Purpose-Driven Governance: from moral ambition to organizational practice

Frame of the research: Corporate purpose has gained legitimacy as a normative orientation, yet its translation into organizational practice remains contested, exposing firms to risks of purpose washing and calling for closer integration with governance scholarship. Purpose of the paper: Our study clarifies what “purpose-driven governance” means and how it can be credibly enacted. Building on the epistemological foundations of corporate purpose and on sustainable corporate governance, we articulate an integrative logic that connects a firm’s moral ambition with its decision rights and control mechanisms. Methodology: We develop an integrative conceptual contribution (Cronin and George, 2023) that bridges scholarship on corporate purpose and sustainable corporate governance. A scoping review procedure across the two literatures serves as a structured ingredient for theory-building, supporting the systematic identification and synthesis of recurrent tensions and gaps. Findings: We propose a purpose-driven governance architecture structured around three interdependent dimensions: Alignment (strategy, organizational design, incentives, and resource allocation consistent with stated purpose); Accountability (measurable outcomes, auditable disclosures, board oversight, and stakeholder voice that enable external verification and internal learning); and Temporal Adaptability (dynamic capabilities and governance routines that revise objectives and trade-off rules as contexts change). The framework specifies boundary conditions for authentic purpose enactment and explains failure modes (symbolic adoption, decoupling, purpose washing, and mission drift). Research limits: As a theorization effort of the governance-purpose nexus, the paper does not offer causal identification nor quantitative estimates; empirical validation and context-sensitive testing (e.g., across legal forms and industries) are left for future research. Practical implications: The conceptual framework suggests a set of governance mechanisms that can inform board and executive design choices, enabling the translation of purpose into decision criteria and auditable outcomes. Originality of the paper: The paper offers a mechanism-based theory of purpose-driven governance that complements comparative-institutional accounts by specifying the organizational dimensions - Alignment, Accountability, and Temporal Adaptability - through which moral ambition is translated into decision premises, verifiable commitments, and governed renewal. By distinguishing purpose-driven governance from adjacent paradigms, the paper provides a tractable agenda for theory, empirical research, and governance design.