In defence of B Corps

The criticism is real and worth naming honestly. High-profile exits, including Dr. Bronner’s and UK pet food brand Scrumbles, have renewed questions about whether the certification has allowed firms with complex and opaque supply chains to use the label for reputational gain rather than genuine reform. The fundamental flaw at the heart of the previous process was well-documented, and focussed around a points-based system that allowed a company to be outstanding in one pillar and lousy in another. That is a legitimate critique and it deserved a response.

B Lab has delivered one. In April 2025, B Lab launched the most significant overhaul of the B Corp standards since certification began, moving away from a points threshold entirely. Companies must now meet minimum requirements across seven non-negotiable impact topics, with external verification replacing self-assessment to meet EU greenwashing regulations. That is not a minor amendment, it signifies that the movement is recalibrating its ambition.

Here is what I think gets missed in the noise though, the existence of imperfect B Corps does not undermine the principle. It tests it. Every framework that attempts to hold businesses to higher social and environmental standards will attract organisations at varying stages of their journey. That is not a flaw in the design, it is what a movement looks like in practice. The alternative is a standard so restrictive that only the already-converted can achieve it and this would simply accelerate the retreat of commercial business from any accountability framework whatsoever.

What matters, in my opinion, is the direction of travel. Before B Corp, there was no widely recognised, third-party verified standard that asked businesses to weigh up their impact on workers, communities, customers and the environment in a single, structured way. The conversation that the certification has opened is about supply chains, governance, equity, ecological impact, etc. This is a conversation that the commercial sector was not having at scale before. The fact that B Lab gathered more than 26,000 inputs across two public consultations to shape the new standards suggests a movement that is responsive, not defensive.

At Ave, we work exclusively with charities, not-for-profits and public sector organisations. Our clients are not driven by profit, they are driven by purpose. Choosing B Corp certification ourselves was not about market positioning, it was about being held to the same standard of accountability we ask of the organisations we believe in. It was about having to interrogate our own governance, our employment practices, our environmental commitments, and then keep doing it, every three years, with evidence. That process is uncomfortable for some organisations, and so it should be!

What I’d push back on is the idea that proliferation is inherently a problem. More businesses aligning to a standard, even imperfectly, shifts norms. It creates internal pressure to improve. It makes sustainability a business conversation rather than a CSR footnote. The scrutiny that comes with growth is not proof that the standard is too weak. It is proof that people care whether the standard holds.

The question is not whether B Corp is perfect. It never was. The question is whether the world is better with this framework than without it. For Ave, the answer has always been yes.