Comparative Study of ESG Practices Among Brazilian Sanitation Companies

Abstract

Brazilian sanitation companies disclose their sustainable practices through sustainability reports as part of their commitment to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 6 of the 2030 Agenda, which aims to ensure universal access to water and sanitation. This study proposes a methodology to evaluate how these companies integrate Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles into their management and disclosure practices, rather than assessing service delivery or operational outputs directly. These indicators were applied to the sustainability reports of Brazil’s three largest sanitation companies: Sabesp (Companhia de Saneamento Básico do Estado de São Paulo), Copasa (Companhia de Saneamento de Minas Gerais), and Sanepar (Companhia de Saneamento do Paraná). The results indicate that all three companies have incorporated sustainability into their competitive strategies and corporate governance practices. Sabesp demonstrated a stronger adherence in the environmental and governance dimensions, Copasa excelled in social performance while also performing well in governance, and Sanepar exhibited the lowest adherence among the three. Hence, we present a methodological framework for monitoring corporate ESG performance and governance practices aligned with SDG 6, focusing on their management and disclosure practices, rather than directly assessing service delivery or operational results.

1. Introduction

1.1. The Motivation

Sustainability, as an interdisciplinary field, links the production of economic goods and services to the imperative of societal well-being, emphasizing the preservation of life in all its forms [1,2]. This underscores the relevance of the United Nations 2030 Agenda.

The implementation of the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development requires global effort and commitment from governments, businesses, academia, and society at large. Companies, both private and public, play a central role in advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN Global Compact has emphasized that businesses can leverage their resources, innovation capacity, and market presence to accelerate sustainable transitions [3]. Firms are increasingly expected to move beyond corporate social responsibility initiatives and embed sustainability into their core strategies, operations, and investment decisions [4,5,6].

Within this context, sanitation companies illustrate how the private sector can actively contribute to the achievement of the SDGs, particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), but also indirectly to goals such as SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 13 (Climate Action). Access to safe water and adequate sanitation is fundamental to human development, health equity, and environmental sustainability [7,8]. In recent years, water and sanitation service providers have adopted innovations in resource efficiency, circular economy models, and partnerships for infrastructure expansion [9,10].

The Brazilian case offers a compelling rationale for focusing on sanitation companies. Despite progress, significant deficits persist: over 32 million people lack access to potable water, and approximately 100 million remain without adequate sewage collection and treatment [11,12]. Furthermore, the new regulatory framework for sanitation (Law No. 14.026/2020) aims to address these shortfalls by promoting increased private sector participation and investment to achieve universalization by 2033. This legal milestone redefined sectoral rules by strengthening regulatory clarity, expanding possibilities for concessions, and reinforcing the economic–financial sustainability of service provision. These changes are expected to enhance the capacity of both public and private operators to mobilize resources and meet the targets of SDG 6 [13].

Recognizing the urgency of these challenges, many sanitation companies have adopted sustainability as a core guiding principle. ESG criteria provide a relevant framework for aligning corporate management with sustainable practices across these three dimensions [14]. In Brazil, sanitation companies increasingly disclose their sustainability commitments through reports and related documents. Assessing the implications of ESG adoption in these activities is therefore both timely and relevant [15].

Accordingly, this study aims to answer the following research question: To what extent do Brazilian sanitation companies incorporate ESG principles into their management practices? The objective is to develop and apply a structured methodology to assess this alignment.

A review of the literature highlights a persistent gap in the quantification of alignment with ESG principles across the environmental, social, and governance dimensions in the business sector. This study seeks to address this gap by offering a sector-specific contribution focused on sanitation. Although the lack of quantification is a widespread issue across industries, the sanitation sector represents a particularly relevant case due to its direct connection to SDG 6, its highly regulated nature, and the profound institutional transformations underway in Brazil since the 2020 legal reform. To this end, the study proposes a methodology for classifying and measuring the degree of adherence to the ESG agenda among Brazilian sanitation companies. While many companies disclose sustainability practices, few studies systematically assess the extent to which these practices are aligned with ESG principles across all three dimensions. Bridging this gap is especially critical considering global water challenges and the urgent need for improved sanitation governance to ensure water security—an issue underscored by the 2013–2015 water crisis in South-Central Brazil. It is important to note that the proposed methodology focuses on how companies disclose and organize their sustainability practices, rather than on the actual performance or outcomes of the services provided.

1.2. The Literature Review About the Water Resources, Sanitation, and the ESG Agenda

Climate change, coupled with economic growth and persistent water pollution, is intensifying water stress globally, potentially transforming previously water-secure regions, as already seen in parts of South America. The United Nations World Water Development Report [16] indicates that global water use has increased by roughly 1% annually since the 1980s, a trend projected to continue through 2050 due to population growth, socioeconomic development, and evolving consumption patterns. This escalating demand underscores the urgent need for sustainable water management strategies. Moreover, existing studies in sectors such as energy, finance, and transportation have shown how ESG adherence influences operational performance and stakeholder trust, reinforcing the need for expanded empirical analysis in sanitation [17,18,19].

Despite growing awareness, progress toward achieving SDG 6 remains insufficient. In 2020, 26% of the global population lacked access to safely managed drinking water (Target 6.1), and approximately 46% lacked access to safely managed sanitation (Target 6.2), highlighting a critical shortfall in basic human needs and a significant impediment to sustainable development. In Brazil, the National Water and Basic Sanitation Agency (ANA) is responsible for monitoring and updating national indicators for SDG 6, aiming to achieve universal and equitable access to potable water by 2030. However, prevailing consumption patterns risk exceeding the country’s available water resources [20,21].

The economic and social consequences of water scarcity are profound, potentially compromising urban quality of life, infrastructure functionality, and public finances [22]. In this context, strengthening ESG-related practices within the Brazilian sanitation sector is crucial. The adoption of ESG-based management systems offers decision-making support for service providers and contributes to the broader implementation of national sanitation policy.

Miranda and Frechiani [23] emphasize a three-dimensional approach to ESG: (a) environmental—mitigating impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions; (b) social—addressing labor relations and promoting social equity; and (c) governance—ensuring administrative effectiveness, shareholder protection, and board independence. Furthermore, a company’s public image is shaped by stakeholder interactions built on trust and mutual responsibility [24]. From an ESG perspective, corporate management must be responsive to stakeholder expectations, recognizing that market dynamics are shaped by negotiated relationships.

The Brazilian Institute of Sustainable Infrastructure—IBRIC [25] underscores the central role of sustainability and ESG criteria in infrastructure governance. The ESG agenda significantly impacts business, requiring the integration of five key dimensions: environmental performance, human capital, social capital, business model and innovation, and leadership and governance. To facilitate this process, IBRIC has proposed specific guidelines aimed at embedding these principles into organizational practices. Such integration can enhance service transparency and sustainability within sanitation companies, positively impacting Brazil’s broader socioeconomic development [15,26].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Characteristics

This study employed a qualitative research approach, allowing for in-depth insights into the complexities of ESG adherence within Brazilian sanitation companies. While not focused on statistical representativeness, this approach is particularly suited to revealing nuanced information and facilitating a comprehensive understanding of the research objective [27,28]. The study is descriptive in nature, aiming to provide a detailed account of ESG integration within the selected companies.

The research methodology involved both bibliographic and documentary analysis. Documentary research focused on primary sources, including sustainability reports, integrated reports, and official websites of Brazilian sanitation companies, specifically focusing on documents published in 2023. Data extracted from these sustainability-related documents were then interpreted using a predefined set of indicators derived from the existing academic literature on ESG.

All evaluations were independently conducted by researchers with expertise in ESG reporting, and inconsistencies were resolved through discussion to minimize subjectivity and enhance inter-rater reliability.

2.2. Proposed Methodology for Evaluating ESG Adherence

To analyze the sustainability reports, integrated reports, and corporate websites of sanitation companies to evaluate their adherence to the ESG agenda, the methodology draws primarily on the frameworks proposed by Berg et al. [29] and Dijkmans et al. [30]. The analysis incorporated variables such as business scope, regulatory obligations, corporate governance, social responsibility, and reputational considerations.

As highlighted by Lokuwaduge and Heenetigala [31], sustainability reports should address environmental, social, and governance factors while also identifying credit risks relevant to equity investors, thereby supporting financial performance evaluation. The structured presentation of ESG-related information enables both the classification of how extensively sanitation companies have adopted ESG practices and the assessment of their sustainability performance across the three dimensions.

Equal weighting was adopted to avoid distortions arising from the unequal number of indicators across ESG dimensions and to ensure that no single axis dominates the overall score purely due to indicator quantity. This choice is consistent with ESG rating practices that emphasize multidimensional assessment over statistical dominance [29]. From a conceptual perspective, equal weighting also reflects the notion of weak sustainability, in which environmental, social, and governance dimensions are treated as broadly substitutable and of equal normative value [32]. In methodological terms, adopting weak sustainability provides a pragmatic solution for ensuring comparability across companies, particularly when data availability and disclosure practices vary significantly. By contrast, differentiated weighting schemes, for instance, based on materiality analysis or stakeholder priorities, would move closer to a strong sustainability perspective, in which dimensions are not considered interchangeable, and some thresholds (particularly environmental ones) cannot be compensated for by improvements elsewhere. Acknowledging this distinction is important, as it clarifies that the present study adopts a pragmatic weak sustainability stance while leaving room for future refinements that could incorporate differentiated weighting based on stakeholder relevance or materiality analysis.

Based on this approach, a set of criteria and subcriteria was defined to assess ESG adherence.

Table 1. Criteria for evaluating ESG adherence in the environmental dimension.

Thematic Area	Criteria	Subcriteria
Climate Change	1.1. Reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions	1.1.1. Use of renewable energy
		1.1.2. Implementation of carbon capture and storage technologies
	1.2. Climate change adaptation	1.2.1. Climate change adaptation actions
	1.3. Reduction/discharge of emissions into the water system	1.3.1. Actions to address water pollution
		1.3.2. Preventive actions for water resource conservation
Water Management	1.4. Water resource reduction/recycling	1.4.1. Water reuse system
		1.4.2. Sustainable education
	1.5. Water stress management	1.5.1. Monitoring systems and assessment of water availability and demand
		1.5.2. Water availability (including reservoirs, dams, and distribution channels)
	1.6. Water-related risks	1.6.1. Monitoring of water scarcity
		1.6.2. Water loss indicator
Effluent and Waste Management	1.7. Effluent and waste quality management	1.7.1. Adoption of sustainable procurement practices
		1.7.2. Planning for waste reduction
		1.7.3. Effluent reuse
	1.8. Reduction of impacts from waste generation	1.8.1. Actions for reuse of generated waste
		1.8.2. Awareness and practical actions for waste generation reduction
Biodiversity	1.9. Biodiversity preservation planning	1.9.1. Identification of biodiversity conservation areas
		1.9.2. Procedures for preservation of water source protection areas
		1.9.3. Monitoring system for water source protection areas
	1.10. Actions for conservation and restoration of biodiversity and habitats affected by sanitation company operations	1.10.1. Compensatory actions
	1.11. Protected and/or restored habitats	1.11.1. Identification of protected and/or restored habitats

,

Table 2. Criteria for Evaluating ESG Adherence in the Social Dimension.

Thematic Area	Criteria	Subcriteria
Social Dialogue	2.1. Stakeholder dialogue	2.1.1. Stakeholder engagement programs
Human Rights	2.2. Respect for human rights, diversity, equity, and inclusion	2.2.1. Awareness programs on human rights, diversity, equity, and inclusion
		2.2.2. Diversity, equity, and inclusion in staffing
	2.3. Professional career development	2.3.1. Existence of a career plan
	2.4. Combating forced, compulsory, and child labour	2.4.1. Requirement for procurement of services and/or goods
	2.5. Culture of inclusion and professional development	2.5.1. Existence of programs and/or policies for inclusion and professional development
Health and Labor Relations	2.6. Occupational health and safety	2.6.1. Workplace accident indicators
	2.7. Quality of life	2.7.1. Programs and/or policies for employee quality of life and social benefits
	2.8. Compensation policy	2.8.1. Existence of a compensation policy
	2.9. Relationship with Suppliers	2.9.1. Procurement of Products and/or Services that Comply with Sustainability Principles
Value Chain Responsibility	2.10. Community engagement	2.10.1. Communication channels with the community
		2.10.2. Channels for publicizing sustainable initiatives

and

Table 3. Criteria for Evaluating ESG Adherence in the Governance Dimension.

Thematic Area	Criteria	Subcriteria
Corporate Governance	3.1. Organizational structure	3.1.1. Existence of corporate governance in the organizational structure
		3.1.2. Company mission and values
	3.2. Purpose and sustainability strategy	3.2.1. Sustainability as a driver of corporate development
Organizational Conduct	3.3. Stakeholder engagement	3.3.1. Actions to identify stakeholder interests
		3.3.2. Initiatives aimed at promoting sustainability values
	3.4. Integrity program, conflict of interest, code of conduct and anti-corruption practices	3.4.1. Training in ethics and compliance;
		3.4.2. Disclosure of confirmed corruption cases
Risk Management	3.5. Key risks to the business mission	3.5.1. Risk matrix for strategic decision-making
	3.6. Business opportunities and implementation actions	3.6.1. Disclosed opportunities and actions to meet objectives
	3.7. Internal audit	3.7.1. Internal audit department identified in the organizational structure
	3.8. External audit	3.8.1. Description of audit activities
	3.9. Internal control	3.9.1. Internal control structure identified
	3.10. Personal data privacy management	3.10.1. Policies/procedures for personal data protection
Transparency	3.11. Accountability	3.11.1. Reports on ESG integration into business strategy
	3.12. Availability of sustainability and ESG reports	3.12.1. Online availability of sustainability and ESG report

outline these criteria and subcriteria for the environmental, social, and governance dimensions, respectively.

The next step involved defining criteria to assess the companies’ commitment to the ESG agenda, as outlined in

Table 4. Scoring sriteria for ESG commitment *.

Score	Criteria
0	Subcriterion not addressed in publicly available corporate reports (sustainability, integrated, website).
1	Subcriterion mentioned without verification in publicly available corporate reports.
2	Subcriterion mentioned with general information in publicly available corporate reports.
3	Subcriterion mentioned with detailed information or source indication in publicly available corporate reports.
Metric	Value
Total Number of Evaluation Items	48
Maximum Possible Score	144
Maximum Environmental Dimension Score	63
Maximum Social Dimension Score	36
Maximum Governance Dimension Score	45

(*) Each item was scored based on the detailed information available in sustainability reports, integrated reports, websites, and other sources. The assessment considered quantitative data, references to legal documents, third-party verifications, and methodological explanations provided in the reports.

.

While all three companies are publicly traded, mixed-capital corporations, there are relevant distinctions. SABESP, operating in São Paulo, serves over 28 million people, with the highest net revenue and fixed asset base. COPASA serves approximately 15 million users in Minas Gerais, with medium-scale operations. SANEPAR covers the state of Paraná and parts of Santa Catarina, with a user base of approximately 11 million. SABESP underwent privatization in 2024, while the other two remain under state control. The selection criteria included (i) highest net operating revenue in 2023, (ii) extensive territorial coverage and service population, and (iii) availability of complete and recent sustainability reports. These objective parameters ensure comparability and transparency. The methodology was applied to the content of sustainability reports and other publicly available documents on the corporate websites of the largest Brazilian sanitation companies.

3. Results

The three companies consistently publish sustainability reports on their institutional websites, underscoring their commitment to the ESG agenda. The proposed methodology was initially applied to SABESP’s 2023 Sustainability Report [33], utilizing the predefined criteria and subcriteria for the environmental, social, and governance dimensions (as detailed in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3). This report adhered to the established evaluation framework, allowing for the assignment of scores based on the rubric presented in Table 4. Subsequently, the same analytical process was applied to the reports of COPASA [34] and SANEPAR [35], ensuring consistency and comparability.

The findings demonstrate that the main publicly held sanitation companies in Brazil have demonstrably integrated ESG principles into their corporate management structures, albeit to varying degrees. Notably, SABESP achieved a total score of 123 out of a possible 144 points. This strong performance is corroborated by external rankings, such as the Trata Brasil Institute [26], which recognized SABESP as the leading sanitation service provider among Brazilian capitals.

COPASA also exhibited a high level of ESG adherence, scoring 121 out of 144 points. This result aligns with statements in its 2023 Sustainability Report, which explicitly identifies sustainability as a strategic guideline. These results are consistent with the analysis by Silva et al. [36], who identified sustainability as a foundational pillar of COPASA’s management approach, further validating the company’s commitment to ESG principles.

In contrast, SANEPAR demonstrated the lowest overall adherence, achieving a total score of 93 out of 144 points. While SANEPAR’s 2023 Integrated Report [35] emphasizes a strategic vision oriented toward sustainability, these quantitative results suggest significant gaps in the practical implementation of ESG principles.

For instance, SABESP’s low scores in subcriteria 1.6.1 (monitoring of water scarcity) and 2.1.1 (stakeholder engagement) suggest insufficient initiatives in early risk detection and participatory governance. COPASA lacks robust disclosures in 1.3.1 (actions to address water pollution) and 3.8.1 (audit activities). SANEPAR’s weaknesses span multiple subcriteria, notably 1.7.3 (effluent reuse), 2.7.1 (quality of life policies), and 3.9.1 (internal control structures), indicating limited institutional capacity in operational transparency and human capital development.

Detailed results for each ESG dimension are presented in

Table 5. Environmental dimension scores.

Subcriteria	SABESP	SANEPAR	COPASA
1.1.1. Use of renewable energy	3	3	3
1.1.2. Implementation of carbon capture and storage technologies	3	0	1
1.2.1. Climate change adaptation actions	3	3	3
1.3.1. Actions to address water pollution	3	2	1
1.3.2. Preventive actions for water resource conservation	3	3	3
1.4.1. Water reuse system	3	1	2
1.4.2. Sustainable education	3	2	3
1.5.1. Monitoring systems and assessment of water availability and demand	3	3	3
1.5.2. Water availability (including reservoirs, dams, and distribution channels)	3	1	3
1.6.1. Monitoring of water scarcity	1	3	0
1.6.2. Water loss indicator	3	3	3
1.7.1. Adoption of sustainable procurement practices	1	1	2
1.7.2. Planning for waste reduction	2	1	2
1.7.3. Effluent reuse	3	1	3
1.8.1. Actions for reuse of generated waste	3	1	3
1.8.2. Awareness and practical actions for waste generation reduction	3	2	2
1.9.1. Identification of biodiversity conservation areas	3	2	2
1.9.2. Procedures for preservation of water source protection areas	3	3	3
1.9.3. Monitoring system for water source protection areas	2	3	3
1.10.1. Compensatory actions	3	2	1
1.11.1. Identification of protected and/or restored habitats	1	2	2
Total	55	42	48

,

Table 6. Social dimension scores.

Subcriteria	SABESP	SANEPAR	COPASA
2.1.1. Stakeholder engagement programs	0	0	3
2.2.1. Awareness programs on human rights, diversity, equity and inclusion	3	3	3
2.2.2. Diversity, equity and inclusion in staffing	0	1	1
2.3.1. Existence of a career plan	3	3	3
2.4.1. Requirement for procurement of services and/or goods	3	3	3
2.5.1. Existence of programs and/or policies for inclusion and professional development	3	3	3
2.6.1. Workplace accident indicators	3	3	3
2.7.1. Programs and/or policies for employee quality of life and social benefits	3	0	3
2.8.1. Existence of a compensation policy	2	2	3
2.9.1 Procurement of Products and/or Services that Comply with Sustainability Principles	1	1	3
2.10.1. Communication channels with the community	3	1	3
2.10.2. Channels for publicizing sustainable initiatives	3	3	3
Total	27	23	34

and

Table 7. Governance dimension scores.

Subcriteria	SABESP	SANEPAR	COPASA
3.1.1. Existence of corporate governance in the organizational structure	3	3	3
3.1.2. Company mission and values	3	3	3
3.2.1. Sustainability as a driver of corporate development	3	0	3
3.3.1. Actions to identify stakeholder interests	3	3	3
3.3.2. Initiatives aimed at promoting sustainability values	3	2	3
3.4.1. Training on ethics and compliance	3	3	3
3.4.2. Disclosure of confirmed corruption cases	3	1	3
3.5.1. Risk matrix for strategic decision-making	3	2	3
3.6.1. Disclosed opportunities and actions to meet objectives	3	1	1
3.7.1. Internal audit department identified in the organizational structure	3	2	2
3.8.1. Description of audit activities	2	0	1
3.9.1. Internal control structure identified	3	0	2
3.10.1. Policies/procedures for personal data protection	0	3	3
3.11.1. Reports on ESG integration into business strategy	3	2	3
3.12.1. Online availability of sustainability and ESG reports	3	3	3
Total	41	28	39

, and a summary comparison of overall performance is provided in

Table 8. Consolidated ESG adherence scores.

Dimension	SABESP	SANEPAR	COPASA
Environmental	55	42	48
Social	27	23	34
Governance	41	28	39
Total	123/144 (85%)	93/144 (65%)	121/144 (84%)

. Taken together, these results support the conclusion that the proposed methodology is a valid and effective tool for assessing the degree of ESG integration within the sanitation sector, providing valuable insights into corporate sustainability performance.

The results, as detailed in Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7, reveal distinct patterns in ESG prioritization among the three Brazilian sanitation companies.

The consolidated ESG adherence scores (Table 8) highlight both strengths and areas for improvement across the three companies.

SABESP demonstrated a strong focus on environmental initiatives, including forest conservation, biodiversity preservation, and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. However, opportunities exist to strengthen performance in solid waste management and water scarcity monitoring. COPASA exhibited greater emphasis on the social dimension, particularly through stakeholder engagement, equal opportunity initiatives, and inequality reduction. Nevertheless, further improvements are possible in policies related to diversity, equity, and inclusion. SANEPAR showed the lowest overall ESG integration, indicating a need for further progress across all three dimensions to align with contemporary sustainability benchmarks.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study reveal a broad commitment to ESG principles among major Brazilian sanitation companies, highlighting a growing recognition of the importance of sustainable practices within the sector. Specifically, SABESP and COPASA demonstrated strong adherence to ESG criteria, achieving over 80% compliance with the established evaluation framework. This level of adherence suggests a proactive approach to integrating sustainability into their core operations.

The integration of sustainability guidelines into the management structures of both SABESP and COPASA underscores the strategic importance of ESG practices. This integration demonstrates a move beyond simply reporting on sustainability initiatives to embedding them within their corporate strategy, potentially influencing decision-making across all levels of the organization. Their high compliance with governance, social responsibility, and environmental management standards supports the notion that ESG is increasingly viewed as a foundational management tool for leading sanitation companies. Furthermore, this proactive stance can enhance their resilience to emerging environmental and social risks, contributing to long-term value creation.

SANEPAR, in contrast, exhibited lower levels of adherence to ESG criteria compared to its peers. While the company acknowledges the importance of sustainability in its reporting, the results suggest a more limited integration of ESG principles in practice. This gap highlights the need for SANEPAR to strengthen its commitment to ESG practices and to translate its stated strategic vision into tangible actions. Specific areas for improvement could include enhancing stakeholder engagement, improving environmental performance metrics, and strengthening governance structures related to sustainability.

The proposed methodology proved to be an effective tool for measuring ESG integration within corporate management frameworks. The ability to quantify ESG adherence allows for a more objective comparison of sustainability performance across companies, enabling stakeholders to assess their relative strengths and weaknesses. Moreover, the methodology’s capacity to link ESG integration to competitive strategy suggests that adherence to these practices may contribute to the development of competitive advantages, potentially reinforcing their strategic value in enhancing organizational intelligence [37]. This reinforces the idea that ESG is not just a matter of compliance but can be a source of innovation and differentiation.

By applying the proposed framework, this study systematized the evaluation of ESG adherence, confirming its usefulness for identifying best practices and strategic alignment in regulated sectors such as sanitation. In sectors where transparency, social responsibility, and environmental risk mitigation are critical performance drivers, the framework provides a valuable tool for assessing and promoting sustainable practices. Furthermore, the framework could be adapted and applied to other regulated sectors, such as energy and transportation, to promote broader adoption of ESG principles and contribute to sustainable development goals. Future studies should also focus on performing a causal analysis between ESG scores and financial performance to derive additional insights in regulated sectors.

5. Conclusions

This study introduced a structured and transparent methodology for evaluating ESG adherence among sanitation companies, relying on publicly accessible data sources such as sustainability reports and corporate websites. The findings suggest the methodology’s potential utility as a tool for assessing ESG integration within sectoral corporate management, offering a structured approach to understanding sustainability performance.

The developed methodological framework enabled both the systematic classification and verification of the incorporation of the ESG agenda into organizational guidelines. This enhanced transparency strengthens the credibility of information disclosed to stakeholders through sustainability-related reports and documents, fostering greater accountability and trust.

Furthermore, the methodology facilitated the identification of distinct ESG adherence levels across the studied companies and assessed the degree to which the ESG agenda was integrated into their respective business strategies. This process systematized the evaluation of sustainability reports, allowing for meaningful comparative analysis across companies operating within the sanitation sector.

The data revealed that major Brazilian sanitation companies are actively incorporating ESG principles into their operations, underscoring the growing recognition of the importance of transparency in management, commitment to social responsibility, and proactive environmental risk mitigation as essential for strengthening corporate reputation and enhancing organizational performance.

Among the studied companies, SABESP demonstrated the highest environmental performance, driven by proactive initiatives to mitigate climate change, including the adoption of carbon capture and storage technologies, and comprehensive water management measures encompassing pollution control and water scarcity monitoring. COPASA demonstrated strength in the social dimension, driven by effective stakeholder engagement initiatives, progressive policies promoting workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the strategic implementation of sustainable procurement strategies. SANEPAR, while demonstrating a commitment to sustainability, exhibited a relatively lower degree of overall ESG adherence. While the company has focused on environmental aspects such as the use of renewable energy, climate adaptation initiatives, and conservation efforts targeting water resources, further improvements are needed, particularly in pollution control, resource conservation, and strengthening social and governance practices to enhance corporate image and performance.

This research underscores the importance of ESG integration as a critical management mechanism that aligns sanitation companies with broader environmental, social, and governance objectives. Given the increasing relevance of ESG across diverse sectors, the relative scarcity of the academic literature focused specifically on the sanitation industry highlights a pressing need for further investigation.

The main advantage of the methodology lies in its transparency, replicability, and adaptability to different institutional contexts. However, the equal weighting approach and reliance on publicly disclosed information may limit its ability to capture informal or emerging ESG practices. Additionally, the absence of stakeholder input or field validation constitutes a methodological constraint that future research should address. Furthermore, reliance on publicly disclosed data, though methodologically justifiable for comparability, introduces the risk of selection bias, as these sources may emphasize positive narratives. Subsequent research should consider triangulation with independent audits, stakeholder feedback, or field assessments.

Although this methodology is grounded in corporate disclosure, its application may support broader territorial analyses by identifying patterns of ESG commitment that affect community-level sanitation outcomes. Future research may incorporate stakeholder and community feedback to bridge organizational practices and public service impacts.

The results of this study contribute to expanding the academic discussion on the multifaceted role and significant impact of ESG agendas in the delivery of essential public services. They also reinforce the ongoing importance of refining evaluation methodologies to ensure their effectiveness and applicability within evolving corporate contexts. Future research efforts should broaden the scope of analysis to include a larger sample of sanitation companies, both in Brazil and internationally, to enable more robust comparative assessments of ESG adherence and strategic positioning. Additional lines of inquiry could focus on evaluating the tangible impacts of ESG practices, particularly in terms of achieving social equity and improving environmental outcomes. Furthermore, exploring the intersection of ESG with circular economy initiatives and climate adaptation strategies represents a promising avenue for future research. Longitudinal studies comparing SABESP’s ESG performance before and after its 2024 privatization could offer valuable insights into the long-term effects of ownership structure on sustainability performance. Finally, the proposed methodology could be adapted and applied to other essential public service sectors, such as energy and natural gas, to promote broader adoption of ESG principles and drive progress toward a more sustainable future.