Corporations ARE amoral entities; reacting to consumer sentiment that often shifts based on cultural or political trends. Their aim is to make a profit for shareholders and other stakeholders. During the times of "cultural conservatism and patriotism" it was enough to say "made in America", albeit unnecessary, since globalization's effects were not an issue. Company leadership being labelled as communist sympethizers may have stoked fears and anger. Being a former supporter of the Nazi party or the KKK (morally objectionable sentiments) meant little. So, was it corporations that were immoral or the lack of outrage from the majority conservative patriots that could explain this difference better?
The threat of termination is what causes someone "typical" to act "atypically." Survival instincts kick in, and anything goes.
Or you could be right. The CEO in such a position refuses to act immorally and is than fired by the shareholders for not hitting performance metrics. They then hire another and another... until they find a CEO willing to throw away his morality to hit those performance numbers.
Do the shareholders care? No.