I agree with the general sentiment, but I think it's often abused to obfuscate a very destructive idea. Companies should follow the law and behave ethically, even if that doesn't maximize profits. On the other hand, behaving ethically shouldn't involve an obligation to take over charitable or government functions.

To give a very simple example: I think it's really important for everyone to have access to a smart phone. That doesn't impose an ethical obligation on smart phone makers to release subsidized cell phones for low-income people. Indeed, that would be a bad thing--it would effectively create a cross-subsidy where cell phone buyers are shouldering a special tax to pay for a government welfare service. That is distortionary, and hurts the cell phone market relative to other industries. To achieve the result of universal cell phone access, the government should pay market prices out of general tax dollars.

The drug business should be the same way. It is a high-tech, risky, capital- and talent-intensive business, and should produce profits and returns comparable to similar industries. We shouldn't use ethical obligations as a way to force drug companies to accept a lower return just because they make products that are important to society. That is also bad, because in the long run it drives capital away from this socially important industry into more lucrative, but less important industries.

So while you're right that profit-seeking shouldn't be an excuse for engaging in illegal or immoral conduct, at the same time, holding companies accountable for ethical behavior shouldn't become a tool for extracting hidden concessions and subsidies from industries. And a lot of folks use "ethical behavior" as a cover for demanding exactly that.