Shipbuilding in Europe - uni-bremen.de · 4 University of Bremen 2 February, 2006 Dr. Jochen Tholen/Thorsten Ludwig Shipbuilding in Europe Structure, Employment, Perspectives Selected

University of Bremen

Dr. Jochen Tholen/Thorsten Ludwig

Shipbuilding in Europe Structure, Employment, Perspectives

February 2006

2


3


Foreword

The Social Dialogue Committee for the European shipbuilding and ship repair sector

bringing together the European Metalworkers’ Federation (EMF) and the Community

of European Shipyards Associations (CESA) was set up in December 2003, under

the auspices of the European Commission.

Within this framework, one of the Committee’s first actions was to seek to obtain the

best possible insight into the tangible reality of the sector via an in-depth description

of the socio-economic situation. It decided to use a questionnaire for this purpose

covering all shipbuilding and ship repair yards in 20 European countries, including

EU Member States, associate or candidate countries.

The questions, as well as this document which presents the results, were jointly

drawn up by a working group set up by the two social partners on the basis of

information submitted by academic researchers.

Furthermore, the questionnaires were sent to all the shipyards via the employers as

well as via the employees’ representatives.

Bremen University carries technical and scientific responsibility for this project.

We are now pleased to present the results of the questionnaire. Besides the positive

responses and content that have permitted us to arrive at a generally shared view of

the information received, this exercise demanded a joint effort which has enabled us

to build up a constructive relationship between the Social Dialogue Committee

partners.

François Billet Enrique Calvet Chambon

Chairman Vice Chairman

Social Dialogue Committee Social Dialogue Committee

4


2 February, 2006

Dr. Jochen Tholen/Thorsten Ludwig

Shipbuilding in Europe Structure, Employment, Perspectives

Selected Results drawn from a quantitative survey in the framework of the European

Shipbuilding Social Dialogue

General information

In the previous decades and due to the globalisation and progress of technology,

the European shipbuilding industry has undergone a fundamental shift from a mainly

labour-intensive industry to a capital and know-how dominated high-tech industry,

relying on the availability of a highly-skilled workforce.

In order to get more detailed information about this industry a quantitative study on

European Shipyards (including New Building Merchant, New Building Naval and

Repair) in the framework of the European Shipbuilding Social Dialogue has been

undertaken in 2004/2005 by Bremen University-Institute Labour and

Economy/Germany. The survey asked for the structure, employment and

perspectives of European Shipbuilding Industry and emphasized the European

perspective, competing mainly with East Asia.

Both social partners in all shipyards in 20 European countries – management and

employees´ representatives – were asked to complete a standardized

questionnaire.

5


The following presentation shows selected results from a comprehensive survey1,

agreed by the partners of the European Shipbuilding Social Dialogue (CESA and

EMF).

The Survey/Methodology/Dispatch of the questionnaires/Coverage

The Research Group from Bremen University together with the social partners of

European Shipbuilding Social Dialogue developed the standardized questionnaires

(30 questions to be completed, 245 variables/codes), both for the management and

the representatives of the selected yards. Only three questions of these two

questionnaires were different from each other. Insofar the answers are highly

comparable.

The questionnaires were translated into all languages of those 20 European

countries, comprised by the survey.

The questionnaires have been sent by CESA and by EMF to their respective

member organisations in the 20 countries, which distributed the questionnaires to

each individual shipyards (done in 2004).

This procedure ensured a high level of acceptance not only by the yards themselves

but also by the national members of CESA and EMF.

Parallel to that the Research Group from Bremen University has worked out a

comprehensive Directory of European Shipyards, as it turned out that the available

data partly were insufficient.

After comparing our directory with the lists provided by CESA and EMF, we selected

241 yards (newbuilding merchant and naval, repair) in those 20 European countries

that we were interested in.

1 Sponsored by Hans-Boeckler Foundation (Duesseldorf), Otto Brenner Foundation (Frankfurt/M),

6


Figure 1: Structure of the sample by number of direct employees

Romania8,1%

Spain8,2%UK

8,3%Italy9,8%

Poland12,4%

France13,6%

Germany15,5%

Bulgaria0,8%

Norway0,4%

Sweden1,3%

Lithuania1,3%

Portugal1,8%

Greece2,4%

Montenegro0,7%

Denmark2,5%

The Netherlands3,3%

Croatia4,4%

Finland5,3%

In total these 241 yards represent 154,872 direct employees.

We have received 130 completed questionnaires: 109 yards with 105,986 direct

employees answered our questionnaires; this is a coverage of 68,4 percent.2

The following represents the various status of the chosen 20 European countries in

relation to the EU membership:

• 11 EU-15 countries

• 4 EU-10 countries

• 2 acceding countries (Romania, Bulgaria)

• 1 candidate country (Croatia)

• 1 associated country/EEA (Norway)

• 1 pre-candidate country (Serbia & Montenegro).

The German Center for Productivity and Innovation RKW (Eschborn) 2 We received 70 questionnaires from management and 60 questionnaires from representatives; from 22 yards we have received completed questionnaires from both management and representatives.

7


Table 1: Number of shipyards and shipyards‘ direct employment in 20 European countries and representativity of the quantitative survey (2004)

Number of Share of Response/

Share of Response/

Shipyards/ Response

Shipyards (in %)

Employees (in %)

Bulgaria - 6 1 16.7 4,034 874 21.7Croatia 19.53 9 7 77.8 6,929 4,624 66.7Denmark 13.12 8 4 50 2,902 2,627 90.5Estonia - 2 0 0 1,200 0 0.0Finland 5.56 6 6 100 5,565 5,565 100.0France 3.22 13 6 20 15,230 14,467 95.0Germany 19 31 19 61.3 18,489 16,396 88.7Greece - 3 2 66.7 3,111 2,511 80.7Italy 11.65 24 12 52 12,033 10,343 86.0Latvia 0.02 2 0 0 1,620 0 0.0Lithuania 0.04 4 1 25 3,755 1,395 37.2Norway - 20 5 25 2,272 425 18.7Poland 11.02 16 5 31.3 23,106 13,116 56.8Portugal 0.03 4 2 50 1,937 1,857 95.9Romania 4.75 7 4 57.1 13,401 8,601 64.2Serbia&Montenegro -

1 1 100 747 747 100.0

Spain 2.94 35 18 54.3 10,850 8,710 80.3Sweden - 6 2 33.3 1,467 1,355 92.4The Netherlands

3.71 28 10 35.7 10,000 3,539 35.4

UK - 15 4 26.7 16,224 8,834 54.5Total 94,59 * 241 109 45.2 154,872 105,986 68.4

Number of Employees/ Response

Country Share of European

New-building Orders in

2004 (in %)

Number of Shipyards/

total

Number of Employees/

total

For Finland, Portugal, France, Sweden, Denmark and Serbia & Montenegro, the

coverage rate of the completed questionnaires is above 90 percent.

For Germany, Italy, Spain and Greece, the coverage rate is between 70 and 90

percent.

The coverage rate for Croatia, Romania, United Kingdom, and Poland is between

50 and 69 percent.

For Lithuania and the Netherlands, the coverage rate is between 30 and 49 percent

which has fulfilled the statistic criteria of a representative selection.

Only Bulgaria, Norway, Estonia and Latvia did not fulfil the criteria in that their

coverage rates are below 30 percent.

8


Figure 2: Shares of employees represented in the survey by country (in %)

100

100

95,9

94,9

92,4

90,5

88,6

82,8

80,7

72

68,4

66,7

64,2

62,1

56,8

37,2

35,4

21,7

18,7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Serbia&Montenegro

FinlandPortugal

France

SwedenDenmark

Germany

ItalyGreece

Spain

TotalCroatia

Romania

United KingdomPoland

Lithuania

The NetherlandsBulgaria

Norway

Latvia

Estonia

Furthermore, the sample represents different types of yards (multiple answers):

• Newbuilding of naval vessels : 38 (submarines 11, surface vessels 33,

auxiliary vessels 27)

• Newbuilding of merchant ships: 65

• Newbuilding of merchant and naval ships: 20

• Repair: 68 (repair of naval vessels 10, repair of merchant ships 24, repair of

merchant and naval ships 34)

• Newbuilding of merchant ships and repair of naval/merchant vessels: 36.

9


Figure 3: Total direct employment in European shipbuilding countries in 2004

Bulgaria:5 yards4.034 empl.

Croatia:9 yards6.929 empl.

Estonia:1 yard1.200 empl.

Finland:6 yards5.565 empl.

Germany:35 yards18.498 empl.

Greece:3 yards3.111 empl.

Italy:22 yards12.033 empl.

Latvia:2 yards1.620 empl.

Lithuania:4 yards3.755 empl.

Norway:18 yards2.272 empl.

Poland:16 yards23.106 empl.

Portugal:5 yards1.937 empl.

Romania:8 yards13.401 empl.

Serbia&Montenegro:1 yard747 empl.

Spain:36 yards10.850 empl.

Sweden:6 yards1.467 empl.

The Netherlands:28 yards10.000 empl.

Denmark:8 Yards2.902 empl.

France:13 yards15.230 empl.

EU-15: 97.808 employees



Acceding Countries 17.435 employees

Candidate Countries: 6.929 employees

Associated Countries: 2.272 employees

Pre-candidate Countries: 747 employees

Total: 154.872 employeesEU-25

Acceding Countries

Associated Countries/EEA

Candidate Countries

Pre-candidateCountries

United Kingdom:17 yards16.224 empl.

Bulgaria:5 yards4.034 empl.

Croatia:9 yards6.929 empl.

Estonia:1 yard1.200 empl.

Finland:6 yards5.565 empl.

Germany:35 yards18.498 empl.

Greece:3 yards3.111 empl.

Italy:22 yards12.033 empl.

Latvia:2 yards1.620 empl.

Lithuania:4 yards3.755 empl.

Norway:18 yards2.272 empl.

Poland:16 yards23.106 empl.

Portugal:5 yards1.937 empl.

Romania:8 yards13.401 empl.

Serbia&Montenegro:1 yard747 empl.

Spain:36 yards10.850 empl.

Sweden:6 yards1.467 empl.

The Netherlands:28 yards10.000 empl.

Denmark:8 Yards2.902 empl.

France:13 yards15.230 empl.




Acceding Countries 17.435 employees

Candidate Countries: 6.929 employees

Associated Countries: 2.272 employees

Pre-candidate Countries: 747 employees

Total: 154.872 employeesEU-25

Acceding Countries

Associated Countries/EEA

Candidate Countries

Pre-candidateCountries

United Kingdom:17 yards16.224 empl.

The Directory of European Shipyards Direct employment:

• In September 2004, 154,872 people were direct employed by 241 yards in 20

European countries. Divided by regions, EU-15 has a share of 63 percent,

followed by EU-10 with 19 percent and the acceding countries (Bulgaria and

Romania) with 11 percent.

• With regard to the direct employment Poland is the biggest shipbuilding

country in Europe with more than 23,000 shipyard workers. Germany takes

the second place with approximately 18,500 employees, followed by UK

(16,200), France (15,230), Romania (13,400) and Italy (12,000).

10


Figure 4: Shares of the total direct European shipbuilding employment by country (in %)

Romania8,1%

Spain8,2%UK

8,3%Italy9,8%

Poland12,4%

France13,6%

Germany15,5%

Bulgaria0,8%

Norway0,4%

Sweden1,3%

Lithuania1,3%

Portugal1,8%

Greece2,4%

Montenegro0,7%

Denmark2,5%

The Netherlands3,3%

Croatia4,4%

Finland5,3%

Structure of the total direct shipbuilding employment in European countries by size of the yards:

• Shipbuilding industries in most of the countries are dominated by large-scale

enterprises with more than 500 employees.

• In Romania, Serbia & Montenegro, Estonia and Greece 100 percent of the

shipyard employees are working in large-scale enterprises.

• The dominance of large-scale enterprises can be further found in Finland (98

percent of the shipyard workers are employed by large-scale enterprises),

Croatia (94 percent), UK (92 percent), Germany (78 percent), Italy (84

percent) and France (90 percent).

• Norway can be seen as the only exception because there does not exist a

single large-scale yard.

11


Table 2: Shares of shipyards‘ direct employment (in %) by size of yards by country

1-199 200-499 500-1999 2000 and moreBulgaria 5.2 94.8Croatia 6.2 62 31.8Denmark 20.7 79.3Estonia 100Finland 3.6 61.7 36.6France 1.6 8.5 89.9Germany 5.5 16.4 49.7 28.4Greece 100Italy 13 2.1 84.8Latvia 19.8 80.2Lithuania 2.9 97.1Norway 65.2 34.8Poland 2.4 7.1 16.5 74Portugal 4.1 95.9Romania 17.6 82.4Serbia&Montenegro 100Spain 16.5 24.7 58.8Sweden 17.5 82.5The NetherlandsUnited Kingdom 3.4 4.2 23.3 69

Number of employees

Major shipyard-groups and shipyards in Europe

• Even at the European level one can state the dominance of shipyard-groups.

34 percent (n=80 yards) of the 241 yards are shipyard-groups which

represent 56 percent (n=87,100 employees) of the total direct shipyard

employment (n = 154,872).

• Aker Yards (with nearly 14,000 employees in 11 yards in 5 European

countries) is the biggest European shipyard-group, followed by Thyssen

Krupp Marine Systems (10,000; 7; 4), DCN (10,000; 4; 1); Damen Shipyards

Group (9,700; 22; 6) and Fincantieri (9,200; 8; 1).

• In general only Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems, Aker Yards, A.P. Moeller-

Maersk and Damen Shipyards Group can be named as European shipyard-

groups because they have facilities in more than one European country.

12


Figure 5: Major shipyard-groups and shipyards in Europe

14.000 employees in 13 yardsin 5 European countries

10.000 employees in 7 yards in 4 European countries

5.500 employees in 4 yards in 4 European countries6.300 employees in 3

yards in UK

9.200 employees in 8 yards in Italy

9.700 employees in 34 yards in 6 European countries and 4 countries outside Europe

3.150 employees in 2 yards in France

5.500 employees in 5 yard in Spain

2.200 employees in 4 yards in Spain


6.400 employees in 1 yard in Poland

Szczecin New Shipyard:5.000 employees in 1 yard in Poland

These shipyards represent:° 56 % (87.100 employees) of the total shipyardemployment (154.872 employees)° 34 % (80 yards) of the total number of shipyards(238 yards) in 20 European countries

14.000 employees in 13 yardsin 5 European countries

10.000 employees in 7 yards in 4 European countries

5.500 employees in 4 yards in 4 European countries6.300 employees in 3

yards in UK

9.200 employees in 8 yards in Italy

9.700 employees in 34 yards in 6 European countries and 4 countries outside Europe


5.500 employees in 5 yard in Spain

2.200 employees in 4 yards in Spain


6.400 employees in 1 yard in Poland

Szczecin New Shipyard:5.000 employees in 1 yard in Poland

These shipyards represent:° 56 % (87.100 employees) of the total shipyardemployment (154.872 employees)° 34 % (80 yards) of the total number of shipyards(238 yards) in 20 European countries

Major shipyard-groups and their locations

• The major European shipyard-groups play a crucial role in different European

shipbuilding countries.

• E.g.: More than 82 percent of the Finish shipyard workforce is employed by

three yards of Aker Finnyards. In UK, BAE Systems represents nearly 39

percent of the national shipyards’ employment and in Germany approximately

one third of the German shipyard workforce is employed by Thyssen Krupp

Marine Systems.

• Even in Romania Aker Yards is dominating the shipbuilding industry. 33

percent of the total Romanian shipyards’ employees are working in the two

Romanian Aker yards. Taking into account the number of the employees

working at the yards of Deawoo (Mangalia) and Damen (Galatz) in Romania,

one can state that 82 percent of the Romanian shipyard workers are

employed by foreign shipyard-groups.

13


Figure 6: Major European shipyard-groups and their locations

Survey Results

Regional socio-economic impact of the yards

Throughout Europe shipyards (all types of shipyards) have a very important regional

socio-economic impact. The yards are often located in structurally lagging regions

(e.g. UK, Spain, Germany and France). In general these regions are characterized

as lack of job opportunities, especially in the industrial sector.

14


Figure 7: EU 15 regional socio-economic impact of the yards (in %)

EU-15: Regional socio-economic impact of the yards (in %)

50.0

60.0

66.6

66.7

75.0

83.3

89.5

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

50.0

30.0

33.3

25.0

16.7

10.5

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Sweden (2)

The Netherlands (10)

Spain (18)

France (3)

Italy (12)

Finland (6)

Germany (19)

Denmark (4)

Greece (2)

UK (4)

Portugal (2)

%

crucial/very important normal importance

Usage of CAD, CAM and CIM

• The usage of computer-aided production systems can be seen as an

indicator for the technical level of the production. The usage of CAD, CAM

and CIM depends on the vertical range of manufacturing.

• Therefore the degree of utilization in repair yards is lesser than the one in

other types of shipyards. The high level of CAD-usage in repair yards could

be partly explained by the different tasks of repair yards (conversion etc.).

The survey proves that the type of shipyard is the decisive factor for the

usage of computer-aided tools.

• CAD is relatively wide-spread among all types of shipyards whereas CAM

can be found in a distinctly fewer number of yards. The most progressive

level of computerisation is CIM (Computer-integrated Manufacturing), which

can be found only in one third of the newbuilding yards building both naval

and merchant vessels.

15


Figure 8: Usage of CAD, CAM and CIM:

8a by type of shipyard 8b by region

Usage of CAD, CAM and CIM by type of shipyard

83,3

96,9 100

45,5

67,775,7

13,6

29,2 29,7

0

50

100

Re pa ir NB Mercha nt NB Na va l

%

CAD CAM CIM

Usage of CAD, CAM and CIM by regions (in %)

92 ,7

100 ,0

72,2

63

50

27,828 ,4

11,1

0,0

20,0

40,0

60,0

80,0

100,0

120,0

EU-15 EU-10 Others

CAD CAM CIM

Figure 9a: Usage of CIM

EU-15: Usage of CIM (in%)

11,8

20,0

25,0

28,4

50,0

50,0

50,0

50,0

66,7

91,7

0,0

42,1

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0

Sweden (2)

Spain (17)


Denmark (4)

Total (81)

Germany (19)

Finland (6)

Greece (2)

UK (4)

Portugal (2)

France (3)

Italy (12)

%

16


Figure 9b: Usage of CAM

EU-15: Usage of CAM

25,0

40,0

50,0

57,9

58,8

66,7

66,7

75,0

91,7

100,0

100,0

63,0

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0

Denmark (4)


Sweden (2)

Germany (19)

Spain (17)

Total (81)

Finland (6)

France (3)

UK (4)

Italy (12)

Greece (2)

Portugal (2)

Figure 9c: Usage of CAD

EU-15: Usage of CAD (in %)

75,0

83,3

88,2

91,7

94,7

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

100,0

92,6

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0

Denmark (4)

Finland (6)

Spain (17)

Italy (12)

Total (81)

Germany (19)

France (3)

Greece (2)

UK (4)


Portugal (2)

Sweden (2)

%

17


Co-operation between yards and scientific institutions

• The highest degree of co-operation with scientific institutions can be found in

naval shipyards. More than 43 percent of the naval shipyards are co-

operating regularly with scientific partners.

In general there is a positive correlation between the degree of co-operation

with scientists and the vertical range of manufacturing. There is a clear gap

between newbuilding yards and repair yards with regard to the co-operation

with scientific institutions.

• Co-operation does occur mainly in propulsion, hydro-dynamics and work

organization.

• Divided by regions, the intensity of co-operation with scientific institutions of

EU-15-yards is much higher than in EU-10 and other European shipbuilding

countries. This can be explained by the special type of the division of labour

between Western European and Central & Eastern European shipyards,

which is characterized by a concentration of design activities, research and

development and etc. in Western Europe.

• Larger yards (more than 1,000 employees) are co-operating to a slightly

lesser extent than medium-sized yards (500 – 999 employees).The reason

for that could probably be found in the fact that bigger yards very often have

their own R&D departments.

Figure 10: Co-operation between yards and scientific institutions:


Co-operation between yards and scientific institutions by type of shipyard

30,8

43,2

18,2

43,1

35,1

42,4

18,5

13,5

30,3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

NB Merchant NB Naval Repair

%

regularly from time to time rarely

Co-operation s betw een yards and scien tific insti tution s (by size of th e yard)

6,1

5047,146,9

36,4 35,334,7

9,1

14,7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

betw een 1 an d 499 employees(n=49)

betw een 500 an d 999 employees(n =22)

1.000 employees an d more(n=34)

%


18


Figure 10c: Co-operation between yards and scientific institutions by country

EU-15: Co-operation between yards and scientific institutions (by country, in %)

23,5

25,0

33,3

33,3

42,1

50,0

50,0

50,0

66,7

50,0

80,0

35,3

33,3

50,0

31,6

25,0

50,0

16,7

50,0

10,0

17,6

50,0

16,7

21,1

50,0

16,7

25,0

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0

Portugal (2)


Spain (17

Denmark (4)

France (3)

Finnland (6)

Germany (19)

Sweden (2)

UK (4)

Greece (2)

Italy (12)

%


Figure 10d: Co-operation between yards and scientific institutions by shipyard size

Co-operations between yards and scientific institutions (by size of the yard)

6,1

5047,146,9

36,4 35,334,7

9,1

14,7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

between 1 and 499 employees(n=49)

between 500 and 999 employees(n=22)

1.000 employees and more(n=34)

%


19


Co-operation between yards and suppliers

• Especially during the design process and during installation, mounting and

putting into service, the integration of suppliers in the yard’s activities is very

high. On average, 70 percent of all types of shipyards stated that their co-

operation in these fields is very intensive. Figure 11: Vertical co-operation between yards and their suppliers during design process

11a by shipyard type 11b by region

Integrated co-operation during the design process (by type of shipyard)

70,367,5 67,3

23,4 21,6

11,16,3 8,1

11,1

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0


%

very intense/intense fairly poor/very poor

Integrated co-operation during the design process (by regions)

67 ,1

50 ,0

58 ,8

17,7

33 ,3

23 ,5

6,3

16,711 ,8

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

EU15 EU-10 Others


• Similar as the case of yards’ co-operation with scientific institutions, there is a

distinct cleavage between East and West: The level of integration of suppliers

is much higher in EU-15 than in EU-10 and other countries. Figure 12: Vertical co-operation between yards and their suppliers during installation


Interated co-operation during installation/ mounting/ putting into service (by type of shipyard)

75,1 72,9

65,0

20,3 18,922,2

4,7 2,7 3,2

0 ,0

10 ,0

20 ,0

30 ,0

40 ,0

50 ,0

60 ,0

70 ,0

80 ,0


%


Integrated co-operation during installation/mounting/putting into service (by regions)

71,366,7

58,9

17,5 16,7

35,3

3,8

16,7

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

EU-15 EU-10 Others


20


• Joint working groups from both the yards’ and the suppliers’ sides can be

seen as an increased form of co-operation with suppliers. There is a positive

correlation between the existence of joint working groups and the complexity

of the ships built by the yard. Figure 13: Existence of joint working groups from both yards’ and suppliers’ side

13a by shipyard type 13b by region Existence of joint working groups from both, the yard's and the

suppliers' side to deve lop projects/products(by type of shipyard)

57,862,2

48,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


%

Existence of joint working groups from both, the yard's and the suppliers' side to develop projects/ products (by regions)

59,6

33,3

44,4

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

EU-15 EU-10 Others

• Joint working groups can be found in approximately 50 percent of the repair

yards. In comparison, in more than 62 percent of the naval yards these

working groups do exist.

21


Figure 13c: Existence of joint working groups from both yards’ and suppliers’ sides by

country

EU-15: Existence of joint working groups from both, the yard's and the suppliers side to develop projects/products (in %)

47,4

75,083,3

66,7

100,0

75,0 75,0

60,0

50,0 46,7

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

Germany (1

9)

Denmark (4)

Finland (6)

France (3

)

Greece (

2)UK (4

)

Italy (1

2)

The Netherla

nds (10)

Portugal

(2)

Sweden (2)

Spain (15)

%

• In the field of merchant shipbuilding, all yards involved in building passenger

ships (ferries, cruisers) affirm the existence of joint working groups. Figure 14: Existence of joint working groups (yard/ suppliers) in different fields


Existence of joint working groups in different fields (by type of shipyard)

37,5

69,6

31,1

42,2

60,9

27,9

18,8 17,411,5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

NB Merchant (n=65) NB Naval (n=23) Repair (n=66)

%

Design&Construction Manufacturing / Installation Process logistic

Existence of joint working groups in different fields (by region)

39,0

33,3

29,4

40,3

16,719,5

17,6

35,3

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

EU-15 EU-10 Others

design&construction Manufacturing/Installation Process logistic

• The level of the existence of joint working groups in Bulgaria and Romania

(named as “others“ in relevant graphs) is rather high as major yards in these

countries have cooperation with Western European shipyards.

22


• More than 60 percent of the shipyards building naval vessels have joint

working groups in the fields of design/construction and

manufacturing/installation. But only 40 percent of the yards building merchant

vessels affirm joint working groups in these fields.

For all yards, only a few joint working groups exist in the complex field of

logistic process. Figure 14c: Joint working groups (yards/suppliers) in different fields

EU-15: Existence of joint working groups in different fields (in %)

100,0 100,0

50,0

100,0

91,7

83,3

42,9

33,3

80,0

100,0

50,0

100,0

50,0

71,4

55,6

33,328,6

100,0

33,3

100,0

33,3

80,0

33,3

50,0 50,0

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

Germany (9) Denmark (3) Finland (5) France (2) Greece (2) UK (3) Italy (9) TheNetherlands

(6)

Spain (7)

%

Design&construction Manufacturing&installation Process logistic

Co-operation of yards in Western Europe with yards in CEE and among yards within Western European countries

• Only for yards in Western Europe the survey provides a sufficient number of

cases.

• The partner yards in Central and Eastern Europe are located mainly in

Poland, Romania and Bulgaria.

• There is no difference in co-operation with regard to the types of shipbuilding

(newbuilding or repair).

• There are different types of co-operation: sub-contracting, Foreign Direct

Investment, horizontal co-operation between equal partners.

23


Co-operation of yards in Western Europe with yards in CEE countries

• Nearly 50 percent of the yards building merchant ships in the EU-15 co-

operate with yards in Central and Eastern Europe.

• Only one third of the repair yards co-operate with Central and Eastern

European partner yards. Compared with the group of Newbuilding Merchant,

co-operation of Western European naval yards with corresponding yards in

Central and Eastern Europe is underdeveloped.

• Co-operation between EU-15 yards and CEE yards mainly focuses on

building hulls and sections and corresponds to the type of subcontracting.

• Time of delivery seems to be the biggest problem for Western European

yards when co-operating with Central and Eastern European yards. The

quality of the products and the mentality difference are also among the main

problems.

Figure 15: Co-operation with yards in CEE

EU-15: Are there any co-operations with yards in CEE?

47,9

18,9

33,3

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

NB Merchant NB Naval Repa ir

%

24


Figure 16: Co-operation with yards in CEE

16a by activity 16b by main issue

EU-15: Activities involved in co-operations with CEE

21,7 22,218,8

30,4

11,1

25

95,7100 100

21,7

11,16,3

17,4

11,1

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

NB Merchant (23) NB Naval (9) Repair (16)

%

Construction

Equipment

Hull/Steel

Design

jo int purchase

Marketing

R&D

EU-15: Which are the main problems with regard to the co-operations with yards in CEE?

39,1

33,331,3

4,3

52,2

22,2

37,5

26,1

11,112,5

43,5

22,2

37,5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

NB Merchant (23) NB Naval (9) Repair (16)%

Quality

Incorrectimplemetation ofconstruction plansTime of delivery

Language

Mentality

Co-operation between yards within Western Europe

• The highest degree of co-operation (100 percent) among Western European

yards can be found in the naval sector. This covers co-operation of naval

yards within one country and supra-national co-operation due to the existing

trans-national projects such as the case of Thyssen Krupp Marine Systems.

• In the sector of merchant ships more than 50 percent of the yards work

together with partner yards in other Western European countries. In the

repair sector there is less co-operation at national and supra-national levels.

• In comparison with the co-operation of EU-15 yards with yards in Central and

Eastern Europe, the co-operation within Western Europe covers almost all

yards’ activities among which design, R&D and construction are the main

fields of co-operation.

• Compared with the problems of co-operation between EU-15 and Central

and Eastern European yards, the co-operation between yards within Western

Europe is causing no technical and quality problems. Only the mentality

difference of the partners seems to be problematic.

Summary: The West-East difficulties are primarily due to hard facts. The

West-West difficulties are primarily caused by soft facts (mentality).

25


Figure 17: Co-operation between yards within Western Europe

EU-15: Co-operations between yards within Western Europe

52,1

100,0

39,6

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0


%

Figure 18: Co-operation between yards within Western Europe

18a by activity 18b by main issue

EU-15: Co-operations between yards within Western Europe

32,0

47,4 47,4

20,0

47,4

36,8

32,0

36,8

47,4

64,0

57,9 57,9

44,0

31,6

36,836,0

47,4

36,8

60,0

52,6

42,1

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0


%

Construction

Equipment

Hull/Steel

Design

Joint purchase

Marketing

R&D

EU-15: Which are the main problems with regard to the co-operations with yards in Western Europe?

4,0

10,5

5,3

12,015,8

10,5

4,0 5,3

10,58,0

5,3 5,3

48,0

36,8

31,6

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0


%

Quality

Incorrectimplementation ofconstruction plansTime of delivery

Language

Mentality

Thesis

• If there is a strategic co-operation (horizontal co-operation) between equal

partners, it is typical for the co-operation between yards in Western Europe –

because such co-operation goes far beyond simple outsourcing.

• Co-operation between EU-15 and Central and Eastern European yards is

26


much more determined by outsourcing processes (steel work, hulls,

sections).

• Co-operation between EU-15 and Central and Eastern European yards are

very often characterized by corporate-internal co-operation: These partner

yards involved mostly belong to one shipyard group (f.e. Damen, Aker Yards,

AP Moeller).

• Significantly fewer co-operations (in different forms) do exist between legally

and economically independent yards in Western and Central and Eastern

Europe.

EU enlargement will have a positive effect on…

• From a yard‘s point of view, the co-operation among the EU yards will

improve after the enlargement.

• Divided by regions, Central and Eastern European yards are expecting an

increase in terms of wage level and staff qualification. The expectations of

the EU-15 yards in these fields are much lower.

• In the case of the wage level, most Western European yards are expecting a

decrease (management is defining this as a positive effect, while for workers´

representatives it is perceived as a negative one).

• With regard to the yards’ orderbook the EU enlargement will not have much

effect.

27


Figure 19a: EU enlargement positive effects by type of shipyard

The EU enlargement will have a positive effect on ...

7,8

15,6

20,3

21,9

32,8

11,1

22,2

19,4

30,6

41,7

11,3

17,7

21

30,6

33,9

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Order book

Competitiveness

Wage level

Staff qualification

Co-operation with yardsin different EU

countries

%


Figure 19b: EU enlargement positive effects by region

The EU enlargement will have a positive effect on...

5,1

12,7

7,6

15,2

25,3

33,3

83,3

83,3

83,3

66,7

29,4

17,6

52,9

47,1

70,6

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0

Orderbook

Competitiveness

Wage level

Staff qualification

Co-operation with yards in differentEU countries

EU-15 EU-10 Others

28


Figure 19c: EU enlargement positive effects by country

EU-15: The EU enlargement will have a positive effect on...

5,6

33,3

33,3

33,3

8,3

10,0

50,0

12,5

16,7

66,7

100,0

33,3

50,0

25,0

8,3

20,0

25,0

11,1

33,3

50,0

33,3

50,0

50,0

20,0

50,0

50,0

37,5

11,1

16,7

50,0

12,5

5,6

33,3

33,3

6,3

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0

Germany (18)

Denmark (3)

Finland (6)

France (3)

Greece (2)

UK (4)

Italy (12)


Portugal (2)

Sweden (2)

Spain (16)

%

Orderbook

Wage level

Co-operation with yards indifferent EU countries

Staff qualification

Competetiveness

The expectations of the yards concerning EU’s assistance in different fields

• From the a yard‘s point of view, EU‘s assistance is of the highest importance

to establish a level playing field.

• Obviously EU`s assistance in language training is more often expected by

yards in Central and Eastern Europe. Within EU-15 only 38 percent of the

yards see EU’s assistance in this field as important (lingua franca=English).

• In the cases of “ship financing” and “industry structure”, Central and Eastern

European yards put more importance on EU‘s assistance than Western

European yards.

• Only 60 percent of the naval shipyards are expecting EU‘s assistance in

implementing an “European Defense Identity“.

29


Figure 20a: Importance of EU’s assistance by type of shipyard

EU's assistance is very important/important in the following fields...

89,1

78,1

81,3

78,2

75

75

59,4

50

45,3

83,4

80,6

75

77,8

72,2

69,4

55,6

58,3

38,9

80,6

75,8

75,8

71

71

67,7

61,3

54,8

54,9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Leve l Playing Fie ld

Legislation/Transport policy

Ship financing

R&D

Innovation

Inte llectual prope rty protection

Industry structure

European De fense Identity

Language training

%


Figure 20b: Importance of EU’s assistance by region

EU's involvement is very important/important in the following fields...

79,5

78,2

5 4,4

74,3

75,7

69,2

57,7

50 ,0

37,2

10 0,0

66 ,7

8 3,4

8 3,4

8 3,4

8 3,3

66,6

66 ,7

66 ,7

82 ,4

6 4,7

70,6

70,5

59,2

58,8

5 3,0

47,0

43,5

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0

Leve l Playing Fie ld

Legislation/Transport policy

Ship financing

R&D

Innovation

Intellectual property protection

Industry structure

European Defense Identity

Language training

EU-15 (n=79) EU-10 (n=6) Others (n=17)

30


Working Conditions

Difficulties in recruiting white/blue collar workers

• Difficulties in recruiting qualified and skilled blue/white collar workers could be

found in all types and regions of European shipbuilding. 55 percent of the

EU-15 yards are affected by problems in recruiting white collar workers, but

35 percent of these yards see problems in the case of recruiting blue collar

workers.

• Distinguished by the types of the yards, recruiting problems seem to be

higher in the merchant ship sector. In this case more than 41 percent of the

yards have problems in recruiting blue collar workers and nearly one third of

the yards have problems in recruiting white collar workers.

• In particular in countries where the shipbuilding industry has a bad image, the

problems in recruitment are comparatively higher.

Figure 21: Recruitment difficulties


Did you experience difficulties in recruiting white/blue collar workers?(percentage of yards that answered with "Yes")

41,3

31,7

24,327,0 27,0

30,2

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

30,0

35,0

40,0

45,0

blue collar white colla r blue colla r white collar blue collar white collar

NB Merchant NB Naval Repa ir

%

Did you experience d ifficu lties in recru iting wh ite/blue collar workers?(percen tage of yards that answered with "Yes")

35,0

66,7

37,5

55,0

33,3

18,8

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

EU-15 (n=80) EU-10 (n=6) Others (n=16)

%

blue collar white collar

31


Figure 21c: Recruitment difficulties by country

EU-15: Did you experience difficulties in recruiting white/blue collar workers?(percentage of yards that answered with "Yes")

21,1

25,0

25,0

30,0

33,3

50,0

66,7

75,0

100,0

42,1

18,8

75,0

50,0

50,0

33,3

75,0

50,00,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0

0,0 10,0 20,0 30,0 40,0 50,0 60,0 70,0 80,0 90,0 100,0

Germany (19)

Spain (15)

UK (4)


Finland (6)

Portugal (2)

France (3)

Italy (12)

Sweden (2)

Denmark (4)

Greece (2)

% (Yes)

blue collar white collar

Average rate of absence (health, accidence) in 2003

• The comparison of the average rate of absence in the European shipbuilding

countries shows a clear East-West difference. In Romania, Croatia and

Serbia & Montenegro the average absence rates are much higher than the

overall average rate.

• Difference in such rate cannot be seen by shipyard types.

32


Figure 22: Rate of absence

Average rate of absence (health, accident) in 2003

0,0

2,0

4,0

6,0

8,0

10,0

12,0

14,0

16,0

18,0

France

Finlan

d

The N

etherl

ands

German

yIta

ly

Denmark

Norway

Portug

alSpa

in

Poland

Roman

ia

Croatia

Serbia&

Monten

gero

Sweden UK

%


Working times in 2003

• With regard to the real and contractual working times in 2003 there seems to

be no clear East-West difference, because the yards in Romania (1,776

hours/year) and Bulgaria (1,778 hours/year) have similar contractual working

hours as the ones in Germany (1,786 hours/year) and Sweden (1,775

hours/year) which are about the average in Europe.

• In general (for all types of yards) the longest contractual working times can

be found in Serbia & Montenegro (2,184 hours/year), Lithuania (2,027

hours/year) and Poland (2,012 hours/year).

• The shortest contractual working times can be found in Finland (1,505

hours/year), France (1,567 hours/year) and in the Netherlands (1,585

hours/year).

• To some extent there are significant differences between contractual and real

working times, especially in early 2003 several European shipyards were not

fully occupied.

33


Figure 23: Comparison: contractual/real working times in 2003 (all types of yards)

Comparison: Contractual and real working times (all types of yards) in 2003

1.505

1.567

1.585

1.657

1.723

1.754

1.775

1.776

1.778

1.786

1.788

1.816

1.838

1.922

1.979

2.012

2.027

2.184

1.568

1.606

1.460

1.558

1.752

1.853

1.843

1.662

1.322

1.744

1.886

1.585

2.018

1.879

1.736

1.649

1.649

-300 200 700 1.200 1.700 2.200

Finland (7)

France (3)

The Netherlands (9)

Denmark (3)

Spain (16)

Norway (4)

Sw eden (2)

Romania (4)

Bulgaria (1)

Germany (18)

Greece (2)

Portugal (2)

UK (4)

Croatia (7)

Italy (12)

Poland (4)

Lithuania (1)

Montenegro (1)

real workingtimes

contractualworking times

Table 3: Comparison: contractual/real working times in 2003 (all types of yards)

contractual working

timesreal working

times

Real minus contractual

working timesFinland (7) 1,505 1,568 63France (3) 1,567 1,606 39The Netherlands (9) 1,585 1,460 -126Denmark (3) 1,657 1,558 -99Spain (16) 1,723 1,752 29Norway (4) 1,754 1,853 99Sweden (2) 1,775 1,843 68Romania (4) 1,776 1,662 -114Bulgaria (1) 1,778 1,322 -456Germany (18) 1,786 1,744 -42Greece (2) 1,788 1,886 98Portugal (2) 1,816 1,585 -232UK (4) 1,838 2,018 180Croatia (7) 1,922 1,879 -43Italy (12) 1,979 1,736 -242Poland (4) 2,012 1,649 -363Lithuania (1) 2,027 1,649 -378Montenegro (1) 2,184

34


Income and costs

• The systems of financing the health insurance, unemployment insurance, and

etc. are very different from country to country (from tax-financed systems to

non-wage-labour-costs systems).

• E.g.: The labour costs in the Netherlands and Denmark are nearly equal, but

the share of (gross) income in Denmark (94,3 percent) is much higher than

the one in the Netherlands (71,2 percent).

• The comparison of income and costs stays incomplete because there is no

information on productivity of each individual yard.

• Despite these restrictions one can observe a clear West-East difference in

income and labour costs.

Figure 24: Average income and costs of a skilled blue collar (2003)

Comparison: Average income and costs of a skilled blue collar worker in 2003 (in EURO)

964

2.500

3.173

5.021

7.449

8.730

17.089

21.435

22.106

22.734

26.307

27.056

27.800

28.927

29.250

32.167

34.559

38.243

3.984

9.717

14.591

15.609

29.244

34.007

29.524

39.700

37.094

38.900

40.611

32.438

39.681

46.810

40.540

0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 50.000

M onte ne gro (1)

Romania (4)

Bulgaria (1)

Lithuania (1)

Poland (5)

Croatia (6)

Portugal (2)

Spain (15)

Italy (11)

Gre e ce (2)

France (3)

Finland (7)

Swe de n (1)

The Ne therlands (9)

UK (4)

Norway (3)

Ge rmany (17)

De nmark (3)

€

Average costsAverage income

35


Existence of European Works Councils

• Only in nine out of 109 yards exists a European Works Council. These yards

belong to the biggest European shipyard-groups, namely Thyssen Krupp

Marine Systems, Aker Yards and Damen Shipyards Group. Figure 25: Yards covered by a European Works Council

Yes9%

No89%

No answer2%

Documents

Shipbuilding in Europe - uni-bremen.de · 4 University of Bremen 2 February, 2006 Dr. Jochen Tholen/Thorsten Ludwig Shipbuilding in Europe Structure, Employment, Perspectives Selected