|
|
| |
| Maritime Logistics. A New Curricular Unit? |
| |
| Written by Ana Casaca |
Posted on 13 May 2025 |
Reading Time 45 minutes |
|
 |
| |
| Maritime logistics is a pivotal component of global trade and supply chain management, driven by the exponential growth of international shipping, the expansion of port infrastructure, and increasing emphasis on sustainability and digitalisation. As over 80% of global trade by volume is carried by sea, the strategic role of maritime logistics in ensuring the efficient, secure, and environmentally responsible movement of goods cannot be overstated. This evolution calls for a dedicated curricular unit that reflects the sector’s complexities, including port operations, liner shipping networks, hinterland connectivity, regulatory frameworks, maritime technologies, and environmental challenges. Developing such a unit within academic programmes is essential for cultivating the specialised knowledge and competencies needed to manage and innovate in this critical field, while also responding to industry demand for professionals who can lead maritime logistics into a more resilient and sustainable future. |
| This work investigates the state of the art of maritime logistics as a curricular unit, recognising its growing relevance in academic and professional contexts, and builds upon the foundational text written by Casaca (2023). Casaca’s early work provided a pioneering perspective on maritime logistics, advocating for its position as a distinct and strategic component within transport. By revisiting and expanding on her arguments, this study goes one step further by examining the current curricular offerings and advocating the idea of a curricular unit that aligns to the contemporary definition of logistics found in the body of the literature, and which reflects the contemporary challenges and demands, including digitalisation, decarbonisation, port-centric logistics, and global trade dynamics. |
| |
1. Logistics, Supply Chains and Strategic Logistics |
| Explaining the difference between logistics and supply chain is always challenging since the body of the literature, while full of definitions of each concept, is not always clear-cut. A straightforward approach is to state that logistics is a system in which numerous activities are performed (production) to meet customers’ requirements (output) from its resources (inputs) within the shortest lead time, supported by two flows (i.e., the information flow and the added-value flow) running in opposite directions. This approach meets the definition provided by the Council of Logistics Management (now the Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) in 2000, that defined logistics as “that part of the supply chain process that plans, implements and controls the efficient flow and storage of goods and related information from the point of origin to the point of consumption in order to meet customers requirements” (Vitasek, 2013). |
| Such a definition and approach show that logistics goes beyond a simple physical distribution operation, even though the concepts have been used interchangeably. Instead, it is a strategic process that adds value, allows product differentiation, creates a comparative advantage, and renders profits to the organisation. This strategic process includes order processing, inventory management, procurement, planning, production, transport, warehousing, materials handling, and packaging. Common to all logistics systems, their fulfilment and performance depend very much on the type of product considered. Moreover, while such a definition and approach apply well when dealing with smaller production sites serving niche markets involving local suppliers and consumers, the situation differs when considering global markets as the ones currently in place. Trade liberalisation, improved technologies and communication systems, better logistics connectivity, and lower transport costs have supported internationalisation and globalisation markets. |
| To accommodate this transformation, different logistics systems must be brought together, each of them performing its role, from supplying raw materials, parts, components, and modules to manufacturing the final products that the different consumption markets eagerly await, to distributing them at the most diverse points of the globe. This results in supply chains whose complexity depends on how far these logistics systems are from each other and companies’ corporate/business strategies. As a result, supply chains connect three different markets: the raw materials, the production and the consumption markets. However, the presence of complex supply chains, where their members are in different parts of the world, must be fully articulated. All parties participating in it, namely suppliers, manufacturers, and intermediaries, must fulfil their role within determined time frames to satisfy their end-users, either business or individual customers/consumers, and avoid delays, market losses, and fluctuations in demand that tend to be progressively larger upstream. Therefore, the successful design of supply chains to produce any product, be it goods or services, results from a comprehensive definition of companies’ core and non-core activities so that they define their logistics strategies that will, eventually, influence and determine the location of facilities (nodes) through which products in different stages of production are conveyed (arcs), and how these are conveyed, i.e., which modes or modal combinations will be employed, which routes will be followed and through which infrastructure and superstructure products will be moved. |
| In defining and integrating logistics strategies, a strategic logistics approach can be understood as the culmination of deliberate, innovative actions that align logistics functions with overarching corporate goals. This approach is not merely operational; it is transformative, as it requires and builds upon a strong foundation of logistics competencies, including analytical skills, systems thinking, and technological proficiency. Such competencies enable firms to respond proactively to market dynamics, global supply chain disruptions, sustainability imperatives, and shifts in consumer demand. A strategic logistics approach introduces dynamism into the supply chain system by facilitating agility, responsiveness, and end-to-end visibility. It plays a central role in enabling business process reengineering and organisational restructuring, as it provides the tools and insights necessary to streamline operations, eliminate redundancies, and enhance coordination across functional areas. Furthermore, it supports the redefinition of corporate strategies by positioning logistics not as a back-end support function but as a driver of competitive advantage and value creation. The synergies achieved through this alignment, such as cost efficiencies, service improvements, and innovation capabilities, allow companies to meet their performance targets better and maintain relevance in an increasingly complex and volatile global marketplace. Thus, embedding this strategic perspective within logistics education is crucial for preparing future professionals to lead in integrated, resilient, and forward-looking supply chain environments. |
| As part of the ongoing evolution of global supply chains, intermediaries have assumed increasingly strategic roles in accelerating the flow of goods, ranging from raw materials, components, and modules to finished products, across diverse and dispersed markets. The traditional model, in which manufacturers managed the distribution of their products (first-party logistics or 1PL), has gradually given way to more specialised and outsourced logistics services. The rise of second-party logistics providers (2PLs), who offered basic transport and warehousing services, marked the beginning of this shift. This was soon followed by third-party logistics providers (3PLs), which introduced more comprehensive and integrated logistics solutions, including inventory management, order fulfilment, and freight forwarding. Over time, the increasing complexity of supply chains and the demand for seamless coordination led to the emergence of fourth-party (4PL) and fifth-party logistics (5PL) providers. These entities manage entire logistics networks on behalf of clients, coordinate multiple 3PLs, and leverage supply chain visibility and integration to optimise performance across the value chain. Their influence has expanded significantly, often granting them operational and strategic control over key manufacturing processes. |
| Today, with the integration of advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, big data analytics, and blockchain, the market is witnessing the development of sixth-party logistics (6PL) and beyond, including 7PLs, 8PLs, 9PLs, and even conceptual frameworks for 10PLs. Hyper-integration, predictive capabilities, autonomous decision-making, and system-wide orchestration across physical and digital supply networks characterise these next-generation providers. Rather than merely facilitating logistics, they operate as intelligent platforms that anticipate demand shifts, respond to real-time disruptions, and optimise supply chain ecosystems holistically. This ongoing evolution highlights the importance of incorporating the study of advanced logistics platforms into academic curricula, ensuring that future professionals are prepared to navigate, manage, and innovate within these increasingly sophisticated and technology-driven systems. |
| Such integration, while increasing the scope of responsibility over supply chain activities, significantly enhances the bargaining power of shipping intermediaries and beneficial cargo owners, particularly in negotiations with ocean carriers. This is especially evident in market environments characterised by overcapacity, where the absence of demand-side bottlenecks, like those observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, limits carriers’ ability to leverage scarcity in pricing. As intermediaries gain control over larger volumes, more complex logistics networks, and more accurate demand forecasting through advanced technologies, they are better positioned to negotiate favourable terms, secure capacity, and drive down freight costs. Their elevated role within the logistics chain translates into a stronger influence on the structure and terms of contracts of carriage, giving them leverage to resist pricing volatility and assert more strategic control over transport operations. |
| This shift in negotiating power is reflected in various shipping indexes, particularly those tracking container freight rates. These indices show a clear pattern of intermediaries exerting downward pressure on rates during periods of excess capacity. Emily Stausbøll, market analyst at XENETA, reinforced this observation by noting that shipping companies struggled to get freight rates up above their break-even levels during the decades pre-COVID-19 (Hirsch and Wong, 2023). Her comment underscores a long-standing structural imbalance in the container shipping sector, where intermediaries with strong market intelligence and consolidated cargo volumes could consistently influence pricing. As integration deepens and technologies such as AI and predictive analytics further empower these players, their role is expected to grow even more. |
| |
2. Shipping and the Product-Service Supply Chain |
| For many years, the shipping industry has lived in a world of its own. Being the oldest mode of transport may justify this situation. However, a more plausible reason may be that shipping requires a unique business approach, given its international character and the need for a regulatory framework applicable worldwide to establish a level playing field. Many textbooks have characterised maritime transport as a highly capital-intensive and risky industry, the backbone of international trade and the global economy, responsible for more than 80% of the volume of goods traded internationally, with this percentage being even higher for most developing countries (United Nations Trade and Development, 2024). The remaining percentage is split among road, rail, air, pipeline, and inland waterways. Seen from today, there is yet to be invented a new transport mode that can substitute shipping when considering the volumes of cargo carried in different states of matter (i.e., liquid, solid and gas) and forms (i.e., bulk, break-bulk or unitised). |
| From its traditional foundation, the shipping industry has operated primarily on a port-to-port basis, focusing on the physical movement of cargoes between maritime gateways. This approach has effectively served suppliers, manufacturers, and end consumers by transporting various goods, ranging from raw materials and semi-processed items to entirely manufactured products, in various physical forms, such as solids, liquids, and gases, and bulk and packaged formats. These goods traverse a network of global trade lanes shaped by commodity flows, regional economic specialisations, and logistical capabilities. However, in today’s highly interconnected and rapidly evolving global economy, this conventional model, while still foundational, is no longer sufficient. Like the airline industry, shipping operates within a transnational framework subject to dynamic market forces, regulatory regimes, and technological transformations. The rise of just-in-time supply chains, customer-centric service models, and integrated logistics platforms has placed new demands on the shipping industry to move beyond its legacy role as a mode of transport and adopt a broader, logistics-oriented perspective. |
| This shift requires shipping to be viewed not simply as a carrier of goods, but as an integral part of end-to-end supply chain solutions encompassing warehousing, inland transport, digital coordination, and customer service. By integrating with other logistics systems and aligning with strategic supply chain goals, shipping can provide added value through enhanced visibility, efficiency, and responsiveness. Thus, addressing shipping from a logistics perspective is essential to understanding its proper function in global trade, where performance is measured not just by port arrival, but by timely, secure, and efficient delivery to final destinations across multiple market segments. |
| From a logistics perspective, maritime transport performs two functions: the first one is the movement of goods from loading port A to discharging port B, and the second one is the temporary storage of goods between these ports. Considering that storage activities add no value but cost to the supply chain, whether goods are in a port or a warehouse, the temporary storage provided by transport grants shipping intermediaries/beneficial cargo owners the possibility to determine the loading and/or discharging ports for their goods to attain better management of their inventory levels along their logistics pipeline and the ability to work on a just-in-time basis. Moreover, from a logistics perspective, shipping is now part of integrated transport systems supporting supply chains and networks of supply chains. While the globalisation of the economy has fostered this integration, acknowledging transport’s impacts on the environment has further accelerated it. From a port-to-port service delivery, shipping is now an element of transport chains that provides door-to-door services. However, this modal integration does not come straightforwardly because the different transport modes have different transport capacities, requiring the presence of buffers along the transport chain traditionally performed by ports, dry ports, freight villages and yards to accommodate these differences. |
| Building upon the logistics perspective of the shipping industry, it is imperative to delve further upstream and examine shipping through a marketing lens. Logistics, often considered the practical execution of the ‘Place’ element within the marketing mix, is crucial in ensuring that products reach their intended markets efficiently. From a distribution standpoint, shipping is a vital facilitator of marketing strategies that various stakeholders implement in the global production system. Unlike manufacturers of tangible goods, the shipping industry, akin to other service-oriented sectors, offers services whose intangibility varies depending on the market segment. For instance, services in the tramp shipping market are highly intangible due to their on-demand nature and lack of fixed schedules. Conversely, container shipping offers more tangible elements, such as regular schedules and standardised containers, which provide customers with a more predictable service experience. |
| Recognising these distinctions is essential for developing effective marketing strategies tailored to each segment. In tramp shipping, marketing efforts focus on flexibility and personalised service, while in container shipping, reliability and efficiency are emphasised. By integrating marketing principles into shipping operations, companies can better align their services with customer expectations, enhancing satisfaction and competitiveness in the global market. Moreover, marketing strategies developed by shipping companies are intrinsically linked to demand patterns. In the maritime industry, demand for shipping services is derived from global trade activities and the need to transport goods across regions. Consequently, fluctuations in trade volumes, seasonal variations, and economic cycles directly influence the demand for shipping services. |
| Shipping companies must, therefore, align their marketing strategies with these demand patterns to remain competitive and meet customer expectations. For instance, during peak seasons or in anticipation of increased trade activities, companies may offer promotional rates, enhance service offerings, or adjust capacity to attract clients. Conversely, in periods of low demand, strategies might shift towards cost optimisation, targeting niche markets, or offering value-added services to maintain revenue streams. Furthermore, integrating advanced technologies, such as AI and data analytics, has enabled shipping companies to forecast demand patterns better and tailor their marketing strategies accordingly. By analysing historical data, market trends, and customer behaviour, companies can develop more effective marketing campaigns that resonate with their target audience and adapt to changing market conditions. Shipping companies can enhance their market positioning, optimise resource utilisation, and achieve sustainable growth in a competitive environment. |
| The complexity of defining a shipping company’s business scope becomes evident when considering the diverse services they offer to support various clients. Shaw (2007), in his analysis of the airline industry, suggests that while it might seem straightforward to classify such companies based on their primary activities, this approach often lacks the nuance required to capture the full spectrum of their operations and customer needs. Applying Shaw’s perspective to the maritime sector reveals that shipping companies often operate across multiple business areas, including transport, leisure, logistics, and service sales. For instance, a company might simultaneously manage cargo transport, offer cruise services, provide integrated logistics solutions, and charter ships for other companies. This multifaceted involvement necessitates a more detailed understanding of their business participation, one that considers customer requirements, competitive dynamics, and strategic positioning. |
| Moreover, as shipping companies diversify their services, they must develop maritime logistics strategies that align with their varied roles. This includes tailoring offerings to meet specific market demands, leveraging technological advancements for efficiency, and navigating regulatory environments across different sectors. By adopting a comprehensive approach that reflects their diverse operations, shipping companies can better satisfy customer needs, differentiate themselves from competitors, and achieve sustainable growth in the global market. |
| The different strategies implemented by the two leading container shipping companies, Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) (excluding MSC Crociere) and Maersk, highlight that. Maersk has been focused on performing ocean transport services and delivering logistics services to become a global logistics integrator, which aligns with its overall strategy and market position, including the acquisitions carried out during the Pandemic and the current strategy of consolidating its brands after announcing the break-up of the 10-year 2M Alliance with MSC in January 2025. Conversely, according to Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence ApS, MSC appears to prioritise ocean transport services, despite its website highlighting inland and air cargo solutions and asserting a focus on intermodal transport with significant planned investments in this area (Miller, 2023). For instance, MSC recently acquired a 49.9% stake in Hamburg Port’s HHLA, which signals strategic intent toward integrated logistics capabilities (Shen, 2024). However, MSC’s visibility as a comprehensive logistics provider remains limited compared to competitors like Maersk. While MSC has invested in technologies such as smart containers and launched visibility tools for refrigerated cargo, these initiatives are not widely recognised in the broader market. This lack of visibility may hinder MSC’s global logistics integrator position. If MSC aims to emulate Maersk’s integrated logistics model, it must clarify its focus on service differentiation and mass customisation to meet diverse customer needs effectively. |
| These relevant issues are important because maritime transport delivers services and is part of service supply chains, more precisely product-service supply chains (PSSCs), that are demand-driven because the services rendered are pulled based on demand. The PSSC represents a specific configuration where the physical product flows through a coordinated supply network. However, unlike traditional supply chains that prioritise cost efficiency or speed alone, the PSSC emphasises delivering an enhanced service experience and greater overall satisfaction to the end customer. In this model, the supply chain is designed to ensure the availability and quality of the physical product and to integrate value-added services, such as customisation, technical support, maintenance, or after-sales service, that collectively enrich the customer journey. The alignment of logistics, operations, and service functions is critical in the PSSC, as the ultimate goal is to achieve competitive differentiation by creating a seamless blend of product and service value. This approach is particularly relevant in sectors where customer loyalty and service perception are decisive, such as high-tech equipment, automotive, healthcare devices, and advanced manufacturing. Such features make the management of service supply chains more complex than the goods supply chains since human involvement and interaction are higher in service creation and delivery, and the possibility of storing services to be delivered later is non-existent. |
| |
3. Shipping and Porter’s Value Chain Model |
| To better understand how the PSSC integrates into the shipping industry, it is instructive to apply Porter’s value chain model. This strategic tool illustrates how a firm creates market value by categorising its internal activities into primary and support functions. These include processes such as inbound logistics, operations, outbound logistics, marketing and sales, after-sales service, and support functions like technology development and human resource management. While this framework has been widely adopted across various industries, it presents notable limitations when applied to service-dominant or hybrid business models such as those in the maritime shipping sector. Porter’s original model was conceived in the context of manufacturing and tangible product-based businesses, where value is embedded in physical goods. In such settings, consumers can often evaluate the product’s quality before purchase, through inspection, sampling, or demonstration, before committing to a transaction. Services, however, operate on fundamentally different terms. They are intangible, perishable, and often inseparable from their mode of delivery, meaning that customers must purchase the service in advance, with the actual value only revealed upon consumption. This is the case in sectors such as aviation, where passengers buy a ticket before boarding the flight, or in restaurant services, where production and consumption often coincide. |
| Shipping services mirror this structure. Shippers, especially those engaging in port-to-port or door-to-door transport, typically procure capacity or space on a vessel before the actual shipping service is rendered. This pre-purchase model is common in both spot and contractual agreements, requiring the shipper to trust in the provider’s ability to deliver on time and with quality, often without any direct prior experience. This is particularly true for new or occasional customers, who may base their choice on word-of-mouth recommendations, digital reviews, or third-party logistics brokers, rather than firsthand knowledge. In such cases, the perceived value of the service can outweigh objective performance indicators. Given these structural differences, it becomes necessary to adapt Porter’s value chain model to reflect the realities of a service-driven supply chain in shipping. The traditional sequence of primary activities, especially the placement of ‘Marketing & Sales’ after ‘Outbound Logistics’, assumes that the product exists and is ready for delivery when promoted. In contrast, in the shipping industry, ‘Marketing & Sales’ activities precede the operational execution, as service providers must secure bookings and customer commitments before deploying resources such as vessels, containers, and scheduling plans. |
| |
| Figure 1: Container Shipping Company Value Chain Analysis |
 |
| Source: Casaca (2023) adapted from Porter (1985) |
| |
| Therefore, in the adapted model (see Figure 1), ‘Marketing & Sales’ is repositioned to occur after ‘Inbound Logistics’ and before ‘Operations’, acknowledging the forward-looking nature of service procurement. This shift allows the model to more accurately depict how value is initiated through the promise of future service, and how it is later realised through the coordinated execution of operational processes across the supply chain. Such a revision enhances the applicability of the value chain framework to maritime logistics, where service quality, customer trust, and fulfilment capability are the true drivers of competitive advantage. Still, the model in Figure 1 cannot be applied directly to all shipping markets because of their inherent structure. Having as an example the two opposite ways of ship operation, namely tramp and liner shipping, several activities identified in Figure 1 for container shipping would be performed less intensely in tramp shipping. This is the case with the ‘Marketing & Sales’ activity. The distribution channels for service delivery used by tramp shipping companies differ from the liner shipping ones simply because tramp shipping companies do not require the heavy shore structure that liner shipping does. In the tramp shipping market, the marketing relationship is one-to-one despite the contractual changes that can be made on charter parties. Conversely, in liner shipping, the marketing relationship is one-to-many, with numerous contractual arrangements and shipping companies having to decide whether to adopt wholesale or retail selling strategies. |
| Figure 1 also illustrates that supporting activities, such as firm infrastructure, human resource management, procurement, and technology development, are relevant across all shipping industry segments, regardless of whether the operation is tramp or liner-based. These activities provide the foundational capabilities that enable the primary functions of the value chain to be executed effectively. However, some variation exists in implementing these supporting functions, particularly in technology development. In liner shipping, the nature of scheduled and high-frequency services necessitates a suite of advanced, customer-facing technologies. These include interactive scheduling platforms, instant quotation systems, online booking/reservation tools, and real-time container tracking systems, which collectively support the orchestration of global container networks and enhance the service experience for a diverse customer base. By contrast, tramp shipping, which operates more flexibly and is largely driven by direct charter agreements, typically does not require such systems. Its technological needs are more operational and navigational, focusing on tools that ensure navigability, cargo safety, vessel stability, and seaworthiness. Systems supporting ballast management, cargo loading optimisation, navigational routing, and weather tracking remain critical across all shipping types, irrespective of the market segment. This divergence reinforces the idea that while the value chain structure may be broadly applicable, the intensity and specificity of certain activities, particularly within the support functions, must be adapted to each shipping segment’s operating model and market characteristics. |
| When this view is combined with the 2000 Council of Logistics Management’s (Vitasek, 2013) definition of logistics, and the conceptual insights derived from the ‘Container Shipping Company Value Chain Analysis’ (as shown in Figure 1), it becomes evident that maritime logistics is far broader in scope than often perceived. It is not confined to containerised operations alone. Firstly, the shipping industry encompasses diverse sectors beyond container shipping, including bulk, breakbulk, tanker, roll-on/roll-off, offshore support, and specialised vessels, each with unique logistical, commercial, and technical requirements. Secondly, maritime logistics extends well beyond port operations and port-hinterland connectivity. While these are essential elements, they form only one part of a more complex system of activities supporting maritime transport. Thirdly, when aligned with the broader definitions of business logistics provided by scholars such as Donald Bowersox, David Closs, and others, it becomes clear that maritime logistics must also include a range of interconnected logistics systems, such as shipyard logistics (supporting vessel construction and repair), ship-management and crewing logistics (ensuring vessel readiness and human capital mobilisation), and ship recycling logistics (addressing end-of-life vessel handling). These contribute to the shipping venture’s efficiency, sustainability, and competitiveness. |
| In conclusion, while Porter’s value chain can be adapted to reflect the distinctive attributes of maritime service supply chains, a complete understanding of maritime logistics requires an even broader analytical lens, one that captures not only transport-related logistics but also the extended network of supporting logistics systems that underpin the maritime industry as a whole. |
| |
4. Maritime Logistics Defined |
| Following the definition provided by the Council of Logistics Management in 2000 (Vitasek, 2013), it can be stated that maritime logistics is that part of the integrated transport chain which falls within the scope of the service supply chain concept that plans, implements and controls the efficient flow of services delivery and related information from the point of picking up the cargo (or the ship) to the point of delivering it (or her) as requested by the contractual arrangements established between parties, the shipowner and the buyer of shipping services (capacity). Therefore, given the complexity of the shipping industry, as demonstrated in Figure 1, it comes as no surprise that maritime logistics involves the participation of several logistics systems that represent the different market players, upstream and downstream of shipping companies’ operations to improve the transit performance towards achieving zero wastes, delays, and damages whether ships operate in the liner or tramp markets. Moreover, many of the key actors involved in maritime logistics, although engaged before the delivery of the shipping service, play roles that differ in timing, scope, and strategic relevance depending on the stage of the shipping company’s lifecycle and the structure of the supply chain. Some entities are positioned upstream, contributing during the early phases of vessel acquisition, preparation, and operational readiness. For example, shipyards are involved in the construction, retrofitting, or repair of vessels, while ship management companies handle technical operations, crewing, compliance, and maintenance on an ongoing basis. These actors support the foundational capabilities of the shipping firm long before cargo is moved or a service contract is executed. |
| Conversely, other stakeholders operate further downstream, becoming active closer to or during the actual delivery of the transport service. This includes port authorities, terminal operators, pilotage services, and logistics providers responsible for cargo handling, storage, and hinterland connections. Their involvement is more transactional and service-specific, often tied to the individual voyage, port call, or trade lane served. Moreover, this participation is frequently discontinuous, meaning that the same downstream partners may not be involved in every operation, as their engagement is contingent on the ship’s routing, market segment (e.g., tramp or liner), and cargo type. Therefore, while these market players belong to the broader maritime logistics system, their temporal and functional roles vary significantly. Understanding this layered structure is essential for grasping how maritime logistics supports the end-to-end performance of shipping companies, not just during cargo movement, but throughout the lifecycle of vessels and the service systems that enable their operation. |
| The inherent complexity of maritime logistics demands a fundamental reconfiguration of internal processes within shipping companies. To operate effectively in today’s volatile and highly interconnected global market, shipping firms must transform themselves into organisations that are not only flexible and lean, but also collaborative, adaptable, and agile. These qualities are essential for navigating market disruptions, shifting trade patterns, customer expectations, and regulatory requirements. In short, companies must become nimble, capable of rapid decision-making, proactive adjustments, and seamless coordination across diverse operational environments. Achieving this level of organisational responsiveness requires shipping companies to maintain a dual strategic focus. First, they must manage their supplier relationships and procurement strategies with precision. This includes sourcing vessels, fuel, equipment, labour, port services, and technology in ways that align with their operational model, cost structure, and service commitments. Second, they must maintain a sharp awareness of the needs and expectations of their direct and indirect customers, ranging from large cargo owners and freight forwarders to intermediaries such as non-vessel operating common carriers and logistics platforms. |
| Critically, these two sub-systems, inputs from suppliers and outputs to customers, must be brought into strategic alignment. That is, procurement decisions should not be made in isolation but should reflect the demands and service characteristics valued by customers. For instance, if customers seek faster transit times, this may necessitate the procurement of faster vessels or priority berthing services; if sustainability is a key concern, green fuel procurement or investment in energy-efficient technologies becomes essential. This integrated approach is vital for achieving operational coherence and market competitiveness, whether the company operates in tramp shipping, with its on-demand, point-to-point service logic, or in liner shipping, where regular schedules and high service frequency dominate. |
| What ultimately differentiates these two market segments is not the need to align supply and demand, but the nature and focus of that alignment. Tramp shipping emphasises the tailored fulfilment of individual contracts and optimising asset deployment based on fluctuating demand, with marketing channels often based on direct relationships or brokerage networks. In liner shipping, by contrast, the focus is on capacity planning, network reliability, and scale, necessitating multi-tiered distribution channels and dynamic pricing strategies to match the high volume and regularity of cargo flows. Thus, while the core challenge, integrating upstream and downstream sub-systems, is shared across both segments, the intensity, complexity, and execution of this integration vary, making each market operationally and commercially unique. |
| This distinction also helps explain the customer relationships and distribution channels employed in tramp and liner shipping. In tramp shipping, customers are typically served through brokers, who act as principals’ intermediaries in negotiating voyage or time charters between shipowners and cargo interests. This model reflects the nature of the tramp market, where services are non-scheduled, contract-based, and tailored to specific cargo movements, often involving large volumes of raw materials such as coal, iron ore, grain, or crude oil. Because demand is sporadic and commodity-driven, brokers play a crucial role in matching vessel availability with cargo requirements, managing negotiations, legal terms, and market timing on a case-by-case basis. |
| By contrast, in liner shipping, customers usually interact with a broader set of intermediaries, such as loading brokers, canvassers, freight forwarders, and increasingly, integrated logistics providers. This is because the liner model is built on the regular movement of containers along fixed schedules and routes, catering to more fragmented and diversified customer bases. Liner cargo often includes components, parts, retail goods, and finished products, which are shipped in smaller volumes but with greater frequency and time sensitivity. These cargo owners, ranging from large manufacturers to small- and medium-sized enterprises, require logistics coordination, cargo consolidation, and visibility services that intermediaries can provide. |
| As intermediaries grow and cargo volumes become more granular, the shipping model shifts from opportunistic, non-scheduled services (typical of the tramp market) to planned, scheduled operations (typical of liner shipping). This evolution is driven by the nature of the goods being transported and the increasing complexity of customer requirements. Tramp shipping operates effectively where cargoes are large, homogeneous, and routed in bulk; it aligns with the bulk commodity economy. In contrast, liner shipping serves supply chains that demand just-in-time delivery, containerisation, and high service reliability, necessitating structured, predictable operations and network planning. Liner shipping is embedded within the globalised trade of manufactured goods, each requiring tailored approaches to customer access, service design, and logistical execution. In short, the distinction between tramp and liner shipping is not only operational but also structural and relational. It reflects more profound differences in cargo characteristics, market organisation, and the role of intermediaries within the maritime logistics ecosystem. |
| Accordingly, given the business environment and fleet dimension, shipping companies must define their core and non-core activities, and concerning the latter, which ones can be insourced and outsourced, considering the companies’ internal resources and production costs. This strategic decision will determine the number of suppliers shipping companies have to deal with and which logistics strategies they adopt towards the definition of their strategic logistics. Examples of shipping companies’ suppliers are naval engineering consultancy firms, shipbuilders, classification societies, ship management and crewing companies, insurance companies, ship repairers, bunker suppliers, ship chandlers, ship agents, port operators, maritime lawyers, among others, each of them representing a bargaining power depending on market conditions and their role in the industry. |
| However, when dealing with each of these suppliers, for instance, ports/terminals, it must be understood that they will have their own logistics system, i.e., port logistics, to support the core activities of shipping companies in the carriage of goods. In the case of container shipping operations, given that a trade lane serves different ports, shipping companies may be confronted with different port logistics systems due to the specificity of their operating processes. One strategy to avoid the disparity of different port logistics systems is to outsource the same port operator, which may explain why some mega carriers have also invested in this business activity (MSC - Terminal Investment Limited Sàrl¸ Maersk – APM Terminals; CMA-CGM - Terminal Link and CMA Terminal; Cosco Shipping - COSCO Shipping Ports Limited), vertically integrating their operations. No wonder the configuration of new shipping services is laborious since, based on the demand levels, shipping companies must allocate the necessary ships’ capacity to guarantee the service flow and delight their buyers. Shipping is and will continue to be a derived demand industry; the demand for shipping services depends on trade levels and patterns, which also depend on the national and world economic growth rates. |
| Furthermore, in the case of container shipping and tramp shipping when in the presence of contracts of affreightment, whose services require high service levels, the definition of shipping companies’ core and their non-core activities also provides an insight into the capacity needed and available to execute the designed voyage planning. Based on this information, considering demand levels, shipping companies decide how to get the missing capacity and, for that purpose, which strategies to adopt. Shipping companies may choose to order newbuildings, buy capacity in the second-hand market, charter in additional capacity on a time basis, or, in routes requiring high capital commitments, establish cooperation agreements with other shipping companies to guarantee an available capacity regularly and frequently. This explains why tramp shipping has been witnessing the establishment of joint ventures in the form of shipping pools, and container shipping has been witnessing the establishment of cooperative agreements in the form of slot-sharing agreements, slot charter agreements, vessel-sharing agreements, and shipping alliances. From a logistics perspective, these cooperative agreements are how shipping companies manage their inventory, often translated into deadweight tons and transport equivalent units depending on the shipping segment. Therefore, shipping companies’ inventory management concerns not only the materials and spare parts needed to operate their ships but also the management of the available capacity. For this reason, time charter parties are often negotiated with additional periods of 3, 6 or 12 months to allow charterers (i.e., disponent owners) better management of their capacity to suit market demand levels. Procuring a ship to replace another, when ending her contractual arrangement, is laborious, time-consuming, and expensive, especially if it includes travelling. |
| However, as these cooperative agreements are subject to national approval, any change in the regulatory frameworks governing them will affect their operation. This is the case of the European Union’s decision to end the Consortia Block Exemption Regulation (CBER) beyond 24 April 2024, exempting liner shipping consortia from the European Union’s anti-competition rules. The CBER allowed liner shipping companies to join forces to provide joint cargo transport services if the combined market share was below 30%. Today, while such agreements are possible, they must be aligned with the European Union competition rules and anti-trust laws, preventing them from fixing prices or sharing markets between themselves as in the past with maritime conferences. Subject to the announced dissolution of the 2M Alliance in January 2025 between Maersk and MSC-Mediterranean Shipping Company, the recently established Gemini Cooperation between Maersk and Hapag Lloyd involving about 290 vessels with a combined capacity of 3.4 million containers (TEU) along 26 mainline services from February 2025 (Maersk, 2024), will have to comply with the new European Union: this means that According to Article 3 of Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1067, the combined market share of both companies cannot exceed 20% on the market in which they provide their services (European Commission, 2023). |
| Still, the extent to which shipping companies outsource their operations is strongly influenced by their capital structure, organisational scale, and internal capabilities. While some activities, such as shipbuilding and ship recycling (or demolition), are almost universally outsourced due to their high capital intensity, technical complexity, and the need for specialised infrastructure, outsourcing ship management and crewing involves more strategic consideration. Historically, even ship construction was occasionally insourced, as exemplified by Maersk’s ownership of the Odense Steel Shipyard in Denmark, which allowed the firm to exercise greater control over vessel design and production quality. However, such vertically integrated models have become increasingly rare in the modern era, largely due to their operational rigidity and prohibitive costs. |
| In contrast, ship management and crewing represent a different kind of decision-making calculus that must balance the desire for operational control with the imperatives of efficiency, regulatory compliance, and cost containment. Following the 1985 shipping crisis, marked by overcapacity and depressed freight rates, many shipping firms turned to outsourcing as a strategic response, seeking to reduce overheads and enhance operational agility. The engagement of third-party ship managers became a best practice, enabling companies to offload administrative burdens and access specialised expertise in crew sourcing, technical maintenance, safety compliance, and insurance management. |
| This trend has been especially pronounced among smaller shipping companies, typically those operating fleets of up to ten vessels. In many cases, such firms adopt a ‘ one ship-one flag-one company’ model as a strategic approach to limit liability, particularly in light of regulatory obligations and commercial risk. For companies of this scale, market evidence consistently suggests that outsourcing core operational functions, such as ship management and crewing, yields tangible benefits, including economies of scale and the ability to leverage third-party providers’ bargaining power, technical capabilities, and specialised infrastructure. Cariou and Wolff (2011) reinforce this view, highlighting that firms with small fleets often lack the internal resources and organisational scale to support a fully-fledged in-house management structure. In such cases, outsourcing is not merely a strategic preference for operational efficiency; it becomes a practical necessity. The complexities of maintaining compliance with international maritime regulations (e.g., the ISM Code and the Maritime Labour Convention), coupled with increasing market expectations for service reliability, safety, and performance, demand levels of expertise and administrative capacity that are typically beyond the reach of small operators. Specialised third-party ship managers are thus better positioned to navigate compliance, deliver technical services, and ensure operational continuity, enabling smaller companies to remain competitive in a demanding global shipping environment. |
| Furthermore, smaller firms frequently pursue lean, asset-light business models, choosing to concentrate on their core commercial competencies, such as chartering strategy, market positioning, or servicing niche trades. Outsourcing operational and crewing functions gives them access to global crewing pools, regulatory know-how, quality assurance systems, and the cost efficiencies that larger, more established service providers can offer. Outsourcing also allows these firms to scale their operations flexibly in response to changing market conditions without being encumbered by fixed personnel or infrastructure costs. Nonetheless, outsourcing is not without its trade-offs. Key concerns include losing direct managerial control, dependence on third-party performance, and potential misalignment of interests between the shipping company and its external providers. For this reason, medium to large operators may continue to insource selectively, especially in contexts where brand integrity, operational excellence, or technical complexity require tighter internal oversight. Given the wide range of operational activities that shipping companies must coordinate, the potential for outsourcing is extensive. However, the decision to outsource rests on factors such as company size, business strategy, and the desired level of control over the upstream supply chain. |
| A similar complexity emerges at the distribution level, where the degree of disintermediation adopted by shipping companies significantly influences their dependency on intermediaries and their bargaining power. In tramp shipping, the nature of the market, with its bespoke, contract-driven structure, means that bargaining power is generally codified through established commission structures agreed with shipbrokers and freight intermediaries. These relationships tend to be stable, one-to-one, and clearly defined. However, the scenario is more nuanced in liner shipping, where service regularity, volume, and customer base diversity have historically necessitated a high reliance on intermediaries, loading brokers, freight forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers, and logistics providers. Given the one-to-many nature of customer relationships in container shipping, intermediaries play a valuable role in aggregating demand, facilitating access to smaller shippers, and supporting the commercial reach of carriers. They enable shipping lines to focus on core operational functions, such as fleet management, network design, and schedule reliability. |
| Yet, this intermediation comes at a cost. Intermediaries often function as gatekeepers, creating a barrier between shipping companies and end customers. They can withhold market intelligence, filter feedback, and limit carriers’ ability to understand cargo owners’ specific needs, preferences, and service expectations. As a result, the level of disintermediation that a shipping company opts for becomes a strategic variable, contingent on market dynamics, cargo volumes, customer composition, and the company’s broader commercial objectives. In markets with high cargo volumes and stable demand, carriers may find it feasible and economically advantageous to disintermediate, engaging customers directly through proprietary digital platforms and sales networks. In contrast, working with intermediaries in fragmented or volatile markets remains practical, as they provide local market knowledge, customer access, and risk-sharing opportunities. |
| Any move toward disintermediation must be made case-by-case, depending on the company’s strategic orientation. For instance, in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, Maersk publicly announced in 2022 its goal to generate 70% of its revenue from long-term contracts (i.e., 12-month agreements) rather than shorter-term or spot-market deals (Rivero, 2022). This shift indicated a deliberate pivot toward a retail-oriented strategy, focusing on long-term relationships, direct customer engagement, and integrated logistics offerings, diverging from the traditional wholesale model that depends heavily on intermediaries. In practice, most large carriers are now adopting a hybrid strategy. This blended approach allows them to benefit from direct customer data and distribution cost transparency while leveraging intermediaries to benchmark service performance, fill capacity, and reach market segments they may not efficiently serve alone. This hybrid model fosters continuous service improvement, cost visibility, and adaptability in PSSC management. |
| Within this framework, voyage planning emerges as a critical component of the PSSC in shipping. It is no longer just an operational task but a strategic activity integrating procurement, distribution, and environmental performance. Effective voyage planning enables companies to achieve cost minimisation, profit maximisation, and carbon footprint reduction by optimising the entire end-to-end journey of the vessel. Voyage planning determines key operational decisions, including: |
| a) Where to bunker fuel, based on price, availability, and emissions regulations. |
| b) When and where to conduct crew changes or replenish freshwater and provisions (victualling) |
| c) When to drydock the vessel for maintenance and certification renewal. |
| d) Which ports and terminals to call, affecting intermodal integration and network efficiency. |
|
Significantly, port and terminal choice impacts the operational schedule and shapes the possibility for maritime integration with inland transport systems, influencing the broader logistics chain. Likewise, voyage optimisation, by reducing time at sea and port, contributes to higher annual voyage frequency, thereby improving productivity and asset utilisation. In this context, procurement and voyage planning are interdependent. Decisions on where and how to procure services (fuel, provisions, port services) are tightly linked to route selection, scheduling, and cost structure. However, academic and industry research has only partially explored this relationship. Port and terminal choice studies often overlook their embedded role within procurement strategy. Similarly, in voyage planning and optimisation models, incorporating procurement-related variables, such as supplier availability, service pricing, and regulatory constraints, could offer more realistic and actionable insights, ultimately influencing the outcomes of such models.
Among the broad range of logistics activities that support maritime operations, their relative importance will vary depending on the company’s development stage and strategic focus. However, two logistics functions stand out as particularly significant to a shipping company’s long-term success: procurement and inventory management. Each plays a pivotal role at different phases of the company lifecycle and must be managed with clear strategic intent. |
| Firstly, procurement activities are especially critical during a shipping company’s establishment and expansion phases. At this stage, a series of foundational decisions must be made, many of which have long-term operational and financial consequences. When viewed through the lens of the Kraljic Matrix, which classifies procurement items based on their supply risk and impact on profitability, it becomes evident that certain decisions are inherently strategic. For example, the selection of vessel types, the shipyards where they are to be built, and the crewing and ship management arrangements fall into the strategic items quadrant. These decisions are high in both financial impact and supply complexity, requiring careful market intelligence, supplier evaluation, risk analysis, and regulatory awareness. |
| Additional procurement activities with strategic weight include the choice of bunkering partners and the selection of ports and terminals, as these directly influence a company’s operational cost base, reliability, service coverage, and environmental footprint. These are high-stakes, multi-criteria decisions that demand deep analysis of fuel markets, geopolitical risks, infrastructure compatibility, port congestion, intermodal connectivity, and local regulatory conditions. Conversely, other procurement activities, such as ship chandlery (the supply of consumables and routine equipment to vessels), are typically less strategic. These are often classified as non-critical items in the Kraljic Matrix, as they are easily substitutable, low-cost, and less exposed to regulatory complexity. While important for operational continuity, such items do not significantly affect strategic performance and can be managed through standardised procurement protocols and transactional supplier relationships. |
| Secondly, as the company transitions from establishment to maturity, or undergoes phases of retrenchment or restructuring, the focus of logistics shifts toward inventory management, albeit in a form unique to the shipping sector. Unlike traditional inventory systems centred on warehouse stock, shipping inventory refers to the fleet as a capital asset, a mobile, high-value inventory of transport capacity. This makes inventory management a function of fleet size, composition, availability, and flexibility. Managing this inventory involves key decisions such as when to add capacity (e.g., chartering-in vessels, acquiring second-hand ships, or commissioning newbuilds), and when to release capacity (e.g., chartering-out, selling vessels, or sending them for demolition). These decisions must align with market demand, freight rate cycles, vessel age, and strategic repositioning goals. Poor inventory decisions can quickly erode profitability and liquidity in market volatility or oversupply periods. Therefore, effective inventory management in shipping involves dynamic asset portfolio control, balancing short-term operational flexibility with long-term fleet strategy. |
| Moreover, the need for specialised logistics systems tailored to different stages of the ship lifecycle is embedded within procurement and inventory management. For instance, during a fleet expansion phase that involves ordering new vessels, the company will temporarily integrate shipyard logistics systems into its broader organisational structure. This entails logistical coordination with suppliers, classification societies, and shipyards and the temporary reallocation of human resources, including project management teams, technical staff, and compliance personnel. These processes also impact human resources planning, as the acquisition of new vessels may require new crew recruitment, training programmes, and certifications aligned with the specific technical profile of the new ships. In essence, a shipping company’s ability to adapt its logistics systems to match the life cycle of its assets, from procurement and commissioning to operation, maintenance, and eventual disposal, is fundamental to its competitive performance. |
| Procurement and inventory management are not static support functions but strategic levers, continuously evolving in response to internal growth, asset utilisation, and external market dynamics. Overall, maritime logistics is much broader in scope than initially presented. It must be seen as the sum of all logistics systems of shipping companies’ PSSCs, where each plans, implements and controls their flows for the efficient performance of the industry as a whole. Moreover, it allows all shipping companies’ PSSCs business players to see their business more systematically, contributing to continuous process improvement. Furthermore, it opens the scope for developing new research areas worth investigating and optimising, such as sale and purchase logistics, shipyard logistics, and bunkering logistics, thus contributing to the overall performance of the maritime industry. |
| |
5. The State of the Art of Maritime Logistics Education |
| Given the importance of maritime logistics, an analysis was conducted on the state of the art of maritime logistics education worldwide. For this purpose, a desk-research methodological approach was adopted; this methodological approach allows access to a wide variety of information published in hard copies and online formats, despite not guaranteeing the information needed (Paixão Casaca and Lyridis, 2018). Given the need to cover the worldwide geographic area, only the information available on the World Wide Web was considered in this assessment. For that purpose, the research used the Google search engine and the keywords ‘maritime logistics’, ‘port logistics’, ‘maritime supply chain’, and ‘procurement’. The advantage of Google’s search engine over other search engines is that it visits as many website pages as possible, indexes them, and, therefore, assists researchers in finding the information needed (Harris, 2003; Paixão Casaca and Lyridis, 2018). |
| In order to guarantee the soundness of the analysis, some terminology standardisation was used. Accordingly, a university programme refers to a degree granted by a university. For the current analysis, university programmes were classified into three broad categories: Undergraduate Programmes, Diploma and Specialisation Programmes, and Master Programmes. Each programme consists of several subjects, each containing a group of topics. Educational programmes delivered outside the scope of universities are called courses, and they can be long-term or short-term. Eventually, long courses (above 30 hours) comprise a set of modules; a module is a collection of topics. Adjusting this terminology contributes to overcoming the disparities in the educational review presented in the following sections. Still, the time allocated for the course delivery was not considered due to the lack of information. Finally, to guarantee consistent research, a standard geographic pattern was adopted; this geographic pattern was used in a previously published work where such standardisation was needed, thereby keeping the impartiality of the analysis (Paixão Casaca and Lyridis, 2018). The pattern is as follows: 1) Europe, 2) Africa, 3) the Former Soviet Union and the Middle East, 4) Asia and the Far East, 5) Oceania, 6) North America, including Mexico, and 7) South America, including the Caribbean countries. |
| The analysis’s first and most immediate outcome is that the integration of maritime logistics into higher education curricula remains limited and unevenly distributed across academic levels. At the undergraduate level, only 12 universities worldwide have been identified as offering dedicated curricular units in Maritime Logistics. Regarding diploma and specialisation programmes, four universities currently provide structured content focused on this field, reflecting a modest presence within vocational and continuing education frameworks. At a master’s level, the subject appears slightly more established, with nine universities delivering maritime logistics as part of their master’s degree offerings. The provision of non-degree educational formats, such as short courses and professional workshops, is somewhat more prominent, with 16 institutions offering short-term training on maritime logistics designed for industry professionals, executives, and lifelong learners. |
| Furthermore, when focusing specifically on dedicated maritime logistics degree programmes, the data shows that five higher education institutions currently offer bachelor’s degrees in maritime logistics, one institution provides a postgraduate qualification, and five institutions deliver master’s degree programmes in maritime logistics. This limited number of dedicated academic pathways underscores the niche status of the field within higher education, despite its strategic importance to global trade and supply chain systems. The review also shows a standardisation of their syllabuses from the perspective of university subjects and course topics; this situation is quite notorious in India. Moreover, the analysis shows that maritime logistics curricular units absord most of the subjects that are (or were) traditionally delivered under maritime economics or shipping business courses, a situation that may result from the elimination of maritime and/or shipping disciplines from university programmes, as these were replaced by more holistic programmes covering logistics and supply chain management. |
| Also, from a publishing perspective, the existing maritime logistics books do not go beyond the traditional maritime topics covered in the university subjects and courses’ topics. This approach limits the scope of the curricular unit and creates a misalignment between what is currently being delivered in the discipline and the topics covered in the body of literature on logistics (Lambert et al., 1998; Rushton et al., 2000; Ghiani et al., 2004; Vitasek, 2013; Bowersox et al., 2024; Sadler, 2007). Moreover, the review shows a generic tendency to associate the maritime logistics concept with container shipping, a market segment of the shipping industry. While it is acknowledged that maritime logistics in container shipping is more visible and tangible, it is also true that other shipping markets, such as the tanker, dry bulk, and gas shipping markets, also have their maritime logistics, albeit the nature of the cargo handled, operations, and trades differ. These established assumptions contributed to relating maritime logistics to the handling of cargo operations in ports, their ümland and hinterland activities derived from their captive and competitive markets. The same is true of maritime logistics, which is often seen as a synonym for port logistics when, in practice, it is not. Against this perspective, the International Maritime Organization defined a ‘Model Course 5.02 on Port Logistics’, which establishes the port logistics boundaries well (International Maritime Organisation, 1991). |
| The body of literature also contributes to this situation. For instance, while Lee et al. (2021) delve into the concept of maritime logistics relating maritime logistics to the “process of planning, implementing and managing the movement of goods involved in the ocean carriage”, they limit the proposed definition to the loading and unloading of cargo and their ancillary activities such as stripping and stuffing, not elaborating on those activities that provide the support for the ocean carriage to take place. From the perspective of Porter’s value chain analysis, the authors focus on some activities carried out under one of the primary activities, i.e. operations, of the value chain, leaving the remaining primary activities outside. This same limited approach is presented by Caliskan and Ozturkoglu (2016) when they claim that maritime logistics result from a combination of port transhipment functions with port maritime services, and the participation of only three players of maritime transport, namely shipping, port/terminal operating, and freight forwarding. Subject to this misconception, often derived from the literature, in which Caliskan and Ozturkoglu acknowledge the difficulty in defining maritime logistics, and to the defintion of maritime logistics presented in Section 4, there is scope to redefine its syllabus, opening opportunities for new research areas and simultaneously establishing a bridge between the existing research areas which often from a research perspective seem disconnected. |
| |
6. Reclaiming Depth in Maritime Education: A Collaborative Call for Curricular Renewal |
| As the maritime industry continues to evolve under the pressures of globalisation, technological transformation, and environmental urgency, maritime education stands at a critical crossroads since the analysis of the current state of maritime logistics education raises some important and timely questions. Is breadth being prioritised over depth, potentially at the expense of the distinctiveness of maritime disciplines? Is the complex interplay between shipping operations, regulatory frameworks, technological innovation, and global trade dynamics being adequately addressed? Most importantly, are learners being prepared not only to operate within logistics systems, but also to lead their transformation with critical thinking, cross-sectoral awareness, and a strong grounding in maritime-specific knowledge? These are not rhetorical questions; they reflect a deeper concern about how we are equipping future professionals to navigate and shape a sector that is both operationally complex and strategically vital. |
| One of the central challenges lies in the tendency to frame traditional maritime business topics exclusively within maritime logistics. While logistics provides useful operational models, this framing risks narrowing the disciplinary scope and, in turn, diluting the educational impact of the curricular unit. It often collapses the rich complexity and specificity of maritime-centric fields into more generic logistics and supply chain terminologies, frequently at the expense of disciplinary coherence and intellectual rigour. By their very nature, maritime studies draw on various academic traditions, from international law and economics to maritime technology, environmental policy, and public governance. However, when foundational subjects such as ship finance, maritime law, port governance, freight market analysis, and international maritime regulation are not presented as discrete domains, each with their own theoretical structures, sectoral dynamics, and analytical methodologies, a fundamental misalignment emerges between what the discipline seeks to achieve and how it is taught. Rather than being positioned as integral to the maritime system’s institutional, strategic, and regulatory fabric, these topics are often reduced to peripheral roles in broader logistics narratives. |
| Such a simplified framing can reduce the depth and critical engagement that a well-rounded curriculum aims to foster. It may also limit students’ opportunity to build a meaningful understanding of areas such as capital-intensive shipbuilding, investment risk in volatile freight markets, international maritime law, and the evolving environmental protocols shaped through multilateral negotiations. These are not abstract or optional elements of maritime knowledge; they are the core infrastructure of global shipping operations. Moreover, when curricula do not fully explore how maritime operations connect with broader global systems, students may develop strong operational knowledge but find it harder to grasp the broader strategic landscape. Maritime business is not a standalone technical field; it is deeply embedded in systems of international economic governance, geopolitical power, global supply security, and environmental responsibility. When these connections are overlooked, there’s a chance that graduates may leave with strong technical toolkits but without the critical perspective needed to navigate complex maritime systems. |
| Another often-overlooked issue is the fragmented way in which maritime actors are taught. The maritime sector is shaped by a dense and interdependent network: shipping lines, port authorities, terminal operators, classification societies, freight forwarders, shipbuilders, regulators, and digital service providers. However, in many academic programmes, these actors are introduced in isolation, as contractual agents or case studies, without adequately showing how their collaboration, infrastructure sharing, and data exchange enable cohesive logistics systems. As a result, students might find it challenging to fully grasp how value is created and coordinated across the shipping ecosystem, or how complex governance and commercial relationships shape operational realities. |
| A narrow pedagogical scope may also limit opportunities for advanced, interdisciplinary exploration. Without a strong maritime economics and policy foundation, students may be less inclined to engage with related disciplines such as maritime informatics, ocean governance, innovation studies, or sustainability transitions. Consequently, there may be a risk of missing out on meaningful research contributions that could inform better policy, enhance industry governance, and strengthen the sector’s adaptability in response to global challenges such as decarbonisation, digitalisation, and shifting trade corridors. Furthermore, there remains an overreliance on traditional maritime content, classification of ships, charter types, throughput metrics, and registry systems, which, while still relevant, often dominate at the expense of more pressing, future-oriented themes. Today’s maritime landscape is being rapidly reshaped by technologies like AI-powered routing algorithms, digital twins, blockchain-based cargo tracking, and autonomous vessels. The curriculum must evolve accordingly, incorporating insights into maritime innovation ecosystems, smart port integration, data governance, and platform-based logistics. |
| Strategic functions like maritime procurement, decentralised distribution planning, and integrated logistics operations are also underrepresented, even though they are central to how shipping companies and third-party providers create value in today’s competitive environment. Procurement now includes supplier diversification and risk management in volatile markets. Distribution strategies rely on synchronised flows, network analytics, and last-mile solutions beyond the seaport. The absence of these themes creates a disconnect between academic content and actual industry practice. One area that deserves far more attention is container inventory, not simply as a physical asset, but as a strategic enabler of global logistics performance. Unlike static warehouse inventory, shipping inventory is mobile and inextricably tied to capacity management. Container availability, geographic positioning, and utilisation directly influence the flow of goods. However, many teaching models still treat inventory through general warehousing frameworks, missing out on vital maritime-specific concepts such as in-transit stock, floating inventory, and shipping-led capacity planning. A vessel may have empty slots but cannot deliver value if containers are misallocated or poorly managed. |
| As the scope of maritime logistics continues to expand, the role of global shipping companies has evolved well beyond vessel management. Today, these companies orchestrate complex, end-to-end logistics networks, including container procurement across dry, reefer, and open-top types, container repositioning to address trade imbalances, depot infrastructure management, and integrating customs processes with digital tracking systems. These operational choices are deeply embedded within wider procurement and distribution strategies, making inventory a logistical variable and a strategic resource that can significantly shape performance and service outcomes. However, despite these practical realities, many current curricula have not fully reflected this transformation. A significant body of research in operations and logistics management already exists, covering areas such as fleet optimisation, vessel scheduling, capacity planning, and inventory control. However, much of it remains siloed and insufficiently applied within maritime education. As a result, students may graduate without a clear understanding of how to connect theoretical advancements to the specific challenges faced by global shipping companies. Bridging this gap is essential for preparing learners to engage with pressing industry issues such as service reliability, asset utilisation, and network resilience in increasingly integrated and dynamic global trade systems. |
| A paradigm shift is ultimately required, one that encourages students to view shipping companies not merely as vessel owners or transport providers, but as integrated logistics systems in their own right. These systems can manage multimodal flows, deliver customer-centric services, and operate within complex, interdependent networks. This perspective includes recognising the roles of subcontractors, suppliers, ports, technology platforms, and regulators, not as peripheral actors, but as essential contributors to logistics performance and value creation. Without this systems-based understanding, there is a risk that shipping will continue to be presented as a linear, operational activity, disconnected from the broader logistics and economic landscape. As a result, performance metrics such as vessel turnaround times or hinterland connectivity may be viewed in isolation, rather than as outcomes of strategic and operational design. This can limit students’ ability to analyse, model, or innovate effectively within maritime logistics systems. |
| In conclusion, continuing to frame maritime business purely through logistics terminology undercuts maritime education’s academic depth and practical relevance. To remain fit for purpose, curricula must reaffirm maritime studies’ disciplinary autonomy and embrace their strategic overlap with contemporary logistics innovation. This dual commitment, to clarity of discipline and relevance across sectors, is essential to educate a new generation of maritime professionals capable of leading transformation across global trade systems. |
| |
References |
| Bowersox, D. J., Closs, D. J., Cooper, M. B. and Bowersox, J. C. (2024). Supply Chain Logistics Management, McGraw Hill LLC: New York. |
| Caliskan, A. and Ozturkoglu, Y. (2016). Maritime Logistics. In: Alberto Ochoa-Zezzatti, Jöns Sánchez, Miguel Gastón Cedillo-Campos, Margain de Lourdes ed. Handbook of Research on Military, Aeronautical, and Maritime Logistics and Operations. Retrieved from https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/maritime-logistics/145636 [accessed 18 February 2024]. |
| Cariou, P. and Wolff, F.-C. (2011). Ship-Owners’ Decisions to Outsource Vessel Management. Transport Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, 31(6), pp.709-724. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.587907 |
| Casaca, A. (2023). Maritime Logistics Unplugged, Splash247.com, February 01, 12023. Retrieved from https://www.worldofshipping.org/WofSP04b_MediaArticles/MaritimeResearch002b-M20230201-maritime-logistics-unplugged.html [accessed 13 May 2025]. |
| European Commission (2023). Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/1067 of 1 June 2023 on the application of Article 101(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to certain categories of specialisation agreements (Text with EEA relevance), Official Journal of the European Union L 143 of 2 June 202 pp.20-26. Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1067/oj [accessed 19 December 2024]. |
| Ghiani, G., Laporte, G. and Musmanno, R. (2004). Introduction to Logistics Systems Planning and Control, John Wiley & Sons Ltd: West Sussex. |
| Harris, R. (2003). Chapter 1: Why Use Google?, Power Google, McGraw-Hill/Dushkin, Guilford, pp. 1-6, available at: https://highered.mheducation.com/sites/0079876543/student_view0/research_center-999/research_center_links33/chapter_1.html [accessed 19 December 2024]. |
| Hirsch, P. and Wong, W. (2023). The great turnaround in shipping. NPR. Retrieved from https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1150847969 [accessed 16 February 2024] |
| International Maritime Organization (1991). Model Course 5.02 - Port Logistics. International Maritime Organization: London. |
| Lambert, D. M., Stock, J. R. and Ellram, L. M. (1998). Fundamentals of Logistics Management. Irwin McGraw-Hill: Boston. |
| Lee, E-S, Nam, H-S and Song, D-S (2021). Defining maritime logistics and its value. In: Song and Panayides edt. Maritime Logistics. Kogan Page: London, pp.61-74. |
| Maersk (2024). Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are entering into an operational cooperation. Maersk Press Release, 17 January 2024. Maersk. Retrieved from https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2024/01/17/maersk-and-hapag-lloyd-are-entering-into-an-operational-cooperation [accessed 16 February 2024]. |
| Miller, G. (2023). How will Maersk-MSC split redraw container shipping landscape?. Freightwaves, 25 January. Retrieved from https://www.freightwaves.com/news/how-will-maersk-msc-split-redraw-container-shipping-landscape [accessed 16 February 2024] |
| Paixão Casaca, A. C. and Lyridis, D. V. (2018). Protectionist vs. liberalised maritime cabotage policies: A Review. Maritime Business Review, 3(3) pp.210-242. https://doi.org/10.1108/MABR-03-2018-0011. |
| Porter, M. (1985). Competitive Advantage. Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance. The Free Press: New York. |
| Rivero, N. (2022). As ocean freight rates crest, Maersk stakes its future on land. Quartz. https://qz.com/2125436/as-ocean-freight-rates-peak-maersk-bets-its-future-on-e-commerce/ [accessed 05 March 2022]. |
| Rushton, A., Oxley, J. and Croucher, P. (2000). Handbook of Logistics and Distribution Management, Kogan page: Glasgow. |
| Sadler, I. (2007). Logistics and Supply Chain Management. SAGE Publications Ltd: London. |
| Shaw, S. (2007). Airline Marketing and Management. Ashgate Publishing Limited: Hampshire. |
| Shen, C. (2024). MSC completes purchase of 49.9% stake in Hamburg Port’s HHLA. Lloyds’ List, 29 November 2024. Retrieved from https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1151653/MSC-completes-purchase-of-499-stake-in-Hamburg-Ports-HHLA [accessed 19 December 2024]. |
| United Nations Trade and Development (2024). Navigating Troubled Waters. Impact to Global Trade of Disruption of Shipping Routes in the Red Sea, Black Sea and Panama Canal. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Retrieved from https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/osginf2024d2_en.pdf [accessed 16 March 2024]. |
| Vitase, K. (2013). CSCMP Supply Chain Management Definitions and Glossary. Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals. Retrieved from https://cscmp.org/CSCMP/Educate/SCM_Definitions_and_Glossary_of_Terms.aspx [accessed 16 February 2024]. |
| |
Note |
| This text was simultaneously published on LinkedIn. |
| |
About the Author |
| Ana Casaca was, first and foremost, a Deck Officer responsible for navigational watches. Being at sea gave her a thorough perspective of the operational side of the shipping industry. She holds a B.Sc. (Honours) in Management and Maritime Technologies from Escola Nautica Infante D. Henrique (Portuguese Nautical school), an MSc in International Logistics from the University of Plymouth and a PhD in International Transport/Logistics from the University of Wales-Cardiff. Next, she became an Experienced Lecturer, Researcher and Peer Reviewer in Maritime Economics and Logistics. In between, numerous functions and roles. For 20 years, she has been an External Expert for the European Commission, evaluating R&D/CEF proposals within the scope of maritime transport. In parallel, she has carried out other projects. She has delivered training and has been invited, since 2002, to peer review academic papers submitted to well-known international Journals. She is the author of several research papers published in well-known academic journals and member of some journals’ editorial boards, namely, Maritime Business Review Associate Editor, Journal of International Logistics Editorial Board Member, Universal Journal of Management Editorial Board Member, Frontiers in Future Transportation Review Editor, and Journal of Shipping and Trade Guest Editor. She is also the founder and owner of ‘World of Shipping Portugal’ a website initiative established in 2018 focused on maritime economics. In addition, she is a Member of the Research Centre on Modelling and Optimisation of Multifunctional Systems (CIMOSM, ISEL), Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers (ICS) and Member of the International Association of Maritime Economists (IAME). Apart from Shipping, she likes Travelling, Sewing and Arts. All these elements bring her on the quest for creativity, always with the expectation of doing something extraordinary! |
| |
|
| |
| Top of the page |
| |
|
|
