I think this is the unfortunate side effect of narrowly defining our roles, which very conveniently absolves us from taking a moral stance, even on actions that directly have a high degree of good/evil outcome. An ICE agent, a torturer, an occupying soldier all get to suspend personal moral responsibility under the guise of "carrying out their duty". Take the CEOs and other business leaders you mention; they will take a position only when the public opinion is already decided and the benefit is overwhelming. A good example is corporations standing for LGBTQ rights, so much so that it has become a marketing ploy. Otherwise, they are going to play very safely and would rather bear the known cost of worst case scenario than face the unknown cost of being a thought leader.
Another example is what is happening in India. The ruling BJP government has openly declared war on Muslims and other lower castes (but mostly Muslims), with daily lynchings by mobs where the police and judiciary openly support the murderers, not to mention the political leaders themselves. NPR likens the situation to the post-Civil War situation in US where blacks were killed, which the majority tacitly approved. https://www.npr.org/2019/08/21/751541321/this-is-it-im-going-to-die-indias-minorities-are-targeted-in-lynchings India has lots of business leaders, educated intellectuals, very famous entertainers and sportspersons, etc. but everyone is either silent or supportive of the extremely toxic Hindutva regime, because they don't want to take the burden of standing for what is right.