Introdução
Differences in strategic goals shape how private and state-owned enterprises respond to ESG demands. Private firms prioritize shareholder value, but growing pressure from investors and regulators has fostered ESG disclosure. State-owned companies, beyond financial performance, pursue public policies and service universalization, especially in strategic sectors. This study investigates which type shows greater coherence and depth in ESG disclosure.
Problema de Pesquisa e Objetivo
The central problem lies in assessing whether ESG disclosures reflect genuine engagement or symbolic communication. The research asks: in Brazil, which type of firm—state-owned or private—demonstrates higher ESG commitment? The objective is to analyze eight listed companies from 2016–2023, comparing reports and media coverage. The study evaluates coherence between discourse and practice, offering insights into corporate transparency and accountability.
Fundamentação Teórica
Literature highlights tensions between authentic ESG commitment and greenwashing. Studies show firms reducing sustainability language in public, yet expanding it in reports, shaped by regulation and legitimacy concerns (Huang et al., 2024; Michelon et al., 2020). The lack of standardized indicators hampers comparability (Widyawati, 2020). Media scrutiny enhances accountability by revealing omissions (Moalla & Dammak, 2023). Thus, triangulation of reports and news strengthens critical assessment of disclosure.
Metodologia
A qualitative, descriptive, exploratory design analyzed eight Brazilian listed firms—four state-owned, four private—in sanitation, banking, energy, and oil & gas. Data (2016–2023) included sustainability reports and news from G1, UOL, and Folha de S. Paulo. Events reported in the media were compared with disclosures. A scoring system (–2 to +2) measured completeness, detail, and explicitness, later converted to percentages. This enabled firm-level and ownership-type comparisons.
Análise e Discussão dos Resultados
From 64 articles, governance dominated coverage (42.19%), highlighting ethics and compliance, while environmental and social themes followed. Report volume grew after 2018, boosted by COVID-19 and BlackRock’s 2020 letter, but length did not equal quality. Results showed a slight advantage for state-owned firms (9.38%) over private ones (7.81%). Aegea (private) scored highest (75%), while Itaú ranked worst (–81.25%), exposing disclosure gaps and symbolic practices.
Considerações Finais
The study confirms that state-owned firms tend to disclose ESG more consistently, driven by regulation and accountability duties, though not uniformly. Governance remains the most scrutinized pillar, while sectoral differences highlight the role of context. The methodology proved effective to assess coherence, revealing gaps between discourse and practice. Findings suggest state ownership may foster transparency but not guarantee it. Future research should broaden scope and integrate financial and reputational effects.
Referências
HUANG, D. et al. Is a picture worth a thousand words? Image usage in ESG reports. SSRN, 2024.
MICHELON, G. et al.. Understanding research findings and evidence on corporate reporting: an independent literature review. Financial Reporting Council, 2020.
MOALLA, M.; DAMMAK, S. Do media coverage and audit quality of US companies affect their ESG transparency?. Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting, 2023.
WIDYAWATI, L. A systematic literature review of socially responsible investment and environmental social governance metrics. Business Strategy and the Environment, v. 29, n. 2, 2020.