In a relatively recent phenomenon, the ESG agenda gained notoriety, attracted companies and brought focus to the urgency of taking care of the planet and human and business relationships with greater attention.
As if with the practice of ESG, reputation was guaranteed.
The truth is that sales staff rarely realized that when it came down to it, the decisive factors for closing orders were different.
Perhaps (or mainly) for this reason, ESG began to be affected by a set of different factors, among them, the difficulty in making it clear that investments were producing practical results, capable of affecting thebottom line.
In a kind of ideological falsehood, verygreenwashingIt was practiced and perceived as such. This resource has been heavily abused by companies to promote a sustainable image from a young age, through the dissemination of practices that are neither entirely legal nor very concrete. There were geopolitical effects, such as the retreat in the adoption of clean energy in Europe with the Ukraine war and farmers' protests against blockades by more demanding buyers.Research published by the newspaper Meio e Mensagembrought to light the difficulty marketing executives face in dealing with the topic. Among the 106 CMOs interviewed, 90% recognize its relevance, but only 20% say they have an in-depth understanding of the discipline.
The brand image is the main motivation for the group (76%), followed by positive impact on society (74%) and brand reputation (63%). On the edge, issues with a more direct impact, such as talent attraction and retention (37%) and stakeholder pressure (31%).
Concern about image can cause distortions such as brands responsible for environmental tragedies suddenly wanting to personify Artemis, the Greek goddess protector of nature. The positive impact on society is a diffuse concept and, in fact, is "within" what makes up reputation.
It is of little use to an investor to know whether the brand sponsors the soccer field in the neighboring community or to a consumer to know whether the company is transparent on the stock exchange.
Reputation is built on everyday correctness. And often here there is also some confusion. Many brands connected to the end consumer have already suffered reputational scratches amplified by an increasingly digital world, caused by issues related to ESG such as mistreating customers with a certain profile (the S, for social), or harming the environment (the E, for environment).
Let's be clear: there is an impact with even more direct implications on sales – external pressure. In addition to end consumers, large companies, pressured by the capital market and other factors, begin to demand more compliant behavior with ESG practices from their suppliers. And this is where the greatest reputational demands come in, backed by concrete actions.
Brazilian agribusiness giants have begun to face demands from European clients. Is it worth saying that they are green in body and soul? Nothing. Behavioral deviations are certified by instruments that include even satellite images provided by third parties.
There are not a few practical cases that require responses. The reputation built step by step on solid foundations (ESG is one of them, among many others) is one of the main pillars for similar results. Apple manages to sell products at prices above average not only because of the quality of its products but also because of the reputation built over decades. As we said before, a good reputation helps to sell more and better and contributes to perpetuating favorable results.
