See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/325565619

A sustainable maritime balanced scorecard applied to the Egyptian Port of

Alexandria

Article  in  Supply Chain Forum · June 2018

DOI: 10.1080/16258312.2018.1481716

CITATIONS READS

2 366

2 authors:

Lucie Sislian Anicia Jaegler

Arab Academy for Science, Technology & Maritime Transport Kegde business school, Talence, France
9 PUBLICATIONS   33 CITATIONS    42 PUBLICATIONS   137 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sustainable supply chain management View project

ConWip View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucie Sislian on 09 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal

ISSN: 1625-8312 (Print) 1624-6039 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tscf20

A sustainable maritime balanced scorecard

applied to the Egyptian Port of Alexandria

Lucie Sislian & Anicia Jaegler

To cite this article: Lucie Sislian & Anicia Jaegler (2018) A sustainable maritime balanced
scorecard applied to the Egyptian Port of Alexandria, Supply Chain Forum: An International
Journal, 19:2, 101-110, DOI: 10.1080/16258312.2018.1481716

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2018.1481716

Published online: 04 Jun 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tscf20
SUPPLY CHAIN FORUM: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
2018, VOL. 19, NO. 2, 101–110
https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2018.1481716

A sustainable maritime balanced scorecard applied to the Egyptian Port of

Alexandria
Lucie Sisliana and Anicia Jaeglerb
a
Arab Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt; bCenter of Excellence in Supply Chain, Kedge
Business School, Bordeaux, France

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The multifaceted systems of seaports and the activities around them generate major envir- Maritime transportation;
onmental impacts. Green management objectives and goals are thus of great importance. port sustainability; maritime
The main aim of this study is to develop a sustainable maritime balanced scorecard taking balanced scorecard;
structural equation
into account economic, social, and environmental indicators. We examine the environmental
modelling; sustainability
management strategies that can reduce the ecological footprint in the case of the Port of
Alexandria and identify the most significant environmental aspects of this seaport. Applying a
sustainable maritime balanced scorecard and structural equation modelling, we show that
the Port of Alexandria could reduce its gas emissions by implementing a more environmen-
tally, socially, and economically friendly approach to port operations over the long run.

Introduction countries in terms of container traffic. Egypt’s container

traffic status reflects the comparative advantage it
The international maritime industry needs global stan-
enjoys as a regional hub for trans-shipment (UNCTAD
dards and regulations to control local and global
2015). The Port of Alexandria is considered the most
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). Once an emissions
important in terms of vessels received by Egyptian
limit has been set by the local port, emissions can be
ports, around 26 percent of total vessels in 2014
reduced by ensuring shipping companies not only use
(Egyptian Ministry of Transport 2014). The
lower speeds and low-sulphur fuel, but also through
Mediterranean is a sensitive zone and still not a
introducing scrubber technologies and other methods
Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA). As such, the
that contribute to the overall reduction of Nitrogen
case study of a Mediterranean port is a relevant context
Oxides (NOx), Sulphur Oxides (SOx), GHG emissions,
in anticipation of new regulations such as SECA.
and Particulate Matter (PM).
The article is structured as follows: Section 1 pro-
Environmental concerns are a crucial issue for
vides the theoretical background on maritime sustain-
ports. Hence, in this article, we seek to design a
ability and the SMBSC. Section 2 presents the problem
sustainable maritime balanced scorecard (SMBSC) for
statement, the research questions, and our contribu-
the Port of Alexandria and provide new insights for
tions. Section 3 develops a theoretical SMBSC for the
conceptualizing the traditional balanced scorecard
Port of Alexandria. Section 4 analyses this SMBSC first
(BSC) to include port sustainability. A BSC is a useful
through an exploratory investigation and then
tool to assess and improve supply chain performance
through structural equation modelling (SEM). Finally,
(Jenkins, Ibarra, and Roussel 2001) and thus evaluate
Section 5 discusses the research questions and pro-
and improve the sustainability of maritime transporta-
vides the conclusions.
tion and port activities.
This research constitutes a comprehensive case study
using two different and interdependent approaches
Theoretical background
(SMBSC and structural equation modelling) to identify
the relationships among the different balanced score- Theoretically, port sustainability entails improving
card perspectives in the case of the Port of Alexandria. performance along three dimensions: economic,
Egypt is among the largest 20 developing countries in environmental, and social (Figge et al. 2012). The
terms of container traffic. According to the Review of concept of sustainability in ports requires balancing
Maritime Transport 2014, Egyptian ports ranked 18th in financial performance and environmental and social
the world in 2004 and 17th in 2014 in terms of container responsibility (Panayides 2006; Acciaro 2012), the
throughput and among the largest 57 developing three pillars of sustainability (Jaegler and Sarkis 2014).

CONTACT Anicia Jaegler anicia.jaegler@kedgebs.com

2018 KEDGE Business School
102 L. SISLIAN AND A. JAEGLER
According to Hiranandani (2014), the concept of
sustainability requires ports to acquire new cap-
abilities and apply new practices. Air pollution is
considered the main sustainability problem for
ports (Chen, Govindan, and Golias 2013; Chiu,
Lin, and Ting 2014; Hiranandani 2014; Wang and
Corbett 2007; Wang, Corbett, and Winebrake 2007;
Wang 2013; Yang and Chang 2013; Yang and Lin
2013; Yang et al. 2013). The basic aim of sustain-
ability in ports is to increase financial perfor-
mance, reduce CO2 emissions, find safer ways to
provide logistic services, save the environment,
and reduce the consumption of natural resources
for future generations (Notteboom and Rodrigue
2005; Gibbs et al. 2014).
Through corresponding improvements in sustain-
ability, ports can achieve greater economic stability
and continuous improvements in performance under
the prevailing environmental regulations (United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development
2011) encouraging ports to implement social and
environmental policies (Notteboom and Vernimmen
2009). The BSC enables integrating the three dimen-
sions of sustainability and offers ports the opportunity
to embrace a sustainability approach. A value-based
approach to port sustainability enables simulta-
neously achieving economic, environmental, and
social goals (Figge et al. 2012; Schaltegger and
Burritt 2000).
Applied to port and maritime activities, this
approach allows integrating the triple bottom line
framework with a BSC, thereby providing new insights
for port sustainability and achieving an overall SMBSC.
The present study seeks to implement an SMBSC for
one of the most important ports in the Mediterranean
and test the significance of the relationships among
the various components of the SMBSC through SEM.
Problem statement and research questions
The main research question guiding this study is: To what
extent can the Port of Alexandria benefit from implement-
ing a sustainability policy and integrate it into more sus-
tainability-friendly network design operations?
To this end, we develop an approach for the more
efficient and effective management of port activities.
This would lead to positive sustainability effects benefit-
ting the surrounding community in the long run. We
focus on the two main points of port sustainability and
network design. The numerous countermeasures intro-
duced to improve maritime activities in many ports world-
wide are generally considered successful. To answer our
main research question, this article introduces a new
approach for a BSC incorporating port sustainability,
including environmental and social indicators.
Through this study, we also seek to answer some
further specific research questions: Which sustainabil-
ity objectives have been accomplished and which
sustainability processes should be further improved?
What steps should the port take in view of future
sustainability development? To answer these ques-
tions we develop an SMBSC that enhances the tradi-
tional BSC by including sustainability indicators.
Implementing an SMBSC for the port of
alexandria
In today’s fast-changing environment, ports dedicate a
significant amount of time, energy, human and financial
resources to assessing and determining the efforts to
achieve their strategic goals (Notteboom and Lam 2014;
Park and Min 2014). Port sustainability can be included
within the framework of business activities. However,
ports frequently face several obstacles in their efforts to
develop performance measurement systems that deal
with all the important issues. What is still lacking is a
system that first balances the historical accuracy of finan-
cial measures with future performance, and second, pro-
vides assistance to implement the strategies. We selected
the Port of Alexandria for the present study as it is one of
the most important in Egypt and in the Mediterranean,
and sustainability is a key concern for this port.
The sustainable maritime balanced scorecard
(SMBSC) performance measurement system is a tool
that is capable of providing solutions for the afore-
mentioned issues and at the same time incorporate
sustainability indicators using established financial
procedures to evaluate the prospects of the port’s
current and future value, including its surrounding
community, suppliers, workers, technology, innova-
tion, and internal processes (Alemany 1999).
Reasons for implementing an SMBSC in the port
of alexandria
When a port’s operations achieve profits above
the opportunity costs, it acquires a comparative
advantage, and positive economic added value
(Beth 2007). The adoption of a performance mea-
surement system is necessary to achieve the stra-
tegic objectives. The BSC that Kaplan and Norton
(1992; 1996) developed can assist ports in dealing
with the two following issues:
● Measuring a port’s performance in relation to its
objectives.
● Successfully implementing a port’s strategy.
Balance is the key characteristic that the BSC
system can guarantee (Faust 1985) when
assessing financial and non-financial indica-
tors, and the internal and external compo-
nents of the port.
 SUPPLY CHAIN FORUM: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 103

Table 1. Implementing an SMBSC for the Port of Alexandria.

FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE
Strategies: Profit maximisation, port activities optimisation
Actions for strategy implementation Measures
Maximisation of profitability Optimise route duration (reducing costs)
Net profit
Capital productivity Level of technology quality, control, automation, ROI
SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
Strategy: Protect the surrounding environment of the port
Actions for strategy implementation Measures
Well-being Worker turnover
Working conditions Fatigue and boredom
General working environment
Security Health and safety
Carbon footprint CO2 emissions
Sulphur dioxides SOx emissions
Nitrogen oxides NOx emissions
Particulate matter PM emissions
INTERNAL PROCESSES PERSPECTIVE
Strategies: Improvement of port services provided, fast and efficient port services
Actions for strategy implementation Measures
Creation of innovative port services Reception of new services
Effective communication with the local community Number of performance research studies
Number of informative meetings
Efficient and effective systems development Budget divergence
Time divergence
INNOVATION AND WORKER LEARNING PERSPECTIVE
Strategy: Ready and motivated personnel
Actions for strategy implementation Measures
Creation and maintenance Worker survey of good working environment
Improvement of critical skills and qualifications Availability of strategic capabilities
Number of specialised seminars
Cost of seminars

SMBSC perspectives the traditional BSC as a starting point, then enhancing

it and offering new insights to existing literature.
The BSC includes the following elements: perspec-
Table 1 presents the SMBSC that accomplishes the
tives, objectives, measures, targets, and initiatives.
four strategic perspectives in the case of the Port of
The perspectives involve one or more objectives to
Alexandria. The financial and the socio-environmental
measure. The initiatives usually affect an individual
perspectives are based on our mathematical model of
or a set of objectives, measures, and targets
the network design problem (Sislian and Jaegler 2016;
(Berkman 2002). The financial measures offer infor-
Sislian, Jaegler, and Cariou 2016). The main focus of
mation on the results of activities that have already
this SMBSC is not only on the financial and socio-
been completed. Beyond financial indicators, these
environmental perspectives (society and environ-
are complemented by useful measures that concern
ment), but also on the internal processes (port opera-
social satisfaction, internal processes, innovation
tions), and innovation and worker learning
and education, worker learning and growth
perspectives (employees). The present integrative
(Berkman 2002). In other words, non-financial indi-
SMBSC focuses on the port’s shareholders and most
cators are also deemed important. The BSC can
importantly the stakeholders affected by the port’s
provide answers to four basic questions:
operations and activities. For each perspective, we
propose strategies for how the dimension will enable
● How does the surrounding community and
reaching the overall goal for the Port of Alexandria.
society consider the port’s operations? (Social-
The chosen measures are the most appropriate indi-
Environmental Perspective)
cators to achieve the specific dimension. Furthermore,
● What are the internal processes of the port’s
Table 1 proposes the strategy implementation
operations that should be improved to satisfy
actions. Based on these measures, the questionnaire
society’s needs? (Internal Processes Perspective)
asked the appropriate questions to test the SMBSC.
● How can the Port of Alexandria accomplish its
First, for the financial perspective, profitability, capital
financial objectives? (Financial Perspective)
productivity, and the main indicators include the
● Can the Port of Alexandria become more effec-
costs, net profit, and return on investment (ROI).
tive and create value? (Innovation and Worker
Second, the socio-environmental perspective focuses
Learning Perspective)
on wellbeing, working conditions, security, and gas
emissions. Third, the internal processes perspective
In this study, we develop an SMBSC to test its feasi- considers the improvement of port services, fast and
bility for the case of the Port of Alexandria based on efficient port services via the creation of innovative
104 L. SISLIAN AND A. JAEGLER
services, effective communications with the local
community, and efficient and effective systems devel-
opment. Lastly, the innovation and worker learning
perspective strategy promotes ready and motivated
personnel with the related measures.
Butler and Henderson (2011) and Figge et al. (2012)
describe different ways of dealing with a sustainability
concept either by introducing sustainability as a fifth
perspective or integrating sustainability measures
throughout the four perspectives. An SMBSC system
should include a combination of causal and output
indicators, given that output indicators without causal
indicators do not show how the port’s objectives are
being accomplished, and causal indicators without
output indicators may indicate short-term improve-
ments (Kaplan and Norton 1992; Kaplan and Norton
1996). Output indicators represent past performance
and cannot project future output with clarity. Thus,
causal indicators serve as guides for the performance
of the output indicators, but cannot show whether
these improvements enhanced the results for all inter-
ested parties (Kaplan and Norton 1992; 1996).
To implement the SMBSC, the port should set its
objectives, such as time, quality, efficiency, and servi-
cing, and then translate these into specific measures.
The port should also be sensitive to the cost of opera-
tions (financial perspective).
Based on the proposed research model shown in
Figure 1 that summarises the different dimensions of
the SMBSC as identified in the previous section, we
develop our hypotheses.
Figure 1. Sustainable maritime balanced scorecard and structural equation model.
To conclude, the SMBSC is a powerful tool for port
managers to create a competitive advantage and
achieve higher port performance. We therefore for-
mulate the following six hypotheses that we tested
with a structural equation model (SEM) based on the
research model (Figure 2):
H1. The better the port’s social and environmental
indicators, the higher the port’s productivity.
H2. Internal process practices have a positive impact
on the port’s financial performance.
H3. Internal process practices have a positive impact
on innovation and worker learning.
H4. Internal process practices have a positive impact
on society and the port environment.
H5. The higher the innovation and worker learning,
the higher the port’s profitability.
H6. The higher the innovation and worker learning,
the better the social and environmental indicators.
Figure 2 summarises the research framework
identifying the independent, control, and depen-
dent variables with the respective hypotheses
implemented for the case study and based on
Figure 1.

Figure 2. Research framework.
Exploratory investigation
The best method to gather primary data is a struc-
tured questionnaire and conducting an exploratory
investigation to discover new elements and analyse
these to provide useful recommendations for the port
(Yin 2013). Questionnaires are used to collect data
quickly and provide the opportunity to receive feed-
back from all participants, encouraging openness and
honesty. Another advantage of a structured question-
naire is that the data can be processed by software
packages such as Excel and SPSS.
We distributed the questionnaire to the Port of
Alexandria employees and the surrounding neigh-
bourhood with a total 100 responses. Prior to board-
ing the ships to complete the survey, some
preparatory work had to be undertaken. The first
stage was to arrange access to the container ships.
Before beginning the survey, the captain of each ship
was informed that any data collected would only be
used for scientific research, and no information about
individual ships would be published. Once on board
the ships at berth, the questionnaires were completed
by different individuals. In most cases, the answers
were provided by the chief engineers and the captain
Table 2. Results for financial indicators.
FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE
Strategies: Profit maximisation, port activities optimisation
Actions for strategy Measures
implementation
Maximisation of profitability Optimise route duration
(decreasing costs)
Net profit
Capital productivity Level of technology
Quality control
Automation
Return on investment
SUPPLY CHAIN FORUM: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 105
or a master able to read the metering instruments on
the bridge and in the machinery room. Once the
paper versions of the questionnaires were completed,
the data were transferred to the MS Excel® format
(see the Appendix).
We tested the theoretical SMBSC as proposed in
Table 1 through the questionnaire for the years
2014–2015 and the first three quarters of 2016
(January–September). The questions concerned all
the financial and non-financial indicators identified
in Table 1 for all four SMBSC perspectives. Testing
the responses provided us with the results of the
indicators to build a strong SMBSC in the field of
port activities and operations.
Financial perspective
The financial perspective mainly consists of finan-
cial indicators, which reflect the port’s desired
economic goals. The Port of Alexandria’s goals
are profit maximisation and the optimisation of
port activities. Table 2 describes the results of
the financial axis based on the questionnaire.
Increase or decrease between Increase or decrease between 2015 and the first
2014 and 2015 three quarters of 2016
+12% +19%
+7% +11%
106 L. SISLIAN AND A. JAEGLER

As Table 2 shows, an increase in profit from 12% to
19% in the last year was the top financial measure,
and an increase in capital productivity from 7% to
11%. Although this shows a clear improvement in
the financial indicators, the other indicators of the
SMBSC needed to be tested to establish whether the
port’s strategy was successful.
Social and environmental perspective
The objective of this perspective is to obtain a com-
prehensive list of all strategically relevant social and
environmental indicators (see Table 3).
Table 3 shows that working conditions have been
worse for port workers since the turnover increased,
and they were generally less motivated between 2014
and 2016. Moreover, gas emissions have increased,
and it would seem that no clear procedures to control
these emissions are in place as they increase from
year to year. A green management approach is also
lacking, and the port does not undertake tangible
environmental protection initiatives.
Internal processes perspective
Enhanced port services have become more important
through increased interest in creativity and innova-
tion. In the case of the Port of Alexandria, commu-
nication with the surrounding community is almost
non-existent; there are no informative meetings or
performance research seminars to increase the effec-
tiveness of communications with the local commu-
nity, as Table 4 shows.
The development of efficient and effective systems
is crucial for the Port of Alexandria to improve its
internal operations and achieve higher productivity
and efficiency in the medium and long term.
Innovation and worker learning perspective
This final SMBSC perspective is shown in the results of
the questionnaire in Table 5.
There was a sharp decrease in the number of sur-
veys on the working environment and specialised
seminars offered, both of which are important for
innovation and education for port workers.
There is no link among the different SMBSC per-
spectives when applied to the Port of Alexandria,
making it difficult to clearly identify the achievement
of the perspectives’ strategic objectives, which leads
to failure in implementing the port’s strategy. There
appears to be a lack of interest in the overall vision of
the port. As the financial indicators show, the port has
achieved higher profitability over the past few years,
but has done so through sacrificing innovation, crea-
tivity, learning, worker motivation, and, most impor-
tantly, environmental gas emissions, which are
increasing at an alarming rate.
Structural equation model
To test the different hypotheses, we used SEM with
SPSS 20.0 software. SEM allows concurrently testing
an integrated set of dependent links while accounting
for measurement errors (Anderson and Gerbing 1988;
Bentler 1980). We used the maximum likelihood

Table 3. Results for social and environmental indicators.

SOCIO-ENVIRONMENTAL PERSPECTIVE
Actions for strategy Measures Increase or decrease between Increase or decrease between 2015 and the first three
implementation 2014 and 2015 quarters of 2016
Well-being Worker turnover +8% +15%
Work condition Fatigue and boredom −5% −12%
General working
environment
Security Health and safety −4% −6.7%
Carbon footprint CO2 emissions +2.20% +3.40%
Sulphur dioxides SOx emissions +2.20% +2.93%
Nitrogen oxides NOx emissions +2.03% +2.41%
Particulate matter PM emissions +4.11% +6.21%

Table 4. Results for internal processes indicators.

INTERNAL PROCESSES PERSPECTIVE
Strategies: Improvement of port services, increased speed and efficiency of port services
Actions for strategy Measures Increase or decrease between Increase or decrease between 2015 and the first
implementation 2014 and 2015 three quarters of 2016
Creation of innovative port Reception of new services +3% +2.4%
services
Effective communication with the Number of performance −5.6% −8.2%
local community research studies
Number of informative
meetings
Efficient and effective Budget divergence −12.8% −21.9%
systems development Time divergence
 SUPPLY CHAIN FORUM: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 107

Table 5. Results for innovation and worker learning indicators.

INNOVATION-WORKER LEARNING PERSPECTIVE
Strategy: Ready and motivated personnel
Actions for strategy Measures Increase or decrease between Increase or decrease between 2015 and the first
implementation 2014 and 2015 three quarters of 2016
Creation and maintenance Worker survey −18% −15.4%
of good working
environment
Improvement of critical skills and Number of specialised −6.2% −8.7%
qualifications seminars
Cost of seminars
Availability of strategic
capabilities

Table 6. Descriptive statistics for the SMBSC indicators.

Number Variables Mean SD Correlation 1 Correlation 2 Correlation 3 Correlation 4
1 Financial performance 3.24 1.22 1 0.692 0.820* 0.399
2 Social and environmental 1.76 1.07 0.692 1 −0.450* −0.621*
3 Internal processes 2.88 1.41 0.820* −0.450* 1 0.861
4 Innovation and worker learning 2.65 1.67 0.399 −0.621* 0.861 1
Note: *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).

Figure 3. Sustainable maritime balanced scorecard and structural equation model.

estimation procedure, which is often preferred in
management and social sciences studies (Ping 1996).
The following subsections present the results for each
of the four perspectives.
The link among the various SMBSC perspectives
should be established before applying and testing
SEM. Table 6 presents the descriptive statistics for
the SMBSC indicators.
In Figure 3, the standardised path coefficients are
presented along with the arrows and the squared
multiple correlations above the variables.
The social-environmental indicators, internal pro-
cesses, innovation and worker learning positively
affect financial performance (thus supporting H1, H2,
and H5). Internal process practices have quite a strong
impact on innovation and worker learning (support-
ing H3). However, the impact is very different with the
internal process practices – innovation and worker
learning with the local community and the environ-
ment – which negatively affect the environment, as
shown by the path coefficients −0.242 and −0.365,
respectively. Therefore, H4 and H6 are rejected.
The Port of Alexandria seems to achieve profits and
optimising port operations, but this result is not
linked to the other three perspectives, which must
be improved to achieve a fully integrated SMBSC.
The port itself has not established an SMBSC, and
has little interest in a sustainability approach and in
environmental protection.
Discussion and conclusion
Through this article, we have attempted to provide new
insights on the traditional BSC in the maritime field
through the implementation of our SMBSC tool that
incorporates the port sustainability triple bottom line
framework with four SMBSC perspectives. The applica-
tion to the Egyptian Port of Alexandria case confirms
that this tool is easily implemented and tested, as well as
an excellent tool for port managers and operators to
help them achieve higher productivity and profitability
while improving their social and environmental sustain-
ability indicators in the long run.
108 L. SISLIAN AND A. JAEGLER
Indeed, ports suffer from air pollution as a result of
emissions produced by ships during their time at the
port. A comprehensive assessment of ship emissions at
berth is a critical first step to understand the impact of
such emissions on air quality and community health.
The SMBSC has been shown to be a helpful tool that
enables the efficient scheduling of operations to reduce
the time ships spend in the port and increase the
terminal’s productivity in terms of costs, the environ-
ment, and society as a whole.
We highlight the following outcomes in answering
the research questions set out at the beginning of this
article:
● Which sustainability objectives have been accom-
plished and which sustainability processes should
be further improved?
We provided the port with valuable information to
use in emissions and fuel planning. We collected
empirical evidence for all the SMBSC perspectives by
setting the different emission controls. After the initial
investment in technologies, there are few administra-
tive costs or efforts required for shipping companies
or port operators.
The complete correctness of electronic information
means that emissions performance reporting is fair
and transparent. Furthermore, the data on emissions
per ship and per company are collected electronically
on a timely basis.
Relieving the port workers, company staff, and
regulatory authorities of paperwork helps them use
the technology and systems on the ships to daily
capture emissions data.
What steps should the port take in view of future
sustainability development?
Based on the questionnaires and the subsequent
intensive discussions, energy consumption should be
reduced by 50% between 2017 and 2025. Zero carbon
dioxide emissions must be achieved by 2025. All rele-
vant purchasing of goods and services must include
environmental requirements by 2017.
The following recommendations were made to the
Port of Alexandria authorities. First, a new department
should be established for maritime pollution relating
to all green management issues for port operations.
The port should also encourage the establishment of
private companies to purify the pollution loads from
solid materials and drainage waste for facilities.
Moreover, there is an urgent need to upgrade the
port infrastructure in addition to the trade infrastruc-
ture, which is a prerequisite for competitiveness
(USAID 2014). Finally, wider use of automation is
needed, especially given that the use of EDI (electro-
nic data interchange) is likely to enhance FDI (foreign
direct investments) and reduce transaction costs asso-
ciated with different port activities. Recent studies
show that automation is still incomplete in Egyptian
ports and that its introduction will result in significant
positive developments in terms of facilitating port
and customs services, including reducing the cargo
clearance time (USAID 2014). The Egyptian govern-
ment could make use of available international
funds allocated to trade facilitation to enhance its
port automation plans. However, the introduction of
automation should be balanced against the expected
negative impact on labour. A cost-benefit analysis
should be undertaken on these effects.
This article provides a starting point to integrate port
sustainability indicators into an SMBSC, indicators that
can be measured in future research by adding the fifth
dimension of sustainability and implementing the
SMBSC as a decision-making tool for maritime ports.
Finally, additional hypotheses could be tested other
than those presented in this paper, such as, for example,
the impact of workers’ learning on the port’s innovation
and then its effect on the port’s overall performance.
Balancing the various dimensions is fundamental and
should be addressed in future research studies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
Notes on contributors
Lucie Sislian is currently an Assistant Professor at the
College of Management and Technology in the Arab
Academy for Science and Technology and Maritime
Transport, Egypt. She holds a PhD in Management from
France. Her research interests are in sustainable supply
chain management and logistics.
Anicia JAEGLER is Professor and Head of the Department of
Operations Management and Information Systems and head
of the Sustainable Supply Chain Laboratory at the Supply
Chain Center of Excellence at KEDGE Business School. Her
research focus on sustainable supply chain management in
relation to business issues.
References
Acciaro, M. 2012. “Environmental Social Responsibility in
Shipping: Is It Here to Stay?” The Quarterly Newsletter of
the International Association of Maritime Economists 32 (1):
27–30.
Alemany, J. 1999. “Port Planning and Its Urban Impact.” Paper
Presented at the Port Planning and City/Port Relations
Conference, Genoa, Italy.
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation
Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-
Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–423.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411.
Bentler, P. M. 1980. “Multivariate Analysis with Latent Variables:
Causal Modeling.” Annual Review of Psychology 31 (2): 419–
456. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.31.020180.002223.

Berkman, E. 2002. “How to Use the Balanced Scorecard.” CIO
Magazine, May 15. Accessed 10 January 2015. http://
www.cio.com/archive/051502/scorecard.html.
Beth, H. L. 2007. “Developments in Shipping and Their Effects on
Ports.” In H.L.Beth (ed.), Port Management Textbook
Containerization. Bremen: Institute of Shipping Economics.
Butler, J. B., and S. H. Henderson. 2011. “Sustainability and the
Balanced Scorecard: Integrating Green Measures into
Business Reporting.” Management Accounting Quarterly 12: 2.
Chen, G., K. Govindan, and M. M. Golias. 2013. “Reducing Truck
Emissions at Container Terminals in a Low Carbon Economy:
Proposal of a Queueing-Based Bi-Objective Model for
Optimizing Truck Arrival Pattern.” Transportation Research
Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 55: 3–22.
doi:10.1016/j.tre.2013.03.008.
Chiu, R., L. Lin, and S. Ting. 2014. “Evaluation of Green Port
Factors and Performance: A Fuzzy AHP Analysis.”
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 50 (2): 48–74.
Egyptian Ministry of Transport. 2014. “Egyptian Ports
Bulletin, Eleventh Edition.” Egyptian Maritime Data Bank,
March 2014. Alexandria, Egypt: Maritime Transport
Sector. Ministry of Transport.
Faust, P. (1985). “Multimodal Transport.” Port Management
Textbook Containerization. Institute of Shipping
Economics, Bremen.
Figge, F., T. Hahn, S. Schaltegger, and M. Wagner. 2012. “The
Sustainability Scorecard: Theory and Application of a Tool
for value-Based Sustainability Management.” Conference
proceedings for the Greening of Industry Network
Conference, Gothenburg Corporate Social Responsibility
– Governance for Sustainability.
Gibbs, D., P. Rigot-Muller, J. Mangan, and C. Lalwani. 2014.
“The Role of Seaports in End-to-End Maritime Transport
Chain Emissions.” Energy Policy 4 (2014): 337–348.
doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2013.09.024.
Hiranandani, V. 2014. “Sustainable Development in Seaports: A
Multi-Case Study.” WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs 13 (1):
127–172. doi:10.1007/s13437-013-0040-y.
Jaegler, A., and J. Sarkis. 2014. “The Theory and Practice of
Sustainable Supply Chains.” Supply Chain Forum: An
International Journal 15 (1): 2–5. doi:10.1080/
16258312.2014.11517329.
Jenkins, A., P. Ibarra, and J. Roussel. 2001. “Scoring the
Scorecard: Are You Getting Maximum Impact from This
Management Tool?” Supply Chain Forum: An International
Journal 2 (2): 30–34. doi:10.1080/
16258312.2001.11517088.
Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1992. “The Balanced
Scorecard: Measures that Drive Performance.” Harvard
Business Review 21 (1): 71–79.
Kaplan, R. S., and D. P. Norton. 1996. “The Balanced
Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action.”. Boston:
Harvard Business School Press.
Notteboom, T., and J. S. Lam. 2014. “Dealing with
Uncertainty and Volatility in Shipping and Ports.”
Maritime Policy & Management 41 (7): 611–614.
doi:10.1080/03088839.2014.965297.
Notteboom, T., and J. Rodrigue. 2005. “Port Regionalization:
Towards a New Phase in Port Development.” Maritime
Policy and Management 32 (3): 297–313. doi:10.1080/
03088830500139885.
Notteboom, T., and B. Vernimmen. 2009. “The Effect of High Fuel
Costs on Liner Service Configuration in Container Shipping.”
Journal of Transport Geography 17 (2): 325–337. doi:10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2008.05.003.
SUPPLY CHAIN FORUM: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL 109
Panayides, P. 2006. “Maritime Logistics and Global Supply
Chains: Towards a Research Agenda.” Maritime Economics
and Logistics 8 (2): 3–18. doi:10.1057/palgrave.
mel.9100147.
Park, B. I., and H. Min. 2014. “Assessing the Impact of Port
Charges on Ocean Carriers’ Choice of Vessel Size, Service
Routes, and Service Frequency.” Supply Chain Forum: An
International Journal 15 (2): 34–46. doi:10.1080/
16258312.2014.11517340.
Ping, R. A., Jr. 1996. “Estimating Latent Variable Interactions
and Quadratics: The State of This Art.” Journal of
Management 22 (1): 63–83.
Schaltegger, S., and R. Burritt. 2000. Contemporary
Environmental Accounting: Issues, Concepts and Practice.
Sheffield, UK: Greenleaf.
Sislian, L., and A. Jaegler. 2016. “Network Optimization
and Port Sustainability: A Conceptual Framework and
Mathematical Model.” Conference Proceedings for the
11th Congrès International de Génie Industriel –
CIGI2015 Québec, Canada October 26–28, 2015.
http://www.simagi.polymtl.ca/congresgi/cigi2015/
Articles/CIGI_2015_submission_64.pdf
Sislian, L., A. Jaegler, and P. Cariou. 2016. “A Literature
Review on Port Sustainability and Ocean’s Carrier
Network Problem.” Research in Transportation Business &
Management 19 (19–26). doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2016.03.005.
UNCTAD. 2015. Review of Maritime Transport 2015. Geneva,
Switzerland: UNCTAD.
United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
2011. “Ad Hoc Expert Meeting on Climate Change
Impacts and Adaptation: A Challenge for Global
Ports.” Geneva, Palais des Nations, September 29–30,
2011.
USAID. 2014. “Egypt: Options for Increasing Market
Competition in Maritime Port Services.” Development
Economic Policy Reform Analysis Project Prepared for
the Government of Egypt.
Wang, C., and J. J. Corbett. 2007. “The Costs and Benefits of
Reducing SO2 Emissions from Ships in the US West
Coastal Waters.” Transportation Research Part D 12: 577–
588. doi:10.1016/j.trd.2007.08.003.
Wang, C., J. J. Corbett, and J. J. Winebrake. 2007. “Cost-
Effectiveness of Reducing Sulfur Emissions from Ships.”
Environmental Science & Technology 41 (24): 8233–8239.
doi:10.1021/es070812w.
Wang, S. 2013. “Essential Elements in Tactical Planning
Models for Container Liner Shipping.” Maritime Policy
Management 54 (2): 84–99.
Yang, C., C. Lu, J. J. Haider, and P. B. Marlow. 2013. “The
Effect of Green Supply Chain Management on Green
Performance and Firm Competitiveness in the Context
of Container Shipping in Taiwan.” Transportation
Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 55:
55–73. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2013.03.005.
Yang, Y., and W. Chang. 2013. “Impacts of Electric Rubber-
Tired Gantries on Green Port Performance.” Research in
Transportation Business & Management 8: 67–76.
doi:10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.04.002.
Yang, Y., and C. Lin. 2013. “Performance Analysis of
Cargo-Handling Equipment from a Green Container
Terminal Perspective.” Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment 23: 9–11. doi:10.1016/j.
trd.2013.03.009.
Yin, R. K. 2013. Case Study Research: Design and Methods.
London: Sage publications.
 110 L. SISLIAN AND A. JAEGLER

Appendix Other ships

(2) What type of fuel does your vessel use?
Structured Questionnaire
Container Shipping Gas Emissions and Social Impact
Main engine
on the Port of Alexandria AE1
Dear participant AE2
The aim of the questionnaire is to collect gas emissions data AE3
in the Port of Alexandria from the different port operations and Boilers
in the sea, as well as some social indicators. The opinion of crews
(3) What type of equipment does your vessel use?
sailing the vessels is therefore of vital importance. You see it
happening from the bridge and the main deck. Your experience Auxiliary engines
based on incidents, near misses, and what you consider as Oil fired boilers
normal is most important for our interpretation and measure- Inert gas generators
ments on board and recommendations on how to improve port (4) What is the annual CO2 emission of your ves-
operations regarding the sustainability issue. sel per ton?
The responses will be dealt with anonymously. Only the
forms with the company name removed and a list of owners (5) What is the annual NOx emission of your ves-
who replied will be distributed. We appreciate your cooperation sel per ton?
and hope you can find the time to fill out the attached questions. (6) What is the annual SO2 emission of your ves-
If more space is needed for the answer, please add it on an sel per ton?
appended sheet together with the question number. (7) What is the annual PM emission of your vessel
Company: .. (Not mandatory)
per ton?
Position on board:
Vessel size and year built: (TEU, year) (8) What about the working conditions on the
Sailing area/route: vessel and in the port?
Chartered or operator owned vessel (9) What are the different security measures for
your vessel and in the ports to face risks?
(1) Which type of vessel do you work on? (10) How long have you been working on the
Oil Tankers (crude) vessel and port (in number of years)?
Other tankers (chemicals, fruit juices) (11) Do you consider that working in the Port
Bulk carriers of Alexandria is for the short/medium or
Containers ships long term?
General dry cargo (GDC) (12) In conclusion, can you describe the differ-
Ferries/RoRo ent measures for protecting the environ-
Reefers ment taken by the port authorities?

View publication stats