Social Integrity Guide: A Practical Compliance Proposal for Social Impact Organizations

Bruna Prandi; Fernanda Cigainski Lisbinski

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602726

Article derived from a Course Conclusion Work (TCC), with content based on the student’s original work and adapted to the editorial format of the E&S Magazine with the support of the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by Instituto Pecege for textual synthesis and organization.

Summary

The growing demand for transparency and institutional accountability in the third sector has highlighted the scarcity of practical integrity instruments for small and medium-sized organizations. The study aimed to develop and evaluate the applicability of a Social Integrity Guide, conceived as a technical tool to support the gradual implementation of integrity practices in civil society organizations. The research, of an applied, qualitative, and exploratory nature, was structured in three stages: documentary analysis of national and international legislation, standards, and references on integrity, governance, and compliance; analysis of institutional best practices; and development and exploratory evaluation of the Guide’s applicability in a civil society organization. The results indicated the development of a guide composed of practical guidelines, checklists, and simplified instruments for the gradual implementation of governance mechanisms and irregularity prevention. The applicability of the proposal was evaluated in an animal protection association, where institutional gaps were identified and the adoption of initial governance practices was supported, such as the creation of a communication channel and a simplified risk matrix. It was concluded that the Guide constituted a viable technical instrument to support the implementation of integrity practices in small and medium-sized civil society organizations, contributing to the strengthening of governance, transparency, and accountability, and offering a practical alternative for the dissemination of the integrity culture in the third sector.

Keywords: Compliance; Governance; Integrity; Civil society organizations; Third sector.

1. Introduction

The Brazilian tertiary sector has been experiencing increasing attention to integrity, transparency, and governance. This movement is largely driven by the expansion of partnerships between civil society organizations and public authorities. This scenario has intensified demands for control, accountability, and reporting mechanisms, bringing non-profit organizations closer to practices traditionally associated with the corporate environment (Controladoria-Geral da União [CGU], 2022).

In this context, themes such as compliance, risk management, organizational ethics, and governance have become crucial elements in discussions about institutional sustainability, legitimacy, and strengthening public trust. Structured governance and accountability practices are considered essential factors for the perpetuity of civil society organizations, especially in the face of the growing demand for evidence of social impact and institutional responsibility. Thus, instruments aimed at promoting organizational integrity are progressively incorporated into discussions on management and governance in the third sector.

In Brazil, this movement gains new momentum with the processing of Bill No. 1,316 (Brazil, 2023), which proposes the mandatory adoption of integrity programs for private non-profit entities that establish agreements, contracts, or similar instruments with public administration. This proposal aligns with the principles of Law No. 12,846 (Brazil, 2013), known as the Anti-Corruption Law, and Decree No. 8,420 (Brazil, 2015), which regulates the administrative liability of legal entities for harmful acts. Such regulations establish the institutionalization of governance and integrity practices as essential tools for transparency, compliance, and the prevention of irregularities.

However, the implementation of integrity programs in the third sector faces significant challenges. There is a limitation of financial and human resources, which restricts the capacity to hire specialized consultancies or to structure areas dedicated to governance. There is also a scarcity of technical knowledge on compliance and risk management among managers, in addition to the predominance of poorly formalized organizational structures, where decision-making processes and administrative routines often lack documentation or standardization (Salamon, 2012; Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa [CGU], 2022).

Additionally, a large part of the normative references and available guidelines was originally developed for the public sector or for large companies. This results in complex models that are often inadequate for the operational reality of small and medium-sized civil society organizations (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2017). This disproportion between regulatory requirements and the institutional capacity of organizations can lead to the mere formal adoption of integrity mechanisms, without effective integration into organizational practices (DiMaggio; Powell, 1983).

Another challenge lies in the scarcity of practical and accessible instruments that help organizations convert requirements into concrete governance procedures. Consequently, many civil society organizations rely on external consultancies to structure integrity programs, which limits their autonomy and the dissemination of these practices (Instituto Brasileiro de Governança Corporativa [IBGC], 2016; CGU, 2022). In this scenario, a significant gap is identified between the regulatory demands for institutional integrity and the operational capacity of civil society organizations to implement them. Although norms and guides exist for the public and private sectors, there is a lack of specific tools to support third-sector organizations, especially small and medium-sized ones, in structuring practices compatible with their reality.

Given this scenario, the present study proposes the development of a Social Integrity Guide as a technical instrument. This guide aims to bridge normative requirements with the operational reality of civil society organizations, contributing to the strengthening of transparency, public trust, and adequate resource management, especially in entities that work with vulnerable populations and causes of collective interest. Academically, the research expands discussions on social compliance and governance in non-corporate contexts, proposing an applied model that articulates normative frameworks and institutional practices. In practice, the Guide offers accessible guidance to support the structuring of integrity mechanisms, reducing dependence on specialized consultancies and increasing organizational autonomy in adopting good governance practices. Thus, the general objective of this study is to develop and evaluate the applicability of a Social Integrity Guide adapted to the reality of civil society organizations, systematizing practical guidelines for governance, ethics, and compliance in light of Bill No. 1,316 (Brazil, 2023) and national and international frameworks on institutional integrity.

2. Material and Methods

The present research adopted a qualitative approach, of an applied nature, with a descriptive and propositional purpose. The study was aimed at developing a technical instrument to support the implementation of governance and compliance practices in civil society organizations. According to Gil (2019), applied research aims to generate knowledge directed at solving concrete problems, articulating theoretical and normative references with the demands of practice.

The qualitative approach proved adequate for enabling the understanding and interpretation of institutional phenomena in their normative, organizational, and operational contexts (Minayo, 2014). The methodological design was based on exploratory studies focused on the development of applied solutions, according to the guidelines presented by Yin (2015).

The methodological design was structured in three complementary stages. Firstly, a documentary analysis of national and international legislations, norms, and references related to integrity, governance, and compliance was carried out. Secondly, an analysis of institutional best practices was conducted, with an illustrative and guiding character for the construction of the instrument. Finally, the applicability of a Social Integrity Guide was explored and evaluated in a civil society organization.

In the first stage, the normative documentary analysis aimed to identify the legal and institutional foundations that guide the implementation of integrity programs in civil society organizations. Relevant legal, regulatory, and institutional reference instruments for the promotion of integrity, governance, and the prevention of irregularities were examined.

Among the legal documents analyzed, the Bill nº 1.316 (Brazil, 2023), Law nº 12.846 (Brazil, 2013), Decree nº 8.420 (Brazil, 2015), and Law nº 13.019 (Brazil, 2014) stood out. Technical references were also examined, such as the Integrity Programs Guide of the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU, 2022), the OECD’s “Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity” (OECD, 2017), the UN’s Agenda 2030 (UN, 2015), and ISO 37001 (2016).

The analysis was conducted through analytical and comparative reading of the documents, seeking to identify convergences between regulatory requirements and institutional recommendations for integrity programs. Ethical principles, mechanisms for preventing and detecting irregularities, risk management, whistleblowing channels, training actions, and monitoring instruments were considered. The identified elements were systematized for the development of the Guide.

In the second stage, an exploratory documentary analysis of integrity practices adopted by civil society organizations that publicly provide information about their governance and institutional ethics mechanisms was carried out. The objective was to identify instruments and procedures that could support the elaboration of the Guide, considering the adaptation to the reality of small and medium-sized organizations.

The selection of organizations considered the public availability of documents related to governance and institutional integrity. The analysis focused on identifying recurring integrity mechanisms, including codes of ethics, communication and reporting channels, institutional policies, risk management practices, training actions, and monitoring instruments. This stage was characterized as documentary study, according to Lakatos and Marconi (2021).

In the third stage, the Social Integrity Guide, the main technical product of the study, was developed. Its elaboration was based on the systematization of the elements identified in the previous stages, integrating regulatory requirements and observed governance practices. The process sought to translate legal and institutional frameworks into practical, accessible guidelines compatible with the operational reality of small and medium-sized civil society organizations.

To this end, guidelines, “checklists”, and simplified institutional document templates were developed to support the gradual implementation of integrity mechanisms. Guidance was included for the development of a code of conduct, identification and management of integrity risks, structuring of communication and reporting channels, definition of responsibilities, as well as institutional training and awareness actions. The structure of the Guide was organized sequentially, allowing for its progressive use.

The development of the instrument was based on the analysis and synthesis method described by Severino (2016), which consists of integrating theoretical references and documentary evidence for the development of applied proposals. The criteria for developing the Guide were based on alignment with normative and theoretical references, as well as methodological simplification and accessibility, in dialogue with the principle of proportionality in the implementation of integrity programs (OECD, 2017; ISO 37001, 2016; CGU, 2022).

The Guide was structured in three operational dimensions: diagnosis, practical implementation, and instrumentalization and formalization. The diagnosis dimension was operationalized through self-assessment “checklists”, organized around the essential pillars of integrity. The practical implementation dimension presented a structured roadmap in six steps, and the instrumentalization and formalization dimension provided simplified institutional document templates.

To assess the applicability of the Guide, an exploratory application was carried out in a small animal welfare association, located in Minas Gerais, Brazil. The organization was composed mainly of volunteers and characterized by limited financial resources and low formalization of governance practices. The application was exploratory and illustrative, seeking to obtain initial qualitative insights into the potential use of the Guide by social organizations.

The application’s objectives were to verify content comprehensibility, assess the clarity and applicability of the guidelines, identify potential implementation difficulties, and gather insights on the institutional usefulness of the Guide. The application began with the presentation of the Guide to the organization, followed by the team’s analysis of the material and the recording of qualitative perceptions.

The organization’s team completed the self-assessment “checklists”, which allowed for the identification of institutional gaps. Based on this diagnosis, instruments for immediate implementation were developed, such as an institutional communication channel through an electronic form and a simplified risk matrix. The data analysis focused on the organization’s qualitative perceptions of the presented material.

This research was based exclusively on the documentary analysis of publicly accessible sources and the development of a Practical Guide to Social Integrity. It did not involve the collection of primary data, the participation of human beings as research subjects, the use of animals, or intervention on environmental resources. Therefore, the study does not fall under the hypotheses of mandatory submission to the CEP/Conep System, according to Resolution No. 510, of April 7, 2016, of the National Health Council, and does not require review by a Research Ethics Committee.

3. Results and Discussion

The main outcome of this research was the development of a Social Integrity Guide, conceived as a technical instrument to support the gradual implementation of integrity, governance, and compliance practices in civil society organizations and social impact businesses. This guide was structured from the integration of normative frameworks and best practices identified, resulting in a simplified model adapted to the operational, technical, and financial limitations frequently faced by small and medium-sized organizations. The proposal thus seeks to translate legal requirements and governance principles into practical and accessible guidelines, aiming to reduce the gap between regulatory demands and the institutional capacity of these organizations to implement them.

The research began with a documentary analysis of legal milestones and institutional frameworks, revealing that, although integrity programs originated in the corporate context, their principles are increasingly incorporated into public governance and civil society organizations. In the national scenario, Bill No. 1,316 (Brazil, 2023) encourages the adoption of integrity programs by organizations that establish partnerships with public administration. This initiative aligns with Law No. 12,846 (Brazil, 2013), the Anti-Corruption Law, and Decree No. 8,420 (Brazil, 2015), which establish the legal and regulatory foundations for integrity programs in Brazil.

The guidelines of the Comptroller General of the Union (CGU, 2022) indicate that effective integrity programs must include elements such as top management commitment, the development of codes of conduct, risk management, the existence of whistleblowing channels, the implementation of training actions, and continuous monitoring. These essential components were corroborated by the international references examined, such as the OECD’s “Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity” (2017), which emphasizes the need for institutional frameworks to prevent, detect, and respond to irregularities, and the UN’s Agenda 2030 (2015), which, through Sustainable Development Goal 16, underlines the importance of effective, responsible, and transparent institutions.

Additionally, the ISO 37001 (2016) standard was analyzed, highlighting the relevance of adopting internal controls and a systematic approach to managing bribery-related risks, contributing to the strengthening of the organizational integrity culture. A broad convergence was observed between these references regarding the fundamental elements of an integrity program, especially concerning the prevention of irregularities, risk management, transparency, whistleblowing mechanisms, training, and monitoring. However, the analysis also revealed a significant limitation: most of these instruments were designed for large organizations, with resources and structures that do not correspond to the reality of small and medium-sized civil society organizations (Young, 2017).

This finding of a gap between regulatory requirements and the operational capacity of third-sector organizations underpinned the development of the Social Integrity Guide. The Guide was developed with the purpose of translating the main elements of integrity programs into practical, simplified guidelines compatible with the institutional reality of these organizations. It therefore represents a technical product that integrates the regulatory requirements identified in the documentary analysis with the best practices observed in civil society organizations, aiming to offer concrete support for the implementation of governance and compliance practices.

The Guide’s structure was designed to support the gradual implementation of integrity mechanisms, prioritizing instruments that are easy to apply and adapt. To this end, guidelines, checklists, and simplified templates were organized for structuring essential governance practices, including the development of a code of conduct, the identification and management of integrity risks, the structuring of communication and reporting channels, the definition of responsibilities, as well as training actions and basic monitoring mechanisms. The Guide’s content was built from the convergence of the main regulatory frameworks, such as Law No. 12.846 (Brazil, 2013), Decree No. 8.420 (Brazil, 2015), Bill No. 1.316 (Brazil, 2023), the guidelines from CGU (2022), the OECD’s “Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity” (2017), and ISO 37001 (2016).

Unlike models traditionally aimed at the public sector and large organizations, the Guide was developed with a focus on adapting these requirements to the institutional capacity of civil society organizations. The aim was to prioritize instruments that could be implemented progressively, without demanding specialized structures or high financial investments, favoring the gradual incorporation of an integrity culture. The development of the instrument was based on the analysis and synthesis method, which consists of integrating theoretical references and documentary evidence for the development of applied proposals (Severino, 2016).

The criteria for developing the Guide were based on the finding that traditional compliance models have low adherence to the reality of social organizations, especially those with reduced structures and limited resources. In response to this scenario, the Guide was based on a dual orientation criterion: alignment with normative and theoretical references, and methodological simplification and accessibility. This approach aligns with the principle of proportionality in the implementation of integrity programs, according to which governance mechanisms must be compatible with the size, complexity, and operational capacity of organizations (OECD, 2017; ISO 37001, 2016; CGU, 2022).

Based on these criteria, the Guide was structured into three operational dimensions. The first, diagnostic, was operationalized through self-assessment checklists, organized around the essential pillars of integrity, such as code of conduct, communication channels, risk management, and transparency. These instruments were designed to translate normative guidelines into accessible operational procedures, as recommended by institutional integrity guides (CGU, 2022; OECD, 2017). The use of objective questions allows organizations without technical expertise to conduct autonomous institutional diagnoses, converting abstract principles into verifiable criteria (Severino, 2016).

The second dimension, of practical implementation, recognizes that diagnosis, by itself, is not sufficient to promote organizational change. Thus, the Guide presents a roadmap structured in six steps: leadership commitment, definition of responsible parties, creation of conduct rules, identification of risks, establishment of a communication channel, and continuous monitoring. These steps translate abstract guidelines into concrete actions, facilitating the gradual adoption of integrity practices, in line with good compliance practices that emphasize the need for operationalization through clear routines and defined responsibilities.

Finally, the dimension of instrumentalization and formalization materializes the criterion of simplification by providing institutional document templates, such as a code of conduct, a risk matrix, and a form for reporting irregularities. These instruments were structured based on the minimum elements identified in the normative analysis, but adapted to accessible language and immediate application, in accordance with the proportionality guideline in the implementation of integrity programs (CGU, 2022; OECD, 2017). The risk matrix, for example, organizes information into simplified categories, such as activity, risk, impact, and preventive measure, reflecting the risk-based approach recommended by international standards (ISO 37001, 2016), but adapted to the operational capacity of small organizations.

The inclusion of practical examples and step-by-step guidance reinforces the Guide’s applicability, allowing organizations with no prior compliance experience to gradually and contextually implement basic integrity mechanisms, in line with the need for methodological adaptation to the institutional context (Minayo, 2014). Thus, the Guide goes beyond the mere systematization of best practices, constituting an applied model that integrates diagnosis, implementation, and formalization of integrity mechanisms. By translating normative foundations into accessible operational instruments, it seeks to strengthen the capacity of civil society organizations to implement integrity programs autonomously, gradually, and sustainably.

To verify its applicability, the Guide was applied exploratorily to a small animal protection association located in Minas Gerais, Brazil. This organization, composed mainly of volunteers and characterized by limited financial resources and low formalization of governance practices, reflects the predominant profile of Brazilian third-sector entities, often marked by structural limitations and low institutionalization of formal integrity mechanisms (CGU, 2022; OECD, 2017). The application began with the completion of self-assessment checklists, allowing the organization itself to identify its institutional weaknesses and perform an initial diagnosis of integrity maturity.

The diagnostic results indicated that, although the organization has informal management practices and ethical guidelines incorporated into its operations, there are no formalized integrity mechanisms systematically implemented. The main gaps identified focused on the absence of a formal communication or reporting channel and the lack of a structured risk management process. Specifically, it was found that the organization did not have a formalized code of conduct, nor institutional ethical principles or guidelines on conflicts of interest established. Similarly, there was no institutional channel for reporting or complaints, nor a defined person responsible for receiving and analyzing them, nor a record of the complaints.

Regarding risk management, the organization did not formally identify risks related to its activities, did not register them in documents, and did not have defined prevention measures. These findings converge with the normative literature, which recognizes such mechanisms as essential components of organizational integrity systems (CGU, 2022; OECD, 2017; ISO 37001, 2016). The absence of these instruments highlights a recurring gap between informal practices and structured governance requirements in small organizations.

In contrast, the institutional transparency axis showed positive results. The organization disclosed its mission and institutional objectives, as well as information about projects and activities, and conducted institutional accountability. However, the non-existent code of conduct was not disclosed to collaborators or volunteers. This positive result in transparency suggests the presence of partially consolidated “accountability” practices, a principle recognized in the literature on governance (OECD, 2017; UN, 2015), even in the absence of complete formalization of the other pillars of integrity.

From this diagnosis, the organization moved to the implementation stage, as guided by the Guide. Based on the identified weaknesses, instruments for immediate implementation were developed, including an institutional communication channel through an electronic form, with an anonymity option and linked to the organization’s e-mail. This channel was disseminated on the association’s platforms, and the president and vice-president were designated as responsible for analyzing the complaints. The adoption of an anonymous electronic channel adheres to the principles of accessibility, confidentiality, and whistleblower protection, considered fundamental for the effectiveness of these mechanisms (CGU, 2022).

Additionally, a simplified risk matrix was developed, built based on the entity’s operational activities, such as animal rescue, care, and making them available for adoption. This matrix identified risks such as unregistered expenses in cash donations (high impact, preventive measure: expense spreadsheet and invoices), unregistered animals during rescue (medium impact, preventive measure: document digitalization), adoption by individuals unable to care for them (high impact, preventive measure: adoption form and liability term), and choice of veterinary services without price comparison (medium impact, preventive measure: request quotes). This matrix reflects the application of a risk-based approach, as recommended by international management standards (ISO 37001, 2016; OECD, 2017), demonstrating that risk management can be operationalized in a manner proportional to the organization’s institutional capacity.

The development of these instruments by the organization itself demonstrated the feasibility of implementing integrity practices even in contexts of low technical capacity, reinforcing the Guide’s central proposal of translating normative principles into accessible tools. This result aligns with the principle of proportionality, according to which integrity programs must be adapted to the size, complexity, and resources of organizations (OECD, 2017; CGU, 2022). The application showed that the proposed instruments are capable of guiding both the identification of gaps and the implementation of practical solutions, establishing a direct relationship between diagnosis and action.

The results indicate that the developed model allows for the operationalization of integrity principles in organizations with structural limitations, reducing the dependence on specialized consultancies and expanding institutional autonomy. From a practical point of view, the findings reinforce that basic compliance mechanisms can be implemented with minimal resources, provided they are accompanied by clear guidance and simplified tools. This finding contributes to the debate on compliance in the third sector, by evidencing that the effectiveness of integrity practices is less associated with structural complexity and more with their adequacy to the organizational context, considering the specific characteristics, resources, and challenges of each organization (Aulgur, 2015).

Despite the positive results, the application presents limitations. The study was conducted in a single organization, with an exploratory nature and based on initial qualitative perceptions, which restricts the generalization of the findings. As highlighted by Yin (2015), studies of this nature have as their main contribution the exploration and understanding of phenomena, requiring additional applications for broader validation of the model. In general, the Social Integrity Guide developed in this study constitutes an applied contribution to the field, by offering a viable model for the implementation of minimum compliance and governance structures in social organizations, strengthening the promotion of integrity in the third sector through accessible, adaptable, and organizationally realistic instruments.

4. Conclusion

The present study aimed to develop and evaluate the applicability of a Social Integrity Guide, designed to support the gradual implementation of governance, ethics, and compliance practices in civil society organizations. It was found that, despite the existence of consolidated normative frameworks on integrity programs, a significant gap persisted between these guidelines and the operational capacity of small and medium-sized organizations to implement them. In response to this need, a guide was developed that integrates legal requirements and best practices into a simplified model, consisting of practical guidelines, checklists, and tools adapted to the structural and financial limitations of the third sector. The exploratory application of the Guide in an animal protection association demonstrated its capacity to diagnose institutional gaps, such as the absence of a formal communication channel and a structured risk management process, and to support the adoption of initial governance practices, including the creation of an electronic whistleblowing channel and a simplified risk matrix. These findings indicate that the Guide constitutes a viable technical instrument, which contributes to strengthening governance, transparency, and accountability, offering a practical alternative for disseminating the culture of integrity in the third sector and broadening the academic debate on social compliance in non-corporate contexts.

Despite the relevance of the results, the application of the Guide was carried out in a single organization and was exploratory in nature, based on initial qualitative perceptions, which restricts the generalization of the findings. It is suggested that future research expand the validation of the Guide in different organizational contexts of the third sector, investigating its effects on the consolidation of long-term institutional practices of integrity, governance, and transparency. Such studies could contribute to improving the model and strengthening the capacity of civil society organizations to implement integrity programs autonomously and sustainably.

Bibliographic References

Aulgur, J. 2015. Performance theory and nonprofit organizational effectiveness. Administrative Issues Journal 5(3): 1-9.

Brasil. 2013. Lei nº 12.846, de 1º de agosto de 2013. Dispõe sobre a responsabilização administrativa e civil de pessoas jurídicas pela prática de atos contra a administração pública, nacional ou estrangeira, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 2 ago. 2013. Seção 1, p. 1.

Brasil. 2014. Lei nº 13.019, de 31 de julho de 2014. Estabelece o regime jurídico das parcerias entre a administração pública e as organizações da sociedade civil, em regime de mútua cooperação, para a consecução de finalidades de interesse público e recíproco. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 1 ago. 2014. Seção 1, p. 1.

Brasil. 2015. Decreto nº 8.420, de 18 de março de 2015. Regulamenta a Lei nº 12.846, de 1º de agosto de 2013. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, DF, 19 mar. 2015. Seção 1, p. 3.

Brasil. 2023. Projeto de Lei nº 1.316, de 22 de março de 2023. Dispõe sobre a implementação de Programa de Integridade em organizações da sociedade civil de interesse público, organizações sociais e demais organizações da sociedade civil definidas no inciso I do art. 2º da Lei nº 13.019, de 31 de julho de 2014, que celebrem contrato, convênio ou instrumentos congêneres com as Administrações Públicas diretas, indiretas, autárquicas e fundacionais da União, dos Estados, do Distrito Federal e dos Municípios e dá outras providências. Senado Federal, Brasília, DF, Brasil.

Controladoria-Geral da União [CGU]. 2022. Programa de integridade: diretrizes para empresas privadas. CGU, Brasília, DF, Brasil.

DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48(2): 147-160.

Gil, A.C. 2019. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. 7ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

IBGC, 2016 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

International Organization for Standardization [ISO]. 2016. ISO 37001: anti-bribery management systems – requirements with guidance for use. ISO, Geneva, Switzerland.

Lakatos, E.M.; Marconi, M.A. 2021. Fundamentos de metodologia científica. 9ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Minayo, M.C.S. 2014. O desafio do conhecimento: pesquisa qualitativa em saúde. 14ed. Hucitec, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. 2017. Recommendation of the Council on public integrity. OECD, Paris, France.

Organização das Nações Unidas [ONU]. 2015. United Nations Convention against Corruption. United Nations, New York, NY, USA.

Salamon, 2012 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

Severino, A.J. 2016. Metodologia do trabalho científico. 24ed. Cortez, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Yin, R.K. 2015. Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos. 5ed. Bookman, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Young, 2017 [Full reference not found in the original document]

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Compliance and ESG of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform