Hmm. Several issues to conflate here.
Ultimately, I'm not convinced that bicycles (even, say, track bikes) are inherently dangerous. The risk comes from what people do with them, either pushing the performance envelope too far (for sport or for fun, or out of carelessness), or operating them in the presence of external hazards such as incompetent road users.
That said, I do believe that certain cycle geometries lend themselves to changing the nature (and therefore potentially reducing the severity) of injury sustained by the rider in a collision or fall, and that others reduce the probability of a collision or fall to begin with. And you could reasonably argue that musculoskeletal or contact point problems in endurance riding are also a safety issue. It would certainly be interesting to see some crash test data, but I query its ultimate usefulness.
I'm not sure any corporate entities would be particularly interested either way, unless they stand to benefit from sales of protective clothing, or from the removal of pedal cycles from the road. I don't think people are going to go out and buy a recumbent cycle for a safety benefit (even if scientifically demonstrated), unless they're switching from bicycle to tricycle due to balance impairment.
As for event organisers rejecting recumbents, I can accept there's a potential safety issue from mixing cycles with very different dynamics on certain events, in much the same way that there would be from mixing riders of very different ability levels. There are ways to work around those without excluding people. But usually it comes down to "that's weird, let's just ban it", with safety or insurance being a convenient excuse. If you want to fight that, I'd suggest that using disability equalities legislation (which must apply to a significant minority of recumbent riders) would be a stronger approach.