Sustainable bulk-packaging system for sugar shipping: Case study of the enterprise leader in Europe

Lombardi, Mariarosaria; Maffia, Giuseppe; Tricase, Caterina Article Sustainable bulk-packaging system for sugar shipping: Case study of the enterprise leader in Europe Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Lombardi, Mariarosaria; Maffia, Giuseppe; Tricase, Caterina (2019) : Sustainable bulk-packaging system for sugar shipping: Case study of the enterprise leader in Europe, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 9, Iss. 4, pp. 1-16, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci9040091 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/239988 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ administrative sciences Article Sustainable Bulk-Packaging System for Sugar Shipping: Case Study of the Enterprise Leader in Europe Mariarosaria Lombardi 1,*, Giuseppe Maffia2and Caterina Tricase 1 1Department of Economics, University of Foggia, 1-71121 Foggia, Italy; [email protected] 2Marketing Consultant, 1-71121 Foggia, Italy; giuseppemaffi[email protected] *Correspondence: mariar[email protected] Received: 29 October 2019; Accepted: 25 November 2019; Published: 27 November 2019   Abstract: From 2002 to today, world sugar production has steadily increased due to higher food consumption and biofuel production. Furthermore, in the European Union, the CAP 2014–2020 new reform abolished the system of production and sugar exportation quotas by 1 October 2017. Therefore, since that date, the international sugar exchange has significantly increased in light of these new structural and political–economic conditions. Thus, companies offering a new bulk-packaging technology for international shipping could increase their market success. At the same time, the possibility for the same buyers (from sugar producers to logistic agencies) to use a safer and more sustainable packaging system has become important for economic and environmental cost reduction. The present study aims at presenting the experience of a small Italian enterprise that became a European leader in this sector due to its patents concerning a new, more efficient and sustainable product for bulk sugar transport in containers. This technological innovation represents not only a noteworthy sustainable business strategy for becoming more competitive in the market, but also a system for ensuring more effective sugar transport, mainly for the reduction in management costs (up to 65%) for buyers. Keywords: bulk packaging system; sugar market; sugar shipping; sustainable business; technological innovation 1. Introduction Sucrose (commonly known as sugar) is one of the most imported commodities worldwide for its volume of production (178.6 Mt in 2018). It is mainly extracted from sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L., a perennial tropical plant) and sugar beet (Beta vulgaris var. Saccariphera, a biennial plant), since they have a high concentration by weight: 7–18% and 8–22%, respectively (Schiweck et al. 2002). Sugar is mainly transported in bulk (using auto silos and containers) or using bags of natural material (e.g., jute) or plastic (e.g., polyethylene or high-density polyethylene) of 25–50 kg in weight (Brody 2006). The transport vector can be naval (ship), railway and road (TIS (Transport Information Service) 2017). In the last decade, world sugar production has gradually risen, due to higher food consumption and biofuel production. This stressed a market situation characterized by a greater complexity of trade between the producing and importing countries due to the high numbers of actors involved. This is also reflected in the European Union (EU) market where the system of production and sugar exportation quotas was definitively abolished by 1 October 2017, according to Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013, to increase competitiveness and strengthen the European market in world trade (European Commission 2013). Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91; doi:10.3390/admsci9040091 www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 2 of 16 Consequently, the movement of sugar, especially in maritime trade (with containers), will significantly increase in the light of the EU market’s new structural and political–economic conditions. Generally, the containers are upholstered internally by a packaging system (which may be unique or a plurality of bags) to avoid food contamination with the metal of the box. To safeguard the quality of the sugar transported, it is necessary that the international technical specifications are respected ( ISO 22000:2005 2017 ;BMT Survey 2017). Container packaging systems are, therefore, of great importance to ensure not only the food safety of the commodity, but also a reduction in economic and environmental costs (Hansen et al. 2012;Brody 2006). The role played by companies that offer bulk-packaging systems for the shipping sector has indeed become increasingly essential, since new and competitive scenarios are opening up. The ability to offer an innovative packaging able to reduce environmental and economic costs for buyers (from sugar producers to logistic agencies), linked, for example, to easier commodity loading and unloading and packaging disposal, also becomes crucial for packaging producers’ market success. In light of this, the present study aims at presenting the experience of a small, young Italian enterprise (i.e., Eceplast) that launched an innovative product (Barless Liner). It is certified for the quality management of production processes, environmental sustainability and food safety (ISO 22000), allowing the company to be recognized as a leader in bulk packaging systems (container liners) at the European level. Hence, the paper, starting by describing the sugar market, provides useful information on a “virtuous” example of sustainable business strategy and on a specific “know-how” concerning the importance of using sustainable bulk commodity packaging to reduce economic and external costs in this sector. The methodology used to carry out this study is based on a qualitative analysis (systematic review) and face-to-face interview. The former has been necessary to gather data aimed at discussing the main topic, that is, the bulk-packaging system for the shipping sector, according to an innovative and sustainable approach. The latter has been used to collect in-depth information about the company, which is selected as a case study. The paper was divided into the following sections: a literature review about maritime transport, with a specific focus on dry bulk shipping; description of the sugar market, highlighting the complex trade between the producing and importing countries, above all in the EU; the packaging systems used for international sugar shipping, focus on bulk-packaging systems; presentation of the case study and its sustainable business due to the adoption of innovation in bulk-packaging systems, underling its environmental and economic advantages; and conclusions. 2. Literature Review Over the past century, international maritime transport has been the principal mode for allowing the exchange of commodities amongst countries, thus favoring globalization. Currently, it continues to play an essential role in international trade since it covers, in the world’s economy, over 90% of the world’s trade. In 2018, the total volumes of commodities carried by sea reached an all-time high of 11 billion tons (with a growth of around 3.9% per year in the last decade). This data is expected to grow by 3.8% per year in the next 5 years. Dry bulk commodities, followed by containerized cargo, other dry bulk, oil, gas and chemicals, contributed the most to this growth. Growing demand for goods and raw materials and more consolidation within the shipping industry are estimated to increase business operations for ship-owners even if, in 2019, uncertainty concerning trade tensions between China and the United States has had negative consequences on the world economy, leading to a decelerated demand for dry bulk and tankers (UNCTAD 2019;Clarksons 2019). Consequently, shipping is one of the most finance-intensive industries in the world and future financing needs are expected to increase (Wohlstrand and Marek 2014). This mode has also changed greatly in recent years because more attention has been paid to reducing its environmental impact and to improving its efficiency by introducing containerization and ultra-large container vessels, that allow relevant economies of scale (Halim et al. 2018); designing for Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 3 of 16 ports’ effective voluntary programs and appropriately motivating participation from global shipping companies that visit these ports (Linder 2018); increasing energy efficiency in shipping, through reduced speed at sea, enabled by a shorter time in port, whilst maintaining the same transport service (Johnson and Styhre 2015). To support this statement, the authors conducted a systematic review to verify how many academic papers have been published on this topic and to describe the scientific evolution of these studies. For this reason, data were collected through a combination of (a) database searches (cross-discipline platforms of Elsevier) as of 7 November 2019, and (b) screening references of studies retrieved under (a). The aim was to select highly referenced studies, to identify, highlight and assess all data related to the above-mentioned subject. For an initial selection, the key words were: (i) sugar market; (ii) sugar shipping and/or transport; (iii) maritime transport, (iv) bulk packaging system and, (v) dry bulk shipping. The search was not limited to a specific period. The qualitative analysis revealed a few articles on the specific topic (sugar along with bulk packaging system). Indeed, the majority of in-depth studies were expressly focused on: (a) the environmental impact of international trade by shipping and aspects of the dry bulk shipping industry; and, (b) the sugar industry, where some details were provided for overall sugarcane agribusiness diversification. Concerning the importance of environmental concerns, (Gritsenko 2017) stressed that: “maritime transport is a significant contributor to the global Greenhouse Gas (GHG) with emissions set to grow”. According to the Third International Maritime Organization (IMO) GHG Study, the annual CO 2 estimate in international shipping decreased from 2.8% in 2007 to 2.2% in 2012. Nevertheless, this value will considerably increase by 2050, reaching 17% of global GHG, in the case of maintaining the current regulatory measures (Energy Efficiency Design Index—EEDI, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan—SEEMP), while the European Commission, in 2011, set a goal to reduce emissions from shipping by at least 40% by 2050 (European Commission 2011). For this reason, it is useful to complement technical standardization in the areas of ship design and operations, with policies targeting shipping sectors. To this end, a previous study, written by (Wang et al. 2015), declared that: “various market-based measures have been proposed to reduce CO 2 emissions from international shipping. One promising mechanism under consideration is the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS)”. They demonstrated, by elaborating an economic model, that currently the ETS application is not effective, due to the particular characteristics of the sector: inhomogeneous carriers, and different market structures and companies across different shipping sectors. Therefore, it was important to continue to study and evaluate certain key issues regarding the ETS itself, although numerous political and institutional factors might be responsible for such slow progress. Some years later, (van der Loeffet al. 2018) confirmed that: “although maritime transport offers by far the most energy efficient mode of long-distance mass cargo transportation, it has a significant responsibility for anthropogenic climate change . . . Despite its importance, the maritime shipping sector has been traditionally overlooked in climate mitigation discussions, since this sector was largely neglected in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol”. The main problems for effective application of CO 2 abatement measures, in this sector, involve the absence of reliable emissions data and the inherent difficulty of exactly accounting for the quota of emissions attributable to the involved countries, companies and commodities, as well as the threat to global trade interests. Specific research on seaborne containers, by (Yang et al. 2018), highlighted that: “uncertainties as a result of climate change, epidemics, and increasing economic upheaval create risks for the proper functioning of container supply chains (CSC) and stimulate the research and development of resilient and sustainable container transportation”. Consequently, it is necessary to include green perspectives into the management of intermodal container transportation for improving the environmental performance of international trade flows, mainly considering the different methods Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 4 of 16 and practices currently used in various transport segments (e.g., port, shipping and road) and geographical regions. This aspect was also stressed by (Shin et al. 2018), stating that: “research on sustainability of maritime logistics is on the rise, yet fragmented in terms of conceptual development, empirical testing and validation, and theory building. These issues are related to green ports/shipping, carbon emission/climate change and region-specific environmental regulation/management”. Specifically, they stressed that, in the case of maritime logistics, it is necessary to implement optimal logistics systems, sustainable supply chain design, and service quality management in order to deal with the sustainability issues. As regarding the aspects of dry bulk shipping industry, a first study in the literature of maritime economics, examining the impact of subsidies on the fleet renewal schemes of shipping companies, has been presented by (Yang et al. 2019). They proposed a “model of general applicability and use to shipping companies wishing to design efficient ship renewal schemes under various market and regulatory circumstances”. In the framework of environmental sustainability, this research could represent a starting point to provide useful evidences to governments and supranational regulatory organizations, such as IMO and the European Commission, for implementing or evaluating scrapping subsidies for environmental or other purposes. More specifically, (Moutzouris and Nomikos 2019) analyzed the relationship between second-hand vessel prices, net earnings, and holding period returns in sectors of the dry bulk shipping industry. They showed that “high shipping earnings yields strongly and negatively predict future net earnings growth. Furthermore, there is no consistent evidence of time-varying expected returns in the second hand dry bulk shipping industry”. These evidences had never been reported before in the shipping literature, thus representing a valuable study for providing a framework to determine prices in shipping assets, with finite economic lives and also subject to wear and tear. Certainly, this data might also affect the application of environmental subsidies and actions for reducing the GHG emissions released by the dry bulk shipping industry. In this framework, it is also interesting to examine which innovations in packaging systems for dry bulk shipping industry are able to ensure not only the food safety of the dry commodity, but also the reduction of economic and environmental costs for logistic operators. This is mostly true for the sugar shipping that will increase due to the new EU structural and political–economic conditions, as previously described. In addition, (Bezuidenhout and Trevor 2009) highlighted that: “almost none of the research conducted to date brings long-term sustainability, environmental issues, value adding, the sugar markets and marketing beyond the mill into a overall supply chain context. This is considered a significant shortcoming in the sugar industries of the world, since many modern supply chains do consider these issues holistically”. This means that researchers have mainly investigated the integration of sugarcane supply systems, especially in a harvesting context, assessing long-term strategic issues, while omitting the importance of shipping logistics. Moreover, (Higgins et al. 2007) underlined that: “sugar industries around the world are primarily “pushchains”, where sugarcane ispushedthrough thechaintoproduce rawsugarwithminimalproduct differentiation and sold at market value as a bulk commodity. A general sugar value chain consists of growing, harvesting, cane transport, mill processing, sugar transport and storage/shipping/marketing sectors”. Consequently, in order to increase the sugar value chain opportunities, a technical solution along with the participation of actors from across the chain, are needed, considering also the last phase of the sugar value chain, which is the shipping sector. Therefore, the present study may represent a starting point to deal with one aspect of the sugar supply chain and to develop further empirical researches. Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 5 of 16 3. The Sugar Market 3.1. World Market Sugar can be extracted from two different plants, which are cultivated for their agronomic characteristics, in different areas of the world. Sugarcane, a tropical plant, is present in the southern part of the planet (Figure 1a). In 2017, the total harvested surface area was 25.9 Mha, mostly located in Brazil (more than 39%). The other major sugar-producing countries are India, China, Thailand and Pakistan, which contributed to almost 72% of the total quantity (Knoema 2019a). Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16 sugar-producing countries are India, China, Thailand and Pakistan, which contributed to almost 72% of the total quantity (Knoema 2019a). Different, however, is the diffusion of sugar beet, predominantly present in the northern hemisphere of the world (Figure 1b). In 2017, its total surface area was 4.9 Mha, 24.0% of which was located in the Russian Federation. The other leading countries are the United States, France, Germany and Turkey, which together account for 56.4% of the globally harvested product (Knoema 2019b). According to the most recent data available, world sugar production stood at 178.6 Mt in 2018; 80.2% came from sugarcane and the remaining 19.8% from sugar beet. Average per capita consumption was 22.6 kg, slightly less than the value recorded in 2016 (23 kg), and global demand was 172.4 Mt (with an average annual growth of 2.01% from 2001). By the end of 2018, world sugar stocks rose modestly by 0.62 Mt, reaching 111.1 Mt (or 64% of global consumption, more than the 60.8% recorded in 2017) (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019). (a) (b) Figure 1. Harvested surfaces for sugar cane (a) and sugar beet (b) in 2017. Source: (Knoema 2019a, 2019b). The ten main producers and their relative amount offered on the market in 2018 are shown in Figure 2. India is the most important country, with more than 33 Mt of sucrose produced by sugarcane, followed by the EU-28, with about 18 Mt from sugar beet. Figure 2. Main producers of sugar in the world (2018). Source: our elaboration on data from the (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019). The volume of sugar exchanged at the international level in 2018 decreased by almost 4 Mt tones compared to 2017. The major exporters are Brazil (21 Mt) and Thailand (11 Mt), while the main importers are Indonesia and China (with more than 5 Mt) and the United States (almost 2.5 Mt). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 India Brasil EU-28 Thailand China USA Pakistan Mexico Russia Australia Production in Mt Countries Sugar cane Sugar beet Figure 1. Harvested surfaces for sugar cane ( a ) and sugar beet ( b ) in 2017. Source: (Knoema 2019a, 2019b). Different, however, isthediffusionofsugarbeet, predominantlypresentinthenorthernhemisphere of the world (Figure 1b). In 2017, its total surface area was 4.9 Mha, 24.0% of which was located in the Russian Federation. The other leading countries are the United States, France, Germany and Turkey, which together account for 56.4% of the globally harvested product (Knoema 2019b). According to the most recent data available, world sugar production stood at 178.6 Mt in 2018; 80.2% came from sugarcane and the remaining 19.8% from sugar beet. Average per capita consumption was 22.6 kg, slightly less than the value recorded in 2016 (23 kg), and global demand was 172.4 Mt (with an average annual growth of 2.01% from 2001). By the end of 2018, world sugar stocks rose modestly by 0.62 Mt, reaching 111.1 Mt (or 64% of global consumption, more than the 60.8% recorded in 2017) (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019). The ten main producers and their relative amount offered on the market in 2018 are shown in Figure 2. India is the most important country, with more than 33 Mt of sucrose produced by sugarcane, followed by the EU-28, with about 18 Mt from sugar beet. The volume of sugar exchanged at the international level in 2018 decreased by almost 4 Mt tones compared to 2017. The major exporters are Brazil (21 Mt) and Thailand (11 Mt), while the main importers are Indonesia and China (with more than 5 Mt) and the United States (almost 2.5 Mt). Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 6 of 16 Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 16 sugar-producing countries are India, China, Thailand and Pakistan, which contributed to almost 72% of the total quantity (Knoema 2019a). Different, however, is the diffusion of sugar beet, predominantly present in the northern hemisphere of the world (Figure 1b). In 2017, its total surface area was 4.9 Mha, 24.0% of which was located in the Russian Federation. The other leading countries are the United States, France, Germany and Turkey, which together account for 56.4% of the globally harvested product (Knoema 2019b). According to the most recent data available, world sugar production stood at 178.6 Mt in 2018; 80.2% came from sugarcane and the remaining 19.8% from sugar beet. Average per capita consumption was 22.6 kg, slightly less than the value recorded in 2016 (23 kg), and global demand was 172.4 Mt (with an average annual growth of 2.01% from 2001). By the end of 2018, world sugar stocks rose modestly by 0.62 Mt, reaching 111.1 Mt (or 64% of global consumption, more than the 60.8% recorded in 2017) (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019). (a) (b) Figure 1. Harvested surfaces for sugar cane (a) and sugar beet (b) in 2017. Source: (Knoema 2019a, 2019b). The ten main producers and their relative amount offered on the market in 2018 are shown in Figure 2. India is the most important country, with more than 33 Mt of sucrose produced by sugarcane, followed by the EU-28, with about 18 Mt from sugar beet. Figure 2. Main producers of sugar in the world (2018). Source: our elaboration on data from the (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019). The volume of sugar exchanged at the international level in 2018 decreased by almost 4 Mt tones compared to 2017. The major exporters are Brazil (21 Mt) and Thailand (11 Mt), while the main importers are Indonesia and China (with more than 5 Mt) and the United States (almost 2.5 Mt). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 India Brasil EU-28 Thailand China USA Pakistan Mexico Russia Australia Production in Mt Countries Sugar cane Sugar beet Figure 2. Main producers of sugar in the world (2018). Source: our elaboration on data from the (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019). 3.2. The European Union Market Since 2006, the sugar CMO (Common Market Organization in the EU) has changed completely. The first intervention in this sense was Regulation (EC) No 318/2006, proposed to increase the competitiveness of the entire sugar supply chain through rationalization and concentration of production means and substantial investments (European Commission 2006). With such a system, sugar, eventually produced in surplus, was actually withdrawn from the market, and farmers were asked to reduce the sowing for the following year. The reform came about for three reasons: to make the sugar regime coherent with the new plan of the CAP; to prevent internal imbalances in the EU market, resulting from the implementation of the EBA (European Banking Authority, which provided zero-duty imports from developing countries); and to reduce EU domestic production, following the unfavorable outcome of the WTO panel in 2005, which provided for observance of preferential import volumes (Lang et al. 2017). After more than ten years of rigid regulation (COM reform of 2006) 1 , which has isolated the Community market from price fluctuations, there has been a strong reduction in the sector’s businesses, above all in Italy—from more than 200 plants in 2003 to fewer than 110 in 2018; from more than 350 thousand sugar beet growers to 140 thousand (De Molli 2017;CEFS (Comite Europeen Des Fabricants Du Sucre) 2018). Since 1 October 2017, the market situation has further changed as a result of the definitive abolition of sugar production and export quotas. This was foreseen in the second intervention of CAP reform, Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013 of 17 December 2013, aimed at increasing competitiveness and strengthening the European market in world trade, for which rules were laid down in December 2017 (European Commission 2013,2017). In the beginning, market experts agreed on the absolute conviction that EU production would be more competitive than that of sugarcane coming from abroad. Moreover, they believed that, by the following season, the EU would have returned to being a net exporter. In addition, they expected another shock in the sugar CMO over the next few years due to “Brexit” (Great Britain’s exit from the European Union), because some of the major sugar factories in Europe are located in the United 1The reform obliged all State members to reduce the sugar production costs below 405 €/t. Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 7 of 16 Kingdom. Thus, there would have been opportunities, but also risks for likely greater market volatility, as long as the several industries did not find a new equilibrium. Unfortunately, in the short term, this scenario did not occur as predicated. The entire EU beet sugar sector continues to experience severe instability. Actually, the effects of the new reform, in the marketing year 2018/2019, have not always been positive: sugar production decreased by 17% (17.6 Mt) in 2017/2018; sugar consumption remained stable at 17.5 Mt; and cultivated surfaces slightly reduced to 1.62 Mha (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019;European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). These data confirm that adaptation to the post-quota situation has not been easy for the sugar growers and processors who fell into a crisis (a 30% loss on their income) due to low prices and the abundant supply of sugar stocks (CEFS (Comite Europeen Des Fabricants Du Sucre) 2018) . In July 2019, prices reached the lowest level (320 € /t) of the last decade, even below the reference threshold (404 € /t) (the benchmark for the health of the sector) (CIBE—International Confederation of European Beet Growers 2019a,2019b; European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019 ). These sugar price fluctuations and collapse were caused by world trade conditions, positions of speculators and third countries dumping subsidized sugar on the world market (minus 36% in the EU since September 2017) (European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). The only winners of the reform have been the sugar-using food and beverage industries, to whom around 2 billion euros was transferred at the expense of farming families (CIBE—International Confederation of European Beet Growers 2019b), despite sugar producers having engaged in severe reorganization to increase their competitiveness and sustainability. In August 2019, the current European Union Agricultural Commissioner stated, “there is evolving evidence that the sugar market is starting to improve. Indeed, production and stock levels are adjusting and spot prices are said to be around 430 € /t at the moment” (European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). In this context, as shown by Figure 3, after the 1 October 2017 there has been a relevant increase in white sugar exports and simultaneously a reduction in imports. However, this positive effect did not last. Maybe much more time is needed to make EU sugar beet production more competitive than that of sugarcane. Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 17 are adjusting and spot prices are said to be around 430 €/t at the moment” (European Commission— Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). In this context, as shown by Figure 3, after the 1 October 2017 there has been a relevant increase in white sugar exports and simultaneously a reduction in imports. However, this positive effect did not last. Maybe much more time is needed to make EU sugar beet production more competitive than that of sugarcane. Figure 3. The EU sugar trade after 1 October 2017. Source: (European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). 3.3. The Italian Market After the CMO reform of 2006 and the following reform of 2013, Italy was the country that had renounced the largest volume of production quotas, about 1 Mt, with a reduction of 67%, passing from 19 operating plants (2005) to three (2018) (De Molli 2017; Gallerani 2018; COPROB— Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli 2019). In 2018, the cultivated sugar beet surface amounted to just over 34,000 ha, a drastic 97.8% reduction since 2002 (ISTAT 2019; European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). White sugar production amounted to 0.22 Mt in the marketing year 2018/2019, almost 80% less than 2006 (COPROB—Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli 2019), but the demand was 1.6 Mt (Agostini 2019). Consequently, Italian sugar production covered only 12% of the demand, because the prices and margins of the sector have been greatly reduced (Agostini 2019). Two plants provide the local supply and they are located at Minerbio (Emilia Romagna region) and Pontelongo (Veneto region) in Northern Italy. They are owned by Co.Pro.B 2 (national market leader and unique cooperative beet sugar producer). There is another plant (located at Brindisi [Apulia region] in Southern Italy) that is owned by the foreign joint venture SRB Spa 3 . This plant only refines imported raw sugar and is the only one of its kind in Italy and the second in Europe (SRB Spa 2019). Therefore, it is clear that the country was forced to import white sugar from European countries (especially France and Germany) and raw sugar from the Extra-EU (Mauritius) (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019) to meet internal demands. 2 This was addressed to food and beverage production (75%), while only 25% was allocated directly to the Large Distributed Organization and to the Hotel, Restaurants and Bars sector (Ho.Re.Ca.). 3 It is a joint venture between Cristal Union (European leader for sugar beet) and ASR (world leader for sugar cane refining). Figure 3. The EU sugar trade after 1 October 2017. Source: (European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 8 of 16 3.3. The Italian Market After the CMO reform of 2006 and the following reform of 2013, Italy was the country that had renounced the largest volume of production quotas, about 1 Mt, with a reduction of 67%, passing from 19 operating plants (2005) to three (2018) (De Molli 2017;Gallerani 2018;COPROB—Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli 2019). In 2018, the cultivated sugar beet surface amounted to just over 34,000 ha, a drastic 97.8% reduction since 2002 (ISTAT 2019;European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). White sugar production amounted to 0.22 Mt in the marketing year 2018/2019, almost 80% less than 2006 (COPROB—Cooperativa Produttori Bieticoli 2019), but the demand was 1.6 Mt (Agostini 2019). Consequently, Italian sugar production covered only 12% of the demand, because the prices and margins of the sector have been greatly reduced (Agostini 2019). Two plants provide the local supply and they are located at Minerbio (Emilia Romagna region) and Pontelongo (Veneto region) in Northern Italy. They are owned by Co.Pro.B 2 (national market leader and unique cooperative beet sugar producer). There is another plant (located at Brindisi [Apulia region] in Southern Italy) that is owned by the foreign joint venture SRB Spa 3 . This plant only refines imported raw sugar and is the only one of its kind in Italy and the second in Europe (SRB Spa 2019). Therefore, it is clear that the country was forced to import white sugar from European countries (especially France and Germany) and raw sugar from the Extra-EU (Mauritius) (International Sugar Organization (ISO) 2019) to meet internal demands. The Italian situation, in comparison with its competitors, such as France and Germany, was influenced by the highest production costs that affected the final price on the market, equal to 386 € /t versus 324 € /t in Germany (updated in July 2019) (European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets 2019). Therefore, this liberalization mainly favored some member States (Germany and France), which have increased their beet-growing agricultural areas, generating over-production and creating an EU oligopoly market, to which Italy, like the rest of Southern Europe, is in danger of succumbing (Ronchetti 2018). Currently, Italy is increasingly an exporter of products obtained from the processing of imported base products. 4. International Sugar Shipping 4.1. Technical Specifications for Sugar Quality Before explaining the most common packaging typologies used for international sugar shipping, it is necessary to clarify and describe the international technical specifications required to safeguard the quality of the transported sugar (ISO 22000:2005 2017;BMT Survey 2017). The first is the humidity, which has to be between 55% and 65%. In fact, a sudden process of fermentation and mold production is triggered if the value exceeds 75%; on the contrary, a value less than 50% leads to toasting and hardening of the product. Another fundamental element is the temperature, which must be between − 25 ◦ C and +25 ◦ C. Rapid variations within this range should be avoided, to prevent the formation of water vapor and/or recrystallization of the commodity, creating sucrose agglomerates. Sugar water content is another important parameter: it must be between 0.03% and 0.05%. If the water content exceeds this range, the product goes into sugar inversion (dissolution of monosaccharaides, glucose and fructose). The last technical factor is ventilation, which must normalize the temperature when it undergoes significant variations. For example, switching from cold to hot zones creates a heating of the outside 2 This was addressed to food and beverage production (75%), while only 25% was allocated directly to the Large Distributed Organization and to the Hotel, Restaurants and Bars sector (Ho.Re.Ca.). 3 It is a joint venture between Cristal Union (European leader for sugar beet) and ASR (world leader for sugar cane refining). Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 15 of 16 European Commission. 2006. Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the Common Organization of the Markets in the Sugar Sector. Official Journal of the European Union, L 58/1-31, 28.2.2006. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32006R0318 (accessed on 2 August 2019). European Commission. 2011. White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area—Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System. Luxembourg: European Commission. European Commission. 2013. Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 Establishing a Common Organization of the Markets in Agricultural Products and Repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007. Official Journal of the European Union, L 347/671-853, 20.12.2013. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa. eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0671:0854:EN:PDF (accessed on 2 August 2019). European Commission. 2017. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/1185 of 20 April 2017 Laying Down Rules for the Application of Regulations (EU) No 1307/2013 and (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council as Regards Notifications to the Commission of Information and Documents and Amending and Repealing Several, Official Journal of the European Union, L 171/113-130, 4.7.2017. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017R1185&from=EN (accessed on 29 July 2019). European Commission—Committee for the Common Organization of Agricultural Markets. 2019. Sugar Trade Statistics. September 26. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/sites/agriculture/files/marketobservatory/sugar/doc/market-situation_en.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2019). Foschi, Eleonora, and Alessandra Bonoli. 2019. The commitment of packaging industry in the framework of the European strategy for plastics in a circular economy. Administrative Science 9: 18. [CrossRef] Gallerani, Claudio. 2018. L’esperienza di COPROB, Audizione in Senato Roma. September 6. Available online: https://www.senato.it/application/xmanager/projects/leg18/attachments/documento_evento_procedura_ commissione/files/000/000/356/Audizione_Senato_Presentazione_COPROB_6_09_2018.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2019). Gritsenko, Daria. 2017. Regulating GHG Emissions from shipping: Local, global, or polycentric approach? Marine Policy 84: 130–33. [CrossRef] Halim, Ronald, Lucie Kirstein, Olaf Merk, and Luis Martinez. 2018. Decarbonization Pathways for International Maritime Transport: A Model-Based Policy Impact Assessment. Sustainability 10: 2243. [CrossRef] Hansen, Anlaug Ådland, Erik Svanes, Ole Jørgen Hanssen, Mie Void, and Bjorn Tore Rotabakk. 2012. Advances in bulk packaging for the transport of fresh fish. In Advances in Meta, Poultry and Seafood Packaging. Sawston: Woodhead Publishing, pp. 248–60. [CrossRef] Higgins, Andrew, Peter Thorburn, Ainsley Archer, and Emma Jakku. 2007. Opportunities for value chain research in sugar industries. Agricultural Systems 94: 611–21. [CrossRef] International Sugar Organization (ISO). 2019. Sugar Year Book 2019; London: International Sugar Organization. ISO 22000:2005. 2017. Food Safety Management Systems—Requirements for Any Organization in the Food Chain, ISO/TC 34/SC 17. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/35466.html (accessed on 18 September 2019). ISTAT. 2019. Coltivazioni: Cereali, Legumi, Radici Bulbi e Tuberi. Available online: http://dati.istat.it/(accessed on 18 June 2019). Johnson, Hannes, and Linda Styhre. 2015. Increased energy efficiency in short sea shipping through decreased time in port. Transportation Research Part A 71: 167–78. [CrossRef] Knoema. 2019a. World Data Atlas: Sugar Cane—Area Harvested (1961–2017). Available online: https: //knoema.com/atlas/topics/Agriculture/Crops-Production-Area-Harvested/(accessed on 5 July 2019). Knoema. 2019b. World Data Atlas: Sugar Beet—Area Harvested (1961–2017). Available online: https://knoema. com/atlas/topics/Agriculture/Crops-Production-Area-Harvested/(accessed on 5 July 2019). Lang, Tim, Victoria Schoen, Kawther Hashem, Lucy McDonald, Jennifer Parker, and Anna Savelyeva. 2017. The environmental, social and market sustainability of sugar. In Advances in Food Security and Sustainability. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 115–36, chp. 5. Linder, Alison. 2018. Explaining shipping company participation in voluntary vessel emission reduction programs. Transportation Research Part D 61: 234–45. [CrossRef] Mamatok, Yuliya, Yingyi Huang, Chun Jin, and Xingqun Cheng. 2019. A System Dynamics Model for CO 2 Mitigation Strategies at a Container Seaport. Sustainability 11: 2806. [CrossRef] Adm. Sci. 2019,9, 91 16 of 16 Moutzouris, Ioannis C., and Nikos K. Nomikos. 2019. Earnings yield and predictability in the dry bulk shipping industry. Transportation Research Part E 125: 140–59. [CrossRef] Ronchetti, Natascia. 2018. Il Crollo dei Prezzi Mette a Rischio la Filiera Dello Zucchero. March 16. Available online: https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/il-crollo-prezzi-mette-rischio-filiera-zucchero-AEyE0xHE (accessed on 15 July 2019). Schiweck, H., M. Clarke, and G. Pollach. 2002. Sugar. In Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA. Shin, Sung-Ho, Oh Kwon, Xiao Ruan, Prem Chhetri, Paul Lee, and Shahrooz Shahparvari. 2018. Analyzing Sustainability Literature in Maritime Studies with Text Mining. Sustainability 10: 3522. [CrossRef] SRB Spa. 2019. Company. Available online: https://eurosrb.com/en/company/(accessed on 27 July 2019). TIS (Transport Information Service). 2017. Cargo Loss Prevention Information from German Marine Insures, Berlin. Available online: http://www.tis-gdv.de/tis_e/verpack/inhalt1.htm (accessed on 12 July 2019). TMR—Transparency Market Research. 2016. Global Bulk Container Packaging Market to Rise at 9.7% CAGR from 2014 to 2020 Due to High Demand in North America. April. Available online: https://www. transparencymarketresearch.com/pressrelease/global-bulk-container-packaging-market.htm (accessed on 12 July 2019). UNCTAD. 2019. Review of Maritime Transport 2019; Geneva: United Nations. Available online: https://unctad.org/ en/PublicationsLibrary/rmt2019_en.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2019). van der Loeff, Wendela Schim, Javier Godar, and Vishnu Prakash. 2018. A spatially explicit data-driven approach to calculating commodity specific shipping emissions per vessel. Journal of Cleaner Production 205: 895–908. [CrossRef] Wang, Kun, Xiaowen Fu, and Meifeng Luo. 2015. Modeling the impacts of alternative emission trading schemes on international shipping. Transportation Research Part A 77: 35–49. [CrossRef] Wohlstrand, Peter, and Jørgen JebsenMarek. 2014. Capital Structure inBulkShipping. Master’sthesis, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10417/5160 (accessed on 22 November 2019). Yang, Zaili, Venus Lun, Ioannis N. Lagoudis, and Paul Tae-Woo Lee. 2018. Container transportation: Resilience and sustainability. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 61: 420–22. [CrossRef] Yang, Zhongzhen, Zhenfeng Jiang, Theo Notteboom, and Hercules Haralambides. 2019. The impact of ship scrapping subsidies on fleet renewal decisions in dry bulk shipping. Transportation Research Part E 126: 177–89. [CrossRef] © 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).