Alcir das Neves Gomes
Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e tecnologia de
São Paulo, Campus Suzano; FATEC Zona Sul, Brazil
E-mail: alcir.gomes@ifsp.edu.br
Everton Santana Figueiredo
Instituto Federal de São Paulo, Campus- Suzano, Brazil
E-mail: everton_figueiredo@hotmail.com
Submission: 01/31/2019
Accept: 02/10/2019
ABSTRACT
logistics
has become a strategic activity along the time not only a mere operational task
in corporations, for that reason having a suitable management for logistics
processes bring benefits all over the companies and impacts customer
satisfaction. This paper was developed based on a case study performed in a
packaging company located in the east area of the city of São Paulo, it was
conducted in the period from April to September of 2017. An evaluation of
logistical processes was performed based on non-participative observations and
posteriorly with participative observations, with the diagnosis of main
problems corrective actions were implemented as well as processes control. A
training program was done to prepare the workers to accomplish with the new
procedures, that made possible to stablish a comparison between past results
and the ones achieved with new procedures and controls. It was also proposed and utilized the Net
Promoter Score – NPS method to evaluate customer satisfaction that allowed to
observe the results evolution achieved with the new procedures implemented.
Keywords: logistics processes control; customer
satisfaction; Net Promoter Score – NPS
1. INTRODUCTION
Brazilian
Market faces the financial sustainability challenge, due to the economic crises
that reached the country in 2014, causing a long recession in the years of 2015
and 2016, with an average decline of 3.75% on GNP (PAULA; PIRES, 2017).
According to Fatas and Summers (2016) studies, deep
recessions increase costs and have effects on potential GNP and depressing
economic growth.
Consequently, the revenues become highly compromised with
arrears, turn debtors more vulnerable to shocks that can reduce cash
generation, consequently reducing their capacity to honor their debts (PAULA;
PIRES, 2017). Naturally, companies are doing what is possible, to
reduce costs to improve profits and be more competitive. Competitiveness is a
constant issue to companies, so it is necessary to innovate, and produce are
solutions to business survival in such scenario (LANDIM et al., 2016).
In
modern Society packaging has an important role to measure economic activity in
industrialized countries, its consumption by the populations is one of the
parameters to verify economic activity level as well as country development
(LANDIM et al., 2016). According to Brazilian Cellulose and Paper Association
(BRACELPAs, 2016), Brazil is worldwide noteworthy by producing and supplying
relevant volume of paper and packaging materials.
Analyzing the packaging market Evolution, it is
observed that Brazil became the world´s 9th largest paper producer o with
10,260 metric tons as informed by Pulp and Paper Industry Intelligence (RISI,
2010), it represents R$ 42.8 billion, around 1.10% of the Gross National
Product (GNP). In 2013 according to the
analysis of Brazilian Packaging Association (ABRE) on the first trimester of
that year there was a reduction of 1.02% comparing to the GNP of 2012 and 11.82%
comparing to 2010 GNP. The fluctuation between packaging production and
participation on the GNP from 2010 to 2017 can be observed on the table 1.
In
2016 a research from Brazilian Institute of Economy (IBRE) and Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV) to
ABRE, have indicates that the packaging sector achieved a production growth,
achieving R$ 68 billion, equivalent to 1.03% of Brazilian´s GNP, comparing to
2013 it represents a 6.2% increase. In 2017 the same institutes produced a new
research which demonstrates production value of R$ 71.5 billion, a growth of
5.1%, but a small decrease to 1.02% of the GNP (ABRE, 2017)
Table 1: Packaging Industry
participation on GNP
Year |
Gross Packaging Production (R$ billions) |
%GNP* |
2010 |
42.8 |
1.10 |
2011 |
45.0 |
1.03 |
2012 |
47.2 |
0.98 |
2013 |
51.5 |
0.97 |
2014 |
57.7 |
1.00 |
2015 |
59.0 |
1.01 |
2016** |
68.0 |
1.03 |
2017** |
71.5 |
1.02 |
Gross
Production Value: Industrial Annual Research – PIA – Product. *Recalculated
series ** estimated data
Source: IBRE and
FGV (2018)
From
total packaging production, plastics represent 38.85%, followed by cellulosic
packaging 34.09% (corrugated paperboard 17.36%, cardboard 11.57% and paper
5.16%), metallic packaging 18.15%, glass 4.44% and wood 1.95% (ABRE, 2017).
Due
to the access to information and the relevance it was chosen the cellulosic
sector to perform de research. A case study was conducted in a packaging
company located at east zone of São Paulo City, there was a data collection
from April to September 2017. The research problem came up from the need to
understand what is the impact of logistics services on customer satisfaction?
The general objective of this paper is to measure the impact of logistics
process control, transport operations and distribution on the company´s
customer satisfaction. The specific objectives are to check if there are
logistics control system in the company, evaluate the financial impact of
logistics activities and propose corrective measures to the logistics problems
found during the research.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Corporations
need to be profitable, to achieve this goal it is fundamental to obtain
revenues and control costs, to have a health and sustainable business. As
mentioned by Casagranda, Sauer and Pereira (2016),
the main factors that interfere to consider a company as sustainable are
resources utilized and organizational ethics. To Evangelista (2010),
sustainability can be a competitive advantage that can increase profits.
Corporations
search for various strategies to identify the best mean to guarantee customer
satisfaction, meanwhile they need to keep control of costs and results, aiming
to maximize revenues and profits.
Management process is crucial to achieve results, generally
organizations have a departmental view, creating delays and compromising global
performance. One of the great difficulties is to change cultural view from
departmental to process based management (SOUZA;
ZWICKER, 2003).
Hardly
ever departments will disappear due to the process view, it would have a
decrease, decentralization, responsibility change, without department
extinction. Corporation would tend to be centralized in processes achieving
higher maturity, allowing the existence of both functional and processes views
(FONSECA, 2015).
Logistical
process is a significant process for companies. The Association Française des Logisticiens d’Enterprises (L’ASLOG, 2010), defines logistics as series
of activities that aims to deliver at a minimum cost, a quantity of product on
place and time that exists the need.
Logistics
mission is to put on the right goods or services in the correct place and time,
with desirable conditions, providing the best contribution to the company
(BALLOU, 2001). Logistics covers all the activities of moving warehousing to
assist the flow of goods and information to provide the adequate service level
at a reasonable cost. Logistics
involves not only product delivery to customers, but inventories and production
control, starting even before manufacturing or dispatch of goods to clients. (BALLOU,
2006).
Currently
corporations are giving great emphasis to the Supply Chain Management (SCM),
controlling the whole process from inbound of supplies to the delivery to
customers, some authors define SCM as an extension of integrated logistics (CHRISTOPHER, 1997). Logistics management
first concerned with optimization of internal processes, the concept of SCM
considers that internal integration is not enough.
In fact, it is necessary to expand logistical integration
beyond the company boundaries, including suppliers and clients
(MOORI;MARCONDES; AVILA, 2002). The SCM is an integrated network where
companies dispatch goods and services to their customers (POIRIER; REITER,
1997). The SCM is a strategic area that can affect the competitiveness
(ANDERSEN; LARSEN, 2009), the main goal of SCM is to maximize the global value
created, which is the difference between final price to consumer and the
efforts along the SCM to fulfill the order (CHOPRA; MEINDL, 2003). Procurement
represents the greatest part of financial expenses for companies, it reinforces
the view of SCM as a vital field to be explored (SLACK et al., 1996).
Transportation activities have great impact on SCM, being
a key activity on logistics of distribution and is significant on costs impact,
in some cases it represents 60% of logistical costs, which means that wrong
decisions can cause profit reduction and loss of competitiveness (BALLOU,
2006).
According to data from Confederação
Nacional do Transporte (CNT, 2016), transportation
costs represent 6.8% of GNP (R$ 401 billion), and logistical costs can be 25%
of final goods.
Choose the correct mode of transportation is very
important to dispatch goods and services, it demands planning the dispatch that
best satisfy customer needs, according to CNT (2018), the main mode utilized in
Brazil is by road 60%, followed by rail 20%, 13% waterway. Comparing to other
countries these proportions varies, for example in USA it is 32%-43%-25%, in
Russia it is 8%-81%-11% (CARNEIRO, 2016, p. 21). According to Wanke (2010),the national transportation production (moved
amount vs travelled distance) has over 60% of road transport. The preference to
road transportation is justified by logistical fundaments such as the spread of
the road need (ARAUJO, 2014).
This field does not suffer interference of government
control, it allows that prices can be negotiated by who offers and buys
transportation services (SOARES; CAIXETA-FILHO, 1997). Prices formation is a
very complex process, due to it depends on the activity costs, local and conjuncture factors (MARTINS, 2008). Freight prices also can be different according
to the rout, areas with higher demand on good transportation, usually have more
expensive freight prices (HIJJAR, 2008).
Third part transportation suppliers reflect the
enterprise image to customers, showing how much care is given to distribution
services, it is part of the front line with customers such as treatment offered
by telephone, e-mails and other communications, so it makes necessary a careful
attention to this issue because is the view clients have from the company,
transportation is the column of distribution compound, having straight impact
on client´s satisfaction (MARTINS et al., 2014). According to Ballou
(2006), delivery services can cause a negative impact on global evaluation from
the client, as an example it can cause loss of fidelity or non-repetition of
purchase, depending on delivery performance affected by product damage, delay
or inconsistent services.
The choice of transportation supplier is a strategic
issue, it is necessary to evaluate reliability, safety, on time delivery
history, costs as well as attention to client´s special needs (MARTINS et al.,
2011), it is also important to guarantee service consistency, availability and
time (MARTINS; LOBO; PEREIRA, 2005).
Costumers aims more than goods, they search for good
treatment, quality, flexibility payment and delivery term, reliability is hard
to build and take time, but a small sequence of problems and lack of commitment
can destroy a long-term relationship (SLACK et al., 1993). On time delivery starts before shipment, to
have an efficient logistical planning, it is necessary to know the real situation about delivery
terms, equipment’s availability and other services required (KAFER; PARIS,
2010), according to
Barros, Fensterseifer
e Formoso (2003),
fulfilling the promised terms creates reliability to customers.
Another important issue to create customer reliability os post-sales services, consumers can react in a negative
way if after sales support is inefficient, it possibly will make customer think
better before making a new purchase (ALMEIDA et al., 2017). When
a company is consumer satisfaction focused it creates competitive advantages
(GONÇALVES, 1995), companies need to satisfy its consumers, after all they
provide sustainability when satisfied they maintain long-term relationships
that results in competitiveness (GUARNIERI et al., 2006).
Satisfying
consumer needs is one of the organizations main objectives, for that reason
many studies were developed on this subject (MARCHETTI; PRADO, 2001). Consumer
satisfaction is defined as the answer given by the customer related to the
provided services during the process of customer attendance, that is the result
of comparison between the expectations and the provided services (SANTOS; NEIVA;
MELO, 2013).
To measure consumer satisfaction, it is possible to
utilize performance indicators, that are tools to evaluate a situation and
environmental trends (TORCCHETO; PEREIRA, 2004). Performance indicators are
parameters utilized to have information and monitoring the company´s
performance based on stablished standards for this purpose (CHAVES; ASSUNÇAO,
2008).
To measure customer´s satisfaction Fred Reichheld
proposed in 2003 a performance indicator named
Net Promoter Score (NPS), which focus on positive and negative
recommendations have influence on corporation growth (KEININGHAM,
2008). The calculation of NPS is demonstrate on equation 1.
Equation 1: NPS Calculation Formula
Source Adapted from Reichheld (2003)
Where:
Promoters
(score 9 and 10): are customers that will really exalt the company on a propitious moment, telling their good
experiences.
Neutral
(scores 7 and 8): these are consumers that will neither exalt nor
depreciate the company.
Detractors
(scores 0 to 6): customers that will depreciate
the company highlighting the bad experiences they had with the company.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Exploratory
research is carried out to provide to the researcher more familiarity with the
problem , this kind of research can be conducted as a Case Study (GIL, 2002).
Case Study is a research method used in many situations, it can contribute to
better understanding phenomena of many natures, including corporations (YIN,
2010).
To
better develop and support the Case Study, it is recommended that the
researcher previously prepares a research protocol, it needs to contain a
setting of tools that allows a deep observation of the phenomenon (YIN, 2010).
The present research started with a bibliographic research to provide a better
view of the problem to be studied and set basis to develop the other phases,
during data collection and analysis the utilized tools were interviews,
non-participatory observation, participatory observation with improvement
suggestions implementation and research on corporation´s documents.
4. CASE STUDY
The research took place in a corrugated
paperboard company situated in the east area of the Citi of São Paulo. The data
collection for the occurred from April to September of 2017, based on
performance indicators from logistics and marketing departments.
The
data about logistics processes were taken from a satisfaction research
performed on June 2017, based on NPS method, that made possible to identify the
most critical factors listed below.
·
Freight costs based on weight of transported cargo,
also allowing to identify the freight margins.
·
Product devolution caused by logistic problems that
has returned merchandise weight divided by total production weight, providing
the percentage of devolution.
·
On time delivery that show how many customers are
satisfied with time delivery fulfillment, indicates the percentage of contacted
customers satisfied with delivery services.
·
Third part transport services, measures customers
satisfaction with provided services considering ethics, treatment and
merchandise preservation.
·
General satisfaction measures how satisfied customers
are with the company, based in quantity of contacted customers.
In
the first part of the Case Study there the process was observed without interference
of the researches, non-participative observation, according to Gil (2002), this
process can change the behavior on the observed people due to the presence of
observers. Meantime the company documentation was checked to verify the
critical factors found on the satisfaction research. The financial results were
provided in percentage format, without details due to the confidentiality of
discussed information.
During the study development improvement suggestions came
up based on previous observations and were implemented, at this point the
started the participative observation process. To validate the
research on company´s documents the logistics Manager and Analysts were
interviewed, it made possible to enhance the perception on processes and
implemented during the research.
4.1.
Data
analysis
The
data analysis occurred two periods, the first was from April to June, when
there was the collection from logistical processes data, nom-participative
observation and interviews, that made possible to non-controlled and
non-evaluated processes, the satisfaction survey on performed on July to check
the satisfaction on previous trimester was also utilized.
The
second part occurred from July to September, when there was the implementation
of new control system of logistical processes based on the first phase of the
research, that allowed to suggest improvements. The evaluation on the
improvements impact was carried out on October based on a satisfaction survey
performed with customers.
4.2.
Freight
costs
The Company distributes all over the country, however, its
biggest Market is the southeast region of Brazil, mainly São Paulo State, the
chart 1 presents freight costs related to the production on the evaluated
period.
Chart 1: freight costs
Freight Costs |
||
Period |
Production Kg |
Costs % |
April |
750 |
0.49 |
May |
550 |
0.61 |
June |
700 |
0.52 |
Total |
2000 |
1.62 |
Average |
667 |
0.54 |
Source: created by the author
The company produced two metric ton from April to June,
and had a transportation cost of 0.54%, considered high by the corporation,
costs above 0,5% are considered high and have great impact on competitiveness.
Before the research the company did not related freight costs with production,
so it was not possible to compare to past periods.
After the transportation analysis it was proceeded price
quotations with transportation suppliers for two months, after that 70% of
regular suppliers accepted to negotiate and continued to supply the company,
the other 30% were changed by new supplier. The new price condition creates a
financial return as shown on chart 2.
Chart 2: freight costs after changes
Freight Costs |
||
Period |
Production Kg |
Costs % |
July |
650 |
0.45 |
August |
690 |
0.41 |
September |
670 |
0.43 |
Total |
2010 |
1.29 |
Average |
670 |
0.43 |
Source: created by the authors
As observed the production was practically the same, but
there was a reduction in freight costs from 0.54% to 0.43%, representing 20% of
reduction;
4.3.
Logistical
problems devolution
Checking consumers claims, it was possible to verify
problems with products identification on packaging as well as identification
tags, the level of devolutions can be observed on chart 3.
Chart 3: logistical problem claims
Logistical problems claims |
||||
Period |
Claims |
Logistics |
Devolution |
% |
April |
23 |
3 |
2 |
13.04 |
May |
27 |
2 |
1 |
7.41 |
June |
22 |
2 |
1 |
9.09 |
Total |
72 |
7 |
4 |
9.72 |
Average |
23 |
2 |
1 |
8.70 |
Source: created by the authors
The chart presents that from April to June logistical
problems were responsible for 8.7% of total devolution, as far as the company
does not consider it as a relevant problem, actions are needed to reduce this
indicator. Chart 4 presents the percentage of logistical problems devolution
compared to total production.
Chart 4: % of returned quantities before process modifications
Logistical problems devolutions |
|||
Period |
Production Kg |
Devolution Kg |
% |
April |
750 |
5 |
0.67 |
May |
550 |
2 |
0.36 |
June |
700 |
3 |
0.43 |
Total |
200 |
10 |
0.5 |
Average |
667 |
3 |
0.45 |
Source: created by the authors
On average there was 3Kg of logistical problems
devolutions representing 0.45% of total production
From the observations of processes changes were suggested
in the processes of material check and production notes, a on the job training
program was performed, after the changes were implemented it was possible do
evaluate the effects as demonstrate on charts 5 and 6.
Chart 5: historical of logistical problems claims after changes
Logistical problems claims |
||||
Period |
Claims |
Logistics |
Devolutions |
% |
July |
21 |
2 |
1 |
9.52 |
August |
18 |
1 |
1 |
5.56 |
September |
15 |
1 |
0 |
6.67 |
Total |
54 |
4 |
2 |
7.41 |
Average |
18 |
1 |
1 |
5.56 |
Source: created by the authors
Comparing results from charts 3 and 5 it is possible to
observe that the processes changes caused a reduction of unconformities from
8.7% to 5.56% a total reduction of 36%.
The chart 6 presents the results of the indicator of
logistical problems devolution compared to total production after procedures
changes.
Chart 6: % of returned quantities before process modifications
Logistical problems devolutions |
|||
Period |
Production Kg |
Devolution Kg |
% |
July |
650 |
3 |
0.46 |
August |
590 |
2 |
0.29 |
September |
670 |
1 |
0.15 |
Total |
2000 |
6 |
0.30 |
Average |
667 |
2 |
0.30 |
Source: created by the authors
Comparing charts 4 and 6 ir is
possible to observe a reduction from 0.45% to 0.30% on devolutions, it
represents an improvement of 33% on the indicator.
4.4.
Deadline
accomplishments
The satisfaction survey made on June revealed that 78% of
customers were satisfied with the company´s deadline accomplishments, other 22
were dissatisfied. After checking the invoices that present deadline problems
it was observed that the problem source was in the production planning, some
adjustments on production scheduling were made, but due to the lack of time, it
was not possible to observe the impacts on deadline accomplishments.
4.5.
Third
part transportation services
The satisfaction survey performed on June presented
indicated that 81% of consumers are satisfied with transportation services and
19% dissatisfied, extracting information from the reports it was possible to
identify the main causes of dissatisfaction, merchandise preservation,
treatment, worker behavior and vehicle preservation. The collected data is
presented on chart 7.
Chart 7: claims on third part transportation companies
Third part transportation claims |
||
Requirement |
% claim |
%accumulated |
Merchandise
preservation |
43 |
43 |
Treatment |
29 |
72 |
Worker
behavior and |
18 |
90 |
Vehicle
preservation |
10 |
100 |
Total |
100 |
Source: Criated by the authors
Based
on the information above it was requested, to the transportation supplier to
produce and implemented corrective plans, due to the lack of time to evaluate
the results, the only information obtained is that on September satisfaction
survey the dissatisfied level was 17%, but this data cannot be considered an
improvement, since it is necessary a long-time observation to evaluate this
indicator.
5. RESULTS ANALYSIS
After
data collection interviews with the
Logistics Manager and the two Logistics Analysts were performed to validate the
processes control changes implemented. Their perception was that the most important
issues that impact costumer’s satisfaction are the deadline accomplishments and
third part transportation services, due to the research duration, it was not
possible to achieve conclusive results, since there was not enough time to
observe the impact of production scheduling changes and action plans
implementation by third part transportation suppliers.
The
Direction board decide a goal of minimum 80% on satisfaction indicator, even
with the change to NPS that is more severe than previous methodology, it was
decided to keep 80% as minimum score, NPS was calculated using the formula on
equation 1.
On July it was performed a customer survey with 102
clients, covering the trimester from April to June, the data was collected to
fulfill the old method of consumer satisfaction analysis, but it was possible
to convert to NPS standards, the results are available on chart 8.
Chart 8: NPS indicators from
April to June
April to June Trimester |
||
NPS |
Clients amount |
% |
Promoters |
81 |
64 |
Neutral |
13 |
24 |
Detractors |
8 |
12 |
Total |
102 |
100 |
NPS |
72% |
Source: created by the authors
On
October the research was performed with 105 clients covering the trimester from
July to September, the results are available on chart 9.
Chart 9: NPS indicators from July
to September
April to June Trimester |
||
NPS |
Clients amount |
% |
Promoters |
92 |
64 |
Neutral |
8 |
24 |
Detractors |
5 |
12 |
Total |
105 |
100 |
NPS |
83 |
Source: created by the authors
Comparing the results from the semesters it is possible
to observe the improvement on customer satisfaction based on NPS, there was a
growth of 11% on satisfaction indicators, and the company could achieve a
result in line with the board determination of 80%, achieving 83%. Checking the
financial data it was also possible to observe that the financial results kept
stable with a small growth of 0.38%.
6. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
During
the improvement process implementation, it was clear the resistance to changes
form the involved employs, comments such as we have a large experience in
company, even the among the leaders it was possible to note a discomfort with
changing subjects.
It
was possible to observe that the company had performance controls, but a small
attention was given to them, even the leadership was not engaged on making it
work. During the training program to implement the proposed changes in
logistics control procedures, as far as there was resistance, it was possible
to convince worker to accept and understand the benefits of the changes.
The
study allowed to observe a cost saving transportation problems devolutions, as
well as on customer satisfaction based on NPS results with an increase or 11%
on customer satisfaction indicator.
It
was possible to observe that some people in the company started to compare the
results of new performance indicators with the old ones, causing a sensation of
decrease on results, that was necessary to recalculate the previous results
adapted to NPS, so they could understand the advantages of the changes
performed, and that it is not recommended compare results based on different
methods.
The
Case Study was performed only on logistics department, based on the positive
results it is recommended to extend the process improvement to the whole
company, and suggest a continuous improvement program implementation to create
a culture of improvement to guarantee the business sustainability.
REFERENCES
ANDERSEN, M.; SKJOETT-LARSEN, T. (2009) Corporate social responsibility
in global supply chains. Supply
Chain Management: An International
Journal, v. 14, n. 2, p. 75-86.
ARAUJO, M. P. S.; BANDEIRA, R. A. M.;
CAMPOS, V. B. G. (2014) Custos e fretes praticados no transporte rodoviário de
cargas: uma análise comparativa entre autônomos e empresas. J.
Transp. Lit., Manaus, v. 8, n. 4, p.
187-226, Oct.
ALMEIDA, C. X. et al . (2017) Resolveram meu
problema, porém não compro mais! Por que os consumidores não desejam voltar a
fazer negócios em lojas on-line? Innovar, Bogotá, v. 27, n. 65, p. 57-68.
BALLOU, R. H. (2006) Gerenciamento
da Cadeia de Suprimentos/Logística Empresarial. 5. ed. Porto Alegre:
Bookman.
BALLOU, R. H. (2001) Gerenciamento da cadeia de suprimentos: Planejamento, organização e logística empresarial.
Porto Alegre: Bookman.
BARROS NETO, J. P.; FENSTERSEIFER, J. E.;
FORMOSO, C. T. (2003) Os critérios competitivos da produção: um estudo
exploratório na construção de edificações. Revista de
Administração Contemporânea. Curitiba,
v. 7, n. 1, p. 67-85, mar.
CARNEIRO, C. C. (2016) Multimodalidade: Conceitos, Análises e Limitações
para o Caso Brasileiro, Brasília, 2016.
CASAGRANDA, Y. G.; SAUER, L.; PEREIRA, M. W.
G. (2016) A percepção dos administradores sobre sustentabilidade empresarial. Interações,
Campo Grande, v. 17, n. 3, p. 487-502, set.
CHAVES, G. L. D.;
ASSUNÇÃO, M. R. P.(2008) Medidas de desempenho na logística reversa: o caso de
uma empresa do setor de bebidas. In: SIMPÓSIO DE ADMINISTRAÇÃO DA PRODUÇÃO,
LOGÍSTICA E OPERAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS – SIMPOI, 11, São Paulo. Anais...
2008.
CHOPRA, S.; MEINDL, P. (2003)
Gerenciamento
da cadeia de suprimentos: Estratégia,
planejamento e operação. São Paulo: Prentice Hall.
CHRISTOPHER, M. (1997)
Logística e gerenciamento da cadeia de suprimentos. São Paulo: Pioneira.
CNT. CONFEDERAÇÃO
NACIONAL DOS TRANSPORTES (2016). Notícias
(2016), Custo logístico consome 12,7% do PIB do Brasil. Available em: <http://www.cnt.org.br/Imprensa/noticia/custo-logistico-consome-12-do-pib-do-brasil>.
Access 10 set. 2018.
CNT. CONFEDERAÇÃO
NACIONAL DOS TRANSPORTES (2018) Boletim
Estatístico. Available
em: <http://www.cnt.org.br/Boletim/boletim-estatistico-cnt
>. Access 10 set. 2018.
EVANGELISTA, R. (2010) Sustentabilidade Um
possível caminho para o sucesso empresarial? Revista Portuguesa e
Brasileira de Gestão, Lisboa, v. 9, n. 1-2, p.
85-96, jun.
FATAS, A.; SUMMERS, L. H. (2016) The permanent effects of fiscal
consolidations. NBER
Working Paper, n.
22374, jun.
FONSECA, W. (2017) Gestão por Processos, Diferenças entre a visão departamental e visão
por processos. Available em: <http://www.administradores.com.br/artigos/carreira/gestao-por-processos-diferenca-entre-a-visao-departamental-e-visao-por-processos/38869/>.
Access 25 Set. 2017.
GIL, A. C. (2010) Como Elaborar Projetos de Pesquisa, São Paulo – SP: Métodos
e Técnicas de Pesquisa Social. 6 ed. São Paulo: Atlas.
GONÇALVES, M. A. (1995) A satisfação dos
clientes de uma organização é diretamente proporcional à valorização efetiva de
seus recuros humanos: as organizações perdem,
primeiro, o foco em seu pessoal antes de perderem o foco em seus clientes. Revista de Administração de Empresas, São
Paulo, v. 35, n. 1, Feb.
GUARNIERI, P. et al. (2006) Wms
- Warehouse management system: Adaptação proposta
para o gerenciamento da logística reversa, São Paulo, v. 16, n. 1, p.
126-139, Apr.
GURGEL, F. A. (2000) Logística Empresarial, São Paulo,
Editora Atlas.
HIJJAR, M. F. (2008) Preços de frete rodoviário no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: ILLOS-Instituto de Logística
e Supply Chain.
KAFER, E.; PARIS, W. S. (2010) Avaliação da Eficiência da Cadeia de Fornecedores da Prefeitura de Céu
Azul; Curitiba.
KEININGHAM, T. L. (2008) Linking Customer Loyalty to Growth, MIT Sloan Management Review, v. 49, n.
4, p. 52.
L’ASLOG. (2010) The
association française des logisticiens d’enterprises, Paris,.
LANDIM, A. P. M. et al. (2016) Sustentabilidade
quanto às embalagens de alimentos no Brasil. Polímeros, São Carlos, v. 26, n. spe, p. 82-92.
MARCHETTI, R.; Prado, P. H. M. (2001) Um
tour pelas medidas de satisfação do consumidor. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 41, n. 4, p. 56-67.
MARTINS, R. S. et al. (2011) Gestão do Transporte
Orientada para os Clientes: Nível de Serviço Desejado e Percebido. RAC. Revista
de Administração Contemporânea, v. 15, p. 1100-1119.
MARTINS, R. S.; LOBO, D. S.; PEREIRA, S.
M. (2005) Atributos relevantes no transporte de granéis agrícolas: Preferência
declarada pelos embarcadores. Revista de Economia e Agronegócio,
Viçosa - UFV, v. 32, n. 2, p. 173-192.
MARTINS, R. S. et al. (2014) Fatores
relevantes na contratação de serviços em terminais intermodais para granéis
agrícolas. Revista de Economia
e Sociologia Rural, Brasília, v. 52, n. 2, p. 347-364, jun.
MARTINS, S. (2008) Estudo da formação do
frete rodoviário e potencial de conflitos em negociações. Cadeias do agronegócio
Brasileiro, vol. 10, n. 1, p. 73-87.
MOORI, R. G.; MARCONDES, R. C.; AVILA, R. T.
(2002) A análise de agrupamentos como instrumento de apoio à melhoria da
qualidade dos serviços aos clientes. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea, Curitiba, v. 6, n. 1, p. 63-84, abr.
PAULA, L. F.; PIRES, M. (2017) Crise e
perspectivas para a economia brasileira. Estud.
av., São Paulo, v. 31, n. 89, p. 125-144, abr.
POIRIER, C. C.; REITER,
S. E. (1997) Otimizando sua rede de negócios. São Paulo: Futura.
RISI (2010) PULP AND
PAPER INDUSTRY INTELLIGENCE. Satistical Boltim 2010. Bedford.
REICHHELD, F. (2003) The One Number you Need to Grow. Harvard Business Review. v. 83, n. 6.
SANTOS, J. N.; NEIVA, E. R.; MELO, E. A.
(2013) Relação entre clima organizacional, percepção de mudança organizacional
e satisfação do cliente. Psic.: Teor. e Pesq., Brasília ,
v. 29, n. 1, p. 31-39, mar.
SLACK, N. et al. (1996) Administração
da Produção. São Paulo: Atlas.
SLACK, N. (1993) Vantagem
competitiva em manufatura: atingindo
competitividade nas operações industriais. São Paulo: Atlas.
SOARES, M. G.; CAIXETA FILHO, J. V.(1997)
Caracterização do mercado de fretes rodoviários para produtos agrícolas. Gest. Prod. São Carlos , v. 4, n. 2, p.
186-204, Aug.
SOUZA, C. A.; ZWICKER, R. (2003) Big-bang, small-bangs ou fases:
estudo dos aspectos relacionados ao modo de início de operação de sistemas ERP. Revista de
Administração Contemporânea, Curitiba,
v. 7, n. 4, p. 9-31, Dec.
TOCCHETTO, M. R. P;
PEREIRA, L. C. (2004) Seleção de indicadores ambientais para indústria com
atividade galvânica. In: ENCONTRO DA ASSOCIAÇÃO NACIONAL DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO E
PESQUISA EM ADMINISTRAÇÃO, 28, Curitiba. Anais... Paraná:
Anpad, 2004. CD-ROM.
WANKE, P. (2010)
Logística e
transporte de cargas no Brasil: produtividade e eficiência no Século XXI. São Paulo: Atlas.
YIN, R. K. (2010) Estudo de Caso: planejamento e métodos. 4ª edição, Porto Alegre. Bookman.