Talk:B Corporation (certification)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2020 and 27 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sanjana Obili. Peer reviewers: GreatestLawyerEver.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The entire article appears to have been written by B-Lab, as self-promotion. Most sources are either B-Lab itself, or the result of B-Lab press-releases or public relations.

The description of "certification" fails to mention any of the numerous short-comings in the procedure, nor even that B-Lab receives payment.

While the article may have some reason to exist, to distinguish this "seal of approval" from the legal "benefit corporation" statuses, it should not be a simple advertising for a paid "service". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:F51C:4A95:F026:EE0A (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:648E:BDC8:CED4:CA9A (talk) 12:28, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article would be more credible if it also included critiques. (I myslef have neither the time nor the knowledge to add these.) Acwilson9 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion between Benefit Corporation status and B Lab certification in references and text.

Even though the article contains a warning to not confuse the two, it displays major confusion in attributing references that pertain ONLY to Benefit Corporations to B Lab certification. A notable example, among others: "AB 361 Assembly Bill - BILL ANALYSIS". California State Assembly. Retrieved January 8, 2014." This refers to proposed California legislation (since passed, perhaps with amendments?), BUT in no way refers to B Lab certification.

What should be done about these statements in the article that misattribute quotes that do not refer to the subject of the article?

Should the entire unsupported and often incorrect passages be simply removed? Should the inapplicable reference be replaced with a "reference needed"? In the absence of future input here, I will at some future time make a case-by-case call. It is true that some features of certification may share characteristics with Benefit legislation, while in other cases they clearly do not, and in other cases there is a legal vacuum. However the enactment of Benefit legislation tends to remove the legal question in States possessing Benefit legislation which companies voluntarily choose to adopt or to not adopt.

This issue is particularly important because the general reader is often misled in the popular press.

2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:648E:BDC8:CED4:CA9A (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use your judgement. Technically, all content in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable source, regardless of whether or not that source is cited in the article. Check out the first few paragraphs at WP:OR. Brycehughes (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware of this and other guidelines. Since almost all of the information in the article comes from B Lab itself, either directly or indirectly, the vast majority of the article contradicts several wikipedia guidelines. And even at this level, the article goes far beyond B Lab's own claims.

At the same time, the wikipedia standard of fairness requires that opposing points of view be presented. But since this is essentially a question of an article about a single "product" created by a single organisation, which has no competition except the Benefit Corporation legal status (and State governments don't spend time criticising B-Lab), I am put in the position of investing considerable time in seeking references to dispute "facts" that are false on the basis of another Wikipedia guideline, common sense. No one is surprised when advertisers misrepresent their products, but these lies are given "factual" status by some wikipedia editors.

2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:648E:BDC8:CED4:CA9A (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just use your judgement. Remove what is unverifiable and controversial. Thanks. Brycehughes (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No support for statement in reference.

"Some companies have found the assessment to be rigorous and difficult to complete and maintain.[7] "

This is mentioned in "disadvantages", yet the reference cited explains the opposite.

I would assume that some companies also find the fees to be dissuasive, but I have no more support for that than there is support for the above statement in the cited reference.

So does common sense prime, or should the point be removed until a reference can be cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:648E:BDC8:CED4:CA9A (talk) 14:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd remove it, since it's borderline controversial. Brycehughes (talk) 15:30, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

legal requirements

I find this subject heading to be a misnomer, but I don't immediately find a solution.

"Legal" implies a requirement by law, by government, but in fact the section talks about B Lab asking corporations to include certain legal language in their bylaws. While the bylaws themselves are indeed legal documents, I would not define this process as a "legal requirement", any more than I would consider my wife asking me to promise in writing to take out the garbage as a "legal requirement". In fact, such a letter could at least enter into contract law. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:2E06:77B0:648E:BDC8:CED4:CA9A (talk) 18:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bylaw requirements? Brycehughes (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how about just "requirements"? I changed it to that, but not gonna die on that hill if people have strong feelings about it. M.Aurelius C. (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on B Corporation (certification). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Annual fee

I have changed "...an annual fee ranging from $1000 to $50,000 or more, depending on annual sales" to "...an annual fee based on annual sales."

$1000 to $50,000 is a "range". A range has a minimum and maximum value.

"$1000 to $50,000 or more" has a minimum value, says there is no maximum and includes a random value in the middle ($50,000). - SummerPhD^v2.0 04:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative definition

Surely ISO standards plus Unionisation of the workforce is better than a corporate centred approach like this which lacks in both aspects in comparison? 5.80.214.237 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In business??

This is a meaningless phrase because B corporations don’t exist anywhere else. Stop vandalising Ollie 92.1.175.218 (talk) 23:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compare BCorp with iso14001

Anyone like to see a comparison?? Mr Ollie has reverted it 92.1.175.218 (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOR. You can't write a comparison yourself in this way, it has to be based directly on sources making such a comparison. MrOllie (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]