Sustainability and Financial Performance: Analyzing the Relationship Between B Impact Assessment Scores and Revenue Growth in Certified B Corporations

International Journal of Management and Humanities (IJMH) ISSN: 2394-0913 (Online), Volume-12 Issue-3, November 2025 1 Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijmh.C184812031125 DOI: 10.35940/ijmh.C1848.12031125 Journal Website: www.ijmh.org Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication (BEIESP) © Copyright: All rights reserved. Sustainability and Financial Performance: Analyzing the Relationship Between B Impact Assessment Scores and Revenue Growth in Certified B Corporations Chanae B. Childress, Oliver Jones Abstract: This research examines the association between B Impact Assessment (BIA) scores and annual revenue growth of 155 licensed B Corporations in the United States. Certified B Corps and other stakeholders need to know about this association, as it provides empirical evidence of the potential profit advantages of embracing sustainability. Spearman’s rank-order correlations indicate no statistically significant association between overall B Impact Assessment scores and revenue shifts, suggesting that sustainability assessments are not directly associated with shortterm financial performance. Nonetheless, quite a few high positive correlations were observed across specific BIA dimensions, notably between governance vs. worker-related scores, customer scores, and workers’ well-being scores. Notably, well-governed businesses prioritise employees’ well-being, often with an environmental focus. In contrast, no significant correlations were seen with other dimensions of the BIA, suggesting that community interventions exist independently of organisational priorities. While governance, worker well-being, environmental performance, and long-term financial performance have a direct monetary impact, this paper argues that the research lacks quantification and a direct effect on income in the short term. The study's results suggest that sustainable businesses should adopt a long-term approach to financial returns from social initiatives. The study adds to our understanding of the correlation between B Corporations and economic growth and identifies potential research directions. Keywords: B Corps, B Impact Assessment, Sustainability, Triple Bottom Line, Revenue Growth, Correlation Analysis, Corporate Social Responsibility, Finance Performance. Nomenclature: CSR: Corporate Social Responsibility ESG: Environmental, Social and Governance TBL: Triple Bottom Line FPC: Finite Population Correction IRB: Institutional Review Board BIA: Between B Impact Assessment Manuscript received on 14 October 2025 | First Revised Manuscript received on 21 October 2025 | Second Revised Manuscript received on 09 November 2025 | Manuscript Accepted on 15 November 2025 | Manuscript published on 30 November 2025. *Correspondence Author(s) Chanae B. Childress*, Department of James T. George School of Business, Hampton University, Hampton (Virginia), United States of America (USA). Email ID: [email protected], ORCID ID: 00090002-2149-7274 Dr. Oliver Jones, Professor, Department James T. George School of Business, Hampton University, Hampton (Virginia), United States of America (USA). Email ID: [email protected] © The Authors. Published by Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open-access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ I. INTRODUCTION The idea of social responsibility has been studied for quite some time. Keith Davis addressed the concept of social responsibility as a function of business in 1960, arguing that business leadership practices are beneficial for society and thus consistent with the perspective of social entrepreneurship (Nurmalasari et al., 2023) [9]. Social entrepreneurship refers to market-based, non-governmental initiatives that aim to address social challenges with a social and financial impact. A significant element of them is creating legislative policies and mobilising private investment, which creates systemic change (Staicu, 2021) [11]. Social entrepreneurship is a process of proactive strategies, such as blending commercial enterprise and social impact towards a single purpose and innovation in products and services to meet societal needs (Diaz-Sarachaga & ArizaMontes, 2022) [4]. In line with the principle of social responsibility, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has emerged. Initiated by the company itself, this voluntary corporate entity aims to incorporate business practices that can produce socioeconomic value to the target society while increasing accountability for its social and environmental footprint (Wirba, 2024) [17]. CSR studies have been extensively conducted in academic literature and integrated into business school curricula, and it is widely implemented in U.S. business practices (Staicu, 2021). CSR has now evolved alongside structured social responsibility frameworks, including Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) criteria and Certified B Corporation (B Corp) certification. In both structures, emphasis is placed on sustainability and stakeholder accountability regarding responsible business practices. By the end of 2022, 98% of S&P 500 companies were reporting ESG-related information. As of February 2025, approximately 9,486 companies had become B Corp certified. This reflects the broad spread of socially responsible business practices since 2025 (B Lab, 2025) [2]. Although social responsibility practices are widely used, there is no consensus that they are associated with higher corporate financial performance (Govindan et al.) [5]. In particular, the business case for B Corp certification remains debated. While more than 50,000 companies have used the Business Impact Assessment (BIA; Liute & De Giacomo, 2022) [7] as an instrument to measure and compare their social and environmental impacts, only a tiny percentage are currently certified B Corps. Sustainability and Financial Performance: Analyzing the Relationship Between B Impact Assessment Scores and Revenue Growth in Certified B Corporations 2 Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijmh.C184812031125 DOI: 10.35940/ijmh.C1848.12031125 Journal Website: www.ijmh.org Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication (BEIESP) © Copyright: All rights reserved. This variance would indicate trouble meeting certification requirements and raise doubts about the perceived merits and practicality of pursuing a B Corp classification. Research on certified B Corps in Atlantic Canada indicated that businesses pursue certification chiefly for market validation and as evidence of adherence to high social and environmental standards. However, as in other studies on this research, there is still no evident link between certified B Corps and finance (Alam et al., 2022) [1]. However, this gap suggests that further statistical research is needed to determine whether the financial advantage of B Corp certification is practical or merely a status symbol and a form of ethical engagement. While existing research has explored the sustainability of certified B Corps using qualitative and exploratory methods, little is known from quantitative studies about the relationship between financial performance and BIA scores. This study aims to address a specific gap and, using correlation analysis, statistically measure the direction and magnitude of the relationship between BIA scores and financial performance in the certified B Corp world. BIA scores, which are the only numerical metric in the B Corporation certification process, have begun to draw attention in efforts to assess sustainability and, therefore, business viability. These scores capture a holistic understanding of an organisation’s societal and ecological footprint and provide a quantifiable framework for the sustainability of business operations (B Lab U.S. & Canada, 2025). The current study examines the relationship between B Corps' revenue growth and BIA and its significance. Higher BIA scores predict higher revenue growth. More precisely, it explores the relationship between individual BIA (governance, workers, environment, community, customers) dimensions and financial results. Certified B Corps, certification purposes, potential investors, and policymakers seeking to increase business sustainable practices need to understand this relationship, where statistical evidence can be cited regarding the actual monetary impact of sustainable initiatives. We use the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework as the cornerstone to structure the interpretation, analysis, and conceptualization of the current research. The Triple Bottom Line theory was proposed by John Elkington, who posited that business must prioritize three major dimensions to attain sustainability – profits, people, and the planet (See Figure 1; Shim et al., 2021). Elkington first developed the concept of the 'bottom line' in a 1994 article in California Management Review and expanded on it in a 1998 book, Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of the 21st Century (Zak, 2015) [18]. His position is that companies need to compare their performance on three separate bottom lines: (1) economic sustainability — an organization’s financial condition and its capacity to expand while satisfying various obligations under the shareholder and profit obligation systems; (2) social sustainability — where an organization’s contribution to the well-being of all in society including community investment, social, and education; and (3) environmental sustainability — how a company’s impact on the environment (Walker et al., 2020; Lawrence & Mekoth, 2023) [6] will affect its profitability. Based on the TBL framework, this study examines the relationship between sustainability, as measured by BIA scores for social and environmental metrics, and financial performance, as measured by revenue growth. We hypothesize, based on this framework, that financial performance is positively related to higher BIA scores, and this score reflects the level of stakeholder engagement and sustainability practices. To test this hypothesis, a correlation analysis was conducted to assess the strength and direction of the relationship between B Impact Assessment (BIA) scores and revenue growth among certified B Corporations. II. LITERATURE REVIEW A.Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) The definition and concept of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) have evolved over the years. According to the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) [14], CSR means “the commitment of business to contribute to sustainable economic development, working with employees, their families, the local community, and society at large to improve their quality of life” (Global Hand, 2022). The present version of this definition portrays CSR in a broad, multi-stakeholder framework, with businesses assuming responsibility for their contributions to society's social, economic, and environmental processes, in the name of giving something back. This means CSR can be viewed from the perspective of resource extraction, as As Nahar and Khurana (2023) [8] argue, businesses' ethical responsibility toward society (i.e., providing resources/raw materials, human capital, and non-renewable assets). CSR has evolved from its early philanthropic roots into a field with clear reporting frameworks and theories, such as ESG criteria and Certified B Corporations. Such developments, according to Stutz (2021) [13], reflect an increasing push to incorporate sustainability into basic business practices. This reflects a transition from corporate philanthropy towards sustainable business practices and a more systematic approach for attaining long-term development goals. B. Certified B Corporations (B Corps) Certified B Corporations (B Corps) are also at the forefront of the quest to incorporate social and environmental responsibility into conventional business models. It is worth explaining this distinction. Distinguishing between B Corps and benefit corporations is important. A benefit corporation is a legal-for-profit entity regulated at the state level. In contrast, a Certified B Corp is a for-profit company that has received certification from B Lab, a nongovernmental organisation that assesses a company's social and environmental performance. B Lab’s certification is secured by demanding standards for performance, accountability, and, importantly, transparency across employee benefits, charitable giving, sustainability, and supply chain management (B Lab, 2025) [3]. The certification process requires three basic conditions: a legal framework, an impact analysis, and transparency. To become certified, companies must earn at least 80 points on the B Impact Assessment (BIA), which assesses success across stakeholder categories such as governance, workers, customers, suppliers, communities, and shareholders. B Corps stand out from legacy businesses by focusing on International Journal of Management and Humanities (IJMH) ISSN: 2394-0913 (Online), Volume-12 Issue-3, November 2025 3 Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijmh.C184812031125 DOI: 10.35940/ijmh.C1848.12031125 Journal Website: www.ijmh.org Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication (BEIESP) © Copyright: All rights reserved. collective stakeholder concerns and striving to achieve outcomes that are socially and environmentally beneficial and ensure balance sheet solvency. Prior research has examined the impact of B Corps on sustainability. In Brazil, Wecker (2022) [16] conducted a descriptive study of B Corps, noting both the strengths and the pitfalls of these companies’ social and environmental practices. These findings suggest that B Corps take a proactive role in addressing social and environmental issues, even when these efforts do not relate to core business operations. In the same vein, Stubbs (2017) [12] explored 14 B Corps in Australia, arguing that B Corps exemplify the value of balancing profit and impact. B Corps uses the BIA as a structured framework to sustain financial viability while generating positive social and environmental outcomes, illustrating the growing importance of sustainability in business models. C.Triple Bottom Line (TBL) Theory Walker et al. (2020) [15] applied their TBL framework, and their empirical study collected data from 746 firms. This suggests that businesses need to balance these three dimensions to sustain their operations. This suggests performance weaknesses in one dimension often led to weaknesses in the other two. However, other researchers propose that these dimensions do not necessarily go hand in hand. Shim et al. (2021). [10] investigated the interaction between CSR and financial performance by employing the TBL framework for public restaurant companies in the U.S. They concluded that economic CSR positively affected restaurant value. At the same time, environmental CSR had an adverse effect associated with conflict when social, environmental, and economic purposes conflicted. In contrast to Walker et al.'s previous study, Shim et al. (2021) suggest that aspects of the TBL framework may function independently rather than in concert. An extensive study (Liute & De Giacomo, 2021) used the TBL framework to measure the environmental performance of 68 UK B Corps, with a focus on the manufacturing and wholesale/retail industry. Their research showed that B Corps could attain certification in the “people” dimension, with considerable social impact, even if they did not make substantial environmental (planet) contributions. This finding invites an important consideration of the extent to which the TBL framework’s environmental factors can be applied to the qualifications of B Corporations, which may place more weight on social than on environmental impacts. III. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This statistical study investigates the association between B Impact Assessment (BIA) scores and revenue growth among certified B Corporations. It is meant to determine whether higher BIA scores translate into better financial performance. This study aims to answer two main questions. The main question is whether there is a significant correlation between overall BIA scores and revenue growth in certified B Corps. The second research question addresses whether the subcategories of BIA, governance, workers, community, environment, and customers are related to revenue growth. The following hypotheses are formulated as per the research questions: Primary Hypothesis H₀₁: There is no statistically significant positive relationship between total BIA score and revenue growth in B Corps. Hₐ₁: There are statistically significant positive correlations of total BIA scores and B Corps revenue growth. Secondary Hypotheses H₀₂: No significant positive correlation between scores on the five subcategories of BIA (governance, workers, environment, community, customers) and revenue growth. Hₐ₂: Revenue growth is positively and significantly correlated to at least one BIA subcategory score, such as governance, workers, environment, community, and customers. Methodology. A. Methodology This was a quantitative correlational study of B Impact Assessment (BIA) scores and revenue growth among certified B corporations. This structure was suitable for establishing statistical relationships between variables without experimental intervention. In particular, the investigation examined whether generalised BIA scores and their subcategories (governance, workers, community, environment, and customers) were statistically significant predictors of 3-year revenue changes. Since this study was more quantitative and not designed as an intervention, we adopted a quantitative approach and used Spearman’s rank-order correlation analysis on a nonparametric basis. Spearman’s correlation was chosen because it provides strong analytical insights for mapping ordinal BIA scores to revenue data when the revenue distribution is not normal. Such studies adhere to ethical research principles regarding data integrity, confidentiality, and responsible reporting. Data were used to obtain BIA scores. World, an open-access database, whereas revenue data for Private Company Financial Intelligence (PrivCo) was obtained through feebased access. Both sources are intended for a general audience and contain no proprietary or confidential information. The study adhered to data-cleaning methods and analyses, including checks for tampering, inaccuracies, and manipulation. The study's design was aimed at investigating relationships rather than favouring one company, sector, or outcome at the expense of another. The study of this nature used secondary data and involved no human participants; therefore, no institutional review board (IRB) approval was required. B. Data Collection and Analysis B Impact Assessment (BIA) data was obtained from the data. World via the B Lab dataset. Data. World is an enterprise data catalogue and governance platform designed to support strategic data initiatives and is also a certified B Corporation. Revenue data was sourced from Private Company Financial Intelligence (PrivCo), a business intelligence platform specialising in financial data, market research, investor details, and analysis of privately held companies in the United States and globally. Power analysis was conducted to determine the minimum required sample size for this study. Unlike Cochran’s Sustainability and Financial Performance: Analyzing the Relationship Between B Impact Assessment Scores and Revenue Growth in Certified B Corporations 4 Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijmh.C184812031125 DOI: 10.35940/ijmh.C1848.12031125 Journal Website: www.ijmh.org Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication (BEIESP) © Copyright: All rights reserved. formula, which is primarily used for estimating proportions In large populations, power analysis is more suitable for hypothesis testing in correlational research. Given that this study examines the relationship between B Impact Assessment (BIA) scores and revenue growth using Spearman’s rank-order correlation, power analysis was chosen to ensure sufficient statistical power. Using G*Power, the analysis was conducted with a significance level (α) of 0.05, power (1-β) of 0.80, and an expected medium effect size (r=0.3). The initial calculation recommended a sample size of 88. However, applying a finite population correction (FPC) for the 3,841 certified B Corporations resulted in an adjusted sample size of approximately 168. This approach ensures adequate power to detect meaningful correlations while accounting for population constraints. Future studies with larger datasets may refine these estimates and examine industry-specific variations. The initial sample consisted of 3,841 U.S.-based certified B Corporations across various sectors and industries. To ensure data consistency, the sample was filtered to include only currently certified companies that had maintained certification for at least three years, resulting in 398 companies. This refined list was then provided to PrivCo, which supplied revenue data for the companies available in its database. After merging the B Impact Assessment (BIA) data with the PrivCo revenue dataset, the final sample comprised 155 companies with complete BIA scores and 3year revenue data. To examine the relationship between B Impact Assessment (BIA) scores and revenue growth among certified B Corporations, two Spearman correlation analyses were conducted using SPSS (Version 28). These analyses aimed to assess the strength and direction of associations between overall and specific BIA dimensions and financial performance. The analyses examined Overall BIA scores and subcategories (governance, worker well-being, environmental impact, customer, and community). i.Correlation Analysis 1 A Spearman correlation analysis was conducted between Revenue Change-3 Year and Overall BIA. Cohen's standard was used to evaluate the strength of the relationship, where coefficients between .10 and .29 represent a small effect size, between .30 and .49 a moderate effect size, and above .50 a large effect size. ii. Correlation Analysis 2 A Spearman correlation analysis was conducted among Revenue Change-3 Year, BIA-Community, BIAGovernment, BIA-Environment, BIA-Customer, and BIAWorker. Cohen's standard was used to evaluate the strength of the relationships, where coefficients between .10 and .29 represent a small effect size, between .30 and .49 a moderate effect size, and above .50 a large effect size. IV. RESULTS A. Correlation Analysis 1 The results of Correlation Analysis 1 were examined using an alpha value of .05. No significant correlations were found between any pairs of variables. Based on these results, we do not reject the null hypothesis (H₀₁), indicating that there was no significant positive correlation between overall BIA scores and revenue growth in the three years—tables I and II present the correlation results. Table I: Analysis 1 Variable 1 2 1. Overall_BIA - 2. Revenue_Change_3_Year -.11 - Note. *p < .05. Table II: Analysis 1 Combination R 95.00% CI n p Overall_BIARevenue_Change_3_Y ear -.11 [-.26, .05] 155 .179 Table III: Analysis 2 Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Revenue_Change_3_Year - 2. BIA_Community -.09 - 3. BIA_Government .06 .05 - 4. BIA_Environment .00 -.11 .36* - 5. BIA_Customer .04 -.07 .62* .17 - 6. BIA_Worker .06 -.03 .72* .27* .67* - Note. *p < .05. Table IV: Model 2 Combination R 95.00% CI n p Revenue_Change_3_YearBIA_Community -.09 [-.24, .07] 155 1.000 Revenue_Change_3_YearBIA_Government .06 [-.10, .21] 155 1.000 Revenue_Change_3_YearBIA_Environment .00 [-.16, .16] 155 1.000 Revenue_Change_3_YearBIA_Customer .04 [-.12, .20] 155 1.000 Revenue_Change_3_YearBIA_Worker .06 [-.10, .22] 155 1.000 BIA_CommunityBIA_Government .05 [-.11, .21] 155 1.000 BIA_CommunityBIA_Environment -.11 [-.26, .05] 155 1.000 BIA_CommunityBIA_Customer -.07 [-.22, .09] 155 1.000 BIA_CommunityBIA_Worker -.03 [-.19, .13] 155 1.000 BIA_GovernmentBIA_Environment .36 [.21, .49] 155 < .001 BIA_GovernmentBIA_Customer .62 [.51, .71] 155 < .001 BIA_GovernmentBIA_Worker .72 [.64, .79] 155 < .001 BIA_EnvironmentBIA_Customer .17 [.01, .32] 155 .378 BIA_EnvironmentBIA_Worker .27 [.12, .41] 155 .007 BIA_CustomerBIA_Worker .67 [.57, .75] 155 < .001 Note. P-values adjusted using the Holm correction. B. Correlation Analysis 2 The results of Correlation Analysis 2 were corrected using the Holm correction to account for multiple comparisons. Here, the alpha level was .05. In this case, we calculated the relationship based on r = .36, p < International Journal of Management and Humanities (IJMH) ISSN: 2394-0913 (Online), Volume-12 Issue-3, November 2025 5 Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijmh.C184812031125 DOI: 10.35940/ijmh.C1848.12031125 Journal Website: www.ijmh.org Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication (BEIESP) © Copyright: All rights reserved. .001, and a 95% CI [.21, .49], suggesting a moderate effect size. This indicates that the higher the BIA-Governance, the greater the BIA-Environment score. On a related note, BIA-Governance showed a strong positive correlation with BIA-Customer (r = .62, p < .001, 95% CI [.51, .71]) and BIA-Worker (r = .72, p < .001, 95% CI [.64, .79]). This implies that as BIA-Governance scores increase, so do BIA-Customer and BIA-Worker scores. There was also a significant positive correlation between BIAEnvironment and BIA-Worker (r = .27, p = .007, 95% CI [.12, .41]), suggesting a small effect size and indicating that higher BIA-Environment scores are associated with higher BIAWorker scores. On the other hand, an even stronger positive association was observed between BIA-Customer and BIA-Worker (r = .67, p < .001, 95% CI [.57, .75]), indicating a sizable effect size. No other significant correlations have been detected. As such, the null hypothesis (H₀₂) is not rejected, demonstrating that there was no significant correlation between BIA subcategory scores and revenue growth over 3 years. The correlation results are shown in Tables III and IV. V. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION The current study investigates the associations between B Impact Assessment (BIA) scores and three-year revenue changes with respect to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), a framework for assessing business performance across economic (profit), social (people), and environmental (planet) dimensions. You have up-to-date knowledge of business impact assessment, how they interact, and what effects they have on organisational efficiency. No correlation was found between total income from the Big Five and changes in revenue across the entire Big Five, but several strong relationships were identified among the BIA subcategories. Governance-oriented BIA scores show strong correlations with worker, environmental, and customer dimensions, suggesting that high-governance organisations value employee well-being, customer satisfaction, and environmental sustainability, as well as employee welfare. Moreover, the customer and worker dimensions were strongly associated, illustrating that organizations that focus on customer experience tend to develop a strong internal organizational culture when developing an attractive experience for customers. Nevertheless, the BIA score associated with community-specific BIA did not show a strong correlation with other dimensions, suggesting that community engagement activities may exist beyond governance, environmental, and worker-centric activities. These findings also provide valuable lessons for businesses that commit to sustainability and social responsibility from a TBL viewpoint. Although the sustainability domain’s social and environmental dimensions are interrelated, there is a direct link, but it is not apparent how they affect financial performance in the short run. This indicates that businesses need to take that long view when evaluating the financial returns on sustainability investments. The independence of the community dimension also raises questions about how organisations measure community engagement and integrate it into a broader corporate impact framework/strategy. A. Limitations and Future Research Though this study provides some insight into the positive impact of B Impact Assessment (BIA) scores on revenue growth, it also has some limitations. One primary limitation of this study is the sample size. Although power analysis determined that a minimum of 168 observations was required for sufficient statistical power, the final dataset included only 155 certified B Corporations. This smaller-than-expected sample size may reduce the study’s ability to detect significant correlations and limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the sample was constrained by the availability of financial data, which restricted the inclusion of all potential B Corporations in the analysis. Future research should aim to expand the dataset to improve statistical power and enhance the robustness of the results. Secondly, while Spearman’s correlation identifies relationships between variables, it does not establish causality, meaning other unexamined factors may influence revenue growth. Future research should consider longitudinal designs or alternative statistical models to address these limitations. Lastly, this study is limited by its focus on a three-year revenue change metric, which may not fully capture the longterm financial impacts of sustainability initiatives. Future research should consider longer time horizons and explore additional financial performance indicators to provide a more comprehensive understanding of these relationships. Furthermore, investigating external factors such as market conditions, regulatory environments, and stakeholder expectations could offer deeper insights into how sustainability efforts influence financial outcomes. DECLARATION STATEMENT After aggregating input from all authors, I must verify the accuracy of the following information as the article's author. ▪ Conflicts of Interest/ Competing Interests: Based on my understanding, this article has no conflicts of interest. ▪ Funding Support: This article has not been funded by any organizations or agencies. This independence ensures that the research is conducted with objectivity and without any external influence. ▪ Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate: The content of this article does not necessitate ethical approval or consent to participate with supporting documentation. ▪ Data Access Statement and Material Availability: The adequate resources of this article are publicly accessible. ▪ Author’s Contributions: The authorship of this article is contributed equally to all participating individuals. REFERENCES 1. Alam, J., Boamah, M. I., MacMullen, D., Kochhar, N., & Barrington, R. (2022). In Search of the “Benefits” in Certified B Corporations. Canadian Journal of Nonprofit & Social Economy Research, 13(1), 96– 105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29173/cjnser561. 2. Make Business a Force For Good. (2025, January 31). B Lab global. Retrieved February 12, 2025, from https://bcorporation.net Sustainability and Financial Performance: Analyzing the Relationship Between B Impact Assessment Scores and Revenue Growth in Certified B Corporations 6 Retrieval Number: 100.1/ijmh.C184812031125 DOI: 10.35940/ijmh.C1848.12031125 Journal Website: www.ijmh.org Published By: Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering & Sciences Publication (BEIESP) © Copyright: All rights reserved. 3. Benefit Corporation vs. B Corp. (2025, February 20). B Lab U.S. & Canada. Retrieved March 12, 2025, from https://usca.bcorporation.net/benefit-corporation-vs-b-corp/. 4. Díaz-Sarachaga, J. M., & Ariza-Montes, A. (2022). The role of social entrepreneurship in the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of Business Research, 152, 242–250. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.07.061 5. Govindan, K., Shaw, M., & Majumdar, A. (2021). Social sustainability tensions in multi-tier supply chain: A systematic literature review towards conceptual framework Development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 279, N.PAG. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123075 6. Lawrence, J., & Mekoth, N. (2023). Demarketing for sustainability: A review and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 47(6), 2157–2180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12904. 7. Liute, A., & Rosa De Giacomo, M. (2022). The environmental performance of UK‐based B Corp companies: An analysis based on the triple bottom line approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(3), 810-827. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2919. 8. Nahar, K., & Khurana, D. (2023). Corporate Social Responsibility. Vidhyayana-An International Multidisciplinary Peer-Reviewed EJournal-ISSN 2454-8596, 8(si6), 724-732. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47760/cognizance.2024.v04i10.007. 9. Nurmalasari, A. D., Trinugraha, Y. H., & Pudyastuti, S. G. (2023). Community group participation in the maintenance of Cengklik reservoir as a water resources conservation area. Jurnal Ilmiah Platax, 11(2), 418-426. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35800/jip.v11i2.49238. 10. Shim, J., Moon, J., Lee, W. S., & Chung, N. (2021). The impact of CSR on the corporate value of restaurant businesses using the triple bottom line theory. Sustainability, 13(4), 2131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042131. 11. Staicu, D. (2021). A qualitative study on social entrepreneurship: technology-based social ventures and humanitarian entrepreneurial mindset. Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, 15(1), 1096–1112. DOI: https://doi.org/10.20935/AcadEnergy7430. 12. Stubbs, W. (2017). Characterising B Corps as a sustainable business model: An exploratory study of B Corps in Australia. Journal of Cleaner Production, 144, 299–312. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.093. 13. Stutz, C. (2021). History in corporate social responsibility: Reviewing and setting an agenda. Business History, 63(2), 175–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00076791.2018.1543661. 14. Corporate Social Responsibility: The WBCSD’s Journey. (2022, January). Global Hand. Retrieved February 13, 2025, from https://www.globalhand.org/system/assets/f65fb8b06bddcf2f2e5fef11e a7171049f223d85/original/Corporate_Social_Responsability_WBCSD _2002.pdf. 15. Walker, K., Yu, X., & Zhang, Z. (2020). All for one or all for three: Empirical evidence of paradox theory in the triple-bottom-line. Journal of Cleaner Production, 275, 122881. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122881. 16. Wecker, A. C., & Fröhlich, C. (2022). The B Corp movement: its advantages and challenges —perceptions of certified Brazilian companies. Revista de Administração da UFSM, 15(4), 596-614. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5902/1983465969844. 17. Wirba, A. V. (2024). Corporate social responsibility (CSR): The role of government in promoting CSR. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 15(2), 7428-7454. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-023-01185-0. 18. Zak, A. (2015). Triple bottom line concept in theory and practice. Social Responsibility of Organizations Directions of Changes, 387(1), 251264. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15611/pn.2015.387.21 AUTHOR’S PROFILE Chanae B. Childress holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting from Illinois State University and a Master of Business Administration degree from Webster University-St. Louis, MO. Ms Childress serves as an Adjunct Professor at Southwestern Illinois College in Belleville, Illinois. She is also a seasoned Data Research Consultant at UnitedHealth Group. Chanae is currently pursuing her PhD in Business Administration from Hampton University. Her areas of research include social responsibility and social entrepreneurship. Dr. Oliver Jones, is a Professor of Business at Hampton University’s School of Business and serves as the Dissertation Chair for doctoral candidates specialising in sustainability, entrepreneurship, and finance. His academic and professional expertise focuses on corporate social responsibility (CSR), sustainable business development, wealth ecology, and the intersection of innovation and ethics in global markets. In addition to his academic leadership, Dr. Jones advises organizations on impact-driven strategies that align financial performance with social and environmental goals. He has authored and co-authored several research studies and strategic frameworks to advance ethical business practices across industries. Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of the Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP)/ journal and/or the editor(s). The Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP) and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.