Search results

It is commonly known that numerous incidents of container security failure are detected on a daily basis for which nobody is held legally liable. This state of affairs is essentially due to the shippers providing erroneous information, either inadvertently or by design. However, none of the stakeholders such as the carrier, the port operator, the inland transporter or the dry port operator are saddled with the legal responsibility of verifying the correctness of the information provided by the shippers or moving against them legally for misrepresentation of facts.

This paper discusses the issue of container security from a legal perspective with a specific focus on the liability for security failure. While discussing the reasons for non-development of a globally standardized legal regime for container security, this paper also endeavors to suggest possible solutions for the abysmal state of affairs.

This state of affairs persists despite the shipper being saddled with the additional responsibility of providing documentary evidence of verified gross mass of the cargo stuffed in the container by International Maritime Organization.

There is apparently no visible legal action that appears to have been taken against the culprit responsible for the security failure. Thus, the loopholes in the existing legal regime are exploited by all concerned for commercial reasons.

Container shipping companies face various risks with different consequences that are required to be mitigated. Limited empirical research has been done on identifying and evaluating risk management strategies in shipping operations with different risk consequences. This paper aims to identify the appropriate risk mitigation strategies and evaluate the relative importance of these strategies.

Literature review and interviews were used to identify and validate the appropriate risk mitigation strategies in container shipping operations. A questionnaire with a Likert five-point scale was then conducted to rank the identified risk mitigation strategies in terms of their overall effectiveness. Top six important strategies were selected to evaluate their relative importance under three risk consequences (i.e. financial, reputation and safety and security incident related loss) through using another questionnaire with paired-comparison. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was then conducted to analyse the paired-comparison questionnaire.

After conducting a systematic literature review and interviews, 18 mitigation strategies were identified. The results from the first questionnaire show that among the 18 strategies, the top three are “form alliances with other shipping companies”, “use more advanced infrastructures (hardware and software)” and “choose partners very carefully”. After conducting fuzzy AHP, the results show that shipping companies emphasize more on reducing the risk consequence of financial loss; and “form alliance with other shipping companies” is the most important risk mitigation strategy.

This paper evaluates the risk mitigation strategies against three risk consequences. Managers can benefit from the systematic identification of mitigation strategies, which shipping companies can consider for adoption to reduce the operational risk impact.

Increased economic activity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has given rise to increased demand for port development. Given the often scarce availability of national public funding, port institutional reform programmes have been implemented to pave the way for the inclusion of external port investors. Notwithstanding this fact, some sub-Saharan African Governments remain institutionally locked into the notion that state-owned enterprises remain an appropriate vehicle for port terminal operations. This, despite the fact that terminal operational concessions globally and within the continent of Africa are increasingly being managed by global terminal operators. Given this context, this study aims to evaluate different port valuation and funding strategies. Two research questions form the core of this research: what is the financial value of a concession? What is the most cost advantageous funding strategy? The methodology is applied to the development of a two-berth container terminal in SSA.

After reviewing a range of financial valuation and funding techniques, the study presents valuation and funding model applicability-fit tests. Thereafter, a suitable valuation technique is selected and applied to the case study providing a concession valuation. Different funding strategies are applied to the valuation model to determine the cost implications of each funding instrument given the local context and institutional constraints applicable to SSA. Finally, the study discusses the significance of the results to potential SSA port investors by highlighting the impact of each funding approach on key financial metrics.

The study presents a range of financial investment appraisal results for the case study concession in consideration of four specific funding strategies. The highest concession valuation could be attributed to a higher debt ratio as a principal funding strategy. In addition, this funding approach (100% debt) realised the shortest payback period and the highest internal rate of return values. The authors, however, maintain that the optimal funding strategy for a concession depends ultimately on the financial goals of the investor.

This research makes a contribution to the existing literature on port finance and development by presenting a structured approach to the evaluation of the valuation and funding techniques, which can be used in terminal development subject to the specific local context and institutional constraints (in this case applicable to SSA). The study provides practical insight into the potential cost of the considered terminal concession for private or public sector participants and a view of the most cost advantageous funding strategy available for interested investors.

This paper aims to propose a technique based on cognitive assessments to quantify identified operational risks from the perspective of container shipping or logistics system administrators. The results derived from the risk quantification could be used to prioritize risks as well as support the decision-making process in risk prevention and mitigation.

This paper identified container shipping operational risks (CSORs) from a logistics perspective. A multivariate risk evaluation mechanism by fuzzy rules Bayesian network (FRBN) was established. An improved two-level parameter set based on the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was used to support the input extraction process. By feeding cognitive assessments into the model, the identified risks are evaluated based on their utility values. An illustration example and a sensitivity analysis were carried out to justify and validate the proposed model.

The highest positions in the prioritized list of CSORs in the case study are dominated by risks in the physical flow with the first three are piracy and terrorism, force majeure and port congestion. The results derived from the case study with the satisfaction of all pre-defined axioms proved the feasibility and illustrated the functionality of the proposed risk assessment and prioritization technique.

Controlling risk is irrefutably a significant issue of container shipping and logistics management because of the inconsistency of risk definitions and the involvement of uncertainties. The proposed risk evaluation mechanism and the identified list of CSORs could be beneficial in system management, decision-making and reliability performance.

Container shipping is a crucial component of the global supply chain that is affected by a large range of operational risks with high uncertainty, threatening the stability of service, manufacture, distribution and profitability of involved parties. However, quantitative risk analysis (QRA) of container shipping operational risk (CSOR) is being obstructed by the lack of a well-established theoretical structure to guide deeper research efforts. This paper proposes a methodological framework to strengthen the quality and reliability of CSOR analysis (CSORA).

Focusing on addressing uncertainties, the framework establishes a solid, overarching and updated basis for quantitative CSORA. The framework consists of clearly defined elements and processes, including knowledge establishing, information gathering, aggregating multiple sources of data (social/deliberative and mathematical/statistical), calculating risk and uncertainty level and presenting and interpreting quantified results. The framework is applied in a case study of three container shipping companies in Vietnam.

Various methodological contributions were rendered regarding CSOR characteristics, settings of analysis models, handling of uncertainties and result interpretation. The empirical study also generated valuable managerial implications regarding CSOR management policies.

This paper fills the gap of an updated framework for CSORA considering the recent advancements of container shipping operations and risk management. The framework can be used by both practitioners as a tool for CSORA and scholars as a test bench to facilitate the comparison and development of QRA models.

This paper defines the emerging intermodal issues, identifies alternative solutions and develops strategies to achieve them. It reviews intermodal logistics policies in the EU, NAFTA and Asia, focusing on the United States and Japan in NAFTA and Asia respectively, because they have been the prominent motors of international trade in their regions. From an Asian standpoint, it is a pity that it is not yet possible to report on a common intermodal strategy.

Since enacting Act 8630/93, Brazilian port activities have been going through significant modifications, changing from the public port service management to the landlord model. Act 12815/2013 enforced a new regulatory framework increasing Port Authorities' dependence on the Federal Government. Since 2019, the Government has attempted to elaborate a Port Authorities' identity based on the private port governance model inspired by the Australian and United Kingdom ones. This paper assesses Brazilian's Port Authorities management models from 1993 to 2020 and considers the Australian, the United Kingdom and Antwerp port governance models as benchmarks.

This paper adopts a two-step methodological approach, namely a combined desk and field research methodological approach and considers three essential resources: government legislative acts and published data available online; ports' data and information issued by governments' agencies, academic papers and national and international ports' websites; and a semi-structured questionnaire survey targeting the leading associations representing port users, foreign trade and stevedoring companies.

The outcome shows that the solutions to overcome the existing Brazilian Port Authority governance problems remain in the Federal Government's hands by (1) removing its control through bureaucracy, (2) preventing the party-political influence following in the public ports and (3) decentralising port management by chief executive officers named by Port Authority Councils.

This paper does not explore the regulatory frameworks underlying the “Lease Terminal” and “Private User Terminal”.

This paper assesses the management models that led Brazilian's Port Authorities from 1993 to 2020, comparing them with the UK and Australian private service port and Antwerp landlord model.