Understanding B Corporations as agents of strategic sustainability: a meta-aggregative review

This study analyzes B Corporations as emerging agents of strategic sustainability in Ibero-America, where they function not only as hybrid business models but also as institutional responses to persistent socio-environmental and governance gaps. The research explores how B Corps articulate purpose-driven management through governance structures, innovation processes, impact verifiability, and stakeholder legitimacy, positioning themselves as alternatives to the fragmented logic of traditional CSR. Using a Systematic Literature Review (PRISMA 2020) combined with a meta-aggregative synthesis (JBI), the study integrates diverse theoretical and empirical contributions to identify the conceptual patterns that define the functioning and hybrid purpose of the B Corp/BIC model in the region, which constitutes the central objective of the research: to analyze how the B Corp/BIC model is implemented and legitimized in Ibero-America by identifying the conceptual patterns that shape its functioning and hybrid purpose. The synthesis reveals six recurring categories, with governance emerging as the central axis that connects innovation, trust-building, and measurable impact. A significant finding is the persistent disconnect between the theoretical alignment of B Corporations with circular economy principles and their limited explicit incorporation in current literature, which constrains their regenerative potential. The conclusions suggest that B Corps act as catalytic nodes capable of compensating for institutional deficits and enabling more robust sustainability transitions in emerging economies; however, this transformative capacity remains contingent on embedding circular strategies into their operational protocols.

1 Introduction

In recent decades, B Corporations (B Corps) have emerged as an organizational model designed to integrate social and environmental benefits with profitability. The convergent narrative defines B Corps as hybrid organizations whose transformative potential depends on a strict alignment between purpose, governance, and institutional context. As noted by Correa (2019) and Montiel Vargas (2022), this hybrid model, grounded in interdependence and regeneration, has gained legal recognition in Ibero-America through Benefit and Collective Interest Companies (BIC), encouraging organizations to be the best for the world (Rodríguez-Téllez and Pacheco-Sánchez, 2019).

Conceptually, B Corps represents an evolution from philanthropic Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) toward a “new business genetics” where sustainability is the core structuring axis (Correa, 2022). This paradigm shift operationalizes impact-oriented missions through governance structures that reconcile economic and social tensions (Tabares, 2021). As laboratories of innovation, these organizations advance critical agendas such as gender equity (Saiz-Álvarez et al., 2020), although they still face challenges regarding internal democratic power distribution.

The systematic review conducted illustrates that B Corporations constitute an emerging field of research in management, integrating multiple perspectives and generating debates about the present and future of business administration, specially in Ibero-America. It is in this region, which is characterized by historical inequality, fragmented institutional ecosystems, persistent socio-environmental tensions, and increasingly mobilized citizenries, where the B model not only takes root but transforms into a tool for renegotiating fundamental notions of development, enterprise, and social value. The reviewed studies reveal that the hybridity of the B movement, far from being a static attribute, manifests with particular intensity and complexity in these countries, where organizations must simultaneously navigate institutional fragility, demands for social justice, and the urgent need to transition toward regenerative economic models throughout six main axes.

At a global level, academic production shows exponential growth, confirming the consolidation of B Corps as a research field (Alonso-Martínez and González-Álvarez, 2024). However, this phenomenon takes on a distinctive character in Ibero-America. In a region characterized by historical inequality, fragile institutions, and extractives economies, the B model acts as a tool for renegotiating notions of development (Fierro Aguilar, 2023). It constitutes a response to institutional voids and an act of resistance to inherited models, assuming regulatory responsibilities where state capacity is limited (Martín Castro, 2023).

The methodological plurality used to study B Corps, from case studies to econometric analyses, underscores the multidimensionality of the phenomenon (Amaya and Zuluaga, 2023; Ficco et al., 2023). This diversity raises questions regarding the scope and tensions of implementing the model in emerging contexts.

To examine, through a meta-aggregative (JBI) approach, the dynamics and implementation of the B Corp/BIC model in Ibero-America by identifying the conceptual patterns that shape its construction, operation, and legitimacy; across social, environmental, economic, and organizational dimensions, in order to advance broader conceptual propositions about its hybrid purpose and contextual functioning. The study addresses the following research question: How is the B Corp/BIC model implemented and legitimized in Ibero-America, and what conceptual patterns account for its functioning and hybrid purpose across different contexts?

2 Methodology

This article adopts a mixed-method design, combining quantitative procedures embedded in the systematic literature review with qualitative analysis derived from the JBI-defined meta-aggregative process. This methodological integration enables the study to move beyond factual understandings and generate greater, interpretive insights (Lockwood et al., 2015).

The methodological process of development was carried out in a sequential manner in five phases: search, filtering, extraction, categorization and systematization, integrating initial quantitative analyses and a qualitative meta-aggregative process as an interpretative basis. Consistent with best-practice recommendations for literature reviews (Donthu et al., 2021), each phase was documented transparently, ensuring alignment between research objectives, search strategy, and analytical techniques (Lockwood et al., 2015).

The initial search was in Scopus and Google Scholar; the selection of Scopus and Google Scholar responds to the need to combine quality and breadth in academic research providing rigor, editorial control, and traceability of citations, guaranteeing the reliability of the sources meanwhile maintaining extensive and flexible coverage. Therefore, ensuring a complete, and methodologically sound search. The search equations were constructed using thesauri validated with Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), following Donthu et al. (2021), which allowed adjusting and confirming the relevance of controlled terms, ensuring that the concepts used in the equations were consistent, pertinent and aligned with standardized academic terminology. The final equation integrated emerging words proposed after an initial review of the documentary corpus, in order to broaden the search for documents; the following were integrated: “Community interest company,” “Purpose corporation,” “Mission-driven corporation,” “Purpose-driven corporation,” “Social enterprise.” Their inclusion ultimately confirmed conceptual saturation, as none yielded additional relevant documents.

2.1 Search strategy and databases

Initial search was conducted on two complementary bases attending the next search equations:

Scopus: (“B Corps” OR “Benefit Corporations” OR “Empresas B” OR “Sociedades de Beneficio e Interés Colectivo” OR “Certified B Corporation”) AND (“sustainability” OR “triple bottom line” OR “social impact” OR “business models” OR “responsabilidad social empresarial”).

Google scholar: (“Empresas B” OR “B Corps” OR “Benefit Corporations” OR “Certified B Corporation”) AND (“sostenibilidad” OR “impacto social” OR “triple bottom line”).

2.2 Inclusion criteria (PRISMA 2020)

The identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion process followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021). The identified documents were subjected to a filtering process to guarantee the quality and relevance of the analysis. To this end, four inclusion criteria were applied (Moher et al., 2009). Firstly, temporal relevance allowed the selection of only studies published within the defined period (2016–2025), ensuring timeliness and coherence with the context investigated. Secondly, the explicit relationship with B Corporations, so that only those works that directly addressed this type of organization in its content, approach or results were considered. The third criterion was the full availability of the text, which implied excluding documents whose access was partial or limited, thus guaranteeing a complete and rigorous review (Moher et al., 2009). Finally, methodological diversity was contemplated, with the aim of incorporating research from different approaches and methods, enriching the understanding of the phenomenon studied and strengthening the soundness of the analysis. In accordance with Donthu et al. (2021), particular attention was paid to data cleaning and the removal of inconsistencies to ensure reliability in subsequent analytical phases.

2.3 Justified selection process

The identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion of studies were conducted in line with PRISMA 2020 guidelines (Page et al., 2021). After removing duplicates and non-relevant documents, based on the inclusion criteria, 29 studies were ultimately included in the review. This amount of analyzed documents responds to the need to focus only on research that directly addresses the phenomenon of B Corporations, avoiding tangential conceptualizations or metaphorical uses of the concept (Moher et al., 2009). The complete selection process is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of the systematic review process. Adapted from Page et al. (2021).

This retention of <10% meets strict criterias: (a) evident methodological rigor; (b) direct and substantial connection with B Corporations (not a tangential citation); (c) unique contribution to the synthesis (avoiding thematic redundancy); (d) relevance for JBI meta-aggregation. This selectivity ensures conceptual density and interpretative validity, aligning with standards of high rigor systematic reviews (Donthu et al., 2021).

2.4 Data extraction and meta-aggregative process

Additionally, through the meta-aggregative methodology, developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI), which is a qualitative synthesis approach that seeks to group, organize and consolidate findings from different studies without reinterpreting them, the extraction, categorization and research synthesis of the 29 documents was carried out. Its purpose is to produce clear thematic categories and, from them, integrated syntheses that faithfully reflect the original perspectives of the authors. This method ensures transparency, rigor, and consistency in the interpretation of qualitative evidence. Through this approach, extraction, categorization, and synthesis were carried out.

Data extraction was systematized in an Excel matrix with variables such as article reference, introduction, problem statement, justification, hypotheses, research questions, methodology, findings, context, challenges, gaps, and significance. This ensured consistency in the analysis. The second phase consisted of categorizing findings around conceptual axes derived from the literature on management and organizational studies. Key categories identified included: business hybridity and systemic purpose (Tabares, 2021; Correa, 2019, 2022), governance and legitimacy mechanisms (Ficco et al., 2023; León-Baquero and González-García, 2025), financial impact and trust signaling (Carvajal, 2024; Virgis, 2020), gender inclusion and leadership (Saiz-Álvarez et al., 2020; Correa et al., 2019), as well as legal frameworks and Ibero-American contexts (Montiel Vargas, 2022; Soria-Barreto et al., 2021), and derived axes such as B Corporations in relation to the circular economy. Through this categorization, the review shifted from listing evidence to identifying conceptual patterns, enabling a thematic interpretation of how B Corporations operate, justify their legitimacy, and build their hybrid purpose.

2.5 Synthesis and qualitative analysis

The synthesis phase, rooted in the principles of JBI meta-aggregation, aimed to articulate the most salient findings into higher-order interpretive categories. Rather than seeking statistical generalization, the goal was to identify conceptual patterns that reveal how B Corporations are constructed, legitimized, and enacted across different contexts. This integrative process allowed the review to move beyond a catalog of evidence and toward the formulation of broader conceptual propositions (Lockwood et al., 2015). In this study, the synthesis resulted in a conceptual representation in which B Corps emerge as hybrid management organizations whose purpose expands beyond profit and positions them as nodes of social, environmental, and economic innovation.

2.6 Quantitative analysis

Once the 29 documents were selected and validated, a systematic data extraction and coding process was implemented to enable quantitative synthesis. Following the meta-aggregative approach, each document was cataloged using an excel-based extraction matrix containing 11 variables: authors and year, study type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed, bibliometric), geographic context (country-region), primary strategic axes detected (from 6 proposed categories), number of organizational innovations reported, explicit mention of CE elements, methodological rigor (high, medium, low), unique contribution to the field, key findings aligned with synthesis objectives, gaps and limitations identified, and relevance for B Corps framework development. This extraction enabled standardization of heterogenous evidence while preserving the integrity of original author interpretations. The extraction matrix served simultaneously as source documentation and as primary data table for quantitative analysis.

Quantitative analysis proceeded through 4 integrated steps. Firstly, a frequency analysis of thematic dimensions was developed by counting each of the 6 strategic axes across documents, yielding frequency distributions ranging from 5 to 11 mentions. Second, an Index of Thematic Density (IDT) was calculated for each axis using the formula IDT = (frequency * #key documents * organizational innovations identified)/ total documents. This index permitted identification of research maturity inequality across axes, revealing that Governance represents the most consolidated research domain while Inclusion emerges as frontier knowledge requiring consolidation. Third, a 15-cell relationships matrix was constructed measuring the strength of interconnections between axes (scale 1 = weak; scale 2 = moderate; scale 3 = very strong), identifying that 40% of relationships were very strong, 53.3% moderate and 6.7% weak, indicating a highly integrated conceptual system despite of research fragmentation. Fourth, a critical gap analysis was performed, documenting that 6.9% of documents (2) explicitly mention circular economy, 17.2% (5) address it indirectly, and 75.9% (22) contain no such connection, revealing a significant opportunity for integrating B Corporation governance with circular economy frameworks (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Characterization of 29 articles of corpus.

3 Results

Based on a literature review of key authors, a meta-aggregative process was implemented to map the field’s intellectual landscape, covering themes ranging from governance and competitiveness to social inclusion. This analysis resulted in six analytical categories that integrate empirical findings with synthetic propositions, offering a structured understanding of how B Corps operate and navigate organizational tensions.

The convergent narrative defines B Corps as hybrid organizations whose transformative potential depends on a strict alignment between purpose, governance, and institutional context. The resulting framework offers a balanced perspective while it confirms robust innovations and measurable impacts; it also exposes structural tensions and risks of rhetorical adoption that constrain the legitimacy and scalability of the B movement.

3.1 B Corporations: the central axis between innovation, governance and trust

The literature analyzed shows that B Corps constitute a turning point in the way in which the business sector addresses contemporary socio-environmental challenges, simultaneously articulating innovation processes, transformations in governance and trust-building strategies. This articulation is observed, for example, in Tabares (2021), who argues that hybrid business models have become relevant because of their ability to respond to current challenges by balancing social, environmental, and economic logics, and because they incorporate attributes such as purpose, systemic relationships, and governance that function as adaptive mechanisms in complex contexts. Along the same lines, Rodríguez Díaz (2018) argues that the rise in socio-environmental problems has generated the need for innovative proposals and business models capable of implementing real solutions, which has driven the consolidation of business structures that are more sensitive to social and environmental impact.

Other authors delve into the innovative dimension and point out that innovation, including open and collaborative modalities, constitutes a critical response to the environment. Thus, Correa (2022) emphasizes that innovation, and especially open innovation, is identified as a necessary response to the changing conditions of the environment and that B Corporations teach new ways of conceiving business success, combining economic profit with ethics and social responsibility. Likewise, Huerta Gómez (2018) explains that innovation should be understood as a systemic learning process that generates value for both the company and society, which turns B Corps into environments of experimentation that promote co-creation, collaborative networks and the expansion of social impact.

The link between innovation and governance becomes clearer when analysing how the institutional changes introduced by the B certification create the structural conditions for innovation. Montiel Vargas (2022) highlights that the B Lab model establishes that shareholders must manage social and environmental impacts with the same rigor as financial ones, which makes governance a device that guides and disciplines innovation toward common good objectives. This position is complemented by the findings of Rodríguez Díaz (2018), for whom certification processes require transparency, and statutory reforms that structure the coherence between purpose and innovation. Likewise, Amaya and Zuluaga (2023) show empirical evidence in Colombian companies where certification strengthened innovative capacities, allowing the redesign of products, processes, and relationships with stakeholders, demonstrating that purpose-driven governance drives applied and concrete innovation.

However, several authors warn that formal governance does not always guarantee deep cultural appropriation. Hernández Gutiérrez (2020) points out that certification is usually implemented as a top-down management strategy, without true appropriation inside and outside the organization, which reveals a tension between the normative dimension of the model and its practical internalization. In a complementary way, León-Baquero and González-García (2025) show that sustainability reports often function as discursive tools that reinforce discourses of social responsibility without necessarily translating into structural changes in business management, which can weaken the legitimacy of the model if it is not accompanied by verifiable and sustained practices over time.

Through these tensions, the third axis, trust, is directly addressed. The literature recognizes that B Corporations seek to build the legitimacy of the business sector through practices of transparency and dialog with stakeholders. In this sense, Ficco et al. (2023) state that the disclosure of information is part of the necessary dialog between companies and stakeholders, although they also show that the level of disclosure observed, for example, in Argentine B Corps reaches on average only 66% of what was expected, which points to relevant gaps in the consistency of transparency practices. Added to this is the warning that trust is fragile when communication adopts a more narrative and ineffective nature, as León-Baquero and González-García (2025) say, who identify that certain sustainability reports reinforce discourses rather than real transformations.

Likewise, Azcona et al. (2020) argue that, in B Corporations, economic benefits become a means and not an end, which contributes to the perception of authenticity and readjusts the sense of business success toward the generation of shared value. This authenticity is also linked to the territorial and cultural dimension where Acevedo-Duque et al. (2023) state that it is essential for companies to align with the country’s identity and values, characterizing B Corps as representatives of identity that promote sustainability and innovation practices in line with local culture.

The interactions between the three axes are reciprocal and dynamic. Purpose-oriented governance enables innovations that allow products and processes to be redesigned and rethought; These innovations, when translated into impacts for stakeholders, which are verifiable and communicable, strengthen trust; and this, by operating as symbolic capital, facilitates access to networks, markets, alliances that feedback and strengthen business innovation. Groppa and Sluga (2015) underline this dimension by pointing out that success is not measured only by turnover or dividends, but by the integration of economic benefits with measurable and scalable social and environmental impacts, which demonstrates that innovation, governance and trust form an interdependent system where each axis reinforces the other.

The transversal implementation of these axes in any organization implies latent challenges. Tabares (2021) and Correa (2022) highlight the fragility and low coverage of support ecosystems in Latin America, which limits the consolidation of large-scale transformative practices, and generates the risk that certain processes remain narrative adoptions rather than practical transformations. Even so, the literature converges that B Corps represent a global representative movement that “teaches companies to align profitability with the common good,” as Salmerón Lechuga (2019) argues, opening up possibilities for new configurations of value, organizational creativity, and social legitimacy.

Therefore, the various studies show that innovation allows not only to redesign the value proposition but also the impact that is expected with it, based on the search for the generation of common value; while governance oriented to the ultimate purpose of the organization, structures the search for and achievement of innovation; In turn, trust is the axis that makes transformations legitimate and keeps the organization and its communities of interest transversal to strengthen their relationships during the process. The strength of the model lies in the interdependence of these axes, whose intertwining is the key to understanding the potential and in turn the limitations of B Corporations as actors capable of promoting and developing transitions toward sustainability.

So, it exists an integrated system that joins Governance (structure), Innovation (implementation), Impact (verifiability), Trust (legitimacy), Access (networks, markets), Enhanced Governance (investment capability). This circularity explains why B Corporations, in context where they are genuinely implemented, generated stable and scalable changes (Tabares, 2021; Correa, 2022), unlike traditional Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), which tends to be fragmented. However, the literature warns about the fragility of this system because any disruption (rhetorical adoption of governance, unverifiable impacts, low transparency) breaks the cycle and reduces the model to a legitimacy theater (Hernández Gutiérrez, 2020). In Ibero-America, this integrated system takes on particular relevance because B governance functions as a substitute mechanism in the face of regulatory gaps (Montiel Vargas, 2022; Fierro Aguilar, 2023). Where the state does not provide environmental protections or labor standards, B Corporations create governance structures that assume these responsibilities, catalyzing innovations that would otherwise not occur.

Taking this interpretation, the literature indicates that B Corporations operate through an integrated system that links governance structures, innovation processes, impact verifiability, legitimacy through trust, market access, and enhanced governance mechanisms for investment (Tabares, 2021; Correa, 2022). This circularity explains why, when genuinely implemented, they generate stable and scalable transformations, unlike traditional CSR approaches that often remain fragmented. Yet, this system is also fragile: any disruption, such as purely rhetorical governance, unverifiable impacts, or low transparency, breaks the cycle and reduces the model to a legitimacy theater (Hernández Gutiérrez, 2020). In Ibero-America, this integrated governance system becomes especially relevant because it often substitutes for regulatory gaps, allowing B Corporations to assume environmental or labor responsibilities that the state fails to enforce (Montiel Vargas, 2022; Fierro Aguilar, 2023). Overall, the literature positions B Corporations as a hybrid model that blends business logic with impact logic, drawing coherence from both classical frameworks, such as Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984), the Triple Bottom Line (Elkington, 1997), institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983), and the Resource-Based View (Barney, 1991), and contemporary approaches centered on purpose, from shared value (Porter and Kramer, 2011) to sustainable business models (Boons and Lüdeke-Freund, 2013), social entrepreneurship (Dacin et al., 2011), and conscious capitalism (Mackey and Sisodia, 2013). In this intersection between the classical and the contemporary, B Corporations emerge as privileged laboratories for understanding how twenty-first-century organizations confront the challenges of sustainability, innovation, and social justice, supported by capabilities such as sustainable innovation (Adams et al., 2015), organizational resilience (Felin et al., 2015), and adaptation within digital hypercapitalism (George et al., 2021).

3.2 Systemic dynamics and realities of B Corporations in Ibero-America

The systematic review conducted illustrates that B Corporations constitute an emerging field of research in management, integrating multiple perspectives and generating debates about the present and future of business administration, especially in Ibero-America. It is in this region, which is characterized by historical inequality, fragmented institutional ecosystems, persistent socio-environmental tensions, and increasingly mobilized citizenries, where the B model not only takes root but transforms into a tool for renegotiating fundamental notions of development, enterprise, and social value. The reviewed studies reveal that the hybridity of the B movement, far from being a static attribute, manifests with particular intensity and complexity in these countries, where organizations must simultaneously navigate institutional fragility, demands for social justice, and the urgent need to transition toward regenerative economic models throughout six main axes.

The first axis defines B Corporations not merely as entities balancing economic and social dimensions, but as organizations where purpose acts as the structural nucleus. Tabares (2021) argues that value propositions “rooted in organizational purpose” enable portfolios that integrate the regenerative evolution of sustainability, advocacy, and impact scaling, shifting the focus from profit maximization to collective well-being. This structural realignment redefines success, Correa (2019), asserts it transcends financial metrics to prioritize verifiable impacts, later characterizing this evolution as a “new business genetics” moving from CSR toward open innovation and shared value (Correa, 2022). Ultimately, the model establishes impact as a core management axis, fundamentally repositioning the theoretical and practical conception of the firm.

In Ibero-America, this systemic purpose operates as a specific counter-response to structural inequality and extractives. Fierro Aguilar (2023) observes, for example, that Ecuadorian B Corps prioritize social over market logic, transforming purpose from a strategic choice into a mechanism for social justice. While this mirrors global innovations in circular economy and regenerative design identified by Nosratabadi et al. (2019), the Ibero-American application distinguishes itself by stemming from immediate socio-ecological urgency rather than mere market sophistication.

Reflecting this complexity, the literature adopts an interpretive lens, viewing B Corporations not as static entities but as relational ecosystems in constant flux. Tabares (2021) and Hernández Gutiérrez (2020) conceptualize them as spaces for negotiating conflicting logics, aligning with Correa’s (2019, 2022) socio-ecological ontology. Defined as continuous learning systems (Virgis, 2020; Nosratabadi et al., 2019), their survival relies on “sensemaking” capabilities particularly in Ibero-America, where political volatility and institutional voids demand constant identity renegotiation. However, this capacity is uneven; Salmerón Lechuga (2019) notes that in Spain, limited brand visibility fragments these interpretive frameworks, hindering the communication of legitimacy across diverse stakeholders.

The third axis frames governance as a mechanism for managing structural tensions. Tabares (2021) notes that B Corporations utilize participatory structures to balance economic and social objectives, a process that Amaya and Zuluaga (2023) confirm drives profound internal cultural transformation. Crucially, transparency operates here as a strategic “dialog” rather than mere compliance. Ficco et al. (2023) reveal a telling asymmetry in Argentine firms where disclosure reaches 78% in social and 72% in environmental dimensions, compared to only 48% in economic ones. This indicates a deliberate prioritization of social legitimacy over immediate financial signaling. Consequently, sustainability reports function as “infrastructures of legitimacy” (León-Baquero and González-García, 2025), essential for cementing trust in these hybrid models.

International evidence adds nuance to this legitimacy challenge. Virgis (2020) frames the B Impact Assessment not merely as a metric, but as a mechanism for organizational learning a function crucial in Ibero-American contexts defined by informational asymmetry and weak regulation. However, these potential encounters structural friction, Salmerón Lechuga (2019) notes that limited market visibility in Spain mirrors Latin American challenges, hindering the cultural interpretation of the model. Furthermore, Azcona et al. (2020) warn of “purpose-washing,” while Bustos Báez and Wastavino Muñoz (2016) identify specific cultural barriers in Chile. Consequently, in environments lacking consistent regulatory enforcement, transparency transcends symbolism; it becomes a strategic necessity to differentiate authentic hybrid governance from rhetorical adoption.

The fourth axis reframes the sustainability-profitability tension through the lens of market signaling. Carvajal (2024) offers robust empirical support, quantifying that certified firms achieved a 15% increase in operating revenue and 12% in gross profit over 3 years, effectively acting as a mechanism to reduce information asymmetry. This validates Virgis (2020) and Nosratabadi et al. (2019), who position the model’s inherent innovations (e.g., circular economy) as sources of competitive differentiation. However, the efficacy of this signal is contextually bounded, Salmerón Lechuga (2019) counters that low brand recognition and high costs still limit scalability, particularly for Small and Medium Enterprises. Thus, while certification serves as a strategic asset for building trust, its conversion into financial value remains contingent on the specific market’s ability to recognize and validate the B label.

The fifth axis exposes a critical duality between Inclusion outcomes and power distribution. Saiz-Álvarez et al. (2020) provide compelling evidence of the model’s equity potential, reporting 76% female labor participation in women-led firms, which Correa et al. (2019) link to superior socio-environmental performance. However, the literature reveals a “democratization gap”: Hernández Gutiérrez (2020) characterizes internal ownership and participation schemes as “fragile, selective, and limited.” This paradox is acute in Ibero-America; while B Corporations effectively address external exclusion in underserved communities, they face significant structural friction when attempting to dismantle entrenched hierarchies to achieve deep internal democratization.

Finally, the sixth axis posits that institutional context is the primary determinant of scalability. Montiel Vargas (2022) and Soria-Barreto et al. (2021) map a multi-speed region: where legal recognition (BIC status) exists as in leaders like Colombia, Chile, and Brazil where the model consolidates. This is evidenced by financial and operational validation in Colombia (Carvajal, 2024; Martín Castro, 2023) and strong social logic in Ecuador (Fierro Aguilar, 2023). Conversely, institutional gaps generate friction meanwhile Chile faces cultural resistance and risks of superficial certification (Bustos Báez and Wastavino Muñoz, 2016; Azcona et al., 2020), while Spain struggles with market visibility (Salmerón Lechuga, 2019). Despite these disparities, Correa (2019) conceptualizes B Corporations as cross-border “integration points,” projecting a systemic transformation that transcends national constraints.

Complementary, the U.S. trajectory offers a critical counterpoint. There, certification has matured from niche social innovation to an institutionalized benchmark for ESG funds and impact investors (Hiller and Beauchesne, 2014; Wendy Stubbs, 2017). Unlike the regulatory friction observed in Latin America, this case demonstrates that the model’s transformative potential is maximized when organically embedded in global financial ecosystems. Alonso-Martínez and González-Álvarez (2024) validate this maturity through bibliometric mapping, documenting an exponential expansion in research that now firmly bridges corporate sustainability, responsible investment, and organizational theory.

Table 2 presents a quantitative synthesis of the six strategic axes, detailing their frequency in the literature, innovation density (IDT Score), and systemic connectivity. This metric consolidation is crucial because it reveals the structural hierarchy of the field, moving beyond simple categorization to demonstrate how the ecosystem functions. By identifying Governance (Axis 2) as the dominant articulating node and contrasting it with the lower scores of Inclusion (Axis 4) and Tensions (Axis 6), the table serves as a diagnostic instrument that empirically distinguishes between the model’s mature institutional pillars and its emerging operational gaps.

Table 2

Table 2. Bibliometric analysis of strategic axes.

The following Table 3 consolidates the meta-aggregated categories derived from the systematic review, offering a high-level synthesis that establishes the structural coherence of the field. Its utility lies in its dual function: first, it rigorously maps primary findings against their evidentiary base, ensuring traceability; second, it identifies the “Strategic Integration” of each category, demonstrating how foundational elements like purpose and governance act as enablers for broader outcomes such as inclusion and financial performance. Crucially, this overview not only underscores the consolidated strengths of the B Corp model but also exposes the critical gap regarding the Circular Economy, serving as both a diagnostic map of current knowledge and a strategic foundation for understanding the opportunities and limitations of the movement.

Table 3

Table 3. Axes for B Corps.

4 Discussion

4.1 Meta-aggregated findings: building the integrated model

The quantitative synthesis of the 29 documents reveals a conceptual architecture that goes beyond characterizing B Corps as a hybrid business model. The bibliometric analysis identified six strategic axes with variable frequencies of mention, suggesting unequal maturity in the field of research. Axis 2 (Governance, Legitimacy and Transparency) reached the highest frequency (11 mentions, IDT: 9.1), reflecting that the academic community recognizes governance as a central axis of the B model. In contrast, Axis 4 (Inclusion, Leadership and Gender Equity) recorded the lowest frequency (5 mentions, IDT: 2.1), indicating an emerging research field that requires empirical consolidation. This distribution is not random; it reflects that research on B Corporation has prioritized mechanism of legitimation and governance over in-depth analyses of inclusion and internal democratization. The analysis of interconnections revealed that 40% of the relationships between axes are very strong (strength 3 relationships) 53.3% are moderate (strength 2) and only 6.7% are weak (Figure 2). The most robust relationships identified were:

• Axis 1 – Axis 2 (very strong): Organizational hybridization requires innovative governance. Tabares, 2021 and Montiel Vargas (2022) showed that without statuory reforms that institutionalize purpose in decision-making structures, hybridization remains rhetorical. This is critical in Ibero-America, where Gambaro and García (2021) documented that B Corporations that integrated purpose into governance (bylaws, boards, processes) generated measurable impacts 3.2 times higher than those that maintained traditional governance.

• Axis 2 – Axis 3 (very strong): Constructive governance of transparency generates verifiable trust. León-Baquero and González-García (2025) analyzed 74 sustainability reports of 37 Colombian B Corps (2010–2023) and found that only those with formalized multi-stakeholder governance reported information with consistency greater than 75%. Without institutionalized governance, reports function as talking tools (50% superficiality). This validates the chain of Governance, Verifiable Impact which Builts Trust.

• Axis 2 – Axis 6 (very strong): Tensions and risks of superficiality emerge precisely from governance deficiencies. Hernández Gutiérrez (2020) documented in 4 Mexican B Corps that when certification was implemented as a top-down management strategy without real worker participation, cultural appropriation was weak, and the risks of purpose-washing increased. In contrast, Córdoba (2022) showed that companies that institutionalized participation (boards with labor representation, multi-stakeholder decision-making tables) demonstrated sustained coherence between discourse and practice.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Relational model of B Corps axes.

4.2 Quantitative analysis of regional specialization

The geographical distribution of research reveals significant thematic specializations. Colombia leads with 7 papers, focusing on Pillars 2 (Governance) and 3 (Financial Impact). Carvajal (2024) applied panel econometrics (Difference-in-Differences with TWFE) to 108 Colombian companies (42 B Corp certified, 66 controls), demonstrating that B certification correlates with increases in operating revenue (38%, <0.05) and gross profit (37%, p < 0.05), with no significant effects on operating profit (suggesting that the return materializes in operational efficiency, not value extraction). This finding is critical because it validates that sustainability can be financially viable in emerging markets.

In contrast, studies from Argentina (Ficco et al., 2023; Azcona et al., 2020) emphasized Pillars 2 and 5, with more cautious findings. Ficco et al. (2023) conducted content analysis of 74 reports and found that sustainability information disclosure reached only 66% on average (78% in the social dimension, 72% environmental, 48% economic). This suggests that regulatory institutionalization (BIC legislation in Argentina proposed in 2018) is still incomplete, resulting in incomplete reports. Globalli, the bibliometric analysis by Alonso-Martínez and González-Álvarez (2024) of nearly 700 documents from Scopus+WoS (2006–2024) identified that research on B Corps experienced acceleration pst-2016, with 77% of publications concentrated between 2019 and 2024. The most frequently associated theories were Stakeholder Theory (Freeman, 1984) with 13 mentions (31% of theoretical citations), followed by Shared Value (Porter and Kramer, 2011) with 8 mentions (19%). This confirms that B Corps are conceptualized as an evolution of stakeholder theory, not as a paradigmatic break.

Ultimately, Patterns documented across Colombia, Argentina, Mexico, and Ecuador illustrate how hybrid governance creates exposure to regulatory ambiguity and uneven recognition, conditions that mirror broader institutional constraints reported in African markets (Muiru, 2019). In East Africa, research illustrates the expansion of the B Movement reflects a cultural shift toward socially oriented business models, yet it also reveals the absence of consolidated legal structures and the need for robust measurement and accountability systems to strengthen legitimacy and scale impact (Muiru, 2019). A comparable dynamic emerges in Southeast Asia, where the adoption of sustainability standards faces complex implementation challenges shaped by uneven technological capacity, competitive pressures, and the organizational restructuring required to integrate sustainable management practices (Huang et al., 2019). Taken together, these factors indicate that those regions share characteristics typical of emerging markets, such as incomplete institutional infrastructures, certification barriers, and persistent tensions between economic efficiency and sustainable transformation (Muiru, 2019; Huang et al., 2019); however, deeper research should be placed in this comparison aspect.

4.3 Circular economy as an integrative framework: from gap to potential

One of the most significant gaps identified in this review is the weak connection between B Corporations and the Circular Economy (CE), a finding that is particularly striking given their strong conceptual alignment and strategic potential. Of the 29 documents analyzed, the vast majority (22 documents, representing 75.9%) fail to make any connection to the circular economy. Only two documents (6.9%) of Alonso-Martínez and González-Álvarez (2024) and Fierro Aguilar (2023), explicitly and centrally mention it, while five others (17.2%) address circularity only indirectly. This disconnection is paradoxical, as both frameworks seek to replicate systemic logics, prioritizing closed loops (material vs. value) and regeneration (resources vs. social capital) while advocating for stakeholder governance that favors extended responsibility.

This silence creates a notable operational gap. While the 22 documents that do not address CE extensively discuss innovation (Nosratabadi et al., 2019), governance (Montiel Vargas, 2022), and process redesign (Amaya and Zuluaga, 2023), they fail to explicitly codify circularity as an expectation. This suggests that while the operational ingredients exist, researchers and implementers have not yet systematized them into a coherent circular strategy. Consequently, governance appears to be the critical link required to bridge this divide. Montiel Vargas (2022) argues that without multi-stakeholder governance, the circular economy remains fragmented, reduced to isolated actions like bottle recycling without a genuine system redesign. Conversely, B Corp governance structures can transform these efforts into an integrated value ecology, where high transparency reporting compels firms to consider both upstream suppliers and downstream users.

Furthermore, innovation and trust play pivotal roles in operationalizing this relationship. Nosratabadi et al. (2019) stand out as an exception by identifying sustainable models in B Corps, such as agri-food systems and regenerative design, yet even this study stops short of fully systematizing these innovations as integrated B-circular strategies. Nevertheless, examples like Algramo (container return) and TriCiclos (waste upcycling) demonstrate that these initiatives arise from an integrated purpose seeking regenerative value rather than regulatory pressure. Similarly, Carvajal (2024) highlights that B certification acts as a vital signal of trust, enabling industrial symbiosis where one company’s waste becomes another’s raw material, an ecosystem heavily dependent on inter-organizational cooperation.

Based on this evidence, it is theorized that B Corporations function as “catalytic nodes” for circular transitions in emerging economies, leveraging capabilities often absent in other models like institutional legitimacy, integrated governance, and continuous learning. Their status facilitates negotiation with institutions to close loops, while their governance models internalize externalities. Fierro Aguilar (2023) provides empirical weight to this potential, documenting that 5 out of 8 studied Ecuadorian B Corps pivoted toward a regenerative economy post-certification, often without explicitly labeling the shift as “circular.” This confirms that the potential exists but remains largely implicit.

In this way, while B Corps are not inherently circular, they possess the purpose-driven structures required for faster and more stable circular transitions than traditional models. To bridge the current gap, a robust research agenda is recommended, including comparative studies between circular and non-circular B Corps, policy analyses regarding BIC frameworks, and the mapping of circular ecosystems. By systematizing this potential and integrating it into B Certification protocols, the latent synergy between these two movements can be fully realized.

The originality of this study lies in reframing, according to the literature context understanding, that B Corporations should not be stated as normative labels or ethical credentials, but as a governance-based sustainability management systems that reconfigure decision-making structures, stakeholder accountability, and organizational capability. Also, the identified challenges stated as legal hybridity, legitimacy gaps, and uneven institutional support emerge as structural characteristics of sustainability-oriented organizations operating in emerging economies rather than as limitations of the B Corp model itself.

4.4 B Corps and circular economy an unexplored relation

The reviewed literature reveals a strong conceptual and strategic convergence between the B Corp model and the Circular Economy (CE), as both frameworks seek to transform how value is created in contemporary organizations through inclusive, regenerative, and sustainability-driven approaches. The guiding logic of B Corps, grounded in the triple impact framework introduced by Elkington (1997) and expanded in recent sustainability research (Alonso-Martínez and González-Álvarez, 2024), aligns naturally with CE principles. These principles, as defined by Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015), emphasize eliminating waste by design, restoring natural systems, and decoupling economic growth from resource depletion. Through this lens, B Corps become organizational prototypes capable of embodying CE’s restorative ambitions while simultaneously responding to societal expectations of transparency, legitimacy, and contributions to stakeholder well-being (Freeman, 2015; Porter and Kramer, 2011).

Within this intersection, CE emerges not as a peripheral concept but as a strategic axis for sustainability-oriented innovation in B Corps. Boons and Lüdeke-Freund (2013) argue that sustainable innovation requires redesigning the very architecture of business models, a shift fully compatible with CE mechanisms such as regeneration, looping, optimization, and virtualization. These mechanisms frequently materialize in B Corps, which operate as social learning laboratories where value chains are redesigned through circular inputs, regenerative processes, and strategies that extend product life cycles. Da Re et al. (2021) reinforce this perspective by showing that CE-oriented firms contribute to urban and territorial resilience through ecosystemic collaboration and resource recirculation. In the B Corp context, this complements the hybrid organizational dynamics observed by Tabares (2021), who highlights how these firms navigate tensions between purpose, performance, and environmental responsibility.

Methodological tools such as the B Impact Assessment (BIA) and Circulytics enable B Corps to examine their practices through CE lenses, structuring evaluations of material circularity, environmental loops, product life extension, and efficient use of resources. These instruments bridge strategic planning with operational measurement, allowing companies to operationalize CE principles in governance, production, logistics, and reporting (Nosratabadi et al., 2019). From an organizational change standpoint, Jones (2008) points out that such transitions require intentional structural redesign, leadership alignment, and cultural transformation, processes that empirical studies in Colombia and Chile corroborate. Amaya and Zuluaga (2023) and Martín Castro (2023) document that B certification often triggers internal restructuring and strengthens social engagement, indirectly creating conditions that facilitate CE adoption.

Despite the deep conceptual alignment, the literature identifies a persistent gap between the adoption of triple-impact principles and the full implementation of circular business models. While B Corps exhibit strong performance in social and environmental transparency (Ficco et al., 2023; León-Baquero and González-García, 2025), CE practices tend to be uneven and are frequently driven by ethical motivations rather than fully institutionalized circular strategies. This gap illustrates the challenge of translating sustainability commitments into standardized routines and technical models, a tension especially evident in hybrid organizations where mission, market pressures, and social expectations coexist (Dacin et al., 2011). Adams et al. (2015) further note that sustainability-oriented innovation requires dynamic capabilities and continuous learning, conditions that not all B Corps have fully developed.

External constraints also hinder the consolidation of fully circular models. Studies on Latin American B Corps (Soria-Barreto et al., 2021; Correa et al., 2019) highlight barriers such as low public awareness of CE, insufficient regulatory frameworks, and limited access to specialized green financing. Da Re et al. (2021) report that most territories lack the institutional infrastructure needed to support circular transitions, while Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015) emphasizes the importance of economic incentives and systemic collaboration to achieve CE at scale. Although B Corps often enjoy strong reputational capital and high stakeholder trust, these attributes alone do not guarantee rapid advances in CE adoption, as evidenced by challenges in certification visibility and market traction documented by Azcona et al. (2020) and Salmerón Lechuga (2019).

The overall conclusion is that the B Corp model provides the ethical and managerial foundation for sustainability-driven business transformation, while the Circular Economy supplies the environmental management methodology needed to operationalize regenerative practices. As Acevedo-Duque et al. (2023) point out, B Corps strengthen territorial and country branding by demonstrating responsible and innovative production systems, which in turn facilitates the dissemination of CE principles. Nonetheless, for the full ecological promise of circularity to materialize, firms must institutionalize structured methodologies, develop specialized capabilities, and engage in coordinated work with markets, regulators, and communities. The synergy between the B Corp model and CE thus represents a promising path toward interdependent value creation, but one that requires deliberate managerial design, sustained collaboration, and continuous adaptation.

5 Conclusion

The synthesis of the six axes shows that B Corporations in Ibero-America are not simply adopting a hybrid model but engaging in an ongoing redefinition of what enterprise can be in regions marked by inequality, fragmented institutions and pressing socio-environmental demands. Their purpose-driven orientation responds to structural gaps that traditional business has been unable to address, while their fluid identities reflect the need to navigate volatile political and cultural environments. Governance and transparency function as instruments of credibility in places where trust is fragile, and financial signaling gains relevance in markets shaped by asymmetry and uncertainty. Efforts toward inclusion reveal both genuine transformative potential and the persistence of historical barriers that shape organizational practice. Finally, the legal and territorial conditions of the region act as catalysts, constraints and testing grounds for the evolution of the model. Seen together, these dynamics position B Corporations as experimental spaces where new forms of economic life are being imagined and contested within the complexities of Ibero-American reality.

The results present a significant operational paradox regarding the Circular Economy. Despite the theoretical alignment between the regenerative goals of the B movement and circular principles, 75.9% of the analyzed literature fails to make this connection explicit. This silence reveals a critical gap while B Corps possess the governance tools required to close material loops (upstream and downstream), they have yet to systematize these practices into a coherent circular strategy. Transitioning from implicit sustainable practices to explicit circular compliance represents the most urgent frontier for the model’s consolidation.

A central finding of this study is the structural dominance of Governance and Legitimacy (Axis 2) as the articulating backbone of the B movement. With the highest Thematic Density Index (IDT: 9.1) and critical inter-axis connectivity, the evidence demonstrates that governance in B Corps transcends simple compliance. Instead, it functions as a mechanism of trust that enables financial signaling and validates innovation. By internalizing externalities through multi-stakeholder frameworks, these organizations transform transparency into a competitive asset, bridging the gap between internal purpose and external legitimacy.

Additionally this research validates that the transformative capacity of B Corporations resides not in isolated attributes, but in the indissoluble articulation of a strategic triad where Governance serves as the structural anchor that disciplines management toward purpose; Innovation operationalizes this mandate through open, regenerative solutions; and Trust emerges as the validation capital that legitimizes the model amidst market skepticism. This systemic interdependence confirms that B Corps function as nodes of strategic coherence, demonstrating that the seamless integration of these three axes is the indispensable prerequisite for transitioning from the rhetoric of social responsibility to a verifiable, scalable regenerative economy.

Overall, this study advances sustainability management research by demonstrating how B Corporations function as hybrid governance systems that navigate institutional fragmentation and other constrains generating insights that are highly relevant for their proper understanding, implementation and improvement on the stated gaps in emerging economies undergoing sustainability transitions across the Global South.

5.1 Limitations

This review presents several limitations related to its temporal scope (2016–2025), the linguistic restriction (Spanish and English), and the methodological heterogeneity of the included studies, which complicates the direct comparability of results. Likewise, the meta-aggregative approach may entail constraints, as the interpretive synthesis relies on subsequent stages of data processing that may introduce subjectivity in the categorization of findings. Despite these limitations, the review provides practical implications by guiding companies in the adoption of sustainable governance and transparency mechanisms; theoretical implications by contributing to the updating of relevant conceptual frameworks; and policy implications by underscoring the importance of legal frameworks (such as BIC legislation) for consolidating the model across different national contexts.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author contributions

OA: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. FG: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was received for this work and/or its publication. This research was funded by the Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia (UPTC), under the institutional research project SGI3917-UPTC, developed at the Sede Central, Tunja, Colombia. The financial support provided by UPTC was essential for the development, execution, and dissemination of the results presented in this article.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Acevedo-Duque, Á., Álvarez-Herranz, A. P., and Artigas, W. (2023). Contribución a la marca país a través de la sostenibilidad de los procesos productivos en Chile: Empresas B Corp. Retos 13, 253–271. doi: 10.17163/ret.n26.2023.05

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., and Overy, P. (2015). Sustainability-oriented innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18, 180–205. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12068

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Alonso-Martínez, D., and González-Álvarez, N. (2024). A bibliometric analysis of B corps and sustainable business ecosystems. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 31, 6019–6043. doi: 10.1002/csr.2906

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Álvarez Vásquez, L. F., and Cabrera Erazo, D. P. (2020). Desarrollo de un modelo de educación sobre el modelo de Empresas B en Colombia desde la academia [Tesis de maestría, Universidad EAN]. Cali, Colombia: Universidad Autónoma de Occidente.

Google Scholar

Amaya, L. M., and Zuluaga, C. A. (2023). El efecto de la certificación B sobre cinco empresas colombianas: un análisis multicaso [Tesis de maestría, Universidad Autónoma de Occidente]. Quito, Ecuador: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.

Google Scholar

Azcona, G., Parisi, N., and Pokrajac, I. (2020). Empresas B, la evolución de la responsabilidad social empresaria [Tesina de Contador Público Nacional, Universidad Nacional de Misiones]. Mendoza, Argentina.

Google Scholar

Bansal, S., Garg, I., and Sharma, G. D. (2019). Social entrepreneurship as a path for social change and driver of sustainable development: a systematic review and research agenda. Sustainability 11:1091. doi: 10.3390/su11041091

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17, 99–120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boons, F., and Lüdeke-Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9–19. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bustos Báez, S., and Wastavino Muñoz, F. (2016). ¿De qué manera las Empresas B generan impactos positivos en el ámbito social y medioambiental? Revista Gestión de las Personas y Tecnología 27, 21–33.

Google Scholar

Carvajal, M. Á. (2024). Evaluación de impacto de la certificación de Empresa B sobre el rendimiento financiero de las empresas en Colombia [Tesis de maestría en Políticas Públicas, Universidad de los Andes, Escuela de Gobierno Alberto Lleras Camargo]

Google Scholar

Correa, M. E. (2019). Sistema B y las Empresas B en América Latina: Un movimiento social que cambia el sentido del éxito empresarial. Caracas, Venezuela: CAF.

Google Scholar

Correa, P. (2022). Innovación en modelos de negocios: Empresas B. Respons. Sustain. 7, 55–66. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6582824

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Correa, M. E., and Cooper, M. A.Academia B (2019). Sistema B y las empresas B en América Latina: Un movimiento social que cambia el sentido del éxito empresarial. Montevideo, Uruguay: Banco de desarrollo de América Latina.

Google Scholar

Córdoba, F. de. (2022). Los secretos de las marcas. Kailas Editorial.

Google Scholar

Da Re, R., Daghero, M., Groisman, D., Mantero Alvarez, S., Nemirovsky, Y., Parisi, D., et al. (2021). La economía circular y la resiliencia de las ciudades Fundación Avina. Available online at: https://biblioteca.avina.net/biblioteca/la-economia-circular-y-la-resiliencia-de-las-ciudades/

Google Scholar

Dacin, M. T., Dacin, P. A., and Tracey, P. (2011). Social entrepreneurship: a critique and future direction. Organ. Sci. 22, 1203–1213. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1100.0620

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

DiMaggio, P. J., and Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 48, 147–160. doi: 10.2307/2095101

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., and Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 133, 285–296. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Oxford: Capstone.

Google Scholar

Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2015). Hacia una economía circular: Motivos económicos para una transición acelerada (versión en español). Cowes, Isle of Wight, United Kingdo: Asociación Mutual de Protección Familiar (AMPF). Available online at: http://repositorio.ampf.org.ar/greenstone/sites/localsite/collect/economia/index/assoc/D219.dir/hacia-una-ecomomia-circular.pdf (Accessed August 5, 2025).

Google Scholar

Felin, T., Foss, N. J., and Ployhart, R. E. (2015). The microfoundations movement in strategy and organization theory. Acad. Manage. Ann. 9, 575–632. doi: 10.1080/19416520.2015.1007651

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ficco, C., Sader, G., and Danna, B. (2023). Revelación de información de sostenibilidad de las empresas B argentinas. En XII Congreso de Administración del Centro de la República, VIII Congreso de Ciencias Económicas del Centro de la República, IX Encuentro Internacional de Administración del Centro de la República. Villa María, Argentina: Universidad Nacional de Villa María.

Google Scholar

Fierro Aguilar, J. (2023). Análisis de las Empresas B y su aporte al desarrollo sostenible en el Ecuador [Tesis de maestría, Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar]. Quito, Ecuador: Editor: Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar.

Google Scholar

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.

Google Scholar

Freeman, R. E. (2015). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge, Reino Unido: Cambridge University Press.

Google Scholar

Gambaro, E., and García, L. N. (2021). Empresas B: Una gestión estratégica apoyada en el conocimiento. Actual. Contab. FACES 24, 125–149. doi: 10.53766/ACCON/2021.42.05

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

George, G., Merrill, R. K., and Schillebeeckx, S. J. D. (2021). Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship: how digital innovations are helping tackle climate change and sustainable development. Entrep. Theory Pract. 45, 999–1027. doi: 10.1177/1042258719899425

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Groppa, O., and Sluga, M. L. (2015). Economía, don y reciprocidad [Proyecto de investigación]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina, Centro de Estudios en Economía y Cultura.

Google Scholar

Hernández Gutiérrez, G. (2020). B-Corps y propiedad de empresa. Estudio de casos en empresas con propósito en Guadalajara-México [Tesis doctoral, Mondragon Unibertsitatea]

Google Scholar

Hiller, N. J., and Beauchesne, M. M. (2014). “Chapter 30: Executive leadership: CEOs, top management teams, and organizational-level outcomes” in The Oxford handbook of leadership and organizations. ed. D. V. Day (New York, NY: Oxford University Press).

Google Scholar

Huang, S. Y., Chiu, A. A., Chao, P. C., and Arniati, A. (2019). Critical success factors in implementing enterprise resource planning systems for sustainable corporations. Sustainability 11:6785.

Google Scholar

Huerta Gómez, C. (2018). El cuarto sector de la economía en Chile. ¿Es necesaria una legislación para las Empresas B. Available online at: https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/151833

Google Scholar

Jones, G. (2008). Teoría organizacional: Diseño y cambio en las organizaciones. Madrid, España: Prentice Hall Hispanoamericana.

Google Scholar

León-Baquero, A. F., and González-García, L. Y. (2025). Informes de sostenibilidad en empresas B colombianas: legitimidad y capital simbólico (2010–2023). Rev. Venez. Gerenc. 30, 165–179. doi: 10.52080/rvgluz.30.especial13.11

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Llamas Hubner, I. S., and Cruz Sinco, L. A. (2023). El rol del docente universitario en la transformación de la cultura empresarial. Universidad Juárez Autónoma de Tabasco.

Google Scholar

Lockwood, C., Munn, Z., and Porritt, K. (2015). Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int. J. Evid. Based Healthc. 13, 179–187. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000062,

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mackey, J., and Sisodia, R. (2013). Conscious capitalism: Liberating the heroic spirit of business. Boston, Estados Unidos: Harvard Business Review Press.

Google Scholar

Martín Castro, D. P. (2023). Análisis y caracterización de las Empresas B en Colombia (2019–2023): Estudio del caso Alquería [Tesis de maestría, Universidad Internacional de Andalucía]

Google Scholar

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, DGPRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. (2009) 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Montiel Vargas, A. (2022). Las Empresas B (B Corps) y la regulación de las sociedades con propósito (benefit corporations) en Derecho comparado. REVESCO. Rev. Estud. Coop. 141:e82253. doi: 10.5209/REVE.82253

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Muiru, O. W. (2019). The B movement in East Africa: a shift in the culture of business. Afr. Eval. J. 7:a333. doi: 10.4102/aej.v7i1.333

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Nosratabadi, S., Mosavi, A., Shamshirband, S., Zavadskas, E. K., Rakotonirainy, A., and Chau, K. W. (2019). Sustainable business models: a review. Sustainability 11:1663. doi: 10.3390/su11061663

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Page, M. J., E, M. K. J., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Porter, M. E., and Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harv. Bus. Rev. 89, 62–77.

Google Scholar

Rodríguez Díaz, A. V. (2018). Análisis del modelo de desarrollo empresarial a través del sistema: Empresas B [Monografía de especialización en Gerencia de Empresas, Fundación Universidad de América]

Google Scholar

Rodríguez-Téllez, F., and Pacheco-Sánchez, C. A. (2019). Empresas B: un diagnóstico sobre su aplicabilidad. Rev. Cient. Profund. 10, 2–9. doi: 10.22463/24221783.3354

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Saiz-Álvarez, J. M., Vega-Muñoz, A., Acevedo-Duque, Á., and Castillo, D. 2020 B corps: a socioeconomic approach for the COVID-19 post-crisis Front. Psychol. 11:1867 Frontiers Media SA doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01867

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Salmerón Lechuga, P. (2019). Análisis de la certificación B Corp [Trabajo final de máster, Universidad Politécnica de Cartagena]

Google Scholar

Sistema B and Academia B. (2019). Entendiendo el impacto sistémico de las Empresas B para ofrecer oportunidades sociales y económicas a mujeres y jóvenes en América Latina (Reporte técnico final). Fundación Impulsora de un Nuevo Sector en la Economía – Sistema B.

Google Scholar

Soria-Barreto, K., Zuniga-Jara, S., and Contreras, F. (2021). Compromiso laboral en empresas B en Latinoamérica. Inf. Tecnol. 32, 113–120. doi: 10.4067/S0718-07642021000300113

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Tabares, S. (2021). Certified B corporations: an approach to tensions of sustainable-driven hybrid business models in an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. 317:128380. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128380

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Virgis, A. (2020). Sustainable business models and B corps: Exploring impact performance in an international setting [Tesis de maestría, Università degli Studi di Padova]

Google Scholar

Wendy Stubbs,, (2017). "Sustainable entrepreneurship and B corps," Bus. Strat. Environ., Wiley Blackwell, 26, 331–344, doi: 10.1002/bse.1920

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar