Thaís Bonini Herefeld; Murilo Henrique Tank Fortunato

DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-202601461

Article prepared by the ResumeAI tool, an artificial intelligence solution developed by the Pecege Institute focused on synthesis and writing.

Summary

Rural credit is a crucial instrument of Brazilian agricultural policy, essential for the viability of agricultural production cycles and the development of the sector. Despite its relevance, the operationalization of rural credit has faced significant challenges in financial institutions, stemming from regulatory complexity, documentary bureaucracy, and risks inherent to agricultural activity. In this context, the study aimed to analyze the perception of financial institution employees regarding the rural credit release process, identifying difficulties, operational challenges, and opportunities for improvement. A descriptive quantitative approach was adopted, with the application of a structured questionnaire to 37 employees who work directly or indirectly in the granting of rural credit. The sample was intentional, and the data were analyzed descriptively, with the support of tabulation and graphical representation. The results indicated that the main challenges faced by financial institutions were related to excessive bureaucracy, collateral requirements, risk analysis, limited agent autonomy, and the need for greater technical training. External factors, such as producer indebtedness, adverse climate events, and high production costs, also negatively impacted access to credit. It was concluded that the improvement of internal processes, combined with continuous training of professionals and coordination between regulatory agents and financial institutions, can contribute to making rural credit more efficient and accessible.

Keywords: Agribusiness; Bureaucracy; Agricultural policy.

1. Introduction

Rural credit represents a fundamental pillar of Brazilian agricultural policy, serving as an indispensable instrument for the promotion and sustainability of agricultural production cycles and for the economic development of the sector (Ramos, 2010). Its importance is corroborated by the significant volume of resources allocated annually. For example, the Plano Safra, the main public policy for agricultural financing, projected an amount of R$ 4.17 billion in 2025, with R$ 3.53 billion allocated to cost, marketing, and investment operations, and R$ 645.7 million for the National Program to Strengthen Family Farming (BRASIL, Provisional Measure No. 1,289/2025). As detailed by the Central Bank of Brazil (2023) in its Rural Credit Manual, the purposes of this credit are broad, ranging from covering normal production expenses to investments in goods and services, including the marketing and industrialization of agricultural products, especially when carried out by cooperatives or by the producer themselves. This scope demonstrates the capillarity and direct impact of rural credit on the production chain, from small family farms to large enterprises.

Despite its unquestionable relevance, the operationalization of rural credit is permeated by complex challenges in the financial institutions environment. Specialized literature points out that regulatory complexity and documentary bureaucracy are significant obstacles, increasing transaction costs and risk perception, especially for smaller producers (Bittencourt, Oliveira and Souza, 2018). Information asymmetry between financial agents and rural producers, for example, hinders the precise risk assessment and the adequacy of credit offers to the specific needs of each productive profile. Furthermore, the rigorous compliance with the norms established by the National Rural Credit System (SNCR), although essential for good governance and resource application, can generate slow and inflexible processes, compromising the agility and efficiency of granting (Silva and Alves, 2019). Financial institutions, in turn, operate in a duality, seeking to reconcile the economic and social development objectives inherent in public policy with the need for financial sustainability and risk management, which directly impacts the performance of their employees in credit analysis and release (Araújo and Meyer, 2020).

In the Brazilian context, it is observed that the persistence of bottlenecks in the operationalization of rural credit is not restricted to specific aspects, but reflects a systemic and multifactorial dynamic. Empirical data and previous studies indicate that excessive bureaucracy and the requirement for adequate guarantees are among the main obstacles to accessing financing, especially for family farmers who often have patrimonial limitations (Gaspar, Silva and Nascimento, 2024; Abramovay, 1997). Risk analysis, intrinsic to agricultural activity and market conditions, also presents itself as a constant challenge, influenced by external factors such as producer indebtedness, adverse climatic events, and the volatility of production costs (Buainain et al., 2007; Melo et al., 2017). The limitation of financial agents’ autonomy and the need for greater technical capacity to deal with the sector’s complexity are also frequently pointed out as factors impacting the efficiency and quality of the granting process (Gomes et al., 2021). These elements, when combined, create an environment of uncertainty and hinder the full effectiveness of rural credit as a development tool, reinforcing the need for continuous improvements in internal processes and in the articulation among the various actors involved.

Given the complexity and challenges inherent in the operationalization of rural credit, and considering the gap in studies addressing the internal perspective of financial institutions on these obstacles, it becomes fundamental to investigate the perception of professionals directly involved in the process. Understanding the difficulties, operational challenges, and opportunities for improvement from the viewpoint of those on the front lines of credit granting can offer valuable subsidies for the enhancement of policies and practices. Thus, the present study aims to analyze the perception of employees of a financial institution regarding the rural credit release process, identifying the difficulties, operational challenges, and opportunities for improvement to make this instrument more efficient and accessible.

2. Material and Methods

The present study was characterized as a quantitative approach research with a descriptive nature, according to the methodological guidelines proposed by Maia (2020). This choice allowed for the collection and analysis of numerical data to describe the characteristics of a population or phenomenon, without the intention of establishing causal relationships. The descriptive approach is particularly suitable for investigating perceptions and identifying patterns, providing a detailed understanding of the object of study (Creswell, 2014; Gil, 2019). The procedures adopted aimed at an objective and systematic description of the collected data, grounding the analysis of participants’ perceptions of rural credit.

The research was developed in the context of a financial institution operating in the Southeast of Brazil, a region that concentrates a significant part of rural credit operations in the country. The data collection period extended from December 26, 2025, to January 26, 2026, covering one month of information gathering. The unit of analysis for the study consisted of the perceptions and experiences of employees of this institution, directly or indirectly involved in the rural credit concession process. This geographical and temporal delimitation allowed for a focus on the specific operational reality of the investigated institution.

The study population was composed of employees from a financial institution who act directly or indirectly in the operationalization of rural credit. The sample was defined intentionally and non-probabilistically, selecting professionals who possessed relevant knowledge and experience on the subject. 37 valid questionnaires were obtained, representing the respondents who voluntarily participated in the research. Selection criteria included working in strategic units or in the institution’s branch network, ensuring the inclusion of different perspectives on the agricultural credit release process.

Data collection was carried out through a structured questionnaire, designed to capture employees’ perception of rural credit. The instrument was divided into sections, starting with the sociodemographic and professional characterization of the respondents. This part included questions about age group, gender, length of service at the company, specific experience in agricultural credit, position, and area of expertise. The objective was to contextualize the responses and understand how the participants’ profile could influence their perceptions, providing a solid basis for interpreting the collected data.

The questionnaire continued with questions focused on the central aspects of the rural credit concession process, seeking to identify the main operational bottlenecks. Topics such as bureaucracy, credit analysis, human resources, system integration, and decision-making autonomy were addressed. Additionally, the instrument investigated the difficulties perceived by employees in relation to rural producers, such as indebtedness, climate risks, production costs, and collateral requirements. Composed of twenty closed multiple-choice questions, the questionnaire was developed on the Google Forms platform and distributed electronically to participants.

The research execution began with the electronic submission of the questionnaire to the financial institution’s employees, directed at professionals from both the branch network and strategic units. This procedure ensured that the instrument reached collaborators with direct or indirect involvement in rural credit. Data collection was carried out from December 26, 2025, to January 26, 2026, resulting in the acquisition of 37 valid questionnaires. The use of structured questionnaires is a recommended practice in quantitative research, as it standardizes responses and facilitates statistical analysis (Hair et al., 2005; Roesch, 1999).

The collected data were submitted to processing and analysis through descriptive statistics. Absolute and relative frequencies were calculated for each of the investigated variables, allowing a clear view of the response distribution. Data tabulation was performed using Microsoft Excel software, which was also employed for the creation of graphs and tables. These resources aimed to facilitate the visualization and interpretation of the results, describing the phenomena and measuring participants’ perceptions objectively and systematically, without inferring causal relationships.

The ethical procedures were rigorously observed during all stages of the research, in accordance with the principles applicable to studies involving human beings. Employee participation was strictly voluntary, and the anonymity of all respondents was guaranteed. As this was an opinion survey that did not involve sensitive data, there was no need for submission to the Research Ethics Committee (CEP), as provided for in Resolution No. 510/2016 of the National Health Council. All participants were duly informed about the objectives of the study and expressed their free and informed consent.

The research presented some methodological limitations that should be considered in the interpretation of the results. The sample used was non-probabilistic and intentional, restricted to a single financial institution and regionally concentrated, which prevents the generalization of findings to the national rural credit scenario. The sample size may also not reflect the diversity of experiences in the sector. Additionally, the exclusively descriptive approach did not allow for inferential analyses or the identification of statistically significant relationships between variables. Therefore, the results are more suitable for understanding the specific context studied (Malhotra, 2001).

3. Results and Discussion

This research made it possible to identify and deeply understand the main challenges faced by financial institutions in granting and managing rural credit, based on the perception of professionals who act directly or indirectly in this process. The results show that the dynamics of credit granting are not influenced by a single factor, but by a set of interdependent elements, involving both internal aspects, such as operational structure, team training, and systems, and external factors, such as public policies, documentation requirements, climate risks, and the indebtedness level of rural producers. This finding indicates that any weaknesses in credit granting cannot be solely attributed to financial institutions, but must be understood in light of a broader systemic environment, marked by uncertainties and high exposure to exogenous risks. Thus, an integrated understanding of these factors is fundamental for improving granting practices, as well as for developing more efficient and adaptive strategies within the financial system focused on agribusiness.

In order to deepen the understanding of the obstacles in the release of rural credit, the research was applied to professionals from strategic sectors directly involved in this process. The sample included both the network of agencies responsible for serving producers and the specialized sector that conducts technical visits and directly operationalizes credit, which broadens the analytical scope by incorporating different perspectives within the institution. Initially, the profile of the respondents was characterized by collecting information related to gender, age group, region and location of work, tenure, credit experience, sector of activity, and position. This stage is essential, as it allows for the contextualization of the perceptions analyzed and an assessment of the extent to which they reflect the accumulated experience of the participants, contributing to greater consistency in the interpretation of the results.

The data obtained indicate a predominance of the male sex among respondents, corresponding to 65% of the sample, followed by the female sex, with 32%, and 3% of participants who identify with another gender category. Regarding the age group, a concentration is observed in more experienced groups, with 35% of respondents being between 35 and 44 years old, another 35% being 55 years or older, and 30% falling into the 45 to 54 years age range, as presented in Figure 1.

Source: Original research results

Figure 1. Sample characterization

The predominance of professionals in higher age groups indicates that the sample is mostly composed of individuals with more professional experience. This data not only characterizes the group’s profile but also directly influences the quality of the perceptions collected. More experienced professionals tend to present a more critical and comprehensive view of organizational processes, as they accumulate practical experiences that allow them to identify patterns, limitations, and inconsistencies over time. On the other hand, this same characteristic can imply a relevant analytical limitation. The lower participation of younger professionals may reduce the diversity of perspectives, especially regarding the incorporation of new approaches, technologies, and credit management methods. This result aligns with the literature, which points out that age and experience significantly influence how individuals perceive the organizational environment and work processes, lending greater consistency to analyses, but also potentially reinforcing established patterns (Fassarella et al., 2024). Thus, the sample composition contributes to the robustness of the conclusions, while also indicating the need to consider possible biases associated with the respondents’ profile, such as resistance to change or less familiarity with technological innovations that could optimize rural credit granting. The practical implications of this finding suggest that financial institutions should invest in mentoring and knowledge transfer programs between generations, ensuring that accumulated experience is capitalized and that new perspectives are integrated for a more dynamic and adaptable rural credit process.

The analysis of the respondents’ region and area of operation revealed that the Southeast region concentrates the vast majority, with 97% of the sample, and only 3% in the Center-West region. Regarding the area of operation, 43% of professionals work in urban areas, 41% in mixed regimes, and only 16% exclusively in rural areas. Although not a figure selected for display, this data is crucial for interpreting the results. This strong geographical concentration and the predominance of urban or mixed operations can generate information asymmetries and limit the precision in interpreting the specificities of agricultural activities, impacting the quality of credit analyses. This condition can lead to a mediation between the institutional environment and the productive reality that does not fully reflect the nuances of the field. In this sense, although the presence of professionals operating in rural areas represents a positive aspect, it does not guarantee, by itself, a full understanding of local dynamics. This interpretation is in line with Caporal (2004), who highlights that proximity between professionals and rural producers favors the understanding of productive dynamics and more assertive decision-making. However, the author emphasizes that this proximity must be associated with technical qualification and systematized approaches to avoid limitations arising from partial perceptions or isolated experiences. The practical implications suggest the need for immersion and specific training programs for professionals who predominantly work in urban centers, so that they can better understand the realities and challenges of rural producers, mitigating information asymmetry and improving the quality of credit analyses.

Regarding the length of service at the institution and experience in agricultural credit, the results indicate that 97% of respondents have more than 10 years of affiliation with the organization, while only 3% have between 5 and 10 years of service. In relation to specific experience in agricultural credit, 59.46% of participants have more than 6 years of experience in the area, highlighting the predominance of highly experienced professionals. Subsequently, 16.22% of respondents have between 1 and 3 years of experience, while an equal percentage (16.22%) stated they have no experience in this segment. Smaller percentages are observed among those with less than 1 year of experience (5.41%) and between 4 and 6 years (2.70%). These results reinforce the existence of a predominantly experienced workforce, both in the organizational context and in the analyzed specialty, although they highlight the presence of a relevant portion of professionals without direct experience in rural credit, which may impact the uniformity of the analyses performed. From an analytical perspective, the high concentration of employees with long tenure at the institution tends to favor the consolidation of tacit knowledge, the improvement of operational routines, and greater consistency in decision-making. Accumulated experience contributes to the ability to interpret complex scenarios, reduce uncertainties, and deal with the specificities inherent in rural credit. However, the coexistence of a significant group of professionals without direct experience in agricultural credit suggests possible challenges related to the standardization of procedures and uniformity in the technical analysis of operations. This interpretation aligns with the contributions of Joel Souza Dutra (2017), who highlights that accumulated experience in the organizational environment favors the development of competencies, expands the capacity for technical judgment, and contributes to greater efficiency in decision-making processes. Nevertheless, as suggested by the data analysis, such competencies need to be articulated with adequate organizational structures and well-defined processes to enhance their effects and minimize operational limitations. The practical implications point to the need for continuous training and development programs, especially for professionals with less experience in agricultural credit, to ensure uniformity in the application of standards and the quality of analyses. Furthermore, the documentation and systematization of the tacit knowledge of more experienced professionals can serve as a basis for training new talent and creating a repository of best practices.

The analysis of the respondents’ level of schooling, academic background, and training revealed that 62% have some type of postgraduate degree, and 38% have completed higher education. The predominant area of study is Agronomy (54%). However, participation in training is uneven: 43% occasionally, 35% regularly, and 22% do not undergo any type of training. Although high formal qualification favors technical understanding of agricultural activities and the risks inherent in rural credit, as Buainain et al. (2014) highlight the importance of specialized technical training, the gap in professional development is concerning. The absence or irregularity in training programs can compromise professionals’ ability to keep up with sector transformations, negatively impacting the accuracy of analyses and the efficiency in granting rural credit. The Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation EMBRAPA (2018) reinforces that the evolution of Brazilian agriculture is directly associated with the continuous incorporation of technologies and the qualification of the agents involved. Competencies are built by mobilizing knowledge, skills, and attitudes, influenced by experience and continuous learning (Fleury, 2001). Therefore, academic education, while essential, is not sufficient without constant updating. Practical implications demand the creation of mandatory and periodic training programs, focused on regulatory changes, technological advancements, and new risk management practices in rural credit. The institution must invest in e-learning platforms and workshops to ensure that all professionals, regardless of their area of expertise or tenure, are up-to-date and capable of handling the growing complexity of the sector.

Regarding the structure of service provision in agencies focused on agribusiness, 60% of respondents classify it as good, 32% as fair, 5% as excellent, and 3% as poor. These results indicate a predominantly positive evaluation of the available structure, suggesting that, overall, the agencies have adequate conditions to meet the demands of rural credit. However, the low proportion of evaluations classified as “excellent,” combined with the significant presence of fair perceptions, highlights that although the structure is functional, there is still room for improvement. This pattern suggests that the quality of service may not be fully aligned with operational requirements and the complexity of rural credit, which demands agility, technical precision, and adaptability to regional and productive specificities. From an analytical perspective, this distribution of evaluations may indicate the existence of structural or operational limitations that, while not entirely compromising the agencies’ functioning, impact the efficiency and quality of the service provision process. Such limitations may be related to factors such as physical infrastructure, availability of technological resources, team training, or workflow organization. In this context, the predominance of intermediate evaluations reinforces the need for continuous investment in qualifying the service structure, in order to raise the perceived quality standard and reduce potential bottlenecks that interfere with credit disbursement. This interpretation aligns with the literature on service management, which points out that the quality perceived by the user depends not only on the existence of a structure but also on its capacity to provide service efficiently, consistently, and in line with customer expectations. In this sense, Brazilian studies indicate that service quality is directly associated with reliability, responsiveness, and the adequacy of the service to user needs, with these factors being determinants for the overall evaluation of organizational performance (Urdan and Rodrigues, 1999). The practical implications suggest that the institution should conduct internal audits and satisfaction surveys with rural producers to identify specific areas for improvement in the service structure. Investments in technology, such as more integrated credit management systems and digital platforms for producers, can optimize processes and reduce dependence on physical infrastructure, improving the agility and precision of service.

The analysis of the main bottlenecks in serving rural producers, according to the employees’ perception, shows that the most relevant obstacles are concentrated in excessive bureaucracy (23.47%), credit analysis (22.52%), and insufficiency of specialized personnel (20.72%). Additionally, factors such as lack of integration between systems (13.51%), difficulties in accessing technological tools (12.61%), and limitations in communication with producers (7.21%) also prove to be relevant. Regarding the frequency with which these bottlenecks impact the operational routine, it is observed that 43.20% of respondents indicate that such difficulties occur “sometimes” and another 43.20% point to “frequent” occurrence, while only 5.40% report that the impacts are “rare” and 2.70% state that they “never” occur. This data demonstrates that the operational hindrances are not episodic, but rather recurrent, configuring themselves as structural elements of the service process.

Source: Original research results

Figure 2. Main bottlenecks in service, frequency that negatively impacts and autonomy for adequate solutions

From an analytical perspective, the concentration of the main bottlenecks in bureaucratic, technical, and human resources aspects indicates that the limitations faced are multifactorial, involving both external demands, such as regulatory standards, and internal weaknesses, related to operational capacity and process organization. The high incidence of problems in credit analysis and the availability of specialized personnel suggests that, in addition to regulatory requirements, there are challenges associated with the qualification and efficient distribution of human resources. When asked about autonomy and the availability of tools to offer adequate solutions to producers, 73.00% of respondents indicated that these requirements are only partially met, while 19.00% perceive full autonomy and 8.00% consider themselves to have no autonomy. This result reveals a mismatch between the technical knowledge of professionals and their effective decision-making capacity, indicating that, although agents are able to identify producers’ needs, their actions are often conditioned by higher authorities and institutional limitations. This restriction of autonomy can compromise not only the efficiency of the credit granting process but also the rural producer’s experience, who faces longer response times, uncertainties, and difficulties in accessing financial resources. Such a scenario reinforces the idea that the observed obstacles do not stem exclusively from the professionals’ actions but from a broader institutional arrangement, marked by high regulatory and operational complexity. In this context, rural credit is strongly conditioned by compliance with public regulations, which, although necessary to ensure security and control, can restrict the flexibility of financial institutions and compromise the speed of credit granting. This interpretation aligns with the findings of Gaspar, Silva, and Nascimento (2024), who highlight that excessive bureaucracy and insufficient adequate information constitute significant barriers to credit access, especially for family farmers. Thus, the results point to the need for interventions that go beyond punctual adjustments, requiring the revision of processes, system integration, strengthening of technical teams, and, above all, the pursuit of greater balance between regulatory control and operational efficiency, in order to expand credit access and improve the quality of service in rural areas. The practical implications are vast and urgent. The institution must implement a process reengineering project to simplify documentation and workflows, using automation and digitalization technologies. Credit analysis training must be improved, focusing on more agile and precise risk assessment tools that consider the specificities of agribusiness. Furthermore, it is essential to invest in hiring and developing specialized personnel, as well as in system integration to reduce fragmentation and optimize information access. Increasing the decision-making autonomy of frontline professionals, through the definition of clear limits and the provision of adequate tools, can speed up service delivery and improve producer satisfaction.

Regarding respondents’ perception of the main difficulties currently faced by rural producers, three factors of greatest relevance stand out: indebtedness and the need for debt renegotiation (24.32%), risks associated with climate and extreme events (19.82%), and the high cost of inputs (12.61%). Other aspects were also mentioned, such as the scarcity of qualified labor (10.81%), difficulties in accessing credit (10.81%), environmental and legal requirements (9.01%), lack of technical assistance (5.41%), and obstacles in marketing production (5.41%). On the other hand, only 1.80% of respondents attributed the difficulties to low adoption of technologies, indicating that this factor is perceived as less relevant in the analyzed context.

Source: Original research results

Figure 3. Main difficulties faced by rural producers today

The predominance of factors related to financial, climatic, and production costs risk indicates that the challenges faced by producers are structural in nature and strongly associated with variables external to the direct control of economic agents. This scenario suggests that agricultural activity remains highly exposed to uncertainties, which compromises the predictability of results and increases the financial vulnerability of producers. From an analytical perspective, the emphasis placed on indebtedness as the main difficulty highlights the centrality of financial issues for the sustainability of agricultural production. This result suggests that, more than access to credit, the challenges are strongly related to debt management and producers’ ability to meet their financial obligations, especially in scenarios marked by economic and productive instability. Furthermore, the association of this factor with climatic risks and high input costs indicates the formation of a vulnerability cycle, in which adverse events compromise production, pressure costs, and increase dependence on financing, consequently raising the risk of default. This understanding is supported by the literature. Studies by Buainain et al. (2007) highlight that agricultural activity is strongly subject to climatic and sanitary risks, as well as instabilities arising from fluctuations in agricultural markets, which makes it difficult to adjust supply to changes in the economic situation. Moreover, the high volatility of commodity prices, associated with institutional risks, increases the level of uncertainty in the sector, making the productive and financial management of rural properties more complex. Complementarily, studies by the Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation indicate that dependence on natural resources and biological processes confers greater rigidity to the agricultural production system, reducing its ability to adapt to market changes. This characteristic increases risk exposure and reinforces the need for integrated management strategies, involving planning, innovation, and continuous monitoring of productive and economic variables. Additionally, specialized literature confirms that indebtedness and difficulties in accessing credit remain central challenges for Brazilian rural producers. The analysis by Melo et al. (2017) shows that the risk of default is directly related to the cost of credit, the volatility of commodity prices, and macroeconomic variables, factors that directly impact the financial sustainability of agricultural activities. Thus, the results indicate that the challenges faced by producers cannot be understood in isolation, but as part of a complex and interdependent system, in which economic, climatic, and institutional factors feed back into each other. In this context, mitigating these risks requires not only access to credit but also the development of managerial skills, the use of risk management instruments, and the adoption of more resilient production strategies. Therefore, an integrated understanding of agricultural activities becomes a central element for the sector’s competitiveness and sustainability. Practical implications for financial institutions include the development of more flexible credit products, with payment terms and conditions adapted to production cycles and climatic variations. The offer of subsidized rural insurance and the promotion of financial education for producers are essential to mitigate the risks of indebtedness and default. Furthermore, the institution can act as a promoter of the adoption of technologies that increase production resilience and reduce dependence on expensive inputs, through specific credit lines for innovation and sustainability.

In the analysis of difficulties in accessing rural credit, the inadequacy of guarantees constitutes the main obstacle, being pointed out by 45.95% of respondents. Next, the excess of required documentation (21.62%) and the criteria related to risk analysis (16.22%) stand out. Other mentioned factors include producers’ lack of knowledge about available financial products (10.81%) and the processing time for proposals (5.41%). These results show that the hindrances to credit access are not concentrated solely on the operational efficiency of financial institutions, but, above all, on structural requirements of the credit granting model itself. The predominance of the guarantee issue indicates that the central difficulty lies less in credit availability and more in producers’ capacity to meet the formal requirements for obtaining it. From an analytical perspective, the centrality of guarantees as the main obstacle reveals a relevant asymmetry between the financial system’s demands and the asset reality of rural producers, especially smaller ones. This condition tends to limit credit access precisely for those agents who most need financing, reinforcing a process of financial exclusion in rural areas. Additionally, the significant presence of factors such as excess documentation and risk analysis reinforces the complexity of the granting process, indicating that the barriers are both normative and operational. These elements, when combined, contribute to increasing the cost of credit access not only in financial terms but also in terms of time, effort, and technical capacity required from producers. This interpretation is supported by literature, which points out that asset limitation and difficulties in formalizing real guarantees constitute historical hindrances to financing rural activities. In this sense, studies by Ricardo Abramovay (1997) highlight that the insufficiency of assets that can be used as collateral, combined with institutional and bureaucratic difficulties, limits credit access, especially among small and medium-sized producers. Such a scenario constitutes a structural barrier to financing rural activities, restricting productive inclusion and economic development in the agricultural sector. In this context, it is observed that rural credit, although essential for the development of the agricultural sector, still operates under conditions that restrict its reach. The offer of subsidized lines and specific public policies seeks to mitigate these limitations; however, the results indicate that such instruments, in isolation, are not sufficient to eliminate the existing structural obstacles. Therefore, expanding access to rural credit demands not only the availability of financial resources but also a review of guarantee mechanisms, simplification of processes, and the development of solutions that consider the specificities of different producer profiles. Thus, rural credit consolidates itself as a strategic instrument for the development and sustainability of agricultural production, whose effectiveness depends on the ability to reconcile institutional security with financial inclusion. The practical implications involve the need to develop new guarantee models, such as guarantee funds or joint guarantees, that are more accessible to small and medium-sized producers. Simplifying documentation and digitizing credit analysis processes can reduce processing time and operational costs, making credit more agile and less bureaucratic. Furthermore, financial education and guidance programs on available credit products are crucial to empower producers to access and use financing more efficiently.

The results indicate that, from the perspective of professionals working with rural credit, producers’ knowledge of available financial instruments still presents relevant limitations. When questioned about this topic, 54% of respondents classified producers’ knowledge as regular, 27% as good, 11% as poor, 5% as very good, and 3% as very poor. This distribution highlights that, although rural credit plays a central role in sustaining productive activity, producers’ mastery of available financing lines is predominantly intermediate, with a low incidence of higher positive evaluations. Such a scenario suggests that access to credit depends not only on the availability of funds but also on producers’ ability to adequately understand, evaluate, and select the available financial instruments. From an analytical perspective, these results reinforce the existence of an informational dimension as a limiting factor in accessing rural credit. Beyond structural barriers, such as collateral requirements and bureaucracy, it is observed that information asymmetry between financial institutions and producers constitutes a relevant obstacle, impacting the quality of decisions and the efficiency of resource utilization. In this context, the technical and managerial knowledge of the rural producer emerges as a strategic element for decision-making, directly influencing planning capacity, property financial management, and the adoption of more efficient financing strategies. Limitations in this aspect can lead to the underutilization of more suitable credit lines, inefficient use of resources, or even exclusion from the formal financial system. This interpretation is supported by the literature. Studies by Buainain et al. (2014) highlight that low managerial skills and limited access to information are factors that hinder the adoption of innovations and the efficient use of available instruments in rural areas, compromising the competitiveness and sustainability of agricultural properties. Therefore, the results indicate that expanding access to rural credit must be accompanied by initiatives focused on financial education and the dissemination of qualified information in rural areas. In this regard, it becomes fundamental to implement coordinated actions between governmental bodies and financial institutions, focusing on producer training, simplifying communication, and developing mechanisms that facilitate the understanding and use of available credit lines. Thus, reducing information asymmetries is a key element for strengthening financial inclusion and the sustainable development of the agricultural sector. Practical implications include the creation of financial education and management programs for rural producers, offered in partnership with cooperatives, associations, and rural extension agencies. The institution can develop simplified informational materials and interactive digital tools that explain credit lines, their requirements, and benefits. Furthermore, the presence of agricultural technicians or agronomists in branches, or during field visits, can assist producers in developing projects and choosing the best financing options, ensuring that credit is used strategically for the development of their properties.

Regarding the measures that could be adopted to improve access to rural credit, 43% of respondents indicated the reduction of bureaucracy and simplification of concession processes as the most relevant actions. Next, the offer of more attractive interest rates (27%), improvements in credit analysis (16%), and increased training and capacity building for financial institution professionals (14%) stand out. These results highlight that bureaucratic hurdles remain the main limitation to access to rural financing, even given the recognized importance of agricultural credit as a public policy instrument. The centrality attributed to process simplification suggests that, for the agents involved, the difficulties are not restricted to the availability of resources but are strongly associated with operational complexity and regulatory requirements that structure the credit system. From an analytical perspective, it is observed that the predominance of bureaucracy as the main obstacle reinforces the existence of a mismatch between the need for institutional control and operational efficiency. Although regulation and oversight mechanisms are essential to ensure the proper application of public funds and risk mitigation, their excess can generate additional costs, delay processes, and restrict access, especially for producers with lower administrative capacity. Historically, rural credit in Brazil, especially that linked to government programs, is characterized by high operational complexity, demanding the coordinated action of different financial system agents. In this context, process simplification, combined with the maintenance of control mechanisms, is configured as one of the main institutional challenges, requiring solutions that balance security, efficiency, and financial inclusion. This interpretation is supported by the literature, which indicates that bureaucracy and operational costs associated with rural credit can limit its reach and effectiveness. Studies by Buainain et al. (2007) highlight that institutional complexity and the formal requirements of the credit system constitute relevant barriers, especially for producers with less organizational structure and management capacity. Additionally, the emphasis placed on factors such as interest rates, credit analysis, and professional training indicates that improving access to rural credit demands a multidimensional approach. This implies recognizing that the efficiency of the system depends not only on regulatory adjustments but also on the technical improvement of institutions, the qualification of the agents involved, and the adaptation of financial conditions to productive realities. Thus, the results suggest that expanding access to rural credit requires the implementation of integrated strategies among government, financial institutions, and other sector agents. Such strategies should be oriented towards process simplification, strengthening technical capacity, and creating more accessible and efficient mechanisms capable of reconciling institutional control with operational agility. Therefore, rural credit consolidates itself not only as a financing instrument but as a strategic element for the sustainable development and competitiveness of the agricultural sector. Practical implications include advocating for public policies that promote the simplification of rural credit regulations, in dialogue with regulatory bodies. Internally, the institution should invest in process automation systems and multidisciplinary teams that can expedite credit analysis. Offering more competitive interest rates, through partnerships with government programs or specific funds, can make credit more attractive. Furthermore, continuous training of employees in new technologies and risk analysis methodologies is fundamental to improving the efficiency and quality of service.

Regarding the main causes of default risk in rural credit, 51% of respondents pointed to the lack of financial planning by producers as the predominant factor, followed by adverse weather conditions (24%) and interest rates and payment terms considered inaccessible (22%). Only 3% attributed the default risk to difficulties in marketing and selling production. These results indicate that default risk in rural credit is associated with a combination of internal and external factors, highlighting its multifactorial nature. The predominance of financial planning as the main cause suggests that internal farm management plays a central role in the sustainability of credit operations, directly influencing the ability to meet financial obligations. From an analytical perspective, this result reveals that, although external variables such as weather conditions and financial costs have a significant influence, the producer’s vulnerability is amplified when associated with weaknesses in financial management. The absence of adequate planning can compromise efficient resource allocation, hinder the formation of reserves for adverse periods, and increase dependence on credit under unfavorable conditions, intensifying the risk of default. Additionally, the relevance attributed to climatic factors reinforces the intrinsically uncertain nature of agricultural activity, whose dependence on natural conditions limits the predictability of production results. When combined with less accessible credit conditions, these factors contribute to the formation of a high-risk environment, where external shocks can quickly translate into financial difficulties for producers. This interpretation is supported by the literature, which highlights the complexity of rural credit risk. Studies by Melo and Resende Filho (2017) show that nonpayment is associated with factors such as fluctuations in agricultural income, market conditions, and characteristics of credit contracts, demonstrating that risk management in this sector involves multiple interrelated dimensions. In this context, it is observed that reducing nonpayment risk cannot be achieved through isolated interventions, requiring an integrated approach that includes both improving producers’ financial management and developing instruments capable of mitigating production and economic risks. This includes, for example, strengthening financial education, using mechanisms for protection against climate risks, and adapting credit conditions to the specificities of agricultural activities. Thus, the results indicate that the sustainability of rural credit depends not only on the supply of financing but also on the ability to align management, risk, and institutional conditions. Therefore, the integration of financial planning, risk management, and appropriate design of credit policies is essential to reduce nonpayment and promote greater economic stability in rural areas. The practical implications for the financial institution include the development of financial education and risk management programs for producers, focusing on budget planning, analysis of costs and revenues, and crop diversification strategies. The offering of rural insurance products, in partnership with insurance companies, can protect producers against losses from extreme weather events. Furthermore, the institution can review its credit policies to offer more flexible payment terms and competitive interest rates, especially for producers who demonstrate good planning and adoption of sustainable practices. The creation of a continuous monitoring system for clients’ financial health and the offering of specialized consulting can assist in early risk identification and the proposal of preventive solutions, reducing nonpayment and strengthening the relationship of trust with producers.

4. Conclusion

It is concluded that the objective was achieved by analyzing the perception of employees of a financial institution regarding the rural credit release process, identifying their difficulties, operational challenges, and improvement opportunities to make it more efficient and accessible. The results showed that the obstacles in the operationalization of rural credit are systemic and multifactorial, not restricted to the individual actions of agents. Internally, excessive bureaucracy, system fragmentation, restriction of decision-making autonomy, and insufficiency of specialized personnel stood out. Externally, producer indebtedness, climate risks, high input costs, and collateral requirements were pointed out as crucial challenges. The operationalization of rural credit, therefore, demands a balance between regulatory control and operational efficiency.

However, this study presents important limitations. The sample, non-probabilistic and restricted to a single financial institution in a specific region, prevents the generalization of results to the national scenario. The exclusively descriptive approach also limited the apprehension of more subjective aspects. For future studies, it is suggested to broaden the empirical scope, including diverse institutions and regions, and to incorporate qualitative or mixed methodologies to deepen the understanding of the dynamics. The inclusion of the perspective of rural producers is also fundamental for a more comprehensive analysis and the formulation of more effective strategies.

Bibliographic References

ARAÚJO, Pedro Fernando Cavalcanti; MEYER, Richard L. Crédito rural e políticas públicas no Brasil: desafios institucionais e

BANCO CENTRAL DO BRASIL. Crédito rural. Brasília: Banco Central do Brasil, [2023]. Disponível em: https://www.bcb.gov.br/estabilidadefinanceira/creditorural. Acesso em: 16 out. 2025.

BITTENCOURT, Gerson Machado; OLIVEIRA, Luís Fernando de; SOUZA, João Paulo de. Asimetria de informação e acesso ao crédito rural no Brasil. Revista de Política Agrícola, Brasília, v. 27, n. 2, p. 45–58, 2018.

BRASIL. Medida Provisória nº 1.289, de 2025. Diário Oficial da União: seção 1, Brasília, DF, 2025.

RAMOS, Pedro. Política agrícola e crédito rural no Brasil. Revista de Economia Política, São Paulo, v. 30, n. 1, p. 97–116, 2010.

SILVA, Ricardo da Silva; ALVES, Eliseu. Burocracia, normas e desempenho do crédito rural brasileiro. Revista de Economia Contemporânea, Rio de Janeiro, v. 23, n. 1, p. 1–22, 2019.

Article originating from the Final Course Work of the Specialization in Agribusiness of the MBA USP/Esalq

To learn more about the course, click here and access the MBX Academy platform