Description
The transport industry continues to be subject of societal criticism as it is regarded as a largepolluter generating substantial negative externalities (Bergqvist & Egels-Zandén, 2012;
Wooldridge, McMullen, & Howe, 1999). Stakeholders expressing their preferences with regard
to environmental performance not only consist of environmental pressure groups or local and
regional governments, but also supply chain actors are increasingly putting pressure on the
sustainability footprint of the various nodes of the supply chain (Denktas-Sakar & KaratasCetin, 2012).
Ports, as important nodes in transport networks counting for 80% of world trade,
try to respond to these pressures by paying more attention to environmental friendly objectives
and resulting strategic actions (Becker et al., 2013; Wooldridge et al., 1999). Port clusters, and
in particular port authorities not integrating these objectives and actions within their strategies
will experience a decrease in the competitiveness (Haezendonck, 2001) as economic
performance seems to be interrelated with environmental performance (Porter & van der Linde,
1995).
The existence of port collaborative platforms and/or specific trade associations (e.g. IAPH’s
World Ports Climate Initiative, the EcoPorts Foundation, etc.) confirms that a significant
number of port authorities believe in a certain degree of harmonization throughout the industry
in order to achieve the biggest environmental impact. These inter-organizational collaborations
have the aim to develop methods and instruments in order to counter the existing environmental
challenges. As a result of these concerted efforts, the concept of ‘environmentally differentiated
charging’ or in other words ‘green port dues’ that could be applied within the existing pricing
structures on a global scale (e.g. Environmental Ship Index (ESI), Green Award, etc.) was
created. Such environmental differentiated charging schemes enable shipping lines to reduce
their total port dues when the ships, calling a port, comply with certain conditions of
environmental friendliness.
However, it appears that the concept of ’green port dues’ is not yet rooted within the main
pricing (or charging) practices of every port and its port cluster authority. Whereas the shipping
industry is regulated and controlled by governments in order to assure a minimum level of
compliance regards environmental liabilities and responsibilities, the current approach for the
use of ‘green port dues’ is that of compliance through voluntary, self-regulation. Given that
each port is unique in terms of its governance structure, geographical characteristics, and
influence from local social and normative contexts (next to international influence), a custommade
approach is considered more suitable (Acciaro, 2015; Verhoeven, 2010). Yet, when the
application of such schemes is limited to a small group of ports, the scope for port authorities
to influence the environmental footprint at their port, to the mutual advantage of both industries
and their respective stakeholders, remains limited as well.
| Period | 25 Aug 2016 |
|---|---|
| Event title | International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) annual conference |
| Event type | Conference |
| Location | Hamburg, GermanyShow on map |
| Degree of Recognition | International |