当前位置：文档库 › Sustainable Development of Maritime Operations in Ports

Sustainable Development of Maritime Operations in Ports

John Dinwoodie,1*Sarah Tuck,1Harriet Knowles,1James Benhin 1and Mark Sansom 2

School of Management,University of Plymouth Business School,UK

Falmouth Harbour Commissioners,UK

ABSTRACT

Globalisation has heralded burgeoning ship movements and maritime operations in ports alongside increased international concerns regarding potential environmental impacts.In particular,smaller ports require accessible tools to manage them.A framework to facilitate environmental management applies business process principles to identify relevant inputs,processes and outputs.A case study of Falmouth Harbour Commis-sioners compares functional units and ?ows that de ?ne input –output processes for anchoring and bunkering operations.Strategic ‐level processes affect present and future operations while tactical service processes guarantee service level and quality through their integrity.Operational processes occur at the output level.An accessible generic framework supports planning of more sustainable maritime operations,facilitates mitigation of potential risks and encourages authorities to engage with sustainability agendas and manage development proposals proactively.Ongoing interlocution with business strategists will refocus port managers on educational and commercial missions and increase stakeholder engagement.Simpli ?cation and optimisation phases of business process re ‐engineering remain untapped by business strategists.Copyright ?2011John Wiley &Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 8February 2011;revised 1April 2011;accepted 11April 2011

Keywords:business process framework;environmental management;smaller ports;sustainable development;maritime operations;stakeholder engagement

Introduction

USINESS STRATEGISTS HAVE STUDIED ENVIRONMENTAL OBLIGATIONS IN SUPPLY CHAINS AND MULTINATIONAL OIL

corporations (e.g.Shah,2011;Chertow and Miyata,2011;Sarkis et al.,2010;Ketola,2007;Miller and Quinn,1998)but not port authorities,which oversee maritime operations including extensive oil loading and discharging.This paper proposes a business process framework to remedy this omission.Maritime

operations span all routine procedures which a ship must undergo whilst in port to operate effectively,including anchoring,marine fuel bunkering and ballast water exchange.Specialist regulations,conventions and guidelines underpin each operation which may inter alia have an impact on environmental aspects including emissions to air,

*Correspondence to:John Dinwoodie,Head,International Shipping and Logistics Group,School of Management,Cookworthy Building,University of Plymouth Business School,Drake Circus,Plymouth PL48AA,UK.E ‐mail:jdinwoodie@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html, Copyright ?2011John Wiley &Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Business Strategy and the Environment Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

Published online 27June 2011in Wiley Online Library (https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,)DOI:10.1002/bse.718

112J.Dinwoodie et al. soil and sediments,discharges to water,noise,waste production,changes in terrestrial habitats and marine ecosystems,odour,resource consumption and port development on land or sea(Darbra et al.,2005).Bunkering operations may engender oil spill risks with potentially catastrophic impacts on beaches,food chains,sediment and ?shing communities(e.g.Edoho,2008;Ray,2008;Idemudia and Ite,2006);anchoring may damage irreplaceable environments(Backhurst and Cole,2000)and invasive species introduced during ballast water exchanges may upset delicate ecosystems(International Maritime Organisation,IMO,2011).Currently,port authorities receive minimal practical support in discharging their responsibilities.

Typical of many industries,ports adopted a combination of awareness training and tougher regulation to bridge a gap between environmental aspirations and practice(Tilley,1999).European Union(EU)Directive EC85/337 (later altered by EC97/11)advised ports to conduct an environmental audit which covers inter alia handling and storage areas of prescribed materials,waste emissions,spoil disposal areas,?shing,wetlands and zones of speci?c scienti?c or cultural interest,compliance with conventions and codes concerning marine pollution and dangerous goods,and prioritization of environmental protection issues.Audits are non‐mandatory,but port managers are liable for environmental damages with consequent punitive damages.Each UK port authority is responsible for managing the risk of any potentially adverse environmental impacts caused by maritime operations within its aegis. The ports industry bears testament that effective implementation requires managerial involvement in the design process(Sroufe,2003)as port authorities have willingly in?uenced environmental legislation through consultation, agreements which underpin guidelines and best practice,and assisted in developing benchmarks,management schemes,training,monitoring,research and collaborative involvement(Paipai,1999).

A British Ports Association(BPA)environmental code of practice aims to raise environmental awareness amongst port employees and users.However,growing administrative pressures leave many port authorities reporting insuf?cient access to resources to help them meet current regulatory requirements(Royal Haskoning, 2009)fuelling risks of non‐compliance or blind indifference(Hutchinson and Chaston,1994;Wilson et al.,2010). The UK government has promoted high environmental standards and supported sustainable port development (Department for Transport,DfT,2000)but offers ports only statistical information,general guidelines,control on the development planning process and rules for project appraisal and commercial independence(Gilman,2003). Port authorities undertake statutory duties to meet social and environmental obligations whilst embedding corporate social responsibility(CSR)concepts in port management systems and undertaking routine operations and development projects commercially(Pettit,2008).Whilst de?nitions of CSR are probably socially constructed and idiographic(Dahlsrud,2008),salutary failures within oil supply chains testify to the importance of corporate strategies being seen to canvas,understand and integrate community perceptions into CSR policies(Idemudia and Ite,2006).Expert assessment of the‘signi?cance’of potential impacts(Paipai,1999)is not necessarily evaluated monetarily or quantitatively but developments that generate environmental concern are subject to environmental impact assessment(EIA)methodologies(Darbra et al.,2005)to assess the potential impact on marine and terrestrial habitats(UNESCAP,2009).Where assessments identify adverse impacts,mitigation requires management plans to conserve and protect public access to features of natural beauty or historic interest.Public bodies and port authorities prepare these for Sites of Special Scienti?c Interest(SSSIs;DfT,2000).A qualitative scoping study is required if developments will impact inter alia on biodiversity or water(DfT,2002).

Early work to assist ports to manage environmental risks and improve their performance engaged three Fal Estuary ports,which established a joint environmental management system(EMS;Paipai,1999,p.45;Falmouth Port,2003). Later initiatives(EcoPorts,2006)encouraged continuous improvement through implementing tools and methodologies to encourage better performance.The EcoPorts Foundation aims to help develop practical solutions for ports seeking to improve their environmental performance and to share knowledge and expertise(ESPO,2003), although few smaller ports are members.Tools assist development of an environmental management and information system to plan and assess environmental issues,and to monitor compliance and assess impacts(Table1). To assess the signi?cance of maritime operations,the SOSEA tool(Darbra et al.,2005)adopted a modi?ed Leopold matrix(Leopold et al.,1971).Rows list environmental aspects(see the?rst paragraph of the Introduction)and columns show activities.Activities include marine and coastal engineering,dredging,administration and planning,shipping and navigation and emergency situations by port authorities;cargo handling,storage,stakeholder activities, shipbuilding and repair,?sheries and port‐based industry by port tenants;and bunkering,waste management, maintenance,land traf?c and recreation and tourism by other tenants.In assessing the strategic perspective of each

DOI:10.1002/bse

I n i t i a t i v e

A i m s t o :I m p l e m e n t a t i o n R e f e r e n c e s

S e l f ‐d i a g n o s i s m e t h o d (S D M )

I d e n t i f y e n v i r o n m e n t a l r i s k s a n d e s t a b l i s h p r i o r i t i e s f o r a c t i o n a n d c o m p l i a n c e

P o r t m a n a g e r c o m p l e t e s a c h e c k l i s t .E c o P o r t s g u i d a n c e o n b e n c h m a r k i n g p e r f o r m a n c e ;a n a l y s i s o f s t r e n g t h s ,w e a k n e s s e s ,o p p o r t u n i t i e s a n d t h r e a t s ;s t r a t e g i c a d v i c e D a r b r a e t a l.(2004)

P o r t e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e v i e w s y s t e m (P E R S )

A s s i s t p o r t s t o i m p l e m e n t a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t s y s t e m (E M S )t h r o u g h d e v e l o p i n g c o m p o n e n t s w i t h i n i t t o r a i s e i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s E c o p o r t s o f f e r a n i n d e p e n d e n t r e v i e w c o n s i s t i n g o f g u i d e l i n e s a n d e x a m p l e d o c u m e n t s

E c o p o r t s (2010;2006)

S t r a t e g i c o v e r v i e w o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s p e c t s (S O S E A )

I d e n t i f y ‘s i g n i f i c a n t ’e n v i r o n m e n t a l a s p e c t s a r i s i n g f r o m o p e r a t i o n s ;g u i d e p o r t s i n g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o m a n a g e l i a b i l i t i e s a n d r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s ;e n h a n c e l o n g ‐t e r m s t r a t e g i c d e v e l o p m e n t a n d i n c r e a s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l a w a r e n e s s

P o r t i n d i c a t e s t o E c o p o r t s w h e t h e r e a c h o f 12e n v i r o n m e n t a l ‘a s p e c t s ’a p p l i e s t o a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h i n c l u d e b u n k e r i n g ,b u t n o t a n c h o r i n g .A n a s p e c t i s ‘s i g n i f i c a n t ’i f t h e n u m b e r o f t i c k s a g a i n s t i t o r a b r e a c h o f l e g i s l a t i o n a r e ‘s i g n i f i c a n t ’.F o r e a c h s i g n i f i c a n t a s p e c t f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s o n m a n a g e m e n t a n d a c t i o n s t a k e n D a r b r a e t a l.(2005)

I S O 14001

P r o m o t e c o n t i n u a l i m p r o v e m e n t s b y e n c o u r a g i n g p o r t s t o a d o p t a n d i m p l e m e n t E M S ;a s s i s t s y s t e m a t i c d e v e l o p m e n t o f a f o r m a l i s e d m a n a g e m e n t p r o c e s s ,a n d e v a l u a t e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a c t i v i t i e s ,o p e r a t i o n s ,p r o d u c t s a n d s e r v i c e s C o n t i n u o u s m o n i t o r i n g i m p r o v e s u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d a s s i s t s r i s k m a n a g e m e n t ,s u p p o r t e d b y a p p r o p r i a t e d a t a c o l l e c t i o n t e c h n i q u e s a n d r e c o r d k e e p i n g

D a r b r a e t a l.(2009),C u r k o v i c a n d S r o u f e (2011)

E c o ‐m a n a g e m e n t s c h e m e a n d a u d i t s c h e m e (E M A S )P r o m o t e o n g o i n g i m p r o v e m e n t s

P r e p a r a t i o n o f a n e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e v i e w a n d s t a t e m e n t .S e e r e g u l a t i o n E C 1221/2009I E M A (2010)

A s s o c i a t e d

B r i t i s h P o r t s

I d e n t i f y e n v i r o n m e n t a l i s s u e s a n d a s s o c i a t e d r i s k s ;a c h i e v e s c a l e e c o n o m i e s

M u l t i ‐s i t e a p p l i c a t i o n s o f s t a n d a r d i s e d p r o c e d u r e s

D a r b r a e t a l.(2005,p .867)T a b l e 1.S o m e t o o l s t o a s s i s t e n v i r o n m e n t a l m a n a g e m e n t i n p o r t s

113

Framework to Manage Environmental Impacts of Maritime Operations

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

114J.Dinwoodie et al. aspect,management must assess whether legal regulations(always signi?cant),local‐scale concerns of stakeholders

or groups which require mitigation,global concerns relating to greenhouse effects,or other effects,apply.

This paper aims to present a framework to identify the business processes required to manage the potential

environmental impact of maritime operations,particularly in smaller ports.It compares applications of an input–

output systems framework to two maritime operations at strategic,tactical and operational levels by Falmouth

Harbour Commissioners(FHC),and discusses the contribution of the framework and scope for further

applications.

Framing Environmental Management Processes in Smaller Ports

Typically,organisational actions such as investing in equipment to mitigate pollution re?ect decisions by managers,

underpinned by an underlying sustainability strategy.However,the process of developing environmental awareness

in ports(Peris‐Mora et al.,2005)and systems‐based input–output modelling of port environmental management

processes remain largely unexplored.In Europe’s largest ports sector(Oxford Economics,2009)few specialist

environmental management tools are available to managers unless they join EcoPorts or employ personnel with

environmental expertise,and a recent survey of100ports revealed32reporting ISO14001certi?cation,with lower

rates for other systems(Royal Haskoning,2009).Certi?cation is unlikely in the numerous ports not sampled,

probably smaller authorities(Df T,2006a).A staged process whereby environmental assessment and management

is undertaken and owned by individual port authorities fosters local awareness and commitment most effectively

(Paipai,1999),but relatively few‘own’the issue,with32%planning to outsource environmental management

functions and a further22%to recruit a specialist(Royal Haskoning,2009).To assist in developing management

awareness and reporting port environmental management processes,this paper presents a framework to identify

relevant business processes.

Small and medium‐sized enterprises(SMEs)typically view environmental measures as costly(Revell and

Blackburn,2007),requiring time to develop.However,potential cost savings,positive publicity or new customers

attract some business owners(Revell et al.,2010).To implement continuous environmental monitoring implies

dedicated specialist personnel,typically unaffordable in smaller ports.Further,where managers feel a sense of

environmental responsibility,this may be underplayed and their environmental awareness and commitment

diminished if an EMS is managed externally.Effective frameworks to guide environmental management must be ?exible and capable of accounting for heterogeneity(Vernon et al.,2003).Policy makers’assumptions of a top‐down diffusion of environmental initiatives may be inappropriate for SMEs(Baylis et al.,1998).

One recent framework to assist comprehension of environmental management practices(Lucas,2010)grew

from interdisciplinary cross‐fertilisation of ecological economics and strategic management.The framework

presented here similarly innovatively integrates business process re‐engineering and environmental management

with in?uences from business strategy.Traditional physically based environmental assessments in ports require

strategic physical and data inputs,but being uninformed by models of CSR strategy,they have typically shunned

instrumental and political in?uences.Discarded branding and reputation‐building motivators of corporate

responsibility(Ditlev‐Simonsen and Midttun,2011)have implications for networking processes and external

communication alongside political,integrative and managerial factors manifested in stakeholder management.

Transitions in sustainability,typically framed within a supra‐corporate social system(Loorbach et al.,2010),imply

important developmental governance inputs and consultation processes.Finally a commercial strategic input,

perhaps via resource management,offers an economic dimension to support socio‐cultural and environmental

responsibilities in corporate sustainability(Ketola,2010).

Derived from input–output process modelling,the systems framework includes three stages,or levels,

comprising inputs,service processes and outputs.This established technique(Parnaby,1979)aims to identify

functional units and?ows that shape processes in a company by de?ning the problem,system boundaries and

function and variable?ows.Management of the potential environmental impact of maritime operations in a port is

conceived as a system involving various business https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,goudis et al.,(2004,58)de?ned a system as a‘group

of interacting,interrelated,or interdependent elements,forming a complex whole’,and a systems approach seeks to

DOI:10.1002/bse

assist observation,understanding and analysis of the issues involved.This paper focuses on process mapping to understand and document environmental management.

To achieve the study goal,three levels of decision making are de ?ned.Input –output process modelling identi ?es strategic inputs required to set up operations,analyses service processes that take place in everyday operations and then de ?nes the operational output of these processes.At the strategic level,processes affect present and future operations and their potential impacts;tactical service processes ensure that service level and quality are guaranteed through the integrity of processes;and at output level,operational processes are de ?ned.The various levels interact and the approach is holistic,as potential environmental impacts extend beyond the control of one port https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,ter,detailed analysis may specify where each action occurs,who is involved,when it takes place,why it occurs and how long it takes.An exploratory application (Dinwoodie et al.,2009)to anchoring operations by FHC (Table 2)identi ?ed strategic decisions (S1–S7)to incorporate the overall determination of the system objectives,tactical decisions (T1–T7)to achieve the overall objectives and operational decisions (O1–O6)to keep the system within constraint limits and in accord with objectives.Some components may be revisited at different levels as when stakeholders are engaged at input (S4),process (T1,T3,T4)and output levels (O6).

Research Design

Carefully planned local responses to global pressures sometimes stimulate competitive advantages through collective action (Lund ‐Thomsen and Nadvi,2010).Tougher supra ‐national regulation of marine bunker fuels heralded similar challenges for Falmouth,UK,a smaller port in an environmentally sensitive area.Enduring and intensi ?ed international concern regarding environmental pollution caused by traditional burning of low ‐grade heavy fuel oils with high sulphur contents in ships ’bunkers prompted ongoing supra ‐national resolve and conventions to manage and reduce emissions.The IMO adopted regulations governing the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships,Annex VI of MARPOL 73/78,in 1997.Reduced limits for the mass/mass of sulphur content for marine fuel oil consumed within designated sulphur emission control areas (SECA)adjoining densely populated regions,included North Sea,Baltic Sea and North American SECAs (IMO,2011;Wang and Corbett,2007).Within UK waters,0.1%became the maximum permitted sulphur content of marine gas oils consumed (Directive 1999/32/EC;UK P&I Club,2008a;AtoBviaC,2010).Conveniently located adjacent to the 5°W SECA boundary,and offering extensive marine bunkering facilities,arrivals of large ships undertaking bunkering operations at Falmouth trebled (Table 3).FHC applications offer an extreme case context to test the business process framework in a very environmentally sensitive area which hosts bunkering operations at the UK ’s largest offshore terminal for marine oil and fuel,operated by a private commercial operator.FHC further regulates anchoring operations as a smaller port authority.

This growth prompted FHC to review how it managed the potential environmental impact of maritime operations,stimulating a knowledge transfer partnership (KTP)with a local university and funding of a maritime projects of ?cer who worked with academics and managers to understand and document the business processes

Strategic level Tactical level Operational level

Input Service processes Output

S1Mission statement T1Local familiarisation O1Internal monitoring,reporting,archiving S2Physical conditions T2Operational conventions O2External communication,dissemination S3Governance issues T3Networking O3Recommendations S4Stakeholders T4Consultation

O4Mitigations S5Local data

T5Reviewing,monitoring O5Sustainability S6Management system T6Hire expertise O6

Awareness

Resource assessment

Reporting

Table 2.Systems model overview

115

Framework to Manage Environmental Impacts of Maritime Operations Copyright ?2011John Wiley &Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

required to meet environmental obligations.A framework was developed,tested and applied to anchoring and bunkering (Table 4),two very different maritime operations.

Case ‐based research strategies have been deployed to assess whether environmental certi ?cation may create competitive advantages (Curkovic and Sroufe 2011).This case study reports FHC oversight of contrasting maritime operations which vary in scale and type.If the framework can assist FHC it should be transferable to less environmentally sensitive settings.Similarly,although many larger ports already employ a specialist environmental of ?cer,the framework might bene ?t them if it assists FHC to oversee its larger ‐scale bunkering operations.Successful application to two operations might imply a generic framework.With FHC as the case context and the framework as the phenomenon being examined,a case study research strategy centred on the case context allows the phenomenon being examined to remain embedded within its unique context (Dinwoodie and Xu,2008).EcoPorts and other initiatives typically focus primarily on physical environmental assessment.The systems framework ’s novel focus on business processes complements them,but is not directly comparable,and features potential environmental impacts rather than individual responsibilities or targets embedded in ISO 14001.

A Case Study:Falmouth Harbour Commissioners

As a case context offering inter alia safe anchoring and bunkering facilities for vessel of all sizes,Falmouth Harbour is located within the Fal Estuary in southwest England,a large international natural deepwater harbour.Adjacent facilities include dry dock facilities,cruise liner anchorage in Falmouth Bay and maritime services including shipbrokers,agents and chandlers (Falmouth Port,2003).Urban development plans prioritize waterfront and harbour regeneration in a historic built environment and regional development plans prioritize environmental

Date

Event

Notes

August 2007North Sea SECA introduced

2007–08Ship arrivals at Falmouth double Early 2008FHC reviews EMS

3months March 2008KTP proposal developed

6months October 2008Maritime Projects Officer in post

Late 2008

Understand and document business processes 3months December 2008Systems framework developed

3months February 2009Exploratory application of anchoring operations 6months April 2009Application to bunkering operations

5months

Late 2009on

Ongoing refinement and application of framework

Table 4.Research context and implementation

SECA,sulphur emission control area;FHC,Falmouth Harbour Commissioners;EMS,environmental management system;KTP,knowledge transfer partnership.

Ship type

Year

Ship deadweight tonnage Under 1kt

5–19.999kt

20–99.999kt

Over 100kt

Tankers 200566531122720087716236370Dry cargo 200582835821200810420736820Container

200510302008

Table 3.Number of ship arrivals at Falmouth (adapted from Df T,2009;2006b,Table 3.6)

116

J.Dinwoodie et al .

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

sustainability (Cornwall County Council,2005)in a unique setting with a rich water ecosystem and valuable habitat.The bay and estuary incorporate Special Areas of Conservation (SAC)including maerl beds of calci ?ed seaweed which may potentially be impacted by anchoring operations and SSSIs,Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB),and Heritage Coasts.

A protected harbour accommodates bunkering operations (Falmouth Port,2003)serving busy shipping lanes and bordering the 5°W SECA,re ‐designated ECA from July 2010,to embrace NO 2and other emissions (IMO,2011).The marine oil terminal bunkering operator Falmouth Oil Services Limited (FOS)offers all grades of fuels and lubricants to vessels and deliveries of gas oil and fresh water using barges,road tanks and pipes.FOS owns and operates a 50kt shore ‐side bunker station which stores fuel for delivery to vessels anchored alongside or sheltering locally (Falmouth Port,2003).FOS manages fuel deliveries,supported by a large independent bunker supplier and barge operator,which manages bunker sales.The oil terminal contains three tank farms,clean oil and fuel oil loading racks,slop reception and a processing facility.Two bunker barges service sales of fuel oil (FOS,2009).Four harbour authorities operate within the boundaries of the Fal Estuary and FHC manage a trust port,an independent statutory body controlled by an independent board and without shareholders or owners.By statute,FHC is required to proactively develop a sustainable approach to port operations and development opportunities and ensure that marine operations do not harm the valuable area (Falmouth Port,2009).FHC have responsibility for areas where bunkering operations frequently take place (Falmouth Port,2003;World Port Source,2010,shows a map).All pro ?ts arising from commercial activities are reinvested in port development (Falmouth Port,2007)and port management is open to public examination and responsible to interested stakeholders (DfT,2000).Applicable safe standards are implemented through compliance with the Port Marine Safety Code (PMSC,Falmouth Port,2009).FHC works with environmental agencies in accordance with UK environmental legislation and international conventions to maintain and improve the port environment.To conserve and enhance local environmental quality,staff education and training is undertaken and human activities which could cause negative impacts are guided by an environmental code of practice.Harbour authorities provide waste reception facilities.The EMS stows legislation and regulations noti ?ed by trade associations including BPA,EcoPorts,and government bodies.Records of all internal or external communications are kept,including complaints and environmental correspondence pertaining to port operations and commercial activities.If the impacts of operations are signi ?cant,consultants are appointed to audit and review activities or conduct an EIA.All targets and objectives comply with the PMSC and focus on mitigation and applicable safe standards (Falmouth Port,2009).

Analysis

Strategic Inputs

For each prime strategic input (S1,S2,…S7)Table 5summarises sub ‐components of this input (e.g.i,ii,iii for S2)and notes any differences between anchoring and bunkering operations.The prime strategic input of FHC ’s mission statement (S1)applies to all maritime operations.It obliges ‘a duty to work closely with environmental agencies ….[FHC is]…committed to the protection and conservation of the environment …strict adherence to UK environmental legislation and internationally agreed conventions.’Commitments to educate and train are noted below (Falmouth Port,2009).FHC handle many physical conditions (S2)which include an AONB where ‘development control decisions should favour conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape ’(Cornwall AONB,2010;S2i),avoidance of deterioration to habitats and disturbance to species (S2ii)which may potentially affect anchoring in maerl beds,and protection of the coastline from undesirable development (S2iii).

Strategies to manage governance inputs require port authorities to make contact,consult and comply with local authorities (S3i).At a national level,government and statutory inputs (S3ii)include the Environment Agency (UKEA)which seeks to protect and improve the environment,and via water framework directives to prevent deterioration in,and to restore,water quality.Inputs are likely from DfT;Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA);the Maritime Management Organisation which administers planning,licensing activities,marine nature conservation,public access to coastal areas and ?sheries management;and Planning Acts which guide decisions on major infrastructure development,including harbours.Supranational inputs regulate bunkering

117

Framework to Manage Environmental Impacts of Maritime Operations Copyright ?2011John Wiley &Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

operations (S3iii)including:codes of practice to facilitate sustainability (ESPO,2003);conventions underpinning transport,handling and storage of dangerous substances in ports (IMO,2011);dumping at sea and protection of the maritime environment from oil pollution (Paipai,1999).Currently,anchoring operations are less regulated.

In managing anchoring and bunkering operations,inputs to engage stakeholders are essential.Agencies (S4i)include Cornwall Sea Fisheries which maintain a ?exible patrol service and sustainable ?shery.Environmental interest groups (EIG,S4ii)include statutory bodies which promote sustainable development and volunteers including Friends of the Earth which aims to protect the rights of all people to live in a safe and healthy environment.Screening of suppliers and sub ‐contractors in building and maintenance works is an input (S4iii).Strategic inputs to a port EMS require inputs of objectives and targets,and mapping and monitoring of local management systems.Reviews are required of baseline operations (S5i),resource monitoring of databanks,information retrieval,surveys,and recording systems.Data required to locate anchoring positions differ from inputs of tidal ?ows required by modelling software to predict oil spill movements which may potentially arise from bunkering operations (s5ii).Similarly,although the technology underpinning systems to collate automatic identi ?cation system (AIS)data to monitor the incidence of anchoring differs from local tidal ?ows recorded at buoys,similar actions are required to set up systems.

An EMS (S6i)to record legislation and technical data to drive continuous improvements in environmental quality and prevent pollution is one element of the strategic management system (Curkovic and Sroufe,2011;ESPO,2003).Others include communications with local authorities (S6ii)which detail requirements for EIAs,compliance with environmental issues embedded in local policies,plans and programmes (Paipai,1999)and membership (S6iii)of EcoPorts and BPA which collaborate and contribute to establish best practice.Resource assessment (S7)is integral to FHC ’s mission of commercial viability and requires the costing and funding of all activities.Financial resources accrue from anchoring,piloting and other harbour charges,or government funding which includes KTPs with universities.All maritime operations are subject to this process.

Input Port authority lists:

Does anchoring (A)differ from bunkering (B)?

S1Mission statement Its environmental obligations No,but B engages FOS S2Physical conditions

Physical designations,e.g.(i)AONB No

(ii)SAC

Maerl may affect A (iii)Heritage Coast

S3Governance issues

Authorities it is answerable to (i)Locally No

(ii)Nationally

B:Oil spill plans

(iii)Supranationally

B:MARPOL,operating rules S4Stakeholders

Groups with an interest in its operations (i)Marine agencies No (ii)EIGs No (iii)Suppliers

S5Local data

Information available locally to (i)Baseline port operations

A:locations;B:tide flows (ii)Baseline resource monitoring

A:AIS;B:buoys S6Management system

How activities will be monitored through (i)An EMS

No (ii)Benchmarking

(iii)Professional bodies

More conventions for B S7

Resource assessment

How it will acquire and manage funding of assessments

Table 5.Strategic level inputs

FOS,Falmouth Oil Services Limited;AONB,area of outstanding natural beauty;SAC,special areas of conservation;EIG,environmental interest group;AIS,automatic identi ?cation system;EMS,environmental management system.

118

J.Dinwoodie et al .

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

Tactical Level

FHC tactics to facilitate familiarisation include arranging visits (T1i,Table 6).Tours of anchoring operations include the harbour area,docks,pilotage facilities,moorings and FHC of ?ces.Tours of bunkering operations visit tank farm,hoses,jetties and barges.Tactic T1ii similarly engages different types of shipping companies for each operation.Internal stakeholders (T1iii)include harbour authorities plus pilots for anchoring operations,and the bunker operator for bunkering operations.Action T1iv requires systems to record all operations and relevant data to enable FHC to identify any changes and the frequency of any environmental impacts.Anchoring operations entail arranging access to AIS data to reveal ship position,course and speed;bunkering operations entail acquiring and setting up buoys to host instrumentation to gather data to update tidal modelling and inform PISCES oil spill prediction software.

Bunkering operations are more regulated than anchoring and FHC requires procedures to guide those involved with supplying bunkers to ensure that operations minimise the risks of environmental damage (T2).Any implications for operational guidelines of anchoring in maerl beds will develop with ongoing research.Codes and conventions governing bunkering operations include:

?MARPOL,to prevent marine pollution caused through carrying or delivering oil products,vessel wastes and emissions,and control pollution involving noxious bulk liquids (IMO,2011).

Service processes Port authority plans:

Does anchoring (A)differ from bunkering (B)?

Duration A Duration B Days

T1Local

familiarisation

How to provide relevant information for those who need it using:(i)Harbour visits

A:pilots,mooring;B:tanks 0.50.5pa (ii)Researching client organizations Shipping companies differ 0.50.5pa (iii)Establishing stakeholder groups e.g.A:pilots;B:FOS 1.50.0pa (iv)Local monitoring technologies A:AIS;B:PISCES 5.010.0pa T2Operational conventions What to comply with and how B:More regulated 5.0 5.0pa

T3Networking

Who to contact and how through:(i)Site visits to other ports

No,but ports visited differ 1.0 4.0pa (ii)Relations with environmental agencies No,but agencies differ 0.50.5pa (iii)Stakeholder analysis

No,but contacts differ 5.0 5.0pa T4Consultation

Who to consult and when including:(i)Experts

No:experts differ 1.0 5.0pa (ii)Professional bodies/trade associations No:bodies differ

2.0 4.0pa (iii)Stakeholders

No:stakeholders differ

1.0

3.0

T5Reviewing,monitoring

Which data to gather,how,and how to analyse and store them including:(i)Incident records A:AIS;B:spills

1.5 4.0pa (ii)Sampling operations

A:locations;B:incidents 1.0 2.0pa (iii)Monitoring incidence and impact No;more data for B 2.0 2.5pi (iv)EMS/consumer satisfaction reporting No

4.0 4.0pi T6Hire expertise

Who to hire in and when including:(i)Environmental consultants No:experts differ 5.0 1.0pi (ii)Public relations companies No 2.0 2.0pi (iii)Staff training

0.5 3.0pi (iv)Client education and training

No:providers differ

5.010.0pi T7

Reporting

How to store incident/operations data

No:data or procedures differ

0.5

Table 6.Service level processes and durations

FOS,Falmouth Oil Services Limited;AIS,automatic identi ?cation system;EMS,environmental management system;pa,[days]per annum;pi,[days]per incident.

119

Framework to Manage Environmental Impacts of Maritime Operations

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

120J.Dinwoodie et al.?SOLAS(safety of life at sea)which applies to ships involved in receiving and supplying fuel at sea relating inter alia to?re protection,safety navigation,carriage of dangerous goods and safety management(IMO,2011).?The design and construction of ships carrying lique?ed gases and polluting bulk liquids.

?Minimum standards for the safe transport of dangerous and polluting goods by sea,and port operations in Europe(EU Directive2002/59/EC;ESPO,2003).

?UK Merchant Shipping(Ship‐to‐Ship Transfer)Regulations2008which govern transfers between ships,of cargo or bunker fuel involving hazardous substances in UK waters(Maritime and Coastguard Agency,MCA,2008).?Operating guidelines cover bunkering equipment,communication system,?re?ghting,and pollution prevention equipment.Safety concerns include vessel condition,responsible personnel,quantity demanded and emergency plans(UK P&I Club,2008b).

To establish networking(T3)requires tactical actions to instigate site visits and shared experiences with ports (T3i)that demonstrate best practice.Instigating regular meetings,email and telephone contact is required to develop relations with groups and agencies(T3ii)as is stakeholder analysis(T3iii)(Falmouth Port,2009),and although contacts vary with the types of maritime operation,tactical actions are similar.Similar actions are required to establish consultation,engaging experts from universities and Natural England(T4i),and professional bodies and trade associations(T4ii)such as BPA to access advice on legal and policy issues,exchange knowledge and develop best practice.Established contacts in governmental or other agencies will email noti?cations or advertise meetings as new obligations arise.Ongoing stakeholder consultation(T4iii)requires updated contacts lists, stakeholder analysis,identi?cation of contacts and communication to identify concerns.

To enable review and monitoring of impacts and any scope for simplifying operations,service processes require databases which detail procedures,the frequency of operations and any environmental impacts(T5i).FHC undertake proactive local oceanographic modelling of pollution incidents using GIS databases of hydrographic and tidal records to assist national and local emergency authorities to enact oil spill contingency plans(ESPO,2003).Updating requires tactical decisions on how and where to sample(T5ii).In the case of anchoring,historical AIS records are interrogated. FHC cooperates with national and local authorities in preparing contingency plans for dealing with oil pollution incidents(IMO,2011),promoting awareness of existing contingency plans,communicating this knowledge internally and assisting coordination of contingency plans and contributes to improve the safety of navigation and prevent pollution(ESPO,2003).The UKPMSC requires all ports to carry out risk assessment for marine operations to implement the safety management system for managing navigation(Risk Support,2001).This standard offers a framework for preparing policies and plans(Paipai,1999;Falmouth Port,2009).Heavy regulation requires more actions to establish monitoring systems(T5iii)and report key indicators and aspects of consumer satisfaction and the impacts of mitigations and monitoring(T5iv)for bunkering,than anchoring operations.

When hiring in expertise,processes facilitate actions T6i and T6ii,perhaps to publicise particular activities or manage media engagement surrounding maerl beds,oil spills or pollution incidents.Tactics to develop environmental awareness training for staff(T6iii)may encourage personnel to join trade associations,attend conferences or visit other ports to share best practice.To ful?l its mission to educate and train waterway users to be aware of their impact on the environment,FHC requires processes to engage specialist training providers for persons undertaking anchoring operations or using bunkering facilities(T6iv).Procedures are required(T7)to archive AIS records of anchoring operations and incidents arising during bunkering operations.Cumulatively, records log changing port activities(Paipai,1999).These records inform the EMS,are available to authorities and stakeholders and are updated as legislation changes.

Table6reports either the approximate number of days spent per annum(pa)on regular activities such as networking and consultation or days spent per incident(pi)on ad hoc activities such as training for new staff or oil spill response.In general the duration of many service processes is similar for each operation,but tactic T1iii is transferred to the independent bunker operator.Because bunkering operations are complex,some activities(T3i, T4,T5,T6)require more time,dependent on the complexity of the analysis(T6i).

Operational Level

Increasingly,FHC monitors how far consumers are satis?ed with how it manages environmental assessments.As an output process(Table7)operational actions are well coordinated.A?rst operational action highlights

DOI:10.1002/bse

monitoring programmes (O1i)to identify whether port users perform operations to standard.To facilitate continuous updating (ESPO,2003)it is necessary to de ?ne environmental performance indicators.Next,relevant issues and communications with environmental stakeholders are documented (action O1ii).Electronic document sharing assists staff to access information,raises awareness of legislation and obligations,and ensures compliance.CSR reporting requires a comprehensive baseline database comprising reports,documents and operator records (Action O1iii).Directive 2003/04EC requires port administrations to process and update environmental information pertaining to their activities and projects.To comply and raise awareness of best practice and the professional pro ?le of FHC,actions O2i and O2ii provide information sharing online before activities are assessed.To broadcast the environmental credentials of the port authority (ESPO,2003)requires media contact (O2iii).Newsletters and similar updates to stakeholders (O2iv)enhance local engagement with AONB partners and visitors who pick up lea ?ets.Actions vary little between anchoring and bunkering operations,although the partners and responsibilities differ.

Regular updates to environmental codes of practice (O3i)for public and commercial harbour users aim to ensure compliance with Water Framework and EU Habitat Directives.Updates and recommendations for anchoring operations are necessarily ongoing as research into any potential impacts on maerl beds proceeds.Regarding bunkering operations,action O3i encourages bunker operators to apply the International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals (ICS,2006),incorporate procedures into the ship ’s safety management system to ensure

Output

Port authority will:

Do anchoring actions (A)differ from bunkering (B)?

Duration A Duration B Days O1

Internal monitoring,reporting,archiving

Collect,record,present and store key data.Set up:

(i)Monitoring scheme No;A less developed 1.0 2.0pa (ii)Environmental library No;A less developed 0.50.0pi (iii)CSR reporting

No;A less developed 1.0 1.0pa

O2External

communication and

dissemination

Share information with third parties via:(i)Trade associations,conferences No 1.0 3.5pa (ii)Stakeholder communications

strategy

No 3.0 3.0pa (iii)Press reporting No 0.5 3.0pi (iv)Newsletters No

0.5

0.0

O3Recommendations Inform and update users and

authorities through:

(i)Updated environmental

code of practice

No;A less certain 7.00.0pa (ii)Inputs to policy making No;A less certain

2.0

0.0

O4Mitigations Set up management procedures,

manuals,and systems to respond to issues of user compliance by:

(i)Registering/recording complaints No 1.0 3.0pa (ii)Consumer satisfaction surveys No 0.50.0pa O5Sustainability Promote/monitor sustainable

operations

No 0.5 1.0pi

O6Awareness Establish,promote best practice:(i)By educating stakeholders No 1.00.0pa (ii)By establishing awareness and

training materials

No 1.5 5.0pa

Table 7.Output processes and durations

CSR,corporate social responsibility;pa,[days]per annum;pi,[days]per incident.

121

Framework to Manage Environmental Impacts of Maritime Operations

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

122J.Dinwoodie et al. that risks have been assessed and mitigation controls established and make oil spill contingency arrangements. Networking with agencies such as DEFRA(O3ii)seeks to promote inputs to policy.

For all maritime operations,FHC must explain how its evidence base is collated and monitoring procedures are established(action O4).Systems record(O4i)and assess(O4ii)FHC performance and incorporate procedures to handle complaints,litigation,appeals against decisions and compensation issues,to enhance client retention and customer relations.Regular spot checks on all types of operations are conducted to ensure compliance with relevant codes and to promote the ethos and practice of sustainability(O5).In aspiring to share knowledge of legislation and best practice with schools and community groups,using lea?ets for marina users and online instructions for ships requesting piloting services,FHC emphasises its own corporate environmental awareness(O6i).To reduce human error which may cause accidents,action O6ii aims to share knowledge of legislation,good practice and mitigation procedures and ensure that personnel are quali?ed to conduct safe operations and prepared to tackle spillages.Such training is time‐and cost‐ef?cient in enhancing individual skill competences(ESPO,2003).

The duration of each operational activity(Table7)is broadly similar for most outputs,but FOS rather than FHC is responsible for some bunkering actions(O1ii,O2iv,O3,O4ii,O6i).The greater complexity of bunkering operations requires proportionately more FHC hours than anchoring to register complaints(O4i)and manage external communication via conferences(O2i),the media(O2iii)and awareness training materials(O6ii). Discussion:Impact on the Port Authority

Because port authorities implement the systems framework directly,their likelihood of owning the evaluation process and embedding environmental awareness into their organisation is increased.A long‐standing FHC EMS testi?es to good practice,but in seeking further improvements,applications of business process thinking identi?ed the importance of stakeholder engagement and management,later incorporated into a broader corporate ‘sustainability management system’.Practical implementation bene?ts stimulated further applications to de?ne

and implement a quality management system to incorporate information spanning all FHC activities.

Because FHC implemented environmental assessments internally,stakeholder engagement increased, generating new contacts and offers of information sharing(Table8).Unexpectedly,volunteers from EIGs now

System component Before After

Environmental agenda Ad hoc Systematic

Response to policy issues Reactive Proactive

Evidence of environmental performance Number of spills Consumer satisfaction reporting HM input Attends all meetings Policy officer releases HM FHC policy engagement Compliance Initiates debate

Who conducts assessments Consultants FHC initiates research

FHC engagement in environmental issues Compliance New initiatives,e.g.Portonovo Role of external engagement As required by statute Encourage visits

Extent of external engagement Statutory Attend,e.g.BPA Professional links Trade bodies Environmental bodies

Nature of stakeholders Mainly governmental Community and EIGs

EIG attitude Suspicious Work with FHC

Actions of EIGs Complain Advise on legislation Anchoring technologies No data analysis AIS analysis

Pollution modelling Oil spill records Data buoy;PISCES

Nature of EMS Piecemeal Structured

Medium for EMS Paper based Web‐based library

Training for Users New groups engaged

Table8.Impacts of applying the systems framework

HM,Harbour Master;FHC,Falmouth Harbour Commissioners;BPA,British Ports Association;EIG,environmental interest group;AIS,automatic identi?cation system;EMS,environmental management system.

DOI:10.1002/bse

contribute to monitoring systems and offer responses to development proposals and legislative changes.A marine projects of ?cer,recruited following proactive funding searches which attracted a KTP,releases time spent by the Harbour Master in attending routine meetings,and has empowered FHC to contribute vigorously to policy debates and technical issues.FHC proactively engages external bodies including the BPA to benchmark its performance and share best practice.Systematic recording of upcoming meetings ensures planned representation spanning more stakeholders including local initiatives considering low carbon issues and the Marine and Coastal Access Bill.Stakeholder analysis prioritised improved engagement with existing environmental stakeholders,but an improved public pro ?le has attracted new requests from universities and harbour authorities to engage and visit.

Evidence that FHC environmental policy is effective includes quarterly SAC management meetings which audit records of all pollution incidents.No actions to date of non ‐compliance,or prosecutions,provide further evidence of compliance.Performance beyond good practice is evidenced by positive media coverage and involvement in KTP,Portonovo and Falmouth Habitat projects.

Implementing the systems framework improved decision making,providing a structured approach to identify and evaluate potential impacts and target resources on investigating the most serious.Clearer priorities focussed effort,saving time and resources.When the framework identi ?ed incomplete habitat research necessitating studies of maerl bed distribution,a novel anchor investigation was prioritised,triggering anchor analysis,AIS ship anchorage plotting and a dive investigation.Similarly,when a requirement to review and formalise hydrographic procedures emerged a specialist internship was initiated.The local marine school was invited to coordinate student projects to investigate the potential impacts of other local maritime operations identi ?ed in a brainstorming session.In pursuing an evidence ‐based approach,FHC has established new technologies to assist the collection and analysis of data locally.AIS data have generated the ?rst systematic recording of anchoring operations locally.To assist in predicting and hence mitigating the likely impact of oil spills,FHC deploys PISCES modelling and forecasting software.A bespoke buoy has been purchased to record tidal ?ows for input to the model.Training of employees and harbour users and increasing community and stakeholder involvement which should further reduce the risk of mishaps,are outputs in the systems approach which increase awareness.Over time FHC will become increasingly aware of its mission,and better able to achieve it,as outputs of data collection,monitoring,recording and consumer feedback are improved continuously.

Conclusions

To date,port authorities have rarely integrated predominantly physical environmental evaluations with business strategy.Similarly,business strategists have largely overlooked the environmental dimensions of ports as sensitive maritime interfaces.A new dialogue is urgently required to initiate both agendas.Port authorities should undertake initial applications of the systems framework internally to promote and enhance management ’s environmental awareness and grow commitment to environmental management,learning to incorporate it with business strategy.This commitment predicates increased deployment of complementary methodologies and physically based environmental monitoring tools and auditing systems.

Port authorities need to deploy the business process framework to identify strategic,tactical and operational levels of environmental management processes.Rather than conducting predominantly physical evaluations,refocusing on strategic missions will highlight educational dimensions to raise awareness of operational conventions and commercial dimensions to reduce costs of hiring in expertise.Consortia of smaller ports applying the framework should work collectively with neighbouring authorities to cost ‐effectively acquire and disseminate specialist knowledge,contacts and management systems,bene ?t from co ‐representation and engage proactively with funding initiatives to promote environmental awareness.Many authorities will need to prioritise revisiting the strategic role of stakeholder engagement,tactical management of service processes of networking,consultation and familiarisation and operational processes for external communication.Increased stakeholder engagement is imperative to enhance the evaluation process as new social capital is built.

The fecundity of cross ‐disciplinary fertilisation to inform frameworks to assist comprehension of environmental management practices is proven (Lucas,2010).Similarly the systems framework which emerged from innovative

123

Framework to Manage Environmental Impacts of Maritime Operations Copyright ?2011John Wiley &Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

124J.Dinwoodie et al. application of business process thinking to environmental management processes within a maritime context and informed by business strategy,promises potential inter‐sector bene?ts.Normative categorisation of the processes of environmental management at strategic,tactical and operational levels would bene?t many organisations, encouraging commitment from senior managers to build an integrated,systematic and focused strategy.Analysis of activity durations assists resource allocation and planning of environmental management.By identifying any duplicate activities and revealing scope for transferring routine actions from senior managers to specialist staff, signi?cant cost savings are likely.As exploratory research,this work concentrated on understanding and documenting the business processes of environmental management in ports.However,as more ports apply the systems framework a growing body of operational experience will present opportunities to re‐engineer business processes,perhaps through simpli?cation and optimisation.A challenge for the business strategy community relates to how this knowledge might best be pooled,managed and disseminated inter‐organisationally.

Many ports and arguably other logistical or distributional facilities operating at?xed locations will bene?t from applying the systems framework to manage the potential environmental impact of bespoke operations.Although details of each strategic input are context dependant,linkages to service and output processes will be similar.The framework encourages interlinking of relevant environmental codes and regulation with business strategy which promotes compliance.Further,this explicit strategic focus will stimulate enhanced intra‐organisational managerial environmental awareness.Arising from this,pro‐active development prompted by the framework will promote more sustainable execution of routine operations and infrastructure development,and more viable commercial operations.A highly sensitive environment at Falmouth involving multiple physical inputs generated a complex case study;fewer data inputs should be required elsewhere.

This study offers broader maxims for public policy.Within the maritime sector Ecoports is dedicated to supporting environmental management in ports,and offers graded tools to assist.Take‐up to date has embraced few smaller ports and accessible tools are required to promote and assist environmental management in smaller ports as engines of future growth able to respond rapidly to technological developments.The risks of catastrophic environmental damage occasioned by unsustainable maritime operations and development must be offset against port closure and commercial failure pursuant on enforced cessation of operations.Bene?ts accruing from safeguarding revenue from maritime operations which ensure commercial viability and conducting environmentally sustainable operations informed by environmental specialists and appropriate environmental management tools far outweigh the costs of closure or environmental catastrophe.The systems framework offers one such tool,but enlightened contextualisa-tion of environmental management within the business strategy of port authorities may reveal others. Acknowledgments

Plymouth Business School teamed up with FHC in a KTP(no.KTP007098).This partnership received?nancial support from the KTP programme.KTP aims to help businesses to improve their competitiveness and productivity through the better use of knowledge,technology and skills that reside within the UK knowledge base.KTP is funded by the Technology Strategy Board along with the other government funding organisations,which included the National Environment Research Council,the Economic and Social Research Council and FHC.None of these bodies was involved in decisions relating to research design,data collection,data analysis,interpretation or dissemination. References

AtoBviaC.2010.Sulphur Emission Control Areas.AtoBviaC plc,UK.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/public/PageContent.aspx?

PageID=1041[20December2010].

Backhurst MK,Cole RG.2000.Biological impacts of boating at Kawau Island north‐eastern New Zealand.Journal of Environmental Management 60:239–251.DOI:10.1006/jema.2000.0382

Baylis R,Connel L,Flynn https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,pany size,environmental regulation and ecological modernisation:further analysis at the level of the ?rm.Business Strategy and the Environment7:285–296.DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1099‐0836(199811)7:5<285::AID‐BSE166>3.0.CO;2‐U Chertow M,Miyata Y.2011.Assessing collective?rm behavior:comparing industrial symbiosis with possible alternatives for individual companies in Oahu,HI.Business Strategy and the Environment20:266–280.DOI:10.1002/bse.694

DOI:10.1002/bse

Cornwall AONB.2010.A Management Plan for the Cornwall Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.Author:Truro,UK.Available at:http://www.

cornwall ‐https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/documents/[15September 2010].

Cornwall County Council.2005.Economic Impact Study of the Port of Falmouth .Author:Truro,UK.

Curkovic S,Sroufe https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,ing ISO 14001to promote a sustainable supply chain strategy.Business Strategy and the Environment 20:71–93

DOI:10.1002/bse.671

Dahlsrud A.2008.How corporate social responsibility is de ?ned:an analysis of 37de ?nitions.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental

Management 15:1–13.DOI:10.1002/csr.132

Darbra RM,Pittam N,Royston KA,Darbra JP,Journee H.2009.Survey on environmental monitoring requirements of European ports.Journal

of Environmental Management 90:1396–1403.DOI:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.010.PMid:18929441.

Darbra RM,Ronza A,Stojanovic TA,Wooldridge C,Casal J,2005.A procedure for identifying signi ?cant environmental aspects in sea ports.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 50:866–874.PMid:15946703.

Darbra RM,Ronza A,Casal J,Stojanovic TA,Wooldridge C.2004.The Self Diagnosis Method:a new methodology to assess environmental

management in sea ports.Marine Pollution Bulletin 48:420–428.DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2003.10.023Df T (Department for Transport)2009.Maritime Statistics 2008.Df T:London.Df T (Department for Transport)2006a.Focus On Ports 2006ed.Df T:London.Df T (Department for Transport)2006b.Maritime Statistics 2005.Df T:London.

Df T (Department for Transport)2002.A project appraisal framework for ports .Df T:London.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/consultations/

archive/2002/afp/[15May 2009].

Df T (Department for Transport)2000.Modern ports:A UK policy .Df T:London.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/pgr/shippingports/ports/

modern/modernportsauk policy?page=1[29May 2009].

Dinwoodie J,Xu J.2008.Case studies in logistics:a review and tentative taxonomy.International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 11,

393–408.DOI:10.1080/13675560802389130

Dinwoodie J,Knowles H,Tuck S,Benhin J.2009.Assessing the environmental impact of maritime operations in smaller ports:a systems approach.

Logistics Research Network Conference Proceedings,Cardiff,September .Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport:Corby,U.K 536–543.Ditlev ‐Simonsen CD,Midttun A.2011.What motivates managers to pursue corporate responsibility?A survey among key stakeholders.Corporate

Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 18:25–38.DOI:10.1002/csr.237

EcoPorts.2010.Tool 4:Port Environmental Review System (PERS).EcoPorts:Brussels.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/page.ocl?pageid=30

[15September 2010].

EcoPorts.2006.The Top ‐10Port Environmental issues .EcoPorts:Brussels.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/page.ocl?pageid=127[19June 2009].Edoho FM.2008.Oil Transnational Corporations:Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Sustainability.Corporate Social

Responsibility and Environmental Management 15,210–222.DOI:10:1002/csr.143

ESPO (European Sea Ports Organisation),2003.Environmental Code of Practice .ESPO:Brussels.Available at:http://www.espo.be/downloads/

archive/85817e87‐5a24‐4c43‐b570‐146cb7f36b68.pdf [4August 2009].

Falmouth Port.2009.Falmouth Harbour Commissioners Environmental Policy .FHC:Falmouth,UK.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/

pdf/FHC ‐environmental ‐policy.pdf [15May 2009].

Falmouth Port.2007.Falmouth Habour Commissioners ’Strategy .FHC:Falmouth,UK.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/pdf/

strategy2007.pdf [1May 2009].

Falmouth Port.2003.The Falmouth and Truro Ports Handbook .FHC:Falmouth,UK.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/pdf/

ports_handbook.pdf [1May 2009].

FOS.2009.Falmouth Oil Services Limited .FOS:Falmouth,UK.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/[9October 2009].

Gilman S.2003.Sustainability and national policy in UK port development.Maritime Policy &Management 30:275–291.DOI:10.1080/

0308883032000145591

Hutchinson A,Chaston I.1994.Environmental management in Devon and Cornwall ’s small and medium sized enterprise sector.Business

Strategy and the Environment 3,15–22.DOI:10.1002/bse.3280030102

ICS (International Chamber of Shipping).2006.ISGOTT International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals International.Chamber of

Shipping,Oil Companies International Marine Forum,International Association of Ports and Harbors ,5th edn.ICS and Bermuda:Oil Companies International Marine Forum:London.

Idemudia U,Ite UE.2006.Corporate –Community Relations in Nigeria ’s Oil Industry:Challenges and Imperatives.Corporate Social

Responsibility and Environmental Management 13,194–206.DOI:10.1002/csr.101

IEMA.2010.Introducing EMAS.Lincoln,U.K Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/

ems/emas [3September 2010].

IMO (International Maritime Organisation).2011.IMO .IMO:London.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html, [23March 2011].

Ketola T.2010.Five Leaps to corporate sustainability through a corporate responsibility portfolio matrix.Corporate Social Responsibility and

Environmental Management 17:320–336.DOI:10.1002/csr

Ketola T.2007.Ten years later:where is our common future now?Business Strategy and the Environment 16,3:171–189.DOI:10.1002/bse.477Lagoudis IN,Lalwani CS,Naim MM.2004.A generic systems model for ocean bulk shipping companies in the bulk sector.Transportation

Journal ,43(Winter),56–76.

Lucas MT.2010.Understanding environmental management practices:integrating views from strategic management and ecological economics.

Business Strategy and the Environment 19:543–556.DOI:10.1002/bse.662

Leopold LB,Clarke FE,Hanshaw BB,Balsley JR.1971.A procedure for evaluating environmental https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html, Geological Survey Circular,645.

Government Printing Of ?ce,Washington,DC.125

Framework to Manage Environmental Impacts of Maritime Operations Copyright ?2011John Wiley &Sons,Ltd and ERP Environment.

Bus.Strat.Env.21,111–126(2012)

DOI :10.1002/bse

126J.Dinwoodie et al. Loorbach D,van Bakel JC,Whiteman G,Rotmans J.(2010).Business Strategies for Transitions Towards Sustainable Systems.Business Strategy and the Environment19:133–146.DOI:10.1002/bse.645

Lund‐Thomsen P,Nadvi K.2010.Global value chains,local collective action and corporate social responsibility:a review of empirical evidence.

Business Strategy and the Environment19:1–13.DOI:10.1002/bse.670

MCA(Maritime and Coastguard Agency).2008.Guidance on the Merchant Shipping(Ship‐to‐Ship Transfer)Regulations.MCA:London.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/c4mca/080511_mgn_for_cons.pdf[4August2009].

Miller VV,Quinn J.1998.The harvest strategy:how to implement a disaster for the environment and the stockholders.Business Strategy and the Environment7:71–89.DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1099‐0836(199805)7:2<71::AID‐BSE139>3.0.CO;2‐S?????

Oxford Economics.2009.The Economic Contribution of Ports to the UK Economy.Abbey House:Oxford.

Paipai E.1999.Guidelines for Port Environmental Management.Report SR554.HR Wallingford,Department of the Environment,Transport and the Regions:London.

Parnaby J.1979.Concept of Manufacturing System.International Journal of Production Research17:123–135.DOI:10.1080/00207547908919600 Peris‐Mora E,Diez Orejas JM,Subirats A,Ibanez S,Alvarez P.2005.Development of a system of indicators for sustainable port management.

Marine Pollution Bulletin50:1649–1660.DOI:10.1016/j.marpolbul.2005.06.048.PMid:16095626.

Pettit S.2008.United Kingdom ports policy:changing government attitudes.Marine Policy32:719–727.DOI:10.1016/j.marpol.2007.12.002 Ray S.2008.A case study of Shell at Sakhalin:having a whale of a time?Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management15: 173–185.DOI:10.1002/csr.170

Revell A,Blackburn R.2007.The business case for sustainability?an examination of small?rms in the UK’s construction and restaurant sectors.

Business Strategy and the Environment.16:404–420.DOI:10.1002/bse.499

Revell A,Stokes D,and Chen H.2010.Small businesses and the environment:turning over a new leaf?Business Strategy and the Environment.19: 273–288DOI:10.1002/bse.628

Risk Support.2001.Linking Risk Assessment of Marine Operations to Safety Management in Ports.Risk Support Limited:London.Available at: http://www.risk‐https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/vmtMTS2001.pdf[15June2009].

Royal Haskoning.2009.Green Ports.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,[5February2010].

Sarkis J.Helms MM,Hervani AA.2010.Reverse logistics and social sustainability.Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 17:337–354.DOI:10.1002/csr.220

Shah https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,anizational legitimacy and the strategic bridging ability of green alliances.Business Strategy and the Environment.DOI:

10.1002/bse.706

Sroufe R.2003.Effects of environmental management systems on environmental management practices and operations.Production and Operations Management12:416–431.DOI:10.1111/j.1937‐5956.2003.tb00212.x

Tilley F.1999.The gap between the environmental attitudes and the environmental behaviour of small?rms.Business Strategy and the Environment8,238–248.DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1099‐0836(199907/08)8:4<238::AID‐BSE197>3.0.CO;2‐M

UK P&I Club.2008a.Sulphur content of gas oil–https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html, P&I Club:London.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/ukpandi/infopool.nsf/html/ LPBulletin562[20July2009].

UK P&I Club.2008b.Preventing pollution during bunkering https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html, P&I Club:London.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/ukpandi/ InfoPool.nsf/HTML/LPNewsHead20081107[5July2009].

UNESCAP(United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Paci?c).2009.Environmental impacts of port development.United Nations:Bangkok.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/ttdw/Publications/TFS_pubs/Pub_1234/pub_1234_ch2.pdf[5June2009]. Vernon J,Essex S,Pinder D,Curry K.2003.The‘greening’of tourism micro‐businesses:outcomes of focus group investigations in South East Cornwall.Business Strategy and the Environment12,49–69.DOI:10.1002/bse.348

Wang,C,Corbett JJ.2007.The costs and bene?ts of reducing SO2emissions from ships in the US West Coastal waters.Transportation Research Part D12:577–588.DOI:10.1016/j.trd.2007.08.003

Wilson C,Williams ID,Kemp https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,pliance with producer responsibility legislation:experiences from UK small and medium‐sized enterprises.Business Strategy and the Environment.DOI:10.1002/bse.698

World Port Source.2010.Port of Falmouth.World Port Source:San Jose.Available at:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/bc14066302.html,/ports/map.2866.

1529.php[1September2010].

DOI:10.1002/bse