Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Curbing Corruption in Brazilian Environmental Governance: A Collective Action and Problem-solving Approach

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Corporate Social Responsibility in Brazil

Part of the book series: CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance ((CSEG))

  • 794 Accesses

Abstract

Brazil is much privileged with biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, the poor implementation of its environmental policies may offer fertile ground for corruption, thereby endangering ecosystem protection. It is widely agreed that corruption thrives where impunity prevails. This view lies with principal-agent theory. Nevertheless, the limited outcomes of anti-corruption interventions worldwide cast doubts on whether corruption can be sufficiently explained by principal-agent theory alone. In this context, we discuss corruption in Brazil’s environmental governance in light of the theoretical viewpoints of collective action and problem-solving. Drawing on these two perspectives, we argue that environmental policy instruments, such as environmental licensing, might be less prone to corruption by eliminating their major inefficiencies. That is, procedural problems (e.g., excessive bureaucracy, ambiguity in legal procedures and lack of electronic information systems) and absence of legitimacy and scientific credibility. Finally, we introduce the anti-corruption coalition Watershed Environmental Net—Coastal Watershed, from Public Prosecutor’s Office of Paraná State, and touch on corruption from a more closely principal-agent perspective. These three perspectives shed light on distinct and yet important issues regarding curbing corruption in Brazil’s environmental governance. Therefore, it is imperative that they be viewed as complementary rather than alternative approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Act n° 12.651/2012 substituted the Act n° 4.771/1965 (Forest Code) and, considering its lack of constitutionality, it is object of three (Unconstitutionality Direct Actions) (Ações Diretas de Inconstitucionalidade), in the Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal), proposed by the Federal Prosecuto’s Office (ADIs 4901, 4902 e 4903), which treats about permanent preservation areas, legal reserve reduction and amnesty to environment offenders.

References

  • ABEMA. (2013). Novas propostas para o licenciamento ambiental no Brasil. Brasília: Associação Brasileira de Entidades Estaduais de Meio Ambiente.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andreoli, C. V. (1992). Principais resultados da política ambiental brasileira: o setor público. Revista de Administração Pública, 4, 10–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashford, N. A. (2002). Government and environmental innovation in Europe and North America. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 1417–1434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo-Santos, V. M., Fearnside, P. M., Oliveira, C. S., Padial, A. A., Pelicice, F. M., Lima, D. P., Simberloff, D., Lovejoy, T. E., Magalhaes, A. L. B., Orsi, M. L., Agostinho, A. A., Esteves, F. A., Pompeu, P. S., Laurance, W. F., Petrere, M., Mormul, R. P., & Vitule, J. R. S. (2017). Removing the abyss between conservation science and policy decisions in Brazil. Biodiversity and Conservation, 26, 1745–1752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, O., Macpherson, A. J., & Alavalapati, J. (2009). Toward a policy of sustainable forest management in Brazil – A historical analysis. The Journal of Environment & Development, 18, 130–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett, R. V., & Kurian, P. A. (1999). The theory of environmental impact assessment: Implicit models of policy-making. Policy and Politics, 27(4), 415–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batory, A. (2012). Why do anti-corruption laws fail in Central Eastern Europe? A target compliance perspective. Regulation & Governance, 6, 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. H. (2001). Um novo modelo para o ministério público na proteção do meio ambiente. In A. B. Alves, A. G. Rufino, José A. F. Silva, (Org.). Funções institucionais do ministério público (pp. 391–400). Saraiva: São Paulo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, A. H. (2003). Introdução ao direito ambiental brasileiro. In J. R. Soares, F. Galvão (Coord.). Direito ambiental na visão da magistratura e do Ministério Público (pp. 11–118). Belo Horizonte: Del Rey.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bragagnolo, C., Lemos, C. C., Ladle, R. J., & Pellin, A. (2017). Streamlining or sidestepping? Political pressure to revise environmental licensing and EIA in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65, 86–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briassoulis, H. (1999). Who plans whose sustainability? Alternative roles for planners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 42(6), 889–902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brito, B., & Barreto, P. (2011). A regularização fundiária avançou na Amazônia? Os dois anos do programa Terra Legal. Belém, Brasil: Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brito, B., & Barreto, P. (2015). Regularização fundiária no Pará: Afinal qual é o problema? Belém, Brazil: Instituto do Homem e Meio Ambiente da Amazônia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brondizio, E. S., Ostrom, E., & Young, O. R. (2009). Connectivity and the governance of multilevel social-ecological systems: The role of social capital. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 34, 253–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, S. R., Mooney, H. A., Agard, J., Capistrano, D., Defries, R. S., Diaz, S., Dietz, T., Duraiappah, A. K., Oteng-Yeboah, A., Pereira, H. M., Perrings, C., Reid, W. V., Sarukhan, J., Scholes, R. J., & Whyte, A. (2009). Science for managing ecosystem services: Beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 1305–1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cashmore, M., Richardson, T., Hilding-Ryedvik, T., & Emmelin, L. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of impact assessment instruments: Theorising the nature and implications of their political constitution. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 30, 371–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CNI. (2013). Proposta da Indústria para o Aprimoramento do Licenciamento Ambiental. Brasília: Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI).

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, C. (2009). Defending public prosecutors and defining Brazil’s environmental “public interest”: A review of Lesley McAllister’s making law matter: Environmental protection and legal institutions in Brazil. The George Washington International Law Review, 40(3), 619–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., et al. (2014, May). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 26, 152–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daiberth, A. (2009). Historical views on environment and environmental Law in Brazil. The George Washington International Law Review, 40, 779–840.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defries, R. S., Foley, J. A., & Asner, G. P. (2004, June). Land-use choices: Balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 2(5), 249–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Groot, R. S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., & Willemen, L. (2010). Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity, 7(3), 260–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu. (2014). Lei Anticorrupção Um retrato das práticas de compliance na era da empresa limpa. Accessed September 5, 2017, from https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/br/Documents/risk/Lei_Anticorrupcao.pdf

  • Dirzo, R., & Raven, P. H. (2003). Global state of biodiversity and loss. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 28, 137–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drummond, J., & Barros-Platiau, A. F. (2006). Brazilian environmental laws and policies, 1934–2002: A critical overview. Law & Policy, 28, 83–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duchelle, A. E., et al. (2014). Linking forest tenure reform, environmental compliance, and incentives: Lessons from REDD plus Initiatives in the Brazilian Amazon. World Development, 55, 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, A., & Kosfeld, M. (2006). The hidden costs of control. American Economic Review, 96, 1611–1630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside, P. M. (2003). Conservation policy in Brazilian Amazonia: Understanding the dilemmas. World Development, 31(5), 757–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside, P. M. (2005, June). Deforestation in Brazilian Amazonia: History, rates, and consequences. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 680–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside, P. M., & Lima de Alencastro Graca, P. M. (2006). BR-319: Brazil’s manaus-porto velho highway and the potential impact of linking the arc of deforestation to central Amazonia. Environmental Management, 38(5), 705–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fearnside, P. M. (2016). Brazilian politics threaten environmental policies. Science, 353, 746–748.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • FMASE. (2013). Proposta de Diretrizes Institucionais para o Novo Marco Legal do licenciamento ambiental dos empreendimentos do setor elétrico. Brasília: Fórum de Meio Ambiente do Setor Elétrico (FMASE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. A., Defries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., Helkowski, J. H., Holloway, T., Howard, E. A., Kucharik, C. J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J. A., Prentice, I. C., Ramankutty, N., & Snyder, P. K. (2005). Global consequences of land use. Science, 309, 570–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J. A., et al. (2007, February). Amazonia revealed: Forest degradation and loss of ecosystem goods and services in the Amazon Basin. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(1), 25–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, A., Sanchez, L. E., & Ribeiro, J. C. J. (2017). Reforming EIA systems: A critical review of proposals in Brazil. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 62, 90–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, J. G. O. (2005). Direito Ambiental Matas Ciliares – Conteúdo Jurídico e Biodiversidade. Curitiba: Juruá.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasparatos, A. (2010). Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and their implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(8), 1613–1622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, H. K., Brown, S., Niles, J. O., & Foley, J. A. (2007). Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: Making REDD a reality. Environmental Research Letters, 2, 13. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/2/4/045023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs, H. K., Rausch, L., Munger, J., Schelly, I., Morton, D. C., Noojipady, P., Soares-Filho, B., Barreto, P., Micol, L., & Walker, N. F. (2015). Brazil’s soy moratorium. Science, 347, 377–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guesnerie, R., & Laffont, J. J. (1984). A complete solution to a class of principal-agent problems with an application to the control of a self-managed firm. Journal of Public Economics, 25, 329–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochstetler, K. (2011). The politics of environmental licensing: Energy projects of the past and future in Brazil. Studies in Comparative International Development, 46, 349–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooper, D. U., et al. (2005, February). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: A consensus of current knowledge. Ecological Monographs, 75(1), 3–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INPE. (2016). Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas Espaciais. Available at http://www.inpe.br/

  • Jain, A. K. (2001). Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys, 15, 71–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jay, S., Jones, C., Slinn, P., & Wood, C. (2007). Environmental impact assessment: Retrospect and prospect. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, 287–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P., et al. (2007, June 29). Domesticated nature: Shaping landscapes and ecosystems for human welfare. Science, 316(5833), 1866–1869.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klink, C. A., & Machado, R. B. (2005). Conservation of the Brazilian Cerrado. Conservation Biology, 19, 707–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, L. (2009). The politics of anti-corruption reform in Africa. Journal of Modern African Studies, 47, 73–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lopes, C. (2005). Cooperação e Desenvolvimento Humano: a agenda emergente para o novo milênio. Unesp: São Paulo.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mackendrick, N. A. (2005). The role of the state in voluntary environmental reform: A case study of public land. Policy Sciences, 38, 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malhi, Y., Roberts, J. T., Betts, R. A., Killeen, T. J., Li, W., & Nobre, C. A. (2008). Climate change, deforestation, and the fate of the Amazon. Science, 319, 169–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marengo, J. A., & Espinoza, J. C. (2016). Extreme seasonal droughts and floods in Amazonia: Causes, trends and impacts. International Journal of Climatology, 36, 1033–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marquette, H., & Pfeiffer, C. (2015). Corruption and collective action. In Developmental leadership programme (Research paper 32). University of Birmingham.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mcallister, L. K. (2008). Making law matter. Environmental protection and legal institutions in Brasil. Stanford: Stanford Law Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Meppem, T., & Bourke, S. (1999). Different ways of knowing: A communicative turn toward sustainability. Ecological Economics, 30(3), 389–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2006). Corruption: Diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Democracy, 17, 86–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D. R., Chan, K. M. A., Daily, G. C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P. M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T. H., & Shaw, M. R. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7, 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nepstad, D., Mcgrath, D., Stickler, C., Alencar, A., Azevedo, A., Swette, B., Bezerra, T., Digiano, M., Shimada, J., da Motta, R. S., Armijo, E., Castello, L., Brando, P., Hansen, M. C., Mcgrath-Horn, M., Carvalho, O., & Hess, L. (2014). Slowing Amazon deforestation through public policy and interventions in beef and soy supply chains. Science, 344, 1118–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nepstad, D. C., Stickler, C. M., Soares-Filho, B., & Merry, F. (2008). Interactions among Amazon land use, forests and climate: Prospects for a near-term forest tipping point. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B-Biological Sciences, 363, 1737–1746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nolte, C., Agrawal, A., & Barreto, P. (2013). Setting priorities to avoid deforestation in Amazon protected areas: Are we choosing the right indicators? Environmental Research Letters, 8(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2015). OECD Environmental performance reviews: Brazil 2015. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ondro, W. J., Couto, L., & Betters, D. R. (1995). The status and practice of forestry in Brazil in the early 1990s. The Forestry Chronicle, 71(1), 106–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oreskes, N. (2004). Science and public policy: What’s proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 369–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1999). Coping with tragedies of the commons. Annual Review of Political Science, 2, 493–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozono, H., Jin, N., Watabe, M., & Shimizu, K. (2016). Solving the second-order free rider problem in a public goods game: An experiment using a leader support system. Scientific Reports, 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep38349

  • Patriota, A. A. (2009). An introduction to Brazilian environmental law. The George Washington International Law Review, 40, 611–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013, July). Why anticorruption reforms fail systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance-an International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 26(3), 449–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philipp, J. R. A., Andreoli, C. V., Collet, B. G., & Fernandes, V. (2014). Histórico e Evolução do Sistema de Gestão. In J. R. A Philippi, M. R. Andrade, & B. G. Collet (Org.), Curso de Gestão Ambiental (2a ed., Vol. 1, pp. 19–50). Barueri: Manole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pope, J., Bond, A., Morrison-Saunders, A., & Retief, F. (2013). Advancing the theory and practice of impact assessment: Setting the research agenda. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 41, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prieur, M. (2012). O Princípio da Proibição do Retrocesso Ambiental. Princípio da Proibição do Retrocesso Ambiental. Senado Federal (pp. 11–54). Brasília: Comissão de Meio Ambiente, Defesa do Consumidor e Fiscalização e Controle.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rands, M. R. W., et al. (2010, September). Biodiversity conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science, 329(5997), 1298–1303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reydon, B. P., Fernandes, V. B., & Telles, T. S. (2015). Land tenure in Brazil: The question of regulation and governance. Land Use Policy, 42, 509–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, M. C., Metzger, J. P., Martensen, A. C., Ponzoni, F. J., & Hirota, M. M. (2009). The Brazilian Atlantic Forest: How much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for conservation. Biological Conservation, 142, 1141–1153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, M. C. (2016a). A Regionalização como Estratégia de Proteção ao Meio Ambiente. Revista Jurídica do Ministério Público, ano 03, no 04, agosto de.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, Melissa Cachoni. A Regionalização como Estratégia de Proteção do Meio Ambiente. Revista Jurídica do Ministério Público do Estado do Paraná, ano 3 - n° 4, 2016b, p. 235–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B. (2011). Anti-corruption: The indirect ‘big bang’ approach. Review of International Political Economy, 18, 228–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rylands, A. B., & Brandon, K. (2005). Brazilian protected area. Conservation Biology, 19(3), 612–618.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sampaio, R. S. R. (2012). Direito ambiental – doutrina e casos práticos. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier/FGV.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, L. E. (2013). Development of environmental impact assessment in Brazil. UVP Report, 27, 193–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sano, H. (2012). The Brazilian National Environmental Policy: The challenge of plural environmental governance. Development, 55, 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sappington, D. E. M. (1991). Incentives in principal-agent relationships. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segerson, K., & Miceli, T. J. (1998). Voluntary environmental agreements: Good or bad news for environmental protection? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 36, 109–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SFB. Serviço Florestal Brasileiro. (2016). Available at http://www.florestal.gov.br/

  • Sistema Ambiental Paulista. (2016). Secretaria do Meio Ambiente do Governo do Estado de São Paulo. Madeira legal vs. Madeira ilegal. Available at http://www.ambiente.sp.gov.br/madeiralegal/madeiralegalvsmadeirailegal/

  • Soares-Filho, B., et al. (2010, June 15). Role of Brazilian Amazon protected areas in climate change mitigation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107(24), 10821–10826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soares-Filho, B., et al. (2014, April 25). Land use cracking Brazil’s Forest code. Science, 344(6182), 363–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunderlin, W. D. (1995). Global environmental-change, sociology, and paradigm isolation. Global Environmental Change-Human and Policy Dimensions, 5(3), 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • TEEB. (2010). TEEB report for business. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, D. (2000). The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76, 399–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tscharntke, T., Klein, A. M., Kruess, A., Steffan-Dewenter, I., & Thies, C. (2005). Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity – ecosystem service management. Ecology Letters, 8, 857–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ugur, M., & Dasgupta, N. (2011). Evidence on the economic growth impacts of corruption in low-income countries and beyond: A systematic review. London: EPPI Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP. (2008). Corruption and development: Anti-corruption interventions for poverty reduction, realization of the MDGs and promoting sustainable development. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP. 2009. Environmental governance. Accessed November 27, 2017, from http://staging.unep.org/pdf/brochures/EnvironmentalGovernance.pdf

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, R. K. (2012). Environmental impact assessment: The state of the art. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 30, 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, E. (2011). Introdução ao Pensamento Complexo: Tradução de Eliane Lisboa (p. 5). Porto Alegre: Sulina.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, A., & Dupuy, K. (2017). Deciding over nature: Corruption and environmental impact assessments. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 65, 118–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Resources Institute. (2012). The corporate ecosystem services review. Guidelines for identifying business risks and opportunities arising from ecosystem change. Available at http://www.wri.org/publication/corporate ecosystem services review

  • World Resources Institute. (2008). Ecosystem services – A guide for decision makers. Available at http://pdf.wri.org/ecosystem_services_guide_for_decisionmakers.pdf

  • World Bank. (2008). Licenciamento Ambiental de Empreendimentos Hidrelétricos no Brasil: uma Contribuição para o Debate. Available at http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2008/03/10155469/environmental-licensing-hydroelectric-projects-brazil-contribution-debate-vol-1-3-summary-report

  • Wunder, S. (2007). The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation. Conservation Biology, 21, 48–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pontifical Catholic University of Paraná (PUCPR), Curitiba, Brazil

    Rafael Küster de Oliveira

  2. Higher Institute of Administration and Economy of Mercosur (ISAE/FGV), Curitiba, Brazil

    Cleverson Vitório Andreoli

  3. Public Prosecutor’s Office of Paraná State (MPPR), Paranaguá, Brazil

    Priscila da Mata Cavalcante

Authors
  1. Rafael Küster de Oliveira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cleverson Vitório Andreoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Priscila da Mata Cavalcante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cleverson Vitório Andreoli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. German Graduate School of Management and Law, Heilbronn, Germany

    Christopher Stehr  & Franziska Struve  & 

  2. Diversia Consulting, Freiberg am Neckar, Germany

    Nina Dziatzko

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Oliveira, R.K., Andreoli, C.V., da Mata Cavalcante, P. (2019). Curbing Corruption in Brazilian Environmental Governance: A Collective Action and Problem-solving Approach. In: Stehr, C., Dziatzko, N., Struve, F. (eds) Corporate Social Responsibility in Brazil. CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90605-8_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation