The sole point of a business existing is to make a profit. If it doesn't make a profit it dies. A business essentially acts in its own self interest through its employees. Proof of that is that if an employee hurts profits, the business will likely dispose of them.

You can try to enact change via a bottom-up approach, where all of the employees decide to introduce a new primary metric, e.g. climate impact, alongside profits, but it's pretty clear that humans are not terribly good at agreeing and acting for the good of humanity (see all the wars happening right now).

I think a top-down approach where the government includes 'climate impact' as an existential metric for all businesses would have more success because it wouldn't require all the people in all the businesses to agree, only the elected officials would have to agree. Unfortunately, elected officials are people too, and by definition they're not terribly good at agreeing either. That said, it's a more tractable problem.

This is why I think enacting laws to change the purpose of businesses is more realistic, than to appeal to employees. The latter is useful too, but as part of spreading the message to all the people that "it's up to us" to influence the results of elections, so that we elect people who could enact this change from the top down.