Carriers in liner shipping markets frequently make public announcements of general rate increase (GRI) intentions, based on which EU authorities have concerns as to whether this harms market competition. This paper aims to empirically investigate how well the GRI system works from an industrial competition perspective, which will indirectly indicate whether carriers are able to manipulate spot rates following GRI announcements. Taking the Far East–North Europe trade between 2009 and 2013 as an example, the paper first reveals the gradual increase of GRI frequency and size, which reflects carriers’ attempts to restore profitability against overcapacity. However, out of all the GRI events only 28.6% were observed to be successful. Since these GRI successes must be the results of either price collusion (if any) and/or normal rate change by carriers in response to fundamental market developments, the effective collusion, if it exists, is actually lower than 28.6%. Next, we identify eight factors influencing GRI successes. To further assess their impact, we applied an ordered logit regression analysis, which, based on four of the factors involved, yields good predictability for GRI success. The four factors, in sequence of explanation power, are the total capacity of GRI carriers, the idling fleet size, the spot rate level, and the average ship-loading factor. Clearly the latter three factors are market fundamentals, which are unlikely to be influenced by an individual carrier in the short term. In actual fact, the conclusion reached is that there is little evidence that carriers can manipulate and distort spot rates through GRIs.
This article analyzes the competitive strategies of Odense Steel Shipyard between 1918 and 2012 and challenges existing scholarship on competition in global industries. Until the 1980s, the yard adopted typical strategies in shipbuilding, starting with cost leadership and subsequently adopting global segmentation and differentiation strategies. From the mid-1980s, however, it successfully followed a unique national responsiveness strategy, which scholars including Dong Sung Cho and Michael E. Porter had ruled out in shipbuilding. The article shows how shipyard owners shaped strategies and influenced competitiveness.
What Is the Issue?
Sustaining long-term growth requires marine suppliers to define their pricing strategies in a holistic fashion. However, pricing is an under-managed activity in many companies. Especially when moving towards servitization, services or integrated solutions are frequently underpriced or promised at performance levels that cannot be delivered profitably.
Why Is It Important?
Pricing is one of the most important elements for all business and everything in the business works to justify the input value for a price and turn it into a profit. It therefore has a dramatic but frequently underappreciated effort on achieving profitability and keeping business thriving.
What Can Be Done?
The marine supplies industry needs radical change in pricing by thinking about customer’s needs and aligning the incentives between suppliers and customers for long-term relationship. Value-based pricing is the way forward. An intensive discussion has been made with regard to the key challenges of applying value-based pricing in the marine supplies industry. Understanding these challenges is crucial for a move towards value-based pricing and will shed light on how to tackle these challenges.
Decisions regarding investments in capacity expansion/renewal require taking into account both the operating fitness and the financial performance of the investment. While several operating requirements have been considered in the operations research literature, the corresponding financial aspects have not received as much attention. We introduce a model for the renewal of shipping capacity which maximizes the Average Internal Rate of Return (AIRR). Maximizing the AIRR sets stricter return requirements on money expenditures than classic profit maximization models and may describe more closely shipping investors׳ preferences. The resulting nonlinear model is linearized to ease computation. Based on data from a shipping company we compare a profit maximization model with an AIRR maximization model. Results show that while maximizing profits results in aggressive expansions of the fleet, maximizing the return provides more balanced renewal strategies which may be preferable to most shipping investors.
We approach questions of Arctic marine resource economic development from the framework of environmental and resource economics. Shipping, fishing, oil and gas exploration and tourism are discussed as evolving industries for the Arctic. These industries are associated with a number of potential market failures which sustainable Arctic economic development must address. The varying scales of economic activity in the region range from subsistence hunting and fishing to actions by wealthy multinational firms. The ways in which interactions of such varied scales proceed will determine the economic futures of Arctic communities and the natural resources and ecosystems upon which they are based.
As of January 2015, the new maximum limit of fuel sulfur content for ships sailing within emission control areas has been reduced to 0.1%. A critical decision for ship owners in advance of the new limits was the selection of an abatement method that complies with the regulations. Two main options exist: investing in scrubber systems that remove sulfur dioxide emissions from the exhaust and switching to low-sulfur fuel when sailing in regulated waters. The first option would involve significant capital costs, while the latter would lead to operating cost increases because of the higher price of the fuel used. This paper presents a literature review of emissions abatement options and relevant research in the field. A cost–benefit methodology to assess emission reduction investments from ship owners is also presented. A study examined the effects of recent drops in bunker fuel price to the payback period of a potential scrubber investment. The results show that lower prices would significantly delay the payback period of such investments, up to two times in some cases. The case studies present the emissions generation through each option for representative short sea shipping routes. The repercussions of low-sulfur policies on large emission reduction investments including cold ironing are examined, along with implications of slow steaming for their respective payback periods. Recommendations are made for research in anticipation of future regulations and technological improvements.
This study compares the details and performance of fisheries management between the EU and a selection of other countries worldwide: Iceland, New Zealand, and Australia, which are considered in many respects to be among the most advanced in the world in fisheries management. Fisheries management in the EU, Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand has developed following different paths, despite being based on similar instruments and principles. Iceland, Australia, and New Zealand have been at the forefront of developing management practices such as stakeholder involvement, legally binding management targets (Australia, New Zealand), individual transferable quotas, and discard bans (Iceland, New Zealand). The EU has since the beginning of the 21st century taken significant steps to better involve stakeholders and establish quantitative targets through management plans, and a landing obligation is gradually being implemented from 2015 onwards. The management of domestic fisheries resources in Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland has, overall, performed better than in the EU, in terms of conservation and economic efficiency. It should, however, be stressed that, compared to Australia, New Zealand, and Iceland, (i) initial over‐capacity was more of an issue in the EU when management measures became legally binding and also that (ii) the EU has been progressive in developing common enforcement standards, on stocks shared by sovereign nations. The situation of EU fisheries has substantially improved over the period 2004–2013 in the northeast Atlantic, with fishery status getting close to that in the other jurisdictions, but the lack of recovery for Mediterranean fish stocks remains a concern.
This report forms part of the ambitious CBS Maritime research initiative entitled “Competitive Challenges and Strategic Development Potential in Global Maritime Industries” which was launched with the generous support of the Danish Maritime Fund. The competitiveness initiative targets specific maritime industries (including shipping, offshore energy, ports, and maritime service and equipment suppliers) as well as addresses topics that cut across maritime industries (regulation and competitiveness). The topics and narrower research questions addressed in the initiative were developed in close dialogue between CBS Maritime and the maritime industries in Denmark. CBS Maritime is a Business in Society (BiS) Platform at Copenhagen Business School committed to the big question of how to achieve economic and social progress in the maritime industries. CBS Maritime aims to strengthen a maritime focus at CBS and create the foundation for CBS as a stronger partner for the maritime industries, as well as for other universities and business school with a devotion to maritime economics research. The competitiveness initiative comprises a number of PhD projects and five short term mapping projects, the latter aiming at developing key concepts and building up a basic industry knowledge base for further development of CBS Maritime research and teaching. This report attempts to map the opportunities and challenges for the maritime industry in an increasingly accessible Arctic Ocean
The report summarizes a major interview survey among freight forwarders, shipping companies and agents, as well as North Jutland customers of containerized sea transport.
In this report, the PrimeFish project provides an overview of the European and especially the EU seafood sector in the context of global development; i.e. development in other continents with a focus on large commodity groups for fisheries and aquaculture.