By Marina Grossi and Clara Serva for Estadão*
Over the past decade, the ESG agenda—which addresses environmental, social, and governance criteria for corporate action—has evolved into a more strategic dimension in business, driven by both regulatory considerations and consumer and investor pressure. But while there's action, there's also backlash: recently, the media has been highlighting an "anti-ESG" stance by a group of companies, which gained traction in the United States following Republican Donald Trump's return to the White House. By rejecting climate policies, racial and gender diversity, and the inclusion of minority groups, this rhetoric is supported by the idea that the sustainability agenda is a distraction from the "real" purpose of companies: providing services, delivering products, and creating financial value for their shareholders.
The true impact and corporate adherence to this anti-ESG stance are still poorly understood. In the US, some companies are abandoning the sustainability agenda for fear of political or even legal reprisals. Discussions about racially motivated affirmative action, for example, sometimes end up in the Supreme Court, as in recent cases involving major universities such as Harvard and North Carolina. In the fight against climate change, companies have abandoned commitments to reducing greenhouse gases after legal setbacks. Banks have become targets of lawsuits filed by states governed by Trump allies, who accused financial institutions of establishing agreements to no longer finance the activities of American companies, especially those in the fossil fuel sector.
Given these examples, many people and organizations have wondered whether the "anti-ESG wave" has reached Brazil. To answer this question, it is necessary to consider that the Brazilian reality is quite different from the North American context, both in terms of the legal provisions that support companies' socio-environmental policies and the non-binding instruments (known as 'soft laws') that guide companies in adopting best practices to promote Human Rights. In our country, the legitimacy of affirmative action is recognized and supported by several provisions of the Federal Constitution and by specific laws on the subject, both public and private, such as the Statute of Racial Equality and the Inter-American Convention against Racism (which has the same status as a constitutional rule).
Brazil is also a signatory to several international conventions related to human rights that may have supralegal status—that is, they are hierarchically above ordinary laws but below the Constitution; or constitutional norm status—that is, they have the same value as our Federal Constitution. Examples include the International Conventions on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Discrimination against Women; International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions prohibiting forced labor; and those establishing equal pay for men and women; and the American Convention on Human Rights, known as the Pact of San José, which establishes a comprehensive set of rights protections.
Among the 'soft laws' that guide the practices of organizations in Brazil are the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights; the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises on Responsible Business Conduct; the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Corporate Sustainability Performance Standards, which guide business activities so that they are aligned with sustainable development goals; and the ISO 26000 standard, which contains standards linked to corporate social responsibility.
Thus, the cultural melting pot supporting actions related to corporate socio-environmental sustainability is much richer in Brazil. Many elements make the ESG agenda less susceptible to arbitrary decisions: advances in the legal framework, which grant legality to affirmative action; the centrality of the human rights agenda in international conventions to which the country is a signatory; the engagement of companies and their leaders in movements linked to this agenda, such as the Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development (CEBDS), which currently has approximately 120 companies; the existence of sustainability indexes on the B3 stock exchange; and society's own awareness of the importance of equity.
This set of standards, commitments, and guidelines creates not only a more robust regulatory environment but also a foundation of legal certainty for companies in Brazil to confidently advance their sustainability and human rights agendas. More than a response to external pressures, corporate engagement with ESG has proven to be a strategic choice, connected to opportunities for innovation, access to capital, and long-term value building. It's an agenda increasingly rooted in Brazilian corporate culture, driven by leaders who understand its transformative role.
In this scenario, the question that arises is not whether the ESG agenda should be regressed in Brazil—but how the country can use this moment as a lever to consolidate its leadership. Regulatory solidity, business mobilization, and various comparative advantages, such as a predominantly clean energy matrix, form a powerful three-pronged foundation in the face of headwinds. Instead of being tainted by regressive rhetoric, Brazil has the opportunity to show the world that development and sustainability go hand in hand.
* Marina Grossi is president of CEBDS (Brazilian Business Council for Sustainable Development), an organization with 28 years of experience and 120 large member companies.
*Clara Serva is a partner and head of the Business and Human Rights area at TozziniFreire Advogados.
