B Corporations represent a form of pro-social enterprise that embeds the purpose of serving the common good (Branzei et al., 2017). These organizations aim to balance purpose and profit (B Lab US & Canada, 2023; Diez-Busto et al., 2021; Stubbs, 2017a). B Corp certification encourages entrepreneurs to turn their intentions into action, transforming their companies into organizations that generate positive and effective socio-environmental impact (Muñoz et al., 2018).

The impact assessment is conducted by B Lab, a nonprofit organization founded in the United States in 2007. The primary areas assessed are governance, workers, community, environment, and customers (Silva et al., 2022). In Latin America, B Lab is represented by Sistema B.

B Corp certification serves as a seal of trust in a company's performance for its stakeholders (Silva et al., 2022). The B Impact Assessment (BIA) provides a benchmark of the extent of sustainable practices and allows for comparison across companies from different industries and countries (Moroz et al., 2018; Gehman et al., 2019). The BIA is a free and confidential digital tool used by more than 150,000 companies (B Corporation, 2024a), and serves as a capacity-building instrument that helps firms explore their potential to integrate sustainability into their strategy (Carvalho et al., 2022).

To become a B Corp, a company must score above 80 on a scale from 0 to 200 (Stubbs, 2017a; Cao et al., 2017; Moroz et al., 2018). Currently, there are more than 9,000 certified B Corps in 102 countries (B Corporation, 2024b). The next section examines the factors that lead companies to pursue this certification.

Researchers have sought to identify the factors that influence the pursuit of B Corp certification. These factors can be broadly classified into institutional and economic-financial categories (Rankin & Matthews, 2020).

Harjoto et al. (2019) assert that there is a strong association between the decision to pursue certification and the level of market competition: the greater the competition, the higher the number of certified firms. The availability of resources to finance growth, along with the presence of already-certified companies that can share knowledge about the process, also increases the likelihood of pursuing certification.

Ruozzi and Vicente (2021) observe that access to entrepreneurial financing, reduced taxation and bureaucracy, affordable access to research and development, and commercial and legal infrastructure can encourage SMEs to adopt socio-environmental impact objectives. The authors examined the presence of these factors across 17 countries and their correlation with the existence of high-scoring B-certified SMEs.

Beyond institutional and economic-financial considerations, other drivers are related to the improvement of management models and the pursuit of competitiveness. For example, Diez-Busto et al. (2021) identified several motivational factors for certification, including the desire to improve the business, differentiation from traditional companies, pursuit of competitive advantages, access to investment funds, attraction of talent committed to environmental causes, and the use of certification as a tool for self-assessment and continuous improvement.

Having explored the motivations behind the pursuit of B certification, the following section will address how the certification process unfolds.

B Corp certification provides a compelling context for examining how the process affects a company’s entrepreneurial journey. Moroz et al. (2018) developed a conceptual model to understand how auditing and certification processes influence the activities of purpose-driven entrepreneurs, teams, and organizations. Their model outlines a three-stage framework: first, the identification of opportunities created by the constraints and contradictions imposed by certification and measurement processes; second, the evolution of organizational identity after certification; and third, the consolidation and replacement of new identities to pursue opportunities resulting from certification.

Achieving certification is only the initial step. It is essential to understand what organizations do afterward, particularly in terms of governance and stakeholder engagement. Villela et al. (2021) discuss changes companies made before and after certification to balance economic and socio-environmental goals. The organizations analyzed were driven by their founders’ ethical and social commitments and motivated by expectations surrounding certification, such as market differentiation, clearer communication of their identity, a tool for monitoring and adjusting performance, and participation in a network of like-minded businesses.

Muñoz et al. (2018) focused specifically on organizational purpose. Their study shows how specific choices influence the evolution of purpose over time. By studying B Corps, the authors concluded that while purpose is critical to the development of sustainable ventures, it must be formalized and continuously updated to meet financial, social, and environmental standards.

In addition, Conger et al. (2018) discuss the significance of belonging to a business category that fosters the discovery of new opportunities for socio-environmental impact. Their research highlights that pro-social entrepreneurship is often driven by compassion and a desire to promote values. On the other hand, the certification process can also generate reflections on shortcomings and inspire improvements. Companies reassess pro-social opportunities based on their feasibility and attractiveness, internal consensus or conflict, legitimacy conferred by certification, alignment with growth strategy, and synergy with other B Corps. These aspects may lead to amplification, stagnation, or even withdrawal from pursuing pro-social opportunities.

Wecker and Froehlich (2023) evaluated how 11 Brazilian B Corps with high BIA scores deal with socio-environmental challenges and practices. Benefits include recognition of practices, participation in a values-aligned network that drives impact, investor and consumer attraction, information exchange, and contribution to transforming capitalism. Challenges include the documentation required, time commitment, associated costs, the BIA’s lack of suitability for SMEs, difficulty formalizing processes in small businesses, cultural diffusion in large firms, and lack of evidence of concrete benefits from the movement.

Overall, studies on B Corps reveal a complex and challenging path for companies seeking to balance economic and socio-environmental goals. B certification provides a structure for assessment and continuous improvement, but it also demands ongoing commitment and adaptation. Table 1 summarizes, based on the reviewed literature, the main objectives, barriers, and impacts of the B certification process.

Table 1 Table 1 Summary of main objectives, challenges, and impacts of B certification Table 1 Summary of main objectives, challenges, and impacts of B certification

Table 1
Summary of main objectives, challenges, and impacts of b certification
Objectives: What do companies seek?	Challenges: What barriers are faced?	Impacts: What benefits are achieved?
Strengthening corporate image	Lack of financial resources	New business opportunities
Differentiation from competitors	Increased operational costs	Access to new markets
Search for competitive advantage	Lack of knowledge about sustainability and B certification	Easier access to funding and investment
Presence of certified companies in the sector	Difficulty in measuring social impact	Meeting stakeholder expectations for socio-environmental responsibility
Easier access to investment	Short-term thinking	Participation in the B Corp network
Alignment with the UN 2030 Agenda	Low internal commitment	Synergies with other B Corporations
Communicating socio-environmental commitment	Low internal alignment	Improvements in corporate governance
Access to tools for better socio-environmental performance	Insufficient incentives for change
Meeting stakeholder demands	Internal resistance to change
Regulatory pressure	Ineffective implementation strategy
	Lack of training
	Poor communication
Note: Elaborated by the authors based on Diez-Busto et al. (2021); Moroz et al. (2018); Muñoz et al. (2018); Villela et al. (2021); Kim et al. (2016); Ruozzi and Vicente (2021); Conger et al. (2018).

Note: Elaborated by the authors based on Diez-Busto et al. (2021); Moroz et al. (2018); Muñoz et al. (2018); Villela et al. (2021); Kim et al. (2016); Ruozzi and Vicente (2021); Conger et al. (2018).

The action research conducted in this study aimed to investigate a real-world problem within a company, contributing to both practical and academic knowledge (Coghlan, 2019). There was a convergence of interest between the researcher and the company’s shareholders. The goal of this study was to support the B Corp certification preparation process journey of a small enterprise while simultaneously contributing to the body of knowledge on B certification.

The adoption of action research was justified by the need for an approach that could combine academic inquiry with practical intervention in a real organizational context. Given the objective of supporting a small business in obtaining B certification, action research allowed the researcher to actively participate in the process, collaborating with managers and a specialized consultancy in implementing measures to improve the firm’s socio-environmental indicators.

The research question — how can measures be implemented to improve socio-environmental indicators in a small enterprise, thus enhancing its potential for B Corp certification? — emerged from the shareholders’ intent to pursue certification. They believed their values were aligned with the movement, although they lacked practices that reflected those values.

According Coghlan (2019), the cyclical process of action research begins with understanding the context and defining project objectives, followed by identifying challenges and implementing actions through iterative cycles of definition, planning, implementation, and evaluation. The researcher plays a participatory role, collaborating with managers to diagnose and solve problems, thereby making the work relevant to the company (Eden & Huxham, 1996).

In this regard, it is essential for the researcher not only to engage in action but also to continuously question the project’s progress and learning, characterizing a meta-learning process (Coghlan, 2019). Thus, action research is reflective, conducted deliberately and systematically, and requires evidence to support its claims (Herr & Anderson, 2015). Consequently, the researcher is not a neutral observer, but an active agent, intervening in the process and helping to implement changes (Coghlan, 2019).

The action research was conducted at CcS (a fictitious name), a service company founded in the late 2000s to structure and manage advisory boards for SMEs (“board as a service”). With two majority shareholders, both with a background in traditional entrepreneurship, CcS declares alignment with conscious capitalism and the new economy. In 2022, the company had 14 clients and generated revenue of 4.8 million BRL.

Before the project began, CcS had a broad purpose—"to create a community of 1,000 conscious companies by 2025"—but lacked clearly defined objective indicators (Muñoz et al., 2018). The advisory boards structured by CcS focused on improving governance and supporting management, providing recommendations on organizational, financial, and commercial aspects. However, there was little clarity regarding what it meant to be a “conscious company,” or how to transform its clients into organizations with such a profile.

The action research at CcS lasted eight months, from June 2022 to January 2023. Coghlan’s (2019), approach was adopted, beginning with an initial phase of understanding the company’s context and purpose, followed by iterative cycles to address the identified challenges. These cycles involved defining, planning, executing, and evaluating actions and were agreed upon by the researcher, the contracted consultancy, and the company’s shareholders. Table 2 presents a didactic overview of the action research stages. The consultancy, which specialized in B Corp certifications, provided technical support throughout the project.

Table 2 Table 2 Action research stages Table 2 Action research stages

Table 2
Action research stages
Stages	Action research
1. Initial Diagnosis	Initial application of the B Impact Assessment (BIA)
	Identification of challenges and opportunities
	Analysis of the organizational context
2. Action Planning	Definition of priority actions based on BIA findings
	Planning of structural and operational changes
3. Implementation of Changes	Execution of the planned actions, including the formalization of governance, adjustments to internal processes, and shareholder training
4. Evaluation and Reflection	Evaluation of the results achieved
	Adjustments to the action plan
	Reflection on lessons learned and the impacts of certification
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Three iterative action research cycles were conducted: (1) Initial application of the BIA; (2) Implementation of adaptation measures to improve socio-environmental indicators, based on BIA criteria; and (3) Development of sustainable leadership among the shareholders, considered essential to overcoming challenges and achieving the final outcome.

Activities included lectures, classes, conceptual discussions, informal conversations, and workshops. Figure 1 depicts the final stage and the three action research cycles.

Figure 1 Figure 1 Initial stage and cycles of action research Figure 1 Initial stage and cycles of action research Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Primary data were collected through interviews, observations, participation in events, meetings, and discussions throughout the cycles. The participant observation technique, with the researcher integrated into the team, was crucial to the project’s development (Miguel, 2008). In addition, the researcher’s diary served as a foundation for reflective and analytical insights (McNiff et al., 1996; Coghlan, 2019). Initial and final semi-structured interviews—recorded, transcribed, and analyzed—focused on the entrepreneurs’ backgrounds, motivations for certification, and outcome expectations. Interviews also addressed motivational factors and challenges in the journey, based on Diez-Busto et al. (2021) and Wecker and Froehlich (2023).

Secondary data included BIA results, comparing indicators before and after the interventions. The analysis was collaborative, integrating academic concepts and practices from other B Corps, and focused on concrete decisions that resulted in changes within CcS.

To ensure rigor in the action research, the study followed the recommendations of Eden and Huxham (1996) and the principles of Bradbury-Huang (2010). All participants signed an Informed Consent Form, ensuring anonymity and ethical compliance in accordance with research ethics committee requirements. Table 3 presents a summary of the data sources.

Table 3 Table 3 Summary of data sources Table 3 Summary of data sources

Table 3
Summary of data sources
Interviews
Shareholder I (3 interviews)
Shareholder II (2 interviews)
Consultants (3 interviews)
Project coordinator / CcS service provider (2 interviews)
Documents
Presentations for CcS based on academic literature (3 presentations)
Code of ethics (15 pages)
CcS shareholders’ book (264 pages)
Spreadsheets for BIA task execution (4 spreadsheets)
Training program structure for advisory board members (1 spreadsheet)
Workshop materials (8 slides)
Researcher’s Field Journal
Journal entries (16,000 words)
Meetings, Classes, and Events
Interactions with Shareholder I (19 hours)
Interactions with Shareholder II (13 hours)
Interactions with project coordinator (4 hours)
Observations (hours)
Workshop with the entire team (12 hours)
Working Group meetings (17 hours)
Participation in CcS advisory board meetings (40 hours)
Project alignment with shareholder (4 hours)
Project alignment with shareholder and consultants (2 hours)
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Note: Elaborated by the authors.

After defining the participants in the working group and the method of execution, the B Impact Assessment (BIA) was validated as the tool for evaluating CcS’s socio-environmental impacts. The initial diagnosis revealed a BIA score of 14, indicating weak controls, fragile governance, and poor internal alignment toward generating stakeholder impact. The application of the BIA also highlighted the need to strengthen management and control structures and to engage the shareholders in conceptual discussions on sustainability.

The shareholders stated that the BIA offered a "reality check" and outlined the necessary path for improvement. This initial process provided a clear understanding of the areas needing attention and laid the foundation for the measures implemented in the next cycle.

The BIA was used as a guide to orient the transformation of CcS. The initial diagnosis led to the creation of an action plan to improve socio-environmental indicators, such as the development of a code of conduct and the formalization of financial and accounting reports.

This cycle evolved in two main stages: first, the implementation of low- and medium-complexity actions, raising the BIA score to 59; and second, the definition of an impact business model, resulting in a final score of 91. Activities carried out included the formalization of reports, definition of an organizational chart, mapping of suppliers and clients, and the inclusion of B Corp clauses in the company’s articles of incorporation. The material produced during this cycle also contributed to Cycle 3: the development of sustainable leadership.

Workshops and weekly meetings helped align CcS's activities with its socio-environmental impact goals. The cycle culminated in the submission of the BIA for audit by B Lab on January 31, 2023, a date that also marked the end of the fieldwork.

However, a few months after the submission of the BIACcS opted to implement a significant shift in its business model, transitioning to a franchise-based structure. This strategic change was accompanied by the decision to withdraw from the B Corp certification process before the final audit from the B Lab, as the certification was deemed less pertinent within the new context and the benefits derived from the preparation journey were sufficient.

This cycle focused on developing sustainable leadership among CcS’s shareholders. Significant efforts were made to deepen their understanding of sustainability, ESG, B Corporations, and stakeholder capitalism. Conceptual discussions totaling 19 hours with one shareholder and 13 hours with the other enabled deeper engagement with these themes and facilitated the approval of the measures proposed by the working group.

The shareholders reported a significant increase in their understanding of sustainability concepts and their ability to lead discussions on these topics within the advisory boards managed by CcS. As a result of this cycle, sustainability and ESG were integrated into the company’s approach, as evidenced by the shareholders and by the inclusion of these topics in CcS’s board advisor training course.

The three action research cycles resulted in substantial progress for CcS. The initial cycle identified areas in need of improvement; the implementation cycle led to a significantly improved BIA score and the definition of an impact business model; and the leadership development cycle enhanced CcS’s ability to deal with socio-environmental sustainability and integrate these concepts into its strategy and services.

The key lessons learned were: (1) the validation of the BIA as an appropriate tool for early-stage companies; (2) the importance of having a business model designed to generate socio-environmental impact; and (3) the need to formalize governance mechanisms to ensure the effectiveness of changes.

The process left CcS better prepared for its socio-environmental mission, with practices aligned with its purpose of creating a community of conscious companies. Table 4 summarizes the outcomes of the three action research cycles.

Table 4 Table 4 Results of the action research cycles Table 4 Results of the action research cycles

Table 4
Results of the action research cycles
Categories	Outcomes
Capabilities	Enhanced ability to address socio-environmental sustainability issues
	Improved capacity to assess the company’s socio-environmental impact
Managerial Practices	Changes in internal processes
	Changes in corporate governance
	Establishment of socio-environmental goals
	Incorporation of practices to support client companies in improving their own socio-environmental practices
Note: Elaborated by the authors.

Note: Elaborated by the authors.

CcS's transformation toward sustainability was facilitated by measures and initiatives that aligned the company’s purpose with its socio-environmental practices. Organizational and governance changes were implemented to ensure that sustainability approaches were incorporated into internal processes and the advisory boards established for SME clients. This integration not only facilitated the company’s sustainability transition but also ensured that CcS’s day-to-day operations reflected its commitment to generating positive impact.

A key component of this transformation was the use of the BIA. This tool served as a framework for identifying areas in need of improvement and for guiding the implementation of change. Through the BIA, CcS was able to significantly improve its socio-environmental indicators, aligning its operations with the standards required for sustainable enterprises. This process not only enhanced the effectiveness of sustainability practices but also established a basis for measuring and evaluating ongoing progress.

Education and knowledge alignment among CcS’s shareholders and team also played a crucial role. Workshops and educational activities focused on B Corporations and sustainability were conducted to ensure that everyone within the company understood and supported the certification and impact goals. This dissemination of knowledge helped foster an organizational culture that values and prioritizes sustainability, empowering employees to actively contribute to the company’s objectives.

Additionally, the establishment of clear socio-environmental impact goals was essential to the journeysuccess as demonstrated by the evolution of the company BIA score. Specific targets were set to measure and evaluate the company’s progress, enabling the implementation of corrective actions when necessary. These goals provided clear direction for sustainability efforts and reinforced accountability and transparency in company practices.

Finally, adapting CcS’s business model to align with B Corp principles solidified the company's transformation. By adopting an impact-oriented business model, CcS positioned itself as an integrated hybrid organization capable of fulfilling its socio-environmental mission through its core activities. This allowed the company to consistently generate social and environmental value, reinforcing its commitment to sustainability and social responsibility.

In summary, CcS’s journey toward becoming a sustainable enterprise was marked by the integration of sustainability into business practices, the effective use of the BIA, educational efforts and knowledge alignment, the definition of clear goals, and the adaptation of the business model.

Despite the progress achieved, CcS continues to face significant challenges in fully integrating sustainability into its organizational activities. Overcoming these challenges requires the continuous alignment of professionals, shareholders, and practices with the sustainability agenda.

The first challenge concerns a common dilemma: the tension between short- and long-term objectives. While CcS’s shareholders recognize the importance of sustainable practices for long-term success, they do not yet view sustainability as a growth driver in the short term (Schaltegger et al., 2024). This perception is also shared by many of CcS’s clients, creating an additional challenge for the company.

Indeed, at least one study shows that the economic performance of certified companies may be lower than that of non-certified firms two years after certification (Brigas-Fernández et al., 2024). How can short-term financial objectives, which are critical for survival and growth, be balanced with long-term socio-environmental goals essential to the company’s purpose? There is no simple answer to this question. It is necessary, first, to acknowledge the dilemma’s relevance and difficulty, and second, to seek context-specific compromises that balance both objectives (Tabares, 2021).

The second challenge relates to CcS’s informal organizational structure, where decision-making is concentrated among the shareholders and resources are limited. This hinders the implementation of some sustainability practices. Such conditions are likely common among SMEs (Schevchenko et al., 2016). Again, there is no simple solution for this challenge. However, having a clear roadmap of priority practices and a realistic and feasible implementation plan—focused on the most impactful actions—can help address this challenge.

The third challenge involves the absence of regulatory or stakeholder pressure to adopt sustainability measures. This results in a weak institutional environment. As previously discussed, CcS’s decision to pursue B certification was voluntary and not driven by explicit customer demands.

Over time, the lack of external pressure may reduce the shareholders’ motivation to prioritize sustainability. On the other hand, it is expected that institutional and regulatory frameworks will evolve, creating greater incentives for companies to shift toward sustainability.

The fourth challenge is internal and concerns the enhancement of corporate governance mechanisms (Ebrahim et al., 2014; Handley & Molloy, 2022). Formalization is essential for monitoring CcS’s socio-environmental mission and ensuring that sustainability remains a strategic priority aligned with other business goals. It is worth noting that there are alternative governance structures suitable for this group, designed to compensate for the frequent lack of resources and formal structures typically found in larger companies. Notable alternatives include “virtual” CFOs, support from venture capital funds, and peer-based advisory boards (Handley & Molloy, 2022).

The fifth challenge involves the risk of greenwashing (Delmas & Burbano, 2011), which is common in contexts where firms seek legitimacy, respond to external pressure, or pursue competitive advantages. To avoid greenwashing, it is critical to ensure ongoing coherence between stated purposes and actual practices — ensuring that the latter are substantive and directly connected to core business activities.

This study offers contributions to the body of knowledge on B Corp certification preparation journey and, more broadly, on the transformation of SMEs toward sustainability. It also extends previous models by applying action research to empirically analyze a B certification journey within an SME, linking theory and practice in an iterative and participatory manner. While prior studies on hybrid organizations and B certification have often employed descriptive approaches or retrospective case studies (Moroz et al., 2018; Villela et al., 2021), this research contributes by demonstrating how organizational changes unfold during the certification process, highlighting challenges, resistance, and facilitating mechanisms.

Additionally, the research advances understanding of corporate governance in small businesses seeking to be certified as B Corps—an aspect that has been underexplored in prior studies. For instance, Villela et al. (2021) identify certification as a reinforcement mechanism for organizational identity but do not deeply examine the structural adjustments needed to integrate socio-environmental objectives into business strategy. In this regard, the present study complements that perspective by demonstrating how the formalization of governance and the use of the B Impact Assessment (BIA) can serve as levers for organizational transformation.

This work also engages with other empirical studies that explore B Corp certification from different angles. For example, Tabares (2021) investigates the tensions experienced by certified hybrid firms, emphasizing the challenges in maintaining balance between financial and socio-environmental goals. The present study confirms the existence of such tensions but also goes further by identifying specific strategies to mitigate them, such as leadership development and the structuring of new internal control mechanisms. Moreover, Wecker and Froehlich (2023) analyze Brazilian B Corps and highlight the benefits and challenges of certification, but without a processual lens. This study complements their work by detailing the evolution of socio-environmental indicators across intervention cycles.

Finally, the study implicitly questions the assumption that B certification alone generates sustainable impact. Although previous research suggests that certification acts as a “legitimacy seal” (Diez-Busto et al., 2021), this work shows that certification only becomes a transformation vector when accompanied by structural, cultural, and strategic changes. By emphasizing the need to embed sustainability into a company’s governance, this study reinforces the importance of active and structured approaches in the B Corp certification journey.

This study offers both organizational and societal contributions. For organizations, the study provides the following insights. First, it demonstrates that journey toward B Corp certification can be a strategic transformation driver for SMEs, allowing small companies to reposition themselves in the market and become more competitive by adopting sustainable practices.

Second, it reinforces the use of the B Impact Assessment (BIA) as a continuous management tool. Rather than serving solely as an audit instrument, the BIA can guide organizational improvements and support the progressive and feasible adoption of sustainable practices.

Third, the study highlights that the formalization of corporate governance is essential to ensure that sustainability becomes embedded in the organizational culture. Without formal mechanisms of control and direction, socio-environmental goals risk becoming fragmented and losing momentum over time.

Fourth, it emphasizes the importance of leadership development and internal engagement. The commitment of shareholders and employees is a critical success factor for the certification journey and for the incorporation of ESG practices into daily business operations.

For society, the study provides the following contributions. First, it encourages the engagement of SMEs in the sustainability agenda by offering a replicable model for small businesses seeking to implement ESG practices while facing resource limitations.

Second, it demonstrates how an SME can generate positive impact across its value chain, encouraging suppliers, partners, and clients to adopt responsible practices. The multiplier effect of such actions can contribute to the formation of a more sustainable business ecosystem.

Third, the study offers insights for the development of public policies and incentive programs to support sustainability in SMEs. By highlighting the challenges and opportunities of B Corp certification journey, it provides evidence to help governments and institutions design initiatives that make the process more accessible.

Fourth, the research reinforces the notion that businesses can play an active role in addressing socio-environmental challenges, promoting a new business paradigm that combines positive impact with economic viability.

Action research presents well-known limitations, which also apply to this study. The main limitation is the difficulty in generalizing the findings, as the research focuses on a specific case, shaped by the unique context of the analyzed company. Additionally, the researcher’s active involvement in the process may introduce bias, potentially affecting the neutrality of the analysis. The intense participation of stakeholders may also generate internal resistance to proposed changes. Finally, the reliance on iterative cycles and on the company’s collaboration may influence the continuity and depth of the interventions. Naturally, in this case, standard mitigation measures were taken (e.g., triangulation and review by a second author) to reduce potential negative effects inherent to the method.

This work also enables suggestions for future research in the field of sustainability and B Corp certification in SMEs. First, it would be valuable to evaluate companies some time after certification, to determine whether new principles and practices have been consolidated and to assess their impact on both economic and socio-environmental performance. Second, future studies could deepen the understanding of the challenges discussed in the “Discussion” section, in order to generate insights into how they can be addressed—particularly the tension between short- and long-term outcomes, the structural and resource constraints typical of SMEs, the influence of institutional environments, and the challenge of preventing greenwashing practices (Delmas & Burbano, 2011; Hunter & De Giacomo, 2023).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Authors’ statement of individual contributions
Roles	Contributions
	Silva F. O. V.	Wood Jr. T.
Conceptualization	∎	∎
Methodology	∎
Software	N. A.
Validation	∎
Formal analysis	∎
Investigation	∎
Resources	∎
Data Curation	∎
Writing - Original Draf	∎
Writing - Review & Editing	∎	∎
Visualization	N. A.
Supervision		∎
Project administration	∎
Funding acquisition	N. A.
Note: Acc. CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy): https://credit.niso.org/

Note: Acc. CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy): https://credit.niso.org/

Open Science: Data availability
The dataset is not publicly available due to reasons below specified.
Badge	Description
	As informed to the participants in the ICF, "CLAUSE FOUR – TERM AND CONFIDENTIALITY: The names of individuals or corporations that have participated in interviews or in the RESEARCH PROJECT will not be disclosed without prior authorization."
	Not applicable
	https://doi.org/10.48331/scielodata.2CTJER
	https://doi.org/10.14211/regepe.esbj.e2613pr
	Not applicable