Corporate Social Responsibility and Business Performance in a Market Influenced by New Generations

Lorena Matos Mendonça; Luana Zanetti Trindade Ferraz

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202603159

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

Socio-environmental issues have gained increasing relevance in the corporate context, influencing consumer evaluation of organizations and their purchasing choices. The influence of sustainability and corporate social responsibility on consumption decisions and organizational performance was analyzed, considering differences between age groups. The research, of an applied nature, with a qualitative and quantitative approach and exploratory character, was conducted through a field survey with a structured questionnaire, applied to 104 respondents. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics and by constructing socio-environmental engagement indices, complemented by comparisons between age groups. The purchase decision was predominantly determined by traditional attributes, such as quality and price, while sustainability acted as a brand exclusion criterion, establishing minimum acceptability limits. Higher levels of socio-environmental engagement were observed among older individuals, revealing a mismatch between declared engagement and actual behavior. Sustainable practices showed an indirect relationship with organizational performance, mediated by corporate reputation, risk perception, and long-term value generation. It was concluded that sustainable action constitutes a requirement for legitimacy and permanence of companies in the contemporary market, transcending the role of a competitive differential. The study contributed methodologically with the proposition of behavioral and perceptual engagement indices for sustainability analysis.

Keywords: Consumer behavior; Purchase decision; ESG; Organizational reputation; Sustainability.

1. Introduction

The discussion on corporate social responsibility (CSR) has consolidated throughout the 20th century, driven by Bowen’s (1953) reflections, who advocated for the need for organizations to consider the social impacts of their decisions. This concept evolved from isolated philanthropic actions to a more comprehensive model, in which corporations seek to balance economic, legal, ethical, and social obligations, as highlighted by Carroll (1991). This understanding was expanded with the introduction of the Triple Bottom Line concept, which integrates the economic, social, and environmental dimensions into organizational performance, allowing companies to generate value in these three spheres simultaneously (Elkington, 1997).

In parallel, the global debate moved towards a more structured approach, formalized in the term Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG). The report Who Cares Wins (UN; IFC, 2004) recommended the incorporation of environmental, social, and governance criteria into financial risk and return analyses. In Brazil, the movement gained relevance in the early 2000s, with the Ethos Institute (n.d.) consolidating social and environmental responsibility as a model of ethical and transparent management. This responsibility implies reconciling the pursuit of profit with the interests of various stakeholders, generating benefits for shareholders and society (Dias, 2012). Companies with consolidated ESG strategies tend to present higher long-term profitability, strengthening reputation and attracting investors (Serafeim, 2022), a perspective reinforced by regulatory evolution, such as CVM resolutions (2023, 2026) that foresee the mandatory disclosure of financial information related to sustainability.

The growing concern with socio-environmental issues has also driven significant changes in consumer behavior and organizational strategies. In a scenario of broad access to information and increased awareness, sustainability has come to influence purchasing choices (Dias, 2017; Tachizawa, 2019). Contemporary consumers value brands with purpose and responsibility, favoring those that demonstrate consistent commitment to social and environmental causes (Kotler et al., 2021). This trend is even more relevant with the rise of new generational groups, such as Generation Z and millennials, who have high access to information and high expectations regarding the social role of corporations, valuing ethics, diversity, and transparency (McKinsey, 2018; Deloitte, 2025; Tapscott, 2009).

However, the adoption of sustainable and social responsibility practices, although strategic, implies operational costs and decisions that can affect the organizations’ profit margin, making it essential to evaluate the tangible return of these initiatives. Furthermore, the increasing concern with the phenomenon of greenwashing, characterized by exaggerated or reality-detached disclosure of sustainable initiatives, generates distrust. Communication strategies that convey an image of environmental commitment without corresponding actions can generate negative effects, such as financial losses and reduction in market value (Pagotto, 2023; Walker and Wan, 2012). This inconsistency between discourse and action can compromise image and market share, especially given the growing influence of conscious consumption.

Given this complex scenario, which involves the need for companies to demonstrate a genuine commitment to sustainability and social responsibility, while simultaneously facing cost challenges and the scrutiny of increasingly informed consumers, it becomes crucial to understand the dynamics of how these factors influence purchasing decisions and business performance. The growing influence of new generations on market relations and the work environment adds a layer of complexity to this analysis, justifying the relevance of investigating how sustainability, social responsibility, and ESG impact consumption patterns and company results. In this regard, the objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between socio-environmental actions, the purchasing decision process, and corporate results, considering different age groups.

2. Material and Methods

The study was characterized as a research of an applied nature, with a quali-quantitative approach and exploratory character. The objective was to understand the patterns of conscious consumption among different age groups and to verify possible differences in the valuation of sustainable and socially responsible organizational strategies. This design allowed for the analysis of the influence of socio-environmental factors on individual decisions and their perceptions about the relationship between these practices and organizational performance, according to the general objective of the study.

The research strategy consisted of a field survey, carried out through a structured questionnaire. The data collection instrument was developed and applied on the Google Forms platform, comprising closed-ended and multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire was divided into three thematic blocks: sociodemographic profile of respondents, consumption habits, and perception of sustainability and corporate reputation, aiming to characterize the sample and analyze behaviors and attitudes.

For the analysis, variables capable of capturing behavioral aspects were selected, such as the consideration of socio-environmental factors in purchasing, the willingness to pay more, and the rejection of companies for negative practices. Perceptual aspects were also included, related to the importance attributed to sustainability, corporate reputation, and organizational performance. The generational dimension was incorporated to verify possible differences between age groups. The non-probabilistic convenience sample obtained 104 valid responses.

Data collection occurred voluntarily and anonymously, with the questionnaire disseminated through social networks and personal contacts, without collecting sensitive or identifiable data. As it did not involve risks, interventions, or participant identification, the research did not require submission to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), as stipulated in national guidelines for opinion studies, ensuring the ethical compliance of the procedure.

The data analysis began with descriptive statistics, using Google Forms tools to calculate absolute and relative frequencies. This stage aimed to present an overview of the respondents’ profile and the sample’s perceptions of sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and consumption behavior. Descriptive analysis made it possible to identify response patterns and predominant trends, serving as a basis for complementary analyses.

To deepen the investigation, the data were exported and processed in Microsoft Excel software, allowing segmented analyses by age group. Participants were grouped into three categories: 18 to 34 years old, 35 to 44 years old, and 45 years or older. From this segmentation, two socio-environmental engagement indices were constructed, the behavioral and the perceptual, to compare conscious consumption patterns and perceptions among the different age groups.

The behavioral index was composed of variables related to effective consumption practices, such as the frequency of considering socio-environmental aspects and the willingness to pay more. The perceptual index included variables associated with attitudes, evaluations, and knowledge level about sustainability. For the construction of the indices, the response alternatives were converted into scores, assigning increasing values to the options of greater engagement and zero for absence of knowledge. After conversion, the scores were summed and the average was calculated by age group.

The calculation of engagement indices was performed using the formula Ig = Pg / (ng * k). In this expression, Ig represents the average engagement index for age group g; Pg corresponds to the sum of scores obtained by respondents in age group g; ng is the number of respondents in the age group; and k is the number of questions that make up the index (three for behavioral and five for perceptual). Additionally, complementary descriptive analyses were conducted based on the frequency of responses, converted into percentages, to identify factors for brand choice and rejection, and the perception of socio-environmental engagement across generations.

3. Results and Discussion

The analysis of the collected data allowed for an in-depth understanding of individuals’ perceptions regarding corporate environmental and social responsibility practices, as well as the influence of these initiatives on consumption decisions and the evaluation of business performance. The study sample comprised 104 respondents, predominantly female, representing 66.3% of the total. A concentration of participants aged 45 or older was observed, corresponding to 37.5% of the sample, and a high level of education, with 52.9% holding a complete higher education degree and 34.6% with postgraduate studies or more. This age and educational diversity was crucial for comparative analyses, enabling the investigation of how variables such as age and education shape consumer perception and purchasing behavior concerning the responsible performance of organizations.

The findings revealed that considering socio-environmental aspects at the time of purchase is a common practice among respondents. It was found that 38.5% of participants consider these factors frequently, 34.6% occasionally, and 9.6% always. This indicates that, for the majority of the sample, elements of sustainability and social responsibility are integrated into the decision-making process, albeit with different levels of intensity. Sustainability tends to act as a complementary criterion, being evaluated alongside traditional attributes such as price, quality, and convenience, as pointed out by Kotler et al. (2021), who emphasize the growing appreciation for brands with purpose and responsibility.

Regarding the willingness to pay an additional amount for sustainable products, the data showed that 32.7% of participants would accept an increase of up to 10%, while 26.9% would pay up to 5% more. Additionally, 30.8% stated that the decision would depend on the context. These results suggest that socio-environmental attributes can add perceived value to products and brands, influencing consumers’ willingness to pay. This additional valuation is interpreted as a symbolic investment in positive practices for society and the environment, according to Dias (2017), connecting the willingness to pay more not only to the functional characteristics of the product but also to the brand’s values and reputation.

The research also highlighted the relevance of brand rejection due to inadequate socio-environmental practices. A total of 66.3% of participants stated they had already stopped consuming products or services from companies involved in conduct considered negative. This data underscores that consumers not only value responsible organizations but also penalize those that demonstrate inconsistency between discourse and practice. Such behavior corroborates the observations of Walker and Wan (2012), who highlight how deceptive practices, such as greenwashing, can lead to loss of credibility, boycotts, and a reduction in market value for companies.

When analyzing the determining factors in the purchase decision, quality was the most cited attribute (96 mentions), followed by price (71 mentions). Company reputation obtained 40 mentions, while sustainability was cited 29 times. These results indicate the predominance of traditional attributes in the decision-making process, even in a scenario of growing awareness about sustainability. Although socio-environmental issues are present at the time of choice, they do not yet constitute the main selection criterion, acting more as elements of differentiation and reputation strengthening than as primary decisive factors, complementing the traditional evaluation attributes.

The importance attributed to sustainable and socially responsible practices was universally recognized by respondents, with 75% classifying them as “very important” and 25% as “important”. This consensus demonstrates that the ESG agenda transcends the role of a mere competitive differentiator, becoming a set of elementary attributes expected from organizations. This perception directly influences brand trust and credibility, suggesting that companies that do not incorporate these principles may face negative impacts on their image and reputation, while consistent performance strengthens legitimacy and market positioning.

The influence of social responsibility on corporate reputation was perceived as strong by 51.9% of participants and moderate by 34.6%. This finding reinforces that environmental and social strategies strengthen reputation and build trusting relationships with consumers. Corporate reputation, therefore, is no longer associated solely with product quality, but also with how companies manage their environmental and social impacts. Tachizawa (2019) argues that companies that integrate these issues into their strategic decisions gain competitive advantages, such as strengthening institutional image, reducing risks, and generating long-term value.

The perception of the relationship between sustainability and economic value generation was also widely positive, with 61.5% of participants identifying a direct relationship and 23.1% stating that this relationship depended on the context. This finding reinforces the idea that corporate responsibility is not seen merely as ethical conduct, but as a strategic factor capable of driving competitiveness and long-term value creation, as argued by Serafeim (2022). Sustainability, in this sense, is perceived as an integral component of organizational performance.

In corporate investment decisions, the preference for a balance between profitability and socio-environmental responsibility predominated, with 64.4% of choices. Only 24% indicated prioritizing exclusively financial return, and 10.6% pointed to sustainable aspects as the main criterion. This evidence demonstrates that financial performance is not perceived in isolation by investors, but rather associated with responsible practices, corroborating the importance of business models oriented towards creating sustainable value. The integration of these criteria reflects a more holistic view of business success.

Despite the appreciation for responsible initiatives, the level of knowledge about sustainability reporting, such as GRI and IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards, was found to be low. Only 8.7% of respondents reported a high level of familiarity, while 25% declared intermediate knowledge. The majority of the sample (42.3%) indicated a low degree of familiarity, and 24% stated they had no knowledge whatsoever about these reports. This asymmetry between the perception of the importance of sustainability and the technical knowledge of formal reporting instruments suggests a gap in understanding the mechanisms for disclosing this information.

The perception of environmental concern among different generations indicated that 69.2% of the sample considered that younger generations show greater commitment to environmental causes. In contrast, 12.5% attributed this prominence to older generations, and 9.6% identified no significant distinctions. This perception, although aligned with research from McKinsey (2018) and Deloitte (2025), may be a social construct, suggesting that the greater engagement attributed to young people may be more related to discourse and awareness than to effective purchasing actions, with generational influence occurring more at the level of conceptions and values.

The socio-environmental factors most associated with brand rejection were slave or child labor (76 responses), animal abuse or testing (61 responses), air and water pollution (51 responses), and deforestation (39 responses). This data indicates that conduct considered ethically unacceptable strongly influences purchasing decisions negatively. Natura was the most spontaneously cited company (50 mentions) as associated with sustainability, followed by Boticário (12 mentions). This recognition reinforces Natura’s institutional positioning and the consolidation of its image as a benchmark in socio-environmental initiatives in consumer perception.

Natura, in its integrated reports, presents sustainability as a central axis for value generation, articulating financial performance, environmental impact, and social contribution. The company uses the Integrated Profit and Loss (IP&L) methodology to measure socio-environmental impacts in its value chain, reporting in 2024 that for every real of profit generated, approximately R$ 2.5 in positive socioeconomic and environmental impact were produced. Although the company’s financial performance has shown volatility in recent years, related to structural and operational factors, its sustainable initiatives have generated operational efficiency and cost reduction, such as the use of ecological packaging and the operation of the Ecoprint factory in Pará, which optimizes logistics and reduces waste. This practical example reinforces the relationship between sustainable practices, reputation, and perceived value generation, broadening the understanding of organizational performance beyond financial results.

Comparative analysis by age group

To deepen the analysis, participants were grouped into three age ranges: 18 to 34 years old, 35 to 44 years old, and 45 years or older. Two socio-environmental engagement indices were constructed: the behavioral index, which reflects effective consumption practices (consideration of socio-environmental aspects, willingness to pay more, decision not to consume), and the perceptual index, which covers attitudes, evaluations, and knowledge about sustainability (importance of the topic, influence on reputation, perception of organizational performance, investment criteria, and knowledge about ESG reports). The methodology for constructing the indices involved converting response alternatives into increasing scores, allowing for numerical comparison of engagement levels between age groups.

The results of the engagement indices revealed differences between age groups. In behavioral engagement, individuals aged 45 and over showed the highest value (2.82), followed by respondents aged 18 to 34 (2.70), and the 35 to 44 age group recorded the lowest index (2.62). In perceptual engagement, the trend was similar, with the 45 and over group showing the highest recognition of the relationship between corporate responsibility and organizational performance (2.63), while participants aged 18 to 34 recorded 2.46 and those aged 35 to 44, 2.38. These findings indicate that higher levels of engagement, both behavioral and perceptual, were concentrated in the older age group, partially contradicting the common perception that younger consumers would be the most engaged with environmental causes.

A possible explanation for this pattern lies in factors such as financial stability, greater purchasing power, and accumulated experience, which can facilitate the conversion of attitudes into concrete actions. Although the younger group shows interest in the topic, economic constraints may limit the consistent adoption of sustainable initiatives, especially when they involve additional costs. The professional maturity of older generations, with greater exposure to organizational strategies, also contributes to a more structured understanding of corporations’ actions and their socio-environmental impacts. Longer exposure to socio-environmental changes may have favored the development of a more consolidated perception of the importance of sustainability and its long-term impacts.

The analysis of the determining factors in the purchase decision by age group reinforced the predominance of traditional attributes. Quality was the main criterion for choice in all age groups, with 40.2% for 45 years or older, 33.3% for 35 to 44 years, and 32.3% for 18 to 34 years. The importance of sustainability progressively increased with the age of the respondents, from 6.3% for 18 to 34 years to 16.3% for 45 years or older. In parallel, a reduction in price sensitivity and brand influence was observed with advancing age, suggesting a transition from consumption more oriented by economic constraints and symbolic attributes to a more rational and values-driven pattern.

Regarding socio-environmental factors that condition brand rejection, socially unacceptable practices, such as slave or child labor, were the main reason for rejection across all age groups, with 24.3% for 18 to 34 years old, 22.4% for 35 to 44 years old, and 18.2% for 45 years or older. Animal abuse also had a high incidence, especially among younger individuals (20.0% for 18 to 34 years old). Strictly environmental concerns, such as air and water pollution and improper waste disposal, showed greater relevance among older individuals, revealing a more comprehensive perception of socio-environmental impacts in this group. The observed differences highlight that ethical and environmental factors are perceived differently across generations, reflecting diverse experiences, values, and levels of information.

In a way that is articulated with the analyses, environmental and social responsibility did not emerge as the main factor of choice at the time of purchase, but it played a decisive role in rejecting brands, consolidating itself as a minimum criterion of acceptability in consumer behavior. Thus, while quality and price remain central to the decision-making process, corporate conduct considered inadequate can exclude companies from the set of options considered by consumers. In this sense, these guidelines operate less as an element of differentiation and more as a basic requirement of organizational legitimacy, the absence of which results in penalties from consumers.

Participants’ perception of intergenerational environmental engagement also revealed a contrast between discourse and practice. The majority of respondents (69.2% for 18 to 34 years old, 75.8% for 35 to 44 years old, and 56.4% for 45 years or older) attributed greater environmental concern to younger generations. However, empirical data indicated higher levels of engagement among older individuals, both behaviorally and perceptually. This mismatch suggests that the idea of younger generations taking the lead is more associated with the visibility of the topic in public debate and social media than with the consistent adoption of responsible consumption initiatives, being influenced by economic factors, life experience, and autonomy in purchasing decisions.

In summary, the research results indicate that sustainability and corporate social responsibility, although not the main factors for purchase choice, act as essential exclusion criteria for brands, establishing minimum acceptability thresholds in the market. It was observed that higher levels of socio-environmental engagement, both behavioral and perceptual, are concentrated in older individuals, challenging the common perception of greater engagement among younger generations. Sustainable practices are indirectly related to organizational performance, mediated by corporate reputation, risk perception, and long-term value generation, consolidating sustainable action as a requirement for the legitimacy and permanence of companies in the contemporary market, and not just a competitive differentiator.

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed the relationship between socio-environmental actions, the purchasing decision process, and corporate results, considering different age groups. It was found that the purchasing decision was predominantly determined by traditional attributes, such as quality and price. However, sustainability acted as a brand exclusion criterion, establishing minimum acceptability limits in the market. It was identified that higher levels of socio-environmental engagement, both behavioral and perceptual, were concentrated in older individuals, which contradicted the common perception of greater commitment from younger generations. It was also observed that socially unacceptable practices, such as slave or child labor, were the main reasons for brand rejection across all age groups. The relationship between sustainable practices and organizational performance was indirect, mediated by corporate reputation, risk perception, and long-term value generation. In this sense, sustainable action is configured as a requirement for legitimacy and permanence of companies in the contemporary market, transcending the role of a mere competitive differential. As a methodological contribution, the study proposed the construction of two engagement indices, behavioral and perceptual, which allow for the measurement and comparison of individuals’ involvement with sustainability in applied research.

Among the study’s limitations, the non-probabilistic nature of the sample restricts the generalization of the findings. For future research, it is recommended to increase the number of participants, diversify the analyzed profiles, and investigate different consumption contexts. Such approaches will allow for a deeper understanding of the complex relationships between socio-environmental initiatives, consumption decisions, and corporate performance, contributing to a more comprehensive view of the influence of sustainability on the business environment.

Bibliographic References

Bowen, H.R. 1953. Social Responsibilities of the Businessman. Harper & Brothers, New York, NY, EUA.

Carroll, A.B. 1991. The Pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons 34(4): 39-48.

Comissão de Valores Mobiliários [CVM]. 2023. Resolução CVM nº 193, de 20 de outubro de 2023. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 23 out. 2023. Seção 1, p. 1-5.

Comissão de Valores Mobiliários [CVM]. 2026. Resolução CVM nº 244, de 29 de maio de 2026. Disponível em: <https://conteudo.cvm.gov.br/legislacao/resolucoes/resol244.html>. Acesso em: 24 jul. 2026.

Deloitte. 2025. 2025 Gen Z and millennial survey. Disponível em: <https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/issues/work/genz-millennial-survey.html>. Acesso em: 21 fev. 2026.

Dias, R. 2012. Responsabilidade Social: Fundamentos e gestão. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. Disponível em: <https://app.minhabiblioteca.com.br/reader/books/9788522484461/>. Acesso em: 21 fev. 2026.

Dias, R. 2017. Gestão Ambiental: Responsabilidade social e sustentabilidade. 3ed. Atlas, São Paulo, SP, Brasil. Disponível em: <https://app.minhabiblioteca.com.br/reader/books/9788597011159/>. Acesso em: 13 out. 2025.

Elkington, J. 1997. Cannibals With Forks: The triple bottom line of 21st century business. Capstone Publishing, Oxford, Reino Unido.

Instituto Ethos. n.d. Indicadores Ethos de responsabilidade social empresarial. Disponível em: <https://www.ethos.org.br/>. Acesso em: 21 fev. 2026.

Kotler, P.; Kartajaya, H.; Setiawan, I. 2021. Marketing 5.0: Tecnologia para a Humanidade. Sextante, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil.

McKinsey & Company. 2018. True Gen: como a geração Z impactará as empresas de bens de consumo. Disponível em: <https://www.mckinsey.com.br/industries/consumer-packaged-goods/our-insights/true-gen-generation-z-and-its-implications-for-companies>. Acesso em: 21 fev. 2026.

Pagotto, E.L. 2023. Greenwashing: Manual da propaganda ambiental enganosa. AYA Editora, São Paulo, SP, Brasil.

Serafeim, G. 2022. Purpose and Profit: How business can lift up the world. Harper Business, New York, NY, EUA.

Tachizawa, T. 2019. Gestão Ambiental e Responsabilidade Social Corporativa. 9ed. Atlas, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil. Disponível em: <https://app.minhabiblioteca.com.br/reader/books/9788597019803/>. Acesso em: 13 out. 2025.

Tapscott, D. 2009. Grown Up Digital: How the net generation is changing your world. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, EUA.

United Nations [UN]; International Finance Corporation [IFC]. 2004. Who cares wins: connecting financial markets to a changing world. Disponível em: <https://www.unepfi.org/>. Acesso em: 21 fev. 2026.

Walker, K.; Wan, F. 2012. The harm of symbolic actions and greenwashing. Journal of Business Ethics 109(2): 227-242.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Finance and Controllership of the MBA USP/Esalq

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