Developing a scale for measuring the implementation of corporate purpose at the organizational level

In recent years, corporate purpose has emerged as a central construct in organizational research and practice. Moving beyond the narrow logic of profit maximization, organizations are increasingly expected to articulate a reason for being that integrates economic, social and environmental considerations and guides strategic decision-making while shaping relationships with stakeholders (Sasaki and Stubbs, 2025). This shift reflects a broader transformation in management theory, which now conceptualizes firms as embedded in complex social systems whose long-term viability depends on their contribution to collective flourishing (Silver, 2023).

Despite its growing prominence, corporate purpose remains conceptually fragmented. While numerous definitions coexist (Arias et al., 2024), drawing on Jimenez et al. (2021) and Florez-Jimenez et al. (2024), we define corporate purpose as the primary contribution an organization makes to its stakeholders, grounded in its identity and in what it considers meaningful, while fostering synergy among people, planet and profit. This definition positions purpose as a core organizing principle that integrates identity, values and mission into a coherent logic of action rather than as a peripheral or symbolic statement.

In contrast, a mission describes what an organization does (Brosch, 2023). Organizational values represent normative beliefs about desirable ends and means (George et al., 2023; Khandelwal and Mohendra, 2010), and organizational identity answers the question, “Who are we as an organization?” (Pratt and Hedden, 2023). Although corporate purpose draws upon identity, values and mission as underlying dimensions (Florez-Jimenez et al., 2024; Lleo et al., 2022), it is not reducible to any of them. Rather, it integrates these elements into a guiding framework that shapes strategic choices and organizational conduct.

This definition further implies that purpose and profitability are not inherently in tension. Instead, purpose can coexist with – and even reinforce – long-term value creation, particularly in contexts characterized by innovation and extended temporal horizons, while simultaneously contributing to societal and environmental welfare. In this regard, corporate purpose also differs from corporate social responsibility, which has often been conceptualized as an “add-on” to core business activities, frequently associated with philanthropic initiatives (Blocker et al., 2024 Jasinenko and Steuber, 2023; Sandoghdar and Bailey, 2023). By contrast, corporate purpose is positioned at the center of the organization, shaping its overarching reason for being and influencing strategic and operational decision-making (Brosch, 2023).

While many organizations have embraced corporate purpose at a declarative level, implementation or institutionalization remains a critical challenge. The institutionalization of purpose describes the extent to which an organization embeds its purpose in a profound and enduring way within its structures, routines and culture, ensuring that it goes beyond a mere external statement and becomes an integral part of everyday organizational activities (Selznick, 1984). When purpose statements fail to influence leadership behavior and organizational decisions, employees and stakeholders perceive inconsistency and hypocrisy (Quinn and Thakor, 2018). Consequently, the key issue is not whether organizations articulate a purpose, but whether they effectively embed it in governance structures, decision-making processes and everyday practices.

If corporate purpose is to move from rhetoric to organizational reality, it must be systematically measured. As Theimer (2021) argued, improvement requires measurement and organizations cannot strengthen what they do not systematically assess. Similarly, Ludema and Johnson (2021) emphasized that metrics must reflect what truly matters, including the organization’s purpose. The emerging theory of purpose orientation explicitly calls for the development of valid measurement tools capable of advancing empirical research (Blocker et al., 2024; Von Ahsen and Gauch, 2022).

Although several instruments capture aspects of corporate purpose, a critical gap remains. Existing measures primarily focus on perceptions of purpose content, coherence and alignment, as well as purpose strength, employee identification and its motivational and guiding role as indicators of individual-level internalization (Bhattacharya et al., 2022; Bunderson and Thakor, 2022; Gartenberg, 2023; Jasinenko and Steuber, 2023; Lleo et al., 2021). Considerably less attention has been devoted to measuring purpose implementation at the organizational level, that is, the extent to which the purpose is effectively embedded and operationalized within the organization.

Scholars have proposed that purpose implementation unfolds across multiple levels of analysis – individual, organizational and societal (Almandoz, 2023; Gartenberg, 2023; Steller and Möllering, 2026), and “corporate purpose must be implemented at all levels of the organization to become fulfilled” (George et al., 2023, p. 11). While individual-level internalization is essential (Lleo et al., 2022), it depends fundamentally on how purpose is institutionalized within organizational systems and structures (Ruiz-Perez, 2022). Conceptualizing purpose as a firm-level logic of action requires examining how organizations translate declared commitments into concrete practices and strategic decisions (Rindova and Martins, 2023). Despite this recognition, the field still lacks a validated and comprehensive scale capable of capturing corporate purpose implementation at the organizational level as an integrated system of structures, processes and actions. The absence of such an instrument limits empirical research and constrains organizations’ ability to monitor and strengthen purpose alignment over time (Durand, 2023). The lack of conceptual clarity regarding organizational purpose directly leads to challenges in its measurement, implementation and evaluation (van Ingen et al., 2026). Accordingly, this study addresses the following research question: How can corporate purpose implementation be conceptualized and operationalized at the organizational level in a valid and reliable manner?

This study addresses this gap by developing and validating a scale to measure corporate purpose implementation at the organizational level. Drawing on the maturity model proposed by Ruiz-Perez (2022), we conceptualize corporate purpose implementation at the organizational level as a multidimensional construct capturing the extent to which purpose is embedded in strategic processes, leadership behaviors, management systems and communication initiatives.

We test and validate the proposed scale using survey data from 433 human capital managers and senior business leaders from organizations across the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America. By providing a psychometrically robust instrument, this study contributes to the emerging theory of purpose orientation and to corporate governance research by enabling systemic assessment of purpose implementation within organizations.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we review the theoretical foundations of corporate purpose and its implementation. In Section 3, we describe the methodology used to develop and validate the scale and present the results. Finally, in Section 4, we outline the theoretical contributions, practical implications, and avenues for future research.

The emerging theory of purpose orientation posits that corporate purpose articulates how firms increasingly embrace a broader societal focus while generating financial performance and value for stakeholders and the ecosystem (Blocker et al., 2024). The literature offers multiple definitions of corporate purpose (Arias et al., 2024). Early conceptualizations described purpose as “the statement of a company’s moral response to its broadly defined responsibilities” (Bartlett and Ghoshal, 1994, p. 88). More recently, it has been defined as the “meaning of a firm’s work beyond quantitative financial performance” (Gartenberg et al., 2019, p. 3). Similarly, purpose has been described as concerning why the organization exists, who they are and what they do to create transcendent value for stakeholders (Blocker et al., 2024). Other scholars define it as the primary contribution an organization makes to its stakeholders, grounded in its identity and in what it considers meaningful (Florez-Jimenez et al., 2024, 2025a). Jimenez et al. (2021) further conceptualized corporate purpose as an alternative business approach that addresses the tension between profit maximization and sustainable value creation by fostering synergy among people, planet and profit. Building on these definitions, we adopt the view that corporate purpose represents the primary contribution an organization makes to its stakeholders, grounded in its identity and in what it considers meaningful, while fostering synergy between people, planet and profit.

Corporate purpose is widely regarded as a driver of long-term sustainability because it aligns organizational goals with broader social and environmental challenges (Mannen et al., 2012; Sasaki et al., 2023; Sánchez-Chaparro et al., 2022). As society increasingly expects corporations to address complex problems (Scherer and Palazzo, 2011), firms are moving beyond narrow profit maximization toward engagement with sustainable development challenges (Sasaki et al., 2023). In addition, purpose can unite individuals around a shared aim, enhancing engagement, strengthening culture and fostering adaptability in the face of external threats (Mannen et al., 2012). Importantly, purpose has also been associated with improved financial performance (Mayer, 2020; Mayer, 2023), suggesting that social and environmental contributions need not be in tension with economic value creation.

Empirical and conceptual research further suggests that purpose-oriented organizations are better positioned to generate stakeholder trust (Gulati and Wohlgezogen, 2023; Qin et al., 2022), foster organizational identification (Florez-Jimenez et al., 2025a), enhance collaboration (Gartenberg et al., 2019) and build resilience in the face of uncertainty (Florez-Jimenez et al., 2025b). Collectively, these contributions underscore the growing relevance of corporate purpose as a central construct in contemporary management research.

Given its strategic importance, scholars have emphasized the need to measure corporate purpose in ways that reflect what truly matters for organizations (Ludema and Johnson, 2021). Existing instruments primarily assess individual-level implementation or purpose strength. For example, Gartenberg (2023) measured purpose strength with items such as “My work has special meaning: this is not just a job,” while Lleo et al. (2021) used items like “I accept my company’s purpose because it is aligned with my individual values.” Other measures focus on perceived purpose content and authenticity; for instance, Qin et al. (2022) included items such as “My organization would turn away a profitable opportunity that conflicts with its purpose,” and Bhattacharya et al. (2022) assessed whether “My company wants to make a difference in people’s lives, not just make profits?” Jasinenko and Steuber (2023) extended this by capturing guidance and inspiration, with items such as “My organization’s overarching goals provide orientation in complex situations” and “My organization inspires by providing a higher cause.”

Despite these advances, the literature still lacks a validated instrument that captures the degree to which corporate purpose is implemented at the organizational level. Existing measures do not assess how purpose is manifested and embedded across core organizational practices – such as strategy, leadership, management systems and communication processes. This gap constrains empirical research and limits organizations’ ability to operationalize and institutionalize corporate purpose in a coherent and measurable manner. Understanding purpose in functional terms is essential for translating it from inspirational rhetoric into an operational organizational resource that can be implemented, evaluated and sustained (George et al., 2023; Henisz, 2023; Hurth et al., 2018).

Defining a corporate purpose is relatively straightforward, but implementing it in practice is considerably more complex (Almandoz, 2023). Purpose implementation occurs at both the individual and organizational levels (Jones-Khosla and Gomes, 2023; Rey et al., 2019; Steller and Möllering, 2026).

At the individual level, corporate purpose refers to the extent to which employees internalize and enact the organization’s purpose, generating a shared sense of purpose (Almandoz, 2023; Lleo et al., 2022). This occurs through three mechanisms: purpose knowledge (employees’ understanding of the organization’s purpose), purpose internalization (alignment between organizational purpose and personal values) and purpose contribution (applying purpose in daily operations) (Ferreira et al., 2024; Lleo et al., 2021).

At the organizational level, purpose implementation refers to how the organization integrates and executes its purpose across all operations and strategies (Björck et al., 2023). In other words, it refers to the extent to which an organization’s strategic purpose is translated into daily practices, policies and behaviors across the entire organization, making the purpose operational and embedded rather than merely a formal statement (van Ingen et al., 2026). Building on this definition, purpose implementation can be conceptualized as an organizational-level phenomenon that is not directly observable but is reflected in organizational practices.

Both levels are interconnected: purpose implementation at the organizational level enhances its adoption and enactment at the individual level (Ruiz-Perez, 2022). Organizational practices play a central role in bringing purpose to life, and when a value-laden purpose is consistently embedded into technical processes and operations, these practices enable the organization to evolve into a durable and enduring institution (Besharov and Mitzinneck, 2023; Rey and Bastons, 2018). For corporate purpose to be effective, it must be translated into concrete strategies and operational applications (Aguilera, 2023). Implementation should not be understood merely as a formal statement but as a practical organizational reality.

To guide organizations in implementing corporate purpose, Ruiz-Perez (2022) proposed a maturity model based on four purpose-driven dimensions (Lleo et al., 2019): purpose-driven strategy, purpose-driven leadership, purpose-driven management systems and purpose-driven communication. This framework adopts a systemic and holistic perspective, conceptualizing purpose implementation as an organization-wide phenomenon that simultaneously affects strategic orientation, management systems, managerial behavior and communication. It moves beyond fragmented approaches, providing an integrative understanding of how corporate purpose becomes institutionalized.

A purpose-driven strategy occurs when strategy formulation and resource allocation decisions are explicitly guided by the organization’s foundational purpose. In a purpose-driven strategy, purpose is embedded into all strategic decisions, ensuring that operational objectives, resource allocation and performance indicators remain aligned with what the organization declares as its purpose. In this sense, purpose must be embedded in the company’s strategic decisions so that operations remain consistent with what the organization declares. As Bartlett and Ghoshal (1994, p. 81) argued, “strategies can engender strong, enduring emotional attachments only when they are embedded in a broader organizational purpose.” Similarly, Malnight et al. (2019) emphasized that integrating purpose ensures strategic choices reflect the organization’s values, not just symbolic gestures.

Tools such as strategy maps and balanced scorecards operationalize this alignment by translating purpose into measurable objectives, key performance indicators and decision-making routines (Kaplan and Norton, 2004). Accordingly, strategy should translate purpose into concrete objectives and aligned performance metrics, enabling effective pursuit, since “a purpose without objectives is dead, and an objective without a purpose is blind” (Cardona and Rey, 2022: p. 116). By integrating purpose in this way, organizations foster operational alignment, commitment and meaning for stakeholders, making purpose actionable rather than rhetorical. Purpose-driven strategy thus provides an observable expression of how deeply purpose is embedded in strategic decision-making and organizational practice.

Purpose-driven leadership refers to leaders and organizational members who embrace, communicate and embody the corporate purpose through words and actions (Marimon et al., 2016). Importantly, leadership in this sense is not confined to formal managerial authority but also encompasses organizational members who, irrespective of hierarchical position, demonstrate leadership and commitment to and enactment of the corporate purpose in their daily practices (Lleo et al., 2019).

Purpose-driven leadership can be understood as a manifestation of purpose implementation, expressed in the embedding of purpose into organizational processes (Ribeiro et al., 2024). As Smircich and Morgan (1982) note, leaders both sustain institutional structures and transcend them by providing meaning and direction through the embodiment of values and purpose (Kempster et al., 2011). Through the management of meaning (Pye, 2005), leaders frame and interpret organizational purpose in ways that shape shared understanding and guide coordinated action. In this sense, leadership behavior constitutes a key domain in which organizational purpose becomes visible within organizational life. Following Selznick (1984) and (van Knippenberg, 2020), the core role of leadership is to mobilize and motivate individuals toward the pursuit of the organization’s foundational objectives, so actions directed toward realizing those objectives constitute an expression of purpose implementation at the organizational level.

A third observable manifestation of purpose implementation is purpose-driven management systems, which refer to management systems – including recruitment, training, talent development, task planning, performance evaluation, incentive systems and budget management – that are explicitly aligned and coherent with the corporate purpose (White et al., 2017). While articulating purpose in strategy or leadership discourse is necessary, it is insufficient unless these systems consistently embed purpose into daily operations.

In line with organizational theory, deeply embedded organizational elements become observable through consistent patterns of practices and systems (Schein, 2010). Consistent with this view, training, promotion and incentive systems have been identified as key mechanisms through which the embeddedness of corporate purpose becomes visible in organizational practice (Klettner et al., 2025). Accordingly, purpose-driven management systems constitute a dimension of purpose implementation: when purpose implementation is high, these systems visibly align with and reinforce the organizational purpose; when implementation is low, such alignment is inconsistent or absent and organizational practices remain decoupled from the stated purpose.

It refers to the deliberate and strategic transmission of organizational purpose to stakeholders, ensuring that messages are meaningful and clearly understood (Ramos-Maçães and Román-Portas, 2022). When purpose is not explicitly communicated, or when communication is inconsistent or ambiguous, stakeholders may experience confusion or lack awareness regarding the organization’s mission (Marimon et al., 2016). Purpose-driven organizations tend to exhibit clear and coherent communication of their purpose across internal and external channels, including employee engagement processes, public reporting, branding and governance documents (Klettner et al., 2025). As Qin et al. (2022) argued, for an organization to be considered purpose-driven, purpose must permeate the organization and be evident across stakeholders. From the perspective of organizational members, this embeddedness becomes observable through strategic and transparent communication, which reflects the extent to which purpose is integrated into organizational practices. Accordingly, purpose-driven communication constitutes a manifestation of purpose implementation: when implementation is high, communication is consistent, transparent and aligned across stakeholders; when implementation is weak, communication tends to be fragmented, ambiguous or decoupled from organizational practices.

In this way, purpose-driven communication complements strategy, leadership and management systems as a key observable dimension in which corporate purpose implementation is reflected throughout the organization.

Taken together, these four purpose-driven domains suggest that purpose implementation can be understood as a systemic organizational phenomenon that unfolds across multiple interrelated areas. Rather than representing independent building blocks, these domains capture distinct but related manifestations of how purpose becomes embedded within organizations through coordinated organizational processes. This perspective aligns with prior research that conceptualizes purpose as an organizational orientation shaping direction and coordination (Blocker et al., 2024), while also resonating with the dynamic capabilities view, which conceptualizes organizations as integrated management systems that enable the consistent translation of strategic intent into coordinated and repeatable patterns of action across organizational processes (Teece et al., 1997). From this standpoint, purpose implementation is not limited to the articulation of purpose, but involves its enactment through aligned strategic decisions, leadership behaviors, management systems and communication processes. Accordingly, purpose implementation at the organizational level is conceptualized as a construct reflected in these observable organizational manifestations.

Ruiz-Perez (2022), using a combination of focus groups with companies and a Delphi panel with experts, proposed a maturity model outlining activities that manifest the level of development for each purpose-driven domain (see  AppendixFigure A1). This perspective implies that purpose implementation should be understood not as the aggregation of independent elements, but as a coherent organizational condition that becomes observable through aligned manifestations across domains. The model is highly useful for organizations, as it presents concrete activities developed through a rigorous methodology. However, no validated scales currently exist to measure the deployment of these aspects, nor to allow academics to examine related outcomes or antecedents at the organizational level. To address this gap, this work proposes and validates a scale to quantitatively assess corporate purpose implementation. The following section outlines the methodological procedures and presents the empirical results of the scale development process.

To develop a valid scale for measuring purpose implementation, a six-step methodology was used, based on Hinkin (1998) and MacKenzie et al. (2011):

1. defining the construct;

2. developing and generating measurement items;

3. model specification;

4. data collection;

5. evaluating and refining the scale through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA); and

6. assessing the scale’s validity and reliability.

Below, each stage is explained.

This study does not attempt to measure purpose per se. Instead, the focus is placed on its implementation at the organizational level. We conceptualize purpose implementation at the organizational-level as a construct that captures the extent to which an organization systemically integrates, enacts and aligns its stated corporate purpose across its core domains. It reflects embedded organizational practices rather than symbolic articulation, thereby enabling an assessment of how purpose becomes an operative and enduring organizational reality (Björck et al., 2023).

Drawing on prior literature on corporate purpose and organizational behavior, purpose implementation is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct comprising four interrelated dimensions: purpose-driven strategy, purpose-driven leadership, purpose-driven management systems and purpose-driven communication. Purpose-driven strategy refers to the extent to which strategic decisions, objectives and resource allocations are explicitly aligned with the organization’s stated purpose. Purpose-driven leadership captures the degree to which leaders embody, promote and mobilize members around the corporate purpose through consistent behaviors and sensegiving processes. Purpose-driven management systems reflect the alignment of recruitment practices, performance evaluation, incentive systems, governance structures and operational procedures with the organization’s purpose. Finally, purpose-driven communication represents the clarity, coherence and consistency with which purpose is articulated and disseminated across internal and external stakeholders.

The delineation of these dimensions is grounded not only in the academic literature but also in the maturity model developed by Ruiz-Perez (2022). That model was constructed through an iterative and practice-oriented process that combined focus groups with senior managers experienced in corporate purpose implementation and a two-round Delphi panel involving academics, consultants and business professionals. This approach enabled the identification of common organizational practices that serve as observable manifestations of the progressive deployment of corporate purpose across firms. By integrating scholarly and practitioner perspectives, the maturity model provides a theoretically informed and empirically grounded basis for defining the domain of purpose implementation in the present study.

High levels of purpose implementation can be inferred when organizations exhibit consistently strong scores across all dimensions of the construct. This is because organizations in which purpose is deeply embedded tend to operate under a unified logic rather than through a set of loosely coupled practices (Blocker et al., 2024). Within this framework, purpose implementation is conceptualized as a holistic phenomenon in which strategy, leadership, management systems and communication act as reflective manifestations of the same underlying institutional commitment. Fragmented patterns – where organizations score highly on some domains but weakly on other ones – reveal a decoupling between rhetoric and practice, indicating that implementation has not fully permeated the organization’s core functioning. Therefore, the extent to which purpose is consistently reflected across these domains provides an indication of whether implementation constitutes an enduring and integrated organizational reality.

As a first step in the scale development process, a Likert-type questionnaire was designed to assess the level of development of each dimension associated with purpose implementation. The starting point for item generation was the set of 50 actions included in the maturity model proposed by Ruiz-Perez (2022), which delineates observable practices reflecting the progressive embedding of corporate purpose at the organizational level.

Building on this foundation, an initial pool of items was generated by a panel of six academics from the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America with expertise in corporate purpose, sustainability and organizational transformation. The objective at this stage was not to reconstruct the maturity model – which had already been developed through focus groups and a Delphi panel – but rather to translate its action-oriented components into measurable indicators suitable for survey-based assessment.

The item-generation process aimed to capture the four domains identified in prior research (Lleo et al., 2019): purpose-driven strategy, purpose-driven leadership, purpose-driven management systems and purpose-driven communication. Experts were asked to draw on both the maturity model and their theoretical knowledge to formulate statements reflecting how organizations enact each lever in practice.

Consistent with established scale development guidelines (Hinkin, 1998), particular attention was paid to ensuring that each item was clearly linked to the theoretical domain of purpose implementation. The outcome of this phase was a preliminary instrument intended to operationalize purpose implementation as an organizational-level construct grounded in observable structural and managerial practices.

To assess content validity and refine item wording, the preliminary questionnaire was subsequently reviewed by external experts. This phase involved expert judgment focused on clarity, relevance, conceptual alignment and redundancy. The reviewers included senior representatives from DCH – Organización Internacional de Directivos de Capital Humano (in English, “International Organization of Human Capital Managers”), as well as an additional expert with a combined professional trajectory spanning corporate management, consulting and academia. Their feedback contributed to refining item phrasing, eliminating ambiguities and ensuring practical comprehensibility while preserving theoretical rigor.

Although the maturity model includes cyclical redefinition processes and stakeholder commitment recalibration mechanisms, these elements reflect higher-order dynamic governance capabilities rather than the structural implementation of purpose. To preserve conceptual parsimony (Teece et al., 1997), the present scale was intentionally delimited to capture the degree to which purpose is formally deployed, operationalized and integrated across strategy, systems, leadership and communication.

Similarly, several practices included in the maturity model, such as newsletters, employee satisfaction surveys, predefined communication schedules and channel segmentation, represent operational or tactical communication practices rather than the underlying structural dimension of purpose-driven communication. While these practices support the implementation of purpose-related communication, they do not directly reflect the degree to which purpose is institutionalized across organizational processes. Consequently, they were not included as individual items in the scale to maintain conceptual parsimony and focus on the core construct. Table 1 presents the translated version of the indicators generated during this phase.

Purpose implementation at the organizational level is conceptualized as a latent organizational construct, as it cannot be directly observed through a single indicator. It is measured through multiple indicators based on the perceptions of senior business leaders, who are well positioned to assess how purpose is integrated across strategy, leadership, management systems and communication in daily operations. Using these perceptions represents a reasonable and widely accepted approach for capturing latent organizational constructs, consistent with established approaches for assessing complex organizational-level constructs that are not directly observable through archival data, such as culture, identity and climate (Hinkin, 1998; Matheis et al., 2024).

Following the guidelines of Bagozzi and Yi (2012) and the theoretical framework of Blocker et al. (2024), purpose implementation at the organizational level is operationalized as a second-order reflective construct comprising four first-order reflective dimensions: purpose-driven strategy, purpose-driven leadership, purpose-driven management systems and purpose-driven communication, each dimension measured by multiple indicators that are manifestations of the underlying construct (Figure 1).

This specification captures the internal coherence and systemic integration required to transform purpose from a rhetorical statement into an institutionalized capability, thereby avoiding fragmentation of practices. In line with Blocker et al. (2024), who define purpose orientation as a “unified organizational logic,” purpose implementation reflects the extent to which this underlying logic is manifested in organizational practices, systems and behaviors. Accordingly, it is theoretically inconsistent for purpose to be highly implemented in one domain while absent in others, as all dimensions stem from the same underlying organizational condition.

Although the items originate from different stages of maturity, the resulting scale operates as a reflective measure of the overall state of purpose implementation. In this sense, the items vary in their level of difficulty: foundational practices tend to manifest even at lower levels of implementation, whereas more advanced practices – associated with later maturity stages – emerge only when the underlying organizational capability is highly developed. Thus, the scale captures the intensity of purpose implementation rather than a sequential process.

Building on this second-order reflective specification, the direction of causality flows from the latent construct to its manifestations, as purpose implementation represents an organizational condition that shapes how these domains are enacted in practice. Accordingly, purpose implementation is not formed by the additive combination of independent elements, but rather reflected in the consistent and aligned manifestation of multiple organizational domains. The same logic applies to the indicators within each domain, which are expected to reflect a common latent construct, as their covariation is explained by a shared underlying latent factor (Bagozzi and Yi, 2012). Consistent with this specification, both the dimensions and their indicators are expected to be positively correlated (MacKenzie et al., 2011).

Although these dimensions capture distinct organizational expressions, they provide complementary and non-redundant evidence of the same underlying phenomenon, each offering a partial but convergent view of the extent to which purpose is embedded. In organizational settings, capturing multiple domains enhances diagnostic precision by reducing the risk that the measure reflects isolated practices or measurement error rather than the underlying organizational construct.

Considering the scale proposed in the previous step, an online survey was designed to find out to what extent companies have implemented their purpose at the organizational level. All items were measured using a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree. The survey was launched in the first semester of 2023 in an event about corporate purpose that took place at a business school in Spain. On this day, the survey was shared with all the attendees of the event and all DCH members and was published on social networks. DCH is the largest global ecosystem of Human Resources Directors in the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America. It has offices in 13 countries and more than 4,000 members belonging to large multinational companies (DCH, 2024). The following Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) recommendations were followed to mitigate bias issues in responses: the survey assured absolute anonymity, we considered psychological separation in the questionnaire, and all the survey items were carefully kept simple, specific and concise.

The survey targeted human capital managers and C-level (senior business leaders). We obtained 433 answers. In Europe, respondents were from companies in Andorra (0.23%), Spain (32.79%) and Portugal (2.77%). In Latin America, participants came from companies in Argentina (6.70%), Brazil (2.77%), Chile (6.70%), Colombia (8.78%), Costa Rica (1.15%), Ecuador (0.46%), Guatemala (1.15%), Honduras (0.92%), Mexico (11.09%), Panama (0.23%), Paraguay (5.77%), Peru (15.01%), Uruguay (2.08%), Venezuela (0.46%) and from companies located in different countries in Latin America (0.94%). The evaluated companies were in different sectors: Distribution (15%), Industrial (26%), Services (50%) and mixed (9%); different typology: listed companies (33%), unlisted companies (55%), government or public sector companies (2%), third sector and education (9%), others (1%). In addition, the companies evaluated were of different sizes: less than 250 workers (25%), between 250 and 500 workers (13%) and more than 500 workers (62%). They also had different annual turnover: less than €50m (28%), between €50m and €100m (15%), between €100m and up to €500m (24%) and more than €500m (33%).

Given that the dimensional structure of the instrument was specified based on prior theory, an exploratory factor analysis was not conducted. The aim of this study was not to explore the latent structure of the items, but rather to test the adequacy of a theoretically informed measurement model. Therefore, a CFA was deemed the most appropriate method, as it allows for empirical evaluation of a hypothesized factor structure grounded in prior research. As Nájera et al. (2025, p. 18) noted, “CFA requires an a priori specification of the internal structure of the questionnaire, which is then tested by fitting the model to the data.”

A CFA was conducted to assess the reliability and validity of the scale measuring Purpose Implementation at the organizational level. The analysis was performed using the lavaan package in R, examining the goodness-of-fit of the proposed measurement model. The first-order CFA included all items presented in Table 1.

Because multivariate normality was not met (Mardia’s skewness = 39,573.32; Mardia’s kurtosis = 153.01), robust statistics were applied: Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square (S-Bχ²) = 2,612.59, df = 813, S-Bχ²/df = 3.21, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.855, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) = 0.05, and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.08. These indices suggested that model improvements were possible, prompting an inspection of item loadings (Table 1). Two alternative models were evaluated:

1. Model 1: included all items with loadings higher than 0.708 (italic in Table 1), following Hair et al. (2021).

2. Model 2: included the five highest-loading items per dimension (underlined in Table 1). This reduced model was tested because, in practice, many organizations prefer concise instruments that remain valid and reliable. Shortened, validated scales are recommended by Stanton et al. (2002) to ensure practical applicability without sacrificing psychometric quality.

This procedure allowed us to refine the scale, retaining items that provide strong theoretical coverage of all four dimensions: purpose-driven strategy, purpose-driven leadership, purpose-driven management systems and purpose-driven communication. The second model, which included the five highest-loading items per dimension (underlined in Table 1), demonstrated superior fit across all indices (lower χ², χ²/df, SRMR, RMSEA and higher CFI), confirming that this reduced set of items provides a more parsimonious, practically applicable and empirically supported measurement model (Table 2).

Following the refinement of the scale through CFA, we first examine its reliability and construct validity, including convergent and discriminant validity, to ensure that the selected items provide consistent and theoretically meaningful measures. Subsequently, we assess the scale’s nomological validity.

As Table 3 shows, all average variance extracted (AVE) values are better for the second model (Dash and Paul, 2021). In addition, Cronbach’s alpha was improved in the second model, with values within the recommended range of 0.70–0.95 to avoid indicator redundancy (Hair et al., 2021). Moreover, all heterotrait–monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT) values for the second model were below 0.90, indicating adequate discriminant validity, whereas the first model did not meet discriminant validity between the leadership and management systems dimensions.

Considering these results, the second model is more suitable for measuring and analyzing purpose implementation at the organizational level. Furthermore, a correlation analysis among the four dimensions (Table 4) suggested the appropriateness of a higher-order construct, with these four dimensions as first-order factors. The fit of the second-order model improved slightly with the inclusion of this higher-order structure, demonstrating adequate fit to the data. In addition, this second-order construct exhibits strong internal consistency, as indicated by its composite reliability (CR = 0.96) and high convergent validity (AVE = 0.86).

Finally, nomological validity – i.e. the ability of our scale to predict expected outcomes – was assessed (MacKenzie et al., 2011). In this study, purpose implementation was tested as an independent variable to determine whether it positively predicts the perceived impact of corporate purpose on sustainability outcomes (Table 7). While the purpose implementation scale measures the extent to which corporate purpose is embedded in organizational practices, the dependent construct assesses whether such purpose translates into observable improvements in sustainability outcomes. Conceptually, effective purpose implementation is expected to precede and enable the positive impact of corporate purpose on sustainability outcomes (Sasaki and Stubbs, 2025). Therefore, a positive and significant relationship between purpose implementation and the perceived impact of corporate purpose provides evidence of nomological validity, demonstrating that the construct behaves consistently with theoretical expectations.

The dependent construct was conceptualized across three dimensions of sustainability, consistent with prior research (Espinoza Pérez and Vásquez, 2023; Florez-Jimenez et al., 2024; Dyllick and Hockerts, 2017). Social sustainability refers to management practices aimed at strengthening human capital and promoting employee well-being; economic sustainability involves ensuring sufficient financial performance to maintain returns and operational continuity; and environmental sustainability concerns managing organizational activities and products to preserve ecosystems and minimize environmental degradation (Chow and Chen, 2012).

Prior literature indicates that corporate purpose is essential for long-term organizational sustainability (Mannen et al., 2012). Specifically, purpose implementation is expected to influence the impact that purpose has on economic outcomes, such as customer loyalty (Gartenberg et al., 2019; George et al., 2023; Pardo-Jaramillo et al., 2025; van Ingen et al., 2021; Yemişcigil, 2019) and internal productivity (Ferreira et al., 2024; George et al., 2023; Mayer and Roche, 2021; Rey and Malbašić, 2019; Vossaert et al., 2022); on social outcomes, including employee well-being (Aguilera, 2023; Florez-Jimenez et al., 2025b; Jasinenko and Steuber, 2023) and employee development (Marais and Schutte, 2024); and on environmental outcomes, such as environmental awareness and resource reuse (de Costa et al., 2025; John et al., 2022; Sasaki et al., 2023).

Based on this theoretical expectation, the indicators presented in Table 5 were included in the questionnaire to capture the perceived effect of corporate purpose on sustainability outcomes. To assess nomological valid, the dependent construct was evaluated through CFA, which showed that the scale possesses good psychometric properties (Tables 6–7), confirming its suitability for testing the nomological validity of the purpose implementation construct.

Using structural equation modeling (SEM), we found that discriminant validity between the constructs was acceptable, with a value of 0.89, indicating a sufficient distinction. The path coefficient was high at 0.95, reflecting a strong relationship between the variables. The $R2$value of 0.79 suggests a robust model with a high degree of explanatory power. With all of the above, we were able to validate the scale proposed in Figure 1.

The findings directly address the research question of how corporate purpose implementation can be conceptualized and measured at the organizational level in a valid and reliable manner. The results provide strong empirical support for conceptualizing purpose implementation at the organizational level as a multidimensional and systemic organizational construct. These findings contribute to the ongoing discussion on the extent to which corporate purpose is substantively implemented in organizations versus remaining largely symbolic.

The validation of a second-order factor model, consisting of reflective first-order constructs and a reflective higher-order factor structure, suggests that corporate purpose implementation at the organizational level can be meaningfully captured as a latent construct reflected in observable organizational practices, as suggested by prior research (e.g. van Ingen et al., 2026). Empirically, the strong loadings of the first-order dimensions on the higher-order construct and their substantial intercorrelations provide evidence consistent with the assumption of a common underlying driver. This pattern supports the interpretation of purpose implementation at the organizational level as a unified organizational capability rather than a set of loosely coupled practices, as variation across dimensions appears to be systemically linked rather than independent. Moreover, the validation of the second-order structure provides empirical support for the advancement of purpose orientation theory, reinforcing the idea that purpose functions as a unified organizational logic (Blocker et al., 2024). In other words, it suggests that purpose implementation at the organizational level operates as an underlying organizational phenomenon or organizational capability that is manifested through multiple interrelated domains rather than isolated practices – purpose-driven strategy, leadership, management systems and communication – a manifestation of internal organizational coherence, thus reflecting the shift from rhetorical purpose to institutionalized organizational practice.

The refined 20-item instrument exhibits improved psychometric properties compared to the initial model, achieving a balance between parsimony and comprehensiveness. This reduced model enhances practical applicability while maintaining measurement rigor. By providing a concise yet theoretically grounded tool, the study addresses a key gap in the literature, namely, the lack of measurement instruments capable of capturing corporate purpose implementation at the organizational level. In doing so, it offers a valid and reliable way to assess the extent to which purpose implementation is reflected in organizational structures and processes.

In this sense, the scale provides a diagnostic lens for understanding how purpose is enacted within organizations. At the aggregate level, higher scores indicate that purpose is consistently reflected across organizational domains, suggesting a coherent and institutionalized organizational reality. In contrast, lower scores reveal fragmentation, where purpose may be articulated but is not fully embedded in organizational structures and processes. Analytically, the construct enables comparisons across organizations, supports longitudinal analysis and allows researchers to examine how patterns of purpose implementation relate to key outcomes such as sustainability performance.

Finally, the evidence of nomological validity reinforces the idea that the effectiveness of corporate purpose depends critically on its implementation. Specifically, the findings suggest that the impact of corporate purpose on sustainability outcomes is closely related to the extent to which it is embedded in organizational practices and processes. In other words, purpose creates value not merely through its articulation, but through its execution within the organization. Taken together, these results highlight that corporate purpose should be understood not only as a strategic intent, but as an organizational phenomenon whose value depends on the degree to which it is systematically enacted across the firm.

This study contributes to the literature on corporate purpose by advancing a novel conceptualization and empirical operationalization of purpose implementation at the organizational level. Specifically, we offer several theoretical contributions that extend prior research on corporate purpose.

While the literature has largely focused on defining corporate purpose and examining its dimensions (Arias et al., 2024; Gartenberg et al., 2019), prior studies have primarily focused on individual-level perceptions of the purpose’s content or coherence, purpose strength or employee identification (Qin et al., 2022; Bhattacharya et al., 2022; Jasinenko and Steuber, 2023). Although valuable, these approaches mainly capture how employees interpret the intentions and meaning of purpose, rather than how organizations reflect it through their practices. In response to calls for greater empirical insight into how companies operationalize corporate purpose (Blocker et al., 2024; Sasaki et al., 2023), this study shifts the focus to purpose as an organizational-level phenomenon. This perspective moves beyond descriptive accounts and provides a more integrative framework for understanding how purpose is manifested into practice across organizational domains.

Building on the maturity model proposed by Ruiz-Perez (2022), and prior research on purpose (Blocker et al., 2024; van Ingen et al., 2026), this study advances the literature by conceptualizing and empirically validating purpose implementation at the organizational level as a higher-order organizational construct. The analysis supports a second-order factor model comprising reflective first-order constructs and a reflective higher-order factor structure with four factors: purpose-driven strategy, purpose-driven leadership, purpose-driven management systems and purpose-driven communication.

The empirical validation of this higher-order structure provides theoretical support for conceptualizing purpose implementation at the organizational level as an underlying organizational capability rather than a set of isolated managerial practices. It indicates that strategic alignment, leadership reinforcement, management systems integration and structured communication constitute interrelated manifestations of a coherent orientation toward purpose implementation. These findings suggest that purpose implementation is a systemic organizational phenomenon expressed across multiple domains when deeply embedded.

In addition, the study provides a rigorous, psychometrically sound instrument to capture purpose implementation at the organizational level. By shifting the analytical lens to organizational processes and infrastructures, the model enables examination of the extent to which purpose is institutionalized within the organization. In this way, the validated scale allows scholars to move from abstract discussions of corporate purpose toward empirical investigation of how purpose is embedded within organizations and opens avenues for examining how purpose implementation, measured with this instrument, relates to individual and organizational outcomes. Beyond these applications, the scale provides a tool for evaluating the effectiveness of managerial interventions, comparing practices across organizations and investigating the boundary conditions or contingencies that influence the impact of purpose implementation across different industries, cultures and organizational contexts.

From a practical perspective, the validated scale provides organizations with a reliable diagnostic tool to assess the extent to which corporate purpose is consistently manifested across organizational structures and processes. By capturing observable manifestations of the underlying construct across strategy, leadership, management systems and communication, the scale highlights the organizational domains through which purpose becomes visible. Strategy reflects purpose when decision-making criteria, resource allocation and business model choices are aligned with purpose priorities. Leadership expresses purpose through consistent behavioral modeling and sensegiving processes. Management systems reflect purpose when formal structures – such as evaluation, incentives and development mechanisms – are aligned with purpose-related principles. Communication expresses purpose when narratives and interactions consistently reinforce shared meaning across stakeholders. Taken together, these domains provide a systemic view of how purpose is – or is not – integrated into the organization.

Importantly, the scale does not prescribe specific actions nor does it identify causal drivers of purpose implementation. Rather, it supports managerial reflection by making visible the degree of internal coherence between espoused purpose and organizational reality. When applied longitudinally, it allows organizations to assess whether changes in underlying organizational conditions – such as governance structures, decision-making logics or cultural norms – are associated with more consistent manifestations of purpose over time.

In addition, because all dimensions are reflective manifestations of the same underlying construct, organizations with a high level of purpose implementation at the organizational level should observe that all dimensions evolve in a consistent direction over time. A lack of such convergence may indicate the presence of other forces influencing specific domains independently, suggesting that purpose is not yet fully implemented as an organizational property. In this sense, the scale enables a systemic assessment of whether purpose is being translated into coherent organizational patterns rather than isolated or decoupled practices.

From a governance perspective, top management plays a central role in shaping the conditions that enable purpose to be consistently manifested across organizational domains. Through governance mechanisms and policies, leaders influence the organizational environment in which purpose can emerge, supporting coherent patterns in strategy, leadership behaviors, management systems and communication practices, contributing to employee engagement, sustainable practices and long-term societal value creation (Mannen et al., 2012; Sasaki et al., 2023; Sánchez-Chaparro et al., 2022).

Our study is not without limitations. The data used to validate the scales were collected from organizations located in Ibero-America, a region with particular cultural, regulatory and policy environments. As a result, the understanding and adoption of corporate purpose may differ from other regions, and the way purpose is operationalized could be influenced by these contextual factors (Chaves Ávila et al., 2013). Accordingly, claims regarding the generalizability of the findings are moderated, and cross-regional validity remains to be tested in future research. Future studies could extend this work by collecting data from organizations in other regions, such as Anglo-Saxon, African or Asian countries, to examine whether the structure and deployment of purpose implementation are consistent across cultural and institutional contexts.

Another limitation relates to the sample structure. While the overall sample was heterogeneous, including respondents from both Latin America and Europe, subgroup sizes were insufficient to conduct fully powered multigroup analyses by country, subregion, sector or organizational type. Future research with larger and more balanced samples could explore differences in purpose implementation across these dimensions and identify contextual factors that influence the effectiveness of different implementation levers.

In addition, although the scale relies on senior business leaders’ perceptions – an approach consistent with the use of key informants to assess complex and not directly observable organizational phenomena (Hinkin, 1998; Matheis et al., 2024) – it does not incorporate objective firm-level indicators. While perceptual measures from knowledgeable informants are widely used and appropriate for capturing organizational-level constructs such as purpose implementation, future research could complement this approach with more objective indicators, such as documented policies, project alignment or performance metrics. Combining perceptual and objective data would enable a more comprehensive assessment of purpose implementation and allow for the triangulation of multiple data sources. Future research could also benefit from mixed-methods and case-based approaches to provide a more holistic understanding of purpose implementation across different organizational contexts.

Finally, while the current study focuses on validating the measurement of purpose implementation at the organizational level, it does not examine the antecedents or drivers that may influence it. Future research could investigate the organizational, cultural and leadership factors that promote or hinder effective purpose implementation, including governance structures, decision-making processes, resource allocation and managerial behaviors.

Maria Paula Florez-Jimenez is based at School of Economics and Business, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain, and International School of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia.

Alvaro Lleo is based at School of Economics and Business, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.

Giovanni Hernandez is based at International School of Economic and Administrative Sciences, Universidad de La Sabana, Chía, Colombia.

Alejandro Fontana is based at PAD Escuela de Direccion, Universidad de Piura, Lima, Peru.

The authors would like to thank the ISS Chair at the University of Navarra for funding this research. The authors thank the International School of Economics and Administrative Sciences for providing the time and resources necessary to conduct this research. The authors also acknowledge DCH—Organización Internacional de Directivos de Capital Humano (International Organization of Human Capital Managers)—for their support of this initiative. The authors further thank the panel of academics from the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America for their valuable contributions to the development of the initial pool of survey items. Finally, we sincerely thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and insightful suggestions, which significantly improved this manuscript.

The authors disclose receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by ISS Chair at the University of Navarra This work was also supported by the Universidad de La Sabana under the Project “Relación entre estrategia, innovación, sostenibilidad e industria 4.0 en organizaciones en países de economías emergentes” EICEA-155-2023.

The Research Subcommittee of the International School of Economics and Administrative Sciences – EICEA (Universidad de La Sabana) authorized a formal research project through Act No. 085 on May 10, 2023. The committee, which is composed of research group directors, evaluated the project’s relevance, academic quality, and ethical aspects.