IMPACTO DA CRISE HÍDRICA NAS CADEIAS DE ALIMENTOS
Priscila L. S. MiguelRenata P. BritoSusana C. F. Pereira
Celog: Pesquisas recentes
• Gestão de Risco de Desastres Naturais no Brasil (2014)
• Risco Percebido em cadeias de suprimentos(2015)
• Impacto da Crise Hídrica (SP) nas Cadeiasde Alimentos (2016)
Objetivos da Pesquisa
• Identificar como os produtores das cadeias de alimentos perceberam osefeitos da crise hídrica e comoreagiram para mitigar esse risco
Base Teórica• Environment and businesses (Mudanças
climáticas)• Desastres e rupturas• Supply chain risk management • Percepção de risco• Adaptação
Tipos de Desastres
Fonte: Wassenhove (2006)
Natural Man-made
SúbitoTerremotos, furacão, tornados, tsunamis, inundações
Ataques terroristasGolpes terroristasVazamentos químicos
Perene Fome, Seca, Estiagem, Miséria
Crises PolíticasCrises de Refugiados
Acre (2015) Northeast (2015) São Paulo (2015)
Desastres naturais recentes no Brasil
Fases do Desastre
Fonte: Scholten et al (2014)
Mitigação Preparação
RespostaRecuperação
Framework teórico SCRM
Fonte: Juttner et al (2003)Resilience
Risco
Incerteza RiscosDamages
Benefícios
Eventos que podem ocorrer(ou no)
Gestão do Risco
Incerteza Risco Eventos prováveis
Respostas alternativas Consequências
Gestão de Riscos
Decisões
Risco e VulnerabilidadeRisk assessment � probabilidade de ocorrências vs consequências
Vulnerabilidade Moderada
VulnerabilidadeAlta
VulnerabilidadeBaixa
VulnerabiliadeMédia
Suaves Severa
Alta
Baixa
Consequências
Pro
bab
ilid
ade
de
oco
rrên
cia
Fontes de Risco na Cadeia
Supply Risks Process and Control Demand Risks
Environmental Risks
Supply Chain Risks
Firm Risks
Sources: Adapted from Mason-Jones & Towill (1998) and Jüttner et al. (2003)
Previous frameworks
Wagner e Bode (2008)
Risk sources
Demand
Supply
Regulatory, legal
and bureaucratic
Infrastructure
Catastrophic
Risk sources
Demand
Supply
Manufacturing
Logistics
Information
Environment
Punniyamorthy et al (2013)
Our frameworkafter the focus group
13 participants:
Practitioners and academicsresearchers
Risk Sources
DEMAND
SUPPLY
REGULATORY,
LEGAL AND
BUREAUCRATIC
PROCESS
INFORMATION
COMPLIANCE
LOGISTICS
CATASTROPHIC
Model Adopted
DEMAND
SUPPLY
REGULATORY, LEGAL AND
BUREAUCRATIC
PROCESS
INFORMATION
COMPLIANCE
LOGISTIC
AND SC
DISASTERS
O evento: a crise hídrica no Estado de São Paulo
2013 Governo comunicou que não havia risco de interromper o suprimento deenergia
2014 - Informações do nível de água dos reservatórios para a população- Governo de São Paulo negou que fosse uma crise severa, mas começoucampanha para redução no consume e começou a aplicar multas paraconsumidores que aumentasse o consume- Discussão de alternativas de suprimentode água para São Paulo
2015(Jan a Abril)
- Informações do nível de água dos reservatórios para a população- Impactos para população e empresas- Açoes para reduzir o impacto pelo Governo, indivíduos e Organizações
Cantareira – 2015
Escopo e Foco
• Crise hídrica no sudeste• Início 2013• Pior da história• Principais impactos começaram em 2014 (população, serviços e
indústria)• Cadeias mais afetadas: indústria automotiva, atividades comerciais,
cana-de-açúcar, carne, laranja e café
• Foco da pesquisa : cadeias de cana, café e cana-de-açúcar
• Qualitativa (entrevistas)
Justificativa
Café - Brazil exportou 33.17 milhões (Out-14 a Set-15), cerca de 30% da exortação mundial (110.74 milhões)
Suco de laranja
- Brazil alcançou alta eficiência na cadeia- Produz metade do volume de suco de laranja do mundo ($ 1.5 a $ 2.5 bilhões
ao ano)- Em quase 50 anos: $ 60 bilhões para o Brasil (preço de 2010)
Cana-de-açúcar
- Principal recurso para produção de açúcar, para produção de energia e derivados como etanol e fibras - Brasil é o maior produtor e exportador de derivados da cana-de-açúcar no mundo- São Paulo é responsável por cerca de metade da produção doméstica
Metodologia
- entrevistas (dois pesquisadores simultaneamente)
- modelos mentais e discussões após as entrevistas
- Entrevistas gravadas (mais de 13 horas), transcritas ecodificadas por um terceiro pesquisador
- Duas rodadas de discussões com todo o grupo de Pesquisapara analisar os dados
- Uso do Software N-Vivo para aprimorar a análise
Design da Pesquisa – cadeias e elos pesquisados
3PLs & Food Services
Provedores de serviços logísticos
Catering e serviçosde embalagem
Compradores e Distribuidores
Pordutores
Laranja
Café (Arabic)
Cana-de-açúcar
Processadoresde alimentos
Produtoresde Alimentos Varejo
Unidades de Análise e Amostra
Descriptives Research
Unidade de análise Produtores, cooperativas, associações e consultores
Amostra 16 entrevistas – cadeia da Laranja, café e cana-de-
açúcar
Método de coleta Entrevistas (média de 35 minutes por interview)
Estudo qualitativo: entrevistas em profundidade (16 empresas)
Supply chain ProdutorProcessador de alimentos/ Indústria
Varejista
CaféProdutor de caféConsultor (café)
Processador de café
Varejo FFSugarcane
Moinho de açúcarLiquor Scale
Liquor ILiquor II
Liquor Org
Laranja
Produtor de laranja IProdutor de laranja II
Cooperativa de laranja ICooperativa de laranja IICooperativa de laranja III
Farmers’ Association
GovernoGoverno (Técnico)
Assistência
Preliminary data analysis - Qualitative researchEmpresas/Org
anizações Cidade Commodity
1 COPERFAM/ COOPERCITRUS
Bebedouro Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja
2 COFRUCAR CandidoRodrigues
Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja
3 PRODUTOR Taquaritinga Orange Juice
4 GOVERNO SP S. J. Rio Preto Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja
5 FÁBRICA DE AÇÚCAR E ENERGIA
Novo Horizonte
Sugar Cane
6 INDÚSTRIA DE BEBIDAS
Arealva Sugar Cane
7 PROCESSADOR DE ALIMENTOS
Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo
Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja
8 INDÚSTRIA DE BEBIDAS
Serra Negra Sugar Cane
9 VAREJO São Paulo Cana-de-açúcar/Suco de laranja/Café (Arabic)
10 PROCESSADOR DE ALIMENTOS
São Paulo Café (Arabic)
11 INDUSTRIA DE BEBIDAS
Limeira Cana-de-açúcar
12 CONSULTOR (FARM)
São Joaquim da Barra
Cana-de-açúcar
13 PRODUTOR Parapuã Cana-de-açúcar
12
3
4
5
86
79
11
10
12
13
Res
ulta
dos
Empresa Experiência Prévia Percepção de Riscos Outros Riscos/preoupações Gestão de RiscoRetailer, fast-food chain
Retailer FFIndirect experience, no losses incurred
High likelihood CompetitionPlanned and implemented mitigation measures
Food manufacturer, coffee
Coffee ManufacturerIndirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihood Competition Emergency mitigation
Sugar and liquor producers
Sugar MillDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, diversification Competition and technologyNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Liquor ScaleDirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihood Competition and taxes Non-prepared, diversification of supply
Liquor OrgDirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihood Environmental awarenessNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Liquor IDirect experience, perceived impacts in supply chain
High likelihood Taxes and workforce Non-prepared, other concerns (taxes)
Liquor IIIndirect experience, no losses incurred
Low risk, nature provider Taxes and workforceNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Orange farming
Orange Farm IDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider CompetitionNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Orange Farm IIDirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihood Competition Non-prepared, of lack of information
Orange Coop IDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)
Competition, technologyNon-prepared, technological issues of mitigation
Orange Coop IIDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)
CompetitionNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Orange Coop IIIDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider CompetitionNon-prepared, technological issues of mitigation
Farmers’ Association Direct experience Low risk Competition, technologyNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Coffee farming
Coffee FarmDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider Competition and technology Non-prepared, perception of low risk
Coffee ConsultantDirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihood Competition and technologyNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
GovernGovernmental technical assistance
Indirect experienceLow risk, nature provider (climate change deny)
Technology, legislationNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Resumo dos Casos: Açúcar
FirmPrevious Experience
Risk Perception
Other Risks/Concerns
Risk management
Sugar and liquor producers
Sugar MillDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, diversification
Competition and technology
Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Liquor ScaleDirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihood Competition and taxesNon-prepared, diversification of supply
Liquor OrgDirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihoodEnvironmental awareness
Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Liquor IDirect experience, perceived impacts in supply chain
High likelihood Taxes and workforceNon-prepared, other concerns (taxes)
Liquor IIIndirect experience, no losses incurred
Low risk, nature provider
Taxes and workforceNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Cases Resume: OrangeFirm
Previous Experience
Risk Perception
Other Risks/Concerns
Risk management
Orange farming
Orange Farm IDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider
CompetitionNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Orange Farm IIDirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihood CompetitionNon-prepared, of lack of information
Orange Coop IDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)
Competition, technology
Non-prepared, technological issues of mitigation
Orange Coop IIDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)
CompetitionNon-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Orange Coop IIIDirect experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider
CompetitionNon-prepared, technological issues of mitigation
Farmers’ Association
Direct experience Low riskCompetition, technology
Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Cases Resume: CoffeeFirm
Previous Experience
Risk Perception
Other Risks/Concerns
Risk management
Food manufacturer, coffee
Coffee Manufacturer
Indirect experience, incurred in losses
High likelihood Competition Emergency mitigation
Coffee farming
Coffee Farm
Direct experience, incurred in losses
Low risk, nature provider
Competition and technology
Non-prepared, perception of low risk
Coffee Consultant
Direct experience, incurred in losses
High likelihoodCompetition and technology
Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Cases Resume: Retailer and Government
FirmPrevious Experience
Risk Perception
Other Risks/Concerns
Risk management
Retailer, fast-food chain
Retailer FFIndirect experience, no losses incurred
High likelihood
CompetitionPlanned and implemented mitigation measures
Govern
Governmental technical assistance
Indirect experience
Low risk, nature provider (climate change deny)
Technology, legislation
Non-prepared, disadvantages of mitigation
Paradoxo da percepção de Risco??
Resultados: categorização dos casos
Consultor (café)Associação produtoresCooperativa Laranja ICooperativa Laranja IICooperativa Laranja IIIGoverno (Ass. Técnica)
Grupo de Influência
Produtor caféMoinho de açúcarEmpresa bebida IEmpresa bebida IIEmpresa bebidaProdutor Laranja IProdutor Laranja II
Vulneráveis
VarejoFabricante caféEmpresa bebida (escala)
Gestores de Risco
Discussão
Fatores de influência: percepção de risco e preparação
Influência Positiva Influência Negativa
Acesso a Informação
Experiência anterior (perdas)
Natureza provedora
Escassez Informação
Custos da Mitigação
Percepção de Risco
Preparação
Preliminary Results
- Despite the severity of water crisis in Sao Paulo State, the most affectedfood chains did not take steps for mitigation and preparedness forrecurrence
- The most severe drought in 83 years and firms seems to beaccommodate with low perception of risk (Risk Perception Paradox,
Wachinger et al., 2013)
- No support from government, leads to mistrust by the producers andprocessors, specially regard taxes, bureaucracy to regulate and controlenvironmental impacts and lack of credit for small producers and firms
Initial Conclusions
Which are drought impacts on food supply chain in Brazil? How this phenomenon is incorporated in firms´ risk management?
Severity of water crisis did not contribute to raise risk perception neither to alert the supply chain for collaboration
There is no exchange of information and changes in process to improve water footprint
Government contributes for increasing mistrust
Excessive bureaucracy, lack of strategy and financial incentives: do not help to improve preparedness neither resilience for further events;
Conclusions and Limitations
• Separation between disaster experience and risk management
• Smaller businesses and familiar (non-professional) management
• Difference of perception of risk along the supply chain
• Influence of historical perception of nature events
• Influence of political agenda: climate change denial
Limitations
• Number of firms
• Distribution in supply chain
• Timing
Future Studies
• Changing historic perceptions and embedded routines is difficult for organizations (Levinthal & March, 1993)
• The role of environmental awareness, environmental practices
• The disasters experience, slow-onset events, and uncertainty and difficulty to predict disruption
• Important role of knowledge and information in different business sectors