1. Introduction

In 2015, the United Nations approved the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development, which has 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which range from the elimination of poverty to the fight against climate change, education, equality of women, the defense of the environment or the design of cities ^[1]

As Avrampou et al. ^[2] indicate, achieving the SDGs would require between USD 5 and 7 trillion per year, which is far from current investment levels. Complying with the SDGs and advancing the sustainable development of the planet cannot be achieved only with public resources, which in addition, over the years, have experienced a gradual reduction in their budgets for public development ^[3]. The involvement and channeling of resources from different actors in various fields is required, such as government organizations, the private sector, civil society, and individual citizens ^[4]. In fact, the private sector is so important that many experts consider that it is not possible to achieve the SDGs without the contribution of companies ^[5].

The idea that the sole responsibility of companies is to generate value for shareholders no longer exists. Those companies in which only profitability and economic benefit prevail to the detriment of their social function will be penalized by the market. The letters that have been sent since 2015 by Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, the world’s leading fund manager, to executives and managers advocating for a company more committed to its social role, where the focus is shifted from shareholders to stakeholders, are a clear example. The fund integrates sustainability into its investment processes, and as it was already announced in 2018, in less than five years, all companies will definitely be assessed according to Environmental, Social, Governance (ESG) criteria.

In the same way, the movement led by Ronald Cohen ^[6], known as the “Impact Revolution”, aims at ending the dichotomy between non-profit companies (which seek the social good) and for-profit companies (which seek economic benefit). To do this, they want to promote a change in mentality, a “revolution” that allows the inclusion of, together with the profit objective, the objective of producing an impact, an improvement, either for a disadvantaged group or society as a whole.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this trend, and now more than ever, it is necessary for companies to get involved and consider the social and environmental impacts at the core of their businesses.

However, it cannot be ignored that the involvement of the private sector in the achievement of the SDGs depends largely on the ability to create business value based on the application of those investments in sustainable development ^[7]. Companies will align with the SDGs and integrate them into their business models more robustly when they perceive that they help them to generate new revenue, increase synergies in their supply chains, recruit and retain talent and/or spark the interest of investors ^[7]. After all, companies committed to sustainable development want to achieve the same goals as any other company, that is, to increase their income, create value and accelerate business expansion. In the event that promoting the SDGs does not entail direct benefits to companies, it will be difficult for them to be proactive in integrating these objectives into their business models ^[8], which will be an obstacle to achieving the 2030 Agenda objectives.

In the academic field, scientific research on the subject is still scarce. In fact, there are hardly any studies that analyze how the SDGs contribute to the creation of business value ^[9] or how the achievement of the SDGs is being supported by the private sector ^[5][10].

This is why a detailed analysis on how the private sector is contributing to sustainable development is needed. It will allow for a more complete evaluation of the effectiveness of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and sustainable development policies that can contribute to complying with the 2030 Agenda ^[3]. Now, in order to evaluate the impact that is being generated by the business world, it is necessary to measure it, since as Filho et al. ^[11] pointed out, it is not possible to manage what is not measured and what is measured is much more likely to be done. In recent years, various methods of impact measurement have been proposed. However, none of them have been accepted in a common and unique way. As an alternative, until a commonly accepted measurement system is developed, some companies have opted for certification as a way to demonstrate their positive impact on society. An example of this is the B Corp certification obtained by those companies that achieve a balance between social purpose and economic benefits ^[12].

This movement is becoming increasingly important, a fact that is evident in various changes that are taking place in the market. In the first place, there is a considerable increase in socially responsible investment, as indicated by the Global Sustainable Investment Review ^[13], which shows that this type of investment increased by 34% between 2016 and 2018 in the five main markets (Europe, United States, Japan, Canada and Australia-New Zealand). Second, there is a clear consumer preference towards companies that have a social and environmental commitment, since, as observed in the Annual Report B Lab Spain 2018 ^[14], 66% of consumers will pay more for goods and services that are sustainable. Therefore, the consumer has become aware and concerned about what is happening in the world and no longer hesitates to mobilize due to social injustices, human rights and the health of the planet ^[14]. Finally, global action to address climate emergency and the SDGs is increasingly important. In addition, an increasing number of companies are joining this recent and rapid movement. In 2017, there were 2300 certified companies worldwide, from 50 countries and 130 industries ^[15], while in 2019, there were 3100 companies from 70 countries and 150 industries ^[16]. In other words, in just two years, the number of certified companies has grown by 34.78%. In 2020, the number of certified companies increased to 3522, which again shows the fast growth of the B Corp movement.

2. Conclusions

Compliance with the SDGs of the 2030 Agenda necessarily starts from the real involvement of the private sector, which must invest in including these objectives at the core of its businesses. The time has come to shift the classic business approach from shareholders to stakeholders, and the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated this movement. Companies must ensure the positive impact they have both environmentally and socially, hence the growing need to measure and manage this impact, certifications, such as the B Corp under study, being one of the ways to do so.

The objective of this work was to carry out a systematic review of the literature on the B Corp movement to give an overview of the state of this research topic, since its importance has been increasing considerably in recent years, as can be seen in the growing number of certified companies.

The main results indicate that it is an incipient field of research and that it is gaining increasing importance. This statement is supported by three facts: the low number of publications found, the fact that the first article on the subject was published in 2009 and the predominance of qualitative methodologies, which, according to Stubbs ^[17], is a sign that this is a developing field. The fact that it is a developing field could be the precise reason why no reference scientific publication was identified in the field. However, it is perceived that articles on the subject are published mainly in journals focused on CSR and the environment. Along the same lines, there is not a single author reference on this subject, but it is clear that most of them come from the United States (the country where this movement arose), followed by Italy and the United Kingdom.

Regarding the investigated questions, there are many different objectives, but the interest in determining the economic and social effects on companies after obtaining the certification stands out, as well as determining the reasons that lead them to want to obtain it and if there are factors that can favor proximity to movement B. In relation to the first question, the conclusions are diverse and, on some occasions, contrary. For example, while some studies indicate that certified companies obtain improvements in productivity ^[18], others detect that there is no productivity growth compared to their competitors ^[19]. This is a sign that more research is needed in this regard, and it also seems to indicate that a homogenization exercise is necessary, since the different results could be due to the use of different measurement indicators. On the other hand, with regard to motivations, studies conclude that it is a way of differentiating itself from traditional companies, showing its interest in all stakeholders. As a summary, Table 6 shows the main issues investigated, the main conclusions achieved and the future research lines.

As far as methodology is concerned, most of the studies are empirical, and it is observed that there are two types of studies depending on the use of analysis carried out on the B Corp. First, those studies which use the companies as a B Corp sample, which may be due to the fact that it is a population that is easy to limit, analyze any phenomenon or subject. In these cases, the possibility that they are biased studies must be taken into account, since it is not the same to analyze sustainability in B Corps as in other non-certified companies. Second, there are those studies that actually analyze some aspects related to the B Corp. In another vein, it should be noted that most of the studies use regression or content analysis as a methodology.

In a complementary way to the future research lines proposed in the analyzed articles, some additional ideas are mentioned below.

First of all, it is necessary to clarify the difference between the certified B Corp and the Benefit Corporation, since there are some studies that confuse it or even use it interchangeably. Therefore, it is considered of special importance for future studies to specify clearly what the authors refer to. Additionally, it is recommended not to abbreviate the term Benefit Corporation to avoid confusion. In addition, it would be interesting to analyze why, being apparently such similar concepts, some Benefit Corporations want to obtain the B Corp certification.

Second, and in line with the above, it would be interesting to identify and compare the certifications related to social impact that currently exist in the market. This information would be of great interest to companies, as it would allow them to focus on those that best align with their objectives, avoiding overexertion and duplication.

Third, in line with what is stated in the introductory section, it is essential to investigate how certified B Corp companies are contributing to the achievement of sustainable development goals.

Fourth, it is necessary to determine what the certification process is like for companies, that is, what internal changes are produced to achieve it. For this, more case studies have to be developed that analyze the implementation process, identifying the main obstacles and how companies deal with them.

Fifth, as mentioned above, there is currently no globally accepted method to determine the contribution of companies to the SDGs, that is, to determine their social impact. For this reason, it is essential to make progress in research in terms of measuring social impact.

Finally, we propose to develop further research contextualizing and comparing the different theoretical frameworks used in the empirical studies.

Based on all of the above, we consider that this work makes an important contribution by describing the state of the B Corp certification issue and proposing future lines of work. Furthermore, from the methodological point of view, carrying out this protocol and the associated review is a contribution in itself, as it provides a specific search strategy that may be useful for researchers interested in this topic.

However, despite the contribution made, this work can be improved. Its main limitation is that it has a series of criteria, such as the language or the databases used in the search for articles, which can logically cause a certain bias in the selection of final articles. Therefore, in order to carry out future work, it is suggested to replicate the search strategy in other databases and compare the results with those obtained in this work.