PANORAMA DOS DESASTRES DE MARIANA E BRUMADINHO: O QUE SABEMOS ATÉ AGORA?

Fabrício, Sarah Amaral; Ferreira, Denize Demarche Minatti; Borba, José Alonso

doi:10.1590/1413-2311.310.102806

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

REAd. Revista Eletrônica de Administração (Porto Alegre)

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • REAd. Rev. eletrôn. adm. (Porto Alegre) 27 (01) • Jan-Apr 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-2311.310.102806 copiar

PANORAMA DOS DESASTRES DE MARIANA E BRUMADINHO: O QUE SABEMOS ATÉ AGORA?

Autoria SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

RESUMO

Em 2015, ocorreu o rompimento da barragem de Fundão da empresa Samarco (controlada pela Vale), causando uma enorme onda de lama, causando 19 mortes e tornando-se o maior desastre ambiental do Brasil. Logo em 2019, um novo rompimento de barragem aconteceu, tendo como empresa responsável a Vale, tendo em torno de 270 vítimas fatais. Ambos os desastres trouxeram inúmeros problemas socioambientais e financeiros. O estudo tem como objetivo analisar o impacto do desastre ambiental de Brumadinho e Mariana nas Demonstrações Financeiras da Vale e Samarco, especificamente os problemas relacionados às provisões, contingências e processos ambientais. O método empregado no estudo de caso foi a análise de conteúdo e, a coleta de dados foi realizada a partir das Demonstrações Financeiras, Formulários de Referência e "press release" da empresa num período de 10 anos compreendido entre 2010 a 2019. Entre os principais resultados, observamos que em 2015, o colapso da barragem de Mariana pode explicar o aumento significativo de depósitos e provisões para ações ambientais movidas contra a Samarco e a Vale nos anos seguintes. Em 2019, detectou-se que o valor transferido para depósitos judiciais aumentou 45 vezes em relação ao ano anterior. Considerando esse fato, são necessários estudos que contribuam para a transparência das ações das vítimas, comunidades afetadas, desrespeito aos envolvidos e ao meio ambiente, pois esse não é o primeiro desastre causado pela empresa.

Palavras-chave:
Provisão; Contingências; Desastre; Brumadinho; Mariana

Date	Location	Release	Impacts
01/25/2019	Brumadinho, Brazil	12,000,000 m³	395 victims (259 casualties and 11 missing people)
11/21/2015	San Kat Kuu, Myanmar	Unknown	113 casualties
11/05/2015	Mariana, Brazil	40,000,000 m³	19 casualties
09/09/2008	Taoshi, China	190,000 m³	277 casualties and 33 injured
07/10/1985	Stava, Italy	200,000 m³	268 casualties

Author(s)	Objective and Findings
Cho et al. (2012a)	The authors examined three potential explanations for the corporate choice to disclose environmental capital spending amounts. Their findings show that disclosing firms do not exhibit improved subsequent environmental performance relative to non-disclosing companies and suggest that companies use the disclosure of environmental capital spending as a strategic tool.
Cho et al. (2012b)	The authors investigated the extent to which firms’ environmental performance is reflected in perceptions of their environmental reputation and whether environmental disclosure serves to mediate the negative aspects of poorer environmental performance associated with those assessments. The results suggest that voluntary environmental disclosure appears to mediate the effect of poor environmental performance on environmental reputation and suggest that membership in the DJSI appears to be driven more by what firms say than what they do.
Chen et al. (2014)	The authors investigated potential motivations for late adopting U.S. companies to begin disclosing environmental liability amounts in their financial statements. The overall level of environmental liability amounts was consistently decreasing over the time frame examined, suggesting that earlier adoption would have made more sense and may also explain why almost no new firms began disclosing after the mid-2000s.
D’Amico et al. (2016)	The authors analyzed the effects produced by the introduction of specific legislation on environmental disclosures. The analysis shows an (excessively) low level of disclosure of environmental information by the companies and that the introduction of legislation as purely voluntary only affects the contents of quantitative environmental disclosures.
Ching et al. (2017)	The authors analyzed whether the sustainability reporting quality would affect corporate financial performance among the firms listed on Corporate Sustainability Index and examine the information disclosed in their sustainability reports. There is no association between accounting and market-based variables and the reporting quality, and although the quality disclosure is improving throughout the years studied, the scores are still low.
Latan et al. (2018)	The authors examined the effect of the combination of corporate environmental strategy, top management commitment, and environmental uncertainty, with a focus on the role of environmental management accounting (EMA), on corporate environmental performance. There is a positive and significant influence between those organizational resources (corporate environmental strategy, top management commitment, and environmental unctainty) on the use of EMA, which in turn can improve the environmental performance of companies.
Rodrigues (2018)	The author shown the informational dynamics that take place between a firm and its stakeholders with respect to corporate environmental management. The results suggest that the informational dynamics are composed of multiple related patterns that are associated with different levels of interactions from stakeholders, who are most involved when they combine disclosure patterns around key environmental issues for the forest industry.

Companies	Vale		Samarco
Years	Contingency Fund	Financial Statements	Contingency Fund	Financial Statements
2010	x	x	x	x
2011	x	x	x	x
2012	x	x	x	x
2013	x	x	x	x
2014	x	x	x	x
2015	x	x	x	x
2016	x	x	x	x
2017	x	x	x	x
2018	x	x	x	x
2019	x	x	x	-

Samarco Provisions (Millions of US$)	2015		2016		2017
Samarco Provisions (Millions of US$)	Provisioned	Incurred¹	Provisioned	Incurred¹	Provisioned	Incurred¹
Emergency and migratory actions	304.831	90.184	-	-	-	-
Remedial programs	5.920.148	34.483	3.952.511	1.618.49	7.616.117	415.836
Compensatory programs	3.296.438	-	2.760.202	11.915	2.910.668	8.084
Other actions not contemplated in the agreement	483.385	19.683	498.399	438.257	727.138	142.609
Total	10.004.802	144.350	7.211.112	2.068.663	11.253.923	566.529

Vale provisions in 2019	In Millions of US$
1. Dam decomissioning or de-characterization (Vale)	US$2.489
1.1 Dam decomissioning or de-characterization (Joint Ventures)	US$257
2. Compensatory programs	US$2.983
2.1 Remedial Programs	US$1.066
2.2 Provision to Public Prosecution Service (labor court) claims	US$104

Escola de Administração da UFRGS Escola de Administração da UFRGS, Rua Washington Luis, 855 - 2° Andar, 90010-460 Porto Alegre/RS - Brasil, Fone: (55 51) 3308-3823, Fax: (55 51) 3308 3991 - Porto Alegre - RS - Brazil
E-mail: read@ea.ufrgs.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] Source: adapted from Raman e Liu (2019RAMAN, A.; LIU, F. An investigation of the Brumadinho Dam Break with HEC RAS simulation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1911.05219, 2019.)