Based on the case results, there can be concluded that formulated policies and strategies do not directly result in an actual impact reduction for the use of energy and production of pollu- tion. The relation between the formulated policies and strategies with underlying monitoring and evaluation mechanism is missing. The need to define a environmental statement and strategy is seen, techniques and tools are implemented to monitor the use and performance, however a clear relation between both is missing. By monitoring the energy use and waste production, possible improvements should be revealed and improved, however the results show that this is done to a lesser extent. The monitoring and evaluation should figure as a verification and validation strategy, to see if the environmental statement and strategy are achieving the expected, and even more important, the required performance improvements. The case results show that the main driver for implementing and improving the environ- mental performance, for both the energy use and pollution created, is to comply with laws and regulations. The only objective is to prove that the shipyards comply with regulatory requirements, whereby differentiating in terms of sustainability and looking into the future is not an objective. The case interviews showed similar influence of costs while implement- ing environmental improvements, as the ”low-hanging fruits” and low-cost improvements are always implemented, but more expensive improvements are not implemented. This ap- proach can be associated with the reactive stage of environmental management [69] and fails to maintain current rate of environment improvement resulting in a less economic feasi- ble strategy [40].
Thirdly, the energy performance of all the three yards is higher than the performance of pollution (including water). The focus on improving the energy use is more present than the pollution created by waste, which is reflected in the environmental statements of each yard. The yards formulated an energy reduction objective, whereby the Manager Contracting and Yard Support (Interviewee 9, personal communication, Oct. 19, 2016) showed that Yard C focusses on a reduction of 3% per year. Similar objectives are missing for the pollution created by the waste produced on the yards. Yard B distinguishes themselves by trying to convince clients to use more environmental friendly solutions for the repair work performed. The HSE Manager (Interviewee 3, personal communication, Oct. 7, 2016) explained that Yard B is trying to convince clients to use a more environmental friendly grit for the blasting process, however the preference of the client is leading, and therefore resulting in a less environmental friendly material since they are not willing to pay more.
Appendix E
Green Performance Improvements
This section answers the main research question, by answering the third research questions with underlying sub-questions and looking onto the future for the development of a Green Shipyard. The third research questions with underlying questions is:
Research question 3: How to achieve ”Green Shipyard”?
A: What are the determining push & pull factors for ”Green” improvements? B: What are the socio-economic constraints for ”Green” improvements? C: How to prioritize feasible ”Green” improvements?
The case results provide insight in the current environmental performance of shipyards, and thereby shows aspects that play an important role in the greenness of a shipyard. As specified in Section B.4, a shipyard is considered green when the development, repair or conversion of a ship, using different processes and systems, has an environmental impact for both energy use and pollution of null. Achieving null impact is only possible by minimizing the impact of energy use and pollution produced, and compensate the resulting impact by positively contributing to the environment [34]. Section D presented the case results and formulated conclusions, which can be used to determine the push and pull factors, and look at the social-economic constraints important for the develop of a Green Shipyard concept. Through converting both energy and pollution to carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e), the
impact can be visualised and thereby useful to provide understanding of the top priority aspects. By applying the underlying principle of the Pareto analysis, it is possible to select the aspects with top priority [70]. Finally, the outcome of the three research questions is combined to answer the main research question:
How to develop a Green Shipyard?
Finally, theoretical models as Trias Enegetica and Waste Hierarchy (see Section B.3) are used for the formulation of an implementation strategy for a Green Shipyard concept. The implementation strategy consist of three phases in order to cover all relevant aspects.
102 APPENDIXE. GREEN PERFORMANCEIMPROVEMENTS
E.1 Push & pull factors
In order to develop a ”Green Shipyard”, data and information gathered during the case study is used to determine both the push & pull factors. The definition of a ”Green Shipyard” formulated in Section B provides sufficient insight in the theoretical perspective, however both internal and external factors may influence the route to a ”Green Shipyard”. Section A.1 introduces push and pull factors relevant in the industry, where to comply with laws and regulations is acknolwedged as important push factor and the environmental awareness of the clients is seen as important pull factor [15].
E.1.1 Push factors
The main pull factor experienced during the case study are the laws and regulations, which is the main factor for shipyards to invest in new tools and equipment. Each shipyard scores high on the EPI about being compliant with laws and regulations in teh case study. The HSEQ Manager (Interviewee 1, personal communication, Sept. 14, 2016) of Yard A ex- plained that the main objective is to comply as this directly influences their business. Clients may loos there confidence and assignment can be missed, when the shipyards fail on com- pliancy. This motive is addressed in two different ways, as local regulations do require a shipyard to reduce the amount of energy used, improve the waste processing and other reg- ulations. However, the Damen Group is also forcing the yards within the group to change, as they are currently asking the yards to improve their monitoring mechanisms and start reporting their emissions on regular basis through a CO2 footprint. Both aspects are driven
by changing laws and regulations regarding the environmental performance. These aspects can be substantiated with the outcome of the paper Green growth opportunities in the EU shipbuilding sector [15], showing that the market trends are mainly based on regulations as key driver.
E.1.2 Pull factors
The pull factors are less clearly present. A factors that could pull the market to change, is the clients preferences, as Damen attaches great importance to their opinion. However, the clients have more eye for the product, especially the operational phase of the vessels. Increasing the energy efficiency of the vessels does have positive influence on the environ- ment, but more important, saves the client a lot of fuel costs. The HSE Manager of Yard B (Interviewee 3, personal communication, Oct. 7, 2016) clarified that they try to convince their clients to pay more for the use of environmental friendly production materials, however clients are often not cooperating. It seems that clients are less interested in the environ- mental aspects of the production processes and more in the product itself. Clients are also required to comply with specific regulations while using the ship, and therefore more inter- ested in solutions related to the operational phase of the ship. In example, ballast water treatment is a fairly new regulation which is also accepted by IMO, forcing ships to treat
E.2. SOCIAL-ECONOMIC CONSTRAINTS 103
work performed by Damen. An other factor that could lead to changes, is the cost reduction. Investing in solutions as renewable energy sources or reducing the energy use by lighting, are aspects that could contribute to an environmental friendly change. However, the long term profit seems minimal and therefore not leading to actual investments for improving the environmental performance.