Making Sense of Corporate Purpose

References

• Aguilera R (2023) Corporate purpose in comparative perspective: The role of governance. Strategy Sci. 8(2):193–201.Link, Google Scholar
• Almandoz J(J) (2023) Inside-out and outside-in perspectives on corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):139–148.Link, Google Scholar
• Andrews KR (1971) The Concept of Corporate Strategy, 1st ed. (Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL).Google Scholar
• Andrews KR (1987) The Concept of Corporate Strategy, 3rd ed. (Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL).Google Scholar
• Bainbridge SM (2002) Why a board? Group decisionmaking in corporate governance. Vanderbilt Law Rev. 55(1):11.Google Scholar
• Barnard CI (1938) The Functions of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Barney JB (1986) Organizational culture: Can it be a source of sustained competitive advantage? Acad. Management Rev. 11(3):656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bartlett C, Ghoshal S (1991) Changing the role of top management: Beyond systems to people. Accessed May 30, 2023, https://hbr.org/1995/05/changing-the-role-of-top-management-beyond-systems-to-people.Google Scholar
• Berle AA, Means GC (1933) The modern corporation and private property. Columbia Law Rev. 33(3):557.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besharov ML, Khurana R (2015) Leading amidst competing technical and institutional demands: Revisiting Selznick’s conception of leadership. Missing in Action: The Further Contribution of Philip Selznick to Contemporary Institutional Theory, vol. 44 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 53–88.Google Scholar
• Besharov M, Mitzinneck B (2023) The multiple facets of corporate purpose: An analytical typology. Strategy Sci. 8(2):233–244.Link, Google Scholar
• Blair MM, Stout LA (1999) A team production theory of corporate law. Virginia Law Rev. 85(2):247.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bowen HR (1953) Social Responsibilities of the Businessman (Harper & Brothers, New York).Google Scholar
• Bower JL (2008) The teaching of strategy: From general manager to analyst and back again? J. Management Inquiry 17(4):269–275.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Business Roundtable (2019) Statement on the purpose of a corporation. Accessed April 19, 2019, https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment/.Google Scholar
• Chandler D (2015) Why institutions matter: Stakeholder attention to organizational ethics commitments. Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick’s Legacy for Organizational Studies, vol. 44 (Emerald Group Publishing), 199–223.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chandler D (2021) Sustainable Value Creation, 2nd ed. (Routledge, New York).Google Scholar
• Clark BR (1956) Organizational adaptation and precarious values: A case study. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 21(3):327.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Collins JC, Porras JI (1994) Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies (Harper Business, New York).Google Scholar
• Davis GF, Thompson TA (1994) A social movement perspective on corporate control. Admin. Sci. Quart. 39(1):141.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davoudi L, McKenna CD, Olegario R (2018) The historical role of the corporation in society. J. British Academy 6(s1):17–47.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio P, Powell WW (1983) The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48(2):147. 10.2307/2095101Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dodd EM (1932) For whom are corporate managers trustees? Harv. Law Rev. 45(7):1145. https://doi.org/10.2307/1331697.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Drucker PF (1946) Concept of the Corporation (John Day, New York).Google Scholar
• Drucker PF (1954) The Practice of Management (Heinemann, London)Google Scholar
• Durand R (2023) From the boardroom: Making purpose research relevant for practice. Strategy Sci. 8(2):149–158.Link, Google Scholar
• Fink L (2018) A Sense of Purpose. BlackRock, Inc. Annual Letter to CEOs 2018.Google Scholar
• Fligstein N (1990) The transformation of corporate control. Choice Reviews Online. 28(02):28–1031. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.28-1031.Google Scholar
• Freeman RR (1984) Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA2420894X.Google Scholar
• Friedland R, Alford RR (1991) Bringing Society Back. In: Symbols, Practices, and Institutional Contradictions. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238198697_Bringing_Society_Back_In_Symbols_Practices_and_Institutional_Contradictions.Google Scholar
• Friedman M (1970) The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Its Profits.Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C (2023) The contingent relationship between purpose and profits. Strategy Sci. 8(2):256–269.Link, Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C, Serafeim G (2022) Corporate purpose in public and private firms. Manage. Sci., ePub ahead of print December 1, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4618.Link, Google Scholar
• George G, Haas MR, McGahan AM, Schillebeeckx SJ, Tracey P (2021) Purpose in the for-profit firm: A review and framework for management research. J. Manage. 014920632110064. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211006450.Google Scholar
• Giorgi S, Lockwood C, Glynn MA (2015) The many faces of culture: Making sense of 30 years of research on culture in organization studies. Acad. Management Ann. 9(1):1–54.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (2022) Deep Purpose: The Heart and Soul of High-Performance Companies (Harper Business, New York).Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Wohlgezogen F (2023) Can purpose foster stakeholder trust in corporations? Strategy Sci. 8(2):270–287.Link, Google Scholar
• Heclo H (2002) The statesman. Legality and Community: On the Intellectural Legacy of Philip Selznick (Rowman and Littlefield).Google Scholar
• Heclo H (2008) Thinking institutionally. Oxford University Press eBooks (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK), 731–742.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson R (2020) Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire (PublicAffairs).Google Scholar
• Henderson R, Serafeim G (2020) Tackling climate change requires organizational purpose. AEA Paper Proc. 110:177–180.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henisz WJ (2023) The value of organizational purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):159–169.Link, Google Scholar
• Hinings CR, Greenwood R (2015) Organizational actors, character, and Selznick’s theory of organization. Missing in Action: The Further Contribution of Philip Selznick to Contemporary Institutional Theory, vol. 44 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 121–128.Google Scholar
• Hoffman AR (2021) Business education as if people and the planet really matter. Strategic Organ. 19(3):513–525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jensen MC, Meckling WH (1976) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. J. Financial Econom. 3(4):305–360.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2023) The promises and perils of corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):288–301.Link, Google Scholar
• Khurana R (2010) From Higher Aims to Hired Hands: The Social Transformation of American Business Schools and the Unfulfilled Promise of Management as a Profession (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
• Kimsey M, Gerardts T, Battilana J (2023) Walking the purpose-talk: Sustainable product development as an instance of divergent change. Strategy Sci. 8(2):311–321.Abstract, Google Scholar
• King BG (2015) Organizational actors, character, and Selznick’s theory of organization. Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick’s Legacy for Organizational Studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 44 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK), 149–174.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraatz M, Block ES (2008) Organizational implications of institutional pluralism. Greenwood R, et al., eds. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (SAGE Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraatz MS (2009) Leadership as institutional work: A bridge to the other side. Cambridge University Press eBooks (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 59–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraatz MS, Lounsbury M (2015) Institutions and Ideals: Philip Selznick’s Legacy for Organizational Studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, vol. 44 (Emerald Group Publishing, Bingley, UK).Google Scholar
• Kraatz MS, Flores R, Chandler D (2020) The value of values for institutional analysis. Acad. Management Ann. 14(2):474–512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraatz MS, Ventresca MJ, Deng L (2010) Precarious values and mundane innovations: Enrollment management in American liberal arts colleges. Acad. Management J. 53(6):1521–1545.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Krygier M (2012) Philip Selznick: Ideals in the World (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
• Krygier M (2015) Selznick’s Hobbesian idealism: Its nature and its origins. Kraatz M, ed.Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Institutions and Ideals: PhilipSelznick’s Legacy for Organizational Studies): Emerald Insight.Google Scholar
• Lee JY, Bansal P, Barbosa AM (2023) Seeing beyond the here and now: How corporate purpose combats corporate myopia. Strategy Sci. 8(2):302–310.Link, Google Scholar
• Levy J (2021) Ages of American Capitalism: A History of the United States (Random House Publishing Group, New York).Google Scholar
• Loewenstein J, Ocasio W, Jones C (2012) Vocabularies and vocabulary structure: A new approach linking categories, practices, and institutions. Acad. Management Ann. 6(1):41–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lounsbury M, Steele CJ, Wang MS, Toubiana M (2021) New directions in the study of institutional logics: From tools to phenomena. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 47(1):261–280.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mahoney JT (2023) Corporate personhood and fiduciary duties as critical constructs in developing stakeholder management theory and corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):212–220.Link, Google Scholar
• Makadok R, Coff R (2002) The theory of value and the value of theory: Breaking new ground vs. reinventing the wheel. Acad. Management Rev. 27(1):10–13.Google Scholar
• Mansell S, Sison AJG (2020) Medieval corporations, membership and the common good: Rethinking the critique of shareholder primacy. J. Institute Econom. 16(5):579–595.Crossref, Google Scholar
• March JG (1962) The business firm as a political coalition. J. Politics 24(4):662–678.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McGahan AM (2023) The new stakeholder theory on organizational purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):245–255.Link, Google Scholar
• Meyer JS, Rowan BG (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83(2):340–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Micklethwait J, Wooldridge A (2003) The Company: A Short History of a Revolutionary Idea (Random House Digital).Google Scholar
• Mills C (1940) Situated actions and vocabularies of motive. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 5(6):904.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Morrison AD, Mota R (2023) The ontology of the corporate mind. Acad. Management Rev. Forthcoming.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W, Loewenstein J, Nigam A (2015) How streams of communication reproduce and change institutional logics: The role of categories. Acad. Management Rev. 40(1):28–48.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ocasio W, Mauskapf M, Steele CJ (2016) History, society, and institutions: The role of collective memory in the emergence and evolution of societal logics. Acad. Management Rev. 41(4):676–699.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patterson O (2014) Making sense of culture. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 40(1):1–30.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Peters TM, Waterman RH (1982) In Search of Excellence (Harper Business, New York).Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR (1978) The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Acad. Management Rev. 4(2):309.Google Scholar
• Porter ME (1980) Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Porter ME (1985) Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance (The Free Press, New York).Google Scholar
• Pratt M, Kraatz M (2009) E Pluribus Unum: Multiple Identities and the Organizational Self (Psychology Press eBooks).Google Scholar
• Pratt MG, Hedden LN (2023) Accounts and accountability: On organizational purpose, organizational identity, and meaningful work. Strategy Sci. 8(2):182–192.Link, Google Scholar
• Rindova VP, Martins LL (2023) Moral imagination, the collective desirable, and strategic purpose. Strategy Sci., ePub ahead of print March 29, https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0190.Link, Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1957) Leadership in administration: A sociological interpretation. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 23(1):98.Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1992) The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1996) Institutionalism “Old” and “New”.Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(2):270–277.Google Scholar
• Selznick P (2008) A Humanist Science: Values and Ideals in Social Inquiry (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
• Suddaby R, Manelli L, Fan Z (2023) Corporate purpose: A social judgement perspective. Strategy Sci. 8(2):202–211.Link, Google Scholar
• Swidler A (1986) Culture in ation: Symbols and strategies. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 51(2):273.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thompson LW (2015) The responsible corporation: Its historical roots and continuing promise. Notre Dame J. Law Ethics Public Policy 29(1):199.Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W (1999) Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry, 1958–1990. Amer. J. Sociol. 105(3):801–843.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W (2008) Institutional logics. Greenwood R, et al., eds. The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA), 99–129.Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M (2012) The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Choice Rev. Online 50(04):50–2388.Google Scholar
• Turner JH (1997) The Institutional Order: Economy, Kinship, Religion, Polity, Law, and Education in Evolutionary and Comparative Perspective (Addison Wesley Publishing, Boston).Google Scholar
• Wernerfelt B (1986) The relation between market share and profitability. J. Bus. Strategy 6(4):67–74.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Westphal JD (2023) Systemic symbolic management, corporate social responsibility, and corporate purpose: A cautionary tale. Strategy Sci. 8(2):221–232.Link, Google Scholar