Corporate purpose: from a ‘Tower of Babel’ phenomenon towards construct clarity

Abstract

In recent years, interest in corporate purpose has gained momentum among both practitioners and academic researchers. Despite this, the construct of corporate purpose is still under-conceptualized and suffers from multiple – and partly divergent – understandings. Given that a field’s development is shaped by the clarity of its constructs, this paper strives to evolve the construct of corporate purpose from a ‘tower of babel’ phenomenon towards construct clarity. To this end, it reviews and synthesizes the literature on corporate purpose and proposes a definition that integrates different approaches. In addition, this paper underpins the definition with seven core characteristics of corporate purpose, delineates scope conditions and elaborates on the relationship of corporate purpose with related concepts including mission, vision, corporate social responsibility and sustainability. By enhancing construct clarity, the paper paves the avenue for further research on corporate purpose and the further development of the field.

Achieving sustainable development goals through common-good HRM: Context, approach and practice

“…Argandoña, 1998; Frémeaux and Michelson, 2017; Ostrom, 1990). These theories can support thinking about the role and ‘ultimate and enduring’ (Brosch, 2023) purpose of HRM, as well as HRM objectives beyond its contribution to profit and in relation to the SDGs. While the SDGs make a universal claim, their relevance in specific HRM contexts has not been similarly considered (Aust et al, 2024).…”

“…In our view, particularly relevant to the definition and development of CGHRM are theories that examine the purpose of business (e.g. Brosch, 2023; Donaldson and Walsh, 2015), the relationship between HRM and its environment outside the organisation, including the natural environment (e.g. Rosa, 2019), and theories of the common good (e.g.…”

Adopting a social purpose in for-profit firms: the role of the board of directors

“…The debate around corporate purpose in the modern economic system has gained considerable momentum over the last decade (Battilana et al, 2022;Birkinshaw et al, 2014;George et al, 2021;Henderson, 2021b;Henderson & Van Den Steen, 2015;Hollensbe et al, 2014;Mayer, 2021;Morrison & Mota, 2023;Rey et al, 2019). Increasingly, for-profit firms are called to revise their traditional profit-maximization objective and adopt a social purpose (SP), i.e., goals aimed at creating value by contributing to the welfare of society and the planet (Brosch, 2023). According to prior literature, despite the financial/social trade-offs that can arise in dual-purpose firms (Battilana et al, 2022;de Mon et al, 2022), adopting an SP is not conflictual with generating profits (Brosch, 2023).…”

“…Increasingly, for-profit firms are called to revise their traditional profit-maximization objective and adopt a social purpose (SP), i.e., goals aimed at creating value by contributing to the welfare of society and the planet (Brosch, 2023). According to prior literature, despite the financial/social trade-offs that can arise in dual-purpose firms (Battilana et al, 2022;de Mon et al, 2022), adopting an SP is not conflictual with generating profits (Brosch, 2023). It provides several benefits to firms that can translate to good financial and sustainability outcomes.…”

“…Given the growing pressure on sustainability issues, many scholars have analyzed the impact of board characteristics on corporate social responsibility (CSR) performance in recent years, highlighting mixed results (Endrikat et al, 2021). However, despite the strict relatedness between corporate purpose and CSR (Brosch, 2023), CSR performance is not always indicative of a real commitment to pursuing an SP but could result from greenwashing strategies. Therefore, specific analyses are needed to understand the association between board characteristics and the adoption of an SP.…”