Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part E

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tre

Designing a sustainable maritime supply chain: A hybrid

QFDANP approach
Jasmine Siu Lee Lam
School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Block N1, 50 Nanyang Avenue, Singapore 639798, Singapore

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This study aims to design a sustainable maritime supply chain by taking customer require-
Received 31 March 2014 ments as the focus. This is achieved by an analytical approach combining Quality Function
Received in revised form 4 August 2014 Deployment (QFD) and Analytical Network Process (ANP) for guiding shipping companies
Accepted 6 October 2014
design. An analysis of a major container shipping line is conducted to illustrate and validate
Available online 26 November 2014
the approach. The four main customer requirements are: (1) Cost and Price Competitive,
(2) Pollution Reduction, (3) Efcient Use of Fuel and Resources, and (4) Health, Safety,
Keywords:
and Security. The Use of Green Design Ships, Engines and Machinery is found to be the
Maritime Supply chain
Sustainability
most important design requirement.
Maritime 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Shipping
Quality Function Deployment (QFD)
Analytical Network Process (ANP)

1. Introduction

The maritime industry plays an essential role in facilitating international trade and commerce in the global economic sys-
tem. Shipping companies as carriers are indispensable actors in the system. In the era of global supply chain management
(SCM), shipping companies face challenging circumstances with shippers demanding supply chain solutions whilst
expecting lower freight rates. This leads to a higher degree of integration along the maritime transport chain, thus the birth
of maritime supply chains. With reference to Lam (2011, p. 366), a maritime supply chain in the context of container
shipping is dened as the connected series of activities pertaining to shipping services which is concerned with planning,
coordinating and controlling containerised cargoes from the point of origin to the point of destination. A maritime supply
chain aims to add value to the goods transported. By providing place and time utility, a maritime supply chain carries the
goods from a place (point of origin) where the goods are valued at a lower level to a place (point of destination) where
the goods are to be valued at a higher level. In the supply chain dimension, shipping companies have to coordinate cargo,
information, and nancial ows along the chain interfacing with various parties such as shippers and ports. This leads to
a highly complex problem in managing maritime supply chains.
At the same time, another facet of complication facing the maritime industry is the quest for sustainable development.
Shipping is generally acknowledged as an environmentally-friendly transport mode, but recent study shows that ship emis-
sions can be a signicant contributor to global anthropogenic emissions (Eyring et al., 2010). Shipping companies are
increasingly facing many challenges from economic, social, and environmental factors which create signicant impact on
their performance and management, and even reshape the patterns of their businesses. Economic performance has always

Tel.: +65 67905276.

E-mail address: sllam@ntu.edu.sg

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2014.10.003
1366-5545/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081 71

been a key concern for shipping companies and a popular subject studied by scholars. Owing to regulatory control and the
need for fullling corporate social responsibility (CSR), shipping companies are also required to attain higher social and envi-
ronmental standards (Lai et al., 2013b). Correspondingly, research addressing environmental issues has grown signicantly
in recent years (Sarkis et al., 2011). However, the social aspect is relatively under-researched. There is also little research
addressing sustainability in shipping. Literature in sustainable maritime supply chains is even more limited, or almost
non-existent.
In view of heightened challenges in this dynamic industry, how can a shipping company achieve sustainability and
enhance its competitiveness? Lam and Van de Voorde (2011) suggested that customer focus is a signicant attribute con-
tributing to a maritime supply chains total value. In this study, we postulate that actors in a maritime supply chain should
adhere to customers expectations in their efforts in devising social and ecological solutions for achieving economic perfor-
mance concurrently. This study aims to design a sustainable maritime supply chain by taking customer requirements as the
focus. This is achieved by a hybrid analytical approach combining Quality Function Deployment (QFD) and Analytical
Network Process (ANP) for guiding shipping companies design. An analysis of a major container shipping line is conducted
to illustrate and validate the approach.
After the introduction, Sections 2 and 3 explain the conceptual development and methodology of this research respec-
tively. Section 4 discusses the process of conducting the case of a container shipping line and the ndings. Then research
and managerial implications are provided in Section 5. Section 6 concludes the paper with some future research suggestions.

2. Conceptual development

Sustainability is regarded as achieving economic, social, and environmental performances simultaneously that support an
organization for long-term competitiveness (Carter and Rogers, 2008). Hence, the three aspects of sustainability in the
literature are examined for guiding the conceptual development. As noted above, due to the lack of research in sustainable
maritime supply chains, this study takes reference from broader areas in sustainable SCM and related maritime research.
Economic performance has always been emphasized in the maritime industry. Liner shipping companies strive to achieve
high levels of operational and nancial efciencies for survival (Bang et al., 2012). The thrust towards higher supply chain
integration is putting increased demand on the container transport system. In the context of SCM, a sustainable supply chain
has to be economically viable and, in particular, possess the capability to increase protability (Pagell and Wu, 2009). Supply
chain optimization is to maximize product values with minimum raw materials, inventory, and production costs in order to
maximize prots (Bykzkan and Berkol, 2011). For a maritime supply chain, Lam and Van de Voorde (2011) also noted
that the goal is to synchronise the processes and partners involved in achieving the maximum prots generated. The trend
of higher supply chain integration in the maritime industry is largely driven by economic benets. For example, for shipping
lines investing in terminal operations, the major reasons include cost savings and an extra source of prot (Parola et al.,
2014).
Nevertheless, attaining economic performance alone is insufcient for long-term sustainability. Environmental sustain-
ability has become a popular topic among academics and the maritime industry in recent years. Enterprises are characterised
with higher environmental awareness and they require their supply chain partners to attain eco-efciency in delivering ser-
vices (Lee and Lam, 2012). Green shipping practices (GSPs) are environmental management practices undertaken by ship-
ping rms with an emphasis on waste reduction and resource preservation in handling and distributing cargoes (Lai et al.
2013a). Implementing GSP requires internal functional coordination within the shipping company as well as external inte-
gration with upstream shippers and downstream consignees in the physical cargo movement process. In essence, this is the
concept of implementing GSP in maritime supply chains. As a part of the supply chain connecting customers and various
parties in cargo ows, shipping rms increasingly undertake GSP in facilitating international trade in a more environmen-
tally-sustainable way (Lai et al. 2013b). Yin et al. (2014) showed that slow steaming practised by liners contributes to both
bunker cost savings and environmental protection. In a broader sense, Lirn et al. (2014) found that green shipping manage-
ment capability not only improves container shipping rms environmental performance, but also their nancial
performance.
The third aspect of sustainability is the social performance of a maritime supply chain. Social sustainability focuses on the
needs of people and the requirement to implement CSR. For shipping companies, the rationales of being socially responsible
include the improvement in employees job satisfaction, customer loyalty, relationships with partners, community, and
authorities, and nancial performance (Fafaliou et al., 2006). Lu et al. (2009) found that CSR has positive effects on both
nancial and non-nancial (e.g. customer satisfaction and competitive position) performances of container shipping compa-
nies in Taiwan. Thus, both Fafaliou et al. (2006) and Lu et al. (2009) derived that being socially responsible benets people
and also contributes to shipping companies economic performance. However, both studies are limited by a sample of ship-
ping companies of a particular country Greece and Taiwan, respectively. More investigations on the social aspect are nec-
essary. Furthermore, very limited literature can be found on how to enhance the social performance for sustainable
development of the maritime sector. In the context of supply chains and logistics, social sustainability should incorporate
the concerns addressed by organizational stakeholders. The concept of purchasing social responsibility asserts that the pur-
chasing function of a company adopts social standards which can be transferred to suppliers, thereby generating a chain
effect (Carter and Jennings, 2002; Ciliberti et al., 2008). This concept is extended in our study to the maritime supply chain
domain particularly to address the importance of cooperation among supply chain members.
72 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081

It can be derived that the three aspects of sustainability are intertwined in practice. The adoption of green solutions may
not directly lead to a rms competitive advantage. How to be protable and reduce the adverse effect on the environment at
the same time has been a key challenge to most shipping companies (Cheng and Tsai, 2009). Tangible actions in improving
environmental performance while addressing the economic and social interests from customers and the society will lead to
truly sustainable outcomes (Cheng et al., 2014). Nevertheless, there remains a major literature gap in developing both cus-
tomer-driven and sustainable solutions in maritime transport. Therefore, this paper takes the rst step among research stud-
ies to apply a customer-driven approach of QFDANP to design a sustainable maritime supply chain.

3. A hybrid QFDANP methodology

The research methodology combines a design technique (QFD) with a multi-criteria decision analysis (ANP). QFD is cho-
sen due to its unique capability of translating user demands into technical requirements (Akao, 1994). Under QFD, a specic
tool is to build a house of quality (HOQ) which translates customer requirements (CRs) (the WHATs) into design require-
ments (DRs) (the HOWs). This study forms a HOQ which links the CRs and DRs of a shipping companys design for sustainable
maritime supply chains. The overall goal of a HOQ is to obtain the importance weightings of the DRs, which are determined
by the importance ratings of CRs together with the relationships between CRs and DRs. The traditional QFD uses absolute
importance degrees, thus is difcult to differentiate the relative importance of different attributes. In order to overcome this
limitation, we use ANP which can handle the hierarchical network of interrelationships among the attributes (Saaty, 1996).
The method is to perform a series of pairwise comparisons of these attributes. A ratio scale of 19 is used to compare any two
attributes. A score of 1 represents equal importance of the two attributes whilst 9 means the highest level of dominance of a
particular attribute over the other one. On the other hand, 1/9 indicates a much lower importance of a particular attribute
versus the other. The consistency ratio of a pairwise comparison matrix has to be lower than 0.1 to ensure consistency in
human judgement (Saaty, 1996).
Drawing reference from Bhattacharya et al. (2010) and Bykzkan and Berkol (2011), we develop the QFDANP
approach as specied by the following eight steps.

Step 1. Identify the list of CRs and DRs.

Step 2. Conduct pairwise comparisons of CRs assuming that there is no dependence among the CRs, to nd out the impor-
tance degrees of the CRs each by each (obtain eigenvector W1).
Step 3. Conduct pairwise comparisons of DRs with respect to each CR assuming that there is no dependence among the DRs,
to nd out the importance degrees of the DRs each by each (obtain eigenvector W2).
Step 4. Conduct pairwise comparisons to determine the inner dependency matrix of the CRs with respect to each CR, then
calculate eigenvector W3.
Step 5. Conduct pairwise comparisons to determine the inner dependency matrix of the DRs with respect to each DR, then
calculate eigenvector W4.
Step 6. Determine the inter-dependent priorities of the CRs by using formula WC = W3  W1.
Step 7. Determine the inter-dependent priorities of the DRs by using formula WA = W4  W2.
Step 8. Determine the overall priorities of the DRs, reecting the interrelationships within the HOQ by using formula
WANP = WA  WC.

4. Case study of a major container shipping line

Container shipping lines perform a key role in enabling global merchandise trade to take place in an efcient and produc-
tive manner. In this sector, containerised cargo can be categorised into those that require transhipment or those that go
direct from the port of loading to the destination port. The types of cargoes can be further distinguished into those that
use standard containers or those that require specialised containers such as ventilated containers, containers with open tops,
isotanks, and reefer containers among others. Apart from this, there is also a major consideration of trade imbalances where
empty containers have to be repositioned at minimal cost to the container shipping line. As such, it is within this paradigm
that container shipping lines attempt to optimise their maritime supply chains in order to achieve their business objectives.
In this study, an overview of the worlds major container shipping lines in terms of sustainability is conducted, followed
by a case analysis on a container shipping line. The company is within the worlds top 10 largest liners. We choose this liner
since it demonstrates sustainability orientation through its policies as shown in the website and annual reports. Primary data
and information were obtained from four directors of the company via two interviews and email communications. Each of
the directors functional responsibilities include both customer service and shipping operations so they are the most appro-
priate personnel to indicate the companys CRs and DRs. Also, each director has 18 and above years of working experience in
the container shipping industry. Hence, they are very competent in providing relevant information of the subject matter.

4.1. Customer requirements and design requirements for a sustainable maritime supply chain

The QFDANP approach began with the identication of the CRs and DRs. In order to obtain a reliable list of CRs and DRs,
we adopted a thorough procedure in three stages, namely desk research, content validation test, and in-depth case study
 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081 73

(Reyes and Wright, 2001). The rst stage was a review of literature (1997 to January 2014), annual reports of the top twenty
shipping lines (2010 to latest 2012), and shipper surveys from Containerisation International (2012 & 2013) and Morgan
Stanley, 2012. Through triangulation, a preliminary list of ve CRs and seven DRs was selected due to the high frequency
of the items appearing in the sources. In stage 2, we conducted a content validation test to enhance content validity and face
validity (Bagozzi et al., 1991) by seeking thirteen industry professionals from different countries to review the CRs and DRs.
The professionals included nine working in different shipping companies, i.e. carriers (three from China, two from Greece,
two from Norway, two from Singapore), two shippers from Singapore and the USA respectively, and two independent mar-
itime professionals from China and Norway respectively. China, Greece, Norway, and Singapore are representative countries
in the shipping sector since they are among the largest shipping ags and ship owning nations (UNCTAD, 2013). In terms of
CR, the majority of these industry professionals commented that pollution reduction as a whole is important, but not the
specied sources of pollution. They suggested combining the two original CRs, i.e. carbon emission mitigation and water pol-
lution reduction, into one. Hence, we consolidated the two items into CR2 Pollution Reduction. As for DR, originally DR7 was
Ballast Water Treatment and Residue/Waste/Spill Control. Industry professionals suggested separating spill control and
specifying accident mitigation. Thus we added DR8 Preventive Measures for Accidents which encompassed spill control.
In stage 3, the list was veried by the shipping line in the case study to ensure its applicability. Consequently, four CRs
and eight DRs are conrmed which will be discussed below.
Table 1 shows the four customer requirements for a sustainable maritime supply chain, namely (1) Cost and Price Com-
petitive, (2) Pollution Reduction, (3) Efcient Use of Fuel and Resources, and (4) Health, Safety, and Security. The rst CR is
specically for the economic aspect of sustainability. Price competition is prevalent in such a competitive business environ-
ment like the maritime industry. Being cost efcient and offering a competitive freight to customers is favourable for these
customers to lower their own cost (Lam, 2013). CR2 and CR3 are related more to the environmental aspect. The second CR
involves reducing pollution in various aspects, including air and water pollution. For example, shipping lines such as OOCL
and Yang Ming indicated that there is increasing customer concern on the carbon emission and pollution generated during
the shipping process. Due to rising fuel costs and international regulations (such as MARPOL Annex VI) requiring existing
ships to use low-sulphur fuels that are more expensive, shippers also require the efcient use of fuels and resources by ship-
ping lines (Schinas and Stefanakos, 2012; Qi and Song, 2012) which is specied by the third CR. Thus CR3 also contributes to
the economic performance in a way that it saves cost. Likewise, CR2 Pollution Reduction is a requirement on environmental
performance, while also contributes to the social performance since lowering pollution benets peoples health and living
conditions. The interrelationships among the CRs explain why the ANP is a suitable technique in determining their impor-
tance degree. Lastly, CR4 mainly addresses the social aspect of sustainability. Specically, customers expect shipping lines to
conform to regulatory standards in health, safety, and security, and to be socially responsible (Lu et al., 2009).
Table 2 lists the design requirements for a sustainable maritime supply chain. Integrated Supply Chain Workow (DR1) is
of great importance because fundamentally, customers are concerned with the value that is delivered by the entire supply
chain rather than its separate components. As Farahani et al. (2014) claimed, it is important for managers to consider the
competition from other supply chains in the market when designing a supply chain. In this sense, integration for smooth
workows becomes a crucial factor as container shipping lines grabble with uncertainties that are generated as a result
of constant restructuring of supply chains to cater to changing globalised or regional manufacturing and consumption pat-
terns in a sustainable manner. For example, productivity can be improved and wastes can be reduced along the chain. This
also implies that container shipping lines should perceive, anticipate and act on stakeholder requirements. Importantly,
these stakeholders extend to key decision makers along the entire supply chain. A key decision maker is that of shippers
and hence, Cooperation with Shippers (DR2) is crucial in that they set the broad overtone for container shipping trafc ows
(Lam and Van de Voorde, 2011). Specically, demand by shippers determines the type of goods to be transported, season-
ality, spread, duration, and direction of the containerised trade. Hence, ability to cooperate with shippers to work towards
sustainable solutions can become a differentiating factor in this highly competitive industry.
Cooperation with Seaports and Terminals (DR3) is also an integral criterion of sustainable maritime supply chains. Sea-
ports and terminals are seen as inseparable segments of the container transportation process where they serve as important
conduits to facilitate interchanges between the sea and land interfaces (Lam and Gu, 2013). Furthermore, seaports and ter-
minals typically serve as key hubs for consolidation and deconsolidation of containerised cargoes and therefore wield enor-
mous inuence over the overall efciency and sustainability of the entire supply chain (Yap and Notteboom, 2011).
Particularly, port congestion and under performance in terms of productivity could have a major negative impact which
reverberates throughout the supply chain (Yeo et al., 2014). Lost time will not only lead to decline in prot and company

Table 1
Customer Requirements for a sustainable maritime supply chain.

Notations Customer requirements

CR1 CPC Cost and Price Competitive
CR2 PR Pollution Reduction
CR3 EFR Efcient Use of Fuel and Resources
CR4 HSS Health, Safety, and Security
74 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081

Table 2
Design requirements for a sustainable maritime supply chain.

Notations Design requirements

DR1 ISCW Integrated Supply Chain Workow
DR2 CS Cooperation with Shippers
DR3 CST Cooperation with Seaports and Terminals
DR4 ORS Optimal Routing and Scheduling
DR5 GDS Use of Green Design Ships, Engines, and Machinery
DR6 LSRE Use of Low Sulphur Fuel and Renewable Energy
DR7 BWT Ballast Water Treatment and Residue/Waste Control
DR8 PMA Preventive Measures for Accidents

reputation, but also higher fuel consumption because the ship will need to speed up to compensate for time loss in ports.
Other forms of cooperation with seaports and terminals include tapping on shore side power where ships plug in at berth
to access clean electrical power while shutting down its diesel engines for air quality improvements (K-line, 2008; Gibbs
et al., 2014). Optimal Routing and Scheduling (DR4) is also seen as an important requirement for sustainable maritime sup-
ply chains. For instance, shipping line Maersk (2011) revealed in its sustainability progress report that on-time delivery of
customers shipments saves the latter the need to arrange for inventory buffer or last minute air freight where these could
inevitably lead to higher costs and carbon footprint. Using the example of Daily Maersk, reliable shipping operations are seen
to produce 13% less CO2 per container when compared to industry average on the Asia Europe trades (Maersk 2011). There is
a strong impact of ship speeding decisions on air pollution (Cariou and Cheaitou, 2012). Qi and Song (2012) further showed
that vessels reliability, emissions, and fuel consumption are adversely affected by uncertainty.
Regarding the Use of Green Design Ships, Engines, and Machinery (DR5), this is seen as a vital step in which container
shipping lines can take by working with shipyards to address the technical and engineering aspects. For instance, modica-
tions in ship breadth can lead to higher efciency of fuel consumption (Krozer et al., 2003). Triple-E class container ships can
be seen as a good example as the deployment of these 18,000-TEU capacity vessels is expected to help lower energy con-
sumption and reduce CO2 emission (Maersk, 2011). Use of Low Sulphur Fuel and Renewable Energy (DR6) focuses on the
fuel used by container ships. For this measure, alternatives for the present heavy fuel oil used in the shipping industry
are needed in order to address environmental concerns and requirements of regulators and shippers (Bengtsson et al.,
2012). Research has been done to examine whether hybrid fuels, biofuels or even nuclear energy can be applied widely
in shipping operations other than low-sulphur bunker (Bengtsson et al., 2012; Dedes et al., 2012). Turning to DR7, Ballast
Water Treatment and Residue/Waste Control is concerned with managing ship wastes during the voyage and avoid disposal
of wastes at sea. This aspect has also received considerable attention from many shipping companies as can be seen from the
CSR and environmental policies of Hanjin Shipping and others. As International Maritime Organisation (IMO) ballast water
convention enters into force, there will be a trend towards installation of ballast water treatment system on future ships. The
last DR is that of Preventive Measures for Accidents (DR8) because safety and security is of utmost importance for sustain-
ability in order to avoid undesirable events such as ship collisions and oil spills (Li et al., 2014).

4.2. Case study results of the QFDANP approach

Referring to Section 3, the research process proceeds to step 2 in which the importance degrees of CRs are determined
through the calculation of eigenvector W1 with the assumption of no dependence among the CRs. To obtain the eigenvector
W1, pairwise comparisons are conducted by the management team of the shipping line with two important considerations:
(1) achieving the highest sustainability; and (2) assuming that the CRs are independent. The ANP process requires pairwise
comparisons to be performed for each CR. This is shown in Table 3 where the shipping line has indicated scores for the dif-
ferent CRs. Using CR1 Cost and Price Competitive as the reference for comparison in the rst row of Table 3, a reading of 2
under CR2 Pollution Reduction indicates CR1s slightly higher importance relative to CR2. Remaining on rst row, the score of
1 given to CR4 Health, Safety, and Security reects that both CR1 and CR4 are seen as being equally important. Consistency

Table 3
Pairwise comparisons of CRs (W1).

CR1 CPC CR2 PR CR3 EFR CR4 HSS e-Vector

CR1 CPC 1 2 2 1 0.333
CR2 PR 1/2 1 1 1/2 0.167
CR3 EFR 1/2 1 1 1/2 0.167
CR4 HSS 1 2 2 1 0.333
 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081 75

ratios for all the pair-wise comparisons in the case are less than 0.1. Computation of eigenvector W1 is performed using the
completed pairwise comparison matrix. As seen in Table 3, CR1 and CR4 have the highest eigenvector score of 0.333, fol-
lowed by CR2 and CR3 at 0.167. As such, the results show that in terms of relative importance, the most important CRs
are CR1 and CR4 while CR2 and CR3 are ranked in relatively lower importance. The importance degrees of CRs (W1) are
shown in the rightmost column of the HOQ in Fig. 1 for the case study.
Afterwards, step 3 requires the determination of importance degrees of DRs (eigenvector W2) assuming that there is no
dependence among the DRs. Results of pairwise comparisons of DRs with respect to CR1 Cost and Price Competitive are
shown in Table 4. With reference to the second row as an example, DR2 Cooperation with Shippers is seen by the case con-
tainer shipping line as being less important than DR1 Integrated Supply Chain Workow and thus a score of 1/3 is allocated.
Using the same row, the score of 3 with reference to DR5 Use of Green Design Ships, Engines, and Machinery indicates that
DR2 is more important than DR5 in achieving CR1. Duplicating the method for the remaining DRs, the other pairwise com-
parison matrices are shown in the Appendix. Table 5 lists the computed importance degrees of DRs (eigenvector W2) in rela-
tion to each CR. Consequently, the transpose matrix of eigenvector W2 is shown in the central matrix of the HOQ in Fig. 1.
Step 4 is to compute the inner dependency matrix of the CRs in relation to each CR (eigenvector W3). As with previous
tables, the method employs pairwise comparison to determine the impact that each CR has on one another. The comparison
matrix excludes any CRs if they have no inuence on the other CRs. Table 6 shows the computed eigenvector W3 whereas
individual pairwise comparison tables can be found in the Appendix. The inner dependency matrix of the CRs in relation
to each CR (eigenvector W3) is correspondingly shown as a matrix on the left side of the HOQ in Fig. 1.
Step 5 is to compute the inner dependency matrix of the DRs in relation to each DR (eigenvector W4). As with the com-
putation of eigenvector W3, pairwise comparisons are employed to determine the impact that each DR has on other DRs.
Also, DRs which do not impact other DRs are left out from the pairwise comparison. For instance, DR5, DR6 and DR7 are
excluded from Table 7. This shows that the case container shipping line views them to be of no inuence on DR1. With ref-
erence to Table 7, DR2 and DR3 are shown to be of equal importance but both are less important when compared to DR1 or
DR4. Between these two, DR1 is shown to be more important than DR4. DR8 is shown to be the least important relative to the
other DRs. The same approach is used to tabulate pairwise comparison matrices of the seven remaining DRs. Their individual
tables are not shown in view of space constraints. Table 8 gives the inner dependency matrix of the DRs in relation to each
DR (eigenvector W4) and the value of 0 is allocated when the DRs are not related. Results from the inner dependency matrix
of the DRs (eigenvector W4) are presented in the form of a roof matrix in the HOQ as shown in Fig. 1.
In step 6, with reference to the values of W3 and W1 obtained from previous steps, the interdependent priorities of the CRs
as Wc (WC = W3  W1) can be computed. For example, Wc of CR1 = 0.423  0.333 + 0.061  0.167 + 0.064 
0.167 + 0.111  0.333 = 0.199. We obtain the below results.

Fig. 1. House of quality of the case study.

76 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081

Table 4
Pairwise comparisons of DRs with respect to CR1 Cost and Price Competitive.

DR1 ISCW DR2 CS DR3 CST DR4 ORS DR5 GDS DR6 LSRE DR7 BWT DR8 PMA e-Vector
DR1 ISCW 1 3 2 1 7 5 8 4 0.272
DR2 CS 1/3 1 1/6 1/3 3 1/3 1 1/4 0.046
DR3 CST 1/2 6 1 1/2 3 4 5 3 0.182
DR4 ORS 1 3 2 1 8 5 7 4 0.272
DR5 GDS 1/7 1/3 1/3 1/8 1 1 1 1/3 0.036
DR6 LSRE 1/5 3 1/4 1/5 1 1 3 1/2 0.061
DR7 BWT 1/8 1 1/5 1/7 1 1/3 1 1/4 0.033
DR8 PMA 1/4 4 1/3 1/4 3 2 4 1 0.098

Table 5
Column eigenvectors with respect to each CR (W2).

CR1 CPC CR2 PR CR3 EFR CR4 HSS

DR1 ISCW 0.272 0.058 0.065 0.130
DR2 CS 0.046 0.040 0.070 0.036
DR3 CST 0.182 0.042 0.070 0.115
DR4 ORS 0.272 0.072 0.238 0.054
DR5 GDS 0.036 0.163 0.247 0.179
DR6 LSRE 0.061 0.177 0.168 0.188
DR7 BWT 0.033 0.238 0.068 0.038
DR8 PMA 0.098 0.211 0.074 0.262

Table 6
Inner dependency matrix of CRs (W3).

CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4

CR1 0.423 0.061 0.064 0.111
CR2 0.122 0.446 0.304 0.222
CR3 0.227 0.253 0.429 0.222
CR4 0.227 0.240 0.203 0.444

Table 7
Pairwise comparisons with respect to DR1 Integrated Supply Chain Workow (DR5, DR6, DR7 = 0).

DR1 ISCW DR2 CS DR3 CST DR4 ORS DR8 PMA e-Vector
DR1 ISCW 1 2 2 2 4 0.355
DR2 CS 1/2 1 1 1/2 3 0.168
DR3 CST 1/2 1 1/2 3 0.168
DR4 ORS 1/2 2 2 1 2 0.234
DR8 PMA 1/4 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 0.075

Table 8
Inner dependency matrix of DRs (W4).

DR1 ISCW DR2 CS DR3 CST DR4 ORS DR5 GDS DR6 LSRE DR7 BWT DR8 PMA
DR1 ISCW 0.355 0.293 0.210 0.142 0 0 0.112 0.278
DR2 CS 0.168 0.365 0.141 0.087 0 0 0 0.118
DR3 CST 0.168 0.128 0.287 0.385 0 0 0.112 0.118
DR4 ORS 0.234 0.147 0.156 0.385 0 0 0 0.055
DR5 GDS 0 0 0.097 0 0.714 0.333 0.360 0
DR6 LSRE 0 0 0 0 0.143 0.667 0 0
DR7 BWT 0 0 0.056 0 0.143 0 0.416 0
DR8 PMA 0.075 0.068 0.052 0 0 0 0 0.430
 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081 77

0 1
0:199
B 0:240 C
B C
Wc B C
@ 0:246 A
0:298
In step 7, with reference to the values of W4 and W2 obtained from previous steps, the interdependent priorities of the DRs
as WA are computed (WA = W4  W2).
0 1
0:370 0:089 0:091 0:180
B 0:041 0:035 0:062 0:032 C
B C
B C
B 0:211 0:060 0:084 0:137 C
B C
B 0:266 0:070 0:233 0:052 C
B C
WA B C
B 0:054 0:245 0:371 0:269 C
B C
B 0:050 0:143 0:136 0:152 C
B C
B C
@ 0:020 0:146 0:042 0:023 A
0:062 0:132 0:046 0:164

The nal step of the approach, i.e. step 8, is to compute the overall priorities of the DRs as WANP, indicating the inter-rela-
tionships within the HOQ (WANP = WA  WC).
0 1 0 1
DR1 0:172
B DR2 C B 0:042 C
B C B C
B C B C
B DR3 C B 0:118 C
B C B C
B DR4 C B 0:147 C
B C B C
W ANP B
C B C
B DR5 C B 0:247 C
B C B C
B DR6 C B 0:125 C
B C B C
B C B C
@ DR7 A @ 0:057 A
DR8 0:105
Derived from the results of the case, the most important DR for the container shipping line in designing a sustainable
maritime supply chain is DR5 Use of Green Design Ships, Engines, and Machinery, which has a relative importance value
of 0.247. The second and third most important DRs are found to be DR1 Integrated Supply Chain Workow (value of
0.172) and DR4 Optimal Routing and Scheduling (value of 0.147). DR6 Use of Low Sulphur Fuel and Renewable Energy (value
of 0.125) is ranked as the fourth important design requirement. Veried by the case company, the results are regarded as
practical and informative. The overall priorities of the DRs are shown in the bottom row of the HOQ in Fig. 1.

5. Research and managerial implications

Container shipping lines have been attempting to incorporate sustainability into their transport operations in response to
the increasing customer demand for GSP. The QFDANP method is a systematic tool enabling design requirements to be
developed in a way to address identied customer requirements on sustainability in a maritime supply chain. The case study
has quantied the effectiveness of the DRs in addressing the CRs. The inner dependency of the CRs and DRs is also derived.
This study is an original attempt in examining the WHATs and the HOWs of designing sustainable maritime supply chains.
These are practical decision analyses for container shipping lines to formulate policies in attaining sustainability for long-
term competitiveness.
Using the QFDANP analyses performed for an international container shipping line, there are four CRs important for sus-
tainability in the supply chain context. These are namely (1) Cost and Price Competitive, (2) Pollution Reduction, (3) Efcient
Use of Fuel and Resources, and (4) Health, Safety, and Security. To meet these requirements, we have identied eight DRs for
container shipping lines to design a sustainable maritime supply chain. Among these DRs, Use of Green Design Ships, Engines
and Machinery (DR5) (WANP of 0.247) is found to be the most important element for the case company. This DR can respond
to CR2, CR3, and CR4 particularly well, as shown by the highest values of WA. A plausible explanation is that in the context of
the container shipping industry, vessel routing, network served, and vessel speed are important performance criteria in
terms of service delivery. As such, the use of green technology in ship operations can directly inuence the pollution gen-
erated, fuel and resources usage, as well as health and safety level. The research nding echoes Lirn et al. (2014) that greener
ships are found to have an indirect and positive impact on nancial performance through environmental performance.
The second most important DR is DR1 Integrated Supply Chain Workow (WANP of 0.172). This DR has the highest impor-
tance relative to the other DRs in terms of responding to the customer requirements for being Cost and Price Competitive
(CR1) (WA of 0.378). Given that a supply chain is increasingly packaged as a combined value offering to the customer, an
integrated workow process becomes critical. By comparison, other DRs are rated much lower in terms of importance in
78 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081

achieving CR1, with the least being DR7 Ballast Water Treatment and Residue/Waste Control (WA of 0.020), and DR2 Coop-
eration with Shippers (WA of 0.041). The third most important DR is DR4 Optimal Routing and Scheduling (WANP of 0.147).
This DR can effectively address CR1 and CR3. Fleet planning for optimal vessel routing and scheduling is viewed as an impor-
tant element that responds to the customer requirements for cost and fuel efcient solutions (Qi and Song, 2012).
From the aspect of Pollution Reduction (CR2), other than DR5, the second most important DR being DR7 Ballast Water
Treatment and Residue/Waste Control (WA of 0.146) is not surprising. Proper treatment and management of ballast water,
residue, and waste will contribute directly towards addressing this customer requirement. Ranked highly for this customer
requirement is also that of DR6 Use of Low Sulphur Fuel and Renewable Energy (WA of 0.143), followed by DR8 Preventive
Measures for Accidents (WA of 0.132). Hence, we can see from the results that the customer requirement of Pollution Reduc-
tion is to be met mainly from the technology and engineering aspects rather than the business aspects of working with stake-
holders in the supply chain which include shippers and seaports among others.
Last but not least, the results show that Health, Safety and Security requirements of the customer (CR4) are best met by
DR5 Use of Green Design Ships, Engines, and Machinery (WA of 0.269), DR1 Integrated Supply Chain Workow (WA of 0.180),
and followed by DR8 Preventive Measures for Accidents (WA of 0.164). Therefore, technology and engineering advancement
as well as business process have to be addressed in order to achieve the desirable standard. It is noted that CR4 is seen as
equally important as CR1 (see Table 3). Being cost and price competitive is essential but not sufcient for a sustainable mar-
itime supply chain.
While the Use of Green Design Ships, Engines, and Machinery (DR5) is shown to be the most important DR overall, the
study reveals that it is not the most effective solution to CR1. In fact, WA shows that with respect to CR1, DR5 scores relatively
low with a value of 0.054. From this case study, we nd that no single DR can adequately address all of the customers
requirements. The results should not be interpreted solely based on the WANP score which shows the relative importance
of one DR over another. The inner dependency matrix shown by Table 8 depicts that DRs can complement each other. Hence,
DRs with a lower WANP score should not be overlooked especially if they contribute to DRs with high importance. Further-
more, in addition to the use of green design ships, engines and machinery, managers of container shipping lines should pay
attention to other aspects including DR1 Integrated Supply Chain Workow (WANP score of 0.172), DR4 Optimal Routing and
Scheduling (WANP score of 0.147), and DR6 Use of Low Sulphur Fuel and Renewable Energy (WANP score of 0.125). From a
practical standpoint where resources are limited in commercial entities, the priority of implementing DRs will be contingent
on the greatest impact that a particular DR is likely to have on the CR. In this sense, the QFDANP model is useful by asso-
ciating DRs with CRs in a precise manner and emphasises the importance of sustainability to address economic, social and
ecological performances in decision making. Importantly, analyses on the relationships among the CRs and DRs will be useful
for container shipping lines to choose and prioritise DRs in achieving sustainability.

6. Conclusions and future research suggestions

The paper has made several contributions to research and practice. Firstly, as the rst attempt to design a sustainable
maritime supply chain, this study advances knowledge in the literature on sustainable development in the maritime indus-
try. Based on a three-stage process of desk research, content validation test, and in-depth case study, this paper formulated
systematic metrics for liner shipping companies to design measures to achieve sustainable performance in the supply chain
network. The validated metrics can be used for more empirical studies in future on sustainability in shipping.
Secondly, the study provides useful guidelines for shipping companies in practical applications. They may take reference
from the QFDANP approach to develop the know-how of how to convert customers expectation into their requirements on
supply chain design. As demonstrated by a real-life case study of a container shipping line, it is possible to full the diverse
needs of economic, social, and environmental standards simultaneously. Shipping companies can prioritize their resources to
formulate supply chain designs targeted at their customer segments. This market-oriented approach is helpful in aligning
the social and environmental qualities with the rms commercial interest. Shipping companies can also use the QFD
ANP as an evaluation tool for benchmarking their performance. This helps to identify performance gaps and make improve-
ments accordingly. However, the results as shown in the HOQ are applicable to the case company and are not meant for gen-
eralising to the whole industry. For instance, as DR5 Use of Green Design Ships, Engines, and Machinery is found to be the
most important technical requirement for the case company, future studies may investigate the role of this factor in a wider
range of shipping companies.
Thirdly, the study developed a hybrid approach of QFDANP which has a high level of sophistication to examine com-
plex research problems. Combining the multi-dimensions of supply chain and sustainability requires a tool which can ef-
ciently comprehend the interrelationships among various attributes. The case study demonstrated the approachs
applicability in detail. It was illustrated that the QFDANP method can quantify such interrelationships precisely in a
step-by-step procedure. The approach is exible for accommodating different number of CRs and DRs according to a rms
situation. The QFDANP is practical and will be able to assist shipping managers in making strategic decisions, not only for
sustainability in maritime supply chains but also other areas of concern. More company case studies can be conducted, for
example for the tanker and dry bulk sectors. It will be interesting to compare the results of different case studies in future
research.
 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081 79

Appendix A.

Pairwise comparisons of DRs with respect to CR2 on Pollution Reduction determining W2.

DR1 ISCW DR2 CS DR3 CST DR4 ORS DR5 GDS DR6 LSRE DR7 BWT DR8 PMA e-Vector
DR1 ISCW 1 2 2 1/2 1/4 1/4 1/5 1/2 0.058
DR2 CS 1/2 1 1 1/3 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/4 0.040
DR3 CST 1/2 1 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1/5 1/4 0.042
DR4 ORS 2 3 3 1 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 0.072
DR5 GDS 4 3 3 4 1 1 1 1/3 0.163
DR6 LSRE 4 4 3 4 1 1 1 1/2 0.177
DR7 BWT 5 5 5 4 1 1 1 2 0.238
DR8 PMA 2 4 4 4 3 2 1/2 1 0.211

Pairwise comparisons of DRs with respect to CR3 on Efcient Use of Fuel and Resources determining W2.

DR1 ISCW DR2 CS DR3 CST DR4 ORS DR5 GDS DR6 LSRE DR7 BWT DR8 PMA e-Vector
DR1 ISCW 1 1 1 1/4 1/4 1/3 1 1 0.065
DR2 CS 1 1 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1 0.070
DR3 CST 1 1 1 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1 0.070
DR4 ORS 4 3 3 1 1 2 3 3 0.238
DR5 GDS 4 3 3 1 1 2 4 3 0.247
DR6 LSRE 3 3 3 1/2 1/2 1 3 2 0.168
DR7 BWT 1 1 1 1/3 1/4 1/3 1 1 0.068
DR8 PMA 1 1 1 1/3 1/3 1/2 1 1 0.074

Pairwise comparisons of DRs with respect to CR4 on Health, Safety, and Security determining W2.

DR1 ISCW DR2 CS DR3 CST DR4 ORS DR5 GDS DR6 LSRE DR7 BWT DR8 PMA e-Vector
DR1 ISCW 1 5 2 5 1/3 1/3 3 1/2 0.130
DR2 CS 1/5 1 1/6 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1/4 0.036
DR3 CST 1/2 6 1 4 1/3 1/3 7 1/3 0.115
DR4 ORS 1/5 3 1/4 1 1/4 1/4 3 1/4 0.054
DR5 GDS 3 3 3 4 1 1 3 1/3 0.179
DR6 LSRE 3 3 3 4 1 1 3 1/2 0.188
DR7 BWT 1/3 1 1/7 1/3 1/3 1/3 1 1/4 0.038
DR8 PMA 2 4 3 4 3 2 4 1 0.262

Pairwise comparisons of CRs with respect to CR1 on Cost and Price Competitive determining W3.

CR1 CPC CR2 PR CR3 EFR CR4 HSS e-Vector

CR1 CPC 1 3 2 2 0.423
CR2 PR 1/3 1 1/2 1/2 0.122
CR3 EFR 1/2 2 1 1 0.227
CR4 HSS 1/2 2 1 1 0.227

Pairwise comparisons of CRs with respect to CR2 on Pollution Reduction determining W3.

CR1 CPC CR2 PR CR3 EFR CR4 HSS e-Vector

CR1 CPC 1 1/6 1/5 1/4 0.061
CR2 PR 6 1 2 2 0.446
CR3 EFR 5 1/2 1 1 0.253
CR4 HSS 4 1/2 1 1 0.240
80 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081

Pairwise comparisons of CRs with respect to CR3 on Efcient Use of Fuel and Resources determining W3.

CR1 CPC CR2 PR CR3 EFR CR4 HSS e-Vector

CR1 CPC 1 1/5 1/5 1/4 0.064
CR2 PR 5 1 1/2 2 0.304
CR3 EFR 5 2 1 2 0.429
CR4 HSS 4 1/2 1/2 1 0.203

Pairwise comparisons of CRs with respect to CR4 on Health, Safety, and Security determining W3.

CR1 CPC CR2 PR CR3 EFR CR4 HSS e-Vector

CR1 CPC 1 1/2 1/2 1/4 0.111
CR2 PR 2 1 1 1/2 0.222
CR3 EFR 2 1 1 1/2 0.222
CR4 HSS 4 2 2 1 0.444

References

Akao, Y., 1994. Development History of Quality Function Deployment. The Customer Driven Approach to Quality Planning and Deployment. Asian
Productivity Organization, Minato, Tokyo 107 Japan.
Bagozzi, R.P., Li, Y.J., Phillips, L.W., 1991. Assessing construct-validity in organizational research. Adm. Sci. Q. 36 (3), 421458.
Bang, H.S., Kang, H.W., Martin, J., Woo, S.H., 2012. The impact of operational and strategic management on liner shipping efciency: a two-stage DEA
approach. Maritime Policy Manage. 39 (7), 653672.
Bhattacharya, A., Geraghty, J., Young, P., 2010. Supplier selection paradigm: an integrated hierarchical QFD methodology under multiple-criteria
environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 10, 10131027.
Bengtsson, S., Fridell, E., Andersson, K., 2012. Environmental assessment of two pathways towards the use of biofuels in shipping. Energy Policy 44, 451
463.
Bykzkan, G., Berkol, C., 2011. Designing a sustainable supply chain using an integrated analytic network process and goal programming approach in
quality function deployment. Expert Syst. Appl. 38, 1373113748.
Cariou, P., Cheaitou, A., 2012. The effectiveness of a European speed limit versus an international bunker-levy to reduce CO2 emissions from container
shipping. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 17 (2), 116123.
Carter, C.R., Jennings, M.M., 2002. Social responsibility and supply chain relationships. Transp. Res. Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 38 (1), 3752.
Carter, C.R., Rogers, D.S., 2008. A framework of sustainable supply chain management: moving toward new theory. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manage. 38
(5), 360387.
Cheng, C.C.J., Yang, C.-L., Sheu, C., 2014. The link between eco-innovation and business performance: a Taiwanese industry context. J. Cleaner Prod. 64, 81
90.
Cheng, Y.H., Tsai, Y.L., 2009. Factors inuencing shippers to use multiple country consolidation services in international distribution centers. Int. J. Prod.
Econ. 122 (1), 7888.
Ciliberti, F., Pontrandolfo, P., Scozzi, B., 2008. Logistics social responsibility: standard adoption and practices in Italian companies. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 113 (1),
88106.
Containerisation International, 2012 & 2013. Shipper sentiment survey http://europe.nxtbook.com/nxteu/informa/ci_201204/index.php?startid=4#/6.
Dedes, E.K., Hudson, D.A., Turnock, S.R., 2012. Assessing the potential of hybrid energy technology to reduce exhaust emissions from global shipping. Energy
Policy 40, 204218.
Eyring, V., Isaksen, I.S.A., Berntsen, T., Collins, W.J., Corbett, J.J., Endresen, O., Grainger, R.G., Moldanova, J., Schlager, H., Stevenson, D.S., 2010. Transport
impacts on atmosphere and climate: Shipping. Atmos. Environ. 44 (37), 47354771.
Fafaliou, I., Lekakou, M., Theotokas, I., 2006. Is the European shipping industry aware of corporate social responsibility? The case of the Greek-owned short
sea shipping companies. Marine Policy 30 (4), 412419.
Farahani, R.Z., Rezapour, S., Drezner, T., Fallah, S., 2014. Competitive supply chain network design: an overview of classications, models, solution
techniques and applications. Omega 45, 92118.
Gibbs, D., Rigot-Muller, P., Mangan, J., Lalwani, C., 2014. The role of sea ports in end-to-end maritime transport chain emissions. Energy Policy 64, 337348.
K-line. 2008. Port Dedicates First Shoreside Power Project, Date of access: 3/12/2013, http://www.kline.com/KAMEnvironment/Green-News-Releases/
081111-Port-Dedicates-First-Shoreside-Power-Project.asp.
Krozer, J., Mass, J., Kothuis, B., 2003. Demonstration of environmentally sound and cost-effective shipping. J. Cleaner Prod. 11 (7), 767777.
Lai, K.H., Lun, Y.H.V., Wong, C.W.Y., Cheng, T.C.E., 2013a. Measures for evaluating green shipping practices implementation. Int. J. Shipping Transp. Logist. 5,
217235.
Lai, K.H., Wong, C.W.Y., Lun, Y.H.V., Cheng, T.C.E., 2013b. Shipping design for compliance and the performance contingencies for shipping rms. Transp. Res.
Part E Logist. Transp. Rev. 55, 7483.
Lam, J.S.L., 2011. Patterns of maritime supply chains: slot capacity analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 19 (2), 366374.
Lam, J.S.L., 2013. Benets and barriers of supply chain integration: empirical analysis of liner shipping. Int. J. Shipping Transp. Logist. 5 (1), 1330.
Lam, J.S.L., Gu, Y., 2013. Port hinterland intermodal container ow optimisation with green concerns: a literature review and research agenda. Int. J.
Shipping Transp. Logist. 5 (3), 257281.
Lam, J.S.L., Van de Voorde, E., 2011. Scenario analysis for supply chain integration in container shipping. Maritime Policy Manage. 38 (7), 705725.
Li, K.X., Yin, J., Bang, H.S., Yang, Z., Wang, J., 2014. Bayesian network with quantitative input for maritime risk analysis. Transportmetrica 10 (2), 89118.
Lirn, T.-C., Lin, H.-W., Shang, K.-C., 2014. Green shipping management capability and rm performance in the container shipping industry. Maritime Policy
Manage. 41 (2), 159175.
Lu, C.S., Lin, C.C., Tu, C.J., 2009. Corporate social responsibility and organisational performance in container shipping. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl. 12 (2), 119132.
Lee, C.K.M., Lam, J.S.L., 2012. Managing reverse logistics to enhance sustainability of industrial marketing. Ind. Mark. Manage. 41 (4), 589598.
Maersk, 2011. Sustainability progress report 2011, date of access: 20/12/2013, http://www.maersk.com/SUSTAINABILITY/Pages/Welcome.aspx.
 J.S.L. Lam / Transportation Research Part E 78 (2015) 7081 81

Morgan Stanley, 2012. Morgan Stanley shipper survey http://www.parcelindustry.com/Media/PublicationsArticle/morgan%20stanley.pdf.

Pagell, M., Wu, Z., 2009. Building a more complete theory of sustainable supply chain management using case studies of 10 exemplars. J. Supply Chain
Manage. 45 (2), 3756.
Parola, F., Satta, G., Caschili, S., 2014. Unveiling co-operative networks and hidden families in the container port industry. Maritime Policy Manage. 41 (4),
384404.
Qi, X., Song, D.-P., 2012. Minimizing fuel emissions by optimizing vessel schedules in liner shipping with uncertain port times. Transp. Res. Part E 48 (4),
863880.
Reyes, D.E.S., Wright, T.L., 2001. A design for the environment methodology to support an environmental management system. Integr. Manuf. Syst. 12 (5),
323332.
Saaty, T.L., 1996. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytical Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., Lai, K.H., 2011. An organizational theoretic review of green supply chain management literature. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 130 (1), 115.
Schinas, O., Stefanakos, Ch.N., 2012. Cost assessment of environmental regulation and options for marine operators. Transp. Res. Part C 25, 8199.
UNCTAD, 2013. Review of Maritime Transport. United Nations on Trade and Conference, Geneva.
Yap, W.Y., Notteboom, T., 2011. Dynamics of liner shipping service scheduling and their impact on container port competition. Maritime Policy Manage. 38
(5), 471485.
Yeo, G.-T., Ng, A.K.Y., Lee, P.T.W., Yang, Z., 2014. Modelling port choice in an uncertain environment. Maritime Policy Manage. 41 (3), 251267.
Yin, J., Fan, L., Yang, Z., Li, K.X., 2014. Slow steaming of liner trade: its economic and environmental impacts. Maritime Policy Manage. 41 (2), 149158.