Chain-of-thought explanations are widely used to inspect the decision process of large language models (LLMs) and to evaluate the trustworthiness of model outputs, making them important for effective collaboration between LLMs and humans. We demonstrate that preference optimization - a key step in the alignment phase - can inadvertently reduce the faithfulness of these explanations. This occurs because the reward model (RM), which guides alignment, is tasked with optimizing both the expected quality of the response and the appropriateness of the explanations (e.g., minimizing bias or adhering to safety standards), creating potential conflicts. The RM lacks a mechanism to assess the consistency between the model's internal decision process and the generated explanation. Consequently, the LLM may engage in "reward hacking" by producing a final response that scores highly while giving an explanation tailored to maximize reward rather than accurately reflecting its reasoning. To address this issue, we propose enriching the RM's input with a causal attribution of the prediction, allowing the RM to detect discrepancies between the generated self-explanation and the model's decision process. In controlled settings, we show that this approach reduces the tendency of the LLM to generate misleading explanations.