The CEO of a company is sitting in his office when one of his underlings come in and tells him they've found a new policty to massively increase their profits. This new policy will harm the environment. The CEO says "I don't care about the environment, let's make some money!"
82% of people say the CEO intentionally harmed the environment.
Now, take the same scenario, wrote in the exact same way except replacing the word "harm" with "help"…only 23% of people will say the CEO intentionally helped the environment.
This is called the Knobe Effect, named for the experimental philosopher Josuha Knobe.

It's not the same scenario. You'd have to also replace profits with losses.
That would defeat the purpose of the experiment. The experiment demonstrates that people use moral judgments when determining intention.
The logic doesn't seem sound. Â The CEO is doing what CEOs do. Â If there are other beneficial side-effects, you can assume he would have done it regardless if the side effects were really good, or just a little good. Â This is not the same as if there are negative side-effects because you assume he'd think twice and consider how bad the effects actually are.
It's hard to say he intentionally helped the environment when he literally said "I don't care about the environment." He's neutral at best.