Dataset Information

Data on the environmental sustainability index of large Brazilian companies.

ABSTRACT: This data article is related to the research article "Exploring the Relationship between Internal Pressures, Greenhouse Gas Management and Performance of Brazilian Companies" (Rosa et al, 2019). This presents data collected from 63 large Brazilian companies organized as follows: Industrial Goods (2); Construction and Transportation (12); Cyclical Consumption (3); Non-Cyclical Consumption (3); Financial and Other (6); Basic Materials (4); Information Technology (2); Telecommunications (2); and Electricity (29). These data were collected by the questionnaire administered by the São Paulo Stock Exchange (Brazil) about internal factors of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of an Environmental Management System (EMS) and the reduction of emission of greenhouse gases and economic performance. The data were used to show a relationship between the use of EMS and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and economic performance. The data also show that risk management and the pursuit of opportunities related to climate change and establishing incentives at different levels linked to reduction targets, together with employee awareness and training, have an impact on managing greenhouse gas emissions and the greenhouse effect.

SUBMITTER: Rosa FS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6535814 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Data on the environmental sustainability index of large Brazilian companies.

Rosa F S FS Lunkes R J RJ Brizzolla M M B MMB

Data in brief 20190309

This data article is related to the research article "Exploring the Relationship between Internal Pressures, Greenhouse Gas Management and Performance of Brazilian Companies" (Rosa et al, 2019). This presents data collected from 63 large Brazilian companies organized as follows: Industrial Goods (2); Construction and Transportation (12); Cyclical Consumption (3); Non-Cyclical Consumption (3); Financial and Other (6); Basic Materials (4); Information Technology (2); Telecommunications (2); and El ...[more]

PMID: 31193547

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Understanding the profitability of pharmaceutical companies is essential to formulating evidence-based policies to reduce drug costs while maintaining the industry's ability to innovate and provide essential medicines. Objective:To compare the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies with other large companies. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study compared the annual profits of 35 large pharmaceutical companies with 357 companies in the S&P 500 Index from 2000 to 2018 using information from annual financial reports. A statistically significant differential profit margin favoring pharmaceutical companies was evidence of greater profitability. Exposures:Large pharmaceutical vs nonpharmaceutical companies. Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcomes were revenue and 3 measures of annual profit: gross profit (revenue minus the cost of goods sold); earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA; pretax profit from core business activities); and net income, also referred to as earnings (difference between all revenues and expenses). Profit measures are described as cumulative for all companies from 2000 to 2018 or annual profit as a fraction of revenue (margin). Results:From 2000 to 2018, 35 large pharmaceutical companies reported cumulative revenue of $11.5 trillion, gross profit of $8.6 trillion, EBITDA of $3.7 trillion, and net income of $1.9 trillion, while 357 S&P 500 companies reported cumulative revenue of $130.5 trillion, gross profit of $42.1 trillion, EBITDA of $22.8 trillion, and net income of $9.4 trillion. In bivariable regression models, the median annual profit margins of pharmaceutical companies were significantly greater than those of S&P 500 companies (gross profit margin: 76.5% vs 37.4%; difference, 39.1% [95% CI, 32.5%-45.7%]; P < .001; EBITDA margin: 29.4% vs 19%; difference, 10.4% [95% CI, 7.1%-13.7%]; P < .001; net income margin: 13.8% vs 7.7%; difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 2.5%-9.7%]; P < .001). The differences were smaller in regression models controlling for company size and year and when considering only companies reporting research and development expense (gross profit margin: difference, 30.5% [95% CI, 20.9%-40.1%]; P < .001; EBITDA margin: difference, 9.2% [95% CI, 5.2%-13.2%]; P < .001; net income margin: difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.011%-7.2%]; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance:From 2000 to 2018, the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies was significantly greater than other large, public companies, but the difference was less pronounced when considering company size, year, or research and development expense. Data on the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies may be relevant to formulating evidence-based policies to make medicines more affordable.

Project description:Brazilian beef systems contribute 14.9% of global beef production, therefore given climate change concerns, there is a clear need to reduce environmental impacts while maintaining economic viability. This study evaluated the hypothesis that steroid implant use in Brazilian beef cattle would reduce resource use, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and economic costs of production, thereby improving environmental and economic sustainability. A deterministic model based on beef cattle population demographics, nutrition and performance was used to quantify resource inputs and GHG emissions per 1.0 × 106 kg of hot carcass weight (HCW) beef. System boundaries extended from cropping input manufacture to cattle arriving at the slaughterhouse. Beef systems were modeled using herd population dynamics, feed and performance data sourced from producers in four Brazilian states, with additional data from global databases. Implants were used in calves, growing and finishing cattle at low (LI), medium (MI), and high (HI) levels of performance enhancement, compared to nonimplanted (NI) controls. Feed use results were used in combination with producer-derived input costs to assess the economic impacts of implant use, including production costs and returns on investment. Improved FCE, ADG, and carcass weights conferred by implant use reduced the number of cattle and the time taken to produce 1.0 × 106 kg HCW beef. Compared to NI controls, the quantities of feed, land, water and fossil fuels required to produce 1.0 × 106 kg HCW beef was reduced in implanted cattle, with reductions proportional to the performance-enhancing effect of the implant (HI > MI > LI). Implant use reduced GHG emissions per 1.0 × 106 kg HCW beef by 9.4% (LI), 12.6% (MI), or 15.8% (HI). Scaling up the MI effects to represent all eligible Brazilian cattle being implanted, revealed avoided GHG emissions equivalent to the annual exhaust emissions of 62.0 × 106 cars. Economic impacts of implant use reflected the environmental results, resulting in a greater margin for the producers within each system (cow-calf through to finishing). The 6.13% increase in kg of HCW beef produced generates a cost reduction of 3.76% and an increase in the return on invested capital of 4.14% on average. Implants offer the opportunity for Brazilian beef producers to demonstrate their dedication to improving environmental and economic sustainability through improved productivity, although care must be taken to avoid negative trade-offs.

Dataset Information

Data on the environmental sustainability index of large Brazilian companies.

Publications

Data on the environmental sustainability index of large Brazilian companies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets