Corporate Purpose and the Challenge of Dissent

As ESG backlash intensifies and employee activism rises, companies like Patagonia, Unilever, and VINCI are grappling with dissent over their stated corporate purposes. Against this backdrop, HEC Paris invited top researchers and practitioners to discuss dissent. How can organizations maintain authenticity while navigating internal and external pressures? This was the focus of Purpose Day, an annual gathering which ended with a fireside chat with Florent Menegaux, CEO of Michelin. It also featured an Oxford Union debate on whether purpose commitments are merely a distraction that is destroying shareholder value!

Patagonia’s “greenhushing” accusations after it scaled back public sustainability measures; OpenAI’s leadership crisis after its professed nonprofit mission to “benefit humanity” clashed with its commercial ambitions; shareholders accusing Unilever of “purpose washing” after Ben & Jerry’s political statements on Palestine. Just so many examples proving that purpose and performance are sometimes strange bedfellows and that defining a strategic mission doesn’t automatically guarantee a positive social impact. “Moving from strategy to impact doesn’t involve simply publishing ESG reports,” admitted Rodolphe Durand, Professor of Strategy and Business Policy at HEC Paris. As holder of the Joly Family Chair in Purposeful Leadership, he organized the third Purpose Day in February which dealt head-on with navigating dissent, the title organizers gave for the five-hour event. “Defining purpose doesn’t correlate into remarkable economic performance either. To succeed in transitioning from strategy to impact, you need the activation of several levers that we hope our research at HEC uncovers.”

Partnering up with the French business school for the second year running was Rupert Younger, the founder and current director of the Oxford University Saïd Business School Centre for Corporate Reputation. For the co-author of The Reputation Game, the need to address a certain ESG fatigue is urgent: “This year’s Purpose Day comes at a time of dissent and retrenchment for companies embracing social purpose,” Younger said after the Day ended. “The discussions in Paris provided some valuable clarification on the distinction between purpose as an organizing principle – a set of statements and beliefs that help boards make decisions – and social purpose which adds a normative layer to the commitments adopted.” Younger regretted that social purpose has often been conflated with ESG, in particular in the US: “In Europe, there seems to be a much deeper understanding of the nature of corporate engagement with the societies in which they exist and which therefore inform and shape their social purpose commitments.”

The Role of Dissent in Defining Corporate Purpose

Indeed, this year’s gathering provided a distinctly European focus into sharper relief that helped participants understand the rapid retrenchment of social commitments being witnessed in the US and the more measured European corporate responses. It also was the setting for a healthy discussion over the value of dissent within companies, as testified by HEC’s Julien Jourdan: “Some level of dissent is needed in every organization,” said the Professor of Management and Human Resources whose research focues on reputation, legitimacy and other social evaluations of organizations. "Dissent is particularly precious for leaders, who naturally tend to be isolated and surrounded by yes men. Allowing, or even encouraging, some reasonable level of debate and disagreement is actually a good way to build trust. Consider what happens in societies that severely punish dissent.”

Dissent as a Byproduct of Growth and Change

Marie Ekeland, founder of the investment firm 2050, illustrated how dissent can emerge in multi-local organizations striving for clarity. “If you lack a clear articulation of quarterly goals and company priorities, dissent arises naturally,” she confided after her keynote speech. “Without clarity, people struggle with autonomy and decision-making, which leads to bottlenecks, frustration, and misalignment.” Ekeland pointed to Patagonia’s example, noting how the company initially relied on frequent, in-person realignments to maintain its culture. However, as it scaled, it had to codify its values in a charter to maintain cohesion.

This internal misalignment is not unique to mission-driven companies. Hilary Hoyt, a postdoctoral researcher at Oxford, recounted the case of a fast-growing U.S. medical testing firm she could not name for research purposes. Initially founded on a community-focused mission, the company’s rapid expansion created an employee backlash, as staff perceived a shift from purpose-driven work to profit-driven operations. “Employees felt that the company no longer had their best interests at heart,” Hoyt noted. “Some protested, others resigned, and trust in leadership eroded.”

Similarly, Michelin CEO Florent Menegaux underscored that dissent often stems from a lack of realism. “The biggest issue for societies today is fragmentation,” he stated following his fireside chat with HEC Associate Professor Lisa Baudot. “Companies must foster inclusion rather than dissociation. This requires realism - acknowledging challenges while ensuring employees feel heard.” Menegaux stressed that respect for facts and internal criticism is essential to trust-building, a principle that Michelin actively embeds in its corporate DNA.

Navigating Dissent Through Dialogue and Structural Clarity

While dissent may appear as resistance, it can also signal a lack of clear communication. In her research, Chiara Pantalena, a doctoral student at POLIMI Graduate School of Management, emphasized the role of consultants in mitigating dissent. “Consultants act as change agents, but their success depends on their ability to balance imposed changes with leadership ownership of purpose,” she explained. “Organizations resist change instinctively, but open dialogue and structured communication can help navigate the pushback.”

For Damien Marchi, CSR Director at Vivendi, dissent is not inherently negative but rather a structural paradox to manage. “As a global media company, we operate with one foot in the old world and another in the new,” he noted. “Our responsibility is to bridge that gap while navigating shareholder expectations and social commitments. Clarity in frameworks, such as CSRD regulations, helps anchor these decisions.”

For Damien Marchi, CSR Director at Vivendi, dissent is not inherently negative but rather a structural paradox to manage. “As organizations transition towards a more sustainable model, it means they have to operate with one foot in the old system and another in the new,” he said. “Our responsibility is to bridge that inherent change gap while navigating shareholder expectations and social commitments. Clarity in frameworks, such as CSRD regulations, helps anchor these decisions.”

Oxford Professor of Business Ethics and Finance, Alan Morrison, framed dissent as an opportunity rather than a disruption. “Dissent is inevitable - and probably a good thing,” he said, after one of the four symposiums organized at Paris’ Hôtel de l’Industrie. “Purpose is not a static concept; it evolves over time. Organizations should see dissent as a deliberative process that strengthens collective understanding.” Morrison warned against a transactional corporate culture, arguing that a shallow commitment to purpose can ultimately erode employee engagement and long-term resilience.

Marie Ekeland nuanced the very idea of dissent: “I prefer to call it unclarity. If you're not clear on, for example, quarterly key results that you're aiming for, if you don't have a rhythm and way to reprioritize what people are doing and put that in the bigger scheme of things then it brings dissent. Because you can’t be autonomous in how you work, and that provokes a lot of bottlenecks, a lot of frustration and a lot of unclarity. So I think the first thing to do to avoid dissent is to be very explicit on where you want the company to be going for a year from now. There needs to be clarity in terms of goals, in terms of roles, in terms of decision making processes and in terms of accountability and ownership.”

The European Context

The discussion also illuminated differences between the European and North American approaches to corporate purpose. Morrison observed that European firms appear to have a more holistic integration of purpose, whereas U.S. firms often treat purpose as an ancillary component, driven by external pressures. “The American approach tends to be more transactional, shaped by shareholder demands. In contrast, European firms have a longer tradition of embedding purpose into corporate governance.”

This divergence was echoed by Menegaux, who pointed out that Europe currently lacks a unified vision of its corporate future. “The U.S. and China have clear national visions, whereas Europe remains fragmented,” he said. “Purpose is part of this broader question: what exactly are we building in Europe to reduce fragmentation and enhance unity?”

Designing Purpose for the Long Haul

As Purpose Day concluded, one key takeaway appeared to emerge: dissent is not a failure of purpose but a necessary part of its evolution. From Ekeland’s insights on clarity in multi-local organizations to Hoyt’s case study on employee trust, and from Marchi’s paradox management to Morrison’s philosophical framing, the discussions underscored that dissent - if harnessed constructively - can ultimately strengthen corporate purpose.

For leaders facing dissent, the challenge is not to eliminate it but to design systems that allow for deliberation, dialogue, and adaptation. As Morrison aptly noted, “Deliberation doesn’t just happen - it has to be designed.” In an era where purpose is under scrutiny, designing effective structures to manage dissent may be the most critical step in ensuring long-term corporate credibility and impact.

The third edition of the Purpose Day was organized by the S&O Purpose Center in partnership with Oxford University Saïd Business School Centre for Corporation.