Paolo Edoardo Coti-Zelati
Faculdades de Campinas (FACAMP), Brazil
E-mail: coti_zelati@outlook.com
Mauricio Jucá de Queiroz
Fundação Instituto de Administração (FIA), Brazil
E-mail: mjqueiroz@gmail.com
Davi Lucas Arruda de Araújo
Universidade Ibirapuera (UNIB), Brazil
E-mail: davi_lucas89@hotmail.com
Submission: 09/06/2018
Revision: 11/08/2018
Accept: 28/11/2018
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study is to propose, within the strategic
management of organic product supply chains, a model that integrates the
concepts of supply chain management (SCM), transaction costs theory (TTC) and
bullwhip effect in organic product supply chains generating propositions to
direct future empirical research. Therefore, this paper proposes that x SCM and
TTC can contribute in reducing the distortion of demand perception throughout
the supply chain of organic products. A conceptual model relating the three
variables studied was elaborated. Three theoretical future empirical
investigations were proposed in order to solve the problem of the bullwhip
effect, namely the distortion of perception of demand along the supply chain of
organic products.
Keywords: Supply chain
management. Theory of transaction costs. Bullwhip effect. Organic products
1. INTRODUCTION
Organic
farming began in Brazil in the late 1970’s and has proven to be a sustainable
alternative to the use of agricultural chemicals. Organic farming has already
evolved a full production management system that promotes and enhances the
health of the agricultural ecosystem, including biological diversity,
biological cycles and biological soil activity (PENTEADO, 2016). The organic
system emphasizes management practices in preference to the use of external
inputs to the property, taking into account the adaptation of systems to
regional conditions, using agronomic practices, mechanical and biological
methods, to the detriment of the use of synthetic materials for carrying out
the functions of a given system (FiBL; IFOAM, 2016).
Brazil
is one of the countries in the world that offers immense potential for organic
production The country has approximately 90 million arable hectares, which does
not including those areas already under conventional production that can or
could migrate to organic agricultural cultivations. Brazil third in the world
in areas cultivated with organic production and has approximately 90 thousand
organic farmers, both certified and uncertified. The products with the highest
volume of organic production and consumption in Brazil are: sugar, coffee,
chicken, tobacco, vegetables, oranges, milk, eggs and soybeans (PLANETA
ORGÂNICO, 2017).
For
a product to be considered organic it had had to have been cultivated without
the use of both pesticides and chemical fertilizers. Early technologies of
organic agricultural production are still in use in current x production
processes. This production system x excludes the use of chemical and synthetic
fertilizers, as well as any chemical pesticides, growth regulators or synthetic
additives for animal nutrition (DAROLT, 2010).
Any
agricultural production system that adopts specific techniques to enhance the
use of available natural resources and respects the socioeconomic cultural
integrity of rural communities can be considered organic. Thus, organic
agriculture promotes economic sustainability, maximizes the use social
resources and minimizes use of non-renewable energy (VILCKAS; NANTES, 2007).
Organic
production uses green manure, crop rotation, composting and biological controls
for pests and diseases. Throughout the production chain, i.e. soil preparation,
purchase of inputs, production, processing, storage, transport and
distribution, respect for established norms, is
essential for a product to be recognized as organic (SAMBIASE; MOORI; SATO,
2004).
Organic
agricultural production systems are present in more than 172 countries around
the world and these have been rapidly expanding especially in Europe, USA,
Japan, Australia and South America. This expansion is associated, in large
part, to x increased costs, environmental problems and concerns and food
contamination caused by conventional agriculture practices. Basic ecological
agriculture provides benefits to biodiversity and to the welfare of the
environment. Furthermore, there is a growing consumer demand for
"clean" agriculture produce, free of chemicals and/or geneticx
modifications (FIBL; IFOAM, 2016).
According
to the same study, the continent with the largest area of organic production is
Oceania (35%), followed by Europe (23%), Latin America (23%), Asia (9%), North
America (7%) and Africa (3%). Some European countries such as: Austria (15.9%),
Switzerland (11.1%) and Sweden (10.8%), represent the largest percentage of
Organics in relation to total farming. The countries with the largest number of
organic produce producers are India (340,000), Uganda (180,000) and Mexico
(130,000), which are mostly family farmers. World Statistics show that of the
172 countries where production is registered, 69 nations already have a
regulation for the organic sector and 21 countries are working on developing
legislation. Presently there are around 460 of certifications to attest to the
quality of organic products in the world. In Brazil there are about 20
including both domestic and foreign certifications.
Organic
farming has been gaining more and more popularity in both Brazilian and world
markets. In Brazil, the growth of organic agricultural production surpassed the
50% mark in 2011. The marketing of agricultural products of organic origin in
the country has already reached $100,000,000 in turnover. An example of this
fact is the consumption of organic coffee, which has been gradually increasing
not only in Brazil but abroad as well (IDER, 2017).
With
1,767,000 hectares of organic crops, Brazil is the third largest country in the
acreage, ahead the United States with 1,640,000 hectares for organic
agricultural production. Australia and Argentina, account for first and second
place, with a total acreage of 12,020,000 and 2,780,000 hectares respectively
(IFOAM, 2017).
According
to the Institute of Sustainable Development and Renewable Energies (IDER,
2017), organic product markets are still developing thus making for highly
unstable markets due to x irregular
supply, in addition to a small variety of products offered. Yet the growth of
organic agriculture in Brazil continues to expand, making for a business value
in the sector of over U$100,000,000 (IDER, 2017).
The
main question that arises from this debate is: how does the transaction cost
theory contribute to the reduction of the distortion of perception of demand
along the supply chain of organic products?
The
present theoretical test is based on the context described above in order to
propose a model that integrates the concepts of supply chain management,
transaction costs theory and bullwhip effect in organic product supply chains
that could help direct future empirical research.
The
present study is structured in four sections. In addition to this introduction,
the review of the theory of supply chain management (SCM), theory of
transaction costs (TTC) and bullwhip effect will be
developed in relation to supply chains. The final section of this paper will be
dedicated to our findings and to suggestions for further study.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1.
Supply
chain management (SCM)
Discussions
on supply chain management (SCM) began in the 80´s and remain a topic of
fundamental concern to the academic and Executive career. However, only at the
end of the 90´s did the amount of research on SCM began to increase and appear
in studies related to organizational operations (KOUVELIS; CHAMBERS; WANG,
2006).
Kopczak
and Johnson (2003) define supply chain as two or more companies working
together to plan and execute operations related to supplies, obtaining greater
success than if working in isolation. In other words, supply chain
collaboration based on mutual objectives.
The
supply chain operates as a network of partnerships between manufacturers, raw
material suppliers, shippers, retailers or any other related party (SIMCHI-LEVI;
KAMINSKY; SIMCHI-LEVI, 2003).
SCM
can be defined as the systematic and strategic coordination of traditional
business and business functions within an organization, and along the chain, in
order to improve the performance of individual companies and all other links in
the supply chain. In general, companies adopt SCM practices to increase their
market competitiveness as well as to reduce their costs and improve their
customer satisfaction (MENTZER et al.,
2001).
For
Paulraj and Chen (2007), SCM contributes to eliminate waste and more efficient
use of internal and external capabilities and technologies, leading to improved
competitiveness.
According
to Barney and Hesterly (2012), SCM can also occur in the form of strategic
alliances, i.e. when two or more independent companies start work together in
the production, development and distribution of goods or services. These strategic
alliances are usually long-term agreements between organizations. This mode
goes beyond normal market transactions, but cannot be considered as mergers. In
these strategic alliances, companies work together, but without relinquishing
their independence or autonomy.
Park,
Mezias and Song (2004) list the major benefits achieved by supply chain
management as being cost reduction, risk sharing, access to financial capital,
complementary assets, greater capacity for learning and knowledge transfer.
For
Min and Mentzer (2004), SCM occurs when two or more organizations take
responsibility for sharing information on planning, management, execution and
performance measurement. Yet for those authors every relationship between
organizations is forged initially due to direct contact in the supply chain. In
a second moment this relationship ends up spreading to other levels of the
production chain.
According
to Simatupang and Sridharan (2005), with efficient supply chain management,
participating companies will improve their operational base whereas Pires
(2010) believes that the main benefit acquired by SCM is linked to
productivity. Through this management, supply chain participant organizations
expect that the development of their products enhance their competitive
advantages and performance.
One
of the main barriers to SCM is that the companies involved have to provide and
share information considered strategic with all other members of the chain (MENTZER;
STANK; ESPER, 2008).
Considering
this, one can understand that the actions of SCM are increasingly focused on
the integration of the supply chain participants through new technologies and
communication targeting strategic development and operational planning. This
will ultimately benefit the end consumers with better products and services as
well as provide competitiveness for everyone involved in the supply chain
(BOWERSOX et al., 2013).
Therefore,
companies that feature improved performance are those which best integrate the
main internal processes with suppliers and customers, structuring, in this way,
a SCM with defined and consistent perspectives and procedures (ZHANG; DILTS,
2004).
It
is important to note that all companies within a supply chain have a
transactional relationship with other participating organizations. Due to new
demands, these companies develop a relationship of cooperation with other
players along the chain (LI et al.,
2006).
According
to these authors, the financial results achieved through the partnership
relationship within the SCM make companies more competitive. In this way, SCM
becomes an important resource, to overcome barriers inside and outside an
organization.
Many
authors have addressed various aspects of the SCM theme. In an attempt to
synthesize the doctrine on this broad topic, Cao and Zhang (2011) defined seven
dimensions of the concept of SCM. They are:
i) Information sharing refers to the variety of relevant information, accurate, complete and
confidential that an organization shares with their supply chain partners in a
timely manner (SHEU; YEN; CHAE, 2006). For SCM to be effective there is a need
for greater contact between the organizations involved as well as a greater
sharing of information between them (SAHAY, 2003). SCM contributes to
information sharing and joint planning, increasing the movement of materials
thus reducing the risks of not meeting client demands (BOWERSOX et al., 2013).
ii) The congruence in goals
between supply chain partners is reached once the company implementing SCM,
realizes that goals are met when the entire supply chain is also affected (SIMATUPANG; SRIDHARAN, 2002; COTI-ZELATI; MOORI, 2015).
iii) The synchronization of the
decision refers to the process by which an organization prepares its
decision according to plans within the supply chain (ADAMS et al., 2014). This decision should contribute to the benefit of
all partners (SIMATUPANG; SRIDHARAN, 2005).
iv) The alignment of incentives,
according to Simatupang and Sridharan (2008), is the policy of distributing
costs, risks and benefits among the partners within a supply chain. The
alignment of incentives requires careful administration of the earnings
structure for participation, that is, the gain of an organization should be
proportional to its investment and its risk (MATTOS; LAURINDO, 2015).
v) Resource sharing is linked to the organizational process of investing and leveraging
capabilities and resources in partnership with other companies in the supply
chain (CHRISTOPHER, 2016). According to Harland et al. (2004), resources are physical, namely, equipment and
technology.
vi) Inter-organizational communication (open, frequent and balanced) is the contact and the process of
transmission of messages and information between companies in a supply chain (PAULRAJ;
LADO; CHEN, 2008; JARADAT et al., 2017).
vii) The joint creation of knowledge
refers to the way that partners in a supply chain develop a better
understanding of the competitive market (MALHORTA; GASAIN; EL SAWY, 2005;
MARCONI et al., 2017).
2.2.
Bullwhip
effect in supply chains
The
bullwhip effect in supply chains is the distortion of demand perception along
the chain in which supplier requests differ from sales (LEE; PADMANABLAN;
WHANG, 1997). According to Svensson (2005), the bullwhip effect indicates that
the variability in the level of stocks tends to increase as they distance
themselves from the point of consumption. The factors that causing this
variability along the chain can be the lack of information sharing, market data
insufficiency and incorrect predictions.
The
bullwhip effect is one of the most well-known and widespread phenomena in the
area of operations. The term "whip" is used to describe the fact that
a slight change in consumer demand can lead to large fluctuations in the
suppliers’ production at the
other end of the supply chain (SILVA, 2017). The
bullwhip effect can also be described as demand amplification, amplification of
the Forrester effect or variability (WANG; DISNEY, 2016). Dai et al. (2016) clarify that the use of
the latter term to reference the bullwhip effect, is due to the fact that the
phenomenon was documented and studied for the first time by Forrester (1958).
According
to Freitas et al. (2010), companies
forecast their demand based on historical data, and program their production
lines based on this data. Orders sent to the suppliers update the historical
series of requests; the problem is that order fluctuations can be much larger
than the demand data. Because of the bullwhip effect, the customer purchase
pattern does not necessarily reflect the pattern of his consumption or variations
of the amounts purchased which can
differ from the variations in the rate of consumption (LEE; PADMANABLAN; WHANG,
1997).
The
bullwhip effect occurs when demand variability increases as it proceeds down
the supply chain, from the retailer to the suppliers, resulting in negative
impacts on the regularity and stability of the orders that are received by the
suppliers (WANG; WANG; OUYANG, 2015).
According
to Harland (1996), the price used for a company has a significance influence on
how customers behave with respect to orders. If there are times when promotions
occur, probably most of the orders will be carried out in this period. As a
result, there is a decline in stocks while production programming stays the
same, which can cause higher production costs (SELES et al., 2016).
To
Moori, Perera and Mangini (2011), if retailers identify an increased demand in
the supply of products, this will prevent them from making larger orders than
usual, and industry reacts cautiously
when making its production allocations. In this same situation when retailers
send their purchase orders to several suppliers, those received first will
benefit while the remaining orders are dropped, causing the suppliers to stock
up on what has been produced (GONÇALVES; GIORDANO, 2014).
According
to Lee, Padmanablan and Whang (1997), it is possible to avoid the bullwhip
effect in three ways: (a) sharing information in order to provide information
about x demand in a timely manner both upstream as downstream; (b) align
channels so as to coordinate prices, inventory, transport planning and
ownership between the upstream and downstream locations in the SC; (c)
operational efficiency, thus improving performance, such as cost reductions and
delivery time.
In
addition, companies seek to develop innovative strategies, which raise new
challenges, such as the integration of new information systems, the
establishment of new relationships and organizational implementation of new
incentives and measurement systems (COELHO; FOLLMANN; RODRIGUEZ, 2009). For
these authors, innovative companies in different industries can control the
bullwhip effect and improve performance in their supply chain by coordinating
both the planning and the information along the supply chain.
2.3.
Theory
of transaction costs (TTC)
One
of the main contributions of the studies of SCM comes from the economy, more
specifically from the theory of transaction costs (TTC) that gave rise to the
economics of transaction costs (CABRAL, 2004).
To
understand this approach it is necessary to consider that an organization has
not only production costs, but also transaction costs that are defined as the
costs to support a transaction by the exchange in
an open market (COASE, 1937). The proposition was that companies and markets
are alternative management structures that differ in their transaction costs.
Coase (1937) pointed out that under certain conditions, the costs of economic
exchange may exceed the costs to manage the exchange within a company. One the
main reason xx for a company to be profitable seems to be that there is a cost
of using the price mechanism, and the most obvious cost, to organize production
through the pricing mechanism is to find out how relevant these prices are.
According
to Williamson (1996), this cost can be reduced (but not eliminated) once the
costs of negotiation and conclusion of a contract are separated for each swap transaction
that occurs in the market, and should also be taken into account. Since the
essence of the contract is that it should only indicate the boundaries and
powers of management.
However
even within these limits, managers can drive other production factors. The
coordinating role of the manager x is important to understand that this
coordination is the work of the price mechanism and the businessman. In this
way, the entrepreneur has to exercise his functions at a lower cost, taking
into account the fact that he might get production factors for a price lower
than the market operations that it replaces. It is always possible to revert
back to the market if he is unable to do so (HENTEN; WINDEKILDE, 2016).
Williamson
(1985) defines transaction costs as ex-ante
costs of searching, preparing, negotiating and securing a contract and as ex-post monitoring costs, adaptations
and adjustments needed, when the performance of a contract is undermined by
failures, omissions or unexpected changes.
Often
the costs of bureaucracy or waste do not have a relevant weight in very
profitable companies. However, it may be the main reason that leads to
differentiation in the results when it comes to two organizations of the same
business with the same resources, selling to the same customers. The best
structure for an organization depends on several characteristics of own
transactions (WILLIAMSON, 1991).
Williamson
(1991) presents three generic forms of organization: (a) market: this
governance structure is the most appropriate for transactions involving assets
with low specificity; (b) hierarchical: in this governance decision structure
is authority. The application of administrative controls involves a high
proportion of specific assets. The greater the degree of specificity of the
assets, the greater the risks and problems of adjustment and higher transaction
costs; (c) hybrid: this governance structure is characterized by both aspects
of market governance structure and hierarchy. The development of hybrid models
seems to have become a trend.
According to Nogueira and Bataglia (2012), the main
challenge of the hybrid governance structure is to adjust and quantify these
two forms of governance in the pursuit for developing mechanisms to resolve and
expedite problems within the process of a transaction. One can therefore
understand the transaction costs as the operation costs of the system and
should include the ex-ante costs,
such as the drafting of contracts and trading stocks, and ex-post costs, such as the monitoring and implementation of
contracts (RINDFLEISCH; HEIDE, 1997).
According to these authors, the transaction is the central element of
the TTC analysis. Which the factors that define it are: limited rationality and
opportunism (behavioral assumptions) and uncertainty and asset specificity
(attributes of the transaction), in addition to the risk-neutral, as a third
behavioral assumption and transaction frequency, as a third transactional
attribute (WILLIAMSON, 1975).
Limited
rationality is the assumption that decision-makers have restrictions on their
cognitive abilities and limits of their rationality. A switch cannot be
specified ex-ante (environmental
uncertainty) and performance cannot be easily verified ex-post evaluation (behavioral uncertainty). That said, limited
rationality simply means that there are certain physical limits on human
ability to process information. Decision-makers are intentionally rational, but
also are limited by that. Thus rationality is limited resulting inability to
produce global contracts (OLIVEIRA; MARTINS; DIAS 2018).
If
the uncertainty or complexity is present, the problem of limited rationality
appears as an interesting comparative institutional choice and is often used
for decision-making.
This
opportunity extends the conventional assumption that economic agents are guided
by considerations of self-interest in strategic behavior. This process implies
self-interest with deceit and has profound implications for the choice between
alternative contractual relations. Opportunism should be distinguished between
administrative behavior and instrumental behavior, in which the first involves
a trust, in which the word of a party can be taken as a fundamental link, and
the second is a more neutral mode, in which there is no self-knowledge needed
to the interests of a party, to be promoted to schemes of any kind (WILLIAMSON,
1975).
According
to Williamson (1975), in comparison with other approaches of the study of
economic organization, it can be affirmed that the TTC: (a) is more micro
analytical; (b) is more conscious about their behavioral assumptions; (c)
introduces and develops the economic importance of asset specificity; (d) based
on comparative institutional analysis; (e) with respect to the company's
business as a governance structure, rather than a production function; (f) puts
more weight on as ex-post of
contracts, institutions with special collections on private order (in
comparison with a court order) (WILLIAMSON, 1991). The TTC considers economic
organization as a problem, since a particular task to be performed and can be
arranged from any of several alternative forms of explicit or implicit contract
agreement, in addition to including the respective support devices associated
with each form of contract (WILLIAMSON, 1985).
2.4.
Conceptual
model and propositions
Little
has addressed the TTC in operations management. Yet there are a considerable
number of opportunities within the discipline of operations to assess the
supply chain, many of which directly related to the TTC. As TTC focuses on
economic efficiency, it involves a coordination of various activities, indoor
units and business partners involved in the supply chain (GROVER; MALHOTRA, 2003).
In a context of interdependence between segments in a supply chain, the TCT can
contribute with its theoretical and analytical scope by providing predictions
on how transactions should be governed, or on how relations between segments of
the chain can be structured (AUGUSTO et
al., 2015).
Lazzarini,
Cook and Chadad (2001) highlighed the need to govern transactions between
agents for production plans of a supply chain. That means for a processor to
program his production, he has to align supply plans and customers service x
taking into account the seasonality in consumption. Thus, the best coordination
resulting from strategic alignment between the segments of the chain can
generate a reduction in transaction costs.
The
transactions between companies that belong to a production chain are permeated
with complexity and uncertainty (as far as economic operations are
concerned) and given cognitive
limitations, the economic agents are unable to predict or establish in advance
corrective measures for any event that can occur when performing a transaction
(BARZEL, 2018).
Combined
with cognitive limitations, the possibility of opportunistic behavior, and the
transaction attributes discussed, appear as factors that can affect the relationship
of the agents of the supply chain. Thus the TTC considers companies operating
in the same supply chain as a set of contracts, formal or informal, and must
understand the difficulties derived from their future conduct so as to ensure
that commitments are honored within the continuity of their interactions (AUGUSTO
et al., 2015).
The
operational strategies should be linked (or aligned) with the competitive
environment. In this conception, the company aligns internal activities that
add value to produce benefits for their customers (WARD;
DURAY, 1995).
Figure
1 shows the conceptual model that connects supply chain management (SCM),
theory of transaction costs (TTC) and bullwhip effect in a supply chain.
The
SCM and the TTC can be used to reduce demand distortions along the supply chain
of organic products (bullwhip effect). Therefore, the following propositions
have been formulated:
·
Proposition 1. TTC has a positive effect on SCM of
organic products.
·
Proposition 2. TTC can reduce the distortion of perception
of demand along the supply chain of organic products.
·
Proposition 3. SCM can reduce the distortion of
perception of demand along the supply chain of organic products.
In
this section the theoretical approach that underlies the conceptual model presented
in Figure 1 was developed.
Figure 1: Conceptual model.
3. ORGANIC PRODUCT SUPPLY CHAIN
Organic agriculture is a production system that uses
alternative practices rather than conventional farming methods. In this
production mode chemical fertilizers and synthetic pesticides, are not allowed
according to Miniussi, Coti-Zelati and Araújo (2015). These authors see organic
agriculture as several intersecting streams of lines of research and thought.
Organic agricultural production is grouped in three sectors, those being,
biodynamic farming, organic farming and natural farming. These strands
originate from other methods such as permaculture and regenerative agriculture.
These chains are part of what is now known generically as sustainable
agriculture.
According
to Vilckas and Nantes (2007) organic agricultural production is a system that
adopts specific techniques that enhance the use of available natural resources
always respecting the socioeconomic cultural integrity of rural communities.
Thus organic agriculture can be characterized by economic sustainability, the
maximization of social resources and minimizing the use of non-renewable
energy.
Currently,
organic agriculture has had a dramatic development and is practiced in more
than 120 countries. The organic agri-food market is one with the highest growth
both in Brazil and in the world (GEMMA; TERESO; ABRAHÃO, 2010).
In
Brazil organic farming has x been recognized by official research bodies as one
of the main ways of obtaining a balance between agricultural production and the
preservation of natural resources (SOUZA; ALCÂNTARA, 2011).
According SEBRAE (2017), Brazil has become one of the
world’s main producers and exporters of organic products. There are more than
15,000 properties already certified for organic production or in the process of
transition, of which 75% are family farms.
For
SEBRAE (2017), the increased demand for organic foods, mainly in industrialized
countries, favors Brazilian organic production export development, particularly
for sugar, coffee, meat, tropical fruits and other commodities.
For
Ormond et al. (2002), organic supply
chains differ from a conventional supply chains. There are two fundamental
differences. The first refers to the lack of intermediary agents or wholesalers.
The second difference relates to the need for certification to the legitimize
organic products and production.
Figure
2 shows the schematics of the productive chain of organic products. According
to Sharma (2003), the organic supply chain presents some weaknesses, such as
the inconstancy in production. For this author, since the producer does not
have precise knowledge of the demand for his produce, it is very difficult to
decide what to plant. He has limited information on how many customers he can serve,
he cannot prepare marketing actions for new customers and, thus unable or
insecure to expand his business.
For
Wilson (2001), the big obstacle in finding quantity and variety of organic
inputs results in higher costs. A wider supply of organic inputs would result
in lower prices and a freedom of choice on the part of the producer.
Figure
2: Organic food production chain
Source: Ormond et al., (2002, p. 27).
4. CONCLUSIONS
The
advent of sustainability has attracted an increasing number of farmers,
processors and distributors, in order to better meet consumer demands for
organic products, by developing new strategies and supply structures in order
to satisfy these expectations (GUNDERSON et
al., 2014).
In
this scenario, the organic agri-food producer can no longer ignore to control
the technical, economic, marketing, financial, political, social, environmental
and legal aspects within his business (VILCKAS; NANTES, 2007). According to
these authors, a very common problem in rural production, including organic
agricultural production, is the distance between the participants of the supply
chain, which complicates the management of the rural enterprise as a whole and
the business related to it.
The
theme has been the main focus of agribusiness SCM in various surveys. This is
due to the improvement in the management which ends up resulting in an
improvement in all along the chain (COTI-ZELATI; MOORI, 2015). Taking this into
account the objective of this article was to propose a model that integrates the
concepts of SCM, TTC and bullwhip effect in supply chains of organic products
generating propositions that will direct future empirical investigations. Thus
this theoretical essay was not committed to empirically test them. It was only
meant to construct propositions from a
theoretical background between the studied variables.
The
construction of the conceptual model was based on three propositions. The first
seeks to identify the influence of the TTC on the SCM of organic products. The
second proposition suggests that the TTC can x in fact reduce the distortion of
perception of demand along the supply chain of organic products. The third
proposition suggests that SCM can also be a facilitating factor in reducing the
distortion of perception of demand along the supply chain of organic products.
This
model was developed in order to study the bullwhip effect, namely the
distortion of perception of demand along the supply chain of organic products.
However, this theoretical survey needs to be tested empirically through
statistical techniques in order to validate and identify which factors are
prevalent in a practical way and if there are any relevant relationships
between the variables presented in the organic product sector.
Theoretical
tests are a form of intellectual reflection. By means of a theoretical
foundation, common knowledge considered safe is replaced with the dialectic of
thoughts of those involved in the trial. A theoretical essay does not relate
only to the moment of writing or dialogue (MENEGHETTI, 2011). This type of
study involves academic readings, moments of intellectual questioning and life
experiences (BERTERO, 2006). It is also possible to observe weaknesses,
limitations and prejudices. The author admits exposure as a subject, without having
to hide in the formalism of the discourse, scientific methodology or rigid
formalism of Academia (ROUSSEAU, 1999).
REFERENCES
ADAMS, F. G.;
RICHEY JR.; R. G.; AUTRY, C. W.; MORGAN, T. R.; GABLER, C. B. (2014) Supply
chain collaboration, integration, and relational technology: how complex
operant resources increase performance outcomes. Journal of Business Logistics, v. 35, n. 4, p. 299-317.
AUGUSTO, C. A.; SOUZA, J. P.; ERDMANN, R. H.; CARIO, A. F.
(2015) Cadeia de suprimentos: uma análise a partir da teoria dos custos de
transação, da teoria dos custos de mensuração e da visão baseada em recursos. Revista Economia e Gestão, Belo
Horizonte, v. 15, n. 39, p. 4-22.
BARNEY, J. B.;
HESTERLY, W. S. (2012) Strategic
management and competitive advantage. New York: Pearson.
BARZEL, Y.
(2018) A theory of organizations to
supersede the theory of the firm. Department of Economics, Washington,
2001.
BERTERO, C. O.
(2006) Ensino e pesquisa em administração. São Paulo:
Thomson Learning.
BOWERSOX, D. J.;
CLOSS, D. J.; COOPER, M. B.; BOWERSOX, J. C. (2013) Supply chain logistics management (4a ed.) New York, McGraw-Hill.
BRAZILIAN
MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN DEVELOPMENT (MDA) (2013) Interdisciplinary Chamber of Agroecology and Organic Production. Plano nacional de agroecologia e
produção orgânica. Brasília: MDA.
CABRAL, S. (2004) Analisando a reconfiguração da cadeia de
produção de pneus no Brasil pela economia dos custos de transação. Gestão & Produção, São Carlos, v.
11, n. 3, p. 373-384.
CAO, M.; ZHANG
Q. (2011) Supply chain collaboration: impact on collaborative advantage and
firm performance. Journal of Operations
Management, v. 29, p. 163-180.
COASE, R. (1937)
The nature of the firm. Economica, v. 4, n. 16, p. 386-405.
COELHO, L. C.; FOLLMANN, N.; RODRIGUEZ, C. M. T. (2009) O
impacto do compartilhamento de informações na redução do efeito chicote na
cadeia de abastecimento. Gestão &
Produção, São Carlos, v. 16, n. 4, p. 571-583.
COTI-ZELATI, P. E.; MOORI, R. G. (2015) O papel da
colaboração no desempenho da gestão da cadeia de suprimentos: um estudo sobre o
café orgânico. Revista
Organizações Rurais e Agroindustriais, Lavras, v. 17,
n. 2, p. 195-208.
CHRISTOPHER, M.
(2016) Logistics and supply chain
management (5a ed.) London: Pearson, 2016.
DAI, H.; LI, J.;
YAN, N.; ZHOU, W. (2016) Bullwhip effect and supply chain costs with low-and
high-quality information on inventory shrinkage. European Journal of Operational Research, v. 250, n. 2, p. 457-469.
DAROLT, M. R. (2010) Agricultura
orgânica. Instituto Agronômico do Paraná, IAPAR, Curitiba.
FORRESTER, J.
(1958) Industrial Dynamics. Harvard
Business Review, Boston, v. 36, p. 37-52.
FREITAS, L. M.; DINIZ, A. C. M.; LEITE, M. S. A.; VILLAR,
A. M. (2010) Os reflexos do efeito chicote nos custos logísticos de estoque: o
caso de uma empresa componente da cadeia de suprimento de bebidas. Revista Produção Online, Florianópolis,
v. 10, n. 2, p. 342-367.
GEMMA, S. F. B.; TERESO, M. J. A.; ABRAHÃO, R. F. (2010)
Ergonomia e complexidade: o trabalho do gestor na agricultura orgânica na
região de Campinas–SP. Revista Ciência
Rural, Santa Maria, v. 40, n. 2, p. 318-324.
GONÇALVES, L. C.; GIORDANO, C. V. (2014) Impactos do efeito
chicote na cadeia de suprimentos da indústria de alimentos paulista. Revista Científica Hermes, São Paulo,
v. 11, p. 67-82.
GROVER, V.; MALHOTRA, M. K. (2003) Transaction cost
framework in operations and supply chain management research: theory and
measurement. Journal of Operations
Management, v. 21, p. 457-473.
GUNDERSON, M.
A.; BOEHLJE, M. D.; NEVES, M. F.; SONKA, S. T. (2014) Agribusiness organization and management. In: Van Alfen, Neal K.
(Ed.) Encyclopedia of agriculture and food systems. San Diego: Elsevier.
HARLAND, C. M.
(1996) Supply chain management: relationships, chain and networks. British Journal of Management, v. 7, p.
63-80.
HARLAND, C. M.;
ZHENG, J.; JOHNSEN, T. F.; LAMMING, R. C. (2004) A conceptual model for
researching the creation and operation of supply network. British Journal of Management, v. 15, n. 1, p. 1-21.
HENTEN, A. H.;
WINDEKILDE, I. M. (2016) Transaction costs and the sharing economy. Info, v. 18, n. 1, p. 1-20.
INSTITUTO DE DESENVOLVIMENTO SUSTENTÁVEL E ENERGIAS
RENOVÁVEIS (IDER) (2017) Página
institucional. Fortaleza. Recovered in 2 april, 2017, of
http://www.ider.org.br.
INTERNATIONAL
FEDERATION OF ORGANIC AGRICULTURE MOVEMENTS (IFOAM) (2017) The world of organic agriculture: statistics & emerging trends
2012. EUA. Recovered in 2 april, 2017, of http://www.ifoam.org.
JARADAT, R.;
ADAMS, F. G.; ABUTABENJEH, S.; KEATING, C. (2017) The complementary perspective
of system of systems in collaboration, integration, and logistics: a
value-chain based paradigm of supply chain management. Systems, v. 5, n. 4.
KOPCZAK, L. R.;
JOHNSON, M. E. (2003) The supply-chain management effect. MIT Sloan Management Review, v. 44, n. 3, p. 27-34.
KOUVELIS, P.;
CHAMBERS, C.; WANG, H. (2006) Supply chain management research and production
and operations management: review, trends, and opportunities. Production and Operations Management,
v. 15, n. 3, p. 449-469.
LAZZARINI, S.
G.; COOK, M. L.; CHADDAD, F. R. (2001) Integrating Supply Chain and Network
Analysis: the study of netchains. Journal
on Chain And Network Science, v. 1, n. 1, p. 7-22.
LEE, H,
PADMANABHAN, V.; WHANG, S. (1997) The bullwhip effect in supply chain. MIT Sloan Management Review, Cambridge,
v. 38, n. 3, p. 93-102.
LI, S.;
RAGU-NATHAN, B.; RAGU-NATHAM, T. S.; RAO, S. S. (2006) The impact of supply
chain management practices on competitive advantage and organizational
performance. Omega, v. 34, n. 2, p.
107-124.
MALHORTA, A.;
GASAIN, S.; EL SAWY, O. A. (2005) Absorptive capacity configurations in supply
chains: gearing for partner-enabled market knowledge creation, MIS Quarterly, v. 29, n. 1, p. 145-187.
MARCONI, M.; MARILUNGO, E.; PAPETTI, A.; GERMANI, M. (2017)
Traceability as a means to investigate supply chain sustainability: the
real case of a leather shoe supply chain. International
Journal of Production Research, v. 55, n. 22, p. 6638-6652.
MATTOS, C. A.;
LAURINDO, F. J. B. Collaborative platforms for supply chain integration:
trajectory, assimilation of platforms and results. Journal of
Technology Management & Innovation, v. 10, n. 1, p. 79-92.
MENEGHETTI, F. K. (2011) O que é um ensaio-teórico?
Tréplica à Professora Kazue Saito Monteiro de Barros e ao Professor Carlos
Osmar Bertero. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea, Curitiba, v. 15, n. 2, p. 343-348.
MENTZER, J. T.;
DEWITT, W.; KEEBLER, J. S.; MIN, S.; NIX, N. W.; SMITH, C. D.; ZACHARIA, Z. G.
(2001) Defining supply chain management. Journal
of Business Logistics, v. 22, n. 2, p. 1-25.
MENTZER, J. T.;
STANK, T. P.; ESPER, T. L. (2008) Supply chain management and its relationship
to logistics, marketing, production and operation management. Journal of Business Logistics, v. 29,
n. 1, p. 31-46.
MIN, S.;
MENTZER, J. T. (2004) Developing and measuring supply chain management
concepts. Journal of Business Logistics,
v. 25, n. 1, p. 63-99.
MINIUSSI, A.; COTI-ZELATI, P. E.; ARAÚJO, D. L. A. (2015) The
role of innovation in the competitiveness of Brazilian organic products. Independent Journal of Management &
Production, v. 6, n. 3, p. 758-772.
MOORI, R. G.; PERERA, L. C. J.; MANGINI, E. R. (2011) Uma
análise investigativa do efeito chicote na cadeia de suprimentos da indústria
alimentícia. Revista de Gestão, v.
18, n. 3, p. 469-488.
NOGUEIRA, A. C. L.; BATAGLIA, W. (2012) Transaction
costs and organizational competences: explaining the governance structure for
manufacturing stage. Journal of
Technology Management & Innovation, v. 7, n. 1, p. 159-174.
OLIVEIRA, R. R.; MARTINS, H. C.; DIAS, A. T. (2018) A
gestão do portfólio de projetos e a teoria dos custos de transação: proposições
teóricas. Revista Gestão e Planejamento,
Salvador, v. 19, p. 137-158.
ORMOND, J. G. P.; DE PAULA, S. R. L.; FAVERET FILHO, P.;
ROCHA, L. T. M. (2002) Agricultura
orgânica: quando o passado é futuro. BNDES Setorial, Rio de Janeiro, 15,
3-34.
PARK, N. K.;
MEZIAS, J. M.; SONG, J. (2004) A resource-based view of strategic alliances and
firm value in the electronic marketplace. Journal
of Management, v. 30, n. 1, p. 7-27.
PAULRAJ, A.;
CHEN, I. J. (2007) Strategic buyer-supplier relationships, information
technology and external logistics integration. Journal of Supply Chain Management, v. 48, n. 2, p. 2-14.
PAULRAJ, A.; LADO, A. A.; CHEN, I. J. (2008) Inter-organizational
communication as a relational competency: antecedents and performance outcomes
in collaborative buyer-supplier relationships. Journal of
Operations Management,
v. 26, n. 1, p. 45-64.
PENTEADO, S. R. (2016) Manual
prático de agricultura orgânica: fundamentos e técnicas (2a ed.) Campinas:
Via Orgânica.
PIRES, S. R. I. (2016) Gestão
da cadeia de suprimentos: conceitos, estratégias, práticas e casos (3a ed.)
São Paulo: Atlas.
PLANETA ORGÂNICO. (2017) Posição do Brasil no mercado de alimentos orgânicos. Recovered
in 4 april, 2017, of http://www.planetaorganico.com.br.
RESEARCH
INSTITUTE OF ORGANIC (FIBL) Agriculture and The International Federation of
Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) (2016) The world of organic agriculture: statistics & emerging trendes.
Switzerland: FiBL/IFOAM.
RINDFLEISCH, A.;
HEIDE, J. B. (1997) Transaction cost analysis: past, present, and future
applications. Journal of Marketing, v. 61, n. 4, p. 30-54.
ROUSSEAU, J. J. (1999) Emílio
ou da educação. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
SAHAY, B. S.
(2003) Supply chain collaboration: the key to value creation. Work Study, v. 52, n. 1, p. 76-83.
SAMBIASE, M. F.; MOORI, R. G.; SATO, G. S. (2004) Um estudo
exploratório dos fatores relevantes na decisão de compra de produtos orgânicos.
Revista de Administração Mackenzie, São Paulo, v. 5, n. 1, p. 13-34.
SELES, B. M. R. P.; JABBOUR, A. B. L. S.; JABBOUR, C. J.
C.; DANGELICO, R. M. (2016) The green bullwhip effect, the diffusion of green
supply chain practices, and institutional pressures: Evidence from the
automotive sector. International Journal of Production
Economics, v.
182, p. 342-355.
SERVIÇO BRASILEIRO DE APOIO À MICRO E PEQUENA EMPRESA
(SEBRAE) (2017) Página institucional.
Brasília. Recovered in 4 may, 2017, of http://www.sebrae.com.br.
SILVA, R. B. (2017) Percepções dos varejistas da cadeia de
suprimentos da indústria farmacêutica em relação ao efeito chicote (EC): uma
abordagem qualitativa. Desafio
Online, Campo Grande, v. 5, n. 3, p. 330-350.
SIMATUPANG, T. M.; SRIDHARAN, R. (2002) The
collaborative supply chain. International
Journal of Logistics Management, v. 13, n. 1, p. 15-30.
SIMATUPANG, T. M.; SRIDHARAN, R. (2005) An
integrative framework for supply chain collaboration. International Journal of Logistics Management, v. 16, n. 3, p.
257-274.
SIMATUPANG, T. M.; SRIDHARAN, R. (2008) Design
for supply chain collaboration. Business
Process Management Journal, v. 14, n. 3, p. 401-418.
SIMCHI-LEVI, D.; KAMINSKY, P.; SIMCHI-LEVI, E. (2003) Cadeia de suprimentos: projeto e
gestão. Porto Alegre: Bookman.
SHEU, C.; YEN,
H. R.; CHAE, D. (2006) Determinants of supplier-retailer collaboration:
evidence from an international study. International
Journal of Operations and Production Management, v. 26, n. 1, p. 24-49.
SOUZA, M. C. M.
(2003) Aspectos
institucionais do sistema agroindustrial de produtos orgânicos. Revista Informações Econômicas, São
Paulo, v. 33, n. 3.
SOUZA, A. P. O.; ALCÂNTARA, R. L. C. (2011) Alimentos orgânicos: estratégias para o
desenvolvimento do mercado. In: NEVES, M. F.; CASTRO, L. T. (Orgs.)
Marketing e estratégia em agronegócios e alimentos. São Paulo:
Atlas.
SVENSSON, G.
(2005) The multiple facets of the bullwhip effect: refined and re-defined. International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management, v. 35, n. 10, p. 762-777.
VILCKAS, M.; NANTES, J. F. D. (2007) Agregação de valore:
uma alternativa para a expansão do mercado de alimentos orgânicos. Organizações Rurais e Agroindustriais,
Lavras, v. 9, n. 1, p. 26-37.
WANG, X.; DISNEY,
S. M. (2016) The bullwhip effect: progress, trends and directions. European Journal of Operational Research,
v. 250, n. 3, p. 691-701.
WANG, Z.; WANG,
X.; OUYANG, Y. (2015) Bounded growth of the bullwhip effect under a class of
nonlinear ordering policies. European
Journal of Operational Research, v. 247, n. 1, p. 72-82.
WARD, P. T.;
DURAY, R. (1995) Business environmental, operations strategy and performance. Journal of Operations Management, v.
13, p. 99-115.
WILLIAMSON, O.
E. (1975) Markers and hierarchies:
analysis and antitrust implications. New York: Free Press.
WILLIAMSON, O.
E. (1985) The economic institutions of
capitalism: firms, markets, relational contracting. New York: The Free
Press.
WILLIAMSON, O.
E. (1991) Comparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete
structural alternatives. Administrative
Science Quarterly, v. 36, p. 269-296.
WILLIAMSON, O.
E. (1996) The mechanisms of governance.
New York: Free Press.
WILSON, SCHMIDT.
(2001) Agricultura
orgânica: entre a ética e o mercado? Revista Agroecologia e Desenvolvimento Rural Sustentável,
Porto Alegre, v. 2, n. 1.
ZHANG, Y.;
DILTS, D. (2004) System dynamics of supply chain network organization
structure. Information System and
e-Business Management, v. 2, n. 2-3, p. 187-206.