1 Introduction

The current economic, environmental, and social systems are increasingly complex (Bouncken et al. 2022), which, according to Gorzeń-Mitka (2016), has caused concepts such as risk, crisis and uncertainty to become common in today’s business environment. A significant and recent example has been the COVID-19 pandemic, which negatively affected both global and local economies and organizations on a large scale (Ivanov and Dolgui 2020) and has sent the message that organizations wishing to survive in the long term should pursue corporate sustainability (i.e., the joint achievement of environmental, social and economic goals) to successfully address the complexity of the systems in which they are embedded (cf., Sarkis 2021). Indeed, in pursuing sustainability, long-term prosperity is more likely to be obtained (Hahn and Figge 2011), i.e., a state of flourishing (Szabo et al. 2013) derived from being efficient and adaptively innovative (Mahsud et al. 2011), that is geared towards meeting prosperity-based stakeheholder needs (Lee 2023; Selvarajah et al. 2018) and which enables the organization to continue to operate (Szabo et al. 2013). However, are there other concepts involved in this achievement?

One way to achieve long-term prosperity is to pursue corporate sustainability, but it is also especially related to the pursuit of adaptation and adjustment to uncertainty, i.e., building a risk-aware culture that helps gain a better position to cope with the demands of high-impact events, as well as to pursue opportunities and gains through uncertainty (Gorzeń-Mitka 2016). In other words, one interesting way to achieve corporate sustainability and long-term prosperity would be through seeking and gaining organizational resilience, as this is a crucial capacity that helps organizations to adapt to any complex environment as well as to face surprises with fortitude, to facilitate continuous improvements (Xie et al. 2022), to achieve organizational renewal through reinvention in the face of challenges (Xie et al. 2022), and to achieve effective solutions to social, economic, and environmental problems (Metcalf and Benn 2012).

Nevertheless, although a connection may exist between corporate sustainability and organizational resilience in order to achieve long-term prosperity (Xie et al. 2022), both are capacities that can be more easily articulated and acquired by organizations through defining and having a corporate purpose. Indeed, a study from the EY Beacon Institute (2017, p. 13) finds that “73% of executives agree that having a well-integrated corporate purpose helps […] navigate [the] turbulent environment.” Having a corporate purpose serves as a foundation for the strategic management of any organization (Gartenberg et al. 2019) and helps any organization to survive and thrive in a rapidly changing world, mainly by helping every organizational constituent, area or function to change towards the same shared aim (Yemişcigil 2019). It provides employees with tools to understand why sustainability initiatives make sense for the firm (Roberts and Dutton 2009) and this understanding would be translated into positive behaviors that support the organization’s sustainability (Balmer 2017). Furthermore, having a corporate purpose elicits among stakeholders both trust towards the organization and a sense of belonging, and, more importantly, helps build stable relationships between the organization and the stakeholders, all of which is certainly helpful to successfully address any unexpected, complex issue faced by organizations (Collins and Saliba 2020; Polman and Winston 2021).

Notwithstanding the above, while organizational resilience influences sustainability, and corporate purpose influences the former two, Florez-Jimenez et al. (2024) propose that organizational sustainability could also influence organizational resilience and also claim that these two capabilities could have a positive impact on corporate purpose, specifically through the formation of several feedback loops (a feedback loop can be defined as a “closed circuit or path, along which information can be traced from one point in a system, through one or more other parts of the system and back to the point of origin”, Whitchurch and Constantine 1993, p. 334). For example, the ability to be sustainable enables organizations to anticipate risks and be more resilient, by considering stakeholders interests (Purcell 2019); it also provides financial-economic resources to invest in risk management (Zietlow et al. 2018) and reduces crisis factors (Glushchenko et al. 2018). Organizational resilience, in turn, retains the organization’s identity during disturbances (Missimer et al. 2017); risk management indicators are typically used to measure the organization’s mission achievement and permit the design of strategies with which to face uncertainty and achieve the organization’s mission (Mateescu et al. 2017; Al Mashaqbeh et al. 2018). Finally, sustainable development strategies attract stakeholders, facilitate the alignment of purposes and increase economic resources for continuity of purpose (Bonfanti et al. 2016; Cortas 2020; Geok 2018; Sacchetti and Tortia 2014; Zietlow et al. 2018).

In short, corporate sustainability, organizational resilience, and corporate purpose (SRP) seem to be related and together can better explain “how” an organization can achieve long-term prosperity. Florez-Jimenez et al. (2024) proposed a framework presenting the relationships that could exist between organizational resilience, corporate sustainability and corporate purpose. Nevertheless, they suggested that future research should analyze from which academic traditions and theories the three concepts involved in the term SRP have been connected, all of which can help address tradition-specific gaps and propose concrete contributions to help organizations achieve long-term prosperity.

Given the above, this paper aims to close this gap in the literature. Specifically, the current study uses a science mapping analysis (through bibliographic coupling analysis) to determine: (1) the research documents that in addressing these three concepts at the same time (i.e., sustainability, resilience, purpose) were aligned -relying on the same trends-, the theories they use and “how” they contribute to the traditions of which they are part, and (2) the existing gaps in explaining the interaction between the three concepts involved in SRP under each academic tradition, so a better understanding of the SRP concept as a lever to long-term prosperity among organizations can be identified.

In all, this paper offers important theoretical contributions. First, it presents five traditions in which corporate sustainability, organizational resilience, and corporate purpose have been interconnected as well as the theories under which each tradition has been tackled. Second, this research explains gaps and future research lines of each tradition in explaining the interaction between all the concepts involved in the term SRP, in order to gain a more systemic understanding of the relationship between these concepts, which according to Roxas et al. (2019), will allow interrelationships to be identified and interdependence and feedback loops between entities in complex systems to be explained. These contributions will help professionals and researchers to better understand the role and the positive impact of corporate purpose on organizations and to understand it not just as a driver of organizational resilience and corporate sustainability but also as a concept fed back by the two other concepts. Thus, this paper will help managers understand organizational resilience and sustainability as capabilities that support corporate purpose and will drive them to design strategies to deploy corporate purpose, organizational resilience, and corporate sustainability in order to achieve long-term prosperity.

2 Theoretical background

Researchers use sustainability, resilience, and purpose across distinct analysis levels. The concept of sustainability is used in topics such as political consensus, rural development, and business behavior (Mebratu 1998). Resilience may be defined differently depending on whether we use it for individuals, families, corporations, societies, or cultures (Southwick et al. 2014). Finally, purpose is known to have implications for policy, business, and individual lives (Yemişcigil 2019). Notwithstanding, all three concepts have also been used in corporate contexts and have even been found to occur simultaneously, as a way to achieve positive organizational results. Their interrelatedness thus seems not only to occur on a frequent basis but is also key to producing long-term firm prosperity in these new times, as posited below.

2.1 Corporate sustainability

In understanding “what” corporate sustainability is, Murray et al. (2017) explain that this concept refers to the pursuit of environmental, social, and economic goals in order to achieve long-term prosperity (Hahn and Figge 2011). In this way, corporate sustainability implies sustainable development, “which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Murray et al. 2017, p. 373), including social, economic, and environmental opportunities and, according to Kiron et al. (2017), it implies innovation in the organizational business model which can help double the likelihood of a return on a set of different forms of capital (e.g., social, environmental) rather than just the return on the economic capital (Hahn and Figge 2011). Thus, sustainable development is said to be operationalized through the triple bottom line paradigm (Elkington 1997), which implies the joint consideration of three different dimensions or types of capital –economic, social, and environmental (Alhaddi 2015; Dyllick and Hockerts 2017; Seuring and Müller 2008) that are interrelated and influence each other in multiple ways. The economic dimension ensures liquidity at any time while producing returns to the shareholders of the organization (Dyllick and Hockerts 2017) and focuses on the economic value that makes the organization thrive due to its ability to support future generations (Alhaddi 2015). The environmental dimension involves not being engaged in activities that degrade ecosystem services but being committed to the efficient use of natural resources and to the minimization of emissions (Dyllick and Hockerts 2017). Finally, the social dimension refers to the search for adding value to the communities within which the organization operates by “increasing the human capital of individual partners as well as furthering the societal capital of these communities” (Dyllick and Hockerts 2017, p. 134), including the addressing of issues related to employee relations, fair wages, and community involvement (Alhaddi 2015) as well as seeking the understanding and agreement of the stakeholders regarding the motivations and values of the organization (Dyllick and Hockerts 2017).

All in all, organizations could achieve long-term prosperity when they pursue and deploy sustainable development in their day-to-day functioning. Nevertheless, the current dynamic world is continuously shaping the framework conditions, which challenges the achievement of sustainable development (Schick et al. 2017) and implies that organizations be resilient and adapt to the context to rewire their operations for equity, environmental sustainability and economic prosperity.

2.2 Organizational resilience

With regard to organizational resilience, Beuren et al. (2022) sustain that such capacity or ability is essential to business survival, since it “supports the development of various types of organizational capabilities and allows organizations to manage disruptive challenges and to thrive in times of crisis” (p. 2263). Indeed, ISO (2016) understands this concept as the ability to adapt and respond to any change and Pettit et al. (2010, p. 1) defines it as “the capacity for an enterprise to survive, adapt, and grow in the face of turbulent change”. Likewise, Martín-Rojas et al. (2023) state that it can be considered as “the firm’s ability to survive, recover, and even grow after a crisis [that] disrupts its business operations” (p.1), Ahi and Searcy (2013) also use a similar conceptualization and define it as “an ability to recover from or adjust easily to misfortune or change” (p. 331) and finally, others define it as an ability with which traditional risk management can be complemented and enhanced (Beuren et al. 2022), thus offering the organization a competitive advantage to address crises (Sigala 2020; Williams et al. 2017).

As seen, the acquisition of this capacity brings great benefits to organizations. However, something must act as a motivating force for these organizations to do their best to be more resilient to changes and overcome emerging and existing challenges. Corporate purpose can provide such a motivating force (Collins and Saliba 2020; Garrard et al. 2016; Horváth 2016; Liu et al. 2020), as it is said to facilitate and smooth the adaptation of organizations to the environment in order to achieve long-term prosperity (Geok 2018; Missimer et al. 2017; Paniccia and Baiocco 2020).

2.3 Corporate purpose

Henderson and Van Den Steen (2015) define corporate purpose “as a concrete goal […] for the firm that reaches beyond profit maximization.” (p. 327), which is also named as a firm’s mission (Abela 2001). Corporate purpose is actually “not a mere tagline or marketing campaign; it is rather a company’s fundamental reason for being, the animating force for achieving profits, “what” the organization does every day to create value for its stakeholders” (Harrison et al. 2020, p. 1224), and what gives meaning and identity to its daily operations (Eden and Huxham 2001). In fact, corporate purpose connects “what people do” with “who they are” (Yemişcigil 2019) and shapes an organization’s identity over time (Diochon and Anderson 2011), such that “firms with a strong corporate purpose […] are those in which employees hold strong beliefs on the meaning and impact of their work” (Gartenberg et al. 2019, p. 5).

It is no wonder then that corporate purpose enables stability in a volatile world in which everything moves quickly. Without corporate purpose, leaders lack the passion for persevering in the face of volatility (Horváth 2016) and, in a world of uncertainty, lack an anchor that is key to giving direction to the organizations, even if everything changes (Horváth 2016). Such is its importance that it helps create a sense of common cause and sense of belonging with stakeholders, that can make organizations more resilient to any change or challenge facing them (Collins and Saliba 2020) and importantly, hold the organization together (Garrard et al. 2016).

2.4 Sustainability, resilience and purpose (SRP): how are they interconnected?

Based on the above, it is very likely that the concepts involved in the term SRP are interconnected to explain and predict “how” organizations can achieve long-term prosperity in a dynamic world, in line with the Systems Theory of Organizations (STO, Geok 2018; Vancouver 1996; Bertalanffy 1968; Walker 2016). Indeed, according to STO, the unit of inquiry (e.g., organizations) constitutes a whole composed of interrelated parts that are interconnected and influence one another in such a circular way (feedback loop) that each component may contribute to and is affected by others (Katz and Kahn 1978). This interdependence is such that each element of the system may need the support of other elements to function optimally (Lai and Huili Lin 2017). Thus, according to STO, an interdependence of the distinct components of the system is highly feasible, which may be articulated by means of feedback loops of influence that when positive, may amplify the effects of one variable on another and may lead to the escalation or perpetuation of the states of these variables (Sterman 2000).

According to STO we can therefore say that the state of a variable at a given time could be a function of the state of the same variable at an earlier time (Kessler 2013, p. 816) and of other factors over which this variable has influence (Sterman 2000; Vancouver 1996; Wynn and Maier 2022), and that therefore, a similar type of positive feedback influence examples between the three variables involved in the SRP concept may occur. Indeed, SRP seems to follow this dynamic. First, the state of (shared) purpose, at any particular time, will affect the state of shared purpose at a future time, something that may also occur with organizational resilience and corporate sustainability. Second, each one of these variables are interconnected to such an extent that they may depend on each other to function optimally, as described below.

For example, according to previous research, corporate purpose can drive organizational resilience (Roorda 2018; Roberts and Dutton 2009). Indeed, when a corporate purpose exists and is shared with the organization’s members, it creates strong relationships within the organization and with other stakeholders to make the purpose real (Mannen et al. 2012), thus favoring the involvement of the organization with stakeholders and of the stakeholders with the organization, as well as the generation and management of knowledge (Zapata Cantu and Mondragon 2016) with which to ensure the formation of resilience capabilities that lead to organizations being better positioned to respond to any type of environmental shock (Ahi and Searcy 2013). The opposite can also be true, as some previous research has suggested that corporate resilience can help retain an organization’s identity (Missimer et al. 2017) and that the strategies aimed at managing risk (which is connected to being resilient) ensure that the organization’s mission is fulfilled (Mateescu et al. 2017; Al Mashaqbeh et al. 2018).

Furthermore, while some authors propose that sustainability enables mission continuation (Mannen et al. 2012) and that this should be part of corporate purpose (i.e., purpose-driven corporations should seek among other things to improve the community and the environment) (Collins and Saliba 2020), other authors propose that corporate purpose could also directly affect corporate sustainability. Indeed, when corporate purpose contemplates sustainable development, it enables employees to understand the importance of sustainable initiatives (Roberts and Dutton 2009) and thus, motivates them to adopt sustainable behaviors (Balmer 2017). Importantly, other authors also state that corporate purpose is the unifying, relevant, ethical frame that drives organizations towards directing activities to the benefit of stakeholders, which is an important part of corporate sustainability (Bhattacharya et al. 2022).

Finally, by adopting sustainable behaviors, organizations can mitigate risks and increase their resilience: economic behaviors enable investing in and improving risk management (Zietlow et al. 2018), social behaviors involve taking stakeholders’ interests into account (Purcell 2019) and environmental behaviors involve analyzing the environment and predicting potential problems (Evenseth et al. 2022). In addition, existing research has also suggested that organizational resilience is a capability that can drive corporate sustainability in a dynamic world, enabling sustainable competitive performance: socially, environmentally, and economically (Kantabutra and Ketprapakorn 2021).

In short, the three concepts involved in the term SRP are closely interconnected and it is feasible that this interconnectedness is formed through the creation of several positive feedback loops, in line with that stated in STO (Geok 2018; Vancouver 1996); Walker 2016). Nevertheless, just as STO aims to better and holistically understand the ways in which the different components of a system can interact (Katz and Kahn 1978), it seems necessary to delve deeper in explaining the relationships between the three concepts involved in the term SRP, since it is not clear, for example, “which” mechanisms allow each relationship to occur (i.e., corporate purpose-organizational resilience, corporate purpose-corporate sustainability, organizational resilience-corporate sustainability). As such, it is necessary to determine and distinguish the academic traditions (i.e., approaches) that have emerged in the quest to understand the relationships between all the concepts involved in the term SRP, so that we can identify those research papers that have attempted to relate all these concepts under one approach and their common trends. This will help to identify the existing gaps in each tradition, to go deeper into each of them in future research and to highlight the theories from which each relationship could be explained in depth in order to subsequently gain a more systemic understanding of the relationships between the different concepts involved in the term SRP, all with the objective of facilitating the long-term prosperity of organizations.

3 Methodology

In this research, we aim to analyze and importantly, identify the academic traditions within which all the concepts involved in the term SRP have been related and the trends in each one of these traditions. For that purpose, we adopted a science mapping analysis methodology, a tool that is used to carry out systematic literature reviews productively. A systematic literature review “locates existing studies, selects and evaluates contributions, analyses and synthesizes data, and reports the evidence in such a way that allows reasonably clear conclusions to be reached about what is and is not known” (Denyer and Tranfield 2009, p. 671) and science mapping analysis is a tool for conducting systematic literature reviews with which the researchers can study the knowledge domain or even visualize the structure networks to provide a broader picture of the studied topic (Marzouk and Elshaboury 2022; Pan et al. 2023).

Based on bibliometric research methodology, science mapping analysis is an important technique that is used to map the development of scientific fields (Zupic and Čater 2015) to understand the extent of a topic and its emergent trends (Verma and Gustafsson 2020) and to enable the identification of connections and gaps in the research field under study (Marzouk and Elshaboury 2022; Núñez-Merino et al. 2022). This is an attractive subclass of bibliometric analysis in which researchers endeavor to explore and graphically visualize the connections between documents as they evolve and grow over the years (Moosa and Shareefa 2020). This methodology seeks to obtain a graphical visualization of how documents are interrelated (Chen 2017; Santana and Cobo 2020) and facilitates the analysis of scientific research domains (Chen 2014) by guiding researchers to understand the state of the art of complex domains (Chen 2017) such as the relationships between the concepts implicit in the term SRP.

The process to be followed when conducting a science mapping analysis starts by selecting relevant documents for the research question. Subsequently, these documents, using bibliometric techniques, are analyzed to identify patterns in the literature in the form of maps or network diagrams, facilitating the identification of key areas of research, trends or patterns as well as any gaps or overlaps in a particular field of the literature (Bibliometrix 2023). Figure 1 presents the adopted methodology, which was based on the Scopus citation database. Although we initially conducted the search in Web of Science and Scopus, we realized that the documents that we had selected through Web of Science (eight documents) were also contained in the Scopus search, and thus we finally decided to present the search strategy used in Scopus, a large-scale database collector (Liu 2013), that has a large number of premier journals and covers most indexed journals in all research fields (Mongeon and Paul-Hus 2016).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart describing the adopted science mapping analysis methodology

Full size image

3.1 Phase 1: Designing the search strategy and database searching

As a first step we created a set of concepts for SRP in order to perform a complete search strategy. Each set included the core concept (corporate sustainability, organizational resilience, or corporate purpose) and its associated concepts. In order to find the associated concepts, we selected and read seminal articles for each concept. To identify the seminal articles, we followed five criteria: i) we did the search in the title, abstract, or keywords search fields (in the specific case of “purpose”, this was replaced in the abstract field with the term “corporate purpose” or “organi?ational purpose”Footnote 1 since “purpose” has different meanings and this concept may appear in the abstract to refer to the objective of that particular study; this strategy was not necessary for the other two concepts: sustainability or resilience), ii) we used the Business, Management and Accounting (BMA) filterFootnote 2 to narrow the search to include only articles within the corporate context, iii) we included only articles in English, iv) after having performed our search strategy (see Table 1), we selected the titles in the top 10% citescore (Meuer et al. 2020) and crossed in excel the resulting articles with the list of journals obtained in the CiteScore Quartiles metric of Scopus (Elsevier 2017), and v) we organized the articles from the most to the least cited and skimmed them until the 10 most cited articles were identified (Lazaretti et al. 2020); we screened 24, 15 and 136 documents until we selected 10 documents describing sustainability, resilience and purpose, respectively. Table 1 presents the search strategy used, the seminal documents selected, the quotes describing the core concepts, and the associated concepts selected for each of the three core concepts involved in the term SRP, once we had reviewed all the previously described documents in detail.

Table 1 Search strategies to select seminal documents and associated concepts for each core concept involved in SRP.
Full size table

As seen in Table 1, some of these seminal documents linked corporate sustainability to sustainable development (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund 2013; Murray et al. 2017) and triple bottom line (Ahi and Searcy 2013; Dyllick and Hockerts 2017; Linton et al. 2007; Pagell and Wu 2009; Saberi et al. 2018; Seuring and Müller 2008). Other documents linked organizational resilience to adaptation (Ivanov et al. 2018; Jüttner and Maklan 2011; Lengnick-Hall et al. 2011; Luthans 2002; Pettit et al. 2010; Youssef and Luthans 2007), recovery (Ahi and Searcy 2013; Avey et al. 2009; Jüttner and Maklan 2011; Youssef and Luthans 2007), risk management (Pettit et al. 2010), and crisis management (Sigala 2020). Finally, some documents related corporate purpose with mission (Abela 2001; Becker et al. 2017; Harrison et al. 2020; Moore 2012; Muñoz et al. 2018; Wilson and Post 2013), identity (Diochon and Anderson 2011; Muñoz et al. 2018) and meaning (Eden and Huxham 2001). Overall, then, for the sustainability set, sustainability, sustainable development, and triple bottom line were used; for the organizational resilience set we used resilien* (including resiliency and other resilient-rooted terms), risk management, recovery, crisis management, and as a way to narrowing the “adapt” term, adaptation, adaptive capacity, adaptability and adaptive management. Finally, purpose, identity, mission, and meaning were the concepts used for the purpose set.

As a second step, we conducted a comprehensive search strategy that combined the three sets (Table 2). The search strategy followed two criteria: (i) search in the title, abstract, or keywords search fields (we replaced “purpose” with “Corporate purpose” OR “organi?ational purpose” in the abstract search field) and (ii) use of the Business, Management and Accounting (BMA) filter to narrow the search to the corporate context only.

Table 2 Sets and search strategies
Full size table

Figure 2 shows a Venn diagram with the number of papers identified from carrying out the complete search strategy, the number of papers that resulted from carrying out the search strategies for each one of the three sets, and the interceptions of pairs of sets. The resulting number of papers for the interception of the three sets (S∩R∩P) (i.e., the complete search strategy) numbered 167, meaning that in the title, abstract, or keywords of 167 documents, at least one concept of each set was related to another concept from the other sets.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Venn diagram with the resulting number of documents

Full size image

3.2 Phase 2: performing the selection of documents

We first reviewed the abstracts of the identified documents to determine their relevance. In selecting the documents, we considered two criteria: (i) each concept had to be used consistently with its constituent set, guided by the description of the seminal documents, and (ii) the documents had to relate these concepts in a corporate setting. Then, we read the full text of each selected document to ensure that it was indeed relevant for inclusion.

Figure 3 shows the results of the screening process that resulted in the final number of documents to be included in the literature review. As can be seen, of the 167 documents originally selected, 87 were discarded because they did not have a consistent usage with their constituent set considering the description of the seminal documents, for example, in some documents, the concept “meaning” was used as the meaning of a word or phrase (Consistent_No). In addition, after reviewing the remaining 80 documents, 46 were discarded for not relating the concepts in a corporate setting, for example, those in which all three concepts in the set were related in the urban setting or in any other setting (Corporate_No). In the end, only 34 documents were read in depth for our comprehensive literature review (Corporate_Yes).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Document selection

Full size image

In phase 3, we identified the academic traditions from which each of the elements that build up the term SRP have been related, highlighting the theories used by the respective authors. Finally, we performed a general analysis of the gaps and future directions, based on the information collected during the previous phases. These results are presented in the following section.

4 Results

4.1 Identifying academic traditions, gaps, and future directions

Our in-depth analysis of these 34 documents and a bibliographic coupling analysis in VOSviewer helped us to detect the academic traditions from which the concepts involved in SRP have been related. Figure 4 shows the results and Fig. 5 presents the Overlay visualization obtained, which helps to distinguish the oldest and newest academic traditions. As Fig. 4 shows, 20 out of 34 documents are classified into five academic traditions, indicating that the documents of the same tradition had common references. Although a priori, 14 out of 34 documents seemed to be unrelated, a careful reading of their content led us to classify them within one of the traditions previously identified. Table 3 presents: (i) the name assigned to each tradition, (ii) its documents, and (iii) the theories used in these documents and together with Fig. 5 shows that the oldest traditions are Stakeholder identification (e.g., Roberts and Dutton 2009; Sidali et al. 2015) and Strategic resources (e.g., Pendergast 2009; Santos et al. 2014) and the newest one is Social entrepreneurship (e.g., Kodzi 2015; Bonfanti et al. 2016). Below, we explain the trends and contributions of each one of these academic traditions.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Bibliographic coupling analysis in VOSviewer: Network Visualization

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Bibliographic coupling analysis in VOSviewer: Overlay Visualization

Full size image
Table 3 Academic traditions in addressing the three concepts involved in SRP (in bold, the theoretical framework most commonly used among traditions)
Full size table

Human and complex systems

This tradition has tackled “how” organizations, as the human complex systems that they are, interact with the complex systems within which they are embedded. The complex systems within which organizations are embedded present changes to which these organizations should adapt to survive (Geok 2018; Metcalf and Benn 2012). To achieve this adaptation, organizations should consider sustainability as part of their purpose (Anninos and Chytiris 2012; Metcalf and Benn 2012). According to this tradition, an authentic purpose and identity that include sustainable development satisfies society’s demands and favors resilience amid the complex and fast-changing environment (Liu et al. 2020). Furthermore, an authentic purpose will lead to a common meaning, a more robust culture to face potential threats, and a more resilient organization (Mannen et al. 2012), all of which will help the organization to survive, maintain its purpose (Walker 2016), and be able to continue to develop its mission (Geok 2018; Mannen et al. 2012).

This tradition has been tackled by theories such as STO (Geok 2018; Walker 2016; Kessler 2013), the Complex Adaptive Systems theory (Metcalf and Benn 2012), the Institutional theory (Metcalf and Benn 2012), the theory of Sustainable Organizing (Mannen et al. 2012), and the Positive Organizational Scholarship framework (Mannen et al. 2012). For example, STO, which sustains that the interventions directed at one part of an organizational system can affect other interrelated parts, thus possibly affecting the original intervention (Kessler 2013), was used by Geok (2018) to explain how purpose-driven organizations adapt their social practices in response to dynamic forces in the environment, and how this purpose is critical to understanding the relationships between the parts of each system and their outcomes in the environment. This theory also was used by Walker (2016) to explain that for the long-term prosperity of organizations, management skills are needed to handle this complexity and identify the ongoing change holistically, helping organizations not to lose their purpose or identity. Institutional theory and the Complex adaptive systems theory are other frameworks that are used in this tradition. With both frameworks, the organization is described as an agent that has a place within a wider system (Kessler 2013), though the Complex adaptive systems theory particularly emphasizes that organizations are agents embedded in complex, adaptive systems, through which organizations interact with other agents in unpredictable ways (Carmichael and Hadžikadić 2019). Metcalf and Benn (2012) used these frameworks and especially the Complex Adaptive Systems framework to justify that organizations are nowadays embedded in CIDESS, that is, complex interconnected and dynamic environmental, economic and social systems, and that organizations must define their purpose as being engaged with society and environment to reach high levels in both adaptivity and sustainability –the latter from an economic, social and environmental viewpoint. The theory of Sustaining Organizing is also a framework used in this tradition, specifically by Mannen et al. (2012), who argue that the organization must be designed “in a way that mimics the patterns and relationships found in nature, […] for the sustainability of the mission of the organization without compromising the needs of future generations of stakeholders to continue that mission.” (p.355). In this vein, Mannen et al. (2012) drew upon this theory to argue how a purpose intimately linked to the natural environment and designed with the total engagement with and of stakeholders, is key for organizations to evolve and adapt (be resilient) as well as be sustainable. Finally, Mannen et al. (2012) also name the positive organizational scholarship as a suitable framework to explain how a purpose rooted in such a focus is likely to be positively connected with corporate sustainability and resilience. This theory emphasizes virtuousness as the highest expression of the potential and aspirations of organizations (Cameron 2007), and links it to the acquisition of resilience (Mannen et al. 2012) and development of actions that produce social, economic and environmental goods (Cameron 2007).

Stakeholder identification

This tradition has tackled “how” stakeholder identification with the organization impacts on resilience and on the organization’s sustainable performance. The idea here is that having an attractive corporate identity or purpose forges stakeholder identification with this corporate identity, which translates into positive behaviors towards the organization (i.e., customers who become corporate champions, more satisfied employees who are committed to the organization) that confirm the corporate identity and help the organization to be sustainable (Andrews 2017; Balmer 2017). It is easier to occur when the corporate purpose is praiseworthy and sustainability rooted, which enriches stakeholders relationships, aligns employees’ behavior with such a purpose and develops high synergy that enhances corporate resilience (Roberts and Dutton 2009; Roorda 2018; Tajuddin et al. 2017) and business sustainability (Tajuddin et al. 2017). Thus, with sustainability as a fundamental part of an organization’s identity, and applied to all activities of the organization, the organization is sure to be sustainable (Balmer 2017; Roberts and Dutton 2009; Roorda 2018; Sidali et al. 2015; Tajuddin et al. 2017) and thus more adaptive/resilient in that it anticipates challenges (Roorda 2018) and, of course, is more effective in influencing and developing pro-environmental actions (Andrews 2017). This tradition also underlines that a system of shared meaning held by members is crucial for resisting change and maintaining the essence of the institution (de Almeida and de Souza Ramos 2022): resilience is imperative for long-term survival and enables organizations to adapt to various environmental changes without ever failing to fulfill their mission (de Almeida and de Souza Ramos 2022). This tradition has been tackled by a varied set of theories such as Positive Identity theory (rooted in Positive Organizational scholarship, Roberts and Dutton 2009), Organizational Identity theory (Andrews 2017), Organizational Culture theory (Andrews 2017; Tajuddin et al. 2017), Organizational Identification theory (Balmer 2017), Social Identity theory, Self-Determination theory (Andrews 2017), and two consumer behavioral theories: Experience Economy and Intimacy theories (Sidali et al. 2015).

Positive Identity theory was used by Roberts and Dutton (2009) to highlight the importance of establishing a purpose which is meaningful and honorable, as a means to lead corporations to enrich internal/external stakeholders’ relationships with a view to becoming sustainable and resilient. Organizational identity theory, which examines “how” an existing organizational identity can guide organizational responses to competitive challenges (Kessler 2013), was used by Tajuddin et al. (2017) to explain that when “organizational members define themselves as a social group in terms of practices, norms, and values” (p.142), resilience and business sustainability are supported. The Organizational Culture theory, which explains how and why organizations function through culture (Kessler 2013), was used by Andrews (2017) and Tajuddin et al. (2017) to justify how a purpose that is meaningful (e.g., connected with nature) can lead to organizational members identifying with such a purpose and make insightful knowledge available to them regarding “where” the organization is heading, which is essential if they are to conform to the organizational culture and is key for the organization to be resilient and sustainable. Organizational Identification theory –which considers that stakeholders meaningfully identify with a corporate identity” – was used by Balmer (2017) to explain that a positive identification translates into positive stakeholder behaviors that support an organization’s sustainability and favors adaptation. Social identity theory, which explains how integration into a group benefits an individual and enhances cooperation and performance within the team (Kessler 2013), was also used by Andrews (2017) as a way to justify how organizational members can easily identify with a purpose that is connected with nature, and how achieving such identification leads them to work vigorously for sustainability principles. Self-determination theory, which sustains that people who have identified with the importance of a certain behavior are expected to accept it as their own (Kessler 2013), was used by Andrews (2017) to explain that values that involve concern beyond the self and with the natural world drive pro-environmental behavioral patterns. Finally, Sidali et al. (2015) use the Experience economy theory –which emphasizes the importance of transmitting memorable and symbolic experiences to customers– and the Intimacy theory –which focuses on the growing need of individuals to pursue inter relationships and faithfulness close to their own self-identity– to highlight the need of a sustainability-rooted corporate purpose and to being sufficiently agile to adapt to whatever environmental challenges might arise.

Strategic resources

Based on the idea that a set of strategic resources can help achieve a sustainable competitive advantage, this tradition has tackled “how” resources, such as having a common meaning and a clear purpose, are essential for “adaptive system(s) to continue, despite the constant change and uncertainty within them and their environment” (Missimer et al. 2017, p. 36), and more importantly, how adaptive systems, as a consequence of their resilience, will retain their identity (Missimer et al. 2017). This tradition, for example, argues that resources such as a common meaning drive organizations to be more resilient (Purcell 2019) and to adopt sustainability initiatives to be competitive (Fatoki 2019; Missimer et al. 2017; Pendergast 2009; Purcell 2019). Further, this tradition proposes that sustainable development reduces risks by taking stakeholders into consideration (Purcell 2019) and provides a financial-economic state that will reduce crisis factors (Glushchenko et al. 2018). Moreover, it states that missions “represent a key way in which social norms for organizational behavior are created” (Fatoki 2019, p. 579), and can determine “how” risks will be handled, and how this risk management will prevent unwanted events or crises (Mateescu et al. 2017), thereby ensuring the sustainable survival of the organization (Al Mashaqbeh et al. 2018; Glushchenko et al. 2018; Pendergast 2009; Santos et al. 2014) and thus, the achievement of its mission (Al Mashaqbeh et al. 2018; Mateescu et al. 2017). Finally, under this tradition, commitment to the organization’s mission is said to be a resource that favors the involvement of stakeholders with the organization as well as the generation and management of knowledge, which ultimately should engender organizations’ sustainability and rapid adaptation to dynamic environments (Zapata Cantu and Mondragon 2016).

This tradition has been tackled by STO (Geok 2018; Kessler 2013; Missimer et al. 2017), the Resource-Based View and the Organizational Culture theory (Fatoki 2019). STO was used by Missimer et al. (2017) to explain that “in order to exist and strive, social systems (in this case, organizations) need a clear purpose” (p. 38) and required adaptation in order to retain their identity. The Resource-Based View –which affirms that resources and capabilities can facilitate the attainment and sustainability of firm-level competitive advantages (Kessler 2013)–, and Organizational Culture theory –which explains how the beliefs, values, attitudes and practices of an organization generate unity among all its parts to achieve survival and adaptation–, were used by Fatoki (2019) to explain that resources and capabilities such as “mission” and “adaptability” can forge an organizational culture oriented to accomplish sustainability goals (Fatoki 2019).

Multi-stakeholder organization

This tradition has tackled “how” organizations increasingly become multi-stakeholder organizations, i.e., networks of co-interested and co-motivated agents sharing a mission (Sacchetti and Tortia 2014) and “how” the interaction between stakeholders facilitates their resilience and sustainability. Furthermore, it argues that shared purpose brings stakeholders together and generates social ties, thus strengthening the organization’s resilience and sustainability (Collins and Saliba 2020; Sacchetti and Tortia 2014; Paniccia and Baiocco 2020). According to this tradition, this would happen because “when [the organization] and their stakeholders join to form networks, they are well positioned to exchange information about sustainability, processes and skills, [thus improving] the organization’s ability to withstand business challenges” (Collins and Saliba 2020, p. 36). It would also happen because cooperation between all stakeholders favors innovation -new models, products, services (Kamaludin et al. 2022)- and the organizations’ recovery (Cheng et al. 2010), which is necessary for sustainability (Cortas 2020) and the alignment of identities among the multi-stakeholders (Paniccia and Baiocco 2020) to realize. Thus, according to this tradition, the organization’s mission should satisfy all stakeholders’ needs and their quality of life (Cortas 2020) as well as having sustainability as a core value (Cheng et al. 2010; Collins and Saliba 2020) to become a multi-stakeholder organization. This tradition also holds that sustainable development increases the economic resources necessary for the continuity of the organization’s mission (Cortas 2020; Sacchetti and Tortia 2014).

This tradition has only been tackled by STO (e.g., Kessler 2013), which was used by Paniccia and Baiocco (2020) to explain how an organization, as a system, has different related stakeholders that should adapt to achieve an alignment of identities and this could help to establish cooperative relationships. In specific, the authors (p. 98) offer as an example “the gradual increase in tourism flows into agritourism sites requesting authentic rural lifestyle experiences has stimulated new practices based on strengthened relationships between farmers, local policymakers, communities, and tourists […]” which according to them, favors behaviors “attentive to environmental and cultural values on the part of all the actors involved.” (Paniccia and Baiocco 2020, p. 98).

Social entrepreneurship

This tradition has tackled how social enterprises generate creative new solutions that are adaptive to the environment in such a way that societal needs are fulfilled and sustainable goals are achieved (Saha and Sáha 2020; Sam Liu and Huang 2020), which may result in the employees’ sense of corporate identity being improved and consequently, the organization’s resilience increasing (He et al. 2022). This tradition also argues that social entrepreneurship is linked to risk management, to the extent that it sustains that the purpose of social enterprises helps sharpen the “entrepreneur’s intention to pursue sustainability [as well as] their motivation to proactively pursue the valuation, estimation, and exploration of market opportunities over time” (Sam Liu and Huang 2020, p. 99), thus probably ensuring the development of the local economic-social fabric (Bonfanti et al. 2016). Finally, in the words of He et al. (2022, p. 656), this tradition also indicates that organizational resilience significantly influences corporate financial performance and economic sustainability and, as argued by Zietlow et al. (2018) and Bonfanti et al. (2016), it sustains that economic sustainability supports risk management and is a means of achieving social mission objectives.

This tradition has been tackled by Social Exchange Theory, Finance theory (Zietlow et al. 2018) and Social Entrepreneurial Orientation theory (Sam Liu and Huang 2020). Social Exchange Theory–which considers that human behavior is guided by the realization of a previous cost-benefit analysis –was used by He et al. (2022) to support that organizations can recognize organizational citizenship behaviours, and this reward will significantly enhance employees’ sense of corporate identity and consequently improve the organization’s resilience. Finance theory –which recognizes the importance of cost control for liquidity– was used by Zietlow et al. (2018) to explain how mission and finance may work together in a nonprofit organization, arguing that proficient financial management contributes to risk management which in turn leads to mission achievement. Social Entrepreneurial Orientation theory –for which the sustainability concept represents a mission and for which social needs fulfillment is a priority– was used by Sam Liu and Huang (2020, p. 98) to explain that “a social mission offers ethical guidance and encourages entrepreneurs to put self-interest aside [thus ensuring] that entrepreneurial activities be devoted to innovation and [the creation of] social and economic value for society [as well as] to the discovery of new opportunities that support social changes to achieve sustainability”. Furthermore, under this tradition, Sam Liu and Huang (2020, p. 99) argue that: “risk management helps […] to scan the environment for sustainability needs, to predict unexpected shocks arising from organizational benefits and costs and to strengthen the [organization’s] likelihood of proactively preparing for future uncertainty.”.

In short, each academic tradition described above has a particular approach and contributes with particular trends. Importantly, an exhaustive analysis of all this information leads us to draw up a map (Fig. 6) that illustrates the relationships that have been tackled by each tradition and the theories that academics have used to propose each relationship (if applicable). Figure 6 shows “how” each academic tradition has concentrated on certain relationships and has used theories, in some cases, to support trends in the relationships discussed among the different concepts involved in the term SRP. This figure (Fig. 6) also, importantly, shows “how” the integration of the trends tackled by each tradition so far helps to conceive a two-way relationship between the different concepts involved in the term SRP.

Additionally, our analysis of all these traditions and their respective theories reflects that in combination with each other, these traditions could help scholars and practitioners to offer a more systemic understanding of the relationships that may exist between the three concepts involved in the term SRP. Furthermore, this analysis leads us to conclude that the Stakeholder Identification, the Strategic Resources, the Multi-stakeholder Organization, and the Social Entrepreneurship traditions all propose trends that can contribute to the Human and complex systems tradition, and more importantly, lead us to conclude that a dominant theory that endorses the relationships that may arise between the different concepts involved in SRP is STO (Geok 2018; Walker 2016; Kessler 2013). This theory, that exhibits the interconnectedness of the different parts of a system to predict its future behavior (Vancouver 1996) and thus conforms to the feedback loop and dynamic processes described above on the relationships that are predicted between the three concepts implicit in the term SRP, is able to integrate the other theories and trends, and is used by most academic traditions (e.g., Human and complex systems, Strategic resources, Multi-stakeholder organization). In the case of Human and complex systems and Strategic resources traditions, STO (Kessler 2013) is used to explain the critical role of corporate purpose to understand the relationships between the distinct parts of the organization and its environment and in facilitating the adaptation to these dynamics for survival. In the case of the Multi-stakeholder organization tradition, STO is utilized to justify the importance of aligning stakeholders’ interests with the purpose of the organization to achieve cooperation with them and become sustainable.

Fig. 6
figure 6

Relationships and trends tackled by each tradition

Full size image

4.2 Identifying gaps and future directions

In a general way, although the majority of these traditions share that sustainability should be part of corporate purpose, i.e., purpose should be rooted in sustainability, they do not make it clear “what” the term “sustainable purpose” means. To close this gap, further studies should clarify “which” triple bottom line dimensions (i.e., economic, social, or environmental) are the ones which make up a sustainable corporate purpose (e.g., economic and social, economic and environmental, or all together). Additionally, despite all traditions noting that a shared purpose/mission/identity/meaning is a lever for organizations to adapt or to cope with change and uncertainty (it is not enough to have a purpose if it is not shared), none of them empirically test if “shared purpose/mission/identity/meaning” has a positive impact on organizational resilience and/or sustainability, and further empirical research addressing this issue is much needed. Finally, although all traditions propose that adaptation or coping with uncertainty is necessary for the sustainability of organizations, none explain this relationship or the mechanisms that make it possible. To close this gap, we propose further research to describe how a resilient organization can impact social, economic and environmental aspects of its activity to achieve long-term prosperity. Beyond these general gaps and future research directions, various of these can also be identified for each academic tradition, as described below.

Human and complex systems. This tradition explains theoretically and through qualitative study cases that when society’s demands are part of the corporate purpose, a feedback loop is created (sustainable purpose developed → shared purpose → strong culture → organization’s adaptation → organization’s → survival → sustainable purpose developed)Footnote 3, and organizations can continue to enhance their corporate purpose. Nevertheless, more knowledge is needed to understand the dynamism formed by the interaction of variables such as purpose implementation, organizational adaptation, and sustainable practices. For example, what other variables interact in the above feedback loop? Are other feedback loops affecting the outcome of the above loop?

To address this gap, the use of System Dynamics is recommended, which is a method for developing and testing complex dynamical systems (Sterman 2003). It can be used to identify other enterprise system variables related to SRP (e.g., stakeholders’ engagement, Mannen et al. 2012; positive leadership, Missimer et al. 2017; cooperation with stakeholders, Cheng et al. 2010; innovation, Sam Liu and Huang 2020), to analyze the sign (positive or negative) of each relationship (if a change in a variable increases or reduces the other), and to identify possible loops and their sign (e.g., cooperation with stakeholders → organizational resilience → shared purpose → cooperation with stakeholders). Finally, considering the loops, future research should evaluate “what” policies (e.g., setting-up regular meetings or forums with stakeholders; integrating stakeholders in the governance of the organization) should be adopted to enhance shared purpose, organizational resilience, and sustainable impact.

Stakeholder identification. This tradition explains, by using qualitative and quantitative study cases, that organizations are conformed by stakeholders with their own identity, and when this identity is aligned with that of the organization (which is easier to happen when the corporate purpose is rooted in sustainable values), organizational identification is said to emerge, which drives organizations to be resilient and develop pro-environmental behaviors. Nevertheless, there is no thorough explanation or validation concerning the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of a genuine identification/shared purpose of stakeholders (internal/external) with the organization. To address this gap, future research should address “how” to ensure a genuine identification/shared purpose of each group of stakeholders (internal/external) with the organization, using previous validated scales in the literature such as that of Lleo et al. (2021).

Furthermore, this tradition also lacks an explanation about how a shared purpose between stakeholders and organization impacts each of the organizational resilience dimensions (i.e., planned and adaptive resilience), and how it also impacts not just environmental but also social and economic behaviors of the organization (e.g., in the case of the employees as stakeholders, pro-environmental behavior, extra-role behaviors). Thus, further research could explain how a shared purpose boosts the capacity of organizations to plan and adapt, as well as enhancing their corporate social, economic and environmental performance. Finally, this tradition emphasizes the importance of conforming to the organizational culture, but there is a lack of explanation about how shared purpose is related to the organizational culture. Future research should clarify how (by which means) shared purpose is related to the culture or climate of the organizations.

Strategic resources. This tradition proposes theoretically and validates empirically that some resources, such as shared purpose, help organizations to become strongly resilient and sustainable and enable a competitive advantage to be obtained. This tradition validates that when the mission is shared, it favors knowledge management and, thus, organizational adaptability. Nevertheless, more knowledge is needed about how corporate purpose, knowledge management, and other organizations’ internal resources are linked to anticipate future effects in the system.

To address the above gaps, researchers should test and validate whether other organizational resources, either tangible such as technology, or intangible such as motivation (Zapata Cantu and Mondragon 2016), could moderate or mediate the relationship between shared purpose, knowledge management, and organizational adaptability. For example, the adoption of highly technological advances could help knowledge management of the organization to positively impact its organizational adaptability, while a shared corporate purpose could, for example, enhance the organization’s knowledge management by strongly motivating all the parties interested in its long-term prosperity.

Additionally, this tradition sustains that because of their resilience, adaptive systems will retain their identity and continue with their mission. Nevertheless, more explanation about how organizations can use or reconfigure their planning and adaptive capacities to strengthen the corporate purpose is needed. For the above, longitudinal analyses that show how each organizational resilience dimension can influence the shared purpose are certainly necessary.

Multi-stakeholder organization. With this tradition, organizations are understood as a network of different, multiple groups of stakeholders that when co-motivated to pursue a same mission, are more likely to achieve information exchange and cooperation as well as being resilient. It proposes adaptability as an antecedent of identity alignment, nevertheless, more research is needed about other levers that facilitate the alignment of purposes among multi-stakeholders. Thus, future research should identify antecedents or initiatives permitting the alignment of purpose among different groups of stakeholders.

Additionally, this tradition lacks clarity about how each organizational resilience dimension and corporate sustainability are enhanced through cooperation between the multi-stakeholders of an organization. To address this gap, further research should be carried out in different industries and should aim to demonstrate how the alignment of purposes between the multi-stakeholders of an organization could contribute to creating organizations where the different stakeholders cooperate among themselves, and importantly, how this aspect enhances the organization’s resilience and sustainability.

Social entrepreneurship. With this tradition the social mission of social enterprises is predicted to promote innovation and facilitate support for social changes to achieve organizational sustainability. Nevertheless, this academic tradition lacks empirical studies that validate such a proposition. To address this gap, future research should validate the relationship between social mission, innovation, and corporate sustainability. Additionally, future research could test if social enterprises plan and adapt to the environment better than other purpose-driven organizations and if this is the case, what differences there are in the nature of the values that nurture the corporate purpose of both groups or types of organizations (social enterprises vs. other purpose-driven organizations). Furthermore, future research could measure, using previous validated scales in the literature (for resilience, Prayag et al. 2018; for sustainability, Chow and Chen 2012), the impact of organizational resilience on corporate sustainability, and whether this impact varies across social enterprises and other purpose-driven organizations.

Additionally, this tradition sustains and validates that economic sustainability or proficient financial and risk management are levers which enable the continued development of the social mission. Notwithstanding, there is a lack of research about “which” and “how” dimensions of organizational resilience (i.e., planned, adaptive resilience) contribute to the better fulfillment of the mission of social enterprises. To address this gap, future research could explain and validate if the social enterprise’s planning and adaptive capacities facilitate the achievement of its mission.

As a summary, Fig. 7 presents a synthesis of the trends, gaps and future research questions that academics could tackle to better understand the relationships between the concepts involved in the term SRP. Furthermore, and as argued before, Fig. 7 also represents a visual way to reflect that closing the gaps emerging in the academic traditions of Stakeholder identification, Strategic resources, Multi-stakeholder organization and Social entrepreneurship is also an optimal way to close the gaps that we commented upon previously and that can emerge in the Human and complex systems academic tradition.

Fig. 7
figure 7

Trends, gaps and future research questions

Full size image

The Human and complex systems tradition is the one that most clearly explains the relationship between the concepts implicit in the term SRP as a feedback loop that is part of a complex system, and as Fig. 7 shows, is nurtured by the other academic traditions (i.e., Stakeholder identification, Strategic resources, Multi-stakeholder organization and Social entrepreneurship). As described above and reflected in Fig. 7, each of these academic traditions (Stakeholder identification, Strategic Resources, Multi-stakeholder organization, and Social Entrepreneurship) focuses on explaining a specific part of the whole system. Thus, bringing together the trends of all five traditions together can help to understand corporate purpose not just as a driver of organizational resilience and corporate sustainability but also as a concept that feeds back into the other two concepts. Furthermore, as Fig. 7 reflects, pooling the trends of all these traditions allows us to reveal that there are several positive feedback loops in the term SRP, and there exist academic traditions which have attempted to explain each of the relationships of these loops.

Thus, Fig. 7 is very descriptive regarding how none of the variables involved in the SRP concept can be understood without the others. It also reflects that in each tradition, there are gaps that need to be closed to better understand each of the relationships that could be part of a holistic view of the system. When the gaps in each tradition are closed, one can better understand how each part of the system works and how it creates new feedback loops between entities for organizations to achieve long-term prosperity. For example, when the mechanisms that cause organizational identification or shared purpose to enhance the ability of organizations to plan and adapt are identified, these “new” variables can be included in the dynamic model for a more complete understanding of the system formed by the SRP.

5 Conclusions and future work

The study of corporate sustainability, organizational resilience and/or corporate purpose as strategic levers for organizations to achieve long-term prosperity has increased enormously over the past few years (Paniccia and Baiocio 2020: Liu et al. 2020, Roberts and Dutton 2009; He et al. 2022; Purcell 2019). Yet, “how” and “whether” they are all interconnected to lead organizations to achieve long-term prosperity has been barely explored (Florez-Jimenez et al. 2024). More specifically, a certain cloudiness reigns over our understanding on the theories or academic traditions from which the interconnections between these concepts have been investigated, which makes it difficult to advance in revealing how these relationships are produced. Accordingly, this article aims to fill this gap and based on recent calls in the literature (Florez-Jimenez et al. 2024) that propose the need to delve more deeply into the academic traditions that relate these three concepts and explain “how” they are related, we conducted a science mapping analysis. Our analysis sheds light on this gap and reveals the different academic traditions, theories, trends and future research directions that enable possible advances in understanding the interrelationships between the three concepts involved in the term SRP. Our science mapping analysis allowed us to reveal that these interrelationships may be positive feedback loop interactions, which according to STO (e.g., Geok 2018; Walker 2016; Kessler 2013), is a characteristic of dynamic systems, and importantly, offered theoretical contributions and practical implications as described below.

5.1 Theoretical contributions

First, our review yielded five academic traditions in which corporate sustainability, organizational resilience, and corporate purpose have been interconnected (Human and complex systems, Stakeholder identification, Strategic Resources, Multi-stakeholder organization, and Social Entrepreneurship) and the specific theories from which each academic tradition has been tackled. In this way, our review suggests the distinct theories that can be used for a thorough analysis of the different relationships between these three concepts. For instance, the impact of one of the variables on the others can be explained by different traditions with different theories, and each of them can present different mechanisms. All these mechanisms can be part of a dynamic system model.

Our study also revealed that some of these academic traditions shared theories on which their rationales relied (see Table 3), and that the most used theory by these traditions to explain the relationship between all these three concepts (the term SRP) is the Systems Theory of Organizations (STO, e.g., Geok 2018; Walker 2016; Kessler 2013). As such, we propose to use this theory to present a systemic dynamic model in future research with different variables interconnected to the three concepts involved in SRP so that changes in the system’s variables can be simulated when other variables change. Furthermore, we recommend using this theory to support the relationships that may exist between the three concepts involved in SRP (and that existing literature has already presented) but that have not been explained by an academic theory. For instance, according to our review, only the social entrepreneurship academic tradition uses a theory (i.e., the Finance theory) to explain the impact of corporate sustainability on organizational resilience, but STO could also help in this regard.

This research explains gaps and proposes future lines of research in each tradition in the explanation of the interaction between the different concepts integrating the term SRP, in order to have a more systemic understanding of the relationships involved between organizational sustainability, organizational resilience and corporate purpose. We argue that by closing the gaps in Stakeholder identification, Strategic resources, Multi-stakeholder organization, and Social entrepreneurship traditions, it is possible to close the gaps in the Human and complex systems tradition, which aims to achieve a systemic understanding of the relationships involved between the concepts that make up SRP.

5.2 Practical implications

With regard to practical implications, this research may help make managers become aware of the importance of having a corporate purpose to make their organizations become resilient and sustainable. At the same time, our review makes it clear to managers that sustainability is the compass that must nurture corporate purpose so that those capacities that make their organizations become resilient and sustainable can be achieved. Furthermore, managers must ensure that they have a defined corporate purpose that is deployed and shared with everyone working for and in collaboration with the organization, including employees and other stakeholders, as this may be a critical lever to positively impact organizational resilience and corporate sustainability. A shared purpose implies, for example, that employees (and other stakeholders) share the organizational identity, the meaning, and the mission, which can be achieved through purpose implementation—the connection between the knowledge of the purpose and the action (Rey et al. 2019) and consists of three critical processes (Lleo et al. 2021): (i) managers should communicate the organization’s purpose with words and actions so purpose is known (Chully and Jose 2022), (ii) managers should implement instruments that lead employees and/or other stakeholders to think and reflect on their own values and their own connections with corporate purpose, and (iii) managers should let employees and/or other stakeholders propose how to help achieve corporate purpose, so they can feel that their daily tasks contribute to fulfilling the corporate purpose.

Another positive point that can be drawn from this research is that managers, researchers and consultants can better understand the role and the positive impact of corporate purpose on organizations’ competitiveness and long-term prosperity. More importantly, these professionals can understand that corporate purpose is not just a driver of organizational resilience and corporate sustainability, but it is also affected or positively fed back by the other two variables (i.e., organizational resilience, corporate sustainability). Thus, managers can understand organizational resilience and corporate sustainability as capabilities that may support corporate purpose, which would imply that strategies directed to deploy resilience and sustainable thinking and action are welcome. To achieve organizational resilience managers could, for example, engender trust and commitment to their organization’s targets, both inside and outside (Dubey et al. 2019), and in the case of corporate sustainability, they could, for example, increase the proportion of women on the boards of directors and in the external and independent directors’ groups (cf., Cabeza-García et al. 2018; Fernández-Gago et al. 2016), as women are generally more sustainability oriented (Ruiz-Palomino et al. 2019a; Ruiz-Palomino et al. 2019b).

Finally, managers can also expect that the corporate purpose, or better, the shared purpose, is likely to be enhanced year by year since it creates positive feedback loops with organizational resilience and corporate sustainability. For instance, a shared purpose positively impacts organizational resilience, the latter brings the organizational ability to continue to deliver competitive sustainability performance as measured by social, environmental, and economic outputs, which ultimately facilitates the alignment of the organization’s purpose with the purpose of each and every employee.

5.3 Limitations and future research

This study is not without limitations. First, our study was based on the analysis of the academic traditions that the bibliographic coupling analysis returned through the VOSviewer tool. However, the use of other tools for science mapping analysis (SciMAT, CiteSpace) could have brought other advantages to the study we carried out (e.g., preprocessing tools such as detecting duplicate and misspelled items, time slicing; normalization indexes (Cobo et al. 2012), that could have improved our findings. Second, as with any study of this type, the decisions we made regarding our search of valid documents to be analyzed could have conditioned the results we obtained. For example, a search that is based on keywords does not ensure comprehensive results. Yet, the keywords that were used in our analysis were carefully designed to include all the possible outcomes, and importantly, we used both title and abstract information in our search. Nevertheless, some documents may not include all the important aspects of the text in their keywords, abstract or title (Santana and Díaz-Fernández 2023) and so some relevant documents could have been missed. Thus, future research should consider searching concepts such as “corporate purpose”, “organizational purpose”, and “organisational purpose” not just in the abstract, title or keywords, but in the whole text. Finally, for our analysis, we used the bibliographic coupling technique, but, for length limitation issues, we did not use other techniques (co-citation analysis, keywork concurrency analysis) that could have helped to achieve a better understanding of the topic (Lin et al. 2023; Ribeiro-Navarrete et al. 2023). For example, we recommend that future research carries out a keyword concurrency analysis, as this would enable the identification of the most frequent keywords used when these three concepts involved in the term SRP are studied as interrelated, thus highlighting and suggesting main themes that accompany SRP, and variables that could mediate or moderate the relationships between the three concepts involved in the term SRP.

5.4 Concluding remarks

To close the gap on the lack of knowledge of academic traditions that explain “how” the concepts involved in the term SRP are related, this study conducted a scientific mapping analysis that reveals five different academic traditions and trends. One is the Human and complex systems tradition, which proposes that when societal demands are part of corporate purpose, a feedback loop is formed between corporate purpose, organizational resilience, and corporate sustainability. A second is the Stakeholder identification tradition, which focuses on the idea that identification or shared purpose between stakeholders and organizations drives sustainable behaviors and organizational resilience. Strategic resources is another tradition, which understands shared purpose as a resource that fosters organizational adaptation through knowledge management, and which focuses on “how” shared purpose promotes sustainable initiatives to mitigate risks. Also revealed was the tradition of the Multi-stakeholder organization, which focuses on understanding “how” alignment between different stakeholders makes organizations more resilient and “how” sustainable development supports business mission continuity. Finally, our study revealed the tradition of Social entrepreneurship, focused on explaining “how” the social mission of organizations promotes environmental adaptation and links economic sustainability to risk management as a means to achieve the organization’s mission.

In short, our research has served to show that there are several traditions that explain “how” the concepts involved in the term SRP are related, as well as how these concepts are connected in different ways (which may imply the presence of different variables) and may form different feedback loops. Furthermore, this research shows the theories from which these traditions have been approached and future research directions that will advance the understanding of the interrelationships between the three concepts involved. Specifically and importantly, our study concludes that closing the gaps that exist in the Stakeholder identification, Strategic resources, Multi-stakeholder Organization, and Social entrepreneurship traditions also closes the gaps that exist in the Human and Complex Systems tradition, which should facilitate the achievement of a systemic understanding of the relationships involved between the concepts that make up the term SRP to help organizations achieve long-term prosperity.