations, and the political system to make CSR the most profitable way to run a business. Otherwise, someone will run a business without CSR and put the CSR company out of business. Businesses may resist CSR for bad reasons, but that does not mean that businesses should adopt CSR UNLESS it also maximizes profits. https://remarklj.medium.com/on-the-50th-anniversary-of-friedmans-essay-ae60ad9cb60d