Addressing the Sustainable Development Goals Through Outside-In and Inside-Out Corporate Purposes
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
ABSTRACT
The growing severity of societal issues, addressed by the sustainable development goals (SDGs), has raised questions about companies' purpose and their roles in solving these issues. While scholars conceptualize two perspectives (outside-in and inside-out) on corporate purpose, it is unclear how they influence companies' actions on the SDGs. To address this knowledge gap, this article poses the research question: How do outside-in and inside-out corporate purposes shape companies' actions on the SDGs? Drawing upon interviews with 28 managers from 16 large companies in Australia and Japan, the article reveals that companies adopting both perspectives of corporate purpose are more advanced in implementing the SDGs than those who adopt only one perspective. The article's main contributions are the development of an “ideal type” of corporate purpose and implementation pathways to more comprehensively understand how companies can integrate the SDGs into their purpose.
1 Introduction
On September 25, 2015, world leaders of more than 150 countries gathered at the UN Headquarters in New York to adopt the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with a “thunderous standing ovation” (UN 2015). The Agenda consists of 17 goals and 169 targets to eradicate extreme poverty and take actions on environmental crises. However, at the midpoint of the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, the UN warned that all 17 goals are “seriously off the track” (Sachs et al. 2023). With the Agenda facing a challenge, UN Secretary General António Guterres argued “there is no greater business plan for our world than sustainable development,” and called for greater commitment from business leaders to achieve the SDGs (UNGC 2023).
The late 2010s also saw a resurgence of discussion on the role of business in society. In 2018, the CEO of BlackRock, the world's largest financial asset manager, sent CEOs of large companies a letter to ask them to “serve a social purpose” (Fink 2018). In the following year, the Business Roundtable (BRT), a group of 181 large companies' CEOs in the United States, issued a statement about “redefining the purpose of a corporation” (Business Roundtable 2019). It is “a direct and intended reversal” from the prior statement about shareholder primacy (Harrison et al. 2020: 1223). These and other events raised questions about shareholder capitalism, prompting scholars and practitioners to rethink companies' roles in solving societal issues represented by the SDGs (Aguilera 2023; Almandoz 2023; Ocasio et al. 2023).
With the growing attention on corporate purpose, scholars are exploring different perspectives of corporate purpose to theorize a “complex and fragmented” area of study (Chua et al. 2024: 755). Scholars have theorized corporate purpose from two main perspectives: outside the organization and inside the organization (Chua et al. 2024; Steller and Moellering 2024). The literature refers to these two approaches as “outside-in” and “inside-out” corporate purposes (Almandoz 2023). While existing literature suggests that outside-in purpose contributes to the achievement of the SDGs (Montiel et al. 2021; Stubbs et al. 2022), few studies empirically investigate this topic. Although Bhattacharya et al. (2023) study is one of the only studies that explores the relationship between corporate purpose and employees' sustainability behaviors, the scholars did not examine whether or not inside-out purpose enhances companies' engagement with the SDGs. This remains a knowledge gap in the literature—how different approaches to corporate purpose shape companies' response to the SDGs. This article addresses this gap by posing the research question (RQ): How do outside-in and inside-out corporate purposes shape companies' actions on the SDGs?
We adopted a multiple-case study method, drawing upon interviews with 28 managers from 16 large companies in Australia and Japan. The study found that two perspectives of corporate purpose (outside-in and inside-out) facilitate how companies integrate the SDGs into their management practices. The findings revealed that companies with a “hybrid” type (i.e., implementing both perspectives of corporate purpose) are more advanced in implementing the SDGs compared to those who adopt only one perspective. The study's main contribution is theorizing the relationship between outside-in and inside-out corporate purpose and companies' actions on the SDGs through developing an explanatory model: an “ideal type” of sustainability strategy and corporate culture for maximizing companies' contributions to the SDGs. It also identifies implications for corporate managers to enhance companies' contribution to the SDGs through corporate purpose. The article is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews relevant literature, followed by the research methodology in Section 3. Section 4 discusses the findings and Section 5 proposes an explanatory model, summarizing the relationship between corporate purpose and the SDGs uncovered by the empirical research. Section 6 concludes the article.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Evolution of Corporate Purpose Study
While discussions of corporate purpose emerged in the early to mid-20th century, it was largely ignored in management studies dominated by the principal-agency theory and strategy research in the 1980s and 1990s until it was revisited by practitioner-oriented literature at the end of the 1990s (Gartenberg 2022). Corporate purpose refers to “why” an organization exists or its raison d’ être (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1994; Ellsworth 2002; Hollensbe et al. 2014). It questions the foundation of the company (Collins and Porras 1994; Grayson et al. 2018), which closely links to the values and strategies of companies (Aguilera 2023).
Recent literature recognizes the multifaced characteristics of corporate purpose and combines them in defining corporate purpose. For example, Almandoz (2023: 139) defines corporate purpose as “a unifying reason to exist that gives meaning to the organization by providing valued ends to society and/or to the company's stakeholders” (emphasis in original). Similarly, Aguilera (2023: 193) describes corporate purpose as “long-term oriented and encompasses economic and noneconomic (social) value extending beyond the corporation to the multiple stakeholders engaging with the corporation.” Bhattacharya et al. (2023) describe corporate purpose from the employees' view (reflecting an inside-out perspective—see section 2.2), which “helps establish the firm as an essentially ethical entity in the eyes of its employees, guiding their ethical actions in a diversity of domains.” Acknowledging the various definitions of corporate purpose (Chua et al. 2024), we adopt the foundational definition of corporate purpose as companies' reason for being (raison d’ être) (Bartlett and Ghoshal 1994; Ellsworth 2002; Hollensbe et al. 2014), to examine how different aspects of purpose shape companies' actions on the SDGs.
Scholars also highlight the importance of institutional context in discussions of corporate purpose. Corporate purpose is heavily influenced by the formal and informal institutions of countries where companies operate, ranging from hard laws (e.g., labor laws) to norms and expectations of society (Aguilera 2023). Other scholars point out that the Anglo-American context dominates the recent upsurge in the corporate purpose debate (Puchniak 2022). They further argue that businesses in Asian countries, such as Japan and China, and European countries, such as Germany and Switzerland, have already embraced stakeholders' interests in corporate purpose before Anglo-American countries' “discovery” of corporate purpose (Ellsworth 2002; Puchniak 2022: 1; Sasaki et al. 2023).
2.2 Two Perspectives of Corporate Purpose
Almandoz (2023) review of the corporate purpose literature identified two distinct perspectives: outside-in and inside-out purpose. This categorization aligns with other scholars' theories on the aspects of corporate purpose, such as “strategy” and “values” (Ellsworth 2002: 4), “systemic goal alignment” and “individual goal alignment” (Dahlmann and Stubbs 2023: 1), and “embedded” and “embodied” (Chua et al. 2024). Although each of these two perspectives takes a different approach when companies implement their purpose, scholars suggest both perspectives should be implemented simultaneously to maximize the contribution of companies in solving societal issues (Almandoz 2023; Dahlmann and Stubbs 2023).
2.2.1 Outside-In Purpose
Outside-in purpose reflects stakeholders' expectations to companies to address societal issues (Almandoz 2023). Companies are driven by extrinsic motivation to seek legitimacy and set strategies and targets to reach systemic objectives (Almandoz 2023; Dahlmann and Stubbs 2023). Theoretical lenses used by scholars to explain outside-in purpose include institutional theory, stakeholder theory, goal setting, strategic positioning, and strategy planning (George et al. 2023). As outside-in purpose seeks “externally defined, science-based, and future-oriented socio-economical goals,” it often focuses on outcomes through a top-down approach (Dahlmann and Stubbs 2023:6).
As companies with outside-in purpose resonate with stakeholders' interests and societal trends, they implement corporate purpose aligning with external goals such as the SDGs (George et al. 2023). Integrating the SDGs into corporate purpose is recommended in step 4 of the SDG compass: “the sustainability ambitions will also be reflected in the vision, mission and/or purpose statements of the company, thereby fundamentally and prominently tying the company's future success to sustainable development” (GRI, UNGC, and WBCSD 2015: 22). Scholars also urge companies to change their corporate purpose to align with the SDGs (Grayson et al. 2018; Rendtorff 2019). For example, Iberdrola's (electric utility company in Spain) (UNGC 2020) and Philips' (health technology company in the Netherlands) (Van Zanten and Van Tulder 2018) corporate purpose reflects the SDGs. The SDGs are also recognized as a useful tool to facilitate discussion among organizations about corporate purpose beyond profit maximization (Stubbs et al. 2022).
2.2.2 Inside-Out Purpose
In contrast to outside-in purpose led by extrinsic factors, inside-out purpose is influenced by intrinsic factors (Adelson et al. 2023; Dahlmann and Stubbs 2023; Henderson 2020). Inside-out purpose focuses on internal stakeholders (i.e., employees) and is shaped by their motivations to pursue meaningful work (Almandoz 2023). Aligning the meaning of work for individual employees with the organization's reason for existence is critical for implementing purpose (Almandoz 2023; Henderson 2020). Work motivation connects individuals to the organization, which in turn strengthens employee engagement with the organization (Henderson 2020). Shared values within an organization are reflected in the organizational culture (Almandoz 2023). Inside-out purpose draws on theories of motivation, and the change mechanism tends to be bottom-up (Dahlmann and Stubbs 2023).
A clear purpose supports economic performance by improving employee satisfaction and motivation (Gartenberg et al. 2019; Henderson and Van den Steen 2015). In relation to sustainability, Bhattacharya et al. (2023) found that purpose drives employees' sustainability behaviors such as using less article and decreasing single-use plastic. However, another study suggests employees' understanding and commitment to purpose do not necessarily advance companies' organizational actions on societal issues represented by the SDGs (Sasaki et al. 2023).
2.3 SDGs Implementation Approaches
The SDGs are expected to transform the dominant approaches to sustainability by establishing a novel framework for a global economy, and a driver for changing the way local and global economies work toward 2030 based on “17 bottom lines” (Rendtorff 2019: 511; Stevens and Kanie 2016). Companies aiming to create a better world should embrace the SDGs as “a starting point” (Muff et al. 2017: 372) and use the SDGs as a reference to enhance their contribution to sustainable development (Vincenzi et al. 2025). Within the academic realm, there are various angles and theories to analyze companies' engagement to the SDGs such as legitimacy theory (Elalfy et al. 2021; Silva 2021), stakeholder theory (Nishitani et al. 2021; Singhal 2023), and institutional theory (Galeazzo et al. 2024; Rosati and Faria 2019; Van der Waal and Thijssens 2020). In response to a call for “more precise” way to empirically analyze companies' implementation of the SDGs (Urbieta 2024: 10), this study adopts three approaches to implementing the SDGs: operational, strategic, and normative (Redman 2018; Santos and Silva Bastos 2021), to explore the influence of outside-in and inside-out corporate purposes on companies' engagement with the SDGs in different institutional contexts.
Under the operational approach, companies contribute to the SDGs through their existing business operations, including communication, products, and services (Redman 2018). Companies integrate the SDGs in their operational processes, such as minimizing their own environmental footprints or through their entire supply chain's footprints and expanding products and services that positively impact society (Redman 2018; Santos and Silva Bastos 2021). The SDG Compass and the CEO Guide stress the importance of this approach: identifying and prioritizing the action, setting goals, and integrating them into business activities (GRI et al., 2015; WBCSD 2017).
Communication is the most common operational approach that companies use to engage with the SDGs (Vincenzi et al. 2025), which is articulated in SDG target 12.6: “Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle” (UN 2015: 22). Companies report their sustainability activities largely due to legitimacy motives, which are influenced by the institutional context (Nishitani et al. 2021; Rosati and Faria 2019). Therefore, the maturity and content of SDG reporting vary depending on factors such as the country of operation, industry, and size of the company (Bose and Khan 2022; Ikuta and Fujii 2022; Pizzi et al. 2021; Rosati and Faria 2019). However, several studies pointed out that companies use the SDGs to gain legitimacy from stakeholders without addressing the most critical sustainability issues for their business (Thammaraksa et al. 2024; Van der Waal and Thijssens 2020), which can lead to “SDG-washing” (Heras Saizarbitoria et al. 2022; Silva 2021). Communication of the SDGs is an essential part of operationalizing the SDGs, but the impact on sustainable development is considered minimal (Redman 2018; Thammaraksa et al. 2024).
The strategic approach focuses on future planning and transformative change for companies, using the SDGs as criteria for innovation and new business models (Redman 2018; Santos and Silva Bastos 2021). This process is explained in the SDG Compass as the one starting from the external societal aspect to highlight gaps between societal needs and current business operations (GRI et al. 2015: 19). In contrast to the operational approach, the strategic approach incorporates SDG-informed business goals and collaboration with other organizations to achieve the SDGs (GRI et al. 2015; WBCSD 2017). Companies can create economic and social value by adopting the SDGs, which may bring a competitive advantage (Santos and Silva Bastos 2021).
There are two types of strategies for integrating the SDGs at the strategic level (Vincenzi et al. 2025). The first type is reactionary and reputational strategies that contribute to reducing operational risks for the company. Companies with this type of strategy utilize existing products and services to maximize their positive impacts or minimize their negative footprint on the SDGs (Redman 2018). The second type is responsible and collaborative strategies that are related to the companies' core business (Vincenzi et al. 2025). The SDGs are used as criteria for innovations and new business models, which involve transformative change at the organizational level (Redman 2018). The degree of companies' engagement with the SDGs is more comprehensive for the second type (Silva 2021; Vincenzi et al. 2025).
Finally, the normative approach incorporates the SDGs into the company's mission, vision, and culture (Jaganjac et al. 2024; Santos and Silva Bastos 2021). This is recommended by the SDG compass as “(u)ltimately, the sustainability ambitions will also be reflected in the vision, mission and/or purpose statements of the company, thereby fundamentally and prominently tying the company's future success to sustainable development” (GRI et al., 2015: 22). In this approach, sustainability influences the behaviors of a company's management and employees through its vision and values and foster corporate sustainability performance (Assoratgoon and Kantabutra 2023; Bhattacharya et al. 2023; Jaganjac et al. 2024). In addition, a recent empirical study by Mestdagh et al. (2025) has shown that a company's contribution to the SDGs has a positive impact on employee pride. However, the literature on the relationship between corporate culture and sustainability behavior does not provide a common view on types of corporate culture that promote sustainability behavior (Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010; Olafsen et al. 2021).
3 Methodology
3.1 Research Strategy and Methods
This research project uses the interpretivist approach to develop an explanatory model about the relationship between corporate purpose and companies' actions on the SDGs. Interpretivism sheds light on the meanings and motives of social actors and explains “social regularities” by developing models (Blaikie 2009: 99; Schwartz-Shea and Yanow 2020). Since the existing literature lacks both theories and empirical evidence to explain how outside-in and inside-out corporate purposes shape companies' actions on the SDGs, the interpretivist approach is suitable for developing explanatory models through interpretations made and used by actors in the research settings. Models are derived from social actors' accounts and meanings of corporate purpose and the SDGs in their companies. These models could be tested in future studies with larger samples and other contexts to establish their range of application and assess their generalizability.
The study employed a multiple-case study method. Multiple case studies can produce robust theoretical insights about the phenomenon being investigated (Eisenhardt and Graebner 2007; Yin 2003). To identify the sample from the target population of large companies, this study first consulted the Fortune Global 500 ranking, which is created by Fortune Media IP Limited every year by total revenue in US dollars for respective fiscal years ended on or before March 31 (Fortune 2020). A short list is created by reviewing corporate websites and published annual/sustainability reports of Fortune 500 companies that state a corporate purpose and pursue the SDGs. Based on our definition of corporate purpose stated in section 2.1, we selected companies that explained their reason for existence in any form (i.e., purpose, mission, vision).
3.1.1 Data Selection and Collection
Initial data selection was carried out between October 2020 and January 2021. The process identified 341 companies with a corporate purpose, 333 companies that report their contribution to the SDGs, and 268 companies that satisfy both criteria. To identify a sample from the target population of these 268 companies, companies based in Australia and Japan were selected for the following reasons. While China and the United States had the largest and second-largest number of companies in the Fortune Global 500, they had the lowest (17%) and fourth lowest (47%) percentages of companies meeting the criteria for stating both corporate purpose and commitment to the SDGs. In contrast, Japan had the third-highest number of companies (53 companies), and a high percentage met the criteria (83%; 44 companies). Despite Japan's global presence in the economy and its importance in sustainable development, there is significantly less research on corporate purpose and the SDGs in non-Western (including non-Anglo-American) countries (Bull and Miklian 2019; Puchniak 2022).
Given the importance of the institutional context in influencing corporate engagement in social and environmental issues (Matten and Moon 2008), this study then examined the two Anglo-American countries that met the criteria: the United Kingdom and Australia. Twenty-one UK companies were listed in the Fortune Global 500 in 2020, and 20 (91%) of them satisfied the criteria. Five Australian companies were on the Fortune Global 500 list, and all of them stated both corporate purpose and their commitment to the SDGs. The 20 UK companies were contacted either through e-mail or LinkedIn where contact details were available. However, none of the UK companies agreed to participate in this study. Three companies declined the request, and 17 did not reply despite following up multiple times. Therefore, the Australian companies were approached. The sample of five Australian companies was supplemented by reviewing S&P/ASX100 companies' approach to purpose and the SDGs (from their websites)1.
Eighty-six of the 100 ASX companies in 2021 are headquartered in Australia. The data selection process was the same as that of the Fortune Global 500 companies: reviewing corporate reports and websites to identify companies that adopt both broader corporate purposes and the SDGs. Of the 86 Australian companies, 64 (74%) declared a broader corporate purpose and 59 (69%) disclosed their activities on the SDGs. In total, 48 Australian companies satisfied the criteria and were contacted through the researcher's professional and personal networks. Participants were recruited using the same documents sent to the companies in Japan and the United Kingdom. Nine of the 48 ASX100 companies agreed to participate in the study. In addition, one government-owned company was recruited through snowball sampling. Snowball sampling is a nonprobability sampling method that uses a small group of people who are relevant to the research topic, and then contacts others through that group (Bryman 2004; Minichiello et al. 2008). One of the participants from an ASX100 company recommended and referred the government-owned company and the contact person to the researcher, as it is a profit-driven business enterprise that provides dividends to its shareholders (legislated to deliver a financial return). The company is also a similar size to the other ASX companies in this study and has been pursuing a corporate purpose and the SDGs, which fits the criteria for this study.
In total, 10 Australian companies (12 people) and 6 Japanese companies (16 people) participated in this study (Table 1). Yin (2003) suggests that conducting six to ten case studies provides compelling support to predict similar results (a literal replication) or predict contrasting results (a theoretical replication). This study adopts literal replication to understand the relationship between corporate purpose and the SDGs among multiple cases. Japanese companies had between two and five interviewees per company, whereas Australian companies had one or two per company. In the case of the Japanese companies, the implementation of corporate purpose and the SDGs were led by a group of people, and the researcher was allowed access to multiple employees. In the case of Australian companies, interviews were conducted with those responsible for implementing corporate purpose and the SDGs, but some participants declined to refer other employees within the same company, saying, “As I am in charge, I will answer all the questions.” In these cases, the information on the company's website was read in detail and third-party sources, such as the news, were used to gain deeper insights.
| Company | Industry | Participant title | Participant organizational area |
|---|---|---|---|
| Australian companies | |||
| InsuranceOz | Insurance | Sustainability lead | Sustainability/CSR |
| Department head | Sustainability/CSR | ||
| TransportOz | Transportation infrastructure | Department head | Sustainability/CSR |
| ServiceOz | Diversified consumer services | Manager | Sustainability/CSR |
| BankOz1 | Banks | Department head | Community support/business development |
| Department head | Sustainability/CSR | ||
| MetalOz | Metals and mining | Department head | Sustainability/CSR |
| MaterialOz | Construction materials | Manager | Communication |
| SuppliesOz | Commercial services and supplies | Director | Sustainability/CSR |
| BankOz2 | Banks | Department head | Sustainability/CSR |
| BankOz3 | Banks | Executive manager | Sustainability/CSR |
| RetailOz | Food and staples retailing | Department head |
Sustainability/CSR Communication |
| Japanese companies | |||
| MachineJapan | Machinery | Deputy manager | Sustainability/CSR |
| Specialist | Communication | ||
| AutoJapan | Auto components | General manager | Sustainability/CSR |
| Global lead | Sustainability/CSR | ||
| Department head | Business development | ||
| HealthJapan | Healthcare equipment and supplies | Executive officer |
Sustainability/CSR Communication |
| Manager | Communication | ||
| Deputy manager | Communication | ||
| Section manager | Sustainability/CSR | ||
| Section manager | Sustainability/CSR | ||
| InsuranceJapan | Insurance | General manager | Sustainability/CSR |
| Manager | Communication | ||
| ITJapan | IT services | Director/general manager | Sustainability/CSR |
| Manager | Sustainability/CSR | ||
| TechJapan | IT services | Senior manager | Sustainability/CSR |
| Senior manager | Sustainability/CSR | ||
Semistructured interviews were conducted to collect rich and detailed data about the companies' backgrounds, motivations, and processes for adopting corporate purposes and the SDGs. Interviews were conducted between March and December 2021. We conducted all interviews on Zoom due to COVID-19-associated travel restrictions. Before the interview, we read through the companies' publicly accessible sources and summarized relevant information in order to gain deeper insights from the participants during the interviews. The interview guide was prepared to ask questions about why and how the 16 companies developed their corporate purpose, and what motivated them to engage in the SDGs (see Appendix). We conducted interviews according to the interview guide, with information obtained from each company's website and reports. Interviews were between 45 and 60 m and audio-recorded with each participant's permission. Fifteen participants were interviewed in Japanese and 13 were interviewed in English. The names of the interviewees and the companies are kept anonymous to preserve confidentiality. Name codes were assigned for each anonymized company (e.g., InsuranceOZ) for readers' convenience.
3.1.2 Data Analysis
We analyzed each interview using a three-stage coding process (first-order analysis, second-order analysis, and aggregate dimensions) (Gioia et al. 2013; Strauss and Corbin 1998) to develop an explanatory model of how the outside-in and inside-out corporate purposes shape companies' actions on the SDGs. First, we coded the interviews to identify first-order codes using participants' words or summarizing the concepts discussed by the participants, referred to as first-order analysis (Gioia et al. 2013) or open coding (Strauss and Corbin 1998). In the second-order analysis, related codes were grouped into categories, reassembling first-order analysis data to explain the phenomena more precisely (Gioia et al. 2013; Strauss and Corbin 1998). The third stage of coding aggregated dimensions and refined theory emerging from the data (Gioia et al. 2013; Strauss and Corbin 1998). All the interview transcripts were imported into the NVivo software, which was used for the three-stage coding process. A summary of codes is presented in Table 2. By the end of this coding and data analysis process, we reached theoretical saturation, where no further insights emerged during the data analysis (Blaikie 2009; Bryman 2004).
| Aggregate dimensions | Second order codes | Sample first-order codes |
|---|---|---|
| Outside-in purpose | ||
| Instrumental logic | Growth strategy |
Branding, differentiation from competitors Investors' interests, competitive advantage Merger and demerger, business competency |
| Customers' interests | Change in customers' interests, customer satisfaction, serve customers | |
| Integrative logic | Stakeholders' interests | Change in stakeholders' interests, rebuilding trust from stakeholders, partnership, creating shared value (CSV) |
| Business in society | Role in society, solving societal issues, contribution to society, link of purpose and the SDGs, impact | |
| Future oriented | Mid to long-term perspective, future and sustainability, strategic support to sustainability, business transformation | |
| Inside-out purpose | ||
| External/flexible corporate culture | Respect for individual employees | Employee welfare and satisfaction, employees' voice, capacity building, meaning of work, invest to employees, diversity and inclusion |
| Expanded views | Employees' volunteer activities | |
| Internal/control corporate culture | Unification of employees | Unifying employee's views, engaging employees with company's direction, memorize purpose, internalizing purpose, sense of mission |
| Structured penetration | Internal training, monitoring purpose awareness rate, reminder at anniversary | |
| SDGs implementation | ||
| Normative | Responsibility | Role to play in society |
| Future vision | Mid to long-term vision, link of purpose and the SDGs | |
| Strategic | Formalization |
Business strategy, sustainability strategy Impact assessment, goals and targets, KPI, mid-term business plan, measuring impacts |
| Future business model | New business, prioritization, competitors | |
| Operational | Communication tool | Reporting the SDGs, mapping against sustainability goals, understanding of the SDGs, communication with investors |
| Employee training | Employee engagement, internalizing the SDGs, operational sites | |
| Collaboration with stakeholders | Collaborative projects, customer, business partners | |
3.2 Reliability and Validity
Reliability and validity are the two main criteria to avoid bias or prejudice and enhance the quality of qualitative social research (Bryman 2004; Hunter and Brewer 2003; Minichiello et al. 2008; Yin 2003). This research project created a case study protocol and a case study database to enhance reliability. A case study protocol is the procedures and general rules for a case study, including an overview of the project, field procedures, questions, and a guide for the report (Yin 2003). A case study database was also created online. The case study database included the list of interview participants, the raw transcriptions of the interviews, interview notes and memos, and secondary data sources. Each research participant's interview transcript was emailed to them for review, and their feedback was incorporated into the final interview script before coding. Draft research findings were shared with the participants to minimize potential errors and biases.
There are four types of validity in social research: measurement validity, internal validity, external validity, and ecological validity (Bryman 2004). Measurement validity is often referred to as construct validity, which is concerned with whether the measures represent the concepts being studied (Bryman 2004; Yin 2003). This research project used multiple sources of evidence for data triangulation (primary and secondary data). Interview participants were sent a copy of their interview transcript and a report of the draft findings (deidentified) for review. In a qualitative study, internal validity parallels credibility, especially for explanatory or causal studies (Bryman 2004; Yin 2003). This study used respondent validation by asking participants to review the transcript of their interview and review drafts of deidentified findings to increase the credibility of the study. External validity deals with transferability and generalization, determining whether the results can be applied beyond the studied case (e.g., other people, places, settings, and times) (Bryman 2004; Johnson and Turner 2003; Teddlie and Tashakkori 2003; Yin 2003). With regard to qualitative studies, transferability is challenging because it tends to use small samples (Bryman 2004; Creswell 2009; Hartley 2004; LeCompte and Goetz 1982). Instead of transferability and generalization, qualitative studies provide particularity or thick description in a specific context (Creswell 2009). For case studies, external validity is enhanced by the analytical generalization of the case(s), and researchers can refer to and compare the case(s) to broader theory (Hartley 2004; Yin 2003). The study employed a multiple-case study design with replication logic to address external validity. Ecological validity is concerned with the applicability of the study results in real social settings (Bryman 2004). To address ecological invalidity, we shared the transcribed interview and draft findings with participants via e-mail and sought their feedback. Draft findings were also shared with practitioners and academics at conferences and individual meetings to increase the ecological validity.
4 Findings
The study revealed that five Australian companies implemented outside-in purpose, two Japanese companies implemented inside-out purpose, and nine companies exhibited both outside-in and inside-out purpose (five Australian and four Japanese). The analysis indicates the perspective of corporate purpose and underlying logics and focuses influenced how the companies integrated the SDGs into their management practice (Table 3).
| Perspectives of purpose | Formalizing of purpose | Logic/focus | SDGs implementation approach | Number of companies* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outside-in purpose | Sustainability strategy | Instrumental logic | Operational | 6 (3) |
| Integrative logic | Strategic and operational | 8 (6) | ||
| Inside-out purpose | Corporate culture | Internal/control | Operational | 3 (1) |
| External/flexibility | Normative and operational | 8 (8) | ||
|
Outside-in + inside-out purposes (Hybrid type) |
Sustainability strategy + corporate culture | Integrative + external/flexibility | Normative, strategic, and operational | 5 |
| Instrumental + external/flexibility | Normative and operational | 3 | ||
| Instrumental + internal/control | Operational | 1 |
- * The number in parentheses is the number of firms that were simultaneously implementing the other perspective.
4.1 Outside-In Purpose and Companies' Actions on the SDGs
The stated purpose and strategy motivate the companies to refocus business models from a narrow economic perspective to models that serve customers and/or society. For example, InsuranceOz is providing new services to focus on customers' health and well-being. BankOz1 launched a new business in affordable and specialist housing, climate action, and service for indigenous Australians. InsuranceJapan developed the “Story of Value Creation” 5 years after clarifying its corporate purpose. It consists of social issues that the company believes it can help resolve, the specific approaches for resolving these issues, the strategy to implement them, and the “Images of Society in 2030.” InsuranceJapan participants explained that developing the framework and strategy provided employees with more explicit paths to pursue the conceptual corporate purpose.It (framework based on corporate purpose) shows how we will carry out this mission (purpose) and what we mean by contributing to society. … it is also an action guideline for how we contribute to society, so it is underneath the guideline that we have to define how we see sustainability in concrete terms. This is a redefinition of the so-called sustainability framework. [General manager, AutoJapan]
These companies address sustainable development, the SDGs, and more specific environmental and social issues tailored to their business models. Even though the companies developed their sustainability strategy under the outside-in purpose, they did not necessarily integrate the SDGs into their business strategies. The findings reveal that the level of integration of the SDGs into management depends on the logics underlying the sustainability strategy. The literature identifies two main logics: instrumental and integrative.It's fine to have a corporate purpose, but then you actually need a framework to hold yourself accountable, developing activities that will mean that you can perform as a business embedded in the processes and systems. [Department head, BankOz1]
4.1.1 Instrumental Logic
Although these companies developed sustainability strategies based on outside-in purpose, the SDGs are one source of information for identifying business risks and opportunities, and do not necessarily contradict their business strategies. The general manager of AutoJapan explained that while the company is addressing the SDGs, the SDGs' influence on the company's strategy is limited.If you see the strategy, there are four pillars, … “redefine (one of the pillars)” particularly focused around decarbonization and recycling, redefining our business model and looking for growth opportunities and competitive advantage in areas really linked to sustainability. [Manager, MaterialOz]
These findings reinforce previous research that explores the relationship between purpose and profits (Gartenberg et al. 2019; Serafeim and Gartenberg 2016). The instrumental logic aligns with the “business case for CSR” discourse (Carroll and Shabana 2010; Kurucz et al. 2008; Vogel 2005). Companies with sustainability strategies driven by an instrumental logic do not implement the SDGs at the strategic level, as recommended by the SDG Compass (GRI et al. 2015). These companies tend to perceive the SDGs as the responsibility of governments, and use the SDGs mainly for communication purposes with investors and other stakeholders.It is not a matter of saying, “We are going to do something to contribute to number X of the SDGs,” but rather an approach that incorporates into the business agenda what kind of opportunities and risks need to be rethought in the context of social change, as seen through the SDGs. [General Manager, AutoJapan]
4.1.2 Integrative Logic
In contrast, the corporate sustainability strategies of the other five Australian companies' (TransportOz, ServiceOz, BankOz1, MetalOz, and BankOz2) and three Japanese companies (InsuranceJapan, ITJapan, and TechJapan) were driven by an “integrative logic.” The integrative logic recognizes tensions among economic, social, and environmental aspects and embraces the contradictions rather than trying to eliminate them (Gao and Bansal 2013; Hahn et al. 2015). The findings indicate that companies whose sustainability strategies were driven by integrative logic engage with the SDGs at the strategic level.
These companies attempt to resolve tensions among economic, social, and environmental aspects through top management's long-term commitment (Hahn et al. 2015). By stating the long-term aspect in the companies' official statements (i.e., purpose and/or strategy), companies “create room for manoeuvre at a lower level” (Hahn et al. 2015: 304). The department head of BankOz1's comment exemplifies this.That (“for the future”) gives you a sense of that kind of long-term direction which is what you want out of a purpose to take you somewhere. [Manager, MetalOz]
Participants from three Japanese companies with an integrative logic explicitly explained that their sustainability strategy or corporate purpose framework was influenced by the SDGs. For example, one of the components of InsuranceJapan's sustainability framework, “Image of Society in 2030,” refers to “Resilient and Sustainable Society,” which resonates with the preamble of Agenda 2030: “We are determined to take the bold and transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world on to a sustainable and resilient path” (UN 2015: 1). Another alignment with the SDGs is in InsuranceJapan's “CSV (Creating Shared Value) strategy,” which specifies seven areas. One of them is “leaving no one behind,” influenced by Agenda 2030: “We pledge that no one will be left behind” (UN 2015: 1). The general manager of InsuranceJapan also explained that the company introduced a framework for medium-term performance management in each department, alongside the existing annual performance management plan, which prompts each department to consider business from the perspective of societal issues.I think that having sustainability so clearly defined in the purpose has given it legitimacy and authority. I think that before, it didn't have it so explicitly. I think that it has really signaled strongly to the rest of the bank that we mean business in this area. We are committed to this area because it will be measured and tracked in the same way that the other areas of the strategy will be. And this was decided by the CEO. … And that's not just what happens at the leadership team level, but it also happens in the business with those who are tasked to deliver the activities. [Department head, BankOz1]
Similarly, the senior manager of TechJapan shared their recognition of tensions between financial aspects and solving societal issues and explained that the company adopts a medium to long-term approach in its sustainability strategy.The challenges would be some stakeholders' expectations around how far you go in terms of “strengthening communities” (what is written in the purpose). For example, should the business strategy of the company change to move, for example, to cover mass transit, active recreation, and other areas as well, that also add value to communities. So should it just be broader, or should we just stay mainly focused on roads (i.e., TransportOz's current core business domain). [Department head, TransportOz]
These companies acknowledge trade-offs and contradictions in the execution of their purpose and sustainability strategies, which they try to manage primarily through long-term commitment.Realizing purpose and solving societal problems are equal. But we are a company, so basically, we can't do anything that doesn't make money. We can't even pay taxes that we have to give back to society… However, the bigger the societal issue, the bigger the initial investment, so naturally some projects will lose money at the beginning. Our stance is that the company as a whole will manage to bear the initial investment if it is something that really needs to be done, and continue on the premise that the business will be profitable in three- or five-years' time. [Senior manager, TechJapan]
4.2 Inside-Out Purpose and Companies' Actions on the SDGs
The interviews revealed corporate culture as one of the key aspects of implementing inside-out purpose. Five Australian companies (InsuranceOz, TransportOz, BankOz1, MaterialOz, and RetailOz) and all six Japanese companies sought to change or maintain the corporate culture by implementing inside-out purpose (Table 3).
MaterialOz participants explained that the development of the purpose was driving change to the corporate culture, which is aligned with the strategic direction.There's sort of organizations out there whose purpose is more kind of brand tagline than anything else, whereas for us, it really does help to ground all the work that we do, how we treat our customers, but also how we treat each other as well. [Department head, InsuranceOz]
AutoJapan and InsuranceJapan utilized internal awards to establish a new corporate culture, recognizing purpose-driven activities. AutoJapan's group-wide award aligns with its corporate purpose, encouraging employees to nominate activities based on the company's purpose. InsuranceJapan established two internal awards: Sustainability Contest and Digital Innovation Challenge Program. These enhance employees' understanding of the corporate purpose and purpose-driven activities. The manager of InsuranceJapan explained that the Sustainability Contest provides an opportunity for headquarters to identify specific CSV activities. In addition, sharing the awarded cases with other employees motivates them to engage with the corporate purpose. The manager of InsuranceJapan believes that the internal awards can change employees' mindsets toward realizing the purpose.This exercise (clarifying the purpose) was done in this financial year just finished before 2021, really to drive that culture shift to align with the new business strategy where we are also embedding decarbonization as part of our business model. [Department head, MaterialOz]
The findings indicate that companies that implement inside-out purpose integrate the SDGs at different management levels. While all these companies used the SDGs at the operational level, some also implemented the SDGs at the normative level. Eight companies (four Australian and four Japanese) integrated the SDGs at the normative level, finding alignment between corporate purpose and the SDGs. In contrast, three companies (one Australian and two Japanese) rely on “formal mechanisms of coordination and control, such as rules, policies, direct supervision, financial planning, and budgets to enforce compliance with behavioral norms” (Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010). These companies' corporate purpose was not influenced by the SDGs and did not integrate the SDGs at the normative level. The findings indicate that the difference was due to the type of corporate culture. Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010) developed a framework with two axes—internal–external perspective and flexibility–control dimension (four different models; Table 4)—to theorize how corporate culture affects corporate sustainability actions. Their framework helps to explain the relationship between participants' companies' corporate purpose and their culture.The most difficult thing is how to change the mindset (of employees), but we do this by using management messages and group-wide programs (i.e., internal awards). I think it's important to communicate these initiatives to our employees so that we can expand the scope of our activities. [Manager, InsuranceJapan]
| Model (dimension) | Means | Ends | Corporate sustainability characteristics |
|---|---|---|---|
| Human relations model (internal and flexible) |
|
Cohesion and morale | Place greater emphasis on internal staff development, learning, and capacity building |
| Open systems model (external and flexible) |
|
Growth and resource acquisition | Place greater emphasis on innovation for achieving ecological and social sustainability |
| Rational goal model (external and control) |
|
Efficiency and productivity | Place greater emphasis on resource efficiencies |
| Internal process model (internal and control) |
|
Stability and control | Place greater emphasis on economic performance, growth and long-term profitability |
- Source: Adapted from Linnenluecke and Griffiths (2010).
4.2.1 External/Flexible Corporate Culture
Companies with the open system model place emphasis on discretionary behavior and autonomy, as well as learning and adapting, along with the recognition of external changes (Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010). For example, RetailOz's various bottom-up activities based on its purpose and sustainability strategy were created autonomously by employees. The department head of RetailOz explained that RetailOz'spurpose was to inspire employees' actions, which resonates with the “visionary communication” articulated in the open systems model. Companies with this model seek “ecological and social sustainability” because they consider themselves part of the larger natural environment (Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010: 362).One of the objectives (of sustainability program based on the corporate purpose) is to change the mindset and culture of the organization. In order to achieve our purpose, the organization itself has to change. [Manager, ITJapan]
4.2.2 Internal / Control Corporate Culture
Similarly, two Japanese companies (MachineJapan and HealthJapan) demonstrated a keenness to embed inside-out purpose within their organizations with more structured ways. For example, HealthJapan encouraged employees to read out and memorize their corporate purpose at daily morning meetings and MachineJapan displayed posters at all sites including factories. These also emphasized maintaining the company's corporate culture rather than changing it to pursue its corporate purpose. Corporate purpose for these companies is a verbalization of the meaning of their everyday work, rather than a call for change.We have plans in place to reflect our new Purpose and Values in everything we do, including recruitment processes, performance management systems, succession planning and talent management, risk management, community investment frameworks, and our employee and customer value propositions. [MaterialOz's sustainability report 2021, 18]
These companies have a control-focused organizational culture of pursuing efficiency and productivity by unifying individual beliefs and values with organizational objectives rather than respecting individual differences and uniqueness. The SDGs are more reflected in operational aspects, such as corporate reporting and employee training, but have little impact on the companies' corporate purpose.At first, I didn't even know what it meant. I was just chanting the management philosophy (corporate purpose) at every opportunity. I was just memorizing it. But as I carried out my own work, listened to various people and learned from various sources, the management philosophy began to carry more and more weight. I started to understand what it meant, and I thought, “This is the reason why it is written here.” [Section manager, HealthJapan]
4.3 Hybrid Types
The study found that nine of the 16 companies implemented both outside-in and inside-out purposes, which we refer to as “hybrid types” (Table 3). Five implemented the outside-in purpose only, and two implemented the inside-out purpose only. Sustainability strategy and corporate culture are the two key components of purpose formalization. As discussed in sections 4.1 and 4.2, two logics of sustainability strategy (instrumental and integrative) and two characteristics of corporate culture (external/flexible and internal/control) explain how a company integrates the SDGs into its management practices. The mechanism of how the companies' purposes influenced their actions toward the SDGs becomes more complex when companies adopt a hybrid type.
5 Discussion
Gartenberg (2022: 36) proposes two “plausible” influences of corporate purpose on corporate sustainability: “endowing corporate sustainability with meaning” and “providing alignment among constituencies in the implementation of these activities.” This is reinforced by this study's findings, which identified multiple explanations of how corporate purpose shapes the Australian and Japanese companies' actions toward the SDGs. As discussed in the previous sections, five Australian companies are grounded in the outside-in purpose, two Japanese companies in the inside-out purpose, and nine companies adopted hybrid types that exhibit perspectives of both outside-in and inside-out purpose (four Japanese and five Australian). Figure 1 shows an explanatory model of the relationship between the corporate purpose perspectives and companies' approaches to the SDGs in companies using a hybrid type, which can facilitate companies' commitment to the SDGs in a more comprehensive way.
Five companies (two Australian and three Japanese) with an integrative sustainability strategy and external/flexible corporate culture (Figure 1, upper right green quadrant) implement the SDGs most comprehensively. They align their corporate purpose and vision with the SDGs, develop underlying sustainability strategies, and use the SDGs to progress their strategies at an operational level in various ways, including employee training and collaboration with suppliers. According to corporate sustainability scholars, companies are expected to integrate sustainable development at those different management levels to advance their contributions to solving societal issues (Baumgartner 2014; Galpin et al. 2015; Grayson et al. 2018). This finding supports the study by Bhattacharya et al. (2023) that a corporate purpose emphasizing value to stakeholders and a corporate culture with a greater degree of autonomy promotes employees' sustainability behaviors.
Turning to the upper left yellow quadrant of Figure 1, the three companies with an instrumental sustainability strategy and external corporate culture recognized that corporate purpose and the SDGs are aligned, thus implementing the SDGs at the normative and operational levels. Two Australian companies and one Japanese company are in this quadrant. Even though these companies have sustainability strategies, they do not necessarily integrate the SDGs at the same level. The SDGs are one of the external frameworks for the three companies to assess risks and opportunities for business growth and are used as a communication tool with their stakeholders.
One company implementing the SDGs at the operational level only through an instrumental sustainability strategy and internal corporate culture perceived the SDGs as a mere communication tool (Figure 1, lower left pink quadrant). The corporate purpose does not influence the company's engagement with the SDGs. In other words, there is no relationship between implementing its corporate purpose and integrating the SDGs at the operational level.
Finally, none of the companies have an integrative sustainability strategy with internal corporate culture (Figure 1, lower right blue quadrant). The findings of the other three quadrants suggest that, hypothetically, companies in the lower right quadrant would integrate the SDGs at strategic and operational levels. An integrative sustainability strategy would lead to the integration of the SDGs at the strategic level, and internal corporate culture would lead to the integration of the SDGs at the operational level. Even though this study did not find any companies in the lower right quadrant, future studies in different institutional contexts could explore whether and how other companies may align with this quadrant (e.g., integrating the SDGs into their business strategy and operationalizing the strategy throughout their value chain).
The analysis of the four hybrid types (four quadrants in Figure 1) suggests that the companies with an integrative sustainability strategy and external/flexible corporate culture (Figure 1, upper right green quadrant) appear to be an “ideal type” (Blaikie 1993; Doty and Glick 1994), to more comprehensively implement the SDGs in line with the SDG Compass guideline. These findings also suggest the pathways that companies could take to adopt an “ideal type” hybrid approach. For example, companies with an instrumental sustainability strategy and an external/flexible corporate culture could shift toward the ideal by adapting their sustainability strategy to draw upon an integrative logic (Figure 2, arrow [1]). Likewise, companies with an integrative sustainability strategy and an internal/control corporate culture could work toward changing their corporate culture (from internal/control to external/flexible focus) to integrate the SDGs more comprehensively into the organization (Figure 2, arrow [2]). Companies with an instrumental sustainability strategy and an internal/control corporate culture would require a drastic transformation, as they need to change both strategic and cultural orientation (Figure 2, arrow [3]). These findings highlight varying levels of SDG integration in these hybrid types even if organizations implement both perspectives of corporate purpose.
Regarding the influence of institutional context on corporate purpose, Australia and Japan are economically advanced countries in the Asia-Pacific region, but their socioeconomic and cultural systems differ. Australia is an Anglo-American country where the shareholder primacy model dominates (Chen and Bouvain 2009; Marshall and Ramsay 2019; Wailes and Michelson 2008). Adopting corporate purpose is perceived as a recent trend in Australia (Durkin 2018). All 10 companies implemented outside-in purpose, treating it as a strategy tool to achieve their business goals. In contrast, Japanese companies' perception of corporate purpose was grounded in the heritage of Feudalism and Confucianism (Ellsworth 2002; Hofstede et al. 2010). Based on the Confucian holistic view, businesses and individuals share a common goal of national development (Ellsworth 2002). The Japanese companies implement inside-out purpose due to a sense of responsibility to society and to unite their employees under this philosophy.
The business environment and society have changed drastically (Matten and Moon 2020) over the last 20 years. While the institutional context of a company's home country is still influential, large companies operating in multiple countries increasingly reflect the institutional context of home and host countries. Large companies' activities and initiatives now reflect the particularities of firm, sector, home, and host country contexts, as well as expectations that they take responsibility for their potential negative impacts on their value chains and on the planet (Matten and Moon 2020). These trends may help to explain why the Australian and Japanese companies in this study pursued a similar approach, even though they were motivated by different factors. More than half of the 10 Australian and six Japanese companies implemented “hybrid types” (both outside-in and inside-out purposes), suggesting that their approaches may be converging. In adopting both perspectives, the five Australian companies sought to strengthen employee engagement and change their corporate culture through their purpose, while four Japanese companies were beginning to integrate their long-held purpose into their sustainability strategy in a rapidly changing business environment. These companies were more likely to integrate the SDGs at multiple levels.
6 Conclusion
Since the mid-2010s, scholars and practitioners have paid increasing attention to the topics of corporate purpose and the SDGs. However, there is also increasing skepticism and criticism that companies' pursuits of corporate purpose and the SDGs are “public relations exercises” (Porter et al. 2019; Silva 2021). While the literature acknowledges that purpose requires sustainability and sustainability requires purpose (Gartenberg 2022), there is scarce research on the relationship between corporate purpose and the SDGs. In fact, much of the extant research on corporate purpose has focused on examining the financial benefits of adopting a corporate purpose (Gartenberg et al. 2019; Serafeim and Gartenberg 2016). Drawing upon emerging conceptions of “outside-in” and “inside-out” corporate purpose, this study investigated how corporate purpose shapes companies' actions on the SDGs. It found that the companies' approaches to the SDGs are shaped by the perspective of purpose (outside-in and inside-out) and underlying logics of sustainability strategy and types of corporate culture. This research is important for understanding corporate purpose and the SDGs because it indicates ideal conditions for companies to enhance their contribution to solving social challenges through corporate purpose.
The article makes both theoretical and managerial contributions. First, this article extends understanding of outside-in and inside-out conceptions of purpose. This article reinforced that companies with outside-in purpose develop sustainability strategies that address societal issues to achieve their purpose. However, the article revealed that whether companies with outside-in purpose implement the SDGs at the strategic level depended on the logic underlying their sustainability strategies (integrative or instrumental) (Gao and Bansal 2013; Hahn et al. 2015). Inside-out purpose concerns employees' sense of meaning for their jobs and its connection with companies' mission (Almandoz 2023). This study found that companies with an inside-out purpose sought to change or maintain their corporate culture to address customer needs and/or societal issues. Whether these companies relate corporate purpose with the SDGs depended on the type of their corporate culture (external/flexible or internal/controlled) (Bhattacharya et al. 2023; Linnenluecke and Griffiths 2010).
Second, this study provides empirical evidence of the coexistence of outside-in and inside-out purposes within one organization. Existing literature is primarily conceptual and presumes companies integrating both perspectives can transform their business to address societal issues (Almandoz 2023; Dahlmann and Stubbs 2023). There are no empirical studies that draw evidence from multiple cases in multiple contexts. This article contributes to building theory by proposing an explanatory model of the relationship between purpose perspectives and the SDG implementation in hybrid types (Figure 1), based on empirical findings of the nine companies that implemented both outside-in and inside-out perspectives.
The study also provides managerial contributions by providing insights into how corporate purpose shapes companies' implementation of the SDGs. For sustainability managers of large companies, the models (Figures 1 and 2) could enhance their understanding of the implementation of corporate purpose and provide guidance on using their purpose to help drive contributions to the SDGs. The multiple pathways that organizations can take to integrate the SDGs at all three levels (normative, strategic, and operational—identified in Figure 2) could help guide companies seeking to integrate the SDGs more comprehensively into their organizations. This study also helps managers in multinational companies to understand perceptions of corporate purpose in different institutional contexts and better manage the relationship between purpose and sustainability in countries where they operate. The explanatory model provides guidance to companies on how they could implement both an outside-in and an inside-out purpose to address the societal challenges identified by the SDGs.
A major limitation of this exploratory research study is the small sample size. Future studies could test the validity of the findings and the explanatory model with larger samples in different country contexts. Also, this study's scope is limited to the companies that have already adopted a corporate purpose and engaged with the SDGs. The study did not investigate why other companies do not adopt and implement a corporate purpose and the SDGs. Future research could study the differences in the approaches of companies that adopted and implemented a corporate purpose and the SDGs and those that have not done so (e.g., their values, business practices and processes, cultures, and structures). Clarifying this will be necessary if a corporate purpose is to catalyze the transformation of corporate sustainability practices to achieve sustainable development in society (Gartenberg 2022; Henderson and Serafeim 2020). Even though this study found that companies implementing both the outside-in and inside-out perspectives implement the SDGs more holistically, it did not identify the companies' actual contributions to the SDGs. Further studies could investigate companies' impacts on the SDGs' 17 goals and 169 targets, drawing upon both internal and external stakeholders' perspectives on the companies' actions, impacts, results, and outputs. With the world unlikely to achieve any of the 17 SDG goals by 2030 (Sachs et al. 2023), scholars need to continue examining whether, and how, large companies' corporate purpose can have a meaningful impact on achieving the SDGs and help transform business and society.
Acknowledgments
We thank our interview participants who were generous in sharing their insights and experiences. Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley - Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Endnotes
Appendix: Interview Guide
| Min | Questions |
|---|---|
| 5 |
Greeting, brief introduction of the project, consent to record Q1: What is your role in relation to the corporate purpose and/or the SDGs? |
| 10 |
Q2: What is your company's purpose (the reason for existence)? Q3: When did your company develop this purpose? Q4: Why and how did your company develop this purpose? Q5: What is your own view of this purpose? |
| 10 |
Q6: To what extent is the purpose embedded in your organization? Q7: What is the relationship between securing profits for shareholders and realizing the company's purpose? Q8: What are the challenges/barriers to realizing the purpose? |
| 20 |
Q9: How long have you been involved in the SDGs and in what ways? Q10: Which SDGs are you (or your company) working on? Why is that? Q11: Have the SDGs changed the way you do business? How has it changed? Q12: What are the challenges/barriers to working on the SDGs? Q13: What are your future plans for contributing to the SDGs? |
Open Research
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.
