Chapitre 4 : à Montpellier Les efforts d’intégration
4.3 Mes premières démarches à Montpellier
O presente artigo apresentou a aplicação de um framework analítico da evolução da relação entre mudanças tecnológicas e desempenho social, a partir da evolução dos trabalhos de Carroll (1979), Wartick e Cochran (1985), Burke e Logsdon (1996) e Bocquet e Mothe (2011). Esta proposta permitiu, de forma mais clara, a observação da evolução temporal destas relações e tornou possível a identificação de como estes constructos se comportam de forma associada.
No caso da PBio, os resultados apontam para uma diversidade de relações dependendo de qual combinação de dimensões é usada na análise, o que por si já mostra a necessidade deste tipo de abordagem. Assim, a PBio apresenta três tipos de evolução na relação estudada, a saber: i) mais social: como no caso da relação entre tecnologia agrícola e agricultura familiar; ii) mais tecnológica: como no caso da relação entre tecnologias industriais e acionistas (privados e governo) e tecnologias industriais e meio ambiente e iii) equilibrada: como foi o caso entre tecnologia industrial e agricultura familiar.
As conclusões deste trabalho direcionam, do ponto de vista gerencial, para a necessidade de a PBio buscar mais equilíbrio nas relações entre de- senvolvimento tecnológico e desempenho social, exceto no caso da relação entre capacidades tecnológicas industriais e agricultura familiar. Nas outras relações, a PBio deverá investir mais nas questões sociais ou mais nas ques- tões tecnológicas, dependendo da natureza do desequilíbrio apresentado.
Sob o prisma das políticas públicas para o setor, o caso da PBio revela que as atuais políticas devem ser intensificadas na direção do desenvolvi- mento tecnológico da produção agrícola associada aos interesses do governo. Corre-se o risco, no entanto, de estas políticas aprisionarem empresas como a PBio na rota do biodiesel de primeira geração, mais relacionado a possí- veis culturas que sejam passíveis de serem produzidas pela agricultura de pequeno porte. Assim, é necessário que o governo, controlador da Petrobras e esta da PBio, reflita e planeje suas políticas para o setor de forma mais convergente com as tendências tecnológicas e com os modelos de negócios que se apresentam no segmento de biocombustíveis em âmbito mundial e procure associá-las às suas intenções sociais voltadas à geração de renda para a agricultura familiar.
Este estudo tem como sugestão de pesquisas futuras, ampliar a análise para outras empresas do setor e de outros setores, assim como realizar com- parações entre empresas e setores de diferentes países em desenvolvimento. As abordagens usadas poderiam ser adaptadas a avaliações mais abrangentes usando técnicas de análise estatística. Nesta direção, o estudo possui como principal limitação a impossibilidade de generalizações a partir da análise de um estudo de caso.
Referências
AHLSTROM, D. Innovation and Growth: how business contributes to society.
286 Ano 14 • n. 36 • out./dez. • 2016 ABERNATHY, W. J.; CLARK, K. B. Innovation: mapping the winds of creative destruction. Research Policy, v. 14, n. 1, p. 3-22, 1985.
ABERNATHY, W. J.; UTTERBACK, J. M. Patterns of Industrial Innovation. Tech-
nology Review, v. 80, n. 7, p. 40-47, 1978.
ALVES, A. C.; ZEN, A. C.; PADULA, A. D. Routines, Capabilities and Innovation in the Brazilian Wine Industry. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation, v. 6, n. 2, p. 128-144, 2011.
ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, S. C.; LEVIS, M. R&D and Performance Persistence: evidence from the United Kingdom. International Journal of Accounting, v. 43, n. 3, p. 293-320, 2008.
ARIFFIN, N.; FIGUEIREDO, P. N. Internationalization of innovative capabilities: counter – evidence from the electronics industry in Malaysia and Brazil. Oxford
Development Studies, v. 32, n. 4, p. 559-583, 2004.
ARIFFIN, N. Internationalisation of technological innovative capabilities: levels, types and speed (learning rates) in the electronics industry in Malaysia. International
Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, v. 3, n. 4, p. 347-391, 2010.
AUPERLE, K. E. et al. An Empirical Examination of the Relationship between Corporate Social Responsibility and Profitability. Academy of Management Journal, v. 2, n. 28, p. 446-463, 1985.
AUPERLE, K. E. The Use of Forced Choice Survey Procedures in Assessing Cor- porate Social Orientation. Res. Corp. Social Performance Policy, v. 12, p. 269-280, 1991. BALDISSERA, R. Comunicação, identificações e imagem-conceito. UNIRevista, vol. 1, n. 3, 2006.
BANDIERA, Oriana; RASUL, Imran. Social networks and technology adoption in northern Mozambique. The Economic Journal, v. 116, n. 514, p. 869-902, 2006. BELL, M. “Learning” and the Accumulation of Industrial Technological Capacity in Developing Countries. In: Technological capability in the Third World. Londres: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 1984. p. 187-209.
BELL, M.; FIGUEIREDO, P. N. Innovation capability building and learning mechanisms in latecomer firms: recent empirical contributions and implications for research. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, Revue canadienne d’études du
BELL, M.; PAVITT, K. Technological accumulation and industrial growth: contrasts between developed and developing countries. Industrial and Corporate Change, v. 2, n. 2, p. 157-211, 1993.
______. The development of technological capabilities. In: HAQUE, I. U. (Ed.).
Trade, Technology and International Competitiveness. Washington: The World Bank, 1995.
BELL, M.; SCOTT-KEMMIS, D.; SATYARAKWIT, W. Limited Learning in In- fant industry: a case study. In: STEWART, F. E JAMES, F. (Eds.). The Economics of
New Technology in Development Countries. London: Frances Pinter, 1982. p. 138-156.
BOCQUET, R.; MOTHE, C. Exploring the Relationship between CSR and Inno- vation: a comparison between small and largesized French companies. Revue Sciences
du Gestion, v. 29, n. 4, p. 495-502, 2011.
BORBA, M. P.; BALDISSERA, R. Capital simbólico e social na tensão público-pri- vado e a disputa estratégica por visibilidade e imagem-conceito. CONGRESSO BRASILEIRO CIENTÍFICO DE COMUNICAÇÃO ORGANIZACIONAL E DE RELAÇÕES PÚBLICAS – ABRAPCORP, 4., 2010, Porto Alegre. Anais... Porto Alegre-RS, 2010.
BOURDIEU, P. Social space and symbolic power. Sociological theory, v. 7, n. 1, p. 14-25, 1989.
BRAMMER, S.; MILLINGTON, A. Does It Pay To Be Different? An Analysis of the Relationship Between Corporate Social and Financial Performance. Strategic
Management Journal, v. 29, n. 12, p. 1.325-1.343, 2008.
BRANCO, M. C.; RODRIGUES, L. L. Corporate Social Responsibility and Resource-Based Perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, v. 69, n. 3, p. 111-132, 2006. BROWN, S. L.; EISENHARDT, K. M. Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of management review, v. 20, n. 2, p. 343-378, 1995.
BURKE, L.; LOGSDON, J. M. How corporate social responsibility pays off. Long
Range Planning, v. 29, n. 4, p. 495-502, 1996.
BURKHARDT, M. Social Interaction Effects Following a Technological Change: a longitudinal investigation. Academy of Management Journal, v. 37, n. 4, p. 869-898, 1994. CÂMARA, Samuel Façanha; BRASIL, Alexander. A coevolução entre políticas públicas/instituições e o desenvolvimento tecnológico de uma indústria nascente: o caso da Petrobrás Biocombustíveis. Revista de Administração Pública, v. 49, n. 6, 2015.
288 Ano 14 • n. 36 • out./dez. • 2016 CARROLL, A. B. A Three-dimensional Conceptual Model of Corporate. Academy
of Management Review, v. 4, p. 497-505, 1979.
______. The pyramid of Corporate Social Responsibility: towards the moral ma- nagement of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, v. 34, p. 39-48, 1991. CARVALHO, P. T. Balanço de Emissões de gases de Efeito Estufa de Biodiesel Produzido
a Partir de Soja e Dendê no Brasil. 2012. Dissertação (Mestrado) – UFRJ, COPPE-RJ,
Rio de Janeiro, 2012.
CHARAL, H.; SHARMA, R. D. Implications of Corporate Social Responsibility on Marketing Performance: a conceptual framework. Journal of Science Research, v. 6, n. 1, p. 205-216, 2006.
CHEN, C.-M.; DELMAS, M. Measuring corporate social performance: An efficiency perspective. Production and Operations Management, v. 20, n. 6, p. 789-804, 2011. CHRISTENSEN, C. M.; BOWER, J. L. Customer Power, Strategic Investment and the Failure of Leading Firms. Strategic Management Journal, v. 17, n. 3, p. 197- 218, 1996.
CLARK, K. B.; FUJIMOTO, T. Product development performance: Strategy, organi- zation, and management in the world auto industry. Cambridge: Harvard Business Press, 1991.
CLARK, A.; IANSIT, W. J. Behavioural knowledge integration in the design studio: an experimental evaluation of three strategies. Information and Software Technology, vol. 41, n. 9, p. 569-578, 1994.
COHEN, W. M.; LEVINTHAL, D. A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 35, p. 128-152, 1990. COOMBS, J. E.; BIERLY III, P, E. Measuring technological capability and perfor- mance. R&D Management, v. 36, n. 4, p. 421-438, 2006.
COVIN, J. G.; MILES, M. P. Corporate entrepreneurship and the pursuit of compe- titive advantage. Entrepreneurship: Theory and practice, v. 23, n. 3, p. 47-47, 1999. DAMANPOUR, F.; WALKER, R. M.; AVELLANEDA, C. N. Combinative Effects of Innovation Types and Organizational Performance: a longitudinal study of service organizations. Journal of Management Studies, v. 46, n. 4, 2009.
DAHLMAN, C.; WESTPHAL, L. Technological effort in industrial development. The economics of new technology in developing countries. London: Frances Pinter, 1982.
DELMAS, M.; TOFFEL, M. Organizational Responses to Environmental Demands: opening the black box. Strategy Management Journal, v. 29, n. 10, p. 1.027-1.055, 2008. DI NORCIA, V. Environmental and Social Performance. Journal of Business Ethics, v. 15, p. 773-784, 1996.
DIERICKX, I.; COOL, K. Asset Stock Accumulation and Sustainable Competitive Advantage. Management Science, v. 35, p. 1.504-1.511, 1989.
DOSI, G. Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal
of Economic Literature, v. 26, p. 1.120-1.171, 1988.
______. The Microeconomic Sources and Effects of Innovation: an assessment of some re- cent findings. DRC Discussion Paper, n. 33, SPRU, University of Sussex, 1985. Mimeo. DUTRÉNIT, G. et al. Learning and knowledge management in the firm. Massachusetts: Books, 2000.
FERAUGE, P. A Conceptual Framework of Corporate Social Responsibility and Innovation. Global Journal of Business Research, v. 6, n. 5, 2012.
FIGUEIREDO, P. N. Discontinuous innovation capability accumulation in late- comer natural resource-processing firms. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, v. 77, n. 7, p. 1.090-1.108, sep. 2010.
FUNDAÇÃO INSTITUTO DE PESQUISA ECONÔMICA. Fipe; ASSOCIA- ÇÃO DOS PRODUTORES DE BIODIESEL DO BRASIL. Aprobio. Impactos
Socioeconômicos da Indústria de Biodiesel no Brasil. São Paulo. 2012. Disponível em:
<www.aprobio.com.br/AprobioFIPERelatorioFinalsetembro2012.pdf>. Acesso em: 20 fev. 2013.
GARDBERG, N. A.; FOMBRUN, C. J. Corporate Citizenship: creating intangible assets across institutional environments. Academy of Management Review, v. 31, n. 2, p. 329-346, 2006.
GRANOVETTER, M. Economic Action and Social Structure: the problem of em- beddedness. American Journal of Sociology, v. 91, n. 3, p. 481-510, 1985.
Hamel, G. Leading the revolution. Boston (MA): HBS Press, 2000.
HAMEL, G.; PRAHALAD, Coimbatore K. Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, v. 15, n. S2, p. 5-16, 1994. HEMPHILL, T. Corporate Citizenship: The Case for a New Corporate Governance Model. Business and Society Review, v. 109, n. 3, p. 339-361, 2004.
290 Ano 14 • n. 36 • out./dez. • 2016 HILLMAN, A. J.; KEIM, G. D. Shareholder Value, Stakeholder Management and Social Issues: what’s the bottom line? Strategic Management Journal, v. 22, n. 2, p. 125-139, 2001.
HOBDAY, M.; RUSH, H.; BESSANT, J. Approaching the innovation frontier in Ko- rea: the transition phase to leadership. Research Policy, v. 33, n. 10, p. 1.433-1.457, 2004. HULL, C. E.; ROTHENBERG. Firm Performance: the interactions of corporate social performance with innovation and industry differentiation. Strategic Management
Journal, v. 29, n. 7, p. 781-789, 2008.
HUSTED, B. W. A Contingency Theory of Corporate Social Performance. Business
and Society, v. 39, n. 1, p. 24-48, 2000.
ISOBE, T.; MAKINO, S.; MONTGOMERY, D. B. Technological capabilities and firm performance: The case of small manufacturing firms in Japan. Asia Pacific Journal
of Management, v. 25, n. 3, p. 413-428, 2008.
JAMALI, D. A stakeholder approach to corporate social responsibility: A fresh pers- pective into theory and practice. Journal of business ethics, v. 82, n. 1, p. 213-231, 2008. KANG, Y. C.; WOOD, D. J. Before-profit Social Responsibility: turning the eco- nomic paradigm upside down. Proceedings of the International Association for Business
and Society, v. 6, p. 408-418, 1995.
KATZ, J. Importación de Tecnologia, Aprendizage y Industrialización Dependiente, México: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1976.
KIM, L. Imitation to Innovation: The Dynamics of Korea’s Technological Learning. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1997.
KOGUT, B.; ZANDER, U. Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, vol. 3, p. 383-397, 1992.
LALL, S. Technological capabilities and industrialisation, World Development, vol. 20, p. 165-186, 1992.
LALL, S. Learning to industrialize. Londres, Springer, 1987.
______. Developing countries as exporters of technology: a first look at the Indian expe- rience. Londres: Springer, 1982.
LEORNARD-BARTON, D. Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995.
LICHTENBERG, F.; SIEGEL, D. The Impacto of R&D Investment on Pro- ductivity: new evidence using linked R&D-LRD data. Economic Inquiry, v. 29, p. 203-228, 1991
LIN, C. Modeling Corporate Citizenship, Organizational Trust and Work Engage- ment Based on Attachment Theory. Journal of Business Ethics, v. 94, p. 517-531, 2010. LONGO, M. et al. Corporate Social Responsibility and Corporate Performance: the case of Italian SME’s. Corporate Governance, v. 5, n. 4, p. 28-42, 2005.
LÓPEZ-PÉREZ, M. V.; PEREZ-LOPEZ, M. C.; RODRIGUEZ-ARIZA, L. The Opinions of European Companies on Corporate Social Responsibility and Its Relation to Innovation. Issues in Social Environmental Accounting, v. 1, n. 2, p. 276-295, 2007. MATTEN, D.; CRANE, A. Corporate citizenship: Toward an extended theoretical conceptualization. Academy of Management review, v. 30, n. 1, p. 166-179, 2005. MAURICE, M. The Evolution of the Firm and Social Relations. International Studies
of Management & Organization, n. 1, p. 222-253, 1971.
McWILLIANS, A.; SIEGEL, D. Corporate Social Responsibility and Financial Performance: correlation or misspecification? Strategic Management Journal, v. 21, n. 5, p. 603-609, 2000.
MILES, M. B.; HUBERMAN, A. Michael. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Londres: Sage, 1994.
MOORE, G.; SPENCE, L. Editorial: Responsibility and Small Business. Journal
of Business Ethics, v. 67, p. 219-226, 2006.
MUOGBOH, O. S.; SALAMI, A. A New Perspective on the Manufacturing Stra- tegy: performance relationship. International Journal of Business Research, v. 9, n. 3, p. 114-126, 2009.
NONAKA, I.; TAKEUCHI, H. The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese com- panies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995. OBERMAIER, M.; ROVERE, E. L. Vulnerabilidade e resiliência socioambiental no contexto da mudança climática: o caso do programa nacional de produção e uso do biodiesel (PNPB). Parc. Estrat., v. 16, n. 33, p. 109-134, 2011.
O’REILLY, Charles A.; TUSHMAN, Michael L. The ambidextrous organization.
292 Ano 14 • n. 36 • out./dez. • 2016 PAPASOLOMOU-DOUKAKIS, I. et al. Corporate Social Responsibility: the way forward? Maybe not. European Business Review, v. 17, n. 3, p. 263-279, 2005. PAVELIN, S.; PORTER, L. A. The Corporate Social Performance Content of In- novation in the U.K. Journal of Business Ethics, v. 80, p. 711-725, 2008.
PHILLIMORE, J. Shumpeter, Schumacher and the Greening of Technology. Tech-
nology Analysis and Strategic Management, v. 13, n. 1, p. 23-37, 2001.
PRESTON, L. E.; POST, J. E. Private management and public policy. California
Management Review, v. 23, n. 3, p. 56-62, 1981.
RIP, Arie; MISA, Thomas J.; SCHOT, Johan (Ed.). Managing technology in society. London; New York: Pinter Publishers, 1995.
ROBERTS, P. W.; GRAHAME, R. D. Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Performance. Strategic Management Journal, v. 23, p. 1.077-1.093, 2002. SENGE, P. The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday, 1990.
RUF, B. M. et al. The Development of a Systematic, Aggregate Measure of Corporate Social Performance. Journal of Management, v. 24, n. 1: p. 119-133, 1998.
SINGH, Jasjit. Collaborative networks as determinants of knowledge diffusion patterns. Management science, v. 51, n. 5, p. 756-770, 2005.
SURROCA, J.; TRIBÓ, J.; WADDOCK, S. Corporate Responsibility and Financial Performance: the role of intangible resources. Strategic Management Journal, v. 31, p. 463-490, 2010.
SWANSON, D. L. Addressing a Theoretical Problem by Reorienting the Corporate Social Performance Model. Academy of Management Review, v. 20, p. 43-64, 1995. ______. Toward an Integrative Strategy of Business and Society: a research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, v. 24, p. 506-521, 1999.
SCHUMPETER, J. A. The theory of economic development. Cambridge: Harvard Uni- versity Press, 1934.
TEECE, D. J.; GARY P.; SHUEN A. 1997. Dynamic Capabilities and Strategic Management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7): 509-533, 1997.
TSAI, K. The impact of technological capability on firm performance in Taiwan’s electronics industry. Journal of High Technology Management Research, v. 15, p. 183- 195, 2004.
ULLMANN, A. A. Data in Search of Theory: a critical examination of the rela- tionships among social performance, social disclosure and economic performance of US firms. Academy of Management Review, v. 10, n. 3, p. 540-557, 1985.
UZZI, B. The Sources and Consequences of Embeddedness for the Economic Performance of Organizations: the network effect. American Sociological Review, v. 61, n. 4, p. 674-698, 1996.
VERGARA, S. C. Projetos e relatórios de pesquisa em Administração. 10. ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 2009.
VOLLEBERGH H. R. J,; KEMFERT C. The role of technological change for a sustainable development. Ecological Economics, v. 54, p. 133–147, 2005.
WAGNER, M. Corporate Social Performance and Innovation with High Social Be- nefits: a quantitative analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, v. 94, n. 4, p. 591-594, 2010. WARTICK, S. L.; COCHRAN, P. L. The Evolution of the Corporate Social Perfor- mance Model. Academy of Management Review, v. 10, n. 4, p. 758-769, 1985.
WEIGELT, K.; CAMERER, C. Reputation and Corporate Srategy: a review of recent theory and applications. Strategic Management Journal, v. 9, n. 5, p. 443-454, 1988. WOOD, D. J. Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management
Review, v. 16, p. 691-718, 1991
______. Measuring Corporate Social Performance: a review. International Journal of
Management Reviews, v. 12, n. 1, p. 50-84, march 2010.
ZAHRA, S. A.; COVIN, J. Contextual Influences on the Corporate Entrepreneurship Company Performance Relationship in Established Firms: A Longitudinal Analysis.
Journal of Business Venturing, v. 10, p. 43-58, 1995.
Recebido em: 26/5/2015 Aceito em: 4/3/2016