Investigation of Risk Factors Influencing the Safety of Maritime Containers Supply Chain: In the Period of the Pandemic

Abstract

Maritime security is facing many challenges due to war conflicts, geopolitics, sanctions, and pandemics. The supply chain for maritime containers has faced considerable obstacles as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Numerous factors, such as port closures, travel restrictions, and a decreased workforce, have impacted the supply chain. The risk of cargo theft, piracy, and other security events has increased as a result of these difficulties. Therefore, it is essential to look at the risk variables that may affect the security of the marine container supply chain during the pandemic. This research paper highlights those risks through the following three indexes: the likelihood index (LI), severity index (SI), and average risk index (ARI) by analyzing 64 risk factors that were prepared and designed by incorporating the Delphi expert survey technique to prepare a systematic questionnaire. The article addresses worries over the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on international supply networks. The causes of the most recent global shipping industry disruptions and their impact on supply chains have been thoroughly examined. In order to reduce the number of disruptions in global supply chains and lower the direct and indirect costs for consumers, the authors have also mentioned the necessary actions that must be implemented. The results concluded after the analysis pointed to “management activities,” such as human resources or the working environment as having the highest possibility of going wrong, whereas “operation activities” were judged to likely be the fatal ones if the security of maritime containers was ever compromised. The main objective of the study is to evaluate how the COVID-19 epidemic may affect international shipping, particularly container shipping, which is currently the most important link in the world’s multimodal land–sea supply chains.

1. Introduction

International trade is one of the prime factors that affect the economy of a country. The imports and exports of a country broadly define the gross domestic product (GDP) and the development of a country as a whole. With the advancement of technology and innovation, transportation infrastructure for international trade has developed a lot, particularly in the field of maritime container shipment. The era of the pandemic has brought greater attention to our dependency on imports and exports through container shipping and its significance and vital role in easing us out of the post-pandemic era. While in the past few decades maritime container supply chains (MCSCs) have greatly evolved in terms of security in, the purpose of this investigation is to determine risks that might affect the pandemic supply chain’s maritime container safety. These risk factors consist of but are not limited to the following: (1) Disruptions in the supply chain: The pandemic has seriously disrupted the supply chain, causing delays, traffic, and a decrease in the workforce. The danger of cargo theft and other security events can rise as a result of these delays. (2) Threats to cybersecurity: The risk of cyberattacks has increased because of the pandemic’s greater reliance on digital tools and remote labor. Threats to cyber security can compromise the security of the container supply chain by interfering with business as usual and stealing confidential data. (3) Health and safety issues: The epidemic has made workers more concerned about their health and safety, which has lowered productivity and raised absences. These worries increase the possibility of human mistakes and accidents, which could have an effect on the container supply chain’s safety. (4) Economic aspects: The epidemic has significantly disrupted the economy, reduced demand, and boosted competitiveness. By raising the possibility of cargo theft and piracy, these economic variables may have an impact on the security of the container supply chain. There are still several challenges that the industry faces that need to be worked upon. These risks vary from regional political conflicts [1], lack of cooperation among departments [2], fluctuation of fuel prices [3], financial crises [4,5], unattractive markets [4], trade policy instability [1,6], and so on. Similarly, China ranks second in the list of leading merchandise importers worldwide. China has recorded an estimated value of 2 trillion US Dollars, which is not very far from the first rank holder, the United States, which has an estimated import value of 2.4 trillion US Dollars in (Figure 1). Apart from these reports, the top 10 busiest ports worldwide, as published by Marine Insight, has 7 from China, with the Port of Shanghai being number 1 (Figure 2).

Per the reports and statistics from 2021, China is the number one exporter of merchandise with an estimated value of 3.36 trillion US Dollars. This is nearly twice the value of exports for the United States, which is ranked second.

Thus, it is safe to say that China plays a massive role in the MCSC and the issues and risks of the maritime, per regional experts, reflect the possible hazards that the maritime is facing globally. This paper tries to capture the valuable feedback of the experts from China and Pakistan regarding what they think might be a possible hazard and the level of severity it brings to maritime security.

2. Literature Review

The events of the past couple of years have completely changed the dynamics of the Maritime containers supply chain (MCSC). These events include pandemics, war-conflicts, and sanctions on many countries due to various reasons. Container shipping companies are facing immense pressure for timely shipment despite several hindrances along with overloading problems. The data suggests that in the past couple of years there has been a significant rise in the loss of containers while shipping and about 6000 boxes worth USD 50,000 per box have been lost in the sea. The collected data also suggests that the MCSC issues are causing losses of billions of dollars per quarter-year. Data from the World Shipping Council (WSC) for the year 2020–2021 depicts a significant rise of 18% in the number of containers lost at sea per year as compared to the records of previous years. Due to the pandemic, as well as conflicts and wars, there has been a global rise in delayed shipment, wherein vessels are either stacked up at ports with no one to attend them for loading and unloading or are struggling at sea due to poor weather conditions. (1) Supply chain interruptions: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to major supply chain disruptions, including port closures, reduced workforce, and delays, according to DNV GL’s Maritime Forecast to 2050. Due to these delays, there is a backlog of containers, which causes port congestion, a rise in cargo theft, and other security-related problems. (2) Financial factors: The maritime market intelligence provider suggests that in the second quarter year of 2022 alone, about 60% of the vessels travelling from Europe to Asia were delayed. The pandemic has significantly disrupted the economy, which has decreased demand and heightened competition. By raising the possibility of cargo theft and piracy, these economic variables may have an impact on the security of the container supply chain. The decreased patrols and greater vulnerability of ships during the epidemic are highlighted in a UNCTAD report as contributing factors to the heightened risk of piracy. (3) Hacking threats: The epidemic has caused a rise in distant employment and reliance on digital tools. The risk of hacking has increased as a result, though. The increased danger of cyber assaults during the pandemic, which can affect the security of the container supply chain by disrupting operations and stealing sensitive information, is highlighted in research by BIMCO and the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS). On the other hand, weather has played a huge role in delayed shipment as well apart from the incidents that resulted in loss of containers. (4) Safety and healthcare concerns: The epidemic has made workers more concerned about their health and safety, which has lowered productivity and raised absenteeism. This can make the container supply chain less safe by making mistakes and mishaps more likely. Improved health and safety procedures are required, according to a study by the World Maritime University (WMU), to guarantee the security of personnel and the supply chain for containers. For the year 2020–2021, weather caused incidents were comparatively far greater than the previous years; an average of 3113 such incidents were recorded as compared to 779 incidents that took place in the year 2019–2020.

The rising issues related to the security of vessels and safety measures of the maritime containers supply chain (MCSC) has made it necessary to analyze and work upon the vital management of their wellbeing. The need for such analysis has evolved time to time, but in the recent past, new challenges have been rectified along with previous challenges that were of less concern but now have proved to be one of the leading hazards in MCSC. New analysis is thus required to evaluate first-hand evolving factors in the current circumstances of war, conflict, pandemic, and sanctions on key countries. Such analysis will conclude threats and hazards, rectification of which will help maritime containers and their organizations to confront them as per their severity and likelihood. Moreover, such analysis will take necessary measures from the point of their emergence to the point of losses and consequences that they might bring with them. Several such studies have been conducted in the past with different outlooks ranging from transportation [7,8,9,10,11], political factors [12,13,14,15,16], and human factors [17,18,19,20]. Hence, a need was created to study and analyze all such factors together considering current circumstances and world order to mitigate the newly evolved hazards in the MCSC.

The study involves and adopts all such factors together for analysis and covers a wider picture of issues related to economic, political, natural/working environments, human resources, as well as flaws in information, finance, and operations. The study incorporates these factors under the headings of Society, Management, Operations, Infrastructure, and Technology to assess them evenly on a Likert scale of likelihood and severity to mitigate security hazards for the MCSC. To achieve the results, an extensive questionnaire was prepared and shared with the people associated with the shipping industry to take their valuable inputs and evaluate each and every identified risk uniformly to diminish them in an orderly manner. Thus, the paper covers and weighs the following:

1:

Identification and listing of all risk factors of the MCSC.

2:

Evaluation of the inputs received through the questionnaire.

3:

Rectification of the risk factors that is more likely to happen as per the response of the questionnaire.

4:

Rectification of the risk factors that is more severe than others as per the response of the questionnaire.

3. Methodology

3.1. Delphi Expert Survey

For any analysis to be worthwhile, it is necessary to take into account the viewpoints and valuable feedback of the people associated within that particular field. The Delphi expert survey is one such renowned tool that is designed in a systematic manner that the inputs taken from the experts of the field are validated evenly in a coherent manner. This method incorporates a very effective communication technique through a questionnaire, which is sent to a number of experts and asks them to provide inputs in a procedural manner. Usually, the survey is done in a number of rounds and the respondents are allowed to give their feedback, add comments, and offer extra questions that they think of as an important factor and the procedure keeps on repeating until the required optimization is achieved.

In determining the uncertain risk factors in the MCSC, the Delphi expert survey was applied and used. The systematic and well-structured technique of the Delphi expert survey had a number of steps, starting from the preliminary research to the list of risk factors of MCSC to the very reliable consensus as feedback for further analysis. The whole process took four months to achieve the optimized results, and the involved steps can be visualized with the help of the following flow chart (Figure 3).

3.2. Questionnaire Design

This research paper incorporates a Delphi expert survey, specifically designed to take inputs from the experts of the MSCS. The questionnaire highlights the risk factors and analyzes their chances of occurring (likelihood) along with the consequences or impacts (severity) they bring with them if ever happened. The likelihood and severity of these factors is laid down in the survey as per the recommended seven-point and four-point Likert scale, respectively, by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The Likert scale has been employed a number of times in the previous research analyses of risk factors involved in Maritime Container Security [15,21,22] (

Table 1. Seven-point likelihood Likert scale with its definitions [12,23].

Likelihood	Weightage	Meaning
Extremely Rare	1	Never or rarely occurred.
Rare	2	Not anticipated for several years; only possible under extreme conditions.
Unlikely	3	However, it is possible that this will happen at some point
Possible	4	It is possible that this will happen at some point; it is expected to happen every few months.
Likely	5	Most likely in most circumstances; it is expected to happen at least once a month.
Frequent	6	It is expected to happen at least once a week.
Very Frequent	7	Can be expected in most conditions; occurs on a daily basis.

and

Table 2. Four-point severity Likert scale with its definitions [24].

Severity	Weightage	Meaning
Minor	1	Cause inconvenience with little consequences, such as a tiny cost or schedule change.
Moderate	2	Cause some interruptions with mild consequences, such as a moderate cost rise, a delay, or minor environmental harm.
Severe	3	Cause certain disruptions or failures with serious consequences such as significant cost increases, significant environmental damage, or injuries.
Catastrophic	4	Cause total and irreversible failures (therefore preventing the minimum standards from being met), long-term environmental damage, or death.

).

The survey is prepared so that apart from the respondent’s profile, a complete outlook of the risk factors pertaining to society, environment, management, infrastructure, and technology and operations can be taken into account to analyze the security of maritime containers. The intended questionnaire was drafted in both the English and Chinese languages, and was distributed to maritime experts from China and Pakistan. The feedback from the respective 123 experts was then evaluated to conduct this study and highlight the risks and hazards in MCSCs. There is a total of 64 such factors that are identified and listed, which were prepared initially in English and later in Chinese to get relevant outputs based on the respondents’ comfort. The questionnaire was sent to various private and government shipping companies and agencies; freight forwards; port authorities and contractors; associated maritime organizations; and researchers of China and Pakistan through e-survey URLs and emails.

3.3. Listing of Risk Factors

The 64 factors included in the questionnaire were finalized by considering a number of previous studies that were done for betterment of MSCS. Those studies took into account different categories and were specifically based on them, e.g., transportation [8,10,11], political factors [12,13,14], and human factors [17,18,19]. All such factors were cumulated together based on the following four levels, comprising of risk forms, origin, and factors (Figure 4) (Table 3).

3.4. Types of Risk

A complex network of organizations and procedures makes up the MCSC, and these elements are susceptible to both internal and external risks. The risks that develop within the supply chain include some instances of internal risks, as shown in Table 3, and external risks, as shown in Table 4.

3.4.1. Internal Risk Factors

During the COVID-19 pandemic, internal risk variables had a significant impact on the security and effectiveness of the maritime container supply chain. Following are the organizational problems that could have significant impacts on operations and logistics.

Table 3. Internal risk factors with their codes and references.

Risk Source		Risk Factor	Code	References
Management	Human resource	Lack of skilled workers	M/HR1	[1,25]
		Lack of motivation	M/HR2	[1,4]
		Mental health of seafarers	M/HR3	[26]
		Human errors	M/HR4	[26]
		Low wages	M/HR5	Delphi expert survey
	Working environment	Language and cultural diversity	M/WE1	[26]
		Lack of cooperation among departments	M/WE2	[2]
		Poor safety culture/climate	M/WE3	[17,26]
		Low degree of safety leadership	M/WE4	[27]
		Poor ergonomics at the workplace	M/WE5	Delphi expert survey
Operations	Information flows	Information delay	O/IF1	[5,28]
		Information inaccuracy	O/IF2	[5,29]
		IT vulnerability	O/IF3	[1,5]
		Internet security	O/IF4	[30]
		Poor information sharing	O/IF5	[1]
		Lack of information standardization and compatibility	O/IF6	[5]
	Financial flows	Payment delay from partners	O/FF1	[5,31]
		Break a contract	O/FF2	[5]
		Shippers going into bankruptcy	O/FF3	[5]
		Partners with bad credit	O/FF4	[4,5]
		Charter rates rise	O/FF5	Delphi expert survey
		Cash flow problem	O/FF6	Delphi expert survey
	Physical flows	Inaccurate demand forecast	O/PF1	[29,32]
		Transportation of dangerous goods	O/PF2	[4,5]
		Container shortage	O/PF3	[5]
		Port strikes	O/PF4	[3,5]
		Port/terminal congestions	O/PF5	[3,5]
		Lack of flexibility of designed schedules	O/PF6	[1,5]
		Problems with customs clearance	O/PF7	[4,5]
		Electricity failure	O/PF8	[1,5]
		Bottlenecks/restriction ontransportati on routes	O/PF9	[1,3]
		Improper container terminal operations	O/PF10	[33]
		Incorrect container packing	O/PF11	[25]
		Transport accidents	O/PF12	[12,34]
		Trade imbalance on container shipping routes	O/PF13	Delphi expert survey
		Improper management of container storage area	O/PF14	Delphi expert survey
Infrastructure & Technology		Lack of intermodal equipment	IT1	[4]
		Poor entrance channel sofa port	IT2	[4]
		Limited storage ability	IT3	[2]
		Low technical reliability	IT4	[29]
		Undeveloped ground access system	IT5	[35]
		Lack of regular maintenance of equipment	IT6	Delphi expert survey
		Insufficient berthing capability	IT7	Delphi expert survey

Table 3. Internal risk factors with their codes and references.

Risk Source		Risk Factor	Code	References
Management	Human resource	Lack of skilled workers	M/HR1	[1,25]
		Lack of motivation	M/HR2	[1,4]
		Mental health of seafarers	M/HR3	[26]
		Human errors	M/HR4	[26]
		Low wages	M/HR5	Delphi expert survey
	Working environment	Language and cultural diversity	M/WE1	[26]
		Lack of cooperation among departments	M/WE2	[2]
		Poor safety culture/climate	M/WE3	[17,26]
		Low degree of safety leadership	M/WE4	[27]
		Poor ergonomics at the workplace	M/WE5	Delphi expert survey
Operations	Information flows	Information delay	O/IF1	[5,28]
		Information inaccuracy	O/IF2	[5,29]
		IT vulnerability	O/IF3	[1,5]
		Internet security	O/IF4	[30]
		Poor information sharing	O/IF5	[1]
		Lack of information standardization and compatibility	O/IF6	[5]
	Financial flows	Payment delay from partners	O/FF1	[5,31]
		Break a contract	O/FF2	[5]
		Shippers going into bankruptcy	O/FF3	[5]
		Partners with bad credit	O/FF4	[4,5]
		Charter rates rise	O/FF5	Delphi expert survey
		Cash flow problem	O/FF6	Delphi expert survey
	Physical flows	Inaccurate demand forecast	O/PF1	[29,32]
		Transportation of dangerous goods	O/PF2	[4,5]
		Container shortage	O/PF3	[5]
		Port strikes	O/PF4	[3,5]
		Port/terminal congestions	O/PF5	[3,5]
		Lack of flexibility of designed schedules	O/PF6	[1,5]
		Problems with customs clearance	O/PF7	[4,5]
		Electricity failure	O/PF8	[1,5]
		Bottlenecks/restriction ontransportati on routes	O/PF9	[1,3]
		Improper container terminal operations	O/PF10	[33]
		Incorrect container packing	O/PF11	[25]
		Transport accidents	O/PF12	[12,34]
		Trade imbalance on container shipping routes	O/PF13	Delphi expert survey
		Improper management of container storage area	O/PF14	Delphi expert survey
Infrastructure & Technology		Lack of intermodal equipment	IT1	[4]
		Poor entrance channel sofa port	IT2	[4]
		Limited storage ability	IT3	[2]
		Low technical reliability	IT4	[29]
		Undeveloped ground access system	IT5	[35]
		Lack of regular maintenance of equipment	IT6	Delphi expert survey
		Insufficient berthing capability	IT7	Delphi expert survey

3.4.2. External Risk Factors

On the other hand, external risks are those that originate from outside the supply chain, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4. External risk factors with their codes and references.

Risk Source	Risk Factor	Code	References
Economic environment	Financial crisis	S/EE1	[4,5]
	Change of interest rates	S/EE2	[6]
	Change of exchange rates	S/EE3	[5,6]
	Fluctuation of fuel price	S/EE4	[28,32]
	Unattractive markets	S/EE5	[4]
	Fierce competition	S/EE6	[4,6]
	Monopoly	S/EE7	[1]
Natural Environment	Unstable navigational condition	NE1	[1,3]
	Natural disasters	NE2	[4,36]
	Climate change	NE3	[4]
Political environment	Trade policy instability	S/PE1	[1,6]
	Maritime security in initiatives	S/PE2	[12,37]
	Regulations and measures	S/PE3	[4]
	Regional political conflicts	S/PE4	[1]
Security	Terrorism	S/SE1	[1,29]
	Piracy/maritime robbery	S/SE2	[5,37]
	Sabotage	S/SE3	[32]
	Smuggling	S/SE4	[4,38]
	Spying/espionage	S/SE5	[4]
	Epidemic	S/SE6	[1,4]
	Refugees (Delphi survey)	S/SE7
	Refugees	Delphi survey

Table 4. External risk factors with their codes and references.

Risk Source	Risk Factor	Code	References
Economic environment	Financial crisis	S/EE1	[4,5]
	Change of interest rates	S/EE2	[6]
	Change of exchange rates	S/EE3	[5,6]
	Fluctuation of fuel price	S/EE4	[28,32]
	Unattractive markets	S/EE5	[4]
	Fierce competition	S/EE6	[4,6]
	Monopoly	S/EE7	[1]
Natural Environment	Unstable navigational condition	NE1	[1,3]
	Natural disasters	NE2	[4,36]
	Climate change	NE3	[4]
Political environment	Trade policy instability	S/PE1	[1,6]
	Maritime security in initiatives	S/PE2	[12,37]
	Regulations and measures	S/PE3	[4]
	Regional political conflicts	S/PE4	[1]
Security	Terrorism	S/SE1	[1,29]
	Piracy/maritime robbery	S/SE2	[5,37]
	Sabotage	S/SE3	[32]
	Smuggling	S/SE4	[4,38]
	Spying/espionage	S/SE5	[4]
	Epidemic	S/SE6	[1,4]
	Refugees (Delphi survey)	S/SE7
	Refugees	Delphi survey

3.5. Risk Analysis

The risk matrix analysis is a common and reputed tool that is used widely to quantitatively evaluate the available risk factors (Table 4). It is a 7 × 4 matrix where 7 represents a vertical column of seven likelihood categories and 4 represents a horizontal row of four severe consequential categories. Based on the matrix, the questionnaire input for various risks is individually analyzed and assessed to evaluate the safety parameters of MSCS. As recommended by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in 2013, the likelihood and severity indexes are defined on a logarithmic scale to assist and help in evaluating the ranks of several factors, so as to deal with them based on the priority of attention required, as per their calculated ranks. Following the principle, Equation (1) can be drawn out as follows:

$$\mathrm{L}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left(\mathrm{R}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{k}\right)=\mathrm{L}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left(\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\right)+\mathrm{L}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{g}\left(\mathrm{S}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}\right)$$

(1)

After compiling Equation (1), the likelihood index (LI) and severity index (SI) are calculated using Equations (2) and (3), as follows:

$$\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}=\sum \mathrm{a}\left(\frac{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{N}}\right)$$

(2)

$$\mathrm{S}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}=\sum \mathrm{a}\left(\frac{\mathrm{n}}{\mathrm{N}}\right)$$

(3)

where

• a = Weightage given to each response, ranging from 1 to 7 for likelihood and from 1 to 4 for severity.
• n = Likelihood of the response for likelihood index and severity of the response for the severity index.
• N = Total number of responses.

Using the calculated LI and SI, the risk index (RI) is calculated as shown in Equation (4) [15]:

$$\mathrm{R}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{k}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}=\mathrm{L}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{k}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{l}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{h}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}+\mathrm{S}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{v}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{y}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{x}-1$$

(4)

$$\begin{gathered} \begin{array}{}{\mathrm{A}\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{N}}}{\mathrm{R}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{N}}}({\mathrm{L}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}}+{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}}-1) \\ =\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{N}}}{\mathrm{L}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}}+\frac{1}{\mathrm{N}}{\displaystyle \sum _{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{N}}}{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}}-1\left(\mathrm{r}\mathrm{1,2},\dots ,\mathrm{M};\mathrm{i}=\mathrm{1,2},\dots \mathrm{N}\right) \\ =\stackrel{-}{{\mathrm{L}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}}}+\stackrel{-}{{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}}}-1=\stackrel{-}{{\mathrm{L}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}}}+\stackrel{-}{{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}}}-1\end{array} \end{gathered}$$

(5)

where

• M = Number of risk factors.
• N = Number of respondents.
• $\stackrel{-}{{\mathrm{L}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}}}$ = is the average LI of the rth risk factor.
• $\stackrel{-}{{\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}}}$ = is the average SI of the rth risk factor.
• ${\mathrm{L}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}}$ = LI of the rth risk factor by the ith respondent.
• ${\mathrm{S}\mathrm{I}}_{\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}}$ = SI of the rth risk factor by the ith respondent

As per the obtained results, the numerical value of average risk index (ARI) is categorized in one of the four groups of risks [5,39], i.e., low, low-moderate, moderate-high, and high. This categorization of risk factors is based on the ALARP principle (HSE, 2001) and has the following range of numeral values and meaning (Figure 5).

3.6. Profile of Survey Respondent

For the analysis and the computation of the results, experts or people associated with the maritime security and maritime logistics were approached. These experts belonged to 51 different organizations and were maritime academic scholars, port authorities, shipping companies, custom institutions, harbor authorities, maritime administrations, and vessel managers from China and Pakistan. It demonstrates that the majority of respondents have a wealth of knowledge and extensive professional experience in the container shipping industry, adding to the validity of the survey’s findings.

4. Results and Analysis

In this survey, there were 217 questionnaires that were sent in March 2022, 124 in Chinese and 93 in English, out of which 174 responses were received by 15 July 2022. Out of these 174 responses, 51 were either incomplete or had wrongly filled credentials and therefore were declared invalid. The remaining 123 responses were thus considered for the analysis. The questionnaire had a total valid response rate of 56.68%. The questionnaire was prepared in two languages—Chinese and English—and was designed in a user-friendly manner. The survey was made an e-survey for the majority of the respondents through Google Forms for the English version and “问卷星” Sojump for the Chinese version.

After the computation and study of the received data, the possibility of any factor happening and the accompanying severity and consequence were evaluated for all 64 factors under 5 risk source categories of society, management, infrastructure/technology, natural environment, and operations (

Table 5. ARI range with their meaning and color coding.

S.No.	Condition	Risk Level	Meaning	Color
1	ARI ∈ [1,4)	Low	These risks have a very minor impact on MCSC and thus can be ignored.	Green
2	ARI ∈ [4,6)	Low-Moderate	These risks have minor impacts but if not taken care of then they can become very dangerous.	Yellow
3	ARI ∈ [6,8)	Moderate-High	These risks have major impacts on MCSC and they should be stopped before they become potential high risks.	Orange
4	ARI ∈ [8,10)	High	These risks have huge impact on MCSC and thus need to be taken care of immediately or they would cause disaster.	Red

and

Table 6. A Brief profile of the respondents.

Respondent Profile		Number
What Kind of Organization is yours?	Academic	17
	Industry	28
	Governmental body	59
	Other	19
Which Phase of the supply chain for maritime containers do you work on?	Operating Ports	43
	Maritime Industry	34
	Entire supply chain process	46
What is your role or job Title?	Primary	11
	Middle	42
	Advanced/Senior (technical) job title	70
How long have you been employed in the container transportation or a similar field?	1–5 years	23
	5–10 years	14
	10–15 years	18
	15–20 years	25
	Over 20 years	43
How many people work for your company or organization?	1–30 people	24
	30–100 people	45
	100–200 people	54

).

In Figure 6, going by sources of risk, the average likelihood index was highest for management activities with a value of 4.30, which shows that management tasks, be it be human resource or working environment, are key factors that are more likely to happen as compared to other factors. Similarly, The average severity index was highest for operations with a value of 2.49, indicating that flaws such as financial, physical, or informational are the most hazardous ones and would be more severe than any other factors. Consequently, the average risk index (ARI) was the highest for management activities because of the high likelihood of its factors, and had a value of 5.66. Going by the category of risk type, the average likelihood index was highest for economic environment with a value of 4.50, indicating that current scenarios of war, conflicts, sanctions on a few countries, and the pandemic truly disturbed the markets with fluctuating rates. Similarly, the average severity index was highest for informational flaws with a value of 2.50, showing the lack of proper information and IT vulnerability. The ARI was maximum for economic environment with a value of 5.88.

In

Table 7. Risk factors with their respective average likelihood index (LI) and average severity index (SI) along with their ranks.

Risk Factors	Code	Likelihood			Severity
		AVG	Rank (Local)	Rank (Global)	AVG	Rank (Local)	Rank (Global)
Risk factors associated with society
Financial crisis	S/EE1	3.50	4	12	2.89	18	62
Change of interest rates	S/EE2	4.40	12	51	1.76	1	1
Change of exchange rates	S/EE3	4.59	14	55	2.11	7	14
Fluctuation of fuel price	S/EE4	5.76	18	64	2.52	14	38
Unattractive markets	S/EE5	4.16	10	44	2.72	15	57
Fierce competition	S/EE6	5.01	15	60	2.41	11	31
Monopoly	S/EE7	4.05	9	40	2.27	10	23
Trade policy instability	S/PE1	4.54	13	54	2.85	17	61
Maritime security initiatives	S/PE2	3.53	5	15	2.22	8	20
Regulations and measures	S/PE3	3.97	7	32	2.24	9	22
Regional political conflicts	S/PE4	5.01	15	60	2.42	12	32
Terrorism	S/SE1	2.79	1	1	2.48	13	35
Piracy/maritime robbery	S/SE2	3.73	6	21	2.72	16	58
Sabotage	S/SE3	3.25	3	5	2.11	6	13
Smuggling	S/SE4	4.39	11	50	1.99	4	7
Spying /espionage	S/SE5	2.88	2	2	1.95	3	5
Epidemic	S/SE6	5.01	15	60	2.00	5	8
Refugees	S/SE7	4.00	8	34	1.89	2	4
Risk factors associated with natural environment
Unstable navigational condition	NE1	3.06	1	3	1.88	2	3
Natural disasters	NE2	3.25	2	5	2.10	3	12
Climate change	NE3	3.59	3	18	1.80	1	2
Risk Factors	Code	Likelihood			Severity
		Avg	Rank (Local)	Rank (Global)	Avg	Rank (Local)	Rank (Global)
Risk factors associated with management
Lack of skilled workers	M/HR1	4.34	6	48	2.53	6	39
Lack of motivation	M/HR2	3.37	1	10	2.02	2	9
Mental health of seafarers	M/HR3	4.27	5	47	2.03	3	10
Human errors	M/HR4	5.03	10	63	2.60	9	48
Low wages	M/HR5	4.85	9	59	2.15	4	15
Language and cultural diversity	M/WE1	4.07	4	41	1.98	1	6
Lack of cooperation among departments	M/WE2	4.59	8	55	2.58	8	43
Poor safety culture/climate	M/WE3	4.48	7	52	2.49	5	36
Low degree of safety leadership	M/WE4	4.01	3	35	2.54	7	40
Poor ergonomics at workplace	M/WE5	3.98	2	33	2.66	10	54
Risk factors associated with infrastructure and technology
Lack of intermodal equipment	IT1	3.50	3	13	2.45	3	33
Poor entrance channels of a port	IT2	3.73	5	22	2.46	4	34
Limited storage ability	IT3	3.54	4	16	2.29	2	25
Low technical reliability	IT4	3.74	6	23	2.68	7	56
Undeveloped ground access system of a port	IT5	3.10	1	4	2.58	5	43
Lack of regular maintenance of equipment	IT6	3.92	7	29	2.65	6	53
Insufficient berthing capability	IT7	3.40	2	11	2.22	1	20
Risk factors associated with operations
Information delay	O/IF1	4.25	22	46	2.33	7	26
Information inaccuracy	O/IF2	4.21	21	45	2.57	14	42
IT vulnerability	O/IF3	3.76	8	24	2.67	22	55
Internet security	O/IF4	3.84	11	27	2.60	18	48
Poor information sharing	O/IF5	4.15	20	43	2.28	6	24
Lack of information standardization and compatibility	O/IF6	3.83	10	26	2.56	13	41
Payment delay from partners	O/FF1	3.36	3	9	2.49	12	36
Break a contract	O/FF2	3.57	5	17	2.15	2	16
Shippers going into bankruptcy	O/FF3	3.31	1	7	2.97	25	63
Partners with bad credit	O/FF4	3.96	14	31	2.82	24	60
Charter rates rise	O/FF5	4.14	19	42	2.37	11	30
Cash flow problem	O/FF6	4.02	16	37	2.20	3	17
Inaccurate demand forecast	O/PF1	4.35	23	49	2.62	21	52
Transportation of dangerous goods	O/PF2	4.52	24	53	2.58	15	43
Container shortage	O/PF3	3.72	7	20	2.73	23	59
Port strikes	O/PF4	3.34	2	8	2.22	5	19
Port/ terminal congestions	O/PF5	4.60	25	57	2.99	26	64
Lack of flexibility of designed schedules	O/PF6	4.01	15	35	2.04	1	11
Problems with customs clearance	O/PF7	3.94	13	30	2.37	9	28
Electricity failure	O/PF8	3.51	4	14	2.20	3	17
Bottlenecks/ restriction on transportation routes	O/PF9	3.88	12	28	2.58	15	43
Improper container terminal operations	O/PF10	4.02	17	38	2.33	8	27
Incorrect container packing	O/PF11	3.71	6	19	2.60	19	50
Transport accidents	O/PF12	3.79	9	25	2.61	20	51
Trade imbalance on container shipping routes	O/PF13	4.82	26	58	2.58	15	43
Improper management of container storage area	O/PF14	4.02	18	39	2.37	9	28

, the risk factors associated with society and natural environment are shown. Risk variables related to society were found to have the greatest influence on the severity of the consequences and were ranked on number 1. The container shipping business has been severely impacted for a considerable amount of time by the global economic downturn caused by the financial crisis in 2008. In recent years, both industry and academia have placed a lot of emphasis on security challenges, including terrorism and piracy. The remaining factors are located in Table 7.

If we look at individual factors, the average LI and ARI was highest for fluctuation of fuel prices (S/EE4) with a value of 5.76, which shows how the pandemic and war-conflicts has greatly contributed to the disturbed market and its frequent likelihood. For the average SI, the Port of Terminal Congestions (O/PF5) ranked first with a value of 2.99, indicating the lack of man power to attend the ports. This can be directly associated with the pandemic, which had and is having a great effect on human resources.

It is worth noting that out of all the 64 factors (

Table 8. Risk factors with their ARI ranks and color coding.

Risk Sources	Risk Code	ARI	Risk Type	Rank
Society ARI: 5.45	S/EE1	5.40	Financial crisis	33
	S/EE2	5.15	Change of interest rates	20
	S/EE3	5.71	Change of exchange rates	47
	S/EE4	7.28	Fluctuation of fuel price	64
	S/EE5	5.88	Unattractive markets	51
	S/EE6	6.41	Fierce competition	60
	S/EE7	5.32	Monopoly	28
	S/PE1	6.39	Trade policy instability	58
	S/PE2	4.75	Maritime security initiatives	13
	S/PE3	5.20	Regulations and measures	22
	S/PE4	6.43	Regional political conflicts	61
	S/SE1	4.27	Terrorism	3
	S/SE2	5.45	Piracy/maritime robbery	39
	S/SE3	4.36	Sabotage	5
	S/SE4	5.38	Smuggling	30
	S/SE5	3.83	Spying/espionage	1
	S/SE6	6.01	Epidemic	55
	S/SE7	4.89	Refugees	16
Natural environment ARI: 4.22	NE1	3.93	Unstable navigational condition	2
	NE2	4.35	Natural disasters	4
	NE3	4.38	Climate change	6
Management ARI: 5.65	M/HR1	5.87	Lack of skilled workers	50
	M/HR2	4.39	Lack of motivation	7
	M/HR3	5.30	Mental health of seafarers	25
	M/HR4	6.63	Human errors	63
	M/HR5	5.99	Low wages	54
	M/WE1	5.05	Language and cultural diversity	18
	M/WE2	6.17	Lack of cooperation among departments	57
	M/WE3	5.97	Poor safety culture/climate	53
	M/WE4	5.54	Low degree of safety leadership	43
	M/WE5	5.63	Poor ergonomics at workplace	46
Infrastructure and Technology ARI: 5.03	IT1	4.95	Lack of intermodal equipment	17
	IT2	5.19	Poor entrance channels of a port	21
	IT3	4.84	Limited storage ability	14
	IT4	5.42	Low technical reliability	35
	IT5	4.67	Undeveloped ground access system of a port	10
	IT6	5.57	Lack of regular maintenance of equipment	44
	IT7	4.62	Insufficient berthing capability	9
Operations ARI: 5.44	O/IF1	5.58	Information delay	45
	O/IF2	5.78	Information inaccuracy	49
	O/IF3	5.43	IT vulnerability	37
	O/IF4	5.44	Internet security	38
	O/IF5	5.43	Poor information sharing	36
	O/IF6	5.39	Lack of information standardization and compatibility	31
	O/FF1	4.85	Payment delay from partners	15
	O/FF2	4.72	Break a contract	12
	O/FF3	5.28	Shippers going into bankruptcy	24
	O/FF4	5.78	Partners with bad credit	48
	O/FF5	5.50	Charter rates rise	42
	O/FF6	5.22	Cash flow problem	23
	O/PF1	5.97	Inaccurate demand forecast	26
	O/PF2	6.10	Transportation of dangerous goods	56
	O/PF3	5.46	Container shortage	40
	O/PF4	4.56	Port strikes	8
	O/PF5	6.59	Port/ terminal congestions	62
	O/PF6	5.05	Lack of flexibility of designed schedules	18
	O/PF7	5.31	Problems with customs clearance	26
	O/PF8	4.72	Electricity failure	11
	O/PF9	5.46	Bottlenecks/restriction on transportation routes	40
	O/PF10	5.35	Improper container terminal operations	29
	O/PF11	5.31	Incorrect container packing	26
	O/PF12	5.40	Transport accidents	33
	O/PF13	6.40	Trade imbalance on container shipping routes	59
	O/PF14	5.39	Improper management of container storage area	31

), none are colored Red (ARI ∈ [8,10)), indicating that no risk factors or hazards are on the verge of a big disaster, which is a relief. The analysis also suggests that spying or espionage (S/SE5) and unstable navigational condition (NE1) are the only two factors that are g coded (ARI ∈ [1,4)), and therefore do not pose as a big problem. As per the experts, terrorism (S/SE1) and natural disasters (NE2) both lying under low-moderate risk yellow coding (ARI ∈ [4,6)) is the biggest relief of all, considering the rising climate change and global terrorist activities. Out of 64 factors, 52 are yellow coded, indicating that 81.25% of the risk factors pose low-moderate hazards, which can be easily controlled if timely interventions are done. These factors are also because of the unpredicted pandemic that has changed the maritime scenario completely. Orange coded factors (ARI ∈ [6,8)) are 10 in numbers and constitute 15.62%

5. Dynamics of the Factors

Experts believe that while the number of such factors is less they have great potential to become high risk-posing factors and could later lead to a possible disaster in MCSCs. Risk factors such as fluctuation of fuel prices (S/EE4), regional political conflicts (S/PE4), human errors (M/HR4), and trade imbalance (O/PF13) are the ones that are rising with a great pace and need to be immediately addressed (See

Table 9. Risk factors with their ARI, ranks, and dynamics.

Society ARI: 5.45	In society the total number of risk factors is 18. Spying/espionage is Ranked 1. This is a better sign for research work. Another factor is financial crises, which is ranked 33.a The color is yellow with an ARI value of 5.40. Financial crises can lead to cost cutting measures in the maritime industry, resulting in reduced maintenance and safety measures for container ships. This in turn can increase the likelihood of accidents and incidents in the container supply chain. Fluctuation of fuel price with orange color and their ARI value is 7.28 with a rank is 64. Carriers are compelled to increase pricing or suffer losses as fuel costs rise. The cost of fuel consequently affects not just the logistics firm but also the shipper and the shipper’s source of revenue. It is a domino effect that spreads outward: If the cost of shipping the freight increases, the shipper will be charged extra to make up the difference. The receiver will be charged extra if the shipper must pay more for the cost of moving the freight in order to cover their increased expenses.
Natural environment ARI: 4.22	In the natural environment, the total number of risk factors is 3. Unstable navigational condition is number 2 with an ARI value of 3.93. This means it is stable and will not very seriously affect MCSCs. However, climate change is yellow and ranked 6, with ARI value of 4.38. We need to address this issue because sea level rise poses the biggest threat to supply chains from climate change. Nonetheless, supply chain interruptions brought about by hurricanes, floods, wildfires, and other more extreme weather are already shaking the world economy, years before sea level rise starts flooding ports and other coastal infrastructure.
Management ARI: 5.65	In management, the total number of risk factor is 10. Poor safety culture/climate is number 53 and colored yellow with an ARI value of 5.97. One factor that may contribute to workplace accidents is workers’ insufficient training in occupational health and safety. Organizations should prioritize investing in workers’ training in this area because the number of work-related incidents tends to decline whenever occupational health and safety training programs are developed. Another factor is human error, which is colored orange and is ranked 63 with an ARI value of 6.63. Accidents occur, primarily due to human mistakes. However, those mishaps might result in expensive errors such as misshaped goods, out-of-date goods, warehouse-related losses, and injuries. One can raise employee productivity while also raising profitability if it is discovered how to lower human error in a warehouse.
Infrastructure and Technology ARI: 5.03	In infrastructure and technology, the total number of factors is 7. Lack of regular maintenance of equipment is number 44 and colored yellow with an ARI value of 5.57. Effective management of maintenance, repair, and operations (MRO) covers everything from safety gear to cleaning supplies and is used in production and repairs. This is necessary for the supply chain’s long-term health. These goods keep the supply chain moving even though they are not the ones being transported along. This is how to keep a supply chain operating efficiently because poor MRO management can disrupt operations just as much as a major global event.
Operations ARI: 5.44	In operations, the total number of factors is 26. Inaccurate demand forecast is number 26 and colored yellow with an ARI value of 5.97. This may still increase the chances of receiving favorable container freight rates by working diligently and strategically to provide more accurate projections. When they are breaking records, it is most likely the ideal time to do so. While in the past a business may have had privileges in the practice of securing container space, such as overbooking without facing any consequences, carriers’ regulations have become much more stringent over the past year. Nowadays, many charge cancellation and no-show fees, leaving shippers with little choice but to concentrate on producing forecasts that are as accurate as possible. Another factor is port/terminal congestion, which ranks number 62 with an ARI value of 6.59 and colored orange. This needs attention for how to avoid port/terminal congestion. (1) Attempt various port sites; (2) be adaptable; (3) reroute cargo; (4) online warehousing.

).

6. Conclusions

This study provides the layout and framework of a number of risk factors belonging to the MCSC using the Delphi expert survey approach. The analysis of risk variables influencing the security of the supply chain for maritime containers has illuminated a number of important issues. The total number of risk factors are 64, which were found and divided into several groups, including management, operations, infrastructure, economics, environment, politics, and security. From a management standpoint, the total number of factors is 10, and their ARI value is 5.65. Poor coordination, insufficient risk management techniques, and ineffective planning can all contribute to safety hazards in the supply chain for maritime containers.

In society management, the total number of risk factors is 18 with an ARI value of 5.45. This implies that the security of the supply chain for maritime containers can be impacted by economic factors such as changes in fuel prices, currency exchange rates, and trade imbalances. Last but not least, security hazards including piracy, theft, terrorism, and cyber-attacks have turned into major worries for the protection of maritime containers. To reduce possible dangers, these risks necessitate strong security measures, technology integration, and stakeholder cooperation. Stakeholders in the maritime container supply chain should create proactive plans to improve safety and reduce disruptions by comprehending and addressing these risk factors.

Operational risks, in which the total number of factors is 26 and their ARI value is 5.44, can result from mistakes made when handling cargo, poor container upkeep, and undertrained staff. Infrastructure concerns include problems such as outmoded port infrastructure, insufficient storage, and poor transportation connectivity.

In infrastructure and technology, the total number of factors is 7 with an ARI value of 5.03. Equipment, efficient administration, repair, and operation play critical roles in mitigating risk concerns within the maritime industry. This analysis emphasizes how crucial it is to spend money on contemporary equipment, put good management practices into place, and create effective repair and maintenance procedures. Stakeholders can improve safety standards, reduce risks, and guarantee the efficient operation of maritime activities by giving priority to these issues. An industry that is safer and more effective will benefit from ongoing improvements and adherence to best practices.

In a natural environment, the total number of risk factors is 3 with an ARI value of 4.22. The safe and effective movement of containers is severely hampered by natural threats such as extreme weather, natural disasters, and climate change. The supply chain may be disrupted and safety jeopardized by political risks brought on by trade disputes, regulatory changes, and geopolitical conflicts.

To maintain the safety and security of the MCSC, it is critical for all stakeholders—including shipping firms, port administrations, governmental bodies, and international organizations—to work closely together and share best practices. By working together, the industry can create a secure and robust supply chain that can withstand diverse hazards and sustain the safe transport of commodities around the world.

This study can be considered to be in continuation with the previous studies in the field of MCSCs and can be continued from here on for further research. While this study outlines a number of risks, there are some limitations to it and prospects which are not covered in the paper. These limitations or prospects include:

(1)

Proposition of mitigations for each risk, especially for those risks that are more threatening than others.

(2)

Lack of expert’s feedback from around the world, as this paper covers experts from two Asian countries only.

(3)

Lack of data from around the world in the field of MCSCs.

(4)

Cost analysis, which is essential in context to underlining risk factors.

(5)

The paper and its findings are only applicable to epidemic situations due to geographic limitations, delimitations, and COVID-19 restrictions.