Increasing Equity through B Corp Certification in the Coffee Commodity Supply Chain

The coffee industry is a cornerstone of Nicaragua’s economy. Coffee production shapes communities and is a major factor in the development of the country. Coffee cooperatives in Nicaragua are often Fairtrade and Organic certified, yet their farmers continue to struggle to secure stable livelihoods. In this inquiry, I sought to understand whether becoming a Certified B Corp and interacting with the B Corp network could improve farmer livelihoods for production cooperatives. B Corp Certification seeks to redefine success in business with the unifying goal of creating a more inclusive economy. B Corps, for-profit businesses which have passed the rigorous B Impact Assessment, are certified by the nonprofit B Lab. B Corp certification may increase access to the market through the B Corp network and may thereby increase farmers’ incomes. B Corp Certification may also be a means to redistribute value in the commodity’s supply chain. Most importantly, the B Corp movement could promote sustainable change in the coffee value chain by joining like-minded companies in the global north and south. I argue that B Corp certification within the coffee industry could help to redistribute value in the supply chain by working within the B Corp network and will ultimately improve the livelihoods of farmers

B-Corp Certification: Systematic Literature Review and Research Agenda

This paper aims to study the adoption and impact of B-Corp certification by systematically reviewing key papers on this topic published in peer-reviewed journals from 2006 to 2024. The paper proposes a conceptual framework that provides a comprehensive overview of research themes, subdivided into five broad research focuses: drivers and enablers for organisations seeking certification, barriers they encounter, implementation issues of B-Corp certification and the outcomes achieved post-certification. The study offers a thorough overview of the academic literature on B-Corp certification, laying a strong foundation for future research on the subject. The literature reveals similarities in objectives, approaches and methods, often yielding overly optimistic results that fail to capture the complex impact of B-Corp certification. A range of research opportunities is presented, establishing a research agenda to guide future studies in the field. The findings can support decision-making regarding the adoption and renewal of certification by evaluating its cost–benefit. Policymakers can utilise this comprehensive overview of knowledge to inform their decisions on regulatory actions

Do prosocial-certified companies walk the talk? An analysis of B Corps' contributions to Sustainable Development Goals

This paper investigates the contribution of the B Corp movement in Europe to achieving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) compared with non-B Corps. B Corp certification aims to identify organisations that utilise business as 'a force for good', but there is limited empirical evidence on how effectively certified organisations translate their prosocial claims into measurable SDG contributions. We address this through cluster analysis, comparing 313 B Corp-certified and 1506 non-certified European companies by way of the SDG Action Manager tool. Our findings reveal three clusters of B Corp-certified organisations with varying contribution levels across all SDGs, indicating that the certification does not consistently identify organisations with significant SDG impacts. Non-certified companies, meanwhile, do not exhibit distinct patterns. These results raise doubts about whether the B Corp category identifies a distinctive prototype member that can define clear prosocial norms and practices. The paper contributes to understanding B Corp organisations' narratives by providing insights into their empirical performance compared with non-certified organisations. It also offers potential explanations for these discrepancies and proposes strategies to strengthen B Corp certification bodies in alignment with the SDGs, while acknowledging the presence of intra-category variations

Implied Certification under the False Claims Act

The False Claims Act prohibits fraud by government contractors, including a contractor\u27s false certification of compliance with the contract, statutes or regulations. In the early 1990s, some courts began holding that the act of requesting payment from the government implicitly represents such compliance for the purposes the FCA. Circuits are today split on the implied certification doctrine. This Article provides a theory of implied certification, suggests how the circuit split should be resolved and describes how contracting agencies should write contracts in light of the existing rule. There are good reasons for the implied certification rule: it is an information-forcing majoritarian default; it affirms the special ethical obligations of government contractors; and it addresses agency lassitude in drafting and monitoring performance. But implied certification also has its costs. Most importantly, it lowers the bar to frivolous qui tam actions and threatens to impose FCA liability for violations better addressed by more discretionary and nuanced regulatory responses. This Article recommends a narrow implied certification rule: the fact that a contract, statute or regulation conditions either participation in or payment for a contract on compliance with it should create a prima facie case that a claim for payment represents such compliance, shifting the burden to the defendant to show that FCA liability would interfere with other regulatory monitoring and enforcement mechanisms. The Article also recommends that contracting agencies pay more attention to the FCA when drafting contracts. They can approximate first-best results by requiring express certification of compliance with those duties for which FCA liability makes sense, and contracting-out of implied certification for those duties that are better enforced in other ways. In addition to these practical suggestions, the Article draws some general lessons about the contractual duties to cooperate, interpretive defaults in contract and tort, and the special ethical obligations of government contractors