Investing in ESG projects (environmental, social and governance) cannot and should not be just a marketing maneuver to improve the image of the company or “pagar de boazinha” on social networks. Likes and views do not change the world.Nor do they sustain a reputation when there is a lack of coherence between discourse and practice. True ESG requires intention, purpose and real commitment to positive impact.
It is easy to fall into the temptation to launch a campaign on social networks with beautiful photos, inspiring speeches and trendy hashtags. But when the spotlight goes out or the crisis arrives? ESG can not be performance. It must be consistency. It is not about looking responsible, it is about being responsible even when no one is looking.
Sustainalytics recently identified that 50% of companies with ESG goals do not have internal governance compatible with their public commitments, which weakens the effectiveness and perception of these actions. In addition, according to a global survey by PwC, a network of audit and consulting services firms, 78% of investors say they can get rid of shares of companies involved in greenwashing, reinforcing the importance of clear and auditable goals.
ESG washing, when companies use the acronym ESG only as a marketing tool, without adopting concrete and structured practices, has become one of the greatest risks to the credibility of the sustainable agenda. When an organization discloses environmental, social or governance campaigns only to “seemer responsibly”, without actually acting with coherence and depth, it contributes to the trivialization of the theme and reduces the confidence of the public and investors. These cosmetic actions, often accompanied by empty slogans and make-up reports, generate a perception of opportunism. Instead of generating value, such practices weaken the reputation of the company and, more seriously, dislegitimational investigations can lead to a rebuttalization of the whole movement.
The negative impact is not restricted to the company that commits the “washing”. When many organizations adopt this superficial approach, the entire market is contaminated with a kind of collective cynicism. Investors become more skeptical, regulatory bodies tighten requirements, and consumers are disillusioned with promises of sustainability. The result is that companies that work seriously and invest in structural changes end up being placed in the same ballay as those that only make advertising. This confusion affects access to sustainable capital, reduces the engagement of civil society and delays important advances. That is, ESG washing is not only ineffective, it is a brake disguised as an advance.
More than that, every ESG investment needs to be planned based on the maturity level of the company. It is no use copying ready-made models or importing standards that do not fit the reality of the business.We have seen in the market a lot of”“ESG. What works for a multinational can be unsustainable for a medium-sized company and so on.
In addition, the available budget and the external context, such as economic scenario, political stability, regulatory requirements, should also be considered. ESG does not live in a bubble. It lives in the real world, with its complexities, risks and opportunities. Therefore, a sense of realism is essential in the ESG journey.
The ESG market has suffered setbacks mainly from the United States. During the re-entry of Donald Trump to the presidency, on January 20, 2025, an executive order was immediately signed withdrawing the US from the Paris Agreement. In addition, there was an accelerated dismantling of environmental regulation, such as cuts in agencies, reduction of gas emission monitoring, preterition of the words “ climate science on official websites and facilitated approval of fossil fuel projects on public lands. This legislative and institutional reversal inaugurated the so-called “greenhing”, where companies continue to label sustainable investments, but avoid negative impacts such as ESG.
On the economic front, the Trump administration has implemented broad tariffs, with imports subject to average rates of up to 15 %, which have disrupted global supply chains, raised input costs and generated widespread uncertainty.The resulting crisis triggered a global market crash in April 2025, directly impacting companies committed to clean energy and turning sustainable projects into higher-risk investments.
In the social and governance field, the so-called S and G ESG, there have been significant setbacks.Federal Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs have been eliminated by executive orders, and the Department of Labor has proposed rules to prevent retirement plans from considering ESG factors as standard or demonstrating differentiated financial impact.The combination of hostile political environment, legislative obstruction, and volatile economic climate has reduced the appetite of companies and investors for responsible initiatives.Although Europe and parts of Asia maintain the pace of sustainable transition, the US has weakened the role of global leadership in ESG, fragmenting standards and making the sustainability market more complex and polarized
So before you post, plan. Before you promise, align with strategy. ESG that transforms does not start in marketing, it starts in governance. Intentionality, transparency and ethics are the best allies for ESG programs.
