Unpacking B Corps’ Impact on Sustainable Development. An Analysis from Structuration Theory

sustainability Article Unpacking B Corps’ Impact on Sustainable Development. An Analysis from Structuration Theory Sabrina Tabares 1,* , Andrés Morales 2, Sara Calvo 2and Valentín Molina Moreno 3   Citation: Tabares, S.; Morales, A.; Calvo, S.; Molina Moreno, V. Unpacking B Corps’ Impact on Sustainable Development. An Analysis from Structuration Theory. Sustainability 2021,13, 13408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313408 Academic Editors: Carlos Lopez-Gutierrez, Ana Fernandez-Laviada and Andrea Pérez Received: 1 October 2021 Accepted: 1 December 2021 Published: 3 December 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Administrativas, Universidad de Medellín, Carrera 87 # 30–65, Medellín 050026, Colombia 2Departamento de Negocios, Universidad Internacional de La Rioja, Avenida de la Paz, 137, 26004 Logroño, Spain; [email protected] (A.M.); [email protected] (S.C.) 3Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales, Universidad de Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: stabar[email protected] Abstract: With Our Common Future and the United Nation’s global call to implement the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2030, public policies increasingly emphasise the need for various actors to contribute to a global transformation and a more sustainable future. Despite growing research on hybrid organisations and their contributions to sustainable development, their impact on accelerating this transition might be faulty. Looking at a type of hybrid organisation, Certified B Corporations (B Corps), this article draws on a multiple case study of nine B Corps in a developing country in Latin America, Colombia. The study builds on the Structuration Theory to examine to what extent and how B Corps impact sustainable development. The article empirically shows that B Corps focus on four categories of sustainable development: considering future generations; enhancing human development; encouraging new mindsets, behaviours, and lifestyles; and promoting socio-political engagement. The findings suggest that B Corps develop communicative and narrative discourses and symbolic schemas as means of signification and follow norms and moral rules to exert legitimation and utilise authoritative resources to exercise power. The article contributes to research on hybrid organisations, sustainability transitions, and business models. Keywords: Sustainable Development (SD); Triple Bottom Line (TBL); Structuration Theory (ST); hybrid organisations; B Corps; business models; sustainability transitions 1. Introduction With the publication of Our Common Future by the United Nations in 1987, Sustainable Development (SD) has been increasingly presented as a pathway for a better and more desirable society. SD, defined as the “means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [ 1 ], has become a pervasive topic and a ‘global agenda for change’ to promote long-term environmental strategies by the cooperation and collaboration of various actors. Particular concerns have been manifested on how contributions to SD, and notably to the SDGs, can be addressed from a transformative perspective through individual and collective action [ 2 ]. Although SD was initially considered an initiative of governance between nations to restructure the international economic system through multilateral solutions and cooperation, new entrants, including private businesses, have been explicitly called upon to play a part in this transition towards a more sustainable world. Organisations are one of the social actors with the highest potential to contribute to SD. In particular, hybrid organisations are entities that perform in the spectrum of traditional and non-profits organisations [ 3 ]. They are characterised for delivering socioecological impacts through their products and practices while being self-sustaining and economically viable [ 4 ] in an endeavour to drive change and tackle the world’s most Sustainability 2021,13, 13408. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313408 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 2 of 21 challenging problems [ 5 ]. Research has demonstrated the progressive role of hybrid organisations in SD, a topic that is gaining significance for supporting policies for more human development in a Post-COVID-19 society [ 6 ]. Specifically, studies have revealed that hybrid organisations oriented towards SD focus on activities at the interception of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL)—An approach that jointly integrates economic, environmental, and social dimensions [ 7 ]. Sustainability-oriented hybrid organisations have been shown to be more equipped to face the so-called grand challenges and reproduce sustainable transitions [ 8 ]. Despite growing research on these organisations’ contributions to SD, notably to the SDGs [ 9 ], approaches to concretely understand how they impact SD for a more accelerated sustainability transition is missing. To analyse this phenomenon, we focussed our attention on a particular type of hybrid organisation, Certified B Corporations (B Corps). The B Corp certification is a third-party audit coordinated by B Lab, a US-based non-profit organisation “that serves a global movement of people using business as a force for good” [ 10 ]. B Corps are considered ‘new hybrid organisations’ [ 11 ] as they simultaneously pursue social and environmental value while generating economic value. B Corps are well-aligned with global sustainability agendas [ 12 ] and their business models focus on TBL issues [ 13 ]. They incorporate sustainability practices and follow transformative motivations to balance profits and purpose by promoting “a global culture shift to redefine success in business and build a more inclusive and sustainable economy” [14]. Scholars have stated that B Corps can foster societal changes [ 12 ] by promoting inclusive growth through the so-called ‘stakeholder capitalism’ [ 15 ]. Thus, B Corps integrate hybrid economy concepts [ 16 ], utilising capitalists and collaborative practices in tandem [ 17 ]. Despite these revelations, empirical observations on this phenomenon are lacking. Studies have questioned B Corps’ contribution to SD through their business models [ 11 , 18 ], and more concrete insights on how they configure a more inclusive and sustainable economy are claimed [ 19 ]. Considering B Corps’ ambitions to redefine and transform the economic system to a more hybridised and sustainable one, interpretations from their agentic capacity to pursue these transformations is faulty. This study builds on Structuration Theory (ST) [ 20 ] to analyse B Corps’ impact in SD. ST views the structure and agents of a social system as a duality, suggesting that social system creation and reproduction is based on agents’ interactions within social structures. Because ST allows a deeper understanding of the transformation of society [ 21 ], it provides theoretical insights to explain how B Corps can impact social structures in their operating context. Specifically, this paper focuses on the following questions: RQ1: How, and to what extent, does B Corps impact SD? RQ2: How do B Corps influence social structures to impact SD? This study undertakes a cross-case analysis of nine B Corps in Latin America, Colombia. Data collection included semi-structured interviews with business founders and key informants, while abundant secondary sources were used for data triangulation. We interpret SD as a transformative concept to be achieved at the interception of the three dimensions of the TBL and provide empirical observations of four categories: considering future generations; enhancing human development; encouraging new mindsets, behaviours, and lifestyles; and promoting socio-political engagement [22]. The categories are explored to contextualise B Corps’ approach to SD through their business models. The theoretical underpinnings on ST allowed interpreting elements of signification, legitimation, and domination to analyse B Corps’ influence on social structures through SD. Our study contributes to research on hybrid organisations and B Corps, sustainability transitions, and business models. This paper is structured as follows: after the Introduction, Section 2presents the theoretical background and the research underpinnings. Section 3describes the methodology, while the findings and discussion are presented in Sections 4and 5, respectively. The paper closes with Section 6, which includes the conclusions, implications for managers and policy-makers, research limitations, and potential avenues for future studies. Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 3 of 21 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Sustainable Development and Hybrid Organisations SD is a contested topic that has been shaped by different worldviews, resulting in a wide range of definitions [ 23 ]. The Brundtland Report of the United Nations presents the classic and most widespread definition of SD in Our Common Future, defined as the “means meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” [ 1 ]. Our Common Future recognises humanity’s dependency on the environment to meet needs beyond the mere exploitation of resources, calling for a society interdependent with the environment [ 23 ]. The Brundtland Report demands a different form and speed of growth, combining economic and ecological decision-making processes with a stronger emphasis on human development [ 24 ]. SD results from a growing global awareness that links environmental problems and socio-economic issues that concerns today’s grand challenges [24]. Growth and development from the SD perspective have been an important debate in business literature. Businesses have materialised an understanding of SD in practice, often linked to the TBL approach [ 23 ], based on economic, environmental, and social issues [ 7 ]. The TBL integrates social and environmental dimensions to traditional economic activities to measure a firm’s sustainable performance. Although the TBL has not been free from criticism, various studies recognise Elkington’s approach [ 7 ] as a conceptual basis and reference to interpret SD [ 25 ]. One of the major weaknesses of the TBL approach is the lack of academic consensus on what each of its dimensions concretely means. To illustrate, the economic dimension is associated with economic growth, equal income, prosperity, economy, and profits; the environmental dimension is linked to ecological balance, environmental health, respecting environmental limits, environmental quality, and the planet; while the social dimension is related to democratic participation, social progress, social justice, people, or equity [ 26 ]. The TBL dimensions are frequently presented as three interconnected rings [23] (see Figure 1). Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22 Figure 1. TBL dimensions of SD. Firms are economically sustainable when they ensure sufficient liquidity to produce a persistent return, are ecologically sustainable when their resources are consumed at a rate lower than that of their natural reproduction or their substitutes, and are socially sustainable when they add value to the communities in which they operate, enhancing their development [27]. Hybrid organisations, particularly sustainability-oriented hybrid organisations, fit into these criteria, meeting TBL dimensions at the intersection of their core [4]. The joint economic, environmental, and social dimensions suggest that these hybrids promote net positive sustainability, address SD challenges, are concerned with present and future generations, or integrate socio-ecological worldviews [4]. The following subsection introduces a hybrid organisation with sustainability orientations which draw interest in this research, B Corps. 2.2. B Corp: A Sustainability-Oriented Hybrid Organisation Hybrid organisations are entities that “pursue a social mission while engaging in commercial activities that sustain their operations” [28] and incorporate diverse institutional logics from public, private, and non-profit sector elements [29]. One of these firms’ main characteristics is the combination of commercial and charity activities [30], and the configuration of their business model focuses on the resolution of social problems [31]. Hybrid organisations oriented towards SD issues [4] are often linked to work integration, stewardship and environmental protection, employment, or local development [32]. B Corps are a type of hybrid organisation [9] that “align profit and societal impact and prioritises positive social and environmental outcomes” [12]. B Corps bind their business purpose in the enterprise status [14] and voluntarily implement stricter transparency and accountability standards than traditional corporations [33]. They must reach a minimum of 80 out of 200 points in the Benefit Impact Assessment (BIA) through validating performance in five areas: communities, workers, environment, customers, and governance. B Corps’ efforts to use business as a force for good and desire to build a new social contract between business and society [34] is incarnated in the idea of acting as “The Best Enterprises for the World” instead of the well-known Forbes approach of becoming Figure 1. TBL dimensions of SD. Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 4 of 21 Firms are economically sustainable when they ensure sufficient liquidity to produce a persistent return, are ecologically sustainable when their resources are consumed at a rate lower than that of their natural reproduction or their substitutes, and are socially sustainable when they add value to the communities in which they operate, enhancing their development [ 27 ]. Hybrid organisations, particularly sustainability-oriented hybrid organisations, fit into these criteria, meeting TBL dimensions at the intersection of their core [ 4 ]. The joint economic, environmental, and social dimensions suggest that these hybrids promote net positive sustainability, address SD challenges, are concerned with present and future generations, or integrate socio-ecological worldviews [4]. The following subsection introduces a hybrid organisation with sustainability orientations which draw interest in this research, B Corps. 2.2. B Corp: A Sustainability-Oriented Hybrid Organisation Hybrid organisations are entities that “pursue a social mission while engaging in commercial activities that sustain their operations” [ 28 ] and incorporate diverse institutional logics from public, private, and non-profit sector elements [ 29 ]. One of these firms’ main characteristics is the combination of commercial and charity activities [ 30 ], and the configuration of their business model focuses on the resolution of social problems [ 31 ]. Hybrid organisations oriented towards SD issues [ 4 ] are often linked to work integration, stewardship and environmental protection, employment, or local development [32]. B Corps are a type of hybrid organisation [ 9 ] that “align profit and societal impact and prioritises positive social and environmental outcomes” [ 12 ]. B Corps bind their business purpose in the enterprise status [14] and voluntarily implement stricter transparency and accountability standards than traditional corporations [ 33 ]. They must reach a minimum of 80 out of 200 points in the Benefit Impact Assessment (BIA) through validating performance in five areas: communities, workers, environment, customers, and governance. B Corps’ efforts to use business as a force for good and desire to build a new social contract between business and society [ 34 ] is incarnated in the idea of acting as “The Best Enterprises for the World” instead of the well-known Forbes approach of becoming “World’s Best Companies”. B Corps are oriented towards sustainability issues at their core [ 35 ], directly contributing to the well-known TBL dimensions [13,36]. Hybrid organisations’ capacity to achieve SD is intrinsically embedded in their business models [ 37 , 38 ]. Following Tabares [ 22 ], B Corp activities at the intersection of the TBL can be identified in the value proposition of hybrid organisations’ business models in four categories: (a) considering future generations; (b) enhancing human development; (c) encouraging new mindsets, behaviours and lifestyles; and (d) promoting socio-political engagement. These categories serve as a starting point for understanding how B Corps address SD. The following subsection explores how such an approach can be interpreted in light of existing theories. 2.3. Structuration Theory Structuration Theory, developed by the British sociologist Anthony Giddens, aimed to complement a missing aspect of social theory by integrating the notion of agency and its reciprocal interaction in social structures. According to Giddens [ 20 ], structures are dual as they are both a ‘medium and an outcome’ of the social practice in the social system. Giddens highlighted the reciprocal relationship between agency (individuals’ motivations) and structure (external forces immersed in society) as micro and macro perspectives, respectively. The duality refers to the structure’s capacity to shape agency and, simultaneously, the agency’s capacity of reproducing and constituting structures. Agents are continuously constrained and enabled by structures [ 20 ]; the attributes of a social system integrate the rules and resources that agents use in their interactions [ 39 ]. Agents are ‘knowledgeable’, meaning that they are aware of what they are doing, revealing their freedom and capacity to put into practice their knowledge [ 40 ]. The structure or rules and resources that allow reproduction of the social system influence agents. Thus, the Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 5 of 21 social system comprehends the schemas that build up the structure in which social life is enacted. Following Giddens, three dimensions characterise the structure: signification, legitimation, and domination [20]. Signification alludes to interpretative schemes by which agents draw their interactions to communicate understanding and meaning [ 40 ]. Giddens framed signification as ‘modalities of structuration’, related to cognitive schemes of communication expressed through the individual speech and language, institutionalised through symbolic orders and discourses [ 20 ]. The signification structure is based upon common concepts, notions, ideas, or even theories that give sense to organisational activities [ 40 ]. Legitimation refers to norms, moral codes, and values that constitute human interactions. Norms are expected to sanction human behaviour determining certain rights or obligations of social actors [ 41 ]. Domination relates to facilities or resources through which agents exercise power. Resources can be authoritative, derived from the capacity to coordinate activities with social actors, or allocative, which arises from controlling elements of the material world such as objects, goods, or material products [ 20 ]. Both authoritative and allocative resources provide a channel for domination and enable the agency’s transformative capacity [40]. Agents are a central element of ST, represented by individuals’ capacity to take action and exert some control or transform social relations to some degree [ 39 ]. Agents are expected to use their individual capacities to exploit resources and understand a structure’s rules [ 42 ]. Following Sewell, “to be an agent means to be capable of exerting some degree of control over the social relations in which one is enmeshed, which in turn implies the ability to transform those social relations to some degree” [ 39 ]. Although structures empower actors differently, actor capacity is inherent in all individuals [ 39 ]. According to Keller [ 43 ], actors use the rules and resources as discourses of their practice. Thus, communication patterns are bound into discursive practices through an incorporated knowledge which dictates actors’ means of acting. Actors use signification to communicate; legitimation provides a shared set of normative rules, moral obligations, values, and ideals [ 44 ]; and domination provides the influence to understand power relations and the use of resources [40]. Figure 2depicts the main concepts of ST utilised in this research. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22 Figure 2. Gidden’s Structuration Theory Model. Source: Adapted from Giddens [20] and Macintosh and Scapens [40]. These categories allowed us to think systematically about B Corps’ involvement in SD, as this phenomenon occurs in a specific context in a social system. The system in which a structure is implicated comprises signification, domination, and the legitimation of agents, which are reproduced across time and space. ST is used to consider the role of agents and structure in interpreting B Corps’ reasoning to impact SD through business activities. Although limited, former studies have analysed hybrid organising phenomena from the perspective of ST [45]. To show an example, the emergence of hybrid organisations has been attributed to an interplay between agency and structure in the UK after the introduction of the policy in social enterprise, leading to the creation of sustainable rural communities [46] and ethnic minority-led social enterprises [47]. Gordon et al. [48] utilise the ST to interpret the impacts of hybrid organisations on individual and community health and well-being, while Sarason et al. [49] explore the impact of sustainable entrepreneurship in SD in developing countries in Latin America. The following section describes the methodology. 3. Methodology This study adopted an interpretive, exploratory, and qualitative methodology involving case study research. Case studies are suitable for studying real-life, contemporary, complex phenomena [50]. A multiple-case-study approach was adopted to provide more in-depth details of the phenomenon of interest [51]. This methodology was selected because “multiple cases are a powerful means to create theory because they permit replication and extension among individual cases” [52]. Because different cases underscore complementary facets of a phenomenon, researchers can build a more comprehensive theoretical picture by putting together individual observations, allowing replication to corroborate propositions. 3.1. Research Setting The empirical study was conducted with B Corps in a developing country in Latin America, Colombia. Colombia is characterised by severe social problems such as poverty, violence, inequalities, or the failure of public institutions [53]. In 2020, Colombia became the 37th country to join the OECD; however, the country has the highest inequality across households among its members [54]. The country is classified as having an upper-middleincome [55]; it ranks 67 out of 166 countries in SDG performance with a score of 70.9% in the SDG Index, with important weaknesses in promoting good health and well-being and decent work; reducing inequalities; promoting peace and justice; or building strong instiFigure 2. Gidden’s Structuration Theory Model. Source: Adapted from Giddens [ 20 ] and Macintosh and Scapens [40]. These categories allowed us to think systematically about B Corps’ involvement in SD, as this phenomenon occurs in a specific context in a social system. The system in which a structure is implicated comprises signification, domination, and the legitimation of agents, which are reproduced across time and space. ST is used to consider the role of agents and structure in interpreting B Corps’ reasoning to impact SD through business activities. Although limited, former studies have analysed hybrid organising phenomena from the perspective of ST [ 45 ]. To show an example, the emergence of hybrid organisations has been attributed to an interplay between agency and structure in the UK after the Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 6 of 21 introduction of the policy in social enterprise, leading to the creation of sustainable rural communities [ 46 ] and ethnic minority-led social enterprises [ 47 ]. Gordon et al. [ 48 ] utilise the ST to interpret the impacts of hybrid organisations on individual and community health and well-being, while Sarason et al. [ 49 ] explore the impact of sustainable entrepreneurship in SD in developing countries in Latin America. The following section describes the methodology. 3. Methodology This study adopted an interpretive, exploratory, and qualitative methodology involving case study research. Case studies are suitable for studying real-life, contemporary, complex phenomena [ 50 ]. A multiple-case-study approach was adopted to provide more in-depth details of the phenomenon of interest [ 51 ]. This methodology was selected because “multiple cases are a powerful means to create theory because they permit replication and extension among individual cases” [ 52 ]. Because different cases underscore complementary facets of a phenomenon, researchers can build a more comprehensive theoretical picture by putting together individual observations, allowing replication to corroborate propositions. 3.1. Research Setting The empirical study was conducted with B Corps in a developing country in Latin America, Colombia. Colombia is characterised by severe social problems such as poverty, violence, inequalities, or the failure of public institutions [ 53 ]. In 2020, Colombia became the 37th country to join the OECD; however, the country has the highest inequality across households among its members [ 54 ]. The country is classified as having an upper-middleincome [ 55 ]; it ranks 67 out of 166 countries in SDG performance with a score of 70.9% in the SDG Index, with important weaknesses in promoting good health and well-being and decent work; reducing inequalities; promoting peace and justice; or building strong institutions [ 56 ]. Since the mid-20th century, Colombia has been framed as a territory in conflict because of the growing emergence of rebel insurgencies such as the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and paramilitary groups. Due to the most recent peace agreement between the Colombian government and the FARC in 2016–2020, ex-combatants and displaced populations have been seeking their integration into society as an effort of reconciliation. Concerning the role of hybrid organisations in Colombia, what calls the attention of this setting is the upsurge of B Corps. The B Corp certification in Latin America was founded in 2012 by Pedro Tarak (Argentina), Maria Emilia Correa (Colombia), Juan Pablo Larenas and Gonzalo Muñoz (Chile) through the B System movement (Sistema B) headquartered in Chile. The first certified B Corps in Latin America emerged in these three countries and served as pioneers for other companies in the continent. Currently, Colombia occupies fourth place in Latin America and 11th in the world with the highest number of certified B Corps [ 57 ], making the country an interesting setting to analyse these enterprises impact on SD. 3.2. Data Collection The cases selected followed a purposeful sampling approach, seeking rich observations that allowed extending the emergent theory [ 51 ]. The cases analysed in this study are part of a research on B Corps in Colombia (see [ 9 ]); however, this paper focuses on nine enterprises to delve into the research questions in greater detail. Table 1presents the overview of the analysed B Corps, including a short business description and the interviewees participating in the study. Each of these B Corps provides examples of how a hybrid organisation can drive SD at the intersection of the TBL. Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 7 of 21 Table 1. Overview of cases. B Corp Business Description Interviewees Indeleble Social Experiential training and corporate volunteering Executive Director/Co-founder, General Manager/Co-founder, Project Coordinator, Administrative Coordinator Mejor en Bici Bicycle sharing service General Manager/Co-founder Terramarte Reusable Ecological Bags General Manager, Director of Marketing and Communications Jaguar Agri-food Services Consultancy CEO/Founder Sentido Verde Environmental Consultancy and Education General Manager/Co-founder, Commercial Director Alcagüete Healthy Snacks Managing Director/Co-Founder, Marketing Coordinator Siembra Viva Organic Farm and E-commerce Market Place CEO, Director of Operations, four Farmers Cafexport Coffee and Cacao CEO, General Manager, Director of Sustainability (two interviews) Data collection included two interviews sets. The first set included semi-structured interviews with B Corps’ founders and senior managers. Interviews were developed between October 2019 and August 2020 at their locations and via virtual meetings. Interviews lasted 45–90 min. To gain a deeper understanding of the topic, a second set of interviews was carried out with six B System informants, who provided in-depth information regarding the B Corp movement. Interviews with B System informants were conducted through virtual meetings between July 2020 and January 2021, lasting 45 to 60 min. Key B System informants included the B System Co-Founder and Leader of B Academy Colombia (Informant: I1), the Executive Director of B System Colombia (I2), the Executive Director of B System Brazil (I3), the General Member Board of B System Colombia (I4), the Executive Director of B System Latin America and the Caribbean (I5), and the Director of Business Development and B System Ecuador (I6). All the names of the participants were anonymised. The variety of qualitative gathering methods allowed a more comprehensive triangulation of the findings during the data analysis. Apart from the interviews, the main source of information regarding businesses’ involvement in SD was retrieved from websites and social networks (e.g., social media, podcasts, news). Interviews were audio-recorded with participants’ consent and transcribed to support the data analysis. The questions referred to relevant aspects of B Corps’ involvement in SD, asking interviewees to engage in narrative storytelling to prompt rich statements. The interview guide was built on SD literature [ 4 , 22 ] and ST [20] regarding signification, legitimation, and domination elements. The first part of the interviews integrated questions regarding general conceptions of SD (e.g., “How do you define SD?”), motivations and business activities (e.g., “What dimensions of SD does the enterprise focus on? How does your business portfolio relate to SD?”), and measurement and disclosure (e.g., “How does the enterprise approach SD? Does the company disclose SD? Does the enterprise use indicators to measure SD?”). The second part of the interview consisted of retrieving data from the elements of the structure: signification (e.g., “What meaning does the enterprise give to SD as part of its business activities? How do B Corps communicate SD-related issues? What kind of interactions transmit B Corps’ intention to focus on SD?”); legitimation (e.g., “What norms, moral standards, values, or ethical positions guide B Corps’ approach to SD? What conducts, procedures, or processes encourage or discourage the organisation from pursuing SD? What positions, mindsets, or decisions are expected from B Corps concerning SD? What norms are B Corps expected to follow in Colombia to pursue SD?”), and domination (e.g., What human and non-human resources do B Corps use to drive SD?). Interviews with B System key informants focused on the second section of the interview. Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 8 of 21 3.3. Data Analysis By following the data collection principles, multiple sources of evidence were collected and triangulated to correct bias and reach internal validity [ 58 ]. A case-study database was constructed to increase reliability, consisting of a single case report, case-study narratives, anecdotes, field notes, and a portfolio with the files. Single case reports were developed following the case study database, citing specific evidentiary sources and following a protocol, which guided the research procedure to link the research questions. This process allowed higher construct validity by maintaining a chain of evidence [59]. Data analysis started by converting all materials into ATLAS.ti v9. Datasets were read through, starting with the interview transcripts, secondary materials, and field notes. Combining this activity with extant literature from ST [ 20 ] and following case-study data analysis [ 51 , 60 ], the researchers analysed the data in three stages: within-case data, crosscase data, and triangulation (see Figure 3). Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 22 Figure 3. Data analysis of the multiple case study. Source: Compiled by the authors. Within-case data was developed by separately examining and summarising single reports and case story narratives to study concepts, patterns, and themes through the collected responses. Each case study summarised interview data and different secondary data sources [59], providing concrete examples of SD. Various elements of ST were detected during the analysis (Figure 2). The cross-case analysis was developed throughout the multiple cases to determine how results were prolonged beyond individual cases— the cross-case analysis allowed comparing the findings retrieved from the nine B Corps. Triangulation followed by interpreting the retrieved information from different sources and materials. Interview data was triangulated with the secondary sources, i.e., business reports and other published sources, for example, by providing examples of how B Corps concretely contribute to SD dimensions at the intersection of the TBL. Data analysis was further discussed between the researchers to identify the key findings. 4. Results This section summarises different categories in which B Corps impact SD (Section 4.1) posteriorly; using ST, elements of the structure are analysed (Section 4.2). 4.1. B Corps Impact on Sustainable Development To identify where the three dimensions of the TBL meet in B Corps’ activities, four categories were taken into consideration based on former studies in hybrid organisations [22]. Table 2 summarises exemplary observations of sustainability-oriented activities developed by B Corps at the intersection of the three dimensions of the TBL. Table 2. B Corps business activities at the intersection of the TBL. B Corp Examples * Indeleble Social  Human training through collective construction and participatory methodologies  Corporate volunteering strategies and training  Strategies for the development of sustainability-oriented capacities in people and organisations  Strategic management of corporate social responsibility and educational communication Mejor en Bici  Promotion of bicycles as a sustainable transportation mode  Design of spaces and infrastructure for bicycles Terramarte  Products manufactured by women heads of households Figure 3. Data analysis of the multiple case study. Source: Compiled by the authors. Within-case data was developed by separately examining and summarising single reports and case story narratives to study concepts, patterns, and themes through the collected responses. Each case study summarised interview data and different secondary data sources [ 59 ], providing concrete examples of SD. Various elements of ST were detected during the analysis (Figure 2). The cross-case analysis was developed throughout the multiple cases to determine how results were prolonged beyond individual cases—the cross-case analysis allowed comparing the findings retrieved from the nine B Corps. Triangulation followed by interpreting the retrieved information from different sources and materials. Interview data was triangulated with the secondary sources, i.e., business reports and other published sources, for example, by providing examples of how B Corps concretely contribute to SD dimensions at the intersection of the TBL. Data analysis was further discussed between the researchers to identify the key findings. 4. Results This section summarises different categories in which B Corps impact SD (Section 4.1) posteriorly; using ST, elements of the structure are analysed (Section 4.2). Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 9 of 21 4.1. B Corps Impact on Sustainable Development To identify where the three dimensions of the TBL meet in B Corps’ activities, four categories were taken into consideration based on former studies in hybrid organisations [ 22 ]. Table 2summarises exemplary observations of sustainability-oriented activities developed by B Corps at the intersection of the three dimensions of the TBL. Table 2. B Corps business activities at the intersection of the TBL. B Corp Examples * Indeleble Social •Human training through collective construction and participatory methodologies •Corporate volunteering strategies and training •Strategies for the development of sustainability-oriented capacities in people and organisations •Strategic management of corporate social responsibility and educational communication Mejor en Bici •Promotion of bicycles as a sustainable transportation mode •Design of spaces and infrastructure for bicycles Terramarte •Products manufactured by women heads of households •Products that replace the use of plastic materials Ecosistema Jaguar •Branding: Marks for agri-food products under triple impact standards •Regenerative Agriculture: Agri-food services for building transitions to regenerative/ecological production systems • Agricultural Training: programs for accelerating the adoption of social and environmental practices •Agtech: traceability systems building that encourages data access to agricultural chains Sentido Verde •Awareness and education for sustainable consumption and production •Consultancy for environmental capacity building in individuals and organisations Alcagüete •Healthy snacks with a 1 ×1 and 1 ×2 for donating food to reduce malnutrition in children •Partnering with local farmers and low-income indigenous communities •Improving social and ecological sustainability in the food industry Siembra Viva •Promoting sustainable organic agricultural production •Training of local farmers and people affected by the Colombian armed conflict Cafexport •Agronomic services and training for coffee farmers •Seed traceability and linkage to seed origin services •Piloting new projects to improve environmental and social impact in agriculture •Emission reduction and protection of natural aquifers Portafolio Verde •Circular economy strategies for organisations •Economic security projects with vulnerable, unprotected, and at-risk populations •Programmes for the strengthening of communities promoting sustainable self-management •Promoting sustainable production by raising awareness and ecological stewardship awareness *Extracted from the enterprises’ websites. 4.1.1. Considering Future Generations The first category relates to promoting the conservation and survival of future generations, related to net-positive sustainability and regenerative development. This approach to SD considers that successful business activities are those that co-evolve between human activities and natural systems [ 61 ]. This activity includes agricultural practices that promote community engagement, the business alienation with the natural cycles of social-ecological systems [ 62 ], or building transformative capacities for social resilience [ 63 ]. Examples of this category were observed in Ecosistema Jaguar, Siembra Viva, and Cafexport. To illustrate, Ecosistema Jaguar is a company that designs profitable businesses prototypes and business intrapreneurship ideas to regenerate natural ecosystems and positively impact communities. The enterprise has developed projects to conserve native plants and Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 16 of 21 5.2. Impacting Sustainable Development: Lessons from the Structuration Theory The empirical observations underscore the interdependent role of agency and structure to impact SD. The research supports Giddens’ ST by providing new insights on the role of agency in the transition towards a more sustainable society. Looking through the lens of ST, B Corps relies on relevant aspects of signification, domination, and legitimation that explain their impact on SD. These elements allowed us to analyse B Corps’ communicative action, means of sanction, and use of facilities to impact SD. First, signification is a central element for B Corps to impact SD. This element of the structure, which is explicit and direct, allow organisations a proactive and personalised interaction with the actors of the social system. B Corps fabricate discourses to directly communicate with actors with a shared understanding of SD, giving significance to their actions. By using narratives and symbolic schemas of social action, B Corps aim to show the ‘right way’ to reach solutions (practices, products, ideas, solutions) and manifest a critical attitude on the functioning of the economic system without denying its relevance. B Corps do not embody a struggle against capitalism; on the contrary, they advocate for its reconstruction by promoting SD. These findings are aligned with sustainability transition studies that reflect the power of narratives to drive social change by persuading and influencing social actors [ 73 ]. These results also reflect that to reach further impacts, hybrids should build common worldviews on SD [76]. However, legitimation also has a role to play for B Corps to impact SD. In contrast to signification, legitimation is more subtle and implicit. It is based on attitudes and sanction mechanisms that may confront value systems and contradict basic human behaviours. Guided by moral norms and standards, B Corps seek to uphold inclusive economic relations, thus allowing only a limited number of actors to interact with these enterprises. Following norms and moral standards makes the legitimisation mechanism more hostile than cooperative, which could generate an adverse response. To illustrate, some farmers and ex-combatants stated that organic practices generate very slow and limited income, putting them at an economic disadvantage compared to farmers using traditional practices (case Siembra Viva). Somehow, the impact of SD becomes a limited choice for those who can afford it (e.g., customers capable of paying higher prizes). Likewise, B Corps legitimisation is aligned with the concept of ‘collaborative governance’, as they are supported by multi-stakeholder standards, such as the GRI or the UN Global Compact [77]. Finally, domination was analysed to interpret B Corps’ impact on SD. Authoritative resources are outstanding, because the companies favour practices emanating from collaborations and alliances with more powerful and resourceful actors. This study reinforces the findings of Sarason et al. [ 49 ], making explicit that each society has different dominant structures; thus, the elements of the structure can vary depending on the context. Resources may thus differ according to the organisations’ size or financial capacities. To illustrate, some large Colombian B Corps that were not part of this study — such as Alquería, Juan Valdez, or Crepes & Waffles — have greater allocative resources to achieve impacts on SD compared to the small companies evaluated in this article. Moreover, regardless of their size, all B Corps manifest comparable signification and legitimation dynamics, following analogous discourses and narratives, as well as norms and moral standards. One of the central considerations derived from using ST in this study was identifying how B Corps, using their agentic capabilities, impact SD through their interactions with social structures. Figure 4shows that the elements of the structure range from direct layers of interaction with individuals (e.g., customers, employees) to an interplay with more influential and compelling actors (e.g., the UN, governments). Signification seeks to influence social structures through direct and personalised communicative interactions, building upon shared meanings and actions that generate coordinated and harmonised communicative responses in individuals (Individual level). On the contrary, domination result from the use of authoritative resources, in which interactions with more resourceful and influential actors allows agents to exert power (Collective level). Finally, legitimation (Intermediate level), occurs as a process of constructive interaction on norms and moral Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 17 of 21 standards adopted by B Corps and their alignment with external actors, which seek to resonate with cognitive and meaning-making structures (through collaborative governance) with individuals. Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22 influential actors allows agents to exert power (Collective level). Finally, legitimation (Intermediate level), occurs as a process of constructive interaction on norms and moral standards adopted by B Corps and their alignment with external actors, which seek to resonate with cognitive and meaning-making structures (through collaborative governance) with individuals. Figure 4. Impacting Sustainable Development: Three layers of Social Structures. This study suggests that organisations can focus on different elements of the structure to persuade actors in society and impact SD. First, to impact signification structures of SD, discourses and narratives and symbolic schemas must be reproduced. Organisations may impact signification by promoting shared cognitive structures and worldviews, looking at SD as the provision of a solution to social challenges and as a method to reconfigure capitalist practices. Second, to legitimise SD, organisations should be built upon norms and moral standards of universal shared values of sustainability. Focusing on these aspects will allow the delimitation of sanction mechanisms and the recreation of rewards and punishment behaviours between actors in society, influencing and persuading them. And third, domination follows to the extent that organisations utilise authoritative resources that connect more resourceful and powerful actors in society. Impact on SD follows as these more powerful actors serve as backers of these organisations’ choices. 6. Conclusions Looking at the particular context of a developing country in Latin America, Colombia, this paper aimed to explore how and to what extent B Corps impact SD and how these organisations influence social structures to achieve these impacts. To respond to the first research question, this study explored four categories of SD that sustainability-oriented hybrid organisations develop through their business models: considering future generations; enhancing human development; encouraging new mindsets, behaviours, and lifestyles; and promoting socio-political engagement. To evaluate the second research question, the paper has explored the influence of B Corps’ social structures in the structuration process to impact SD, revealing the role of the three structuration elements: signification, legitimation, and domination. The iterative process of duality between agency and structure is depicted through B Corps’ continuous interactions, as they perform actions and develop their intentions through business models that focus on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of SD. Using ST was useful in this research because this approach permitted an understanding of B Corps’ intentions and reflexivity, their perception of the world and its fractures, Figure 4. Impacting Sustainable Development: Three layers of Social Structures. This study suggests that organisations can focus on different elements of the structure to persuade actors in society and impact SD. First, to impact signification structures of SD, discourses and narratives and symbolic schemas must be reproduced. Organisations may impact signification by promoting shared cognitive structures and worldviews, looking at SD as the provision of a solution to social challenges and as a method to reconfigure capitalist practices. Second, to legitimise SD, organisations should be built upon norms and moral standards of universal shared values of sustainability. Focusing on these aspects will allow the delimitation of sanction mechanisms and the recreation of rewards and punishment behaviours between actors in society, influencing and persuading them. And third, domination follows to the extent that organisations utilise authoritative resources that connect more resourceful and powerful actors in society. Impact on SD follows as these more powerful actors serve as backers of these organisations’ choices. 6. Conclusions Looking at the particular context of a developing country in Latin America, Colombia, this paper aimed to explore how and to what extent B Corps impact SD and how these organisations influence social structures to achieve these impacts. To respond to the first research question, this study explored four categories of SD that sustainability-oriented hybrid organisations develop through their business models: considering future generations; enhancing human development; encouraging new mindsets, behaviours, and lifestyles; and promoting socio-political engagement. To evaluate the second research question, the paper has explored the influence of B Corps’ social structures in the structuration process to impact SD, revealing the role of the three structuration elements: signification, legitimation, and domination. The iterative process of duality between agency and structure is depicted through B Corps’ continuous interactions, as they perform actions and develop their intentions through business models that focus on the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of SD. Using ST was useful in this research because this approach permitted an understanding of B Corps’ intentions and reflexivity, their perception of the world and its fractures, and the scope of their effort in which they consecrate their agentic capabilities. Particularly, the findings revealed how B Corps pursue sustainable modes of production and consumption. The paper provides examples of the integration of TBL issues, which makes hybrid Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 18 of 21 organisations more likely to contribute to sustainable transitions than traditional hybrids and other firms focused on shareholder supremacy. This study suggests that adopting particular practices of SD can help practitioners to achieve long-term sustainable impacts. Following examples such as those provided in this research may be inspirational. However, this study does not ignore the fact that following these practices can lead to business leader tensions, paradoxes, and ambiguities. If future practitioners wish to approach SD from a transformative perspective, the four categories presented in this study can be a starting point. It is important to encourage organisations to critically revise their practices and reflect on how they contribute to SD. It is also crucial for policy makers to consider the importance of enhancing the development of hybrid organisations and other firms with transformative purposes to support and promote good practices for the benefit of society as a whole. While the article provides foundations for future research, it does have limitations that cannot be ignored. First, the B Corps explored in this study belong to a limited number of sectors (education and environmental consulting, transport, food, and manufacturing); thus, sectors leading socio-technological transitions require additional observations (e.g., energy, health, or housing). Future studies could focus on this issue, exploring how actors such as B Corps and other hybrids contribute to SD and accelerate transitions. Second, limitations in understanding domination were also present during this research. This is because the firms covered in this study were mostly small and medium-sized, usually having more limited allocative resources. Future studies could fill this gap by focusing on large enterprises and how they impact SD through allocative resources. Third, despite the belief that focusing on SD has positive transformations in society, there are still issues that are not yet fully covered relating to the negative impacts of hybrid organisations following such endeavours. Scholars are encouraged to explore how B Corps generate unintended negative effects through a TBL approach to SD by not addressing the root causes of problems, only their mitigation or amelioration. Researchers could use our exploratory findings to study how SD that meet at the intersection of the TBL hinder or facilitate sustainability transitions and how hybrid organisations accelerate such a process. Dimensions and sub-dimensions of the four categories of SD in hybrid organisations should be covered in order to clarify the depth of this phenomenon. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.T.; methodology, S.T.; validation, S.T., S.C. and A.M.; formal analysis, S.T.; investigation, S.T.; data curation, S.T.; writing—original draft preparation, S.T.; writing—review and editing, S.T., S.C. and A.M.; visualization, S.T.; supervision, V.M.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable. Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable. Data Availability Statement: Data sharing not applicable. Acknowledgments: The authors thank all the participating B Corps and B System informants. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. References 1. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development; Oxford University Press: London, UK, 1987. 2. UNRISD. Policy Innovations for Transformative Change: Implementing the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; UNRISD/UN Publications: Geneva, Switzerland, 2017. 3. Alter, K. Social Enterprise: A Typology of the Field Contextualized in Latin America; Inter-American Development Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. 4. Hestad, D.; Tàbara, J.D.; Thornton, T.F. The Three Logics of Sustainability-oriented Hybrid Organisations: A Multi-disciplinary Review. Sustain. Sci. 2020,16, 647–661. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 19 of 21 5. Mair, J.; Rathert, N. Let’s Talk about Problems: Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing, Social Enterprises, and Institutional Context. In Organizational Hybridity: Perspectives, Processes, Promises; Besharov, M.L., Mitzinneck, B.C., Eds.; Research in the Sociology of Organizations; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2020; Volume 69, pp. 189–208. 6. Yunus, M.; Biggeri, M.; Testi, E. Social Economy and Social Business Supporting Policies for Sustainable Human Development in a Post-COVID-19 World. Sustainability 2021,13, 12155. [CrossRef] 7. Elkington, J. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st; Capstone: Oxford, UK, 1998. 8. Ferraro, F.; Etzion, D.; Gehman, J. Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically: Robust Action Revisited. Organ. Stud. 2015 ,36, 363–390. [CrossRef] 9. Tabares, S. Do Hybrid Organizations Contribute to Sustainable Development Goals? Evidence from B Corps in Colombia. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,280, 124615. [CrossRef] 10. B Lab. About B Lab. Available online: https://bcorporation.net/about-b-lab (accessed on 29 November 2021). 11. Zebryte, I.; Jorquera, H. Chilean Tourism Sector “B Corporations”: Evidence of Social Entrepreneurship and Innovation. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2017,23, 866–879. [CrossRef] 12. Stubbs, W. Characterising B Corps as a Sustainable Business Model: An Exploratory Study of B Corps in Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,144, 299–312. [CrossRef] 13. Stubbs, W. Sustainable Entrepreneurship and B Corps. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2017,26, 331–344. [CrossRef] 14. B Lab. About B Corps. Available online: https://bcorporation.net/about-b-corps (accessed on 17 June 2021). 15. Marquis, C. Better Business: How the B Corp Movement Is Remaking Capitalism; Yale University Press: New Haven, CT, USA, 2020. 16. Rifkin, J. The Zero Marginal Cost Society: The Internet of Things, the Collaborative Commons, and the Eclipse of Capitalism; Macmillan: London, UK, 2015. 17. Abramovay, R.; Correa, M.E.; Gatica, S.; Van Hoof, B. Nuevas Empresas, Nuevas economias: Empresas B en Suramerica. Available online: http://academiab.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/nuevas_empresas__nuevas_economias_las_empresas_ b_en_suramerica_2013.pdf (accessed on 29 November 2021). 18. Munck, L.; Tomiotto, M.F.; Santana, A.M.; Borges, M.; Corbett, B.A. To B or not to B: Is the B movement really changing the meaning of business success in Brazilian companies? In Proceedings of the Towards Sustainable Technologies and Innovation Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the International Association for Management of Technology, IAMOT, Birmingham, UK, 22–26 April 2018; pp. 1–23. 19. Saiz-Álvarez, J.M.; Vega-Muñoz, A.; Acevedo-Duque, Á.; Castillo, D. B Corps: A Socioeconomic Approach for the COVID-19 Postcrisis. Front. Psychol. 2020,11, 1867. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 20. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society. Outline of the Theory of Structuration; Polity Press: Cambridge, UK, 1984. 21. Moos, A.I.; Dear, M.J. Structuration Theory in Urban Analysis: 1. Theoretical Exegesis. Environ. Plan. A 1986 ,18, 231–252. [CrossRef] 22. Tabares, S. Certified B Corporations: An Approach to Tensions of Sustainable-driven Hybrid Business Models in an Emerging Economy. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,317, 128380. [CrossRef] 23. Giddings, B.; Hopwood, B.; O’Brien, G. Environment, Economy and Society: Fitting them together into Sustainable Development. Sustain. Dev. 2002,10, 187–196. [CrossRef] 24. Hopwood, B.; Mellor, M.; O’Brien, G. Sustainable Development: Mapping Different Approaches. Sustain. Dev. 2005 ,13, 38–52. [CrossRef] 25. Hourneaux Jr, F.; da Silva Gabriel, M.L.; Gallardo-Vázquez, D.A. Triple Bottom Line and Sustainable Performance Measurement in Industrial Companies. Rev. Gestão2018,25, 413–429. [CrossRef] 26. Vanclay, F. The Triple Bottom Line and Impact Assessment: How do TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA and EMS Relate to each Other? J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2004,6, 265–288. [CrossRef] 27. Dyllick, T.; Hockerts, K. Beyond the Business Case for Corporate Sustainability. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2002 ,11, 130–141. [CrossRef] 28. Battilana, J.; Lee, M. Advancing Research on Hybrid Organizing—Insights from the Study of Social Enterprises. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2014,8, 397–441. [CrossRef] 29. Pache, A.-C.; Santos, F. Inside the Hybrid Organization: Selective Coupling as a Response to Competing Institutional Logics. Acad. Manag. J. 2013,56, 972–1001. [CrossRef] 30. Battilana, J.; Lee, M.; Walker, J.; Dorsey, C. In Search of the Hybrid Ideal. Stanford Soc. Innov. Rev. 2012,10, 51–55. 31. Santos, F.; Pache, A.-C.C.; Birkholz, C. Making Hybrids Work: Aligning Business Models and Organizational Design for Social Enterprises. Calif. Manage. Rev. 2015,57, 36–58. [CrossRef] 32. Utting, P. Achieving the Sustainable Development Goals through Social and Solidarity Economy: Incremental versus Transformative Change; UN Inter-Agency Task Force on Social and Solidarity Economy: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. 33. Nigri, G.; Del Baldo, M.; Agulini, A. Governance and Accountability Models in Italian Certified Benefit Corporations. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020,27, 2368–2380. [CrossRef] 34. B Lab. About B Lab. Available online: https://www.binterdependent.org/#About (accessed on 29 November 2021). 35. Carvalho, B.; Wiek, A.; Ness, B. Can B Corp Certification anchor Sustainability in SMEs? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2021, 1–12. [CrossRef] 36. Liute, A.; De Giacomo, M.R. The Environmental Performance of UK-based B Corp Companies: An Analysis Based on the Triple Bottom Line Approach. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 2021, 1–18. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 20 of 21 37. Stubbs, W.; Cocklin, C. Conceptualizing a “Sustainability Business Model”. Organ. Environ. 2008,21, 103–127. [CrossRef] 38. Bocken, N.M.P.; Short, S.W.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A Literature and Practice Review to Develop Sustainable Business Model Archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014,65, 42–56. [CrossRef] 39. Sewell, W.H.J. A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. Am. J. Sociol. 1992,98, 1–29. [CrossRef] 40. Macintosh, N.B.; Scapens, R.W. Structuration Theory in Management Accounting. Account. Organ. Soc. 1990 ,15, 455–477. [CrossRef] 41. Giddens, A. New Rules of Sociological Method; Hutchinson: London, UK, 1976. 42. Buhr, N. A structuration view on the initiation of environmental reports. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2002,13, 17–38. [CrossRef] 43. Keller, R. The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD). Hum. Stud. 2011,34, 43–65. [CrossRef] 44. Dubreuil, B.; Grégoire, J.F. Are moral norms distinct from social norms? A critical assessment of Jon Elster and Cristina Bicchieri. Theory Decis. 2013,75, 137–152. [CrossRef] 45. Mair, J.; Martí, I. Social Entrepreneurship Research: A Source of Explanation, Prediction, and Delight. J. World Bus. 2006 ,41, 36–44. [CrossRef] 46. Steinerowski, A.A.; Steinerowska-Streb, I. Can Social Enterprise Contribute to Creating Sustainable Rural Communities? Using the Lens of Structuration Theory to Analyse the Emergence of Rural Social Enterprise. Local Econ. 2012,27, 167–182. [CrossRef] 47. Calvo, S. Ethnic Minority Groups and Social Enterprise: A Case Study of the East London Olympic Boroughs; Middlesex University Research Repository: London, UK, 2013. 48. Gordon, K.; Wilson, J.; Tonner, A.; Shaw, E. How can Social Enterprises Impact Health and Well-being? Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 2018,24, 697–713. [CrossRef] 49. Sarason, Y.; Yuthas, K.; Aziz, A. Toward Improving Impact of Sustainable Ventures in Developing Countries: A Structuration View. Bus. Strateg. Dev. 2020, 626–639. [CrossRef] 50. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research and Applications. Design and Methods (Applied Social Research Methods), 5th ed.; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013. 51. Eisenhardt, K.M. Building Theories from Case Study Analysis. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989,14, 532–550. [CrossRef] 52. Eisenhardt, K.M. Better Stories and Better Constructs: The Case for Rigor and Comparative Logic. Acad. Manag. J. 1991 ,16, 620–627. [CrossRef] 53. Robinson, J.A. The Misery in Colombia. Desarro. Soc. 2016,76, 9–90. [CrossRef] 54. OECD. OECD Economic Surveys: Colombia. 2019. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/colombia/oecd-economic-surveyscolombia-25222961.htm (accessed on 18 September 2021). 55. World Bank. World Bank Country and Lending Groups. Available online: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/ articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (accessed on 13 April 2021). 56. Sachs, J.; Schmidt-Traub, G.; Kroll, C.; Lafortune, G.; Fuller, G.; Woelm, F. The Sustainable Development Goals and COVID-19. Sustainable Development Report 2020; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020. 57. Paelman, V.; Van Cauwenberge, P.; Vander Bauwhede, H. Effect of B Corp Certification on Short-Term Growth: European Evidence. Sustainability 2020,12, 8459. [CrossRef] 58. Gibbert, M.; Ruigrok, W.; Wicki, B. What Passes as a Rigorous Case Study? Strateg. Manag. J. 2008,29, 1465–1474. [CrossRef] 59. Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; SAGE: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. 60. Johnson, R.B. Examining the Validity Structure of Qualitative Research. Education 1997,118, 282–292. 61. Robinson, J.; Cole, R.J. Theoretical Underpinnings of Regenerative Sustainability. Build. Res. Inf. 2015,43, 133–143. [CrossRef] 62. Muñoz, P.; Cohen, B. Towards a Social-ecological Understanding of Sustainable Venturing. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 2017 ,7, 1–8. [CrossRef] 63. Olsson, P.; Bodin, Ö.; Folke, C. Building Transformative Capacity for Ecosystem Stewardship in Social–Ecological System. In Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governance; Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 263–285. 64. Ziervogel, G.; Cowen, A.; Ziniades, J. Moving from Adaptive to Transformative Capacity: Building Foundations for Inclusive, Thriving, and Regenerative Urban Settlements. Sustainability 2016,8, 955. [CrossRef] 65. Geels, F.W. Technological Transitions as Evolutionary Reconfiguration Processes: A Multi-level Perspective and a Case-study. Res. Policy 2002,31, 1257–1274. [CrossRef] 66. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D.; Schwanitz, V.J.; Wierling, A. The Imperatives of Sustainable Development: Needs, Justice, Limits; Routledge: London, UK, 2017. [CrossRef] 67. Haigh, N.; Hoffman, A.J. Hybrid Organizations: The Next Chapter of Sustainable Business. Organ. Dyn. 2012 ,41, 126–134. [CrossRef] 68. Du Plessis, C.; Brandon, P. An Ecological Worldview as Basis for a Regenerative Sustainability Paradigm for the Built Environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2015,109, 53–61. [CrossRef] 69. Haigh, N.; Hoffman, A.J. The New Heretics: Hybrid Organizations and the Challenges They Present to Corporate Sustainability. Organ. Environ. 2014,27, 223–241. [CrossRef] 70. Sen, A. Development as Capability Expansion. In Readings in Human Development; Fukuda-Parr, S., Shiva Kumar, A., UNDP, HDRP, Eds.; Oxford University Press: New Delhi, India; New York, NY, USA, 2003. 71. Nussbaum, M.C. Beyond the Social Contract: Capabilities and Global Justice. Oxford Dev. Stud. 2004,32, 3–18. Sustainability 2021,13, 13408 21 of 21 72. Holden, E.; Linnerud, K.; Banister, D. The Imperatives of Sustainable Development. Sustain. Dev. 2017,25, 213–226. [CrossRef] 73. Markard, J.; Raven, R.; Truffer, B. Sustainability Transitions: An Emerging Field of Research and its Prospects. Res. Policy 2012 ,41, 955–967. [CrossRef] 74. Eichler, G.M.; Schwarz, E.J. What Sustainable Development Goals do Social Innovations Address? A Systematic Review and Content Analysis of Social Innovation Literature. Sustainability 2019,11, 522. [CrossRef] 75. Piccarozzi, M. Does Social Innovation Contribute to Sustainability? The Case of Italian Innovative Start-Ups. Sustainability 2017 , 9, 2376. [CrossRef] 76. Silva, A.; Stocker, L. What is a Transition? Exploring Visual and Textual Definitions among Sustainability Transition Networks. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018,50, 60–74. [CrossRef] 77. Dahlmann, F.; Stubbs, W. The Role of Purpose in Supporting Sustainability Transitions. Acad. Manag. 2021 ,2021, 12847. [CrossRef]