If you're a large group of people tied together by something other than political ideology, it's to be expected that the only things they would reach consensus on would be topics where society has reached widespread consensus.

If every influential person in a large company agrees on a contentious issue like universal healthcare, that would suggest hiring is based on a litmus test around that issue. As much as I think we should have universal healthcare, I don't think support for that should be a requirement in the hiring process where I work.

So you end up with agreement only non-contentious issues. (Or sometimes stances that are beneficial to the specific corporation.)

“We believe whatever is currently most politically expedient to believe and is least likely to anger the sort of people who typically organize boycotts, but our core, strongly-held beliefs are subject to change as public opinions shift”

Whether they follow through or believe any of this is irrelevant, that's what lawyers are for.

"We are a business that needs to project a progressive, left-leaning front in the face of criticism from the party our CEO donates to, heading into an election cycle, in order to protect share prices and avoid antitrust rhetoric."