A1 Vertaisarvioitu alkuperäisartikkeli tieteellisessä lehdessä
ENTREPRENEURIAL COMPLIANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARITIME FUEL PRODUCERS
Tekijät: Olaniyi EO, Bakkar Y, Prause G
Kustantaja: ENTERPRENEURSHIP & SUSTAINABILITY CENTER
Julkaisuvuosi: 2019
Lehti: Entrepreneurship and sustainability issues
Tietokannassa oleva lehden nimi: ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY ISSUES
Lehden akronyymi: ENTREP SUSTAIN ISS
Vuosikerta: 6
Numero: 4
Aloitussivu: 1550
Lopetussivu: 1565
Sivujen määrä: 16
ISSN: 2345-0282
DOI: https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2019.6.4(1)
Tiivistelmä
In January 2015, the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) regulations changed so that ships that ply the Baltic Sea and the North Sea must no longer use bunker fuel that exceeds 0.1%. After the regulation of many compliances, changes occurred in the maritime sector, especially in the BSR. From studies, the impact is still somewhat negative for some maritime stakeholders such as small-scale fuel producing companies who must produce fuel that complies with the SECA requirements. The impact analysis of their compliance options shows that hydrodesulphurisation option is the most viable option with a commensurable investment return rate, but it is highly risky and expensive considering the incessant plummeting of fuel price and the financial status of such companies. However, even though the situation looks bleak for the small-scale maritime fuel producers, a more in-depth probe revealed a chance for exceptional opportunities for growth and profit through a change of business model to the maritime energy-contracting model (MEC). The study zooms in on a case fuel producing company, empirically considers and compares the MEC model (as a decentralised option) and the hydrodesulphurisation process (as a centralised option) and, if either option is adopted by as a SECA compliance strategy to ensure a rounded and robust choice making-process for maritime stakeholders in such situations.
In January 2015, the Sulphur Emission Control Areas (SECA) regulations changed so that ships that ply the Baltic Sea and the North Sea must no longer use bunker fuel that exceeds 0.1%. After the regulation of many compliances, changes occurred in the maritime sector, especially in the BSR. From studies, the impact is still somewhat negative for some maritime stakeholders such as small-scale fuel producing companies who must produce fuel that complies with the SECA requirements. The impact analysis of their compliance options shows that hydrodesulphurisation option is the most viable option with a commensurable investment return rate, but it is highly risky and expensive considering the incessant plummeting of fuel price and the financial status of such companies. However, even though the situation looks bleak for the small-scale maritime fuel producers, a more in-depth probe revealed a chance for exceptional opportunities for growth and profit through a change of business model to the maritime energy-contracting model (MEC). The study zooms in on a case fuel producing company, empirically considers and compares the MEC model (as a decentralised option) and the hydrodesulphurisation process (as a centralised option) and, if either option is adopted by as a SECA compliance strategy to ensure a rounded and robust choice making-process for maritime stakeholders in such situations.
Turun yliopiston Tutkimustietojärjestelmän portaali