Pollution is frequently "rationalized" by involved firms as a necessary bad to reach economic or social goals. Unfortunately, little is known about how external observers form moral judgment when confronted to such a dual output, precisely an economic or social gain (e.g., profits, job preservation) and an environmental harm. Using two experimental surveys, we fill this gap by inviting participants to judge the morality of two companies engaging in the same environmental wrongdoings (river pollution and deforestation) while varying the generated monetary gain. In the preliminary study, individuals perceive environmental degradations generating higher profits for the firm as more morally acceptable. In the main study, we used a multiple-item measure of behavioral intentions towards the firm and we analyzed potential moderating effects. The results are threefold: (i) the attitude towards the firm improves as the profit obtained by the firm increases, up to a tipping point; (ii) when the profit gained by the firm increases, environmentally-unconcerned (resp. concerned) individuals display more positive (resp. negative) attitude towards the firm; (iii) respondents thinking that the firm main objective should be only about profit and not social well-being express a more lenient judgment. We draw several policy and managerial implications.