[zschuessler]

This is the first I've become aware of B Corp and I like the idea.

I dug into what defines a B Corp. Notably the self-described "stringent" rules for becoming licensed. Pardon my ignorance, but it seems like a lot of regulatory checks to adhere to for keeping the company accountable? Seems.. like a lot of overhead.

I've been silently cheering on Teamshares.com over the past year hoping their idea catches on. I'm not sure if that's the same idea (emphasis being on employee ownership). But I'd be interested in hearing the account of others who have worked for a B Corp.

[nness]

From a brand perspective, being a B Corp is certainly a positive for both the socially conscientious end-consumer and any sustainable organisations which want a B2B relationship.

That overhead is the extrinsic price you pay for B Corp status, and like any other organisation membership programme, I'm sure some organisations will eventually drop from the certification due to time or restriction on their trade. But that is actually desirable, if its valuable to you, you'll find a way for your organisation to do it. And if you can't meet those requirements, and drop/don't apply, then it only adds more value to those who do have the status.

I'm not aware of anything which makes B Corp a particularly new idea — there are a few membership programmes (or even corporate awards which require membership) which have sustainable or fair work requirements. Subjectively, I feel that B Corp is executed well and the brand value it provides, for the time being, is worthwhile for smaller organisations to consider.