Summary of the changes to the B Lab’s New Standards

This Knowledge Base Article summarizes the substantive changes to the new B Lab Standards since we published the second draft for stakeholder consultation in Q1 2024. It sets out:

• a restructure of the new standards to follow a three-level certification process:

• overall improvements we’ve made to the new  Standards

• updates to the Foundation Requirements and Impact Topics

• changes to the Standards’ overarching themes. 

These final refinements ensure the Standards are impactful, and that they meet the growing social and environmental challenges facing the world. The changes also make it clearer than ever what it means to be a B Corp, while giving companies reasonable time and scope to implement them.

Overall, these changes address input and feedback from a number of sources, including:

• recurring themes from the second consultation

• additional research and expert interviews

• copy-editing and verifiability experts

• regulatory alignment

• B Lab's Standards governing bodies.

The next sections detail both the structural and cross-cutting changes that impact the overall Standards, and the more specific changes made to the Foundation and Impact Topic requirements. 

Achieving the new standards through continuous improvement

To ensure a smoother transition to the new standards—especially for companies operating in the EU, where alignment with the Empowering Consumers Directive is required by September 2026 —a restructuring of the new Standards was needed. 

The new standards adopt a phased approach, reflecting the continuous improvement at the heart of B Corp Certification.

To achieve initial certification, companies must comply with the Year 0 sub-requirements. Subsequently, they will progressively adopt and comply with the Year 3 and Year 5 sub-requirements. 

To maintain B Corp certification, companies must continually comply with all applicable sub-requirements from the time they become effective. Thus, in Year 3, a company must continue to comply with the Y0 sub-requirements while meeting the Y3 sub-requirements; and in Year 5, it must continue to comply with the Y0 and Y3 sub-requirements while meeting the Y5 sub-requirements. See the image below. 

Each successive phase builds upon the previous one, reinforcing continuous improvement and complete adherence to the new standard’s requirements.

These cross-cutting changes enhance the new Standards overall

• Greater focus on the most material impacts — We simplified and expanded approaches to help companies, especially smaller ones, prioritize their most significant impacts.

• Enhanced guidance — We added more action-oriented guidance to support understanding and implementation.

• Improved accessibility — We copy-edited the Standards to make them easier to understand and use, while preserving each requirement’s intent and supporting consistent interpretation.

• Clearer compliance expectations — We clarified the expectations on companies and improved the verifiability of the Standards by:

  • ensuring Compliance Criteria are clearly stated, and renaming “Compliance Guidance” to “Clarifying Compliance Criteria” to reinforce its binding nature

  • eliminating unnecessary or repetitive requirement text for greater clarity and conciseness

  • numbering Compliance Criteria and clarifications to make it easier to reference mandatory sections and to improve third-party auditing.

• Revised content categories, titles, and structure — We improved the navigation and readability of the Standards by:

  • revising several content category titles for clarity, and introducing a new category, “Further Guidance”.

  • updating content category explanations to support easier understanding.

  • adjusting the structure and sequence of some content categories to clearly distinguish mandatory requirements from non-mandatory guidance.

For an overview of these changes, and updated explanations of the Standards' content categories, please see KBA1.

• Updated interoperability and definitions — We refined the Interoperability framework and its definitions to focus on data overlaps, allowing companies to contribute to demonstrating compliance with the new Standards using existing data and methodologies.

Once we implement our new assurance model, we'll further explore ways of making our assurance requirements interoperable with other schemes.

We’ve made a suite of changes to Foundation Requirements and Impact Topics too

As well as the high-level cross-cutting changes described above, we’ve reviewed, revised, and updated several of the Foundation Requirements and Impact Topics’ requirements. This section outlines some of the most significant changes in each section of the new B Lab Standards.

Foundation Requirements (FR)

• Defined material involvement in industries that undermine B Lab’s Theory of Change (FR1.2) — We added revenue and value chain thresholds to define “material involvement” in these industries (e.g. fossil fuel and weapon industries). Companies with material involvement in these industries are ineligible for B Corp certification.

• Merged FR lobbying requirements (FR1.3, FR1.4) into the Government Affairs and Collective Action (GACA) Impact Topic — Responding to feedback, we grouped two FR lobbying requirements on ineligible lobbying practices with a GACA lobbying requirement (GACA1.11.2).

• Added risk profile requirements in FR3 (FR 3.1) — We added a Foundation Requirement related to profiling each B Corp’s social, environmental, and governance risks using a tool developed by B Lab. This tool will be available as part of the new assessment platform to be launched in January 2025. A company with certain risks will need to meet additional due diligence sub-requirements in the Impact Topics (particularly PSG, ESC, and HR). This ensures due diligence expectations are proportionate to the company’s risk profile and size. A summary of each B Corp’s risk profile will be displayed on its public profile. FR3 applies to all company sizes, except those without workers and micro companies. These smallest companies are exempt, recognizing their inherent lower risk profiles. 

• Removed FR4 requirement — as the Impact Business Models Assessment will not be part of the initial publication of the standards, FR4 was removed.  See more details regarding this change under the ‘Changes to the Standards’ overarching themes - Impact Business Models’ sub-sections at the end of this article. 

Complementary Impact Topics are no longer a standalone section

• Removed Complementary Impact Topics — To balance the overall ambition and cohesion of the Standards, we’ve removed the requirement for companies to be assessed against what we called Complementary Impact Topics (CIT). These were topics included in Version 6 of the B Impact Assessment that are not directly or conceptually covered by the new Impact Topic requirements.

• Added a replacement requirement to PSG — To maintain the original intent of CIT, we’ve included a new sub-requirement (PSG 2.4) in the Purpose and Stakeholder Governance Impact Topic. 

Purpose and Stakeholder Governance (PSG)

• Emphasized integrating purpose into the company’s strategy (PSG1.1, PSG5.1) — We further clarified the requirement of a purpose statement to ensure it not only has business relevance, but is integrated into the company’s strategy. In addition, we now require the highest governing body to monitor implementation of the company’s purpose, alongside its social and environmental impact and stakeholder governance.

• Merged and reframed stakeholder governance requirements (PSG2.1) — We replaced the previous sub-requirements for smaller companies, which focused on providing examples, with a sub-requirement focused on stakeholder identification, prioritization, and stakeholder engagement mechanisms.

• Added requirements for material topics not addressed in the B Lab Standards (PSG2.4) — To ensure that companies act on all issues relevant for the company, we added a new sub-requirement. PSG2.4 ensures that large companies will: 

• identify material topics not addressed by the B Lab Standards (i.e. topics in their materiality assessment)

• improve on them by setting targets and reporting progress annually.

• Removed a requirement to set aspirational goals — We removed the requirement for larger companies to set aspirational goals on material environmental or social issues, as it largely overlapped with many other requirements of the B Lab Standards.

• Adjusted compliance criteria to protect stakeholders who raise grievances (PSG3.1, PSG3.3) — We’ve added a compliance criteria to protect stakeholders from any potential retaliation they may face after submitting a grievance. We also removed a requirement for larger companies to have a minimum of three independent arbiters.

Government Affairs and Collective Action (GACA)

• Merged the Foundation Requirement lobbying requirements into GACA (GACA1.1, GACA1.2) — As flagged above, we merged GACA lobbying requirements with FR lobbying requirements on ineligible lobbying practices. The updated requirements now apply to all company sizes.

• Added guidance on a responsible lobbying policy (GACA1.1) — This guidance covers: 

  • lobbying based on scientific data

  • anti-corruption and anti-bribery measures

  • controls for intermediary organizations.

• Added disclosure of material lobbying positions (GACA1.2) — Companies are now required to disclose their material lobbying positions, in addition to their political contributions.

• Aligned with the GRI Tax Standard (GACA3.1) — We updated this requirement to align with the GRI Tax Standard, including country-by-country reporting. The updated requirement only applies to XXL companies. 

Fair Work (FW)

• Merged two impact topics into Fair Work — We merged the Fair Wages and Workplace Culture impact topics to create the Fair Work Impact Topic. This was triggered by the addition of new labor-related sub-requirements and a desire to have labor-related requirements for B Corp workers together in one Impact Topic.

• Added two labor-related sub-requirements (FW1.1 and 1.2) — The Standards required two new labor practice requirements that apply globally and were not captured elsewhere in the Standards. Together, these help set clearer expectations for employers of their employees.

  • FW1.1 requires companies to provide employment contracts or offer letters.

  • FW1.2 requires companies to have equal cancellation deadlines when using variable work arrangements, such as shift work or zero-hour contracts.

• Addressed living wage and collectively bargained wage requirements (FW2.8) — We re-framed living wage and collective bargaining as the ideal approaches, while increasing flexibility for companies unable to pay a living wage. This flexibility is needed because living wage benchmarks around the globe are not uniform, and the barriers to increasing wages are often outside a company’s control. In the new Standards, all companies with workers must at least work towards a living wage or pay collectively bargained wages. Companies that can’t pay a living wage must complete other actions related to their lowest-paid workers (e.g. publicly sharing their high-to-low wage ratio, providing universal childcare, or joining collective action on wages).

• Amended workplace culture terms (FW4) — We removed “mental health” as a theme to avoid employers measuring or diagnosing mental health without the right clinical expertise. Instead, we now require employers to focus on proxy themes that are more appropriate for them to measure — such as wellbeing, belonging, and psychological safety.

• Amended criteria to respect the right to freedom of association (FW3.1) — We amended the criteria under FW3.1 (the requirement to set up a worker representation mechanism) to offer a way forward if workers decline such a mechanism. If a company were to set up a representation mechanism against workers’ will, it would violate their right to freedom of association. The criteria has to account for this possibility.

Human Rights (HR)

• Added due diligence requirements for conflict-affected situations (HR3.7) — We added a new sub-requirement to better guide companies with operations in conflict-affected situations. This introduces consistent expectations for different conflicts around the world.

• Made the approach to supplier living wages and incomes less prescriptive (HR4.9 - 4.11) — We made these sub-requirements less prescriptive to ensure they are relevant to more types of companies. We also created space here for companies to promote collective bargaining among suppliers. This mirrors our approach for the company’s own workers under Fair Work. Living wages/incomes among suppliers can now be found under HR4, alongside other supplier-related sub-requirements.

• Introduced remediation requirements for larger companies (HR3.2, 3.3, and 4.8) — We added expectations for companies to remediate their actual negative impacts in several sub-requirements. These new requirements are in addition to:

  • HR1.2, which requires a commitment to remedy negative impacts

  • PSG3, which requires adequate procedures for addressing stakeholder grievances.

• Introduced a new sub-requirement related to investments (HR3.5) — This new sub-requirement aligns with requirements for service sector companies to screen their organizational clients and projects (HR3.4). Under the new sub-requirement, companies in specific investment-related industries need to: 

  • assess the potential negative human rights impacts of their investments 

  • take necessary mitigation actions. 

• Specified the prevention, mitigation, and remediation measures required of suppliers (HR4.4 and HR4.8) — We added more detail to the Human Rights requirements that B Corps need to influence through their supply chains. Companies are now required to: 

  • identify prioritized suppliers according to their most material human rights impacts 

  • set targets and monitor progress toward preventing and mitigating human rights impacts.

• Combined limits to engage and monitor suppliers (HR4) — We merged two related sub-requirements (previously HR4.1 and 4.5). These sub-requirements have conceptual overlap and can be part of the same process, so it made sense to combine them.

• Removed Human Rights Impact Assessments at recertification (HR3) — We removed the sub-requirement to carry out two Human Rights Impact Assessments  (previously HR3.5) at recertification (now referred to later levels of certification either level 2 or level 3). This recognizes that such assessments are resource-intensive, and it shifts expectations from assessment to action.

Justice, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (JEDI)

• Added a digital accessibility option (JEDI2.m) — We added a second option related to digital accessibility. JEDI2.n, focusing on website accessibility, is now complemented by JEDI2.m, which focuses on internal communication tools.

• Reduced documentation burden for the smallest companies (JEDI2) — We removed the criterion to “consider stakeholder feedback… when choosing its actions” for companies in the Company without workers and Micro size groups. These kinds of companies tend to have more informal ways of working that don’t involve documenting communication and processes.

Climate Action (CA)

• Simplified requirements for smaller companies (CA2.1, CA3.3, CA3.6) -  As more jurisdictions globally introduce legislation to ensure the accuracy of environmental claims, SMEs must avoid disclosing data or targets that are incomplete or unverified by third parties. Smaller companies, on the other hand, often lack the resources for accurate GHG measurement, which can hinder their ability to set robust science-based targets. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, it’s more important for smaller companies to focus on taking action now rather than diverting resources to precise  emissions measurement tracking. Therefore, smaller companies are required to develop a climate action plan with measurable targets and implement actions that align their commitment with the Paris Agreement, even without precise GHG data. Additionally, SMEs are required to publicly share their climate action plans and progress, ensuring that their efforts are credible and accountable to stakeholders.

• Science-based targets to be validated. (CA2.2) — To align with evolving legislations around environmental claims, larger companies are required to have science-based targets validated by the Science Based Targets initiative or verified by an independent third party.

• Added requirements to engage the value chain as part of a just transition plan (CA3.3) — To ensure a more inclusive approach, large companies are now required to engage not only their workers but also stakeholders in their value chain on their climate transition plans (including suppliers or supply chain stakeholders at minimum).

Environmental Stewardship & Circularity (ESC):

• Fine-tuned outputs for the environmental impacts assessment (ESC1.7) — We added specific required outputs from the assessment of environmental impacts to ensure consistent and transparent actions and evaluations. These outputs include an overview of the company’s value chain, priority sites, and high impact commodities.

• Adjusted criteria for the environmental strategy (ESC2.1) — We removed specific commitments like "zero waste to landfill" from the requirement on environmental strategy, allowing companies to focus on their material priorities. We also increased emphasis on the hierarchy of mitigation actions. This encourages a more structured and impactful approach to managing environmental impacts.

• Clarified value chain requirements for the biodiversity and water stewardship strategies (ESC2.3; ESC2.3) — In the updated Standards, companies with biodiversity as a material issue develop an action plan to engage their value chain in gathering data and measuring progress over time. At recertifications, they are also required to set specific targets for their value chain.

• Introduced a new sub-requirement related to investments (ESC2.7) — This new sub-requirement aligns with requirements for service sector companies to screen their organizational clients and projects (ESC2.6). Under the new sub-requirement, companies in specific investment-related industries need to: 

  • assess the potential negative environmental impacts of their investments

  • take necessary mitigation actions. 

• Introduced options for implementing circular product design principles (ESC3.3) — To enhance clarity, we restructured the requirement to apply circularity principles in product development into options aligned with the waste hierarchy (prevention, preparation for re-use, recycling, and other recovery). The updates also require measurable improvements, following the hierarchy of actions, at each recertification.

• Updated guidance for companies with multiple products (ESC3.3) — Companies with multiple product lines must apply this sub-requirement to their entire portfolio, ensuring a holistic approach rather than selectively tracking certain products. While full integration of circularity principles is not required from the initial certification, companies must progressively reduce the percentage of their portfolio that does not fit into any of the four ESC3.3.1 options at recertification. If some products still do not align with these options, companies may reselect option ESC3.3d at recertification — provided it results from improving a previously non-compliant product that did not fit into any of the four ESC3.3.1 options. Companies with a single product cannot reselect ESC3.3d at recertification.

• Added a new requirement to understand available recovery infrastructure (ESC3.4) — To ensure that larger companies focus on the most relevant locations with their programs to improve recovery infrastructure (ESC3.5), we introduced a new sub-requirement to assess the infrastructure available where their products are sold.

• Specified the prevention, mitigation, and remediation measures required of suppliers (ESC5.3; ESC5.7) — We added more detail to the ESC requirements that B Corps need to influence through their supply chains. Companies are now required to: 

  • identify prioritized suppliers according to their most material environmental impacts

  • set targets and monitor progress toward preventing and mitigating environmental impacts.