How would you describe something that isn’t immoral but is still harmful to people and society?

Why are they immoral, then?

(Though I agree with @MrDibble, and would include non-human living beings, natural features, archaeological sites; when the damage is done carelessly or for the sake of the damage.)

That’s when we start going down religious lines of what constitutes immorality. Lust for example is considered an act of immorality in religion but if there is no physical movement on the desire of a man having lust for a woman is that harmful?

Some religions.

Presuming that you mean that the person only thinks about it inside their own head, without obviously leering, gossiping to others about an identifiable person, etc.: I would say not only is it not harmful, some of the time it’s unavoidable. Ditto if it’s a woman having lust for a man; or any of the other permutations.

Predatory loans, if explained in full, don’t seem immoral to me. And yet they certainly are a stain on society and target the most desperate.

Was what I first thought of, from the title – except that many negative externalities can and/or do harm other people or social structures, if not necessarily directly. But the OP text’s elaboration creates confusion, though, by referring to:

Part of it comes that at the start it seems to differentiate “hurt” and “harm”, and define immorality strictly as that which “hurts” others, and asks about what if which something doesn’t “hurt” others, but is “harmful” to the individual or society

But then that gets muddled by going on to use “harm” interchageably in the sense of direct hurting, as in:

As best as I can understand it is being asked about then is something that does not directly, or as a first or second remove necessary consequence, make your individual and collective condition materially worse than it was, but prevents it from or does not contribute to it being as good and fulfilling as it could be?

Others have mentioned it and I must agree, part of this makes me think of my old religious education classes and the definitions of sin, where part of the issue is that you can have acts/thoughts that affect nobody else but you, and do not cause you or others any objectively quantifiable damage, but that corrupt your own spiritual growth and separate you from godliness.

Moving that into secular terms, you could then say for example from the OP list, unrestrained consumerism can in fact be seen as immoral, because it makes the mass consumption process central to the person or society’s way of life, leading them to dismiss the value of sustainable use of material and human resources, and thus turning them into quiet enablers of the harm to workers and the environment.

The problem there is that it’s not like anyone around here (i.e. the US) not getting vaccinated is somehow going to mean that someone somewhere else can get vaccinated. It’s not that sort of choice where you doing something means someone else can’t.

It’s very much one of those if you don’t do it, it’s more likely it’ll be thrown away having expired. Which to me, seems less ethically justifiable than anything else.