Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Estimating vulnerability to risks: an application in a biofuel supply chain

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the present work, we propose a theoretical model to identify and prioritize risks involved in a biofuel supply chain. We adopt a set of indicators associated with determinant factors of the supply chain to identify risks that are characterized through a risk matrix. We consider the five largest world biodiesel producers and included China due to its global market importance and potential impacts of its growth on the environment and society. To determine the impacts and the probability of occurrence of risks, we use the Canberra distance, as metrics. To facilitate the analysis and interpretation, a convenient manner is to express the results in terms of matrices. To exemplify the potentiality of the scheme and for the sake of simplicity, a more comprehensive discussion is focused on the Brazilian case, restricted to the Technology and Innovation, and Integration, Logistics and Infrastructure determining factors (dimensions) of the biodiesel supply chain. Concerning these determining factors, the Brazilian biodiesel chain shows strong vulnerability when compared with developed and developing countries, despite that the evolution of the data over recent years indicates small improvements in Integration, Logistics and Infrastructure dimension. Although in this work the calculations are restricted to the Canberra distance, the present approach may be applied to other distances to compare or validate the results. This work presents a contribution to model vulnerability to risks, providing to policy makers and stakeholders a tool to design, analyze and improve sustainability system by measuring its risks. The study of the contribution of each indicator suggests corrections to be taken and which indicators should be prioritized.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: the authors

Fig. 2

Source: Santos (2014)

Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Cronbach’s Alpha is a measure of the reliability; it varies from 0.000 to 1.000, being values from 0.600 to 0.700 considered acceptable limits (Hair et al. 2005).

  2. “‘Catch-up’ innovation refers to the commercialization by businesses of new-to-the-firm technologies, organization and processes that allow firms to narrow their gap in productivity relative to top national and global businesses. Catch-up innovation means improving productivity within each firm by engaging in learning processes related to identifying better-existing technologies and adapting them to the firm’s local context. ‘Frontier’ innovation refers to the generation and commercialization of new-to-the-world technologies. Both types of innovation require investments by firms in different types of ‘soft’, intangible knowledge capital assets” World Bank T (2016). Retaking the path to inclusion, growth and sustainability: Brazil systematic country diagnostic, World Bank Group: 230.

  3. See note (b) in Table 1.

  4. US$ 1.00 = R$ 3525 (at June 05, 2016).

References

  • ABNT/ISO (2009) ISO 31000:2009—Gestão de risco—Princípios e diretrizes. Rio de Janeiro, ISO. ISO 31000:2009: 24

  • Ball D, Watt J (2001) Risk management and Cultural Presentation. ARIADNE Workshop, ARIADNE

  • Bloom N, Van Reenen J (2010) Why do management practices differ across firms and countries? J Econ Perspect 24(1):203–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borschiver S (1997) Análise técnica, econômica e de tendências da indústria de aditivos para alimentos no Brasil. Master, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)

  • Brandi HS, Daroda RJ et al (2013) “The use of the Canberra metrics to aggregate metrics to sustainability”. Clean technologies and environmental policy: 1–10

  • Brandi HS, dos Santos SF (2015) Introducing measurement science into sustainability systems. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18(2):359–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cagliano R, Caniato F et al (2008) Supply chain configurations in a global environment: a longitudinal perspective. Op Manag Res 1(2):86–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Cameron IT, Raman R (2005) Process Systems Risk Management. Process systems engineering, vol 6. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 631

  • Cepal (2011) Análisis comparativo de patentes en la cadena de producción de biocombustibles entre América Latina y el resto del mundo. Santiago, Chile, Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (Cepal): 43

  • Curran MA (2013) A review of life-cycle based tools used to assess the environmental sustainability of biofuels in the united states. Life Cycle Assessment Research Center/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati. U. S. E. P. Agency. Cincinnati/USA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1: 61

  • dos Santos S, Brandi H (2015) “Model framework to construct a single aggregate sustainability indicator: an application to the biodiesel supply chain”. Clean technologies and environmental policy: 1–11

  • EIA (2016) Short-term energy outlook (STEO). U. S. E. I. Administration: 49

  • EPI/Yale (2014) Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Connecticut, United States, Yale University

  • EPI/Yale (2016a) Environmental Performance Index (EPI). Connecticut, United States, Yale University

  • EPI/Yale (2016b) The global metrics for the environment. Environmental performance index. E. P. Index. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Yale University: 123

  • GBEP (2011) The global bioenergy partnership sustainability indicators for bioenergy. Roma, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: 223

  • Jurman G, S R, Visintainer R, Furlanello C (2009) Canberra Distance on ranked lists. Advances in ranking NIPS 09 workshop Canada

  • Hair JF et al (2005) Multivariate data analysis, Prentice Hall, Inc

  • IEA/IRENA (2014) IEA/IRENA Joint Policies and Measures database. Global Renewable Energy, International Energy Agency

  • ISO (2009) IEC 31010:2009 Risk management—Risk assessment techniques, ISO. IEC 31010:2009: 176

  • Lance GN, Williams WT (1967) Mixed-data classificatory programs I—Agglomerative systems. Aust Computer J 1(1):6

    Google Scholar 

  • Panos Kouvelis OB, Lingxiu Dong, Rong Li (2011) Handbook of integrated risk management in global supply chains. Wiley, Canada

  • Renn O, Graham P (2005) “Risk governance: Towards an integrated approach”. W paper 1, p 157

  • Rezapour S, Farahani RZ et al (2014) Designing a new supply chain for competition against an existing supply chain. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 67:124–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos SF (2014) Metodologia para medição da sustentabilidade utilizando fatores determinantes, critérios e indicadores aplicada à cadeia produtiva do biodiesel. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos SF, Borschiver S et al (2014) “Mapping sustainable structural dimensions for managing the brazilian biodiesel supply chain”. 9(1)

  • Santos SF, Brandi HS (2016) Application of the GUM approach to estimate uncertainty in measurements of sustainability systems. Clean Technol Env Policy 18(2):493–505. doi:10.1007/s10098-015-1029-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segala M (2016) “Para a agricultura do Centro-Oeste a saída é pelo Norte”. Exame

  • Sikdar SK (2003) Sustainable development and sustainability metrics. AIChE J 49(8):1928–1932

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sikdar SK (2009) On aggregating multiple indicators into a single metric for sustainability. Clean Technol Environ Policy 11(2):157–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2010) Risk management—handbook. United Nations Educational, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • van Thuijl E et al (2003) Biofuel production chain. Background document for modelling the EU biofuel market using the BIOTRANS model

  • Veja (2016) Brasil perde R$ 151 bilhões por ano por má infraestrutura. Editora Abril, São Paulo

    Google Scholar 

  • WEF (2014a) The global competitiveness index 2013–2014 data platform, World Economic Forum (WEF)

  • WEF (2014b) Global risks 2014. Genebra, World Economic Forum: 60

  • WEF (2016) The global competitiveness index 2015–2016 data platform, world economic forum (WEF)

  • WIPO (2014) WIPO IP statistics data center, world intellectual property organization (WIPO)

  • World Bank T (2013) World Development Report 2014: risk and opportunity—managing risk for development. Washington, DC, Estados Unidos, The World Bank: 363

  • World Bank T (2014) World Development Indicators. Anual, The World Bank

  • World Bank T (2016a) Retaking the path to inclusion, growth and sustainability: Brazil systematic country diagnostic, World Bank Group: 230

  • World Bank T (2016b) World Development Indicators. Anual, The World Bank

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto Nacional de Metrologia, Qualidade e Tecnologia (Inmetro), Av. N. S. das Graças 50, Duque de Caxias, RJ, 25250-020, Brazil

    Silvio Francisco dos Santos, Humberto Siqueira Brandi & Vanderléa de Souza

  2. Escola de Química, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Av. Athos da Silveira Ramos, 149, Bloco E - Sala E-201, Rio de Janeiro, Ilha do Fundão, 21941-909, Brazil

    Suzana Borschiver

Authors
  1. Silvio Francisco dos Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Humberto Siqueira Brandi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suzana Borschiver
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vanderléa de Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Silvio Francisco dos Santos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

dos Santos, S.F., Brandi, H.S., Borschiver, S. et al. Estimating vulnerability to risks: an application in a biofuel supply chain. Clean Techn Environ Policy 19, 1257–1269 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1320-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-016-1320-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation