What if the same corporations claiming to champion social and environmental causes are quietly fueling division in society, all while turning a profit? This seemingly easy-to-miss and bland business filing designation, B Corporation (B Corp), introduced in 2006, was designed to balance doing good with making money. But it actually has a real impact on your everyday life, influencing not just the marketplace, but the public discourse, as businesses take stronger political and social stances.

But behind this feel-good business model is a troubling trend: the rise of politically active companies may be contributing to the erosion of public discourse. As B Corps grow, their blend of activism and capitalism is deepening ideological divides and changing the fabric of American society.

B Corps: Business Model in Vermont

B Corps were introduced by a group of entrepreneurs with the backing of the marketing firm B Lab to create a new type of business legally required to balance profit with social and environmental good. Vermont was an early adopter of this model, passing Act 113 in 2010, known as the Vermont Benefit Corporations Act, which established the legal framework for B Corps to operate in the state.

This legal structure allows B Corps to prioritize social missions without the same pressure to justify decisions through a financial lens, unlike traditional S Corporations. By design, B Corps can freely engage in activism without requiring shareholder approval, giving them significant freedom to pursue ideological missions. Vermont-based B Corps like Ben & Jerry’s and Seventh Generation have embraced this flexibility, taking public stances on issues like climate change and social justice.

SunCommon: A B Corp Case Study and Potential Conflict of Interest

SunCommon, a Vermont-based solar energy company, provides a clear example of how B Corps navigate the intersection of profit and activism. SunCommon has been actively involved in advocating for renewable energy policies that directly align with their business model, such as Vermont’s Net Metering program, which allows customers to generate and sell excess solar energy back to the grid. Additionally, the company has been a proponent of the Global Warming Solutions Act (GWSA) and the Clean Heat Standard, both of which aim to reduce Vermont’s reliance on fossil fuels and increase the use of renewable energy sources.

While these efforts promote environmental sustainability, SunCommon’s role in advocating for policies that directly benefit its business raises questions about potential conflicts of interest. By supporting legislation that increases demand for solar energy, the company stands to profit financially, blurring the line between genuine advocacy and corporate self-interest.

Ben & Jerry’s: A Unique Case of Corporate Governance

Another interesting case is Ben & Jerry’s, which became a certified B Corporation but was acquired by Unilever in 2000. Despite the acquisition, Ben & Jerry’s maintains a unique arrangement that allows it to retain independence over its social mission and corporate governance. Under this agreement, an independent board of directors oversees the company’s social and environmental goals, while Unilever handles the business operations and financial decisions.

However, there are now discussions about a potential split between Unilever and Ben & Jerry’s, which could impact not only Ben & Jerry’s, but also other B Corporations. The conflict between the two entities has reportedly arisen from tensions regarding how much independence Ben & Jerry’s retains over its social and environmental stances, as Unilever’s management focuses more on profit. This split could set a precedent for other B Corps that are owned by larger corporations, raising questions about how to balance profit-driven goals with social missions in corporate structures.

The B Corp certification remains a critical part of Ben & Jerry’s identity. Even under Unilever’s ownership, the company continues to focus on activism and sustainability, aligning with the values of the B Corporation movement. This arrangement demonstrates that large multinational corporations can integrate B Corp values, but it also raises questions about the balance of power between profit-driven operations and social responsibility.

Giving Corporate CEOs Unchecked Power

Ironically, B Corps—while marketed as the antidote to traditional corporate greed—may actually give more unchecked power to the very corporate executives they claim to challenge. With fewer constraints from shareholders and the ability to blend social activism with profit, B Corps provide their CEOs with significant freedom to shape social and ecological messaging without the same oversight found in traditional corporate structures.

This means that a few influential corporate leaders, often derided for their roles in traditional capitalism, now have even greater power to steer societal conversations on key issues like climate change, racial equity, and environmental sustainability. Without the same checks and balances, these CEOs wield influence over public opinion that rivals political leaders and nonprofit organizations. Their messaging is amplified through marketing campaigns, product branding, and consumer loyalty programs—all of which reinforce specific ideologies in the public sphere.

Conclusion: The Growing Divide Between Activism and Commerce

B Corporations, since their creation in 2006, have introduced a new way of doing business in America. By blending activism with profitability, they’ve shifted the focus from the merit of goods and services to ideological alignment. This transformation has contributed to a growing polarization in society, where businesses no longer compete solely on quality but also on their political and social stances.

The rise of B Corps coincides with the erosion of public discourse, as consumers now feel compelled to make political decisions when purchasing everyday products. With investor anonymity and a growing overlap between activism and profit, B Corps wield significant influence over social causes without the same public accountability as traditional political donors.

And perhaps most concerning, B Corps have given more unchecked power to corporate CEOs—allowing them to steer social and ecological conversations without traditional shareholder oversight. What started with good intentions may now be another tool for companies to capitalize on popular social causes, deepening divisions and further eroding the public discourse that once allowed for genuine, diverse debate.

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

You can find FYIVT on YouTube | X(Twitter) | Facebook | Parler (@fyivt) | Gab | Instagram

#fyivt #BCorporations #CleanEnergy #Activism

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!