Archives of

1. Introduction
There are numerous pollutant sources in the marine environment; however, marine oil pollution is among the most hazardous types of pollution, which, if occurring, causes widespread and sometimes irreparable economic and environmental losses [1,2]. According to the estimate of the United States National Research Council, the origin of 73% of the oil spilled into the sea is the sources other than oil tankers [3,4], meaning that a huge amount of oil spills every year into the sea from sources that receive little attention from the media and public opinion [5]. Based on the statistics presented in the United Nations Oceans Atlas, the major part of the marine oil pollution source is on-shore installations. Among these sources are oil terminals adjacent to the sea in ports, which will culminate in entering the pollutants into the coastal zones continuously in normal situations and suddenly in emergencies during environmental accidents [6]. In order to minimize the effects in such situations, called emergencies, it is vitally important to foresee possible accidents and plan to prepare and deal with them [7]. Having a management plan for emergencies in dealing with this issue is of great importance in the second-and third-generation ports, whose hinterland environment is similar to an industrial town with highly diverse activities and, along with other anchor industries, can be viewed as a place for unloading and loading oil substances and derivatives [8]. The International Maritime Organization (IMO), along with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), has compiled and announced the instructions for awareness and preparedness in emergencies at the local level for ports, and all ports are obliged to implement it. At present, this plan is being implemented in 30 countries. In Iran, considerable actions have been taken concerning the management of oil pollution emergencies in ports [9]. An emergency refers to a situation that is suddenly created due to natural and human events and functions and leads to
Investigating Response Priorities in Oil Pollution Emergencies in an Unloading and Loading Dock Using McKinsey’s 7s Gap Analysis Method
Sedigheh Hejri1ID, Neamatollah Jaafarzadeh1,2ID, Sima Sabzalipour1*ID, Amir Hossein Davami3ID, Forouzan Farrokhian4ID
1Department of Environmental Sciences, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
2Environmental Technologies Research Center, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
3Department of HSE Engineering, Ahvaz branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
4Department of Environmental Management, Ahvaz branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Sima Sabzalipour, Email: shadi582@yahoo.com
Received: December 31, 2021, Accepted: June 12, 2022, ePublished: September 29, 2023
https://jhygiene.muq.ac.ir/
10.34172/AHS.12.3.1.376
Vol. 12, No. 3, 2023, 105-116
Original Article
© 2023 The Author(s); This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Hejri et al
106 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023
a condition that instant and extraordinary measures
must be taken to eliminate [10,11]. The word “disaster”
is not traditionally synonymous with “crisis”; however,
it is a condition in which important decisions must be
made in a specific short time in a situation that includes
threats and opportunities [12,13]. Originally, the word
“crisis” refers to a situation in which important decisions
must be made in a short time [14]. A critical incident
or a crisis is a sudden and supervenient event showing
an organizational threat that requires fast and highquality
decision-making [15]. PAS200:2011 also defines
an emergency as “an unnatural and complex inherent
situation that is a threat to the organization’s strategic
goals, reputation, or existence” [16,17]. Various studies
have been carried out regarding dealing with oil pollution
emergencies at sea. For example, Valdor et al in 2014
provided a method to evaluate the environmental risk of
oil in installations located in port areas [4]. Kang et al.
in 2016, also developed a capability assessment model for
an oil spill emergency response [18]. In a study in 2016,
Chung et al also presented a method based on the ocean
current model and the oil spill model to assess the risk
of pollution for sensitive sources during an oil spill [19].
Eklund et al in 2019 reported that the United States Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 needs to be revised [6]. There are
local and also international laws to deal with pollution
due to maritime transport and the activities of unloading
and loading docks in different countries, such as the
International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness,
Response, and Cooperation (OPRC), which was approved
by the IMO in 1990 and became enforceable in 1995 [20].
This convention mainly stresses taking quick and effective
actions in the case of an oil pollution accident in order to
prevent irreparable losses to ships, maritime installations,
ports, oil unloading and loading equipment, and also to
provide the necessary bases for international cooperation
to deal with accidents due to oil pollution [21]. Massive
accidents that culminate in enormous oil spills require
fast preparation and response. Experience has shown
that predicting and planning beforehand to encounter
accidents can be considerably influential in preventing
losses to the environment and property [22]. One of the
most important ports in Iran is Imam Khomeini Port.
This port has an unloading and loading dock with a length
of 6.28 km, the depth along the dock is 9 to 13 m, and it
plays a critical role in the country’s import and export
[23]. A notable part of the shipments is oil derivatives.
Considering the volume of goods transiting through this
port, the incidence of oil pollution emergencies is very
probable. Thus, it is necessary to compile a plan to deal
with oil pollution emergencies. For this purpose, the
difference between the current situation of environmental
emergency management and the ideal situation should
be determined by a gap analysis method. One of the
widely used gap analysis methods is McKinsey’s method.
McKinsey’s 7s model is a managerial framework and
model suggesting seven factors to organize a company
in a general and effective look [24]. On the other hand,
prioritizing environmental management programs
requires a multi-criteria decision-making technique. The
technique for order performance by similarity to ideal
solution (TOPSIS) or prioritization based on similarity
to the ideal solution is among the multi-criteria decisionmaking
methods [25]. The present research was carried
out to determine the response priorities in oil pollution
emergencies in the unloading and loading dock of Imam
Khomeini Port.
1.1. The investigated site
Imam Khomeini Port is one of the most important
and biggest commercial terminals in Iran, which is
used to carry out half of the country’s exchanges of
non-oil products. The nearest station, i.e., Mahshahr
Port synoptic station, is located at 30 degrees and 29
minutes north latitude and 49 degrees and 56 minutes
east longitude. The mean maximum temperature of this
station is 35 ℃, and its mean minimum temperature is
12 ℃ [26]. Imam Khomeini Port has 34 docks with a
length of 6.28 km and a depth of 9 to 13 meters along the
dock and is used for various types of vessels. At present, a
considerable number of large ships (100 to 110 000 tons)
harbor at these docks. The location of the investigated
dock is shown in Figure 1.
2. Methods
The present descriptive-applied research was carried out
to provide a method for determining response priorities
in oil pollution emergencies in an unloading and loading
dock in the south of Iran using McKinsey’s gap analysis
method in 2020.
The criteria and sub-criteria effective in prioritizing
responses in oil spill emergencies in the unloading and
loading dock of Imam Khomeini Port were identified by
the documentary method and prioritized based on the
TOPSIS multi-criteria decision-making method. The
Figure 1. The investigated site
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023 107
Investigating response priorities in oil pollution emergencies
scoring of the criteria and sub-criteria was performed in
this technique by a group of 10 experts (Table 1).
McKinsey’s 7s method was used to analyze the gap
between the current conditions of the management
of oil pollution emergencies and the ideal situation.
Collecting the data and identifying the activities that lead
to oil pollution on the coasts were performed through
library research methods, site visits, and collecting
the documents available in the Department of Health,
Safety, and Executive of the General Directorate of Port
Organization. The TOPSIS and gap analysis calculations
were performed by Topsis Solver 2015 software and Excel
2013 software, respectively.
2.1. Steps of prioritizing criteria and sub-criteria by
TOPSIS method
2.1.1. Step 1: Creating a decision-making matrix
Data matrix was created based on m options and n indices
through Equation 1:
Aij =
11 12 1
21 22 2
1 2
,,,
,,,
.
.
.
,,,
n
n
m m mn
a a a
a a a
a a a
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eq. (1)
where A is the decision-making matrix, and a denotes
options [27].
The decision-making matrix involves determining
the main indices influencing pollution, the number of
options, and experts. Scoring in the mentioned indices
was performed by experts based on numbers 1 (the lowest
effect) to 9 (the highest effect).
2.1.2. Step 2: normalizing or de-scaling the matrix
De-scaling was performed in the present study based
on the norm method. In this method, each entry of the
matrix was divided by the root sum squares of its entries
in the column or criterion. For this purpose, equation 2
was used,
¨
1
ij
ij m a
k
a
r
kj
=
Σ = Eq. (2)
where rij indicates the score obtained by option i in
criterion j [27].
The de-scaled matrix is then multiplied by the diagonal
matrix of weights (W N × N) (Equation 3):
WN × N × V = N Eq. (3)
2.1.3. Step 3: Weighting the normalized matrix
Equation 4 was used for weighting the normalized matrix,
1 1
n
i
i
Σ= w = Eq. (4)
where wi shows the Eigen weight vector and n
represents the number of options.
It should be noted that to determine the weight of each
index based on WI, the indices with higher importance
have higher weights. In fact, the matrix (v) is the product
of the standard values of each index in its respective
weights (Equation 5):
Vij =
1 11 1
1 21 3 2
1 1
,,,
,,,
.
.
.
,,,
n n
n
m n mn
w r w r
w r w r
w r w r
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Eq. (5)
2.1.4. Step 4: Determining positive and negative ideal
solutions
Positive and negative ideal solutions are defined as
Table 1. The list of experts participating in the scoring process
Row Gender Age Education Work Experience (y) Organizational Level
Expert 1 Male 48 Master of Industrial Management 24 Senior manager
Expert 2 Male 39 Master of Occupational Health 12 Middle manager
Expert 3 Male 52 Bachelor of Industrial Management 28 Middle manager
Expert 4 Male 45 Master of Management 26 Consultant
Expert 5 Male 47 Bachelor of MBA 19 Middle manager
Expert 6 Female 37 Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences 9 Consultant
Expert 7 Female 33 Master of HSE 5 Technician
Expert 8 Male 46 Bachelor of Industrial Engineering 18 Middle manager
Expert 9 Male 52 Master of Industrial Engineering 23 Middle manager
Expert 10 Female 31 Master of Environment 4 Technician
Hejri et al
108 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023
follows:
(Vector of the best values of each index of matrix
V) = positive ideal solution (VJ
+ )
(Vector of the worst values of each matrix index
V) = negative ideal solution (VJ
-)
The best values for positive indices are the smallest
values, and for negative indices, the largest values [27].
2.1.5. Step 5: Determining the Distance Criteria for the
Ideal Alternative ( ) i d + and the Minimum Alternative
( ) i d −
The Euclidean distance of each option from the positive
ideal and the distance of each option to the negative ideal
are calculated based on equations 6 and 7:
1( )2 1, 2, ..,
n
i j
j
d + + Σ= vij − v+ i = … m Eq. (6)
1( )2 1, 2, ..,
n
i j
j
d − + Σ= vij − v− i = … m Eq. (7)
2.1.6. Step 6: The ratio of the closeness of an option to the
ideal solution
Determining the coefficient that is equal to the minimum
alternative distance and dividing it by the sum of
the minimum alternative distance and also the ideal
alternative distance Si*, which is shown by Ci* and is
calculated by equation 8.
* i
i i
C S
S S
−
− − + =
+
Eq. (8)
2.1.7. Step 7: Ranking the options
The ranking is based on the Ci* value; the above value
ranges from zero to one 1 ≥ Ci* ≥ 0. In this regard, Ci* = 1
denotes the highest rank, and Ci* = 0 indicates the lowest
rank [27].
2.2. Gap analysis by McKinsey’s 7s method
After identifying and prioritizing the risks, the current
situation of environmental management concerning
oil pollution emergencies was evaluated with the ideal
situation using McKinsey’s gap analysis technique.
Waterman and Phillips believe that the organization’s
change and movement are influenced by the interaction
between seven dimensions: Structure, strategy, systems,
style, staff, skills, and shared values (superordinate goals)
and called it the “7s framework”; since their research
was carried out in McKinsey Consulting Company, this
framework is also known as McKinsey’s 7s [28]. The
factors that altogether determine how an organization
functions include the following:
Shared values: Shared values are located at the center
of this model; opinions, beliefs, and goals are shared
between different parts of the company.
Strategy: The plans of a company to use its limited
resources in order to achieve its goals; goals regarding the
environment, customers, and competition.
Structure: The communication method and structure
through which various parts of the organization interact
with each other; concentration, lack of concentration,
matrix, network, etc.
System: Mechanisms and processes through which tasks
are performed in the company, such as financial systems,
staffing, staff promotion, and information systems.
Staff: The number and type of staff of the organization.
Style: Different management styles and methods of
organizational culture are evaluated here.
Skills: Specific skills of staff individually or the special
skills of the organization.
After determining the emergency response plan
priorities, the gap between the current conditions and the
desired conditions was finally determined, and solutions
were provided to reduce the gap level.
3. Results
The main criteria for determining the response priority
in oil pollution emergencies were identified. In fact, in
order to distinguish emergencies from non-emergencies,
we need some defined criteria obtained in the present
research from the documentary method. These criteria
include the extent of pollution (spreading coefficient)
[29,30], the amount of pollution discharged into the sea
[31], the controllability of pollution [32], the location
of pollution [33], and the frequency of occurrence [34].
The categorization of each criterion is also based on
documentary studies (Table 2). The criteria weights were
determined based on the entropy method (Table 3).
3.1. The results of prioritizing criteria and options in the
TOPSIS method
The most important environmental aspects leading to oil
pollution emergencies in the sea were prioritized by the
TOPSIS method. To do this, the following stages were
performed:
3.1.1. Stage 1: The average opinion of experts and creating
a decision-making matrix
The decision-making matrix involves determining
the main criteria (5 criteria), options (18 possible
emergencies), and experts (10 people). The options in
the mentioned criteria were scored based on numbers 1
(the lowest effect) to 9 (the highest effect) presented in
Table 4.
3.1.2. Stage 2: Normalization or de-scaling the matrix
In this stage, the de-scaled matrix was multiplied by the
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023 109
Investigating response priorities in oil pollution emergencies
Table 2. Categorization of indices based on the determined criteria
Crisis levels
Effective factors
The extent of pollution
(spreading coefficient)
Amount of oil pollution
discharged into the sea
Controllability of pollution Location of pollution Frequency of occurrence
4- Disastrous
More than 100 000 square
meters
Over 50 000 gallons
Controllable with the help of
international forces
Coastal waters 100% in one year
3- Critical
Between 10 000 and
100 000 square meters
Between 1000 and 50 000
gallons
Controllable with the help of
national forces
Continental shelf 10% to 99% in one year
2- Moderate
Local (between 100 and
10 000 square meters)
Between 250 and 1000
gallons
Controllable with shared
help
Free-living aquatic
animals
10% to 100% in 10 years
1- Limited
Small and limited (less than
100 square meters)
Less than 250 gallons
Controllable without shared
help
High seas Unlikely
Table 3. Prioritizing the criteria based on the paired comparisons method
Option Name Eigenvector
Extent of pollution 0.252143
Amount of oil pollution discharged into the sea 0.23881
Controllability of pollution 0.176905
Location of pollution 0.169405
Frequency of occurrence 0.162738
Table 4. The decision-making matrix for the selected environmental aspects
Matrix
Extent of
pollution
Amount of oil
pollution discharged
into the sea
Controllability
of pollution
Location
of pollution
Frequency of
occurrence
Discharge of oil wastes collected in sewage- diffusion of oil substances in
soil and sea
2 2 1 1 4
On-shore installations-entering sewage and lubricating oil into the sea 2 1 2 1 3
Heavy cranes - oil and lubricant spill from the fuel tank 1 1 2 1 4
Operations of supply, transfer, and discharge of oil residue-spill and
seepage during oil residue discharge
2 1 2 1 3
Pipelines- spillage of oil derivatives out of unloading and loading pipes 3 3 3 1 2
Oil reserves close to the earth's surface- natural seepage of coastal
reserves and seepage
2 2 4 1 2
Storage of hydrocarbon substances- pouring due to the spillage of oil tanks 2 2 2 1 3
The activity of product transfer pumps between the tanks or transfer to the
ship- oil hydrocarbons spill out of packing or pipeline connections at the
pump’s inlet and outlet
1 2 3 1 4
Accidents due to ship collisions- Accidents of ship collision/ fire/ wreck 4 4 2 1 2
Unloading and loading of oil substances using loading arm- oil substance
spill
2 2 2 1 3
Guard and security boats - spilling oil and lubricant out of the fuel tank 1 1 3 1 4
Production wastes of unloading and loading of oil substances- wastes
production
2 2 2 1 4
Operations of unloading and loading of oil substances-rupture of the
ship’s hull because of accidents due to failure of berth or ship standard
separation
4 4 2 1 3
Perforation or rupture of the ship’s hull due to a strong collision of the ship
with the dock or other vessel during the berthing process and separating
the ship to/from the dock- spilling oil substances out of the ship’s hull
4 4 2 1 3
Not connecting to the pipes carrying oil substances to the tanker properlyspilling
oil substances out of the tanker’s connections
3 1 3 1 2
Transfer of substances to ships- spilling oil and lubricant derivatives 3 2 3 1 3
Tankers fueling the equipment- spilling oil and lubricant out of fuel tanks 2 1 2 1 2
Unloading and loading of oil substances from flexible hose-spilling oil
substances
3 2 2 1 3
Type of criterion Positive Positive Positive Positive Positive
Weight of criterion 0.2983 0.4365 0.1487 0 0.1165
Hejri et al
110 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023
diagonal matrix of weights (W N × N) in such a way that
each value was divided by the size of the vector related to
the same index. The results of this process are provided
in Table 5.
3.1.3. Stage 3: Weighting the normalized matrix
The weight of each option was specified based on
equation 4. In this regard, events culminating in
emergencies with greater importance have higher
weights. Indeed, the matrix (v) is the product of the
standard values of each criterion in its related weights.
The results of weighting the normalized matrix are
presented in Table 6.
3.1.4. Stage 4: Determination of positive and negative ideal
solutions
Positive and negative ideal solutions were calculated
through equations 6 and 7 (Table 7). The two virtually
created options are indeed the worst and best solutions.
3.1.5. Stage 5: Determining the distance of the positive and
negative ideal solutions
The coefficient calculated based on the distance of each
option from the intended desirability was calculated
through Equation 8, the results of which are shown in
Table 8.
3.1.6. Stage 6: Calculating the Closeness to the Positive
and Negative Ideal solutions and Ranking the Options
(Table 9).
3.2. The results of gap analysis by McKinsey’s method
Determining the current situation of environmental
management and the gap between the current situation
and the ideal conditions under investigation is necessary
to determine the response plan priorities in oil pollution
emergencies in the unloading and loading dock of Imam
Khomeini Port. In the present study, McKinsey’s method
was used for gap analysis. In this method, 43 items in 7
Table 5. Normalizing or de-scaling the matrix for the selected environmental aspects
De-Scaled matrix
Extent of
pollution
Amount of oil pollution
discharged into the sea
Controllability
of pollution
Location
of pollution
Frequency of
occurrence
Discharge of oil wastes collected in sewage- diffusion of oil substances
in soil and sea
0.1833 0.2052 0.0971 0.2357 0.305
On-shore installations-entering sewage and lubricating oil into the sea 0.1833 0.1026 0.1943 0.2357 0.2287
Heavy cranes - oil and lubricant spill from the fuel tank 0.0917 0.1026 0.1943 0.2357 0.305
Operations of supply, transfer, and discharge of oil residue-spill and
seepage during oil residue discharge
0.1833 0.1026 0.1943 0.2357 0.2287
Pipelines- spillage of oil derivatives out of unloading and loading pipes 0.275 0.3078 0.2914 0.2357 0.1525
Oil reserves close to the earth's surface- natural seepage of coastal
reserves and seepage
0.1833 0.2052 0.3885 0.2357 0.1525
Storage of hydrocarbon substances- pouring due to the spillage of oil
tanks
0.1833 0.2052 0.1943 0.2357 0.2287
The activity of product transfer pumps between the tanks or transfer to
the ship- oil hydrocarbons spill out of packing or pipeline connections
at the pump's inlet and outlet
0.0917 0.2052 0.2914 0.2357 0.305
Accidents due to ship collisions- Accidents of ship collision/ fire/ wreck 0.3667 0.4104 0.1943 0.2357 0.1525
Unloading and loading of oil substances using loading arm- oil
substance spill
0.1833 0.2052 0.1943 0.2357 0.2287
Guard and security boats - spilling oil and lubricant out of the fuel tank 0.0917 0.1026 0.2914 0.2357 0.305
Production wastes of unloading and loading of oil substances- wastes
production
0.1833 0.2052 0.1943 0.2357 0.305
Operations of unloading and loading of oil substances-rupture of the
ship’s hull because of accidents due to failure of berth or ship standard
separation
0.3667 0.4104 0.1943 0.2357 0.2287
Perforation or rupture of the ship’s hull due to a strong collision of
the ship with the dock or other vessel during the berthing process and
separating the ship to/from the dock- spilling oil substances out of the
ship's hull
0.3667 0.4104 0.1943 0.2357 0.2287
Not connecting to the pipes carrying oil substances to the tanker
properly- spilling oil substances out of the tanker’s connections
0.275 0.1026 0.2914 0.2357 0.1525
Transfer of substances to ships- spilling oil and lubricant derivatives 0.275 0.2052 0.2914 0.2357 0.2287
Tankers fueling the equipment- spilling oil and lubricant out of fuel
tanks
0.1833 0.1026 0.1943 0.2357 0.1525
Unloading and loading of oil substances from flexible hose-spilling oil
substances
0.275 0.2052 0.1943 0.2357 0.2287
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023 111
Investigating response priorities in oil pollution emergencies
dimensions, including strategy (4 items), structure (6
items), systems (19 items), skills (2 items), management
style (5 items), staff (4 items), and shared values (3
items), were evaluated and analyzed. The criteria of each
dimension were collected from different references,
compiled with the help of 10 people from the experts’
team mentioned in Table 2, and scored on a five-point
Likert scale (very ideal, ideal, moderate, weak, and very
weak).
The mean scale method was used to interpret the scores
of the questionnaire. In this method, the mean scores
obtained for each questionnaire were calculated based on
the following formula:
1
2
M NK K +
=
In this formula, M is the scale mean score, K is the
number of respondents (n = 20), and N is the number of
response levels (5 points). Accordingly:
5 20 20 60
2
M × +
= =
Hence, the questions whose total score is less than 60
are categorized as unacceptable. The scores obtained for
each component in McKinsey’s method are shown in
Table 6. Weighting the normalized matrix for the selected environmental aspects
Weighted matrix
Extent of
pollution
Amount of oil pollution
discharged into the sea
Controllability
of pollution
Location
of pollution
Frequency of
occurrence
Discharge of oil wastes collected in sewage- diffusion of oil substances
in soil and sea
0.0547 0.0896 0.0144 0 0.0355
On-shore installations-entering sewage and lubricating oil into the sea 0.0547 0.0448 0.0289 0 0.0266
Heavy cranes - oil and lubricant spill from the fuel tank 0.0273 0.0448 0.0289 0 0.0355
Operations of supply, transfer, and discharge of oil residue-spill and
seepage during oil residue discharge
0.0547 0.0448 0.0289 0 0.0266
Pipelines- spillage of oil derivatives out of unloading and loading pipes 0.082 0.1344 0.433 0 0.0178
Oil reserves close to the earth's surface- natural seepage of coastal
reserves and seepage
0.0547 0.0896 0.0578 0 0.0178
Storage of hydrocarbon substances- pouring due to the spillage of oil
tanks
0.0547 0.0896 0.0289 0 0.266
The activity of product transfer pumps between the tanks or transfer to
the ship- oil hydrocarbons spill out of packing or pipeline connections
at the pump's inlet and outlet
0.0273 0.0896 0.0433 0 0.0355
Accidents due to ship collisions- Accidents of ship collision/ fire/ wreck 0.1094 0.1791 0.0289 0 0.0178
Unloading and loading of oil substances using loading arm- oil
substance spill
0.0547 0.0896 0.0289 0 0.0266
Guard and security boats - spilling oil and lubricant out of the fuel tank 0.0273 0.0448 0.0433 0 0.0355
Production wastes of unloading and loading of oil substances- wastes
production
0.0547 0.0896 0.0289 0 0.0355
Operations of unloading and loading of oil substances-rupture of the
ship’s hull because of accidents due to failure of berth or ship standard
separation
0.1094 0.1791 0.0289 0 0.0266
Perforation or rupture of the ship's hull due to a strong collision of
the ship with the dock or other vessel during the berthing process and
separating the ship to/from the dock- spilling oil substances out of the
ship's hull
0.1094 0.1791 0.0289 0 0.0266
Not connecting to the pipes carrying oil substances to the tanker
properly- spilling oil substances out of the tanker’s connections
0.082 0.0448 0.0433 0 0.0178
Transfer of substances to ships- spilling oil and lubricant derivatives 0.082 0.0896 0.0433 0 0.0266
Tankers fueling the equipment- spilling oil and lubricant out of fuel
tanks
0.0547 0.0448 0.0289 0 0.0178
Unloading and loading of oil substances from flexible hose-spilling oil
substances
0.082 0.0896 0.0289 0 0.0266
Table 7. Determining positive and negative ideal solutions for the selected environmental aspects
Ideal solution Extent of pollution
Amount of oil pollution
discharged into the sea
Controllability of
pollution
Location of pollution Frequency of occurrence
- 0.1094 0.1791 0.0578 0 0.0355
- 0.0273 0.0448 0.0144 0 0.0178
Hejri et al
112 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023
Figure 2.
The gap analysis results by McKinsey’s method
demonstrated that the mean score of the 7 investigated
dimensions was 2.22, having a significant difference with
the ideal limit determined in this method equal to 4 [35].
These results indicate the unacceptable environmental
Table 8. Determining the distance of the positive and negative ideal solutions for the selected environmental aspects
Distance + -
Discharge of oil wastes collected in sewage- diffusion of oil substances in soil and sea 0.01135 0.0554
On-shore installations-entering sewage and lubricating oil into the sea 0.1482 0.0322
Heavy cranes - oil and lubricant spill from the fuel tank 0.16 0.0229
Operations of supply, transfer, and discharge of oil residue-spill and seepage during oil residue discharge 0.1482 0.0322
Pipelines- spillage of oil derivatives out of unloading and loading pipes 0.0573 0.1088
Oil reserves close to the earth's surface- natural seepage of coastal reserves and seepage 0.1064 0.068
Storage of hydrocarbon substances- pouring due to the spillage of oil tanks 0.1092 0.0551
The activity of product transfer pumps between the tanks or transfer to the ship- oil hydrocarbons spill out of packing or
pipeline connections at the pump's inlet and outlet
0.1223 0.0562
Accidents due to ship collisions- Accidents of ship collision/ fire/ wreck 0.0339 0.1581
Unloading and loading of oil substances using loading arm- oil substance spill 0.1092 0.0551
Guard and security boats - spilling oil and lubricant out of the fuel tank 0.1581 0.0339
Production wastes of unloading and loading of oil substances- wastes production 0.1088 0.0573
Operations of unloading and loading of oil substances-rupture of the ship’s hull because of accidents due to failure of berth
or ship standard separation
0.0302 0.1583
Perforation or rupture of the ship's hull due to a strong collision of the ship with the dock or other vessel during the
berthing process and separating the ship to/from the dock- spilling oil substances out of the ship's hull
0.0302 0.1583
Not connecting to the pipes carrying oil substances to the tanker properly- spilling oil substances out of the tanker’s
connections
0.139 0.0619
Transfer of substances to ships- spilling oil and lubricant derivatives 0.0952 0.0769
Tankers fueling the equipment- spilling oil and lubricant out of fuel tanks 0.149 0.0309
Unloading and loading of oil substances from flexible hose-spilling oil substances 0.0984 0.0727
Table 9. Calculating the closeness to positive and negative ideal solutions and ranking the options for the selected environmental aspects
Result Closeness Coefficient
Perforation or rupture of the ship's hull due to a strong collision of the ship with the dock or other vessel during the berthing process
and separating the ship to/from the dock- spilling oil substances out of the ship's hull
0.8397
Operations of unloading and loading of oil substances-rupture of the ship’s hull because of accidents due to failure of berth or ship
standard separation
0.836
Accidents due to ship collisions- Accidents of ship collision/ fire/ wreck 0.8234
Pipelines- spillage of oil derivatives out of unloading and loading pipes 0.6553
Transfer of substances to ships- spilling oil and lubricant derivatives 0.4468
Unloading and loading of oil substances from flexible hose-spilling oil substances 0.4249
Oil reserves close to the earth's surface- natural seepage of coastal reserves and seepage 0.39
Production wastes of unloading and loading of oil substances- wastes production 0.3447
Storage of hydrocarbon substances- pouring due to the spillage of oil tanks 0.3355
Unloading and loading of oil substances using loading arm- oil substance spill 0.3324
Discharge of oil wastes collected in sewage- diffusion of oil substances in soil and sea 0.3279
The activity of product transfer pumps between the tanks or transfer to the ship- oil hydrocarbons spill out of packing or pipeline
connections at the pump's inlet and outlet
0.3147
Not connecting to the pipes carrying oil substances to the tanker properly- spilling oil substances out of the tanker’s connections 0.3079
On-shore installations-entering sewage and lubricating oil into the sea 0.1784
Operations of supply, transfer, and discharge of oil residue-spill and seepage during oil residue discharge 0.1767
Guard and security boats - spilling oil and lubricant out of the fuel tank 0.1732
Tankers fueling the equipment- spilling oil and lubricant out of fuel tanks 0.1719
Heavy cranes - oil and lubricant spill from the fuel tank 0.1252
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023 113
Investigating response priorities in oil pollution emergencies
management conditions for the oil pollution emergencies
in the zone of the loading and unloading dock of Imam
Khomeini Port. The lowest mean score is related to the
“strategy” dimension (1.65). The “skills” dimension is
also at a weak level of efficiency, with a mean score of
1.75. The highest efficiency was obtained in the “systems”
dimension (2.79). The overall results of the gap analysis
are presented in Figure 3.
The spider web model of emergency response plan
priorities is presented in Figure 4. The efficiency status
of each of McKinsey’s dimensions in the environmental
management of the unloading and loading dock of Imam
Khomeini Port has been specified in this diagram. The
emergency response plan priorities are based on gap and
factor analysis results.
4. Discussion
By looking at the history of accidents occurring in bodies
of water that have led to oil pollution on a large scale,
we can perceive the necessity to prepare for emergency
response at the time of occurring an accident. The traffic
amount of large ships in the unloading and loading
docks of Imam Khomeini Port and the ecosystem
sensitivity show the importance of carrying out such a
study. Ceyhun mentioned the main causes of maritime
accidents as collisions of ships with each other, fires, and
ruptures of ships’ hulls [36]. In the present study, the
perforation or rupture of the ship’s hull caused by the
ship’s strong collision with another dock or vessel during
the berthing process and separating the ship from the
dock with a closeness coefficient of 0.839, rupture of the
ship’s hull because of accidents due to the failure of berth
or standard ship separation with a closeness coefficient
of 0.836, the accident due to the collision of ships with a
closeness coefficient of 0.8224, and spilling oil derivatives
out of unloading and loading pipes with a closeness
coefficient of 0.6553 were considered the main factors
in the occurrence of accidents that culminated in the oil
pollution emergencies in the loading and unloading dock
of Imam Khomeini Port.
In determining the priorities of compiling a plan based
on the gap analysis, the “strategy” dimension, with a
score of 1.65, was determined as the weakest factor in the
management of the dock’s emergency response. Weakness
in the compilation of environmental management
strategies resulted in weak performance of all elements of
Figure 2. The mean scores of the items in each of McKinsey’s dimensions
Figure 3. The results of the gap analysis between the current situation and
the ideal situation in the management of oil pollution emergencies
Figure 4. The spider web model of emergency response plan priorities
33
50.8
55.89
35
45.4 44 47.66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Strategy Structure Systems Skills Management
style
Staff Shared values
Scores
McKinsey’s Component
Average of the scores in McKinsey’s method
Hejri et al
114 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023
environmental management in the loading and unloading
docks of Imam Khomeini Port. So, compiling and
implementing an emergency response plan seem necessary.
Thus, the most important component in McKinsey’s
dimensions is “strategy”. Compilation of strategies
and a comprehensive plan for the dock environmental
management, setting macro and micro environmental
goals by the Free Zone Organization, obligation of all
organizations and companies active in the zone to observe the
requirements, and annual environmental self-declaration
are suggested as solutions to improve the conditions of
this component. Foster suggests the compilation of longterm
inhibition strategies as the most important step in
developing emergency response plans [10]. The “skills”
component, with a score of 1.75, was also determined as
the second component in McKinsey’s dimensions. “Staff”
is considered the core of implementing environmental
management programs, and in order to achieve the goals
of the response plan in oil pollution emergencies on the
coasts of Imam Khomeini Port, things such as employing
expert staff through the recruitment process management
and using up-to-date technologies for quick detection of
oil pollution in the dock area are recommended. Nouri et
al. have introduced the staff as the most important root of
occurring massive accidents and emergencies [16]. The
“staff” component has obtained a mean score of 2.2. This
component is the most important operational advantage of
any organization. Therefore, it is essential to deal with this
factor strategically. Accurate and favorable administration
of the emergency response plan requires recruiting staff
with adequate abilities. To improve the conditions of this
component, implementing things such as compiling and
implementing training programs for dock workers at all
levels, administrating staff’s competency audits at all stages
from recruitment to functioning, performing practical
training maneuvers according to standard and defined
scenarios, and providing necessary access to information
and equipment are recommended for staff.
The fourth priority in McKinsey’s gap analysis method
is “management style”, with a score of 2.27. Using a
correct management method and principles such as being
responsive, being responsible, using expert counseling,
and collaborative management are the main elements of
successful and favorable management. Environmental
management for oil pollution emergencies also requires
the application of favorable management by the Free
Zone Organization and all those involved in the complex
at all levels of prevention, preparation, and response.
Patterson et al both emphasize the role of management
in designing crisis management systems and their role
in quick responses to them [13]. The “shared values”
component, with a mean score of 2.38, was determined
as the fifth factor in McKinsey’s gap analysis method
for the conditions of the loading and unloading dock of
Imam Khomeini Port. Environmental issues have a deep
social meaning and also cultural origins. Therefore, it is
necessary to deal with the issue structurally to accept the
cultural contexts of society. Explaining the necessity to
prevent the occurrence of environmental disasters such
as oil pollution for staff and indigenous people in a coastal
area such as Imam Khomeini Port should be one of the
main goals in compiling an emergency response plan. In
order to improve the environmental culture concerning
oil pollution in the region scope, culture development for
the staff and indigenous people of the region is necessary
to maintain the environmental conditions of the sea and
beach ecosystem. The “structure” component, with a
score of 2.54, was determined in the gap analysis as the
sixth factor needing improvement. The implementation
of many measures to prevent, prepare, and respond in
oil pollution emergencies in the unloading and loading
dock of Imam Khomeini Port requires creating an
organizational structure. Actions such as controlling
climatic conditions and other systemic activities require
the organizational structure and responsibilities to
be defined. To cover this component in compiling an
emergency response plan, items such as controlling
meteorological and tidal patterns continuously and
according to the specified responsibilities, determining
ecosystem sensitivities against oil pollution emergencies,
conducting research to evaluate the outcomes of oil
pollution in various scenarios, and notification of laws
related to the prevention of oil pollution and the structure
of monitoring the proper enforcement of laws are
recommended. Banerjee and Singh reported structural
weakness as the most important factor that culminates
in the lack of proper control of these conditions in
Indian social events [14]. Wang et al also expressed the
investigation of the climatic and ecosystem conditions
of the region as an important factor in preventing the
occurrence of emergencies in ship transport [37]. The
results of the current research can be a basis for compiling
a comprehensive plan for emergency environmental
management in Imam Khomeini Port.
5. Conclusion
Investigating the present weaknesses and ranking the
oil pollution sources showed that the management and
control of dock traffic and the characteristics of cargo
ships in an obviously defined structure and responsibility,
the compilation of maritime transport guidelines, dealing
with spills, unloading and loading, ship’s ballast water,
discharge of waste substances, painting and repair
activities, ships’ arrival and departure, response time
in emergencies, response time domain in emergencies,
preparation of anti-pollution equipment and constant
control of equipment in certain time intervals, and
constant control of warning systems the docks for the
oil pollution time can lead to the improvement of system
conditions.
Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023 115
Investigating response priorities in oil pollution emergencies
Acknowledgments
The article’s authors thank the Islamic Azad University of Ahvaz,
for their cooperation in obtaining the Required information.
Authors’ Contribution
All authors contributed to conceptualization: data management:
formal analysis: funding acquisition: review: methodology:
project management: resources: software: monitoring: validation:
visualization: writing - original draft: writing - review and editing.
Competing Interests
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the
publication of this manuscript.
Ethical Approval
The ethical issues have been completely observed by the
authors including plagiarism, informed consent, misconduct,
data fabrication and/or falsification, double publication and/or
submission, and redundancy.
Funding
The present research did not receive any financial support.
References
1. Perhar G, Arhonditsis GB. Aquatic ecosystem dynamics
following petroleum hydrocarbon perturbations: a review
of the current state of knowledge. J Great Lakes Res.
2014;40(Suppl 3):56-72. doi: 10.1016/j.jglr.2014.05.013.
2. Vié JC, Hilton-Taylor C, Stuart SN. Wildlife in a Changing
World: An Analysis of the 2008 IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN; 2009.
3. Al Shami A, Harik G, Alameddine I, Bruschi D, Garcia
DA, El-Fadel M. Risk assessment of oil spills along the
Mediterranean coast: a sensitivity analysis of the choice of
hazard quantification. Sci Total Environ. 2017;574:234-45.
doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.064.
4. Valdor PF, Puente A, Gómez AG, Ondiviela B, Juanes
JA. Are environmental risk estimations linked to the actual
environmental impact? Application to an oil handling facility
(NE Spain). Mar Pollut Bull. 2017;114(2):941-51. doi:
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2016.10.078.
5. Walker H, Tony R, Olubukola A, Monica C, Del Aguila F,
Elias E, et al. Environmental Effects of Marine Transportation.
Halifax, NS: Dalhousie University; 2018. doi: 10.1016/b978-
0-12-805052-1.00030-9.
6. Eklund RL, Knapp LC, Sandifer PA, Colwell RC. Oil spills
and human health: contributions of the Gulf of Mexico
Research Initiative. Geohealth. 2019;3(12):391-406. doi:
10.1029/2019gh000217.
7. Singh A, Asmath H, Chee CL, Darsan J. Potential oil spill risk
from shipping and the implications for management in the
Caribbean Sea. Mar Pollut Bull. 2015;93(1-2):217-27. doi:
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2015.01.013.
8. Eide MS, Endresen O, Breivik O, Brude OW, Ellingsen
IH, Røang K, et al. Prevention of oil spill from shipping by
modelling of dynamic risk. Mar Pollut Bull. 2007;54(10):1619-
33. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2007.06.013.
9. Farshchi P, Dabiri F, Shojaei S. Legal aspects of oil pollution
in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman (an international
perspective). J Environ Sci Technol. 2008;10(2):76-86.
10. Foster HD. Disaster Planning: The Preservation of Life and
Property. Springer Science & Business Media; 2012.
11. Cillóniz C, Dominedò C, Garcia-Vidal C, Torres A.
Community-acquired pneumonia as an emergency condition.
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2018;24(6):531-9. doi: 10.1097/
mcc.0000000000000550.
12. Hermansson HM. Disaster management collaboration in
turkey: assessing progress and challenges of hybrid network
governance. Public Adm. 2016;94(2):333-49. doi: 10.1111/
padm.12203.
13. Patterson O, Weil F, Patel K. The role of community in
disaster response: conceptual models. Popul Res Policy Rev.
2010;29(2):127-41. doi: 10.1007/s11113-009-9133-x.
14. Banerji P, Singh N. Comparative analysis of disaster
management between Japan & India. IOSR J Bus Manag.
2013;13(6):62-74. doi: 10.9790/487x-1366274.
15. Ritchie BW. Chaos, crises and disasters: a strategic approach
to crisis management in the tourism industry. Tour Manag.
2004;25(6):669-83. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2003.09.004.
16. Nouri J, Mansouri N, Abbaspour M, Karbassi AR, Omidvari
M. Designing a developed model for assessing the disaster
induced vulnerability value in educational centers. Saf Sci.
2011;49(5):679-85. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.002.
17. Ogunyomi P, Bruning NS. Human resource management and
organizational performance of small and medium enterprises
(SMEs) in Nigeria. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2016;27(6):612-
34. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2015.1033640.
18. Kang J, Zhang J, Bai Y. Modeling and evaluation of the oil-spill
emergency response capability based on linguistic variables.
Mar Pollut Bull. 2016;113(1-2):293-301. doi: 10.1016/j.
marpolbul.2016.09.056.
19. Chung J. Conflicts and natural disaster management: a
comparative study of flood control in the Republic of Korea
and the United States. Disasters. 2016;40(3):554-72. doi:
10.1111/disa.12162.
20. Moller TH, Molloy FC, Thomas HM. Oil spill risks and the
state of preparedness in the regional seas. Int Oil Spill Conf
Proc. 2003;2003(1):919-22. doi: 10.7901/2169-3358-2003-
1-919.
21. Ghemmaghami S, Mohebi M, Niavarani S. Response of the
legal system governing maritime transport of goods to the
environmental challenges impact of oil and gas leakage (with
emphasis on Rotterdam convention). Journal Of Researches
Energy Law Studies. 2019;5(2):419-38. doi: 10.22059/
jrels.2020.289575.311. [Persian].
22. Cova T. GIS in emergency management. In: Longley PA,
Goodchild MF, Maguire DJ, Rhind DW, eds. Geographical
Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Applications,
and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1999. p.
845-58.
23. Tangtakabi A, Ramesht MH, Golsoorat Pahlaviani A,
Pourrostam T. Optimum use of microsilica in reducing
corrosion reinforcing steel of marine concrete structures.
Amirkabir Journal of Civil Engineering. 2022;54(8):2953-68.
doi: 10.22060/ceej.2022.18954.7008. [Persian].
24. Channon DF, Caldart AA. McKinsey 7S model. In: Cooper C,
ed. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management. John Wiley & Sons;
2015. p. 1-2.
25. Lai YJ, Liu TY, Hwang CL. TOPSIS for MODM. Eur J Oper Res.
1994;76(3):486-500. doi: 10.1016/0377-2217(94)90282-8.
26. Aghabaki Alooghareh S, Battaleblooie S, Amanipoor
H, Gerayesh K. The study of mercury bioavailability in
sediments of petrochemical and Jafari, Bandar Imam Creeks.
J Environ Sci Technol. 2021;22(11):91-105. doi: 10.22034/
jest.2021.17670. [Persian].
27. Olson DL. Comparison of weights in TOPSIS models.
Math Comput Model. 2004;40(7-8):721-7. doi: 10.1016/j.
mcm.2004.10.003.
28. Kaplan RS. How the balanced scorecard complements the
McKinsey 7‐S model. Strategy Leadersh. 2005;33(3):41-6.
doi: 10.1108/10878570510594442.
29. Ning TD. Damage Assessment and Emergency Response of
Hejri et al
116 Arch Hyg Sci. Volume 12, Number 3, 2023
Ship Oil Spill Accidents. Dalian: Dalian Maritime University;
2006. p. 22-3.
30. Vairo T, Magrì S, Quagliati M, Reverberi AP, Fabiano B. An
oil pipeline catastrophic failure: accident scenario modelling
and emergency response development. Chem Eng Trans.
2017;57:373-8. doi: 10.3303/cet1757063.
31. Fetissov M, Aps R, Goerlandt F, Jänes H, Kotta J, Kujala P,
et al. Next-generation smart response web (NG-SRW): an
operational spatial decision support system for maritime oil
spill emergency response in the Gulf of Finland (Baltic Sea).
Sustainability. 2021;13(12):6585. doi: 10.3390/su13126585.
32. Chenhao J, Yupeng X. Risk analysis and emergency response
to marine oil spill environmental pollution. IOP Conf Ser
Earth Environ Sci. 2021;687(1):012070. doi: 10.1088/1755-
1315/687/1/012070.
33. Flin R, Slaven G, Stewart K. Emergency decision making in the
offshore oil and gas industry. Hum Factors. 1996;38(2):262-
77. doi: 10.1177/001872089606380207.
34. Wu B, Zhang J, Yip TL, Guedes Soares C. A quantitative
decision-making model for emergency response to oil spill
from ships. Marit Policy Manag. 2021;48(3):299-315. doi:
10.1080/03088839.2020.1791994.
35. Kluge J, Stein W, Licht T. Knowledge Unplugged: The
McKinsey Global Survey of Knowledge Management.
Springer; 2001.
36. Ceyhun GC. The impact of shipping accidents on marine
environment: a study of Turkish seas. Eur Sci J. 2014;10(23):10-
23.
37. Wang G, Li KX, Xiao Y. Measuring marine environmental
efficiency of a cruise shipping company considering
corporate social responsibility. Mar Policy. 2019;99:140-7.
doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2018.10.028.