|Copy reference link||DOI: 10.1057/mel.2015.5|
Abstract: It is widely felt that in order to strengthen the competitiveness of European ports it is needed to ensure fair competition among ports and the sector is anew facing new and old challenges related to its long-term development.These challenges, and arguably the inability of the port sector and the European Union (EU) Member States to meaningfully react to them on their own, are at the basis of the renewed attempt of the European Commission (EC) to develop a uniform and coherent policy package for ports. The article provides a critical account of recent EU policy initiatives, focusing on the most recent attempt of the EC to address some of the issues facing the port sector. The article discusses some of the controversies arising from the new EC policy approach, which, although milder in its contents than the previous attempts, recalls the content of the previous policy proposals, especially in the areas of liberalization of port services; pricing; competition; administrative simplification; financial and operational autonomy; and state aid provisions. The article concludes that the EU not only does not go far enough but, by trying to introduce compromises and conditions of considerable vagueness and ambiguity renders its policy proposals practically useless, thus allowing Member States the freedom to continue unabated as before.
|Copy reference link||DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2015.1027150|
Abstract: The paper reviews existing literature on corporate responsibility (CR) in the port sector and proposes a conceptual framework that brings together the CR drivers in port environmental strategies. The conceptual framework is derived from the existing literature and is based on institutional theory. The literature review is supported by a discussion on CR strategies in 10 major ports around the world. The paper argues that ports tend to replicate environmental strategies across regions and learn from each other, and that a competitive focus on logistics tends to strengthen the importance of CR and in particular of environmental performance in ports. For some ports CR has become an integral part of their value creation proposition mostly as a result of competitive pressure. Furthermore, the paper advances also a correspondence between the degree of port agility and the CR profile of the port. Managerial and policy implications are also discussed.
|Copy reference link|
Abstract: In the last decade researchers have been looking at ways of reducing the carbonintensity of shipping operations that globally account for approximately 3 % of world carbonemissions. As a result of regulation and firms’ efforts to innovate, the maritime sectorhas introduced new technologies and practices such as slow steaming which have contributedto reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the atmosphere. The impact of technologicaland operational developments on global GHG emissions is difficult to assess, however,without empirical evidence. So far such evidence has been only partially available and mostof the data sources used in the literature have been compiled for different purposes or arebased on single firm case studies.This paper reports the results of an analysis of a fuel consumption database compiled bythe BSR Clean Cargo Working Group (CCWG) with the specific purpose of benchmarking andcollecting emission data and comprising 2,300 container ship voyages (reporting year 2013,data for 2012). This analysis has examined the effect of technical and operational parameterson these vessels’ fuel consumption and emissions and is the first to be performed on the datasetand in general on self-reported data across multiple companies. In 2012, carriers in theCCWG accounted for approximately 65% of total world deep-sea container traffic.The paper outlines an econometric model that regresses carbon emissions from containershipping on particular trade routes against a range of independent variables, suchas vessel age, size and average speed. The paper results indicate that significant differencesexist among carriers both in terms of energy efficiency and carbon intensity. The analysisalso suggests that while the emission profiles of some trade routes have remained relativelystable in recent years, others have witnessed an increase in emissions mainly as a result of aconcentration of container flows. By improving our understanding of the determinants ofcarbon emissions from container shipping, this research should help shipping lines developcarbon-reduction plans and governments to devise appropriate policies to incentivise thedecarbonisation of the maritime sector.
|Copy reference link||DOI: DOI: 10.1504/IJSTL.2014.059570|
Abstract: In the last few years, sulphur emissions to air from shipping have been of heightened interest to policymakers and the media, and more stringent regulation is on the way. Various alternatives are available in the shipping industry to comply with emission regulation and minimise impacts on shipowners' bottom-line. New regulation is adding complexity to managerial decision-making, so that advanced decision support tools can provide useful contributions to management processes. The present paper presents an analysis of the options available to shipowners taking into consideration the value of deferring the investment decision vis-à-vis the advantages obtainable from the exploitation of fuel price differentials. The model shows that there is a trade-off between low LNG prices and LNG capital expenses. While in most cases it would not be recommended to invest in LNG as early as today, the model shows that investment in LNG can make economic sense as early as 2015. This is highly dependent on the capital costs necessary for retrofitting ships with LNG engines and the difference between LNG prices and distillates prices.
|Copy reference link||DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.007|
Abstract: A wide array of technical and operational solutions is available to shipowners in order to comply with existing and upcoming environmental regulation within Emission Control Areas (ECAs). Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) is a promising alternative since it offers potential cost savings in addition to ensuring compliance with ECA regulation. But investment to retrofit existing vessels to be able to use LNG carries significant upfront costs, and a high degree of uncertainty remains on the differential between the prices of LNG and conventional maritime fuels, as well as on the availability of LNG and the reliability of its supply chain. New technologies such as LNG inherently carry substantial risk and an ill-chosen investment strategy may have irreversible consequences that could jeopardise the future of the shipping company. One important question is whether interested owners should invest in LNG now to comply with ECA rules in 2015 and reap the benefits of lower LNG prices, or whether it would be advisable to wait until some of the uncertainty is resolved.While traditional discounted cash flow techniques are unable to account for the value of managerial flexibility linked, for example, to the possibility of deferring an investment, real option analysis can be used to analyse such cases. The paper discusses the optimal time for investment in LNG retrofit and takes specific account of the value of an investment deferral strategy versus the advantages obtainable from the immediate exploitation of fuel price differentials. Through the use of a real option model the paper shows that there is a trade-off between low fuel prices and capital expenses for investment in LNG retrofit. The development in LNG is critically dependent on its future price as well as the reduction in capital costs and ship retrofitting costs. In this respect, policy makers can play a critical role in providing support to advance technical knowledge, maintain LNG prices at favourable levels and in avoiding ambiguity on regulation.
|Copy reference link||DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.013|
Abstract: Ports are characterised by the geographical concentration of high–energy demand and supply activities, because of their proximity to power generation facilities and metropolitan regions, and their functions as central hubs in the transport of raw materials. In the last decades the need to better understand and monitor energy-related activities taking place near or within the port has become more apparent as a consequence of the growing relevance of energy trades, public environmental awareness and a bigger industry focus on energy efficiency. The uptake in the port sector of innovative technologies, such as onshore power supply, or alternative fuels, such as LNG, and the increasing development of renewable energy installations in port areas, also calls for more attention to energy matters within port management.So far, however, few port authorities have actively pursued energy management strategies. The necessity for port authorities to actively manage their energy flows stems from their efforts to plan, coordinate and facilitate the development of economic activities within the port, and as a consequence of the heavier weight that sustainability is given within the port management strategies.Through the analysis of the experiences of two European ports, Hamburg and Genoa, that have already attempted to coordinate and rationalise their energy needs, this paper will argue that for the ports of the future active energy management can offer substantial efficiency gains, can contribute to the development of new alternative revenue sources and in the end, improve the competitive position of the port.
|Copy reference link||DOI: 10.1080/03088839.2014.932926|
Abstract: Environmental sustainability in the port industry is of growing concern for port authorities, policy makers, port users and local communities. Innovation can provide a solution to the main environmental issues, but often meets resistance. While certain types of technological or organisational innovation can be satisfactorily analysed using closed system theories, in the case of seaports and in particular in the area of environmental sustainability, more advanced conceptual frameworks have to be considered. These frameworks need to be able to account for the multiple stakeholder nature of the port industry and of the network and vertical interactions that environmental sustainability calls for. This article investigates successful innovations improving environmental sustainability of seaports. The proposed framework builds in part on research concepts developed in the InnoSuTra EU FP7 project. From a methodological perspective, this article develops a method for quantifying the degree of success of innovation with respect to a set of specific objectives. Several case studies are used to test the framework against real innovation examples, such as onshore power supply, or alternative fuels. In this article, we argue that only those innovations that fit dynamically port actors’ demands and the port institutional environment stand a chance to succeed.
|Copy reference link||DOI: doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0843-z|
Abstract: With 80 % of world trade carried by sea, seaports provide crucial linkages in global supply-chains and are essential for the ability of all countries to access global markets. Seaports are likely to be affected directly and indirectly by climatic changes, with broader implications for international trade and development. Due to their coastal location, seaports are particularly vulnerable to extreme weather events associated with increasing sea levels and tropical storm activity, as illustrated by hurricane “Sandy”. In view of their strategic role as part of the globalized trading system, adapting ports in different parts of the world to the impacts of climate change is of considerable importance. Reflecting the views of a diverse group of stakeholders with expertise in climate science, engineering, economics, policy, and port management, this essay highlights the climate change challenge for ports and suggests a way forward through the adoption of some initial measures. These include both “soft” and “hard” adaptations that may be spearheaded by individual port entities, but will require collaboration and support from a broad range of public and private sector stakeholders and from society at large. In particular, the essay highlights a need to shift to more holistic planning, investment and operation.
|Copy reference link||DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2013.08.005|
Abstract: Few topics in the area of port economics have attracted so much attention from the side of the academic community as port pricing. The impact of such literature has been quite tangible in terms of policy development and the adoption of cost-based charging practices by many ports. Nonetheless as the port sector changes, new areas of research emerge and the academic community needs to look beyond the traditional theories to provide research that matters.This manuscript provides a review of the existing literature on port pricing with a specific focus on the literature of the last decade. In the paper the author carried out a systematic analysis of the main maritime and port economics journals and highlighted the current literature gaps and the areas that can benefit from academic attentions. Among the most interesting ones there are charging practices aiming at reducing externalities, the development of all inclusive port charges and the application of revenue management for port infrastructure utilization.
|Copy reference link||DOI: 10.1504/IJSTL.2011.041133|
Abstract: Containerisation has transformed ocean shipping in a relatively standardised process. Possibilities to differentiate services exist nonetheless as a result of route densities, cargo and customer types, and shipment time sensitivity among other factors. Although yield management and product differentiation models have been extensively discussed in the airline sector, the topic has been the subject of relatively little investigation in liner shipping economics. This paper proposes a liner service differentiation model based on advance booking and explains in what cases two different classes of booking may be profitable. The paper structure is as follows: Section 1 introduces the topic; a review of the literature on pricing in liner shipping is presented in Section 2; this is followed by the explanation of how carriers may effectively price discriminate; Section 4 presents a simple model that accounts for advance booking and two classes of services; and Section 5 concludes.
|Copy reference link|
Abstract: There is evidence that the shipping industry could achieve energy efficiency gains through the implementation of new technologies, with considerable reductions of fuel costs and emissions to air in the sector. Although the cost reducing effects of some new technologies are well established, companies appear reluctant to innovate despite the financial and societal benefits, as a result of what is referred to as the energy efficiency gap. The global emission impacts of the shipping industry, most notably of greenhouse gases, sulphur and nitrogen oxides are increasingly attracting the attention of regulators, non-governmental organisations and the media, and shipping companies are under pressure to find new ways to reduce their emission footprint. Understanding the determinants of the energy efficiency gap in shipping is then critical in improving the environmental profile of the industry. This paper presents the results of a survey among Norwegian shipping companies aimed at gaining a better understanding of the barriers to implementation of new cost saving technologies. The paper assesses the technical barriers that have traditionally been indicated as the main cause of the energy efficiency gap in shipping. The paper results indicate that next to technical factors, important barriers are constituted also by managerial practices and legal constraints.
|Copy reference link|
Abstract: Chapter VII - The experience in Northern Europe1. Ports and logistics integration2. The role of the port authorities3. The success of Northern European ports4. The distinctive traits of rail transport in the ports of Northern Europe5. The main experiences in Europe6. Conclusions
Prof. Dr. Michele Acciaro
Tel: +49 40 328707-281
Fax: +49 40 328707-209