Review Strategies Shipping

2014
Strategies in Shipping Industry

A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals
Projet de recherche
opPORTunit
Soutenu et financ par :
Octave Niami (PhD. Student) and

Olivier Germain (Professor)
ESG - UQAM
01/06/2014
Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014
Introduction
Shipping is considered as the lifeblood of the global economy. More than 80% of the world
goods are carried by ship (Mason and Nair, 2013, Sui and Lam, 2011), and the USA, the largest
trading nation in the world, use sea cargo to move more than 90% of its export freight (Agarwal
and Ergun, 2008)
The global economic activities are changing and shipping industry is facing some
structural changes. There is a dramatic shift in the world manufacturing and trading. The market
and marketplaces are now global and production is located everywhere. China is the world
manufacturer; India and other Asian countries are following the same economic model.
(Panayides and Wiedmer, 2011).
The major shipping lines who were initially concentrated on the East West routes which
linked the main three poles of the global economy (Europe, Asia, USA), are now serving the
North South routes with the maritime liberalization. As they started newest and largest ships on
East West routes, they shifted the oldest resources to the North South markets. This new
design of the world trade makes mandatory the need for a fully connected and highly integrated
system (Robinson R., 2005; Fremont A., 2007). Mega carriers with multi-ocean networks are
being the pattern (Lorange and Fjeldstad, 2010).
The shipping business environment is getting more instable, competition is increasing
(Tongzon et al., 2009), profit margins are decreasing, expected service quality is increasing and
demand is becoming more uncertain (Panayides and Wiedmer, 2011, Robinson R., 2005).
In this context, shipping lines need to formulate and implement winning strategies to
secure revenue, margin and growth. And one may consider that strategic management scholars
would hold a competitive advantage in order to address some very inspiring research avenues.
From our review, there is a scarcity of literature review on strategy formulation and
implementation in shipping industry. There is also a scarcity of work from management and
strategy field about strategy in shipping industry. The works available are mostly from scholars
from fields like Transportation, Marketing, Supply Chain, Economics or History. In this study,
Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals
Page 2

we point out that even articles dedicated to strategic management are rarely published in
journals from the strategy field but in some peripheral ones.
Why so little interest in this yet stimulating topic from the strategic management
community? At first, one may consider that scholars in the field of strategic management are
much more interested in iconic cases from consumer goods or services industries. Companies
from shipping industry are some discrete or secrete businesses not really present neither in
popular medias nor in everyday life of people. Secondly, the shipping industry may suffer from
an old-school and mature image that is: an industry with high capital intensity, oligopolistic
conditions and less degree of innovation, etc. Thus, scholars would find more red oceans than
blue ones (Kim and Mauborgne, 2004) and less disruptive or idiosyncratic strategies; though
those industries are much more conducive to strategic breakthrough, even from insiders (BadenFuller and Stopford, 1996). Finally, it is probably one of the main arguments; the shipping
industry may display high barriers to entry for researchers; or it-it the view from scholars? One
the one hand, companies share some cultural codes and assumptions which are so complex to
domesticate from outsiders and, on the other hand, only top managers are concerned with big
questions in very vertical organizations and plan firms strategic behaviors.
This paper aims to bridge these gaps by providing a literature review on strategies in
shipping industry, with a strategic management lens. In this study, we focus on articles edited in
academic peer-reviewed journals. One may consider that some interesting papers may be
published in handbooks or conference proceedings. We thought that academic journals are to be
the main locus of conversation between researchers and thus express a kind of institutional view
of the extent to which the strategy field addresses strategic issues in the shipping industry.
In the sections that follow, we will describe the methodology we use for our literature
review. We will picture the main strategies used in the shipping industry as reported in this
literature. We will then describe the main underlying theories used as basis for studying strategy
formation and the methodology adopted by scholars. We will close this paper by a discussion
section on some avenues.

Page 3
Methodology
After setting the conceptual boundaries, we will discuss how we collected our data, the analysis
we made from it and the results.
Conceptual boundaries
Shipping refers to moving freight from a point A to a point B (Jari et al., 2008). It may be done
by air, by road or by sea. Our work will focus on moving freight by sea.
According to Agarwal and Ergun (2008), the shipping industry is made of three main
divisions: industrial shipping, tramp shipping and liner shipping. Industrial shipping refers to the
case where the shipper owns the ship and aims to minimize shipping cost. In tramp shipping
activities, the carrier engage in contracts with the shippers to carry cargo bulk between specific
points at specific time frame. Liner shipping is the case where the carrier decides on a set of
trips, make schedule available to shippers and operates it.
Liner shipping is mostly containerized. For Sui and Lam (2011), the invention of
containers in 1960s has dramatically changed the shipping business. They believed that
containerisation has fragmented the shipping operations and now network integration and more
control are needed. This paper will focus on liner shipping and activities involving shipping
lines.
For the purpose of this paper, we define strategy as the direction and scope of an
organization over the long term, which achieves advantage in a changing environment through
its configuration of resources and competences with the aim of fulfilling stakeholder
expectations (Johnson et al., 2010, p. 3). This classical definition encompasses how firms
compete at the corporate or business level in order to achieve an advantage and strategic value
(Abraham, 2013). We have chosen this very large and open definition in order to cover the
largest number of articles in a presumed narrow field.
Page 4
Data collection and analysis
We performed a literature review by using the electronic database Virtuose-Uqam that is fed by
some well-known databases such as ABI/INFORM , EMERALD, JSTOR and so on, covering
the period up to June 2014. We thus decided to give an historical perspective to our work.
We used the search terms CORPERATE STRATEGY * AND SHIPPING INDUSTRY*;
BUSINESS STRATEGY* AND SHIPPING INDUSTRY* in order again not to narrowly focus
our research.
It led to 7464 items for CORPORATE STRATEGY * AND SHIPPING INDUSTRY*
and to 15745 for BUSINESS STRATEGY* AND SHIPPING INDUSTRY*, classified under
different subtopics. We decided to focus on subtopics related to Strategy, Corporate strategy,
Shipping and Shipping industry.
We checked some subtopics like Studies, Experimental/Theoretical, Supply Chain
Management, Logistics, using the titles of the items. The first results we see were less
relevant compare to the results recorded under subtopics
named Strategy, Corporate
strategy, Shipping and Shipping industry.

The subsections we decided to keep showed together about 300 items. We read the titles
of these items and we kept 168. The titles containing words related to both shipping and strategy
were relevant to our conceptual boundaries. For example, title with words like logistics,
shipping, competitive advantage, positioning, alliance, strategy, cooperation,
strategic alliance, diversification, differentiation, dominance, were kept and the others
were removed.
We then read the abstract and of the 168 items remaining. The ones that were directly or
seemed to be about both strategy and shipping were kept and the others were removed. At this
stage, we kept 54 items. We then read the full articles. Based on that, we eliminated 21 articles
and kept 33. From the 21 eliminated, 2 were not fully accessible and 19 were mostly about
Page 5

shipping without referring to the strategic aspects. By strategic aspects, we mean that articles had
to be clearly rooted in strategic managements concepts or theories. For example, Alix et al.
(1999) did not refer to the strategy literature but their article dealt with alliance and integration.
Most of authors in this case used references consistent with the journal environment and their
communities (for instance the Journal of Transport Geography). Some papers may also have
addressed some other management aspects in shipping industry and were not relevant with
respect to our research.
The limitation of this methodology is obviously that we have likely bypassed some
articles falling under our conceptual boundaries but that have titles and abstracts that do not
reflect the contents. A brief overview of bibliography may have allowed us to overcome this
limitation, that is we checked that references belong or not to the strategy field.
The 33 items we kept were all published in peer reviewed journals. Strategy in shipping
industry is gaining more attention from scholars in the recent period. Most of the articles in our
literature review (79%) were published after 2004. In the same way, our results highlight that the
shipping industry become a more attractive topic in the strategy field agenda; considering that
only three articles were edited before 2000s.
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Before 2000
2000 - 2004
2005 - 2009
2010 - 2014

Page 6

Journal of Transport Geography is most used for publication on strategy in shipping
industry (18%), followed by International Journal of physical Distribution and Logistics
Management (9%). The rest of the sample is divided between journals which have edited one or
two papers dedicated to strategies in the shipping industry.
Journals
Journal of Transport Geography
International Journal of physical Distribution and Logistics Management
Industrial Marketing management
Journal of business strategy
Research in Transportation Economics
Business History
Growth and Change
Int. J. Production Economics
Int. J. Shipping and Transport Logistics
International Journal of Knowledge management
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications
Marine Policy
Maritime Policy & Management
Organizational Dynamics
Scandinavian Economic History Review
Shipping Economics
Technovation
The international journal of logistics Management
The International Journal Of Management Science
Frequence
6
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
The Service Industries Journal

Transport Policy
Transport Research
Transport Science
1
1
1
1
1
Total
33
21 items were published in journals related to transport industry and 13 in journals related to
business, history and distribution. Only one journal is considered as taking part to the strategy
field: The Journal of Business Strategy. Three academic journals are in some related areas and
may occasionally publish strategic management studies: Business History, Organizational

Page 7

Dynamics, The Services Industries Journal, and International Journal of Knowledge
Management. None of those journals are listed at a A-level in the most established ranking in
management sciences.
Both strategic management journals are recognized as very practical-oriented publications
which want to be accessible to top and middle management audiences. This is a very interesting
result considering a community that always claims for bridging a gap between research an
practice but rarely does efforts for meeting this objective. Nevertheless, this non-representative
result may also mean that strategic researches about shipping industry lack theoretical
underpinnings and paradigms or do not consciously work them.
Literature analysis
From our analysis of 33 articles, we discussed the dominant strategies used by shipping lines as
analyzed and described in literature, the theories used as basis for strategy in shipping industry
and we finally discussed the methodology mostly used by scholars to study strategy is that
industry.
The mains strategic orientations of shipping lines
From the literature, we noticed that many contingent factors affect how firms strategize in
shipping industry. The mains are company size and the company ownership. Bigger companies
behave differently from the medium and small size ones. The companies that belong to groups
have different strategic approaches from the ones that are standing alone or from family firms
(Panayides and Wiedmer, (2011); Sys (2009); Markides and Holweg (2006).
The main strategic options used by shipping lines from our analysis are the following:
diversification, differentiation, concentration, alliances, specialization and cost leadership.
Anyway, those options are the main topics that articles we reviewed focus on. These results
Page 8

show thus the range of interests from the strategy community and not necessarily highlight the
range of strategies in the shipping industry.
Strategy
Authors
Differentiation
Olavarrietta S. Ellinger E. A, 1997; Tongzon, J., Hang, W., 2005;

Peter Lorange, 2001; Robinson, Ross, 2005
Diversification
Oswald J., Ghobadian A., ORegan N., Antcliff V., 2013;

Frmont, A., 2007; Carbone V., Stone A. M., 2005;
Photis M. Panayides, Robert Wiedmer, 2005;
Markides V. Holweg M., 2006; Olavarrietta S. Ellinger E. A, 1997;
Notteboom T., Mercx F., 2006
Concentration
Hugh Murphy, Stig Tenold, 2008;

Carbone V., Stone A. M., 2005; Christa Sys, 2009
Alliances
Agarwal, R., Ergun, O., 2008;

Anslinger, Patricia, Jenk, Justin, 2004; Fremont A, 2007;
Gadhia K. H., Kotzab H., Prockl G, 2011; Mason R., Nair R. 2013
Carbone V., Stone A. M., 2005; Hertz S., Alfredsson M., 2003;
Christa Sys, 2009; Photis M. Panayides, Robert Wiedmer, 2011;
Ellinger E. A, 1997; ; Olavarrietta S., Ren Taudal Poulsen 2007;
Cullinane K., Khanna M., 2000; Sopp et al., 2009; Poulsen (2007),
Specialization
Jari Juga , Saara Pekkarinen & Heli Kilpala, 2008;

Lorange P., Fjeldstad D. , 2010; Gadhia K. H., Kotzab H., Prockl
G., 2011; Carbone V., Stone A. M., 2005;
Hertz S., Alfredsson M., 2003; Markides V., Holweg M. 2006;
Jari Juga , Saara Pekkarinen & Heli Kilpala, 2008;
Delfmann W., Albers S., Gehring M., 2002
Cost leadership
Gadhia K. H., Kotzab H., Prockl G., 2011; Cullinane K., Khanna
M., 2000; Markides V.,Holweg M., 2006;
Olavarrietta S., Ellinger E. A, 1997;
Syc C. 2009,

Page 9

With respect to the emerging state of strategic management research in shipping industry,
research topics are somehow rooted in very classical trends on the strategy field. Cost leadership,
concentration and differentiation relate to the positioning school and Michael Porters influence
in defining generic strategies at business-level. Diversification and specialization relate to Igor
Ansoffs seminal work about strategic development of large firms at a corporate level. Thus, the
field needs to elaborate on classical perspective in the theoretical building process before
rejuvenating in borrowing more contemporary approaches. Or, observed strategic behaviors in
the industry may reveal some very classical logics related to its mature state.
Shipping is asset driven business and global by nature. Sellers have customers located all
around the world. Because of resources and capabilities needed to have global coverage,
shipping lines have been forming alliances since the early days of the industry. It started with
conferences and consortia and continues to date through strategic horizontal alliances and drive
more attention from the industry scholars compare to other strategic approaches (Driel, 1992).
In sections that follow, we will present in more details our analysis results for each of the
strategies mentioned above.
Diversification
Freight market is volatile and that may result in significant increase and decrease of income
overnight. Companies may derive big profits from this volatility, but it may also wipe out the
entire business overnight. Because of volatility and cyclicality, risk management is one of the
most important activities in shipping business (Lorange and Datson, 2014, Cullinane and
Khanna, 2000). Shipping lines use diversification has a means to protect their businesses against
cyclicality and volatility and to maintain or achieve an over average performance (Oswald et al.,
2013).
Diversification is sometime used by shipping lines to reduce their costs and secure higher
margin by integrating some activities that can be done efficiently internally. It is also a way to

Page 10

improve customers satisfaction and faithfulness by providing more value added services. Mearsk
for example diversified in terminal business because it has the resources and capabilities needed
to operate more efficiently that activity (Frmont, 2007). Maersk has now the highest schedule
integrity and that gives it a real competitive advantage over the competition (Notteboom and
Vernimmen, 2009).
Some shippers diversified to become more sophisticate player in order to secure their
strategic advantage (Markides and Holweg, 2006)
It is also believed that the potentials remaining in cost savings in transportation alone are
limited. To remain in business and generate higher margin, shipping lines must find
opportunities elsewhere. Therefore, there is a pressure to develop more value added services,
and diversification is perceived as the safest and easiest way to get there (Notteboom and Mercx,
2006)
Diversification is mostly used by larger players who has enough resources and
capabilities to operate conjointly several activities in different locations (Markides and Holweg,
2006; Panayides and Wiedmer, 2011). Shipping Lines diversified mainly through merger and
acquisition (Carbone and Stone, 2005).
The question whether diversification in shipping industry should be related or unrelated
remains unanswered from our review. Some scholars believe that related diversification leads to
superior performance because it transfers learning effects from a business to another
and
unrelated diversification should be avoid (Olavarrietta and Ellinger, 2007). Others believe that
unrelated diversification can lead to more market power (Markides and Holweg, 2006,
Notteboom and Mercx, 2006). Lorange and Datson (2014) however believe that because of the
limits of human cognition, it is hard to manage highly diversified businesses under the same
corporation.
From our review, most of the time the unrelated diversification is done at the corporate
level whereas the related diversification is at the business level (Oswald et al., 2013, Frmont,
2007). Illustration can be found in the cases of Maersk Line (related diversification at business
level) and Bibby (unrelated diversification at corporate level).
Page 11

Bibby Line, one of the UK biggest shipping lines is now part of Bibby Line Group, which
has financial services operations with Bibby Financial Services and seven other operations
including crew management, ship management, warehouse services. Bibby engaged with long
term diversification strategy in response to challenges in shipping industry (Oswald et al., 2013).
According to Frmont (2007), Maersk Line was offering transpacific services then
expanded to Europe and the Far East routes. Maersks first transhipment service in the Middle
East via Hong Kong was regarded as a genuine strategy. Maersk then used a hub in Dubai for
the East African coast, and other lines imitated model (Fremont, 2007). By 1990, Maersk Line
reached a global dimension through both organic growth and merger and acquisitions. It bought
Sea-Land to strengthen its position on East West routes and bought Safemarine in South Africa
(Fremont A., 2007). Maersk built a massive presence on the round-the-world routes in order to
dominate the shipping market. It increased the number of hubs mainly on the East West routes
(Fremont A., 2007). AP Moller group, Mearsk Lines parent company is highly diversified at
corporate level with active in oil and gas value chain from exploration to production both
onshore and offshore with Maersk Oil, in construction and operating of port and cargo inland
services with APM Terminals, in offshore drilling services to oil and gas companies with Maersk
Drilling and Supply Service with Maersk Tankers, Damco and Svitzer.
Differentiation
Differentiation in the shipping industry is doing things differently from the competition : adding
value to customers and request above the average price (Lorange, 2001). According to Juga et al.
(2008), shipping is basically moving freight from point A to point B and cannot provide any
room for building advantage. To differentiate from the competition, shipping line should go
beyond just moving freight to innovate and develop more value added services.
Juga et al. (2008) believe that differentiation opportunity may be found in terminal
operation, warehousing, geographic coverage or firms responsiveness to customers requests.

Page 12

Opportunity can also be found in frequency of service, directness of sailing, port coverage, doorto-door service, intermodal service, logistic service and IT (Gadhia et al., 2011).
For Delfmann et al. (2002), a shipping line can differentiate by using its core process,
value add service, financial services or management support.
According to Lorange (2001), shipping industry should not be considered as an old and
mature commodity business where cost advantage in the major success factor. There is room for
advantage building in shipping industry by treating customers in different ways and get premium
paid for that.
Robinsson (2005) argued that shipping firm can differentiate from competition by
provide value that customers will accept.
Maersk differentiates from other shipping lines by exploiting its own service networks.
Maersk doesnt belong to any alliance. Alone, it offers global coverage to its customers and
premium service by using its huge market power. In order to create more value for its customers,
Maersk developed a strategy of building strong domination on small ports. Maersk chooses to be
number one in ports that have lower position in the world port hierarchies in order to raise the
entry barrier and get the ability to influence policies within the ports (Fremont A., 2007).
It is believed that both small and big player can build differentiation based on business
model innovation. Lorange (2001) argued that innovation and service are at the center of
shipping business. He went on and said that firms need not to rely only on internal resources but
need to build a network organization to get the best services and knowledge available. They
should also adopt market based decision approach to understand the underlining factors creating
demand and supply in the industry (Lorange, 2001).
According to Doloreux and Melanon (2008), shipping companies are more innovative
when they engage with customers, suppliers or others stakeholders in a process of interactive
learning. Because smaller companies are more close to their customers compare to the bigger
players, they can be more innovative and differentiate if they develop the skills needed to
incorporate information from the field into their strategy making process (Lorange, 2001).
Page 13

According to Lorange and Fjeldstad (2010), traditional shipping lines were more
generalist and used to adopt an integrated approach, involving many shipping aspects under the
same organization. That leads to two major hindrances to innovation: silo focus and bureaucracy.
Silo focus refers to an organizational design where services are divided, with no crossfertilization within departments. That leads to incomplete implementation of strategy and hinder
innovation because knowledge is not shared (Lorange and Fjeldstad, 2010).
Bureaucracy is the organisational design where upper management is claiming credits for
accomplishments while putting blame on lower level workers for mistakes. In bureaucracy,
status is more important than the building of the business. That leads to risk aversion and very
few are managers who are able or willing to take actions that may lead to innovation and high
performance (Lorange and Fjeldstad, 2010).
Differentiation is fueled by the knowledge of the customers and their emerging needs,
and by innovation that may lead to appropriate answer to the customers needs. According to
Lorange and Fjeldstad (2010), successful firms are those who are willing to experiment new
things, they are not too conservatives. Firms should therefore look outside their boundaries to
stimulate innovation. He added that cooperating with others can help to know the customers
more. Innovation may be technical, commercial or environmental (Lorange and Fjeldstad, 2010)
Concentration
In shipping industry, concentration is mainly a way of competing for smaller players (Markides
and Holweg, 2006; Panayides and Wiedmer, 2011). It is mainly expressed in terms of geographic
coverage (Carbone and Stone, 2005). Smaller players, because of their limited resources, are
focusing on niche market (Panayides and Wiedmer, 2011).
As a way of concentration, lines may decide call on fewer ports, by providing high
volume on fewer routes with bigger ships. Most Asian lines operate in global market from home
with alliances. Gadhia et al. (2011) refer to that as home based international.
Page 14

According to Lorange and Datson (2014), an individual diversified company will lose out
against competitors who put all their effort on understanding the supply and demand drivers of a
particular niche. Concentration leads to a better understanding of customers and their emerging
needs and may help small players to win the completion game (Lorange and Datson, 2014).
Alliances
Shipping business is global in nature and, except Maersk, no firm have all the resources and
activities needed to satisfy all the needs of its customers (Carbone and Stone, 2005). Alliance
allows members to operate different routes around the world, it gives smaller and medium size
players the chance to create more capacity (Sys, 2009). Alliance improves economy of scale,
leads to efficient operations, increases the bargaining power of the actors, generates faster
leaning, faster implantation and low investment (Sopp et al., 2009), increases customer base,
improves asset utilization, provides frequent sailing and faster transit time (Agarwal and Ergun,
2008) and firms can pass these benefits to customers through a superior value proposition ( Hertz
and Alfredsson, 2003).
Alliance enlarges networks, facilitates new product development, helps to enter new
region and is less expensive than solo strategy (Carbone and Stone, 2005). It gives the ability to
possess and deploy flexibility strategy to manage in time of uncertainty (Mason And Nair, 2013).
For Poulsen (2007), cooperation is a way to cope with industry revolution.
Panayides and Wiedmer (2011) mentioned four different forms of collaboration:
Horizontal alliance, vertical alliance, defensive collaboration and offensive collaboration.
Horizontal alliance and vertical alliance are mostly technical. Horizontal alliance is
collaboration among firms doing the same activity for sharing of capacity, increasing frequency,
coordinating containers, etc. This form of collaboration is mostly developed by small and

Page 15

medium size operators to deal with demand uncertainties. Bigger operators usually have all the
resources they need to stand alone and cover their markets (Panayides and Wiedmer, 2011).
Vertical alliance is collaboration among operators offering complementary services such
as shipping services, container management services, trucking services and so on.
Defensive and offensive collaborations do have more strategic purposes. According to
Panayides and Wiedmer (2011), firms with weaker market position may develop a defensive
collaboration to raise entry barrier and build some competitive advantages. Offensive
collaboration is mainly adopted by operators with stronger market position to secure their market
power (Panayides and Wiedmer, 2011).
Some alliances lead to geographic diversification. This form of collaboration is mostly
built by larger players (Panayides and Wiedmer, 2011)
According to Panayides and Wiedmer (2011), alliances are unstable due to the number of
members and the way some members behave. Members change too often and firms may even be
hindered from deploying they own strategy, reason why some players prefer merger and
acquisition as main means of getting new knowledge, launching new product and developing
new market.
The benefits of alliances are not equally shared by the scholars. For some scholars, it is
true that alliances allow shipping lines to reinforce their networks. However, extended networks,
greater market access or increased integration have not necessarily creates competitive advantage
for shipping lines. They are not in the business of managing networks but in the business of
movement freight from shippers to buyers and competitive advantage is created through genuine
strategy that derive from the field (Lorange and Fjeldstad (2010).
For others, it is true that alliances allow sufficient capacity and high frequency sailing.
However, service differentiation is difficult in alliance. It difficult to build a brand and get
customer loyalty, and there is a high exit cost. Because alliances are virtual organization where
cost and capital investments are left to individual firms, they are not long term solution but a
good means to manage competition in short term (Anslinger et al., 2004).
Page 16
Specialization
In shipping industry, some lines do have multi-activities with some dominant specializations
(Carbone and Stone, 2005). Others are specialized in moving some particular kind of freight
(Hertz and Alfredsson, 2003).
Specialisation is sometimes presented as a way of differentiation (Juga et al., 2008;
Gadhia et al., 2011). Firms may also specialize by focusing on one particular aspect of the
shipping business (Lorange and Fjeldstad, 2010)
For Lagoudis and Theotokas (2007), specialization is a strategy mostly developed by
small company, along with a special focus on quality, whereas lager shipping lines are focused
on cost leadership.
Cost Leadership
Cost leadership is a strategy that aims to become the low-cost provider in the industry by making
a cost reduction on all value chain activities (Gadhia, 2011)
By the times of conferences, firm were co-operating by reaching agreement of divers
aspect of the shipping business, including the pricing. Without any control on the pricing
process, the winners were those able de develop a cost leadership (Panayides and Wiedmer,
2011; Mason and Nair, 2013; Poulsen, 2007; Agarwal and Ergun, 2008; Driel, 1992)
According to Cullinane and Khanna (2000), cost leadership can be achieved through
economy of scale. However, it is a short term competitive advantage because easily imitable.

Page 17

For Syc (2009), because of the shipping market structure, dominant price leadership is
not possible. She says that the industry is concentrate because of consolidation. Larger player are
capturing lager market shares. The market share of dominant players moved from 39% in 2000
to 60% in 2009. But, she added that the industry is also fragmented at some point because only
20 lines have more than 1% market share. She qualified the industry as loose oligopoly.
In this section, we highlight that diversification, differentiation and alliances consist in

some main characteristics of strategies in the shipping industry. Differentiation would probably
be a promising research avenue to much more scrutinize in the extent to which it covers a largest
range of business model strategies with some specific value creation arrangements.
Theories used in research on strategies in shipping industry

Many theories have been used in literature to explain the strategic choices of companies. We
pointed out Porters Five forces model, the resources based view and the dynamic capabilities
approach as the core perspectives. Many other theories have been used, not necessarily rooted in
strategic management, but these are the ones mostly cited in our literature review on strategies
used in shipping industry.
Michael Porters approach
In Porters view, strategy is about building a sustainable competitive advantage through a unique
value proposition.
In this view, high profitability is achieved through the selection of an attractive industry
by analysing the five forces that govern the industry (bargaining power of suppliers and
Page 18

customers, the treats of new entrants and substitution goods, and the level of competition), and
the selection and achievement of a strong relative position in the industry by using the value
chain analysis.
Porter is considered the father of what is called the generic strategies: cost leadership,
differentiation or focus which are highly used in shipping industry. Again, one may question
about this over-utilization of a Porterian perspective as it requires some very stable and noncomplex conditions in the environment in order to carry out very static studies of the industry.
Shipping industry is nowadays characterized by high complexity and velocity and need studies
dedicated to analyze strategies, competitive interactions and movements under pressure and
chrono-competition.
Resource based approach
Other scholars have approached strategy through the resource based models. According to these
researchers, the competitiveness of a company is related to its ability to exercise control over
resources and to organize a particular set of resources that is not easy to imitate (Penrose, 1959).
For them, the costly to copy attributes of the resources are the real sources of competitive
advantage. Resources are made of physical resources, organizational capital resources and
human capital resources (Progoulaki and Theotokas, 2010).
For Olavarrietta and Ellinger (2007) firms diversification based on core resources and
competencies is more effective and produce superior performance. Their also believe that
alliances based on complementarities of resources produce positive influences (Olavarrietta and
Ellinger, 2007). Resource based approach can help firm to differentiate through innovation, for
this theory considers firms to be rent seeker rather than profit maximize, and the rent seeking
behaviour emphasizes on entrepreneurship and innovation (Olavarrietta and Ellinger, 2007).
Strategic resources are scarce and costly imitable and that leads to superior performance and
generate rent. Olavarrietta and Ellinger (2007) believe that to provide sustainable competitive
advantage, strategies like cost leadership or perceived uniqueness should be base on resources.

Page 19

For Jauga et al. (2008), resource based theory emphasizes on companys tangible and
intangible resources that are built over time. It helps a firm to build competitive advantages
oriented toward service development or competence development.
Olavarrietta and Ellinger (2007) described three resource categories : Input factor
(generic resources like trucks, laoding capacities, etc.), assets meaning tangible or intangible but
visible resources that are built over time (equipments, patents, etc.,), and capabilities described
as complex bundle of individual skills that enable firm to coordinate activities (new product
development, team work, etc.)
For Robinson (2005), every competitive advantage is built on firms unique and specific
resources described as core competencies, strategic assets and core processes.
Progoulaki and Theotokas (2010) described how shipping firms can build sustainable
competitive advantage based on human resource. For them, because shipping is a mature
commodity business, there is a need for minimum unit cost. Therefore, cost leadership prevails
in competitive pattern. Because labor cost makes an important proportion of their total cost,
companies are running after cheap crews.
Staff on board is different in nature from staff out board and there is no integrated human
resource management approach in most shipping company. Therefore, companies may build a
not easily imitable competitive advantage through an integrated human resource management
system. Firms need to adopt a system approach in their human resource management because
individual practices are easily imitable whereas coherent systems are not (Progoulaki and
Theotokas, 2010)
Progoulaki and Theotokas (2010) argue that Resource Based View has four tenets: Value
(V), Rareness (R), Imitability (I), Organisational support (O), making the acronym VRIO. The
firms ability to build and keep profitable market position depends on its ability to gain and
defend advantageous position on underlying resources. A set of resources and capabilities that
cannot be easily imitated or substituted leads to sustainable competitive advantage (Robinson,
2005, Progoulaki and Theotokas, 2010).

Page 20

Kim, S. et al. (2011) emphasize the importance of knowledge as key resource in decision
making in the shipping industry. They developed a knowledge management model that can help
shipping companies in their decision making process. But the model is more focused on the
operational parts of the business than the strategic decision making process.
As differentiation (at a business level) and diversification (at a corporate level) are to be
among the main strategies in the industry, it is consistent that researches address the question of
which resources both strategies rely on. Differentiation relates to resources that achieve a
competitive advantage. Diversification is concerned with resources that may be successfully used
in more than one business.
The dynamic capabilities approach
The dynamic capabilities refer to the ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and
external competences to address rapidly changing environments. Capabilities are the skills
needed to take absolute control over resources, and the capacity to perform specific tasks and
operations (Cui and Hertz, 2011). In this view, competitive advantage is based on distinctive
competences and capabilities that rivals cannot imitate or possess (Progoulaki and Theotokas,
2010). Dynamic capabilities are sometimes defined as organisational and strategic routines by
which firms achieve new resource configuration (Progoulaki and Theotokas, 2010).
For Oswald et al. (2013), Dynamic capabilities refer to tools employed to manipulate
existing configuration in order to create new resources configuration. It helps firms to convert
existing resources into competitive advantage. Dynamic capabilities give firms the capacity to
sense and shape opportunities, capacity to seize opportunity by orchestrating resource
manipulation. It also gives the ability to adapt in front of challenges like high market velocity
(Oswald et al., 2013).
Kim, C. et al. (2008)
stated that competitive advantage should be built through
expanding capabilities such as human resource management and technology rather that

Page 21

extending physical assets. They brought in the concept on Blue Ocean strategy in logistic
business in more normative way.
For them, because of competition in logistic business,
companies must devote themselves to finding new growth engine. In this context, blue ocean
strategy provides a guide line for how companies can survive by creating new market space by
using their capabilities instead of competing in the existing market.
Cui and Hertz, (2011) explain more the link between resource and capabilities by stating
that capabilities are the sources of competitive advantage and resources are the sources of
capabilities. For Tongzon et al. (2009), the ability to develop a long term and trusting association
with customers is a complex phenomenon that cannot be imitated.
Both resources and capabilities take part to the same theoretical roots of a stream of
research in shipping strategies. They only change the level of analysis from the owned or
mobilized resources to the way these resources are combined in a unique alchemic process.
The chain perspective
The chain perspective is promoted by Ross Robinson (2005) but consists in a very current way of
dealing with the shipping industry functioning beyond works in strategic management (i.e.
supply chain and logistics management). We thus consider this article as an important albeit
isolated piece.
Robinson (2005) states that shipping lines move freight between buyers and sellers and
work in chain. To understand the business success of shipping lines, one must understand the
structure of the supply chain and how individual firms operate and accumulate value from their
position within the chain.
For him, Porter focus on market not on the chain and that leads to an underestimate of a
full range of contingent coexistences. Resource based approaches focus on internal resources
and start from competitive market rather than supply chain (Robinson R., 2005).

Page 22

Robinson (2005) believes that chain perspective is appropriate to understand the
competitive advantage of shipping lines and to define appropriate strategy for their success.
In chain perspective, business success is defined in terms of acquisition and exploitation
of supply chain and market power in order to move from weak position to market leadership.
Because shipping lines are in the business of moving freight, they are third party service provider
and will derive value only by delivering value that customers accept. They will not derive value
from network, nor from longer, larger or faster ship (Robinson, 2005).
The focus of shipping lines should be on delivering superior value to target customers at a
price that allows profit. An individual line will capture competitive advantage only by delivering
superior value to customers on the basis of its position in the network. Network may allow
having access to larger customer base. The chain has to deliver value at customers satisfaction
and to the other individual companies making the chain, otherwise it will disappear (Robinson,
2005).
In the chain, each shipping line has something to offer and derive power from that. Power
is defined as the ability to own or control on critical assets, and it oscillates from dominant to no
power. The shipping lines strategy should focus on the acquisition of market power. Dominant
players may use their power to close the market to the smaller payers (Robinson, 2005).
According to Robinson (2005), shipping networks are the artifacts of the corporate
strategy. The strategy will answer the following questions: what value, to which customer, at
which level of profitability and what line to operate.
The network to which the line belongs will impose some constraints on the value to
capture. There will be tension between value to deliver and value to capture. Shipping lines
operating in networks where value erodes will seek to redefine their strategic positioning to
influence the chain or leave (Robinson, 2005).

Page 23

Methodology used by the scholars
Theoretical
Case study
survey
21%
Secondary data
31%
18%
30%
30% or 10 articles included in this review are based on theoretical approaches. This are
from Agarwal, R., Ergun, O., 2008; Anslinger, Patricia; Jenk, Justin, 2004, Cullinane K., Khanna
M., 2000; Delfmann W., Albers S., Gehring M., 2002; Driel, Van Hugo, 1992; Kim S-K., Felan
J., Kang H. M., 2011; Lorange P., Datson E., 2014; Lorange P., Fjeldstad D. , 2010; Lorange,
P., 2001; Olavarrietta S., Ellinger E. A, 1997;
30% or 10 are based on case studies. These are the works of Tongzon, J., Chang, Y-T.,
Lee, S-G., 2009; Robinson, R., 2005; Poulsen, R. T., 2007; Oswald J., Ghobadian, A., ORegan,
N., Antcliff, V., 2013; Mason, R., Nair, R., 2013; Kim, C., Yang, H. K., Kim, J., 2008; Juga, J.,
Pekkarinen, S., Kilpala, H. 2008; Hertz, S., Alfredsson, M., 2003; Fremont, A., 2007; Cui, L.,
Hertz, S., 2011
21% or 7 articles are based on the exploitation of secondary data. The data are from
companies websites or (Gadhia K., H., Kotzab H., Prockl G 2011,), from websites such as
www.dynamar.com (Sys, C., 2009) or www.alphaliner.com (Panayides, M. P., Wiedmer, R.,
2011), from Containerization International Yearbook (Gadhia K., H., Kotzab H., Prockl G 2011),
from ports (Sui, J., Lam, L., 2011) or from other data base available (Sopp, M., Parola, F.,
Frmont, A. 2009; Notteboom, E. T., Vernimmen, B. 2009). Carbone V. and Stone A. M. (2005)

Page 24

adopted a mix methodology. After a systematic and extended review of specialized press and
analysis of annual accounts, they conducted personal interviews with the senior management.
18% are from survey studies. These are the works of Panayides and Polyviou, M., 2011;
Notteboom, T., Mercx, F., 2006; Markides, V., Holweg, M. 2006; Lagoudis, N., I., Theotokas, I.,
2007; Doloreux, D., Melancon, Y., 2008. Sometimes, the authors adopt a mix methodology by
coupling survey with interviews (Progoulaki, M., Theotokas, I., 2010).
From this short outlook on research methods, we may confirm our assumption (see
Introduction) that the little ability of scholars to access to empirical evidences and data, but also
to shipping companies explain the lack of interest from the strategy research community. More
than half of articles are not based on primary data and even more than a third of those consist in a
theoretical contribution about strategies in shipping. The important part of case studies in our
sample on the other hand shows the need for deep understanding of strategic behavior at a microlevel before generalization attempts.
DISCUSSION: TOWARDS A MORE EMERGENT AND PRACTICE

VIEW OF STRATEGY IN SHIPPING INDUSTRY?
Most of the strategies reported in literature from our review are based on Porters works or
assumptions. Porters approach is based on industrial organization theories and focuses mainly
on how to build a sustainable competitive advantage through positioning (Olavarrietta and
Ellinger, 1997; Farjoun, 2007). The main assumption here is that environment is stable and
predictable and changes are evolutionary (Farjoun, 2007).
Porters view is sometimes referred to as long term planning approach ((Mintzberg H.,
1987) or structural view (Farjoun, 2007). In Farjouns view, the structural strategy approaches
based on planning and building long term competitive advantages may be relevant in stable
business environment, but is completely irrelevant in instable business environment like the
shipping industry. In fact, in the context of frequent discontinuous and revolutionary changes,
Page 25

and where stable performance difference between firms can no more be achieved, firms should
be flexible and more focused on temporary advantages and experimentation (Farjoun, 2007).
For Mintzberg (1987), any strategy that is built on the basis of distinction between
strategy formulation from strategy implementation may be irrelevant at some point of time. The
top management develop the long term vision and the low level workers have to implement the
vision (Mintzberg H., 1987).
For instance, the resource based strategies that emphasize the need to possess unique,
valuable and defendable resources or capabilities aiming to lead the company to long term above
average performance may be irrelevant in time of high velocity. In contrast, the dynamic
capabilities perspective is to be a more promising research avenue: capabilities support change in
resources combinations as firms cope with uncertainty and velocity. The chain approach is based
on the need of building a strong market power in the chain by controlling strategic assets. But,
the companies making up the supply chains are different in size. Larger companies usually
control the strategic assets in the chain and have more power. If strategy is limited to getting
more power in the chain, how will the smaller players strategize? The chain perspective has the
advantage of explicitly emphasizing the need of building stronger market power to create
competitive advantage, but it seems more suitable for larger players.
We believe that, because of the high velocity of shipping industry, the activity based view
may be of great value in building competitive advantage. The activity based view states that
strategy is social in nature and it expresses itself in activities (Jarzabkowski, 2005). The activity
based view belongs to the strategy as practice theories. Most emergent (Mintzberg H., 1987),
adaptive (Farjoun M., 2007) or short term strategies (Lorange P., 2010) have more to do with the
activity based view.
Mintzberg (1987) uses the working process of a craftsman to describe the strategizing
process of a firm. For him, crafting better describes the way strategies emerge. He believes that
the image of long term planning promoted by management literature is misleading to those who
get involved without judgement.
The image of craftsman allows strategists to know their
organization, to know their market in details and to think deeply on the direction to follow.

Page 26

The shipping business environment as described above is global in nature and highly
competitive. Situations are continually evolving and companies need to adapt to not die. In this
context of ever changing business environment, Mintzbergs recommendation for strategists is to
go back to craftsmans wisdom (Mintzberg H., 1987).
Mintzberg uses a metaphor of a potter to show how strategizing works when business
environment is unpredictable. Because the long term planning approach separates the strategy
formulator from the implementer, innovation are not quickly incorporated in strategy and firms
struggle to meet the real needs of the customers who are getting more and more demanding
(Mintzberg H., 1987). For Mintzberg, as a potter works hard to make a pot, in the same way the
strategist works hard to develop a strategy. He knows what did not work, he knows his product,
and he knows his market. He never do strategic analysis, he feels thing and make decision based
on tacit his knowledge. He has his knowledge in his mind while his hands are working the clay.
He is the formulator and the implementer. The potter takes actions, fails, tries again, learns and
adjusts continually.
Mintzberg and Waters (1985) call it that emerging strategy; it emerges in response to
evolving situations (figure below). They do not deny the usefulness of long term strategy but
emphasizes the fact that people involved with the situation at hand should be having more
responsibilities in the strategizing process. He proposed the concepts of Umbrella strategy
where the C-suite sets on broad guidelines and leaves the specifics to the low level employees,
and Process strategy where the C-suite crafts the structure and leaves the content to the low
level employees discretion. In Mintzberg and Waterss view, people down in the hierarchy are
the ones in touch with the real situation at hand. Letting them be formulator and implementer
will make strategy effective.
The short-term pressures on the conducting of business and the acceleration of
competition regimes have both reduced the strategic agenda to an almost daily exercise and the
strategic creation work to an extensive mime contest in a lot of industries. Realized strategies in
shipping industries are more probably a mix of intended strategy and emergent strategies in the
flow of action. And we need studies about the way that strategies are formed in practices. Sure
that the strategies in shipping companies are much more entrepreneurial than the hierarchical
Page 27

perspective underlying the classical works we pointed out. And here is stimulating avenue in
addressing strategies in shipping industry.
For instance, Burgelman (1985) proposes an evolutionary approach to the production of
opportunities associating deliberation and adaptation in the same process of strategy production
which joins autonomous and induced strategic processes. The winning opportunities resulting
from autonomous processes may be retained and worked into the organizations main strategic
schematic at the risk of replacing it. More widely, strategy is the intra-organizational process
vector of the firms strategic evolution in which strategic opportunities emerge, are retained and
then selected (Burgelman, 2002).
From : Mintzberg and Waters (1985)

For Lorange and Fjeldstad (2010), family businesses dominate the shipping industry
because they make faster decision whereas large companies have to go to the decision committee
before acting. In the meantime, the shipping marking is moving fast and late decisions become
irrelevant. Family firms CEO according to authors are more entrepreneurial and dynamics and
that is a success factor in a rapidly changing context. Lorange and Fjeldstad (2010) describe
entrepreneurs as people who are able to see the needs of the customers and mobilize resources to
provide good and appropriate answers, the ones that customers are willing to pay premium to
Page 28

get. That required being involved with the real situations. Family firms in shipping industries
may thus be the most promising research field to address the entrepreneurial and emerging facets
of strategy formation.
Conclusion
Shipping is very important for the world trade and economic prosperity. But, the shipping
industry is becoming more uncertain because of high competition from around the world. To
succeed, shipping lines need to build good strategies.
So far, the literature on strategy in shipping industry is dominated by papers from
scholars working in fields like Transportation, Geography, Economics, Marketing or History.
The strategies developed in those papers are more generic and based on Ansoff and Porters
seminal contributions. Some scholars have used the resource based theory, the dynamic
capabilities or the chain approach to study strategy in shipping industry. But because of the
evolving nature of this industry, scholars from the management and strategy field should be more
involved in producing knowledge on strategy in shipping industry.
Some theories like the activity based theory that emphasizes on what people do and the
social nature of activities should be looked at very closely as a venue for strategy formation in
shipping industry in order to develop strategy that are more relevant because of the high velocity
of the shipping industry. Strategic activity consists in permanently scrutinize and work the
potential of the situation so as to transform (not to act) the course of action (not the path)
through an indirect and silent support (Jullien, 2011). Thus, the emergence of strategy takes part
to a process of wayfinding. For Chia and Holt (2009), wayfinding is characterized not as a
plotted sequence of static positions but as the coming-into-sight and passing-out-of-sight of
various contoured and textured aspect of the environment (Chia and Holt, 2009, p. 163).
Opportunities emerge spontaneously during this between two times owing to the availability of
agent. Thus, (t)he wayfinding view treats the agent as intimately immersed in and inextricable

Page 29

from contexts, and, as such, his or her actions emanate from within the constantly evolving
circumstance (Chia and Holt, 2009, p. 159).
Main references
Agarwal, R., zlem, E. (2008), Ship Scheduling and Network Design for Cargo Routing in Liner
Shipping, Transportation Science; May 2008; 42, 2; 175 196
Anslinger, P., Jenk, J. (2004), Creating successful alliances, The Journal of Business Strategy;
2004; 25, 2; 18-22
Carbone, V., Stone, M.A. (2005), Growth and relational strategies used by the European logistics
service providers: Rationale and outcomes, Transportation Research Part E 41, 495510
Changsu K., HoonYang K., Jaekyung K. (2008), Astrategy for third-party logistics
systems:Acase analysis using the blue ocean strategy, Omega 36 522 534
Cui, L., Hertz, S. (2011), Networks and capabilities as characteristics of logistics firms,
Industrial Marketing Management 40 10041011
Cullinane, K., Khanna, M. (2000) Economies of scale in large containerships: optimal size and
geographical implications, Journal of Transport Geography 8 181195
Delfmann, W. Albers, S., Gehring, M. (2002) The impact of electronic commerce on logistics
service providers, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management; 32,
3/4; 203 222
Doloreux, D., Melanon, Y. (2008), On the dynamics of innovation in Quebecs coastal maritime
industry, Technovation 28 231243
Driel, H. (1992), Co-Operation in the Dutch Container Transport Industry, The Service Industries
Journal; Oct, 12, 4, 512 532
Fremont A. (2007), Global Maritime Networks: The case of Maersk, Journal of Transport
Geography, 15, 431 442
Gadhia, H.K., Kotzab, H., Prockl, G. (2011), Levels of internationalization in the container
shipping industry: an assessment of the port networks of the large container shipping companies,
Journal of Transport Geography 19 14311442
Page 30

Hertz, S., Alfredsson, M. (2003) Strategic development of third party logistics providers,
Industrial Marketing Management 32 139 149
Juga, J., Pekkarinen, S. & Kilpala, H. (2008) Strategic positioning of logistics service Providers,
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications: A Leading Journal of Supply
Chain Management, 11:6, 443-455

Lagoudis, I. N., Theotokas, I. (2007), The competitive advantage in the greek shipping
industry, Maritime Transport: The Greek Paradigm, Research in Transportation Economics,
Volume 21, 95120
Lam Siu Lee, J. (2011), Patterns of maritime supply chains: slot capacity analysis, Journal of
Transport Geography 19 366374
Lorange P. (2001). Strategic re-thinking in shipping companies, Maritime Policy &

Management: The flagship, Journal of international shipping and port research, 28:1, 23-32,
Lorange P., Datson E. (2014), Business Cycles: looking beyond the downside for competitive
advantage, Journal of business strategy, volume 35, 9-19
Lorange P., Fjeldstad D. . (2010). Redesigning organizations for the 21st Century : Lessons
From the Global Shipping Industry, Organizational Dynamics, Vol 39 No 2, pp. 184 193
Markides, V. Holweg, M. (2006), On the iversification of international freight forwarders A UK
perspective, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 36
No. 5, pp. 336-359
Mason, R., Nair, R. (2013), Supply-side strategic flexibility capabilities in container liner
shipping, The International Journal of Logistics Management Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 22-48
Notteboom, T., Merckx, F. (2006), Freight Integration in Liner Shipping: A Strategy Serving
Global Production Networks, Growth and Change Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 550569
Notteboom, T.E., Vernimmen, B. (2009), The effect of high fuel costs on liner service
configuration in container shipping, Journal of Transport Geography 17 325337
Olavarrieta, S. Ellinger, A.E. (1997), Resource-based theory and strategic logistics research
International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 27 No. 9/10, 1997,
pp. 559-587
Oswald J., Ghobadian A., O,Regan N. Antcliff V. (2013). Dynamic Capabilities in a Sixthgeneration family Firm : Entrepreneurship and the Bibby Line, Business History, 55:6 910 - 941

Page 31

Photis M. Panayides, Polyviou, M. (2011), The effect of ports logistics attributes and services
on the business and supply chain performance of shipping firms, Int. J. Shipping and Transport
Logistics, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2011
Photis M. Panayides, Wiedmer, R. (2011).
Strategic Alliance in container Liner shipping,
Reseach in transportation Economics 32 (2011) 25 38
Progoulaki, M., Theotokas, I. (2010). Human resource management and the competitive
advantage: An application of resource-based view in the shipping industry, Marine Policy 34,
575 582.
Robinson, R. (2005), Liner Shipping Strategy, Network Structuring and Competitive Advantage
: A chain systems perspective, Shipping Economics, Research in Transportation Economics,
Volume 12, 247289
Sopp, M., Parola, F., Frmont, A. (2009) Emerging inter-industry partnerships between
shipping lines and stevedores: from rivalry to cooperation? Journal of Transport Geography 17
1020
Sung-kwan K., Felan, J., Hong Kang, M. (2011) An Ontological Approach to Enterprise
Knowledge Modeling in a Shipping Company, International Journal of Knowledge
Management, 7(4), 70-84
Sys, C. (2009), Is the container liner shipping industry an oligopoly? Transport Policy 16 259
270
Taudal Poulsen, R. (2007) Liner Shipping and Technological Innovation: Ostasiat and the
Container Revolution, 196375, Scandinavian Economic History Review, 55:2, 83-100
Tongzon, J., Young-TaeChang, Sang-YoonLee (2009), How supply chain oriented is the port
sector, Int. J. Production Economics, 122, 2134
Other references
Abraham, S. (2013), Will business model innovation replace strategic analysis? STRATEGY &
LEADERSHIP, VOL. 41 NO. 2, pp. 31-38
Ansoff, I. (1965), Corporate Strategy, McGrall Hill.

Page 32

Baden-Fuller, Ch. et Stopford, J. M. (1996), Rejuvenating the mature business The competitive
challenge, 2nde dition, Routledge. 1re dition : 1992.
Burgelman, R.A. (1985), Applying the methodology of grounded theorizing in strategic

management : a summary of recent findings and their application In: R. Lamb & P. Shrivastava
(ed.) Advances in Strategic Management, Vol. 3, JAI Press, pp. 83-99.
Burgelman, R.A. (2002), Strategy as vector and the inertia of coevolutionary lock-in,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47(2), p. 325-357.
Casadesus-Masanell R., Ricart E. J., (2010). From Strategy to Business Models and onto Tactics,
Long Range Planning, 43 195 215.
Chia, R., Holt, R. (2009), Strategy without Design. The Silent Efficacy of Indirect Action,
Cambridge University Press.
Farjoun M. (2007). The end of strategy ? Strategic Organization Vol 5(3) : 197 210
Jullien, F. (2011), Silent Transformations, Chicago University Press.
Kim, W. C., Mauborgne, R. (2004). Blue Ocean Strategy, Harvard Business Review, October,
7685.
Lafley A. G., Martin L. R. (2013). Play to Win : How Strategy Really Works, Harvard Business
Press
Mintzberg H. (1987); Crafting strategy, Havard Business Review July August 1987
Penrose, E.T. (1959), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, Blackwell, 1959. Revised edition:
Oxford University Press, 1995.
Porter, M. E. (1980), Competitive strategy: Techniques for analyzing industries and competitors,
New York, Free Press, 396 p.
Porter, M. E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance,
New York, Free Press, 557 p.
References of papers rejected

Alix Y., Slack B., Comtois C. (1999). Alliance or acquisition? Strategies for growth in the
container shipping industry, the case of CP, Journal of Transport Geography 7 203-208
Page 33

Kee-Kuo Chen, Ching-Ter Chang, Cheng-Sheng Lai (2009), Service quality gaps of business
customers in the shipping industry, Transportation Research Part E 45 222237
Jose Tongzon, Wu Heng (2005), Port privatization, efficiency and competitiveness: Some
empirical evidence from container ports (terminals), Transportation Research Part A 39 405
424
Holweg, M., Disney, S., Holmstrom, J., Smaros, J. (2005), Supply Chain Collaboration:
Making Sense of the Strategy Continuum, European Management Journal Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.
170181
Hugh Murphy & Stig Tenold (2008) Strategies, market concentration and hegemony in chemical
parcel tanker shipping, 19601985, Business History, 50:3, 291-309,
Tsunehiko Yui; Keiichiro Nakagawa (1986) Business History of Shipping: Strategy and
Structure, The Business History Review, Vol. 60, No. 2, pp. 337-338
Andreas Andrikopoulos, Anna A. Merika, Anna Triantafyllou, Andreas G. Merikas Internet
disclosure and corporate performance: A case study of the international shipping industry,
Transportation Research Part A 47 (2013) 141152
Daniel Chan (2000), Beyond Singapore Girl Grand and Product/service differentiation strategies
in the new millennium, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 19 No. 6, pp. 515-542
Richard Goss (2008), Social responsibility in shipping, Marine Policy 32 142146
Stig Tenold (2009) Vernon's product life cycle and maritime innovation: Specialised shipping in
Bergen, Norway, 19701987, Business History, 51:5, 770-786
Dennis W. Krumwiede, Chwen Sheu (2002), A model for reverse logistics entry by third-party
providers, Omega 30 325 333
Kit-Fai Pun, Richard C.M. Yam, Winston G. Lewis (2003 ) NEW ESEARCH Safety
management system registration in the shipping industry, International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 704-721
Hsin Rau, Mou-Hsing Tsai, Chao-Wen Chen, Wei-Jung Shiang (2006), Learning-based
automated negotiation between shipper and forwarder, Computers & Industrial Engineering 51
464481
Jay Sankaran (2000), Freight logistics in the New Zealand context, International Journal of
Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 145-164

Page 34

Clyde Kenneth Walter and Richard F. Poist (2004) North American inland port development:
international vs domestic shipper preferences, International Journal of Physical Distribution &
Logistics Management Vol. 34 No. 7, pp. 579-597
Stock, James R (2002), Marketing myopia revisited: Lessons for logistics, International Journal
of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management; 2002; 32, 1, 12 21

Page 35

Review Strategies Shipping

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Review Strategies Shipping

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry

Octave Niami (PhD. Student) and

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Data collection and analysis

named Strategy, Corporate

strategy, Shipping and Shipping industry.

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

The Service Industries Journal

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

The mains strategic orientations of shipping lines

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Olavarrietta S. Ellinger E. A, 1997; Tongzon, J., Hang, W., 2005;

Oswald J., Ghobadian A., ORegan N., Antcliff V., 2013;

Hugh Murphy, Stig Tenold, 2008;

Agarwal, R., Ergun, O., 2008;

Jari Juga , Saara Pekkarinen & Heli Kilpala, 2008;

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

In this section, we highlight that diversification, differentiation and alliances consist in

Theories used in research on strategies in shipping industry

Michael Porters approach

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Resource based approach

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

The dynamic capabilities approach

stated that competitive advantage should be built through

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

For them, because of competition in logistic business,

The chain perspective

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

DISCUSSION: TOWARDS A MORE EMERGENT AND PRACTICE

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014

The image of craftsman allows strategists to know their

Strategies in Shipping Industry : A Review of Strategic Management Papers in Academic Journals

Strategies in Shipping Industry 2014