Please help, I'm stuck on Q1 and Q2. I hope my answer to Q3 makes sense? I've included the entire text of the case study the questions are underneath.

CASE 2.2 A Double Bottom Line: Ben & Jerry's

In 1978, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield made a $12,000 investment and opened an ice cream company, originally called Ben & Jerry's Homemade. Their goal was to make a profit and also pursue a social mission. As Greenfield expressed it, "We measured our success not just by how much money we made, but by how much we contributed to the community. It was a two-part bottom line" (Folino, 2010). Some people called this approach "Ben & Jerry's double dip" (Page & Katz, 2012). The company grew through the 1980s and 1990s and remained committed to the social mission of its founders. With the creation of the Ben & Jerry's Foundation in 1985, the company gave 7.5 percent of its pretax profits to community-oriented projects. Its operations emphasized environmental sustainability, and it followed enlightened employment and community-relations policies.

By 1984, the company was in need of capital for expansion and undertook a public stock offering. This meant that it now had public shareholders (Folino, 2010). By 1999, the stock had fallen from $34 to $17, and some observers said that Ben & Jerry's management style did not include the discipline that investors demanded (Caligiuri, 2012). Pressure began to build to do something that would satisfy critical shareholders. In 2000, Ben & Jerry's announced that it was being acquired by Unilever, a large multinational corporation. It was reported that cofounder Ben Cohen and some members of Ben & Jerry's board had opposed the sale to Unilever. However, some argued that Ben & Jerry's board had no choice but to sell the company to the highest bidder, which was Unilever. This argument was based on the legal responsibility of a public company board of directors to maximize returns to shareholders. Some offered the case as evidence that a traditional business corporation model is "inhospitable, if not outright hostile" to the pursuit of social goals (Page & Katz, 2012). This understanding of the Ben & Jerry's case is advanced by some who advocate the need for new corporate forms, such as the benefit corporation, that would permit corporate directors to weigh social goals equally with profits to shareholders. However, other legal scholars argue that corporate law did not require the sale and that Ben & Jerry's could have continued to operate and pursue its social goals as an independent company (Page & Katz, 2012).

The new owner, Unilever, offered assurance that Ben & Jerry's would remain committed to its social mission and that it would operate as an autonomous unit of the parent company, with its own board, including the founders (Gelles, 2015). Unilever made a substantial gift to the Ben & Jerry's Foundation and pledged to continue its social commitment while also making the company profitable (Hayes, 2000). However, the new relationship was not without early tensions. Unilever required greater efficiencies and forced Ben & Jerry's to close a production plant, laying off workers, which previously had been against its values (Gelles, 2015). On one occasion, Unilever refused to permit employees of Ben & Jerry's from placing the company logo on a bus they were riding to a political protest, another break with previous practice (Gelles, 2015). Unilever did permit Ben & Jerry's to take independent positions on some issues. For example, in 2014, Vermont proposed a law requiring that labels disclose food content that includes GMOs (genetically modified organisms). Ben & Jerry's supported the law and committed to producing GMO-free products, although the parent company opposed the Vermont legislation (Boyle, 2014). In 2012, Ben & Jerry's became the first wholly owned subsidiary of a multinational corporation to become a Certified B Corp, a step that was supported by Unilever (Field, 2012). A Certified B Corp is required to produce an annual impact report, which scores the company's positive effects on the environment, workers, customers, community, and governance. Ben & Jerry's 2019 report showed a total impact score of 110, the highest on the scale (B Lab, 2019). In addition, parent Unilever increased its commitment to positive social impact, coming to define its own brand in terms of its contributions to sustainable living (Unilever, n.d.). In 2018, longtime Unilever executive Matthew McCarthy was appointed as the new CEO of Ben & Jerry's and pledged to continue and increase its social activism. As he explained, "I get the privilege of leading a team and a business that has a four-decade track record of not only making the best ice cream in the world, but actually putting its money where its mouth is in terms of driving progressive change" (Aiello, 2018).

Q1. Companies like Ben & Jerry's were designed to pursue social goals that reflected the values of their founders. What incentives might there be for a public company, like Unilever, to adopt such values?

Q2. In your opinion, is it realistic for a public, for-profit corporation to remain committed to social purposes, or will the demands of shareholders and investors for maximum profit inevitably win out over time?

Q3. The rating criteria for B Corps are provided on the B Lab website at https://bcorporation.net/certification. Do the criteria cover everything that should be considered or are there additional criteria that you would add?

• An analysis of Worth (2019) shows that B Corps' criteria are exhaustive and every element that should be used. The criteria capture organizations' most important performance, transparency, and legal requirements. Organizations are bound to meet the environmental and social performances, legal accountability, and public transparency elements to strike the right balance between purpose and profitability. The reason for establishing the gold standard is to motivate companies to race to the top-most position. B Corp assessment inspires practices that are considered to be beyond ordinary business activities. Therefore, every point that a business earns on the evaluation reflects a positive, incremental effect. The interests of shareholders, including suppliers, employees, and the community, are considered in the assessment criteria. Individuals also must note that B Corp standards are not legally binding. Nevertheless, it does not mean that new standards cannot be added to the criteria. The shareholder views regarding a balance between purpose and profit should be factored in the criteria.