Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Corporate goal: evolution of conceptual approaches to analysis
https://doi.org/10.34020/2073-6495-2025-3-206-220
Abstract
The article shows that in the course of rethinking the purpose of business in foreign countries, the interpretation of the goal as going beyond profit maximization began to dominate. The proposed paradigm expands the problem field and is associated with the recognition of added value as a special category that characterizes the main goal of the organization’s business activity and its result – the total income received by the organization as a result of its contribution to the creation of a social product. Based on this, a conceptual description of the endogenous process of building business models with high added value is given.
About the Author
E. V. Biryukov
Ufa State Petroleum Technological University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Biryukov Evgeny V., Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor
Ufa
References
1. Stout L.A. The Shareholder Value Myth: How Putting Shareholders First Harms Investors, Corporations, and the Public // Cornell Law Faculty Publications. 2013. Paper 771. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/facpub/771.
2. Busch T., Barnett M.L., Burritt R.L. et al. Moving beyond the business case: How to make corporate sustainability work // Business Strategy and the Environment. 2024. Vol. 33, no. 2. P. 776–787. DOI: 10.1002/bse.3514.
3. Brosch N. Corporate purpose: From a ‘Tower of Babel’ phenomenon towards construct clarity // Journal of Business and Economics. 2023. Vol. 93. P. 567–595. DOI: 10.1007/s11573-023-01137-9.
4. Jimenez D., Franco I.B., Smith T.A. Review of Corporate Purpose: An Approach to Actioning the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) // Sustainability. 2021. No. 13. P. 3899. DOI: 10.3390/su13073899.
5. Manas-Viniegra L., Gonzaìlez-Villa I.A., Llorente-Barroso C. The corporate purpose of spanish listed companies: neurocommunication research applied to organizational intangibles // Frontiers in Psychology. 2020. No. 11. P. 2108. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02108.
6. Van Ingen R., Peters P., De Ruiter M., Robben H. Exploring the Meaning of Organizational Purpose at a New Dawn: The Development of a Conceptual Model Through Expert Interviews // Frontiers in Psychology. 2021. Vol. 12. P. 675543. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675543.
7. Автономов В.С. Три источника и три героя маржиналистской революции // Вопросы экономики. 2022. № 7. С. 104–122. DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2022-7-104-122.
8. Friedman M. The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits // New York Times Magazine, September. 1970. No. 13. P. 32–33.
9. Berle A.A., Means G.C. The Modern Corporation and Private Property. New York, NY: Commerce Clearing House, 1932. 380 p.
10. Бирюков Е.В. Теории современного предприятия: новые направления развития // Экономическое возрождение России. 2022. № 4 (74). С. 121–131. DOI: 10.37930/1990-9780-2022-4-74-121-131.
11. Davis G.F. A New Finance Capitalism? Mutual Funds and Ownership Re-concentration in the United States // European Management Review. 2008. No. 5. P. 11–21. DOI: 10.1057/emr.2008.4.
12. Drucker P.F. Management: tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York, NY: Truman Talley Books, 1986. 553 p.
13. Freeman R.E. The new story of business: towards a more responsible capitalism // Society and Business Review. 2017. Vol. 122, no. 3. P. 449–465. DOI:10.1111/basr.12123.
14. Kaysen C. The Social Significance of the Modern Corporation // American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings). 1957. Vol. 47, no. 2. P. 311–319.
15. Аристотель. Сочинения в четырех томах. Т. 4. М.: Мысль. 1984. 830 с.
16. Bart C.K., Baetz M.C. The relationship between mission statements and firm performance: an exploratory study // Journal of Management Studies. 1998. Vol. 35, no. 6. P. 823–853.
17. Bunderson J.S., Thakor A.V. Higher purpose, banking and stability // SSRN Electronic Journal. 2021. January. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3791285.
18. Gartenberg C., Prat A., Serafeim G. Corporate purpose and financial performance // Organization Science. 2019. Vol. 30, no. 1. P. 1–18. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.2018.1230.
19. Hsieh N.-H., Meyer M., Rodin D., Klooster J.V. The social purpose of corporations // Journal of the British Academy. 2018. No. 6. P. 49–73. DOI: 10.5871/jba/006s1.049.
20. Aust L., Cooke F.L., Muller-Camen M., Wood G. Achieving sustainable development goals through common-good HRM: Context, approach and practice // German Journal of Human Resource Management. 2024. Vol. 38, no. 2. P. 93–110. DOI: 10.1177/23970022241240890.
21. Bartlett C.A., Ghoshal S. Changing the role of top management: beyond strategy to purpose // Harvard Business Review. 1994. Vol. 72, no. 6. P. 79–88.
22. Freeman R.E., Ginena K. Rethinking the purpose of the corporation: Challenges from stakeholder theory // Notizie Di Politeia. 2015. Vol. 31, no. 117. P. 9–18.
23. Harrison J.S., Phillips R.A., Freeman R.E. On the 2019 business roundtable “Statement on the purpose of a corporation” // Journal of Management. 2019. No. 46. P. 1223– 1237. DOI: 10.1177/0149206319892669.
24. Leaders on Purpose. Purpose-driven leadership for the 21st century: Transitioning to a purposefirst economy through the new business logic. 2020. Retrieved from https://08054766-3a4c-4a3c-9f43a67c2266e5de.filesusr.com/ugd/a6895d_ee4fdcffb6454d7499cfa6e7d38f5d4f.pdf.
25. Mayer C. The future of the corporation and the economics of purpose // Journal of Management Studies. 2021. Vol. 58, no. 3. P. 887–901. DOI: 10.1111/joms.12660.
26. Благов Ю.Е. Эволюция КСО и теория стратегического управления // Вестник Санкт-Петербургского университета. Серия: Менеджмент. 2011. № 1. С. 3–26.
27. Благов Ю.Е. ESG: трансформация интерпретаций // Российский журнал менеджмента. 2024. № 2 (22). С. 289–301. DOI: 10.21638/spbu18.2024.206.
28. Bansal P., Song H.-C. Similar but not the same: differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility // Academy of Management Annals. 2017. Vol. 11, no. 1. P. 105–149. DOI: 10.5465/annals.2015.0095.
29. Baumgartner R.J. Managing corporate sustainability and CSR: a conceptual framework combining values, strategies and instruments contributing to sustainable development // Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management. 2014. Vol. 21, no. 5. P. 258–271. DOI: 10.1002/csr.1336.
30. Munro V. CSR for purpose, shared value and deep transformation. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 2020. 241 p.
31. Eccles R.G., Lee L.-E., Stroehle J.C. The social origins of ESG: an analysis of Innovest and KLD // Organization & Environment. 2019. Vol. 33, no. 4. P. 575–596. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3318225.
32. Crilly D., Ni N., Jiang Y. Do-no-harm versus do-good social responsibility: attributional thinking and the liability of foreignness // Strategic Management Journal. 2016. Vol. 37, no. 7. P.1316–1329. DOI: 10.1002/smj.2388.
33. Короткевич Л.М., Барсуков А.А. Добавленная стоимость как критерий эффективности производственного процесса в промышленности // Наука и техника. 2016. Т. 15, № 6. С. 536–545.
34. Porter M.E., Kramer M.R. Creating shared value // Managing Sustainable Business. Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer, 2019. P. 323–346.
35. Mayer C. The future of the corporation: Towards humane business // Journal of the British Academy. 2018. No. 6. P. 1–16. DOI: 10.5871/jba/006s1.001.
36. Millstein I., Gordon J., Gilson R., Mayer C., Bresnahan K., Lipton M. Session I: Corporate Purpose and Governance // Journal of Applied Corporate Finance. 2019. No. 31. P. 10–25. DOI: 10.1111/jacf.12356.
37. Rüegg-Stürm J., Grand S. Das St. Galler Management-Modell: management in einer komplexen Welt. Bern: Haupt, 2019. 318 p.
Review
For citations:
Biryukov E.V. Corporate goal: evolution of conceptual approaches to analysis. Vestnik NSUEM. 2025;(3):206-220. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34020/2073-6495-2025-3-206-220
Email this article 
