Referências Bibliográficas

86 referências · 67 com link DOI

01

ABNT – ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. ABNT NBR ISO 26000:2010: diretrizes sobre responsabilidade social. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2010.

02

ABNT – ASSOCIAÇÃO BRASILEIRA DE NORMAS TÉCNICAS. ABNT PR2030-2:2024 – norma brasileira de avaliação ESG: Parte 2 - Determinação da materialidade ESG. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT, 2024.

03

ACCOUNTABILITY. AA1000 Stakeholder Engagement Standard 2015. Londres: AccountAbility, 2015.

04

ALBUQUERQUE, Fábio; GOMES, Miguel; RODRIGUES, Maria Albertina Barreiro. What material topics by ESG dimensions can be found within the materiality matrix from the European entities' sustainability reports? Cogent Business & Management, v. 11, n. 1, 2024.

DOI: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2369212
05

ASWAIN, Ilanur Elyssa Bart et al. Harmonizing business practices of events and convention industry through sustainability assessment framework development. Cleaner and Responsible Consumption, v. 15, 2024.

DOI: 10.1016/j.clrc.2024.100226
06

BARRON, F. H.; BARRETT, B. E. Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Management Science, v. 42, n. 11, p. 1515-1523, 1996a.

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.42.11.1515
07

BARRON, F. H.; BARRETT, B. E. The efficacy of SMARTER: simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychologica, v. 93, n. 1-3, p. 23-36, 1996b.

DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(96)00010-8
08

BEHZADIAN, M.; KAZEMZADEH, R. B.; ALBADVI, A.; AGHDASI, M. PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, v. 200, n. 1, p. 198-215, 2010.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021
09

BESKE, Felix; HAUSTEIN, Ellen; LORSON, Peter C. Materiality analysis in sustainability and integrated reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, v. 11, n. 1, p. 162-186, 2020.

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2018-0343
10

BESKE, P.; LAND, A.; SEURING, S. Sustainable supply chain management practices and dynamic capabilities in the food industry: A critical analysis of the literature. International Journal of Production Economics, v. 152, p. 131-143, 2014.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.026
11

BEYNE, Jan; MORATIS, Lars. A material world: how can materiality assessments be used to define organizational sustainability priorities, while taking into account the United Nations' SDGs? Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, v. 25, n. 1, p. 47-70, 2025.

DOI: 10.1108/CG-03-2023-0106
12

BOGDAN, Victoria; RUS, Luminița; MATICA, Diana Elisabeta. The interconnection of double materiality assessment, circularity practices disclosure and business development in the fast fashion industry. Sustainability, v. 17, n. 4, 2025.

DOI: 10.3390/su17041619
13

BORCHERDING, K.; EPEL, T.; VON WINTERFELDT, D. Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science, v. 37, n. 12, p. 1603-1619, 1991.

DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.37.12.1603
14

BORODIYENKO, Oksana; ZLENKO, Andrii; MALYKHINA, Yana; KIM, Kateryna; DIACHKOVA, Natalia. Socio-economic prerequisites of strategic development of educational institutions. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, v. 1, n. 42, p. 464-475, 2022.

DOI: 10.55643/fcaptp.1.42.2022.3763
15

BOTTOMLEY, P. A.; DOYLE, J. R. A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best. Omega, v. 29, n. 6, p. 553-560, 2001.

DOI: 10.1016/s0305-0483(01)00044-5
16

BRANS, J. P.; VINCKE, P. A preference ranking organisation method: The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision making. Management Science, v. 31, n. 6, p. 647-656, 1985.

17

BRUNDTLAND, G. H. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.

18

CAIAZZA, Stefano; GALLOPPO, Giuseppe; PAIMANOVA, Viktoriia. The role of sustainability performance after merger and acquisition deals in short and long-term. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 314, 2021.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127982
19

CALABRESE, Armando; COSTA, Roberta; LEVIALDI GHIRON, Nathan; MENICHINI, Tamara. Materiality analysis in sustainability reporting: a tool for directing corporate sustainability towards emerging economic, environmental and social opportunities. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, v. 25, n. 5, p. 1016-1038, 2019.

DOI: 10.3846/tede.2019.10550
20

CARIFIO, J.; PERLA, R. Resolving the 50-year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, v. 42, n. 12, p. 1150-1152, 2008.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03172.x
21

CHRISTENSEN, Hans B.; HAIL, Luzi; LEUZ, Christian. Mandatory CSR and sustainability reporting: economic analysis and literature review. Review of Accounting Studies, v. 26, p. 1176-1248, 2021.

DOI: 10.1007/s11142-021-09609-5
22

CINELLI, M.; COLES, S. R.; KIRWAN, K. Analysis of the potentials of multi criteria decision analysis methods to conduct sustainability assessment. Ecological Indicators, v. 46, p. 138-148, 2014.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.06.011
23

CLEMENTINO, Ester; PERKINS, Richard. How do companies respond to Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) ratings? Evidence from Italy. Journal of Business Ethics, v. 171, p. 379-397, 2021.

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-020-04441-4
24

CONTINI, Giuditta; PERUZZINI, Margherita; BULGARELLI, Stefano; BOSI, Gildo. Developing key performance indicators for monitoring sustainability in the ceramic industry: The role of digitalization and industry 4.0 technologies. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 414, 2023.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137664
25

CRONBACH, L. J. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, v. 16, n. 3, p. 297-334, 1951.

DOI: 10.1007/BF02310555
26

D'ADAMO, Idiano. The analytic hierarchy process as an innovative way to enable stakeholder engagement for sustainability reporting in the food industry. Environment, Development and Sustainability, v. 25, p. 15025-15042, 2023.

DOI: 10.1007/s10668-022-02700-0
27

DE BRUCKER, K.; MACHARIS, C.; VERBEKE, A. Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: a stakeholder management approach. European Journal of Operational Research, v. 224, n. 1, p. 122-131, 2013.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2012.02.021
28

DE CRISTOFARO, Tiziana; RAUCCI, Domenico. Rise and fall of the materiality matrix: lessons from a missed takeoff. Administrative Sciences, v. 12, n. 4, 2022.

DOI: 10.3390/admsci12040186
29

DEMIR, Mert; MIN, Maung. Consistencies and discrepancies in corporate social responsibility reporting in the pharmaceutical industry. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, v. 10, n. 2, p. 333-364, 2019.

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2018-0094
30

DRESCH, A.; LACERDA, D. P.; ANTUNES JR., J. A. V. Design Science Research: método de pesquisa para avanço da ciência e tecnologia. Porto Alegre: Bookman, 2015.

31

ECCLES, Robert G.; KRZUS, Michael P.; ROGERS, Jean; SERAFEIM, George. The need for sector-specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, v. 24, n. 2, p. 65-71, 2012.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6622.2012.00380.x
32

FAMULARO, Jordan. Corporate social responsibility communication in the ICT sector: digital issues, greenwashing, and materiality. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, v. 8, 2023.

DOI: 10.1186/s40991-023-00082-8
33

FAROOQ, Muhammad Bilal et al. Examining the extent of and drivers for materiality assessment disclosures in sustainability reports. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, v. 12, n. 5, p. 965-1002, 2021.

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2020-0113
34

FERREIRA, Tamiris Capellaro et al. Sustainable Development Goals: the impact of large representatives in the Brazilian construction industry. Ambiente & Sociedade, v. 26, 2023.

DOI: 10.1590/1809-4422asoc20210058r2vu2023L2OA
35

FIANDRINO, Simona; TONELLI, Alberto; DEVALLE, Alain. Sustainability materiality research: a systematic literature review of methods, theories and academic themes. Qualitative Research in Accounting & Management, v. 19, n. 5, p. 665-695, 2022.

DOI: 10.1108/QRAM-07-2021-0141
36

FORMISANO, Vincenzo; FEDELE, Maria; CALABRESE, Mario. The strategic priorities in the materiality matrix of the banking enterprise. The TQM Journal, v. 30, n. 5, p. 589-607, 2018.

DOI: 10.1108/TQM-11-2017-0134
37

FUNDONI, Marta; PISCHEDDA, Gianfranco. University sustainability assessment and reporting: preliminary findings from the Italian context. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HIGHER EDUCATION ADVANCES, 9., 2023, València. DOI: 10.4995/HEAd23.2023.16163.

DOI: 10.4995/HEAd23.2023.16163
38

GAGNÉ, Vincent; BERTHELOT, Sylvie; COULMONT, Michel. Stakeholder engagement practices and impression management. Journal of Global Responsibility, v. 13, n. 2, p. 217-241, 2022.

DOI: 10.1108/JGR-03-2021-0036
39

GARCÍA-MACHADO, Juan J.; PAPA, Marco; CARRASSI, Mario. The influence of the beliefs of Italian and Spanish managers in their engagement in sustainability reporting. Discover Sustainability, v. 4, 2023.

DOI: 10.1007/s43621-023-00171-5
40

GELDRES-WEISS, Valeska V. et al. Materiality matrix use in aligning and determining a firm's sustainable business model archetype and triple bottom line impact on stakeholders. Sustainability, v. 13, n. 3, 2021.

DOI: 10.3390/su13031065
41

GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE. GRI Standards: consolidated set of sustainability reporting standards. Amsterdam: GRI, 2021.

42

GREENWOOD, Michelle. Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, v. 74, p. 315-327, 2007.

DOI: 10.1007/s10551-007-9509-y
43

GREGOR, S.; HEVNER, A. R. Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, v. 37, n. 2, p. 337-355, 2013.

44

GROMIS DI TRANA, Melchior et al. The interplay between stakeholder engagement and sustainability materiality assessment: a circular perspective. Social Responsibility Journal, v. 20, n. 10, p. 2100-2118, 2024.

DOI: 10.1108/SRJ-04-2024-0234
45

GUNAWAN, Juniati; PERMATASARI, Paulina; FAUZI, Hasan. The evolution of sustainability reporting practices in Indonesia. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 358, 2022.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131798
46

GWET, K. L. Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC, 2014.

47

HALLGREN, K. A. Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: an overview and tutorial. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, v. 8, n. 1, p. 23-34, 2012.

48

HEVNER, A. R.; MARCH, S. T.; PARK, J.; RAM, S. Design Science in Information Systems Research. MIS Quarterly, v. 28, n. 1, p. 75-105, 2004.

49

HÖRISCH, Jacob; FREEMAN, R. Edward; SCHALTEGGER, Stefan. Applying stakeholder theory in sustainability management: links, similarities, dissimilarities, and a conceptual framework. Organization & Environment, v. 27, n. 4, p. 328-346, 2014.

DOI: 10.1177/1086026614535786
50

HUANG, Chi-Jui; KE, Wen-Chyan; CHIANG, Rayleigh Ping-Ying; JHONG, Yu-Cian. Which of environmental, social, and governance pillars can improve merger and acquisition performance? Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 398, 2023.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.136475
51

HUANG, Ivy B.; KEISLER, Jeffrey; LINKOV, Igor. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Science of the Total Environment, v. 409, p. 3578-3594, 2011.

DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.06.022
52

HUEMANN, M.; SILVIUS, G. Projects to create the future: Managing projects meets sustainable development. International Journal of Project Management, v. 35, n. 6, p. 1066-1078, 2017.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.04.014
53

HUQ, Asif M.; MOHAMMADREZAEI, Mahsa. A review of ex ante and ex post materiality measures, and consequences and determinants of material disclosures in sustainability reporting. Journal of Accounting Literature, v. 47, n. 5, p. 71-98, 2025.

DOI: 10.1108/JAL-04-2024-0084
54

IFRS FOUNDATION. SASB's Sustainable Industry Classification System (SICS): industry list. London: IFRS Foundation, 2025.

55

JØRGENSEN, Sveinung; MJØS, Aksel; PEDERSEN, Lars Jacob Tynes. Sustainability reporting and approaches to materiality: tensions and potential resolutions. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, v. 13, n. 2, p. 341-361, 2022.

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-01-2021-0009
56

KLEINDORFER, P. R.; SINGHAL, K.; VAN WASSENHOVE, L. N. Sustainable operations management. Production and Operations Management, v. 14, n. 4, p. 482-492, 2005.

57

KOSI, Urska; RELARD, Paula. Are firms (getting) ready for the corporate sustainability reporting directive? Sustainability Nexus Forum, v. 32, 2024.

DOI: 10.1007/s00550-024-00541-1
58

KRIPPENDORFF, K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2013.

59

KUJALA, Johanna et al. Stakeholder engagement: past, present, and future. Business & Society, v. 61, n. 5, p. 1136-1196, 2022.

DOI: 10.1177/00076503211066595
60

LAKSHAN, A. M. I.; LOW, Mary; DE VILLIERS, Charl. Challenges of, and techniques for, materiality determination of non-financial information used by integrated report preparers. Meditari Accountancy Research, v. 30, n. 3, p. 626-660, 2022.

DOI: 10.1108/MEDAR-11-2020-1107
61

LEAL FILHO, Walter et al. European sustainability reporting standards: An assessment of requirements and preparedness of EU companies. Journal of Environmental Management, v. 380, 2025.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125008
62

MACELLARI, Margherita; YURIEV, Alexander; TESTA, Francesco; BOIRA, Olivier. Exploring bluewashing practices of alleged sustainability leaders through a counter-accounting analysis. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, v. 86, 2021.

DOI: 10.1016/j.eiar.2020.106489
63

MACHARIS, C.; BERNARDINI, A. Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, v. 37, p. 177-186, 2015.

DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002
64

MANETTI, Giacomo. The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: empirical evidence and critical points. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, v. 18, n. 2, p. 110-122, 2011.

DOI: 10.1002/csr.255
65

MARCELINO-SÁDABA, S.; PÉREZ-EZCURDIA, A.; GONZÁLEZ-JAEN, L. F. Using project management as a way to sustainability: From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 99, p. 1-16, 2015.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.03.020
66

MARTTUNEN, M.; LIENERT, J.; BELTON, V. Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations. European Journal of Operational Research, v. 263, n. 1, p. 1-17, 2017.

DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041
67

MIO, Chiara; FASAN, Marco; PAULUZZO, Rubens. Internal application of IR principles: Generali's Internal Integrated Reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 139, p. 204-218, 2016.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.149
68

MORAIS, D. C.; ALMEIDA, A. T.; ALENCAR, L. H.; CLEMENTE, T. R. N. PROMETHEE-ROC model for assessing the readiness of technology for generating energy. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, v. 2015, p. 1-11, 2015.

69

NARVÁEZ-CASTILLO, Viviana Patricia et al. Are material ESG issues making their way into key audit matters? An analysis of Colombian innovative companies. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, v. 9, 2024.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jik.2024.100574
70

NORMAN, G. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, v. 15, n. 5, p. 625-632, 2010.

DOI: 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
71

PEFFERS, K.; TUUNANEN, T.; ROTHENBERGER, M. A.; CHATTERJEE, S. A Design Science Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information Systems, v. 24, n. 3, p. 45-77, 2007.

72

PERERA-ALDAMA, Luis. GRI and materiality: discussions and challenges. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, v. 14, n. 4, p. 884-903, 2023.

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-05-2022-0238
73

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE – PMI. Guia do Conhecimento em gerenciamento de projetos (Guia PMBOK®). 8. ed. Newtown Square, PA: PMI, 2025.

74

RASHED, Abdulkarim Hasan; RASHDAN, Suad Ahmed; ALI-MOHAMED, Ahmed Y. Towards effective environmental sustainability reporting in the large industrial sector of Bahrain. Sustainability, v. 14, n. 1, 2022.

DOI: 10.3390/su14010219
75

SANTOS, José Alexandre dos et al. Organisational responses from the largest slaughterhouses to stakeholders. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 450, 2024.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141979
76

SCIULLI, Nick; ADHARIANI, Desi. The use of integrated reports to enhance stakeholder engagement. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, v. 19, n. 3, p. 447-473, 2023.

DOI: 10.1108/JAOC-11-2021-0156
77

SEPÚLVEDA-ALZATE, Yully Marcela; GARCÍA-BENAU, María Antonia; GÓMEZ-VILLEGAS, Mauricio. Materiality assessment: the case of Latin American listed companies. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, v. 13, n. 1, p. 88-113, 2022.

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2020-0358
78

SIANO, Alfonso et al. Communicating sustainability: an operational model for evaluating corporate websites. Sustainability, v. 8, n. 9, 2016.

DOI: 10.3390/su8090950
79

SILVIUS, G.; SCHIPPER, R. Sustainability in project management: a literature review and impact analysis. Social Business, v. 4, n. 1, p. 63-96, 2014.

80

SULLIVAN, G. M.; ARTINO JUNIOR, A. R. Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, v. 5, n. 4, p. 541-542, 2013.

DOI: 10.4300/JGME-5-4-18
81

SUSTAINABILITY ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD – SASB. SASB Materiality Map. San Francisco: SASB, 2018.

82

TOMMASO, Silvia Ferraz Nogueira de; BORINI, Felipe Mendes. Stakeholder value creation system: understanding the process. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, v. 15, n. 4, p. 777-806, 2024.

DOI: 10.1108/SAMPJ-09-2023-0701
83

TOMMASO, Silvia Ferraz Nogueira de; PINSKY, Vanessa. Creating shared value: the case of innovability at Suzano in Brazil. Innovation & Management Review, v. 19, n. 3, p. 208-221, 2022.

DOI: 10.1108/INMR-07-2021-0120
84

TOMMASO, Silvia Ferraz Nogueira de; RODRIGUES, Ivete. Understanding how firms implemented shared value strategy: a Brazilian business context. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, v. 34, n. 3, p. 721-740, 2023.

DOI: 10.1108/MEQ-05-2022-0140
85

VENTURELLI, Andrea et al. How can CSR identity be evaluated? A pilot study using a Fuzzy Expert System. Journal of Cleaner Production, v. 141, p. 1000-1010, 2017.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.172
86

WONG, Paulina P. Y.; HUI, Mike S. F.; YIP, Angus W. H. The new CEPAR® model: a five-step methodology to tackle corporate ESG challenges. Public Administration and Policy, v. 27, n. 1, p. 6-18, 2024.

DOI: 10.1108/PAP-03-2024-0037

Referências da dissertação de mestrado — PPGEPS/UTFPR · Flávio Augusto Limberger, 2026