Introduction
Corporate purpose is a crucial topic in the strategic management literature and has been intensely discussed and studied over the last few decades (Bartlett & Ghoshal, Reference Bartlett and Ghoshal1994; George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx & Tracey, Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023; Reyes & Kleiner, Reference Reyes and Kleiner1990; Warriner, Reference Warriner1965). In fact, the definition of a purpose is crucial for the existence and long-term strategy of an organization (Barnard, Reference Barnard1938; Duska, Reference Duska, Fleckenstein, Maury, Pincus and Primeaux1997), since its formulation and implementation represent essential executive functions (Basu, Reference Basu1999; Campbell & Yeung, Reference Campbell and Yeung1991). The need for the conceptualization of corporate purpose has motivated the work of management scholars, especially regarding the necessity of exploring what is really meant by ‘purpose’, how it can be described, and what kind of relationships exist between purpose and other organizational concepts (e.g., George et al, Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023; Kenny, Reference Kenny2014; Khalifa, Reference Khalifa2012).
More specifically, corporate purpose has gained further interest in the last years, in connection with the rise of a variety of extremely serious global challenges (such as pandemics, climate change, economic and social inequalities), which have urgently called for a new role of business in society (Mayer, Reference Mayer2016; Patriotta, Reference Patriotta2021; Waddock & Mcintosh, Reference Waddock and Mcintosh2011). As a consequence, many contributions from various fields and contexts have recently underlined the importance for organizations to redefine their purpose (Hollensbe, Wookey, Hickey, George & Nichols, Reference Hollensbe, Wookey, Hickey, George and Nichols2014; Mayer, Reference Mayer2020). However, although the literature on corporate purpose is often framed through the lenses of the theory of the firm (e.g., Gartenberg & Zenger, Reference Gartenberg and Zenger2023), stakeholder theory (e.g., Freeman, Wicks & Parmar, Reference Freeman, Wicks and Parmar2004; Gulati & Wohlgezogen, Reference Gulati and Wohlgezogen2023), or strategy theory (Campbell & Yeung, Reference Campbell and Yeung1991; Rindova & Martins, Reference Rindova and Martins2023), the concept is frequently used in inconsistent and sometimes ambiguous ways (George et al, Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023). For example, it is claimed that it is not sufficiently clear whether corporate purpose is linked to innovation (Ferrigno & Cucino, Reference Ferrigno and Cucino2021; Henderson, Reference Henderson2021b), sustainability (Gartenberg & Serafeim, Reference Gartenberg and Serafeim2023) or business ethics (Dacin, Harrison, Hess, Killian & Roloff, Reference Dacin, Harrison, Hess, Killian and Roloff2022; Hsieh, Reference Hsieh2015; Liedtka, Reference Liedtka1998) and how those perspectives intersect with the strategic management one (Chua, Miska, Mair & Stahl, Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024).
Corporate purpose has been traditionally defined in connection with organizations’ existence and their priorities (Warriner, Reference Warriner1965). For instance, some scholars have stressed the importance of purpose as the guiding principle or the direction that drives businesses toward success (Basu, Reference Basu1999), while others linked purpose to employee motivation and behavior (Pascarella & Frohman, Reference Pascarella and Frohman1989). However, more recently, some scholars have proposed purpose as the business tension to generate benefits for society at large (Mayer, Reference Mayer2016). Some other authors, broadening this second perspective, associate corporate purpose with the common good at a systemic level (Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023; Ocasio, Kraatz & Chandler, Reference Ocasio, Kraatz and Chandler2023).
Within the recent proliferation of contributions around the concept of corporate purpose (Battilana, Obloj, Pache & Sengul, Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022; Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023; Bhattacharya, Sen, Edinger-Schons & Neureiter, Reference Bhattacharya, Sen, Edinger-Schons and Neureiter2023; Gartenberg & Serafeim, Reference Gartenberg and Serafeim2023; Kaplan, Reference Kaplan2023), definitional questions prevail. This has motivated recent reviews which have contributed to clarifying what corporate purpose is (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023) and/or map the conceptual and disciplinary fragmentation of purpose research (Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023; Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024). However, this same literature tends to treat the concept as static and normatively framed, offering only limited insight into how purpose works inside firms. That is, how it is defined, formalized, operationalized, and enacted ‘from surface- to deep-level change strategies’ (Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023, p. 234). This is also evident in the need for research on antecedents, about which Chua et al. (Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024, p. 10) argue that ‘although there is scholarly interest in the antecedents of purpose, the strategy literature places its primarily focus on outcomes’ (Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024, p. 10). Moreover, ‘there is also much to learn about the drivers, implementation, and context of purpose’ (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023, p. 1857), considering the dimensions of purpose (i.e., who determines purpose, what purpose does for the organization, and how purpose is formalized through its processes and outcomes) as possible antecedents, outcomes, or processes (Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024). This requires moving beyond definitional discussions to explore actionable strategies that enable firms to operationalize their ‘reason why’ in practice (Durand, Reference Durand2023; Mayer, Reference Mayer2021). Therefore, it is necessary to analyze and synthesize significant and scattered contributions regarding corporate purpose to reduce the fragmentation in the strategy and leadership literature streams (Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024).
This is why we conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to reframe corporate purpose not merely as an ideal or construct, but as a process. For this reason, we identified and connected three interdependent dimensions, that is, antecedents, management, and consequences, to make purpose a tangible and effective element of firms.
Specifically, in this study, we first explain the motives behind our research and describe the methodology adopted to conduct the literature review. Then, we provide a comprehensive process framework of antecedents, management, and consequences of corporate purpose, adding suggestions for a future agenda for research and practice. Finally, we assess the theoretical, practical, and social implications of our study, as well as the limitations and concluding remarks of our SLR.
Theoretical background
Corporate purpose is considered essential for creating an effective corporate strategy (Bartlett & Ghoshal, Reference Bartlett and Ghoshal1994; Basu, Reference Basu1999), and we have found that most research has focused on defining ‘what corporate purpose is’ (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023), making significant contributions to the theoretical foundations of this topic and the ongoing debates about it (e.g., Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024; Morrison & Mota, Reference Morrison and Mota2023). In the initial phase of our research, we identified three main perspectives on corporate purpose. The first perspective defines corporate purpose within business’ boundaries. Within this first perspective, the first subgroup views purpose as a directional force that provides orientation and sets the goals that guide corporate activity, ensuring strategic alignment across the organization (Kenny, Reference Kenny2014; Lankoski & Smith, Reference Lankoski and Smith2018). A second subgroup emphasizes instead the effects of purpose on organizational vitality, portraying it as a source of energy that inspires stakeholders, fosters creativity, and strengthens employee commitment (Bartlett & Ghoshal, Reference Bartlett and Ghoshal1994; Morrison & Mota, Reference Morrison and Mota2023). The difference between these subgroups concerns their primary focus: the former defines purpose as a necessary constitutive element of the firm’s raison d’être, whereas the latter focuses on its positive internal outcomes.
The second perspective extends corporate purpose beyond business’ boundaries, with a strong focus on societal impact. It challenges the focus on profit maximization and endorse solutions that align business goals with societal progress. Within this second perspective, a first subgroup offers general definitions of purpose aimed at social wealth, while a second one focuses on addressing specific societal needs. This approach emphasizes the value and impact of corporate purpose. A second subgroup goes further by framing purpose as a dynamic and evolving concept that responds to specific societal needs over time, as a driver for rethinking capitalism and redefining the role of business in society (Mayer, Reference Mayer2016).
A third perspective situates corporate purpose toward the common good. This introduces a more ethical and societal-oriented view. Within this third perspective, one subgroup interprets purpose as a means of reconciling the inherent tensions between economic, social, ethical, and environmental dimensions of business activity, thereby advancing a more balanced and responsible conception of corporate conduct (Abela, Reference Abela2001; Battilana et al., Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022). A second subgroup considers firms as ‘agents of change’ capable of driving systemic change and addressing major global challenges (see Table A1 for more details).
However, according to the existing literature, realizing the potential of corporate purpose, that si, the ability to generate positive consequences, is particularly challenging, as it is frequently confused with its operationalization, which has historically been achieved through mission statements (Alegre, Berbegal-Mirabent, Guerrero & Mas-Machuca, Reference Alegre, Berbegal-Mirabent, Guerrero and Mas-Machuca2018). Indeed, on one side, the mission has been authoritatively described as the fundamental purpose of business (Drucker, Reference Drucker1974); on the other side, purpose has also been defined as the core mission of a business (Bartkus & Glassman, Reference Bartkus and Glassman2008). The debate around these issues also includes the concept of vision, which can be considered as an expression of purpose (Carton & Lucas, Reference Carton and Lucas2018), with a long-term view and a future-oriented perspective (Dacin et al., Reference Dacin, Harrison, Hess, Killian and Roloff2022; Kim & Scheller-Wolf, Reference Kim and Scheller-Wolf2019). George et al. (Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023, p. 3) discussed the characteristics of purpose, mission and vision, and proposed a clear distinction among them that helps our management mechanism of coherent operationalization. According to these scholars, mission drives the business to develop a ‘unified expression of purpose’, focusing on how purpose is framed; vision helps purpose to be embedded in the business’ routines. Table 1 synthesizes their key distinctions across five analytical dimensions: core question, scope, temporal orientation, focus, and organizational function. While corporate purpose addresses the foundational question ‘Why do we exist?’ (Bartlett & Ghoshal, Reference Bartlett and Ghoshal1994), mission is concerned with ‘What is our business?’ (Drucker, Reference Drucker1974), and vision articulates ‘Where are we going?’ (Barby et al., Reference Barby, Barker, Eccles, Heller, Roche, Serafeim, Stroehle, Younger and Zochowski2021). These constructs differ significantly in scope: purpose is broad and foundational, defining the organization’s overarching societal role (Mayer, Reference Mayer2016); mission is operational and specific, delineating current activities and strategic positioning (Fitzsimmons et al., Reference Fitzsimmons, Qin and Heffron2022); vision is aspirational and holistic, projecting the desired future trajectory of the firm (Khalifa, Reference Khalifa2012). Temporally, purpose is enduring and timeless (Collins & Porras, Reference Collins and Porras1991), mission is oriented toward the present (Campbell & Yeung, Reference Campbell and Yeung1991), and vision is explicitly future-focused (Collins & Porras, Reference Collins and Porras1996). In terms of focus, purpose integrates normative and strategic rationales, combining duty-based and goal-based logics (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023); mission is factual and pragmatic (Alegre et al., Reference Alegre, Berbegal-Mirabent, Guerrero and Mas-Machuca2018); and vision is directional and motivational, intended to inspire and guide future alignment (Carton et al., Reference Carton and Lucas2018). Accordingly, their organizational functions diverge: purpose anchors and legitimizes both mission and vision by defining identity and long-term direction (Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024); mission translates purpose into actionable strategies and drives day-to-day operations (Rey & Bastons, Reference Rey and Bastons2018); vision fosters ambition, inspires engagement, and aligns strategic intent with aspirational goals (Kenny, Reference Kenny2014).
Table 1. Main differences between corporate purpose, mission and vision
Given the complexity and variety of the different perspectives on corporate purpose, recent literature reviews have tried to advance conceptual clarity around this concept, with considerable positive results (e.g., George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023). However, the field still lacks an integrated, process-oriented understanding of how purpose becomes effective in practice. In fact, existing reviews tend to focus either on definitional debates (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023), epistemological perspectives (Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023), or thematic mappings across disciplines (Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024). In particular, we argue that the antecedents, operational mechanisms, and multilevel outcomes of purpose are not yet integrated within a single, coherent framework. For example, Chua et al. (Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024) call for more attention to how purpose is defined, who defines it, and how it becomes embedded in practices and structures. Similarly, George et al. (Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023) emphasize the need to better understand the internal drivers, contextual conditions, and implementation processes through which purpose becomes effective. Moreover, Besharov and Mitzinneck (Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023) stress the importance of examining how purpose supports both surface-level compliance and deeper firm transformation. To address the fragmented and growing body of research on corporate purpose, we conducted an SLR with the aim of clarifying how the concept has been conceptualized, implemented, and assessed in business settings. Specifically, our objective is to identify and structure the key themes emerging from the literature, including how purpose is defined and legitimized (antecedents), how it is integrated into strategy and operations (management), and what types of outcomes it generates (consequences). By synthesizing these dispersed insights, we seek to develop an integrative framework that offers both theoretical foundations and practical implications for scholars and practitioners concerned with the implementation and effectiveness of corporate purpose.
Search strategy and method
An SLR can be defined as ‘a specific methodology that locates existing studies, selects and evaluates contributions, analyses and synthesizes data, and reports the evidence in such a way that allows reasonably clear conclusions to be reached about what is and is not known’ (Denyer & Tranfield, Reference Denyer, Tranfield, Buchanan and Bryman2009, p. 671). In our case, the process of data curation and analysis was conducted following the PRISMA-P protocol to build ‘the methodological and analytical approach of the review’ (Moher et al., Reference Moher, Shamseer, Clarke, Ghersi, Liberati, Petticrew and Stewart2015, p. 3). Specifically, our SLR about corporate purpose, aiming to ensure transparency, replicability, and systematicity of research (Aguinis, Ramani & Alabduljader, Reference Aguinis, Ramani and Alabduljader2023), had two main objectives: (1) to structure the existing knowledge on corporate purpose in a framework of antecedents, management, and consequences and (2) to suggest potential future pathways for research and practice on corporate purpose (Dagnino, Picone & Ferrigno, Reference Dagnino, Picone and Ferrigno2021). Our data curation and analysis were guided by the following steps:
1. Identification. We first conducted a keyword-based search for the following terms: ‘organization* purpose’, ‘business* purpose’, ‘corporat* purpose’, ‘enterpris* purpose’, ‘firm* purpose’ and ‘compan* purpose’. We activated the automatic word variation options for searches, detecting word combinations, including US and UK spelling variations and plural terms. That is why we included the asterisk (*) in the search algorithm as a wildcard symbol for variations of single terms (e.g., organization, organizations and organizational). Accordingly, all the terms that have been associated with ‘purpose’ (e.g., organization* and corporat*) are the result of a preliminary explorative analysis of the literature and we employed those keywords as synonyms. Furthermore, in our search strategy, we focused our search on studies that explicitly addressed purpose as a central construct, excluding related concepts (e.g., ‘mission’ and ‘vision’) from the initial query due to their distinct meanings (see Table 1 above), in line with Chua et al. (Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024). Subsequently, we discussed with two experts of corporate purpose to receive feedback about the appropriateness of our choice, considering that consultation with experts in the field is also useful for identifying further keywords (Kraus, Breier & Dasí-Rodríguez, Reference Kraus, Breier and Dasí-Rodríguez2020). Our keyword-based search was conducted on two academic databases: Web of Science and Scopus. Our initial search was conducted on the Web of Science and produced 1.283 articles up to May 2025. We then excluded non-English publications to ensure linguistic consistency, reducing the sample to 266 articles. Applying an additional criterion that limited the results to the field of business and management and to journals rated at least 3 in the Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide, we obtained a final sample of 95 articles. Similarly, the Scopus search returned 2.190 results using the same keywords applied to titles, abstracts, and author keywords. After filtering by language, disciplinary area (business, management, and accounting), and journal quality as defined by the Chartered Association of Business Schools Academic Journal Guide, the final sample was reduced to 96 articles. We acknowledge that other disciplines (e.g., psychology) also offer valuable insights into constructs (e.g., personal purpose), which are relevant to understanding how corporate purpose originates and is shaped by individuals within the firm. In fact, our review incorporates these psychological dimensions through management studies that have addressed them within a strategic or organizational framework (e.g., Victoravich, Hamilton, Kim & Cohen, Reference Victoravich, Hamilton, Kim and Cohen2023). Following Suddaby (Reference Suddaby2010), we also included selected articles from practitioner-oriented journals (e.g., Harvard Business Review and California Management Review) to account for the fact that corporate purpose is a phenomenon that has largely originated in practice and remains in a stage of theoretical emergence. To ensure rigor, we included only those practitioner-oriented contributions that (a) provided clear conceptual insights, (b) were authored or co-authored by established scholars, or (c) had been cited in previous systematic reviews (e.g., Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024; George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023). As noted by Chua et al. (Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024, p. 21), ‘research on purpose in management has the potential to become a distinct area of study, given the growing interest of [non only] scholars [but also] practitioners.’ After merging the two datasets, we removed duplicates based on journal, title and author(s). This process resulted in a final sample of 157 articles.
2. Screening. Drawing on a recent SLR (Dagnino et al., Reference Dagnino, Picone and Ferrigno2021), we developed a protocol for categorizing the articles according to the topics of antecedents, management and consequences of corporate purpose. More precisely, we coded the data and categorized them into different functional groups using extraction forms (Denyer & Tranfield, Reference Denyer, Tranfield, Buchanan and Bryman2009) that incorporated all relevant data into a grid in Microsoft Excel. Our SLR screening involved reading of all the titles and abstracts of the 157 articles to determine whether they met the primary criteria for relevance. We considered articles non-relevant if they used the term ‘purpose’ to indicate a generic objective of a study or a project, admitting only 108 articles to the next stage.
3. Eligibility and Inclusion. Finally, we conducted a full-text assessment of those articles, excluding nine articles in which purpose was not analyzed from a strategic management perspective. For example, we excluded articles from the marketing literature that predominantly focused on ‘brand purpose’, which is conceptually distinct from ‘corporate purpose’. While brand purpose refers to the symbolic and societal role of a brand in relation to consumers (e.g., Williams, Escalas & Morningstar, Reference Williams, Escalas and Morningstar2022), our review focuses on corporate purpose as the overarching reason for a firm’s existence and its strategic implications.
In addition, we reviewed the reference lists of these articles and executed forward and backward searches to refine our framework, adding eight books and 11 articles to ground our analysis in the historical conceptualization of purpose in the strategy field. At the final stage of our full-text analysis, we applied an iterative coding process to identify new conceptual categories related to the antecedents, management, and consequences of corporate purpose. We noticed that additional sources no longer introduced novel concepts or dimensions. Instead, new articles either reinforced already identified categories or offered redundant variations of existing themes. This indicated that thematic saturation had been reached (Saunders et al., Reference Saunders, Sim, Kingstone, Baker, Waterfield, Bartlam and Jinks2018), as the theoretical framework showed consistency and closure. The above-described steps resulted in a final sample of 118 articles, as presented in Table 2. The majority of these articles are conceptual, with only 27 out of 118 being empirical.
Table 2. Reporting reports according to the PRISMA-P protocol
Process framework of antecedents, management and consequences
From the in-depth analysis of the body of published work, we developed a process framework for corporate purpose (Fig. 1). Our analysis of corporate purpose can be divided into three main constituent parts: (1) antecedents for purpose statement, (2) the management for a shared purpose and (3) consequences for an effective purpose. By delving into these three areas, we aim to provide a bridge between the understanding of corporate purpose and its effectiveness, exploring its antecedents as drivers, and its impacts as consequences, thereby offering a foundation for future studies and practical applications in the strategic management field.
Figure 1. Process framework of antecedents, management and consequences.
Antecedents of a purpose statement
Our process framework begins by questioning what antecedents influence the creation of a purpose statement, which is the first manifestation of purpose in organizations (Bartlett & Ghoshal, Reference Bartlett and Ghoshal1994; Westphal, Reference Westphal2023). Our analysis led us to identify four key antecedents: leadership characteristics, defined benefits and beneficiaries, socioeconomic context and threats and systemic risks.
Leadership characteristics
Among the antecedents of corporate purpose, leadership characteristics and, in particular, the leadership personal purpose, emerge as central element in shaping how purpose is defined. It represents an ‘inter-personal glue’ (Ladkin, Reference Ladkin2008, p. 39) and essential sensemaking frame between the leader and the follower (Cristofaro, Reference Cristofaro2022). The leader’s personal purpose reflects their core values, motives, and aspirations that drive them to seek meaningful (Joly, Reference Joly2021; Watton, Lichtenstein & Aitken, Reference Watton, Lichtenstein and Aitken2019) and impactful organizational roles (Bower & Weinberg, Reference Bower and Weinberg1988; Regele, Reference Regele2023). When leaders have a well-developed personal purpose (Watton et al., Reference Watton, Lichtenstein and Aitken2019), the corporate purpose is more authentically aligned with their values and goals (Suddaby, Manelli & Fan, Reference Suddaby, Manelli and Fan2023), which in turn may strengthen employee commitment (Barrick, Thurgood, Smith & Courtright, Reference Barrick, Thurgood, Smith and Courtright2015; Levillain & Segrestin, Reference Levillain and Segrestin2019) and identification with the organizational mission (Montgomery, Reference Montgomery2008; Reyes & Kleiner, Reference Reyes and Kleiner1990). The literature consistently highlights the central role of leadership in purpose formulation (Kollenscher, Popper & Ronen, Reference Kollenscher, Popper and Ronen2018), along with suggested strategies for its creation (e.g., Bartlett & Ghoshal, Reference Bartlett and Ghoshal1994). Bartlett and Ghoshal (Bartlett & Ghoshal, Reference Bartlett and Ghoshal1994, p. 81) call to action directed at business leaders because they have the role of ‘creating an organization with which members can identify, in which they share a sense of pride, and to which they are willing to commit’. From this perspective, leaders can be considered as the ‘architects’ of purpose in a business (Gartenberg & Serafeim, Reference Gartenberg and Serafeim2023; Kollenscher et al., Reference Kollenscher, Popper and Ronen2018). To support leaders in this role, we examined the leadership practices and capabilities required to translate purpose into actionable terms. Within this analysis, we identified the visionary leadership mindset as another important leadership characteristic, recognizing the importance of a visionary perspective in leading an organization with a purpose (Kempster, Jackson & Conroy, Reference Kempster, Jackson and Conroy2011). While corporate purpose is often described as enduring and stable over time (Collins & Porras, Reference Collins and Porras1991), its practical relevance depends on how it is interpreted and applied in changing contexts. A visionary leader is defined as an individual who can articulate a future vision that is both inspirational and realistic (Bower & Weinberg, Reference Bower and Weinberg1988; Collins & Porras, Reference Collins and Porras1991), providing concrete perspectives for a desirable future (Victoravich et al., Reference Victoravich, Hamilton, Kim and Cohen2023). As Malnight, Buche and Dhanaraj (Reference Malnight, Buche and Dhanaraj2019) argue, a future-oriented mindset enables leaders to reinterpret corporate purpose over time, ensuring its continued relevance amid evolving market conditions and stakeholder expectations. This does not imply altering the core essence of purpose but rather adjusting its strategic articulation to guide action in changing contexts. Visionary leaders can translate a stable purpose into inspiring long-term goals, mobilizing teams beyond short-term objectives (Gartenberg, Reference Gartenberg2023; George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023). This capacity fosters innovation (Ferrigno & Cucino, Reference Ferrigno and Cucino2021) strengthens resilience in uncertain environments (Mayer, Reference Mayer2023), and enhances individual and collective engagement (Barrick et al., Reference Barrick, Thurgood, Smith and Courtright2015; Levillain & Segrestin, Reference Levillain and Segrestin2019). Such leaders prioritize purpose over short-term gains(Victoravich et al., Reference Victoravich, Hamilton, Kim and Cohen2023), aligning the firm’s mission with broader societal goals (Waddock & Mcintosh, Reference Waddock and Mcintosh2011). In terms of leadership mindset in shaping purpose, Malnight et al. (Reference Malnight, Buche and Dhanaraj2019, p. 8) identified two possible approaches: (1) a retrospective one, focused on the internal dimension, inviting leaders to ‘look back, codify organizational and cultural DNA, and make sense of the firm’s past’; (2) a prospective one, focused externally, toward future actions with the goal of disseminating purpose, assessing the potential impact for the broader ecosystem. Moreover, Quinn and Thakor (Reference Quinn and Thakor2018) proposed an interorganizational perspective, placing purpose at the core of corporate strategy, with the aim of solving employee potential disengagement. They began by identifying one pioneer who can inspire the entire workforce and then stimulate employee learning and growth (Barrick et al., Reference Barrick, Thurgood, Smith and Courtright2015), through authentic and constant messages on his/her commitment, forming a purpose-driven middle leader that connects purpose with employees’ daily tasks (Quinn & Thakor, Reference Quinn and Thakor2018). Finally, in moments of transformation, leaders must take responsibility for redefining corporate purpose. Wilson (Reference Wilson2004, p. 22) offered an agenda for leaders to ensure the success of reformation in five key-points: (1) ‘develop consensus’, (2) ‘clarify the role of profit’, (3) ‘articulate and communicate the distinction between the old and the new’, (4) ‘set a strong personal example’, and (5) ‘revise the management measurement and reward system’.
Defined benefits and beneficiaries
Clearly defined benefits and beneficiaries are another key antecedent in formulating a corporate purpose statement. Without such clarity, purpose risks remaining abstract or disconnected from strategic action. In line with the stakeholder management literature, firms should articulate both the specific value they intend to create and the stakeholders they aim to serve (Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023; Freeman et al., Reference Freeman, Wicks and Parmar2004). As shown in Table A2, many current purpose statements emphasize internal beneficiaries while vaguely referencing societal benefits, often lacking specificity about broader outcomes.
Articulating benefits and beneficiaries explicitly is essential to make purpose statements both meaningful and actionable. According to Kaplan (Reference Kaplan2023), the instrumental approach persists for two principal reasons. First, it provides a straightforward model that is advantageous to those in positions of authority, even when they profess to adhere to a purpose-driven strategy. Second, it persists because there is a general assumption that others are motivated by instrumental goals, even if they themselves are guided by moral values. These moral values, however, can serve as levers to activate the power of purpose, fostering firm engagement with social issues by infusing meaning (Lashitew et al., Reference Lashitew, Branzei and Van Tulder2024). Given that purpose is meant to provide a firm’s overarching rationale, both guiding and motivating (Cardona & Rey, Reference Cardona and Rey2022), it is necessary to include impacts, benefits, and beneficiaries from a multi-stakeholder perspective (Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023; Freeman et al., Reference Freeman, Wicks and Parmar2004). As highlighted by Hollensbe et al. (Reference Hollensbe, Wookey, Hickey, George and Nichols2014), grounding purpose in foundational values such as dignity, sustainability, and solidarity can guide firms in defining the type of value they seek to create. Additionally, Gartenberg and Zenger (Reference Gartenberg and Zenger2023) argue that employees expect organizational leaders to uphold principles aligned with fairness, legitimacy, and cooperation. This reinforces the idea that internal beneficiaries must be clearly considered and addressed within the purpose. Lankoski and Smith (Reference Lankoski and Smith2018) further support this view by identifying a range of alternative objective functions that firms may adopt. Their work highlights the importance of choosing which types of value the firm intends to prioritize, and for whom (be they shareholders, employees, customers, society at large, etc.).
Socio-economic context
Another key antecedent to the formulation of a corporate purpose statement is the socio-economic context in which a firm operates. Purpose statements are not crafted in isolation, but are shaped by the institutional, legal, and cultural frameworks that define what is expected of corporations in different societies (Aguilera, Reference Aguilera2023; Ventura, Reference Ventura2023). These frameworks influence how firms interpret their role, what they consider legitimate goals, and how broadly or narrowly they define their societal value.
National governance systems and legal traditions play a central role in shaping how purpose is articulated. In some contexts, legal innovations such as the société à mission in France or the Società Benefit in Italy allow firms to formally express social or environmental objectives as part of their corporate identity, thereby expanding the boundaries of acceptable purpose formulations (Segrestin, Hatchuel & Levillain, Reference Segrestin, Hatchuel and Levillain2021). Similarly, Ventura (Reference Ventura2023) illustrates how corporate law reforms increasingly distinguish between enabling firms to create value and preventing them from causing harm, both aspects that influence the way purpose statements are framed.
More broadly, the way purpose is defined reflects underlying economic paradigms and collective cultural values. For instance, some systems emphasize shareholder value, while others prioritize broader stakeholder interests (Mallette, Reference Mallette1992). In this sense, the formulation of a purpose statement is contingent upon the socioeconomic and regulatory context, which shapes what firms perceive as legitimate, desirable, or necessary to express in their foundational narratives (Dacin et al., Reference Dacin, Harrison, Hess, Killian and Roloff2022; Mayer, Wright & Phan, Reference Mayer, Wright and Phan2017).
Threats and systemic risks
Threats and systemic risks are another antecedent relevant to the formulation of corporate purpose statements. The increased visibility of global challenges, such as climate change, institutional fragility, and social inequality, has influenced how firms conceptualize their purpose at the definitional level (Davis, Reference Davis2021; Mayer, Reference Mayer2016).
In formulating a purpose statement, firms are increasingly prompted to acknowledge their interdependence with the broader systems in which they operate. This perspective encourages firms to incorporate long-term societal concerns into the way they express their core rationale, moving beyond narrow market-focused language (Patriotta, Reference Patriotta2021; Waddock & Mcintosh, Reference Waddock and Mcintosh2011). The salience of systemic risks reshapes the framing of purpose by inviting organizations to define themselves not only by what they produce, but also by the problems they aim to address or prevent (Mayer, Reference Mayer2016). In this context, the articulation of purpose becomes a response to complex environmental and social threats that require coordination, resilience, and shared responsibility (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023; Kim & Scheller-Wolf, Reference Kim and Scheller-Wolf2019). Recognizing these threats at the moment of defining purpose can guide firms toward statements that are more closely aligned with the realities of the interconnected world they inhabit (Menghwar, Homberg, Zaidi & Alam, Reference Menghwar, Homberg, Zaidi and Alam2025; Metcalf & Benn, Reference Metcalf and Benn2012).
Without deliberate translation into managerial practices and organizational routines, purpose statements risk remaining symbolic or superficial, exposing firms to the challenge of purpose-washing (Aguilera, Reference Aguilera2023; Gulati & Wohlgezogen, Reference Gulati and Wohlgezogen2023). This potential barrier highlights the importance of connecting antecedents to subsequent management mechanisms to ensure that purpose is effectively implemented and shared across the organization.
Management for a shared purpose
Our SLR continues by exploring the management of the declared purpose statement to translate it into organizational practices. Authenticity, clarity, and alignment between statements and actions are at the core of Craig and Snook’s suggestions for a ‘purpose-to-impact plan’ (2014) and Denning’s dimensions for making corporate purpose shared (2022). A ‘shared purpose serves the critical function of aligning all the stakeholders of the business around that purpose’ (Freeman, Phillips & Sisodia, Reference Freeman, Phillips and Sisodia2020, p. 8). According to the literature, we identified aligning, embedding, implementing, and sharing as management mechanisms to ensure that purpose becomes shared among stakeholders.
Aligning
Aligning represents the management mechanism through which firms connect purpose with both long-term performance and day-to-day decisions (Birkinshaw, Foss & Lindenberg, Reference Birkinshaw, Foss and Lindenberg2014). This process ensures that purpose becomes a driver of strategic clarity and stakeholder value, rather than a symbolic slogan (Denning, Reference Denning2022). It plays a central role in fostering a shared purpose across levels and functions (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023; Suddaby et al., Reference Suddaby, Manelli and Fan2023) and enables purpose to reach not only top leaders but also employees at all levels, encouraging collective ownership (Westphal, Reference Westphal2023). Although firms vary in their strategic priorities, many aim to promote shared purpose, strengthen motivation (De Nalda, Montaner, Edmondson & Sotok, Reference De Nalda, Montaner, Edmondson and Sotok2022), and coordinate efforts across units and departments (Clegg, Cunha, Rego & Santos, Reference Clegg, Cunha, Rego and Santos2021). Purpose increases the chance that firms develop a common strategic vision and align their structures accordingly (Henderson, Reference Henderson2021a). Visionary firms succeed by anchoring their strategy to a stable core purpose, while aligning their practices with the need for change (Collins & Porras, Reference Collins and Porras1991).
When embedded in planning, purpose also enhances engagement and participation across the organization (Howell, Reference Howell1967). Purposeful strategic planning is a structured process that systematically integrates purpose into the strategic management of the firm (Machin & Wilson, Reference Machin and Wilson1979; Patriotta, Reference Patriotta2021). It involves defining clear goals and aligning them with the firm’s mission, values, and stakeholder commitments. Effective planning also requires attention to culture and emotional meaning. Purpose must be resonant and lived in everyday activities to energize and align the organization (Reyes & Kleiner, Reference Reyes and Kleiner1990). In the face of rapid technological change, firms need to rethink the kinds of systems they adopt and the kind of society they help shape (Kim & Scheller-Wolf, Reference Kim and Scheller-Wolf2019). In this context, leaders must exercise both formal authority and informal influence to build and sustain coalitions around shared goals (Bower & Weinberg, Reference Bower and Weinberg1988). Aligning purpose with strategy demands deliberate organizational action and shared commitment (Malnight et al., Reference Malnight, Buche and Dhanaraj2019). Importantly, strategic alignment is not static. It evolves through continuous reflection, learning, and recalibration. Purpose and strategy must dynamically inform one another over time (Steller & Björck, Reference Steller and Björck2025). This interaction builds coherence across cognitive, emotional, relational, and material domains (Steller & Björck, Reference Steller and Björck2025). Purposeful leadership plays a key role in sustaining this direction through agentic and value-driven action (Gartenberg & Yiu, Reference Gartenberg and Yiu2023; Kollenscher et al., Reference Kollenscher, Popper and Ronen2018).
A second key mechanism of aligning concerns values, norms and ethics. As Freeman et al. (Reference Freeman, Wicks and Parmar2004) argue, values are central to business. They help firms define what matters and how they relate to stakeholders, since the ‘alignment of values, norms and ethics’ serves as a vital mechanism for “efficient and effective flourishing within and among organizations (Freeman et al., Reference Freeman, Phillips and Sisodia2020, p. 7). Cardona and Rey (Reference Cardona and Rey2022) emphasize the need to build internal alignment that reflects the common values. In contexts where firms must balance different value systems (such as religious and economic logics) ethical alignment becomes even more complex, and firms are required to navigate these competing institutional demands, maintaining coherence through alignment (Gümüsay, Smets & Morris, Reference Gümüsay, Smets and Morris2020). Aligning ethics with purpose fosters a culture of integrity, supports moral imagination (Rindova & Martins, Reference Rindova and Martins2023) and encourages cooperation based on shared commitments, not just compliance.
Embedding
Embedding refers to the management mechanism that focuses on how purpose becomes internalized and sustained within the firm over time. Rather than being imposed through a purely top-down approach, purpose should be understood as an ‘open purpose’, i.e., an emergent and continuously negotiated process shaped by multiple voices and evolving meanings (Clegg et al., Reference Clegg, Cunha, Rego and Santos2021). A robust organizational culture allows purpose to serve as a stable point of reference, even as strategic priorities and operational practices shift, thus contributing to long-term organizational identity and resilience (Collins & Porras, Reference Collins and Porras1991). Recent contributions highlight the Purpose Strength Framework as a tool for embedding purpose into daily operations by aligning leadership, strategy, and culture, ensuring that purpose is authentic, internalized by employees, and measurable to create real business value (De Nalda et al., Reference De Nalda, Montaner, Edmondson and Sotok2022). However, embedding purpose into culture entails navigating dynamic tensions between social aspirations and commercial imperatives, which can evolve over time and differ across organizational roles and career stages (Fontana, Frandsen & Morsing, Reference Fontana, Frandsen and Morsing2023).
In this light, purpose becomes a ‘practical idealism’, acting as a pragmatic compass for complex decision-making, guiding value-based trade-offs, and fostering alignment even when perfect win-win outcomes are impossible (Gulati, Reference Gulati2022a). Firms with a deep and authentic sense of purpose, rooted in their identity and integrated into strategy and culture, outperform by motivating stakeholders, building trust, and shaping reputation (Gulati, Reference Gulati2022b).
Human Resource (HR) systems also serve as critical enablers for embedding purpose, as they connect individual motivation with collective direction. Purpose gains traction when it is translated into HR practices that cultivate emotional engagement, shared commitment, and alignment between personal values and organizational objectives (Campbell & Yeung, Reference Campbell and Yeung1991). Purpose-aligned HR systems (e.g., purposeful job design, performance management, and leadership development) have been shown to enhance employee engagement and discretionary effort, especially when combined with transformational leadership and strategic clarity (Barrick et al., Reference Barrick, Thurgood, Smith and Courtright2015). Empirical evidence confirms that employees’ belief in purpose varies across organizational types and governance contexts. Purpose tends to be more deeply internalized in firms where ownership structures and leadership behaviors foster supportive environments and coherent incentive systems (Gartenberg & Serafeim, Reference Gartenberg and Serafeim2023). In particular, the synergy between a clearly articulated purpose and mid-level managerial alignment emerges as a strong predictor of organizational performance and cultural integrity (Gartenberg, Prat & Serafeim, Reference Gartenberg, Prat and Serafeim2019). Moreover, the evolving nature of the contemporary workforce introduces both complexity and opportunity. ‘Hypermodern’ employees, who combine individualistic and altruistic traits, increasingly demand HR policies oriented toward psychological well-being, purpose authenticity, and experiential engagement (Dhanesh, Reference Dhanesh2020). These shifts require HR systems to become more adaptive and purpose-sensitive, translating purpose not only into vision statements but into the lived organizational experience of diverse employee segments.
Corporate governance constitutes another key embedding mechanism, shaping how purpose is institutionalized within the organization’s formal structures and strategic decision-making processes. Governance frameworks determine how authority, accountability, and legitimacy are allocated, which are factors that influence whether purpose is sustained, diluted, or merely symbolic over time. Research on dual-purpose enterprises (those pursuing both financial and social goals) suggests that hybrid governance models are required to accommodate these dual priorities (Battilana et al., Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022). This may involve reconfiguring board responsibilities, revising fiduciary duties, and incorporating stakeholder perspectives into decision-making. The concept of ethical stewardship has gained prominence in this context, proposing that leaders must operate not only as agents of shareholder value but also as moral custodians of stakeholder interests (Caldwell, Hayes & Long, Reference Caldwell, Hayes and Long2010). Importantly, purpose in governance is not merely declared from above; rather, it must be shared, enacted, and continuously reaffirmed within and across governing bodies. Furthermore, the perceived strength and authenticity of purpose are directly linked to how governance mechanisms shape employee interpretations and organizational narratives. Empirical findings indicate that firms with values-driven leadership and long-term ownership commitment (particularly private or family-owned enterprises) are more likely to foster a strong belief in purpose among employees, especially when such commitment is reinforced through coherent incentive structures (Gartenberg & Serafeim, Reference Gartenberg and Serafeim2023). These dynamics highlight the necessity of aligning governance practices with cultural and strategic dimensions to ensure credible and sustained implementation of purpose.
Implementing
A third management mechanism is implementing, which concerns the concrete translation of purpose into operations, procedures, and performance metrics. Coherent operationalization represents a core managerial mechanism for implementing corporate purpose into systematic, actionable practices. It refers to the development of concrete objectives, structured procedures, and dedicated programs that articulate the firm’s purpose and align its day-to-day operations accordingly (Lee, Bansal & Mascena Barbosa, Reference Lee, Bansal and Mascena Barbosa2023; Sundaram & Inkpen, Reference Sundaram and Inkpen2004). One key channel through which purpose can be operationalized is Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Although CSR operates primarily at the strategic and operational levels, its coherence and legitimacy are often derived from the overarching purpose of the firm (Gartenberg et al., Reference Gartenberg, Prat and Serafeim2019). CSR initiatives act as concrete expressions of corporate purpose, reinforcing credibility and embedding purpose into the business model (Gartenberg & Serafeim, Reference Gartenberg and Serafeim2023). Employees at all levels must understand how their work contributes to the firm’s purpose (Dhanesh, Reference Dhanesh2020; Mayer, Reference Mayer2021, Reference Mayer2023). A purpose-aligned performance system enhances motivational dynamics, supports shared accountability, and fosters transformational outcomes through trust-based relationships and shared values (Caldwell et al., Reference Caldwell, Hayes and Long2010; Mahoney, Reference Mahoney2023). In this way, a shared purpose ‘serves the critical function of aligning all stakeholders in the firm around that purpose’ (Freeman et al., Reference Freeman, Phillips and Sisodia2020, p. 8).
Beyond guiding internal processes, purpose also serves as a compass for navigating external complexity, informing the nature, timing, and direction of organizational actions in response to societal challenges and crises. Purpose-oriented firms are increasingly called upon to address global issues such as climate change, corruption, and human rights violations (Forcadell & Aracil, Reference Forcadell and Aracil2021; Lee et al., Reference Lee, Bansal and Mascena Barbosa2023), positioning themselves as autonomous yet accountable actors within complex ecosystems (Mahoney, Reference Mahoney2023).
In this context, purpose implementation necessitates a rigorous analysis of both financial and nonfinancial outcomes (Gartenberg, Reference Gartenberg2023; Kimsey, Geradts & Battilana, Reference Kimsey, Geradts and Battilana2023). The measurement of costs and benefits becomes essential to evaluate the value created by purpose-led activities and to enable robust organizational accountability (Bhattacharya et al., Reference Bhattacharya, Sen, Edinger-Schons and Neureiter2023). Accordingly, firms must establish clear metrics and multidimensional measurement frameworks (Ventura, Reference Ventura2023). As Henderson (Reference Henderson2021a) underscores, only tangible, auditable, and reproducible indicators of environmental and social performance can ensure that purpose transcends rhetorical statements and becomes embedded in operational reality.
Developing such a measurement infrastructure requires a robust system of nonfinancial metrics capable of capturing complex impacts and steering firms toward meaningful change (Pratt & Hedden, Reference Pratt and Hedden2023). These metrics serve multiple strategic functions: they inform sustainable capital allocation decisions for investors; they empower boards to reinforce ethical foundations and fulfill fiduciary duties; they support managers in adopting incentive-aligned and conscientious decision-making processes (Barby et al., Reference Barby, Barker, Eccles, Heller, Roche, Serafeim, Stroehle, Younger and Zochowski2021; Stroehle, Soonawalla & Metzner, Reference Stroehle, Soonawalla and Metzner2019).
Integrating purpose into incentive systems and symbolic practices strengthens value-behavior alignment (Birkinshaw et al., Reference Birkinshaw, Foss and Lindenberg2014). Existing measurement practices should not be seen solely as evaluative tools but also as a foundation for the development of next-generation frameworks capable of systematically assessing purposeful impact (see Table A3 for further details). These systems must ensure data integrity and reliability in capturing the multidimensional effects of purpose with the same rigor traditionally reserved for financial metrics (Busch & Hehenberger, Reference Busch and Hehenberger2022; Mayer, Reference Mayer2023; Vracheva, Judge & Madden, Reference Vracheva, Judge and Madden2016).
The challenge lies in measuring performance across multiple dimensions, understanding related trade-offs, and maintaining coherence with corporate strategy and values (Battilana et al., Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022; Gulati, Reference Gulati2022a, Reference Gulati2022b). Barby et al. (Reference Barby, Barker, Eccles, Heller, Roche, Serafeim, Stroehle, Younger and Zochowski2021) offer a useful starting point for constructing purpose-aligned evaluation systems by identifying three foundational steps: (1) Clarifying business motives; (2) Defining metrics to assess input, output, outcome, and impact; (3) Applying both cost-based and societal valuation approaches to quantify results. Subsequently, this work can enable the development of metrics and indicators that assess the degree of alignment between declared purpose, enacted strategy, and observable outcomes (Regele, Reference Regele2023).
Sharing
Sharing corporate purpose is a relational process of sensemaking, in which individuals interpret, negotiate, and internalize purpose in their organizational context (Regele, Reference Regele2023). Leaders often use abstract or inspirational language to express purpose (as already shown in Table A2). However, this language must be supported by concrete narratives, metaphors, and symbols that resonate across roles and levels (Carton & Lucas, Reference Carton and Lucas2018). Sensemaking is central to purpose sharing (Regele, Reference Regele2023). As Warren (Reference Warren2022) states, if alignment between intention and communication is missing, employees and stakeholders may perceive a lack of authenticity. This risk, sometimes described as ‘woke-washing’, highlights the need for consistency between symbolic and behavioral dimensions of purpose. Dialogue and participation are essential. As such, purpose evolves through repeated interactions between leaders and employees (Durand & Asmar, Reference Durand and Asmar2025). These interactions help build trust, clarify values, and create a shared space for meaning-making.
Sharing mechanisms of purpose also have onsequences beyond business’ boundaries. For example, some firms implement a sharing role to extend purpose beyond their own boundaries (Klettner, Cetindamar & Sainty, Reference Klettner, Cetindamar and Sainty2025). According to the authors, this role involves collaborative signaling: they educate, influence, and support stakeholders (e.g., suppliers, customers, investors) via advocacy and long-term relationships. Purpose communication directed at external audiences is shaped by the need for legitimacy (Patacconi, Shamshur & Ulianiuk, Reference Patacconi, Shamshur and Ulianiuk2025). Leaders adopt stakeholder-oriented rhetoric to align with prevailing institutional norms and audience expectations. The authors analyzed CEO/chair letters, showing a shift toward broader stakeholder concerns, especially during crisis periods. This narrative strategy enhances perceived credibility and supports reputational capital.
Despite the mechanisms described above, several barriers may hinder the effective enactment of a shared purpose. Decoupling can occur when purpose statements remain symbolic and disconnected from concrete actions, reflecting patterns of superficial adoption previously observed in CSR (Westphal, Reference Westphal2023). Such gaps between rhetoric and practice can foster stakeholder cynicism, weakening trust and questioning the authenticity of purpose commitments (Henisz, Reference Henisz2023; Kaplan, Reference Kaplan2023). Over time, persistent misalignments may lead to stakeholder disillusionment, particularly among employees who experience a disconnect between aspirational narratives and organizational reality (Regele, Reference Regele2023).
Consequences for an effective purpose
Our process framework concludes with a comprehensive exploration of the impacts of corporate purpose, examining how its influence unfolds both within and beyond business’ boundaries. This final step emphasizes the dual role of corporate purpose as an internal driver of organizational alignment and engagement, as well as an external force contributing to sustainability and the common good.
Impact within business’ boundaries
Corporate purpose positively influences firm performance, enabling firms to move beyond short-term profit maximization and generate long-term value, particularly under conditions of externalities or stakeholder misalignments (Henisz, Reference Henisz2023). Purpose-driven firms are better equipped to manage environmental volatility and uncertainty, supporting sustained strategic focus and organizational resilience (Lee et al., Reference Lee, Bansal and Mascena Barbosa2023). Purpose integration into management structures contributes to improved governance and stability, reducing the risk of failure (Bunderson & Thakor, Reference Bunderson and Thakor2022). Moreover, aligning business strategies with social purpose enhances financial outcomes and corporate reputation, although it may involve trade-offs with profitability goals (von Ahsen & Gauch, Reference von Ahsen and Gauch2022). As such, purpose serves as a foundational element for shared value creation and long-term innovation (Drucker, Reference Drucker1974; Porter & Kramer, Reference Porter and Kramer2011).
Purpose also has a profound effect on employee motivation and behavior. Employees who perceive their firm as purpose-driven are more likely to engage in sustainability-related behaviors, especially when they experience job autonomy and hold strong moral identities (Bhattacharya et al., Reference Bhattacharya, Sen, Edinger-Schons and Neureiter2023). Purpose enhances psychological ownership, increasing the willingness to go beyond formal roles (Brosch, Reference Brosch2025). A clear purpose fosters trust, intrinsic motivation, and organizational identification, improving employee engagement and job satisfaction (Bunderson & Thakor, Reference Bunderson and Thakor2022; Liedtka, Reference Liedtka1998). Purpose also promotes personal responsibility, continuous learning, and commitment to the community without compromising individuality (Liedtka, Reference Liedtka1998).
Finally, corporate purpose strengthens stakeholder engagement by offering a shared identity and moral direction across organizational boundaries. It helps align stakeholder relationships around common values, supporting legitimacy and collective decision-making, especially in times of crisis (Menghwar et al., Reference Menghwar, Homberg, Zaidi and Alam2025). By amplifying the social and environmental dimensions of corporate strategy, purpose facilitates deeper engagement with both internal and external stakeholders (Pardo-Jaramillo, Gómez & Soto, Reference Pardo-Jaramillo, Gómez and Soto2025). In firms undergoing sustainability transitions, a shift toward a duty-based purpose fosters internal legitimacy and stakeholder support for innovation (Schupfer & Soppe, Reference Schupfer and Soppe2025).
Impact beyond business’ boundaries
Corporate purpose plays a transformative role in enabling businesses to contribute meaningfully to sustainability and the common good. Moving beyond shareholder primacy, purpose-led firms adopt a value-based orientation that redefines business as a driver of societal well-being (Ocasio et al., Reference Ocasio, Kraatz and Chandler2023). This shift is particularly evident in the alignment of corporate purpose with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, where both goal-based and duty-based perspectives guide strategic implementation (Sasaki, Stubbs & Farrelly, Reference Sasaki, Stubbs and Farrelly2023). Firms that integrate both outside-in and inside-out views are more advanced in Sustainable Development Goal adoption, demonstrating greater alignment between internal values and external societal needs (Sasaki & Stubbs, Reference Sasaki and Stubbs2025).
Purpose-driven firms are also capable of generating civic wealth, especially among marginalized groups, by fostering inclusive and collaborative business practices (Lashitew, Branzei & Van Tulder, Reference Lashitew, Branzei and Van Tulder2024). According to the authors, this effect is mediated by mechanisms of commercial integration and stakeholder inclusion and further shaped by external validation and institutional contexts. These businesses go beyond transactional relationships, acting as systemic actors that co-create societal value across boundaries.
Ethical and moral dimensions are central to this expanded role. Firms inspired by humanistic principles pursue the common good as a core part of their identity, connecting community welfare with individual flourishing (Frémeaux & Michelson, Reference Frémeaux and Michelson2017). Purpose becomes a platform for embedding principles of reciprocity, dignity, and solidarity into business models, reinforcing human-centered approaches to management and decision-making. At an institutional level, corporate purpose contributes to reshaping education and governance systems. Business schools, for instance, are called upon to reorient their curricula toward human and societal needs, moving away from narrow efficiency goals to prepare leaders for a purpose-driven economy (Rocha, Pirson & Suddaby, Reference Rocha, Pirson and Suddaby2021). Strategic leadership plays a crucial role in sustaining this orientation by embedding purpose across governance structures, stakeholder engagement mechanisms, and long-term planning processes (Ocasio et al., Reference Ocasio, Kraatz and Chandler2023). Ultimately, corporate purpose redefines the firm’s societal role, not merely as an economic actor, but as a generator of systemic change (Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023).
Table 3 summarizes the definitions, relevant references, and theoretical perspectives that inform the process framework on corporate purpose.
Table 3. Definitions, references, and theoretical perspectives of the process framework on corporate purpose
Challenges for future research
In this section, we structure the research agenda on corporate purpose to reflect the same framework used in our review of the literature, i.e., its antecedents, management mechanisms, and consequences.
Antecedents for a purpose statement
Leaders often act as meaning-makers who translate personal values into collective direction (Almandoz, Reference Almandoz2023). Future research should examine the mechanisms through which a leader’s personal purpose becomes embedded in organizational practices. It is also worth investigating how different leadership styles, such as authentic, transformational, or servant leadership, shape the credibility, clarity, and internalization of purpose statements (Jasinenko & Steuber, Reference Jasinenko and Steuber2023; Joly, Reference Joly2021). Moreover, scholars could explore how management education prepares leaders to articulate and align purpose with corporate strategy, particularly in response to organizational transitions or external shocks (Battilana et al., Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022; Davis, Reference Davis2021; Rocha et al., Reference Rocha, Pirson and Suddaby2021).
Closely related to leadership is the visionary mindset that allows purpose to be projected as a long-term strategic orientation. Research could delve into the cognitive frames and decision-making models that enable leaders to transform aspirational statements into actionable governance choices (Montgomery, Reference Montgomery2008; Quinn & Thakor, Reference Quinn and Thakor2018). Post-crisis settings and strategic planning contexts provide fertile ground for empirical inquiry into how purpose gains salience in environments marked by volatility or rapid change.
Another important antecedent concerns the articulation of purpose-related benefits and beneficiaries. Studies could assess whether greater clarity in defining who benefits from purpose influences strategic positioning, stakeholder legitimacy, and long-term competitiveness (Dacin et al., Reference Dacin, Harrison, Hess, Killian and Roloff2022; Mayer, Reference Mayer2023). As stakeholder expectations continue to evolve, research should explore the mechanisms through which firms maintain alignment and avoid purpose-washing or symbolic implementation. The risk of decoupling between stated and actual purpose also merits closer attention (Regele, Reference Regele2023; Warren, Reference Warren2022).
The broader socioeconomic context represents a structural condition shaping how purpose is conceptualized and implemented. Future studies could investigate how national governance systems, legal frameworks, and cultural norms influence the formal adoption of purpose in governance, disclosure, and accountability practices (Aguilera, Reference Aguilera2023; Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Wright and Phan2017). Comparative studies using institutional theory or political CSR perspectives could offer insights into how purpose is integrated differently across jurisdictions. In parallel, emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, may play a role in facilitating the implementation and monitoring of purpose-related strategies, which warrants further examination.
Finally, increasing exposure to systemic risks calls for a deeper understanding of how firms adapt or reframe purpose in response to large-scale disruptions. Scholars could explore how firms reconfigure their purpose when faced with crises such as climate change, pandemics, geopolitical instability, or institutional breakdown (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023; Waddock & Mcintosh, Reference Waddock and Mcintosh2011). An important research direction involves assessing whether purpose-driven organizations demonstrate greater resilience and adaptive capacity (Kim & Scheller-Wolf, Reference Kim and Scheller-Wolf2019; Patriotta, Reference Patriotta2021). Methodological approaches such as scenario planning, crisis ethnographies, and longitudinal tracking of resilience could be particularly effective in this domain.
Management for a shared purpose
Strategic alignment plays a central role in ensuring that corporate purpose informs and shapes business planning and decision-making. Although the theoretical foundations of this relationship are well established (Basu, Reference Basu1999; Howell, Reference Howell1967; Vallance, Reference Vallance1993), research is still limited on how purpose is consistently integrated into operational strategy, especially under the pressures of short-term performance. Future studies could investigate the organizational and cultural transformations needed to move from philanthropy or CSR logics to purpose-centric business models. This includes examining how boards and executive teams embed purpose into governance structures that balance accountability, stakeholder inclusion, and strategic vision (Aguilera, Reference Aguilera2023). Further attention should also be given to how decision-makers interpret and activate purpose as a guiding principle across the firm.
Another relevant area concerns the alignment of organizational values, norms, and ethics. Research should explore how internal factors influence the emergence and consolidation of a shared and socially oriented corporate purpose. Mediating mechanisms such as employee identification, autonomy, and perceptions of meaningful work are particularly relevant to understanding how purpose affects internal cohesion and engagement. Empirical designs such as structural equation modeling could provide useful insights into these dynamics.
Embedding purpose into the firm requires a better understanding of the practices through which it becomes sustained over time. This is especially relevant in periods of transition or under conditions of ambiguity. Future studies could examine how purpose is reinforced through symbols, rituals, and routines that operate across different levels and functions (Clegg et al., Reference Clegg, Cunha, Rego and Santos2021; Collins & Porras, Reference Collins and Porras1991). Additionally, the role of micro-cultural mechanisms in sustaining purpose merits further investigation. A complementary line of inquiry should focus on how HR systems operationalize purpose through processes such as recruitment, appraisal, reward, and promotion. Researchers could consider how HR practices are adapted for different employee segments, such as knowledge workers and frontline staff, and how these adaptations affect the perception and impact of purpose.
Within the implementation domain, more research is needed on how purpose is operationalized across business units and functions through coordination mechanisms and managerial systems. While the idea of coherence is frequently invoked in the conceptual literature, empirical studies are still lacking on the concrete routines and practices that help firms remain aligned with their stated purpose. Closely related to this is the challenge of measuring the costs and benefits associated with purpose. Future studies could examine how performance management systems support the alignment of incentives with purpose-oriented outcomes such as innovation, sustainability, or employee well-being. This includes the development of metrics that capture environmental and social performance alongside financial results, helping firms manage trade-offs and demonstrate accountability. Regulatory frameworks and institutional pressures also play a role in shaping what is measured and how disclosures are framed, which represents an important area for empirical research.
Finally, the communication and internal diffusion of purpose require closer empirical attention. While many firms invest in crafting purpose narratives, little is known about how these are interpreted across different levels and functions. Research should investigate the discursive and symbolic practices that support or hinder shared understanding of purpose, particularly in situations where formal statements diverge from observed behaviours. A promising direction involves examining how firms manage narrative coherence – whether by reframing, reinforcing, or abandoning their stated purpose – and how this affects trust, credibility, and stakeholder engagement. Further inquiry could also explore the link between purpose narratives, investor communication, and access to financial capital in purpose-driven firms.
Consequences of an effective purpose
A critical avenue for future research involves deepening the understanding of how corporate purpose generates both internal and external impacts. One key tension lies in the prioritization of beneficiaries: whether employees, customers, the environment, or society should be considered primary stakeholders (Henderson, Reference Henderson2021a). Although these constituencies are often interdependent, decisions intended to benefit one group may generate trade-offs that affect others. Future studies should investigate how firms define and balance these stakeholder groups, and how these definitions influence the scope and ambition of purpose-driven strategies (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023; Mayer, Reference Mayer2021).
To date, empirical research has primarily focused on large corporations, leaving the dynamics of purpose adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises relatively unexplored. Understanding how corporate purpose can be scaled, adapted, and operationalized across firm sizes, sectors, and geographies is essential for assessing its systemic relevance (Kimsey et al., Reference Kimsey, Geradts and Battilana2023).
Although there is growing consensus on the potential synergy between financial performance and societal value creation, limited empirical evidence exists on the tensions and trade-offs that may arise. Scholars are encouraged to examine how firms navigate competing expectations and performance criteria, and whether purpose-oriented strategies can contribute concretely to addressing complex societal challenges such as inequality, environmental degradation, and declining institutional trust (Battilana et al., Reference Battilana, Obloj, Pache and Sengul2022; Bhattacharya et al., Reference Bhattacharya, Sen, Edinger-Schons and Neureiter2023; Gulati, Reference Gulati2022a). This calls for research that distinguishes between substantive impact and symbolic signalling.
Another important consequence concerns how corporate purpose shapes employee motivation and behaviour. Future research should examine how purpose influences the psychological contract between employer and employee, with particular attention to mediating mechanisms such as identification, trust, and alignment between individual and organizational values. These mechanisms are likely to affect engagement, retention, and discretionary effort, and merit further empirical scrutiny through longitudinal designs or experimental approaches.
The research agenda should also account for the long-term and systemic nature of corporate purpose. Its effectiveness depends on how deeply it is embedded in organizational culture, routines, and governance practices.
Finally, future studies should further explore how communication and interpretation processes influence the realization of purpose. Although many organizations invest in purpose narratives, little is known about how these messages are received and made sense of across different hierarchical levels and functional roles. Research should investigate how sensegiving and sensemaking processes evolve over time, especially in contexts of ambiguity, crisis, or strategic change (Cristofaro, Reference Cristofaro2022; Regele, Reference Regele2023). Understanding how organizations manage coherence between formal statements and actual behaviors can shed light on how trust and authenticity are socially constructed, and on the role of purpose in shaping stakeholder perceptions and reputation.
As Table 4 outlines, each phase of the purpose process – antecedents, management, and consequences – can benefit from tailored empirical designs and theoretical lenses, such as stakeholder theory, institutional theory, dynamic capabilities, and moral identity frameworks. Table 4 also emphasizes the importance of examining both intra-organizational dynamics – such as strategy integration, HR practices, and performance systems – and interorganizational dimensions, including governance in ecosystems, partnerships, and stakeholder networks. This dual perspective is essential for understanding the conditions under which purpose becomes an enduring and credible source of value.
Table 4. Future research agenda on corporate purpose
Implications
This study makes several theoretical contributions to the growing body of literature on corporate purpose, responding to recent calls for a shift from definitional debates toward a more dynamic, processual, and multilevel understanding of the phenomenon (Chua et al., Reference Chua, Miska, Mair and Stahl2024; George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023).
First, we advance the conceptualization of corporate purpose by proposing an integrated process framework composed of three interrelated dimensions: antecedents, management, and consequences. This framework reframes purpose not as a static ideal or normative construct, but as a dynamic organizational process shaped by contextual, strategic, and cultural factors. In doing so, we contribute to the emerging literature that views corporate purpose as embedded in organizational practices and responsive to internal and external demands (Besharov & Mitzinneck, Reference Besharov and Mitzinneck2023; Mayer, Reference Mayer2021).
Second, we expand the understanding of antecedents of purpose by identifying previously underexplored drivers such as the personal purpose of leaders (Victoravich et al., Reference Victoravich, Hamilton, Kim and Cohen2023), defined benefits and beneficiaries (Lankoski & Smith, Reference Lankoski and Smith2018), socioeconomic context (Aguilera, Reference Aguilera2023; Mayer et al., Reference Mayer, Wright and Phan2017), and threats and systemic risks (Waddock & Mcintosh, Reference Waddock and Mcintosh2011). This enriched set of antecedents helps explain not only why organizations formulate purpose statements but also how these statements gain legitimacy and resonance in different contexts.
Third, we identify key managerial mechanisms (i.e., aligning, embedding, implementing and sharing) that mediate the translation of purpose statements into consequences. These mechanisms contribute to a more granular understanding of how purpose is lived in organizations (Cardona & Rey, Reference Cardona and Rey2022; Collins & Porras, Reference Collins and Porras1991; De Nalda et al., Reference De Nalda, Montaner, Edmondson and Sotok2022).
Finally, we articulate the dual impact of corporate purpose within and beyond business boundaries. Internally, purpose fosters motivation, engagement, and performance (Barrick et al., Reference Barrick, Thurgood, Smith and Courtright2015; Bhattacharya et al., Reference Bhattacharya, Sen, Edinger-Schons and Neureiter2023); externally, it enables firms to address complex societal challenges and align with sustainability imperatives (Mayer, Reference Mayer2016; Ocasio et al., Reference Ocasio, Kraatz and Chandler2023; Sasaki & Stubbs, Reference Sasaki and Stubbs2025). By doing so, we bridge strategic management with broader societal considerations. In doing so, our work contributes to stakeholder theory but also departs from its traditional view of the firm as a mediator balancing the interests of various stakeholder groups (e.g., Freeman et al., Reference Freeman, Phillips and Sisodia2020). Corporate purpose, as conceptualized in our framework, moves beyond this balancing logic by positioning the firm as a proactive agent of change that defines a unifying direction, aligning stakeholder engagement with long-term societal goals (Gulati, Reference Gulati2022b). Our SLR acknowledges the importance of articles from business ethics in informing the broader debate on corporate purpose (e.g., Abela, Reference Abela2001; Dacin et al., Reference Dacin, Harrison, Hess, Killian and Roloff2022). However, while purpose may incorporate ethical considerations and align with societal expectations, it is not inherently a normative concept (George et al., Reference George, Haas, McGahan, Schillebeeckx and Tracey2023). Rather, it functions as a strategic and identity-defining anchor that can inspire stakeholders independently of explicit moral evaluation. Accordingly, our framework integrates ethical perspectives insofar as they are mobilized within management studies to inform the operationalization of purpose (see Alignment of values, norms, and ethics in the Management phase of our process), without conflating purpose with moral judgment per se.
From a practical standpoint, our research also recognized implications for the strategic management of the firm. First, the process framework helps leaders formulate authentic and actionable purpose statements by clarifying critical antecedents. These insights assist firms in avoiding purpose-washing and aligning their purpose with strategic identity and societal relevance. Second, our review highlights how purpose can be managed across organizational levels, from strategic planning and values alignment, to HR practices and culture-building, to performance systems and governance structures. These findings offer practitioners a roadmap for embedding purpose into the day-to-day life of firms. Third, the framework informs how to measure and evaluate purpose effectiveness. In particular, it encourages the adoption of integrated metrics that combine financial and nonfinancial performance, thereby enabling firms to demonstrate accountability and generate trust with stakeholders. Purpose-aligned metrics also support strategic decision-making, capital allocation, and impact assessment. Finally, we emphasize the importance of sharing purpose as a collective and dialogical process. This requires firms to move beyond one-way communication and engage in participatory sensemaking, fostering alignment between individual identity and collective mission. Communication about purpose, both internal and external, builds credibility, enhances employee engagement, and strengthens reputational capital.
Our research work is also obviously characterized by some limitations. First, it is possible that in the literature selection process some significant articles were not included due to (1) the keywords used for developing the search and (2) the inclusion and exclusion criteria that we adopted. A second limitation concerns the examination and review of the literature in the selected sample. Although we have followed a systematic approach, performed with the best diligence to reduce bias and enhance replicability, a certain degree of subjectivity cannot be eliminated.
Conclusion
This SLR sought to identify, critically evaluate, and synthesize selected relevant research in the field of strategic management on the concept of corporate purpose in order to develop a process framework of the antecedents to embrace a purpose statement. This then evolves into a management phase where the business creates a shared purpose, and, finally, into a phase that generates consequences within and beyond business’ boundaries. Based on the emerging gaps, this study drew up a research agenda, suggesting uncharted avenues to be challenged in the field of strategic management.
Acknowledgements
Previous versions of this paper were presented at the EBEN Doctoral Colloquium in 2023, the SIMA Conference in 2023, and the EURAM Doctoral Colloquium in 2024. The authors are deeply grateful to the organizers of these events and to the faculty members and fellow participants that significantly contributed to the refinement of this work. The authors would also like to express their sincere gratitude toGiulio Ferrigno, Pasquale Massimo Picone and Gianluca Gionfriddo for their invaluable comments and constructive suggestions.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare none.
Appendix 1
In Table A1, we grouped the various definitions of corporate purpose found in our preliminary analysis of the literature into three categories, based on the conceptual boundaries they emphasize. For each group, we proposed a comprehensive definition that captures its core perspective.
Table A1. Analysis of the definitions of corporate purpose
Appendix 2
In Table A2, we report the purpose statements of 17 multinational companies which were analyzed by Mayer (Reference Mayer2020), Mayer and Roche (Reference Mayer2021), and Ready and Truelove (Reference Ready and Truelove2011), selected from our sample of 118 articles. For each statement, we examined whether there was an explicit reference to the benefits generated by the purpose and the related beneficiaries to which it refers, either addressed to the business (internal beneficiaries) or the society (external beneficiaries).
Table A2. Examples of purpose statements
Appendix 3
In Table A3, we report a list of the key articles in the field of the measurement of corporate purpose.
Table A3. Articles on the measurement of corporate purpose
Martina Tafuro is a PhD candidate in Innovation Management and a member of the ‘Regenerative Innovation’ research group at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, Italy. She held a visiting researcher position at Judge Business School, Cambridge. Her research interests focus on purpose-driven firms and their interaction with stakeholders, exploring contagion mechanisms and long-term generativity in business systems.
Andrea Piccaluga is full professor in Innovation Management and leader of the at the ‘Regenerative Innovation’ research group at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, Italy. He holds a PhD from at Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies in Pisa, Italy, and a Master in Technology and Innovation Management from SPRU at the University of Sussex, Brighton. He is the head of the International R&D Management Conference. His research focuses on R&D and innovation management, with a particular emphasis on the social impact of companies driven by a corporate purpose.
Open access
