When there's a choice between
1) This product has documented efficacy data against bacteria, but should probably destroy the virus; and
2) This product has documented efficacy data against other enveloped viruses or more durable non-enveloped viruses, and is very likely to destroy the virus;
people are probably going to err on the side of caution and choose (2), particularly for locations like food plants or schools.
But your post seemed to imply that plants don't want to take on the additional trouble and expense of using proven anti-viral procedures. Are they biting the bullet and doing it anyway, or just using the anti-bacterial stuff and hoping for the best? Are there federal or state regulations that apply?