Restrictions increase research and development while strengthening the competitiveness of maritime cluster.
In our recently published study, we showed that the strict targets set by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to reduce emissions in Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas and Emission Control Areas (PSSA and ECA) have increased scientific research on shipping in these areas – the number of publications was used as a measure of research.
In other words, the stricter the restrictions, the more research and development is carried out in the area. Not very surprising.
Can we conclude from this that strict standards and restrictions set by the authorities strengthen the competitiveness of the business community? Examples come to mind: the Japanese automobile industry, which in the 1950s lacked everything: capital, expertise, physical space, etc. Japan developed JIT production, the basic idea of which is to minimize inventories and errors. Only flawless quality was allowed, there was no room for waste. As a result, Japanese cars conquered the world with their quality and low price, as capital was not spent on unnecessary storage or faulty production.
Similarly, the Finnish maritime industry has been in difficulty several times. I personally consider the current success to be primarily due to the internationalization of the industry. When ships, design and various subcontracting are sold on international markets, the quality has to be good and cost-effective. Domestic shipyards also benefit from this.
The opposite example is the Jones Act in the United States. The competitiveness of the US maritime cluster has been driven down by a law that states that only ships built, owned, manned and flagged in the US can operate in domestic water transport, in practice coastal, archipelago and inland water transport. The Jones Act particularly affects traffic on large islands, such as Hawaii and Puerto Rico.
Due to the protection provided by the Jones Act, the US’s own maritime transport has deteriorated into inefficiency and cost, due to the lack of competition. Goods are mainly transported within the country by trucks and trains. Shipbuilding has focused only on the needs of domestic authorities. An icebreaker built in the US is three times more expensive than a foreign one. Even in war, the Jones Act has not been useful; in Operation Desert Storm, only one ship met the criteria of the law.
International competition is therefore essential for the industry to develop. The study I mentioned at the beginning shows that strict environmental restrictions have led to development activities in specifically regulated areas – in other words, these particularly sensitive sea areas have given a boost to the development of their maritime cluster. A practical example is Wärtsilä’s changed strategy towards environmentally friendly shipping after the decision on the Sulphur Directive.
The competitiveness of Finnish maritime transport is constantly weakening. In 1995, Finnish maritime tonnage covered approximately 0.64 percent of the world’s maritime tonnage. Approximately half of this was under the Finnish flag and half under the flags of other countries. Since then, the amount of Finnish tonnage has approximately halved.
Could stricter environmental regulation in the Baltic Sea make maritime transport even more efficient and competitive? Would even stricter regulation succeed in making our already highly competent shipping operations even more competitive and encouraging shipping companies to compete in wider waters? At the same time, it would strengthen the expertise and companies of the domestic maritime cluster.
Do we dare to try?
The article was previously published in Navigator Magazine, an online magazine for maritime professionals, on 26 August 2025.
Tales of Talsinki 