International strategies of port authorities: The case of the Port of Rotterdam Authority

Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

International strategies of port authorities: The case of the Port of Rotterdam Authority Michaël Dooms a,⁎, Larissa van der Lugt b,1, Peter W. de Langen c,2 a

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Business, Unit Management and Strategy, Pleinlaan 2, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium Erasmus University Rotterdam, Erasmus School of Economics, Regionale Economie, Haven-en Vervoerseconomie (RHV) BV, Burgemeester Oudlaan 50, 3062-PA Rotterdam, The Netherlands c Eindhoven University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Sciences, Den Dolech 2, 5612-AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands b

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 29 December 2012 Received in revised form 15 May 2013 Accepted 9 June 2013 Available online 29 June 2013 Keywords: Port authority strategy International business Port of Rotterdam

a b s t r a c t In this paper, we aim to develop the international component of port authority strategy, by discussing and analyzing the case of the Port of Rotterdam and its recent developments in terms of establishing an international strategy. The objective is to discuss the types of operating modes that might exist for port authorities in international business, the organizational structure and management processes thereof, and a discussion on the motives and the performance indicators used. From the perspective of the Port of Rotterdam, an insight was provided into organizational characteristics, operating modes, motives, expected results and management of risks related to international operations in the foreland. Furthermore, we establish linkages with recent insights from the international business literature, providing a research agenda within this subtopic of port performance and strategy research, and taking into account specificities of the port sector. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The development of ports around the world is driven to a large extent by the investments of multinational companies, in the industrial and logistics sector (Wang, Ng, & Olivier, 2004). For instance, especially in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s, multinational companies in the petrochemical industry have driven the development of ports (Dooms, Verbeke, & Haezendonck, 2013), or perhaps better termed ‘port and industrial development areas’, (Pallis, 2012). Port authorities compete fiercely for the investments of global terminal operators, shipping lines, logistics providers, energy companies and (petro)chemical companies. Given the ongoing internationalization in all these industries, in most ports the vast majority of private investments is inward foreign direct investment. Across governance models, port authorities, as the entities responsible for managing and developing port areas, aim to provide the most competitive environment for multinational companies (Cullinane, Teng, & Wang, 2005). Such investments further regional economic growth as well contribute to market share growth of the port and financial objectives (revenue generation) of the port authority. Commercial departments of port authorities not only respond to existing customers (e.g. by jointly attracting cargo) but also increasingly promote the port area to global

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +32 2 629 21 30; fax: +32 2 629 20 60. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Dooms), [email protected] (L. van der Lugt), [email protected] (P.W. de Langen). 1 Tel.: +31 10 408 1410. 2 Tel.: +31 6 2247 3002. 2210-5395/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.06.004

investors. Some port authorities located in proximity of each other (see Notteboom, Ducruet, & De Langen, 2009), in some cases across national borders, join forces in international promotion and commercial policies to attract multinational companies to their areas (e.g. the Port of Ghent in Belgium and Zeeland Seaports in the Netherlands for the development of their jointly managed bio-industry and energy cluster). Next to port authorities, also regional and national governments, encourage, support or take initiatives to broaden the spatial scope of international marketing to the entire port regions, such as the recent partnership agreement Haropa (Le Havre, Rouen, Paris) in France (see also Merk, Ducruet, Dubarle, Haezendonck, & Dooms, 2011), the Flanders Port Area project in Flanders, Belgium (Antwerp, Ghent, Zeebrugge-Ostend) and the coordination strategy of German ports. Although these joint promotion activities remain rather symbolic in the absence of commercial cooperation (as advocated by the Port of Rotterdam in its recent Port Vision 2030), they show that port competition has now advanced to the global level and that strategies to develop ties with international players are increasingly important for port authorities. In this context, while port users and clients have become multinational and even global companies over the last decades (in larger ports in the container handling industry only a limited number of local, domestic players, remain, see De Souza, Beresford, & Pettit, 2003), port authorities have retained their focus on a specific territory. Thus, while most private companies, in particular terminal operators, now have a global instead of local scope, port authorities still focus on their territory i.e. their port area. Institutional and regulatory frameworks (see Verhoeven, 2010), more specifically the (local) public ownership and localized goals and mission statements (e.g. foster

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157

economic development in the region) of most port authorities explain this focus on local territory. However, an increasing amount of activities undertaken by port authorities in international markets, in particular during the last decade, can be observed.3 In this paper, we explore this international component of port authorities, by discussing and analyzing the case of the Port of Rotterdam. The objective of this paper is to discuss the types of operating modes of port authorities with international activities, the organizational structure and management processes thereof, and the motives and the performance indicators used. To do this, we establish linkages with insights from the international business literature. This exploratory paper results in a research agenda for this issue. The paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, international operating modes are discussed. In Section 3, we first outline the methodology and the sources used for the case study and next provide an in-depth analysis of the case of the Port of Rotterdam. Section 4 provides a discussion of the case study in terms of managerial and research implications. We conclude in Section 5 with the main elements of a research agenda.

2. Port authority international strategies 2.1. International operating modes of port authorities 2.1.1. Stage models as a generic basis to define operating modes In most countries, the port authority is a public or semi-public organization responsible for the management and development of the port area by constructing and maintaining infrastructure, providing this infrastructure to private companies through leases or concessions, and ensuring the development and competitiveness of the port cluster. Most port authorities operate broadly speaking according to the ‘landlord’ model4 (Baird, 1995; Brooks & Cullinane, 2007; Goss, 1990d; World Bank, 2000). For private companies, international strategies have been the subject of research for several decades (a good overview is presented in Benito, Petersen, & Welch, 2009). Motives for internationalization can be traced to profit maximization purposes and involve exploiting market opportunities abroad, seeking cheaper resources (e.g. by delocalization of production) or tapping into specific sources of knowhow to augment firm competitiveness (e.g. by establishing an R&D unit outside the home country). Within the international business literature, stage models using incremental steps within internationalization processes (e.g. the Uppsala model developed by Johanson & Vahlne, 1977; the ‘Modes of foreign entry’ by Anderson & Gatignon, 1986) have been developed to explain market entry decisions and foreign operating modes. Although other, more encompassing frameworks have been developed, such as the OLI paradigm (Dunning, 2000), stage model approaches provide a useful basis to structure the discussion on foreign operating modes for port authorities. A traditional, incremental stage model generally starts with export of a product/service from the home base to third countries, usually neighboring countries due to the limited geographical and cultural distance, and the low commitment in terms of resources. Next, various intermediate forms are distinguished, including license agreements, strategic alliances and joint ventures with partners from host countries. The third stage consists of the establishment of foreign subsidiaries, accompanied by Foreign Direct Investment (such as fully owned warehouses, factories). These three stages can be viewed as three different operating modes. In what follows, we broadly define

3 However, this trend certainly is not visible across the industry. For instance, Verhoeven (2010) has argued that port authorities, in particular in Europe, are going through a ‘renaissance’ and are taking on more entrepreneurial and risk taking activities even beyond the local dimension, but hardly addresses international strategies as one of the consequences of such an entrepreneurial approach. 4 We abstain from the private port authorities as can be found in the UK and since recently in Australia.

149

foreign operating modes following the definition of Benito et al. (2009): “organizational arrangements that a company uses to conduct international business activities”. In the following paragraphs, we define and discuss three main international operating modes of port authorities, based on an analysis of the annual reports and press releases by the port authorities of Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, LA/Long Beach, over the last five years. After the discussion of the three operating modes, we discuss the implications for our case study and research into port authority internationalization strategies. 2.1.2. Establishing a commercial presence abroad The port product is a ‘territorial’ or location-bound product, i.e. the port area in a specific region with its specific assets and presence of port stakeholders that together create port services for mostly international shippers (Jacobs & Hall, 2007; Parola, Satta, & Persico, 2013). Although port authorities have an international scope because a large amount of its clients are located abroad or overseas, their core activity is the development of a specific port territory. Thus, they generally do not follow the first stage of the internationalization model, i.e. starting with exporting products or services. This is also supported by previous research on the internationalization of port terminal operators, invoking the location bound nature of the product/service to be delivered (Hall & Jacobs, 2010; Parola et al., 2013). In line with this focus, the first international activities of port authorities are generally focused on port marketing to international clients. Based on the development of container traffic at the port of Miami, Marti (1986) analyzed the geographic market structure of the foreland of the port of Miami and the implications for a tailored international foreland marketing strategy, to be deployed by the port authority. Hence, we observe the investment in permanent regional representative offices abroad by some large port authorities, or, on a lower scale of commitment, participation to trade missions or trade fairs organized by either national or regional foreign trade offices or even third parties (e.g. industry organizations). Here, the objective is clearly to better integrate the port in global logistics chains (Robinson, 2002), convincing foreign shippers to increase their volumes to and from the port, by augmenting their awareness of the existence of the port and the quality of its product offering. As a consequence, the first level of international strategy could be the engagement in this type of activities, leading to a permanent commercial representation abroad. Within this type of international strategy, we observe a varying degree of commitment (in terms of resources to be deployed), from ad-hoc initiatives (participation to a trade fair abroad) towards structural activities (permanent representation). To put these activities in context, permanent representation in a country usually involves 1 or 2 persons, in some cases port authority employees, in other cases via an outsourced contract (e.g. an agent). The rise of the BRIC countries has led ports from developed countries like Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, and Los Angeles/Long Beach, to establish permanent commercial representation in these countries.5 2.1.3. Transfer of port specific knowhow A second type of strategy refers to the transfer of port specific knowhow to foreign countries. This activity is similar to the export 5 The promotion, marketing and acquisition efforts of port authorities are not only directed to partner countries overseas (foreland) but also to hinterland regions. Examples include organized visits by the Antwerp port community to the North-East of France and to the German Ruhr region and the permanent representatives of the port of Long Beach in the Midwest region. In large countries these activities are mostly within the country (see Wang & Ducruet, 2012 for a discussion on the Shanghai case), in small countries they are in other countries. This observation suggests interesting research agendas in terms of the ease of accessibility to hinterlands. Evidence from international business literature (Rugman & Verbeke, 2007) suggests that even in the home country, firms sometimes are considered as an ‘outsider’ needing to overcome ‘distances’ similar or larger than the ones encountered in international strategy.

150

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157

stage discussed above. Historically, these activities have mainly been driven by development aid programs, where a number of experts of port authorities was sent out to developing countries to assist local management (mainly governmental agencies) to develop or renovate port infrastructure in view of increasing the competitiveness of these countries (without specific objectives of increasing the connectivity and/or the cargo volume base). Examples include projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) by experts from the Antwerp Port Authority, financed by the Belgian Federal Government. From an organizational point of view, specialized units within port authorities dealing with these activities were developed. E.g. within the Antwerp Port Authority a special, independent unit was created in 1988, Antwerp Port Consultancy, to organize these activities. In 2010, this unit was renamed and reorganized to form Port of Antwerp International, a specialized consultancy branch nested within the port authority. In the Netherlands, the Port of Rotterdam had a unit called TEMPO (‘Technical and Managerial Port Assistance Office’) from 1981 to 2003 in which international consultancy was developed. The Israel Ports Development and Assets Company created Amarillis, a subsidiary to which specialized expertise in technology and security is transferred with the aim to develop international port consultancy. A related strategy, even more commonly applied, comes under the form of Memoranda of Understanding, whereby port authorities express their intention to structurally exchange knowledge with foreign partners (port authorities, governmental agencies, governments) beyond ad-hoc assignments, with as an additional objective the enhancement of performance and development of both ports.

2.1.4. Equity partner in port development abroad In an equity partner mode, a port authority plays the role of a developer and landlord outside the home country and deploys, next to human resources, also financial resources to build, maintain, lease and sometimes operate infrastructure. In general, such initiatives are set up as partnerships. The number and type of partners (local/international and public/ private) vary from case to case. In this case, the investment, which can also take the form of financial participation (shareholdership) in a foreign port, in the first place aims at increasing the connectivity and the related traffic volume growth, but could also aim to strengthen the position of the port authority itself. In this case, the port authority expands its operating base as a so-called ‘multinational entrepreneur’, building long-term relationships with companies in the port industry and using unique competencies that were developed in the home port. The reform of port authorities has resulted in a stronger pressure on the financial performance of these organizations. Port authorities increasingly need to be financially self-sustaining, see e.g., the latest Spanish Port Law. As a result, port authorities increasingly focus on cost-efficiency, but also look for opportunities for generating additional income. PAs have over the years invested in the development of assets and competencies that contribute to the performance of the port. Deploying their competencies in foreign markets could provide a port authority with two benefits: additional revenue streams and an enlargement of its investment base through the opportunity of re-selling the asset or competency developed. Another motive is that a port authority increasingly has the need to further develop capabilities and resources to face the challenges in their home port. They can develop their existing capabilities or create new ones by operating in new places, either by themselves or in joint venture.6

2.2. The value of traditional internationalization models: towards a typology for port international expansion strategies The stage model approach and associated operating modes do however not apply straightforward to port authority internationalization (in particular the Uppsala model for internationalization Johanson & Vahlne, 1977, 2009). The main scientific discussion in the international business field revolves largely around the element of centricity of the Multinational Enterprise (MNE) in the internationalization process, and less on the explanatory value of stage models. While the Uppsala model and other ‘entry mode choice based’ models places the MNE in a central role as the initiator and decision maker in terms of initial operating mode and subsequent development in a host country, based on ‘psychical distance’, the need of control and resource commitment, other scholars have argued that MNEs need to assess their transferable Firm Specific Advantages (also called FSAs) and location-bound, country-specific advantages (also called CSAs) to determine access to foreign markets, including choosing the appropriate entry mode (Dunning, 1988; Rugman & Verbeke, 1990). Hennart (2009) argues that the above mentioned models are too ‘MNE-centric’ and that the importance of owners of complementary local assets in a host country is underestimated. This interaction between the MNE and local assets is also confirmed by the case studies on internationalization processes of public service ports (Dubai Ports, see Jacobs & Hall, 2007) and terminal operators (Airriess, 2001; Parola et al., 2013). Research into equity joint ventures (EJVs) from a transaction cost perspective (Hennart, 1988, 2000) might thus prove a more useful starting point to explain port authority internationalization strategy (and the choice for this entry mode), given that Hennart's argument is built upon the result that EJVs will arise in environments where both (or more) partners' assets are difficult to be sold or marketed, i.e. high information, bargaining and enforcement costs would be incurred. Indeed, in the context of port authority internationalization, the transferable FSA-type assets such as decades of built-up specialized knowledge on port management and development (in particular large industrial development areas, as is the case for Port of Rotterdam Authority) on the one hand, and port infrastructure and land on the other hand (a difficult to value CSA-type asset), next to the institutional environment in host countries, could explain host country port authorities and local partners' motivation to choose for EJVs. This process has already been documented and discussed extensively for terminal operators (HPH and DP World), see Airriess (2001) and Jacobs and Hall (2007). In terms of strategic objectives, for the case of the port authority, we identify three main goals, based on the cases analyzed. First, to attract overseas customers, second, to strengthen the physical transport network (both maritime and inland) and thus improving the position of the port. And third, more strategically, to build long-term relationships, to develop and improve competencies and to sell competencies. These insights call for a more specific and integrated framework describing port authority international strategies, showing operating modes (or mixtures of those), degrees of commitment and risk, motives, strategic objectives, performance criteria and stakeholders involved. Table 1 provides an overview of the types of internationalization, operating modes, and goals according to increasing commitment. In the next sections of the paper, we develop a case study, leading to in-depth insights into these elements. 3. Case study Port of Rotterdam

6 Port authorities also invest as equity partners in inland terminals building upon the regionalization and terminalization concepts formulated by Notteboom and Rodrigue (2005) and Rodrigue and Notteboom (2009). These investments are more directly related to an improved competitive position of the ‘home port’.

In this section, we discuss one in-depth case study of Europe's largest port, Port of Rotterdam Authority (PoR). We choose a single case study approach because of the explorative nature of our research: the internationalization strategy of PAs, contrary to terminal operators, is a phenomenon still in an emerging phase. There is limited availability of data, which prohibits empirically validated conclusions on the

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157 Table 1 Overview of types of internationalization strategies developed by port authorities. Type

Main strategic objective(s)

Promotion

Attracting cargo flows Attracting investors

Operating mode(s)

Outgoing trade missions Permanent commercial representation Transfer of knowledge Development aid Consultancy through specialized units Building relationships Management contracts Strengthening physical network MoUs Project participation without equity Investment Building relationships Joint ventures Strengthening physical network Subsidiaries Developing and deploying core competencies

international development paths of port authorities. However, the in-depth analysis of a single case with a clear internationalization strategy and a set of international activities, provides valuable input to develop useful frameworks for further qualitative and quantitative analysis on the international strategies of port authorities. Our choice for the specific case of Rotterdam is driven by the fact that the Port of Rotterdam Authority has been one of the early adopters of an internationalization strategy (e.g. the Port of Rotterdam is present in China since 1979, and has a permanent representative office in Shanghai from 1987 on), also beyond traditional commercial representation (since 1981 it offers international consultancy). Compared to its nearest competitors, it is at the forefront of these developments (e.g. its main competitors, Antwerp and Hamburg, currently do not own substantial foreign assets and are in the initial phase of internationalization), as it is involved in equity joint ventures abroad. The case study is based on an analysis of various relevant documents from the port authority and on regular open and unstructured conversations with staff members of the Port of Rotterdam Authority. The documents analyzed are: Annual reports from the last five years. Business plans 2006–2010 and 2011–2015. Port Vision 2020 and Port Compass 2030. Press releases from 2000 until 2012. Decisions and reports from the City Council regarding the establishment of a holding company for activities in partnership with private companies. - Presentations from executives of the Port of Rotterdam International (PorInt) department. -

Besides the analysis of the above mentioned documents, there has been substantial interaction over the period 2005–2012 with senior port managers responsible for the implementation of the international strategy, both from the PorInt department and from other departments (finance, strategy). In these interactions, new activities and strategies were discussed, in an open, non-structured way. In addition, participation in a recent field trip to Espirito Santo (Brazil) with the senior management of a medium sized Belgian port provided useful triangulation and cross-verification of elements found in the PoR's documents and from interactions with PoR's representatives. 3.1. International expansion strategy in the main long term strategic planning documents Since the 19th century, the global perspective has been present within the mission statement of the Port of Rotterdam (PoR), as illustrated by a statement of Gerrit Jan de Jongh, Director of Public Works (1879–1910): Rotterdam will have a port that will be able to handle the continuously growing shipping traffic and which will enable us to go on with our

151

work and be prepared to supply industry and shipping with all possible facilities to enhance the prosperity of a world harbour (emphasis added). [Vries, 2005.] PoR has two main guiding plans, the Port Vision, a long-term vision for the development of the port and a Business Plan with the corporate goals of PoR for a five-year period. Compared with earlier vision documents the newest Port Vision expresses a change in focus towards efficient and effective use of existing assets and resources instead of a focus on physical expansion.7 The Business Plan 2011–2015 formulates the main corporate goals of PoR. One of the main goals, under the term ‘connecting with growth markets’ is to develop port development partnerships in growing economies. In the Annual Report 2011 the goals of the Business Plan 2011–2015 are stated explicitly: The Port of Rotterdam Authority wants to build up a portfolio of ports that the Port Authority develops and operates in partnership. This portfolio must consist of ports in growth markets with a good geographical distribution, of sufficient size and with activities in the petrochemical, energy, transport and logistics sectors. The Port of Rotterdam Authority wants to build up close customer relationships with these ports in the form of participations (joint ventures) and global strategic partnerships. and The ambition is achieving two objectives up to 2015 in the scope of connecting with growth markets: - Realizing new international participations of sufficient size, with growth potential and with added value for (new) customers of the Port of Rotterdam Authority. Our target for 2015 is five international participations. - Developing global strategic partnerships with the world's largest players in containers, energy, petrochemicals and steel. This must result in investments by these players in the port of Rotterdam.

The business plan also mentions that the Port of Rotterdam Authority “carries out consultancy assignments in countries that can be of strategic importance to the port of Rotterdam area and with which a participation or global strategic partnership could potentially be agreed upon”. [Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2012a, 2012b.] Thus, PoR has an explicit ambition regarding port development partnerships and with regard to partnerships with leading players in transport, logistics and other port related industries. The goal regarding the number of international participations of PoR is publicly available on the website: the PoR aims to have 5 international participations in 2015 (and currently has one such participation, in Oman, Sohar). The ambition is set at four new international port development partnerships. PoR explicitly aims to act as a landlord port, the development of equity participations in terminal operators and single user terminals are excluded. Within the overview, we focus on the geographic areas where the PoR intends to develop these equity partnerships. 3.2. Overview of the equity partner mode internationalization process at PoR The first involvement as a partner in a port development company started in the Middle East in Sohar, Oman. This participation was 7 With the new port expansion MV2 the Port of Rotterdam complies with its space requirements for at least the next two decades.

152

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157

initially developed in the late 1990s and further expanded since. Several other projects followed, as described in Table 2. Table 2 shows a list with PoR's main current projects and major projects in the past years (we do not include smaller projects, which have been ended after an exploratory phase) It is non-exhaustive and only includes the main projects. A number of conclusions can be drawn from Table 2. These conclusions were substantiated by conversations with senior staff members. First, whereas traditional, incremental internationalization models such as the Uppsala model prescribe that internationalization mostly starts in countries with similar cultural characteristics, or also with limited psychic distance, the PoR's internationalization path does not fit this pattern as its first completed project was in the Middle East. Second, the Port of Rotterdam applies a global focus as its strategy is not oriented towards one continent. Current projects take place in South America, Europe, Middle-East, Africa and Asia. Third, PoR applies different operating modes for international activities, more specifically Boardroom Consultancy, Management contracts, and Joint Ventures. The activities in Table 2 suggest a stage development model, starting with consulting and advisory activities, potentially followed by a management contract and in later stages, an equity joint venture. Fourth, almost all projects are large-scale developments with substantial development opportunities. In the case of greenfields, the size generally exceeds 1.000 ha and in the case of existing ports (brownfield) the potential for further development is substantial. This is for instance the case in Constanza and Suape. Fifth, almost all projects are either diversified in terms of cargo development, or maritime-industrial projects (petrochemical industry, bio-energy related projects, etc.), reflecting the general profile of Rotterdam's port area. 3.3. Organizational characteristics, motives for international expansion, expected results and impacts and conditions 3.3.1. Organizational context PORInt is a separate department of PoR, reporting directly to the CEO of the Port of Rotterdam, and overseeing the international participations. The PORInt department was set up January 1st, 2008. It currently (spring 2013) consists of a permanent staff of 8 experts in port development, port management, port consultancy and shipping and finance, led by a head of department. It acts as a network organization: in function of the international project, its stage of development or the specific problem at hand, tailor-made project teams consisting of members of other departments with specific knowledge within the PoR Authority are set up. On the level of the port authority, the creation of Mainport Holding Rotterdam in 2000 and the corporatization of the port authority in 2004 provide more financial and strategic freedom to the port authority and enabled a continued development of international activities. According to PORInt staff, the corporatization is considered to be an essential element as it reduces the focus on the Rotterdam ‘territory’ and allows (limited) equity stakes in ports abroad, in a long-term perspective.8 However, the equity joint venture project in Sohar was initiated before corporatization and preceded publicly stated international ambitions of PoR. The public ownership still is relevant, as all strategic decisions must be approved by the shareholders (the Municipality of Rotterdam and the Dutch State). The relation between the PoR's institutional structure and its international activities is a subject

8 Before corporatization, PoR was more focused on the ‘port territory’ in Rotterdam. Since corporatization, PoR is more explicit about its ambition to create and capture value both in the hinterland and internationally.

of an ongoing discussion between port stakeholders. Indeed, this issue of an adequate institutional structure requires more attention as it is not only relevant for PoR but also for other publicly owned port authorities with international activities, as well as for other publicly owned companies that are active in port development, such as two leading global container terminal operators, DP World and PSA (see Jacobs & Hall, 2007, for a discussion on DP World). 3.3.2. Motives for international expansion Based on internal documents, presentation materials and discussion with the key members of the PORInt organization, several motives for the international expansion are mentioned. We notice an ‘emerging’ process in terms of motives and objectives from 2000 on, given the ad-hoc nature of the first international project, without a clear strategy behind it at first (Sohar). A sharper line of arguments was developed for the rationale behind the internationalization strategy, after the Sohar project was approved. Currently, the international goals are aligned with and included in the overall corporate strategy. Here, it is worth mentioning that the city council decision (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2000) to create a holding company for participations in 2000 (to stimulate partnerships with private firms), started more from a hinterland development perspective. In particular, international participations in inland platforms in Central and Eastern Europe were mentioned as a rationale (the so-called ‘Mainport+’ strategy). On the level of the foreland, the scope remained limited to consultancy activities, although opportunities for international expansion were mentioned (the so-called ‘Portfolio Port’ strategy). Interestingly, a parallel was drawn with Schiphol airport, which reportedly had benefited from an internationalization strategy. Literature from the airport industry indeed has pointed towards intensive activity of airport authorities in terms of international expansion in the 1990s (Koch & Budde, 2005). The objectives and motives behind the internationalization strategy were mainly linked to the development of knowledge and competencies of PoR staff in an international environment, and the idea that the ‘location-bounded’ character of ports would become under pressure given the need to better integrate in global supply chains. Hence, the need for formal partnerships and cooperation with other stakeholders in global supply chains was mentioned. The current line of argument has clearly matured and revolves around 4 motives: - The development and leverage of the PoR port management and development knowhow; - Strengthening the PoR relations with leading companies in transport, logistics and energy; - Generating financially attractive business opportunities for the port authority and the PoR business community; - Increases in the volume and efficiency of trade flows through Rotterdam. However, we suggest that other arguments and motives might also apply, as they are present in other port related international expansion cases, albeit on the terminal operator side (see Airriess, 2001; Jacobs & Hall, 2007), such as: - Limited growth potential in the home market (e.g. PSA, HPH), as a so-called ‘push’ factor. Indeed, according to a number of stakeholders, with the 2nd Maasvlakte, at least the physical limits of port infrastructure expansion are reached in Rotterdam. The Port Compass (Vision 2030) also does not mention major physical expansion projects. - Attractiveness of foreign growth markets (e.g. DP World, PSA, HPH) as a so-called ‘pull’ factor; indeed, the recent Port Compass (Vision 2030) mentions the growth potential of emerging economies as an opportunity for PoR.

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157

153

Table 2 Selected international activities of the Port of Rotterdam having led or potentially leading to partnerships (2000–2012). Project

Country

Description and main milestones

Sohar

Oman (Middle-East)

Indian Ports Association

India (Asia)

Positra

India (Asia)

Brazilian Federal Government

Brazil (South America)

Suape

Brazil (South America)

Porto Central Nangang

Brazil (South America) China (Asia)

Constanza Rosmorport

Romania (Eastern Europe) Russia (Eastern Europe)

2002: Concession agreement with 50% ownership stake of Sohar Industrial Port Company. 50/50 Joint Venture of PoR with the Oman government until 2025. Port area of 2.100 ha. 2007: Extension of the concession agreement to 4.500 ha and the year 2043. 2011: Former COO of the PoR, André Toet appointed as general manager of the Joint Venture. 2006: Contract signature to act as advisor to review the process and results of the preparation of the Business Plans of the 12 Major Ports. The Indian Ports Association acted as the contract party and monitored the work of the Advisor (IPA, 2007) 2007: Presentation of the master plan 2009: Memorandum of Understanding 2010: Joint Venture to develop Positra port (in cooperation with the port of Sohar), provision of technology/knowhow. This project has been unsuccessful. PoR is monitoring other opportunities (Ennore, Port West Gujarat, Mundra, Mumbai region). 2009: Involvement of PoR in a major planning project for the Brazilian port industry (PNLP), together with Brazilian partners. 2008: Agreement to develop a master plan for the port of Suape (3.000 ha) in an 18 month period (2008–2010). 2010: signing of a “Framework Heads of Agreement” (HoA) for the establishment of a Joint Venture and new organization. 2012: Memorandum of Agreement to investigate joint venture development for a greenfield port industrial project 2011: Service agreement for 5 years of assistance in port management services for Nangang port and the Tianjin Economic Development Area (20.000 ha); researching the possibilities of a participation of the PoR in Nangang port. 2011: Memorandum of Agreement to provide port management services; intention to investigate Joint Venture potential 2011: Memorandum of Understanding to assist Rosmorport in port infrastructure development (exchange of information on development experiences, including financing mechanisms)

In most cases of internationalization, a combination of these elements is present at the outset, although from the evidence in this case, in particular the initial steps taken in 2000 (the City Council decision regarding the set-up of a particular holding company), the main rationale was related to the leverage of port management and development knowhow, followed by the sub-objectives of commercial, financial and technical (knowhow development, insidership) leverage, stemming from international projects. The list of motives present for the case of Rotterdam, and the changing rationale(s) over time suggest an ‘emergent’ process. More research is needed to identify and prioritize the motives for internationalization in the context of port authorities, also from a ‘user perspective’ (e.g. identifying where port users see added value of port authorities with a strong track record in their home port). 3.3.3. Main strategic assets According to PORInt documents and interaction with the staff, we identify four main strategic assets, which form the basis of the international expansion strategy: (1) The offer of scalable models of participation to international partners, including the appropriate investments (2) The capabilities and knowhow of PoR on port and industrial area development and management, developed over a long time period (3) The strong brand of the Port of Rotterdam creating credibility to private investors (4) The global business network of the PoR, spanning several industries (transport, logistics, energy, mining, petrochemical industry). These specific strategic assets have been developed over a long period of port growth and expansion, essentially the development of a network of commercial representatives and consulting activities abroad and the large infrastructural expansion since World War II (Europoort area, first Maasvlakte, and second Maasvlakte). All strategic assets are intimately linked as the infrastructural development has historically led to a dominant market share of the Port of Rotterdam in European port traffic, enhancing its global exposure. The offer of scalable models of participation and sound risk management (see infra) throughout international expansion trajectories, i.e. allowing

foreign partners to gradually move from port management contracts with the Port of Rotterdam towards joint ventures or outright financial participation, has been developed since the start of the international expansion, more particular the Sohar project in Oman.

3.3.4. Process and risk management One of the conditions for new entrepreneurial activities is the development of a sound risk management. In international expansion projects, several risks need to be managed on the market, financial and institutional level. PORInt has developed a process and methodology to manage these risks. The main elements of this internal process are based on a ‘Port Analysis Model’, geared towards making assessments on the specific qualities of a targeted port, the strategic fit with the PoR strategy, and the potential for performance improvements of the host country port. A large number of criteria are analyzed, including managerial-institutional, commercial-competitive, physical, political, financial-economic, environmental, legal, social responsibility and partnership criteria. The main characteristics, used from an internal decisional process, defining an attractive target port are situated both on the infrastructural/technical (e.g., nautical access, land availability, location), governance/performance, and market side (diversity and scale of operations). The process followed is based on 2 sequences of 4 steps, starting with desk-research qualification, quick scans through site surveys, pre-feasibility analysis and finally the development of a business plan (generally jointly with partners). In case of a positive decision on the business case, negotiations, due diligence and eventually the phases of development and management of the project are started. Stakeholder consultations in the host country start at the prefeasibility phase and mount in intensity throughout the process, leading also to higher costs and commitment in each phase. The analyses in this first sequence are performed by a specialized team from PoR, including the interviews with the stakeholders in the host country (management, government officials, customs services, important port and industrial companies). Important attention is devoted to identifying potential threats in the process, and potential mitigation measures. The assessment of the level of ambition for potential improvement of the host country port is also present, as it provides a basis for the negotiations.

154

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157

Table 3 Strategic assets, results and impacts of the PoR's internationalization strategy. Main strategic assets

Expected results/impacts for the Port of Rotterdam

Offer of scalable models of participation Secure cargo flows (with high strategic value for the port: e.g. oil, LNG, reefer products) Additional financial income

Expected results/impacts for the international partner Improved commercial and financial performance

Creating synergy/efficiency for port and cargo operations by providing access to Rotterdam's network of relations Knowledge on port and industrial area Leverage and develop the knowhow of PoR staff and organization Stimulate regional economic development: benefit from development and management Rotterdam's innovations and lessons learned Strong brand name Strengthen the value of the PoR brand as leading port developer Helps to bring business partners to port projects at the host port, more trust in prospective port development. Global business network Gain insider knowledge on foreign markets development, closer ties Attract investments from PoR's commercial network in the project with global firms in transport, logistics and energy.

Finally, risk management plays an important role within the conditions of the participation agreements with host country partners. The PoR needs to have substantial influence on the following areas: - Commercial strategy, in particular the selection of companies who will invest in the managed areas, as well as the conditions - Planning elements of the area, such as the development of clusters, the port lay-out - Stakeholder management - Financial issues, such as impact on investment decisions and funding. E.g., anecdotal evidence from local actors as well as PorInt staff suggests that potential participation processes were ended given that only limited impact was given to the PoR in decision-making, in particular on commercial and financial issues. The local actors also pointed towards the need to have a well-timed process: if the process towards realizing a partnership takes too long, PoR is also likely to consider this as a lack of commitment of the partners and/or a lack of impact in the process, leading to the ending of a potential project. 3.3.5. Results and impacts for the Port of Rotterdam The expected results and impacts for the Port of Rotterdam are situated in different domains (commercial, financial, strategic) and both on the short and the long term. Strategically, PoR's international activities enable its continued role as an international leader in the port industry. Commercially, international activities strengthen PoR's relations with leading players in transport, logistics & energy. In this context, it is worth mentioning that PoR's involvement in Sohar has led to intimate contacts with Vale (who invested in an iron ore terminal in Oman) — the iron ore producer and a dominant player in designing iron ore supply chains (see for instance their investments in the so-called Vale-max iron ore carriers). Likewise, international activities have strengthened relations with other leading players in Brazil, the Middle East and Russia. Furthermore, the involvement of PoR in Oman has served as a stepping stone for Dutch firms and/or foreign firms with activities in Rotterdam to Oman. Examples include Steinweg Handelsveem (commodity storage) and STC (port related education and training). Financially, international activities generate financially attractive business opportunities for the Rotterdam port community and PoR. The precise cash flow from participations is not publicly available, but the 2012 annual report states that the participations in Oman are the main drivers of the result of €7 million for the PoR participations (Port of Rotterdam Authority, 2013). Finally, international activities contribute to increased and more efficient trade flows, in general as well as with Rotterdam. The throughput of Sohar grew strongly, and reached about 44 million tons. The volumes between Sohar and Rotterdam are not available but seem likely to be rather small. 3.3.6. Expected results and impacts for the international partners The most direct result of a port development partnership, according to PoR, is the development of the port complex. The

Sohar partnership indeed suggests rapid port development: Since 2004, $14 billion in private investments (30% of inbound FDI in Oman) was attracted to the Sohar port and industrial complex, over 1500 ha of port land was leased out, and since 2007, throughput grows with about 60% per year, to reach 44 million ton in 2012. Finally, the port development company is profitable and pays dividends since 2009. Other local partners also stress the potential impact of a partnership with PoR for economic development. For instance, the State Minister's statements in Malaysia, where the PoR also explores opportunities for a participation, point to increased international trade, foreign direct investment and employment creation following the partnership with the Port of Rotterdam. Table 3 summarizes the strategic assets and expected results within PoR's internationalization strategy.

4. Discussion and managerial implications 4.1. Process, risk management and operating modes The experience of the PoR shows that PoR gradually attaches more attention to the international ambitions. Over a period of 10 years, PoR has been able to develop international expansion trajectories in emerging economies across the world. While this path has started with one ad-hoc project in the Middle East (Sohar, Oman), not based on a deliberate strategy, currently specific targets are defined with regard to the number of participations to obtain in a short to mid-term perspective (3 to 5 years), suggesting the existence of an emerging strategy. In that regard, a specific objective in the business plan is the intent to develop more structural cooperation with multinational companies in the port industry. Within the international strategy, the example of the cooperation with Vale (the world's largest iron ore producer), which has led to joint developments in Sohar, Oman and prospects in Nacala, Mozambique, highlights the presence of this strategic objective. This strategy of international expansion is the so-called ‘Global Strategic Partnership’ mode, aimed at structural partnerships with global companies in multiple locations around the world for the development of special projects. Within the trajectory of international expansion, we observe that PoR has developed a standard template to approach foreign markets, in terms of overall strategy (type of operating modes and conditions) as well as risk management processes depending on the degree of commitment. One of the main elements is the focused search for similar profiles of maritime industrial development areas of large scale and of a diversified nature (large scale industrial activities in the petrochemical and energy sector, cargo handling and logistics). However, more recently, given the global exposure of its international activities, the PoR is also proactively solicited by host governments to consider international expansion in other host countries, which could potentially pose future challenges in terms of the focus and positioning taken in the current internationalization strategy.

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157

4.2. Motives Over the years PoR has presented a variety of motives for international expansion. Future research based on additional interaction with managers and stakeholders is required for a richer understanding of the different motives, their validity in specific cases and their potential relevance for other port authorities. We observe that specific objectives are put forward in terms of micro- and macro-level contributions to performance in home and host regions, in line with the hybrid nature of the port authority, i.e. as a corporatized entity with a large degree of autonomy owned by government shareholders. However, the identified impacts on the PoR and the ‘host port’ are derived from internal documents and conversations with PORInt staff. In order to have a more elaborate view, interviews with local representatives of the international partners are needed. This is a relevant avenue for future research. 4.3. Results and impacts: port performance measurement in the context of international strategy In the case study, high-level performance criteria were suggested for both the home port and the host environment (financial and commercial contributions, regional economic development). Clearly, from the perspective of performance, an interesting research agenda opens up in line with the research for multinational enterprises and the relation between multinationality and performance (Annavarjula & Beldona, 2000; Verbeke, Li, & Goerzen, 2009). Although the studies executed for MNEs have not led to generalizable conclusions on this issue, mainly due to conceptual difficulties on the level of the ‘multinationality’ concept, they might provide useful elements to elaborate on the relationship between the multinational nature of a port authority and its performance. The results from our case study suggest that improved performance of the home-location port, in particular in commercial (cargo growth) and financial terms (additional financial income), is an important element to justify and evaluate international strategies. In particular the interaction and differences between home and host country port performance indicators and management within an international network of ports that a multinational port authority manages, might be an interesting future research subject. 4.4. Influence of cultural, institutional and governance factors of the home country In our case study, we discussed the internationalization strategy of a large, corporatized port authority with substantial autonomy and financial resources. Furthermore, its country of origin (the Netherlands) has a tradition in large-scale overseas expansion since the 16th and 17th centuries, supported by close cooperation between public and private sectors. As a result, we certainly did not discuss a standard case and more research is needed to verify the impact of cultural and governance factors on port internationalization strategies. A useful set of elements to consider to frame this element of further research is provided by Verhoeven (2010), based on the governance factors influencing the move from a traditional landlord port authority towards a multifaceted and entrepreneurial company performing activities beyond its port's perimeter. These factors are the balance of power between the port authority and government (e.g. state interventionist versus business oriented political culture, see Ng and Pallis (2010)), the resulting legal and statutory framework and the financial power and capability associated to it and the management culture on the level of the port authority. Examples from North-America reveal important constraints as e.g. both the ports of LA and Long Beach are not allowed by California State Law to invest outside the area they manage; the same is valid for the Canadian port following the Canada Marine Act. In other countries, governments or

155

government-owned entities are more commonly involved in international business, and facilitate internationalization projects through the institutional structure, such as China, Singapore and Dubai (see Jacobs & Hall, 2007; Wang & Ducruet, 2012). 4.5. Influence of the economic and competitive environment in the home market Our research has been executed from the context of Western Europe, more in particular the very competitive Hamburg-Le Havre range. Most large ports in this area are confronted with severe limitations to future infrastructural expansion, and a mature market, in particular since the financial crisis, and severe competition between ports given the overlapping hinterlands and an overall situation of potential long-term stagnation of economic growth due to social and demographic factors. As a result, the larger and more entrepreneurial ports in this area with a long term development vision might be naturally ‘pushed’ to seek additional activities to (1) secure and improve their competitive position in the home market and (2) provide longer term development perspectives for the organization in higher growth areas. This is also confirmed by previous case study research on the motives of the international strategy of HPH (Airriess, 2001). Future research should assess whether internationalization strategies by port authorities are also based on these objectives, which might imply that international strategies of port authorities are less present in emerging economics such as Latin America, the Middle East, Africa or the Far East region, which is still showing higher economic growth, although within a highly competitive environment, but with less constraints to infrastructure expansion. Although research on the internationalization strategy of port-related enterprises from this region has been executed in the past (Airriess, 2001; Jacobs & Hall, 2007; Wang et al., 2004; Zutshi & Gibbons, 1998), and e.g. port operators from Asia have taken shares in Western European terminals (Shanghai International Port Group's stake in the port of Zeebrugge's APM terminal), we lack insights into the specific situation of internationalization strategies of landlord port authorities from other world regions. 4.6. Stakeholder management Based on our case study, the importance of stakeholder management capabilities is highlighted by the PoR, as a success factor for internationalization as well as a sough after characteristics of host country partners. However, in the case of internationalization processes such as the PoR, additional issues might arise with local stakeholders in the home country or region, mostly related to the institutional framework, or even business model, within which port authorities operate. First, the PoR, although corporatized and theoretically free of political interference in its board of directors, still is 100% owned by the Municipality of Rotterdam and the Dutch State. For that reason, an international strategy might not be acceptable by all stakeholders, in particular public ownership, given the risk involved, the diversion of resources to other world regions and the rather indirect link, at least in the early stages of specific projects, towards the contribution of the performance of the home port and region. Second, port users (in particular land lease/ concession holders) might argue that resources generated in its home region/home port by a government owned port authority such as Rotterdam should be primarily invested in that home port to the benefit of its private users, and not be diverted to manage and develop other port and industrial areas around the world, potentially benefitting international competitors of the home port users. Based on interaction with PorInt representatives, this is also a main reason not to seek participations in the equity of terminal operators and/or single user terminals, among other reasons (e.g., the fact that terminal operations are not considered as a core business activity). Although we have not discussed these issues with PoR management at length, at least the above mentioned stakeholder issues with public shareholders and port users

156

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157

might require future attention, both from a managerial point of view and an academic point of view. 5. Conclusion: towards a research agenda on port international strategy In this paper, we have analyzed Port of Rotterdam's international strategy, beyond traditional international activities of port authorities such as establishing commercial representations abroad and/or participation to trade missions. From the perspective of the Port of Rotterdam, an insight was provided into organizational characteristics, operating modes, motives, expected results and management of risks related to international operations. We have outlined elements of a conceptual framework for analyzing international activities of port authorities. This framework should contain elements such as the type of internationalization strategies, the motives, the strategic objectives and performance criteria put forward, the type of operating modes, organizational consequences or conditions, risk management strategies, the existence of logical patterns, the transfer of port authority knowhow, routines and processes between home and host countries as well as explanations for success or failure. To further develop this framework, a recent study taking a broader approach and moving beyond incremental stage-based models, which traditionally start from well-specified, discrete alternatives, is Benito et al. (2009). In their research based on two case studies, these authors provide a richer framework taking into account increasing complexity in foreign operating modes, such as the existence of mode packages (several operating modes co-exist in a given host country, see e.g. the Port of Rotterdam in Brazil), mode adjustments and mode role changes. The description of the operating modes for port authorities indeed suggests that the reality of port authority internationalization strategies might be far more complex and incremental as compared to the traditional models, although the current practice of the PoR suggests that an incremental approach has been followed (albeit within a host country and not for the overall international strategy). In such a context, more research might be needed into the modalities and configurations of the joint venture agreements concluded by the Port of Rotterdam, to confirm insights about the broad variety of forms that international joint ventures can take (Child, 2002). At least the wide variety and inherent complexity of foreign operating modes used by the PoR, be it in a type of port-specific stage development model or not, suggests that Benito et al. (2009) could serve as a basis for the further development of a framework for research on port internationalization strategy. Furthermore, research in the field of port strategy and performance needs to take into account a number of context related elements, such as the type and size of port (e.g. traffic structure, volume, activities), institutional characteristics and context, geo-economic context (e.g. competition between ports, overlapping hinterlands, economic situation), resource availability (human, financial), degree of globalization of the home country (cfr. OECD and other statistics), cultural elements and the presence of multinational leader firms in the home country/port area. A number of specific points from this list warrant specific attention. First, the presence of multinational leader firms within the home country and the port area might be a stimulating or inhibiting factor. Former case study based research, in particular oriented at port terminal operators (Airriess, 2001; Jacobs & Hall, 2007) or larger city region such as Shanghai (Wang & Ducruet, 2012) has shown the importance of a well established presence of multinational companies in the home region as an element positively influencing not only the integration of these home regions in global supply chains, but also as a stimulating factor for home based flagship firms to engage in international activities (e.g. Dubai World Ports and HPH's global strategies, Shanghai International Port Group's investments abroad). In the container sector, the interaction and link between

the presence of host global terminal operators in a home region and the internationalization strategy of the home port authorities might also be examined more closely. Second, the issue of the need for a minimum scale (in terms of traffic structure, diversification and organizational characteristics) when moving towards international equity based partnerships as a port authority warrants attention in future research, as the current examples used throughout the paper, and the case study itself, are all port authorities managing larger port areas. In broader terms, the relationship between the type and size of ports (expressed in various parameters) and the respective internationalization strategies adopted, remains to be investigated as also smaller and medium sized ports develop these strategies. Third, the influence of the institutional context in which the port authority operates as a stimulating or inhibiting element, as highlighted by previous case based research (albeit for public service ports like Dubai, or Hutchinson Port Holdings from Hong Kong, and not landlords), in adopting more aggressive internationalization strategies also needs to be more carefully addressed in port authority international strategies as this factor is an important explanatory variable (Airriess, 2001; Jacobs & Hall, 2007). We believe this paper sketches an interesting and ambitious research agenda, which requires international research cooperation between scholars from different continents, given the need for insider information and privileged contacts with port senior management staff as well as analysis of data across ports/countries. References Airriess, C. A. (2001). The regionalization of Hutchinson Port Holdings in Mainland China. Journal of Transport Geography, 9, 267–278. Anderson, E., & Gatignon, H. (1986). Modes of foreign entry: A transaction cost analysis and propositions. Journal of International Business Studies, 17(3), 1–26. Annavarjula, M., & Beldona, S. (2000). Multinationality–performance relationship: A review and reconceptualization. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8(1), 48–67. Baird, A. J. (1995). Privatization of trust ports in the United Kingdom: Review and analysis of the first sales. Journal of Transport Policy, 2(2), 135–143. Benito, G. R. G., Petersen, B., & Welch, L. S. (2009). Towards more realistic conceptualizations of foreign operation modes. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1455–1470. Brooks, M. R., & Cullinane, K. (2007). Governance models defined in devolution, port governance and port performance. Research in Transportation Economics, 17, 405–436. Child, J. (2002). A configurational analysis of international joint ventures. Organization Studies, 23(5), 781–815. Cullinane, K., Teng, Y., & Wang, T. F. (2005). Port competition between Shanghai and Ningbo. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(4), 331–346. De Souza, J. G. A., Beresford, A. K. C., & Pettit, S. J. (2003). Liner shipping companies and terminal operators: Internationalisation or globalisation? Maritime Economics & Logistics, 5(4), 393–412. Dooms, M., Verbeke, A., & Haezendonck, E. (2013). Stakeholder management and path dependence in large-scale transport infrastructure: The port of Antwerp case (1960–2010). Journal of Transport Geography, 27, 14–25. Dunning, J. (1988). The theory of international production. The International Trade Journal, 3(1), 21–66. Dunning, J. H. (2000). The eclectic paradigm as an envelope for economic and business theories of MNE activity. International Business Review, 9(1), 163–190. Goss, R. O. (1990). Economic policies and seaports: 4. Strategies for port authorities. Maritime Policy and Management, 17(4), 273–287. Hall, P. V., & Jacobs, W. (2010). Shifting proximities: The maritime ports sector in an era of global supply chains. Regional Studies, 44(9), 1103–1115. Hennart, J. -F. (1988). A transaction costs theory of equity joint ventures. Strategic Management Journal, 9(4), 361–374. Hennart, J. -F. (2000). Transaction costs theory and the multinational enterprise. In C. Pitelis, & R. Sugden (Eds.), The nature of the transnational (pp. 72–118) (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Hennart, J. -F. (2009). Down with MNE-centric theories! Market entry and expansion as the bundling of MNE and local assets. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1432–1454. IPA (Indian Ports Association) (2007). Coordination of business plans for major ports in India. Consolidated business plan. Volume 1 (Main Report) and Volume 2 (Annexes). Prepared by Port of Rotterdam Authority September 2007. Jacobs, W., & Hall, P. V. (2007). What conditions supply chain strategies of ports? The case of Dubai. GeoJournal, 68, 327–342. Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. -E. (1977). The internationalization process of the firm: A model of knowledge development and increasing foreign market commitments. Journal of International Business Studies, 8(1), 23–32.

M. Dooms et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 148–157 Johanson, J., & Vahlne, J. -E. (2009). The Uppsala internationalization process model revisited: From liability of foreignness to liability of outsidership. Journal of International Business Studies, 40, 1411–1431. Koch, B., & Budde, S. (2005). Internationalization strategies for airport companies. In W. Delfman, H. Baum, S. Auerbach, & S. Albers (Eds.), Strategic management in the aviation industry (pp. 377–408). Hampshire: Ashgate. Marti, B. E. (1986). Marketing strategies: A container foreland study of the port of Miami. Geoforum, 17(3), 375–382. Merk, O., Ducruet, C., Dubarle, P., Haezendonck, E., & Dooms, M. (2011). The competitiveness of global port-cities: The case of the Seine Axis (Le Havre, Rouen, Paris, Caen) - France. OECD Regional Development Working Papers, 2011/07. OECD Publishing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5kg58xppgc0n-en. Ng, K. Y. A., & Pallis, A. A. (2010). Port governance reforms in diversified institutional frameworks: Generic solutions, implementation asymmetries. Environment and Planning A, 42(9), 2147–2167. Notteboom, T., Ducruet, C., & De Langen, P. W. (2009). Ports in proximity: Competition and coordination among adjacent seaports. : Ashgate Publishing. Notteboom, T. E., & Rodrigue, J. P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management, 32(3), 297–313. Pallis, A. A. (2012). Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) in seaports: The case of Nigeria. Paper presented at the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME) Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, 5–8 September 2012. Parola, F., Satta, G., & Persico, L. (2013). Time, space, and international diversification of service firms: Assessing the abnormal growth of container port MNEs. Economia e Politica Industriale — Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, 40(1), 89–115. Port of Rotterdam Authority (2000). City Council decision regarding the establishment of Mainport Holding Rotterdam NV. City Council document 2000–401. Council meeting of May 25th, 2000. Port of Rotterdam Authority (2012a). Annual report 2011. Rotterdam: Port of Rotterdam Authority. Port of Rotterdam Authority (2012b). Website information on the international port network. http://www.portofrotterdam.com/en/Port-authority/international-portnetwork/Pages/default.aspx (Consulted in November 2012).

157

Port of Rotterdam Authority (2013). Annual report 2012. Rotterdam: Port of Rotterdam Authority. Robinson, R. (2002). Ports as elements in value-driven supply chain systems: The new paradigm. Maritime Policy & Management, 29(3), 241–255. Rodrigue, J. -P., & Notteboom, T. (2009). The terminalisation of supply chains: Reassessing the role of terminals in port/hinterland logistical relationships. Maritime Policy & Management, 36(2), 165–183. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (1990). Global corporate strategy and trade policy. London: Routledge. Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2007). Liabilities of foreignness and the use of firm-level versus country-level data: A response to Dunning et al. (2007). Journal of International Business Studies, 38(1), 200–205. Verbeke, A., Li, L., & Goerzen, A. (2009). Towards more effective research on the multinationality–performance relationship. Management International Review, 49(2), 149–161. Verhoeven, P. (2010). A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance. Maritime Policy & Management, 37(3), 247–270. Vries, I. M. J. (2005). Port Vision 2020: Quality of port and city requires space. Presentation at the academic session of the 805th anniversary of the Freeport of Riga, June 2005, Latvia. Wang, C., & Ducruet, C. (2012). New port development and global city making: Emergence of the Shanghai–Yangshan multilayered gateway hub. Journal of Transport Geography, 25, 58–69. Wang, J. J., Ng, A. K. Y., & Olivier, D. (2004). Port governance in China: A review of policies in an era of internationalizing port management practices. Transport Policy, 11, 237–250. World Bank (2000). Port reform tool kit. Washington DC: World Bank. Zutshi, R. K., & Gibbons, P. T. (1998). The internationalization process of Singapore government-linked companies: A contextual view. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 15(2), 219–246.