The Contingent Relationship Between Purpose and Profits
Published Online:8 May 2023https://doi.org/10.1287/stsc.2023.0194
References
- (2010) Identity economics. Identity Economics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2014) Corporate investment and stock market listing: A puzzle? Rev. Financial Stud. 28(2):342–390.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1938) The Functions of the Executive, vol. 11 (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
- (1994) Changing the role of top management: Beyond strategy to purpose. Harvard Bus. Rev. 72(6):79–88.Google Scholar
- (2014) Advancing research on hybrid organizing: Insights from the study of social enterprises. Acad. Management Ann. 8(1):397–441.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2017) On hybrids and hybrid organizing: A review and roadmap for future research. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 133–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2020) The illusory promise of stakeholder governance. Cornell Law Rev. 106:91.Google Scholar
- (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
- (2015) Does going public affect innovation? J. Finance 70(4):1365–1403.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2011) Identity, morals, and taboos: Beliefs as assets. Quart. J. Econom. 126(2):805–855.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2007) Acquisitions of private vs. public firms: Private information, target selection, and acquirer returns. Strategic Management J. 28(9):891–911.Crossref, Google Scholar
- Cardona P, Rey C (2022) Management by Missions: Connecting People to Strategy through Purpose (Springer Nature, Berlin), 156.Google Scholar
- (1997) On persistence in mutual fund performance. J. Finance 52(1):57–82.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (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
- (2018) How can leaders overcome the blurry vision bias? Identifying an antidote to the paradox of vision communication. Acad. Management J. 61(6):2106–2129.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2021) Categorical competition in the wake of crisis: Banks vs. credit unions. Organ. Sci. 32(3):568–586.Link, Google Scholar
- (2018) Activist‐impelled divestitures and shareholder value. Strategic Management J. 39(10):2726–2744.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2010) Marching to the beat of different drummers: The influence of institutional owners on competitive actions. Acad. Management J. 53(4):723–742.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2022) The economics of intangible capital. J. Econom. Perspective 36(3):29–52.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2001) The influence of activism by institutional investors on R&D. Acad. Management J. 44(1):144–157.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2018) Eclipse of the public corporation or eclipse of the public markets? J. Appl. Corporate Finance 30(1):8–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2023) From the boardroom: Making purpose research relevant for practice. Strategy Sci 8(2):149–158.Link, Google Scholar
- (2020) When investor incentives and consumer interests diverge: Private equity in higher education. Rev. Financial Stud. 33(9):4024–4060.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1993) Common risk factors in the returns on stocks and bonds. J. Financial Econom. 33:3–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2019) The long and the short of it: Do public and private firms invest differently? Preprint, submitted October 31, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3239663.Google Scholar
- (2022) Purpose proposals. Research Paper 22-21, Institute for Law & Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
- (2021) Should corporations have a purpose? Texas Law Rev. 99:1309.Google Scholar
- (2020) The new titans of Wall Street: A theoretical framework for passive investors. University Pennsylvania Law Rev. 168:17.Google Scholar
- (1940) Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (Harper and Brothers, New York).Google Scholar
- (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
- (2022) The firm as a subsociety: Purpose, justice, and the theory of the firm. Organ. Sci., ePub ahead of print December 19, https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1650.Link, Google Scholar
- (2019) Corporate purpose and financial performance. Organ. Sci. 30(1):1–18.Link, Google Scholar
- (2021) Purpose in the for-profit firm: A review and framework for management research. J. Management.Google Scholar
- (1999) A new manifesto for management. Sloan Management Rev. Spring:9–20.Google Scholar
- (2012a) Relational contracts and organizational capabilities. Organ. Sci. 23(5):1350–1364.Link, Google Scholar
- (2012b) What Do Managers Do? (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).Google Scholar
- (2016) Do private firms invest differently than public firms? Taking cues from the natural gas industry. J. Finance 71(4):1733–1778.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2001) Not-for-profit entrepreneurs. J. Public Econom. 81(1):99–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2015) The value of corporate culture. J. Financial Econom. 117(1):60–76.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2023) Can purpose foster stakeholder trust in corporations? Strategy Sci. 8(2):270–287.Link, Google Scholar
- (2021) Does private equity investment in healthcare benefit patients? Evidence from nursing homes (No. w28474). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- (2022) The New Corporate Governance (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA).Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2021) Innovation in the 21st century: Architectural change, purpose, and the challenges of our time. Management Sci. 67(9):5479–5488.Link, Google Scholar
- (2023) The value of organizational purpose. Strategy Sci. 8(2):159–169.Link, Google Scholar
- (2002) Conflicting voices: The effects of institutional ownership heterogeneity and internal governance on corporate innovation strategies. Acad. Management J. 45:697–716.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1978) Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Corporate Governance (Gower), 77–132.Google Scholar
- (2020) Desert places: Cooperatives as infrastructure providers in marginalized areas. Preprint, submitted XX, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3627826.Google Scholar
- (2021) The dangerous allure of win-win strategies. Stanford Soc. Innovation Rev. (Winter):35–39.Google Scholar
- (1996) What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning. Organ. Sci. 7(5):502–518.Link, Google Scholar
- (2015) Missing R&D. J. Accounting Econom. 60(1):73–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2021) The future of the corporation and the economics of purpose. J. Management Stud. 58(3):887–901.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2022) What is wrong with corporate law? The Purpose of Law and the Law of Purpose. Annual Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 18:283–296.Google Scholar
- (2020) What do multiple objectives really mean for performance? Empirical evidence from the French manufacturing sector. Strategic Management J. 41(13):2518–2547.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2017) Intangible capital and the investment-q relation. J. Financial Econom. 123(2):251–272.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2004) Revisiting the meaning of leadership. Res. Organ. Behav. 26:1–36.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2021) Corporate Purpose and Personhood: An Introduction. (Research Handbook on Corporate Purpose and Personhood), 22–15.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (1996) What is strategy? Harvard Bus. Rev. 74(6):61–78.Google Scholar
- (2003) Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. Positive Organizational Scholarship: Foundations of a New Discipline, 309–327.Google Scholar
- (2021) Do socially responsible firms walk the talk? Preprint, submitted XX, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3609056.Google Scholar
- (2023) What purpose do corporations purport? Evidence from letters to shareholders (No. w31054). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
- (2020) For whom is the corporation managed in 2020?: The debate over corporate purpose. European Corporate Governance Institute – Law Working Paper No. 515/2020, NYU School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 20-16, NYU Law and Economics Research Paper. Preprint, submitted May 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3589951.Google Scholar
- (1957) Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation (Quid Pro Books).Google Scholar
- (2011) Firms as systems of interdependent choices. J. Management Stud. 48(5):1126–1140.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2019) Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Admin. Sci. Quart. 64(1):1–44.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2015) Hospitalization and mortality rates in long-term care facilities: Does for-profit status matter? J. Amer. Medical Directors Assoc. 16(10):874–883.Crossref, Google Scholar
- Tracy JL, Robins RW (2007) The psychological structure of pride: A tale of two facets. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 92(3):506.Google Scholar
- (1982) Privately-held and publicly-held companies: A comparison of strategic choices and management processes. Acad. Management J. 25(1):47–62.Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2020) Symbolic Management: Governance, Strategy, and Institutions (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Crossref, Google Scholar
- (2017) Toward a political theory of the firm. J. Econom. Perspective 31(3):113–130.Crossref, Google Scholar

