Did corporate purpose statements change anything?
Stakeholder theory appears on 88 recent papers in the management and finance journals, but corporate purpose on 4 and stakeholder capitalism on 2. Hundreds of large firms signed statements putting stakeholders before shareholders in 2019. Several years on, did the signatories treat workers, suppliers and communities differently?
What prompted this#
Since October 2025, 101 papers carry a stakeholder-theory, stakeholder-orientation, corporate-purpose or stakeholder-capitalism keyword (55 in management journals, 29 in finance): "stakeholder theory" on 88, "stakeholder orientation" on 6, "corporate purpose" on 4, "stakeholder capitalism" on 2. The theory is well cited; the statements that invoked it are rarely tested.
Questions#
- Did signatory firms differ from non-signatories in layoffs, supplier payment terms, environmental fines or executive pay in the years after 2019?
- Did they use the purpose language in shareholder disputes, and did courts or investors take it into account?
- Did the statements change which employees and customers chose the firm?
Data that could help#
The list of signatories, firm-level employment, supplier payment data, enforcement actions and executive pay (Compustat, ExecuComp).
Next step#
Compare layoff announcements and supplier payment days of Business Roundtable signatories with matched non-signatories for 2017–2025.