Journal of Korea Port Economic Association (한국항만경제학회지)

The Korea Port Economic Association (한국항만경제학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analyzing the Impact of Emission Control Area (ECA) Enforcement on Ferry Companies' Financial Performance : Network SBM DEA and BTR model

배출규제해역(ECA) 시행이 페리 선사의 재무성과에 미치는 영향: Network SBM DEA 및 BTR 모형 분석

  • 이수형 (인하대학교 물류전문대학원) ;
  • 임현우 (인하대학교 아태물류학부)
  • Received : 2022.07.22
  • Accepted : 2022.09.30
  • Published : 2022.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) designated the Emission Control Area (ECA) in Northern Europe to reduce the NOx and SOx emissions from ships in the coastal areas. This study used Network slack-based measure (SBM) Data Envelopment Model (DEM) and Bootstrop Truncated Regression (BTR) model to analyze the ECA's impact on ferry companies' financial performances based on the financial data from eight ferry carriers in Northern Europe, the Mediterranean and North America from 2004 to 2017. To alleviate the problem of arbitrary variable selection in DEA, the variable selection criteria proposed by Dyson et al. (2001) were applied; the size of the company was considered through the Network SBM DEA model; and the company's profit-generating process was divided into stages to measure financial performance in more detail. In addition, the BTR model was applied to derive results that minimize the bias of the data. The study found that ECA regulations did not always negatively affect the shipping companies' financial performance. Rather, a steady increase in efficiency was observed for Northern European ferry companies which were subject to the strongest regulations. For North American ferry companies, government subsidies were found to have a significant impact on efficiency, and relatively small impact on efficiency due to the ECA and oil prices. For the Mediterranean ferry companies, efficiency values have decreased since the implementation of ECA regulation despite the lowest level of regulation in the region.

본 연구의 목적은 국제해사기구(IMO)의 배출규제해역(ECA) 시행에 따른 환경규제가 페리 선사들의 재무지표로 구성된 효율성에 어떠한 영향을 미쳤는지 실증적으로 분석하는데 있다. 이에 따라 본 연구에서는 2004년부터 2017년 까지 북유럽, 지중해, 북미 지역의 8개 페리선사의 재무데이터를 수집하여, ECA가 페리선사의 재무성과에 미친 영향을 효율성의 관점에서 지역별로 추정하였다. 방법론적 측면에서 본 연구의 학술적 기여는 다음과 같다. DEA의 자의적인 변수 선정 문제를 완화하기 위하여 Dyson et al.(2001)이 제시한 변수 선정 기준을 적용했으며, Network SBM DEA 모형을 통하여 기업의 규모를 고려하는 동시에 기업의 수익 창출 과정을 단계별로 구분하여 재무성과를 보다 세밀하게 측정하였다. 또한 BTR 모형을 적용하여 편의(Bias)를 최소화한 결과를 도출하였다. 연구 결과 가장 강한 규제를 받았던 북유럽 선사의 경우 오히려 효율성의 꾸준한 증가가 관측되었다. 북미지역 선사들의 경우 정부지원금이 효율성에 큰 영향을 미친 것으로 드러났으며, 상대적으로 ECA와 유가에 의한 영향은 적었던 것으로 관측되었다. 반면 지중해 지역의 경우 가장 낮은 수준의 규제를 받았음에도 불구하고, 규제 이후로 효율성 값이 낮아지는 모습이 관측되었다. 본 연구는 향후 ECA가 확대될 예정인 아시아의 페리선사와 정책당국에 의사결정의 참고자료로서 기능할 수 있을 것으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. 왕관.안승범(2021), 중국 일대일로 항만의 효율성 평가, 한국항만경제학회지, 제37집 제1호, 19-30.
  2. 이수형(2021) 배출규제해역(ECA) 시행이 페리 선사 재무성과에 미치는 영향에 대한 분석: 자료포락분석(DEA)을 중심으로, 인하대학교 박사학위 논문.
  3. 이브라임, 오사마.김현덕(2021), 지중해 컨테이항만의 효율성 분석에 관한 연구, 한국항만경제학회지, 제37집 제2호, 91-105.
  4. 조정정.윤경준.이향숙(2019), 선박에 기인한 대기오염물질 배출량 산정연구, 한국항만경제학회지, 제35집 제2호, 93-108.
  5. Bang, H. S Kang, H. W., Martin, J., & Woo, S. H. (2012). The impact of operational and strategic management on liner shipping efficiency: a two-stage DEA approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 39(7), 653-672. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2012.740165
  6. Chang, Y. T., Lee, S., & Park, H. K. (2017). Efficiency analysis of major cruise lines. Tourism Management, 58, 78-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2016.10.012
  7. Chang, Y. T., Park, H. K., Lee, S., & Kim, E. (2018). Have emission control areas (ECAs) harmed port efficiency in Europe?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 58, 39-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.10.018
  8. Chang, Y. T., Roh, Y., & Park, H. (2014). Assessing noxious gases of vessel operations in a potential Emission Control Area. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 91-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.03.003
  9. Chao, S. L., Yu, M. M., & Hsieh, W. F. (2018). Evaluating the efficiency of major container shipping companies: A framework of dynamic network DEA with shared inputs. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 117, 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.08.002
  10. Cullinane, K. & Burgqvist, R. (2014). Emission control areas and their impact on maritime transport. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.004
  11. Dyson, R. G., Allen, R., Camanho, A. S., Podinovski, V. V., Sarrico, C. S., & Shale, E. A. (2001). Pitfalls and protocols in DEA. European Journal of operational research, 132(2), 245-259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00149-1
  12. Eskeland, G. S., & Harrison, A. E. (2003). Moving to greener pastures? Multinationals and the pollution haven hypothesis. Journal of development economics, 70(1), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-3878(02)00084-6
  13. Giannakopoulou, E. N., Thalassinos, E. I., & Stamatopoulos, T. V. (2016). Corporate governance in shipping: An overview. Maritime Policy & Management, 43(1), 19-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2015.1009185
  14. Gillen, D., & Lall, A. (1997). Developing measures of airport productivity and performance: an application of data envelopment analysis. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 33(4), 261-273. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1366-5545(97)00028-8
  15. Kotowska, I. (2015). The Influence of Sulphur Directive on the Ferry Market. Swinoujscie-Ystad/Trelleborg Ferry Lines-a Case Study. Ekonomiczne Problemy Uslug, (119), 11-20.
  16. Lee, P. T. W., Lin, C. W., & Shin, S. H. (2012). A comparative study on financial positions of shipping companies in Taiwan and Korea using entropy and grey relation analysis. Expert systems with applications, 39(5), 5649-5657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.11.052
  17. Lian, F., He, Y., & Yang, Z. (2020). Competitiveness of the China-Europe Railway Express and liner shipping under the enforced sulfur emission control convention. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 135, 101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.101861
  18. Lun, V. Y., & Marlow, P. (2011). The impact of capacity on firm performance: a study of the liner shipping industry. International Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 3(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSTL.2011.037819
  19. Luo, Y., Bi, G., & Liang, L. (2012). Input/output indicator selection for DEA efficiency evaluation: An empirical study of Chinese commercial banks. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(1), 1118-1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.07.111
  20. Merkert, R., & Morrell, P. S. (2012). Mergers and acquisitions in aviation-Management and economic perspectives on the size of airlines. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 48(4), 853-862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2012.02.002
  21. Notteboom, T. (2011). The impact of low sulphur fuel requirements in shipping on the competitiveness of roro shipping in Northern Europe. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 10(1), 63-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-010-0001-7
  22. Notteboom, T. E., & Vernimmen, B. (2009). The effect of high fuel costs on liner service configuration in container shipping. Journal of transport geography, 17(5), 325-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.05.003
  23. Ouenniche, J., & Carrales, S. (2018). Assessing efficiency profiles of UK commercial banks: a DEA analysis with regression-based feedback. Annals of Operations Research, 266(1), 551-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2797-z
  24. Panayides, P. M., Lambertides, N., & Savva, C. S. (2011). The relative efficiency of shipping companies. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 47(5), 681-694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.01.001
  25. Pastor, J. T., & Ruiz, J. L. (2007). Variables with negative values in DEA. In Modeling data irregularities and structural complexities in data envelopment analysis (pp. 63-84). Springer, Boston, MA.
  26. Qin, Z., Yin, J., & Cao, Z. (2017). Evaluation of effects of ship emissions control areas: Case study of Shanghai Port in China. Transportation Research Record, 2611(1), 50-55. https://doi.org/10.3141/2611-06
  27. Reilly, F. K., & Brown, K. C. (2011). Investment Analysis and Portfolio Management (Text Only). Cengage Learning.
  28. Saxe, H., & Larsen, T. (2004). Air pollution from ships in three Danish ports. Atmospheric environment, 38(24), 4057-4067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.03.055
  29. Simar, L., & Wilson, P. W. (2007). Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes. Journal of econometrics, 136(1), 31-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2005.07.009
  30. Soteriou, A., & Zenios, S. A. (1999). Operations, quality, and profitability in the provision of banking services. Management Science, 45(9), 1221-1238. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.9.1221
  31. Tone, K., & Tsutsui, M. (2009). Network DEA: A slacks-based measure approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 197(1), 243-252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.05.027
  32. Witzel, M. (2002). A short history of efficiency. Business Strategy Review, 13(4), 38-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8616.00232
  33. Zhang, Q., Zheng, Z., Wan, Z., & Zheng, S. (2020). Does emission control area policy reduce sulfur dioxides concentration in Shanghai?. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 81, 102289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102289
  34. Zhen, L., Hu, Z., Yan, R., Zhuge, D., & Wang, S. (2020). Route and speed optimization for liner ships under emission control policies. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 110, 330-345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2019.11.004