The Multiple Facets of Corporate Purpose: An Analytical Typology

References

• Abboud L (2021) Danone’s new chief Antoine de Saint-Affrique faces tough turnround task. Financial Times (September 15), https://www.ft.com/content/e4f4475e-16f6-494c-9b4c-45e639871b0d.Google Scholar
• Abdelkafi N, Täuscher K (2016) Business models for sustainability from a system dynamics perspective. Organ. Environment 29(1):74–96.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Albert S, Whetten DA (1985) Organizational identity. Res. Organ. Behav. 7:263–295.Google Scholar
• Almandoz, J(J) (2023) Inside-out and outside-in perspectives on corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):139–148.Google Scholar
• Andriopoulos C, Lewis MW (2009) Exploitation–exploration tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of innovation. Organ. Sci. 20(4):696–717.Link, Google Scholar
• Barnard CI (1938) The Function of the Executive (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Besharov ML, Mitzinneck BC (2017) On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. Greenwood R, Oliver C, Lawrence TB, Meyer R, eds. SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism (Sage, London), 128–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Dorado S (2010) Building sustainable hybrid organizations: The case of commercial microfinance organizations. Acad. Management J. 53(6):1419–1440.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Obloj T, Pache AC (2022) Beyond shareholder value maximization: Accounting for financial/social trade-offs in dual-purpose companies. Acad. Management Rev. 47(2):237–258.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Battilana J, Sengul M, Pache AC, Model J (2015) Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Acad. Management J. 58(6):1658–1685.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beer HA, Micheli P, Besharov ML (2022) Meaning, mission, and measurement: How organizational performance measurement shapes perceptions of work as worthy. Acad. Management J. 65(6):1923–1953.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Google Scholar
• Besharov ML (2014) The relational ecology of identification: How organizational identification emerges when individuals hold divergent values. Acad. Management J. 57(5):1485–1512.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besharov ML, Khurana R (2015) Leading amidst competing technical and institutional demands: Revisiting Selznick’s conception of leadership. Kraatz MS, ed. Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingely, UK), 53–88.Google Scholar
• Besharov ML, Mitzinneck BC (2020) Heterogeneity in organizational hybridity: A configurational, situated, and dynamic approach. Besharov ML, Mitzinneck BC, eds. Res. Sociol. Organ. (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK), 3–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Besharov ML, Smith WK (2014) Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Acad. Management Rev. 39(3):364–381.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bhattacharya CB, Sen S, Edinger-Schons LM, Neureiter M (2022) Corporate purpose and employee sustainability behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05090-5.Google Scholar
• BP (2022) Who we are. Accessed December 15, 2022, https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/who-we-are/our-beliefs-and-code-of-conduct.html.Google Scholar
• Bunderson JS, Thompson JA (2009) The call of the wild: Zookeepers, callings, and the double-edged sword of deeply meaningful work. Admin. Sci. Quart. 54(1):32–57.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Business Roundtable (2019) Statement on corporate purpose. Accessed December 12, 2022, https://opportunity.businessroundtable.org/ourcommitment/.Google Scholar
• Caniglia BS, Mayer B (2021) Socio-ecological systems. Caniglia BS, Jorgenson A, Malin SA, Peek L, Pellow DN, Huang X, eds. Handbook of Environmental Sociology (Springer, Cham, Switzerland), 517–536.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Capellaro G, Tracey P, Greenwood R (2020) From logic acceptance to logic rejection: The process of destabilization in hybrid organizations. Organ. Sci. 31(2):415–438.Link, Google Scholar
• Carton AM (2018) “I’m not mopping the floors, I’m putting a man on the moon”: How NASA leaders enhanced the meaningfulness of work by changing the meaning of work. Admin. Sci. Quart. 63(2):323–369.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dalpiaz E, Rindova V, Ravasi D (2016) Combining logics to transform organizational agency: Blending industry and art at Alessi. Admin. Sci. Quart. 61(3):347–392.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis GF (2021) Corporate purpose needs democracy. J. Management Stud. 58(3):902–913.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dentoni D, Pinkse J, Lubberink R (2021) Linking sustainable business models to socio-ecological resilience through cross-sector partnerships: A complex adaptive systems view. Bus. Soc. 60(5):1216–1252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DesJardine MR, Marti E, Durand R (2021) Why activist hedge funds target socially responsible firms: The reaction costs of signaling corporate social responsibility. Acad. Management J. 64(3):851–872.Crossref, Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Durand R (2023) From the boardroom: Making purpose research relevant for practice. Strategy Sci. 8(2):149–158.Google Scholar
• Ebrahim A, Battilana J, Mair J (2014) The governance of social enterprises: Mission drift and accountability challenges in hybrid organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 34:81–100.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eccles R, Serafeim G (2013) The perfromance frontier. Harvard Bus. Rev. 91(5):50–60.Google Scholar
• Eccles R, Mayer C, Stroehle J (2022) Companies say they’re serious about corporate purpose, but investors aren’t convinced. Fortune (January20), https://fortune.com/2022/01/20/corporate-purpose-institutional-investors-skepticism-research-esg-investing/.Google Scholar
• Edmondson DL, Kern F, Rogge KS (2019) The co-evolution of policy mixes and socio-technical systems: Toward a conceptual framework of policy mix feedback in sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 48(10):103555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehrenfeld JR (2008) Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming Our Consumer Culture (Yale University Press, New Haven, CT).Google Scholar
• Emery FE, Trist EL (1965) The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations 18(1):21–32.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fiol CM, Pratt MG, O’Connor EJ (2009) Managing intractable identity conflicts. Acad. Management Rev. 34(1):32–55.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Follett MP (1940) Dynamic Administration (Harper & Brothers, New York).Google Scholar
• Forrester JW (1964) Industrial Dynamics (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Forrester JW (1968) Indusrtial dynamics: After the first decade. Management Sci. 14(7):398–415.Link, Google Scholar
• Frerot A, Durand R (2022) A Broader Vision for Business: Toward a New Narrative (Flammarion, Paris).Google Scholar
• Friedland R, Alford RR (1991) Bringing society back: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW, eds. The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis (University of Chicago Press, Chicago), 232–266.Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C (2023) The contingent relationship between purpose and profits. Strategy Sci. 8(2):256–269.Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C, Prat A, Serafeim G (2019) Corporate purpose and financial performance. Organ. Sci. 30(1):1–18.Link, Google Scholar
• Gartenberg C, Serafeim G (2022) Corporate purpose in public and private firms. Management Sci., ePub ahead of print December 1, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4618.Link, Google Scholar
• Gasbarro F, Annunziata E, Rizzi F, Frey M (2017) The interplay between sustainable entrepreneurs and public authorities: Evidence from sustainable energy transitions. Organ. Environment 30(3):226–252.Crossref, Google Scholar
• George G, Fewer TJ, Lazzarini S, McGahan AM, Puranam P (2023) Partnering for grand challenges: A review of organizational design considerations in public–private collaborations. J. Management Forthcoming.Google Scholar
• George G, Haas MR, McGahan AM, Schillebeeckx SJD, Tracey P (2021) Purpose in the for-profit firm: A review and framework for management research. J. Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211006450.Google Scholar
• Glynn MA (2000) When cymbals become symbols: Conflict over organizational identity within a symphony orchestra. Organ. Sci. 11(3):285–298.Link, Google Scholar
• Glynn MA, D’Aunno T (2023) An intellectual history of institutional theory: Looking back to move forward. Acad. Management Ann. 17(1):301–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grimes MG, Williams TA, Zhao EY (2019) Anchors aweigh: The sources, variety, and challenges of mission drift. Acad. Management Rev. 44(4):819–845.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (2007) Tent poles, tribalism, and boundary spanning: The rigor-relevance debate in management research. Acad. Management J. 50(4):775–782.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gulati R (2022) Deep Purpose: The Heart and Soul of High-Performance Companies (Penguin, London).Google Scholar
• Gulati R, Wohlgezogen F (2023) Can purpose foster stakeholder trust in corporations? Strategy Sci. 8(2):270–287.Google Scholar
• Hannan MT, Freeman J (1977) The population ecology of organizations. Amer. J. Sociol. 82(5):929–964.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM (2020) Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire (PublicAffaires, New York).Google Scholar
• Henderson RM (2021a) Changing the purpose of the corporation to rebalance capitalism. Oxford Rev. Econom. Policy 37(4):838–850.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Henderson RM (2021b) Innovation in the 21st century: Architectural change, purpose, and the challenges of our time. Management Sci. 67(9):5479–5488.Link, Google Scholar
• Hoffman AJ (2021) The Engaged Scholar: Expanding the Impact of Academic Research in Today’s World (Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hollensbe E, Wookey C, Hickey L, George G, Nichols V (2014) Organizations with purpose. Acad. Management J. 57(5):1227–1234.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Holling CS (2001) Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems (New York) 4(5):390–405.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hsu G (2006) Jacks of all trades and masters of none: Audiences’ reactions to spanning genres in feature film production. Admin. Sci. Quart. 51(3):420–450.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ioannou I, Serafeim G (2015) The impact of corporate social responsibility on investment recommendations: Analysts’ perceptions and shifting institutional logics. Strategic Management J. 36(7):1053–1081.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jarzabkowski P, Smets M, Bednarek R, Burke G, Spee P (2013) Institutional ambidexterity: Leveraging institutional complexity in practice. Lounsbury M, Boxenbaum E, eds. Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK), 37–61.Google Scholar
• Jasinenko A, Steuber J (2022) Perceived organizational purpose: Systematic literature review, construct definition, measurement and potential employee outcomes. J. Management Stud. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12852.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jay J (2013) Navigating paradox as a mechanism of change and innovation in hybrid organizations. Acad. Management J. 56(1):137–159.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jørgensen U (2012) Mapping and navigating transitions: The multi-level perspective compared with arenas of development. Res. Policy 41(6):996–1010.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan S (2023) The promises and perils of corporate purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):288–301.Google Scholar
• Kim S, Karlesky MJ, Myers CG, Schifeling T (2016) Why companies are becoming B corporations. Harvard Bus. Rev. 17:1–5.Google Scholar
• Kivimaa P, Boon W, Hyysalo S, Klerkx L (2019) Toward a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda. Res. Policy 48(4):1062–1075.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kouamé S, Hafsi T, Oliver D, Langley A (2022) Creating and sustaining stakeholder emotional resonance with organizational identity in social mission-driven organizations. Acad. Management J. 65(6):1864–1893.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kraatz MS (2009) Leadership as institutional work: A bridge to the other side. Lawrence TB, Suddaby R, Leca B, eds. Institutional Work: Actors and Agency in Institutional Studies of Organizations (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK), 59–91.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
• Kunz N, Moran C, Kastelle T (2013) Conceptualising “coupling” for sustainability implementation in the industrial sector: A review of the field and projection of future research opportunities. J. Clean Production 53(15):69–80.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lepisto DA, Pratt MG (2017) Meaningful work as realization and justification: Toward a dual conceptualization. Organ. Psych. Rev. 7(2):99–121.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis BW, Carlos WC (2022) Avoiding the appearance of virtue: Reactivity to corporate social responsibility ratings in an era of shareholder primacy. Admin. Sci. Quart. 67(4):1093–1135.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mair J, Seelos C (2021) Organizations, social problems, and system change: Invigorating the third mandate of organizational research. Organ. Theory 2:1–22.Google Scholar
• Mair J, Wolf M, Seelos C (2016) Scaffolding: A process of transforming patterns of inequality in small-scale societies. Acad. Management Ann. 59(6):2021–2044.Google Scholar
• Mayer C (2018) Prosperity: Better Business Makes the Greater Good (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Mayer C (2021) The future of the corporation and the cconomics of urppose. J. Management Stud. 58(3):887–901.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKinsey (2022) Purpose: Shifting from why to how. Accessed December 12, 2022, https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/purpose-shifting-from-why-to-how.Google Scholar
• McPherson CM, Sauder M (2013) Logics in action: Managing institutional complexity in a drug court. Admin. Sci. Quart. 58(2):165–196.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ørsted (2023) Our vision and who we are. Accessed January 12, 2023, https://orsted.com/en/about-us/about-orsted/our-vision-and-values.Google Scholar
• Ostrom E (1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc. National Acad. Sci. USA 104(39):15181–15187.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science 325(5939):419–422.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pache AC, Santos F (2010) When worlds collide: The internal dynamics of organizational responses to conflicting institutional demands. Acad. Management Rev. 35(3):455–476.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pache AC, Santos F (2013) Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Acad. Management J. 56(4):972–1001.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Paolella L, Durand R (2016) Category spanning, evaluation, and performance: Revised theory and test on the corporate law market. Acad. Management J. 59(1):330–351.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Patriotta G (2021) The future of the corporation. J. Management Stud. 58(3):879–886.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Pfeffer J, Salancik G (1978) The External Control of Organisations: A Resource Dependence Perspective (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Podolny J, Khurana R, Hill-Popper M (2004) Revisiting the meaning of leadership. Res. Organ. Behav. 26:1–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Polman P, Winston AS (2021) Net Positive: How Courageous Companies Thrive by Giving More Than They Take (Harvard Business Review Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Pólos L, Hannan MT, Carroll GR (2002) Foundations of a theory of social forms. Industrial Corporate Change 11(1):85–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raghunandan A, Rajgopal S (2022) Do socially responsible firms walk the talk? Preprint, submitted June 18 2020; last revised December 12, 2022, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3609056.Google Scholar
• Rauch M, Ansari S (2022) From ‘publish or perish’ to societal impact: Organizational repurposing toward responsible innovation through creating a medical platform. J. Management Stud. 59(1):61–91.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ravasi D, Rindova V, Stigliani I (2019) The stuff of legend: History, memory, and the temporality of organizational identity construction. Acad. Management J. 62(5):1523–1555.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rawhouser H, Cummings M, Crane A (2015) Benefit corporation legislation and the emergence of a social hybrid category. California Management Rev. 57(3):13–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raworth K (2017) Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist (Random House, New York).Google Scholar
• Raynard M (2016) Deconstructing complexity: Configurations of institutional complexity and structural hybridity. Strategic Organ. 14(4):310–335.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rindova VP, Martins LP (2018) From values to value: Value rationality and the creation of great strategies. Strategy Sci. 3(1):323–334.Link, Google Scholar
• Rindova VP, Martins LP (2023) Moral imagination and shaping through strategic purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):170–181.Google Scholar
• Sandberg J (2013) (Re‐)interpreting fiduciary duty to justify socially responsible investment for pension funds? Corporate Government Internat. Rev. 21(5):436–446.Google Scholar
• Scott WR, Davis GF (2007) Organizations and Organizing. Rational, Natural, and Open System Perspectives, 9th ed. (Prentice Hall, Hoboken, NJ).Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1948) Foundations of the theory of organization. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 13(1):25–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1949) TVA and the Grass Roots: A Study in the Sociology of Formal Organization (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1957) Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation (Harper & Row, New York).Google Scholar
• Selznick P (1992) The Moral Commonwealth: Social Theory and the Promise of Community (University of California Press, Berkeley, CA).Google Scholar
• Sharma G, Greco A, Grewatsch S, Bansal P (2022) Cocreating forward: How researchers and managers can address problems together. Acad. Management Learn. Edu. 21(3):350–368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Siegel DS (2016) Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. Acad. Management Perspective 23(3):5–16.Google Scholar
• Simsek Z, Bansal P, Shaw JD, Heugens P, Smith WK (2018) Seeing practice impact in new ways. Acad. Management J. 61(6):2021–2025.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slawinski N, Bansal P (2015) Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability. Organ. Sci. 26(2):531–549.Link, Google Scholar
• Smith W, Gonin M, Besharov ML (2013) Managing social-business tensions: A review and research agenda for social enterprise. Bus. Ethics Quart. 23(3):407–442.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stark D (1996) Recombinant property in East European capitalism. Amer. J. Sociol. 101(4):993–1027.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stephan U, Patterson M, Kelly C, Mair J (2016) Organizations driving positive social change: A review and an integrative framework of change processes. J. Management 42(5):1250–1281.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sterman JD (2001) System dynamics modeling: Tools for learning in a complex world. California Management Rev. 43(4):8–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stern RN, Barley SR (1996) Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s neglected mandate. Admin. Sci. Quart. 41(1):146–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tashman P (2021) A natural resource dependence perspective of the firm: How and why firms manage natural resource scarcity. Bus. Soc. 60(6):1279–1311.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor FW (1911) The Principles of Scientific Management (Harper & Brothers, New York).Google Scholar
• Thornton PH, Ocasio W, Lounsbury M (2012) The Institutional Logics Perspective: A New Approach to Culture, Structure and Process (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Trist EL (1981) The Evolution of Socio-Technical Systems: A Conceptual Framework and an Action Research Program (Ontario Ministry of Labor, Toronto).Google Scholar
• Van Gansbeke F (2021a) Sustainability and the downfall of Danone CEO Faber (1/2). Forbes (March 20), https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankvangansbeke/2021/03/20/sustainability-and-the-downfall-of-danone-ceo-faber-12/?sh=97ace455b16d.Google Scholar
• Van Gansbeke F (2021b) Sustainability and the downfall of Danone CEO Faber (2/2). Forbes (March 20), https://www.forbes.com/sites/frankvangansbeke/2021/03/20/sustainability-and-the-downfall-of–danone-ceo-faber-22/?sh=3e5ca5144038.Google Scholar
• Vermeulen F (2005) On rigor and relevance: Fostering dialectic progress in management research. Acad. Management J. 48(6):978–982.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Walker B, Salt D (2006) Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World (Island Press, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Whiteman G, Walker B, Perego P (2013) Planetary boundaries: Ecological foundations for corporate sustainability. J. Management Stud. 50(2):307–336.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Williams A, Kennedy S, Philipp F, Whiteman G (2017) Systems thinking: A review of sustainability management research. J. Clean Production 148(1):866–881.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winn MI, Pogutz S (2013) Business, ecosystems, and biodiversity: New horizons for management research. Organ. Environment 26(2):203–229.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Winston A (2019) Is the Business Roundtable statement just empty rhetoric? Harvard Business Review (August 30), https://hbr.org/2019/08/is-the-business-roundtable-statement-just-empty-rhetoric.Google Scholar
• World Economic Forum (2020) It’s time to redefine the purpose of business: Here’s a roadmap. Accessed December 12, 2022, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/01/its-time-for-a-radical-rethink-of-corporate-purpose/.Google Scholar
• Wry T, Durand R (2020) Reasoning with heuristics: A new approach to categories theory and the evaluation of hybrids. Besharov ML, Mitzinneck BC, eds. Research in the Sociology of Organizations (Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK), 73–91.Google Scholar
• Wry T, Lounsbury M, Jennings PD (2014) Hybrid vigor: Securing venture capital by spanning categories in nanotechnology. Acad. Management J. 57(5):1309–1333.Crossref, Google Scholar
• York JG, Hargrave TJ, Pacheco DF (2016) Converging winds: Logic hybridization in the Colorado wind energy field. Acad. Management J. 59(2):579–610.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zuckerman EW (1999) The categorical imperative: Securities analysts and the illegitimacy discount. Amer. J. Sociol. 104(5):1398–1438.Crossref, Google Scholar