Why would diversity the yardstick? The yardstick is creating useful products. (Edit: no there can not be more yardsticks in the long run - a company needs to survive. It gets paid for great products, not for virtue signalling).
It may also expedite the creation of useful products. Why would we consider there is inevitably a tradeoff?
There's a lot we just don't know.
Edit: Yes, a company needs to survive. Which products or services a company provides are simple examples of choices that are not purely based on profit. Similarly, there's plenty of variety in how companies are run while still being able to survive. Maximizing profit at the expense of all else is a choice some do make, but that's not the only way to run a business.
Do I understand you to mean that as there's currently no method for disentanglement that one can only use profit as a yardstick? That other values a business owner may have, such as employee satisfaction, or health, or retention, can't be measured or discussed? I don't mean to put words in your mouth. I'm trying to unpack what you've said.
The problem is that what we mark down on the books as profit may or may not actually reflect any social benefit to the larger society through the mechanism of consumer surplus.
This state of affairs means that any discussion on profit may or may not be all that coherent because we would have to clarify if we mean rent-profit or consumer-surplus-profit.
"consumer-surplus-profit" is a signal to do more. "rent-profit" means you're not both doing good while doing well.
This is a much larger point than designing a corporate architecture. This goes to how we evaluate ethical behavior.
But yes - the ethics of a company are a serious part of the architecture. Good ethics are of self-interest even more than they are a collective good.