Posted on August 25, 2026
‘Royal IHC no longer positions itself as a shipbuilder; it is primarily a systems integrator.’
Derk te Bokkel is the man who gave (former shipbuilder) Royal IHC a new identity. When he took office as CEO just over three years ago, the mood at Royal IHC, on the banks of the Lek and the Noord rivers, was ‘pretty gloomy,’ he admits. Before his arrival, the company had hit rock bottom. For a moment, it even seemed as though the pride of Kinderdijk would cease operations. It took multiple reorganizations and financial bailouts just to stay afloat.Te Bokkel was tasked with developing a new, sustainable strategy for Royal IHC. To do so, a number of fundamental decisions had to be made, he says in a conversation with Fokko Poldervaart, partner at international corporate finance advisor Oaklins. ‘Ultimately, the key question was whether, in addition to our role in high-tech equipment, we should continue to build ships.’ Te Bokkel believed they should, but also decided to relocate the greater part of their shipbuilding operations to Asia. That now appears to be paying off: Royal IHC hopes to return to profitability in the foreseeable future, partly due to the expected increase in naval contracts. ‘The developments at the Ministry of Defense coincide with our strategic repositioning. That works out well.’
You have been CEO of Royal IHC for over three years now. What has changed in those years?
‘You would be better off asking what has not changed. When I joined, the company had already gone through a number of reorganizations. At that time, there were plans to restructure the company yet again – to cut it in half once more. After taking office, I held extensive discussions with all our stakeholders. My conclusion was that another reorganization would result in us losing the core of the company. The only way forward was to move ahead.’
What is the most important decision you have made as CEO?
‘When I joined, a financing model had to be on the table within a month or two. We were in danger of running out of cash. Ultimately, the key question was whether we should continue building ships. A business model without shipbuilding was conceivable, but that would have led to a model that required halving the organization yet again. What would then have been left of the company’s core?
I then made the decision to strengthen our equipment position and keep our shipbuilding division afloat. But based on my previous experiences in the automotive industry, it seemed wise to me to move the construction itself largely to a country with low factor costs. That is how we ended up in Vietnam. We are now building six ships at two shipyards in Vietnam. In addition, we have entered into a partnership agreement with a large shipyard in India.’
The ships are built at the shipyard in Asia and subsequently completed in the Netherlands?
‘Bringing hulls back to the Netherlands from Vietnam is too costly. We have therefore established a model where we complete the ships entirely in the region. But all the ships’ equipment – the engines, the powertrain, the pumps, the suction pipes, the technology, the core of our added value – is developed and manufactured here in the Netherlands.
The new workflow is going well. We are now fully in the ramp-up phase, where we aim to move from small to medium-sized and ultimately to large projects. We hope to achieve that within two or three years. We did, however, say that we want to maintain shipbuilding in the Netherlands – albeit with smaller volumes.’
Can you tell us something about your position now?
‘When I joined the company, the forecast was for approximately 250 million euros in order intake. We got to work right away and, with the help of stakeholders and the government, were able to secure financing for one major contract. A number of smaller orders followed. Ultimately, we ended that year with an order intake of over 400 million euros. For this year, we are on track to double that figure. Compared to early 2023 – the absolute low point – that represents a nearly threefold increase. You can now see that success reflected at every level of the organization.’
There is a lot going on in the world. As a result, defense budgets have been significantly increased. That could be of interest to you…
‘The developments at the Ministry of Defense coincide with our strategic repositioning. That works out well. The Ministry of Defense could become an important part of our organization. Internally, our motto is: we must be defense ready. We are currently running various programs toward that goal. We are already doing some work for the Ministry of Defense. For example, we are a supplier for the new Orka submarines.
We are curious to see exactly what the demand from the Ministry of Defense will look like going forward. In any case, they have opted for what they call ‘large grey above water.’
A number of projects in that area have been allocated to another well-known Dutch shipyard (competitor Damen from Gorinchem, ed.). That is fine. There will surely be other tenders for equipment, maintenance, and ships that we will bid on. We can play a role in all kinds of constellations, such as with unmanned systems. We collaborate constructively with various parties on defense projects. Just this year, we hoisted a navy patrol ship, the Zr. Ms. Holland, into our hangar in Krimpen aan den IJssel on a pontoon. That project went very well. I do not rule out doing more projects like this in the future.’
Is working for the Ministry of Defense different from working for other clients? Or is it just a matter of some buckets of grey ship paint?
‘It is not quite that simple, but you are not far off. We deliver complex workboats, and that is exactly what you also find at the Ministry of Defense. We are perfectly capable of delivering non-highly militarized naval vessels. Ultimately, those are just workboats too, often with the same type of equipment on board, but in a militarized version.’
How easy or difficult is it to engage in dialogue with the Ministry of Defense and the government?
‘As far as we are concerned, the dialogue is going well. But you have to get to know each other’s ways of working, so that takes a little time. We are still in the process of finding common ground, exploring what they need and what we have to offer. I think we now have a workable model on the table for asset management as well as maintenance. We are now going to work on that together to put it into practice. It is a process of trial and error: deliver, evaluate, and improve.’
Could it be better?
‘I do not think so much in terms of the relationship – that is good – but you do notice the Ministry of Defense is taking some strain to adapt to the new reality. There is now a need to adjust the pace and possibly a redistribution of tasks with the private sector. The current processes are not immediately geared toward that. Based on past experiences, agreements have been made between the ministries and the House of Representatives regarding defense budgets. Of course, you have to keep the elected representatives involved in key decisions, but the lead time of the processes does concern me. It would not hurt if the Ministry of Defense placed more focus on process architecture to expedite this. For example, we are currently talking about projects for which the initial sketches were made at the beginning of this decade. At the time, we assumed those projects would start sometime in the coming year. Now, there is a risk that all of this will be pushed back to the end of the decade.’
If it all takes so long, will you ultimately still deliver the desired product?
‘The pace of developments is indeed high. But, ultimately, this is of course a political-strategic consideration. I can only respond to the projects that are offered to me. It can sometimes be difficult for us to maneuver. We have the ambition to compete for these contracts. That means I have to provide a certain basic architecture – capacity, security, quality, IT.
But anything that falls outside that basic architecture, I can only offer if it is backed by firm contracts. As long as there are no commitments on the table, we cannot invest. What else can we do? I cannot justify investing to my shareholders and my staff when I have no certainty.’
You are active on several other fronts: dredging, offshore, mining… Are the different markets favorable?
‘We are seeing rising revenues in all the segments where we operate. In the offshore sector, we have been active solely in equipment for a number of years, but we have now also secured a number of new shipbuilding contracts, including for the construction of several cable-laying vessels. Mining is performing well. We are global leaders in wet mining – extraction and separation. We offer a number of specific solutions that customers find interesting.
Dredging still makes up the largest part of our product range, and that sector is also performing well. We do see a shift in the dredging sector, however. Chinese companies, in particular, are increasingly entering the market. There are also many local private contractors active in the sector, and we are seeing the emergence of state-owned dredging companies, which often start with smaller dredgers. It is also to our benefit that some clients are adamant about not working with Chinese suppliers. We hold the position as the sole western supplier of large dredging equipment in the market.’
You have quite a unique shareholder structure, with a foundation and underlying financiers. How does such a relatively complex setup work for you as CEO of this company?
‘Actually, very comfortably. I have the full confidence of my stakeholders. A few years ago, I developed the new strategy together with them, and we are now implementing it, simply by working hard. We have since proven that we do what we say. I am in an ongoing dialogue with our owners, but they also maintain their distance. The message from the owners is that they all are comfortable with the current developments. Over the past year, we have further refined the strategy. We concluded that our strategy is working, but also that we want to expand it with two elements. First: strengthening our operational organization because we are ultimately a project-based company. And second: working on new revenue streams. We have established a product development and innovation strategy with a corresponding organizational structure. Call it an add-on to the existing strategy.’
What role does the supervisory board play?
‘They are involved in policy development and policy implementation. Fortunately, I have a very experienced supervisory board with experienced operations people as well as people from the dredging industry. I am in close contact with all members of the board. We discuss the large, complex projects project by project. That is an agreement we have made with each other as part of risk management. What I have noticed in recent years is that the frequency of our interactions has decreased somewhat. In the beginning, we were in touch several times a week. But now that the strategy is clear, and now that everyone knows where I stand, trust is growing, and the frequency of our interactions is decreasing.’
It seems challenging to lead this company in uncertain times and in an uncertain world.
‘Of course, there are uncertainties, and you can never know exactly which way things will go. But that does not automatically make me feel uneasy. I have been in interim management for thirty years, so I am used to the hectic pace. I have always been the one who has to weave the uncertainties into a coherent narrative. Uncertainty is a fact of life. It is about how you deal with it. One way to do that is by having several irons in the fire. We have a whole range of business models in different markets, which gives you much more room to maneuver. Our broad product portfolio in these four markets also reflects this. And ultimately, it is always a matter of discussing different scenarios. I regularly have conversations about this with my colleagues on the board.’
How would you describe yourself as a leader?
‘I have shifted a bit over the years. I originally focused on details and analysis. But in recent years, that has shifted somewhat towards control and support. A pat on the shoulder sometimes, checking in to see how things are going… That is the role you need to take as CEO in a company with a stable organization and a stable strategy. If you pull all the work to yourself, sooner or later you will become the bottleneck in an organization. And you should not be. Working as an interim, I learned very well how to make myself dispensable. If you are dispensable, the organization is in good shape.’
Which markets will you be serving in five years?
‘I am very satisfied with our current market structure. We are performing well in the dredging, mining, offshore, and defense sectors. This also ensures that cyclical risks are well distributed. Defense is a new addition to our portfolio. I expect that to generate annual revenue of several hundred million in the coming years.’
And where does the biggest concern lie?
‘Our financing capacity is currently too limited to fully capitalize on the potential of the organization and the market. Our biggest challenge right now is therefore the financing structure. After several loss-making years, we have been successfully refinanced. It was quite a challenge to secure that financing, involving government guarantees and guarantees from our shareholder structure. Our main ambition is to stand on our own two feet and become self-financing in the coming years. I have every confidence that we can do this. The only question is whether our current track record is sufficient for the financing markets yet. The challenge will be to further improve our position. I of course have ideas about that. For example, we could further strengthen our shareholder structure, because the opportunities in the market are there.’
Almost all European companies face a financing challenge; surely that is not unique?
‘Yes, that is one of the limitations of operating in Europe. Resources are tight. If you want to be active in large-scale projects, you need financing capacity. Otherwise, you have to revert to a niche position, where our equipment strategy is a better fit. And the question is, of course, whether that is the best strategy for Royal IHC. I do not think it necessarily is the best strategy for Royal IHC to pass up large projects entirely. But if you say that, you have to do something about the financing capacity. Perhaps that is also something the Dutch or European government needs to address.’
