BRICS+: Current AgendaBRICS+: Current AgendaБРИКС+: актуальная повестка51063WORLD ECONOMYResearch ArticleAssessing ESG Commitment in BRICS CompaniesОценка приверженности компаний стран БРИКС принципам ESGhttps://orcid.org/0000-0003-3485-5595RatnerSvetlana V.РатнерСветлана Валерьевна

Grand PhD in Economics, Professor at the Department of Economics and Mathematical Modeling

доктор экономических наук, профессор кафедры экономико-математического моделирования

ratner-sv@rudn.ruhttps://orcid.org/0009-0003-5390-7327ArutiunianMarat V.АрутюнянМарат Ваграмович

Postgraduate Student at the Department of Economic and Mathematical Modeling

аспирант кафедры экономико-математического моделирования

1082258070@pfur.ruRUDN UniversityРоссийский университет дружбы народов0707202612VOL 1, NO2 (2025)ТОМ 1, №2 (2025)17819107072026Copyright ©; 2026, Ratner S.V., Arutiunian M.V.Copyright ©; 2026, Ратнер С.В., Арутюнян М.В.2026Ratner S.V., Arutiunian M.V.Ратнер С.В., Арутюнян М.В.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0https://bricsplus-j.ru/BRICSplusJournal/article/view/51063

While Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles are globally recognized, their implementation within the BRICS bloc is uniquely complex due to diverse socio-economic contexts, varied institutional environments, and the largely discretionary nature of ESG reporting. Existing research points to substantial disparities in ESG performance among these nations, yet a systematic comparative analysis remains underexplored. This study aims to quantitatively assess and compare the level and nature of ESG commitment within leading companies across the BRICS nations to illuminate these distinct national priorities. The study employs a term frequency (TF) methodology to analyze non-financial corporate reports from the top 10 publicly listed companies in each BRICS country, selected by market capitalization and other financial indicators. A specialized ESG dictionary was developed based on Bloomberg’s rating methodology and categorized into four pillars: Environmental (E), Social (S), Governance (G), and Methodological (M). A Python script was used to calculate the frequency of these terms, providing a quantitative measure of disclosure focus. The analysis revealed significant heterogeneity in ESG reporting priorities across the bloc. Russian companies demonstrated the highest frequency of Environmental and Social terms. Chinese companies showed the strongest focus on Governance terminology. Brazilian companies led in the usage of Methodological and analytical terms. Overall ESG engagement, measured by total term frequency, was highest in China, followed by Brazil, with South Africa showing the lowest levels of disclosure.

Реализация принципов экологии, социальной ответственности и управления (ESG) в странах БРИКС представляет сложность из-за разнообразия социально-экономических и институциональных сред, а также преимущественно дискреционного характера отчетности. Систематический сравнительный анализ национальных приоритетов ESG в рамках блока остается недостаточно изученным. Исследование направлено на количественную оценку и сравнение уровня и характера приверженности ESG в ведущих компаниях стран БРИКС для выявления этих отличительных национальных приоритетов. Применяется методология частоты использования термино (Term Frequency, TF) для анализа нефинансовых корпоративных отчетов 10 ведущих публичных компаний в каждой стране, отобранных по рыночной стоимости. Специализированный ESG-словарь был разработан на основе рейтингов Bloomberg и категоризирован по четырем направлениям: экологическое (E), социальное (S), корпоративное управление (G) и методологическое (M). Для расчета частоты терминов и количественной оценки фокуса раскрытия информации использовался скрипт на Python. Анализ выявил значительную неоднородность в приоритетах ESG-отчетности. Российские компании продемонстрировали наибольшую частоту использования экологических и социальных терминов, китайские - управленческих, а бразильские - методологических и аналитических. Общая вовлеченность в ESG была самой высокой в Китае, за которым следует Бразилия, в то время как Южная Африка показала самый низкий уровень раскрытия информации. Исследование подчеркивает специфику подходов к ESG в странах БРИКС.

ESGESGBRICSterm frequencyenvironment pillarsocial pillargovernance pillarmethodology pillarБРИКСанализ частоты терминовэкологическая ответственностьсоциальная ответственностькачество управленияметодологияVeltri S., Bruni, M.E., Iazzolino, G., Morea, D., & Baldissarro, G. (2023). Do ESG factors improve utilities corporate efficiency and reduce the risk perceived by credit lending institutions? An empirical analysis. *Utilities Policy*, 81, 101520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2023.101520Pedersen, L.H., Fitzgibbons, S., & Pomorski, L. (2021). Responsible investing: the ESG-efficient frontier. *Journal of Financial Economics*, 142(2), 572–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2020.11.001Ali, S., Al-Nassar, N.S., Sindhu, M.I., & Naveed, M. (2025). Sustainable synergy: static and dynamic nexus between ESG and BRICS equity markets. *Research in International Business and Finance*, 74, 102698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2024.102698Cherian, S., & Seranmadevi, R. (2025). Does ESG integration enhance financial performance in emerging economies? A systematic review of BRICS. *Achieving Sustainable Business through AI, Technology Education and Computer Science*, 383–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70855-8_33Mazzioni, S., Soschinski, C.K., Leite, M., Dal Magro, C.B., & Raimundini Sanches, S.L. (2024). ESG performance in emerging economies. *Macro Management & Public Policies*, 6(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.30564/mmpp.v6i1.6202Hieu, V.M., & Hai, N.T. (2022). The role of environmental, social, and governance responsibilities and economic development on achieving the SDGs: evidence from BRICS countries. *Economic Research = Ekonomska Istraživanja*, 36(1), 1338–1360. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2022.2086598Dobrowolski, Z., Drozdowski, G., Janjua, L.R., Panait, M., & Szołtysek, J. (2025). Econometric analysis of BRICS countries' activities in 1990–2022: seeking evidence of sustainability. *Energies*, 18(3), 656. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18030656Yu, C., Farooq, O., Alam, M., & Dai, J. (2024). How does environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance determine investment mix? New empirical evidence from BRICS. *Borsa Istanbul Review*, 24(3), 520–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2024.02.007Jaiswal, J.K., Pandey, D.K., & Kumar, B. (2024). Green and sustainable finance research in BRICS countries: review and research agenda. *Development and Sustainability in Economics and Finance*, 1(1), 100008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsef.2024.100008 EDN: WARUUIAlgarhi, A.S., & Karimazondo, M.P. (2024). The impact of ESG on economic growth: evidence from BRICS+ countries. *Theoretical Economics Letters*, 14(4), 1478–1487. https://doi.org/10.4236/tel.2024.144071Jiang, C., Li, X., Xu, Q., & Liu, J. (2024). Does environmental protection tax impact corporate ESG greenwashing? A quasi-natural experiment in China. *Economic Analysis and Policy*, 84, 774–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2024.09.029Azam, N., & Yao, J.T. (2012). Comparison of term frequency and document frequency based feature selection metrics in text categorization. *Expert Systems with Applications*, 39(5), 4760–4768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.09.160Louche, C., Delautre, G., & Balvedi Pimentel, G. (2023). Assessing companies' decent work practices: an analysis of ESG rating methodologies. *International Labour Review*, 162(1), 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/ilr.12370Lusk, E., & Wells, M. (2021). Bloomberg's ESG Governance ISS QualityScore [GQS™]: Vetting results of a taxonomic sorting trial. *International Journal of Scientific and Management Research*, 4(5), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.37502/IJSMR.2021.4505Shen, H., Lin, H., Han, W., & Wu, H. (2023). ESG in China: a review of practice and research, and future research avenues. *China Journal of Accounting Research*, 16(4), 100325.Alekseev, P.V. (2022). Trends and perspectives of the implementation of the ESG principles in the Russian economy. *Review of Business and Economics Studies*, 10(3), 26–32.Tolkachev, I., Kotov, A., Chelukhina, N., Asyaeva, E., & Perepelitsa, D. (2023). Green economy and ESG in Russia: project evaluation criteria, risk analysis and management methods. *Journal of Law and Sustainable Development*, 11(1), e0265. https://doi.org/10.37497/sdgs.v11i1.265Possebon, E., Cippiciani, F.A., Savoia, J., & de Mariz, F. (2024). ESG scores and performance in Brazilian public companies. *Sustainability*, 16(13), 5650. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5350099De Souza, L.M. (2023). Integration of ESG factors into financial regulations in Brazil: an overview. *Revista do CEJUR/TJSC: Prestação Jurisdicional*, 11, e0407. https://doi.org/10.37497/revistacejur.v11i00.407Chininga, E., Alhassan, A.L., & Zeka, B. (2024). ESG ratings and corporate financial performance in South Africa. *Journal of Accounting in Emerging Economies*, 14(3), 692–713. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAEE-03-2023-0072Nyakurukwa, K., & Seetharam, Y. (2023). Investor reaction to ESG news sentiment: evidence from South Africa. *EconomiA*, 24(1), 68–85. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECON-09-2022-0126