CEO characteristics and environmental disclosure: Evidence from companies listed on B3

Características de CEOs e divulgação ambiental: Evidências de empresas listadas na B3

Abstract

Purpose: This paper examines the relationship between Chief Executive Officer (CEO) characteristics and the environmental disclosure practices of Brazilian companies listed on the stock exchange [B3] from a Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) perspective.

Originality/value: This study contributes to the literature by linking CEO characteristics to environmental disclosure within the framework of the SDGs in an emerging economy such as Brazil. Empirical evidence underscores the influence of leadership profiles on corporate sustainability initiatives, offering valuable insights for companies in selecting CEOs who are committed to environmental transparency.

Design/methodology/approach: The study analyzes 198 non-financial companies, evaluating CEO attributes such as age, tenure, educational level, gender, dual roles, and shareholding, based on data collected from the Reference Form (Formulário de Referência). Environmental disclosure is measured using eight indicators related to water, energy, emissions, and waste, aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and extracted from the Refinitiv Eikon® database. The analysis employs multiple linear regression with an unbalanced panel dataset.

Findings: The results indicate a negative association between CEO age and gender and environmental disclosure, while the other variables do not show statistical significance. Among the control variables, firm age is significant, with older firms exhibiting higher levels of environmental disclosure. These findings provide valuable guidance for companies seeking to align their sustainability objectives, for stakeholders assessing corporate social and environmental commitments, and for regulators promoting transparency in emerging markets.

Keywords:
CEO characteristics; CEO; environmental disclosure; Sustainable Development Goals; SDGs

Resumo

Objetivo:  Este artigo examina a relação entre as características de Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) e as práticas de divulgação ambiental das empresas brasileiras listadas na bolsa de valores [B3] sob a ótica dos Obje-tivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável (ODS). Originalidade/valor: Esse estudo contribui ao relacionar o efeito das características de CEOs e da divulgação ambiental sob a ótica dos ODS em um país emergente como o Brasil. Evidências empíricas indicam como os perfis de liderança impactam os esforços de sustentabilidade corporativa, auxiliando empresas na seleção de CEOs comprometidos com a transparência ambiental. Design/metodologia/abordagem: O estudo analisa 198 empresas não financeiras, avaliando atributos dos CEOs, como idade, tempo de mandato, nível educacional, gênero, dualidade de funções e participação acionária - dados coletados do Formulário de Referência (FR). A divulgação ambiental é mensurada por meio de oito indicadores relacionados à água, energia, emissões e resíduos, alinhados aos Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável (ODS) das Nações Unidas e extraídos da base de dados Refinitiv Eikon®. A análise é realizada por meio de regressão linear múltipla com dados em painel não balanceado.

Resultados:  Os resultados indicam uma associação negativa entre idade e gênero do CEO e a divulgação ambiental, enquanto as demais variáveis não apresentam significância estatística. Entre as variáveis de controle, a idade da empresa se mostra significativa, com empresas mais antigas apresentando maiores níveis de divulgação ambiental. Os resultados oferecem orientações valiosas para empresas que buscam alinhar seus objetivos de sustentabilidade, para stakeholders que avaliam os compromissos socioambientais corporativos e para reguladores que promovem a transparência em mercados emergentes.

Palavras-chave:
características de CEO; CEO; divulgação ambiental; Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável; ODS

INTRODUCTION

Companies around the world have increasingly integrated Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) practices into their business strategies, not only to meet social and environmental demands but also to foster long-term sustainable growth and create value for shareholders, employees, and socie-ty (Lu et al., 2021). The growing media discussion on sustainability has heightened corporate accountability for the impacts of business activities, thereby increasing pressure on executives to enhance transparency (Modugu, 2020).

In this context, non-financial disclosures, which encompass social and environmental aspects, have become essential (Rigon et al., 2023). Environmental disclosures play a crucial role in advancing sustainable development and environmental protection (Akhter et al., 2023). Furthermore, such disclosures aim to strengthen companies’ legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders and regulators (Patten, 1992; Suchman, 1995).

As key organizational leaders, CEOs play a crucial role in shaping corporate strategies, with their personal characteristics directly influencing the direction of corporate actions. They are central to driving environmental initiatives and developing sustainability strategies (Aabo & Giorici, 2023). The growing academic, political, and media interest in the characteristics of CEOs and their influence highlights their significance in addressing social and environmental issues (Lu et al., 2022).

The Upper Echelons Theory (UET), proposed by Hambrick and Mason (1984), explains how the personal characteristics of top executives-such as age, education, financial status, and experience-influence organizational decisions and outcomes. Research shows that CEOs with these traits are more likely to engage in CSR initiatives and support the achievement of the SDGs (Bhaskar et al., 2023).

The influence of CEOs on corporate sustainability is essential for climate risk disclosure and CSR decisions (Li et al., 2024; Subedi & Zoet, 2024). Subedi and Zoet (2024) note that CEOs are committed to trans-parency, enhancing market perception, and fostering resilient organizational cultures. Dey et al. (2024) emphasize that leadership fosters transparency, reduces information asymmetry, and enhances investor confidence.

Several studies have explored how CEO characteristics affect corporate sustainability. Elsayih et al. (2021) analyzed the relationship between CEOs’ experience, tenure, and carbon emissions performance in Australian companies. Shahab et al. (2020) investigated the impact of CEOs’ academic, financial, and international experience, as well as age, on environmental performance in Chinese firms, concluding that these attributes are associated with improved sustainability outcomes. Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021) exami-ned how CEOs influence sustainability reporting in Indian companies, while Huang (2013) found that gender, age, tenure, management specialization, and higher education levels correlate with stronger CSR performance.

Despite growing recognition of how CEOs’ characteristics impact sustainability, gaps remain in understanding their engagement (Bhaskar et al., 2023). Mahran and Elamer (2023) argue that studies on developing countries focus on SDGs, with most research emphasizing performance rather than environmental disclosure. Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021) emphasize the need for academic research on how CEOs integrate their companies into the global sustainable agenda, highlighting the scarcity of literature linking CEO attributes to environmental disclosure.

Bebbington and Unerman (2018) emphasize the need to advance accounting research to analyze, measure, and disclose the SDGs, which provides an opportunity to improve corporate reporting and promote a sustainable future. Corporate disclosure of SDG commitments enhances governance, trans-parency, and accountability. The United Nations (UN) highlights that achieving the SDGs requires engagement from multiple sectors, including large corporations. Therefore, investigating how these companies address SDG challenges can provide the best practice guidelines and aid in goal implementation (Lodhia et al., 2023).

The Brazilian context is particularly relevant for expanding the literature on CEO influence and environmental disclosure, given its status as a developing country with distinct regulatory and governance challenges compared to developed markets (Cezarino et al., 2022; Rashid et al., 2020). Environmental disclosure practices in these settings are often less formalized and more philanthropic in nature, shaped by historical issues like corruption, weak oversight, and governance deficiencies (Soares et al., 2020).

In recent years, Brazil has shown increasing interest in disclosing environmental and climate-related information. The Brazilian Securities and Exchange Commission (CVM) has announced that the standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), which are currently voluntary, will become mandatory in 2026. Notably, IFRS S1 establishes guidelines for the disclosure of sustainability-related risks and opportunities, while IFRS S2 specifically addresses climate-related disclosures (IFRSa, 2023; IFRSb, 2023; IFRSc, 2023). Within this framework, the combination of Brazil’s status as a developing country and the ongoing regulatory changes makes it a fertile setting for analyzing corporate behavior regarding environmental disclosure.

Given these gaps and the limited research in Brazil, this study aims to examine the relationship between CEO characteristics and the environmental disclosure of companies listed on the B3 from an SDGs perspective. Although research on environmental disclosure has progressed, with studies addressing carbon emissions and CSR ratings by agencies, there is still a limited understanding of disclosure practices aligned with the SDGs. Aligning academic efforts with SDG-related topics helps bridge the gap between corporate actions and global sustainability priorities (Rosati et al., 2023; Van Zanten & Van Tulder, 2021).

To achieve this objective, the study analyzes six key CEO characteristics: age, CEO tenure, gender, education level (Caby et al., 2024; Elsayih et al., 2021; Haider et al., 2019; Liu & Luo, 2019; Oware & Awunyo-Vitor, 2021; Oware et al., 2022), duality (Abdul Majid et al., 2023); Al-Shaer et al. (2022), and CEO ownership (Abdul Majid et al., 2023; Wukich, 2020). Environmental disclosure is assessed using a checklist based on data from Refinitiv Eikon® for 198 Brazilian companies listed on B3. The analysis is conducted through multiple regression with panel data.

This study advances research on CEO characteristics and environmental disclosure by providing insights for firms in selecting leaders aligned with their SDG strategies. CEOs can align their leadership styles with organizations that share their vision and values. For stakeholders, the findings support investment and partnership decisions with environmentally trans-parent firms. More broadly, the study contributes to achieving the SDGs by assessing corporate environmental disclosure through key sustainability indicators.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Growing stakeholder expectations have made CSR an essential component in business strategy. Although economic activities can harm the environment, their effects can be mitigated through environmental disclosure, which showcases corporate efforts in restoration, energy efficiency, and pollution prevention (Dagiliene et al., 2020). Achieving the SDGs requires collective action, aligning corporate strategies with global sustainability goals (Rosati et al., 2023). CEOs play a central role in leading environmental initiatives and shaping sustainability strategies (Aabo & Giorici, 2023; Roberts et al., 2021).

In most countries, including Brazil, sustainability reporting remains voluntary, which highlights the importance of CEO decision-making in environmental disclosure. Additionally, top management is accountable to shareholders and the Board of Directors for overseeing transparency (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), including environmental disclosures. While approaches to sustainability reporting may differ, these decisions are crucial in ensuring that society is informed about corporate environmental commitments and actions.

Grounded in the UET, this study acknowledges that CEOs’ experiences, values, and personalities shape their decisions and the outcomes of an organization (Hambrick, 2007; Hambrick & Mason, 1984). CEO traits act as predictors of corporate performance, influencing not only business strategies but also environmental and social initiatives (Slater & Dixon-Fowler, 2010). Their capabilities, authority, and experience play a critical role in shaping corporate environmental strategies (Amore et al., 2019; Dixon-Fowler et al., 2017; Huang, 2013; Liu & Luo, 2019).

Several studies have examined the relationship between CEO charac-teristics and environmental disclosure, producing mixed findings (Mahran & Elamer, 2023). Chithambo et al. (2020) identified a negative association between CEO age and GHG disclosure in UK firms, while Sannino et al. (2020) reported that older CEOs in fintechs tend to support sustainable models. Conversely, Huang (2013) and Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021) found no significant relationship between CEO age and environmental disclosure or CSR performance.

Haider et al. (2019) examined the relationship between CEO age and analyst forecasts in Australian firms, finding that younger CEOs enhance the quality of the information environment. This evidence suggests that younger CEOs may also improve the transparency of non-financial disclosures, including environmental reporting. Younger CEOs tend to be more open to taking risks in sustainability disclosures, while older CEOs are gene-rally more risk-averse when sharing such information (Chithambo et al., 2020; Martino et al., 2020).

Based on this discussion, the following hypothesis is proposed:

• H1: CEO age is negatively associated with environmental disclosure.

The CEO’s tenure refers to the number of years an individual has served as CEO. Newly appointed CEOs tend to make more investments, as strong initial performance can boost their future career growth (Chen et al., 2019). This occurs because career advancement depends on their demonstrated skills and results. In contrast, CEOs with longer tenure are often more resistant to change (Finkelstein & Hambrick, 1990), more committed to the status quo, and risk-averse (Miller, 1991).

Empirical studies support this relationship. Chen et al. (2019) found that CSR performance is higher during the early years of a CEO’s tenure among U.S. firms. Bhaskar et al. (2023) confirmed, through a meta-analysis of 54 studies, a negative link between CEO tenure and CSR practices. Similarly, Lewis et al. (2014) concluded that firms with newly appointed CEOs are more likely to provide voluntary environmental disclosures.

Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:

• H2: CEO tenure is negatively associated with environmental disclosure.

The CEO’s educational level, reflecting their knowledge and skills, can influence organizational performance and responsiveness to external challenges (Hambrick & Mason, 1984). Studies indicate that highly educated CEOs tend to be more efficient and have stronger concerns about climate change (Amore et al., 2019). Liu and Luo (2019) found that higher education levels increase emphasis on internal CSR, while Huang (2013) highlighted that educational specialization improves CSR performance.

Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:

• H3: The CEO’s educational level is positively associated with environmental disclosure.

The relationship between CEO gender and environmental disclosure remains underexplored in academic literature (Velte, 2020). Javed et al. (2023) noted that most studies on CEO characteristics have focused on age, tenure, education, and experience, often overlooking the influence of CEO gender on environmental issues. Previous research indicates that female CEOs are more attentive to diverse stakeholders and seek to balance the interests of the company and its stakeholders (Nguyen et al., 2020). Furthermore, gender diversity fosters an organizational culture that values transparency and accountability in financial disclosures.

Caby et al. (2024) examined the impact of gender diversity in top mana-gement teams on voluntary carbon disclosure and the quality of carbon disclosure in the technology industry, finding improvements in both areas. Similarly, Javed et al. (2023) examined the effect of female CEOs on green innovation in China, concluding that female CEOs are more likely to invest in green innovation. Oware et al. (2022) investigated the relationship between female CEOs and environmental disclosure in India, demonstrating a positive link between female leadership and environmental disclosure in family-controlled companies.

Based on these findings, the following hypothesis is proposed:

• H4: The gender of the CEO is positively associated with environmental disclosure.

CEO duality occurs when the same person acts as both the CEO and the chair of the board. This dual role can lead to conflicts of interest between ownership and management, limiting the board of directors’ ability to effectively oversee the CEO’s decisions, which may be driven by personal interest (Fama & Jensen, 1983). These authors also highlight that the absence of duality helps protect minority shareholders, who face greater information asymmetries due to limited access to internal company information.

CEO duality limits the flow of information to other board directors, thereby reducing managerial oversight and weakening company performance (Fama & Jensen, 1983). According to the agency theory, CEO duality strengthens the CEO’s position by reducing the effectiveness of board moni-toring (Chou & Chan, 2018). Thus, when the same individual represents both the Board of Directors and executive management, CEO duality exists. However, Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021) mention that holding both roles can become an excessive burden, potentially negatively impacting the CEO’s willingness to enhance environmental disclosure.

Based on this, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

• H5: CEO duality is negatively associated with environmental disclosure.

A CEO can also be a shareholder in the company they manage, acquiring equity through stock purchases in the capital market, thereby increasing their ownership power within the organization. A CEO with a significant ownership stake is directly affected by managerial decisions and, as a result, tends to align their interests with those of other shareholders (Jensen & Meckling, 1976). In this scenario, a CEO with a greater ownership influence shapes board decisions and plays a key role in selecting top management, ensuring greater alignment with the strategic vision (Bach & Smith, 2007).

Based on this, the following research hypothesis is proposed:

• H6: The CEO as a shareholder is positively associated with environmental disclosure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data

Considering the UET by Hambrick and Mason (1984), our paper investigates the influence of CEO characteristics on the environmental disclosure of companies listed on the Brazilian Stock Exchange [B3], using the SDGs as a reference framework. The population consists of publicly traded, non-financial companies listed on B3 from 2010 to 2022. The analysis period begins in 2010, following the mandatory adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) in Brazil, which introduced changes to accounting methods and required the disclosure of the Reference Form (RF). The RF provides key information on CEO characteristics, making it a valuable data source for analysis and interpretation. The cutoff year, 2022, was chosen to represent the most recent year for which environmental disclosure data is available.

The independent variables were manually collected from the RF, which is publicly accessible on the B3 website. Data for the dependent variable and control variables were obtained from the Refinitiv Eikon® database.

The companies listed on B3 are selected because they provide standardi-zed information availability in the Reference Form (RF) and because they experience greater public visibility and institutional pressures, which may influence their environmental disclosure practices.

The RF was chosen as the primary source for CEO characteristics due to its mandatory and standardized reporting format, ensuring comparability across companies. Environmental disclosure was assessed using Basic SDG Indicators outlined by UNCTAD/UN (2022), which provide a standardized framework for assessing corporate environmental impact. These internationally recognized indicators enable consistent data collection across dif-ferent corporate and regulatory contexts.

After applying the selection criteria, the final sample comprised 198 companies and 1,300 annual observations. Some companies were excluded due to missing data on key variables over time. As a result, the dataset was structured as an unbalanced panel, allowing for the inclusion of companies with less than a full year of available data during the analyzed period, thereby reducing data loss. Data modeling was performed using Stata®, employing techniques such as descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, and panel data regression to ensure a comprehensive examination of the collected information.

Measurement of environmental disclosure

The measurement of the dependent variable, environmental disclosure, was based on eight environmental indicators distributed across four pillars: water, energy, emissions, and waste. These indicators are recognized by the United Nations (UN) as fundamental for assessing companies’ contributions to implementing the SDGs. They were selected based on their international relevance and are widely acknowledged as key criteria for evaluating companies’ efforts in achieving the SDGs, as established by the UN. Table 1 presents the specific descriptions of each indicator. The UN, concerned with SDG 12, which addresses sustainable consumption and production, and specifically with target 12.6, which encourages companies to adopt and integrate sustainability information into their reports, considers these reports relevant sources of information for stakeholders and tools for monitoring SDG progress towards the SDGs (UNCTAD, 2022). In partnership with the International Standards of Accounting and Reporting (ISAR), the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Secretariat developed a set of core indicators that should be central to the disclosure of sustainability information in corporate reports. These indicators were chosen based on key reporting principles, established reporting frameworks, and existing corporate practices (UNCTAD, 2022). The proposed indicators include economic, environmental, social, and institutional areas. This study specifically focused on environmental indicators.

Table 1
Checklist of the dependent variable-Environmental disclosure (ENV_DISC)

Pillar	Indicator	Refinitiv Indicator
Water	Water recycling and reuse	Water Recycled
	Water use efficiency	Targets Water Efficiency
Energy	Energy efficiency	Energy Efficiency
	Renewable energy	Renewable Energy
	Total emissions	Emissions Score
Waste	Hazardous waste	Hazardous Waste
	Ozone-depleting substances and chemicals	Ozone-Depleting Substances
	Waste reduction / Reused, remanufactured, and recycled waste	Waste Recycled Total

The environmental indicators identified as central by UNCTAD (2022) include: water recycling and reuse, water use efficiency, water stress, waste generation, reused, remanufactured, and recycled waste, hazardous waste gene-ration, greenhouse gas emissions, substances and chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, share of renewable energy, energy efficiency, and land use near areas sensitive to biodiversity. For data collection in this study, we used the Refinitiv Eikon® database, searching for variables aligned with the environmental indicators proposed by UNCTAD. The indicators found are presented in Table 1.

The variable “ENV_DISC” was constructed by assigning one point for each disclosed indicator and zero for those not disclosed, resulting in a total disclosure score ranging from 0 to 8. This score reflects the extent of a company’s environmental disclosure, with higher scores indicating greater commitment to reporting. No weighting was used because the study focused on whether each indicator was present or absent, rather than its magnitude.

Model specification

Table 2 presents the independent and control variables used to estimate the study’s econometric model, along with their respective metrics and refe-rences from previous research.

Table 2
Independent and control variables

Variable	Definition	Authors
Independent variables
CEO age (AGE)	The CEO’s age, either calculated from birth date or obtained from the disclosed information	Haider et al. (2019); Huang (2013); Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021).
CEO tenure (TENURE)	Number of years serving as CEO of the company	Elsayih et al. (2021); Huang (2013).
CEO education level (EDU_LVL)	1: Bachelor’s degree; 2: Specialization and/or MBA; 3: Master’s degrees, and 4: PhD	Liu and Luo (2019); Huang (2013).
CEO gender (GENDER)	Dummy variable: “1” if the CEO is female	Caby et al. (2024); Huang (2013); Oware et al. (2022).
Independent variables
CEO duality (DUAL)	Dummy variable: “1” if the CEO also serves as chairman of the board	Fama and Jensen (1983); Chou and Chan (2018); Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021).
CEO shareholder (SHARE)	Dummy variable: “1” if the CEO is among the five main shareholders of the company	Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Bach and Smith, 2007
Firm Size (SIZE)	Natural logarithm of total assets.	Elsayih et al. (2021); Oware et al. (2022); Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021); Razali et al. (2016)
Control Variables
Profitability (ROA)	Ratio of net profit to total assets at year-end	Elsayih et al. (2021)
Company age (C_AGE)	Number of years since foundation	D’Amato and Falivena (2020); Peliu (2024)
Sector (SECTOR)	Represents the sectoral effect	Elsayih et al. (2021)
Year (YEAR)	Represents the temporal effect	Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021)

The control variables used in this study are commonly employed in previous research on CEOs and environmental disclosure. Prior studies indicate that factors such as company size, age, and performance influence the disclosure of environmental practices (Le et al., 2023). Accordingly, this study includes the following control variables: company size, company age, return on assets (ROA), industry, and year.

Company size indicates the firm’s ability to engage in sustainability activi-ties (Oware & Awunyo-Vitor, 2021) and is generally positively associa-ted with environmental performance (Razali et al., 2016). Therefore, larger companies are expected to disclose more environmental information to strengthen the legitimacy of their operations. ROA indicates that more profitable firms tend to have greater resources to invest in sustainability initiatives (Le et al., 2023; Withisuphakorn & Jiraporn, 2015). Consequently, these firms disclose more information about their environmental practices to enhance their perceived value to society.

Regarding company age, environmental disclosure is vital for mature firms, as poor environmental performance can damage the reputation they have built over the years (Le et al., 2023). Additionally, older firms tend to accumulate capital over time, leading to more stable cash flows and higher profitability, which may facilitate investments in environmental practices (Withisuphakorn & Jiraporn, 2015).

After collecting the variables, the econometric model presented in Equation 1 was estimated using a robust fixed-effects approach.

(Equation 1) $$\begin{array}{rl}ENV\mathrm{\_}\text{DISC}=& {\beta }_0+{\beta }_{1}AGE+{\beta }_{2}TENURE+{\beta }_{3}EDU\mathrm{\_}LVL+{\beta }_{4}GENDER\\ & +{\beta }_{5}DUAL+{\beta }_{6}SHARE+{\beta }_{7}SIZE+{\beta }_{8}ROA+{\beta }_{9}C\mathrm{\_}AGE\\ & +{\beta }_{10}SECTOR+{\beta }_{10}YEAR+\epsilon \end{array}$$

The choice of this econometric model was determined after performing specification tests, including Chow, Breusch-Pagan, and Hausman tests. At a 5% significance level, the results indicated a preference for the fixed effects model.

Diagnostic tests were conducted to evaluate normality, heteroscedasticity, and multicollinearity. The Breusch-Pagan/Cook-Weisberg test indicated heteroscedasticity, which was addressed by applying a fixed effects model with robust standard errors. The VIF test revealed no multicollinearity, with the highest VIF value of 1.08. These procedures ensured the robustness and reliability of the econometric model.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics, showing a mean environmental disclosure (ENV_DIV) of 0.7036, meaning companies disclosed approximately 70% of the analyzed indicators. This finding aligns with Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021), who found a similar disclosure level among Indian companies aligned with the SDG agenda. The data also indicate variability, with some firms disclosing none and others reporting all indicators.

Table 3
Descriptive statistics

Variable	Obs	Mean	SD	Min	Max
ENV_DISC	4,146	0.7036	1.5859	0	8
AGE	1,685	52.5822	9.5190	27	91
TENURE	3,049	16.0469	10.5550	1	31
EDU_LVL	3,050	1.5213	0.8028	0	4
GENDER	3079	0.0373	0.1896	0	1
DUAL	2,671	0.1007	0.3010	0	1
SHERE	2,786	0.1267	0.3327	0	1
SIZE	3,492	21.5029	2.1066	6.5028	27.6184
ROA	4,146	0.0762	0.2137	-1.0423	0.3947
C_AGE	3,846	37.6594	28.7944	0	150

Regarding CEO characteristics, the mean age (AGE) is 52.5822 years, with values ranging from 27 to 91. This result is consistent with Al-Shaer et al. (2022), who reported an average CEO age of 52 years. Similarly, Oware and Awunyo-Vitor (2021) found an average CEO age of 54.4 years in India. CEO tenure (TENURE) ranges from 1 to 31 years, and 3.73% of CEOs in the sample are female (GENDER). Overall, the sample exhibits a low representation of women in executive roles and a relatively average age for CEOs.

Table 4 presents the Spearman correlation coefficients among the varia-bles analyzed in the study. This helps to understand the strength and direction of the relationships between CEO and company characteristics, making it easier to identify patterns that may influence environmental disclosure and corporate performance. The main correlations observed are discussed below.

Table 4
Spearman correlation coefficients

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1	1.000
2	-0.036	1.000
3	-0.046	0.259	1.000
4	0.068	-0.176	-0.021	1.000
5	-0.055	-0.127	-0.086	0.065	1.000
6	-0.145	0.122	0.158	-0.008	0.096	1.000
7	-0.164	0.066	0.110	-0.115	-0.052	0.222	1.000
8	0.596	0.010	-0.038	0.130	0.007	-0.175	-0.184	1.000
9	0.090	0.100	0.053	0.008	0.036	-0.034	0.017	0.027	1.000
10	-0.010	0.156	0.051	-0.062	0.008	0.167	-0.044	-0.056	0.042	1.000

The highest correlation observed is between environmental disclosure (ENV_DISC) and firm size (SIZE), with a value of 0.596, indicating that larger companies tend to disclose more environmental information. A positive correlation is also found between CEO shareholding (SHARE) and duality of roles (DUAL), at 0.222, suggesting that CEOs who also serve as chairpersons of the board of directors are more likely to hold shares in the company.

Additionally, a positive correlation exists between CEO age (AGE) and tenure (TENURE), with a correlation coefficient of 0.259, indicating that older CEOs tend to have more experience in their roles. However, other variables show weak correlations, such as CEO tenure (TENURE) and educational level (EDU_LVL), with a correlation coefficient of -0.021, indicating no significant relationship between these characteristics.

Table 5 shows the regression model estimation based on Equation 1, which is used to examine the association between CEO characteristics and environmental disclosure. This table highlights the coefficients and Z-statistics associated with each variable in the model.

Table 5
CEO characteristics and environmental disclosure

	ENV_DISC
	Coef.	p-value
AGE	-0.0211	0.066*
TENURE	0.0004	0.919
EDU_LVL	-0.0691	0.604
GENDER	-1.2312	0.042**
DUAL	0.1910	0.200
SHERE	0.0740	0.831
SIZE	0.1141	0.271
ROA	0.2834	0.329
C_AGE	0.0400	0.070*
Constant	-2.0098	0.388
Sector	Yes
Year	Yes
R2 within	0.0375
F-value	9.197*
Nº of clusters	198
Observations	1,300

• Note. ENV_ DISC = Environmental Disclosure; AGE = CEO age; TENURE = CEO tenure; EDU_LVL = CEO education level; GENDER = CEO gender; DUAL = CEO duality; SHARE = CEO shareholder; SIZE = firm size; ROA = profitability; C_AGE = Company age; SECTOR = sector; YEAR= year.
• The coefficients were estimated based on robust standard errors to account for heteroscedasticity.
• ^*
  ,
• ^**
  ,
• ^***
  Indicates significance at 10%, 5% and 1% levels respectively.

The regression results present the coefficient estimates and Z-statistics for each independent variable. Regarding AGE, a significant and negative association with environmental disclosure was found at the 10% significance level, suggesting that companies with younger CEOs disclose more environmental information, supporting H1. This finding aligns with Chithambo et al. (2020), who observed that in the UK, older CEOs disclose fewer greenhouse gas emissions because they are less willing to take risks associated with environmental reporting.

Younger CEOs tend to adopt riskier strategies and foster a richer informational environment, potentially leading to increased non-financial disclosures, such as environmental reporting (Haider et al., 2019). In contrast, more experienced CEOs typically favor conservative approaches and less risky investments, including those related to sustainability, due to greater risk aversion (Hambrick & Mason, 1984; Serfling, 2014; Oh et al., 2014). Howe-ver, CEOs are encouraged to balance short-term risks with the long-term reputational and financial benefits of sustainability initiatives (Velte, 2020).

The TENURE variable was not significant in the model, consistent with findings from Lagasio and Cucari (2019). In Malaysia, Abdul Majid et al. (2023) found a negative association between CEO shareholding and business decisions related to carbon emission disclosure, implying that entrenchment effects occur when CEOs hold a substantial ownership stake, which negatively impacts transparency in carbon disclosures.

EDU_LVL was not statistically significant, leading to the rejection of H3 and indicating that CEO education level does not influence environmental disclosure, contradicting Liu and Luo (2019). Some studies suggest that educational attainment alone does not necessarily impact environmental disclosure, but rather the field of study, particularly sustainability-related disciplines, and experience in sustainability roles (Peters et al., 2019).

The GENDER variable was significant and negative, indicating that female CEOs are less likely to disclose environmental information, contrary to H4. These findings contrast with those of Prudêncio et al. (2021), who found that female leadership has a positive influence on corporate social responsibility in Brazilian firms. Similarly, Oware et al. (2022) observed a positive relationship between female CEOs and environmental disclosure in India. Additionally, Caby et al. (2024) demonstrated that female CEOs positively influence carbon disclosure in the technology sector across various countries.

For DUAL, there was no statistically significant relationship, leading to the rejection of H5. Corvino et al. (2020) found, in a study of firms listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, that CEO duality does not significantly influence corporate reports, including environmental disclosure. Simi-larly, Lagasio and Cucari (2019) concluded that CEO duality has no relevant impact on environmental disclosure. Hu and Loh (2018) argue that the lack of effects may be due to the CEO’s ability to effectively manage leadership and oversight responsibilities, demonstrating competence in both roles simultaneously.

Finally, SHARE was not significant, consistent with Lagasio and Cucari (2019). However, in Malaysia, Abdul Majid et al. (2023) found a negative association between CEO ownership power and carbon emissions disclosure, which supports agency theory by indicating that CEO entrenchment occurs when executives hold significant stock ownership, thereby negatively affecting transparency in carbon emissions disclosure decisions.

Among control variables, only C_AGE was significant and positive, aligning with previous studies. Al-Shaer et al. (2022) found a positive relationship between company age and corporate environmental responsibility, noting that older companies often demonstrate a more substantial commitment to CSR practices, including environmental sustainability. Similarly, D’Amato and Falivena (2020) found that older firms are more likely to adopt strong CSR and sustainability practices. Bhatia and Tuli (2017) also suggest that older firms often have more structured and regulated teams, which are better equipped for sustainability disclosures; however, this was not confirmed in the current study. Thus, the findings indicate that older organizations tend to have more mature structures with consolidated sustainability and transparency practices. This may be linked to greater regulatory and social pressures, as well as the organizational capacity developed over time.

Our results showed that SIZE was not significant, contrary to the existing literature (Cheng, 2023; Razali et al., 2016), which suggests that larger companies tend to disclose more information, including environmental data. According to Suttipun and Stanton (2012), larger companies have more stakeholders, leading to higher disclosure levels. ROA was also insignificant, consistent with D’Amato and Falivena (2020), Elsayih et al. (2021), and Zhao et al. (2023).

Overall, our findings suggest that companies led by younger, male CEOs tend to disclose more environmental information in sustainability reports. However, our sample mainly consists of older, risk-averse CEOs who are less inclined to engage in environmental disclosure. These results align with UET (Hambrick & Mason, 1984), which posits that executive characteristics, such as age and gender, can predict strategic decisions, including environmental disclosure. This reflects the complexity of corporate leadership, where the cognitive abilities, competencies, and communication skills of top executives significantly impact corporate transparency.

It is worth noting that B3’s conduct, through regulatory incentives and sustainability indices, may influence corporate environmental disclosure. However, this research did not include B3’s role as a control, mediating, or moderating variable. Therefore, it is recommended that future studies consider this factor to deepen understanding of possible interactions between the institutional context and CEO characteristics.

Therefore, the results partially support the hypotheses proposed in the study. It was expected that CEO characteristics such as age, tenure, educational level, gender, duality, and ownership (H1 to H6) would significantly influence environmental disclosure. However, only age (H1) and gender (H4) were significant and showed a negative relationship. This finding conflicts with part of the existing literature. It suggests that the predominant profile of Brazilian CEOs-older and male-may be associated with lower levels of corporate environmental transparency.

The differences from international literature may stem from Brazilian contextual factors. One of them is lower regulatory pressure for sustainability practices, an organizational culture that places less emphasis on socio-environmental responsibility, and potential resistance to voluntarily adopting environmental disclosure. Additionally, structural aspects-such as the low representation of women in executive roles-and sectoral differences, with some industries being more regulated than others, may also affect these outcomes. This highlights the importance of considering the institutional and cultural context when examining the impact of CEO characteristics on environmental disclosure.

Thus, the findings reinforce that effective environmental practices depend on the active role of CEOs, where leadership focused on sustainability not only facilitates the adoption of such practices but also directly influences how companies communicate their commitments to stakeholders. Consequently, the CEO’s ability to lead with a strategic and sustainability-oriented vision becomes crucial for promoting transparency in corporate actions and fostering environmental responsibility.

CONCLUSIONS

This study analyzes the relationship between CEO characteristics and environmental disclosure among companies listed on B3 from the perspective of the SDGs. While numerous studies have examined CEO characteristics and sustainability practices, few have focused on emerging countries and environmental disclosure within the UN’s SDGs framework. To address this gap, we employed a panel dataset consisting of 198 firms with 1,300 firm-year observations from Brazilian companies. Our analysis applied descriptive statistics and panel regression with fixed-effects assumptions. The data were collected from the Refinitiv Eikon® database and financial reports (RF) available on the B3 website.

Our results indicate that CEO age and gender are negatively associated with environmental disclosure, while the other CEO-related variables were not statistically significant; consequently, only hypotheses H1 and H4 were supported. Among the control variables, company age was significant and positively associated with environmental disclosure, indicating that firms with a longer market presence tend to disclose more environmental information. However, profitability (measured by ROA) and company size were not statistically significant.

The evidence from this study offers insights for companies looking to hire new CEOs, helping identify managerial profiles that match strategic goals and organizational needs. Similarly, CEOs can use these findings to position themselves strategically, aligning their characteristics with the companies they aim to join. From a stakeholder perspective, our findings offer valuable information for investors and engaged parties, indicating whether their strategic objectives align with those of potential investees. This can strengthen the credibility of environmental disclosure practices and support more informed investment decisions.

The study’s findings also confirm that company age significantly influen-ces environmental disclosure, suggesting that older companies are more committed to reporting their sustainability practices. This factor should be considered by companies adopting sustainability strategies, as well as by stakeholders, investors, and regulators seeking to promote corporate transparency and accountability.

The presented results provide valuable guidelines for companies striving to align their sustainability goals, for stakeholders assessing corporate socio-environmental commitments, and for regulators promoting transparency in emerging markets. For policymakers, the study highlights that CEOs with specific characteristics are more likely to prioritize sustainability, which may result in higher levels of disclosure. For regulators, these findings underscore the need to improve transparency in environmental reporting, encouraging companies to reduce their environmental impact. Socially, this study contributes to the SDGs by positioning corporate environmental disclosure as a key element in evaluating a business’s contributions to sustainable development.

Firstly, there is a possibility that more sustainable companies are more likely to attract or choose younger and/or more educated CEOs. Future studies could explore these relationships. Additionally, the industry sector in which companies operate may act as a moderating variable, as some sectors are more heavily regulated from an environmental standpoint and, as a result, tend to demonstrate higher levels of transparency in their disclosures. Future research could control the industry sector or specifically analyze companies in potentially polluting industries.

Another limitation relates to stakeholder influence; future research could examine how stakeholder pressure or engagement impacts environmental disclosure and CEO hiring. Furthermore, the environmental disclosure data were sourced from company-prepared sustainability reports via the Refinitiv Eikon® database, which may affect the accuracy and reliability of the data. Lastly, considering the study’s specific time frame and context, caution is recommended when applying the findings to other periods or settings.

The focus on six CEO traits (age, tenure, education, gender, duality, shareholding) is a limitation of the study. Future research should consider additional CEO attributes, such as international experience, sustainability expertise, leadership style, and personality. Alternative environmental disclosure metrics, like ESG scores or Carbon Disclosure Project data, could also be utilized. Including control variables like sustainability committees, ISE membership, and B3 governance levels would strengthen the models. Additionally, investigating CEO traits in relation to social disclosure and stakeholder engagement (suppliers, employees, customers) is recommended.

RAM does not have permission from the authors or evaluators to publish this article’s review.

Data availability statement

RAM does not have information about open data regarding this manuscript.

REFERENCES

• Aabo, T., & Giorici, I. C. (2023). Do female CEOs matter for ESG scores? Global Finance Journal, 56, 100722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2022.100722
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2022.100722
• Abdul Majid, J., Che Adam, N., Ab Rahim, N., & Razak, R. (2023). CEO power, regulatory pressures, and carbon emissions: An emerging market perspective. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), 2276555. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2276555
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2276555
• Akhter, F., Hossain, M. R., Elrehail, H., Rehman, S. U., & Almansour, B. (2023). Environmental disclosures and corporate attributes, from the lens of legitimacy theory: a longitudinal analysis on a developing country. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 32(3), 342-369. https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/EJMBE-01-2021-0008
  » https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/EJMBE-01-2021-0008
• Al-Shaer, H., Albitar, K., & Liu, J. (2022). CEO power and CSR-linked compensation for corporate environmental responsibility: UK evidence. Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, 60, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-022-01118-z
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s11156-022-01118-z
• Amore, M. D., Bennedsen, M., Larsen, B., & Rosenbaum, P. (2019). CEO education and corporate environmental footprint. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 94, 254-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.02.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2019.02.001
• Bach, S. B., & Smith, A. D. (2007). Are powerful CEOs beneficial to post-IPO survival in high technology industries? An empirical investigation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 18(1), 31-42.
• Bebbington, J., & Unerman, J. (2018). Achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: an enabling role for accounting research. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 31(1), 2-24. https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929
  » https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2017-2929
• Bhaskar, R., Li, P., Bansal, S., & Kumar, S. (2023). A new insight on CEO characteristics and corporate social responsibility (CSR): A meta-analytical review. International Review of Financial Analysis, 102815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102815
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2023.102815
• Bhatia, A., & Tuli, S. (2017). Corporate attributes affecting sustainability reporting: an Indian perspective. International Journal of Law and Management, 59(3), 322-340. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-11-2015-0057
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-11-2015-0057
• Caby, J., Coron, C., & Ziane, Y. (2024). How does gender diversity in top management teams affect carbon disclosure and its quality: Evidence from the technological industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 199, 123077. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123077
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123077
• Cezarino, L. O., Liboni, L. B., Hunter, T., Pacheco, L. M., & Martins, F. P. (2022). Corporate social responsibility in emerging markets: Opportunities and challenges for sustainability integration. Journal of Cleaner Production, 362, 132224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132224
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132224
• Chen, W. T., Zhou, G. S., & Zhu, X. K. (2019). CEO tenure and corporate social responsibility performance. Journal of Business Research, 95, 292-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.018
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.08.018
• Cheng, S. (2023). Are superstar directors effective in corporate social responsibility performance? An empirical analysis of sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(2), 487-503. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2369
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2369
• Chithambo, L., Tingbani, I., Agyapong, G. A., Gyapong, E., & Damoah, I. S. (2020). Corporate voluntary greenhouse gas reporting: Stakeholder pressure and the mediating role of the chief executive officer. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(4), 1666-1683. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2460
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2460
• Chou, Y. Y., & Chan, M. L. (2018). The impact of CEO characteristics on real earnings management: Evidence from the US banking industry. Journal of Applied Finance and Banking, 8(2), 17-44.
• Corvino, A., Doni, F., & Martini, S. B. (2020). Corporate governance, integrated reporting and environmental disclosure: Evidence from the South African context. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(12), 4820. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12124820
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12124820
• Dagiliene, L., Frendzel, M., Sutiene, K., & Wnuk-Pel, T. (2020). Wise mana-gers think about circular economy, wiser report and analyze it. Research of environmental reporting practices in EU manufacturing companies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 274, 121968. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121968
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121968
• D’Amato, A., & Falivena, C. (2020). Corporate social responsibility and firm value: Do firm size and age matter? Empirical evidence from European listed companies. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 27(2), 909-924. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1855
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1855
• Dey, S. K., Bose, S., Luo, L., & Shams, S. (2024). Impact of Corporate Climate Change Performance on Information Asymmetry: International Evidence. Journal of International Accounting Research, 1-33. https://doi.org/10.2308/JIAR-2022-057
  » https://doi.org/10.2308/JIAR-2022-057
• Dixon-Fowler, H. R., Ellstrand, A. E., & Johnson, J. L. (2017). The role of board environmental committees in corporate environmental performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 140, 423-438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2664-7
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2664-7
• Elsayih, J., Datt, R., & Hamid, A. (2021). CEO characteristics: do they matter for carbon performance? An empirical investigation of Australian firms. Social Responsibility Journal, 17(8), 1279-1298. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2020-0130
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-04-2020-0130
• Fama, E. F., & Jensen, M. C. (1983). Separation of ownership and control. Journal of Law and Economics, 26(2), 301-325.
• Finkelstein, S., & Hambrick, D. C. (1990). Top-management-team tenure and organizational outcomes: The moderating role of managerial discretion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3), 484-503. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393314
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/2393314
• Haider, I., Sultana, N., Singh, H., & Tham, Y. H. (2019). CEO age and analysts forecast properties. Asian Review of Accounting, 28(1), 1-23. https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/ARA-02-2019-0054
  » https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/ARA-02-2019-0054
• Hambrick, D. C. (2007). Upper echelons theory: An update. Academy of management review, 32(2), 334-343. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24345254
• Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
  » https://doi.org/10.2307/258434
• Huang, S. K. (2013). The impact of CEO characteristics on corporate sustainable development. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Mana-gement, 20(4), 234-244. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1295
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1295
• Hu, M., & Loh L., (2018). Board governance and sustainability disclosure: A cross-sectional study of Singapore-listed companies. Sustainability, 10(7) 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072578
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072578
• IFRS (2023a). Brazil adopts ISSB global baseline, as IFRS Foundation Trustees meet in Latin America https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2023/10/brazil-adopts-issb-global-baseline/
  » https://www.ifrs.org/news-and-events/news/2023/10/brazil-adopts-issb-global-baseline/
• IFRS (2023b). IFRS S1, general requirements for disclosure of sustainability-related financial information IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standard, Londres, UK. https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s1-general-requirements.html/content/dam/ifrs/publications/html-standards-issb/english/2023/issued/issbs1/
  » https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s1-general-requirements.html/content/dam/ifrs/publications/html-standards-issb/english/2023/issued/issbs1/
• IFRS (2023c). IFRS S2, Climate-related Disclosures IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standard, Londres, UK. https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s2-climate-related-disclosures.html/content/dam/ifrs/publications/html-standards-issb/english/2023/issued/issbs2/
  » https://www.ifrs.org/issued-standards/ifrs-sustainability-standards-navigator/ifrs-s2-climate-related-disclosures.html/content/dam/ifrs/publications/html-standards-issb/english/2023/issued/issbs2/
• Javed, M., Wang, F., Usman, M., Gull, A. A., & Zaman, Q. U. (2023). Female CEOs and green innovation. Journal of Business Research, 157, 113515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113515
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113515
• Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the Firm. Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure.
• Lagasio, V., & Cucari, N. (2019). Corporate governance and environmental social governance disclosure: A meta-analytical review. Corporate social responsibility and environmental management, 26(4), 701-711. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1716
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1716
• Le, Q. L., Nguyen, L. H., Dinh, V. H., Luong, T. T. H., Pham, T. K. L., & Nguyen, T. H. L. (2023). Factors affecting corporate social responsibilities disclosure of listed companies in Vietnam. Cogent Business & Management, 10(1), 2160578. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2160578
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2022.2160578
• Lewis, B. W., Walls, J. L., & Dowell, G. W. S. (2014). The difference in degrees: CEO characteristics and firm environmental disclosure. Strategic Management Journal, 35, 712-722. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2127
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2127
• Li, W., Lin, K. J., Zhang, J. H., & Zheng, M. (2024). What’s in It for Me? CEOs’ Rent-Seeking Motivations and Corporate Social Responsibility Decisions. Journal of International Accounting Research, 23(2), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.2308/JIAR-2023-027
  » https://doi.org/10.2308/JIAR-2023-027
• Liu, H., & Luo, J. H. (2019). Does a religious affiliation make the CEO more likely to use internal CSRs? Evidence from Chinese privately owned firms. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(9), 2013-2045. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1602551
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1602551
• Lodhia, S., Kaur, A., & Kuruppu, S. C. (2023). The disclosure of sustainable development goals (SDGs) by the top 50 Australian companies: Substantive or symbolic legitimation? Meditari Accountancy Research, 31(6), 1578-1605. https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1297
  » https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/MEDAR-05-2021-1297
• Lu, J., Liang, M., Zhang, C., Rong, D., Guan, H., Mazeikaite, K., & Streimikis, J. (2021). Assessment of corporate social responsibility by addressing sustainable development goals. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 28(2), 686-703. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2020.101264
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2020.101264
• Lu, Y., Ntim, C. G., Zhang, Q., & Li, P. (2022). Board of directors’ attributes and corporate outcomes: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Review of Financial Analysis, 84, 102424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102424
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102424
• Mahran, K., & Elamer, A. A. (2023). Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and corporate environmental sustainability: A systematic literature review and avenues for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(3), 1977-2003. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3577
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3577
• Martino, P., Rigolini, A., & D’Onza, G. (2020). The relationships between CEO characteristics and strategic risk-taking in family firms. Journal of Risk Research, 23(1), 95-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1517380
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2018.1517380
• Miller, D. (1991). Stale in the saddle: CEO tenure and the match between organization and environment. Management science, 37(1), 34-52. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.1.34
  » https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.1.34
• Modugu, K. P. (2020). Do corporate characteristics improve sustainability disclosure? Evidence from the UAE. Journal of Business Performance Management, 21(1/2), 39-54. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2020.106106
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBPM.2020.106106
• Nguyen, T. H. H., Ntim, C. G., & Malagila, J. K. (2020). Women on corporate boards and corporate financial and non-financial performance: A systematic literature review and future research agenda. International Review of Financial Analysis, 71, 101554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101554
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2020.101554
• Oh, W. Y., Chang, Y. K., & Cheng, Z. (2016). When CEO career horizon problems matter for corporate social responsibility: The moderating roles of industry-level discretion and blockholder ownership. Journal of Business Ethics, 133, 279-291. https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1007/s10551-014-2397-z
  » https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1007/s10551-014-2397-z
• Oware, K. M., & Awunyo-Vitor, D. (2021). CEO characteristics and envi-ronmental disclosure of listed firms in an emerging economy: Does sus-tainability reporting format matter? Business Strategy & Development, 4(4), 399-410. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.166
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/bsd2.166
• Oware, K. M., Iddrisu, A. A., Worae, T., & Ellah Adaletey, J. (2022). Female and environmental disclosure of family and non-family firms. Evidence from India. Management Research Review, 45(6), 760-780. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0376
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-05-2021-0376
• Peliu, S. A. (2024). Exploring the impact of ESG factors on corporate risk: empirical evidence for New York Stock Exchange listed companies. Future Business Journal, 10(1), 92. https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1186/s43093-024-00378-6
  » https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1186/s43093-024-00378-6
• Patten, D. M. (1992). Intra-industry environmental disclosures in response to the Alaskan oil spill: A note on legitimacy theory. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 17(5), 471-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90042-Q
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-3682(92)90042-Q
• Peters, G. F., Romi, A. M., & Sanchez, J. M. (2019). The influence of corporate sustainability officers on performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 159, 1065-1087. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3818-1
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3818-1
• Prudêncio, P., Forte, H., Crisóstomo, V., & Vasconcelos, A. (2021). Effect of diversity in the board of directors and top management team on corporate social responsibility. Brazilian Business Review, 18, 118-139. I: http://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2021.18.2.1
  » http://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2021.18.2.1
• Rashid, A., Shams, S., Bose, S., & Khan, H. (2020). CEO power and corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure: Does stakeholder influence matter? Managerial Auditing Journal, 35(9), 1279-1312. https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2019-2463
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MAJ-11-2019-2463
• Razali, M. W. M., Roslanie, F. A. B., Brahmana, R. K., & Ali, S. S. S. (2016). Does CEO characteristics pan lay important role on Malaysian firms’ environmental disclosure? International Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 27-36. https://doi.org/10.18374/IJBR-16-2.2
  » https://doi.org/10.18374/IJBR-16-2.2
• Rigon, L., Degenhart, L., & Ribeiro, R. (2023). Características de país e corporativas melhoram a divulgação ambiental, social e de governança? Evidências do Brasil e Alemanha. Revista Catarinense da Ciência Contábil, 22, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.16930/2237-7662202333451
  » https://doi.org/10.16930/2237-7662202333451
• Roberts, L., Nandy, M., Hassan, A., Lodh, S., & Elamer, A. A. (2021). Corporate accountability towards species extinction protection: insights from ecologically forward-thinking companies. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04800-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-04800-9
• Rosati, F., Rodrigues, V. P., Cosenz, F., & Li-Ying, J. (2023). Business model innovation for the Sustainable Development Goals. Business strategy and the environment, 32(6), 3752-3765. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3334
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3334
• Sannino, G., Di Carlo, F., & Lucchese, M. (2020). CEO characteristics and sustainability business model in financial technologies firms: Primary evidence from the utilization of innovative platforms. Management Decision, 58(8), 1779-1799. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2019-1360
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-10-2019-1360
• Serfling, M. A. (2014). CEO age and the riskiness of corporate policies. Journal of corporate finance, 25, 251-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.12.013
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2013.12.013
• Shahab, Y., Ntim, C. G., Chen, Y., Ullah, F., Li, H. X., & Ye, Z. (2020). Chief executive officer attributes, sustainable performance, environmental performance, and environmental reporting: New insights from upper echelons perspective. Business Strategy and the Environment, 29(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2345
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2345
• Slater, D. J., & Dixon-Fowler, H. R. (2010). The future of the planet in the hands of MBAs: An examination of CEO MBA education and corporate environmental performance. Academy of Management learning & education, 9(3), 429-441. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.9.3.zqr429
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.9.3.zqr429
• Soares, R. A., Abreu, M. C. S. D., Rebouças, S. M. D. P., & Marino, P. D. B. L. P. (2020). The effect of national business systems on social and environmental disclosure: a comparison between Brazil and Canada. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 22, 29-47. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v22i1.4042
  » https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v22i1.4042
• Subedi, M., & Zoet, E. (2024). The Economic Consequences of Climate Risk Disclosures. Journal of Forensic Accounting Research, 9(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.2308/JFAR-2023-026
  » https://doi.org/10.2308/JFAR-2023-026
• Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
  » https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
• Suttipun M., & Stanton P., (2012). Determinants of environmental disclosure in Thai corporate annual reports. International Journal of Accounting and Financial Reporting, 2(1) 99-115. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n14p18
  » https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n14p18
• United Nations (UN). (2015). Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for sustainable development United Nations. https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
  » https://sdgs.un.org/2030agenda
• United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. (2022). Guidance on core indicators for sustainability and SDG impact reporting https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diae2022d1_en.pdf
  » https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/diae2022d1_en.pdf
• Van Zanten, J. A., & Van Tulder, R. (2021). Improving companies’ impacts on sustainable development: A nexus approach to the SDGS. Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(8), 3703-3720. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2835
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2835
• Velte, P. (2020). Do CEO incentives and characteristics influence corporate social responsibility (CSR) and vice versa? A literature review. Social Responsibility Journal, 16(8), 1293-1323. https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/SRJ-04-2019-0145
  » https://doi-org.ez46.periodicos.capes.gov.br/10.1108/SRJ-04-2019-0145
• Withisuphakorn, P., & Jiraporn, P. (2015). The effect of CEO power on the informativeness of stock prices: An empirical note. SSRN https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2555864
  » https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2555864
• Wukich, J. J. (2020). The impact of CEO power on different measures of environmental disclosure: Evidence from U.S. Corporate Ownership & Control, 18(1), 423-437 https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv18i1siart15
  » https://doi.org/10.22495/cocv18i1siart15
• Zhao, Y., Elahi, E., Khalid, Z., Sun, X., & Sun, F. (2023). Environmental, Social and Governance Performance: Analysis of CEO Power and Corporate Risk. Sustainability, 15(2), 1471. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021471
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021471

Correspondence

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Camila Peripolli Sanfelice, Enge-nheiro Agronômico Andrei Cristian Ferreira, Centro Sócio-Econômico, Trindade, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. ZIP code 88040-900. E-mail: [e-mail]

Edited by

EDITORIAL PRODUCTION

Publishing coordination

Andreia Cominetti

Editorial intern

Bruna Silva de Angelis

Language editor

Bardo Editorial

Layout designer

Emap

Graphic designer

Emap

EDITORIAL BOARD

Editor-in-chief

Almir Martins Vieira

Associated editor

Gilberto Perez

Technical support

Gabriel Henrique Carille

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  09 Jan 2026
• Date of issue
  2025

History

• Received
  04 Apr 2025
• Accepted
  25 Aug 2025