SCIENCE ARTICLE
Governance and legitimacy of the national shipping flag: evidence from Poland
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Management and Economics, Gdynia Maritime University, Poland
Submission date: 2025-08-30
Final revision date: 2025-10-29
Acceptance date: 2025-11-28
Online publication date: 2026-01-09
Publication date: 2026-01-03
Corresponding author
Monika Szyda
Department of Management and Economics, Gdynia Maritime University, Morska, 81-225, Gdynia, Poland
Management 2025;(2):429-458
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Research background and purpose:
Maintaining a national fleet under a country's flag is increasingly difficult in globalised maritime transport. Still, many countries support their merchant fleets for strategic, economic or symbolic reasons. Poland’s merchant fleet, once among the world's top 20 in the 1980s, now consists of only 14 small, ageing vessels. The article identifies causes of this decline and explores public attitudes toward the importance of a national fleet and willingness to support measures to reduce the cost of maintaining ships under the Polish flag.
Design/methodology/approach:
Two research methods were applied: historical and institutional analysis, and a representative survey (n=1001). The first established the context for investigating public opinion on whether Poland should maintain a national fleet and adopt supportive policy.
Findings:
Findings show that while the public values a national merchant fleet, it is less inclined to support economic incentives or regulatory changes to sustain it. High employment costs, especially those from Poland's social security system, are the main barrier to competitiveness. In a global context of officer shortages and wage pressure, rebuilding the fleet is desirable but economically challenging. Public support exists, but successful maritime policy requires not only systemic reforms but also better communication with society.
Value added and limitations:
The article demonstrates that shipping is important not only from a business perspective, but also from the perspective of the public interest. There is identified a "bottleneck" (indirect labor costs) as the decisive factor in rejecting the Polish registry – the desire for a cost advantage over competitors necessitates the use of an appropriate registry selection strategy. The article portrays shipping as a key element of the supply chain to Europe. The issue of managing human capital with appropriate qualifications is addressed – the shortage of officers and the reasons for their withdrawal from the profession are raised. Also, the article touches on issues related to change management. A limitation of article was the public opinion data are cross-sectional, capturing attitudes at a single point in time. Although the sample was demographically representative, it did not specifically capture the views of key stakeholder groups, such as shipowners, trade unions, maritime professionals, or policymakers.
REFERENCES (56)
1.
Brooks, M. R. (2019). National shipping policies and international ocean governance. In International Ocean Institute Canada (Ed.), The future of ocean governance and capacity development (pp. 450–455). Brill Nijhoff.
https://doi.org/10.1163/978900....
3.
Burstein, P. (2003). The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A Review and an Agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29.
https://doi.org/10.2307/321988....
4.
Caesar, L. (2013). Sustaining the Supply of Ship Officers: Making a Case for Succession Planning in Seafarer Recruitment. Universal Journal of Management, 1(1), 6–12.
https://doi.org/10.13189/ujm.2....
5.
Carpenter, A., Johansson, T. M., & Skinner, J. A. (Eds.). (2021). Sustainability in the Maritime Domain: Towards Ocean Governance and Beyond. Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-....
6.
Choi, J., Lim, S., & Lee, C. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Sustainable Seafarers’ Employment and Welfare Systems in South Korea and China: Contemporary Issues and Improvements. Sustainability, 16(19), 8512.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su1619....
7.
Commission of the European Communities. (1989). Communication on State Aid to Maritime Transport (COM(89) 266 final) (No. COM(89) 266 final). European Commission.
8.
Dimitranov, D., & Belev, B. (2024). Sustainable Shipping Requires Sustainable Education and Training. Sustainability, 16(24), 11270.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su1624....
9.
Divine, C. L., Cahoon, S., Fei, J., & Sallah, C. A. (2021). Exploring the antecedents of high mobility among ship officers: Empirical evidence from Australia. Maritime Policy & Management, 48(1), 109–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/030888....
10.
Dobrowolski, K. (2018). Privatisation of state owned enterprises in Poland’s economy. In M. Roe (Ed.), Developments in the Baltic Maritime Marketplace (pp. 12-20). New York, USA. Routledge.
13.
Drewry Maritime Research. (2024). Manning. Annual Review & Forecast 2024/25. Drewry Maritime Research.
15.
Edirisinghe, L., Jayakody, N., Ranwala, L., & Lixin, S. (2016). Factors That Determines the Students’ Choice of Maritime Education and Training with Special Reference to Seafaring Officers. SSRN Electronic Journal.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2....
16.
EMSA. (2025). Seafarers Statistics in the EU - 2023.
17.
European Commission. (1997). Community Guidelines on State Aid to Maritime Transport (97/C 205/05). European Commission.
18.
European Commission. (2004). Community Guidelines on State Aid to Maritime Transport (2004/C 13/03) (No. 2004/C 13/03). European Commission.
19.
European Commission. (2009). Communication on State Aid to Ship Management Companies (2009/C 132/06) (No. 2009/C 132/06). European Commission.
20.
European Commission. (2017). Communication Updating the Annex to the Community Guidelines on State Aid to Maritime Transport (2017/C 120/03) (No. 2017/C 120/03). European Commission.
22.
European Union. (2012). Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Consolidated version). Official Journal of the European Union.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega....
23.
GUS. (2024). Rocznik statystyczny gospodarki morskiej 2024 [Statistical yearbook of maritime economy 2024]. Główny Urząd Statystyczny.
24.
Hakhverdian, A. (2012). The Causal Flow between Public Opinion and Policy: Government Responsiveness, Leadership, or Counter Movement? West European Politics, 35(6), 1386–1406.
https://doi.org/10.1080/014023....
25.
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-level Governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233-243.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S00030....
26.
Hult, C., & Snoberg, J. (2014). Swedish Seafarers’ Commitment to Work in Times of Flagging out. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 8(1), 121–128.
https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.....
27.
Jacuch, A. (2024). Odporność systemów transportowych NATO podczas zimnej wojny i obecnie [Resilience of NATO transport systems during the Cold War and today]. Roczniki Bezpieczeństwa Morskiego, 18, 981–996.
https://doi.org/10.5604/01.300....
28.
Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H. G., & Federico, C. M. (2017). Open versus closed: Personality, identity, and the politics of redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
29.
Kan, E. (2024). Identifying Company Selection Criteria applied by Maritime Transportation Engineering Students for Career Planning. Transactions on Maritime Science, 13(1).
https://doi.org/10.7225/toms.v....
30.
Kilpi, V., Solakivi, T., & Kiiski, T. (2021). Maritime sector at verge of change: Learning and competence needs in Finnish maritime cluster. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 20(1), 63–79.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437....
31.
Kooiman, J. (2009). Governing as governance (1. publ., reprint). Sage.
32.
Kovats, L. J. (2006). How flag states lost the plot over shipping’s governance. Does a ship need a sovereign? Maritime Policy & Management, 33(1), 75–81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/030888....
33.
Łukaszuk, T., & Wiskulski, T. (2018). The Concept of Maritime Governance in International Relations. Stosunki Międzynarodowe - International Relations, 54(4), 123–144.
https://doi.org/10.7366/020909....
34.
Lušić, Z., Bakota, M., Čorić, M., & Skoko, I. (2019). Seafarer Market – Challenges for the Future. Transactions on Maritime Science, 8(1), 62–74.
https://doi.org/10.7225/toms.v....
35.
Malus, A., & Usewicz, T. (2023). Aktywność Sojuszu Północnoatlantyckiego na Morzu Śródziemnym [Activity of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance in the Mediterranean Sea]. Alcumena, 15(3), 179–203.
https://doi.org/10.34813/PSC.3....
37.
Olaniyi, E. O., Solarte-Vasquez, M. C., & Inkinen, T. (2024). Smart regulations in maritime governance: Efficacy, gaps, and stakeholder perspectives. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 202, 116341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marp....
38.
Oxford Economics. (2024). Infographic: The economic value of the EU shipping industry-2020 update [Online information / Maritime statistics].
https://ecsa.eu/infographic-th....
39.
Pachura, A. (2024). Fields of synergy—Theory and practice of cooperation between social enterprises and business. Management, 28(2), 155–184.
https://doi.org/10.58691/man/1....
41.
PZPŻ. (2025, January 14). Polski Związek Przedsiębiorców Żeglugowych [Polish Shipping Companies Association].
https://pzpz.org/.
43.
Roe, M. (2001). Polish shipping under Communism. Routledge.
44.
Roe, M. (2009). Multi-level and polycentric governance: Effective policymaking for shipping. Maritime Policy & Management, 36(1), 39–56.
https://doi.org/10.1080/030888....
45.
Roe, M. (2013). Maritime Governance and Policy-Making: The Need for Process Rather than Form. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 29(2), 167–186.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl....
46.
Ruggunan, S. (2010). (Mis)managing labour markets? The decline of the contemporary global labour market for British seafarers. Acta Commercii, 10(1), 15–26.
https://doi.org/10.4102/ac.v10....
47.
Sawiczewska, Z. (1997). Analysis of Polish short sea shipping. In Roe, Michael (Ed.), Shipping in the Baltic Region (pp. 44–54). Routledge.
48.
SF v. Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (2019), Case C-631/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:381 (Court of Justice of the European Union, Third Chamber, May 8, 2019).
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/lega....
49.
Sletmo, G. K., & Hoste, S. (1993). Shipping and the competitive advantage of nations: The role of international ship registers. Maritime Policy & Management, 20(3), 243–255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/030888....
50.
Stopford, M. (2009). Maritime Economics (3rd ed). Routledge.
52.
Układ zbiorowy dla marynarzy w żegludze międzynarodowej z dnia 17.01.1975 r. (1975). Układ zbiorowy dla marynarzy w żegludze międzynarodowej z dnia 17 stycznia 1975 r. [Collective Agreement for Seafarers in International Shipping of 17 January 1975].UNCTAD. (1989). Review of Maritime Transport 1989.
53.
Ustawa z dnia 24 sierpnia 2006 r. o podatku tonażowym. (2006). [Act of 24 August 2006 on Tonnage Tax]. Dz.U. 2006 nr 183 poz. 1353.
54.
Wu, B., Gu, G., & Carter, C. J. (2021). The bond and retention of Chinese seafarers for international shipping companies: A survey report. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 6(1), 3.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072....
55.
Wyrwa, J. (2018). Cross-sector partnership as a determinant of development – the perspective of public management. Management, 22(1), 119–137.
https://doi.org/10.2478/manmen....
56.
Żurek, J. (2018). The privatisation of Polish shipping. Present situation and development. In Roe, Michael (Ed.), Developments in the Baltic Maritime Marketplace (e-book edition). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/978042....