Sustainable Production and Consumption

Sustainability practices for SDGs: a study of Brazilian ports

--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: SPC-D-22-01976

Article Type: Review Article

Keywords: Sustainable Development Goals; Sustainability Report Corporate Sustainability; Ports

Corresponding Author: Darliane Ribeiro Cunha, Ph.D

BRAZIL

First Author: Darliane Ribeiro Cunha, Ph.D

Order of Authors: Darliane Ribeiro Cunha, Ph.D

Newton Narciso Pereira, PhD

Marcelo de Santana Porte, PhD

Cauê Ramos Campos

Abstract: One of the main challenges facing ports is reducing social and environmental impacts
and integrating sustainability into their core business practices. Ports must make
explicit moves towards publishing their policies and contributions to the low carbon
economy in their reports. In 2015, The United Nations (UN) adopted a global action
plan for sustainable development known as Agenda 2030. It contains 17 Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) and calls for global cooperation between governments,
businesses, and civilian organizations to achieve these shared sustainable goals. This
article seeks to identify sustainability practices for SDGs using content analysis on
reports published by Brazilian Public Port Authorities between 2017 and 2020. Our
study sampled ten port authorities that manage seventeen ports, which handled 76%
of all national cargo shipments in 2021. This study is exploratory and descriptive
research that involves qualitative analysis aided by Iramuteq analysis software. We
concluded that the port authority reports mostly cited SDG 8 (Providing Decent Work
and Economic Growth), SDG 11 (Creating Sustainable Cities and Communities), and
SDG 14 (Protecting Aquatic/Marine Life) for the analyzed period. In practice, SDGs
became a part of the port authority discussion agenda as of 2018. Only four of the ten
port authorities we evaluated reported on the SDG topic in 2020. As per the reports,
SDG actions at most Brazilian ports are still incipient.

Suggested Reviewers: Julio Hernandez, PhD

Professor, National University of Piura
julio.hernandez@udep.edu.pe

Fernando Morales, PhD

Professor, University of Bio-Bio - Chillan Campus
fmorales@ubiobio.cl

Additional Information:

Question Response

Please choose an Editor to handle your Professor Ana Beatriz Lopes de Sousa Jabbour
manuscript. If you request an Editor, the
Journal Office will consider this when
assigning your manuscript. To see the full
list of Editors and their subject areas,
please click the blue "Instructions" link
below, and the full Editor list will open in a
separate window.

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Title Page (with Author Details)

Sustainability practices for SDGs: a study of Brazilian ports

Darliane Ribeiro Cunha

Department of Accounting and Management, Federal University of Maranhão, São
Luís, Brazil

Newton Narciso Pereira

School of Industrial Engineering Metallurgical at Volta Redonda, Federal Fluminense
University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Marcelo de Santana Porte

Department of Accounting Sciences, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal,
Brazil

Cauê Ramos Campos

School of Industrial Engineering Metallurgical at Volta Redonda, Federal Fluminense
University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Manuscript File Click here to view linked References

1 Sustainability practices for SDGs: a study of Brazilian ports

2
3
4
5 ABSTRACT
6
7 One of the main challenges facing ports is reducing social and environmental impacts and
8
9
integrating sustainability into their core business practices. Ports must make explicit
10 moves towards publishing their policies and contributions to the low carbon economy in
11
12 their reports. In 2015, The United Nations (UN) adopted a global action plan for
13
14 sustainable development known as Agenda 2030. It contains 17 Sustainable Development
15
16 Goals (SDGs) and calls for global cooperation between governments, businesses, and
17
18 civilian organizations to achieve these shared sustainable goals. This article seeks to
19
identify sustainability practices for SDGs using content analysis on reports published by
20
21 Brazilian Public Port Authorities between 2017 and 2020. Our study sampled ten port
22
23 authorities that manage seventeen ports, which handled 76% of all national cargo
24
25 shipments in 2021. This study is exploratory and descriptive research that involves
26
27 qualitative analysis aided by Iramuteq analysis software. We concluded that the port
28
29 authority reports mostly cited SDG 8 (Providing Decent Work and Economic Growth),
30 SDG 11 (Creating Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 14 (Protecting
31
32 Aquatic/Marine Life) for the analyzed period. In practice, SDGs became a part of the port
33
34 authority discussion agenda as of 2018. Only four of the ten port authorities we evaluated
35
36 reported on the SDG topic in 2020. As per the reports, SDG actions at most Brazilian
37
38 ports are still incipient.
39
40 Keywords: Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainability Report Corporate
41 Sustainability, Ports.
42
43
44
45 1. Introduction
46
47 Several interest groups demand that social and environmental aspects be considered
48
49 critical variables for understanding company performance and strategic position. Until
50
51
recently, concern over these business activity aspects has been limited to a small group
52 of companies (Cunha & Moneva, 2018).
53
54 Increased awareness of the importance of sustainability has led to a new business
55
56 scenario where many substantial companies now publish sustainability reports. KPMG
57
58 (2020) states that 96% of the 250 largest companies in the world, according to Forbes
59
60 (G250), and 80% of all large companies worldwide (N100), published Corporate Social
61
62
63
64 1
65
 Responsibility (CSR) reports in 2020. In 2015 the respective percentages were 92% and
1
2 73%.
3
4
The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is an outstanding initiative that represents long-
5 term international cases for participating stakeholders with the mission of developing and
6
7 disseminating voluntary reference sustainability guides. KPMG states that GRI is the
8
9 global standard for sustainability reporting (KPMG, 2020).
10
11 Following trends set by other large companies, the maritime sector and port authorities
12
13 now use GRI standards when publishing their own sustainability reports. A study by
14
15
Karagiannis et al. (2022), on 42 differently sized maritime companies of different types
16 showed that most surveyed companies used GRI guidelines, while half used the GRI-G4
17
18 model. One company published a report according to the United Nations Global Compact
19
20 guidelines, and two companies did not follow any known reporting guidelines. Studies
21
22 suggest that the maritime sector has fallen behind in CSR engagement and in its non-
23
24 financial information disclosures.
25
A study by Michalska-Szajer et al. (2021) analysed sustainability initiatives at six
26
27 seaports in the European Union (four Polish ports, one Belgian port, and one German
28
29 port). The results show that the Polish port authorities had implemented initiatives for all
30
31 three sustainability areas. Also, the study identified that four of the surveyed ports
32
33 prepared their reports based on GRI guidelines.
34
35 Hossain et al. (2021), analysed the sustainability practices of thirty-six ports in North
36 America, Europe, and in the Asia-Pacific. The results showed that European seaports have
37
38 made more progress towards adopting sustainability initiatives relative to ports in other
39
40 regions. Some ports used GRI guidelines to frame their environmental practices in their
41
42 sustainability reports. 67% of the surveyed ports in Europe, 50% of the surveyed ports in
43
44 North America, and 42% of the surveyed ports in the Asia-Pacific region prepared annual
45
46 sustainability reports. Additionally, sustainability reporting among EU ports is increasing,
47 especially among EcoPort members.
48
49 Using models or standards when publishing sustainability information is important
50
51 because it guides organizations as to the relevant information that needs to be provided,
52
53 and orients them as to how it should be presented. The model also establishes a common
54
55 point of interest among companies, interest groups, regulatory bodies, and auditors, in
56
57
addition to facilitating organizational comparisons among those who use the model.
58 Linking company strategies with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is a growing
59
60 trend, along with publishing sustainability practices according to international guidelines.
61
62
63
64 2
65
 Added SDG information in sustainability reports grew expressively among the
1
2 companies surveyed by the KPMG. In 2020, 72% of all companies comprising the G250
3
4
group had included SDGs in their reporting. In 2017 this percentage was 43%. Increases
5 were also observed among N100 companies. In 2020 reporting percentages were 69%,
6
7 while in 2017, they were only 39%. However, the N100 group shows more expressive
8
9 participation from the Japanese at 96%, followed by the Germans at 94%, and the French
10
11 at 78%, relative to 2020 (KPMG, 2020), when analysing country by country.
12
13 The increase over the period may have been caused by greater stakeholder pressure on
14
15
companies. It is also likely that more companies now better understand SDGs and feel
16 more comfortable using them in their sustainability reporting (KPMG, 2020).
17
18 While some companies have started to incorporate SDGs into their reports, SDGs are
19
20 not yet common to the corporate social responsibility language used within companies.
21
22 Furthermore, there is a lack of empirical studies showing evidence of SDGs being actual
23
24 priorities for companies (Ike et al., 2019; Rosati & Faria, 2019).
25
Although several studies have shown that sustainability is practiced within the port
26
27 sector, few studies link sustainability practices to Sustainable Development Goals within
28
29 the port sector, and to the maritime industry on a whole. Furthermore, some studies focus
30
31 on specific SDGs (Neumann et al., 2017; Virto, 2018; Wang et al., 2020; Cavalli et al.,
32
33 2021; MacNeil et al., 2022).
34
35 A study by Neumann et al. (2017), addressed SDG 14 exclusively, focusing on coastal
36 areas, and mentioned that increased human and environmental pressures on coastal areas
37
38 significantly impacted coastal systems, meaning that many coastal areas worldwide
39
40 require urgent attention.
41
42 A study by Virto (2018), addressed SDG 14 exclusively, and highlighted the
43
44 importance of healthy oceans in achieving sustainability. The author stated that
45
46 environmental impacts compromise ocean capacity for providing economic, social, and
47 environmental benefits, and highlighted the over-exploitation of sea resources, pollution,
48
49 invasive species, habitat destruction, and climate change.
50
51 Wang et al. (2020), conducted a study of 40 global container shipping companies and
52
53 terminal operators. The results state that the maritime industry is mainly responsible for
54
55 providing a safe and healthy working environment (SDG 8), developing green
56
57
technologies and transportation infrastructure (SDG 9), conducting responsible waste
58 management and ship recycling (SDG 12), and properly managing port waterways and
59
60 protecting coastal ecosystems (SDG 14).
61
62
63
64 3
65
 A study by Cavalli et al. (2021), addressed a pilot technology model for the port of
1
2 Livorno to design new port management and operational planning models, and to
3
4
implement sustainable growth port policies. The results showed that 5G networks and
5 other new technologies facilitated more efficient port operations, resulting in crucial
6
7 improvements in making ports more sustainable, and helping them play their roles as
8
9 significant active sustainable participants in achieving the 17 targets set out in the 2030
10
11 Agenda.
12
13 MacNeil et al. (2022), identified links between the United Nations Sustainable
14
15
Development Goal targets for the Canadian port sector, and Green Marine Environmental
16 Program (GMEP) performance indicators. The results indicate that there are significant
17
18 gaps in the GMEP, since only 14 of the 36 SDG targets are directly linked to the program.
19
20 The results suggest that the GMEP needs to be expanded to incorporate broader
21
22 sustainability goals, or that new frameworks that bridge gaps between the GMEP and
23
24 SDG goals be developed and included to improve maritime port operation sustainability.
25
The port sector has been under pressure in recent years to implement global level
26
27 sustainability practices. Several initiatives have been undertaken by ports to reduce CO2
28
29 emissions, operational noise, to manage waste, and to supply green energy to ships
30
31 (Cepeda, et al., 2019; Enguix et al., 2019; Farcas et al., 2020; Vaneeckhaute & Ali Fazli,
32
33 2020; Al-Enazi et al., 2021). Some actions are directly related to the SDGs (Wang et al.,
34
35 2020). However, it seems that initiatives have been more prominent in developed
36 countries (Alamoush et al. [b] 2021), relative to developing countries like Brazil. In total,
37
38 there are 37 public ports and more than 200 private ports in Brazil in operation. The
39
40 National Waterway Transport Agency (ANTAQ), has promoted some sustainability
41
42 actions for implementing Port Environmental Performance Indices (IDA), which identify
43
44 ports with the best environmental performance (Paiva et al., 2019).
45
46 One way for increasing port transparency on sustainability actions is to analyze the
47 content of publicly available port authority reports (Santos et al., 2016; Hossain et al.,
48
49 2019), since these reports may contain information on company actions. This article seeks
50
51 to identify sustainability practices with respect to Sustainable Development Goals
52
53 (SDGs), using content analysis aided by the Iramuteq software program, by analyzing
54
55 reports published by Brazilian port authorities from 2017 to 2020 to verify any SDGs
56
57
employed at Brazilian ports, and how these may have evolved over time.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 4
65
 2. Literature review
1
2 2.1. The Port Sector
3
4
Ports play a key role in linking maritime transportation with land transportation. Ports
5 comprise very complex systems, given the variety of cargos they handle, and given their
6
7 close proximity to communities, and the range of interests and responsibilities of the
8
9 parties involved (Antão et al., 2016).
10
11 Maritime transportation warrants particular attention, since it handles about 90% of all
12
13 world trade volumes (IMO, 2015), and since ports are needed for cargo shipments.
14
15
Goods circulation in Brazil reached about 1.21 billion tons in 2021, a 36% growth
16 compared to 2011 at 887 million tons (ANTAQ, 2021).
17
18 Maritime trade volumes handled by ports worldwide are extremely important for the
19
20 functioning of the world’s economy. However, the massive growth in maritime
21
22 transportation and ports over recent decades has increased environmental impacts
23
24 (Alamoush et al., 2021).
25
Shipping is responsible for 13% of all Greenhouse Gasses (GHG) emitted by the
26
27 transportation sector. Port authorities, terminals, shipping companies, and other
28
29 stakeholders have joined efforts to improve environmental performance within this sector
30
31 (Cloquell-Ballester et al., 2020).
32
33 The most significant port impacts related to climate change come from carbon dioxide
34
35 emissions generated from port activities. In recent years, several ports have started to
36 calculate and report on their carbon footprints. However, not all greenhouse gases emitted
37
38 by ports are accounted for. A standardized tool for calculating the carbon footprints of
39
40 ports has been proposed (Azarkamand et al., 2020).
41
42 There are many reasons why corporate levels of governance should pay more attention
43
44 to implementing sustainability. The focus is not only on sustainability to improve one’s
45
46 reputation, but also on standing out as an industry player, fostering a positive public
47 image, and most importantly ocean conservation. Currently, most of the world’s economy
48
49 is totally dependent on marine resources, services, and space (Kronfeld-Goharani, 2018).
50
51 Oceans, seas, and marine resources are very crucial in achieving sustainable
52
53 development goals. This has given rise to the blue economy, where scholars and
54
55 policymakers promote specific sustainable activities for cargo ports. The blue economy
56
57
approach emphasizes multiple transnational networks for developing green ports, and
58 environmental measures at seaports in general (Vega-Muñoz et al., 2021).
59
60
61
62
63
64 5
65
 Furthermore, the ocean regulates global climate changes, and provides humans with
1
2 many natural resources e.g., food, materials, energy, etc., and is essential for international
3
4
trade, and for recreational and cultural activities alike (Visbeck et al., 2014).
5
6
7 2.1. Sustainable development
8
9 Sustainable development, or sustainability, gained notoriety and formality after the
10
11 publication of the Brundtland Report in 1987. Subsequently, sustainable development
12
13 was defined via 3 conceptual pillars as the "Triple Bottom Line" i.e., economic, social,
14
15
and environmental sustainability (Alamoush et al., 2021).
16 There are many definitions for sustainable development in academic literature and
17
18 among institutional documents. A more widely accepted definition was proposed in the
19
20 Brundtland Report, namely, development that meets the needs of the present without
21
22 compromising the capacity for future generations to also meet their own needs in their
23
24 present (Moneva et al., 2006).
25
Initiatives promoting sustainable development have been widely discussed at the
26
27 United Nations (UN), including the 1992 Rio de Janeiro UN council, which created the
28
29 2021 agenda. This was later replaced by the 2030 agenda. In 2015, the United Nations
30
31 adopted a global action plan for sustainable development, known as Agenda 2030. The
32
33 proposal contains 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and 169 related targets that
34
35 address global challenges like climate change, social inequality, and environmental
36 degradation. The SDGs require interactions among governments, businesses, and society
37
38 to achieve a shared level sustainable prosperity (Khaled et al., 2021).
39
40 The 2030 agenda sought to help organizations maximize their efforts toward
41
42 implementing the SDGs. A company can show its commitment to sustainable
43
44 development by aligning its goals with the SDGs, and to do so, companies should
45
46 consider the following steps, understanding the SDGs, defining the relevant SDGs and
47 mapping them relative to existing business indicators, setting goals that positively affect
48
49 SDGs, integrating sustainability into the core of the business, and publishing corporate
50
51 sustainability practices (SDG Compass, 2015).
52
53 The maritime industry plays an important role in meeting the three pillar SDGs. In
54
55 social terms, industries must support gender equality and empower women through global
56
57
initiatives and activities aimed at improving the workplace. It is worth mentioning that
58 maritime navigation is an important job-creating industry, especially in developing
59
60 countries. Health-related issues and employee well-being are central themes within the
61
62
63
64 6
65
 maritime industry. In environmental terms, this sector should help minimize
1
2 environmental impacts by reducing maritime-transport-related pollution in oceans, ports,
3
4
and coastal regions. Additionally, the sector should promote financing, research, and
5 development in clean energy solutions (IMO, 2017).
6
7 Table 1 details the 17 SDGs and maritime industry actions toward meeting the SDGs,
8
9 as presented by Wang et al. (2020), and IMO (2017).
10
11
12
13 Table 1
14 The role of the maritime industry in achieving the SDGs
15 Objective Name Role of the maritime industry in achieving the SDG’s
16
17 1 Eradicating Poverty Ensure that maritime transportation is safe, secure, and
18 clean, by creating prosperity and sustainable growth via
19
20 green and blue economies.
21 2 Promoting Zero Hunger and Ensure efficient and cost-effective supply chains for
22 Sustainable Agriculture global food distribution.
23
24 3 Promoting Health and Protect sources of nutrition by combating illegal,
25
26 wellness unreported, and unregulated fishing.
27
28 4 Promoting Quality Contribute to reducing maritime transport pollution in
29 Education oceans, ports, and coastal regions. Promote safety,
30 security, and environmental protection at sea, and educate
31 and train employees.
32
33 5 Promoting Gender Equality Support gender equality and empower women through
34 global programs and activities in the job market.
35 6 Providing Clean Water and Minimize dumping and waste disposal at sea, which is a
36 Sanitation key component in overall waste management.
37
38 7 Promote funding, research, and development for clean
Providing Clean and
39
40 Accessible Energy energy technologies within the maritime sector.
41
42 8 Providing Decent Work and Promote maritime activities as an important job creator,
43 Economic Growth especially in developing countries. Maintain the health
44 and well-being of employees within the maritime
45
46
industry.
47 9 Promoting Industry, Engage in more efficient maritime transportation, via port
48 Innovation, and sector partnerships to drive global stability and
49 Infrastructure sustainable development for the good of all.
50
51
10 Reducing Inequality Increase skills in countries that lack technical knowledge
52
53 and resources to operate within the maritime
54 transportation industry safely.
55 11 Creating Sustainable Cities Promote sustainable cities and communities via a secure
56 supply chain. Promote the shipping industry to help
and Communities
57
58 improve maritime safety, and protect global logistics
59 infrastructures.
60
61
62
63
64 7
65
 12 Engaging in Responsible Reduce both operational waste from ships and dumping
1 Production and waste at sea.
2
3
Consumption
4
5 13 Combatting Global Climate Control transportation emissions and promote solutions
6 Change for minimizing air pollution, and climate change impacts.
7
8 14 Protecting Aquatic/Marine Promote safety and security within the shipping industry
9 Life via global measures to prevent ship pollution.
10
11
12 15 Protecting Terrestrial Life Promote wildlife trafficking via port security and make
13 efforts to stop illegal trafficking.
14
15 16 Promote effective institutions to ensure the safe flow of
Promoting Peace, Justice,
16
17 and Institutional Efficiency. maritime commerce.
18
19 17 Fostering Partnerships to The IMO currently has partnerships with over 60 IGOs
20 implement this and over 70 NGOs, including leading global
21 environmental organizations.
22
23
24 Port authorities are now taking a more proactive stance toward promoting green
25
26 initiatives. Furthermore, ports are becoming innovation ecosystems that drive
27
28 technological revolutions in the maritime logistics industry (Deloitte, 2021).
29
30 Ports can stimulate development in other areas. They are engines of local economic
31
32 development, and can act to leverage sustainable policies at the regional scale (Cerceau
33
34
et al., 2014).
35
36
37 3. Methodology
38
39 We conducted an exploratory and descriptive field study. We identified port reports
40
41 using the following priority criteria: Sustainability Reports (RS); Integrated Reports (RI);
42
43 and Annual Reports (RA); and when these were not available, we sought Environmental
44
Reports (RAM); and Management Reports (RG), published on Brazilian public port
45
46 websites. The reports were obtained from port websites from 12/01/21 to 01/10/22.
47
48 The Brazilian port sector comprises 37 public ports, 19 of which are managed by a
49
50 Union of Dock Companies, which act as Port Authorities. The other 18 ports are managed
51
52 by States or Municipalities, via specific laws (Sousa et al., 2020). Currently, the
53
54 Cachoeira do Sul and Estrela ports do not provide information on their websites.
55 The study population comprised 20 port authorities managing 35 ports, as is shown in
56
57 Table 2. We considered one report per port authority following the aforementioned
58
59 priority criteria. We obtained and analyzed the reports from 2017 to 2020.
60
61
62
63
64 8
65
 Table 2
1 Population
2 Port Years
3 Port Names Region
Authority 2020 2019 2018 2017
4
5 Antonina RG
APPA South - - -
6 Paranaguá
7 Aratu
8 CODEBA Ilhéus Northeast RS - RAM RAM
9 Salvador
10 Natal
11 CODERN
Areia Branca Northeast - - - -
12
Maceió
13
14 DOCAS-PB
Cabedelo Northeast - - - RA
15
16 CDSS
São Sebastião Southeast - - - -
17
18 CODESA Vitória
19 Southeast - - RAM RAM
Barra do Riacho
20
CDSA Macapá North - - - -
21
22 Belém
23 CDP Santarém North - - - -
24 Vila do Conde
25 Rio de Janeiro
26 Angra dos Reis
27 CDRJ Southeast RG RG RG RA
Itaguaí
28 Niterói
29
30 COMAP Forno Southeast - - - -
31 SPA Santos Southeast RS RS RA RA
32 CDC Fortaleza Northeast - - - RI
33 EMAP Itaqui Northeast RS - RS -
34 SNPH Manaus North - - - -
35 SUAPE Suape Northeast RI RS RS RS
36
PORTO DO
37 Recife Northeast RS - - -
38 RECIFE
39 Rio Grande
40 PORTO RS Pelotas South - - - -
41 Porto Alegre
42 Imbituba
43 São Francisco do
44 SCPAR South RS RS RS RS
Sul
45
46 Laguna
47 SOPH-RO
Porto Velho North - - - -
48
49 SPI Itajaí South - - - -
50
51 Note: Sustainability Reports (RS), Integrated Reports (RI), Annual Reports (RA),
52 Environmental Reports (RAM), and Management Reports (RG).
53
54
55 The reports from the SCPAR port authority were excluded from the sample, since the
56
57 software program used in our study was unable to read these reports. Twenty-three reports
58
59 from the ten port authorities were analyzed. Seven were from 2017, six were from 2018,
60 three were from 2019, and seven were from 2020. It is worth mentioning that the sample
61
62
63
64 9
65
 considered reports from port authorities that manage the largest Brazilian public ports,
1
2 and that handled more than 76% of all national cargo shipments, as of 2021. There were
3
4
17 public ports in total (Table 3).
5
6
7 Table 3
8 Ports studied
9
10 Item Port
Ports Port Movement %
11 Authority
12 1 Paranaguá 51,606,027.99 12.62%
APPA
13 Antonina 1,479,581.42 0.36%
14 2 Aratu 7,365,247.75 1.80%
15 CODEBA Ilhéus 464,591.07 0.11%
16
Salvador 5,582,340.21 1.37%
17
18 3 DOCAS-PB Cabedelo 1,307,328.95 0.32%
19 4 Vitória 8,214,691.41 2.01%
CODESA
20 Barra do Riacho - 0%
21 5 Rio de Janeiro 10,540,467.88 2.58%
22 Angra dos Reis 18,922.28 0.00%
23 CDRJ
Itaguaí 51,723,244.07 12.65%
24
25 Niterói 76,419.70 0.02%
26 6 SPA Santos 113,279,536.97 27.71%
27 7 EMAP Itaqui 31,025,618.94 7.59%
28 8 Porto do Recife Porto do Recife 1,294,604.38 0.32%
29 9 Suape Suape 22,079,407.80 5.40%
30
31
10 CDC Fortaleza 4,835,723.41 1.18%
32 Total 310,893,754.23 76.04%
33
34
35 3.1. Content analysis
36
37 The objective of the study was to identify sustainability practices for Sustainable
38
39 Development Goals (SDGs). We conducted content analysis for twenty-three reports
40 from ten port authorities in the sample, seven from 2017, six from 2018, three from 2019,
41
42 and seven from 2020. In the first stage, we highlighted and obtained texts and tables
43
44 containing the words Sustainable Development Goals, with the SDG abbreviation in
45
46 sustainability reports, or equivalent reports. Here, only four port authorities were
47
48 considered, since only these ports mentioned SDG or “sustainable development goals”.
49
50
In the second stage, we highlighted the sustainability practices that port authorities had
51 adopted, and how they helped achieve the SDGs, by defining the SDGs within the port
52
53 sector (Table 4), and choosing keywords related to SDGs (Table 5), analyzing the 2020
54
55 reports. At this stage, seven reports from port authorities were considered.
56
57 We made adaptations to a model proposed by Wang et al. (2020), to select SDGs with
58
59 greater relationships to the ports. The study by Wang et al. (2020), states that four SDGs
60
61
62
63
64 10
65
 (8, 9, 12, and 14) are more aligned with the core business activities of maritime companies
1
2 and port operations, constituting their main sustainability responsibilities.
3
4
In addition to the indicators proposed by Wang et al. (2020), three SDGs were included
5 related to access to clean energy (SDG 7), sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11),
6
7 and actions to combat global climate change (SDG 13), which are highly relevant for
8
9 ports.
10
11
12
13 Table 4
14 Name and Number of SDG
15 SDG SDG Name
16 7 Access to clean energy
17
18 8 Descent working conditions and economic growth
19 9 Industry, infrastructure, and economic growth
20 11 Sustainable cities and communities
21 12 responsible production and consumption
22 13 Actions to combat global climate change
23 14 Protecting aquatic/marine life
24
25
26
27 To define the keywords, we consulted studies by Sullivan et al. (2018), and Wang et
28
29
al. (2020).
30
31
32 Table 5
33 SDGs and Keywords
34
35
SDG Keywords
36 7 Access to clean energy Energy; Solar; Winder; Hydroelectric
37 8 Descent working conditions and Work; Workers; Health; Well-being; Safety; Accidents
38 economic growth
39 9 Industry, infrastructure and Innovation; Innovators; Technology
40 economic growth
41 11 Sustainable cities and Sustainability; Community; Port-City; Cooperatives; GRI; Citizen
42
43
communities
44 12 Responsible Production and Production; Consumptions; SGA; Recycling; Waste; Garbage;
45 Consumption Noise
46 13 Actions to combat Global Climate Change; Control; Emissions; Particulates; Dangerous;
47 Climate Change Biodiversity; Gas
48 14 Protecting Aquatic/Marine Life Trash; Sea; Waste; Oil; Ties; Accidents; Biota
49
50
51 Lexical and keyword analysis was performed based on Marchand and Ratinaud (2012),
52 using the Iramuteq analysis software program, which organized the texts and generated
53
54 the Similarity Analysis, allowing us to define the next steps for applying content analysis
55
56 using an interpretive approach, as per Pereira et al. (2020).
57
58 First, paragraphs with the terms Sustainable Development Goals and SDGs were
59
60 separated from the sustainability reports, or equivalent reports, for all years.
61
62
63
64 11
65
 Second, we created a corpus of ‘sustainability practices' comprising reports from each
1
2 company in the sample for 2020. In total, there were 7 reports from port authorities
3
4
published in 2020, resulting in 337,501 words, which contained 12,496 distinct words,
5 and 4,773 words that were mentioned only once. Furthermore, 9,642 active words were
6
7 identified, along with 2,770 supplementary words.
8
9 It is worth noting that the Iramuteq software program only considers words with
10
11 frequencies equal to or greater than three, in order to perform similarity analysis. Thus,
12
13 words that were mentioned infrequently in the reports were reported in the Iramuteq
14
15
reports, but did not appear in the similarity analysis.
16
17
18 4. Results
19
20 4.1. Direct evidence for the SDGs contained in the reports
21
22 Regarding frequency of citation for Sustainable Development Goals, and the acronym
23
24 SDG in the reports, we observed that SDGs were not reported on by port authorities in
25
2017. In 2018, only EMAP addressed the topic. In 2019, only the SPA addressed the
26
27 topic. In 2020, by contrast, SDG was addressed by four port authorities (APPA, CDRJ,
28
29 SPA, and EMAP). We verified via Similarity Analysis that SDG was discussed more in
30
31 2020, especially by SPA and EMAP.
32
33 In 2018, EMAP addressed SDGs in its report. According to the similarity analysis
34
35 (Figure 1), Itaqui, which is managed by EMAP, has been trying to fulfill its SDGs, and
36 therefore is promoting sustainable development. However, the results show that its
37
38 sustainability actions or initiatives do not relate to SDGs, nor to its indicators. The port
39
40 authority also mentioned the following Sustainable Development Objectives: SDG1,
41
42 SDG6, SDG8, SDG9, SDG10, SDG11, SDG14, SDG15, and SDG17, but did so only
43
44 once. When the SDG theme was addressed, the port mentioned words like activity, water,
45
46 life, tradition, and technology. However, the SDGs and cited words did not appear in the
47 similarity tree, given its frequency less than 3.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 12
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 Fig. 1. EMAP similarity analysis for 2018 with the frequency
31
32
33
34 In 2019 the similarity tree from the SPA port authority report highlighted topics
35
36 related to SDGs, which is why the word “correlated” was mentioned in the Figure. The
37
38
most frequent words were theme, SPA, material, contribution, sustainable, and related.
39 The port authority also mentioned sustainable development objectives SDG3, SDG6,
40
41 SDG8, SDG9, SDG11, and SDG14, but did so only once.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 13
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 Fig. 2. SPA similarity analysis for 2019 with the frequency
33
34
35 Figure 3 shows the similarity analysis for the four port authorities. CDRJ and AAPA
36
37 had more restricted similarity trees because they barely addressed SDG in their reports.
38
39 CDRJ mentioned SDG3, SDG7, SDG8, SDG9, SDG11, and SDG14, but did so only once.
40
41 By contrast, SDGs were discussed more by EMAP and SPA, and SPA evolved greatly in
42
43
2020 relative to 2019, since it linked SDGs with GRI indicators in 2020, and listed its
44 priority themes, and connected them with stakeholders.
45
46 The most mentioned words by EMAP were EMAP, sustainable, SDGs, development,
47
48 contribute, objective, activity, promote, port, women, and Itaqui. EMAP also mentioned
49
50 SDG1, SDG4, SDG6, SDG9, SDG10, SDG11, SDG14, SDG15, and SDG17, only once,
51
52 and SDG8 and SDG5 twice.
53
54
SPA had a very detailed similarity tree, since it prepared a matrix in its report and
55 linked SDGs with GRI indicators for the three sustainability pillars (social,
56
57 environmental, and economic sustainability). It also highlighted stakeholders related to
58
59 priority topics, and commented on issues related to Global Agreements. We observed that
60
61
62
63
64 14
65
 GRI_social, SPA, theme, material, GRI_environmental, law, service, responsible,
1
2 practical, provider, and employee were the most addressed words in the similarity tree.
3
4
The port authority gave detailed GRI indicators in the report (201-1, 205-2, 205-3, 203-
5 1, 304-2, 303-1, 303-2, 303-4, 306-1, 306-2 , 306-3, 413-1, 403-1, 403-2, 403-3, 403-4,
6
7 403-5, 403-6, 403-7, 403-8, 403-9, 403-10), however, we classified the indicators into
8
9 three groups for the analysis (gri_economic - 200, gri_environmental - 300 and gri_social
10
11 - 400). SPA also mentioned SDG3, SDG4, SDG9, SDG10, SDG13, SDG15, and SDG16
12
13 once, SDG11, SDG12, and SDG14 twice, and SDG8 three times.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58 Fig. 3. Similarity analysis of the Ports for 2020 with the frequency (CDRJ-upper left,
59
60 AAPA-upper right, EMAP -lower left & SPA-lower right).
61
62
63
64 15
65
 In the second stage of the study, we highlighted sustainability practices that help
1
2 achieve the SDG goals in seven reports published in 2020. 2020 was chosen because SDG
3
4
commentary was non-existent or very limited in previous years, as shown in Figures 1
5 and 2.
6
7
8
9 4.2. SDG sustainability practices
10
11 Figure 4 shows the Similarity Analysis (SA) for the sustainability practices directed
12
13 toward SDGs at the ports comprising the sample. This was done using a Word Clouds of
14
15
the terms that best comprise their descriptions. Infrequent terms (three appearances) were
16 selected from the reports in the corpus.
17
18 The text corpus comprising the SDG sustainability practices at ports (Figure 4), is
19
20 based on graph theory, since it connects words and their variations. The Similarity
21
22 Analysis (Figure 4) results emphasized 29 words. There was a greater emphasis given to
23
24 control, waste, community, security, sea, emissions, workers, oil, which appeared more
25
than 100 times in the analyzed reports.
26
27 The results point to the ports controlling gas and particulate emission, hazardous waste
28
29 production, mainly oils, and materials that could be recycled, to minimize impacts to
30
31 biodiversity by supporting sustainability practices related to GRI indicators. Furthermore,
32
33 there was concern directed toward controlling docking water, garbage at sea, noise
34
35 generated at the ports that could affect worker health and safety and/or anyone close by,
36 and/or the community in general, to improve the port-city relationship.
37
38 The Environmental Management Systems (EMS) at the ports are initiatives to
39
40 minimize accidents and promote sustainable development. The EMSs can promote
41
42 energy efficiency for ports that innovate and make investments in technology to promote
43
44 SDG goals.
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 16
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37 Fig. 4. Similarity Analysis for sustainability practices with the frequency
38
39
40
41 Table 6 shows the frequency of the highlighted words in the Similarity Analysis, from
42 the highlighted words in Figure 4. Words like control, waste, community, safety, and
43
44 health were most cited in the port authority reports. By contrast, words like SDG, harbor
45
46 water, port-city, citizen, and innovator were the least cited in the reports.
47
48
49
50 Table 6
51 Frequency of highlighted words related to SDGs
52 Description Frequency %
53
54 Control 1127 26,66%
55 Waste 798 18,88%
56 Community 355 8,40%
57
58 Security 215 5,09%
59 Health 207 4,90%
60
61
62
63
64 17
65
 Ocean 175 4,14%
1 Emissions 162 3,83%
2
3 Work 143 3,38%
4 Oil, Emergency, Noise 289 6,84%
5 GRI, Biota, Hazardous, Sustainable, Accident, Consumption 426 10,08%
6
Production, Particulate, Energy, Technology, Collectives, Innovation,
7
8 Recycling, Work, Gas, SGA, Biodiversity, Garbage, SDG, Ballast Water,
330
9 Port_Citizen, Citizen, Innovation
10 7,81%
11
12
13 4.2.1. SDG 7
14
15
SDG 7 promotes financing, research, and development for clean energy technologies
16 in the maritime sector.
17
18 We identified that only three port authorities (EMAP, SPA, SUAPE) have
19
20 sustainability actions to meet this SDG. Although, at EMAP this initiative is not directly
21
22 related to developing clean energy for the sector, since solar panels are used at the port.
23
24 For the SPA port authority, we should mention that it has already integrated SDG7
25
principles, and is the only Brazilian port with significant clean energy generation. By
26
27 contrast, the capacity for generating renewable energy is not enough for meeting all the
28
29 port's demand.
30
31 EMAP in Maranhão has a fixed monitoring station at dock 100 (Hi Voll), and monitors
32
33 air quality 24-7, issues alerts when it exceeds legal parameters, and is powered using solar
34
35 panels (EMAP, 2020).
36 Its energy sustainability actions include a 15 MW clean energy hydroelectric plant.
37
38 Additionally, it has an 18 km2 area of preserved vegetation around the port, highlighting
39
40 its commitment to maintaining biodiversity (SPA, 2020).
41
42 The Port of Santos sets itself apart relative to other national and international ports
43
44 because it has it very own hydroelectric plant, which is operated by the port authority,
45
46
and accounts for a significant part of its electricity supply (SPA, 2020).
47 The wind component cluster showed important names in the renewable energy sector,
48
49 like Danish LM Wind Power, which is the main supplier of wind components in the
50
51 world, the Suape wind blade manufacturer, and the Spanish GRI Renewable Industry, a
52
53 leading European steel manufacturing company that produces towers and flanges for
54
55 wind farms (SUAPE, 2020).
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 18
65
 4.2.2. SDG 8
1
2 SDG 8 promotes health and employee well-being. These issues are often addressed in
3
4
sustainability reports, showing determination for protecting the interests of employees,
5 and ensuring safe and dignified working environments (Wang et al., 2020).
6
7 This issue was addressed most by port authorities in their sustainability reports. All
8
9 port authorities (APPA, CDRJ, CODEBA, EMAP, Porto de Recife, SPA, and SUAPE),
10
11 that published reports in 2020, mentioned sustainability initiatives related to SDG 8,
12
13 mainly at CODEBA and SPA, which mentioned several initiatives related to training,
14
15
monitoring, and occupational health. EMAP and the Port of Recife emphasized aspects
16 related mainly to employee training and safety. SUAPE highlighted that it is seeking out
17
18 good practices. CDRJ mentioned expanding its integrated security system.
19
20 EMAP highlighted that it has an Occupational Health and Safety Management System
21
22 (EMAP, 2020). The Port of Recife stated that health and safety training are conducted to
23
24 raise awareness and train employees (Porto do Recife, 2020). APPA highlighted
25
contracting an external auditor to examine documents related to environmental quality
26
27 levels, medical, and occupational safety actions (APPA, 2020).
28
29 CODEBA mentioned environmental management training programs that address
30
31 administrative and operational practices for protecting the environment and worker health
32
33 and safety. It also highlighted an integrated control and monitoring program that keeps
34
35 animals out of the port environment to avoid spreading diseases among port workers, and
36 to keep loads intact (CODEBA, 2020).
37
38 There was an uninterrupted Occupational Health and Safety Management program at
39
40 the Port of Santos, that ensures that immediate actions to eliminate and/or mitigate risks
41
42 in the event of accidents, emergencies, and other occurrences are adopted, which
43
44 influences the lives and health of all who work there (SPA, 2020). SPA has an
45
46 Occupational Medicine sector dedicated to promoting public policies focused on
47 occupational health for the port community (SPA, 2020).
48
49 Periodically, SPA carries out awareness campaigns to prevent accidents and work-
50
51 related risks by communicating accidents to the Occupational Health and Safety sector
52
53 (SPA, 2020).
54
55 SUAPE mentioned that it uses Benchmarking with reference ports to improve its
56
57
Health and Safety at Work Policy (PSST), and conducts research to adapt Suape to good
58 practices in the area. It also highlighted several ongoing actions to ensure worker health
59
60
61
62
63
64 19
65
 and safety, e.g., an Environmental Risk Prevention Program, and an Occupational
1
2 Medical Health Control Program. (SUAPE, 2020).
3
4
The expanded Integrated Security System allowed them to increase port security, by
5 monitoring internal warehouses, loads, and docking areas, leading to greater control over
6
7 vessels that dock, providing technical solutions to customs at the Port of Rio de Janeiro.
8
9 Monitoring cameras were installed at strategic locations in Guanabara Bay to improve
10
11 visibility and increase access to port channels (CDRJ, 2020).
12
13
14
15
4.2.3. SDG 9
16 The maritime industry helps build a sustainable maritime ecosystem by investing in
17
18 logistics infrastructure to alleviate transportation barriers, while dedicating efforts to
19
20 innovative ship, terminal, and operating system designs to increase operational efficiency
21
22 (Wang et al., 2020). SDG 9 promotes efficient maritime transportation, working in
23
24 partnership with port sectors. Ports cited partnerships to promote innovation and to
25
automate tasks. APPA and SUAPE released plans for this SDG. Both detailed tools for
26
27 optimizing port operations.
28
29 In 2020, Paraná Port signed an agreement with the Valencia Port Foundation, a
30
31 research, innovation, and training center for port logistics, from the port of Valencia,
32
33 Spain, which operates in various parts of the world. Among many projects already
34
35 underway, was building a Port Community System, which is a data exchange platform
36 for the port community. The PCS connects multiple systems used by different
37
38 organizations to integrate information from an entire logistics chain. The partnership also
39
40 allows for Collaborative Port Decision Making (PortCDM), which proposes a new model
41
42 for managing maritime operations in real-time for all ship arrivals and departures.
43
44 Furthermore, the partnership discusses digital security and data protection technology
45
46 issues and Strategic Port Management Training (AAPA, 2020).
47 The SuapeGeo Project was created to introduce new technologies to better manage the
48
49 Suape territory. It is a platform comprising an arrangement of geoprocessing and
50
51 geolocation tools to collect, manage, analyze, and share geographic information. These
52
53 technologies support activities, studies, technical reports, and decision-making at the
54
55 managerial and planning levels, based on geographic and statistical data for
56
57
characterizing and monitoring the Suape territory (SUAPE, 2020).
58 Suape entered into an agreement process with Pernambuco Pilots, a company that is
59
60 responsible for simulation services via the implementation of the ReDraft software
61
62
63
64 20
65
 program. The tool will provide daily reports combining data from a meteorological station
1
2 and sensors installed at the port. This system will allow for maximum draught meter gains
3
4
for ship entries and exits. This parameter changes static draughts to dynamic drafts,
5 allowing for operational gains by using real-time technology and monitoring tools to
6
7 monitor weather conditions, and expand docking time frames for ships with draughts that
8
9 are larger than currently established draughts. The port will be able to handle more cargo
10
11 per ship with greater draughts, increasing port volumes (SUAPE, 2020).
12
13
14
15
4.2.4. SDG 11
16 SDG 11 promotes sustainable cities and communities via a secure supply chain. Four
17
18 port authorities addressed this topic (CODEBA, EMAP, SPA and SUAPE) in the reports.
19
20 More specifically, they expressed concern for the Port-City relationship.
21
22 CODEBA, in Bahia State, had a Social Communication Program (PCS), and a Support
23
24 Program for Fishing Communities (PACP), in 2020 (CODEBA, 2020).
25
EMAP stated that it has an Environmental Management System focused on five
26
27 principles, including the desire to support socio-environmental practices that positively
28
29 impact the local ecosystem and the surrounding communities near the Port of Itaqui, to
30
31 promote the port-city relationship as a strategic planning part of the port authority,
32
33 highlighting the fourth pillar of strategic port planning, called the “Porto-City
34
35 Relationship”, corresponding to no less than a quarter of the strategic planning for the
36 port sector (EMAP, 2020).
37
38 The Port-City seal was launched as a symbol of the port community, which began to
39
40 be used both by SPA, other companies, and other institutions linked to the port sector in
41
42 Baixada Santista to signal the port’s solidarity in events and projects aimed at
43
44 strengthening the Port-City relationship. Since 2010, SPA has promoted socio-
45
46 environmental actions in the region via an Environmental Education Program (PEA),
47 linked to its Port Operating License. The began via a Participatory Socio-environmental
48
49 Diagnosis (DSP) that identified socio-environmental conflicts, challenges, and eight
50
51 potential communities that could be impacted by port activities (SPA, 2020).
52
53 It is worth mentioning that the SUAPE maintains a cooperation agreement with
54
55 UNESCO for a Geopark. The Geopark frames the PMAHC as a geological heritage site
56
57
that is scientifically important and rare, thereby expressing integrated protection,
58 education, and sustainable development (SUAPE, 2020).
59
60
61
62
63
64 21
65
 They state that they are firmly advancing their corporate governance via their large
1
2 ecological preservation area representing 59% of Suape’s industrial port complex, and
3
4
that they reaffirm their commitment to a green and sustainable agenda, by combining
5 economic development with environmental protection (SUAPE, 2020).
6
7
8
9 4.2.5. SDG 12
10
11 SDG 12 reduces both operational waste from ships, and waste dumping at sea. We
12
13 found that only four ports (APPA, EMAP, SPA, and SUAPE) had explicit actions for this
14
15
SDG. APPA and SUAPE mentioned that they provide courses to help reduce waste.
16 EMAP highlighted selective collection programs, and SPA mentioned establishing
17
18 procedures for their entire port community.
19
20 Waste is separated via a selective collection program at EMAP, which was already
21
22 implemented at the Port of Itaqui, and all companies operating in the port area are
23
24 required to participate. The company mentions three waste segregation objectives, one of
25
which is reducing hazardous waste volumes that will be treated or disposed of. In 2019,
26
27 a conscientious consumption campaign was launched to reduce water, paper, plastic, and
28
29 energy consumption and waste generation (EMAP, 2020).
30
31 SPA has been expanding details on existing diagnoses to integrate waste management
32
33 procedures among all port participants. The Santos Zero Waste Association raises
34
35 awareness as to the importance of reducing waste and disposing of it correctly (SPA,
36 2020).
37
38 SUAPE holds a course on Solid Waste Management to train high-level technical
39
40 elements on solid waste management, and teach how the topic is dealt with within the
41
42 company (SUAPE, 2020). Similarly, APPA highlighted 34 training sessions related to
43
44 their solid waste management program (APPA, 2020).
45
46
47 4.2.6. SDG 13
48
49 SDG 13 controls emissions coming from the transportation sector and offers solutions
50
51 to minimize air pollution from the transportation sector, and its impact on climate change.
52
53 It is worth highlighting that no port authority mentioned actions to minimize climate
54
55 change impacts. Only CODEBA and SPA highlighted actions pertaining to SDG 13 in
56
57
the analyzed reports.
58 A monthly Atmospheric Emissions Management Program was implemented to control
59
60 black smoke emissions from trucks using the Ringelmann scale, in addition to monitoring
61
62
63
64 22
65
 particulate matter. Corrective maintenance actions are recommended for non-conforming
1
2 vehicles (black smoke monitoring). There were also audits to verify atmospheric emission
3
4
management processes (CODEBA, 2020).
5 In addition to actions performed by SPA, port terminals also monitor emissions
6
7 standards for effluents in their areas and maintenance activities for the drainage systems
8
9 in compliance with their own environmental licenses. Any generated information is
10
11 regularly reported to the Port Authority, and if any deviations are identified in the
12
13 parameters, causes analysis is performed, and preventive or corrective measures are
14
15
adopted (SPA, 2020).
16
17
18 4.2.7. SDG 14
19
20 SDG 14 states that the shipping industry must be responsible for taking global
21
22 measures to improve the safety and security of international shipping, and to prevent ship
23
24 pollution. Virto (2018), stated that port logistics can significantly impact SDG 14,
25
focusing on preserving oceans, seas, and marine resources.
26
27 The port authorities (CODEBA, EMAP, SPA, and SUAPE) highlighted actions related
28
29 to SDG 14 in the reports. CODEBA highlighted several initiatives and contingency waste,
30
31 water monitoring, sediment monitoring, and aquatic biota monitoring plans that seek to
32
33 protect oceans, and the port surroundings. SPA mentioned treating harbor water, and
34
35 EMAP highlighted controlling aquatic biota.
36 CODEBA recommended installing tarpaulins or other protective structures between
37
38 the ships and piers, to prevent accidental spills directly into seawater during goods
39
40 transfers. If docks need to be cleaned/washed using water, absorbent barriers must be
41
42 used around rainwater drains, to prevent waste from directly entering the seawater.
43
44 Regarding oil spills, the team is trained on Individual Emergency Plans, and holds trial
45
46 runs. Finally, the program monitors water, sediment, and biota quality (CODEBA, 2020).
47 SPA highlighted controlling and treating docking water. SPA and the other authorities
48
49 supervise compliance with mandatory procedures for controlling and treating docking
50
51 water, either via a specific system on the ship itself or by exchanging water at sea (SPA,
52
53 2020). In 2020, SPA acted on 46 incidents, four of which were at sea. 37 involved
54
55 cleaning and decontamination events, and another five involved other events (SPA,
56
57
2020).
58 EMAP conducts environmental monitoring of aquatic biota, including exotic/invasive
59
60 species. We should note that monitoring for exotic/invasive species is done by making
61
62
63
64 23
65
 seawater collections, and is not performed on board ships. The biota results are largely
1
2 positive. No invasive species have been found to date (EMAP, 2020).
3
4
5 5. Discussion
6
7 Although Brazil has 37 public ports, our study comprised a sample of only 10 ports,
8
9 representing 17 Brazilian ports, since other port authorities did not publish sustainability
10
11 reports, or equivalent reports on their web pages. Our results show that despite SDG
12
13 topics being included in reports in 2018, we verified that only four ports mentioned SDGs
14
15
in their reports. We should highlight that only SPA linked SDGs with Global Pact
16 principles and GRI indicators.
17
18 The results showed that SDG 8 (Providing Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG
19
20 11 (Creating Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 14 (Protecting
21
22 Aquatic/Marine Life) were the most cited objectives by the surveyed authorities.
23
24 Of all the sustainability initiatives highlighted in the reports, the SPA initiative related
25
to SDG 7 (clean and affordable energy), was the only Brazilian case of significant clean
26
27 energy generation linked to a port authority. Regarding SDG 9 (industry, innovation and
28
29 infrastructure), two port authorities (APPA and SUAPE) released their plans for this
30
31 SDG, which detailed tools for optimizing port operations.
32
33 Fleming et al. (2017), highlight that SDGs are unproven in practice in the private
34
35 sector, largely explained by: Differences in the language used in the SDGs, compared to
36 business language; few successful examples of when SDGs have been successfully
37
38 adopted, largely due to the difficult and complex systemic changes required from
39
40 organizations and society; and few regulatory mechanisms that encourage adoption.
41
42 Brazil still does not have official ANTAQ terms for adopting and aligning SDGs.
43
44 Basically, we observed actions that are directly promoted by port authorities in these
45
46 reports.
47 One can obtain a broader view of the activities being developed at Brazilian ports by
48
49 linking sustainability practices with SDGs. Wang et al. (2020), highlight that SDGs,
50
51 which is a comprehensive sustainability framework, is an effective framework that can
52
53 unify disperse sustainability literature.
54
55 Sustainable Development Goals are ambitious steps toward sustainable development,
56
57
and offer a much broader vision of sustainability than ever before. However, practical
58 challenges still remain, including how to implement changes (Fleming et al., 2017).
59
60
61
62
63
64 24
65
 Alamoush et al. (2021), proposed sustainable port management indicators. They state
1
2 that ports can directly or indirectly influence all SDGs. Ports need to integrate economic
3
4
and social aspects with environmental concerns, and drive the UN 2030 agenda, internally
5 and externally.
6
7
8
9 6. Conclusion
10
11 We concluded that SDG 8 (Providing Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 11
12
13 (Creating Sustainable Cities and Communities), and SDG 14 (Protecting Aquatic/Marine
14
15
Life) were most cited by the surveyed authorities over the analyzed period.
16 Our main conclusion is that the SDGs were included in the discussion agenda of port
17
18 authorities in 2018. Although reports from 2017 exist, this topic was not addressed by
19
20 any authority. Only four port authorities in 2020 reported on Sustainable Development
21
22 Goals.
23
24 SPA presented a matrix relating SDGs with GRI indicators under three sustainability
25
pillars (social, environmental, and economic sustainability) in its 2020 report. The port
26
27 authority highlighted priority issues for stakeholders, and the principles of the Global
28
29 Pact. This may indicate that SPA is aligned with sustainable development objectives and
30
31 realizes the importance of applying these to the port sector, and therefore, is a reference
32
33 for the sector.
34
35 Of all the sustainability initiatives highlighted in the reports, the SPA initiative for
36 SDG 7 (clean and affordable energy), was the only Brazilian case of significant clean
37
38 energy generation linked to a port authority. Regarding SDG 9 (industry, innovation, and
39
40 infrastructure), two port authorities (APPA and SUAPE) released plans related to this
41
42 SDG, which detailed tools for optimizing port operations. The results indicate significant
43
44 differences in how the theme is addressed in the reports. Few ports address this topic in
45
46 their reports.
47 Our conclusions are based on reports available for public consultation. This does not
48
49 mean that other public ports do not carry out actions related to this theme, but rather that
50
51 the data were not available for consultation. We recommend that Brazilian ports
52
53 disseminate their sustainability practices in line with SDGs. This can improve their
54
55 communication with stakeholders, and highlight contributions to meeting the 2030
56
57
agenda goals.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 25
65
 References
1
2 Al-Enazi, A., Okonkwo, E. C., Bicer, Y., Al-Ansari, T., 2021. A review of cleaner
3 alternative fuels for maritime transportation. Energy Reports. 7, 1962-1985.
4
5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.03.036.
6
7
Alamoush, A., Ballini, F., Dalaklis, D., 2021. Port sustainable supply chain management
8 framework: Contributing to the United Nations’ sustainable development
9 goals. Maritime Technology and Research. 3(2), 137-161.
10
11
https://doi.org/10.33175/mtr.2021.247076.
12
13
Alamoush, A., Ballini, F., Ölçer, A. [b], 2021. Revisiting port sustainability as a
14 foundation for the implementation of the United Nations Sustainable Development
15 Goals (UN SDGs). Journal of Shipping and Trade, 6, 19.
16
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-021-00101-6.
17
18
19
Antão, P.; Calderón, M.; Puig, M.; Michail, A.; Wooldridge, C.; Darbra, R.M., 2016.
20 Identification of occupational health, safety, security (OHSS) and environmental
21 performance indicators in port areas, Safety Science. 85, 266-275.
22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.031.
23
24
ANTAQ. Agência Nacional de Transporte Aquaviário, 2021. WebPortos. 2021.
25
26 Available online: http://anuario.antaq.gov.br/.
27
28 Azarkamand, Sahar, Chris Wooldridge, R. M. Darbra., 2020. Review of initiatives and
29 methodologies to reduce CO2 emissions and climate change effects in ports.
30 International journal of environmental research and public health, 17 (11), 3858.
31
32 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17113858.
33
34 Cavalli, L., Giulia, L., Guerrieri, L., Querci, A., Bari, F., Barbieri, G., Ferrini, S., Di
35 Meglio, R. Cardone, R., Tardo, A., Pagano,P., Tesei, A., Lattuca, D,. 2021.
36 Addressing Efficiency and Sustainability in the Port of the future with 5G: The
37
38 Experience of the Livorno Port. A Methodological Insight to Measure Innovation
39 Technologies’ Benefits on Port Operations. Sustainability. 13 (21), 12146.
40 https://doi.org/10.3390/su132112146.
41
42 Cepeda, M., Pereira, N., Kahn, S., Caprece, J.D., 2019. A review of the use of LNG versus
43
44 HFO in maritime industry. Marine Systems & Ocean Technology. 14, 75-84
45 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40868-019-00059-y.
46
47 Cerceau, J., Mat, N., Junqua, G., Lin, L., Laforest, V., 2014. Implementing industrial
48 ecology in port cities: international overview of case studies and cross-case analysis,
49
50 Journal of Cleaner Production. 74, 1-16.
51 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.050.
52
53 Cloquell-Ballester, V., Lo-Iacono-Ferreira, V.G., Artacho-Ramírez, M.Á., Capuz-Rizo,
54 S.F., 2020. The Carbon Footprint of Valencia Port: A Case Study of the Port
55
56 Authority of Valencia (Spain). Int. J. Environonmental Research Public Health. 17,
57 8157. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218157.
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 26
65
 Cunha, D., Moneva, J.M., 2018. The Elaboration Process of the Sustainability Report: A
1 case study. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios. 20 (4), 533-549.
2
3
https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v0i0.3948.
4
5
Deloitte.,2021. Europe’s ports at the crossroads of transitions: A Deloitte and ESPO
6 Study. Available online: https://www.espo.be/media/Deloitte-ESPO%20study%20-
7 %20Europe%E2%80%99s%20ports%20at%20the%20crossroads%20of%20transit
8
9
ions_1.pdf.
10
11
Enguix IF, Egea M.S., González, A.G., Serrano D.A.,2019. Underwater acoustic
12 impulsive noise monitoring in port facilities: case study of the port of Cartagena.
13 Sensors. 19. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19214672.
14
15 ESPO. European Sea Ports Organization., 2021. Environmental Report 2021. Available
16
online: https://www.espo.be/news/espo-presents-its-environmental-report-2021-
17
18 ecopor.
19
20 Farcas, A., Powell, C., Brookes, K., Merchant, N., 2020. Validated shipping noise maps
21 of the Northeast Atlantic. Science of the Total Environment. 735, 139509.
22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139509.
23
24
Fleming, A., Wise, R. M., Hansen, H., Sams, L., 2017. The sustainable development
25
26 goals: A case study. Marine Policy. 86(1), 94–103.
27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.09.019.
28
29 Hossain, T. Adams, M., Walker, T., 2019. Sustainability initiatives in Canadian ports.
30 Marine Policy. 106, 103519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103519.
31
32 Hossain, T. Adams, M., Walker, T., 2021. Role of sustainability in global seaports. Ocean
33
34 and Coastal Management. 202, 105435.
35 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2020.105435.
36
37 Ike, M., Donovan, J., Topple, C., Masli, E., 2019. The process of selecting and prioritising
38 corporate sustainability issues: Insights for achieving the Sustainable Development
39
40 Goals. Journal of Cleaner Production. 236, 117661.
41 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117661.
42
43 IMO. International Maritime Organization, 2017. IMO and sustainable development: how
44 international shipping and the maritime community contribute to sustainable
45
46 development. Available online:
47 https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/Documents/IM
48 O%20SDG%20Brochure.pdf.
49
50 IMO. International Maritime Organization., 2015. Third IMO GHG Study 2014. London.
51
52 Available online:
53 https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Greenhouse-Gas-Studies-
54 2014.aspx.
55
56 Karagiannis, I., Vouros, P., Sioutas, N., Evangelinos, K., 2022. Mapping the maritime
57
58 CSR agenda: A cross-sectoral materiality analysis of sustainability reporting.
59 Journal of Cleaner Production. 338, 130139.
60 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130139.
61
62
63
64 27
65
 Khaled, R., Ali, H., Mohamed, E., 2021. The Sustainable Development Goals and
1 corporate sustainability performance: Mapping, extent and determinants. Journal of
2
3
Cleaner Production. 311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.127599.
4
5
KPMG.,2020. The KPMG Survey of Sustainability Reporting 2020. Available online:
6 https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf.
7
8 Kronfeld-Goharani, U., 2018. Maritime economy: Insights on corporate visions and
9 strategies towards sustainability. Ocean & Coastal Management. 165, 126–140.
10
11
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.08.010.
12
13
MacNeil, J., Adams, M., Walker, T., 2022. Evaluating the Efficacy of Sustainability
14 Initiatives in the Canadian Port Sector. Sustainability.
15 13, 21. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010373.
16
17 Marchand, P., Ratinaud, P., 2012. L’analyse de similitude appliquée aux corpus textuels:
18
19
les primaires socialistes pour l’élection présidentielle française (septembre-octobre
20 2011). Actes des 11eme Journées Internationales d’Analyse Statistique des Données
21 Textuelles. JADT. 687–699.
22
23 Michalska-Szajer, A., Klimek, H., Dąbrowski, J. A., 2021. A comparative analysis of
24
CSR disclosure of Polish and selected foreign seaports. Case Studies on Transport
25
26 Policy. 9, 1112–1121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2021.05.012.
27
28 Moneva, J.M., Archel, P., Correa, C., 2006. GRI and the camouflaging of corporate
29 unsustainability. Accounting Forum. 30, 121-137.
30 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accfor.2006.02.001.
31
32 Neumann, B., Ott, K., Kenchington, R., 2017. Strong sustainability in coastal areas: a
33
34 conceptual interpretation of SDG 14, Sustainability Science. 12,1019–1035.
35 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0472-y.
36
37 Paiva, D., Freitas, M., Barbosa, M., Pizzolato, N., 2019. Assessing the environmental
38 management and operational efficiency of Brazilian public ports that export
39
40 soybeans. Revista de Administração Pública. 53 (2). https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-
41 761220170311.
42
43 Pereira, C. A., Oliveira, P. M., Reis, M. J. C. S., 2020. Processos e metodologias não-
44 tradicionais no Ensino Superior de Engenharia Elétrica: a percepção de
45
46 coordenadores de curso em dois países lusófonos. Meta: Avaliação. 12 (34), 211-
47 246. http://dx.doi.org/10.22347/2175-2753v12i34.2219.
48
49 Rosati, F., Faria, L., 2019. Business contribution to the Sustainable Development Agenda:
50 organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting. Corporate Social
51
52 Responsibility and Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1705.
53
54 Santos, S., Rodrigues, L., Branco, M, 2016. Online sustainability communication
55 practices of European seaports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112(4),
56 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.011.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 28
65
 SDG Compass., 2015. The guide for business action on the SDGs. Available online:
1 https://sdgcompass.org/wp-
2
3
content/uploads/2015/12/019104_SDG_Compass_Guide_2015.pdf.
4
5
Sousa, E., Kliemann, F., Andriotti, R., Campagnolo, R.,2020. Avaliação dos portos
6 públicos brasileiros: Gestão baseada em valor. BBR. Brazilian Business Review. 17,
7 439-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2020.17.4.5.
8
9 Sullivan, K., Thomas, S., Rosano, M., 2018. Using industrial ecology and strategic
10
11
management concepts to pursue the Sustainable Development Goals. Journal of
12 Cleaner Production. 174, 237-246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.201.
13
14 Vaneeckhaute, C., Fazli, A., 2020. Management of ship-generated food waste and sewage
15 on the Baltic Sea: A review. Waste Management, 102, 12-20.
16
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.10.030.
17
18
19
Vega-Muñoz, A., Salazar-Sepulveda, G., Espinosa-Cristia, J., Sanhueza-Vergara, J.
20 (2021). How to Measure Environmental Performance in Ports. Sustainability, 13,
21 4035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074035.
22
23 Virto, L., 2018. A preliminary assessment of the indicators for Sustainable Develppment
24
Goal (SDG) 14 Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas and marine resources
25
26 for sustainable development. Marine Policy, 98, 47–57.
27 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.08.036.
28
29 Visbeck, M., Kronfeld-Goharani, U., Neumann, B., Rickels, W., Schmidt, J., van Doorn,
30 E., Matz-Lück, N., Ott, K., Quaas, M., 2014. Securing blue wealth: The need for a
31
32 special sustainable development goal for the ocean and coasts. Marine Policy. 48,
33 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2014.03.005.
34
35 Wang, X., Yuen, K., Wong, Y., Li, K., 2020. How can the maritime industry meet
36 Sustainable Development Goals? An analysis of sustainability reports from the
37
38 social entrepreneurship perspective. Transportation Research Part D. 78 102173.
39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.11.002.
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64 29
65
Conflict of Interest

Declaration of interests

☒ The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships
that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

☐ The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered
as potential competing interests: