Field Notes is a series by The Beautiful Truth, where the TBT team share their contemporary takes on workplace challenges.

When the UK’s Financial Reporting Council mandated corporate purpose declarations in its 2019 Corporate Governance Code update, it probably envisioned catalysing long-term thinking and broader stakeholder engagement. However, six years later, we’re witnessing what might be called a purpose backlash. 

Unilever’s former CEO Hein Schumacher recently declared corporate purpose an “unwelcome distraction” – a striking reversal for a company once synonymous with purposeful business. And as investor Terry Smith quipped, if a company has “to define the purpose of Hellmann’s mayonnaise,” it has “lost the plot.” 

This collapse of corporate purpose wasn’t inevitable – but it was predictable. The fatal flaw lies not in purpose itself, but in a fundamental misunderstanding of what purpose actually is. 

Fromm’s illumination: having v being 

Erich Fromm, the psychoanalyst and philosopher, offers precisely the framework we need to diagnose this corporate malady. In his seminal work To Have or To Be?, Fromm distinguishes between two opposing modes of human existence: 

• The having mindset fixates on acquisition and possession. Through this lens, one evaluates life by inventory: “I have a successful career, I have a family, I have property, I have social connections.” According to Fromm, this mindset is deeply tied to consumerism and capitalist cultures. Fundamentally about ownership and accumulation, Fromm argues this mindset creates the illusion of security while delivering a reality of existential emptiness. 
• The being mindset centres on experience, process and authenticity. This orientation generates an entirely different kind of self-understanding: “I am a contributor at my work, I am a partner and parent, I am a homemaker, I am a participant in my community.” This perspective – inherently relational and focused on the present – generates dynamism and meaningful action. 
  

This distinction illuminates the corporate purpose crisis with clarity. Given the broader consumerist and capitalist context, it’s no surprise that many organisations have interpreted purpose as something to ‘have’ – a polished statement to acquire, display and leverage – rather than as a way of ‘being’ in the world. Let’s take a look at some purpose statements of today’s top companies: 

• General Electric declares “to rise to the challenge of building a world that works” 

• Cisco’s mission is “to shape the future of the internet by creating unprecedented value and opportunity for our customers, employees, investors and ecosystem partners” 

• Sony states they are “A company that inspires and fulfills your curiosity” 

• Vodafone’s purpose is “to connect for a better future” 

• CocaCola aspires to “Refresh the world. Make a difference” 

• Tesco’s motto is “Serving customers a little better every day” 

But what do these lofty and catch-all phrases such as ‘better future’, ‘a little better’, ‘make a difference’, ‘a world that works’ or ‘unprecedented value’ even mean? Who, exactly, is benefiting from the declarations of these purposes? 

The peril of having a purpose 

When companies treat purpose as an asset to acquire rather than a way of being, the consequences aren’t just neutral, they are negative. Three critical failures emerge: 

• Purpose becomes inauthentic: purpose statements crafted for external consumption devolve into mere marketing gloss. Stakeholders detect this hollowness, accelerating the erosion of trust – a resource already in dangerous decline, with only 24% of employees believing their leaders are ethical and honest (2024 Edelman Trust Barometer). 
  

• Purpose becomes meaningless: while true purpose should ignite passion and drive commitment, top-down purpose declarations land with a thud, failing to resonate with employees’ lived experience. This disconnection exacerbates the epidemic of disengagement afflicting 72% of European workers and a staggering 90% in the UK (Gallup, 2024) – a crisis no organisation can afford to ignore. 

• Purpose becomes static: once articulated and framed on office walls, purpose ossifies into corporate wallpaper – visible but invisible. By reducing purpose to a compliance exercise, organisations squander its transformative potential to catalyse reimagination and renewal.

The verdict is clear: purpose possessed but not practised isn’t just ineffective – it’s counterproductive, breeding cynicism where it sought to inspire. 

From having purpose to being purposeful 

When purpose transforms from possession to practice – from something to have to a way of being – it ceases to be abstract corporate jargon and becomes a dynamic force shaping every interaction and decision. The pivotal question shifts from “What purpose does our company have?” to “How can our company be purposeful?” This subtle linguistic shift unlocks a cascade of further transformative inquiries: 

• What if we created environments where our employees flourish? 

• What if our supply chains generated ripples of prosperity through communities and helped to regenerate the natural world? 

• What if our products solved authentic human problems rather than manufacturing artificial needs? 

• What if our governance structures reflected the values we claim to espouse? 

• What if we measured our success beyond financial metrics to include social and environmental wellbeing? 

These questions transform purpose from a marketing department’s slogan to an organisation-wide imperative, demanding imagination, courage and concrete action from every level and function. 

This approach liberates companies from the impossible task of concocting noble-sounding purposes for mundane products. Even Hellmann’s mayonnaise can be designed, produced and sold in purposeful ways, enhancing human and planetary flourishing. 

With this fundamental shift, purpose escapes the confines of boardroom presentations and flows into the lifeblood of daily operations. It evolves from something articulated in annual reports to something embodied in countless daily decisions – from the spectacular to the seemingly insignificant.