Dialogues among stakeholders of sugar-energy sector: an analysis of the institutional environment with sights to the social and environment factors





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.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Paula Silva Santos, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, MS, Brasil

Doctoral student in Administration. Master in Administration. Doctoral student in Administration. Member of the CNPQ Research Groups "Evolutionary Dynamics of Human Organizations" and "Sustainability of Agribusiness" and "NUPECON". Graduated in Administration.

Denise Barros Azevedo, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, MS, Brasil

Holds a degree in Agronomy, a Masters in Applied Economics and a PhD in Agribusiness. Is an integral manager of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.

Erlaine Binotto, Universidade Federal da Grande Dourados, Dourados, MS, Brasil

He holds a degree in Business Administration, a Specialization in Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of Teaching, a Master's and Doctorate in Agribusiness and a sandwich doctorate The University of Queensland.

Silvia Morales de Queiroz Caleman, Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande, MS, Brasil

Post-Doctorate in Economics of Organization (Rotterdam School of Management/ Erasmus University); Doctor in Administration, Master in Agribusiness and graduated in Agronomic Engineering.

Guilherme Cunha Malafaia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil

Holds undergraduate and graduate degrees in Business Administration, a master's degree in Rural Economics and a doctorate in Agribusiness.


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.



2022-07-25 — Updated on 2022-09-23


How to Cite

Santos, P. S., Azevedo, D. B., Binotto, E., Caleman, S. M. de Q., & Malafaia, G. C. (2022). Dialogues among stakeholders of sugar-energy sector: an analysis of the institutional environment with sights to the social and environment factors. Ciência E Natura, 44, e35. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X67603 (Original work published July 25, 2022)

Most read articles by the same author(s)