It is perhaps the most widely used concept in recent years by companies worldwide to justify their existence. First, it was profit maximization, then adding constraints (or compensations for generating negative externalities) to that utility curve, then corporate social responsibility, then pleasing all stakeholders, and lately, purpose driven business. It is simply a historical evolution, as discussed in the book "Reinventing Organizations." <br>In this hyper-connected world, I see it as something inevitable (and perhaps even positive). At the end, as Simon Sinek says, defining the WHY of each company (the reason why it exists) should be a mission that transcends the generation of value and ultimately contributes to human development. It makes sense compared to the "evil" companies of the past that grew at all costs. <br>My argument is not so much with the output of this purpose-driven business generation process but with the input. I see hundreds of companies, especially founders or C-level teams, giving and burning their entire lives and all their vital energy to these companies. At the cost of not seeing their families and friends, setting aside childhood dreams that they will never fulfill, losing their true essence. Everything justified by the act of giving to others. It's like the real-life amplification of what happens with many student volunteer leaders; sacrifice everything for an external cause that may help justify my existence. <br>I believe that what the entire generation of purpose-driven companies forgets is precisely to focus on the individual; what about their internal purpose? Why does everything have to be giant, on a global scale ? Why is it worth so much more to care and save everyone else in the world for a better life if, in the process, I destroy myself? <br>It sounds a lot like the end justifies the means. Means that, in this case, involve completely forgetting about our existence. Believing that we are acting correctly because a self-protected global paradigm has been established; it's challenging to criticize a "purpose-driven company" because they defend each other.