Multivariate Analysis of Corporate Sustainability in Ecuador Through the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Methodology

Abstract

This study examines corporate sustainability in Ecuador using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) methodology, considering 104 companies in the period 2018–2023. Using a quantitative and longitudinal approach, sectoral trends and the influence of regulations and incentives on the adoption of responsible practices were identified. The results show that companies prioritize the social component over economic and environmental ones, and that sectors with greater public exposure such as mining and manufacturing show greater progress compared to financial services and telecommunications. Statistical analysis reveals significant interrelationships between the three dimensions, confirming that performance in one drives the others. The main contribution of this work lies in offering a multivariate analysis that is unprecedented in the Ecuadorian context, which allows for an understanding of sectoral gaps and raises the need for differentiated public policies to promote more consistent sustainability reports that are aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

1. Introduction

In a context where unsustainable business practices cause irreversible damage to the environment and negatively affect communities, the imperative need arises for a structural change in the way organizations operate [1]. Many companies still prioritize profitability over social impact, perpetuating inequalities and weakening social cohesion [2]. This lack of sustainability not only damages corporate reputation, but also increases long-term costs due to inefficient use of resources and lost opportunities in markets that demand environmental and social responsibility [3].

Over the last decades, sustainability has emerged as a comprehensive response to the social, economic and environmental challenges faced by organizations [4]. This movement has been driven by growing pressure from legislators, investors and consumers, who demand greater transparency and corporate responsibility [5]. Internationally, corporate commitment to sustainability is aligned with initiatives such as the Paris Agreement and the Kyoto Protocol, which highlight the role of business in the fight against climate change [6].

Integrating sustainability into quality management systems presents both a challenge and an opportunity [7]. Standards such as ISO 9001 are valuable tools for improving environmental and social performance without neglecting operational excellence [8]. The adoption of dynamic capabilities and advanced technologies can enhance sustainable performance by optimizing processes and reducing waste [9]. However, for this integration to be effective, management systems must evolve and adapt to current demands [10].

In the Korean construction sector, sustainability has begun to be integrated as a strategic focus in the face of the climate crisis, although the transition faces significant challenges [11]. Similarly, the European airline industry is under increasing scrutiny for its environmental impact, evidencing the need to balance economic and social objectives more effectively [12].

The experience of other countries, such as Peru, where the sustainable practices of companies listed on the stock exchange were evaluated, shows that factors such as size, sector, and membership in transnational groups directly influence the level of sustainability compliance, with mining and agribusiness standing out as sectors with greater pressure to report under GRI standards [13]. This approach allows incorporating the “Triple Bottom Line”, which evaluates the performance of organizations in their environmental, social and economic dimensions, essential to identify opportunities for improvement and growth [14].

Complementarily, in Colombia, [5] show that the voluntary adoption of GRI environmental criteria contributes to reducing information asymmetry and strengthening stakeholder confidence, although sectoral differences and limitations in transparency persist. Compared to Peru and Colombia, Ecuador is a smaller Andean country with less regulatory development and a nascent tradition of sustainability reporting. These particularities mean that the multivariate and longitudinal analysis applied in this study provides a unique perspective for the region, highlighting sustainability dynamics in a smaller-scale business context.

According to Hahn and Kühnen [15], the adoption of sustainability reporting is conditioned by internal and external factors, including company size, resource availability, and institutional pressures. This coincides with the reality in Ecuador, where large corporations show a higher level of compliance with GRI standards than SMEs, which face financial and technical limitations in producing comprehensive reports. Thus, the quality of the information disclosed depends not only on the existence of international frameworks, but also on the organizational capacity and regulatory environment in which companies operate.

While the term “sustainability” has become popular in business parlance, its understanding and application vary significantly among organizations, suggesting that challenges remain in building a shared understanding [16]. Sustainability has become a key differentiator that adds value and sets a standard in an increasingly competitive marketplace [17]. Deeper analysis, such as multivariate analysis, could help identify patterns affecting corporate sustainability, providing a comprehensive assessment of sustainable commitment and practices in the country [14].

At the local level, Ecuador has begun to implement these methodologies, and studies such as that of [17], have shown how the use of the GRI helps to identify areas for improvement in sustainable practices, especially in the sugarcane agroindustry. To generate a real and lasting impact, companies must improve their efficiency in the use of resources, reduce emissions and encourage the active participation of local communities in decision-making [18].

The literature shows that the adoption of GRI standards depends not only on internal factors, but also on external pressures linked to institutional theory and stakeholders. In Ecuador, for example, it was observed that the transition from a “social balance” scheme to GRI reporting strengthened environmental, social, and economic indicators, showing how international standards act as mechanisms of regulatory coercion [19]. Likewise, international evidence confirms that the disclosure of sustainability reports strengthens the links between boards of directors and stakeholders, increasing corporate trust and legitimacy [20].

In high-visibility sectors, such as textiles, sustainability reports become solid commitments to stakeholders and a requirement for achieving the SDGs, demonstrating how social and regulatory pressures drive the adoption of responsible practices [21].

Business sustainability, which has become a global priority, forces organizations to rethink their practices towards socially responsible, economically viable and environmentally conscious development [14]. Although the GRI model provides a framework for assessing sustainable performance, its application in Ecuador is still limited [22]. The adoption of this standard allows all sectors, including universities, to communicate more effectively the social, economic and environmental impacts of their activities [23]. This practice promotes not only transparency, but also trust among students, collaborators and other stakeholders.

Corporate sustainability is therefore a multidimensional objective that requires strategic, operational and cultural commitment [24]. Companies that manage to adopt these principles and adapt to current demands are better positioned to face market challenges, improve their profitability and contribute to the welfare of society and the environment [25]. The purpose of this study is to evaluate sustainability in Ecuadorian companies that apply the GRI Methodology.

2. Theoretical Framework

Understanding corporate sustainability disclosure and CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) performance is enriched by approaching the phenomenon from three converging theoretical perspectives: institutional theory, stakeholder theory, and legitimacy theory. Together, these approaches allow us to interpret why organizations decide to voluntarily communicate environmental, social, and governance information following the guidelines of the GRI, and how such communication becomes a means of generating organizational learning, innovation, and sustainable value.

From an institutional perspective, companies are influenced by a network of coercive, regulatory, and mimetic pressures that emanate from the environment and shape their behavior toward the adoption of socially accepted practices. Thus, sustainability strategies emerge not only from an ethical conviction but also as a rational response to the need to legitimize themselves before regulatory bodies, customers, and society in general. In this regard, research by Alnaim and Metwally [26] shows that institutional pressures promote the incorporation of environmental management accounting systems, especially when companies adopt proactive environmental strategies that strengthen their adaptability. Complementarily, Huang, Hu, and Wang [27] show that during periods of crisis such as the COVID-19 pandemic, investments in CSR function as visible signals of responsibility and trust, reducing information asymmetry and reinforcing institutional credibility. Thus, institutional theory sheds light on how external dynamics—combined with internal capabilities—shape the adoption and diffusion of sustainable practices.

For its part, stakeholder theory is based on the premise that organizations can only sustain themselves over time if they respond in a balanced manner to the expectations of the groups with which they interact. From this relational perspective, sustainability becomes a process of dialog and shared responsibility. Ordóñez-Castaño et al. [5] highlight that voluntary disclosure of environmental information increases transparency and accountability, strengthening bonds of trust with stakeholders. Similarly, Alshukri et al. [28] demonstrate that engagement with stakeholders enhances innovation and organizational learning, promoting the creation of sustainable value. Consequently, the active participation of stakeholders not only responds to a demand for information, but also becomes a mechanism for generating shared knowledge, reputation, and social legitimacy.

In addition, legitimacy theory holds that companies continually seek to reaffirm their social license to operate by aligning their actions with prevailing societal values and expectations. From this perspective, disclosure under GRI standards acts as a symbolic and strategic tool that projects consistency between stated commitments and corporate behavior. Ordóñez-Castaño et al. [5] argue that this type of communication helps to close the gap between actual performance and public perception, while Huang et al. [27] argue that CSR functions as a legitimizing resource in crisis contexts, mitigating the impact of uncertainty. In turn, Rao et al. [29] reinforce this relationship by showing that transparency in sustainability reports improves investor perception and raises company valuations.

At the micro-organizational level, Camacho [30] emphasizes that legitimacy and performance in environmental, social, and governance (ESG) matters depend on the internalization of corporate values by employees, who express them through organizational citizenship behaviors. This connection between macro and micro levels shows that sustainability is not limited to regulatory compliance, but is embodied in everyday practices, a shared culture, and a genuine commitment to the environment.

Complementarily, recent studies have highlighted the relevance of the quality and credibility of sustainability reports. Dincer and Dincer [31] emphasize that textual analysis and external assurance strengthen public trust, while the integration of theoretical frameworks into the reporting process contributes to reinforcing institutional legitimacy and credibility with stakeholders. These findings confirm that GRI disclosure, when accompanied by transparency and empirical support, has a direct impact on the social and financial perception of organizations.

In summary, institutional theory explains the external pressures that shape corporate behavior; stakeholder theory highlights the relational and participatory dimension that underpins sustainable value creation; and legitimacy theory provides a deep understanding of the pursuit of social acceptance and credibility. Together, these three perspectives offer a robust conceptual framework for understanding how voluntary sustainability disclosure, guided by GRI standards, becomes an instrument of learning, innovation, and reputation, strengthening the trust and legitimacy of organizations in increasingly complex and demanding environments.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design and Period of Analysis

The present study adopted a quantitative, descriptive and longitudinal approach, designed to analyze the evolution and characteristics of corporate sustainability reports in Ecuador, using a non-experimental design oriented to documentary analysis [32]. The research focused on a systematic review of 104 sustainability reports registered in the GRI repository, published between 2018 and 2023 [33]. This timeframe was strategically selected for two main reasons: (1) it represents a period of consolidation in the publication of sustainability reports in the country, coinciding with increased regulatory, social and market pressure towards more responsible and transparent business practices; and (2) it encompasses the most complete availability of data in the CERES repository, ensuring the reliability and representativeness of the reports analyzed.

3.2. Selection of Companies

A total of 104 companies from the manufacturing industry and other sectors in Ecuador were considered, classifying them according to their size and economic activity. The selection was made by purposive sampling, prioritizing those companies that have adopted sustainability practices and have published reports in accordance with GRI standards. Rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, ensuring that only complete reports that complied with GRI thematic standards and were available in the official CERES repository were considered. Reports that were incomplete, duplicated or not aligned with GRI guidelines were discarded.

Once the companies were defined, the selected companies were characterized in order to contextualize the results. These organizations were classified according to their size and economic sector in accordance with the International Standard Industrial Classification [34,35].

The distribution by size shows a clear predominance of large companies, while medium and small companies appear in much smaller proportions. This finding reflects the concentration of sustainability reports in large-scale corporate actors with greater public exposure, as shown in Figure 1.

In Figure 2, in terms of sectors, financial institutions and insurance companies stand out, followed by manufacturing industries. The extractive, water, and sanitation sectors also have a visible presence, while commerce, telecommunications, transportation, and professional services appear in smaller proportions. This composition confirms that sustainability reporting in Ecuador is concentrated in strategic sectors with the greatest economic and social impact [33].

3.3. Methodology and Evaluation of Indicators

The methodology of the study was based on the thematic standards of the GRI [36], specifically the series: GRI 200 (Economic) which includes 7 standards and 17 contents; GRI 300 (Environmental) which includes 8 standards and 36 contents and the GRI 400 series (Social) which includes 18 standards and a total of 36 specific contents. The GRI 100 series was excluded in accordance with the recommendations of Núñez et al. [19], due to its introductory and general nature, which does not provide specific data for the comparative analysis of sustainability indicators. Each thematic standard was broken down into specific indicators that reflect the main sustainability aspects reported by the companies. The indicators were selected based on their relevance for measuring economic, environmental and social performance, considering their alignment with the strategic priorities of the Ecuadorian business sector and global trends in sustainability. The indicators were validated by a panel of experts in sustainability, composed of academics and professionals with experience in GRI reporting. The Delphi process for indicator validation was carried out with the participation of nine experts, selected for their professional and academic experience in sustainability, GRI reporting, and instrument validation. The panel included specialists from the academic, business, and consulting sectors, who participated in two rounds of evaluation. In each round, the relevance, clarity, and feasibility of the indicators were assessed using a Likert scale, and Kendall’s coefficient (W) was used to measure consensus, with a value of W ≥ 0.70 (p < 0.05) considered satisfactory. The indicators with the lowest consensus were reviewed and redefined between rounds, and those that met the established agreement thresholds were accepted. This process, based on the Delphi method [37], ensured the relevance, clarity and applicability of the selected indicators, in addition to reducing possible biases in their interpretation.

A binary approach was used to evaluate the presence or absence of information reported on each indicator, assigning a value of 1 when the entity provided information on the specific indicator, and a value of 0 when no information was reported. This approach simplified quantitative analysis, facilitating comparison between companies and sectors. However, it was recognized as a limitation that it does not allow the quality and depth of the reported content to be evaluated.

To quantify the performance of each company, the Sustainability Reporting Index (SRI) was calculated using Equation (1).

$${IR}_i={\displaystyle \frac{{\sum }_{i=1}^n {ir}_i}{n}}\times 100$$

(1)

where

i is the indicator or item of the quantified dimension.

ir_i is the value of the indicator being (0 or 1).

n is the maximum number of indicators of the dimension.

This index made it possible to identify reporting patterns, establish cross-sector comparisons and evaluate trends in the adoption of sustainability standards in the 2018–2023 period.

The use of a binary scheme (0/1) to evaluate information disclosure allows for standardized comparisons between companies and sectors, but has limitations that are recognized in the literature. As pointed out by [37]. This type of coding ensures objectivity and replicability, although it does not distinguish between superficial reports and those that offer a greater level of detail or have been externally verified. More recent research in Latin America [17,38], also warns that this approach tends to capture the existence of indicators, but not their quality or depth, which can create a gap between appearance and actual practice. In the present study, this methodological limitation is recognized, and a future line of research is proposed to complement quantitative analysis with qualitative approaches that allow for the evaluation of the credibility, comprehensiveness, and external verification of GRI reports.

3.4. Statistical and Multivariate Analysis

The descriptive statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software, version 25 (64-bit), applying inferential techniques to identify significant changes in sustainability practices throughout the study period. In this framework, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used, with a significance level of p ≤ 0.05, to evaluate the statistically significant relationships between the components analyzed in the different periods, following the methodology proposed by Gonzabay-Núñez et al. [19].

Both SPSS and R were used for the Principal Component Analysis (PCA). The former was used for the initial processing and statistical validation of the indicators, while R allowed greater flexibility to explore underlying patterns and represent the results graphically, following the methodological recommendations of Linting et al. [39]. The analysis was performed based on the correlation matrix, applying Kaiser’s criterion (eigenvalues greater than 1) and inspection of the sedimentation graph as component selection criteria. This methodological approach has been previously used in studies on corporate sustainability and GRI reports in Latin American contexts, highlighting its value for synthesizing information and facilitating its interpretation [38].

Complementarily, recent research in other contexts, such as Sri Lanka, where a sustainability reporting index was constructed integrating the SDGs based on GRI guidelines, has also validated its results using PCA, demonstrating that this technique is suitable for reducing the dimensionality of indicators and confirming the internal structure of sustainability indices [40].

In addition, various graphic tools were used to provide a clearer visualization of the data. For example, the box plot was useful to illustrate the variability and distribution of the sustainability indicators in the three GRI components (economic, environmental and social), highlighting the differences in the level of compliance according to sectors. Likewise, the sedimentation plot, also known as the elbow plot, allowed us to determine the optimal number of principal components needed to explain most of the variation in the data, thus simplifying the multivariate analysis. These graphical tools, together with the statistical methods applied, provided a comprehensive view of the patterns and relationships in the adoption of sustainable practices by Ecuadorian companies.

The methodological strategy adopted is in line with previous studies in Ecuador and Latin America that have evaluated sustainability reports under GRI guidelines using quantitative, descriptive, and non-experimental approaches. In recent research, for example, checklists and content analysis have been applied to measure the degree of compliance with the GRI 300 environmental indicators, thus validating the relevance of this design [17]. Likewise, other studies have highlighted the usefulness of multivariate techniques, such as clustering and PCA, to synthesize the information contained in sustainability reports and explain the variance in the economic, environmental, and social components [22,38].

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Temporal Analysis

Figure 3 presents the degree of companies’ commitment to sustainability and transparency practices, evidenced through the implementation of GRI indicators between 2018 and 2023. The year 2023 is notably different from previous years, indicating a growing recognition by companies of the relevance of these indicators.

The decline in adoption between 2018 and 2019 can be attributed to various internal barriers, such as the lack of clear sustainability strategies and resistance to organizational change [41]. During these years, the prioritization of short-term financial benefits may also have limited attention towards sustainable goals [42]. This situation evidences the need to raise awareness and train organizations in sustainable practices, thus facilitating the integration of GRI indicators.

The increase in 2020 is associated with a revaluation of sustainability as a key strategy to improve business resilience, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. This global crisis highlighted the importance of sustainable practices, encouraging a transition towards more resilient and transparent business models. Social pressure and regulation on environmental and social practices also played a crucial role in this change [43].

Fluctuations in 2021 and 2022 can be explained by the lingering effects of the pandemic, which led many companies to divert resources to business continuity and crisis management, affecting the adoption of sustainable practices. However, the resurgence in 2023 suggests that as the global economy begins to stabilize, companies are refocusing on long-term strategies, including sustainability.

Recent studies show that companies that invest in sustainability not only strengthen their reputation, but also gain competitive advantages by building trust among investors and customers [44]. These trends illustrate how changes in the economic and social environment, especially the impacts of the pandemic, have influenced the adoption of GRI indicators. Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the number of companies by economic sector that adopted GRI indicators between 2018 and 2023.

With regard to the adoption of GRI indicators, it can be observed that not all economic sectors are advancing at the same speed in their commitment to sustainability. The financial and manufacturing industries have led the way in the implementation of these standards, especially in 2020 and 2023. In the financial sector, pressures from investors and regulators have been decisive, as banks and insurers have recognized that sustainability is not only a regulatory requirement, but also a smart strategy to improve their reputation and attract responsible investments [45].

In the manufacturing industry, sustainability has become a competitive advantage, driven by the need to optimize resources and minimize environmental impact. The growing demand for sustainable products and the implementation of stricter environmental regulations have accelerated this process [46].

However, other sectors, such as mining and quarrying or services, have shown a more consistent adoption, albeit with a considerably lower level of implementation. In the mining sector, despite pressure to improve transparency on environmental issues, high implementation costs and organizational resistance may be hindering the adoption of GRI indicators.

These differences reveal that promoting sustainability in a generalized manner is not enough. Specific strategies need to be developed for each sector, taking into account its challenges and opportunities. As regulations become more stringent and consumer and investor expectations evolve, more companies are likely to adopt these standards, not only to comply with regulations, but also to strengthen their competitiveness and credibility in the marketplace.

4.2. Sustainability in Ecuadorian Companies Using the GRI Methodology

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the GRI components.

GRI	R Statistics	Min. Statistics	Max. Statistics	µ	σ	As.		Curt.
						Statistics	Error	Statistics	Error
GRI 200	17	0	17	6.220	4.481	0.598	0.237	−0.247	0.469
GRI 300	36	0	36	13.211	9.417	0.412	0.237	−0.591	0.469
GRI 400	36	0	36	18.170	10.102	−0.404	−0.237	−0.668	0.469

Note. GRI200 (economic component), GRI300 (environmental component), GRI400 (social component), R (range), Min (minimum), Max (maximum), µ (mean), σ (standard deviation), As (skewness), and curt (kurtosis).

presents descriptive statistics for 104 Ecuadorian companies that have registered their sustainability using the GRI components (economic, environmental and social) between 2018 and 2023. These data indicate the relationship between the indicators used and provide a preliminary view of the research.

The analysis of sustainability in Ecuadorian companies implementing the GRI methodology between 2018 and 2023 reveals significant differences in their approach to the three fundamental pillars: economic, environmental and social. As can be seen in Table 1, the data allow us to identify trends in the adoption of indicators and highlight areas that require attention.

The analysis of the averages of the GRI components provides a first approximation of the level of compliance of these organizations. By transforming these results into percentages (Figure 5), a clear perspective of the relative distribution of each component is obtained, allowing the identification of priorities and predominant approaches.

In the economic area (GRI 200), companies show moderate performance, with an average of 6.22, representing only 36.6% of the total (Figure 5). Indicating that, although compliance with the indicators is relatively uniform, they have not yet been fully integrated into sustainable strategies. Companies tend to perceive GRI economic reporting as an obligation, rather than an opportunity to improve their competitiveness. The low performance in this component may be due to the lack of external incentives, such as tax benefits or access to preferential financing, and to limitations in sustainability training, especially in small and medium-sized companies.

The environmental component (GRI 300) shows a more diverse picture, with an average of 13.21, representing 36.7% of the total (Figure 5). Differences are evident here according to economic sectors. Mining and manufacturing companies stand out for their greater contribution to this indicator, influenced by regulatory pressure to reduce their environmental impact. In contrast, less regulated sectors, such as commerce and financial services, show lower results. The lack of technical and economic resources, as well as the shortage of specialized personnel, limits the adoption of sustainable practices.

The social component (GRI 400) stands out with a better performance, reaching an average of 18.17 and representing 50.5% of the total reported responsibility index (Figure 5). This reflects a greater commitment of companies to social initiatives, such as social responsibility programs, labor inclusion policies and employee welfare. The tangibility and direct impact of these policies facilitate their adoption, although the variability between companies indicates that commitment is not uniform. Sectors such as mining and manufacturing have made significant progress in this component due to regulatory pressure.

The data corroborate that the adoption of the GRI methodology has boosted sustainability compared to the Social Balance Sheet model [19]. Therefore, Ecuadorian companies have prioritized social initiatives, while economic and environmental aspects present challenges. To achieve a more balanced sustainability, it is essential that organizations strengthen their economic strategies, respond adequately to environmental challenges and continue to promote their social commitment.

Investing in training, developing integrated business policies and promoting sustainable practices will not only improve organizational performance, but will also contribute to a more responsible management, aligned with market and societal expectations.

4.3. Corporate Responsibility Index According to GRI Standards by Economic Sector

The analysis of the Responsibility Index in the different business sectors in Ecuador reveals variations in terms of their commitment to economic, environmental and social sustainability. This section presents the results of how companies in different sectors have adopted and reported their sustainable practices, using the GRI 200, 300 and 400 components.

4.3.1. GRI 200 Responsibility Index by Economic Sector

The economic component (GRI 200) shows differences in the performance of Ecuadorian companies (Figure 6).

One of the most striking findings is the clear difference between the best performing sectors and those moving at a slower pace in implementing sustainable practices. For example, manufacturing and mining and quarrying have shown remarkable stability in terms of economic sustainability during 2020 and 2021. This may be due to a combination of factors, such as increased investment in innovation, access to financing for sustainable projects, and regulations that incentivize the adoption of good practices.

In contrast, the financial sector has shown consistent performance in certain years within the Responsibility Index, but there is no evidence of greater compliance in the incorporation of all economic sustainability principles in its business model. Its traditional focus on short-term profitability may be limiting the adoption of strategies that favor sustainable growth. This point highlights the need to design specific incentives and regulations that encourage the integration of sustainability criteria into financial management.

On the other hand, sectors such as transportation and storage, other service activities and, in some years, water supply, have shown a more irregular performance, with low or fluctuating compliance levels. This instability may be related to structural barriers, difficulties in accessing more efficient technology or a lack of training on sustainability issues [47]. In these cases, boosting support and financing programs could make a big difference and help these industries improve their performance over time.

4.3.2. GRI 300 Responsibility Index by Economic Sectors

Analysis of the environmental component (GRI 300) reveals that commitment to sustainability varies significantly across economic sectors (Figure 7). Extractive industries, such as mining and quarrying, have achieved 100% compliance in 2019 and 2020, which is attributed to the intense regulatory and social pressure they face due to their significant environmental impact. To comply with these requirements, these companies have established strict environmental standards, evidencing considerable effort in the management of indicators related to the use of natural resources and the reduction in their ecological footprint [17].

In contrast, the manufacturing industry also shows a solid performance, managing between 28 and 32 environmental contents during the years analyzed. This suggests a gradual integration of sustainable strategies, driven by the need to adapt to environmental regulations, optimize resource use and meet growing market expectations on ecological responsibility.

However, the panorama in sectors such as financial and insurance activities, commerce and other services is less favorable, as they present a lower amount of environmental content. This low environmental content management reflects a scarce integration of sustainable practices in their business models, which can be explained by the less direct relationship they have with the use of natural resources, resulting in a reduced regulatory and social pressure.

Despite this, sustainability should not be exclusive to sectors with high environmental impact. The growing demand for responsible products and services, coupled with investor interest in sustainable business models, requires that traditionally less regulated industries also adopt greener practices.

It is crucial to design strategies tailored to each sector. Extractive and manufacturing industries must continue to strengthen their environmental practices and ensure regulatory compliance, while lower-performing sectors require specific incentives to motivate them to adopt sustainable practices [48]. Public policy can play a key role in providing broader regulations and economic benefits to companies that integrate sustainability into their operations.

Sustainability education and training are likewise important, especially in sectors such as finance and services, helping companies recognize that integrating responsible practices not only improves their image, but also can offer competitive advantages and growth opportunities [49].

The results indicate a clear trend: sectors with greater regulation have shown significant progress in environmental matters, while those with less regulatory pressure face greater challenges. In order to move towards more sustainable development, it is essential to expand environmental strategies and encourage initiatives that promote environmental responsibility in all sectors of the Ecuadorian economy.

4.3.3. GRI 400 Responsibility Index by Economic Sector

The social component (GRI 400) highlights how sectors such as mining and manufacturing have achieved 100% compliance in social sustainability in certain years (Figure 8). In contrast, sectors such as finance, telecommunications, and other service activities show notably low performance, reaching 0% in several periods. In 2020, one company in the telecommunications sector did not report social indicators, while in 2023, two additional cases were recorded in the same sector. In the financial sector, one case with 0% was reported in 2019, two cases in 2020, and three cases in 2023.

These results can be explained by factors such as the absence of specific regulations requiring companies in these sectors to disclose social information, as well as less pressure from stakeholders compared to more publicly exposed industries [50].

The high compliance in mining and manufacturing is largely due to the pressure they face from the direct impact of their operations on workers and communities. These industries have implemented social responsibility programs aimed at ensuring respect for labor rights, gender equity, and occupational health and safety. However, this positive performance has not been consistent, suggesting that the efforts made may not be sustainable in the long term.

In contrast, the financial sector has shown stable, but lower participation in the adoption of GRI 400 content, especially in areas such as labor rights and equity, despite its lower direct involvement in social issues. The low adoption of GRI 400 content reflects important obstacles, such as the lack of resources, limited training in labor sustainability and an operational approach that prioritizes other areas over social issues.

Other sectors, such as wholesale trade and water supply and sanitation, have had moments of relevance, although their overall impact remains modest compared to the leading sectors.

This disparity highlights the need to promote inclusive strategies that foster social standards across all industries. It is crucial to implement CSR programs that reinforce the commitment to equity, labor rights and social sustainability. In addition, the design of public policies that incentivize compliance with GRI social content, along with training initiatives in sustainable labor practices, could make a significant difference in lagging sectors [51].

Working towards a more uniform integration of social principles across all economic sectors is essential to ensure that no industry is left behind in promoting inclusive and equitable development, where the benefits of social sustainability are widely shared. According to González-Márquez et al. [22] companies tend to focus more on social and economic aspects in their sustainability reports, relegating environmental issues to a secondary role. This suggests that, although they have made progress in adopting responsible practices, with emphasis on profitability and social impact, they still face difficulties in integrating environmental strategies.

4.4. Correlation Between GRI Components

To evaluate the distribution of the data, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test was applied at a 5% significance level. The results indicated that the economic (GRI 200) and social (GRI 400) components did not follow a normal distribution, since their p-values were less than 0.05. In contrast, the environmental component (GRI 300) had a p-value greater than 0.05, suggesting that this component does follow a normal distribution.

In addition, Levene’s test was carried out to determine whether the variations among the components were homogeneous. The analyses showed that the economic and environmental components have homogeneous variations (p-values greater than 0.05), while the social component did not meet this assumption, since its p-value was less than 0.05.

Given the lack of normality in some components and the absence of homogeneity in the social component, it was decided to use non-parametric tests. To examine the relationship between the environmental sustainability indexes of Ecuadorian companies in the different components of the GRI model, Spearman’s correlation coefficient was used. This analysis made it possible to identify the interactions between the economic, environmental and social components, and how these influence corporate sustainability.

The results of Spearman’s correlation between the GRI 300, GRI 200, and GRI 400 components are presented in

Table 2. Spearman’s Correlation of GRI Components (with bootstrap, 95% CI).

Variables	GRI 300	GRI 200	GRI 400
GRI 300	1000	0.652 [0.497–0.783]	0.606 [0.438–0.747]
GRI 200	0.652 [0.497–0.783]	1.000	0.688 [0.555–0.799]
GRI 400	0.606 [0.438–0.747]	0.688 [0.555–0.799]	1.000

Note: Spearman’s rho coefficients are presented with 95% confidence intervals calculated using bootstrap (2000 replicates).

. The correlation shows significant relationships between the three dimensions of the GRI model. These correlations were calculated between the components of the GRI model. To estimate the accuracy of the coefficients, 95% confidence intervals were calculated using bootstrap with 2000 replicates.

For example, the positive relationship between GRI 200 and GRI 300 (0.652) suggests that good economic performance could be associated with greater efforts in environmental sustainability. This implies that companies that manage their economic resources efficiently are more likely to invest in actions that reduce their environmental impact. Likewise, the highest score between GRI 200 and GRI 400 (0.688) indicates that a sound economy can facilitate the implementation of effective social initiatives. Financially stable companies can allocate resources to programs that benefit their employees and the communities in which they operate.

The ratio between GRI 300 and GRI 400 (0.606) reinforces the connection between environmental sustainability and social well-being, suggesting that protecting the environment not only has ecological benefits, but can also generate positive impacts on the quality of life of communities.

These results underscore the importance of developing integrated business strategies that consider the interdependence between the three dimensions of the GRI model. Separating these aspects could limit the effectiveness of sustainable initiatives, as actions taken in one dimension inevitably influence the others. Although the observed correlations are moderate, they do not fully explain how these dimensions interact in detail, which opens up opportunities for future studies to investigate which specific factors within each dimension have the greatest impact on the others.

4.5. Principal Component Analysis

To better understand the structure of the data and the weight of each component in the sustainability model, a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was performed. Before performing the analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test was applied to evaluate the adequacy of the sample, obtaining a value of 0.730, which is considered adequate. In addition, Bartlett’s test of sphericity was performed, the results of which were significant (p < 0.001), confirming that the variables are correlated and that the data are suitable for analysis.

The PCA results showed that each component contributes significantly to the analysis, with high communalities: GRI 200 (0.800), GRI 300 (0.756) and GRI 400 (0.767). This evidences a close connection between economic, environmental and social aspects in the companies studied. The total variance explained by the components was then analyzed.

Table 3. Total Variance Explained.

Component		Initial Eigenvalues		Sums of Squared Extraction Charges
	Total	% Variance	Accumulated	Total	% Variance	Accumulated
1	2.324	77.458	77.458	2.324	77.458	77.458
2	0.372	12.411	89.869
3	0.304	10.131	100.000

Note: Extraction method: principal component analysis.

presents the total variance explained, highlighting that a single principal component captures 77.45% of the variability in the data. This finding indicates that a single dimension can summarize the most relevant information of the three components of the GRI model, suggesting that the economic, environmental and social dimensions are interrelated and contribute jointly to corporate sustainability.

This result coincides with the high communalities previously observed, reinforcing the importance of each of these dimensions in the principal component. The simplification of the original data into a single principal component facilitates the analysis and presentation of results, helping companies to identify their strengths and areas for improvement more clearly.

However, it is important to note that the percentages of variation explained by the remaining components (12.411% and 10.131%) could contain specific information that, although less significant in this context, could be explored in future research to obtain a more detailed picture.

The results of this study, in which the PCA explains 77.45% of the total variance, are consistent with previous findings on corporate sustainability using the GRI model. Similar research [22] has shown that economic, environmental and social aspects are often closely related, which reflects a progressive advance in the integration of sustainability within corporate management.

To complement the analysis and provide a clearer visual representation, Figure 9 presents the principal component plot. This graphical representation allows us to verify in more detail how the data are distributed and confirms the percentage of variation explained by each component. The comparison between both analyses (SPSS and R) not only validates the robustness of the proposed model, but also highlights the interconnection between the three fundamental pillars of corporate sustainability.

Although the finding that a single component explains 77.45% of the total variance reinforces the idea of a high interdependence between the economic, environmental, and social dimensions, it is important to view this simplicity with caution, as such a level of integration may be obscuring particularities specific to each sector, given that the factors driving a mining company are not necessarily equivalent to those conditioning a financial or telecommunications entity. In this sense, although the main component reflects a joint vision of sustainability, it is necessary to recognize that certain specific nuances could be masked.

Thus, the ACP offers an integrated overview that facilitates the general interpretation of the data, but also opens the door to future research aimed at exploring in greater detail the particular dynamics of each industry. Recent studies have highlighted this challenge, pointing out that while grouping indicators into a single component facilitates the assessment of sustainability, it can also dilute the understanding of the unique challenges faced by different productive sectors [38].

Although it was shown that a single component explains 77.45% of the total variance, reflecting a high degree of interdependence between the three dimensions of sustainability, the biplot allows us to qualify this conclusion. The graphical representation shows that, despite this integration, the economic sectors do not behave identically, but rather exhibit different patterns in their sustainability practices.

In this analysis, the first dimension (Dim1) captures 83.1% of the data variability, constituting the main axis for interpreting the distribution of the sectors. The second dimension (Dim2), which explains 9.3% of the variance, provides complementary information by showing more subtle differences between industries.

The graph reveals, for example, that the mining and quarrying sector (B) shows great dispersion, reflecting the diversity of practices among companies, while manufacturing industries (C) appear more clustered, suggesting a greater degree of homogeneity in the application of sustainable policies. Other sectors, such as trade (G) and transportation (H), exhibit intermediate distributions, associated with the heterogeneity of resources and challenges specific to each activity.

The incorporation of 95% confidence ellipses allows for visual validation of sectoral groupings, reinforcing the evidence that, although there is a common component that summarizes corporate sustainability, sectoral differences are statistically relevant (Figure 10). This result suggests that not all sectors face the same challenges or respond uniformly to sustainability criteria, which justifies exploring sectoral PCA analyses in future research to identify the specific factors that explain the particularities of each industry.

Despite progress, structural barriers persist that limit the consolidation of GRI reports. In Ecuador, studies on agribusiness and chocolate production identify limitations associated with restricted financial capacities, a short-term-oriented business culture, and the absence of regulatory requirements, factors that explain the heterogeneity in compliance with standards [52,53]. These conditions are compounded by a lack of technical expertise, which forces many companies to rely on external consultants to prepare their sustainability reports, reinforcing inequalities between large corporations and small businesses [21].

In line with this evidence, public policy frameworks need to move towards more concrete incentive and control mechanisms. The literature highlights that corporate sustainability depends on a strategic vision accompanied by solid governance structures [20]. Therefore, it is recommended to strengthen sectoral training in sustainability, establish tax incentives for companies that report under GRI, and move towards progressive mandatory reporting in sectors with greater environmental and social impact. These measures not only align companies with international sustainability commitments, but also promote transparency and stakeholder confidence [19,21].

5. Conclusions

This study provides unprecedented evidence on the application of GRI standards in Ecuador, integrating a multivariate analysis (correlations, confidence intervals, and principal components) that allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the economic, environmental, and social dimensions of sustainability. This approach constitutes a significant methodological contribution, as previous studies in the national literature have been limited mainly to quantitative descriptions without a similar level of statistical depth.

The findings show that, although there is interdependence between the three dimensions, significant sectoral gaps persist. Sectors such as mining and manufacturing show greater progress in sustainability, while activities such as telecommunications and financial services lag behind, even with years in which they did not report indicators. This disparity confirms the need to adopt differentiated policies according to economic sector, avoiding homogeneous approaches that do not reflect the reality of business.

In practical terms, the results can guide both companies and public policy makers, as the findings suggest the importance of strengthening their technical and strategic capacities to respond to the growing demands for transparency from their stakeholders. In addition, there is an opportunity to implement tax incentives, stricter regulatory frameworks, and sectoral training programs that promote a broader and more consistent adoption of GRI standards.

In short, this work not only documents the current level of sustainability reporting in Ecuador, but also provides an empirical basis for moving toward public policies that promote more equitable and sustainable business development.