Marcela Giraldo Giraldo René Alejandro Suárez Puello · Marcela Giraldo Giraldo Center for...

ABSTRACT NUMBER 020-0767

A FINANCIAL APPROACH TO BENCHMARK SUPPLY CHAIN

PERFORMANCE IN LATIN-AMERICA

Marcela Giraldo Giraldo Center for Latin-American Logistics Innovation (CLI)

Avenida el Dorado # 70-16, Bogotá, Colombia

Tel: +5714270999, Fax: +5714274723

E-mail: [email protected]

René Alejandro Suárez Puello Center for Latin-American Logistics Innovation (CLI)

Avenida el Dorado # 70-16, Bogotá, Colombia

E-mail: [email protected]

POMS 22nd annual conference

Reno, Nevada, USA

April 29 to May 2, 2011

Abstract

The literature shows a wide range of key performance indicators to measure supply chain

performance. These indicators involved a variety of concepts such as agility, flexibility,

responsiveness, reliability, costs and asset management. Usually these measures are

detailed and easily understood for supply chain and operations people, but hardly valued by

other areas in the company. This research uses financial information as the common

language to create a benchmark methodology for supply chain performance.

This methodology uses financial indicators related to operational performance to

benchmark companies in different sectors in Latin-American. It is focused on cost, return

on assets and cash flow, allowing to identify relevant differences among companies by

using variables as sector, sales or assets.

This methodology is a starting point for supply chain managers in order to speak the same

language with the CEO and CFO. Moreover, it can be useful to track the impact of the

operational indicators at the financial level.

Key words: Supply chain, key performance indicators, financial performance.

1. Introduction

According to Furey (1987), benchmarking is an analytic process which measures and

compares the operations of a company rigorously against the best companies of its kind.

Likewise, Manning, et.al. (2008) define it as a method which turns data into relevant

information and allow new knowledge about a process.

The objectives of a benchmarking process are: identifying key performance indicators,

measuring internal performance of a company, comparing obtained results against

competitors’, identifying strengths and weaknesses and implementing solutions aimed to

reducing the gap with regard to other companies (Furey, 1987).

Benchmarking benefits are: measuring company’s performance, identifying strengths,

validating if clients’ expectations are met; helping organizations understand their processes;

validating what they know and understanding what they don’t know; identifying problems,

bottlenecks or wastes; assuring that decisions are made based on facts and not assumptions,

and validating if stated solutions yield expected results (Parker, 2000).

In logistics and supply chain management (SCM), metrics are mainly operational.

According to Gunasekaran et.al., (2007) there are 26 SCM common indicators in studies

undertaken in the United States and Europe such as on-time and in-full deliveries, perfect

order, order cycle time, etc. From these indicators only eight were related to finance and

mostly related to cost. A similar review made in Latin-America revealed that from the 14

common indicators only five were related to finance. Rey (2007) performed an operational

benchmark with 153 companies in Latin-America where logistics costs by country were

determined. Similar studies were carried out in Mexico, Panama and Colombia. However,

none of these studies used financial indicators for its analysis.

The operational measures allow analyzing the operation in detail but it is required to

translate the logistics activity in tangible benefits for the company. In 2010, Kremers 2010

stated that there is no connection among the priorities of a supply chain manager and the

priorities of the CEO or CFO; that there is no alignment between strategy and execution.

Supply chain managers commonly measure their contribution to company’s performance

through operational cost (Kremers, 2010) without considering the direct and indirect effect

that supply chain management has on sales increase and fixed and working capital

efficiency (Christopher, et.al, 1999).

The financial impact of the supply chain components can be clearly identified in a

company’s financial reports which reflect its financial results during a year providing

investors with key indicators of profitability, expenses, costs and net profit (Kremers,

2010). For example, supply chain’s flexible response time has a direct effect on sales by

reducing the out of stocks that comes from the mismatch between supply and demand.

Several studies show a high correlation between SCM performance and financial

performance. According to Kremers (2010), collaboration relationships between a company

and its providers have an impact on time response and raw materials costs. Lanier Jr., et. al

(2010) used public information and financial reports to analyze return on assets, assets

turnover, cash cycle and profits. Their study demonstrated that supply chain integration

generates a cash cycle 15 days lower than the industry average. According to Pittiglio, et.

al. (1997), companies with the best supply chain practices have a total cost lower than their

competitors. Furthermore, cash cycle improves due to reductions in the time elapsed in the

transformation from raw materials to finished products. Cash cycle and working capital

have acquired relevance due to their impact on business profitability. Protopappa-Sieke, et.

al. (2009) demonstrated the impact that supplier delays generated on working capital,

operational costs and total financial costs.

Even thought there is a clear relationship between finance and SCM, there is lack of

information related to this topic in Latin America. The objective is to analyze the

operational performance of Latin American companies using financial indicators as the

main source of logistics benchmarking.

This study aims to promote the interest of supply chain managers regarding SCM financial

impact in order to improve competitiveness regarding other companies in the same

industry. It might also help as a tool to build the business cases for supply chain

improvements and get approval from the company’s board of directors.

This document will present the methodology, the case study, the data analysis, the

conclusions and the proposed future work.

2. Methodology

See Figure 1 for a summary of the methodology.

Figure 1: Methodology

Source: Author

Sample selection:

The first step is to select the countries, the economic sectors and the companies to analyze.

Once the study sample is selected, secondary information regarding financial statements is

collected. Normally, financial information of the country’s largest companies is available in

public databases which present detailed financial reports per year.

Data processing:

Once financial reports are collected, financial indicators are generated. These indicators

were selected because they reveal supply chain management impact in three fundamental

aspects: cost, cash-to-cash cycle and asset management. See Figure 1.

• Select contries to analyze.

• Select economic sectors to analyze.

• Define companies to be included

• Obtanied financial stratement from 2008 to 2009 for selected companies.

Sample selection

• Calculated profit and cost measures: EBITDA%REV, COGS%REV y SG&A%REV

• Calculated cash to cash cycle measures: days´payables, days´receivables, days´inventory

• Calculated assets related measures: ROCA. Asset turnover & GMROI

Data processing • Compare measures against

companies, countries and ecnomic sectors..

• Identify relevant evolution trends among measures.

• Identify relevant correlations between diferent variables.

Analysis and results

Figure 2: Indicators used in the study:

The first group of indicators

The Cash-to-Cash Cycle

measures basic functions of supply chain

management and delivery efficiency.

Cash to cash Cycle = Days

Note: COGS (Cost of Goods Sold)

Indicators used in the study: Profits and costs, cash-to- cash cycle

Source: Author

of indicators is composed by the indicators related to Cash

measures supply chain speed to convert cash into revenue. It

measures basic functions of supply chain management such as purchasing, inventory

management and delivery efficiency.

Cash to cash Cycle = Days’ Inventory + Days’ Receivables – Days

Cash to cash cycle

Days´inventory

Days´receivables

Days´payables

Assets

GMROI ROCA ROA

Profits and cost

EBITDA%Revenue

COGS% Revenue

SG&A% Revenue

cash cycle and assets.

related to Cash-to-Cash Cycle.

measures supply chain speed to convert cash into revenue. It

such as purchasing, inventory

Days’ Payables

Day’s inventory shows the average number of days that a company keeps of inventory (raw

materials, work in progress and finished goods).

��

Days´ receivables measure the company collection days’ policy. Lack of delivery

effectiveness and invoicing mistakes may generate additional collection delays.

��

Days´ payable measures operational leverage with suppliers. It is an important indicator

because it affects supplier relationships. Long term payments may threaten supplier

existence and hence the availability of raw materials.

The second group of indicators is composed by the indicators related to cost. Cost

indicators use in this study reflects the costs related with the company’s core business. The

methodology analyzes operational costs rather than costs generated or influenced by

finance such as interests, taxes, depreciation and amortizations.

The cost indicators used were:

� !"��#��$ � � !"�� % &''#

EBITDA (Earnings before Interests, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) measures the

operational income of the company as a percentage of revenue.

�()*#��$ � �� % &''#

*)+�#��$ � *��)��+��,��-�� % &''#

COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) are direct costs associated to a product and SG&A (Sales,

General and Administrative) are the overhead and the sales costs of the company. Both

indicators are calculated as a percentage of revenue.

The third group of indicators is related to asset management and supply chain efficiency.

The indicators used were:

�(�� !"��.�� / ��0 % &''#

)1�(! � )��!�� % &''#

ROCA (Return on Operational Assets) and GMROI (Gross Margin Return on Inventory)

measure the return and the quality of the assets under supply chain supervision (inventories

and accounts receivables).

�(� � 2��,�"�� % &''#

ROA measures the return generated by total assets.

These indicators mostly consider activities linked to operations. They omit results related to

activities related to finance. Therefore, based on this information is possible to assess the

results generated by the company’s value chain.

After calculating these indicators, the sample was divided into quartiles. Then companies

were classified according the performance obtained in each indicator.

Analysis and results:

The following values were calculated for each indicator: average, standard deviation,

maximum and minimum. In addition, patterns of behavior among performance and

variables were analyzed per country and industry.

3. Case study:

Sample selection was made based on World Bank (2011) data that presents the Latin-

American GDP, gross domestic product, per country. The top four Latin American

countries from this list were selected: Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Colombia. Argentina

was taken out from the sample due to the difficulty of finding companies’ public financial

information.

For each of the countries selected, companies were chosen among the ones that quote in the

stock exchange market, mainly those engaged in CPG, consumer product goods, as

decision criteria. This study obtains companies´ public financial statements from the stock

exchange web page of each

Mexicana de Valores (2011

(2011).

Some of the companies listed in these web

coherent financial data.

Figure 3 shows the distribution of the companies selected by country. The sample is

composed by 48 companies: 42% of

and 29% were Colombian. The list of all companies analyzed in this study is shown in

Table 1.

This study obtains companies´ public financial statements from the stock

exchange web page of each country. Bolsa de Valores de Colombia (2011); Bolsa

2011); Valores de São Paulo y de la Bolsa de Mercadorias & Futuros

Some of the companies listed in these web sites were excluded due to a lack of complete or

shows the distribution of the companies selected by country. The sample is

composed by 48 companies: 42% of them were Mexican companies, 29% were Brazilian

% were Colombian. The list of all companies analyzed in this study is shown in

Figure 3: Sample composition

Source: Author

Colombia29%

Brazil29%

Mexico42%

This study obtains companies´ public financial statements from the stock

Bolsa de Valores de Colombia (2011); Bolsa

de Mercadorias & Futuros

sites were excluded due to a lack of complete or

shows the distribution of the companies selected by country. The sample is

them were Mexican companies, 29% were Brazilian

% were Colombian. The list of all companies analyzed in this study is shown in

Country Company

Conservas ODERICH S.A.

J. Macêdo S.A.

Josapar-Joaquim Oliveira S.A.

M.DIAS BRANCO S.A. IND COM DE ALIMENTOS Company Country

Cosan S.A Industria e comercio EMBOTELLADORAS ARCA, S.A.B. DE C.V.

SAO MARTINHO S.A. INDUSTRIAS BACHOCO, S.A.B. DE C.V.

CIA CACIQUE DE CAFE SOLUVEL GRUPO BAFAR, S.A. DE C.V.

CIA IGUACU DE CAFE SOLUVEL GRUPO BIMBO, S.A.B. DE C.V.

CIA BEBIDAS DAS AMERICAS - AMBEV GRUPO CONTINENTAL, S.A.B.

CIA BRASILEIRA DE DISTRIBUICAO FOMENTO ECONÓMICO MEXICANO, S.A.B. DE C.V.

B2W - COMPANHIA GLOBAL DO VAREJO GRUPO AZUCARERO MÉXICO, S.A. DE C.V.

HYPERMARCAS S.A. GRUPO EMBOTELLADORAS UNIDAS, S.A.B. DE CV

LOJAS AMERICANAS S.A. GRUPO MODELO, S.A.B. DE C.V.

SOUZA CRUZ S.A. GRUMA, S.A.B. DE C.V.

BAVARIA S.A. GRUPO HERDEZ, S.A.B. DE C.V.

ALPINA PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS S A COCA-COLA FEMSA, S.A.B. DE C.V.

COMPAÑIA NACIONAL DE CHOCOLATES S.A. GRUPO INDUSTRIAL MASECA, S.A.B. DE C.V.

COMPAÑIA DE GALLETAS NOEL S A GRUPO MINSA, S.A.B. DE C.V.

RIOPAILA INDUSTRIAL S.A. GRUPO NUTRISA, S. A. DE C. V.

ALIMENTOS CÁRNICOS S.A. GRUPO COMERCIAL CHEDRAUI, S.A.B. DE C.V.

COLOMBINA S.A. CONTROLADORA COMERCIAL MEXICANA, S.A.B. DE C.V.

INDUSTRIA DE ALIMENTOS ZENU S.A GRUPO GIGANTE, S.A.B. DE C.V.

INDUSTRIA COLOMBIANA DE CAFE S A ORGANIZACION SORIANA, S.A.B. DE C.V.

PRODUCTOS NATURALES DE LA SABANA S.A. ALQUERIA WAL - MART DE MEXICO

MEALS, MERCADEO DE ALIMENTOS DE COLOMBIA S.A.

PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS DORIA S A

SETAS COLOMBIANAS S.A. SETAS S. A.

BRAZIL

COLOMBIA

MEXICO

Table 1: Companies analyzed in the study Source: Author

3.1 Indicator values

Tables 2, 3 and 4 summarize indicators values obtained for each country for years 2008

and 2009. These values represent the average of the company´s indicators.

Average StaDev Max Min Average StaDev Max Min

EBITDA%REVENUE 6,1% 8,3% 20,4% -11,9% 6,7% 9,2% 25,1% -8,6%

COGS%REVENUE 77,6% 9,6% 95,5% 53,4% 77,1% 8,9% 91,6% 56,3%

SG&A%REVENUE 16,3% 5,2% 29,6% 6,7% 16,2% 7,5% 29,6% 0,0%


GMROI 2,6 2,3 9,5 0,3 2,7 2,3 9,4 0,3

ROA 3,0% 7,9% 24,4% -7,4% 5,0% 9,1% 29,4% -6,3%

ROCA 48% 96% 351% -67% 60% 117% 445% -40%


DI 61 31 134 14 60 29 124 13

DR 30 29 111 - 31 25 100 10

DP 29 27 95 4 30 28 104 3

CTC 61 54 152 (17) 61 48 131 (14)

Brazil

2008 2009

2008 2009

2008 2009

Table 2: Indicator values for Brazilian companies. Source: Author


EBITDA%REVENUE 10,6% 10,2% 40,7% -9,1% 11,8% 9,6% 36,0% 1,6%

COGS%REVENUE 64,4% 16,1% 94,2% 37,3% 64,1% 14,8% 86,1% 40,6%

SG&A%REVENUE 25,1% 12,7% 53,5% 11,9% 24,8% 13,1% 49,9% 0,0%


GMROI 4,4 4,1 16,8 0,6 4,6 3,9 16,2 1,1

ROA 4,7% 11,0% 17,0% -26,6% 7,7% 5,3% 19,5% -0,8%

ROCA 70% 84% 366% -48% 79% 71% 306% 10%


DI 68 31 137 23 63 28 129 25

DC 29 22 78 2 24 14 49 3

DP 49 20 89 13 46 19 80 14

CTC 48 58 175 (36) 41 43 122 (28)

Mexico

2008 2009

2008 2009

2008 2009

Table 3: Indicator values for Mexican companies.

Source: Author


EBITDA%REVENUE 10,3% 6,0% 24,8% 2,7% 8,7% 6,7% 25,4% 0,5%

COGS%REVENUE 65,2% 12,7% 80,8% 32,9% 66,3% 14,0% 93,4% 35,0%

SG&A%REVENUE 24,5% 9,1% 42,3% 6,5% 25,0% 9,0% 39,5% 6,1%


GMROI 4,0 2,6 9,3 0,9 4,8 3,3 12,3 0,4

ROA 4,1% 2,2% 9,5% 1,0% 5,1% 4,1% 16,0% -2,4%

ROCA 62% 57% 193% 12% 67% 78% 271% 2%


DI 62 23 93 24 51 20 94 25

DC 32 16 60 3 32 18 56 3

DP 36 19 79 9 32 22 78 2

CTC 59 35 116 0 51 39 121 (13)

2008 2009

Colombia

2008 2009

2008 2009

Table 4: Indicator values for Colombian companies. Source: Author

3.2 Analysis of results

The analysis is divided in two parts. Firstly, the three groups of indicators are used to obtain some

insights about the behavior of the companies grouped by country. Secondly, the analysis focuses

on the behavior of specific companies.

3.2.1 Country level analysis

The profit and cost indicators show that Mexican and Brazilian companies on average had an

increment in the EBITDA indicator from 2008 to 2009. In the case of the Mexican companies this is

explained by a decline in the sales general and administrative expenses account. In the case of the

Brazilian companies the direct contributor to this increment was the cost of goods sold account

decrease. On the other hand, Colombian companies experienced on average a reduction of 15% in

this indicator mainly affected by a contraction in the cost of goods sold account.

The asset related indicators showed that on average Colombian companies had a good

performance in GMROI (inventory quality) compared with Brazil and Mexico. This is stated by a

20% improvement of this indicator in Colombia compared with only a 4% in the other two

countries.

Cash to cash cycle indicators has shown reductions from 2008 to 2009 in all three countries. A

reduction in Cash to cash cycle indicators added to an improvement in the ROCA and GMROI

indicators show evidence of the efforts that companies are doing to reduce capital investment in

inventories.

Moreover, the days’ payable indicator showed an increase or stable behavior in all three

countries. This can be associated with the efforts put by the companies to build a sustainable

relationship with suppliers. In other words, this indicates the development of policies more focus

in benefits and risk reduction for all parties involved in the supply chain than just a financial

motivation.

3.2.2 Company level analysis

To perform this part of the analysis companies’ indicators were ranked by quartiles. For instance,

companies whose indicators are in the first quartile perform better (for that particular indicator)

that the ones in the last quartile. The final ranking for the companies is obtained by adding the

individual ranking of each group of KPIs (profit and cost, cash to cash cycle and asset). See

Appendix A for the detail of these calculations.

For the majority of the companies, one of KPI leads in performance to the others. This could be

related with company´s policies oriented to reinforce certain areas of their supply chains but not

the supply chain as a whole. On the contrary, Alimentos Carnicos, a Colombian company, was the

only one ranked equally (second quartile) for the three groups of KPIs. This means that is very

difficult to excel in all areas of the supply chain at the same time.

This study found a common trend for top ranked companies (located in the first quartile). The

performance in assets for these companies was superior to cost or cash to cash indicators.

Similarly, bottom ranked companies (located in the last quartile) had the lowest performance in

assets compared with the other two groups of indicators. These results can imply a relationship

between superior operational performance and assets management. As companies keep close

eyes on assets, especially in current assets, the efficiency increases, generating a positive side

impact on cost and cash to cash cycle indicators. Moreover, top companies are more focus in

generating more profit though efficiency than reducing cost per se.

Table 5: Top ranked companies Source: Author

COMPANY COUNTRY

COCA-COLA FEMSA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO

EMBOTELLADORAS ARCA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO

BAVARIA S.A. COLOMBIA

CIA BEBIDAS DAS AMERICAS - AMBEV BRAZIL

WAL - MART DE MEXICO, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO

INDUSTRIA DE ALIMENTOS ZENU S.A COLOMBIA

GRUPO CONTINENTAL, S.A.B. MEXICO

GRUPO MODELO, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO

GRUPO BIMBO, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO

GRUPO NUTRISA, S. A. DE C. V. MEXICO

MEALS, MERCADEO DE ALIMENTOS DE COLOMBIA S.A. COLOMBIA

GRUPO HERDEZ, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO

GRUPO EMBOTELLADORAS UNIDAS, S.A.B. DE CV MEXICO

As a final remark, this study did not reveal enough evidence of superior performance relate to

companies operating in a specific country or having a specific volume of sales. Top performance

companies are presented in table 5.

4 Conclusions and future work:

It can be concluded that inventory levels have been reduced for companies in CPG sector in Brazil,

Colombia and Mexico from 2008 to 2009. This reduction was translated in improvements in the

GMROI and cash to cash cycle indicators. These results follow the worldwide trend to improve

management of current assets, mainly focused on inventory. On the other hand, increase in days’

payable indicator could be an evidence for an increasing interest to build sustainable relationship

with suppliers, more focused in common benefits and in securing raw material availability.

Nonetheless, the results have an improvement gap compare with results obtain for USA

companies in the same industry.

Nonetheless, the results also show that there is a lot of room for improvement. This is evident

when these indicators are compared their counterparts coming from USA companies in the same

industry.

These results provide an idea of what can be analyzed with these indicators. As a future work, we

propose to analyze in detail the operations of each of these companies. This deeper analysis will

provide an explanation on the effect on these indicators produced by these companies’ best

practices.

References

Brewer Peter C. y Speh Thomas W Using the balanced scorecard to measure supply chain

performance [Publicación periódica] // Journal of business logistics. - 2000. - 1 : Vol. 21. - pág. 75.

Bolsa mexicana de valores. Retrieved January 11, 2011. http://www.bmv.com.mx/.

Christopher Martin y Ryals Linette Supply chain strategy: its impact on shareholder value

[Publicación periódica] // The international journal of logistics management. - 1999. - 1 : Vol. 10. -

págs. 1-10.

Christopher Martin y Ryals Lynette supply chain strategy: its impact on shareholder value

[Publicación periódica] // The international journal of logistics management. - 1999. - 1 : Vol. 10. -

págs. 1-10.

Furey T.R. Benchmarking the key to developing competitive advantage in mature markets

[Publicación periódica] // Planning Rev. - 1987. - págs. 30-32.

Gunasekaran Angappa y Kobu Bulent Performance measures and metrics in logistics and supply

chain management: a review of recent literature (1995-2004) for research and applications

[Publicación periódica] // International Journal of Production Research. - 2007. - 12 : Vol. 45. -

págs. 2819-2840.

IBM The GMA 2010 Logistics benchmark report [Informe]. - New York : [s.n.], 2010.

Kremers Luc The link between Supply chain and finance [Publicación periódica] // Supply chain

Asia. - 2010. - págs. 22-25.

Lanier Jr. Danny, Wempe William F. y Zacharia Zach G. Concentrated supply chain membership

and financial performance: chain and firm level perspectives [Publicación periódica] // Journal of

Operations Management. - 2010. - 28. - págs. 1-16.

La Bolsa de valores de Colombia. Retrieved January 11, 2011. http://www.bvc.com.co

Manning L. y Baines R. Benchmarking the poultry meat supply chain [Publicación periódica] //

Benchmarking: An International Journal. - 2008. - 15 : Vol. 2. - págs. 148-165.

Parker C. Performance measurement [Publicación periódica]. - 2000. - 63-66 : Vol. 49.

Pittiglio Rabin y Mcgrath Todd Integrated supply chain management benchmarking study

[Publicación periódica]. - 1997.

Protopappa-Sieke Margarita y Seifert Ralf W. Interrelating operational and financial performance

measurements in inventory control [Publicación periódica] // European Journal of Operational

Research. - 2009. - Vol. 204. - págs. 439-448.

Rey Maria Fernanda Estado de la logistica en latinoamerica [Informe]. - 2007.

Stapleton Drew, Hanna Joe B. y Yagla Steve Measuring logistics performance using the strategic

profit model [Publicación periódica] // The international journal of logistics management. - 2002. -

1 : Vol. 13. - págs. 89-107.

Valores de São Paulo y de la Bolsa de Mercadorias & Futuros. Retrieve January 11,

2011. http://www.bmf.com.br

Vickery Shawnee K. [y otros] The effects of an integrative supply chain strategy on customer

service and financial performance: an analysis of direct versus indirect relationships [Publicación

periódica] // Journal of Operations Management. - 2003. - 21. - págs. 523-539.

World Bank. Retrieved January 4, 2011.

http://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD

Appendix A

Ranking Razon Social Pais EBITDA&REV COGS%REV SGA%REV DI DC DP GMROI ROCA ROA Profit and Cost Cash to Cash Assets TOTAL

1 COCA-COLA FEMSA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 1 1 4 1 2 1 1 1 1 6 4 3 13

2 EMBOTELLADORAS ARCA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 1 1 4 2 1 3 1 1 1 6 6 3 15

3 BAVARIA S.A. COLOMBIA 1 1 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 6 3 15

4 CIA BEBIDAS DAS AMERICAS - AMBEV BRAZIL 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 4 5 5 6 16

5 WAL - MART DE MEXICO, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 2 3 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 6 4 6 16

6 INDUSTRIA DE ALIMENTOS ZENU S.A COLOMBIA 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 1 1 7 6 3 16

7 GRUPO CONTINENTAL, S.A.B. MEXICO 1 1 4 3 1 4 1 1 1 6 8 3 17

8 GRUPO MODELO, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 1 1 3 4 3 1 2 1 1 5 8 4 17

9 GRUPO BIMBO, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 2 1 4 1 3 2 1 1 2 7 6 4 17

10 GRUPO NUTRISA, S. A. DE C. V. MEXICO 2 1 4 4 2 1 1 1 1 7 7 3 17

11 MEALS, MERCADEO DE ALIMENTOS DE COLOMBIA S.A. COLOMBIA 1 1 4 2 1 3 1 1 3 6 6 5 17

12 GRUPO HERDEZ, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 1 2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1 4 9 5 18

13 GRUPO EMBOTELLADORAS UNIDAS, S.A.B. DE CV MEXICO 3 1 4 2 1 1 1 2 3 8 4 6 18

14 SOUZA CRUZ S.A. BRAZIL 3 3 2 1 1 4 2 2 1 8 6 5 19

15 M.DIAS BRANCO S.A. IND COM DE ALIMENTOS BRAZIL 1 2 2 3 2 4 3 1 1 5 9 5 19

16 FOMENTO ECONÓMICO MEXICANO, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 1 1 4 2 3 3 1 2 2 6 8 5 19

17 PRODUCTOS NATURALES DE LA SABANA S.A. ALQUERIA COLOMBIA 3 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 8 6 5 19

18 LOJAS AMERICANAS S.A. BRASIL 2 3 1 3 2 1 3 2 3 6 6 8 20

19 GRUPO COMERCIAL CHEDRAUI, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 3 3 2 2 1 1 3 3 2 8 4 8 20

20 RIOPAILA INDUSTRIAL S.A. COLOMBIA 2 3 1 1 3 4 2 2 2 6 8 6 20

21 CIA BRASILEIRA DE DISTRIBUICAO BRAZIL 3 3 2 2 2 1 3 2 3 8 5 8 21

22 B2W - COMPANHIA GLOBAL DO VAREJO BRAZIL 2 4 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 7 6 9 22

23 HYPERMARCAS S.A. BRAZIL 1 1 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 5 9 8 22

24 GRUPO BAFAR, S.A. DE C.V. MEXICO 3 2 3 1 4 2 2 3 3 8 7 8 23

25 PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS DORIA S A COLOMBIA 1 2 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 6 11 6 23

26 CONTROLADORA COMERCIAL MEXICANA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 4 4 1 3 1 1 3 3 4 9 5 10 24

27 GRUPO INDUSTRIAL MASECA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 3 1 6 10 8 24

28 COMPAÑIA NACIONAL DE CHOCOLATES S.A. COLOMBIA 2 2 4 3 4 2 2 3 2 8 9 7 24

29 COMPAÑIA DE GALLETAS NOEL S A COLOMBIA 3 2 3 2 4 3 2 3 2 8 9 7 24

30 ALIMENTOS CÁRNICOS S.A. COLOMBIA 3 3 2 1 4 3 2 3 3 8 8 8 24

31 J. Macêdo S.A. BRAZIL 4 3 3 1 2 4 2 4 2 10 7 8 25

32 ORGANIZACION SORIANA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 4 4 2 3 1 1 4 3 3 10 5 10 25

33 INDUSTRIAS BACHOCO, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 3 4 1 3 1 3 4 3 3 8 7 10 25

34 ALPINA PRODUCTOS ALIMENTICIOS S A COLOMBIA 3 1 4 2 3 3 2 3 4 8 8 9 25

35 CIA CACIQUE DE CAFE SOLUVEL BRAZIL 2 4 1 2 3 4 4 2 4 7 9 10 26

36 SETAS COLOMBIANAS S.A. SETAS S. A. COLOMBIA 2 3 2 4 2 4 4 3 2 7 10 9 26

37 COLOMBINA S.A. COLOMBIA 4 2 3 3 3 1 3 4 3 9 7 10 26

38 GRUPO AZUCARERO MÉXICO, S.A. DE C.V. MEXICO 4 4 1 1 3 2 4 4 4 9 6 12 27

39 GRUMA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 8 10 10 28

40 GRUPO GIGANTE, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 4 2 4 4 3 1 3 4 3 10 8 10 28

41 GRUPO MINSA, S.A.B. DE C.V. MEXICO 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 4 2 7 12 10 29

42 SAO MARTINHO S.A. BRAZIL 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 10 8 12 30

43 Josapar-Joaquim Oliveira S.A. BRAZIL 4 4 2 1 4 4 3 4 4 10 9 11 30

44 Cosan S.A Industria e comercio BRAZIL 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 4 4 10 9 12 31

45 CIA IGUACU DE CAFE SOLUVEL BRAZIL 4 4 3 4 1 4 4 4 4 11 9 12 32

46 Conservas ODERICH S.A. BRAZIL 4 4 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 10 11 12 33

47 INDUSTRIA COLOMBIANA DE CAFE S A COLOMBIA 4 4 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 9 12 12 33

Profit and Cost Cash to Cash Assets

Marcela Giraldo Giraldo René Alejandro Suárez Puello · Marcela Giraldo Giraldo Center for...

Documents

Transcript of Marcela Giraldo Giraldo René Alejandro Suárez Puello · Marcela Giraldo Giraldo Center for...