I was recently asked if I'd considered obtaining B corp certification for Apothaka® - something I discounted a few years ago. For me, it was a very obvious no, but being asked about this more recently made me wonder if I should explain why I decided against this certification route, which largely seems to operate more as a marketing strategy than a commitment to genuine environmental and social standards. And for those of you that don't know how I feel about ethical marketing, have a read of this blog post, which I wrote back in 2018!
I'm a pretty cynical person by nature - especially when it comes to marketing and this has largely been solidified by having worked in a marketing (research) background in the pharma industry for over 15 years before launching Apothaka. So when I came across an excellent article about B-Corp status from Jen Novakovich, founder of the Eco Well podcast, a cosmetic scientist and one of my favourite science communicators, my interest was further piqued as she articulated so clearly why certifications in the beauty space can be so problematic and ultimately look like greenwashing.
For those of you who aren't familiar with B corp certification, it's a certification provided by a company, B Lab, with a focus on corporate social values. It claims to be a non-profit organisation that wants to "transform the global economy to benefit all people, communities and the planet". On the surface, this sounds commendable (and certainly in line with my own brand values), exactly what we should all be aiming for - an organisation committed to moving away from the "profit at all costs" model, which has become so destructive for the environment, for workers and for consumers. On this basis, it's no surprise that companies would jump at the chance to be associated with this movement, and I suspect that having the certification would likely open up funding / investment opportunities for brands that are looking to scale, plus they can probably justify a more premium price for their products with certification.
So what's the issue? For me, B corp certification feels like it's enabling greenwashing, providing the illusion of high social and environmental standards that doesn't match the reality and doesn't encourage real change. This happens through an opaque assessment process, a lack of accountability for being held to high standards, and through the inclusion of some brands who have managed to obtain the certification, despite their questionable records on human rights / worker conditions. This signals to me that it's hard to take this certification seriously, as it feels largely performative. Indeed, this "performance" of corporate social responsibility is seen in high-impact industries like the fossil fuel industry. In an article from SOAS university, anthropologist Dinah Rajak notes that "many extractive industries now use sustainability language to frame (greenwash?) their practices. For instance, oil companies publicly back climate action and promote low-carbon initiatives while still increasing fossil fuel production at unsustainable rates." The article goes on to say, "what this suggests is that CSR efforts in these industries often mask ongoing environmental harm. The same critique applies to B Corp. It’s one thing to promise social responsibility and environmental stewardship, but if companies continue practices that contradict these goals, then the certification may only serve as a marketing strategy to appease increasingly eco-conscious consumers." This is also my objection to the certification in a nutshell!
The assessment process for B corp certification has relied on self-reporting and a 3rd party audit which doesn't appear to be transparent. It's a bit like asking a student to mark their own homework - how can we be sure it's fair and accurate, and there's no cheating involved?! Jen covers this in a lot more detail and it's worth a read, but there are a number of pillars that companies are assessed on (environmental practices, worker welfare, community impact, and customers) with the opportunity for points scored for each pillar. But no minimum score for each pillar, which allows companies to cherry pick what to focus on. What companies choose to focus on (likely quick, easy, low cost wins) may be very different to the most pressing issues affecting their industry. A beauty brand with B corp certification can call themselves "sustainable" despite scoring poorly on the environmental pillar (as well as on customers and the community) - it's a very well known UK brand found in all the larger retailers, can you guess which? Jen's blog post reveals the answer!
When you start to look at some of the companies (particularly large multinationals) that have achieved B corp status over recent years, things get even more interesting! Nespresso, owned by problematic giant Nestle, gained B corp status despite being accused of working with coffee suppliers in Guatemala who were "employing" young children alongside a wider questionable track record on human rights and an "extractive business model". UK readers will be familiar with the company Brewdog, whose employees have complained of poor treatment on a number of occasions, yet mysteriously achieved high scores in worker-assessment areas. Brewdog lost its certification as a result, but it makes you wonder how these companies got the certification in the first place (money talks, am I right?!). As a result, some of the earlier adopters of B-corp certification, like Dr Bronner's, who joined with much more honourable intentions are clearly fed up being associated with large multinationals with a "history of serious environmental and labour issues". Dr Bronner's, a member for 10 years, announced last year that they were leaving B-corp because "the integrity of the B Corp certification has become compromised and remaining certified now contradicts our mission". Another UK company, pet food supplier, Scrumbles walked away from B corp certification last year, citing, "growing membership was the focus rather than pushing forward sustainability efforts". They instead donated their certification fee of £8,500 to the charity, Save the Children.
Jen's opening statement in her blog post hit the nail on the head: "Sustainability: Something we all (should) feel strongly about, but these days people seem more concerned with doing what feels right instead of trying to do what is right." And this in essence is my major frustration with using certifications as a shortcut to proving sustainability and corporate social responsibility. We need to acknowledge that business growth is incongruent with sustainability - a conversation that no one is really willing to have. Rather than genuinely attempting to tackle the important issues that need to be addressed - that of overconsumption and its resulting environmental impacts, human rights for workers, and ensuring high ethical standards from businesses, we end up with what are essentially tick-box exercises that allow some businesses to game the system in order to get certification - giving the illusion of "green" / "purpose-led" credentials to unsuspecting eco-conscious consumers, whilst leveraging the advantages of being associated with a few certified companies who are genuinely committed to making a positive difference. That doesn't seem fair to me, what do you think?
And consumers are left understandably confused at how to choose ethical businesses to support, though the uncomfortable truth is certifications like this "may satisfy our desire for corporate accountability without demanding the systemic change needed to address environmental and social crises". The only people winning here are the large companies who are still ultimately profit-driven at all costs and aren't having to change any of their practices.
There are changes planned to the B corp certification process, with minimum requirements being introduced across more pillars along with 3rd party verification being introduced. But this all feels like too little, too late, and it looks like some of the more ethical brands that have left B corp, agree with this sentiment. Whilst B corp may have originally been set up with the intention to change how corporations operate in capitalism, it seems they've instead been giving many (larger) companies a new way of absolving themselves of significant change. If the certification isn't driving real change, it risks becoming a "symbolic label rather than a true mark of accountability". As the SOAS article concluded, B corp certification may look like a "hollow label" with a reminder to "look beyond the logo—and question what true corporate responsibility really looks like" - and I totally agree!
Links to articles referenced in post:
https://www.theecowell.com/blog/is-b-corp-actually-a-benefit
https://www.soas.ac.uk/about/blogs/too-good-b-true-b-corp-certification-face-greenwashing
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ceq7lqley32o
