Since 2018, cultural and academic productions on blackness have gained prominence, addressing topics ranging from the structural barriers faced by black entrepreneurs to afrofuturism and the growth of antiracist social movements. The success of the film Black Panther (2018) symbolized a milestone in black empowerment and the expansion of media representation. Subsequently, the COVID-19 pandemic and the murder of George Floyd catalyzed a global debate on structural racism, driving public and private initiatives focused on racial inclusion and the strengthening of Black entrepreneurship (Wallace, 2018; Griffin, 2012).

However, much of the literature on black entrepreneurship remains anchored in a neoliberal perspective that emphasizes individual achievement, meritocratic logic, and adaptation to formal market structures. This approach tends to obscure the historical and structural conditions of racism, turning Black entrepreneurship into a strategy of subordinate inclusion rather than social transformation (Cordeiro & Mello, 2006; Mancebo, 2019).

Within this context, studies show that the Black Lives Matter movement had measurable impacts: for example, after 2020, crowdfunding campaigns led by black entrepreneurs in the restaurant sector became nearly four times more successful (Koh et al., 2023). In Brazil, although there are still no scientific articles systematizing the direct impact of these events on black entrepreneurship, applied studies and market diagnostics indicate a significant growth of black-led businesses between 2020 and 2021. According to the “Afroempreendedorismo Brasil” survey promoted by Think With Google (2022), 16% of black entrepreneurs started their businesses during the pandemic, and 20% reported growth during this period. The absence of academic systematization of these data reinforces the importance of critical and theoretical approaches that deepen this phenomenon from an emancipatory perspective.

These events placed the racial question at the center of public debate, pressuring companies and governments to adopt antiracist measures such as diversity and inclusion (D&I) programs, training on structural racism, and partnerships with black organizations (Yancey & Krome, 2021). The year 2020 marked a peak of media visibility for racial agendas, driven by the murder of George Floyd in the United States and the global mobilization of the #BlackLivesMatter movement — a phenomenon evidenced in Brazil through the analysis of millions of tweets and journalistic reports (Santos & Reis, 2022). Nationally, the case of João Alberto Freitas, beaten to death by security guards in a supermarket, gained political repercussion and reinforced the debate on structural racism (Gonçalves, 2024). These episodes contributed to strong pressure for corporate commitments to racial equity, particularly in the private sector (De la Parra et al., 2023; Koh et al., 2023; Brookings Institution, 2023).

However, studies indicate that by 2021 many of the announced initiatives had been reduced, reformulated, or hollowed out in response to the global economic crisis and cost-cutting imperatives (Koh et al., 2023; Hyrynsalmi et al., 2025; Santos et al., 2025). Research shows that mentions of diversity in corporate conferences peaked in 2020 but progressively lost prominence in subsequent years (De la Parra et al., 2023), indicating that many responses were reactive and conjunctural. The spread of woke washing — in which companies express symbolic support for sociopolitical causes without concrete commitments — and the absence of transparency mechanisms regarding their impact underscored the structural fragility of these initiatives (Ahmad et al., 2024). In addition, the advance of the far right and conservative agendas in several countries contributed to the delegitimization of antiracist agendas (Hyrynsalmi et al., 2025).

The visibility and support for black entrepreneurship between 2018 and 2021, particularly in 2020, did not consolidate structurally. Although this period was marked by an increase in institutional interest around racial equity, to date there are no academic studies systematizing the effects of the subsequent withdrawal of support from companies and governments for black entrepreneurs in Brazil. Internationally, there has been a retreat of diversity and inclusion investments by large corporations due to economic, political, and social pressures. Recent studies show that after the peak of 2020, many companies reassessed or downsized their diversity programs, especially in the technology sector, in a movement described as corporate backlash (De la Parra et al., 2023; Brookings Institution, 2023; Hyrynsalmi et al., 2025; Santos et al., 2025).

Historically marked by precarization, black entrepreneurs saw in 2020 and 2021 an opportunity for growth under more favorable conditions. However, from 2021 onward, the slowdown of investments reflected economic challenges, political shifts, the weakening of the ESG agenda, and the decline of racial inclusion debates, undermining the strengthening of black businesses.

Given this scenario, this article addresses the following question: How can Quilombismo offer a theoretical-practical alternative to Black entrepreneurship, given the limits of neoliberal approaches and the ephemerality of institutional responses to racial issues? The objective is to propose the Quilombismo of Abdias do Nascimento (1980) as a theoretical-practical pathway for Black entrepreneurship. The resulting contribution is the proposition of a framework structured around three interdependent axes: network support, financial self-organization, and Afrocentric education.

Although there are relevant contributions in the international literature on Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship, Social Entrepreneurship, and Entrepreneurship in Institutional Voids, these approaches mostly reflect experiences anchored in Eurocentric epistemologies, particularly centered on the realities of the Global North. Focused on adapting racialized subjects to existing structures, these perspectives often neglect the historical, cultural, and spiritual dimensions shaping forms of resistance and economic organization among black populations in the Global South. This study proposes an alternative, decolonial pathway grounded in Abdias do Nascimento’s (1980) Quilombismo, shifting the axis of analysis from integration into the dominant system to the construction of autonomous models of black emancipation anchored in ancestry, community solidarity, and collective self-management.

The contribution of this article lies in: (1) articulating a theoretical model that challenges neoliberal entrepreneurship (Dardot & Laval, 2016); (2) demonstrating the viability of autonomous collective action; and (3) supporting public policies and community initiatives. By proposing a framework grounded in Quilombismo, this study seeks to contribute both to theoretical advancement in the field of entrepreneurship and to the development of emancipatory strategies within the brazilian context.

Before advancing to the racialized perspective, it is important to highlight that, within the field of management and the applied social sciences, entrepreneurship is classically understood as the process of identifying, evaluating, and exploiting opportunities to create value and generate innovation (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). For Hisrich et al., (2009), it is an intentional effort to create something new, assuming financial and social risks in pursuit of profit or impact. Schumpeter (1934) already associated the entrepreneur with creative destruction — someone capable of disrupting market equilibrium by introducing new combinations of factors. Drucker (1985) reinforces this view by linking the entrepreneur to the systematization of innovation as a practical discipline.

Although these approaches are central to mainstream literature, they overlook the historical, racial, spiritual, and collective dimensions of Black economic practices, which motivates the epistemological shift proposed in this article.

The literature on Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship (Light & Gold, 2000; Ram et al., 2017), Social Entrepreneurship (De Carolis & Saparito, 2006; Dana, 2007), and Institutional Voids (Khanna & Palepu, 2010; Smith & Tang, 2013) has sought to understand the challenges faced by entrepreneurs from racialized or marginalized groups, particularly in contexts of institutional inequality. Although these studies make important contributions to understanding the structural barriers minorities face, they often adopt a functionalist framework focused on adapting individuals to existing market and institutional structures. For example, Light and Gold (2000) describe minority entrepreneurship primarily as a strategy for insertion into already-structured markets, while Khanna and Palepu (2010) address “institutional voids” as barriers to be overcome through entrepreneurs’ adaptation to dominant rules of the game. Similarly, Smith and Tang (2013) analyze how companies adjust their strategies in contexts of institutional gaps, reinforcing adaptation rather than transformation of structures. These works, although relevant, illustrate the predominance of a functionalist bias that justifies the epistemological shift advanced in this article.

Propomos, portanto, um deslocamento epistemológico: em vez de adotar as lentes do empreendedorismo de minorias ou do empreendedorismo social no marco ocidental, recorremos ao Quilombismo de Abdias do Nascimento We therefore propose an epistemological shift: rather than adopting the lenses of minority entrepreneurship or social entrepreneurship within the Western framework, we draw on Abdias do Nascimento’s (1980) Quilombismo, a counter-hegemonic and decolonial model that articulates cultural resistance, collective solidarity, and economic emancipation grounded in Black epistemologies. This approach does not seek to integrate black entrepreneurs into neoliberal capitalist logics but instead proposes the strengthening of autonomous community networks as a way to confront structural racism and build black economic sovereignty.

There are various concepts and typologies of racism. Almeida (2019) prompts reflection on racism as a foundational element structuring social relations, such that it can be said to have always existed, given that throughout history, black people have occupied the lowest economic and political positions.

Jones (2000) presents three levels of manifestation of racism: internalized (or personal) racism, interpersonal racism, and institutional racism. (Figure 1). The first refers to the acceptance, by racialized individuals, of stigmas and negative beliefs about themselves. The second occurs in direct social interactions, manifesting through discriminatory and prejudiced attitudes. The third — institutional racism — unfolds in social and organizational structures that systematize the exclusion of racialized groups. Despite this analytical typology, Silvio Almeida (2019) argues that all racism is structural; that is, it underpins the functioning of society and organizes relations between social groups. Therefore, even though it manifests at distinct levels, racism operates as the foundation of inequality, not as an occasional or individual deviation.

Figure 1 Figure 1 Typologies of Racism Figure 1 Typologies of Racism Nota: Adaptado de Jones, C. P. (2000). Levels of racism: A theoretic framework and a gardener’s tale. American Journal of Public Health, 90(8), 1212-1215. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.90.8.1212.

Personal or internalized racism, according to Jones (2000), occurs when individuals assimilate racist patterns, incorporating stigmas and prejudiced views. Bujato and Souza (2020) add that individual racism imposes racializing marks, ranging from physical traits to questions about character, perceived as negative labels. Interpersonal racism, also as defined by Jones (2000), manifests in prejudice and discrimination — explicit or implicit — within interactions between individuals. Finally, institutional racism expresses itself both in everyday workplace practices and in institutional norms and policies that reinforce the disadvantage of racialized groups.

According to López (2012), institutional racism refers to the ways in which institutions function, contributing to the naturalization and reproduction of racial inequality. By invoking this concept, the goal is to shed light on processes of indirect discrimination occurring within institutions, resulting from mechanisms that operate, to some extent, beyond individual intent. For this to occur, internal rules or regulations are not necessary — only formal obstacles embedded in social relations themselves (Werneck, 2016).

During the period of Black slavery in Brazil (1530–1888), there were situations in which enslaved people engaged in parallel labor activities as a means of supplementing subsistence or saving money to buy their freedom (Gomes, 2019; Munanga, 2004). Although such practices became more frequent with urban development and closer to abolition, it can be cautiously stated that this period marks the “embryo of Brazilian Black entrepreneurship.”

These activities — and consequently street commerce — gained momentum in Brazil after the arrival of the royal family in 1808, being practiced mainly by enslaved Black people, especially women. Even after the institutionalization of free labor, most of the Black population remained in informality and was disproportionately affected by precarious work mechanisms following productive restructuring. Through “entrepreneurship,” this population found a way to survive, overcome structural and social barriers, and maintain a connection with ancestry.

The phenomenon of Black entrepreneurship emerges with multiple economic, political, and social dimensions, encouraging the Black population to develop entrepreneurial activity (SEBRAE, 2023). Author Eliane Nascimento uses the term Black entrepreneurship to describe activity “carried out by Black people who produce from and for Black culture,” that is, establishing commercial relationships that give visibility to and rely on this culture, forming a network of businesses that compose an ecosystem of production and consumption by and for Black people.

Nogueira (2013), in Desenvolvimento e empreendedorismo afro-brasileiro, describes various authors who address the theme without clearly distinguishing terms. Authors such as Eliane do Nascimento and Maria Angélica Santos have played a significant role in consolidating the field of Black entrepreneurship in Brazil. Nascimento (2019) defines Black entrepreneurship as economic activity carried out by Black people producing from and for Black culture, creating economic ecosystems rooted in ancestry. In earlier and later works, the author emphasizes both how structural racism shapes the trajectories of Black entrepreneurs (Nascimento, 2018) and the centrality of Black women’s leadership as a form of resistance and creation of economic alternatives (Nascimento, 2020). Santos (2019) , in turn, proposes a distinction between lato sensu Black entrepreneurship — encompassing all entrepreneurial activity led by Black people — and stricto sensu Black entrepreneurship, aimed at structural transformation of the productive chain through an antiracist logic. In collaboration with Silva, Santos also highlights the importance of support networks and social capital as structuring dimensions of Black entrepreneurial practice (Santos & Silva, 2021).

Although the field presents multiple definitions of Black entrepreneurship, this article aligns primarily with the perspective proposed by Santos (2019), distinguishing between lato sensu Black entrepreneurship — encompassing all entrepreneurial activity led by Black people — and stricto sensu, oriented toward the structural transformation of the productive chain within an antiracist logic. By emphasizing this transformative dimension, we also engage with Nascimento’s (2019) understanding of Black entrepreneurship as an economic practice rooted in ancestry and oriented toward collectivity. Based on this conceptual foundation, the Quilombist framework proposed here reinforces the centrality of Black entrepreneurship as a tool for Black emancipation, moving beyond functional market adaptation to prioritize the construction of structural alternatives grounded in Quilombismo.

This perspective resonates with what Gonzalez (1988) previously emphasized in highlighting the importance of a Black political praxis that rejects subalternity, as well as with Munanga’s (2004) reflections on how racism permeates the economy, education, and politics, hindering social mobility for the Black population.

The supposed “freedom” to undertake entrepreneurship in a context of historical and ongoing inequality in Brazil does not guarantee Black entrepreneurs financial autonomy or the full development of their talent and potential. The pandemic exposed systemic racial inequality in sectors such as healthcare, delivery industries, and access to digital spaces (Francis & Robertson, 2021). Regarding small businesses, Pereira and Patel (2022) stress the urgent need for targeted measures to support the recovery of enterprises affected by COVID-19, especially among self-employed workers from racial minorities in developing countries. They highlight how these professionals are impacted by structural barriers and advocate for the implementation of long-term policies to support them.

Thus, entrepreneurship — which could be a tool for independence and financial freedom for this population — under precarious conditions can reproduce the same “freedom” experienced after abolition, leaving the Black population in an equal or even worse situation than before.

The release of the film Black Panther in 2018 symbolized more than cinematic representation: it activated in the global Black imagination the possibility of a future centered on ancestry, sovereignty, and Afro-referenced technology. According to Asante and Pindi (2020), Afrocentric cultural and aesthetic production serves as a means of shaping collective consciousness and strengthening identity. The concept of Afrofuturism, present in the film, articulates art, resistance, and politics as a way of reclaiming narratives alternative to colonization and neoliberalism. Although ephemeral as a media phenomenon, Black Panther became a symbolic catalyst for debates on empowerment, demonstrating the power of envisioning futures grounded in African and Afro-diasporic traditions. This “radical imagination” thus connects to the theoretical effort of this article: to recover counter-hegemonic models — such as Quilombismo — to rethink Black entrepreneurship as a project of collective emancipation.

The term aquilombar-se (to “quilombo oneself”) refers, for the Black population, to a social technology of self-protection, mutual aid, resistance, and self-development. The term originates from quilombo, which, according to Batista (2019), is a resource of resistance that fosters “being together” to expand and strengthen ancestral knowledge, culture, identity, and stories.

In the Brazilian context, the quilombo functioned as a refusal to accept the norms imposed by slavery, aimed at eroding the prevailing system through escapes, abortions, suicides, poisonings, and the killing of plantation owners and their families. According to Gomes (2019), in Escravidão (Vol. 1), the word kilombo — translated into Portuguese as quilombo — comes from Kimbundu, one of the languages spoken in Angola, and means camp, encampment, union, or hut. According to Carneiro (2005):

There, black people built a separate society “as a form of struggle against slavery, as a human settlement, as a social organization, as a reaffirmation of the values of african cultures; in all these aspects, the quilombo reveals itself as a new, unique, and peculiar fact — a dialectical synthesis” (p. 19).

The Quilombo of Palmares, located in the Serra da Barriga in the state of Alagoas — so named due to the abundance of palm trees of various species in the region — was the largest and most important refuge for fugitive enslaved people in colonial Brazil (Gomes, 2019). According to Gomes (2019), historical documentation about Palmares is scarce, consisting of some military campaign diaries, correspondence exchanged between colonial authorities and the Portuguese Crown, as well as memories and testimonies from officers, soldiers, and residents — though always from a white perspective. Abdias do Nascimento understood the Quilombo of Palmares as an example of the implementation of a “traditional african communalism,” where there would be neither exploiters nor exploited. This model would awaken afro-brazilian consciousness and proclaim its right to power (Nascimento, 1980, pp. 14-27).

Abdias do Nascimento (1980), in his book O Quilombismo — the work chosen as the object of our analysis — discusses the degradation of western culture, which has produced tensions in contemporary humanity, with peoples facing and confronting one another in increasingly fragmented and hostile ways. On the other hand, the author emphasizes that another layer of the global black african population and its descendants, until then marginalized and forgotten, has emerged as a liberating and progressive unity, critically chosen, sustaining and structuring pan-african culture, which serves as the basis for the concept of Quilombismo.

Nascimento (1980) seeks to outline what he calls the pan-africanist revolution, which would precede the implementation of Quilombismo. He begins by defending the need for a change of mentality among the african population and its descendants — proving to themselves that they are capable of transforming the circumstances in which they live — reinforcing the idea of “mental unchaining” or decolonization. As a subsequent action, the author advocates for the reaffirmation of traditional integrity, guided by the common egalitarian values of a pan-african society (referred to as communalism): cooperation, creativity, collective property, and collective wealth. Finally, the author proposes that it is imperative to transform traditional African culture into an asset, making it contemporary and modern.

Below, Figure 2 outlines the elements necessary for the pan-african revolution, according to Nascimento (1980).

Figure 2 Figure 2 Revolução Pan-Africanista Segundo Abdias do Nascimento Figure 2 Revolução Pan-Africanista Segundo Abdias do Nascimento Nota: Extraído de Nascimento, A. (1980). *O Quilombismo*. Petrópolis, RJ: Editora Vozes.

According to Nascimento (1980), Quilombismo has proven to be a factor capable of mobilizing black masses in a disciplined way due to its profound psychosocial appeal, whose roots are deeply embedded in afro-brazilian culture and lived experience. In other words, Abdias explains that the afro-brazilian population — because of its historical trajectory of struggle and resistance — possesses a predisposition to aquilombar-se (to form quilombos or self-organizing black communities). According to Batista (2019), after the abolition of slavery, Black people continued to aquilombar-se by occupying hillsides, vacant lands, and through religious-territorial spaces such as terreiros of Candomblé. Understanding this history of the quilombo is crucial, as it allows us to draw from the strategies and tools used by our african ancestors and their descendants to overcome and resist a racist state.

Abdias do Nascimento (1980), in his work O Quilombismo, presents a set of 16 fundamental principles for the construction of a Quilombist National State. These principles articulate political, economic, cultural, ecological, and spiritual dimensions, composing a civilizational project that offers an alternative to the western and capitalist model. Below is a brief synthesis of the 16 principles described by Nascimento:

Quilombismo as a political movement based on the model of the Republic of Palmares.

For the purposes of this study, 11 of the 16 principles were selected (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 e 16), based on two main methodological criteria:

Relevance to the reality of contemporary black entrepreneurship in Brazil: the principles that directly address the challenges faced by black entrepreneurs in the country were prioritized, such as unequal access to credit, fragile support networks, institutional racism, and the lack of afrocentric educational support.

This selection made it possible to adapt the original quilombist project — state-centered and macro-social in nature — to the meso- and micro-social scale of community-based economic organization, enhancing its applicability in the field of Black entrepreneurship. It is important to note that the principles not included in the analysis — such as those related to ecology (15) and the state bureaucratic apparatus (10) — remain relevant but go beyond the scope and practical objectives of this study.

The axes proposed here — network support, financial self-organization, and afrocentric education — were defined based on the main challenges identified in the literature on afro-entrepreneurship in Brazil, such as unequal access to credit, the structural isolation of black entrepreneurs, and fragile training in critical and racialized content (Nascimento, 1980; Almeida, 2019; Santos apud SEBRAE, 2023; Souza, 2021). These challenges also emerge in reports of practical experiences and in actions led by Black organizations and community support networks, reinforcing the need for a model that transcends individualizing neoliberal approaches and places collectivity at the center.

Quilombism, proposed by Abdias do Nascimento (1980), provides a solid conceptual foundation for this transition. Its principles operate as ethical-political guidelines for building collective, autonomous, and afrocentric alternatives aligned with the history of resistance and self-management of black populations in Brazil. Abdias formulated 16 principles for the Quilombist National State, from which we selected 11 (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16) to engage in dialogue with the field of Afro-entrepreneurship. The selection was guided by two criteria: (1) their practical relevance to the challenges faced by Black entrepreneurs in the contemporary context, and (2) their alignment with the three axes proposed in this study.

The proposal presented here adapts Quilombism to the field of afro-entrepreneurship as a model of collective emancipation, moving in the opposite direction of neoliberal entrepreneurship, which promotes individualism, precarization, and competition as foundational values. This critique also applies to dominant approaches in the traditional entrepreneurship field, such as those of Schumpeter (1934) and Shane & Venkataraman (2000), which — by emphasizing the individual innovator — reinforce a rationality centered on performance, disruption, and efficiency. Although valuable for understanding market dynamics, such approaches rarely engage with entrepreneurial experiences rooted in community and marked by trajectories of racial resistance.

As Antunes (2020), highlights, the neoliberal model materializes in the “uberization of life” and the dismantling of rights, while Carmo et al. (2021) point to the erosion of social protection and the individual’s accountability for their own success or failure.

Instead, inspired by Quilombism, this proposal is anchored in three interdependent strategic axes — network support, financial self-organization, and afrocentric education — as a way to mitigate the impacts of structural racism and strengthen aquilombamento practices (community-based solidarity and resistance) in the economic field. In the following sections, we detail each of these axes in light of Quilombist principles and the challenges faced by afro-entrepreneurs in Brazil.

Este artigo buscou compreender como os princípios do Quilombismo, formulados por Abdias do Nascimento, podem oferecer uma lente alternativa ao afroempreendedorismo no Brasil, contrastando com as abordagens neoliberais dominantes. Partindo de eventos catalisadores como o sucesso do filme Pantera Negra, a pandemia de COVID-19 e o assassinato de George Floyd, foi possível identificar uma “janela de visibilidade” efêmera para questões raciais, que reforça a urgência de modelos estruturais e permanentes de emancipação negra.

Ao propor três eixos estratégicos — suporte de rede, auto-organização financeira e educação afrocentrada — ancorados em 11 dos 16 princípios do Quilombismo, o artigo apresenta uma proposta teórico-prática que busca reconstruir o afroempreendedorismo como prática de aquilombamento econômico, e não apenas como inserção periférica no mercado. Essa abordagem amplia os horizontes teóricos do campo ao incorporar uma epistemologia negra, decolonial e baseada na ancestralidade e na coletividade.

As contribuições deste trabalho se manifestam em três níveis. No campo teórico, ao conectar o Quilombismo ao empreendedorismo, o artigo apresenta um modelo original e afrocentrado, ainda pouco explorado na literatura de administração e inovação. No plano prático, ao sistematizar os desafios enfrentados por afroempreendedores e associá-los a princípios quilombistas, oferece uma ferramenta de análise e planejamento para políticas públicas, iniciativas comunitárias e organizações de apoio. Por fim, no âmbito social, ao reafirmar a potência política do afroempreendedorismo como prática de resistência, o artigo contribui para a consolidação de economias negras solidárias e autônomas. Em conjunto, tais contribuições reforçam a relevância do Quilombismo como base teórico-prática para a emancipação econômica negra no Brasil.

Como caminhos para pesquisas futuras, sugere-se a aplicação empírica do framework proposto, por meio de estudos de caso de organizações ou territórios que operem em lógicas quilombistas (como o Vale do Dendê, a PretaHub ou o Banco Palmas). Além disso, recomendam-se comparações com modelos internacionais de afroempreendedorismo, sobretudo em países do Sul Global, para explorar convergências e divergências em práticas de resistência econômica negra. Outra possibilidade é aprofundar, qualitativamente, as experiências de empreendedores que já operam com base em coletividade, ancestralidade e autonomia, mesmo que de forma não nomeada como quilombista.

Em tempos de retrocessos sociais e precarização da vida negra, reafirmar o Quilombismo como base do afroempreendedorismo é, mais do que uma proposta teórica, uma declaração política de futuro. Aquilombar-se, portanto, é empreender a liberdade.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Authors’ statement of individual contributions
Roles	Contributions
	Batista de Oliveira, F	Paiva de Andrade, E.	Perez Zotes, L.
Conceptualization	∎
Methodology	∎
Software	N. A.
Validation	∎	∎	∎
Formal analysis	∎
Investigation	∎
Resources	∎
Data Curation	∎	∎	∎
Writing - Original Draf	∎
Writing - Review & Editing	∎
Visualization	∎	∎	∎
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 entire data supporting the results of this study was published in the article itself.
Badge	Description
	Not applicable
	Not applicable
	Not applicable
	https://doi.org/10.14211/regepe.esbj.e2660pr
	Not applicable