Author
Listed:
- Seung-Jun Lee
(Geodesy Laboratory, Civil & Architectural and Environmental System Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), Suwon 16419, Republic of Korea)
- Jisung Kim
(School of Geography, Faculty of Environment, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK)
- Hong-Sik Yun
(Geodesy Laboratory, Civil & Architectural and Environmental System Engineering, Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), Suwon 16419, Republic of Korea)
Abstract
The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz on 28 February 2026 disrupted approximately 20 million barrels (bbl) per day of crude oil transit, constituting the largest supply shock in global oil market history. This study quantifies the resulting economic losses under three blockade-duration scenarios and evaluates the Northern Sea Route (NSR) as a partial mitigation mechanism through a novel framework integrating sustainable supply chain resilience (SSCR), the Triple Bottom Line (TBL), and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A 3 × 3 scenario matrix crossing three blockade durations with three NSR utilization levels estimates global and country-level impacts using data from the International Energy Agency (IEA), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Centre for High North Logistics (CHNL). Even under maximum feasible NSR utilization, net environmentally adjustment mitigation offsets only 1.1–3.6% of total global losses, demonstrating that the Northern Sea Route functions as marginal insurance rather than a viable substitute for Hormuz-dependent supply chains. Global Gross Domestic Product (GDP) losses range from USD 330 billion to USD 2.2 trillion, with South Korea (68–70% Middle East crude dependency) and Japan (approximately 95%) disproportionately affected. After TBL environmentally adjustment monetizing CO 2 , black-carbon, and icebreaker costs, the NSR mitigates 1.1–3.6% of total losses, functioning as insurance rather than substitution. The SDG assessment reveals a fundamental trade-off: the NSR offsets energy-security losses (SDGs 7, 9) but worsens climate and marine outcomes (SDGs 13, 14). Theoretically, this study proposes “alternative maritime route availability” as a conceptual extension of supply chain resilience (SCRes) capabilities and outlines a sustainability-adjusted resilience score (SARS) framework that, pending further validation, could serve as a replicable assessment tool. These findings underscore that accelerating the energy transition remains the most effective long-term response to chokepoint vulnerability.
Suggested Citation
Seung-Jun Lee & Jisung Kim & Hong-Sik Yun, 2026.
"How Sustainable Is Arctic Route Diversification? Economic Losses, SDG Trade-Offs, and Supply Chain Resilience in the 2026 Hormuz Crisis,"
Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 18(9), pages 1-25, April.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:9:p:4318-:d:1929603
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:18:y:2026:i:9:p:4318-:d:1929603. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address
(email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.