The data collected through the questionnaires refer to several terminals in all the regions of the country, namely the Midwest, North, Northeast, Southeast, and South. Chart 1 presents information that helps characterize the study sample, indicating the amount of grain handled in the previous twelve months by each terminal included in the research. It can be seen that the bulk of handling occurred in the Midwest region (4CO), amounting to seven million tons per year, followed by terminals located in the South, Southeast, and North of the country.

Through a percentile analysis (see Chart 2), we can view the amount of handling in each region, outlining a chart that reflects the degree to which each region is responsible for the overall handling of grain in the country. Looking at the chart, the two regions that are seen to have contributed the most to the handling of crops in the previous year were the South and Midwest, together composing more than 50% of the amount handled nationally. The Southeast also shows an influence, representing 24% of all cases in the study period. Next, we observe the North and Northeast regions, comprising the remaining 20%.

Table 1 shows the characteristics of each terminal and their transaction possibilities between logistical modes such as road, rail, and waterway. Of all the terminals interviewed, only 55% responded regarding modes. Of this, 44% presented road transport to rail transpositions, 33% conducted road-waterways movements, and only 17% reported performing transactions between all three types of modes described, all of these being located in the South.

The remaining 6% of respondents who claim to have conducted rail-road transport are also in the South, the Midwest composed only of multimodal transport involving road-rail and road-waterway modes. The Southeast region did not provide any response with regard to these items.

Table 2 shows the services offered by the studied terminals. Through the data, we were able to verify that the terminals have activities mostly related to storage, transshipment, drying, and cleaning. The other services were cataloged as rare due to their presence in national terminals, such as the customs service, found in only a few places such as the Midwest and Northeast.

We can see that the terminals that have a greater number of activities aimed at processing crops are those found in the Midwest and South. The Northeast had the lowest rates of available services. Again, the Southeast provided no responses.

The following charts illustrate the actions taken by the terminals in each region with respect to the concept of the environment and sustainability, that is, how many of these follow specific policies in this context, and how many follow the previously established standards. The data were divided into regions, seeking a more general view on these measures present in Brazil.

We noticed how many of the respondent terminals have environmental policies in the business environment (Chart 3). Most are concentrated in the Midwest region, followed by the South and North. In the Northeast, only one terminal confirmed having policies concerning the environment in their processes. In the following chart, the percentage of terminals that have policies in relation to the respondents is presented.

As previously noted by other authors, such environmental policies have become important in the current business environment, since investors and even stakeholders are looking for companies that take steps aimed at sustainability with regard to work, whether concerning their resources or making business contacts. Despite the small number of terminals involved in this development, we can see a link between the volume of transport of logistical points and the development of such policies.

Respondents in the sample were also classified as to whether they complied with established environmental standards. As can be seen from Chart 4, most terminals that comply with the standards are located in the Southern region. Analyzing the proportion of terminals that answered the questions, only the North region had 100% of its terminals meeting the specifications, with only 37% of respondents in the Midwest region doing so.

Through Table 3, we can examine the percentage of responding terminals that adopt sustainable practices, whether this is compliant with established legal standards, or even if they have documented policies. It can be observed regarding the question of “health and safety” that the majority of respondents have formal procedures related to both health and safety at work (94%) as well as to the environment (89%). Moreover, only 17% have not adopted a minimum standard for environmental management of the terminal. Regarding the acceptance and dissemination of environmental activities between the parties, the index is still lower, with 78% of respondents reportedly having a policy with such characteristics. Despite this, we observed that only 61% of respondents claim to comply with legally established environmental standards.

In Table 4, we observe that, although few in number, there are terminals that reported having practices that surpass those required by law, adapting themselves to the concepts of searching for differentiation and competitive advantage. The table shows that 11% of respondents have actions that go beyond the legal standards required and that these are associated with cost reduction and revenue generation for the terminal, whereby the adopted practices not only contribute to the image of a sustainable company but also provide financial benefits to the terminal, generating changes in earnings performance and creating a rare competitive advantage over others.

Continuing the data analysis, we can see that 17% of respondents say they have practices that surpass those that are required, but that such actions are more strongly connected to pollution prevention and cleaner improvements. Thus, we see that only a few terminals can surpass expectations concerning their actions related to the environment, and only a small portion of these can connect sustainable practices to financial and revenue gains.

Finally, in Tables 5 and 6, we present a comparative analysis that considers the degree of performance and sustainable action among certain terminals in the sample. Analyzing the variable of “price” (Table 5), almost 90% of respondents that have a high degree of performance are seen to conduct some kind of environmental practice, while only 36% of terminals with average performance act in this manner. Based on the same table, it is observed that while no terminal with average performance adopts practices that surpass those required by law, because of the reduction of pollution, 22% of respondents with high performance actually do so. These results point to a possible connection between the level of sustainability developed by a company and its market performance.

When analyzing the performance variable of “quality of service” (Table 6), this perception is repeated, since only 25% of respondents with an average performance level claim implementing sustainable practices, showing no positive responses to any other variable related to the environment. The terminals that have a high degree of performance participate in all the items connected with the sustainable actions, amounting to almost 70% of terminals that perform environmental practices; these also involve recycling and educational campaigns as part of their processes.