Mac, there are situations where a monetary value is placed on a human life. The most obvious one is in taking out life insurance. Similarly, when a person through negligence kills someone, there is compensation which implicitly or explicitly places a monetary/economic value on that life. The culprit's insurance company will have one value, the victim's insurance company may have another, the court may have a third, and the orphaned children a fourth, but there will be result involving money. Are you proposing that the insurance that I may want for my dependents should be unavailable, or if I am killed by another's negligence my dependents should be told 'too bad, here are a few food stamps, good luck with the rest of your life'?
I don't know who is saying morality and commerce are incompatible, but it is not me, and I am not buying into that straw man (pun intended). I will only say that commerce needs to value, in monetary terms, human life, because if it doesn't the law will impose its value, and use the argument of morality/just compensation as the grounds. You haven't insured for the death of that worker, no problem, we can fix that!
I do not disagree that, for a company, using 'morality' to make better decisions is a good thing, but picking out one-off examples using hindsight is easy. Translating that into creating decision-making principles for practical real-time application is quite another, and doing so without introducing monetary values is, I suspect, not possible. This is because companies can not survive on a policy that says 'do no harm, and take all possible steps to do no harm'. They have to take risks, weigh possibilities, and assess consequences, and that inevitably requires quantification and monetisation.