I am a license pluralist. I think Author and contributor choice of distribution is important, and we need to have as diverse a toolbox of legal instruments as possible, to fit as varied a field of softwares as we can conceive.
The "Freedom to close" is not a freedom.
The "Freedom to exploit" is not a freedom.
Your organization not adopting copyleft software, is not a failing of copyleft, it is a failing of your organization to participate authentically in an Open ecosystem of innovation. It is your organization saying "I want to keep my options open, in case there is ever a time when it would be convenient to cut you out of the equation."
Folks might say "Yeah, that is what doing business at arm's length is!" or "By nature, people are greedy and/or selfish!"
And that is exactly why we have contracts and licenses! We use them all the time in non-copyleft contexts to ensure that both parties hold up their end of a clearly defined agreement.
So why-oh-why is there some sort of virtue in entering into an agreement that would allow the other party to renege? The freedom to break a social or business contract whenever it is convenient, implies that you think you can outmanoeuvre the other party, and that your strategy's real strength is subterfuge, not what you bring to the table.
That is not what genuine collaboration is. It is an okey doke, and contributors are falling for it left and right against their own interests.