Maritime Economics & Logistics

, Volume 17, Issue 1, pp 32–51 | Cite as

Assessing the intermodal value proposition of shipping lines: Attitudes of shippers and forwarders

  • Roy van den Berg
  • Peter W de Langen
Original Article


Shipping lines generally offer their clients two main value propositions: port-to-port and door-to-door transport. In addition, some shipping lines offer a third value proposition in the form of transport up to inland terminals (ILTs). This third value proposition combines maritime and inland transport and is offered to two types of customers: shippers and forwarders. These two customer groups have different positions in the supply chain. It is therefore expected that shippers and forwarders have different attitudes towards the intermodal value proposition and the service offering of shipping lines in general. In this article we analyse how shippers and forwarders assess the value propositions of shipping through a survey among shippers and forwarders in the Netherlands. We found that shippers and forwarders differ in what they find important in the service offering of shipping lines, that they differ in the share of value propositions they source from the shipping lines and that for both shippers and forwarders the value proposition centred around an ILT is of added value.


shipping lines intermodal transport value propositions forwarders shippers 



This research would not have been possible without the support of FENEX and EVO. We are very thankful for their time and cooperation. Furthermore, this research is supported by the Dutch Institute for Advanced Logistics (DINALOG) and is part of a research project on efficient multimodal hinterland networks.


  1. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3).Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, M.A. (1990) Ocean carrier selection criteria in a new environment. Logistics and Transportation Review 26 (4): 339–355.Google Scholar
  3. Cariou, P. (2008) Liner shipping strategies: An overview. International Journal Ocean Systems Management 1 (1): 2–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cariou, P. (2011) Is slow steaming a sustainable means of reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping? Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 16 (3): 260–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daugherty, P.J., Stank, T.P. and Rogers, D.S. (1996) Third-party logistics service providers: Purchasers’ perceptions. International Journal of Purchasing and Materials Management 32 (2): 123–129.Google Scholar
  6. De Langen, P.W. (2007) Port competition and selection in contestable hinterlands; the case of Austria. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 7 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  7. Franc, P. and Van der Horst, M. (2010) Understanding hinterland service integration by shipping lines and terminal operators: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (4): 557–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frémont, A. (2009) Shipping lines and logistics. Transport Reviews 29 (4): 537–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haralambides, H.E. and Acciaro, M. (2010) Bundling transport and logistics services in global supply chains. In: K. Cullinane (ed.) Handbook of Maritime Transport. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 123–149.Google Scholar
  10. Heaver, T.D. (2002) The evolving roles of shipping lines in international logistics. International Journal of Maritime Economics 4 (3): 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jansen, H.A.M. and Hak, A. (2005) The productivity of the three-step test-interview (TSTI) compared to an expert review of a self-administered questionnaire on alcohol consumption. Journal of Official Statistics: An International Quarterly 21 (1): 103–120.Google Scholar
  12. Juga, J., Pekkarinen, S. and Kilpala, H. (2008) Strategic positioning of logistics service providers. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 11 (6): 443–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Knemeyer, A.M. and Murphy, P.R. (2005) Exploring the potential impact of relationship characteristics and customer attributes on the outcomes of third-party logistics arrangements. Transportation Journal 44 (1): 5–19.Google Scholar
  14. Kannan, V., Bose, S.K. and Kannan, N.G. (2011) An evaluation of ocean container carrier selection criteria: An Indian shipper’s perspective. Management Research Review 34 (7): 754–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lai, H.K. (2004) Service capabilities and performance of logistics service providers. Transportation Research Part E 40 (5): 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lai, K.H. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2004) A study of the freight forwarding industry in Hong Kong. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications 7 (2): 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lai, K.H., Cheng, T.C.E. and Yeung, A.C.L. (2004) An empirical taxonomy for logistics service providers. Maritime Economics and Logistics 6 (3): 199–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Magala, M. and Sammons, A. (2008) A new approach to port choice modelling. Maritime Economics & Logistics 10 (1): 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Notteboom, T.E. (2004) Container shipping and ports: An overview. Review of Network Economics 3 (2): 86–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Notteboom, T.E. (2006) The time factor in liner shipping services. Maritime Economics and Logistics 8 (1): 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Notteboom, T.E. (2009) Complementarity and substitutability among adjacent gateway ports. Environment and Planning A 41 (3): 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Notteboom, T.E. and Rodrigue, J.P. (2005) Port regionalization: Towards a new phase in port development. Maritime Policy and Management 32 (3): 297–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Notteboom, T.E. and Vernimmen, B. (2009) The effect of high fuel costs on liner service configuration in container shipping. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (5): 325–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parola, F. and Musso, E. (2007) Market structures and competitive strategies: The carrier–stevedore arm-wrestling in Northern European ports. Maritime Policy and Management 34 (3): 259–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Rodrigue, J.P., Debrie, J., Fremont, A. and Gouvernal, E. (2010) Functions and actors of inland ports: European and North American dynamics. Journal of Transport Geography 18 (4): 519–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roso, V., Woxenius, J. and Lumsden, K. (2008) The dry port concept: Connecting container seaport with the hinterland. Journal of Transport Geography 17 (5): 338–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Selviaridis, K. and Spring, M. (2007) Third party logistics: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Logistics Management 18 (1): 125–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slack, B., Comtois, C. and Sletmo, G. (1996) Shipping lines as agents of change in the port industry. Maritime Policy and Management 23 (3): 279–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Song, D.P. and Xu, J. (2012) CO2 emission comparison between direct and feeder liner services: A case study of Asia–Europe services interfacing with the UK. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 6 (4): 214–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sys, C. (2009) Is the container liner shipping industry an oligopoly? Transport Policy 16 (5): 259–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Theofanis, S. and Boile, M. (2009) Empty marine container logistics: Facts, issues and management strategies. GeoJournal 74 (1): 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tongzon, J.L. (2009) Port choice and freight forwarders. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 45 (1): 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Van den Berg, R. and De Langen, P.W. (2011) Towards an ‘ILT’ centred value proposition in container transport? Paper presented at European Conference on Shipping & Ports – ECONSHIP 2011. Maritime Transport: Opportunities and Threats in the Post-Crises World, 22–24 June, Chios, Greece.Google Scholar
  34. Van den Berg, R., De Langen, P.W. and Rúa Costa, C. (2012) The role of port authorities in new intermodal service development; the case of Barcelona port authority. Research in Transportation Business and Management 5 (December): 78–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van der Horst, M.R. and De Langen, P.W. (2008) Coordination in hinterland transport chains: A major challenge for the seaport community. Maritime Economics and Logistics 10 (1): 108–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Woodburn, A.G. (2011) An investigation of container train service provision and load factors in Great Britain. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 11 (3): 147–165.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roy van den Berg
    • 1
  • Peter W de Langen
    • 2
  1. 1.Port of Rotterdam AuthorityRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Eindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations