Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Due to growing geopolitical tensions and uncertainty, energy supplies have recently become more vulnerable, endangering the safety of energy supply chains. It has therefore become essential to enhance the security and sustainability of energy supplies by establishing energy hubs (EHs) along energy transmission routes. These hubs offer a practical solution that facilitates energy import, conversion, storage, and export, thereby improving energy trade and exchange between producing and consuming countries. Nevertheless, the successful establishment and operation of these EHs is difficult and calls for several requirements. This study aims to develop a practical framework that includes the main requirements for the effective establishment and operation of global energy hubs (GEHs). A mixed-method approach was employed, incorporating in-depth interviews with key stakeholders and survey data from 53 oil and gas companies. The study identified critical success factors for establishing and operating GEHs, including geographical location, infrastructure readiness, environmental stability, geopolitical positioning, and stakeholder collaboration. It combines scientific and practical components into a comprehensive reference that provides policymakers and energy planners with actionable guidance for establishing and operating GEHs. The research findings would support the sustainability and resilience of energy supply chains. The study also offers a strategic roadmap for nations looking to develop GEHs. Future research is encouraged to assess energy hub performance under different geographies and markets to enhance adaptability and efficiency.

Keywords

energy management energy supply chain energy transport energy sustainability and security energy hub oil and gas strategic requirements

Introduction

Despite the limited availability of oil and gas, imbalances in their supply and demand, the continuous growth in their consumption rates, and increasing geopolitical threats related to their supply, they continue to dominate the global energy portfolio (Aykin et al., 2017; Murele et al., 2020). These factors create substantial risks to the stability of global oil and gas supply chains and energy in general (El Sakty, 2023; Urciuoli et al., 2014). Therefore, securing sustainable supplies of energy, especially gas and oil, at reasonable prices has become a primary concern for nations (Altundeğer, 2015; Guo et al., 2019).

In reality, countries with scarce energy resources import their energy needs from countries with rich energy resources (Seljom & Rosenberg, 2011). However, this may make energy-importing countries dependent on exporting countries, leaving them vulnerable to any disruption or stoppage in energy supplies (Coq & Paltseva, 2009; Ekram et al., 2023). Perhaps the case in Russia and the European Union sets the best example for this situation (Hammad et al., 2023). Hence, the presence of energy hubs (EHs) represents a key strategy to overcome energy supply challenges, support the sustainable flow of energy, and achieve the overall efficiency of the global energy supply chain (Coşkun & Carlson, 2010; Hammad et al., 2022). Energy resources can be imported, processed, stored, transported, and re-exported via these EHs, facilitating energy trade and exchange between supply and demand countries (LYNX, 2019; Vieira et al., 2016). However, establishing and operating EHs is not an effortless process. Becoming an energy hub entails complex requirements that are not fully explored or empirically validated in the literature. Although several theoretical frameworks have highlighted potential criteria for energy hub development, they lack practical testing (Altundeğer, 2015; Hammad et al., 2022, 2023; Yilmaz-Bozkus, 2019). Hence, despite the strategic importance of GEHs in the global energy supply chain, there is a severe lack of empirical research that addresses the requirements for establishing and operating these GEHs, especially in developing countries.

Accordingly, this study empirically fills this critical gap through investigating strategic requirements for establishing and operating global energy hubs (GEHs), with special focus on oil and gas. The paper addresses two main research questions:

(1) What are the strategic requirements of establishing and operating GEHs?

(2) How do these requirements affect the efficacy and sustainability of GEH establishment and operation?

The objective of this paper is to develop and validate a practical framework for establishing and operating GEHs. To achieve this, the study used a mixed-method approach combining semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders and a survey of 53 oil and gas companies in Egypt. The purpose for selecting Egypt stems from its unique geographical location and increasing energy ambitions, in addition to the global push to diversify, secure, and sustain energy supplies. However, the study assesses the Egyptian context and provides insights that are transferable to other countries with similar aspirations.

The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature; Section 3 describes the research methods; the results and findings are presented in Section 4; Section 5 discusses the implications; and Section 6 includes the conclusion, recommendations, and directions for further research.

Literature Review

This section deeply discusses the literature related to establishing and operating GEHs. The section is divided into three parts:

Global Energy Supply Chain

Recent research has confirmed the growing complexity and uncertainty of global energy supply chains as a result of geopolitical shifts, supply-demand mismatches, and unsustainable energy flows. Khan (2025) emphasised the relationship between the global supply chain and energy security, as well as investigated the impact of geopolitical risk on the global supply chain and energy security. Moreover, Hammad et al. (2022) highlighted the increasing importance of energy transit countries as strategic players in the global energy supply chain by adopting value-added roles beyond mere energy transfer. These studies are built on previous work such as (Babali, 2010; Bilgin, 2010; Coq & Paltseva, 2009; Doulah & Shafee, 2016; Erşen & Çelikpala, 2019; Yilmaz-Bozkus, 2019), which determined the structure of the global energy supply chain through three major players, as follows:

Supply/exporting country: an energy-producing nation rich with energy resources and reserves.

Consuming/importing country: a nation with limited domestic energy resources that imports its energy needs.

Transit country: a third nation in which pipelines are laid to connect energy-exporting and importing nations.

However, a transit country can become an energy hub by importing energy locally, offering logistics services, and re-exporting to other customers. Accordingly, previous studies indicate a clear change in the map of global energy supply chains, and the literature is in increasing demand for developing integrated hub-and-spoke network models that support energy storage, reprocessing, and redirection flexibly in response to market shocks and regional crises (Khosravi et al., 2024; Zhou et al., 2021).

Energy Hub Country

This subsection focuses specifically on the hub country and reveals its role in the global energy supply chain.

The energy hub country serves as a connecting bridge between energy-supplying and consuming nations (Gokirmak, 2017). This country purchases energy within its borders and processes, stores, and resells it to other buyers (Yilmaz-Bozkus, 2019). In return, the hub country will reap several benefits, including securing its energy supplies by exercising its offtake rights as a transit country, making money from the services rendered, creating jobs, and gaining more geopolitical clout (Erşen & Çelikpala, 2019). Nevertheless, being an EH is more complicated than being an energy transit or corridor country (Akyener & Apaydin, 2016). Although the energy transit country offers transit services and collects certain transit fees in exchange, it doesn’t have any decisions on demand provisions or delivery conditions (Bilgin, 2010). In contrast, the energy hub country can control energy distribution and determine export options and domestic needs (Akyener & Apaydin, 2016).

These EHs can overcome the challenges facing the global energy supply chain through diversifying, securing, and sustaining energy supplies. However, turning a country into an energy hub requires certain qualifications and prerequisites (Hammad et al., 2023; Novikau & Muhasilović, 2023).

The Requirements of Establishing and Operating a GEH

A country must meet several criteria to establish and operate as an energy hub (EH).

Being an energy hub requires not only physical aspects, such as geographical and infrastructure considerations, but also political flexibility and market adaptation (Moghani & Loni, 2025). This is consistent with previous results by Bilgin (2010): the storage facilities, the amount of investment, the energy mix, and the contractual terms and agreements of the host country, which are necessary for the country to become an energy hub. Krauer-Pacheco (2011) also highlighted the contribution of a country’s geographic location, foreign policy, geopolitical position, cooperation, and relationships to its development as an energy hub. Altundeğer (2015) added that an energy hub requires a more sophisticated physical and virtual environment for producers and consumers. Moreover, Yilmaz-Bozkus (2019) concluded that energy infrastructure, geographical location, energy market liberalisation, geopolitics and regional power, and political will are key elements for a country to be an energy hub. Recent literature also emphasises the significance of energy composition as a foundational condition for developing energy hubs. A diversified energy mix enables countries to serve a wider range of markets and respond flexibly to demand fluctuations (Miciuła, 2019; Xue et al., 2025).

While these studies focussed on infrastructure, geopolitics, relationships, and liberalisation, recent studies have expanded the list of requirements. Hammad et al. (2022) stressed the role of transparent financial and legal frameworks that permit safe and secure trade as a crucial prerequisite for enabling successful energy hub establishment and operation.

A comprehensive theoretical framework was developed by Hammad et al. (2021) that comprises the essential specifications needed to establish and run a GEH from a logistics standpoint. The proposed framework identified seven requirements that must be considered to establish and operate a GEH, namely geographical location, infrastructure and logistics facilities, political and economic environment, geopolitical position, cooperation and interrelationships, level of competitiveness, and market liberalisation. The framework additionally supplied the necessary ecosystem, which consists of both external and internal environmental components that could influence the GEH’s unsafe and unsustainable construction and operation. However, the proposed framework provided the theoretical foundation for the establishment and operation of GEH, yet it has not been practically verified or tested.

Building on this theoretical framework, Hammad et al. (2023) also conducted interviews with practitioners and stakeholders in the energy market, specifically in the oil and gas industry, to determine the extent to which that theoretical framework is applicable in the real-world setting. The study ended by verifying the theoretical framework in the practical context. Therefore, the study identified the primary practical requirements for establishing and operating GEHs, in addition to highlighting the most urgent practical issues they face. However, the study did not empirically measure the proposed framework, supporting the need for practical validation as undertaken in this study.

To conclude, while previous research has addressed various aspects of energy supply chains, energy hubs, and the requirements for establishing and operating GEHs, most of these works remain conceptual or context-specific due to their limited empirical validation. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to close this gap and complete the research series by empirically evaluating a comprehensive framework that consolidates the main requirements for establishing and operating GEHs. This goal is achieved through conducting an empirical investigation of the framework provided by Hammad et al. (2023) in the context of Egypt’s oil and gas business, thereby providing practical insights and academic value.

Methodology

This study adopted a mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods to provide a deep and comprehensive understanding of the key requirements for establishing and operating global energy hubs. The qualitative phase included semi-structured interviews with selected stakeholders, while the quantitative phase consisted of a structured survey targeting oil and gas companies operating in Egypt. This methodological integration ensures that the findings are deep and generalisable.

Research Design

The study was carried out in two successive stages, using two different research approaches as follows.

In the first stage, the qualitative approach was adopted to understand the state of the Egyptian oil and gas market and to reconstruct and convert the framework presented by Hammad et al. (2023) into a conceptual framework with correlational relationships between variables. This phase was completed by conducting interviews with key players and stakeholders in the Egyptian oil and gas industry. We created the SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) matrix for the Egyptian oil and gas industry by applying qualitative analysis to the interview results. We also modified the conceptual framework.

The second phase utilised the quantitative method to verify the conceptual framework adapted in the first stage by investigating Egypt’s oil and gas companies using a questionnaire. This stage produced the following outcomes:

– Develop an applied framework for establishing and operating a GEH.

– Assess and measure Egypt’s readiness to become a GEH.

– Identify the obstacles that Egypt faces in becoming a GEH and draw a roadmap to overcome them.

Sampling Techniques

In the first stage, the researchers used semi-structured interviews. Face-to-face interviews were conducted whenever possible, and telephone and Zoom meetings were arranged based on interviewees’ convenience and schedules. As is common in qualitative research, the study selected participants for semi-structured interviews using purposive or judgemental sampling (Etikan et al., 2016). The researchers relied on the key stakeholders participating in the international oil and gas system mentioned by Mustafayev (2016) as a target population to conduct the interviews with the application in the Egyptian market. A purposeful sample was then selected depending on the interviewee’s accessibility. However, the researchers used specific standards to identify a candidate with a high managerial level and relevant experience. A total of 13 separate interviews were done. The study followed standard ethical research practices to minimise any potential risks to participants. All interviews were conducted in a professional context, with participants informed of the study’s purpose, voluntary nature, and confidentiality of their responses. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection, and the study’s potential societal benefits were deemed to outweigh any minimal risks involved.

For the second phase, the research model resulting from the previous stage was empirically tested and assessed through performing a survey using a questionnaire. The study adopted stratified random sampling to ensure that each sector or stratum is represented proportionally within the final sample, as the Egyptian oil and gas sector is divided into stratified sectors, and each sector/stratum involves an unequal number of companies (Fink, 2003; Saunders et al., 2019). The study’s final sample included 53 companies out of 197 registered oil and gas companies in Egypt. The sample consisted of 28 companies from the private sector, 10 foreign companies, 9 shared sector companies, 4 companies affiliated with the Egyptian Ministry of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, and 2 public sector companies. The survey was designed to be brief and straightforward, with an average response time of 15 to 20 min, depending on participants’ answers to the open-ended questions. The survey was also administered online, with a response rate of approximately 60%.

Sampling Limitations and Bias Considerations

For the qualitative stage, purposive sampling was used to select key informants with relevant strategic and operational roles in the energy sector. While this improves depth and contextual understanding, the findings from interviews are not statistically generalisable and are instead intended to complement the survey insights. This two-phase approach increases the internal validity of the findings while recognising limitations in external generalisability.

Regarding the quantitative phase, a 60% response rate was achieved, which is acceptable for organisational surveys; however, the results may still introduce a nonresponse bias. To mitigate this concern, responses were monitored for sectoral distribution and consistency across company sizes and types. The diversity of respondents minimises the potential for systematic bias, although caution is warranted when generalising the findings outside the sample group.

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

The research/conceptual model shown in Figure 1 was developed based on semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in the oil and gas sector in Egypt.

Figure 1.

Research model, adapted by the researchers based on the interviews.

The model includes four different types of variables. The dependent variable is establishing and operating a GEH that respects major international criteria. The seven independent variables represent the strategic requirements that can influence the establishment and operation of GEH: geographical location, infrastructure and logistics facilities, political and economic environment, geopolitical position, cooperation and interrelationships, level of competitiveness, and market liberalisation.

The model also involves three moderating variables: long-term agreements, investments, and domestic consumption. Finally, the model includes six control variables: market uncertainty, legal and regulatory framework, international energy market, energy charter treaty, environmental concerns, and information sharing.

Independent Variables (Strategic Requirements)

Geographical Location

Kiliç (2006) pointed out that the geographical location has a direct impact on the candidate country for the energy corridor. Gromule and Yatskiv (2007) also proved that strategic location is one of the critical factors for passenger logistics hubs, while Wanitwattanakosol et al. (2010) tackled it for the freight logistics hub. Lee (2007) quantitatively demonstrated the relationship between the location of the global logistics hub and its competitive position. Misiągiewicz (2012) stressed the importance of the country’s geographical position as an energy hub. Raimbekov et al. (2017) further highlighted the importance of the country’s geographical location in the development and deployment of the logistics centre. Yilmaz-Bozkus (2019) emphasised the advantages of a nation’s geographical location as an energy hub. Based on the above, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H1: There is a significant impact of the geographical location on establishing and operating a GEH

Infrastructure and Logistics Facilities

Researchers such as (Gromule & Yatskiv, 2007; Wanitwattanakosol et al., 2010) proved that infrastructure and logistics facilities are critical factors for logistics hubs. Winrow (2013), Akyener and Apaydin (2016), Firat (2016), Ibrayeva et al. (2017) analysed energy infrastructure as a key element for assessing the energy hub country, whereas (Raimbekov et al., 2017) focussed on evaluating logistics infrastructure in the development of logistics centres. İşeri (2015), Çeviköz (2016), and Mustafayev (2016) revealed the relationship between the security of critical energy infrastructure and the country’s possibility to be an energy hub or corridor. Therefore, it is hypothesised that:

H2: The infrastructure and logistics facilities have a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH

Political and Economic Environment

Previous studies, such as Bilgin (2007), Doukas et al. (2010, 2011), analysed the effects of economic, geopolitical, political, and security indicators on being an energy corridor country. Other studies, like Lee et al. (2009), Coq and Paltseva (2009), studied the relationship between the political and economic environment and the development of global energy hubs. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3: The political and economic environment has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH

Geopolitical Position

Coşkun and Carlson (2010) affirmed the close relationship between geopolitics and energy. They agreed with Babali (2010) that the nation’s geopolitical policies towards neighbours have a significant impact on the nation’s transformation into an energy hub. Kakachia (2011) and Ibrayeva et al. (2017) also emphasised the relationship between geopolitical tension or conflicts and the risks of functioning or operating the transit energy corridor. Pourghasemi and Akhbari (2018) revealed the significance of the country’s geopolitical position on energy transportation and regional and international energy trade. Moreover, Erşen and Çelikpala (2019) elaborated on the influence of geopolitical factors and how they can strengthen or weaken the country’s position as a regional energy hub. Based on that, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

H4: The geopolitical position has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH

Cooperation and Interrelationships

Stegen (2015) studied and stressed the importance of cooperation in the energy field. Ozturk and Hepbasli (2003) also added that international cooperation is an important factor for acquiring more reliable energy supply policies. Babali (2010), Misiągiewicz (2012), and Çeviköz (2016) analysed the impact of energy cooperation and relations with nations on the energy transit routes and hubs. Raimbekov et al. (2017) proved that there is a positive relationship between the cooperation between participant nations in the international transport corridors, the implementation of export and transit transportation potential, and then the development of the transport and logistics centres. Consequently, the hypothesis can be proposed as follows:

H5: There is a significant impact of cooperation and interrelationships in establishing and operating a GEH

Level of Competitiveness

Lee et al. (2009) have evaluated the competitive position of GEHs for GEH location development. Raimbekov et al. (2017) also used competitiveness level as a key factor for the development of transport and logistics centres. Gokirmak (2017) showed the importance of market competitiveness in attracting investors to the energy sector. Thus, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

H6: The level Level of competitiveness has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH

Market Liberalisation

Coşkun and Carlson (2010) point out the importance of energy market liberalisation for hub developments. Winrow (2013) argues that a country needs to fully liberalise its local energy markets in order to become a trade hub. Gokirmak (2017) also highlighted the necessity for the state to adopt policies for energy market liberalisation that serve as transportation corridors and hubs. According to Yilmaz-Bozkus (2019), there is a relationship between the liberalisation of internal and international energy markets and the energy production operations, transport, distribution and trade. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H7: Market liberalisation has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH

Moderating Variables

Long-Term Agreements

Coşkun and Carlson (2010) affirmed that an energy hub country should have long-term agreements with oil and gas supplier states. Mustafayev (2016) and Sharify and Mokarrami (2016) proved the significance of agreements for energy transit projects and secure energy supplies. Hence, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

H8: Long-term agreements moderate the impact of the strategic requirements on establishing and operating a GEH

Investments

Stegen (2015) demonstrated the importance of investments in energy transportation. Mustafayev (2016) proved the relationship between investments in energy infrastructure. Raimbekov et al. (2017) emphasised the impact of investments on the deployment of transport and logistics centres. Therefore, it is hypothesised that:

H9: Investments moderate the impact of the strategic requirements on establishing and operating a GEH

Domestic Consumption

Gokirmak (2017), Ibrayeva et al. (2017), and Zhao et al. (2022) agree that controlling domestic energy consumption levels is a crucial and essential factor in energy trade and export. Energy-importing countries should work to lower their domestic consumption to reduce their energy imports and dependency, while energy-production, transit and hub countries also need to reduce their energy consumption for export markets. Therefore, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

H10: Domestic consumption moderates the impact of the strategic requirements on establishing and operating a GEH

Control Variables

Eriş (2009), Seljom and Rosenberg (2011), and Mustafayev (2016) argued that market uncertainty and environmental issues play a key role in the considerations of the energy industry. Doulah and Shafee (2016) studied the impacts of the Energy Charter Treaty on oil and gas transportation. İşeri (2015) emphasised that the status of the international energy order, or market, has a direct effect on all participants in the global energy system and their decisions. Mustafayev (2016) and Sharify and Mokarrami (2016) studied the relevance of legal and regulatory regimes in energy transit and protecting the rights of all energy collaboration partners. Gromule and Yatskiv (2007) and Trappey et al. (2011) demonstrated that information and technology shared between energy partners is a must for information and knowledge exchange. Accordingly, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H11: The control variables have a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH, as the following:

– H11.a: Market uncertainty has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH

– H11.b: There is a significant impact of the legal and regulatory framework on establishing and operating a GEH

– H11.c: There is a significant impact of the international energy market on establishing and operating a GEH

– H11.d: The Energy Charter Treaty has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH

– H11.e: There is a significant impact of environmental concerns on establishing and operating a GEH

– H11.f: Information sharing has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH

Interview Structure and Questionnaire Design

The interview consisted of three parts: the introduction, the interviewee’s data, and the interview questions. The interview is in English and Arabic, so interviewees can speak in their preferred language. The interview’s questions aimed to:

– Gain a practical understanding of the state of the Egyptian oil and gas sector.

– Understand how Egypt’s recent oil and gas production and discoveries affect imports, domestic consumption, the economy, and society.

– Recognise Egypt’s potential excess oil and gas exports, as well as initiatives to enhance production capacities.

– Understand the agreements and treaties pertaining to oil and gas exploration, production, and export, alongside Egypt’s initiatives to enhance cooperation and relations with other nations.

– Acquire understanding of the reform initiatives within the oil and gas sector, along with their significance and effects.

– Discuss the foreign partners’ participation in the Egyptian oil and gas sector and the capability to attract new foreign investments and contracts.

– Acknowledge the enhancement and advancement of the infrastructure and logistical capabilities within the oil and gas sector.

– Know the role of human resources in the oil and gas sector and their development strategies.

– Evaluate Egypt’s strides to become a GEH for oil and gas trading.

– Affirm the components and structure of the proposed theoretical framework.

Regarding the survey, the study adopted a quasi-structured questionnaire that includes a mixture of closed-ended questions, which constitute the majority, with a few open-ended questions. The questionnaire diversifies open-ended and closed-ended questions to gather the information that each part seeks and to provide respondents a chance to voice their ideas without making the survey too lengthy or tedious. Another important issue in questionnaire design was the format and wording of the question since they directly impact the validity and reliability of the questionnaire (Saunders et al., 2019; Sue & Ritter, 2012). Therefore, the questions were revised several times to eliminate any confusion or mystery and reduce the level of word difficulty by using simple and understandable words and terminologies. Moreover, the questions and statements were revised twice, during the interviews and in the pilot survey. At this stage, the researchers dedicated additional time to translating the questionnaire from English into Arabic in order to present it in the local language of the target respondents, thereby ensuring an acceptable response rate (Bourque & Fielder, 2003). A well-translated questionnaire is a very critical issue for research (Harkness, 2006). Therefore, the researchers translated all the questions twice from English into Arabic and translated them back into English to ensure the proper translation that reflects the conceptual equivalence across cultures, the semantic equivalence across languages, and the normative equivalence to the source questions.

It is worth noting that the target respondents answering the questionnaire are a certain group of employees of oil and gas companies operating in Egypt, such as senior employees, heads of departments, sector managers, upper-level management managers, and CEOs/owners.

The questionnaire was also divided into three main sections as follows:

Section A: General and Personal Information

The nine questions in this section are designed to gather general and personal information about the respondent and the business, such as the name of the business, its subordinates, its primary activity, years of experience, job title, and credentials. The employment of the respondent in one of the aforementioned occupations is crucial for meeting the sample’s conditions. Identifying the sector to which the organisation belongs is essential to meet the required sample sizes for each sector.

Section B: Requirements (Variables) of the Host/Candidate Country to be a GEH

The main purpose of this section was to measure the nation’s readiness to be a GEH for oil and gas with an application to Egypt. The section includes four types of variables: seven independent variables, one dependent variable, three moderating variables, and six control variables. Each variable was measured by at least four closed-ended items or statements for the dependent and independent variables and three closed-ended questions for the moderating variables using a seven-point Likert scale. Answering the questionnaire with the targeted sample reflected their perceptions about the potential of Egypt to transform into a global energy hub. Acceptance or approval of the statements provided implies that the participant sees whether Egypt can be converted into a GEH for oil and gas or not. The variables’ conceptualisation and statements are adapted and developed from the previous literature, as presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Variables Conceptualisation and Statements Used to Assess the Ability to Establish and Operate a GEH.

V	Conceptualisation	Items/statements	Ref.
1. Independent variables
Geographical Location	It assesses how strategic the geographical location of the host country is (Uyanik et al., 2018), through which large flows of transit oil and gas can be transported (Raimbekov et al., 2017).	GL1: Egypt is located in a strategic and pivotal geographical position.	Gromule and Yatskiv (2007), Lee et al. (2009), Wanitwattanakosol et al. (2010), Erkayman et al. (2011), Eryürük et al. (2012), Misiągiewicz (2012), Tomić et al. (2014), Stević et al. (2015), Çeviköz (2016), Uyanik et al. (2018), Yilmaz-Bozkus (2019)
		GL2: Egypt is rich in natural resources and reserves, especially oil and gas.
		GL3: Egypt is located in proximity to -oil and gas producing and -exporting countries.
		GL4: Egypt is located in proximity to -oil and gas-consuming and importing countries.
		GL5: Egypt lies on the main transportation routes for oil and gas.
		GL6: The geographical location of Egypt allows it to be easily connected with international transportation systems.
Infrastructure and Logistics Facilities	This criterion assesses the availability and quality of infrastructure and logistics facilities necessary for the flow, transport, and storage of oil and gas throughout the territory of a nation (Uyanik et al., 2018; Winrow, 2013).	LF1: Egypt has the necessary infrastructure in the oil and gas sector, such as pipelines, oil and gas platforms and refineries, compressor and liquefaction stations, reprocessing facilities, etc.	Wang and Liu (2007), Ghoseiri and Lessan (2008), Chen et al. (2014), Uyanik (2016)
		LF2: Egypt has adequate logistics facilities for transporting and storing oil and gas, such as trains, trucks, storage units and warehouses, terminals and seaports, etc.
		LF3: The infrastructure facilities in the Egyptian oil and gas sector are well-developed and have adequate capabilities.
		LF4: The Egyptian government supports the investment in oil and gas infrastructure and facilities projects.
		LF5: The Egyptian state takes security and preventive measures to protect the infrastructure and facilities of oil and gas.
Political and Economic Environments	It is related to how healthy and reliable the business environment is. It includes the political and economic environment, stability, safety and security and resilience to risks, which attract foreign energy investors and secure their investments (Kakachia, 2011; Tagliapietra, 2013; Uyanik et al., 2018).	EN1: The political environment in Egypt is fairly stable and effective.	Kayikci (2010), Eryürük et al. (2012), Onder and Yıldırım (2014), Yilmaz-Bozkus (2019)
		EN2: The economic environment in Egypt is fairly stable and strong.
		EN3: The business environment in Egypt’s oil and gas sector is stable and reliable.
		EN4: The business environment in Egypt’s oil and gas sector is resilient to risks.
		EN5: The business environment in Egypt’s oil and gas sector can attract foreign investors and secure their investments.
Geopolitical Position	It evaluates foreign policy and political leadership policies and movements towards the neighbours and other nations (Coşkun & Carlson, 2010) to expand the nation’s importance and influence (Yilmaz-Bozkus, 2019).	GP1: Egypt has strategic weight at the regional and international levels.	Kayikci (2010), Eryürük et al. (2012)
		GP2: Egyptian foreign policy focuses on enhancing partnerships and achieving balance in international relations with other nations.
		GP3: Egypt seeks to join regional and international alliances and conglomerates.
		GP4: Egypt plays the role of mediator in solving many foreign policy issues.
		GP5: Egypt has strong political mobilisation and support from its neighbours.
Cooperation and Interrelationships	This factor is related to using energy to promote cooperation and deepen relations between the hub country and other states (Babali, 2010).	CI1: Egypt seeks to enhance cooperation and deepen mutual relations with the world’s nations, especially in the energy fields.	İşeri (2015), Raimbekov et al. (2017), Yilmaz-Bozkus (2019), Prabhu et al. (2024)
		CI2: Egypt works to build bridges of trust and understanding with other nations, particularly in the energy fields.
		CI3: Egypt is keen to establish a balanced international cooperation environment with other nations, especially in the energy fields.
		CI4: Egypt participates in developing and implementing common foreign trade policies, especially in the energy fields.
Level of Competitiveness	The state’s competitive position and its sustainable competitive advantages in the global energy market will attract customers (Lee et al., 2009).	LC1: Egypt has sustainable international competitive advantages in the oil and gas market regarding physical, financial and human, production and operational, and investment factors.	Boile et al. (2010), Erkayman et al. (2011), Regmi and Hanaoka (2013), Önden et al. (2016), Peker et al. (2016), Uyanik (2016)
		LC2: Egypt has a strong competitive position in the regional and international oil and gas market.
		LC3: Egypt adopts the development of competitive strategies in the oil and gas sector to attract investors and customers.
		LC4: Egypt is continuously working to improve the competitiveness level of the oil and gas sector.
Market Liberalisation	The procedures and reforms implemented to liberalise the energy sector and create a competitive, free and transparent energy market that would increase the competition and protect consumers’ rights (Yilmaz-Bozkus, 2019).	ML1: The Egyptian government adopts reform programmes to liberalise the oil and gas market, like adapting its laws and legislation, and liberalisation economic systems and pricing policies.	Bilgin (2010), Batten (2015), İşeri (2015), Çeviköz (2016), Firat (2016), Bridge et al. (2018)
		ML2: The Egyptian government implements many mechanisms and policies to create a competitive, free and transparent market in the petroleum and gas sectors.
		ML3: The Egyptian government works to increase private sector participation in the oil and gas market.
		ML4: The Egyptian government works to create an investor-friendly oil and gas market.
2. Independent variable
Establishing and Operating a GEH	The establishment and operation of a global energy hub involves linking energy-exporting and consuming countries, integrating the operations of purchasing, transportation, storage, reprocessing, liquefaction, re-exporting, and other value-added activities of oil and gas (Altundeğer, 2015; Lee, 2007).	EH1: The success of establishing and operating a global energy hub depends on the quality of the services it provides.	Hammad et al. (2021, 2022, 2023)
		EH2: The success of establishing and operating a global energy hub depends on the prices of the services it provides.
		EH3: The success of establishing and operating a global energy hub relies on the sustainability and dependence of oil and gas supply.
		EH4: The success of establishing and operating a global energy hub relies on performing the operations efficiently and effectively.
		EH5: The success of establishing and operating a global energy hub depends on the efficiency of the human resources in it.
3. Moderating variables
Long-term agreements	Parties enter into agreements and contracts to secure and protect their oil and gas supplies and investments over an extended period.	LTA1: Long-term agreements and contracts play an important role in protecting and securing the interests of the parties involved in establishing and operating a global energy hub.	Eriş (2009), Babali (2010), Mustafayev (2016)
		LTA2: Long-term agreements and contracts achieve stability and continuity for the parties involved in establishing and operating a global energy hub.
		LTA3: Long-term agreements and contracts have an important role in enhancing and strengthening the partnership between the parties involved in establishing and operating a global energy hub.
Investments	The establishment and operation of a global energy hub requires a significant amount of financing.	INV1: Establishing and operating a global energy hub requires huge investment costs.	Coşkun and Carlson (2010), Stegen (2015), Yilmaz-Bozkus (2019)
		INV2: The investment in establishing and operating a global energy hub is expected to achieve significant investment returns.
		INV3: Establishing and operating a global energy hub is an incentive for investment by investors.
Domestic Consumption	All measures taken by countries to control their domestic oil and gas consumption.	DOC1: The volume of domestic consumption of oil and gas affects the efficiency of establishing and operating a global energy hub.	Ozturk and Hepbasli (2003), Kiliç (2006), Coşkun and Carlson (2010), Gokirmak (2017)
		DOC2: The availability of alternative energy sources affects the establishment and operation of a global energy hub.
		DOC3: The implementation of energy conservation policies affects the establishment and operation of a global energy hub.
4. Control variables
Market Uncertainty	The uncertainty in the oil and gas market, particularly in terms of supply and investment, is a significant factor.	ECO1: The uncertainty associated with the oil and gas market affects the establishment and operation of a global energy hub.	Eriş (2009), Seljom and Rosenberg (2011), Mustafayev (2016)
Legal and Regulatory Framework	The existence of a transparent and secure legislative framework protects all partners’ rights and determines terms and regulations in light of international frameworks and standards.	ECO2: Having a legal framework that governs and regulates transactions between the participating nations and parties in the oil and gas market in light of international frameworks and standards, affects the establishment and operation of a global energy hub.	Doulah and Shafee (2016), Mustafayev (2016)
International Energy Market	The international energy market/order undergoes constant transformations and changes.	ECO3: The changes occurring in the international energy market affect the establishment and operation of a global energy hub.	İşeri (2015)
Energy Charter Treaty	The Energy Charter Treaty promotes energy cooperation and security, and the importance of adapting nations’ national laws to the treaty.	ECO4: The rules of the Energy Charter Treaty bind the establishment and operation of a global energy hub.	Doulah and Shafee (2016)
Environmental Concerns	Environmental protection encompasses all aspects involved in oil and gas projects	ECO5: The establishment and operation of a global energy hub should consider the aspects related to environmental protection.	Eriş (2009), Seljom and Rosenberg (2011), Mustafayev (2016)
Information Sharing	Use information exchange mechanisms with all actors to ensure information transparency	ECO6: Transparent information-sharing mechanisms among all parties in the oil and gas market influence the establishment and operation of a global energy hub	Gromule and Yatskiv (2007), Trappey et al. (2011)

Section C: Open-Ended Questions

The section included five questions designed to evaluate the Egyptian oil and gas sector, assess Egypt’s readiness to become a GEH, and offer an overview of the obstacles that hinder Egypt from achieving this goal. Likewise, the last open-ended question asked the respondents if they recommended or suggested other factors or requirements that could contribute to turning Egypt into a GEH.

Empirical Analysis and Findings

In order to assess the Egyptian oil and gas market and identify the internal and external surroundings of the Egyptian oil and gas industry, a qualitative content analysis was conducted on the interviewees’ responses in addition to pertinent literature. The analysis resulted in the SWOT matrix for the state of the industry as presented in Table 2, providing researchers with a comprehensive understanding of the current situation and key factors involved in planning and decision-making in the Egyptian oil and gas sector.

Table 2.

Summary of the Internal and External Environment Analysis of Egypt’s Oil and Gas Industry.

Strengths	Weaknesses
– The Egyptian oil and gas sector has accumulated knowledge and experience over the years.– Large oil and gas infrastructure and facilities, as well as plans to modernise and develop them.– Well-educated and trained human competencies and contact with foreign partners.– Strict adherence to the core value of the sector.– The increasing use of technologies and information systems.– The sector actively contributes to the national economy.	– Overstaffing in the Egyptian oil and gas sector.– Slouching of the human resource management system and weak structure and governance.– Lack of self-sufficiency in oil.– Limited search, discoveries, and development outputs.– The relatively low financial performance and the moderate financial efficiency rate of the Ministry of Petroleum.
Opportunities	Threats
– The unique geographical location of Egypt.– Availability of huge discoverable reserves of oil and gas resources in Egypt.– Lack of reliable alternative energy sources to replace oil and gas worldwide.– Upwards trends of digitalisation and information technology in the sector.– Egyptian open trade policy and good international relations.	– Continuous population growth and the inability to rationalise domestic consumption.– High bargaining power of buyers in the oil and natural gas industry.– Increase environmental protection regulations.– Intense competition between existing countries in the global oil and gas market and the possibility of new entrants or potential competitors.– Global political and geopolitical changes.– Global economic threats and changes in the exchange rates.– Disruption and confusion in the global energy supply chain and its concentration in specific regions.– Global price hikes for goods and services.– The relatively high tax rate for the Egyptian oil and gas sector.– Lack of knowledge and practical developments, and transfer of experiences between countries in the areas of new energy transformation and development.

The survey analysis and results using SPSS and SmartPLS software are presented as follows.

Descriptive Statistics

This section includes the descriptive analysis of the respondents’ profiles and presents the descriptive analysis of the research variables.

The results showed around 50.9% of the respondents work in private sector companies; the foreign sector and shared sector have percentages of 18.9% and 17%, respectively. Conversely, the ministry’s holding companies employ 9.4% of the respondents, while the public sector employs only 3.8%. The activities of the participating companies included 72 different fields, the majority of which work in exploration and production operations. The responses revealed that the participants had the most years of experience, with five respondents each having 18, 15, and 13 years of experience, and all were familiar with the concept of an energy hub nation. The position/title of those employees: 22 respondents (41.5%) were sector managers, 13 (24.5%) worked at upper-level management, 9 (17%) were senior employees, 6 respondents were heads of departments (11.3%), and only 3 were CEOs/owners (5.7%). Regarding the overall evaluation of the Egyptian oil and gas sector, about 41.5% of respondents rated it as very good and 34.0% as good, while “excellent” and “fair” took the lowest percentages with 13.2% and 11.3%, respectively. In terms of Egypt’s readiness to be a GEH, around 37, or 69.8%, of respondents believe Egypt is ready, but some actions still need to be taken. Around 12 respondents see that Egypt is ready, whereas only four respondents say it is not ready yet.

Measurement Model Analysis

This section shows the data measure’s reliability and validity to ensure the instruments’ appropriateness for the application. Convergent and discriminant validity were used to test the constructs’ validity, while Cronbach’s alpha was used to confirm the consistency of the statements used to measure a particular construct.

The study employed Fornell-Larcker to assess discriminant validity. Fornell and Larcker’s (Fornell & Larcker, 1981) approach for assessing the discriminant validity relies on the root of the average variance extracted (AVE) in each latent variable. The square root of the AVE is compared to the correlation of latent constructs with this technique. A latent construct’s variance should be explained better than the variance of other latent constructs. Hence, the square root of the AVE of each construct should be more relevant than its connections with other latent constructs (Aljarallah et al., 2024). Table 3 shows the discriminant validity of the study, where it can be concluded that all constructs’ square roots of AVE are more significant than their correlation coefficients.

Table 3.

Correlation Coefficient Between the Research Variables.

Construct		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	CI	.930
2	EH	.814	.898
3	GL	.662	.808	.899
4	GP	.795	.891	.771	.912
5	LC	.720	.799	.708	.750	.919
6	ML	.676	.749	.759	.793	.653	.911
7	LF	.536	.779	.667	.739	.685	.704	.891
8	EN	.728	.833	.723	.752	.727	.688	.668	.883

Moreover, convergent validity measures how many variants share concept indicators (J. F. Hair et al., 2021). The AVE influences convergent validity, according to J. Hair et al. (2017), from which the constructs of 0.5 or greater average variance AVE should be extracted.

On the other hand, Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability measure each factor using words demonstrating how consistently and steadily the tool taps the variable. The alpha coefficient ranges from 0 to 1, with higher values denoting more reliability. Alpha and composite reliability coefficients greater than or equal to 0.7 suggest a suitable level of reliability.

Table 4 presents the AVE, Cronbach’s alpha, and composite reliability of research constructs. The table shows that all AVE values are over 0.5, meaning all research variables are valid. In addition, all the values of Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability are greater than 0.7, which refers to the reliability of all the research variables.

Table 4.

Convergent Validity and Composite Reliability of Research Construction.

Construct	Convergent validity (AVE)	Reliability
Construct	Convergent validity (AVE)	Composite reliability (CR)	Cronbach’s alpha
GL	0.808	0.962	0.952
LF	0.795	0.951	0.935
EN	0.779	0.946	0.929
GP	0.832	0.961	0.949
CI	0.865	0.962	0.948
LC	0.845	0.956	0.939
ML	0.829	0.951	0.932
EH	0.806	0.944	0.926

Furthermore, the variance of the model in each construct is calculated by measuring the coefficients of determination of the dependent variables (R-square “R²”). Tests also include the effect size (F-square, “F²”) that represents the impact of each external latent construct on the endogenous latent construct. When an independent construct is removed from the path model, the coefficient of determination R² changes, and it is determined whether the removed latent exogenous construct has a substantial impact on the latent endogenous construct. The F² values of 0.35 refer to a strong impact, 0.15 means a moderate effect, and 0.02 suggests a weak effect. The results of the R² and F² analyses are shown in Table 5, where the effect size of all the variables is moderate, except for the level of competitiveness, which is weak.

Table 5.

F-square (Effect Size) and R-square.

Construct		Establishing and operating a GEH (EH)
F-square (effect size)	GL	0.086
	LF	0.158
	EN	0.122
	GP	0.186
	CI	0.131
	LC	0.013
	ML	0.032
R-square		.899
Adjusted R-square		.883

Structural Model Analysis

This section employs correlation and structural equation modelling (SEM) analyses to test the hypotheses under study.

The non-parametric Spearman correlation test was used to verify the relationship between the research variables. The results of the correlation analysis showed a positive significant correlation between all independent variables and the dependent variable (EH). The correlation coefficients were GL = .878, LF = .878, EN = .888, GP = .874, CI = .889, LC = .888, and ML = .879. Regarding the moderating variables, it is observed that all variables (GL, LF, EN, GP, CI, LC, ML, and EH) have a negative significant correlation with the long-term agreement (LTA) equal to −.584, −.530, −.540, −.561, −.551, −.576, −.584, and −.614, respectively. For the investments (INV) as a moderator, it is proved that the relationship between all variables (GL, LF, EN, GP, CI, LC, ML, and EH) with the INV were also significant negative correlations, where the correlation coefficient was, respectively, −.677, −.631, −.688, −.640, −.721, −.702, −.623, and −.747. Concerning domestic consumption (DOC) as the third moderation, it is concluded that there is a negative significant correlation between all variables and DOC, and the correlation coefficients were GL = −.794, LF = −0.779, EN = −0.597, GP = −0.625, CI = −0.597, LC = −0.755, ML = −0.661, and EH = −0.770. In terms of control variables, the correlation test revealed positive significant correlations between all control variables (ECO1:ECO6) and the dependent variable (EH). The correlation coefficients for ECO1 were .922, ECO2 was .958, ECO3 was .935, ECO4 was .947, ECO5 was .887, and ECO6 was .875 when compared to the EH.

After presenting the correlation analysis results, this section discusses the results of testing the research hypotheses through SEM analysis. Table 6 shows the SEM analysis for the impact of the research variables. The following results can be concluded:

Table 6.

SEM Results of Main Hypotheses Testing.

Hypothesis	T-value	Estimate	P-value	Results
GL → EH	2.144	0.168	.033	Accepted
LF → EH	2.488	0.215	.013	Accepted
EN → EH	2.224	0.197	.027	Accepted
GP → EH	2.775	0.316	.006	Accepted
CI → EH	2.437	0.216	.015	Accepted
LC → EH	0.833	0.065	.405	Rejected
ML → EH	1.229	−0.105	.220	Rejected

For hypothesis H1, there is a positive significant effect of GL on EH, as the P-value is lower than .05 (equals .033) and the estimate is .168. Thus, the hypothesis (H1) is supported.

For hypothesis H2, it can be concluded that there is a significant positive effect of LF on EH, as the P-value is below .05 (equal to .013), and the estimate is .215. Based on this result, the hypothesis (H2) is supported.

For the H3, there is a positive significant effect of EN on EH, where the P-value is .027, that is, less than .05, and the estimate is .027. Therefore, the hypothesis (H3) is also supported.

Regarding hypothesis H4, there is a positive significant effect of GP on EH, as the P-value is lower than .05 (.006) and the estimate is .316. Hence, the hypothesis (H4) is supported.

As for hypothesis H5, it can be noted that there is a positive significant effect of CI on EH, as the P-value is less than .05 (equals .015) and the estimates are .216. Based on that, hypothesis (H5) is supported.

For hypothesis H6, it can be observed that there is an insignificant effect of LC on EH, where the P-value exceeds .05 (equals .405). Accordingly, the hypothesis (H6) is not supported.

For hypothesis H7, there is an insignificant effect of ML on EH, as the P-value exceeds .05 (equal to .220). Based on that, the hypothesis (H7) is not supported.

Based on the standardised regression weights in Figure 2, the relative importance of the independent variables in terms of their importance for establishing and operating an EH showed that GP ranked first at 2.775, followed by LF with 2.448, then CI at 2.437, EN = 2.224, GL = 2.144, ML = 1.229, and LC with 0.833.

Figure 2.

Standardised regression weights for the research model.

Regarding the SEM of the moderation effect of the moderating variables, the analysis observed an insignificant moderation role of the LTA, INV, and DOC in the relationships between all independent variables and the dependent variable. Accordingly, the hypotheses H8, H9, and H10 are not supported.

Lastly, the SEM analysis of the control variables indicated that the market uncertainty (ECO1) has a positive significant effect on EH at a P-value of .010, and the estimate is .259. The legal and regulatory framework (ECO2) and the international energy market (ECO3) have an insignificant effect on EH, with the corresponding p-values for the interaction variable being 0.082 and 0.227, respectively. Therefore, H11.b and H11.c are not supported. Moreover, the SEM analysis of the energy charter treaty (ECO4) shows a significant effect of ECO4 on EH, where the corresponding P-value for the interaction variable is .039 and the estimate is .368. Hence, H11.d is supported. For the environmental aspects (ECO5) and information sharing (ECO6) as control variables, there is an insignificant effect of ECO5 and ECO6 on EH, where the corresponding P-value for ECO5 is .494 and .988 for ECO6. Thus, H11.e and H11.f are also not supported. As a result, it can be concluded that the overall hypothesis (H11) is partially supported.

A summary of the hypothesis testing is provided in Table 7. It can be concluded that H1, H2, H3, H4, and H5 were supported, whereas H6 and H17 were not supported. On the other hand, H8, H9, and H10 were not supported. Furthermore, H11 was partially supported, as H11.b, H11.c, H11.e, and H11.f were not supported, while H11.a and H11.d were supported.

Table 7.

Summary of Hypothesis Testing.

V	H	Description	Results^a
Independent Variables	H1	There is a significant impact of the geographical location on establishing and operating a GEH.	Supported
	H2	The infrastructure and logistics facilities have a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH.	Supported
	H3	The political and economic environment has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH.	Supported
	H4	The geopolitical position has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH.	Supported
	H5	There is a significant impact of cooperation and interrelationships in establishing and operating a GEH.	Supported
	H6	Level of competitiveness has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
	H7	Market liberalisation has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
Moderating Variables	H8	Long-term agreements moderate the impact of the strategic requirements on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
	H9	Investments moderate the impact of the strategic requirements on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
	H10	Domestic consumption moderates the impact of the strategic requirements on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
Control Variables	H11.a	Market uncertainty has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH.	Supported
	H11.b	There is a significant impact of the legal and regulatory framework on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
	H11.c	There is a significant impact of the international energy market on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
	H11.d	The Energy Charter Treaty has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH.	Supported
	H11.e	There is a significant impact of environmental concerns on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
	H11.f	Information sharing has a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH.	Not Supported
	H11	The control variables have a significant impact on establishing and operating a GEH	Partially Supported

Dependent Variable: Establishing and Operating a GEH.

These findings support previous research on the complexity of becoming a GEH by Hammad et al. (2021). The results reinforce the significant influence of geographical location, infrastructure, and geopolitical alignment on establishing and operating GEHs, in line with previous studies. However, this study adds empirical depth by confirming these variables. The findings also reveal a relative lack of market liberalisation and competitiveness in comparison to political considerations, suggesting that developing countries may prioritise physical and diplomatic preparedness over regulatory maturity in the early stages of hub development. This information is critical for politicians and investors assessing the sequence of changes and investments.

The finding that infrastructure and geopolitical positioning are key critical strategic requirements aligns with recent research, such as (Fayyaz, 2023; Novikau & Muhasilović, 2023; Rentschler et al., 2025), which emphasises the strategic importance of the geopolitical significance and infrastructure in the hub development. Moreover, Muhammad (2023) and Hussain et al. (2024) stressed the relationship between hub development and strengthening strategic cooperation and relationships between countries. In addition to strengthening ties, Sharif and Mansoor (2025) also concluded that the development of a trade corridor, or hub, is highly related to economic, political, and social environments. Hence, these perspectives collectively reinforce the validity of this study’s findings and extend their applicability.

While the study’s findings are based on empirical data from the Egyptian context, the identified strategic requirements are applicable to other countries with similar characteristics and ambitions to become global energy hubs. Accordingly, the findings are reasonably generalisable, especially to similar countries in the MENA region or other transit-orientated energy markets.

Discussions and Implications

Considering the previous results and based on the Egyptian context, it can be concluded that the primary requirements for establishing and operating a GEH are geographical location, infrastructure and logistics facilities, political and economic environment, geopolitical position, and cooperation and interrelationships, as these variables showed significant relationships with the establishment and operation of GEH.

Despite the lack of support for some hypothesised relationships, like competitiveness and market liberalisation, the findings validate the majority of the conceptual framework. While competition and market liberalisation were originally hypothesised as significant strategic requirements for GEH development, the empirical results do not support their influence in the Egyptian context. These findings may be attributed to the nature and structure of Egypt’s oil and gas industry, which remains largely state-driven, since regulatory structures and competitive dynamics are still evolving. In such environments, infrastructure and geopolitical alignment may outweigh liberalisation as key drivers. However, these requirements could be reconsidered in the future as the private, investment, and foreign sectors gain more participation, or as the Egyptian oil and gas sector expands globally.

Additionally, the moderating factors—long-term agreements, investments, and domestic consumption—had also minimal effect on the linkages between the logistics requirements and setting up and running a GEH. The non-significance of moderating effects could indicate a relatively stable policy environment or limited institutional responsiveness to external pressures. These findings align with emerging literature on energy governance in transitional economies, where structural transformation often precedes full market openness or competitive dynamics.

Accordingly, the applied framework has been developed in Figure 3 after removing the variables that showed insignificant impacts on establishing and operating GEH. The applied framework includes five dependent variables that represent the requirements: geographical location, infrastructure and logistics facilities, political and economic environment, geopolitical position, and cooperation and interrelationships. Additionally, it contains two control variables—market uncertainty and the Energy Charter Treaty—and one independent variable: establishing and operating a GEH.

Figure 3.

Applied model.

The participants listed few difficulties that Egypt faces as a GEH in the Egyptian setting. They emphasised that the primary issues are internal in nature and essentially managerial, technical, and economic. They also note that one of Egypt’s most significant challenges to becoming GEH is the restricted production and availability of gas and oil, particularly given the country’s inadequate reliance on alternative and renewable energy sources and its steadily rising domestic consumption. Additional challenges arise from the state’s inability to attract investments, the volatility of the economy, established routines, and poor governance. Participants noted that the country must build additional infrastructure soon because the Egyptian oil and gas sector lacks specialist facilities and infrastructure. They also brought up other issues, like the lack of a contemporary legislative framework for foreign commerce and investment. Furthermore, the Egyptian oil and gas industry has a significant need for administrative and logistical skills despite its highly skilled workforce. In addition to the oil and gas industry’s gradual digital transformation, the country lacks contemporary technologies in this field. Finally, some respondents believe that Egypt’s poor foreign policy and its incapacity to collaborate with other countries and form regional and global alliances are the main causes of the problem.

In light of the respondents’ perspectives, researchers proposed remedies and a plan of action to get over these challenges. Egypt must increase its investments and draw in more capital in all sectors of renewable and non-renewable energy, according to most respondents. Additionally, the search, exploration, and production of oil and gas operations require special attention. Rehabilitating and preparing the entire investment environment in terms of organisational, legal, and economic factors is also necessary. Offering alluring incentives for investment, being more accommodating and lowering obstacles for investors, encouraging and expanding the involvement of the private and investment sectors, establishing a clear and stable business environment, modifying management policies and terms, and revising certain investment laws and regulations are all ways the Egyptian government can try to improve the overall investment environment. The Egyptian government should also adopt a bold strategy to diversify its energy mix and reduce local consumption. Such an outcome is achieved by raising public and consumer awareness and establishing a clear, shared vision across government agencies for the best use of energy resources. Regarding economic issues, Egypt must create a well-defined economic strategy based on the interests of the state, forge solid business partnerships, refrain from government intervention in the economy, boost exports while lowering imports, and maintain a stable exchange rate. Moreover, to comply with international regulations, Egypt must also enact some legal changes in the areas of trade and investment in general, particularly in the energy industry. Expanding Egypt’s role both regionally and internationally, as well as fostering collaboration and relationships with other countries, should be the goals of Egyptian foreign policy. Egypt’s oil and gas industry needs some internal development and reorganisation. The work and promotion system can be improved, governance mechanisms can be introduced, staff efficiency can be raised through training and technology and expertise sharing with foreigners, and dependence on information systems and technology may be increased.

These implications are important for supporting the development and operation of GEH. The study’s findings have unique implications for various stakeholder groups. For policymakers, the findings illustrate the importance of investing in infrastructure and fostering geopolitical partnerships to strengthen the country’s positioning as an EH. Energy companies can use the identified strategic criteria to better match their operations and investment plans with energy hub objectives. The study stressed to regulators the importance of developing flexible, transparent legal frameworks that attract investors. Investors could also use the findings to assess preparedness and strategic risk in energy-related ventures. Finally, the study offers researchers a validated framework for implementation and testing in various sectors and geographic contexts.

Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Work

The study identified and empirically verified seven strategic requirements for establishing and operating GEHs, with data drawn from the Egyptian oil and gas sector. The research results point out the importance of geographical location, infrastructure and logistics facilities, political and economic environment, geopolitical position, and cooperation and interrelationships for the establishment and operation of GEHs. The study also highlighted some managerial, technical, economic, and technological elements that could enhance the framework’s application in the Egyptian context.

Based on these findings, the following recommendations are proposed. For policymakers, prioritise infrastructure investments, strengthen geopolitical alliances that enhance energy hub positioning, and promote integrated energy strategies among neighbours to leverage shared infrastructure and improve hub connectivity. Energy regulators should implement transparent, adaptable regulatory frameworks to attract foreign energy players and facilitate competitive energy exchange mechanisms. Investors can also match their investment plans with hub development objectives, focussing on strategic assets including infrastructure and facilities for storage, processing, and re-export. These guidelines may help inform both energy planning and the larger literature on energy hub development.

Like any other research study, this study came with some limitations and challenges. It focussed mainly on the energy hub country rather than the transit, corridor, or centre countries. The study also dealt with oil and gas resources without other energy sources. Additionally, the proposed framework in this study addressed establishing and operating GEH at the strategic level. Therefore, more studies can be done to put this framework into practice and expand on it in order to break down the technical or operational components using different factors and viewpoints. Moreover, although the survey achieved a 60% response rate, the potential for nonresponse bias cannot be fully excluded, which may limit the representativeness of the findings. The framework can be adapted and used in various contexts, even if the empirical study was done in Egypt. This provides opportunities for the application of the framework in various countries and areas.

The suggested methodology can be used and tested in future studies by other countries looking to set up or run energy hubs using the same scientific processes. The proposed architecture has the potential to improve the efficiency of energy supply chains and the overall performance of energy hubs. Future studies can evaluate its applicability to different countries and examine how much the proposed approach can enhance energy flow and sustainability. Furthermore, we can use the results of this study to develop criteria and key performance indicators (KPIs) for analysing and evaluating the performance of energy hubs. Building on the suggested strategic framework, further studies might concentrate on the operational and technical elements required to create and run energy hubs. More research is needed to adapt and verify the proposed framework with other energy sources, such as electricity and renewable energy, especially green hydrogen.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank all participants of this study. The authors would like to thank the reviewers and editor for their careful and thoughtful comments.

ORCID iD

Mahmoud A. Hammad

Ethical Considerations

This study did not involve any procedures requiring formal ethical approval. However, all procedures involving human participants were conducted in accordance with recognised ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

All interview participants were adult professionals who voluntarily participated after being informed of the study’s purpose, data usage, their right to withdraw at any time, and the measures implemented to ensure anonymity and confidentiality.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

Akyener

Apaydin

(2016). Comments on the role of Turkey as an Energy Center. Energy Policy Turkey, 1(1), 32–41.

Aljarallah

M. Alsugair

Almohsen

Al-Gahtani

. (2024). Identifying the significant causes of waste of housing infrastructure projects in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Alexandria Engineering Journal, 86, 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.11.063

Altundeğer

(2015). A dream coming true? Turkey becoming an energy hub [Paper presentation]. International Academic Conference Proceedings.

Aykin

S. M.

Tache

Karaman

A. B.

(2017). Energy Policy of the EU and the role of Turkey in Energy Supply security. Bulletin of the Transilvania University, 10(58), 287–302.

Babali

(2010). Regional Energy Equations and Turkish foreign policy: The Middle East and the CIS. Insight Turkey, 12(3), 147–168. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26334110

Batten

(2015). Turkey as an Energy Hub for the Southern Gas Corridor. SEER Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, 17(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.5771/1435-2869-2014-2-193

Bilgin

(2007). New Prospects in the political economy of inner-Caspian hydrocarbons and western energy corridor through Turkey. Energy Policy, 35(12), 6383–6394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.06.011

Bilgin

(2010). Turkey’s energy strategy: What difference does it make to become an energy transit corridor, hub or center? UNISCI Discussion Papers, 23, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.5209/REV_UNIS.2010.N23.28134

Boile

Theofanis

Gilbert

(2010). Feasibility of freight villages in the NYMTC Region (pp. 11–15). The State University of New Jersey.

10.

Bourque

L. B.

Fielder

E. P.

(2003). How to conduct self-administered and mail surveys (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

11.

Bridge

Özkaynak

Turhan

(2018). Energy Infrastructure and the fate of the Nation: Introduction to Special Issue. Energy Research & Social Science, 41, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.04.0292018.

12.

Çeviköz

. (2016). Could Turkey become a new energy trade hub in South East Europe? Turkish Policy Quarterly (TPQ), 15(2), 67–76.

13.

Chen

K. H.

Liao

C. N.

L. C.

(2014). A selection model to logistic centers based on TOPSIS and MCGP methods: The case of airline industry. Journal Applied Mathematics, 2014, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/470128

14.

Coq

Paltseva

(2009). Measuring the security of External Energy Supply in the European Union. Energy Policy, 37(11), 4474–4481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.069

15.

Coşkun

B. B.

Carlson

(2010). New energy geopolitics: Why does Turkey matter? Insight Turkey, 12(3), 205–220.

16.

Doukas

Flamos

Karakosta

Flouri

Psarras

(2010). Web tool for the quantification of oil and gas corridors’ socio-economic risks: The case of Greece. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 4(2), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506221011058704

17.

Doukas

Karakosta

Flamos

Flouri

Psarras

(2011). Graph theory-based approach for Energy Corridors Network to Greece. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 5(1), 60–80. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506221111120901

18.

Doulah

Shafee

(2016). Study of the legal regime of oil and gas transit in Energy Charter Treaty and Law of Iran. Journal of Politics and Law, 9(5), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v9n5p194

19.

Ekram

El-Gazzar

S. H.

Mesmary

H. E.

(2023). Investigating the impact of COVID-19 on the oil and gas supply chain in the Middle East: A case study of Egypt cases on International Business Logistics in the Middle East (pp. 128–142). IGI Global Scientific Publishing.

20.

El Sakty

. (2023). The role of logistics in international crises and challenges. International Business Logistics, 3(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.21622/IBL.2023.03.1.027

21.

Eriş

Ö. Ü

. (2009). The European Union’s Energy Security within the framework of Turkish membership. Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, 20(3–4), 283–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/02601079X09002000306

22.

Erkayman

Gundogar

Akkaya

Ipek

(2011). A Fuzzy Topsis approach for Logistics Center Location Selection. Journal of Business Case Studies (JBCS), 7(3), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.19030/jbcs.v7i3.4263

23.

Erşen

Çelikpala

(2019). Turkey and the changing energy geopolitics of Eurasia. Energy Policy, 128, 584–592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.01.036

24.

Eryürük

S. H.

Kalaoğlu

Baskak

(2012). A site selection model for establishing A clothing logistics center. Textile and Apparel, 22(1), 40–47.

25.

Etikan

Musa

S. A.

Alkassim

R. S.

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

26.

Fayyaz

(2023). China Pakistan Economic Corridor: Pakistan’s Geopolitical Standing between the US and China. Grassroots, 57(1), 1–15.

27.

Fink

(2003). How to sample in surveys (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

28.

Firat

(2016). “The most eastern of the west, the most Western of the East”: Energy-transport infrastructures and regional politics of the periphery in Turkey. Economic Anthropology, 3(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/sea2.12046

29.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

30.

Ghoseiri

Lessan

(2008). Location selection for logistic centers using a two- step fuzzy-AHP and ELECTRE method [Paper presentation]. 9th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Conference.

31.

Gokirmak

(2017). The energy policies for a sustainable economic growth in Turkey. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 7(1), 55–61.

32.

Gromule

Yatskiv

(2007). Coach terminal as important element of transport infrastructure. Transport, 22(3), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2007.9638125

33.

Guo

F.-F.

Huang

C.-F.

X.-L.

(2019). Strategic analysis on the construction of New Energy Corridor China–Pakistan–Iran–Turkey. Energy Reports, 5, 828–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.06.007

34.

Hair

Hollingsworth

C. L.

Randolph

A. B.

Chong

A. Y. L.

(2017). An updated and expanded assessment of PLS-SEM in Information Systems Research. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 117(3), 442–458. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-04-2016-0130

35.

Hair

J. F.

Astrachan

C. B.

Moisescu

O. I.

Radomir

Sarstedt

Vaithilingam

Ringle

C. M.

(2021). Executing and interpreting applications of PLS-SEM: Updates for family business researchers. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 12(13), 100392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2020.100392

36.

Hammad

M. A.

Elgazzar

Jereb

Sternad

(2023). Requirements for establishing energy hubs: Practical perspective. Amfiteatru Economic, 25(64), 798–812. https://doi.org/10.24818/EA/2023/64/798

37.

Hammad

M. A.

Elgazzar

Obrecht

Sternad

(2022). Compatibility about the concept of energy hub: A strict and visual review. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 16(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijesm-06-2020-0022

38.

Hammad

M. A.

Elgazzar

Sternad

(2021). A conceptual framework to establish and operate a Global Logistics Energy Hub. Sustainability, 13(19), 10976. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910976

39.

Harkness

J. A.

(2006). Conducting cross-national and cross-cultural surveys: Papers from the 2005 meeting of the International Workshop on Comparative Survey Design and implementation (CSDI), p. 123 Zentrum für Umfragen, Methoden und Analysen (ZUMA), Mannheim.

40.

Hussain

Ramzan

Singh

(2024). China–Pakistan Economic Corridor and its impact on India. India Quarterly A Journal of International Affairs, 80(4), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/09749284241285121

41.

Ibrayeva

Tashtemkhanova

Ospanova

Somzhurek

Azmukhanova

(2017). Energy export potential in the Caspian region and its impact on EU energy security. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 25(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPso.10644

42.

İşeri

(2015). Addressing pipeline security regime of the Prospective Regional Energy Hub Turkey. Security Journal, 28(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/sj.2012.38

43.

Kakachia

K. K.

(2011). Challenges to the South Caucasus Regional Security Aftermath of Russian–Georgian conflict: Hegemonic stability or new partnership? Journal of Eurasian Studies, 2(1), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euras.2010.10.005

44.

Kayikci

(2010). A conceptual model for intermodal freight logistics centre location decisions. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(3), 6297–6311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.04.039

45.

Khan

(2025). How do supply chain and geopolitical risks threaten energy security? A time and frequency analysis. Energy, 316, 134501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.134501

46.

Khosravi

Bozorgi

Zahedi-Seresht

(2024). Hub-and-Spoke network design considering congestion and flow-based cost function. Applied Sciences, 14(15), 6416. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14156416

47.

Kiliç

A. M.

(2006). Turkey’s natural gas necessity, consumption and future perspectives. Energy Policy, 34(14), 1928–1934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2005.02.004

48.

Krauer-Pacheco

(2011). Turkey as a transit country and energy hub: The Link to its foreign policy aims (Vol. 118, p. 64). Arbeitspapiere und Materialien/Forschungsstelle Osteuropa an der Universität Bremen.

49.

Lee

K. L.

(2007). Analyzing the competitive relations among the location in the Asia-Pacific region for developing the re-export type of Global Logistics Hub. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 15(3), 187–200. https://doi.org/10.51400/2709-6998.2392

50.

Lee

K. L.

Huang

W. C.

Teng

J. Y.

(2009). Locating the competitive relation of global logistics hub using quantitative SWOT analytical method. Quality & Quantity, 43(1), 87–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-007-9087-1

51.

LYNX. (2019). Egypt an emerging gas hub LYNX industry. LYNX Strategic Business Advisors.

52.

Miciuła

(2019). Energy mix as the basic regularity of the principles of sustainable development [Paper presentation]. 20th International Scientific Conference “Economic Science for Rural Development 2019”.

53.

Misiągiewicz

(2012). Turkey as an energy hub in the Mediterranean Region. Spectrum: Journal of Global Studies, 4(1), 107–126.

54.

Moghani

A. M.

Loni

(2025). Review on energy governance and demand security in oil-rich countries. Energy Strategy Reviews, 57, 101625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101625

55.

Muhammad

(2023). Ten year analysis of China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). Pakistan Journal of International Affairs, 6(2), 1145–1154.

56.

Murele

O. C.

Zulkafli

N. I.

Kopanos

Hart

Hanak

D. P.

(2020). Integrating biomass into energy supply chain networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 248, 119246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119246

57.

Mustafayev

(2016). The Southern gas Corridor: Legal and regulatory developments in Major gas Transit Pipeline Projects. Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 9(5), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1093/jwelb/jww022

58.

Novikau

Muhasilović

(2023). Turkey’s quest to become a regional energy hub: Challenges and opportunities. Heliyon, 9(11), e21535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21535

59.

Önden

İ.

Acar

A. Z.

Eldemir

. (2016). Evaluation of the Logistics Center locations using a multi-criteria spatial approach. Transport, 33(2), 322–334. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1186113

60.

Onder

Yıldırım

B. F.

(2014). VIKOR method for ranking logistic villages in Turkey. Journal of Management and Economics Research, 23, 293–314.

61.

Ozturk

H. K.

Hepbasli

(2003). The place of natural gas in Turkey’s energy sources and future perspectives. Energy Sources, 25(4), 293–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908310303443

62.

Peker

Baki

Tanyas

Murat Ar

. (2016). Logistics Center site selection by ANP/BOCR analysis: A case study of Turkey. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 30(4), 2383–2396. https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-152007

63.

Pourghasemi

Akhbari

(2018). The role of fossil fuels (oil and gas) in the World Geopolitics of Energy (Case Study: Iran 2000-2015). Geopolitics Quarterly, 13(4), 76–91. 20.1001.1.17354331.1396.13.48.4.1

64.

Prabhu

H. M.

Srivastava

A. K.

Muthappa

K. C. M.

(2024). Supply chain collaboration, agility and firm performance: A case of manufacturing SMEs in India. Business Process Management Journal, 30(3), 754–769. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-06-2023-0413

65.

Raimbekov

Bayneeva

Amirbekuly

Syzdykbayeva

Zhenskhan

(2017). Study of the State of logistics in Kazakhstan: Prospects for development and deployment of Transport and Logistics Centres. Transport Problems, 11(4), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.20858/tp.2016.11.4.6

66.

Regmi

M. B.

Hanaoka

(2013). Location Analysis of logistics centres in Laos. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 16(3), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2013.812194

67.

Rentschler

Reinhardt

Elbert

Hummel

(2025). The trans-Caspian corridor – Geopolitical implications and transport opportunities. Journal of Transport Geography, 125, 104211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2025.104211

68.

Saunders

M. N. K.

Bristow

Thornhill

Lewis

(Eds.). (2019). Understanding Research Philosophy and approaches to Theory Development Research Methods for business students (8th ed., pp. 128–171). Pearson Education.

69.

Seljom

Rosenberg

(2011). A study of oil and natural gas resources and Production. International Journal of Energy Sector Management, 5(1), 101–124. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506221111120929

70.

Sharif

Mansoor

(2025). The China–Pakistan Economic Corridor: Game Changer or Chinese colonialism? China Quarterly, 262, 462–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741025000189

71.

Sharify

S. K.

Mokarrami

A. M.

(2016). Study of the legal regime of oil and gas transit in energy charter treaty and law of Iran. Journal of Politics and Law, 9(5), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v9n5p194

72.

Stegen

K. S.

(2015). Understanding China’s global energy strategy. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 10(2), 194–208. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoem-04-2014-0059

73.

Stević

Ž.

Vesković

Vasiljević

Tepić

. (2015). The selection of the logistics center location using AHP method [Paper presentation]. 2nd Logistics International Conference. http://logic.sf.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/Papers/LOGIC2015/ID-15.pdf

74.

Sue

V. M.

Ritter

L. A.

(2012). Conducting online surveys (2nd ed.). Sage Publications Inc.

75.

Tagliapietra

(2013). Towards a new eastern Mediterranean Energy Corridor? Natural gas developments between market opportunities and geopolitical risks. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM), Milano, Working Paper No. 12.2013, SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2225272

76.

Tomić

Marinković

Marković

(2014). The selection of logistic centers location using multi-criteria comparison: Case Study of the Balkan Peninsula. Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 11(10), 97–113.

77.

Trappey

C. V.

Lin

G. Y. P.

Trappey

A. J. C.

Liu

C. S.

Lee

W. T.

(2011). Deriving Industrial Logistics hub reference models for manufacturing based economies. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(2), 1223–1232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.05.015

78.

Urciuoli

Mohanty

Hintsa

Gerine Boekesteijn

(2014). The resilience of energy supply chains: A multiple case study approach on oil and gas supply chains to Europe. Supply Chain Management An International Journal, 19(1), 46–63. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-09-2012-0307

79.

Uyanik

(2016). An integrated DEMATEL-intuitionistic fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for logistics centers location selection [Master, Marmara University].

80.

Uyanik

Tuzkaya

Oguztimur

(2018). A literature survey on logistics centers' location selection problem. Sigma Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 36(1), 141–160.

81.

Vieira

C. L. D. S.

Catapan

Luna

M. M. M.

(2016). An updated perspective on the concept of logistics hubs. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:207836026

82.

Wang

Liu

(2007). The evaluation study on location selection of logistics center based on fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS [Conference session]. 2007 International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing.

83.

Wanitwattanakosol

Holimchayachotikul

Nimsrikul

Sopadang

(2010). Performance improvement of freight logistics hub selection in Thailand by coordinated simulation and AHP. Industrial Engineering and Management Systems, 9(2), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.7232/iems.2010.9.2.088

84.

Winrow

G. M.

(2013). The Southern gas Corridor and Turkey’s role as an Energy Transit State and Energy Hub. Insight Turkey, 15(1), 145–163.

85.

Xue

Liu

B.-Y.

Fan

Wang

(2025). Compositional regression analysis of the energy mix and its determinants. Energy, 324, 136015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2025.136015

86.

Yilmaz-Bozkus

(2019). Analysis of Turkey’s role as a possible energy hub. GeoJournal, 84(5), 1353–1364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-018-9928-6

87.

Zhao

Korsakienė

Dinçer

Yüksel

(2022). Identifying significant points of energy culture for Developing Sustainable Energy Investments. Sage Open, 12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440221087262

88.

Zhou

Zhao

Zheng

Dong

(2021). Hub-and-spoke logistics network considering pricing and co-opetition. Sustainability, 13(17), 9979. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179979

Strategic Requirements for Establishing and Operating Global Energy Hubs

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Global Energy Supply Chain

Energy Hub Country

The Requirements of Establishing and Operating a GEH

Methodology

Research Design

Sampling Techniques

Sampling Limitations and Bias Considerations

Conceptual Model and Hypotheses

Independent Variables (Strategic Requirements)

Geographical Location

Infrastructure and Logistics Facilities

Political and Economic Environment

Geopolitical Position

Cooperation and Interrelationships

Level of Competitiveness

Market Liberalisation

Moderating Variables

Long-Term Agreements

Investments

Domestic Consumption

Control Variables

Interview Structure and Questionnaire Design

Section A: General and Personal Information

Section B: Requirements (Variables) of the Host/Candidate Country to be a GEH

Section C: Open-Ended Questions

Empirical Analysis and Findings

Descriptive Statistics

Measurement Model Analysis

Structural Model Analysis

Discussions and Implications

Conclusion, Limitations, and Future Work

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

ORCID iD

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References