Climate Change and the Training of ESG Professionals: an Exploratory Study in Private Companies in the Socio-Environmental Impact Sector in Brazil

Elizabeth S. de Oliveira; Márcia C. Rossi

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602867

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

Climate change has intensified the demand for professional and organizational training in ESG within the Brazilian business context. The study analyzed the perception of ESG professionals regarding their preparedness for climate change and investigated the training strategies reported by professionals from private companies with varying degrees of socio-environmental involvement or interface. The research adopted a descriptive-exploratory approach, combining quantitative and qualitative methods, through a structured questionnaire applied between January 16 and February 4, 2026, which totaled 52 valid responses. The results suggested predominantly intermediate levels of self-declared preparedness, with differences between the evaluated dimensions and familiarity with technical references, and the perception of preparedness for their practical application. Informal or ad-hoc training initiatives predominated, and open-ended responses highlighted technical, analytical, regulatory, organizational, and behavioral competencies as relevant. The findings indicated that strengthening professional action on the climate agenda involves both the development of individual competencies and organizational conditions related to training, governance, and the integration of the topic into decision-making processes.

Keywords: Professional training; Professional skills; Organizational strategy; Climate risk management; Climate governance.

1. Introduction

Climate change has consolidated itself as one of the main drivers of transformation in economic, institutional, and organizational dynamics on a global scale. The IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report (2023) highlights the intensification of extreme events and their impacts on strategic sectors, such as agriculture, energy, infrastructure, and health, reinforcing the centrality of the climate agenda in contemporary decision-making processes. In this context, the incorporation of the theme ceases to be merely an environmental requirement and begins to assume a strategic, regulatory, and reputational character for public and private organizations.

In the corporate sphere, the climate agenda has been progressively integrated into ESG practices, with emphasis on the expansion of risk management, reporting, and governance mechanisms. However, this incorporation occurs unevenly among organizations and areas of operation, reflecting different levels of institutional maturity and technical capacity. Studies indicate that, while aspects related to measurement and reporting tend to be more consolidated, dimensions associated with strategic integration and the social impacts of climate change remain less developed (Eccles & Klimenko, 2019; Bansal & Song, 2017).

In Brazil, the hosting of COP30 in Belém reinforced the country’s role on the international climate stage and highlighted institutional advancements. At the same time, it exposed persistent structural challenges, such as socioeconomic inequalities, regional asymmetries, and limitations in the implementation of environmental policies. Instruments like the Climate Plan and sectoral initiatives, such as the ABC Plan, signal relevant mitigation and adaptation efforts, but their effectiveness depends on the capacity of organizations to consistently internalize the climate agenda in their decision-making and operational processes.

In parallel, the advancement of international standards, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the standards of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), has broadened the demands on Brazilian companies, requiring alignment with global benchmarks. This process involves formal adaptation and demands technical capacity to interpret, operationalize, and integrate such guidelines into organizational contexts. In this scenario, professionals working in ESG, sustainability, compliance, and governance assume a central role in translating these requirements into effective practices.

Despite this regulatory and institutional advance, the literature points to the persistence of gaps in the training of these professionals, especially regarding the integration between technical skills, systemic vision, and understanding of the social dimensions of climate change (Kwauk & Casey, 2022). In the Brazilian context, these gaps tend to be widened by structural limitations in professional training and by the low institutionalization of organizational capacity-building strategies. The ability of organizations to respond to environmental pressures depends directly on the qualification of their technical staff (Marcovitch, 2010).

In this sense, a relevant tension is observed: at the same time that the complexity of climate demands grows, there are indications that professional capacity does not keep pace with this transformation with the same intensity. This dissociation raises questions about the effectiveness of corporate ESG strategies and the ability of organizations to consistently operationalize the climate transition. The internalization of the climate agenda is understood as the systematic incorporation of climate risks, opportunities, and guidelines into decision-making processes, governance structures, and organizational routines.

In this study, the expression “socio-environmental impact” is not used as a reference to a specific economic sector, as business activities can produce socio-environmental impacts to different degrees. The adopted delimitation considers, above all, how the socio-environmental agenda relates to the performance of organizations, ranging from companies in which this dimension intentionally integrates the business model to organizations in other sectors that incorporate socio-environmental practices or maintain interfaces with these themes. The sample therefore includes different degrees of linkage and institutionalization of the socio-environmental agenda in the business context.

Given this scenario, the present study seeks to produce empirical evidence based on the perceptions and experiences reported by respondents, contributing to the improvement of corporate training strategies and the strengthening of professional development in the context of climate transition. The objective is to analyze the perception of ESG professionals regarding their level of preparedness for climate change, seeking to identify perceived asymmetries between competencies, training gaps, and their possible organizational implications, as well as to understand how these professionals perceive the training strategies adopted by private companies with different degrees of action or socio-environmental interface in Brazil.

2. Material and Methods

This study was characterized as applied research, of a descriptive-exploratory nature, which adopted a mixed methodological approach. This combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was employed to analyze the perceptions and experiences reported by respondents regarding professional development and organizational practices related to ESG and climate change. The mixed approach allowed for the integration of different forms of evidence (Bryman, 2006; Creswell & Creswell, 2018; O’Cathain, Murphy & Nicholl, 2010).

The investigated population consisted of professionals active in the areas of ESG, sustainability, compliance, governance, and risk management, linked to private companies in Brazil. The inclusion criterion was acting in private companies with different degrees of involvement or interface with the socio-environmental agenda. The sample was non-probabilistic, selected by convenience, encompassing respondents accessible through professional networks and institutional contacts. The information collected was self-declared in nature, interpreted as participants’ perceptions.

Data collection occurred between January 16 and February 4, 2026, through a structured questionnaire, applied online via the Google Forms platform. 53 responses were obtained, of which one was excluded for not meeting the criterion of acting in the private sector, resulting in 52 valid responses for analysis.

The questionnaire was developed based on principles of clarity, neutrality, and logical organization, according to methodological guidelines for survey research (Prodanov & Freitas, 2013; Dillman, Smyth & Christian, 2014). Its construction started from the research objective and the operationalization of the main concepts investigated into analytical dimensions, which included professional and organizational profile, perceived preparedness for climate change, familiarity with international references, organizational training practices, perceived challenges, and priority implications and competencies.

A pre-test of the instrument was conducted between January 15 and 16, 2026, with four respondents of a profile similar to the target audience, to verify clarity, comprehension, and response time. The feedback indicated that the instrument was adequate, with no need for changes, and the pre-test responses were not included in the final analysis.

For the data analysis, the closed-ended questions were submitted to descriptive statistics, using absolute frequencies, percentages, and measures of central tendency. Means were used to indicate general perception patterns among respondents, without any claim of statistical inference (Sampieri, Collado & Lucio, 2013). The analyses and visualizations were performed with the support of spreadsheets and the Google Docs platform. Cross-tabulations between selected variables were carried out to identify possible asymmetries in capacity building.

The answers to the open-ended questions were submitted to thematic content analysis, using Bardin (2016) as a reference. The analysis, inductive in nature, constructed categories a posteriori from the content of the answers. A floating reading of the corpus was performed, units of registration were identified and synthetic codes were assigned, grouped into thematic axes and consolidated into categories. The subjectivity inherent in the coding process was mitigated by uniform criteria of adherence to the original content, semantic similarity, and recurrence.

The quantitative and qualitative results were interpreted in an integrated manner, seeking to identify convergences, complementarities, and potential divergences between the patterns observed in the closed-ended questions and the perceptions expressed in the open-ended questions. This integration served an interpretive purpose, allowing the qualitative data to be used to contextualize and deepen trends identified in the descriptive analysis (Bryman, 2006; O’Cathain, Murphy & Nicholl, 2010).

The research observed ethical principles of anonymity and confidentiality. Data processing followed the guidelines of personal data protection legislation, ensuring exclusive use for academic purposes and privacy of respondents. The ethical evaluation of the study was carried out via the Ethical Diagnosis Form (FDE), without the need for submission to the Research Ethics Committee, considering the non-identifiable and low-risk nature of the collected data.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the collected data allowed for an in-depth understanding of the perception of ESG professionals in Brazil regarding their preparedness for climate change and organizational training strategies. The initial results characterized the profile of the respondents, revealing a sample predominantly composed of individuals with direct involvement or relevant interface with the socio-environmental impact sector. This sample composition is crucial, as it allows interpretations of climate training to be made from the perspective of a group already engaged and familiar with socio-environmental and ESG themes, highlighting that the identified gaps do not stem from a lack of basic knowledge, but rather from challenges related to the depth and integration of necessary competencies in organizational processes.

The distribution of respondents by field of activity indicated that 18 professionals work directly in the socio-environmental sector, 14 have indirect involvement with the incorporation of socio-environmental practices, and 20 work in other sectors but with a relevant interface with socio-environmental themes. This diversity in activity, with the majority of the 52 respondents having some proximity to the socio-environmental agenda, reinforces the relevance of the findings for the context of internalizing the climate agenda in organizations. The profile suggests that the participants already possess a knowledge base, which directs the discussion towards the quality and applicability of competencies, rather than their mere existence.

Regarding professional experience time, the sample presented a heterogeneous distribution, with 4 respondents with less than 1 year of experience, 19 with 1 to 3 years, 12 with 4 to 6 years, and 17 with more than 6 years. This variety of professional experience is an important point, as it allows investigation into how the perceived level of preparedness can vary at different career stages, offering insights into the evolution of skills over time. Subsequent analysis revealed that experience does not linearly translate into greater preparedness, indicating the influence of other factors.

Regarding the size of the companies in which the professionals work, a predominance of large organizations was observed, with 26 respondents. Micro and small enterprises accounted for 9 respondents each, and medium-sized enterprises for 8. The presence of companies of different sizes in the sample is fundamental to observe possible variations in training strategies and the perception of preparedness, considering that larger organizations tend to have more resources and formalized structures to deal with the ESG and climate agenda, although the results point to nuances in this relationship.

The assessment of professionals’ preparedness level in climate change revealed that all evaluated dimensions presented averages above 3 on a 5-point scale, suggesting a general perception of at least adequate preparedness. The dimension of “Identification and assessment of climate risks” obtained the highest average (3.81), followed by “Adoption of climate mitigation and adaptation strategies” (3.73) and “Use of climate metrics and indicators in decision-making” (3.63). These results indicate that professionals feel more prepared for technical and operational aspects of the climate agenda.

However, the dimensions related to “Integration of climate change into corporate governance” (3.58) and, especially, to “Consideration of climate justice aspects” (3.33) presented relatively lower averages. This asymmetry suggests an unequal distribution of competencies, with greater consolidation in technical and operational dimensions, and less development in more strategic and social aspects of the climate agenda. Such a pattern is consistent with the literature that points to the greater consolidation of measurement and reporting aspects over strategic integration and social impacts (Eccles & Klimenko, 2019).

Familiarity with international norms and standards also showed significant variations. The GHG Protocol demonstrated the highest familiarity, with 39.6% of respondents at the intermediate and advanced levels. In contrast, the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) registered the lowest familiarity, with 52.8% of respondents reporting no familiarity and none at the advanced level. The TCFD and ISSB frameworks were predominantly concentrated at the basic and no familiarity levels, with 43.4% and 37.7% of respondents lacking familiarity, respectively. These data indicate that the internalization of international frameworks occurs unevenly, with the GHG Protocol being the most recognized, possibly due to its more direct application in emissions inventories.

When the perception of readiness for the practical application of these references was analyzed, a predominant concentration was observed in the levels “moderately prepared” (17 respondents) and “somewhat prepared” (16 respondents). Only 9 respondents declared themselves “well prepared” or “very well prepared”. This pattern suggests that conceptual familiarity with norms and frameworks does not necessarily translate into sufficient mastery for their practical application. There is an evident tension between theoretical knowledge and the operational capacity for implementation, reinforcing the existence of gaps between technical knowledge and practice in the organizational context.

Organizational capacity-building strategies in ESG and climate change were predominantly informal or ad-hoc, as reported by 22 respondents. Formalized, yet sporadic, training was indicated by 14 professionals, while only 8 reported formalized and continuous initiatives. Another 8 respondents stated the absence of structured training in their organizations. These findings suggest a low degree of formalization and continuity in capacity-building actions, which may impact the depth and breadth of climate competency development in the corporate environment.

In terms of frequency, 19 respondents reported periodic training (1 to 2 times per year), while 16 indicated occasional occurrence (less than once a year). Twelve professionals stated the absence of training, and only 5 reported a frequency of more than twice a year. These data reinforce the perception that, even when present, training actions tend to be episodic, with limited recurrence and institutionalization. The lack of continuity can hinder the construction of a robust and updated body of knowledge, essential for dealing with the complexity of the climate agenda.

The cross-referencing of data by organizational size indicated that large companies concentrate the highest number of formalized initiatives. However, even in these organizations, training practices were mostly classified as sporadic. This result suggests that larger organizational size does not necessarily imply full institutionalization of training strategies. Formalization may exist, but the continuity and integration of these actions into organizational processes still represent a challenge, which corroborates the coexistence of moderate preparation with poorly formalized professional development structures.

The main challenges identified for strengthening climate change capacity building focused on the low prioritization of the topic by senior leadership (31 respondents), data and resource limitations (21 respondents), and lack of training (16 respondents). Time constraints (16 respondents) and regulatory complexity (15 respondents) were also cited. These challenges point to both internal barriers, related to organizational culture and governance, and external ones, linked to regulatory complexity and the availability of information and tools, hindering the full internalization of the climate agenda.

Content analysis of open-ended responses on the organizational impacts of insufficient climate capacity revealed that fragility in decision-making and strategic planning was the most recurrent category, mentioned by 25 respondents (49.0%). This indicates a central concern with the ability to incorporate the climate variable into decision-making processes. Economic, competitive, and reputational losses were cited by 22 respondents (43.1%), evidencing that climate capacity is perceived as a critical factor for the performance and positioning of organizations in the market.

Insufficient climate risk management and weakened institutional governance and prioritization were mentioned by 16 respondents each (31.4%), suggesting the need for greater integration of climate issues into management processes and decision-making bodies. Reporting, metrics, and compliance issues were pointed out by 14 respondents (27.5%), approaching the results of the closed-ended questions about difficulties in applying frameworks. These findings together reinforce the perception that insufficient climate capacity building has multifaceted effects, affecting everything from strategy to compliance and reputation.

The skills and training considered priority for strengthening professional practice in the face of climate change were grouped into six thematic axes. Technical skills in climate, emissions, and decarbonization were the most recurrent, cited by 26 respondents (54.2%), covering climate fundamentals, risks, GHG inventories, mitigation, and adaptation. This data underscores the importance of specific technical knowledge as a basis for action in the field, in line with the growing demand for specialists in areas such as decarbonization and emissions reporting.

Analytical and measurement skills were mentioned by 20 respondents (41.7%), highlighting the need for data analysis, indicators, metrics, and impact assessment. Regulatory skills and mastery of norms and frameworks, including legislation and reporting standards, were pointed out by 18 respondents (37.5%). At the same percentage, organizational, governance, and management skills, which involve planning, articulation between areas, and integration of the climate agenda, were also considered priorities, reinforcing the view that the climate agenda requires a systemic and integrated approach.

Behavioral, communication, and critical thinking skills, which include articulation, proactivity, and the ability to translate technical knowledge, were cited by 16 respondents (33.3%). Finally, risk management and economic-financial integration skills, encompassing risk assessment, financial impacts, and the incorporation of climate variables into business, were mentioned by 13 respondents (27.1%). These results, taken together, suggest that strengthening professional practice demands multidimensional training, combining technical, analytical, and regulatory knowledge with management, communication, and organizational articulation skills, as pointed out by Venn et al. (2022) and Chang and Lu (2025).

The analysis of cross-tabulations between professional experience time and perceived readiness for applying references revealed that longer experience time is not necessarily associated with higher levels of self-declared readiness. Among professionals with more than six years of experience, 52.9% were concentrated in the low perceived readiness category, while 29.4% were classified as high readiness. Similarly, among respondents with four to six years of experience, 50.0% were in the low readiness category. These results highlight a heterogeneity in the perception of readiness across different professional experience ranges, suggesting that experience alone does not guarantee the necessary update or depth for the practical application of climate references.

In summary, the research findings indicate that ESG professionals in Brazil perceive an intermediate level of preparedness for climate change, with greater mastery in technical and operational aspects, but gaps in strategic and social dimensions, as well as in the practical application of international frameworks. Organizational training strategies are predominantly informal and sporadic, and the main challenges include low prioritization by leadership and resource limitations. Priority competencies are multidimensional, encompassing technical, analytical, regulatory, organizational, and behavioral knowledge, which reinforces the need for more continuous and integrated training strategies to strengthen professional performance and the internalization of the climate agenda in organizations.

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed the perception of ESG professionals regarding their preparedness for climate change and sought to understand the training strategies adopted by private companies with varying degrees of socio-environmental engagement or interface in Brazil. It was observed that professionals perceive a predominantly intermediate level of preparedness, with greater mastery in technical and operational aspects, such as the identification and assessment of climate risks and the adoption of mitigation and adaptation strategies. However, asymmetries were found in more strategic and social dimensions, such as the integration of the climate agenda into corporate governance and the consideration of climate justice aspects. Familiarity with international frameworks, such as the GHG Protocol, was more consolidated, while others, such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), showed less knowledge. A gap was noted between conceptual familiarity and the perceived capacity for practical application of these standards. Organizational training strategies, in turn, were mostly informal or ad-hoc, with a low degree of formalization and continuity, even in large companies. The main challenges for strengthening training included low prioritization by senior leadership and resource limitations.

The main contribution of this study lies in the production of empirical evidence that highlights the need for a multidimensional approach to strengthen professional performance in the climate agenda. The findings indicated that the development of technical, analytical, regulatory, organizational, and behavioral competencies is crucial, suggesting that training should go beyond technical knowledge to encompass management, communication, and organizational articulation skills. This perspective reinforces the importance of continuous and contextualized training strategies capable of integrating technical knowledge with risk management, governance, and decision-making processes. Among the research limitations, the non-probabilistic convenience sampling, which restricts the generalization of results, and the self-reported nature of the information, which represents perceptions rather than objective measurements of competencies, stand out. For future studies, it is suggested to expand and diversify the sample, combine self-reported measures with other forms of competency assessment, and investigate the differences between sectors, hierarchical levels, and degrees of institutionalization of the climate agenda.

Bibliographic References

BANSAL, Pratima; SONG, Hee-Chan. Similar but not the same: differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, v. 11, n. 1, p. 105-149, 2017. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0091.

BARDIN, Laurence. Análise de conteúdo. São Paulo: Edições 70, 2016.

BRYMAN, Alan. Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research, v. 6, n. 1, p. 97-113, 2006.

CHANG, J. C.; LU, H. Q. Competency and training needs for net-zero sustainability management personnel. Sustainability, V. 17, n. 7, art. 3244, 2025. DOI: 10.3390/su17073244.

CRESWELL, John W.; CRESWELL, J. David. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5. ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2018.

DILLMAN, Don A.; SMYTH, Jolene D.; CHRISTIAN, Leah Melani. Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. 4. ed. Hoboken: Wiley, 2014.

ECCLES, Robert G.; KLIMENKO, Svetlana. The investor revolution. Harvard Business Review, V. 97, n. 3, p. 106-116, 2019. Disponível em: https://hbr.org/2019/05/the-investor-revolution. Acesso em: 24 mar. 2026.

IPCC. Climate Change 2023: Synthesis Report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2023. Disponível em: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/. Acesso em: 24 mar. 2026.

KWAUK, Christina; CASEY, Olivia. A new green learning agenda: approaches to quality education for climate action. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2022. Disponível em: https://www.brookings.edu/research/a-new-green-learning-agenda/. Acesso em: 24 mar. 2026.

MARCOVITCH, Jacques. Sustentabilidade: a construção de um novo paradigma. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2010.

O’CATHAIN, Alicia; MURPHY, Elizabeth; NICHOLL, Jon. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ, V. 341, p. c4587, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587.

PRODANOV, Cleber Cristiano; FREITAS, Ernani Cesar de. Metodologia do trabalho científico. Novo Hamburgo: Feevale, 2013.

SAMPIERI, Roberto Hernández; COLLADO, Carlos Fernández; LUCIO, María del Pilar Baptista. Metodologia de pesquisa. 5. ed. Porto Alegre: Penso, 2013.

VENN, R.; PEREZ SALGADO, P.; VANDENBUSSCHE, V. Competencies of sustainability professionals: an empirical study on key competencies for sustainability. Sustainability, v. 14, n. 9, art. 4916, 2022. DOI: 10.3390/su14094916.

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