There is a theory that states if a company is left to pursue selfish goals they will inevitably end up helping the public. Even if their goal is to maximize profit, being a company with a good reputation stands to profit more than one that does not. So a company could either do something for the right reason or not, but no matter what, if they want to be as successful as possible the public will end up gaining benefit.
Mingyu Ye said:
For the first question: By definition, "Empirically" means relying on or derived from observation or experiment, verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment. I believe that one method of measuring contributions of companies to peace is to compare their actions among different scenarios. For example, different countries are a good measurement to tell what a company is doing the right thing for. Nike has been paying a premium wage to its labors in Unite States, not to mention other benefits. Its working conditions in other countries, especially those developing countries, are hard to be considered beneficial to peace. The rationale behind this is that the purpose of actions. Is a company doing something good because it is right thing to do, or just because it gains more profit? It needs more discussion.