501
1 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the pilot study presented in this
paper is to develop and evaluate a model for
capturing attitudes and perception among seafarers
that can uncover a possible presence of a ‘green
culture’ within the shipping industry. The overall
aim of the model is to be able to qualit
atively
measuretowhichextenta‘greenculture’ispresent
withintheshippingindustry,andtoidentifyfactors
that either facilitate or act as barriers to a green
culture.
The model has been developed in light of the
increasingfocusonandawarenessoftheimpacton
theenvironmentfromthema
ritimetransportsystem.
Publicly, emphasis has been on the repeatedly
occurring operationaloil dischargesfrom ships and
offshore platforms posing a threat to the marine
ecosystems (Ferraro et al. 2009). Other sources of
pollution stemming from shipping activities and
comingintothepubliceyeduringthelastdecadeare
greenhouse gas emissions (GHG), especially carbon
dioxide (CO2). There are esti
mations that during
2012around2.7%ofglobalCO2emissionoriginated
from all maritime activities (Smith et al. 2014).
Further, there are rapid developments of
international agreements to reduce the overall
environmentalimpactfromshipping.Illustrationsin
relation to GHG would be the Energy Efficiency
DesignIndex(EEDI)andtheShipEnergyEfficiency
Management Plan (SEEMP) tha
t have recently
How Do You Measure Green Culture in Shipping? The
Search for a Tool Through Interviews with Swedish
Seafarers
M.Hammander,P.Karlsson,C.Österman&C.Hult
KalmarMaritimeAcademy,LinnaeusUniversity,Sweden
ABSTRACT:Today,theshippingindustryfacesimportantenvironmentalchallengestoreducetheimpactof
sea transport to the marine environment. In order to enhance compliance and encourage safe and efficient
maritimeoperations,theimplementationofasafetycultureinbothshoreorganisationandonboardshipshas
been adv
ocated. Similarly,it can be arguedthat a conscious ‘greening’ ofan organisation’s culture may be
necessaryinordertomeetlegislativeandsocietaldemands,aswellasembraceenvironmentallyresponsible
values,beliefsandbehaviours.Thepresentpilotstudydescribesthedevelopmentandevaluationofamodel
designedtocapturea
ttitudesandperceptionamongseafarerswithregardstoproactiveenvironmentalworkin
theshippingindustry.Theoverallaimofthemodelistoenablemeasurementoftheextenttowhicha‘green
culture’ispresentwithintheshippingindustry,andtoidentifyfactorsthateitherfacilitateoractasbarrierstoa
greenculture.
Evaluationofthemodelwasdonethroughqualit
ativeindividualandfocusgroupinterviewswith,inall,13
activeSwedishseafarersduringtheautumnof2014.Thefindingsshowthatthemodelcapturesthesoughtafter
mechanismsfairlywellandshowssomepromise.Futureworkisneededtofurt
herrefineandtestthemodelin
alargersetting,inordertoprovidea robustpictureoftheseafarers’viewon‘green’shipping.
http://www.transnav.eu
the International Journal
on Marine Navigation
and Safety of Sea Transportation
Volume 9
Number 4
December 2015
DOI:10.12716/1001.09.04.06
502
enteredinto forceand areunder implementationin
theshippingindustry(Longvaetal.2010).Inorderto
meet these new agreements, several operational
measures have been introduced, for instance slow
steaming(e.g.Cariou,2011).
Therearealsoself‐governingmechanismsinplace
toreducetheenvironmentalimpactofshipping.
For
instance, several shipping companies have joined
Clean Shipping Projects (CSP) that are based on a
Clean Shipping Index (CSI) whichwas launched in
the beginning of 2010 as a market based index for
cleantransports(Wuisanetal.2012;Hjelle&Fridell
2012).
The measures that have been introduced
so far,
pointprimarilytowardstechnicalsolutions.Thereis
alackofdiscourseonthehumanandorganisational
factorsnecessaryinordertocreateanenvironmental
or‘green’culturewithinashippingcompany(Laiet
al. 2011). Previous research on green shipping and
environmental awareness in the maritime industry
includes,for
instancetheinvestigationsbyLaietal.
(2011)andLunetal.(2013)onmeasurestakeninthe
direction of green shipping practices, and the link
between financial and environmental performance.
Giziakis & Christodoulou (2012) explore the
awareness of maritime air emissions, focusing
specifically on policies and attitudes in the
Greek
shippingindustry.Anotherstudyfocusesonhuman
factors effects on operational oil spill, identifying
attitudesandfatigueasprimaryfactors(Saharuddin
etal.2012).Further,Harrisetal.(2002)andMillard
(2011)arguethatkeyissuesforsustainableprogress
in the greening of corporations include focus on
human recourses. The
gap between technical
solutions, to address environmental issues, and
focusingonthoseworkinginorganisationsmaylead
tounnecessarysub‐optimisationsandshortcomings.
2 THEORETICALBASISFORTHEMETHOD
2.1 Towardsa‘green’organisationalculture
The interest for environmental issues has increased
rapidlyoverrecentdecades.Forthepurposeof
this
study,emphasisisplacedonthescientificliterature
concerning the role of work organisations,
organisational culture and human resource
management. Threetypes ofmanagement strategies
can be discerned when addressing environmental
issueswithinanorganisation(Fernándezetal.2003):
(i)compliance,(ii)control,and(iii)prevention.
Compliance,deriving fromthe
standpointofonly
fulfilling legislative demands, would be for an
organisation to refrain from the initiative and from
possible market advantages in times of increasing
publicenvironmentalconcerns(Russo&Fouts1997;
Fernándezetal.2003).
The controlapproach goesone stepfurther, and
usually involves specialised human workforce
fighting
pollution. Within the maritime industry,
there are several monitoring and control activities,
such as port state control, and air and satellite
surveillance for detecting oil pollution. In an
organisational setting, this approach has however
beenjudgedasbothcostlyandinsufficientasatool
forinitiatinganenvironmentalorganisationalculture
(Russo
&Fouts1997).
The prevention approach is generally viewed as
themostadvancedoptionthatopensforcompetitive
advantage (Hart 1994; Sanderland 1994; Russo &
Fouts 1997; Angel & Klassen 1999; Handfield et al.
2001).Here,anorganisationaimstoidentifyanddeal
with problems before they occur, i.e. creating
what
can be called a proactive or generative setting.
However, implementing the prevention approach
normally requires major changes, in business
strategy (Cordano & Frieze 2000), as well as in the
entire organisation and its culture. A successful
‘green’ culture is dependent on the capacity of the
organisation, especially with regards to:
continuous
learning activities, empowerment, two‐way
communication, and on a solid commitment at all
organisational levels (e.g. Fernández et al. 2003). In
sum,whentheseaspectshavebecomeconstituentsof
an organisation, a proactive environmentally
concernedorganisationalcultureemerges.
2.2 Analyticalmodelsforevaluatingculture
An organisational culture should not
be viewed as
uniform. Ratherit can existof different subcultures
that can be ‘socially distributed’. That is, sharing of
cultural content that is not entirely uniform, which
can be symbolised by some differentiations and
fragmentations(Guldenmund2010).Additionally,as
a‘psychologicaldistribution’theculturecontentmight
be deeply
rooted within some individuals, while
other individuals only reach a superficial level
(Guldenmund 2010). Hence, studies involving
organisational ‘safety’ culture are also of interest.
This is based on the view that there exist different
subcultures in the same organisational culture
(Guldenmund2010).
A well‐knowntool for evaluating culturesis
the
analyticalmodeldevelopedbyWestrum(2004;2014),
thatwasfirstdevelopedforstudyinghiddenevents
thenlaterassociatedtohumanerrorsandaccidents.
The model was originally composed of three
organisationalcategories:
pathological organisations, described as power
andconflictorientedandcharacterizedbylackof
cooperation, low information exchange
and
scapegoating;
bureaucratic organisations, described as rule
oriented, with narrow responsibility and strict
informationchannels;
generative organisations, characterised as
performance oriented, making sure the right
information reach the right people at the right
timeenablingproactiveinformationsharing.
Reason(1997)andHudson(2007)lateradvanced
themodelto
encompassfivelevels,illustratinghow
an organisation can staircase its way towards
improved safety culture. The five levels become:
pathological, reactive, calculative, proactive and
generative.Calculativemight,insomestudies,stillbe
referred to as the bureaucratic level (e.g. Hjorth
2013). Within a maritime context, this analytical
modelhasbeen
usedinseveralstudiesforevaluating
safetyculture(e.g.Hjorth2013;Kongsviketal.2013).
503
3 METHOD
Stemming from the reasoning above, the primary
aspects that we set out to evaluate are: (i)
commitment, particularly towards the environment,
atalllevelsintheorganisation,(ii)learningactivities
relevantforenvironmentalwork,(iii)measurestaken
forpersonnelempowerment,and(iv)measurestaken
fortwo‐waycommunication.
Whensearching forindicatorsfor environmental
commitment,probequestionsconcernindividualand
perceivedorganisational commitment onboard and
within the organisation as a whole. Indicators for
learning activities relevant for the environmental
workincludequestionsaboutfrequencyandquality
of training courses and meetings, and how these
learning activities are
conducted and followed up.
Empowerment can be identified through questions
aboutdecision‐makingstructuresandtimeallocated
for environmental critical actions andinterventions.
Asregardstwo‐waycommunication,questionsmust
capture formal and informal channels and
opportunities for reporting improvement proposals
andnon‐conformitiesalike,aswellasoccurrenceand
quality
offeedback.
Inordertocapturetheaspectsdescribedabove,a
semi‐structured interview guide was developed,
structured around nine focus areas. The first four
was used to extract the context i.e. personal
backgroundandworkingsituation, ship’stradeand
cargo and shipping company information. The last
fivefocus areas
wasintendedtoadvancemore into
the queried area i.e. (i) overall safety and
environmental protection, (ii) the ISM code, (iii)
environmental commitment and personal
experiences,(iv)generalhealthandsafetyinrelation
to environmental protection and finally (v)
environmentalculture.
In the shipping industry both safety and
environmental considerations are
of importance,
however safety is generally considered paramount
followedbyenvironmental issues.Onsuchcasecan
beillustratedwiththefactthatitisallowedtorelease
oil into the water in an emergency situation.
Thereforequestionswerearrangedinsucha manner
that they commenced from a safety oriented
standpoint and gradually moved to embrace
environmental orientated issues. The following
question illustrates the gradual movement towards
environmentalconcerns:
Describehowfamiliarisation–introductionworksout
fornewlyemployedseafarer...environmentalprotection?
Theabovequestionalsoshowsthelinktooneof
the four primary aspects, in this case environ‐
mentally
relevantlearningactivities(ii).
In order to envisage the qualitative analysis
sequence, step‐by‐step, the developed model has
been separated into three levels (see figure 1). The
model was designed parallel to the process of
collectingandtranscribingdata.The firstlevel(i) is
related to the transcribed data,
which during the
analysisneedstobecategorisedintothefourprimary
aspects of Commitment, Learning, Empowerment
andCommunication(CLEC).Thisisdonemanually
by colour‐coding the transcripts into four different
colours representing expressed views and
statements,i.e.‘things’thatareobservableinthedata
andmadebytherespondents
inrelationtoeachone
ofthe aspectsdefining CLEC.Then, the transcribed
textisindividuallyclustered,andcoded,torepresent
individualquotesthatexemplifyanyoftheaspectsof
Commitment, Learning, Empowerment and
Communication,whichisoutlinedatlevel(i).
Figure1. Exhibiting the analysis model (CLEC‐model)
composed of three levels. Level (iii) based on Westrum
(2004;2014),Reason(1997)andHudson(2007).
Secondly, at level (ii) the individual quotes
identified at level (i) are once again analysed by
searchingthequoteforkeyelementssuchasspecific
wordsormeaning.Basedonthisanalysisthequotes
arethenrelatedtooneoffourcategories;(i)safety&
environment,(ii) environment,(iii)safety and
lastly
(iv) unspecified. To exemplify the analytic process,
thefollowingfourquotesservesasillustrations:one
quotemightrelatetobothsafetyandenvironmental
issues e.g. ‘hydraulic oil‐leakage’ or it might relate to
environmentalissuese.g.‘paperdishesinthegalley’or
itmightrelatetosafety
e.g.‘hardhaton’.However,the
quotes might also be categorised into the category
unspecifiedsincethequotesdonotseemtoaddorfit
into either safety or environment, it might instead
haveanegativeeffecte.g.‘theonlythingthatcounts
ismoney,money,money’.Neverthelessatlevel(ii)
it
might still be difficult to identify the underlying
mechanismsthataffectthe‘greening’ofculture.
The last level (iii) relates to the mechanisms or
commonaspectsthatcanbefoundregardingbarriers,
neutral and lastly facilitation links towards
environmental issues. At this level the analytical
model developed by Westrum
(2004; 2014), and
further advanced by Reason (1997) and Hudson
(2007) was incorporated into this analysis model to
categories ‘environmental’ culture into an already
existing and well‐known‘safety’ culture framework.
Theadjustment,beingthattheconceptwasbasically
reversedbacktoWestrum’s(2004;2014)originalidea
with three
categorises although using the added
504
typologyfromReason(1997)andHudson(2007).The
outcome of this is the combined categories of
pathologic/reactive that explains ‘barriers’ the
categoryofbureaucraticbecomes‘neutral’andfinally
the categories of proactive/generative become
‘facilitator’ofthegreeningofculture.
Atthislevelthepurposeoftheanalysisistostrive
to find a causal linkby using the typol
ogy at level
(iii).Toillustrateinrelationtoquotesinregardtoa
particular term e.g. information of any kind; it can
either be hidden or misunderstood which could
createabarrier,oritcanbeignoredwhichmightnot
affectanything givinga neutralimpressionorlast
lyit
can be shared and actively required which facilitate
thegreeningofculture.Thisanalysisisconductedby
trying to understand the underlying mechanisms
related to separate or grouped quotes giving
knowledge on how, and way the respondent
expressesacertainview.
4 EVALUATIONOFTHEMETHOD
For the purpose of data completeness when testi
ng
andevaluatingthetool,acombinationoffocusgroup
interviews and individual interviews was used
(Lambert and Loiselle 2008). This combination of
data collection methods allowed us to elicit rich,
detailed information on the topic of green culture.
Part
icipantswereselected,ona voluntarybasis,from
two separate three day courses held at Kalmar
MaritimeAcademy,LinnaeusUniversity;Proficiency
in Medical Care, and a course in Electronic Chart
Display and Information System (ECDIS) –
AutomaticIdentificationSystem(AIS).Allinterviews
wereheldinSwedishandtranslationofquot
eswas
madebytheauthorsofthispaper.
4.1 Focusgroupinterviews
The group dynamics and interaction that occur in
focusgroupinterviewsareavitalpartofthemodel,
using the communication between research
participantstogeneratedata.Insteadofaresearcher
askingindividualstorespondtoaseriesofquestions
in turn, the part
icipants are encouraged to, in their
own vocabulary, ask each other questions, narrate
anecdotes,andcommentoneachothers’experiences
andpointsofview(KruegerandCasey2009).Focus
group interviews are particularly useful when
wanting to explore participants’ knowledge and
experiences,probingnotonlywhatpeoplethi
nkbut
how they think and why they think that way
(Kitzinger1995).
Twofocus groupinterviews wereheld(n=9), six
menandthreewomen.Theage‐spanvariedfrom29
upto51,theaverageagewas40years.Thetwofocus
groups included three masters, three chief officers,
andthree secondofficers. Together,thepart
icipants
represented passenger ships, Ro‐Ro ships, offshore
servicevessels(OSV)and offshorerigs. Inaddition,
experiencesfromearlierassignmentswereregularly
referredtoduringthediscussions.
The two focus groups were moderated by the
same moderator with extensive knowledge of the
featuressurroundingthe shippingindust
ry,but not
directly involved in studying the concept of green
cultures. Thus,the moderatorhad theadvantage of
beingabletoinstillasenseofmutualrespectwithin
thegroupsandcommunicateinasharedvocabulary
butstillbeemotionallydetachedfromthetopicofthe
study(KruegerandCa
sey2009).Thefirstauthorof
thispaperactedaslistenerandobserver.
Each focus group interview lasted for
approximatelytwohoursandwasvideoandaudio‐
recordedfortranscriptandanalysis.
4.2 Individualinterviews
Individual interview is a frequently used data
collection method and is typically chosen to gather
comprehensive accounts of a
ttitudes, views, and
knowledgeregardingagiventopic(Kvale1997).The
knowledgeprocess in an interviewis aninteractive
processbetweeninterviewerandinterviewee.Hence,
it is important to check continuously that the
informant accepts the interpretation of what have
been said. Four individual interviews were held,
usingthesamethema
ticinterviewguideasthefocus
groupinterviews,butallowingforflexibilitytoprobe
for details or further discuss issues. Additional
questions were asked and answers probed on an
individualbasisduringtheinterviews.
Four interviews were held with respondents of
which all were men currently working as chief
officers.Theoverallagestructureva
riedfrom35up
to44yearsofage,averageageoftheparticipantswas
38. Therespondentsworkedonpassengerships,Ro‐
Ro ships, and offshore service vessels (OSV). Also
here, experience from earlier assignments was
regularly referred to. The interviews last
ed for
approximately two hours and were audio‐recorded
fortranscriptandanalysis.
4.3 Evaluationofthesemistructuredguide
Both the individually interviewed and those
participated in focus groups concluded with the
anonymousansweringofastructuredquestionnaire
toassessifdiscussionsbasedonthesemi‐structured
guide captured the most import
ant aspects of: (i)
shipping‐related environmental attitudes, (ii)
commitment,(iii)expertice,(iv)communications,and
(v) the participants’ own participation in
environmentalactivities.Fromtheperspectiveofthe
respondentstheresultsshowed,onthewhole,ahigh
level precision. There were no major differences
between those respondents participating in focus
group against those part
icipating in individual
interviews(seefigure1).
505
Figure2. Results from the structured questionnaires
answered after two focus groups (n=9) and individual
interviews (n=4). Rating values indicated with ✗ and ✓
fromintotal13participants.Medianvaluesaregivenusing
a10‐gradescale.
Oneadditionalquestionwasiftherespondent,in
the time available, had the opportunity to express
what theywanted tosay (vi). Also herethe overall
response was high (see figure 2). The results also
showthat,toalargeextent,therespondentsfeltthat
they could speak their mind and tha
t they learnt
fromtheexperiencepointingtowardstheusefulness
offace‐to‐facegroup meetingsfor creatingcommon
awareness and knowledge transfer. However one
commentfromtherespondentsgaveusableresponse
forimprovement:
‘One interesting question might be how much time
thatassignsonenvironmentalworkonboardandnotjust
addupon‐toponordinaryduties.’
4.4 Analysisofdatatov
erifythemethod
It was, at this stage, possible to take some
‘individual’ quotes and advance them through the
modelwiththepurposeofevaluatingthefunctioning
ofthethreelevels(i‐iii)oftheanalysistool.However,
itmustbeemphasisedtha
t,atthisstage,itwasnot
possible, during the available time to draw
substantial conclusion regarding to the maturity of
perceived ‘green’ culture from the obtained data.
This was not the intention of this study since it
wouldhaverequiredacomprehensiveanalysisofthe
entiredata.
Displaying quot
es acting as ‘facilitator’ (A) and
otherquotesactingas‘barrier’(B)foreachoneofthe
categories Commitment, Learning, Empowerment
andCommunication,bygivinga‘thickdescription’,
suggeststhefunctioningoftheCLEC‐model.
4.5 Environmentalcommitmentatallorganisational
levels
Thecapturingofcommitmenttotheenvironmentcan
be illust
rated by this quote, expressed during the
interview,bya chiefofficer workingon anoffshore
servicevesselalongtheUScoast:
‘…thesetypesofshipswereyouallthetimeneedtobe
in the lead and keep up agood reputation,then you, we
havethem,allthesystemsup‐to‐date…’
During the int
erview, the respondent showed
positive attitude to his work, and came across as
being proud of being a chief officer on such an
advancedvessel.Thementioningoftheneedforall
the systems to be up‐to‐date is interpreted here as
covering both safety and environmental issues.The
needtobeintheleadandmaint
ainagoodcorporate
reputationseemedtobeasharedviewamongthose
working at the office and those working on board.
Onereasonforthismightbetheexternalpressureon
the ship and the company, when working with
client
sonUSwaterswheretheyenforceastrictlegal
system that might push or force a high level of
commitment; this may be supported by another
quoteexpressedduringtheinterview:
‘…we do have everything in place, even in regard to
oil,duetoUSsoallthingsareinpl
ace,astheyshouldbe.
If we have a bunker operation, or if we have a situation
wheretheclientwantstofillupdieselintheirgenerators,
standingondeckorcompressorsorwhateveritmaybe,so,
then we have a checklist, we have everything in pl
ace
precisely because we don’t dare to have it in any other
way.’
Going further and trying to capture the central
part expressed by the respondent by conducting a
level(iii)analysis.Thereseemedtobeaneedtoshare
informationthatmightalsoinvolvetheacquiringof
informat
ion, both for safety and environmental
issuesinordertobeup‐to‐dateandinthelead.This
suggeststhataproactiveculture,orevengenerative
which mightact as a facilitator for‘greening’ of an
organisationalculture.
Offeringanotherview,achiefofficeronaRo‐Ro
vessel,expressedamoredoubtfulstancetowa
rdshis
company’senvironmentalcommitment:
‘Yes, we pretend to be 14000‐certified yet still use
paper dishes in the galley at evenings, it doesn’t match
up.’
The respondent, who is trained to conduct
internal audits of the company’s Environmental
Management System (EMS), here expresses
commitmenttowa
rdsimprovements.Forinstance,he
appliedtwicetobecomeaninternalauditor.Hedid
however feel that the company does not always
match his own commitment. The respondent gave
evenmoreillustrativeconsequencesinregardtothe
company’s environmental commitment in a
supportingquote:
506
‘WeareanISO14000company,itisstillthecasethat
wecheat,thereareofcourse,we havepartnerswhohave
broken the contract with us because we do not meet the
requirements that we ourselves have promoted ourselves
with.’
Conducting a level (iii) analysis, it appears that
theresponsibilitytofollowandcontinuallyimprove
environmentalworkseemedtobeavoidedormaybe
even neglected. This may indicate a lack of
commitment barrier in relation to environmental
work, despitethe shipping companybeing certified
accordingtoanEMS‐system(ISO14001)thathasasa
prerequisite, nurturing of
environmental
commitment.
4.6 Environmentalrelevantlearningactivities
Asregardslearningactivities,achief officerworking
on an offshore service vessel, described during an
individual interview, the environmental learning
activitiesonboardasfollows:
‘Yes, all of us on‐board shall do such, Seagull
[trademark]CBT‐coursessuchcomputerbased,specifically
on
ISO14001…’
Apparently,thiscompanyexpectsallpersonnelto
attend familiarisation courses on the environmental
management systems (EMS). The respondent also
emphasised the importance of the company’s EMS
(ISO14001):
‘…everyone on boardneeds todo, allmaritime crew
membersmustgothroughtheISO14001course.’
Inthis
casethecoursewasgivenbythemeansof
Computer Based Training(CBT), a commonfeature
intheshippingindustry.Analysingthisinrelationto
level (iii) it seems that there is a requirement to
acquire information and keep up‐to‐date with new
knowledge and information. However, learning in
itself
might not provide support for ‘good’
environmental work, although this respondent also
gave the impression of a well‐implemented
managementsystem,whichmightindicatethat,this
‘learning’ function as facilitator to ‘green’ the
organisationalculture.
Officersworkingonshipsoperated bycompanies
with a different approach to learning gave
information
on that they were not familiar with
training in regard to Environmental Management
System(EMS).Inonespecificcasethecompanyand
ship was also ISO 14001 certified. The respondent
working as chief officer with extensive experience,
presentlyon aRo‐Roship innorthEuropean trade,
indicatedastrongerenvironmental
commitmentona
personal level, as was illustrated with some
supportingquotes:
‘Iwouldsaythat Ithinkalittleabouttheenvironment
aswell,Iliketousemybike,andnowIhaven’thadacar
fortwoyears…’
‘…meandmypartnerspendtimetalkingandshe
ison
the same…, so it becomes a natural part, and then itʹs
withwashingandsuchthings,usingtheclothesacouple
of times you can hang them up and we have no fabric
softener…’
The respondent also emphasised onboard
environmentaltraining,suchasexercisersinrelation
to Ship
Oil Pollution Emergency Plan, (SOPEP)
whichwasunderhisresponsibility.However,when
it comes to the company’s EMS (ISO 14001) there
appears to be a lack of information about
requirement for the onboard crew to conduct
relevant learning, even at management level.
Looking at a level (iii) analysis, it seems
that the
organisation ignores to establish relevant
requirement on learning in relation to the
implemented EMS and it also seems that the
organisationhidesorignorestoprovideinformation
on such things as available learning in relation to
relevantenvironmentalmanagementsystems.Inthis
respect,theconsequencesmightvarybetweenneutral
orbarriersfor relevantenvironmental learningatan
organisationallevel.
4.7 Measurestakenforempowerment
When it comes toempowerment, it was difficult to
find ‘good’ examples, however one respondent, a
chief officer, pointed once again to management
support systems such as a combined quality and
environment system that the
respondent positively
expressed backing for during the interview. In this
casetheworkdescriptionsintheQualityAssurance
(QA)systemwerestatedtoclearlydescribedifferent
areasorresponseatdifferentorganisationallevelsinthe
company both onboard and at the head office. The
shipping company had a single ‘open’ computer
‐
based platform, merging the two management
systems for quality and environment into one
ManagementSystemthattherespondentreferredto
astheQA‐system.
‘Sometimes,itisofcourseabittoomuch,itisobvious,
but on the other hand, we do have some support, if you
want to
use money in any way toimprove safety or the
environmentoranythingyoucaneverusetheQA‐system
and looking for, because everything, it’s all about
motivatingyourself…’
An additional question during the interview
focused on the respondents’ feeling of an
autonomousstatusonboardtheshipinrelationto
the
headoffice,thedirectreplywas:
‘We have that! Itʹs not likeworking fora large well‐
established [shippingcompany] like I came from before I
startedin[thiscompany].’
Using the above quotes to visualise measures
taken forempowerment, itindicates, ona level(iii)
analysis, a
focus on sharing of information in a
context of well known procedures with established
corresponding responsibilities on staff in a
autonomousorientedstructure, whichinturnmight
facilitateagreeningoftheorganisationalculture.
However,itseemedthatmostofthedatarelated
to empowerment reflected a different situation and
maybe
this quotefrom anotherrespondent, aship’s
master commanding a large Ro‐Ro ship in north
Atlantictrade,echoesthisclearly:
‘…Iʹvebeenover20yearsinoneshippingcompanyso
itwasa bit shocking tocometo a management company
andanewshippingcompanythatis
alsocontrolledfrom
507
the top and they have [the owner] basically, but this
managementcompanywantstocheckeverything youdo,
then I can’tsign offfrom anexpenses at 100 SEK butI
drivearoundwith500millionand20humanlives,butI
can’tsignoffon100SEK’
Thiswas
statedveryemotionallyduringarather
frustratedpassageofonefocusgroup’sconversation.
The respondent continued to reflect on the present
situationfromanhistoricalperspectiveandstated:
‘…but in the old days it was in fact an employed
masterandhewastheownerʹsextendedarmonthe
ship
andtheownertrustedthemaster…’
The same master also elaborated around
environmental issues in regards to hydraulic hoses
thatusuallyneedtobereplacedregularlybecauseof
wearandtearcausingmultipleleakages:
‘…thenitʹsthefaultoftheship andit’sevensoifitis
us
whomighthaveproposedlongagothatwemustreplace
xnumberofhosesbutthenitʹstooexpensiveandthey[the
company]don’twantit,butifyoudon’tchangethehose
[theship]becomeslaid‐up…’
Conducting a level (iii) analysis, these quotes
illustrate the master’s perception
of not having
suitable responsibility on the right organizational
level instead it is a focus on accountability. This
mightresultinageneraldemotivatingfactoronthe
ship’s master, deterring, barrier, the master from
taking that extra step to improve what needs to be
improvedonboarde.g.orderor
forcefullyarguefor
new hydraulic hoses or implement a maintenance
programme,alltogetheritmightaffectthe‘greening’
ofculture.
4.8 Measurestakenfortwo‐waycommunications
Lastly, looking into communication aspects there
seemedtoexistelementsofanopencommunication
environment only among a limited number of
respondents, though this
quote comes from one of
theseexceptions,anofficeronalargeRo‐Rovesselin
worldwidetrade.Thisisillustratedbyonepartofa
largerquote:
‘Now, we have had one of those responsible for
recruitment,hehasbeenoutnow,goingwithus,[I]have
spoken to
him, [he] was interviewing, what we thought,
askedabit,howwelikeditandsoon.Hegotsomeinput,
not only going through the captain and so on, but also
askingpeople.’
The respondent continued to describe the open
communicationaccesstoeverybodyinthecompany
and that there
is almost an absence of a
communication hierarchy. During the focus group
discussion,therespondentreturnedseveraltimesto
the ease of access to people working in the shore
organisation, whenever the crew has something to
askordiscuss.Thiswasstatedtoalsoactivelybeing
supported by the company.
Open communication
oughttohaveapositivebearingonbothsafetyand
environmental behaviour. Looking at a level (iii)
analysis, means of openly and actively requiring
information,couldbeseenasfacilitatinga‘greening’
oftheculture.
To illuminate what can be said to be the direct
opposite, another communication situation,
involving both safety and environmental concerns,
willactasillustration.Anaccidenthadoccurredi.e.
hydraulic leakage on the ramp that resulted in
spillageofoilintothewaterofaport.Therewerea
lotofinvolvedorganisationsbesidestheshipi.e.fire
brigade, port authority and the coast
guard. The
aftermath report that also contained proposals for
furtherimprovement,e.g.changinghydraulichoses,
wassenttotheheadoffice.Theauthorofthereport,
who was interviewed, holds the position of chief
officeronaRo‐Roship:
‘Wesent in the reporttothecompany,sincethenwe
haven’t, the company hasn’t, well, what they have done
withthereport,Idon’tknow.’
Thestory servesasanexampleofabrokentwo‐
waycommunication situationthat mighthinder the
development of a successful green culture. The
respondent believed that the crew on board had
handled the situation
well. The accident was
apparentlycaused,bywearandtearofthehydraulic
hoses.This wasa factthatthe crewpreviously had
pointed out to the technical office ashore. Here,
analysing at level (iii), it seems an ignored
information loop i.e. the messenger have been
ignored,whichmighthasserved
asabarrier.Inthis
case it even seemed to be one mechanism, among
others,creatingafeelingof‘sowhat’ordistrust.The
communication situation was so infected that the
crewtoldtheofficethattheyrecordtheir telephone
conversations:
‘…ifwephonetheoffice, we tell them that
werecord
theconversation…’.
5 DISCUSSION
5.1 Methodologicalconsiderations
Thepurposeof thispilotstudy wastodevelop and
evaluate a qualitative model forcapturing attitudes
andperceptionamongseafarersthatcanmeasurethe
extenttowhichtheremayexistapossiblepresenceof
a ‘green culture’ within the shipping industry.
Moreover, toidentify factorsthat either facilitate or
act as barriers to a possible green culture. The test
and evaluation of the model is based on a limited
number of individual and focus group interviews.
However, the purpose with this study was not to
drawanygeneralconclusionsonthe
greeningofthe
culture.
There is a possibility during interviews that the
respondentsmightofferanswersandreflectionsthat
put them and/or the companies they represent in a
goodorbadlight.Thishasbeenconsidered,andthe
study has strived for a critical approach in the
analysis of the empirical
data. The study is further
limited by its clear Swedish focus with the
boundaries set by prevailing national and regional
regulationsandconditions.Furthermore,sincemany
of the major legislative instruments are set and
enforced on a global arena, and that several
respondentsworkedonotherflagsthanSwedish,the
resultsmayberelevantalsooutsideSweden.
508
5.2 Generaldiscussionandsuggestionsforfuturework
This pilot study presents the CLEC‐model as an
analysismodelthat seemsto beable tocapture the
sought‐aftermechanisms;barriersandfacilitatorsof
‘green’ culture, which has been illustrated in point
4.5to4.8(seefigure3).
Figure3. Illustrating the functioning of the CLEC‐model
basedonquotesduringtestingofthemodel.
Thispaper,doesfurthersuggestthatthefirstlevel
(i) of analysis is robust i.e. the division of the data
into the four aspects of Commitments, Learning,
Empowerment and Communication appears
effective.
In order to reach maturity of the date it is
necessarytoexpandthispilotstudytoincludemore
interviews. Forinstance, therewere no respondents
representingthetechnicalorcateringdepartments.It
is also desirable to include more respondents from
theliquidbulksegment,workingonoilandchemical
tankers
In order to properly reflect an organisational
culture it is also vital to acquire data from those
working
inthe shore‐basedpart ofthe organisation
suchastechnical,economicalandmanagementstaff.
One limitation of the model might be that it is
based on commitment, learning, empowermentand
communication as input factors, however it is
possiblethatotherfactorsmightalsoprovideinputat
level (i). One such
factor might be environmental
deterring enforcement practices. It is possible to
considerthisinfuturestudies,although,inthispilot
studyitwas notconsidered.Strengthsofthemodel
seemtobethehighlevelofsystematisationmakingit
easy to reproduce. It also seems to be possible to
measure
safety‐oriented quotes against environ‐
mental‐orientedquotesinthesamemilieu,i.e.cluster
atlevel(ii)andthenidentifygapsatlevel(iii).
6 CONCLUSION
A model that can measure green culture in a
shipping company has been developed and tested.
TheCLEC‐modelhasitsscientificbasis withintheory
coming from work organisations, organisational
culture,andhumanresourcemanagement.Concepts
havealsobeenusedfromthescientificfieldofsafety
culture.
This pilot study, as it was designed, has further
providedsomesuggestionsastowhichfactorsmight
act as barriers and facilitators to the creation of a
green
culture.Basedonthelimitedempiricdataused
toevaluatethemodel,thefacilitatorswererelatedto:
sharing of information and also actively requiring
information. One neutral factor was found: ignored
information.Regardingbarrierstoa‘green’cultureit
was possible to identify factors such as: ignored
messenger, hided information, avoided
responsibility, and a focus on accountability,
supporting previous research in this area. Further
work is needed, using the developed model, to
approachtheconceptofan‘environmental’culturein
the shipping industry.The contribution of this
paperonlyprovidesthegroundworkofwhatmight
beaviabletoolto
befurtherdeveloped.
ACKNOWLEDGE
A special thanks goes to all seafarer that voluntary
participatedandsharedtheirexperiences,thisstudy
hadnotbeen possiblewithoutyou.Thisresearch
was funded by Linnaeus University, the Swedish
Mercantile Marine Foundation and the Rederi AB
Gotland.
REFERENCES
Angell, L. C., & Klassen, R. D., (1999). Integrating
EnvironmentalIssuesintotheMainstream:AnAgenda
for Research in Operations Management’, Journal of
OperationsandProductionManagement,11(3):63–76.
Cariou,P.(2011).Isslowsteamingasustainablemeansof
reducing CO2 emissions from container shipping?
Trans‐portation Research Part D: Transport
and
Environment,16(3),260‐264.
Cordano, M., & Frieze, I. H., (2000). Pollution Reduction
PreferencesofU.S.EnvironmentalManagers:Applying
Ajzen’s Theory of Planned Behavior’, Academy of
ManagementJournal,43(4):627–41.
Fernández, E., Junquera, B., & Ordiz, M., (2003).
Organizational culture and human resources in the
environmental issue: a review
of the literature. The
InternationalJournalofHumanResourceManagement,
14(4),pp.634–656.
Ferraro,G.,etal.,(2009).Longtermmonitoringofoilspills
in European seas. International Journal of Remote
Sensing,30(3),pp.627–645.
Giziakis, C., & Christodoulou, A., (2012). Environmental
awareness and practice concerning maritime air
emissions: the case of the
Greek shipping industry.
MaritimePolicy&Management,39(3),353‐368.
Guldenmund, F. W., (2010). (Mis)understanding Safety
Culture and Its Relationship to Safety Management.
Riskanalysis?:anofficialpublicationoftheSocietyfor
RiskAnalysis,30(10),pp.1466–80.
509
Handfield, et al., (2001). Integrating Environmental
Concerns into the Design Process: The Gap between
TheoryandPractice,IEEETransactionsonEngineering
Management,18(2),189–208.
Harris,C.,Lloyd,C.,&Crane,A.,(2002).Thegreeningof
organizational culture: Management views on the
depth, degree and diffusion of change, Journal of
Organizational Change
Management, 15(3), pp.214 –
234.
Hart,S.L., (1995). A Natural Resource‐BasedViewof the
Firm, Academy of Management Review, 20(4), 986–
1014.
Hjelle, H. M., & Fridell, E., (2012). When is Short Sea
Shipping Environmentally Competitive?,
Environmental Health‐EmergingIssuesand Practice,
Prof.JacquesOosthuizen(Ed.),ISBN:978‐953
‐307‐854‐
0.
Hjorth,F.,(2013).SafetyCultureintheBalticSea:Astudy
of Maritime Safety, Safety Culture and Working
Conditions Aboard Vessels, Marine Navigation and
Safety of Sea Transportation: STCW, Maritime
EducationandTraining(MET),HumanResourcesand
Crew Manning, Maritime Policy, Logistics and
Economic Matters Weintrit, Adam
& Neumann,
Tomasz(Ed.),(pp.233‐241),Leiden:CRCPress.
Hudson, P., (2007). Implementing a safety culture in a
majormulti‐national.SafetyScience,45(6),pp.697–722.
Kongsvik,T.O.,Storkersen,K.V.,&Antonsen,S.,(2013).
The relationship between regulation, safety
managementsystemsandsafetycultureinthemaritime
industry.Safety,
ReliabilityandRiskAnalysis:Beyond
theHorizon,467.
Kitzinger,J.(1995).QualitativeResearch:Introducingfocus
groups.BritishMedicalJournal,311(7000),299.
Krueger,R.,&Casey,M.(2009).Focusgroups:apractical
guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage
Publications.
Kvale,S.(1997).Interviews: an introduction to qualitative
researchinterviewing.
ThousandOaks:Sage.
Lai, K. H., et al., (2011). Green shipping practices in the
shipping industry: Conceptualization, adoption, and
implications. Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
55(6),pp.631–638.
Lambert, S., & Loiselle, C. (2008). Combining individual
interviewsand focus groups toenhancedatarichness.
JournalofAdvancedNursing,62(2),228‐237.
Longva, T.,
et al., (2010). Determining a required energy
efficiencydesignindexlevelfornew shipsbasedon a
cost‐effectiveness criterion. Maritime Policy &
Management,37(2),pp.129–143.
Lun,Y.H. V.,et al., (2013). Greenshippingpractices and
firm performance. Maritime Policy & Management,
41(2),pp.134–148.
Millard,D.,(2011).Managementlearning
andthegreening
of SMEs: Moving beyond problem‐solving, Zeitschrift
fürPersonalforschung,25(2),pp.178‐195.
Reason, J. (1997). Managing the Risks of Organizational
Accidents.London:Ashgate.?
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A., (1997). ‘A Resource‐Based
Perspective on Corporate Environmental Performance
andProfitability’,AcademyofManagementJournal,40:
534–59.
Saharuddin, A., Osnin, A. & Balaji, R., (2012). Human
Factors as Causes for Shipboard Oil Pollution
Violations. International jurnal on Marine Navigation
andSafetyofSeaTransport,6(1),pp.93–99.
Sanderlands, G., (1994) ‘3M Find Brass in Muck’,
ManagementDecision,32(5),63–4.
Smith,T.W.P.etal.,(2014).ThirdIMO
GHGStudy2014,
InternationalMaritimeOrganization(IMO)London.
Westrum, R., 2004. A typologyof organisational cultures.
Quality&safetyinhealthcare,13(2),pp.ii22–i27.
Westrum, R., (2014). The study of information flow: A
personaljourney.SafetyScience,67,pp.58–63.
Wuisan, L., et al., (2012). Greening international shipping
throughprivategovernance:
AcasestudyoftheClean
ShippingProject.MarinePolicy,36(1),pp.165–173.
