Corporate purpose is promoted as a driver of innovation performance (Herderson, 2021). However, despite its promise, many organizations struggle to translate purpose into coherent innovation outcomes. This track critically examines the limits, tensions, and generative potential of purpose implementation, facing this central question: How does purpose implementation—whether symbolic or authentic—affect innovation performance?

From an inside-out perspective (Ocasio et al., 2023; Almandoz, 2023), symbolic purpose implementation occurs when misalignments arise between internal corporate purpose narratives, governance systems, and innovation processes. When leadership communication and strategy design are not supported by coherent incentives and culture, purpose becomes a façade (Steller & Björck, 2025). Such decoupling can weaken innovation performance by eroding trust, intrinsic motivation, and organizational learning (Amabile & Pratt, 2016). Some firms may leverage purpose rhetoric to temporarily mobilize innovation resources or attract talents, suggesting that purpose might not always stifle innovation immediately but may do so over time as credibility declines. We invite research investigating these mechanisms, particularly studies linking internal purpose alignment, authenticity, and innovation quality; as well as those exploring how organizations successfully integrate purpose to sustain innovation over time.

From the outside-in perspective (George et al., 2023; Gulati & Wohlgezogen, 2023), symbolic purpose implementation – often referred to as purpose-washing – affects how organizations interact with their external stakeholders. Stakeholders—investors, consumers, regulators, and communities—continuously assess the credibility of purpose implementation (Tafuro & Piccaluga, 2025). When symbolic adoption is exposed, legitimacy loss can damage innovation partnerships, reduce openness to collaboration, and weaken stakeholders trust (Gulati & Wohlgezogen, 2023). Legitimacy erosion not only constrains knowledge sharing and joint exploration (Birkinshaw et al., 2014) but may also trigger value destruction and reduced innovative output. Conversely, credible and transparent purpose-driven practices can reinforce stakeholder engagement, foster trust-based collaboration, and support the resilience of innovation ecosystems. Stakeholder pressure may also act as a corrective mechanism, prompting authenticity and purpose re-alignment—especially when organizations possess adaptive governance and feedback loops that enable learning and transformation.

Inside-Out Perspective: Organizational (Mis)alignment and Symbolic/Authentic Implementation
• In what ways do internal contradictions (or alignment) between stated purpose and operational reality generate employee (dis)engagement, affecting innovation learning processes?
• How does the organizational (dis)alignment and cultural coherence affect the long-term sustainability of innovation capabilities?
• What leadership and governance mechanisms prevent—or conversely contribute to—the decoupling of purpose from innovation practices, and how do these dynamics lead to either sustained innovation performance or inefficiency and stagnation?

Outside-In Perspective: Stakeholder Legitimacy and Innovation Ecosystems
• Under what conditions does stakeholder perception—whether skeptical or trusting—shape collaboration and ecosystem (dis)engagement?
• How do media exposure, transparency standards, and stakeholder activism amplify the negative or positive feedback loops?
• What mechanisms enable organizations to recover innovation legitimacy once symbolic purpose implementation has been exposed or criticized?