No. To paraphrase Peter Drucker, businesses only succeed when they have one goal, one mission, deliver X with specific conditions like price, quality, attitude.
Adding further social mandates interferes with their ability to meet their prime objective ... and it is readily used by the state or social groups to use the business as an extension of the welfare state.
In short, they want to add social mandates to the business so they can tap into that revenue source, use the business' leverage as employer or supplier to force others to follow their stated political goals. Look at Obama's federal contracting guidelines that give preference to companies that meet the Out and Equal Index, leading companies to socially engineer the workforce and have diversity training calling heterosexuals inherently phobic, all to get preference for federal contract dollars. And the big companies, to get the contracts, push the same requirements onto smaller companies, who often obey in order to get the money.
What if it is just government mandates to meet certain goals like "social justice" or other political agendas? This turns into government intervention into every level of the business, saying who to hire or fire, what the rules in the workplace can be, commands to donate X to Y charity or get shut down. That is fascism, just with a nicer name this time, but still by government force.
TLDR - no, don't co-opt businesses for work that should be done by non-profits, and the government intervening in every detail of business is fascism. We have to stop this, not encourage it.