SCRM Awareness in the Shipbuilding and Marine Equipment Market: Empirical Evidence from South Korea, China, and Singapore

Abstract

This study analyzes the relationships between the awareness levels of supply chain risk management (SCRM) importance, the level of development, and their influence on business performance in the shipbuilding and marine equipment industry. In addition, this study highlights the differences in awareness levels according to country-specific characteristics by comparing South Korea, China, and Singapore, leading suppliers of shipbuilding and marine equipment. Based on a questionnaire survey of 165 respondents, this study conducted a factor analysis and ANOVA. The results indicate that the surveyed companies highly value the importance of risk management overall, with the information and forecast risk factor being highest rated. However, the high levels of awareness of importance does not lead to satisfactory levels of SCRM development. In addition, the comparative analysis between countries indicates statistically significant differences in the awareness of importance and the development level. Finally, the results show that awareness of environmental risk and destructive risk factors, which are vital for long-term survival and sustained competitive advantages, are low. The findings in this study offers a useful baseline for future studies on developing SCRM in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market and establishing relevant policies and systems.

1. Introduction

The Wealth of Nations, often referred to as the first work of modern economics, explains the principles of the free market governed by the “invisible hand”, and indicates that the division of labor plays a crucial role fin labor efficiency and productivity improvement [1]. Since then, the division of labor has become the core of capitalist economies, with the rapid development of international transport and innovations in shipping technology and the global division of production becoming an essential factor in manufacturing [1,2]. However, this system is quite vulnerable to changes in politics and policy, as well as new technologies, decisions by global organizations, unexpected natural disasters, and other global risks. Indeed, in March 2011 Japanese semiconductor manufacturers suffered substantial damage to their production facilities due to an unexpected tsunami. This resulted in a shortage of components for global automobile and electronics manufacturers, leading to the suspended production of finished products. The global shipbuilding and marine equipment industry experienced an unprecedented boom with China’s rapid growth in the mid to late 2000s; however, in the wake of the global financial crisis caused by the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis, the vast majority of shipbuilding and marine equipment companies experienced financial distress and an economic decline. Moreover, recent developments in information and communication technologies (ICT) have also stimulated transactions between countries, further expanding the market and increasing its complexity. Therefore, without a swift and effective system responding to unexpected risks, companies are likely to face increased uncertainty in consumer demand forecasts, delays and distortions in information transfer between partners, and a degraded efficiency of production processes [3,4,5]. In particular, the shipbuilding and marine equipment market is a typical example of an industry with a complex global supply chain structure, in which components are supplied from various countries to manufacturers and then semi-finished and finished products are supplied back to customers over the world. This supply chain has an even larger scope of risks that must be managed, as it involves diverse stakeholders from raw material producers to end users. Accordingly, for the improvement of business performance, it is essential to form close relationships between suppliers in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market and to introduce suitable advanced ICT technology to effectively facilitate supply chain risk management (SCRM) [6].

There has been growing attention among multinational companies in the global supply chain to the efficient management of uncertainties, such as fluctuations in exchange rates and product demand. Previous studies suggest that swiftly shifting and minimum-cost corporate strategies in response to changes in the global economy have a significant impact on business performance [7,8,9]. Moreover, it has also been pointed out that optimization in the maritime sector plays a key role in the sustainable growth of companies [10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. In particular, companies in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market, which is very sensitive to global economic shocks and risks, are showing an increasing interest in swift and effective responses through the development of SCRM. Nevertheless, very few studies have analyzed whether this high interest in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market actually leads to the development of SCRM. Nevertheless, studies on general companies and markets, rather than specific industries, have reported that the actual development of SCRM is relatively poor compared to the high level of interest. They found that, due to the difficulty of quantifying the effect of SCRM development on business performance, it becomes a major cause of minimizing visible investment [18,19].

In this regard, this study analyzes the relationship between the level of corporate awareness and SCRM development in the global shipbuilding and marine equipment supply market. In particular, this study focuses on companies’ awareness of SCRM importance, development level, and their influence on business performance (sales). Furthermore, we also explore whether country-specific factors, such as policies, regulations, and corporate cultures, affect the level of SCRM awareness by analyzing the differences in awareness between South Korea, China, and Singapore—three representative shipbuilding and marine equipment supply markets [20,21,22]. By doing so, we can identify the detailed awareness levels of SCRM development in the market and provide a useful valuable implication for future studies on developing SCRM in the industry and establishing support policies and systems.

The rest of this study is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews the previous literature devoted to SCRM and provides an overview of the shipbuilding and marine equipment market. Section 3 describes the methodologies and dataset employed in this study. Section 4 provides the empirical results and discusses their implications. Finally, Section 5 concludes this paper.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Concept of SCRM and Empirical Evidence

Supply chain management (SCM) is defined as a series of approaches to effectively integrate suppliers, producers, warehouses, and retailers [23]. The objective of SCM is generally to enable products to be manufactured and distributed in the right amount to the right location and at the right time to minimize the overall cost of the system while providing satisfactory customer service. As the processes in the SCM are conducted across a broad and complex worldwide supply chain, necessitating systematic operation, they should be highly visible for the strategic implementation of corporate strategy. In this regard, SCRM must be developed to respond to risks swiftly and effectively. By doing so, SCM can be used as a tool to improve firm competitiveness when its core values (responsiveness, promptness, timeliness, and consistency) can be maintained regardless of the presence of risk [24,25].

With the increasing awareness of the importance of SCRM, researchers across diverse fields have explored related subjects in this field. However, due to the ambiguity of the conceptual scope of supply chain risk and the difficulty in the quantification of the relevant data, the definition of SCRM varies. Therefore, the concept of SCRM has evolved from the realm of investment opportunities for multinational companies to mitigate supply chain complexity and uncertainty to the realm of challenges to effectively manage and control increasing supply chain participants and complex structures that are geographically expanding. In terms of supply chain risk, Kraljic explained that a state of monopoly in the supply market, changes in technology, logistics costs, and complexity are factors that impact the supply chain [26]. Zsidisin defined supply chain risk as a potential phenomenon caused by the unintended variables of stakeholders in the supply chain, such as mistakes from suppliers or purchasers who are closely related to customer demand [27]. According to the study by Steele and Court, supply chain risk is the loss caused by imbalances in the supply and demand process, and SCRM involves the effective management of this risk [28]. Xie et al. conceptualized the events that negatively impact supply chain operation and performance as supply chain risk and explained that, beyond cost, strengthening the responsiveness and service level of the entire supply chain is important for developing SCRM [29]. Furthermore, Kwak et al. found that supply chain innovation is positively associated with corporate SCRM capabilities, which in turn enhance competitive advantage [30].

In addition, by recognizing potential variables in the entire supply process in advance, and by devising methods to effectively respond to them, SCRM stably maintains the service quality of SCM. Accordingly, to effectively address risks in the product supply process, SCRM requires a thorough and broad understanding of supply chain risk factors. It is also necessary to establish an integrated network for collecting and utilizing all possible data. Although some pioneering studies have explored whether the awareness level of SCRM is associated with its development and corporate performance in the specific industry or country [31,32,33,34], to our best knowledge there have been no studies investigating the impact of SCRM in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market. Thus, the findings in this study offer a valuable implication for future research on developing SCRM in the shipbuilding and marine equipment industry.

2.2. Shipbuilding and Marine Equipment Market

The shipbuilding and marine equipment market is a typical project-based industry that essentially manufactures various products supplied to ships, offshore structures, plants, floating production storage and offloading (FPSO), floating liquified natural gas (FLNG), and others. Essentially, in project-based manufacturing, the business processes that correspond to corporate operations are similar in structure to those of traditional manufacturing. For example, processes such as forming collaborative relationships with external investors and companies or enhancing productivity through research and support for new technologies, are identical to those of traditional manufacturing. However, one clearly distinct feature of the project-based industry from the traditional supply-demand model is the irregular frequency of occurrence of supply and demand. While the supply process in traditional manufacturing involves the mass production of ready-made products according to market demand, project-based industries have irregular demand and long-term characteristics, all of which makes their production process more complex. Moreover, supply management is sometimes conducted according to one-off demand. As such, in project-based industries the product production process is customized to irregular and typically one-off customers. As a result, it is difficult to standardize the production process of project-based products, such as those in the shipbuilding and marine equipment industry, and it is also challenging to forecast the time and size of demand [35,36].

In the project-based market, manufacturers utilize a production strategy that is commonly referred to as engineering-to-order (ETO). In the ETO strategy, demand is first determined based on sales activities and orders prior to deciding on the design, production direction, and production quantity. In the shipbuilding and marine equipment market, in particular, detailed specifications of products vary with the ordering company’s demands, classification, and environmental regulations, all of which are sources of the difficulty of manufacturing standardized products and the need to operate the entire manufacturing process through project management. Thus, shipbuilding and marine equipment companies are required to manufacture complex and detailed products based on special regulations, specifications, and information, while simultaneously complying with irregular product delivery schedules and the entire project process. Therefore, the shipbuilding and marine equipment sector is more sensitive and vulnerable to risks than the traditional manufacturing industry, and a swift and effective response to risk through the development of SCRM should be regarded as a core part of the corporate business strategy [36,37].

South Korea, China, and Singapore are major countries in the shipbuilding and marine equipment industry. In particular, Busan and Shanghai lead the industrial initiatives in Korea and China, respectively. In addition, both are leading countries in the shipping and port sector, with Busan ranking the second in container transshipment throughput and Shanghai ranking the first in total container throughput as of 2019. In terms of shipbuilding orders, the two countries take the vast majority of the total global volume (approximately 71%), with 9.4 million compensated gross tonnage (CGT) of Korea and 8.5 CGT of China in 2019; they also take leading positions in the league table worldwide in terms of the shipbuilding and marine equipment-related technology and the market size [20,22]. Singapore has maintained the top transshipment port worldwide for several decades, based on various additional ship services, such as ship financing and bunkering. The country is also one of the best markets for buyers and sellers to meet in the shipbuilding and marine equipment sector, and through the Maritime Innovation and Technology (MINT) fund established in 2003, it is heavily investing in R&D for advanced marine technology. Several experts have also evaluated Singapore as having the best specialized shipbuilding and marine equipment technology in the world, and explained that it focuses on the high-end vessel market (e.g., cruise, offshore, navy) in the shipbuilding sector as well providing high value additions to the industry [20,21]. Accordingly, this study selected Korea, China, and Singapore for analysis based on their status as leading countries in the shipbuilding and marine equipment sector.

3. Research Method

3.1. Overview of Data Analysis

This study aims to identify the awareness of the importance SCRM, the development level, and the influence on business performance (sales) among shipbuilding and marine equipment companies in Korea, China, and Singapore. To this end, major supply chain risk factors were selected based on previous studies, from which a questionnaire survey was composed and conducted. The survey results were then analyzed by means of a factor analysis, reliability analysis, ANOVA, and post-hoc analysis.

The analysis first performed a frequency analysis of the respondents’ characteristics to identify biases in their responses. In addition, to verify the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, a factor analysis and a reliability analysis were performed on the awareness of SCRM’s importance. A factor analysis is used to identify interrelationships by grouping similar items among several variables. The suitability of the results can be analyzed through a test of sphericity, which was conducted through Bartlett’s test and the Keiser–Meyor–Olkin (KMO) test. The former tests whether the null hypothesis that the correlation coefficient matrix between the internal variables is a unit matrix can be rejected, and there is communality when it is rejected. As such, Bartlett’s test was judged to be suitable for the factor analysis. The KMO test identifies bias between variables to determine the number of variables used in the factor analysis and suitability of cases. A value of 0.5 or greater is generally regarded to be acceptable, and the explanatory power increases as the value increases [38,39]. For factor extraction, a principal component analysis was conducted, which is typically used in social sciences. The varimax rotation was then used to clearly classify the factors [40,41]. Finally, a reliability analysis tests the reliability of the measurement constructs using Cronbach’s α coefficient; a value of 0.6 or more indicates an acceptable reliability. This ensures that the same results will be obtained if the survey is repeated [41,42].

The survey items, for which validity and reliability were secured, were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, and the dataset was used to analyze the overall and country-specific awareness of SCRM in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market. In terms of country-specific awareness, an ANOVA was performed when Levene’s test of the 0.05 significance level indicated homoscedasticity, while Welch’s ANOVA was performed when it indicated heteroscedasticity [39,40]. For the post-hoc analysis, a Scheffe test was performed if homoscedasticity was satisfied, and a Dunnett T3 test was performed if otherwise. Scheffe and Dunnett T3 tests are post-analysis tools that are applicable when the number of samples between the comparison groups differ [39,43].

3.2. Questionnaire Design

The survey comprised questions on the respondent’s general characteristics (field of work, work experience, sales, etc.) and questions on their level of SCRM awareness. The risk factors utilized in the analysis of awareness level were derived from prior studies. Among major studies on supply chain risk factors, Zsidisin and Ellarm [44] and Chopra and Sodhi [45] presented the following as factors that impede stable SCM operations: risks arising during the physical storage and transport steps; demand uncertainty and errors and changes in order content; company competency problems; and exogenous variables that are difficult to control, such as economic downturns and inflation. These risk factors were also classified into six types: transport, inventory, forecast, information, market, and supplier [44,45]. Shin et al. also partitioned risk factors into the six categories of transport, inventory, forecast, information, market, and supplier, and performed an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) analysis on the awareness and importance of SCRM from the perspective of logistics centers and subcontractors [46]. Manuj and Mentzer classified risk factors in more detail, with the following categories: supply, operational, demand, security, macro, policy, competitive, and resource [47]. Xie et al. proposed the supply chain risk management process (SCRMP), an effective supply chain risk management method, and selected demand, delay, disruption, inventory, manufacturing breakdown, plant, supply, system, sovereign, and transportation as major risk factors [29].

Meanwhile, some studies suggest the classification of risk factors according to different perspectives and analysis methods from those mentioned above. First, Christopher and Peck presented network-oriented risk factors, consisting of company internal factors that include process and control risk, network internal factors that include demand and supply risk, and network external factors that include environmental risk [48]. In addition, some studies have concentrated more on exogenous factors, such as environmental aspects. Cross and Bonin collected risk data on environmental factors such as culture, language, organizational culture, and values, and utilized them in global SCM research [49], and the Cello White Paper presented risk factors that cut off the supply chain, including natural disasters, social and political issues, bankruptcy, and strikes [50]. Honkanen analyzed content related to overcoming crises in the supply chain and selected factors related to information systems (technology, operation, system failure) and external factors (market, outsourcing) as major risk factors [51]. Based on previous research, Yoon et al. classified major risk factors into demand and supply risk, environmental risk, and destructive risk, and analyzed their effects on the performance of logistics and shipper companies [19].

From the review of prior research, it is obvious that a variety of risk factors exert pervasive impact on corporate operation. For a comprehensive understanding of the association between SCRM and business performance, we derived five factors that are employed in the previous studies: transportation risk, information and forecast risk, supplier risk, environmental risk, and destructive risk. Transportation risk refers to risk factors that occur during transportation, including delayed product arrival or damage to the product during transit. Information and forecast risk refers to risk factors related to information and demand forecasting, including order-related errors (order documentation, order entry, and information system errors), urgent order requests and changes by customers, and proper inventory maintenance. Supplier risk refers to risk factors related to suppliers in SCM, including sudden supplier bankruptcy, shortages and defects caused by the supplier’s inadequate production capacity, and the inability to respond to urgent orders. Environmental risk is caused by changes in the SCM operating environment, including price fluctuations due to rising raw material prices and inflation; unmet supply and demand due to insufficient raw materials; changes in related regulations, laws, and policies; and technological changes. Finally, destructive risk is caused by sudden disasters and accidents, including unexpected natural disasters, epidemics, fires, traffic accidents, strikes, and port and airport closures.

Table 1. Selection of supply chain risk factors.

Factors	Definition	References
Transportation Risk	Risk related to the delayed arrival of the product due to hazards during transportation or damage to the product during transportation.	[29,44,45,46,47]
Information and Forecast Risk	Risk related to information and demand forecasts such as ordering errors, urgent order requests and changes by customers, and proper inventory level maintenance.	[19,29,44,45,46,47,48,51]
Supplier Risk	Risk related to the sudden bankruptcy of the supplier, product defects, shortage due to the lack of capacity of the supplier, and ability to respond to urgent orders.	[19,29,44,45,46,47,48,50]
Environmental Risk	Risk related to changes in the supply chain management (SCM) operating environment due to price fluctuations, such as raw material prices and inflation; changes in relevant regulations, laws, policies; and technological changes, etc.	[19,29,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]
Destructive Risk	Risk related to unexpected natural disasters, fire, traffic accidents, strikes, harbor and airport closures, and sudden disasters and accidents.	[19,29,47,50,51]

presents the definition of each risk factor and the relevant literature.

For each risk factor, four questions are presented to examine shipbuilding and marine equipment companies’ awareness of the importance of risk factors and to assess the level of development and its influence on business performance (see

Table 2. Derivation of survey questions according to supply chain risk factors.

Factors	Questions
Transportation Risk	A1	Establishment of a reliable delivery system for transporters who deal with our company.
	A2	Establishment of a response system for packing, back-and-forth, and driving for maintaining product quality during transportation.
	A3	Establishment of a response system in the case of congestion of roads, docks, and airports.
	A4	Promoting the diversification policy of the transportation company.
Information and Forecast Risk	B1	Establishment of a systematic management, operation, and evaluation system to maintain proper inventory levels.
	B2	Establishment of a response system for customers’ urgent order requests and order changes.
	B3	Establishment of a system to prevent errors in the product ordering process.
	B4	Establishment of an internal server management system for cyber-attacks and system errors.
Supplier Risk	C1	Establishment of a pre-contractor survey process for suppliers’ financial status, transaction performance, and reputation.
	C2	Establishment of a process to maintain quality and manage defects in supplied products.
	C3	Recognition of the supplier’s production capacity to respond to fluctuations in order volume.
	C4	Promotion of the diversification policy of suppliers.
Environmental Risk	D1	Establishment of a price fluctuation response system for exchange rate changes, inflation, etc.
	D2	Establishment of a response system for changes in related regulations, laws, and policies.
	D3	Development of a smart response system, such as innovative technology development and changes in customer preferences.
	D4	Management of relationships with competitors and suppliers to respond to changes in the SCM operating environment.
Destructive Risk	E1	Establishment of a damage response system for natural disasters, such as floods, earthquakes, etc.
	E2	Establishment of a system to deal with infectious diseases such as foot and mouth disease, swine flu, ebola, influenza, etc.
	E3	Establishment of a damage response system for fires, traffic accidents, accidents during work.
	E4	A response system preparation for union strikes or closures of ports and airports.

). Each question was measured on a 5-point Likert scale and configured for an easy statistical analysis.

3.3. Sample and Data Collection

The questionnaires were distributed to shipbuilding and marine equipment companies located in Korea, China, and Singapore. Due to its ease of respondent selection, the convenience sampling method was employed for sample selection. Two strengths of convenience sampling are its high speed and feasibility of data collection, although the sample is subject to failure to represent the entire population [52]. Accordingly, to investigate country-specific awareness without bias towards certain companies, this study surveyed possible companies to avoid overlap and, in the case of overlapping companies, their departments were surveyed differently, thus enhancing the representativeness of the samples. The survey was performed online via email and offline through company visits over two months from 1 May to 30 June 2019. By indicating the purpose and research ethics of this study in the questionnaire, the agreement was reached with participants to take part in the research. Eighty completed questionnaires were obtained from Korea, 43 from China, and 42 from Singapore, for a total of 165 questionnaires. In Korea, a relatively large number of surveys were collected via face-to-face interviews, whereas email and telephone surveys were conducted for China and Singapore due to the difficulty of direct visits, thus resulting in relatively few responses. Nevertheless, under the criterion that normality can be assumed if at least 30 questionnaires are obtained per group, this dataset satisfies the suitability for research [53].

Table 3. Respondent general status (N = 165).

Variables		Number	Percentage (%)
Nationality	Korea	80	48.5
	China	43	26.1
	Singapore	42	25.5
Department	Business/Management	86	52.1
	Sales	46	27.9
	Design	10	6.1
	Purchasing	11	6.7
	Quality/Service	12	7.3
Work Experience	Less than 5 years	16	9.7
	5–10 years	44	26.7
	10–15 years	55	33.3
	15–20 years	27	16.4
	More than 20 years	23	13.9
Annual Turnover	Less than USD 5 M *	28	17.0
	USD 5 M–10 M	19	11.5
	USD 10 M–20 M	27	16.4
	USD 20 M–30 M	16	9.7
	More than USD 30 M	75	45.5
Total		165	100.0

Note: * M is the abbreviation for “Million”.

shows the general status of the 165 shipbuilding and marine equipment companies who completed the survey in Korea, China, and Singapore.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Validity and Reliability Analysis of Risk Factors

Prior to conducting the empirical analysis, this study identified whether the survey questions coincided with the previously envisioned factors, and an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to assess the validity and reliability of the survey. According to the first factor analysis, among the environmental risk factors (D), “Establishment of a response system for changes in related regulations, laws, and policies (D2)” was found to be linked to destructive risk factors (E) and was therefore removed according to the researchers’ judgment. According to the second factor analysis on the remaining items, all the factors were found to coincide with the previously envisioned design. Furthermore, the criteria for eigenvalue (1.0 or more), communality (0.5 or more), KMO statistic (0.819), and Bartlett’s test (χ² = 1298.012) were all satisfied. The factor loadings were also at least 0.4, indicating that the factor analysis results were significant [38,39]. Finally, according to the test reliability of each factor through Cronbach’s α, each was at least 0.6, thus verifying the internal consistency and convergent validity of the measurement variables [41,42]. Accordingly, all the items except D2 were used in the empirical analysis, in which the average score of each detailed item was set as the value of the corresponding factor. The results of EFA for the risk factors are summarized in

Table 4. Summary of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) results for risk factors (N = 165).

Factors	Rotated Loadings					Communality
	Destructive Risk	Transportation Risk	Information and Forecast Risk	Supplier Risk	Environmental Risk
E1	0.824	0.132	0.033	0.132	0.171	0.744
E4	0.792	0.326	0.086	−0.009	0.018	0.742
E2	0.778	−0.064	0.028	0.188	0.224	0.695
E3	0.591	0.021	0.361	0.012	0.316	0.580
A1	0.053	0.745	0.273	0.110	0.038	0.646
A2	0.050	0.734	0.187	0.245	0.016	0.637
A3	0.407	0.631	−0.026	0.084	0.092	0.580
A4	0.042	0.628	0.009	0.102	0.406	0.572
B3	0.107	−0.039	0.789	0.182	0.236	0.724
B2	0.076	0.291	0.737	0.180	−0.048	0.668
B1	0.007	0.259	0.676	0.161	0.335	0.663
B4	0.392	0.042	0.473	0.371	−0.037	0.518
C1	0.120	0.195	0.275	0.753	0.033	0.696
C3	0.112	0.309	0.057	0.751	0.149	0.698
C2	0.096	−0.068	0.334	0.687	0.240	0.654
C4	0.039	0.346	−0.009	0.536	0.457	0.617
D4	0.294	0.157	0.173	0.136	0.657	0.590
D3	0.254	−0.013	0.121	0.267	0.656	0.581
D1	0.125	0.358	0.417	0.002	0.528	0.596
Eigen-value	6.366	1.952	1.621	1.236	1.027	-
α	0.818	0.735	0.768	0.778	0.665	-

Notes: extraction method: Principal Component Analysis (PCA). Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. Factor loadings over an absolute value of 0.400 appear in bold and cross-loadings in bold italic font.

.

4.2. Awareness of SCRM Importance

Figure 1 describes the overall awareness of SCRM importance and compares it by country. All the items measuring awareness of SCRM importance were at least 3.6 points, indicating that the shipbuilding and marine equipment companies recognized the importance of risk management. In particular, the management of information and forecast risk (4.12) was the most important, followed by supplier risk (3.93), transportation risk (3.83), environmental risk (3.73), and destructive risk (3.64). By country, Singapore and Korea recognized information and forecast risks (SG 4.21, KR 4.12) as the most important risk factors, whereas China recognized supplier risk (4.10) as the most important factor. Korea recorded 3.79 points for supplier risk, a relatively low score compared to China and Singapore, which recorded more than 4 points. Finally, all the countries consistently allocated low scores to environmental and destructive risk factors, thus evaluating the importance of exogenous variables that are difficult to control as relatively low.

Table 5. Variance analysis results of SCRM importance by country.

Item		N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	F-stat (p-Value)	Post-hoc
Transportation Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.86	0.67	0.07	0.382 (0.683)	-
	China (b)	43	3.84	0.56	0.09
	Singapore (c)	42	3.76	0.57	0.09
Information and Forecast Risk	Korea (a)	80	4.12	0.72	0.08	0.725 (0.486)	-
	China (b)	43	4.05	0.55	0.08
	Singapore (c)	42	4.21	0.59	0.09
Supplier Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.79	0.66	0.07	4.039* (0.019)	b > a (Scheffe)
	China (b)	43	4.10	0.59	0.09
	Singapore (c)	42	4.01	0.55	0.08
Environmental Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.71	0.76	0.08	0.361 (0.698)	-
	China (b)	43	3.79	0.64	0.10
	Singapore (c)	42	3.69	0.45	0.07
Destructive Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.65	0.75	0.08	0.027 (0.973)	-
	China (b)	43	3.62	0.78	0.12
	Singapore (c)	42	3.63	0.74	0.11

Notes: p-values under the 0.05 significance level are marked with asterisks (*). When the p-value of Levene’s test was above the 0.05 significance level, we used Welch’s F, which appears in bold font.

shows the statistical analysis of the significance of differences in awareness of SCRM importance between the countries. According to the Table 5, significant difference was observed in supplier risk. As a result of Scheffe post-hoc analysis for the supplier risk, there was a significant difference between China (4.10) and Korea (3.79). Moreover, Korea ranked the importance of supplier risk third out of the five factors, whereas China and Singapore ranked it second.

4.3. Awareness of SCRM Development Level

Figure 2 describes the overall awareness of SCRM development level and compares it by country. All the items measuring the awareness of the SCRM development level scored lower than those for the awareness of importance. This result indicates that the high levels of interest in SCRM and evaluations of its importance in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market do not lead to the development of SCRM at satisfactory levels. In terms of specific risk factors, information and forecast risk (3.58) was the most important, followed by supplier risk (3.53), transportation risk (3.41), environmental risk (3.28), and destructive risk (3.11), thus showing the same pattern as importance awareness. Hence, the higher the evaluation of importance, the higher the level of actual SCRM development. By country, China scored higher than the average for all the risk factors, while Korea and Singapore scored lower than the average. Therefore, shipbuilding and marine equipment companies in China showed satisfaction and confidence in their level of SCRM development compared to the other countries.

Table 6. Variance analysis results of SCRM development level by country.

Item		N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	F-stat (p-Value)	Post-hoc
Transportation Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.37	0.66	0.07	2.856 (0.060)	-
	China (b)	43	3.61	0.63	0.10
	Singapore (c)	42	3.27	0.74	0.11
Information & Forecast Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.45	0.81	0.09	4.555* (0.013)	b > c (Dunnett T3)
	China (b)	43	3.85	0.65	0.10
	Singapore (c)	42	3.57	0.62	0.10
Supplier Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.34	0.83	0.09	9.209* (0.000)	b > a, c (Dunnett T3)
	China (b)	43	3.89	0.61	0.09
	Singapore (c)	42	3.51	0.49	0.08
Environmental Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.17	0.80	0.09	8.061* (0.000)	b > a, c (Scheffe)
	China (b)	43	3.66	0.69	0.11
	Singapore (c)	42	3.10	0.60	0.09
Destructive Risk	Korea (a)	80	2.98	0.93	0.10	4.868* (0.009)	b > a, c (Scheffe)
	China (b)	43	3.47	0.78	0.12
	Singapore (c)	42	2.99	0.91	0.14

Notes: p-values under the 0.05 significance level are marked with asterisks (*). When the p-value of Levene’s test was above the 0.05 significance level, we used Welch’s F, which appears in bold font.

shows the statistical analysis of the significance of differences in awareness of SCRM development level between countries. According to the Table 6, significant differences were observed in information and forecast risk, supplier risk, environmental risk, and destructive risk. As a results of Scheffe and Dunnett T3 post-hoc analysis for these four risks, China evaluated the development level higher than the other countries. Specifically, China evaluated the SCRM development level for information and forecast risk, supplier risk, environmental risk, and destructive risk higher than Singapore, and showed more satisfaction and confidence than Korea in the SCRM development level for supplier risk, environmental risk, and destructive risk.

4.4. Awareness of SCRM Influence on Business Performance

Figure 3 describes the overall awareness of SCRM influence on business performance (sales) and compares it by country. The awareness of SCRM’s influence on business performance was analyzed through the awareness of influence on sales, a typical performance indicator. According to the results, all three countries scored at least 3.4, indicating that they positively evaluated the influence on business performance (sales). In particular, the influence of information and forecast risk (3.94) was the most important, followed by transportation risk (3.87), supplier risk (3.83), environmental risk (3.60), and destructive risk (3.47). By country, Singapore rated the information and forecast risk at 4.13 points, which is higher than the other countries’ scores of less than 4 points. Korea ranked the influence of transportation risk (3.87) and information and forecast risk (3.87) as the highest. In contrast, China rated the influence of supplier risk (3.94) as the highest among the five factors, different from Korea and Singapore, which rated information and forecast risk and transportation risk as the most important. Finally, similar to the awareness of importance and development level, the awareness of the influence of environmental risk and destructive risk was relatively low in all countries.

Table 7. Variance analysis results of awareness of SCRM influence on business performance (sales) by country.

Item		N	Mean	Standard Deviation	Standard Error	F-stat (p-value)	Post-hoc
Transportation Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.87	0.72	0.08	0.412 (0.663)	-
	China (b)	43	3.80	0.73	0.11
	Singapore (c)	42	3.93	0.64	0.10
Information & Forecast Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.87	0.67	0.08	2.252 (0.108)	-
	China (b)	43	3.88	0.61	0.09
	Singapore (c)	42	4.13	0.74	0.11
Supplier Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.76	0.72	0.08	1.000 (0.370)	-
	China (b)	43	3.94	0.74	0.11
	Singapore (c)	42	3.85	0.63	0.10
Environmental Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.67	0.73	0.08	0.749 (0.474)	-
	China (b)	43	3.58	0.79	0.12
	Singapore (c)	42	3.50	0.64	0.10
Destructive Risk	Korea (a)	80	3.44	0.88	0.10	0.087 (0.917)	-
	China (b)	43	3.49	0.82	0.12
	Singapore (c)	42	3.50	0.65	0.10

Notes: When the p-value of Levene’s test were above the 0.05 significance level, we used Welch’s F, which appears in bold font.

shows the statistical analysis of the significance of differences in awareness of SCRM influence on business performance (sales) between the countries. According to the Table 7, no significant differences were observed. This indicates that there was no statistically significant difference between Singapore’s high evaluation of information and forecast risk and China’s high evaluation of supplier risk in Figure 3.

The results of this study are summarized as follows. First, in terms of importance, all the countries rated all risk factors as at least 3.6 points, confirming high levels of awareness of SCRM’s importance in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market. Specifically, information and forecast risk was rated as the most important risk factor. This is because securing a variety of information and improving forecast accuracy is the most essential and first consideration for shipbuilding and marine equipment companies in establishing short- and long-term production and operation strategies. In terms of differences in awareness between the countries, there was a statistically significant difference in the awareness of supplier risk importance, with Korea ranking it as relatively low in importance. This is because in Korea’s shipbuilding and marine equipment market structure, the large shipyards that manufacture the final finished products comprise a highly concentrated monopoly market, whereas the small- and medium-sized sub-vendors that supply components and semi-finished products comprise a competitive market [54,55]. Thus, even if there is a problem with the supplier, the shipyard has other alternatives, making the importance of supplier risk relatively low.

Next, in terms of the awareness of development level, an increase in awareness of the factor’s importance leads to higher development levels and more focused management of important risk factors. In particular, China showed more confidence in the development level than the other countries, with a statistically significant difference. This finding highlights China’s unique political and industrial structure, which facilitates the control of external variables compared to other countries, and its cultural characteristic of generous self-assessment [56,57]. However, the overall evaluations of development level were lower than those of the importance for all risk factors. This indicates the presence of a limitation that prevents the awareness of importance from leading to actual SCRM development.

In terms of influence on business performance (sales), there were no statistically significant differences in awareness between the countries for all risk factors. However, all the countries rated the risk factors as at least 3.4 overall, indicating that they recognized the influence of developing effective SCRM on securing business management stability and improving performance.

Finally, all countries showed low evaluations of environmental risk and destructive risk for awareness of SCRM importance, development level, and business performance (sales) influence. This is attributed to a higher emphasis on the management of risks in transportation, information and forecast, and suppliers, which have a short-term impact on business operations and work processes. However, it is essential from a long-term perspective to construct a response system for unexpected external variables to ensure the survival of companies and markets and maintain competitive advantages. As such, SCRM should be developed with a clearer awareness of the importance of environmental and destructive risks, which are difficult to control and predict. Moreover, when it is too difficult to develop a system alone, support organizations and industry coalitions must collaborate to devise countermeasures.

5. Conclusions

This study analyzed the awareness levels of SCRM in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market, a representative project-based industry. First, based on prior research, five major risk factors were derived: transportation risk, information and forecast risk, supplier risk, environmental risk, and destructive risk. Based on this, a questionnaire was designed to examine the awareness of the importance of SCRM, development level, and their influence on business performance. The study analyzed the overall market’s awareness without bias to a specific country by conducting the survey for companies in Korea, China, and Singapore, which are leading countries in the shipbuilding and marine equipment industry. The differences in SCRM awareness according to country-specific characteristics were also identified by comparing and analyzing the awareness of each country.

The analytical results have several important implications. First, to our best knowledge, this is the first attempt to explore the impact of SCRM in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market. While there have been a plethora of studies addressing SCRM in the logistics [46,50], international trade [19], automobile [22,31,58], and wind power projects [34] sectors, to name a few, little research attention has been paid to the shipbuilding and marine equipment industry, an important manufacturing industry that has a far-reaching impact on the international economy. By focusing on the shipbuilding and marine equipment industry, this study enriches the current knowledge on SCRM in both academic and practical perspectives. Second, this study provides empirical evidence of the SCRM awareness level of companies in the shipbuilding and marine equipment market. This can be utilized as baseline data for devising policies and systems related to shipbuilding and marine equipment SCRM. Third, through quantitative data, this study documents that high levels of interest in SCRM do not lead to the development of SCRM that can be experienced in practice. Therefore, the findings of prior research, which reports that short-term investments that are more visible than the positive effects of SCRM development are more largely felt, also hold in the shipbuilding and marine equipment industry [18,19]. Fourth, this study proposes that support organizations and industry coalitions should collaborate to devise management measures for external variables, such as environmental and destructive risk. Individual companies evaluate the importance and development level of environmental risk and destructive risk as the lowest. However, as these two risk factors must be managed for the long-term growth and survival of the industry, relevant organizations and companies must collaborate to establish a joint management and response system. Finally, amid the bleak situation of the spread of COVID-19 in recent days, it is of paramount importance that focal companies controlling global supply chains recognize the potential after-effects arising from environmental and destructive risk factors and prepare well-organized and comprehensive manuals.

Despite this study’s significant conclusions and implications, it has some limitations. Due to low questionnaire recovery rates from China and Singapore, the number of samples from these two countries differs from that of Korea. Therefore, an analysis method suitable for when the number of samples between comparison groups differs was utilized to maximize the reliability and accuracy of the results. Thus, future studies can further enhance accuracy by collecting a similar number of questionnaires from each country. Furthermore, a fine-tuned adjustment of the potential bias arising from the use of subjective data (judgmental responses) would yield more stable and unambiguous implications. Finally, to investigate SCRM awareness in shipbuilding and marine equipment markets worldwide, it is highly recommended that future research expands the scope of surveyed countries to Europe, the United States, and others.