The influence of the environmental management system on the environmental impact of seaport companies during an economic crisis: Lithuanian case study

Abstract

Freight handling in EU ports fell by more than 12 % during the global economic crisis in 2008-2009 after almost a decade of continuous growth. The decrease of freight handling in the Klaipeda seaport, the only port in Lithuania, was 6.7 % and happened due to the dominant outward movement of goods (mainly oil products). The Klaipeda seaport, due to its peculiarity, is the only ice-free port in the northern part of Baltic Sea. The present study explores the environmental impact of Klaipeda seaport activities from 2001 to 2011. Moreover, it compares the environmental effectiveness of environmental protection strategies used in the four biggest companies that, in fact, cover about 88 % of total activities (except general cargo) of the seaport. The first group of targeted companies used an environmental protection strategy to implement an ISO 14001-based environmental management system, and the second group selected to follow environmental management practices without certification. The paper analyses the development of the companies' activities in regard to the change of environmental effectiveness. The paper evaluates the pressure of the economic crisis on the companies' activities and its influence on environmental decisions, with particular interest in the ability of different environmental protection systems to resist and handle the expected performance. The study identified a significant decrease in companies' activities during the crisis period. However, the economic activities and environmental effectiveness demonstrated similar short-term tendencies in regard to the environmental strategy selection but differed in long-term perspective.

Yakalanamayan Yeşil Finans, Yeni Finansal Yatırımlar ve Yeşil Ekonomide Holdingler Etkisi

“…This paper has proved it. Our evidence reaches the result that the green economy appears for green finance and technologies with environmental friendship (Tacchella, Cristelli, Caldarelli, Gabrielli, & Pietronero, 2012), (Agan, Acar, & Borodin, 2013), (Anne, Burskyte, & Balciunas, 2015), (Çınar, Korkmaz, & Şişman, 2021). Namely, our finding is firstly compatible with the determination of environmental pollution because of the necessary maximum production (Tacchella, Cristelli, Caldarelli, Gabrielli, & Pietronero, 2012).…”

“…with the optimism of small and medium-sized enterprises about the green environment (Agan, Acar, & Borodin, 2013). It is thirdly parallel with the increase in the demand to get more profit, especially in times of economic crisis (Anne, Burskyte, & Balciunas, 2015). And it is finally parallel with the proof that the money and technology processes associated with the green economy began later (Çınar, Korkmaz, & Şişman, 2021).…”

“In sickness and in health, in poverty and in wealth?”

“…Although CSR can be negatively affected during an economic crisis, it can also help companies to cope during this period (Anne et al, 2015;Benlemlih and Bitar, 2016; 7 Economic crises and CSR change management Ducassy, 2013;Giannarakis and Theotokas, 2011;Glavopoulos et al, 2014;Green and Peloza, 2015;Harwood et al, 2011;Kashmiri and Mahajan, 2014;Miras et al, 2014;Miras-Rodriguez et al, 2015;Oh and Park, 2015;Paulet et al, 2015;Sahut et al, 2012). Companies highly engaged with CSR achieve a high level of loyalty from their stakeholders, attract high-quality employees, develop good relationships with market players, have more efficient investments, and acquire a good image and good reputation.…”

Promoting Sustainability through Assessment and Measurement of Port Externalities: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Paths

“…The role of ports as engines for local, regional, and national growth [1][2][3], as well as their capacity in reflecting economic activity [4], is widely acknowledged within contemporary literature. Despite their significance in economic development, trade facilitation, and employment [5,6], adverse negative externalities of port operations and development on the environment and, in extension, on society, have become an ever-growing concern for seaport organizations [7]. Thus, while many ports strive to "go green" through integration and adoption of proactive measures and practices aiming at mitigating their environmental footprint [8], expectations of their users and stakeholders are increasingly focusing on a more comprehensive and holistic approach, to establish a balance between economic, environmental, and societal interests.…”