Stakeholder Perspectives on Multipurpose Shipyard Integration in Indonesia: Benefits, Challenges, and Implementation Pathways

Abstract

This study examines stakeholder perspectives regarding the feasibility, benefits, and challenges associated with the development of multipurpose shipyards that encompass shipbuilding, repair, and recycling within Indonesia’s maritime industry. A convergent mixed-methods approach was utilised to collect quantitative and qualitative data from 37 stakeholders, including managers, employees, shipowners, regulators, subcontractors, academics, and community representatives. The Stakeholder Salience Model and Diffusion of Innovations theory provided the integrated statistical and thematic analysis. Results indicated significant stakeholder support (97.3%) for multipurpose shipyards, with 81.1% expressing positive perceptions and 16.2% very positive perceptions. Results indicate that ship repair (97.3%) and shipbuilding (86.5%) are seen as critical activities, with 59.5% of respondents highlighting the importance of ship recycling. The advantages of the multipurpose yard concept for Indonesia included improved operational efficiency (70.2%), increased market competitiveness (54.1%) and job creation (91.9%). Major challenges identified include technical complexities (62.2%), regulatory ambiguities (45.9%), substantial capital investment (43.2%), and skill shortages (40.5%). The study suggests improvements in governmental regulations, financial support for businesses, and training for the workforce. Phased implementation and stakeholder collaboration can align economic, environmental, and safety objectives, potentially decreasing Indonesia’s dependence on foreign shipping services. This study integrates stakeholder theory with innovation diffusion, providing replicable insights for sustainable practices in shipyards within archipelagic economies like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam, where similar geographic and infrastructure challenges shape the maritime industries.

1. Introduction

Indonesia, with over 17,000 islands, relies on maritime infrastructure and a robust shipbuilding and repair industry to support its fleet of over 2335 nationally registered vessels and inter-island logistics (2023) [1,2]. Aiming to become a regional marine hub, Indonesia is located along important international shipping routes [3].

Indonesian shipyards serve two main purposes: enhancing the broader Asia-Pacific marine supply network and meeting domestic transportation requirements. They are vital in promoting economic development through ties with linked sectors such as steel manufacturing, manufacturing, and maritime services [4]. Despite their strategic role, many shipyards, particularly outside Java and Sumatra, struggle with outdated infrastructure and limited project capacity [1]. Moreover, land constraints, especially on smaller islands, hinder shipyard expansion and integration of new facilities. Additional challenges include limited port access and skilled labour shortages, especially in sustainable technologies [2].

Given these issues, multipurpose shipyards have garnered interest as a potential solution in Indonesia and have been adopted in several yards. Multipurpose shipyards integrate shipbuilding, repair, and recycling under one system, enabling resource efficiency and flexibility. Unlike hybrid shipyards (which typically combine only two functions) or integrated shipyards (with separate operations), multipurpose facilities share infrastructure and labour across all functions to reduce idle time [4]. This integration also improves market change resistance. A decrease in shipbuilding orders can lead to a balance in income streams through repair or recycling businesses [2]. Moreover, by offering thorough services during the vessel’s lifetime, multipurpose shipyards reduce the need for overseas repairs or decommissioning, thus maintaining economic value within the nation [5].

Sustainability is another key driver for the adoption of multipurpose facilities. Integrating recycling helps meet ISO 30000 standards [6]. Shipyards in Batam and Cilegon are progressing toward green certification. The Hong Kong Convention (effective as of June 2025) sets global standards for safe, eco-friendly ship recycling [7]. This enables Indonesia to conform to international maritime sustainability goals, specifically in lifecycle-oriented vessel management and minimising carbon and waste emissions in shipyard activities.

Despite its benefits, the practical implementation poses technical, environmental, and stakeholder coordination challenges. Most studies now classify shipbuilding, repair, and recycling as distinct disciplines with little emphasis on integrated facilities or stakeholder perspectives.

This paper, therefore, aims to tackle these challenges through investigating the opinions of Indonesian stakeholders, including regulators, shipyard managers, shipowners, workers, and local communities, regarding the viability, benefits, and challenges associated with the use of multipurpose shipyards.

The following research questions guide the study:

• RQ1: What are the main views of Indonesian stakeholders on multipurpose shipyards?
• RQ2: What benefits do stakeholders see from the combination of shipbuilding, repair, and recycling?
• RQ3: What challenges can stakeholders expect in the management of multipurpose shipyards?
• RQ4: How can stakeholder traits and creative dynamics influence the possible acceptance of this model?

This work examines the data using Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory [8] and Mitchell et al.’s Stakeholder Salience Model [9]. These models clarify the stakeholder groups with power, legitimacy, and urgency that affect adoption and how innovative characteristics such as relative advantage, complexity, and trialability shape perspectives.

The combined application of these frameworks is particularly pertinent in Indonesia, where the variety of stakeholder influences and the innovative integrated shipyard model necessitate careful alignment. The Salience Model prioritises stakeholder roles and expectations [9], whereas the Diffusion of Innovations Theory clarifies how perceived features of innovation affect adoption readiness [8]. This dual approach provides a comprehensive perspective on institutional dynamics and behavioural preparedness for the transformation in the Indonesian maritime industry. This timely and novel research offers new insights and practical recommendations for enhancing Indonesia’s maritime infrastructure via sustainable, multipurpose shipyard development. To ensure clarity and consistency throughout this study,

Table 1. Definitions of Key Terms Used in the Study.

Term	Definition
Stakeholder Support	The level of Endorsement or positive perception expressed by stakeholders (e.g., government, shipowner, shipyard executives, employees, etc.) towards the concept of multipurpose shipyards, often measured through survey responses or qualitative feedback.
Integration Feasibility	The perceived practicality or likelihood of successfully combining shipbuilding, repair and recycling activities within a single shipyard facility, as assessed by stakeholders based on operational, technical, and regulatory factors.
Multipurpose Shipyard	A shipyard facility designed to perform multiple activities such as shipbuilding, repair and recycling under a unified operational framework, aiming to optimise resource use, reduce downtime and enhance economic and environmental sustainability.
Operational Efficiency	The improvement in performance and reduction in redundancy achieved by integrating multiple shipyard functions lead to cost savings, reduced downtime, and better resource utilisation.
Regulatory Compliance	The adherence to national and international laws, standards and conventions (e.g., Hong Kong Convention) governing shipyard operations, particularly in environmental and safety aspects, as a critical factor for multipurpose shipyard implementation

[Source: Constructed by the authors based on the context and usage within the study].

provides definitions of key terms used in the analysis of multipurpose shipyard integration.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Indonesia Shipbuilding Overview

Spanning crucial international shipping routes, Indonesia’s vast archipelago of more than 17,000 islands makes the country a dual player in the shipbuilding industry, supporting internal maritime connectivity and contributing to the larger Asia-Pacific maritime supply chain. This part examines Indonesia’s shipbuilding sector, its economic contribution, ongoing infrastructure issues, and regulatory environment, providing background for understanding how multipurpose shipyards can address present constraints while maximising the sector’s potential for sustainable development.

2.1.1. Economic Significance

Indonesia’s maritime activities heavily depend on its shipyards’ productivity and output. In 2023, the nation had 2335 nationally flagged ships and 112 internationally flagged ones [10]. The shipyards enable the fleet’s maintenance and expansion, helping guarantee a regular distribution of products throughout the archipelago and beyond.

Strategically located along key global trade routes, Indonesia’s shipyards are crucial for domestic shipping and integral to international maritime supply chains [11]. Depending on the modernisation and expansion of its shipyard capacity, this location offers significant chances for Indonesia to become a regional maritime hub.

Apart from logistics, the shipbuilding industry is also of economic significance. The industry supports a system of related industries, including steel, manufacturing, and logistics, creating jobs and improving GDP [12]. Moreover, the industry is considered a critical industry for economic development, particularly through foreign investment and technology transfer [13]. As Indonesia’s economy expands, so does the need to strengthen this vital industrial base.

The distribution of shipyards in Indonesia, as illustrated in Figure 1, indicates a concentration of maritime industrial activity in several significant regions, particularly in the Riau Islands, DKI Jakarta, and East Java. Komara et al. [14] report that Indonesia has 342 shipbuilding companies, capable of building approximately 1,000,000 DWT of new ships annually and repairing around 12,000,000 DWT of existing vessels annually. Indonesia ranks among the foremost shipbuilding nations in Southeast Asia, playing a vital role in domestic maritime logistics and the global supply chain [13]. The strategic positioning of these shipyards along critical global shipping routes highlights their capacity to enhance Indonesia’s status as a regional maritime centre. Despite overall growth, a significant regional imbalance in shipyard capacity exists, with a disproportionate concentration of shipbuilding activities in western Indonesia. This underscores the necessity for a more equitable allocation of resources and infrastructure to promote growth in underdeveloped regions, ensuring that shipyards throughout the archipelago can satisfy both domestic and international demand [14].

2.1.2. Infrastructure Challenges

Although it has strategic value, Indonesia’s shipbuilding industry faces significant challenges due to infrastructure-related issues. Many shipyards in Indonesia, particularly in the eastern part of the country, operate with limited capacity and old equipment. These limitations hinder the ability to undertake complex or large-scale projects and increase operational costs [1].

Logistical inefficiencies, such as limited port access, high transportation costs, and delayed project acquisition, further complicate things [16]. The government has initiated major infrastructure projects aimed at improving maritime connectivity and reducing logistical costs, including port upgrades and the construction of additional seaports, as acknowledged [10].

The absence of a qualified labour force compounds these physical infrastructure issues. Many shipyards lack personnel well-versed in digital technologies and new building practices. Without concentrated training and staff development initiatives, the industry struggles to meet international standards, which results in lower output and higher operational costs [16]. Reducing the sector’s competitiveness hinges on fixing these human capital shortfalls.

2.1.3. Regulatory Environment

Regulatory issues are directly related to financial challenges. Access to capital or investment is limited, especially for smaller yards aiming to grow or modernise. Many shipyards struggle to upgrade their equipment or utilise cutting-edge technologies due to a lack of readily available financing systems and clear policy guidance [16].

Environmental rules add more complexity. As global regulations tighten, Indonesian shipyards are under increasing pressure to reduce emissions and manage industrial waste responsibly. Insufficient enforcement and budgetary constraints often impede the adoption of cleaner technologies and practices in Indonesia [2,3]. Maintaining worldwide competitiveness depends on improving environmental compliance, as well as securing financial and governmental support.

The Indonesian shipbuilding sector is at a tipping point, facing significant difficulties while also presenting great opportunities for growth and modernisation. Its strategic importance in Indonesia’s economy and maritime industry must be acknowledged, as it underlines the need for coordinated efforts to address problems and capitalise on new opportunities. Adopting the concept of multipurpose shipyards can help address issues such as inadequate service offerings and resource waste in Indonesian shipyards. Multipurpose shipyards could enhance the resilience and competitiveness of the industry by diversifying their services, such as providing repair and maintenance alongside construction, maximising resources through the effective use of materials, and aligning with global environmental standards.

It is important to understand the regulatory context for these sectors and Indonesia’s status. Therefore, a detailed comparison of shipyard and ship recycling regulations in Indonesia, alongside regional and international contexts, is presented in

Table 2. Comparison of Shipyard and Ship Recycling Regulations: Indonesia, Regional and International Context.

Regulatory Level	Key Regulation(s)	Features/Requirements	Relevance to Multipurpose Shipyards	Status in Indonesia	Implementation Gaps/Challenges
International (IMO)	Hong Kong International Convention (HKC)	Requires Inventory of Hazardous Materials (IHM), Ship Recycling Plan, certified facilities [18,19]	Gold standard for safe recycling; aligns with national rules	Not yet ratified; enters into force globally June 2025 [7]	Indonesia not party; domestic law lags HKC; pilot projects only [20]
	MARPOL 73/78 [21]	Limits oil and pollutant discharges from ships	Applies to environmental compliance in yard operations	Ratified by Indonesia [22]	Enforcement and monitoring capacity varies across regions
Regional	ASEAN Marine Environmental Law/Cooperation	Marine pollution prevention, transboundary standards, cooperative action	Encourages harmonised approaches and regional benchmarks	Indonesia participates, but implementation is uneven [23]	National legal harmonisation slow; variable local uptake
	Basel Convention [24]	Controls the cross-border movement of hazardous waste, applies to shipbreaking	Mandates the safe export/import of hazardous waste from ships	Ratified and in force [25]	Some weak points in national enforcement and tracking
National (Indonesia)	PM 29/2014 [26]	Prevents marine pollution, regulates ship recycling and hazardous material handling	Main legal framework for shipyard pollution control	In force; updated by the Ministry of Transportation No. 24/2022	Enforcement is inconsistent, especially outside Java/Batam
	Law No. 17/2008 (Shipping), Gov. Reg 21/2010, GR 101/2014 [27]	Environmental impact assessment (AMDAL), hazardous waste management, operational licencing	Determines site approval, waste protocols, and permits	Enacted; national coverage	Limited regional enforcement and monitoring capacity [28]
Local/Provincial	Regional zoning and environmental licencing	Site-specific permits, zoning for shipyard activity, local AMDAL requirements [29]	Determines legal operation and environmental approval	Varies by region (often strict in Java, weaker in eastern provinces) [1]	Legal patchwork creates uncertainty, slows investment

[Source: Constructed by the authors, based on regulatory documents and literature review].

. Indonesia’s involvement in international agreements like MARPOL 73/78 [17] and the Basel Convention is obstructed by the slow progress of legal harmonisation and the regional adoption of environmental standards. The disparity between national legislation and global gold standards, exemplified by the Hong Kong International Convention (HKC), is significant, particularly as Indonesia has not ratified the HKC, which imposes rigorous criteria for ship recycling. Regulatory inconsistencies and weak enforcement in specific regions generate uncertainty for investors and hinder the adoption of new technologies. The existing regulatory framework hinders the development and capacity of multipurpose shipyards to meet domestic and international demand, highlighting the need for a unified and comprehensive strategy for maritime governance in Indonesia.

2.2. Shipyard Operational Model

Shipyards’ operating models are under increasing pressure to change as global maritime needs evolve. Long the norm, traditional single-purpose yards are now struggling with increasing environmental requirements, changing market needs, and the need for more effective resource usage. Other concepts, such as integrated shipyards, hybrids, and multipurpose shipyard, have emerged as promising alternatives. These models seek to maximise land usage, enhance financial sustainability, and fit with international sustainability criteria. Particularly in the Indonesian context, the following section examines how these operational strategies have evolved.

Historically, shipyards have been built as single-purpose facilities, either specialised in shipbuilding, repair or, in some circumstances, decommissioning. Although this approach has benefited the maritime sector for decades, its shortcomings have become increasingly apparent. During economic downturns or in the off-season when particular services are not in demand, single-purpose yards frequently suffer from underutilisation. These yards also sometimes need substantial fixed investments and specialised infrastructure that are not readily convertible, hence lessening their flexibility to changes in the market or technical breakthroughs.

This strict division of duties might also lead to unnecessary infrastructure and increased running expenses. For instance, distinct shipbuilding and repair facilities frequently duplicate vital equipment, such as dry docks, cranes, and transportation systems, which leads to poor resource allocation. The constraints of single-purpose shipyards provide a compelling argument for rethinking the conventional approach in nations like Indonesia, where land availability, investment capital, and operational efficiency are significant issues.

2.2.1. Multipurpose Shipyard Concept

Although multipurpose models offer efficiency and lifecycle integration, their implementation varies significantly across contexts and often lacks empirical validation. For example, while Zainol et al. [30] conceptualise the hybrid shipyard integrating repair and recycling, limited case studies examine the impact of governance structures or labour restrictions on scalability. Furthermore, most contemporary models prioritise design optimisation over stakeholder coordination, which poses a significant operational obstacle in practical implementations. This gap highlights the need for additional empirical validation and strategic planning frameworks that explicitly incorporate cross-activity risk mitigation and multi-party involvement.

Research in this area is limited; however, several significant contributions help to define the field. Chabane [31] examined the integration of shipbuilding and repair in small shipyards by employing strategic layout planning and Group Technology principles. His work highlighted the necessity for adaptable workflows and spatial efficiency, particularly in facilities that aim to operate multiple functions within limited physical constraints.

Zainol et al. [30] have recently enhanced the multipurpose shipyard model by including ship recycling in the current shipbuilding and repair facilities. Their research emphasises that communal dock space and workshop facilities can facilitate recycling without significantly altering the layout, decreasing operational expenses and environmental repercussions. This integration enhances the circular economy by facilitating material reuse across functions and offers a more economical alternative than creating independent recycling facilities. The hybrid shipyard concept offers a viable strategy for achieving financial sustainability while enhancing environmental stewardship.

2.2.2. Hybrid and Integrated Approaches

Building on the hybrid idea, some academics have suggested models that utilise underused or existing infrastructure for sustainable maritime uses, and have proposed converting idle ferry terminals, such as Indonesia’s Kamal ferry terminal, into green ship-recycling yards [32]. This low-capital solution reduces the need for greenfield development by utilising existing port assets and incorporating specialised safe dismantling, slipways, and hazardous waste storage facilities.

Sunaryo & Tjitrosoemarto [33] suggested the creation of an integrated ship recycling industrial estate. This concept places ship recycling yards next to supporting industries such as steel mills, waste treatment facilities, and necessary utilities like freshwater and power plants. The co-location of these components creates a closed-loop system, ensuring regulatory compliance, including adherence to the Hong Kong Convention on safe and environmentally sound ship recycling, while enhancing logistical efficiency and increasing economic value [33]. This concept also enhances the downstream waste management.

Considering more general sustainability issues, Azhar et al. [34] created a multi-criteria model particularly for the Indonesian shipyard industry. The methodology combines environmental, economic, and social indices to assess operational sustainability. Key elements include infrastructure readiness, legal compliance, and workforce development. The approach ensures the compatibility of multipurpose activities with sustainable development objectives, utilising the integration of recycling and conversion services as an expansion of shipyard capacity.

2.2.3. International Examples of Shipyard Operational Models

Emerging maritime economies present valuable examples of shipyard operational models that incorporate multiple functions or emphasise sustainability, which may inform the development of multipurpose shipyards. This subsection analyses the strategies employed by Vietnam, the Philippines, and Turkey in integrating shipbuilding, ship repair, and ship recycling. It emphasises operational methods, sustainability initiatives, and challenges that may provide insight into similar infrastructure and regulatory limitations.

Vietnam has advanced the modernisation of its shipyard sector via significant infrastructure investments and international collaborations, especially in key locations such as Hai Phong and Ho Chi Minh City [35]. The strategic emphasis on port enhancements and technology transfer, frequently backed by foreign direct investment, has improved shipbuilding and repair capacities, establishing Vietnam as a competitive entity in Southeast Asia. Certain shipyards have begun to incorporate ship recycling into their operations, leveraging existing infrastructure to manage end-of-life vessels through dry-docking and alongside methods, rather than conventional beaching, to enhance operational efficiency across various functions. This hybrid approach offers valuable lessons for Indonesia in improving operational efficiency through integrated shipyard functions. Challenges persist in the comprehensive adoption of environmentally sound recycling practices, primarily due to inadequate regulatory frameworks and insufficient equipment for managing hazardous waste [35]. Indonesia faces comparable challenges and would benefit from addressing regulatory gaps to strengthen sustainability in shipyard operations, particularly in light of pending HKC ratification.

The Philippines, characterised by its extensive coastline and rich maritime heritage, has become a significant participant in ship repair and recycling, demonstrating potential for multipurpose integration [36]. In areas including Cebu, Bataan, and Subic Bay, shipyards such as Amaya Dockyard and Marine Services Inc. (ADMSI), located in Tanza, Cavite, Philippines, have implemented environmentally sustainable dismantling techniques, emphasising recycling to reduce ecological impact. Some facilities, while primarily focused on repair and recycling, utilise shared infrastructure to facilitate limited shipbuilding activities [37]. This approach exemplifies a hybrid model that optimises resource utilisation with reduced capital investment. Following the ratification of the Hong Kong Convention (HKC) in 2025, the Philippines has strengthened its commitment to sustainability by aligning its regulations with international standards [38]. This low-capital model is relevant to Indonesia’s resource constraints, providing a potential strategy for smaller yards, though workforce skill shortages, evident in both contexts, highlight the need for targeted training initiatives.

Turkey, particularly in the Aliaga region of Izmir, presents an important example of incorporating ship recycling into broader sustainability frameworks, although comprehensive, multipurpose integration remains constrained [39]. Turkey operates 22 ship recycling yards, nine of which are approved by the EU. The country emphasises environmental impact assessments, third-party verification of the Inventory of Hazardous Material (IHM); dedicated waste storage, and ongoing monitoring [40]. Particular shipyards operate in conjunction with repair facilities, utilising shared infrastructure to minimise expenses, and are situated near supporting industries, such as steel mills, to establish a closed-loop system for recycled materials [41]. In Aliaga, shipbuilding operates with less integration, whereas larger Turkish shipyards in other regions combine construction and repair, indicating the potential for more comprehensive multipurpose models [42]. This regulatory model for green recycling offers guidance for Indonesia to enhance environmental standards. However, Turkey’s superior governance and EU alignment underscore the need for significant policy adjustments to address enforcement deficiencies in Indonesia. Challenges encompass significant occupational hazards and the necessity for continuous legislative revisions to maintain environmental compliance across various regions. Additionally, certifications like ISO 14001 [43], adopted by 95% of shipyards in Aliaga, often serve as market penetration strategies rather than genuine sustainability drivers, suggesting Indonesia should prioritise authentic environmental commitment over mere certification.

2.3. Stakeholder Perspectives in Maritime Industries

Understanding the perspectives of various stakeholders is critical to evaluate the feasibility and sustainability of multipurpose shipyards. Diverse jobs and roles, interests, regulatory frameworks, and environmental awareness across numerous regions shape these perspectives. Before discussing the theoretical framework used to evaluate the influence of various stakeholders on shipyard-related concerns, including environmental safety, operational efficiency, and innovation adoption, this section examines their perspectives in the Indonesian context.

2.3.1. Environmental and Safety Considerations

Stakeholder concerns in all domains are primarily environmental and safety-related. South Asia struggles due to poor enforcement and high occupational risks [44]. In contrast, European stakeholders prefer strict compliance and certification [45]. Stakeholders in Southeast Asia are advocating for enhanced planning, regulatory compliance, and risk mitigation tools, including insurance [46]. Brazil and Turkey prioritise the balance between environmental goals and operational and economic sustainability [37,38].

These regional perspectives highlight that, while all stakeholders agree on the importance of environmental consciousness, the means and ability to address these concerns differ. Regulation, cultural attitudes, economic readiness, and stakeholder participation all shape the path towards sustainable shipbuilding practices.

2.3.2. Economic and Operational Factors

Stakeholders generally agree that multipurpose shipyards offer economic benefits, including lower costs, job creation, and greater flexibility. From an executive perspective, these facilities can combine services and improve the efficiency of shared infrastructure [30]. Shipowners prioritise faster turnaround times and better service efficiency. The local community is interested in regional economic growth and job possibilities. Still, concerns persist about the complexity of implementation, land constraints, financing, and integration with existing operations [33].

Considering the different priorities of stakeholders, these operational and financial issues must be addressed. Management stresses return on investment, authorities prioritise compliance, and individuals focus on working conditions and job security. A unified approach calls for acknowledging and balancing these goals.

Indonesia has adopted MARPOL 73/78 and the Basel Convention and expects to ratify the Hong Kong Convention [20]. However, implementing sustainability in shipyards is a slow process. Shipyards, particularly in developing countries, often lack comprehensive energy management and pollution control strategies, according to Vakili et al. [39]. Their research suggests that transdisciplinary approaches are essential to enhance energy efficiency, mitigate air pollution, and achieve zero-emission operations. Studies in Turkey and Brazil highlight the importance of regulatory enforcement, integrated infrastructure, and stakeholder participation for implementing ecologically sound practices [37,38]. Indonesia still faces structural issues, including poor emissions tracking, limited hazardous waste disposal, and a fragmented energy policy. Multipurpose facilities must address these challenges to meet both national productivity and global sustainability objectives.

2.3.3. Regulatory Compliance and Governance

Influenced by local objectives, institutional capacity, and financial constraints, stakeholder perceptions vary significantly across the world’s maritime zones. The European Ship Recycling Regulation (SRR) requires EU-flagged vessels to be recycled in licenced facilities to guarantee environmental and worker protection. Although many people support it, stakeholders express concern about the limited EU recycling capacity, which leads to a reliance on external facilities [45]. Shipowners in Norway actively support environmentally friendly practices and the global adoption of controlled ship recycling criteria to prevent poor techniques, such as beaching [47].

Stakeholders in South Asia, including Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, acknowledge the economic benefits of ship recycling but voice concerns about exposure to hazardous materials and harmful working conditions [44]. At the same time, Southeast Asian players prioritise long-term sustainability. While stakeholders in Indonesia support projects such as environmental insurance to mitigate risks in ship repair operations, Malaysia focuses on shipyard management practices that promote sustainable development [48].

Zaabi & Pech [49] highlight the challenges of balancing diverse stakeholder interests in the Abu Dhabi shipbuilding sector, where strategic differences could hinder effective execution. In Turkey, stakeholders suggest that green supply chain approaches increase shipyard sustainability in economic, social, and environmental aspects [50]. Utilising the country’s robust environmental and labour standards, Brazilian stakeholders in Latin America see an opportunity to convert idle shipyard capacity into ship recycling facilities. Still, they consider shortcomings in technical knowledge as a barrier to guaranteeing and sustaining execution [51].

2.3.4. Sustainability Consideration

Sustainability considerations are becoming increasingly significant in the global maritime industry, particularly in shipbuilding, ship repair, and ship recycling operations. Stakeholders emphasise the interrelated environmental, social and economic challenges, as well as the necessity for effective governance to balance profitability with long-term responsibility [52].

Shipyard operations can significantly contribute to pollution and environmental degradation if not managed effectively [39]. Ship recycling activities produce hazardous waste, including asbestos, PCBs, heavy metals, and oil residues, which pose risks of contamination to soil, water and air [53]. Stakeholders emphasise the necessity of implementing sustainable technologies to address marine pollution resulting from industrial emissions and inadequate waste disposal, alongside decarbonization initiatives in the steel and shipping industries [54]. While there are national and international regulations regarding waste discharge and water treatment, there are few binding standards for greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants specific to individual shipyards [52,55]. This underscores the increasing demand for environmentally sustainable shipyard concepts that minimise waste and lower emissions. International examples, such as Turkey’s Aliaga region with EU-approved recycling yards, highlight the importance of robust environmental standards like Inventory of Hazardous Material (IHM) management, which Indonesia must adapt to ensure genuine sustainability over mere certification [39].

Worker safety and health are significant aspects of social sustainability. Shipyard operations, particularly recycling, represent some of the most hazardous industrial activities, characterised by the simultaneous execution of multiple high-risk tasks [56]. Stakeholders indicate elevated rates of accidents and facilities, exposure to hazardous substances, noise and dust, coupled with inadequate safety regulations. However, despite adequate safety regulations, these challenges are intensified, highlighting the necessity for strong occupational health and safety (OHS) protocols and adherence to international standards, including the updated ILO Code of Practice (2018), despite inconsistent implementation [53,57].

Governance and compliance with international frameworks, exemplified by the Hong Kong Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships (HKC), which takes effect from June 2025, are crucial for addressing sustainability issues [58]. Stakeholders frequently face difficulties, including complex ratification processes, fragmented national policies and inadequate enforcement, especially within developing maritime economies [59]. Certifications like ISO 14001 are commonly implemented, yet their effectiveness in achieving environmental outcomes is occasionally debated, with some recognising them as primarily instruments for market access rather than as catalysts for authentic sustainability [39]. Lessons from Vietnam and the Philippines suggest that public–private partnerships and industry-led initiatives can enhance compliance, but Indonesia must overcome regulatory ambiguity with clear policies to avoid similar pitfalls [35,38]. Balancing short-term economic return with long-term sustainability objectives presents a challenge, especially when the costs associated with green practices are considered prohibitive [60]. This supports the argument for specific incentives and subsidies to enhance compliance and encourage investment in environmentally friendly technologies.

2.3.5. Regional Implementation Variations

Geography, infrastructure, workforce, and market demand lead to regional differences in the implementation of multipurpose shipyards. Unlike concentrated maritime centres like Singapore or unified coastal industrial zones in China and South Korea, Indonesia’s archipelago provides distinct implementation issues.

West Indonesia, especially Batam and Java, benefits from international trade routes, maritime clusters, and developed infrastructure. These locations have stronger technological preparedness and global connectedness, promoting knowledge transfer and integrated operating models, according to Baso et al. [1]. In contrast, Eastern Indonesian shipyards have sub-standard infrastructure, a lack of skilled labour, and logistical issues, making multifunctional integration more challenging [1]. This geographical inequality requires location-specific implementation tactics rather than national ones.

Similar regional differences exist in workforce capability. Ocampo & Pereira [51] found that rural areas face implementation challenges due to the geographic dispersion of specialised skills, particularly in environmentally friendly recycling. Java-based shipyards have access to engineering graduates and technical training, but eastern Indonesian facilities struggle to recruit and retain sophisticated shipyard professionals.

Regional differences include market orientation and service mix. Sunaryo & Santoso [32] revealed that Java shipyards prioritise newbuilding-repair integration for Indonesia’s inter-island shipping fleet. In contrast, Batam shipyards focus on repair-recycling synergy for international commercial and offshore vessels. These market-driven changes impact stakeholder objectives for integrating multipurpose facility activities.

Critically, the regulatory enforcement capabilities of Indonesia’s maritime regions differ greatly. Rizwan et al. [2] found that industrialised zones near large population centres have stricter environmental monitoring than distant areas. Due to this enforcement discrepancy, multipurpose facilities across Indonesia’s diverse geography have different compliance costs and implementation durations. Thus, regional context and local regulatory effectiveness affect stakeholder views of implementation feasibility.

2.4. Theoretical Framework

Although both perspectives are complementary, tensions may emerge. Stakeholder theory ranks participants according to salient attributes (power, legitimacy, urgency), which may amplify the influence of already dominant actors. Conversely, innovation dissemination highlights perceived advantages and trialability among adopter groups, often emphasising early adopters who may lack institutional authority. This duality presents a challenge within the framework of Indonesian shipyard integration: definitive stakeholders, such as regulators, may oppose swift adoption due to bureaucratic prudence, while early adopters, including progressive Executives or academics, may lack institutional influence. A comprehensive synthesis is required to harmonise different viewpoints and guarantee that innovation readiness corresponds with decision-making authority.

Initially developed by Mitchell et al. [9], the Stakeholder Salience Model categorises stakeholders based on three traits: power, legitimacy, and urgency. This model helps classify and prioritise stakeholders to improve strategic decisions and manage competing interests. Recent applications of this idea in maritime environments, such as port master planning and coastal zone management, have underscored the need to map stakeholder interests to manage competing goals dynamically and effectively [61]. Research on the Port of Isafjordur utilised power-interest matrices and fuzzy logic to enhance accuracy in stakeholder prioritisation and strategic involvement [62].

Rogers et al. [8]’s diffusion of innovations theory offers a complementary framework for understanding how new ideas and technologies gain acceptance among stakeholder groups. Rogers identifies five necessary factors influencing the acceptability of innovation: relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. These factors clarify the different adoption rates among various stakeholders, hence highlighting the requirement for tailored involvement strategies. Research on developments in maritime logistics, including the use of dry ports, emphasises the vital importance of compatibility and observability, as well as the need to address challenges like financial constraints and lack of technical knowledge to enhance the acceptance of innovations [46,50].

Combining these theoretical frameworks provides a complete approach for comprehending and managing stakeholder dynamics in marine infrastructure development. While the Diffusion of Innovations TheoryS reveals different degrees of stakeholder adoption, the Stakeholder Salience Model clarifies stakeholder prioritisation and involvement. Recent studies on digital transformation, green port transformation, and port development support this integrated strategy by showing how well it handles stakeholder perceptions, identifies innovation obstacles, and fosters strategic alignment for sustainable maritime infrastructure development [63,64,65].

3. Methodology

3.1. Research Design

This study employed a convergent mixed-methods strategy, combining quantitative and qualitative approaches to gain a thorough understanding of stakeholder perceptions regarding the deployment of multipurpose shipyards in Indonesia. Two theoretical frameworks, the Stakeholder Salience Model and Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations Theory, guided the creation of an online poll. This survey aimed to categorise stakeholder roles and assess the dynamics of innovation adoption.

To clarify the methodological integration of our dual theoretical approach, Figure 2 presents a conceptual diagram mapping the key variables from both the Stakeholder Salience Model and Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation Theory to the main stages of our research process. This diagram illustrates how each theoretical construct informed the design of the questionnaire, stakeholder classification, and subsequent data analysis.

This conceptual diagram in Figure 2 illustrates the sequential integration of the Stakeholder Salience Model and Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Theory within the research process. The process begins with the design of the survey instrument and data collection, followed by the simultaneous execution of two analytical tracks. The Stakeholder Salience Model is used for stakeholder classification, ensuring the analysis captures a representative range of influence and perspectives. In a different approach, stakeholder responses are evaluated based on five innovation attributes derived from DOI theory to assess perceptions of multipurpose shipyard integration. These parallel analyses align as stakeholder innovation attributes are combined, facilitating a comprehensive examination of how stakeholder salience characteristics affect the dynamic of innovation adoption. The process concludes with the formulation of specific recommendations, considering both the influence of stakeholders and their preparedness for innovation in the suggested implementation strategies. This method offers a thorough understanding of the relationship between stakeholder dynamics and the adoption of innovation, informing effective policy and practice for the integration of multipurpose shipyards.

3.2. Participant Selection and Sampling Strategy

Using professional networks, including the Indonesian Shipbuilders Association (IPERINDO) and allied maritime organisations, participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling approaches. Participants were categorised to reflect several stakeholder groups, including shipyard workers, executives, regulators, shipowners, subcontractors, academics, and community members.

Given the study’s focus on depth of insight rather than statistical generalisability, this sampling approach seemed appropriate. Participants were qualified if they had at least three years of shipyard industry or marine regulation experience and had worked in at least two shipyard activities, including shipbuilding and repair.

Out of 50 completed surveys, only 37 responses (74%) were retained for further analysis, as those missing substantial open-ended material were excluded. Qualitative analysis was necessary to comprehend stakeholder logic beyond just Likert-scale ratings. This conclusion corresponds with the research’s focus on analysing subtle perceptions and theme trends.

The sample size (n = 37) is justified for multiple reasons. This study emphasises depth of understanding rather than statistical generalisability, concentrating on acquiring comprehensive qualitative data from marine stakeholders. Secondly, the sample attains representation across all eight designated stakeholder categories, guaranteeing thorough ecosystem coverage. Third, topic saturation was achieved during analysis, since no new essential themes emerged in the final responses. The sample size aligns with similar stakeholder perception studies in infrastructure development and marine policy, which generally encompass 25–50 participants when employing mixed-methods approaches prioritising qualitative findings.

Data was collected from September to November 2024 through an online questionnaire disseminated via professional networks. Participants were granted informed consent before engaging, and all data were anonymised to ensure confidentiality. The research protocol obtained permission from the University Research Ethics Committee before recruiting participants.

A notable limitation of the participant selection process was the geographic bias in the sample distribution, with a majority of the 37 respondents primarily based in western Indonesia, which benefits from superior infrastructure and established maritime clusters. This skew, likely influenced by the purposive and snowball sampling methods used through professional networks such as IPERINDO (Indonesian Shipbuilding Association), may underrepresent perspectives from eastern Indonesia, where shipyards face significant constraints in terms of infrastructure access, skilled labour availability, and regulatory oversight capacity. Consequently, the generalizability of the findings to the eastern region is limited, as the unique logistical and development challenges in these areas may alter stakeholder perceptions and the feasibility of multipurpose shipyard integration. This geographic disparity suggests that implementation strategies derived from this study may require significant adaptation to address the specific needs and barriers in Eastern Indonesia. The future study can address the expansion of this to other regions of Indonesia and create a more focused analysis for these regions.

3.3. Data Collection

Descriptive statistics are used to analyse quantitative answers, presenting a summary of opinions on viability, advantages, and issues. The quantitative items in the survey utilised a Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 1 represented “Strongly Disagree” and 5 represented “Strongly Agree”. This 5-point scale balances granularity and respondent ease, enabling nuanced perception differentiation while minimising cognitive overload, as supported by survey design literature for stakeholder studies. This ensures reliable measurement of attitudes regarding feasibility, benefits, and challenges, as provided in File S1 of the Supplementary Material (refer to the Data Availability Statement for access through the Pure repository at the University of Strathclyde).

Once mean scores across all stakeholder groups had been computed, the results were interpreted using Rogers’ Innovation Lens, with particular attention to relative advantage and complexity during the interpretation process.

Open-ended responses were analysed using a thematic approach derived from Braun & Clarke’s [66] technique. Two independent researchers each performed an iterative coding process:

• Based on the wording, phrasing, and emphasis of the stakeholders, researchers independently examined and analysed the raw textual material to extract relevant codes.
• These codes were then grouped into generic categories showing linked trends and stakeholder concerns. This approach is described by axial modelling.
• Theme Consolidation Following several rounds of discussion and synthesis, the codes were organised into five main themes closely related to the research topic and the stories of the stakeholders.

The following is a thematic framework that has been filtered and coded, including:

• Market demand themes concern financial and market advantages like the feasibility, the client’s interest, and the possibility of monetary loss.
• Workforce development themes emphasising the readiness of skills, human resources, and occupational health and safety (OHS) with a focus on skill development needs.
• Regulatory compliance themes in the context of environmental and recycling laws that include government support, enforcement, and clarification with concerns over policy ambiguity.
• Environmental themes include opinions on sustainable practices, environmentally acceptable recycling methods, and pollution control emphasising sustainability and waste management.
• Operational efficiency theme focuses on layout design, work division, infrastructure preparation, and time-saving strategies, highlighting facility and cost efficiency.

This thematic framework was not pre-imposed; it developed inductively from stakeholders’ responses and was reinforced through discussions gathered to reach a consensus, initially produced by distillation. 37 distinct codes led to these five major divisions. The survey instrument, including the complete questionnaire structure and a detailed codebook with example codes and their thematic mapping, is provided as Supplementary Material to enhance transparency. Materials are available through the Pure repository at the University of Strathclyde (refer to the Data Availability Statement for access details). This guarantees access to the methodological tools for data collection and analysis, enhancing replicability and rigour in qualitative research.

The survey was tested with five stakeholders from governmental, academic, and shipbuilding sectors to ascertain construct validity. Modifications were implemented in response to input to enhance clarity and ensure relevance to the area. Two researchers performed Thematic coding separately, resulting in a Cohen’s Kappa of 0.77, signifying strong inter-coder reliability.

While snowball sampling effectively reaches specialised stakeholders, it carries inherent bias concerns, including the potential overrepresentation of some networks. The chain was initiated through several entry points (e.g., government, industry, community) to address this issue. Nonetheless, this constraint is recognised when assessing representativeness and generalisability.

Stakeholder salience classifications in this study were derived by evaluating each stakeholder group’s relative power, legitimacy, and urgency using targeted survey items. For each group, respondents were asked to rate their power (the ability to influence decisions about the multipurpose shipyard’s development), legitimacy (the degree to which their involvement was formally recognised as necessary), and urgency (the temporal sensitivity or criticality of their interest). Using the typology developed by Mitchell et al. [9], these answers were combined and standardised to determine each group’s positions within the salience framework. The existence or lack of these three characteristics was then used to classify stakeholders as definitive, dominant, dependent, or discretionary. Interestingly, this method relied on thematic analysis and direct survey-based classification rather than fuzzy logic or Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). This was because it was considered adequate for the exploratory nature of the study and aligned with the mixed methods focus on stakeholder perceptions. Although this approach offers a systematic and generally recognised way to classify stakeholders, it might not have the quantitative weighting and capacity to manage overlapping or unclear situations as fuzzy logic or MCDA approaches do. As a result, the existing approach may oversimplify complex stakeholder relationships and fail to capture the various levels of urgency or impact that can exist in dynamic, multi-actor settings. By using sophisticated aggregation approaches, future research could overcome these constraints and improve the accuracy and flexibility of stakeholder analysis

4. Result

4.1. Stakeholder Profile

Major stakeholders in the Indonesian shipyard industry provided a thorough and diverse range of opinions, which are presented in this paper. The composition of stakeholders suggests that most respondents were employees, with 14 people (37.8%) having actual, experiential knowledge of everyday shipyard operations. Their experience provides a valuable perspective on efficiently integrating shipbuilding, ship repair, and ship recycling inside a multipurpose shipyard.

The government and regulatory bodies comprised the second-largest group, with five replies (13.5%). The participants, representatives from the Ministry of Industry and classification societies, offered significant regulatory, environmental, and policy insights, which are vital for evaluating the viability and compliance of shipyard integration.

From the business and strategic viewpoint, management/executives and consumers (shipowners) had four members (10.8%). These stakeholders offered perspectives on the broader economic consequences and decision-making models relevant to shipyard investment and operational efficiency in a multifunctional environment.

Other notable contributors included academic representatives (lecturers, 8.1%), who provided theoretical and research-oriented viewpoints to guide the technical and conceptual evaluation of shipyard integration, as well as suppliers and subcontractors (8.1%), who supported material and logistical coordination in shipyard operations. Moreover, three people (8.1%) selected “Other,” suggesting professions like owner superintendents, loading instrument providers, and maritime insurance experts, highlighting the varied ecosystem surrounding shipyards. A local community member, one respondent (2.7%), offered a particular yet vital perspective on the social and environmental consequences of shipyard activities on nearby individuals.

The answer group showed excellent industrial knowledge. While ten have 7 to 10 years of experience, twelve stakeholders have related to shipyards for over ten years. This thorough foundation suggests that long-term engagement with industry trends and operational reality shapes the viewpoints voiced in the survey. Eight respondents were mid-career professionals with 4–6 years of experience; younger arrivals, four respondents with less than three years and three respondents with 1–3 years offered fresh insights on skill development, adaptation, and future readiness for a multipurpose shipyard environment.

Most respondents hold higher education degrees. Indicating a technically competent and intellectually aware population, more than 83% (31 of 37) had a bachelor’s degree; 13.5% (5 respondents) earned a master’s degree. One respondent selected “Other” and noted that they are currently working on a master’s degree in Naval Architecture at KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden. Particularly in evaluating the integration issues, benefits, and possibilities of multipurpose shipyard development, the academic rigour increases the validity and credibility of the findings offered in the study.

Figure 3 shows the relationship between years of association with the shipyard, stakeholder roles, and educational credentials, stressing that most participants are employees with bachelor’s degrees and over seven years of industry experience.

4.2. Stakeholder Perception of the Multipurpose Shipyard Concept

Stakeholders showed notable knowledge and consensus on the multipurpose shipyard concept. Of the 37 valid responses, 81.1% rated their opinion of the idea as “positive,” 16.2% rated it as “very positive,” and 16.2% rated it as “very positive.” Only 2.7% of respondents took a neutral position; none found the idea negative. This indicates strong backing from stakeholders, particularly in industries familiar with the logistical efficiencies and cost-reduction prospects of integrated maritime operations.

Participants were asked to identify the duties they thought fell under a multipurpose shipyard; the results showed a general agreement on the main activities (Figure 4). Of those who replied, 97.3% felt ship repair was a vital task. Then, 86.5% of the people polled picked shipbuilding, suggesting a common awareness that a multipurpose infrastructure is built and maintained. Moreover, 59.5% of the respondents acknowledged ship recycling, implying that various players considered shipyard operations to include recycling.

Of the replies in Figure 4, 21.6% also mentioned other activities like component manufacturing, planned maintenance, ship conversion, and modification. Many responses suggested that multipurpose shipyards engage in activities outside traditional maritime ones, such as fabricating offshore buildings and other marine-related projects. The range of tasks enhances shipyards’ flexibility and multifunctional capabilities, improving their efficiency and sustainability in the maritime industry.

Qualitative answers strengthened this confidence. A government representative remarked:

“A multipurpose shipyard could become a model for sustainable maritime development, provided it is supported by strong regulations.”

Similarly, a shipyard executive with over 20 years of experience commented:

“It would be efficient in working time and increased financial income if we can ensure adequate space and smart layout.”

Most respondents emphasised the need for clear policies, standards, and demonstration projects, despite the significant help. An academic stakeholder noted,

“We still need evidence and operational proof before we can scale the model nationwide.”

These opinions reflect a group belief in the idea’s promise, tempered by practical considerations like infrastructure, training, and gradual adoption. Although emphasising the need for gradual implementation supported by policy, planning, and capacity building, the results indicate a general conceptual consensus among stakeholder groups.

4.3. Feasibility of Integration

Participants were asked to evaluate the likelihood of merging shipyard services, including shipbuilding, repair, and recycling, to gauge stakeholder views on the viability of integration. Of the respondents, 78.4% considered the integration of shipbuilding and ship repair “very feasible,” making it the most likely option. The two functions, which share infrastructure, people resources, and scheduling systems, operate in synergy. One executive stakeholder stated:

“Combining these two functions will improve financial turnover and efficiency due to shared dock and machinery use.”

Combining shipbuilding and recycling was a more careful process. Of the 10.8% who thought this integration was “very feasible,” 35.1% considered it “moderately feasible,” and 54.1% deemed it “not feasible.” Open-ended remarks focused on incompatibility with construction and dismantling. Recycling raises concerns about space management, environmental impact, and safety, which stakeholders claim contradict ship construction criteria.

“It is risky to conduct ship recycling near construction; clear environmental boundaries and protocols must be ensured.”

The integration of ship repair and recycling was generally accepted. Of those polled, 27% thought it “very feasible,” while 56.8% thought it “moderately feasible.” Although with varying safety and waste management issues, both include retrofitting, inspections, and facility upkeep, making them more balanced.

This section addresses stakeholder remarks, emphasising strategic expansion possibilities and the advantages and disadvantages of phased versus comprehensive adoption. Most important to stakeholders was ship maintenance; 56.8% found it somewhat vital, while 32.4% found it extremely so. Of 45.9%, shipbuilding was somewhat vital; of 29.7%, it was extremely crucial. Ship recycling was less significant; 8.1% considered it highly or very important, 51.4% somewhat important, and 32.4% somewhat required.

This distribution suggests that while ship repair and new building are more crucial for a multipurpose shipyard than ship recycling, stakeholders value all three operations.

Figure 5 depicts (left) the stakeholder perspective on the relevance of key shipyard activities, ship repair, shipbuilding, and ship recycling, and (right) the feasibility of integrating several activity combinations in a multipurpose shipyard. While ship recycling is less important and more challenging to integrate, ship repair and construction are required and operationally compatible.

The feasibility results backed Zainol, Loon et al. [30], who discovered that the hybrid shipyard model performs best when repair and recycling activities are merged, particularly in developing countries with constrained space and resources. Sunaryo & Santoso [32] recommended converting idle ferry ports into green recycling centres to avoid interfering with shipbuilding.

The conditions enabling multipurpose shipyard integration are shown in Figure 6. The most crucial factor was infrastructure availability (83.8%) as expected, followed by market demand (75.7%) and land availability (64.9%). Respectively, 62.2%, 59.5%, and 56.8% appreciated technology, qualified labour, and regulatory support. Other reasons (5.4%) were resource sharing and operational costs.

Generally, stakeholders support the integrated idea; nonetheless, the findings suggest a staggered rollout. While ship recycling requires intentional separation and safety precautions, the integration of shipbuilding and repair is a standard practice. These results advocate for flexible, multifunctional design and advise Indonesia to test repair-recycling systems before incorporating them into new construction initiatives.

4.4. Stakeholder Perceptions of Benefits and Challenges

Examining the benefits of merging shipbuilding, repair, and recycling activities clarifies stakeholders’ desires for process optimisation and value generation at multipurpose shipyards. Stakeholder views on five main benefit areas and the most often cited barriers in integrating shipyard activities are shown in Figure 7.

Operational efficiency was perceived as a notable benefit, with 48.6% of respondents acknowledging a significant benefit and 21.6% viewing it as offering the highest value. Notably, all participants viewed this field as beneficial, underscoring the general consensus that combining these duties would enhance performance and reduce duplication.

Another generally accepted outcome was the creation of jobs. Of the 91.9% of stakeholders who thought integration would have significant or ideal benefits, many seemed to have strong expectations for job growth in shipbuilding cities. While a small percentage (10.8%) expressed doubt, 37.8% forecasted notable benefits, and 21.6% hoped for cost reductions.

With 54.1% of stakeholders feeling integration offers a significant advantage and 24.3% thinking it brings the highest benefit, 54.1% of stakeholder Participants often connected integrated models to faster turnaround times and larger service offerings, hence attracting a broader customer base.

Still, environmental sustainability received a more tempered hope. Though 13.5% said just a slight advantage, 32.4% of those polled said significant or maximum advantages. This could suggest worries about the complexity of recycling procedures, hazardous waste management, and compliance with environmental rules. A shipyard manager said,

“Green recycling requires a whole new mindset, equipment, and enforcement. Without that, we risk undermining our environmental goals.”

The findings indicate that stakeholders view multipurpose integration as a means to achieve operational and economic advancement; environmental benefits depend on regulatory support and technical readiness.

Alongside acknowledging benefits, stakeholders identified major barriers that would hinder adoption. The right side of Figure 7 shows the most commonly mentioned issues: technical complexity (62.2%), regulatory uncertainty (45.9%), significant capital investment needs (43.2%), and workforce skill gaps (40.5%). Many stakeholders noted that including recycling operations raised major risks for pollution control, spatial layout, and hazardous material management.

Qualitative responses shed much more light on these challenges. One regulatory participant said:

“The biggest challenge is enforcement, without proper oversight, recycling becomes a liability rather than an opportunity.”

Similarly, A subcontractor respondent said,

“The financial risks are too high unless we receive support from both the government and the market.”

Figure 7 shows stakeholder reactions to five main perceived benefits: operational efficiency, cost reduction, job creation, environmental sustainability, and market competitiveness, as well as five principal challenges: technical complexity, regulatory uncertainty, financial investment, workforce capability, and environmental compliance. The results show both hope for value creation and anxiety about implementation challenges.

These problems underscore the need for clear rules, robust programmes for worker development, and consistent regulation. Integration should be carried out through incremental, well-supported transitions to build stakeholder confidence, reduce risks, and ensure long-term sustainability. These findings also highlight the need for a carefully planned execution strategy that balances sustainability needs with business goals.

4.5. Stakeholder Classification and Salience Analysis

This paper utilises the Stakeholder Salience Model by Mitchell et al. [9] to analyse stakeholder duties in the operation of multipurpose shipyards. This idea classifies stakeholders based on the presence of three traits: power, legitimacy, and urgency. Applying this model to the Indonesian shipyard environment revealed new insights into the relative influence and priorities of each stakeholder group.

The stakeholder salience study utilised survey data to evaluate each stakeholder group’s relative power (impact on decision-making), legitimacy (acknowledged authority or claim), and urgency (time-sensitivity of interests). Survey items included: ‘To what degree can this stakeholder group affect choices regarding constructing multipurpose shipyards?’ To what extent is the involvement of this stakeholder group formally acknowledged as essential? What is the temporal sensitivity or criticality of this stakeholder group’s interests in multipurpose shipyard development? Urgency. Responses were consolidated and standardised to ascertain each group’s standing within the salience framework.

Definitive stakeholders are necessary for project success since they represent all three traits. This paper classifies government and regulatory bodies alongside shipowners. As public custodians, government agencies use regulatory authority and policy execution to exert power; they feel urgency from environmental and industrial responsibilities, particularly the need to follow national and international sustainability goals, including IMO decarbonisation criteria and industrial competitiveness. Likewise, in an increasingly rigorous global regulatory environment, shipowners are key customers with capital investment power and a strategic need to keep their fleets compliant and profitable under their control. Their choices immediately influence shipyard viability, influencing operational and investment timetables. Government agencies that are influenced through regulatory power and policy execution have rightful roles as public guardians and feel urgency resulting from industrial and environmental concerns. A government official said,

“Strong collaboration between government and regulators is essential to ensure smooth integration of all activities.”

Likewise, shipowners are main consumers with financial power and a strategic need to follow upcoming decarbonisation and asset renewal orders. One shipowner stated,

“Maintaining competitiveness depends on enforcing ship recycling rules and guaranteeing quality, safety, and innovation.”

Dominant Stakeholders have both power and credibility. Executive managers of shipyards and large subcontracting companies usually have power over decisions and control of resources; nevertheless, when commercial risks are considered low, they may show little urgency. Operational execution and capital investment plans depend on their approval. An executive said,

“This is acceptable as long as the shipyard has adequate space and management separation for each function.”

Dependent stakeholders include academics, local communities, and employees with legitimate and urgent issues (e.g., employment, safety, skills development) but less institutional power. Though their influence depends on legislative representation and campaigning, these companies fervently support multipurpose shipyards for job growth and sustainability outlooks. A worker said,

“We need a clear concept and training to safely integrate new operations. Human resource improvement is essential at all levels.”

Discretionary Stakeholders, while they have legitimacy, including NGOs and educational institutions, lack power and drive. Though often on the margins of short-term choices until actively engaged, they substantially contribute to training and capacity-building. A scholarly participant said,

“We need strong justification and evidence to promote integration. There are technical and training gaps that must be addressed.”

Controlling integration complexity depends on stakeholder alignment from a systems perspective. For instance, dependent groups like staff members voiced ongoing concerns about workforce readiness, suggesting that their needs should be included in implementation phases to ensure long-term viability. A worker who answered said,

“Integrating operations needs targeted training across all levels, staff, subcontractors, and management.”

Government replies pushed for inter-agency cooperation, flexible designs, and clear waste management procedures. One said,

“Shipyards must prepare a structured plan for handling pollution and material flow, it’s not just a matter of engineering but of regulation.”

This category helps prioritise engagement initiatives and policy creation. Engagement with primary and prominent stakeholders should focus on technical coherence, resource allocation, and regulatory design. Interaction with discretionary and dependent groups should enable advocacy channels, workforce development, and evidence-based communication.

Figure 8 illustrates the application of the Stakeholder Salience Model within the context of Indonesian multipurpose shipyards. The diagram categorises stakeholder groups according to three essential attributes: power (the capacity to influence decisions), legitimacy (the acknowledged authority or claim), and urgency (the time sensitivity of stakeholder demands). Definitive stakeholders, characterised by holding all three criteria, comprise government agencies and shipowners, who exert the most significant influence over implementation. Dominant stakeholders, such as shipyard executives, wield influence and legitimacy yet may lack a sense of urgency. Dependent stakeholders, such as employees and communities, possess valid and pressing claims yet lack direct authority in decision-making processes. Discretionary stakeholders, such as academics and NGOs, possess legitimacy but have constrained authority and urgency. This classification aids in prioritising engagement methods and forecasting stakeholder reactions to multipurpose shipyard activities.

These findings suggest that the effective adoption of multipurpose shipyards requires more than technical viability; it necessitates a salience-based stakeholder integration that balances influence, legitimacy, and need.

4.6. Innovation Adoption and Diffusion Among Stakeholders

This part examines stakeholder groups’ perceptions and adoption of multipurpose shipyards using Rogers et al. [8] Theory. The theory holds that five fundamental qualities, relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability, determine the acceptance of new ideas. Rogers categorises adopters into five groups based on a normal distribution curve, each representing a percentage of the population: Innovators (2.5%), who are venturesome and risk-tolerant; Early adopters (13.5%), opinion leaders who are selective yet embrace change; Early Majority (34%), who adopt before the average person but need evidence of success; Late Majority (34%), who are sceptical and adopt after widespread acceptance; and Laggards (16%), who are resistant to change and often the last to adopt or only do so when forced by circumstances [8]. By linking stakeholders to these qualities, we can improve our understanding of their adoption tendencies and the challenges they point out.

Table 3. Stakeholder evaluation scores across Rogers’ five perceived innovation attributes and resulting Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) Index.

Stakeholder	Relative Advantage	Compatibility	Complexity	Trialability	Observability	Total DOI Index
Shipyard Executives	4.80	4.50	2.90	3.60	3.80	19.80
Government	4.60	4.40	3.00	3.40	3.60	19.00
Shipowners	4.50	4.20	3.10	3.30	3.50	18.40
Employees	3.90	3.60	3.70	2.90	3.10	15.80
Academics	4.10	3.90	3.90	3.00	3.00	16.10
Suppliers	3.80	3.70	3.60	2.70	2.80	15.40
Community	3.70	3.40	4.10	2.50	2.60	14.10

Note: The Total DOI Index was calculated by adding the scores of five innovation attributes: Relative Advantage, Compatibility, Complexity, Trialability, and Observability, each rated on a 1–5 scale. Since higher Complexity means lower readiness, it was reverse-scored using the formula (6—Complexity score). All attributes were given equal weight to ensure a balanced view of stakeholder readiness to adopt the multipurpose shipyard concept. [Source: Authors’ survey data].

presents stakeholder assessments of five innovation adoption attributes: compatibility, relative advantage, complexity, trialability, and observability, utilising Rogers’ framework. The Total DOI Index is calculated by inverting the complexity of each value, which represents the group’s average perception on a 1–5 scale. This index represents the overall preparedness to adopt the multipurpose shipyard concept. Shipyard Executives have the highest index score (19.80), followed by Government (19.0) and Shipowners (18.4), which suggests a relatively strong strategic alignment and perceived feasibility. On the other hand, the lowest scores are shown by Community and Suppliers, which underscores concerns regarding integration challenges and uncertainty. These scores are a foundation for engagement strategies tailored to stakeholders along Rogers’ adoption curve.

Innovators (2.5% of population): Shipyard executives demonstrate proactive engagement with multipurpose integration from the outset. They acknowledge the relative advantage regarding regulatory alignment, cost efficiency, and competitiveness. As shown in Table 3, Shipyard Executives achieved the highest Total DOI Index score of 19.80, driven by strong perceptions of Relative Advantage (4.80) and Compatibility (4.50), indicating their readiness to adopt innovative models like multipurpose shipyards. This aligns with Rogers’ description of Innovators as risk-tolerant and venturesome, often being the first to embrace new ideas due to their strategic position and willingness to experiment with operational changes. Qualitative insights further support this classification, as evidenced by their proactive adjustments to shipyard operations.

“Understanding market dynamics and operational composition is essential; each activity must match demand, feasibility, and risk. We’ve already begun adjusting our shipyard operations to reflect this integration.”

—Shipbuilding Executive.

While Rogers’ theory does not specify particular groups as Innovators, our classification is based on empirical data combining their high adoption readiness scores and qualitative evidence of proactive behaviour, positioning them as leaders in driving this innovation within Indonesia’s maritime sector. This group acknowledged notable alignment with their strategic goals and stated that execution was essential.

Early adopters (13.5% of population): Shipowners and government officials align with this category. Although they recognise the strategic advantages of integration, they show more wariness than innovators due to legal, financial, or technical concerns.

“This transformation must align with long-term demand, risk management, and the strategic purpose of each operation within the yard.”

Shipowners

“Shipyards must prepare a structured plan for handling pollution and material flow, and it’s not just a matter of engineering but of regulation.”

Government official.

Their support is contingent upon the presence of organised frameworks, trialability, and clarity in governance.

Early Majority (34% of population): Large Subcontractors, Progressive Academics fall into this group. These actors are open to change but require peer validation and practical evidence to support their decisions. While supportive of the concept, their engagement hinges on seeing operational success elsewhere first.

Late Majority (34% of population): Employees, Community Members, and Cautious Academics belong to this category. Members of this group acknowledge the importance of integration but exhibit caution, frequently citing obstacles such as skill deficiencies, ambiguous implementation tactics, and inadequate visibility of outcomes.

“Integration is challenging but possible if done with proper planning and skill development.”

Shipyard Employee.

They are more inclined to participate once widespread institutional adoption is evident.

Laggards (16% of population): Traditional Subcontractors and Low-Engagement Suppliers fit this group. Participation. This group typically exhibits resistance to innovation, rooted in apprehensions over expense, feasibility, and a predilection for traditional methods. Adoption is improbable without external influences, such as regulatory mandates or market reconfiguration.

This model shows that, whereas conceptual endorsement for a multipurpose shipyard is accepted, the willingness to implement it differs greatly depending on perceived complexity and the visibility of benefits. The distribution of adopter categories reflects a predictable progression of adoption over time, where initial champions drive innovation, followed by gradual acceptance across broader groups as barriers are addressed. Filling this gap requires concentrated demonstration projects, training programmes, and gradual implementation strategies that align with the adoption curves of different stakeholders.

One must understand that stakeholder groups could have varied adoption patterns. Although different departments or agencies may adopt changes at varying speeds, depending on their mandates or capacities, government agencies are classified as Early Adopters due to their involvement in policy development and the launch of pilot projects. Academics and subcontractors could fit into the Early to Late Majority categories, depending on their institutional readiness and knowledge of innovation. Understanding this intra-group diversity will help to improve the accuracy of execution strategies and outreach programmes.

Figure 9 presents the distribution of stakeholder groups across Rogers’ adoption categories, illustrating varying levels of readiness to adopt the multipurpose shipyard concept. The Y-axis represents the percentage of stakeholders, reflecting their distribution across various categories, whereas the X-axis illustrates the adoption categories, ranging from Innovators to Laggards. A legend outlines each bar representing specific stakeholder groups along with their respective population percentages according to Rogers’ theory: 2,5% Innovators (Shipyard Executives), 13.5% Early Adopters (Shipowners, Government), 34% Early Majority (Large Subcontractors, Progressive Academics), 34% Late Majority (Employees, Communities, Cautious Academics), and 16% Laggards (Traditional Subcontractors, Low-Engangement Suppliers).

Table 4. Average stakeholder ratings on five adoption criteria for multipurpose shipyards.

Stakeholder	Market Demand	Workforce Dev.	Regulatory	Environmental	Operational Efficiency
Academics	3.6	4.1	3.7	3.2	4.2
Community	3.3	3.4	3.5	4.2	3.4
Employees	3.5	4.3	3.6	3.5	4
Government	4	3.3	4.3	3.7	3.8
Shipowners	4.3	3.5	3.2	3.6	4.2
Shipyard Managers	3.8	3.7	3.8	3.4	4.3
Suppliers	4.1	3.7	4	3.5	3.9

[Source: Authors’ survey data].

presents the mean ratings of seven stakeholder groups for five adoption criteria for multipurpose shipyards, revealing various patterns of prioritisation that demonstrate the marine sector’s diversity of interests. Academics prioritised workforce development (4.1) and operational efficiency (4.2) to increase human capital and operations. The Community group highlighted Environmental issues (4.2), emphasising sustainability, while Workforce Development had the lowest average (3.4). Employees prioritised Workforce Development (4.3) and Operational Efficiency (4.0), focusing on skill development and operational efficiency. Government stakeholders gave Regulatory elements the highest mean (4.3), emphasising their centrality in governance and compliance, followed by Market Demand (4.0). Shipowners rated Market Demand (4.3) and Operational Efficiency (4.2) highest, indicating their interest in commercial viability and yard reliability. Shipyard Managers prioritised Operational Efficiency (4.3) for production optimisation, while Suppliers prioritised Market Demand (4.1) and Regulatory criteria (4.0) for commercial opportunity and compliance. These findings underscore the need for targeted adoption strategies that effectively address the primary concerns of stakeholder groups to integrate the multipurpose shipyard programmes inclusively and efficiently.

While there is consensus regarding the benefits of adopting multipurpose shipyards, different stakeholder groups demonstrate varying priorities. Shipyard managers prioritise operational efficiency, whereas government stakeholders focus on regulatory compliance in conjunction with market demand. Shipowners prioritise market competitiveness and operational efficiency, while employees and academics emphasise workforce development and productivity. The community prioritises environmental sustainability, while suppliers balance market opportunities and regulatory compliance. The observed differences illustrate various strategic, operational, and social perspectives, highlighting the necessity for engagement tailored to specific stakeholders to facilitate effective integration.

4.7. Joint Display of Mixed-Methods Findings

To demonstrate clear integration between qualitative and quantitative datasets, a joint display matrix is presented that aligns the main qualitative themes identified through thematic analysis with corresponding quantitative survey scores or percentages from stakeholder responses in

Table 5. Joint Display: Integration of Qualitative Themes and Quantitative Survey Scores.

Qualitative Theme	Quantitative Survey Score/Percentage	Description/Illustrative Stakeholder Insight
Market Demand	3.8 (mean score)/75.7% identified as critical enabling factor	Stakeholders perceive strong market demand for integrated shipyard services, emphasising Indonesia’s strategic maritime position and the need to reduce reliance on foreign facilities.
Workforce Development	3.9 (means score)/40.5% cited skill shortages as a challenge	Emphasis on the need for targeted training and upskilling to address gaps in modular construction, recycling, and advanced operations. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of workforce readiness for successful integration.
Regulatory Compliance	4.0 (mean score)/45.9% cited regulatory ambiguity as a challenge. 56.8% stressed regulatory support as enabling factor	High importance is placed on clear regulations and compliance, with calls for harmonisation with international standards (e.g., the Hong Kong Convention) and consistent enforcement across regions.
Environmental Considerations	3.6 (mean score)/32.4% saw significant environmental benefits	Concerns about sustainable practices, pollution control, and hazardous waste management. Stakeholders noted the potential for multipurpose shipyards to contribute to a circular economy, but also highlighted the need for robust environmental safeguards
Operational Efficiency	4.2 (mean score)/32.4% saw significant environmental benefits	Stakeholders expect significant improvements in efficiency through integration, including reduced downtime, shared infrastructure, and cost savings. Operational efficiency was the most frequently cited benefit in open-ended responses.

[Source: Constructed by the authors from primary survey data and thematic analysis of open-ended stakeholder responses].

. This integration illustrates the convergence of stakeholder perception across various data types, offering a thorough understanding of their viewpoints regarding multipurpose shipyard integration.

In order to demonstrate convergence and complementarity, this joint display compares quantitative data from Likert-scale ratings or percentage endorsements with qualitative themes extracted from open-ended comments. The high operational efficiency numeric score (4.2 mean, 70.2% endorsement). For example, support the perceived value of integration by matching qualitative insight that highlights shared infrastructure and decreased downtime. Similarly, qualitative narratives advocating for phased approaches and more transparent rules reflect concerns about regulatory ambiguity (45.9%) and technical complexity (62.2%) in quantitative data. Through the triangulation of stakeholder perspectives across different data types, the integration enhances the robustness of the findings.

5. Discussion

5.1. Integrating Shipyard Services: Stakeholder Perspectives in Context

The questionnaire shows strong support for the multipurpose shipyard among Indonesian stakeholders. All respondents supported the idea, acknowledging the potential for integration to enhance efficiency and growth. This section discusses stakeholder perspectives in detail, addressing the research questions (RQ1–RQ4) to highlight benefits, challenges, and adoption dynamics for sustainable implementation. For a detailed overview of key themes coded from open-ended responses on benefits, challenges, and overall perceptions, see File S2 in the Supplementary Material (refer to the Data Availability Statement for access through the Pure repository at the University of Strathclyde).

5.1.1. RQ1: Main Views of Indonesian Stakeholders on Multipurpose Shipyards

Addressing the first research question, “What are the main views of Indonesian stakeholders on multipurpose shipyards?” The survey indicates significant support the concept among Indonesian stakeholders. All respondents supported the concept, acknowledging its capacity to improve efficiency and promote growth. The focus on operational efficiency is clear, as all participants anticipate efficiency gains, with approximately half deeming these advantages significant. This supports the Idea that the integration of shipbuilding, repair and recycling processes minimises downtime and redundancy [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,44,45,46,47,48,50,51], especially in Indonesia, where fluctuating orders have traditionally affected shipyard profitability. Stakeholder perspectives indicate a significant agreement on the conceptual potential of multipurpose shipyards as a transformative framework for the maritime sector.

5.1.2. RQ2: Benefits Stakeholders See from Combining Shipbuilding, Repair, and Recycling

In response to the second research question, “What benefits do stakeholders see from the combination of shipbuilding, repair and recycling?” stakeholders cited economic and competitive advantages. Over 90% expect multipurpose shipyards to create jobs, suggesting that service integration would expand employment at shipyard hubs. The approach may boost community prosperity and skill development in a growing economy, justifying government social concerns. Most respondents identified opportunities for cost-cutting and market expansion, with integration expected to reduce transportation costs and downtime for shipowners. Shipyards can take on additional building and scrapping projects that would otherwise be handled elsewhere. Singapore and Vietnam have modern shipyards. Indonesia’s ability to provide complete services may increase its competitiveness. Integration was planned to speed up turnaround and expand service offerings, helping Indonesian shipyards become comprehensive service centres in Southeast Asia.

5.1.3. RQ3: Challenges Stakeholders Expect in Managing Multipurpose Shipyards

Regarding the third research question, “What challenges can stakeholders expect in the management of multipurpose shipyards?” several critical barriers were identified. Implementation issues differ substantially across Indonesia’s many regions. Shipyards in western Indonesia, especially in Batam and Java, enjoy superior infrastructure, proximity to Singapore, and established maritime clusters [67,68], whereas facilities in eastern Indonesia encounter significant constraints regarding infrastructure access, skilled labour availability, and regulatory oversight capacity [1]. Stakeholders expressed concerns over operational risks without proper spatial planning and timing, emphasising the need for infrastructure as a key enabler (84% of participants highlighted this). Environmental and regulatory ambiguities pose significant hurdles, with 46% of respondents citing unclear regulation as a challenge, particularly for ship recycling. Financial risk due to high capital investment (43% of stakeholders) and Workforce skill gaps (over 40%) further complicate integration, necessitating clear policies, investment support, and targeted training. These challenges highlight the complexity of transitioning to a multipurpose shipyard model.

5.1.4. RQ4: Influence of Stakeholder Traits and Creative Dynamics on Acceptance of the Model

Finally, addressing the fourth research question, “How can stakeholder traits and creative dynamics influence the possible acceptance of this model?” the study utilised the Stakeholder Salience Model and Diffusion of Innovations Theory to analyse stakeholder dynamics. Definitive stakeholders, such as government authorities and shipowners, wield significant influence due to their power, legitimacy, and urgency, prioritising regulatory compliance and market demand. The Diffusion of Innovations framework reveals varying adoption readiness, with shipyard executives as innovators, shipowners and government as early adopters, and others ranging from early majority to laggards, influenced by perceived relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability. Stakeholders emphasised the need for pilot projects and evidence to build confidence, suggesting that creative dynamics, such as phased implementation and knowledge sharing, can mitigate complexity and enhance acceptance. This finding is consistent with the literature highlighting the value of demonstration projects and learning-by-doing in complex system adoption [47,48,49,51,52].

5.2. Stakeholder Dynamics: Salience and Innovation Diffusion

Using the stakeholder salience model clarifies the justification for particular groups, prioritising some concerns and showing the diversity of stakeholder backing for the multipurpose shipyard idea. Mitchell et al. [30] propose power, legitimacy, and urgency define how stakeholders influence a project. Our research revealed that definitive stakeholders, especially government authorities and shipowners, strongly support particular implementation needs. Government agencies are essential in minimising negative consequences due to their regulatory power and public duty to provide safety and environmental protection. Their regulatory system and supervisory focus make this clear. Regulatory agencies underlined the need for clear standards and vigorous enforcement before approving integrated yards.

Prominent customers with financial strength and a strong interest in cost-effective operations, shipowners desperately needed consistent, high-quality service. Should they be convinced of the benefits, they will encourage early demand for multipurpose yards and, at the same time, push shipyards and governments to follow international standards, including certified green recycling, to maintain their corporate responsibility image and keep a link to Indonesian yards. Advancement may accelerate if these definitive stakeholders support the multipurpose shipyard idea through pro-integration policies and commercial commitments; nevertheless, development might slow if it fails.

Synthesising the findings from the Stakeholder Salience Model and the Diffusion of Innovations Theory, it is evident that stakeholder attributes significantly shape the innovation adoption processes across different groups in the context of a multipurpose shipyard in Indonesia. Definitive stakeholders, such as government authorities and shipowners, who possess a high level of power, legitimacy, and urgency, are established as primary drivers of early adoption. Their elevated Total DOI Index scores (19.00 and 18.40, respectively) substantiate their capacity to influence policy and investment landscapes. Their involvement aligns innovation with regulatory and market needs, driving early adoption.

Dominant stakeholders, including shipyard executives, are classified as innovators due to their significant power and legitimacy, despite having lower urgency (DOI Index:19.80). Their leadership is evidenced by high recognition of relative advantage and proactive strategies for operational integration, as seen in qualitative feedback: “We’ve already begun adjusting our shipyard operations to reflect this integration” (Shipbuilding Executive). In contrast, dependent stakeholders, including employees and community members, as well as discretionary stakeholders such as academics, typically occupy late majority or laggard positions (DOI Index:15.80, 14.10, and 16.10, respectively). These groups show higher perceived complexity and lower readiness, often due to workforce and environmental concerns.

Thus, broad acceptance within these less influential groups generally takes place only after clear advantages have been demonstrated through specific stakeholder initiatives. This underscores the need for phased pilots and policy support to bridge adoption gaps across groups [69].

Table 6. Stakeholder integration matrix.

Stakeholder Group	Salience Attributes	Adoption Category	Top Concern Area
Government	Definitive	Early Adopter	Regulatory compliance
Shipyard Executive	Dominant	Innovator	Operational efficiency
Shipowners	Definitive	Early Adopter	Market demand
Employees	Dependent	Late Majority	Workforce development
Suppliers	Dependent	Laggard	Process disruption
Academics	Discretionary	Late Majority	Sustainability
Community	Dependent	Late Majority	Environmental impact

[Source: Authors’ analysis].

summarises stakeholder categories, their salience, adoption readiness and primary concerns. This matrix is a helpful tool for matching implementation priorities with strategies for involving stakeholders.

5.3. Implications for Policy and Sustainable Implementation

This research shows that a multipurpose shipyard model in Indonesia requires concerted action and a phased, strategic implementation plan. Stakeholder input suggests various policy and practice implications:

• Policy and Regulatory Framework: The regulatory framework requires further harmonisation with international standards. As of 2024, Indonesia has ratified several key IMO instruments, including MARPOL Annexes III, IV, V, and VI, through Presidential Regulation No. 29 of 2012, reflecting its ongoing commitment to expanding maritime environmental protections [22]. Indonesia should prioritise ratification of the Hong Kong International Convention (HKC), which entered into force on 26 June 2025, to establish robust ship recycling regulations, addressing stakeholder concerns about regulatory ambiguity and ensuring compliance with global standards. Recent IMO updates indicate Indonesia’s progress toward legal harmonisation, though formal accession is pending. Optimising permission procedures and providing centralised regulatory approval for integrated operations will diminish bureaucratic obstacles that hinder yard expansion, as specific stakeholders have cited regulatory uncertainty as a potential risk for delays or non-compliance. Policymakers should establish a maritime industrial working group of industry stakeholders to revise regulations and train enforcement authorities to supervise complex shipyard operations. This regulatory foundation is critical to support subsequent infrastructure and environmental policy actions.
• Environmental and Safety Measures: Implement robust environmental and occupational safety regulations to ensure sustainability. This requires ship recycling yards to possess ISO 30000 [6] certifications and to have appropriate waste management systems in place for oil, asbestos, scrap steel, and other materials. Certification, waste management, and transparent oversight are crucial to establishing trust and positioning Indonesia as a leader in sustainable ship recycling. Multipurpose shipyards enable resource recovery, material reuse, and operational innovation, advancing the circular economy and cost efficiency. These measures directly address environmental concerns raised by stakeholders and align with HKC mandates for Inventories of Hazardous Material (IHM) and Ship Recycling Plans (SRP). Brief comparative insight from Turkey (Aliga’s EU-approved recycling yards), the Philippines (voluntary HKC practices), and Vietnam (drydock recycling) suggests that robust environmental regulations and public–private collaboration can change sustainability outcomes, offering models for Indonesia to adapt. This focus on environmental safeguards sets the stage for infrastructure investment that must comply with these standards.
• Infrastructure and Investment Support: Given high capital costs and infrastructure needs, government investment facilitation will drive success. Financial incentives could include tax discounts on capital equipment for ship recycling facilities, as well as low-interest loans and grants for yards updating their infrastructure to support multipurpose shipyard activities. Public–private collaborations can help create green recycling zones near shipyards. A shipyard cluster where infrastructure can be pooled (e.g., a centralised hazardous waste treatment plant serving several shipyards) is one realistic idea from the feedback. Cluster models and shared investment reduce costs and comply with regulations. Indonesia, as the largest archipelagic country in the world with a strategic location, has a potentially large ship recycling market, with thousands of Indonesian-flagged ships over 25 years old eligible for recycling [29]. Stricter environmental risk assessment should be integrated into infrastructure planning and investment decision-making to address identified environmental challenges [70]. This focus on infrastructure and investment builds on regulatory and enviromental policies to provide the practical resources needed for implementation.
• Stakeholder Engagement and Integration: Participation in local forums and multi-stakeholder partnerships will build credibility, address concerns, and support implementation. Partnership must engage definitive stakeholders, such as government and shipowners, to facilitate policy alignment; dominant stakeholders, including shipyard executives, to secure operational buy-in; and dependent stakeholders, like employees and communities, to consider workforce and local impact issues. Mechanisms such as regular stakeholder workshops, joint task forces with IPERINDO, and public consultation platforms can enhance dialogue and consensus-building throughout the phases of the implementation roadmap. This engagement is essential for integrating diverse perspectives, reducing resistance, and ensuring the sustainable adoption of the multipurpose shipyard model, thereby connecting all policy dimensions through collaborative action.

5.4. Phased Implementation Roadmap and Scenario-Based Strategies for Regulatory Readiness Post-HKC Enforcement

5.4.1. Phased Implementation Roadmap for Multipurpose Shipyard in Indonesia

A structured, phased roadmap is proposed to enable Indonesia’s transition to a multipurpose shipyard that integrates shipbuilding, ship repair and ship recycling functions. This approach incorporates stakeholder feedback regarding essential benefits and challenges, addresses regional disparities, and ensures alignment of implementation with economic, environmental, and safety objectives. The roadmap outlines timeline ranges, allocates responsibilities based on stakeholder salience and adoption categories (refer to Table 6), and incorporates a mechanism for accountability and transparency across all phases.

Data and theory support a phased implementation roadmap. We offer a staged implementation roadmap (see Figure 10) to guide the transition:

Figure 10 outlines a phased roadmap from 2026 to 2035 for implementing multipurpose shipyards in Indonesia, consisting of:

• Phase 1: Planning and Capacity Building (2026–2027).
  The initial phase emphasises feasibility assessment, policy revision, workforce development, and the selection of pilot sites. The government, specifically the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Industry, leads policy and regulatory enhancements to align with international standards, including the Hong Kong Convention. Academics contribute by conducting research and implementing training programs that address sustainability and technical deficiencies. Key activities include drafting regulatory updates, conducting feasibility studies, initiating capacity-building efforts, and identifying potential pilot locations. The Ministry of Transportation monitors progress via regular stakeholder reporting to ensure alignment and transparency.
• Phase 2: Pilot Multipurpose Shipyard(s) (2028–2029).
  The second phase launches demonstration shipyards to assess integrated operation and monitor operational results. The government is responsible for pilot approvals and regulatory compliance, whereas shipyard executives handle operational integration and technical execution. Pilot shipyards, including those located in Batam and Cilegon, developed shared infrastructure and gathered data regarding efficiency, compliance, and environmental impact. A joint task force conducts regular reviews of pilot outcomes and gathers stakeholder feedback to facilitate continuous improvement.
• Phase 3: Evaluation and Scale-Up (2030–2031).
  Following Pilot implementation, evaluation and strategy refinement take place, leading to expansion into additional regions, including underdeveloped areas characterised by substantial infrastructure deficiencies. Government agencies assess pilot outcomes and modify policies for wider implementation, whereas shipowners stimulate demand and invest in enhanced facilities. The adaptation of operational models by shipyard executives facilitates scalability. The government publishes evaluation reports, and formal market commitments from shipowners support the expansion strategy.
• Phase 4: Full Integration and Continuous Improvement (2032–2035).
  The final phase seeks to build a network of multipurpose shipyards, institutionalise best practices, and ensure ongoing updates to standards as knowledge advances in environmental and safety. A national compliance committee ensures government oversight, whereas shipowners contribute to consistent market demand. Continuous training and enhancements in operations are emphasised to guarantee resilience and adaptability within the industry. Annual stakeholder forums facilitate feedback and promote iterative improvement.

The proposed timeline (2026–2035) facilitates a feasible, ten-year transition that considers the sector’s intricacies and the regional disparities within Indonesia. Stakeholder roles are designated based on their salience and adoption categories, thereby ensuring consistency with the stakeholder Integration Matrix. Ongoing collaboration with industry associations, including IPERINDO, facilitates coordination throughout various phases.

5.4.2. Scenario-Based Strategies for Regulatory Readiness Post-HKC Enforcement

With the Hong Kong Convention (HKC) set to take effect in June 2025, Indonesia’s shipyard sector needs to develop scenario-based strategies for regulatory and operational readiness. The scenarios outlined in the phased roadmap illustrate different degrees of regulatory preparedness and stakeholder capability.

• Scenario 1: Proactive Alignment and Green Transition
  In an ideal scenario, Indonesia would immediately align its regulatory framework, ratify the HKC, and implement updated regulations before the commencement of Phase 1. Initial demonstration projects in shipyard hubs, such as Batam and Cilegon, exhibit compliance with HKC standards, featuring comprehensive hazardous material management, consistent third-party audits, and efficient stakeholder engagement. This scenario establishes Indonesia as a regional leader in sustainable ship recycling by the conclusion of phase 2, reducing environmental risks and fostering community trust.
• Scenario 2: Partial Readiness and uneven implementation
  A likely scenario, informed by current stakeholder feedback, suggests partial readiness: by June 2025, Indonesia is expected to have updated numerous regulations; however, enforcement remains inconsistent, particularly in less-developed regions. Particular shipyards achieve best practice certification, whereas others fail to meet the standard. Environmental risks persist in areas characterised by outdated infrastructure and inadequate control. The government and industry should strategically direct investment and training to address these gaps during the scale-up phase in Eastern Indonesia. Delay in achieving full compliance may undermine community trust and decrease regional competitiveness.
• Scenario 3: Regulatory Lag and Environmental Liability
  The most pessimistic scenario anticipates regulatory inertia and postponed ratification of the HKC, resulting in ship recycling proceeding under fragmented national regulations. This results in ongoing environmental hazards, improper management of hazardous substances, and international clients redirecting vessels to alternative locations. Inadequate enforcement, particularly in underdeveloped regions, results in reduced economic opportunities and increased reputational risks for both governments and industries. Emergency interventions and significant recovery efforts may be necessary, potentially disrupting Phases 3 and 4 and postponing complete integration.

5.4.3. Key Recommendations for Regulatory Readiness

Across all scenarios, recommendations are consistently emphasised by stakeholders:

• Timely HKC Ratification and Regulatory Harmonisation
  Essential for ensuring legal certainty and standardised practices, which are crucial for attracting investment and facilitating smooth implementation, preferably before Phase 1
• Phased Implementation and Demonstration projects
  Critical for capacity building, compliance demonstration, and informing strategies for scaling up, particularly through early pilots in the key shipyard hubs.
• Targeted Investment and Capacity Building
  Focusing on infrastructure and workforce training to address technical and operational disparities, especially in Eastern Indonesia, to avoid uneven sectoral development
• Robust Monitoring and Stakeholder Engagement
  Essential for managing environmental risks and ensuring community trust during all phases. This requires enforcement of transparency, continuous monitoring, and ongoing consultation with stakeholders.

Indonesia can effectively navigate the transition to a sustainable multipurpose shipyard sector by implementing a proactive, phased roadmap and scenario-based regulatory strategy, informed by international best practices. This approach will help mitigate environmental and regulatory risks and establish Indonesia as a responsible leader in the global ship recycling industry as the HKC is implemented.

5.4.4. International Comparison and Scope of Replicability

Indonesia’s initiatives to establish multipurpose shipyards align with experiences observed in Vietnam, Turkey, and the Philippines, yet they encounter unique contextual challenges. This analysis highlights key lessons for replication and adaptation.

Vietnam’s hybrid model offers operational efficiency lessons for Phases 2–3, though regulatory gaps must be addressed early. Turkey’s Aliaga region provides a regulatory model for green recycling, requiring policy adjustments for Indonesia’s context. The Philippines’ low-capital approach suits resource constraints but needs workforce training, similar to Indonesia’s needs.

Transferability varies: Vietnam’s model suits Western hubs like Batam but not Eastern regions due to logistics; Turkey’s standards need governance adaptation; and the Philippines’ approach fits smaller yards but requires financial support. Indonesia’s archipelagic nature and policy capacity limit direct replication, necessitating localised strategies and a genuine sustainability focus over mere certification.

Governance and stakeholder collaboration are key, with lessons from Vietnam’s partnerships, Turkey’s compliance, and the Philippines’ initiatives suggesting Indonesia enhance multi-stakeholder forums and HKC alignment. Effectiveness depends on adaptive governance, phased investments, and addressing local conditions for equitable implementation.

6. Conclusions and Further Work

This study offers multiple new perspectives on the growth of multipurpose shipyards in emerging maritime economies. This study presents the initial empirical evaluation of stakeholder perspectives regarding integrating shipbuilding, repair, and recycling within Indonesia’s shipyard sector, employing a dual framework of stakeholder salience and innovation diffusion. This context-specific phased roadmap integrates theoretical frameworks with practical applications, providing actionable guidance for industry stakeholders and policymakers. Utilising a mixed-methods approach informed by this dual theoretical framework, we discovered substantial but conditional endorsement for the multipurpose shipyard concept among Indonesian maritime stakeholders. Stakeholders emphasised operational efficiency, economic competitiveness, and regional job creation as significant advantages while underscoring the necessity for strong regulation, workforce development, and risk management. Although our findings provide novel insights into maritime innovation from a stakeholder-centric viewpoint, some limitations persist. The study’s focus on Western Indonesia restricts the applicability of findings to Eastern regions, which face greater infrastructure and logistical challenges, as indicated by the sampling limitations. A sample size of 37 participants limits the study, as it relies on self-reported data, which may affect the accuracy of statistical analysis, particularly in the absence of inferential methods such as regression or correlation analysis to investigate stakeholder impacts on perceived benefits and challenges. Future research should include longitudinal pilot studies, comparative surveys across countries, and modelling of adoption pathways to validate and refine these findings. Furthermore, future research needs to focus on regional comparative analysis within Indonesia to tackle East–West disparities and utilise advanced analytical methods to strengthen the reliability of the result. The findings extend beyond Indonesia, providing a stakeholder-driven framework for maritime sustainability applicable to other archipelagic and developing countries. Comparative case studies and policy testing in varied marine systems can broaden impact, helping regulatory bodies design adaptive, inclusive strategies for progressive shipyard innovation.