Sustainability, the New Focus of Corporate Purpose

For decades, the Western capitalist model has been based on the principle that the primary objective of a company is to maximize profits for its shareholders. This principle underpins the so-called 'shareholder theory', promoted in the 1970s by economist Milton Friedman, according to which a company's social responsibility consists of maximizing profits, while complying with the rules. Everything else—the environment, the community, workers, future generations—becomes secondary, except as a means to achieve economic results.

From shareholder centrality to stakeholder vision

In recent decades, this economic model has been called into question. Without denying the importance of economic results – which remain the basis of economic and financial sustainability, fundamental to the very survival of the company – a different vision has gained ground among economists and operators in the economic system: the company as part of a larger ecosystem, made of employees, suppliers, customers, territories, communities, and institutions, and as such aimed at creating value, but not only for shareholders. This is the stakeholder theory, according to which long-term success depends on balancing different interests, not on maximizing just one of them.

Corporate purpose in the era of sustainability

In this new perspective, sustainability is understood in a broader sense and is an integral part of corporate purpose. It is not a mere cosmetic addition, but a redefinition of the ‘why’ of the business: ensuring long-term profitability with adequate economic results, yes, but creating shared value and reducing negative impacts on the surrounding environment. It is a change of perspective that is reflected in boards of directors, business plans and, increasingly, reporting systems.

Reporting as a strategic (and reputational) lever

On this last point, a tool comes into play that can have a greater impact on decisions and actions than many slogans: sustainability reporting. This is not just preparing a document to be released at the end of the year, but a process that pushes organizations to measure and assess their environmental, social, and governance impacts, and to realize how these can in turn impact long-term economic results, benefiting the survival of the company itself. A structured, transparent, and comparable process.

Measuring means, first and foremost, choosing. Which issues are truly relevant? Which risks could compromise business continuity? Which opportunities should be seized? What goals should be set, for example, on emissions, safety, gender equality, and the supply chain? Reporting thus becomes a tool for strategy and planning: it translates risks and opportunities into strategic choices, principles into goals, values into indicators, and statements into operational plans made up of concrete actions and for assigning roles and responsibilities. When ESG indicators enter control systems and public reports, they influence everyday behavior. From the choice of suppliers by the purchasing department, for example, to the HR department reviewing inclusion policies. Sustainability ceases to be a statement of intent and becomes a decision-making criterion, starting with the definition of objectives. 

Transparency thus creates accountability both within and outside the company. The reputational dimension, in the latter case, is obvious. In a market where investors, customers, and talent demand consistency, a solid sustainability report can strengthen trust and improve access to capital. Banks integrate ESG parameters into their assessments, large companies require them from suppliers, and consumers are paying increasing attention to them. 

But reputation is a double-edged sword. The more you communicate, the more you are exposed. Poorly calibrated or unsupported goals can backfire. The line between credible commitment and greenwashing is thin, and the market—as well as stakeholders in general—are becoming less and less forgiving.

European rules and cultural challenge: beyond compliance

The picture is made more complex by the growing number of rules, especially in Europe, where sustainability has entered the scope of corporate reporting with increasingly detailed standards. For large companies, this is an organizational and cultural challenge. For SMEs, which form the backbone of the Italian production system, it can be a costly transition. Specialist consulting, data collection and management systems, internal training: the costs are not negligible. The risk is that reporting will be perceived as a bureaucratic requirement foisted from above, a mere exercise in compliance, far removed from day-to-day management. Yet, for SMEs in particular, it can represent an opportunity for growth: better structuring of processes, more transparent dialogue with banks and customers, and a stronger position in international supply chains.

The real challenge, ultimately, is cultural. If companies continue to think of their purpose solely in terms of short-term returns for shareholders, sustainability reporting will remain a mere formality. If, on the other hand, it embraces a logic oriented towards all stakeholders, including shareholders, in a long-term perspective, it becomes a real governance tool. It is not just a story about what the company does, but the scope within which it decides to create value. And, ultimately, the way it plays its role in society.