How Petrobras' environmental sponsorships buy silence
- Mirna Wabi-Sabi
- 3 hours ago
- 18 min read
Updated: 5 minutes ago
Confidentiality clauses in sponsorship contracts restrict criticism, shape research disclosure, and give Brazil’s oil giant quiet influence over environmental science and climate diplomacy.
Investigation by Mirna Wabi-Sabi, a Brazilian journalist and author whose work focuses on environmental governance, corporate power, and climate politics.
Originally published in brazilian portuguese in collaboration with Esquerda Diário.
Between 2023 and 2026, Petrobras is investing nearly R$15 million reais in an environmental institute that researches sound emissions from seismic sources. Marine seismic technology is used to map resources on the ocean floor and is quite literally deafening. Using compressed air cannons towed by ships, Petrobras maps the Earth's subsurface layers to identify potential oil and natural gas reservoirs. This activity has a severe impact on marine wildlife, and environmental concerns are growing with the expansion of offshore exploration.
"Acoustic pollution is one of the world's emerging environmental problems, with the aquatic environment being one of the most affected. Various human activities can produce noise, such as vessel traffic, sonar, construction, and seismic surveys. These noises can cause various effects and impacts on marine life, but especially on cetaceans. These effects include permanent or temporary damage to the auditory system, as well as behavioral changes." (Excerpt from the project justification by the Humpback Whale Institute – Individual Responses of Marine Mammals to Seismic Surveys (MARESIS), Contract 0050.0125991.23.9, in effect between 2023 and 2026.)
To address this concern, the Humpback Whale Institute developed the "Individual Responses of Marine Mammals to Seismic Surveys" (MARESIS) Project. This initiative uses sensors and drones to measure the effects of acoustic pollution on the health of dolphins, whales, and cetaceans in general, whether on their behavior, heart rate, hearing sensitivity, or hormonal response.
This effort involves expeditions in areas such as the Santos Basin, using zones free of industrial activity as a control for comparison, and is expected to generate robust data by 2026 to guide more effective noise mitigation policies. More than academic research, it is an experiment in corporate social and environmental responsibility, with Petrobras directly funding studies that assess the impacts of its own operations.
The sponsorship agreement between the institute and the oil company includes a confidentiality clause, which ensures that the information collected, communication strategies, and promotional materials are controlled. This provision grants Petrobras the right to pre-review all artifacts produced by the project, ensuring that the company's image is protected and that the public narrative aligns with institutional interests and the desired reputation.
"7.2 - Each PARTICIPANT agrees to maintain the confidentiality of the information exchanged and generated during the execution of the activities under this COOPERATION AGREEMENT for a period of 10 (ten) years and further agrees not to disclose or transmit, directly or indirectly, the information exchanged to third parties not involved in the development of the purpose of this COOPERATION AGREEMENT. "7.2.1 - The term set forth in item 7.2 does not apply to information and data related to business secrets (know-how, trade secrets), commercial strategy, and anything that represents a competitive advantage for the DISCLOSING PARTICIPANT, which must be kept confidential by the RECEIVING PARTICIPANT for an indefinite period, unless expressly authorized by the DISCLOSING PARTICIPANT. "7.3.1 - For purposes of internal administrative sanctions, failure to comply with the obligation of confidentiality constitutes a serious irregularity."
In the context of a marine animal autopsy, the cause of death may be considered confidential because it involves data related to the sponsor's trade secret. Contractually, the public is not granted the right to access the full results of this research, or to use them to demand sustainable practices from Petrobras.[1]
Drika Moreno, vessel EAGLE PARAIBA, September 28, 2025 Be da Matta Goytaká, Gas Lighting collective expedition, LNG Terminal, September 28, 2025 Be da Matta Goytaká, Gas Lighting collective expedition, detail of the LNG terminal, September 28, 2
Gás Lighting was an expedition to Guanabara Bay, coordinated by Malu Hatoum and Filipe Britto, with 13 sound and visual artists from Brazil, Argentina, and Germany, on September 28, 2025, with the purpose of observing and capturing audio and images from oil and gas platforms. It was part of the IV SomaRumor – Latin American Sound Art Meeting, and Rio Ocean Week 2025 at the Museum of Tomorrow.
For decades, Petrobras has been one of the largest sponsors of Brazilian cultural and environmental initiatives. The negative image of the company, built over the years, based on ecological disasters, oil spills, harmful extraction, and corruption, is gradually being reformulated.
Part of this strategy is through investments in nature and biodiversity protection projects. In its attempt to present itself as a partner in sustainability, an uncomfortable issue arises in its contractual practices:
Environmental projects financed by Petrobras do not always have the freedom to question the impacts of the oil industry, extractivism, or the expansion of the energy frontier on the environment.
Preventative Self-Censorship and "Detriment to the Image"
Every year, the oil company invests hundreds of millions of reais in environmental projects through its socio-environmental program. However, sponsorship contracts often include clauses requiring sponsors to protect their brands from any liability, complaints, or public criticism – regardless of the results of the research the sponsored was funded to develop.
Even if Petrobras' own actions negatively affected the project's territory, such as pollution or destruction, the funded institution could not expose the company without violating the contract and facing devastating financial repercussions. Since it is the sponsor's obligation to:
"Bear all costs and expenses related to administrative, judicial and arbitration proceedings that may be filed against PETROBRAS, safeguarding PETROBRAS' interests, including through the guarantees necessary for its exemption." (Clause 5.1.6 of contract 5900.0131002.25.2)
This means that any lawsuit filed against Petrobras, even by third parties and indirectly linked to the sponsored project, must be fully funded and assumed by the sponsored party; a legal shield.
In this particular case (contract 5900.0131002.25.2), the balance of R$85,000.00 is a modest sum to ensure that a "National Meeting on Conservation and Research of Aquatic Mammals" cannot report any negative impact or illegal action by Petrobras on the oceans and the lives of these animals.[2]
This type of shielding can appear explicitly in contract termination clauses. In a clause of a contract signed in 2017 with a forest restoration institute, which is present in at least eight contracts still in effect in 2025, Petrobras reserves the right to terminate the sponsorship without compensation if the sponsored party or any of its members commits "any act that causes detriment to Petrobras, including with regard to its institutional image."
In an interview, representatives of the Institute operating the project covered by this contract denied the existence of the clause, and later denied that it had any impact on their work when it existed. They also stated that they collaborate with environmental activist organizations and were never questioned about it by Petrobras, but they were unable to say which campaigns they collaborated on, or whether they had any connection with the oil company or the offshore industry in general.
Meanwhile, the representative of the National Meeting on Conservation of 2025 also stated that this clause leads to no restriction whatsoever in the selection or presentation of academic works at the event. In other words, the clause is in vigor, but devoid of meaning.
It is unclear whether acknowledging the existence of this clause or that it might have any impact on the project's communication strategy is in itself a violation of the clause, which could lead to a breach of contract. By not defining what constitutes "detriment to the image," the interpretation is left to the sponsor itself. The practical effect of this is to create an environment of preventive self-censorship, where sponsors avoid making public criticisms, disclosing sensitive data, or taking political positions that could, even indirectly, displease the sponsor.
"The clause that prohibits the contracted from making any harmful mention of Petrobras' image could function as an instrument of undue silencing, including regarding real environmental impacts. Depending on the specific case, it could violate the constitutional principles of freedom of expression (art. 5, IV and IX), the right to information (art. 5, XIV), and environmental publicity (art. 225, §1, V)" (Says an anonymous environmental lawyer in an interview).
The message conveyed by the content of these contracts is that Petrobras funds environmental preservation as long as this preservation does not conflict with the continuation of its extractive and exploratory ventures. In some cases, this violates personal and social rights, as well as political obligations of transparency. This involuntary complicity keeps financial support dependent on the concealment of the impacts its projects are supposed to combat.
This logic subtly and effectively domesticates the environmentalist field, converting legitimate conservation projects into acts of institutional appeasement. There may be no direct censorship, but there are limits imposed by money, the contractual parameters of which are vague and virtually non-negotiable. Or, as the lawyer puts it, "if you don't agree with it, you don't have a contract."
A representative of an environmental organization sponsored by Petrobras until 2027 describes how the contract imposes indirect limits on freedom of expression, instructing staff not to speak about topics related to the company's operations:
"We can't talk about things related to Petrobras operations, oil production, or anything that isn't part of the socio-environmental program. We're not authorized to talk about this because they have a person responsible for our project who is accountable. So, whenever we discuss matters related to oil production operations, etc., she suggests we ask for it to be referred to her, and that we can only talk about our project. According to them, since we don't participate in Petrobras' day-to-day operations, we wouldn't be able to respond appropriately. As a partner, we also can't encourage news about Petrobras, or about any matter that could affect the company's image. Normally, you read these clauses in these contracts, but you say, 'I'll never use that,' so you let it slide. I think the organizations that act [with fear and self-censorship] do so because they are too dependent on the resources that come from Petrobras, right?”[3]
In the case of the interviewee's project, Petrobras does not operate in his area or cause direct harm to his community. If it begins to within the contract period, which is possible, he says that "forest conservation, biodiversity integrity, and the maintenance of the culture of these communities are priceless, non-negotiable." They can "storm out of the deal" because their operations can continue without funding.
As often happens in contexts of financial dependence, self-censorship sets in even before criticism is formed, as organizations accept any contractual imposition out of fear and a need for funding. A sea turtle monitoring organization with experienced and competent scientists could, for example, use a massive grant from Petrobras Socioambiental to monitor these animals' movements via satellite and identify areas on which they depend for survival, such as for feeding or breeding. In this way, the data collected by these scientists can be used to protect the turtles by defining environmental protection areas.
However, if this data points to oil spill areas resulting in a certain number of deaths or damage to the turtle population, the release of this data could financially ruin the sponsored initiative, with the requirement to "return the amount transferred [...] not excluding fines and any amounts arising from breach of contract." (Clause 19.1 of contract 5900.0128816.24.2)
Since breach of contract is imminent in the vague language of "damage to image," even before this data is collected, initiative members may want to avoid any mention of oil spills as a threat to turtles in general, to avoid creating friction with the sponsor.[4]
Similarly, an organization like the Humpback Whale Institute, which researches the impact of ocean noise pollution on aquatic mammals resulting from the search for and maintenance of offshore exploration areas, needs the freedom to disclose its results to ensure its scientific and academic integrity. This cannot be achieved if conflicts of interest between researchers and funders are not contractually addressed.
Research results on the impact of exploration, conducted with the financial support of companies that profit immensely from said exploration, can only yield reliable results if safeguards are stipulated in the agreements.
Conflicts of interest and financial dependence
Financial dependence creates conflicts of interest when the sponsor has the power to influence decisions, content, or results for their own benefit. Examples of these exacerbated conflicts of interest in Petrobras agreements are numerous, from conferences for conservation researchers to medical care for marine animals, water resource protection, and even journalism awards.
In journalism, financial dependence can limit critical observations. According to clause 7.1.1 of the Vladimir Herzog Institute's sponsorship agreement with Petrobras, a story critical of Petrobras' environmental impact may be disqualified or barred from receiving an Award, even if relevant, truthful, and of public interest, for making "mention detrimental to Petrobras' image." While not always seen as explicit censorship, and not yet having been applied, this clause can be an obstacle to awarding stories critical of Petrobras, as it creates an environment of restriction and ethical disregard that is especially troubling when read literally and legally, and applied to journalistic initiatives in the area of human rights linked to environmental demands.[5]
In science, financial dependence undermines autonomy. Since the 1980s, the Brazilian Antarctic Program has coordinated Brazil's scientific and logistical activities in Antarctica. Brazil's presence in Antarctica is geopolitically significant, but above all, it places us at the forefront of global warming research – it is a region sensitive to change and has a tremendous impact on the planet's climate regulation. In this isolated environment, conducting scientific research is expensive and requires resources that are difficult for universities to access. Therefore, the Brazilian Navy and Petrobras have forged a partnership.
"Besides the geophysical and geological aspects of interest, it is important to consider Antarctica's strategic role as the planet's main thermal regulator, which controls atmospheric and oceanic circulations, influencing the climate and living conditions on Earth, especially in offshore operations." (Excerpt from the CIRM project justification under contract with Petrobras)
Between 2019 and 2027, Petrobras invested a total of over R$800 million in the Interministerial Commission for Sea Resources (CIRM), which is part of the Navy's organizational structure. The confidentiality clause between them is extremely comprehensive. It not only protects strategic and technical data but also defines any content related to the agreement and negotiations as confidential information, and even its existence is strictly permitted for disclosure.
"3.1.6 – not to disclose any data or information regarding this AGREEMENT without the prior authorization of the other PARTY, except for mere notice of its existence, acting in accordance with the provisions of the CONFIDENTIALITY CLAUSE of this AGREEMENT." (Excerpt from contract 0050.0128707.24.9 between Petrobras, the Brazilian Navy, via SECIRM/CIRM and FEMAR.)
A representative of the Foundation, which provides technical support to CIRM and manages scientific projects within the Navy's infrastructure, responded: "Regarding the aforementioned Project, I understand that a confidentiality clause prevents us from providing any information." Immediately afterward, the Navy representative assigned to provide clarification addressed the confidentiality clause in an interview as follows:
"We receive a request that the report be issued jointly by Petrobras, the Navy, the Foundation, and the universities. However, confidentiality is simply a request they make for us to disclose the information based on their knowledge. That's all. Because they are parties to this contract. Basically, they are not contractually obligated to maintain confidentiality, but they kind of agree to make the disclosures jointly." (CIRM Secretary)
For researchers from several Brazilian universities who utilize the infrastructure provided by the Navy in Antarctica with support from Petrobras, confidentiality is invisible. Contracts between the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) and researchers seeking to participate in the Brazilian Antarctic Program (PROANTAR) contain clauses that require compliance with all specific provisions contained in the legal partnership agreement. In this case, the confidential partnership between CIRM and Petrobras, whose legal requirements apply to contracts between CNPq and researchers at universities throughout Brazil.
"Proposals funded with resources from other sources also require compliance with any specific provisions contained in the Action or in the legal partnership instrument supporting it." (Excerpt from a current contract between CNPq and a researcher at UERJ)
Although some researchers report never having heard of a confidentiality clause in this context, they state that their research is submitted for approval as part of their financial reporting.
"When I submit my financial reporting [to the CNPq], I have to submit my report, whether I have publications or not. [The response is:] 'Your report is in line with the submitted proposals.'" (Says a researcher with a current contract with the CNPq in an interview)
For this researcher, it's also unclear which partnership agreements are covered by his contract with CNPq. While he believes this partnership applies if he signs contracts with other sponsors, he doesn't see himself contractually bound by the partnership agreement between the Navy and Petrobras. Although there are rules to be followed when his research operates at the Navy's headquarters and uses their resources in Antarctica, he can't say where these are documented and agreed upon.
This type of agreement, which involves multiple institutions of various types, and with various contracts, creates an institutional gray area where the "submitted proposals" are subject to legal demands and implicit corporate interests.
Data of public interest, such as the use of public resources, environmental impacts, or scientific policy decisions, are shielded from access and debate, even when the Access to Information Law stipulates otherwise. This creates a tension between confidentiality and public interest, involving nearly one billion reais of investments.
By requiring prior written authorization for any disclosure beyond the mere existence of the agreement, a confidentiality or image-damage prevention clause can impede researchers, journalists, or civil servants from sharing relevant information with the public, even when there is no risk to national security (or exposure of the Navy's sensitive activities). It can inhibit legitimate complaints or criticism, creating an effect of institutional self-censorship, and can make any attempt at scientific or technical dissemination dependent on the will of sponsors, even when done in the public interest.
How to Guarantee the Right to Criticism
Guaranteeing the right to criticism, transparency, and debate, even when involving the sponsor itself, can be achieved in a simple, yet unlikely, way. Simply insert conflict-of-interest prevention clauses, stipulating the freedom to disclose proven data regardless of one's relationship with the sponsor – in the same way that anti-corruption clauses are inserted to prevent conflicts of interest due to nepotism or personal ties.
In the media world, these contractual stipulations are called "Editorial Independence Clauses," and they ensure, for example, that the National Public Radio (NPR) in the US can broadcast legitimate and relevant news about funders like Facebook or Google, without threats of loss of funding. This way, sponsors receive credit but do not retain editorial control.[6]
Petrobras' contracts with environmental protection organizations offer strategic, political, and economic benefits to the company. While they shape Petrobras' image as a proponent of ecosystem sustainability, any mechanism that might produce evidence to the contrary is neutralized by the co-optation of initiatives and the absorption of some of the nation's most qualified professionals. According to Cassiano Mazon and Rafael Hamze Issa in the article “Adoption and Implementation of ESG Practices by State-Owned Companies: PETROBRAS' Socio-Environmental Program and the Preservation of Traditional Communities” for the Notebook of the São Paulo School of Public Accounts (2022), there is a fine line between discourse and practice in Petrobras' Socio-Environmental actions where the company can move into the territory of “ESGwashing.”
"It turns out that, when we are faced with an 'ESG' agenda, the interests of partners and shareholders should not be at the forefront, as the interests of society must necessarily be prominent." (page 47)
The language of confidentiality clauses, common in corporate contracts, seeks to protect commercial information, technical knowledge, etc. that could benefit competitors or harm the company's position in the sector. Meanwhile, public companies, by definition, operate with public resources and have legal and ethical commitments to transparency and the interests of the environment and local communities. This creates tension and an imbalance between commercial and public interests. In other words, the interaction between Petrobras and third-sector entities can:
"create a positive image in the public eye regarding environmental responsibility, concealing the negative impacts generated by its activities. It is a tool that disguises products and services, attempting to convey the false idea that they are environmentally friendly, eco-efficient, and come from sustainable processes, even misleading consumers." (page 48)
The fact that the impacts of Petrobras' operations have been reported to federal institutions like IBAMA (Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources) through environmental self-monitoring only facilitates the potential concealment. It is not only permitted, but required, that an audit of Petrobras' activities be carried out by Petrobras itself, in line with the bill on environmental licensing 2.159/2021.[7] In an interview, a PhD and professor of Geochemistry[8] describes this paradigm as "an aberration." Conducting or outsourcing – consultancies with contracts under confidentiality clauses – the monitoring of the environmental impacts of one's own activities creates a clear conflict of interest, the skewed results of which she has seen firsthand.[9]
In her experience, a Conduct Adjustment Agreement signed between IBAMA and Petrobras over a decade ago omitted sample analysis results that confirmed oil contamination in the collection area. IBAMA didn't even request analysis of these samples, so it wouldn't have noticed if the results weren't in the final report.
A contract in vigor until 2025[10] between Petrobras and a third-party consultant to conduct environmental studies required by IBAMA, Bioconsult Ambiental Ltda, contains a detailed confidentiality clause. The results of the consultant's analysis cannot be shared with the public, much less with the public agency that requested them to use the data to grant licenses. In other words, if the consultant identifies an oil spill or the presence of radioactive waste in the Campos, Santos, and Espírito Santo Basins, this information must be kept "confidential by the CONTRACTOR for an indefinite period, unless expressly authorized by PETROBRAS."[11] Public agencies grant licenses without guaranteeing that they have had access to the complete operational data.
Today, IBAMA continues its Pre-Operational Assessments based on reports produced internally by the oil company and approves each step of offshore drilling at the mouth of the Amazon River, among other places.
Protest in front of the Petrobras building in Rio de Janeiro, May 30, 2025, by Fabio Teixeira.
On May 30, 2025, this silent tension in Petrobras' sponsorship contracts with environmental organizations was exposed through a resounding urban intervention in downtown Rio de Janeiro. Petrobras' headquarters woke up surrounded by posters against oil exploration in the Amazon, with the messages "Amazon or Oil: Which Side Are You On?", "Heat Waves, Rio 60°," "Oil-Free Amazon," and marine animals and children drenched in oil bearing the Petrobras logo next to "Sponsored by" or "Made possible by."
Such questions could not be included in projects sponsored by the state-owned company, under penalty of contractual violation (even if the brand on the posters follows some of the guidelines stipulated in the user manual attached to the contracts). This contrast reveals two sides of the same dispute – on one side, civil society organizing to denounce the expansion of the oil frontier in sensitive areas such as the mouth of the Amazon; on the other, Petrobras' institutional machinery, which, while investing in environmental protection, legally promotes the silence of those receiving its sponsorship. The street protests are a legitimate critique of the contradiction between the company's environmental discourse and its exploration practices, a consideration that contracts silence behind the scenes.
Conclusion
There's no point in investing money to hire biologists to remove plastic from the throats of sea turtles if there's no effort to prevent the plastic from reaching the ocean in the first place.
While Petrobras profits from plastic production simply by supplying the raw material for its fabrication, this conflict of interest will ensure that we remain superficially treating the symptoms (and never the cause) of a fundamentally unsustainable industrial practice.
When these contracts silence environmental protection organizations, what's at stake is not only the company's reputation, but the integrity of the environmental cause as a whole. If nature conservation projects must remain silent to receive funding, something is deeply wrong with the way we finance care for the planet. If they don't need to keep silent and the clause preventing ‘detrimental mention’ serves no purpose, why is its removal virtually non-negotiable?
Even when we demarcate areas for environmental protection, we are inadvertently demarcating the rest of the world as a place ripe for destruction. It should be the other way around – areas of destruction should be the exception, identified, contained, and fenced off. Protected areas should be Earth's default mode. All that's missing is for some of the world's most profitable companies and industries to transparently align themselves with the most committed scientists and journalists with this purpose in mind.
Comments