The challenge

Sustainability, inequality, and governance crises have put ESG at the center of corporate agendas. Leaders are now expected to embody purpose and credibility in public. Platforms like LinkedIn have amplified this demand, transforming leadership into a hybrid performance that combines institutional authority with personal visibility. Yet research shows that men and women face different expectations in how they communicate, shaping who is seen as legitimate in this new arena.

This tension exposes a critical gap: while companies measure ESG performance in numbers and reports, they rarely address the symbolic and cultural dimensions of leadership that sustain inclusion. Without this layer, many D&I initiatives remain surface-level campaigns — disruptive but unsustainable. The challenge is to design transitions that are strategic, equitable, and culturally grounded, so inclusion and diversity can move from visibility to legitimacy.

 

Our approach

This was the focus of my Master’s research at TISE: Gender Differences in Approaching Sustainability: An Analysis of Multinationals’ CEOs on LinkedIn. The study examined how CEOs communicate ESG commitments online, and how credibility and legitimacy are shaped by gendered leadership patterns. By analyzing 682 LinkedIn posts from 40 CEOs, the research revealed distinct rhetorical strategies and future framings — showing that leadership is not only exercised, but also performed under gendered expectations.

 

The methodology

Instead of focusing only on ESG performance indicators, the research applied a discourse-analytic lens that uncovers how legitimacy is built through language, narrative, and symbolism. It combined gender studies, sustainability theory, and digital platform analysis to reveal:

• How digital platforms influence which leadership styles are validated.
• How gender norms shape the credibility of different rhetorical strategies.
• How future-oriented narratives serve as tools of authority in ESG communication.

This methodology offers companies a complementary layer of ESG analysis: moving beyond compliance and reporting, to understand the cultural and symbolic dimensions of leadership that directly affect inclusion.

 

The delivery

For organizations, this translates into practical applications:

• Diagnostics to identify asymmetries in leadership communication.
• Training programs to broaden the repertoire of legitimate leadership styles.
• Communication strategies that integrate DEI and ESG, making them mutually reinforcing.

 

The impact

The research demonstrates that sustainable inclusion is not about quick campaigns or disruptive shifts. It’s about cultivating transitions that expand what counts as leadership, voice, and authority. By integrating symbolic analysis into ESG, companies can move beyond metrics and embed equity into the way they imagine — and communicate — the future.

The challenge

Global markets are shifting rapidly, and companies with a social and environmental purpose are finding new opportunities abroad. Yet their internationalization processes cannot be approached as if they were traditional firms: their differentiation lies in purpose, certifications, and positioning. The challenge — set by the National Confederation of Industry (CNI) and the Brazilian Service of Support for Micro and Small Enterprises (Sebrae) — was to map how these businesses expand internationally and to generate insights that could guide both institutions and companies on their path.

Our approach

At Îandé, we specialize in strategic research — rigorous enough to generate reliable insights, and practical enough to drive decisions. Together with CNI and Sebrae, we designed a process that combined:

• Desk research — analysis of secondary data to understand context, certifications, standards, and international benchmarks.
• In-depth interviews — qualitative conversations with impact-driven companies to uncover the strategic differentiators behind their global expansion.
• Synthesis and analysis — clustering findings into themes such as opportunities, challenges, government roles, and good practices.
• Action design — developing recommendations not only for companies, but also for institutions seeking to enable and scale internationalization.
  
  

The methodology

The research balanced macro and micro perspectives:

• Contextual mapping of global opportunities and barriers for impact businesses.
• Practical cases showing how companies use purpose as a competitive advantage.
• Analysis of certifications and standards that shape market access.
• Reflection on the role of government and institutions in supporting international growth.
• Guidance on indicators and metrics that can assess readiness and success.
  
  

The delivery

The outcome was a comprehensive study, visually designed and delivered in digital format, accompanied by presentations to diverse audiences. It combined conceptual depth with accessible communication, making it both a reference and a practical tool.

The entire study in Portuguese can be accessed here: https://www.gov.br/mdic/pt-br/assuntos/enimpacto/artigos-e-publicacoes/arquivos/copy_of_ImpactoPositivoCNISebrae.pdf

 

The impact

The study deepened the understanding of how positive impact businesses internationalize — showing that success comes not only from market access strategies, but from embedding purpose into the core of the business model. It also equipped institutions with actionable ways to foster and support this journey.

The challenge

International expansion is a critical pathway for industries with strong potential, but fragmented efforts rarely deliver sustainable results. What was needed was not just isolated actions, but a Sector Project — a collective strategy to strengthen competitiveness abroad, define priority markets, and support companies at different levels of export maturity.

 

Our approach

A project of this scale cannot rely on assumptions. It requires data, methodology, and alignment. To structure it, we designed a process that combined:

• Rigorous analysis — in-depth sector studies, field research, and examination of global trade data.
• Market intelligence — a multi-criteria ranking methodology applied to 168 countries, crossing import/export data, growth rates, and company perspectives.
• Company segmentation — mapping firms according to their export maturity (beginners to advanced) to ensure tailored pathways.
• Strategic focus — organizing the project around four pillars: Image Promotion, Commercial Promotion, Development, and Structural support.
• Goal setting and sustainability — defining realistic, measurable targets, aligned with institutional requirements, while creating the conditions for long-term viability.

 

The methodology

Our methodology integrated both market foresight and organizational strategy.

Our methodology combined quantitative rigor with stakeholder engagement.

• Market prioritization: A two-phase selection matrix considered market size (import volumes, Brazilian exports) and market dynamism (growth from 2016–2019), narrowing 168 countries to 42. This was validated with companies, who added insights on demand drivers, sector trends, and competitor presence.
• Strategic alignment: Objectives — such as increasing high-value exports, diversifying markets, and promoting the sector’s image — were directly linked to the four strategic focus areas, creating a clear logic between goals and actions.

• Segmentation: Companies were not treated as a homogeneous group. Beginners accessed training and basic intelligence, while advanced exporters received individualized support and complex promotion tools. This ensured relevance at every stage of maturity.

• Foundations for measurement: Clear assumptions and parameters defined export targets, company participation, and performance indicators, creating transparency and accountability for results.

 

The delivery

The outcome was a complete Sector Project: a detailed budget, an action plan for international promotion, and a sustainability model to ensure continuity. The project was submitted, approved, and funded for two years (with renewal cycles), and we accompanied it through institutional review processes to guarantee alignment and fine-tune execution.

 

The impact

This work became a shared roadmap for internationalization, giving companies clarity on markets, readiness, and opportunities. For the sector, it built coherence, strengthened competitiveness, and enabled consistent positioning in global markets.

The challenge

When a fast-growing tech company needed to define its organizational culture, the stakes were high. After mergers and rapid expansion, leaders sought a clear and authentic Code of Culture — one that could unify new teams, sustain growth, and guide decisions for the future.

Our approach

Culture cannot be captured in a template or a single workshop. It emerges from the subtleties of daily life, and to truly understand it, you need methods that go beneath the surface. Partnering with In-Versa, we designed a process that combined:

• Rigorous analysis — interviews, employee narratives, surveys, benchmarking, and multiple cultural frameworks (Schein, HBR, Laloux, Spencer Stuart, leadership paradigms).
• Integration of perspectives — crossing qualitative insights with developmental models to expose tensions between collaboration, performance, and purpose.
• Stakeholder connection — engaging C-level leaders and frontline employees alike, ensuring the culture reflected many voices.

The methodology

Our analysis was guided by three pillars: Culture dimensions, Organizational development, and Leadership.

• Culture dimensions (HBR): This model examines how people interact (autonomy vs. interdependence) and how they respond to change (stability vs. flexibility). The company showed strong tendencies toward collaboration and adaptability, while still carrying traces of competition and a need for clearer structures. This raised a key question for leadership: how to preserve a collaborative, innovative spirit without losing the systems that sustain long-term growth?

• Organizational culture (Spencer Stuart): Mapping eight culture types across independence, interdependence, flexibility, and stability, this framework helped us highlight which cultural forces were strongest, which were less present, and how they interacted. The company balanced collaboration, performance, and purpose — but also faced strategic choices on which traits to reinforce for its future.
  

• Organizational development (Laloux): Using the five stages of collective consciousness, we found the company operating between Orange (performance-driven, competitive) and Green (collaborative, pluralistic). This tension revealed both risks and opportunities: systems still rewarded individual merit, while employees were increasingly drawn to distributed leadership and shared purpose.

• Leadership (Integral Metamodel + Paradigm Shift): We connected structural elements (individuals, relationships, systems) with the evolving paradigms of leadership (Brown, Wheatley, Kofman). Leaders spoke the language of collaboration, yet old patterns persisted: competition was rewarded over co-creation, and fear of mistakes limited psychological safety. The insight was clear — evolving leadership required not only new practices, but also a shift in mental models to create space for courage, complexity, and shared responsibility.

The delivery

We brought these insights together through Schein’s three cultural layers:

• Exposed values — consciously defined by leadership, controllable.
• Artifacts — rituals, symbols, and practices that reinforce values, also controllable.
• Underlying assumptions — collective beliefs that shape behavior, not directly controllable.

This framework helped leadership see where deliberate action could shape culture and where change would depend on long-term reinforcement.

The result was not a static manual, but a living Code of Culture: evidence-based, co-created with leadership, and rooted in the real stories of employees. Alongside it, the organization received detailed analyses of leadership practices, cultural dynamics, and developmental challenges — a foundation for immediate action and long-term evolution.

The impact

Leaders gained clarity on how to sustain collaboration without losing focus on results. Teams saw themselves reflected in the culture. And the organization left with a cultural compass — not just words on the wall, but a framework to grow with integrity.

Because culture isn’t declared. It’s cultivated. And it takes analysis, methodology, and human connection to bring it to life.