The firm’s overarching financial objective is typically framed as maximizing long-term shareholder value, not just short-term profits. Actions that reduce environmental harm can support this objective by lowering the probability of costly future liabilities (fines, cleanup costs, lawsuits), reducing regulatory risk, and protecting the firm’s “license to operate” granted by the community and government. In financial management terms, managers consider not only immediate cash outflows (the pollution-control investment) but also the present value of avoided future cash outflows and the stability of future cash inflows. A public hearing also reflects stakeholder orientation: communities, regulators, customers, and employees affect the firm’s risk profile and operating continuity. Protecting the river can strengthen corporate reputation, reduce political and legal pressure, and improve long-run competitive position—all of which can raise the expected future free cash flows or lower the firm’s perceived risk (and therefore its required return). Option C best captures the standard finance view that ethical and socially responsible decisions can align with value maximization when they manage risk and support sustainable, long-term performance.