Advancing Port Sustainability in the Baltic Sea Region: A Comparative Analysis Using the SMCC Framework

Abstract

Ports in the Baltic Sea region play an integral role in advancing sustainable maritime practices in the area, due to their geographic interconnectedness, economic importance, and sensitivity to environmental challenges. While numerous port sustainability assessment methods exist, most of which are grounded in the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) metric, many tend to emphasise whether specific targets have been met, rather than evaluating port sustainability on a scalar basis. This study explores the sustainability strategies of seven selected ports in five Baltic Sea countries using an innovative qualitative evaluation framework developed by the Swedish Maritime Competence Centre (SMCC). The SMCC model integrates the three core pillars of sustainability-environmental, social, and economic dimensions, while incorporating energy efficiency and digitalisation as critical enablers of modern port operations. The findings reveal significant variation in sustainability performance among the selected ports, shaped by regional contexts, operational profiles, and prior engagement with sustainability initiatives. Also, the results bring into light the most common sustainable practices used in the ports, e.g., LED lightning, onshore power supply, and port information systems.

1. Introduction

The global maritime industry, recognised as a significant carbon emitter, is striving to reduce emissions across the entire shipping chain [1]. This includes efforts to reduce emissions from vessels, ports, terminal activities, and hinterland transportation [2]. Ports play a crucial role in global shipping, serving as key hubs in supply chains. Their strategic importance in international trade cannot be overstated, as they facilitate the movement of a significant portion of the world’s cargo and passengers. The role of ports is multifaceted and involves complex operating infrastructures and significant regulatory compliance requirements. Typically situated in or in close proximity to highly populated areas, ports are focal points of various logistical and economic activities [3]. As such, there is increased pressure for ports to improve their environmental impacts and overall efficiency due to rising demands from the global economy [4]. In addition, increased advocacy for sustainable practices by policymakers, customers, and cargo owners, has prompted ports to adopt cleaner and more sustainable operational practices [5]. As a result, ports have begun shifting their focus beyond purely economic objectives to also implementing resilient sustainability strategies, that align with broader environmental and social objectives [6]. This shift signals an evolution of port management and operations, with a new emphasis on balancing economic growth with environmental responsibility. Ports that effectively integrate sustainability into their operational frameworks are better positioned to navigate shifting landscapes and rising stakeholder expectations [7]. Moreover, the pursuit of sustainability in port operations goes beyond merely responding to external pressures as it also presents an opportunity for ports to differentiate themselves in an increasingly competitive landscape.

The concept of green ports emerged in the early 21st century, driven by the need to mitigate environmental impacts of port operations. It focuses on reducing environmental impacts through proactive development, adaptation and monitoring [8]. While green ports primarily focus on environmental issues, the broader notion of sustainable ports goes further to also incorporate social and economic aspects [9]. Sustainable ports are orientated towards environmental consciousness, energy efficiency, and social acceptance while maintaining profitability [10]. Port sustainability therefore refers to strategic actions undertaken to meet the current and future needs of its stakeholders while preserving human and natural resources [11]. Port sustainability studies have been focused on only the environmental aspect [12,13], or on all three pillars of sustainable development, which include economic and social aspects as well [14,15,16] by using different methodologies. Nonetheless, there is no widely used approach that could be adopted by port authorities as a reliable and user-friendly scientific framework. Accordingly, this study employs a comprehensive framework that integrates the three pillars of sustainability—economic, environmental, and social—while aligning with the core functions of ports as multimodal transport hubs, incorporating key nodes such as logistics, energy, and digitalisation.

This study aims to assess the sustainability performance of Baltic Sea ports using an innovative framework developed by the Swedish Maritime Competence Centre (SMCC). Unlike conventional models that often emphasise isolated sustainability metrics, the SMCC framework offers a holistic and adaptable approach, integrating environmental, social, and economic dimensions. The framework has been developed in collaboration with over 50 Swedish ports that all differ in type, ownership, management, location, and research facilities. This contributes to the aim of developing a practical, but also a scientifically grounded approach to evaluating the ports’ level of sustainability. Also, wider use of the SMCC framework in the future could raise awareness of on ports’ ongoing work on sustainability in the Baltic Sea region (BSR) and provide motivation regarding various proactive measures ports can pursue to comply with regulations. In the framework, Level 1 is considered basic and theoretical (e.g., a port has developed a strategic document); Level 2 is reached when ports use solutions; Level 3 criteria are reached when port partners and tenants also use sustainable solutions; and Level 4, as the highest, shows that wider society (or a city nearby) is also included in the processes and developments.

The analysis covers seven selected Baltic Sea ports—Tallinn, Riga, Pori, Rauma, Norrköping, Oxelösund, and Mariehamn. With around 1500 to 2000 ships registered with the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) navigating its waters at any given time, the Baltic Sea stands as one of the busiest maritime regions in the world [17]; therefore, the impact that vessels and ports have, cannot be underestimated. Other factors, that make the area unique are navigating in the ice conditions, Finland and Sweden leading the way in bioenergy and energy-efficient practices [18], and ports are operating in space that is highly digitalised, as all three Baltic states outperform the EU average in providing digital public services to both businesses and citizens [19]. The ports were selected based on geographic diversity, varied operational characteristics, and active engagement in sustainability initiatives. This approach ensured a representative sample encompassing different regional contexts and port types, all committed to sustainable development. There are few studies carried out on the Baltic Sea ports’ sustainability, e.g., focusing on container ports [20], sustainability transition [21], or sustainable development potentials [22], but due to a lack of a common approach, the level of sustainability in the ports has not yet been evaluated. This study addresses one central question: to what extent do Baltic Sea ports incorporate the environmental, social, economic, energy, and digitalisation aspects of sustainability into their operations, as evaluated using the SMCC framework?

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents the literature review, which examines examining key concepts related to port sustainability, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), port evolution, and prior studies on port sustainability. Section 3 details the methodology, outlining the data collection process and analytical approach. Section 4 discusses the results and analysis based on the SMCC framework, highlighting key findings and interpretations. Finally, Section 5 provides concluding remarks and directions for future study.

2. Literature Review

Port sustainability is grounded in the three pillars of sustainable development: environmental, social, and economic objectives, which collectively enhance port operations [23]. These pillars form the basis of the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework, which underpins the pursuit of achieving long-term operational and community goals in port management [24,25]. The environmental pillar emphasises the reduction of the negative ecological effects of port operations [26]. Ports are considered significant sources of pollution, including greenhouse gas emissions [27]. To improve their environmental impact, ports are implementing new technologies such as electrified cargo handling equipment, cleaner fuels, and shore power supply systems [28]. These initiatives allow ports to comply with international laws and further sustainability efforts. As ports expand their capacity and functionality, their socio-economic impact becomes increasingly significant. The social pillar focuses on the essential role that ports play in promoting fair labour practices, encouraging stakeholder engagement, and advancing the general well-being of the communities around them [29]. The economic pillar concerns the continued financial viability of ports, while also supporting regional and national economic growth. This dimension involves establishing operations that are efficient, resilient and adaptive to global trade dynamics, technological advancements, and competitive pressures [30].

The effective integration of these pillars requires significant investments aimed at enhancing efficiency and resilience, which can be achieved through digitalisation, trade facilitation, sustainable infrastructure, and robust stakeholder collaboration [31]. Furthermore, sustainable port practices not only advance operational effectiveness but also yield significant economic benefits by creating jobs, promoting exports, and increasing income, thus contributing positively to both national and international economies [10,32].

2.1. Ports’ Alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals

Sustainable development emerged as a guiding principle for ports, aiming to balance economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental protection. In recognition of these objectives, the United Nations (UN) introduced the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015, providing a comprehensive agenda to address global challenges such as climate change, poverty, and inequality [33]. The SDGs serve as a catalyst for global societal initiatives. As such, ports are incorporating these goals into their strategic frameworks, with the support from programmes like the 2018 International Association for Ports and Harbors (IAPH) World Ports Sustainability Programme. As depicted in Figure 1, this initiative encourages ports to align their operations with the SDGs through five key categories: resilient infrastructure (SDGs 8, 9, 13, 14); climate and energy (SDGs 7, 9, 12, 13), community outreach and port-city dialogue (SDGs 3, 6, 11, 14, 15), governance (SDGs 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 16), and safety and security (SDGs 3, 4, 8, 16) [34].

The emergence of port-cities represents an impactful integration of the SDGs in port management practices. This evolution directly aligns with SDG 11 (sustainable cities and communities) promoting coexistence between ports and their surrounding urban populations [35]. Furthermore, governance-orientated initiatives, such as promoting equality and inclusiveness in the sector, have become key components within port management frameworks [36]. Achieving the SDGs is fundamentally a global endeavour, reliant on the commitment of all states. Disparity in state and regional performance ultimately risks undermining progress on a global scale. Varying geographical and developmental levels significantly determine the capacity of states to meet these targets [37]. It has been acknowledged that ports contain immense potential to drive the state’s economic, social and regional development [38].

While academic research on the intersection of port activities and the SDGs remains limited, the port industry continues to incorporate the SDGs into its sustainability strategies. For instance, the Port of Antwerp has explicitly incorporated the SDGs into its high-level strategic plan for the port, highlighting efforts towards focusing on economy, climate, and people and environment [39] (Port of Antwerp-Bruges, 2023). Similarly, the Port of Rotterdam has embedded SDG-driven policies into its operational framework, with emphasis on SDGs 3, 7, 8, 9 and 13. These policies have targeted improvements in the introduction of innovative developments, such as the introduction of alternative fuels, new infrastructure, and other strategies towards sustainable shipping [40]. The Port of Hamburg has taken a step further to legalise its sustainability agenda in the form of a Sustainability Code, which is a set of binding regulations incorporating the sustainability development goals, to which the port must adhere [41].

2.2. Port Generations and Sustainability

Ports have evolved over time through various generational phases, each reflecting advancements in technology, operational methodologies, and strategic orientations. These phases align with broader economic and societal developments, which provide some understanding about the sustainability of ports and their alignment with global objectives [42]. The first generation of ports are often referred to as industrial ports, and they emerged during the early industrial era. The main function of these ports was merely to enable the loading and unloading of goods and raw materials. These ports were typically isolated, heavily relied on manual labour, and were essentially basic points of cargo exchange [43].

The second generation of ports marked a shift towards industrial integration, driven by the increasing demand for more efficient supply chains. During this period, ports transitioned from industrial exchange points to becoming industrial centres or hubs, with expanded areas for manufacturing and processing [44]. In this phase, environmental and other sustainability concerns remained low priority for ports.

Globalisation spurred the emergence of the third generation of ports as advancements in transportation technology and complex logistics hubs, and global supply chains took centre stage [45]. This resulted in a shift from individual port performance to integrated efficiency of entire logistics networks. Therefore the elements of sustainability in port management and planning were introduced [46]. With the recent introduction of the SDGs, ports began introducing new initiatives aimed at reducing negative environmental impacts, adopting renewable energy sources, and more prudent waste management systems [47].

Fourth generation ports, also referred to as smart ports, represent ta transition characterised by digitalisation, automation, and a more focused emphasis on sustainability [48]. These ports go beyond the usual operational framework and leverage cutting-edge technologies such as big data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things (IoT) to optimise operational efficiency while minimising environmental impact [49]. Sustainability lies at the heart of fourth-generation port strategies, closely aligned with the SDGs. Decarbonisation features as a key element of this phase, with new initiatives, such as the adoption of new green technologies in shipping and port operations, introduction of alternative fuels and the electrification of port equipment [50]. Circular economy principles and social sustainability elements including inclusivity and fair labour practices also gained traction during this period.

Ports again evolved from smart ports to port-city innovation ecosystems or fifth generation ports, which contains interconnected urban, industrial, and environmental nodes. These ports have enhanced integration with cities, enabling sharing of data platforms, intelligent logistics corridors, and green energy networks [51]. This era is focused on technology which includes digital twins and autonomous maritime systems that enable hyper-connected, self-regulating environments. Fifth- generation ports are centred on resilience and adaptability with an emphasis on human-centred innovation, prioritising inclusivity, digital upskilling of the workforce, encouragement of start-ups, and co-creation with local communities [52]. These ports go beyond individual approaches and encompass a more comprehensive incorporation of sustainability in port planning and management.

2.3. Previous Port Sustainability Studies

A considerable body of research has explored the development and application of port sustainability indicators (PSIs), offering diverse methodologies and frameworks tailored to the specific needs of different ports (

Table 1. Studies of port sustainability indicators (composed by authors based on papers by [10,12,13,14,15,16,32,53]).

Ref.	Aim of the Paper	Methodology	Results
[12]	To propose a system of sustainable environmental management indicators to be used by any port authorities.	An environmental analysis of port activities, simultaneous use of stage diagrams and systemic models (material and energy flow charts), and multi-criteria analysis techniques to evaluate potential impacts.	Twenty-one corresponding activities have been identified for large industrial ports, and a total of 17 environmental (pressure/state) indicators were proposed for port environmental policy.
[13]	This paper aims to identify and select key environmental performance indicators (EPIs) for sustainable port development in European ports.	Based on identifying indicators from the literature review and compiling the final set of indicators from sector stakeholders’ proposals based on their perceptions of issues and significance.	The research identified over 300 indicators, categorised into 25 subcategories, demonstrating the range of potential EPIs that can be applied for effective environmental management and highlighting the variety of monitoring and environmental actions currently undertaken by some ports. Also, three operational indicators and an index made of nine environmental management indicators were proposed.
[14]	To develop a tool for generating initial port sustainability indicators (PSIs).	Social construction of technology (SCOT).	The study proposed 34 expert-based PSIs and two additional indicators selected by legislators and local Keelung residents: annual traffic fatalities in the port’s surrounding area and employment of Keelung residents.
[15]	To recognise the role of performance indicators on the sustainability assessment of port organisations between 2008 and 2017.	The benchmarking technique compares the performance of various European seaports using environmental performance indicators from the Global Reporting Initiative’s consolidated guidelines.	The study will offer port organisations a common framework for reporting environmental sustainability, enabling better comparisons of their environmental performance.
[32]	To explore the combined impact of smartness and sustainability in port cities.	The Smart Port Sustainability Index (SPSI) is a key metric for measuring the impact of port smartness on Sustainable Development Goals through an equation, which comprises two main components: Smart Port Index (SPI) and Port Sustainability Index (SI).	The Smart Port Sustainability Index (SPSI) values for various ports indicate that higher intelligence levels do not always equate to greater sustainability, and the regional analysis shows that European ports surpass those in North America and Asia in sustainability indicators, smart operations, and the SPSI.
[16]	To develop models to assess operational efficiency in line with international reporting standards and sustainability guidelines for eco-efficient maritime operations and to provide a framework for port managers to achieve sustainability; 21 world’s busiest seaports were analysed.	The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) approach combined with Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA)—the research integrates four different models, using CO2 emissions, electricity consumption, waste, and water consumption as inputs, and employees, revenue, and container throughput as outputs. In general, an input-orientated DEA multiplier model was used.	While the digital transition and Industry 4.0 expansion in maritime transportation offer benefits, they also pose environmental challenges for seaports and harbours, potentially harming sustainability, increasing landfill demand, and making recycling obsolete, necessitating the adoption of circular economy practices.
[53]	Aimed to review port sustainability concept with the help of the existing literature; 53 articles and conference proceedings between 1987 and 2017 were analysed.	Studies obtained from different databases were systematically evaluated by using content analysis (qualitative research method).	There remains a significant gap in port sustainability issues, necessitating a focus on studies in this area. The five most common subjects are sustainable development, sustainability performance, sustainable management, sustainable port construction, and environmental sustainability. The primary methods used are case studies, literature reviews, and interviews.
[10]	Highlights key environmental indicators for port sustainability; 21 articles between 2005 and 2018 were analysed.	A systematic literature review methodology.	Crucial indicators for assessing the environmental impacts and sustainability of port operations are water pollution management, air pollution management, energy and resource usage, and noise pollution. The study indicates that the social aspect of port sustainability is less explored, with eight key indicators highlighted. The most frequently identified economic indicator is foreign direct investment (FDI).

). A notable contribution is the study by Peris-Mora et al. [12], which sought to design a system of sustainable environmental management indicators applicable to any port authority. The researchers identified 17 key environmental indicators, including air quality, atmospheric contaminant emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, noise pollution, inner port water quality, accidental spills, wastewater quality, high-risk areas for soil pollution, waste and sludge management, resource efficiency (water, fuel, and energy), sea floor alteration, soil occupation efficiency, and the ports’ social image. These indicators emphasise a holistic approach to environmental sustainability by addressing both ecological impacts and operational efficiencies [12]. Despite the growing recognition of environmental and sustainability indicators, no consensus exists on a standardised set of indicators for universal adoption. As Puig et al. [13] observed, the lack of a common approach continues to challenge the effective implementation of PSIs across ports globally. This highlights the need for further research to harmonise methodologies and ensure that PSIs can comprehensively address the multifaceted dimensions of port sustainability. Authors of [13] advanced this work by categorising sustainability indicators into qualitative and quantitative types. The qualitative indicators encompass nine components, such as environmental management systems, monitoring programmes, legislative inventories, environmental policies, and training programmes. The quantitative indicators, on the other hand, measure tangible impacts like carbon footprints, waste management, and water consumption. This dual approach facilitates a more nuanced understanding of environmental performance across ports [13]. The study conducted at Keelung Port in Taiwan provides a particularly comprehensive review [14]. The primary objective of this research was to create an indicator generator to develop initial PSIs. Using case studies and expert interviews, the authors proposed a framework encompassing 34 expert-based PSIs, supplemented by two additional indicators. These indicators were categorised within scientific, operational, public relations, and non-professional frameworks, highlighting the multidimensional nature of port sustainability [14]. The work of Rodrigues et al. [15] explored the role of GRI-based environmental performance indicators—such as water consumption, electricity usage, and annual CO₂ emissions—in port sustainability assessments. The study developed methodologies to quantify these indicators, enhancing their practical applicability in environmental performance measurement [15]. Khalifeh and Caliskan [32] identified 25 indicators to evaluate port sustainability levels. These indicators span environmental policies, certifications like ISO 14001, monitoring activities (air quality, water, noise, sediment), energy conservation, renewable energy use, emissions inventories, shore power, LNG facilities, green incentives, infrastructure, reporting, community engagement, and climate adaptation. The comprehensive scope of these indicators underscores the integration of environmental, social, and operational dimensions in assessing port sustainability [32]. For future studies, Khalifeh and Caliskan recommend addressing sustainability and digitalisation hand in hand. Bulak [16] conducted an empirical assessment of the eco-efficiency of the 21 busiest seaports worldwide using Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Four different models were employed, considering inputs like carbon dioxide emissions, electricity, waste, and water consumption. Outputs varied across models, including employee numbers, revenue, container throughput, and combined outputs. The analysis ranked the ports based on their eco-efficiency scores. Furthermore, the study developed a unified framework for sustainable indicators aligned with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Standards, offering a standardised approach to assessing port efficiency [16]. Two literature reviews further synthesise the existing research on port sustainability. Özispa and Arabelen [53] analysed 53 studies published between 1987 and 2017, categorising them into 13 subjects, including sustainable development, performance, and management. This meta-analysis provides a broad overview of methodologies employed in the field. In addition, Özispa and Arabelen recommended for future studies to address sustainability reporting and measurement, examining these topics in-depth to develop clearer scores on sustainable performance indexes. Similarly, Lim [10] highlighted critical environmental indicators such as water and air pollution management, resource efficiency, and noise control. The study also identified social indicators—such as health and safety, job security, public relations, and quality of life—as less explored but essential components of sustainability. Economic indicators, notably foreign direct investment (FDI), were frequently identified as key to assessing economic growth and performance.

Compared to the existing literature that relies mainly on the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework and its three pillars of sustainable development—environmental, social, and economic—the SMCC approach reveals significant overlapping between the pillars, while also highlighting some differences in emphasis and outcomes. Furthermore, the SMCC approach has divided port activities into three nodes, which, instead of separating activities into sea- and land-based, integrate all activities into wider spectres like logistics, energy, and digitalisation, where the higher level is reached with collaboration between different actors who are influenced by port developments. While academic interest in port sustainability and the sustainable management of ports has emerged from diverse perspectives, recent research offers a limited foundation for informed decision-making that is suitable in the Baltic Sea region. BSR ports are often considered small- or medium-sized, and due to that, they are more like followers than forerunners. TBL frameworks have been rather used on large ports, as they are quite detailed; therefore, they have built roads for models like the SMCC that consider SDGs but also categorise each sustainability node as a separate element.

3. Method

This study evaluates the sustainability of selected Baltic Sea region ports using the Swedish Maritime Competence Centre (SMCC) model, which was developed in collaboration with Swedish small- and medium-sized ports, though many of the insights are also applicable to larger ports [6]. The evaluation follows a structured qualitative methodology that includes selecting representative ports, applying a structured evaluation framework, and synthesising findings to identify best practices and gaps in sustainability implementation. Data was collected from publicly available sources, such as official port websites, and included documents like annual reports, strategic documents outlining sustainability initiatives, and project study reports that include information directly gathered from port representatives between 2023 and 2024. Though the ports were not official project partners, the information was gathered in semi-structured interview form, by informal consultations, and during meetings with the ports’ representatives when their current level of sustainability and strategy forward were presented. A systematic review of the academic and industry literature provided theoretical grounding, with keyword searches “port sustainability”, “port strategy”, “comparative analysis”, “sustainability assessment”, “sustainable development goals”, and “Baltic Sea ports” conducted in databases Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar.

Each port was assessed using a structured framework based on the SMCC model, which defines four levels of sustainability maturity: Level 1 (minimal sustainability integration) to Level 4 (advanced integration). Ports were qualitatively investigated across each thematic node with a Yes/No (empty slot) approach, where “Yes” applies when the port is currently utilising what is described in the table and “No” (empty slot) when the port has not adopted any of the given examples. The analysis included assessing ports’ sustainability efforts that were scored across nodes, with results displayed in a matrix highlighting strengths (Yes) and weaknesses (empty cell); grouping ports based on sustainability performance to identify common strategies and contextual challenges; and highlighting exceptional practices or innovations within specific nodes to provide insights into effective sustainability measures. The results for each node—transport and logistics, energy, and digitalisation—are evaluated based on the SMCC maturity framework (

Table 2. A maturity framework for ports as sustainable transport nodes, based on [6,54].

Level/Node	Transport and Logistics	Energy	Digitalisation
1	Port authority has launched a strategic document: - Short-, medium-, and long-term plans for the port regarding, e.g., sustainability, energy and digitalisation, and operations.	Port authority has an energy strategy: - To measure energy efficiency. - Guidance for port operations and the wider port community.	Port authority has developed a digitalisation strategy: - It identifies use cases, capabilities, and services. - It outlines goals and action plans.
2	Port has adopted initiatives to lower emissions, save costs, and contribute to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): - For example, CO2 measurement, alternative fuels, energy-efficient equipment, and smart lighting.	Port has adopted sustainable operations within the port: - For example, assessing energy needs and emissions, adapting energy efficiency improvements, transitioning from fossil fuels to sustainable energy solutions, sharing roadmaps and infrastructure planning, and using LED and smart lighting in port premises.	Port has established a digitally connected infrastructure: - For example, by creating a connected infrastructure, monitoring quays and vehicles, and enhancing operational efficiency. - Future capacity planning.
3	Port offers clean energy options for visitors and environmentally differentiated port fees for suitable vessels: - For example, charging stations, shore-side electricity, alternative fuels, and digital solutions.	Port is offering sustainable energy to port users: - For example, a growing number of vessel, railway, and heavy vehicle operators are transitioning to low- or zero-carbon energy sources. - Facilitating sustainable energy consumption. - Providing low-carbon fuel bunkering, shore-side electricity, and alternative fuel stations for heavy vehicles and rail electrification.	Port is building the capability of digital collaboration (both between port actors within the port and between the port and its stakeholders): - For example, data sharing within the organisation, among port actors, and across transport nodes. - Enabling digital collaboration, planning supply chain visibility, communication, and standardising systems.
4	Port offers sustainable initiatives for a broader society and industry and has a close port–city relationship: - For example, invests in infrastructure for the production, storage, and transportation of alternative fuels. - Develop partnerships to support the actors involved in a transport ecosystem by changing policies or investing in alternative solutions.	Port has adopted a broader industry role in the energy transition: - For example, supporting energy production through land provision, investment in renewable facilities, planning for large-scale electrification, and adapting operations to accommodate new energy demands and technologies. - Upskilling their workforce to meet the needs.	Port is identifying new services and business models: - For example, developing new services and business models, e.g., digital marketplaces for empty load carriers, energy supply, storage areas, or scheduling slot times for port visits.

). For example, to reach Level 1 in each node, the port must have developed a strategy, which usually is presented as a document—in some ports, a general strategy document covers all three nodes. The document is expected to include information about environmental, social, and economic dimensions as explained in Table 2 below. Such a strategy is an expression of the port’s ambition in the area and means that the port can be more proactive, rather than reactive. To reach Level 2, the port must have taken measures into use at their own facilities, e.g., energy-efficient equipment (port-owned cranes), LED or smart lighting, and monitoring vehicles. For Level 3, the measures are used in collaboration with partners or tenants, e.g., the port offers charging stations and shore-side electricity, visiting vessels and vehicles are transitioning to low- or zero-carbon energy sources, and there is data sharing among partners and tenants using digitalised solutions. The highest level is reached when the port offers sustainable solutions for wider society by investing in transportation or storing alternative fuels, supporting energy production, or developing new services like virtual arrival solutions.

Port selection was based on three key criteria to ensure diversity and a representative sample. Firstly, geographic diversity within the Baltic Sea region was prioritised, encompassing northern, eastern, and western areas to account for varying regional contexts and to capture varying regional influences on sustainability strategies. Secondly, this study included ports with differing operational characteristics, ranging from passenger-centric ports to industrial hubs to multipurpose ports handling a mix of cargo types. This variety supports a more comprehensive understanding of port operational contexts in the region. Thirdly, this study prioritised ports with a demonstrated commitment to sustainability. This ensured a focus on ports actively engaged in addressing sustainability challenges. Based on these criteria, seven ports were selected: Tallinn (Estonia), Riga (Latvia), Pori and Rauma (Finland), Norrköping and Oxelösund (Sweden), and Mariehamn (Åland). Furthermore, the analysed countries in the Baltic Sea region are recognised as frontrunners in aligning with the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), as in 2023, Finland and Sweden ranked as the top two among the hundred and sixty-six UN Member States that were ranked based on the SDG Index (assessment of each country’s overall performance on the 17 SDGs). Estonia was placed within the top 10, while Latvia ranked 14th place [55].

This study applies a model developed by the Swedish Maritime Competence Centre (SMCC), which integrates the three pillars of sustainability—economic, social, and environmental—into three different nodes—transport and logistics, energy, and digitalisation—that are divided into levels from minimal (Level 1) to advanced (Level 4). This model makes it possible to assess the sustainability of a port in three different categories and thereby assess which of them is considered most sustainable in the port and which is least. Furthermore, it provides a tool to compare different ports in the same region or worldwide but of the same size and focus. Based on the results, the ports can assess which category is evaluated as least sustainable and therefore plan the future strategies.

4. Results and Discussion

In this section, an evaluation of each port is performed node by node. Also, an explanation of how each port has reached a certain level is provided with the examples from the port.

4.1. Overview of Ports

The results are presented according to the three focus nodes in the SMCC model. The assessment revealed that all seven selected ports have adopted standard certifications and developed and implemented or are participants in a document that contains information about sustainable strategy (

Table 3. Overview of the ports under study (composed by the authors).

Port	Standard Certifications	Strategy Document	Port Authority Roles	SDGs
Port of Rauma	ISO 9001, 14001, 45001, OHSAS 18001 [56]	“Port of Rauma. Handbook 2023” [57]	Enforcing port regulations, maintaining port infrastructure, and managing various services ensures safety and security through information dissemination, surveillance, and cooperation with stakeholders, and arranging yearly exercises in the area with regional safety and security authorities [58].	No information [56,57]
Port of Pori	ISO 9001:2015, 14001:2015, 45001:2018 [59,60]	“Sustainability Report. Port of Pori Ltd” [60]	Enforcing port regulations, maintaining port infrastructure, and managing various services ensures safety and security through information dissemination, surveillance, and cooperation with stakeholders [58].	3, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17 [60]
Port of Mariehamn	ISO 14001:2015 [58]	“Agenda för jämställdhet 2019–2030”[61]	Enforcing port regulations, maintaining port infrastructure, and managing various services, including pipe maintenance, water, wastewater, and electricity supply, ensures safety and security through information dissemination, surveillance, and cooperation with stakeholders [58].	No information [62]
Port of Norrköping	ISO 9001:2015, 14001:2015, 45001:2018 [58]	Port follows “The company’s master plan” [58] and “Port of Norrköping transition strategy” [63]	Responsible for compliance with the terms and conditions in accordance with the current port ordinance, maintaining and developing the port infrastructure on behalf of the municipality [58].	No information [63]
Port of Oxelösund	ISO 9001, 14001, 45001 [64]	Guidelines of “Agenda 2030”, the guidelines of the Swedish Energy Agency [58]	Enforcing port regulations, overseeing port infrastructure maintenance, and administering a range of services prioritise safety and security through information dissemination, surveillance, and collaboration with stakeholders [58].	No information [65]
Port of Tallinn	ISO 9001:2015, 14001:2015 [66]	“The Master Plan of the Old City Harbour” [66]	The board represents and manages the daily operations of the Port of Tallinn and ensures the operation of risk management and internal control; activities are based on the long-term strategy and annual plans approved by the council operational objectives [58].	3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 [66]
Port of Riga	ISO 9001:2000, 14001:2004 [67]	“Freeport of Riga Development Programme 2019–2028”	Land and infrastructure management, development and implementation of port regulations, development and implementation of port development programmes, ensuring navigation safety, public order, and environmental protection in the port area, and determining and collecting port fees [58].	No information [67]

). The port authority in general holds an important role in developing and implementing sustainable strategies; therefore, the detailed role of authority in each port has been described. The Port of Pori and the Port of Tallinn have set targets based on the selected SDGs; specific SDGs are listed in Table 3.

The port authorities of various ports share several common responsibilities; however, there are notable differences in their specific roles and approaches. All port authorities, including those of Rauma, Pori, Mariehamn, Oxelösund, Tallinn, and Riga, enforce port regulations to ensure compliance and smooth operations. Maintaining port infrastructure is a key responsibility shared by all port authorities, ensuring that facilities are in good condition and operational. Ensuring safety and security through information dissemination, surveillance, and cooperation with stakeholders is a common priority across all ports. The Port of Mariehamn stands out by managing additional services such as pipe maintenance. The Port of Rauma is unique in arranging yearly safety exercises with regional authorities, emphasising its proactive approach to safety and security. The Port of Norrköping is specifically responsible for compliance with port ordinance terms and infrastructure development on behalf of the municipality, highlighting its municipal alignment. While all port authorities share core responsibilities, each port has unique aspects that reflect its specific operational focus and strategic priorities. Port authority could play a central role in compiling and executing sustainable port strategies.

4.2. Transport and Logistics

All seven selected ports have adopted standard sustainability certifications and have either developed, implemented, or are actively participating in strategic documents outlining their sustainable practices (Table 3). For the ports of Mariehamn and Oxelösund, it was not the ports’ own strategy but the general city or regional strategy that the port follows. Ports are more orientated towards digital solutions that could help move towards more sustainable goals. Surprisingly, only a few ports had adopted market-based measures, such as differentiated vessel fees. Enhancing communication with relevant stakeholders within the port ecosystem and public authorities (e.g., having a close port–city relationship) can significantly improve a port authority’s ability to design and implement effective strategies.

In the Port of Rauma, all trucks entering or exiting the port area are systematically registered at the gates, and for hauliers, traffic flows efficiently as they only need to provide the truck’s license plate number to the main gate, which then opens automatically. The port uses energy flow management software and provides a shore power supply system (level 3 in the node,

Table 4. Requirements filled in the ports in the transport and logistics node (composed by the authors).

Transport and Logistics Node	Level	Port of Rauma	Port of Pori	Port of Mariehamn	Port of Norrköping	Port of Oxelösund	Port of Tallinn	Port of Riga
Port authority has launched a strategic document, which includes short-, medium-, and long-term plans for the port regarding, e.g., sustainability, energy and digitalisation, and operations.	1	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Port contributes to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).			Yes				Yes
Port has adopted initiatives to lower emissions and save costs, e.g., CO2 measurement, alternative fuels, energy-efficient equipment, and smart lighting.	2	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes		Yes	Yes
Port offers environmentally differentiated port fees for suitable vessels.	3				Yes	Yes	Yes
Port offers clean energy options for visitors, e.g., charging stations, shore-side electricity, alternative fuels, and digital solutions.		Yes				Yes	Yes	Yes
Port has a close port–city relationship.	4		Yes			Yes	Yes	Yes
Port offers sustainable initiatives for a broader society and industry, e.g., invests in infrastructure for the production, storage, and transportation of alternative fuels.							Yes	Yes
Develops partnerships to support the actors involved in a transport ecosystem by changing policies or investing in alternative solutions.

). In the Port of Pori, the truck and train operations are predominantly managed by operators for internal port transportation. The environmental and safety protocols at the port are based on the DNV certification system. The port has identified the most common hazards at the port and reviews and reports environmental information based on the Green Marine Environment Program (GMEP), EcoPorts, and the Port Environmental Review System (PERS). The Port of Pori operates with several digital means to exchange information and data between the port and authorities. Furthermore, the City of Pori, the Port of Pori, and one more company included signed a memorandum of understanding to jointly advance the Pori Offshore Wind Hub, and the agreement includes investments in the infrastructure in the port area [68]. The Port of Mariehamn issues access tags for entry into the port area, while other operations are managed by operators. The port has installed solar panels and utilises operational tools for lighting and ventilation. Also, the port has adopted digital solutions that are used by the port and its partners. In the Port of Norrköping, approximately 500 trucks and 3–5 trains arrive at the port each day. The port is using HVO100 instead of diesel to reduce the amount of fossil fuels. In collaboration with ESL shipping and SSAB, the Port of Oxelösund started using a virtual arrival solution between Luleå and Oxelösund that has decreased the CO₂ emissions by 25% [69]. There are multiple external truck operators who manage goods both within and in transit to and from the port. In addition, there is a permit to establish an LNG/LBG terminal. In Sweden, the Swedish Maritime Administration utilises environmentally differentiated fairway fees [70,71], but no information on if the ports have also differentiated dues was presented on the tariffs. The Port of Tallinn has auto-mooring systems and onshore power in the Old City Harbour. The port calculates its greenhouse gas emissions not only for land-based activities but also for visiting vessels. The Port of Tallinn offers discounts based on the environmental ship index [72]. The port utilises a smart port system and proposes a possibility for alternative fuel development and is developing a liquefied methane terminal that will include up to five storage tanks and a quay-connected pipeline designed to handle methane-based fuels [68]. The Port of Tallinn owns land next to the port area and includes local companies and residents and therefore helps the city in the development of the area. The Freeport of Riga has constructed wind barriers in the new territory of the terminals, significantly improving surrounding air quality and reducing pollution. About 60% of cargo to and from the terminals is delivered by rail and 40% by road transport. The Freeport of Riga, along with five other European ports, has signed a memorandum of understanding to establish green shipping corridors. The port plans to transform the area for offshore and onshore wind energy industries and to build a production facility for hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF).

Four ports out of seven reached Level 4 in the current study (Figure 2)—all of them have close port–city relationships, and two are investing in the production or storage of alternative fuels, which are both criteria for Level 4. Both ports, Riga and Tallinn, are located very close to the city and must collaborate and consider residents while making decisions. Six ports out of seven have adopted initiatives to lower emissions—either measuring CO₂ emissions or having smart lighting or both—which shows that those are easy to adopt or required by regulations.

4.3. Energy Related Measures

The Port of Rauma employs the Ensio energy flow management software, which provides detailed information on energy flows and emissions. The port has provided a shore power supply system that serves both ships and the new hybrid cranes (level 3 in the node,

Table 5. Requirements filled in the ports in the energy node (composed by the authors).

Port authority has an energy strategy to measure energy efficiency and/or guidance for port operations and the wider port community.	Level	Port of Rauma	Port of Pori	Port of Mariehamn	Port of Norrköping	Port of Oxelösund	Port of Tallinn	Port of Riga
Port has adopted sustainable operations within the port, e.g., assessing energy needs and emissions, adopting energy efficiency improvements, and transitioning from fossil fuels to sustainable energy solutions.	1	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
- E.g., shared roadmaps and infrastructure planning, LED and smart lighting in port premises.	2	Yes			Yes		Yes
Port is offering sustainable energy to port users, e.g., a growing number of vessel, railway, and heavy vehicle operators are transitioning to low- or zero-carbon energy sources.			Yes	Yes	Yes		Yes	Yes
- Facilitating sustainable energy consumption.	3					Yes
- Providing low-carbon fuel bunkering, shore-side electricity, and alternative fuel stations for heavy vehicles and rail electrification.							Yes
Port has adopted a broader industry role in the energy transition, e.g., supporting energy production through land provision, investment in renewable facilities, and planning for large-scale electrification.		Yes					Yes
- E.g., adapting operations to accommodate new energy demands and technologies and upskilling the workforce to meet the needs.	4						Yes	Yes
Port authority has an energy strategy to measure energy efficiency and/or guidance for port operations and the wider port community.

). The Port of Pori invests in modernised lighting systems, including LED lights with smart controls. The Port of Mariehamn uses LED lighting, smart lighting, and, to some extent, activity-based ventilation control. A building maintenance and service programme has been established to organise building upkeep. In spring 2024, the first of the solar panels were installed at various angles and positions to determine optimal effectiveness. The Port of Norrköping shifted from diesel to HVO100 to reduce fossil fuel usage and is transitioning to LED lighting. In 2022, the Port of Oxelösund’s hazardous waste service provider transitioned to a fossil-free vehicle fleet. The Port of Tallinn utilises a shore power system and automated mooring equipment, consumes green electricity in daily operations, and uses seawater-powered cooling and heating systems, an automated heating system, and insulation to reduce energy requirements for heating and cooling the buildings. In 2022, 2.7% of electricity needs were met by self-produced solar energy. A total of 53% of the electricity needs of Old City Harbour were covered by the energy produced by its own solar panels. Blueflow Energy management, implemented in the ferries operated by the Port of Tallinn subsidiary, enables monitoring of real-time fuel usage and optimising navigation and speed of vessels, which in turn lowers the fuel consumption of the vessels. The Port of Tallinn has established an air quality monitoring and air quality management system in Muuga Harbour. Kebony wood was used in the Old City Harbour. The Port of Tallinn is interested in the development of a multifunctional loading, handling, and storage complex for environmentally friendly fuels or other products, and the port is developing a liquefied methane terminal at Muuga Harbour that will include up to five storage tanks and a quay-connected pipeline. The terminal is designed to primarily handle bio-LNG, along with other methane-based fuels, delivered in larger volumes [68]. The Port of Riga follows the Freeport of Riga Development Programme 2019–2028, the developed energy management policy. The port has placed air monitoring stations and portable air quality monitors in the port territory that measure volatile organic compounds and particulate matter. In addition, the port has installed solar panels, and one of the top stevedore companies installed electric-powered cranes and uses a digitalised loading system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Latvian government has approved an investment to transform 30 ha within the Port of Riga’s area into a production hub for both offshore and onshore wind energy industries. The port plans to build a production facility that will supply hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) and sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) [68].

It was found that two ports under study have adopted a broader industry role in the energy transition (Figure 3). Three ports out of seven are offering sustainable energy to port users—either vessels, operators, or other partners—by using solutions like virtual arrival, hybrid or electric cranes, or partners’ fossil-free vehicles. Using either LED lighting or smart lighting solutions in ports’ own facilities is used in five ports out of seven, which highlights this as one of the first steps towards being more sustainable in energy nodes. Dependent on the port activities, there were also two ports that had air monitoring systems—this could be driven either by the port being near a residential area or the port handling cargo that emits volatile compounds that must be measured.

4.4. Level of Digitalisation in the Ports

The Port of Rauma uses the Port Activity and Operations Management System to enhance efficiency and information dissemination between the port and partners. The Port of Pori utilises digital platforms like Grisgro [73] and the Port Activity App [74] to streamline information exchange and operational processes, and Portnet, a digital platform used for mandatory formalities, facilitates communication and data exchange between the port and regulatory authorities (level 3 in the node,

Table 6. Requirements filled in the ports in the digitalisation node (composed by the authors).

Port authority has developed a digitalisation strategy that identifies use cases, capabilities, and services and outlines goals and action plans.	Level	Port of Rauma	Port of Pori	Port of Mariehamn	Port of Norrköping	Port of Oxelösund	Port of Tallinn	Port of Riga
The port has established a digitally connected infrastructure, e.g., by creating a connected infrastructure, monitoring quays and vehicles, and enhancing operational efficiency.	1	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
- Future capacity planning.	2	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Port is building the capability of digital collaboration, e.g., data sharing within the organisation, among port actors, and across transport nodes.						Yes
- Enabling digital collaboration, planning, supply chain visibility and communication, and standardising systems.	3		Yes				Yes	Yes
Identifying and developing new services and business models.		Yes	Yes	Yes		Yes	Yes	Yes
- E.g., digital marketplaces for empty load carriers, energy supply, storage areas, or scheduling slot times for port visits.	4						Yes	Yes
Port authority has developed a digitalisation strategy that identifies use cases, capabilities, and services and outlines goals and action plans.						Yes

). The Port of Mariehamn has adopted Grieg Port [75], including its mobile application. Grieg Port is connected to the port’s accounting and invoicing solution, Lemonsoft, and has proven to be of great use in reporting times moored and other services provided to visiting vessels. There is also a booking system for marinas and other operational tools in use for lighting and ventilation management. Also, two separate systems are being used in accessing the port area: Weasel for passengers and Hedsam for gates and personnel. In the Port of Norrköping, communication occurs via messaging apps such as “Docker.” Ship registration can only be performed via the Swedish Maritime Administration’s service—Swedish Maritime Single Window [76]. The Port of Oxelösund uses a virtual arrival tool [77] for visiting vessels that handles scheduling slot times for port visits. The Port of Tallinn uses the Electronic Maritime Information System [78] application, which is designed to facilitate the preparation, presentation, and control of maritime notices and documents and is administered by the Estonian Transport Administration. Old City Harbour has a Smart Port [79] traffic management system. The Muuga Harbour has automated lanes for traffic management for liquid bulk operations. In the Muuga Harbour, there is also an e-Nose system that measures air quality in the Muuga Harbour. In the Port of Riga, regarding customs, one of the terminals has document circulation and truck service fully digitised, starting with car recognition and ending with cargo data processing and digitisation of the loading system. There is also a port and multimodal logistics services platform solution—a unified ICT platform and interface for digital management of land and sea cargo. The port also uses the Port Information System (OIS), a shared information management system of port authorities, and the International Cargo Logistics and Port Information System (SKLOIS), a digital platform that serves as a centralised system where relevant data related to cargo handling, vessel movements, customs procedures, and logistics operations can be shared securely and efficiently.

All ports under study have a strategy document that they follow (Table 3); therefore, it was evaluated that all ports have reached at least Level 1. According to the SMCC model, the highest level of digitalisation in the port is met when the port is identifying new services and business models (Table 2), for example, a virtual arrival or traffic management system for visiting vehicles. Three ports under study have been evaluated with the highest level of digitalisation (Figure 4). Their solutions are enabling digital collaboration between ports and their users and taking it even further with development or including new users and features. Six ports out of seven have reached at least Level 3, which shows that the digitising solutions are quite widely used and promoted in the BSR ports. One of the reasons could be the supportive environment in the area, as not only ports but also other industries widely use digitalised solutions. In addition, the public sector is widely included in the development of digitalised processes; therefore, users are familiar with and adapted to paperless actions.

4.5. Maturity Framework Results for the Ports

The results of this study present a distinct picture of port sustainability, emphasising the functional integration of key nodes within port operations. When compared to the existing literature, which focuses on the TBL framework and the three pillars of sustainable development—environmental, social, and economic objectives—the SMCC approach largely reveals overlaps but also some divergence in the emphasis and outcomes. All ports included in this study meet at least the minimum requirement of possessing a foundational strategic document (

Table 7. A maturity framework results for ports (composed by the authors).

Level/Node	Transport and Logistics	Energy	Digitalisation
1
2	Port of Mariehamn	Ports of Pori, Mariehamn, Norrköping	Port of Norrköping
3	Ports of Rauma, Norrköping	Ports of Rauma, Oxelösund	Ports of Rauma, Pori, Mariehamn
4	Ports of Pori, Oxelösund, Tallinn, Riga	Ports of Tallinn, Riga	Ports of Oxelösund, Tallinn, Riga

), qualifying them for Level 1 in the strategic development framework. Notably, in several cases, these documents are not port-specific but are derived from broader municipal or regional strategies. This observation contrasts with some TBL-based studies, which assume that having a sustainability strategy indicates port-specific planning and stakeholder engagement.

Regarding operational development, the SMCC model identifies ports that have initiated any form of sustainable development within their operations as having reached Level 2. Four ports achieved Level 4 in the transport and logistics node, indicating a high degree of integration between sustainable practices and logistics solutions. This aspect has been often emphasised in the existing sustainability literature, which highlights the adoption of transport technologies or modal shifts but does not approach the assessment with the level of granularity like the SMCC model, which captures both technical and non-technical strategies. The model reveals that while some ports have adopted advanced digital tools to support logistics, the use of non-technical measures such as differentiated vessel fees remains limited. This suggests that enhancing communication with stakeholders and public authorities could significantly improve the strategic planning and implementation capabilities of port authorities.

Energy transition efforts also reveal contrasts. The evaluation revealed that only two ports in this study assumed a broader industry role, actively contributing to the sector-wide shift toward sustainability. Five other ports offer sustainable energy solutions to their users, including vessels and terminal operators. These solutions encompass hybrid or electric cranes and the use of fossil-free vehicles by service providers. Additionally, five ports have implemented LED or smart lighting systems in their facilities, marking a common and accessible entry point into energy-efficient operations. Two ports have also installed air monitoring systems, likely driven by either their proximity to residential areas or the nature of the cargo they handle, which may emit volatile compounds requiring environmental oversight. These findings echo prior TBL studies that underscore the importance of port energy efficiency; however, the SMCC model adds depth by tracking specific port-level initiatives rather than relying on aggregated environmental performance indicators.

Digitalisation across the ports shows a more advanced and widespread adoption. Three ports have reached this highest level, demonstrating capabilities for digital collaboration with port users and extending these systems to include new functionalities and stakeholders. Overall, six of the seven ports have achieved at least Level 3 in digitalisation, indicating that digital solutions are not only widely adopted but are also being actively promoted as part of broader port development strategies.

Among the most widely adopted sustainable systems in the selected ports under study are onshore power supply for vessels, LED lighting in port facilities, and the integration of solar panels (Figure 5). Additionally, truck and train operations are increasingly managed with sustainability in mind, often supported by digital platforms. Also, any kind of port information system was also mentioned more than once, which enhances operational efficiency and reduces environmental impact. Importantly, this study supports the existing literature in recognising the growing role of ports as digital nodes critical to decarbonising the broader transport system.

The TBL framework traditionally places strong emphasis on the social dimension of sustainability and measures benefits to both national and international economies by generating jobs, boosting exports, and enhancing income and employment, yet findings from the SMCC model reveal that the views of local communities are frequently under-represented in port sustainability studies. This oversight hampers progress, highlighting the need to involve affected communities in decision-making and to develop a model that integrates both perspectives for effective sustainability assessments. The SMCC approach critiques this shortfall by suggesting that stakeholder involvement is necessary for effective sustainability implementation.

The influence of international frameworks such as the United Nations (UN) adopting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the International Association for Ports and Harbors (IAPH) Global Sustainability Program increasingly encourages ports to align with the SDGs. Therefore, the drive for port sustainability has increased as policymakers, customers, and cargo owners exert more pressure to minimise environmental impacts through cleaner and more sustainable operations. Port sustainability indicator studies have aimed to develop various tools and frameworks for enhancing port sustainability, including systems for environmental management indicators, key environmental performance indicators (EPIs), and initial port sustainability indicators (PSIs). While the SMCC model builds on many principles found in the sustainability framework, it differs in its systematic structuring, its inclusion of collaborative dimensions (transport and logistics, energy, and digitalisation), and its port-specific focus.

5. Conclusions

This study employed the Swedish Maritime Competence Centre (SMCC) model to evaluate the sustainability of seven ports in the Baltic Sea region. The model considers three different categories—transport and logistics, energy, and digitalisation—each with four levels of functionality, and the ports were evaluated based on the data collected from homepages and project reports. To reach the highest level, the port should, for example, offer sustainable initiatives for broader society and industry, invest in infrastructure, storage, and transportation of alternative fuels, and have a close port–city relationship.

Findings reveal that all assessed ports have taken foundational steps toward sustainability, such as standard certifications and sustainable strategies. It was also found that the port authorities play a crucial role in these developments. However, progress significantly varied across the nodes. Digitalisation emerged as the most advanced area across the sample, with five ports achieving Level 3 or higher and two ports reaching Level 4 through digital collaboration and the development of new digital services. Energy transition ranked second, with one port assuming an industry leadership role and four others offering sustainable energy solutions. Transport and logistics showed the least advancement, with only one port meeting Level 4 criteria. While some ports have adopted high-level measures, the systematic integration of sustainable practices remains uneven. This study highlights that widely adopted sustainable practices in the analysed ports include onshore power supply, LED lighting, solar panels, and the use of digital platforms to optimise truck and train operations. It also emphasises the increasing role of ports as digital hubs, supported by port information systems, in enhancing efficiency and contributing to the decarbonisation of the transport sector.

Overall, the Port of Tallinn demonstrated the highest performance in all nodes, making it the most sustainable port in this study. Other ports, such as the Port of Oxelösund and the Port of Riga, showed balanced but less advanced sustainability profiles. Variability in the data, particularly the lack of publicly accessible information for lower-level criteria, may have affected the accuracy of evaluations. The reasoning behind different levels might be linked with the different business models—the Port of Tallinn is the only port in this study that is listed on the stock exchange, which might influence the decisions towards sustainability. Furthermore, the role of a port authority cannot be underestimated when it comes to adopting, e.g., SDGs. The most common cargo type or variety of different cargoes that are handled in the port might also influence the differences. If the port is mainly a passenger port, then the focus could be more on offering digitalised solutions for customers to speed up the port visit process.

Although the SMCC model offers a structured approach to assessing port sustainability, a key limitation lies in its relatively weak alignment with the TBL framework. Whereas the SMCC model implicitly incorporates the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of the TBL framework, the connection between both frameworks could be made more explicit. Additionally, the data that is used in this study was collected based on the best available knowledge and expertise of the project team members. While the information was sourced directly from port representatives, there is still a certain degree of vagueness, as there was not one team member who gathered data from each port but several members, which led to different levels of information depth. This study is limited to the ports that are included in the project due to the availability of the data. The future research could investigate comparison groups of non-participating ports.

Furthermore, future research could enhance the robustness of the assessment by incorporating new sources of data, such as qualitative data through structured or semi-structured interviews with port representatives carried out by the same team or person. This would improve access to data and enhance the robustness of the assessment. It would also help verify undocumented practices and capture the latest developments. Also, expanding this study to include more ports across the Baltic Sea region would provide a broader comparative overview of the current level of sustainability. In conclusion, the SMCC model proves to be a valuable tool for benchmarking current sustainability efforts and identifying areas for growth and improvement. Its structured approach provides a holistic cross-comparison to support improvement through periodic evaluation and re-evaluation in three different areas where ports are active—logistics, energy, and digitalisation.