Corporate Responsibility and Value Creation in The Port Sector Michele Acciaro (2015)

This article was downloaded by: [Mount Royal University]
On: 01 May 2015, At: 06:07

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Logistics

Research and Applications: A Leading
Journal of Supply Chain Management
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjol20
Corporate responsibility and value

creation in the port sector
a
Michele Acciaro
a
Department of Logistics, Kühne Logistics University (KLU),
Hamburg, Germany
Published online: 11 Apr 2015.
Click for updates
To cite this article: Michele Acciaro (2015): Corporate responsibility and value creation in the port
sector, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of Supply
Chain Management, DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2015.1027150
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1027150
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Mount Royal University] at 06:07 01 May 2015
International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1027150
Corporate responsibility and value creation in the port sector

Michele Acciaro ∗
Department of Logistics, Kühne Logistics University (KLU), Hamburg, Germany
(Received 23 October 2014; accepted 3 March 2015)
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 com-
petitive 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 proposi-
tion 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.
Keywords: port management; institutional theory; corporate responsibility; green ports; environmental
management
1. Introduction
Ports are characterised by substantial external effects (Dinwoodie, Tuck, and Knowles 2012)
and it is not surprising that they are concerned with their environmental and social impacts. On
the one side, the increasing societal attention on the impacts of port operations has induced port
authorities naturally to take action to protect local communities and society in general from the
negative external effects of the port. Port authorities have thus been entrusted with the task of
managing port development and balancing the benefits and costs deriving from port activities
(Verhoeven 2010). On the other side, this renewed interest in the environmental and societal
impacts of ports exerts pressure on port authorities also in other ways.
First, port authorities are entrusted, as public bodies and as maritime authorities, to trans-
late national, regional and global (environmental) regulation (Chlomoudis and Pallis 2002;
Verhoeven 2010). As such, port authorities themselves are subjected to increasing regulatory
pressure, as they need to comply with regulation and ensure that adequate facilities, procedures
and other requirements are available to the firms operating in the ports to ensure compliance. In
addition, in many parts of the world, port authorities, as governmental agencies, are under the
scrutiny of the media and the public opinion. They are, in fact, expected to operate in the public
interest and ensure transparency of decision-making.
*Email: michele.acciaro@the-klu.org
© 2015 Taylor & Francis

2 M. Acciaro
Second, neglecting to account for the external costs of port operations and developments can
have dramatic consequences for the port as operations are interrupted and port developments
are delayed, in some cases for years. Furthermore, ports often benefit from public resources,
and port investments often transfer external costs to local communities (Benacchio et al. 2000).
When developments are privately funded, adequate risk management strategies are a necessity in
order to ensure viability of the project (Meersman 2005; Ho and Ho 2006; Yap and Lam 2013).
Overlooking the external impacts of port infrastructure development can substantially delay port
projects (as in the case of the Deurganckdock in Antwerp) with substantial cost overruns, or
even result in project abandonment. This in turn may affect the competitiveness of the port (Van
de Voorde and Winkelmans 2002) and have required port authorities to learn to carefully man-
age stakeholder relations (Dooms and Verbeke 2007), and ensure that environmental and social
matters are addressed, and, when necessary, compensation measures put in place.
A third issue is related to competitiveness, the enhancement of which could be considered one
of the main objectives of port authorities (Meersman and Van de Voorde 2010). Since port com-
petitiveness increasingly depends on the competitiveness of the chain where the port operates
(Goss 1990), it is advisable for port authorities to stimulate the development of logistics activ-
ities that can favour the port (Heaver 1995). A paradigm has been proposed that places ports
as elements in value-driven chain systems (Robinson 2002) and has been the origin of prolific
research in the area of port-centric logistics (Mangan, Lalwani, and Fynes 2008). But as correctly
pointed out by some authors (Adams et al. 2009), this paradigm implies the necessity for ports
and in particular container terminals to actively promote environmental sustainability and green
management practices (Lun 2011).
Finally, given the deregulation trends that have characterised the sector since the 1980s (Baird
2000), port authorities have been increasingly acquiring the characteristics of private enterprises,
and, in some cases, they operate and behave as such (Brooks 2004). Deregulation has an impor-
tant consequence on port authorities, as they need to become more accountable for their decision
and of their corporate image. Such accountability, together with increasing competition among
ports, makes port marketing a compelling issue (Cahoon 2007). In this respect port authorities
have to behave similarly to private enterprises, and even more as multinationals as some of them
are active globally as terminal operators and investors.
As a result of these various forms of pressure, in the last decades it can be observed that
ports have increasingly undertaken costly efforts to improve their image as part of their cor-
porate responsibility (CR) profile.1 The degree of adoption of CR practices varies substantially
among ports and globally, as some ports limit themselves to respond to local community pres-
sure or normative requirements, while others actively pursue CR actions. There have been few
references to environmental sustainability in ports and terminals (Lun 2011; Denktas-Sakar and
Karatas-Cetin 2012; Lam and Van de Voorde 2012) that are discussed more in detail in the next
section. Some authors have discussed CR in the context of ports (Dooms and Verbeke 2007) or
have investigated the role of environmental performance for the competitive positioning of ports
(Haezendonck 2000). The last couple of years have witnessed a rapid increase in port studies
focusing on sustainability and several authors have recognised the importance of the issue and
called for further academic investigation (Luo and Yip 2013; Cariou, Ferrari, and Parola 2014).
This is not surprising as CR appears to be likely to keep on increasing in importance over time
and has been the subject of extensive research in other areas (Aguinis and Glavas 2012).
Most research efforts in studying CR can be found in the areas of strategic management, sup-
ply chain management and sustainability (Peloza and Shang 2011; Aguinis and Glavas 2012;
Carbone, Moatti, and Vinzi 2012). In a recent study (Aguinis and Glavas 2012), the authors sur-
veyed 588 journal articles and 102 books on CR, and highlight the extent to which CR literature
has advanced, but also notice the need for research to focus on the processes and underlying
mechanisms through which CR actions and policies lead to particular outcomes. The authors
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 3
also highlight the importance of multilevel analysis that encompasses how CR affects industries,
organisations and individuals.
One way of looking at these issues is by making use of the paradigms developed by institu-
tional theory (Brammer, Jackson, and Matten 2012). Institutional theory focuses on the processes
by which certain social structures are accepted as defining recommended social behaviours by
firms (DiMaggio and Powell 1983; Dacin, Goodstein, and Scott 2002). Such structures include
of course norms, but also unwritten rules, routines or social constructs. In particular, institutional
theory enables research to account for the diversity of CR, that is, how it is implemented across
countries, and the dynamics of CR, that is how its implementation changes over time. (Brammer,
Jackson, and Matten 2012).
The use of institutional theory allows also contributing to another issue highlighted by Aguinis
and Glavas (2012): the lack of the research investigating CR at the individual level, or, as the
authors call it, the microfoundation of CR. Institutional theory, in fact, with its focus on the legit-
imation, acknowledges that organisations and individuals within organisations seek recognition
and are shaped invariably by habits and traditions. CR attitudes are deeply rooted in individual
upbringing, organisation cultures and national epics and role models. These themes can only
marginally find space in this manuscript, but the port authorities are strongly characterised by
the culture of the country where the port is located, and are traditionally rooted in the local
community, the port city and the close port hinterland.
Although this study is not the first to look at the use of institutional theory in the area of
CR (Matten and Moon 2008; Bondy, Moon, and Matten 2012), and is not the first to apply
institutional theory to ports (Lun et al. 2008; Lu and Koufteros 2014) it is the first to look at
CR in seaports using institutional theory. Seaports are an interesting example, not only for their
dual nature of public bodies with private firm characteristics, but also as they are deeply rooted
in the local normative and social context, but at the same time need to maintain an international
focus. Many port authorities are active internationally and differ on how environmental and
social imperatives are implemented in different parts of the world.
A full appreciation of how ports implement CR globally would require a cross-sectional
approach and could provide the basis for interesting research. Before such approach can be
applied, however, port management research needs to further develop the conceptual constructs
on which to base quantitative analysis. As ports differ among each other and comparisons need
to be made carefully, more research is needed on case studies and conceptual models. Although
some studies have already approached CR in ports through case studies (Hiranandani 2014) and
many contributions have offered port-specific perspectives on sustainability (e.g. Gillman 2003;
Klopott 2013; Shiau and Chuang 2015), this paper represents a further step towards a better
understanding of the relationship between CR and competitiveness in the port sector. Its main
contribution resides in combining institutional theory and CR in the port sector in the hope to
stimulate further research in this area. The paper also contributes to the existing theory of port
as logistics service providers, highlighting how if ports aim at strengthening the competitive
position of the chains in which they operate a CR orientation is often critical.
The paper is structured in five sections. This introduction outlined the relevance of corporate
social responsibility in ports and introduced the concepts that will be dealt with in more detail
in the other sections. Section 2 analyses the emerging literature on CR in the port sector, high-
lighting how the analysis so far has focused on the environmental dimension of CR. This section
also provides the link between CR and logistics value creation. Section 3 introduces institutional
theory and develops a set of hypotheses linked to the applicability of CR to the port sector.
Section 4 looks at how the hypotheses developed in the previous section fit with the CR external
communication strategies of 10 ports around the world. Section 5 summarises the major find-
ings of the paper, indicates areas for further research, including methodological expansions, and
concludes.
4 M. Acciaro
2. Literature review
2.1. CR in the port sector
CR is not a new concept in the port sector, as a result of the important role that seaports play in
shaping the developments of local communities and the external impacts of port activities. It is
not surprising that the initial focus of academic literature in this area has been on ecological issues
(Bateman 1996; Liao et al. 2010; OECD 2011; Berechman and Tseng 2012; Dinwoodie, Tuck,
and Knowles 2012) and monitoring port environmental impacts (Wooldridge, McMullen, and
Howe 1999; Darbra et al. 2004; Darbra et al. 2005a; Darbra et al. 2009; ESPO 2012; Chang 2013;
Lu, Liu, and Wooldridge 2014). Some contributions have focused on the environmental impacts
deriving from shipping activities (OECD 2011; Berechman and Tseng 2012; Dinwoodie, Tuck,
and Knowles 2012; Goulielmos, Lun, and Lai 2012; Shiau and Chuang 2015), while others have
focused on hinterland-based emissions (Rose 2007, 2008; Liao, Tseng, and Lu 2009; Bergqvist
and Egels-Zandén 2012).
In the last decades, however, ports have increasingly undertaken significant CR efforts such
as supporting humanitarian operations, funding education for employees and in neighbouring
communities and actively promoting environmental awareness. Given the public nature of port
authorities in many parts of the world (Brooks 2004; Verhoeven 2010), it could be argued that
seaports are not particularly interesting for CR studies. CR is, in fact, generally defined as vol-
untary (Carroll 1999), and, in the case of public entities, CR activities most naturally should fall
within the mandate of the public entity.
Port governance reforms and port competition, however, have modified the nature of port
authorities, which are required to pursue growth, efficiency and financial independence along
traditional public functions and interests (Juhel 2001; Brooks 2004). As private capitals increas-
ingly play a role in ports, and as ports around the world become corporatised or privatised, ports
need to supplement their public tasks, such as the provision of basic infrastructure, with finan-
cial and managerial considerations typical of the private sector (Baird 2004). As competition
increases and hinterlands become contestable (Ng 2006; Notteboom, Ducruet, and De Langen
2009), ports try to attract new customers and have to make considerable efforts to maintain
their market shares. Moreover, port authorities often need to justify to the public their expansion
projects and increasing societal concerns over the negative external effects of ports and shipping
call for port authorities to become better stakeholders’ managers (Dooms and Verbeke 2007).
As a result, ports need to look for legitimacy from the local communities and the public
opinion, and at the same time from their customers and users. In this respect ports behave as
private companies and it is not surprising that then they need to engage in marketing, promo-
tion (Cahoon 2007) and improve their CR profile. This has resulted in a large set of initiatives
aiming at bringing local communities closer to their neighbouring harbours, such as the popu-
lar Hafengeburtstag (port birthday) in Hamburg or the Haven Dagen (port days) in Rotterdam.
The improvements that port waterfronts have been going through in Amsterdam (Wiegmans and
Louw 2011), Hamburg (Grossmann 2008), the USA (Hoyle, Pinder, and Husain 1988) and many
other ports around the Globe (Ducruet 2007), by bringing people into the harbour areas, con-
tribute to create awareness and visibility of port activities, and establish a new collective image
of the port.
New academic literature emerged from the seminal works of Haezendonk (Haezendonck,
Coeck, and Verbeke 2000; Haezendonck 2001; Haezendonck et al. 2006) aiming at identifying
the value added that environmental performance in particular, and CR in general, might bring
to ports. Lam and Van de Voorde (2012) provide a review of the extant literature on green ports
and sustainable supply chain management and offered one of the first frameworks for sustainable
port strategies. They develop five propositions that address the role of stakeholders’ involvement
in green market development and green policy effectiveness and in turn the impact that green
market development and policy effectiveness have on sustainable port operations and develop-
ment. In their framework they postulate that ‘a green port will lead to positive outcomes on port’s
customer retention and economic performance’ (Lam and Van de Voorde 2012).
A discernible characteristic of this approach is that ports need to appear environmentally aware
and sustainable. Being identified as a green port is clearly a valuable strategy as ports need
to counteract the negative effects of pollution from vessel and cargo handling operations, con-
gestion from the use of hinterland transport network and the negative impacts of infrastructure
developments (Lam and Van de Voorde 2012). Nevertheless, the degree of adoption of green
practices varies substantially among ports and globally, as some limit their efforts to respond to
local community pressure or normative requirements, while others actively pursue CR strategies.
As long as ports exist in the proximity of inhabited areas and generate external effects, CR, and
in particular its environmental dimension, is likely to maintain (or even increase) its importance
over time.
Notwithstanding this increasing importance the literature in the area of sustainability in the
port sector is at most scant and green port definitions are rather ambiguous (Adams et al. 2009;
Lam and Van de Voorde 2012; Acciaro, Ghiara, and Cusano 2014). The magazine and event
organisers GreenPorts indicate in their website as part of the scope of green ports that of ‘balanc-
ing environmental challenges with economic demands’ (GreenPort website as March 25, 2015).
The ESPO initiative called EcoPorts (ESPO 2012, 8) aims at creating a ‘level playing field on
port environmental management in Europe through the sharing of knowledge and experience
between port professionals [ . . . ] in line with the principles of voluntary self regulation’ (ESPO
2012).
From these statements, it can be inferred that the concept of green port is rooted in the triple
bottom line principle, which entails the inclusion of social, economics and environmental goals
from a microeconomic standpoint (Elkington 1997; Henriques and Richardson 2004). It can
also be inferred that green ports go beyond regulation as voluntary action is encouraged, and
that environmental management has the potential of distorting the level playing field, favouring
some players with respect to others as the implementation of stringent environmental practices
may disadvantage the port. It is interesting to observe that this last statement is supported in
some CR literature, which identifies CR practices as costly and therefore detrimental to the firm
competitiveness.2
Green ports can be defined as those ports engaging in the proactive development, implemen-
tation and monitoring of practices aiming at reducing the environmental impacts of the port at
local, regional and global levels beyond regulatory compliance. They engage in innovation and
research with the objective of balancing environmental challenges with economic performance.
Green ports are concerned, among other issues, with resource preservation, air/water/soil pollu-
tion reduction and control, limitation on the impacts on the fauna and flora, as well as climate
change mitigation and adaptation.
The green port concept stems primarily from the need for ports to improve their environ-
mental performance as a result of local communities’ and port users’ increasing demand for
environmental accountability. Logistics service providers are more and more concerned with
the sustainability and performance of their supply chains, and have been requiring transport
providers and ports to collect information related to their environmental key performance indi-
cators (EKPI), most notably, green-house gas emissions, but also water and sediment quality
(Darbra et al. 2005b; ESPO 2012).
But the green port concept is also related to the demand from the side of local communities to
be informed on the types of cargo that go through the port and the environmental risks associated
with port operations. This increased attention to the environmental performance of the port is
also often motivated by the necessity of the port to protect some of its economic activities, as
6 M. Acciaro
ports redevelop their waterfronts for tourism (Bauriedl and Wissen 2002) or residential areas
and as the relationship between the port and the city becomes more symbiotic (Hoyle, Pinder,
and Husain 1988). Ports are increasingly focusing on tourism, real estate management and the
environmental profile of the port has consequences on the port image and their development.
It appears then that the green port concept is invariably linked to the societal perception of
environmental priorities for the port, and can be considered as an integral part of a broader
concept that accounts also for sustainability and CR and is in line with the broader concept
of corporate sustainability (Van Marrewijk 2003). This concept, which can be referred to as
sustainable port or blue port, incorporates the green port concept but stresses the role of societal
impacts and economic viability of port strategies. The sustainable port concept requires port
authorities to account for economic, environmental and societal considerations in their strategy
definition, in line with the triple bottom line approach advocated by most sustainability scholars
(Elkington 1997).
Limited literature has looked explicitly at the social and economic dimensions of sustainabil-
ity (Gillman 2003; Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin 2012; Hiranandani 2014). In his review of
sustainability policy developments in the highly market-driven UK port system, Gillman (2003)
already identified the tension emerging from the pursuit of commercial objectives and a broader
sustainability mandate. Gillman argues that as government transport policy increasingly focuses
on sustainable development, in highly deregulated port sectors, development approval processes
become the only tool able to ensure that social and environmental issues are properly addressed.
In the case of the UK, the complexity of Public Inquiry became apparent in the case of Dibden
Bay and London Gateway. The recent article of Hiranandani (2014) discussed through the use of
four case studies the globalised nature of many port impacts in particular with reference to prac-
tices that could affect living conditions elsewhere (e.g. waste transportation, biofuels, emission
regulation).
2.2. CR and value creation in the port sector
On the basis of the above contributions the main drivers of CR in port studies can be
summarised as:
• Ecological and environmental pressure (at sea and on land)
• Legitimacy from local communities (licence to operate)
• Customer retention and economic performance
• Logistics value creation.
The last driver in particular has been the focus of particular attention in the academic literature
and is also the focus of this contribution. It is therefore expedient to look at it in more detail
especially in relation to how CR could contribute to logistic value creation.
Denktas-Sakar and Karatas-Cetin (2012) highlight the role of resource dependence theory
in port sustainability and stakeholder management with a specific focus on value creation in
the port sector. Through a literature review of the use of resource dependence theory in supply
chain management they develop a conceptual framework, which suggests that ports should adopt
strategies as ‘insertion, integration and dominance for the management of interdependencies
through the adoption of strategic tools to enhance effective stakeholder relations management
and port sustainability’. These strategies look at strengthening the interdependence with shipping
lines and terminal operators through dedicated terminal concessions, transaction costs reduction
and the objective of capturing supply chain value (Jacobs and Hall 2007), and by doing so also
strengthening stakeholder interdependencies and ensuring sustainable growth for the port. The
authors intend to extend their framework to better account for the environmental aspects of the
analysis.
As correctly pointed out by Robinson (2002) and by others more recently (e.g. Jacobs and
Hall 2007), summarising the value-delivery framework developed by Porter, one of the key
focuses that companies and transport service providers should consider is the creation of value
for their customers. In terms of CR strategies for ports and in general for logistics service
providers, such focus becomes relevant in the moment in which port customers, but also port
stakeholders and the supply chain parties in which the port operates, attribute value to CR.
In other words CR practices make sense when they add value to the chain where the port
operates.
The resource dependence analysis highlights the role that supply chain management plays
in port environmental management and CR strategy definition. Sustainable supply chain man-
agement, intended as the strategic integration of economic, environmental and social goals for
the improvement of the economic performance of a company and its supply chain (Carter and
Rogers 2008), has become an established concept in the supply chain management literature and
recently it has started being applied to maritime logistics and ports (Acciaro 2011; Lam and Van
de Voorde 2012; Pawlik, Gaffron, and Drewes 2012).
To similar results arrives the work of Adams et al. (2009). From their study of eight world
ports, they conclude that going beyond environmental compliance does not appear to be directly
beneficial for market share increase, but they argue that a business case exists as port opera-
tors and port authorities that invest in improving environmental compliance are likely to gain a
competitive edge. Their results arise from the observation that as regulation increases, as port
developments are more dependent on adequately addressing societal environmental concerns,
and, in general, environmental imperatives for ports become more compelling, by not thinking
in terms of competitive advantage ports are missing a business opportunity to improve their
competitive position.
It is not simply a matter of dealing with environmental regulation that has always played an
important role in ports as the economic benefits of port activities tend to fall on the larger port
hinterland while external costs are born in the proximity of the port (Benacchio et al. 2000). Port
authorities, in fact, are increasingly realising that good environmental performance is a neces-
sary requirement to maintain good relations with local communities, and can become a source of
competitive advantage (Adams et al. 2009; Wiegmans and Geerlings 2010). The attractiveness
of the port in terms of its green image can be interpreted as the port being able to gain competi-
tive advantage through sustainability, as cleaner ports are likely to be more attractive for cruise
passengers and tourism activities.
Much more controversial is sustainability as a source of competitive advantage for those ports
whose portfolio of activities is geared more towards cargo loading and unloading operations or
the heavy industry. Little investigation has been carried out on how sustainability impacts port
competitiveness and how such relationship actually unfolds. If ports are seen as elements in
value-driven chain systems, as described above (Robinson 2002), then the supply chain manage-
ment literature on CR can offer guidance on how green ports, as logistics service providers, can
be competitively superior (McKinnon 2015).
On the basis of these observations and of the emerging literature described above it can be
argued that CR improves port competitiveness for the following reasons:
• Favours the identification of inefficiencies and business opportunities that otherwise could
have remained unknown
• CR allows for better stakeholder management
• CR allows the port to be identified as green and therefore more innovative
• Sustainable supply chains are more difficult to replicate
• Sustainable ports have a higher possibility of influencing or pre-empting environmental
regulation or regulation aiming at reducing societal negative impacts.
8 M. Acciaro
The characteristics of sustainable ports are particularly suited to an approach to port manage-
ment that is in line with the agile port concept (Marlow and Paixão Casaca 2003; Paixão and
Marlow 2003; Mangan, Lalwani, and Fynes 2008) and the definition of fourth-generation ports
as outlined in UNCTAD (1999). Agility calls for a stronger link between external and internal
business environments and allows ports to respond rapidly to economic changes (Paixão and
Marlow 2003). Considering that sustainability constitutes an important challenge to modern port
operations (ESPO 2012), the ability of the port to adapt to and influence upcoming regulation
and to respond to customer demands needs to be an integral part of agile port strategies.
An agile sustainable port strategy needs to be articulated on various fronts and is by definition
multifaceted and flexible, and therefore prioritisation systems are particularly relevant. Typical
environmental themes relevant for ports are discussed for example in OECD (2011) and ESPO
(2012), which offer guidance on how to prioritise those issues. Gibbs et al. (2014) assess the role
of port CO2 emissions at a supply chain level, concluding that they are negligible compared to
shipping and land-based mode of transport emissions. Ports should therefore focus on reducing
CO2 from ships more than from port operations. Lirn, Wu, and Chen (2012) offer guidance on
the most relevant port environmental impacts in Asian ports and conclude that the most sig-
nificant environmental issues are related to pollutants’ release during cargo handling and port
maintenance, noise control and sewage treatment.
As already mentioned there has been less focus on the identification of societal issues that
should be prioritised in CR actions of port authorities, although interesting insights can be
obtained from the literature on stakeholders’ management (Dooms and Verbeke 2007) and
port supply chain value creation (Robinson 2002; Jacobs and Hall 2007; Denktas-Sakar and
Karatas-Cetin 2012). There is also emerging literature on the innovative potential of green ports
(Acciaro 2013; Acciaro et al. 2014) and the role of ports as energy managers (Acciaro, Ghiara,
and Cusano 2014).
3. The institutional theory perspective on CR in the port sector
3.1. Institutional theory
As outlined in the previous section, port studies have dealt with CR in an unstructured way,
mostly favouring ad hoc approaches. A coherent review of these approaches has been missing
so far. On the one side CR is perceived as a necessary requirement of ports to be able to gain
legitimacy on their communities; on the other side, competitive pressure seems to dictate the
adoption of certain practices, and marketing imperatives are shaping the language that port use
in defining their CR capabilities. In the case of CR we are dealing with a set of socially con-
structed behaviours and port authorities seem to reproduce these behaviours on the basis of what
is implicitly expected or demanded by stakeholders.
A useful framework to look at the drivers behind CR in the port sector can then be based
on the notions developed in the context of institutional theory. Institutional theory proponents
postulate that social behaviours of economic organisations and individuals are shaped by rules,
norms and routines (structures) (Scott 2004). Institutional theory deals with how these structures
influence behaviours, are spread over time and space and are adopted or abandoned. A definition
of institutional theory is provided by Morgan et al.:
The field in which we are interested can be defined in how the forms, outcomes, and dynamics of economic organi-
sation (firms, networks, markets) are influenced and shaped by other social institutions (e.g. training systems, legal
systems, political systems, educational systems, etc.) and with what consequences for economic growth, innovation,
employment, and inequality. Institutions are usually defined [ . . . ] as formal or informal rules, regulations, norms,
and understandings that constrain and enable behaviour. (2012, 2)
In the specific context of this paper port authorities are looked at as a special form of economic
organisation. This assumption is reasonable since port authorities combine institutional roles
with typical functions of private firms in various degrees (Brooks 2004), and as such they are
subjected to the influences of structures. Institutional theory has already been used for various
types of economic organisations (Zucker 1987).
Port authorities and the individuals that operate within them are assumed to seek social recog-
nition and are then exposed to habits, traditions and other social influences, which are not only
the result of rational optimisation behaviours. A central concept in institutional theory is that
of legitimacy, that is conformity to social expectations (Zucker 1987). Legitimacy contributes
to the organisation success and survival (DiMaggio and Powell 1983), and as such provides an
incentives for organisations to adopt behaviours and practices that are similar to those adopted by
other comparable organisations. In doing so they become similar to each other adopting certain
common practices, referred to as isomorphism, in order to gain societal acceptance and benefit
from legitimacy (Scott 2004).

The processes that lead to isomorphism are of four types (DiMaggio and Powell 1983): coer-
cive, mimetic, normative and competitive. Coercive isomorphism is the result of pressure from
governments or customers. Mimetic isomorphism stems from business uncertainty and is the
result of the imitative practices that organisations put in place when they are uncertain of their
efficacy, but feel peer pressure in adopting them. Normative isomorphism derives from norms
that are set by the way people are trained and educated, or by rules that are used for obtaining
standards and certifications. Finally competitive isomorphism is the result of the preference for
those practices that do benefit the organisation by improving operational efficiency (DiMaggio
and Powell 1983; Lun et al. 2008).
The suitability of institutional theory in the context of CR is quite striking. Nonetheless its
application to CR highlights that CR practices are not entirely voluntary (Brammer, Jackson, and
Matten 2012). This is not a trivial point, and, as Brammen et al. suggest, it shakes the foundations
of CR. In their insightful paper, the authors also highlight the deriving contested and contingent
nature of CR. This analysis is also particularly suited for the application of CR to the port sector,
with the contested and contingent definition for example of green port.
3.2. Coercive structures
Governments are typically associated with the type of pressure that coercive structures exert on
organisations (Zucker 1987). It has been mentioned already how governments and governmental
agencies have to adhere to specific code of conducts developed at a national or international level.
These could refer to accident prevention practices within the port authority or the port areas as
well as structures aiming at eliminating corruption from public offices. Also port governance
reform, if seen as the attempt of government to increase organisational efficiency within the port,
can be interpreted as a coercive structure.
But coercive structures are also imposed by the agents on which the organisation is dependent
(Scott 2004). In the case of port authorities these are clearly port customers, such as shipping
lines and transport service provides, terminal operators and, last but not least, cargo interests.
Consumers increasingly take into account in their purchasing decisions the conditions under
which products are manufactured and transported (Pickett-Baker and Ozaki 2008). Bio labels for
products, such as Fairtrade, as well as powerful shippers’ initiatives such as the Wall-Mart Green
Label or the IKEA Eco Score Cards are all forms of coercive pressure for logistics providers and,
as a result, for ports. CR becomes a necessary requirement for engaging in certain types of
trades.
Coercive structures do not result only from ecological and environmental pressure and the
need to find legitimacy from local communities as identified in the literature but derive also from
10 M. Acciaro
competitive pressure. Regulation and consumer pressure are in the end two sides of the same
trend, as governments tend to respond to, or at least need to take into account, the changes in
population tastes and values. On the basis of these considerations a first proposition can be put
forward:
Proposition 1 As national, regional and international regulation and the societal valuation of
environmental and social management practices increase, the more port authorities will engage
in CR.
3.3. Mimetic structures
Mimetic structures are the result of behaviours that organisations acquire from examples that
have been developed elsewhere (Zucker 1987). The CR profiles of many ports are surpris-
ingly similar, as ports tend to apply the same technologies, or engage in the same type of CR
activities. On the one side, it is true that many of the social and environmental issues that port
authorities have to face are similar, and that organisations in general tend to benchmark to learn
from competitors best practices. On the other side, a mimetic component is an integral part
on how port authorities select environmental and social practices as many of them are charac-
terised by uncertainty. Ports monitor the developments in other ports and take inspiration from
the most successful strategies implemented elsewhere. An example is the similar response that
ports have been providing to the developments of onshore power supply or the investment in
liquefied natural gas (LNG) bunkering activities (Acciaro, Ghiara, and Cusano 2014). Several
ports have engaged in waterfront redevelopment and try to exploit waterfront locations for urban
redevelopments (e.g. Bauriedl and Wissen 2002; Ducruet 2007).
In an uncertain environment, in line with the hypothesis of bounded rationality, port authorities
may feel that if a certain CR practice has been adopted by another port, it is worth investigating.
Especially if the costs associated with adoption of certain practices are low, ports will adopt
CR behaviours simply as a result of mimetic pressure. A related example could be linked to the
adoption of the landlord port model by many port authorities in the world. While clearly the
port governance reform is not initiated by the port authority alone, and in the case of developing
countries a certain coercive pressure has been exercised by the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund, it is also likely that a certain degree of mimetic pressure has played a role in the
global adoption of the landlord governance model.
The more certain practices are accepted and implemented among various ports, whether they
are related to environment, stakeholders’ management or governance, the more it is likely that
such practices will be adopted by other port authorities. The possibility of behaviours emerging
simply as a result of mimetic structure has not been addressed in the literature, but can be exem-
plified by the (often unjustified) use of the green port term in port marketing materials. It is a
distinctive contribution of institutional theory to find a framework for those actions that emerge
as a result of mimetic behaviours, without any specific reference to the organisation values or
strategies. A second proposition can then be formulated as:
Proposition 2 The implementation of CR practices by port authorities will increase as the

number of port authorities engaging in CR practices within a competing range increases.
3.4. Normative structures
Normative structures are related to the way organisations acquire their professional skills and
how certain specialisations are shared among consultants, advisors and surveyors (Scott 2004).
Most of the people who deal with CR participate in the same training programmes and are
advised by a limited pool of consultants. These professionals are likely to have similar opinions
and follow similar approaches to CR. Furthermore, certain practices associated for example with
ISO certifications ensure that normative structures are reproduced and repeated among organisa-
tions (Castka et al. 2004). These structures have hardly been analysed in port studies with some
exceptions (e.g. Pantouvakis and Dimas 2010), but could represent an important driver in the
establishment of CR practices as observed in other sectors. The following proposition can then
be proposed:
Proposition 3 As CR norms become more codified through certifications and standards, and
as the profession of CR officials becomes better established, the more port authorities will
implement CR practices.
3.5. Competitive structures
Competitive isomorphism is particularly interesting in the case of CR as it stems from the search
for operational efficiency. CR has often been identified as a source of cost increase (Walley
and Whitehead 1994) and although this might not always be the case, it has generally not been
associated with operational efficiency. CR is not implemented identically among all firms, and
isomorphic strategies allow for competitive differentiation. Competitive structures are those that
arise because of performance pressure and CR can grant an advantage to firms that put an effort
in implementing it.
In the value-delivery framework (Robinson 2002) outlined in the previous section it emerges
clearly how CR, and in particular its environmental dimension, can represent superior practices
as long as port authorities engage in those practices that are required by their customers. Since
isomorphisms are likely to arise also in firms upstream and downstream the focal firm, that is the
port authority in this case, CR is likely to raise the competitiveness of ports. Such a relationship
is strengthened by the correlation between innovativeness and CR (Kibbeling 2010), therefore
favouring those port authorities that engage in CR practices.
Several examples can be used to associate CR with better performance, value creation and
increased competitive advantage. The attempt to reduce emissions, by increasing energy effi-
ciency, may stimulate port authorities to investigate electrification of port equipment and often
substantially reduce energy costs. The use of alternative fuels, such as LNG or biofuels for port
operations, can also substantially reduce the port fuel bill (Acciaro, Ghiara, and Cusano 2014).
The necessity to redevelop obsolete port areas has allowed port authorities to capitalise on prime
real estate and increase revenue from port waterfront redevelopments (Wiegmans and Louw
2011).
The role of competitive pressure in fostering CR practices in ports can be summarised in the
following proposition:
Proposition 4 CR practices can arise as a consequence of competitive pressure and result in

operational efficiency gains for port authorities and port operators.
Port authorities are likely then to adopt CR practices to increase their legitimacy and at the
same time to increase operational efficiency and performance. They will be perceived as trust-
worthy and more innovative and as such will be preferred by their customers and be favoured by
other agencies.
12 M. Acciaro
4. CR experiences in 10 major ports
4.1. Selection of the 10 ports
The main objective of this section is that of identifying similarities among institutional structures
in the case of ports. It is well established that ports differs from each other and that comparisons
among ports should be done carefully. It is possible, however, to identify similarities among
international ports that can stem from the need to serve a globalised industry. The selection of
the 10 ports has resulted in a sufficient degree of diversity, taking care of ensuring at the same
time comparability.
At the design stage of this analysis it became apparent that in order to confirm the applicabil-
ity of the framework presented in the paper and to better understand the CR developments in the
port industry, multiple ports should be looked at through case studies and not a single port. The
main prerequisite for the case selection was that the ports had to have a CR strategy, documented
in easily accessible documents. However, it became soon clear that selecting only ports with a
developed CR would not allow accounting for the decision itself of developing a CR strategy at a
port authority level. In addition, for some ports a case study focusing on CR could be rich enough
to justify an entire research contribution. We decided then to limit the case study to the publicly
available documents accessible on the port websites in the English language and to select ports
that had a global relevance and would in principle have the global maritime industry as main user.
In order to ensure comparability, large multipurpose gateway ports were selected on the basis
of their throughput. The selection was performed so that each case study would either predict
similar results, or contrasting results but for anticipated reasons, in line with the replication logic
used in case studies (Yin 2014). The number of 10 is often used in case studies as a sufficiently
large number to ensure adequate explanation maintaining the analysis within reasonable bound-
aries. It should be noted that the case studies are limited in scope to the web communication
strategy of the port authorities, which could well engage in other initiatives without advertis-
ing them on their websites in English. It was felt, however, that such bias would have limited
influence on the results of this exercise, as the costs of uploading information on a website
are negligible and therefore should a port authority have developed a CR initiative, they would
have no reason not to make it known on the web. In addition, since the ports selected engage
in international trade, the decision to make such information available in English seems a log-
ical approach by any port authority that cared about sharing such information with its broader
customer basis. All ports selected have extensive websites with a large amount of information
available in English.
A remaining issue to be discussed is the actual selection of the 10 global ports. The simple
selection of the 10 largest ports in the world (Shanghai, Singapore, Tianjin, Guangzhou, Ningbo,
Rotterdam, Suzhou, Qingdao, Dalian and Pusan) or of the 10 largest container ports (Shanghai,
Singapore, Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Pusan, Ningbo, Guangzhou, Qingdao, Jebel Ali and Tianjin)
following for example the rankings available in UNCTAD (2014), would not have delivered suf-
ficient variety to allow geographical comparison and in the end provide insight into the issues
being discussed. Especially the almost complete absence of North American and European ports
would reduce the insight obtainable from the analysis, as CR practices have been extensively
developed in many of these ports. The selection had therefore to be done following three prin-
ciples: (i) the port had to be of international relevance; (ii) it should allow adequate coverage of
Europe, Asia and North America; (iii) it should have sufficient information in English available
on its website.
It should be stressed that the logic used in the selection of the ports differs conceptu-
ally from the sampling logic employed in surveys. A survey in this case would require the
enumeration of the entire universe of ports comprising the population under analysis that would
have to be defined so that statistical comparison is meaningful. Considering the diversity of port
organisations in terms of size, governance structure, administrative and managerial approaches,
geographical location, legal framework of operations among other fundamental differences, such
surveys need to be carried out very carefully. The complexity of identifying individual respon-
dents within the port organisations and ensuring their cooperation would make such a study very
costly if a global focus was to be retained. While the value of such approach is indisputable, and
attempts have been carried out for example in Europe to survey systematically port administra-
tions, developing the analysis through multiple case studies offers a different perspective on the
issues at hand.
4.2. CR strategies for the 10 selected ports

A brief description of the CR policy of the 10 selected ports is provided below in alphabetical
order. For further information and details the port website is provided next to the name of the
port. All websites were visited in June 2014 and again in September 2014.
(1) Antwerp (Belgium) – www.portofantwerp.com. The port of Antwerp has developed a com-
prehensive sustainability strategy aiming at ensuring the future of the port. The report
makes reference to 3P’s (people, planet and prosperity) and the port has developed a sus-
tainability report in cooperation with the private players in the port area. Direct reference is
made to port employees specifically in the areas of safety, diversity and sustainable travel
to and from the port. The port aims at being involved with the local communities by sup-
porting education projects, nature development and other activities benefitting the local
communities. The port also has a specific strategy aiming at stimulating the development
of alternative energy sources. Modal shift is considered an important issue in reducing the
external costs of the port. Specific involvement of stakeholders is part of the strategy of the
port of Antwerp.
(2) Hamburg (Germany) – www.hafen-hamburg.de. Since 2011 Hamburg has developed a sus-
tainability report. In this report the sustainability strategy for the port in relation to the
Hamburg port development plan is presented. The port aims at growing sustainably, main-
taining its local relevance. Specific reference is made to modal split – with the specific role
that rail plays in Hamburg – safety and a development strategy that directly accounts for
the proximity of the city. Specific reference is made to innovation as a way to improve sus-
tainability. Particular attention is given to renewables. Particular attention is given to traffic
control and safety within the harbour. The special environmental conditions on the River
Elbe are also included in the discussion.
(3) Hong Kong (China) – www.mardep.gov.hk. Among Asian ports the port of Hong Kong has
shown particular interest in its sustainability profile. Information for this port is, however,
less detailed than for other ports in the analysis. Specific attention has been given to the
environmental impact assessment for port development, but to date there is less evidence
of a coherent sustainability strategy for the port. The port has also been a strong advocate
of emission reduction.
(4) Jebel Ali (UAE) – www.dpworld.ae. As part of the DP World group, the Jebel Ali port has
an extensive discussion on CR. The CR strategy is structured around community, environ-
ment, people, safety and marketplace. The port appears particularly active in initiatives that
go beyond the direct neighbouring community, funding healthcare developments, educa-
tion and other social activities (e.g. donations for Gaza, book fairs and providing support
for weddings for couples in need). Gender issues are specifically addressed on their web-
site, and the use of automation is mentioned as a way to favour female participation in
14 M. Acciaro
the workplace. Senior management addresses sustainability in supplier selection, financ-

ing and maintaining relations with customers. The port, however, does not have a specific
sustainability page or report.
(5) Los Angeles (USA) – www.portoflosangeles.org. Sustainability plays an important role in
the port of Los Angeles. In the port strategic plan specific references are made to the
relations to the community and stakeholder, the environment and improving a positive
workplace culture. For each strategic area a group of initiatives are selected with a spe-
cific set of metrics aiming at quantifying the implementation of the initiative. Among the
CR initiatives it is worth mentioning the attempt to stimulate the use of alternative energy
and maritime power, emission reduction, education and training, stakeholder management
through media and an outreach plan. The port does not have a sustainability plan. Extensive
information on the port environmental and social activities are made available on the port
website.
(6) New York/New Jersey (USA) – www.panynj.gov. The port authority of New York & New
Jersey is an integrated port authority that manages not only the port but also other infras-
tructure such as airports and public transport. While there does not seem to be a specific
sustainability report, particular references are made on the port authority website to envi-
ronmental actions. In particular, the port authority has a programme on quality of air and
emission reduction, habitat protection and wildlife programme, reduction of dependence on
fossil fuels and a specific programme on greening construction and transportation.
(7) Pusan (Korea) – www.busanpa.com. In the case of the port of Pusan, limited materials
could be found on the sustainability strategy of the port. While multiple studies tend to
assess the economic impacts of the port expansion, there is limited information available on
the port environmental or societal impacts. Although this information might be available
in Korean, the choice not to make such information available in English indicates that
sustainability is not perceived as a value adding activity to the international position of the
port.
(8) Rotterdam (the Netherlands) – www.portofrotterdam.com. The port of Rotterdam Authority
devotes an entire section of their website to CR. Port authority declares that they perceive
CR as key to success for the port in the future and with a particular focus on developing
the port in harmony with the surrounding areas. CR reports have been produced in the
past (2007 and 2008). Among the areas indicated in the report there are air quality and
CO2 emission reduction, development of the Sustainability index, city redevelopment and
cooperation with foreign ports (most notably in developing countries). A reference to trans-
parency is also made and since 2009 the CR reporting is integrated in the Annual Report.
Of the indicators listed in the abridged annual report, there is also a CO2 footprint.
(9) Shanghai (China) – www.portshanghai.com.cn. The extensive website of the Port of Shang-
hai has virtually no information on CR activities, social or environmental issues. Also on the
development strategy no reference is made to social or environmental issues. This finding
is also supported by the study of Lirn, Wu, and Chen (2012).
(10) Singapore (Singapore) – www.singaporepsa.com. The Port of Singapore Authority has
an extensive area of its website devoted to CR. In this section, the priorities of the
port authority are identified as community, education and environment. Community sup-
port materialises through charitable actions. Education activities are set up through the
Howe Yoon Chong PSA Endowment Fund. The section on environment focuses on
management and personnel awareness creation, improvement of equipment, reduction of
energy consumption and infrastructure improvement (buildings and workshops) and a
PSA tree planting initiative. The website also has a dedicated section to safety and secu-
rity where procurement and a Health Safety, Security and Environment commitment is
presented.
4.3. Comparison of CR policies
The review of the CR actions in the 10 selected ports shows marked differences among the
quality, the amount and structure of information made available in English by the port authori-
ties. Although not exhaustive, Table 1 summarises the CR strategies of the various ports under
study.
Table 1 has been created reviewing the information publicly available on CR initiatives of
the 10 ports under study. By reading these materials certain categories appeared often such as
air quality issues or employment, while others were present exclusively in some ports, such as
healthcare support to local communities or river environmental protection schemes. Clearly this
summary does not assess the extent of effort put in by the port authorities in their CR activities
and also does not aim at offering a comprehensive study of their CR strategies.
The categories listed in Table 1 are not meant to be exhaustive of the CR efforts in which
port authorities can engage but offer a wide enough spectrum of activities that can generally be
replicated in various ports and therefore can be used to assess the importance of certain structures.
On the basis of the collected information and on the analysis of the CR cases, the following
considerations can be made on the four propositions advanced above.
Table 1. Comparison of CR actions in 10 world ports.
Port authority
New
Hong Jebel Los York/New
CR action Antwerp Hamburg Kong Ali Angeles Jersey Pusan Rotterdam Shanghai Singapore
Air quality
Biking
Cooperation with
foreign ports
CR mgmt.
CR vision
Education activities
EKPI
Employment
Energy
(conservation)
Energy (renewables)
Gender issues
Global Reporting
Initiative
Greening
construction
Habitat and wildlife
protection
Healthcare
Humanitarian aid
and charities
Local communities
River environmental
mgmt.
Stakeholder mgmt.
Sustainability report
Transparency
Triple bottom line
Urban
redevelopment
Waste management
Source: Compiled by the author on publicly available sources and port authorities’ websites.
16 M. Acciaro
Proposition 1 As national, regional and international regulation and the societal valuation of
environmental and social management practices increase, the more port authorities will engage
in CR.
This proposition requires considering the development of CR strategies over time. An indica-
tion can be provided by the publication of CR reports and we can observe that in the case of the
three European ports, production of such reports started in 2008 in Rotterdam and was followed
by Antwerp and Hamburg. Other ports seem to have followed as far as CR issues are concerned,
but from the existing information it is difficult to assess the validity of such proposition. It can
be noted, however, that some ports tend to have a larger number of initiatives, and they appear
to be located in those countries that have a long-standing CR tradition (see Visser and Tolhurst
2010).
Proposition 2 The implementation of CR practices by port authorities will increase as the

number of port authorities engaging in CR practices within a region or a range increases.
There is clearly a regional clustering of CR practices with a stronger focus on CR reporting in

European and North American ports. Exceptions are Singapore and Jebel Ali, which seem to be
more in line with the standards of multinational enterprises. Proposition 2 focuses on the fact that
often CR strategies have been reproduced without the actual integration of the CR actions within
the organisation strategy but simply because such strategy was developed in a neighbouring port.
While it is obvious that neighbouring ports will often be subjected to the same type of competitive
pressure, their responses do not necessarily need to be the same, so the similarity of certain CR
approaches can be attributable to mimetic structures more than to competitive structures.
Proposition 3 As CR norms become more codified through certifications and standards, and
as the profession of CR officials becomes better established, the more port authorities will
implement CR practices.
There is the emergence of codifications through the CR Reporting standard and the implemen-
tation of EKPIs. However, it seems difficult to assess whether such codification would favour the
development of CR practices. This process has been observed through ISO certifications, where
port authorities are required to implement specific measures to comply with the certification.
Certification issues have been only marginally looked at in port authorities, with the study by
Pantouvakis and Dimas (2010) looking at ISO 9000 certification in ports being one of the few
examples. Although this study only looks at European ports, it is interesting to observe that none
of the EU ports analysed implemented ISO 9000 certification.
Proposition 4 CR practices can arise as a consequence of competitive pressure and result in

operational efficiency gains for port authorities and port operators.
Several port authorities highlight the benefits of some of the CR measures implemented. It is
interesting to note that energy efficiency and stakeholder management appear particularly ben-
eficial in improving port authority performance. The frequency of those measures, as opposed
to more humanitarian or charity actions, seems to support this proposition at least partially. The
geographical clustering of the CR actions promoted by the port authorities can be interpreted as
an indication of the existence of value creation of CR practices at the port. The issue of com-
petitiveness of CR is strictly related to why a port authority would engage in CR actions similar
to a competitor if they did not believe that advantages could be gained from implementing such
actions. Ports competing on similar supply chains need to align in terms of CR actions with their
rivals.
5. Concluding remarks
This paper has highlighted a set of drivers behind the renewed interest in CR in ports. The
arguments used in the paper provide hypotheses beyond those presented in the literature on why
ports show an interest in CR. On the basis of extant literature, this manuscript articulates more in
detail the concept of green port, arguing how it should be integrated in the broader perspective
of sustainable/blue ports. The main drivers for CR are then discussed on the basis of published
research. The contribution of the paper can be articulated in three main directions.
First, it provides a review of existing CR literature in the port sector, identifying the interest
of port authorities in CR not only through the traditional rationale of promoting environmental
awareness, but also as a source of competitive advantage through supply chain value creation.
The paper also argues that a CR attitude is in line with concepts of agility and port-centric logis-
tics. The processes of vertical integration along supply chains, in fact, as well as the increasing
competitive focus on port-centric logistics, tend to strengthen the importance of CR and in par-
ticular of environmental performance in ports. There is therefore a correspondence between the
degree of port agility and the CR profile of the port.
Second, the paper relates the literature contributions to a framework developed on the basis of
institutional theory and provides some new perspectives on potential drivers often neglected in
the literature (i.e. mimetic and normative structures). The alternative view on CR in ports making
use of the lenses developed in the context of institutional theory is the second main contribution.
Institutional theory focuses on the processes by which certain social structures are accepted as
defining recommended social behaviours by firms. Such structures include of course norms, but
also unwritten rules, routines or social constructs. This analysis shows that CR developments in
the port sector have a reinforcing effect through mimetic and normative structures (although this
framework is only partially supported by the comparative case studies). As environmental reg-
ulation increases, ports will need to increase CR practices. Finally the existence of competitive
pressure allows for diverse approaches for the implementation of CR practices in ports, in line
with the main literature findings on environmental performance for ports.
Third, it offers a brief review of the CR strategies of 10 major ports that aim at providing some
empirical, albeit circumstantial, evidence of the applicability of the framework in practice. While
this exercise provides a partial perspective, it offers the possibility of comparing multiple global
CR strategies, and although it cannot offer empirical validation of the proposition advanced in
the paper, it can be used as a starting point for more structured analyses.
The increasing role of CR in the port sector has major implications for port management
and policy. A successful implementation of CR practices requires a broader understanding
of such practices at an organisational level. Furthermore, sustainable ports are likely to be
selected in the future as preferred supply chain partners and therefore will acquire stronger
dominance on the chain. This increases the range of strategic options that ports have. CR will
become one of the competing battlegrounds, together with port infrastructure, innovation and
hinterland accessibility. Competition will extend along the supply chain, with different chain
parties struggling to capture the value generated in the sustainable chain. This requires busi-
nesses to find adequate mechanisms to share value as supply chain cooperation will remain
critical.
From a policy perspective, this changes the role that environmental regulation plays in the port
industry. As sustainable ports become better skilled at influencing regulation, governments have
to ensure that the level playing fields are maintained. Furthermore, financial support aiming at
fostering sustainability might become unnecessary, as port authorities and the chains where they
operate learn to capitalise on their superior CR performance. Clearly national governments have
interest in favouring the development of sustainable supply chains that include their ports, and
therefore an adequate balance between chain competition and cooperation should be found.
18 M. Acciaro
These implications call for further research in the area of CR in the port sector. Further empir-
ical validation of the propositions and concepts outlined in this paper would be beneficial for a
better understanding of how the port sector perceives CR. It is likely that CR is perceived differ-
ently in different locations around the world, and understanding such differences is a necessary
part of understanding the value creation through CR in ports. Further research should focus on
single and multiple case studies as well as customer and port practitioner surveys, in order to
capture, on the one side, the complexity and diversity of individual CR approaches and, on the
other side, identify commonalities within regions or port ranges. In particular, there is a lack
of studies on the societal impacts of ports and how they are affecting the local communities in
manners other than the environment. This area would be complementary to the existing research
on CR. Finally more attention should be paid by port researchers to the managerial implications
of CR in the port sector in particular and for maritime chains in general.
Acknowledgements
Some of the ideas presented in this paper appeared in Acciaro (2013). The author would like to thank two anonymous
reviewers for their insightful comments. The usual disclaimers apply.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. I have opted in this paper to use Corporate Responsibility instead of Corporate Social responsibility, or Corporate
Sustainability given the intrinsic importance of CR practices for port authorities as organisations with wider public
impacts that not necessarily materialise in a socially driven or a particularly proactive attitude. For further details,
see, for example, Van Marrewijk (2003) or Swanson and Zhang (2012).
2. This attitude is observed also in the container shipping industry (see Acciaro 2011) where, while on the one side
CR practices are well established, on the other side they are perceived as adding costs and thus making offers less
attractive to those shippers more sensitive to price differentials.
ORCID
Michele Acciaro http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0144-3033
References
Acciaro, Michele. 2011. “Pricing in Sustainable Global Container Transport.” International Journal of Decision Sciences,
Risk and Management 3 (3): 293–310.
Acciaro, Michele. 2013. “Corporate Responsibility in the Port Sector: The Institutional Theory Perspective.” In
IFSPA2013: Trade, Supply Chain Activities and Transport: Contemporary Logistics and Maritime Issues, edited
by Xiaowen Fu, Chung-Lun Li, Meifeng Luo, Adolf K.Y. Ng, and Tsz Leung Yip, 522–535. Hong Kong: The Hong
Kong Polytechnic University.
Acciaro, Michele, Hilda Ghiara, and Maria Inès Cusano. 2014. “Energy Management in Seaports: A New Role for Port
Authorities.” Energy Policy 71: 4–12.
Acciaro, Michele, Thierry Vanelslander, Christa Sys, Claudio Ferrari, Athena Roumboutsos, Genevieve Giuliano, Jas-
mine Siu Lee Lam, and Seraphim Kapros. 2014. “Environmental Sustainability in Seaports: A Framework for
Successful Innovation.” Maritime Policy and Management 41 (5): 480–500.
Adams, Michelle, Pablo Quinonez, Athanasios A. Pallis, and Thomas H. Wakeman. 2009. “Environmental Issues in Port
Competitiveness.” Atlantic Gateway Working Paper No. 7, Dalhousie University.
Aguinis, Herman, and Ante Glavas. 2012. “What We Know and Don’t Know about Corporate Social Responsibility: A
Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Management 38 (4): 932–968.
Baird, Alfred J. 2000. “Port Privatization: Objectives, Extent, Process, and the UK Experience.” International Journal
of Maritime Economics 2 (3): 177–194.
Baird, Alfred J. 2004. “Public Goods and the Public Financing of Major European Seaports.” Maritime Policy &
Management 31 (4): 375–391.
Bateman, Sam. 1996. “Environmental Issues with Australian Ports.” Ocean & Coastal Management 33 (1): 229–247.
Bauriedl, Sybille, and Markus Wissen. 2002. “Post-Fordist Transformation, the Sustainability Concept and Social Rela-
tions with Nature: A Case Study of the Hamburg Region.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 4 (2):
107–121.
Benacchio, Marco, Claudio Ferrari, Hercules E. Haralambides, and Enrico Musso. 2000. “On the Economic Impact of
Ports: Local Vs. National Costs and Benefits.” Paper presented at the International Workshop of the WCTR Society
Special Interest Group on Maritime Transport and Ports, Genoa, June 8–10.
Berechman, Joseph, and Po-Hsing Tseng. 2012. “Estimating the Environmental Costs of Port Related Emissions: The
Case of Kaohsiung.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 17 (1): 35–38.
Bergqvist, Rickard, and Niklas Egels-Zandén. 2012. “Green Port Dues – The Case of Hinterland Transport.” Research
in Transportation Business & Management 5: 85–91.
Bondy, Krista, Jeremy Moon, and Dirk Matten. 2012. “An Institution of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) in Multi-
national Corporations (MNCs): Form and Implications.” Journal of Business Ethics 111 (2): 281–299.
Brammer, Stephen, Gregory Jackson, and Dirk Matten. 2012. “Corporate Social Responsibility and Institutional Theory:
New Perspectives on Private Governance.” Socio-Economic Review 10 (1): 3–28.
Brooks, Mary R. 2004. “The Governance Structure of Ports.” Review of Network Economics 3 (2): 168–183.
Cahoon, Stephen. 2007. “Marketing Communications for Seaports: A Matter of Survival and Growth.” Maritime Policy
& Management 34 (2): 151–168.
Carbone, Valentina, Valerie Moatti, and Vincenzo Esposito Vinzi. 2012. “Mapping Corporate Responsibility and
Sustainable Supply Chains: An Exploratory Perspective.” Business Strategy and the Environment 21 (7):
475–494.
Cariou, Pierre, Claudio Ferrari, and Francesco Parola. 2014. “Addressing Special Challenges in Maritime and Port
Logistics.” Maritime Policy & Management 41 (5): 425–429.
Carroll, Archie B. 1999. “Corporate Social Responsibility Evolution of a Definitional Construct.” Business & Society 38
(3): 268–295.
Carter, Craig R., and Dale S. Rogers. 2008. “A Framework of Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Moving Toward
New Theory.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 38 (5): 360–387.
Castka, Pavel, Christopher J. Bamber, David J. Bamber, and John M. Sharp. 2004. “Integrating Corporate Social Respon-
sibility (CSR) into ISO Management Systems-in Search of a Feasible CR Management System Framework.” The
TQM Magazine 16 (3): 216–224.
Chang, Young-Tae. 2013. “Environmental Efficiency of Ports: A Data Envelopment Analysis Approach.” Maritime
Policy & Management 40 (5): 467–478.
Chlomoudis, Constantinos I., and Athanasios A. Pallis. 2002. European Union Port Policy: The Movement Towards a
Long-Term Strategy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Dacin, M. Tina, Jerry Goodstein, and W. Richard Scott. 2002. “Institutional Theory and Institutional Change:
Introduction to the Special Research Forum.” Academy of Management Journal 45: 43–56.
Darbra, R. M., N. Pittam, K. A. Royston, J. P. Darbra, and H. Journee. 2009. “Survey on Environmental Monitoring
Requirements of European Ports.” Journal of Environmental Management 90 (3): 1396–1403.
Darbra, R. M., A. Ronza, J. Casal, Timothy Andrew Stojanovic, and Chris Wooldridge. 2004. “The Self Diagnosis
Method: A New Methodology to Assess Environmental Management in Sea Ports.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 48
(5): 420–428.
Darbra, R. M., A. Ronza, Timothy Andrew Stojanovic, Chris Wooldridge, and J. Casal. 2005a. “A Procedure for
Identifying Significant Environmental Aspects in Sea Ports.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (8): 866–874.
Darbra, R. M., A. Ronza, Timothy Andrew Stojanovic, Chris Wooldridge, and J. Casal. 2005b. “A Procedure for
Identifying Significant Environmental Aspects in Sea Ports.” Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (8): 866–874.
Denktas-Sakar, Gul, and Cimen Karatas-Cetin. 2012. “Port Sustainability and Stakeholder Management in Supply
Chains: A Framework on Resource Dependence Theory.” The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics 28 (3):
301–319.
DiMaggio, Paul J., and Walter W. Powell. 1983. “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective
Rationality in Organizational Fields.” American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.
Dinwoodie, John, Sarah Tuck, and Harriet Knowles. 2012. “Assessing the Environmental Impact of Maritime Operations
in Ports: A Systems Approach.” In Maritime Logistics: Contemporary Issues, edited by Dong-Wook Song and
Photis Panayides, 263–283. Bingley: Emerald Group.
Dooms, Michael, and Alain Verbeke. 2007. “Stakeholder Management in Ports: A Conceptual Framework Integrating
Insights from Research in Strategy, Corporate Social Responsibility and Port Management.” Paper presented at the
International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Annual Conference, Athens, July 4–6.
Ducruet, César. 2007. “A Metageography of Port-City Relationships.” In Ports, Cities, and Global Supply Chains, edited
by James Wang, Daniel Olivier, Theo Notteboom, and Brian Slack, 157–172. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Elkington, John. 1997. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of Twenty First Century Business. North Mankato,
MN: Capstone.
ESPO. 2012. Green Guide: Towards Excellence in Port Environmental Management and Sustainability. Brussels:
European Seaport Organisation (ESPO).
20 M. Acciaro
Gibbs, David, Patrick Rigot-Muller, John Mangan, and Chandra Lalwani. 2014. “The Role of Seaports in End-to-end
Maritime Transport Chain Emissions.” Energy Policy 64: 337–348.
Gillman, Sidney. 2003. “Sustainability and National Policy in UK Port Development.” Maritime Policy & Management
30 (4): 275–291.
Goss, R. O. 1990. “Economic Policies and Seaports: Strategies for Port Authorities.” Maritime Policy & Management
17 (4): 273–287.
Goulielmos, Alexandros M., Venus Y. H. Lun, and Kee-Hung Lai. 2012. “Maritime Logistics in EU Green Ports and Short
Sea Shipping.” In Maritime Logistics: Contemporary Issues, edited by Dong-Wook Song and Photis Panayides,
245–261. Bingley: Emerald Group.
Grossmann, Iris. 2008. “Perspectives for Hamburg as a Port City in the Context of a Changing Global Environment.”
Geoforum 39 (6): 2062–2072.
Haezendonck, Elvira. 2000. “The Competitive Advantage of Seaports.” International Journal of Maritime Economics 2
(2): 69–82.
Haezendonck, Elvira. 2001. Essays on Strategy Analysis for Seaports. Leuven: Garant Uitgevers.
Haezendonck, Elvira, Chris Coeck, and Alain Verbeke. 2000. “The Competitive Position of Seaports: Introduction of the
Value Added Concept.” International Journal of Maritime Economics 2 (2): 107–118.
Haezendonck, Elvira, Alain Verbeke, Chris Coeck, Kevin Cullinane, and Wayne K. Talley. 2006. “Strategic Positioning
Analysis for Seaports.” Research in Transportation Economics 16 (1): 141–169.

Heaver, Trevor D. 1995. “The Implications of Increased Competition among Ports for Port Policy and Management.”
Maritime Policy and Management 22 (2): 125–133.
Henriques, Adrian, and Julie Richardson. eds. 2004. The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up? Abingdon: Routledge.
Hiranandani, Vijay. 2014. “Sustainable Development in Seaports: A Multi-case Study.” The WMU Journal of Maritime
Affairs 13: 127–172.
Ho, Mun Wai, and Kim Hin Ho. 2006. “Risk Management in Large Physical Infrastructure Investments: The Context of
Seaport Infrastructure Development and Investment.” Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (2): 140–168.
Hoyle, Brian S., David A. Pinder, and M. Sohail Husain. 1988. Revitalising the Waterfront. London: Belhaven Press.
Jacobs, Wouter, and Peter V. Hall. 2007. “What Conditions Supply Chain Strategies of Ports? The Case of Dubai.”
GeoJournal 68 (4): 327–342.
Juhel, Marc H. 2001. “Globalisation, Privatisation and Restructuring of Ports.” International Journal of Maritime
Economics 3 (2): 139–174.
Kibbeling, Mirjam I. 2010. “Creating Value in Supply Chains: Supplier’s Impact on Value for Customers, Society and
Shareholders.” PhD diss., Eindhoven University of Technology.
Klopott, Magdalena. 2013. “Restructuring of Environmental Management in Baltic Ports: Case of Poland.” Maritime
Policy & Management 40 (5): 439–450.
Lam, Jasmine Siu Lee, and Eddy Van de Voorde. 2012. Green Port Strategy for Sustainable Growth and Development.
Hong Kong: IFSPA.
Liao, Chun-Hsiung, Po-Hsing Tseng, Kevin Cullinane, and Chin-Shan Lu. 2010. “The Impact of an Emerging Port on
the Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Inland Container Transport: An Empirical Study of Taipei Port.” Energy Policy
38 (9): 5251–5257.
Liao, Chun-Hsiung, Po-Hsing Tseng, and Chin-Shan Lu. 2009. “Comparing Carbon Dioxide Emissions of Trucking and
Intermodal Container Transport in Taiwan.” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 14 (7):
493–496.
Lirn, Taih-cherng, Yen-Chun Jim Wu, and Yenming J. Chen. 2012. “Green Performance Criteria for Sustainable Ports in
Asia.” International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 43 (5/6): 427–451.
Lu, Guanyi, and Xenophon A. Koufteros. 2014. “Adopting Supply Chain Security Practices for the Transport Logistics:
Institutional Effects and Performance Drivers.” International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics 6 (6):
611–631.
Lu, Chin-Shan, Wen-Hong Liu, and Chris Wooldridge. 2014. “Maritime Environmental Governance and Green
Shipping.” Maritime Policy & Management 41 (2): 131–133.
Lun, Y. H. Venus. 2011. “Green Management Practices and Firm Performance: A Case of Container Terminal
Operations.” Resources, Conservation and Recycling 55 (6): 559–566.
Lun, Y. H. Venus, Christina W. Y. Wong, Kee-Hung Lai, and T. C. E. Cheng. 2008. “Institutional Perspective on the
Adoption of Technology for the Security Enhancement of Container Transport.” Transport Reviews 28 (1): 21–33.
Luo, Meifeng, and Tsz Leung Yip. 2013. “Ports and the Environment.” Maritime Policy & Management 40 (5): 401–403.
Mangan, John, Chandra Lalwani, and Brian Fynes. 2008. “Port-Centric Logistics.” International Journal of Logistics
Management 19 (1): 29–41.
Marlow, Peter B., and Ana C. Paixão Casaca. 2003. “Measuring Lean Ports Performance.” International Journal of
Transport Management 1 (4): 189–202.
Matten, Dirk, and Jeremy Moon. 2008. “‘Implicit’ and ‘Explicit’ CSR: A Conceptual Framework for a Comparative
Understanding of Corporate Social Responsibility.” Academy of Management Review 33 (2): 404–424.
McKinnon, Alan. 2015. “The Role of Government in Promoting Green Logistics.” In Green Logistics: Improving the
Environmental Sustainability of Logistics, edited by Alan McKinnon, Michael Browne, Anthony Whiteing and Maja
Piecyk. 3rd ed., 3–30. London: Kogan Page.
Meersman, Hilde M. A. 2005. “Port Investments in an Uncertain Environment.” Research in Transportation Economics
13: 279–298.
Meersman, Hilde, and Eddy Van de Voorde. 2010. “Port Management, Operation and Competition: A Focus on North
Europe.” In The Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business, edited by Costas Th Grammenos. 2nd ed., 891–
906. London: LLP.
Morgan, Glenn, John Campbell, Colin Crouch, Ove Kaj Pedersen, and Richard Whitley. 2012. “Introduction.” In The
Oxford Handbook of Comparative Institutional Analysis, edited by Glenn Morgan, John Campbell, Colin Crouch,
Ove Kaj Pedersen, and Richard Whitley, 1–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ng, Koi Yu. 2006. “Assessing the Attractiveness of Ports in the North European Container Transhipment Market: An
Agenda for Future Research in Port Competition.” Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (3): 234–250.
Notteboom, Theo, César Ducruet, and Peter W. De Langen, eds. 2009. Ports in Proximity: Competition and Coordination
among Adjacent Seaports. Aldershot: Ashgate.
OECD. 2011. Environmental Impacts of International Shipping: The Role of Ports, edited by Nils Axel Braathen. Paris:
OECD.
Paixão, Ana Cristina, and Peter Bernard Marlow. 2003. “Fourth Generation Ports – A Question of Agility?” International
Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management 33 (4): 355–376.
Pantouvakis, Angelos, and Athanassios Dimas. 2010. “Does ISO 9000 Series Certification Matter for the Financial
Performance of Ports? Some Preliminary Findings from Europe.” Maritime Policy & Management 37 (5): 505–522.
Pawlik, Thomas, Philine Gaffron, and Patric A. Drewes. 2012. “Corporate Social Responsibility in Maritime Logistics.”
In Maritime Logistics: Contemporary Issues, edited by Dong-Wook Song and Photis Panayides, 205–226. Bingley:
Emerald.
Peloza, John, and Jingzhi Shang. 2011. “How Can Corporate Social Responsibility Activities Create Value for
Stakeholders? A Systematic Review.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 39 (1): 117–135.
Pickett-Baker, Josephine, and Ritsuko Ozaki. 2008. “Pro-environmental Products: Marketing Influence on Consumer
Purchase Decision.” Journal of Consumer Marketing 25 (5): 281–293.
Robinson, Ross. 2002. “Ports as Elements in Value-Driven Chain Systems: The New Paradigm.” Maritime Policy &
Management 29 (3): 241–255.
Roso, Violeta. 2007. “Evaluation of the Dry Port Concept from an Environmental Perspective: A Note.” Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 12 (7): 523–527.
Roso, Violeta. 2008. “Factors Influencing Implementation of a Dry Port.” International Journal of Physical Distribution
& Logistics Management 38 (10): 782–798.
Scott, W. Richard. 2004. “Reflections on a Half-Century of Organizational Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 30:
1–21.
Shiau, Tzay-An, and Chia-Chin Chuang. 2015. “Social Construction of Port Sustainability Indicators: A Case Study of
Keelung Port.” Maritime Policy & Management 41 (1): 1–17.
Swanson, Lee A., and David D. Zhang. 2012. “Perspectives on Corporate Responsibility and Sustainable Development.”
Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal 23 (6): 630–639.
UNCTAD. 1999. “Technical Note: Fourth-generation Port.” Ports Newsletter 19: 9–12.
UNCTAD. 2014. Review of Maritime Transport, 2013. Geneva: UNCTAD.
Van de Voorde, Eddy, and Willy Winkelmans. 2002. “A General Introduction to Port Competition and Management.”
In Port Competitiveness: An Economic and Legal Analysis of the Factors Determining the Competitiveness of
Seaports, edited by Hilde Meersman, Eddie Van de Voorde, Eric Van Hooydonk, Alain Verbeke, Willy Winkelmans,
and Marc A. Huybrecht, 1–15. Antwerp: Editions De Boeck.
Van Marrewijk, Marcel. 2003. “Concepts and Definitions of CSR and Corporate Sustainability: Between Agency and
Communion.” Journal of Business Ethics 44 (2–3): 95–105.
Verhoeven, Patrick. 2010. “A Review of Port Authority Functions: Towards a Renaissance?” Maritime Policy &
Management 37 (3): 247–270.
Visser, Wayne, and Nick Tolhurst, eds. 2010. The World Guide to CSR: A Country-by-Country Analysis of Corporate
Sustainability and Responsibility. Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Walley, N., and B. Whitehead. 1994. “It’s Not Easy Being Green.” Harvard Business Review 72 (3): 46–52.
Wiegmans, Bart W., and Harry Geerlings. 2010. “Sustainable Port Innovations: Barriers and Enablers for Successful
Implementation.” World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research 3 (3): 230–250.
Wiegmans, Bart W., and Erik Louw. 2011. “Changing Port–City Relations at Amsterdam: A New Phase at the Interface?”
Journal of Transport Geography 19 (4): 575–583.
Wooldridge, Christopher F., Christopher McMullen, and Vicki Howe. 1999. “Environmental Management of Ports and
Harbours – Implementation of Policy Through Scientific Monitoring.” Marine Policy 23 (4): 413–425.
Yap, Wei Yim, and Jasmine Siu Lee Lam. 2013. “80 Million-Twenty-Foot-Equivalent-Unit Container Port? Sustainability
Issues in Port and Coastal Development.” Ocean & Coastal Management 71: 13–25.
Yin, Robert K. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Zucker, Lynne G. 1987. “Institutional Theories of Organization.” Annual Review of Sociology 13: 443–464.

Corporate Responsibility and Value Creation in The Port Sector Michele Acciaro (2015)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Corporate Responsibility and Value Creation in The Port Sector Michele Acciaro (2015)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Mount Royal University]

On: 01 May 2015, At: 06:07

International Journal of Logistics

Corporate responsibility and value

Click for updates

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2015.1027150

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Corporate responsibility and value creation in the port sector

(Received 23 October 2014; accepted 3 March 2015)

© 2015 Taylor & Francis

2.1. CR in the port sector

2.2. CR and value creation in the port sector

3. The institutional theory perspective on CR in the port sector

3.1. Institutional theory

from legitimacy (Scott 2004).

3.2. Coercive structures

3.3. Mimetic structures

Proposition 2 The implementation of CR practices by port authorities will increase as the

3.4. Normative structures

3.5. Competitive structures

Proposition 4 CR practices can arise as a consequence of competitive pressure and result in

4. CR experiences in 10 major ports

4.1. Selection of the 10 ports

4.2. CR strategies for the 10 selected ports

the workplace. Senior management addresses sustainability in supplier selection, financ-

4.3. Comparison of CR policies

Table 1. Comparison of CR actions in 10 world ports.

Proposition 2 The implementation of CR practices by port authorities will increase as the

There is clearly a regional clustering of CR practices with a stronger focus on CR reporting in

Proposition 4 CR practices can arise as a consequence of competitive pressure and result in

Analysis for Seaports.” Research in Transportation Economics 16 (1): 141–169.

You might also like