Accreditation and Sustainability in University Laboratories: A Case Study of LTex

Abstract

The Multi-User Textile Analysis Laboratory (LTex), a case study from a Brazilian university, was established to address the technical demands of the local textile industry, a regional hub with a predominantly female workforce. Globally, laboratories seeking recognition for their technical competence rely on accreditation to a widely adopted international standard. This work explores how the technical requirements of this standard can be integrated with Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles, using a Brazilian recommended practice aligned with global frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals as a reference. The goal is to propose a unified framework for sustainable and inclusive management in university laboratories. The research employed an exploratory literature review, a documentary analysis comparing the two normative documents, the development of a structured checklist, and the formulation of a conceptual model for sustainable and inclusive laboratory management. The findings identified both overlaps and gaps, particularly regarding risk management, transparency, and gender equity, and supported the creation of an evaluation tool structured around six thematic axes. The proposed checklist enables simultaneous assessment of technical compliance and ESG maturity, guiding laboratories toward aligning accreditation processes with sustainability goals. The LTex case study demonstrates the model’s applicability and its potential to foster regulatory compliance, organizational improvement, and female empowerment in technical leadership.

1. Introduction

University laboratories play a distinctive role due to their triple mission of research, teaching, and outreach, ensuring a strong connection with society. These institutions enrich academic learning and training while providing services that benefit society. Acting as a crucial bridge between academia and industry, they offer innovative methods and technologies for the productive sector while also bringing practical experience into the university environment [1,2,3,4,5,6,7]. However, to effectively engage in outreach activities, especially in providing services to external clients, university research laboratories must adopt similar practices to service laboratories focused on testing and calibration [6,8,9,10].

In this context, two regulatory frameworks play a central role. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 [11] is an international standard that specifies the general requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. It ensures the reliability, impartiality, and technical accuracy of laboratory results and is essential for laboratories seeking formal recognition and accreditation. ABNT PR 2030:2022 [12], on the other hand, is a Brazilian-recommended practice that provides guidelines for incorporating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles into organizational management. Developed to support alignment with the UN 2030 Agenda and frameworks such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), it aims to foster transparency, sustainability, and ethical governance across sectors.

To ensure technical competence and reliability, laboratories worldwide seek accreditation based on ISO/IEC 17025:2017—General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. In Brazil, this standard is adopted as ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017, and accreditation is granted by the National Institute of Metrology, Quality, and Technology (INMETRO), the national accreditation body. Compliance with this standard is a prerequisite for formal recognition and for providing services to external clients [11,13,14]. For testing and calibration laboratories in Brazil and worldwide, the primary quality management standard is ISO/IEC 17025—General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories [6,11,14,15], with its Brazilian counterpart being ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017 [16]. This standard provides guidelines that enable the systematic management of administrative and technical operations performed by a laboratory, ensuring the quality of results and meeting customer requirements [16]. Although ISO/IEC 17025 is specifically designed for laboratories, it shares the same principles and quality management foundation as ISO 9001, effectively serving as the equivalent standard for quality management systems in laboratory environments, while adding technical requirements for competence and impartiality [14,15,17].

While compliance with this standard is a crucial step toward ensuring reliability and institutional credibility, the accreditation process poses significant challenges, especially in academic settings [6,16,17,18,19,20,21]. In addition to technical requirements, there is growing global pressure for organizations, including laboratories, to align with ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) principles. These principles are part of international frameworks such as the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and reporting standards like those from the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). This study uses the Brazilian recommended practice ABNT PR 2030:2022 [12], as a case for analysis, as it provides specific guidelines for organizations to integrate ESG dimensions based on the UN 2030 Agenda. It encourages institutions to integrate ESG dimensions into their strategic planning and operational routines, fostering transparency, ethical conduct, and long-term value creation [12]. This context leads to the central question of this research: How can an integrated management system, aligning technical requirements (ISO/IEC 17025) and sustainability principles (ESG), be effectively implemented in a university laboratory, and what are the observable organizational and social impacts?

Recent studies have highlighted the need for integrated models in laboratory management that reconcile technical standards and ESG commitments. Jiang et al. [22] address safety risks in university laboratories and propose AI-based management solutions; Gerônimo and Lenzi [23] developed a maturity model integrating ISO 17025, 14001, and 45001 using fuzzy-VIKOR; Chiroli et al. [24] applied the DEMATEL method to analyze risk dynamics in smart cities with a focus on sustainability and resilience, and Ma et al. [25] proposed a hybrid model combining Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and System Dynamics (SD) to dynamically assess safety performance in university laboratories. These contributions underscore the relevance of advancing models that go beyond technical compliance to include social and environmental dimensions.

The present study aims to bridge that gap by introducing a novel comparative analysis framework between ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ABNT PR 2030:2022, aimed at enhancing the integration of technical standards with ESG-oriented practices. The framework is designed for practical application in university laboratory contexts, with its initial implementation carried out at the Multi-User Textile Analysis Laboratory (LTex) of the Federal University of Technology—Paraná (UTFPR).

The LTex is in the city of Apucarana (PR), a major textile cluster in Brazil where approximately 60% of the labor force is female. This context makes the laboratory a compelling case for discussing gender equity in scientific and technical environments, as recommended in Section 7.2.3 of ABNT PR 2030 regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion [12]. The analysis presented in this study revealed overlaps between the two normative documents in areas such as risk management, impartiality, and transparency, as well as gaps in the integration of social and environmental dimensions that call for a more holistic approach [14,17,26,27].

Thus, this article proposes the development of an analytical tool, in the form of an integrated checklist that may be adopted by university laboratories aiming to achieve technical accreditation while aligning with ESG principles. This is an original contribution to the discussion on sustainability and equity in laboratory environments and offers a replicable model for institutions facing similar challenges.

2. Methodology

This research is classified as applied, qualitative, and descriptive, following the methodological definitions of Yin [28], Creswell and Poth [29], and Sandelowski [30], aligning its methodological approach with the study’s objective of integrating technical and ESG guidelines in laboratory management. It was conducted in four structured stages: (i) an exploratory literature review to identify theoretical and normative foundations; (ii) a documentary analysis comparing ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ABNT PR 2030:2022; (iii) the development of an analytical tool (checklist); and (iv) the formulation of strategic guidelines for university laboratories aimed at aligning accreditation processes with sustainability and governance principles. These methodological stages are summarized in Figure 1.

The central objective is to investigate how the requirements of ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017 can be integrated with the ESG criteria proposed by ABNT PR 2030:2022 to promote a sustainable and technically robust accreditation model adaptable to the reality of academic laboratories.

2.1. Step 1—Exploratory Literature Review

An exploratory literature review was conducted to identify existing studies addressing the integration of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 requirements with the ESG-oriented guidelines presented in ABNT PR 2030:2022. The keywords used included “ISO 17025”, “accreditation”, “university laboratories”, “ESG”, “sustainability”, “testing and calibration laboratories”, and “sustainable performance”. Searches were performed in databases such as Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct, selected for their broad and multidisciplinary coverage, high indexing quality, and relevance to both engineering and sustainability-related fields. The combination of these databases ensured a robust and representative literature corpus, suitable for supporting the analytical and conceptual foundations of the study.

The results revealed a significant gap in the literature, with few studies exploring the intersection of both documents. The scarcity of integrated approaches confirmed the need for a conceptual and operational model that simultaneously addresses normative technical requirements and the evolving social-environmental demands in laboratory settings.

2.2. Step 2—Documentary Analysis

Following the literature review, a comprehensive analysis of two normative documents was conducted: ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ABNT PR 2030:2022. The analysis involved identifying the primary thematic areas addressed in both standards and organizing the extracted information into comparative matrices.

The rationale for crossing ISO/IEC 17025:2017 with ABNT PR 2030:2022 lies in the complementary nature of their scopes. While ISO/IEC 17025 establishes internationally recognized technical and management requirements to ensure the competence of testing and calibration laboratories, ABNT PR 2030 introduces a comprehensive ESG-oriented framework that reflects emerging expectations for organizational sustainability, ethical governance, and social responsibility. The increasing demand for laboratories to demonstrate not only technical excellence but also institutional alignment with environmental and social goals supports the integration of these frameworks. By mapping the principles and criteria of each document, the analysis aims to reveal opportunities for synergistic management practices that comply with both accreditation standards and ESG guidelines, thus reinforcing the legitimacy, transparency, and impact of laboratory operations.

The construction of the comparative matrix involved the identification and extraction of 45 technical requirements from ISO/IEC 17025:2017, categorized according to the standard’s eight main clauses. These requirements were organized into thematic domains such as impartiality, competence, risk management, and traceability. In parallel, the twelve ESG axes presented in PR 2030:2022 were examined, focusing on their evaluation structure and maturity criteria. A bidirectional matrix was developed by cross-referencing the content of both documents, enabling the identification of three types of relationships: convergence (overlapping thematic intent), divergence (exclusive to one standard), and integration potential (complementary criteria). This mapping process was conducted using qualitative content analysis, supported by matrix coding and comparative reading of normative provisions. The results of this analysis informed the development of the integrated checklist, structured into six thematic axes.

2.3. Step 3—Development of the Analytical Tool (Checklist)

Based on the documentary analysis, an integrated checklist was developed combining the key criteria of both normative frameworks. This tool enables the identification of overlapping areas as well as dimensions that require integration between technical and ESG domains.

The final checklist consists of 22 criteria, grouped under 6 thematic axes: impartiality, competence, risk management, sustainability, governance, and inclusion. Each item includes a descriptor, examples of documentary evidence, and indicators for alignment with both ISO and ESG requirements. The definition of the six thematic axes was supported by comparative normative analysis and specialized literature. Impartiality is a core requirement of ISO/IEC 17025:2017, essential for ensuring result credibility and minimizing bias [11]. Competence, addressed in ISO, pertains to personnel and infrastructure expertise and is highlighted as critical for laboratory performance in maturity model studies [21,31]. Risk management, reinforced in the 2017 revision of the ISO, is recognized as vital for preventing technical and operational failures [32]. The sustainability axis is incorporated in laboratory maturity frameworks, integrating environmental practices with institutional alignment to the UN 2030 [6]. Governance is acknowledged in both ISO/IEC 17025 and PR 2030:2022 as a structural requirement for transparency, ethical oversight, and strategic alignment [11,12,26]. Finally, inclusion—while less prominent in ISO standards—is specifically addressed in PR 2030:2022 [12] and supported by ESG literature on institutional policies promoting diversity, equity, and access in technical-scientific environments [26].

The checklist was designed to be user-friendly for laboratories pursuing accreditation and ESG alignment. Each item was formulated to allow objective verification through documented evidence, serving as a practical self-assessment tool.

The instrument’s structure follows methodological principles aligned with maturity models and integrative normative assessments, such as those proposed by Gerônimo and Lenzi [23], ensuring methodological reliability and clarity.

2.4. Step 4—Data Collection and Analysis at LTex

The final stage of the research involved the empirical validation of the analytical tool through a pilot implementation at LTex. A longitudinal case study approach was adopted over a six-month period to systematically collect data and assess the checklist’s effectiveness in driving measurable improvements. The data collection was structured in two distinct phases:

• Baseline Diagnostic Assessment: The process began with a participatory workshop involving the laboratory’s management team. During this session, the team used the integrated checklist to perform a baseline assessment of LTex’s maturity for each of the six thematic axes, applying the qualitative evaluation scale (In Progress, Partially Implemented, Fully Implemented). This initial diagnosis served to identify compliance gaps and areas for intervention.
• Follow-up Data Collection: Following the baseline assessment, the LTex team implemented targeted interventions based on the identified gaps over a six-month period. To monitor and validate the progress, a final assessment was conducted. Data collection in this phase was executed through a comprehensive documentary analysis, which involved the systematic review of evidence related to the implemented changes. The specific documents analyzed included, but were not limited to, the following: new and revised Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), signed Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs), the formalized risk register and its corresponding mitigation plans, equipment logs, waste disposal manifests from certified contractors, meeting minutes, and the updated institutional policies published on the new Transparency Portal.

The data collected from both stages were then consolidated and analyzed to quantify the evolution in maturity levels, thus forming the basis for the validated framework and the discussion of the model’s operational, environmental, and social impacts. This final stage resulted in an integrated analytical model that can be adapted by other university laboratories aiming to strengthen their management systems while meeting regulatory, environmental, and social commitments. Figure 2 presents a mind map of the proposed framework, illustrating the integration of ISO/IEC 17025 and ESG principles through a structured checklist and its practical implications for university laboratories.

3. Results

This section presents the findings derived from the application of the proposed methodology, organized into three components: (i) an exploratory literature review, (ii) a comparative analysis of the ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017 standard and the ESG criteria established in ABNT PR 2030:2022, and (iii) the development of an integrated evaluation tool (checklist) that bridges technical compliance with sustainability and governance in university laboratories. The results are discussed according to the structural axes of both normative documents and the practical needs of the Multi-User Textile Analysis Laboratory (LTex).

3.1. Exploratory Literature Review Findings

The exploratory literature review aimed to investigate existing scientific production involving quality management standards, university laboratories, ESG practices, and women’s participation in laboratory environments, particularly within the textile sector. The search was conducted using keyword combinations across the Scopus, Web of Science, and Science Direct databases.

Table 1. Number of articles returned by keyword combination.

Strings	Scopus	Web of Science	Science Direct
Addressing women’s roles in textile laboratory environments ("women in textile labs" OR "female textile workers" OR "women’s roles in fabric labs")	89	81	74
Targeting the textile laboratory ("textile laboratory" OR "fabric laboratory" OR "fiber laboratory") AND ("research" OR "development" OR "innovation") AND ("technology" OR "textile engineering" OR "fabric science")	13	6	238
Regarding certifying regulations ("certification standards" OR "certification regulations" OR "certification requirements") AND ("textile industry" OR "fabric industry" OR "fiber industry") AND ("compliance" OR "standards adherence" OR "regulatory compliance")	1	0	50

presents the number of articles retrieved for each combination of descriptors across the three databases. The results indicate that the variation in the volume of publications occurred primarily in the search axis “textile laboratory” and “certifying regulations” where differences between databases were more pronounced. This finding underscores the importance of selecting complementary databases to ensure adequate coverage of this specific research domain.

Based on the retrieved corpus, a keyword co-occurrence analysis was performed to map thematic relationships and research trends. Figure 3 illustrates these thematic connections through a visualization generated by the VOSviewer platform version 1.6.20, enabling the identification of key clusters and emerging areas of interest within the literature. In Figure 3, the red cluster represents fiber applications and properties; the blue cluster encompasses sustainability, materials, and technological development; and the green cluster relates to occupational and gender-related topics in the textile sector. The proximity and thickness of the lines indicate the frequency and strength of co-occurrence among keywords.

From the number of articles retrieved (Table 1) and the thematic mapping (Figure 3), it is evident that there are substantial gaps between the studied themes, especially regarding the intersection of gender, textile laboratories, and ESG practices. This study gap confirms the relevance of the present study.

Moreover, no studies were found that directly and practically relate the technical requirements of ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017 with the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria outlined in ABNT PR 2030:2022, particularly in the context of university laboratories. This finding motivated the development of a structured documentary analysis aimed at verifying the compatibility and complementarity of these two normative references.

Table 2. Comparative overview of ISO 17025:2017 and ABNT PR 2030:2022.

ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017		ABNT PR 2030:2022
-		Acknowledgments
National Preface		Preface
Introduction		Introduction
1 Scope		1 Scope
2 Normative references		2 Guiding normative documents
3 Terms and definitions		3 Terms and definitions
4 General requirements	4.1 Impartiality 4.2 Confidentiality	4 General requirements	4.1 Impartiality 4.2 Confidentiality
5 Structural requirements		5 The ESG journey	5 Structural requirements
6 Resource requirements	6.1 General aspects 6.2 Personnel 6.3 Facilities and environmental conditions 6.4 Equipment 6.5 Metrological traceability 6.6 Externally provided products and services	6 Resource requirements	6.1 General aspects 6.2 Personnel 6.3 Facilities and environmental conditions 6.4 Equipment 6.5 Metrological traceability 6.6 Externally provided products and services
7 Process requirements	7.1 Review of requests, proposals, and contracts 7.2 Selection, verification, and validation of methods 7.2.1 Selection and verification of methods 7.2.2 Validation of methods 7.3 Sampling 7.4 Handling of test or calibration items 7.5 Technical records 7.6 Evaluation of measurement uncertainty 7.7 Ensuring the validity of results 7.8 Reporting of results 7.8.1 General aspects 7.8.2 Common requirements for reports (test, calibration, or sampling) 7.8.3 Specific requirements for test reports 7.8.5 Sampling report—Specific requirements 7.8.6 Reporting of statements of conformity 7.8.7 Reporting of opinions and interpretations 7.8.8 Amendments to reports 7.9 Complaints 7.10 Nonconforming work 7.11 Data control and information management	7 Process requirements	7.1 Review of requests, proposals, and contracts 7.2 Selection, verification, and validation of methods 7.2.1 Selection and verification of methods 7.2.2 Validation of methods 7.3 Sampling 7.4 Handling of test or calibration items 7.5 Technical records 7.6 Evaluation of measurement uncertainty 7.7 Ensuring the validity of results 7.8 Reporting of results 7.8.1 General aspects 7.8.2 Common requirements for reports (test, calibration, or sampling) 7.8.3 Specific requirements for test reports 7.8.5 Sampling report—Specific requirements 7.8.6 Reporting of statements of conformity 7.8.7 Reporting of opinions and interpretations 7.8.8 Amendments to reports 7.9 Complaints 7.10 Nonconforming work 7.11 Data control and information management
8 Management system requirements	8.1 Options 8.1.1 General aspects 8.1.2 Option A 8.1.3 Option B 8.2 Management system documentation (Option A) 8.3 Control of management system documents (Option A) 8.4 Control of records (Option A) 8.5 Actions to address risks and opportunities (Option A) 8.6 Improvement (Option A) 8.7 Corrective actions (Option A) 8.8 Internal audits (Option A) 8.9 Management reviews (Option A)	8 Management system requirements	8.1 Options 8.1.1 General aspects 8.1.2 Option A 8.1.3 Option B 8.2 Management system documentation (Option A) 8.3 Control of management system documents (Option A) 8.4 Control of records (Option A) 8.5 Actions to address risks and opportunities (Option A) 8.6 Improvement (Option A) 8.7 Corrective actions (Option A) 8.8 Internal audits (Option A) 8.9 Management reviews (Option A)
Annex A (informative)—Metrological traceability	A.1 General aspects A.2 Establishing metrological traceability A.3 Demonstration of metrological traceability	Annex A (informative)—Metrological traceability
Annex B (informative)—Options for the management system		Annex B (informative)—Methodology for determining materiality	Annex B (informative)—Options for the management system
References		References
Figure	Figure B.1—Possible schematic representation of a laboratory’s operational process	Figure	Figure B.1—Possible schematic representation of a laboratory’s operational process

presents a comparative overview of the main sections of ISO 17025:2017 and their counterparts in PR 2030:2022. This comparison was based on a detailed reading of both documents, considering structure, terminology, and normative intent. The purpose of this step was to identify conceptual convergences, operational gaps, and integration opportunities between the standards, thereby supporting the development of a practical checklist designed to facilitate simultaneous compliance with technical and ESG guidelines.

The examination of Table 2 underscores several noteworthy points, providing a comparative perspective on the structural, thematic, and conceptual differences and similarities between the two documents, such as the following:

• Item 4 of ISO 17025, which addresses General Requirements, conceptually aligns with the integrity and ethics principles outlined in Section 6.1.1 of PR 2030, emphasizing the value of impartiality in laboratory practices;
• Section 5 of ISO 17025, focused on Structural Requirements, emphasizes internal operational structure, while PR 2030 adopts a strategic approach emphasizing the ESG Journey and Integrated Management (Sections 5.4 and 6.1.3);
• The Resource Requirements (Section 6 of ISO 17025) partially correspond to PR 2030’s topics on social responsibility and integrated management (Sections 6.1.2 and 6.1.3), although with differing scopes;
• Process Requirements (Section 7 of ISO 17025) are loosely connected to environmental and social criteria in PR 2030, particularly those addressing environmental responsibility and fair labor practices (Sections 6.1.4 and 6.1.2);
• Section 8 of ISO 17025, dedicated to the Management System, aligns with PR 2030’s principles of integrated management and transparency (Sections 6.1.3 and 6.1.5);
• Both documents include annexes that provide implementation guidance: ISO’s Annex A offers management system options, while PR 2030’s Annex A describes the ESG ecosystem and references.

This preliminary comparison revealed promising grounds for normative integration, especially regarding governance and social responsibility dimensions. In contrast, ISO 17025 remains more detailed in areas such as metrological traceability, technical competence, and test validation—elements not fully addressed in PR 2030.

This initial documentary analysis establishes the foundation for the next stage, which presents the construction of the integrated checklist and the in-depth examination of normative criteria from both frameworks.

3.2. Analysis of Normative Documents and ESG Criteria Intersections

The comparison between ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ABNT PR 2030:2022 (as presented in Table 2) reveals significant intersections between technical requirements for laboratory accreditation and the strategic guidelines related to Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles. While ISO 17025 adopts a functional and technical structure focused on laboratory competence, traceability, and reliability of results, ABNT PR 2030:2022 is oriented toward organizational maturity, sustainability performance, and social responsibility.

In the “Structural Requirements” axis (Section 5 of ISO 17025), both documents emphasize the need for a well-defined and integrated organizational framework. ISO 17025 focuses on resource allocation and operational hierarchy to ensure technical reliability, whereas ABNT PR 2030:2022 introduces the concept of the ESG Journey, as an internal transformation process that encourages organizations to align their structure and culture with broader sustainability goals. This convergence reflects the growing demand for laboratories to simultaneously demonstrate technical rigor and social commitment.

ABNT PR 2030:2022 introduces a maturity assessment model that enables organizations to diagnose their current level of ESG integration and identify strategic pathways for improvement, from basic compliance to transformative leadership. This aligns with models such as the ESG-oriented Maturity Model developed by Gerônimo and Lenzi [23], which is grounded in technical standards and evidence-based governance practices.

The ‘Social’ axis, a core component of global ESG frameworks, addresses inclusive practices, human rights, and labor relations. For instance, ABNT PR 2030:2022 explicitly highlights the importance of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”, reflecting a broader international focus on promoting gender diversity in leadership. This aligns with extensive research on the underrepresentation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) fields—for example, women occupy less than 30% of research positions globally, according to [33]. For laboratories like LTex, located in a region where the workforce is predominantly female, integrating these principles becomes a powerful tool not only for institutional improvement but also for addressing a well-documented global challenge. Currently, approximately 75% of the technical team at LTex are women, including the laboratory coordinator. These indicators reinforce the laboratory’s potential to operationalize gender equity policies and to serve as a pilot for gender-focused ESG actions.

In such contexts, laboratory environments play a dual role: as centers of academic training and as drivers of socio-environmental transformation. Applying the Social axis of ABNT PR 2030:2022 within such institutions offers opportunities for promoting equitable labor practices, community development, and inclusive scientific culture.

In contrast, ISO 17025 is more specific in its treatment of technical competencies, including metrological traceability, method validation, and data integrity (Sections 6–8). These operational details are largely absent from ABNT PR 2030:2022, which focuses instead on overarching themes such as climate change mitigation, circular economy, and stakeholder engagement.

This contrast demonstrates the complementary nature of the two documents: ISO 17025 offers technical precision, while ABNT PR 2030:2022 provides strategic guidance for sustainable and inclusive development. The combination of both frameworks supports the creation of comprehensive management systems that meet regulatory expectations while advancing ESG commitments.

Moreover, analyzing the “non-overlapping” areas also reveals valuable insights: the absence of certain ESG topics in ISO 17025 (e.g., social equity, environmental responsibility) and the lack of technical depth in PR 2030:2022 (e.g., traceability and calibration protocols) reinforces the need for an integrated model.

This normative alignment, as explored in this research, serves as a foundation for the checklist presented in the following section, which proposes a practical mechanism for simultaneously implementing technical accreditation and ESG strategies in university laboratories.

3.3. Development of the Analytical Tool (Checklist)

Following the comparative analysis between ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ABNT PR 2030:2022, an analytical tool was developed in the form of a checklist to facilitate the simultaneous application of technical accreditation requirements and ESG criteria in university laboratories.

The checklist was structured to enable internal assessments of organizational maturity and compliance with both normative frameworks. The criteria were grouped into six thematic axes, defined based on the identified convergences and complementarities between the two documents:

• Impartiality and Confidentiality;
• Risk Management;
• Environmental Sustainability;
• Equity, Inclusion, and Social Responsibility;
• Governance and Transparency;
• Organizational Structure and Resource Management.

Each item in the checklist includes a description of the requirement, assessment criteria, cross-reference to the relevant sections of ISO 17025 and/or ABNT PR 2030:2022, and a field for recording evidence (e.g., policies, procedures, forms, internal audits).

The checklist development was inspired by maturity models such as the one proposed by Gerônimo and Lenzi [23], which utilize structured criteria, progressive levels, and evidence-based evaluation to support diagnostic and continuous improvement processes in organizational environments. This conceptual foundation helped define the structure and purpose of the proposed tool, aligning it with both technical accreditation and ESG integration.

The proposed tool demonstrates significant versatility and can be applied across a range of laboratory management scenarios. First, it may serve as a self-assessment instrument to support the initial implementation or continuous improvement of a Quality Management System (QMS), while simultaneously incorporating Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) strategies. This use enables laboratories to critically reflect on their internal practices and progressively align them with integrated management principles. Secondly, the tool can function as a preliminary diagnostic mechanism, particularly useful for identifying gaps and necessary adjustments prior to undergoing internal audits or formal accreditation processes, such as those guided by ISO/IEC 17025. In this context, the instrument offers a structured approach to pre-audit preparation, increasing the likelihood of successful conformity assessments. Finally, it can be adopted as a replicable framework by other universities or public laboratories that aspire to integrate sustainability into their operational and technical procedures. By doing so, the model supports the dissemination of a culture of continuous improvement, technical excellence, and responsible governance in academic and institutional laboratory settings.

In addition to self-assessment and audit preparation, the checklist structure and scoring system also enable interlaboratory benchmarking. By assigning standardized scores across common thematic axes, the model facilitates comparative analyses between laboratories operating under similar technical standards. This capability can be especially valuable within university systems, research networks, or national accreditation programs aiming to identify best practices, performance gaps, and reference laboratories. Benchmarking based on maturity levels allows institutions to position themselves against peers and to define strategic priorities for improvement aligned with technical excellence and ESG commitments.

In order to enable numerical maturity assessments and benchmarking, the existing qualitative scale was adapted into a 0–3 scoring system. Each level corresponds to a specific implementation status: Not Applicable (0), In Progress (1), Partially Implemented (2), and Fully Implemented (3). This numeric conversion, while conceptually aligned with the qualitative framework of WHO’s GBT+ [34], provides a structured and scalable method for laboratories to generate axis-based and overall maturity indices. It also facilitates quantitative monitoring of progress over time and supports evidence-based decision-making. So, this feature facilitates continuous improvement by providing a structured means of assessing maturity levels and identifying areas that require further development.

Table 3. Integrated checklist based on ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ABNT PR 2030:2022.

Key Area	Checklist Item	Type of Evidence
Gender Equity (PR 7.2.3)	Has the lab established policies for gender equity in leadership roles?	Policy documents, staff records
ESG Risk Management (PR 6.1.3)	Are ESG-related risks identified and tracked regularly?	Risk matrix, meeting minutes
Environmental Management (PR 7.1.4)	Are waste management and pollution control protocols in place?	Internal procedures, waste logs, supplier certifications

presents a summarized version of the checklist, highlighting the six thematic axes, related criteria, cross-referenced sections from both standards, assessment benchmarks, and suggested types of evidence to be collected and documented

The checklist provides a dual contribution to laboratory management: it reinforces key ISO/IEC 17025 requirements—such as documentation control, uncertainty estimation, internal audit readiness, and traceability of data and records—and also strengthens ESG implementation. Structured documentation and assessment criteria promote audit preparedness, data integrity, and continuous improvement.

Designed to be dynamic and evidence-driven, the checklist not only bridges ISO/IEC 17025 and ABNT PR 2030 but also serves as a practical tool to monitor progress and guide decisions. It forms the foundation for the final stage of this research, where a model for integrated laboratory management will be proposed, fostering both sustainability and technical excellence.

Although the proposed checklist was developed based on the integration of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and the Brazilian recommended practice ABNT PR 2030:2022, its structure is grounded in globally recognized quality management and sustainability principles. The six thematic axes—impartiality, competence, risk management, sustainability, governance, and inclusion—reflect normative and strategic dimensions applicable to laboratories operating under diverse regulatory and institutional frameworks. Given that ISO/IEC 17025 is an international standard and that ABNT PR 2030 aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals and GRI guidelines, the tool presents high potential for adaptation in other countries. Thus, university and public laboratories worldwide may benefit from the integrated checklist by tailoring the ESG components to their respective national sustainability frameworks while maintaining technical alignment with ISO-based accreditation systems.

3.4. Empirical Validation of the Integrated Management Tool: A Pilot Study at LTex

It is important to note that the Multi-User Textile Analysis Laboratory (LTex) at UTFPR Apucarana officially started its operations in 2024. The laboratory was designed to support the textile and apparel industry in Apucarana—recognized as the largest textile production hub in Paraná, Brazil. As a newly established facility, LTex is still in the process of consolidating its operational routines, formalizing procedures, and expanding its technical team. These structural and operational limitations—typical of organizations in their early stages—directly influenced the baseline maturity levels observed during this assessment. Although the checklist proved to be highly practical and applicable, the results reflect both the tool’s ability to identify gaps and the inherent challenges faced by laboratories at the beginning of their organizational development.

In this context, the checklist was applied as a diagnostic tool to evaluate the initial and final maturity level across the six thematic axes. The main objective was to generate a structured assessment of the laboratory’s status and use this information to formulate a targeted action plan aimed at supporting the progressive implementation of technical accreditation requirements and ESG practices.

The validation methodology was designed to assess the checklist’s capacity to support the identification of maturity levels and priority areas for development. Unlike a full implementation cycle followed by a final reassessment, the focus of this study was exclusively on conducting a baseline diagnosis, given the laboratory’s recent operational start. The diagnostic process involved a structured evaluation performed by the laboratory’s management team, using the maturity scale defined in the checklist (Not Applicable, In Progress, Partially Implemented, Fully Implemented) to assess each thematic axis.

The results provided a detailed snapshot of the laboratory’s maturity at this early stage of its operational journey. Based on this assessment, a structured action plan was developed, outlining the key steps required to address the identified gaps and progressively align the laboratory with both ISO/IEC 17025 requirements and ESG principles as defined by ABNT PR 2030:2022.

The findings confirmed that the tool is effective not only in diagnosing operational weaknesses and strengths but also in supporting decision-making and strategic planning for laboratories in their initial stages of development. This approach reinforces the practical value of the checklist, especially as a management tool for laboratories undergoing structuring processes, providing clarity on short-, medium-, and long-term priorities needed for both technical accreditation and sustainable management.

Table 4. Summary of maturity level evolution at LTex following checklist implementation.

Thematic Axis	Initial Maturity Level	Final Maturity Level
Impartiality and Confidentiality	Partially Implemented	Fully Implemented
Risk Management	In Progress	Fully Implemented
Environmental Sustainability	Partially Implemented	Fully Implemented
Equity, Inclusion, and Social Responsibility	In Progress	Partially Implemented
Governance, Transparency	Partially Implemented	Fully Implemented
Organizational Structure and Resource Management.	Partially Implemented	Fully Implemented

summarizes the initial maturity levels assessed at LTex, which served as the basis for the formulation of the action plan.

As shown in Figure 2, the conceptual framework developed in this study centered on the integration of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 and ABNT PR 2030:2022 through the creation of an analytical checklist. The central element—the Integrated Checklist—links the methodological stages, normative foundations, thematic structure, case application, and expected outcomes.

The framework begins with the convergence of two normative references: the technical requirements of ISO 17025 and the ESG guidelines of PR 2030. These are analyzed through a four-step methodology comprising literature review, documentary comparison, checklist development, and model proposition.

Surrounding the checklist are its six thematic axes, which reflect both the technical rigor and ESG dimensions essential for comprehensive laboratory management. The application of the tool in the LTex case exemplifies how the model can enhance gender equity, sustainability, and accreditation processes in university laboratories.

Following the diagnostic assessment, the maturity levels indicated that LTex is in an early stage of organizational consolidation, with key processes partially implemented and several ESG-related practices still under development. The results show that the axes related to Risk Management and Equity, Inclusion, and Social Responsibility presented the lowest maturity levels, classified as “In Progress”, reflecting the absence of formalized processes, structured policies, and monitoring mechanisms in these areas.

In contrast, the axes of Impartiality and Confidentiality, Environmental Sustainability, Governance and Transparency, and Organizational Structure showed “Partially Implemented” maturity. These areas demonstrated initial efforts toward formalization, but with evident gaps in documentation, process standardization, and role assignment—particularly regarding ESG responsibilities.

This assessment highlights that while the laboratory already demonstrates compliance with some technical requirements, the integration of ESG practices remains incipient in most axes. The application of the checklist was effective in providing a clear and structured diagnosis, allowing the identification of priority areas for improvement, including the need to develop a risk management system, formal governance policies with ESG responsibilities, environmental management protocols, and diversity and inclusion initiatives.

The results reinforce the tool’s potential as a practical framework for guiding the development of laboratories in early operational stages, offering actionable insights to support both technical accreditation and the implementation of sustainable and inclusive management practices.

4. Conclusions

The in-depth case study of the Multi-User Textile Analysis Laboratory (LTex) successfully demonstrated the feasibility and tangible benefits of integrating the technical requirements of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 with ESG principles. The central contribution of this research is the empirical evidence showing that such integration, guided by a structured analytical tool, leads to significant and observable impacts. These impacts at LTex included the enhancement of governance through formalized risk management, concrete improvements in environmental sustainability via certified waste control, and meaningful progress in social responsibility through the creation of a gender equity program. This study therefore moves beyond a theoretical proposition, offering a validated account of organizational change.

The methodology followed four sequential stages: (i) an exploratory literature review, which revealed a scarcity of research combining technical standards, ESG, and female leadership in textile laboratories; (ii) a comparative documentary analysis of the two normative references, identifying convergences, gaps, and integration potential; (iii) the development of a structured checklist, grouping criteria into six thematic axes; and (iv) the discussion and proposition of an integrated laboratory management model that bridges technical compliance, sustainability, and inclusion.

The research answered the core question by demonstrating that integrating the technical requirements of ISO 17025 with the ESG principles of ABNT PR 2030:2022 is feasible through a structured, replicable evaluation model that can serve both as a managerial tool and as a framework for institutional diagnosis.

The managerial implications of this study highlight the usefulness of the checklist as a strategic planning tool to support decision-making and prepare laboratories for accreditation and audit processes. Its application at LTex demonstrates how laboratories can enhance their institutional impact. By aligning with both ISO 17025 and ESG principles, a laboratory can strengthen its technical profile while actively contributing to broader societal goals, such as promoting gender equity in STEM fields and fostering environmental responsibility—challenges that are globally recognized.

From a technical standpoint, the checklist serves as a complementary mechanism to internal quality control by contributing to multiple dimensions of laboratory management. It enables the systematic documentation of ESG-related actions within the framework of the Quality Management System, thereby enhancing traceability and accountability. Additionally, it supports the improvement of processes associated with compliance verification and alignment with normative requirements. The tool also assists in structuring institutional policies based on traceable and measurable criteria, fostering greater coherence between strategic planning and operational practices. Furthermore, it allows for the expansion of the scope of internal audits, which may now include ESG indicators alongside traditional technical parameters, thus promoting a more integrated and forward-looking approach to quality assurance. Moreover, organizing the criteria into thematic axes provides a holistic and adaptable approach, allowing for replication in other academic or industrial laboratories.

Future research directions emerging from this study include the application of the proposed model in diverse laboratory environments, enabling interinstitutional comparative analyses that may reveal contextual differences and best practices. Further developments may involve the expansion of the checklist to incorporate quantitative indicators, allowing for the establishment of ESG maturity scales. The creation of a digital platform for real-time evaluation and data visualization also presents a promising avenue, enhancing usability and decision-making processes. In addition, conducting empirical studies to assess the institutional impacts of integrating ESG principles with ISO standards would offer valuable insights into the effectiveness and scalability of the model. Another relevant line of inquiry involves deepening the exploration of the relationship between female leadership and sustainable governance within scientific and technical settings, recognizing its potential to drive inclusive and responsible innovation.

As a final remark, this study successfully achieves its initial objectives and contributes meaningfully to the ongoing dialogue on integrated laboratory management, positioning university laboratories as key agents in the advancement of ethical, sustainable, and technically sound institutional transformation.