PurposeThere can be many negative effects from a disruption in a central node of companies' supply chains, such as a port conflict that reduces capacity. Strategies for disruption management include flexibility and redundancy. This paper aims to analyse a supply chain disruption from flexibility and capacity perspectives.Design/methodology/approachA case study was conducted of the supply chain disruption caused by the port conflict in 2016–2017 in Gothenburg, in which the port operated at a reduced capacity. Companies importing and exporting goods, freight forwarders, hauliers, train operators, ports, shipping companies and their agents were interviewed.FindingsVarious capacity problems (ports, links, container chassis, empty containers) were encountered due to the port conflict. Flexibility measures such as node, mode and fleet flexibility can be used in response to changes in capacity. Difficulties with applying flexibility are discussed.Research limitations/implicationsAlthough based on a Swedish case, findings are relevant for disruptions or other types of disturbances in ports elsewhere and also in other important nodes in companies' supply chains.Practical implicationsActors influenced by disturbances in a port can increase their understanding of potential capacity problems and flexibility measures. Readiness and timely action are important due to competition regarding capacity.Originality/valueThe implications on the transport network surrounding a port, including many actors, are explained, illustrating how capacity problems propagate, but there is some flexibility to manage the problems.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Modal shift to more energy-efficient alternatives, such as from road to rail or sea, is one path to reduce negative environmental effects. Transport providers and shippers have crucial roles in modal choice decisions, and a better understanding of the influence of interorganisational factors on modal shift is needed. The purpose is to increase the understanding of opportunities for modal shifts by exploring the influence of power and trust at the interface between transport providers and shippers. Aspects of power (coercive, reward, legitimate, expert and referent) and trust (contractual, competence and goodwill) influencing modal shifts were identified from interviews with shippers and transport providers in Sweden. During the initiation phase of modal shift, power appears more important, while trust is shown essential for the duration. By proactively suggesting modal shift, transport providers can use expert power to create rewards and referent power, through recognition of their expertise. Building trust, particularly goodwill trust, such as time invested in understanding the other party, transparency about challenges and jointly seeking solutions, is key to establish long-term modal shifts. This paper contributes to modal shift literature with insights on power balances and trust between transport providers and shippers.

Onshore power supply (OPS) reduces emissions from vessels docked in port. Historically, the uptake of OPS has been low, and research indicates that potential OPS adopters face multiple complex barriers. Based on a systematic literature review, this paper presents a framework for categorizing barriers and drivers to the implementation of OPS and identifies potential areas for future research. The review indicates that research on barriers to OPS was limited until 2019, when interest increased considerably, coinciding with mounting stakeholder concerns and regulatory pressure. The suggested framework divides barriers and drivers divided into four key categories: (i) technology and operations, (ii) institutional elements, (iii) economic elements, and (iv) stakeholder elements. The framework then superimposes those categories on three main areas of concern: port, transmission, and vessel. Research has identified potential solutions to specific barriers, but the complexity of OPS highlights the need for a collaborative approach to OPS. Additionally, as regulatory pressure is rising, more research is needed on the systemic implications of OPS as well as the potential use of incentives, pricing, and business models to tackle the high cost of implementation.

No abstract

No abstract