It’s B Corp Month, which feels like a good moment to reflect – not just on what B Corp is and why it matters, but on where the certification is right now, as B Lab rolls out its most significant overhaul in the programme’s history.
We shared a blog on B Corp back in July last year, covering the basics of what certification involved at the time and what the then-upcoming Version 7 standards would mean. A lot has happened since then. The new standards are now live, businesses are engaging with them in real time, and the conversations we are having on the ground have shifted considerably.
Our Founding Director and trained BCorp Consultant, Nick Morrison, got a front-row seat to that recently when he spent an afternoon as one of three B Corp consultants supporting businesses through the NZTE Business For Good programme. The session brought together a mix of organisations – some working through recertification under the new standards, some exploring B Corp for the first time, and some genuinely weighing up whether it’s the right fit for them at all.
So what are people actually saying?
The shift that generated the most discussion wasn’t the new topic areas, or even the new and more thorough independent auditing process, although both came up. It was the move away from a points-based system to a requirements-based one. Under the previous model, if a business didn’t agree with a particular requirement or couldn’t meet it, they could simply forgo those points and make them up elsewhere. The system rewarded overall performance across a broad landscape and gave businesses a degree of flexibility in how they got there. That flexibility is now gone – requirements are requirements and you either meet them or you don’t.
For some businesses in the room, that felt like a significant loss of agency, and we understand that reaction. When you’ve built your approach around a framework that gave you choices, being told those choices no longer exist can feel abrupt, even punitive. A few people questioned the logic of certain specific requirements – whether the effort involved was genuinely proportionate to the impact it would create e.g. the requirement FW2.1: The company has a policy of not requesting wage histories from job applicants. With the compliance criteria being: The company has a policy or procedure that states it does not ask job applicants to provide: a) their wage histories b) their preferred wage (unless the company first shares a wage scale).
But here’s where Go Well Consulting lands on it: the higher bar is the right call.
We’re operating in a context where the pace of change on climate, biodiversity, inequality, and social cohesion is not matching the pace of action. Voluntary frameworks that allow businesses to pick and choose which responsibilities they take seriously have their limits. If B Corp is going to mean something – if it’s going to be a genuinely credible signal of business behaviour and not just a well-designed logo – then it has to ask more of the businesses that carry it. The move to requirements is B Lab saying: these things are not optional anymore. We think that’s the right message.
It is also right that it pushes businesses to question what “good” looks like and stay open to what the research is telling us across the various impact areas. B Corp’s requirements are grounded in extensive research, and it provides a range of resources for businesses to explore further. After all, many businesses simply operate the way they always have, and as Einstein famously quoted, ‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.'”
Reflecting back on the requirement relating to not asking about wage history or preferred wage (unless the company first shares a wage scale), Go Well has always asked this in the past with the intent of not wasting people’s time. We have a salary budget we can afford, and we respect the remuneration expectations of job applicants, and if this doesn’t match that’s no body’s fault – but let’s not beat around the bush! This was a very common reason from those in the room who also asked for wage expectations, but as we discussed it and heard about the research from the B Corp representatives it made sense that this act could perpetuate wage inequalities, and there was general agreement in the approach of publishing a wage band within a job ad – something we will now implement.
That said, acknowledging the direction is right doesn’t mean pretending the transition is seamless. Some of the concern in the room was legitimate. The evidence and documentation burden is a real cost in time and resource, and some of the new requirements will force businesses to address topics that may feel unfamiliar, even uncomfortable. And the scoring thresholds have shifted in ways that mean businesses who would have passed under Version 6 may find themselves needing to do considerably more work.
What was encouraging, though, was the online tool itself. Several people in the room noted that the user experience had genuinely improved – it’s more navigable, clearer in its intent, and better at helping businesses understand what’s actually being asked of them. A rigorous standard that’s hard to understand or navigate is a barrier; a rigorous standard that’s well-explained and easy to navigate is an invitation.
It’s worth being clear about where we sit on all of this. At Go Well Consulting, we’re supporters of B Corp – we’re certified ourselves on the old standards and working through the new standards, and we support businesses through then certification process. But B Corp is just one of several frameworks we draw on in our work, and we acknowledge it’s not the right fit for every business at every stage.
If you’re thinking about B Corp – whether you’re recertifying, exploring for the first time, or trying to decide if it makes sense – the best starting point is still the B Impact Assessment tool. It’s free, it’s informative, and you don’t have to commit to anything to use it. The new standards are more demanding, but they’re also more honest about what responsible business actually requires.
And that, to us, is the deeper point of B Corp Month. Not to celebrate a logo. But to remind ourselves why it matters that businesses are held to account, by their customers, their workers, their communities, and by the frameworks they choose to operate within.
We’re facing many shared crises: climate change, inequality, ecological breakdown. None of these respect sector boundaries or business models. The businesses that will matter most in the years ahead are the ones that understand they are part of a system, and that their choices – about how they pay people, source materials, manage waste, and govern themselves – contribute to either the problem or the solution.
A better future is possible. A circular, regenerative, inclusive economy isn’t a utopian idea, it’s a practical destination based in scientific fact that becomes more reachable every time a business decides to play its part. B Corp is one path towards that. It’s not the only one. But it’s a worthy one, and this month feels like a good time to say so.
——–
AI Disclaimer: Claude was used to draft this article which has been altered and edited by Go Well Consulting.
Energy note from Claude: This was a straightforward single-pass writing task — no searches or heavy computation involved, so energy demand was minimal.
Written by Nick Morrison, Founding Director at Go Well Consulting.