Evolution and Challenges of Environmental, Social, and Governance Practices: An Analysis of the Brazilian Stock Exchange’s Corporate Sustainability Index
, Irenilza de Alencar Nääs * and Pedro Luiz de Oliveira Costa Neto
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors undertook to process a very current topic by examining the companies of the Brazilian stock market.
In general, the article carries a lot of new information and sheds light on quite a few professional issues. In addition, however, I believe that the structure and logical structure of the article should be improved, because it is difficult for the reader to understand.
With this in mind, I recommend the following amendments to the attention of the authors:
1. Coherence of title and content must be established. While reading, I was waiting for the introduction of what is defined in the title. However, the article remained indebted to this.
2. The authors use several concepts in the article, but it seems that the use of concepts is not consistent: it would be useful to define what exactly the authors mean by each concept (ESG, SRI, CSR, CSP and later SDG), what kind of they use in context during their research, how are they connected to the main research topic at all.
3. The previous point also includes the fact that the definition of the main goal of the research and the identification of the hypotheses are not clear, and therefore the results are difficult to interpret.
4. The authors refer to ISE B3 several times, but its presentation and an overview of its indicators are lacking.
5. The methodology is also unclear: companies from which sectors were selected and why? (in some cases the authors refer to fewer and then more sectors), similarly, it would be necessary to standardize the examination periods.
6. The summary of the results should be aligned with the set research goals and hypotheses.
7. the value of the thesis would also be increased by a greater integration of the relevant international literature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe authors undertook to process a very current topic by examining the companies of the Brazilian stock market.
In general, the article carries a lot of new information and sheds light on quite a few professional issues. In addition, however, I believe that the structure and logical structure of the article should be improved, because it is difficult for the reader to understand.
With this in mind, I recommend the following amendments to the attention of the authors:
1. Coherence of title and content must be established. While reading, I was waiting for the introduction of what is defined in the title. However, the article remained indebted to this.
2. The authors use several concepts in the article, but it seems that the use of concepts is not consistent: it would be useful to define what exactly the authors mean by each concept (ESG, SRI, CSR, CSP and later SDG), what kind of they use in context during their research, how are they connected to the main research topic at all.
3. The previous point also includes the fact that the definition of the main goal of the research and the identification of the hypotheses are not clear, and therefore the results are difficult to interpret.
4. The authors refer to ISE B3 several times, but its presentation and an overview of its indicators are lacking.
5. The methodology is also unclear: companies from which sectors were selected and why? (in some cases the authors refer to fewer and then more sectors), similarly, it would be necessary to standardize the examination periods.
6. The summary of the results should be aligned with the set research goals and hypotheses.
7. the value of the thesis would also be increased by a greater integration of the relevant international literature.
Author Response
Answers to the Reviewer 2
The authors thank the reviewer since the corrections and suggestions improved the manuscript considerably.
The authors undertook to process a very current topic by examining the companies of the Brazilian stock market.
In general, the article carries a lot of new information and sheds light on quite a few professional issues. In addition, however, I believe that the structure and logical structure of the article should be improved, because it is difficult for the reader to understand.
With this in mind, I recommend the following amendments to the attention of the authors:
- Coherence of title and content must be established. While reading, I was waiting for the introduction of what is defined in the title. However, the article remained indebted to this.
Answer: We changed the title to meet the aim of the study. The new proposed title is: Evolution and Challenges of Environmental, Social, and Governance Practices: An Analysis of Brazilian Stock Exchange's Corporate Sustainability Index.
- The authors use several concepts in the article, but it seems that the use of concepts is not consistent: it would be useful to define what exactly the authors mean by each concept (ESG, SRI, CSR, CSP and later SDG), what kind of they use in context during their research, how are they connected to the main research topic at all.
Answer: We rewrote the Introduction, minimizing the possibilities of confusion, as directed by the reviewer.
- The previous point also includes the fact that the definition of the main goal of the research and the identification of the hypotheses are not clear, and therefore the results are difficult to interpret.
Answer: We modified the text to ensure clarity in the research proposal.
- The authors refer to ISE B3 several times, but its presentation and an overview of its indicators are lacking.
Answer: We apologize for the mistake and added the acronym for the first time mentioned in the manuscript.
- The methodology is also unclear: companies from which sectors were selected and why? (in some cases the authors refer to fewer and then more sectors), similarly, it would be necessary to standardize the examination periods.
Answer: To investigate their performance and profile, we analyzed all companies and selected the longest-lived companies included in the ESG index.
- The summary of the results should be aligned with the set research goals and hypotheses.
Answer: After separating it from the Discussion and Conclusions section, we re-wrote the Conclusions aiming at answering the research questions.
- the value of the thesis would also be increased by a greater integration of the relevant international literature.
Answer: We added more relevant international literature to the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an interesting article, but the following needs to be addressed before publication:
1. Section numbering is not right.
a) Line 58: Change from “3. Background” to “2. Background”.
b) Line 89: Change from “3.1. Brazilian Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE B3)” to “2.1. Brazilian Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE B3)”.
2. Tables 1 and 3: The unit for “Total market value ISE B3” in Table 1 and “Total Assets” in Table 3 is stated as “(BRL 109)”. BRL is explained. However, “BRL 109” needs to be defined.
3. Table 2: Green and red arrows are included for all companies except for Natura & Co Holding SA. Add a red arrow for Natura & Co Holding SA.
4. Table 3: The unit for “Employees” is “(103). “103” needs to be defined.
5. Lines 54-57 and Section “5. Discussion and Conclusions”:
In lines 54-57, the authors declare that they seek responses to two questions: “The overall scenario of evaluating companies using the EGS concept led us to two questions: 1) What was the ESG evolution of the most long-lived stock market companies in the Corporate Sustainability Index (ISE) of the B3 stock market? Moreover, 2) Are the ESG information and achievement configurations aligned with the UN 2030 Agenda?”
a) Lines 287-288: The authors write “… Such points would reinforce the answer to the third question since…” What is this third question? Add it to the list of questions in Lines 54-57.
b) The authors’ study is based on a ranking of 6 companies. This ranking changes from year to year. However, it is unclear if each company has improved (or not) compared to itself. A company’s ranking can deteriorate, although it has accomplished improvements compared to itself, simply because the other companies make larger improvements. Section “5. Discussion and Conclusions” needs to address this issue.
c) The conclusions need to explicitly reference the 2 questions (stated in Lines 54-57) for which the authors have sought responses. So is not the case right now.
Author Response
Answers to the Reviewer 2
The authors thank the reviewer since the corrections and suggestions improved the manuscript considerably.
The authors undertook to process a very current topic by examining the companies of the Brazilian stock market.
In general, the article carries a lot of new information and sheds light on quite a few professional issues. In addition, however, I believe that the structure and logical structure of the article should be improved, because it is difficult for the reader to understand.
With this in mind, I recommend the following amendments to the attention of the authors:
- Coherence of title and content must be established. While reading, I was waiting for the introduction of what is defined in the title. However, the article remained indebted to this.
Answer: We changed the title to meet the aim of the study. The new proposed title is: Evolution and Challenges of Environmental, Social, and Governance Practices: An Analysis of Brazilian Stock Exchange's Corporate Sustainability Index.
- The authors use several concepts in the article, but it seems that the use of concepts is not consistent: it would be useful to define what exactly the authors mean by each concept (ESG, SRI, CSR, CSP and later SDG), what kind of they use in context during their research, how are they connected to the main research topic at all.
Answer: We rewrote the Introduction, minimizing the possibilities of confusion, as directed by the reviewer.
- The previous point also includes the fact that the definition of the main goal of the research and the identification of the hypotheses are not clear, and therefore the results are difficult to interpret.
Answer: We modified the text to ensure clarity in the research proposal.
- The authors refer to ISE B3 several times, but its presentation and an overview of its indicators are lacking.
Answer: We apologize for the mistake and added the acronym for the first time mentioned in the manuscript.
- The methodology is also unclear: companies from which sectors were selected and why? (in some cases the authors refer to fewer and then more sectors), similarly, it would be necessary to standardize the examination periods.
Answer: To investigate their performance and profile, we analyzed all companies and selected the longest-lived companies included in the ESG index.
- The summary of the results should be aligned with the set research goals and hypotheses.
Answer: After separating it from the Discussion and Conclusions section, we re-wrote the Conclusions aiming at answering the research questions.
- the value of the thesis would also be increased by a greater integration of the relevant international literature.
Answer: We added more relevant international literature to the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made the previously requested modifications.
