Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 1072–1084 | Cite as

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

  • Olga Anne
  • Vilma BurskyteEmail author
  • Zaneta Stasiskiene
  • Arunas Balciunas
Research Article


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


Environmental effectiveness Environmental management systems The economic crisis 


  1. Acciaro M, Ghiara H, Cusano MI (2014) Energy management in seaports: a new role for port authorities. Energ Policy. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.013i Google Scholar
  2. Arduino G, Aronietis R, Crozet Y et al (2013) How to turn an innovative concept into a success? An application to seaport-related innovation. Res Transp Econ 42:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asel AJ, Posch A (2011) Squeezing or cuddling? The impact of economic crises on management control and stakeholder management. Rev Manag Sci 5:213–231. doi: 10.1007/s11846-010-0051-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belous O (2005) Lithuanian business environmental management based on local agenda 21 principles. The human sustainable city: challenges and perspectives from the Habitat Agenda. AshgateGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergantino AS, Musso E, Porcelli F (2013) Port management performance and contextual variables: which relationship? Methodological and empirical issues. Res Transp Bus Manag 8:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Binswanger M (2001) Technological progress and sustainable development: what about the rebound effect? Ecol Econ 36:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bottasso A, Conti M, Ferrari C, Tei A (2014) Ports and regional development: a spatial analysis on a panel of European regions. Transp Res A Policy 65:44–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bulatov I, Klemeš E (2009) Towards cleaner technologies: emissions reduction, energy and waste minimisation, industrial implementation. Clean Techn Environ Policy 11:1–6. doi: 10.1007/s10098-008-0177-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burskyte V, Belous O (2012) Klaipeda seaport key sustainability points. In: Ocean: past, present and future. Climate change research, ocean observation & advanced technologies for regional sustainability. IEEE/OES, pp 281–290. doi: 10.1109/BALTIC.2012.6249212
  10. Burskyte V, Belous O, Stasiskiene Z (2011) Sustainable development of deep-water seaport: the case of Lithuania. Environ Sci Pollut Res 18:716–726. doi: 10.1007/s11356-010-0415-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Celik M (2009) A hybrid design methodology for structuring an Integrated Environmental Management System (IEMS) for shipping business. J Environ Manag 90:1469–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang YT (2013) Environmental efficiency of ports: a data envelopment analysis approach. Marit Policy Manage Flagship J Int Shipp Port Res 40:467–478. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2013.797119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Darbra RM, Ronza A, Casal J, Stojanovic TA, Wooldridge C (2004) The self diagnosis method a new methodology to assess environmental management in sea ports. Mar Pollut Bull 48:420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Darbra RM, Pittam N, Royston KA, Darbra JP, Journee H (2009) Survey on environmental monitoring requirements of European ports. J Environ Manag 90:1396–1403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Environmental Protection Agency (2007) An environmental management system primer for ports: advancing port sustainabilityGoogle Scholar
  16. Eurostat (2013) Maritime port activity in the EU27. Accessed 06 Jun 2014
  17. Hackett B (2012) The impact of the global economic crisis on international trade. Port Planning, Design & Construction 53:29–30. Accessed 16 Jun 2014
  18. Heras I, Arana G (2010) Alternative models for environmental management in SMEs: the case of Ecoscan vs. ISO 14001. J Clean Prod 18:726–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herring H, Roy R (2007) Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation 27:194–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jarasuniene A, Greiciune L, Sakalys A (2012) Research of competitive environment of Klaipeda Seaport comparing to other seaports in the eastern Baltic Sea region. Transport 27(1):5–13. doi: 10.3846/16484142.2012.662911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klopott M (2013) Restructuring of environmental management in Baltic ports: case of Poland. Marit Policy Manage Flagship J Int Shipp Port Res 40:439–450. doi: 10.1080/03088839.2013.798440 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Le XQ, Hens L, Stoyanov S (2011) Water management in the framework of environmental management systems in Bulgarian seaports. Phys Chem Earth 36:141–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Le XQ, Vu VH, Hens L, Van Heur B (2014) Stakeholder perceptions and involvement in the implementation of EMS in ports in Vietnam and Cambodia. J Clean Prod 64:173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania (2004) The methodical recommendations for analytical control of air pollution from the stationary sources of emissions. D1-68 (In Lithuanian language)Google Scholar
  25. Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Lithuania (2005) Integrated pollution prevention and control regulations, permit issuance, renewal and withdrawal. D1-330 (In Lithuanian language)Google Scholar
  26. Nanopaulos A, Tselentis BN, Woldridge DS (2005) Sustainable development of port operations: the role of research led educationGoogle Scholar
  27. Ondiviela B, Juanes JA, Gómez AG, Sįmano ML, Revilla JA (2012) Methodological procedure for water quality management in port areas at the EU level. Ecol Indic 13:117–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pallis AA, de Langen PW (2010) Seaports and the structural implications of the economic crisis. Res Transp Econ 27:10–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Panigrahi JK, Pradhan A (2012) Competitive maritime policies and strategic dimensions for commercial seaports in India. Ocean Coast Manag 62:54–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Parisi C (2013) The impact of organisational alignment on the effectiveness of firms’ sustainability strategic performance measurement systems: an empirical analysis. J Manag Governance 17:71–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parola F, Maugeri S (2013) Origin and taxonomy of conflicts in seaports: towards a research agenda. Res Transp Bus Manag 8:114–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Port of Klaipeda (2014) Accessed 10 Jun 2014
  33. Puig M, Wooldridge C, Darbra RM (2014) Identification and selection of environmental performance indicators for sustainable port development. Mar Pollut Bull 81:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Saengsupavanich C, Coowanitwong N, Gallardo WG, Lertsuchatavanich C (2009) Environmental performance evaluation of an industrial port and estate: ISO14001, port state control-derived indicators. J Clean Prod 17:154–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stakeniene R, Galkus A, Joksas K (2011) Pollution of Klaipeda port waters. Pol J Environ Stud 20(2):445–459Google Scholar
  36. Tapio P (2005) Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001. Transp Policy 12:137–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xue J (2012) Potentials for decoupling housing-related environmental impacts from economic growth. Environ Dev 4:18–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zeng SX, Meng XH, Yin HT, Tam CM, Sun L (2010) Impact of cleaner production on business performance. J Clean Prod 18:975–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zieglera A, Nogareda JS (2009) Environmental management systems and technological environmental innovations: exploring the causal relationship. Res Policy 38:885–893CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zorpas A (2010) Environmental management systems as sustainable tools in the way of life for the SMEs and VSMEs. Bioresour Technol 101:1544–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olga Anne
    • 1
  • Vilma Burskyte
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Zaneta Stasiskiene
    • 2
  • Arunas Balciunas
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics, Department of EcologyKlaipeda UniversityKlaipedaLithuania
  2. 2.Institute of Environmental EngineeringKaunas University of TechnologyKaunasLithuania

Personalised recommendations