Assessing the intermodal value proposition of shipping lines: Attitudes of shippers and forwarders
- 180 Downloads
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.
Keywordsshipping 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.
- Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (3).Google Scholar
- Brooks, M.A. (1990) Ocean carrier selection criteria in a new environment. Logistics and Transportation Review 26 (4): 339–355.Google Scholar
- CBS. (2013) Trade statistics, http://www.cbs.nl/nl-NL/menu/themas/internationale-handel/publicaties/belangrijkste-handelspartners-nederland/archief/2012/2012-belgie-2011-ih.htm, accessed March 2013.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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