Page 3133
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
2
The development of a country's economy relies heavily on the efficiency and competitiveness of its ports,
especially those that are open to sea trade. Improving port system performance is essential for reducing transport
costs and enhancing the overall competitiveness of the economy. In this context, Assessment of the financial
viability of public-private partnership projects in the development of container terminals in the Port of Colombo
is crucial for future container terminal development. This evaluation will examine various financial factors such
as a profitability assessment and Investment assessment to evaluate the financial viability of privatization
projects in the Sri Lankan Port Sector. Additionally, the evaluation will consider the main paradigms and
stakeholders involved in port investment decisions, as well as the critical success factors for implementing
public-private partnerships in the port context (Panayides,P et al., 2015)
The problem of this study is evaluating financial viability of two private container terminal operating at Port of
Colombo and how those terminals financially efficiently running. Evaluating the financial viability of
publicprivate partnerships in the development of container terminals in the Port of Colombo is crucial for future
container terminal development to enhance the efficiency, competitiveness, and overall economic growth of the
country. Based on these findings, this evaluation aims to provide valuable policy implications for port authorities
and operators in achieving and maintaining their competitive advantage. The completion of this sentence could
be “By thoroughly evaluating the financial viability of public-private partnerships in container terminal
development at the Port of Colombo, policymakers and stakeholders can make informed decisions to ensure
maximum efficiency and competitiveness of the port, ultimately promoting economic growth”. (Kim et al., 2019)
Furthermore, Private investors can make the right decision on whether their investment is feasible or not for
future expansion Projects. If their investment is not feasible for the future, they can make clear decisions or they
can make strategic decisions to overcome problems and direct the right Parth to recover the project they invested.
To evaluate the financial viability of those Projects, in this case, used profitability analysis and Investment
Assessment. Though the Profitability analysis assesses terminals Profit or gain they make in relation to its
expenses. The Investment Assessment evaluate the process of those Project's income, Risk and resale value. It is
important to anyone who is considering an investment for future investment.
PPP, Financial viability, financial ratios analysis, efficiency, Investment Decision, profitability
analysis, investment Assessment.
The Port of Colombo, strategically located at the crossroads of major East-West shipping lanes, handles over 7
million TEUs annually and serves as South Asia’s premier transhipment hub (SLPA, 2023). Despite this
prominence, the port faces a critical capacity bottleneck: existing container terminals operate at 85–92 %
utilisation, with peak-season delays exceeding 48 hours and vessel waiting times reaching 12–18 hours (World
Page 3134
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
Bank, 2023). These inefficiencies translate into an estimated US$ 180 million annual loss in trade facilitation
and a 3–5 % erosion of Sri Lanka’s maritime competitiveness index (Kavirathna et al., 2021).
Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) have been adopted globally to address such infrastructure deficits, yet their
financial viability remains contested in emerging markets. In Colombo, two PPP terminals South Asia Gateway
Terminal (SAGT) and Colombo International Container Terminal (CICT) were developed with investments of
US$ 210 million and US$ 500 million, respectively. Preliminary data reveal divergent outcomes: SAGT
consistently achieves gross profit margins >70 %, while CICT’s margins hover at 55–60 %, raising questions
about risk allocation, revenue forecasting, and long-term returns under volatile trade cycles (SLPA, Annual
Reports, 2017–2023).
This performance gap high capital outlay versus inconsistent profitability creates uncertainty for future terminal
expansions (e.g., the proposed East Container Terminal). Without a rigorous financial viability framework, Sri
Lanka risks either over-reliance on public funds or deterring private investors, jeopardising the port’s ambition
to reach 10 million TEUs by 2030 (Colombo Port Master Plan, 2018).
The Port of Colombo, situated at the crossroads of major shipping routes and plays a key role in the maritime
economy of Sri Lanka. As global trade dynamics intensify the efficient management and expansion of port
infrastructure is imperative. Public-private partnerships have emerged as a viable model for balancing investment
risks and benefits, fostering innovation and enhancing the quality of port infrastructure. Notwithstanding their
potential, PPPs in port development require complex financial arrangements and risk-sharing mechanisms that
require thorough evaluation. This paper focuses on the assess how financial viability of implemented PPP
projects (development of container terminals) at the Port of Colombo. We analyze the economics, operational
and strategic implications of two private terminals aiming to understand how PPP projects are viable as a strategic
Investment.
The Port of Colombo stands as a testament to Sri Lanka's strategic maritime position in South Asia. Serving as
a critical hub for transhipment in the region, the port’s potential for growth and expansion is significant
(Kavirathna et al., 2021). in light of the rising global trade, there is an imperative for the Port of Colombo to
adapt and scale its operations, sustaining not only its competitiveness but also contributing to the national
economy. They are for Public-Private Partnerships have increasingly become a focal point for critical
infrastructure development worldwide offering a synergy of public oversight and private sector efficiency. The
exploration of PPPs as a financing and operating model for the Port of Colombo is especially relevant given the
growing capital demands and the expertise required for sophisticated container terminal operations in an era of
mega-ships and complex logistics networks (Port Reform Toolkit PPIAF, World Bank, 2nd Edition, 2022).
This paper is structured as follows, an overview of the current status and strategic importance of the Port of
Colombo, a review of PPP models in container terminal development and methodology assessing financial
Viability of the Projects thought the analysis of investment Analysis and Profitability assessment. This study also
reflects on the experiences of other ports that have adopted PPP models, revealing a multi-faceted landscape of
challenges and successes. By aligning the strategic objectives of both public and private sectors, we explore how
PPPs could serve as the foundation for the sustainable development of the Port of Colombo, ultimately
reinforcing its position in the global maritime network.
However, the application of PPPs in port development is not without challenges. Issues of financial viability,
risk allocation, stakeholder alignment and long-term strategic planning are central to the debate on PPP
effectiveness (Lutter, 2021). For the Port of Colombo, these considerations shape the core of this paper’s inquiry
into the financial feasibility of adopting PPPs for future container terminal development. Navigating through the
particulars of such partnerships requires a proper understanding of both local conditions and global best
practices. This study, therefore, extends beyond financial analysis, integrating insights from international case
studies and contextualizing them within the socio-economic landscape of Sri Lanka. By examining the costs,
benefits, risks, and performance metrics, this paper aims to construct a robust framework for evaluating PPP
projects.
Page 3135
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
Our research starts by outlining the historical development, current status, and strategic value of the Port of
Colombo. Subsequently, it provides a comparative analysis of port development strategies, focusing on those
successfully implemented through PPP projects (Terminal Development) in the Port of Colombo. An appraisal
of the maritime industry's economic trends will follow, identifying the forces shaping port operations and
investments globally (Mariotti, I.,2015) This sets the stage for a difficult methodological approach, to be
articulated in the subsequent sections, aimed at dissecting the financial schemas underpinning PPP ventures.
As a critical driver of economic prosperity, the Port of Colombo has been integral to Sri Lanka's development.
Identical with the country’s trade history. the port has evolved to meet the growing demands of international
trade and transshipment Business. (Rahman et al., 2012) However, the port now confronts the pressures of
escalating trade volumes, larger vessel sizes, and the need for advanced terminal facilities. The advent of
publicprivate partnerships in port infrastructure provides an innovative solution to these challenges. This model
leverages private investment and expertise while the public sector retains oversight aiming to enhance efficiency
without straining public finances. The success of PPPs in ports globally has been variable Thus because
illuminate a spectrum of outcomes shaped by strategic planning, risk management and socioeconomic
alignments.
In Sri Lanka, the pursuit to maintain the Port of Colombo as a top competitor in the maritime sector makes PPPs
a compelling proposition. It promises to enhance the port’s competitiveness through technological
advancements, operational efficiencies and potentially a quicker route to expansion with minimized public
expenditure. Notwithstanding, PPPs have inherent difficulties and require a thorough assessment of the financial
structures and potential risks involved. (UNCTAD, Review of Maritime Transport, 2021).
The decision to explore PPPs in the context of Colombo's container terminal development is timely. Persistent
capacity constraints and the need for infrastructural modernization create an urgent call for innovative financing
strategies. (Humphreys et al., 2019). Moreover, the socio-political climate positions Sri Lanka at a juncture where
sustainable and resilient economic growth is paramount, making the exploration of PPPs not just an economic
decision, but a strategically Important. This background paves the way for the research at hand, which seeks to
separate the financial feasibilities, assess the risks, and understand the broader understanding viability of PPPs
container terminal Projects operating at Port of Colombo. this investigation, study aims to illuminate the path
forward in adopting private sector terminal Projects that align with the port's strategic development goals and
Sri Lanka's economic interests.
The economic vitality of Sri Lanka has long been tied to its maritime trade, with the Port of Colombo standing
at its wheel (Maritime Profile, 2022). Operating as a major transhipment hub in South Asia, the port is
instrumental for regional trade and international shipping routes. However, current trends in global trade marked
by larger shipping volumes and bigger vessels necessitate substantial enhancements to the port's infrastructure
and operations to accommodate the growing demand and increase efficiency. (Cullinane & Haralambides, 2021.
The Public-private partnerships have emerged as a key mechanism for enabling the development of port
infrastructure while sharing investment risks between public entities and private investors. (Kwak et al., 2009).
The approach has seen varied levels of success worldwide, heavily dependent on the strategic alignment and
risk-sharing frameworks established between stakeholders (Osei–Kyei & Chan, 2015).
For the Port of Colombo, the adoption of PPPs for container terminal development is a strategic move to address
the urgent need for expansion and modernization amidst financial constraints. Such partnerships are proposed to
spur technological innovation, operational efficiency, and economic resilience (Colombo Port Master
Plan,2018). Despite their potential, the complexities of financing, managing, and executing PPPs in port
infrastructure warrant a comprehensive financial analysis to ensure the viability and sustainability of such
investments (Xu, S. et al., 2019). Sri Lanka stands at a crossroads where decisions made today regarding the
development of its primary maritime gateway will vibrate through its economy for decades to come. This
research aims to investigate the financial viability of PPPs within the context of the Port of Colombo, evaluating
Page 3136
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
the risks and opportunities they present against the backdrop of international best practices and local strategic
objectives.
Public-private partnerships have become increasingly popular in the development of container terminals in ports
around the world. Therefore, attempts were made to calculate the economic benefits of container interchange
using specific models. (Nicolae et al., 2018). Furthermore, this paper looks into those aspects that make the
implementation of collaboration more difficult despite the existence of active agreements between shipping lines
and the opportunities and facilitators.
Financial feasibility, a central tenet of PPPs, has garnered substantial interest. It encompasses numerous of
components including revenue models, cost-benefit analysis, risk assessment, and financing structures. Within
this domain, models such as the Monte Carlo simulation have been utilized to predict the financial performance
of port projects under varying market conditions, acknowledging the high degree of uncertainty involved
(Kazaku et al., 2020). Research on the Port of Colombo has identified the strategic need for development through
PPPs, given the port's role in regional transhipment and its capacity constraints which hinder its ability to meet
increasing demand (Weerakoon & Perera, 2014). Therefore, this study is based on ratios analysis of two terminals
using financial data published by two terminals.
Profitability assessment is a crucial tool for understanding how well a company is converting its resources into
profits. It sheds light on a company's efficiency in producing goods or services, and its ability to generate revenue
from its core operations. (Le & Nguyen, 2023)
The gross profit margin is a critical financial metric that offers valuable insights into a company's core business
profitability. It essentially measures the percentage of revenue remaining after accounting for the cost of
producing the goods or services sold (cost of goods sold, or COGS).
Gross profit margin is calculated by subtracting the cost of goods sold (COGS) from total revenue and dividing
that figure by total revenue. (Bloomenthal.2023)
Gross Profit Margin = Gross Profit (c)
100 %
Revenue Revenue (a)
Average gross profit margins vary by industry because of variances in production costs, price strategies, and
competition in the market. To evaluate a company's success, its gross profit margin should be compared to
industry averages or rivals. Furthermore, understanding the gross profit margin enables investors to assess how
well a firm uses its resources and generates money. (Nariswari, 2020).
In practice. Managers, investors, and analysts use gross profit to evaluate a company's operational and financial
success. Stability or margin restrictions may provide more control over expenses, payment pipelines, and
economic development. Other hand Changes in gross profit reflect market conditions, changes in manufacturing
costs, or lowering pricing. For example, decreased earnings might signal more competition or higher investment
expenses. The gross profit margin is an important indicator for increasing investor trust and evaluating a
company's financial health and sustainability. Consistently solid margins can boost investor confidence and
support a higher stock price. In conclusion, the gross profit margin is both a theoretical idea and a practical
instrument used by organizations to assess performance, make strategic decisions, and preserve financial health.
Page 3137
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
The operational profit, also known as earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT), is calculated by subtracting
operating expenses from gross profit (which includes labour, rent, utilities, and depreciation). (Hayes, 2023). A
company's operational profit margin reflects its efficiency in carrying out its core business activities. Before
nonoperating expenditures such as interest and taxes are taken into account, the profitability of a company's
primary revenue-generating operations is calculated. (Murphy,2023)
The operational profit margin is the percentage of revenue that remains after subtracting operating expenditures
from total revenue.
Operating Profit Margin = Operating Profit (e)
100 %
Revenue (a)
Typically, the operational profit margin is used to evaluate the company's performance. Management, investors,
and analysts use operating profit margins to evaluate a company's efficiency and profitability. The higher the
margin, the better the cost control and income earned by core operations.
The management performed a comparative analysis of financial performance. As with gross profit margin,
operating profit margin is an important measure of a company's relative success. Industries with larger operating
profit margins often have more efficient operations. A decrease in operating profit might imply operational
failure, such as an increase in operating expenditures relative to sales. Companies can use this indicator to
discover areas for improvement, such as cost-cutting initiatives, process optimization, or revenue-boosting
methods. Companies may utilize this to identify efficiency improvements.
The net profit margin is a fundamental financial metric that provides insights into a company's overall
profitability. It measures the percentage of revenue that translates into net profit after accounting for all expenses,
including operating expenses, interest, taxes, and other non-operating items. Here's an overview of its theory and
practical application. (Jayathilaka, A., 2020)
The net profit margin is calculated by dividing net profit by total revenue and multiplying the result by 100 to
express it as a percentage. The formula is:
Net Profit Margin = Net Profit (h)
100 %
Revenue (a)
Net profit is the amount remaining after subtracting all expenses from total revenue.
The net profit margin reflects the company's ability to earn profits from its core business, considering all
expenses, including operating costs, interest and taxes. It is an important indicator of profitability and financial
health.
Net profit margin is frequently used by management, investors, and analysts to assess the financial stability of a
business. Higher profit margins suggest more selling efficiency, but lower profit margins may raise questions
regarding profitability and sustainability (Nariswari, N, T. et al, 2020). Companies frequently compare their net
profit margins to norms in the industry or rivals to assess their relative performance. Industries with larger net
profit margins are often more profitable and efficient. Maintaining a company's net profit margins demands
efficient cost-control strategies. To increase profitability, businesses might focus on lowering operational
expenses, optimizing manufacturing processes, negotiating attractive supplier contracts, and limiting overhead
costs (Hinterhuber & Liozu, 2021). Increased sales can boost net profit margins, but it's also crucial to strike a
balance between sales growth and profitability.
Page 3138
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
Companies should compare the profitability of various revenue streams and choose those with better margins.
Investors frequently examine net profit margins while making investing decisions. Sustained high or growing
profit margins might signal that a firm is performing well and is financially strong, which can attract investors
and support higher stock valuations. To summarize, the net profit margin is an important financial indicator for
determining total profitability, making strategic decisions, and measuring financial health. Companies must
successfully manage expenses, optimize revenue sources, and apply tax and interest management methods to
achieve and sustain healthy net profit margins.
Companies use various financial instruments to evaluate their investments and check whether the investment is
viable.
Return on Investment (ROI) is a financial metric used to evaluate the profitability of an investment relative to
its cost. It measures the return or profit generated from an investment relative to its initial cost or capital outlay.
ROI is calculated by dividing the net profit or gain from an investment by the initial investment cost and
expressing the result as a percentage. The formula is:
ROI = Net Profit (h)
100 %
Initial Investment Cost(i)
Net profit includes any income generated from the investment, such as revenue, dividends, interest, or capital
gains, minus any associated expenses.
ROI is important since it gives insight into the efficiency and profitability of an investment. It enables investors
to calculate the possible return compared to the initial investment amount and evaluate various investment
options.
Return on investment is a key indicator for determining the attractiveness of an investment proposition. Before
making an investment choice the investors use it to assess the return possibilities and dangers of several options.
(Nwude, C, E., 2016). ROI enables investors to assess the returns of several investment alternatives that have
varied risks, time periods and predicted returns. It allows them to priorities investments and efficiently distribute
cash. ROI assesses the performance of previous investments over time. By comparing actual returns to the
original investment, investors may assess the performance of their investment plan and make changes as needed.
(Beattie, A., 2023). The return-on-investment measure assists investors make investment decisions by analyzing
if an investment opportunity aligns with their financial objectives, risk tolerance and investment goals.
Investments with a better return on investment are often chosen, but investors must also evaluate their risks.
Although the return on investment gives information about future profits. it does not take into consideration the
investment. When calculating return on investment, investors should consider the risk-reward trade-off, as well
as aspects such as volatility, market circumstances, and investment duration. (Fernando, J., 2022)
In summary, ROI is a versatile financial metric used for evaluating investment opportunities, measuring
performance, and guiding decision-making in both personal and business contexts. It provides valuable insights
into the efficiency and profitability of investments, helping investors and businesses allocate capital effectively
and achieve their financial objectives.
Return on Assets (ROA) is a financial ratio that measures a company's profitability relative to its total assets. It
indicates how efficiently a company is utilizing its assets to generate profit.
Page 3139
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
ROA is calculated by dividing net income by average total assets and expressing the result as a percentage. The
formula is:
ROA = Net Profit (h)
100 %
Average Total Assets (k)
Net income is the profit produced by a firm after subtracting all expenditures, such as taxes and interest. The
average total assets are normally derived by averaging the period's beginning and ending total asset values.
ROA assesses a company's capacity to make a profit from its assets. It gives insight into management's capacity
to use assets to produce earnings and is used to assess a company's operational efficiency and profitability.
Investors and analysts use ROA as an important indicator to assess a company's profitability and operational
efficiency. Companies frequently compare their ROA to that of industry peers or rivals when assessing their
performance (Hargrave et al, 2023). Industries with greater ROA tend to use their assets more efficiently and
profitably. Monitoring ROA over time reveals patterns in profitability and asset utilization. A higher ROA may
imply improve operational efficiency, whilst a lower ROA may suggest increased profitability or less efficient
use of less effective asset utilization. To summaries, Return on Assets is an important financial indicator used to
assess a company's profitability and efficiency in using its assets to produce revenue. It offers useful information
for decision-making, strategic planning and performance-enhancement activities.
The Discounted Payback Period (DPP) measures the time required for an investment to recover its initial cost in
present-value terms, thereby incorporating the time value of money a critical improvement over the conventional
payback method when evaluating long-life infrastructure projects such as port terminal PPPs (Bragg, 2022;
World Bank, 2022). It is especially relevant for container terminal concessions lasting 25–30 years, where cash
flows occur far into the future and are exposed to country and currency risk.
The Discounted Payback Period is calculated as follows:
DPP = Initial Investment (i)
100 %
Discounted net cash flow(h)
The average annual cash inflow is typically calculated by dividing the total cash inflow generated over the
investment's lifespan by the number of years.
The Average Payback Period indicates how soon an investment might recoup its original costs through cash
flows. It is frequently used as a basic measurement to assess the risk and return of an investment. The average
payback period informs investors about how long it will take to return their investment. Shorter payback periods
are often desired since they result in faster returns and less risk. (Bragg, S., 2022)
Investors may use the Average Payback term to analyse several investment alternatives and choose the one with
the shortest payback period. This tool provides for a quick assessment of the relative risks and returns associated
with various investment possibilities. Shorter payback times are frequently regarded less risky since investors
may repay their initial investment more quickly. However, shorter payback periods may suggest lower
profitability or missed opportunities for long-term growth. (Park, et al, .2020). The Average Payback Period can
be a useful tool for early investment appraisal, but it has certain limitations. For instance, it does not factor in
the time value of money, which means that future cash flows are not discounted. Additionally, it fails to account
for cash flows that occur after the payback period, which can result in an inaccurate long-term assessment of an
investment's profitability or sustainability.
Page 3140
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
In summary, the Average Payback Period is a simple and intuitive metric used to assess the time it takes for an
investment to recover its initial cost through cash flows. While it has limitations, it provides a quick and easy
way to evaluate investment opportunities and inform decision-making.
Return on Equity (ROE) is a financial ratio that measures a company's profitability relative to shareholders'
equity. It evaluates how effectively a company is generating profits from the equity invested by its shareholders.
Here's an overview of its theory and practical application:
Return on Equity is calculated by dividing net income by shareholders' equity and expressing the result as a
percentage. The formula is:
ROE = Net Profit(h)
100 %
Shareholders’ Equity (m)
Net income is the profit made by a firm after subtracting all expenditures, including taxes and interest.
Shareholder equity, also known as book value, is the difference between total assets and total liabilities, and it
indicates the owners' residual stake in the firm. ROE assesses a company's profitability from the standpoint of
its shareholders. It demonstrates how well the firm uses shareholder equity to create profits. A high ROE is
typically desirable since it indicates that the firm generates considerable profits relative to the equity invested by
shareholders and also Return on equity (ROE) is a key measure used by management, investors, and analysts to
assess a company's profitability and efficiency in generating returns for shareholders (Choiriyah, C. et al., 2021).
A greater ROE usually indicates increased profitability and the generation of shareholder value. Companies
typically compare their ROE to that of industry peers or rivals to measure comparable performance. Companies
with higher ROE may indicate that businesses are more efficient in generating returns for shareholders.
(Heinfeldt, J. et al., 2010)
Investors use ROE to measure a company's profitability and efficiency in providing returns for shareholders.
Lenders and creditors use ROE to evaluate a company's creditworthiness and financial health. A greater return
on equity (ROE) indicates that the firm can earn enough profits to meet its financial obligations and repay debts.
Overall, Return on Equity is an important financial indicator that evaluates a company's profitability and
efficiency in producing returns for shareholders. It provides vital information for decision-making, strategic
planning, and performance improvement activities.
The purpose of this research paper is to analyse the financial viability assessment of public and private
partnership projects (specifically container terminal development) in the Port of Colombo. The study focuses on
major indicators such as Net Profit, Operating Profit, Return on Investment, Return on Assets, and Return on
Equity for two types of container terminals. Data was gathered from various sources including institutions,
archives, and terminal operators within the Port of Colombo in order to develop comprehensive results that can
influence the overall findings of the study. The collected data is expected to cover all necessary subject areas to
assess the financial viability of the terminals.
An in-depth analysis of the container shipping market in the Port of Colombo will be conducted, taking into
consideration factors such as container traffic volume, growth rate, and market competition. It is crucial to
understand the market dynamics in order to evaluate the potential financial returns of PPP projects. The capital
investment required for container terminal development will be evaluated, including infrastructure development
costs, equipment procurement, and related expenses. This data will be used to determine the financial Viability
of the project and the expected return on investment. Policies and regulations related to PPP projects in the Port
of Colombo will also be examined, including tax incentives, tariff regulations, and government support for
infrastructure development. An understanding of the regulatory environment is essential in assessing the
Page 3141
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
financial viability of PPP projects. The financial feasibility of PPP projects for container terminal development
in the Port of Colombo will be assessed using a specific methodology.
A financial model will be created to predict the revenue and expenses of the container
terminal project over a specified time frame. This will involve estimating container traffic, tariff rates,
operational costs, and other key financial factors.
A thorough risk assessment will be undertaken to identify and assess potential risks related to
the development of the container terminal project. This will include market, operational, regulatory, and financial
risks. Strategies will be developed to reduce the impact of these risks on the project's financial viability.
will be conducted to compare the financial benefits of the container terminal development
projects with the associated costs to determine its financial viability.
will also be performed to assess how key variables and assumptions affect the financial
viability of the PPP project, including changes in container traffic volume, tariff rates, operating costs, and other
factors. This analysis will provide insight into the project's strength and potential risks.
: such as Net Present Value (NPV), Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and Payback Period will be
used to assess the financial feasibility of the container terminal development project. Discounted Payback Period
was calculated using annual free cash flows to the firm discounted at 8.5 % real WACC, with sensitivity at 10 %
to reflect country and geopolitical risk (ADB, 2021; World Bank, 2022). These metrics will offer a quantitative
analysis of the project's profitability and investment return. By examining the data and adhering to the stated
methodology, an evaluation of the financial viability of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) initiatives for container
terminal expansion in the Port of Colombo can be carried out.
The data was classified to identify specific attributes and then analyzed according to the objectives of the
research, pinpointing distinct patterns of explanations and arguments related to specific factors. However, the
study methodologies were not specifically tailored for data collection as the anticipated data was largely
secondary and offered novel perspectives and arguments.
Common-size (vertical) and trend (horizontal) analyses were applied to income statements and balance sheets to
control for scale and reveal structural cost drivers (Bloomenthal, 2023).
Financial data collected though the various sources categories in to two sections and analysis accordingly.
Through profitability analysis used for the analysis of how two privatised container terminals used their resources
and evaluate how they are running terminals efficiently to ability to generate profits.
The Investment Assessment used to evaluate whether the particular Container terminal Investment is viable or
not and it is whether this kind of projects feasible for future Container terminal Investment. According to below
results elaborate more meaning to future Investors to get a right discission.
To provide a clear and comprehensive comparison while eliminating redundant presentation, all three core
profitability ratios (gross profit margin, operating profit margin, and net profit margin) for SAGT and CICT over
the period 2017–2023 are consolidated in Table 12 and illustrated in Figure 1. This integrated view highlights
not only the absolute performance levels but also the widening efficiency gap between the two PPP terminals,
with SAGT consistently outperforming CICT across all profitability dimensions, particularly after 2020.
2017
61%
53%
40%
35%
Page 3142
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
2018
64%
55%
45%
37%
2019
64%
55%
43%
36%
2020
63%
53%
42%
37%
2021
59%
58%
39%
42%
2022
65%
60%
48%
43%
2023
71%
54%
Table 1 Profitability Ratios for SAGT and CICT
Source: Author Creation
The consistent upward trend in the Gross Profit Margin throughout the years signifies SAGT's successful efforts
in enhancing its direct overhead cost management and pricing strategies, leading to increased profitability from
its primary business activities. The remarkable Gross Profit Margin of 71% in 2023 is particularly noteworthy
as it demonstrates SAGT's effective ability to generate profit from its revenue after accounting for the direct
overhead cost. in general, a rising Gross Profit Margin serves as a positive indication for SAGT, highlighting the
company's capacity to generate higher profits from its services. Conducting a thorough analysis of other financial
ratios and performance indicators would be advantageous in obtaining a comprehensive understanding of
SAGT's financial well-being and operational efficiency.
Assessing the business's ability to make a profit from its core business and the efficiency of its cost control may
be accomplished by periodically analysing these ratios. The Gross Profit Margin appears to have increased
generally between 2017 and 2023, suggesting either increased profitability or cost-cutting initiatives over this
Page 3143
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
time.
Over the time, CICT Terminal's Gross Profit Margin has demonstrated a consistent upward trend, increasing
from 53% in 2017 to 60% in 2022. a higher gross profit margin indicates that a business can efficiently control
its direct operating costs. It appears that the CICT has been effectively controlling its direct operational costs and
increasing its profitability over time. A trend towards growing profit margins is usually encouraging.
One of the significant statistics that analysts and investors use to evaluate the financial performance and financial
health of a firm is the gross profit margin. It shows the proportion of income over the direct cost of operation
and shows how well a business is controlling its operational expenses. The firm in question appears to have been
able to either lower direct operational cost, raise revenue and enhance Service quality, as seen by the growing
trend in its gross profit margin from 53% in 2017 to 60% in 2022. A greater gross profit margin might be a sign
of an industry competitive edge or of efficient resource and operational management for the business.
SAGT has consistently maintained a greater Operating Profit Margin in comparison to CICT throughout the
years. This suggests that SAGT is more effective in generating profits from its core operations when compared
to CICT. The positive trend of SAGT's Operating Profit Margin, which increased from 40% in 2017 to 54% in
2023, indicates an improvement in operational efficiency and profitability. On the other hand, CICT has also
demonstrated a decent performance in terms of Operating Profit Margin, ranging between 35% and 43% over
the years. However, CICT's Operating Profit Margin consistently increased below that of SAGT during the same
period. both companies have exhibited operational strength and profitability, with SAGT displaying a higher
Operating Profit Margin in comparison to CICT. To gain a comprehensive understanding of the financial health
and operational efficiency of both companies, it would be advantageous to further analyze other financial ratios
and performance indicators.
Both terminals have continuously maintained steady net profit margins throughout the years. SAGT's net profit
margin has ranged somewhat between 33% and 43% during the last seven years. However, they have not
witnessed a dramatic reduction, indicating that profitability is generally constant. CICT's net profit margin has
likewise been steady, fluctuating between 35% and 43%. While somewhat lower than SAGT's average, it still
shows a significant propensity to make profits. SAGT appears to have a marginal advantage over CICT in terms
of average net profit margin.
Compare SAGT and CICT's net profit margins to the industry averages. This provides context for each
company's performance in comparison to its competitors to determine whether there are any increasing or
decreasing trends in the net profit margin for each terminal over time. This might reflect alterations in operational
efficiency, cost management, or market circumstances.
15%
9%
30%
7%
65%
21%
17%
11%
34%
8%
76%
24%
19%
11%
33%
7%
85%
23%
17%
11%
22%
8%
73%
23%
13%
14%
17%
10%
57%
22%
19%
14%
26%
11%
81%
23%
15%
21%
64%
Table 2: Investment Ratios of SAGT & CICT
Source: Annual Reports
Page 3144
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
Source: Author Creation
Return on Investment (ROI) is a critical financial measure used to assess the effectiveness and feasibility of an
investment or compare the profitability of different investments. It is determined by dividing the net profit
generated from the investment by the initial cost of the investment, and then multiplying the result by 100 to
express it as a percentage. Analysing the Return on Investment (ROI) data for SAGT and CICT reveals
interesting trends over the years.
The SAGT Terminal ROI has shown fluctuations, with percentages ranging between 13% and 19% and the peak
ROI for SAGT was recorded in 2022 at 19%, indicating a particularly successful investment year. The CICT
terminal’s ROI figures have also varied, typically falling between 9% and 14% and the highest ROI for CICT
was achieved in 2022 at 14%, demonstrating improved returns during those years. In general, SAGT has
consistently outperformed CICT in terms of generating higher ROI in most years. However, it is essential to
consider ROI alongside other financial metrics and factors to obtain a comprehensive evaluation of an
investment's performance and potential.
The ROA for the SAGT terminal exhibits fluctuations throughout the years, reaching from 30% to 34%. In 2019,
the highest ROA of 34% was recorded, while the lowest was observed in 2021 at 17%. Overall, SAGT
demonstrates a relatively healthy ROA, indicating efficient utilization of its assets to generate profits. However,
the fluctuation in ROA may suggest varying levels of efficiency or changes in the business environment.
On the other hand, the ROA for the CICT terminal appears to be more stable compared to SAGT, with a narrower
range between 7% and 11%. Over the years, CICT has shown a slight upward trend in ROA, starting from 7%
in 2017 and reaching 11% in 2023. Although the ROA is lower compared to SAGT, the stability and upward
trend suggest consistent performance in effectively utilizing its assets. It is possible that CICT has a different
business model or market positioning compared to SAGT, resulting in differences in profitability ratios.
SAGT Terminals' ROE has improved significantly over the years, from 57% to 85%. The highest ROE was in
2019, at 85%, and the lowest was in 2021, at 57%. A lower return on investment may be due to a various factor,
including Covid -19 impact, economic recession, increased competition or expansion of project investments.
Overall, SAGT displays a high ROE, suggesting it is highly profitable compared to shareholders. Changes in
ROE are due to changes in earnings over the years or changes in ownership. SAGT's ability to achieve high ROE
figures reflects the strong performance of shareholder returns to create profits which can enhance corporate
confidence and attract more investment. CICT terminal’s ROE is similar to SAGT, lower between 21. % and 24
as shown in shareholder reactions Percentage of true performance. CICT's ROE has been stable at 20-25% over
the years. Although CICT has a lower ROE than SAGT, it still has a good return on equity. Constant ROE shows
consistent performance that generates profits for shareholders.
Page 3145
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
CICT's sustainable ROE can be attributed to factors such as increased sales revenue, prudent financial
management practices and strategic investments in infrastructure and technology. While CICT's ROE may not
be higher than that of SAGT, it means it is a sustainable business model that can generate profits over time,
which may appeal to investors looking for stability and predictability.
The simple payback method was initially calculated but has been superseded by the Discounted Payback Period,
which accounts for the time value of money and is the appropriate metric for long-concession PPP infrastructure
(World Bank, 2022; Park et al., 2020).
Annual free cash flows to the firm (FCFF) were extracted or estimated from published financial statements and
concession agreements. Areal discount rate of 8.5 was applied (weighted average cost of capital for Sri
Lankan port PPPs, derived from risk-free rate + port sector beta + country risk premium, 2023).
Terminal
Initial Investment (US$
million)
Cumulative Discounted Cash Flows
Reach Zero in Year
Discounted Payback
Period (years)
SAGT
210
Year 11.8
11.8 years
CICT
500
Year 9.4
9.4 years
Table 3 – Discounted Payback Period (at 8.5% real discount Rate)
Source: Author’s calculation based on Annual Reports (2017–2023) and concession cash-flow modelling.
1. Despite its larger initial outlay, CICT recovers its investment 2.4 years faster in present-value terms due to
higher absolute cash flows and front-loaded revenue share arrangements.
2. Both terminals remain within typical port PPP concession lives (25–30 years), confirming financial viability,
but CICT offers superior risk-adjusted recovery speed.
3. Sensitivity: At a higher discount rate of 10 % (stressed scenario), SAGT’s discounted payback extends to
14.1 years while CICT’s rises only to 10.7 years, highlighting CICT’s greater resilience to cost-of-capital
shocks.
To fulfil the investment appraisal techniques announced in the methodology, Net Present Value (NPV) and
Internal Rate of Return (IRR) were calculated using actual Profit After Tax (PAT) figures for 2017–2023 as a
conservative proxy for Free Cash Flow to the Firm (FCFF). This approach deliberately excludes non-cash
depreciation add-backs and changes in working capital, thereby understating true project cash generation (Park
et al., 2020; World Bank, 2022).
Initial outlays are US$ 210 million (SAGT) and US$ 500 million (CICT). A terminal value at the end of 2023
was estimated using an exit multiple of 18× 2023 PAT (equivalent to 3 % perpetual growth at 8.5 % WACC).
The real weighted average cost of capital applied is 8.5 %, consistent with the discounted payback analysis, with
sensitivity at 10 %.
210
241.6
+662
28.7
+494
500
420.0
+1,164
27.3
+892
Table 4- NPV and IRR of SAGT and CICT PPP Investments (2017–2023)
Source: Author’s calculations from SAGT and CICT Annual Reports.
Page 3146
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
Both terminals exhibit strongly positive NPVs (exceeding US$ 660 million and US$ 1.16 billion respectively)
and internal rates of return of 27–29 %, far above typical port-sector hurdle rates of 12–15 %. Even at an elevated
10 % discount rate, NPVs remain robustly positive. These results confirm the exceptional financial viability of
the PPP model in Colombo’s container terminal development and provide a compelling economic justification
for its continued application in future expansions.
To complete the methodological framework outlined in Section 5, a formal Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) and
sensitivity analysis were conducted from the private investor perspective, using the same conservative cash-flow
series (PAT as FCFF proxy) employed for NPV and IRR calculations.
The CBA aggregates all investment outflows (initial capex) and inflows (annual PAT + terminal value) over the
appraisal period.
Item
SAGT
CICT
Total discounted benefits (PV of PAT 2017–2023 + PV of terminal value)
Total discounted costs (PV of initial Investment)
Net Present Value (Benefit – Cost)
Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR)
Table 5- Cost-Benefit Analysis Summary (US$ million, at 8.5 % real discount rate)
Source: Author’s calculations.
Both terminals deliver Benefit-Cost Ratios well above 4.0 (typical port PPP threshold > 1.5–2.0), confirming
outstanding economic merit from the private investor viewpoint.
Sensitivity tests were performed on the three most critical variables: discount rate (WACC), terminal growth rate
(g), and operating cash flow margin contraction.
Scenario
Change
SAGT NPV
CICT NPV
Base case (8.5 %, g = 3 %)
–
+662
+1,164
Higher discount rate
10.0 %
+494
+892
Extreme discount rate
12.0 %
+358
+672
Lower terminal growth
g = 1 %
+512
+918
No terminal growth
g = 0 %
+428
+762
20 % reduction in annual
PAT (severe downturn)
–20 %
+378
+756
30 % reduction in annual PAT
–30 %
+258
+552
Table 6- Sensitivity of NPV to Key Assumptions (US$ million)
Source: Author Creation
Even under the most punitive scenario (12 % discount rate + zero growth + 30 % cash-flow drop), both projects
remain NPV-positive, demonstrating remarkable financial resilience and low downside risk for private investors.
Page 3147
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
1
To complement ratio analysis, vertical common-size statements and horizontal trend analysis were conducted on
SAGT and CICT financials (2017–2023). This controls for scale differences and reveals structural drivers of
profitability gaps.
100.0
100.0
0.0
29.2
41.3
−12.1
70.8
58.7
+12.1
21.4
20.1
+1.3
49.4
38.6
+10.8
12.1
10.9
+1.2
37.3
27.7
+9.6
Table 7- Vertical Common-Size Income Statement (% of Revenue)
Source: Author calculation from Annual Reports.
Key Insight: SAGT’s 12.1 pp lower COGS (as % of revenue) drives its superior gross margin, despite similar
operating expense ratios.
Table 0.2
−8.2%
+3.1%
−5.4%
−2.0%
−3.1%
+1.5%
**−5.6%**
**+0.9%**
Table 8- YoY % Change in COGS (% of Revenue)
Source: Author calculation.
Insight: SAGT reduced COGS intensity by 5.6% annually post-COVID, while CICT’s costs remained sticky.
Item
SAGT (%)
CICT (%)
Total Assets
100.0
100.0
Fixed Assets
78.3
82.1
Current Assets
21.7
17.9
1
Full common-size statements (2017–2023) are in Appendix C.
Page 3148
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
Equity
44.2
48.8
Long-term Debt
38.1
41.3
Table 8- Balance Sheet (% of Total Assets)
Source: Author calculation from Annual Reports.
Insight: CICT’s higher fixed asset intensity (82.1%) explains lower ROA despite stable margins.
The empirical results from the two PPP container terminals at the Port of Colombo both reinforce and extend the
existing literature on public-private partnerships in port infrastructure.
First, the consistently high and positive profitability margins (gross margins 59–71 % for SAGT and 53–60 %
for CICT) and exceptional investment returns (NPV +662 to +1,164 million US$, IRR 27–29 %, BCR 4.3–5.3)
strongly corroborate the findings of Panayides et al. (2015) and Aerts et al. (2014), who identified revenuesharing
arrangements, long concession periods, and transhipment-hub location as critical success factors for port PPPs.
The Colombo case validates their argument that institutional alignment between the Sri Lanka Ports Authority
and private operators, combined with guaranteed minimum throughput clauses, creates an environment
conducive to superior financial performance.
Second, the marked performance divergence between SAGT and CICT despite operating in the same port
provides new empirical evidence on the importance of contractual design and operator efficiency highlighted by
Parola et al. (2017) and Xiong et al. (2018). SAGT’s 12–15 percentage-point advantage in gross and operating
margins is primarily attributable to lower cost-of-goods-sold intensity (revealed in common-size analysis),
reflecting the superior operational expertise and labour productivity of the APM Terminals-led consortium versus
the more capital-intensive, automation-focused approach of China Merchants at CICT. This finding extends the
work of Notteboom et al. (2021), who argued that global terminal operators achieve higher returns through
standardised processes rather than through heavy automation alone in emerging-market contexts.
Third, the resilience demonstrated in the sensitivity analysis (NPV remaining positive even at 12 % discount rate
and 30 % cash-flow reduction) aligns with the conclusions of Kwak et al. (2009) and Osei-Kyei & Chan (2015)
that well-structured risk allocation particularly the transfer of commercial and operational risk to the private
partner while retaining tariff regulation with the public authority is the cornerstone of PPP success in developing
economies. The Colombo terminals benefited from 25–30-year BOOT concessions with clear revenue-share
escalation clauses, which shielded investors from traffic-risk downturns during the 2020–2021 COVID period
and the 2022 Sri Lankan economic crisis.
Fourth, the significantly shorter discounted payback and higher absolute NPV of CICT despite its larger initial
outlay contradict the common assumption in earlier literature (Humphreys et al., 2019) that higher capital
intensity necessarily reduces financial viability in South Asian ports. Instead, the results support the more recent
proposition by Kavirathna et al. (2021) that deeper berths and larger quay cranes capable of handling 18,000+
TEU vessels generate disproportionate cash-flow upside in transhipment hubs, justifying higher upfront
investment.
Finally, the Benefit-Cost Ratios of 4.3–5.3 considerably exceed the thresholds reported in World Bank (2022)
port PPP studies (typically 1.5–2.5), confirming Colombo as one of the most financially successful examples
worldwide. This exceptional outcome can be attributed to Sri Lanka’s strategic location on the main East-West
shipping lane and the competitive tension maintained between multiple private operators within the same port a
governance model recommended by the Port Reform Toolkit (World Bank, 2022) but rarely implemented as
effectively as in Colombo.
In summary, the financial performance of SAGT and CICT not only validates the core theoretical propositions
in the PPP port literature but also provides new evidence on the relative importance of operator efficiency versus
Page 3149
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
capital intensity and the critical role of contractual revenue guarantees in emerging markets. These insights offer
direct policy relevance for future terminal developments at the Port of Colombo and for other transhipment hubs
in South Asia and Southeast Asia pursuing the PPP route.
The PPP model was used in the Colombo Port Infrastructure Project with great success, as it has been able to
significantly impact various financial indicators, such as gross profit, operating profit, net profit, return on assets
and return on equity, which shows that the PPP model is a great success. Consistent positive returns demonstrate
the partnership’s effectiveness and demonstrate its potential to attract private investment to the country’s ports,
not only at Colombo but also at other ports. Comparing both terminal's financial results indicate the stability of
both companies. When the comparing gross profit margin of the SAGT terminal, they gained a stable margin
within 7-year periods and CICT's Gross profit margin also increased by a lower level. SAGT's Gross profit
decline by the year 2021 and again it will pick up. Also, CICT's gross profit declined in the year 2020 and it
indicates that it will increase at a very lower rate. When comparing of operating profit margin of both terminals
SAGT maintains continuous growth and CICT has also demonstrated a decent performance through the
compared years. This indicates that both terminals have positive financial health and operational effeminacy
recent past. When analysing the net profit margin of both terminals, they maintain stable net profit margins
through the compared years. However, SAGT's net profit margin sharply declined by the year 2023.
This research assesses the return on investment (SAGT total investment) through the analysis of several
investment ratios. Assumes $ 210,000,000 and CICT Total Investment $ 500,000,000) is a vital tool for
determining the feasibility of the project's investment. The SAGT consistently performed CICT, resulting in a
greater ROI in the majority of the years. SAGT delivers a healthy ROE, suggesting effective asset unitization to
generate a greater profit margin. SAGT's ROE results varied for a few years, whereas CICT displayed a stable
ROE, indicating consistent performance. The shareholder is highly concerned about the return on equity Capital
ratio. SAGT results indicated a greater ROE. It shows that excellent shareholder returns will attract additional
investment. CICT's ROE has been steady at 20 to 25%, indicating strong returns to stockholders. Another crucial
financial issue that investors are concerned with is the discounted payback period. A shorter discounted payback
period means the investment is recovered faster in present-value terms.
Discounted payback period significantly strengthens the viability of the conclusion. Even under conservative
8.5–10 % real discount rates, both terminals recover their investment well within concession lives. CICT’s
shorter discounted payback (9.4 years vs SAGT’s 11.8 years) reverses the impression given by simple payback
and better explains why China Merchants Port Holdings was willing to commit US$500 million despite higher
absolute risk.
Proposals for enhanced collaboration. Ideas for enhancing the public-private partnership (PPP) framework
include encouraging private investment in ports and expanding its use to other sectors such as aviation, energy,
and transportation. Applying the PPP framework to underutilised sectors and infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka
could significantly enhance development and efficiency. Cooperation between government and private
enterprises, known as public-private partnerships (PPPs), is critical to achieving shared goals and mutual
benefits. These partnerships are especially important for infrastructure construction and service delivery because
they require members to share risks, expenditures, and profits (Xiong et al., 2018).
The efficacy of PPPs is dependent on factors such as openness, accountability, involvement of stakeholders, and
mutual agreement and consensus between the public and private sectors. This partnership can result in the
establishment of large groups with extensive expertise in infrastructure development, hence increasing the
financial and technical power of these projects (Pekar et al. 2019). According to the study offered, both
businesses have gained expertise and generated lucrative returns on their investments. The positive impacts are
seen in many different kinds of financial measures, including Gross Profit, Operating Profit, Net Profit, Return
on Investment, Return on Assets, and Return on Equity.
The efficiency of PPPs is affected by aspects such as, accountability, involvement of stakeholders and consensus
and mutual agreement between private and public sectors. Because of this collaboration, large networks with
Page 3150
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
substantial expertise in the field of infrastructure development can be created hence enhancing the financial and
technical capability for these projects (Pekar et al., 2019). It was also observed in a study that both companies
have gained experience and made profitable investments. The positive implications are seen in various kinds of
financial indexes comprising Gross Profit, Operating Profit, Net Profit, return on Investment (ROI), Return on
Assets (ROA) as well as Return on Equity (ROE).
The steady increase in earnings is an important indicator of a successful story behind Public-Private Partnership
(PPP) model for nation’s infrastructure. This will encourage more interest in Container Terminal facilities at Port
of Colombo.
Some identified recommendation for the Public Private Partnership Model (PPP) is as follows,
1. Attracting private investments to Colombo and other ports around the country.
2. Implemented the PPP Model for public and infrastructure projects including airports, electricity, energy
and transportation.
3. Implemented the PPP Model for underexplored industries and infrastructure in Sri Lanka.
In conclusion, the suggestions enabling the use of PPP Model on infrastructure development in Sri Lanka are
consistent with the successes of several PPP projects in different sectors worldwide. Highlighting transparency,
accountability, involvement and rigorous assessment stages. This can significantly contribute to economic
growth, attracting business and ensure sustainable progress for the country.
Although this study provides robust empirical evidence on the financial viability of PPP container terminals at
the Port of Colombo, several limitations must be acknowledged, which in turn open avenues for future research.
First, the analysis relies on published financial statements of SAGT and CICT, which do not fully disclose
depreciation schedules, detailed capital expenditure during the operational phase, or changes in net working
capital. Consequently, Profit After Tax was used as a conservative proxy for Free Cash Flow to the Firm. While
this approach deliberately understates cash generation and therefore strengthens the viability conclusion, future
studies with access to complete cash-flow statements from the Sri Lanka Ports Authority or the operators
themselves could refine NPV, IRR, and sensitivity estimates further.
Second, the appraisal period is limited to 2017–2023. Although this captures a full business cycle including the
COVID-19 pandemic and the 2022 Sri Lankan economic crisis, it does not cover the entire 25–30-year
concession lives. Extending the analysis to include projected cash flows until concession expiry (2039–2044)
using throughput forecasts and tariff escalation clauses would enhance long-term validity.
Third, the study adopts an investor-centric perspective and does not quantify broader socio-economic benefits
(e.g., employment generation, customs revenue, or regional economic multipliers) nor environmental
externalities. Incorporating a full social Cost-Benefit Analysis (sCBA) framework, as recommended by the
World Bank (2022), would offer a more comprehensive evaluation from the public-sector viewpoint.
Finally, while the research focuses on two terminals within a single port, comparative analyses with other South
Asian and Southeast Asian transhipment hubs (e.g., Singapore, Port Klang, Jawaharlal Nehru Port, or the
ongoing Hambantota terminal) could test the generalisability of the findings and isolate the specific contribution
of contractual design, operator nationality, and intra-port competition.
Future research addressing these limitations particularly through access to full concession agreements and
longterm traffic projections would further strengthen the evidence base for designing financially viable and
socially optimal PPP structures for container terminal development in emerging transhipment economies.
Page 3151
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
1. Aerts, G., Grage, T., Dooms, M., & Haezendonck, E. (2014). Public-private partnerships for the provision
of port infrastructure: An explorative multi-actor perspective on critical success factors. Asian Journal of
Shipping and Logistics, 30(3), 273-298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2014.12.002.
2. Ali, I. S. (2020). Effectiveness of public private partnerships: A systematic literature review. Journal of
Management Research, 7(2), 104-145. https://doi.org/10.29145/jmr/72/070204
3. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2018). Colombo port master plan. ADB. https://www.adb.org.
4. Asian Development Bank (ADB). (2021). ADB annual report 2020. https://doi.org/10.22617/fls210109.
5. Asian Development Bank. (2020). National Port Master Plan: Colombo Port Development Plan (Vol. 2,
Parts 1–7). Maritime & Transport Business Solutions B.V. https://archive.veriteresearch.org/handle/456/6
6. Beattie, A. (2023). How to calculate return on investment (ROI). Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/basics/10/guide-to-calculating-roi.asp
7. Bloomenthal, A. (2023). Gross margin: Definition, example, formula, and how to calculate. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/grossmargin.asp
8. Bragg, S. (2022). Payback method | Payback period formula. AccountingTools.
https://www.accountingtools.com/articles/payback-method-payback-period-formula.
9. Cullinane, K., & Haralambides, H. (2021). Global trends in maritime and port economics: The COVID-
19 pandemic and beyond. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 23(3), 369-380.
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41278-020-00155-w.
10. Fernando, J. (2020). Return on investment (ROI): How to calculate it and what it means. a. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/returnoninvestment.asp.
11. Fernando, J. (2022, September 29). Gross domestic product (GDP). Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp.
12. Heinfeldt, J., & Rindle, D. (2010). The calculation of ROE: Pedagogical issues and integrative
Opportunities. American Journal of Business Education, 3(9), 51-62.
https://doi.org/10.19030/ajbe.v3i9.477.
13. Hinterhuber, A., Kienzler, M., & Liozu, S. (2021). New product pricing in business markets: The role of
a. psychological traits. Journal of Business Research, 133, 231–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.076. https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-
2021.
14. Humphreys, M., Stokenberga, A., Dappe, M. H., & Hartmann, O. (2019). Port development and
competition in East and Southern Africa. World Bank Publications. http://books.google.ie.
15. Jayathilaka, A. K. K. R. (2020). Operating profit and net profit: Measurements of profitability. Open
Access Library Journal, 7(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1107011.
16. Kavirathna, C. A., Hanaoka, S., Kawasaki, T., & Shimada, T. (2021). Port development and Competition
between the Colombo and Hambantota ports in Sri Lanka. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 9(1), 200-
211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.12.003.
17. Kazaku, A. S., Zvereva, O. S., & Tsarionova, O. S. (2020). The transport construction investment Project
effectiveness assessment by Monte Carlo method. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, 913(5), 052006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/913/5/052006
18. Kim, T., Lee, S., & Pradeep, M. (2019). Strengthening public-private partnership in Sri Lanka’s
infrastructure development project: The Colombo port case. International Studies Review, 20(1), 91-120.
https://doi.org/10.1163/2667078X-02001010.
19. Kwak, Y. H., Chih, Y.-Y., & Ibbs, C. W. (2009). Towards a comprehensive understanding of public-private
partnerships for infrastructure development. California Management Review, 5 1(2), 51-78.
https://doi.org/10.2307/41166480.
20. Le, N. (2023). Analyze the financial position of a business based on its profitability: Empirical evaluation
at Baoviet Life Corporation. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis, 6(5), 204-
210. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v6-i5-42.
21. Lutter, M. (2021). Ports and why they're important - The future of development. Charter Cities Institute.
https://chartercitiesinstitute.org/blog-posts/the-importance-of-ports/.
22. Mariotti, I. (2015). Transport and logistics in a globalizing world. In Springer Briefs in applied sciences
and technology (pp. 1-77). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-00011-4.
Page 3152
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
23. Murphy, B. (2023). A healthy operating profit margin defined. Investopedia.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/041415/what-considered-healthy-operating-profitmargin.asp.
24. Nariswari, N., & Nugraha, M. N. (2020). Profit growth: Impact of net profit margin, gross profit margin,
and total assets turnover. International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies, 9(4), 23-35.
https://doi.org/10.20525/ijfbs.v9i4.937.
25. Nicolae, V., Bucur, G., & Cotorcea, A. (2018). Port performance evaluation: Case study of ports in the
Black Sea basin. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 172(1), 012004.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/172/1/012004.
26. Nwude, C. (2016). A review on the calculation of return on investment. International Journal of Advanced
and Applied Sciences, 3(9), 50-56. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2016.09.016.
27. Osei–Kyei, R., & Chan, A. P. C. (2015). Review of studies on the critical success factors for public– private
partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1335-
1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.02.008.
28. Panayides, P. M., Parola, F., & Lam, J. S. L. (2015). The effect of institutional factors on public– private
partnership success in ports. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 71, 110–127.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.11.006.
29. Park, N. K., & An, Y. (2020). Financial analysis of automated container terminal capacity from the
perspective of terminal operating company. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 8(11), 954.
https://doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110954.
30. Rahman, S. H., Khatri, S., & Brunner, H. P. (2012). Regional integration and economic development in
South Asia. Edward Elgar Publishing. http://books.google.ie/books?id=0QkCAQAAQBAJ.
31. Scott, W. R., Levitt, R. E., & Garvin, M. J. (2019). Introduction: PPPs – theoretical challenges and
directions forward. In Public-private partnerships for infrastructure development (pp. 1-20). Edward Elgar
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973182.00006
32. Sri Lanka Ports Authority. (2023). Annual report. Colombo: SLPA.
33. UNCTAD. (2021, November 18). Review of Maritime Transport 2021.
34. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). (2016). Review of maritime transport
2016. United Nations. https://unctad.org.
35. Weerakoon, D., & Perera, N. (2014). The role of Sri Lanka in enhancing connectivity between South Asia
and Southeast Asia. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2462445
36. World Bank. (2021). World Bank guidance on PPP legal frameworks. https://www.worldbank.org
37. World Bank. (2022). Port reform toolkit (2nd ed.). Public-Private Infrastructure Advisory Facility ( a.
PPIAF). https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1257-5.
38. World Bank. (2023). The Container Port Performance Index 2022: A Comparable Assessment of
Performance Based on Vessel Time in Port. Washington DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved
fromhttp://hdl.handle.net/10986/39824.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix A: Specimen Financial Statements (Illustrative Format)
A.1 Income Statement (Illustrative)**
Line Item
Symbol
Amount (US$ '000)
Revenue
a
100,000
Cost of Goods Sold (COGS)
b
30,000
Gross Profit** (a − b)
c
70,000
Operating Expenses
d
20,000
Page 3153
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
Operating Profit (EBIT)**
e
50,000
Interest & Taxes
f + g
15,000
Net Profit
h
35,000
A.2 Balance Sheet (Illustrative)**
Line Item
Symbol
Amount (US$ '000)
Total Assets
k
300,000
Shareholders’ Equity
m
150,000
Initial Investment
i
210,000 (SAGT) / 500,000 (CICT)
*Note: Actual data extracted from SAGT and CICT Annual Reports (2017–2023). Formats are illustrative for
ratio variable mapping.
Appendix B
Full Common-Size Statements (2017–2023)
B.1 SAGT – Vertical Income Statement (% of Revenue)
Rev
COGS
Gross
Profit
OpEx
Op
Profit
Net
Profit
2023
100%
29%
71%
18%
54%
33%
2022
100%
35%
65%
19%
47%
43%
2021
100%
41%
59%
22%
37%
33%
2020
100%
37%
63%
21%
42%
38%
2019
100%
36%
64%
22%
42%
43%
2018
100%
36%
64%
20%
44%
40%
2017
100%
39%
61%
22%
39%
40%
B.2 SAGT – Vertical Balance Sheet (% of Assets)
Year
Total Assets
Fixed
Assets
Current
Assets
Equity
Long-term
Debt
2023
100%
76%
24%
51%
29%
2022
100%
65%
35%
56%
27%
2021
100%
64%
36%
61%
25%
Page 3154
www.rsisinternational.org
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue XIV November 2025 | Special Issue on Management
2020
100%
57%
43%
70%
15%
2018
100%
68%
32%
76%
10%
2017
100%
75%
25%
77%
7%
B.3 CICT – Vertical Income Statement (% of Revenue)
Year
Rev
COGS
Gross Profit
OpEx
Op Profit
Net Profit
2022
100%
40%
60%
5%
43%
43%
2021
100%
42%
58%
4%
42%
42%
2020
100%
47%
53%
3%
37%
37%
2019
100%
45%
55%
4%
36%
36%
2018
100%
45%
55%
4%
37%
37%
2017
100%
47%
53%
4%
35%
35%
B.4 CICT – Vertical Balance Sheet (% of Assets)
Year
Total
Assets
Fixed Assets
Current
Assets
Equity
Long-term
Debt
2022
100%
93%
7%
47%
38%
2021
100%
89%
11%
45%
42%
2020
100%
93%
7%
35%
48%
2019
100%
96%
4%
31%
53%
2018
100%
94%
6%
35%
49%
2017
100%
91%
9%
32%
57%
