The study includes two executives from companies operating in international markets, with business units and commercial representations distributed across multiple continents. This characteristic broadens the analytical scope of the study, enabling a deeper understanding of how responsible practices are implemented across diverse cultural and regional contexts. The executives contributed strategic insights and accumulated practical experience from their respective sectors, enriching the analysis of challenges and opportunities associated with integrating sustainability and social responsibility into corporate strategy.

Both executives belong to organizations recognized for their consistent commitment to sustainability and corporate social responsibility policies and practices. The central criterion for their selection was the explicit incorporation of these principles as integral components of institutional positioning, ensuring that their perspectives were closely aligned with the research objectives of the study.

The second group comprises seven researchers and experts working in the fields of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), Sustainability, Corporate Law, Environmental Accounting, and Management. Participant selection was based on their academic and professional experience, including involvement in research projects, scientific publications, and international academic or professional engagements.

The interviewees have academic and professional backgrounds in countries such as Germany, Brazil, Scotland, Spain, England, Portugal, and Switzerland. Collectively, they have participated in 26 research projects and have published 68 scientific articles, 13 book chapters, and one full book dedicated to social and sustainable development. This diversity of academic trajectories and cultural contexts enhances the analytical depth of the study, offering a multifaceted perspective on corporate practices and their ethical, social, and managerial implications.

The consumer group consisted of 16 participants, selected to represent a range of sociodemographic profiles. Sampling considered factors such as gender, age group, and educational level, with the aim of capturing diverse perceptions of ethics and corporate responsibility.

Among the interviewees, 10 were women, and 6 were men, with ages ranging from 22 to 69 years. Regarding educational background, most participants held a bachelor’s degree, although individuals with secondary education and master’s degrees were also included. The inclusion of these profiles was essential for understanding social expectations and the influence of corporate ethical image on consumer behavior, given that consumers play a strategic role in organizational sustainability and long-term success.

The number of participants in each group was determined based on the principle of theoretical saturation, understood as the point at which additional data collection no longer yields new information relevant to the emerging analytical categories. During the analysis process, recurring interpretive patterns and stability of core concepts were observed, indicating that the sample was sufficient for the exploratory purposes of the study.

Table 2 presents the sociodemographic profile of participants across the three strategic groups. This overview highlights the diversity of academic and professional backgrounds among the interviewees, reinforcing the theoretical relevance of the sample and the interpretive richness of the data collected.

The participants come from diverse socio-professional backgrounds, operating across different sectors and organizational contexts. Although respondent anonymity is preserved, this diversity contributed to broadening the understanding of the phenomenon and avoiding an overly homogeneous interpretation of practices and perceptions associated with CSR, ethics, and integrity.

To differentiate among the three participant groups, heat maps were employed (Figures 4 and 5) to capture both adherence, measured as the frequency of respondents addressing each theme, and intensity, reflected in the emphasis and density of discourse, using normalized data.

This combination of metrics, synthesized in Table 4, enables a qualitative comparison of how the focus, salience, and argumentative strength of themes vary across participant profiles.

The integration of coding and engagement visualizations (Figures 1–5) with the emergent analytical categories and comparative synthesis (Tables 3 and 4) provides a coherent analytical foundation for addressing the research objectives. This structure facilitates the articulation of perceptions across the three participant groups through data triangulation, allowing for the identification of interpretive convergences and divergences regarding the complexity of motivations underlying the adoption of CSR practices. The analysis, therefore, begins by examining the factors that drive companies to engage in CSR initiatives.

The empirical evidence confirms the multifaceted and hybrid nature of the motivations driving CSR adoption, in line with literature emphasizing the coexistence of ethical, strategic, and stakeholder-oriented drivers (Bairrada; Santos; Coelho, 2024; Skarmeas; Leonidou, 2013). Rather than operating in isolation, these motivations intersect and shape organizational engagement with CSR in context-dependent ways.

From the consumer perspective, value-based ethical motivations emerge as particularly salient. Participants value organizations whose ethical commitment is perceived as genuine and embedded in corporate culture, rather than primarily oriented toward profit or reputational gain:

“It’s not just about making a profit; it seems to be a company that acts according to what it truly believes, social responsibility is part of its culture” (Cons2, Pos. 73)

Perceived coherence between discourse and practice strengthens corporate reputation and fosters emotional connections with brands, especially when social and environmental concerns are addressed without compromising product accessibility (Cons12, Pos. 37). These findings suggest that ethical authenticity functions as a central criterion of CSR legitimacy for consumers.

Researchers emphasize external institutional pressures as decisive drivers of CSR institutionalization. Regulatory requirements, consumer expectations, global supply chain standards, NGO scrutiny, and expanding ESG reporting obligations significantly shape corporate behavior (Pesq2, Pos. 23; Pesq6, Pos. 33). As one interviewee noted:

“Depending on the size and revenue of the company, these practices will soon become standard; all companies will have to issue this type of report.” (Pesq2, Pos. 23)

These pressures reinforce stakeholder-oriented motivations and position CSR as both a response to external demands and a mechanism for maintaining legitimacy across diverse market contexts.

Executives describe a complementary coexistence of strategic and value-based motivations. Some initiatives stem from near-altruistic principles, such as community engagement and “good neighbor” policies (Diremp1, Pos. 67), while others reflect strategic concerns related to shared value creation, reputational risk management, and ecosystem sustainability (Diremp2, Pos. 27). This coexistence illustrates how ethical values and strategic rationales are often intertwined in managerial decision-making.

Nonetheless, the analysis reveals a persistent tension between authentic and instrumental motivations. While genuinely committed organizations are recognized, consumers and researchers also identify recurring patterns of CSR instrumentalization, particularly following crises:

“Clearly, when a company causes a major disaster or social problem, it improves its sustainability disclosures the following year and then repeats the same mistakes later on.” (Pesq7, Pos. 53)

Overall, the findings confirm hybrid motivation models while adding a critical empirical nuance: organizations frequently struggle to convert strategic intentions into perceived credibility, especially from the consumer perspective. This dissonance highlights the limits of legitimacy strategies based primarily on symbolic discourse and underscores the fragility of trust when ethical commitments are inconsistently enacted.

The interview data confirm that ethical leadership plays a central role in embedding CSR as a strategic organizational dimension, in line with Pham and Tran (2020) and Gullifor et al. (2023). Rather than merely establishing formal standards, ethical leadership operates as a transversal force shaping organizational culture, guiding decision-making, and structuring relationships with stakeholders.

Executives emphasize the institutionalization of ethics as a guiding principle in strategy, risk management, and corporate governance. Ethics is described as a defining element of organizational identity:

“Doing business with ethics and integrity is part of our company’s DNA.” (Diremp1, Pos. 72)

This orientation is reinforced through continuous training, systematic monitoring of conduct, and explicit ethical requirements for suppliers and partners (Diremp1, Pos. 72; Diremp2, Pos. 44). The metaphor of a “moral compass” (Diremp2, Pos. 44) captures the role of leadership in navigating complex and uncertain decision contexts.

Researchers extend this view by emphasizing that ethical leadership is not confined to top management. Middle managers play a key mediating role in translating ethical principles into daily practices and ensuring coherence between discourse and behavior (Pesq2, Pos. 27). This diffusion aligns ethical leadership with integrated governance models encompassing sustainability, diversity and inclusion, and anti-corruption policies (Pesq2, Pos. 22; Pesq6, Pos. 92), supported by formal compliance and monitoring structures (Pesq3, Pos. 116).

From the consumer perspective, ethical leadership is evaluated less through formal governance structures and more through tangible social outcomes, such as safe working conditions, fair compensation, and employee well-being (Cons1, Pos. 46; Cons10, Pos. 72). This suggests that external assessments of ethical leadership are primarily mediated by observable impacts rather than institutional narratives.

The reputational dimension reinforces this dynamic. Executives acknowledge that legitimacy depends not only on ethical conduct but also on ethical perception (Diremp1, Pos. 76), sustained through careful partner selection and continuous vigilance against misconduct (Diremp2, Pos. 113; Diremp1, Pos. 82). External recognition, such as the “Best Company to Work For” award (Diremp1, Pos. 95), further strengthens the association between ethics embedded in leadership, valued work environments, and organizational performance.

Overall, the findings confirm ethical leadership as a necessary condition for effective CSR implementation, while introducing a critical nuance: its effectiveness is not validated by the mere existence of formal policies or symbolic recognition, but by the organization’s capacity to generate consistent, observable, and socially recognized practices. This distinction highlights the limits of declaratory ethics and positions leadership as a substantive driver of CSR integration.

The integrated analysis of Objectives 1 and 4 demonstrates that the incorporation of CSR into corporate strategy results from the interaction of multiple and interdependent motivations, ethical, strategic, and stakeholder-oriented, mediated by ethical leadership capable of operationalizing integrity in everyday organizational practices.

Value-based motivations reflect genuine ethical commitments to social and environmental well-being, as evidenced by the importance attributed to coherence between organizational discourse and practice (Cons2, Pos. 73; Diremp1, Pos. 67). At the same time, strategic motivations align CSR with shared value creation, reputational management, and the long-term sustainability of the business ecosystem (Diremp2, Pos. 27; Pesq3, Pos. 31). Regulatory pressures, stakeholder expectations, and global standards further act as catalysts for the institutionalization of CSR, reinforcing its strategic relevance (Pesq2, Pos. 23; Pesq3, Pos. 36).

The distinguishing element of effective CSR integration as a strategic pillar is ethical leadership, perceived as a “moral compass” guiding complex decisions and ensuring coherence between declared values and enacted practices (Diremp2, Pos. 44). This leadership materializes through codes of conduct, continuous training, compliance policies, and mechanisms for addressing inappropriate behavior (Diremp1, Pos. 72; Pesq3, Pos. 116), permeating multiple hierarchical levels and shaping organizational culture (Pesq2, Pos. 27).

From the consumer perspective, the authenticity of ethics-based CSR is recognized only when it translates into tangible and observable outcomes, such as healthy work environments, inclusive practices, and fair compensation (Cons10, Pos. 72; Cons16, Pos. 74). Furthermore, the requirement of ethical alignment among partners and suppliers extends CSR beyond organizational boundaries, strengthening interorganizational networks grounded in trust and transparency (Diremp2, Pos. 103; Pesq6, Pos. 26).

In summary, CSR is effectively integrated into corporate strategy when ethics and integrity move beyond reputational discourse and are consolidated as structural principles of governance, leadership, and organizational practices. Under these conditions, CSR becomes a substantive strategic component that sustains the consistent and long-term creation of economic, social, and environmental value.

Following the analysis of Objectives 1 and 4, the next section examines the remaining objectives that support the response to RQ2, focusing on how ethics- and integrity-based values influence sustainable value creation and organizational performance.

The findings corroborate prior literature (Pham; Tran, 2020; Conte et al., 2023) by showing that stakeholder perceptions of CSR practices are strongly conditioned by the degree of ethical coherence demonstrated by organizations. Trust and legitimacy do not derive from formal commitments alone, but from the organization’s capacity to align discourse with practice and to translate integrity into concrete, observable, and verifiable actions.

Executives acknowledge that constant public scrutiny requires consistent ethical conduct, supported by formal governance mechanisms such as external audits (Diremp1, Pos. 67) and whistleblowing channels (Diremp1, Pos. 82). Concerns with legitimacy are summarized in the assertion that “it is not enough to be honest; one must also appear honest,” highlighting that corporate reputation increasingly depends on demonstrable integrity rather than declarative claims (Diremp2, Pos. 54). This demand for coherence is intensified by digital hypervisibility: “Nowadays, everything appears on social media […] and spreads instantly” (Diremp1, Pos. 150), reinforcing the need for preventive policies and robust integrity frameworks.

Researchers emphasize that, in real-time communication environments, ethical inconsistencies can rapidly and irreversibly erode institutional trust (Pesq3, Pos. 107). In this context, stakeholders—particularly consumers and investors—act as “ethical filters,” evaluating not only organizational outcomes but also the processes through which they are achieved (Pesq3, Pos. 50). Insufficient transparency is therefore interpreted as a signal of unethical conduct, amplifying concerns related to greenwashing and social washing (Pesq5, Pos. 55; Pesq5, Pos. 63).

Consumer narratives reveal a persistent ambivalence. While companies perceived as transparent and socially responsible are positively evaluated (Cons16, Pos. 83), skepticism remains toward practices regarded as superficial or symbolic, especially in sectors historically associated with environmental degradation or labor exploitation (Cons15, Pos. 92). Authenticity is thus attributed to coherence between declared commitments and tangible outcomes. Although initiatives such as fair wage policies and diversity programs are associated with social recognition and potential competitive advantage (Pesq6, Pos. 49), a gap persists between declared ethical values and actual purchasing behavior, as noted by Pesq1 (Pos. 46).

Overall, the results confirm that ethics and integrity operate as central interpretive filters through which stakeholders assess CSR practices. These values determine whether CSR initiatives are perceived as authentic expressions of organizational commitment or as instrumental tools oriented primarily toward reputation management, directly influencing corporate reputation, institutional legitimacy, and the long-term sustainability of relationships between companies and society (Diremp2, Pos. 88; Pesq3, Pos. 54).

The literature characterizes CSR reports as relevant instruments of corporate accountability (Swaen; Demoulin; Pauwels-Delassus, 2021; Conte et al., 2023), whose capacity to foster stakeholder trust depends fundamentally on the degree of transparency and integrity embedded in their preparation. Reports that lack comparable criteria, verifiable data, or accessible language tend to undermine credibility, whereas disclosures aligned with actual organizational practices reinforce institutional legitimacy and corporate reputation.

Interview data reveal pronounced asymmetries across stakeholder groups. Consumers report limited familiarity with CSR reports and difficulties in engaging with their content, highlighting a disconnect between corporate disclosure efforts and public accessibility: “I find it difficult for an ordinary citizen […] to keep track of all these company reports” (Cons1, Pos. 58). This gap is exacerbated by information overload—“There is a profusion, an overabundance of data […] with multiple layers to navigate just to stay focused” (Cons16, Pos. 78). Nevertheless, integrity and clarity remain salient trust cues, with consumers expressing a preference for organizations perceived as socially accepted and ethically aligned (Cons11, Pos. 122). At the same time, participants acknowledge structural constraints faced by smaller firms in effectively communicating their practices (Cons16, Pos. 74).

Executives closely associate transparency with legitimacy and describe routine monitoring and accountability practices, such as periodic internal reviews (Diremp1, Pos. 89) and the systematic analysis of customer perception indicators (Diremp2, Pos. 93). These practices suggest that reporting is understood not merely as disclosure, but as a governance mechanism linked to reputational management.

Researchers adopt a more critical yet constructive stance. While emphasizing the lack of standardization and comparability—“Without standards or comparability, we cannot clearly determine whether companies are truly advancing in social responsibility” (Pesq4, Pos. 69)—they argue for improving rather than abandoning CSR reporting: “It is a tool we have; we should work with it, refining and critiquing it, but not discarding it” (Pesq6, Pos. 69). Notably, the perceived relevance of CSR reports is significantly higher among specialized stakeholders, such as analysts and institutional investors, who use them to assess risk exposure and future organizational performance (Pesq7, Pos. 92).

Overall, the findings indicate that transparency and integrity in CSR reporting contribute to stakeholder trust, but their effectiveness is constrained by information asymmetry, communicational overload, and limited interpretive literacy. Trust, therefore, depends not only on the veracity of disclosed information, but also on coherence between discourse and practice and on the organization’s ability to make CSR reporting meaningful to diverse stakeholder audiences.

The literature suggests that integrating ethical principles into CSR practices may constitute a strategic pathway toward sustainable financial returns, albeit through complex and context-dependent mechanisms (Amin et al., 2020; Bruna; Ben Lahouel, 2022). Values such as integrity, transparency, and fairness are understood to strengthen key mediators, including corporate reputation, customer loyalty, employee commitment, and access to socially responsible investors (Pham; Tran, 2020; Farooq; Salem, 2020).

Interview data largely support these assumptions while adding practical nuance. Executives frequently cite environmental initiatives—such as reverse logistics and circular economy practices—as illustrative examples of how ethics is translated into strategic assets: “We have implemented, for example, reverse logistics for certain types of materials […] particularly related to environmental issues” (Diremp1, Pos. 103). Rather than being framed as compliance-driven, these initiatives are associated with long-term value creation: “Nowadays, listed companies […] are deeply committed to this; ethics has become fundamental to value creation” (Diremp1, Pos. 54). Sustainability rankings, such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index, are likewise perceived as competitive differentiators with concrete implications for market access (Diremp2, Pos. 54).

Despite these perceived benefits, significant challenges persist in measuring the value generated by intangible ethical investments. Executives and researchers emphasize the difficulty of translating such investments into quantifiable outcomes “Measuring how intangible investments generate value is often a major challenge” (Diremp2, Pos. 76) a limitation compounded by the lack of standardized and comparable metrics (Pesq1, Pos. 86) and the reliance on largely voluntary evaluation frameworks (Pesq5, Pos. 85). Nonetheless, ethical alignment is increasingly associated with economic viability, particularly within financial markets: “Financial institutions now only lend to or provide financing for sustainable companies” (Pesq4, Pos. 31), reflecting a broader perception that integrity is positively valued by investors (Pesq1, Pos. 109).

From the demand side, consumer behavior emerges as an additional mediating mechanism. Conscious consumption operates as an informal form of regulation, exemplified by boycott practices: “Often, there is a kind of boycott mechanism, where consumers organize to reduce the purchase of certain goods or services” (Cons1, Pos. 34). Researchers further stress the need for a holistic understanding of corporate ethics, arguing that environmental performance cannot be dissociated from social and economic dimensions such as job security, diversity, inclusion, and mental health (Pesq6, Pos. 97). In this context, clearer goal-setting and improved evaluation practices are seen as essential for strengthening the legitimacy of ethically oriented investments (Pesq6, Pos. 102; Pesq7, Pos. 120).

Overall, the findings point to a positive but non-linear relationship between ethically oriented CSR practices and financial performance. This relationship is mediated by reputational capital, access to financing, operational efficiencies, and accountability mechanisms, reinforcing the view that ethical CSR contributes to financial outcomes indirectly and predominantly over the medium to long term, rather than through immediate or linear effects.

The literature emphasizes that sustainable value creation extends beyond isolated initiatives or marketing rhetoric, requiring the integration of ethical values into the core of corporate strategy and the consideration of social and environmental impacts across the entire value chain (Porter; Kramer, 2011; Pfitzer; Bockstette; Stamp, 2013). Sustainable value, therefore, depends on an inclusive and collaborative approach involving multiple stakeholders.

Empirical evidence confirms both progress and persistent structural challenges. Executives describe a systemic approach to impact management, highlighting the need to understand partnerships and operations across the full value chain: “It starts when we establish a partnership, whether through purchasing or sales; we seek to understand the entire value chain as a whole” (Diremp1, Pos. 103). This perspective translates into operational optimizations aimed at reducing environmental impacts, such as packaging efficiency and carbon footprint reduction (Diremp1, Pos. 103). At the same time, the notion of a “good business” is expanded to include distributed benefits that extend beyond profitability: “A good business does not simply mean selling a product. It means ensuring that, from profitability to impact, everyone involved benefits” (Diremp1, Pos. 112). In environmentally or socially sensitive contexts, executives further emphasize the role of socio-environmental impact assessments as a prerequisite for responsible project implementation (Diremp2, Pos. 31).

The interdependence between internal and external value creation is also made explicit in organizational narratives. As one executive noted, “To create value for internal teams, we necessarily need to create value for everyone else” (Diremp2, Pos. 60), a logic reflected in concrete inclusion and mobility initiatives such as youth apprenticeship programs (Diremp1, Pos. 54).

Researchers acknowledge sectoral advances—particularly in areas such as sustainable agribusiness (Pesq3, Pos. 98)—but stress that sustainable value creation only consolidates when it transcends isolated corporate actions and fosters strategic alliances across sectors and value chains: “Today, companies have realized that forming strategic alliances, even among competitors, can truly be advantageous for value creation” (Pesq4, Pos. 77). Nonetheless, cultural and organizational barriers persist, notably the tendency toward firm-level isolation (Pesq6, Pos. 87). Advancing this agenda requires greater conceptual and instrumental clarity, including shared definitions of sustainability, explicit value criteria, and appropriate evaluation tools (Pesq7, Pos. 109).

In sum, the findings indicate that companies are moving toward more structural practices that integrate economic, social, and environmental dimensions. However, the consolidation of sustainable value depends on collaborative networks, clearly defined objectives, and consistent assessment mechanisms, reinforcing the view that sustainable value creation is a collective and intentional construction rather than an automatic outcome of CSR adoption (Porter; Kramer, 2011; Pfitzer; Bockstette; Stamp, 2013).

The findings confirm that ethics and integrity function as structural, rather than merely normative, pillars of sustainable value creation and organizational performance. Their influence unfolds through interconnected dimensions, including legitimacy and reputation, transparency and reporting, operational efficiency, and systemic collaboration.

Stakeholder perceptions are shaped primarily by the degree of ethical coherence between discourse and practice, in line with Pham and Tran (2020) and Conte et al. (2023). Integrity becomes verifiable through mechanisms such as audits and whistleblowing channels (Diremp1, Pos. 67; Diremp1, Pos. 82), strengthening trust and corporate reputation (Diremp2, Pos. 54), particularly under conditions of digital hypervisibility (Diremp1, Pos. 150). Transparency further mitigates the risks of greenwashing and social washing (Pesq5, Pos. 55; Pesq5, Pos. 63) and reinforces legitimacy among specialized stakeholders, including analysts and investors (Pesq7, Pos. 92). In this context, stakeholders operate as “ethical filters” (Pesq3, Pos. 50), influencing consumption patterns and, in some cases, mobilizing collective responses such as boycotts (Cons1, Pos. 34).

At the organizational level, the integration of ethics into corporate strategy connects CSR to tangible economic and operational outcomes. Practices such as circular economy initiatives, reverse logistics, and supply chain optimization translate integrity into efficiency gains and competitive differentiation (Diremp1, Pos. 103; Diremp1, Pos. 112), consistent with the shared value logic proposed by Porter and Kramer (2011). At the same time, persistent difficulties in measuring returns on intangible investments highlight the need for clearly defined metrics and targets (Pesq7, Pos. 120; Pesq1, Pos. 86).

Beyond firm-level performance, ethics and integrity foster sustainable value by promoting a systemic perspective across the value chain, involving communities, suppliers, and strategic partners (Diremp1, Pos. 102; Diremp2, Pos. 60). Overcoming sectoral isolation and strengthening collaborative arrangements emerge as key mechanisms for translating ethical principles into collective and durable outcomes (Pesq4, Pos. 77; Pesq6, Pos. 87).

In summary, sustainable value creation and organizational performance depend on the coherent alignment of verifiable integrity, communicational transparency, operational efficiency, and interorganizational collaboration. An important empirical nuance nevertheless emerges, although ethics enhances reputational resilience and access to markets, a persistent gap remains in the quantification of intangible returns. This finding reinforces that sustainable value does not result from isolated ethical conduct, but from organizational capacity to integrate governance, operations, and value chains through consistent ethical practice.