Corporate Social Responsibility: Comparative Analysis between Institutional Discourse and Social Perception

Bárbara Matias Bueno de Mattos Galvão; Thaís Helena Zero de Oliveira Pereira

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202602703

Article derived from a Final Course 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 the Pecege Institute for textual synthesis and organization.

Abstract

The study analyzed corporate discourse and social perceptions of a project within the social pillar of the ESG agenda of Ambev, a multinational beverage company. The objective was to understand the extent to which the discourse presented in the company’s Annual Sustainability Report aligned with external public perceptions of a specific initiative. To this end, a qualitative research approach, characterized as a comparative case study, was employed. Comments published on the company’s Instagram feed, referring to the year 2024 and the program in question, and the 2025 Sustainability Report were analyzed. Data analysis was conducted using the content analysis method. The results revealed significant gaps between corporate discourse and social perception of the initiative. The main point of tension concerned working conditions, as the care for employees, emphasized institutionally, was not confirmed in the experiences reported by informal workers, such as street vendors and delivery drivers. It was concluded that, although the ESG agenda shows progress, the social pillar still represents a challenge, as institutional discourse does not always materialize into practices perceived as legitimate by the directly involved publics. The research contributed to the debate on corporate social responsibility in Brazil.

Keywords: Content analysis; Organizational discourse; Corporate social responsibility; Stakeholders.

1. Introduction

The process of globalization and the intensification of modernization have promoted profound transformations in the labor market and reconfigured social relations. Concomitantly, there has been an expansion of concern with the impacts of human activities on the environment, as observed by Guedes and Oliveira (2026). In the Western context, these changes have reverberated in culture and in modes of production and consumption, which have come to be characterized by accelerated growth, expansion of capitalism and consumption, intensifying socio-environmental risks, as pointed out by Beck (2011). In this scenario, reflection on sustainability strategies has become imperative as a response to the limitations of the current development model.

It is within this panorama that the ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) agenda has been consolidated, a conceptual framework oriented towards sustainability in a broad sense. This agenda aims at holding public and private institutions accountable for reconciling economic development, social impact, and environmental preservation, in line with the logic of the triple bottom line, as proposed by Elkington (1997). Although its principles were already debated in different spheres, the formal and systematized adoption of the ESG agenda by companies is relatively recent, intensifying from the 2010s onwards, according to Breda et al. (2024).

The central focus of ESG is sustained by three pillars: environmental, social, and governance. Although the three pillars are equally important, recent studies indicate that actions related to the environment and governance tend to present clearer metrics, allowing for a more objective evaluation of their impact. Amaral, Willerding, and Lapolli (2023) state that environmental and governance practices are more easily measurable, while the social pillar faces greater challenges in proving its effective implementation.

The environmental pillar of the ESG agenda is the most consolidated, especially due to the existence of a robust legal framework and the advancement of social awareness regarding global environmental impacts. In the Brazilian context, the breadth and complexity of environmental legislation (Machado, 2015), associated with growing social awareness of the environmental risks linked to the contemporary development model (Porto-Gonçalves, 2006), highlight the centrality of the issue. Governance, in turn, is the most concrete item on the agenda, as its adoption in organizations is practically inevitable, both due to legal requirements and the increasing demand for transparency and integrity from stakeholders. In Brazil, discussions on governance have intensified, mainly after corporate crises and corruption scandals, which highlighted the need for greater rigor in social control of business practices (Andrade and Rossetti, 2017).

The social pillar, on the other hand, has proven to be the most fragile regarding the proof of its practical application. Many initiatives, although recognized, are still limited to the creation of superficial programs and do not establish clear mechanisms for verifying their effectiveness. Thus, despite the visibility given to social issues, the mechanisms capable of measuring the effectiveness of the implemented actions are still limited.

Given this context, the challenge remains to understand whether the social initiatives adopted by companies, beyond their disclosure, produce positive impacts on communities. The analysis becomes more complex when considering the company’s sector of operation, such as the alcoholic beverage industry, which is potentially associated with social problems like abusive consumption and dependence. Data from the Center for Information on Health and Alcohol (CISA, 2024) indicate that abusive alcohol consumption in Brazil increased from 18.1% to 20.8% in 2023. Perceptions about the impact of alcoholic beverages on individuals’ social lives make the investigation into the social initiatives developed by companies in this sector relevant, especially considering the positive and negative effects of these economic activities.

From this gap, the present study proposes to analyze a social project developed by Ambev, a Brazilian beverage company, created in 1999 by the union of Cervejaria Brahma and Companhia Antarctica, which leads the beer market in Brazil and operates in several other countries in America. The objective is to investigate to what extent the company’s corporate social responsibility discourse aligns with the perceptions of the external public regarding its social initiatives.

2. Material and Methods

The research was characterized as qualitative, seeking to understand the dynamics of social relations and interpret the community’s perceptions of the social projects developed by Ambev. As highlighted by Gerhardt and Silveira (2009), qualitative research focuses on understanding and explaining social phenomena from the meanings attributed by the groups involved. Additionally, it was exploratory in nature, aiming to provide greater familiarity with the investigated problem, making it more explicit and enabling hypothesis construction (Gerhardt; Silveira, 2009).

The methodological design adopted was the comparative case study, which allowed for an in-depth analysis of the social performance of a single organization and the perceptions of its stakeholders, individuals and/or groups affected by the achievement of the company’s objectives (Freeman, 1984). The choice of this design was justified by the complexity of the object investigated and the need to articulate more than one source of evidence (Gil, 2007; Yin, 2015).

Ambev, the organization object of the study, is a large, publicly traded company operating in the beverage sector, with production and commercialization of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. It is a company that is part of a multinational group, with a presence in Brazilian territory, including production units and distribution centers located in different regions of the country, with emphasis on the state of São Paulo. The choice of a company in the beverage industry added complexity to the analysis of the social pillar of the ESG agenda, considering the impacts associated with the consumption of alcoholic beverages (CISA, 2024).

Data collection was based exclusively on public sources, with no need for direct contact with institutional representatives or access to confidential information. The methodological path was structured as a research protocol, as proposed by Flick (2009). The primary sources were Ambev’s Annual Sustainability Report, 2025 edition with data referring to the year 2024, and comments published on the company’s Instagram feed, collected throughout 2024.

The selection of Instagram as the data collection platform occurred from an exploratory stage aimed at identifying, among the organization’s institutional social networks (Instagram, LinkedIn, and Threads), which one presented the greatest relevance to the research object. Instagram was selected because it gathered, in the analyzed period, a larger quantity of publications and comments directly related to the investigated project, configuring itself as a legitimate space for the qualitative investigation of situated discursive practices (Flick, 2009).

For the analysis of the comments, the collection was delimited to the first ten comments of each post on Ambev’s Instagram feed, referring to the year 2024, which contained written opinions and were pertinent to the object of study. Comments not pertinent to the development of the work, such as individual consumption complaints, generic comments unrelated to the project, isolated emojis, or decontextualized words, were disregarded. The temporal delimitation was fundamental to ensure analytical depth and avoid dispersions that would compromise the consistency of the results (Gil, 2007).

The data analysis was performed using the content analysis method, according to the methodology proposed by Bardin (2016). This approach allowed for the systematic interpretation of the corporate discourse present in the Sustainability Report and the perceptions expressed in the Instagram comments, aligning with the qualitative perspective focused on understanding social relations (Gerhardt; Silveira, 2009).

The data extracted from Instagram and the Annual Sustainability Report were organized and classified into seven predefined analytical categories: a) general project evaluation; b) access and participation; c) economic and financial relationship; d) working conditions and partnership; e) communication and institutional responsiveness; f) ethics, social and environmental responsibility; and g) corporate image. These categories were applied transversally to both sources, allowing the institutional discourse to be confronted with the perceptions expressed by the community.

The interpretation of the results was guided by two main analytical axes: the company’s institutional discourse, considering strategies, narratives, and forms of communication related to social projects, and external perceptions, based on the analysis of community comments and manifestations. We sought to identify and analyze possible convergences and tensions between the organizational discourse and the social reception of the initiatives, in coherence with the objective of investigating the alignment between the corporate social responsibility discourse and external public perceptions.

3. Results and Discussion

The comparative analysis between Ambev’s institutional discourse, present in its 2025 Annual Sustainability Report, and the perceptions of the external public, manifested in comments on the company’s Instagram during 2024, revealed a significant mismatch. While the report constructs a strategic narrative of corporate social responsibility, the community’s manifestations indicate experiences that strain this image. The study showed that, although the company strives to align itself with the principles of the ESG agenda, the practical materialization of these guidelines, especially in the social pillar, faces considerable challenges, according to the perspective of Bertoncello and Chang Junior (2007) on the incorporation of the interests of multiple social actors.

Regarding corporate discourse, the 2025 Sustainability Report does not present an isolated social project, but rather a series of initiatives diluted in information relevant to stakeholders, such as objectives, profits, and risks. This strategic approach aims for an integrated narrative, with multiple connected actions, which, in turn, dilutes the analysis of specific impact and reinforces the systemic nature of the company’s activities. The organization seeks to associate its business success with the ability to establish and sustain links with diverse audiences, reinforcing the centrality of the social pillar as a strategic element for its institutional legitimation.

The institutional narrative reiterates social projects articulated with values such as responsibility, positive impact, and shared growth, seeking to bring the company closer to social demands widely recognized by its stakeholders. Inserted in the alcoholic beverage market, Ambev uses initiatives such as the distribution of drinking water during calamities or productive inclusion programs to symbolically reposition its image, shifting the focus from the main activity to responsible consumption and social commitment. This strategy contributes to the construction of a socially committed image, as observed in the discourse analysis.

The overall evaluation of the projects in the report is predominantly positive and generalized, especially regarding working conditions and participation. The economic relationship is presented in a diluted manner, without directly linking social actions to specific financial results. The corporate image is constructed to highlight positive aspects, such as ethics and socio-environmental concern. However, the report does not directly address the perception of the external community, although it mentions stakeholders, which limits the analysis of the individual category and reinforces the need to confront the discourse with the public’s experiences.

Despite the emphasis on positive narratives about social impact, the report also includes excerpts addressing the risks associated with the company’s activities, embedded in compliance and risk management sections. These contents contrast with the institutional discourse of positive impact, highlighting tensions between legitimacy building and the acknowledgment of potential adverse impacts. This duality suggests a complexity in corporate communication, where the company seeks to balance the promotion of its social actions with transparency about the challenges inherent in its sector and operations.

In the analysis of excerpts from the Sustainability Report, 48 records were categorized. Most of these excerpts were allocated to the category “institutional communication and responsiveness”, which accounted for 11 records. Next, the categories “ethics, social and environmental responsibility” and “working conditions and partnership” presented 10 records each. The category “corporate image” had 7 records, “general project evaluation” 6, “economic and financial relationship” 3, and “access and participation” 1. This distribution indicates the areas of greatest emphasis in the company’s formal discourse.

In contrast, the analysis of comments on Instagram revealed a distinct scenario. 87 comments were categorized, distributed across 13 posts. The category “working conditions and partnership” concentrated the largest volume of expressions, with 40 comments, the majority of which were negative. The other categories received: “institutional communication and responsiveness” (15 comments), “ethics, social and environmental responsibility” (10 comments), “corporate image” (8 comments), “general project evaluation” (6 comments), “economic and financial relationship” (5 comments), and “access and participation” (3 comments). This concentration of criticism points to an area of high sensitivity and dissatisfaction among the public.

Working conditions and partnership

The category “working conditions and partnership” emerged as the main point of tension between institutional discourse and community perceptions. In the report, the company emphasizes the valorization of stakeholders, highlighting “active listening” as a central strategy and the commitment to “ensure healthy and safe working conditions for all employees, both direct and partner” (Ambev, 2025, p. 26). This narrative seeks to associate the company’s performance with principles of care, support, and development, aligning with expectations of corporate social responsibility.

However, comments on Instagram revealed a contrasting reality, marked by recurring reports of precariousness, operational difficulties, and lack of adequate support. The manifestations, mainly from resellers and street vendors, highlighted logistical problems, long waiting periods, and inadequate working conditions, especially during high-demand events like carnival. One account exemplified this situation: “this year was the worst carnival (…), we had to sleep on the street (…) more than 4 hours to get supplies (…), a real shame” (Research data, 2026).

Other comments intensified the criticism, pointing to degrading conditions: “we are treated like dogs (…) there isn’t even a tap to brush our teeth (…) impossible to work sleepy, tired and without bathing”. This discrepancy between the institutional discourse of a structured and safe relationship and the concrete experiences of indirect workers highlights fragilities in the execution of social responsibility guidelines. The “active listening” promoted by the company does not materialize, according to the reports, in effective responses to the needs of these workers, indicating a gap between intention and perceived practice.

Overall project evaluation

In the category “overall project evaluation”, a clear discrepancy was observed between the company’s communication and the public’s perception. Ambev’s institutional discourse presents its projects with a positive, transformative bias, emphasizing shared growth. However, the evaluations from the comments were all negative, questioning the transparency and veracity of the information disclosed. This divergence suggests that the legitimacy built by the company differs significantly from the legitimacy perceived by external audiences, indicating a challenge in building trust.

Institutional communication and responsiveness

The category “institutional communication and responsiveness” concentrated criticisms related to customer service and problem resolution. While Ambev’s report states that “listening is […] the starting point” for identifying and resolving the “pains of the ecosystem” (Ambev, 2025, p. 21), partners complained about the difficulty in resolving calls or completing purchases. Although the company reports long-term values and transformative impact, and acknowledges in the report that there is no guarantee of adequate management of social risks, the manifestations indicate that the existence of communication channels does not translate into effective responsiveness to demands.

Economic and financial relationship

In the “economic and financial relationship” category, the company’s report shows significant profits for the 2024 period, but does not detail specific investments in social projects. This absence of concrete information limits the assessment of the material dimension of the company’s social commitment. Public feedback, in turn, focused on demands related to pending payments from a cultural notice and difficulties in accessing credit lines provided by the company, shifting the discussion to the concrete experience of beneficiaries and partners regarding the resources.

Access and participation

The “access and participation” category did not present as sharp a dichotomy as others. The company’s discourse in the Sustainability Report describes its initiatives as broad, inclusive, and with significant reach, aiming to mobilize 5 million people by 2032. However, only one critical comment was collected in this category, pointing to an alleged company preference for closing deals with large partners over small entrepreneurs. This empirical gap in the comments does not allow for confirmation or refutation of the institutional narrative, suggesting the need for further investigation.

Ethics, social and environmental responsibility

The category “ethics, social and environmental responsibility” revealed specific criticisms about the mass distribution of alcoholic beverages, but these were not based on robust enough social experiences to confront what the report proposes. The theme of environmental responsibility was mentioned in only one generic comment. In contrast, the company claims to lead environmental initiatives, with programs focused on reducing environmental impact and encouraging the use of reusable packaging, dedicating 10 of the 48 excerpts of the report to this area and highlighting its actions in environmental disasters and pandemics.

Corporate image

The “corporate image” category presented a dichotomous nature. The company projects an ethical, committed image, of high impact, value, and longevity in its discourse. However, stakeholders, especially indirect employees, expressed distrust regarding the information published by the company and third-party reports. This divergence suggests that the construction of a socially responsible image is not sustained solely on a discursive level, requiring coherence between what is communicated and what is actually experienced by the public.

The profile of the subjects who expressed themselves in the analyzed comments is a relevant aspect. The interactions focused on direct clients, consumers, and, mainly, indirect collaborators, such as street vendors. These audiences, often in more vulnerable positions in the value chain, are the ones who expressed the most criticism. In the case of indirect collaborators, the economic dependence on the company, despite adverse conditions and disputes, limits their effective decision-making margin, as the continuity of their businesses depends on access to Ambev’s products.

In contrast, the end consumer, although also critical, demonstrated less engagement in volume and intensity. Notably, other relevant stakeholders, such as investors, institutional partners, and direct collaborators, did not participate significantly in the analyzed social media interactions. This scenario suggests that public criticism tends to emerge predominantly from segments most exposed to operational conditions and the direct effects of corporate practices, while groups with greater institutional power or less immediate dependence on the activity remain relatively silent in the discussion space.

The initial hypothesis that the company’s insertion into the alcoholic beverage sector would strain social criticism, especially in the category of corporate social responsibility, was not robustly sustained. Only two of the 87 analyzed manifestations explicitly addressed the issue of alcohol consumption, suggesting that the public prioritizes more immediate and experienced issues, such as working conditions and the support offered. This may indicate a relative effectiveness of the institutional discourse in reorienting public debate, shifting the focus away from the nature of the company’s economic activity.

The results of this research show that the relationship between organizations and stakeholders is a two-way street, where the publics involved are not only affected by the company’s decisions, but also produce evaluations, criticisms, and demands that strain institutional discourse. The consideration of stakeholders, therefore, implies not only recognizing their existence in corporate communication, but understanding that their experiences and manifestations contribute to the construction of the organization’s performance and image, reinforcing the need for institutional discourse to translate into concrete and perceived as legitimate practices.

In summary, the research revealed a significant mismatch between Ambev’s corporate social responsibility discourse and the social perception of its initiatives, with the category “working conditions and partnership” being the main point of contention. Although the institutional discourse aligns with ESG premises, its effectiveness depends on the ability to translate these principles into concrete practices, perceived as legitimate by different audiences. The comparative analysis between the report and community manifestations shows that building a socially responsible image requires coherence between what is communicated and what is actually experienced, challenging the company to improve its practices in the social pillar of the ESG agenda.

4. Conclusion

The present study aimed to investigate the extent to which Ambev’s corporate social responsibility discourse aligned with the perceptions of the external public regarding its social initiatives. A significant mismatch was found between the institutional narrative, present in the 2025 Annual Sustainability Report, and the experiences reported by the community in comments on the company’s Instagram during 2024. It was identified that, although the corporate discourse constructed an image of positive impact and shared growth, the manifestations of stakeholders, especially informal workers such as street vendors and delivery drivers, pointed to precarious working conditions, operational difficulties, and a lack of adequate support. The category “working conditions and partnership” emerged as the main point of tension, evidencing that the “active listening” promoted by the company did not materialize into effective responses to the needs of these groups. A discrepancy was also observed in the general evaluation of projects and in institutional communication, where the legitimacy built by the company differed from the legitimacy perceived by the public.

The research contributed to the debate on corporate social responsibility in Brazil by providing subsidies that can assist managers and policymakers in improving practices related to the social dimension of the ESG agenda. However, the study presented limitations, such as asymmetry in stakeholder participation, given that groups with greater institutional power or less dependence on the company remained relatively silent in the analyzed space. Furthermore, the category “access and participation” did not produce sufficient evidence to confirm or refute the institutional narrative, suggesting the need for more in-depth investigation into the effectiveness of inclusion initiatives and the profile of beneficiaries. The results reinforce that building a socially responsible image requires coherence between what is communicated and what is effectively experienced by different audiences, challenging organizations to translate ESG principles into concrete and perceived as legitimate practices.

Bibliographic References

Amaral, M. R.; Willerding, I. A. V.; Lapolli, E. M. 2023. Foco no pilar social como estratégia ESG. In: ICKM Ciki, 2023, Santa Catarina, Brasil. Anais… p. 1-14.

American Beverage Company [AMBEV]. 2025. Relatório Anual de Sustentabilidade. Disponível em: https://ri.ambev.com.br/relatorios-publicacoes/relatorios-anuais-e-sustentabilidade/. Acesso em: 03 abr. 2026.

Andrade, A.; Rossetti, J. P. 2017. Governança Corporativa: Fundamentos, Desenvolvimento e Tendências. 8ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Bardin, L. 2016. Análise de Conteúdo. 4ed. Edições 70, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Beck, U. 2011. Sociedade de risco: rumo a uma outra modernidade. 2ed. Editora 34, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Bertoncello, S. L.; Chang Junior, J. 2007. A importância da Responsabilidade Social Corporativa como fator de diferenciação. FACOM 17(1): 70-76.

Breda, A. S.; Rocha, I. R. S.; Endo, G. Y.; Breda, A. S.; Santos, L. C. 2024. Análise da produção científica sobre Enviroment, Social and Governance (ESG). LOGS – Logística e Operações Globais Sustentáveis 6(1): 74-97.

Centro de Informações sobre Saúde e Álcool [CISA]. 2024. Álcool e a saúde dos brasileiros: panorama 2024. Disponível em: https://cisa.org.br/images/upload/Panorama_Alcool_Saude_CISA2024.pdf?utm_source=site_cisa&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=panorama_2024&utm_id=panorama2024&utm_term=panorama%2Bsaude%2Balcool&utm_content=btnlink. Acesso em: 25 jan. 2026.

Dados da pesquisa, 2026 [Referência completa não encontrada no documento original]

Elkington, J. 1997. Partnerships from Cannibals with Forks. The Fiiple Bottom line of 21st Century Business. Environmental Quality Management: 37-51.

Flick, U. 2009. Introdução à pesquisa qualitativa. 3ed. Artmed, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil.

Freeman, R. E. 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman, Boston, MA, Brasil.

Gerhardt, T. E.; Silveira, D. M. 2009. Metodologia da Pesquisa em Administração. 2ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Gil, A. C. 2007. Métodos e Técnicas de Pesquisa Social. 6ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Guedes, A. N.; Oliveira, R. C. A. 2026. Como adiar o fim do mundo: globalização e governança algorítmica no capitalista da informação e de vigilância. Cad. EBAPE BR. 24 (1): 1-14.

Machado, P. A. L. 2015. Direito Ambiental Brasileiro. 23ed. Malheiros, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Porto-Gonçalves, C. 2006. A globalização da natureza e a natureza da globalização. Civilização Brasileira, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

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

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