Becoming a B Corp in the Netherlands does not require a new legal form. Dutch law has no benefit corporation, so a besloten vennootschap (BV) meets B Lab’s legal requirement by amending its articles of association, which under article 2:234 BW is done by notarial deed following a shareholders’ resolution. The amendment records that the board must take account of the interests of all stakeholders in pursuing the company’s purpose, and it is that mission lock, rather than the certificate, that has legal effect.
Certification, legal form and the two things people confuse
A benefit corporation is a legal form. It exists in a number of United States jurisdictions and in some other countries, and it is created by statute. A B Corp is something different: a certification awarded by B Lab, a private non-profit organisation, to companies that meet its standards for social and environmental performance, accountability and transparency.
The Netherlands has no benefit corporation. What it has is a proposal, the besloten vennootschap met een maatschappelijk doel or BVm, which went through internet consultation but has not been introduced in Parliament and has no date of entry into force. Until that changes, a Dutch company pursuing a social mission does so through an ordinary legal form: usually a BV, sometimes a cooperative, sometimes a stichting where no profit is distributed.
That is not a gap in Dutch law so much as a difference in starting point, and understanding it is the key to the whole subject.
Dutch law never had shareholder primacy
The B Corp movement grew out of jurisdictions where directors owe their duty primarily to shareholders, and where pursuing a social purpose at the expense of returns can expose a board to claims. The benefit corporation was invented to solve that problem. Dutch law does not have it.
Article 2:239 lid 5 BW requires the directors of a BV to be guided, in the performance of their duties, by the interest of the company and of the enterprise connected with it. Article 2:250 lid 2 BW says the same for supervisory directors. The Hoge Raad has held that this company interest is as a rule the promotion of the sustainable success of the enterprise, and that in determining it the board must take account of the interests of all those involved in the company and its enterprise. Shareholders are one of those groups; they are not the only one, and their interest does not automatically prevail.
A Dutch director who declines a profitable course of action because of its effect on employees or the environment is not breaching a duty. Article 2:239 lid 5 BW directs the board to the interest of the company and its enterprise, and that interest is broader than the return to shareholders.
What the B Corp legal requirement therefore does in a Dutch context is narrower and more useful than the marketing suggests. It does not overturn a default of shareholder primacy, because there is none. It converts a general statutory norm into a specific, written and enforceable purpose, which is a real change: a board can be held to a stated mission far more readily than to an abstract company interest. Our articles on the tension between shareholder and corporate interest and on the role of the board of directors set out the underlying rules.
What B Lab now requires
The certification standards changed substantially in 2025, and any guide written before that is out of date. The old model, in which a company completed the B Impact Assessment and needed a verified score of at least eighty points out of two hundred, has been replaced.
Under the current B Lab standards a company must meet minimum requirements across seven impact topics rather than accumulate points, and all applicable requirements have to be met. The seven topics are purpose and stakeholder governance; fair work; justice, equity, diversity and inclusion; human rights; climate action; environmental stewardship and circularity; and government affairs and collective action. Before those are assessed, a company completes foundation requirements and a risk profile, which determine which requirements apply given its size, sector and structure.
Two consequences matter for a Dutch company planning the route. The first is that strength in one area no longer compensates for weakness in another, which was the practical effect of a points total. A company with excellent employment practices and no climate measurement will not certify. The second is that the requirements scale with size, so a small BV is not held to the same operational apparatus as a multinational, but it cannot skip a topic either.
The legal requirement sits within the first topic, purpose and stakeholder governance, and it is the part that requires a notary. Everything else is measured; this part is drafted.
Recertification and continuing obligations
Certification is not permanent. Companies recertify on a three-yearly cycle, submitting an updated assessment and evidence, and the B Impact Report is published on B Lab’s website so that anyone can see the result. That publication is itself a commitment: a company that certifies makes its performance data public and keeps it public.
There is also an interaction with EU law that has become urgent. B Lab has aligned its requirements with the Empowering Consumers Directive, and companies communicating to consumers in the EU face deadlines tied to that directive, which applies from 27 September 2026. A certification claim is itself a sustainability claim, and it has to satisfy the same rules as any other. We deal with those rules in our article on greenwashing and ESG compliance.
Amending the articles: how it actually works
The legal step is a statutenwijziging, an amendment of the articles of association, and it follows a fixed sequence under Book 2 of the Burgerlijk Wetboek.
The general meeting resolves to amend the articles. Article 2:231 BW governs that resolution, and the articles themselves may require a qualified majority or a quorum; the notice convening the meeting must state that an amendment is proposed and the text of the proposal must be available for inspection at the company’s office from the moment of convocation. Article 2:234 BW then requires the amendment to be executed by notarial deed before a Dutch civil-law notary, and the amended text is filed with the Kamer van Koophandel.
Three points are easy to miss and expensive to correct. Where a class of shares carries special rights, or where the amendment prejudices a right conferred on a specific shareholder by the articles, the consent of that class or that holder is required under article 2:231 lid 4 BW. Where the company has a works council, the intended amendment may fall within its advisory rights under the Wet op de ondernemingsraden if it forms part of an important organisational change. And where the company has an investor, the shareholders’ agreement almost always contains a reserved matter covering amendments to the articles, so the contractual consent has to be obtained before the meeting is called.
The company does not change identity, does not need a new registration number and does not change its tax status. It remains the same BV; only its constitution has changed. Our guide on the articles of association and on the BV as the Dutch limited liability company set out the wider framework.
What the clause has to say
B Lab prescribes an outcome rather than a text, and the drafting has to fit Dutch company law. Three elements normally appear.
Purpose. The object clause states that the company pursues, alongside its commercial activities, a positive material impact on society and the environment through its business and operations.
Duty of the board. A provision confirming that in performing their duties the directors take account of the consequences of their decisions for shareholders, employees, customers, suppliers, the communities in which the company operates and the environment, alongside the short-term and long-term interests of the company.
Entrenchment. A heightened majority for any amendment to those provisions, so that the mission cannot be removed by a simple majority after an investment round or a sale.
The entrenchment is the part with real teeth and the part most often watered down in negotiation. A mission clause that a future majority shareholder can delete at will protects nothing. A qualified majority, or a requirement that a specific holder consent, makes the commitment durable through exactly the events that threaten it.
The mission lock is only as strong as the majority needed to remove it. Draft the amendment threshold before you draft the mission, because that is the provision an incoming investor will test.
What the clause does not do
It does not create a right of action for employees, communities or environmental organisations against the board. Dutch law channels claims about the performance of directors’ duties through the company itself, through the shareholders’ right to seek an inquiry before the Ondernemingskamer, and through liability under article 2:9 BW for improper performance of duties, which is owed to the company. A clause in the articles gives those internal mechanisms a concrete standard to apply; it does not open a new door to third parties.
Nor does it insulate the board from accountability for financial performance. Directors of a mission-driven BV are exposed to the same rules on improper management, on the duty to file accounts and on liability in insolvency as any other board. Adding a social purpose adds a consideration to the balancing exercise; it does not remove the other side of the balance.
Traditional BV compared with a mission-locked BV
| Aspect | Standard Dutch BV | BV with a B Corp mission lock |
|---|---|---|
| Duty of the board | Guided by the interest of the company and its enterprise, article 2:239 lid 5 BW. | The same duty, made concrete by a stated purpose and a list of interests to be weighed. |
| Where the purpose lives | In policy documents and management intentions, changeable at will. | In the articles, changeable only by notarial deed and the majority the articles require. |
| Effect of a share sale | A new owner can redirect the company immediately. | A new owner takes the company with the purpose and the entrenchment attached. |
| Accountability | Internal, through the general meeting and article 2:9 BW. | Internal, plus public reporting through the B Impact Report and B Lab verification. |
| Legal form and tax | BV. | Still a BV; the amendment does not change the legal form or the tax position. |
The comparison makes the honest case for certification clearer than the rhetoric usually does. The gain is durability and verified transparency, not a change in the legal nature of directors’ duties.
Why Dutch companies go through with it
The certification is voluntary, costs money and takes months, so the reasons have to be commercial as well as principled. Four recur in the mandates we see.
The first is protecting a mission against the company’s own future. Founders who intend to raise capital, bring in a partner or eventually sell face a straightforward problem: everything they built can be redirected by whoever holds the shares afterwards. Entrenching the purpose in the articles is the only mechanism that survives a change of ownership, and it is the reason many founders start the process at the point of a funding round rather than before it.
The second is credibility in a market where self-declared sustainability claims are now legally risky. From 27 September 2026 generic environmental claims and self-designed labels are prohibited outright in consumer communication across the EU. A third-party certification based on a published assessment is one of the few things a company can point to that is neither generic nor self-made, which is precisely why the certification claim itself has to be used accurately and within its scope.
The third is recruitment and retention. A verified standard on employment practices, published and reassessed every three years, is a harder signal than a careers page, and in a tight labour market it is a differentiator that competitors cannot simply copy.
The fourth is access to capital and to supply chains. Impact funds and a growing number of corporate procurement processes screen for verified standards, and a certification that maps onto the topics used in regulatory reporting is easier to present than an internally designed framework.
Where it fits with the reporting rules
Certification is not a substitute for regulatory reporting, and the two should not be confused. The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive applies to a narrow group of large undertakings after the Omnibus I directive narrowed its scope in 2026, so most Dutch companies pursuing certification fall outside it entirely.
What certification does provide is a data discipline that makes any later reporting obligation manageable. The topics used by B Lab were aligned to the direction of European regulation, so a company that has measured its emissions, mapped its supply chain and documented its employment practices for certification has done most of the underlying work that a reporting obligation, a customer questionnaire or a due diligence exercise will ask for. Our article on ESG regulation in 2026 sets out which obligations bite on whom.
Certification is a governance and reputation instrument, not a compliance one. It does not discharge a reporting duty, and a company that treats it as though it does will be caught out by the first customer questionnaire that asks for underlying data.
Getting the shareholders on board
The legal step is simple; the negotiation around it is not. A mission lock changes what future shareholders can do with their own company, and that has to be addressed openly rather than presented as an administrative formality.
Existing shareholders are generally the easier group, because the amendment usually reflects a decision already taken. The issues that arise are about scope: how specifically the purpose is defined, whether the entrenchment applies to the object clause alone or also to the board duty provision, and whether a shareholder who disagrees has any exit.
Incoming investors are the harder group, and the point at which the mission lock is discussed determines the outcome. Raised in the term sheet, it is a feature of the company being invested in. Raised during documentation, it becomes a concession to be traded. Investors who are comfortable with the purpose will often accept the entrenchment provided the drafting is precise enough to be predictable, and precision is therefore in everyone’s interest: a clause requiring the board to consider stakeholders is workable, a clause requiring it to prioritise them over returns in all circumstances is not.
Minority shareholders deserve particular attention. A purpose clause can affect the value of a minority stake and the ability to realise it, and a minority that was not properly consulted is a candidate for a dispute later. Our articles on minority shareholders and on shareholder disputes set out what those rights are.
The route from a standard BV to certification
The sequence below reflects how the process runs in practice, and the order matters: the legal work is cheap to do early and expensive to do late.
Assess where you stand
Start with B Lab’s assessment tool against the current standards. It is free and confidential, and its purpose at this stage is diagnostic: it tells you which of the seven topics you already satisfy and which will require operational change. Because the points model is gone, the output is a list of unmet requirements rather than a score, which is considerably more actionable.
Expect the gaps to be concentrated in measurement rather than in intention. Most companies that consider certification already behave reasonably; what they lack is documented policy, data on emissions, and a written governance structure that shows who decides what.
Close the operational gaps
This is the longest phase and the one that determines the timeline. It typically involves formalising employment policies, measuring and reporting emissions, mapping the supply chain, documenting a grievance mechanism, and putting a diversity and inclusion policy on paper. Each of those has a legal dimension: employment policies have to comply with Dutch employment law and with the works council’s rights, supply chain requirements land in contracts, and a grievance mechanism has to work alongside the whistleblower obligations under the Wet bescherming klokkenluiders.
Amend the articles
Draft the amendment early, even if it is executed late. Getting shareholder consent, checking the shareholders’ agreement, involving the works council where required and agreeing the entrenchment threshold all take time, and none of it can be compressed into the week before a submission deadline. The notarial execution itself is quick once the resolution is in place.
Verify, sign and publish
The submission is reviewed by B Lab, which will ask for supporting evidence, and the process concludes with the signature of B Lab’s agreement and declaration and the publication of the impact report. From that moment the company carries a public commitment, and the way it describes that commitment falls squarely within the rules on sustainability claims.
Then keep it
Recertification every three years against standards that themselves develop is the part companies underestimate. The practical answer is to assign the file to a named person, keep the underlying data current rather than reconstructing it, and treat the mission clause as something the board reports against annually rather than as a paragraph in a notarial deed nobody reads.
Alternatives worth considering
Certification is not the only way to lock in a purpose, and for some companies it is not the right one.
A stichting administratiekantoor, which issues depositary receipts against shares it holds, separates economic entitlement from control and is the classical Dutch instrument for protecting a company against a change of direction. It is more powerful than a mission clause and correspondingly more restrictive on shareholders.
A stichting as the operating entity, or as the holder of a golden share with veto rights over amendments to the articles, achieves entrenchment without an external standard. A cooperative gives members a structural voice in governance. And a well-drafted shareholders’ agreement can do much of the work at a fraction of the cost, though it binds only the parties to it and does not travel with the shares in the way that a provision in the articles does.
The choice between these depends on what you are protecting against. Against a future majority shareholder, the articles and the entrenchment threshold are the answer. Against a drift in management attention, an external standard with a three-yearly reassessment does more. Against both, they combine. Our corporate law guides and our article on the legal steps from idea to BV cover the underlying structures.
Communicating the certification without creating a legal risk
A certification is an asset only for as long as the claims made about it are accurate, and this is where certified companies most often create exposure for themselves.
The rules are the ordinary unfair commercial practices rules in articles 6:193a to 6:193j BW, reinforced from 27 September 2026 by the additions the Empowering Consumers Directive makes to the blacklist. Two of those additions bear directly on certification. A sustainability label may only be used if it is based on a certification scheme or established by a public authority, which B Lab’s certification is; and a generic environmental claim is prohibited unless recognised excellent environmental performance relevant to the claim can be demonstrated.
The distinction that matters is between saying what the certification is and saying what it implies. Stating that the company is a certified B Corp, naming the year of certification and linking to the published impact report is accurate and verifiable. Stating that the company is therefore sustainable, climate neutral or environmentally friendly is a generic claim that the certification does not by itself support, and the burden of proving it under article 6:193j BW falls on the company.
Three practical rules follow. Keep the claim tied to the certification and its scope. Do not use the certification to support a claim about a specific product unless the assessment covered that product. And review the wording whenever the certification is renewed, because a claim that was accurate in one cycle can become misleading if the underlying position changes.
If the certification lapses
Certification can end: a company may fail to meet the requirements at recertification, may choose not to renew, or may be affected by a change in its ownership or structure that takes it outside the scheme. The legal consequence is immediate and easy to overlook. Continuing to display the mark or to describe the company as certified after it has lapsed is a misleading commercial practice, and it is the kind of claim a competitor is well placed to notice.
The mission clause in the articles, by contrast, does not lapse. It remains in force until it is amended by notarial deed with the majority the articles require, which is the point of putting it there. A company that loses its certification therefore keeps its governance commitment and loses the external verification, and it should say exactly that rather than allowing the impression that nothing has changed.
This asymmetry is worth understanding before starting. The certificate is renewable and revocable; the amendment to the articles is durable and only removable by the company itself. If the objective is a lasting commitment, the notarial deed does the work and the certification proves it to the outside world.
Frequently asked questions
The questions below are the ones Dutch boards ask most often before starting the process.
How much does B Corp certification cost?
There isn't a single, flat fee for B Corp certification. Instead, the cost is scaled based on your company’s annual revenue. B Lab uses a tiered pricing structure, which keeps it accessible for everyone from fresh start-ups to established multinational corporations.
These annual fees can start from around a modest amount for smaller businesses and go up to a substantially higher amount for companies with large revenues. It helps to think of this not just as a fee, but as an investment. You're investing in a solid framework for ongoing improvement, building brand trust, and gaining entry into a global community of like-minded businesses.
What is the timeline for certification?
How long it takes to become a certified B Corp can vary quite a bit. The main factors are your company's size, its complexity, and where you stand on the B Impact Assessment (BIA) when you first start. For most small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), you can expect the process to take anywhere from six to twelve months.
This timeframe breaks down into a few key phases:
Completing the BIA: This is the initial self-assessment. It might take you a few weeks or a couple of months, really depending on how quickly you can pull together all the necessary data.
Improvement Phase: If your first score comes in below the 80 points that applied under the previous standards, you'll need to set aside time to make real changes to your operations and boost your score.
Verification and Review: This is the formal part where B Lab gets involved. It can take several months for an analyst to work through your assessment and verify your responses.
Does a B Corp have to be a non-profit?
This is a very common misconception, but the answer is no. B Corps are absolutely for-profit companies. The entire certification was specifically created for businesses that want to balance their purpose with making a profit, not for non-profit organisations.
B Corps compete in the market, generate revenue, and deliver value to shareholders just like any other business. The fundamental difference is their legally binding promise to also create value for society and the environment, holding them accountable to a much higher standard.
What happens after certification?
Achieving B Corp status isn't a one-and-done deal. It's the start of an ongoing commitment to doing better and being transparent about it. To keep your certification, your company has to go through a recertification process every three years.
This means you'll need to update your B Impact Assessment and prove you still meet the high standards you did the first time around. B Corps are also required to make their B Impact Report public on the B Lab website, so anyone can see their performance score. It’s all part of the commitment to transparency.
Law & More advises Dutch companies on the legal side of purpose-driven governance: drafting and entrenching a mission clause in the articles of association, guiding the shareholders’ resolution and the notarial amendment, checking the shareholders’ agreement and works council position, and making sure that the way a certification is communicated stays within the rules on sustainability claims. If you are considering the move from a standard BV to a certified B Corp, we can map the legal steps and the decisions that come with them. Please contact us to discuss your situation.
