The notion that it's bad to signal virtue is one of the crazier propaganda efforts I've seen over the last 20 years or so.

It’s a manipulative tactic. Businesses have no soul and no conscience.

It's arguable that businesses are subject to the same morality-inducing processes that humans are. For example, as a human (with a soul?) what is at risk when we do something immoral? I see it to be a reputational cost at the highest level. Morality could be viewed from the perspective that it increases predictability/coherence in society (generates less heat).

If societal feedback is the only thing keeping a human from deviating in catastrophic ways, that’s what we call a sociopath.

The humans working there do. To state otherwise is to absolve those humans of any responsibility.

Did I state otherwise though?

Did I say you stated otherwise?

How is it virtue signalling when sticking by these principles risks their entire business being destroyed by either being declared a supply chain risk or nationalized?

A company being asked to violate their virtues refuses, and then communicates that to reestablish their commitment to said virtues?

Tell me more about what they should do if a virtue signal in such a situation is a nothing statement.

Isn't it nice to have virtues to signal though? In saying that, you're saying you don't have any worth signaling over.

Not when your actions don’t align with your professed virtues.