Strategic Energy Partnership in Shipping

  • Eunice O. OlaniyiEmail author
  • Patrick Gerber
  • Gunnar Prause
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 36)


The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) is employing a global clean shipping approach to reduce shipping emissions and to improve the Maritime’s carbon footprint. One of the measures was the establishment of Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA) in special parts of the world including Baltic Sea Region (BSR). Since 2015, ships are allowed only to use fuel with a maximal Sulphur content of 0.1% forcing ship owners to use special bunker fuel like LNG or to invest in expensive abatement technologies like the scrubbers. These are more expensive than the usual heavy fuel oil (HFO). Predictions are that oil prices may increase in which case ship-owners who have started using the LNG or the scrubber’s technologies will enjoy a competitive advantage over others due to the higher margins that can further increase with additional investments into energy efficiency.

In the context of SECA, this paper tackles the research objective of how strategic energy partnerships can be adapted by the maritime sector. The research focused on the adaptation of the scrubber technology for the Maritime Energy Contracting model (MEC) using the Energy Service Contracting concept. Since the authors currently participate in the EnviSuM project, which assesses the technical efficiency and the socio-economic impact of clean shipping solutions of the SECA regulations in BSR, the research was empirically validated by expert interviews, survey results and case studies.

Results illustrated how the MEC model can be a market mechanism for the delivery of emission reduction in the maritime sector.


Business model Emission reduction EnviSuM project SECA regulation Maritime Energy Contract 


  1. 1.
    Atari, S., Prause, G.: Risk assessment of emission abatement technologies for clean shipping. In: 17th International Multi-Conference ‘‘Reliability and Statistics in Transportation and Communication’’ Riga (2017, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bergqvist, R., Turesson, M., Weddmark, A.: Sulphur emission control areas and transport strategies – The case of Sweden and the forest industry. Eur. Transp. Res. Rev. 7(2) (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bertoldi, P., Rezessy, S., Vine, E.: Energy service companies in European countries: current status and a strategy to foster their development. Energy Policy 34(14), 1818–1832 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Bleyl, J.W.: Conservation First! The New Integrated Energy-Contracting Model to Combine Energy Efficiency and Renewable Supply in Large Buildings and Industry. ECEEE summer Studies, Paper ID, 485 (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chesbrough, H.: Business model innovation: opportunities and barriers. Long Range Plann. 43(2), 354–363 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EMSA Homepage: European Maritime safety Agency Annual 2010 Report. Accessed 10 May 2016
  8. 8.
    Goldman, C.A., Hopper, N.C., Osborn, J.G.: Review of US ESCO industry market trends: an empirical analysis of project data. Energy policy 33(3), 387–405 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    IMO Home page: IMO sets 2020 date for ships to comply with low sulphur fuel oil requirement. Press briefing release 28/10/2016. Accessed 30 Nov 2016
  10. 10.
    Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., Saldana, J.: Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Beverly Hills, Thousand Oaks (1984)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Notteboom, T.: The impact of low sulphur fuel requirements in shipping on the competitiveness of roro shipping in Northern Europe. WMU J. Marit. Aff. 10(1), 63–95 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nugraha, F.: Effective implementation of emission control area towards cleaner shipping operations: focusing on sulphur oxides (SOx) emission reduction. World Maritime University Dissertations (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    OECD/ITF Home page on Reducing Sulphur Emissions from Ships: The Impact of International Regulation. Accessed 10 June 2016
  14. 14.
    Olaniyi, E., Prause, G., Boyesen, J.: Economic impact of SECA regulations on clean shipping in the BSR- first empiric results from EnviSuM project. In: 2017 International Conference on Maritime Energy Management Proceedings. World Maritime University, Malmo, Sweden (2017)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Olaniyi, E.O., Viirmäe, M.: The economic impact of environmental regulations on a maritime fuel production company. Res. Econ. Bus. Central Eastern Europe 8(2), 58–84 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Osterwalder, A.: The Business Model Ontology-a proposition in a design science approach. University of Lausanne (Doctoral Thesis) (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prause, G., Olaniyi, E.O.: The impact of environmental regulations on the regional development in Eastern Estonia. In: Muravska, T. (ed.) New Challenges of Economic and Business Development Conference, Riga, 2017, Riga. Latvian State University (2017)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross, S.A., Westerfield, R., Jaffe, J.F., Roberts, G.S.: Corporate Finance, vol. 7. McGraw-Hill/Irwin, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siggelkow, N.: Persuasion with case studies. Acad. Manag. J. 50(1), 20–24 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sorrell, S.: The economics of energy service contracts. Energy Policy 35(1), 507–521 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wiśnicki, B., Czermański, E., Droździecki, S., Matczak, M., Spangenberg, E.: Sulphur Regulation–technology solutions and economic consequences for the BSR. Shipping market Institute of Maritime Transport and Seaborne Trade, University of Gdansk (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eunice O. Olaniyi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Patrick Gerber
    • 2
  • Gunnar Prause
    • 1
  1. 1.Tallinn School of Business and Governance, Tallinn University of Technology UniversityTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.EP Consulting OÜTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations