Informe de sostenibilidad en la cadena de suministro en el Sur global: El papel del financiamiento

Lins, Rodrigo Freire; Erthal, Alice; Marques, Leonardo

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista de Administração de Empresas

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ARTICLES • Rev. adm. empres. 63 (2) • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-759020230204 copiar

Informe de sostenibilidad en la cadena de suministro en el Sur global: El papel del financiamiento

Autoría SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMEN

Las empresas se enfrentan a la creciente presión de los stakeholders para informar no solo sobre sus prácticas sostenibles, sino también sobre la sostenibilidad de su cadena de suministro (SCS). Sin embargo, la forma en que se configuran las presiones de stakeholders en el Sur Global, caracterizado por brechas institucionales (subcontratación y cumplimiento débil de la legislación), ha recibido menos atención en la literatura. Este estudio mapea qué presiones de stakeholders están asociadas con los informes de SCS mediante el análisis de un panel de datos desequilibrado de 220 informes de sostenibilidad corporativa de 2016 a 2018 de empresas brasileñas que cotizan en bolsa. Los resultados muestran que los accionistas y acreedores orientados a largo plazo, el tamaño de la empresa y la adopción de las pautas GRI están asociados con niveles más altos de divulgación de informes de SCS, mientras que las presiones públicas y regulatorias no lo están, lo que fundamenta la lógica de los vacíos institucionales. En ausencia de presiones regulatorias, las fuentes de financiamiento a largo plazo y el acceso a los recursos emergen en asociación con la divulgación de informes de SCS.

Palabras clave:
Sostenibilidad de la cadena de suministro; transparencia; informes corporativos; stakeholder; global reporting initiative

		Reports per Year
Industry	Number of Companies	2016	2017	2018	Total Reports
Banks Diverse Financials and Insurance	17	14	15	16	45
Food and Beverage Processing	6	5	6	6	17
Oil and Gas	5	5	5	4	14
Retailing	6	4	5	5	14
Agricultural and Animal Source Food Production	4	4	4	4	12
Forest and Paper Products	5	4	5	3	12
Mining	5	3	5	4	12
Telecommunications Services	4	4	4	4	12
Automobiles and Components	5	3	4	2	9
Consumer Durables Household and Personal Products	3	2	3	3	8
Education Services	4	2	2	4	8
Pharmaceuticals Biotechnology and Life Sciences	3	3	3	2	8
Ground Transportation Highways and Railtracks	2	2	2	2	6
Chemicals	2	2	2	1	5
Construction Engineering and Home Building	3	3	1	1	5
Construction Materials and Building Products	2	2	2	1	5
Ground Transportation Trucking	2	1	2	2	5
Electrical Equipment and Machinery	2	1	2	1	4
Food and Consumers Staples Retailing	2	1	1	2	4
Aerospace and Defense	1	1	1	1	3
Air Transportation Airlines	1	1	1	1	3
Technology Hardware Equipment and Semiconductors	1	1	1	1	3
Trading and Distrib companies Com Serv and Supplies	1	1	1	1	3
Textiles Apparel Footwear and Luxury Goods	1	1	1	-	2
Professional Services	1	-	-	1	1
Total	88	70	78	72	220

Independent Variable	Term used	Level of analysis	Proxy	Calculation	Reference / Source
Customers Pressure	Customer	Industry	1 if consumer proximity industry, 0 otherwise	Consumer proximity industries: Energy utilities, financial services, healthcare, household, and personal products, waste management, retailers, telecommunications, textiles and apparel, food and beverage products, and water utilities	Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014)Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-... ; Sweeney and Coughlan (2008)Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856657 https://doi.org/10.1080/1352726070185665... ; Vitolla et al. (2019)Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garzoni, A. (2019). How pressure from stakeholders affects integrated reporting quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1591-1606. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1850 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1850...
Environmental NGO Pressure	EnvNGO	Industry	1 if environmentally sensitive industry, 0 otherwise	Environmental sensitive industries: agriculture, automotive, chemical, construction, construction materials, energy (oil & gas), energy utilities, forest and paper products, metal products, mining, textiles and apparel, and water utilities	Branco and Rodrigues (2008); Fernandez-Feijoo et al. (2014)Fernandez-Feijoo, B., Romero, S., & Ruiz, S. (2014). Effect of stakeholders’ pressure on transparency of sustainability reports within the GRI framework. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(1), 53-63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-5 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1748-... ; Huang and Kung (2010)Huang, C. L., & Kung, F. H. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0476-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0476-... ; Kuzey and Uyar (2017)Kuzey, C., & Uyar, A. (2017). Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm value: Evidence from the emerging market of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.1... ; Okongwu et al. (2013)Okongwu, U., Morimoto, R., & Lauras, M. (2013). The maturity of supply chain sustainability disclosure from a continuous improvement perspective. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 62(8), 827-855. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2013-0032 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2013-00... ; Sweeney and Coughlan (2008)Sweeney, L., & Coughlan, J. (2008). Do different industries report corporate social responsibility differently? An investigation through the lens of stakeholder theory. Journal of Marketing Communications, 14(2), 113-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527260701856657 https://doi.org/10.1080/1352726070185665... ; Vitolla et al. (2019)Vitolla, F., Raimo, N., Rubino, M., & Garzoni, A. (2019). How pressure from stakeholders affects integrated reporting quality. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 26(6), 1591-1606. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1850 https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1850...
Social NGO Pressure	SocNGO	Industry	1 for industries with the highest number of people rescued from modern slavery working, 0 otherwise	Modern slavery-intensive industries: Agriculture, construction, forest and paper products, mining, textiles, and apparel.	Reporter Brasil (n.d.)Reporter Brasil. (n.d.). Trabalho escravo existe no Brasil: Saiba o que é. Recuperado de http://escravonempensar.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Folder_Trabalho-escravo-existe_Assistencia-Social_atualizado_web.pdf http://escravonempensar.org.br/wp-conten... ; SmartLab MPT/OIT (2017)SmartLab MPT/OIT. (2017). Observatorio digital do trabalho escravo no Brasil (Vol. 1). Recuperado de https://smartlabbr.org/escravo-v1/ https://smartlabbr.org/escravo-v1/... ; The Minderoo Foundation (2018)The Minderoo Foundation. (2018). The global slavery index. Recuperado de https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/resources/downloads/ https://www.globalslaveryindex.org/resou...
Shareholders Pressure	Shareholder	Company	1 if member of ISE during the year, 0 otherwise	ISE index list	B3 (n.d.)B3. (n.d.). O que é o ISE B3. Recuperado de http://iseb3.com.br/o-que-e-o-ise http://iseb3.com.br/o-que-e-o-ise...
Creditors Pressure	Creditor	Company	Long-term debt	Long-term Debt / Equity ratio	Economatica
Environmental Government Pressure	EnvGov	Company	1 if the company had any IBAMA fine during the year, 0 otherwise	IBAMA is a Brazilian Institute responsible for monitoring and inspecting environmental activities and exert national policies regarding environmental issues.	Huang and Kung (2010)Huang, C. L., & Kung, F. H. (2010). Drivers of environmental disclosure and stakeholder expectation: Evidence from Taiwan. Journal of Business Ethics, 96(3), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0476-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0476-... Data - IBAMA (n.d.)
Social Government Pressure	SocGov	Industry	Natural log of number of fines applied due to labor penalties per year	Fines applied due to labor penalties per year	Brazilian Ministry of Economy (n.d.)Brazilian Ministry of Economy. (n.d.). Radar SIT. Recuperado de https://sit.trabalho.gov.br/radar/ https://sit.trabalho.gov.br/radar/... .
Employee Pressure	Employee	Industry	Union membership rate (%) per year	Information provided by the National household sample survey (PNAD - 2018), developed by the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (IBGE).	IBGE (2019)
GRI adoption	GRI	Company	1 if GRI-based report, 0 otherwise	Corporate sustainability reports	Kuzey and Uyar (2017)Kuzey, C., & Uyar, A. (2017). Determinants of sustainability reporting and its impact on firm value: Evidence from the emerging market of Turkey. Journal of Cleaner Production, 143, 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.153 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.1... ; Tran and Beddewela (2020)Tran, M., & Beddewela, E. (2020). Does context matter for sustainability disclosure? Institutional factors in Southeast Asia. Business Ethics, 29(2), 282-302. https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12265 https://doi.org/10.1111/beer.12265...

Company Size	Size	Company	Natural log of total employees	Employees reported	Gamerschlag et al. (2011)Gamerschlag, R., Möller, K., & Verbeeten, F. (2011). Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Empirical evidence from Germany. Review of Managerial Science, 5(2), 233-262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-010-0052-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-010-0052-... ; Lo et al. (2014)Lo, C. K. Y., Pagell, M., Fan, D., Wiengarten, F., & Yeung, A. C. L. (2014). OHSAS 18001 certification and operating performance: The role of complexity and coupling. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 268-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.04.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.04.00... Data - Corporate websites/ sustainability reports
Year 2016	Year_2016	Company	1 if the company reported in 2016, 0 otherwise	Year reported	Corporate sustainability reports
Year 2017	Year_2017	Company	1 if the company reported in 2017, 0 otherwise	Year reported	Corporate sustainability reports
Year 2018	Year_2018	Company	1 if the company reported in 2018, 0 otherwise	Year reported	Corporate sustainability reports

Variables	Min	Mean	Median	Max	Std dev
SCmentions	0,00	3,66	3,81	5,74	1,10
Customer	0,00	0,50	0,50	1,00	0,50
EnvNGO	0,00	0,42	0,00	1,00	0,50
SocNGO	0,00	0,27	0,00	1,00	0,45
Shareholder	0,00	0,25	0,00	1,00	0,44
Creditor	-23,70	1,92	0,92	110,96	7,96
EnvGov	0,00	0,25	0,00	1,00	0,44
SocGov	7,50	9,32	9,27	11,18	1,28
Employee	0,05	0,17	0,17	0,24	0,04
GRI	0,00	0,83	1,00	1,00	0,37
Size	4,83	9,18	9,45	12,80	1,61

	Pooled OLS			Fixed Effects			Random Effects
	Coeff.	Std Error	p-value	Coeff.	Std Error	p-value	Coeff.	Std Error	p-value
Intercept	0,652	0,67	0.333	-	-	-	0,75	0.92	0.415
Customer	0,021	0,12	0.863	-	-	-	0,015	0.18	0.936
SocNGO	0.390***	0,13	0.004	-	-	-	0.378*	0,2	0.060
Shareholder	0.359***	0,14	0.010	0.468*	0,24	0.056	0.415**	0,16	0.011
Creditor	0,006	0,01	0.400	0.007*	0.00	0.063	0.007*	0.00	0.069
EnvGov	0,061	0,13	0.644	0,041	0.10	0.686	0,048	0.09	0.600
SocGov	0,007	0,05	0.878	-0.061	0,18	0.732	0,017	0,07	0.794
Employee	-2.271	1.83	0.216	1,459	6.78	0.830	-1.573	2,38	0.508
GRI	1.484***	0,15	0.000	-0.217	0,47	0.643	1.196***	0.20	0.000
Size	0.198***	0,04	0.000	0.046	0,28	0.868	0.188***	0,05	0.000
Year_2016	0,07	0,15	0.632	-0,06	0,24	0.803	0,09	0.10	0.366
Year_2017	0,034	0,14	0.810	-0,056	0.18	0.762	0,036	0,09	0.684
Adj R²	45,76%			0,00%			27,71%
F-statistic (p-value)	17.80 (0.000)			0.96 (0.477)			80.81 (0.000)

	Random Effects
	Coeff.	Std Error	p-value
Intercept	0,75	0,86	0.386
Customer	0,015	0,17	0.931
SocNGO	0.378**	0,17	0.023
Shareholder	0.415**	0,17	0.015
Creditor	0.007***	0.00	0.000
EnvGov	0,048	0,07	0.517
SocGov	0,017	0,06	0.782
Employee	-1.573	2.13	0.460
GRI	1.196***	0,32	0.000
Size	0.188***	0,05	0.000
Year_2016	0,09	0,09	0.319
Year_2017	0,036	0,08	0.670
Adj R²	27,71%
F-statistic (p-value)	257.77 (0.000)

Fundação Getulio Vargas, Escola de Administração de Empresas de S.Paulo Av 9 de Julho, 2029, 01313-902 S. Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel.: (55 11) 3799-7999, Fax: (55 11) 3799-7871 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: rae@fgv.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] *Corresponding author