Emerging Port Authority communication strategies: Assessing the determinants of disclosure in the...

Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 134–147

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Business & Management

Emerging Port Authority communication strategies: Assessing the determinants ofdisclosure in the annual report

Francesco Parola a,⁎, Giovanni Satta b, Lara Penco b, Giorgia Profumo b

a University of Naples “Parthenope”, Department of Business Studies, Via Generale Parisi 13, 80132 Naples, Italyb University of Genoa, Department of Economics and Management, Via Vivaldi 5, 16126 Genoa, Italy

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 010 209 5071; faxE-mail addresses: [email protected]

[email protected] (G. Satta), lpenco@[email protected] (G. Profumo).

2210-5395/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Allhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.04.005

a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 18 November 2012Received in revised form 26 April 2013Accepted 29 April 2013Available online 25 May 2013

Keywords:New public managementStrategyPort AuthorityCommunication

Following the profound environmental changes and the growing complexity of public–private interactions in trans-port chains, new managerial and governance practices have been introduced by Port Authorities (PAs) in manycountries. The redesigning of governance mechanisms deeply transformed both the content and formulation pro-cess of PA strategies, in conformity with a more managerial orientation and a private-sector focus.Indeed, leading PAs pursued aggressive growth strategies aiming at exploiting business opportunities andexpanding their international reputation and visibility, and reinforced their relationships with those stake-holders which may deeply affect the ultimate success of the port. The achievement of such objectives, requir-ing a large amount of resources, often needs the adoption of innovative forms of communications in terms ofnew media and disclosed contents.Focusing on PA disclosed topics, and performing a content analysis on the annual reports of 38 sampled PAs,this paper addresses the emerging relevance of disclosure in PAs and aims to: i) analyze the content of cor-porate communication; ii) measure the innovativeness of the disclosure; and iii) investigate its potential de-terminants. The empirical findings provide insightful responses for achieving a deeper understanding of thereasons triggering public institutions to innovate their communication to public and private stakeholders.

© 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Over the last 30 years, a wave of public sector management re-forms has provoked a profound institutional turn both in advancedeconomies and developing countries. The role and institutional im-print of the state and other public entities (e.g., municipality, region,etc.) have been under pressure to be more market-oriented, initiallyin developed nations and then also in some developing countries sup-ported by leading international organizations (e.g., InternationalMonetary Fund, World Bank, etc.).

These transformations are the result of a number of drivers, basicallyascribable to the progressive economic and fiscal crises of the state,questioning the sustainability of the active public involvement in eco-nomic activities (Stewart & Walsh, 1992). These new practices andtechniques inspired to private logics have commonly been labeledNew Public Management (NPM) or new managerialism. The notion ofNPM has evolved over time and has deserved the attention of manyscholars (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011; Wollmann, 2003). Indeed, the cen-tral feature of NPM is the attempt to introduce and favor across publicservices both the performance incentives and the market-oriented

: +39 010 2095088.t (F. Parola),ia.unige.it (L. Penco),

rights reserved.

vision which are widespread in a private environment, establishingnew managerial and organizational practices (Metcalfe & Richards,1990).

Therefore, NPM has become popular shorthand for defining alargely similar administrative doctrine, capturing most of the organi-zational, managerial and strategic changes taking place in the publicservices (Dunleavy & Hood, 1994). Indeed, a review of the literaturesuggests that NPM is not a homogenous whole, as it unveils severaloverlapping elements belonging to diverse reform trends (Aucoin,1990; Ferlie, Pettigrew, Ashburner, & Fitzgerald, 1996; Flynn, 1993;Pollitt, 2007) in various economic, political and organizational domains.

Moreover, in recent years some authors questioned the transitorynature of NPM along the evolution and reform of public administrationand introduced the concept of New Public Governance (NPG), as a newparadigm of public service delivery (Pollitt & Bouckaert, 2011; Savoie,1995). The notion of NPG, indeed, embraces a multi-actor perspectiveand suggests the adoption of a variety of vertical and horizontal mech-anisms linking various actors such as politicians, governmental organi-zation committees and representatives, interest groups and citizens(Osborne, 2010).

In particular, new public managerial and governance practices haveprofoundly transformed and reshaped the organization, themanagerialvision and the strategic attitude of the Port Authority (PA), i.e. a publicinstitution deserving a major role in the development of the globaltrade and the enrichment of nations. Basically, this governing body is

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.04.005

mailto:[email protected]




http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2013.04.005

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/

Source: authors’ own elaboration.

Multiple stakeholders pressure

New Public Management

in PAEmerging strategies

PAStakeholders

PAStrategy

Innovative communication

Legend

Investigated relation

Other relevant relations

Fig. 1. Strategy, stakeholder management and PA innovative communication: concep-tual foundations in a NPM perspective.

135F. Parola et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 134–147

a state, municipal, public or private institution, which is largely respon-sible for the tasks of construction, administration (and sometimes theoperation) of port facilities, and, in certain cases, even for security(World Bank, 2007). The PA is both called to defend the public interestin its own domain, and to develop the port business, by setting strate-gies capable of promoting, attracting, guiding and coordinating privateventures (Ircha, 2001).

PAs have traditionally assumed three typical functions: (i) landlord,(ii) regulator and (iii) operator (Baird, 2000; Baltazar & Brooks, 2001;VanHooydonk, 2003; Verhoeven, 2010).More recently, a forth functionhas emerged, (iv) the so-called “community” or “cluster” manager, aconcept which was introduced and developed by De Langen (2004a,2004b, 2007). This new competence, which is intrinsically linked tothe changing nature of port communities and stakeholders, and relatesboth to economic and social dimensions (Verhoeven, 2010), has drivenPAs to enlarge their strategic focus and intents, in functional and geo-graphic terms.

Moreover, over the last years, PAs have experienced a dramaticwave of changes in governance settings, in response to organizational,operational, and financial criticalities emerged in many ports. Thesechanges, related to the introduction of new managerial practices, havetransformed PAs in players not only active in defending the public inter-est, but also in bodies having a leaner organization, a managerial vision,and a proactive strategic thinking (i.e. new managerialism).

Although the evolution of port institutional framework has a com-mon root at an international scale, the reformprocesswas implementedon a country basis, taking into account the nature, the constraints andthe heritage of local background. As recognized by some authors(Brooks, 2007; Ng& Pallis, 2010), despite the international convergencetowards the landlord concept, often this common shorthand hides awider and heterogeneous spectrum of alternative port managementstructures and ownership models (Brooks, 2007).

Within the academic debate on the heterogeneity of governancemodels, some authors tried to understand the determinants of this di-vergence, emphasizing cross-country differences, and addressed theconsequences of the implementation of alternative management struc-tures and ownership models (Jacobs & Notteboom, 2011; Ng & Pallis,2010). The diverse management and corporate governance mecha-nisms have been found to be affected by the different cultural heritagegenerated by the port and the country background and the diverse na-ture and intensity of PA interactions with local public administrationsand the central government (Brooks, 2007).

Across public administrations, the PA therefore represents an idealfield for evaluating how managerial practices have been differentlyconceived and implemented across various countries. Addressingthe notion of new managerialism in PAs, the heterogeneity of diversenational backgrounds allows to appreciate the strong differences aris-ing in terms of strategic behavior, stakeholder management, andemerging communication strategies.

In literature, however, only a few pioneering attempts have investi-gated the communication strategies of PA decision makers (Pando,Araujo, & Maqueda, 2005), or the most common media used by PAs(Cahoon, 2007). Indeed, these insightful contributions disclose someinherent limitations. First, previous contributions pursue a “partial”approach essentially focused on marketing communication, neglectingother relevant aspects such as institutional communication. Second,the extant literature lacks of a sound theoretical framework outliningthe drivers of the evolving PA orientation towards communication.Finally, the analysis is often limited to a specific geographic area, orfew case studies. These shortcomings call for a deeper investigation onthe contents, the quality of communication and the determinants driv-ing PAs to innovate their disclosure.

In this regard, themanuscript, assuming an exploratory perspective,aims to: 1) analyze the content of PAs' disclosure by applying contentanalysis techniques; 2) measure the innovativeness of communication,developing an ad-hoc disclosure index, and 3) investigate its potential

determinants. This contribution, therefore, attempts to add to the ex-tant literature addressing communication strategies in PA, whose hy-brid nature imposes a deeper investigation of the ways through whicha strong alignment of public and private interests might be achieved(Koppell, 2006; Perry & Rainey, 1988).

Themanuscript is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an exten-sive literature review and develops the research hypotheses. Section 3shows the applied methodology, while Section 4 outlines and discussesthe main findings of the analysis. Finally, Section 5 provides implica-tions for practitioners and academics before concluding.

2. Strategy, stakeholder management and communication: thedeterminants of innovative disclosure

2.1. Multiple stakeholder pressure and emerging strategies: towards aninnovative communication

The growing adoption of new managerial and governance prac-tices in PAs, has been basically triggered by somemajor determinants,including: i) the emergence of “new” external factors, i.e. the prolifer-ation of numerous environmental variables pressing public adminis-trations to adopt radical changes in their own organization and inthe definition of processes and objectives (e.g., security, green issues,new technologies, financial austerity, etc.), ii) the “pace” in markettransformations and innovations, driving public actors to be able torespond proactively, and iii) the environmental complexity derivingfrom the increasing interactions and interdependencies betweenpublic and private actors, as PAs are growingly exposed to interna-tional challenges in terms of regulations, global competition, overseaspartners, etc.

The new environmental setting, in which PA is now called to oper-ate, modified the nature and intensity of the PA relations with themajor groups of stakeholders and prompted profound changes in PAstrategies. The introduction of newmanagerial practices and techniquesin PA organization represented a viaticum for developing new strategicapproaches and proper instruments in order to face changing marketconditions and more dynamic and demanding stakeholders (Fig. 1). Atthe same time, the implementation of new PA strategies and the emer-gence of rising stakeholder pressure lead to newNPM insights, thus im-proving managerial and governance theories and practices.

2.2. Stakeholder pressure on PAs

Environmental and competitive transformations, have induced vari-ous stakeholders to exercise a growing and “multi-directional” influence

136 F. Parola et al. / Research in Transportation Business & Management 8 (2013) 134–147

on PAs (Verhoeven, 2010). This influence basically originates from thepressure ofmarket players, such as carriers, terminal operators and logis-tics operators, the interactions with government and local public admin-istrations, and the pressure of societal groups of interests. The abovechanges are not just related to the emerging typologies of stakeholdersbut, more importantly, refer to the intensity and the frequency ofinteractions.

As a result, port administration is expected to be involved in a largenumber of matters and to deal with several forces (Van Den Bosch,Hollen, Volberda, & Baaij, 2011): i) the increasing bargaining power ofport users, i.e. ocean carriers and global stevedores; ii) a greater atten-tion to environmental, sustainability and security issues, and more ingeneral, to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR); iii) the need of a largeramount of financial resources for new investments which also impliesinternational tendering procedures; and iv) the involvement of emerg-ing stakeholders (e.g., inland terminals, logistics providers, etc.), actingwithin the transport chain, which require the PA to engage in a greaterlevel of co-ordination activity (De Langen, 2004a, 2004b; Van der Horst& De Langen, 2008; Verhoeven, 2010).

2.3. Emerging strategic avenues

The effective implementation of NPM and NPG doctrines in PAs andthe need of managing a variety of stakeholders, have triggered these hy-brid institutions (Billis, 2010; Brandsen & Karré, 2011) to progressivelyredefine their strategic behavior, their objectives and the way of achiev-ing them. The leading academic literature, in fact, has attempted to iden-tify, classify and conceptualize the main emerging strategic intentspursued by PAs (Baltazar & Brooks, 2007; De Langen, 2004a, 2004b;Goss, 1990; Heaver, Meersman, & Van de Voorde, 2001; Notteboom,2007; Notteboom & Rodrigue, 2005; Notteboom & Winkelmans, 2001;Slack, 2001; Verhoeven, 2010; Wang, Ng, & Olivier, 2004). Innovativestrategic avenues paved by leading PAs include: i) “facilitator” strategy,driving PA to promote and incentivize successful business relationshipsamong the different private actors of the supply chain (De Langen,2004a, 2004b); ii) hinterland strategy, for strengthening the positioningof the port within the overall transport chain (Van den Berg & DeLangen, 2011; Van der Horst & De Langen, 2008); iii) co-operative strat-egy at various scales, both in relation with neighboring ports and “fore-land” ports (Caballini, Carpaneto, & Parola, 2009; Slack, Gouvernal, &Debrie, 2009); iv) “inward internationalization” strategy at home(Björkman & Kock, 1997; Luo & Tung, 2007), by attracting global privateplayers transferring organizational andmanagerial skills and know-how;v) outward internationalization strategy by setting overseas representa-tive offices, realizing FDIs and joint projects (De Langen, 2004a, 2004b;Verhoeven, 2010); vi) green strategy for safeguarding the environmentand making the growth sustainable (Coto-Millán, Mateo-Mantecón,Quesada, Panela, & Pesquera, 2010; Psaraftis & Kontovas, 2010); vii) safe-ty and security strategy for being respectful of international norms andregulations and building a positive image and a solid reputation(Bichou, 2004; Parola & Coppola, 2011; Talley, 2002); viii) innovativemarketing and communication strategy for sharing a greater amount ofinformation with major stakeholders and attracting inward foreign in-vestments (Cahoon, 2007; Pando et al., 2005).

2.4. Innovative communication strategies: media and contents

PAs willing to pursue complex and challenging strategic objectiveshave to collect a variety of resources (e.g. financial resources, humanskills, public and private consensus, etc.), which also require the activecontribution of the different stakeholders. Under this viewpoint, the in-troduction of new and innovative communication strategies supportsPAs inmanaging the different expectations and interests of various stake-holders, in order to attain consensus and attract the resources required byPA's strategies (Notteboom&Winkelmans, 2002;Wang et al., 2004). Theinnovativeness of communicationmay rely on twomajor underpinnings,

i.e. the adoption of new media and the disclosure of additional contentsreaching beyond the traditional ones.

As a result the duty and accountability of disclosing information tostakeholders, are becoming a common obligation for port managers,who are called to satisfy new laws and regulations. At the same time, in-deed, port executives are increasingly conscious of the relevance ofcommunication contents and therefore they are also inclined to addressnon-mandatory themes of corporate disclosure. In fact, the disclosure isnot limited anymore to operational throughput and infrastructural en-dowment, but it is extended to economic and financial performanceand even to ethical, social and environmental issues. This adjustmentimplies the introduction of suitable tools aiming at fulfilling the new in-formative requirements arising from external relations; in this regard,some corporate social audit models have been already introduced invarious ports.

In re-shaping and re-organizing their relations with leading stake-holders, PAs are targeting more effective forms of communicationthrough internet, events, hardcopy reports, etc. The range of availablePA actions is widening and may include advertising, direct mailing, in-ternational exhibitions, seaport days and direct business trips, the useof overseas sales representatives, domestic networking, school visits,the organization of conferences, the creation of a seaport education cen-ter and many others (Cahoon, 2007; Mester, 1991).

The advent of the Internet and the diffusion of corporate websitesprovided a notable low-cost opportunity for disclosing operational, fi-nancial performance andmajor port-related events. Althoughmany sea-ports have their ownwebsite, they tend to focus on the needs of seaportusers, disregarding the potential for positive public relations. A numberof larger seaports are beginning to provide online documents such as an-nual reports and other publications, while themost innovative ports arealso using the website to provide the general public with educationalmaterials about the seaport, and the maritime industry.

In the past, hard-copy communication, if available, was often issuedirregularly over time. Its contents, disclosed rather dis-homogeneouslyacross various ports, weremostly focused on aspects such as: geograph-ical location, competitive positioning respect to competitors, infra-structural endowment, inland and maritime connections and majorport users. Moreover, operational performance, i.e., throughput andincoming/outgoing vessels, was usually emphasized. In other words,the communication, fragmented and heterogeneous, was basically ori-ented to “hard” operating factors rather than innovation (ISO certifica-tions, technology, etc.), corporate relations/networking (shareholdersand CSR), etc. In many cases, the financial statement was even absentin annual reporting, thus hiding information about investments, profitsand losses, assets, sources of funding and, more importantly, economicand financial performance of PA.

2.5. The determinants of innovation in communication: conceptualfoundations and research hypotheses

As discussed earlier, PAs represent a fruitful field for investigatinghow institutional transformations have influenced communication,not only just in operational and financial terms but also in relationto CSR. The variety of PA stakeholders, in fact, requires a multi-facetapproach in diversifying the contents of communication. Therefore,the variety of contents disclosed by PA is usually taken as a proxy ofthe overall quality of corporate disclosure.

PAs, however, provided different responses to the on-going environ-mental and competitive transformations. In particular, only some PAs,decided to exploit communication strategies as a potential critical suc-cess factor in a long-term perspective, leveraging on the innovativenessof disclosure. Basically, this not only may be the consequence of the di-verse competitiveness and strategic aggressiveness of the port itself, butalso it could be the result of a different orientation to new public prac-tices in terms of managerial and governance settings, or the diverse


nature and intensity of PA interactions with public and privatestakeholders.

2.6. Port market and competitiveness

In the last decades, ports have witnessed a substantial increase incompetition, due to technological and organizational innovations andthe emergence of powerful international players, such as ocean car-riers and terminal operators (Fleming & Baird, 1999; Notteboom &Winkelmans, 2001; Parola & Musso, 2007). Indeed, major portshave to dealwith a growing environmental complexity and competitivepressure (Heaver, 1995; Slack, 1985). In these ports, criticalities relatedto public–private interactions, local vs. global interests/pressures, aswell as green and security issues, have assumed a remarkable emphasisand deserved the attention of port managers. In this regard, leadingports must be able to effectively communicate to stakeholders, inorder to support their strategic choices and differentiate themselvesfrom competitors (Tongzon & Heng, 2005). In addition, PAs located in“peripheral” or marginal markets, i.e. belonging to countries whichunveil a lower maritime connectivity, should be inclined to adopt inno-vative forms of communication, even on a voluntary basis, in order tobridge the gapwith competitors and increase their international visibil-ity. Such PAs are triggered to provide more information on corporatestrategies and performance in order to reinforce their international vis-ibility and reputation. Besides, PAs located in countries that previouslyopened their stevedoring market to foreign investors, are more eagerto innovate their disclosure, as they exploit their experience and famil-iarity with incoming overseas firms in a liberalized market. Consistentwith Pando et al. (2005), we therefore hypothesize that:

H1.1. The bigger the port size, the higher the innovativeness of PAcommunication.

H1.2. The lower the maritime connectivity of the country, the higherthe innovativeness of PA communication.

H1.3. PAs located in a country that liberalized the stevedoring marketin the past are more inclined to innovate their communication.

2.7. Managerial and governance factors

Following the widespread adoption of NPM and NPG principles,many governments have pursued the devolution of port management,i.e. the introduction of private involvement and investment in portfunctions (e.g., stevedoring, etc.) (Baltazar & Brooks, 2001, 2007), andthe reform of the Port Authority organization towards a more autono-mous and commercial approach to the management of port operations(Brooks, 2007). The evolving budgets and financial control to spendingunits gave portmanagers increased control over budgets for which theyare responsible.

The establishment of new forms of corporate governance (landlordmodel) often led to the application of the board of directors' model(Ferlie et al., 1996), which makes the directors responsible for and heldaccountable for port planning and performance. In this regard, the corpo-ratization of the PA further enhanced the efficiency of the public admin-istration, introducing a business-like environment (Ng & Pallis, 2010).

After the reform, the progressive implementation of newmanagerialand governance practices in landlord PAs, facilitated the adoption ofmore aggressive business strategies and required more innovativeforms of disclosure for awaking stakeholders to corporate performance,environmental issues, port economic impact, etc. Therefore, it is worthto investigate the role of managerial and corporate factors in guidingPA to undertake innovative communication strategies for pursuing itsobjectives. Under this profile, the reform spirit of the managerial trans-formation should lead the “essence” to prevail on themere “form” in thenew institutional settings. In particular, the introduction of the board, as

a part of the corporatization choice, should favor the adoption of strate-gic and managerial tools (e.g. strategic plan, business plan, etc.), whosecontents often have to be communicated to relevant stakeholders, thusfostering the innovativeness of PA disclosure. Nevertheless, the intro-duction of a board may facilitate a more managerial orientation of thePA strategic behavior, if more technical (andmarket oriented) logics re-ally prevail on political pressures in the appointment of directors. Underthis perspective, a more restricted and managerial board may reason-ably drive to award a greater attention to communication on PA strate-gy and performance.

Analogously, in principle a PA holding a longer experience after thecorporatization process should be expected to havemore remarkable or-ganizational and managerial competences. Nonetheless, we may alsoargue that PAs, which embraced the corporatization process at a laterstage, were required to accelerate the adoption of aggressive and innova-tive communication strategies, in order to fill the gap with competitors.

Finally, as the effectiveness of the PA management is basicallyguided by the “essence” of the actual governance transformationsand not simply by the setting up of new formal rules, we may reason-ably argue that a PA regularly issuing external formal documents tostakeholders (e.g., annual report) does not necessarily unveil a moreinnovative disclosure. What is relevant, in fact, is not the habit of pro-ducing informative documents but their contents and quality. There-fore, we hypothesize that:

H2.1. The lower the number of executive members in the board of di-rectors, the higher the innovativeness of PA communication.

H2.2. The lower the experience of the PA after corporatization, thehigher the innovativeness of communication.

H2.3. The number of years since a PA issued an annual report doesnot affect the innovativeness of its disclosure.

2.8. Stakeholders and social impact

Due to profound environmental transformations and emergingcompetitive challenges, the role of PAs has come under multiple pres-sures from a variety of stakeholders (Dooms & Verbeke, 2007), at alocal and global scale (Verhoeven, 2010). Ports having a high interna-tional exposure have in fact to constantly mediate between local andglobal dimensions, by moderating conflicts and fostering economicgrowth within the port community (Notteboom &Winkelmans, 2001).

Locally, the PA has to deal with local public administrations (e.g., mu-nicipality, region, etc.) for organizing the public action and getting finan-cial resources. Moreover, critical interactions may emerge with localcommunities and individual citizens which see the PA as one of the bod-ies responsible for economic development and employment, and also asthe focal point for complaints about negative externalities generated bythe port. Finally, if the port has a wide international focus, the PA dealswith aggressive andpowerfulfirms, such as shipowners and terminal op-erators, asking for efficient port services and new business opportunities.

In other words, PA is called to conjugate the need of local consensusand economic development with global opportunities and challenges(Notteboom & Winkelmans, 2001), as social conditions become a keyissue of the environmental context (Porter & Kramer, 2006).

Therefore, if the governance model implies a strong involvementof local public administrations (even as shareholder) in port affairs,we may guess a PA disclosure effectively oriented to stakeholders,i.e. a highly innovative PA communication, for legitimizing its behav-ior and choices. Similar arguments may be addressed if port activitieslargely affect local community development. PA, in fact, is expectedto inform local population on the port economic impact and thepolicies adopted for reducing negative externalities (Meersman, Vande Voorde, & Vanelslander, 2006). Moreover, strategic conversationsmay reduce the critical gaps in perceptions between port managers


and relevant stakeholders (Miles, Munilla, & Darroch, 2006). Analo-gously, if the port has an aggressive international focus, the PA iscalled to be innovative in disclosing strategic information to currentusers and potential investors. Consistent with such arguments, wehypothesize that:

H3.1. PAs having a local public entity as dominant stakeholder reveala higher innovativeness of disclosure.

H3.2. The higher the social impact of the port operations, the higherthe innovativeness of communication.

H3.3. The ports hosting a higher number of international terminaloperators reveal a higher innovativeness of disclosure.

Fig. 2 shows the above mentioned objectives, the methodology andthe research hypotheses this contribution is willing to test. In particular,in order to analyze PA communication on aquantitative base (research ob-jective 1), a content analysis has been performed and the theoreticalframework underpinning the analysis has been defined. As concern thesecond research objective (i.e. the definition of a synthetic index to mea-sure the innovativeness of PA communication), content analysis outputsenhanced to define an ad hoc index related to PA disclosure. Afterwards,the above index has been assumed as dependent variable in the linear re-gressionmodel in order to investigate the determinants of the innovative-ness of PA communication (research objective 3). The manuscript, indeed,challenges the impact of corporate governance drivers, stakeholders andmarket dynamics on the innovativeness of the annual disclosure.

3. Data and method

3.1. Sample

The dataset has been gathered following a three-phase collectionprocess, ensuring accuracy and consistency of the empirical findings.

MEDIA AND INSTRUMENTS

2. Definthe inn

Pc

H1.

Content analysis application

Definition of the theoretical framework for the analysis

Innovative Port Authority communication strategies

1. Analyze Port Authority communication content on a

quantitative and methodological base

Objectives

Method

Hypotheses

Fig. 2. Objectives, meth

First, top 125 container ports have been selected from the worldranking disclosed by the American Association of Port Authorities(AAPA). The competitiveness in the container business has beenchosen as a discriminant factor as those PAs playing a major role inthis market segment have to deal with a multitude of stakeholders asthey are inserted in complex and cross-border supply chains. Therefore,these ports normally reveal a moremarket-oriented attitude and a pro-active managerial behavior in communicating goals, strategies and per-formance. Second, we selected those ports publishing on their ownwebsite the annual report or other similar reports issued on a yearlybasis. If more than one report was published by the same port, the dif-ferent documents have been combined together and the relative con-tents were merged. Third, the final sample was extracted by excludingreports in Chinese (mandarin), Spanish and Portuguese and it is madeup of 38 landlord PAs located in 18 countries (see Appendix 1). Datahave been collected with reference to the fiscal year 2010. Indeed, thesampling procedure allowed to obtain a high degree of completenessand consistency for all the selected PAs.

3.2. Method

In order to investigate the innovativeness of communication and itsdeterminants, the study performs a content analysis on the annual re-ports of selected landlord PAs. The application of the “content analysis”techniques in maritime and port economics represents a new method,although a few relevant contributions have already disclosed a taxono-my and a content analysis of port studies published in the period 1997–2008 (Pallis, Vitsounis, De Langen, & Notteboom, 2011).

The study has been performed by analyzing corporate annualreports, integrated, where possible, by green reports, sustainability re-ports and other documents allowing to investigate firm-orientationtowards CSR and other innovative themes. In fact, aswidely recognized,the annual report is a key tool for external communication (Tilt, 1994),because of its high self-reliance. Indeed, although the annual reportrepresents a traditional disclosure document in private organizations

CONTENT

e a synthetic index to measure ovativeness of Port Authority

communication

3. Investigate the determinants of the innovativeness of Port Authority communication

H.3H.1

ort market and ompetitiveness

H.2

Managerial and governance factors

Stakeholders and social impact

1 H1.2 H1.3 H2.1

Definition of a composite index

Linear regression model

H2.2 H2.3 H3.1 H3.2 H3.3

od and hypotheses.

Table 1Example of sentence decomposition in text units and coding procedure (4 dimensions).

Sentence With more international cruise berthing atSwettenham pier, Penang port aims at achievinghigher and better revenue in the near future.

Decomposition in text units With more international cruise berthing atSwettenham Pier/Penang port aims at achievinghigher and better revenue in the near future.

Text unit no. 1 With more international cruise berthingat Swettenham PierSemantic value STRATTime orientation BACKTypology QUALNature NONFIN

Text unit no. 2 Penang port aims at achieving higherand better revenue in the near future.Semantic value OBJTime orientation FORTypology QUALNature FIN


(e.g. firms, etc.), this type of document has not been widely utilized inthe PA domain yet. Moreover, only recently, a growing number of PAsstarted to produce this disclosure report regularly over time.

First, the “content analysis” method was applied (Krippendorff,1980; Neuendorf, 2002), allowing to deeply examine the varioustopics. Second, proper indicators have been identified for measuringthe different “facets” of innovativeness in PA external communica-tion. Finally, by performing a statistical regression analysis, the man-uscript challenges the impact of port competitiveness, corporategovernance factors and stakeholder interactions on the degree of in-novativeness of PA communication.

The introduction of the content analysis in this study implies theinvolvement of four researchers for 5 months. Data processing wasstaged as follows: i) selection of the text to be examined; ii) prepara-tion of the text and definition of the elementary units of analysis;iii) definition of the conceptual framework for classifying data, develop-ment of the “code tree” and code definition (i.e., code book); iv) assign-ment of the codes to the different text units; and v) evaluation of theinter-coder reliability.

The analyses have been carried out applying the software QDA-Miner(Qualitative Data Analysis-Miner), a package performing non-numericalanalysis of de-structured information, i.e. supporting the coding process,the text search and the elaboration of results.

The text was previously prepared for being elaborated by the soft-ware and then split in text units, which have been coded in relation to4 dimensions of analysis (Beattie, McInnes, & Fearnley, 2004):

a) “semantic value”: articulated in topics and sub-topics, i.e. themeaning of each text unit;

b) “time orientation”: backward (BACK), forward-looking (FOR) andunclear (UNC);

c) “typology”: qualitative (QUAL) and quantitative (QUANT);d) “nature”: financial (FINANC) and non-financial (NONFINANC).

In particular, the “semantic value” is articulated into 10 main topics,further divided into 59 sub-topics. The definition of the classificationtable was initially based on the model proposed by AICPA (1994), i.e.the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, in the Jenkins Re-port. In order to take into account the specificities of PAs, we introducedsome integrations and modifications to the original model proposed byAICPA. In particular, two new topics were defined: a) External factors(EX), describing the major exogenous variables the PA has to dealwith (e.g. law and regulation, political trends, etc.); b) Corporate SocialResponsibility (CSR), aiming to better appreciate the economic, socialand environmental impact on various categories of stakeholders. Topicsand subtopics are shown in Appendix 2.

Table 1 reports an example of sentence decomposition in textunits and of the related coding in the above 4 dimensions, and itdiscloses an instance of code as inserted in the code book.

Considering the inborn subjectivity risk of the content analysismethod, the coders had to carry out a deep verification of the reliabil-ity and consistency of both data and procedures (Krippendorff, 1980;Neuendorf, 2002). The adopted procedure for the coding develop-ment and test ensures a high degree of outcome reliability, as consistentwith Boyatzis's (1998) and Weber's (1985) recommendations, requir-ing classification procedure to be reliable (i.e., different researcherscode the text in the same way) and valid (i.e., the variables originatingfrom the classification procedure correctly representwhat the research-er intended it to represent).

The level of agreement between the different coders involved in theanalysis has been tested by applying both the Free Marginal Adjustmentcoefficient provided by the QDAMiner software – i.e. a very conservativecoefficient, taking into account the chance agreements that occur fromguessing, equivalent to the Jason and Vegelius's (1979) C coefficient –and the Scott's pi coefficient of agreement.

In relation to both coefficients, the agreement scores on the 4dimensions were higher than 0.75, coherently with the acceptance

range (approximately 0.70–0.80) commonly spread in literature(Lombard, Snyder-Duch, & Campanella, 2002; Neuendorf, 2002).

3.3. Variables

The research hypotheses (H1.1–H3.3) have been tested by develop-ing a composite index measuring the innovativeness of corporate dis-closure. This index, i.e. the dependent variable of the adopted linearregression model, has been defined considering two fundamental fea-tures of emerging and innovative communication strategies in ports:i) the quality of the overall disclosure, declined as quantity, heterogene-ity and completeness of communication; ii) the effectiveness of PA dis-closure on CSR, which is considered as an emerging major theme inreformed public institutions and unveils a higher willingness to cementPA relations with stakeholders. Therefore, we define:

IjINN ¼ IjQUAL þ IjCSR� �

=2 ð1Þ

where IQUALj is a synthetic index,measuring the quality of disclosure of thej-th PA and ICSR

j evaluates the specific focus of the j-th PA on CSR themes.As recognized by mainstream literature, the quality of disclosure

represents a complex multi-facet concept, as it can be defined follow-ing various approaches. In this regard, literature appears fragmentedand heterogeneous so far (Hooks, Coy, & Davis, 2002). Therefore,this manuscript proposes a quality index which takes into accountdifferent dimensions of disclosure (e.g., the quantity of the informa-tion, its variety, and its completeness). For this purpose, consistentwith previous studies (Beattie et al., 2004), a 4-level index (IQUALj )has been developed, as follows:

IjQUAL ¼ ∑4

i¼1Qj

i=4 ð2Þ

where Q1j measures the quantity of information provided by the j-th

PA in the Annual Report published on-line; Q2j and Q3

j allow to appre-ciate the content variety in PA communication, respectively in rela-tion to main topics and subtopics; and Q4

j depicts the completenessof disclosure. Further details are given in Appendix 3.

Moreover, ICSRj has been defined as the share of text units coded asCSR on the overall disclosure, normalized respect to the sample.

Finally, IINNj has been further modified by applying a logarithmictransformation, thus obtaining the variable INN-SCORE, whichmeasuresthe innovativeness of PA disclosure, both considering the quality of thedisclosure and the CSR orientation.


Table 2 reveals, instead, the procedure for defining and measuringindependent variables.

Finally, in order to appreciate the role of cultural aspects in shaping PAdisclosure, also the PA country of origin has been addressed, applying theclassification proposed by Gupta, Hanges, and Dorfman (2002), grouping61 nations into 10 distinct clusters. The sample PAs belong to 8 diversecultural clusters, i.e. “Arab cultures”, “Southern Asia”, “Germanic Europe”,“Eastern Europe”, “Anglo cultures”, “Latin America”, “Confucian Asia” and“Latin Europe”.

4. Findings and discussion

4.1. Investigating the contents of Port Authority reports: descriptive statistics

Table 3 shows some descriptive statistics on the major contentanalysis outputs, disclosing the four coding dimensions, i.e. semanticvalue, time orientation, typology and nature.

In the analysis, the 38 documents of PAs involved in the samplehave been split into 18,938 text units, to which 75,752 codes havebeen assigned. Each annual report, on average, is composed by 498text units, corresponding to 1993 codes. The breakdown of the topicdistribution across the 10 categories unveils a fair concentration(54% of the overall text units) in three topics (CSR, FIN, MSI). Empiri-cal findings clearly demonstrate how PAs emphasize innovativethemes which go beyond the traditional contents of communication(e.g., operational and infrastructural data), shifting to economic andfinancial performance (FIN = 20.16%), shareholders information(MSI = 11.08%) and corporate social responsibility (CSR = 23.19%).Considering the total number of text units characterizing the commu-nication of each PA, Sydney, Valencia, Dalian and Xiamen appear themost dynamic ports in terms of quantity of disclosed informationrelated to the most innovative topics. Conversely, focusing on the per-centage of text units, Bremerhaven becomes the most CSR-orientedport (64.59%) while, unsurprisingly, New York/New Jersey andTianjin dominate in financial (FIN = 42.96%) and shareholders-relateddisclosure (MSI = 34.97%) respectively.

The coefficients of variation concerning different variables demon-strate a strong variabilitywithin the sample. In this regard, some relevantcases emerge, i.e. PAs attributing a key relevance to topics ranking belowaverage.

With reference to “time orientation” dimension, the sample PAsdeserve, on average, a predominant attention to backward disclosure(BACK = 83.35%). Nevertheless, some ports assume a different behavior,disclosing more predictive analyses, e.g. Sydney (FOR = 229, number oftext units) and Constantza (FOR = 40%, percentage of text units).

Table 2Definition and operationalization of independent variables.

Group Code Variable O

1. Port market andcompetitiveness

SIZE 1.1. Port size Ti

CONN 1.2. Maritime connectivity of the country LOPEN 1.3. Market opening N

a2. Port management andgovernance

GOVE 2.1. Managerialism in port governancesettings

Nb

CORP 2.2. Market-driven orientation of the PortAuthority

NA

COMM 2.3. PA's formal documents No

3. Stakeholders and socialimpact

STAK 3.1. Relation with local public stakeholders D(t

IMPA 3.2. Potential social impact of port activities(i.e., employment and negative externalities)

Pp

INTE 3.3. International orientation of portconcessionaires

Nc

Unsurprisingly, the content of the disclosure appears substantiallyqualitative and non-financial, accounting both the dimensions foraround two thirds of the text units.

As pointed out by mainstream literature (Jacobs & Notteboom,2011; Ng & Pallis, 2010), despite the international scale of port reformprocesses, forcing public entities towards new managerial practicesand innovative forms of communication, the transformation of differ-ent institutional settings has necessarily taken into account thenature, the constraints and the cultural heritage of specific local back-grounds. Therefore, some analytical cross-country investigations havebeen performed (Ng & Pallis, 2010), in order to better appreciate thediverse implementation of new managerial practices and innovativecommunication strategies (Cahoon, 2007; Marti, 1986; Pando et al.,2005) in PAs.

Indeed, cultural factors are recognized as key antecedents affect-ing both corporate governance options adopted by different PAs,and the contents of their communication strategies. In order to appre-ciate the impact of the cultural dimension on PAs' disclosure, thisanalysis has performed a contingency table exploring the strengthof the relation between the topics included in the annual reportsand the PAs' country of origin. In particular, consistent with previousstudies on cross-cultural factors, the classification proposed by Guptaet al. (2002) was applied, grouping 61 nations into 10 distinct clus-ters. The analysis has been carried out considering the code frequencyrelated to the semantic dimension (specifically at topic level). Afterthe cross-tabulation table has been obtained, Pearson's R associationmeasure was used to assess the relation between the code distribu-tion and the cultural variable (i.e. Gupta cluster). Table 4 unveils theresults of the analysis.

The outcomes clearly outline the explanatory power of culturalvariables in driving PAs attention both towards corporate socialresponsibility (CSR, p-value = 0.015) and shareholders disclosure(MSI, p-value = 0.019).

Fig. 3 gives a more detailed and user-friendly description of theanalyzed phenomena, showing both the correspondence analysisand the heat-map plot.

Correspondence analysis (a) is a descriptive and exploratory tech-nique providing a graphic overview of relationships in large cross-tabulation tables of frequency. Its aim is to show the relation amongall entries in the table, using a low-dimensional Euclidean spacesuch that the locations of the row and column points are consistentwith their associations in the table. Considering the topics (e.g., CSR,MSI, FL, etc.), the more similar the distribution of a code among sub-groups to the total distribution of all codes within subgroups,the closer the code will be to the origin (e.g. FL). Moreover, if two

perationalization Predictedsign

Hypothesis

otal throughput for all commodities (data are expressedn million tonnes)

+ H1.1

iner shipping connectivity index (UNCTAD) − H1.2umber of year from the first investment in the country byforeign container terminal operator

+ H1.3

umber of executive members in the port committee/oard of directors

− H2.1

umber of years from the corporatization of the Portuthority (if applicable)

− H2.2

umber of years from the first Annual Report publishedn-line

// H2.3

ominant public stakeholder in relation to the PA bodyi.e., local vs. national). If local stakeholders are dominanthe value is 1, otherwise is 0.

+ H3.1

opulation living in the port city (expressed in '000eople)

+ H3.2

umber of international container port operators acting asoncessionaires in the port

+ H3.3

Table 3The content of Port Authority disclosure: descriptive statistics.

Number of text units Percentage of text units

Number Mean St. Dev. cv Min Max Percentage Mean St. Dev. cv Min Max

Value Port Authority Value Port Authority Value Port Authority Value Port Authority

Semantic valuePD — Port description 890.00 23.42 26.67 1.14 0.00 Auckland 115.00 Barcelona 4.70% 4.83% 4.63% 0.96 0.00% Auckland 22.17% ConstanzaBD — Business description 1014.00 26.68 18.19 0.68 3.00 Hampton Roads 79.00 Dalian 5.35% 6.02% 3.62% 0.60 0.67% Bremerhaven 17.86% ZeebruggeEX — External factors 1197.00 31.50 24.61 0.78 0.00 Auckland 88.00 New York (NY–NJ) 6.32% 6.17% 4.20% 0.68 0.00% Auckland 16.80% PiraeusMSI — Management and Shareh. info. 2099.00 55.24 71.32 1.29 0.00 Savannah 343.00 Xiamen 11.08% 9.33% 8.14% 0.87 0.00% Savannah 34.97% TianjinCSR — Corporate Social Responsability 4392.00 115.58 94.02 0.81 8.00 Zeebrugge 328.00 Valencia 23.19% 24.38% 16.49% 0.68 2.02% Tianjin 64.59% BremerhavenIS — Industry Structure 1402.00 36.89 26.11 0.71 0.00 Auckland 127.00 Dalian 7.40% 8.51% 6.46% 0.76 0.00% Auckland 35.71% ZeebruggeBOS — Broad Objectives and Strategies 1562.00 41.11 31.91 0.78 5.00 Zeebrugge 155.00 Sydney 8.25% 8.64% 4.31% 0.50 1.69% Miami 17.80% AucklandFL — Forward Looking Information 1515.00 39.87 29.73 0.75 3.00 Auckland 143.00 Sydney 8.00% 8.11% 3.74% 0.46 2.54% Auckland 20.00% ConstantzaSO — Scale of Operation 1049.00 27.61 24.33 0.88 1.00 Tacoma 98.00 Valencia 5.54% 5.86% 3.98% 0.68 0.27% Tacoma 22.44% Marseille FosFIN — Financial Information 3818.00 100.47 93.54 0.93 0.00 Bremerhaven 352.00 Xiamen 20.16% 18.14% 14.67% 0.81 0.00% Bremerhaven 42.96% New York (NY–NJ)

Time orientationBACK 15,829.00 416.55 251.88 0.60 103.00 Zeebrugge 928.00 Valencia 83.58% 83.35% 7.27% 0.09 58.26% Constantza 94.70% ManilaFOR 2828.00 74.42 54.28 0.73 8.00 Zeebrugge 229.00 Sydney 14.93% 14.96% 6.66% 0.45 4.24% Manila 40.00% ConstantzaUNC 281.00 7.39 14.08 1.90 0.00 Xiamen 77.00 Piraeus 1.48% 1.69% 3.39% 2.01 0.00% Xiamen 20.53% Piraeus

TypologyQUAL 12,563.00 330.61 203.96 0.62 59.00 Marseille Fos 877.00 Sydney 66.34% 66.61% 11.18% 0.17 37.70% Jacksonville 86.19% BremerhavenQUANT 6375.00 167.76 108.13 0.64 23.00 Zeebrugge 391.00 Dalian 33.66% 33.39% 11.18% 0.33 13.81% Bremerhaven 62.30% Jacksonville

NatureNONFIN 12,384.00 325.89 220.59 0.68 59.00 Hampton Roads 962.00 Valencia 65.39% 69.10% 24.70% 0.36 22.78% Hampton Roads 100.00% ZeebruggeFINANC 6554.00 172.47 163.61 0.95 0.00 Zeebrugge 584.00 Dalian 34.61% 30.90% 24.70% 0.80 0.00% Zeebrugge 77.22% Hampton RoadsText Unit 18,938.00 498.37 295.44 0.59 112.00 Zeebrugge 1163.00 Sydney 100.00%Codes 75,752.00 1993.47 1181.77 0.59 448.00 Zeebrugge 4652.00 Sydney

141F.Parola

etal./

Researchin

TransportationBusiness

&Managem

ent8(2013)

134–147

Table 4Cross-tabulation analysis by code frequency investigating the relation between topics and cultural origin.

Arab cultures Southern Asia Germanic Europe Eastern Europe Anglo cultures Latin America Confucian Asia Latin Europe Pearson's R p Value

PD 0.90% 2.60% 5.50% 8.90% 3.90% 1.50% 1.70% 9.80% −0.156 0.174BD 4.30% 6.90% 5.20% 4.80% 4.60% 8.80% 5.40% 7.00% 0.13 0.217EX 2.20% 6.20% 5.80% 13.20% 6.60% 4.00% 6.50% 5.10% −0.007 0.483MSI 21.70% 11.10% 6.70% 12.20% 7.30% 1.50% 27.30% 7.90% 0.354 0.015CSR 7.40% 16.80% 33.90% 4.30% 25.90% 22.30% 9.40% 28.40% −0.338 0.019IS 5.30% 8.40% 8.20% 4.10% 6.80% 10.20% 7.20% 8.80% 0.019 0.454BOS 6.20% 10.80% 9.80% 9.10% 8.00% 14.60% 4.50% 10.20% −0.068 0.341FL 10.50% 6.80% 9.70% 11.90% 8.20% 6.90% 6.40% 6.90% −0.078 0.321SO 4.30% 5.70% 4.70% 4.60% 4.40% 12.00% 5.10% 9.60% 0.105 0.266FIN 37.20% 24.70% 10.50% 26.80% 24.20% 18.20% 26.40% 6.30% 0.176 0.146


codes have similar distributions among subgroups of the independentvariable (i.e. Gupta cluster), their corresponding points in the plotwill be close together (e.g. IS and BD). Conversely, interpreting the rela-tions among subgroups, the more particular a profile of coding for aGupta subgroup is, compared with the distribution of the topic codesfor the entire sample, the more distant this Gupta subgroup will befrom the point of origin (e.g. Confucian Asia). If two Gupta subgroupshave similar profiles of coding (topics), they will be plotted close toeach other (e.g. Southern Asia and Anglo cultures). Finally, taking intoaccount the relations between topic and cultural subgroups, while thedistance between codes and subgroups has no statistical significance,the angle between code point and a subgroup point from the origin isstatistically significant. In fact, an acute angle unveils a positive correla-tion between a code and a subgroup, while an obtuse angle (around180°) predicts a negative correlation between the two characteristics.

The heat-map plot (b), instead, is a graphic representation ofcrosstab tables where relative frequencies are represented by differ-ent color brightness/tones and on which a clustering algorithm is ap-plied to reorder rows and/or columns. This exploratory data analysistool facilitates the identification of functional relationships betweentopic codes and cross cultural variables.

Unsurprisingly, Confucian Asian ports disclosed a high orientationto communicate shareholder information, as in several casesthese bodies have been corporatized and listed on the domesticstock exchange. Conversely, ports belonging to Anglo cultures, appearfocused on forward-looking information and, to a lower extent, onCSR concepts, while Latin ports are anchored to basic content catego-ries, including port location, infra and superstructures, etc. Finally,ports belonging to the Germanic Europe cluster appear focused onpublic–private stakeholders and CSR issues.

a

PD

CSR

BOS

SO

IS

BD

FL EX

FIN

Latin Europe

Germanic Europe

Latin America

Anglo cultures

Southern Asia

Eastern Europe

Fig. 3. Correspondence analysis

4.2. The antecedents of innovation in Port Authority disclosure

Aiming to test hypotheses H1.1–H3.3, as defined in Section 2.2, alinear regression model has been performed focusing on the determi-nants of the innovativeness of PA disclosure. Table 5 reports thecorrelation matrix relative to the variables of the model, includingalso common descriptive statistics. The analysis conducted demon-strates that multicollinearity does not constitute a critical issue, asboth the tolerance and the variance inflation factors (VIF) are withinthe range commonly accepted in literature (Johnston, 1984).

The sample PAs unveil an average container throughput of3.511 million TEUs, their board is composed by around nine executivedirectors (mean). These PAs, on average, have undertaken the corpo-ratization process approximately 28.5 years ago, while have startedto disclose regular annual reports on their websites six years ago.

Table 6 shows the output of the linear regression model performedon the innovativeness of PA communication (INN-SCORE) in order totest and validate hypotheses H1.1–H3.3.

The regressionmodel includes three groups of independent variables:i) portmarket and competitiveness (SIZE, CONN andOPEN), ii)manageri-al and governance factors (GOVE, CORP and COMM), and iii) stakeholdersand social impact (STAK, IMPA and INTE).

The model presents a fair global significance (F-statistic = 2.918818,p-value = 0.014295); coefficients α2 and α3 (p-value b 0.01), α1, α5,and α7 (p-value b 0.05) are highly significant, coefficient α9 has alower level of significance (p-value b 0.1), while intercept (α0) and coef-ficients α4, α6 and α8 are not significant.

In particular, with reference to portmarket and competitiveness fac-tors, coefficient α1 (SIZE) is significant and correctly signed, confirmingH1.1. The regression model output states that PAs managing larger

MSI

Confucian Asia

Arab cultures

b

(a) and heat-map plot (b).

Table 5Mean, standard deviation and correlation matrix.

Mean St. Dev. INN-SCORE SIZE CONN OPEN GOVE CORP COMM STAK IMPA INTE

INN-SCORE −0.02841 0.51041 1SIZE 3511.94363 4415.97399 0.271485 1CONN 72.63034 32.92743 0.005650 0.403980 1OPEN 27.31579 14.19575 0.219745 −0.204367 0.224340 1GOVE 8.94737 5.07749 0.143279 −0.042360 −0.124525 0.127350 1CORP 28.47368 32.46931 −0.179602 −0.191685 0.120322 0.341868 0.084419 1COMM 6.13158 3.07713 0.091230 0.189687 0.152050 0.063370 −0.250370 0.093496 1STAK 0.44737 0.50390 0.190428 0.131045 0.461027⁎ −0.001392 −0.286326 0.244394 0.065594 1IMPA 3989.26158 7128.83787 0.150396 0.053691 −0.287846 −0.002544 0.196879 −0.077842 0.011638 −0.222338 1INTE 0.65789 0.48078 0.327077 0.331934 0.621926⁎⁎ 0.158815 0.114210 0.143973 0.287008 0.425689⁎ −0.133224 1

⁎ p-value b 0.01 (Pearson's index).⁎⁎ p-value b 0.001 (Pearson's index).


ports (i.e., ports characterized by higher throughput volumes) are moreinclined to innovate their communication, both leveraging on qualityand CSR statements. Analogously, coefficient α2 (CONN) is significantand negative as predicted; therefore H1.2 can be accepted. In otherterms, PAs which are located in countries showing a lower degree ofmaritime connectivity (i.e., nations showing a lower level of maritimeand logistics competitiveness aswell as visibility) need to resort to inno-vative high-quality forms of communication in order to reduce the gapwith competitors. As the coefficientα3 is highly significant and correctlysigned (α3 > 0), also H1.3 is confirmed. The model demonstrates thatPAs embedded in countrieswith a long-termexperience of liberalizationin the stevedoring industry, are used to dealingwith amore dynamic en-vironment and therefore they can exploit the accrued market knowl-edge and pursue innovative communication strategies.

Focusing on the second cluster of independent variables (i.e. mana-gerial and governance factors) coefficients α4 (GOVE) is not significant(p-value > 0.1) and therefore H2.1 has to be rejected. Thus, the modeldoes not provide any significant evidence confirming that the boardsize has an impact on the innovativeness of PA disclosure. Conversely,coefficient α5 (CORP) is significant and negatively signed, confirmingH2.2. The results of the linear regression model allow us to argue thatPAs, which embraced the corporatization process at a later stage, areconstraint to develop innovative communication strategies to keepthe pace with the more experienced competitors. Moreover, as coeffi-cient α6 (COMM) is not significant (p-value > 0.1), the model showsthat the number of years from the first annual report published onlinedoes not have an impact on the innovativeness of PA disclosure. There-fore H2.3 can be accepted.

Finally, as regard stakeholder drivers, the model unveils fairly consis-tent results. Indeed, coefficient α7 (STAK) is positive and significant;

Table 6Regression model output.Model: INN-SCORE = α0 + α1 SIZE + α2 CONN + α3 OPEN + α4 GOVE + α5

CORP + α6 COMM + α7 STAK + α8 IMPA + α9 INTE + ε.

Coefficient Estimate S.E. t-Value p-Value

α0 −0.384192 0.306145 −1.254934 0.219876α1 0.000042 0.000019 2.167868 0.038823⁎⁎

α2 −0.009124 0.003234 −2.821109 0.008701⁎⁎⁎

α3 0.017027 0.005714 2.979656 0.005907⁎⁎⁎

α4 0.011677 0.016647 0.701475 0.488796α5 −0.005601 0.002439 −2.296426 0.029343⁎⁎

α6 0.001808 0.025824 0.070012 0.944682α7 0.390655 0.179050 2.181815 0.037675⁎⁎

α8 0.000003 0.000011 0.321011 0.750586α9 0.397535 0.213449 1.862437 0.073065⁎

Residual standard error: 0.421444 on 28 degrees of freedom.Multiple R-squared: 0.484055; Adjusted R-squared: 0.318215.F-statistic: 2.918818 on 9 and 28 DF; p-value: 0.014295.

⁎ p-value b 0.1.⁎⁎ p-value b 0.05.

⁎⁎⁎ p-value b 0.01.

confirming H3.1. PAs having a local public entity as dominant publicstakeholder are more inclined to enforce the various inter-relationswith different local actors involved in port-related activities (Meersmanet al., 2009). Conversely, coefficient α8 (IMPA) is not significant and soH3.2 has to be rejected. The model does not bring empirical findingsconfirming that the social impact of port operations force PAs to innovatetheir disclosure. Finally, coefficient α9 (INTE) is positive and significant,allowing to acceptH3.3. The outcomes suggest that ports hosting a highernumber of international terminal operators, pursue innovative communi-cation strategies, leveraging on their familiarity in managing a complexnetwork of relations with stakeholders characterized by a remarkablebargaining power.

5. Implications for practitioners and academics

Empirical evidences show several managerial implications andcontributes to existing literature in a number of ways.

The analysis performed on the content of communication demon-strated the heterogeneity of PA behaviors in disclosing corporation in-formation to various stakeholders. In particular, empirical findingsclearly revealed how PAs emphasize innovative themes which go be-yond the traditional contents of disclosure (e.g., operational and infra-structural data), shifting to economic and financial data, shareholderinformation and CSR. This wider spectrum of themes in the disclosuredocuments is driven by the multiple pressures exercised by a varietyof stakeholders, at a local and global scale, on PAs (Dooms & Verbeke,2007; Verhoeven, 2010) and emerging competitive challenges, forcingPAs to focus on topicswhich take into account the goals and preferencesof the most salient stakeholder groups. In addition, the content of thedisclosure still appears qualitative and non-financial, suggesting thatportmanagers should broaden the amount of quantitative and econom-ic information communicated to relevant stakeholders in order tostrengthen PA image and reliability and the credibility of their strategicplanning. This can be considered a sine qua non condition to raise addi-tional financial resources, attract managerial skills and competencesand build public consensus.

Moreover, the cultural factor, deriving from the PA country oforigin, demonstrated to be a powerful explanatory variable of thediverse attitude to communicate specific topics.

In particular, public–private stakeholders and CSR issues havebecome dominant themes in western economies. Conversely, in Asiancountries, where PAs are often corporatized or even listed entities,financial-related topics are emphasized in communication strategiesin order to finance large investments for keeping the pacewith demandgrowth and market opportunities.

Therefore PAs involved both in inward and/or outward interna-tionalization strategies have to identify and carefully evaluate theprofound differences related to stakeholder expectations and interac-tions arising in a cross-country perspective.


This outcome brings valuable implications also for academic re-search. The results, in fact, suggest that the impact of cultural factors(Gupta et al., 2002; Ronen & Shenkar, 1985) has to be addressed forexplaining the diverse attention awarded by PAs to various themeswithin communication strategies as well as their orientation to differ-ent stakeholders.

Moreover, in the manuscript, a composite index measuring the in-novativeness of PA disclosure was developed, considering the qualityof the overall disclosure, and the PA orientation to CSR. This indexmay support both practitioners and academics in monitoring andmeasuring the evolution of PA communication strategies.

Indeed, the analysis allowed us to investigate also the antecedentsof the innovative disclosure, by focusing on three groups of indepen-dent variables, i.e. port market and competitiveness, managerial andgovernance factors, stakeholders and social impact.

The results of the linear regression model contribute to the extantliterature, providing a structured assessment of factors affecting PAcommunication strategies. The outcomes unveil that PAs managinglarge ports are more inclined to innovate their communication, anal-ogously to PAs embedded in countries with a long-term experience ofliberalization in the stevedoring industry. In addition, PAs having alocal public entity as dominant public stakeholder, and ports hostinga higher number of international terminal operators, are more in-clined to leverage on innovative disclosure, respectively aiming to en-force the inter-relations with local actors involved in port-relatedactivities, and to mitigate customer bargaining power. Moreover,PAs which are located in countries showing a lower maritime connec-tivity, and those that embraced the corporatization process at a laterstage, resort to innovative high-quality forms of communication forreducing the gap with competitors. Conversely, further investigationsare finally required to demonstrate how the board size and the poten-tial social impact affect the innovativeness of PA disclosure.

Continent Port Country

Americas Hampton Roads United StatesHouston United StatesJacksonville United StatesKingston JamaicaLong Beach United StatesLos Angeles United StatesMiami United StatesMontreal CanadaNew York/New Jersey United StatesOakland United StatesPort Everglades United StatesPort Metro Vancouver CanadaSavannah United StatesSeattle United StatesTacoma United States

Asia Dalian ChinaManila PhilippinesMina Raysut (Salalah) OmanPenang MalaysiaSingapore SingaporeTianjin ChinaXiamen China

Europe Antwerp BelgiumBarcelona SpainBremen/Bremerhaven GermanyConstantza RomaniaHamburg GermanyLe Havre FranceMarseilles FrancePiraeus GreeceRotterdam NetherlandsTaranto ItalyValencia SpainZeebrugge Belgium

Oceania Auckland New ZealandBrisbane AustraliaMelbourne AustraliaSydney Ports Australia

6. Conclusions

This paper investigated the contribution of the PA case on the de-bate around the impact of NPM and NPG concepts on the reform ofpublic administrations, paving on the relation between stakeholdermanagement, strategies and communication in the PA domain.

The paper aimed to analyze the content of corporate communica-tion, measure the innovativeness of the disclosure, and investigate itspotential determinants. The empirical findings provide insightful re-sponses for achieving a deeper understanding of the reasons triggeringPAs to innovate their communication to public and private stake-holders, and therefore to reinforce corporate strategy as a whole.

The study provides an in-depth pioneering contribution in maritimestudies, exploring the contents of PA communication and unveilingtheir profoundly different orientation to communication and CSR disclo-sure. Moreover, the selected case, i.e. the PA, represents an ideal field forevaluating howmanagerial practices have been differently implementedthrough the introduction of innovative forms of communications, andalso for testing the antecedents of the diverse degree of innovativenessin corporate disclosure as its hybrid nature requires a stronger alignmentof public and private interests. In addition, the large sample of availableports allowed to perform a reliable analysis, ensuring data accuracy andconsistency. Finally, the content analysis technique represented an inno-vative method not yet applied to maritime studies.

This study, however, shows some inherent limitations. First, thepaper assumes an explorative approach, due to the lack of contributionsfocused on communication strategies in hybrid organizations. So fur-ther research is invited to strengthen the theoretical underpinningsproposed in this work and to test the reliability of the outcomes on abroader sample.

Second, the study focuses on container ports and does not considerports with a strong presence of large industrial and chemical industries,

causing a lot of environmental issues. Therefore, future analyses shouldbroaden the sample also including these port infrastructures.

Third, although the paper analyzes annual reports of PAs locatedin diverse countries and cultural areas, it neglects to estimate the im-pact of different legal and financial requirements for PAs at nationallevel. Indeed, this represents a notable issue as the different institu-tional and legal background is expected to modify port managers' at-titude towards disclosure. For example, several European countries(e.g., Germany, The Netherlands, etc.) impose a more strict spectrumof requirements in terms of mandatory disclosure respect to mostemerging economies (e.g., China, Malaysia, etc.). Moreover, the con-tribution lacks to deeply address if the diverse institutional levels atwhich the primary impact of reforms begin (e.g., federal, state, re-gional or municipal level) to affect PA communication strategies.

Furthermore, annual reports refer to a single fiscal year, neglectinga longitudinal approach, and therefore some bias could emerge. Fur-ther research is expected to extend the time frame of analysis forshedding light on the evolutionary trends in PA communication strat-egies. Finally, the contribution is exposed to the risk of subjectivitydue to the application of the content analysis methodology. The biasmay be ironed out by improving the coding procedures, deepeningthe code book and diversifying the nationality of coders.

Despite these limitations, the empirical findings provide insightfulresponses for deeper comprehension of the drivers which triggerpublic institutions to innovate their disclosure towards both publicand private stakeholders.

Appendix 1. List of the sample PAs

(continued)

Code Topic/subtopic Description

SEC Security Description of security norms and

Appendix 2 (continued)


Appendix 2. Code book: topics and subtopics


PD Port descriptionPROPS Location, position and nautical

accessibilityDescription of port geographicalposition, location, and nauticalaccessibility

ARI Areas and infrastructures Description of port areas and basicinfrastructures

SOV Superstructures and facilities Description of handling equipment,warehouses, etc.

CON Hinterland infrastructures andconnections

Description of the infrastructuralendowment and inland services (railand barge)

BD Business descriptionIND Industry development General development of the industry,

including sub-sector analysis, geo-graphical trends, etc.

SEAS Seasonality and cyclicality Description of seasonality andcyclicality in the business

BUS General development of theport

Recent historical and commercialbackground of the port

SBA Strategic business areas Description of the strategic businessareas, main markets and segments

ANC Ancillary and general services Description of ancillary services(pilotage, mooring, etc.) and generalservices (ICT systems, waste,electricity, water, etc.)

NON Non-core activities Description of main non-core activi-ties (e.g., real estate, etc.)

EX External factorsMAC Macro-economic trends Identity and effect of key macro

economic trends like GDP, trade, FDI,etc.

SOC Socio-demographic trends Identity and effect of key social–demographic trends (e.g.,consumption, PPI and PPP, etc.)

TECH Innovation and technologicaltrends

Identity and effect of key innovationsand technological trends

POL Political trends Identity and effect of keygeo-political trends

REG Law and regulation Identity and effect of key existing andproposed laws and regulations thatcould impact business significantly;(international; regional, national andlocal); application of accountingstandard (IFSR; IAS)

UNU Unusual or nonrecurringtransactions and events

Identity, effect of unusual ornonrecurring events

MSI Management and shareholdersinformation

MGT Directors and executivemanagement

Identity and background of directorsand executive management; maintasks of management

SH Shareholders Identity and number of shareholders(or controlling public entity if the PAis a public body)

ORG Organization and structures Description of organization andstructures; processes andprocedures;

CSR CSR — Corporate SocialResponsibility

EMP Employees Employee involvement andfulfillment, e.g. level and changes inemployee sati s faction; number andtypology of employees; humanresource management; pension,retirement, incentives.

SAF Safety Description of safety procedures,norms and regulations related to portactivities for the better prevention ofaccidents, incidents, serious harmand injury. Description of previousaccidents and criticalities concerningsafety issues

procedures related to thesafeguarding of vessels, port areas,waterfront facilities, and cargo fromthreats such as destruction, loss, orinjury from sabotage or othersubversive acts (terrorism, etc.).Description of previous criticalevents related to security issues

COM Local community and opiniongroups

Relationship with local communityand opinion groups (including scaleof social impact; added value; etc.);social events and promotionalinitiatives (e.g.: workshop orcongress — organization orparticipation; festival; publication ofjournal or newsletters);transparency towards community(website)

ENV Environmental issues and othernegative externalities

Main forms of pollution (air, water,noise, visual) and other negativeexternalities (road congestion, etc.);quality and effectiveness of theactions/policies performed by the PAand other public bodies

CS Customer satisfaction Quality e.g. customer satisfaction, %defects, backlog

TRAD Trade unions and associations Relationships with trade unions andassociations

PUBL Public authorities Relationships with various publicand/or governmental authorities(e.g. Antitrust, Coast Guard, etc.);public funds.

IS Industry structureCOMP Inter-port competition Intensity of industry competition,

dispersion of competitors and identityof major competitors; measures ofintensity of competition, e.g. relativeprice changes, customer switches

COOP Inter-port cooperation Description of co-operative schemesand networking activities of PA bothwith neighboring ports(joint-projects, planning coordina-tion, etc.) and foreign ports (twin-ship, application of internationalregulations, etc.)

CUS Concessionaires (customers) Bargaining power of concessionaires(customers), extent of dispersion,including concentration measureidentity of dominant customers;measures of relative bargainingpower, e.g. recent price changes,contract content

SUP Suppliers Bargaining power of resourceproviders; identity of types of majorresource and related suppliers; for eachtype, availability of supply; measures ofrelative bargaining power, e.g. recentprice changes, contract content

USER Users Shippers, forwarders, ship agents,ship owners, brokers, etc.

BOS Broad objectives and strategiesVIS Vision/mission Description of PA values, vision and

missionOBJ Broad objectives, quantified

where practicalStrategic objectives and main target,quantified where practical

STRAT Principal strategies andinvestment to achieveobjectives

Principal strategies and investmentto achieve objectives, includingprevious investment and plan,strategy implementation, etc.(investments already operational)

OVER Overseas investments andoperations

Description of PA overseas involve-ment (e.g., investments in facilities,joint-operations, projects, etc.)

CONSIS Discussion of consistency ofstrategy with key trends

Coerenza strategia-trends

(continued on next page)

(continued)


FL Forward looking informationPLAN Future plans and investments Future activities, investments and

plans to meet broad objectives andstrategy (e.g., master plan, futureinvestments, etc.)

RISK Nature and cause of risks Nature and cause of risks (e.g., wars,oil shocks, terrorism, etc.); riskmanagement

OPP Nature and cause ofopportunities

Nature and cause of opportunities(new maritime services, emergingforeland markets, etc.)

KSFAC Key success factors related tothe business

Factors that management believesmust be present, occurring within/outside the business

DIFF Differences between previousforecasts and actual businessperformance

Identity and analysis of major gapsbetween actual businessperformance and previouslydisclosed opportunities, risks andmanagement plans

EFF Effects of opportunities andrisks on future outcomes/perform

Financial and economic impact ofboth risk and opportunity factors

SO Scale of operationsTHR Throughput and commodity

portfolioThroughput and commodity portfolio

INL Inland traffic and modal split Inland traffic and modal split ratioREV Revenue Revenues e.g. level and changes in

units and pricesPRODY Operational performance Berth and crane productivity, land

productivity and other KPIsTIME Time required to perform key

activitiesTime required to perform keyactivities, e.g. ship turnaround time,container dwell time, customsclearance, etc.

MAT Volume and prices of materialsused

Description of the volume and pricesof the material s used

FIN Financial informationPROF Profit and profitability

measuresProfit, and profitability indexes,including EPS, dividends and so on

SAL Sales Amount of revenues and salesreferred to the activities as a whole

COST Costs Costs, e.g. current expensesCF Cash flow Cash flow and other similar

informationAST Assets AssetsDEBT Debt Debts, interest payment; etc.GEAR Gearing Financial leverage, D/E ratio and

liquidity ratioTAX Tax TaxCAPEX Capital expenditure and

working capitalInvestments and working capital

OTH Other Other financial information; mainfinancial documents

Source: authors' own elaboration based on Beattie et al. (2004)

on just one main topic, thus driving to a scarce quality of the disclosure;conversely, if thefirm communication is equally distributed across all themain topics, the index is equal to 1/n (min). Besides, the index wasnormalized, therefore:

0 b (H_TOPICj)NORM b 1

to preserve the comparability between (H_TOPICj)NORM and Q1j , the

indexes have been reversed, defining

Q2j = 1− (H_TOPICj)NORM

[c]

Q3 Afterwards, it was also calculated the following index based on thedispersion of the disclosure among various sub-topics:

HXSUBTOPICj ¼Xn

i¼1

pji� �2

where pij = share of text units related to the i-th sub-topic in the j-th

port; and n = 59. Besides, the index was normalized, therefore:

0 b (H_SUBTOPICj)NORM b 1

to preserve the comparability between (H_TOPICj)NORM b 1 and Q1j , the

indexes have been reversed, defining

Q2j = 1(H_TOPICj)NORM b 1

[d]

[e]

Q4 As the quality of disclosure also depends from the number of totalsub-topics for which the Port Authority provides at least one infor-mation, an ad-hoc index (NONEMPTY) has been calculated and thennormalized as respect to the sample (Q4

j ).IjQUAL To develop a synthetic index, measuring the quality of the

communication for each firm, the following indicator has beendefined:

IjQUAL ¼X4

i¼1

Qji=4

[2]

Appendix 3 (continued)Appendix 2 (continued)


Appendix 3. Definition of the quality index (IQUALj )

Q For each Port Authority, an indicator (COUNT) has been calculated to
1
measure the quantity of information (i.e. the total amount of codedtext units) provided in the annual report of the j-th port. Then, thisindex has been normalized (Q1

j ) respect to the sample:

0 ≤ (Q1j ) ≤ 1

[a]

Q2 In order to appreciate the content variety in corporate communication,consistent with Beattie et al. (2004), for each port, it has beencalculated the Herfindahl index based on the share of the disclosurerelated to each of the 10 topics. Therefore:

HXTOPICj ¼Xn

i¼1

pji� �2

where pij = share of text units related to the i-th topic in the j-th Port

Authority; and n = 10. This reveals howmuch the information providedby each firm is concentrated on specific topics, while neglecting others.If the value is 1 (max), the enterprise communication is totally focused

[b]

References

AICPA (1994). Improving business reporting — A customer focus: Meeting the informationneeds of investors and creditors, comprehensive report of the special committee onfinancial reporting (the Jenkins Report).New York, NY: American Institute of CertifiedPublic Accountants.

Aucoin, P. (1990). Administrative reform in public management: Paradigms, principles,paradoxes and pendulums. Governance: An International Journal of Policy andAdministration, 3(2), 115–137.

Baird, A. J. (2000). Port privatisation: Objectives, extent, process and the UK experi-ence. International Journal of Maritime Economics, 2(3), 177–194.

Baltazar, R., & Brooks,M. R. (2001). The governance of port devolution: A tale of two coun-tries. Proceedings of the 9th World Conference on Transport Research, Seoul, 22–27 July.

Baltazar, R., & Brooks, M. R. (2007). Port governance, devolution and the matchingframework: A configuration theory approach. In M. R. Brooks, & K. Cullinane(Eds.), Devolution, port governance and port performance, research in transportationeconomics, 17. (pp. 379–403)London: Elsevier.

Beattie, V., McInnes, B., & Fearnley, S. (2004). A methodology for analysing and evalu-ating narratives in annual reports: A comprehensive descriptive profile and met-rics for disclosure quality attributes. Accounting Forum, 28(3), 205–236.

Bichou, K. (2004). The ISPS code and the cost of port compliance: An initial logisticsand supply chain framework for port security assessment and management.Maritime Economics & Logistics, 6(4), 322–348.

Billis, D. (2010). Hybrid organizations and the third sector. Challenges for practice, theo-ry and policy. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Björkman, I., & Kock, S. (1997). Inward international activities in service firms — Illus-trated by three cases from the tourism industry. International Journal of ServiceIndustry Management, 8(5), 362–376.

Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and codedevelopment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Brandsen, T., & Karré, P. M. (2011). Hybrid organizations: No cause for concern? Inter-national Journal of Public Administration, 34(13), 827–836.

Brooks, M. R. (2007). Port devolution and governance in Canada. In M. R. Brooks, & K.Cullinane (Eds.), Devolution, port governance and port performance, research intransportation economics, 17, London: Elsevier.

Caballini, C., Carpaneto, L., & Parola, F. (2009). Italian Port Authorities approaching thepost-reform: The Ligurian case. In T. E. Notteboom, P. De Langen, & C. Ducruet (Eds.),Ports in proximity: Competition and coordination among adjacent seaports (pp. 191–208).Aldershot: Ashgatei.

Cahoon, S. (2007). Marketing communications for seaports: A matter of survival andgrowth. Maritime Policy & Management, 34(2), 151–168.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2210-5395(13)00036-9/rf0005








































Coto-Millán, P., Mateo-Mantecón, I., Quesada, J. L. D., Panela, A. C., & Pesquera, M. A.(2010). Evaluation of port externalities: The ecological footprint of Port Authorities.In P. Coto-Millán, M. A. Pesquera, & J. Castanedo (Eds.), Essays on port economics(pp. 323–340). Physica-Verlag HD— A Springer Company.

De Langen, P. W. (2004a). The performance of seaport clusters. Rotterdam: ERIM, ErasmusResearch Institute of Management (PhD dissertation).

De Langen, P. W. (2004b). Governance in seaport clusters.Maritime Economics & Logistics,6(2), 141–156.

De Langen, P. W. (2007). Stakeholders, conflicting interests and governance in portclusters. In M. R. Brooks, & K. Cullinane (Eds.), Devolution, port governance andport performance, research in transportation economics, 17, London: Elsevier.

Dooms, M., & Verbeke, A. (2007). Stakeholder management in ports: A conceptual frame-work integrating insights from research in strategy, corporate social responsibilityand port management. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the InternationalAssociation of Maritime Economists (IAME), Athens, 4–6 July.

Dunleavy, P., & Hood, C. (1994). From old public administration to new public manage-ment. Public Money and Management, 14(3), 9–16.

Ferlie, E., Pettigrew, A., Ashburner, L., & Fitzgerald, L. (1996). The new public manage-ment in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fleming, D. K., & Baird, A. J. (1999). Comment some reflections on port competition in theUnited States and Western Europe. Maritime Policy & Management, 26(4), 383–394.

Flynn, N. (1993). Public sector management. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Goss, R. O. (1990). Economic policies and seaports: Strategies for port authorities.

Maritime Policy & Management, 17(4), 273–287.Gupta, V., Hanges, P. J., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Cultural clusters: Methodology and find-

ings. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 11–15.Heaver, T. D. (1995). The implications of increased competition among ports for port

policy and management. Maritime Policy & Management, 22(2), 125–133.Heaver, T., Meersman, H., & Van de Voorde, E. (2001). Co-operation and competition in

international container transport: Strategies for ports.Maritime Policy &Management,28(3), 293–305.

Hooks, J., Coy, D., & Davis, H. (2002). The information gap in annual reports. Accounting,Auditing & Accountability Journal, 15(4), 501–522.

Ircha, M. M. (2001). Port strategic planning: Canadian port reform. Maritime Policy &Management, 28(2), 125–140.

Jacobs, W., & Notteboom, T. E. (2011). An evolutionary perspective on regionalport systems: The role of windows of opportunity in shaping seaport competition.Environment & Planning A, 43(7), 1674–1692.

Jason, S., & Vegelius, J. (1979). On generalization of the G Index and the phi coefficientto nominal scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14(2), 255–269.

Johnston, J. (1984). Econometricmethods (3rd ed.)NewYork: NY:McGraw-Hill PublishingCompany.

Koppell, J. G. S. (2006). The politics of quasi-government. Hybrid organizations and thedynamics of bureaucratic control. New York: NY: Cambridge University Press.

Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage Publications.

Lombard, M., Snyder-Duch, J., & Campanella, Bracken C. (2002). Content analysis inmass communication: Assessment and reporting of intercoder reliability. HumanCommunication Research, 28(4), 587–604.

Luo, Y., & Tung, R. L. (2007). International expansion of emerging market enterprises:A springboard perspective. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), 481–498.

Marti, B. E. (1986). Marketing strategies: A container foreland study of the port ofMiami. Geoforum, 17(3), 375–382.

Meersman, H., Van de Voorde, E., & Vanelslander, T. (2006). Fighting for money, invest-ments and capacity: Port governance and devolution in Belgium. Research in Trans-portation Economics, 17(1), 85–107.

Meersman, H., Van de Voorde, E., Vanelslander, T., Meersman, H., Van de Voorde, E., &Vanelslander, T. (2009). The economic fabric of ports. Future challenges for the portand shipping sector. London, UK: Informa.

Mester, B. (1991). Marketing from the port's point of view. Institute of shipping economicsand logistics, port management textbook. Bremen: Institute of Shipping and Logistics.

Metcalfe, L., & Richards, S. (1990). Improving public management (2nd ed.)London: Sage.Miles, M. P., Munilla, L. S., & Darroch, J. (2006). The role of strategic conversations with

stakeholders in the formation of social corporate responsibility strategy. Journal ofBusiness Ethics, 69(2), 195–205.

Neuendorf, K. A. (2002). Content analysis. Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Ng, A. K. -Y., & Pallis, A. (2010). Port governance reforms in diversified institutional

frameworks: Generic solutions, implementation asymmetries. Environment &Planning A, 42(9), 2147–2167.

Notteboom, T. E. (2007). Strategic challenges to container ports. In M. R. Brooks, & K.Cullinane (Eds.), Devolution, port governance and port performance, research intransportation economics, 17. (pp. 9–52)London: Elsevier.

Notteboom, T. E., & Rodrigue, J. -P. (2005). Port regionalization: Towards a new phasein port development. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(3), 297–313.

Notteboom, T. E., & Winkelmans, W. (2001). Structural changes in logistics: How willport authorities face the challenge? Maritime Policy & Management, 28(1), 71–89.

Notteboom, T. E., & Winkelmans, W. (2002). Stakeholder relations managementin ports: Dealing with the interplay of forces among stakeholders in a changingcompetitive environment. Proceedings of the International Association of MaritimeEconomists (IAME) Conference, Panama City.

Osborne, S. (2010). The (new) public governance: A suitable case for treatment? In S.Osborne (Ed.), The new public governance? Emerging perspectives on the theoryand practice of public governance. New York: NY: Routledge.

Pallis, A., Vitsounis, T. K., De Langen, P.W., & Notteboom, T. E. (2011). Port economics, policyandmanagement: Content classification and survey. Transport Reviews, 31(4), 445–471.

Pando, J., Araujo, A., & Maqueda, F. J. (2005). Marketing management at the world'smajor ports. Maritime Policy & Management, 32(2), 67–87.

Parola, F., & Coppola, G. D. (2011). Critical issues in managing port security across EU:Evidence from Italy. International Journal of Transport Economics, 38(3), 311–335.

Parola, F., & Musso, E. (2007). Market structures and competitive strategies: The carrier–stevedore arm-wrestling in Northern European ports.Maritime Policy &Management,34(3), 259–278.

Perry, J. L., & Rainey, H. G. (1988). The public–private distinction in organization theory:A critique and research strategy. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 182–201.

Pollitt, C. (2007). Convergence or divergence: What has been happening in Europe?In C. Pollitt, S. Van Thiel, & V. Homburg (Eds.), New public management in Europe:Adaptation and alternatives. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.

Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). New public management, governance and theNeo-Weberian state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2006). Strategy and society: The link between competitiveadvantage and corporate social responsibility.Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–93.

Psaraftis, H. N., & Kontovas, C. A. (2010). Balancing the economic and environmentalperformance of maritime transportation. Transportation Research Part D, 15(8),458–462.

Ronen, S., & Shenkar, O. (1985). Clustering countries on attitudinal dimensions: A reviewand synthesis. The Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 435–454.

Savoie, D. J. (1995). What is wrong with the new public management? Canadian PublicAdministration, 38(1), 112–121.

Slack, B. (1985). Containerization, inter-port competition, and port selection. MaritimePolicy & Management, 12(4), 293–303.

Slack, B. (2001). Globalisation in maritime transportation: Competition, uncertaintyand implications for port development strategy. FEEM Working Paper No. 8.

Slack, B., Gouvernal, E., & Debrie, J. (2009). Proximity and port governance. In T. E.Notteboom, P. De Langen, & C. Ducruet (Eds.), Ports in proximity: Competition andcoordination among adjacent seaports (pp. 75–86). Aldershot: Ashgate.

Stewart, J., & Walsh, K. (1992). Change in the management of public services. Public Ad-ministration, 70(4), 499–518.

Talley, W. K. (2002). Maritime safety and accident analysis. In C. T. Grammenos (Ed.),The handbook of maritime economics and business (pp. 426–442). London: LLP.

Tilt, C. A. (1994). The influence of external pressure groups on corporate social disclosure:Some empirical evidence. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 7(4), 47–72.

Tongzon, J., & Heng, W. (2005). Port privatization, efficiency and competitiveness:Some empirical evidence from container ports (terminals). Transportation ResearchPart A, 39(5), 405–424.

Van den Berg, R., & De Langen, P. W. (2011). Hinterland strategies of port authorities: Acase study of the port of Barcelona. Research in Transportation Economics, 33(1), 6–14.

Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., Hollen, R., Volberda, H. W., & Baaij, M. G. (2011). The strategicvalue of the port of Rotterdam for the international competitiveness of The Netherlands:A first exploration. Rotterdam: INSCOPE/RSM Erasmus University.

Van der Horst, M. R., & De Langen, P. W. (2008). Coordination in hinterland transportchains: A major challenge for the seaport community.Maritime Economics & Logistics,10(1), 108–129.

Van Hooydonk, E. (2003). The regime of port authorities under European law (includingan analysis of the port services directive). In E. Van Hooydonk (Ed.), European seaportslaw: EU law of ports and port services and the ports package. Antwerp: Maklu.

Verhoeven, P. (2010). A review of port authority functions: Towards a renaissance?Maritime Policy & Management, 37(3), 247–270.

Wang, J. J., Ng, A. K. -Y., & Olivier, D. (2004). Port governance in China: A review ofpolicies in an era of internationalizing port management practices. Transport Policy,11(3), 237–250.

Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Quantitative applications in the social science.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Wollmann, H. (2003). Evaluation in public sector reform: Trends, potentials and limitsin international perspective. In H. Wollmann (Ed.), Evaluation in public policy reform.Chelterham, UK: Edward Elgar.

World Bank (2007). Port reform toolkit, module 3: Alternative port management structuresand ownership models.Washington, DC: World Bank.


















































































































































Emerging Port Authority communication strategies: Assessing the determinants of disclosure in the...

Documents

Transcript of Emerging Port Authority communication strategies: Assessing the determinants of disclosure in the...