MICHIEL NIJDAM
Leader Firms
The Value of Companies for the Competitiveness
of the Rotterdam Seaport Cluster
Leader Firms
The value of companies
the Rotterdam seaport cluster
for
the
competitiveness
of
Leader Firms
The value of companies for the competitiveness of the Rotterdam seaport
cluster
Leader firms
De waarde van bedrijven voor de concurrentiekracht van de Rotterdamse
havencluster
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
op gezag van de
rector magnificus
Prof.dr. H.G. Schmidt
en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties.
De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op
donderdag 18 november 2010 om 13.30 uur
door
Michiel Hendrik Nijdam
geboren te Hoorn
Promotiecommissie
Promotor:
Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder
Overige leden:.
Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde
Prof.dr. P.W. de Langen
Prof.dr. L. van den Berg
Erasmus Research Institute of Management – ERIM
Rotterdam School of Management (RSM)
Erasmus School of Economics (ESE)
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Internet: http://www.erim.eur.nl
ERIM Electronic Series Portal: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
ERIM PhD Series in Research in Management, 216
ERIM reference number: EPS-2010-216-ORG
ISBN 978-90-5892-256-4
© 2010, Michiel Nijdam
Design: B&T Ontwerp en advies www.b-en-t.nl
Print: Haveka www.haveka.nl
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by
any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
author.
Preface
Preface
Looking back, it is both a coincidence and at the same time makes perfect sense that this
PhD is about the port and maritime industry. My brother and I are named after the famous
Dutch naval officers Maarten Tromp and Michiel de Ruyter. My father worked on
merchant ships for many years (and is still full of stories about that time) and at the age of
six I had the vast ambition to become a boatbuilder. Such ambitions vanish over time and
when I had to choose a study my interest in economy led me to the Erasmus University
Rotterdam. However, for my specialization the very interesting lectures given by Peter de
Langen and Harry Welters were the reason I chose port economics, bringing the maritime
world back on my path.
There are two persons who deserve many thanks, because without them I would never
have started and finished my PhD. Peter de Langen, for offering me a job at the university
ten years ago and being an inspiring colleague for seven years; without his enthusiasm for
research and port economics I would probably never have started a PhD thesis, and my
promotor, Rob van Tulder, for taking the risk of accepting me as an external PhD
candidate, but most of all for his motivating support. Our discussions about my thesis
always led to a significant increase in my motivation; his broad view on almost everything
was sometimes confusing but always inspiring. His efforts to bring researchers of many
kinds together to discuss, learn and enjoy research on the Friday afternoon Researchers
sessions have also contributed greatly to my research.
This book is the result of a rather a-typical PhD trajectory. It did not start with a thesis
plan, but is rather the logical result of several research projects carried out over the past
eight years in the port of Rotterdam and the maritime industry. I’m grateful that many
managers from port and maritime companies made time available during these projects and
shared their knowledge about the industry with me.
The project that was the starting point for this thesis, leader firms in the Dutch maritime
cluster, benefitted greatly from the support of Niko Wijnolst. After some preliminary work
and the choice to focus on the role of firms, a discussion with him really was the boost that
was needed to get the research going. Niko’s willingness to include the research results in
the ‘Nederland Maritiemland’ series of books and the support we received during the
research proofed to be highly important for the successful completion of the research.
I
Preface
The second research project that forms an important building block for this thesis, leader
firms and innovation, was supported by the Port of Rotterdam Authority, Deltalinqs and
the municipality of Rotterdam (OBR). From the Port Authority I especially thank Kees
Joosten who kept on stimulating the research on leader firms and who organized several
events where my research findings where ‘tested’ in practice and where I could find new
ideas and contacts for further research. This also resulted in the third part of the research,
about leader firms and suppliers.
Working on these and other projects over the last years has been a very rewarding job, for
a large part because of the people I worked with. Thank you Peter, Larissa, Martijn, Désir,
Ariane, Wouter, César and Bart for being excellent port economists and such fun to work
with. Also my other colleagues at RHV make working at the university a great job and
discussions about research at the lunch table sometimes gave surprising insights and ideas
that proved very useful for this thesis. Thanks also go to our director Leo van den Berg, for
creating an organization where hard work, fun and academic growth go hand in hand.
Writing a PhD thesis in a situation where it is strictly speaking not part of your job means
you have to be flexible and accept that there is often no clear distinction between work and
private life. I am lucky that my wife was both very supporting and interested in the content
of my research. I even recall going over the planning sitting in the shade of an olive tree on
our honeymoon. Mirjam, thank you for all those years of support and for being the best
life-partner I could ever wish for.
Also my friends and family indirectly contributed to the process of writing my PhD. Some
of them I’d like to thank explicitly. My son Jasper, without knowing it as he is three years
old, gives me so much joy that he makes it easy to forget about work when I come home
and gives me enough energy to continue work after his bedtime. A PhD takes a bit of
stamina, a virtue I certainly learned from my mother with her never ending energy, thank
you Nils. I also thank my father Henk, for sharing a practical and historical view on the
maritime industry. Finally, I thank my parents-in-law, Flip and Wil, for their continuously
expressed interest and trust in the completion of my thesis.
II
Contents
Contents
1
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
1.1
The competitive position of Rotterdam.................................................... 1
1.2
The strengths and weaknesses of Rotterdam ........................................... 5
1.3
Problems and solutions ............................................................................ 9
1.4
Dealing with challenges ......................................................................... 14
1.5
Firms as part of the solution ................................................................... 16
PART I: THEORETICAL EXPLORATION ............................................................... 17
2
ANALYTICAL APPROACH ...................................................................... 19
2.1
Port studies ............................................................................................. 20
2.2
Exploration of relevant concepts............................................................ 24
2.3
Industrial districts................................................................................... 28
2.4
Clusters .................................................................................................. 30
2.5
Networks ................................................................................................ 33
2.6
National and regional systems of innovation ......................................... 34
2.7
Inter-firm relations in different settings ................................................. 36
2.8
Research outline; the individual firm as missing link ............................ 38
3
CONCEPTS OF LEADING FIRMS............................................................. 43
3.1
Industrial district school ......................................................................... 43
3.2
Network school ...................................................................................... 46
3.3
Cluster school......................................................................................... 49
3.4
Definition of leader firms ....................................................................... 52
3.5
Spillover effects and externalities .......................................................... 53
III
Contents
PART II: IDENTIFYING LEADER FIRMS AND LEADER FIRM BEHAVIOR ............. 59
4
EMPIRICAL EXPLORATION OF THE LEADER FIRM CONCEPT ............. 61
4.1
Identifying leader firms .......................................................................... 61
4.2
The DMC as object of study .................................................................. 65
4.3
Identification of leader firms.................................................................. 74
4.4
Results of the case studies; nine forms of leader firm behavior............. 77
4.5
Leader firm behavior in the Dutch Maritime Cluster; survey results .... 81
4.6
Conclusions ............................................................................................ 84
5
LEADER FIRMS IN THE PORT OF ROTTERDAM .................................... 85
5.1
Functional boundaries of the cluster ...................................................... 85
5.2
The Rotterdam Port Complex ................................................................ 86
5.3
The relevant cluster region ..................................................................... 88
5.4
Owners of port assets ............................................................................. 97
5.5
Selecting leader firms........................................................................... 104
5.6
Characteristics of the leader firms........................................................ 107
PART III: SUPPLIER RELATIONS AND INNOVATION; THEORY AND CASES IN
ROTTERDAM ....................................................................................................... 109
6
BUYERS, SUPPLIERS AND INNOVATION .............................................. 111
6.1
Relations with suppliers ....................................................................... 111
6.2
Suppliers and development .................................................................. 115
6.3
Examples of advanced supplier management ...................................... 121
6.4
Conclusions .......................................................................................... 125
6.5
Innovation ............................................................................................ 126
7
LEADER FIRMS, SUPPLIERS AND INNOVATION IN THE PORT OF
ROTTERDAM ....................................................................................................... 133
7.1
IV
Core network ........................................................................................ 133
Contents
7.2
Strategies towards suppliers ................................................................. 138
8
CASE STUDIES OF THE LEADER FIRMS ............................................... 143
8.1
Leader firm scoreboard ........................................................................ 183
PART IV: ANALYSIS OF LEADER FIRM BEHAVIOR ........................................... 187
9
THE CAUSES OF LEADER FIRM BEHAVIOR......................................... 189
9.1
Firm characteristics and leader firm behavior ...................................... 190
9.2
Complex causes of leader firm behavior .............................................. 202
9.3
Conclusions .......................................................................................... 209
10
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 211
10.1
Concepts for identifying leader firms .................................................. 211
10.2
Roles of leader firms ............................................................................ 212
10.3
Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam.................................................. 213
10.4
Characteristics of leader firms ............................................................. 217
10.5
Leader firms and suppliers ................................................................... 219
10.6
Recommendations ................................................................................ 221
10.7
Suggestions for further research .......................................................... 225
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................... 227
INTERVIEWEES ................................................................................................... 238
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE DUTCH MARITIME CLUSTER ......................... 243
APPENDIX 2: QUESTIONNAIRE INNOVATION .................................................... 253
APPENDIX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE SUPPLIER RELATIONS ..................................... 259
SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 265
SAMENVATTING.................................................................................................. 271
ABOUT THE AUTHOR .......................................................................................... 279
V
Contents
List of tables
Table 1-1: Strengths and weaknesses of the port of Rotterdam ............................................ 7
Table 1-2: Positive and negative characteristics of the Rotterdam port ................................ 8
Table 1-3: Obstacles for innovation in the port of Rotterdam .............................................. 9
Table 1-4: Main issues in the PoR annual reports .............................................................. 13
Table 2-1: Number of papers on port studies 1997-2008 ................................................... 20
Table 2-2: Studies in maritime journals about (port) clusters (2000-2009) ........................ 21
Table 2-3: Articles about leading firms .............................................................................. 27
Table 2-4: Static and dynamic competition ........................................................................ 31
Table 2-5: Differences in geography and relations between clusters, networks and
industrial districts ............................................................................................................... 38
Table 2-6: Methods used .................................................................................................... 41
Table 3-1: The leader firm concept and related theories .................................................... 52
Table 4-1: Economic size of the 11 sectors in the Dutch Maritime Cluster (2005) ............ 72
Table 4-2: Economic relations in the DMC ........................................................................ 73
Table 4-3: Characteristics of sectors of the Dutch Maritime Cluster .................................. 74
Table 4-4: Number of firms that meet a criterion ............................................................... 76
Table 4-5: The leader firm set ............................................................................................ 76
Table 4-6: Number of firms that meet criteria compared to the expert opinion ................. 77
Table 4-7: Forms of leader firm behavior in 26 cases ........................................................ 80
Table 4-8: Ways of stimulating innovations ....................................................................... 83
Table 4-9: Ways to support internationalization ................................................................. 83
Table 5-1: Activities included in the cluster delimitation ................................................... 86
Table 5-2: Activities in the port cluster .............................................................................. 88
Table 5-3: Average specialization in maritime and port activities in The Netherlands ...... 89
Table 5-4: Concentration of port activities per municipality .............................................. 90
Table 5-5: Largest shareholders in the port of Rotterdam .................................................. 99
VI
Contents
Table 5-6: Ultimate shareholders in the port of Rotterdam .............................................. 101
Table 5-7: Origin of ultimate shareholders in the port of Rotterdam................................ 102
Table 5-8: Number of firms that meet the core company criteria ..................................... 106
Table 5-9: Identified leader firms in the port of Rotterdam .............................................. 107
Table 6-1: Radical and incremental innovations .............................................................. 128
Table 6-2: Categories of innovations and examples ......................................................... 128
Table 7-1: Suppliers that form a link between leader firms .............................................. 137
Table 7-2: Centrality of firms in the core network ........................................................... 138
Table 7-3: Use of supplier strategies ................................................................................ 139
Table 7-4: Reported use of ways of stimulating innovations (1=never, 5=very often)..... 141
Table 7-5: Helping suppliers with internationalization (1= never, 5= very often)............ 142
Table 9-5: Correlation between leader firm behavior and firm characteristics ................. 190
Table 9-1: Headquarters location of leader firms ............................................................. 194
Table 9-2: Leader firm score for local and foreign managed companies.......................... 195
Table 9-3: Assessment of the headquarter effect in different situations ........................... 196
Table 9-4: Differences between service and production firms ......................................... 201
Table 9-6: Conditions that lead to leader firm behavior ................................................... 204
Table 9-7: Minimal conditions for leader firm behavior .................................................. 206
Table 9-8: Local connectedness and leader firm behavior................................................ 207
Table 9-9: Minimal conditions for leader firm behavior related to connections............... 208
Table 9-10: Suppliers and leader firm behavior ............................................................... 209
VII
Contents
List of figures
Figure 1-1: Index of value added in the Port of Rotterdam .................................................. 2
Figure 1-2: Declining market share for Rotterdam ............................................................... 3
Figure 1-3: Development of shipbuilding in the Netherlands and selected countries........... 4
Figure 1-4: Development in the number of firms ................................................................. 5
Figure 2-1: Porters diamond ............................................................................................... 30
Figure 2-2: Relation between clusters, networks and supply chains .................................. 37
Figure 2-3: The missing link in seaport research: the individual firm ................................ 39
Figure 3-1: Marginal benefits of technological spillovers .................................................. 55
Figure 4-1: Research cycle ................................................................................................. 64
Figure 4-2: Maritime and service-to-transport companies in the Netherlands.................... 66
Figure 4-3: Maritime and service-to-transport employment in Dutch municipalities......... 67
Figure 4-4: Maritime and service-to-transport assets in the Netherlands ........................... 68
Figure 4-5: Specialization in maritime employment (% of total for pcode 3 positions) ..... 69
Figure 4-6: Specialization in maritime firms (% of total for pcode 3 positions) ................ 70
Figure 4-7: Sectors included in the Dutch Maritime Cluster .............................................. 71
Figure 4-8: Relative importance of different actors in 1 production, 2 innovation, 3
internationalization and 4 labor market networks ............................................................... 82
Figure 4-9: Forms of leader firm behavior ......................................................................... 84
Figure 5-1: Port related employment per municipality ....................................................... 91
Figure 5-2: Port related firms per municipality .................................................................. 92
Figure 5-3: Rijnmond region specialization in port employment (% of total employment)93
Figure 5-4: Rijnmond region specialization in port firms (% of total firms) ...................... 93
Figure 5-5: Municipalities cluster score (% port employment* LN of port employment) . 94
Figure 5-6: Number of port firms per pc3 code .................................................................. 95
Figure 5-7: Port employment per pc3 code......................................................................... 95
Figure 5-8: Specialization in port employment per pc3 code ............................................. 96
VIII
Contents
Figure 5-9: Specialization in port firms per pc3code.......................................................... 96
Figure 5-10: Cluster relatedness of pc3code areas (% port employment x LN port
employment) ....................................................................................................................... 97
Figure 5-11: Selection process of core companies and leader firms ................................. 105
Figure 6-1: Factors determining market networks and hierarchies ................................... 112
Figure 6-2: Purchasing portfolio management strategies ................................................. 114
Figure 6-3: Comparison of GM, Ford and Toyota supplier base ...................................... 124
Figure 7-1: Buyer-supplier networks between leader firms .............................................. 134
Figure 7-2: Network of leader firms and their suppliers ................................................... 136
Figure 8-1: Relative importance of leader firms for the Rotterdam port economy ........... 185
Figure 9-1: Relation between profit margin and leader firm role ..................................... 191
Figure 9-2: Relation between turnover and leader firm role ............................................. 192
Figure 9-3: Relation between added value and leader firm .............................................. 193
Figure 9-4: Leader firm role of foreign and domestic managed firms .............................. 195
Figure 9-5: Relation between purchasing quote and leader firm role ............................... 197
Figure 9-6: Relation between local supplies and leader firm behavior ............................. 199
Figure 9-7: Relation between number of prime suppliers locally and leader firm behavior
.......................................................................................................................................... 200
Figure 9-8: Schematic representation of consistency and coverage ................................. 205
Figure 10-1: Nine forms of leader firm behavior in three fields ....................................... 212
Figure 10-2: Leader firm score and number of employees ............................................... 215
IX
Introduction
1
Introduction
The Port of Rotterdam is a large complex of companies active in cargo handling, logistics
services, maritime industry, and includes manufacturers that are dependent on deep water
access and all companies that supply to these industries. Throughout the development of
the Rotterdam port, individual companies have played an important role. The famous
‘Havenbaronnen’ (Port Barons) of Rotterdam helped built Rotterdam into the largest port
in the world. From Anthony van Hoboken, the Rotterdam based largest ship-owner in the
Netherlands, at the end of the 18th century and Van Beuningen, Van Ommeren and
Verolme at the beginning of the 20th century who built large trading, shipping, shipbuilding
and stevedoring companies in Rotterdam. The leading role they had gradually diminished
in the 20th century. Nowadays, the competitive field for seaport regions is more complex
than ever; the growth of the world economy, globalization of production and the
emergence of international investment funds dispersed the economic power over more
parties with lesser ties to the local business community. Still the role of individual
companies is of great importance for the competitive position of the whole port cluster but
this is often overlooked by both policy makers and researchers.
In this thesis the gap in research and policy is filled by an analysis of the value that leading
firms have for the competitive power of the Rotterdam port cluster. The leader firms are
identified and their role in the port and maritime industry is analyzed. Conclusions are
drawn about the value of leader firms in the port cluster and recommendations for business
and policymakers are formulated.
1.1
The competitive position of Rotterdam
The port of Rotterdam fights competitive battles with other ports, for ships, for cargo and
for the location of industries. In the next paragraphs the current economic value and three
major problems for the port of Rotterdam are sketched; the declining market share in cargo
throughput, the declining role in the maritime industry and the relative low dynamism in
port businesses.
Added value in port activities
The value added produced in the port of Rotterdam is a good indicator of the economic
development; it shows the value of total production in the port. Since 1996, the value
1
Introduction
added produced in Dutch seaports is measured every year separately for the port’s nodal
functions, such as transport and stevedoring and for the port’s location function, such as
petro-chemical production and shipbuilding. Figure 1-1 shows an index of the value added
for these two functions and for the port as a whole, compared to the development of value
added in the Netherlands and the Rijnmond region. This shows that in ten years the value
added in the port grew faster than the Dutch and Rijnmond economy. Further, the value
added of the location activities -production- developed faster than the nodal -serviceactivities in the port.
Figure 1-1: Index of value added in the Port of Rotterdam
IndexofgrossvalueaddedinNL,Rijnmondandtheport
170
160
Location
150
Totalport
140
Node
130
Rijnmond(cbs)
120
NL(CBS)
110
100
90
20
08
20
07
20
06
20
05
20
04
20
03
20
02
19
99
19
96
80
Source: based on: CBS (1996-2008), Ecorys (1996-2002), Rebel (2002-2007), EUR (2008)
Judging from the development in value added the port is outperforming the rest of the
economy in productivity. This has both a volume and a value component. The throughput
volume increased with 44% from 292M tons to 421M tons, while the value added
increased by 78% in the same period. Indicating more value per ton was created in 2008
than in 1996. It also reflects the capital intensive nature of the port industry; in economic
boom periods, like 2004-2008, the utilization rate of equipment rises rapidly, leading to a
strong increase in added value.
2
Introduction
The competitive battle for cargo
From the added value produced one might conclude that the port of Rotterdam is doing
extremely well. However, compared to other ports in Europe this is not the case. At the
start of the 21st century the port of Rotterdam is not in the favorable position one might
expect. Still being the largest port in Europe, but losing business to the two main
competitors, Antwerp and Hamburg, quickly. Especially in the booming container market,
where total throughput of containers more than doubled between 1998 and 2008, the
market share of Rotterdam declined in this period to the benefit of the two most important
competitors.
Figure 1-2: Declining market share for Rotterdam
35%
30%
25%
ROTTERDAM
HAMBURG
20%
ANTWERPEN
BREMEN/B'HAVEN
15%
LEHAVRE
10%
ZEEBRUEGGE
5%
0%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Source: Calculations based on Hafen-Hamburg, World container throughput
Downturn in maritime industry
The industry in the port performed rather well as the increase in value added shows.
However, this increase is mainly due to the petrochemical industry and to some extend the
food industry in the port. Other industries show a much weaker development; for example
the shipbuilding industry. The once substantial shipbuilding and repair industry in the
region declined and struggled with competition from other -often low cost- countries.
Figure 1-3 illustrates the development of shipbuilding in the Netherlands and selected
other countries.
3
Introduction
Figure 1-3: Development of shipbuilding in the Netherlands and selected countries
Index of world shipbuilding volume
500
Index of GT delivered
450
400
350
300
World
Japan
250
Poland
200
Germany
150
NL
100
50
19
64
19
67
19
70
19
73
19
76
19
79
19
82
19
85
19
88
19
91
19
94
19
97
20
00
20
03
0
Source: author calculations based on Lloyd’s register
After the collapse in shipbuilding in the second half of the 1970’s, The Netherlands never
recovered. While for example Japan has always grown at the same pace as total world
shipbuilding. Although the fastest growing shipbuilding nations are now low cost countries
such as China, the example of Japan shows that it is not only labor costs that count; at least
since the 1980’s the labor costs in Japan have been on the same level as in the West, and
currently are higher than in some western countries. Within Europe, Germany is
performing better than the Netherlands and Poland is outperforming the Netherlands
substantially.
Lack of entrepreneurial spirit
The dynamic of a cluster is shown by the variation in number of firms. In a thriving cluster
the number of startups is relatively high because entrepreneurs like to start their businesses
in a place where they can benefit from the fast economic development (Staber, 1996). At
the same time the number of firms going bankrupt or leaving the cluster should be
relatively limited as a result of the favorable economic conditions in a successful cluster.
When taking a closer look at the dynamics of firms located in the Rotterdam port, we see
4
Introduction
that the number of port related firms in Rotterdam declined since 2002 but that the overall
number of firms grew.
Figure 1-4: Development in the number of firms
index of number of firms
104
102
100
98
Rotterdam
96
Industry
94
Transport node
92
90
88
86
84
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Source: calculations based on: COS-Rotterdam, Ecorys (1996-2002), Rebel group/ Buck (20022007), EUR (2008)
The Rotterdam port cluster is apparently less dynamic than the rest of Rotterdam’s
economy. The growing value added in the port is not reflected by a growth in the number
of businesses in the port.
1.2
The strengths and weaknesses of Rotterdam
The situation sketched above shows a port that is doing well in some respect; it is growing
and responsible for a substantial part of the value added in the region. However, the
competing ports, although smaller, seem to outperform Rotterdam in some markets. At the
same time the business development in port related industries is not at the level one might
expect in a successful cluster. The reasons for this suboptimal performance might be
explained by looking at the strengths and weaknesses of the Rotterdam port. Throughout
the years several scholars analyzed this for the Port of Rotterdam.
5
Introduction
In earlier days the main task of the Rotterdam port was shipping cargo in and out to
support mainly the Dutch and German export and imports for industry and consumers. The
focus of the port was on the number of ships that could be handled in a year (Backx, 1929).
In later stages of development, the cargo that was brought in received more attention,
resulting in more cargo related activities in the port, such as blending and trading and some
manufacturing. In recent decades the manufacturing task of the port area expanded and
today encompasses production of gasoline, plastics, off-shore equipment and foods.
In 1995 Van Klink analyzed the position and the development of the Rotterdam port from
a network and a life cycle perspective. His first conclusion is that the development of the
port of Rotterdam since 1872 (the opening of the New Waterway) is for a large part fueled
by external economic developments. Anticipating action was taken in the development of
the chemical production complexes in Botlek and Europoort, which was the first internally
organized large scale business development in the port. However in a later stage, in the
70’s and 80’s the Port of Rotterdam found itself in the position that the development of
distribution activities related to the booming container transport were more and more
taking place beyond the borders of the port, leading to a “divergence between the
administrative scale of the port and the spatial reach of the distribution function resulting
in conflicts” [p. 86]. Overall the position of the Port of Rotterdam in 1995 can be
summarized as follows. It is an important part of the Dutch economy, but the Rotterdam
region has less economic gains from the port; it hardly contributes to the creation of new
jobs. Transshipment, port related industry and distribution are sectors under pressure.
Positive developments could be seen in transport intermediaries and port related services.
The strengths and weaknesses identified by Van Klink (1995) are shown in Table 1-1.
6
Introduction
Table 1-1: Strengths and weaknesses of the port of Rotterdam
Strengths
Weaknesses
Maritime accessibility: deep draft, direct sea
access
Industrial structure: complete petro-chemical
complex
Land availability: in and around the port and
Frequency of transport services: maritime and
barges connectivity is unmatched by other ports
Reputation and know how: largest port in the
world, logistic, trade and transport know-how
Landside access: road congestion, railway
capacity and organization
Enforcement of rules: strict and no room for
flexibility, bureaucratic organization
Labor climate: conflicts, low performance,
hindering innovations
Quality of life: housing, environment and
culture are relatively unappealing
Almost ten years later, in 2004 the Dutch government presented its vision on the
development of the Dutch seaports. Included was an analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of the ports. Next to the strengths identified by Van Klink, strengths were
found to be the independence of the port authority, the ICT-infrastructure and input-output
relations with firms outside the region. Weaknesses identified were inflexibility of labor,
high port dues, closeness to densely populated area, road congestion and limited rail links.
Apparently, in ten years the port managed to work on two strengths, the IT-infrastructure
that was developed mainly by the port authority in the form of a port community system
(portinfolink), and the relations with the rest of the economy relative to other seaports.
Jacobs (2007) identified factors, both internal and external to the port, which explained the
loss of market share in the container market. A changing organization of international
maritime networks, with more ports-of call for every ship, led to a diminishing role of
Rotterdam as a hub-port. Internal factors include the monopoly position of the local
container terminal operator that was practically enforced by the port authority, poor
customs procedures, unrealistic pricing policies and neglect of the customer. Van Klink
and De Langen (1999) identified six principles that are leading in decision making in the
port of Rotterdam (examples in brackets):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Investing in efficiency (automated vehicles)
Space as a competitive asset (Maasvlakte expansion)
Orientation on stevedoring (2nd Maasvlakte and Betuwe-rail to facilitate throughput)
Port as source of regional prosperity (industry and distribution in the port)
Reduce labor through mechanization (automated terminals)
Stability as a growth condition (ECT in Dutch ownership)
7
Introduction
These principles can be categorized as a Fordistic view on port development, with little eye
for flexibility and very much geared towards scale economies resulting in a monopolistic
structure in many segments. The result of this particular focus is that the port is unable to
service its clients that demand a dedicated treatment and flexibility in operations. It also
hinders the development of the port by creating a closed business community and reducing
labor to a cost-factor instead of an asset necessary for knowledge and development.
De Langen (2004) analyzed the performance of the Rotterdam port cluster and compared it
with two other large ports. On the following characteristics -important for the performance
of a port cluster- Rotterdam scores significantly worse or better than its competitors.
Table 1-2: Positive and negative characteristics of the Rotterdam port
Significantly worse than competition
Significantly better than competition
The level of land prices and office rents
The diversity of the cluster population
Quality of collective action regimes
The presence of customers and suppliers
Presence of labor force
The presence of knowledge spill-overs
After comparing the Rotterdam port’s performance with these strengths and weaknesses,
De Langen concludes that the weaknesses mainly had their influence on the total
throughput in the port, but that the strengths of the port have led to a relative improvement
in the value added per ton in the Rotterdam port cluster compared to its biggest competitor
Antwerp. Apparently some change took place in the port decision-making process; the
volume orientated principles in the 90’s gave some room to the value oriented decisions in
the 21st century.
Innovation climate
For any economic development innovation is a necessary condition. Innovation brings new
techniques and organization structures that improve the resources to production ratio. An
assessment of the innovative power of the Rotterdam port (De Langen, Van Klink and
Nijdam, 1999) resulted in the identification of seven obstacles for innovation.
8
Introduction
Table 1-3: Obstacles for innovation in the port of Rotterdam
Critical demand of shippers does not reach the port companies
The product portfolio gives insufficient ground for innovation
Access to international knowledge is weakly developed
Little maneuvering space in political and societal arena
Insufficient possibilities for the location of startups
The Rotterdam business culture is very conservative, based on traditions and routines
Firms have little room for experiments to try out new concepts
These seven obstacles link with the weaknesses defined in other research; at the turn of the
century there was a need for a more open business structure with room for new activities,
new firms and firms that brake with the traditional network structures to increase the
awareness of customer demands, improve the knowledge-base and build room for
innovation.
In the first years of the 21st century, the innovation climate in the port of Rotterdam seems
to have improved since both the Port Authority and the municipality of Rotterdam have put
policies in place to facilitate innovation. The corporatization of the port Authority was an
important step in that process. It reduced the local focus of the decision makers in the port
and gave more freedom to the port to develop its own profile and make decisions about the
economic development without strong influence of the city (Jacobs, 2007).
In general, the Rotterdam area and the port are still lagging behind in innovative
developments (Nijdam and De Langen, 2006). Private investments in R&D are lower than
average for the Netherlands and the number of innovations in the port area is lower than
might be expected based on the structure of the port industry. Furthermore the number of
patents registered by port related firms in Rotterdam is very low compared to other
industries. Of the top 15 patent holders in the Rotterdam area only one firm is port related,
ranked number ten.
1.3
Problems and solutions
The sub-optimal performance of the port cluster has not stayed unnoticed, and is widely
discussed. In the course of years several business reports and scholars pinpointed specific
issues in the port of Rotterdam.
9
Introduction
One of the most prominent discussions in the last decade was the choice between volume
and value orientation of the port. Klink and De Langen (1999) describe the tension in the
port between the volume and value orientation. Traditionally the port was focused on
maximizing volume but in the plans in 1999 (Portplan 2010 & National Spatial Economic
Policy) the aim was to create more value in the port. According to Van Klink and De
Langen the plans presented were far from enough to make a transition towards a value
oriented port. Policymakers failed to combine volume and value measures into coherent
policy. Most obvious examples of this are seen in the relation between large scale
infrastructure and environment. Infrastructure is essential for the volume-model, while
‘quality of life’ a very relevant factor in the value model.
In this discussion, the business community primarily focused on the infrastructure.
According to Mr. Boer, director Uniport container stevedore (1998): “The competitive
position of the Rotterdam port is in danger because of the congested roads, you can build
beautiful large scale terminals, but you’ll never get the containers passed the bottleneck
Rotterdam1”. Four years later a joint statement of a yearly round table of executives reads:
“The competitive position of the Rotterdam port is at stake because of the poor
infrastructure to the hinterland” 2
The volume orientation has been the issue of more discussions, Oosterhaven (1999) for
example stated, after researching the intercompany sales in the Netherlands that the
linkages between the port and the rest of the economy were overestimated by most
policymakers and that the relations did not justify large investments in infrastructure. In
reaction on this Bosch en Heldweg (1999) claim that the role of the port is to lower
transaction (transportation) costs and that these benefits are not included in an input-output
analysis. Moreover they state that the (petro)chemical complex in Rotterdam shows that
these linkages are very important for the importing and exporting businesses3.
1
Nieuwsblad transport, 21-11-1998, Uniport investeert ruim vijftig miljoen
2
Nieuwsblad transport, 4-10-2002, Conclusies E&Y havenavond
3
The fact that Oosterhaven did not include the chemical industry in his definition of the port and
Bosch uses this industry as an example of how large the economic effects of a port can be shows that
there’s not only a problem in answering the question “what is a seaport?” but also shows that the
answer can be found by analyzing the economic behavior of individual companies on more levels
than only business-transactions.
10
Introduction
In the volume-value discussions about the port’s future other authors contributed,
including Kuipers (2000) who analyzed four alternatives that were proposed to develop the
port into a value oriented port: ‘selection at the gate’, only allowing high value transport
through the port; ‘Netherlands as orchestrator’, controlling logistics without all the cargo
movements; ‘from mainport to brainport’, develop knowledge intensive activities related to
the large volume distribution; and ‘e-distribution’, instead of maximizing the logistic
sector aim at maximizing the environmental efficiency of the European distribution
function. Kuipers concludes that most alternatives do not recognize the path-dependent
development of seaports due to infrastructure investments and a stronger focus should be
placed at combining efficient (scale) and intelligent (scope) logistics. In the line of the
discussion Kuipers stated: “levels of service, safety and quality of the port should be
maintained, it’s not bad to loose the finite label ‘big’.” (ESB 87, 4345, p83, 1 Feb. 2002)
Nevertheless, a strong emphasis was placed over the years on the expansion of the port.
Hans Smits, Director PoR (2006) “The port is operating at maximum capacity. It’s making
the most of the space we have. Only when the large scale expansions of the port are ready,
like the EMO coal terminal and the Euromax container terminal, it is possible to grow
faster”4 and linking it to the competitive position of the port “If we want to maintain our
competitive position, the first ships have to moor at the second Maasvlakte by 2013”5
In the course of years the attention for the role of individual firms in the overall
development of the port grew slowly in the business community. Not only having eye for
the issues within their company walls, but also looking at the whole cluster. This is
illustrated by Jan Westerhout, director ECT (2007) when discussing the issue of
congestion, a physical problem, and proposing an organizational solution: “Every day we
run the risk that shipping lines move their business to Antwerp or Hamburg [...] I’m afraid
that we will face large scale congestion earlier than everybody now thinks [...] ECT can
not solve the problem on its own, nobody can. It would already make a huge difference if
we would start to talk with each other instead of about each other, fortunately that is
increasingly the case, I have high expectations of it.”6
4
Nieuwsblad transport, 29 december 2006, Magere groei in overslag Rotterdam
5
Nieuwsblad transport, 6-09-2006, Havenbedrijf optimistisch over besluitvorming Maasvlakte 2
6
Nieuwsblad transport 2007, dossier congestie in de haven
11
Introduction
Also, John Verschelden, director of the future APMT-terminal on Maasvlakte II, stresses
the importance of business dynamics for the competitive position of the port: “Rotterdam
has excellent accessibility with its 22 meter deep draft, moreover, the port will have two
instead of one suppliers of container stevedoring, which will increase service-levels and
thus the competitive position of the port.” (NT, 28 August 2009)
The port authority
The port authority is the organization that has the incentive to act on behalf of all port
stakeholders. The ultimate goal of the port authority should be maximizing the
performance of the whole port cluster (DeLangen, 2004). The issues brought forth by the
port authority can thus be interpreted as leading in the development of the port. The annual
reports of the port authority give a good reflection of what themes have been centre stage
for the port management. Every year in the ‘word from the executive directors’ the main
subjects, developments and plans are discussed. The following table summarizes the
themes per year.
12
Introduction
Table 1-4: Main issues in the PoR annual reports
YEAR
THEME
EXPLANATION - SPECIFICATION
Human resources in the port
Training and education, attracting new
generations to the port
Land acquisition
Need for more space
Internationalization of port business
Take-overs and investment by international
companies in the port
Hinterland connections
Improvement of rail is necessary
Port restructuring
Port & city relationship, port expansion MV2
Level playing field
Competition is ‘disturbed’ by legislation
Safety and security
As a reaction on terrorist attacks NY
Port expansion
Maasvlakte 2, city-port development
Change to a public limited company
More decision power for the port authority
Infrastructure development
Seeking innovations in cooperation with
universities
Hinterland connections
Traffic on highway 15
Business investments
Investments are a good indicator of
competitiveness
24-hour economy
Necessary for higher utilization of port
infrastructure
Clients
For every decision, value for clients is the
leading principle
Quality of infrastructure
Improving quality is as important as new
expansions
Space
Both expansion and intensification of use are
important
Cooperation
It’s necessary to look beyond Rotterdam
Accessibility
Modal shift and location of activities are key in
improving accessibility
Space for growth
Restructuring, intensification and new
development
Accessibility
Port is part of supply chain, solutions might lay
outside Rotterdam
Sustainability
License to operate and license to grow
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
13
Introduction
The first hint to the importance of individual companies was made in 2003 when port
management stated “The aim of the port management is to bind companies, cargos and
added value to Rotterdam to the greatest extent possible by creating optimal conditions.”
An interesting conclusion from the quotes is that throughout the years executives in the
port are concerned about the physical infrastructure and access to the port, no quotes were
found linking the competitive position directly with knowledge or broader socio-economic
factors. While accessibility is obviously important for any seaport, it is not enough to make
the port region a competitive region. For that, also intellectual infrastructure, quality of the
environment, international knowledge networks etc. are crucial. A focus on physical
infrastructures also means a focus on cargo throughput in the competition with other ports.
This might make a port the largest in terms of throughput; it does not mean that it is the
most competitive port-cluster, which includes a much wider set of companies and a greater
geographical area. A port cluster also competes with locations worldwide for
manufacturing and trading companies and with other regions on the continent for logistics.
To be competitive on that playing field a more firm-minded strategy is vital. In the port
authorities publications a shift can be noticed from 2005 onwards to more attention to the
port as a complex, to companies and investments instead of only cargo throughput and to
other ways to improve the port than only by expansion.
1.4
Dealing with challenges
The challenges for the port of Rotterdam have been, and still are, numerous. These
challenges have not been without response. The Port authority, the municipality of
Rotterdam and the national government have tried to mitigate the threats and build on the
strengths of the port.
Land and infrastructure
In 1991 the port plan 2010 was presented, showing the ambitions and proposed strategies
of the city and the port. In this plan infrastructure was centre stage, the notion that
Rotterdam should remain the ‘mainport’ of Europe was leading. For this ambition more
space and infrastructure was said to be needed. Next to infrastructure, the strategy laid out
in the portplan 2010 involved the ‘capturing of cargo’ to increase the value added activities
in the port; assembly, manufacturing, storage and distribution were planned to make up a
substantial part of the port activities. These activities could bind the cargo flows to the port
14
Introduction
because it increases the switching costs for shippers when a switch to another port also
means a change in distribution and manufacturing systems.
Both the soft part of the port -knowledge and management- and the hard part –
infrastructure- received attention in the plans. The features of the port were developed
according to the ‘mainport’ and ‘brainport’ strategy. The mainport concept includes a
vision on the port as an important element in the national economy.
The brainport concept is about trying to link knowledge intensive activities to the physical
activities in the port. In practice this includes an active policy to attract research facilities,
headquarters, administrative and call centre functions of port(related) companies and
improve the logistics profile of the port, “not only move boxes, but add value to the cargo
and control cargo flows from Rotterdam, maybe even without these cargo flows using the
port of Rotterdam.”
Overall this strategy proved rather difficult, successful examples are Eastman Kodak and
Lyondell that respectively moved their call centre and headquarters to Rotterdam. The
development of the logistics function has taken place through the construction of
distribution centers. The results of the logistics strategy are mixed, there are successful
value added operations in the port area, and several logistics companies have some control
functions located in Rotterdam. However this strategy also brought problems; locating
logistics activities in the port proved to be a strategy increasing congestion on the highway
because VAL activities involve the handling cargo that is almost exclusively transported
by truck, while containers that stay unopened can easily be shipped by barge or train. The
result for the control function in logistics are meager, most logistics headquarters are
located in the ports hinterland in Germany. The port did not prove to be the main ‘player’
in the decision making about cargo flows, nor the ideal location for logistics headquarters.
New policies
The Portvision 2020 (PoR, 2004) and the business plan of the port authority for the years
2006-2010 show some changes compared to the older policies. There is more attention for
the role of the port in the logistic network and the focus on only regional economic effects
is less profound. This new policy brakes away from the previous policy to develop
distribution related activities in the port area related to specific cargo flows, such as fruit
and consumer products. In general the port is focusing on two elements. First, the port
should be an efficient node in the transport chain. Second, the port should accommodate
more knowledge intensive activities. If and how this policy will bring about a more
15
Introduction
thriving and innovative port business community remains to be seen. There are many
obstacles to overcome, both in the competition with other ports and in creating a more
innovative port.
Another recent development at the port authority is the formulation of an R&D agenda in
which the broader port cluster is included as the relevant setting. It has the ambitious
motto, “together we’ll make Rotterdam the smartest port in the world!” This illustrates the
shift in approach of the port’s management towards the competitiveness of the port.
Knowledge gets a far more important place in the strategy and the way to develop
knowledge is cooperation between the port authority, knowledge institutions and firms.
1.5
Firms as part of the solution
The situation discussed above -slow development of value added, losing market share in
container throughput, declining shipbuilding industry and limited innovations- raise the
question, why does the largest port in Europe, with potential enormous cluster benefits,
have such troubles to stay competitive in port industries, let alone improve its position?
One possible answer is that there were not enough parties to provide the cluster benefits.
Some benefits, such as agglomeration effects (transportation costs) obviously did exist, but
the more complex cluster effects were not showing to the extend one might expect (De
Langen, 2004). Knowledge spillovers do not emerge out off nothing, it takes a source to
provide the knowledge and only then can other companies benefit from being located in
the cluster. In other words, a new form of the ‘havenbaronnen’ might be important in port
clusters; leading companies that add positive effects to the cluster by doing business in
such a way that also the local business community benefits from their presence.
Another issue is the complex governance structure of the port cluster. The port cluster
includes several municipalities, so no local government is able to develop policy for the
whole port. The port authorities do ‘manage’ the port area but not the whole cluster; they
only have jurisdiction in the area that is directly accessible by water and only have direct
relations with the companies that are located on the land that is exploited by the port
authority. The lack of a cluster wide organization increases the importance of leading
actors that invest in the quality of the cluster governance.
16
Part I: Theoretical exploration
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
2
Analytical approach
In economic theory several observations have been made in the business community and
many ideas have developed about the structure of economies and the behavior of firms. In
this chapter some perspectives are discussed that are relevant for the role of leader firms in
the port of Rotterdam.
Economic development is often linked to characteristics of the local business environment.
In studies about Industrial Districts, Clusters and Regional Systems of Innovation the
physical closeness of companies is one of the core elements of the theory. Studies in these
fields show that the closeness brings more knowledge spill-over and more cooperative
innovations, resulting in a better position on the international market.
Since the 19th century, economists have studied localization of businesses and found
advantages for companies to locate in each other’s vicinity (Marshall 1896). In more recent
years the clustering of specific sectors has been the object of study and proposed as an
explanation of regional economic prosperity (Porter, 1989). More specific studies show
that clustering primarily is beneficial for the competitiveness of a region through increased
knowledge exchange (Krugman, 1995).
Over the years, many cases of -mostly successful- clusters have been analyzed, ranging
from Biotechnology in Boston and ICT in Silicon Valley, to furniture design and
production in Italy. Martin and Sunley (2001) noticed that the success of a region is not
always rightfully brought in relation with clustering of specific sectors and more specific
research on cluster dynamics should give insight in the ‘real’ contribution of clustering to
economic prosperity.
Also seaports have drawn attention as an example of spatial concentration of related
business (Fujita and Mori, 1996). The port of Rotterdam is a clear example of such a
cluster, with numerous service and production firms centered on cargo handling, shipping
and port related production.
The success of the port cluster is for a large part dependent on the governance structure of
the cluster (De Langen, 2004). This structure consists of the port authority, (local)
government, branch organizations and the individual companies. The role of these
individual companies in cluster governance might differ substantially. Some firms invest
heavily in the quality of the cluster while others only scarcely contribute to the collective
investments. The firms that have an important role in cluster governance are termed leader
firms by Albino et. al. (1999) and De Langen (2004). The behavior of the individual firms
19
Part I: Theoretical exploration
is thus important for the competitiveness of seaports. However, there is very limited
research addressing the role of these individual companies in seaport clusters.
2.1
Port studies
Seaports have drawn attention as an object of study for researchers in economics and
management. One of the first studies into the economics of ports is done by Bakx (1929).
In his study he emphasized the role of ports in the development of the national economy.
From that day many scholars followed resulting nowadays in several bodies of literature.
A recent investigation by Pallis et al. (2009) showed a growing number of publications in
port economics and management from several research groups around the world. 395
papers about ports were published in 51 journals between 1997 and 2008, of which 48%
was published in the last third of this period. Notable is the relative isolation of both the
subjects and the research groups. Cooperation between research groups is limited and
researchers often apply their techniques to their ‘home case’.
Table 2-1: Number of papers on port studies 1997-2008
Port Studies 1997-2008
Category
Total Number
of Papers
2007-2008
2002-2006
1997-2001
1. Terminal studies
40
10
22
8
2. Spatial analysis of seaports
40
11
15
14
3. Ports in transport & supply chains
56
22
20
14
4. Port policy & regulation
67
19
24
24
5. Port planning & development
57
10
24
23
6. Port governance
61
15
23
23
7. Port competition & competitiveness
74
22
43
9
Total
395
109
171
115
Source: Pallis et al 2009
For all seven categories the focus is very much on the transport issues. In none of the
categories, the ‘port as an economic system’ is taken as an important starting point for
analysis. This is a striking conclusion in the light of the huge body of literature in regional
economics and economic geography on spatial clustering. While the large seaports in the
world can be characterized as a complex of companies, governments and other
20
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
organizations that interact and are (partly) dependent on each other’s performance, a
regional economic analysis is seldom used. However some shift can be recognized. Pallis
et al. (2009) state that research in ports has gone through a metamorphosis and that
multidisciplinary studies have come somewhat to the foreground, regarding the
methodology used they conclude: “In many cases, tools of strategic management are
deployed to give an extra dimension to port studies (e.g. port clusters, competitive
advantage etc.)” (p. 25).
Port-clusters
The conception of the port as a complex of various companies is still only seen in a limited
number of studies referring to the cluster theory of Porter (1989) and new economic
geography of Krugman (1992). Table 2-2 shows an overview of studies about seaport
clusters.
Table 2-2: Studies in maritime journals7 about (port) clusters (2000-2009)
Content
MEL
MPM
total
‘Cluster’ in text
25
31
56
‘Cluster’ and ‘port’ in text
13
16
31
Port cluster as unit of analysis
1
4
5
The term port cluster has been adopted by some researchers to point out that their study
includes more than just cargo handling.
A good example of cluster analysis in ports is from Haezendonck (2000), who used
Porter’s Diamond to analyze the competitiveness of the Antwerp port cluster. De Langen
(2002) analyzed the maritime cluster in the Netherlands and in a later study focused on the
governance of seaport clusters (De Langen, 2004a). The most comprehensive study on
ports as clusters is in De Langen’s (2004) PhD thesis. He defines the port clusters
primarily based on activities. All activities that are related to or dependent on deep water
access and cargo handling are included in the cluster. The geography of the cluster follows
the spread of the activities. This leads to a very broad and large port cluster.
7
In 1973 the journal ‘Maritime Policy & Management’ started and was the first journal with a
maritime and port focus in applied economics. Today, this journal together with Maritime Economics
and Logistics, is still the leading journal in port studies.
21
Part I: Theoretical exploration
Studies that take port clusters a starting point tend to focus on the governance aspect of
clusters (De Langen, 2004; Brooks and Pallis, 2008) or are a description of a cluster
structure. The role of the individual company is not often addressed. De Langen (2004)
found that leader firms are important in the cluster governance. Although, in a later
publication De Langen (2005) concluded that the lack of leader firms is the main reason
for poor performance of the port cluster around New Orleans, he did not research their role
or the effects of leader firms in port clusters empirically. To this date no further studies
took place into the role of the individual company for the performance of port clusters.
The lack of insight in the role of the individual firm in port studies could be compensated
by other studies about clusters that do include the role of the firm. The question is: ‘are
these cluster and network studies useful in a seaport setting?’.
The widely cited studies by Michael Porter (1990) on clusters identify clusters by starting
with export data, when a country has a relatively large export of a certain product, there
probably is a successful cluster in that country related to that product. Not surprisingly
Porter mainly finds clusters for so-called traded industries (Porter, 2003), industries whit
products one can sell anywhere in the world, like software or automobiles. Geography
dependent clusters, such as seaports, are not represented in these studies.
In the ‘traditional’ clusters, Silicon Valley being the prime example, firms emerge or locate
because of the knowledge availability and possibilities for creating a local knowledge
network. In an infrastructure bound cluster, firms locate because of the geographical
situation; the knowledge availability is only a secondary factor. As De Langen (2004)
showed, the main cluster issues in seaports are collective action regimes in the field of
marketing, port accessibility and the labor market.
Markusen (1996) described different sorts of clusters, based on the business population and
the relations between businesses. The clusters are a collection of smaller firms, hub and
spoke networks, satellites of foreign companies, or state-controlled centers of economic
activities. The port seems to combine elements of all four sorts of clusters, making
research into this cluster particularly challenging.
So we can place ports in the cluster literature, but how can we define the role of individual
companies in port clusters? There are some bodies of literature identifying the economic8
8
Not including the social role, discussions on corporate social responsibility are not included here.
22
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
role of the individual firm in its environment which are explored in the following
paragraphs.
Internationalization, ownership and control
Studies focusing on individual port firms and their interaction with the environment often
deal with internationalization. In seaports and seaport related industries the growing
internationalization and concentration is a reality (Robinson, 2002; Notteboom, 2008).
Stevedoring is in almost all segments internationalizing fast. The container terminal
operations in the major ports around the world are done by international companies and
sometimes conglomerates (Olivier and Slack, 2006). The large companies, such as PSA,
Hutchison Whampoa, Ceres, Dubai ports, are still increasing their world network of
terminals. Also the shipping lines are increasingly building a worldwide network of
terminals, with Maersk as a frontrunner in this division. In other segments, such as liquid
and dry bulk, concentration and internationalization is common as well, large operators
such as Vopak, Noble, and Odfjell control large parts of the liquid bulk flows in ports all
over the world. The dry bulk terminals are often owned by large industrial conglomerates
or sometimes investment companies such as HAL-holding that owns majority shares in
most large bulk terminals in Western Europe.
For any industry the question “who is the owner and where is he located?” is of
importance. For ports this question is even more important. Decisions made by port
companies about investments or service levels have a great impact on the rest of the
economy. Typically port services are instrumental for the rest of the economy; stevedoring
and transport facilitate trade. An efficient port and transport system make both import and
export cheaper and local products more competitive on the world market.
In port businesses the emergence of networked companies with rather small subsidiaries is
likely. A feature of ports is that it is a geographically bound service. This implies that it
cannot be stored or moved, it has to be performed at a certain place at a certain time for a
certain client. A stevedoring company thus quickly reaches the limits of its growth; the
local market is only as large as the regional demand for transport services. Companies that
do want to grow will have to invest in other ports and set up a network of terminals.
The effects of internationalization on regional development is researched for various cases,
however the outcomes are inconclusive. In a research on foreign direct investment (FDI) in
the UK, Girma et al (2001) find that foreign firms have a higher productivity, leading to a
higher GDP, but that there are no intra-industry spillovers associated with FDI. Dimelis
23
Part I: Theoretical exploration
(2002) on the other hand found higher production efficiency in foreign owned firms in
Greece and spillovers from foreign minority holdings. Aitken and Harrison (1999) report
two effects; foreign participation in firms is positively correlated with productivity in the
own company but at the same time reduces the productivity of domestic firms because the
market is ‘over-contested’. The two effects result in a very small positive net effect of
foreign investments. The mixed results from different countries and different industries
call for more research in even more industries and countries. This justifies research into the
local effects of foreign investment in the port of Rotterdam. The internationalization
process and its effects are described for the case of worldwide container terminal operating
companies by Olivier and Slack (2006) and Olivier et al. (2007). The effects on the whole
port cluster of the two trends are not described yet.
The question that is relevant in the current research is whether the internationalization and
concentration of firms is beneficial for seaport-regions? Is there a benefit because
international knowledge comes to the port, or is there a drawback because control of the
companies is no longer local? These questions remain unanswered in the current body of
literature on port economics.
2.2
Exploration of relevant concepts
From the analysis of studies in port economics the conclusion is that the cluster concept is
useful for analyzing the role of companies in ports, but that there is a lack of understanding
regarding the role of leading firms in port clusters. In this paragraph, an exploration of the
leader firm concept is made. The aim is to identify which concepts, theories and research
findings are relevant for the study of leader firms in the setting of a port cluster.
Remarks on the theoretical exploration
The aim of this study is to assess the role of individual firms in enhancing cluster
performance. This automatically leads to a diverse theory base. The cluster concept is
already studied in different schools, ranging from geography to economy. On the role of
the individual firm the research base is even more diverse, the role of firms in industries,
clusters, networks and buyer-supplier relationships is relevant.
Building on such a multiform set of theories has implications for the research. Different
research schools use different assumptions on which they base the theory. Therefore the
aim of this chapter is not to develop an overall theory of the leader firm that incorporates
24
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
all insights of the relevant schools. Rather it is meant to give an overview of concepts that
add to an economist view on the role of firms in clusters.
Exploration of relevant academic fields
The aim is to find which academic fields use the concept of a leading firm. This can be
leading in many ways, but the central theme should be that a firm has some sort of control
or effect -positive and negative- on other firms in its environment.
The first step is to define what being a leader means. Roughly there are two types of
leaders that are common in everyday language; one being the leader that points others in a
certain direction by giving orders, advice or incentives. The second, is the leader of a race
in the sense of doing something first, better or faster. The term leader firm has a
hierarchical connotation, ‘if there is a leader there is also a follower’. In micro economic
studies the hierarchical approach is often used to describe the market behavior of firms. In
this sense the leader firm is the one setting the example in price or market development
which later induces a reaction from the follower firms.
In the search for relevant literature one can expect to find many references to the above
mentioned type of leaders. The second type of leader obviously is of less interest for this
study, because of its solitary character. Only when this type of leader causes others to ‘run
faster’ it’s a leader that is interesting in a regional business setting. Articles are therefore
relevant when they focus on companies that are a leader of the first type. Or when they
focus on companies that are a leader of the second type in a regional or network setting,
thus inducing effects on other companies. The search for relevant articles consists of the
following steps:
1.
Identifying relevant synonyms for ‘leader firm’
2.
Finding articles in which these terms are used
3.
Judging what type of leader is researched
4.
Identifying the environmental setting
5.
Identifying the relevant fields of leadership
The synonyms for firm are company and enterprise. These three words are used as a search
term. Synonyms for leader are more divers, especially in a business context. Off-course
leading firm and lead firm, but there are more terms that are used in a business context.
Synonyms for leader firm can be thought of by starting with the nature of these firms. They
25
Part I: Theoretical exploration
are Central in a network setting and can function as a Focal point for other firms. In a
more regional setting they can be the Core of an industry or a Flagship for that industry.
The search for relevant articles is done by search queries in the full-text databases of peerreviewed articles that are accessible through the Erasmus University Library. Being the
prime library for business literature in the Netherlands, this access point is the most
reliable. The terms are searched within the article title, the abstract and full text (if
possible).
By analyzing the results of step two the articles are judged on their relevance by reading
the abstract. In the abstract some reference has to be made to a regional or network
context. This excludes all articles where the leading company is only used to indicate a
front runner without paying attention to the effects it has on its environment.
From the identification of the environmental setting we can also identify what kind of
literature is relevant for the leader firm concept. It shows in what settings leader firms are
mostly identified. This will broaden the exploration to more academic fields, and give a
change to do an inside-out and an outside-in analysis of the leader firm concept.
A study of the literature in these academic fields leads to more synonyms for central actors
in a regional business setting. Adding these new synonyms to the initial list broadens the
search, eventually leading to a complete list of all concepts that are related to leader firms.
The search for articles is done in 7 databases with the following characteristics:
26
1.
Abi/inform global; online database containing more than 1100 peer reviewed
business and economy journals.
2.
Business source premier; provides full text for more than 7,400 scholarly
business journals, including full text for nearly 1,100 peer-reviewed business
publications.
3.
Emerald; Emerald full text is a collection of over 100 management journals.
4.
Jstor; There are forty-six titles in the Business Collection. The collection
brings together titles in economics and finance. The database contains articles
of 5 years and older
5.
Kluwer online; Database including all 650 peer-reviewed publications of
Kluwer publishers. Including 120 business and economic journals.
6.
Science direct; Database with 1800 journals of Elsevier science, including
more than 200 economic and business journals.
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
7.
Swetswise; Database with Swets & Zeitlinger publications. Including 60 peerreviewed journals on economics.
The tables below show the number of articles found. The first number in every field
indicates the number of articles that combines one of the terms referring to a leading
company and a regional or network setting. The number between brackets shows the
number of hits on the search terms.
Table 2-3: Articles about leading firms
Term
leader firm
leading firm
Lead Firm
focal firm
flagship firm
nodal firm
central firm
hub firm
core company
key firm
# articles
8 (24)
12 (263)
12 (130)
16 (136)
4 (4)
0 (0)
2 (21)
3 (8)
8 (32)
2 (24)
Year
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
older
Total
# articles
3
10
7
6
0
4
5
4
3
2
3
2
18
67
The difference between the two numbers is mostly for two reasons. First, the term is used
arbitrarily, only stating that the researched company is important, or the first to do
something. It does not research the leading role of the company nor does it give a
definition or clear description of a leading company. Almost in all the cases where leading
firm was used this was arbitrarily. Second, the terms accidentally match such as when
‘central’ is the last word of a sentence and ‘firm’ is the first word of the next.
Furthermore, some terms have specific meanings. The term ‘leader firm’ is used in Microeconomic research where the term leader firm is used to describe the first company that
takes action in a game-theoretic setting - also called a Stackelberg leader. The term focal
firm is often used in a context where the focus is on this firm, not because it’s the largest,
first or best, but simply because it is the object of research. The terms ‘central firm’, ‘nodal
firm’ and ‘hub firm’ are solely used in network settings, and are only used by a few
authors. The terms ‘flagship firm’ and ‘core company’ refer to a regional element and are
only used by two authors. The term ‘core firm’ on the other hand is specifically used in
27
Part I: Theoretical exploration
network settings to identify a central and controlling actor in the network. Overall
‘company’ is only limitedly used, in almost all research ‘firm’ is the more common term.
Most articles that do describe a company as leading but do not have a regional or network
context are found using the term ‘leading firm’. In most cases this was a reference to a
large company that was used as a research case. To indicate that the case has some
relevance the researched company is called a leading firm in the industry or a country.
Often there is no evidence to call this firm a leader. When there is evidence of a leading
company it is in most cases the size of the company and in some cases the innovativeness
that is shown by the number of new products that are produced. The most notable
literature that includes the role of the individual firm is the work on Industrial Districts,
Clusters, Networks, Supply Chains and Innovation.
2.3
Industrial districts
The first theories on geographical concentration of economic activities are based on the
work of Marshall (1896). Marshall identified concentration of economic activities based on
three arguments; the availability of a specialized labor force, the possibility of scale
economies in capital and services, and the facilitating of information flows and technology
spill-over. This forms the base of most other research on industrial districts. Nowadays the
industrial district literature develops a focus on the importance of regions for firm
competitiveness and the existence of informal networks that foster trust. In industrial
districts the focus is on central firms that have a number of suppliers located around them.
The role these central firms have is that of a production chain leader (Lazerson and
Lorenzoni, 1999) or ‘helper’ of the suppliers in internationalization (Albino et al, 1999).
Industrial district characteristics
In industrial district literature the district is often seen as a rather tightly interwoven set of
relatively small firms with artisan-like production systems, often with a substantial element
of design and therefore not competing with mass-producing companies (See Prior and
Sable, 1984; Brusco, 1982).
In the search for business models where regional conditions lead to superior company
performance, industrial district scholars identified ‘new industrial spaces’ (Piore and Sable,
1984). These industrial spaces owe their performance to small, smart businesses that can
be innovative due to the regional setting.
28
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
A derived concept is the neo-Marshallian node. Amin and Thrift (1992) introduced this
concept to describe regionally clustered industries by means of the ‘institutional thickness’.
A distinct feature of the neo-marshallian nodes, as opposed to industrial districts, is that
they are explicitly considered to be part of the global economy. They are nodes in global
economic circuits, because they have a unique set of arrangements, conventions and shared
rules. With this view Amin and Thrift try to combine globalization, the influence of
multinational companies and regional success factors.
Markusen (1996) tried to identify industrial districts in the United States and concluded
that no model could describe all the cases. She identified four types of industrial districts:
First, Marshallian industrial districts, which are the combination of many small firms
enjoying the Marshallian benefits of geographical concentration; second, Hub-and-Spoke
districts. These districts are characterized by one or several large companies that are
surrounded by suppliers, leading to a more outward orientated district. The third is the
satellite platform district. Here the business structure is dominated by large, externally
owned companies. The headquarters of these companies are located outside the district,
causing less commitment and interaction in the district. And, finally there is the stateanchored industrial district that is centered on governmental institutes, such as military
bases or in national capitals.
Lazerson and Lorenzoni (1999) also add ideas to the traditional view on industrial districts.
They identify four ‘misconceptions’. First, industrial districts are mostly seen as the result
of endogenous factors that lead to a path-dependent development of the district. The
external influences on a districts development is neglected in most cases while these might
be the most important forces that determine a firm’s success and failure. Second, industrial
districts are often interpreted as a set of small firms that together compete with one or more
larger firms. Instead of this view, Lazerson and Lorenzoni state that most districts benefit
from the presence of a large firm through the transfer of knowledge, subcontracting and
company spin-offs. Third, industrial districts do not consist of a homogenous set of firms.
Rather, most firms have specific structures that are not easily transformed. Fourth, the role
of development agents is widely overestimated. The focus on local municipalities and
other public agencies as the force behind economic development has diminished the
attention for the role of the entrepreneur.
29
Part I: Theoretical exploration
2.4
Clusters
In recent years the cluster concept has gained enormous popularity as a tool for analyzing
the role of location in the economy and for explaining regional economic success. The
cluster concept is often used by scholars, managers and policy makers alike. However, the
concept is not always clearly defined and interpreted in different ways.
The popularity of the cluster concept is for a great part due to the work of Porter. In his
Competitive advantage of nations (1990) he gives a model for analyzing a country’s
economy. With this model he argues that the economic success of a nation can be
measured by the export of the firms in that nation. How successful these companies are
depends on four sets of factors: firm strategy, structure and rivalry; input factor conditions;
demand conditions; and supporting and related industries.
Figure 2-1: Porters diamond
Chance
Firm strategy,
structure and
rivalry
Demand
Conditions
Factor
Conditions
Related and
Supporting
Industries
Government
The productivity of firms is considered dependant on the quality of these four factors.
Because these factors are for the greater part based on interaction, the level of interaction
explains the success of the concerning firms. The rationale behind clustering is that
interaction is enhanced when firms are geographically concentrated, or clustered.
The diamond model of Porter has some clear links with the Industrial District concept and
is based on the external factors that Marshall identified as reasons for firms to concentrate
geographically. The factors that Porter adds are mostly related to interaction in the
business environment other than competitive behavior of companies. By doing this, he
adds insights from other scholars, and takes another viewpoint than in his earlier work on
competition: a shift from a static to a dynamic view on competition.
30
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
Static and dynamic competition
The development of the cluster model by Porter shows a shift from a focus on static to
dynamic competition. In previous work, the main concept was competitive advantage of
the firm. This competitive advantage should be developed, nurtured and protected against
other parties and external influences. In the cluster model, Porter introduces several
concepts that promote a more open way of looking at development. This is in line with the
Schumpeterian view on economics where development is seen as the result of innovative
behavior of firms.
More specific, Porter discusses the benefits of relations with customers, suppliers and
competitors. These relationships lead to new insights and the development of new products
and markets. In all economic cluster literature these elements are discussed and often seen
as the source of success. Mostly, the positive effects of relationships are considered to be
more widely present when the actors involved are geographically concentrated. Table 2-4
shows the most important elements of static and dynamic competition.
Table 2-4: Static and dynamic competition
Static
Dynamic
Customers
Have expensive wishes and
demand low prices
Force innovations and show future
developments
Suppliers
Try to raise profits at the expense
of their costumers
Are a source of new ideas and possible
partners in development
Competitors
Reduce profit and should be
avoided
Are a stimulus for renewal
Types of clusters
Porter defines clusters as ”Geographic concentrations of interconnected companies,
specialized suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated
institutions in particular fields that compete but also cooperate” (porter, 1998, p.197)
This definition does not give a clear answer to questions where the boundaries of the
cluster lie, economically, functionally and geographically. A definition of clusters is given
by several other authors. All have the same basic factors: geographical proximity and
relatedness of firms and other organizations. These definitions lead to the identification of
a variety of clusters, ranging from a cluster in one city, to a cluster comprising a whole
country. What is lacking is some sort of indication of what kind of mass a set of companies
should have to be called a cluster.
31
Part I: Theoretical exploration
In many cases the proposition is that related companies are significantly more concentrated
in a certain region than in higher-order geographical levels. For example: to identify a
cluster in Miami, there should be a greater concentration of a certain activity in that city
than in Florida. To identify a cluster in the Netherlands, there should be a significantly
greater concentration of that activity than average in Europe.
Gordon and McCann (2004) distinguish three cluster models; pure agglomeration
economies model, industrial complex model and the social network model. The
agglomeration economies model is a cluster based on the triad of Marshall’s economic
location factors. In the industrial complex model a cluster is a group of companies that is
located relatively close together for minimizing transaction costs. In this way, clusters are a
geographical expression of regional input-output models. The Social network model views
clusters as the result of personal relations in a strong local network were trust and ‘routine
practice’ are the central forces. According to Gordon and McCann every cluster has a
dominant structure which should be identified before conclusions can be drawn about the
performance of a cluster. There is however, no indication how a cluster should be assessed
and the authors state that most clusters contain elements of all three types.
One of the few studies on the development of clusters is conducted by Pouder and St. John
(1996). They constructed a model that explains the development of firms that are clustered
and firms that are not clustered. They argue that the same mechanism that drives firms
together eventually makes clusters to ‘blind spots’ where the focus of firms is limited to
the cluster itself. Initially clustered firms show a high degree of innovativeness, but over
time these firms get constraint by the ruling views, opinions and routines in the cluster.
Non-clustered firms are expected to be more flexible in adopting to change. The arguments
are very similar to those used by Whitford (2001) in analyzing the ‘over-embededness’
over certain firms in industrial districts.
Cluster analysis
There is a very wide range of approaches in analyzing clusters, all different in the scale
that is used, the number of activities that are included and the economic and geographical
borders. Martin and Sunley (2002) argue that the way most scholars look at clusters is too
limited. They found that most cluster research starts with identifying a cluster and then
analyzing that cluster separate from the relevant business environment. Nevertheless, the
concept is still widely used.
32
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
Martin and Sunley (2002) give three explanations for the success of Porter’s cluster
concept. First they state that Porters focus on competitiveness is more appealing to most of
the audience than the more theoretical focus of other scholars. Second, the aim of Porters
work is to form a bridge between theory and practice, which makes it more usable for
policymakers. Third, the generic character of Porters cluster concept allows it to be used
on almost all economic grouping and specializations.
2.5
Networks
Network is the broad term with which many economist and business scholars describe the
(mainly) commercial relations a firms has. The bottom line in much research on networks
is that companies can be more competitive when they arrange their network well (McEvily
and Zaheer 1999). Combining the resources and expertise of different companies in the
network leads to more renewal and innovation (Haakanson 1993).
The difference between networks and the other two concepts -clusters and industrial
districts- is that there is no geographical component in the network concept. Another
difference is that networks are constructed by a company. Every company can choose
whether it wants to be part of a certain network and if it wants to expand the relationships.
The way a firm fits in its environment and how it manages its partners in the network are
considered important factors for success. (Commandeur, 1994)
Networks are ‘systems’ with relatively tight relationships with often a specific goal
attached to these relationships. Goals such as knowledge exchange, product development
and marketing are common in most networks. Network relations can be vertical (supplier
and customer) as well as horizontally (branch members). In the first situation the aim of
the network partners is often coordination of production. In the second case the common
goal is most likely joint marketing or product development. Besides the interfirm
networks, many other organizations can be part of a network, such as governments, trade
organizations, and knowledge institutions.
According to most economic studies a company chooses consciously to be a member of a
network. Williamson (1975) distinguishes several factors that make a firm decide whether
or not to be part of a network. Williamson states that networks are the intermediate form of
organization between markets and hierarchies. He thereby reduces a network to the result
of a make-or-buy decision by a company. The most essential factor, according to
Wiliamson, is the transaction costs. The higher the transaction costs, the more likely it is
33
Part I: Theoretical exploration
that a firm will ‘make’ instead of ‘buy’. These transaction costs are dependent on the
characteristics of the transaction, mainly the de frequency of the transaction and the
specificity of the assets that are involved.
Network relations
Beije, Groenewegen and Nuys (1993) expand Williams’ analysis. They identify four
factors that describe the firmness of a network, assuming that a firmer network has more
characteristics of a hierarchy and a loose network is more like a market. The factors are:
the nature of the transactions, the direction of coordination, the stability of the relations
and the rules of the network.
The nature of the transaction shows the importance this transaction has for the firms
involved. A transaction related to vital R&D, production or distribution leads to a closer
relationship. As opposed to Williamson where the specificity of the assets is a central
element, here the specificity of the relationship is the discriminating factor.
The direction of coordination determines to what extend power is an issue in the
relationship. When there is a vertical relationship (buyer-supplier) it is likely that there is a
balance of power with resemblance of a hierarchy. In a horizontal relationship, the power
is presumably more evenly balanced.
The stability of the relationships gives a dynamic view on the network. When relationships
in the network change often, there are probably too little structural reasons to maintain the
network. The whole network is more likely to resemble a market like structure.
The rules of the network refer to the formal and informal rules that influence the firmness
of a network. Contracts that have been made in the past can keep relations intact while
there is no economic reason for this relationship anymore. Informal rules, such as loyalty
can make a network firmer than could be expected on basis of the structure.
2.6
National and regional systems of innovation
In the long run innovation is the main driver of economic growth. A country that inhabits
several strong clusters will thus show a stronger economic growth than other countries
(Porter, 1990). This explains the prominent position of innovation as a theme in research
on clusters, regions and industrial districts. A school of research that explicitly combines
innovation with a regional component is the ‘National systems of innovation’ (see:
34
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
Lundvall, 1992; Nelson, 1993; Edquist, 1997, 2005) and ‘Regional systems of innovation’
school (see: Cooke et al., 1998)
Regional systems of innovation are defined by Evangelista et al. (2002, p 174) as: “A
localized network of actors and institutions in the public and private sectors whose
activities and interactions generate, import, modify and diffuse new technologies.”.
Next to individual expenses of companies, especially the cooperation between firms and
knowledge institutes is of importance. RSI’s can be described according to the following
characteristics (Iammarino, 2004; Howells, 1999)
-
Internal organization of companies, to what extend are they aimed at creating and
processing knowledge.
Relation between companies, more divers and more intense relationships bring
more possibilities for innovation.
Role of the public sector, the commitment of the public sector and the degree to
which formal policies and informal conventions between companies converge.
Institutional setting of the financial sector, the availability en accessibility of local
financial means.
R&D intensity and organization, the extent to which R&D is coordinated in the
region.
Regional institutions for coordination and control, the administrative, legal and
fiscal frame of the region.
Structure of the industry, the level of competition, size of companies and
willingness to cooperate are important factors.
Spatial structure, the closeness of buyers, suppliers and the existence of subclusters.
Openness for the international economy, can companies make efficient use of
external resources.
Within RSI’s sometimes central players are recognized that have a frontrunner role in
creating innovations. Based on a study of 5000 firms in the UK Geroski et al. (1997)
conclude that only a few companies are truly innovative, but they also found that these
companies continuously are the innovators. For a period of 40 years there was virtually no
change in the innovation patterns, new products were developed by the same companies
that had a leading position for the whole period. However, the characteristics, linkages and
the reasons for the lasting innovative behavior are not analyzed.
35
Part I: Theoretical exploration
The leader firms in a regional innovation system seem crucial for the quality of the system.
Therefore it can be argued that mainly in the field of innovation, it is of importance to
know who the leader firms are and identify their local links for innovation. In this light it is
somewhat surprising that the body of literature on RSI’s pays relatively little attention to
the role and behavior of these leader firms. Leaving the firms out of the equation leads to a
strong emphasis on the institutional variables, such as financial markets and regional
institutions. Lundvall, as one of the founders of the NSI school of thought, in a later
publication (2007) recognizes that the core of innovation lies with the firms. However, this
notion is not always followed by other researchers and policy makers.
2.7
Inter-firm relations in different settings
Within networks, clusters and industrial districts several inter-firm relations exists. The
common denominator in all three fields is the structured relations between several parties
who are somehow dependent on each other. The differences between the three fields are
mainly in the geographical scale and the nature of the relations, as shown in Table 2-5. The
difference between networks on the one hand and clusters and industrial districts on the
other is the absence of geographical concentration in networks. This makes networks and
cluster complementary concepts. Industrial districts and clusters are more similar; they
both emphasize the geographical concentration of activities. The difference here is more in
the nuances. In most cases clusters are more broadly defined and constructed around an
activity or common technology. Industrial districts are used when there are (very) local
concentrations of firms that are involved in making the same product. In most cases the
relationships within industrial districts are described as ‘closer’ than in cluster. The relation
between the regional concepts of cluster/industrial districts, networks and the more
production related concept of supply chains is shown in Figure 2-2
36
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
Figure 2-2: Relation between clusters, networks and supply chains
=individual firm
Network
Supply chain
Cluster
Region
The borders of a region are defined by governmental jurisdiction, physical structure and
broad economic relations. Clusters are a set of companies, organizations and institutes that
are centered on a specialization –such as the port cluster- in a geographical area. A region
can contain multiple clusters and a cluster can overlap more than one region, but will not
encompass all companies in a region. Supply chains are formed by companies that are part
of one production chain. The companies can be located all over the world and are linked in
a linear way by contracts. Networks are looser forms of organization between companies,
often driven by a common goal such as knowledge development companies team up in a
network. Relations can be formal and informal and span the globe.
The following table summarizes the characteristics of the different setting in terms of the
relations between companies, the physical distance and the organizational distance in each
setting. The organizational distance refers to what extent organizations have the same
goals, nature and preferences.
37
Part I: Theoretical exploration
Table 2-5: Differences in geography and relations between clusters, networks and
industrial districts
Geographical
Size (aprox.)
Population size
Relations
Physical
distance
Organizatio
nal distance
Region
< 100 KM
Large
Mostly
informal or
non-existent
Close
Close – great
distance
Industrial
District
< 50 KM
Small
Mostly chosen
Close
Close
Cluster
< 100 KM
Medium
Formal and
informal, latent
relations
Close
Close medium
distance
Supply
chain
Worldwide
Small
Chosen –
formal
Divers
Close
Network
Worldwide
Small
Chosen- formal
and informal
Divers
Close
2.8
Research outline; the individual firm as missing link
The literature on ports focuses on efficiency studies, the stevedoring function and policy
matters. The port as an economic entity is far less studied. There are some academic fields
where valuable insights for the analysis of the role of individual companies for competitive
advantage of seaport-clusters can be found.
The literature on clusters is focused on exporting industries that are strongly knowledge
driven. Clusters are seldom identified based on physical location factors, such as
infrastructure, but mostly on ‘soft’ factors, such as knowledge. From the cluster literature
the value of proximity and cluster governance issues can be used in the analysis of
seaports.
The industrial districts literature deals with production chains, more than service industries.
The role of the individual firm is recognized in these studies providing some starting points
for an analysis of firms in ports, mainly in the coordination of production and knowledge
development in the local business network.
The network literature analyses knowledge creation in networks, and addresses the role of
the individual firm in this process. The networks are however not localized and often have
a single purpose character such as market entry or product development. From the network
38
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
literature, mainly the business to business relations is a topic to incorporate in the study of
leader firms in seaports.
The literature on regional systems of innovation focuses primarily on the institutional
setting and structure of the industry, and seldom includes the role of a leading company in
the equation. However, from this research field the notion of a geographical component to
innovation is of importance to the present study.
None of the fields, accept the cluster concept, have been used to analyze seaports, and
never has the role of the individual firm in the development of seaport cluster received
attention of scholars. Figure 2-3 shows why the individual firm is a useful angle to analyze
seaport cluster.
Figure 2-3: The missing link in seaport research: the individual firm
Regional setting
Role of
individual
firms for the
competitive
advantage of
seaport-clusters
Cluster
Industrial district
Innovation systems
Networks
Supply chains
Port studies
Competitiveness
Internationalisation
Innovation
Clusters
Individual firm
Lead (er) (ing) firms
Core companies
Flagship firms
Focal firms
Key firms
Research goal and questions
The goals of the research are as follows:
•
Categorization of firms in the Port of Rotterdam regarding leader firm behavior
•
Develop insight in the practices and motives of leader firms
•
Identify important conditions for leader firm behavior in port industries
The research addresses the following research questions:
39
Part I: Theoretical exploration
Theoretical questions
1.
Which theoretical concepts can help to understand the role of individual firms in
developing localized sectors such as seaports and seaport related industries?
2.
In what ways can individual firms help the development of clusters?
The answer to this question is worked out in chapter 3 where the relevant academic
fields are discussed that provide insights into the role of individual companies in their
business context.
Empirical questions
3.
What kind of leading behavior can be expected from port and maritime firms?
4.
What is the contribution of individual firms in the Rotterdam port region to the
economic development of the port cluster?
5.
How developed is the local business and innovation network of the leader firms in
the port of Rotterdam and how are core companies and suppliers connected?
In part II and III of this thesis these empirical questions are answered by selecting and
analyzing leader firms in the Dutch maritime industry and the port of Rotterdam.
Particular attention is paid to innovation and buyer-supplier relations.
Analytical question
6.
What characteristics make a leader firm successful?
7.
What can leader firms, government and the port authority do to improve the
competitive power of the port cluster?
Part IV provides answers to these, more analytical questions. An analysis is made of
the relation between firm characteristics and leader firm behavior as an outcome of
these characteristics.
Relevance
Companies in the Rotterdam Port Cluster can use this knowledge to develop their
relationships and possibly improve efficiency and create opportunities for innovation.
Furthermore, the examples of leader firm initiatives can inspire other companies to develop
a strategy that includes leader firm behavior.
For economists and policy makers the study gives insight in the structure of production and
innovation between leader firms and other companies in the Port of Rotterdam. This will
40
Chapter 2: Analytical approach
enhance the possibilities for tailor made policies aimed at improving the innovativeness of
the cluster.
Methodology
The divers and complex nature of the study -with multiple research subjects, a continuous
changing context, multiple research levels and wide variety of academic conceptsdemands a combination of research methodologies. Every method is discussed in detail in
the relevant chapters. In short, the used methods are shown in Table 2-6.
Table 2-6: Methods used
Research part
Method
Means
sources
Literature review
Systematic
categorization
Journal databases
Academic journals
Leader firm selection
Database analysis
Expert Interviews
/ database
software
Business databases /
national statistics
Ownership structure
Database analysis
Database software
Ownership database
(BvDijk)
Identifying leader firm
behavior
Case study of individual
firms
Manager
interviews
Secondary sources /
newspapers
Analyzing the effect of
leader firm behavior
Qualitative
Comparative Analysis
Manager
interviews / QCA
software
Business databases
/secondary sources
The use of multiple methods in the research ensures the construct- and the internal validity
of the research. The leader firm selection process includes both expert interviews and data
analysis that are based on a theoretical framework and increases the construct validity; it
measures what we want to measure.
The study of the leader firms is carried out with the use of several techniques. The
variables that can be expressed quantitative are collected through databases and the more
qualitative variables are collected by interviews and secondary sources. Testing of the
variables is done with a technique that makes it possible to combine quantitative and
qualitative variables increasing the internal validity of the study.
The limitations of this research are mainly found in the delimitation of the research area, a
specific industry in one country/region and in the methodology used. Both limitations
decrease the generalization of the research results. The findings are in many cases context
41
Part I: Theoretical exploration
dependent, one cannot be sure whether an individual company would act in the same way
in a different cluster. The limited number of leader firms that are present in the port of
Rotterdam, and probably in any cluster, limit the possibilities to make comparisons with
very strong conclusions. Unfortunately there is no way two mitigate these limitations other
than extend the research to a multitude of port and maritime clusters.
42
Chapter 3: Concepts of leading firms
3
Concepts of leading firms
The previously discussed literature on cluster, industrial districts and networks focuses on
the meso level. A group of companies is taken as a starting point and the analysis includes
the effects a company experiences as a result of being part of the group. That body of
literature does not include the question “where do these effects stem from?” It seems that
the assumption is that these effects are just there or at least a logical consequence of
interaction between firms. In the study at hand the focus is on the origins of the clusterand agglomeration effects. Partly, effects may occur naturally when two or more
companies work together or are locate in each other’s vicinity; however the magnitude of
the effects is largely a result of the actions of individual companies. For example, there is a
great difference in effects when companies have policies to keep knowledge and
development in-house compared to companies that try to innovate in joint-ventures or even
broader networks.
This chapter discusses the role of the individual firm in creating externalities with benefits
to other members of the group and has a leading role in the cluster, district or network. In
the following paragraphs the different kinds of leading firms are discussed. Attention is
paid to the academic field in which the concept is used and what sorts of issues are
associated with leader firms.
3.1
Industrial district school
The term leader firm is often used in the literature on industrial districts and is the only
body of literature where the term is used literally. Many scholars use the concept of
Industrial Districts to explain the clustered industries in a country (Markusen 1996, Godon
and McCann 2000). A large part of these studies concern Italy and focus mostly on textile
or furniture industries. In these studies often reference is made to one central firm in the
districts that has a leading role in the development of the district, and is the focal point for
all the small and medium sized suppliers in the district.
Albino et al (1999) use the term leader firm for the central company in an industrial district
and particularly focus on the role the leader firm has in knowledge dispersion. They define
a leader firm as a company that ‘[…] considers local factors as strategic resources in the
global competition and tends to reinforce the local inter-firm relationships, in particular
43
Part I: Theoretical exploration
along the supply chain.’ (p.57) In this perspective, the two most important functions of a
leader firm are management of inter-firm relationships and enhancing the knowledge
transfers in the district to make better use of the local factors and actors. In the discussion
about the sharing of knowledge, Nonaka’s (1991) argument that the level of codification of
knowledge determines how easy knowledge can be shared plays in important role. Albino
continues this reasoning by adding that a leader firm wants to make its knowledge
transferable but does not want its competitors to benefit from this. As a result a leader firm
might reduce the number of suppliers to enhance its control over the knowledge transfers.
Based on the number of possible knowledge transfer channels and the speed of this
transfers three types of leader firms are identified.
The district firm, which is a central firm in a district with many information connections
due to specialization and socialization, which are based on tacit knowledge and thus have a
low transfer speed. The high hierarchy firm, in a district with a high speed of the
knowledge transfer, this firm develops dedicated supplier relationships to limit the number
of knowledge transfer channels. The virtual firm does not limit the transfer channels but
controls, through market mechanisms, a large set of specialized production companies and
is the interface with the final market.
Albino et al. (1999) also stress the importance of a leader firm for the international
development of suppliers and customers in the cluster. Leader firms can be enablers for the
internationalization of other firms in the clusters. On the basis of ‘many cases’, they argue
that ‘leader firm internationalization can be considered the main impulse for district
internationalization’ (p57). The internationalization of leader firms enables other firms in
the cluster to internationalize, because leader firms act as ‘launching customers’ for the
internationalization of their suppliers. The development of small firms is also found to be
dependent on a larger firm with strong co-ordination skills by Kaufmann (1995) and
Lazerson (1999).
Following the notion that several Industrial Districts in Italy are evolving in different ways,
Carbonara (2002a) researched ‘[...] the increasingly important role of large firms with a
leader position within the ID and the development of more structured and formalized interfirm networks’ (p230). Leader firms are defined as firms that have a dominant position in
the competitive scenario, adopt original strategic behavior, and have developed a range of
superior competences. Furthermore they have greater contractual power due to their
economic condition, technology, expertise and trust relationships.
44
Chapter 3: Concepts of leading firms
Carbonara distinguishes between leader firms that focus on internal growth and those who
focus on external growth. Internal growth leads to vertical integration of the firm and
results in more formal relations in the district, based on contracts. Leader firms that are
focused on external growth lead to an expansion of relationships and growing dependence
of suppliers, resulting in a wide network based on trust and accepted authority of the leader
firm. Four cases of industrial districts in the Italian furniture industry illustrate that in both
internal and external growth situations the result is that the leader firm is presuming a more
dominant role in the district. In further studies (Carbonara et al, 2002b) leader firms are
found to develop production activities beyond the national level and give guidelines on
purchasing, manufacturing processes and production planning to other companies in the
district. Finally, the leader firms appear to codify their knowledge, in particular their
technical knowledge, to a great extent for education purposes.
In another case study, Carbonara (2004) tested whether there are different learning
mechanisms in three different types of industrial districts, one of them being a district with
a leader firm, or meta-manager, that coordinates inter-organizational and innovation
processes. Leader firms, in this context are defined as ‘business units with a leader position
in their markets as well as in the cluster in which they are located.’ (p 21). The leader
firms appeared to develop more structured relationships over time with a high degree of
dependency, because the leader firm gains control over resources, activities and flows in its
network of subcontractors. Also they increase the sophistication of knowledge in the
production process -including suppliers- by investing in R&D, the acquisition of
knowledge and participating in international informal networks.
Across all studies Carbonara continues to define a leader firm as a central company with
strong control over other companies in the industrial district, especially the suppliers. The
industrial districts that are analyzed often comprise more than one leader firm.
Consequently the districts are viewed as a collection of supply chains, each of which is
controlled by one leader firm. The limitation of this view is that it excludes the possibility
of suppliers having a central position in a district by being an important player in several
supply chains. This makes the theoretical insights from the studies only partly applicable to
other districts or cluster than the traditional Italian districts that mostly involve craftsmanlike consumer products.
Lazerson and Lorenzoni (1999) use key firms as an analytic method to explain the
formation and evolution of industrial districts. Lazerson and Lorenzoni argue that the
rather static view on industrial districts does not explain why some districts prosper while
45
Part I: Theoretical exploration
others decline. They state that a focal firm in a district is decisive in developing new
technologies, organizational skills and markets. These focal firms are “Firms that occupy
strategically central positions because of the greater number and intensity of relations that
they have with both customers and suppliers” (Lazerson and Lorenzoni, 1999, pp 362).
The most prominent outcome of this position is the role these focal firms play in
innovation. Key firms frequently organize production among groups of smaller firms,
introduce technological innovations and expand existing markets.
Boari (2001) uses the term focal firm to describe the function of a leading firm in industrial
districts. These companies help the district ‘grow and diversify through technological and
managerial spillover effects, the provision of purchase orders, and sometimes through
financial links.’ (Boari 2001, p. 1)
In a longitudinal study on Italian eyewear industry Camuffo (2003) researched the
development of the district. This study demonstrates that locally embedded networks of
small firms no longer represent an organizational structure as stable as in the past. Under
influence of globalization a configuration characterized by the presence of leading firms
and moderate hierarchy developed. The inability among the small businesses to develop
new, common, innovation- and global market strategies led to the emergence of four larger
companies in the district that vertically integrated. The fear of these firms integrating at the
expense of the richness of the district did not prove just. Instead of the development of a
‘fordistic’ business model, the new leading firms set up a more complex business structure
but at the same time maintained “the value system, cultural identity and entrepreneurial
management style.” (p.398)
3.2
Network school
Studies on economic networks contribute to the comprehension of the characteristics of
leader firms. The terms nodal firm, focal firm and hub firm are often used in network
analysis. Here the focal firm is the central firm in an industry network that is the main
object of research. In most research this firm is the ‘leading’ firm in the network. Generally
the term focal firm is used for any research focusing on a particularly firm. In these cases
the focal firm is not considered a ‘leading’ firm. The Hub Firm is discussed by Jarillo
(1988) as in important actor in the development of business networks, mainly because of
its coordination skills.
46
Chapter 3: Concepts of leading firms
Nodal Firm
Kothandaraman and Wilson (2001) point out that all companies belong to some valuecreating network, in which some companies play important roles and have influence in
shaping the networks, while other play only minor roles. These different roles in networks
have been discussed by several other researchers (Doz and Hamel 1998; Jarillo 1988),
referring to the central actor by the terms hub-company and nodal firm. Strikwerda (2000)
uses the term nodal firm to describe the company that has the central role in an alliance for
the cooperative development of products.
Kothandaraman and Wilson (2001) state that firms usually do not think about network
positions, but rather how to compete against similar firms. Their model of ‘value-creating
networks’ emphasizes on how a nodal firm can use its core capabilities and relationships to
enhance customer value. The degree of value creation is influenced by the core capabilities
of the participating firms and the relationships they have. According to the authors, the
level of customer value that is desired determines the participating firms' core capabilities.
These capabilities are valued by the other participants based on the contribution they make
to the customer value.
Furthermore, the creation of customer value is influenced by the nature of the inter firm
relationships. Therefore, any shifts in the relationships affect the value creation capabilities
of the network. The role of the nodal firm is to maintain the quality of the network by
enhancing the relations that are beneficial from a customer’s perspective and constrain the
development of the network when it leads to diminishing customer value.
Hub Firm
Provan (1993) focuses on cooperative network relations and ads to the common
assumptions in the transaction costs economics view on network relations. The level of
embeddedness in an interdependent buyer-supplier network proves to be a strong predictor
of opportunistic behavior. High levels of embeddedness lead to low levels of opportunistic
behavior despite high asset specificity.
Jarillo (1988) uses the concept of strategic networks as a tool to understand cooperative
relationships. He stresses the difference between using the network concept as a way to
describe business transactions, and describing a network as a ‘tool’ that entrepreneurs use
to obtain a competitive advantage. The first mentioned way of using the network concept is
based on Williamsons approach (1975) where networks are seen as an intermediate
organizational mode between hierarchy and market. The second way of using the network
47
Part I: Theoretical exploration
concept is based on what Jarillo calls coordination through adaptation. The transaction
costs that are considered the cause of using a network or hierarchical structure by
Williamson can be influenced by an entrepreneur. In that way, a firm is capable of
enhancing its network, and using it as a competitive tool.
“Essential to this concept of strategic network is that of ‘hub firm’, which is the firm that,
in fact, sets up the network, and takes a pro-active attitude in the care of it.” (Jarillo 1988:
32) The ‘hub firm’ decides which activities of its value chain it will subcontract within the
network. The firm creates a competitive advantage by having lower transaction costs than
its competitors. As a result, the firm can externalize activities that competitors are forced to
internalize because of their high transaction costs. The relationships in a network should be
looked at as valuable because of future, unforeseen, developments. In approaching new
markets or developing new products, the hub firm can use its network relationships. This is
the strategic element in the network concept of Jarillo.
Core Company
Van Tulder et al (2001) provide a definition of core companies. Apart from their size, core
companies are identified by their international position (market access), are focused on the
value chain, and are principal firms in their supply chain and network. They often owe
their position to their core technologies and are both users and producers of these
technologies.
The term core company is often used in business, popular and scientific literature to
identify the leading company in a network. Generally a core company is regarded as the
company that is the largest firm in a certain industry. Core companies are often identified
based on their sheer size. Van Tulder et al (2001) provide a more precise definition of core
companies.
“A core company can be characterized by its large production and technological activities
and its ability to position itself in the core of networks of supply and distribution, thus
playing a leading role in the creation of added value and in restructuring. Core companies
are spiders in an industrial web” (van Tulder, van den Berghe and Muller 2001:p16)
With this definition, the focus is again on the coordinating role a central firm in a network
can play. They to acknowledge the influence this behavior can have on added value for
other companies in the network. The difference with other definitions is that there is more
attention for the ability a firm has to be ‘the spider in the web’.
48
Chapter 3: Concepts of leading firms
Apart from its size, core companies are identified by their international and market
position. A core company should have direct access to all relevant markets and be in
control of its own trademark. Furthermore the company should be relatively independent
from other actors in the supply chain.
The focus of the management is on the value chain, and the company functions as the focal
point for other actors in the value chain. The core technologies and the financial power a
company has are the basis for this independence. Finally, the core company should have a
central position in both buying and supplying new technologies.
3.3
Cluster school
Another body of literature that refers to the role of a central company is the literature on
economic clusters. Building on the cluster idea, some concepts of central firms in these
clusters have developed, such as flagship firms, central firms and key firms, all referring to
the role of a single firm in a geographically defined set of companies and other
organizations.
Flagship firm
Rugman and D’Cruz (2000) identify flagship firms, these are firms that are central in a
local network and function as a flagship for other companies in their network. The main
point is that MNE’s can only compete successfully when they use cooperative
relationships with others in their network.
Rugman and D’Cruz (2000) use a cluster concept that revolves around a central firm.
Based on their empirical research in Canada they identify several clusters of economic
activity. A strategic cluster is defined as a group of firms within a small geographic region,
all of which participate in the same industry or a closely related group of industries. Each
cluster includes a flagship firm that plays a dominant role in exports from the cluster, as
well as a number of other firms that participate in business dealings with the flagship
firms. The main focus of this concept is to analyze how firms can improve their
competitiveness by cooperating with their environment.
Whit this view they are one of the few that take the enterprise as the starting point for a
cluster analysis. A flagship firm is a multinational enterprise at the hub of a business
network. Such multinationals provide the strategic direction to other members of their
cluster and at the same time compete with other multinationals that do the same for ‘their’
49
Part I: Theoretical exploration
cluster. All the firms in the network benefit from such coordination. They function as a
flagship for other companies in their network.
The main point is that MNE’s can only compete successfully when they use cooperative
relationships in the ‘five partner’ model that consist of the flagship firm, key suppliers, key
customers, competitors and ‘non-business infrastructure’. Firms within the network agree
to align and harmonize their competitive strategies for mutual advantages.
Whalley (2004) defines Flagship firms as follows: “Flagship firms are multinational
enterprises that co-ordinate the investment and operational activities of other companies
within their business network.” (p.164) Research on two telecom companies in the EU
showed that there are six issues that are important for the competitiveness of a flagship
firm.
-
The establishment of contracts with suppliers on different organizational levels
-
The role of some national operating companies as a ‘test bed’ of products,
services, software etc. before their introduction elsewhere.
-
The multi-faceted role of global contracts that contribute to enhancing the
competitiveness of the flagship firm through equipment standardization, reducing
costs and quickening the pace of market entry.
-
The asymmetrical nature of the relationship between the flagship firm, its
subsidiaries, and their suppliers.
-
The use of exclusive contracts by the flagship firm in its dealings with its
suppliers.
-
The re-branding of national subsidiaries by the flagship firm to create a common
pan-EU brand.
In these issues the following characteristics are recognizable: the flagship firm has a
central position, is dedicated to improvement and development and has an integrating
function in the supply chain.
Core and Central Firms
Often cited in the cluster literature are Lorenzoni and Badenfuller (1995). They define
leader firms as ‘strategic centers with superior co-ordination skills and the ability to steer
change’ (p147). They distinguish four ways in which a leader firm contributes to the
competitiveness of their partners: through strategic outsourcing, the sharing of knowledge,
by forming a bridge between different networks, and by focusing on competition on a value
50
Chapter 3: Concepts of leading firms
chain or network level rather than on firm level. This attitude contrasts sharply with most
organizations, which according to the authors, view their joint-ventures and subcontractors
as existing beyond the boundaries of their firm. The focus on the value chain or network as
the competing unit is new in the approach of these authors.
When a company views the supply chain or the network as the competing unit, this firm
will also have the incentive to make investments in a broader context. If there is believe
that a strong network or supply chain is eventually the key for good performance then it
makes sense to invest in the network structure or even in individual companies within the
network.
Interesting implication of this view is that companies should not only be concerned with
who their suppliers and buyers are but also with the whole chain of individual suppliers
and buyers. Harland et al (2004) build a conceptual model for the creation and operation of
supply networks. They conclude that nine activities are central in the creation and the
operation of supply networks, ranging from the selection of the partners, activities to
develop value in the network, such as knowledge sharing and the integration of resources,
to the motivating structure in the network.
Anastasios and Karamanos (2003) study the results of the network embeddedness of a firm
in terms of value for the firm. The conclusion from this research is that two processes lead
to value from the network in knowledge-intensive exchanges. The learning bandwagon and
the fad bandwagon. Value from a learning bandwagon process is enabled by the normative
and cognitive proximity of network partners. The embeddedness in a dense network is a
key element for creating value in this process. Value from a fad bandwagon process is
based on the firm’s status in the network, measured by the centrality of the firm’s network
partners. The centrality mainly creates reputation value.
Baum et al (2003) discuss the ‘small world problem’ of companies that are linked together
in small often locally clustered sub-networks, that are only sparsely connected with other
networks. The ties that do exist across cliques are formed in three ways. First, the
formation of links between firms in different cliques by chance. Second, the formation of
links by insurgence of outside firms that want to improve their own network position and
destabilize the existing network. Third, by core firms that partner to control the network
and their own position by maintaining the network status quo. In an empirical study Baum
found all three scenarios to exist, with the first two reasons playing a greater role.
Interesting enough Baum et al. do not analyze the possibility that core firms partner with
outside firms to improve the quality of the network.
51
Part I: Theoretical exploration
Performance of companies in clusters
McNamara (2003) researched the performance of clustered companies. Both the difference
in performance between but also within the cluster was analyzed. Performance differences
within the cluster prove to be larger than across groups. Secondary firms in a cluster
perform better than the core company in a cluster and better than solitaire firms
(companies that are not part of a strategic group). McNamara suggests this is the effect of
secondary firms being able to “effectively balance the benefits of strategic distinctiveness
with institutional pressures for similarity.” To be different and to be the same
simultaneously as Deephouse (1999) stated in his theory of strategic balance. Different
enough to have a competitive advantage, and similar enough to be accepted in the group
and by customers will lead to superior performance.
3.4
Definition of leader firms
There are various fields of research where a central or leading firm is explicitly taken as
the object of research. From the theory on networks, clusters and industrial districts the
concepts shown in Table 3-1 can be identified.
Table 3-1: The leader firm concept and related theories
Concept
Academic field
Related themes
Leader Firm
Industrial districts
Internationalization /
innovation
Flagship Firm
Clusters
Coordination / innovation
Core company
Networks / Globalization
Internationalization
Nodal Firm
Networks
Coordination
Hub firm
Networks
Coordination
Focal firm
Networks / Supply chains
Coordination / technology
There is however a lack of theoretical underpinning of the concept of leading firms. More
often a company is called a leader based on an assumption, or on one specific feature. Only
some exceptions, such as Albino (1999) and Lazerson and Lorenzoni (1995), van Tulder
(1995) and Rugman and D’Cruz (2002) are found. Here attention is paid to the question
‘what makes a firm a leading firm?’. Only the latter two start with this question and try to
establish a view on leader firms separated from the context. The others start from a certain
context (i.e. an industrial district) and try to explain developments in the context by
52
Chapter 3: Concepts of leading firms
analyzing the leader firm. From the body of literature some conclusions can be drawn to
identify the characteristics of a leader firm.
Leader firms are important drivers of the development of clusters. The investments of
leader firms can encourage innovation, enable internationalization of other firms in the
cluster and improve the internal coordination in the network, cluster or industrial district.
In these ways, leader firms contribute to the competitiveness of other firms in the cluster
and, as a consequence, the cluster as a whole. In the current research leader firms are
defined as follows:
“Leader firms are firms in a cluster that have -because of their size, market position,
knowledge and entrepreneurial skills- the ability and incentive to make investments with
positive side-effects for other companies in the cluster.”
Positive side-effects, or externalities, are central in the definition of leader firms.
Externalities are all those effects of (firm) behavior that are not included in a price. In
principle all investments that increase the competitive position of a network have positive
externalities. Apart from these network externalities, cluster externalities (also termed
agglomeration –or localization- economies, see Krugman, 1991) exist. Cluster externalities
differ from network externalities because all firms in the cluster benefit from these
externalities, not just firms included in a relatively closed interfirm network.
3.5
Spillover effects and externalities
The main theme in Cluster and Industrial District literature is the benefit a firm has by
being present in a cluster. Being located in the cluster area and being active in a cluster’s
economic specialization, gives some specific benefits for a company. These benefits are
termed spillover effects, or in general micro-economic theory, externalities. In this
paragraph, spillover effects and externalities are discussed in more detail.
Externalities
Economic activities, whether from an individual or a company, is valued at a certain price.
In microeconomics this price is said to be the results of supply and demand. In every
situation with a given supply and demand for a product or service an equilibrium price
exists. In the First Welfare Theorem all resources are assumed to be efficiently allocated
resulting in pareto efficiency and thus maximizing total welfare.
53
Part I: Theoretical exploration
Externalities are a widely acknowledged economic effect. Externalities are effects that
occur as a result of economic behavior but are not the goal of this behavior. Furthermore,
these effects cannot be incorporated in the price of services or products. Both positive and
negative effects exist. Externalities are defined as (Katz and Rosen, 1998): ‘A direct effect
of the actions of one person or firm on the welfare of another person or firm, in a way that
is not transmitted by market prices.’ From the microeconomic viewpoint an externality
leads to economic inefficiency. It affects welfare of persons or firms but is not expressed in
a price. It thus brings the economy off the equilibrium.
Different viewpoints add to the understanding of externalities. The most straightforward
reason for the existence of externalities is the absence of markets because there is no
ownership of a certain resource. Classic examples are clean air or silence. When there is no
one who can claim ownership of the clean air, it is impossible to charge a price for
polluting this air and no market will emerge. A second reason can be the impossibility to
charge a price. A city with beautiful architecture is more pleasant to live in and it attracts
visitors. However these individuals are not likely to pay for the view at a building. No
willingness to pay leads to a less than optimal supply of a certain good, in this case there is
no reward for the construction of beautiful buildings.
The previous two examples illustrates that the absence of a market leads to more than
optimal use of a good in the case of a negative externality and less than optimal supply of a
good in the case of a positive externality.
Positive externalities
Positive externalities are the difference between marginal social benefit of production and
marginal private benefit of production. Many economic activities can generate positive
externalities, for example training of employees improves labor productivity and can
reduce the costs faced by other firms. Growth of productivity allows more output to be
produced from a fixed amount of resources and thus improves the living standard. In
general, a well-educated labor force can increase efficiency and produce other important
social benefits.
Furthermore, research into new technologies can be disseminated for use by other
producers. These technology spill-over effects reduce the costs of other producers and cost
savings might be passed onto consumers through lower prices
54
Chapter 3: Concepts of leading firms
Positive externalities from technological spillovers
In Figure 3-1 the benefit of a positive externality in the form of a technology spill over is
represented in higher social benefits. The availability of a new technology or product (i.e. a
new machine or software) has lowered the costs of other producers. Therefore, the socially
desired level of output is higher than the output produced by the firm. Social benefit of the
product is higher than the private benefit and output of the product should be encouraged
towards a higher level.
Figure 3-1: Marginal benefits of technological spillovers
Marginal costs of production
Costs and benefits
Marginal social benefit
Marginal private benefit
Private optimum
Social optimum
Output
There are certain actors that can benefit from eliminating the externalities by internalizing
the externality in a price. Negative externalities can be eliminated by charging a price for
the use of the (generally) public good. Positive externalities can be internalized by
rewarding the producer of these positive effects.
Externalities of investments
One particular field of research that focuses on externalities is the school around the
endogenous growth theory. Externalities are viewed as the result of an investment in
physical capital. The endogenous growth theory predicts positive externalities and spillover effects. The main points of the endogenous growth theory are:
The rate of technological progress is not a given
55
Part I: Theoretical exploration
There are potential increasing returns from higher levels of capital investment
Private investment in R&D is the central source of technical progress
Protection of property rights and patents can provide the incentive to engage in
R&D
Investment in educating and training of the workforce are an essential ingredient of
growth
The role of an industry leader in R&D in the endogenous growth model is researched by
Segerstrom and Zolnierek (1999). They discuss why industry leader firms often devote
substantial resources to R&D activities. They find that industry leaders can improve their
products more easily than other firms can, and draw the following conclusion: “When
industry leaders have R&D cost advantages, it is optimal for the government to subsidize
the R&D expenditures of all firms, subsidize the production expenditures of industry
leaders, and tax the profits of new industry leaders. Without government intervention,
market forces generate too much creative destruction.” (p. 745)
Spillovers
Spillovers are mostly associated with knowledge and innovations. A spill over exists when
knowledge and innovations, developed within one company, find their way to another
company without a compensation being paid by the latter. Measuring spillovers means
measuring the surplus benefit a company has from an innovation done by another
company. The character of spillovers makes it by definition a difficult task to measure it.
Not only does it depend on the type of knowledge, but it also depends on how the
knowledge is used. There are however some indications for measuring and categorizing
spillovers. Levin (1988) distinguishes seven ways in which a company can acquire
technological knowledge about a product.
56
1.
Licensing technology; a technology license does not imply a technological spill
over because there is a compensation paid for the use of the knowledge. However,
there still is a benefit for the licensee. He acquires knowledge for a lower price
than developing it by independent R&D, so there is some synergy in the
development of knowledge leading to an external benefit.
2.
Patent disclosures; Patents are meant to prevent others from using knowledge in a
commercial way, and in that way try to prevent knowledge spillovers. However,
several researches prove that the citing of a patent is a strong indication of
Chapter 3: Concepts of leading firms
knowledge spillovers, and that geographical localization of knowledge can be
evidenced by citations. (Keller 2002, Jaffe et al 1993, 1999)
3.
Publications and meetings; Exchange of knowledge between technicians in
publications and during technical meetings lead to acquiring knowledge without a
substantial compensation being paid. In this sense there is a knowledge spill over,
it is however not an unwanted exchange of knowledge. The one publicizing or
presenting on a meeting is in control of the amount of knowledge that is
exchanged. In that sense it’s not a pure spill over but merely a voluntarily
contribution to the knowledge of others.
4.
Informal exchange of knowledge between employees; The informal exchange of
knowledge between employees of different companies is one of the clearest cases
of knowledge spillovers. Especially in settings where companies are located in
each other’s vicinity occasional spill over of knowledge is likely to occur due to a
higher level of interaction.
5.
Hiring employees from an innovative competitor; by hiring employees from an
innovative competitor a company can acquire knowledge that is tacit. By doing
this a company benefits from the investments another company makes in
educating its personnel and indirectly acquires the knowledge that is common in
the company of origin, for example about the way of production.
6.
Reverse engineering of a product; Reverse engineering cannot be considered a
pure spill over because it requires a substantial effort to acquire the knowledge
that is tacit in the product. There are however some indirect effects due to the
accelerated diffusion of the knowledge through the product. The costs of
acquiring the knowledge are lower than in the case of independent R&D. The
difference between the costs levels could be considered as a spill over in the
broad sense.
7.
Independent R&D; Research and development done in-house leads to new
knowledge for a company and can only be the source of spillovers, not an effect
of spillovers.
In conclusion, technological spillovers and externalities are identified as the driving force
behind the clustering of economic activity. However the concept of spillovers is interpreted
in cluster theory more broadly than in neo-classical economic theory. Because the current
study focuses on benefits generated by companies in a cluster, the broader definition of
57
Part I: Theoretical exploration
spillovers is used. Not only the pure spill over of knowledge that occurs unwanted by the
originator but also other non-compensated benefits and synergetic effects are considered
relevant.
58
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader
firm behavior
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
4
Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
In this chapter the leader firm concept is explored through empirical research. The
explorative research took place in the Dutch Maritime Cluster (DMC). The first paragraph
describes how Leader firms are identified in the Dutch maritime cluster. Further, results of
case studies on leader firm behavior are presented. The chapter is finalized by a
categorization of leader firm behavior.
4.1
Identifying leader firms
Identifying leader firms requires the selection of firms that posses characteristics that could
predict leader firm behavior. In this research leader firms are identified in two steps. First,
apply selection criteria for leader firms based on firm characteristics on the population.
Second, closer examination of the list of potential leader firms based on expert opinion and
professional literature. The expert opinion is very context dependent and will differ per
cluster.
In the preceding chapters different academic fields are explored to get a grasp of what
leader firms (and related concepts) are. From this exploration several characteristics of
leader firms can be derived. In the definition of leader firms size, market position,
knowledge and entrepreneurial skills are distinguished as relevant. There is reason to be
aware for over-simplifying regional business structures (Markusen, 1996). Especially the
role of central players can differ in every district. In the empirical research a close
distinction should be made between firm characteristics and actual leader firm behavior.
Size
The size mainly indicates a firm’s ability to make investments with externalities for other
companies. It can also predict the incentives a company has to make these investments.
Size can be measured financially and physically. Financial size is predominantly found in
turnover, and total equity. Physical size is measured in number of employees, and number
of locations.
The financial size should be measured by both turnover and equity because turnover does
give an indication of the economic impact a firm has but it does not exactly describes its
size. Total equity gives an exact figure about the financial size of a company; it does not
show what is done with this size. A trading company for example does have a high
turnover but presumably a low total equity. It is however possible that this trading
61
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
company has a very important role in a district or cluster. Turnover and equity should
therefore be used simultaneously in the selection of leader firms. A high value of one of
these indicators should be sufficient for the selection.
The number of employees is an important measure for leader firm potential. First, because
it shows the size of a company and the ability to invest manpower with possible positive
effects for the environment. Second, because a large number of employees gives a greater
incentive to invest in collective action. A large employer is more likely to invest in
education infrastructure, because it is the one that benefits the most from this investment.
Market position
The market position of a firm is of importance because it determines which (potential)
relations a firm has that can be useful in promoting leader firm effects. Both in cluster and
in industrial district literature the relations of a company are the key element to a leading
position of a firm. A leader firm should therefore have a large number of suppliers and / or
a large number of customers. A leader firm should have a leading position in its market;
otherwise, it will not be the focal point of the suppliers, customers and competitors.
Knowledge
Innovation is one of the most recognized fields in which leader firms play an important
role. Innovation is the result of the knowledge a firm has and the ability to use this
knowledge. Innovation studies often assume the closeness of firms an important factor in
the success of innovation. Porter’s cluster theory for example relies heavily on the
expected knowledge spillovers from related industries, competitors and suppliers in a
cluster. These spillovers have been identified in studies by Krugman (1991) and Romer
(1986). And already in the work of Marshall (1920) knowledge spillovers where assumed
to be geographically bounded. Resulting from these findings is the expectation that in a
cluster with firms that cause knowledge spillovers the overall level of innovation is higher.
Audretsch and Feldman (1996) researched the spatial distribution of innovative activity
and found, for the US situation, that “…after controlling for concentration of production,
innovative activity tends to cluster more in industries where knowledge spillovers play a
decisive role” [pp 631]. These industries are assumed to be the industries with high R&D
expenditures and a large number of high skilled workers. Companies that invest in R&D
and have a high skilled workforce are thus likely to produce more knowledge spillovers
and attract other innovative activities. Following this reasoning, in identifying innovative
62
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
leader firms, R&D expenditure and education level of the company’s workforce should be
a factor.
R&D expenditure gives an indication of the effort a firm makes to develop knowledge but,
because this is an input variable, it does not fully predict the knowledge ‘production’ of a
firm. Therefore it should be combined with an output variable. The number of patents can
be used as a complementary indicator for knowledge. This indicator shows that a firm
possesses unique knowledge that a firm wants to protect.
Firms with big R&D expenditure and a large number of patents are probably more likely to
be leader firms in the field of innovation, but it cannot be a necessary condition in the
selection of leader firms.
Entrepreneurial skills
The entrepreneurial skills of a company are probably the most ‘vague’ and therefore hard
to measure. It refers to the mentality of the general management and its ability to run a
company well and to create positive externalities for their environment.
Most evidence for entrepreneurial skills is anecdotic, but not less relevant. Anecdotic
evidence of leader firm behavior can be retrieved from news sources in some cases, such
as industry magazines. The most important source of anecdotic evidence can be obtained
by interviewing industry-experts. When carefully selected, these experts can provide
valuable insight in the industry and the behavior of the firms. The experts should be very
knowledgeable and have a central position in the industry.
Location
Next to the above-mentioned factors that determine the leader firm, location of the firm is
of importance. Most literature on leader firm behavior is from the academic fields on
clusters and industrial districts, that both have location and proximity as key elements. The
influence a leader firm has is stronger on firms located in the same region, district or
cluster. The location of a firm is important in order to identify where the effects of a leader
firm are present. Clearly, these effects can only be generated if a firm has a decision centre
at a certain location. Only from a decision centre the relations to foster innovation,
internationalization can be managed. For this reason the presence of a production facility
or sales office is not a sufficient condition for leader firm behavior.
63
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Being and behavior
The characteristics discussed above describe leader firms as companies with distinct
features that have a leading position in some way. For the eventual identification of leader
firms it is not only important to take these features into account. Most characteristics show
the potential of being a leader firm. Being a firm with many employees does give the
incentive to invest in education, but a firm can still choose not to make this investment.
Likewise a high turnover or profitability does give a firm the means to be a leading
company but it still has to use its entrepreneurial skills to make its central position
meaningful for the rest of the cluster. Therefore the selection has to incorporate both
factors that show the potential of a company for being a leader firm and the actual behavior
of the firm.
Figure 4-1 represents the total research cycle in identifying leader firms, ultimately
resulting in a better understanding of the characteristics that make a core company into a
leader firm.
Figure 4-1: Research cycle
Detremine
characteristics
ofpotential
leaderfirms
Selectleader
firmsbasedon
characteristics
Whatarethe
characteristics
oftheseleader
firms?
Researchthe
leaderfirms
Someare
indeedleader
firms
64
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
4.2
The DMC as object of study
For the empirical exploration of the leader firm concept the Dutch maritime cluster is
taken. It gives broader results than only analyzing the port of Rotterdam but still is
representative for the port because all maritime industries are also present in the port. It’s
therefore likely that a leader firm effect found in the maritime industry somewhere else is
also present in the port of Rotterdam.
In the Dutch maritime cluster many interrelations between different maritime sectors exist.
A closer examination of the cluster shows that the position of many firms is not restricted
to one supply chain and many vertical, horizontal and lateral relationships exist. The
hypothesis therefore is that there are certain firms that have a leading role in more than one
supply chain. Furthermore, the strong linkages and presence of many central firms make it
likely that spillover effects are created and leader firms are present.
There is relatively much information available on this cluster. The main reason for that is
the existence of ‘Dutch-maritime-network’, a cluster organization that represents the
interests of the maritime industry in the Netherlands. They have commissioned several
studies on the structure and dimensions of the Dutch maritime cluster.
The Dutch maritime cluster
The total added value produced by maritime industry in the European Union is € 70
billion. 10 % of the European value added is generated in the Dutch Maritime Cluster. The
share of maritime activities in the national product in the Netherlands is twice as high as
the European Union average (Policy Research, 2001). This shows the Netherlands is
specialized in maritime activities.
Location of maritime (and related) activities in the Netherlands
In this paragraph the spatial dispersal of activities in the Netherlands is discussed.
Activities that are included are the maritime activities shipbuilding, (inland) shipping,
dredging and off-shore, and the category services to transport which includes stevedoring,
ship agents and expedition9. Figure 4-2 shows that maritime companies in the Netherlands
9
The services to transport category gives some distortion because also non-maritime related
expedition companies are included, this results mainly in an overestimation of activities in the
Amsterdam region, where airport related transport companies are present.
65
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
are spread throughout the country, with high concentration of maritime activities in the
main port areas, Rotterdam and Amsterdam and secondary centers in Groningen, Zeeland
and Drechtsteden. Also some areas in the corridor between Rotterdam and Germany locate
concentrations of companies related to the transport of maritime cargo.
Figure 4-2: Maritime and service-to-transport companies in the Netherlands
Number of companies
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk (2009)
Figure 4-3 shows the division of employment over the Dutch Municipalities. Employment
in the maritime industry appears more concentrated than the absolute number of
companies. Reasons for this are that large firms are more concentrated in the main port
areas than the smaller firms and the more labor intensive activities show a more
concentrated location pattern in the seaports Rotterdam and Amsterdam. The labor intense
nature of logistics shows in the concentration of employment in Southern Netherlands.
66
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
Figure 4-3: Maritime and service-to-transport employment in Dutch municipalities
Number of employees
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk
When we focus on the control over maritime and transport assets the concentration of
companies becomes even more apparent. Controlled assets are calculated based on the total
equity reported in the annual reports of companies. National subsidiaries are included in
the equity of the parent company. The control over maritime and transport assets is clearly
concentrated in Rotterdam and, to a lesser extent, in Amsterdam. Concentrations of
secondary importance are found in Delfzijl (shipping), Papendrecht (dredging and
shipbuilding) Gorinchem (Shipbuilding) and Breda (logistics and off-shore).
67
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Figure 4-4: Maritime and service-to-transport assets in the Netherlands
Total equity €
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk
Next to the absolute number of firms and employment, for a cluster analysis it’s also of
interest to check the specialization rate of different regions. The specialization rate is
expressed in the percentage of firms/ employment in a certain area (defined by postal
codes) that has a maritime nature. In terms of specialization we see a much wider spread
throughout the Netherlands. Areas specialized in maritime activities not only found in the
port areas, but also along the main rivers and in area’s that specialize in water recreation
such as Friesland in the North and Zeeland in the Southwest. Specialization in employment
is more common than specialization in number of firms. This indicates that maritime
(related) companies are relatively large in number of employees.
Comparing absolute numbers with relative specialization, the conclusion is that absolute
number of firms and employment give a better indication of locations of clusters on a
68
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
national level. On the other hand the specialization rate of areas is a good way to determine
the borders of these individual clusters.
Figure 4-5: Specialization in maritime employment (% of total for pcode 3 positions)
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk
69
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Figure 4-6: Specialization in maritime firms (% of total for pcode 3 positions)
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk
70
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
Size and structure of the DMC
The Dutch Maritime Cluster (DMC) is extensively documented by studies commissioned
by the ‘Dutch Maritime Network’. Peeters et al (1999) identify eleven maritime sectors
that make up the Dutch Maritime Cluster. Figure 4-7 shows the sectors that form the DMC.
Figure 4-7: Sectors included in the Dutch Maritime Cluster
Maritime services
Ports
Suppliers
outside
cluster
Shipbuilding
The Dutch
maritime cluster
Other
exploitation
Customers
outside
cluster
Shipping
Cargo vessels
Inland shipping
Dredging
Suppliers
offshore
Yachts
Sea fishery
Navy
Source: Peeters et. al (1999)
Table 4-1 shows the number of firms in the eleven sectors that make up the DMC and
shows the relative importance of these eleven sectors, in terms of value added and
employment.
71
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Table 4-1: Economic size of the 11 sectors in the Dutch Maritime Cluster (2005)
% of
Production Value added
% of DMC DMC
(mio euro) (mio euro)
Employees production VA
% of
DMC
employ.
Shipping
4.137
1.077
6.140
18
11
5
Shipbuilding
2.325
694
10.090
10
7
8
Off-shore
2.765
1.143
18.750
12
11
14
Inland shipping
1.248
704
11.500
6
7
9
Dredging
1.412
587
5.100
6
6
4
Ports
4.106
2.884
27.130
18
29
20
Marine
1.385
713
14.500
6
7
11
Fishery
445
226
5.190
2
2
4
Maritime services
1.121
683
9.550
5
7
7
Yachts
1.705
781
16.040
8
8
12
Maritime suppliers
1.969
548
10.090
9
5
8
22.618
10.040
134.080
100
100
100
Total
Source: based on Peeters (2006)
The port sector is the largest sector in the maritime cluster. 29% of the value added and
20% of the employment is generated in the port industry10. The fishery sector is the
smallest sector in the DMC. Data from Peeters et al. (1999 and 2006) allows an analysis of
the relations between the sectors. Table 4-2 shows –per sector- the percentage of output
supplied to other sectors in the cluster, the percentage of input sourced from other firms in
the cluster and the number of sectors with which commercial relations exist. The rightmost
colon shows the percentage of the turnover that is exported, indicating the international
competitive position of the sectors.
10
In fact, these figures underestimate the economic impact of seaports, since a number of port
activities is not included in the DMC (RMPM, 2001).
72
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
Table 4-2: Economic relations in the DMC
Sector
Output to
DMC, as %
of turnover
Input from DMC Number of
in % of prod
connected
value
sectors11
Export as %
turnover
Maritime services
20%
4%
8
60%
Maritime suppliers
39%
9%
9
51%
Shipbuilding
45%
24%
10
51%
Waterworks (dredging)
11%
30%
8
65%
Ports
8%
5%
9
65%
Shipping
5%
23%
8
93%
Offshore
12%
22%
7
56%
Inland shipping
9%
37%
9
50%
Yacht industry
3%
4%
4
49%
Royal Navy
0%
12%
7
0%
Fishery
1%
24%
3
84%
Average
12%
18%
7
57%
Source: based on Peeters (1999-2006)
Table 4-2 shows the central position of shipbuilding in the DMC. Shipbuilding is directly
related to all ten other sectors of the DMC. 45% of its output is supplied to other firms in
the cluster, and more than 20% of its input is sourced from firms in the cluster. The
relatively small percentage of output supplied to firms in the DMC in the sectors ports,
maritime service, shipping and waterworks shows the international character of these
sectors. The yachting industry and fishery are the sectors that are least embedded in the
cluster. Both have relations with only a few other sectors and supply limited amounts to
other sectors in the cluster.
11
Based on direct financial relations.
73
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Table 4-3 shows some characteristics of the firms in each of the eleven sectors that make
up the Dutch Maritime Cluster.
Table 4-3: Characteristics of sectors of the Dutch Maritime Cluster
Sector
Number Average
of firms annual
turnover in
1,000 €
Average
number of
employees
Average
turnover per
employee in
1,000 €
Maritime services
690
1.687
14
122
Maritime suppliers
750
4.017
18
229
85
29.188
119
246
Waterworks (dredging)
275
5.695
19
307
Ports
600
7.093
45
157
Shipping
380
11.182
16
692
Offshore
340
9.647
55
175
Inland shipping
3.400
404
3
119
Yacht industry
4.250
419
4
111
1
1.385.000
14.500
96
730
611
7
86
Shipbuilding
Royal Navy
Fishery
Source: Calculations based on Peeters 2006, Bureau van Dijk, 2008
The Royal Navy is by far the largest (public) company in the cluster. Other large
companies include Vopak, Boskalis, IHC, Fugro, Smit-Internationale and ECT. Apart from
the Royal Navy, the ship building industry is the sector with the largest average company
size. Both the turnover and number of employees are twice as high as in any other sector.
This stems from the capital-intensive nature of the industry and the relatively large
‘minimum efficient scale’. The shipping industry is a capital-intensive sector: it has the
highest turnover per employee. Inland shipping and the yacht-industry are characterized by
a large number of small firms.
4.3
Identification of leader firms
The identification of leader firms is based on two methods. First, experts were asked to
identify leader firms. Second, firm data was analyzed. Firms that are identified as leader
firms by both methods are ‘classified’ as part of the leader firm set.
74
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
Expert identification
Executives of trade associations that are part of the Dutch Maritime Network, such as the
dredging association and the port association were asked to identify leader firms. These
experts have knowledge about the market-conditions, the member-companies and the
relations between these companies. After explaining the leader firm concept, they were
asked to identify the leader firms in their industry. The ten experts that were interviewed
represent all maritime sectors12.
Firm characteristics
The second method to identify leader firms is on the basis of firm characteristics. There is
no single indicator of the ability and incentive of firms to make investments with positive
externalities. Four characteristics of firms are relevant in this respect. For each of those
characteristics, a criterion is required.
First, firm size, measured by turnover and number of employees is relevant. In general,
larger firms have both more incentives and are more able to make leader firm investments.
Firms with over 200 employees and firms with over € 5 million match this criterion.
Second, the number of foreign subsidiaries is relevant. It indicates the ability to enable the
internationalization of other firms in the cluster. Firms with at least one foreign subsidiary
match this criterion.
Third, the number of patents indicates the role of firms in knowledge networks and their
ability to innovative. Firms with at least one patent registered in the last ten years match
this criterion.
Fourth, The number of association memberships is relevant. This is a proxy for the
involvement of a firm in the governance of the cluster. Firms that are members of at least
two associations match this criterion.
Thus, five criteria are identified. The more criteria a firm matches, the more likely it is this
firm behaves as a leader firm. Table 4-4 shows the number of firms in the DMC that meet
one of these criteria.
12
The eleventh sector, the Royal Navy, comprises only one ‘firm’. Furthermore, given the special
status of this firm, it is not included in this study. The role of the Navy as a leader firm is discussed
in Policy Research Corporation (2003).
75
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Table 4-4: Number of firms that meet a criterion
Criteria
Number of firms
Foreign subsidiaries
92
Patents
27
Employees >200
91
Turnover > € 5M
115
Membership
140
Firms that meet at least two of these criteria are regarded as leader firms on the basis of the
second method (firm characteristics).
Firms are regarded as leader firms when they are identified on the basis of both methods:
firms have to be identified by the experts and on the basis of firm characteristics. The set
of leader firms and the distribution of leader firms across the sectors are shown in Table
4-5.
Table 4-5: The leader firm set
Sector
Firm
characteristics
Expert
identification
Included in
leader firm set
Maritime suppliers
15
9
8
Inland shipping
8
5
5
Shipbuilding
11
5
5
Maritime services
20
3
3
Offshore
9
10
8
Dredging
14
3
3
Shipping
29
6
6
Ports
48
4
4
Yacht industries
2
3
2
Fishery
2
2
2
Royal Navy
1
1
1
Total
159
51
47
Table 4-6 shows the relation between the number of criteria that firms match and the
identification of firms by the experts. The figures show that the firm characteristics are
consistent with the expert identification.
76
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
Table 4-6: Number of firms that meet criteria compared to the expert opinion
Firm characteristics
Number of
firms
Of which: Identified
by experts
5 criteria
7
7
4 criteria
9
9
3 criteria
19
12
2 criteria
124
19
The identification on the basis of expert opinions is more selective: the majority of firms
that match only two criteria are not regarded as leader firms by the experts. This is
plausible: for instance, large firms with over 200 employees and a turnover of over € 5
million are not necessarily leader firms. All firms that match four or five characteristics are
identified by the experts as well. This shows both methods are complementary and
increases the validity of the expert opinion: they did not ‘miss’ a firm whose characteristics
strongly indicate it is a leader firm.
4.4
Results of the case studies; nine forms of leader firm behavior
In this section, the results of 26 case studies of leader firm behavior and the results of a
survey among leader firms are discussed. Case studies of 26 of the 47 identified leader
firms were made, on the basis of desk research and an interview with a senior manager,
mostly the CEO. The case studies were ‘checked’ by these senior managers. The case
studies revealed nine forms of leader firm behavior. Some of these forms of leader firm
behavior were addressed in the survey; some others were identified in the case studies. The
case studies are not discussed in particular, only the general forms of leader firm behavior
found in these cases are presented.
1. Coordination of production networks
A first form of leader firm behavior is the coordination of production networks. Leader
firms invest in the coordination of this network. As a consequence the whole network
becomes more competitive. In most industries examples of network coordination were
found, ranging from building ships ‘in series’ at different shipyards to the formation of
partners in response to specific opportunities.
77
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
2. Role as lead user
By expressing a ‘critical demand’, a more sophisticated demand than that of other firms in
the market, leader firms improve the innovativeness of their suppliers. Several offshore
and dredging companies in the DMC have a leading position in the world market. Their
sophisticated demands motivate local suppliers to innovate. As a result several maritime
suppliers in the cluster have a strong position in international markets, based on their
advanced systems and technologies. The survey showed that 95% of the leader firms is
conscious of this role and actively uses it to stimulate innovations.
3. Creating standards
Leader firms set new standards, for instance of safety and pollution prevention. Other
firms, especially suppliers that are confronted with such standards in an early stage,
benefit. Several cases of new standards were found. For example a more accurate dynamic
position system for ships that was designed by several leader firms in a cooperative setting.
Another example is found in the development of a new shock resistant hull. The hull limits
the risk of spills in case of an accident to a minimum, and is now the standard for new
inland gas and oil tankers.
4. Creating ‘new combinations’
Leader firms have a central role in creating new combinations of previously unrelated
technologies. The combination of such technologies leads to new products. Other firms in
the production network benefit from this product development. The presence of a
heterogeneous set of companies in the DMC often leads to the creation of new
combinations. Examples can be found in offshore construction, were a company
specialized in heavy lifting and a dredging company cooperatively designed a new way to
install offshore windmill parks.
5. Improving the transfer of knowledge
A fast diffusion and transfer of knowledge adds to the competitiveness of a cluster.
Because of the knowledge they possess and their central role in knowledge networks,
leader firms improve the transfer of knowledge in the cluster. Several cases were found of
informal networks were technicians from leader firms shared their knowledge with
colleagues from other companies. Other examples are companies that have such a central
78
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
position in the cluster that their large number of (commercial) contacts automatically leads
to the diffusion of knowledge. These cases are mainly found in the dredging industry.
6 .Encourage and enable internationalization
Leader firms compete on international markets. They can start production in other
countries and urge or encourage firms in the cluster to internationalize in order to supply
them in these countries. Many leader firms lower the barriers to internationalize by letting
suppliers use their international network or by guarantying a long-term contract for
production facilities abroad. One company was found that actively managed their
international sales agent network and encouraged other companies in the cluster to use the
same agents.
7. Creating reputation
Leader firms engage in projects at the frontier of what is possible. Such projects are widely
known in the industry and contribute to the reputation of the cluster as a whole. A clear
case is the raising of the Russian submarine Kursk. For this job new techniques were
developed to make a fast salvage operation possible. The alliance of two Dutch maritime
companies that was responsible for this operation clearly enhanced the reputation of the
Dutch Maritime Cluster.
Another reputation effect that occurs is that leader firms openly advertise their Dutch roots.
An example is found in the yacht building industry were the largest company presents
itself as a Dutch company. Other Dutch yacht builders benefit from this reputation, the
addition ‘Dutch built’ now is a strong marketing argument.
8. Improving the labor market
The quality of the labor market is important for the competitiveness of the cluster. Leader
firms invest to improve the quality of the labor market. Leader firms are often found
among the larger firms in a cluster. Clearly these firms benefit the most from a well-trained
professional labor force. This gives them the incentive to invest in education projects.
Many of the interviewed leader firms invest in public education projects, resulting in
better-educated employees for the leader firm, but for other maritime companies as well.
79
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
9. Organizational infrastructure
Leader firms play a role in creating and maintaining the organizational infrastructure in the
cluster. Such infrastructure is an important condition for effective cluster governance (De
Langen, 2002). The Dutch Maritime Cluster is an example of a strongly organized cluster.
There are associations per industry and a cluster-wide organization in which all industryassociations participate. The interviewed firms indicated that these associations are of
importance to them in order to maintain a ‘broad’ network. They also invest in education
through the cluster organizations.
Not all leader firms demonstrate all forms of leader firm behavior. Table 4-7 shows the
results of the case studies. For reasons of ‘confidentiality’, no company names are given.
Table 4-7: Forms of leader firm behavior in 26 cases
Activity of
leader firm
Dredging
Form of leader firm behavior
1
2
3
4
5
Firm A
Firm B
Inland shipping
Firm C
Firm D
Marine services
Firm E
Marine suppliers
Firm F
Firm G
Firm H
Firm I
Firm J
Firm K
Offshore
Firm L
Firm M
Firm N
Firm O
Firm P
Shipbuilding
Firm Q
Firm R
Firm S
Ports
Firm T
Shipping
Firm U
*
*
80
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6
*
*
*
*
8
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9
*
*
*
7
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
Firm V
Ports and shipping
Firm W
Firm X
Firm Y
Yacht building
Firm Z
Total frequency
*
*
11
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
17
18
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
11
22
*
*
*
*
*
7
8
13
6
Table 4-7 shows that the vast majority of leader firms transfer knowledge to other firms in
the cluster. Furthermore, the majority acts as a lead user and creates new standards. Only a
limited number of leader firms invest in the organizational infrastructure, enable
internationalization of other firms in the cluster and contribute to the reputation of the
DMC.
4.5
Leader firm behavior in the Dutch Maritime Cluster; survey results
The senior managers of the 26 leader firms that participated in this research were asked to
answer a small set of survey questions. 18 of the 26 senior managers filled out the survey.
The networks of the leader firms are the starting point for the analysis of their role in the
cluster and their impact on other firms. In general, the more a leader firm’s networks are
embedded in the DMC, the higher the impact of its investments. We distinguished four
relevant networks: the production network, the innovation network, the internationalization
network and the labor market network13.
In these networks the partners are categorized in six groups: competitors, suppliers,
customers, other companies, knowledge institutions and associations. The importance of
these actors differs between the networks. Figure 4-8 shows the relative importance of
actors in the different networks, according to the leader firms.
13
This network contains the actors that are involved in the recruitment and education of
employees and in promoting the maritime industry as a work-environment.
81
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Figure 4-8: Relative importance of different actors in 1 production, 2 innovation, 3
internationalization and 4 labor market networks
Customers
1
Knowledge inst.
2
Suppliers
Cluster org.
Competitors
Customers
Knowledge inst
Suppliers
Cluster org.
Other companies
Competitors
Other companies
Customers
Customers
3
4
knowledge inst
Suppliers
Cluster org.
Competitors
Other companies
Knowledge inst
Suppliers
Cluster org.
Competitors
Other companies
Customers and suppliers are the most important partners in the production and
internationalization networks. It is to be expected that these are the actors with whom the
most interaction exists. Some remarkable differences can be seen between the networks.
For example the role ‘other companies’ play in the networks. While the forming of new
combinations, for which these companies are important, is a known source of innovations,
the relative importance of these companies is the least in the innovation networks.
Cluster organizations are relatively the least important parties in most networks, except for
the labor market network, where they contribute to education and promotion activities.
Not all these networks have the same geographical setting; some are more internationally
orientated than others. The main difference was found between the production and
innovation network. 50% of the surveyed companies indicate that their international
production networks are equally important or more important than their local production
network. The innovation networks are more locally embedded: 55% of the respondents
82
Chapter 4: Empirical exploration of the leader firm concept
said their innovation network is strongly embedded in the cluster, 40% indicate local
embeddedness is moderate and 5% indicate this network is not embedded in the cluster.
The survey results show that the majority of the leader firms contribute to the innovative
capabilities of other firms in the cluster. Table 4-8 shows how various leader firms
encourage innovation.
Table 4-8: Ways of stimulating innovations
Act as ‘lead user’
17 of the 18 LF’s play this role
Share knowledge and innovation
17 of the 18 LF’s play this role
Involve suppliers in innovation projects in an early
stage
14 of the 18 LF’s play this role
Providing finance for innovation projects
12 of the 18 LF’s play this role
Management of innovation networks
11 of the 18 LF’s play this role
Acting as a lead user and sharing information and knowledge are the two most common
ways to stimulate the innovativeness of other firms. These are the least costly in terms of
money and effort. The least used methods, financing joint innovation projects and
managing these projects, are still used by more than 50% of the leader firms.
Suppliers benefit the most from innovative behavior of the leader firms. For the leader
firms, innovative suppliers are important to maintain a high standard in the products and
production.
The leader firms also encourage internationalization of other firms, again predominantly
suppliers. Table 4-9 shows ways in which leader firms support internationalization of
suppliers.
Table 4-9: Ways to support internationalization
Co-invest in foreign facilities
4 of the 16 LF’s play this role
Offer location on-site
5 of the 16 LF’s play this role
Act as ‘matchmaker’
2 of the 16 LF’s play this role
83
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
4.6
Conclusions
The case studies in the Dutch Maritime cluster lead to an overview of forms of leader firm
behavior relevant for maritime companies in the Netherlands. Summarizing the results of
the literature and explorative research nine forms of leader firm behavior are identified,
that can be categorized in three themes. Most behavior can be termed innovation
enhancing behavior. Two types of behavior are directly related to the production network.
Three types of behavior have effects for the cluster as a whole and are part of the cluster
governance.
Figure 4-9: Forms of leader firm behavior
N=26
Innovation
Production
Governance
Lead user
Creating standards
Creating ‘new combinations’
Improving knowledge transfers
Coordination of production networks
Encourage and enable internationalisation
Improving labour market
Create reputation
Creating organisational infrastructure
17
15
11
22
10
7
7
12
5
Judging from the cases the most important function of leader firm behavior is enhancing
innovation and the most important relation is the buyer-supplier relation. In the following
chapters this function and relation are the leading issues for further analysis of leader firms
in the Rotterdam Port Cluster.
84
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
5
Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
In this chapter the business community in the port of Rotterdam is described and analyzed.
First the definition and the boundaries of the port cluster are discussed. Second, the
ownership structures in the port of Rotterdam are described. Third, the leader firms in the
port of Rotterdam are identified.
5.1
Functional boundaries of the cluster
The functional borders of a cluster are defined by the activities of companies. In policy
documents and some studies on seaports the port cluster is defined rather broad (see De
Langen, 2004). This broad definition includes various manufacturing activities that are
termed port dependent. It leads to four categories of companies:
1.
Pure port companies: companies that can only exist in a port, such as stevedoring
and maritime services.
2.
Port related companies: firms that are related to the core port activities (shipping
and stevedoring) but could also be located on a non-port location.
3.
Port dependent companies: Companies that depend on deep draft water or direct
sea access for their activities. These include companies in off-shore construction
and shipbuilding.
4.
Port using companies: Firms that use the port-area as location because they use a
substantial amount of sea transport for their inputs or exports. These firms include
chemical and steel producers.
Studies on port clusters that include all four categories take the viewpoint of port
management (De Langen, 2004a, 2004b and De Langen & Visser, 2005). The fourth
category is included mainly because these companies are located on land that is leased
from the port authority and they have shared interest with other companies in the port, such
as infrastructure and safety.
In the study at hand the level of analysis is that of interrelations between companies, and
the port management is only of secondary importance. Furthermore, the interrelations
between companies in category 4 and those in other categories are limited, both in
commercial and in knowledge exchange. The choice of the relevant activities is therefore
made differently. In line with the cluster study of De Langen (2004), but excluding the
85
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
(petro)chemical industry, the activities shown in Table 5-1 are considered port (related)
activities.
Table 5-1: Activities included in the cluster delimitation
BIK-Code14
Industry
351
Shipbuilding and repair
6010
Rail transport
603
Transport by pipeline
6110
Sea transport
6120
Inland navigation
602
Road transport
63111
Stevedoring for Sea-vessels
631121
Stevedoring for inland navigation
631211
Storage in tanks
631221
Storage in cold stores
631231
Other storage
6322
Other services to transport over water
634
Forwarders and ship agents
5.2
The Rotterdam Port Complex
The Rotterdam port Cluster consists of all activities that are related to the handling of ships
and cargo. The core is formed by the stevedoring activities; this activity is the geographical
link to all other port related activities. The stevedoring function attracts other functions
related to the cargo, such as logistics and trade. Te presence of stevedoring activities
obviously attracts ships, which makes the port a good location for activities that are related
to ships, such as repair and bunkering15.
The total cluster consists of companies active in stevedoring, transport, logistics,
manufacturing and trade. All stevedoring activities are included, as well as all transport
and logistics companies that are located in the Rotterdam port region. Although some of
14
`BIK codes are the classification codes used by the Dutch Chamber of Commerce
15
Providing ships with fuel
86
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
these companies might not be (completely) port related, based on the enormous size of the
port compared to the city this part is assumed very limited.
Manufacturing companies that are included are those companies that are dependent on
deep water, making a port a logic place to locate, and produce port or maritime related
products, making it likely that the firm is part of (knowledge) networks in the port cluster.
Last, some trading companies are included in the cluster, mainly companies that trade in
goods that are used by the maritime industry.
The selection of companies is made in the ‘Bureau van Dijk Reach database of companies
in the Netherlands’, which includes al chamber of commerce data16. The activities of
companies are registered as main or secondary activities; companies that report a ‘cluster
activity’ as main or secondary activity are included in the research set. Further adjustments
are made by hand by deleting companies that are included falsely (e.g.: a catering company
that operates its own warehouse).
16
This database does not include government services (such as police), but does include government
owned businesses (such as the port authority)
87
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Table 5-2: Activities in the port cluster
Firms
Services to transport
Stevedoring
Employees
214
6.306
1.112
10.430
Other services to transport
348
3.801
Sea
178
3.753
1.316
5.377
11
276
1.087
9.616
3
38
Shipbuilding
171
3.949
Construction
6
213
Production of machines
33
125
Other production
24
106
Trade and Wholesale
204
880
(Advanced) producer services
105
935
4.812
45.805
Agents, forwarders and logistics
Transport on water
Inland
Transport on land
Rail
Road
Pipelines
Production / industry
Grand Total
Source: calculations based on: Bureau van Dijk, Reach database, 2009
5.3
The relevant cluster region
The geographical boundaries of the cluster are based on the size of the port related
industries and specialization of the areas in the proximity of the port. Areas can be defined
by legal borders such as municipalities and by postal codes. To make a judgment about the
best level to define a port cluster both levels are analyzed. In cluster studies, sometimes the
absolute number of firms is used as a measure, sometimes the specialization rate and
sometimes the value of production in a specific industry. In this study for every area that
88
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
includes or borders the primary port activities and the connecting waterways17 the
following variables are calculated:
x
The number of port firms
x
The number of port related employment
x
The specialization in port firms
x
The specialization in port employment
Areas that show a relative high concentration of port activities, both absolute and relative,
are included in the port cluster. The Dutch average is the reference for the level of
specialization.
Table 5-3: Average specialization in maritime and port activities in The Netherlands
Total
employment
7.008.569
Total
firms
1.149.162
Port and
maritime
employment
122.509
Port and
maritime
firms
13.568
Specialization
port
employment
1.75 %
Specialization
port firms
1.18%
The absolute amount of port activities and the specialization rate differ per area. This
implies that a decision has to be taken about the appropriate measure. From an economic
perspective the absolute number of firms is the most important, since cluster benefits are
based on the number of related and supporting firms and are considered independent from
activities in other clusters in the same region. However, the specialization rate is of
importance from a governance and government perspective. An area with a high
concentration of port activities is more likely to have a government that is also ‘port
minded’ because the economy of the municipality is dependent on the ‘well-being’ of the
port cluster. A measure of an area belonging to a cluster should thus include both elements
size and specialization. For the Rotterdam port area this is calculated by multiplying the
specialization rate in port labor with the logarithm of the number of employees18.
17
The delimitation is largely in line with De Langen (2004), although the port area of Moerdijk in
North-Brabant is excluded because it has a different sea-entrance than Rotterdam and is focussed on
chemical industry which is not included in this study.
18
The natural log is taken because the number of employees is a scale with both small and very large
numbers.
89
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Port specialization of Municipalities
The concentration of port companies and employment per municipality is given in Table
5-4.
Table 5-4: Concentration of port activities per municipality
Municipality
Albrandswaard
Port
firms
Port
employment
% port
firms
% port
employment
Cluster
score
168
2248
12.4
30.9
275
Rozenburg
25
413
5.2
18.7
144
Rotterdam
1711
22920
4.0
7.9
99
Zwijndrecht
312
1663
11.5
10.0
97
Werkendam
223
868
10.6
10.8
97
71
810
5.7
9.9
89
201
1513
6.5
8.0
78
30
217
4.6
9.6
74
Spijkenisse
100
1503
3.4
7.4
74
Ouderkerk
59
219
10.7
9.3
72
Alblasserdam
67
554
5.5
7.7
69
Nieuw-Lekkerland
32
134
8.0
9.1
67
Papendrecht
90
856
5.3
7.0
66
Nederlek
57
272
6.2
7.5
62
Hendrik-Ido-Ambacht
103
488
6.5
6.8
60
Barendrecht
153
1221
4.5
6.1
60
49
210
8.0
7.6
60
Hardinxveld-Giessendam
Ridderkerk
Strijen
's-Gravendeel
Sliedrecht
65
651
4.2
5.8
54
139
478
8.1
6.0
54
53
314
4.0
6.0
52
Schiedam
127
1965
2.7
4.6
49
Gorinchem
69
992
2.7
4.9
48
Vlaardingen
78
903
2.1
4.6
46
308
1885
4.1
3.8
41
Brielle
38
203
3.3
4.6
38
Bernisse
31
149
3.9
4.7
38
Cromstrijen
43
197
4.2
4.5
38
Krimpen aan den IJssel
Binnenmaas
Dordrecht
90
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
Hellevoetsluis
78
334
3.8
4.1
37
Korendijk
21
85
3.0
4.4
33
Maassluis
42
223
2.7
3.7
32
Westvoorne
36
116
3.4
3.1
26
Nieuwerkerk a.d. IJssel
53
150
3.6
2.2
19
Capelle aan den IJssel
150
929
3.4
1.6
18
30
122
1.8
1.1
10
4812
45805
5.28
7.18
64
Oud-Beijerland
Total / Average
Source: calculations based on: Bureau van Dijk, Reach database, 2009
Figure 5-1 gives a visualization of port (related) employment in the Rijnmond area. By far
the most employees work in the port areas that are part of the municipality of Rotterdam;
the second place in number of port related employment is Albrandswaard with only 1/10th
of the number of people employed in Rotterdam.
Figure 5-1: Port related employment per municipality
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk(2009)
Figure 5-2 shows the number of port related firms per municipality, which shows a bit
more even spread than the number of employees, indicating that Rotterdam locates the
relatively large port firms.
91
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Figure 5-2: Port related firms per municipality
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk(2009)
Figure 5-3 shows that the specialization in port employment, expressed as the percentage
of total employment, differs from 1% to 30%. Besides the areas that are part of the deep
sea port, the municipalities east of Rotterdam show a relative high concentration of port
related employment. These are municipalities that are located along the rivers running
between hinterland and seaport.
92
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
Figure 5-3: Rijnmond region specialization in port employment (% of total
employment)
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk (2009)
Figure 5-4 shows what part of the total number of firms in each municipality is port
related. The communities with many small firms, often specialized in inland shipping and
transport planning like Zwijndrecht and Werkendam are the most specialised.
Figure 5-4: Rijnmond region specialization in port firms (% of total firms)
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk(2009)
93
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Figure 5-5 shows the combination of absolute number and specialization for each
municipality, giving an indication of both the relevance this municipality has for the port
cluster and the importance of port activities for the economy of the municipality.
Figure 5-5: Municipalities cluster score (% port employment* LN of port
employment)
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk (2009)
Port specialization postal code area
Because the municipalities are not of the same size, comparing them on port specialization
does show how important the port is for the municipality, but does not give a complete
picture of the clusters structure.
On the level of 3 digit postal codes the concentration of port activities is more precise and
shows where the most port oriented locations are. The figures show that the port area of
Rotterdam is, off course, very specialized. The centre of Rotterdam on the other hand
shows a relatively low number of port firms and employment. The most port firms locate
in the Waal-Eemhaven area in Rotterdam, where many stevedores locate Note that
chemical industries are left out of the definition of the port cluster.
94
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
Figure 5-6: Number of port firms per pc3 code
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk (2009)
Measured in port related employment, the port areas in Rotterdam clearly are the centre of
the cluster.
Figure 5-7: Port employment per pc3 code
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk (2009)
95
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
In terms port employment the port areas of Rotterdam and the town Rhoon in
Albrandswaard, where many ship agents and transport companies locate, are the most
specialized areas in the cluster.
Figure 5-8: Specialization in port employment per pc3 code
Percentage port employment
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk (2009)
The specialization rate measured in port firms shows that the areas that contain the smaller
firms in the Waal-Eemhaven and places east from the port are the most specialized.
Figure 5-9: Specialization in port firms per pc3code
Percentage port firms
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk (2009)
96
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
The cluster score, the measure defined to show the cluster relatedness, applied to the 3
digit postal code areas gives the most precise outline of the cluster structure. It shows that
next to the port areas the locations along the main rivers are typical port cluster locations.
The urbanized areas of Rotterdam, Capelle and Dordrecht show little cluster relatedness,
offices that are located in these areas are seldom port related.
Figure 5-10: Cluster relatedness of pc3code areas (% port employment x LN port
employment)
Source: Authors calculations based on database of companies in the Netherlands by BvDijk (2009)
5.4
Owners of port assets
In the discussion about leader firms an important question is ‘who is in control?’. Besides
other qualities one aspect of leader firms, having economic power, is a basic precondition.
The port of Rotterdam consists of many firms, between 3000 and 5000 depending on the
definition of the port cluster. In this paragraph we describe what the most influential
companies in the port of Rotterdam are, based on the controlled assets.
The leader firms in the port of Rotterdam are important players that have an influence on
the development and competitiveness of the port cluster. At the same time, many business
units in the port of Rotterdam are part of an international group of companies. The
behavior of the companies in Rotterdam is thus influenced by international development
and decisions made by international companies. A leader firm in the port today might
change its behavior tomorrow because an investment or disinvestment decision was made
97
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
by a parent company. To have a view on possible development of the leader firms in
Rotterdam we have to know who is making the decisions, and thus ‘who owns the port?’
The ownership of the companies in the port is analyzed by looking at the shareholders of
the companies. These shareholders can be natural persons, investment companies and
banks, and producing companies. Based on these shareholders we can characterize the
firms and might gain understanding about the behavior of the leader firms.
Being in control, we interpret as having a majority share in a company. While this does not
always mean that you have absolute control over the way a company does business, it does
show the possibility to influence the management and gives the possibility to steer the
strategy of the firm, especially concerning investments.
The following companies can be distinguished:
-
Fully owned by private persons, often director-shareholders
-
Owned by investment companies / banks
-
Owned by a national mother company
-
Owned by a foreign mother company
-
Listed at the stock exchange, fragmented shareholders
-
Listed at the stock exchange, dominant shareholder
We expect the shareholder structure to have an impact on the behavior of the firm. Largely
because the shareholder structure determines the level of independency of the executive
management in making decisions about investments and strategy.
From a database of companies in the port, we selected all companies with more than 5
employees, registered with the chamber of Commerce (compulsory for doing business in
the Netherlands). The companies selected are active in transport, stevedoring, or logistics
according to their registered BIK codes of industry19. This results in a list of 874
companies. Total assets of these companies add up to €23.153.757.000. These companies
have 724 external shareholders (not being the management or owner-director).
To judge the influence of the shareholders we multiply the share they have in the company
by the total assets in that company. International activities are completely filtered; the
reported assets include some overseas activities of companies, but only for those
19
Note that this study does not include manufacturing often found in ports, such as chemical industry
and steel production.
98
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
companies that have Rotterdam as their worldwide headquarters. Table 5-5 shows the
direct shareholders in the port. These companies might have shareholders of their own with
a controlling share. These ultimate shareholders are presented in a later table.
Table 5-5: Largest shareholders in the port of Rotterdam
Shareholder
Country
Controlled assets
(X € 1000)
Municipality Rotterdam
NL
2,430,182
A.P. Möller - Maersk A/S
DK
1,736,371
Hal Holding N.V.
NL
815,265
Hutchison Whampoa Limited
HK
779,590
Apl Logistics Ltd
SG
182,894
Aviva Plc
GB
132,717
Odfjell Terminals Asa
NO
130,579
Schenker (Bax) Europe Holding Gmbh
DE
119,472
Nichirei Logistics Group Inc
JP
97,109
Kuehne Und Nagel International Ag
CH
94,242
Stena Line Holding B.V.
NL
89,634
Nile Dutch Holding B.V.
NL
79,438
Damen Holding
NL
79,288
Hoyer Nederland B.V.
NL
77,636
Jp Morgan Chase & Co.
US
58,630
Smit Internationale N.V.
NL
56,770
T.W.E. Beheer B.V.
NL
55,086
Broekman Beheer B.V.
NL
52,152
Atorka Group
IS
48,963
Berg Shipping B.V.
NL
48,902
Thyssenkrupp Ag
DE
48,461
Ing Groep N.V.
NL
48,113
Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
NL
38,773
Peninsular And Oriental Steam Nav. Company
GB
37,303
Bank Of America Corporation
US
37,189
99
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Arklow Shipping Limited
IE
35,793
Lbc
FR
32,324
Schenk-Papendrecht Beheer B.V.
NL
32,265
Cma Cgm Holding B.V.
NL
26,854
Kotug International B.V.
NL
26,524
Neele Groep B.V.
NL
24,141
NYK Holding
JP
23,481
Sealiner Holding Bv
NL
23,402
H.E.S. Beheer N.V.
NL
23,146
Geodis Wilson Holding Ab
SE
22,174
Visbeen Holding B.V.
NL
22,005
Saybolt Holding B.V.
NL
21,631
Rensen Beheer B.V.
NL
21,484
Den Hartogh Holding B.V.
NL
20,033
Van Uden Group B.V.
NL
19,361
Ers Holding B.V.
NL
19,126
Sca Transforest Ab
SE
19,059
Van Der Vlist Transportgroep B.V.
NL
18,923
Agro Delta Groep Van Vennootschappen
NL
18,845
Ebrex Holding B.V.
NL
17,012
Henry Bath & Son Limited
GB
16,888
Samskip Hf
IS
16,557
Touax Sa
FR
16,281
Source: calculations based on Reach database, Bureau van Dijk (2008)
With some distance to the number two, the largest asset owner in the port of Rotterdam is
the municipality, as the largest shareholder in the port authority. Other large shareholders
in the port are the A.P. Möller group and Hutchison Whampoa. These companies are
owners of the largest container terminals in the port. HAL holdings is the largest
investment company with a stake in the port, they are a majority shareholder in Royal
Vopak. Other large investments in port companies are made by Aviva and JP Morgan
Chase. They invest in Smit International and Royal Vopak, both listed at the Amsterdam
100
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
stock exchange. In the rest of the list primarily logistic companies are present that have
subsidiaries in the port of Rotterdam who own warehouses or a fleet of trucks.
Ultimate shareholders
Most large companies are owned by a series of shareholders, who in their turn might be
owned by shareholders with a controlling investment. By following the path of all
controlling shares of 25% or more the ultimate shareholders of the companies in the port
are be found. The following table show shows the most important ultimate shareholders of
the companies in the port of Rotterdam, and in how many companies they have a share.
Table 5-6: Ultimate shareholders in the port of Rotterdam
Ultimate Shareholder
Municipality Rotterdam
Sum of controlled
balance (X € 1000)
Number of
organizations
2,439,028
2
1,736,371
8
1,379,666
343
Hutchison Whampoa Limited
795,500
2
Kuehne Holding Ag
188,484
4
Government Of Singapore
182,894
1
Bundesministerium Der Finanzen
149,140
5
Odfjell Asa
132,904
3
Smit Internationale N.V.
113,540
5
Nichirei Logistics Group Inc
97,109
1
Thyssenkrupp Ag
96,922
2
Cornelder Holding
89,947
9
Brännö Brygga Advokat Ab
89,634
1
Nile Dutch Holding B.V.
79,438
1
Damen Shipyards Group N.V.
79,288
5
Hoyer Nederland B.V.
77,636
1
Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
77,546
4
Dp World
74,606
2
Shiela Mary Tyrrell
70,821
2
A.P. Möller - Mearsk
Unknown
101
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Ólafur Ólafsson
67,030
4
Broekman Beheer B.V.
58,232
9
Vepex Holding Bv
57,880
3
Interbulk Group Plc
49,708
2
Betz, Willi
48,454
2
Challenger Financial Services Group Limited
32,324
1
12,368,811
974
Grand Total
For a large part, the ultimate shareholders are the same as the direct shareholders, for
example Hutchison and City of Rotterdam. Further, the table shows some well known
names in international transport. Like Kuehne, Odfjell and Smit. Interesting parties in the
list of ultimate shareholders are the governments of Singapore, who has a controlling
interest in APL, and the German government that has a controlling interest in five
companies.
The influence of these companies might differ from direct managerial control, as is the
case with A.P. Moller/ Maersk, to indirect influence by investment policies. The latter
group of shareholders might influence what is happening in the port of Rotterdam by
investing or disinvesting in port(related) companies, in this way increasing or decreasing
the capital that is available for the port industry.
The ultimate shareholders are clearly a set of international companies. A further analysis of
these companies leads to information about the home countries of the foreign investors in
the port of Rotterdam. Table 5-7 shows the origin of the ultimate shareholders in the port
of Rotterdam.
Table 5-7: Origin of ultimate shareholders in the port of Rotterdam
Country
Netherlands
Number of
stakes
Assets controlled
485
4,152,997
11
1,744,736
3
1,590,301
19
331,880
Switzerland
7
194,401
Singapore
5
187,145
Denmark
China
Germany
102
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
Japan
9
167,004
Norway
4
136,095
Sweden
4
131,525
13
99,591
United Arab Emirates
2
74,606
Iceland
5
72,014
Ireland
2
70,821
France
4
45,175
Belgium
18
37,983
Australia
1
32,324
Lebanon
2
27,436
Netherlands Antilles
4
16,864
Italy
4
14,140
South Africa
2
11,477
Finland
2
10,316
Israel
1
9,849
Virgin Islands, British
2
9,821
Kuwait
1
6,305
Cayman Islands
1
5,550
Liechtenstein
2
5,306
Malaysia
1
3,242
Korea, Republic of
1
1,437
United States
1
1,067
Luxembourg
4
24
Bermuda
1
0
United Kingdom
Unknown or family owned
Grand Total
1,379,755
974
12,368,811
103
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Still, by far the most assets are controlled by companies of Dutch origin. However a
substantial part of the Rotterdam port is under direct or indirect control of firms or
governments from other countries, primarily other European countries and the large Asian
economies. There is a notable absence of American shareholders in the port.
The list of shareholders and controlling firms is merely a list of Core Companies, firms
that have a central position in or for the port. It does not show whether these core
companies are also Leader Firms. For a judgment about leader firm behavior, more
information about the characteristics of the companies is needed.
5.5
Selecting leader firms
In this paragraph the core companies in the port of Rotterdam are selected of which one
could expect that they show leader firm behavior. This expectation is based on the
theoretical characteristics of leader firms that were identified in chapter 4.1.
The activities that take place in the port of Rotterdam vary from stevedoring to
manufacturing. In this study we include those activities that are water and transport related.
In previous research (Nijdam & De Langen, 2006) it was found that the companies in nonmaritime manufacturing, such as chemical production and oil refinery, are poorly
connected with the other port related companies when it comes to innovation and sharing
knowledge. Since the main characteristic of leader firms is the creation of external effects,
and in relations with suppliers the external effect is often knowledge spillover, we expect
the leading chemical companies not to have a leader firm impact on the port and maritime
business. The selection of leader firms follows the steps in Figure 5-11.
104
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
Figure 5-11: Selection process of core companies and leader firms
Employees
<100
>100
Turnover
> 10 M
Equity
> 50 M
No
Yes
Other
reason
Core companies
Yes
No
No Leader Firm
>1 expert
Yes
No
Patents
No
R&D invest.
HQ Rotterdam
Leader firm
Yes
Applying this selection to the 4812 organizations20 that are registered with the chamber of
commerce as located in the Rijnmond area and involved in port related activities leads to
the results in Table 5-8.
20
This also includes local subsidiaries and separate locations of the same company. The number of
organisations is therefore overstating the actual number of companies.
105
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
Table 5-8: Number of firms that meet the core company criteria
Criteria
# Companies
>100 employees
103
>10M turnover
130
>50M equity
>10M turnover OR >50M equity
73
152
>10M turnover * > 50 M equity * >100 employees
38
>10Mturnover * >100 employees OR >50M equity * >100 Employees
73
The number of ‘core companies’ in the Port of Rotterdam is 73. These are companies that
have more than 100 employees and have a total equity of more than 50 million euro or a
net turnover of more than 10 million euro. There are only 38 companies that meet the three
criteria simultaneously.
To finalize the leader firm selection, experts21 were interviewed about what they think are
the companies that act as leader firms in the port. By these experts 27 companies were
identified as leader firms in the port of Rotterdam. A company is included in the list when
two or more experts considered the company a leader firm. The table below shows the 27
companies that are potentially leader firms in the Port of Rotterdam. The shaded lines in
the table represent the companies that participated in the research. Companies marked with
* are included partly in the research, because they did not cooperate in full case studies but
did provide enough information to be included (partly) in further analysis.
21
Experts include four directors of cluster organisations, 2 ceo’s of large port firms, 2 managers of
the Port Authority, 1 specialised port consultant
106
Chapter 5: Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
Table 5-9: Identified leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
Name of company
Name of company
APM Terminals Rotterdam BV
Interforest
Argos Groep B.V.
Jo Tankers BV
Bakker Sliedrecht Electro Industrie
B.V.
Keppel Verolme
Boskalis*
Koninklijke Vopak N.V.
Broekman Group
Kühne & Nagel N.V.
EECV
Mammoet Nederland B.V.
Europe Container terminals*
Maersk lines
Europees Massagoed Overslagbedrijf
(EMO) B.V.
Odfjell Terminals (Rotterdam) B.V.
Gevelco
Samskip
Havenbedrijf Rotterdam
Schenker International B.V.
Hoyer Nederland B.V.
Seabrex Rotterdam B.V.
Huisman Itrec
Smit Internationale N.V.
IHC Merwede
Van Oord*
Imtech*
5.6
Characteristics of the leader firms
The table below shows the characteristics of the analyzed leader firms. These fifteen firms
vary in size and business model. The smallest leader firm has 250 employees, the largest
employs 2200 people in the Rijnmond area. The local connections of the firms also differ;
one company buys 95% of all its input in the Rijnmond region while other companies only
scarcely buy in this region. On average leader firms buy 45% of their input from local
suppliers. The clients of the leader firms are generally of a more international nature, on
average only 17% of the turnover is production for clients located in Rijnmond22.
22
Note that service delivered in Rijnmond to an international company (e.g. a shipping line) is
considered export in economic statistics.
107
Part II: Identifying leader firms and leader firm behavior
The number of suppliers that is located in Rijnmond and is important for the production
process of the leader firm ranges from nil to eight. The percentage of the input that these
important, local suppliers provide is average 31% but ranges from zero to 80%. Average
owners’ equity of the leader firms is almost 68 million euro. The minimum owners’ equity
is 82 thousand euro, for a company that is financially fully under control of the
shareholders. The turnover of the companies ranges from 70 million to 700 million euro’s.
The profit resulting from this turnover is on average 9%.
Number of cases
2006 Valid
Missing Mean
Min
Max
Employees
15
0
799
250
2200
Export_percentage
12
3
58
10
100
Purchasing_quote
12
3
0,53
0,2
0,96
% Supplies_from_region
15
0
45
2
95
Number_suppliers_rijnmond
15
0
3
0
8
%_input_from _prime_suppliers_rijnmond
14
1
31
0
80
Number_prime_suppliers_dependent
15
0
0,3
0
2
%_turnover_Rijnmond
15
0
17
0
65
Owners_equity (X1000 €)
13
2
67.664
Total_equity (X1000 €)
13
2 241.931 25.670 795.500
Net_turnover
14
1 291.461 70.301 704.896
Profitmargin
15
0
108
9
82 288.638
-0,17
19,05
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation;
theory and cases in Rotterdam
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
6
Buyers, suppliers and innovation
In the previous chapters the different leader firm effects are described. These effects are
often related to innovation and involve a buyer supplier relationship. Especially the
relation between a leader firm and a supplier in product development shows leader firm
effects. This chapter discusses theory and examples of buyer-supplier relations and
innovation. In chapter 7 and 8 the relation is explored further by in depth research on the
relations between leader firms and their suppliers in the Rotterdam port complex.
6.1
Relations with suppliers
When deciding how to deal with supplies companies have several options. First of all the
buyer should decide whether or not he needs a supplier at all. Maybe it is possible or even
better, to produce the product or service in-house.
Aspects of purchasing management
Within a company, the managing of the purchasing process has an influence on different
aspects of the company. First, purchasing must make sure that the supplies are acquired for
the lowest price. In doing so it contributes to the profit margin of the company.
Second, the purchasing should structure the dependencies of a company. In a situation
where there is a common product that is only needed occasionally, buying is the best
option. Things change however when the product becomes more specific for a company or
the frequency of the demand rises. In these cases, making the product yourself might be a
better option. Making instead of buying avoids transaction costs and prevents being overdependent on one supplier that might abuse this dependency (Williamson, 1975). Within
the purchasing function, having an overview of the dependencies and managing this is an
important task.
Third, purchasing management involves selecting suppliers not only on their capability to
deliver products or services, but might also include managing the supplier base with
product- or market development in mind. So, the purchasing function in a company also
has a long term responsibility.
Transaction costs economics
Buying from suppliers means that there is a transaction between two companies. Each
transaction brings costs with it, for example when searching for the right supplier and
111
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
negotiating contracts. Wiliamson (1975) started from this notion in developing the
transaction costs economics to explain behavior in interfirm relationships.
The higher the transaction costs, the more likely it is that a firm will ‘make’ instead of
‘buy’. These transaction costs are dependent on the characteristics of the transaction;
mainly on the frequency of the transaction and the specificity of the assets that are
involved.
The frequency of the transaction determines the total costs because transactions that take
place often can be incorporated in one agreement. The costs per transaction stay low
because there is no need to find a supplier for every transaction and no costs are made for
negotiations.
High asset specificity means that there are no alternative uses for the assets that are
involved in the transaction. As a result the buyer and seller are strongly connected. The
investments are made specifically for a (series of) transactions between two parties. When
the relation is terminated the investments are immediately depreciated. For a supplier who
makes such investments, this can lead to high dependence and the possibility of
opportunistic behavior of the buyer (Nooteboom, 1990). The buyer can threat the supplier
to end the relationship, and thereby making the investment worthless. Figure 6-1 shows
how frequency and specificity lead to network relationships.
Figure 6-1: Factors determining market networks and hierarchies
High
Frequency
Hierarchy
Low
Network relation
Market
Low
112
Asset specificity
High
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
In the case of low frequency and low specificity it is likely that all transactions are market
transactions. There are no specific investments necessary, the product is widely available.
A low frequency means that there is no need to establish a relationship.
With medium asset specificity, forming of network relations is more likely because there is
a need for some control over the assets. If at the same time the frequency grows, the
forming of network relations is likely from a cost perspective.
In the case of high asset specificity, the risks associated with the transaction can reach
unacceptable levels for both the supplier and the buyer. In this case it is likely that a
company will choose to make the product or service in-house, and place the activity in the
company hierarchy.
Power and leverage in buyer supplier relations
Specific interest is paid by Williamson (1985) to the power balance in the buyer supplier
relationship. Whenever there is a network relation or a collaborative setup of the buyersupplier relationship there is a chance of abuse of this relationship. Collaboration can
confront buyers with the problem of a supplier that is behaving opportunistic, while the
buyer is suffering from bounded rationality. This may lead to a shift in the power balance.
From a relation that is first buyer controlled towards a relationship where the supplier
creates unforeseen switching costs that limit the options for the buyer. Opportunistic
behavior is then likely to occur, because the buyer becomes depended on one supplier.
From the work of Williamson it follows that long term collaborative relationships between
buyer and supplier are not always the ideal situation.
Portfolio approach
The dependency on the supplier is an important issue for the next decision, ‘how should
the buyer supplier relation be formed?’ Many have tried to categorize the types of
relationships with a portfolio approach, building on the initial portfolio selection method of
Markowitz (1952). The Purchasing Portfolio Management approach was first developed by
Kraljic (1983). This approach builds strategies for buying firms in their dealing with
suppliers. Given a certain type of market and the value the product or service has to the
buyer, there is an optimal strategy for the buying firm. The four basic strategies are given
in the figure below.
113
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Figure 6-2: Purchasing portfolio management strategies
Critical
High
Strategic
Few suppliers
Low value
Contingency planning
Few suppliers
High value
Relationship management
Supply market difficulty
Acquisition
Low
Many suppliers
Low value
Reduce transaction costs
Leverage
Many suppliers
High value
Contested markets
Low
High
Value to the buyer
Source: Cox et al (2004), based on Kraljic (1983)
The critical strategy should be applied in cases with products that have a low value for the
buyer but are relatively difficult to obtain on the market. This means, primarily risk
management is needed to avoid discontinuity in future supply. In the strategic box a
company should focus on building relationships with the suppliers and possibly collaborate
with them. On easy markets where a company buys supplies of low value, the acquisition
quadrant, the focus should be on costs and operational improvement. In the leverage
quadrant a company will regularly test suppliers and monitor the market closely.
Assuming that there are only four strategies towards suppliers does not do just to the
complex matter, neither is it very probable that market complexity and value to the buyer
are the only variables involved in deciding what strategy to follow. Moreover, judging
what is ‘high’ and what is ‘low’ is not an objective procedure. Using the portfolio
approach might lead to different outcomes, depending on which manager is making the
judgment.
Another shortcoming of the portfolio approach for analyzing buyer supplier relationships is
the focus on the buyer; the supplier side is mostly disregarded (Kamann, 2000). Also the
portfolio approach is a static model; it assumes that suppliers have a certain position and
that the buyer has a choice how to deal with the power and uncertainty related to that
position. The portfolio approach does not take into account the possibility to use market
114
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
power to develop suppliers or to put effort in creating a more balanced power distribution
in supply chains.
Nevertheless it can be a good starting point for an analysis of supplier strategy. Gelderman
and Van Weele (2005, 2003) recently added to the discussion by analyzing the way
practitioners use portfolio models. It appears that companies that use these models also
poses what they call ‘purchasing professionalism’ and have the purchasing function
positioned in a central position within the company, directly reporting to top management.
The professionalism of the function has the strongest correlation with the use of portfolio
models. In other words, when a company takes purchasing serious, it is often using
portfolio models to base decisions on.
6.2
Suppliers and development
The development of suppliers and cooperation between buyers and suppliers in de
developing new products, improving processes and developing markets is widely
researched. This paragraph discusses the different research approaches and findings,
resulting in an overview of the most interesting topics to research in the port of Rotterdam.
Claims that are made about the benefits of involving suppliers in production or new
product design are amongst others: access complementary skills, economics of scale in
joint research, access to new technologies and access to new markets.
Particularly the role suppliers can have in product development by early involvement of
suppliers in the development process is researched. Many find a positive relation between
early development and the speed or quality of the developing process.
Clark (1989) found benefits from the suppliers’ know-how and a reduced development
time. Ragatz et al. (1997) identified benefits regarding costs, quality and a reduced
development time. The results of their study show that shared education and training,
formal trust development processes, formal risk and reward sharing agreements,
agreements on performance measurement and the commitment of top management from
both organizations are essential factors in succeeding. These factors depend strongly on the
sharing of assets and information.
Also in the design of new products the involvement of suppliers can be beneficial. The
manufacturability of the product proves to be higher when suppliers are involved in an
early stage (Wasti and Liker, 1997). By involving the supplier in the design of a new
product, there is more knowledge about compatibility incorporated in the development
115
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
team and possible production conflicts can be recognized and resolved already in the
design process.
The statements made above are intuitively appealing, in general it shows that more hands
make light work and combining knowledge leads to better products and faster
development. In most cases this proves to be true; however there are cases where joint
development is not the best strategy. Involving suppliers in development does ask for
effort of the buying company to embed the suppliers’ knowledge and know-how in the
process. It is imaginable that the costs of managing the process with suppliers outweighs
the benefits the suppliers can bring in the development. In markets with rapid and
uncertain technological development, this seems to be the case (Eizenhardt and Tabrizi,
1995). Furthermore, Hartley et al. (1997) conclude that adopting the techniques suggested
in the literature will not necessarily reduce development time and lead to technical success
in the project. Most development outcomes are very context dependent and are influenced
by management and employees.
The apparent conclusion from the existing body of literature is that most authors assume
and find a positive relation between collaboration and performance in product
development, but there are also studies that show negative effects of collaboration.
Apparently there are other factors that influence the success rate of joint product
development. These factors might be found in the setup of the cooperation, the type of
product that is developed, market conditions and the quality of the people involved.
Stimulating
The common denominator in most research is that one company stimulates another
company to deliver better products or services. Stimulation can be as easy as expressing
the expectations a buyer has. Leenders and Blankhorn (1988) found that suppliers are often
as good as they need to be, but not better and a buyer gets what he asks for, but not more.
This observation gives reason to suspect that in most buyer-supplier relationships there is
room for improvement and that this improvement can be realized by just stating the
possibilities from the supplier side or by expressing higher expectations from the buyer
side.
Proximity
Theoretical developments in economic geography, regional economics, organizational
studies and business economics over the past decades have emphasized that proximity is an
116
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
important factor in firm performance. The proximity of customers and suppliers are
claimed to provide for several agglomeration or cluster effects. Empirical test show that in
several cases these claims hold. Oerlemans and Meeus (2005) provide evidence on the
importance of proximity for innovation. Both spatial and organizational proximity prove to
be positively related to innovation outcomes and firm performance.
Knowledge spillovers
Innovation is claimed to be the prime effect of clustering (Porter 1989, Krugman 1995).
Innovation that is linked with the geographical closeness of companies is often associated
with knowledge spillovers, also called Marshallian externalities. These externalities do not
always appear to be pure unintended sharing of knowledge. Oerlemans and Meeus (2005)
state that often there are economic transactions involved, many spillovers are organized
knowledge flows between knowledge institutes and firms or between firms and most
knowledge flows do not enhance innovation but increase the competences of a company
which might, but will not always lead to innovation. They therefore distinguish between
sectoral and regional spillovers on the one hand and intentional knowledge flows on the
other hand, that are organized or accompanied with an economic transaction.
Competition and cooperation
Deephouse (1999) shows that a firm has to be different and similar to its competitors at the
same time. To gain a competitive advantage a company has to differentiate from its
competitors, resulting in less competition because clients will perceive the product or
service as unique. However, by being too different a company faces problems with
acceptance in the market, the legitimacy of the company is questioned by consumers,
suppliers and competitors. Empirical results show that balancing between differentiation
and legitimacy improves firm performance.
Especially in a cluster context, the legitimacy argument is of relevance. Being part of a
cluster can have benefits through agglomeration effects like knowledge spillovers. These
spillovers, especially those associated with buyer supplier relations might be maximized
when legitimacy of a firm is high. By being similar in innovation strategy to competitors
and suppliers in the cluster makes it easier to exchange knowledge and to use knowledge
from others.
117
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Strategies
Companies can develop specific strategies to deal with their suppliers and possibly
improve performance of these suppliers and the own operations. A concept that has
developed over the last decade is that of ‘supplier development’ (SD). Watts and Hahn
(1993) state that supplier development is a long term, cooperative effort with the aim to
improve the capacity of suppliers in the field of technology, quality, delivery and cost
management.
To realize improvement, particularly when aimed at multiple issues at the same time calls
for a deliberate strategy towards suppliers. Krause et al. (2000) distinguish four supplier
development strategies:
1.
Competitive pressure: The buying party uses market power to reward the best
suppliers. The best suppliers receive the most business.
2.
Evaluation and certification systems: By evaluating suppliers on a regular base
and give them feedback on the results the suppliers keep a closer watch on their
own performance and quality.
3.
Incentives: by providing financial incentives suppliers can be stimulated to show
certain behavior or to invest in development. Incentives can include bonuses and
shares in costs reducing improvements.
4.
Direct involvement: Companies can invest directly in their supplier’s
organization, through assets or shares. Also, making people or organizational
capacity available for suppliers can be way to help suppliers develop.
The four strategies aim at the same goal, receiving better products and services from
suppliers. There is a huge difference between the strategies, mainly concerning the type of
relation that is needed between a company and its suppliers. Using competitive pressure
and incentives means that suppliers can be held at arm’s length, while direct involvement
asks for a much closer relationship and the presence of trust.
It should be noted that these strategies are not mutually exclusive. A company that uses
monitoring and feedback might use this information to put competitive pressure on its
suppliers by comparing the performance between suppliers. Also, an incentive structure
can provide competitive pressure when more than one supplier can benefit from the
incentives they might compete for it by trying to meet the demands of the buying
company.
118
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
In a study of 500 production and service firms in the USA, Krause and Scannell (2002)
found that continues market testing, the basic form of competitive pressure, is not often
combined with other, more involved, forms of supplier development efforts.
The type of relationship determines partly how much time and effort a company should
invest in the supplier strategy. An incentive structure can be put in place in a standardized
way, but could also be custom build for every supplier or for every project. The same is
true for monitoring, while direct involvement always asks for a reasonable investment of
time and effort by the buying firm.
Research by Modi and Mabert (2007) shows the importance of communication in supplier
development. In every strategy the form and frequency of communication is a determining
factor for the success of the strategy. Furthermore they pose that evaluation and
accreditation is a necessary condition for successful knowledge transfer between buyer and
supplier. The selection of suppliers before involving them in development programs is an
important step and evaluation should be part of any strategy for supplier development.
Product vs. service based firms
Differentiating between firms that produce services and those that build products is
relevant in evaluating the strategy towards suppliers. Service providing firms use their
supplies in their own production process, while product base firms integrate al large part of
their supplies into their own product. Intuitively one would expect product base firm to be
more closely involved with their key suppliers since these provide part of their end
product. However, some service firms might be very dependent on supplier of specialized
equipment.
Krause and Scannell (2002) researched the difference in supplier development strategy
between product and service based firms. They find mostly the differences one might
expect. Service firms are less dependent on their suppliers and rate the level of importance
of strategic goals for supplier development lower than product firms. Service firms use
more competitive pressure and less monitoring, incentives and direct involvement
strategies. Both types of companies seem satisfied with the result of their efforts to
improve supplier short-run performance. The long-run capabilities of the supplier are of
lesser interest to both service and product base companies.
For the port of Rotterdam these differences are of importance since both product base
leader firms, such as shipbuilding, and service companies, such as stevedoring, are present
119
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
in the port. The findings of Krause and Scannell might hold for the majority of firms, one
could expect that the outcomes differ in specialized service industries in seaports.
Investments
The direct involvement strategy distinguishes three ways to be involved in the suppliers’
organization.
1.
Invest in the supplier with capital or by providing equipment
2.
Take a share in the company
3.
Provide people or organizational capacity for the supplier
Wagner en Hoegl (2005) identified that involvement of suppliers in the development of
new product scan have both positive and negative outcomes. They distinguish factors on
organizational level; how good is the supplier? And on project level; how well is the
cooperation managed?
The research discussed in this chapter measure the performance of the supplier by
informing at the buyers’ side about the perceived improvement in performance. There is no
study that shows objective data about suppliers performance increase after investments of
the buying firm.
Krausse (1997) sees one other big advantage of supplier development. Together with
developing individual suppliers, the whole ‘supplier base’ for a certain industry evolves as
a result. A buying firm that is active in supplier development will attract better suppliers
around it and have a positive influence in the economic region. This argument is in line
with the thought that part of a cluster’s success is the presence of specialized suppliers
(Porter, 1990).
Notable in the literature is that almost all studies take the buying side as the starting point
for analysis. All described initiatives are geared towards developing the supplier and only
scarcely take the efficiency gain for the buying party into account. Research in the Dutch
maritime industry (De Langen and Nijdam, 2003, 2006) shows that this is an important
effect. Cooperative development between leader firms and buyers or suppliers showed
many examples of learning effects on the buying side.
120
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
6.3
Examples of advanced supplier management
In this paragraph several examples of companies that are successful in cooperation with
their suppliers are discussed. These companies invest in their suppliers to get better
products, or they have a sophisticated strategy towards supplier management. Most
research on this subject is done in the automotive industry (Von Corswant en Tunälv,
2002, Dyer 2000). Besides, there are case studies from several other industries, like foods
(Van der Valk en Wynstra, 2005), production of electricity (McGovern en Hicks, 2006)
and the electronics industry (Wynstra en Ten Pierick, 2002).
Philips
In the Netherlands, Philips is one of the companies known to put effort in supplier
management and supplier development. On supplier development a notable study is done
by Wynstra and Ten Pierick (2000) at the Medical Systems division. At this division,
involvement of suppliers in product development became important after a decision to
outsource activities that were not core competencies of Philips Medical Systems. Like in
many cases, the main issue case was when to involve which supplier. For Philips the
answer lay in two dimensions. One, the degree of responsibility for product development
that is contracted out to the supplier and two, the risk of the development. The risk in the
development depends on the complexity of the component and the importance of the
component for the final product. Suppliers with a large responsibility for development,
working on a high risk component are to be involved in an early (conceptual) stage of
development. Suppliers with lower responsibility but working on high risk developments
should be next. Followed by high responsibility suppliers working on low risk components
and finally low risk component suppliers with low responsibility.
Next to planning the stages when suppliers are involved, every supplier is ‘assigned’ a
communication and management profile. There is more regular face-to-face contact with
suppliers that deliver high risk components, while other suppliers are only contacted by fax
or mail.
The key to this portfolio approach is the structured manner in which all suppliers and
components are assessed simultaneously. Working in this structural way the component
development and supplier involvement are aligned in an optimal order and thus
minimizing the risk of mismatches between components and avoiding bottlenecks in serial
121
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
development of components. At the same time the supplier management efforts are done
efficient so that the transaction costs of outsourcing development are minimized.
Automotive
The automotive industry is a sector where supplier development and supplier involvement
are used to a high degree. Several researchers pointed out that since the 1980’s the
relations between car manufacturers and suppliers have often evolved into partnerships
aimed at joint development. (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991; Smith and Reinertsen, 1995; Von
Corswand and Tunalv, 2002)
Von Corswant and Tunälv (2002) researched the supplier relations of a Swedish car
manufacturer in a project where a new car platform was developed. Five separate suppliers
where involved in the new design of the engine, interior, exterior, the electrical system and
the chassis. Von Corswand and Tunälv focused on the critical factors when involving
suppliers in product development. They identified nine critical factors based on interviews
with management and engineers of the car manufacturer and suppliers and did in depth
research on four suppliers that are typically important for the automobile industry.
-
Technological competence.
-
Suppliers’ co-operation with other auto manufacturers and own suppliers.
-
Openness and matching of expectations.
-
Timing of involvement of suppliers.
-
Long-term strategy for involvement.
-
Coupling between production and product development.
-
Project management.
-
Pro-active supplier.
-
Co-coordinating auto manufacturer
A suppliers’ co-operation with other auto manufacturers and own suppliers is of
importance to keep the supplier up to date, to learn new technologies and to assess the
quality of its own development efforts. The risk of knowledge spillover to other parties
seemed to be far outweighed by the potential benefits of a more capable supplier. In the
case of the Swedish car manufacturer, sometimes the potential benefit was not realized. A
hierarchical organization of the supplier, limiting the possibilities for communication or a
122
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
too autonomous position of the suppliers’ development team seemed to reduce the
knowledge transfer between supplier and manufacturer.
On the supplier side it is important to have a coupling between production and product
development. The supplier development team should be involved in the normal production
process to secure the practical applicability of the new developed system or component. In
the study it showed that collaboration with developers from the suppliers did not
automatically gave access to the suppliers’ production capabilities and resources. Having a
representative from the suppliers’ production facility in the development team is an
important factor for successful cooperation in development.
Suppliers and the car manufacturer agreed that a pro-active supplier is a necessity.
Specifically a supplier should take responsibility for benchmarking with competitors, come
up with own design solutions even if this is not explicitly demanded, scrutinize their own
solutions by checking compatibility with other components and should foresee the needed
resources from the beginning of the development.
Furthermore, a Co-coordinating manufacturer is of importance, which means that the
manufacturer leaves the responsibility for the development to the suppliers and takes a cocoordinating role to align the efforts of the different suppliers.
Toyota
Toyota is an often researched example of a company that builds competitive advantage
through cooperation with its suppliers. In comparison with other car manufacturers, Toyota
puts more effort in building and maintaining their supplier base. As a result the supplier
base of Toyota looks rather different from that of two other large manufacturers, Ford and
GM.
123
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Figure 6-3: Comparison of GM, Ford and Toyota supplier base
Source: Dyer, 2000, collaborative advantage
In far more instances than Ford or General motors Toyota has only one or two suppliers for
a certain product. In most cases these suppliers can be considered partners. Womack et al.
(1990) already found that the ‘lean production’ system of Toyota was giving them a
competitive edge.
Dyer (2000) claims that not only the lean production, but especially the partnering is the
main reason why Toyota outperformed its competitors consistently between 1982 and
1998. In the production network the suppliers play a vital part and the creation of trust,
shared knowledge and dedicated investments in assets made the production network into
an extended enterprise: where Toyota is the central company and the suppliers production
process is tightly integrated with that of Toyota, but also with the processes at other
suppliers.
Involvement with and understanding of the suppliers are the two key elements of Toyota’s
success. This involvement reduces the time that is needed for negotiations and problem
solving. Only 20% of the time spend on face-to-face contact with the suppliers is spend on
contract matters, as opposed to 50% at GM. The latter also has almost 10 times more
people working in procurement (Dyer, 2000). Besides relations between Toyota and its
124
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
suppliers, also the relations among suppliers are facilitated by Toyota to improve
knowledge sharing and building of trust between suppliers. Furthermore, Toyota provides
frequent performance feedback on several areas aimed at stimulating its suppliers.
Based on the Toyota case Dyer (2000) formulates the following three lessons for other
firms. First, a company should carefully select the members of the extended enterprise,
beginning with a strategically segmentation of suppliers and manage them according to the
strategic impact. Second, by creating an identity for the extended enterprise. Suppliers
should feel they are part of a successful close network. Third, be patient; a lot of time is
needed to build the network and to let it evolve into an extended enterprise that creates
competitive advantage.
The suppliers view
Some studies specifically included the supplier view on buyer supplier relations. Dyer
(2000) identified that suppliers react to the strategy that a buyer is using towards its
suppliers. Suppliers where more willing to work for Toyota than for GM or Ford because
the latter two focused only on costs and not on development. This also resulted in the
delivery of better products to Toyota, because this manufacturer put more emphasis on
quality and assisted the suppliers in achieving higher standards. In more cases where there
is a clear difference in the buyer’s strategy towards suppliers, the supplying companies
have adopted different strategies for each supplier.
In the yacht building industry Struijk & Hamerslag is the leading interior builder. In their
workshop they have a dedicated room for their client Feadship. S&H reports that this buyer
has far higher standards than the other yacht builders, and is the only one that puts
precision and quality above costs and developing time (author interview, 2005).
6.4
Conclusions
Both the theoretical discussion and the cases that are researched in the current literature on
buyer-supplier relationships are primarily focused on the buyers, studies with a supplier
side view are much less common. From a buyer’s perspective the most comprehensive and
most use frameworks for research are the portfolio based models. These models propose a
different strategy towards suppliers depending on factors such as the type of product the
specificity of the product and the market circumstances for the supply.
125
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
The theoretical insights seem to be more positive about buyer-supplier relations that are
build on trust and aim for co-operation in some way. Networking and collaboration is more
often presented as a solution for a problem than as one of the options a buyer has to
configure its relations with suppliers.
Cases that are research are mainly about production of complex consumer products,
especially the automotive industry. Without exception these cases are about companies that
have a strategy to involve suppliers in their production process and keeping suppliers
innovative by collaboration. Cases about companies that are successful because they use
competitive pressure to push suppliers to perform better are practically none existent. This
is no proving that these kinds of companies don’t exist, but at least they are not so
successful that they attract the interest of researchers.
6.5
Innovation
The case studies in chapter 4 show a strong position of leader firms in the field of
innovation. Most leader firm effects are related to making suppliers and buyers more
innovative. The role of leader firms in innovation is therefore an interesting subject to
deepen. First the subject innovation is discussed. Second, a model is developed for
selecting leader firms specifically on innovation indicators. Using this model the
innovative leader firms in the Rotterdam Port complex are selected. Further some cases are
discussed to give insight in the effects these leader firms have on other companies.
Innovation is a widely discussed subject by economist and business researchers alike. This
broad discussion leads to numerous definitions of innovation, differing from ‘something
new’ to complex descriptions of technological advancements. Katobe and Swan (1995)
argue that the definition and proper measurement of innovation is one of the main
obstacles in understanding innovation.
This paragraph describes what is considered an innovation and explores the different types
of innovation that are found in the literature. The notion of innovation as something new is
widespread; it typically shows the difference between innovation and change. Change is
something different, but not necessarily new while innovation is always something new
(Slappendel, 1996). The question then remains “what is new, and to whom is it new?” Is
‘new’ only applicable to physical things or is there also something like ‘new behavior’ that
can be called innovation? And is a development that is new in a certain industry, but
common knowledge in another sector also an innovation?
126
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
Sorts of innovations
One of the first innovation scholars, Schumpeter (1943) distinguished between five sorts of
innovation: new products, new methods of production, new sources of supply, exploitation
of new markets and new ways of organizing business. In many cases innovations are
characterized by the following dimensions:
- Technological and non-technological development
- Product and process innovations
- Radical and incremental innovations
Technology
Technology is a central issue in innovations. Technological innovations can include the
development of products, working methods and machines. Non-technological innovations
include new services and new organizational set-ups.
In the service sector most innovations are of a non-technological nature. For example, new
ways of financing introduced by banks. This can lead to a better use of capital and
subsequently lead to higher productivity, without any technological development.
Product and process innovations
The dimension product en process innovations refers to the result of the innovation
process. In general an innovation can lead to a new product or to a new way of producing a
product.
Product innovations are physically new or improved products, making a new or improved
product involves an innovation process that often starts with some form of R&D, leading
to a new idea, then a testing phase or prototype and finally a new product.
Process innovations typically have a less linear development trajectory. First, because
process innovations often stem from a demand pull because of existing failures in the
production process or because of a higher demand for efficiency. Second, a new process
often means that work has to be rearranged; the implementation of a process innovation is
therefore more gradually than of a product innovation.
In terms of result the difference between a product and a process innovation is that product
innovations lead to new and better products, while process innovations lead to cheaper or
better products, but not to new products.
127
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Incremental and radical innovation
The distinction between incremental and radical innovations is made by many scholars.
Christensen (1997) describes the dilemma an existing, large firm has with radical
innovations. In many cases completely new techniques are in the developing phase no
better than the existing techniques, leading to hesitation with the owners of proven
techniques to change. Further, incumbent firms have more to lose than newcomers and the
higher risks associated with radical innovations increase the chances of loosing
considerably.
Table 6-1: Radical and incremental innovations
Radical innovation
Incremental innovation
Description
Fundamental renewal
Improvement in current products
and processes
Knowledge
Divers, new combinations
of knowledge
Specific, improvement of existing
knowledge
Organization typical for
this type of innovation
Outsiders en new firms
Incumbent firms
Differentiating in three characteristics of innovations results in eight categories of
innovation presented in the table below, with examples of typical innovations for the
categories.
Table 6-2: Categories of innovations and examples
Incremental
Radical
Technical
Non-technical
Technical
Non-technical
Product
Faster microchip
Easyjet budget
airline
Combustion
engine
Container
transport
Process
Autocadsoftware in
design
Self steering teams
Internet protocol
Ford’s assembly
line
The innovation process
Innovation in common understanding is referring primarily to an outcome; there is
something new or something different, of better quality etc. In studies on innovation there
128
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
is a tendency to look at innovation as a process (Jacobs en Waalkens, 2001). Both literature
and practice in innovation have seen a development from an rather linear, technology drive
process towards an more interaction based process of innovation, where both market and
technology forces can be the driver for innovation, and during the innovation process many
actors provide feedback to improve the innovation process and outcome (Nelson & Winter
1982). The starting point does not have to be fundamental science, the impulses and ideas
can also come from the market or production systems.
The input for innovations is in any case knowledge, without knowledge no new
development is possible; Evolution in business is not a natural force, like it is in nature.
Levin (1988) made a study of the possible sources of knowledge for innovation:
x
Independent R&D; a company is developing new knowledge by itself
x
Licenses; a company buys the knowledge from another company and has the right
to use this knowledge for a certain amount of time.
x
Information from patents; patented inventions are publicly available, next to
protecting the inventor from copycats it also reveals knowledge to others, who
can use the knowledge to make further developments.
x
Publications and conferences; in scientific journals and at conferences research
results and new insights are presented. In business publications new market ideas
and organizational knowledge is presented. Both can be a knowledge input for the
innovation of companies.
x
Informal knowledge exchange; in business networks often knowledge exchange
takes place during cooperative projects or during informal business meetings.
x
Hiring employees with tacit knowledge; by hiring personnel a company
automatically acquires the knowledge this person holds.
x
Reverse engineering; by taking a product apart or analyzing a service in detail a
company might acquire knowledge about the products of competitors.
This list includes most knowledge-sources that would fit into a linear innovation process.
What is missing is the market information
The innovation process is not the same for every organization. The process and the results
can differ based on the type of firm (e.g. product or service firm) or the type of industry.
Potters et al. (2008) found that the effect of R&D on productivity increases with the level
129
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
of technology in a certain industry. In low-tech industries the productivity effects are lower
than in high tech industries.
However in any firm or industry the innovation process includes learning. Knowledge is
the main resource and learning is the main process for innovations (Lundvall, 1992), so
innovation can be seen as the application of knowledge.
Knowledge in its turn is the set of technical, organizational and process know-how and the
combination of perception, understanding and judgment of all relevant parties and
developments. In this definition explicitly the judgment and understanding of the relevant
environment is included. This is in line with the ideas of bounded rationality and cognitive
differences between organizations. Understanding these differences better is valuable
knowledge to any business organization.
Open and closed innovation
A rather recent discussion is that about open innovation (Gassmann, 2006). The linear
form of innovation, within a company is termed closed innovation. There is limited input
from other parties and the innovation process takes place with little interaction. The more
open type of innovation is found in situations where cooperation with customers, suppliers
or even competitors is sought to improve the innovation process and outcomes. The
leading principal behind open innovation is that knowledge might not be created in the
same place where the innovation takes place (Chesborough et al, 2006). Furthermore, the
locus of both the innovation and the exploitation does not necessarily have to lie within the
boundaries of the firm.
Motives for innovation
Investments in innovation are generally made improve the production process or make
better products. On average investments in innovations are wise from a business
perspective. It is found that R&D and innovation have a positive effect on business
performance, leading to higher outputs (Jaffe, 1988; Klette and Kortum 2004). This is an
average, there still is a chance that innovation costs money but does not generate higher
returns. In other words, uncertainty and risks are always associated with innovations.
Porter (1990) distinguishes four main reasons for innovation: Competition, Clients request,
Cost savings and Legal reasons. Although presented as different categories, one can argue
that that most innovations tend to have a combination of reasons as a starting point. For
130
Chapter 6: Buyers, suppliers and innovation
example, reacting to a clients request also as an element of competition in it, as do cost
savings arguments. Legal reasons for innovations often consist of safety and environmental
legislation, which in many cases could also be seen as a client request.
Push and pull factors
Innovations come about as a result of both market pull and technology push processes.
Although the extreme ends of the spectrum (only pull or only push) are not situations
found in practice (Dosi, 1982) the nature of the two driving factors is different. In
situations that have more market pull characteristics, the innovations tend to be
incremental and have a less technical nature. More radical innovations and especially those
that have a sizeable technological component are more often the result of technology push
factors (Dosi, 1982).
Definition of innovation
Taking into account the previous discussion on the nature and process of innovations, in
this research innovation is defined as follows:
Innovation is all new technical and organizational development within a company, or
group of companies that leads to a rise in productivity.
In this definition a development that is new for the sector at hand but not necessarily for all
sectors is seen as innovation. For example the first application of existing knowledge from
another sector.
Measuring innovations
The output of the innovation process is a new technique, organization, marketing concept
etc. The concrete results of these innovations are very divers and therefore not easily
measured. An ongoing discussion in innovation literature is how to measure innovations
and the innovativeness of firms (Johannessen et. al, 2001).
In many studies for pragmatic reasons (data availability) the output measure ‘number
patents’ is used. This measures the number of registered and protected new products. This
automatically excludes many other innovations from the count. Process innovations cannot
be patented when there is not a new physical product involved.
Other measures used are R&D variables, such as R&D- expenditure, intensity or capital.
R&D is a somewhat broader concept of investing in innovations, it also covers non
131
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
technical and market innovations to some extent. R&D expenditures also give a better
view on a companies’ efforts in the field of innovation. However, also R&D as a measure
has drawbacks. First, R&D is only one part of the innovation process and the total
innovation process should be considered ideally. Second, investments in R&D do not
guarantee an innovative outcome. Although many scholars find a relation between R&D
expenditures and new products (Erken, 2008), R&D alone is not a sufficient condition for
innovations.
One field of study that focuses specifically on the regional context of innovation is the
‘regional and national systems of innovations’. In the systems of innovation literature the
regional or national setting is taken as an explicit starting point for analysis and an
explaining variable for the innovative results of firms located in the region. Lundvall
(1992)
132
Chapter 7: Leader firms, suppliers and innovation in the port of Rotterdam
7
Leader firms, suppliers and innovation in the port of
Rotterdam
In this chapter the network the leader firms in Rotterdam is described. Specific attention is
paid to the supplier network and the effects the leader firms have on their suppliers.
7.1
Core network
Research in the port of Rotterdam showed that innovation and knowledge spillovers
mainly take place within the direct network of a firm, especially in buyer-supplier
relationships (Nijdam and De Langen, 2006). The most interesting relations are those
between companies and the suppliers that directly contribute to the competitiveness of the
leader firm, the ‘core suppliers’. The 2nd tier suppliers deliver their products and services
to the core suppliers and might be of importance for the final product of the leader firm but
are often not a part of the leader firm’s strategic network. The commodity suppliers are
suppliers that deliver goods or services that are widely available and not vital to the
production process or product of the leader firm. The commodity suppliers are therefore
not included in this research.
The combination of leader firms and their most important suppliers form the core network
in the port of Rotterdam. The most important suppliers are identified by interviewing the
leader firms, and asking the director or purchasing manager “who are your most important
suppliers?” The judgment of what is important is left primarily to the interviewee, after
explaining that it should be suppliers adding to the core activity of the firm. All firms
identified those suppliers that provide services or products that are essential for their own
product or process.
With an organizational network analysis the network is analyzed on centrality of
companies and the clustering of companies. The first network to show is the set of
relations between the leader firms themselves. This network shows that leader firms in the
dredging and off-shore industry form a close, economically dependent, group of
companies. The large stevedores, the terminals, in the port of Rotterdam do not have
economic relations with each other.
133
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Figure 7-1: Buyer-supplier networks between leader firms
Since Rotterdam is the largest port in Europe and is an important link in many transport
chains one might expect that there is a set of leader firms in these sectors that are closely
connected and work together often. In the study of 15 leader firms and their most
important suppliers this pictures does not seem reality. The following reasons are an
explanation:
First, the number of Rotterdam based leader firms in transport is relatively small. There are
three transport companies that are considered leader firms: Maersk, Samskip and
Broekman.
Maersk is the world’s largest shipping line and uses APM terminals for stevedoring, which
is a company owned by the same holding as Maersk lines. Samskip uses primarily RST as
a stevedoring company; RST is not considered a leader firm. Furthermore the other
transport service providers that Samskip uses are not considered leader firms. The same is
true for Broekman that uses the services of several transport companies, but neither of
them can be considered a leader firm in Rotterdam.
134
Chapter 7: Leader firms, suppliers and innovation in the port of Rotterdam
Second reason for the limited network in transport and stevedoring is the international
character of the stevedoring business. Although stevedoring is a localized activity and
Rotterdam is a prime stevedoring location, most clients are international companies that
only visit Rotterdam with their ships and have no influence on the Rotterdam business
community.
Third, stevedoring is a service. This implies that there are no other companies that
contribute directly to the production process. The hardware that is needed on a terminal is
provided by companies that are not necessarily located in the vicinity of the terminal.
There is no need for closeness because of the low frequency of transactions.
Suppliers in the network
When the view is expanded to the combination of the leader firms and their core suppliers
the network gives insight in the centrality of the suppliers and indirect connections
between leader firms. These indirect connections can be important for knowledge
spillovers. Companies that are core suppliers to multiple leader firms might form a bridge
between different knowledge fields. The complete network is given in the figure below.
The core suppliers were identified by asking the management of the leader firms who the
most important suppliers are. The importance of the suppliers was mostly based on the
volume of the input, the contribution to innovation or an essential product that a supplier
provides.
135
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Figure 7-2: Network of leader firms and their suppliers
136
Chapter 7: Leader firms, suppliers and innovation in the port of Rotterdam
Comparing the complete network with the leader firm network some central suppliers are
indentified that form a link between two or more leader firms.
Table 7-1: Suppliers that form a link between leader firms
Supplier
Product
Nacap
Piping
GTI
Electro technical systems
Heinen & hopman
Climate control systems
Croon
Electro technical systems
Nemag
Grabbers
Wärtsilä
Engines
Rolls Royce
Engines
Radio Holland
Navigation and communication equipment
Siemens
Electric machines and systems
ZPMC
Cranes
Noell
Cranes
ABB
Mechanical and electrical components
To further explore the centrality of the suppliers a short network analysis is deployed.
Table 7-2 shows the centrality of the different companies in the network measured in
degrees (number of connections) and the Eigenvector (connections to central players). All
firms with a centrality degree of more than one are included. The network is based on the
suppliers that are important to the leader firm, consequently the leader firms are
automatically ranked high on centrality. The interesting information from this table
therefore is the centrality of the suppliers. It shows particularly which suppliers are the
most central players in the port. Wärtsilä, ABB and GTI are the most central suppliers,
followed by the nine other ‘bridging’ suppliers. The centrality of the leader firms in this
table shows how many suppliers each leader firm calls important for its operations and
production. The leader firms that are most central are thus those that are most dependent
on their network for their competitive position and have more incentives to show leader
firm behavior.
137
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Table 7-2: Centrality of firms in the core network
Company name
Degree
Eigenvector
IHC
12
68
Imtech
12
Bakker
Degree
Eigenvector
Mammoet
9
14
52
Siemens
2
12
9
48
EMO
9
6
Boskalis
6
46
Nacap
2
4
Wärtsilä
4
36
ECT
7
3
Van Oord
3
32
Nemag
2
1
Huisman-Itrec
6
27
Odfjell
6
1
ABB
2
21
Noell
2
1
Smit
10
21
ZPMC
2
1
GTI
3
20
EECV
8
0
10
20
APM
4
0
Rolls Royce
2
19
Maersk
7
0
Croon
2
19
Broekman
4
0
Heinen & hopman
2
19
Samskip
3
0
Radio Holland
2
16
Keppel Verolme
7.2
Company name
Strategies towards suppliers
The leader firms were asked whether they deploy strategies towards their suppliers to
enhance the performance of these suppliers. Four types of strategies, as discussed in
chapter 6, are distinguished. Competitive pressure, when market signals are used;
evaluation and certification, when advice is given; incentives, when suppliers are
financially rewarded for improvements; direct involvement, when the buyer actively
participates in the organization of the supplier. Table 7-3 shows to what degree leader
firms use the four strategies.
138
Chapter 7: Leader firms, suppliers and innovation in the port of Rotterdam
Table 7-3: Use of supplier strategies
Count
Competitive pressure
Evaluation
Incentives
Involvement
Always
7
Sometimes
5
Never
0
in a specific case
0
Always
4
Sometimes
7
Never
1
in a specific case
0
Always
0
Sometimes
4
Never
5
in a specific case
3
Always
0
Sometimes
5
Never
7
in a specific case
0
More than half of the leader firms use competitive pressure as a way to improve the
performance of their suppliers. For the leader firms it means that they explicitly
communicate to their suppliers that a certain performance will lead to more business. Since
the leader firms often have some market power because of their size, the stimulus from
making effects of different performance levels explicit is reported to have a positive effect
on performance levels.
Evaluation procedures are used sometimes by most leader firms. According to the leader
firms, evaluation is only a viable strategy towards suppliers with who there is a structural,
long term relation. The firms that reported always to use evaluation have implemented a
routine for the evaluation. These routines can vary from giving structured feedback on
performance to regular evaluation sessions with all suppliers involved in a certain
production process. One firm never uses evaluation procedures with the aim to improve
supplier performance.
139
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
A strategy to give financial incentives to suppliers is not a standard procedure with any of
the leader firms. Most firms never use this strategy. Other firms use it sometimes or only in
a specific case, for example when a supplier and a leader firm work on a joint investment
in new techniques.
Direct involvement in the operations of suppliers is a strategy most leader firms never use.
These leader firms have the opinion that suppliers should use their own resources to
develop better services or products. The leader firms that do get directly involved in the
organization of their suppliers do this to make sure that necessary knowledge of products
and processes is present within the organization of the supplier. In most cases this was
essential for the efficiency and quality of the leader firm’s own production process.
Stimulating innovations
Next to general strategies to improve supplier performance, leader firms can also stimulate
suppliers specifically to invest more in innovations. They can do this by expressing high
demands to the supplier; by making functional specification, meaning that they specify
what a product must do and not what it should look like; by involving the supplier in a
innovation project and by making knowledge and techniques available for the suppliers so
they can innovate easier.
High demands is the least popular way to stimulate innovations. Most leader firms think
that expressing high demands alone is not enough to make a supplier more innovative. The
most often used way is to make knowledge and techniques available to the supplier. The
leader firms report that this is the most efficient way to stimulate suppliers, because it
directly improves the capabilities of the suppliers. Making functional specifications for a
product or service is done more often than not. Some leader firms trust that their suppliers
will understand very well what the needs of the leader firm are and often use functional
specifications to stimulate suppliers to come with unexpected innovative ideas. These are
the leader firms that also report strong relationships with their supplier, that are long
lasting and characterized by frequent face-to-face contact.
Involvement of suppliers in innovation projects is done by most leader firms, but not very
often. Leader firms pick projects and suppliers carefully before starting a joint project, but
every leader firm acknowledges that involving suppliers in innovation is very important for
getting new insights and ideas.
140
Chapter 7: Leader firms, suppliers and innovation in the port of Rotterdam
Table 7-4: Reported use of ways of stimulating innovations (1=never, 5=very often)
Mean
Stimulate with high demands
2,42
Stimulate by functional specification
3,17
Stimulate by direct Involvement
3,33
Stimulate by knowledge sharing
3,42
Stimulating innovations can be done in several ways, but in all cases stimulating is
primarily a one-sided action of the leader firm. The most important precondition is that
there are suppliers present that have the potential to be innovative and can improve in their
innovativeness by stimulation from a leader firm.
Internationalization
One of the nine forms of leader firm behavior is functioning as a stepping stone in the
internationalization process of suppliers. The leader firms in the port of Rotterdam only
have a limited role in the internationalization of other companies. The stevedoring
companies only have operations in Rotterdam or are part of an international firm and have
no internationalization agenda of their own. The transport and service companies have
international operations and sometimes use suppliers from Rijnmond for their operations
abroad. Most leader firms have their main production locations in the Rijnmond area and
their activities abroad are not of the nature or size that suppliers benefit from
internationalization opportunities. This relatively local focus of the leader firms is
represented by the results about internationalization with suppliers. Only 8 out of 15 leader
firms have a role in the internationalization of their suppliers. These 8 firms help their
suppliers only occasionally in their internationalization. Four ways of helping suppliers
abroad were surveyed: offering long term contracts to suppliers, so risks for them are
decreased; Co-invest in a project of a supplier; offer a location on-site abroad; and operate
as a matchmaker between the supplier and international clients. The results show that long
term contracts are the most used method to help suppliers, but only in some cases.
141
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Table 7-5: Helping suppliers with internationalization (1= never, 5= very often)
Mean
Long-term contracts
2.88
Invest
2.13
Matchmaker
1.88
Location on-site
1.38
Two companies reported to use long term contracts very often and two often, for the
purpose of stability in international operations. Three companies said to invest often
abroad in cooperation with suppliers. Two companies often function as a matchmaker and
only one company facilitates a supplier on an international location.
142
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
8
Case studies of the leader firms
In chapter five potential leader firms were selected, meaning that these firms are expected
to show leader firm behavior that brings positive effects for others in the cluster. There is a
variety among the leader firms in the way they realize these effects. The difference in
leader firm behavior does not mean that there is a distinction between good and bad
companies. There can be numerous external factors that influence the possibilities for a
firm to behave like a leader firm. This chapter presents cases of the individual leader firms
and finalizes with the leader firm scoreboard; an overview of the amount of leader firm
behavior per company. The scoreboard is based on activities in the following fields23.
1.
Coordination of production networks
A first form of leader firm behavior is the coordination of production networks.
Leader firms invest in the coordination of this network. As a consequence the
whole network becomes more competitive. In most industries examples of
network coordination can be found where a leader firm puts together a group of
partners in response to specific opportunities.
2.
Role as lead user
By expressing a ‘critical demand’, a more sophisticated demand than that of other
firms in the market, leader firms improve the innovativeness of their suppliers.
3.
Creating standards
Leader firms set new standards, for instance of safety and pollution prevention.
Other firms, especially suppliers that are confronted with such standards in an
early stage, benefit.
4.
Creating ‘new combinations’
Leader firms have a central role in creating new combinations of previously
unrelated technologies. The combination of such technologies leads to new
products. Other firms in the production network benefit from this product
development.
23
The 9 forms of leader firm behavior were identified in the Dutch maritime Cluster as discussed in
chapter 4.
143
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
5.
Improving the transfer of knowledge
A fast diffusion and transfer of knowledge adds to the competitiveness of a
cluster. Because of the knowledge they possess and their central role in
knowledge networks, leader firms improve the transfer of knowledge in the
cluster.
6.
Encourage and enable internationalization
Leader firms compete on international markets. They can start production in other
countries and urge or encourage firms in the cluster to internationalize in order to
supply them in these countries. Leader firms can lower the barriers to
internationalize by letting suppliers use their international network or by
guarantying a long-term contract for production facilities abroad.
7.
Creating reputation
Leader firms often create reputation for a whole cluster. When they engage in
projects at the frontier of what is possible, these projects get widely known in the
industry and contribute to the reputation of the cluster as a whole. Also
maintaining high quality or efficiency standards can add to the reputation of
others, especially when leader firms advertise their ‘local roots’.
8.
Improving the labor market
The quality of the labor market is important for the competitiveness of the cluster.
Leader firms invest to improve the quality of the labor market. Leader firms are
often found among the larger firms in a cluster. These firms benefit the most from
a well-trained professional labor force. This gives them the incentive to invest in
education projects.
9.
Organizational infrastructure
Leader firms play a role in creating and maintaining the organizational
infrastructure in the cluster. Such infrastructure is an important condition for
effective cluster governance (De Langen, 2002).
The leader firms are analyzed based on company publications, publications in professional
media, interviews with industry experts and with management. Based on this input the
leader firms are rankled and receive a score between 1 and 10. 1 meaning there is no leader
firm behavior, 10 meaning leader firm behavior in (almost) all fields and with great impact
on other companies and the port-cluster.
144
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
The method of case studies is chosen for two reasons. First the set of research subjects is
limited; there are only 27 firms that potentially have leader firm effects. Second the
number of variables researched per case is greater than the number of cases. The ratio
between cases and variables make this study particularly suitable for a case study-approach
(Yin 1998).
SMIT INTERNATIONALE
Smit Internationale is a Rotterdam based global operating company in harbor towage,
salvage, heavy lift and terminal operations. The company works at more than 30 locations
worldwide and operates a fleet of 400 vessels. In total 2650 people work for Smit, in
Rotterdam, they employ 500 people. With revenues of € 470 million, the profit was €77
million in 2006. The main activity performed in the port of Rotterdam is harbor towage,
but most activities in salvage and heavy lift are also coordinated from Rotterdam. The
main locations for fleet management are Rotterdam, Singapore and Cape Town (South
Africa).
Clients
Every division of Smit has its own client base. For the harbor towage division the clients
are the shipping lines, with whom often contracts are made for a longer period of time. The
heavy lift and particularly the salvage operations are project based and less predictable
markets.
Competitiveness
The competitiveness of Smit lies primarily in the combination of specialized knowledge
and a worldwide network-organization. Smit is the company with the largest track record
worldwide in salvage projects24 and has an extensive fleet of specialized ships that can be
used on every continent. The combination leads to short response times and often
innovative solutions. In Harbor towage Smit is also one of the main players in the market,
with very strong positions in European, Asian and South American ports.
Innovation
Smit’s innovations are primarily rooted in the salvage division. This division is often
confronted with salvage projects that call for a new type of solution for lifting or
24
According to Smit’s management
145
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
dismantling a ship. An examples of this types of innovation is the development of an
underwater saw to cut up the submarine Kursk before lifting it. The saw was a new
development in cooperation with Huisman-Itrec, a Rotterdam based company specialized
in off-shore constructions.
Another innovation project was started in 2008 together with Damen shipyards to develop
the 3E Tug, an environmentally friendly tugboat that will have minimal pollution through
the application of new energy technologies and propulsion systems.
The knowledge for innovation projects is both developed ‘in house’ and in cooperation
with innovation partners. The partners are located in or at a short distance from Rotterdam.
In general, technical innovations are not the first concern of Smit; in most cases technology
is bought off the shelf. The application of new techniques in the towage and salvage
operations however does need another innovative step. This is often done by Smit in
cooperation with suppliers.
Suppliers
Smit has a purchase/turnover ratio of 0.59 (277/470). Meaning that almost 60% of their
turnover is bought in, 40% of the turnover is produced by Smit. The purchasing function
within the organization is gaining importance the past two years. Every division now has
its own purchasing unit, with the purchasing unit of Vessel Management being the largest.
A shift is being made to more centralized purchasing. Purchasing of large equipment and
ships is done by the board of directors, in consultation with the engineering department.
The influence of ‘strategic buying’ is growing, putting more emphasis on the total costs of
ownership when buying investment goods.
The suppliers of Smit are almost always located in the Rijnmond area. Everything Smit
needs, can be provided by companies located no further than 40 KM away. For the
operations in Rotterdam 99% of all purchased goods and services come from the Rijnmond
area. Most ships, for use worldwide, are purchased from a yard in Gorinchem. For the
Singapore operations, the ships are ordered locally. Next to ships, the most essential
products and services for Smit are: Navigation equipment, engines, winches, ropes and
safety equipment.
146
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Suppliers in Rijnmond
The following suppliers are considered very important by Smit:
Supplier
Product
Rolls Royce
Thrusters
Pon/Caterpillar
Engines
Wärtsila
Engines
Vlierodam
Ropes
Vermeulen Europoort
Ropes
Radio Holland
Navigation equipment
Alphatron
Navigation equipment
Van Brink
Ship repair
Damen Shipyards
Vessels
All these companies are located in the greater Rijnmond area, or have a sales and service
office there. For example the engine suppliers have their production abroad, but
maintenance and technical know-how is present in the local subsidiaries, as is the case with
Rolls Royce, Caterpillar and Wärtsila.
Face-to-face contact with the suppliers takes place often, facilitated by the short distances
between the companies. In these meetings primarily the quality and the price of the
services delivered is discussed. Secondary are topics about the future of Smit and the role
of the suppliers in the future. The suppliers are not dependent on Smit; for some, Smit is a
large account but it is not expected that suppliers will go bankrupt when Smit stops doing
business with them.
Strategy towards suppliers
Supplier development strategies are only recently an issue on Smits agenda. Currently the
competitive pressure strategy is used to improve the suppliers’ performance. Evaluation
and certification is applied in some situations now, but will be part of standard procedures
in the near future. Direct involvement with suppliers hasn’t been a strategy at Smit until
now. Neither is providing incentives, but this might be used in the future.
Smit is currently changing its strategy towards suppliers, they are moving from “buying to
purchasing management”. One recent case is the tendering of the maintenance on
navigation and communication equipment on the tugs. Smit was looking for a supplier that
would accept a partnership approach. Instead of Smit scheduling maintenance and the
supplier sending a bill for the hours worked, Smit wanted a contract where the supplier
147
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
does curative and preventive maintenance for a fixed price. The supplier has a
responsibility to keep the fleet operational.
Smits purchasing management found that making a contract with a supplier is one thing,
but that having the personnel of the companies act according to it is something else. In
selecting Radio Holland as a preferred supplier for the coming years and awarding them
the contract for maintenance of the navigation equipment on the Smit vessels, the attitude
of Radio Holland’s management towards cooperative relations with their customers was an
important factor. In the execution of the contract, the employees of both companies have to
have the same attitude but worn in habits sometimes proof to be an obstacle.
Suppliers and competitiveness
The clients of Smit are the large shipping lines and individual ship-owners. Smit is
independent of its clients in deciding what suppliers to use. The clients want a service and
they trust Smit will use the best equipment available. What Smit offers its clients is an
international network, flexibility and expertise. The ship-owners know that they can have
the same level of service in every location where Smit operates. Some suppliers are
important for Smit to maintain this international standard. Shell, Radio Holland, Damen
shipyards, Wartsila and Caterpillar al have an international network that can provide
service and products on Smits’ international service locations. The foreign locations of
Smit use local service but components are supplied for 70% by suppliers from Rijnmond.
To stimulate suppliers to maintain an international network that is complementary to that
of Smit, long term contracts are made. According to Smit the network of Radio Holland is
expanding faster because Smit is a large client providing international business.
In general the suppliers in Rijnmond are important for the competitiveness of Smit.
Primarily because of the quality of service and products they provide at a good price.
Reliability and innovativeness of the suppliers is also important but less than quality and
price.
Leader firm Behavior
Coordination of production networks
For special projects Smit aligns suppliers to develop
new instruments and methods
Role as lead user
Lead user for many suppliers
Creating standards
Setting standards in salvage and special transport
Creating ‘new combinations’
Occasionally during special projects
Improving the transfer of knowledge
Has a central role in knowledge circulation in
148
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Rotterdam for the off-shore sector
Encourage and enable
internationalization
Supplier of communication equipment services Smit
worldwide
Creating reputation
Smit is an international example of Rotterdam-Dutch
innovativeness in off-shore and salvage.
Improving the labor market
Cooperation with technical education facilities
Organizational infrastructure
Very active in the local business community
EUROPEES MASSAGOED OVERSLAGBEDRIJF (EMO)
The Europese Massagoed Overslagbedrijf (EMO) is the largest dry bulk terminal in
Europe, located at the Maasvlakte, the most western part of the Rotterdam port, where they
employ 400 people at their facility. EMO has one facility and no international subsidiaries.
It has a turnover of 110 million euro (2006).
The company shares are owned by HES Beheer, Manufrance and (indirectly) E-on and
Thyssenkrupp. In the daily operations and decisions EMO is independent of its
shareholders.
Clients
The clients of EMO are for the most part located in the German Ruhr area, where large
steel and energy producers are located. The most important clients are:
Eon, RWE, Rogesa, Arcelor, Ruhrkole AG, Elektrobel, Essent, EMBW and Billiton. 7% of
total turnover is related to Eon, the only client in the Rijnmond area, located next to the
EMO terminal at the Maasvlakte.
Competitiveness
The market proposition of EMO is that they are fast and reliable. In the business of bulk
stevedoring the most valued characteristics are efficiency in loading and unloading and the
availability of the system. The one supplier that adds to this feature of EMO is Stokman.
Their personnel are flexible and available for solving problems in the installations.
Especially the repairing and installing conveyor belts at the terminal is a job that only they
can do fast enough with high quality.
149
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Innovation
The innovations on the EMO terminal are aimed at improving efficiency and reducing
pollution. The efficiency gains are mainly reached by automation of the terminal. The last
decade EMO invested in the automation of the stacker-reclaimers, machines that are used
to stack coal and iron ore on the terminal. The traditional machines are now equipped with
a 3d scanner GPS positioning and an automatic steering module that makes it possible that
the stacker-reclaimer operates fully automatically with an accuracy of 10cm. The basic
techniques for this were not newly developed, but it’s the first application of the
technology on such a large scale. EMO cooperated with a German engineering bureau
(ISAM) to further develop the technology and make it suitable for the application in the
large scale bulk handling. The result is a higher utilization rate of both the machines and
the terminal which drew the attention of many other companies active in large scale
handling of bulk materials of which Corus Steel in IJmuiden was the first to adopt the
same technique.
Suppliers
The ratio buying/selling is 25/110 for EMO, resulting in 23% of the turnover being bought
in. This is an average, in years with a large expansion or investment projects the figure is
substantially higher.
EMO has a separate department for purchasing which is relatively autonomous in selecting
suppliers. In consultation with operations and maintenance departments the best suppliers
are selected. In the management team there is one person responsible for purchasing, but
not as a single responsibility. The suppliers of EMO are located throughout Europe. The
most important suppliers are:
Name
Product
Stokman
Tech. Personnel, pulleys and rollers
Contitech
Conveyor belts
Mennens
Steel cables
GTI
Electronic personnel
Solar
Electro trading company
Hoogland Mennens
Tools
Eyler Ruygers Swarts
Bearing techniques
Nemag
Grabbers
150
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
The products that are crucial for EMO operations are the conveyor belts, the steel cables
and the terminal management system. These are rather specific for EMO and cannot easily
be replaced.
Suppliers in Rijnmond
Approximately 10% of the materials and 20% of the services is purchased in Rijnmond. Of
all contracted people 70% is coming from companies in Rotterdam. 20% of the suppliers
that are of great importance to EMO are located in the Rijnmond area. These suppliers are
not dependent on EMO, there is no supplier for which EMO is the vital customer.
Strategy towards suppliers
The strategy EMO uses towards its suppliers is based on the relative importance of the
supplier for the daily operations and the uniqueness of the product. In all cases durability
of the delivered product and the price are the most important features of the supplied
product that are evaluated.
EMO uses its uniqueness occasionally in negotiations with suppliers. For suppliers of wear
prone materials the terminal is an interesting test case. The wear and tear on this facility is
greater than on any other industrial site, because of the huge volumes and the salt water
environment. If a material can last on the EMO terminal, than all industrial sites in the rest
of the world are potentially interested. Because of this material suppliers are very keen to
supply to EMO.
Cooperation with suppliers takes place in special projects, where EMO-specific
development takes place. This is the case with the development of automated
stacker/reclaimers, guidance of electric cables in cranes, and constructing conveyor belts.
One example of joint development is the cooperation with Promati in improving their beltscrapers. In general EMO is aiming at standardization of all processes, and this is not
easily combined with an experimental approach to suppliers.
Evaluation of suppliers takes place regularly; regular suppliers are sometimes audited
externally on quality and safety. Financial incentives for suppliers to improve their
production are never given. Direct involvement in the suppliers’ organization also never
takes place. What does happen is coordination of suppliers and sub-suppliers in complex
projects. There is no supplier located in the Rijnmond area that is vital for the competitive
advantage of EMO.
151
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Leader firm
EMO is the largest facility for dry bulk stevedoring in Europe. This position makes it a
perfect spot for developing and testing new materials and techniques. EMO is willing to
cooperate with others to help the development further. Furthermore, EMO is an example
for other dry bulk operators; with their automated machines on the terminal they show the
state of the art in terminal layout and automation.
The leader firm role for the port cluster is primarily based on this last characteristic of
EMO. The technical development mostly takes place in cooperation with foreign, mainly
German, companies. EMO is typically functioning as a knowledge bridge between the port
cluster and innovative foreign companies.
Coordination of production networks
Very limited, service is delivered on the
spot by own organization
Role as lead user
Has a role for some local companies, but
mostly for foreign companies
Creating standards
Sets the standard in Rotterdam and Europe
for handling dry bulk
Creating ‘new combinations’
No special projects
Improving the transfer of knowledge
Is open to share the knowledge they
develop in cooperation with suppliers
Encourage and enable internationalization
No international market positions
Creating reputation
Adds to the reputation of Rotterdam with a
highly efficient terminal
Improving the labor market
Has limited opportunities for this due to the
port labor market structure.
Organizational infrastructure
Plays an active role in (in)formal networks
IHC-MERWEDE
The IHC Merwede group employs 2200 people in the locations Sliedrecht, Kinderdijk,
Nieuwerkerk aan den IJssel and Hardinxveld Giessendam. The IHC-Merwede group of
companies builds ships for different markets. The most important are the off-shore and
dredging markets. In the off-shore market most clients are international companies. In the
dredging market the clients are primarily the Dutch and Belgium dredging companies. The
company had a net turnover of 775 million euro in 2007 and a profit margin of 10%. IHC
has 10 locations abroad, these are primarily service stations; there is no production and
152
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
only limited sales activities. The specialist nature of the ships build by IHC Merwede
brings along an extensive sales process with visits to the yards in the Netherlands.
Clients
The clients of IHC-Merwede differ per sub-market. The clients per market are:
Dredging: Van Oord, Boskalis, Jan de Nul and DEME
Off-shore: Subsea 7, Seaway heavy lifting, Superior Offshore International, Toisa,
Hornbeck Offshore Service
Ferries: Stena, SNCM, Bronholm
Naval: Royal Dutch Navy
Currently the primary focus of the IHC-Merwede shipyards is on the off-shore and
dredging markets. These markets have shown strong growth in the past years and provide
enough work for the full capacity of the yards. 40% of the production is for clients in the
Rijnmond area.
Competitiveness
IHC-Merwede is the largest producer of dredging vessels in the world and delivers their
ships to all the major dredging companies. The ships are sought after because they are
efficient, innovative and durable. The ships and installations are build in close cooperation
with the suppliers of electro-technical and hydraulic systems making it possible to have a
short lead time for the production of innovative ships.
Innovation
The innovations from IHC cover all aspects of the ships. Most innovations take place in
the dredging and off-shore ship building. Notable innovations in recent years are new hull
designs with lower water resistance and better maneuverability, Dynamic positioning
systems, and visualization systems for work underwater. The innovations of IHC led to 16
European patents in the last 8 years, making it the most innovative maritime company in
the Netherlands.
Over the years IHC developed the integration of so many sophisticated systems into their
ships that it was possible to develop a large size hopper-dredger that can be operated by
one man from the bridge. The 2007-build dredger Brabo for the Belgium DEME-group
successfully proved the operational benefits of such as system. The sailing and dredging
systems have been integrated, making it possible for one man to fully operate the ship even
in difficult circumstances.
153
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Recent process innovations at the IHC-Merwede yards are primarily aimed at improving
the production process. The most notable innovation is the use of design software, were all
engineers of IHC-Merwede and the suppliers work in simultaneously. This means that
everyone working at a specific ship can see all technical information of other components.
Furthermore the engineers can add extra logistical information to the system. This
minimizes waiting time for other suppliers. At the same time it shows the different
suppliers where the bottle necks in the production process are, so they can adjust their own
planning to that and prevent the creation of another bottleneck.
Early involvement of suppliers in the development of ships and making knowledge and
techniques available for suppliers is the two most used ways to enhance innovativeness at
the suppliers.
Suppliers
IHC-Merwede yards buy in approximately 70% of their turnover. For the dredging vessels
a lot of components are bought from other IHC companies. The suppliers of IHC-Merwede
can be divided in two categories. The suppliers of the components, such as thrusters,
engines and winches are found internationally, but 90% is European. The suppliers that
contribute to the engineering and the design of the ships are more often local companies
and almost always Dutch.
Important suppliers for IHC-Merwede are:
Company
Product
GTI
Electro technical systems
Croon
Electro technical systems
Bakker Sliedrecht
Electro technical systems
Imtech
Electro technical systems
Alewijnse
Electro technical systems
Johnson controls
Climate systems
Heinen&Hopman
Climate systems
Wartsila
Engines
MAN
Engines
Rolls Royce
Engines
154
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Some suppliers of IHC-Merwede have become dominant on the world market. Mainly the
suppliers of electronic systems, such as Bakker Sliedrecht and Imtech. Others already were
worldwide component suppliers, such as Wärtsila and Rolls Royce for engines.
Suppliers in Rijnmond
A substantial part of the suppliers is located in Rijnmond; between 20 and 30% of total
inputs comes from these local suppliers. The supplier most depended on IHC’s production
is Bakker-Sliedrecht. They are technologically very involved and a large part of their
business and assets is geared towards the production of IHC ships. For every project (ship)
the set of suppliers can differ, but the list of suppliers that is used by the IHC-Merwede
yard did not change over the past years. For most components, two or three suppliers are
available.
The supplier base that is present in the Rijnmond area and centered on the shipbuilding
industry is also of importance for the ship maintenance services. It makes it possible to
present a full service packet to the customers of the port.
Strategy towards suppliers
In general terms the technical director of IHC-Merwede describes the strategy as follows:
“it’s the collective of firms that counts, we cannot do it on our own.” There is a strong
focus on cooperation with suppliers, but still the use of competitive pressure is present, at
the start of every project the best supplier for every component is selected in a competitive
procedure. IHC-Merwede refrains from organizing financial incentives such as cost and
profit sharing, because they find that this increases opportunistic behavior. The basic
assumption of IHC-Merwede in dealing with its suppliers is: “the suppliers know better
than we what they can deliver for what price, so we will not get involved in their cost
structure”. What does happen is that both IHC-Merwede and its suppliers keep a low profit
margin to be able to deliver a competitive end product. There is a deep understanding with
all parties that opportunistic behavior of any firm will lead to loss of business for everyone.
Two practices at IHC-Merwede illustrate the cooperative strategy that this leader firm has
towards suppliers, the evaluation process after a project and the education of their
employees and suppliers’ employees in a course tailored for IHC-Merwede and its
suppliers.
Evaluation
IHC-Merwede made it into a standard practice to evaluate a project with the suppliers.
After a project is finished a consultant (Lloyd’s) is hired to do a study about the opinion of
155
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
all companies involved. These findings are later discussed in a session with all suppliers
and IHC Merwede present. In these sessions all issues are discussed, both the issues
between suppliers and IHC-Merwede and issues between suppliers. Open feedback is
given and plans are made to improve future projects.
Education
On initiative of IHC-Merwede a course was developed with the technical University delft
and branch organization VNSI. This course is aimed at improving the coordination and
cooperation skills of the people at IHC and the employees of the suppliers that are involved
in the complex shipbuilding projects of IHC-Merwede. Now 17 suppliers are involved in
this course..
Competitiveness
The IHC-Merwede group of companies is geared towards building one-off projects. Their
leading position in the market for off-shore and dredging vessels is build on the capacity to
produce tailor made ships, equipped with specific machinery and tools to perform
specialist tasks. Their competitive advantage lies in delivering highly specialized vessels
relatively quickly at a competitive price. According to IHC-Merwede, the suppliers that
add to these competences are the electro-system contractors and knowledge providers
Marin and TNO. In the Rijnmond region the electro-system contractors are the most
important parties for the competitiveness of IHC-Merwede. They add substantially to the
final product in terms of innovation, speed of production and quality.
Leader firm
IHC-Merwede is a leader firm in almost all aspects; in innovation, local knowledge
transfers, cluster organization, labor market and reputation effects IHC is regarded by most
experts and industry executives as highly important for the cluster. Only
internationalization effects are limited.
Coordination of production
networks
IHC has a very strong role in the coordination of a large
variety of suppliers and co-producers
Role as lead user
IHC is the main lead user for many suppliers in the
maritime industry
Creating standards
IHC is the standard setting company in the dredging
industry
Creating ‘new combinations’
New combinations are sometimes explored, but the focus is
on developing the existent technologies further
156
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Improving the transfer of
knowledge
Knowledge transfers between IHC and suppliers and
amongst suppliers is explicit policy
Encourage and enable
internationalization
Internationalization effects of IHC are limited. Only
indirectly they enable suppliers to internationalize
Creating reputation
IHC is world leader in dredge ship building and adds
strongly to the Dutch reputation.
Improving the labor market
IHC participates is several educations and initiator of
initiatives to attract people to the shipbuilding industry
Organizational infrastructure
IHC is very active in initiating and participating in cluster
initiatives.
KEPPEL VEROLME
Keppel Verolme is a constructor of large structures for the off-shore industry and a
specialist in ship conversion. They have the largest construction-pit in Europe, and are the
preferred supplier for the largest new building and conversion projects of international oil
and gas and off shore companies.
Verolme has a long history in the port of Rotterdam. They started in 1957 in RotterdamBotlek as a shipyard that specialized in building large tankers. After fierce competition
from Asian shipyards in the 1980’s, Verolme chose to specialize in off-shore
constructions. In 2002 Keppel from Singapore took over the Verolme yard in Rotterdam,
making it part of a worldwide network of facilities for off-shore construction and ship
conversion and repair.
Keppel Verolme has about 350 employees, but during projects some 400 to 600 extra
employees are hired on a temporary base. Furthermore, often more than 1000
subcontractors are working at the yard of Verolme.
The sales of Keppel Verolme are primarily export. Most clients are internationally
operating off-shore or shipping companies. Only 5% of the turnover comes from clients in
the Rijnmond area.
Competitiveness
What makes Keppel-Verolme unique is the size of the facility and the capability to plan
and coordinate the construction of complex, large scale off-shore installations. The large
dry-dock of 400 by 90 meters and surrounding facilities are unmatched in Northern-Europe
and only one of the few places in the world where these large installations can be built and
repaired.
157
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Suppliers
The purchasing quote of Keppel Verolme is 70%, which is fairly high for a producing
company. This indicates that they subcontract a large part of the production process. The
coordination of these sub-contractors is one of the core capabilities of Keppel Verolme.
The structures that are built at the Keppel Verolme yard are mostly designed by the client,
including the specifications of the components to be used. This gives Keppel Verolme little
freedom in selecting suppliers for these components. The suppliers that are selected by
Keppel Verolme are mostly contractors that do part of the construction work. 80% of
Verolmes suppliers are located in the Rijnmond area and they provide 50% of the total
input, measured in euros. These are primarily service providers. Suppliers of components
like engines and pumps are often located elsewhere. Important suppliers of Keppel
Verolme are:
Company
Product
GTI
Electro-technical systems
Croon
Electro-technical systems
Hertel
Accommodation builders
Nacap
Mechanical installations
Mercon
Steel constructions
Hollandia
Steel constructions
Iemants
Steel constructions
Heinen&Hopman
Climate installations
Mammoet
Heavy lift assistance
These suppliers are almost all met face-to-face on a monthly basis, when progress,
commercial issues and capacity are discussed. Although the quality of the suppliers is
deemed very important by Keppel Verolme, evaluation of the performance of the suppliers
is not yet standard procedure.
Supplier development is at an early stage at Keppel Verolme. Ideas are evolving about
helping suppliers to maintain high service levels and to develop methods to manage the
relations with the core suppliers in a more structural way. One recent development was the
inclusion of Nacap in the set of suppliers. After their good performance in the construction
of the Hummingbird, a large floating oil production and storage unit, they were also asked
for other projects. Previously Nacap was not involved in the construction of off-shore
158
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
structures and installations. In the future Nacaps knowledge about pipe-systems could be
available for the whole off-shore sector in Rotterdam as a result of the first order that
Verolme placed with Nacap.
Most suppliers that work on the installations for Keppel Verolme are deemed very
important for the competitive position of the company. The high quality of the systems
installed by these suppliers is a competitive advantage on the international market.
Leader firm
The leader firm role of Keppel Verolme is found primarily in the coordination of the
production network. The brand Keppel Verolme is the flag that brings in complex and
innovative projects. The suppliers of Keppel Verolme in the Rijnmond area lift on this
business and are challenged by the sophistication and size of the works done at the yard.
Coordination of production networks
With many suppliers, coordination is a core capability of
Verolme. However, due to the one-off character of
projects structural coordination of a production network
is difficult.
Role as lead user
The complex structures manufactured at Verolme imply a
lead user function.
Creating standards
Verolme sets standards of quality to some extent. Due to
the small in-house design and development organization
this role is somewhat limited
Creating ‘new combinations’
Verolme creates combinations between techniques and
suppliers during complex projects, which brings new
insights for all parties involved
Improving the transfer of knowledge
Knowledge transfers take place between suppliers.
Verolme has no structural policy for that but facilitates it
by bringing the suppliers together
Encourage and enable
internationalization
There is no internationalization
Creating reputation
Verolme adds to the reputation of Rotterdam as a centre
for the off-shore industry
Improving the labor market
Verolme has its own educational and training facilities
where current and future employees are trained. Verolme
adds to the quality of the cluster labor pool in this way
Organizational infrastructure
Keppel Verolme is active in cluster networks, but has an
limited role in cluster organization
159
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
HUISMAN-ITREC
Huisman-Itrec is a company specialized in the design and construction of complex steel
structures, cranes and installations for the off-shore industry and oil and gas companies
such as drilling equipment and deepwater pipelay systems. The company has a turnover
over 230 million euro and made a profit of 34 million euro (2007). The company has seen
a fast growth in turnover from 50 million in 1998.
The headquarters is in Schiedam -within the Rotterdam port area- where they also operate
a construction facility. Other construction facilities are located in Czech Republic and
China. Of the total 1500 employees, 700 work in the port of Rotterdam.
Clients and market
Important clients of Huisman are off-shore and heavy lift companies such as: Jumbo,
Bleuwater, Mammoet, Big Lift, All seas en Smit. Important suppliers are electro and
hydro-technical companies like Bakker-Sliedrecht, GS-Hydro(US) en Vuyk engineering.
Competitors are National Oilwell (US) and IHC-Gusto in the field of offshore equipment,
WMF and Liebherr (DE) in the market for cranes.
Competitiveness
The competitiveness of Huisman-Itrec is primarily based on their innovative designs in
one-off projects. Huisman is one of the few companies in the world that is capable of
complete design and building of large scale new equipment for use in very demanding
circumstances such as on open sea. The organization has an ‘innovation as routine’ type of
working style which makes them often the first choice for off-shore companies that are
trying to build something new.
Innovations
The innovations of Huisman are technical product innovations. Almost every large project
that is conducted by Huisman calls for the ‘invention’ of new solutions. The clients of
Huisman have a critical demand for innovative and efficient products. An illustrative
innovation is the ‘reeled pipelay system’. This system makes it possible to lay pipes on the
ocean bed with an unprecedented speed of 2 kilometers per hour. A conventional pipelay
system would need 4 hours for this task. The innovation in the system is that pipe-laying
becomes a continuous process. Instead of inserting the pipes one-by-one the reel provides
an ongoing flow of pipes. Huisman-itrec has 16 patents ranging from cranes to pipelaysystems and special purpose ships.
160
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Leader firm
Huisman is considered a leader firm in the Rotterdam port cluster by most experts and by
the management of other leader firms. The primary argument for that is the high rate of
innovations that Huisman produces.
Coordination of production networks
Coordination task is limited, most products are
designed and produced ‘in house’
Role as lead user
For electro and hydro technique Huisman is a lead
user
Creating standards
Huisman sets the standard in pipelay and off-shore
drilling equipment
Creating ‘new combinations’
In cooperation with off-shore and heavy lift
companies new combinations are created
Improving the transfer of knowledge
Most knowledge is in house, transfers take place in
the close network
Encourage and enable internationalization
Huisman has international locations, but these have
little effects on the Rotterdam cluster
Creating reputation
Huisman is one of the flagships of the Rotterdam offshore sector
Improving the labor market
Engineers of Huisman are well trained and sought
after by other companies
Organizational infrastructure
Active in cluster initiatives, but no frontrunner in
creating infrastructure
MAMMOET
In 2001, Van Seumeren took over the company Mammoet. The combined firms continued
under the brand name Mammoet. Both companies were specialized in heavy lifting, Van
Seumeren on land and Mammoet also at sea. The new Mammoet formed a world class
player in the heavy lifting and project cargo transport. The headquarters is located in
Schiedam on the banks of the river Maas.
The largest business of Mammoet is heavy lifting and special transport on land, but the
maritime and port related business is growing and in this field Mammoet gets the most
attention in the media. In recent years they took up the challenging salvage job of the
nuclear submarine Kursk. 75% of production and service is for clients abroad. Mammoet
has a turnover of 573 million euro and a profit margin of 21% (2007).
161
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Clients
The main clients of Mammoet are the large petrochemical companies that use cranes and
heavy lifting for the building and maintenance of their installations and transport of factory
components. Other clients are more incidental users of special heavy lifting equipment and
governments for salvage jobs.
Competitiveness
Mammoet stands out in the world of heavy lifting because they have a large fleet of cranes
and machines that can be utilized almost everywhere in the world and is amongst the most
innovative. The last decade Mammoet also proved to be a competitive salvage company by
providing innovative solutions for complex tasks. The most notable salvage job undertaken
by Mammoet is the lifting of the nuclear submarine Kursk. They won this job because
Mammoet offered a new way of lifting that would shorten the operation dramatically and
made lifting safer than with a conventional method.
Innovations
The innovations of Mammoet are both technical and process innovations. The heavy lifting
division is responsible for many technical innovations in crane design. The salvage and
off-shore division are working on innovative procedures when they have a complex
salvage task at their hands. Mammoet holds 9 patents25 in the field of crane design and
salvage methods.
An illustrative example of Mammoets innovations in the last decade is the Platform Twinring Containerizable crane (PTC). This giant size crane can fully be unrigged into parts
with the size of a maritime container. This innovation creates the possibility to quickly ship
the crane to every place in the world a road truck can reach, making it the most useable
crane in the world. The PTC cranes are build by Huisman-Itrec, a neighbor of Mammoet in
Schiedam.
Suppliers
Mammoet has a purchasing quote of 40%, which is average for a service oriented firm. In
monetary terms Mammoet uses very limited inputs from local suppliers; only 2% of total
purchase comes from suppliers in the Rotterdam region.
25
Espacenet, European patent register 5-2-2009
162
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
The suppliers that have the most direct influence on the quality of Mammoet’s services are
the producers of cranes. This is also reflected in the list of most important suppliers
according to Mammoet’s management.
Company
Product
Liebherr
Cranes
Demag
Cranes
Manitowoc
Cranes
Mercedes
Trucks
MAN
Trucks
Nooteboom
Trailers
Noteworthy is that most of the important suppliers are German companies and only one,
Nooteboom, is Dutch but not from Rotterdam. The suppliers that are located in Rotterdam
are less vital to the firm. The contribution local suppliers make to the competitiveness of
Mammoet is their reliability and the quality of their products and services. The
contribution to innovation from local suppliers is limited.
The most important suppliers are met on a monthly basis to discuss ongoing projects and
future developments. Competitive pressure and evaluation is sometimes used to stimulate
suppliers to increase performance. Incentive systems and direct involvement is never used.
Leader firm
Mammoet is considered a leader firm by most experts and port executives. The main
reasons for this are the unique projects they undertake and the complex equipment they use
and sometimes develop. They are an important player in the off-shore industry when it
comes to knowledge development. The characteristics of Mammoet’s projects also make it
a company that is ‘in the picture’ and brings positive association with the general public.
163
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Coordination of production networks
Mammoet coordinates suppliers in special projects
Role as lead user
Mammoet has very sophisticated demands in order to
make
Creating standards
Standards for quality, speed and possibilities in heavy
lifting are continuously set by Mammoet
Creating ‘new combinations’
In cooperation with other companies Mammoet
occasionally creates new combinations
Improving the transfer of knowledge
Knowledge transfers are improved by combining
suppliers and partners in difficult projects
Encourage and enable internationalization
Mammoet operates worldwide, but has limited effects
on the internationalization of others
Creating reputation
Mammoet is one of the flagships of the Rotterdam
off-shore sector
Improving the labor market
Some investments in training and education
Organizational infrastructure
Active in cluster initiatives, but no frontrunner in
creating infrastructure
SAMSKIP
Samskip is a trans-European multimodal transport company that provides short sea and
land transport. The company originally is from Iceland, but expanded fast the past five
years, for a large part through takeovers. One of their major acquisitions was the
Rotterdam based Geest North sea lines in 2005. Samskip now is the largest short-seashipping company of Europe, with an annual turnover of € 460 million. The EBIT is about
3% of the turnover and the purchasing ratio is 0.87. Meaning that 87% of the turnover is
delivered by suppliers. The shares are still in hands of the Icelandic family that started
Samskip. The operational headquarters is now based in Rotterdam.
Clients
The clients of Samskip are the users of intra-Europe transport, mainly the European
producers of consumer goods and foods. For these clients Samskip offers a pan-European
multimodal network. The backbone of the network is the short sea network offering
scheduled sailings to and from most European ports.
Competitiveness
Samskip has grown fast in the last decade. From a relatively small ship-operator into the
largest short sea operator in Europe. They expanded the network by acquisitions and
164
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
endogenous growth. With the strategic takeover of Geest lines they acquired the largest
part of the network and the transport system with the 45 feet container. This 45 feet
container fits the continental transport flows better than a traditional container (20 or 40
feet) because it fits exactly 13 pallets of goods.
Innovations
Samskip is in a business where costs are the main selling point, and the organization owns
little assets. This combined makes Samskip an unlikely candidate for large scale
technological innovations. The innovations of Samskip are in the design and organization
of the transport network and in the design of the containers that are owned. What makes
the transport network unique is the complete integration of multimodal transportation.
The innovations in the container design are rooted in the Geest-lines organization that is
now part of Samskip; they introduced the 45 foot container that can be transport on every
modality. In recent years Samskip expanded on this concept by designing new types of
containers. Such as the coolboxx reefer container and by designing lighter containers.
Suppliers
Samskip owns relatively little assets, the equipment owned consists mainly of containers,
primarily 45 feet containers that are specifically designed for intra European transport of
palletized cargo. The transport services are hired and ships are chartered, and not owned.
On both these markets, there is a great number of suppliers that can deliver comparable
services. Individual suppliers that are of importance to Samskip are Argos oil for the
bunkers (ship fuel), because they are a large supplier moneywise, Rotterdam Shortsea
Terminal, because they are the prime supplier of terminal services and essential in the
transport network of Samskip and Hupac, because they provide an important train link
from Rotterdam into Europe.
Strategically very important is the RST terminal in Rotterdam, with this supplier there is
face to face contact at least on a monthly basis to discuss the going business and the
planning for future activities. Currently there is a capacity problem at the RST terminal and
a little room for expansion in the port of Rotterdam, which leads to operational problems
for both RST and Samskip. Samskip is actively trying to help RST in dealing with these
capacity problems.
The largest group of supplier in terms of money, is the transport services.
165
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Strategy towards suppliers
The primary strategy of Samskip towards its suppliers is the competitive pressure, the best
performing supplier receives the most business. In all cases some form of competitive
pressure is used.
New in the strategy of Samskip is the introduction of an unambiguous tendering procedure
for road transport. Until recently Samskip used approximately 80 transporting companies,
all operating under a different contract. To streamline this Samskip started a tender
procedure. The transport companies received an overview of the forecasted 2008 transport
flows and the invitation to tender for a part of this transport. The road transporters
provided information about their company, which Samskip used to make a short list of
potential suppliers. After that some companies that made the short-list based on their
qualities but not on price, were asked to give a new price that was more in line with the
other offers that Samskip received. The final selection was made on price and references of
the transport companies. All trucking companies got a contract with similar terms and
conditions. This step in professionalizing the purchasing practice is the upbeat for more
monitoring and evaluation of the suppliers and the introduction of incentives for transport
suppliers. Starting this year there will be two supplier meetings per year to discuss the
performance of the transport services and what Samskip and the suppliers can do to
improve this.
Suppliers in Rijnmond
Samskip has its operational headquarters in Rotterdam and the port of Rotterdam is an
important link in their transportation network. This makes it likely that they use a fair
amount of local suppliers. The Rijnmond based suppliers are typically the RST terminal
and road haulage suppliers, for which half of the € 170 M worth yearly business is spend in
Rijnmond. For this reason Samskip sees the suppliers in Rotterdam as important for their
competitive power. These suppliers add to the competitiveness of Samskip primarily
through their reliability, quality and cost level. Innovation is far less important.
Suppliers and competitiveness
The competitiveness of Samskip is based on the speed, quality and reliability of their
services. They are able to deliver the quality level because they operate a large multimodal
European network. At the same time most services are bought in by Samskip, making
Samskip dependent on the supplier for delivering the quality the clients expect.
166
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Because of these dependencies one could expect that Samskip has many strategic
partnerships to maintain control over all operations. However, the transport market proves
to be so competitive that there is no need to do this, switching costs are very low and the
service levels of many transport companies are of comparable quality. Also for the
containers Samskip uses a market approach towards the suppliers, the containers are
designed in-house and then ordered at the company that can deliver for the lowest price.
The only supplier that can be considered close to Samskip is RST, the reason for this
closeness can be found in the lock-in situation that Samskip is in. For the European
network the port of Rotterdam is of utmost importance, and RST is the only large scale
terminal that can handle short sea containers. The cooperation between the two companies
is not based on joint ambitions but emerged primarily because the market circumstances
forced them.
Leader Firm
Coordination of production networks
Samskip coordinates transport networks that link
multimodal transports to Rotterdam, physical
production network are not coordinated
Role as lead user
Samskip is a lead user for the transport companies in
intermodal transport and for terminals specialized in
short sea shipping
Creating standards
Samskip literally created a standard for short sea
shipping with the new 45 ft container and expands this
concept.
Creating ‘new combinations’
Samskip makes new combinations (firms and
techniques) in developing new types of containers
Improving the transfer of knowledge
Much development is done in house. Knowledge
transfers take place to some extent with the producers
of containers.
Encourage and enable
internationalization
Samskip has little influence on the internationalization
of others
Creating reputation
Samskip adds to the reputation of Rotterdam as a
central spot for intra European cargo flows
Improving the labor market
Samskip has little influence on the local labor market
Organizational infrastructure
Samskip is involved in cluster wide initiatives.
167
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
BROEKMAN
The Broekman group, with headquarters in the Rotterdam port area, is a group of
companies specialized in cargo handling and transport. Particularly in the handling of cars,
Broekman is a prominent company in the Port of Rotterdam. The only large scale facility
for this, the Rotterdam Car Terminal, is owned by the Broekman group and forms the
‘core’ of the company. Further the company invested in transport and break-bulk cargo
handling primarily through takeovers of ship agents and the Gevelco terminal, which
handles paper and steel and is the only all-weather terminal in Rotterdam. Broekman also
recently expanded its activities into air-transport. For the study at hand the focus will be on
port related services, with special attention on the car terminal.
Innovations
Broekman is one of the fastest growing transport and stevedoring companies in the port of
Rotterdam. It generates business in the port that was previously not found in Rotterdam.
The position of Rotterdam in the supply chains of cars has grown from almost non-existent
in 2000 to one of the three leading European ports in 2008. One element in the fast growth
is the innovative way of doing business. Two innovations are important for Broekman; the
construction of multi-deck car storage and the introduction of a RFID (Radio Frequency
IDentification) real-time locating system to track 40,000 vehicles at their car terminal,
making inventory management more efficient.
Broekman brought new knowledge to the port by investing in RFID technologies in the car
terminal. At the time of implementing the RCT was the largest test facility of RFID
technology in the world and the first in the world. The size of the terminal provided the
supplier of the technology with valuable experience. For other companies in the port and
logistic business the RFID project of Broekman proves to be an inspiration to also invest in
advanced technology for better warehouse management.
Suppliers
Broekman has a purchasing quote of 55%, which is for a large part due to the transport and
forwarding business. For the terminal operations the purchasing quote is considerably
lower. As Broekman is a group of companies, there are multiple suppliers that are
important for the company. Every business unit has its own specialized suppliers, like the
trucking companies for the transport business and contractors for the car terminal.
168
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Synergy in the supplier base of the different business units is based on economics of scale;
synergy in knowledge development is in most cases not apparent. The important suppliers
to the individual business-units have limited influence on the performance of other
business units.
Suppliers in Rijnmond
The following suppliers are considered important:
Company
Product
Railion
Rail transport
Wherenet
RFID
Portinfolink
Information services
Mielo & Alexander
IT & consultancy
Suppliers and competitiveness
The handling of cars in the port of Rotterdam is done for several large car producers and
importers. These clients seek for an efficient terminal in Western Europe to handle their
transport flows. Efficiency in the case of a car terminal means fast transfer of cars between
ship and terminal, efficient storage of cars and a well functioning system for reclaiming
cars from storage. The constructor of the car decks and the supplier of the IT system are
therefore the suppliers that are most important for the car terminal to maintain competitive.
The business units transport and logistics use suppliers that have a lesser impact on the
competitiveness of Broekman. They do have to deliver a timely and reliable transport
service, but this is more widely available in the market and hence not a distinctive quality
supplied to Broekman.
Leader firm
Locally, the effects of Broekman are primarily found in sharing knowledge in the informal
network. In the port of Rotterdam the management of Broekman is among the most active
in organizing and participating in knowledge sharing and networking activities. The main
effect is that they bring entrepreneurial spirit in the port. The often-presented case of the
implementation of the RFID system shows other companies in the port how to organize
innovation together with suppliers in a transport company. Up till now it has not led to the
implementation of the same system at other port facilities in Rotterdam.
169
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Coordination of production networks
Coordination of transport networks especially in car
distribution leads to the position of Rotterdam
Role as lead user
The car terminal has one of the largest RFID systems in
the world, for the suppliers of these systems Broekman
is a lead user
Creating standards
Broekman sets the standard in handling cars, especially
in applying warehouse management systems in this
business
Creating ‘new combinations’
Broekman is not involved in ‘new combinations’
Improving the transfer of knowledge
Broekman actively vents out the knowledge they
developed in RFID systems
Encourage and enable
internationalization
Broekman has little effect on the internationalization of
others
Creating reputation
The reputation of Rotterdam as a centre for car
handling is solely created by Broekman
Improving the labor market
Broekman does its share in education projects, but has
limited cluster wide influence in this field
Organizational infrastructure
The Broekman management is one of the most active in
cluster organizations
APM TERMINALS
APM terminals is a worldwide operating company exploiting container terminals, mainly
for Maersk lines. The company is owned by the AP Möller group in Copenhagen and
managed by the APM Terminals headquarters in Den Haag. The Terminal in the port of
Rotterdam handles 2 million containers per year and has a current capacity of 2.7 million
TEU.
Innovations
In March 2008 the Port of Rotterdam Authority signed an agreement with the APM
headquarters in The Hague stating that the two organizations will cooperate in developing
new ideas and projects to improve container terminal operations. These ideas can involve
efficiency gains, marketing and planning but also initiatives to improve environmental
performance. The agreement involves all 50 terminals that APM has worldwide. However,
the cooperation with the port of Rotterdam and the construction of a new terminal at the
Maasvlakte II make it likely that Rotterdam will be an important ‘test centre’ for new
terminal concepts in the future.
170
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Suppliers
The suppliers of equipment, such as cranes and straddle carriers for APM terminals are for
a large part international companies. Decisions about the purchasing of large equipment
are made at the AP Möller head office in Copenhagen. Important suppliers for the APM
terminal in Rotterdam are:
Company
Product
Noell
Straddle carriers
Michelin
Tires
ZPMC
Cranes
APM has a purchasing quote of about 30%. A large part of the purchasing is local supply
of maintenance and parts. The local purchasing management is responsible for this ‘daily’
purchases. About 20% of total supplies is strategic, and this is mainly bought abroad and
the purchasing management for strategic supplies is mainly done at the headquarters in
Copenhagen and The Hague.
Supplier evaluation does not take place structurally at the local level. Concerning strategies
towards suppliers and supplier development, APM terminal in Rotterdam uses primarily
competitive pressure to stimulate suppliers to improve performance. Incentives and direct
involvement in the suppliers’ organization is not used by APM.
What is important for APM is that local suppliers are reliable and efficient, so that they
contribute to a continuously smooth operation of the terminal. Innovation is not an issue in
the relation between APM and their local suppliers.
Leader firm
APM terminals opened their location in Rotterdam in 2000 and is a rather young company
in the port. The APM terminal in Rotterdam functions as a dedicated terminal for Maersk
lines, and most important investment decision are made by the headquarters in The Hague
or Copenhagen and are aligned with the investments in other terminals all over the world.
As a result, the terminal in Rotterdam has limited connections with other companies in the
Rotterdam area.
The reason experts gave to call APM terminal a leader firm is the role it plays in keeping
Maersk cargo flows connected to Rotterdam and the way it brought some competition in
the container stevedoring market in Rotterdam, giving an efficiency impulse to the nearmonopolist ECT.
171
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Coordination of production networks
APM has little influence on production networks
Role as lead user
On corporate level APM is a lead user to some
producers. The local terminal in Rotterdam does not
have this function
Creating standards
APM uses the industry standard in machines and
terminal layout, there is no APM influence on this
standard yet
Creating ‘new combinations’
There are no concepts/products developed by APM
with ‘new combinations’ the company is geared
towards operational excellence
Improving the transfer of knowledge
APM has moderate influence on knowledge transfers,
there are some initiatives to cooperate with other firms
in the port
Encourage and enable
internationalization
APMT Rotterdam has no influence on the
internationalization of other companies in Rotterdam
Creating reputation
Currently APMT does not create reputation for
Rotterdam, this is likely to change when a new terminal
is build on Maasvlakte II
Improving the labor market
APMT invests in training and education of employees
that later are likely to work for other port-companies
Organizational infrastructure
APMT has little involvement in the organization
infrastructure of the cluster
ODFJELL
Odfjell is a Norwegian company specialized in transport and storage of chemicals. The
headquarters of the terminal division is located in Rotterdam, as well as a large storage and
distribution facility. The Rotterdam facility has a turnover of 70 million euro (2006). With
a profit margin of 19% they were one of the most profitable port-companies in 2006.
Competitiveness
Odfjell is a market leader in chemical parcel tanker shipping. The specialization on
chemicals in combination with the worldwide transport network and terminal locations is
the unique selling point of Odfjell. “The strategy of Odfjell Terminals is to grow along
Odfjell’s major shipping lanes and at important petrochemical logistics junctions around
the world.”26
26
Odfjell website: www.odfjell.com
172
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Innovations
At the Odfjell terminal all innovation efforts are aimed towards process improvements.
Developments aim at efficiency gains in design and maintenance of the terminals.
Maintenance and construction are largely subcontracted; innovations are therefore often a
combination of knowledge of Odfjell and suppliers that use new techniques at the Odfjell
terminal.
Suppliers
Purchasing of Odfjell amounts to approximately 30 million Euros a year, resulting in a
purchasing quote of 42%. Suppliers that are important are mainly for building and
maintenance of the terminal, approximately 95% of the purchasing. A total of 60 firms
supply almost 90% of the purchased goods and service. Maintenance of a chemicals
terminal is specialized work. The pipelines, loading and off-loading jetties and the tanks all
need maintenance personnel specially trained for this kind of equipment.
In many cases contracts are tendered to a selected group of suppliers, since the reliability
of the suppliers is of utmost importance to Odfjell, they pre-select trusted suppliers to bid
on a tender. Next to reliability the costs and quality are very important. Innovativeness and
speed of production are less important characteristics of a supplier. The suppliers of
Odfjell are mostly located in the Rijnmond area, about 80% of the purchased goods and
services comes from the area.
The following suppliers are considered important:
Company
Product
Van Splunder
Port facility Construction
Mercon
Steel tanks
Pijneman
Cranes
Nacap
Electrical and instrumentation
Visser Smit Hanab
Quay wall construction
Suppliers and competitiveness
Some suppliers add to the competitiveness of Odfjell. The competitive position of Odfjell
is mainly determined by the reliability and costs of the terminal. The costs of the terminal
are for a large part dependent on the efficiency of suppliers. An example of a supplier that
provides cost reducing services is Jetset. Jetset developed a machine, called Ragworm that
can cut worn steel plates from a tank for replacement with the use of waterjets. Cutting
173
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
with this machine is 20 times faster than conventional methods, is safer and gives lower
risks of damage to the rest of the tank. Ragworm was developed by JetSet Hydro Technics
at the request of Odfjell.
Leader firm
The leader firm function of Odfjell is primarily based on its size, network position and
interaction with suppliers.
Coordination of production
networks
Odfjell incidentally coordinates production of supplier
combinations
Role as lead user
Odfjell has high demands for terminal design and
efficiency and was a lead user for the company ‘Jetset’
Creating standards
Odfjell is one of the frontrunners in tank terminal design
and operation
Creating ‘new combinations’
There are no new combinations initiated by Odfjell
Improving the transfer of
knowledge
Knowledge transfer between suppliers is stimulated and
facilitated by Odfjell
Encourage and enable
internationalization
Suppliers of Odfjell do not profit from internationalization
Creating reputation
Odfjell adds to the reputation of Rotterdam as the leading
port for tank storage in Europe
Improving the labor market
Odfjell invests in training of their employees, but not in
cluster wide education
Organizational infrastructure
Odfjell’s management is very active in cluster networks
and initiatives
ARGOS OIL
Argos oil is an oil trading company that started in 1984 with small scale distribution of
fuels. In the past 25 years the company expanded, primarily in the Port of Rotterdam. The
company now includes divisions that are active in international oil trading, bunkers for
ships and owns several gas stations. The financial results of the company, for 2006, are
presented in the table below. The results show a typical trading organization, high
turnover, limited value added and a high value of the purchased goods. In 2007 Argos
reached a turnover of more than 750 million euro’s and 300 employees. Currently Argos is
developing further into the energy production market. The turnover of amounts to little
over 1 billion euro and an operational result of 10 million.
174
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Competitiveness
Argos has primarily developed its market in the fields where the large oil companies are
withdrawing. The large oil producing companies tend to concentrate on exploration and
production and disinvest in the trading business and delivery to consumers. Argos stepped
into the gap between large producers and customers. It started in the distribution of oil and
oil products, expanded towards bunkers and storage, later added a trading organization and
is now making the step to become an energy producer. In the port of Rotterdam they own a
500.000 M3 facility for oil storage and are developing production facilities for bio-diesels.
Suppliers
Argos has a purchasing quote of 96%, which is the highest in the sample of leader firms.
The importance of purchasing for Argos is reflected in the presence of a separate group
within the company that is dedicated to purchasing under direct supervision of one of the
directors. The most important purchased goods and services are:
Oil(products), transport services, surveying, building and engineering, banking and
insurance, IT and legal services.
As Argos is a trading organization, the suppliers of Argos can be divided into those that
provide the traded goods and those that provide goods and services that enable Argos to do
the trading. The trading goods are fully supplied by the oil producing companies that are
present in the Antwerp-Rotterdam-Amsterdam range. Other goods and services include the
development of storage and production facilities in the port of Rotterdam, the transport of
oil and oil products and financial services to facilitate the trade.
Most of the suppliers (+- 80%) has presence in the Rijnmond area and commercial contacts
are held with these local companies or subsidiaries.
Most suppliers are met face-to-face 2 to 4 times per year to discuss going concerns and the
exchange of market knowledge. For Argos it is also important to develop a trust
relationship with many of its suppliers. Especially for the trading partners a sense of trust
is important; the very volatile oil prices make it of utmost importance that you can trust
your trading partner will act the way that was agreed upon. The most important
characteristics of the suppliers in Rijnmond are reliability and quality of their products and
services. For innovation, the suppliers are less important.
175
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Supplier Strategy
The strategy that Argos uses towards its suppliers is based on both market testing and
building trust. For the trading organization trust is essential because it can only get the
lowest price from parties that trust Argos as a trading partner.
For the purchasing of facilitating goods and services Argos uses several strategies to
influence their suppliers. In all cases competitive pressure is used, sometimes evaluation
and financial incentives. Direct involvement in the operations of the suppliers only takes
place within the development of the bio-diesel production plant.
Leader firm
The leader firm role of Argos is primarily formed by its efforts in the cluster organizations
and the developments in bio-fuels.
Coordination of production
networks
Argos is primarily a trading company and does not
coordinate large production networks
Role as lead user
Argos uses off-the shelf technology and thus no lead user
role
Creating standards
Argos is creating standards in bio-fuel production in
Rotterdam
Creating ‘new combinations’
No ‘new combinations’ have been created
Improving the transfer of
knowledge
Argos plays a role in the development of knowledge about
bio-fuels in Rotterdam
Encourage and enable
internationalization
Argos is a supplier to international companies and does not
influence others in internationalization
Creating reputation
Argos adds to the reputation of Rotterdam as a hub for
bunkers and as a centre for cleaner fuels
Improving the labor market
Effects on the labor market are limited
Organizational infrastructure
Argos is active in many cluster initiatives and organizations
EECV
EECV is a dry bulk stevedoring company handling iron ore and coal. Total throughput of
the terminal amounts to 30 million tons of cargo every year. EECV is owned by two
German steel producers, ThyssenKrupp Steel AG and Hüttenwerke Krupp Mannesmann
GmbH. For these companies EECV unloads seagoing vessels, stores the cargo at its
terminal and sends the coal and ore to the German Ruhr area by barge or train when the
two clients need it.
176
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Innovations
Innovations at EECV are focused at efficiency gain or environmental impact reduction,
which are the most important issues for the terminal. As a cost centre for the large German
steel-producers, the main objective of EECV is to be an efficient as possible link in the
transport chain of iron ore and coal. The environmental impact is an important local issue,
since the loading and unloading of dry bulks can lead to polluting spills and storage of coal
can lead to hindrance and pollution for communities in the vicinity of the terminal. To
prevent spreading of dust from the coal terminal, EECV was the first to construct fences
designed to prevent coal-dust spreading through the air.
Suppliers
The supplies of EECV consist of machines, materials, maintenance and temporary
personnel. The purchasing quote of EECV is average 45%. About half of the supplies
comes from companies in the region. The regionally located suppliers are mainly the
suppliers of personnel and maintenance service. For maintenance it’s very important for
EECV to have local partners, they have to be committed and flexible. For this reason
EECV uses many relatively small suppliers for whom EECV is an important customer.
Important suppliers of EECV are:
Company
Product
Nemag
Grabbers
Volvo
Shovels
Shell
Lubricants/ fuel
Rent-to-work
personnel
Continental
Conveyor belts
Smit
personnel
Essent
Electricity
Face to face contact with the suppliers is in most cases limited to two times per year. The
strategy towards suppliers is primarily based on costs and competitive pressure.
Leader firm
EECV is expected to be a leader firm based on its size of operations. As one of the largest
dry bulk facilities in Europe, one could expect some leader firm effects. On the other hand,
because EECV is a dedicated terminal for its two shareholders the involvement with other
companies is somewhat limited.
177
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
Coordination of production
networks
The coordination role is limited to a task of the supply
chain of the parent companies
Role as lead user
EECV is a lead user in the field of environmental
protection techniques for bulk storage
Creating standards
EECV is standard setting in prevention of environmental
damage in the dry bulk sector
Creating ‘new combinations’
No new combinations are created
Improving the transfer of
knowledge
Knowledge transfers to other parties are limited
Encourage and enable
internationalization
No internationalization takes place
Creating reputation
EECV adds to the reputation of Rotterdam as an efficient
and relatively clean port
Improving the labor market
EECV trains it s own personnel, but makes no special
investments in the cluster
Organizational infrastructure
EECV has limited involvement in cluster initiatives
178
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
MAERSK LINE
Maersk is a worldwide operating shipping and logistics company, part of the Danish A.P.
Møller group. The global headquarters of Maersk lines is located in Copenhagen. After the
acquisition of P&O Nedlloyd in 2005, Maersk positioned the headquarters for Central
Europe in the former Nedlloyd building in Rotterdam. The structure of the AP Møller
group in the Rotterdam area is shown in the table below.
Controlled assets (M€)
A.P. MÖLLER MAERSK A/S
APM Terminals Rotterdam BV
111.853
Damco International B.V.
34.532
European Rail Shuttle BV
19126
Maersk B.V.
1.399.447
Maersk Benelux B.V.
14.347
Maersk Ship Management B.V.
15.225
Maersk Logistics Benelux B.V.
25.273
Maersk Transport B.V.
9.823
Safmarine Netherlands B.V.
2.793
Source: Author calculations based on Reach database by Bureau van Dijk
From the Rotterdam office the ships that are sailing to and from the ports in Belgium,
Netherlands and Germany are serviced. The Central European office is also responsible for
the hinterland transport to and from these ports and the operational sales and order process
regarding deep sea transport. As a result it controls the Maersk cargo flows in the
Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, and the larger part of Eastern Europe that is serviced
through the North Sea ports. Most ships are managed from the central offices in
Copenhagen. Maersk Ship Management in Rotterdam has 75 people, managing the
manning of 48 Maersk line ships.
The operating results of Maersk Benelux are show in the table below. The figures show
that Maersk in Rotterdam primarily has an intermediary function. The main costs are
personnel, 991 people in 2006, and work that is contracted to third parties.
179
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
2006 (X1000 EUR)
Turnover
176,153
Costs
175,605
Personnel
Depreciations
Contracted work
Mutations in assets
Results
Gross value added
64,746
2,350
107,209
1,300
548
68,944
Source: Chamber of commerce, Bureau van Dijk
Clients
The major clients of Maersk are the large producers and distributors of (mainly) consumer
goods, like electronics and vehicles. The main characteristic of Maersk’s clients is that
they have a fragmented production process and consequently need frequent transport. Most
clients are international companies and only very few are located in the Rijnmond area.
Another substantial part of the client base are the distributors. Many of these clients have a
warehouse and distribution activity in the Rijnmond area.
Competitiveness
Maersk line is the largest transporter of containerized cargo, making scale economies an
important competitive advantage for Maersk. Because of its scale, Maersk can offer
transport throughout the world, its extended network provides the customers with efficient
transport to virtually all destinations in the world. Another specificity of Maersk is that it
focuses on logistic solutions for the customers, as opposed to only maritime transport. The
logistic focus makes that Maersk puts effort in supplying user specific transport.
Value for the local economy
The impact of Maersk on the local economy is substantial due to the size of operations in
Rotterdam. The presence of a dedicated container terminal and logistic facilities make
Rotterdam an important point in the Maersk network. As a result, Maersk leads a large part
of the cargo flows through the port of Rotterdam. This has an impact on all port related
services and employment as well as on the hinterland transport.
180
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Especially the influence on the hinterland transport is of importance for the region. Being
the largest container transporter in the port of Rotterdam, the containers handled by the
APM terminal at the Maasvlakte account for 20 to 25% of total container volume in
Rotterdam, the operations of Maersk have a large impact for the infrastructure in
Rotterdam. Maersk is a promoter of hinterland transport by rail, offering their customers
the possibility to have their container transported by ERS rail shuttle. From the APM
terminal almost twice as much cargo is transported via rail than the average in the port of
Rotterdam27. With the emphasis Maersk puts on rail transport it functions as an example
for other transporters and Maersk provides the necessary mass to make rail shuttles
profitable.
Suppliers
Purchasing and supplier management in the Maersk organization is divided amongst the
different branches. The purchasing of large assets, such as ships and cranes, takes place at
the headquarters in Copenhagen. The main purchasing responsibility for the regional
offices is the hinterland transport, stevedoring and warehousing.
The total spend of the Maersk Rotterdam office is approximately 50% controlled by the
office’s own management, the other 50% is controlled by the Copenhagen office.
30 to 40 percent of total purchasing is done with companies in the Rijnmond area. At the
same time, these companies only make up 5% of the supplier lists, showing that it’s
typically the larger suppliers that are located in Rotterdam. In total, some 971 suppliers in
Europe deliver their services to Maersk
For the Rotterdam location of Maersk, a non-limited set of critical suppliers is presented in
the table below.
ERS
Rail services (also an AP Møller company), because it is the largest
transport provider for Rotterdam bound cargo
Boxxpress
Rail services, the largest supplier of rail transport for Maersk in
Germany
Bontrans
Road transport and container depot in Rotterdam
EKB
Road haulage from the port of Rotterdam
Barge terminal Tilburg
The location of important clients close to this terminal makes it of
particular importance in the Maersk Network.
27
http://www.portofrotterdam.com/nl/nieuws/persberichten/2006/20060511_01.jsp
181
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
The relations that Maersk has with its clients in general are straightforward business
relations. Based on importance and criticality, clients are managed on various levels, from
a country level up to global level.
The strategy towards the suppliers is built on the motto “to maintain a good network
everybody has to make some money”. In practice this means that suppliers are first
selected based on their operational performance, market testing is done regularly but long
term development is taken into account before making decisions based on prices only. The
interaction is limited to 1 or 2 meetings per year, when contracts and operational
performance are discussed
The suppliers of Maersk do not deliver input that directly contributes to the competences
of the organization, although they make the overall supply chain more valuable. The
suppliers provide important links in the network, but core of the network and the vital
linkages are under the management of the Maersk organization.
Leader firm
The Maersk organization has a considerable economic impact on the Rijnmond region,
because of the large transport flows that are handled by them through the port of
Rotterdam. The impact on the cluster is somewhat restricted due to the location of the
headquarters in Copenhagen, where most ‘high-impact’ decisions are made, and because
many suppliers are also part of the AP Møller group.
The leader firm effects on suppliers are for a large part to the benefit of ERS, also an AP
Møller company. Effects on external suppliers are limited. Most suppliers provide a
standard product, leading to little incentive for Maersk to invest in these suppliers.
Some specific examples of knowledge spillovers towards road transport organizations
show that, although Maersk does not seem much embedded in the regional business
community, there are some leader firm effects.
The main leader firms effect of Maersk can be found in the development of hinterland
transport. As the main rail transporter and investor in inland terminals, Maersk functions as
an example to shift cargo from road to other modalities and at the same time provides the
critical mass for development of alternative hinterland infrastructure.
Coordination of production
networks
Maersk in Rotterdam controls the transport networks in
Western Europe
Role as lead user
Maersk is seldom a lead user for suppliers in the Rotterdam
port cluster, most activities are performed in-house.
182
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
Creating standards
Maersk is creating a standard in global network development,
which is an example for other logistic companies.
Creating ‘new combinations’
There are no new combinations created by Maersk in
Rotterdam.
Improving the transfer of
knowledge
Knowledge transfers primarily take place within the AP Moller
group. The presence of many APM companies in Rotterdam,
makes this a centre for knowledge for both the company and
the cluster in Rotterdam.
Encourage and enable
internationalization
The suppliers are not supported by Maersk in
internationalization.
Creating reputation
The largest logistics company in the world adds to the
reputation of Rotterdam by maintaining a regional headquarters
in the city and using Rotterdam as a main hub.
Improving the labor market
Maersk knowledge is transferred to other companies in the
cluster through the labor market. Employees receive frequent
training that is state-of-the art in transport business.
Organizational infrastructure
The role of Maersk in the organizational infrastructure of the
Rotterdam cluster is limited.
8.1
Leader firm scoreboard
The following table shows the scores of the different companies on the elements of leader
firm behavior. The score resembles the amount of leader firm effects originating from a
company. A score of 10 means substantial effects in all fields of leader firm behavior. A
score of 1 means some effects in one or two fields of leader firm behavior. The score does
not imply sufficiency or insufficiency, a score of 1 already means the company is valuable
for others in the cluster.
Firm
Score
Note
APM terminal
3.00
Focused on efficiency of own operation. Most development done in
Denmark. Starting interaction with Port Authority and competitors
with local benefits. Some participation in local networks
Argos
5.00
New, fast growing oil-trader, beginning with production of bio-fuels
in Rotterdam. One of the first movers in the bio-fuel cluster in
Rotterdam. Their knowledge network in Rotterdam is still in the
developing phase.
Broekman
6.00
Group with many activities in Rotterdam. Very active in formal and
informal networks. Leading company in the development of
Rotterdam as car handler. Innovative development, but no large
scale joint-initiatives with other port companies.
183
Part III: Supplier relations and innovation
EECV
4.00
Cost centre for the German steel industry, less focused on the
success of Rotterdam. Focused on efficiency, is an example for
others in the field of social responsibility.
EMO
6.00
Largest automated dry bulk port facility in Europe. Systems are
developed in close cooperation with suppliers. However, these
suppliers are not located in Rijnmond. Showcase of technological
development in stevedoring.
IHC
9.00
World market leader in design and building of dredge vessels. High
quality standard, most innovations in the Dutch maritime industries.
Numerous cooperative efforts with suppliers, buyers, educational
facilities. Actively shares knowledge with other companies.
Keppel
6.00
Large facility for building and maintenance of off-shore equipment.
Builds complex structures. Development in-house is limited and
most production capacity is hired in. There is a strong role as a
coordinator. Active in formal and informal networks in the port.
Maersk
4.00
Large container shipping line in the world, with regional
headquarters in Rotterdam. Many decisions are taken at
headquarters and many suppliers are Maersk group companies, local
embeddedness is limited. Reputation and scale effects for
Rotterdam are present because investments in the efficiency in
hinterland transport.
Mammoet
7.00
Heavy lift shipping and off-shore activities. Strong reputation
effects for Rotterdam. Active in the local cluster with codevelopment.
Samskip
6.00
Leading intra-European (maritime) transporter and developer of
multimodal networks. Inventor of new transport concepts and
equipment. Active in local networks.
Smit
8.00
Leading company in towage and special projects off-shore.
Developer of innovative off shore equipment in cooperation with
local firms. Large contribution to Rotterdam reputation. Lead user
for many Rotterdam based companies.
Odfjell
5.00
Oil and chemical terminal in Botlek with expansion plans. Recently
moved the HQ to Rotterdam. Active in local networks.
Imtech
7.00
Developer of state-of–the art ship equipment. Supplier to all major
dredging and off-shore companies.
Huisman-Itrec
7.00
Huisman designs and constructs large and innovative structures for
the off-shore industry. Innovation is a routine in this company and
in this way brings knowledge in the cluster.
184
Chapter 8: case studies of the Leader firms
ECT28
6.00
The largest container terminal in Europe. Important player in
attracting goods flows to Rotterdam. Has a history of innovative
terminal concepts, but today focuses primarily on operational
excellence. The take-over by a Chinese company limited the
possibilities for the local management.
The figure below shows the score of the leader firms compared to their size measured in
number of employees in the Rijnmond area. The size of the bubbles resembles the net
value added of the companies. This results in an overview showing the importance of the
firms for the regional economy. The leader firm score gives an indication of the
companies’ importance for other businesses in the cluster, the number of employees
indicates the socio-economic significance of the firm, and the net value added is the
resemblance of total economic activity in the Rijnmond area.
Figure 8-1: Relative importance of leader firms for the Rotterdam port economy
10
9
IHC
Mammoet
Leader firm score
8
7
Smit
Keppel
Emo
Samskip
6
5 Odfjell
4
Argos
EECV
3
Huisman
Imtech
Broekman
ECT
Maersk
APM terminal
2
1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Employees in PoR (2006)
28
Management did not cooperate with an interview on all issues; the score of this company is also
based on external sources.
185
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
9
The causes of leader firm behavior
In this chapter the causes of leader firm behavior are analyzed. It is tested which
characteristics of a company induce leader firm behavior. The tests are performed in two
steps. First, a correlation analysis shows how individual characteristics of a firm correlate
with leader firm behavior. In a next step combinations of characteristics are analyzed with
a qualitative comparative analysis.
Cause and effect
In the case studies, effects of leader firms on the cluster in general and more specifically on
their suppliers and innovation are described and analyzed. The effects are identified and
shown to be present in the Dutch maritime cluster and the port of Rotterdam. The
researched companies all show some type of leader firm behavior with positive effects for
other companies. For the business community in the port of Rotterdam this is the most
relevant information. It answers the question,” does the port benefit from the leader firms
that are located there?” A next question is whether these leader firms are more successful
than other firms. If this is so, then consciously developing leader firm behavior could be a
strategic goal for a firm. Seen from the perspective of the management of a leader firm:
“what’s in it for me, when we act as a leader firm?” The study provides some insights to
answer this question. There are both quantitative and qualitative measures that tell
something about the performance of the leader firms. In this chapter the following
questions are addressed:
1.
Do leader firms make more profit?
2.
Are larger firms showing more leader firm behavior?
3.
Is having a foreign parent likely to influence leader firm behavior?
4.
Is there a relation between purchasing and leader firm behavior?
5.
Is leader firm behavior related to local connections?
189
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
9.1
Firm characteristics and leader firm behavior
In the first step of the analysis, individual characteristics of the leader firms are related to
their amount of leader firm behavior. The following table shows the correlation between
leader firm behavior and the characteristics of the firms.
Table 9-1: Correlation between leader firm behavior and firm characteristics
Correlation
Significance
Number
of cases
.444 (*)
0.049
15
-.660 (**)
0.004
15
0.397
0.072
15
-0.263
0.172
15
# suppliers in rijnmond
0.255
0.179
15
%_turnover_Rijnmond
0.051
0.428
15
Suppliers_importance_innovation
0.280
0.189
12
Net_turnover
.499 (*)
0.029
15
Profitmargin
.473 (*)
0.038
15
Added_value
0.362
0.093
15
Tot_equity
0.437
0.068
13
Leader_firm
Employees
Foreign parent
Purchasing quote
Supplies from region
Leader_firm
1
15
* Significant at the 0.01 level, ** significant at the 0.005 level
The table shows that there are four characteristics that are individually correlated with
leader firm behavior. The size of the company measured in employees and net turnover is
positively correlated to leader firm behavior. The profit margin of a company also has a
significant positive relation with leader firm behavior. A negative relation exists between a
foreign parent company and being a leader firm. The following paragraphs explore these
relations in more detail.
Size and profitability
The quantitative measures for size and success are the turnover and the profit of the leader
firms. We can perform a check to see if there is any correlation between the amount of
leader firm behavior and the size and profitability of the companies. Figure 9-1 shows the
scatter plot of profit margin and the score on the leader firm scoreboard. The profitability
190
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
of the leader firms ranges from 0% to 19%. The plot shows a slight upward trend
indicating that leader firm behavior is associated with higher profits.
Figure 9-1: Relation between profit margin and leader firm role
R-Square = 0,22
Odfjell
Profitmargin
15 ,0 0
ECT
Keppel
Mammoet
Huisman
Broekman
10 ,0 0
5,00
0,00
Smit
APM terminal
EECV
4,00
Maersk
Samskip
Emo
Argos
6,00
IHC
Imtech
8,00
Leader_firm
A one-tailed bivariate correlation test leads to the conclusion that there is a positive
significant relation between being a leader firm and having higher profits. This could mean
that leader firm behavior raises profit margins. However, the relation might also be
reverse; a company with relatively high profits might have more opportunities to make
investments with leader firm effects. Being a leader firm often leads to higher profit
margins, but having higher profits is not a guarantee for leader firm behavior.
We also see that the production oriented companies both receive higher score on leader
firm behavior and have a higher profit margin. The profit margins of transport and trading
companies are mostly lower, except for Odfjjel and ECT. IHC, the company that shows the
most leader firm behavior has a median profit margin.
191
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
The leader firms in the sample have a turnover ranging from 70 to 700 million euro in
2006, this is turnover realized in Rotterdam. Figure 9-2 shows the scatter plot of net
turnover and leader firm score. Here also there is an upward trend indicating a positive
relation between size and leader firm behavior. Figure 9-3 shows the relation between
added value produced by a company and leader firm behavior. Value added proves to be
less related to leader firm behavior than turnover. Companies that produce a lot are not
necessarily stronger leader firms. Reasons for this can be that these companies need fewer
connections with suppliers and thus have fewer incentives for leader firm behavior.
Figure 9-2: Relation between turnover and leader firm role
R-Square = 0,25
Argos
60 000 0
Net_turnover
ECT
40 000 0
20 000 0
Keppel
Maersk
APM terminal
EECV
4,00
Samskip
Odfjell
Huisman
Emo
Broekman
6,00
Leader _fir m
192
Smit
Mammoet
Imtech
8,00
IHC
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
Figure 9-3: Relation between added value and leader firm
R-Square = 0,13
Mammoet
25 000 0,00
ECT
Added_value
20 000 0,00
Smit
15 000 0,00
IHC
Maersk
10 000 0,00
Emo
APM terminal
50 000 ,0 0
EECV
4,00
Broekman
Keppel
Imtech
Odfjell
Argos
Samskip Huisman
6,00
8,00
Leader_fir m
The conclusion from this is that companies do not have to be large to be a leader firm and
leader firm behavior does not always make a company more successful, but both
characteristics do have influence on the amount of leader firm behavior. Size in terms of
added value has less influence than size in terms of turnover.
Parent company effects
In the literature and in the selection of leader firms, the location of the headquarters is a
factor considered important for the local impact of a company. The assumption is that the
location of a headquarter leads to more economic effects because there is more
commitment of the management to the area where the headquarters is located and because
interaction between companies is more frequent at the level of headquarters.
193
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
In the sample of companies, firms that have a foreign parent company and firms with
headquarters in Rijnmond are present. For some companies this is unambiguous, firms like
Smit Internationale and IHC were founded in Rotterdam and still maintain their
headquarters there. For other companies the picture is less clear. For example container
stevedore ECT was founded by Rotterdam port companies, grew with the help of
government money and was taken over by a Hong Kong based holding in 2002. The ECT
headquarters is still in Rotterdam but strategic investment decisions are nowadays made in
Hong Kong, not in Rotterdam. The following table gives an overview of the headquarters
locations of the leader firms.
Table 9-2: Headquarters location of leader firms
Company
Headquarters
APM terminal
The Hague / Copenhagen
Argos
Rotterdam
Broekman
Rotterdam
EECV
Duisburg / Rotterdam
EMO
Rotterdam
IHC
Rotterdam (Sliedrecht)
Keppel
Singapore
Maersk
Copenhagen
Mammoet
Rotterdam
Samskip
Rotterdam/Reykjavik
Smit
Rotterdam
Odfjell
Oslo
Imtech
Rotterdam/Gouda
Huisman
Rotterdam (Schiedam)
ECT
Hong Kong
Van Oord
Rotterdam
Boskalis
Rotterdam (Papendrecht)
During the research period (2003-2009) some takeovers of leader firms took place.
Nedlloyd is now part of Maersk, Geest-lines was bought by Samskip and ECT was
acquired by Hutchison Whampoa from Hong Kong.
Judging from the analyzed sample of 15 leader firms the headquarter location effect is
present in most cases and proves to have a significant influence on leader firm behavior.
194
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
The table below shows the difference in leader firm behavior between companies with
foreign parents and those with local headquarters.
Table 9-3: Leader firm score for local and foreign managed companies
Foreign
parent?
95% Confidence
Leader
Interval for Mean
firm
Lower
Upper
score
Std.
Bound
Mean Deviation Bound
N
Minimum Maximum
No
8
6,8750
1,24642
5,8330
7,9170
5,00
9,00
Yes
7
4,8571
1,21499
3,7335
5,9808
3,00
6,00
Total
15
5,9333
1,57963
5,0586
6,8081
3,00
9,00
A graphical representation of locally managed and foreign managed firms is given below.
Figure 9-4: Leader firm role of foreign and domestic managed firms
Smit
8,00
IHC
Leader_firm
Mammoet
Huisman
Imtech
Broekman
Emo
Argos
Keppel
6,00
Samskip
ECT
Odfjell
EECV
Maersk
APM terminal
4,00
No
Y es
Foreign_pare nt
Equality of
Variances
Leader_firm
F
0,108
Sig.
0,748
t-test for Equality of Means
t
3,165
df
13
Sig. (2Mean
Std. Error
tailed)
Difference Difference
0,007
2,01786
0,63763
195
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
Companies with a foreign parent show significant less leader firm behavior than
companies with their headquarters in Rotterdam. Still, also these companies act as leader
firms in the Rotterdam area, but less so than companies with their headquarters located in
Rotterdam.
Keppel Verolme is an example; this company has a parent company in Singapore.
According to the management of Verolme the parent company is primarily interested in
having production capacity available in Western Europe and further has little direct
influence in for example the choice of suppliers. Maersk lines has its headquarter in
Denmark and is known to have a rather centralized organization. This has its effects on the
Rotterdam branch, but still Maersk is using Rotterdam suppliers for international
maintenance.
The headquarter effect also seems to have a reverse effect, as is the case with Smit.
Because Smit is located in Rotterdam and there is a strong cluster with specialized
suppliers, the suppliers from Rotterdam are also producing for Smits subsidiaries abroad.
From our sample of companies we can expect that the host location of the subsidiaries is
an important factor in determining the effect of headquarter location. When the host
location of a subsidiary is a strong cluster, the headquarter effect is limited. When the
headquarter is located in a strong cluster, the effect on subsidiaries in other clusters is
likely.
Table 9-4: Assessment of the headquarter effect in different situations
Subsidiary
Strong cluster
Weak cluster
Strong cluster
-
++
Weak cluster
--
+
HQ
Purchasing and leader firms
The fourth question asks whether there is a relation between purchasing and leader firm
behavior in general. Purchasing is interpreted here as both the amount of goods purchased
and the relation with the suppliers.
Regarding the amount of purchased goods, the purchasing quote is used as a measure. The
purchasing quote represents the fraction of total production that is bought by a company. A
relation between the purchasing quote and leader firm behavior could be expected because
a high purchasing quote implies that a company (for a large part) is dependent on the
196
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
qualities of its suppliers to deliver its own products and services in time and of good
quality. Giving the buying company the incentive to be involved in initiatives that improve
the suppliers’ performance, such as helping the suppliers develop new products, improve
processes or train the employees of the supplier.
In our leader firm sample the purchasing quote ranges from 20% to 96%. In general, the
producing companies have the lowest purchasing quote, because they have a high value
added in their own production. A little higher quote can be found in the service companies,
such as the stevedores, they buy equipment and maintenance primarily. The highest quote
is found in the trading and intermediary companies. These firms buy in and sell goods or
services without major changes, leading to purchasing quotes up to 95%.
Figure 9-5: Relation between purchasing quote and leader firm role
R-Square = 0,16
Argos
Samskip
Keppel
Huisman
Purch_quote
0,80
IHC
Imtech
Smit
Broekman
ECT
0,60
EECV
0,40
0,20
Odfjell
Mammoet
APM terminal
4,00
Maersk
Emo
6,00
8,00
Leader _fir m
As can be seen in the figure, the purchasing quote has little direct relation with the degree
of leader firm behavior. The leader firms that were assessed with a high score on leader
197
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
firm behavior do not have the highest purchasing quotes. Also, the firms with the highest
purchasing quote do not show more leader firm behavior than the other firms.
One reason for the companies with the highest quotes not to show the most leader firm
behavior is that trading companies and intermediaries do not use the purchased goods and
services for their own production but only for resale. They do not experience the qualities
of the goods or services to the extent a producer or service company would.
Local suppliers
Another hypothesis related to suppliers is that companies with suppliers that are located in
the vicinity of the company are more likely to behave as leader firms. We use two
indicators for this, the percentage of the input that comes from local suppliers and the
number of prime-suppliers that is located in the Rijnmond area. From theory we expect
that companies with a high percentage of input from suppliers in the cluster also have a
high incentive to invest in the quality of the cluster. When there is a high number of prime
suppliers in the cluster, the same effect is expected.
As becomes clear from the figure below there is no direct relation between the percentage
of supplies from regional suppliers and the level of leader firm behavior. Some strong
leader firms buy almost all their supplies in the region while others do not. In the
interviews it was emphasized by most companies that local suppliers often are suppliers of
services such as maintenance or construction work. The suppliers that deliver innovative
products or machines that are important for the core business of the leader firms are in
some cases located in other countries, in other cases the input delivered by the prime
suppliers is only a small part of total supplies measured in Euros.
198
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
Figure 9-6: Relation between local supplies and leader firm behavior
R-Square = 0,07
Argos
Odfjell
Smit
Supplies _region
75
50
Keppel
ECT
APM terminal
EECV
Maersk
Samskip
Broekman
IHC
25
Emo
0
4,00
6,00
Huisman
Imtech
Mammoet
8,00
Leader _fir m
When we look at the number of prime suppliers in the region we see a similar picture, with
great variance in the number of prime suppliers for companies that have the same level of
leader firm behavior. It seems that the composition of the supplier base is not an indicator
for leader firm behavior.
199
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
Figure 9-7: Relation between number of prime suppliers locally and leader firm
behavior
R-Square = 0,07
Numb_supp_rijnmond
8,00
6,00
Argos
4,00
Odfjell
EECV
Keppel
Smit
Samskip
Emo
Broekman
2,00
IHC
Huisman
Imtech
ECT
0,00
Maersk
APM terminal
4,00
6,00
Mammoet
8,00
Leader _fir m
Service and production
In the sample of leader firms, both service and production firms are included. From theory
one can expect that there is a difference in behavior towards suppliers. Production firms
are more likely to have close relations with their suppliers for product development and
thus are expected to have more spillover effects on their suppliers than service firms, who
typically only periodically work together with their suppliers for the development of
capital goods, like a crane for a stevedore.
The sample that is analyzed consists of fifteen companies of which eleven are service firms
and four are production companies. The table below shows the difference in characteristics
between both type of companies.
200
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
Table 9-5: Differences between service and production firms
Company_type
Production
Service
Mean
Mean
Employees
1263
630
Purchasing_quote
0.68
0.50
Supplies_from _region
31%
50%
%_turnover_Rijnmond
30%
13%
Net_turnover
€321,608K
€261,820K
Profitmargin
11.27%
7.91%
7.25
5.45
Leader_firm score
The production firms are considerably larger in terms of employees and net turnover.
Another notable difference is that the production firms have a higher profit margin. In
terms of local business there are some notable differences. First, the percentage of the
turnover that comes from local clients is higher than for service firms. This is a result of
the many international clients the stevedoring and transport companies serve. The supplies
on the other hand are more local for the service companies than for the production
companies. For production companies 1/3 of the supplies is local and for service
companies half of total supplies.
Finally, the leader firm score for service and production companies also differs
significantly. This is due to the nature of the production that takes place in the Rotterdam
port. The production firms are mainly involved in off-shore and dredging equipment.
These sectors are characterized by many innovative one-off projects, where there is more
room for cooperation and co-development with suppliers, and thus for leader firm
behavior. Many service companies are involved in the transport chain, where costadvantages are the main issues. In a cost driven environment there appears to be less room
for leader firm behavior.
201
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
9.2
Complex causes of leader firm behavior
In the previous section correlation between individual factors and leader firm behavior
were explored. What that analysis does not show is a possible relation between a
combination of factors and the amount of leader firm behavior. To analyze these
combinations the Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) method is used. In line with
Fiss (2007) the leader firms in the Rotterdam port area is seen as an organizational setup
that does not fit an statistical approach, but does generate substantial information to
“combine verbal statements with logical relationships” (Fiss, 2007 p.1181).
A QCA approach uses Boolean algebra to identify the characteristics that lead to a certain
outcome. Every research subject (firm) can posses or not-posses a certain characteristics.
Sets of firms can be constructed based on these characteristics. For example there is a set
of firms that has international subsidiaries and there is a set of firms that has high
marketing expenditure. Both sets might be sub-sets of the group of companies with
superior sales performance. Other variables can be introduced concerning the environment,
for example the presence of supporting industries. All these variables and characteristics
are expressed in binary digits, 1 for yes and 0 for no, in a truth table that shows what
combinations of characteristics lead to a certain outcome. Based on this table an analysis is
made to distinguish necessary and sufficient conditions.
The first step in the analysis is the creation of the ‘truth table’, including the specification
of the outcome (leader firm behavior) for each configuration of causal variables
(independent variables). The second step is the selection of causal conditions and outcomes
to minimize by determining which configurations should be included in the analysis29. The
outcome of the analysis is an overview of the (combination of) causal conditions that lead
to the outcome that is researched, in this case leader firm behavior. In the QCA the
following characteristics of the firm are available for inclusion in the analysis:
x
29
The size of the firm,
o turnover
o added value
o employees
o total equity
Note that not all configurations have to be included because some configurations might be subsets
of other configurations and other configurations have no explaining power (low consistency)
202
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
x
Connectedness of the company,
o percentage local buyers
o percentage local supplies
o number of core suppliers located in the region
o location of the headquarters
x
Importance of suppliers,
o In the perspective of the leader firm
o Purchasing quote
x
The amount of leader firm behavior,
o score on the leader firm scoreboard
Per theme an analysis is made to determine what factors influence leader firm behavior.
The first model to test is one with variables from every theme that was identified as
important from a theoretical point of view. This leads to testing the following model:
LEADER_FIRM = f (EMPLOYEES, FOREIGN_PARENT, SUPPLIES_RIJNMOND,
#_SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND, %_TURNOVER_RIJNMOND,
IMPORTANCE_SUPP_INNOVATION, NET_TURNOVER)
This model predicts that the amount of leader firm behavior that a company shows is
dependent on the number of employees, the presence or absence of a foreign parent, the
volume of supplies that is locally bought, the number of suppliers in the region, the part of
the turnover that is realized locally, the importance of suppliers for innovation and the net
turnover.
Before calculating a solution some assumptions are made regarding the causal relations
between the variables and leader firm behavior. In the table below, the expected relation of
5 variables is given. ‘Present’ in this table means that the only influence on leader firm
behavior is expected to be positive. For two variables, percentage of turnover in Rijnmond
and net turnover, there is no pre-defined relation. Theoretically these variables could have
both a negative and a positive effect.
EMPLOYEES
Present
foreign_parent
Absent
SUPPLIES_RIJNMOND
Present
#_SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND
Present
IMPORTANCE_SUPPLIERS_INNOVATION
Present
The number of employees and the importance of local suppliers are always expected to
have a positive influence. A foreign parent is expected to have a limiting effect on leader
203
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
firm behavior. The net turnover is not defined as positive or negative on forehand, because
the size of the sales is not direct related to the local environment.
For the model we calculate two solutions, one complex and one simple. The complex
solution gives the variables that show the most consistency. This means that the given
solution is the combination of variables that gives the best prediction of leader firm
behavior. The simple, or parsimonious, solution shows the most essential variables that
predict leader firm behavior. The complex solution is given in the following table. The
three combinations of variables are sufficient conditions, meaning that having any of these
combination of conditions is expected to lead to leader firm behavior. A variable that is
present or high is shown in CAPS, a variable that is absent or low is shown in small letters.
Table 9-6: Conditions that lead to leader firm behavior
(CAPS=High score, small= low score)
solution coverage: 0.707593
solution consistency: 0.777712
raw
coverage
unique
coverage
consistency
A
#_SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND *
%_turnover_rijnmond * net_turnover+
0.565217
0.304348
0.701052
B
foreign_parent * %_turnover_rijnmond *
NET_TURNOVER+
0.294549
0.222086
0.802558
C
EMPLOYEES * foreign_parent *
#_SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND *
IMPORTANCE_SUPPLIERS _INNOVATION *
NET_TURNOVER
0.181159
0.108696
1.000000
Leader firm behavior is eventually a product of one of the following combination of
conditions:
A) Many local prime suppliers, limited number of local customers and relatively low
turnover
B) No foreign parent, limited number of local customers and high turnover.
C) Many employees, no foreign parent, many local prime suppliers, important suppliers
for innovation and a high turnover.
204
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
The consistency of the solutions shows how many cases with the exact combination of
conditions given in the solution show a positive result (relatively high leader firm
behavior). Of all the cases that show the first combination of conditions
(NUM_SUP_RIJN* perc_turnover_rijn* net_turnover) 70% also shows relatively high
leader firm behavior.
The coverage tells how much of the outcome (leader firm behavior) is explained by the
solutions. The ‘solution coverage’ represents the coverage of the three solutions together;
the complete model explains 70% of the leader firm behavior. Per solution raw and unique
coverage are given. Raw coverage tells how much of the leader firm behavior is explained
by the specific solution, Unique coverage represents the amount of leader firm behavior
that is explained uniquely by a specific solution. Schematically the outcomes are
represented in Figure 9-8.
Figure 9-8: Schematic representation of consistency and coverage
A
B
2
1
4
5
3
LF
C
Area’s 1, 2 and 4 together represent the raw coverage of solution A and area 1 represents
the unique coverage of solution A. 70% of the circle that represents solution A overlaps
with leader firm behavior (LF), showing the consistency of solution A. Solution B is
represented by circle B, which has more overlap with leader firm behavior (80%) showing
higher consistency but covering a smaller part of all leader firm behavior, the coverage of
29% that is represented by area’s 2 and 3. Solution C fully overlaps with leader firm
behavior, meaning that companies with this profile always show relatively high leader firm
behavior.
205
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
The area’s that are not covered by solutions A, B or C show the cases where leader firm
behavior is unexplained by the model. Other factors play a role in these cases, for example
the attitude of management towards cooperation within the cluster.
The results of the model show that, given the assumptions, low membership in turnover
realized in Rotterdam is a causal condition for leader firm behavior. This gives an
indication that the firms that show the most leader firm behavior are mainly serving
customers outside the cluster. An explanation for this is that the leader firms are often large
companies for who the local market is too small. Furthermore, the majority of the leader
firm effects involve suppliers and competitors more than the clients.
Further we can conclude that there is no single sufficient condition that will lead to leader
firm behavior. We can notice that the number of prime suppliers is important in two
solutions and that a high turnover is important in the other solution. This gives the idea that
having one of the two is a necessary condition. The parsimonious solution of the model,
representing the smallest possible solution to the model confirms this, as shown in the
following table.
The parsimonious solution gives the minimal conditions that have to be in place to explain
the outcome. The two most influential conditions for leader firm behavior are the total
turnover and the number of important suppliers that are located in the Rotterdam area.
Table 9-7: Minimal conditions for leader firm behavior
solution coverage: 0.775772
solution consistency: 0.640840
raw coverage
unique coverage
consistency
NET_TURNOVER+
0.544540
0.152583
0.773538
#_SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND
0.623188
0.231232
0.614286
Connectedness
A separate theme to analyze is the connectedness of the companies. The linkages with the
local business community are a central theme in most theories that form the building
blocks for the leader firm concept. In industrial districts the connections for production
coordination are center stage, in cluster theory the spillovers that arise as a result of
interaction are important and in network theory there is a distinction between strong and
weak links, where the strong links are typically the modes for leader firm behavior. For
connectedness the following model is tested:
206
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
LEADER_FIRM = f (FOREIGN_PARENT, %_SUPPlIES_RIJNMOND,
#_SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND, %_TURNOVER_RIJNMOND)
In this model we exclude the size of the companies as a relevant factor to make a better
judgment of the importance of the conditions that are associated with connectedness.
Three elements are included in this function. First the issue of control, is there full local
control over the operations? This is represented by a yes/no variable for having a foreign
parent company. A foreign parent might limit the local freedom to act as a leader firm.
Second, the connections with local suppliers, for this element two variables are used, the
total percentage of supplies that comes from the Rotterdam region and the number of
prime suppliers that are located in Rotterdam. A high percentage of total input might bring
a firm to investment in the quality of the business environment, since many of its suppliers
will benefit from this. A leader firm with many prime suppliers in Rotterdam might also
invest in local knowledge development with these important suppliers, since these prime
suppliers are essential for the production of the leader firm.
The final element is the percentage of the sales that is made to Rotterdam based
companies, do the leader firms produce for local or for international customers? If they
have primarily local customers, leader firms might be interested in helping these customers
to expand their markets. When leader firms do not have local customers their investments
could be more targeted at other, more distant markets instead of the local cluster. The
summary of the most complex outcome of the model is given below30.
Table 9-8: Local connectedness and leader firm behavior
(CAPS= high score, small=low score)
Solution coverage: 0.651685,
solution consistency: 0.778524
Raw
Coverage
Unique
Coverage
Consistency
A
foreign_parent* %supplies_rijnmond *
%TURNOVER_RIJNMOND+
0.275281
0.269663
0.960784
B
%SUPPLIES_RIJNMOND*
#SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND*
%turnover_rijnmond
0.348315
0.140449
0.911765
30
The most complex outcomes means that no a priori assumptions are made about the direction of
influence. In an intermediate solution, conditions that are expected to work one way are selected on
forehand.
207
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
The overall model explains 65% of the difference in leader firm behavior with a
consistency of 77%. Overall the results of the model suggest that there is not one type of
connection to the local business community that explains leader firm behavior. Any type of
connection can be an incentive to invest in the cluster. Finally, a foreign parent seems a
limitation for leader firm behavior. The parsimonious solution in Table 9-9 gives more
insight into the most important conditions.
Table 9-9: Minimal conditions for leader firm behavior related to connections
solution coverage: 0.764045
solution consistency: 0.660194
Raw
covergae
Unique
covergae
Consistency
# SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND +
0.539326
0.308989
0.640000
%supplies_rijnmond *%
TURNOVER_RIJNMOND +
0.370786
0.078652
0.942857
foreign_parent * % TURNOVER_RIJNMOND
0.359551
0.011236
0.800000
The number of prime suppliers in the region seems a sufficient causal condition for leader
firm behavior. As long as there are important suppliers for a company located in the
cluster, the company is likely to show relatively more leader firm behavior. Further, the
absence of a foreign parent in combination with high turnover in Rijnmond or limited
supplies from Rijnmond in combination with a high turnover in Rijnmond are causal
conditions that lead to relatively high leader firm behavior.
Suppliers
When we test the relation with suppliers as a causal condition for leader firm behavior,
three variables are used; the purchasing quote, reflecting how much a firm buys in relation
to its turnover, and the importance of local suppliers to the leader firm in quality and in
innovation projects. The last two variables reflect the perception of the leader firm’s
management. If we assume these three conditions are the only two that determine leader
firm behavior, then we can construct the following model:
LEADER_FIRM=
f (PURCHASING_QUOTE, IMPORTANCE_QUALITY_SUPPLIERS,
IMPORTANCE_SUPPLIERS _INNOVATION)
Table 9-10 shows the outcome of testing this model for the leader firms.
208
Chapter 9: The causes of leader firm behavior
Table 9-10: Suppliers and leader firm behavior
(CAPS= high score, small=low score)
solution coverage: 0.918841
solution consistency: 0.826597
Raw
coverage
Unique
coverage
Consistency
purchasing_quote * IMPORTANCE_SUPPLIERS
_INNOVATION +
0.634783 0.124638
0.840691
PURCH_QUOTE *
IMPORTANCE_QUALITY_SUPPLIERS_RIJNMOND
0.794203 0.284058
0.908789
The solution shows that the purchasing quote is neither a necessary nor a sufficient
condition for leader firm behavior; there are two paths towards leader firm behavior, one
with a high purchasing quote and one with a low purchasing quote. The combination of a
low purchasing quote and importance of suppliers for innovation is a combination of
causal conditions that leads to high leader firm behavior and companies with a high
purchasing quote and local suppliers that are important for the quality of the final product
show leader firm behavior. The relatively high coverage and consistency of the second
condition suggests that companies that are dependent on the quality that suppliers deliver
tend to make more leader firm investments.
9.3
Conclusions
In this chapter the causes of leader firm behavior are further analyzed. From the cases it
became apparent that the companies analyzed in this research all show some leader firm
behavior. But some firms create more positive externalities than others. In the further
analyzes of the characteristics of the firm and the relevant causal conditions the following
conclusions can be drawn.
1.
There is not one dominant factor that determines leader firm behavior
2.
The size of the company measured in employees and net turnover is positively
correlated to leader firm behavior.
3.
Companies do not have to be large to be a leader firm and leader firm behavior does
not always make a company more successful, but both characteristics do have
influence on the amount of leader firm behavior. Size in terms of added value has no
influence but size in terms of turnover seems to be an important condition for leader
firm behavior. This shows that, for leader firm effects, external relations are more
important than the in-house production capacity of the leader firm.
209
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
4.
The profit margin of a company has a positive relation with leader firm behavior.
Leader firm behavior is associated with higher profits. But having higher profits is
not always a guarantee for leader firm behavior. It’s a necessary but not a sufficient
condition.
5.
A negative relation exists between a foreign parent company and being a leader firm.
The firms with foreign owners show less leader firm behavior because they do not
manage their own supplier base or they do not make investments in the cluster
infrastructure in the amounts locally managed firms do.
6.
The combination of being a firm with production and design capabilities, having
many local suppliers that are important for quality and innovation and having full
management responsibility locally seems the best combination for leader firm effects.
7.
The total amount of supplies coming from the region is not an important factor for
leader firm behavior, but the number of important suppliers in the region is of
influence. Many local supplies or suppliers do not automatically lead to high levels of
leader firm behavior. Regarding suppliers, the adagium ‘quality is more important
than quantity’ seems just.
210
Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations
10
Conclusions and recommendations
This study shows that leader firms are an important element of clusters in general and in
seaport clusters in particular. In the fields of innovation, production systems and cluster
governance the leader firms play a central role in the competitiveness of the cluster.
In this concluding chapter the research findings are presented in relation to the questions
formulated in chapter 2. These questions were divided in theoretical and
empirical/analytical questions. It is of importance to make this distinction because the
theoretical findings can be generalized in a broader context than the empirical findings.
10.1
Concepts for identifying leader firms
One important question in this study was what concepts can be used to understand the role
of leader firms. From the theoretical exploration it follows that many insights from studies
on clusters, networks, industrial districts and, to a lesser extent, supply chains are very
useful when analyzing the role of leader firms. Based on a combination of these insights
and knowledge about the sector a method to select leader firms in a cluster was developed.
From the theoretical discussion it followed that the ability and incentives of a company to
be a leader are the most important elements, leading to the following definition of leader
firms:
“Leader firms are firms in a cluster that have -because of their size, market position,
knowledge and entrepreneurial skills- the ability and incentive to make investments with
positive side-effects for other companies in the cluster.”
In the empirical part, the identification of the leader firms received a lot of attention. The
selection was done with precision to make sure that the likeliness of actually finding leader
firm behavior was maximized. The combination of company data and expert opinion
proved to be a very useful method. Identifying leader firms can be done by analyzing
indicators that show whether a company could be a leader firm. This should be combined
with expert opinions to determine that a firm is a leader firm. Based on this study a new
way of recognizing leader firms is available. Next to the factors mentioned in the
definition, in the empirical part the local presence of a headquarter and the ownership
structure prove to be important factors.
211
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
10.2
Roles of leader firms
A second question that was answered in the study is how individual firms can help the
development of a cluster. This question is answered with a combination of theoretical and
empirical findings. From the literature several roles were identified that a firm can have in
the development of others, such as being a lead user or by creating new combinations. In
the empirical exploration of the leader firm concept in the Dutch maritime cluster more
role were identified. In total nine forms of leader firm behavior are distinguished. Leader
firm behavior has effects in the field of innovation, production and cluster governance.
Some forms of leader firm behavior only have effect in one field, while other behavior has
its influence on all three. Figure 10-1 shows the nine forms of leader firm behavior and
gives an indication of the field where the effects of this behavior can be seen.
Figure 10-1: Nine forms of leader firm behavior in three fields
Production
Internationalisation
Coordination
production network
Reputation effects
Setting standards
Organisational infrastructure
Lead user
Improving knowledge transfers
Improving labour market
Cluster governance
212
Creating new combinations
Innovation
Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations
10.3
Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
Port clusters
In this study the port cluster was defined based on geographical situation and port(related)
activities. The construction of the cluster is somewhat different from earlier studies on port
clusters, because the (petro) chemical industry was left out. Further analysis of the firms
showed that the choice not to included chemicals production in the cluster construct are
justified by the absence of knowledge relations and substantial input-output relations
between these companies and companies that are more closely involved in the core port
activities.
The port of Rotterdam seems to locate two different clusters, the maritime cluster and the
port-using chemical production cluster. Both clusters operate in the same area and use the
direct access to the sea, but have limited functional and knowledge relations with each
other. In future studies the construction of seaport clusters should be done more carefully
and recognize the possible bias created by the viewpoint that is chosen in the research.
The geographical boundaries of the cluster were defined by using a measure that combines
the absolute and the relative amount of port activities in an area defined by postal codes.
This is novel; up to date, clusters are defined by the total number of firms or the
specialization of an area in a certain industry. Including both measures at the same time
does more just to the specific setting of a seaport. The absolute number of activities is
important because it provides mass for knowledge spillovers and collective action. The
relative amount of port activities is important because it shows the importance of the
industry for the local economy and the local government. For seaports this is a very
relevant issue since ports are in most cases dependent on government policies for new
investments.
After analyzing the Rotterdam port cluster and seeing that there are several sub clusters,
the term port-cluster does not do just to the diversity of the companies that are included in
the cluster. The cluster could better be called a delta cluster; it’s not necessarily the port
function (stevedoring) that is the core of the cluster. One can argue that there are several
industries or sectors that can be considered core of the cluster.
213
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
Leader firms
About 5000 organizations are located in, or closely related to the port of Rotterdam. The
majority of the companies are rather small; only 103 firms have more than 100 employees.
In the port there are 73 ‘core companies’, companies large enough to have a substantial
impact in the port. These are companies that have more than 100 employees and have a
total equity of more than 50 million euro or a net turnover of more than 10 million euro.
Closer research shows that 27 companies qualify as potential leader firms.
Name of Company
Name of Company
APM Terminals Rotterdam
Interforest
Argos Groep
Jo Tankers
Bakker Sliedrecht Electro Industrie
Keppel Verolme
Boskalis
Koninklijke Vopak
Broekman Group
Kühne & Nagel
EECV
Mammoet
Europe Container terminals
Maersk lines
Europees Massagoed Overslagbedrijf (EMO)
Odfjell Terminals (Rotterdam)
Gevelco
Samskip
Havenbedrijf Rotterdam
Schenker International
Hoyer Nederland
Seabrex Rotterdam
Huisman Itrec
Smit Internationale
IHC Merwede
Van Oord
Imtech marine & offshore
The leader firms that were identified differ in the range of external effects they have in the
cluster and on their suppliers. In the study 15 leader firms are scored based on these
external effects. The leader firms are an important factor in the cluster; the positive
externalities they provide help the cluster to remain competitive. Because of this, a cluster
should wish to have a substantial set of leader firms. In the Rotterdam cluster such a set is
present. However, the amount of leader firm effects differs per company. Not every leader
firms shows the same amount of leader firm behavior, the figure below ranks the analyzed
leader firms according to their impact on the Rotterdam port cluster.
214
Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations
Figure 10-2: Leader firm score and number of employees
The size of the bubble represents the value added produced
10
9
IHC
Mammoet
Leader firm score
8
7
Smit
Keppel
Emo
Samskip
6
5 Odfjell
4
Argos
EECV
3
Huisman
Imtech
Broekman
ECT
Maersk
APM terminal
2
1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Employees in PoR (2006)
Many firms in the port of Rotterdam, particularly the leader firms in transport and
stevedoring focus on operational excellence. They try to maintain high productivity and
efficiency. The innovation spillovers of these companies are limited compared to those
companies that are involved in the production of complex products, such as ships, or
companies that are involved in demanding projects, such as salvage.
However the transport and stevedoring companies still have a leader firm role. Not so
much in innovation, but primarily in attracting cargo, increasing efficiency and minimizing
environmental impact from the cargo flows; leading the cargo flows through the most
efficient and least polluting port is beneficial for the overall environment.
Attracting cargo is the result of leader firms that perform better than their competitors in
other ports and by companies that offer services not found elsewhere. Attracting this cargo
leads to more business in the port of Rotterdam; the size of the goods flow and the number
of ships that come in the port largely define the amount of related services that develop in
the port.
215
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
Some leader firms have an important role in the development towards sustainable
transport. The transport company Samskip for example invests in the development of
intermodal networks and stimulates its clients to make more use of rail and barge
transportation. The stevedoring company EECV invests in all sorts of techniques to
minimize spills in loading, offloading and during storage of coal. The stevedores ECT and
APM-terminals work together with the port authority to develop a container transferium in
the hinterland connected with barge links to the deep-sea terminals. This will reduce
polluting trucks and congestion on the highways in Rotterdam.
For the port of Rotterdam the score of both the number of leader firms and for the amount
of leader firm behavior can be considered fair (which is in line with previous research of
De Langen, 2004). There is a considerable amount of leader firm effects but the levels
could be higher with more and better connected leader firms. The port business does not
seem an environment where leader firms emerge and flourish easily. There are three
reasons for that
1.
The port business is an international but location dependent business. Service
firms can only expand by operating multiple locations; local production for global
customers is not possible. This leads to global organizations with many
subsidiaries. Ports are therefore often characterized by a large number of
subsidiaries instead of many leader firms.
2.
Transport markets are mostly cost-driven and innovation is not the first priority.
Many leader firm effects are related to investments in innovations, as a result the
leader firm effects in ports are relatively limited.
3.
Many port companies are part of a chain which is controlled by a party not
directly related to the port; port facilities function as a cost centre, not as a centre
of expertise, which could have leader firm effects.
The not so fertile ground for leader firms is partly an explanation for the weaknesses that
are identified for the port of Rotterdam in the introduction. Especially in the fields of
innovation and coordination, which are two issues in which leader firms can play an
important role and are issues that prevent the port of Rotterdam to develop to its full
potential.
Innovation often stems from a combination of companies; when there is a common
problem or goal, firms tend to combine knowledge and find new concepts or techniques.
The networks of the leader firms show that the chances of combining knowledge are low in
216
Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations
most markets; only the off-shore sector has a close network with shared suppliers. The
transport and stevedoring companies face common challenges (congestion, price
competition, environmental concerns, and labor market) but initiatives for joint action on
these issues are scarce and innovative solutions are not found in substantial quantities.
10.4
Characteristics of leader firms
In the study the leader firms were assessed and the score in this assessment was compared
with the characteristics of the leader firms. The factors size, profitability, local suppliers,
foreign owners and purchasing quote were analyzed. The main conclusion from this
analysis is that there is not one ideal set of qualities and characteristics that cause leader
firm behavior, but that several characteristics do have an influence on the amount of leader
firm behavior.
Size
The size of a company is measured in different ways, the turnover, the value added
produced and the number of employees. The turnover gives an indication of the
dimensions of the external relations, while the value added and the number of employees
primarily indicates the in-house production capacity. A positive relation was found
between turnover and number of employees and leader firm behavior, but no significant
relation with the value added. This only partly corresponds with the expectation that larger
firms have a greater incentive to act as a leader firm because they are also the one that will
profit the most from improvements in the cluster. Apparently the size of external relations
is more important than production size.
Profits
The profit margin of a company does have a positive relation with leader firm behavior.
But having higher profits is not always a guarantee for leader firm behavior. This could
mean that leader firm behavior raises profit margins. However, the relation might also be
reverse; a company with relatively high profits has more opportunities to make
investments with leader firm effects. In other terms: a reasonably high profit margin is a
necessary, but not a sufficient condition for leader firm behavior.
217
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
Foreign parent
A negative relation exists between a foreign parent company and being a leader firm. On
average the companies with a foreign parent show less leader firm behavior than
companies with their headquarters in Rotterdam. The firms with foreign owners show less
leader firm behavior because they do not manage their own supplier base or they do not
make investments in the cluster-infrastructure in the amounts locally managed firms do.
This leads to less interaction with other companies in the cluster and consequently to less
knowledge spillovers, less cooperation and fewer investments in solutions to collective
action problems.
This does not mean that all locally controlled companies show leader firm behavior. Only
within the group of leader firms the parent company effect is significant, local control is
not a sufficient condition for leader firm behavior. The presence of (regional) headquarters
in the region or cluster does seem to be a necessary condition for a leader firm.
Suppliers and clients
Companies that purchase a lot of goods do not have more leader firm effects than other
companies. The purchasing quote has no direct relation with the degree of leader firm
behavior. The leader firms that were assessed with a high score on leader firm behavior do
not have the highest purchasing quotes. Also, the firms with the highest purchasing quote
do not show more leader firm behavior than the other firms.
The total amount of supplies coming from the region is also not an important factor for
leader firm behavior, but the number of important suppliers in the region is of influence.
This largely coincides with the local innovation networks. The more a company is relying
on local suppliers for its innovation, the more leader firm behavior it shows in the cluster.
Production and service companies
Another conclusion is that producing companies in general have more incentives to act as
leader firms. In our sample, the production companies show the most leader firm behavior.
Reasons for this are twofold. First, producing firms experience more directly the quality of
the input they use for their production and they have to cooperate closer with their core
suppliers in order to match design and production processes. Second, the physical products
of the leader firms are often complex products that have a high ‘reputation value’ leading
not only to more reputation effects but also to strong effects on standards and creation of
new combinations. The service firms that do receive high scores in leader firm behavior
218
Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations
are those firms that use complex equipment and are involved in the design of these
products, such as Smit and Mammoet.
Characteristics that lead to leader firm behavior
The combination of being a firm with production and design capabilities, having many
local suppliers that are important for quality and innovation and having full management
responsibility locally seems the best combination for leader firm effects. This is also the
combination of characteristics that the company with the highest leader firm score (IHC
Merwede) possesses. However, also the other companies that have many leader firm
effects score high on these characteristics.
The reasons for leader firm behavior seem far more complex than only the above
mentioned characteristics and combinations of factors. For many companies that showed a
substantial amount of leader firm behavior the management said to ‘belief’ in the necessity
to invest in the cluster. The personality and profile of the managers are two factors not
included in the research but could prove to be important predictors of leader firm behavior.
10.5
Leader firms and suppliers
From the study on leader firm strategies and behavior towards their suppliers we can learn
that there is no port wide strategy for managing supplier relations and supplier
development. We can also conclude that companies in the port of Rotterdam only use
purchasing management techniques to a limited extend. Further, the connectedness with
the local suppliers is important for leader firm behavior and thus for cluster performance.
The Rotterdam based port (related) leader firms in general can be characterized as
developing their purchasing management. No examples are found of cutting edge
purchasing management. Typically the port(related) companies learn from companies in
manufacturing industries and try to implement elements of purchasing management from
these industries. In this respect deliberately hiring purchasing managers that have worked
in other industries could be a good strategy for port companies. The most developed
purchasing management and supplier development is found in the IHC-Merwede
organization - not surprisingly a product-based company with a high purchasing quote.
Other companies are gradually implementing a supplier strategy and try to streamline their
purchasing. Supplier development initiatives however are rare in the port of Rotterdam.
There are two reasons for this.
219
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
First, many suppliers that are important to the Rotterdam leader firms are world-wide
suppliers of products or services and are too large or advanced to be part of a supplier
development initiative. Second, many supplies are bought on very competitive markets,
where market pressure is the most appropriate way to stimulate suppliers. The incentive to
invest in suppliers is low in these cases because the benefits are not likely to exceed the
costs of investing time and money in suppliers.
Supplier strategies
More than half of the leader firms use competitive pressure as a way to improve the
performance of their suppliers. For the leader firms it means that they explicitly
communicate to their suppliers that a certain performance will lead to more business.
Evaluation procedures are used sometimes by most leader firms. According to the leader
firms, evaluation is only a viable strategy towards suppliers with who there is a structural,
long term relation. A strategy to give financial incentives to suppliers is not a standard
procedure with any of the leader firms. Most firms never use this strategy. Other firms use
it sometimes or only in a specific case, for example when a supplier and a leader firm work
on a joint investment in new techniques.
Direct involvement in the operations of suppliers is a strategy most leader firms never use.
These leader firms have the opinion that suppliers should use their own resources to
develop better services or products. Involvement of suppliers in innovation projects is done
by most leader firms, but not very often. Leader firms pick projects and suppliers carefully
before starting a joint project, but every leader firm acknowledges that involving suppliers
in innovation is very important for getting new insights and ideas.
Reputation
By acting as a leader firm, the company creates goodwill in the cluster, especially when
customers and suppliers are located in the cluster a company benefits from a growing
reputation. On the other hand, leader firms might be a threat to other companies. In the
case when a company is so large it can dictate the market, it does no longer benefit from
the position as a leader firm. Buyers and suppliers might try to avoid the leader firm
because of the power imbalance. Acting as a leader firm when there is a large power
imbalance could lead to growing dependence of the suppliers. A situation some suppliers
want to avoid.
220
Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations
Supplier Networks
The networks in the port of Rotterdam are to a large extent not confined to the cluster
boundaries. For most leader firms the turnover is realized by customers outside the cluster.
Also for many companies the important suppliers are located outside the cluster. The most
important suppliers for the leader firms are shown in the table below.
Supplier
Wärtsilä
ABB
GTI
Rolls Royce
Croon
Heinen & hopman
Radio Holland
Siemens
Nacap
Nemag
Noell
ZPMC
10.6
Connections
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Centrality score
36
21
20
19
19
19
16
12
4
1
1
1
Recommendations
In this paragraph some recommendations are formulated for different actors in the port of
Rotterdam; the port authority in its role as cluster manager, the port community as a whole
and the individual leader firms.
Port authority and local government
For governments it can be of great importance to identify the leader firms in their
geographical area. It enables them to put any industrial policy to greater use. Especially in
the case of innovation stimulus it proves to be important.
Bring innovative companies together
Innovation is the driver of economic development. The port authority is the prime
stakeholder in the economic development of the Rotterdam port and is thus a logical party
to stimulate innovation by creating an innovative climate. One way to do this is to bring
companies together in a setting were knowledge is easily shared; especially those
companies that do not interact with each other in their daily operations and are part of
221
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
different networks. The aim then is to form ties that cut across the small world networks
and facilitate knowledge spillover between previously unconnected firms.
Keep control over strong leader firms locally
The companies with the most leader firm effects are those that are controlled locally. There
are reasons to exert influence to try to maintain the decision making units of leader firms in
the Rotterdam area. The benefits of this are larger than only the presence of high skill jobs;
it also brings forth positive effects in the broader business community. In this light the
recent investment of the Hamburg local government in Hapag-lloyd to prevent a takeover
by a foreign company makes sense, and might be an example for the Rotterdam port
community31.
Stimulate operational excellence
Most companies in the port are not in a highly innovative; primarily as a result of the
industry they are operating in where costs are the main issue. Successful innovations in this
type of industries are innovations that increase efficiency in the production process. When
stimulating innovations in the transport and stevedoring sector, a focus on innovations that
lead to operational excellence have the most impact and should therefore be done first.
Tell the story
The belief-system of managers seems to be an important, but hard to recognize, factor in
leader firm behavior. In order to enhance the leader firm effects in the Rotterdam port
cluster the port authority might want to make more managers aware of the benefits leader
firm behavior has for the cluster and for the leader firm itself.
Port community
Show your best practices
The reputation effects of some leader firms are of world scale. For example the salvage
projects done by Smit international, the unprecedented heavy lift projects by Mammoet or
the production of very large off-shore constructions by Keppel and Huisman-itrec. These
companies all contribute to the ‘Rotterdam brand’, making marketing for all companies in
Rotterdam easier. Also for other companies than the aforementioned -obvious- examples it
31
Hamburg consortium’s bid highest for Hapag-Lloyd, lloyd list 04-08-2008 through
http://www.lloydslist.com/ll/news/viewArticle.htm?articleId=1217532616870&src=rss
222
Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations
is wise the show their best practices extensively. It brings a positive attitude towards
Rotterdam companies, it shows customers that they chose the right supplier, it shows
suppliers that they work with a world class buyer and might raise interest with other
companies to cooperate in mutual beneficial projects.
Learn from your neighbors
In the port of Rotterdam and the surrounding regions there are many companies that show
entrepreneurial and innovative skills that could be useful for other companies. The
examples of leader firms that invest in new technology or develop and manage relations
with their suppliers can be very informative for other companies. At the same time the
networks within the port(related) industries are somewhat separated, limiting the
opportunities for cross-sectoral learning. Actively searching for valuable examples of
successful innovation projects, organization structures, supplier management in industries
that are related but outside the ‘small world network’ is likely to be a successful learning
strategy.
Leader firms
The notion of leader firms causing knowledge spillovers gives implications for the
companies involved.
Recognize the leader firm effects
For the leader firm it is of importance to recognize the spillover effects they generate.
Being aware of the spillovers a firm can try to control the direction of the spillovers to a
certain extent and try to regain part of the benefits they have created themselves. This
involves especially a close examination of the knowledge flows to and from the firm. This
information can be used in selecting partners. Selecting partners for a business project that
already are part of the informal knowledge network of the company leads to a recapture of
the knowledge that was initially ‘spilled-over’.
Know your suppliers
Some leader firms have a very good understanding of the possibilities and the knowhow of
their suppliers. This proves to be very valuable knowledge when bringing design teams
together or for selecting a specific supplier for international support. Shipbuilder IHC has
the most advanced system of supplier monitoring of the researched leader firms. The
practice of this company can be an example for all firms in the port. But also the initiatives
of several other leader firms to build structural relationships with suppliers prove to be
223
Part IV: Analysis of leader firm behavior
beneficial because it leads to more commitment from the supplier, less failure and
eventually lowers transaction costs.
Become a stronger leader firm for your supplier
Analysis in this study show that companies that act as leader firms towards their suppliers
do perform better than other companies. These leader firms invest in cooperation with their
suppliers when developing new products and services and have regular, structured
meetings with their suppliers. Both core suppliers and some commodity suppliers are
involved in these evaluation meetings.
Play a role in preventing becoming a blind spot
Clusters can start innovative and later change into ‘blind spots’ when the structure of the
cluster becomes a restriction for firms to innovate and collect knowledge from outside the
cluster (Pouder & st. John, 1992). Leader firms should strive to be the companies that
prevent the cluster from becoming a ‘blind spot’ by having an open view on innovation
and forming a bridge between the cluster and knowledge from other industries and
clusters.
224
Chapter 10: Conclusions and recommendations
10.7
Suggestions for further research
The results of this study lead to the identification of opportunities for further research, the
following research subjects are the most interesting and relevant.
x The research focused on the role of leader firms in the Rotterdam port and concluded
that buyer-supplier relations are the most important link and that innovation is the
most important theme for leader firm behavior. However, during the research other
relations and themes were identified. Especially further research into the role of
leader firms in creating sustainable development in cooperation with the business
community and the government seems a very relevant expansion of the research.
x In this study the role of the leader firms was analyzed, without making a distinction
between the firm and the management. In many cases it seemed that the beliefs and
attitude of the management was rather influential on the leader firm effects of the
company. Further research about the relation between the mental map of the
company’s management and leader firm behavior could provide valuable insight.
x One of the most significant characteristics of firms that determine their ability to act
as a leader firm is the location of control over the firm. Firms with foreign
headquarters show less leader firm behavior. Further research into the underlying
mechanisms and motives would provide valuable insight for governments and
business.
225
References
References
Aitken, Brian J. and Harrison, Ann E., 1999, Do Domestic Firms Benefit from Direct
Foreign Investment? Evidence from Venezuela, American Economic Review, vol. 89(3),
pages 605-618
Albino, V., Garavelli, A., Schiuma, G. 1999, Knowledge transfer and inter-firm relations
in industrial districts: the role of the leader firm, Technovation, vol. 19 53-63
Amin, A. 2000 Industrial Districts, Ch 10 in Sheppard, E. and Barnes, T. (eds) A
Companion to Economic Geography Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 149-168
Amin, A. and Thrift, N.J. (1992) Neo-Marshallian Nodes in Global Networks,
International Journal of Urban and Regional research, 16, pp. 571-587.
Amin, A., 2001, Moving on: institutionalism in economic geography, in: environment and
planning, vol. 33, iss. 7, pp. 1237-1241
Amin, A., Thrift, N. 1995, Globalisation, institutional `thickness' and the local economy',
in: Managing Cities: The New Urban Context, Eds P. Healey, S. Cameron, S. Davoudi, S.
Graham, A. Madani-Pour, Chichester, Sussex, John Wiley, pp 91-108
Asheim, B. (2000) Industrial Districts: The Contributions of Marshall and beyond, Ch 21
in Clark, G. L., Feldman, M. and Gertler, M. (Eds) The Oxford Handbook of Economic
Geography, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 413-431
Audretsch, D. B. and M. P. Feldman, 1996, R&D spillovers and the geography of
innovation and production, American Economic Review, Vol. 86 Is.3, p.630-640
Backx, J.P. ,1929, De Haven van Rotterdam, Thesis, Rotterdam
Baden-Fuller C., Lorenzoni G., 1995, Creating a strategic center to manage a web of
partners, California management review, vol 37, pp 146
Baker, W. E., Faulkner, R.R.,1991, Strategies for Managing Suppliers of Professional
Services. California Management Review, 33(4), 33
Baptista R. and Swann, P., 2000, Do Firms in Clusters Innovate More? Research Policy,
vol.27 (6) pp. 527-542
Baum,JAC., Shipilov, AV., Rowley, TJ.,2003, Where do small worlds come from?,
Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.12, Is.4, p.697
227
References
Beaudry, C., Breschi, S., 2003. Are firms in clusters really more innovative? Economics of
Innovation and New Technology 12 (4), 325–342
Beije, Groenewegen, Nuys, 1993, Networking in Dutch industries, Leuven, Garant
Boari, Cristina, 2001. “Industrial Clusters, Focal Firms, and Economic Dynamism: A
Perspective from Italy.” The World Bank Institute, Washington, D.C
Boari, Lipparini, 1999, Networks within Industrial Districts: Organising knowledge
creation and transfer by means of moderate hierarchies, Journal of management and
governance, vol3, pp 339-360
Carbonara, N., 2002, New models of inter-firm networks within industrial districts,
Entrepreneurship and regional development, vol. 14, p. 229-246
Carbonara, N., 2004, Innovation processes within geographical clusters: a cognitive
approach, Technovation, 2004, 24, 17-28
Chesbrough, H.W., Vanhaverbeke, W., West J., 2006, Open innovation; researching a new
paradigm, Oxford: Oxford University press
Clark, K.B., 1989. Project scope and project performance: the effect of parts strategy and
supplier involvement on product development. Management Science, 35 (10)
Clark, K.B., Fujimoto, T., 1991. Product Development Performance: Strategy,
Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston
Commandeur H R, 1994, Strategische samenwerking in netwerkperspectief : een
theoretisch raamwerk voor industriële ondernemingenl, Rotterdam, Erasmus Universiteit
Cooke P., Gomez Uraga M. And Etxebarria G. , 1997, Regional innovation systems:
institutional and organizational dimensions, Research Policy, Vol 26, p475
Cooke P., Uranga, M.G., Etxebarria, G., 1998, Regional systems of innovation: an
evolutionary perspective, Environment and Planning A, volume 30, p.1563 – 1584
Crouch, C., Le Galés, P., Trogilia, C. and Voelzkow, H. (2001) Local Production System
in Europe: Rise or Demise? Oxford: Oxford University Press
De Langen, 2004, The performance of seaport clusters; A framework to analyze cluster
performance and an application to the seaport clusters in Durban, Rotterdam and the
Lower Mississippi, ERIM PhD series research in Management no. 34
228
References
De Langen, P. W. & Visser, E.-J. ,2005, Collective action regimes in seaport clusters: the
case of the Lower Mississippi port cluster, Journal of Transport Geography, vol. 13,
pp.173-186
De Langen, P.W. en Nijdam, M.H., 2003, Leader firms in de Nederlandse Maritieme
Cluster, Delft, Delft University Press
De Langen, Peter W. Visser, Evert-Jan Collective action regimes in seaport clusters: the
case of the Lower Mississippi port cluster, Journal of Transport Geography, Volume 13,
Issue 2, June 2005, Pages 173-186
De Langen, Van Klink, Nijdam, 1999, Scale en scope in mainport rotterdam; Vernieuwing
en beleid, Erasmus Transport Economics Contracting Agency, Rotterdam
Deephouse D. L., 1999, To be different, or to be the same? It’s a question (and theory) of
strategic balance, Strategic Management Journal 20, 147–166
Deephouse, David L (1999). To be different, or to be the same? It's a question (and theory)
of strategic balance. Strategic Management Journal, 20(2), 147
Dimelis, S, 2002, Foreign ownership and production efficiency: a quantile regression
analysis , Oxford economic papers, Vol. 54 Is. 3 P. 449
Dosi, G., 1988, ‘The nature of the innovative process’. In: G. Dosi et al. (eds.), Technical
Change and Economic Theory. London: Pinter, 221-235
Doz, Y.L. and Hamel, G. (1998). Alliance Advantage. The Art of Creating Value through
Partnering. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press
Dryer, J.H., 2000, Collaborative Advantage : Winning Through Extended enterprise
Supplier Networks, Oxford University Press
Dyer, J.H., Cho, D.S., Chu, W., 1998. Strategic supplier segmentation: The next "best
practice" in supply chain management, California Management Review, 40(2), 57-77
Economides, N. 1996, The economics of networks, in: International journal of industrial
organization, vol. 14, no 6, pp. 673-699
Ecorys, 2002-2004, Economische betekenis van Nederlandse Zeehavens, Den Haag:
Ministerie van verkeer en Waterstaat
Edquist C., 1997, Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organisations.
London: Frances Pinter
229
References
Edquist, C. (2005) Systems of innovation: perspectives and challenges, in: J. Fagerberg, D.
Mowery & R. R. Nelson (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation Norfolk: Oxford
University Press.
Evangelista R., Iammarino S., Mastrostefano V. en Silvani A. (2002), “Looking for
regional systems of innovation. Evidence from the Italian innovation survey”, Regional
Studies, 36, 2, pp. 173-186
Evangelista R., Iammarino S., Mastrostefano V. en Silvani A. (2002), “Looking for
regional systems of innovation. Evidence from the Italian innovation survey”, Regional
Studies, 36, 2, pp. 173-186
Gassmann, O, 2006, Opening up the innovation process: towards an agenda, R&D
management, vol. 36., is. 3, p 223
Gelderman, C.J. and Van Weele, A.J., 2005, Purchasing Portfolio Models: A Critique and
Update, The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 41, Is 3, pp 19-28
Geroski, P., Samiei, H. and Van Reenen, J. 1996. 'How Persistently do Firms Innovate?'.
CEPR Discussion Paper no. 1433. London, Centre for Economic Policy Research
Girma, Sourafel, 2001, Who Benefits from Foreign Direct Investment in the UK?, Scottish
journal of political economy, Vol. 48, Is. 2, P. 119
Gordon, I.R. and McCann, P. (2000) Industrial Clusters: Complexes, Agglomeration
and/or Social Networks? Urban Studies, 37, 3, pp. 513-532
Granovetter, M. 1973 The strength of weak ties, in: American Journal of Sociology, Nov.
1973
Gray, M., Golob, E., Markusen, A., 1996, Big firms, long arms, wide shoulders: The 'huband-spoke' industrial district in the Seattle region, Regional Studies, Vol.30, Is.7, P.651.
Haakanson H, 1999, Learning in networks, Industrial marketing management, vol 28, pp
443-452
Haakansson H, 1989, Corporate technological behavior: co-operation and networks,
London [etc.], Routledge
Handfield, R.B. Ragatz, G.L., Petersen, K.J., Monczka, R.M.,1999, Involving suppliers in
new product development, California Management Review, 42(1), 59-82
230
References
Harland, C.,Zheng, J.,Johnsen, T.,Lamming, R., 2004,A Conceptual Model for
Researching the Creation and Operation of Supply Networks, British Journal of
Management, Vol.15, Is 1
Hartley, J.L., Meredith, J.R., McCutcheon, D., Kamath, R.R., 1997. Suppliers’
Contributions to Product Development: An Exploratory Study. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 44 (3)
Howells, J., 1990, The location and organisation of research and development: new
horizons, Research Policy 19, 133–146
Howells, J.,1999, Regional Systems of innovation?, in Archibugi D., Howells J. and
Michie J. (Eds) Innovation policy in a global economy, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 67-93
Howells, J.,1999, Regional Systems of innovation?, in Archibugi D., Howells J. and
Michie J. (Eds) Innovation policy in a global economy, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 67-93
Iammarino, S., 2004, On the definition of regional system of innovation (RSI): an
application to the Italian case, Conference on “Regionalisation of Innovation Policy” ,
Berlijn, June 4-5
Iammarino, S., 2004, On the definition of regional system of innovation (RSI): an
application to the Italian case, Conference on “Regionalisation of Innovation Policy” ,
Berlijn, June 4-5
Jacobs, D., Boekholt, P., Zegveld, W. 1990, De economische kracht van Nederland, Den
Haag, SMO
Jacobs, D., Man A-P. de 1996, Clusters en concurrentiekracht; naar een nieuwe praktijk in
het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven?, Alphen aan den Rijn, Samson
Jaffe, A. and M. Trajtenberg (1999) "International Knowledge Flows: Evidence from
Patent Citations," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Vol. 8: 105-136
Jaffe, A., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R. (1993), "Geographic Localization of Knowledge
Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations", Quarterly Journal of Economics 108 (3), pp.
577-598
Jaffe, A.B. (1988), Demand and supply influences in R&D intensity and productivity
growth, Review of Economics and Statistics, 70(3), pp. 431-7
231
References
Jarillo, J.C. (1988). ”On Strategic Networks”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 9, pp.
31-41
Johannessen, J., Olsen, B., Lumpkin, G.T., 2001, Innovation as newness: what is new, how
new, and new to whom?, European Journal of innovation management, vol. 4, iss. 1, p. 20
Karamanos, AG, 2003, Complexity, identity and the value of knowledge-intensive
exchanges, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol.40, Is7, p 1871
Keller, W. (2002) Geographic localization of international technology diffusion, American
Economic Review 92: 120-142
Keller, W., 2001, International Technology Diffusion, NBER Working Paper 85
Kim, J.W., 2006, Supplier involvement strategies in environmental friendly product
development: portfolio approach, Thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam
Kleinknecht, A., Oostendorp, R., Pradhan M. 1998, Flexible labour, firm growth and
employment: an exploration of micro data in the Netherlands, Rotterdam: RIBES,
Rotterdam Institute for Business Economic Studies
Klette, J. and S. Kortum (2004), Innovating firms and aggregate innovation, Journal of
Political Economy, 112(5), pp. 986-1018
Kogut, B., Zander, U., 1996 What firms do? Coordination, identity, and learning, in:
organization science, vol. 7, iss. 5, pp. 502-518
Kotabe, M. and Swan, K.S., 1995, The role of strategic alliances in high technology new
product development, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 16, no., 8 , p.621
Kothandaraman, P. and Wilson, D.T. (2001). ”The Future of Competition: Value-Creating
Networks”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 30, Issue 4, May 2001. pp. 379-38
Kraljic, P., 1983, Purchasing must become supply management, Harvard business
review,vol. 61, nr 5, p 109
Krause, D.R., Scannell, T.V., 2002, Supplier development Practices: Product and Service
based Industry comparisons, The Journal of Supply Chain Management, spring 2002, pp
13-21
Krause, D.R., Scannell, T.V., Calantone, R.J., 2000. A structural analysis of the
effectiveness of buying firm’s strategies to improve supplier performance. Decision
Sciences, 31 (1), 33–55
232
References
Krausse, D.R. en Ellram, L.M., 1997, Critical elements of supplier development; the
buying firm perspective, European journal of purchasing & supply management, 3 (1), 2131
Krugman, P., 1991, Geography and Trade, Cambridge: MIT Press
Kuipers, B. (1999). Flexibiliteit in de Rotterdamse havenregio. Delft: Eburon
Lakemond, N., Berggren, C., Van Weele, A., 2006, Coordinating supplier involvement in
product development projects: a differentiated coordination typology, R&D Management,
vol. 36, No. 1
Lazerson, M., Lorenzoni, G. 1999, Resisting Organizational Inertia: The evolution of
industrial districts, in: journal of management and governance, vol. 3, pp 361-377
Leenders, M.R. en Blenkhorn, D.L., 1988, Reverse Marketing: The New Buyer-Supplier
Relationship, New York, The Free Press
Levin, Richard C., 1988, Appropriability, R&D Spending, And Technological
Performance, The American Economic Review, 78, 2; p. 424
Lorenzoni, G., and Baden-Fuller, C. 1995, Creating a strategic center to manage a web of
partners, in: California management review, vol. 37, nr 3,p. 146
Lundvall B (Ed.), 1992 National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation
and Interactive Learning, Frances Pinter, London
Lundvall B, Johnson B, 1994, "The learning economy" Journal of Industry Studies, vol. 1,
p. 23 - 41
Lundvall, B., 2007, National Innovation Systems-Analytical Concept and Development
Tool. Industry and Innovation, Vol.14, 95-119
MacDuffie, J.P., Helper, S., 1997, Creating lean suppliers: Diffusing lean production
through the supply chain, California Management Review, 39(4), 118-151
Markowitz, H., 1952, Portfolio Selection, The Journal of Finance, Vol. 7, Is. 1, pp. 77-91
Markusen, A., 1996, Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts.
Economic Geography, Vol. 72, pp. 293-313
Maskell, P. and Kebir, L., 2005, What Qualifies as a Cluster Theory?, DRUID Working
Paper No. 05-09, Danish research Institute for Industrial Dynamics
McEvily, Zaheer, 1999, Bridging Ties: a source of fim heterogeneity in competitive
capabilities, Strategic management journal, vol. 20, pp1133-1156
233
References
McGovern, S. en Hicks, C., 2006, Specifications and supplier development in the UK
electrical transmission and distribution equipment industry, International Journal of
production economics, vol. 104, pp. 164–178
McMillan, J., 1990, Managing Suppliers: Incentive Systems in Japanese and U.S. Industry.
California Management Review, 32(4), 38.
McNamara, G., Deephouse, DL., Luce, RA., 2003, Competitive positioning within and
across a strategic group structure: The performance of core, secondary, and solitary firms,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol24, Is.2, p 161
Ministerie van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2004, Zeehavens: Ankers van de economie,
DenHaag: MinV&W
Modi, S.B. en Mabert, V.A., 2007, Supplier development: improving supplier performance
through knowledge transfer, Journal of operations management, 25, 42-64
Mohnen, P., 1996, R&D Externalities and Productivity Growth. STI Review 18, 39–66
Morris, J. and Imrie, R. , 1992,Transforming Buyer-supplier Relations; Japanese style
industrial practices in a western context, Macmillan, London
Negassi, S., 2004, R&D co-operation and innovation; a microeconomic study on French
firms, Research Policy, vol 33 p 365-384
Nelson R. R., 1993, National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Oxford:
Oxford University Press
Nelson, R. & Winter, S. (1982), An evolutionary theory of economic change, Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Nickell, S.J. 1996, Competition and Corporate Performance. Journal of Political Economy
104 (4), 724-46
Nijdam, De Langen, 2006, Leader firms en innovatie in de Rotterdamse Haven-Industriele
cluster, Amsterdam: Dutch University Press
Nijdam, M. en De Langen, P., 2006, Leader firms en innovatie in de Rotterdamse havenindustriële cluster, Amsterdam, Dutch University Press
Nonaka Ikujiro, Toyama Ryoko, Nagata Akiya, 2000, A firm as a knowledge-creating
entity: A new perspective on the theory of the firm, Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol.
9, Iss. 1; p. 1
Nonaka, I. 1991, The knowledge-creating company, Harvard business review, vol. 69, iss.
6, p. 96
234
References
Nonaka, I. 1994, A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation, Organization
science, vol. 5 , afl. 1, pp. 14-37
Nooteboom, B, 1990, Extensions of transaction cost economics: specificity, contract,
networks and effects of scale, School of management and organizations, Groningen
university
Nooteboom, B. (1999) Interfirm alliances; analysis and design, Routledge, London
Notteboom, T. and Rodrigue JP. (2008) Containerization, box logistics and global supply
chains: the integration of ports and liner shipping networks, Maritime economics &
logistics, vol. 10, is. 1/2, p. 152-174
OECD, 1997, National Innovation Systems. OECD, Paris
Olivier, D. and Slack, B. (2006) Rethinking the port, Environment and Planning A, vol. 38,
p. 1409 – 1427
Olivier, D., Parola, F., Slack, B., Wang, J., 2007, The time scale of internationalization: the
case of the container port industry, Maritime Economics and Logistics, vol. 9, pp. 1-34
Olson, M., 1971, The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Piore, M, and Sabel, C. 1984 The second industrial divide: possibilities for prosperity,
New York, Basic Books
Port of Rotterdam & City of Rotterdam, 2004, Portvision2020; space for quality,
Rotterdam: City of Rotterdam
Port of Rotterdam, 2005, Business plan 2006-2010, Rotterdam: Port of Rotterdam
Porter, M.E. 1990, The competitive advantage of Nations, Londen, the Macmillan press
Porter, M.E. 2003 The Economic Performance of Regions, Regional Studies, 37 (6&7)
pp549-578
Pouder, R. and St John, C. H. (1996) Hot Spots and Blind Spots: Geographical Clusters of
Firms and Innovation, Academy of Management Review, 21, 4, pp 1192-1125.
Powell, W., 1987. Hybrid organizational arrangements: new form or transitional
development. California Management Review 30, 67–87
Ragatz, G.L., Handfield, R.B., Scannell, T.V., 1997. Success factors for integrating
suppliers into new product development. Journal of Product Innovation Management 14,
190–202
235
References
Ragin, Charles C. 2006. User's Guide to Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.0.
Tucson, Arizona: Department of Sociology, University of Arizona
Ragin, Charles C., Kriss A. Drass and Sean Davey. 2006. Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative
Comparative Analysis 2.0. Tucson, Arizona: Department of Sociology, University of
Arizona
Rebel Group & Buck international, 2004-2007, Economische betekenis van Nederlandse
zeehavengebieden, Den Haag: Ministerie van verkeer en Waterstaat
RMPM, 1993, Havenplan 2010, Rotterdam: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Rotterdam
Robinson R, (2002) Ports as elements in value-driven chain systems: the new paradigm,
Maritime Policy and Management , vol. 29, p. 241 - 255
Roelandt, den Hertog (eds),1999, Boosting innovation; the cluster approach, OECD
proceedings, OECD, Paris
Romer, P.M. 1986, Increasing returns and long-run growth, Journal of political economics,
vol 94 iss 5, 1002-1037
Roper, S, Hewitt-Dunbas, N, Love, J.H, 2004, An ex ante evaluation framework for the
regional benefits of publicly supported R&D projects, Research Policy, vol. 33 p 487-509
Rugman, A. M. and D’Cruz, J. R. (2000) Multinationals as Flagship Firms:Regional
Business Networks, Oxford, Oxford University Press
Slappendel, C., 1996, perspectives on innovation in organizations, Organiszation studies,
vol. 17, no. 1, p.107
Smith, P.G., Reinertsen, D.G., 1995. Developing Products in Half the Time, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York
Staber, U., 1996, Accounting for variations in the performance of industrial districts: the
case of Baden-Wurttemberg, International journal of urban and regional research, vol. 20,
is. 2, p. 299
Sternberg, R., Arndt, O. 2001, The firm or the region: What determines the innovation
behavior of European firms?, in: Economic geography, vol. 77 nr 4 364-382
Van der Valk, W., Wynstra, F., 2005, Supplier involvement in new product development
in the food industry Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 34, pp. 681 – 694
236
References
Van Klink, 1995, Towards the borderless Mainport Rotterdam; an analysis of functional,
spatial and administrative dynamics in port systems, Phd dissertation, Tinbergen institute
research series no. 104
Van klink, De Langen, 1999, Scale en Scope in mainport Rotterdam, Erasmus Transport
Economics Contracting Agency, Rotterdam
Van Tulder, R., Van den Berghe, D., Muller, A.(2001), Erasmus (S)coreboard of Core
Companies, The World's Largest Firms and Internationalization, SCOPE, Erasmus
Universiteit Rotterdam
Visser, E-J. 2000, De complementariteit van clusters en netwerken, ESB, vol. 85, nr 4283,
pp. 35
Von Corswant, F. en Tunälv, C., 2002, Coordinating customers and proactive suppliers: A
case study of supplier collaboration in product development, Journal of engineering and
technology management, vol. 19, pp.249–261
Von Hippel, E. 1989 New product ideas from Lead Users, in: Research Technology
Management, May-June 1989
Wagner, S.M. en Hoegl, M., 2005, Involving suppliers in product development: Insights
from R&D directors and project managers, Industrial marketing Management, 35, 936-943
Watts, C.A., Hahn, C.K., 1993. The supplier development program: an empirical analysis.
International Journal of Purchasing and Material Management, 29 (2), 11–17
Whitford, F. 2001, The decline of a model? Challenge and response in the Italian
industrial districts, in: Economy and society, vol. 30, nr 1, pp. 38-65
Williamson O E, 1975, Markets and hierarchies: analyses and anti trust implications, New
York, Free press
Williamson O E, 1985, The economic institutions of capitalism; firms, markets, relational
contracting, New York, Free Press
Womak, J. P., Jones, D. T. and Roos, D., 1990, The Machine that Changed the World,
New York, Rawson Associates
Wynstra F., Ten Pierick, E., 2000, Managing supplier involvement in new product
development: a portfolio approach, European Journal of Purchasing & Supply
Management, Vol. 6, pp. 49-57
Wynstra, F. en Van Stekelenborg, R. The Role of Purchasing in New Product
Development, Results of a Dutch working group, Eindhoven University of Technology
237
References
Interviewees
Regarding the selection of Leader Firms
A.N. Roos
Director
CBRB
Rotterdam
19-04-2002
M.W. Bloem
Director
HME
Rotterdam
26-09-2001
J.H.M. Rovers
Director
VBKO
Gouda
19-11-2001
R.J. Schouten
Director
VNSI
Zoetermeer
03-10-2001
P.A.Th. van Agtmaal
Director
KVNR
Rotterdam
15-04-2002
H.P. de Boer
Director
IRO
Zoetermeer
03-10-2001
CJ. Asselbergs
Director
Deltalinqs
Rotterdam
17-04-2002
R.C. Bagchus
Director
Deltalinqs
Rotterdam
07-02-2007
R. van der Moolen
Director
KMR
Rotterdam
20-01-2005
E. Langstraten
Projectleader
Syntens
Rotterdam
21-01-2005
Regarding Leader firm behavior in general
J. Meerbach
Chemgas Shipping
Rotterdam
09-05-2002
R. Zimmerman
Mercurius
Zwijndrecht
**-07-2002
R. Riemen
Broekman B.V.
Rotterdam
**-07-2002
B. Ellemeet
Koninklijke Vopak
Rotterdam
17-09-2002
E.P. Heerema
Allseas
Delft
28-05-2002
H. Heerema
Bluewater Energy
Services
Hoofddorp
22-05-2002
S.A.W Janse
IHC Gusto engineering
Schiedam
16-07-2002
J. van Ijsseldijk
Tideway bv
Breda
10-05-2002
A.Lubbes
Fugro (Marine)
Leidschendam
03-10-2002
F. van Riet
Mammoet BV
Schiedam
08-07-2002
Ph. Swolfs
Conoship International
Groningen
10-06-2002
K. Damen
Damen Shipyards
Gorinchem
20-05-2002
J. van Sliedregtt
IHC Holland
Sliedrecht
08-07-2002
H.P. Winkel
Bakker Sliedrecht
Electro
Sliedrecht
22-05-2002,
28-04-2004
238
References
M. vd Valk
Centraalstaal
Groningen
10-06-2002
E.R. Haarman
Rotor B.V.
Eibergen
**-06-2002
H. Oortwijn
Winel
Assen
11-06-2002
J. Roodenburg
Huisman Itrec
Schiedam
**-08-2002
W.C. van Rijn
Imtech marine &
offshore
Rotterdam
07-08-2002
F. Verhoeven
Boskalis Westminster
Rotterdam
**-06-2002
A van de Kerk
Van Oord ACZ
Gorinchem
**-06-2002
H. Velema
Feadship Holland
Haarlem
24-05-2002
W. Pronk
Geest Lines
Rotterdam
**-06-2002
R. van Westenbrugge
Jo Tankers
Spijkenisse
**-07-2002
R. van Slobbe
P&O Nedlloyd
Rotterdam
05-06-2002
A. Engelsman
Wagenborg
Delfzijl
10-06-2002
Related to innovation networks of leader firms:
P.Kortekaas
General manager
engineering
Smit internationale
01-03-2005
B. de feyter
Purchasing & logistics
manager
Smit Internationale
01-03-2005
W. Kruijt
Director BU products
Imtech Marine &
offshore
05-04-2005
T.P. Blankestijn
maritime policies
®ulatory affairs
manager
P&O Nedlloyd
04-03-2005
P. Westerman
team leader Business
development
Nerefco
07-03-2005
J. Roodenburg
director
Huisman-itrec
17-03-2005
R. van Kuilenburg
IP & Technical
Development Manager
Huisman-Itrec
17-03-2005
H. Engelberts
Manager support &
development
ECT
18-03-2005
D. Leunissen
Technology manager
Huntsman Nederland
04-04-2005
T. van der Leer
projectmanager
EMO
02-03-2005
W. Pronk
Director
Geest North Sea lines
22-02-2005,
30-03-2005
239
References
Regarding buyer supplier relations of leader firms:
B. van Geluk
Purchasing
manager
Maersk Line
Rotterdam
08-01-2008
W. Milder
Managing
Director
Corporate
Division
Broekman Group
Rotterdam
17-12-2007
P. Swaak
Director
Samskip
Rotterdam
18-12-2007
J.Heinen
Manager projets
& development
EECV
Rotterdam
10-01-2008
T. van Leer
project manager
EMO Rotterdam
Rotterdam
19-11-2007
K. Van
Steenbergen
head of
purchasing
EMO
Rotterdam
19-11-2009
T. van Nordennen
Technical
Director
IHC- Merwede
Sliedrecht
14-11-2007
G. Hamers
President
IHC- Holland
Merwede
Sliedrecht
09-05-2007
M. de Jonge
general manager
SVMS
Smit internationale
Rotterdam
03-12-2007
C. Pronk
Purchasing
manager
Odfjell
Rotterdam
19-12-2007
K. Zwarts
Purchasing
manager
Keppel Verolme
Rotterdam
04-12-2007
R. de Wit
Purchasing
manager ai
APM Terminals
Rotterdam
04-12-2007
H. Speelman
Board member
Argos oil
Rotterdam
18-01-2008
240
References
Regarding the societal role of leader firms
J.A.M. Janssen
Head of external
affairs
Shell
Rotterdam
08-01-2004
L. Walder
Manager public
relations
Smit
Internationale
Rotterdam
09-01-2004
B. Ellemeet
Director Corporate
Communications &
Investor Relations
Vopak
Rotterdam
07-01-2004
T.P. Blankestijn
Manager maritime
policies and
regulatory affairs
Nedlloyd
Rotterdam
17-12-2003
B Zaaijer
Manager SHE&Q
Vopak
Rotterdam
06-11-2009
241
Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionnaire Dutch Maritime Cluster
This questionnaire was used to structure the interviews with the managers in the Dutch
Maritime Cluster
De rol van ‘leader firms’ in de maritieme cluster
Drs. Peter de Langen
Drs. Michiel Nijdam
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
Capaciteitsgroep Regionale, Haven- en Vervoerseconomie (RHV)
Bezoekadres
Burg. Oudlaan 50, kamer H12-15
Postadres
Postbus 1738, H 12-11
3000 DR ROTTERDAM
Doorkiesnr
010 - 408 1870
Fax
010 – 408 9153
E-mail
mnijdam@few.eur.nl
Doel onderzoek
Het doel van dit onderzoek is het verkrijgen van inzicht in de vraag onder welke condities
en in welke mate bedrijven in de NMC (Nederlandse maritieme cluster) zich gedragen als
leader firms.
Onderwerpen
Netwerken van leader firms
Relaties met toeleveranciers
Relaties met klanten
Relaties met concurrenten
Innovatienetwerken
Internationalisering
Betrokkenheid bij cluster governance
243
Appendices
Motieven voor leader firm gedrag
Gegevens respondent/bedrijf
Naam en organisatie:
____________________________
Functie:
__________________________
Aantal werknemers bedrijf in Nederland
__________
Actief in de volgende componenten van de cluster:
Alvorens met de vragen te beginnen definiëren we kort enkele kernbegrippen
Leader firms:
Netwerken: relaties tussen verschillende organisaties (producenten, toeleveranciers,
klanten, brancheorganisaties, kennisinstellingen e.a) met bepaalde specifieke
doelstellingen. Wij onderscheiden netwerken op het gebied van ‘voortbrenging van
producten’, innovatie, internationalisering en arbeidsmarkt.
Innovatie: onder innovatie wordt verstaan:
x
Technische vernieuwing(nieuwe producten of productiemethoden)
x
Organisatorische vernieuwing (vernieuwende manier van organisatie inrichting of
samenwerking)
x
Marktvernieuwing (vernieuwende manier van marktbenadering)
Externe effecten van leader firms: positieve effecten van investeringen van leader firms
op andere bedrijven in de cluster, zonder dat deze effecten worden ‘doorberekend’
Cluster Governance: alle inspanningen gericht is op het verbeteren van de
concurrentiekracht van de cluster b.v. door:
x
Intensivering van relaties binnen de cluster
x
Gezamenlijke projecten op het gebied van scholing, imagoverbetering e.d.
244
Appendices
Netwerken
Voor dit onderzoek onderscheiden we vier soorten netwerken (een productienetwerk, een
kennis en innovatienetwerk een internationaliseringsnetwerk en een arbeidsmarktnetwerk.
In elk netwerk staat een ander doel centraal. We willen voor elk van de leader firms deze
netwerken in kaart brengen.
Productie
Klanten
Leveranciers
Concurrenten/
branchegenoten
Firm
Overige bedrijven
(Cluster) organisaties/
Instituties
Kennisinstellingen
Innovatie
Klanten
Concurrenten/
branchegenoten
Kennisinstellingen
Leveranciers
Firm
Overige bedrijven
(Cluster) organisaties/
Instituties
245
Appendices
Arbeidsmarkt
Klanten
Concurrenten/
branchegenoten
Leveranciers
Overige bedrijven
Firm
(Cluster) organisaties/
Instituties
Kennisinstellingen
Internationalisatie
Klanten
Concurrenten/
branchegenoten
Kennisinstellingen
246
Leveranciers
Firm
Overige bedrijven
(Cluster) organisaties/
Instituties
Appendices
Hoe sterk is uw bedrijf ‘ingebed’ in de vier genoemde netwerken?
Netwerk
Productienetwerk
Niet
nauwelijks
matig
sterk
Zeer sterk
Kennis en innovatienetwerk
Niet
nauwelijks
matig
sterk
Zeer sterk
Internationaliseringsnetwerk
Niet
nauwelijks
matig
sterk
Zeer sterk
Arbeidsmarktnetwerk
Niet
nauwelijks
matig
sterk
Zeer sterk
In de eerder besproken figuren zijn 6 soorten organisaties onderscheiden. Geef voor elk
van de vier netwerken aan wat het belang is van deze 6 soorten door 30 ‘punten’ te
verdelen over de 6 organisaties (dit is gemiddeld 5 per type organisatie). Meer punten
betekent van groter belang.
Productienetwerk
Kennis en
innovatienetwerk
Internationaliserin
gs-netwerk
Arbeidsmarktnetwerk
30
30
30
30
Klanten
Toeleveranciers
Concurrenten
Overige bedrijven
Branche-organisaties
Kennisinstellingen
Totaal
Relaties met toeleveranciers
Hoeveel van de 10 belangrijkste toeleveranciers zijn gevestigd in Nederland?
___ stuks
Hoeveel toeleveranciers zijn sterk afhankelijk van jullie orders?
___ stuks
Relaties met klanten
Hoeveel van de 10 belangrijkste klanten zijn in Nederland gevestigd?
___ stuks
Hoeveel klanten zijn sterk afhankelijk van jullie leveringen
___ stuks
Relaties met concurrenten
Op welk van de onderstaande gebieden werkt u samen met uw concurrenten
247
Appendices
Innovatie
Ja / nee
Onderwijs en scholing
Ja / nee
Internationale expansie
Ja / nee
Uitbesteding deel van productie
Ja / nee
Innovatienetwerken
Hoe vooraanstaand is uw bedrijf op het gebied van innovatie?
Een ‘internationale industry leader’
Een ‘early adopter’, dwz relatief vroeg ‘erbij’ op het gebied van innovatie
Gemiddeld, dwz niet significant beter of slechter dan de ‘industry average’
Beneden gemiddeld, achterblijvend op het gebied van innovatie
De rollen van ons bedrijf in innovatienetwerken zijn:
Rollen
Optreden als ‘lead user’
(kritisch vooruitdenkende klant)
Wel
Niet
Regisseur netwerk (bijeenbrengen partijen)
Wel
Niet
Financiering van innovatietrajecten
Wel
Niet
‘Operationeel management’ van het innovatienetwerk
Wel
Niet
Inbreng van kennis en informatie
Wel
Niet
Hoe ‘clustergebonden’ zijn de innovatienetwerken waar uw bedrijf deel van uit maakt?
Niet/nauwelijks
clustergebonden
Matig
clustergebonden
Sterk/Zeer sterk
clustergebonden
Beoordeel de kwaliteit van de NMC op het gebied van vernieuwing:
Aspect
248
Score (1 = zwak, 5 = sterk)
Aanwezigheid van ‘lead users’ in de
netwerken
1
2
3
4
5
Kwaliteit van de regisseurs
1
2
3
4
5
Kwaliteit van de toeleveranciers
1
2
3
4
5
Kwaliteit van de publieke
kennisinfrastructuur
1
2
3
4
5
Kwaliteit van het ‘subsidieklimaat voor
vernieuwing’
1
2
3
4
5
Appendices
Wij gebruiken de volgende methoden om innovaties bij toeleveranciers te stimuleren:
Methode
Nauw omschreven eisenpakket
wel
niet
Vroegtijdig betrekken bij innovatietrajecten
wel
niet
Hoge productiviteitseisen
wel
niet
Internationalisering
Export als percentage van de omzet
_____%
Aantal (eigen) vestigingen in het buitenland
___ stuks
Aantal deelnemingen in het buitenland
___ stuks
Onderdeel van buitenlands moederconcern
ja/ Nee
Welk percentage van de totale productie van uw bedrijf vindt plaats in Nederland respectievelijk het
buitenland?
Nederland
Buitenland
Huidige verdeling
%
%
5 jaar geleden
%
%
Geef de mate van onafhankelijkheid van buitenlandse vestigingen aan door één van
onderstaande beschrijvingen te kiezen:
Omschrijving
keuze
De vestigingen worden in hoge mate centraal aangestuurd
De vestigingen zijn operationeel onafhankelijk, en verantwoordelijk voor hun
resultaten
De vestigingen zijn grotendeels onafhankelijk, doen zelf aan klanten werving en
tot op zekere hoogte investeringsbeslissingen
Mate waarin buitenlandse vestigingen/deelnemingen gebruik maken van Nederlandse
toeleveranciers:
0-20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
80-100%
249
Appendices
Geef aan of u het eens of oneens bent met onderstaande stellingen:
Stelling
Mening
Oneens
Geen mening
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
Wij moedigen toeleveranciers aan om met ons mee te
internationaliseren
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
D.
Een belangrijke reden om te internationaliseren is de
vraag van een klant uit de NMC
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
E.
Onze ‘kritische vraag’ schept onze toeleveranciers de
mogelijkheden om hun internationale marktpositie te
verbeteren
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
A.
Export is voor ons belangrijker dan de Nederlandse
markt
Eens
B.
Het niveau van toeleveranciers in de NMC ligt hoger
dan het niveau van buitenlandse toeleveranciers
C.
Wij gebruiken de volgende manieren om toeleveranciers aan te moedigen om met ons mee
te internationaliseren:
Maatregel
Antwoord
Wij bieden aan contracten met een lange looptijd te sluiten
wel
Wij bieden aan mee te investeren
wel
Niet
Wij bieden een lokatie ‘on site’, dwz op het terrein van onze eigen vestiging aan
wel
Niet
Wij treden op als matchmaker voor het vinden van een lokale partner
wel
Niet
250
Niet
Appendices
Cluster governance
Geef aan of u het eens of oneens bent met onderstaande stellingen:
Stelling
Mening
A.
Wij stellen ons op als ‘leader firm’ bij het initiëren
van gezamenlijke projecten
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
B.
Wij dragen actief bij aan de kwaliteit van de voor
onze sector/cluster relevante brancheverenigingen
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
C.
Zonder de actieve ondersteuning van enkele
leidende bedrijven komen initiatieven in het
clusterbelang niet of nauwelijks van de grond.
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
Voor ons bedrijf is de concurrentiekracht van andere
bedrijven in de cluster zo belangrijk dat we
investeringen doen waarvan de ‘benefits’ in het
algemeen belang zijn.
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
Cluster-organisaties die een gezamenlijk project
initiëren krijgen doorgaans meer steun dan
bedrijven die hetzelfde doen
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
D.
E.
Geef aan of u het eens of oneens bent met onderstaande stellingen:
Stelling
Mening
A.
Interne concurrentie draagt bij aan de kwaliteit van
onze toeleveranciers
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
B.
Wij dragen bij aan het waarborgen van concurrentie
tussen toeleveranciers binnen de NMC
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
C.
Interne concurrentie houdt ons scherp en draagt zo
bij aan onze concurrentiekracht
Eens
Oneens
Geen mening
Leader firm investeringen
Op welke van de volgende gebieden heeft uw bedrijf het afgelopen jaar investeringen
gedaan met relatief grote ‘baten’ voor andere partijen in het netwerk/ de cluster ?
Wel/geen
investering
Partners
Trekkende
rol
Omvang
investering
(1000
EURO)
Productie
Integrale ketenlogistiek
Informatie-uitwisseling
251
Appendices
Ontwikkelen van standaarden
Innovatie
Gezamenlijk(e) innovatieproject(en)
Internationalisering
Investeren
in
toeleveranciers
internationalisatie
Arbeidsmarkt
Investeren
in
scholingsprojecten
gezamenlijke
Investeren in promotie van de cluster
Overige clusterinvesteringen
Bijdrage branche-verenigingen
Motieven om op te treden als leader firm in de NMC
Geef aan of u het eens of oneens bent met onderstaande stellingen:
Stelling
Mening
A.
Ons bedrijf stelt zich alleen op als leader als dit in ons
directe eigenbelang is
Eens/ Oneens/ Geen mening
B.
Ons bedrijf stelt zich op als leader omdat een sterke
concurrentiekracht van de cluster op lange termijn onze
concurrentiepositie ten goede komt
Eens/ Oneens/ Geen mening
De betrokkenheid van ons topmanagement bij de
ontwikkeling van de NMC is een belangrijke reden voor
onze opstelling als leader firms
Eens/ Oneens/ Geen mening
Goede persoonlijke relaties van ons topmanagement
met andere bedrijven in de NMC is een belangrijke
reden voor onze opstelling als leader firm
Eens/ Oneens/ Geen mening
De Nederlandse cluster is voor ons niet van groot
belang. Wij zijn in de eerste plaats een leader firm in
onze eigen internationale netwerken.
Eens/ Oneens/ Geen mening
C.
D.
E.
252
Appendices
Appendix 2: Questionnaire Innovation
This questionnaire was used to structure interviews with managers of leader firms on their
role in innovation networks
Vragen, innovatie in het HIC
In het interview komen vragen aan de orde over de volgende onderwerpen: Innovativiteit;
Investeren in innovatie; Innovatie-netwerk; Innovatie en beleid
Bedrijf (in Rijnmond)
Omzet
aantal octrooien
Balanstotaal
Aantal licenties
Personeel
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
Haven en Stad
1.
2.
3.
Hoeveel procent van de toeleveranciers is in de regio gevestigd? _________
Hoeveel procent van de klanten is in de regio gevestigd?
_________
Welk percentage van de omzet wordt in de regio behaald?
_________
4.
Wie zijn de belangrijkste….
Klanten
leveranciers
Concurrenten
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
______________
_____________
_____________
_____________
_____________
Innovaties
5.
6.
7.
Aantal nieuwe of vernieuwde producten laatste 5 jaar (ongeveer)_________
Aantal Procesinnovaties laatste 5 jaar (ongeveer)
_________
De innovaties binnen het bedrijf zijn voornamelijk:
253
Appendices
Productinnovaties
Technologisch
8.
O O O O
O O O O
Procesinnovaties
Niet-technologisch
Hoe vooraanstaand is uw bedrijf op het gebied van innovatie?
Een ‘internationale industry leader’
Een ‘early adopter’, dwz relatief vroeg ‘erbij’ op het gebied van innovatie
Gemiddeld, dwz niet significant beter of slechter dan de ‘industry average’
Beneden gemiddeld, dwz achterblijvend op het gebied van innovatie
9.
Wat zijn de afgelopen jaren de belangrijkste innovaties geweest binnen uw bedrijf?
10.
Hebben andere organisaties daaraan bijgedragen?
11.
Maakte uw bedrijf daarbij gebruik van innovatie-stimulerings maatregelen?
Investeren in innovatie
Wat zijn, over het algemeen, de belangrijkste redenen voor innovatie?
O Klantvraag
O Voorblijven concurrentie
O Verlaging kosten
13.
14.
Hoeveel wordt er per jaar uitgegeven aan R&D?
Hoeveel personeel houdt zich bezig met R&D?
15.
Hoe belangrijk zijn de verschillende inputs voor innovatie?
Licenties
Eigen R&D
Octrooi onderzoek
Reverse engineering
Vakbijeenkomsten
Informele circuits
Wetenschappelijke publicaties
In dienst nemen werknemers innoverende
onderneming
254
Zeer belangrijk
Belangrijk
______
______
Enigszins
belangrijk
Onbelangrijk
12.
Appendices
Innovatie netwerk
16.
Hoe sterk is uw bedrijf ‘ingebed’ in innovatienetwerken?
Niet
17.
nauwelijks
matig
sterk
Zeer sterk
Geef aan of u het eens of oneens bent met onderstaande stellingen:
Stelling
Oneens
A.
Innovaties van ons bedrijf worden voornamelijk binnen de regio
rijnmond gerealiseerd
B.
Voor het doen van innovaties maken wij gebruik van
partnerships
Eens
1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3 4 5
18.
Onze innovatie-partners bevinden zich voornamelijk (meer dan 50%) in:
O Rijnmond O Zuid-Holland
O Nederland
O Europa
O Wereld
19.
Wie zijn de belangrijkste innovatie-partners?
______________ _____________ _
______________
______________ _____________ _
______________
20.
Hoe belangrijk zijn de onderstaande partijen voor innovaties?
Onbelangrijk
Enigszins
belangrijk
Belangrijk
Zeer belangrijk
Afnemers
Leveranciers
Branchegenoten
Andere bedrijven
Brancheorganisaties
Kennisinstellingen
Spillovers
21.
Wij gebruiken de volgende methoden om innovaties bij toeleveranciers te
stimuleren:
255
Appendices
Niet
In sterke mate
Nauw omschreven eisenpakket
1
2
3
4
Vroegtijdig betrekken bij innovatietrajecten
1
2
3
4
5
Beschikbaar stellen kennis & technieken
1
2
3
4
5
Hoge productiviteitseisen
1
2
3
4
5
Oneens
Eens
Geef aan of u het eens of oneens bent met onderstaande stellingen:
Stelling
A.
Onze vraag is veeleisend; toeleveranciers komen door deze
vraag vroegtijdig in aanraking met toekomstige standaarden.
1 2 3 4 5
B.
Onze producten zijn vernieuwend; hierdoor kunnen onze
afnemers nieuwe, betere producten en diensten leveren.
1 2 3 4 5
C.
Onze ‘kritische vraag’ schept onze toeleveranciers de
mogelijkheden om hun internationale marktpositie te
verbeteren
1 2 3 4 5
Onze innovatie-inspanningen leveren spillovers op voor andere
bedrijven
1 2 3 4 5
D.
In ruime mate
In beperkte mate
De kennis vanuit ons bedrijf verspreidt zich op de volgende manieren:
Niet
23.
Licenties
Octrooi onderzoek door anderen
Reverse engineering door anderen
Vakbijeenkomsten
Informele circuits
Wetenschappelijke publicaties
In dienst nemen van onze werknemers door
andere onderneming
24.
Is er de afgelopen jaren een spin-off ontstaan uit het bedrijf
Kwaliteit van de omgeving
25.
Hoe beoordeelt u het innovatieklimaat in de regio?
O Slecht
O Matig O Neutraal
O Goed
256
O Uitstekend
In hoge mate
22.
5
Appendices
26.
Zijn er plaatsen waar dit klimaat beter zou zijn voor het bedrijf? Ja/Nee
27.
Zo ja, welke en waarom?
Innovatie en beleid
28.
In hoeverre maakt uw bedrijf gebruik van subsidies voor innovaties?
O Niet O In beperkte mate O In ruime mate O In hoge mate
29.
Van welke innovatiebevorderende maatregelen heeft u gebruik gemaakt?
_________
_________
30.
In hoeverre wordt er gebruik gemaakt van publieke kennisinfrastructuur?
O Niet O In beperkte mate O In ruime mate O In hoge mate
31.
Geef aan of u het eens of oneens bent met onderstaande stellingen:
Stelling
32.
Oneens
Eens
A.
R&D subsidies zijn belangrijk voor innovaties
1 2 3 4 5
B.
Fiscale maatregelen zijn belangrijk voor innovaties
1 2 3 4 5
C.
De overheid moet investeren in innovatieve samenwerking
tussen bedrijven en kennisinstellingen
1 2 3 4 5
D.
Kennisuitwisseling tussen bedrijven gaat beter als de overheid
een actieve rol speelt
1 2 3 4 5
Welke randvoorwaarden zijn belangrijk voor innovatie?
Niet belangrijk
Zeer belangrijk
Onderwijsbeleid
1
2
3
4
Arbeidsmarktbeleid
1
2
3
4
5
5
Mededingingsbeleid
1
2
3
4
5
Vestigingsplaatsbeleid
1
2
3
4
5
……
1
2
3
4
5
……
1
2
3
4
5
257
Appendices
33.
Hoe beoordeelt u de kwaliteit van deze voorwaarden in de Rotterdamse regio?
Slecht
Goed
Onderwijsbeleid
1
2
3
4
Arbeidsmarktbeleid
1
2
3
4
5
Mededingingsbeleid
1
2
3
4
5
Vestigingsplaatsbeleid
1
2
3
4
5
……
1
2
3
4
5
……
1
2
3
4
5
34.
5
Welke overheidsinstellingen zijn naar uw idee het meest belangrijk als het gaat om
innovaties?
_________
_________
35.
Wat is uw mening over de lokale overheid?
Zij draagt bij aan een innovatief klimaat
Zij belemmert innovativiteit
Zij heeft een innovatie-neutrale rol
258
Appendices
Appendix 3: Questionnaire Supplier relations
This questionnaire was used to structure interviews with leader firms in Rotterdam about
their relations with suppliers.
Interviewvragen leader firms - leveranciers
Eigenschappen van het bedrijf
Naam en organisatie:
____________________________
Functie:
__________________________
Aantal werknemers bedrijf in Rijnmond
__________
Aantal vestigingen in het buitenland
_______ In hoeveel landen _____
Onderdeel van buitenlands moederconcern Ja/ Nee
Export als percentage van de omzet
_____ %
Leveranciers en inkoop
Wat is de verhouding inkoop / verkoop binnen uw bedrijf?
Beschikt uw bedrijf over een aparte inkoopafdeling?
Op welk niveau vindt de inkoopfunctie plaats? (directie, MT, staf,….)
Hoeveel procent van de leveringen (in €) is uit de regio afkomstig?
_________
Welke ingekochte producten en diensten zijn cruciaal voor uw eigen productie?
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
Zijn deze producten of diensten eenvoudig te verkrijgen?
(aantal aanbieders, prijsvorming, levertijden)
Welke bedrijven zijn de belangrijkste leveranciers?
Naam
Product
Waarom belangrijk
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
259
Appendices
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
Hoe vaak is er face-to-face contact met deze belangrijkste leveranciers?
Welke onderwerpen worden er besproken bij deze meetings?
Hoeveel van de belangrijkste toeleveranciers zijn gevestigd in Rijnmond?
___
Hoeveel procent van de totale input (€) leveren zij?
___
Hoeveel van deze toeleveranciers zijn sterk afhankelijk van jullie orders?
___
Is de afgelopen jaren de leveranciers portefeuille veranderd?
___
Er bestaan verschillende strategieën ten opzichte van leveranciers. Hoe zou u in het
algemeen de houding van uw bedrijf typeren?
Geef aan in welke mate u de volgende benaderingen gebruikt ten opzichte van Uw
leveranciers:
1.
Competitive pressure: De inkopende partij gebruikt zijn marktmacht om de beste
leveranciers te belonen. De beste leveranciers krijgen meer business.
Altijd / soms / nooit / in specifieke gevallen, namelijk:
2.
Evaluation and certification systems: Door routinematig leveranciers te evalueren
en de resultaten terug te koppelen blijven leveranciers scherper op hun kwaliteit.
Altijd / soms / nooit / in specifieke gevallen, namelijk:
3.
Incentives: Door het geven van financiële prikkels kunnen leveranciers
gestimuleerd worden hun product of proces te verbeteren. Bijvoorbeeld door hen
te laten delen in kostenbesparingen.
Altijd / soms / nooit / in specifieke gevallen, namelijk:
260
Appendices
4.
Direct involvement: Bedrijven kunnen direct investeren in hun leveranciers, direct
in assets of via een deelneming. Ook het detacheren van mensen of het
beschikbaar stellen van organisatie capaciteit kunnen manieren zijn om een
leverancier te helpen ontwikkelen.
Altijd / soms / nooit / in specifieke gevallen, namelijk:
De productie / dienstverlening
Wie zijn uw belangrijkste klanten?
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
_________
Hoeveel procent van uw omzet is gerelateerd aan klanten in Rijnmond? _____
Waarmee onderscheidt uw bedrijf zich? (bv. lage kosten, efficiëntie, maatwerk, uniek
product, innovativiteit), waaruit blijkt dit?
Welke leveranciers dragen bij aan dit onderscheidend vermogen?
Hoe belangrijk is de kwaliteit van uw toeleveranciers in Rijnmond voor uw
concurrentiekracht?
Zeer onbelangrijk
Onbelangrijk
Redelijk
belangrijk
Belangrijk
Zeer
belangrijk
Op welke manier dragen leveranciers in Rijnmond bij aan de concurrentiekracht? (Geef
een rangorde, 1= meest belangrijke)
Kwaliteit van product/diensten
Snelheid van productie
Betrouwbaarheid van levering
Innovativiteit
Kosten
261
Appendices
Samenwerking
Op welke van de volgende gebieden heeft uw bedrijf de afgelopen 5 jaar een gezamenlijk
project met leveranciers uitgevoerd?
Project
Initiator?
Scholing van personeel
Ja/ nee
Imagoverbetering
Ja/ nee
Gezamenlijke deelname aan beurzen
Ja/ nee
Anders:..
Ja/ nee
Samen met leverancier:
Met welke leveranciers is in de afgelopen jaren een ‘verbeteringstraject’ ingezet?
Wat was de aanleiding?
Wie nam het initiatief?
Was er van tevoren een duidelijk doel?
Wat waren de beoogde voordelen voor klant en leverancier?
Zijn die doelen en voordelen ook behaald?
Welke obstakels hebben zich voorgedaan tijdens de samenwerking?
Wat waren de achtergronden van die obstakels? (bv. organisatie, financiën, kennis)
Leveranciers en innovaties
Niet
Hoe belangrijk zijn leveranciers voor uw innovaties?
1
In sterke mate
2
3
4
5
Wat zijn de afgelopen jaren de belangrijkste innovaties geweest binnen uw bedrijf?
Hebben leveranciers daaraan bijgedragen? Op welke manier?
Wat was belangrijkste aanleiding voor de innovatie?
O Klantvraag
O Voorblijven concurrentie
O Verlaging kosten O Wetgeving
In hoeverre gebruikt U de volgende methoden om innovaties bij toeleveranciers te
stimuleren?
262
Appendices
Niet
In sterke mate
Nauw omschreven eisenpakket
1
2
3
4
5
Functioneel specificeren
1
2
3
4
5
Vroegtijdig betrekken bij
innovatietrajecten
1
2
3
4
5
Beschikbaar stellen kennis & technieken
1
2
3
4
5
Internationalisering (wel/niet van toepassing?)
Hebt U weleens een leverancier betrokken bij internationale activiteiten?
Welke leverancier(s)?
Waarom?
Hoe?
Mate waarin buitenlandse vestigingen/deelnemingen gebruik maken van Rijnmondse
toeleveranciers:
0-20%
20-40%
40-60%
60-80%
80-100%
Om toeleveranciers aan te moedigen om met ons mee te internationaliseren bieden wij
Niet
In sterke mate
Contracten met een lange looptijd te sluiten
1
2
3
4
5
Mee te investeren
1
2
3
4
5
Een lokatie ‘on site’
1
2
3
4
5
Optreden als matchmaker voor het vinden van een lokale
partner
1
2
3
4
5
263
Summary
Summary
Introduction
Ports are often analyzed as a node in a transport chain, and less often as a regional business
setting. Concepts such as clusters, industrial districts, regional systems and networks are
scarcely applied to seaports. This is surprising because the seaport can be seen as a typical
geographical concentration of related businesses. In this study the port cluster of
Rotterdam is analyzed with a focus on the role of leader firms. Leader firms are important
in (port)clusters, they are companies that add positive effects to the cluster by doing
business in such a way that also the local business community benefits from their presence.
The research addresses the following research question:
“How do leader firms add to the competitiveness of the Rotterdam port cluster and what
are the characteristics of these firms?”
Research structure
In this thesis the role of leader firms in the development and performance of the Rotterdam
port cluster is analyzed. The analysis is done in the following steps:
1.
Exploration of the relevant academic fields
2.
Exploration of leader firm behavior and effects in the maritime industry
3.
Analysis of the role of leader firms for innovation and buyer supplier
relationships in the Rotterdam port cluster
4.
Analysis of the characteristics and motives of the leader firms
Theoretical building blocks
The theoretical building blocks for this study are found in multiple fields of which the most
important are the cluster theory as formulated by Porter (1990), industrial districts analysis
based on the insights of Marshall (1890), national/regional systems of innovation and
buyer supplier relationships. In the current research leader firms are defined as follows:
“Leader firms are firms in a cluster that have -because of their size, market position,
knowledge and entrepreneurial skills- the ability and incentive to make investments with
positive side-effects for other companies in the cluster.”
265
Summary
Selecting leader firms
In this thesis a stepwise model is used to select the core companies in a cluster that could
be leader firms. In the empirical research a clear distinction is made between firm
characteristics and actual leader firm behavior. Potential leader firms are identified based
on the following characteristics:
Size; the size indicates a firm’s ability to make investments with externalities for other
companies. It also predicts the incentives a company has to make these investments.
Market position; the market position of a firm is of importance because it determines
which (potential) relations a firm has that can be useful in promoting leader firm effects. A
leader firm has strong relations with suppliers and / or customers. A leader firm has a
leading position in its market; otherwise, it will not be the focal point of the suppliers,
customers and competitors.
Knowledge; innovation is one of the most recognized fields in which leader firms play an
important role. Innovation is the result of the knowledge a firm has and the ability to use
this knowledge. Innovation studies often assume the closeness of firms an important factor
in the success of innovation. Porter’s cluster theory for example relies heavily on the
expected knowledge spillovers from related industries, competitors and suppliers in a
cluster. These spillovers have been identified in studies by Krugman (1991) and Romer
(1986).
Entrepreneurial skills; the entrepreneurial skills of a company are probably the most
‘vague’ and therefore hard to measure. It refers to the mentality of the general management
and its ability to run a company well and to create positive externalities for their
environment.
Location; the location of a firm’s headquarter is important for the spatial scale of the leader
firm effects. These effects are likely to be greater in the area where the decision centre is
located.
Being and behavior; Most characteristics show the potential of being a leader firm, but that
is no guarantee for leader firm behavior. Therefore the selection incorporates factors that
show the potential of a company for being a leader firm and the actual behavior of the
firm.
266
Summary
Empirical results
The empirical study consists of two parts: First, an explorative study in the Dutch maritime
industry; Second, an analysis of leader firms in the Rotterdam port cluster. In the
explorative study, nine forms of leader firm behavior are identified.
1. Coordination of production networks; leader firms invest in the coordination of their
network. As a consequence the whole network becomes more competitive.
2. Role as lead user; by expressing a more sophisticated demand than other firms in the
market, leader firms improve the innovativeness of their suppliers.
3. Creating standards; leader firms set new standards and other firms, especially suppliers
that are confronted with such standards in an early stage, benefit.
4. Creating ‘new combinations’; leader firms have a central role in creating new
combinations of previously unrelated technologies. The combination of such technologies
leads to new products. Other firms in the production network benefit from this product
development.
5. Improving the transfer of knowledge; Because of the knowledge they possess and their
central role in knowledge networks, leader firms improve the transfer of knowledge in the
cluster. A fast diffusion and transfer of knowledge adds to the competitiveness of a cluster.
6 .Encourage and enable internationalization; leader firms compete on international
markets. They can start production in other countries and urge or encourage firms in the
cluster to internationalize in order to supply them in these countries.
7. Creating reputation; leader firms engage in projects at the frontier of what is possible.
Such projects are widely known in the industry and contribute to the reputation of the
cluster as a whole.
8. Improving the labor market; the quality of the labor market is important for the
competitiveness of the cluster. Leader firms invest to improve the quality of the labor
market. Leader firms are often found among the larger firms in a cluster and benefit the
most from a well-trained professional labor force which gives them the incentive to invest
in education projects.
9. Organizational infrastructure; leader firms play a role in creating and maintaining the
organizational infrastructure in the cluster. Such infrastructure is an important condition
for effective cluster governance.
267
Summary
Leader firms in the port of Rotterdam
In this study the Rotterdam port cluster is defined by using a measure that combines the
absolute and the relative amount of port activities in an area defined by postal codes. This
is novel; up to date, clusters are defined by the total number of firms or the specialization
of an area in a certain industry. Including both measures for a cluster does more just to the
specific setting of a seaport. The absolute number of activities is important because it
provides mass for knowledge spillovers and collective action. The relative amount of port
activities is important because it shows the importance of the industry for the local
government. For seaports this is a very relevant issue since ports are in most cases
dependent on government policies for new investments. Areas that show a relative high
concentration of port activities, both absolute and relative, are included in the port cluster,
as shown in the figure below.
Cluster relevance of areas in Rijnmond based on number of port employees and port
specialization of areas. (score= % port employment * LN (# port employment))
In the Rotterdam port cluster the relevant leader firms were identified using firm data and
industry expert opinions. About 5000 organizations are located in, or closely related to the
port of Rotterdam. The majority of the companies is rather small; only 103 firms have
more than 100 employees. In the port there are 73 ‘core companies’, companies large
enough to have a substantial impact in the port. These are companies that have more than
100 employees and have a total equity of more than 50 million euro or a net turnover of
268
Summary
more than 10 million euro. Closer research shows that 27 companies qualify as potential
leader firms.
The leader firms that were identified differ in the range of external effects they have in the
cluster and on the suppliers. In the study 15 leader firms are scored based on these external
effects. The leader firms are an important factor in the cluster; the positive externalities
they provide help the cluster to remain competitive. Because of this, a cluster should wish
to have a substantial set of leader firms. In the Rotterdam cluster such a set is present.
However, there is a notable difference in the amount of leader firm effects each company
brings about, as shown in the following figure.
Leader firm score and number of employees, the size of the bubble represents the
value added produced
10
IHC
9
Mammoet
Leader firm score
8
7
Smit
Huisman
Keppel
Emo
Samskip
6
5 Odfjell
4
Imtech
Broekman
Argos
EECV
ECT
Maersk
APM terminal
3
2
1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Employees in PoR (2006)
Characteristics of leader firms
The following conclusions can be drawn about the characteristics of leader firms.
The combination of being a firm with production and design capabilities, having many
local suppliers that are important for quality and innovation and having full management
responsibility locally seems the best combination for leader firm effects.
The size of the company measured in employees and net turnover is positively correlated
to leader firm behavior. Companies do not have to be large to be a leader firm and leader
269
Summary
firm behavior does not always make a company more successful, but both characteristics
do have influence on the amount of leader firm behavior. Size in terms of added value has
no influence.
The profit margin of a company has a positive relation with leader firm behavior. Leader
firm behavior is associated with higher profits, but having high profits is not always a
guarantee for leader firm behavior. A reasonably high profit margin is a necessary, but not
a sufficient condition for leader firm behavior.
A negative relation exists between a foreign parent company and being a leader firm. The
firms with foreign owners show less leader firm behavior because they do not manage their
own supplier base or they do not make investments in the cluster infrastructure in the
amounts locally managed firms do.
The total amount of supplies coming from the region is not an important factor for leader
firm behavior, but the number of important suppliers in the region is of influence.
Regarding suppliers, the adagium ‘quality is more important than quantity’ seems just.
Recommendations
In chapter 10 recommendations are made for the port authority and local government, the
business community and the leader firms. The table below summarizes these
recommendations.
Port authority and local government
Bring innovative companies together
Stimulate local control over strong leader
firms
Tell the story about successful leader firms
Stimulate operational excellence
Port community
Show your best practices
Learn from your neighbors
Leader firms
Recognize your leader firm effects and act on it
Know your suppliers and benefit from it
Play a role in preventing the cluster becoming a
‘blind spot’
Become a stronger leader firm for your
supplier
270
Samenvatting
Samenvatting
Havens worden vaak geanalyseerd als een knooppunt in een vervoersketen, maar minder
regelmatig als een regionale economische omgeving. Concepten zoals clusters, industriële
districten, regionale systemen en netwerken zijn nauwelijks toegepast op zeehavens. Dit is
verrassend omdat de zeehaven kan worden gezien als een typisch voorbeeld van een
geografische concentratie van verwante bedrijven. In deze studie wordt de cluster in de
haven van Rotterdam geanalyseerd met een focus op de rol van leader firms. Dit zijn
bedrijven die positieve effecten genereren in de cluster door zaken te doen op een zodanige
wijze dat ook het lokale bedrijfsleven profiteert van hun aanwezigheid. Daarmee is de
aanwezigheid van leader firms van belang in (haven) clusters. Het onderzoek richt zich op
de volgende onderzoeksvraag:
"Hoe dragen leader firms bij aan de concurrentiepositie van de Rotterdamse haven cluster
en wat zijn de kenmerken van deze bedrijven?"
Onderzoek structuur
In dit proefschrift wordt de rol van leader firms in de ontwikkeling en prestaties van de
Rotterdamse haven cluster geanalyseerd. De analyse is gedaan in de volgende stappen:
1.
Verkenning van relevante wetenschapsgebieden
2.
Onderzoek naar leader firm gedrag en de effecten daarvan in de maritieme
industrie
3.
Analyse van de rol van leader firms voor innovatie en de klant-leverancier relaties
in de Rotterdamse havencluster
4.
Analyse van de kenmerken van leader firms en de motieven voor leader firm
gedrag
Theoretische bouwstenen
De theoretische bouwstenen voor dit onderzoek zijn te vinden in meerdere
wetenschapsvelden, waarvan de belangrijkste zijn: de clustertheorie zoals geformuleerd
door Porter (1990), Industriële districten analyse op basis van de inzichten van Marshall
(1890), nationale / regionale innovatiesystemen en klant-leverancier relaties. In het
onderzoek worden leader firms als volgt gedefinieerd:
271
Samenvatting
"Leader firms zijn ondernemingen in een cluster die door hun omvang, marktpositie,
kennis en ondernemerschap het vermogen en de prikkel hebben om investeringen te doen
met positieve neveneffecten voor andere bedrijven in de cluster."
Selectie van leader firms
In dit proefschrift wordt een stapsgewijze model gebruikt om de kernbedrijven in een
cluster te identificeren die leader firms zouden kunnen zijn. In het empirisch onderzoek
wordt een onderscheid gemaakt tussen de kenmerken van een bedrijf en daadwerkelijk
leader firm gedrag. Potentiële leader firms zijn geïdentificeerd op basis van de volgende
kenmerken:
Grootte: de grootte van een onderneming geeft aan of een bedrijf het vermogen heeft om
investeringen te doen met externaliteiten voor de andere bedrijven. Het is ook een indicatie
voor de prikkel die een bedrijf heeft voor het doen van deze investeringen.
Marktpositie; de marktpositie van een onderneming is van belang omdat het bepaalt welke
(potentiële) relaties een onderneming heeft die bijdragen aan het bevorderen van leader
firm effecten. Een leader firm heeft sterke relaties met leveranciers en / of klanten., en
heeft een leidende positie in de markt.
Kennis; innovatie is een van de belangrijkste terreinen waarop leader firms een rol spelen.
Innovatie is het resultaat van de kennis die een bedrijf heeft en het vermogen om deze
kennis te gebruiken. Studies gaan er vaak vanuit dat de nabijheid van bedrijven een
belangrijke factor is voor het succes van innovatie. Porter's cluster theorie is bijvoorbeeld
sterk afhankelijk van de verwachte kennis spillovers van aanverwante industrieën,
concurrenten en leveranciers in een cluster. Deze spillovers zijn onder andere
geïdentificeerd in studies van Krugman (1991) en Romer (1986).
Ondernemerschap; de ondernemersvaardigheden van een bedrijf zijn de meest 'vage' en
daarom moeilijk te meten factoren. Het verwijst naar de mentaliteit van het management
en zijn vermogen om een bedrijf goed te leiden en positieve externaliteiten voor de
omgeving te creëren.
Locatie: de locatie van het hoofdkantoor is belangrijk voor de ruimtelijke schaal van de
leader firm effecten. Deze effecten zijn doorgaans groter in het gebied waar het
beslissingscentrum is gevestigd.
Leidend Gedrag; De meeste kenmerken tonen het potentieel van de onderneming om een
leider te zijn, maar dat is geen garantie voor daadwerkelijk leader firm gedrag. Daarom
272
Samenvatting
zijn in de selectie factoren opgenomen die zowel het potentieel van een bedrijf als
feitelijke leader firm gedrag van een onderneming laten zien
Empirische resultaten
De empirische studie bestaat uit twee delen: ten eerste, een verkennende studie in de
Nederlandse maritieme industrie, ten tweede een analyse van de leader firms in de
Rotterdamse haven cluster. In de verkennende studie zijn negen vormen van leader firm
gedrag geïdentificeerd.
1. Coördinatie van de productienetwerken; leader firms investeren in de coördinatie van
hun netwerk. Als gevolg daarvan wordt het hele netwerk concurrerender.
2. Rol als lead user; met het articuleren van een meer geavanceerde vraag dan andere
ondernemingen in de markt dragen leader firms bij aan de innovativiteit van hun
leveranciers.
3. Het creëren van standaarden; leader firms zetten nieuwe maatstaven waarvan andere
ondernemingen kunnen profiteren, met name de leveranciers die in een vroeg stadium
geconfronteerd worden met dergelijke normen,.
4. Het creëren van nieuwe combinaties ', leader firms hebben een centrale rol in het creëren
van nieuwe combinaties van kennis en technologieën. De combinatie van deze
technologieën leidt tot nieuwe producten. Andere bedrijven in het productie netwerk
profiteren van deze product ontwikkeling.
5. Verbetering van de overdracht van kennis; Door de kennis die zij bezitten en hun
centrale rol in kennisnetwerken verbeteren leader firms de overdracht van kennis in de
cluster. Een snelle verspreiding van kennis draagt bij aan de concurrentiekracht van een
cluster.
6. Stimuleren en faciliteren van internationalisering; leader firms concurreren op
internationale markten. Ze kunnen andere bedrijven in de cluster een opstap bieden op
deze internationale markten, bijvoorbeeld door locale leveranciers ook in het buitenland te
gebruiken.
7. Het creëren van reputatie; leader firms ondernemen aansprekende en vooruitstrevende
projecten. Dergelijke projecten zijn alom bekend in de industrie en dragen bij aan de
reputatie van de cluster als geheel.
8. Verbetering van de arbeidsmarkt; de kwaliteit van de arbeidsmarkt is van belang voor de
concurrentiekracht van de cluster. Leader firms investeren in de kwaliteit van de
273
Samenvatting
arbeidsmarkt door training en opleiding. Leader firms zijn vaak de grotere bedrijven in een
cluster en profiteren het meest van een goed opgeleide beroepsbevolking, die positie geeft
hen de prikkel om te investeren.
9. Organisatorische infrastructuur; leader firms spelen een rol in het creëren en
onderhouden van de organisatorische infrastructuur in de cluster. Deze infrastructuur is een
belangrijke voorwaarde voor effectief cluster bestuur.
Leader firms in de haven van Rotterdam
In deze studie wordt de Rotterdamse havencluster gedefinieerd met behulp van een
berekening die de absolute en de relatieve omvang van de havenactiviteiten in een gebied
combineert. Dit is nieuw; tot nu toe werden clusters gedefinieerd door het totale aantal
ondernemingen of de specialisatie van een gebied in een bepaalde sector. De combinatie
van beide maatstaven doet meer recht aan de specifieke aard van een zeehaven. Absoluut
aantal activiteiten is belangrijk vanwege de massa die nodig is voor kennis spill-overs en
collectieve acties. De relatieve omvang van de havenactiviteiten is belangrijk omdat het
toont wat het belang van de industrie is voor de lokale overheid. Voor zeehavens is dit een
zeer relevante vraag, omdat de havens in de meeste gevallen afhankelijk zijn van
overheidsbeleid voor nieuwe investeringen. Gebieden die een relatief hoge concentratie
van havenactiviteiten hebben, zowel in absolute als relatieve zin, zijn opgenomen in de
haven cluster, zoals weergegeven in de onderstaande figuur.
274
Samenvatting
Cluster relevantie per gebied, gebaseerd op aantal arbeidsplaatsen en specialisatie
van een gebied (score = % havengerelateerde arbeid *LN (# aantal havengerelateerde
arbeidsplaatsen)
In de Rotterdamse haven cluster zijn de relevante leader firms geïdentificeerd met behulp
van date en de opinie van deskundigen. Ongeveer 5000 organisaties zijn gevestigd in de
haven, of nauw verbonden met de haven van Rotterdam. De meerderheid van de bedrijven
is vrij klein, slechts 103 bedrijven hebben meer dan 100 werknemers in dienst. In de haven
zijn 73 kernbedrijven, bedrijven groot genoeg om een substantiële impact hebben in de
haven hebben. Dit zijn bedrijven met meer dan 100 werknemers en een totaal eigen
vermogen van meer dan 50 miljoen euro of een netto-omzet van meer dan 10 miljoen euro.
Nader onderzoek toont aan dat 27 bedrijven als potentiële leader firm gekenmerkt kunnen
worden.
De leader firms die werden geïdentificeerd genereren alle positieve externe effecten, maar
in verschillende mate. De leader firms zijn een belangrijke factor in de cluster; de positieve
externe effecten die zij genereren helpen de cluster om concurrerend te blijven. Hierom
zou een cluster gebaat zijn bij een aanzienlijk aantal leader firms binnen zijn grenzen.. In
de Rotterdamse cluster is een flink aantal leader firms aanwezig. In de studie zijn 15 leader
firms gescoord op basis van deze externe effecten. Er is een duidelijk verschil in de
omvang van de leader firm effecten dat elk bedrijf teweeg brengt, zoals weergegeven in de
volgende figuur.
275
Samenvatting
Leader firm score en aantal werknemers, de omvang van de cirkel geeft de
geproduceerde toegevoegde waarde weer (2006)
10
IHC
9
Mammoet
Leader firm score
8
7
Smit
Huisman
Keppel
Emo
Samskip
6
5 Odfjell
4
Imtech
Broekman
Argos
EECV
ECT
Maersk
APM terminal
3
2
1
0
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Employees in PoR (2006)
Kenmerken van de leader firms
De volgende conclusies kunnen worden getrokken over de kenmerken van de leader firms.
Een bedrijf met lokale productie en ontwerpen afdelingen, met veel lokale leveranciers die
belangrijk zijn voor kwaliteit en innovatie en met lokaal volledige verantwoordelijkheid
voor het management lijkt de beste combinatie voor het creëren van leader firm effecten.
De grootte van de onderneming, gemeten in werknemers en de netto-omzet is positief
gecorreleerd met leader firm gedrag. Bedrijven hoeven niet groot te zijn om een leader
firm te zijn en leader firm gedrag maakt een bedrijf niet altijd succesvoller, maar beide
kenmerken hebben invloed op de omvang van de positieve externe effecten die een bedrijf
genereert.
De winstmarge van een bedrijf heeft een positieve relatie met leader firm gedrag. Leader
firm gedrag wordt geassocieerd met een hogere winst, maar een hoge winst is niet altijd
een garantie voor leader firm gedrag. Een ruime winstmarge is een noodzakelijke, maar
geen voldoende voorwaarde voor leader firm gedrag.
Een negatief verband bestaat tussen een buitenlandse moedermaatschappij en leader firm
gedrag. De bedrijven met buitenlandse eigenaren tonen minder leader firm gedrag omdat
276
Samenvatting
zij vaak niet vrij zijn in de keuze van hun leveranciers en zij minder investeringen doen in
de cluster infrastructuur dan bedrijven die lokaal beheerd worden.
De totale omvang van leveringen uit de regio is geen belangrijke factor voor leader firm
gedrag, maar het aantal belangrijke leveranciers in de regio is wel van invloed. Ten
aanzien van leveranciers lijkt het adagium 'kwaliteit is belangrijker dan kwantiteit" van
toepassing.
Aanbevelingen
In hoofdstuk 10 zijn aanbevelingen gedaan voor het Havenbedrijf en de lokale overheid,
het bedrijfsleven en de leader firms. De onderstaande tabel geeft een overzicht van deze
aanbevelingen.
Havenbedrijf en lokale overheid
Breng innovatieve bedrijven bij elkaar
Stimuleer lokale controle bij de sterke leader
firms
Vertel het verhaal over de succesvolle leader
firms
Stimuleer operational excelence
Port community
Laat je ‘best practises’ zien
Leer van je buren
Leader firms
Herken uw leader firm effecten en handelen er
naar
Ken uw leveranciers en profiteren van hun
kennis
Speel een rol bij het voorkomen dat de cluster
een 'blind spot' wordt,
Wees een sterkere leader firm voor uw
leveranciers
277
About the author
About the author
Since 2001, Michiel Nijdam (1975) works as a researcher in port
and transport economics with the Erasmus School of Economics.
He is active in teaching, contract research and academic research.
He specializes in port economics and studied various aspects of
ports and maritime transport. Since 2006 he is also business
director of RHV BV, a company that specializes in research on
regional, port and transport economics for a variety of clients.
He is the (co)author of several papers and books on port economics and management. Most
of his research is related to the economic development of seaport regions, with specific
attention to the role of companies. With regard to contract research, he participated in
research on seaport strategies, entrepreneurship in maritime industries, European policies
and regulations in seaports and economic impact studies.
279
ERASMUS RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT (ERIM)
ERIM PH.D. SERIES
RESEARCH IN MANAGEMENT
ERIM Electronic Series Portal: http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Acciaro, M., Bundling Strategies in Global Supply Chains, Promotor: Prof.dr. H.E.
Haralambides,
EPS-2010-197-LIS,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-240-3,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Agatz, N.A.H., Demand Management in E-Fulfillment, Promotor: Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E.
van
Nunen,
EPS-2009-163-LIS,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-200-7,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/15425
Alexiev, A., Exploratory Innovation: The Role of Organizational and Top Management
Team Social Capital, Promotors: Prof.dr. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W.
Volberda, EPS-2010-208-STR, ISBN: 978-90-5892-249-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Althuizen, N.A.P., Analogical Reasoning as a Decision Support Principle for Weakly
Structured Marketing Problems, Promotor: Prof.dr.ir. B. Wierenga, EPS-2006-095MKT, ISBN: 90-5892-129-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/8190
Alvarez, H.L., Distributed Collaborative Learning Communities Enabled by Information
Communication Technology, Promotor: Prof.dr. K. Kumar, EPS-2006-080-LIS, ISBN:
90-5892-112-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7830
Appelman, J.H., Governance of Global Interorganizational Tourism Networks:
Changing Forms of Co-ordination between the Travel Agency and Aviation Sector,
Promotors: Prof.dr. F.M. Go & Prof.dr. B. Nooteboom, EPS-2004-036-MKT, ISBN: 905892-060-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1199
Asperen, E. van, Essays on Port, Container, and Bulk Chemical Logistics Optimization,
Promotor: Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2009-181-LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-222-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Assem, M.J. van den, Deal or No Deal? Decision Making under Risk in a Large-Stake
TV Game Show and Related Experiments, Promotor: Prof.dr. J. Spronk, EPS-2008-138F&A, ISBN: 978-90-5892-173-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13566
Baquero, G, On Hedge Fund Performance, Capital Flows and Investor Psychology,
Promotor: Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2006-094-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-131-X,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/8192
Berens, G., Corporate Branding: The Development of Corporate Associations and their
Influence on Stakeholder Reactions, Promotor: Prof.dr. C.B.M. van Riel, EPS-2004-039ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-065-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1273
Berghe, D.A.F. van den, Working Across Borders: Multinational Enterprises and the
Internationalization of Employment, Promotors: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder & Prof.dr.
E.J.J.
Schenk,
EPS-2003-029-ORG,
ISBN:
90-5892-05-34,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1041
Berghman, L.A., Strategic Innovation Capacity: A Mixed Method Study on Deliberate
Strategic Learning Mechanisms, Promotor: Prof.dr. P. Mattyssens, EPS-2006-087-MKT,
ISBN: 90-5892-120-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7991
Bezemer, P.J., Diffusion of Corporate Governance Beliefs: Board Independence and the
Emergence of a Shareholder Value Orientation in the Netherlands, Promotors:
Prof.dr.ing. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2009-192-STR, ISBN:
978-90-5892-232-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Bijman, W.J.J., Essays on Agricultural Co-operatives: Governance Structure in Fruit
and Vegetable Chains, Promotor: Prof.dr. G.W.J. Hendrikse, EPS-2002-015-ORG,
ISBN: 90-5892-024-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/867
Bispo, A., Labour Market Segmentation: An investigation into the Dutch hospitality
industry, Promotors: Prof.dr. G.H.M. Evers & Prof.dr. A.R. Thurik, EPS-2007-108ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-136-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10283
Blindenbach-Driessen, F., Innovation Management in Project-Based Firms, Promotor:
Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS-2006-082-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-110-7,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7828
Boer, C.A., Distributed Simulation in Industry, Promotors: Prof.dr. A. de Bruin &
Prof.dr.ir.
A.
Verbraeck,
EPS-2005-065-LIS,
ISBN:
90-5892-093-3,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6925
Boer, N.I., Knowledge Sharing within Organizations: A situated and Relational
Perspective, Promotor: Prof.dr. K. Kumar, EPS-2005-060-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-086-0,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6770
Boer-Sorbán, K., Agent-Based Simulation of Financial Markets: A modular, ContinuousTime Approach, Promotor: Prof.dr. A. de Bruin, EPS-2008-119-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892155-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10870
281
Boon, C.T., HRM and Fit: Survival of the Fittest!?, Promotors: Prof.dr. J. Paauwe &
Prof.dr. D.N. den Hartog, EPS-2008-129-ORG, ISBN: 978-90-5892-162-8,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/12606
Braun, E., City Marketing: Towards an Integrated Approach, Promotor: Prof.dr. L. van
den
Berg,
EPS-2008-142-MKT,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-180-2,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13694
Brito, M.P. de, Managing Reverse Logistics or Reversing Logistics Management?
Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker & Prof.dr. M. B. M. de Koster, EPS-2004-035-LIS,
ISBN: 90-5892-058-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1132
Brohm, R., Polycentric Order in Organizations: A Dialogue between Michael Polanyi
and IT-Consultants on Knowledge, Morality, and Organization, Promotors: Prof.dr. G.
W. J. Hendrikse & Prof.dr. H. K. Letiche, EPS-2005-063-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-095-X,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6911
Brumme, W.-H., Manufacturing Capability Switching in the High-Tech Electronics
Technology Life Cycle, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen & Prof.dr.ir. L.N. Van
Wassenhove,
EPS-2008-126-LIS,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-150-5,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/12103
Budiono, D.P., The Analysis of Mutual Fund Performance: Evidence from U.S. Equity
Mutual Funds, Promotor: Prof.dr.ir. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2010-185-F&A, ISBN:
978-90-5892-224-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Burgers, J.H., Managing Corporate Venturing: Multilevel Studies on Project Autonomy,
Integration, Knowledge Relatedness, and Phases in the New Business Development
Process, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. Van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS2008-136-STR, ISBN: 978-90-5892-174-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13484
Campbell, R.A.J., Rethinking Risk in International Financial Markets, Promotor:
Prof.dr.
C.G.
Koedijk,
EPS-2001-005-F&A,
ISBN:
90-5892-008-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/306
Carvalho de Mesquita Ferreira, L., Attention Mosaics: Studies of Organizational
Attention, Promotors: Prof.dr. P.M.A.R. Heugens & Prof.dr. J. van Oosterhout, EPS2010-205-ORG,
ISBN: 978-90-5892-242-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Chen, C.-M., Evaluation and Design of Supply Chain Operations Using DEA, Promotor:
Prof.dr. J.A.E.E. van Nunen, EPS-2009-172-LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-209-0,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
282
Chen, H., Individual Mobile Communication Services and Tariffs, Promotor: Prof.dr.
L.F.J.M.
Pau,
EPS-2008-123-LIS,
ISBN:
90-5892-158-1,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/11141
Chen, Y., Labour Flexibility in China’s Companies: An Empirical Study, Promotors:
Prof.dr. A. Buitendam & Prof.dr. B. Krug, EPS-2001-006-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-012-7,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/307
Damen, F.J.A., Taking the Lead: The Role of Affect in Leadership Effectiveness,
Promotor:
Prof.dr.
D.L.
van
Knippenberg,
EPS-2007-107-ORG,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10282
Daniševská, P., Empirical Studies on Financial Intermediation and Corporate Policies,
Promotor: Prof.dr. C.G. Koedijk, EPS-2004-044-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-070-4,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1518
Defilippi Angeldonis, E.F., Access Regulation for Naturally Monopolistic Port
Terminals: Lessons from Regulated Network Industries, Promotor: Prof.dr. H.E.
Haralambides, EPS-2010-204-LIS, ISBN:
978-90-5892-245-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Delporte-Vermeiren, D.J.E., Improving the Flexibility and Profitability of ICT-enabled
Business Networks: An Assessment Method and Tool, Promotors: Prof. mr. dr. P.H.M.
Vervest & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2003-020-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-040-2,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/359
Derwall, J.M.M., The Economic Virtues of SRI and CSR, Promotor: Prof.dr. C.G.
Koedijk, EPS-2007-101-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-132-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/8986
Diepen, M. van, Dynamics and Competition in Charitable Giving, Promotor: Prof.dr.
Ph.H.B.F.
Franses,
EPS-2009-159-MKT,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-188-8,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14526
Dietz, H.M.S., Managing (Sales)People towards Perfomance: HR Strategy, Leadership
& Teamwork, Promotor: Prof.dr. G.W.J. Hendrikse, EPS-2009-168-ORG, ISBN: 97890-5892-210-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Dijksterhuis, M., Organizational Dynamics of Cognition and Action in the Changing
Dutch and US Banking Industries, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr.
H.W.
Volberda,
EPS-2003-026-STR,
ISBN:
90-5892-048-8,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1037
283
Eijk, A.R. van der, Behind Networks: Knowledge Transfer, Favor Exchange and
Performance, Promotors: Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde & Prof.dr.drs. W.A. Dolfsma, EPS2009-161-LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-190-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14613
Elstak, M.N., Flipping the Identity Coin: The Comparative Effect of Perceived,
Projected and Desired Organizational Identity on Organizational Identification and
Desired Behavior, Promotor: Prof.dr. C.B.M. van Riel, EPS-2008-117-ORG, ISBN: 905892-148-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10723
Erken, H.P.G., Productivity, R&D and Entrepreneurship, Promotor: Prof.dr. A.R.
Thurik,
EPS-2008-147-ORG,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-179-6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14004
Fenema, P.C. van, Coordination and Control of Globally Distributed Software Projects,
Promotor: Prof.dr. K. Kumar, EPS-2002-019-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-030-5,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/360
Fleischmann, M., Quantitative Models for Reverse Logistics, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir.
J.A.E.E. van Nunen & Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2000-002-LIS, ISBN: 35-4041-711-7,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1044
Flier, B., Strategic Renewal of European Financial Incumbents: Coevolution of
Environmental Selection, Institutional Effects, and Managerial Intentionality, Promotors:
Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2003-033-STR, ISBN:
90-5892-055-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1071
Fok, D., Advanced Econometric Marketing Models, Promotor: Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F.
Franses, EPS-2003-027-MKT, ISBN: 90-5892-049-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1035
Ganzaroli, A., Creating Trust between Local and Global Systems, Promotors: Prof.dr. K.
Kumar & Prof.dr. R.M. Lee, EPS-2002-018-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-031-3,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/361
Gertsen, H.F.M., Riding a Tiger without Being Eaten: How Companies and Analysts
Tame Financial Restatements and Influence Corporate Reputation, Promotor: Prof.dr.
C.B.M.
van
Riel,
EPS-2009-171-ORG,
ISBN:
90-5892-214-4,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Gilsing, V.A., Exploration, Exploitation and Co-evolution in Innovation Networks,
Promotors: Prof.dr. B. Nooteboom & Prof.dr. J.P.M. Groenewegen, EPS-2003-032ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-054-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1040
284
Gijsbers, G.W., Agricultural Innovation in Asia: Drivers, Paradigms and Performance,
Promotor: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder, EPS-2009-156-ORG, ISBN: 978-90-5892-191-8,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14524
Gong, Y., Stochastic Modelling and Analysis of Warehouse Operations, Promotors:
Prof.dr. M.B.M. de Koster & Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS-2009-180-LIS, ISBN: 97890-5892-219-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Govers, R., Virtual Tourism Destination Image: Glocal Identities Constructed,
Perceived and Experienced, Promotors: Prof.dr. F.M. Go & Prof.dr. K. Kumar, EPS2005-069-MKT, ISBN: 90-5892-107-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6981
Graaf, G. de, Tractable Morality: Customer Discourses of Bankers, Veterinarians and
Charity Workers, Promotors: Prof.dr. F. Leijnse & Prof.dr. T. van Willigenburg, EPS2003-031-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-051-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1038
Greeven, M.J., Innovation in an Uncertain Institutional Environment: Private Software
Entrepreneurs in Hangzhou, China, Promotor: Prof.dr. B. Krug, EPS-2009-164-ORG,
ISBN: 978-90-5892-202-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/15426
Groot, E.A. de, Essays on Economic Cycles, Promotors: Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses &
Prof.dr.
H.R.
Commandeur,
EPS-2006-091-MKT,
ISBN:
90-5892-123-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/8216
Guenster, N.K., Investment Strategies Based on Social Responsibility and Bubbles,
Promotor: Prof.dr. C.G. Koedijk, EPS-2008-175-F&A, ISBN: 978-90-5892-206-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Gutkowska, A.B., Essays on the Dynamic Portfolio Choice, Promotor: Prof.dr. A.C.F.
Vorst, EPS-2006-085-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-118-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7994
Hagemeijer, R.E., The Unmasking of the Other, Promotors: Prof.dr. S.J. Magala &
Prof.dr.
H.K.
Letiche,
EPS-2005-068-ORG,
ISBN:
90-5892-097-6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6963
Hakimi, N.A, Leader Empowering Behaviour: The Leader’s Perspective: Understanding
the Motivation behind Leader Empowering Behaviour, Promotor: Prof.dr. D.L. van
Knippenberg, EPS-2010-184-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Halderen, M.D. van, Organizational Identity Expressiveness and Perception
Management: Principles for Expressing the Organizational Identity in Order to Manage
the Perceptions and Behavioral Reactions of External Stakeholders, Promotor: Prof.dr.
S.B.M.
van
Riel,
EPS-2008-122-ORG,
ISBN:
90-5892-153-6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10872
285
Hartigh, E. den, Increasing Returns and Firm Performance: An Empirical Study,
Promotor: Prof.dr. H.R. Commandeur, EPS-2005-067-STR, ISBN: 90-5892-098-4,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6939
Hensmans, M., A Republican Settlement Theory of the Firm: Applied to Retail Banks in
England and the Netherlands (1830-2007), Promotors: Prof.dr. A. Jolink& Prof.dr. S.J.
Magala, EPS-2010-193-ORG, ISBN 90-5892-235-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Hermans. J.M., ICT in Information Services; Use and Deployment of the Dutch
Securities Trade, 1860-1970, Promotor: Prof.dr. drs. F.H.A. Janszen, EPS-2004-046ORG, ISBN 90-5892-072-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1793
Hernandez Mireles, C., Marketing Modeling for New Products, Promotor: Prof.dr. P.H.
Franses, EPS-2010-202-MKT, ISBN 90-5892-237-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Hessels, S.J.A., International Entrepreneurship: Value Creation Across National
Borders, Promotor: Prof.dr. A.R. Thurik, EPS-2008-144-ORG, ISBN: 978-90-5892-1819, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13942
Heugens, P.P.M.A.R., Strategic Issues Management: Implications for Corporate
Performance, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. C.B.M. van Riel,
EPS-2001-007-STR, ISBN: 90-5892-009-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/358
Heuvel, W. van den, The Economic Lot-Sizing Problem: New Results and Extensions,
Promotor: Prof.dr. A.P.L. Wagelmans, EPS-2006-093-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-124-7,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1805
Hoedemaekers, C.M.W., Performance, Pinned down: A Lacanian Analysis of
Subjectivity at Work, Promotors: Prof.dr. S. Magala & Prof.dr. D.H. den Hartog, EPS2008-121-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-156-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10871
Hooghiemstra, R., The Construction of Reality: Cultural Differences in Self-serving
Behaviour in Accounting Narratives, Promotors: Prof.dr. L.G. van der Tas RA & Prof.dr.
A.Th.H.
Pruyn,
EPS-2003-025-F&A,
ISBN:
90-5892-047-X,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/871
Hu, Y., Essays on the Governance of Agricultural Products: Cooperatives and Contract
Farming, Promotors: Prof.dr. G.W.J. Hendrkse & Prof.dr. B. Krug, EPS-2007-113ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-145-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10535
286
Huang, X., An Analysis of Occupational Pension Provision: From Evaluation to
Redesigh, Promotors: Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek & Prof.dr. R.J. Mahieu, EPS-2010196-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-239-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Huij, J.J., New Insights into Mutual Funds: Performance and Family Strategies,
Promotor: Prof.dr. M.C.J.M. Verbeek, EPS-2007-099-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-134-4,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/9398
Huurman, C.I., Dealing with Electricity Prices, Promotor: Prof.dr. C.D. Koedijk, EPS2007-098-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-130-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/9399
Iastrebova, K, Manager’s Information Overload: The Impact of Coping Strategies on
Decision-Making Performance, Promotor: Prof.dr. H.G. van Dissel, EPS-2006-077-LIS,
ISBN: 90-5892-111-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7329
Iwaarden, J.D. van, Changing Quality Controls: The Effects of Increasing Product
Variety and Shortening Product Life Cycles, Promotors: Prof.dr. B.G. Dale & Prof.dr.
A.R.T.
Williams,
EPS-2006-084-ORG,
ISBN:
90-5892-117-4,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7992
Jansen, J.J.P., Ambidextrous Organizations, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. Van den Bosch
& Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2005-055-STR, ISBN: 90-5892-081-X,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6774
Jaspers, F.P.H., Organizing Systemic Innovation, Promotor: Prof.dr.ir. J.C.M. van den
Ende, EPS-2009-160-ORG, ISBN: 978-90-5892-197-), http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14974
Jennen, M.G.J., Empirical Essays on Office Market Dynamics, Promotors: Prof.dr. C.G.
Koedijk & Prof.dr. D. Brounen, EPS-2008-140-F&A, ISBN: 978-90-5892-176-5,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13692
Jiang, T., Capital Structure Determinants and Governance Structure Variety in
Franchising, Promotors: Prof.dr. G. Hendrikse & Prof.dr. A. de Jong, EPS-2009-158F&A, ISBN: 978-90-5892-199-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14975
Jiao, T., Essays in Financial Accounting, Promotor: Prof.dr. G.M.H. Mertens, EPS-2009176-F&A, ISBN: 978-90-5892-211-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Jong, C. de, Dealing with Derivatives: Studies on the Role, Informational Content and
Pricing of Financial Derivatives, Promotor: Prof.dr. C.G. Koedijk, EPS-2003-023-F&A,
ISBN: 90-5892-043-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1043
287
Kaa, G. van, Standard Battles for Complex Systems: Empirical Research on the Home
Network, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. J. van den Ende & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS2009-166-ORG, ISBN: 978-90-5892-205-2, htWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Kagie, M., Advances in Online Shopping Interfaces: Product Catalog Maps and
Recommender Systems, Promotor: Prof.dr. P.J.F. Groenen, EPS-2010-195-MKT, ISBN:
978-90-5892-233-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Keizer, A.B., The Changing Logic of Japanese Employment Practices: A Firm-Level
Analysis of Four Industries, Promotors: Prof.dr. J.A. Stam & Prof.dr. J.P.M.
Groenewegen,
EPS-2005-057-ORG,
ISBN:
90-5892-087-9,
htWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Kijkuit, R.C., Social Networks in the Front End: The Organizational Life of an Idea,
Promotor: Prof.dr. B. Nooteboom, EPS-2007-104-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-137-6,
KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Kippers, J., Empirical Studies on Cash Payments, Promotor: Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses,
EPS-2004-043-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-069-0, KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Klein, M.H., Poverty Alleviation through Sustainable Strategic Business Models: Essays
on Poverty Alleviation as a Business Strategy, Promotor: Prof.dr. H.R. Commandeur,
EPS-2008-135-STR, ISBN: 978-90-5892-168-0, KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Knapp, S., The Econometrics of Maritime Safety: Recommendations to Enhance Safety
at Sea, Promotor: Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses, EPS-2007-096-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-1271, KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Kole, E., On Crises, Crashes and Comovements, Promotors: Prof.dr. C.G. Koedijk &
Prof.dr.
M.J.C.M.
Verbeek,
EPS-2006-083-F&A,
ISBN:
90-5892-114-X,
KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Kooij-de Bode, J.M., Distributed Information and Group Decision-Making: Effects of
Diversity and Affect, Promotor: Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2007-115-ORG,
KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Koppius, O.R., Information Architecture and Electronic Market Performance,
Promotors: Prof.dr. P.H.M. Vervest & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2002-013LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-023-2, KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
288
Kotlarsky, J., Management of Globally Distributed Component-Based Software
Development Projects, Promotor: Prof.dr. K. Kumar, EPS-2005-059-LIS, ISBN: 905892-088-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6772
Krauth, E.I., Real-Time Planning Support: A Task-Technology Fit Perspective,
Promotors: Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde & Prof.dr. J. van Hillegersberg, EPS-2008-155LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-193-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14521
Kuilman, J., The Re-Emergence of Foreign Banks in Shanghai: An Ecological Analysis,
Promotor: Prof.dr. B. Krug, EPS-2005-066-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-096-8,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6926
Kwee, Z., Investigating Three Key Principles of Sustained Strategic Renewal: A
Longitudinal Study of Long-Lived Firms, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. Van den Bosch &
Prof.dr.
H.W.
Volberda,
EPS-2009-174-STR,
ISBN:
90-5892-212-0,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Langen, P.W. de, The Performance of Seaport Clusters: A Framework to Analyze
Cluster Performance and an Application to the Seaport Clusters of Durban, Rotterdam
and the Lower Mississippi, Promotors: Prof.dr. B. Nooteboom & Prof. drs. H.W.H.
Welters, EPS-2004-034-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-056-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1133
Le Anh, T., Intelligent Control of Vehicle-Based Internal Transport Systems, Promotors:
Prof.dr. M.B.M. de Koster & Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2005-051-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892079-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6554
Le-Duc, T., Design and Control of Efficient Order Picking Processes, Promotor: Prof.dr.
M.B.M.
de
Koster,
EPS-2005-064-LIS,
ISBN:
90-5892-094-1,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6910
Leeuwen, E.P. van, Recovered-Resource Dependent Industries and the Strategic
Renewal of Incumbent Firm: A Multi-Level Study of Recovered Resource Dependence
Management and Strategic Renewal in the European Paper and Board Industry,
Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. Van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2007-109STR, ISBN: 90-5892-140-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10183
Lentink, R.M., Algorithmic Decision Support for Shunt Planning, Promotors: Prof.dr.
L.G. Kroon & Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen, EPS-2006-073-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-1042, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7328
Li, T., Informedness and Customer-Centric Revenue Management, Promotors: Prof.dr.
P.H.M. Vervest & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2009-146-LIS, ISBN: 978-905892-195-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14525
289
Liang, G., New Competition: Foreign Direct Investment and Industrial Development in
China, Promotor: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder, EPS-2004-047-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-0739, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1795
Liere, D.W. van, Network Horizon and the Dynamics of Network Positions: A MultiMethod Multi-Level Longitudinal Study of Interfirm Networks, Promotor: Prof.dr.
P.H.M.
Vervest,
EPS-2007-105-LIS,
ISBN:
90-5892-139-0,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10181
Loef, J., Incongruity between Ads and Consumer Expectations of Advertising,
Promotors: Prof.dr. W.F. van Raaij & Prof.dr. G. Antonides, EPS-2002-017-MKT,
ISBN: 90-5892-028-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/869
Maeseneire, W., de, Essays on Firm Valuation and Value Appropriation, Promotor:
Prof.dr.
J.T.J.
Smit,
EPS-2005-053-F&A,
ISBN:
90-5892-082-8,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6768
Londoño, M. del Pilar, Institutional Arrangements that Affect Free Trade Agreements:
Economic Rationality Versus Interest Groups, Promotors: Prof.dr. H.E. Haralambides &
Prof.dr.
J.F.
Francois,
EPS-2006-078-LIS,
ISBN:
90-5892-108-5,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7578
Maas, A.A., van der, Strategy Implementation in a Small Island Context: An Integrative
Framework, Promotor: Prof.dr. H.G. van Dissel, EPS-2008-127-LIS, ISBN: 978-905892-160-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/12278
Maas, K.E.G., Corporate Social Performance: From Output Measurement to Impact
Measurement, Promotor: Prof.dr. H.R. Commandeur, EPS-2009-182-STR, ISBN: 97890-5892-225-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Maeseneire, W., de, Essays on Firm Valuation and Value Appropriation, Promotor:
Prof.dr.
J.T.J.
Smit,
EPS-2005-053-F&A,
ISBN:
90-5892-082-8,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6768
Mandele, L.M., van der, Leadership and the Inflection Point: A Longitudinal
Perspective, Promotors: Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda & Prof.dr. H.R. Commandeur, EPS2004-042-STR, ISBN: 90-5892-067-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1302
Meer, J.R. van der, Operational Control of Internal Transport, Promotors: Prof.dr.
M.B.M. de Koster & Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2000-001-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-004-6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/859
Mentink, A., Essays on Corporate Bonds, Promotor: Prof.dr. A.C.F. Vorst, EPS-2005070-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-100-X, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7121
290
Meyer, R.J.H., Mapping the Mind of the Strategist: A Quantitative Methodology for
Measuring the Strategic Beliefs of Executives, Promotor: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder,
EPS-2007-106-ORG, ISBN: 978-90-5892-141-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10182
Miltenburg, P.R., Effects of Modular Sourcing on Manufacturing Flexibility in the
Automotive Industry: A Study among German OEMs, Promotors: Prof.dr. J. Paauwe &
Prof.dr.
H.R.
Commandeur,
EPS-2003-030-ORG,
ISBN:
90-5892-052-6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1039
Moerman, G.A., Empirical Studies on Asset Pricing and Banking in the Euro Area,
Promotor: Prof.dr. C.G. Koedijk, EPS-2005-058-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-090-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6666
Moitra, D., Globalization of R&D: Leveraging Offshoring for Innovative Capability and
Organizational Flexibility, Promotor: Prof.dr. K. Kumar, EPS-2008-150-LIS, ISBN:
978-90-5892-184-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14081
Mol, M.M., Outsourcing, Supplier-relations and Internationalisation: Global Source
Strategy as a Chinese Puzzle, Promotor: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder, EPS-2001-010ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-014-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/355
Mom, T.J.M., Managers’ Exploration and Exploitation Activities: The Influence of
Organizational Factors and Knowledge Inflows, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. Van den
Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2006-079-STR, ISBN: 90-5892-116-6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765
Moonen, J.M., Multi-Agent Systems for Transportation Planning and Coordination,
Promotors: Prof.dr. J. van Hillegersberg & Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS-2009-177LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-216-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1
Mulder, A., Government Dilemmas in the Private Provision of Public Goods, Promotor:
Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder, EPS-2004-045-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-071-2,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1790
Muller, A.R., The Rise of Regionalism: Core Company Strategies Under The Second
Wave of Integration, Promotor: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder, EPS-2004-038-ORG, ISBN:
90-5892-062-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1272
Nalbantov G.I., Essays on Some Recent Penalization Methods with Applications in
Finance and Marketing, Promotor: Prof. dr P.J.F. Groenen, EPS-2008-132-F&A, ISBN:
978-90-5892-166-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13319
Nederveen Pieterse, A., Goal Orientation in Teams: The Role of Diversity, Promotor:
Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2009-162-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/15240
291
Nguyen, T.T., Capital Structure, Strategic Competition, and Governance, Promotor:
Prof.dr.
A.
de
Jong,
EPS-2008-148-F&A,
ISBN:
90-5892-178-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14005
Niesten, E.M.M.I., Regulation, Governance and Adaptation: Governance
Transformations in the Dutch and French Liberalizing Electricity Industries, Promotors:
Prof.dr. A. Jolink & Prof.dr. J.P.M. Groenewegen, EPS-2009-170-ORG, ISBN: 978-905892-208-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Nieuwenboer, N.A. den, Seeing the Shadow of the Self, Promotor: Prof.dr. S.P. Kaptein,
EPS-2008-151-ORG, ISBN: 978-90-5892-182-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14223
Ning, H., Hierarchical Portfolio Management: Theory and Applications, Promotor:
Prof.dr.
J.
Spronk,
EPS-2007-118-F&A,
ISBN:
90-5892-152-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10868
Noeverman, J., Management Control Systems, Evaluative Style, and Behaviour:
Exploring the Concept and Behavioural Consequences of Evaluative Style, Promotors:
Prof.dr. E.G.J. Vosselman & Prof.dr. A.R.T. Williams, EPS-2007-120-F&A, ISBN: 905892-151-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10869
Nuijten, I., Servant Leadership: Paradox or Diamond in the Rough? A Multidimensional
Measure and Empirical Evidence, Promotor: Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2009183-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Oosterhout, J., van, The Quest for Legitimacy: On Authority and Responsibility in
Governance, Promotors: Prof.dr. T. van Willigenburg & Prof.mr. H.R. van Gunsteren,
EPS-2002-012-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-022-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/362
Oosterhout, M., van, Business Agility and Information Technology in Service
Organizations, Promotor: Prof,dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2010-198-LIS, ISBN:
90-5092-236-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Oostrum, J.M., van, Applying Mathematical Models to Surgical Patient Planning,
Promotor: Prof.dr. A.P.M. Wagelmans, EPS-2009-179-LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-217-5,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Paape, L., Corporate Governance: The Impact on the Role, Position, and Scope of
Services of the Internal Audit Function, Promotors: Prof.dr. G.J. van der Pijl & Prof.dr.
H.
Commandeur,
EPS-2007-111-MKT,
ISBN:
90-5892-143-7,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10417
Pak, K., Revenue Management: New Features and Models, Promotor: Prof.dr.ir. R.
Dekker, EPS-2005-061-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-092-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/362/6771
292
Pattikawa, L.H, Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: Evidence from Drug
Introduction in the U.S., Promotors: Prof.dr. H.R.Commandeur, EPS-2007-102-MKT,
ISBN: 90-5892-135-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/9626
Peeters, L.W.P., Cyclic Railway Timetable Optimization, Promotors: Prof.dr. L.G. Kroon
& Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen, EPS-2003-022-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-042-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/429
Pietersz, R., Pricing Models for Bermudan-style Interest Rate Derivatives, Promotors:
Prof.dr. A.A.J. Pelsser & Prof.dr. A.C.F. Vorst, EPS-2005-071-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892099-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7122
Pince, C., Advances in Inventory Management: Dynamic Models, Promotor: Prof.dr.ir.
R. Dekker,
EPS-2010-199-LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-243-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Poel, A.M. van der, Empirical Essays in Corporate Finance and Financial Reporting,
Promotors: Prof.dr. A. de Jong & Prof.dr. G.M.H. Mertens, EPS-2007-133-F&A, ISBN:
978-90-5892-165-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13320
Popova, V., Knowledge Discovery and Monotonicity, Promotor: Prof.dr. A. de Bruin,
EPS-2004-037-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-061-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1201
Potthoff, D., Railway Crew Rescheduling: Novel Approaches and Extensions, Promotos:
Prof.dr. A.P.M. Wagelmans & Prof.dr. L.G. Kroon, EPS-2010-210-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892250-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Pouchkarev, I., Performance Evaluation of Constrained Portfolios, Promotors: Prof.dr. J.
Spronk & Dr. W.G.P.M. Hallerbach, EPS-2005-052-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-083-6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6731
Prins, R., Modeling Consumer Adoption and Usage of Value-Added Mobile Services,
Promotors: Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses & Prof.dr. P.C. Verhoef, EPS-2008-128-MKT,
ISBN: 978/90-5892-161-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/12461
Puvanasvari Ratnasingam, P., Interorganizational Trust in Business to Business ECommerce, Promotors: Prof.dr. K. Kumar & Prof.dr. H.G. van Dissel, EPS-2001-009LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-017-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/356
Quak, H.J., Sustainability of Urban Freight Transport: Retail Distribution and Local
Regulation in Cities, Promotor: Prof.dr. M.B.M. de Koster, EPS-2008-124-LIS, ISBN:
978-90-5892-154-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/11990
293
Quariguasi Frota Neto, J., Eco-efficient Supply Chains for Electrical and Electronic
Products, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck,
EPS-2008-152-LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-192-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14785
Radkevitch, U.L, Online Reverse Auction for Procurement of Services, Promotor:
Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2008-137-LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-171-0,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13497
Rinsum, M. van, Performance Measurement and Managerial Time Orientation,
Promotor: Prof.dr. F.G.H. Hartmann, EPS-2006-088-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-121-2,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7993
Roelofsen, E.M., The Role of Analyst Conference Calls in Capital Markets, Promotors:
Prof.dr. G.M.H. Mertens & Prof.dr. L.G. van der Tas RA, EPS-2010-190-F&A, ISBN:
978-90-5892-228-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Romero Morales, D., Optimization Problems in Supply Chain Management, Promotors:
Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen & Dr. H.E. Romeijn, EPS-2000-003-LIS, ISBN: 909014078-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/865
Roodbergen, K.J., Layout and Routing Methods for Warehouses, Promotors: Prof.dr.
M.B.M. de Koster & Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen, EPS-2001-004-LIS, ISBN: 905892-005-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/861
Rook, L., Imitation in Creative Task Performance, Promotor: Prof.dr. D.L. van
Knippenberg, EPS-2008-125-ORG, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/11555
Rosmalen, J. van, Segmentation and Dimension Reduction: Exploratory and ModelBased Approaches, Promotor: Prof.dr. P.J.F. Groenen, EPS-2009-165-MKT, ISBN: 97890-5892-201-4, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/15536
Rus, D., The Dark Side of Leadership: Exploring the Psychology of Leader Self-serving
Behavior, Promotor: Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2009-178-ORG,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Samii, R., Leveraging Logistics Partnerships: Lessons from Humanitarian
Organizations, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen & Prof.dr.ir. L.N. Van
Wassenhove,
EPS-2008-153-LIS,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-186-4,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14519
Schaik, D. van, M&A in Japan: An Analysis of Merger Waves and Hostile Takeovers,
Promotors: Prof.dr. J. Spronk & Prof.dr. J.P.M. Groenewegen, EPS-2008-141-F&A,
ISBN: 978-90-5892-169-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13693
294
Schauten, M.B.J., Valuation, Capital Structure Decisions and the Cost of Capital,
Promotors: Prof.dr. J. Spronk & Prof.dr. D. van Dijk, EPS-2008-134-F&A, ISBN: 97890-5892-172-7, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13480
Schramade, W.L.J., Corporate Bonds Issuers, Promotor: Prof.dr. A. De Jong, EPS-2006092-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-125-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/8191
Schweizer, T.S., An Individual Psychology of Novelty-Seeking, Creativity and
Innovation, Promotor: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder, EPS-2004-048-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892077-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1818
Six, F.E., Trust and Trouble: Building Interpersonal Trust Within Organizations,
Promotors: Prof.dr. B. Nooteboom & Prof.dr. A.M. Sorge, EPS-2004-040-ORG, ISBN:
90-5892-064-X, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1271
Slager, A.M.H., Banking across Borders, Promotors: Prof.dr. R.J.M. van Tulder &
Prof.dr. D.M.N. van Wensveen, EPS-2004-041-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-066–6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1301
Sloot, L., Understanding Consumer Reactions to Assortment Unavailability, Promotors:
Prof.dr. H.R. Commandeur, Prof.dr. E. Peelen & Prof.dr. P.C. Verhoef, EPS-2006-074MKT, ISBN: 90-5892-102-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7438
Smit, W., Market Information Sharing in Channel Relationships: Its Nature, Antecedents
and Consequences, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. G.H. van Bruggen & Prof.dr.ir. B. Wierenga,
EPS-2006-076-MKT, ISBN: 90-5892-106-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7327
Sonnenberg, M., The Signalling Effect of HRM on Psychological Contracts of
Employees: A Multi-level Perspective, Promotor: Prof.dr. J. Paauwe, EPS-2006-086ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-119-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7995
Sotgiu, F., Not All Promotions are Made Equal: From the Effects of a Price War to
Cross-chain Cannibalization, Promotors: Prof.dr. M.G. Dekimpe & Prof.dr.ir. B.
Wierenga, EPS-2010-203-MKT, ISBN: 978-90-5892-238-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Speklé, R.F., Beyond Generics: A closer Look at Hybrid and Hierarchical Governance,
Promotor: Prof.dr. M.A. van Hoepen RA, EPS-2001-008-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-011-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/357
Srour, F.J., Dissecting Drayage: An Examination of Structure, Information, and Control
in Drayage Operations, Promotor: Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS-2010-186-LIS,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
295
Stam, D.A., Managing Dreams and Ambitions: A Psychological Analysis of Vision
Communication, Promotor: Prof.dr. D.L. van Knippenberg, EPS-2008-149-ORG,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14080
Stienstra, M., Strategic Renewal in Regulatory Environments: How Inter- and Intraorganisational Institutional Forces Influence European Energy Incumbent Firms,
Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. Van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2008-145STR, ISBN: 978-90-5892-184-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13943
Sweldens, S.T.L.R., Evaluative Conditioning 2.0: Direct versus Associative Transfer of
Affect to Brands, Promotor: Prof.dr. S.M.J. van Osselaer, EPS-2009-167-MKT, ISBN:
978-90-5892-204-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Szkudlarek, B.A., Spinning the Web of Reentry: [Re]connecting reentry training theory
and practice, Promotor: Prof.dr. S.J. Magala, EPS-2008-143-ORG, ISBN: 978-90-5892177-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/13695
Tempelaar, M.P., Organizing for Ambidexterity: Studies on the Pursuit of Exploration
and Exploitation through Differentiation, Integration, Contextual and Individual
Attributes, Promotors: Prof.dr.ing. F.A.J. van den Bosch & Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda,
EPS-2010-191-STR, ISBN: 978-90-5892-231-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Teunter, L.H., Analysis of Sales Promotion Effects on Household Purchase Behavior,
Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. B. Wierenga & Prof.dr. T. Kloek, EPS-2002-016-MKT, ISBN: 905892-029-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/868
Tims, B., Empirical Studies on Exchange Rate Puzzles and Volatility, Promotor: Prof.dr.
C.G.
Koedijk,
EPS-2006-089-F&A,
ISBN:
90-5892-113-1,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/8066
Tiwari, V., Transition Process and Performance in IT Outsourcing: Evidence from a
Field Study and Laboratory Experiments, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck &
Prof.dr.
P.H.M.
Vervest,
EPS-2010-201-LIS,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-241-0,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Tuk, M.A., Is Friendship Silent When Money Talks? How Consumers Respond to Wordof-Mouth Marketing, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. A. Smidts & Prof.dr. D.H.J. Wigboldus,
EPS-2008-130-MKT, ISBN: 978-90-5892-164-2, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/12702
Tzioti, S., Let Me Give You a Piece of Advice: Empirical Papers about Advice Taking in
Marketing, Promoters: Prof.dr. S.M.J. van Osselaer & Prof.dr.ir. B. Wierenga, EPS2010-211-MKT, ISBN: 978-90-5892-251-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
296
Valck, K. de, Virtual Communities of Consumption: Networks of Consumer Knowledge
and Companionship, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. G.H. van Bruggen & Prof.dr.ir. B. Wierenga,
EPS-2005-050-MKT, ISBN: 90-5892-078-X, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6663
Valk, W. van der, Buyer-Seller Interaction Patterns During Ongoing Service Exchange,
Promotors: Prof.dr. J.Y.F. Wynstra & Prof.dr.ir. B. Axelsson, EPS-2007-116-MKT,
ISBN: 90-5892-146-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10856
Verheijen, H.J.J., Vendor-Buyer Coordination in Supply Chains, Promotor: Prof.dr.ir.
J.A.E.E.
van
Nunen,
EPS-2010-194-LIS,
ISBN:
90-5892-234-2,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Verheul, I., Is There a (Fe)male Approach? Understanding Gender Differences
in Entrepreneurship, Prof.dr. A.R. Thurik, EPS-2005-054-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-080-1,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/2005
Verwijmeren, P., Empirical Essays on Debt, Equity, and Convertible Securities,
Promotors: Prof.dr. A. de Jong & Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2009-154-F&A,
ISBN: 978-90-5892-187-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/14312
Vis, I.F.A., Planning and Control Concepts for Material Handling Systems, Promotors:
Prof.dr. M.B.M. de Koster & Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker, EPS-2002-014-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892021-6, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/866
Vlaar, P.W.L., Making Sense of Formalization in Interorganizational Relationships:
Beyond Coordination and Control, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. Van den Bosch &
Prof.dr.
H.W.
Volberda,
EPS-2006-075-STR,
ISBN
90-5892-103-4,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7326
Vliet, P. van, Downside Risk and Empirical Asset Pricing, Promotor: Prof.dr. G.T. Post,
EPS-2004-049-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-07-55, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1819
Vlist, P. van der, Synchronizing the Retail Supply Chain, Promotors: Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E.
van Nunen & Prof.dr. A.G. de Kok, EPS-2007-110-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-142-0,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10418
Vries-van Ketel E. de, How Assortment Variety Affects Assortment Attractiveness:
A Consumer Perspective, Promotors: Prof.dr. G.H. van Bruggen & Prof.dr.ir. A. Smidts,
EPS-2006-072-MKT, ISBN: 90-5892-101-8, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7193
Vromans, M.J.C.M., Reliability of Railway Systems, Promotors: Prof.dr. L.G. Kroon,
Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker & Prof.dr.ir. J.A.E.E. van Nunen, EPS-2005-062-LIS, ISBN: 905892-089-5, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/6773
297
Vroomen, B.L.K., The Effects of the Internet, Recommendation Quality and Decision
Strategies on Consumer Choice, Promotor: Prof.dr. Ph.H.B.F. Franses, EPS-2006-090MKT, ISBN: 90-5892-122-0, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/8067
Waal, T. de, Processing of Erroneous and Unsafe Data, Promotor: Prof.dr.ir. R. Dekker,
EPS-2003-024-LIS, ISBN: 90-5892-045-3, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/870
Waard, E.J. de, Engaging Environmental Turbulence: Organizational Determinants for
Repetitive Quick and Adequate Responses, Promotors: Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda &
Prof.dr.
J.
Soeters,
EPS-2010-189-STR,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-229-8,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Wall, R.S., Netscape: Cities and Global Corporate Networks, Promotor: Prof.dr. G.A.
van
der
Knaap,
EPS-2009-169-ORG,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-207-6,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Watkins Fassler, K., Macroeconomic Crisis and Firm Performance, Promotors: Prof.dr.
J. Spronk & Prof.dr. D.J. van Dijk, EPS-2007-103-F&A, ISBN: 90-5892-138-3,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10065
Weerdt, N.P. van der, Organizational Flexibility for Hypercompetitive Markets:
Empirical Evidence of the Composition and Context Specificity of Dynamic Capabilities
and Organization Design Parameters, Promotor: Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda, EPS-2009173-STR, ISBN: 978-90-5892-215-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Wennekers, A.R.M., Entrepreneurship at Country Level: Economic and Non-Economic
Determinants, Promotor: Prof.dr. A.R. Thurik, EPS-2006-81-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-1158, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/7982
Wielemaker, M.W., Managing Initiatives: A Synthesis of the Conditioning and
Knowledge-Creating View, Promotors: Prof.dr. H.W. Volberda & Prof.dr. C.W.F.
Baden-Fuller,
EPS-2003-28-STR,
ISBN:
90-5892-050-X,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1042
Wijk, R.A.J.L. van, Organizing Knowledge in Internal Networks: A Multilevel Study,
Promotor: Prof.dr.ir. F.A.J. van den Bosch, EPS-2003-021-STR, ISBN: 90-5892-039-9,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/347
Wolters, M.J.J., The Business of Modularity and the Modularity of Business, Promotors:
Prof. mr. dr. P.H.M. Vervest & Prof.dr.ir. H.W.G.M. van Heck, EPS-2002-011-LIS,
ISBN: 90-5892-020-8, KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
298
Wubben, M.J.J., Social Functions of Emotions in Social Dilemmas, Promotors: Prof.dr.
D.
De
Cremer
&
Prof.dr.
E.
van
Dijk,
EPS-2009-187-ORG,
KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Xu, Y., Empirical Essays on the Stock Returns, Risk Management, and Liquidity
Creation of Banks, Promotor: Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek, EPS-2010-188-F&A,
KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Yang, J., Towards the Restructuring and Co-ordination Mechanisms for the Architecture
of Chinese Transport Logistics, Promotor: Prof.dr. H.E. Harlambides, EPS-2009-157LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-198-7, KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Yu, M., Enhancing Warehouse Perfromance by Efficient Order Picking, Promotor:
Prof.dr. M.B.M. de Koster, EPS-2008-139-LIS, ISBN: 978-90-5892-167-3,
KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Zhang, X., Strategizing of Foreign Firms in China: An Institution-based Perspective,
Promotor: Prof.dr. B. Krug, EPS-2007-114-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-147-5,
http://hdl.handle.net/1765/10721
Zhang, X., Scheduling with Time Lags, Promotor: Prof.dr. S.L. van de Velde, EPS-2010206-LIS,
ISBN: 978-90-5892-244-1, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Zhou, H., Knowledge, Entrepreneurship and Performance: Evidence from Country-level
and Firm-level Studies, Promotors: Prof.dr. A.R. Thurik & Prof.dr. L.M. Uhlaner, EPS2010-207-ORG, ISBN: 90-5892-248-9, http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1
Zhu, Z., Essays on China’s Tax System, Promotors: Prof.dr. B. Krug & Prof.dr. G.W.J.
Hendrikse,
EPS-2007-112-ORG,
ISBN:
90-5892-144-4,
KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
Zwart, G.J. de, Empirical Studies on Financial Markets: Private Equity, Corporate
Bonds and Emerging Markets, Promotors: Prof.dr. M.J.C.M. Verbeek & Prof.dr. D.J.C.
van
Dijk,
EPS-2008-131-F&A,
ISBN:
978-90-5892-163-5,
KWWS KGOKDQGOHQHW
299
Erasmus Research Institute of Management - E R I M
ERIM
The Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM) is the Research School (Onder zoekschool) in the field of management of the Erasmus University Rotterdam. The founding
participants of ERIM are Rotterdam School of Management (RSM), and the Erasmus School
of Economics (ESE). ERIM was founded in 1999 and is officially accredited by the Royal
Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW). The research under taken by ERIM
is focused on the management of the firm in its environment, its intra- and interfirm
relations, and its business processes in their interdependent connections.
The objective of ERIM is to carry out first rate research in management, and to offer an
advanced doctoral programme in Research in Management. Within ERIM, over three
hundred senior researchers and PhD candidates are active in the different research programmes. From a variety of academic backgrounds and expertises, the ERIM community is
united in striving for excellence and working at the forefront of creating new business
knowledge.
ERIM PhD Series
Research in Management
Erasmus Research Institute of Management - E R I M
Rotterdam School of Management (RSM)
Erasmus School of Economics (ESE)
P.O. Box 1738, 3000 DR Rotterdam
The Netherlands
Tel.
Fax
E-mail
Internet
+31 10 408 11 82
+31 10 408 96 40
info@erim.eur.nl
www.erim.eur.nl
(www.haveka.nl)
The port of Rotterdam is the largest seaport in Europe and a huge industrial complex.
This seaport has been the focal point of several studies that merely view the port as a
transport node. This neglects the fact that it is also a collection of thousands of related
businesses that together form the Rotterdam seaport cluster.
This PhD thesis deals with the companies in the Rotterdam seaport cluster and their
value for the competitiveness of the port. Companies active in many sectors, such as
stevedoring, transport, logistics, off-shore and shipbuilding.
The competitiveness of the port of Rotterdam is dependent on the behavior of the
firms located in the port cluster. Some firms create substantially more positive effects than
others and are called ‘leader firms’. The Characteristics and the behavior of these leader
firms are analyzed in this study.
The Rotterdam port cluster is defined and the business structure is researched to select
the leader firms. Nine forms of leader firm behavior are identified in the fields of innova.tion, internationalization and cluster governance. With the use of a qualitative comparative analysis it is researched which firm characteristics foster leader firm behavior.
Conclusions are drawn about the role of leader firms in clusters and the stimulus and
obstacles for leader firm behavior. Recommendations are formulated for the business
community, government and the leader firms.
Print: Haveka
THE VALUE OF COMPANIES FOR THE COMPETITIVENESS OF THE ROTTERDAM
SEAPORT CLUSTER
Design & layout: B&T Ontwerp en advies (www.b-en-t.nl)
LEADER FIRMS
Michiel Nijdam