ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE AND THE LEVEL OF COMPETITIVENESS OF TILAPIA PRODUCERS INSTALLED IN
HYDROELECTRIC POWER PLANTS
Raiane Real
Martinelli
Universidade
Estadual de Maringá (UEM), Brazil
E-mail:
raiane.rm@hotmail.com
Gessuir Pigatto
São Paulo State
University (UNESP), Brazil
E-mail:
gessuir.pigatto@unesp.br
Timoteo Ramos
Queiroz
São Paulo State
University (UNESP), Brazil
E-mail:
timoteo.queiroz@unesp.br
Ferenc Istvan Bánkuti
Universidade
Estadual de Maringá (UEM), Brazil
E-mail:
ferencistvan@gmail.com
Submission:
4/3/2019
Revision:
9/18/2019
Accept:
10/22/2019
ABSTRACT
Aquaculture is one of the fastest-growing food sectors in Brazil. Cage fish farming has been widely practiced in the country, mainly in hydroelectric reservoirs. However, different regulatory, technical, and economic challenges may need to be overcome before the sector can achieve increased national and international competitiveness. This study aimed to analyze and compare the competitiveness of tilapia cage farms located on different sides of the Canoas I hydroelectric reservoir, which forms the border between the states of São Paulo and Paraná, Brazil. Structured questionnaires were administered to all fish farmers in the reservoir. Questions about seven competitiveness indicators were rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The results revealed that the major barriers to competitiveness are the institutional environment and environmental sustainability. Paraná has an active environmental inspection service, but São Paulo does not. As a result, tilapia fish farmers in Paraná gave more importance to environmental compliance than those located in São Paulo.
Keywords: institutional environment; competitiveness; fish farming; environmental sustainability; net cage systems
1.
INTRODUCTION
Fish is part of the cultural and
gastronomic heritage of many peoples. As a food product, fish is an important
source of protein, fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and essential micronutrients.
Global fish consumption has grown significantly over the years. In Brazil, the
average consumption of seafood was 11.2 kg per capita in 2011, 14.5% higher
than that in 2010 (BRASIL, 2013). Brazilian fish production grew by about 8%
per year from 2004 to 2014, representing the largest growth rate in the
national meat market, surpassing that of poultry (4.1%), cattle (5.1%), and pig
(2.9%) farming (KUBITZA, 2015).
Fish farming is the major
aquaculture activity, corresponding to 86.6% of the national aquaculture
production (BRASIL, 2012). Net-cage fish farming has grown rapidly in recent
years. Cage fish farms can be installed in natural aquatic environments at low
costs and be easily expanded. Net cages facilitate fish handling, feeding, and
harvesting (ONO; KUBITZA, 2003; SANDOVAL Jr. et al., 2013).
Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) is widely produced in net cages. This
species has important characteristics for cage production, such as rusticity
(disease resistance and adaptation to intensive cultivation) and good
performance (high feed conversion rate and year-round production) (AYROZA et al., 2005; SANDOVAL Jr. et al., 2013).
Water reservoirs used for water
supply, electricity generation, and irrigation can also be used for cage fish
farming (SAMPAIO; BRAGA, 2006; AYROZA; AYROZA, 2012). The state of São Paulo
has 18 hydroelectric reservoirs, which occupy an area of 1 million ha. The
reservoir of the Canoas I hydroelectric power plant has a total area of 30.85
km2 and is located on the Paranapanema River between the
municipalities of Cândido Mota, state of São Paulo, and Itambaracá, state of
Paraná (DUKE ENERGY, 2013).
Fish farming in Brazil is
transitioning from low-tech, subsistence systems to large-scale, commercial
systems (OSTRENSKY et al.,
2008). However, some regulatory, technical, and economic factors have acted as
obstacles to a quick and efficient transition (SIDONIO et al., 2012). The organizational arrangements of the fish
industry are very diverse and lack coordination (BARROS et al., 2012).
The aim of this study was to analyze the competitiveness of net-cage
fisheries located in the Canoas I hydroelectric reservoir and compare the
differences between fish farms in São Paulo and Paraná.
2.
COMPETITIVENESS
In the current context of globalization, competitiveness constitutes an
important factor for economic success, one that is often advocated by economic
policymakers worldwide (PÉREZ-MORENO et
al., 2016). Private companies from diverse economic sectors actively
pursue a leadership position to thrive in increasingly consolidated markets.
However, despite its importance for economic actors, competitiveness
does not have a clear and generally accepted definition. This hinders the
development of appropriate methodologies to analyze competitiveness and
identify the major factors affecting it. The multiplicity and diversity of
variables that influence competitiveness explain why this concept has various
definitions and is associated with different indicators. Competitiveness embeds
different ambiguities and difficulties (BUCKLEY et al., 1988; AJITABH; MOMAYA, 2003; HERCIU; OGREAN, 2015).
Before conceptualizing the term
competitiveness, we must first define the environment in which it is to be
analyzed. Competitiveness can be analyzed at the level of countries, regions,
sectors or productive chains, organizations, and products. Research carried out
by Ajitabh and Momaya (2003) and Balkyte and Tvaronaviciene (2010) and
corroborated by Herciu and Ogrean (2015) identified three perspectives with
greater recurrence: national, sectorial, and organizational competitiveness.
Production factors and technology are the basis for establishing competitive
conditions for an organization, a product, or a productive sector. According to
Chikan (2008), Kinra and Antai (2010), and Cetindamar and Kilitcioglu (2013),
the competitiveness of organizations and nations cannot be determined from an
isolated perspective; it is necessary to consider both institutional and
organizational factors because macroeconomic conditions influence the
microeconomic environment and vice versa.
The competitiveness of a product is based on its price and
differentiation and depends on the company’s use of available resources and
competitiveness at the organizational level (CHANG MOON; PERRY Jr., 1995).
Within the microeconomic environment of a company, competitiveness is
associated with the relationship between the company’s goals for production
and/or sale and that of its competitor (CHUDNOVSKY; PORTA, 1990). Wood Jr and
Caldas (2007) defined competitiveness as the ability of a system (country, sector,
company or group of companies) to operate successfully in a particular business
context. Overall, competitiveness can be viewed as the ability of an actor to
respond better than its competitors to the demands of the consumer market.
Although the economic environments evaluated in competitive analysis
differ greatly from one another, they are closely related. For instance, Chikán
(2008) pointed out that a country cannot be competitive if its economic agents
and sectors are not. On the other hand, the competitiveness of companies is
directly affected by government decisions and actions. According to Farina
(1999), vertical coordination may represent a major bottleneck. The
competitiveness of countries depends on political, social, cultural, and
economic characteristics that influence not only the life quality of citizens
but also company performance (PORTER et
al., 2007).
Sustainable competitiveness has gained recent attention in competitive
analysis. It involves institutions, policies, and other factors that make a
nation productive in the long term while ensuring social and environmental
sustainability (BILBAO-OSORIO et al.,
2013; BILBAO-OSORIO et al.,
2014). Whereas competitiveness is related to productivity, sustainable
competitiveness is associated with aspects that go beyond immediate economic
results, such as long-term economic growth and population and environmental
wellbeing (BILBAO-OSORIO et al.,
2013; BILBAO-OSORIO et al.,
2014). Balkyte and Tvaronavičienė (2010) defined sustainable
competitiveness as the balance between economic, social, and environmental
development. Such balance is essential in the current scenario of globalization
and economic dynamism.
Buckley et al. (1988)
and Man et al. (2002) argued
that competitive analysis must include the performance and competitive
potential of the actor and the process, as managerial decision making affects
competitive potential. Man et al. (2002) proposed four characteristics for
competitiveness: relativity, as comparisons are needed; long-term orientation;
dynamism, to transform competitive potential into results; and controllability,
as a company should be able to control resources and capacities to achieve
superior performance.
Companies must be able to change the characteristics of the competitive
environment, such as competition standards and the market structure (BEST,
1990). This intervention capacity is extremely valuable in the food production
chain, in which strategic actions can create new markets and change existing
ones (FARINA, 1999).
The competitive performance of an organization is affected by (i)
internal factors, such as technological and productive capacity, human
resources, market knowledge, and relationship with suppliers; (ii) structural
factors, such as consumer market and competition, over which the organization
does not have full control; and (iii) systemic factors, such as macroeconomic,
political, institutional, regulatory, structural, infrastructural, and social
factors, which are external to the organization but directly affect it
(COUTINHO; FERRAZ, 2002; LATRUFFE, 2010).
According to Buckley et al.
(1988), individual measures of competitiveness do not capture the full essence
of the concept. Competitive analysis should take into account the level
(nation, sector, company, or product) and competitive performance,
sustainability, and management.
The set of factors influencing competitiveness can be viewed as drivers
of competitiveness. They must be able to reflect the aspects that determine the
cause of competitiveness of a given environment (MARTIN et al., 1991).
Competitiveness drivers generally include variables that cannot be measured
directly (CAESAR; BATTLE, 2011). Indicators of competitiveness may be used to
capture the various components of the concept. Indicators measure the
competitive performance of a company by analyzing its productivity, technology,
market share, range, product differentiation, price, costs, and customer
satisfaction, among others (SIUDEK; ZAWOJSKA, 2014).
Figure 1 summarizes the concept of competitiveness and the theoretical
references that permeate this work.
Figure
1: Factors affecting the competitiveness of an organization, according to the
literature
Source: prepared by the authors
The lack of consensus on the definition of competitiveness and on how to
measure it does not prevent the growth and development of organizations,
sectors, regions, and countries. In order to meet the objective proposed in
this study, we adopt the concepts developed by Martin et al. (1991),
Ferraz et al. (1995), and Farina
(1999): competitiveness is the ability of an organization to survive, and
preferably expand, in a sustainable manner and maintain position in the current
or in new markets. The traditional approach to competitiveness (that is, to
expand market share) has changed because of the shifting nature of sources of
efficiency and market structure (DIAZ-CHAO et al., 2016).
We applied the concept
of organizational competitiveness to tilapia farms located in the Canoas I
hydroelectric reservoir. Although farmers are not part of a formal association,
their competitiveness as (an informal) group depends on the individual
competitiveness of each farmer, just as the competitiveness of a country
depends on the individual competitiveness of its sectors and organizations (HARRISON;
KENNEDY, 1997).
Economic actors
that are part of a formal group interact with other members, thereby gaining
information, which can lead to innovations (GIULIANI, 2013). The evaluated fish
farmers, however, are not exposed to these beneficial interactions, as they do
not participate in organized groups.
3.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This exploratory
research carried out a qualitative analysis of the case of tilapia fish farms
located in the Canoas I reservoir. Data were collected using a semi-structured
questionnaire.
The São Paulo Agency for
Agribusiness Technology (APTA) and the Paraná Institute of Technical Assistance
and Rural Extension (EMATER) provided information on the net-cage fish farmers
of the Canoas I reservoir. A total of 12 fish farmers act in the reservoir,
four in Cândido Mota, São Paulo, and eight in Itambaracá, Paraná.
Competitive analysis was carried out using the
competitiveness drivers developed by Van Duren et al. (1991) and adapted by Silva and Batalha (2000). Batalha
and Souza Filho (2009), in a study about the competitiveness of Mercosur
agribusinesses, highlighted the importance of competitiveness potential—the
organization’s ability to convert inputs into products, thereby improving its
performance. Competitiveness potential, considered an ex ante
phenomenon, is related to factors that boost the competitive position of an
organization (FERRAZ et al.,
1995).
In general, studies on competitiveness
potential use comparative analysis to evaluate the different facets of
competitiveness. Martin et al.
(1991) analyzed the competitiveness of Canadian agribusinesses by comparing
drivers of competitiveness. Silva and Batalha (2000) adapted Martin’s
comparison model to analyze the competitiveness of Brazilian beef production
systems. Batalha and Souza Filho (2009) used this theoretical framework in
their analysis of the competitiveness of Mercosur agribusinesses.
Key performance
indicators for measuring competitiveness have been developed on the basis of
quantitative and qualitative information. The main competitiveness drivers, as
discussed by Van Duren et al.
(1991) and Silva and Batalha (2000), are technology and innovation, inputs and
infrastructure, market structure, internal management, institutional
environment, and market relations. In the paragraphs that follow, we provide a
detailed presentation of each driver.
Technology and
innovation are related to business decisions. They have a direct influence on
productivity, product cost, and product quality and allow companies to
differentiate their products and define their production costs. Technology is
controlled by the organization. However, agricultural organizations generally
depend on other agents for the development of new technologies. The
characteristics of the sector and the organization influence the decisions of
technology adoption. This factor is controlled by the organization and depends
on the interest and financial conditions for acquiring available technologies.
In this study, three sub factors compose this driver: net cages, equipment, and
formulated feed.
Inputs and
infrastructure are characterized by the supply rate, quality, quantity, and
price of inputs. They affect the organization’s ability to maintain or increase
its market share and, consequently, its competitiveness. The organization does
not have complete control over this driver and is generally dependent on other
economic actors, including the public sector. Input and infrastructure sub
factors are (i) feed quality and distance from feed suppliers availability and
quality of inputs, (ii) fingerling quality and distance from fingerling
suppliers, (iii) road and traffic conditions, and (iv) infrastructure.
Market structure is
extremely important, as the competitiveness of organizations depends directly
on their level of market participation. The sub factors distance from main
customers, number of fish farmers in the reservoir, ability to negotiate with
buyers, ability to negotiate with suppliers, production capacity in relation to
market size are used to evaluate this driver.
Internal management is a
driver controlled solely by the organization. It is related to the use of tools
that allow the manager to identify and understand the market situation and
apply his/her resources in the best way possible. The analyzed sub factors are
labor quality and management of fish cages and equipment.
Institutional
environment, or government actions, has a strong influence on the
competitiveness of companies. They are systemic factors not controllable by the
organization. The sub factors are federal legislation, state legislation,
government incentives, access to subsidized credit, and impact of environmental
legislation.
The driver market
relations reflects how agents interact with the market. The sub factors
relationship with buyers, pricing and payment methods, formal contracts with
buyers, and incentives for partnership or joint actions with other farmers or
buyers are assessed.
The present research
analyzes agents of the fish industry who use water resources and are generally
located in river or flooded areas. Therefore, a seventh driver of
competitiveness was proposed: environmental sustainability. This driver is
composed of the following sub factors: compliance with environmental
legislation, positive and negative environmental impacts of the fish farm, and
positive and negative environmental impacts of fish farming. To meet national
and international demands, several countries have continuously developed and
improved management technologies. This environmental indicator is important, as
it can be used to help farmers achieve increased production volumes and
efficiency gains in a limited natural resource (RANA; HASAN, 2013). With the
development and intensification of aquaculture, the need to monitor water
resources increases (SAMPAIO et al.,
2013). According to Barbosa and Candido (2013), environmental regulations,
company reputation, and consumer awareness are factors that contribute to the
degree of environmental compliance of an organization.
Respondents were asked
to rate, on a 5-point Likert scale, how favorable or unfavorable each sub
factor was for competitiveness. The scale ranged from “very favorable” to
“favorable,” “neutral,” “unfavorable,” and “very unfavorable” (Table 1S,
Supplementary Material). Answers were converted to values (varying from
−2 for “very unfavorable” to +2 for “very favorable”). Means (n =
12) were calculated for each sub factor. Because competitiveness drivers differ
in their number of sub factors (for example, internal management contains two sub
factors and market structure contains five), each sub factor was normalized so
that the sum of all sub factors within a driver equaled 1. Subsequently, the
weight of the sub factor was multiplied by its score. The weighted driver score
was calculated by the sum of its weighted sub factor scores. The same procedure
was used to calculate the score of each sub factor and driver by state, except
that data were used according to the location of the fish farm (n = 4
for São Paulo and n = 8 for Paraná).
4.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The
sample included farmers who had little experience with fish culture (less than
one year) as well as more experienced farmers (>10 years of farming) (Figure
2).
Figure 2: Distribution of tilapia fish farmers
according to their farming experience, age, and level of education
Source: prepared by the authors.
Most fish farmers in São
Paulo are young (<40 years), have few years of farming experience (<5
years), and completed at least a high school degree. Fish farmers in Paraná, on
the other hand, are older, more experienced, and have lower levels of
education. Of the 12 farmers interviewed, 10 reported that tilapia cultivation
was their main source of income.
Figure 3 shows the
perception of fish farmers about whether technology and innovation, inputs and
infrastructure, market structure, internal management, institutional
environment, market relations, and environmental sustainability are favorable
or unfavorable factors for competitiveness.
Figure
3: Drivers of competitiveness as perceived by tilapia fish farmers in the
Canoas I hydroelectric reservoir.
VF,
very favorable; F, favorable; N, neutral; U, unfavorable; VU, very unfavorable
Source: prepared by the authors
All farmers regarded technology and innovation as favorable to the competitiveness
of net-cage tilapia production in the Canoas I reservoir. The level of
technological development was satisfactory in all farms, and no “technological
gap” was observed. Fish farming with net cages is simple and low cost, so it is
not difficult for farmers to adopt new technologies. The results indicate that
the analyzed fish farms do not require large investments in technological
innovation. Only one farmer (São Paulo) regarded the net cages as unfavorable
for competitiveness. For all other farmers, net cages are favorable or very
favorable factors.
Inputs and infrastructure
were reported to have a favorable or very favorable impact on competitiveness,
but inputs sub factors received a much higher score than infrastructure sub
factors. Specialized companies provide a reliable supply of high-quality feed
and fingerlings, thereby stimulating fish farming in the region. On the other
hand, road conditions and transportation may be a bottleneck to
competitiveness. The respondents stated that municipal and federal roads are in
poor condition. Unfortunately, farmers do not have control over this situation
and are negatively affected by the lack of public investment in infrastructure.
Asphalt recapping could improve the flow of inputs to the farms and the flow of
products to the market. Collective efforts are needed to attract the attention
of the public sector to this problem.
The impact of market structure on competitiveness was considered
neutral to favorable. In particular, the relationship between production capacity
and market size was regarded as an unfavorable or very unfavorable factor. This
result can be explained by the fact that there is a high local demand for
tilapia but the productivity is low. Although there is no more room for the
establishment of new fish farms in the Canoas I reservoir (no available
concessions), farmers can improve productivity by increasing the number of fish
cages in their property. However, financial constraints limit the expansion of
aquaculture production. Farmers reported that the institutional environment creates unfavorable or very unfavorable
conditions for competitiveness, as they have little access to subsidized credit
and there are no government incentive programs. These two sub factors received
the lowest scores, mainly by São Paulo farmers.
The number of fish farmers in the reservoir and their ability to
negotiate with buyers and suppliers were considered very favorable factors for
competitiveness. The short distance from the main customers was regarded as
favorable. Respondents stated that most buyers, which included middlemen,
processing companies, fishing ponds, and eateries, were located within 200 km
of the reservoir.
Internal management was
defined as having a favorable impact on competitiveness, but some farmers experienced
problems in finding skilled labor. Management of cages and equipment was
regarded as favorable or very favorable. Fish farmers used at least one of the
following management tools: information technology, production planning, cost
control, or revenue control.
The institutional environment
was identified as unfavorable for the competitiveness of net-cage tilapia
production. Regulatory agencies require extensive paperwork and take large
amounts of time to issue concession permits and environmental licenses for
aquaculture. Some requests have remained unanswered for more than 10 years.
Frequent processual, bureaucratic, and organizational changes contribute to the
unfavorable impact of the institutional
environment on fish farming competitiveness.
The interviewees complained specifically about environmental inspection.
Even though they are located in the same reservoir, farms in São Paulo and in
Paraná are monitored by different inspection services[1].
In Brazil, authorization for use of reservoir waters is granted by federal
agencies, whereas environmental licensing and monitoring are the responsibility
of state agencies, which often have different procedures and requirements.
Market relations were viewed as favorable, as most interviewees
indicated they had a positive relationship with buyers and applied mutually
beneficial pricing and payment strategies.
Tilapia farmers in São Paulo and Paraná differed in their views about
the competitiveness impacts of environmental sustainability. Nevertheless, most
interviewees recognized the importance of environmental compliance.
Competitiveness indicators were also evaluated by state, as shown in
Figure 4.
Figure
4: Drivers of competitiveness as perceived by tilapia fish farmers in São Paulo
and Paraná, Brazil.
VF,
very favorable; F, favorable; N, neutral; U, unfavorable; VU, very unfavorable
Source: prepared by the authors
Market structure and technology and innovation were considered favorable for
competitiveness by farmers in both states.
Inputs and infrastructure were considered neutral and
favorable by São Paulo farmers and very favorable by Paraná farmers. São Paulo
fish farmers gave a lower score to the sub factor infrastructure than Paraná
farmers.
Whereas Paraná farmers believed that internal management was favorable for competitiveness, São Paulo
farmers believed that this driver was neutral. São Paulo farmers reported that
they had difficulties in finding skilled labor. It is possible that the many
years of experience of Paraná farmers allowed them to perceive management and
internal organization as key factors for competitiveness.
In Paraná, the institutional
environment was considered to be neutral to unfavorable, and in São
Paulo unfavorable to very unfavorable. When asked about federal and state
legislation, São Paulo fish farmers considered this sub factor as an obstacle
to competitiveness but Paraná farmers had neutral opinions.
The impact of market relations
differed slightly between states. São Paulo farmers were less satisfied with
how prices and payments are set.
The largest discrepancy was observed in environmental sustainability. The driver was rated as neutral to
unfavorable in São Paulo and very favorable in Paraná. The sub factor
compliance with environmental legislation was responsible for this difference.
Fish farmers in Paraná believed that this sub factor was very important because
of the continuous monitoring carried out by the state agency. Fish farmers must
pay fines if they do not comply with environmental legislation, negatively
affecting their competitiveness and market access. In São Paulo, on the other
hand, fish farms are not monitored for environmental compliance. Thus, farmers
believe that this sub factor does not affect their competitiveness.
5.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
This study used a theoretical model
for analyzing the competitiveness of net-cage tilapia production in the Canoas
I reservoir. The model was initially composed of six drivers of
competitiveness, namely, technology and innovation, inputs and infrastructure, market
structure, internal management, institutional environment, and market
relations. A seventh driver, environmental sustainability, was added to the
analysis to measure the impact of sustainable use of natural resources and
environmental legislation.
The results showed that technology and innovation, inputs and
infrastructure, market structure, internal management, and environmental
sustainability positively affect the competitiveness of tilapia fish farms. On
the other hand, the institutional environment, characterized by extensive
paperwork, lack of government incentives, and difficult access to subsidized
credit, is an unfavorable factor for competitiveness.
Fish farmers in Paraná and São Paulo had divergent opinions about the
influence of environmental sustainability on competitiveness because
environmental compliance is routinely monitored in the former but not in the
latter. As a result, Paraná fish farmers acknowledged the importance of
environmental sustainability for competitiveness.
This study makes two main contributions. The first is a regional
analysis of net-cage fish farming, a rapidly expanding industry in Brazil. The
second is a methodological contribution to competitiveness research by
analyzing environmental competitiveness. Despite the importance of
environmental sustainability for consumers, business partners, and the
government, few studies investigate the impacts of environmental indicators on
competitiveness. Thus, we hope that the methodological approach used in this
study can serve as a basis for future studies and can pave the way for
competitive analyses in other sectors.
A limitation of this study is that we did not interview agents upstream
or downstream of the fish farms, which precludes a thorough analysis of market
structure and market relations from other perspectives.
As recommendations for future studies, we suggest (i) a new analysis of
fish farming competitiveness in the same region to investigate temporal trends
and determine the effects of the current economic crisis on the sector and (ii)
a more thorough study of competitiveness with upstream and downstream economic
agents.
6.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was
supported by the São Paulo State Research Foundation (FAPESP, grant no. 2014/16075-2). The opinions, hypotheses, conclusions,
and recommendations expressed in this study are the responsibility of the
authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the funding agency.
REFERENCES
AJITABH, A.; MOMAYA, K. S. (2003)
Competitiveness of firms: review of theory, frameworks and models. Singapore
Management Review, v. 26, n.
1, p. 45-61
AYROZA, L. M. S.; AYROZA, D. M. M. R. (2012) Panorama da Piscicultura no Estado de São Paulo. Pesquisa e Tecnologia. Apta Regional, v. 9, n. 2.
AYROZA, L. M. S.;
FURLANETO, F. P. B.; AYROZA, D.; SUSSEL, F. R. (2005) Piscicultura no
Médio Paranapanema: situação e perspectivas. Pesquisa e Tecnologia. Apta Regional, V. 2, n. 2.
BALKYTE, A.; TVARONAVICIENE, M. (2010)
Perception of competitiveness in the context of sustainable development: Facets
of sustainable competitiveness. Journal of Business Economics and Management, v. 11, n. 2, p. 341-365.
BARBOSA, M. F. N.; CÂNDIDO, G. A. (2013) Práticas ambientais e suas relações com a competitividade e a sustentabilidade: um estudo de caso em empresa agroindustrial. Latin American Journal of Business Management, v. 4, n. 2, p. 58-80.
BARROS, A. F.;
BÁNKUTI, F. I.; MARTINS, M. I. E. G. (2012) Arranjos Organizacionais da Piscicultura
na Baixada Cuiabana, Estado de Mato Grosso. Informações Econômicas, v. 42, n. 6.
BEST, M. (1990) The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 296p.
BILBAO-OSORIO, B.; BLANKE, J.; CAMPANELLA, E.; CROTTI, R.; DRZENIEK-HANOUZ, M.; SERIN, C. (2014) Assessing the sustainable competitiveness of nations. World Economic Forum. The Global Competitiveness Report, p. 53-82. Available: <http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GCR2013-14/GCR_Chapter1.2_2013-14.pdf>. (accessed 03 Febreary. 2016).
BRASIL. Ministério
da Pesca e Aquicultura (2012) Boletim
estatístico da pesca e aquicultura – Brasil 2010. Brasília. Available: <http://www.uesc.br/cursos/pos_graduacao/mestrado/animal/bibliografia2013/luis_art4_ro usseff.pdf>.
(accessed 28 May. 2014).
BRASIL. Ministério
da Pesca e Aquicultura (2013). Consumo de
pescado no Brasil aumenta 23,7%
em dois anos. Brasília. Available: <http://www.mpa.gov.br/index.php/imprensa/noticias/2226-consumo-de-pescado-no- brasil-aumenta-237-em-dois-anos>. (accessed 09 June. 2014)
BUCKLEY, P. J.; PASS, C. L.;
PRESCOTT, K. (1988) Measures of international competitiveness: a critical
survey. Journal of Marketing
Management, v. 4, n. 2, p. 175-200
CÉSAR, A. D. S.; BATALHA, M. O. (2010) Analysis
of the competitiveness drivers on the biodiesel productive chain: the case of
castor bean. Production, v. 21, n. 3, p. 484-497.
COUTINHO, L. G.;
FERRAZ, J. C. (2002) Estudo da
competitividade da indústria brasileira. 4.ed. Campinas: Papirus, 510p.
MOON, H. C.; PEERY JR., N. S. (1995)
Competitiveness of product, firm, industry, and nation in a global business. Competitiveness Review: An International
Business Journal, v. 5, n. 1, p. 37-43.
CHIKÁN, A. (2008) National and firm
competitiveness: a general research model. Competitiveness
Review: An International Business Journal, v. 18, p. 20-28.
CHUDNOVSKY, D.; PORTA, F.
(1991) La competitividad internacional:
principales cuestiones conceptuales y metodológicas. Universidad de la
Republica. Uruguay. Documentos de trabajo, 03/91. 85 p.. Available: <http://decon.edu.uy/publica/1991/Doc0391.pdf>.
(accessed 26 January. 2000).
DUKE ENERGY (2013) A história da Duke Energy no rio Paranapanema. ABC da Energia, Available: <http://www.dukeenergy.com.br/Style%20Library/ABCcaderno.pdf>. (accessed 09 June.
2014)
FARINA, E. M. M.
Q. (1999) Competitividade e coordenação de sistemas agroindustriais: um ensaio
conceitual. Revista Gestão e Produção, v. 6, n. 3, p. 147-161
GIULIANI, E. (2013) Network dynamics in
regional clusters: evidence from Chile. Research
Policy, v. 42, p. 1406–1419.
HARRISON, W. KENNEDY, P. (1997) A neoclassical
economic and strategic management approach to evaluating global agribusiness
competitiveness. Competitiveness Review,
v. 7, n. 1, p. 14-25.
HERCIU, M.; OGREAN, C. W.
(2015) Competitiveness, and Intellectual Capital–Sources for Economic
Development. Procedia Economics and Finance, v. 27, p. 556-566.
KUBITZA, F. (2015) Aquicultura no Brasil: Principais espécies, áreas de
cultivo, rações, fatores limitantes e desafios. Panorama
da Aquicultura, v. 25, n. 150,
p. 10-23, jul./ago.
LATRUFFE, L.. (2010)
Competitiveness, Productivity and Efficiency in the Agricultural and Agri-Food
Sectors, OECD Food, Agriculture and
Fisheries Papers, No. 30, OECD Publishing. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5km91nkdt6d6-en. (accessed 10 Febreary 2012)
MAN, T. W .Y.; LAU, T.; CHAN,
K. F. (2002) The competitiveness of small and medium enterprises: A
conceptualization with focus on entrepreneurial competencies. Journal of Business Venturing,
v. 17, n. 2, p. 123-142.
MARTIN, L.; WESTGREN, R.; VAN DUREN, E. (1991)
Agribusiness competitiveness across national boundaries. American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, v. 3, n. 5, p. 1456-1464.
ONO, E.; KUBITZA, F. (2003) Cultivo de peixes em tanques-rede. 3. ed. Jundiaí: Acqua Imagem, 112 p.
OSTRENSKY, A.; BORGHETTI, J. R.; SOTO, D. (2008) Aqüicultura no Brasil: o desafio é crescer. Secretaria Especial de Aqüicultura e Pesca: Brasilia.
PÉREZ-MORENO, S.;
RODRÍGUEZ, B.; LUQUE, M. (2016) Assessing global competitiveness under
multi-criteria perspective. Economic Modelling, n. 53, p. 398-408.
RANA, K. J.;
HASAN, M.
R.
(2013) On-farm feeding and feed management practices for
sustainable
aquaculture production: an analysis of
case studies from selected Asian and African countries. IN:
HASAN, M. H.; NEW, M. B. (ed). On-farm feeding and feed management in aquaculture. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture
Technical Paper No. 583.
Rome, FAO. 67 p. Available:
https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/abstract/20143141766 (accessed 10 May 2015)
SAMPAIO, F. G.; LOSEKANN, M. E.; LUIZ, A. J. B.; NEVES, M. C.; FRASCÁ-SCORVO. C. M. D.; RODRIGUES, G. S. (2013) Monitoramento e gestão ambiental da piscicultura em tanques-rede em reservatórios. Informe Agropecuário, Belo Horizonte, v. 34, n. 272, p. 1-11.
SAMPAIO, J. M. C.; BRAGA, L. G. T. (2006) Cultivo de tilápia em tanques-rede na Barragem do Ribeirão. Revista Brasileira de Saúde e Produção Animal, v. 6, n. 2.
SANDOVAL JR, P. (coord.) (2013) Manual de criação de peixes em tanques-rede. 2. ed. Brasília: Codevasf, 68p.
SIDONIO, L. ; CAVALCANTI, I.; CAPANEMA, L.; MORCH, R.; MAGALHÃES, G.; LIMA, J.; BURNS, V.; ALVES JÚNIOR, A. J.; MUNGIOLI, R. (2012) Panorama da aquicultura no Brasil: desafios e oportunidades. BNDES Setorial – Agroindústria, n. 35, p. 421-463.
SILVA, C. A;
BATALHA, M. O. (2000) Metodologia. In: SILVA, C. A; BATALHA, M. O. Estudo sobre a eficiência econômica e
competitividade da cadeia da pecuária de corte no Brasil. Brasília: CNI-IEL/CNA/Sebrae, p.
17-28.
SIUDEK, T.; ZAWOJSKA, A. (2014) Competitiveness
in the economic concepts, theories and empirical research. Acta Scientiarum Polonorum Oeconomia, v. 13, n. 1, p. 91-108.
VAN DUREN, E.; MARTIN, L.; WESTGREN, R. (1991) Assessing the competitiveness of
Canada’s agrifood industry. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, v. 39, p. 727- 738.
WOOD JR, T.; CALDAS, M. P. (2007) Empresas brasileiras e o desafio da competitividade. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 47, n. 3, p. 1-13.
APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Table 1S:
Questionnaire administered to tilapia fish farmers in São Paulo and Paraná,
Brazil
|
Drivers of competitiveness |
VF |
F |
N |
U |
VU |
|
|
|||||
|
Technology and
innovation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cages |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equipment (oximeter, thermometer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formulated feed |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Inputs and
infrastructure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feed quality and distance from feed suppliers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fingerling quality and distance from fingerling suppliers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Road and traffic conditions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Infrastructure (energy, water, telephone) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Market structure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Distance from main customers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of fish farmers in the reservoir |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ability to negotiate with buyers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ability to negotiate with suppliers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Internal
management |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Labor quality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Management of fish cages and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Institutional
environment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal legislation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
State legislation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Government incentives |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Access to subsidized credit |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impact of environmental legislation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Market relations |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relationship with buyers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pricing and payment methods |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Formal contracts with buyers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Incentives for partnership or joint actions with other farmers or
buyers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Environmental
sustainability |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compliance with
environmental legislation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Positive or negative environmental impacts of the fish farm |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Positive or negative environmental impacts of fish farming |
|
|
|
|
|
VF, very favorable; F, favorable; N, neutral; U,
unfavorable; VU, very unfavorable