September 29, 2026
Perception of professionals on the integration of the ESG Agenda in the Brazilian corporate environment
Professionals’ Perception of the Integration of the ESG Agenda in the Brazilian Corporate Environment
Aline Oliveira Fernandes; Daniela Fontana
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602627
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 integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria has consolidated as a central theme in the global business environment, although its practical implementation faces structural challenges. The study aimed to analyze, through the perception of professionals, how the integration of ESG dimensions occurs in the culture and activities of companies in the Brazilian corporate environment. A descriptive and exploratory quantitative research was conducted, using an electronic questionnaire applied to 120 respondents between July and October 2025. The results revealed that 78.3% of participants were familiar with the topic. Among the 12 dimensions analyzed, Social Responsibility (average of 4.13) and Governance (average of 3.93) showed higher averages than the Environmental Pillar (average of 3.28) and Internal Communication (average of 3.07). A disconnect was found between the perception of external discourse and internal practice, with small companies exhibiting the lowest average strategic integration (2.38). Perceptions varied according to hierarchical level. It was concluded that participants perceive ESG predominantly as a consolidating normative consensus, but its operational and systemic integration into central decision-making processes is still perceived as incomplete, indicating that the difficulty lies in structuring mechanisms that connect declared values to concrete and measurable corporate decisions.
Keywords: ESG Agenda; Organizational culture; Integration; Socio-environmental responsibility; Corporate transparency.
1. Introduction
The incorporation of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria has consolidated itself as one of the central themes in the global business environment of the twenty-first century (Quartucci and Branco, 2024). Its three dimensions represent, respectively, environmental responsibility, focused on reducing environmental impact; social responsibility, based on justice and equity; and corporate governance, responsible for accommodating the strategic definition of management systems in line with ethical and integrity precepts (Ribeiro and Lima, 2023).
In Brazil, the social dimension of the ESG agenda gained notoriety starting in 2020. Studies identified a positive correlation between the social pillar and Return on Equity in Brazilian companies, while the environmental and governance pillars proved to be subject to sectoral heterogeneity (Silva and Mascena, 2024). Research with companies in B3’s Corporate Sustainability Index revealed significant advances in Diversity and Inclusion policies, with eighty-two percent of organizations implementing pay parity policies, although structural challenges persist in racial equity and the representation of people with disabilities (Ferreira et al., 2025).
From a theoretical point of view, the ESG agenda is based on Stakeholder Theory, which articulates the interdependence of the interests of the involved parties under the premise of maximizing shared value generation, guiding management beyond shareholders and considering customers, employees, suppliers, communities, and society (Freeman et al., 2010). However, the effectiveness of these practices is subject to debate. Elkington (2020) acknowledged that the concept of the Triple Bottom Line, one of the central theoretical pillars in the structuring of ESG, has been co-opted by corporatism, deviating from its original transformative purpose. Other perspectives suggest that, immersed in a profit-oriented system, organizations tend to construct and disseminate discourses about sustainability that do not always align with their actual practices, prioritizing the maintenance of legitimacy before their institutional constituents to the detriment of structural transformation (Zanoni and Oliveira, 2023).
In the national scenario, the incorporation of ESG is a complex challenge, particularly for smaller companies, which face difficulties in consolidating measurement models and defining indicators (Zeni et al., 2024). Furthermore, the adoption of ESG in the Brazilian market is predominantly reactive, driven by external pressures. Although the Central Bank and other Brazilian regulators have advanced in integrating ESG factors into financial regulations, the effective impact on the market remains limited due to overly generic regulations and insufficient oversight mechanisms (Moessa de Souza, 2023). This makes transparent metrics indispensable for the credibility of ESG practices.
In this context, multiple frontiers for the ESG agenda emerge, including sustainable investments, transparency, financial versus social performance, and risk management (Ribeiro and Lima, 2023). Theoretically, there is a gap in the literature, which focuses on companies listed on the Corporate Sustainability Index, with little available material covering the scenario of Micro and Small Enterprises, organizations that constitute the majority of the national business environment (SEBRAE, 2023). Practically, the ESG agenda gains consistency as it is assimilated by professionals who execute corporate processes, making internal communication and employee perception fundamental variables for assessing the real maturity of organizations, transcending the surface of published external reports. Given this panorama, the general objective of this study was to analyze, through the perception of professionals, how the integration of ESG dimensions occurs in the culture and activities of the companies in which they work, located in the Brazilian corporate environment.
2. Material and Methods
This research was characterized as a quantitative study, of a descriptive and exploratory nature. For the collection of primary data, the research strategy of the type was employed
study
electronic, complemented by a literature review for secondary data collection. This approach allowed for an investigation into professionals’ perception of the integration of ESG dimensions in the Brazilian corporate environment.
The study’s target population consisted of professionals working in companies from various sectors, regions, and sizes in Brazil. As an inclusion criterion, active labor engagement within the Brazilian corporate environment was defined, regardless of hierarchical level. No specific exclusion criteria were established, aiming to capture a wide range of perspectives.
The sample consisted of 120 respondents (n=120), selected by non-probabilistic convenience sampling. This technique was chosen for its suitability to the research’s target audience, facilitating access to individuals with relevant experience in the subject. The electronic form was disseminated through the social network LinkedIn and professional groups on the WhatsApp platform.
The primary data collection was carried out between July and October 2025. The main objective was to capture the perceptions of professionals in the Brazilian corporate environment regarding the integration of ESG practices in their respective organizations. It was observed that the number of respondents (n) could vary between questions, as participation in all questions of the instrument was not mandatory.
The data collection instrument consisted of a structured electronic questionnaire, comprising 22 questions. This questionnaire was organized into thematic sections that addressed the Informed Consent Form (ICF), participants’ demographic and organizational characteristics, and the perception of the level of implementation and strategic priority of ESG in organizations.
Additionally, the questionnaire included questions about attitudes and perceived outcomes regarding communication, reputation, and performance of ESG practices. Five-point Likert-type agreement scales were used to measure the intensity of perception on governance and sustainability principles, in addition to an open field for free expression on relevant practices.
The raw data collected through the platform of
study
were exported to a spreadsheet for further processing and analysis. Multiple-choice questions with ordered categories were numerically recoded on an increasing scale of perception, ranging from 1 to 5, to allow for quantitative analysis.
The data analysis was performed using descriptive techniques, which included the calculation of absolute and relative frequencies for the categorical variables. For variables measured on a perception scale from 1 to 5, measures of central tendency, such as the mean (M), and measures of dispersion, such as the standard deviation (SD), were calculated.
To verify the statistical robustness of the mean comparisons between different groups (considering hierarchical level, company size, prior ESG knowledge, and region), non-parametric tests were applied. The Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons between two groups, and the Kruskal-Wallis test for comparisons between three or more groups.
In comparisons that showed a statistically significant difference (p<0.05) between three or more groups, a pairwise test with Bonferroni correction was applied. This statistical approach allowed for the identification of patterns and differences in professionals’ perceptions, without anticipating the study’s empirical findings.
The ethical procedures were rigorously observed throughout the research. Data collection was carried out in accordance with CNS Resolution No. 510 of 2016, and the study was exempted from registration in the CEP/CONEP system, as it involved a public opinion survey with non-identified participants.
All respondents were duly informed about the research objectives and guaranteed the secrecy and confidentiality of information by accepting the Consent agreement (TCLE). Names of specific companies, properties, or institutions were omitted, using only aggregated data to ensure the anonymity of participants and organizations involved, in accordance with the General Data Protection Law (LGPD – Law nº 13.709/2018).
3. Results and Discussion
This section details the research findings, interpreting them in light of the general objective of analyzing professionals’ perception of the integration of ESG dimensions into the culture and activities of companies in the Brazilian corporate environment. The results are presented in subtopics that reflect the structure of data collection and analysis, covering the sample profile, familiarity with the ESG theme, perception of specific dimensions, the influence of hierarchical level and company size, regional variation, and the perceived financial impact of sustainable practices. The interpretations seek to connect empirical data with theoretical concepts and the literature already addressed in the original study, maintaining fidelity to the findings and their limitations.
Sample profile
The study sample consisted of 120 professionals, collected between July and October 2025, providing a comprehensive and diverse view of the Brazilian corporate environment. The geographical distribution of respondents indicated a significant concentration in the Southeast region, with 49.2% (n=59) of participants, followed by the Northeast with 15.8% (n=19) and South with 10.0% (n=12). The Center-West (5.8%, n=7) and North (5.0%, n=6) regions showed lower representation, while 9.2% (n=11) worked at a national level and 5.0% (n=6) in international companies. This regional composition, although concentrated, allowed for the observation of different professional contexts in Brazil.
Regarding the size of the organizations, the majority of participants, 55.8% (n=67), worked in large companies. Medium-sized companies represented 20.8% (n=25) of the sample, while micro and small companies accounted for 12.5% (n=15) and 10.8% (n=13), respectively. Private organizations predominated, with 90.0% (n=108) of respondents. The hierarchical profile of the professionals was mostly operational/execution (38.3%, n=46) and tactical/management (32.5%, n=39), with strategic/decision-making (12.5%, n=15) and base/learning (7.5%, n=9) levels complementing the distribution. This diversity of sizes and hierarchical levels is crucial for the analysis of the perception of ESG integration, as proposed by the study.
The activity sectors of the respondents’ companies were also varied, with a highlight on General Services, which represented 17.5% of the sample. Banks and Financial Services (10.8%) and Energy (9.2%) also had relevant participation. Other sectors such as Commerce (8.3%), Information Technology (7.5%), Industry (7.5%), Agribusiness (5.8%), and Health (5.0%) contributed to the diversity of the profile. This sectoral breadth allowed for a richer analysis of how ESG practices are perceived and implemented in different segments of the Brazilian market, providing a multifaceted panorama of the ESG agenda in the country.
Familiarity with ESG and its influence on perceptions
The research revealed that the majority of participants had prior knowledge of the ESG agenda, with 78.3% (n=94) of respondents reporting familiarity with the topic. Only 21.7% (n=26) stated they were unaware of the concept. This finding aligns with the sample profile, which is predominantly composed of professionals from large companies, an environment where organizational size is often associated with greater efficiency and stability in ESG investments, as pointed out by Possebon et al. (2024). Familiarity with the topic is an important starting point for understanding the perception of ESG practices integration.
When investigating the influence of prior knowledge on the perception of ESG dimensions, it was observed that professionals familiar with the topic attributed higher averages in 11 out of the 12 dimensions evaluated. The largest differences were noted in the dimensions of Perception of Practices (+1.02), Leadership Priority (+1.01), and Image and Reputation (+0.97). This suggests that knowledge of the ESG concept empowers professionals to better identify and value their organizations’ actions and commitment to business sustainability, as well as to recognize the importance of leadership and reputation in this context.
In contrast, more normative character dimensions, such as Social Responsibility, Environmental Pillar, Economic Pillar, and Market Factors, showed considerably smaller perception differences, less than 0.3, between groups with and without prior knowledge. The Social Responsibility dimension, in particular, was the only one in which the group without prior knowledge registered a nominally higher average (M=4.19) compared to the group with knowledge (M=4.11), although without statistical significance (p=0.400). This pattern indicates a normative consensus regarding the principles of social responsibility, regardless of familiarity with the term ESG, which is in line with the advancement of the social dimension in Brazilian companies (Quartucci and Branco, 2024).
Perception of ESG dimensions: Analysis of Agreement Scales
The analysis of the 12 ESG dimensions, evaluated on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, revealed a clear hierarchy in respondents’ perception. The Social Responsibility dimension obtained the highest average (M=4.13; SD=1.05), followed by the Governance Pillar (M=3.93; SD=1.07) and the Social Pillar (M=3.73; SD=1.20). These results indicate that aspects related to social responsibility and governance are the most strongly perceived and valued by professionals, reflecting a consolidation of these values in corporate discourse, according to Stakeholder Theory (Freeman et al., 2010).
In contrast, Internal Communication registered the lowest average among all dimensions (M=3.07; SD=1.69), evidencing a significant gap in how ESG practices are communicated within organizations. This dimension was followed by Leadership Priority (M=3.17; SD=1.59) and Benefit to Society (M=3.18; SD=1.59), indicating that the perception of clear leadership engagement and direct social benefits is still incipient. The 1.06-point difference between Social Responsibility and Internal Communication underscores the challenge of translating normative values into concrete actions and information in daily corporate life.
The External Reputation dimension (SD=1.73) and Internal Communication (SD=1.69) showed the highest standard deviations, suggesting a less homogeneous perception and greater divergence of opinions among respondents on these axes. This may indicate that the institutional narrative about ESG is inconsistent or that employees’ experiences vary widely, making it difficult to form an internal and external consensus. The Strategic Integration (M=3.55; SD=1.27), Market Factors (M=3.48; SD=1.17), and Perception of Practices (M=3.34; SD=1.61) dimensions were in the intermediate range, while the Economic Pillar (M=3.36; SD=1.24) surpassed the Environmental Pillar (M=3.28; SD=1.29).
The concentration of the highest averages in dimensions such as Social Responsibility and Governance, which are more normative, and the lowest averages in dimensions related to the operationalization and communication of concrete practices, such as Internal Communication, Leadership Priority, and Societal Benefit, reinforces the diagnosis that professionals do not experience, on a daily basis, a clear integration of ESG in their activities. The Environmental Pillar, which requires verifiable implementation in operations such as water, waste, and energy management, presented the highest standard deviation among the pillars of the ESG tripod (SD=1.29), indicating challenges in consolidating a consensus on the institutional narrative before internal and external audiences.
Perception and Implementation of ESG by Hierarchical Level
The analysis of the perception of ESG practices implementation according to the respondents’ hierarchical level (n=109) revealed distinct patterns. The Base/Learning level registered the highest average perceived implementation (M=3.78; SD=1.99), and 55.56% of these professionals recognized ESG as a strategic priority. Next, the Tactical/Management level presented an average of 3.41 (SD=1.58), with 43.59% recognizing the strategic priority. The Operational/Execution level obtained an average of 3.24 (SD=1.64), with 30.43% recognition. On the other hand, the Strategic/Decision-making level registered the lowest average perceived implementation (M=3.07; SD=1.10) and the lowest recognition of ESG as a strategic priority, with only 20.00%.
The high standard deviation in the Base/Learning level (SD=1.99) indicates significant heterogeneity in perceptions, with some respondents evaluating the implementation as very high and others as low. In contrast, the Strategic/Decision-making level presented the lowest standard deviation (SD=1.10) for the implementation question, suggesting greater convergence of perceptions among leaders. Overall, the Base/Learning level registered the highest averages in almost all dimensions, indicating a more favorable perception of ESG implementation. Social Responsibility stood out in this group with the highest average (M=4.78; SD=0.44), reflecting high internal consensus.
However, the Governance Pillar was the only statistically robust exception, where the Strategic/Decision-making level registered the highest average (M=4.53; SD=0.74) among all groups (excluding Social Responsibility for Base/Learning). This difference was statistically significant compared to the Operational/Execution level (p=0.013, with Bonferroni correction), signaling an alignment of strategic management regarding the importance of control structures and institutional processes. This finding converges with the literature that points to governance as the most mature dimension of the ESG agenda (Possebon et al., 2024), possibly associated with compliance and accountability practices.
Despite the relevance of Governance, strategic managers attributed the lowest nominal averages to the Environmental Pillar (M=2.87; SD=0.99), Leadership Priority (M=2.80), and Market Factors (M=3.27; SD=1.16), although these differences were not statistically significant. This exploratory observation suggests a possible gap in leaders’ perception regarding the effective implementation and prioritization of environmental and market aspects, deserving further investigation in future studies. The analysis by hierarchical level complements the understanding of the relationship between the company’s structure and the feasibility of implementing ESG practices.
Perception of ESG integration by company size
The comparison of the perception of ESG integration by company size revealed a consistent and structural pattern, with 10 out of the 12 dimensions evaluated showing a statistically significant difference (p<0.05 in all cases). This absence of detectable regional difference is a relevant finding, especially considering the sample concentration in the Southeast (49.2%), which was acknowledged as a limitation of the study. This suggests that, for the researched sample, geographical location was not a determining factor in the overall perception of ESG integration.
Although not included in the binary comparison for not fitting into a specific regional scope, the subgroup of respondents operating at a national or international level (n=17) descriptively presented nominally higher means in dimensions such as Image and Reputation (M=4.12) and Social Responsibility (M=4.53), the latter with the lowest standard deviation in the entire comparison (SD=0.62). This subgroup also stood out in Internal Communication (M=3.35), traditionally a more fragile dimension in the analysis.
The inclusion of this subgroup in a three-category comparison (Southeast, non-Southeast, and national/international operations) did not reveal statistically significant differences in any of the 12 dimensions (p>0.05 in all cases, including Image and Reputation: p=0.173; Internal Communication: p=0.655; Social Responsibility: p=0.267). Despite the lack of statistical significance, the observed descriptive pattern is consistent with the hypothesis that companies with national or international operations tend to have more robust organizational structures, which aligns with the previous finding that organizational size is associated with greater efficiency and stability in ESG investments (Possebon et al., 2024). However, due to the small size of the subgroup and the absence of statistical significance, this observation should be treated as exploratory and not conclusive.
Perception of the financial impact of sustainable practices
The perception of the financial impact of sustainable practices among the 119 respondents to this question revealed a “financial perception paradox.” Only 28.6% of professionals perceived a clear and objective positive impact. The majority, 42.9%, reported an indirect impact or one that was difficult to measure, while 21.0% perceived no significant impact and 7.6% were unable to provide information. This distribution indicates that attributing a clear and measurable financial return to ESG is still a minority view, with most professionals expressing some ambiguity or lack of knowledge about this relationship.
The perception of economic benefits, understood as competitive advantages and value generators that precede direct financial impact (M=3.36; SD=1.24), also showed polarization. While 24.2% of professionals expressed skepticism, the concentration of responses at the neutral and moderate agreement levels (3 and 4) suggested that the benefits are perceived as present, but difficult to measure or directly attribute to organizational practices. This lack of consensus reflects the complexity of quantifying the return on investment in ESG, a challenge widely discussed in the literature.
This scenario of diffuse perceptions finds resonance in recent Brazilian literature, which documents the absence of immediate statistical significance between ESG and financial performance, being more evident in the social pillar and return on equity (Silva and Mascena, 2024). Aguiar and Moxotó (2025) reinforce that corporate reputation and the integration of practices act as mediators of financial return. This understanding suggests that actions aligned with peripheral ESG, focused on regulatory requirements and external image, may hinder the perception of tangible economic gains, transforming ESG into a compliance cost, according to Bastos et al. (2024).
The reversal of this perception of cost to investment fundamentally depends on a real strategic integration that connects ESG indicators to measurable financial results. This connection is essential for professionals who experience the practices daily to visualize and attribute the return. The difficulty in measuring and communicating the direct financial impact of ESG can, therefore, be one of the main obstacles to its full integration and valuation within organizations, especially in a profit-oriented corporate environment.
Respondent Supplementary Observations
The spontaneous comments from 12 respondents in the open-ended question complemented the quantitative data, revealing a contrast between experiences. On one hand, advances in technologies and processes were highlighted, such as carbon-neutral transportation, use of electric vans, installation of solar panels for renewable energy, and reverse logistics and selective collection programs. These initiatives exemplify the materialization of ESG practices in concrete operations, demonstrating that some companies are investing in tangible solutions for environmental and social sustainability.
On the other hand, the testimonials signaled the risk of a superficial implementation of the ESG agenda, perceived by some as a purely commercial resource. Reports indicated that, even with sustainability as an organizational principle, the absence of concrete measures and the ESG nomenclature itself signaled a disconnect between the declared value and the work routine. This suggests that, in some contexts, the ESG agenda may be more linked to marketing discourse than to a profound cultural and operational transformation, corroborating Elkington’s (2020) critique of the co-optation of the Triple Bottom Line.
Barriers to the maturity of the ESG agenda included low visibility of internal initiatives, leadership resistance, and the continuous effort for greater transparency in reporting and institutional communication. This scenario suggests that the legitimacy of the ESG agenda, for the professionals consulted, depends on the conversion of ideologies into tangible actions and on communication that overcomes total ignorance of the subject and immediate economic pragmatism. The effective integration of socio-environmental values into the core of culture and decision-making processes is crucial to prevent ESG from being perceived merely as a facade or a compliance cost, according to Zanoni and Oliveira (2023).
In summary, the research revealed that the ESG agenda is perceived as a consolidating normative consensus in the Brazilian corporate environment, with high familiarity and valuation of the social and governance pillars. However, operational and systemic integration into central decision-making processes is still perceived as incomplete, evidenced by the low effectiveness of internal communication and ambiguity in the perception of financial impact. Differences in perception vary according to hierarchical level and company size, with large companies and base/trainee levels showing greater engagement, while small companies and strategic levels face challenges in operationalization and prioritization. The central difficulty lies in structuring mechanisms that connect declared values to concrete and measurable corporate decisions, which points to the need for greater transparency and effective internal communication to strengthen the ESG agenda.
4. Conclusion
The present study aimed to analyze, through the perception of professionals, how the integration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions occurs in the culture and activities of companies in the Brazilian corporate environment. It was found that the ESG agenda is perceived as a consolidating normative consensus, with high participant familiarity and strong valuation of the social and governance pillars. However, a disconnect was observed between external discourse and internal practice, especially in internal communication, which registered the lowest average among the evaluated dimensions. Strategic integration proved less consolidated in small companies, which presented the lowest perception average, and perceptions varied according to hierarchical level, with the Base/Apprenticeship level exhibiting greater overall engagement, while the Strategic/Decision-making level stood out in governance. A “financial perception paradox” was identified, where most professionals reported an indirect or difficult-to-measure impact of sustainable practices, indicating that the central difficulty lies in structuring mechanisms that connect declared values to concrete and measurable corporate decisions.
The main contribution of this work lies in offering an in-depth understanding of the maturity of the ESG agenda in Brazil from the perspective of professionals, highlighting the need to strengthen internal communication and strategic integration beyond discourse. The study’s limitations include the concentration of the sample in the Southeast region and in large companies, which restricts the generalization of findings to the entire national corporate environment, and the cross-sectional nature of the research, which does not allow tracking the evolution of perceptions over time. For future studies, it is suggested to analyze the mediating role of leadership and the impact of regulation on accelerating the ESG agenda, as well as expanding the sample to include micro and small companies from other regions, in order to obtain a more comprehensive view of market plurality.
Bibliographic References
Aguiar, H.; Moxotó, A.C. 2025. The impact of ESG performance on corporate reputation: empirical evidence from the Brazilian market. Business Strategy & Development 8(e70262): 1-12. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.70262. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2025.
Bastos, M.F.L.; Gomes, C.M.; Coelho, D.B.; Perlin, A.P. 2024. Financial and non-financial determinants of companies performance in the Brazilian Stock Exchange’s Corporate Sustainability Index. Revista de Administração da UFSM 17: e9. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5902/1983465994209. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2026.
Câmara, L.M.A. 2021. Uma base para os pilares ESG: indicadores e regulamentação como ferramentas para superar o greenwashing. Controle Externo: Revista do Tribunal de Contas do Estado de Goiás 3(6): 99-113. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.52028/TCE-GO.v3i6-art08. Acesso em: 09 abr. 2026.
Elkington, J. 2020. Green Swans: the coming boom in regenerative capitalism. Fast Company Press, New York, NY, EUA.
Ferreira, C.A.A.; Batista, R.C.G.; Nunes, S.C.; Nero, A.C.P. 2025. Desigualdades e interseccionalidade: o estado das políticas de gênero, raça e inclusão de pessoas com deficiência nas empresas brasileiras. Cadernos EBAPE.BR 23(4): 1-15. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1590/1679-395120240170. Acesso em: 09 abr. 2026.
Freeman, R.E.; Harrison, J.S.; Wicks, A.C.; Parmar, B.; De Colle, S. 2010. Stakeholder Theory: the state of the art. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Moessa de Souza, L. 2023. Integration of ESG factors into financial regulations in Brazil: an overview. Revista CEJUR/TJSC 11: e0407, 1-14. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.37497/revistacejur.v11i00.407. Acesso em: 11 abr. 2026.
Possebon, E.A.G.; Cippiciani, F.A.; Savoia, J.R.F.; De Mariz, F. 2024. ESG scores and performance in Brazilian public companies. Sustainability 16(13): 5650. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135650. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2026.
Quartucci, G.; Branco, M.E.M.A.C. 2024. O impulso ESG e a diversidade e inclusão nas empresas mais sustentáveis da bolsa de valores brasileira. Revista Contabilidade, Gestão e Governança 27(2): 157-186. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.51341/cgg.v27i2.3171.Acesso em: 28 nov. 2025.
Ribeiro, T.L.; Lima, A.A. 2023. Environmental, social and governance (ESG): a bibliometric review study. Journal of Interdisciplinary Knowledge 6(e01618): 1-15. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.37497/jik.v6iknowledge.1571. Acesso em: 17 dez. 2025.
Serviço Brasileiro de Apoio às Micro e Pequenas Empresas [SEBRAE]. 2023. ESG em MPEs. Disponível em: https://sebrae.com.br/sites/PortalSebrae/artigos/esg-em-mpes,24e9efcb3a6b8810VgnVCM1000001b00320aRCRD. Acesso em: 12 abr. 2026.
Silva, F.E.; Mascena, K.M.C. 2024. A relação entre ESG e desempenho financeiro em empresas brasileiras. Revista de Administração da UFSM 17(3): e6. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.5902/1983465986555. Acesso em: 20 nov. 2025.
Zanoni, B.L.; Oliveira, S.A. 2023. Reflexões sobre o sentido de sustentabilidade em organizações. Revista de Administração de Empresas 63(2): 1-20. Disponível em: https://www.scielo.br/j/rae/a/PFbNDMpQRvgscwJ9FZNPh7D/. Acesso em: 09 abr. 2026.
Zeni, I.; Ogoshi, R.C.S.; Maia, A.L.R.; Borges, C.V. 2024. Uma revisão bibliográfica sobre a sustentabilidade empresarial. Revista de Gestão e Secretariado 15(10): 1-8. Disponível em: http://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v15i10.4209. Acesso em: 10 jan. 2026.
Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Business Management of the MBA USP/Esalq
To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform