Dialogues among stakeholders of sugar-energy sector: an analysis of the institutional environment with sights to the social and environment factors
Keywords:Agribusiness, Sustainability, Bioenergy, Pressure groups, Institutional arrangement, Advanced technologies
Brazilian sugar-energy sector has being defended as a sustainable alternative, as well as innovator for the energy matrix of the country. The sector is not only dependent on the innovative capacities of individual firms and the state policies, but on the interaction among the other stakeholders involved. It is about a descriptive and exploratory research of qualitative nature. The objective was to analyze how the dialogues among stakeholders occur, concerning social and environmental factors, in the institutional environment of the sugar-energy sector, in Mato Grosso do Sul. Interviews with six stakeholders linked to the sugar-energy sector were performed, besides a documentary analysis. Category content analysis was applied. It was evidenced that stakeholders make use of dialogue approaches as a strategic tool to identify the needs of improvements on sugar-energy sector before the institutional changes, making possible the integration among the different links of the sugar-energy sector to ease the conflicts of interests. The development of the sector is based on sustainable practices. The results highlight that the dialogue approach generates effective results, which propitiate more local sustainable development, encouraging the ecobusiness.
AMASON, A. C., HOCHWARTER, A. W., THOMPSON, K. R. Conflict: An important dimension in successful management teams. Organizational Dynamics. 1995.
AZEVEDO, D.B. Diálogos entre Stakeholders em Redes de Organizações de Agronegócios na Busca da Mitigação dos Efeitos da Mudança Climática: O Caso do Instituto do Agronegócio Responsável – ARES. 2010, 204 f. Tese (Doutorado em Agronegócios). Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul – UFRGS. Porto Alegre, 2010.
BANDURA, A. Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. 1971.
BANDURA, A. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 1986.
BARBER, B. R. Strong democracy. University of California Press, London. 1984.
BARDIN, L. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa: Edições 70 (obra originalmente publicada em 1977), 2006.
BOKENO, M. R, GANTT, V. W. Dialogic Mentoring, Core Relationships for Organizational Learning. Management Communication Quarterly. 2000.
BOHMAN, J. Public deliberation: Pluralism, complexity and democracy. Cambridge USA: MIT Press. 1996.
CRESWELL, J. W. Projeto de Pesquisa: métodos qualitativo, quantitativo e misto. Trad. Luciana de Oliveira da Rocha. 2ª ed. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2010
CUPPEN, E. Putting Perspectives into Participation Constructive Conflict. Methodology for problem structuring in stakeholder dialogues. Rotterdam, Netherlands. 2009.
DURANT, J. An experiment in democracy. In: JOSS, S., DURANT, J. Public participation in science. The role of consensus conferences in Europe. Science Museum with the support of the European Commission Directorate General XII, London. 1995.
ETZIONI, A. The active society. A theory of societal and political processes. New York, 1968.
FISCHER, F. Citizens, experts and the environment. Durham USA: Duke University Press. 2000.
FUNTOWICZ, S. O., RAVETZ, J. R. Science for the post-normal age. Futures. 1993.
GIBBONS, M.; LIMOGES, C.; NOWOTNY, H.; SCHWARTZMAN, S.; SCOTT, P., TROW, M. The new production of knowledge. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. 1994.
HOCKINGS, M.; STOLTON, S.; DUDLEY, N. Evaluating effectiveness: A Framework for Assessing the Management of Protected Areas. International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN). Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. 2000.
HISSCHEMÖLLER, M. Participation as knowledge production and the limits of democracy. 2005. In MAASEN, S., WEINGART. P. (Eds.), Democratization of expertise? Exploring new forms of scientific advice in political decision-making. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
HOFFMAN, R. L. Homogeneity of member personality and its effect on group problem- solving. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology.1959.
HOFFMAN, R. L. MAIER, N. R. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961.
JAEGER, C. C.; RENN, O.; ROSA, E.; A. WEBLER, T. Risk, Uncertainty, and Rational Action. Earthscan, London. 2001.
JEHN, K.A., NORTHCRAFT, G. B., NEALE, M. A. Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1999.
KLEIN, T. J. Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures. 2004.
LEVINE, J. M. RESNICK, L. B. Social foundations of cognitions. Annual Review of Psychology. 1993.
MAPA. MINISTÉRIO DA AGRICULTURA, PECUÁRIA E ABASTECIMENTO. Câmaras setoriais e temáticas. 2015. Disponível em: <http://www.agricultura.gov.br/camaras-setoriais-e-tematicas > Acesso em: 15 jun. 2016.
MASON, R. O. MITROFF, I. I. Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases and techniques. New York: Wiley. 1981.
MICHELS, I. L.; SPROESSER, R. L.; MENDONÇA, C. G. Cadeia produtiva da carne bovina de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande: Editora Oeste, 2001.
OELS, A. Evaluating Stakeholder Dialogues. in: Stoll-Kleemann, S./Welp, M. (eds.) Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management. Theory and practice. Springer: Berlin. 117-151. 2006.
RENN, O. The challenge of integrating deliberation and expertise: Participation and discourse in risk management. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2004.
ROPER, J. et al. Science dialogues: Talking about science. 2004.
SAUNDERS, H. H. A public peace process. Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New York: St. Martin‘s Press. 1999.
USDA, United States Department of Agriculture, 2015
VAN A. M., RIJKENS K. N. A look in the mirror: Reflection on participation in Integrated Assessment from a methodological perspective. Global Environmental Change, 12, 167-184. 2002.
VAN K. M. Debating climate change: A study of stakeholder participation in a integrated assessment of long-term climate policy in the Netherlands. Utrecht: Lemma. 2009.
VERGARA, S.C. Métodos de pesquisa em administração. São Paulo: Atlas, 2005.
WEBLER, T.; KASTENHOLZ, H.; RENN, O. Public participation in impact assessment: A social learning perspective. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. 1995.
WELP, M. et al. Science-based stakeholder dialogues: theories and tools. Global Environmental Change, Guildford, v. 16, n. 2, p. 170-181, 2006b.
WELP, M. et al. Science-based stakeholder dialogues in climate change research. In: STOLL-KLEEMANN, S.; WELP, M. (Eds.). Stakeholders dialogues in natural resources management. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2006a.
- 2022-09-23 (2)
- 2022-07-25 (1)
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2022 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.