Ship Management

Ship Management
Ship Management: Theory and Practice unpacks the complexity of this crucial maritime activity by
spelling out its key elements and the connections and linkages between them.
Opening with an introduction and an overview of the special characteristics of ship management,
the text then focuses on different strands of management. It offers dedicated chapters on strategic
management, commercial management, operations management, technical management, human
resource management and compliance management, weaving in numerous international examples
throughout.The final chapter looks to the future, exploring the challenges facing ship management
and the impact of digitalisation.
Ship Management: Theory and Practice is a valuable resource for upper-level students of shipping
management and maritime operations and can also serve as a one-stop reference for researchers
and industry practitioners.
Pengfei Zhang previously worked as a master mariner, maritime lawyer (dually qualified in
England and Wales and China), ship manager and legal director of a shipyard. He has teaching
experience at Jimei University, Shanghai Maritime University, Dalian Maritime University
and Solent University. His research interests include maritime law and business, commercial
arbitration, shipbuilding, ship management, international trade, seafarers and maritime safety
and security.
Lijun Tang is Lecturer in International Shipping and Port Management at the University of
Plymouth. He has been involved in a number of maritime research projects and has rich experience
in maritime HRM-related research. His research interests and publications are in the areas of
employment relations, seafarer training, maritime health and safety, CSR and sustainability and
the seafarer labour market.
Routledge Maritime Masters
Port Economics
Wayne K.Talley
Port Economics
Second edition
Wayne K.Talley
Management of Shipping Companies
Ioannis Theotokas
Managing Human Resources in the Shipping Industry
Edited by Jiangang Fei
Shipping Business Unwrapped
Illusion, Bias and Fallacy in the Shipping Business
Okan Duru
Maritime Business and Economics
Asian Perspectives
Edited by Okan Duru
Economics of Maritime Business
Shuo Ma
Business and Economics of Port Management
An Insider’s Perspective
Wei Yim Yap
Derivatives and Risk Management in Shipping
Manolis G. Kavussanos, Dimitris A.Tsouknidis and Ilias D.Visvikis
Ship Management
Theory and Practice
Pengfei Zhang and Lijun Tang
For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-Maritime-Masters/

book-series/RMM
Ship Management
Theory and Practice
Pengfei Zhang and Lijun Tang

First published 2022
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Pengfei Zhang and Lijun Tang
The right of Pengfei Zhang and Lijun Tang to be identified as authors of this work has been
asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form
or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission
in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and
are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Zhang, Pengfei, author. | Tang, Lijun (Lecturer on shipping), author.
Title: Ship management : theory and practice / Pengfei Zhang & Lijun Tang.
Description: New York : Routledge, [2022] | Series: Routledge maritime masters |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021012819 (print) | LCCN 2021012820 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367532789 (hbk) |
ISBN 9780367532772 (pbk) | ISBN 9781003081241 (ebk)
Subjects: LCSH: Shipping—Management. | Personnel management.
Classification: LCC HE571 .Z48 2022 (print) | LCC HE571 (ebook) | DDC 387.2068—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021012819
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021012820
ISBN: 978-0-367-53278-9 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-53277-2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-08124-1 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241
Typeset in Gill Sans

by Apex CoVantage, LLC
Contents
List of tables vii
List of figures ix
List of abbreviations xi
1 Introduction 1
Maritime shipping and world fleet 2
Evolution of ship owning and management 4
Choice of outsourcing ship management 7
Structure of the book 9
2 Special characteristics of ship management 11
The concept of ship management 11
The main types of ships 13
Bulk carriers 14
Tankers 14
Container ships 14
General cargo ships 15
Special nature and characteristics of the ship 15
Special nature and characteristics of the seafaring profession 17
Special nature and characteristics of the shipping business 19
Special nature and characteristics of maritime governance 21
3 Strategic management 24
The concept of strategic management 24
Business policies of shipping companies 26
Organisational structure 29
Merger and acquisition as growth strategies 33
Choice of flag 35
Strategic shipping market and positioning strategy 37
Response to emerging technologies 38
4 Commercial management 42
The concept of commercial management 42
The role of the ship manager 43
The ship manager’s contractual obligations 46
The ship manager’s fiduciary duties 50
Duty to act for the best interest of the ship owner 51
Duty to act within the scope of authority 51
Duty to act with reasonable care, skill and diligence 51
Duty to avoid and disclose conflicts of interest 52
Other duties 53
Management of risk and insurance 53
vi CONTENTS
5 Operations management 59
The concept of operations management 59
The ‘sea voyage cycle’ 62
Operations in each phase of the sea voyage cycle 64
Pre-arrival operations phase 64
Arrival operations phase 66
Port stay operations phase 67
Departure operations phase 70
Pre-departure operations phase 71
Post-departure operations phase 72
6 Technical management 76
The concept of technical management 76
The concept of seaworthiness 79
Ship maintenance management 81
Performance management 84
Quality and safety management 87
Information system management 90
Emergency management 92
7 Human resource management 96
The concept of human resource management 96
The human element in the maritime industry 100
The maritime labour market 101
Industrial relations in the maritime industry 103
Sustainable workforce development 104
The management of a multicultural crew 107
The multicultural crew in the maritime industry 107
Benefits of a multicultural crew 108
Challenges of a multicultural crew 109
Integrating intercultural competence 111
8 Compliance management 114
The concept of compliance management 114
Compliance with maritime governance 115
The UN framework 115
Port state control 118
Compliance with international sanctions 120
Challenges with compliance management 123
9 Looking forward 126
Drivers for improvement in ship management 126
The main challenges of ship management in the future 128
The impact of digitalisation on ship management in the future 129
Benefits of digitalisation 130
Obstacles of digitalisation 131
Bibliography 135
Index 163
Tables
2.1 Multitiered structure of laws governing maritime jurisdictions and governance:
polycentric governance model 22
5.1 Master–agent information exchange 67
5.2 Key milestones/timings during the ship’s departure operations phase 71
6.1 Key elements to which seaworthiness extends 81
7.1 Estimated five largest seafarer supply countries 102
Figures
1.1 World fleet by principal vessel type, 2018–2019 3
2.1 Shipboard hierarchy 18
3.1 Hierarchy of organisational strategies 25
3.2 Stages of strategic management 26
3.3 Three categories of policies 27
3.4 Company policies 28
3.5 The role of designated person ashore 32
5.1 The sea voyage cycle 63
5.2 Task categories in pre-departure port operations phase 72
6.1 Overview of the BIMCO Shipping KPIs Standard V4.0 85
Abbreviations
AIS Automatic identification system

BDA Big data analytics
BIMCO Baltic and International Maritime Council
BWTS Ballast water treatment system
CBA Collective bargaining agreement
CoC Certificate of competency
CSR Corporate social responsibility
DMS Data management system
DPA Designated person ashore
DOC Document of compliance
DSS Decision support system
dwt Deadweight tonnage
ECDIS Electronic chart display and information system
EEDI Energy Efficiency Design Index
EEOI Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator
ERT Emergency response team
ETA Estimated time of arrival
EU European Union
FOC Flag of convenience
GRT Gross register tonnage
HR Human resources
IBF International Bargaining Forum
ICS International Chamber of Shipping
ICT Information and communication technology
ILO International Labour Organization
IMEC International Maritime Employers’ Council
IMO International Maritime Organization
INTERCARGO International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners
INTERTANKO International Association of Independent Tanker Owners
ISM International Safety Management
ISMA International Ship Managers’ Association
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ISPS International Ship and Port Facility Security
ITF International Transport Workers Federation
KPI Key performance indicator
LNG Liquefied natural gas
LPG Liquefied petroleum gas
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MET Maritime education and training
xii ABBREVIATIONS
MLC, 2006 Maritime Labour Convention, 2006

MoU Memorandum of understanding
NC Non-conformities
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NOR Notice of readiness
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OFAC US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control
OR Open registry
P&I club Protection and indemnity club
PCC Port Clearance Certificate
PMS Planned maintenance system
POB Pilot on board
PSC Port state control
QMS Quality management system
SEA Seafarer employment agreement
SDG Sustainable Development Goal
SEEMP Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan
SIRC Seafarers International Research Centre
SIRE Ship Inspection Report Program
SMC Safety management certificate
SMPEP Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan
SMS Safety management system
SOF Statement of facts
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea
SOPEP Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan
STCW Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping
TEU Twenty-foot-equivalent unit
TMN Traditional maritime nation
UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development
VLCC Very large crude carrier
Chapter 1
Introduction
With an estimated over 80 per cent of the volume of global trade carried by sea, maritime shipping
is fundamental to sustaining economic growth and spreading prosperity throughout the world
(IMO, 2021). It is a business activity exposed to a wide variety of risks and accidents, some of which
result in serious consequence of loss of lives and property and marine pollutions.The quality and
safety of ship management are key factors in maintaining the sustainable development of the mari
time industry and the stability of global trade.
Ship management is a fundamental activity for ship owning and operating and represents an
area where shipping companies invariably assign and delegate responsibilities to qualified and expe
rienced personnel.There are many reasons why ship owners delegate ship management responsi
bilities and functions to professional and sometimes independent ship managers, and these will be
discussed in detail later in this chapter, but the crucial one is that ship management is complex and
requires integrative knowledge that spans across multiple disciplines and needs varied skills and
expertise.As such, it is more cost-effective to leave it to professional managers.
The complexity of ship management relates to the unique features of maritime business and
the ever-changing environments that ship managers have to respond and adapt to. Maritime ship
ping is a fluid, mobile and global industry, and ship managers routinely optimise their operations
by spreading and shifting management activities, such as crewing, ship registration, ship repair and
ship employment, across the world. This has led to a global seafarer labour market and a global
regulatory regime. Ship management not only has to adjust to the vicissitudes of the global econ
omy, international trade and the shipping market but also needs to be fine-tuned to the constant
changes in regulation, law, labour market, technology, customer requirements and even public
attitude.
Ship management involves strategic management, commercial management, operations man
agement, technical management, human resource management, compliance management and so
on. Ship managers need to not only align and streamline these management responsibilities and
activities in a cost-effective and strategic manner but also attune them to the business environment.
For this reason, ship management requires a wide range of knowledge and skills.
The book aims to unpack the complexity of ship management by spelling out its key ele
ments as well as the connections and linkages between them. It comes as a response to the
market need to set out a comprehensive coverage of all aspects of ship management.The book
will address the relevant issues from both theoretical and practical perspectives. It serves as
a one-stop read for all interested parties from the maritime industry. This book also provides
students, both undergraduate and post-graduate, systematic knowledge of ship management and
offers researchers a valuable reference source and a solid foundation on which further develop
ment can be built.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-1
2 INTRODUCTION
Maritime shipping and world fleet

International trade is the driving force of human activity. It allows countries to expand their markets
and access goods and services that otherwise may not have been available domestically.As a result,
international trade plays a crucial role in promoting national prosperity, raising living standards,
providing employment and reducing domestic poverty. International trade relies on transportation
and logistics, which facilitate the growth and development of the local and global economy. Poor
logistics infrastructure and services can cause a significant hindrance to international trade. In the
meantime, the continuing rise of world trade and the desire by countries to speed up the pace
of integration within the global trading system improve the quantity and efficiency of the support
structures such as the logistics services (Gani, 2017).
The earliest maritime transportation routes were formed about 5,000 years ago (Lavery, 2017;
Stopford, 2009). The oldest known ship can be traced back as early as 2650 BC, to the Fourth
Dynasty of the Old Kingdom of Egypt (Belov, 2015). However, it was not until the advent of
steamships in the 19th century that maritime shipping started to overcome the adverse impact
of weather and ocean conditions. The expansion of global trade prompted the process of mod
ernisation and industrialisation in many parts of the world. In the meantime, sustained economic
prosperity in that era further promoted an increased demand for maritime tonnage (Grammenos,
2013). For example, between 1850 and 1910, the total value of world trade grew about seven times
(Ortiz-Ospina & Beltekian, 2018). This growth mirrored the increase in the world fleet, which,
measured by total net tonnage during the same period, increased from about 9 million to about 34
million (Hattendorf, 2007).
Benefiting from the enhancement of nautical and shipbuilding technologies, the world fleet
continued to accrue remarkably in the 20th century. In addition, unprecedented technical, practical
and legal revolutions restructured the modern maritime industry. After World War II, the size of
seagoing ships grew tremendously to achieve the optimal effect of scale economy (Wijnolst &
Wergeland, 2009). Highly specialised ships were constructed to meet diversified market demands,
such as ro-ro (roll on, roll off) ships, liquid bulk carriers and so on. However, the dramatic growth
in global trade resulted in port congestion, and ship owners anxiously sought more efficient car
go-handling methods.At the same time, high wages also provoked the introduction of labour-saving
equipment. One significant breakthrough came with the introduction of the container in the late
1950s in the United States (Hattendorf, 2007).The earliest container ships were converted cargo
vessels, but within the 1960s specifically built ships started to enter into service (Klose, 2015).
Containerisation maximised operational efficiency and made door-to-door service possible. Mean
while, new navigational technologies and equipment such as the global positioning system (GPS),
energy-efficient engines and satellite communication and the electronic chart display and informa
tion system (ECDIS) made ocean transport quicker, safer and easier. Together with the evolution
of physical facilities, the hardware, was the adoption of a wide range of standards and treaties by
the maritime community to rationalise the governance of merchant shipping, whereby conventional
ships were replaced with more advanced counterparts (Liao, 2020).
The world fleet provides critical linkages in global supply chains and is crucial to enable all
nations, including those that are landlocked, to access international markets (UNCTAD, 2019). In
the era of global exchange, all raw materials and products crucial for our living and development
are conveyed through the worldwide logistics networks weaved by a growing world fleet (Liao,
2020). Relocation of industry in the 21st century from the developed to the developing countries
is no longer considered a business adventure, but rather has become a normal activity by the glo
balised division of labour force (Wen, 2004). As a result, the pattern, structure and size of global
trade have changed to the effect that ‘shipping and trade are inextricably linked as never before’
(Branch, 2007).The modern world is not a self-sufficient society, and people are not economically
INTRODUCTION 3
independent. In the global market, the necessities of consumers’ daily life, from clothing, foods,
transportation to housekeeping, relies on ships to convey raw materials to places of manufacture,
then semi-products to places of assembly or further processing and then final products to distri
bution centres before they are despatched to the ultimate consumers (Liao, 2020). Due to the
continuing effects of the financial crisis at the end of 2008, the growth of global seaborne trade
slowed down. The total amount hit 11 billion metric tonnes in 2018 at a growth rate of 2.7 per
cent. Fuelled by increasing demand, the total tonnage of the world merchant fleet has continued to
grow despite the financial recession.At the beginning of 2019, there were 95,402 propelled seago
ing merchant ships of 100 GRT1 and above, accounting for 1.97 billion dead-weight tonnes (dwt)
of capacity (UNCTAD, 2019). It represented an annual growth of 2.6 per cent, which remarkably
matched the growth of seaborne trade in the same year. Figure 1.1. shows the comparison of world
fleet tonnage by principal vessel type between 2018 and 2019.
Whilst there is a variety of vessel types, bulk carriers, oil tankers and container ships continue
to take the lead in the world fleet.They were also the main force in shipbuilding in 2018, represent
ing over 75 per cent of the total new-building deliveries (Clarksons Research, 2019). Developments
in the world fleet revealed a background of continued oversupply of tonnage. Overcapacity has
remained a structural feature in most shipping segments, leading to downward pressure on freight
rates in recent years. The maritime industry is currently experiencing a tough time. The trade
conflict between the United States and China prompted major shifts in goods flows, significantly
affecting maritime transportation (Ashmore, 2019). At the same time, the entry into force of the
International Maritime Organization (IMO) 2020 regulation is expected to pose huge financial
pressure and compliance challenges for the ship owners, ship managers and operators (Joswick,
2020).To make the situation worse, the COVID-19 pandemic, which broke out at the end of 2019,
severely hit the already struggling industry (Berti, 2020). Facing a sluggish market situation and
increasingly strict regulatory regime, leadership in costs, safety and efficiency is a critical strategy
for ship owners to survive in a competitive environment (McCammon, 2020).The delicate situation
of many shipping companies has generated significant interest focused on finding innovative solu
tions in ship operation and management.
900000
800000
700000
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
Ferries/passenger ship
Oil tankers
General cargo ships
Container ships
Chemical tankers
Oﬀshore vessels
Bulk carriers
Gas carriers
other types
ps
2018 2019
Figure 1.1 World fleet by principal vessel type, 2018–2019 (thousand dwt)
Source: Authors created based on data from Clarksons Research (2019)
4 INTRODUCTION
Evolution of ship owning and management

The evolution of ship owning and management came along with the advancement in the spe
cialisation of commercial ships and maritime professionalism. The specialisation of commercial
ships is an ongoing process driven by global trade and maritime economics (Davidson et al.,
2018; Rodrigue et al., 2016; Stopford, 2009). However, before the 1910s, the differences between
powered ships, other than that obvious one between cargo and passenger vessels, hardly existed.
Ship owners settled for optimal vessels deployable on as many prospect routes as possible. Nor
mally, there was no special deck gear for any particular type of cargo.Therefore, most cargo ships
looked quite alike, except the tanker and the refrigerated cargo ship that appeared shortly before
World War I (Hattendorf, 2007).
There was significant demand for cargo space and increased freight rates after World War I
due to loss of tonnage and interruption of trade caused by the war. Fleet expansion and substitu
tion of wartime misfortunes prompted a worldwide shipbuilding flourish between 1918 and 1920
(Sturmey, 2017). However, with the enhancement of shipbuilding technology, the world trade grew
more slowly than world tonnage. This put pressure on the economic performance of shipping
companies (Kim et al., 2016; Sletmo, 1989). In this context, specialisation helped improve the ability
of shipping companies to utilise economies of scope and scale.
Many different types of ships appeared to meet the demand of specific markets. For example,
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping listed hundreds of different ship types, which can be grouped into six
large categories. These include dry bulk carriers and miscellaneous bulk carriers, container ships,
general cargo ships, liquid bulk carriers, ferries and passenger ships and all others (Hattendorf,
2007). For each large category, they can be further divided into smaller groups. As a result, the
international shipping market was sectioned into sub-markets with certain different features (Wox
enius, 2010). Many shipping companies choose a “specialisation strategy” by operating only one
type of ship in a niche market. Some other companies might diversify their portfolio by investing in
ships for several segments (Tenold, 2010).The complexity and specialisation of the maritime indus
try pose challenges to ship operation and management. Maritime professionals need to have special
knowledge, skills and experiences to ensure safe and efficient operation of ships.
Normally, ship owners are responsible for operating and managing their ships. However, the
concept of ship owner has changed throughout maritime history. In ancient times, ship operation
was very simple. Ship owners were people who had built or bought the ship to carry cargoes
chosen by them on trades determined by them (Dickie, 2014). The ship owner’s profits were
made through the exchange of goods, rather than from their maritime services. Therefore, the
operation of a ship was a means to an end rather than a venture in its own right. In most cases,
the ship owner was a skilful seaman or master with the nautical control. Only in the 12th century
did the responsibilities separate, since ship owners needed to manage their businesses on land
to improve commercial efficiency. From the 14th century, being a seaman started to become a
separate profession, and a special career pattern based on nautical expertise developed (Hat
tendorf, 2007).
With the expansion of maritime trade, the shipping business became more complex. The
old-fashioned merchant organisation of ship owning was not able to cope with the huge increase
in demand for services from the maritime trade growth. Ship owning as an independent occupa
tion thus emerged as a crucial organisational advance to increase the provision of shipping space
(Ville, 1987). Specialist ship owning appeared at different times in different areas. Ship owners,
as an independent party, operated vessels to carry other parties’ goods and made an income
by charging fees or freights (Ville, 1993). For example, Dutch merchants were considered the
first to engage on a major scale in the provision of shipping tonnage. In the 18th century, Britain
became the dominant shipping country. The profession of “ship owner” evolved as merchanting
INTRODUCTION 5
disintegrated into its special functional components (Hattendorf, 2007). In the later 18th and early
19th centuries, with the advent of industrialisation, the increasing demand for tonnage further
stimulated this evolution (Acheson, 1972). In line with the rapid development, the ownership of
vessels concentrated into the hands of fewer, specialist ship owners to obviate the potentially
damaging ramifications of price competition and overcapacity. Cartels, takeovers and mergers
were a prominent feature of the maritime industry (Hattendorf, 2007).The consolidation of ship
ping firms into larger commercial organisations continued apace in the 20th century, particularly
during the 1980s and 1990s. For example, P&O Nedlloyd and Maersk emerged as multinational
companies dominating the container sector in the late 20th century.At the same time, benefitting
from family capitalism, Greece became the world’s single most important shipping nation and
played an important role in developing the business of shipping (Syriopoulos & Tsatsaronis, 2011;
Theotokas & Harlaftis, 2009).
The rapid development of the shipping industry posed challenges to the supply chain of mar
itime labour. Traditionally, the labour market may be thought of in terms of geographical areas,
occupational and industrial groups (Kalleberg & Sorensen, 1979; Leong, 2012). For many years,
ship owners mainly relied on the internal labour market for seafarers. As a result of the oil cri
ses in 1973 and 1978 and the consequent global recession in the 1980s, the maritime industry
inevitably found itself with more tonnage and fewer cargoes (Hattendorf, 2007). The shipowners
were plagued with high bunker prices and low freight rates, so they looked for ways to lower
their operational costs. Labour was the only immediately variable element of operational costs.
The so-called ‘open registries’ (ORs), which first occurred in the 1920s, provided a means of
avoiding labour regulations in the country of ownership (Kasoulides, 1993; Özçayir, 2018). Ships
under open registries might be owned and manned by non-nationals, so ship owners were able to
achieve huge cost savings by re-flagging the ship and hiring cheaper seafarers from other countries
(Zhang & Drumm, 2020). Between the mid-1970s and mid-1990s,‘flagging-out’ was employed as a
key strategy to avoid labour regulations, and the use of open registries began to gain widespread
popularity (Leong, 2012;Tang & Zhang, 2021).The main aim of the creation of open registries was
to provide ship owners with convenient laws or policies. Some states were not keen on fulfilling
their obligations with respect to international obligations. Sub-standard ship owners were able to
shift their ships to the flags of those states which ignored their international obligations (Özçayir,
2001). These registries were identified and labelled flag of convenience (FOC) countries, such as
Liberia and Panama (Gekara et al., 2013).Throughout the 1980s, there was an exodus from national
flags to the growing number of FOCs, which had attracted over 36 per cent of the world fleet by
1990 (Hattendorf, 2007).
The very process of flagging-out promoted the formation of a single global labour market
(Alderton & Winchester, 2002). It enabled ship owners and operators to ‘shop’ their crews inter
nationally, where previously they had faced restrictions in the nationality of the seafarers that could
handle their ships. As a result, there was an inclination towards the replacement of the national
crew (usually from ‘traditional’ maritime nations) with ‘crews of convenience’ who were recruited
from the less developed countries of the world (Leong, 2012), such as the Philippines, China, India
and Eastern European countries. This trend nevertheless is associated with many issues, such as
questionable labour standards and low training qualities in some cheap labour supply countries,
a corollary of poor union memberships and recognition (Alderton et al., 2004; Alderton & Win
chester, 2002;Tang & Zhang, 2021).
Another significant development in the history of the maritime industry is the birth of profes
sional third-party ship management. Its history can be traced back to the 18th century, and since
then this specialised sector has passed through a number of phases of development (Willingale,
1998). In the period after World War II, the modern era of this business commenced with the old
family-owned ship management companies (Underwood, 1989). Those companies first sprang up
6 INTRODUCTION
to meet ship owners’ demand for seafarer recruitment and placement. Many of the earliest ones
spun off from diversifying ship owners; others were created anew by redundant former seafarer
management (Hattendorf, 2007). The business grew rapidly in the 1980s, when many banks and
financial institutions entered the business and became the real proprietor of the vessels. However,
they usually did not have the expertise to manage or operate ships, but relied on professional
third-parties’ services to protect their investment. In the beginning, ship management companies
mostly offered three levels of service to ship owners looking to economise their operations: crew
management – that is, hiring, transporting and paying the crew; technical management – that is, tak
ing responsibility for all aspects of ship maintenance, including periodic class survey; and commer
cial management – that is, placing ships in freight markets (Hattendorf, 2007). Crew management,
often in conjunction with technical management, became the biggest activity, whereas commercial
management was usually retained by ship owners.
The choice of the business model that a ship owner may choose depends on what is required
from the ship management company. The main options are traditional management, outsourcing
or a hybrid management system (Branch & Robarts, 2014; Dickie, 2014). Traditional management
is a fully integrated management system, where the owner develops an in-house ship management
system. The owner is wholly responsible for the service of the ships and employs staff to work
for them directly. This normally needs a separate department and an organisational structure to
deal with different aspects of the ships’ operation. Outsourcing management is where the man
agement of the ship is contracted out to a third-party specialist company, which means that daily
operations of the ships are carried out by an independent company.This may include all or part of
the following functions: crewing, legal, operations, technical, commercial, financing and accounting.
In effect, the ship management company takes control of the ship and reports to the owner as
required on how everything is progressing.According to the ship management contract, the owner
usually still has the final say and is responsible for funding the operation of the ship and paying
the management company with relevant fees for their services.Today, a significant portion of the
world fleet is served by third-party ship management companies, such as V. Ships,Anglo-Eastern and
Columbia Shipmanagement (GL, 2013). Hybrid management is where there is partial outsourcing
of the functions from the owner to the management company.This will be agreed in advance and
a fee structure set for the services provided (Dickie, 2014). Most ship owners tend to retain some
activities which they have the strength to handle but leave the areas in which they lack the exper
tise to third-party companies.
As the complexity of shipping continues to evolve, both ship owning and management com
panies have had to change their roles to meet new challenges. Most of this was instigated by
regulatory reforms and the pressures this placed on companies and ships to be able to operate
(Mitroussi, 2013).This can be broken down into new legislation that has made new demands and
current legislation that has been updated and evolved over the years as its remit and contents
expanded (Dickie, 2014). To gain competitiveness in the market, there has been a move to ship
management companies with multiple ships under their control to meet this task, which can
offer cost-effective management fees compared to small firms. Companies managing large fleets
tend to have greater bargaining power, especially with respect to the supplies of main services
and products consumed by the ship on a daily basis as part of the operating costs (Panayides,
2017). For example, Mark O’Neil, president of Columbia and Marlow Shipmanagement, noted
that big is good and relevant if economies of scale are achieved due to the large fleets that they
manage (SMI, 2017). In the meantime, modern information technologies have also changed the
way ships are operated, such as big data analytics (BDA), 3-D printing, autonomous ships, block-
chain technologies and so on. It is important to understand how they can be used efficiently but
also to manage their cost effects and the impact this has on the daily operation costs (Rødseth
et al., 2016).
INTRODUCTION 7
Choice of outsourcing ship management

Outsourcing is the business practice of employing a party outside an organisation to provide
services, perform tasks, produce goods or handle operations that traditionally were conducted
in-house by the organisation’s own employees and staff. It is a strategic decision usually adopted
by organisations to reduce operational costs, including salaries for its personnel, technology, equip
ment and overhead (CFI, 2019). It is also used by organisations to dial down and focus on the core
aspects of the business, spinning off the less critical operations to outside service providers. By
contracting out non-core activities, a company can improve its efficiency and productivity because
another party can perform these tasks better than the company itself. This approach can bring
faster turnaround times, increased competitiveness within an industry and the cutting of overall
operational costs (Twin, 2020).Therefore, as a managerial decision, outsourcing has become prev
alent in almost every business sector (Durgut & Çetin, 2018).
Over the years outsourcing ship management has become a predominant strategic choice for
ship owning companies (Cariou & Wolff, 2011b).Among a wide range of reasons why ship owning
companies choose to outsource ship management, cost reduction is widely recognised as a major
one (Cariou & Wolff, 2011b; Panayides, 2017; Panayides, 2001;Willingale, 1998). Shipowners’ costs
include crew wages, stores, insurance costs, maintenance and repairs, general overheads and so on.
Cost reduction is crucial for shipowners, as they normally have no power to control freight rates,
which are determined by the shipping market (Mitroussi, 2013).This can be realised by ship man
agers who can achieve low operating costs by taking advantage of scale economies and bargaining
power by virtue of the number of vessels under their management (Panayides, 2001). For example,
large discounts or other favourable terms can be obtained in the regular purchase of suppliers for
a large number of vessels.
Other common reasons for outsourcing ship management include improvement in flexibility,
efficiency and professionalism. One of the major skills of professional ship managers, lacking in most
shipowners, is the experienced management of turnover (Spruyt, 1994). Outsourcing ship manage
ment helps shipowners concentrate on the ability to operate a big fleet and have a big turn-over
while maintaining a small staff. Flexibility is also related to the capacity of the owners to enter or
leave a specific shipping market (Mitroussi, 2004). Furthermore, shipowners have to take advantage
of all opportunities to maintain their competitiveness, including increasingly specialised vessels and
emerging markets. For many traditional shipowners, they may just focus on certain areas but lack
specific knowledge and expertise required to enter into a new market (Seo et al., 2018). For other
emerging shipowners, like oil giants, major miners or banks, they may not have any ship manage
ment capability at all. The expertise and professionalism of ship management companies can be
valuable for ship owners in pursuing their objectives.
The global presence of ship management firms is another essential consideration for ship own
ers planning to achieve a competitive advantage on the global stage. Maritime shipping is a global
business and relies on a global network. Most large ship management companies have established a
network of offices, crewing agencies and training centres in strategic locations which ship owners
are unable to build. The networks play a crucial role in providing local solutions. For example, in
the increasingly tighter labour market, particularly for qualified and experienced seafarers, ship
management firms can source crew from any of the various low-cost supply centres throughout
the world. In the meantime, if an owner needs to expand its fleet, the ship management company
can provide crews at short notice, thus contributing to efficiency through operational flexibility
(Panayides, 2001).
Furthermore, emerging technology and the versatility of service providers are also essential
drivers of outsourcing (Trunick, 1989). In the recent years, the rapid growth of new technologies
has been significantly changing the practices in the maritime world, such as BDA, 3-D printing,
8 INTRODUCTION
artificial intelligence (AI) and blockchain technology (Zhang et al., 2020b). With the continuing
increase of awareness of the new technologies, the maritime industry is expected to enter into a
more digitalised environment. However, traditional mind-set, limited knowledge, mass investment,
lack of skilled manpower and uncertain yields of new technologies have been identified as the
major challenges. Ship owners’ main interest is in ships. It would be time-consuming and costly
to invest in specialised equipment and training staff on unfamiliar technologies. In contrast, most
ship management firms, particularly large ones, are more responsive to the application of new
technologies. They have more motivation to build up corporate infrastructure and execute new
technologies aiming to improve their competitive advantage. Ship owners can simply make use of
those services available from ship management companies.
In addition, outsourcing ship management is related to compliance with maritime regulations
that are becoming increasingly stringent. One special feature of the maritime business is that it is
positioned in a multitiered and polycentric regulatory framework.2 It is a place that international,
regional and local authorities are involved, with simultaneous cooperation between public and pri
vate sectors (Leeuwen, 2015). Recently, this framework is becoming increasingly complex, and ship
owners are facing more intensified challenges and risks than before. Implementing and adhering
to the maritime regulations necessitate additional personnel that are both technically and legally
experienced (Asuquo et al., 2014). Most ship owners’ in-house legal departments are unable to
deal with these issues effectively. Employing a ship management firm to cope with the burden of the
vast amount and increasingly strict stipulations could let ship owners focus on their core activities
(Shuang, 2006).Also, most ship management firms provide services for a large number of ship own
ers and they can share actionable solutions for clients. In case of disastrous marine accidents and
pollution, professional ship management can potentially free the owner from legal liabilities, save
its money and public image and thus protect its other assets or even its viability (Mitroussi, 2004).
In making the choice of outsourcing, the main factors to consider include the company’s size,
type, age and environment in which it operates (Mitroussi, 2003). Running a large number of ships
is a highly complex and professional venture, as each one of the ships needs its own planning, coor
dinating, organising and managing, and so it is common that large ship owning companies employ
an independent and professional ship management firm to deal with the complex and cumbersome
processes. Cariou & Wolff (2011a) consider that ship owners tend to outsource ship management
when the fleet consists of more than ten vessels so that they can focus on their core activities.
However, Durgut & Çetin (2018) comment that outsourcing can enable an owner of just several
ships to operate them without the need for a large in-house department. Placing this small fleet
with a large ship management firm will generate the benefits of being with a large fleet, such as
strong bargaining power in purchasing stores, repair services and other matters which only large
firms can obtain.
The organisation’s type also makes a difference in the choice of outsourcing ship management.
An organisation can be a partnership, private or family company, public company or joint venture
company.According to Mitroussi (2003), organisations with many scattered shareholders resulting
in a wide dispersion of ownership, especially those listed in the capital markets, more likely out
source third-party professional ship management services. In contrast, private personal enterprises,
especially family companies, tend to maintain the traditional owner-management because they are
normally very wary of outside managers and sensitive about losing control of their organisations
(Daily & Dollinger, 1992).
The organisation’s age plays another important role in choosing strategic decisions to out
source ship management, especially for most family firms.According to Mitroussi (2003), the term
‘organisation’s age’ is used to refer mostly to the life cycle of the organisation and, especially, to
the generation of a family in charge of the organisation.There are normally five stages in the family
firm’s life cycle: the creation of the business, growth and development, succession, public ownership
INTRODUCTION 9
and professional management (Dyer, 2009). Mitroussi (2003) indicated that the age of a shipping
firm can affect the choice of outsourcing ship management services.The older a company becomes,
the more likely it is open to the option of outsourcing.
Another characteristic of an organisation considered as having an effect on the choice of
outsourcing is the environment in which the firm operates. Strategic decisions of the organisation
should be based on insight from environmental evaluations. For effective decision-making, it is
necessary to analyse the internal and external environments the organisation operates in (Lynch,
2018). Ship owning companies always operate in a fast-changing environment and face special risks.
It is crucial to perceive high environment uncertainty, develop sustainable exploration capability
and swiftly respond to a wide range of unforeseen factors (Yuen et al., 2019). Ship owning com
panies tend to employ third-party ship management under the impact of uncertain factors, such
as emerging technologies, shortage of qualified manpower, social and political uncertainties, a new
regulatory framework and increased liability (Mitroussi, 2003).
In addition, there are studies suggesting that the ship owner’s country of domicile is a signifi
cant factor. For example, ship owners registered in Denmark, Japan and the UK tend to choose to
outsource third-party ship management, while Greek and Indonesian ship owners are less likely to
do so. Furthermore, US and Norwegian ship owners are more likely to employ a mixed strategy
through which only part of ship management functions are outsourced (Cariou & Wolff, 2011a).
However, although outsourcing is a strategic choice of great importance, the extent of out
sourcing and the rationales behind the adoption of different outsourcing approaches can vary sig
nificantly (Cariou & Wolff, 2011b). For example, most ship owners tend to contract out the crewing
and technical management of their fleet, but appear to be unwilling to contract out the aspects of
ship operations that are directly connected with the basic income of the company, such as the char
tering of the vessel. Studies also suggested that most ship owners are less likely to employ outside
managers to deal with the ultimate disposal of a substantial asset, such as the sale or purchase of
ships (Durgut & Çetin, 2018; Mitroussi, 2004; Seo et al., 2018).
Structure of the book

Ship management is a fundamental activity for ship owning and operating and represents an area
where shipping companies invariably assign and delegate responsibilities to qualified and expe
rienced personnel. Considering the unique features of the maritime business, ship management
requires integrative knowledge that spans across multiple disciplines and needs varied skills and
expertise.This book comes as a response to the market need to set out a comprehensive cover
age of all aspects of ship management. It aims to be a one-stop read for all interested parties from
the maritime industry. This book also provides students, both undergraduate and post-graduate,
systematic knowledge of ship management and offers researchers a valuable reference source and
a solid foundation on which further development can be built.
Chapter 2 provides a high-level overview of the special nature and characteristics of ship
management.This chapter begins with an examination of the concept of ship management and the
main types of ships. It further discusses the special nature and characteristics related to the ship,
the seafaring profession, the shipping business and maritime governance. This chapter provides a
background context for further discussions of specific issues in the following chapters.The authors
argue that good practices of ship management are associated with the understanding of the special
features of its business and the internal and external environments, including the ship, the seafarer,
the shipping company and the market it is positioned in.
Chapter 3 focuses on strategic management.This chapter begins with an introduction to the
basic concept of strategic management, its functions and major processes. It further discusses the
10 INTRODUCTION
role of business policy and organisational structure that support the implementation of business
strategies. This chapter also covers issues related to merger and acquisition and choice of flags
which have been frequently used by shipping organisations in strategic management.The final sec
tion in this chapter discusses the impact of emerging technologies and the response of ship man
agement firms, which constitute important aspects of their strategic management.
Chapter 4 moves on to discuss commercial management.This chapter begins with a discussion
of the meaning and use of the concept. It is followed by an analysis of the role of the ship manager,
which is established under the SHIPMAN 2009 as the agent of the ship owner.The content focuses
on the ship manager’s contractual obligations and fiduciary duties.The final section in this chapter
discusses the management of commercial risks and the use of insurance to achieve this purpose.
Chapter 5 moves on to discuss operations management, which plays a central role in ensuring
the success of commercial activities.This chapter begins with a discussion of the meaning and use
of the concept. It is followed by a discussion of the sea voyage cycle, which include five distinct
phases: pre-arrival phase, arriving phase, port stay phase, departing phase and post-departure phase.
The following content centres on the major operational activities of these phases.
Chapter 6 moves on to discuss technical management.This chapter begins with a discussion of
the meaning of technical management and its key aspects. It is followed by examining the concept
of seaworthiness, which is the most important element of a ship’s technical management.The con
tent focuses on a variety of issues related to maintenance management, performance management,
quality and safety management, information management and emergency management.
Chapter 7 moves on to discuss human resource management. This chapter begins with a
discussion of the meaning of the term and its key aspects, including the dimension of crew manage
ment. It is followed by examining a number of key issues relating to human resource management in
the maritime industry.These issues include the human element, industrial relations and sustainable
workforce development in the maritime industry. The content focuses on the management of a
multicultural crew, including the benefit and challenges of the multicultural crew and its impact on
performance and safety.
Chapter 8 moves on to discuss compliance management.This chapter begins with a discussion
of the meaning of compliance management and its key aspects. It further discusses compliance with
maritime governance, which can be divided into several aspects at different levels. It is followed by a
critical examination of the compliance with international economic sanctions.The content focuses
on the challenges of compliance management.
Chapter 9 draws together the issues and challenges in ship management, such as the concept
of best practices in ship management, divers for continuous improvement and the main challenges
of ship management. The chapter also considers an important question as to the impact of digi
talisation on future ship management, including the benefit and obstacles of digitalisation and the
issues related to cybersecurity.
Notes
1 Gross register tonnage (GRT) is a measure of the total internal capacity of the ship consisting of the under-
deck volume excluding double-bottoms, volume of tween deck spaces, volume of superstructures, volume of
deck-houses, etc. Exemptions include navigational spaces, galleys, stairways and light and air spaces (Steam
ship, 2000).
2 This will be further discussed in Chapter 2.
Chapter 2
Special characteristics of ship management
As explained in Chapter 1, today’s shipping companies operate in a very dynamic and turbulent
environment.They are forced to continuously monitor trends on the global market and adapt to
market requirements to gain a better position compared with their competitors (Novaselić et al.,
2018).To adopt best practices in ship management is a strategic response to a variety of interre
lated challenges, including economic pressures, the regulatory environment, the human element,
new technologies and so on.
Good practices of ship management are associated with the understanding of the special
features of its business and the internal and external environments, including the ship, the seafarer,
the shipping company and the market it is positioned in.The 21st-century ship is among the largest
and most expensive moving objects, and modern container ships, supertankers and cruise liners
continually push the boundaries of marine technology to their current limits (Votolato, 2011).The
unique features of maritime labour relate to the differences between shipboard and onshore per
sonnel in the companies.Also, shipping is regarded to be the epitome of a globalised industry (ILO,
2001).This chapter provides an overview of the special nature and characteristics of the shipping
industry and ship management.
The concept of ship management

Management is the coordination and administration of tasks to achieve a goal. In a business context,
it involves setting the strategy of the organisation and coordinating people’s activities to achieve the
goal through the application of available resources, such as financial, technological, natural and human
resources (Indeed, 2020a). It can be defined as ‘the process of administering and controlling the affairs
of the organisation, irrespective of its nature, type and size’ (Onyekwere et al., 2019). In practice,
management is a discipline that comprises a set of five general functions: planning, staffing, leading, orga
nizing and controlling (Davis, 2019). According to Panayides (2019), management includes allocating
resources and coordinating activities of the business entities in order to accomplish defined objectives.
It is crucial to gain competitive advantage, whereas managerial capacity is essential to formulating and
executing company strategies, policy and guidelines that influence long-term commercial viability.
Ship management is a fundamental activity for shipping companies.There are a variety of defi
nitions in the existing literature subject to different choices of business models. As explained in
Chapter 1, the main options include traditional in-house management, outsourcing third-party
management and hybrid management systems. The exact contents each model can be further
defined. However, it is not possible to describe all the various types of ship management in one
phrase. For example, Frankel (1982) defined ship management as ‘the complex array of decisions
required to assure effective operation and performance of a ship as a unit, as part of a fleet of ships,
or as part of a transportation system’.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-2
12 SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SHIP MANAGEMENT
This definition suggests a range of managing activities, such as crewing, repair, maintenance, ship
navigation, procurement, inventory control, ship condition control, accounting and others which are
generally performed on the daily basis. It applies equally to ship operations as well as performance
management. However, the rapid development of ship management methods and approaches in the
1980s made this definition seemingly obsolete. Downard (1987) provided a similar definition several
years later, as follows, which suggested different functions between ship operators and ship managers:
The functions of taking care of a ship, i.e. responsibility for manning, maintaining, supplying and
insuring the ship, and ensuring that the ship is available to the operators for the maximum
amount of time possible. In other words, all the activities not carried out by the operators.
As explained in Chapter 1, professional ship management is a response to the restructuring of the

maritime industry and the enhancement of professionalism. Sletmo (1989) refers to it as constitut
ing ‘an efficient organisational adjustment to the conditions of a global shipping market’.With the
rise of professional ship management companies in the late 20th century, the usage of the term
has changed to specially refer to services provided by the third party. For example, Rodger (1993)
stated that ship management was ‘the management and sustenance of the ship itself rather than of
the trade in which it is engaged’. More specifically, it was defined by Spruyt (1994) in his book Ship
Management as follows:
The contracted and professional supply of all on-board services, together with their shore
supervision, which would normally enhance a vessel from a bareboat into a time charter
description, by a management company usually separate from the vessel’s ownership.
This definition could be narrowed down to the supply of just one service, but it could also be
broadened to include the provision of everything needed to make a ship profitable (Spruyt, 1994).
According to this definition, the management company is usually a separate company having no share-
holding ties with the ship owner. In practice, a managing company needs to maintain a certain level
of independence and not to be affected by any conflicts of interest. For example, a ship manager’s
judgement on safety requirements can be compromised by personal, financial or other commercial
considerations.This was later affirmed by Mitroussi (2003), who defined ship management as ‘profes
sional, independent organizations which for a negotiated fee and with no shareholding ties with their
clients undertake responsibility for the management of vessels in which they have no financial stake’.
‘Contracted’ suggests that it is necessary to have a ship management contract setting out the
legal obligations of the relevant parties.‘Professional’ signifies that ship managers operate the vessel
as agents and the consequence of their activities, with respect to a third party, flows straight back
to the owners as the principal.The term ‘all on-board services, together with their shore supervi
sion’ implies an unlimited range of activities to be carried out by ship managers.The word ‘usually’
indicates a certain degree of uncertainty regarding the relationship between the ship owner and
ship management company. It was criticised by Panayides & Gray (1997) that the definition ‘seems
to be vague and does not seem either simple or complete’. In an attempt to close the gap, they
hence gave a more generalised definition as ‘the rendering of services under contract related to the
systematic organization of the economic resources and transactions required for the sustenance of
a ship as a revenue earning entity’.
In the revised edition of the book Ship Management, Willingale (1998) revised the definition
and added one further aspect, which defined ship management as:
The professional supply of a single or range of services by a management company separate

from the vessel’s ownership in support of the primary objectives of the shipowner.
SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SHIP MANAGEMENT 13
This change implied that the ship manager’s and the ship owner’s main objectives are different. In
practice, the ship manager is employed by the ship owner and receives payment for their services
(Panayides, 2001). Where there are conflicting objectives, they shall work for the best interest of
the owner.Traditionally, the ship owner’s main objective was to make a profit by earning freight.This
could be achieved by taking some specific measures, such as making the best use of cargo spaces,
minimizing bunker consumption and labour cost, fully engaging the ship and so on. In contrast, ship
management means ‘the rendering of services for ship operation and associated services’ (ISMA,
1992), or ‘professional provision of a service or of a range of services by a management company
unrelated to the ownership of the vessel’ (Theotokas, 2018).
Today, the ship owner’s background and interest become increasingly complicated, such as the
participation of banks, cargo owners and other investors in the ship owning business. The primary
objectives are becoming less straightforward than before. For example, some oil and iron ore compa
nies enter the ship owning business, but their main objective is to counteract the fluctuations of the
shipping market instead of earning freight (Haldemann, 2015).This might be more complicated in a case
where some owners have different considerations between their long-term and short-term objectives.
Having attempted to examine the literal meaning of the term ship management, it is important
to note that there is no definition suitable for all different scenarios. In this book, ship management
is defined as:
The process of planning, staffing, leading, organising and controlling in administering ship oper
ations through allocating resources and coordinating activities of the shipping company in
order to accomplish the shipowner’s main objectives.
It is noteworthy that this definition does not distinguish third-party and in-house ship manage
ment, but follows the literal meaning of these two words. Furthermore, the understanding of ship
management and its contents depends on the business model and the relationship and contract
between the ship owner and the ship manager. In practice, ship management is often referred to as
an umbrella term which includes various types of management services covering all aspects of ship
operations on a daily basis (Willingale, 1998).
The main types of ships

There is a wide range of different types of ships. As mentioned in Chapter 1, people started to
build and use wooden boats for trade about 5,000 years ago.Today many ships are among the most
expensive assets specially designed and built for ship owners.The type of ship employed on a trade
route is mainly determined by the traffic and cargo carried (Branch, 2007). In recent years, there is
a race to build the most efficient ships, producing some of the world’s largest container ships and
pushing the boundaries of physics. For example, the largest container ship in 2019, OOCL Hong
Kong, is almost 400 metres long with a carrying capacity of 21,413 TEU (MINN, 2020).
In early 2019, there were 95,402 propelled seagoing merchant vessels of 100 tonnes and above.
Among them, there were 16,945 general cargo ships ranked as the most common type of ship in
the global merchant fleet (Statista, 2020). However, by dead-weight tonnes1 (dwt), they only rep
resented 3.7 per cent of the world fleet at the beginning of 2019. In contrast, some 11,000 ships
were bulk carriers but represented 42.6 per cent of the total dwt.This was followed by oil tankers
and container ships, representing 28.7 and 13.4 per cent of the total dwt, respectively (UNCTAD,
2019). Bulk carriers, oil tankers and container ships are the three main types of ships, accounting
for nearly 85 per cent of the total tonnage of the world fleet.Also, they take the lead in shipbuilding
in 2018, which represented over 75 per cent of ships delivered in gross register tonnes2 (GRT).
Bulk carriers
Bulk carriers are a type of single-deck vessel specially designed to transport unpackaged bulk cargo,
such as iron ore, coal, grains, sugar, cement and steel coils in its cargo holds.The earliest steam bulk
carriers can be traced back to the middle of the 19th century, which were built to gain an advan
tage in the competitive British coal market.Today, the largest bulk carriers,Valemaxes vessels, are
up to 400,000 dwt.They were specially designed and ordered by Vale, the Brazilian mining giant, to
transport its iron ore from Brazil to China (Papadionysiou, 2014). Most bulk carriers are designed
for cheapness and simplicity (Stopford, 2009). Smaller vessels may have their own cargo gears on
deck, so they do not rely on shore-based facilities for loading and discharging. However, most larger
bulk carriers do not have their own cranes for cargo operation purposes.
Bulk carriers transport a wide spectrum of bulk cargoes with a premium on flexibility and econ
omy. Most bulk carriers focus on low-cost transport, such as coal, sand and rock. The world bulk
carrier fleet falls into four major categories corresponding to different markets.These are Handysize
bulk carriers ranging between 10,000 and 39,999 dwt, Handymax bulk carriers between 40,000 and
59,999 dwt, Panamax between 60,000 and 99,999 dwt and Capesize being over 100,000 dwt. On both
ends of the spectrum are mini-bulk and very large bulk carriers, but they represent only a small portion
of the market. Handy and Handymax ships are general-purpose in nature so they have more flexibility
in choosing cargo. In contrast, Capesize vessels specialise in iron ore and coal, which account for over
93 per cent of the cargo they carried (Lamb, 2003).Accordingly, the bulk carrier market has evolved
into several different size bands, each specialising in a different sector of the trade (Stopford, 2009).
Tankers
Tankers are ships specifically designed for the bulk carriage of oil or its products (Hayler & Keever,
2003).The history of using tankers to transport oil can be traced back to the middle of the 19th
century when oil began to be exported from Upper Burma to Britain (Woodman, 1997). Today’s
tankers have developed a variety of types, including crude tankers, product tankers, chemical tank
ers and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) and liquefied natural gas (LNG). Each type can be further
divided into different categories according to its size or trading features. For example, the fleet of
crude oil tankers can be subdivided into six segments according to vessel size.These include small
tankers (under 10,000 dwt), Handy tankers (10,000–59,999 dwt), Panamax tankers (60,000–79,999
dwt), Aframax (80,000–119,999 dwt), Suezmax tankers (120,000–199,999 dwt) and very large
crude carriers (VLCCs) over 200,000 dwt (UNCTAD, 2011).
Each of these categories operates as a separate market, which is affected by a wide variety of
variables such as the supply and demand of oil and oil tankers. Some other variables include excess
tanker tonnage, winter temperatures, interruptions in refinery services and the supply fluctuations
in the global oil market, such as the Persian Gulf (UNCTAD, 2007). Furthermore, one tricky issue is
that developments in the tanker market, to a certain extent, are dominated by geopolitics. Geopo
litical tensions, sanctions and the tanker market are closely linked because there is typically a close
relationship between oil prices and geopolitical events (Parker, 2019). In reality, many of the global
leading oil-producing countries are politically unstable, and some are at odds with the United States
and subject to sanctions (Broekhuizen, 2020). In the past decade, crude oil and product tanker
markets have faced high volatility, largely due to geopolitics and the constantly evolving situation in
the global oil markets (Wylezich & Stock, 2020).
Container ships
Container ships are cargo ships that are specially designed or equipped for carrying their load in
truck-size intermodal containers.These containers are of a standardised size so that they can be
easily transferred to various modes of transport (Jha, 2020).The process of sending cargo in special
containers is known as containerisation, the history of which can be traced back to the middle
of the 1950s. Over the years container ships undertook several changes, mainly in terms of size
driven by economies of scale (Neise, 2018). Modern container ships are distinguished into seven
major size categories: small feeder with a capacity below 1,000 TEU,3 feeder (1,001–2,000 TEU),
feedermax (2,001–3,000 TEU), Panamax (3,001–5,100 TEU), Post-Panamax (5,101–10,000 TEU),
New Panamax (10,001–14,500 TEU) and ultra-large container vessel (ULCV) with a capacity of
14,501 and higher (Man, 2012).
In today’s world, container vessels carry around 90 per cent of the world’s non-bulk cargo
trades.The industry firmly believes that the larger the number of containers being carried, the lower
the costs per TEU.As mentioned earlier, there is a race to build more efficient and larger container
ships among the ship owners. Technological advancement has made the competition fiercer and
is continually pushing the boundaries of physics and redefining the technical potential of the con
tainer ship (BMRC, 2019). However, the bigger the ships become, the more challenging it is for the
corresponding port infrastructure and cargo handling.Today, most large container ports have been
increasingly built in more remote areas, typically far away from urban centres.This also causes social
impact on seafarers, who become less likely to get access to port welfare needs (Zhao et al., 2020).
General cargo ships

Most general cargo can be carried by container ships. However, a large proportion of them are
awkwardly shaped and bulky and do not fit into standard containers (STSA, 2020). They are nor
mally loaded individually and not in intermodal containers, nor in bulk as with coal or grain. General
cargo ships are designed for flexibility and can carry a huge variety of commodities in many forms.
To make the best use of the space of the cargo hold, most general cargo ships have more than one
deck, so they are adaptable and can be used to transport virtually every form of dry non-bulk cargo,
such as boxed, palletized and refrigerated, and with the possibility to accommodate bulk materials
such as grain. A distinct feature of general cargo ships is that they typically have their cargo han
dling gears. Efficient and flexible cargo handling systems enable them to carry a variety of different
cargoes and to complete cargo work within the shortest time possible.They are also able to trade
to smaller ports and terminals that do not have shoreside cargo handling equipment (MIKC, 2013).
Traditionally, general cargo ships have been the backbone of the global merchant fleet.They are
often able to take on abnormal loads that other ships cannot accommodate. In lean times they can
easily turn their hand to carrying containers and bulk or bagged cargo, so many of these ships are
often referred to as multipurpose (MPP) vessels (MIKC, 2013). In addition to MPP vessels, roll-on
roll-off (RORO) vessels, heavy lift vessels, barge carriers and refrigerated vessels also fall into the
category of general cargo ships.While many obsolete vessels are being replaced by container ships,
those ships focusing on ‘uncontainerisable’ cargo will continue to grow because there will always
be a significant part of cargos which do not conveniently fit in a standard container (Stopford,
2009). In reality, general cargo ships do not account for a large share of seaborne trade, but they
do represent a significant share of the world fleet in terms of the number of vessels and port calls
(UNCTAD, 2019).Therefore, general cargo ships employ a large share of global seafarers, and they
also tend to require many resources at the wharf at both ends of the voyage.
Special nature and characteristics of the ship

To understand ship management, it is first crucial to understand the special nature and character
istics of the ship. First, the ship is a special type of transportation conveyance. Every ship must be
registered in a specific state and be granted the state’s nationality under which they fly the flag.
Ship registration is the administrative mechanism by which a state confers its nationality upon a
ship. It is an act in both a public law sense and a private law sense.The former means the registra
tion of a ship’s nationality, while the latter refers to the registration of a ship’s ownership, lease or
mortgage (Li & Chen, 2009).The ship’s flag and nationality play a key role in its daily operation and
management, including jurisdiction, certification, duty and tax, labour issues, onboard administration
and compliance. For example, according to Art.217(1) of UNCLOS 1982, flag states shall ‘ensure
compliance by vessels flying their flag or of their registry with applicable rules and standards’.
One special feature associated with the ship’s nationality is the practice of open registry (OR).
The word ‘open’ means that the registry is open to anyone of any nationality, as opposed to a
closed registry, which provides ship registration services to those who are domiciled in the coun
try. ORs offer ship owners a commercial alternative to registering under their national flags, and
they charge a fee for this service (Stopford, 2009). Ship owners can flag their vessels in whichever
country they choose and select the tax structure and regulatory framework most conducive to
the business strategy they pursue (Lillie, 2013). However, despite the express reference to flag state
responsibilities in international law, many states are not very keen on fulfilling their obligations with
respect to international obligations.This encourages sub-standard ship owners to shift their ships
to the flags of those states which ignore their international obligations (Özçayir, 2001).This often
creates a complexity in that the nationality of the crew and the nationality of the ship owner or
the company are often different from that of the ship (Kasoulides, 1993).
An OR is often referred to as a flag of convenience (FOC), which has been used in the mari
time industry for approximately 100 years (Boczek, 2005).Throughout their long and controversial
history, the popularity of ‘flagging-out’ has only increased, with over two-thirds of the world’s
merchant fleet now flying an FOC (UNCTAD, 2019).An FOC is chosen for predominantly financial
reasons, with safety, environmental and labour condition concerns being ignored (Ademun-Odeke,
2005). By now, international organisations (IOs), nation-states and non-governmental organisations
(NGOs) have made considerable effort in dealing with the practice of FOCs and their negative
consequences. In recent years, standards on board most FOC vessels have generally improved
(Alexopoulos & Sambracos, 2018). However, there are still various issues surrounding the practice
which need to be addressed as the maritime industry continues to face challenges caused by using
FOCs in the modern day (Boczek, 2013).
Furthermore, the ship is a special type of asset. It has the features of most moveable assets,
such as the machinery, vehicles and other equipment. However, the administration and regulation
on the ship follow the rules applicable to immovable real estate; for example, the relevant issues
relating to the ship’s personality, construction, registration and certification. Once a shipbuilding
contract is signed, a ship will be given a hull number as its initial identification. Since 1 January
1996, the ship’s certificates must also bear the International Maritime Organization (IMO) number,
which is a unique identifier for ships, registered ship owners and management companies.The IMO
number scheme was introduced to improve maritime safety and security and to reduce maritime
fraud. Every seagoing ship has a unique permanent identification number that remains linked to the
hull of a ship for its lifetime, regardless of changes of names, flags or owners (IMO, 1987). In addi
tion, the theory of action in rem, also referred to as personification, recognises the fact that a ship
has separate statutory rights and obligations different from the owner (Teacher, 2013). It follows
the principle that a ship ‘can be sued, arrested, defaulted or found at fault, and sold at a marshal’s
auction, all without the shipowner being involved’ (Sakellis, 1987). Due to the unique features, the
industry has developed a range of special practices, rules and regulations, such as ship’s personality,
the law of bill of lading, mortgage-backed finance, sale and leaseback finance, general average, mar
itime lien and so on.4
A further special feature which lies with the ship is that it is one of the most important and
complicated parts of the maritime economy. It is a special element in the means of production,
which can be defined as anything utilised to produce goods and services to satisfy human mate
rial needs and maintain existence (Morrison, 2006). In most industries, when investors put their
resources in a business, such as materials, tools, facilities and machinery, they normally have a
method to monitor the production process, such as physical inspection. However, today’s ship
owners have to completely rely on the seafarer in terms of operating and preserving the ship asset.
Thus, a special relationship has been developed between the ship owner and the crew.The master
of a ship, as the head of the crew, has to perform a range of special duties, including a fiduciary duty
to work for the best interest of the ship owner.These duties can be extended to the ship manage
ment company, which is often the direct employer of the crew.
In addition, the ship is not only a means by which the crew interposes between themselves and
the subject of their labour but also the place where they sleep, live and socialise.After the working
day is over, seafarers cannot go home or even leave the workplace, but continue to stay on board
(Zhao et al., 2020).The ship’s safety and living conditions can easily be affected by cargo stowage,
ship and weather conditions, the performance and behaviour of crew members and many other
factors. Seafarers have no freedom of choice to stay or leave, especially when the ship is sailing. If an
emergency happens at sea, such as fire, bad weather, piracy or failure of the engine, the crew have
no access to external assistance but can only rely on themselves.The ship is the only ‘sanctuary’ at
sea for the crew, so they must all try their best to preserve and rescue the ship in an emergency.All
these features create a special human–machine–environment system onboard (Scott & Calhoun,
2006).
Special nature and characteristics of the

seafaring profession
Merchant seafaring has been considered one of the most special occupations in the world. In the
20th century, the shipping industry underwent considerable technological, structural and financial
changes, which have increased the complexity and transnational nature of the shipping sector
(Starkey & Harlaftis, 2017). Today’s seafaring profession is associated with a special nature and
characteristics.
First, seafaring is a tradition that encompasses a range of professions and ranks following a
unique shipboard hierarchy.As shown in Figure 2.1, each of these roles carries special duties that
are integral to the efficient operation of a ship. Seafarers can generally be divided into three main
categories: the deck department, the engineering department and the catering department. The
reasoning behind this is that different departments require different skills and expertise.The ship
needs to maintain a high level of efficiency with the minimum crew members.This ranking system
ensures proper coordination of onboard operations and promotes optimal management strate
gies. Ship operation is a line of work in need of a very high level of professionalism. Because lax
performance can lead to disastrous consequences, it is essential to maintain the shipboard hier
archy in an economically viable model with an effective shore-based support framework (Bhat
tacharjee, 2020).
The shipboard hierarchy and ranking system are universally understood and accepted by ship
ping companies and merchant ships around the world. The ranks and responsibilities that come
with it are almost all the same across the whole industry, though there are some minor changes
in names and duties assigned to specific positions varying among maritime organisations and the
system of the nomenclature they adopt (Bhattacharjee, 2020). In practice, many seafarers prefer to
call their colleagues by rank rather than by name. The onboard organisation needs to maintain a
highly stable structure and simplicity.The stable organisational structure is designed to ensure that
frequent crew changes will not cause discontinuity of responsibilities on board, and simplicity is
Figure 2.1 Shipboard hierarchy
designed to ensure accurate and efficient performance of duties.To achieve this purpose, the peo
ple involved need to find common ground for mutual understanding and communication.According
to Ryle (2009),‘understanding is a part of knowing how’. It is to acknowledge how the matter to be
understood fits into (or perhaps deviates from) the preconceptions (Hantho et al., 2002). In reality,
differences always exist between hearing what a person is saying and understanding it, in particular
in a multiculture working environment like the maritime industry (Ladegaard & Jenks, 2018).
Seafarers face unique working conditions which can put them under tremendous stress and
risks, with fewer opportunities for support than they would be likely to find on land (NI, 2018).
Onboard ship, the seafarer’s work is lengthy, complex and highly stressful. A merchant ship is an
isolated place, and the seafarers on board have to be self-sufficient and able to improvise (Zhang &
Zhao, 2017). While there is a scheduled work and rest arrangement on board, when the ship
departs or arrives at a port, or if the ship is involved in an emergency, all the crew will be called
upon and rest periods will be interrupted (Exarchopoulos et al., 2018). Furthermore, seafarers
must deal with hazardous cargoes and severe weather (Oldenburg et al., 2010). It is also believed
that job demands for seafarers have direct and indirect effects on fatigue and the working climate
on board (Pauksztat, 2017). These special factors impose a particularly difficult workload on sea
farers, and the quality of seafarers’ labour may be compromised by the need to be available all the
time (Xu & Zhang, 2016).
The special nature and characteristics are also associated with the maritime labour market.As
explained earlier, the open registry system creates flexibility and makes it possible for ship owners
to choose seafarers from anywhere in the world.The maritime labour market can be regarded as
the entire population of seafarers, including every individual who has an occupation at sea (Leong,
2012). In theory, seafarers in any given country may freely move around in the global labour market
and are thus available to the world fleet. However, in reality, the seafaring labour market is not
simple or unified, but ‘a diversity of markets cutting across and interacting on one another in an
international environment’ (McLaughlin & McConville, 2002). It is therefore segmented by ‘national
boundaries with a multiplicity of barriers both direct and indirect’ to the free movement of labour
across the industry (McLaughlin & McConville, 2002). Although the maritime labour market is
perceived as a shared and interconnected space, it is not perfectly unified or homogeneous, but
segmented (Leong, 2012).
The maritime labour market today faces a paradox of both a shortage and surplus of seafarers.
In recent years, the industry has seen a rapid expansion of the world fleet and, in the meantime,
a declining of seafaring expertise (Kantharia, 2019). It was estimated in 2018 that there was a
global shortage of about 16,500 officers (2.1 per cent), but an oversupply of about 119,000 ratings
(15.8 per cent) (ICS, 2018). On the one hand, the current maritime industry is facing a significant
shortage of officers, highly skilled seafarers and seafarers qualified for specialist ships, such as LNG
ships, high-technology vessels and special project vessels. On the other hand, the oversupply of
ratings and ordinary seafarers is still a major challenge for the industry, especially in the offshore
sector (Szymanski, 2015). In recent years, the number of maritime education and training (MET)
institutions has increased considerably, especially in some developing countries, such as China,Viet
nam and the Philippines. A large number of poorly trained graduates and inexperienced seafarers
are pushed to the labour market (Nguyen et al., 2014). The situation is worsened by low freight
rates associated with the dark clouds of protectionism and slowing growth in key economies.
Moreover, the seafaring profession has some other unique features. For example, it takes quite
a long time for a graduate to gain enough experience for his or her job and over ten years to be
qualified as a master mariner or chief engineer.This is one of the reasons that senior officers are
always in serious shortage.Another important feature is that crew agencies and transnational third-
party ship management companies drive the development of the global labour supply chain in the
shipping industry. However, most crew agencies are local.They act as employers in the countries of
seafarers but have no control of the workplaces overseas. Also, the role and liabilities of the ship
management company are still ambiguous in the context of the global human resource supply chain
(Shan & Zhang, 2020). In a cost-driven, transnational business, it is not surprising to see a ‘race to
the bottom’ with respect to the compliance of international maritime labour standards (Ruggunan,
2011). In the meantime, trade unions play an important role in protecting workers. However, most
of the time, seafarers are working onboard, and they do not have working relationships in the same
way as people on land.When they sign off from their ships, seafarers tend to scatter into different
regions and places. It is difficult for them to get access to union protection and to take collective
action to bargain with their employers for better employment conditions (Zhang, 2016).
Special nature and characteristics

of the shipping business
Maritime shipping has always been connected with international trade.This relationship goes back
thousands of years (Song & Panayides, 2015). International trade is made up of commercial transac
tions between sellers and buyers. Maritime shipping can provide cheap and efficient transportation,
and its effective use is important to the economic progress of all nations and areas in terms of
the economic contribution and growth of their foreign trade and their domestic consumption and
production (Frankel, 1989). Growth in global trade positively affects the growth in maritime ship
ping services because of the movement and carriage of goods from sellers to buyers.The maritime
shipping business is directly driven by global economic growth; in the meantime, it promotes the
latter by carrying over 80 per cent of international trade (Song & Panayides, 2015).
One special feature associated with the maritime business is shipping market cycles. Stop-
ford (2009) classified three shipping cycles according to the time interval in which the alternating
movements of freight rates are observed.These are seasonal cycles (fluctuations occurring within
1 year), short cycles (ranging from 3 to 12 years) and long cycles or the ‘secular trends’ (approx
imately 50 years). Shipping cycles lie at the heart of shipping risk, which can be defined as ‘mea
surable liability for any financial loss arising from unforeseen imbalances between the supply and
demand for sea transport’ (Downes & Goodman, 1991; Stopford, 2009). They create an arena in
which weak shipping companies are expelled, leaving the strong to survive and flourish, fostering a
lean, sustainable and efficient shipping business. However, the shipping market is extremely volatile
and risky, since it is subject to various uncertainties, ranging from the ever-changing world economy
and geopolitical shocks to fleet changes and the sensitive market sentiment (Chen, 2011). It is thus
extremely difficult to accurately predict shipping cycles and the timing of changes.
The other special feature is the complexity of the external and internal environments a ship
ping company faces in the course of conducting its daily business activities and procedures. The
otokas (2018) classified three levels of external environment: the larger macro-environment, the
environment shaped by shipping markets and the immediate external environment of shipping
firms. The broader macro-environment includes the economic, socio-cultural, technological and
politico-economic forces that a company has to deal with in the daily operation of ships.The exter
nal environment is dynamic, complex and continuously changing.The world’s economic and political
situation, national policies, bilateral relations between different countries and areas and the level
of technology are factors that play an important role in shaping the external environment of the
shipping business. Shipping companies need to perceive high environmental uncertainty, develop
sustainable exploration capability and respond to a wide range of unforeseen factors (Yuen et al.,
2019).
Shipping companies also face a complex internal environment which includes a wide range of
factors, such as company strategy, human resources, organisational structure, managerial effective
ness and so on. Most shipping companies are organised into different departments according to the
division of labour (Theotokas, 2018). For the realisation of any objectives, it is necessary to engage
many people and the coordination of the individual tasks. However, in a shipping company, there
are always conflicting objectives and proprieties (Novaselić et al., 2018). For example, the commer
cial department’s main objective and priority are to gain more business opportunities. Sometimes
they tend to compromise safety requirements by taking a risky course of action.This will conflict
with the priorities of the department responsible for safety and compliance. The complexity of
transnational shipping companies will be further enhanced after mergers and acquisitions, which
have taken place quite frequently in the past decade (Alexandrou et al., 2014). The coordination
of conflicting objectives will depend on the strategic aim and the decision-making process in the
hierarchy of the company and the alignment of both internal and external environments.
The special nature and characteristics of shipping business also lie in the special customs and
practices at sea which have been developed over the years. In the maritime commercial world, the
most important thing is to build trust, in particular between business partners who have never
met face to face.Very often, this trust is developed and shaped on the mutual understanding of the
special features of the maritime profession and culture. Customs at sea are a set of norms which
have been practised with respect to seafarers for centuries, a distinct and coherent body of rules
which governs maritime issues.As a distinct group of workers, seafarers have practised these sets
of customs in response to the particular nature of shipboard life. From time to time, these customs
were acknowledged in cases brought to courts of law and thereby have acquired the status of cus
tomary law. However, it is noteworthy that despite advances in ship design, maritime technology
and developments in international law, some of the customs continue to be followed at sea even
if they are too archaic to be followed in modern society (Hattendorf, 2007). One example is that
a ship’s dining room is traditionally separated into two parts. One is for officers, including a deck
apartment for the captain to the third officer and the engine department for the chief engineer
to the fourth engineer.The other is for ratings, including the bosun, able-bodied seafarer, ordinary
seafarer, wiper, cook and others. Generally, the officers’ mess room has better decorative and san
itary conditions than the ratings’ mess room. It is also normal practice for a cook to serve food
and cater with higher priority to the officers’ mess room. Other customs, such as ‘general average’,
‘masters’ authority’,‘actions in case of distress at sea’, etc., have acquired the status of legislation in
various jurisdictions, including international conventions, such as SOLAS.
Special nature and characteristics of

maritime governance
Governance is a concept with many properties and many varieties in terms of definition and
explanation. It is defined by McGinnis (2011) as a ‘process by which the repertoire of rules, norms,
and strategies that guide behaviour within a given realm of policy where interactions are formed,
applied, interpreted, and reformed’. According to Rotberg (2014), it generally equates to the ‘per
formance of governments’, which sets out criteria by which performance should be evaluated and
indicates the kinds of data that should be gathered to do the necessary assessment.
In a global context, governance means ‘any purposeful activity intended to control or influence
someone else that either occurs in the arena occupied by nations or, occurring at other levels,
projects influence into that arena’ (Finkelstein, 1995).As a result, the terms ‘global governance’ and
‘re-regulation’ (of the world economy) are often used synonymously (Brand, 2006).They are both
especially associated with the changing role of the state and of institutions in international politics
and economy.
Maritime governance5 derives from ‘an institutional framework with jurisdictions at [the] inter
national, national, regional and local level’ (McLaughlin, 2010). This theory emphasises the special
role of institutions making the maritime regulations, such as the United Nations (UN), the IMO
and International Labour Organisation (ILO) as special agencies of the UN and maritime nations.
However, Roe (2009) criticised the inertia and rigidity of the existing institutions, and he argued
that ‘the need for a dynamic, process-based governance that accommodates changes’ has to be rec
ognised.As a result, he thinks that maritime governance should have a dynamic framework to adapt
to globalisation and reflect the corporate style of industry management which adapts to constant
changes and adjusts to market needs (Roe, 2015).
Maritime shipping is a highly globalised industry in terms of both operation and ownership
(Rodrigue, 2010).The business is international and cheap, but complex, because of the involvement
of players from various countries and areas. In order to seek the lowest cost and highest gain, capi
tal, labour and other factors of production move freely between countries of origin and destination.
Distinct from the traditional maritime hierarchy, today’s modern globalised maritime society is net
work-bound and cross-functional (Roe, 2013). Due to its complexity and multidisciplinary feature,
maritime governance has been described, named and defined in different ways.The term ‘maritime
governance’ implies cooperation of the interdependent states. In contrast to the land, it is impossi
ble to set physical borders on seas, to limit positive or negative phenomena in the environment or
security, such as marine pollution, piracy, hijacking and terrorism (Łukaszuk, 2018).
Table 2.1 Multitiered structure of laws governing maritime jurisdictions and governance: polycentric
governance model
Jurisdiction Institution Examples
International • The United Nations (UN); • International Maritime Organization (IMO);

tier • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and • International Labour Organisation (ILO);
Development (OECD) • United Nations Conference on Trade and
Development (UNCTAD);
• OECD
Supranational • The European Union (EU); • Directorate-General for Mobility and
tier • Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN); Transport (DG-TREN);
• The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement • Directorate-General for Competition
(USMCA), which will replace the North American (DG-COMP)
Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
National tier • IMO member states; • UK;
• EU member states • Greece;
• USA;
• China
Local tier • City; • Shanghai;
• Port • Rotterdam;
• Pusan
Source: Compiled by the authors and adapted from Roe (2007)
Maritime activities are governed by a multitiered and polycentric governance (or jurispru
dence) system. Multitiered governance means (see Table 2.1) ‘a system of continuous negotiation
among nested governments at several territorial tiers- supranational, national, regional, and local,
as the result of a broad process of institutional creation and decisional reallocation’ (Marks, 1993).
Polycentric governance is a system in which ‘authorities from overlapping jurisdictions (or centres
of authority) interact to determine the conditions under which these authorities, as well as the
citizens subject to these jurisdictional units, are authorized to act as well as the constraints put
upon their activities for public purposes’ (McGinnis, 2011).
Typically, a polycentric system of governance is associated with a multitiered characteristic
(Gritsenko & Roe, 2019). Each tier of jurisdiction is responsible not only for the policymaking cor
responding to its tier but also for implementing and enforcing it.Though sovereign states continue
playing a significant role, today’s maritime industry is governed by a multitiered governance with
various centres (Adolf, 2012). It is a place where international, regional and local authorities are
involved, with simultaneous cooperation between public and private sectors. Namely, the multi-
tiered structure of the maritime jurisdiction and governance is polycentric (Leeuwen, 2015).
Looking forward, there is a continuing trend towards a multilevel and polycentric governance
system for sustainable shipping. However, multilevel governance is not a panacea, and polycentric
governance systems may involve various complications.The special systems do offer a mechanism
to reflect the practical activities within the maritime business and the priorities of the parties
involved. However, they are too complicated in their recognition of many policy influences and
regimes, their incorporation of networking and their interpretation of limited boundary and rela
tional integrity (Roe, 2009).The clashing of jurisdictions between international, supranational and
national levels has been identified as an unceasing problem in many aspects.
Safety, security and the environment continue to be the most fundamental issues that charac
terise the maritime regulatory regime.While the use of new technologies, in particular the inno
vation in digital shipping, increases the efficiency of ship operations, it is also associated with new
types of challenges and risks, especially in relation to the emergence of autonomous ships. For
example, one important development in maritime policymaking is a regulatory scoping exercise at

the IMO for the review of relevant legal instruments to guarantee the safe design, construction and
operation of autonomous ships and to ensure that the legal framework provides the same levels
of protection in ship operation to autonomous ships as those afforded to traditional ships (UNC
TAD, 2019).At the same time, cybersecurity incidents against shipboard systems and port facilities
continue to happen and have significantly affected the maritime industry. The situation highlights
the importance of regulating cybersecurity and cyber-risk management (UNCTAD, 2018). Further
more, United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 14 requires more strict ship-source pollution
control, such as marine litter, ballast water management, air pollution, oceans and climate change
mitigation and adaptation, the protection of biodiversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction and
the shipment of hazardous and noxious substances. It is expected to see policymakers’ continue
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from maritime shipping and other ship-source pollution con
trol and environmental protection measures (Gritsenko, 2017; Gritsenko & Roe, 2019; UNCTAD,
2019). In addition, some other issues, such as gender equality, fraudulent registration of ships and
piracy attacks, will continue to bring about new developments in the maritime regulatory regime
in the new future.
Notes
1 Dead weight ton (dwt) is the weight a ship can carry when loaded to its marks, including crew, cargo, fuel,
fresh water, provisions, stores and crew’s personal effects.
2 Gross ton (gt) is an international measurement of the ship’s open spaces, which is calculated through a
formula set out in the International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships adopted by International
Maritime Organization (IMO) in 1969.
3 TEU refers to 20-foot-equivalent unit, a measure used for capacity in container transportation. It is based
on the volume of a 20-foot-long (6.1-m) intermodal container, a standard-sized metal box which can be eas
ily transferred between different modes of transportation, such as ships, trains and trucks.
4 All these issues will be further explained in different chapters.
5 The issues with regard to compliance with maritime governance will be further explained in more detail in
Chapter 8.
Chapter 3
Strategic management
The previous chapter examines the special nature and characteristics of some key aspects of ship
management. It generates an understanding of the unique features of its business and the internal
and external environments, including the main types of ships and the seafaring profession, including
the ship, the seafarer, the shipping business and the maritime governance regime.
The dynamic nature of the shipping market necessitates strategic responses to make the
business competitive. This chapter focuses on strategic management. The first section discusses
the basic concept of strategic management, its functions and major processes.The second section
discusses the role of business policy in strategic management. The third section focuses on the
organisational structure that supports the implementation of business strategies.The special nature
and characteristics of shipping dictate that the organisational structure of the ship management
company has some special features. The fourth section focuses on mergers and acquisitions. In
recent years, mergers and acquisitions have been frequently used by a long list of ship management
firms as a growth strategy. The fifth section discusses the issues related to choosing the flag. It
is one of the main strategic decisions for shipping companies that have a close nexus with many
aspects of ship operation and management.The final section in this chapter discusses the impact of
emerging technologies and the response of ship management firms, which constitute an important
aspect of their strategic management.
The concept of strategic management

Strategy means choice and to be prepared (Lorange, 2018) in the context of competition (Sengupta &
Chandan, 2011). In the Oxford Dictionary, it is defined as a plan of action ‘designed to achieve a
long-term or overall aim’. In the commercial world, the strategy can be described as ‘the actions
and decisions that a company takes to reach its business goals and be competitive in its industry’
or ‘the determination of the basic long-term goals of an enterprise, and the adoption of courses of
action and the allocation of resources necessary for carrying out these goals’(Stephens & Martin,
2019).A strategy normally includes six key components: vision and business objectives; core values;
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis; tactics; resource allocation plan;
and measurement (Indeed, 2020b). It defines what the business needs to do to achieve its overall
aim. An effective business strategy can guide efficient resource allocation in the decision-making
process. At the same time, it helps different departments work together and ensure decisions of
different levels support the company’s overall direction (Nag et al., 2007).
In practice, most organisations deploy a hierarchy of interrelated strategies which can be
subdivided into three main categories: corporate strategy, business strategy and functional strat
egy (Lun et al., 2010).As shown in Figure 3.1, the corporate strategy is on the highest level of the
hierarchy of strategies. It determines what business the organisation is in, or should be in, and how
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-3
STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT 25
Corporate strategies
Responsibility of corporate-level senior
managers, such as the business a
corporation should be in.
Business strategies
Responsibility of business-level general
managers, such as tactics to beat the
competition.
Functional strategies
Responsibility of functional-level
divisional managers, such as operational
methods to implement the tactics.
Figure 3.1 Hierarchy of organisational strategies
the organisation intends for its business to be carried out (Robbins & Coulter, 2003). There are
two major aspects of corporate strategy.The first aspect is for the executive management to deal
with the scope, mix and emphasis among the various activities.The second aspect is to prioritise
resource allocation across various corporate activities (Kovačič, 1996). The middle level of the
hierarchy is the business strategy. It includes management plans at different levels which direct and
monitor different business units of the organisation.The primary focus of the business strategy is
to evaluate the strategic advantages of the individual unit.The functional strategy is on the lowest
level of the hierarchy. It supports business strategy by managing each principal activity within the
business.The functional strategy involves planning for maximum resource utilisation in a range of
areas: marketing, human resources, operations, finance, client relations and so on (Alkhafaji, 2003).
Strategic management is about making fundamental decisions about the future direction of an
organisation, including its goals, resources, challenges, activities and how it interacts with the exter
nal world (Lynch, 2018). It focuses on the total enterprise, and every part of the organisation plays
a role in its strategies. Also, strategic management is an ongoing process, including the planning,
monitoring, analysis and evaluation of all issues an organisation is involved in to achieve its aims
and objectives (Schmidt, 2009). The process of strategic management includes the identification
of the purpose of the organisation, the implementation of plans and the evaluation of actions to
achieve that purpose (Lynch, 2018). It involves the formulation and fulfilment of the main objectives
and initiatives taken by the top management of an organisation on behalf of owners, based on
consideration of resources and evaluation of the internal and external environments in which the
organisation operates (Stephens & Martin, 2019).
Accordingly, there are three major processes in strategic management: formulation, implemen
tation and evaluation of strategy.The purpose of the formulation is to identify and set out the overall
aim and major objectives for the organisation to pursue. For this purpose, it is necessary to analyse
the internal and external environments the organisation operates and then produce strategic deci
sions which are based on insight from the environmental evaluations (Lynch, 2018).The second stage
is the implementation of strategic decisions. Even the best strategy can be rendered useless unless
it is supported by all members and implemented accurately, effectively and successfully (Orcullo,
26 STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT
Strategy Strategy Strategy

formulation implemention evaluation
Figure 3.2 Stages of strategic management
2007). Implementation is the process of putting the organisation’s strategies into action. It involves
decisions with respect to how the organisation’s business policies and resources are aligned and
mobilised towards the overall aim (Stephens & Martin, 2019).The evaluation process determines if
the organisation’s desired outcomes are being achieved and, if not, why not.As shown in Figure 3.2,
successful strategies should be strengthened and continuously implemented, whereas unsuccessful
ones should be cancelled or revised and be evaluated again. The process involves monitoring the
implementation of various strategies and evaluating their performance and assessing the level of
impact (Azhar, 2002). Monitoring methods include establishing control systems so that feedback
from the actual implementation at each stage can be investigated and assessed.The monitoring sys
tem should identify and highlight deviations from desired results so that causes for deviations can be
analysed and necessary measures to rectify them can be put into action (Sengupta & Chandan, 2011).
Business policies of shipping companies

Policies are a set of rules or principles to guide decisions or actions to achieve desired outcomes.
Business is a long-term journey to making a profit for the owners. It is crucial to have a set of busi
ness policies which comprise the guidelines, rules, principles and procedures in the conduct of the
business and how managers and employees of the organisation should carry out routine activities.
Business policies define the scope or limits within which decisions can be taken by the subordi
nates in an organisation. In practice, the lower-level management can deal with the problems and
issues according to the scope or limits without consulting top management every time for actions
(Stephens & Martin, 2019).
Business policies are rooted in the practice of strategic management (Rao et al., 2009).They
are the guidelines or rules created by an organisation to govern its activities and to assist managers
in ascertaining organisation objectives and to support and enhance corporate strategies (Alkhafaji,
2003). According to Christensen (1982), a business policy is defined as ‘the study of the function
and responsibilities of senior management, the crucial problems that affect success in the total
enterprise, and the decisions that determine the direction of the organisation and shape its future’.
This definition has been widely accepted in business management (Azhar, 2002; Hiriyappa, 2013;
Rao et al., 2009; Sekar, 2019; Senthilkumar et al., 2014).
According to this comprehensive definition by Christensen, a business policy is interpreted as
the study of functions and responsibilities of the top management related to the problems of the
organisation which affect the prospect of the whole business. Moreover, it deals with the decisions
and procedures of the future course of action by the organisation. At the same time, it involves a
choice of purpose and defining what needs to be done to shape the character and identity of the
organisation.Also, it is associated with the mobilisation and allocation of resources, which will help
the organisation achieve its objectives (Azhar, 2002; Senthilkumar et al., 2014).
Basic policies Corporate strategies
General policies Business strategies
Specific policies Functional strategies
Figure 3.3 Three categories of policies
In practice, there are three main categories of policies: basic policies, general policies and
specific policies, as shown in Figure 3.3. These three categories of policies correspond with the
three levels of organisational strategies: corporate strategy, business strategy and functional strat
egy, as shown in Figure 3.1. Basic policies are defined by the top management and describe the
basic approach of an organisation to its activities and environment. For example, an ethics policy
addresses issues such as honesty, fairness, integrity and respect (Stephens & Martin, 2019). General
policies are framed by middle-level management and apply to large departments of the organisa
tion, so they are more specific. In contrast, specific policies are spelled out by the foremen and
supervisors and apply directly to routine activities. As a result, they are most specific in nature
(Pandey, 2014).
Business policies deal with decisions affecting the organisation in the long run and key issues
affecting the business’s success. According to Stephens & Martin (2019), Senthilkumar (2014) and
others, effective business policies must have a set of features:
1 Specific:The policy should be specific and definite. If it is uncertain or vague, then the imple
mentation will become difficult.
2 Clear: The policy must be unambiguous. It should avoid the use of jargon and connotation.
There should be no misunderstandings in following the policy.
3 Reliable and uniform:The policy must be uniform enough so that it can be efficiently followed
by the subordinates.
4 Appropriate:The policy should be appropriate to the present organisational goal.
5 Simple:A policy should be simple and easily understood by all in the organisation.
6 Inclusive and comprehensive:To have a wide scope, a policy must be comprehensive.
7 Flexible: The policy should be flexible in terms of operation and application. This does not
imply that a policy should be altered always, but it should be wide enough in scope to ensure
that the line managers use them in repetitive and routine scenarios.
8 Stable:The policy should be stable; otherwise, it will lead to indecisiveness and uncertainty in
the minds of those who look to it for guidance.
Top-level Policies
Safety & Environmental & Drug & Mission

Quality Policy Conservation of Energy Alcohol Policy Ethical Policy Statement &
Policy Shared Values
Policies are to be signed by the Office’s Managing Director and displayed onboard and in office To be posted on bulkhead
Core Policies
Declaration of
Security Policy Business Conduct Whistleblowing Just Culture Compliance
& Media Policy Policy Policy
Whistleblowing Policy is to be signed and posted on Bridge, Engine Control Room (ECR), Signed by all sea staff
Cargo Control Room (CCR) and all messrooms
Functional Policies
Local Local
Social Media Human Targets Mission
Insurance Policy Financial
Policy Resources & and & Vision
Crewing Policy Policy Objectives Statemen
t
Figure 3.4 Company policies
Business policies play an important role in ship management and operations. Most shipping com
panies have a long list of policies covering a wide range of issues.The exact contents and titles of
policies are normally determined by the organisational structure of the company.The most com
mon policies of a shipping company include quality policy, health and safety policy, environmental
policy, drug and alcohol policy, security policy, ethics policy, financial policy, data protection policy
and so on.These policies are maintained and implemented at different levels of the organisation. In
this book, the authors investigated the business policies of several shipping companies. For example,
Figure 3.4 describes the company policies implemented by one leading ship management company
(coded as Company V).
As shown in the figure, there are three categories of polices.The top-level policies are aligned
with the company’s mission statement and shared values.They set out some general principles and
objectives the company aims to achieve.The core policies are framed by middle-level management
and apply to different large departments. In contrast, the functional policies are the most specific and
guide the daily activities of all employees, especially the actions of supporting teams. For example, the
safety and quality policy, as a fundamental policy of Company V, includes one provision as noted here:
The Company is committed to identifying all risks associated with its operations. Controls
and safeguards must be put in place to minimise these risks in order to provide safe working
conditions for all employees and third parties. Company policy requires a safe, healthy and
productive workplace for all employees. The workplace, whether at sea or ashore, must be
kept in a condition which will ensure those good standards of health and hygiene are main
tained at all times.
This policy, falling within the category of basic policies, does not specify how to achieve this pur
pose.The relevant departments, foremen or supervisors need to take further action to ensure the
implementation of this policy. In contrast, the social media policy of Company V, falling within the
category of specific policies, sets out clear steps for all employees to follow:
Never publish inaccurate information regarding the Company online. If you are unsure of
the accuracy of your comments, do not publish them. If in doubt, check with Corporate
Communications or your immediate manager. Always ensure that if you are talking about
your workplace online that you have made it clear any statements are your own and do not
represent the views or values of the Company. Avoid violating the privacy of your co-work
ers, clients and competitors etc. Only post online what you would be comfortable saying to
people in person or in public. Would you be happy for your children, your parents or your
boss to read your comments? Never use social media as a platform to harm, intimidate, insult,
threaten, defame or embarrass others. If you find hurtful or defamatory commentary about
the Company on social media forums, help us combat such negativity by informing Corporate
Communications or your immediate manager.
It is noteworthy that the shipping companies’ policies are closely linked to the requirements of
international standards. As shown in Figure 3.4, Company V’s safety, quality and environment pol
icies are related to the requirements of the International Management Code (ISM Code, 2015),
under Safety of Life at Sea Convention (SOLAS) chapter XI-2.The purpose of the ISM Code is to
provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and pollution
prevention. Clause 2.1 requires that every company should ‘establish a safety and environmen
tal-protection policy’ which describes how the objectives of the code will be achieved. Clause 2.2
further requires that the company should ‘ensure that the policy is implemented and maintained
at all levels of the organization both, ship-based and shore-based’. Similarly, the security policy is
related to the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, under SOLAS chapter IX. The
social media policy is relevant to the requirements of data protection rules. The whistleblowing
policy and human resources and crewing policy are associated with the requirements of Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006.
However, while all shipping companies should have their business polices, some problems may
prevent them from effectively implementing these policies.The first issue is the lack of consensus
building in the company regarding the objectives and contents of the policies they adopted. Some
shipping companies just copy the provisions of business policies from other companies, especially
some big firms, without considering whether these provisions are suitable for their situations or
not.As a result, most employees, especially seafarers on board, have no motivation to observe the
policy because they cannot recognise the value in it. At the same time, the provisions of policies
are not aligned with the overall aim and objectives of the company. This will cause confusion in
the implementation of business policies and strategies. Furthermore, effective business policies
should be systematic and suitably positioned at different levels of management according to the
organisational structure of the company. For example, some policies need to be prioritised over
others because they are related to the fundamental issues of the company strategies. Otherwise,
if all policies are crammed into one document, then the implementation will be chaos without any
focus. In addition, it is crucial to have an effective procedure of evaluation, reflection and revision in
order to keep business policies organic and alive.
Organisational structure
No matter how great a strategy appears to be, it is useless unless there is a matching organisa
tional structure to support its implementation and all levels of the structure are committed to it.
A good structure is a design that will create the best environment for an organisation’s intended
outcome (Sandermoen, 2017). According to Mintzberg (1972), an organisational structure is the
framework of the relations on systems, jobs, operating process, groups and people making efforts
to achieve the business aims. It involves ‘a set of methods dividing the task to determined duties
and coordinates them’ (Child, 1972).As a result, the organisational structure can be described as a
system designed to define the management hierarchy within an organisation, including each post, its
function, responsibility and authority.The structure is developed to establish how an organisation
operates and assists it in achieving its goals (Friend, 2019).
Organisational structure plays a critical role in the implementation of business strategies.The
management directs, controls and coordinates different tasks through the structure.A good organ
isational structure can improve management efficiency, enhance job satisfaction, stimulate creativity
and thus maximise the output of services from a limited supply of resources (Dugdale & Lyne,
2010). There are various features of a good organisational structure. For example, the structure
should always remain simple and with a minimum of managerial levels. Also, the structure should
remain flexible to changes wherever they are required. In the meantime, there should be a clear line
of authority which runs from top to bottom in a horizontal way (Datt, 2006). On the other hand,
a poorly designed structure will cause serious problems, including inefficiency, confusion, chaos,
increased cost, waste of resources and even dysfunction.
Normally, there are six key elements to building an organisational structure: chain of command,
the span of control, the extent of centralisation, specialisation, formalisation and departmentalisa
tion. Chain of command is about how tasks are delegated and work is approved in a particular
department or business line.The span of control is the number of people reporting to a manager,
which defines the size of the organisation’s workgroups (Devaney, 2019). The extent of centrali
sation describes where decisions are ultimately made. If the power of decision-making is spread
out, the structure is decentralised (Griffin & Moorhead, 2011).While a decentralised structure can
make the decision-making process more democratic, it can also slow down the process, making
it more difficult for organisations to work efficiently. Specialisation is the extent to which jobs or
activities in an organization are broken down and divided into individual tasks. High specialisation
allows employees to be ‘master’ in their specialised areas and increases their productivity as a result.
However, low specialisation helps employees more easily tackle a broader array of tasks because
it offers more flexibility. Formalisation deals with how jobs are structured within an organisation.
It relates to the extent to which an employee’s tasks and activities are governed by procedures,
rules and other mechanisms. Departmentalisation involves the process of ‘grouping jobs together’
in order to collaborate the activities and tasks into similar categories. If the departmentalisation of
an organisation is very rigid, each section tends to be highly autonomous, and there is little inter
action between different teams. In contrast, loose departmentalisation grants teams more freedom
to interact and collaborate (Devaney, 2014)
There is a wide range of options a company can choose to structure its organisation. Different
options use functions, products, markets, processes or geographies as their guide and cater to
businesses of different natures, sizes and industries. One of the most common types of structures
is the functional structure. It departmentalises an organisation based on common job functions and
allows for a high degree of specialisation for employees (Devaney, 2019).The activities of a business
can also be organised around the geographical location, market, process or product under a divi
sional organisational structure.This gives a larger business enterprise the ability to segregate large
sections of the organisation’s business into semi-autonomous groups. Compared with departments,
divisions are more autonomous.They allow a team to focus upon a single product or service, with
a leadership structure that supports its major strategic objectives (Gillikin, 2019). In order to have
both flexibility and more balanced decision-making, some organisations employ a matrix structure.
It does not follow the traditional hierarchical model. Instead, this structure organises employees
across different divisions, superiors or departments (Sun, 2016).While the structure of most tra
ditional organisations looks more like a pyramid, many start-ups tend to choose a flat structure
(also known as an ‘organic structure’). As the name suggests, it flattens the hierarchy and chain of
command by giving its employees a lot of autonomy. Organisations that adopt this type of structure
tend to have high-speed implementation (Kenton, 2021).
The organisational performance and reputation of a ship management firm depend on the
availability of a well-structured organisation, an effective management style and integration of
technology and innovation into the business cycle to gain competitive advantages in the industry
(Kandakoglu et al., 2009).As discussed in Chapter 2, ship operations and management have special
features and characteristics. It is a highly specialised business that needs integrative knowledge and
expertise that spans across multiple disciplines and areas.The special nature and risks of the ship
ping business require that front-line managers have wide authority in decision-making to ensure
efficiency and to respond to an emergency.An organic structure that allows for high flexibility can
be extremely helpful to a ship management business that navigates a fast-moving industry. Ship
ping companies need to perceive high environment uncertainty, develop a sustainable exploration
capability and swiftly respond to a wide range of unforeseen factors (Yuen et al., 2019). At the
same time, onboard management normally adopts a very traditional, bureaucratic and mechanistic
structure. This structure is quite rigid in what specific departments are designed and authorised
to do onboard. It is well known for having narrow spans of control, as well as high specialisation,
formalisation and centralisation.To a certain extent, the organising structure is built on functional
tasks rather than around people. For example, a navigation officer is not expected to deal with the
mechanic or electronic tasks in the engine room.
The other feature associated with the organisational structure in the shipping industry is the
introduction of a safety management system (SMS) under the requirements of the ISM Code. SMS
means a structured and documented system enabling shipping company personnel to effectively
implement the company’s safety and environmental protection policy. It is a systematic and proac
tive approach designed to manage safety elements in the workplace. The ISM Code requires that
‘every Company should develop, implement and maintain a safety management systems’ which
includes objectives, organisation, policy, plans, procedures, responsibilities and other measures (ISM
Code, 2015).
One innovation in the ISM Code is the role of designated person ashore (DPA), whose primary
aim is to ensure ‘the safe operation of each ship and to provide a link between the Company and
those onboard’. The responsibilities of the DPA include ‘monitoring the safety and pollution-pre
vention aspects of the operation of each ship and ensuring adequate resources and shore-based
support are applied, as required’.To achieve this aim, the DPA needs to oversee the operation of
the vessel to ensure that the requirements of the SMS are complied with. On the one hand, the
DPA needs to be accessible at any time by all staff on board and ashore, so their contact details
need to be maintained in the SMS manual and be posted in an easily accessible and public place
available to all crew. On the other hand, the DPA has a wide range of authority and delegated
power to perform his or her special duties.They can override any hierarchy restrictions and have
direct access to the highest level of management in order to obtain needed resources. Figure 3.5
explains the organisational structure of the ship management company and how the DPA’s role
provides a link between the management team ashore and those on board.
Today’s era is characterised by globalisation and informatisation. Co-workers, located in dif
ferent countries and places, are connected through the internet (Aquinas, 2009a). Outsourcing,
telecommuting and e-commerce have become a new paradigm for organisational functioning. In
the past, a ship management company could only monitor a ship by sending superintendents on
board or receiving postal parcels through ship agents which included documented reports or
forms. Today, benefitting from advanced information and communication technology (ICT), a ship
manager can deal with nearly all routine issues from anywhere at any time, including crewing, pay
roll, procurement, planned maintenance, compliance and verifications.This has significantly changed
the approaches on how ship management companies deliver their services.With the advantage of
modern technology, most ship management companies can adopt a hybrid structure which typically
combines features of different approaches to meet their strategic objectives. A hybrid structure
Chief Executive Officer
Managing Director
Technical Manager HR Manager
DPA
Marine Superintendent
Captain of Ship 2
Crew of Ship 2
Captain of Ship 2
Crew of Ship 2
Figure 3.5 The role of designated person ashore
can allow the use of positive features and the avoidance of the weaknesses of each approach
(Theotokas, 2018). It is employed particularly by organisations which are active in rapidly chang
ing business environments, as the method helps them to strike a balance between flexibility and
decision-making.
The strategic choices of management shape the organisation’s structure, and the structure
constrains strategic choices. The interactions between strategy and structure can be highly com
plicated. In general, an organisation’s structure tends to be aligned with its strategy, and the two
must be properly coordinated for it to be efficient and effective. In the meantime, the organisational
structure constraints strategy and, as a result, the organisation is rarely able to deviate far away
from its current course without substantial structure-process alteration (Miles & Snow, 2003).
To compete in a very dynamic market, a ship management company needs to answer the
question of how to structure the organisation to sustain growth. However, a shipping firm may face
several problems in practice. The most common one is that organisational structures are often
decided upon behind closed doors.Very few people are involved in the decision-making process
when a formal structure is finalised. Sometimes external consultants are brought in to give costly
advice, but aside from that, there is normally very little input from anyone else outside the most
senior management team. In many cases, these decisions are made by the top executive alone.
It is rare to see low-level ashore personnel or seafarers involved in company structuring issues.
However, it is a misconception that it will be difficult to form a structure if everyone is involved. It
will be more difficult to implement the organisational structure if the people who will be impacted
have never been consulted or do not comprehend the logic behind the structure. The reality is
that people tend to support and adapt to the organisational structure if they have a voice in deci
sion-making when the structure is originally formed (Sandermoen, 2017). Another problem with
many companies is that they never change or adjust their structures. As a company grows or the
external environment changes, it is crucial to make structural adaptations.As explained in Chapter
2, the maritime governance framework continues to change and evolve and has a significant impact
on the strategic management of shipping companies.With the introduction of new requirements,
the organisational structure of a company needs to include new functions.The tasks and responsi
bilities of key personnel need to be adjusted.
Merger and acquisition as growth strategies

Growth is a way of life, so all organisations need to grow and expand. In ship management, large
organisations have a number of advantages. The first one is flexibility in terms of response. As
explained in Chapter 2, seafarers play a crucial role in the safe and efficient operation of ships, and
large firms tend to employ more seafarers of different categories.The more seafarers an organisa
tion employs, the more flexibly they can be deployed over a fleet. In the meantime, high operational
quality can be assured from a stable and profuse workforce. Another major advantage is strong
bargaining power over supply prices for materials and services. For example, the prices of bunkers,
paints, stores, lubricating oils and spare parts are often heavily discounted for large-volume pur-
chase.There are also economic benefits to be gained from planned maintenance dockyard and ship
repair services. Furthermore, a large firm is able to build and maintain corporate infrastructure,
including the ICT system, to provide clients with fast and accurate progress reports. In addition,
a large firm will have a corporate learning curve which will allow adaptability, original thinking
and long-term planning in terms of employee recruitment and training.All these advantages taken
together provide large ship management firms with a positive opportunity to display to their clients
as being highly responsible and reliable (Spruyt, 1994).
Business combination, restructuring and reorganisation are critical to the healthy expansion
of business firms as they evolve through successive stages of growth and development (Machiraju,
2007). In recent years, mergers and acquisitions (M&A) has proven to be an effective method of fast
growth used by shipping organisations (Alexandrou et al., 2014).A merger is a combination of two
or more organisations in which one acquires the assets and liabilities of the other in exchange for
cash or shares, or both the organisations are dissolved and the assets and liabilities are combined
(Hayes, 2020). For the organisation which is acquired, it is a merger. For the organisation which
acquires another, it is an acquisition (Azhar, 2002). If both organisations dissolve their identities to
create a new organisation, it is consolidation (Senthilkumar et al., 2014).
There are several reasons for many shipping organisations to use M&A as a growth strategy.
First, most shipping markets tend to be perfectly competitive markets.The alternative options of
growing organically are relatively slow due to the need for global scope in shipping operations (Das,
2011). Secondly, M&A helps shipping firms increase economies of scale both in terms of bigger
ships and larger fleets. It also expands their economies of scope in terms of fleet composition,
diversified market coverage and extended trade routes. In addition, M&A promotes growth oppor
tunities for shipping firms who are seeking fast expansion through financing support in the equity
and capital market (Grammenos & Papapostolou, 2012).
Ship management has been characterised by strong competition that prompts structural
changes in the industry, with the bigger firms merging or acquiring smaller ones to remain compet
itive (Panayides, 2003). Over the years, a number of notable M&As happened in the ship manage
ment industry. For example, a significant one took place in 1998 between Monaco-based V. Ships
and Britain-based Celtic Marine, creating the world’s largest ship management company. Before the
merger,V. Ships provided full ship management services, whereas Celtic Marine was a provider of
crews and other specialist services only. The merger enabled V. Ships to overtake a number of its
rivals in the 1990s, including Cyprus-based Columbia Shipmanagement, Inc.; Acomarit (U.K.) Ltd.
of Geneva; and Barber International of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (JOCS, 1998). Recently, the industry
witnessed a wave of M&As in the ship management business.These events include the merger of the
Christian F. Ahrenkiel Group with the MPC Group in April 2014, the merger of Anglo-Eastern and
Univan Group in September 2015 (TME, 2015), the takeover of Bibby Shipmanagement by V. Ships
in March 2016, the merger of Columbia Shipmanagement and Marlow Navigation in March 2017
(Jaques, 2017) and the merger of Navig8 Group and Suntech Maritime in May 2019 (Navig8, 2019).
For ship management companies, the inclination to M&A is related to the various objectives
that may be pursued. One major objective is the achievement of operating synergy. Synergy means
the greater effect that two or more organisations can produce by working together than the total
effect they can achieve operating independently. Operating synergy refers to the efficiency gains or
operating economies that are derived in M&As. It brings cost reduction through the combination
of two or more organisations that culminates as a result of economies of scale and scope.Through
M&As, ship management firms can acquire tangible and intangible resources that will enhance a
greater network by which to globally serve clients at a lower cost per unit.At the same time, econ
omies of scope result from the ability of an organisation to utilise one set of inputs to provide a
wider range of services (Panayides, 2001).
It is firmly believed by most practitioners in ship management that ‘big is beautiful’ (InterMan
ager, 2018; Lin, 2017). Size is a powerful persuader in large organisations’ marketing strategy. For
example, Ian El-Mokadem, former CEO of V. Group, claims that ‘our size is a massive advantage in
shipping’ (Lloyd’s List, 2018). Mark O’Neil, president of Columbia Shipmanagement, is among those
who strongly advocate economies of scale. He commented in a ship management round table
debate before the merger of Columbia Shipmanagement and Marlow Navigation in 2017:
As an industry sector, in order to survive and prosper, we need to make ourselves and our
products compelling to ship owners; to manage vessels as well, if not better, than ship owners
can; and to achieve economies of scale, which are essential.The argument behind consolidation
and growth of the larger ship management companies, is compelling and we are on that path.
(SMI, 2017)
However, there is also a persuasive set of arguments against M&As in ship management. Most ship
managers, including those who advocate ‘big is beautiful’, insist that the size of the controlled fleet is
a natural consequence of good practice and high standards, rather than the goal (Lloyd’s List, 2018).
A small organisation is able to be specific and client-facing, but large companies tend to become
impersonal. If M&As are not effectively structured and controlled, they can lead to bureaucracy
and arrogance. There can also be conflicts of interest if a large organisation has a wide spread
of clients. This is particularly true where cargo information is highly important to the success of
ship owners’ commercial operation (Spruyt, 1994). In addition, newer organisational structures
create behavioural problems for employees, and corporate culture clash can result in disruption
of management (Cullinane, 2010). Mr Kishore Rajvanshy, the founding managing director of Fleet
Management Ltd., warned of the major challenges associated with big M&As:
There is nothing wrong with M&A; each company has a different strategy when it comes to
growth, but what tends to happen when you have M&A is that your original ideas, culture,
core values and way of running the business get a bit disrupted after a group of new people
join your company. Their way of thinking is different, their focus is different, and their driver
is different. Now you are trying to tell them: ‘Ok, this is the right way to do something,’ and
these guys will tell you: ‘No, no . . . we have got a better way to do it.’ An end-user wants his
service delivered without the bother of any troubles you have from the merger. That would
not enhance customer satisfaction.
(Shen & Osler, 2018)
Choice of flag
The choice of flag is one of the main strategic decisions for shipping companies and has a close
nexus with many aspects of ship operation and management.As explained in Chapter 2, to register
a ship under a flag is a primary requirement under international law. In history, traditional maritime
nations (TMNs) were able to maintain or even extend their dominance in maritime trade by offer
ing exclusive protection and thereby gaining exclusive control over ships flying their flags. In return,
flag states established very harsh requirements for ship owners to have their ships registered. For
example, the ship owners had to be nationals of the flag state, the vessel was constructed in the
flag state or the vessel was not to be sold if it would then fly the flag of another state. However,
the situation changed when ship owners realised that the obligations imposed by their flag states
greatly outweighed the benefits offered by them (Wendel, 2007). As a consequence, many ship
owners started to register their ships under the flags of other nations, such as Panama and Liberia,
and new types of ship registry systems developed (Saini, 2017).
Nowadays, there are three main types of registries: traditional registry, open registry and
secondary registry (Yin et al., 2018). The traditional registry is also known as a national registry
or closed registry. It is only available to vessels that are owned by companies or persons that are
residents of that country.The ship owner is subject to the full range of national legislation cover
ing employment, financial and company regulations.The open registry is also known as the flag of
convenience and has virtually no restrictions on the owner’s nationality or residence.Today, more
than 70 per cent of the world’s fleet by tonnage is registered under a foreign flag, such as Panama,
Marshal, the Bahamas and Liberia (UNCTAD, 2019).The second registry is also known as the inter
national registry, offshore registry or hybrid registry (Mishra, 2018).This practice was introduced
by some of the traditional maritime countries such as Germany, Denmark and Norway in the 1980s
as a response to the open registry (Zhang & Drumm, 2020).The motivation behind early secondary
registry was to stop the flow of ships moving from national registries to flags that had more flex
ible, and therefore less costly, crew arrangements (Bernfeld, 2007).They treat the ship owners in
the same way as an open registry, generally charging a fixed tax based on the ship’s tonnage rather
than taxing corporate profits (Stopford, 2009).
The development of the customary law of registration of ships allows unrestricted global free
dom of flag of choice states (Mansell, 2009).Today there is a long list of flags available for ship own
ers under the open registry system. Choice of flag has become a highly important strategic decision
for ship owners (Lind-Amundsen & Vablum, 2018). To select the most suitable flag for shipping
fleets, it is necessary to thoroughly consider both external and internal environmental factors that
affect ship owners’ choice.According to Celik & Topcu (2013), the factors affecting the ship owner’s
flag choice behaviour can be categorised as economic factors, political factors and social factors.
●● Economic factors: These factors are the driving force in the decision-making process and
include differences in the expenses for taxes, finance and manning.
●● Political factors:These considerations include the prestige and level of the bureaucracy of the
flag state, as well as environmental awareness.
●● Social factors: These factors are linked to the variations of manning requirements, the avail
ability of qualified crew and the safety standards and requirements.
More specifically, the economic factors include the initial registration fee, operating costs, taxation on
corporate profit, annual taxes, access to the capital market and so on (Ready, 1998). In contrast, the polit
ical factors include trading activities restrictions, government stability, access to cabotage trade, conflict
response time and avoidance of discrimination.The social factors are in terms of safety standards and
requirements and labour quality and availability (Celik & Topcu, 2013).The effect of social factors can be
extended to vessel eligibility, ownership restrictions, crew nationality restriction, trading limits, labour
problems, manning and certification, accessibility and reputation and so on (Watt & Coles, 2013).
The highly competitive business environment of the shipping industry compels the companies’
strategies to focus on cost reduction and to produce low-cost services (Bhardwaj, 2013). Most
ship owners, if not all, would prefer the cheapest option in a competitive market, so the economic
factors are often first considered by ship owners. Shipping companies are assumed to be profit
maximisers which strive to realise their objectives by optimising the production input combination,
which allows them to minimise costs (Mitroussi & Marlow, 2010). Flagging-out has been widely
adopted as a strategy by ship owners to gain financial, employment, fiscal and other advantages.
Flagging-out is the practice of switching the vessel’s registration from a national flag, typically
the flag of the country in which ship owners are domiciled, to another country under the open
registry, typically a flag of convenience. From the perspective of ship owners, the open registries
system is designed to significantly reduce operational and labour costs with the following key fea
tures (DeSombre, 2006):
●● The registration and deregistration procedures are simple and easy.
●● It allows foreign nationals to own or control ships registered under its flag.
●● Registration fees and tonnage tax are low.
●● Revenues from shipping operations are taxed at minimal or zero rates.
●● Ships can be manned with seafarers of any nationality.
●● Its regulations on safety and labour standards are lax.
●● The host government cannot use the registered tonnage for its own needs.
●● The flag state has little means or will to conduct inspections on ships flying its flag.
However, those who make flagging-out decisions are not homogeneous.They come to the decision
with the experience of different environments and regulations and hence will naturally have differ
ent considerations when deciding to choose a foreign flag. For example,Watt & Coles (2013) stated
that the reputation and quality of the flag state are additional critical factors that ship owners may
consider.This can have a significant impact on the image of the shipping company and its ability to
access the capital market.Also, many flags of convenience are often connected with the ineffective
implementation of international maritime standards.According to Spruyt (1994), the main reasons
for ineffective implementation were identified by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) as:
●● Insufficiently trained and experienced technical personnel within an administration;

●● Lack of sufficient infrastructure to properly interpret and support application and enforcement
of international conventions;
●● Unclear delegation of authority and regulatory oversight when inspections and surveys are
entrusted to surveyors or organisations, or the employment of poorly qualified and inexperi
enced surveyors;
●● The absence of effective control programmes to ensure that competent maritime safety
actions are taken.
Ships flying these flags are more likely to be subject to harsh measures taken by port state con
trollers, including detention measures (Bernfeld, 2007). Each year a White, Grey and Black (WGB)
list with flag performance will be published in various MoU1 annual reports.The flags on the Black
list will not only face harsh port state inspections but also lose competitiveness in the freight mar
ket (Mansell, 2009). For example, many large responsible charterers, such as Shell, BP and other
oil giants, have their flag preferences when choosing suppliers, and they even set the standards
of acceptance for any flag state which wishes to join the ranks of internationally accepted flags
(Spruyt, 1994). Furthermore, protectionist measures, insurance rate, the prospect of employing
seafarers and the technical requirements of the ship registration process are among other critical
considerations from the ship owners’ perspective (Thanopoulou, 1998).
Affected by a wide range of factors, the choice of flag has become a highly complex strategic
activity for shipping companies. Hartley (1998) proposed a taxonomy of shipping registry selection
criteria that includes six main factors such as taxation, fees, control, financing, operation and mari
time offices.The taxonomy provides maritime organisations with a package solution for construct
ing flagging-out strategies. Kandakoglu et al. (2009) introduce a multimethodological approach to
support the critical decision process in terms of shipping registry selection under multiple criteria.
This approach is based on the systematic application of the SWOT2 analysis, the AHP3 and the TOP
SIS4 methods. In the proposed approach, the SWOT analysis is used to determine the key assess
ment factors on the shipping registry decision and to structure the decision hierarchy.The AHP is
used to measure the relative importance of evaluation criteria in this decision hierarchy, and the
TOPSIS is applied to rank the shipping registry alternatives. Similarly, Celik & Topcu (2013) suggest a
Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach using a Primarily Strategic Action Plan (PSAP)
in a short-run period and a Secondary Strategic Action Plan (SSAP) for a long-term perspective.
Furthermore, the ship owners are not always the decision-makers who actually select the flag,
particularly in cases where the ship owner is just an investor. Choice of flag is a high-level strate
gic decision concerning ship operation and management. Traditionally, it is made by ship owners
on a vessel-by-vessel basis at the time of vessel acquisition and is generally based on the owner’s
past experience (Mitroussi & Marlow, 2010). Today ship managers play a more proactive role in
the choice for a number of reasons. First, while most ship owners keep the choice of flag with
themselves, a significant portion of them leave this to the ship managers (Mitroussi, 2004). Sec
ondly, for the ship owners who make their own choice of flag, they tend to seek advice from ship
managers regarding the performance of different flags, and this will have a significant impact on the
owners’ flag choice (Luo et al., 2013). Furthermore, most ship management firms have strength in
certain flags but weakness in others.The charging of management fees is also closely linked to the
ship’s flag. Many ship owners may choose to change the flag of registry before they put the vessels
in the fleet of the ship management firm to align with the firm’s management strategy.
Strategic shipping market and positioning strategy

Shipping companies aim to achieve superior sea transport service performance and add value to
their offer. One way companies can gain an advantage over their competitors is to provide better
quality service than their competitors concerning freight. Added value can also be achieved by
offering entirely new services that competitors do not yet have by modifying existing services or by
making them more accessible for customers to gain a competitive advantage.The shipping company
can distinguish its offerings from its competitors by the following approaches:
●● Image/reputation:This is achieved by building and projecting a good reputation of the company

to bankers, insurers, suppliers, agents, charters or even investors. For example,Tanker Pacific
Management has built an excellent image in the tanker market and is known as a reliable and
responsible company.
●● Differentiation of personnel and crew: In this case, the company distinguishes itself by employ
ing adequately trained personnel and crew in the offices and vessels of the company. Clipper
Group, for example, achieves this by continuously developing the crew in its training and
simulation centres.
●● Geographical differentiation: Geographical differentiation can be achieved by the company’s
ability to manage routes that meet the needs of global sea trade.This is a strategy followed by
leading liner companies.
●● Qualitative differentiation: The quality of services offered mainly includes reliability, frequency,
flexibility and immediate service, as well as the safe transport of goods by sea, according to
charterers and shippers.A shipping company can make a qualitative difference by offering unique
services to its customers/charterers or shippers compared to the package of benefits offered
by its competitors. In the liner market, however, this is more important than in the bulk market.
The more active a company is in distinguishing its shipping services from competitors, the higher
its power. The objective of quality, staff, crew, image and geographical differentiation is to reduce
competition in freight rates (price differentiation does not apply mainly to shipping companies).
A shipping company can realistically aim to be a leader in one of these areas, but not at the
same time in all.Therefore, it develops these strengths, which give it a differential performance ben
efit in one of these areas of benefit.A characteristic of a shipping company’s differentiation strategy
is that the high capital cost of vessels makes it difficult to copy a maritime transport service. A
shipping company seeking to distinguish service and product delivery should therefore not find its
innovative service quickly copied by competitors.
Also, the positioning strategy refers to the final selection of the target market segment, which
describes the customers (charterers/shippers) that the company intends to serve, as well as the
selection of the differential advantage, which defines how the company will compete with its rivals.
The target market thus identifies what the company has to do with its competitors.
The adequacy and efficiency of the positioning strategy are the primary determinats of busi
ness growth and profit performance.A shipping company’s positioning process includes the follow
ing steps:
●● First, the shipping company must locate the possible differences between its maritime trans
port services and other competitive undertakings.
●● Second, the shipping company must apply selection criteria to detect the most significant dif
ferences that lead to a comparative advantage over its competitors. Many people in business
prefer to promote only one competitive advantage in the target market – and no more.
●● Finally, the shipping company must demonstrate that it differs from its competitors in its target
market.
Response to emerging technologies

According to Brown & Eisenhardt (1998), traditional approaches to strategy often fail because they
commonly focus on two questions:‘where do you want to go?’ and then ‘how are you going to get
there?’ These strategies overemphasise the extent to which it is possible to predict and under
estimate the importance and challenge of executing the strategy that is created. However, things
always change, and the future is unpredictable. As an overused quote from Louis L’Amour states:
‘The only thing that never changes is that everything changes’. Change is happening all the time in
every industry, in every geography and in every organisation, and one critical aspect of strategic
management is managing the change.
One striking feature of the change in the business environment is the advent of various new
technologies that force industries and firms to find new ways to compete and to survive (Bruton
& White, 2011). The integration of new technologies is a new factor of production and a new
source of competitive advantage.The development of ICT is radically transforming the competitive
dynamics of businesses, markets and industries (Walton & Pyper, 2020). According to Willingale
(1998), the rate of development of the technology far outpaces similar improvements in our ability
to implement and manage the technology. As a consequence, what can be achieved with modern
technologies always lags far behind what is actually being achieved, and the gap is widening. The
management of technology and innovation (MTI) is an issue that all firms are facing today.
According to Schwab (2017), today the world is at the beginning of the fourth industrial rev
olution that is fundamentally changing the way people live, work and relate to one another. Unlike
the third industrial revolution, which focused on computing and internet, the fourth industrial
revolution is associated with a wide range of fields, such as artificial intelligence (AI), big data, robot
ics, blockchain, the internet of things (IoT), autonomous vehicles, 3-D printing, materials science,
energy storage and so on.The third and particularly the fourth industrial revolutions are historic
because of the speed and scale with which new ideas and technologies are spreading.All companies
across all industries and markets are being compelled to review their business strategies. For exam
ple, they need to reconsider their traditional ways of doing business to keep pace with a rapidly
changing technology environment and increasing customer expectations (Walton & Pyper, 2020).
The main task of the ship management company is to provide services to ship owners, so
improving service quality and efficiency is crucial in achieving a differential advantage over com
petitors. The business solutions provided by new technologies can help a ship management firm
improve operational productivity, performance and life cycle optimisation of the assets, as seen in
other industries (Nikitakos & Lambrou, 2007). For example, many technological advancements and
digital solutions were designed to reduce task complexity, to mitigate human errors and to meet
regulatory compliance requirements, such as planned maintenance systems (PMS), electronic chart
display and information system (ECDIS), and automatic identification systems (AIS). In addition, the
integration of advanced information and communication technology (ICT) has become a strategic
move that can help an organisation improve business processes and enhance the function of mar
kets (Bhardwaj, 2013).
For example, the integration of big data analytics (BDA) in maritime shipping holds promises
of optimisation and improvement on many levels of ship operations and management. BDA inves
tigates correlations between different parameters to discover hidden patterns and predict trends.
It can provide ship managers with readily available, accurate and actionable information to improve
decision-making, including the optimum speed for fuel consumption, planned maintenance, voyage
operations and so on (Lambrou, 2016).This analysis will have a significant impact on ship monitor
ing and provide performance prediction, real-time transparency and decision-making support to
the ship manager. It will also reduce human error, increase interdependencies of components and
optimise the safety environment (Zaman et al., 2017).
Also, the development of unmanned ships has been significantly growing over the last decade
and made the concept no longer a futurist idea. There are many advantages of implementing
unmanned ships, with the main one being the commercial benefit. For ship owners, the savings on
crew salaries can be profitable, as it is estimated that crew wages take up to 60 per cent of the
ship’s operating costs (Kretschmann et al., 2017). Furthermore, the insurance schemes linked with
the risks and hazards of being on the voyage are not needed, as the crew onshore are not likely
to face the same issues. In the meantime, areas usually reserved for accommodations will now
give more storage space to be utilized for cargo, which in turn will increase the revenue of the
ship owner. Furthermore, unmanned ships can solve some long-standing security issues, such as
hijacking, piracy and stowaways (Lloyd’s List, 2017). In addition, unmanned ships are more beneficial
in terms of environmental pollution prevention and compliance with MARPOL regulations. Better
and newer engine designs are more efficient in controlling emission of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
(IMO, 2017a).
In recent years, the application of 3-D additive manufacturing (AM), or 3-D printing, as it is
commonly known, has received considerable attention in the maritime industry. It has the potential
to offer a faster, economically easier and more environmentally friendly alternative to the conven
tional marine supply chain (Ellekjaer, 2018).This technology has been used on a daily basis in a wide
range of industries such as aviation, automotive, architecture, aerospace, defence, art design, fashion,
medical, etc. (Green Ship, 2019). For the maritime industry, it can provide improved product design
in terms of customisation and efficiency.As explained in Chapter 2, ships are operating in a unique
environment that is far away from ship repair facilities.The type and quantity of the spare parts that
must be on board a ship are imposed by the relevant safety standards or suggested by the original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) in order to avoid unexpected breakdowns, or sometimes even
by experience (Kostidi & Nikitakos, 2017). Most ships are produced as one-of-a-kind and/or for a
specific purpose. Sometimes the crew have to wait a long time for spare parts or other items for
ship repair or maintenance, and this may cause a significant delay in commercial operation (Sumali
et al., 2018).With rapid prototyping, it is possible for a manufacturer to produce and test a product
throughout the innovation and development process and, consequently, to speed up the whole
process. In the meantime, it also enables a higher degree of co-creation, because an end user (e.g.,
a ship owner) can participate with the supplier and evaluate a product at any stage (Green Ship,
2019).
Blockchain is another emerging technology that has hit the shipping industry in a significant
way. Many shipping companies are expecting to make information flow more smoothly across busi
ness categories and trade-related office procedures swifter and more efficient (MI, 2019). Maritime
shipping services involve complex partners and have to deal with a large number of transportation
documents that can slow down the transactions in maritime commercial activities (Yang, 2019).The
application of blockchain, as a secured, decentralised and encrypted public ledger, could be used in
various scenarios in shipping and bring a revolution in terms of how transactions are carried out.
It could turn the whole process into a paperless paradise for all related parties, such as the ship
owner, sellers and buyers of cargo, charterers, customs, agents, banks, port authorities and so on.
With the use of public and private keys, the parties could give and accept instructions, perform
physical transactions, exchange and store information in encrypted format and perform other con
tractual obligations (OpenSea, 2018).
With the maritime world changing rapidly under the influence of digitalisation, the data
management system (DMS) has become increasingly important for all maritime organisations. It
can help ship management firms gain competitive advantages and respond to the dynamic and
fast-changing market environment wisely and swiftly.There are many benefits of introducing DMS
in ship management (Zhang et al., 2020a). For example, DMS-related technologies can streamline
ship operations through advanced decision support systems (DSS), risk management capabilities,
improvement in management efficiency and cost benefits. Furthermore, the DMS can help ship
managers with vessel maintenance operations by planning and overcoming routine maintenance
difficulties, such as ship condition monitoring and hull condition assessment (Lazakis et al., 2016).
In addition, it can be developed through a free geographic information system (GIS) to enhance
maritime security, safety and meteorological information (Kalyvas et al., 2017).
Despite the great potential benefits of using new technologies, integrating these technologies
in ship management presents significant risks and challenges. There are too many variables for
the right business solutions to be arrived at by chance. Before these new technologies can be
integrated and contribute to business activities, a number of issues need to be taken into account.
First, all people involved need to understand the role and characteristics of new technologies and
its potential benefits for the business.At the same time, it is crucial to align the technologies with
the business aim and objectives (Willingale, 1998). Furthermore, it is necessary to have a specific
technology roadmap to support strategic and long-range planning by matching short-term and
long-term goals with specific technology solutions (Pham et al., 2016). In addition, the company
needs to establish methods to review the effect, identify potential problems and manage the risks
and challenges.
Notes
1 In 1982, 14 European countries agreed on the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control
(Paris MoU) to establish port state control. Modelled on the Paris MOU, several other regional MOUs have
been signed, including the Tokyo MOU (Pacific Ocean),Acuerdo Latino or Acuerdo de Viña del Mar (South
and Central America), the Caribbean MOU, the Mediterranean MOU, the Indian Ocean MOU, the Abuja
MOU (West and Central Atlantic Africa), the Black Sea MOU and the Riyadh MOU (Persian Gulf).
2 SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, and so a SWOT analysis is a technique
for assessing these four aspects of a business, and a decision-maker can use SWOT analysis to make the
most of what they have, to the organisation’s best advantage.
3 AHP stands for analytic hierarchy process. It is a powerful yet simple method for making decisions com
monly used for project prioritisation and selection.AHP lets people capture their strategic goals as a set of
weighted criteria that they then use to score projects.
4 TOPSIS stands for technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution. It is a multi-criteria deci
sion analysis method.The TOPSIS technique is helpful for decision-makers to structure the problems to be
solved, conduct analyses, comparisons and ranking of the alternatives.
Chapter 4
Commercial management
The previous chapter examined some key issues relating to strategic management which deter
mine the basic long-term goals of an organisation. This chapter moves on to discuss commercial
management.The key aim of commercial management is to improve the profitability of the organi
sation by implementing its strategic plans, so it plays a critical part in promoting the success of any
commercial business.
In the ship management sector, the meaning and use of the concept of commercial manage
ment have three dimensions. First of all, as a commercial organisation, a ship management com
pany needs to carry out commercial activities to improve its profitability and achieve commercial
viability and long-term sustainability. To do this, the ship manager needs to perform a wide range
of obligations and duties according to the commercial contract and statutory requirements. At
the same time, the ship manager needs to comply with the requirements of risk management to
minimise their exposure to commercial risks. Furthermore, as a third-party service provider,
the ship manager should support ship owners in fulfilling their commercial objectives. One of
the most common obligations is to provide post-fixture services in accordance with the terms of the
post-fixture agreement. In addition, in some cases, although not very common, ship managers
are employed to carry out commercial management on behalf of ship owners. For example, when
the real ship owner is a bank or other financial institution who does not have any ship operations
expertise, they tend to subcontract the commercial management to a professional ship manager
together with other routine operations.
The concept of commercial management

Despite its wide usage in practice, there is no universally recognised understanding of the term
commercial management. According to Garni (2016), commercial management deals with sales,
revenue, procurement, marketing, expenditure and contracting with a focus on profit and loss.The
contents of commercial management vary depending on the nature and model of the business and
on the type of customers or partners. In many companies, for example, its common role is limited
to the activities related to sales, marketing and finance.
The meaning and use of the concept of commercial management can vary significantly in differ
ent industries and businesses. Focused on its financial aspects, commercial management was defined
by Lowe et al. (1997) as ‘the process of controlling or administering the financial transactions of an
organisation with the primary aim of generating a profit’. However considering the issue from a
project-oriented perspective, the definition was subsequently modified by Lowe & Leiringer (2005)
as ‘the management of contractual and commercial issues relating to projects, from project inception
to completion’.While it was not explicitly described in either definition, both Lowe et al. and Lowe
& Leiringer implied the centrality of risk management and commercial management (Lowe, 2013).
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-4
COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT 43
According to the International Association of Contract and Commercial Management

(IACCM), commercial management is more recently defined as ‘the discipline that both informs
and implements business strategy and policies’. It informs in the context of ‘testing and aligning
market requirement with organisational capability’ and implements through ‘ensuring effective and
efficient operational procedures that establish and maintain those capabilities’ (IACCM, 2020).
This definition signifies the application of the term beyond a project-based dimension and extends
the functions of business strategy and policies. Although this definition emphasises the strategic
role of commercial management, it is a rather general description of the commercial aspect of
management.
In the ship management business, the meaning and use of the concept of commercial man
agement are three-fold. First, as a commercial organisation, a ship management company needs to
carry out commercial activities to improve its profitability and develop sustainable business oppor
tunities. To achieve this aim, it is crucial to support the commercial team in securing sustainable
contracts for the services provided. Secondly, as explained in Chapter 2, most ship owning compa
nies tend not to subcontract their core commercial activities to outside parties. Nevertheless, in
practice, it is not surprising to see ship managers employed to carry out commercial management
on behalf of ship owners. In addition, under the circumstances that ship owners do not contract
out their commercial management activities, the ship manager should support ship owners in ful
filling their commercial objectives.
According to most ship management agreements, ship managers are normally to use their
best endeavours to provide post-fixture services in accordance with the terms of the post-fixture
agreement.Also, in all matters relating to the provision of these services, they need to comply with
sound commercial ship management practices and to protect and promote the interests of the ship
owner clients. For example, the ship manager is responsible for monitoring the execution of the
charter party, ensuring that invoicing is accurately and promptly completed and that all commer
cial claims are issued and followed up expediently.This includes but is not limited to freight, hire,
demurrage, despatch, shifting, cargo claims, hold cleaning, performance claims and so on. In addition,
if there is a conflict of interest, the ship owner’s interest should be prioritised because the ship
manager owes a fiduciary duty to its principal owners (Mandaraka-Sheppard, 2013).
The main contents of commercial activities in ship management include three aspects. The
first one is overseeing and managing the performance of a business contract as it progresses.The
second aspect is the long-term management of business opportunities that will enable the organ
isation to continuously develop and grow.The third aspect is the alignment of commercial activi
ties with organisational strategies and business policies.As a result, successful holistic commercial
management should involve the recognition of not just the price and product but also the factors
for long-term sustainable growth (Falcon, 2020). The factors that should be considered include
strategic analysis, client satisfaction, risk evaluation, client connections and relationships and getting
the right people on board to deliver competitive goods and services. The commercial manager
needs to maximise business potential in terms of growth and profitability while monitoring and
controlling internal processes, as well as managing external relationships with subcontractors, cli
ents and a wide range of other stakeholders (DBW, 2020).
The role of the ship manager

The manager of a ship – known in old times as the ship’s husband – is expressly appointed by an
agreement to manage the vessel or vessels of a company for its owners (Mandaraka-Sheppard,
2013).The ship manager has a significant role when it comes to achieving the commercial objec
tives set by ship owners. In general, ship managers do not own any shareholding of the ships they
44 COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT
manage, even indirectly. In addition, many professional ship management companies firmly believe
that they should not own any ships or any shareholding in any ships to maintain independence
and avoid conflict of interest (Willingale, 1998).The agreement between the ship owner and ship
manager will outline the management scope. It can range from simply providing crew for the ship
through to full management, which may include commercial operations, technical management
procurement, maintenance and so on (Bistričić et al., 2011).
Although the exact clauses can vary significantly, most ship management agreements are based
on some standardised forms that respond to a need for uniformity. The most widely used form
in the industry is SHIPMAN, which was first issued in 1988. It was revised in 1998 to meet the
requirements under the ISM Code and the contemporary practice in ship management. SHIPMAN
was further updated in 2009 to meet contemporary market developments and legislative changes,
such as the ISPS Code. With widespread usage in the industry, SHIPMAN 2009 also reflects the
common practice in ship management.
Clause 6 of SHIPMAN 2009, which was Clause 3.3 in SHIPMAN 1998, deals particularly with
commercial management. According to this clause, the ship manager shall provide the following
services for the vessel in accordance with the ship owner’s instructions, which shall include but
are not limited to:
(a) Seeking and negotiating employment for the Vessel and the conclusion (including the execu
tion there of) of charter parties or other contracts relating to the employment of the Vessel.
If such a contract exceeds the period stated in Box 9, consent thereto in writing shall first be
obtained from the Owners;
(b) Arranging for the provision of bunker fuels of the quality specified by the Owners as required
for the Vessel’s trade;
(c) Voyage estimating and calculation of hire, freights, demurrage and/or despatch monies due
from or due to the charterers of the Vessel; assisting in the collection of any sums due to
the Owners related to the commercial operation of the Vessel in accordance with Clause 11
(Income Collected and Expenses Paid on Behalf of Owners);
(d) Issuing voyage instructions;
(e) Appointing agents;
(f) Appointing stevedores; and
(g) Arranging surveys associated with the commercial operation of the Vessel.
This clause covers a wide range of commercial activities relating to ship operation, from negotiating a
commercial contract of the employment of the ship to the performance of the contract. In practice,
the scope is extended to many other areas, such as giving instructions relating to the ship’s seawor
thiness, letter of guarantee, cargo hold preparation, loading and unloading procedures, cargo damage,
risk management and dispute resolutions.According to Clause 3 of SHIPMAN 2009, the ship manager
carries out these tasks as the agent of the ship owner which is the ‘basis of the agreement’:
Subject to the terms and conditions herein provided, during the period of this Agreement the
Manager shall carry out the Management Services in respect of the Vessel as agents for and on
behalf of the Owner.The Managers shall have authority to take such actions as they may from
time to time in their absolute discretion consider to be necessary to enable them to perform
the Management Services in accordance with sound ship management practice, including but
not limited to compliance with all relevant rules and regulations.
This clause creates agency relations between the ship owner and the ship manager. According to
the principles of the law of agency, an agency can only act on behalf of a principal if he or she has
the authority in law to do so.The agency who acts within the scope of authority conferred by the
principal binds the principal in terms of the obligations they create against third parties (Damilola,
2016).As a result, the ship manager must act always within the authority conferred to him by the
ship owner in accordance with the management agreement or the agency law. It is a common prac
tice that the ship manager signs contracts on behalf of the ship owner or makes any other pledges
always as an agent only (Mandaraka-Sheppard, 2013).
There are basically three kinds of authority recognised in the law: actual authority, apparent
authority and ratification (Bennett, 2014).As the term would suggest, actual authority is a legal rela
tionship between the principal and agency created by a consensual agreement to which they alone
are parties (Munday, 2010). However, an actual authority can be either express or implied. Express
authority refers to the authority the agent possesses because the principal has expressly conferred
that authority upon the agent, such as through a written contract or verbal agreement. In contrast,
implied authority is authority an agent has by virtue of being reasonably necessary to carry out
their express authority.As such, it can be derived from the usual incidents of the professional activi
ties of the agent. Clause 3 of SHIPMAN 2009 provides that the manager shall have authority to take
actions ‘as they may from time to time in their absolute discretion consider to [be] necessary’. For
example, a ship manager has the authority to work on behalf of the ship owner if the ship is in an
emergency and some intervention measure must be taken immediately to reduce loss or damage.
In addition, implied authority can be derived from customs and trade usage (Baskind et al., 2016).
In the ship management business, a wide range of practices are widely recognised by shipping pro
fessionals. For example, the issues relating to ISM and safety, crewing and maintenance of the ship
are traditionally known as the ship manager’s responsibilities.
Apparent authority is also known as ostensible authority.As its name suggests, it arises where
a third party is induced to enter into a transaction with a principal by a party who appears to have
authority to act but who in fact does not have such authority (Munday, 2010). It may also exist
where the principal’s words or conduct would lead a reasonable person in the third party’s posi
tion to believe that the agent was authorised to act, even if the principal and the purported agent
had never discussed such a relationship.The ship manager has apparent authority to bind the ship
owner if a third party knows or reasonably believes that the ship manager is working on behalf of
the ship owner, even if the ship manager is carrying out tasks not prescribed in the management
agreement (Clarke et al., 2017).This may happen in several broad categories:
1 The ship owner may allow the ship manager to appear to third parties to be their agent when
in fact the ship manager is not;
2 The ship owner may allow the ship manager to continue to appear as their agent after the
agency relationship has been terminated or the authority has been withdrawn;
3 The ship owner may allow the impression to be given that the ship manager has greater
authority than is in fact the case.
Where an agent acts without any authority or acts beyond the scope of their authority, then the
principal can validate the agent’s actions by ratification (Baskind et al., 2016). Ratification causes
such an act to become binding on the third party.As a result, ratification is a unilateral act of will.
There is no requirement that the principal notifies any party that ratification has taken place
(Clarke et al., 2017). For example, when the ship manager carries out a task beyond the scope
prescribed by the management agreement, without ratification, the ship owner is not bound by
the unauthorised agreement created by the manager if there is no apparent authority.Whereas in
the situation of an act done by the ship manager with apparent authority, the ship owner and the
third party are bound from the moment the agreement is consummated by the manager and the
third party.
There are difficult scenarios when the ship owner is an undisclosed principal and a third party
is not aware of the owner’s existence. For example, the registered ship owner is never in the front
line.This is particularly common when the real ship owner is an investor only, such as a bank with
out any ship operation experience. For example, as the agency of the ship owner, the ship manager
signs a charter party for a vessel in its own name and the charterer does not know the existence
of the ship owner.The question that arises is whether the ship owner can hold the charterer liable
for the charter party. It seems to be unfair to allow the ship owner to hold the charterer liable
on a contract, as the latter does not know of the existence of the former. However, under the
law of agency, an undisclosed principal can sue and be sued on a contract created by their agent
with a third party. It could be argued that this runs counter to the general contractual rule as to
the doctrine of privity of contract.1 However, what actually happens is that the agency law regards
the contract as being between the agent and the third party but confers the principal the right to
intervene and sue and be sued by the third party (Baskind et al., 2016). In a similar situation, a ship
manager signs a seafarer employment agreement (SEA) directly with a seafarer without disclosing
the name of the real ship owner.Although the ship owner is not a party to the SEA, he can sue and
be sued by the seafarer.
The ship manager’s contractual obligations

While the exact clauses are adjusted depending on the circumstances of the specific business, the
management agreement will expressly lay out the ship manager’ obligations as to the scope, char
acteristics and quality of services to be provided.The SHIPMAN 2009 prescribes a package of obli
gations for the ship manager, and the main provisions are within Clause 8: Manager’s Obligations:
(a) The Mangers undertake to use their best endeavours to provide the Management Services as
agents for and on behalf of the Owners in accordance with sound ship management practice
and to protect and promote the interests of the Owners in all matters relating to the provi
sion of services hereunder.
Provided however, that in the performance of their management responsibilities under
this Agreement, the Managers shall be entitled to have regard to their overall responsibility
in relation to all vessels as may from time to time be entrusted to their management and in
particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the Managers shall be enti
tled to allocate available supplies, manpower and services in such manner as in the prevailing
circumstances the Managers in their absolute discretion consider to be fair and reasonable.
(b) Where the Managers are providing technical management services in accordance with Clause
4 (Technical Management), they shall procure that the requirements of the Flag State are
satisfied and they shall agree to be appointed as the Company, assuming the responsibility for
the operation of the Vessel and taking over the duties and responsibilities imposed by the ISM
Code and the ISPS Code, if applicable.
The starting point is that the managers undertake to use their ‘best endeavours’ to provide the
management services as agents for and on behalf of the owners. The ‘best endeavours’ clause is
commonly used in many types of professional service agreements. However, it may be interpreted
as an express undertaking causing an onerous obligation for the service provider. In IBM United
Kingdom Ltd v. Rockware Glass Ltd (1980), a UK court defined best endeavours as ‘an obligation
to take all those steps in their power which are capable of providing the desired results . . .
being steps which a prudent, determined and reasonable owner, acting in his own interests and
desiring to achieve that results, would take’. Clearly, this obligation is something less than an
absolute obligation. The party entering into such an obligation must do more than their second
best (Knowles, 2012).
There is no doubt that, as a standardised form created by the BIMCO, SHIPMAN tends to
represent the ship owner’s interest.The ship manager, therefore, should be careful to evaluate what
might be involved in terms of costs, time and the actions that might have to be carried out before
undertaking an obligation to use ‘best endeavours’ in relation to a particular activity. It is unwise for
the ship manager to accept an all-embracing ‘best endeavours’ clause without specifying the range
of possible courses of action and what degree of effort is expected.‘Best endeavours’ is the most
stringent one compared with other commonly used terms such as ‘all reasonable endeavours’ and
‘reasonable endeavours’. The latter terms only impose an obligation to do what can reasonably
be done in a specific circumstance with regard to costs, commercial viability and the degree of
difficulty. Therefore, ‘reasonable endeavours’ and ‘all reasonable endeavours’ can be considered
alternative terms to ‘best endeavours’ with respect to the ship manager’s interest.
However, there are circumstances when the ship manager has to accept a ‘best endeavours’
clause because of lack of bargaining power.As a precaution, the ship manager should insist on clar
ifying the scope of endeavours in the management agreement. First, the agreement should make it
clear whether the ship manager or the ship owner would bear any costs when the ship manager
has to take steps to bring about the desired outcome and, if so, how much the costs should be.
Furthermore, it is advisable to spell out the period for which the ship manager should attempt to
pursue the objectives.Also, the agreement should clarify what steps the ship manager must take to
achieve the objectives, including any legal duty or processes they should follow to bring about the
desired consequence.
Clause 8(a) of the SHIPMAN 2009 furthers requires that the ship manager provides services
‘as agents’ for and on behalf of the ship owners.This provision further confirms the ship manager’s
status as ‘the agent’ and the ship owner as ‘the principal’.The law of agency imposes a wide range
of special fiduciary duties for the agent, which will be discussed in the next sections.
In addition, the standard of services provided by the ship manager shall be measured ‘in accor
dance with sound ship management practice’.This should be understood as an objective standard
and does not refer to the ship manager’s personal view of the standard of services. However,
there is no explanation in SHIPMAN 2009 what ‘sound ship management practice’ is.As explained
in Chapter 2, the global maritime industry is very complex and involves different values, culture,
stakeholders, uses of technology and degrees and kinds of ethical concerns.There is no widely rec
ognised understanding of what constitutes ‘sound ship management practice’.To a certain extent,
this term has the same effect as ‘best endeavours’. If an accident happens, the ship manager may be
easily targeted by the ship owner for not complying with ‘sound ship management practices’, or a
dispute may occur regarding the interpretation of the term.
Perhaps one of the most notable standards of services on ship management is the United
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Minimum Standards for Shipping Agents,
which were endorsed by the Committee on Shipping at its thirteenth session in March 1988.These
standards were set out as the minimum standards and were recommended for use as appropriate.
In the standards,‘shipping agent’ means any person (natural or legal) engaged on behalf of the owner,
charterer or operator of a ship, or of the owner of the cargo, in providing shipping services, including:
(i) Negotiating and accomplishing the sale or purchase of a ship;

(ii) Negotiating and supervising the charter of a ship;
(iii) Collection of freight and/or charter hire where appropriate and all related financial matters;
(iv) Arrangements for Customs and cargo documentation and forwarding of cargo;
(v) Arrangements for procuring, processing the documentation and performing all activities
required related to dispatch of cargo;
(vi) Organizing arrival or departure arrangements for the ship;

(vii) Arranging for the supply of services to a ship while in port.
It is clear that the commercial activities provided by the ship manager, as prescribed in Clause 6 of
SHIPMAN 2009, falls within this broad range. However, the standards do not introduce any practi
cal or detailed criteria on what the minimum standards are. Instead, they generally prescribe some
requirements in terms of professional qualifications, financial qualifications and a brief code on
professional conduct. For example,Article 5, Code of Professional Conduct, requires the following:
The shipping agent shall:
(i) Discharge his duties to his principal(s) with honesty, integrity and impartiality;
(ii) Apply a standard of competence in order to perform in a conscientious, diligent and
efficient manner all services undertaken as shipping agent;
(iii) Observe all national laws and other regulations relevant to the duties he undertakes;
(iv) Exercise due diligence to guard against fraudulent practices;
(v) Exercise due care when handling monies on behalf of his principal(s).
These standards are not mandatory in nature and are to serve as guidelines for national authorities
and professional associations in establishing their own standards. ‘National authority’ means the
body established under national law to implement the legislation governing the registration and
licensing of shipping agents (UNCTAD, 1988). In contrast, ‘professional association’ refers to an
organisation created for the purposes of:
(i) Providing a central organization for those engaged in the profession of shipping agents;
(ii) Establishing and upholding standards of conduct and practice for the profession;
(iii) Exercising supervision over the members and securing for them such professional standards
as may assist them in the discharge of their duties.
The International Ship Managers’ Association (ISMA), established in 1991, is such a professional
association created to ‘improve standards and achieve a safer, more environmentally conscious, reli
able and controllable ship management industry’ (InterManager, 2020). ISMA has strong input from
underwriters, protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs, bankers and charterers and also cooperates
with other bodies such as the IMO, ILO, EU and BIMCO. It also has a major focus on the application
of the ISO Code of Accreditation as it applies to ship and crew managers (Branch, 2007).
One of the most notable achievements of this professional association was the development
of the ISMA Code of Ship Management Standard, which was claimed to reflect the highest standard
of ship management practices (InterManager, 2016) and to advocate efficiency, quality and ethics
in ship management (Gard, 1999).The code is comprehensive and suitable for ship managers, crew
managers and ship and crew management divisions of traditional ship owners. It is mandatory for
members who are audited by an independent body formed by some leading classification societies,
such as DNVGL and Lloyd’s Register (Knight, 2013). The members who satisfy the audit will be
accredited a certificate jointly signed by the leading classification societies. Therefore, the ISMA
Code is seen by many ship managers as a means of quality assurance (Panayides, 2001).
While the ISMA Code represents an important industry practice in the field of ship manage
ment, it is doubtful that the code can be used to determine whether a ship manager fulfils the
obligation of ‘sound ship management practice’. First, for now, the ISMA has about 30 members.
Although it plays an important role in the industry, it cannot be claimed that the ISMA represents a
majority of the ship managers. Secondly, the reasons for companies joining ISMA vary, ranging from
a genuine interest in complying with the code to the intention of accruing a competitive advantage
from membership (Willingale, 1998). At the same time, the ISMA claims the code represents the
highest standard of ship management practices. If it is truly the highest standard, it would be inap
propriate to apply it in an ordinary ship management agreement.
The nature and characteristic of the obligations of ‘best endeavours’ and ‘sound ship manage
ment practices’ under Clause 8(a) are softened by the second section of the clause which grants
the ship manager overall responsibility in relation to all other vessels. However, this provision is
not sufficient to relieve the ship manager from a general undertaking to use their best endeavours
to provide services. First, it is clearly stated that the entitlement shall have no prejudice to the gen
erality of the foregoing requirement.At the same time, if there is management oversight, it is very
difficult for the ship manager to prove that they could not do better because they have to regard
their overall responsibility in relation to other ships. In reality, the provision that the managers can
make a decision ‘in their absolute discretion consider[ed] to be fair and reasonable’ is a delusional
entitlement only.
Clause 8(b) of the SHIPMAN 2009 refers to the obligation in relation to technical manage-
ment. This obligation focuses on the compliance of requirements of flag states, which extend to
the ISM Code and ISPS Code, under the umbrella of the SOLAS convention. The ship manager
shall agree to assume the role of ‘company’, which does not simply bear its ordinary meaning as
a body corporate. Instead, the word ‘company’ is specially defined in the ISM and ISPS, and it is
broadly construed to include any organization or person who assumes operational responsibility
for the ship and has agreed to take over, in particular, all of those imposed by the codes (Mukherjee,
2007). It is noteworthy that, according to Clause 8(b), the moment that the ship manager accepts
the technical management of the ship, it is considered the ‘company’ under the ISM and ISPS and
a package of statutory obligations will arise subsequently, including ensuring the compliance of the
maritime governance as discussed in Chapter 2.
For example, the ship manager, as the company defined in the ISM, is obliged to take over the
duties and responsibilities in relation to the following aspects, regardless if these matters are spec
ified in the contract or not (Mandaraka-Sheppard, 2013):
1 To define different levels of authority and lines of communication between shore and ship
board personnel, as well as to establish procedures for reporting accidents and non-confor
mities with the provisions of the ISM Code;
2 To establish a safety management system (SMS) and company policy and ensure that the pol
icy is implemented properly and maintained at all levels of the organisation, ship-based and
shore-based;
3 To designate a person (DPA) or persons ashore having direct access to the highest level of
management, who should have authority and responsibility to monitor all aspects of safe
operation of each ship;
4 To clearly define the master’s responsibility and issue instructions and orders in a clear and
simple manner and ensure that the ship’s personnel are able to communicate effectively in
the execution of their duties under the code;
5 To establish procedures, plans and instructions for key shipboard operations concerning the
safety of the personnel, ship and protection of the environment;
6 To identify potential emergency shipboard situations and establish procedures to respond to
them;
7 To take corrective action and measures to rectify the immediate problem and to prevent the
recurrence of accidents, non-conformities (NCs) and hazardous occurrences;
8 To establish procedures to ensure that the ship is maintained in conformity with the provisions
of the relevant rules and regulations and that inspections are held at appropriate intervals;
9 To report any NC and analyse its possible causes; to take corrective action and maintain
records of these activities; to identify equipment and technical system operational failure,
which may result in hazardous situations;
10 To establish and maintain procedures to control all documents and protect data that are
relevant to the safety management system;
11 To undertake internal audits on board and ashore at regular intervals not exceeding 12
months to verify whether safety and pollution prevention activities comply with the safety
management system; in exceptional circumstances, this interval may be extended by not more
than 3 months;
12 To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the SMS;
13 To ensure that the ship should be operated by a company that has been issued a document of
compliance (DOC) and that every ship is issued with a safety management certificate (SMC)
in compliance with the code.
The ship manager’s obligations can also be found in some other clauses of the SHIPMAN 2009. For
example, Clause 18 prescribes a list of general administrative obligations.The ship managers shall
keep the ship owners informed in a timely manner of the management issues, and they shall make
available all documentation, information and records with respect to the matters covered by the
management agreement.At the same time, they shall handle and settle all claims and disputes aris
ing out of the management services unless the owners instruct the manager otherwise.According
to Clause 19, the ship manager shall make the vessel accessible for the owners’ inspection prior
to reasonable notice.
The ship manager’s fiduciary duties

As discussed earlier, the ship manager has a duty to perform a range of obligations according
to the terms agreed with the ship owner, including using their ‘best endeavours’ to provide the
services ‘in accordance with sound ship management practice’. In addition, the ship manager is
subject to a wide spectrum of fiduciary duties arising due to its position as the agent of the ship
owner. Agents are normally subject to some special duties arising from the fiduciary nature of
the agency relationship. This is because the principal normally places trust, authority and confi
dence in the agent, and the agent has extensive power to affect the legal relations of its principal.
In these circumstances, the sole written agreement is not enough to protect the principal, so
equity will intervene and subject the agent to more strict duties in order to protect the principal
from any abuse of power by the agent (Clarke et al., 2017). Fiduciary duties focus on the values
of loyalty and fidelity. As Millett LJ explained in Bristol and West Building Society v. Mothew [1998]
Ch 1 (CA) 18:
A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular
matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.The distin
guishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the
single-minded loyalty of his fiduciary.This core liability has several facets.A fiduciary must act
in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position
where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit
of a third person without the informed consent of his principal.This is not intended to be an
exhaustive list, but it is sufficient to indicate the nature of fiduciary obligations.They are the
defining characteristics of the fiduciary.
Duty to act for the best interest of the ship owner

As the fiduciary agent of the ship owner, the ship manager, first of all, has a duty to do everything
in the best interest of the owner.This is both a fiduciary duty and a contractual obligation under
SHIPMAN 2009, as Clause 8(a) requires the ship manager to ‘protect and promote the interests of
the Owners in all matters’.As a result, the ship manager must act in the way it considers, in good
faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the ship owner’s business. In doing so, the
manager must have regard, amongst other matters, to:
1 The likely consequences of any decision in the long term;

2 The interests of the ship owner’s employees, including seafarers who need special protection;
3 The need to foster the ship owner’s business relationships with suppliers, customers and others;
4 The impact of ship operations on the maritime community and the environment;
5 The desirability of the ship owner to maintain a reputation for high standards of business
conduct and corporate social responsibility (CSR).
Most ship owners around the world are incorporated as a ‘one-ship company’ (or ‘single-ship com
pany’) by splitting up their ships in the fleet into different companies. These individual single-ship
companies are normally controlled by a group or holding company.The purpose of doing so is to
allow the ship owner to limit the liability to the value of each ship (Luksilakul, 2015).When acting
for a separate single-ship company, the ship manager should also have regard for the interest of the
corporate group and take into account the whole of the existing circumstances.
Duty to act within the scope of authority

As discussed earlier, the ship manager has a duty to act within the scope of authority conferred by
the ship owner.The scope of authority can be universal, general or special. Universal authority gives
the ship manager a very broad range of powers to act on behalf of the ship owner. It may extend
to all aspects of ship operations with very limited restrictions. Also, the period of authority tends
to be continuous until the ship owner terminates the authority by giving notice.This often happens
when the beneficiary ship owner is a financial institution investor without any ship operation expe
rience. General authority gives the ship manager the powers to act on behalf of the ship owner in a
more limited scope, such as one or several categories of business. In contrast, special authority only
gives the ship manager the power to conduct either only a single transaction or a specified series of
transactions over a limited period of time (Huffcut, 1999).The ship manager must be careful during
the conduct of the owner’s business to make sure they strictly work in accordance with the terms
and conditions of the agreement. Under the circumstances when they realise that they may have
to work beyond the limit for the interest of the owner, they need to request the owner to extend
the scope of the authority. However, the validity of an act conducted by the ship manager may
not be called into question on the grounds of lack of capacity by reason of any restrictions in the
management agreement. In favour of a third party dealing with the ship manager in good faith, the
act beyond the scope of authority still binds the ship owner if the third party reasonably believes
the ship manager has the authority.
Duty to act with reasonable care, skill and diligence

SHIPMAN 2009 provides the manager with an entitlement under Clause 17(b) which attempts to
either limit, exempt or exclude the ship manager’s liability to the ship owner for any loss, damage,
delay or expense. However, in the meantime, the ship manager has a duty to exercise reasonable
care, skill and diligence when performing the management agreement. This duty contains both a
subjective and an objective requirement. On the one hand, there is a subjective test.The ship man
ager does not need to exhibit a greater degree of skill than may reasonably be expected from an
ordinary ship manager. Instead, the ship manager just needs to have the general knowledge, skill and
experience that may reasonably be expected of a ship manager carrying out the functions in rela
tion to the ship management business. However, the ship manager has a continuing duty to acquire
and maintain a sufficient knowledge and understanding of the standards of services in order to
enable them to properly discharge their duties as the ship manager. For example, the ship manager
should continuously familiarise themselves with the latest developments of maritime regulations
and new requirements to ensure the owner’s interest is taken care of. On the other hand, there is
an objective test.The ship manager needs to have the knowledge, skill, experience and competence
that are expected of this specific manager.This can be examined in the context of and by reference
to how a management agreement is negotiated and agreed to. For example, a ship owner may have
a very high expectation from a large and reputable firm after paying a generous management fee.
In contrast, the test may also allow inherently poor ship managers to escape liability for the ship
owners’ loss or damage, even when most reasonable people would have regarded their decisions
as obviously negligent.
Duty to avoid and disclose conflicts of interest

The ship manager’s duty to avoid and disclose conflicts of interest is two-fold. First, the ship manger
must avoid a situation in which it has, or can have, a direct or indirect interest that conflicts, or
possibly may conflict, with the interests of the ship owner. Second, the ship manager should avoid
or, if it cannot avoid, disclose the involvement of the business that may cause conflicts of interest
between its existing clients.
As discussed in Chapter 1, today most ship management firms are professional and indepen
dent third-party organisations. One crucial reason why a ship owner would like to subcontract its
ship management to an external party is that the owner understands that the external party is not
carrying out the same business for the competition. It is also explained in Chapter 2 that profes
sional ship managers should have no financial stake in the vessels they are managing. In addition,
ideally, they should not own or have an interest in any vessel at all, including the interest in a vessel
through time or bareboat chartering. However, today it is not uncommon to see some ship man
agement firms who also own or operate ships by chartering.This may inadvertently cause conflicts
of interest between the clients and themselves. Also, some ship managers receive a commission
from the seller when they buy supplies on behalf of the ship owner, such as bunkering or provision
supplies. This also causes conflicts of interest even though the owner suffers no loss. The duty
applies even when the ship manager gets a benefit by promoting someone’s product to the owner
or referring the owner to a particular product. For example, the ship manager is permitted, or even
obliged under the commercial agreement, to publicise the vessel’s movement to the freight market,
aiming to promote the owner’s business opportunities. However, when the manager receives a
commission for providing the information to a specific shipbroker, the duty to avoid conflicts of
interest has been breached.The exploitation of any information, property or opportunity by virtue
of their position as the ship manager constitutes a violation of this duty. It is immaterial whether
the exploitation causes any loss or damage to the ship owner or not (Spruyt, 1994).
In addition, the ship manager should not be involved in activities that may cause conflicts of
interest between the existing ship owner clients. When the ship management firm is managing
a large fleet belonging to a wide range of clients, it is certainly not possible to avoid this kind of
conflict of interest. However, the ship manager must act with honesty and integrity and act fairly
between the ship owners to protect its clients against unfair prejudice. When they realise that a
conflict of interest has arisen, the ship manager should disclose the situation frankly to its clients to
make sure the clients can always make informed decisions.To maintain a high level of professional
ism, accountability and independence is crucial to uphold ship owners’ trust and confidence in the
ship manager’s services and even the overall ship management industry.
Other duties
Besides the duties discussed earlier, the ship manager also owes to their ship owner clients some
other fiduciary duties under the law of agency. For example, the ship manager has a duty to account.
This duty includes keeping accurate financial records and taking receipts of all their dealings on
behalf of the ship owner.The manager also needs to hand over or otherwise account for all monies
or property in their possession where these have been received for the ship owner. If the man
ager receives any secret benefits or commission from a third party, he or she has to pay over and
account for this because the benefits or commission are deeded to receive on behalf of the princi
pal. Furthermore, the ship manager has a duty of confidentiality.They are obliged to preserve ship
owners’ confidential information, including financial situation, sensitive data, marketing strategies,
business plans and so on.This duty will continue even after the agency relationship with the ship
owner ends.Also, the ship manager has the duty of loyalty and good faith, duty not to accept bribes
and duty not to profit from and abuse the position as the agency of the ship manager.
Management of risk and insurance

Risk is everywhere. It is an unavoidable feature of commercial activity. According to the latest
version of ISO 31000, it is described as ‘the effect of uncertainty on objectives’ (Tranchard, 2018).
More specifically, Hubbard (2020) defines risk as ‘a potential loss, disaster, or other undesirable
event measured with probabilities assigned to losses of various magnitudes’.The undesirable event
could be just about anything, such as natural disasters, pandemic, bankruptcy of a major client, polit
ical instability, workplace accidents resulting in damage of goods or human injuries. As discussed
in Chapter 2, merchant ships are operating in a very dynamic and challenging environment. Ship
owners and managers are therefore facing various sources of risks. Some major types of risk in the
ship management business include economic risk, compliance risk, financial risk, political risk, credit
risk, operational risk and so on.
As mentioned in the first section of this chapter, to manage these risks constitutes an import
ant part of commercial management. Risk management is defined by Hubbard (2020) as ‘the iden
tification, analysis and prioritisation of risks followed by coordinated and economical application of
resources to reduce, monitor and control the probability and/or impact of unfortunate events’.As
the definition suggests, the process of risk management includes the analysis and mitigation of risks,
as well as the establishment of risk tolerance and the management of the resources for doing all
of these tasks. All these components of risk management are important, but this section will only
focus on some basic measures taken by the ship manager to manage their commercial risks. Some
other aspects will be discussed in the following chapters.
As the agent of the ship owner, the ship manager undertakes vast responsibilities and duties,
so they tend to face the risk of being liable not only towards third parties but also towards their
principals. Many liabilities to third parties that could arise from these services are discouraged by
Clause 3 of SHIPMAN 2009, which states that the manager ‘shall carry out Management Services in
respect of the vessel as agents for and on behalf of the Owners’.With this provision, the manager is
protected to a large extent from the liabilities and claims by virtue of agency contract law and the
doctrine of vicarious liability.2 According to the law of agency, the principal is normally liable for the
breach of any contract terms to a third party. Also, for a tortious act of an agent in the course of
its business, vicarious liability arises and the principal is normally answerable for the consequence.
However, this protection is not watertight. First of all, when the ship manager is working for an
undisclosed principal and the third party is not aware of the existence of the principal, the manager
may face a claim and be sued directly by the third party. For example, very often many ship man
agement companies sign employment agreements with seafarers directly without disclosing the
identity of the ship owner. Under the seafarer employment agreement, the ship manager is deemed
to be the employer and can be liable for unpaid wages or seafarers’ injury or death related to this
employment. Of course, the ship manager can recover the compensation from the owner, but they
may have to pay the seafarer in the first place.
Furthermore, the ship manager is exposed to the liabilities which are imposed by the maritime
environment law ranging from international regulations, from EU law to national law. For example,
according to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001
(Bunker Convention),‘ship owner’ means the owner, including the registered owner, bareboat char
terer, manager and operator of the ship.As a result, the manager may face the same liability as that
of the owner for pollution damage caused by any bunker oil on board or originating from the ship
under their management. A similar rule applies in the International Convention on the Removal
of Wrecks when the ‘manager’ is included in the definition of ‘Operator of the Ship’. In addition,
the duties in the EU Ship Recycling Regulation to provide information about the ship which is to
be scrapped and to ensure that the ship is recycled at an approved facility are also imposed on the
ship manager (Gjelsten & Hanevold-Sandvik, 2018).
At the same time, if the manager fails to perform their contractual obligations as per the
management agreement and sound ship management practice, they will be exposed to contractual
liability to the ship owner. In SHIPMAN 2009, this liability to the other party has been dealt with by
exclusion, exemption and limitation provisions in the agreement.According to Clause 17(a), neither
party shall be liable for any loss, damage or delay due to the listed force majeure3 events and/or
conditions, such as acts of God, government requisition, riots, epidemics, extraordinary weather
conditions, strikes, lockouts and other similar causes beyond the reasonable control of either party.
While most boilerplate force majeure clauses are quite similar, the ship manager needs to devise
the clause based on its specific risk management strategy. Also, where any force majeure event
happens, the ship manager needs to take relevant measures to invoke the effect of this clause, such
as giving notice, minimising the impact and collecting evidence.
Under Clause 17(b), the ship manager’s liability to the owner is exempted unless the owner’s
loss, damage or delay or expense has resulted solely from the negligence, gross negligence or wilful
default of the managers or their employees or agents or sub-contractors employed by them in con
nection with the vessel. Save where loss, damage, delay or expense has resulted from the manager’s
personal act or omission committed with the intent to cause the same or recklessly and with the
knowledge that such loss, damage, delay or expense would probably result, the manager’s liability
for each incident or series of incidents giving rise to a claim or claims is limited to a total of ten
times the annual management fee payable under the agreement.
Compared with the loss and damage often suffered by the ship owner in many marine acci
dents, the limit of the manager’s liability under SHIPMAN 2009 seems to be quite low. The con
sideration behind this limitation clause is that the managers should be able to limit their liability
so that they can insure it, except in particularly culpable situations. It is a common practice in the
ship management business to limit the ship manager’s liability by referring to the level of the annual
management fee per ship. By doing so, it is possible to strike a reasonable balance between the
funds received by the mangers on the one hand and their exposure for insurance purposes on the
other (Mandaraka-Sheppard, 2013). However, if the manager’s act was committed purposely or
recklessly with knowledge of the likely outcome, the limitation provision will not apply and liability
to the owner can be far beyond the ten times annual management fee. It is also noteworthy that the
ten times fee limitation applies to each occurrence. If the ship runs into a series of accidents giving
rise to different claims, the ship manager’s liability may also exceed the ten times management fee
limitation (Spruyt, 1994).
The ship manger’s liability to third parties can be dealt with by two means: indemnity clause
and insurance policy.According to Clause 17(c) of SHIPMAN 2009, the ship owner undertakes to
keep the ship manager and their employees, agents and sub-contractors indemnified and to hold
them harmless against all actions, proceedings, claims, demands or liabilities whatsoever arising out
of or in connection with the performance of the management agreement.This provision is further
strengthened by Clause 17(d) ‘Himalaya’. A Himalaya clause is a contractual provision intended
to confer a benefit on an entity that is not a party to that contract. It was originally designed to
provide agents, servants and sub-contractors of a carrier with the same protection afforded to the
carrier by the contract of carriage of goods by sea (Merkin, 2013).According to Clause 17(d), every
exemption, limitation, condition and liberty contained in the agreement and every right, exemption
from liability, defence and immunity application to the manager or to which the managers are enti
tled shall also be available and extended to protect the manager’s employee or agent.
Risk management has long been associated with the use of market insurance to protect indi
viduals and companies from various losses associated with accidents. It is certainly crucial for
the ship manager’s liabilities to the owner and third parties to be covered by insurance policies.
According to Clause 10(c), the owner’s insurance shall name the ship manager and any third party
designated by the manager as a joint assured, with full coverage. As a result, the ship manager is
often jointly assured with the ship owners in the vessel’s P&I4 coverage. However, there are several
issues with respect to this clause. First, whether the ship manager has a valid insurable interest.
Mandaraka-Sheppard (2013) considers that the ship manager has a valid insurable interest because
‘he stands in a legal relationship to the ship that he is contracted to manage, and he might benefit
by its safety or might be prejudiced by its loss’. Secondly, the ship manager is named in a number of
IMO conventions as being responsible for various defaults, so the manager is exposed to various
liabilities, which also constitutes an insurable interest.
This will lead to the second issue: as a joint assured, whether the ship manager is responsible
for paying the premium, release calls or deductibles arising in connection with the owner’s insur
ance.A joint assured, typically a joint owner of the vessel, is normally considered a member of the
club.This confers on the joint assured the same entitlements as the policyholder. In the meantime,
most P&I club rules dealing with joint members provide that all joint members are jointly and sev
erally liable for unpaid calls (Semark, 2013).
The second part of Clause 10(c) states that ‘the owner shall procure such insurances on terms
such that neither the managers nor any such third party shall be under any liability in respect of
premiums or calls’. However, a pre-condition is given to this undertaking:‘if obtainable at no addi
tional cost’, so the ship owner is not obliged to procure such insurances on such terms if the cost
is higher.Also, the terms between the ship owner and the manager do not affect third parties, such
as the insurer.There is a risk that if the ship owner fails to pay the full amount of premium or calls,
despite the previously mentioned terms in the policy, the ship manager may still be liable for paying
the unsettled premium and calls.
Another option for the ship manager is to be insured as a co-assured.A co-assured is a party
to the contract of insurance, so he or she is entitled to the benefit of the contract of insurance
as of right, by virtue of the terms and conditions agreed when he or she was named (Gard, 1997).
Typically, a co-assured will have a direct operational, manning or financial interest in the vessel or
unit covered and will be named under the co-assured list on the Certificate of Entry (CoE), along
with their full company name and role in operations (Skuld, 2018). Unlike a joint assured, a co-as
sured is not considered a member of the club. He or she is merely named as an assured on the
CoE and thus entitled to the protections provided under the coverage. Co-assureds are not enti
tled to membership in the club, and therefore they do not have the same rights as members. For
example, they have no voting rights in the club (Gard, 1996). However, to enjoy the benefit under
the coverage, a co-assured is normally jointly and severally liable for all sums due to the club under
the policy on which they are named as co-assured, including outstanding premium, supplementary
calls and deductibles (Skuld, 2018).
In order to cater to different situations, many P&I associations provide coverage for affiliates as
an alternative to the earlier co-assurance (Dorfman, 2002). In many cases, a non–ship owning entity
may face ‘misdirected arrow claims’ which would more appropriately have been directed against
the vessel or ship owner. Misdirected arrow coverage applies under the circumstances where a
co-assured is held liable for paying in the first instance for loss or damage which is properly the
responsibility of the member of the club. It extends only to those amounts which would be recov
erable from the club had the claim with respect to such loss or damage been made or enforced
against the member (Gard, 1997).
Under the so-called ‘umbrella of a member’s entry’, the clubs extend a ship owner’s coverage
to non–ship owning entities, such as the ship manager.This coverage is also known as ‘Group Affil
iate cover’ or ‘Cover for Co-assured Companies’ (Semark, 2013). By doing so, the ship owner as
a member of a P&I club is afforded an extension of the benefit under the coverage. In such a case,
the ship manager’s protection is of a dependent character and exists only as an extension of the
coverage to the owner.As a result, the ship manager will not be held liable for any outstanding calls
owned by the ship owner.5 However, the issue with this arrangement is that the ship manager is not
a party to the insurance policy and therefore he or she is not automatically entitled to the benefit
under the coverage. After an incident has happened, the club, in its sole discretion, may agree to
extend coverage to the ship manager but has no obligation to do so (Gard, 1997).
Some ship managers feel that it is not necessary to be named as co-assureds on the owner’s
CoE.Where the ship manager is acting within the authority only as an agent of the ship owner and
has never taken over any of the owner’s responsibilities in their own name, for their own account
and at their own risk, then the ship manager may feel that he or she has enough protection based
on the agency relationship between the owner and himself or herself. Any claims connected with
the vessel should be appropriately brought against the owner as the principal, not their agent, so
it is not necessary to have a co-assured coverage. Also, the ship manager may feel that the terms
and conditions of the ship management agreement place all risks with the owner, so it is unlikely to
have any risk to cover.Another reason is that the ship manager does not want to be involved in any
responsibility to pay premiums, calls, deductibles or any expenses relating to the insurance policy.
However, without co-assurance, it may cause significant risks to the ship manager. First of all, the
ship manager may function beyond the scope of authority or fail to prove he or she is acting solely
in the ship owner’s name and will consequently be held liable for a claim. Even when the manager is
acting strictly as an agent of the owner, co-assurance may still generate important benefits for the
ship manager. For example, the manager is on the front line of ship operations, so he or she tends
to be exposed to misdirected arrow claims even as an agent.As a result, the ship manager may be
held liable for paying a claim in the first instance. At the same time, regardless of how wonderful
the management agreement with the ship owner is, if the ship owner goes bankrupt or is unable to
perform its obligations, the manager is thereafter exposed to all the risks (Gard, 1997).
In many cases, the ship manager needs also to be jointly insured with the ship owner in the
owner’s hull and machinery (H&M) insurance for the ship.This is particularly important if the ship
manager provides technical management or the nature of other duties the manager undertakes
needs this protection (Mandaraka-Sheppard, 2013). For the same reason explained earlier, the ship
manager should be careful that they will not be liable for the unpaid calls. For example, according
to Clause 16.1 of British Marine’s Hull and Machinery General Terms and Condition, joint assureds
shall be ‘jointly and severally liable to pay the premium due under the Policy’. Also, some H&M
underwriters may not want to extend the coverage to the ship manager because they would rather
see the ship manager as a target for a claim from them in subrogation instead of as a co-assured
(BIMCO, 2005).
Also, there are claims against ship managers that are not caught in the P&I and H&M insurance,
so they need additional protection to cover the residuary liabilities. First, where the ship manager
has acted negligently, the contract makes the manager liable for negligence to the ship owner,
subject to the contracted limit of ten times the annual management fee. Secondly, where the ship
manager has acted outside their authority or beyond their function as a ship manager, they may
have to face a claim and liable for the consequence in their own name (Spruyt, 1994). In addition,
even though the ship manager is jointly insured with the ship owner under the P&I and H&M
insurance, he or she may not be fully protected.The first common reason is that most insurance
products have a deductible amount that the insured is not able to recover. Furthermore, under a
joint insurance policy, the protection of the ship managers has to stand or fall together with that
of the ship owner’s protection. It is associated with a risk that the manager can be vulnerable in
cases in which the ship owner is guilty of, for example, wilful misconduct, or breach of statutory
regulations or the insurers’ compulsory rules. Accordingly, the ship owner may lose their entitle
ment to the insurance or the amount of compensation is significantly reduced.As a result, the ship
manager will only recover from the insurer to the extent that the owners themselves would have
been entitled to recover, or maybe nothing at all.Also, if the ship owner can limit their liability but
the ship manager cannot, the ship manager may find themselves uninsured for the amount of the
claim beyond the ship owner’s limitation (Mandaraka-Sheppard, 2014).
The ship managers usually have professional insurance provided to cover residuary liabilities,
which for some reason may not be covered by the ship owner’s P&I and H&M insurance. For exam
ple, the International Transport Intermediaries Club (ITIC) is one specialises in the insurance of
transport intermediaries, such as ship managers, port agents and shipbrokers, who may be exposed
to professional negligence claims and risk being held responsible for the liability of others (Spruyt,
1994). The ITIC was formed in 1992 through the merger of CISBA CLUB, a mutual insurer of
shipbrokers, founded in 1925, and Transport Intermediaries Mutual Insurance Association (TIM),
founded in 1985 (ITIC, 2020).The major liabilities covered by the ITIC include failure to maintain
the ship, appointing unqualified crew, failure to arrange insurance, error in fixing the ship and other
negligence claims against the ship manager.
In most cases, the insurance coverage offered by the ITIC makes it a condition that the ship
manager shall be named as a co-assured in all insurances taken out by the ship owner with respect
to the ship under their management. In practice, some ship owners do not name independent ship
managers as co-assured on their H&M policies.According to BIMCO (2005), it is a highly dangerous
practice that may leave ship managers exposed to large claims from third parties for which they
may be uninsured. One important aspect of the ITIC insurance is to cover risks for claims brought
by third parties against the ship manager when the ship owner’s indemnity is inoperative or the
ship owner has gone into liquidation. It also covers legal costs in defending claims or in pursuing
claims against others (Mandaraka-Sheppard, 2013).As can be seen, the ship manager needs to have
multiple sources of protection, rather than just relying on one type of insurance policy.
Notes
1 The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer
rights or impose obligations upon any person who is not a party to the contract.The premise is that only
parties to contracts should be able to sue to enforce their rights or claim damages as such.
2 By virtue of the doctrine of vicarious liability, a principal/employer is liable for an agent/employee’s negligent
actions if they were committed in the course or scope of the employee’s employment or are closely con
nected with what the employee is authorised by the employer to do.Vicarious liability arises when a princi
pal is answerable for the tortious act of an agent in the course of its business.
3 Force majeure is a common clause in contracts that essentially frees both parties from liability or obligation
when an extraordinary event or circumstance beyond the control of the parties, such as a war, strike, riot,
crime, epidemic or an event described by the legal term act of God, prevents one or both parties from ful
filling their obligations under the contract. In practice, most force majeure clauses do not excuse a party’s
non-performance entirely, but only suspend it for the duration of the force majeure.
4 Protection and indemnity insurance, or as it is more commonly known, P&I, is a form of mutual maritime
insurance provided by a P&I club to protect the ship owners against liability claims from crew, passengers
and third parties. Liability claims include those such as collision, property damage, pollution, environmental
damage and removal of wrecks.
5 InNewcastle Protection & Indemnity Association v.V. ship (USA) Inc and Ship Management SAM [1996] 2 Lloyd’s
Rep 515, unlike the provision dealing with joint entries, the rules dealing with group affiliates did not render
them liable for calls or other sums due to the club. It was held that in the absence of such a provision in the
club rules or in the Certificate of Entry, the club had no right to claim for unpaid contribution from such
affiliates (Semark, 2013). See also the case O’KANE v. JONES (The “Martin P”) [2003] EWHC 3470 (Comm).
Chapter 5
Operations management
The previous chapter examined some key issues relating to commercial management. As we can
see, the vision and strategic objectives of a commercial organisation can only be realised through
the completion of each process of commercial activities. This chapter discusses operations man
agement, which plays a central role in ensuring the success of commercial activities. In general, an
organisation’s commercial success relies on the implementation of operations management, which
is a key to achieving competitiveness in any manufacturing or service industry. It involves planning,
organising and supervising processes and making necessary adjustments for higher profitability
(Belyh, 2019). In the meantime, active collaboration between different organisational departments
is needed to ensure optimal outcomes for both the organisation and its clients. Operations man
agement is the activity of managing the resources that produce and deliver services or products
required by customers. Every organisation has an operations function because every organisation
produces some category of service or product, which will generate profit for the organisation.
Operations management is particularly important in the ship management business due to the
special features and characteristics of shipping business, as was discussed in Chapter 2. Ship man
agement companies are service organisations, which deal with delivering service to ship owner
customers.An operations manager has a wide range of responsibilities to ensure that ships under
their management run smoothly and safely for the ship owner clients.
The concept of operations management

In the commercial world, operations can be seen as one of the many functions within an organi
sation, such as marketing, workforce, technology and finance.The operations function is normally
described as the aspect of the structure devoted to the creation or delivery of goods and services.
It is obvious that all organisations need to undertake operations activities because every organ
isation creates goods or services (Porter, 2011). However, the role of operations is much larger
than just that of implementing an organisation’s strategies. According to Bettley et al. (2005), it is
the foundation for, and the driver behind, successful strategic planning and implementation. In many
cases, the key to success is often an operations-based advantage (Hayes & Upton, 1998).Therefore,
like any activities, operations needs management to ensure planning, financial and risk control,
development, resource allocation and communications are conducted in a coordinated way.
Kamauff (2009) defines operations management as ‘the direction and control of the processes
that transform inputs into outputs for customers’, including finished goods or services. A process
is a set of coordinated activities combining and implementing resources and capabilities to produce
an outcome. It is also considered a structured set of activities designed to accomplish a specific
objective which, directly or indirectly, creates value for an external stakeholder or client (GBO,
2007). The basic inputs to the operating processes are labour, capital and material (Mahadevan,
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-5
60 OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT
2010). Operations management is critical to the lives of all of us because, in nature, it is responsible
for the production and delivery of all the products or services that we need for our daily lives
(Barnes, 2018).According to Kachru (2009), operations management constitutes all of the activities
that an organisation conducts in order to deliver value to its customers. It includes a set of pro
cesses that transform either materials or information into a product or service. Jones & Robinson
(2012) commented that operations management actually underpins most of human activities and
shapes the society in which we live.
According to Collier & Evans (2009), operations management is both a science and an art of
ensuring that goods or services are produced and delivered successfully to customers. It involves
working with things and with people, with certainties and with possibilities, probabilities and risks.
According to Kamauff (2009):
The science includes understanding the processes, tools, and techniques.The art is in applying
them effectively within the context of the people who provide the inputs, the people who
process the inputs into outputs, the people who deliver the outputs, and the people who buy
those outputs.
Operations management is a systematic approach which involves addressing various issues to be

dealt with by an organisation. The objectives of operations management are to ensure that the
organisation is able to ‘keep costs to a minimum and obtain revenue in excess of costs through
careful planning and control of operations’ (Mahadevan, 2010) and to maintain ‘delivery reliability’
and ‘product quality’ (Kachru, 2009). Effective operations management entails the design and con
trol of systems responsible for the productive use of all resources, including materials, facilities,
equipment, people and in developing goods or services. It encompasses planning, sourcing and
procurement, production, inventory, marketing, distribution, sales, supply chain management, quality
management, management information systems and many others (Kamauff, 2009).
Operations managers are the people who have specific responsibility for managing some, or
all, of the resources that are needed for carrying out corresponding operations functions (Kachru,
2009). In different organisations, the operations manager could be called by some different names.
For example, they might be called the ‘fleet manager’ in a distribution or shipping company, the
‘administrative manager’ in a hospital, or the ‘store manager’ in a supermarket (Slack et al., 2016). In
order for operations managers to succeed, they need to take some steps: plan, implement the plan
and monitor the processes. In the meantime, they must make the most of the financial, human and
materials assets available to them (Kamauff, 2009). For example, some key activities that operations
managers need to do include (Collier & Evans, 2009):
●● Translating market knowledge of customers to design and manage goods, services and processes;
●● Helping organisations do more with less;
●● Ensuring that resources (labour, equipment, materials, and information) and operations are
coordinated;
●● Exploiting technology to improve productivity;
●● Building quality into goods, services, and processes;
●● Determining resources capacity and schedules;
●● Creating a high-performance workplace;
●● Continually learning and adapting the organisation to global and environmental changes.
Organisations can be broadly classified, in terms of their outputs, as either manufacturing or ser
vices. Manufacturing organisations produce physical, tangible items which can be stored as inven
tory before delivery to the customer. Service organisations produce intangible items that cannot be
OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 61
produced ahead of time. One of the key developments in operations management is the increasing
importance of service operations because the service industry accounts for an increasing propor
tion of the output of industrialised economies (Porter, 2011). However, in a globalised commercial
environment, there is fierce competition between various service providers (Heskett et al., 2008).
Today’s organisations are facing the challenge that customers are expecting higher levels of service
throughout all levels of engagement (McLaughlin, 2009). To maintain a competitive advantage, the
service organisation needs to develop, adapt and continuously improve their capabilities to ensure
alignment with changing business requirements and objectives.
Irrespective of the type of business, all services organisations need to consider how to best meet
their clients’ expectations through service operations management. According to Johnston & Clark
(2008), service operations management is concerned with delivering service to the customers or users
of the service. It covers the activities, decision and responsibilities of operations managers in service
organisations.The primary objective of service operations is to make sure that the required services
are delivered effectively and efficiently while maintaining the highest quality of service. Compared with
manufactured goods, service operations have some unique features (Kachru, 2009), such as:
●● Most services are intangible so they cannot be inventoried;
●● Demand for services is difficult to predict/model;
●● Capacity is also difficult to predict;
●● Service capacity must be provided at the appropriate place and time;
●● Labour is usually the most constraining resource for services.
Furthermore, according to Barnes (2018), due to the nature of a service operation, it is much more
difficult to define and measure the quality of a service.This is different from the quality of a product,
which can be defined and measured in terms of its functionality. In contrast, the quality of a service
can often only be judged by its recipient.To a certain extent, it often depends on the perception of
the client. It is not surprising that such perceptions can vary significantly between one client and
another and between the client and the service provider. As a result, the quality of service often
depends on the psychological state of a customer at the time of consumption, which happens
simultaneously with the time of delivery (Schneider & White, 2004).At the same time, some other
factors modify the customer’s perception of quality and consequently affect the organisation’s
competitiveness, such as service delivery speed, delivery reliability, response to demand changes,
flexibility, location of service and continuity of support (Kamauff, 2009; Parker, 2018).
Ship management is a service-oriented, customer-focused and process-based framework, and
ship management companies are service organisations.They respond to the requirements of their
customers (namely ship owners) and satisfy their needs through a service delivery process.
The ship manager has to deliver a wide array of services, including ship manning, victualling,
stores arrangements, ship chandler procurements, repairs, maintenance and drydock supervision. In
the maritime sector and with respect to ship management, the term ‘operations management’ has a
dual meaning. Firstly, ship managers need to direct and control the processes of routine ship opera
tions on behalf of the ship owner.This includes providing well-qualified personnel on board to over
see and participate in cargo operations, safe navigation, machinery operation, ship maintenance and
ensuring compliance with key performance indicators (KPIs) and familiarity with the latest national
and international legislations.The second aspect is contractual – the ship manager’s services should
comply with the ship management agreement and meet the expectations of the ship owner clients.
The former can be flexible and subject to varying interpretations, often depending on the business
environment, and may differ on a case-by-case basis, as ship operations themselves are not uniform
and vary temporally, spatially and geographically. In some ways, one could say that the multifarious
heterogeneity of maritime operations is in fact the norm, and thus can often be highly challenging.
The ship manager, also referred to sometimes as ‘technical ship manager’, has a wide range of
responsibilities relating to operations management aimed primarily at ensuring smooth operations
at sea and in port.The high levels of competition in the industry make it necessary to improve qual
ity, productivity and efficiency of ship operations. More specifically, the main responsibilities include:
●● Supervising day-to-day operations of the ship including budget control, navigational safety,
cargo, maintenance, ballast and tank cleaning, marine pollution prevention and inspections;
●● Maintaining safety standards, ensuring compliance with legal regulations and company policies,
implementation of procedures, acting as a member of the emergency response team when
needed;
●● Conducting internal audits and following up on the non-conformities and corrective action
reports;
●● Taking part in the monitoring and analysis of operational data to ensure potential problems
are averted and providing guidance to vessels, fleet managers and senior management team on
any special requirements;
●● Setting up KPIs and monitoring to view the progress of the company’s business goals.
●● Providing advice to the vessels and fleet management team on cargo requirements, tank clean
ing, stability and stress and to maintain all statutory requirements for the vessel;
●● Defining high-risk jobs and approving or disapproving after scrutiny, therefore assisting the ship
staff in evaluating the risks;
●● Sharing incidents and near-misses among the fleet to spread awareness and caution.
●● Periodically reviewing the safety management system (SMS) befitting the latest conventions
and regulations;
●● Organising safety campaigns and crew training to promote onboard safety;
●● Collaborating with other departments and stakeholders to optimise service delivery and
enhance customer’s satisfaction.
The ‘sea voyage cycle’

The tasks performed by the ship manager are numerous and can disorientate the observer who
wishes to study and understand them. One way of resolving this and understanding the ship man
ager’s role is to use what we have called the ‘sea voyage cycle’. Similar to the guest cycle model
used in the hospitality industry and the product cycle used in product development, the sea voyage
cycle attempts to break down the ship manager’s role from a spatial perspective based on the
geographical location of the ship, its voyage and the related tasks that are performed.The purpose
of efficient ship operations is to ensure that cargo is loaded smoothly at the load port; carried
safely at sea using the shortest, safest route; and discharged smoothly at the discharge port, thus
completing one successful sea voyage.
The main function of the ship manager is to support and facilitate the ship owner in delivering
the shipping services. This is done by three teams on board, namely the deck department, which
includes the navigators; the engine department; and the small catering department that makes
meals for the onboard team.This shipboard team is supported by the ship manager ashore through
the collaboration of a number of departments. For example, a manning department arranges for
crew signing-on and signing-off and their monthly salary remittances.1 It also involves a technical
department consisting of a ship superintendent who monitors and supports the ship on a daily
basis with support staff, a quality department which assists in International Safety Management
(ISM) audits and a commercial department which assists in cargo-related matters. Together they
form what could be referred to as the operations team ashore. While these duties are broadly
defined, their practice is largely determined by the type of ship, the characteristics of a specific
sea voyage, the number and location of the ports visited and operational tasks during the different
stages of the voyage, including the port stay for cargo operations.2
From an operations perspective, a sea voyage can be divided into five distinct phases:
●● Pre-arrival:
• Sailing;
• Waiting in anchorage;
●● Arrival:
• Pilotage operations;
• Berthing operations;
●● Port stay:
• Cargo operations;
• Ship repair and supplies;
• Crew affairs;
●● Departure:
• Pre-departure;
• Departing from berth;
●● Post-departure:
• Sailing;
• Waiting in anchorage.
As shown in Figure 5.1, these five phases together constitute the sea voyage cycle, which is then
repeated when the ship proceeds to its next port.The next section describes the role of the ship
manager in detail from an operations perspective.
Figure 5.1 The sea voyage cycle

Operations in each phase of the sea voyage cycle

In each phase of the cycle, certain categories of operational tasks are conducted by the respon
sible persons ashore and offshore. While some tasks are general and carried out daily irre
spective of where the ship is, a number of specific actions need to be undertaken under each
category. For example, for the appointment of the port agent (pre-arrival stage), the ship man
ager needs to investigate whether the charterer or owner has a pre-appointed agent or not. In
case of the latter, the ship manager needs to investigate the background of the agent, set out
the scope of authority, negotiate the agency fees, confirm the appointment with the ship owner
and send the agent details to the shipmaster.There are different types of port agents based on
the tasks that they carry out on a daily basis. For example, owners’ and charterer’s agents pri
marily carry out cargo-related tasks and the ship’s inbound and outbound clearance with port
authorities. In contrast, husbanding/husbandry agents normally carry out non–cargo-related
activities, such as crew changes. During the post-departure stage, the ship manager needs to
pay resulting dues to this port agent based on the “pro forma disbursement account” (PDA)
and related invoices.
Thus, as can be observed in Figure 5.1, there is a range of operational tasks to be conducted
in each phase of the ship’s sea voyage cycle. While some tasks are conducted by the ship man
ager (for example, arranging for the delivery of ship stores), the ship’s master and crew are often
directly responsible for conducting others (such as safe navigation). However, being their immediate
employer, the ship manager has the duty of supervising the performance of these tasks.This is done
through daily email communications, telephone calls, regular reports and superintendent visits to
the ships. Due to logistics and costs, the latter is usually carried out once or twice a year, though
this frequency may change depending on the ship’s condition, location of the ship manager and the
location of the ports where the ship calls.
Pre-arrival operations phase

Pre-arrival operations include tasks typically related to port preparation. Cargo- and mooring-re
lated operations are usually undertaken by ship staff, while stores, supplies, repairs and survey-re
lated tasks are undertaken directly by the ship manager.
Major categories of pre-arrival operations tasks include:
●● Appointment of port agents;
●● Completion of the pre-arrival checklist and associated tasks;
●● Pre-arrival reporting, declaration and information exchange;
●● Port state control preparations;
●● Ballast water management (if applicable);
●● Joiner preparation including flight bookings (if applicable);
●● Stores and provisions arrangement (if applicable);
●● Survey booking (if applicable);
●● Repairs and technicians arrangements (if applicable);
●● Bunkers and or fresh water arrangements (if applicable);
●● Conduct bridge team meetings (BTMs) for the harbour inbound and outbound passage with
navigation officers.
Port safety checks: With tightening port safety requirements worldwide, pre-arrival checks have
become expanded. For example, the Australian iron ore loading port of Port Hedland requires
ships to thoroughly check the condition of their mooring ropes prior to arrival.Any rope found in
a frayed condition at the berth automatically leads to an ‘Adverse Berth Report’ being issued by the
port to the ship owner.This has led to a practice in most ships of flaking out the entire length of all
mooring ropes on deck and examining them two to three days prior to arriving at Port Hedland.
Another example is the condition of the accommodation ladder’s net and the rigging method, par
ticularly in US and Canadian ports.These places require one end of the accommodation ladder net
to be fast on the railings of the ladder and the other end to be secured to the jetty. Failure to do
so may lead to unwanted delays from the stevedores. Moreover, with the stevedores’ strong union
influences, the ships could be penalised heavily.
Ballast water management: Ballast water management is more often carried out on bulk carriers
and tankers.The vessel needs to ensure the ballast water is either exchanged or taken through the
ballast water treatment system (BWTS) and accurate logs and records are available for inspections
in ports. Due to the nature of their cargo and operations, ballasting and de-ballasting requirements
on container ships are less frequent.
Crew changes: Crew changes and stores arrangements are perhaps two of the most import
ant and time-consuming tasks of the ship manager from an operations perspective. The former
is arranged based on two requirements: (a) the contract periods of onboard crew and (b) the
logistics costs for seafarers. The former depends on the seafarer employment agreement (SEA)
and the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and are typically 4 to 8 months for officers and 9
to 12 months for the crew.The logistics costs of flights are affected by the geographical location
of the seafarer’s country of domicile and the ports that the ship is expected to call. Rotterdam;
Antwerp; Fujairah; Dubai; Singapore; Hong Kong; and ports in Japan, Korea and China tend to be
favoured for seafarers living in the currently largest crewman-providing nations of China, the Phil
ippines, Ukraine, India and Indonesia. However, the choice of these ports also depends on the ease
of crew changes, port agency costs and location of the berth itself. For example, in Japan, the crew
change’s costs can sometimes be prohibitive if the ship is located far from the nearest airport.
However, these costs can be moderate when the ship is located close to the air terminal. In 2020,
the additional criterion of government clearances was introduced to these two criteria due to
COVID-19–related quarantine and flight restrictions.
Ship stores and provisions: Ship stores are typically requisitioned for ships and arranged by the
ship manager every three months (quarterly requisitions), while spare parts are ordered on an
as-needed basis by combining the operational concepts of just in time (JIT) delivery and minimising
onboard inventory.The engine room equipment is one of the largest recipients of the latter, both
from a frequency and costs point of view.
Ship provisions for the food on board, often referred to as ‘victualling’, on the other hand,
are ordered by ship staff every month (for fresh produce) and every few months (for meat and
groceries). However, this also depends on the ports and trade route and the extent to which ship
suppliers are able to supply condiments to cater to that crew’s needs and costs, since ships rarely
call on ports in the crew’s country of domicile. Costs for these vary, and ships tend to be under
tight budgets of US$7 to 9 per crew member per day, as defined in the CBA.This can be a challenge,
since many ports are located far from cities, thus reducing the options available and increasing
logistics costs.
Port agents: Large ship management companies, which in this chapter mean organisations with
more than 50 ships under management, tend to pre-negotiate annual rates with port agents in
different ports. Some large port agency companies have branches worldwide, such as Inchcape, S5
and Norton Lilly. Ship managers may enter into a long-term agreement, thus securing better rates.
Smaller companies, on the other hand, tend to enter into new contracts each time a ship calls a
port.
It is common for port agents to charge an up-front ‘coordination fee’ or ‘retention fee’ prior
to signing a contract.This can vary worldwide. For example, coordination fees in China are US$180,
while in India, they are INR 20,000 to 50,000, roughly US$270 to 670, depending on the agency
and port. Agents who assist in carrying out crew changes are typically referred to in the industry
as ‘husbanding’ or ‘husbandry agents’. It is a term that, like many maritime terms, is a remnant from
a few centuries ago but is used regularly. The husbandry agents in 2020 had a huge role to play
due to COVID-19 pandemic quarantine period, arranging for COVID-19 tests and certificates,
coordinating with the ship management company for flight bookings/cancellations and transports
for repatriation.
Arrival operations phase

Operations carried out just before and during arrival at the port fall into two categories: (a) general
pre-arrival operations and (b) port-specific operations.The former is carried out in all ports and
include making ropes ready by flaking out about 30 metres on deck.This is done to save valuable
time during the actual mooring operation, to get the ship alongside safely and efficiently and to
ensure that mooring winches are in normal working condition. In the meantime, the ship’s master
and crew need to prepare the ship for commercial activities. The latter consists of tasks specific
to that port. For example, if a ship is expected to take bunkers in that port, a pre-arrival bunker
meeting is held, tools and flanges are kept ready, manual soundings of fuel oil tanks are taken and
oil pollution equipment is tested.
Major categories of tasks that form part of the arrival operations include:
●● Real-time information sharing of the estimated time of arrival (ETA);
●● Master–agent information exchange of local port conditions, including weather, congestions,
security and cargo-related arrangements;

●● Preparation for pilot boarding and vessel manoeuvring;
●● Making the ship ready for loading/unloading and tendering a notice of readiness (NOR);
●● Scheduling of port operations;
●● Compliance with local requirements;
●● Planning work hours and complying with MLC, 2006 rest hour requirements.
Real-time information sharing of the ETA: It is normal practice for ships to send the ship’s ETA to
the pilot station in the local time daily. This tends to be approximate. However, about three days
before arrival, this becomes critical, as the pilot, mooring gangs and stevedores are hired based on
this ETA.Agents may ask the ship to adjust the ETA to a certain time depending on the availability
of the pilot, mooring gangs and stevedores. In some parts of the world (for example, Singapore,
China or Long Beach, California, USA), there may be penalties if a ship changes her ETA a day
before, as many services may have been reserved for her. Hence, masters typically allow for exigen
cies that can delay the ship when providing this ETA. ETAs can get delayed due to environmental
factors, namely adverse weather and currents, and due to operational factors, namely the slowing
down of ships that is necessary when approaching the pilot station. Masters factor in the latter,
typically by allowing for an extra hour.The former is allowed for by combining personal experience,
vessel behaviour, traffic density and weather reports.
Master–agent information exchange: This email exchange consists of agents asking the ship
for information and ships providing this and vice versa. As listed in Table 5.1, the former
consists of documents, ship certificates, crew list, personal effects declaration and additional
documents as required by local regulations.The latter includes local port conditions, weather,
congestion in the port which can delay vessel berthing, security requirements and cargo-
related arrangements.
Table 5.1 Master–agent information exchange
Operation Activities
Local port conditions and Pilot boarding time, berthing prospects, expected time of berthing (ETB),
berthing schedule port stay, expected time of commencement of cargo work (ETCD),
expected time of sailing (ETS), port congestion, anchorage stay if
applicable
Other port activities Surveyor/technician attendance, on-signer arrival details, bunker barges if
any, garbage and sludge removal
Security requirements and Granting of free pratique, port security level and contact info, shore leave
local port regulations regulations, gangway watch, sniffer dog checks for stowaways (Panama,
South Africa), underwater survey for narcotics (Venezuela, Columbia),
quarantine regulations and checks
Cargo-related information Cargo plan, maximum draft alongside, number of stevedore gangs, number
of cranes, loading/discharging rate
Additional information Timings of the use of ship cranes for stores and provisions, lifeboat
drills permission, shuttle bus service phone number, seaman centre
details
Preparation for pilot boarding and vessel manoeuvring: Based on information received from the
port agent (via email) and the pilot (via VHF radio), the ship’s staff rigs the pilot ladder on the
required side and prepares to receive the pilot in accordance with port regulations and IMO
rules. In some parts of the world – for example, Rotterdam (Europe), Port Hedland (Australia)
and Qingdao (China) – pilots may board the ship via helicopter due to safety reasons or due
to the distance from shore. In such cases, ships need to make additional preparations as per the
International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) guide to helicopter/ship operations, including keeping
additional firefighting equipment and personnel near the helicopter boarding area and removing
any obstructions.
Making the ship ready for loading/unloading and tendering the NOR: The ship’s master tenders an
NOR as soon as the ship is deemed to have ‘arrived’, a legal term whose interpretations vary from
port to port.To address these port-specific interpretations, ships tender the NOR based on what
their ship manager and owner advises them to do, and normally tender the NOR when the ship
reaches the pilot station or arrives within port limits or the anchorage, tendering it again if it has
been found to be erroneous. Due to its ramifications on laycan and charter party requirements, the
time and position of tendering the NOR are especially important.
Port stay operations phase

The port stay operations phase commences once the ship is alongside and ‘all fast’, a term used to
convey that all the required mooring ropes have been made fast (tightened) on the mooring bitts
and that the mooring gang is no longer required. It continues through cargo operations until the
ship is finally ready to sail. During the port stay of the ship, the ship’s master and crew face various
challenges and risks. Cargo operations are normally the most important task that they carry out at
the port. On a modern container ship, bulk carrier or tanker, this 24-hour operation is carried out
by just three officers and six deck crew, with the master supervising and advising them.To achieve
this, the second and third officers patrol the deck and ships office on a ‘six on–six off’ schedule.
The chief officer is in charge of the cargo operations on board and tends to theoretically work
from morning to night, but depending on the cargo work, often he or she has to work during nights
as well.This poses a challenge to their rest hours, and anecdotal evidence from seafarers suggests
that they are often fatigued in port due to long hours of work. In April 2010, the bulk carrier Shen
Neng 1 ran aground at Douglas shoal after loading 65,000 tonnes of coal.The official investigation
found that the chief officer was highly fatigued after having stayed awake in port supervising cargo
operations and carrying out de-ballasting for two days (ATSB, 2011). Research and IMO circulars
suggest that fatigue due to port operations continues to be an unresolved issue of high-risk poten-
tial.This makes the port stay operations phase one of the most challenging that the ship manager
and ship together face.
In addition to these, the ship manager and ship staff have a range of other issues to deal
with depending on the different scenarios of the voyage, the port activities planned, the ship
type and specifics of that voyage and port call. The ship manager may have arranged for a crew
change; this needs to be verified, given possibilities of flight delays. Surveys and repairs may have
been arranged, and proper and timely delivery of these services needs to be liaised and verified,
a challenge in recent years given the narrow and persistently reducing port stay windows of
many container ships (a few hours) and bulk carriers in fast cargo work ports (one to two days).
Surveys that may have been arranged should be verified and carried out without any issues.
Additionally, the port stay may become even more complicated if an emergency situation takes
place. For example, a bulk carrier might have a failure of the crane or hatch covers, necessitating
urgent arrangements for workshop attendance by the ship manager. Most port stays have a very
busy schedule. On container and roll-on roll-off (RORO) ships, schedules are even busier, as they
stay in port for just a few hours, during which all operations must be completed. Furthermore,
unlike bulk carriers that have longer sailings of seven or more days between consequent ports,
container ships tend to operate as ‘feeder’ vessels when coasting, with extremely short inter-
port sailings, sometimes as short as a few hours, thus increasing the pressures on ship staff. Lean
management must take place in these fast-paced port calling operations, as problems must be
prevented.
The major categories of port stay–related tasks are:
●● Cargo operations;
●● Completion of various port formalities and clearances;
●● Incident reporting (if applicable);
●● Port state control and inspections (if applicable);
●● Arrangement for crew change (if applicable);
●● Arrangement for seafarers’ shore leave (if applicable);
●● Arrangement for stores and provisions (if applicable);
●● Arrangement for class survey, vessel maintenance and repairs (if applicable);
●● Arrangement for internal and external audit (if applicable);
●● Arrangement for ship manager (superintendent) inspection (if applicable);
●● Emergency situation response (if applicable);
●● Lifeboat drills in compliance with SOLAS.
Stores, spares and provisions: Each of these tasks is handled differently by the ship manager. Even
though the ship manager arranges for the delivery of stores and provisions before the ship berths,
he or she needs to thereafter monitor and check whether the stores have arrived onboard and
whether they are ‘fit for purpose’. If unfortunately wrong deliveries are made, the ship manager
needs to ensure they are returned and, if possible, a replacement is obtained before the vessel
sails out. Since the time available for these activities is very short and involves time taking customs
clearances and logistics to and from the ship supplier’s warehouse, it can be cumbersome, yet is
necessary. On the other hand, ship spares are directly delivered to the port agent’s office, who
arranges their transportation to the ship. Some spares are easily handled manually; however, main
engine spares and liners may require an additional trucking company hire due to their size. Provi
sions may be ordered through the same or a different ship supplier depending on prices, quality
and deliverability.
Cargo operations: Although cargo operations are carried out by ship staff, the ship manager
may have to get involved and assist the ship if there is a problem, for example, damage to vessel by
stevedores, any problem with the ship’s hatch cover opening and closing arrangements (in case of
a bulk carrier), ramps and forklifts (in case of a RORO vessel) and if a shore workshop or surveyor
is needed to enable the ship to sail safely. Many ship owners prefer to communicate with the vessel
manager rather than with ships, especially when there is an issue onboard; thus the ship manager
may have to guide ship staff often. Communications between the owner and the manager tend to
be more effective (compared to owner and ship directly), as the ship manager understands better
how to negotiate with the specific vessel’s crew.
Completion of various port formalities and clearances: These are directly carried out by the
ship staff and port agent, with the latter shouldering most of the work. The ship’s role in this
is generally confined to providing all the required documents; paperwork; certificates; and, if
required, to assist any shore-based customs, immigration and quarantine inspectors on board
in their inspection. While these are considered routine in most ports, in some countries, they
can be extremely strict. For example, quarantine and health inspectors in Canada, the United
States, Australia, Chile and Argentina are known to take rounds of the poop deck, main deck,
garbage lockers, galley, pantry and mess rooms to check that there is no open food waste
garbage. Health inspectors in Brazil and Argentina often take a sample of the drinking water
from tanks. Additionally, they are known to levy fines if they find any expired food items in the
provision stores.
Incident reporting (if applicable) and emergency situation response (if applicable): Normally, a ship
should be able to enter and leave a port incident-free. However, once in a while, a minor or major
collision, allision, grounding or pollution may occur. In such cases, the ship manager has to activate
the emergency room ashore; send reports to the ship owner, protection and indemnity (P&I) insur
ers, flag state and classification society; and arrange for a superintendent to fly in and investigate.
In some cases, the ship manager may even liaise with the P&I club and local contacts to help the
ship tide over any legal issues that may emerge, thus helping the ship owner by going ‘the extra
mile’. Ship managers in such instances should deal with the situation through the usage of their
critical-thinking and problem-solving skills.
Port state control (PSC) and inspections (if applicable): PSC inspections have now become rou
tine in many ports, and while the port state control officer (PSCO) is shown around by the
onboard team, the ship manager may need to assist them, especially when certain paperwork as
demanded by the PSCO is not found on board. Since PSC inspections show up online and subse
quently on websites like Equasis and are used by agencies like RightShip for chartering decisions,
ship owners are sensitive to such matters and hold the ship manager directly responsible for
any issues.
Arrangement for crew change (if applicable): As mentioned in the previous sub-section, if there
are any crew changes, the ship manager arranges and sends flight tickets on board. However, when
flights are delayed or the ship’s ETA changes, the ship manager may need to quickly re-book flights
at the last moment and send updated details to the ship. It is normal for joining crew to have their
joining dates postponed at the last moment due to such exigencies.
Arrangement for seafarers’ shore leave (if applicable): Normally, shore leaves are arranged by the
port agent. However, ship managers may sometimes try to arrange additional welfare activities
like visits from the port chaplain or the seamen’s club. In some countries due to the crew nation
ality, the shore leave facility is restricted. For example, the United States denies shore leave for
non-visa candidates, and Saudi Arabia restricts shore leave due to the Islamic law, which is strictly
enforced. These are just a few of many countries that due to their national legislations, seafarers
are unwelcome.
Arrangement for class survey, vessel maintenance and repairs (if applicable): Ships undergo
surveys every year, normally within the window for that survey. This includes surveys required
by the IMO for load line, safety construction, safety equipment, radio, oil pollution prevention
and the ISPS and ISM codes. The surveys are arranged by the ship manager in direct liaison
with the classification society. Once the surveyor is onboard, the seafarers show him or her
the equipment and address any questions. Thereafter, the surveyor prints out and delivers the
new survey certificates. In case of any repairs, these are arranged by the ship manager through
a shore-based workshop and continuously monitored by him or her for attendance and reso
lution for the task.
Arrangement for internal and external audits and ship manager (superintendent) inspection (if
applicable): The ISM Code requires ships to be audited from a safety management perspective
every year by an internal auditor who is part of the ship manager’s quality assurance team, fol
lowed by an external audit by the classification society.The former may be carried out in port or
with the internal auditor sailing between ports, thus carrying out the internal safety audit at sea.
Ship managers (also called superintendents and ship superintendents) tend to visit their ships
every year, and sometimes more often if logistics permit. After inspection, the superintendent
issues an onboard deficiency log (ODL), and later the ship staff are required to complete the
jobs listed and close the ODL. This helps them communicate face to face with ship staff, make
important decisions for the upkeep and maintenance of the vessel, obtain a first-hand perspec
tive of the condition of the ship and gain an understanding of any problems that the ship staff
may be facing.The average superintendent travels out of the office for about 100 days each year,
and he or she needs to manage the remaining ships even while travelling. Email and cell phone
thus have become the connection to all ships, making the role of IT systems and cybersecurity
pivotal in daily ship operations.These people are used to conducting multiple tasks at the same
moment even while travelling.
Lifeboat drills in compliance with SOLAS: This is another crucial element which needs accurate
planning. As per the SOLAS requirements, lifeboats need to be launched and manoeuvred in the
water once every three months and every six months for free-fall lifeboats. Due to security issues
and sea conditions, many ports do not permit the ship staff to carry out lifeboat drills. In the ports
that allow it, it becomes imperative to carry out the lifeboat drills. An alternative scenario is to
carry this out at anchorage or whilst underway in stopped conditions. However, it is subject to
charterer’s acceptance to stop the vessel and this furthermore poses a risk due to the sea state,
current and weather. Planning for the drill is essential despite the busy schedule in port and assures
that the lifeboats are in a satisfactory state of operation.
Departure operations phase

The departure operations phase can be further divided into a pre-departure stage and a post-de
parture stage. A ship is officially said to have departed from a berth when all its mooring lines
are cast off, referred to officially as ‘All gone and clear’ (AGC). Other key milestones during her
departure are POB, SBE and other cargo- and sailing-related timings, all of which have a commercial
significance in her operations (Table 5.2).
Table 5.2 Key milestones/timings during the ship’s departure operations phase
Abbrev.
Pre-departure phase:
• Controls, steering gear tested time CTCS
• Completed loading/discharge time ETC
• Completed lashing time (especially in container and general cargo ships)
• Closed hatch covers time (especially in bulk carriers)
• Hoses disconnected time (in tankers)
• Completed purging time (in tankers)
• Time when all stevedores left the ship
• Pilot on board time POB
• Stand by engines SBE
During departure:
• Stations forward and aft
• Tug made fast time (for each location – forward, midship and aft) Tug m/f
• Commenced singling up time
• Singled up fore and aft s/up
• All gone and clear AGC
Post-departure phase:
• Tugs cast off time Tugs c/off
• Change of pilot time (if applicable, especially in rivers and long pilotages) – See note 1
• Pilot away P/away
• Ring full away/commencement of sea passage RFA
Note 1: In many ports, rivers and waterways, it is normal to have different pilots who guide the vessel in each section
of the pilotage waters based on their competency, specialisation and qualifications; for example, berthing/harbour
pilot, river pilot, sea pilot, bay pilot, reef pilot and so on.An outward passage from ports in Japan (for example,Tokyo,
Yokohama, Osaka, Nagoya, Kobe), China (for example, Shanghai, Nanjing), Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (for
example, Zeebrugge,Antwerp, Rotterdam, Bremen, Bremerhaven) can involve anywhere from two to five of such pilot
changes. Some river passages to bulk carrier loading ports in Argentina can involve river pilotages of up to two days.
Pre-departure operations phase

Before the ship departs for its next voyage, one of the important tasks for the ship’s master and
crew is to exercise due diligence in making the ship seaworthy before the voyage (Zhang & Phillips,
2016).The terms ‘due diligence’ and ‘seaworthy’ have multiple legal connotations which depend on
the type of ship. For example, traditionally, it is also required that the ship’s officers try out bilge
pumping arrangements.While this continues to be a legal requirement for bulk carriers, it is not so
on container ships. Bulk carriers tend to have distinctly separate load and discharge ports. On con
tainer ships, where loading and discharging are carried out simultaneously at multiple ports, much
like a shuttle service, this requirement has given way other requirements like checking whether the
ship has “Dangerous Goods Manifests” for all the containers loaded.
Pre-departure port operations (Figure 5.2) can be divided into navigational tasks (for example,
carrying out control tests on the bridge to ensure that all navigational equipment is working satis
factorily); steering gear to be tested; seamanship tasks (for example, preparing for ‘forward and aft
mooring stations’, lashing all loose items on the deck and battening hatches down, often guided by
the ship’s watertight integrity checklist); administrative tasks (ensuring all documentation has been
completed and the ship has been given the ‘Port Clearance Certificate’ from the port authorities,
without which a ship cannot sail out); engine room tasks (for example, preparation of main engine
Pre-Departure
port operations
Navigation Seamanship Administrative Engine room

Special tasks
tasks tasks tasks tasks
Figure 5.2 Task categories in pre-departure port operations phase
and generators for operation during the sea passage); and special tasks (for example, drug and
stowaway searches carried out before ships depart from ports where past experience, port and
insurance circulars have led them to believe the necessity of such searches). Stowaway searches are
now routinely carried out before sailing out of predictable ports like those in Africa, as well as ports
in Europe, due to a larger number of stowaways that have been discovered on container ships and
RORO ships sailing out of Belgium, Spain, Italy and the UK.
In the meantime, the ship’s master needs to make sure that the ship’s departure procedure is
followed and all formalities are completed.The major categories of tasks are as follows:
●● Complete departure checklist;

●● Confirm and agree on all cargo documents and incident claims, if any;
●● Exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy;
●● Confirm post-departure instruction to ship managers;
●● Confirm all cost invoices and pay port disbursement (if applicable);
●● Obtain a Port Clearance Certificate (PCC);
●● Confirm voyage instructions and notify all crew;
●● Voyage planning, preparation for casting off and sailing;
●● Complete various reports to relevant stakeholders;
●● Ensure that all crew returning from shore leave are healthy;
●● Ensure that all crew onboard are healthy;
●● Confirm agents for POB time.
These major tasks also depend on the type of ship. For example, on bulk carriers and general cargo
ships, a ‘Statement of Facts’ (SOF) is an important document that lists the timings of all important
cargo-related activities that occurred in the port. It can take the ship’s master one to two hours to
verify all of these before signing this document.The SOF forms the basis for cargo claims, if any, and
numerous port-related charges. However, due to their hectic nature, container ships rarely present
the master with an SOF. Similarly, bills of lading (BLs) are a routine but important document pre
sented to the master in bulk carriers. However, on container ships, this document is not provided.
Post-departure operations phase

After departure, the ship will normally sail to the next port of call with or without cargo. The
nature of this voyage depends largely on the type of ship, her service, charter party requirements
and the owner’s needs.While container ships normally have specific ports that the ship heads to
and a published schedule consisting of anywhere between 5 and 20 ports per month, this is not
always so in bulk carriers and tankers. Charterers and operators of bulk carriers and tankers often
‘hunt’ for the most profitable cargo options after the ship sails out; hence ships are routinely asked
to head towards a certain region (for example,‘head towards Singapore’ or ‘Suez Canal’ or ‘Panama
Canal’ or ‘Qingdao’) even if the ship does not have any cargo in this region. This allows the ship
operator to procure the most profitable cargo charter for the ship, a decision which depends on
prevailing charter hires, commodity prices, the ship’s geographical location and its cargo carrying
capabilities.The final destination port is only confirmed to the ship a few days prior to arrival.While
during the pre-ECDIS era, this required ships to maintain a complete portfolio of paper charts of
the world, which the second officer had to keep current, the ECDIS has resolved this issue, and
ships can obtain electronic navigational chart (ENC) permits through email. However, with multiple
vendors involved and ever changing in identity, obtaining ENC permits has become a complicated
process for ship’s officers.
Communication when sailing: When the ship is sailing, it turns into an isolated and independent
workplace.The ship’s master has the overall responsibility for the ship at sea. In the past, commu
nication between a sailing ship at sea and its shore management team was very limited because
telecommunication technology was still at an infant stage, leading to limitations. It was normal for
just one message to pass between the ship and the office, typically on telex.Today, the development
of information technology has made it possible for data to be shared and exchanged conveniently,
and sometimes excessively through, email or other methods such as the cloud.The recent ability
of ship managers to access information on their smart phones has meant that managers are able
to monitor ships’ movements day and night no matter where they are.
However, ships have not advanced similarly. Most ships have just one computer terminal for
sending and receiving emails, and this is only accessible to one person, the ship’s master, whose job
is not desk bound.There is no system onboard that enables officers to check email when they are
not sitting at a desk, and a ship can be thought of as something similar to a nine-storied building,
with the computer terminal on the uppermost floor, thw engine room in the bottom four floors
and the main deck on the fifth floor.This compels ship’s officers to choose between accessing email
and doing their regular day-to-day tasks on deck.
In fact, all of the ship’s officers and crew perform tasks that, by their very nature, require them
to move around the ship and not be desk bound. Therefore, on one hand, this communication
explosion has proven beneficial for the shore-based desk-bound ship manager, ship owner and
charterer. On the other hand, it has resulted in a large increase in the tasks that the ship staff is
expected to perform without any increase in manpower or any improvement in accessibility to
technology. In the meantime, many ships still do not have internet onboard (satellite connection
tends to be very expensive). Even for those that do have it, the speeds or accessibility is far lower
than that of their shore-based counterparts.All these further increase the problem.
Whereas two decades ago, most ship managers received just one position report daily from
the ship, today they can monitor the ship’s movement and conditions in real time using vessel track
ing websites and subscriptions linked to the ship’s GPS and long-range information and tracking
(LRIT).While in law the ship’s master still has the overall authority over the ship, the ship manager
plays a far more active role today in the ship’s onboard affairs, even when the ship is sailing.A ship’s
manager and ship staff must circumnavigate the limitations noted while making sure that the ship
navigates safely without any stoppages at sea.
The major categories of tasks during the ship’s sailing phase include:
●● Send daily report to all relevant stakeholders;
●● Take care of the cargo on board, and pay special attention to dangerous goods if loaded;
●● Conduct planned maintenance and repairs;
●● Crew’s safety meetings and training drills;
●● Management of inventory of onboard consumption;
●● Make requests for ship’s spare parts;
●● Take care of seafarers’ welfare and mental health;
●● Prepare the ship for surveys and inspections;
●● Monitor provisions and fresh water and analyse various provision quotes from the ship
chandlers;
●● Check cargo lashings to make sure they are tightened, and watertight integrity is maintained.
The latter has become even more important in the COVID-19 era, as crew sign-offs have become
difficult to arrange due to continuously changing restrictions by governments of different countries,
flight unavailability and family-related matters of seafarers themselves. Further, if a seafarer onboard
is found to be positive for COVID-19, this creates severe work pressures on the already highly
reduced staff onboard as they attempt to prevent any disruption.
With the COVID restrictions mentioned earlier, people have seen extreme cases taking place.
Crew changes and disembarkation have become common problems for many ship owning com
panies leading to extra costs as they have to move the ships around several ports to manage to
change the crew.This issue caused mental health issues to crew members, as some members ended
up being offshore for periods of more than six months. Client liaison management: It is in the field
of client liaison that a ship manager’s highest utility surfaces.Also referred to as ‘customer relation
ship management’, it necessitates the ship superintendent and the crew as the front-line staff use
relationship marketing in order to ensure that their customers’ requirements are achieved (Sawh
ney, 2001). Newer research suggests ‘the need to synchronise rather than homogenise’ services,
hinting at providing services that are tailor-made for each customer (Sawhney, 2006).While this is
indeed better suited for customers, it also increases costs and personnel from the ship manager’s
perspective.
Ship owners are a ship manager’s primary customers, and each ship owner has a different set
of criteria that they value. For example, all ship owners expect that their cargo will reach the des
tination without any damage, with zero claims and that loading and discharge proceed in a timely
manner, with zero unplanned stoppages of the ship at sea. However, for bulk carrier owners carry
ing sensitive cargo such as grain, they tend to be keener on minimising cargo damages and may not
mind some deviation to avoid rough seas that could result in cargo damage. Container ship owners,
on the other hand, may be keener that their ships make the required ETA, since any delay will result
in large-scale disruptions in container logistics for those containers that were planned for the cur
rent ship, as well as containers that were planned to be transhipped from the current ship to other
ships. In contrast, heavy lift carriers need to avoid any rough seas altogether.The owner may allow
ships to take additional weeks making detours to ensure that the ship remains in calm seas, thus
preventing the slightest damage to their precious heavy cargo.
There may also be idiosyncratic requirements of certain ship owners based on their earlier
experience, especially traditional ship owning companies and families. Some may be very partic
ular that their name is seen on the ship side and funnel with bright colours and no rust weeping,
while others might prefer to maintain their anonymity. Porter suggested the use of ‘competitive
advantage’ in order to distinguish one’s services from other players (Grant, 1991).A ship manager
must thus ‘discover’ these owner-specific requirements and preferences, many of which may not
be clearly articulated up-front. In the meantime, he or she needs to keep track of the requirements
and pass those on to the ship crew. If the requirements are discovered not to be in compliance, the
ship manager needs to take corrective measures in order to maintain smooth relations. A recent
addition to this list are pension funds and financial investment companies, some of which are oper
ated by large banks, who buy ships as distressed and undervalued assets, operate them for a few
years and sell them as soon as they are able to realise a pre-decided profit.
The ship manager may also be handling a number of varied ship owners, each with their own
different requirements and expecting to receive priority or at least satisfactory treatment. This
makes the ship manager’s work even more challenging. Ship owners generally tend to be tough
people, and they want things to be delivered as promised and in the best possible way to avoid any
monetary losses.
Ship management contracts are typically renewed every 12 months; thus a ship owner theoret
ically has the option to change the ship manager.This makes ship management a highly competitive
sector. Many ship owners take an active interest in the day-to-day operations of the ship, with a few
even commenting adversely and seeking explanation if the ship’s crew exceeds the already limited
catering budget. Usually there is a long-term relationship between the ship manager and the ship
owner, as it is not convenient to train a new manager on a regular basis. All ship owners tend to
be sensitive to PSC inspections, findings and the odd detention, irrespective of the age and initial
condition of the ship. The use of PSC inspections as data for calculating RightShip ratings, which
in turn determine the ‘charter desirability’ and charter hire of bulk carriers, further reinforces
this. RightShip is a bulk carrier rating organisation primarily created by two of the largest bulk
carrier charterers in the world, BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, in order to rate ships based on their
past record of cargo carriage, safety and performance.Therefore, the ship manager is assigned the
unenviable task of continuously trying to convince the ship owner that the latter has indeed made
the best decision by employing that particular ship manager to manage his or her ships.
The ship manager’s role in operations management is critical to a ship’s commercial perfor
mance. Ship owners hand over the day-to-day operational tasks of the ship, its crewing, victualling
and maintenance to third-party ship managers for a fee. However, the services expected consist of
a multitude of activities, with differences between various ship owners and ships. This makes the
ship manager’s work challenging.The ship voyage cycle used in this chapter helps the stakeholders
identify each of these tasks and understand their role in the larger spectrum of a ship’s voyage and
activities. Each of these phases requires different treatment depending on the type of ship, its geo
graphical location and the owners’ requirements. Due to fierce competition in this sector of the
industry, all of these aspects must be successfully conducted and completed. Only on satisfactory
completion of these can a ship manager expect to thrive.
Notes
1 Seafarers’ salaries would be paid directly into their chosen bank account by the ship management company
or a payroll company.
2 The terms of sign-on and sign-off are commonly used in the maritime industry to describe the process by
which seafarers join a ship and their relieved person then leaves that ship after handing over his or her tasks
to the reliever.
Chapter 6
Technical management
Technical management provides technical expertise and support to the management team of an
organisation. Its purpose is to ensure that the organisation has access to the right type and level of
people to manage technical issues and, thus, meet business objectives (Hamblin, 2019).The previous
chapter examined operations management, which involves different phases of a ship’s sea voyage
cycle. It is normally concerned with planning, organising and supervising the processes and activities
in the provision of ship management services.This chapter moves on to discuss technical manage
ment, which plays a critical role in the delivery of ship management services.
In maritime shipping, technical management aims to achieve safe, pollution-free and cost-
efficient vessel operations, which at the same time abide by the international rules and regulations
(Willingale, 1998). As discussed in Chapter 2, one feature of ship management is that it is a tech
nically savvy business. Successful operations management relies on professional and high-standard
technical management to make sure that the ship is functioning efficiently and in a safe, seaworthy
and reliable condition that meets all required international and national legislations. According to
Furnival & Crispe (2017), this is normally one of the most demanding and broad-reaching disci
plines of ship management. It involves interaction with not only shore-side personnel and shipboard
staff but also a variety of external bodies required for successful ship operations.
The meaning and concept of technical management in the context of ship management has
three dimensions. First, according to most ship management agreements, it is often at the ship own
er’s discretion to outsource technical management to the ship manager. For example, in SHIPMAN
2009, if the parties agree to include this service in the contract, the ship manager shall provide the
specific technical management services according to Clause 4 of the SHIPMAN 2009. Secondly,
in the broad sense of the term, technical management is relevant to almost any services that the
ship manager provides for the ship owner. Many technical management activities are embedded
in various activities or processes when the ship manager provides other services. As a result, the
sound practice of technical management should be abided by all the time when the ship manager is
engaged in the ship owner’s business. In addition, the ship management company, as an independent
organisation, needs to implement technical management to support and facilitate its operational
activities and business objectives.
The concept of technical management

Technical management is one of the main functions of service operations. It normally constitutes
the groups, departments or teams that provide technical expertise and overall management of the
organisation’s infrastructure (GBO, 2007). Professional technical management involves systematic
efforts employed in the timely deployment of a process or system and in balancing its cost, sup
portability and effectiveness during its life cycle (Jamil et al., 2015). The primary aim of technical
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-6
TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT 77
management is to provide expert advice and technical support so that the organisation can oper
ate properly at an optimum lowest overall total cost (Lewis & Payant, 2007).As a result, the func
tion normally works very closely with every stage of service where there is a need for technical
support.
One of the most important aspects of technical management is the facility management, which
is a professional management discipline aiming for the efficient and effective delivery of support
services to the organisations that it serves (Atkin & Brooks, 2009).The Oxford Dictionary defines
a facility as ‘a place, amenity, or piece of equipment provided for a particular purpose’. Facility
management can be understood as ‘the process of dealing with or controlling things, equipment,
amenities and people in a place provided for a particular purpose’ (Taprial & Kanwar, 2018). In
recent years, facility management has become a profession that encompasses multiple disciplines
to ensure the functionality of the built environment by integrating place, process, people and tech
nology (Payne, 2000). For example, the Facility Management Association defines the term as ‘the
practice of integrating the management of people and the business process of an organisation with
the physical infrastructure to enhance corporate performance’ (FMA, 2002).
Among a wide range of activities to be conducted in facility management, routine facility
maintenance plays a special and important role. Maintenance work is preventive. It is the work nec
essary to maintain the originally anticipated useful life of a fixed asset and the upkeep of property
and equipment (Roper & Payant, 2014). Routine facility maintenance, also known as preventative
maintenance, is the day-to-day upkeep of facilities, including machinery and equipment, which will
ensure their capacity to perform their expected functions (Lewis & Payant, 2007). Routine facility
maintenance should be carried out at lower costs compared to the potential costs caused by a
major failure (Roper & Borello, 2013). For example, in ship management, erosion of quality can
devalue a ship over time both in the value of the asset and its capacity to earn revenue from
customers. Low facility maintenance standards can disrupt the operations of facility users, reduce
performance and put business success at risk. Maintaining facilities on a routine basis seeks to keep
standards high, prevent failures and protect the value of facilities (Landport, 2019).
Although technical management is involved in all the processes of service, it is often very
closely related to incident management and problem/emergency management (Brahmachary, 2018).
An incident is an event that could bring about disruption to, or loss of, an organisation’s functions,
services or operations. It needs to be dealt with properly; otherwise, an incident can escalate into
an emergency, crisis or disaster. Incident management is a term describing the systematic efforts of
an organisation to identify, analyse and correct hazards at an early stage to prevent future recur
rence (Brooke, 2004). It is the process of limiting the potential disruption caused by such an event,
aiming for a return to business as usual (Nguyen et al., 2017). In contrast, problem management
investigates the underlying cause of incidents. It aims to prevent incidents of a similar nature from
happening again (Egan, 2009). By ratifying problems, which often requires a structural change to the
operational infrastructure in an organisation, the number of incidents can be reduced over time
(Blokdijk, 2008).
In general, technical management plays a dual role in a service organisation. First, it is the custo
dian of technical expertise and knowledge relevant to managing the organisational infrastructure. In
this role, technical management ensures that the skills, expertise and know-how required to design
and improve service operations are identified, developed and enhanced. Second, technical manage
ment provides actual resources to support service operations. In this role, technical management
ensures that adequate resources are effectively allocated and deployed to meet the needs of cli
ents. For example, the technical management team needs to take relevant actions to design, build,
operate and improve the technology required to support and deliver services (Hamblin, 2019).
In ship operations, technical management is the services rendered to maintain and oper
ate vessels. Rather than the ship owner, these duties are often performed by a third-party ship
78 TECHNICAL MANAGEMENT
management company. Nevertheless, the majority of traditional Greek ship owners would consider
outsourcing of technical management of ships to independent ship management companies a loss
of their companies’ key competencies and competitiveness, as it leads to monetary benefits such
as cost minimisation.As discussed in Chapter 5, ship management companies are service organisa
tions.They respond to the requirements of ship owner–customers and satisfy their needs through
the delivery process of various services.The objectives of technical management are to help plan,
implement, maintain and periodically review a stable technical infrastructure to support the ship
owner’s business process through three main tasks.The first task is to create a well-designed and
highly resilient, cost-effective technical solution strategy.Today most ship management firms employ
comprehensive ship management systems which support and encapsulate the entire business and
technical processes involved in managing a fleet of vessels (Turan et al., 2009). Furthermore, the
ship manager needs to supervise and monitor the crew and make sure that they use adequate
technical skills to maintain the technical infrastructure in optimum conditions. One purpose of this
step is to prevent any facility or technical failure.Also, if any facility or technical failure does happen,
it is imperative to use technical skills to speedily diagnose and resolve the problem and bring the
system to the originally anticipated condition (GBO, 2007). By performing these tasks, the ship
manager expects that the shipboard organisation has access to the right type and level of technical
support.Also, since ship management companies provide technical ship management services to a
variety of ship owning clients, they can take advantage of more substantial scale of economies, such
as in ship repairs and purchasing, supported by stronger and more diverse networks of suppliers
and partners.This brings about greater efficiency and ultimately translates to lower operating costs
for ship owners (Marlow, 2020).
As discussed earlier, the term ‘technical management’ can be very broad and inclusive.The ship
management agreement shall prescribe the scope of management services. According to Clause
4 of SHIPMAN 2009, the common services that the ship manager provides for the ship owner
regarding technical management includes the following:
(a) Ensuring that the Vessel complies with the requirements of the law of the Flag State;
(b) Ensuring compliance with the ISM Code;
(c) Ensuring compliance with the ISPS Code;
(d) Providing competent personnel to supervise the maintenance and general efficiency of the
Vessel;
(e) Arranging and supervising dry dockings, repair, alterations and the maintenance of the Vessel
to the standards agreed with the Owner provided that the managers shall be entitled to incur
the necessary expenditure to ensure that the Vessel will comply with all requirements and
recommendations of the classification society, and with the law of the Flag State and of the
places where the Vessel is required to trade;
(f) Arranging the supply of necessary stores, spares and lubricating oil;
(g) Appointing surveyors and technical consultants as the Managers may consider from time to
time to be necessary;
(h) In accordance with the Owner’s instructions, supervising the sale and physical delivery of
the Vessel under the sale agreement. However, services under this Sub-clause 4(h) shall not
include negotiation of the sale agreement or transfer of ownership of the Vessel.
(i) Arranging for the supply of provisions unless provided by the Owners; and
(j) Arranging for the sampling and testing of bunkers.
As can be seen from this clause, some types of services are specific, such as arranging the supply
of necessary stores, spares and lubricating oil and arranging for the sampling and testing of bun
kers. However, other sub-clauses can be quite general and inclusive, and the parties may need a
more detailed agreement to define the exact scope of services. For example, services ensuring
compliance with the ISM Code, the ISPS Code and the requirements of the law of the flag states can
extend to a wide range of matters and dimensions.1 Also, the sub-clause on ‘providing competent
personnel to supervise the maintenance and general efficiency of the Vessel’ may cause uncertainty
and dispute without a consensus on the standard of ‘competent’ or ‘efficiency’. In general, the
main categories of technical management services include the ship’s seaworthiness, maintenance
and repairs, budget and cost control, performance management, safety and security management,
information management and so on.
The concept of seaworthiness

The seaworthiness of merchant ships plays a critical role in ensuring the safety of life and property
and the prevention of marine pollution. It deals with the fitness and readiness of a ship and its fun
damental ability to sail safely to its destination.The standards of seaworthiness extend to literally
all aspects of a ship, including the human element, physical structure, documentation, cargo wor
thiness and so on. It is one of the most complicated concepts in the maritime regulatory regime,
and it takes many forms. For instance,Article 94(1) of UNCLOS (1982) requires that flag states are
under a categorical duty to exercise jurisdiction and control in relation to ‘administrative, technical
and social matters’ over ships that are permitted to fly its flag. Seaworthiness is a crucial element
concerning this duty, and this is further set out in the remainder of the article, particularly in Article
94(3) and (4).
Similarly, in the commercial context of the carriage of goods by sea, the Hague/Hague–Visby
Rules state that the carrier has the obligation to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy
before and at the beginning of the voyage. In marine insurance law, seaworthiness is an implied war
ranty of the ship owner, the breach of which results in the loss of insurance coverage, even though
there is no causal relationship between the breach and the loss (Soyer, 2001). In the law relating to
seafarers’ employment contract, seafarers are guaranteed the protection that originates from the
legal implication that the ship on which they are employed to work is, in fact and law, seaworthy. For
instance, the UK Merchant Shipping Act confers upon seafarers a statutory right to an implied term
of seaworthiness, which cannot be displaced or exempted by contractual agreement (MSA, 1995).
However, as one of the most important terms in maritime transportation and ship manage
ment, seaworthiness is not an absolute concept, but a relative one, dependent on the particular
environment, context and facts. In the meantime, the standards of seaworthiness have changed
greatly with the introduction of new maritime regulations, such as the ISM Code, the ISPS Code,
the MLC, 2006 and so on.This is primarily dependent on and determined by a variety of different
contractual purposes and perspectives.A ship might be seaworthy as between the insurer and the
ship owner, though unseaworthy as between the ship owner and the shipper of a particular cargo
(Hodges, 1999). For instance, frozen cargo requires a special freezing apparatus, though that does
not affect the safety of the ship, although it may impair seaworthiness under a marine insurance
policy (Mitra, 1993).This was made clear in The Eurasian Dream (2002), where it was held that sea
worthiness is relative to ‘the nature of the ship, to the particular voyage, or even to the particular
stage of the voyage on which the ship is engaged’.
The meaning of seaworthiness has also been regulated by a number of national laws and con
ventions.The US Harter Act of 1893 was the first attempt to balance the power between carriers
and cargo owners (Hodges, 1996).The act set a limit on carriers’ liability for loss due to negligence
or failure to exercise due diligence to make the ship seaworthy.The significance of this lies in the
fact that the principles established in the Harter Act became in many ways the basis of liability in
the Hague Rules and then followed by the Hague–Visby, Hamburg and Rotterdam Rules.
According to Rule (1) of Article 3 of the Hague Rules and the Hague–Visby Rules, the carrier
has the obligation to exercise due diligence before and at the beginning of the voyage.These obli
gations include:
(1) Make the ship seaworthy,

(2) Properly man, equip and supply the ship, and
(3) Make the holds, refrigerating and cool chambers, and all other parts of the ship in which goods
are carried, fit and safe for their reception, carriage and preservation.
The Hamburg Rules and Rotterdam Rules have not changed these major obligations. However, the
carrier’s duty to ‘make the ship seaworthy’ is replaced by ‘make and keep the ship seaworthy’ under
the Rotterdam Rules.As a result, the duty is extended to cover the entire voyage.
Despite its important role in maritime law, there is a lack of united definition of seaworthiness.
According to section 39(4) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906, ‘A ship is deemed to be seaworthy
when she is reasonably fit in all respects to encounter the ordinary perils of the seas of the adven
ture insured’.
Based on numerous decisions,Tetley described seaworthiness in the following terms:
Seaworthiness may be defined as the state of a vessel in such a condition, with such equipment,
and manned by such a master and crew, that normally the cargo will be loaded, carried, cared
for and discharged properly and safely on the contemplated voyage.
(Hendrikse et al., 2008)
However, there is no specific statutory definition that has received universal recognition in the
maritime industry.Therefore, maritime courts have to define seaworthiness on a case-by-case basis
(Foster, 1999). In some cases, seaworthiness is defined as the ‘condition in which a ship should be
enabled to encounter whatever perils of the sea a ship of her kind, and laden as she is, may fairly
be expected to encounter in performing the voyage concerned’. In some other cases, the vessel
must be ‘fit to encounter the ordinary perils of the voyage’; it must be ‘in a fit state . . . to encounter
the ordinary perils of the voyage insured’; the state of fitness required ‘must depend on the whole
nature of the adventure’ (Margetson, 2008).
A ship is considered unseaworthy when it is in such a condition, that in consideration of the
vessel’s trade, the risk to human life associated with going to sea exceeds what is customary.The
condition can be caused by a variety of reasons, such as defects in the hull, equipment, machinery,
crewing, overloading or deficient loading (Kristiansen, 2013). Seaworthiness requires that the ship
be designed and constructed to resist the usual danger in the sea for the contracted voyage. How
ever, it has been generally accepted that the meaning of seaworthiness should not be limited to
merely the physical facilities of the vessel.There are a number of general aspects in which a vessel
must be considered to assess its seaworthiness.The key elements to which seaworthiness of a ship
should extend can be described in Table 6.1.
A ship manager needs to understand that seaworthiness relates not only to the physical prop
erties of the ship but also to other aspects such as manning and cargo-worthiness. The key ele
ments to which seaworthiness of a ship should extend can be categorised into three dimensions.
First, the design, construction and equipment of the ship shall meet the requirements of shipbuild
ing and specifications of ship survey and obtain the corresponding qualification certificate. Second,
it must be equipped with indispensable crews, ship equipment and supplies. Third, cargo stowage
shall comply with the requirements of the relevant conventions, codes and regulations. If the ship is
sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseawor
thiness. In the meantime, the ship manager may be held liable for the relevant parties’ loss.
Table 6.1 Key elements to which seaworthiness extends
Items Examples
Certificates and documents Statutory documents, classification certificates and documents, insurance certificates
and documents
Design and construction Compliance with the requirements of statutes and rules of flag states and
classification societies
Structure and other The hull, machinery and other technical equipment, hatches, pipes and pumps, tackle
technical equipment and steering mechanism
Navigational equipment Radio, radar, compass, etc.
and aids Charts, publications
Fuel, provisions, medicines Sufficiency of fuel, provisions and medicines
Quality of fuel, provisions and medicines
Competency of the crew Competency in number; competency as individuals
General competency; specific competency
Stowage and loading Dangerous stowage and loading
Overloading
Other factors Latent defect, pilot
Ship maintenance management

From a technical perspective, maintenance is a task which ensures that physical assets continue to
fulfil their intended functions at a minimum economic or human risk (Werbińska-Wojciechowska,
2019). Ship maintenance can be defined as the process of identifying and utilising maintenance
assets in a predetermined manner in keeping the material condition of ships at the desired level
(DeWitt, 1991). It is a combination of all technical, administrative and managerial activities during
the life cycle of a ship intended to retain it, or restore it to a state, in which it can perform the des
ignated function (PNEN, 2010).The activities generally involve functional checking, servicing, repair
ing or replacing of the necessary machinery, equipment, devices and supporting utilities (Rondeau
et al., 2012). However, maintenance is no longer a question of making repairs or defining articulated
programmes of prevention. It has today acquired the meaning of a complex management service,
oriented towards the prevention of breakdown, but also towards pursuing a variety of other objec
tives, including those of a commercial nature (Cigolini et al., 2009).
Maintenance management may be defined as management activities that determine the mainte
nance objectives, strategies and responsibilities and implement them by means such as maintenance
planning, maintenance control and supervision and improvement of methods in the organisation
including economic aspects (PNEN, 2010). It forms one of the most important aspects of the ship’s
technical management.The overall aim of maintenance management is to make sure that the ship
is operating in its best condition, to maintain the originally anticipated useful life2 of the ship’s hull,
machinery and equipment (Alhouli, 2011). According to Johnson (2002), the general objectives of
maintenance management are connected with the following:
●● Ensuring system basic functions (availability, efficiency and reliability);
●● Ensuring system life through proper connections between its components (asset management);
●● Ensuring safety for human operators, environment and system itself;
●● Ensuring cost effectiveness in maintenance, and
●● Enabling effective use of resources, energy and other materials.
There are two main maintenance approaches, namely preventive maintenance (PM) and correc
tive maintenance (CM) (Ben-Daya et al., 2009;Yardley et al., 2006). PM, also known as ‘planned or
scheduled maintenance’, is performed periodically according to the run time of a system or its
components as planned by the manufacturer. It includes all activities performed, aiming to ‘retain
an item in a specified condition by providing systematic inspection, detection and prevention of
incipient failures’ (Werbińska-Wojciechowska, 2019). According to Kececioglu (2003), the objec

tives of PM include:
●● Increase systems’ reliability and efficiency;
●● Decrease the number of incident failures;
●● Decrease the time a system is not operable and non-productive;
●● Decrease the system’s downtime and thus increase its uptime;
●● Decrease the overall spare parts requirements;
●● Decrease the maintenance man-hours; and
●● Decrease the system’s life-cycle cost.
In general, the approach of PM tries to predict or forecast the wear and tear of a system or its
components by using appropriate approaches and recommends corrective action.The most com
monly referred to strategies in this area, are time-based PM and condition-based maintenance
(CBM) (Gandhare & Akarte, 2012). According to Kececioglu (2003), PM is performed at regularly
scheduled intervals and includes but is not limited to the following activities:
●● Servicing periodically, such as replenishing depleted oil, changing aged oil, greasing and lubri
cating, refuelling, cleaning, adjusting, aligning, checking and cleaning electrical contact surfaces,
removing rust deposits, tightening loose units, making routine checks and calibrating;
●● Inspecting, checking out, replacing or repairing failed redundant units;
●● Replacing components before they enter their prescribed wear-out life period;
●● Overhauling in a minor or major way aged and worn-out units.
In contrast to PM, CM is performed on a system that is inoperative or operating in a degraded

condition.According to Nowakowski & Werbińka (2009), CM includes any action that occurs when
a system has already failed, so there is no possibility to optimise its performance with respect to a
given economic or reliability criteria. In general, the CM actions are reactive, unanticipated and thus
unscheduled (Wireman, 2004). They are generally carried out at unpredictable intervals because
the time to any specific facility’s failure cannot be planned ahead of time. It may result in system
unavailability.Therefore, in CM, there is no possibility to make any optimisation of operational and
maintenance parameters (Goel & Murari, 1990).
The overall aim of CM is to restore the facility to safe and satisfactory function within the
shortest possible time. The decision to take a CM action depends primarily on whether the
degraded condition is critical to performing the current mission or the missions in the near future
(Yardley et al., 2006).According to Kececioglu (2003), the aim of CM can be achieved by conducting
various preventative activities, such as diagnosing the failure or malfunction and implementing the
required corrective actions.The common actions include adjusting, aligning, tightening, replacing or
repairing the parts, components and subsystems which caused the unscheduled failure; checking
out the equipment; cleaning them up; and logging the restorative action time.
A ship at sea is isolated from onshore maintenance and repair facilities. If a failure or break
down occurs during the voyage, the required repair or replacement parts may not be available
onboard. As a result, the failure of a vital piece of equipment can be very costly and may even
put the whole vessel at risk (Alhouli, 2011). In the meantime, when the ship is out of service, the
ship owner may have to bear the loss of off-hire caused by the downtime of the vessel. Added to
this are the consequences of dangerous operation and environmental damage (Rothblum, 2000).
Therefore, proper maintenance is a crucial aspect of a ship’s performance management, as it leads

to prevention of monetary losses.
Maintenance schemes in ship management often follow a typically planned schedule according
to running hours or calendar, no matter whether maintenance is technically needed or not (Deris
et al., 1999). Nowadays, most ship owners and ship managers have decided to use a planned main
tenance system (PMS) to help them reduce costs and have greater control over the surveys that
a vessel may need. It results in business benefits and helps ship owners and ship managers manage
the budget for the maintenance processes, and it reduces the risk in ship operations (Bayer et al.,
2018). Using a PMS reduces the operating costs as well as elevates sustainability of the machinery.
Moreover, it enables ship owners to demonstrate total commitment to quality ship management,
as required in the ISM Code. Proper maintenance management avoids off-hire time, and as a direct
consequence, it contributes to achieving the maximum revenue through ship availability and pro
ductivity (Branch & Robarts, 2014).
Although PMS has become a common theme across the industry, the ways it is used tend to
differ.The use of PMS is much more than just a specific onboard documentation of jobs.The PMS of
today is a central communication platform for all technical matters and tasks in a shipping company.
It is highly and efficiently integrated with procurement systems and quality and safety software sys
tems that deal with both processes and data.All the three functions typically come from the same
vendor to reduce interfaces and issues around updates or upgrades. The system is also designed
to alert the user of the overdue jobs and the appropriate shore facilities regarding spare parts or
technical assistance that is needed when an equipment casualty affecting a ship’s primary mission
area exceeds the ship’s repair capacity (Yardley et al., 2006).
The ship manager has a duty to make sure that all machinery, engines and technical compo
nents of a vessel are in acceptable working condition 24 hours a day, including ensuring that ship
speed and bunker consumption requirements are met.The PMS can help the ship manager track
this from ashore, and it permits the technical department to monitor the ongoing, pending and
completed jobs onboard.The main purpose of the system is to make sure that all maintenance is
carried out within set intervals and corresponding with the schedule in the PMS (Bebić et al., 2019).
Apart from the satisfactory working condition, the PMS also allows the engineers to identify any
potential issues or include a new practice to avoid disruptions and prevent any mishaps.The bene
fits do not so much lie in saving maintenance work, but more in reducing defects, especially those
deriving from badly executed maintenance (Zingoni, 2010).
The planning and management requirements vary according to the category of work and ves
sel type (Evans, 2007). Ship repairs can be done in the traditional way by bringing the vessel to a
shipyard or conducting repair in ports or at sea when the ship is in operation.The first approach is
both time-consuming and expensive; thus the use of the traditional way is decreasing (Chakraborty,
2020). According to Alhouli (2011), a ship’s repair work can be categorised in increasing order of
scale and cost:
●● Voyage repairs (minor and continuous repairs).
●● Routine docking (underwater work).
●● Major repairs (typically steel).
●● Damage repairs (usually steel).
●● Refit, conversion, and new installations.
There are certain requirements for routine drydocking and other occurring repairs which need to
be done. However, the intervals between dockings are often stretched as long as possible (Wank
hede, 2020). According to Mackenzie (2004), typically 75 per cent of the work in the shipyard
involves routine ship maintenance and the remaining 25 per cent is for damage repair and ship
conversion. However, the dry dock is an expensive process which requires systematic and efficient
planning and cost estimation to minimise overhead costs along with other unnecessary expenses
(Wankhede, 2019). Many ship managers report that a 20 to 30 per cent cost overrun to the dry
dock budget is rather common instead of an exception (Hansen, 2013).
The shipping industry is now in the era of big data; new tools are available for ship managers
to better deal with changing customer expectations, and these instruments represent the ‘new
normal’ for ship managers to remain in the game.Today some ship management firms are using big
data analytics (BDA) as a new tool to improve ship performance through planned hull maintenance.
For example, some firms have equipped the ships under their management with sensors collecting
high-frequency data which are sent to the shore-based data centres.The utilisation of these data
enables the company to generate hull performance tools, reduce fuel consumption and improve
energy efficiency (Perera & Mo, 2017). However, while the software plays an important role in
today’s ship management, maintenance management is not just a software system. It is a combina
tion of trained personnel, software and best practices, all focusing on the same goal (Trout, 2019).
Performance management
The concept of performance management arose approximately in the post-industrial world of
the 1980s and blossomed in the 1990s (English & Lindquist, 1998).According to Forss (2002), it is
usually seen as one possible approach to how higher levels in an organisational system can hold
lower levels accountable for activities. Performance management has become a widely practised
and popular management reporting approach in recent years. It is crucial to the sustainable devel
opment of holistic management and decision-making activity within companies wishing to operate
as world-class organisations. Moreover, enabling the technology, which assists in the delivery and
personalisation of corporate performance information, is having a deeper and more rapid impact
than ever before (Sharif, 2002).
Performance management refers to activities, tools, processes and programmes that compa
nies create and/or apply to manage the performance of individual employees, teams, departments
and/or the whole organisation (Tang & Zhang, 2021). Its purpose is to ensure that organisational
goals are consistently and effectively met in an efficient manner. According to DeNisi (2000), per
formance management is a ‘broad range of activities that an organisation engages in to enhance
the performance of individuals, with the ultimate aim of improving organisational effectiveness’. It
is also defined as a continuous process of ‘identifying, measuring and developing the performance
of individuals and teams and aligning performance with strategic goals of the organisation’ (Aguinis
& Pierce, 2008). Performance management has some key characteristics; it should be strategic,
integrated, shared, continuous, specific and flexible (Hutchinson, 2013).
Performance management is an area that ship owners and operators must focus on in order to
maximise their profitability and productivity.A responsible ship manager’s priority is to make sure
that vessels are continually running and that lay-up is reduced to the minimum amount possible in
order to exploit a ship as much as possible during its designed life cycle.When the focus is on the
technical aspects, technical performance measures (TPMs) provide an assessment of key capability
values in comparison with those expected over time (Acqnotes, 2018).TPMs is a term used by the
industry to show how well a system is satisfying its requirements or meeting its goals (Oakes et al.,
2006).
As an old management adage suggests, if there is no measure, there is no management.A TPM
programme provides an early warning of the adequacy of a design in terms of satisfying selected
critical performance parameter requirements of a system. It also determines the success of the sys
tem, or portion thereof, and that will receive management focus and be tracked (EIA, 1999). Many
organizations use the terms TPMs and key performance indicators (KPIs) interchangeably. In recent
years, in the face of growing economic pressure, many shipping companies are keen to pursue
high operational performance (Visvikis & Panayides, 2017). Ship management needs to develop the
capability to measure performance through a comprehensive performance management system
that integrates KPIs (Konsta & Plomaritou, 2012). As a result, shipping KPIs has become a typical
buzzword in ship management and operations.
Shipping KPI was a system developed by a cross-industry group in 2006, but it only became
well-known in the industry in 2015 when the BIMCO took ownership of the system and updated
it regularly (Panayides, 2019). It is an innovative tool for the global shipping industry for defin
ing, measuring and reporting information on operational performance.The ship managers can use
the system to compare their business performance against the industry standard and potentially
identify where efficiency improvements could be made. In the meantime, it can communicate ship
operational performance, both internally and externally (BIMCO, 2020).
The current Standard V4.0, launched in September 2020, is built up hierarchically with three
different levels. As shown in Figure 6.1, on the lowest level there are 63 performance indica
tors (PIs), which are the building blocks for KPI value calculations.The PIs are directly observable
parameters (measurements or counters) for each ship under management, such as the data related
to the number of collisions, number of dismissals, number of fire incidents and number of PSC
inspections and detentions.These PIs are the only elements that must be reported manually or by
means of the implemented ICT system.
On the second level, there are 33 KPIs.They are on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 indicates
low and 100 is an outstanding performance.This makes it possible for ship managers to compare
ships with different characteristics or amount of data captured.The KPIs are expressions of perfor
mance of a ship within a specific area, and they can be expressed in an absolute or relative way. Each
ship can compare with other ships on the same KPI based on its own ranking criteria.Therefore, it
creates a ranking result where each ship is given its rank.The absolute KPI ranking is derived from
a descending list sorted by the highest to lowest performance rank, returning the actual position of
the ship within its ranking criteria.The relative KPI value is a mathematical combination of relevant
performance indicator values.The return value is a percentile position within the ranking criteria
on a scale between 0 and 100 per cent (BIMCO, 2020).As a result, the KPIs can be used as internal
and external benchmarking to set incentives for continuous improvement.
Key performance indicator

(KPI Groups)
(Total 8)
Key performance indicators

(KPIs)
(Total 33)
Performance indicators (PIs)

(Total 63)
Figure 6.1 Overview of the BIMCO Shipping KPIs Standard V4.0

Source: (BIMCO, 2020)
Finally, on the highest level, the BIMCO KPIs are combined into eight groups for better cat
egorisation and visualisation purposes (BIMCO, 2020). These eight groups include environmental
group, health and safety group, human resource management (HRM) group, navigational safety
group, operational group, security group, technical group and PSC group.
These eight top-level KPI groups categorise a set of related KPIs best expressing the ability of an
organisation or vessel to perform in a certain area.The environmental group is often used to assess
the ability of the organisation or vessel to prevent the violations of ballast water management, oil
spills or any kind of pollution that could harm the environment as a result of the vessel operation.
The health and safety group has to do with the capability of the organisation or vessel in managing
the health and safety issues, such as accident frequency and deficiencies.The HRM group is related
to the organisation’s ability to employ competent personnel, retain staff and create an enabling envi
ronment for the development of their people.The purpose is to meet the organisation’s expected
standard and competence to ensure safe and efficient operation of the ships.The navigational safety
group deals with the safety of the ship during navigation and the elimination of navigational deficien
cies.The operational group is used to analyse the operational effectiveness of the ship, such as safety
and efficiency of cargo handling, ship availability and budget management.The security group mea
sures the ability of the organisation or vessel to manage ship security. It also takes into account the
breaches of security procedures within the organisation and the ships they operate to have a clear
picture of their performance.The technical group deals with the ability of the organisation or vessel
to maintain the ship, reduce the number of deficiencies and minimise failures of critical equipment
and systems.The PSC group measures the performance of the organisation or vessel with regard to
PSC issues, including the number of PSC inspections, deficiencies and detentions.
Shipping KPIs provide fundamental signs as to whether the business of a ship is on the right
course of achieving its fundamental strategic objectives (Visvikis & Panayides, 2017). This system
makes it possible for operational performances to be defined, measured and reported on in terms
of the issues that arise in the day-to-day and long-term operations.The different categories of indi
cators provide a structured picture of how effective the organisation’s performance is; the issues
arising from the ship’s deficiencies; and the human factor, including shore staff and crew onboard
and the results arising from the technical operations.
In addition, the BIMCO Shipping KPI system integrates the mandatory Energy Efficiency Design
Index (EEDI3) for new ships and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) for all ships
with respect to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.The EEDI states the recommended index of the
amount of CO2 that ships are allowed to emit.The purpose of the EEDI is to improve the machin
ery operation and hull design and reduce CO2 emissions by increasing the ship’s overall efficiency.
The EEDI was made mandatory for ships built after 1 January 2013, aiming to promote the use of
less polluting equipment and engines. It specifies the ratio of CO2 the ship would emit per tonne-
mile of work done by the ship.Various levels of phases are set and streamlined as per the ship type,
size and year built to achieve fuel efficiency (IMO, 2011).
Unlike the EEDI, which emphasises technical design parameters to be attained by the ship design
ers and builders, the SEEMP focuses on the shipboard operation to monitor energy efficiency. It pro
vides an organised approach for the ship management companies and ship operators to monitor
and manage the ship’s efficiency performance over time by using the Energy Efficiency Operational
Indicator (EEOI) as an evaluation tool.There are a set of guidelines for the EEOI issued by the IMO to
facilitate measures of fuel efficiency.The guidelines include enhanced voyage planning, frequent propel
ler cleaning and the introduction of technical measures such as waste heat recovery systems.These
measures encourage the ship owners and managers to plan at each stage and consider new practices
and technologies to optimise the performance of their ships (Karan, 2020).The 76th session of the
IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 76), which was held in June 2021, adopted
further technical and operational measures to reduce carbon emission from the shipping industry. The
measures include the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) and the Carbon Intensity Indicator
(CII) rating scheme.The aim of the EEXI is to measure the energy efficiency of in-service vessels over
400 GT that fall under MARPOL Annex VI. It requires ship managers to assess their ships’ energy
consumption and CO2 emissions against specific requirements for energy efficiency for each vessel
type.The Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) is a measure of how efficiently a ship transports goods or
passengers and is given in grams of CO2 emitted per cargo-carrying capacity and nautical mile.The
rating is given on a scale - A, B, C, D or E - indicating a major superior, minor superior, moderate, minor
inferior, or inferior performance level.The performance level would be recorded in the ship’s SEEMP.
However, despite their significant utility, nowadays there are many different indicators to look
at, making comparison of performance between companies difficult. In the meantime, various par
ties bring issues with regard to the explanation of the same information in many different ways.
Also, KPIs should be aligned with the organisation’s objectives, strategies, plan and business policy.
They need to measure the most significant things – not everything – and to have the support of
the workforce. To have successful indicators, the shipping KPIs need to be communicated to the
workforce at different levels in a way where they can be tracked and simply explained (NoE, 2015).
Quality and safety management

Quality is defined by the ISO4 (2002) as ‘the totality of features and characteristics of [a] product
or service that bear on its ability to satisfy stated or implied needs’. Quality management refers to
coordinated activities to direct and control an organisation with respect to quality. For organisa
tions aiming to achieve sustained success, they need to implement a quality management system
(QMS). A QMS can be defined as a system of ‘procedures, processes, and resources that are for
malized to achieve quality objectives’ (Kapur et al., 2020) or a management system ‘to direct and
control an organisation with regard to quality’ (ISO, 2008). Central to a QMS is the quality policy,
which includes the overall aim and strategic direction of the organisation related to quality.A qual
ity policy, as formally expressed by the top management of an organisation, will generally provide
a framework for the setting of quality objectives and management principles (Visser et al., 2010).
In general, a QMS provides assurance through four tools: quality planning, quality assurance,
quality control and quality improvement (Reichenbächer & Einax, 2011). Quality planning is focused
on setting quality objectives and specifying the necessary operational processes and resources to
fulfil quality objectives. Quality assurance includes all preventive activities which are focused on
providing confidence that quality requirements will be fulfilled. It also includes proactive controls
to prevent problems associated with customer dissatisfaction. Quality control concerns activities
focused on conforming to quality requirements so that customers receive only products or ser
vices that meet their requirements. Quality improvement is the part of the management system
which is focused on the continual improvement of activities increasing the ability to fulfil the
requirements, including effectiveness, efficiency and traceability (Visser et al., 2010). After all, in
business, quality is what gives a company the greatest competitive advantage and customer loyalty.
Safety is defined as freedom from unacceptable risk or a state from which the risks are judged
to be acceptable (Manuele, 2003). It is a feature of an object – for example, a machine, an activity or
technology – that does not threaten people or the environment. Safety management is an organi
sational function which ensures that all safety risks have been identified, assessed and satisfactorily
mitigated.The objective of safety management is to prevent human injury or loss of life and to avoid
damage to the environment and property (Gustin, 2008).
Quality and safety management forms an integral part of any service organisation’s mission and
strategy. Effective implementation of quality and safety management is essential for ensuring the success
ful delivery of services and the sustainment development of business (Love et al., 2018).The importance
of linking the business practices of quality and safety has been widely recognised in the industry.Accord
ing to Rahimi (1995), the quality of work-life balance will improve when management views safety as the
result of their management system rather than treating accidents as a special occurrence outside their
management system. Quality management is focused on improving the product or service provided to
the customer (Chiarini, 2011). In contrast, the main purpose of safety management is to prevent injuries
in the workplace. It is focused on improving the conditions that exist in producing the product or ser
vice (Maxfield, 2010).According to Ladewski & Al-Bayati (2019), quality and safety would have stronger
values within an organisation if their management was in harmony rather than disconnected.
As for the shipping organisations, quality is not only about all stakeholders’ satisfaction but is
also associated with safety requirements. It is highly recommended to implement a quality assur
ance system that will help with quality management (Andonov, 2016).A quality assurance system is
meant to increase customer confidence and an organisation’s credibility. It can enable a company to
better compete with others by improving work efficiency and building trust and loyalty with cus
tomers (Reichenbächer & Einax, 2011).The standards available to the ship manager for the imple
mentation of quality and safety management are wide-ranging (Panayides, 2001). For example, the
ISO provides a series of standards on quality management and quality assurance. ISO 9004:2018
gives guidelines for enhancing an organisation’s ability to achieve sustained success, which is con
sistent with the quality management principles given in ISO 9000:2015 (ISO, 2020). ISO 14001
provides the elements of an effective environmental management system. ISO 50001 provides a
framework to improve and optimise the way energy is managed. ISO 45001:2018 specifies require
ments for the management system of occupational health and safety (OH&S) and gives guidance
for its use. All these standards enable organisations to provide safe and healthy workplaces by
proactively improving its OH&S performance and by preventing work-related injury and ill health
(ISO, 2018).
In the meantime, the IMO provides a long list of standards specifically applicable to the mar
itime industry.The most important one is the ISM Code, being incorporated as the Chapter IX of
the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS).The ISM Code’s primary aim is
to establish an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and preven
tion of marine pollution.The central standard of the ISM Code is that improvement in safety at sea
depends on changes in performance and that human force is the key.The code includes 13 sections
that cover issues from safety and environmental protection guidelines; to the responsibilities and
authority of individual companies; to documentation and certification, verification and control. It
plays an important role in reducing the effects of human error, both ashore and onboard, by apply
ing QMSs (Kuo, 2007). Meeting the requirements of the code is evidenced by the ship’s flag state in
a five-year ‘document of compliance’ (DOC) for ship managers and a five-year ‘safety management
certificate’ (SMC) for the ship.All these are subject to regular internal and external audits.Also, it is
enforced by the PSC under a different memorandum of understanding (MOU).As a result, the ISM
Code has forced maritime companies with poor or weak management systems to produce a formal,
structured safety management process for the first time (Vandenborn, 2018).
One of the ISM Code’s key objectives is to establish a ‘safety culture’ in shipping companies
and onboard ships.The concept of a safety culture exists in most industries where high-risk oper
ations take place. Before becoming a common practice in the maritime industry, this concept was
well established in many other industries (Anderson, 2015). The purpose of a safety culture is to
ensure that the organisation has the essential elements in place that make it resilient to opera
tional hazard and associated risks (Roughton & Crutchfield, 2013). One of the most frequently
cited definitions of safety culture was given by the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear
Installation (ACSNI):
The product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns
of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organisa
tion’s health and safety management.
(ACSNI, 1993)
There are very few accidents, incidents or unsafe acts which could not have been prevented or
traced to some form of organisational or human error (Antonsen, 2017). If people had been think
ing constantly about safety, as occurs in a safety culture, many of those accidents would have been
avoided.The IMO suggests that the key to achieving a safety culture is in (Spitzer et al., 2014):
●● Recognising that accidents are preventable through following correct procedures and estab
lished best practice;
●● Always plan ahead to avoid/prevent incidents;
●● Constantly thinking safety;
●● Seeking continuous improvement.
The concept of a safety culture within the marine industry is constantly adapting and changing due
to accidents and disasters.All senior managers in a shipping company, who are subject to the respon
sibility in a decision-making context, should pay high attention to the safety culture of the vessel and
the organisation.Also, aside from being ethical and socially responsible, the shipping company should
create and sustain a safety culture in order to maximise the benefits and cost savings that can be
achieved from enforcing the ISM Code appropriately (Christodoulou-Varotsi & Pentsov, 2007).
To improve the safety culture in the maritime industry, the ISM Code requires owners and
operators of ships to put in place a safety management system (SMS).The mandatory application
of the SMS is to ensure the compliance of rules and regulations related to the objectives of the
code and the effective implementation and enforcement thereof by flag state administrations.The
independent capability to monitor operational compliance with the SMS and to provide the nec
essary quality control for consistently high performance is an intrinsic but beneficial part of ship
management (Christodoulou-Varotsi, 2008).
The SMS is an organised system planned and implemented by the shipping companies to
achieve the objectives of the ISM Code. It ensures that the ship complies with the mandatory safety
rules and regulations and follows the codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the IMO,
flag states, port states and classification societies. The contents of an SMS can be divided into a
series of aspects, including:
●● General;
●● Safety and environmental policy;
●● Designated person ashore (DPA);
●● Resources and personnel;
●● Master’s responsibilities and authority;
●● Company’s responsibility and authority;
●● Operational procedures;
●● Emergency procedures;
●● Reporting of accidents;
●● Maintenance and records;
●● Documentation;
●● Review and evaluation.
The SMS is a crucial aspect of the ISM Code, and it details all the important procedures, practices
and policies that are to be followed in order to improve the safe functioning of vessels at sea. It
consists of details as to how a ship operates on a day-to-day basis, how routine drills and training
are conducted, measures taken for safe operations, what procedures are to be followed in case of
an emergency, who the DPA is and so on (Kantharia, 2020).
For example, one innovative aspect of the SMS is the special role of a DPA.As defined by the
ISM Code, the DPA plays a major part in delivering the SMS of a shipping company. It is the DPA’s
responsibility to create the proper mind-set, attitudes and behaviour of the company employees
in support of a vessel’s operations.The role is the ‘keystone’ to provide the structure and support
for an efficient and effective SMS onboard a vessel (Dales, 2016). As outlined in the ISM Code, the
DPA’s responsibilities are to:
●● Ensure the safe operation of each vessel;
●● Monitor the safety and pollution-prevention aspects of the operation of the vessel and ensure
that adequate resources and shore-based support are applied;

●● Provide a link between the managing company and those onboard, with direct access to the
highest level of management.
The objectives of the ISM Code are to ensure that safety is secured and achieved, humans are
protected from injuries and harms and the environment and property are not damaged.This can
be achieved by promoting a good safety culture in the maritime industry. Certainly, the ISM Code
has made shipping safer and cleaner over the past two decades (Vandenborn, 2018). However, it
has also paradoxically increased bureaucracy and overlooked operative personnel (Bhattacharya,
2009).The implementation of the ISM Code has caused excessive documentation, and this increased
paperwork has led to a bureaucratic culture (Bhattacharya & Tang, 2013; Kongsvik et al., 2014; Xue
et al., 2018).
Dhir (2021) criticises the integration of various standards into the maritime management
system, and he argues that the system is now becoming too complex. The ISM Code and ISO
standards were implemented to ensure that all ships are operated within a defined manage
ment framework, thus ensuring proper management of safety and compliance with various
requirements. However, the maritime industry has made the lives of the ship managers and
seafarers more complicated by requiring them to get certified for all these different and rapidly
changing systems. This ends up making ship operational processes more complicated and less
implementable.
In the meantime, safety science has undergone a paradigm shift from Safety-I to Safety-II (Teperi
et al., 2019). From a Safety-I perspective, the purpose of safety management is to make sure that the
number of accidents and incidents is kept as low as possible, or as low as is reasonably practicable
(Hollnagel, 2014).The Safety-II paradigm argues that the industry should be less concerned about
how to prevent things from going wrong. Instead, the focus should be on why things go right (Steen,
2019).According to the theory of Safety-II, safety management needs to look for ways to enhance
the ability to succeed under varying conditions, so that the number of intended and acceptable
outcomes is as high as possible (Andonov, 2016).
Information system management

Information is the lifeblood of today’s industry, and the information system (IS) is a crucial stra
tegic asset of any commercial organisation. It has almost become a cliché to say that Information
technology (IT) and the IS are all-pervasive throughout our society (Whiteley, 2013).The flow of
information is a significant factor for the effective, efficient and productive operation of a business.
The IS plays a vital role in an organisation’s overall performance. It supports business processes
and operations of an organisation in many ways. O’Brien & Marakas (2005) have identified three
fundamental roles played by ISs in businesses. ISs support business processes and operations.They
also support the decision-making of managers and employees. In addition, ISs support strategies
for competitive advantage.To a certain extent, new forms of IT have completely changed the way
society organises its economic activities (Humbert, 2007).
The global maritime industry is in the midst of a significant transformation to increase its
efficiency and visibility by applying new IT. With the rapid technological advancements, sharing
information, keeping databases and effective communication can be done with ease.The retention
of information through a shipping company has changed since the introduction of ISs, as well as the
development of speed and power in terms of computers.The main advantage that the IS provides
is the establishment of databases from which information is accessed and analysed in order to
identify current trends. For example, the systems offer the ability to compare the operational costs
of ships, as the accounts of them are always updated and available to access (Soares & Santos, 2018).
The use of computers and technology has completely transformed the way in which compa
nies operate as well as gather, share and use information. With technology developments, more
computer-based systems can be used to help the ship manager more effectively complete their job
and maintain their competitive advantage in the market. However, the rate of development of the
IT and IS far outpaces the improvement in our ability to implement and manage the technology.
What is actually being achieved with modern IT and IS lags far behind what can be achieved, and
the gap is widening (Willingale, 1998).As a result, how to manage IT and IS themselves has become
a real issue which is challenging for the parties involved.
The collection, processing and storage of real-time data and an analytical infrastructure have
enabled ship managers and ship owners to adapt to various challenges, such as environmental
policies and regulations that are implemented today. According to Liu et al. (2014), a typical ship
information system (SIS) is divided into three parts, with each part having a different focus.The first
part is a communication system, which provides ship system facilities. The second part is a display
network, which works as a subnet for translating information to the displays.The third part is sensor
networks, which consist of spatially distributed devices communicating through wireless radio and
cooperatively sensing physical or environmental conditions (De et al., 2013). For example, various
monitoring systems Starkey & Harlaftis (2017) and navigation equipment (Murphy, 2004) are rep
resentative sensor networks in the ship.
Therefore, the question for today’s ship managers is not whether to digitalise their operations,
but how to do it more effectively and which ship management system to choose. According to
Panayides (2001), the choice between different software programmes and the system is crucial, as
it will affect efficiency and good return on investment. Nowadays, most maritime organisations have
an information systems department (ISD) providing software and hardware system development,
software selection, network security, supply and support. At the same time, an IS policy needs to
be made at the highest levels of the organisation to outline its aim, responsibilities, procedures,
security and other issues. Besides, to simplify the workload, streamline procedures and improve
the efficiency in operations, the ship management software needs to be continuously updated and
optimised to take advantage of the latest technological advancements (Dickie, 2014).
Given the importance of the IS, its security and protection have become crucial aspects of ship
management. As ISs have become essential to business and commerce, they have also increasingly
become a target for attacks.According to Merkow & Breithaupt (2014), the fundamental principles
of information security include confidentiality, integrity and availability.These three principles form
the basis of all security programmes. Every element of an information security programme should
be designed to achieve one or more of these principles (Burnette, 2020).To ensure the confiden
tiality, integrity and availability of information, Bourgeois & Bourgeois (2014) introduce a variety
of tools, such as authentication, access control and encryption. Each of these tools can be utilised
as a part of an overall information security policy. For example, many ship management firms have
adopted a wide range of measures to protect data and ISs, including the following:
●● Equipment and media protection;

●● Backups;
●● Anti-virus programmes;
●● User access controls;
●● Network access controls;
●● Disaster recovery;
●● Limiting hacking threats;
●● Security incident response.
In the meantime, information security requirements will continue to be aligned with the organisa
tion’s goals, and their policies are intended to be an enabling mechanism for information sharing,
electronic operations and reducing information-related risks to acceptable levels. During the past
years, cybersecurity-related companies are a new trend we have seen emerging in the maritime
industry.
Emergency management
An emergency is any unplanned event that can cause death or significant human injuries, disrupt
operations or cause physical or environmental damage. It can threaten the financial standing of an
organisation’s businesses or even the entire industry.According to Beaverton (2018), emergencies
can be categorised into four types depending on the level of threat to lives and property.The first
type is the routine emergency, which is handled on a daily basis by the operational department.
This type of emergency does not have a significant impact on safety, health and wellbeing.The sec
ond type is the minor emergency, which can usually be managed by existing resources and can be
handled at the scene.The third type is the major emergency, which needs outstanding assistance to
manage the threat.The fourth type is the catastrophic emergency that has a significant impact on the
safety of life, property and the environment, so it needs an aggressive response.
Emergency management is the organisation and management of the resources and responsi
bilities for dealing with ‘potential and actual large-scale hazards, threats, and disasters’ (Bumgarner,
2008). It is a risk-based discipline regarding how to handle and avoid risks, particularly those that
have catastrophic consequences. The fundamental principles of comprehensive emergency man
agement are based on four pillars: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery (Bullock et al.,
2013). Prevention is sometimes separated as a fifth pillar. Etkin (2016) explains the four pillars of
comprehensive emergency management (CEM) as follows:
●● Mitigation refers to long-term actions that reduce the risk of disasters.
●● Preparedness involves planning for disasters and putting in place the resources needed to cope
with them when they happen.

●● Response refers to actions taken after a disaster has occurred.
●● Recovery encompasses longer-term activities to rebuild and restore the community to its
pre-disaster state, or a state of functionality.This is also a good time to engage in activities that
reduce vulnerability and that mitigate future disasters.
According to Kipp & Loflin (1996), emergency management can be divided into the pre-incident
phase and post-incident phase.The activities of the pre-incident phase include predicting and analys
ing potential risks and developing necessary action plans for mitigation. In contrast, the post-incident
phase starts while the emergency is still in progress.At this stage, challenges can arise in the location,
allocation, coordination and management of available resources (Bielić et al., 2011). It is important
that both phases have an effective emergency response plan, and the objectives of the plans should be
aligned to ensure the overall aim of emergency management can be achieved (FEMA, 2006).
It is crucial to integrate emergency management in ship management and operating proce

dures. First of all, it is a requirement under the ISM Code Part A, which states that the SMS should
provide for measures ensuring that ‘the Company’s organisation can respond at any time to haz
ards, accidents and emergency situation involving its ships’ (IMO, 1997a). At the same time, the
good practice of ship management requires that the company should respond to an emergency
timely and effectively. For example, Emergency Response and Rescue Vessels (ERRVs) Management
Guidelines provide the ship managers and all other personnel involved in the offshore operations
with the general technical guidance regarding the proper conduct of those operations as part of
the recovery arrangements (Oil & Gas UK, 2008).
One important aspect of ship emergency management is to maintain a contingency plan
onboard and ashore. The contingency plan is a proactive strategy designed to help the shipping
organisation and ship respond effectively to a significant future event or situation that may (or
may not) happen. It describes the course of actions or steps the management and staff of the
organisation and ship need to take (Athuraliya, 2019).The plan covers a wide range of emergency
procedures, including fire, collision, aground, pollution, piracy, medical issues, heavy weather and so
on. In addition, the contingency plan needs to be updated to meet emerging issues in the industry.
For example, following the outbreak of COVID-19, a coronavirus contingency plan should be kept
by the ship master and used as a practical guide to managing possible coronavirus-related incidents
(Corn, 2020). The pandemic was a great way to see first-hand how these plans work and under
stand their importance.
Another critical aspect of emergency management is to have an effective emergency response
team (ERT). The ERT is a group of people who prepare for and respond to any emergency inci
dent. Members of the ERT should be thoroughly trained for potential emergencies and physically
capable of carrying out their duties (Badiru & Racz, 2013).The team is generally composed of peo
ple from different departments to cover various issues, including technical issues, communication,
legal issues, media, liaison and so on. The format of the ERT varies based on the structure of the
organisation, the way people are employed, their positions and their capabilities. As a result, the
identification and set of the role of team members are the first and most important steps that need
to be taken. For example, a senior marine safety and quality (MS&Q) manager of a prestigious ship
management company stated that a typical ERT consists of the following personnel:
●● Incident coordinator;
●● ERT leader.
The ERT leader is the person who is responsible for:
• Acting as incident coordinator once the ERT is assembled;
• Activating the ERT and deciding on key roles for the ERT and principal resources, including
additional support if required;
• Keeping the owner closely advised throughout;
• Liaising with the company and owner’s lawyers;
• Handling all dealings/communications with the media;
• Keeping ERT members appraised of updates and changes during the incident;
• Keeping the Marine Operations Compliance Department (MOCD) and the executive
board appraised;
• Issuing reports and updates;
• Deciding when to stand down the ERT;
• Holding a review meeting after the incident is over.
●● Marine coordinator.
The marine coordinator is the person who is responsible for:
• Deputising as ERT team leader if the managing director (MD) is absent;
• Coordinating communications with the protection and indemnity (P&I) club;

• Coordinating communications with charterers;
• Coordinating communications with involved oil majors where applicable;
• Deciding on marine resources required by the ERT.
●● Technical coordinator.
The technical coordinator is the person who is responsible for:
• Coordinating communications with the hull and machinery (H&M) insurers.
• Coordinating communications with the damage stability consultants where applicable.
• Mobilising resources to the incident (on-site team). Consideration should be given to using
resources from other regional offices if necessary.
• Deciding on technical resources required by the ERT.
●● Crewing coordinator:
The crew coordinator is the person who is responsible for:
• Coordinating communications with the manpower supply office;
• Monitoring seafarer welfare;
• Arranging drug and alcohol testing;
• Deciding on the need for further crewing resources required by the ERT.
●● MS&Q superintendent.
The MS&Q superintendent is the person who is responsible for:
• Coordinating communications with the vessel;
• Coordinating communications with the local agents (appointing protective agents if
required);
• Coordinating communications with local port authorities;
• Coordinating communications with the flag administration;
• Coordinating communications with the coastal state;
• Coordinating communications with oil spill response organisations and the qualified
individual;
• Coordinating any chart supplies required by the ERT.
●● Fleet superintendent.
The fleet superintendent is the person who is responsible for:
• Coordinating communications with the Classification Society;
• Coordinating communications with the purchasing department;
• Providing technical support to the ERT and the vessel;
• Contacting equipment manufacturers where necessary.
The occurrence of emergency requires a timely and effective response to the conditions through
a mutual and synchronised approach of the different roles. In the event of an emergency, no mat
ter what nature it is, the person receiving the initial contingency call should first ensure that the
master has reported the incident as per the Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) or
Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan (SMPEP).The purpose of the plans is to provide guid
ance to the master and officers onboard the ship with respect to the steps to be taken when an
oil or marine pollution incident has occurred or is likely to occur. Since any emergency may lead
to an oil or marine pollution incident, it is necessary to engage in pollution prevention procedures
as early as possible.
The decision to activate the ERT is taken by the ERT leader, who is often a senior executive of
the organisation.The ERT leader has to discuss with the ERT members the facts known to them
and may call for additional information from the vessel, other individuals or organisations before
deciding on any course of action.The ERT has to review the information gathered and shall decide
what immediate outside assistance or specialist services are required, in addition to any initiated
by the master, to limit or contain any loss of life, injury, damage, pollution and so on. Commercial
factors should be taken into account, but the safety consideration must never be overridden.
In the meantime, the ERT leader needs to keep the owner and other parties closely advised
throughout the incident period. Legal advice may be required when a commercial dispute has
occurred or is likely to occur. Therefore, it is necessary to collect relevant evidence and keep a
good record of the incident, such as taking statements from the vessel’s crew.Also, media advisors
are often needed to assist in statement preparation and general media handling if the incident is
likely to get into the public domain and garner media attention. When the incident situation has
been stabilised and the vessel is considered to be safe, the ERT will consult with the owners, the
P&I club and H&M underwriters as to the necessity to take any actions to protect the relevant
stakeholders’ interests. In terms of future improvement, the ship manager will occasionally issue
circular letters, safety bulletins and other summary statistics and reports of accidents, incidents and
near-misses to the fleet, officers, management teams and industry safety forums, highlighting regular
occurrences, causes and lessons learned.
Notes
1 The issues relating to compliance with the ISM Code, the ISPS Code and the requirements of the law of the
flag states will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 8 on compliance management.
2 The useful life of an asset is an accounting estimate of the number of years it is likely to remain in service
for the purpose of cost-effective revenue generation (Kenton, 2019a, 2019b).
3 In July 2011, the IMO, in response to the assembly’s plea to lessen the greenhouse gas (GHG) emission from
ships, MEPC 62 adopted a resolution, MEPC.203(62), by introducing mandatory technical and operational
measures for the energy efficiency of ships.That includes the EEDI and SEEMP (MEPC 72/17, 2018).
4 ISO (International Organization for Standardization) is an independent, non-governmental international
organization with a membership of 165 national standards bodies. It is the world’s largest developer and
publisher of international standards.
Chapter 7
Human resource management
The previous chapter focuses on technical management, which provides technical expertise and
support for the management of an organisation providing services. It relies on the right type and
level of people who can manage technical issues.This chapter moves on to human resource man
agement (HRM), which is about the management of people to realise the desired business objec
tives. It is a fundamental activity in any organisation in which human beings are employed.A central
feature of HRM is the crucial links between human resource policy and practices and the overall
organisational strategic aims.Today people believe that effective HRM can deliver a sustained com
petitive advantage in the short term while preparing for longer-term success (Pickford, 2001). As
mentioned in Chapter 1, maritime shipping relies heavily on its people to make the business viable,
reliable and efficient. The unique features of the maritime business underline the importance of
effective HRM in ship management, which is embedded in almost any service the ship manager
provides for the ship owner.As a result, the sound practice of HRM should be complied with all the
time when the ship manager is engaged in the ship owner’s business.
The concept of human resource management

There have been various debates about precisely what is meant by HRM, how it differs from
industrial relations and personnel management and the extent to which it is considered to serve
the employer’s objectives alone rather than aiming to satisfy other stakeholders’ expectations
(Marchington & Wilkinson, 2005). First of all, the term ‘human resources’ is defined by Boxall
(2014) as the overt talents and underlying characteristics that are intrinsic to the human being,
which people can apply to the various tasks and challenges of their lives. In the commercial
world, it refers to the set of the people who make up the workforce of an organisation, industry,
business sector or economy. Dransfield (2000) defines the term as ‘the people that work for an
organisation, and the contributions that they make through their skills, their knowledge and their
competence’.
However, Osterby & Coster (1992) pointed out that the term ‘human resources’ reduces
people to ‘the same category of value as materials, money and technology – all resources, and
resources are only valuable to the extent they can be exploited or leveraged into economic value’.
Considering ‘human’ as a ‘resource’ to be ‘managed’ implies a cold, mechanistic approach (Pickford,
2001). Instead, effective HRM needs to study the behaviours of people and maximise their potential
through a cooperative approach. It is a mistake commonly made by both academia and industry
to call people themselves ‘human resources’.According to Boxall & Purcell (2015), people are not
human resources. On the contrary, they are ‘independent agents who possess human resources,
which are the talents they can deploy and develop at work and which they take with them when
they leave an organisation’. Therefore, there has been a tendency to replace HRM with ‘people
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-7
HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 97
management’ to highlight the facts that ‘organisations are the people in them’ and ‘people make
the place’. For example, today many organisations have renamed their HR department to ‘people
development’ department. However, HRM is still the most commonly used term in both academia
and practice.
HRM is concerned with the individual or groups within the organisation. There is no one
accepted view as to what HRM is. According to Storey (1995), HRM is a special approach to
manage employees to achieve competitive advantage ‘through the strategic deployment of a highly
committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personnel
techniques’. In a broad sense, it includes all the policies and practices used to employ people and
organise work. It is also used in a narrower sense to denote a specific approach to people manage
ment in both theoretical and practical terms (Gilmore & Williams, 2013).
In the existing literature, a variety of definitions are given for HRM. For example, it was defined
by Boxall & Purcell (2003) as ‘all those activities associated with the management of employment
relations in the firm’.This definition was developed as ‘the management of work and people in an
organisation’ (Boxall et al., 2007), and then as ‘an inevitable process that accompanies the growth
of organisations’ (Boxall & Purcell, 2010).A most recent definition given by Boxall & Purcell (2015)
describes HRM as ‘the process through which management builds the workforce and tries to
create the human performances that the organisation needs’. The development of understanding
HRM highlights the reference to the totality of the organisation’s management of work and people
and not simply to those aspects where human resource specialists are involved.According to Arm-
strong & Taylor (2020), the recent understanding of HRM has ‘a strong conceptual basis drawn from
the behavioural sciences and human capital and industrial relations theories’.
The objectives of HRM are derived from the basic aims of an organisation. Every organisation
has some aims, and every part of it should contribute directly or indirectly to the achievement of
the desired aims. Traditionally, the objectives of HRM are to ensure the organisation can achieve
the desired business aims through people (Aquinas, 2009b).Today, HRM’s objectives have become
more and more influenced by the organisation’s business aim, as well as individual and social goals.
According to Armstrong & Taylor (2020), HRM’s objectives can be defined as being to:
●● Support the organisation in achieving its business aims by developing and implementing human
resource strategies that are integrated into the business strategy;
●● Contribute to the development of a high-performance organisational culture;
●● Ensure that the organisation has the talented, skilled and engaged people it needs;
●● Maintain a positive employment relationship between management and employees, bearing in
mind that employees must feel trusted, valued and appreciated if they are to work effectively
and efficiently over time;
●● Provide for a satisfactory employee experience;
●● Further the wellbeing of employees as major stakeholders;
●● Achieve social legitimacy by ensuring the rightfulness of how management treats its stakehold
ers and by applying an ethical approach to people development.
To achieve these objectives, HRM covers a wide range of activities and shows a vast array of varia
tions across industries, business units, organisational levels, occupations, firms and societies (Boxall
et al., 2007).The activities are normally delivered by means of the human resource system, which
operates within the framework provided by the human resource architecture (Armstrong, 2011).
In general, a system is a set of practices or activities that work together and interact to achieve a
purpose. A human resource system constitutes of interrelated and jointly supportive parts which
enable human resource objectives to be achieved. In contrast, the human resource architecture is a
comprehensive representation of all that is involved in HRM (Armstrong & Taylor, 2020).According
98 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
to Becker et al. (2001), the term human resource architecture is used to broadly describe ‘the
continuum from the HR professionals within the HR function, to the system of HR-related poli
cies and practices, through the competencies, motivation and associated behaviours of the firm’s
employees’.The architecture is often seen as a special combination of ‘the HR function’s structure
and delivery model, the HR practices and system, and the strategic employee behaviours that these
create’ (Hird et al., 2010).
HRM plays a fundamental role in ship management, especially with regard to recruitment, train
ing, placement, performance appraisal and work diversity. Ships would not be able to run without
seafarers, nor would the shore side be able to function without the required people. An organi
sation’s success is mainly due to its employees, as they are vital for its existence and operations.
According to Spruyt (1994), the real core assets of a ship management company are ‘its people, its
systems, its corporate leadership and its market image’.
The meaning and concept of HRM in the context of ship management have two dimensions.
First, an organisation cannot provide services or deliver them reliably unless it recruits and retains
the people who have the knowledge, skills and inclination to do the jobs (Boxall & Purcell, 2015).
Ship management firms need to gain access to the stock of human talents which enable them to
provide prescribed services for the market, such as the technical and operations management
services, as discussed in the previous two chapters.This chapter focuses on the second dimension,
which is crew management. Under the ship management agreement, the ship manager is often
employed by the ship owner to provide crew management services. Crew management covers
a wide range of activities, such as seafarer recruitment, seafarer training, seafarer placement and
repatriation, developing policies relating to the seafarer and developing strategies to retain qualified
seafarers.According to Clause 5(a) of the SHIPMAN 2009:
(a) Crew Management

The Managers shall provide suitably qualified Crew who shall comply with the requirements
of STCW 95.The provision of such crew management services includes, but is not limited to,
the following services:
(i) Selecting, engaging and providing for the administration of the Crew, including, as appli
cable, payroll arrangements, pension arrangement, tax, social security contributions and
other mandatory dues related to their employment payable in each Crew member’s
country of domicile;
(ii) Ensuring that the applicable requirements of the law of the Flag State in respect of rank,
qualification and certification of the Crew and employment regulations, such as Crew’s
tax and social insurance, are satisfied;
(iii) Ensuring that all Crew have passed a medical examination with a qualified doctor certi
fying that they are fit for the duties for which they are engaged and are in possession of
valid medical certificates issued in accordance with appropriate Flag State requirements
or such higher standard of medical examination as may be agreed with the Owners. In
the absence of applicable Flag State requirements the medical certificate shall be valid
at the time when the respective Crew member arrives on board the Vessel and shall be
maintained for the duration of the service on board the Vessel;
(iv) Ensuring that the Crew shall have a common working language and a command of the
English language of a sufficient standard to enable them to perform their duties safely;
(v) Arranging transportation of the Crew, including repatriation;
(vi) Training of the crew;
(vii) Conducting union negotiations; and
(viii) If the Managers are the Company, ensuring that the Crew, on joining the Vessel, are
given proper familiarisation with their duties in relation to the Vessel’s SMS and that
instructions which are essential to the SMS are identified, documented and given to the
Crew prior to sailing.
(ix) If the Managers are not the Company;
(1) Ensuring that the Crew, before joining the Vessel, are given proper familiarisation
with their duties in relation to the ISM Code; and
(2) Instructing the Crew to obey all reasonable orders of the Company in connec
tion with the operation of the SMS.
(x) Where Managers are not providing technical management services in accordance with
Clause 4 (Technical Management):
(1) Ensuring that no person connected to the provision and the performance of the
crew management services shall proceed to sea on board the Vessel without the
prior consent of the Owners (such consent not to be unreasonably withheld);
and
(2) Ensuring that in the event that the Owners’ drug and alcohol policy requires
measures to be taken prior to the Crew joining the Vessel, implementing such
measures;
In addition to these crew management tasks, the ship manager is often required to arrange crew
insurance issues, which constitute an important aspect of the management of seafarer affairs.
(b) Crew Insurance

The Managers shall throughout the period of this Agreement provide the following services:
(i) Arranging Crew Insurance in accordance with the best practice of prudent managers
of vessels of a similar type to the Vessel, with sound and reputable insurance compa
nies, underwriters or associations. Insurances for any other persons proceeding to sea
onboard the Vessel may be separately agreed by the Owners and the Managers;
(ii) Ensuring that the Owners are aware of the terms, conditions, exceptions and limits of
liability of the insurances in Sub-clause 5(b)(i);
(iii) Ensuring that all premiums or calls in respect of the insurances in sub-clause5 (b)(i) are
paid by their due date;
(iv) If obtainable at no additional cost, ensuring that insurances in Sub-clause 5(b)(i) name
the Owners as a joint assured with full cover and, unless otherwise agreed, on terms
such that Owners shall be under no liability in respect of premiums or calls arising in
connection with such insurances.
(v) Providing written evidence, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Owners, of the Man
agers’ compliance with their obligations under Sub-clause 5(b)(ii) and 5(b)(iii) within
a reasonable time of the commencement of this Agreement, and of each renewal
date and, if specifically requested, of each payment date of the insurances in Sub-
clause 5(b)(i).
Ship management companies need to recruit and retain competent personnel both ashore and
onboard. In recent years, there has been a growing shortage of qualified seafarers. There are
many reasons, and they tend to mirror the reasons which make seafarers lose interest in sea jobs.
The shortage of qualified seafarers not only causes difficulties for the ship manager to provide
manning services for the ship owner, but it also gives rise to various risks in shipboard safety
management. In the meantime, people with sufficient seafaring experience are also desperately
needed ashore to maintain the high quality of ship management. The shortage of these profes
sionals could lead to many vacant positions in shipping companies or government offices (Zhang
& Drumm, 2020). As a result, the whole maritime industry will face challenges concerning its
sustainable development.
The human element in the maritime industry

Since the mid-1990s, the maritime industry has increasingly addressed the importance of the
‘human element’. The IMO defines ‘human element’ as ‘a complex multidimensional issue that
affects maritime safety, security and marine environmental protection involving the entire spec
trum of human activities performed by ships’ crews, shore-based management, regulatory bodies
and others’ (IMO, 1997b). It was recognised that the safety and security of life at sea, protection of
the marine environment and over 90 per cent of the world’s trade depend on the professionalism
and competence of seafarers (IMO, 2018).
The human element was found to be responsible for a considerable percentage of accidents
at sea worldwide (Zhang et al., 2019). These accidents were caused by human error, which were
related to fatigue or lack of competence.They have resulted in the loss of human lives and some
times severe pollution of coastal and ocean environments, as well as in damage to state and private
property (Rizzuto & Soares, 2011).
In 1994, the IMO Assembly adopted the International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which was
incorporated into Chapter IX of the SOLAS. In the next year, the organisation further adopted
the guidelines on implementation of the code by Resolution A.788 (19). According to the code,
the human element is not ‘confined to the traditional design and layout of equipment and work
places, but also covers aspects of manpower, organisation, management, allocation of responsibility,
automation, communication, skills, training, health, safety, and the prevention of errors or accidents’
(IMO, 1994). In July 1995, the IMO adopted an amendment to the STCW, which represented a
major revision of the convention and was elaborated as the STCW Code (IMO, 2019). Compared
with its previous amendments, the 1995 revision attaches considerable importance to the human
element. For example, it prescribes obligations for the member states to provide detailed informa
tion on the administrative measures taken to ensure compliance with the convention (Regulation
I/7 of STCW 1995). Also, the STCW Code introduces measures to tackle the problem of fatigue
in watchkeeping personnel. A framework of minimum resting periods was designed for personnel
participating in watchkeeping. In addition, the code deals with medical first aid and survival func
tions and special requirements concerning the training and qualifications of personnel on board
roll-on roll-off (RORO) passenger ships.All these new requirements call for more attention to be
paid to the human element and more research to be conducted in this field.
In the meantime, with the overall growth in the world fleet, the shortage of seafarers and the
decline of seafaring skills have drawn the attention of the industry (Nguyen et al., 2014).The rele
vant stakeholders have made essential efforts with respect to recruitment, retention and training
of seafarers worldwide. However, the previous statistics taken from some international surveys
indicate that there is an overall shortage of seafarers, in particular well-trained officers (Xhelilaj
et al., 2011).The BIMCO/ICS Manpower Report, which has been published every five years since
1990, is regarded as the most comprehensive analysis of global supply and demand of seafarers
(BIMCO & ICS, 2020).
As stated by the BIMCO & ICS (2015) Manpower Report, one of the most serious problems
the shipping industry faces is a global shortage in the supply of seafarers. Previous reports identified
that there was a shortfall of about 16,500 officers (2.1 per cent) in the middle of the 2010s and
a need for an additional 147,500 officers by 2025 to service the world merchant fleet (BIMCO &
ICS, 2015). Moreover, some officer categories are in exceptionally short supply, especially engineer
officers at a management level, and officers are needed for specialised ships such as chemical, LNG
and LPG carriers (Petersen, 2016). Mark Charman, CEO of Faststream Recruitment Group, argues
that there is a more serious shortage of senior officers with gas experience than expected. Many
maritime employers have competed for the under-supplied seafarers by providing better work
ing conditions. For example, a survey by Faststream of approximately 1,000 seafarers in the gas
shipping sector found that the most important factors in choosing a company to work for were
money, rotations, new vessels and onboard communications such as Wi-Fi (Hand, 2017).
One of the key reasons for the shortfall is the unattractive treatment onboard; another is
unhelpful legislation and practices. In some parts of the world, particularly in the traditional mari
time countries, there is an apparent reluctance on the part of young people to choose seafaring as
a profession. Even for those young people who do make the choice of going to sea, their careers
at sea are often short, as they are either unwilling or unable to take on higher duties or, even more
importantly, they actively choose not to remain at sea (Zhang et al., 2020b). Because the existing
pool of well-qualified officers from traditional maritime nations (TMNs) continues to diminish, it
was also viewed that the future provider of ships’ officers ‘will increasingly be oriented towards
countries at lower levels of development’ (Glen, 2008).
Noting that the global shortage of seafarers may threaten the international shipping industry,
the IMO launched the ‘Go to Sea!’ campaign in 2008 in association with the ILO, the ‘Round Table’
of shipping NGOs, including BIMCO, ICS/ISF, INTERCARGO, ITF and INTERTANKO (IMO, 2009).
The objective of the campaign is to attract young people to the seafaring profession and to build
a pool of ‘competent and efficient seafarers’ to meet future demand (Mazhari, 2018). However,
accomplishing the aim relies on the joint forces and collective efforts of all of the stakeholders in
the maritime industry. Therefore, it is important to provide rewarding, stimulating and long-term
career prospects for seafarers and to promote seafaring as an attractive option for young people
(Leong, 2012).
The maritime labour market

Maritime shipping is a globally organised and coordinated service sector, with the function of effi
ciently transporting commodities through global supply chains (Walters & Bailey, 2013). It is a sector
that in general could be defined as global, mobile and continuously growing (UKDOT, 2015). Since
it is integrated into global supply chains, maritime transport faces intensified pressure to meet cus
tomer requirements such as on-time delivery, high service frequency and flexibility in the provision
of alternative shipping solutions. Maritime shipping is international, and so is the maritime labour
market. The competition for freight business not only holds dire consequences for owners and
managers but seafarers as well (Leong, 2012).The reduction of maritime labour cost has become a
predominant business strategy in response to fierce competition (Cariou & Wolff, 2011a).
At the beginning of the 20th century, almost all ships were generally crewed by nationals of
the ship’s flag, and the market for seafarers was predominantly divided (Alderton et al., 2004).
The market went through a massive change during the latter part of the 20th century when the
industry was faced with declining demand, rising oil prices and falling freight rates (Havedahl, 2006).
To reduce operation costs, many ship owners chose to remove themselves from the often very
constricting national regulations that followed with the registration of a ship in that country (Lillie,
2004). Between the middle of the 1970s and middle of the 1990s, the use of foreign flags began to
gain widespread popularity (Leong, 2012).
As discussed in Chapter 2, seafarers represent a unique occupational category. Nowadays,
they can be employed on vessels under various flags, owned and operated by people from different
countries. In that sense, the maritime labour market is much more open and complex than any
other economic sector in the world (Bagoulla & Guillotreau, 2016).The maritime labour market is
of a particular international nature, characterised by mobility and globalisation.According to Sencila
(2018), the modern maritime labour market is a complex set of interconnected phenomena and
presents the phenomenological model of the global labour market. It is a field of seafarer supply
and demand, influenced by demographical, economical, technological, geopolitical and other factors.
Developments of a network that would be dedicated to the management of seafarers were

underway and would eventually stretch globally (Mathebekase, 2018).The introduction of the open
registry system and flags of convenience made it possible for ship owners and different managers
to recruit seafarers from all over the world (Alderton et al., 2004; Tang & Zhang, 2021). This has
made the maritime labour market a truly global one. One crucial competitive advantage in ship
management is crew supply management at the offshore maritime centres, such as Hong Kong and
Singapore, with lower social security costs and access to low-wage crew members from China,
Ukraine, Russia, India and the Philippines (Goulielmos et al., 2011).Third-party crew management
has become the driving force in developing maritime human resource supply chains.
According to Anastasiou (2017), the global maritime labour market benefits both ship owners
and labour supply states. The massive ‘production’ of seafarers through training can lower wages
and hence ship owners’ operating expenses. In the meantime, labour supply states see a reduced
unemployment rate and an increase in remittances. Driven by this economic rationale, ship man
agement companies open crewing agencies and establish maritime training institutions to source
cheap human resources from developing countries, such as the Philippines, China and India. As a
result, maritime employment relations have become highly transnational. For example, a Chinese
seafarer may work on a Panamanian ship owned by a Greek ship owner, or a Filipino seafarer may
work on a Hong Kong vessel owned by a Chinese ship owner (Shan & Zhang, 2020).
Some major maritime nations are competing for a global share in the supply of seafarers (Tang
& Zhang, 2021;Tang & Zhang, 2019). China, the Philippines, the Russian Federation and Ukraine are
estimated to be the five largest providers for all seafarers. In the middle of the 2010s, it was esti
mated that there were 1,647,500 seafarers engaged in international shipping. Among them, about
774,000 were officers and 873,500 were ratings. However, these seafarers were not distributed
evenly among the major seafarer supply countries. For example, although India has a population
of 1.3 billion, it only supplies 7 per cent of the global seafarers. In contrast, the Philippines, with a
population of 100 million, provides 20 per cent (Tarrazona, 2017).
The Philippines has been the largest supplier of seafarers in the world, but now China has
overtaken the Philippines in terms of numbers (SeamanRepublic, 2016).As shown in Table 7.1 and
based on the estimates of the global supply of seafarers for 2015, China is the largest supplier for all
seafarers and officers, while the Philippines is the biggest supplier for ratings (ICS, 2017).Although
Chinese seafarers have played an increasingly important role in the international maritime industry,
they tend to be an invisible group compared with seafarers from some other countries (Zhang,
2016).
The HRM department of shipping companies is responsible for ensuring access to good-quality
officers, which are now in a global shortage (Fei, 2018).The highly competitive environment of the
shipping industry keeps affecting the companies’ strategies and leading them to decrease their
operational costs. Since the manning expenses constitute about one third of the operational costs,
it is obvious that shipping companies seek to recruit low-cost seafarers. In this context, it is not
Table 7.1 Estimated five largest seafarer supply countries
For all seafarers For officers For ratings
1 China 1 China 1 Philippines

2 Philippines 2 Philippines 2 China
3 Indonesia 3 India 3 Indonesia
4 Russian Federation 4 Indonesia 4 Russian Federation
5 Ukraine 5 Russian Federation 5 Ukraine
Source: Table compiled by the authors adapted from SeamanRepublic (2016)

surprising that many shipping companies do not consider seafarers as their valuable assets that
contribute to their competitiveness, but as a complement to the technical system that one names
‘vessel’ (Gerstenberger, 2002).At the present time, where the global maritime labour market offers
a variety of officers, the quest for cheap labour seems to be easy regarding the quantity; however,
it is risky in terms of quality. According to Progoulaki & Theotokas (2010), the popular strategic
choice regarding manning, based on the employment of low-cost seafarers, has been proved to lead
to cost reduction and competitiveness in the short run.The constant hunt for the cheapest labour
proves to be gainful, especially nowadays that the global maritime labour market offers a great
variety in terms of quality and quantity (Tang et al., 2016). However, in the long term, it can present
a risk to the shipping companies’ competitiveness.
Industrial relations in the maritime industry

According to Edwards (2009), the term industrial relations came into common use in Britain and
North America during the 1920s. Since the 1980s, it has been joined by personnel management
and human resource management. All three terms denote a practical activity relating to the man
agement of people.According to Singh (2010), the evolution of the meaning of industrial relations
is linked to industrialisation and the growing complexity of industrial enterprises. Its roots can be
traced to the immediate aftermath of the industrial revolution and the issues that arose because of
the growth in industries in terms of volume, variety and size of production (Hills, 1995).
While industrial relations are broadly associated with the relationship between the employer
and the employees, the term is different from employment relations.The latter focuses on the rela
tionship between the employer and the employees in an organisation (Deb, 2009). In contrast, the
scope of industry relations extends beyond the two-party domain. It includes all kinds of relation
ships that come into existence as a result of employment, such as the relationships between man
agement, employees or among employees and their organisations that characterise or grow out of
employment (Singh, 2010). In particular, the collective force of workers has to be factored in and
becomes a significant power to be dealt with. Furthermore, Dzimbiri (2008) argues that it involves
the state, who has a significant stake in this relationship as an instrument of socio-economic devel
opment.According to Yoder (1958), industrial relations are the designation of ‘a whole field of rela
tionships’ which exist due to the necessary collaboration of workers in the employment process
of an industry. Fei (2018) defines the term as ‘the management of work-related obligations and
entitlements between employers and their employees’.
As discussed in Chapter 2, some special characteristics of the seafarers’ occupation make the
industrial relations of maritime shipping unique. For example, when seafarers sign off from their
ships, they tend to scatter into different regions of the world. It is difficult for them to gather
together and to take collective action to bargain with their employers for better employment con
ditions (Zhang, 2016). One special feature derives from the fact that ship owners could easily flag-
out their vessels under the framework of the open registry. They are able to hire seafarers from
any part of the world and reduce the possibility of seafarers organising and resisting at a global level
(Dimitrova, 2010). As a result, seafarers are faced with tremendous obstacles that prevent them
from exercising collective and individual rights.
Industrial relations in the maritime sector are often evaluated through maritime trade unions
both on an international and domestic level. As a concept, the relationship between trade unions
and the companies operating in the market has been designed to provide protection for the
employees (Xiao, 2000). Some of the important domestic maritime unions can be found in coun
tries such as the United States, United Kingdom, European Union, and Australia. On the interna
tional level, one special example is the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF).The ITF
represents the interests of transport workers’ unions in bodies that take decisions affecting jobs,
safety and employment conditions in the transport industry. It directly bargains with the maritime
employers and, through its network and dockers’ support, has the power to enforce a collective
bargaining agreement (CBA) (Lillie, 2013).
A CBA is also referred to as a ‘union contract’. It is a formal contract between an employer
and a group of employees that ‘establishes the rights and responsibilities of both parties in their
employment relationship’ (Barth & Hayes, 2006). In order to encourage and promote workers’
rights to collective bargaining, the ILO adopted the Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining
Convention in 1949 (ILO, 1949).This convention has been widely accepted by its member states
and has a very high ratification level of 167 countries. It has also been consolidated in a series of
subsequent maritime labour conventions: for example, the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standard)
Convention, 1976; the Recruitment and Placement of Seafarers Convention, 1996; and the MLC,
2006.
A transnational CBA plays a unique and important role in the maritime industry for seafarers.
The idea of a transnational CBA on terms and conditions of work covering the entire industry
came at a time when the growth of the ITF and its FOC campaign ‘pressed maritime employers to
the wall and made them sit at the bargaining table’ (Dimitrova, 2010).As a result, the International
Maritime Employers’ Council (IMEC), formed by a group of maritime employers, started from the
early 1990s to negotiate on an international level with the ITF on seafarer employment conditions
(Gekara & Sampson, 2021). In 2003, the International Bargaining Forum (IBF) was established as the
mechanism within which representative maritime employers’ organisations and seafarers’ unions
could negotiate and reach agreement over the wages and conditions of employment (IMEC, 2003).
The IBF system for pay negotiations represents an innovative approach to collective bargaining in
the maritime sector and the wider global approach to multinational industrial relations (Walters
& Bailey, 2013).
In the MLC, 2006, the right to collective bargaining was recognised as one of the four funda
mental rights, together with the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, the abolition of child
labour and the elimination of discrimination. The convention therefore requires that machinery
appropriate to national conditions be established to ensure the effective recognition of seafar
ers’ right to collective bargaining (Papadakis et al., 2008). The substantive content of the seafarer
employment agreement (SEA) should not only be in accordance with national laws and regulations
but also be compliant with the agreement of collective bargaining.Also, the CBA (if any) should be
incorporated into the SEA, and a copy of that agreement should be kept available onboard for the
purpose of flag state and PSC inspections (Zhang, 2016).
Sustainable workforce development

Sustainable workforce development means ‘the creation of a workforce, and of workforce prac
tices, which will flex, grow and evolve in line with company needs’ (Brown, 2005). The conse
quences of a sustainable workforce are the very ones employers seek: productivity, talent retention,
consistent attendance, work engagement (Merberg, 2017) and long-term social benefits (Chen
& Cooper, 2014). In today’s global economy, high-level skills are the determinants of competitive
advantage and economic growth.Talented and skilled people are the most important assets for a
country, industry or organisation (Bagoulla & Guillotreau, 2016). One of the best descriptions of
the sustainable workforce is offered by Kossek et al. (2014) as follows:
A sustainable workforce is one where the work environment is caring and supports employee
wellbeing. Employees are not seen as primary resources that can be deployed (and depleted)
to serve employers’ economic ends.Their skills, talent, and energies are not overused or overly
depleted.They are not faced with excessive workload nor with a relentless pace of work for
weeks or years on end. During times of crisis (e.g., natural disasters, sickness), employees are
given time to recover or seek the extra resources they need to be able to perform in the
future. Burnout is avoided and workers are given time for renewal.
When human resources are used in a sustainable way, employees are not only able to
perform in-role or requisite job demands, but also to flourish, be creative, and innovate. Sus
tainable human resource management practices develop positive social relationships at work,
which enhances business performance, including greater cohesion among organizational mem
bers, commitment to common purpose, hope for success, resilience, knowledge sharing, and
collaborative capacity.
It is estimated that more than 1.6 million seafarers work at sea who are responsible for ensuring
maritime transportation operates safely, efficiently and environmentally friendly (ITF, 2020). How
ever, as discussed earlier, the maritime industry has been facing a global shortage in the supply of
seafarers.To make the situation worse, the days of ‘a job for life’ have gone, and so has the expecta
tion that young people would stay at sea for long periods. In recent years, the outflow of seafarers
from the nautical sector to shore-based businesses has become a trend (Weintrit & Neumann,
2015).At the same time, most of today’s young people would not like to go to sea at all.
The meaning and concept of sustainable workforce development have three dimensions. First
of all, the future and long-term sustainability of the shipping industry depends on the sustainable
supply of the workforce.The maritime industry needs to promote and improve its public image to
attract and retain talented people. In 2008, the IMO launched the ‘Go to Sea!’ campaign, aiming to
increase the recruitment of seafarers for a sustainable supply of manpower to the shipping indus
try. Secondly, with the maritime industry growing and the number of applicants not meeting the
demand, the shipping organisations need to take effective measures in terms of hiring and keeping
qualified seafarers on staff (MITAGS, 2019). In addition, the maritime industry needs to provide the
basis for a fulfilling and satisfying lifelong seafaring profession. This requires collaborations among
key stakeholders to support seafarers’ sustainable career progression. For example, the industry is
urged to do more to make life at sea and away from home more akin to life enjoyed by people on
the land. In the meantime, maritime employers need to encourage women to work in the seafaring
profession (IMO, 2008).
It is a crucial task to attract fresh, young talent to the maritime organisation or to build on the
organic promotion of existing talent to achieve the broader aims of the wholly sustainable devel
opment of business. It is not only the interest in business needs but also the wellbeing that have
been taken into account. For example, many ship management firms are seeking to foster increased
cohesion between crews by creating a bond between the crew with amenities like the internet,
café, game rooms and focusing more on team building activities (Nautilus, 2018). Some other firms
have been renaming their employee functions with a more human-centric orientation by using
terms such as ‘employee experience’, ‘people’ and others to signal a shift in the brand (Foot &
Hook, 2008). The Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has developed a model
to help the organisation improve the effectiveness of their people management by promoting an
‘effective workplace’.According to ACAS (2007), effective workplaces are typically associated with
the following factors:
●● Ambitions, goals and plans that employees know about and understand;
●● Managers who genuinely listen to and consider their employees’ views so everyone is actively
involved in making important decisions;
●● A pay and reward system that is clear, fair and consistent;
●● A safe and healthy workplace;
●● People feel valued so that they can talk confidently about their work and can learn from suc
cesses and mistakes;
●● Everyone is treated fairly and valued for their differences;
●● Work is organised to encourage initiative, innovation and people working together;
●● An understanding that people have responsibilities outside work so they can openly discuss
ways of working that suit personal needs and the needs of the business;
●● A culture where everyone is encouraged to learn new skills so that they can look forward to
furthering employment either in their present organisation or elsewhere;
●● As much employment security as possible;
●● Formal procedures for dealing with disciplinary matters, grievances and disputes that managers
and employees know about and use fairly;
●● A good working relationship between management and employee representatives that fosters
trust.
Also, it is critical to promote good practice in the maritime industry by implementing corporate
social responsibility (CSR) and maintaining a sustainable maritime labour force.The implementation
of CSR can attract high-quality talent, enhance a company’s image and eventually improve its mar
keting performance (Tang & Gekara, 2020). It is recognised that a skilled, loyal and well-motivated
seafarer is ‘an essential factor in reducing operational costs by increasing efficiency, safe operations’
and protecting the employer’s ‘investment in expensive vessels and equipment’ (Progoulaki & Roe,
2011). In contrast, stress, fatigue and complaints can lead to reduced performance, which is usually
the reason for environmental damage, loss of life and loss of property. Therefore, it is becoming
more commonly accepted that voluntary CSR should be embedded into the maritime business,
because respecting seafarers’ rights has become a strategy with the reward of more profit than is
produced by ignoring CSR (Lillie, 2008).As one of its advantages, the MLC, 2006 will lead to a ‘more
socially responsible shipping industry’ (ILO, 2011). It is important to note that the convention
requires the maritime industry to pay greater regard to their social responsibilities.
Maritime employers should respect and fairly reward the contribution of seafarers for the
sustainable development of the maritime labour market.The quality of the industry relies ultimately
on the quality of people who are competent and committed and who provide safe and efficient ser
vices, as well as making an effort to prevent loss and damage.As discussed in Chapter 4, maritime
employers are well aware of the importance of aggregating the talents of those who are committed
to the industry and have the required expertise. Therefore, it is of great importance to improve
both the conditions of employment and the image of the industry so that those who serve in it can
have safe, rewarding and fulfilling career prospects (Alexander & Richardson, 2009).
Promoting decent work and economic growth is set as the eighth Sustainable Development
Goal (SDG) in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by the UN.As highlighted by the IMO,
‘world trade and maritime transport are, therefore, fundamental to sustaining economic growth
and spreading prosperity throughout the world, thereby fulfilling a critical social as well as an eco
nomic function’ (IMO, 2021).As designed by the UN during the COVID-19 crisis, seafarers are key
workers who operate global maritime transport (UN, 2020). In the IMO’s statement IMO and the
Sustainable Development Goals, to achieve the SDG 8 – decent work and economic growth – the
IMO continues its work to promote seafarers’ welfare. Seafarers are contributors to achieving
SDG 8 and will benefit from the achievement of decent working conditions.
Good employment conditions onboard are fundamental factors for good labour relations
between the employer and the seafarer and for attracting and retaining qualified labour (Alderton
et al., 2001). It is indisputable that good payments and proper treatments can be essential motives
for young people to choose the seafaring profession.Also, enjoyable working and living conditions
are vital elements in encouraging them to overcome social isolation and separation from their
families and to spend a longer time at sea (Dimitrova, 2010). In contrast, miserable life onboard
and unfair treatment can result in ‘reduced lifespan among highly skilled seafarers who are in short
supply’ (Smith, 2007).
The management of a multicultural crew

The shipping industry has been one of the first sectors to be globalised and to recruit its person
nel all over the world in order to employ workers at a cheaper rate (Tang & Zhang, 2021; Zarate,
2011). In today’s ship management, one major challenge is the employment and management of q
multicultural crew in such an international environment.
The multicultural crew in the maritime industry

The term culture has been defined in many different ways by many authors. According to Hofst
ede et al. (1991), it is the ‘collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of
one group or category of people from another’. Culture and its normative qualities are expressed
through the values individuals hold about life and the world around them. In turn, these values
affect their attitude about the form of behaviour considered appropriate and effective in a given
situation (Adler & Gundersen, 2007). Knowing and understanding people’s culture-based values
and attitudes can help to predict their behaviour and reactions and enable adequate interaction
(Chirea-Ungureanu & Rosenhave, 2011).
It can be extremely complex to explain and understand the differences between cultures.
Hampden-Turner & Trompenaars (2020) believe that people can never understand other cultures.
Aiming to reduce this complexity and to make cultural differences more understandable, different
models of cultural conceptualisation have been developed. For example, Hofstede et al. (1991)
formulated one well-known approach to define five key dimensions of national culture.They char
acterised different cultures based on the level of power distance, the degree of individualism or col
lectivism, the degree of masculinity or femininity, the level of uncertainty avoidance and the extent
of long- or short-term orientation. It is widely acknowledged that national culture explains many
of the differences in work-related behaviour and individuals’ behaviour in teams (Guirdham, 2017).
The modern merchant fleet is mostly manned by crews composed of people from different
nationalities, cultures and formation (Hasanspahić et al., 2018). Integrating people and cultures and
making organisations work efficiently and cohesively is one of the main tasks in the HRM within
the shipping industry.As mentioned earlier, the world merchant fleet is manned by more than 1.6
million seafarers of almost every nationality.Traditionally, seafarers were the ones who transmitted
culture across the globe, whereas nowadays the vessel itself often is the location of complex cul
tural encounters (Bartłomiejski, 2010).With the maritime industry strongly focusing on profitability
and economic efficiency, the labour market for seafarers became more and more globalised (Lenze
& Schriwer, 2014). Consequently, the majority of the world’s merchant fleet is now manned with a
multicultural crew (Progoulaki & Roe, 2011).
There are a variety of definitions of a multicultural crew. For example, Puck (2009) defines the
term as institutionalised or timely restricted social systems composed of more than two individuals
of two or more nationalities.They interact directly or virtually and have a common goal and a com
mon responsibility for the output of the teamwork.This definition implies that the existence of sev
eral nationalities within the team makes it multicultural; hence nationality is equalised with culture.
However, it is questionable whether culture can be defined along national borders. Considering
time and scope limitations, the concept of culture is simplified by differentiating cultures based on
the underlying nationalities (Gibson, 2006).
Within multicultural crews, the backgrounds of the seafarers differ drastically in terms of cul
tural dimensions. Nevertheless, the crew has to work and live together, despite the cultural distance
that may lie between them.Apart from the differences in national culture, the seafarers also have to
deal with the distinctive industry culture, which has traditionally developed in the maritime world. It
is characterised by a high degree of collectivism, as teamwork is essential in the operation of a ship
(Jensen & Oldenburg, 2020). Due to the hierarchical system onboard, there is a high level of power
distance. Moreover, risks and uncertainties have to be avoided in a safety-critical business such as
shipping.Also, direct communication and masculine values are dominant.Thus, the maritime industry
is highly regulated, which causes a strong rule orientation (Logie, 2011). This characterisation can
differ depending on the company and ship, but it illustrates the complexity of the onboard culture.
This can lead to problems, as people must conform with industry values that might conflict with
their own cultural norms. Additionally, the interaction of the crew is challenged by the difference
in national culture and the contrasting culture-based values and attitudes (Mellbye & Carter, 2017).
The employment of a multicultural crew goes along with a number of advantages and disad
vantages (Horck, 2004; Tang & Zhang, 2021). On the one hand, diversity can significantly improve
the performance of the crew as a team and may enable them to become more effective than a
monocultural crew. Progoulaki & Theotokas (2016) consider culturally diverse maritime human
resources to be a shipping company’s core competency, as it leads to a framework of strategic
choices and gains a sustainable competitive advantage. However, in the meantime, multiculturalism
also causes challenges in the maritime industry. Communication failures and misunderstandings
lead to distrust, dissatisfaction and conflicts onboard that negatively impact teamwork. Ultimately,
these issues result in intercultural incompetence that can cause costly incidents and accidents.
According to Horck (2005), many accidents are explained by human factors that are associated
with ‘multicultural misconceptions, power distance (a subaltern’s respect to superiors), stereotyp
ing and substandard communication’.
Benefits of a multicultural crew

As mentioned previously, the majority of the modern merchant fleet is manned by multicultural
crews to save operational costs.Apart from economic reasons, ship owners look for a workforce
outside of their national labour market due to declining numbers of available seafarers from their
own countries.The rising living standards in the industrialised countries caused the global labour
market to change and led to a shortage of labour in the so-called 3-D jobs: Dirty, Dangerous and
Difficult (Rahman & Salleh, 2018). The seafaring profession is becoming less and less attractive
because of extremely short transit times in ports and a decreasing number of seafarers in combi
nation with an increasing list of responsibilities.This results in an imbalance of supply and demand
of seafarers and a significant shortage of officers (Srinivasan, 2020). This lack of seafarers, mainly
from the OECD and European Union member states, forces local shipping companies to recruit
non-nationals.These often stem from Asia, particularly from the Philippines, India, China or Indone
sia. Another vast share comes from the former Soviet Union and the Baltic States (Horck, 2006).
Hence, employing a multicultural crew is a huge advantage for shipping companies, as they can
access a larger pool of possible crew members and thereby strategically evade the problem of the
shortage of national seafarers and at the same time reduce operating costs (Leong, 2012).
The advantages of multicultural crew constellations are not restricted to the ship owners, but
equally apply to seafarers, who profit in terms of developing their leadership competencies within
a multicultural environment and may gain valuable experiences that benefit their future career
(Horck, 2005).A study by Sampson & Zhao (2003) revealed that seafarers saw many advantages in
being part of multicultural crews. Philippine seafarers, for example, preferred it, due to nepotism
being a problem among monocultural crews, where senior officers were favouring friends, relatives
or people from the same region.
Furthermore, it has also been argued that safety may increase due to social distance, tolerance,
understanding and respect among crew members from different nationalities (Berg et al., 2013;
Sampson & Zhao, 2003). Multiculturalism onboard might also contribute to an increase in safety
by providing a solution to communication problems, in particular among the crew and external
parties, such as pilots and port authorities (Theotokas & Progoulaki, 2005). A case that properly
illustrates this is the MV Bright Field accident (NTSB, 1996).The bulker lost propulsion power and
hit a shopping mall in New Orleans. None of the crew was injured, but 62 people ashore suffered
minor and partly serious injuries.The damage to both the shoreside facilities and the vessel ranged
about USD 20 million.The underlying reason for the accident was miscommunication between the
American pilot and the Chinese crew. As the deck and engine department communicated in Chi
nese, the pilot could not understand and hence was unaware of the ongoing technical difficulties. If
the crew was not composed of one culture only, then the working language onboard would most
probably have been English, and the pilot would have been aware of the problems and could have
reacted accordingly (Gregory & Shanahan, 2017).
Further advantages of multicultural crews can be seen in the different approaches and view
points. Sharing different views and ideas by persons from various cultures is essential in a compet
itive work environment like shipping (Horck, 2005).The diversity of multicultural crews allows for
increased creativity, which can lead to more alternatives and better solutions to problems. How
ever, the decisive factor is the crew’s ability to understand, appreciate and successfully make use
of cultural diversity (Rozkwitalska et al., 2016). Ultimately, teams can become more effective, given
that diversity is well-managed and leaders onboard find the right balance between creativity and
cohesion. Well-managed cultural diversity is an asset that enables multicultural crews to become
even more effective than monocultural crews (Behfar et al., 2006).
It is suggested that multicultural teams either perform highly effectively or highly ineffectively
compared to monocultural teams (Behfar et al., 2006). Unfortunately, cultural diversity is more
often ignored and suppressed than well-managed. Consequently, cultural differences become an
obstacle to performance and lead to underperforming multicultural teams. In order to reach a high
level of effectiveness in a multicultural environment, it is of the utmost importance to properly han
dle cultural differences instead of allowing them to cause problems (Adler & Gundersen, 2007). In
the maritime context, the management level onboard needs to support and acknowledge cultural
diversity and adapt the management style to the crew, to achieve the maximum cooperation and
performance (Badawi & Halawa, 2003).
Cultural diversity indeed has the potential to benefit shipping companies and seafarers a like.
However, this depends on the prerequisite that it is handled in a sensitive manner onboard. Oth
erwise, there is an extremely high risk of the crew underperforming, which might have severe
negative impacts.
Challenges of a multicultural crew

Despite the numerous advantages of multiculturalism onboard, it has also caused rising worries
about the competence of ship crews (Berg et al., 2013). For example, one of the primary challenges
is communication. The ship crew is the highest risk factor when it comes to maritime safety, as
about 80 per cent of marine accidents are caused fully or partly by human errors (Chan et al.,
2016). In their guidance on the 12 most significant people factors, the MCA (2017) states that
miscommunication was the third biggest factor (13.4 per cent) contributing to maritime near-miss
cases between 2003 and 2015.1
Communication is the basis on which people interact, and it is closely linked to culture, as a
person’s cultural values, attitudes and beliefs are expressed in their way of communicating. Hall
(1959) commented that ‘culture is communication and communication is culture’.The two aspects
are strongly interrelated; hence cultural differences often pose substantial obstacles to effective and
efficient communication. According to Berg et al. (2013), cultural misunderstanding is a common
denominator for most problems related to multicultural crews.
The underlying reason for cultural misunderstandings is that people’s communication styles
are culturally bound. Individualist cultures, for example, prefer directness and openness and use
words primarily to convey a meaning (verbal communication). Collectivistic cultures instead prefer
modesty and indirectness and convey a meaning by use of non-verbal communication, such as ges
tures and body language (Gregory & Shanahan, 2017).Therefore, proper understanding and inter
pretation are highly connected to cultural competence (Rothlauf, 2014). Communication involves a
complex, multilayered, dynamic process, aimed at the exchange of meaning. Every communication
has a sender, sending a message, and a receiver, receiving it and sending a response (Adler & Gun
dersen, 2007).
However, the sent message is never identical to the received message.The same applies to the
sent and received response.The greater the cultural difference between the involved parties, the
greater the difference between the meaning they attach to certain words and behaviours (Wood,
2012). Hence, in intercultural communication, the difference between the sent and the received
message or response is likely to be much greater than within a conversation that involves only
one culture. Consequently, intercultural communication often results in misunderstandings (Knapp
et al., 2011).
Another important obstacle to effective communication is the difference in language (Lijun
Tang et al., 2016). Language is what enables humans to communicate verbally and at the same
time constitutes one of the strongest elements of culture (Wang & Gu, 2005). Even though it is
an important tool for understanding, it can also cause confusion and frustration. In the maritime
industry, the lingua franca is English (Horck, 2005). For the majority of the crew, this is not the
native language, which causes concerns about whether precise communication can be achieved,
especially in emergency situations.There is a huge potential for misunderstanding due to different
accents, noisiness of the workplace and stress. Under stress and panic, humans behave instinctively
and likely use their mother tongue, which may lead to chaos and confusion on ships with a multi
cultural crew (Nakazawa, 2004).
Since a declining number of ships have a single-nationality crew, language problems and lack of
communication have increasingly been reported (Berg et al., 2013).The implications of communica
tion deficiencies can be extensive, especially in the safety-critical maritime environment. Among a
multicultural crew, misunderstandings can cause challenging situations to turn into tragic catastro
phes (Badawi & Halawa, 2003). In the past, there were plenty of examples of communication failures
of a multicultural crew, which have led to severe incidents and accidents (Salleh et al., 2019).
The grounding of the chemical tanker Attilio Ievoli in the South Coast of England in 2004
illustrates the consequences of cultural miscommunication (MAIB, 2005). The Ukrainian second
officer of the ship was aware that the vessel was off-course, but after an unsuccessful attempt to
communicate this to the Italian master, he did not dare to approach him again.This was interpreted
as a consequence of the high-power distance. In the Ukrainian culture, just like in many Eastern
European cultures, the authority and competence of a superior cannot be questioned (Gregory
& Shanahan, 2017). In this case, the underlying cultural values that influenced the second officer’s
communication style led to insufficient risk reporting and a safety threat. If the captain would
have acknowledged cultural differences and would have been aware of the discrepancy in power
distance between the Italian and Ukrainian national culture, he could have actively encouraged the
second officer to communicate openly to superiors.
This incident shows that cultural knowledge and appreciation of differences are crucial to
achieving proper communication and understanding. Only if the multicultural ship’s crew is aware
of the implications of these culture-based differences on communication are they able to adapt to
each other and thus overcome the challenges of cross-cultural understanding.
In the meantime, the aspect of communication is closely interrelated with teamwork. If good
communication among the crew is not ensured, teamwork will not function onboard (Chirea-Un
gureanu & Rosenhave, 2011). Where considerable effort is needed to understand and be under
stood, crew members are likely to reduce social contact (Kahveci et al., 2000).The lack of common
language, as well as cultural intolerance, can cause the isolation of crew members, which in the long
run manifests itself in depression and alienation and thus becomes a serious risk factor (Horck,
2006). Furthermore, the development of sub-groups among different nationalities is an impediment
to effective communication and interaction of the crew as a team.Within these sub-groups, people
are likely to speak the same native language, share the same values and norms and therefore feel
comfortable. However, the crew as a whole will suffer if sub-groups become too entrenched or
competitive (Gibbs & Gibson, 2016).
Multicultural crews, just like any multicultural team, face specific challenges. Teamwork is
demanding even under the best circumstances. Information needs to be shared, individual tasks
must be coordinated and possible conflicts have to be resolved. Multicultural teams not only deal
with these common difficulties but are additionally challenged by cultural diversity and the inher
ent communication difficulties (DeSanctis & Jiang, 2005). Most shipping companies employ multi
national crews nowadays and expect efficient teamwork from them. As stated by Ion (2014) in a
conference on discourse and multicultural dialogue:
Aboard ships, more than anywhere else, team members should be united, and establish
cohesion not rebellion, since they all should pursue the same goal: well-done work in safety
conditions. Multicultural diversity, with all its disagreements, delay in decisions, stress, and
misperceptions should not lead to confusion or difficulty in workplace relationships.
It can be difficult to form a team out of a crew that has different cultural backgrounds, as the
individual members may have contrasting notions of teamwork and what constitutes good leader
ship (Gibbs & Gibson, 2016). Even though the crew members pursue the same goal, it cannot be
assumed that cultural differences can simply be resolved by polite and fair behaviour of the team
members, because what seems polite and fair to one cultural group does not necessarily apply
to another one. Hence, goodwill is not enough to make multicultural crews function as a team
(Mendez, 2017).
If the crew is not aware of the influence of culture on communication and teamwork and not
able to see unity in diversity, they will perform below expectations and potential.Therefore, team
leaders, as well as team members, have to be specifically prepared to work in a culturally diverse
setting and need to understand the impact of cultural diversity on their performance as a team in
order to empower them to overcome cultural obstacles and increase effectiveness. Seafarers need
to learn about the inherent potential of multiculturalism onboard and, most importantly, need to
receive adequate input and support to make use of the synergy potential.
Integrating intercultural competence

As discussed in the previous context, shipping is considered one of the most dangerous industries,
and safety should always be considered the top priority in ship management. Horck (2005) com
ments that there is a correlation between the malfunctioning multicultural crews and maritime
accidents. He considers multiculturalism onboard to be a direct or indirect contributor to the
majority of human errors in the maritime context. As a result, intercultural competence plays an
increasingly important role in today’s multicultural working environment (Kondratiev et al., 2016).
Intercultural competence can be defined as a set of ‘cognitive, affective, and behavioural skills
and characteristics that support effective and appropriate interaction in a variety of cultural con
texts’ (Bennett, 2008). A lack in one of the elements of this skillset is an obstacle to successful
intercultural interaction. This competence is crucial because it has an impact on the success of
communication among the members of the multicultural crew (Kinthaert, 2017). Apart from lan
guage as a means of verbal communication, other obstacles may arise with regard to the inter
pretation of non-verbal communication aspects. Therefore, intercultural competence is the key
to decrypt the signs and enables effective communication, which in turn is the prerequisite for
functioning teamwork. Without proper communication among the crew, no cohesion and trust
can be established to guarantee successful teamwork, neither in the professional nor in the private
sphere. However, the performance of the crew relies on their interaction as a team. Performance
is understood to be composed of two components: efficiency and effectiveness, meaning doing the
right things and doing them right (Ingram, 1996). Onboard, neither of them can be reached without
a well-functioning team, where the responsibility for the output is shared by all members. If the
team performs well, this will ultimately reflect on the safety of ship operations (Wang & Gu, 2005).
The effective functioning of multicultural crews heavily relies on the level of intercultural com
petence of the individual seafarers. As this competence is not equally and naturally possessed by
every person, it must be developed, partly through experience and specific education and training
(Lenartowicz et al., 2014).According to STCW, training in leadership and teamwork has been made
mandatory, meaning that the so-called ‘Human Element, Leadership and Management’ (HELM)
training is required for seafarers in order to gain or upgrade their certificate of competency (CoC)
(MCA, 2016).
In order to assist maritime training institutes worldwide in the implementation of the STCW
requirements, the IMO developed several model courses that provide learning objectives and sug
gested timetables (IMO, 2020a). The IMO model course 1.39 (Leadership and Teamwork) serves
as a basis for HELM training and covers aspects such as cultural awareness and cross-cultural
communication. However, the course outlines only allow a total of about 45 minutes to deal with
these subjects. It is questionable whether the limited time dedicated to establishing awareness for
this important matter is sufficient.
While the importance of maritime English as a common language has been recognised and
addressed in maritime education, less emphasis has been put on culturally motivated interper
sonal dynamics and the development of intercultural competences (Benton, 2005). Therefore,
demands for improved training and education onboard as well as ashore came up, accelerated by
new aspects of the internationalisation of seafaring (Horck, 2010).Although new methods for edu
cation and training aimed at the development of intercultural competence have been introduced
to various industries, they are still rarely found in the shipping industry (Badawi & Halawa, 2003).
As Horck (2005) mentions, the shipping industry is too conservative and not yet mature enough
to take advantage of cultural diversity.
Although the maritime industry is highly globalised and multicultural, intercultural competence
development has not been considered an important aspect on the agenda of most maritime edu
cation and training institutes (Theotokas et al., 2013). Still, individuals who interact with people of
other cultures need to develop competencies that enable them to communicate appropriately and
work together efficiently and effectively.Therefore, seafarers need to be provided with appropriate
training, as the quality of input determines the quality of output (Etman & Halawa, 2007). Hence,
there is a necessity for intercultural competence development among maritime professionals that
has to be tackled by maritime organisations at the macro level, as well as by shipping companies at
the micro level (Theotokas et al., 2013).
To raise the importance of intercultural education in the curriculum of maritime studies would
require a revision of several pieces of international legislation, such as the STCW convention. How
ever, this process could take years and is not considered a top priority (Halid & Genova, 2011).
Therefore, shipping companies should instead take a proactive approach to adequately train their
seafarers in-house and provide them with the necessary support from the shore side.
Ultimately, practical experience is equally important to the development of intercultural com
petence. Education and training can only provide seafarers with a certain level of awareness, but
they are responsible to actively use this input in order to create an agreeable working environment
in which teamwork can deploy its potential (Choe & Dayna, 2015).
Employing multicultural crews can be a challenge for effective teamwork onboard.The biggest
obstacle in this context is the failure of communication, caused by poor intercultural competencies.
Ultimately, this will reflect in the crew’s performance and the safety of ship operation.Therefore,
proper education and training have to take place, focusing on the development of intercultural
competences, to empower multicultural crews to exploit their possibilities and make full use of
their synergy potential (Jensen & Oldenburg, 2020). Based on this prerequisite, multiculturalism
onboard can be highly beneficial and contribute to a more effective, efficient and safer working
environment. However, if the prerequisite is not fulfilled, multicultural crews will perform below
their potential and even worse than monocultural crews. The maritime industry is far behind in
terms of intercultural competence development compared to other industries (Acejo, 2021).
Therefore, it must be assumed that in the current state, the potential of multiculturalism onboard
is not fully exploited and that the impact on performance and safety is negative due to a lack of
intercultural competence among seafarers.
It is obvious that the industry is changing, and seafarers nowadays need to bring additional
qualifications, such as intercultural competence. Hence, further research has to be conducted on
how intercultural education can practically be incorporated into the maritime industry. To ade
quately address this within STCW and to implement it in the syllabus of maritime universities
requires time.Therefore, the responsibility for prompt action lies with the shipping companies to
invest in the education and development of their seafarers.The maritime industry is a competitive
business, and it is necessary to be a step ahead of competitors and to go beyond compliance,
especially when taking into consideration the high increase in performance and safety that a well-
trained multicultural crew can achieve.
Note
1 The first two categories of the most common people-related factors leading to accidents or incidents are
situational awareness (22.5 per cent) and alerting (15.3 per cent).
Chapter 8
Compliance management
The previous chapters discussed five key aspects of ship management that focus on the business
operations and processes of ship management activities. All these operations and processes must
adhere to various types of compliance requirements to ensure that the organisation meets the
relevant rules, regulations and obligations. Based on the discussion of the previous chapters, this
chapter moves on to compliance management.The requirements of compliance management are
embedded in almost all the activities that the ship manager engages in in the ship owner’s business.
It can help the business stay ahead of issues before they become major problems, so effective com
pliance management plays a crucial role in any business activities.To achieve this objective, the ship
management company needs to establish and implement a compliance management system which
includes the design, development and delivery of the compliance management programmes. In the
meantime, a compliance officer is needed to work with senior levels of management to ensure
strategies are in place and to deal with compliance management matters.
The concept of compliance management

In the commercial world, there are many forms of compliance that an organisation and its employees
need to uphold. The term compliance refers to adherence to, or conformance with, various kinds
of requirements put into place in order to make sure that those internal or external rules are met
(Haines & Gurney, 2004; Iyer, 2015). In a narrow sense, compliance focuses on the adherence to a
package of legal requirements, including laws, regulations and mandatory rules. In contrast, the broad
sense of compliance involves not only the compulsory legal requirements but also ethical codes,
culture values, integrity, accountability, best practices and anything relating to ‘doing the right things’
(Biegelman & Biegelman, 2010). Compliance is a self-evident virtue resulting in safer workplaces, safer
products, healthier food or a cleaner environment (Parker & Nielsen, 2011). Not sticking to compli
ance can result in risks and damages done towards both the organisation and its clients, especially in
a dynamic and fast-changing commercial environment. For example, according to Kipp (2013):
Managing compliance is not just a functional necessity-it is a critical component needed

to successfully navigate the turbulent global environment and deliver against the business
strategy-especially in the wake of high-profile cases and recent events around the world.
There is no unified definition of compliance management. In general, it is about the management

and adherence to the policies, laws, standards, regulations, codes of conduct and any other desired
requirements that apply to an organisation. For example, in a narrow sense, Abdullah et al. (2009)
define the term as ‘mechanisms to keep enterprises’ business safe from possible violation of reg
ulatory compliance’. Similarly, Pearson (2019) defines compliance management as ‘the process by
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-8
COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT 115
which managers plan, organise, control, and lead activities that ensure compliance with laws and
standards’. According to Kharbili et al. (2008), compliance management refers to the definition of
means to avoid ‘illegal actions’ by controlling an organisation’s activities. By extension, the term also
refers to frameworks, standards and software employed to ensure the organisation’s observance
of legal requirements.
While legal compliance is a must, conformance with other standards is also important (John
son, 2017). The boundary of compliance management is further expanded by Karagiannis (2008)
to cover three key elements.The first element is the regulatory approach to ensuring compliance
with regulations and corporate governance. The second element extends to the standardisation
approach which ensures adherence to general standards, such as those provided by the Interna
tional Standards Organization (ISO).The third element focuses on the corporate standards, which
ensures the observance of best practices of the specific industry. In this chapter, the term compli
ance management is defined as the sum of all organisational and technical activities that support
the alignment of business processes and information systems with regulatory requirements, general
standards and best practices of the maritime industry. Nevertheless, this chapter mainly focuses on
the first dimension, that is, compliance with regulatory requirements in ship management.
Compliance with maritime governance

As discussed in Chapter 2, maritime shipping is governed by a multitiered and polycentric gover
nance (or jurisprudence) system. There is no single institution, actor or source of authority that
defines and prescribes maritime governance. Instead, there are a variety of actors and regulations,
together constituting a set of governance arrangements within multiple interdependent contexts
under the overarching set of maritime conventions, laws, customs and practices, which satisfies the
criteria of a polycentric governance system (Gritsenko, 2017; Gritsenko & Roe, 2019).
The UN framework
Driven by the global nature of shipping, the maritime regulatory regime is characterised by a
long history of polycentric governance (Gritsenko & Roe, 2019; Leeuwen, 2015; Monios, 2019).
The shipping industry is regulated at an international level by a number of international organisa
tions responsible for the safety of life at sea, maritime security, environmental protection and the
employment conditions of seafarers. First, the UN has always been very active in creating regu
lations in shipping. One of the most important instruments produced by the UN in 1982 is the
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It requires in Article 94 that every
state shall be responsible for the ‘labour conditions’ and ‘social matters’ onboard ships flying its flag.
Secondly, the convention has established pivotal cornerstones for the international maritime regu
latory regime, including ship registration, obligations of flag states, qualifications of seafarers and so
on.The UNCTAD Minimum Standards for Shipping Agents (1988) was adopted to ‘uphold a high
standard of business ethics and professional conduct’ among shipping agents.The UN Convention
on Conditions for Registration of Ships (1986) attempted to set standards for the registration of
vessels in a national registry, including registration, ownership, accountability, management, the role
of the flag state and references to the genuine link.The convention requires 40 signatories whose
combined tonnage exceeds 25 per cent of the world total to bring it to enter into force (IMO,
2020b). However, as of September 2020, only 15 states had ratified or acceded to the convention.
It is unlikely to attain the minimum requirement of entering into force in the near future. Besides,
the IMO and ILO, as special agencies of the UN, have also established special frameworks wherein
a wide range of specific issues are regulated.
116 COMPLIANCE MANAGEMENT
The IMO
The IMO was established in 1948 and was originally known as the Inter-Governmental Maritime
Consultative Organisation (IMCO) until 1982, when it became a specialised agency of the United
Nations.With responsibility for the safety and security of maritime matters, it has six main bodies
relating to the adoption and implementation of conventions.The assembly and council are the main
organs, and the committees involved include the Maritime Safety Committee, the Marine Environ
ment Protection Committee, the Legal Committee and the Facilitation Committee (Özçayir, 2001).
Over the past half-century, the IMO has adopted more than 40 conventions and protocols and has
played an important role in establishing the maritime regulatory regime.
The IMO’s first task was to adopt a new version of the International Convention for the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), which was first adopted in 1914 following the Titanic disaster and
became one of the most important of all the treaties dealing with maritime safety (IMO, 2013).
The other key instrument of the IMO is the International Convention on the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships (MARPOL), aimed at preventing pollution from ships caused by operational
or accidental causes. Gradually, the regulatory focus has been shifting to a balanced approach,
covering both hardware and technical matters, as well as operational and management issues
(Tang & Zhang, 2021). The International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and
Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) sets the minimum qualification standards for seafarers.The
International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which was incorporated in Chapter IX of the SOLAS,
provides an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships at sea. This
balanced approach reflects the industry’s recognition of the role played by good management
and adequate education and training in achieving the objective of ‘safer ships, cleaner seas’ (Tang
& Zhang, 2021).
Although the IMO has produced a large amount of legislation over the years, these have not
been adopted and implemented as rapidly and effectively as they should have.The problem of sub
standard maritime practice therefore continues to exist. Effective responsibility of flag states relies
on both the will and the ability to establish the maritime infrastructure and the legal capability to
implement and enforce the applicable laws that they have created (Mansell, 2009). When a state
ratifies an international convention, it promises to make it part of its national law and to enforce it
in the same way as it enforces its domestic laws. However, in many countries, the enforcement of
a convention is not always on the government’s list of priorities. In other cases, even when a state
would exercise its responsibilities, lack of technical expertise and financial resources may prevent
it from fulfilling the aspiration (Özçayir, 2001).
Also, despite the efforts of the sub-committee, it appears that the IMO is ineffective in
carrying out an oversight role of flag state implementation and an enforcement role in the reg
ulation of ships. Both flag states and the IMO should be more accountable in the fulfilment of
their responsibilities. However, it seems that they have demonstrated ‘an individual and collective
inability to administer and regulate ships in a consistent and uniform manner’ (Mansell, 2009).As
the International Commission on Shipping summarised in its inquiry into ship safety states (ICS,
2000, p. 32):
A major concern was the inability of a significant number of registers to provide adequate legal
and administrative infrastructure to meet their obligations in international law, in particular,
the United Nations Convention on the law of the Sea, 1982. . . . A general consensus is that
there are sufficient regulations to do the job, the problem is their lack of implementation.
Major reasons stated for the failure to implement the necessary measures were the lack of
competent personnel and financial resources, and a lack of political will in many cases. . . .
There was a widespread view throughout the Commission’s inquiry that the IMO work on
flag State performance has been largely ineffective. Concerns were also expressed concerning
the validity of the Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping 1978
and Revision 1998 (STCW) White List, as well as the effectiveness of the International Safety
Management Code (ISM).
The ILO
The ILO was established in 1919, aimed to ‘set international labour standards, promote rights
at work, encourage decent employment opportunities, enhance social protection and strengthen
dialogue on work-related issues’ (ILO, 2019). Since its establishment, the ILO has adopted 190 con
ventions and 206 recommendations on a range of issues related to social and employment rights,
over 70 of which were specifically maritime-related. However, because the ILO lacks effective
enforceability of its standards at sea, many conventions could not deliver on their promise to pro
vide seafarers with the improved rights and conditions that have been long desired. Many of its rec
ommendations just sounded good in theory but did not take into consideration the practical reality
of the daily lives of seafarers onboard ships. As a result, the ratifications of these instruments are
very low, and a large number of conventions have never entered into force. For example, only five
countries ratified the Accommodation of Crew Convention (ILO C075, 1946), and three countries
ratified the Social Security (Seafarers) Convention, 1987. Compared with the IMO’s conventions,
the percentage of ratifications of ILO conventions is significantly low.
The Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1976 (ILO C147) is one of the most
important instruments created by the ILO.About 15 important ILO conventions and different arti
cles were incorporated in the appendix of the convention.The appendix was further extended by
the Protocol of 1996 to the Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards) Convention (ILO P147, 1996).
Member states need to lay down national laws or regulations with regard to three major tasks.
The first task is to ensure ships flying their flag comply with relevant safety standards, including
standards of competency, hours of work and minimum manning, for the safety of life onboard a ship.
The second task is to take appropriate social security measures, and the third deals with shipboard
conditions of employment and shipboard living arrangements.
In the meantime, the ILO also adopted the Labour Inspection (Seafarers) Convention 1996
to establish an inspection and compliance system (ILO C178, 1996).The convention requires that
each ratifying state shall establish a system of inspection of seafarers’ working and living conditions.
The inspection shall be maintained ‘at intervals not exceeding three years and, when practicable,
annually’, to verify that the seafarers’ working and living conditions conform to national laws and
regulations.After each inspection, one copy of the report in English or the working language of the
ship shall be furnished to the master of the ship, and another copy shall be ‘posted on the ship’s
notice board for the information of the seafarers or sent to their representatives’.The convention
is further supplemented by the Labour Inspection (Seafarers) Recommendation (ILO R185, 1996).
Although many of these requirements could not produce as much practical effect as they were
expected to, it was a significant step forward that these two instruments provide detailed provi
sions regarding cooperation and coordination between public institutions and other organisations
(Pentsov, 2008). Many of these provisions were followed by the later Maritime Labour Convention,
2006, which address issues related to seafarers’ working and living conditions, duties and power of
inspectors, central coordinating authority, annual reports and inspection reports.
Maritime Labour Convention, 2006

An important historical event of the ILO in the maritime sector was the adoption of the Maritime
Labour Convention, 2006 (MLC, 2006). The convention, consolidating 68 legal instruments and
recommendations of the ILO, has been in force since 20 August 2013. It is often referred to as a
‘bill of rights’ for the world’s maritime workers. For the 1.6 million seafarers worldwide, this new
convention brings together, in one place, international minimum standards that ensure decent
work. It also levels the playing field for ship owners to help ensure fair competition. One of the
most important features of the MLC, 2006 is that it prescribes responsibilities for the three major
interested parties in the maritime industry: the flag states, port states and seafarer-supplying states.
It is considered the ‘fourth pillar’ of the maritime regulatory framework, alongside the SOLAS, the
STCW and the MARPOL, the three other maritime conventions adopted by the IMO (McConnell
et al., 2011).
One of the major innovations introduced by the MLC, 2006 is the requirement that ships carry
and maintain a maritime labour certificate (MLC) and a declaration of maritime labour compliance
(DMLC).The MLC, attached to the DMLC, shall be issued to a ship by the flag state or a recognised
organisation on behalf of the state. A range of factors must be inspected and confirmed to meet
national laws and regulations before an MLC can be issued or renewed.The MLC and DMLC con
stitute ‘prima facie evidence’ that the ship has been duly inspected by the state whose flag it flies
and the requirements of this convention have been met to the extent so certified. It was the first
ILO convention to establish a new certification system for working and living conditions onboard.
Another major innovation is that flag states shall prescribe ‘on-board procedures for fair, effective
and expeditious handling of seafarer complaints’ alleging breaches of the requirements of the con
vention. Unlike the complaint procedure provided in other ILO conventions, the new convention
sets out a ‘whistle-blower’ provision in Regulation 5.1.5 (McConnell et al., 2011).According to the
provision, flag states are required to prohibit and penalise any victimisation of seafarers for lodging
a complaint. The relevant clauses provide a right on the part of the seafarer to be ‘accompanied
or represented during on-board complaints procedure, as well as safeguards against the possibility
of victimisation for filing complaints’ (MLC, 2006).Apart from the flag state control and port state
control, according to the MLC, 2006, seafarers are also protected by a special and separate body of
policies and laws of labour- supplying states.The general obligations of the labour-supplying states
are related to seafarer identification, competence certification, recruitment and placement service,
employment agreement, welfare and social security protection.
Despite the great strength and progress discussed earlier, the MLC, 2006 has several weak
nesses that undermine its effect in practice. First of all, like any other international conventions, the
MLC, 2006 is a compromised result of states and other stakeholders.While some key issues were
mentioned in the convention, it fails to provide provisions guaranteeing seafarers’ entitlement ‘to
uphold these rights’ (Bauer, 2008), such as the issues related to shore leave, access to port welfare
services, freedom of association, social security and so forth. For the same reason, many clauses of
the MLC, 2006 have been criticised due to lack sufficient enforcement power (Dimitrova, 2010). In
addition, the key to the effective enforcement of the MLC, 2006 lies in the port states taking their
responsibilities seriously, such as through port state control (PSC) inspections.
Port state control

PSC can be defined as the control of foreign-flagged ships in national ports (Özçayir, 2001).A port
is ‘an area within which ships are loaded with and discharged of cargo and includes the usual places
where ships wait for their turn or are ordered or obliged to wait for their turn, no matter what
the distance from the port’ (CMI et al., 1980).As a result, a port state is the state ‘with territorial
sovereignty over a port to which a foreign vessel is requesting entry, or currently resides within’
(Honniball, 2017).
PSC is argued to be ‘a complement’ to the existing jurisdiction of the flag state but can never
be a replacement for it.When the ship enters the territory of another state, the flag state jurisdic
tion ‘clashes with the rules and regulations’ that the other state wants to enforce with regard to
anyone entering its ports or territory (Özçayir, 2001).The PSC mechanism confers the jurisdiction
over to a port or coastal state to inspect foreign-flagged vessels that call in its ports.The legal base
for this right rests on the UNCLOS,Article 218, Enforcement by the Port States:
When a vessel is voluntarily within a port or at an off-shore terminal of a State, that State may
undertake investigations and, where the evidence so warrants, institute proceedings in respect
of any discharge from that vessel outside the internal waters, territorial sea or exclusive eco
nomic zone of that State in violation of applicable international rules and standards established
through the competent international organization or general diplomatic conference.
This jurisdiction can be confirmed by a range of treaties addressing labour standards, pollution
and the fight against sub-standard merchant ships and illegal fishing vessels. For example, the ILO
mandates the states verify by inspection or other appropriate means that the ships comply with
applicable international labour conventions and applicable collective agreements. Under the ILO
enforcement framework initially introduced by the ILO C147, primary responsibilities are imposed
on flag states with regard to the compliance and enforcement of international standards over ships
flying their flags.The ILO mainly prescribes two enforcement forms. It regulates the effective con
trol by the state with respect to the ships registered in its territory, which is known as flag state
control. On the high seas, only the flag state may exercise legislative and enforcement jurisdiction
over a ship.At the same time, it provides PSC imposed by the state regarding the ships registered
in a foreign state and calling into its ports.
The origin of PSC can be traced back to 1978 when a number of maritime authorities in West
ern Europe developed and signed the ‘Hague Memorandum’ to audit living and working conditions
onboard vessels in collaboration with each other.When the memorandum was about to take effect,
one of the major oil spill accidents in history occurred off the coast of Brittany, France, as a result
of the grounding of the VLCC Amoco Cadiz.This accident led to a strong political and public outcry in
Europe for more stringent regulations on the safety of shipping. Consequently, a new memorandum
of understanding (MoU) on PSC was signed by 14 European countries in Paris (known as the Paris
MoU) and came into operation in 1982 (Tang & Zhang, 2021).
As of today, the Paris MoU has been expanded to include 26 European countries and Canada
as signatories. Following the Paris MoU, other eight regional agreements on PSC MoUs have also
been established: Asia and the Pacific (Tokyo MoU), West and Central Africa (Abuja MoU), the
Caribbean (Caribbean MoU), the Mediterranean (Mediterranean MoU), the Indian Ocean (Indian
Ocean MoU), the Black Sea region (Black Sea MoU); Latin America (Acuerdo de Viña del Mar) and
the Riyadh MoU.Apart from these, the US Coast Guard maintains the tenth PSC regime.
The introduction of PSC was one of the most important developments in the maritime reg
ulatory regime. PSC is the inspection of foreign ships in national ports to verify that the ship is
constructed, maintained, manned and operated in compliance with the requirements of interna
tional regulations. Its mission was and still is to eliminate the operation of sub-standard ships in its
area of responsibility (Tang & Zhang, 2021). The inspection was originally introduced as a backup
to flag state implementation, but it has been proved that the inspection system can be significantly
effective (IMO, 2010). It plays an import role in enforcing the law and in monitoring observance
of the standards created by international organisations.As mentioned earlier, the control systems
used by the flag states and international bodies have proven ineffective in eradicating sub-standard
ships from the seas (Özçayir, 2001). Many conventions encourage port states to inspect for the
compliance of vessels entering their ports and to report any deficiencies to the flag states and
other partners, such as the vessel’s next port of call (Kasoulides, 1993).
Port state jurisdiction grants the port state a right to investigate and, possibly, a duty to detain
where ‘sufficient evidence of the violation’ is identified after investigation, but proceedings ‘are not
instituted or are discontinued by the flag state’ (Kasoulides, 1993). It is an innovative expansion
of the jurisdiction in international law, which certainly plays an important role in eliminating sub
standard ships (Marten, 2014). Despite the inconsistencies, the regulatory enforcement mechanism
of PSC is seen to have provided a good service, rectifying the inherent weaknesses of flag state
control, combating sub-standard ships and preventing a race to the bottom (DeSombre, 2006, 2009).
It forces established FOCs, such as Panama and Liberia, to ratify more international conventions on
safety and labour standards and to raise admission standards of their registries (Tang & Zhang, 2021).
However, the effective enforcement of international standards, in particular the maritime
labour standard, still mainly relies on flag states’ adherence to the conventions.With respect to the
PSC regime, there are a number of negative aspects counterbalancing the positive ones. First, it is
questionable whether a port state has enough motivation to exercise effective and thorough sur
veillance, inspection and punishment over foreign ships.This is particularly unlikely if the violations
do not affect the port state’s interests.
Another issue faced by a port state is the commercial consideration.The port state would face
a conflict of internal interests, especially economic ones concerning its exports and imports, if it
becomes a ‘tough prosecutor’ and punishes vessels that call at its ports to load or discharge cargo
(Kasoulides, 1993). For instance, an importing nation’s greatest interest would be ‘a reduced price on
the imported goods’, while a flag state’s primary concern would be ‘increasing its registry via the appeal
of lax standards’ (Bauer, 2008).A port state may gain a competitive advantage by ignoring the conven
tions’ mandates and that could lead to the establishment of a ‘port of convenience’ (Bauer, 2008).
A further controversial issue is whether port state authorities will comply with the applica
ble international legal standards or will implement their national legislation, which might prove
different in its application. In addition, the lack of financial support and competent inspectors, the
discrepancy between the judgments of different inspectors and the lack of an international body
to supervise and regulate the regime could also hamper the effective enforcement of the system.
In practice, the PSC inspection is considered the right of a port state operating under regional
agreements, rather than a duty or obligation required by the international regulation (Zhang, 2016).
It tends to be in the self-interest of a county or port to gain a competitive advantage by ignoring
the convention’s requirements.
Compliance with international sanctions

Over the past several years, the use of international economic sanctions has prominently returned
under international relations and the global geopolitical landscape (Weber & Schneider, 2020).
Sanctions take various forms and can be imposed by a variety of jurisdictions. The United States
has certainly shown itself to be one of the countries with an aggressive foreign policy under the
presidency of Donald Trump (Drezner, 2019).
The term sanction originated from the Latin word sanction, which means ‘a decree or ordi
nance with a penalty attached’ (Brewer, 1878). Today, it often represents an official approval or
disproval for an action.According to Krieger (2010), sanction is one of the few words in the English
language that has ‘diametrically opposite meanings’.When sanction is used in an appositive sense,
it means official permission or approval. In contrast, in a negative sense, it means official disap
proval, which is associated with the risk of incurring penalties. Sanctions are often imposed in the
regimes of the UN, the EU and unilaterally by a national state, such as the United States and the
United Kingdom.The United Nations Charter often defines the term sanction in its negative sense.
According to Chapter VII of the charter, the Security Council can take any sanctions measures as
needed to maintain or restore international peace and security. Under Article 41 of Chapter VII, the
measures encompass a broad range of enforcement options that do not involve the use of armed
force (UNSC, 2020).
The use of sanctions as tools of foreign policy or economic warfare has become unprecedently
prevalent (Hufbauer et al., 2007). Since 1966, the Security Council of the United Nations has established
30 sanctions regimes, with 14 ongoing sanctions which focus on supporting the political settlement of
conflicts, nuclear non-proliferation and counter-terrorism (UNSC, 2020). In recent years, the EU has
increased its use of sanctions to pursue its foreign policy objectives laid down within the framework
of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (Forwood et al., 2020). As of November 2020, the
EU had 19 sanctions regimes in place that implement UN sanctions (EC, 2020).At the same time, the
EU had 35 autonomous sanctions regimes against countries that are not subject to UN sanctions. It
is noteworthy that both the UN and EU have commonly adopted 10 of these 54 sanctions regimes
(EU, 2020). Regarding unilateral sanctions, the United States has certainly shown itself to be the coun
try with the most aggressive foreign policies. Over the past years, it has been actively using financial
sanctions and listing decisions through the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC).As
of November 2020, there are 35 active OFAC sanctions programmes (USDOT, 2020). Unlike the UN
and EU sanctions, the US domestic sanctions regimes are draconian asset-freezing measures backed by
criminal penalties, as well as significant civil fines and forfeiture for violations (Happold & Eden, 2016).
There is a hot debate going on about the legal nature and effect of financial sanctions imposed
by the UN, EU and domestic nations.This book has no intention to deal with the debate. However,
with the bulk of international trade being moved by merchant vessels, economic sanctions regimes
are of particular relevance in the maritime industry. In recent years, the industry has often been
directly targeted by specific maritime sanctions imposed by the United States and EU. For example,
considering its close affiliation to the energy sector, the maritime industry is exposed to a variety
of sanctions related to the oil, petroleum and gas trade (Marcura, 2015).
As mentioned, the United States has been particularly active in imposing sanctions to achieve
its economic and political objectives. Unlike the UN and EU sanctions, US sanctions are not imple
mented through local legislation.They largely target certain entities and individuals within the United
States.At the same time, certain US sanction regimes also target non-US entities and individuals, such
as Iran and North Korea. It is particularly important for the ship owner and manager that a non-US
entity or person may find itself ‘blacklisted’ by the United States where it continues to do business
with a US-sanctioned entity or person.This is because entities and individuals operating outside of
the United States may still be exposed to the risk of violating US sanctions where (Standard, 2019):
●● It is found to have assisted a US person in evading US sanctions;
●● The individuals involved were present in the US when the US sanctioned transaction took
place – in which case the individuals will be treated as US persons;

●● It is involved in sanctioned transactions which have US connections – for example where pay
ments are to be made in USD, or where US insurers, banks or other US persons or entities
are involved;
●● It is involved in the re-export of US goods or technology to countries subject to US sanctions;
●● It is involved in a transaction that is in breach of US ‘secondary sanctions’ which are targeted
against Non-US persons.
One of the countries that is included in the target list of US sanctions is Iran. Since 1979 the United
States has applied various economic, trade, scientific and military sanctions against Iran (Aljazeera,
2012).After the 2018 withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the United
States started to re-impose sanctions related to the energy, financial, shipping and shipbuilding
industries (Khandelwal, 2019).The re-imposed US sanctions have significantly hit Iran with respect
to its oil exports.At the start of 2018, the volume of Iranian oil productions was about 3.8 million
barrels per day (bpd). By October 2019, Iran’s crude oil production had fallen to 2.1 million bpd on
average, and it was reported that only 260,000 bpd on average was being exported (BBC, 2019).
Venezuela is another country facing US sanctions. For more than a decade, the United States
has employed sanctions as a policy tool in response to activities of the Venezuelan government and
Venezuelan individuals. Since 2017, the executive orders issued by the Trump administration have
led to a significant expansion of sanctions against Venezuela (Seelke, 2019). In early 2020, the OFAC
imposed a long list of comprehensive sanctions. The targets include at least 144 Venezuelan or
Venezuelan-connected individuals,Venezuela’s government oil companies and national central bank
and any entities or individuals in relation to these governmental bodies (Seelke, 2020).
In addition, the United States has widely imposed sanctions on some other countries, entities
and individuals, including Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Syria, Libya, China,
many organisations and citizens in these countries and so on.The OFAC administers a number of
different sanctions programmes. According to the US Department of the Treasury, the sanctions
can be either comprehensive or selective.They use the blocking of assets and trade restrictions to
accomplish the United States’ foreign policy, national security or other political goals (USDOT, 2020).
These US sanctions increase the risks of violations by the shipping companies who are involved
in the transactions related to the sanction targets. For example, in 2019 the US sanctions against
Iran and Venezuela caused 300 oil tankers to be placed off-limits as there was a fear within shipping
companies of breaching the US sanctions, making freight rates reach new highs. Furthermore, oil com
panies also are avoiding oil tankers directly or indirectly owned by the shipping companies who are
targeted by US sanctions for allegedly transporting oil from Iran or Venezuela (Parraga & Khasawneh,
2019).These sanctions, according to the US government, automatically freeze all assets of the com
pany if they enter the United States or if they are in possession of a US citizen (Dobreva et al., 2020).
As far as the maritime industry is concerned, it is criticised that unilateral sanctions imposed
by the United States make it impossible for marine service providers to implement credible com
pliance.These sanctions are even considered a ‘kiss of death’ for innocent ship owners (Bockmann,
2020a). According to Mater (2019), the economic sanctions have become a complex web that
can be exhausting for Americans, foreign governments and private organisations. As a result, flag
registries, marine insurers, ship owners, charterers, ship managers and financial institutions tend
to be targeted, provoking concerns that they are being used to unofficially police sanctions or be
excluded from a global industry that operates in US currency (Bockmann, 2020a).
Under the pressure of US sanctions, many ship owners have undertaken tactics of reflagging
their ships which are linked to the sanctioned subjects (UNCTAD, 2020). For example, Samoa1
is a major flag registry considered by a shadowy fleet of tankers which have been linked to ship
ments of Iranian crude, fuel oil, condensate and liquified petroleum gas during the past several
years (Bockmann, 2020c). However, since the 2010s, the US Treasury and lawmakers have taken
measures to prevent these allegedly ‘deceptive shipping practices’ or ‘subterfuge fleet’ (Berman,
2012). According to Blas (2012), these measures specifically highlight the attempts to ‘evade sanc
tions through the use of front companies’, as well as the deceptions to ‘conceal its tanker fleet’ by
repainting the ship or flag-hopping.2 The US sanctions extend to the international registries that
provide an FOC for the targeted ship owners. Many flag states were forced by the United States
to de-flag the ships engaged in evading US sanctions. For example, in 2020 the Tanzanian registry
removed four flag-hopping tankers that were detected shipping sanctioned Iranian cargoes (San
chez, 2020).The removals are a further sign of intensifying pressure imposed by the US sanctions
on the allegedly ‘subterfuge’ fleet engaged in ‘illicit transfers’ of sanctioned shipments.According to
Bockmann (2020b), a number of other smaller flag administrations, including Gabon, Cook Islands,
St Kitts and Nevis, have removed the vessels from their registries in the same year. Most vessels
had been re-flagged after being removed by larger registries, including Panama and Liberia, for their
connections with Iran,Venezuela or other sanctioned states.
There is no doubt that compliance with sanctions plays a crucial role in maintaining smooth
ship operations and preventing loss. In the global business, ship owners would have to comply with
maritime sanctions checks imposed by multiple jurisdictions.The ship manager has the obligation
to undertake appropriate due diligence with respect to compliance with various sanctions, in par
ticular the sanctions imposed by the United States. Any breach in the current sanction regimes
can have devastating consequences, which include legal disputes and liabilities, delay of the vessel,
invalidation of insurance coverage, damage to reputation, significant fines and vessel detention, a
blacklist of vessels and companies and even criminal offences (Marcura, 2015). The ship owner
and manager need to be vigilant to the changing sanctions landscape and take measures to ensure
that no commercial activity being undertaken involves a designated sanctioned entity or breaches
sanctions (HSN, 2019).
However, when the global shipping industry experiences a tough time due to a sluggish market
situation and an oversupply of tonnage, many ship owners and operators tend to trade in these
sanctioned areas for a lucrative profit.They may choose to carry out certain types of ‘compliance’
measures to evade these sanctions. For example, some ship owners try to evade sanctions by
switching off the AIS or disabling GPS equipment.To deceive the commercial checks conducted by
financial institutions, many ship owners or managers provide false documents relating to goods and
vessel movement, such as a bill of lading with false ports of loading and discharging.These arrange
ments can cause serious consequences. First of all, the OFAC can still disclose these if they conduct
further business checks, in particular when the parties have to use the US dollar for commercial
transactions. Furthermore, these actions constitute fraud against not only the OFAC but also any
third parties, so it can lead to commercial disputes and lawsuits. In the meantime, these defrauding
activities can result in the invalidation of both ship and cargo insurance coverage. As a result, the
ship manager should take measures to prevent these activities from happening for the ship owner’s
best interest. Otherwise, if the manager participates in this kind of activity, then they have breached
their duties under the law of agency, as explained in Chapter 3.
Challenges with compliance management

While compliance management plays a crucial role in ship management and operations, the ship
manager faces various challenges in implementing effective compliance management.According to
an industry study among compliance experts,Abdullah et al. (2010) identify some major compliance
management challenges. These challenges can be divided into three main categories: challenges
related to external regulations, challenges related to customers and challenges related to solutions.
The challenges relating to external regulations include frequent changes in regulations, multi
level and polycentric regulations, principle-based legislation, overlap in regulations and inconsisten
cies.The fact that international standards, legislation, regulations, government laws and rules regularly
change means that organisations face challenges keeping up with the new requirements (Karagiannis
et al., 2007). One major challenge for the maritime stakeholders is the frequently adopted new
regulatory instruments. For example, 2019 was a busy year in terms of adopted IMO regulations
with SOLAS amendments, significant milestones for the fuel oil consumption data collection system
(DCS) and the EU’s Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) regulation, and the MARPOL
Annex VI global sulphur limit IMO 2020 (Sillitoe, 2019). At the same time, the new requirements
created at the national level cause further difficulties. One main issue is related to principle-based
legislation produced by some maritime nations. The ship manager and operators have to decide
on an approach to meeting the legal obligations by themselves.According to Abdullah et al. (2010),
although this approach allows an organisation to be creative in meeting the requirements, it exposes
the organisation to the risk of inappropriately interpreting the legislation. In addition, the unique
characteristics of multilevel and polycentric regulations in the maritime industry tend to cause prob
lems of overlap, duplication, inconsistency and even conflict. These problems often exist between
the legal instruments of nation-states and those of international regulatory bodies (Grabosky &
Braithwaite, 1993).As a result, the ship manager and operator may have to violate some standards
when they try to comply with other regulations that are inconsistent.They may generate some neg
ative consequences, particularly regarding additional risks and compliance cost.
The challenges related to customers involve many aspects, including lack of a compliance
culture, lack of resources, lack of efficient risk management and lack of awareness. First of all, the
compliance culture plays a vital role in the inculcation of compliance management in an organi
sation. It involves employees’ perspectives towards the value and objectives of the organisation,
including what it stands for, its clients, investors, regulators and colleagues (ACCC, 2005). A good
compliance culture can promote a positive attitude towards legal compliance activity at all levels
within an organisation (Morton, 2005).
However, one common problem faced by the ship manager is the resistance of the ship owner–
client. The senior management team of the ship owner often sees compliance as one of the least
value-added activities for their business. Consequently, the operational level has no guideline or pro
cedures, and this further results in ignorant and inexperienced compliance practice among employ
ees, such as the crew onboard or ship operators. Similarly, the organisation mind-set is directly
affected by the belief of employees.The team that lacks training and education on the importance
and procedures of compliance has a low willingness to accept compliance activities within business
operations.The situation can be made worse if the shipping organisation has no compliance officer
or the officer has very limited influence on either the management or the support team.
Compliance management needs a variety of resources, including human resources and financial
resources. Cost of compliance is often one of the crucial issues that make an organisation hesitant
to get a compliance system in place (Kharbili et al., 2008). As discussed earlier, if the high-level
management of the ship owning company lacks interest in compliance management, they will not
provide the needed resources to enable the organisation to implement a compliance management
system.This can often result in a lack of efficient risk management. It is noteworthy that risk man
agement and compliance management are related, but they are not the same thing. According to
Kanjilal (2020), risk management involves predicting and managing risks to protect an organisation
from risks that might eventually result in non-compliance. In contrast, compliance management is
the systematic process of managing compliance within the boundaries of a time limit and a budget,
and non-conformance to compliance requirements is itself also a risk.
A further challenge faced by the ship manager is the ship owner’s lack of compliance aware-
ness.This is often associated with a lack of compliance culture, but it can be extended to several
specific factors.The first factor is the lack of perception of compliance as an added value.According
to Zerafa & Farrugia (2020), the most effective way to build a healthy compliance culture is to view
compliance as an added value rather than a business burden. However, many ship owners regard
compliance as a business cost because they see no returns for the expensive documentation and
time consumed.They consider that risk and compliance management system adds complexity to a
commercial business and makes the business harder.Also, some ship owners believe that the only
benefit derived from the compliance management system is that they avoid getting fined by regula
tors.These opinions suggest their lack of understanding of the relevance of compliance to business,
so they are unable to correctly embed rules and obligations in their daily operations to guide busi
ness processes (Governatori et al., 2007).To overcome such difficulties, it is necessary that various
standards and regulations be interpreted with regard to, and mapped to, business processes by
specialists who deeply understand both the legal and the operational aspects of the organisation
(Abdullah et al., 2010). At the same time, it is noteworthy that the lack of communication among
staff contributes significantly to these problems.When compliance problems are identified in busi
ness operations, they should be reported to the senior management team, and consensus building
needs to be conducted among all staff for future improvement.
The challenges related to solutions include the lack of holistic practices, lack of facility support,
lack of a compliance knowledge base and lack of habit of creating compliance evidence (Abdullah
et al., 2010). First of all, it is believed that compliance should be systematically cascaded at every
level of the organisation, starting with a clear direction from the top, and then deployed appro
priately through every layer (Paul, 2008). However, many organisations lack holistic practices and
instead leave the compliance tasks to the commercial or legal department, so there is no effective
collaboration between different sectors. In the meantime, effective compliance relies heavily on
facility support, such as IT infrastructure, learning and training facilities, equipment for monitoring
and reporting, tools for newsfeeds, alerts, self-assessment and updates and so on (Abdullah et al.,
2010).
Furthermore, many organisations are unwilling to outsource third-party knowledge services.
They tend to rely upon their in-house knowledge base, which is often not sufficient to support
the organisation’s compliance requirements. For example, many new maritime regulations, such as
IMO 2020, involve complicated and technical issues.The organisations need to outsource training
programmes from maritime specialists and experts to enhance their compliance knowledge base
in order to carry out relevant tasks properly.
In addition, many organisations do not have a habit of producing evidence of compliance and
this causes serious problems in ship operations. Lack of evidence of compliance can result in ship
detention, breach of warranties and lawsuits. For example, according to the safety management
system (SMS) and MARPOL 73/78, as amended, a ship needs to carry out spot checks of onboard
equipment and procedures. The ship needs to maintain a clear record and documentation with
regard to the performance of relevant activities. Otherwise, a ship might be detained for lack of
evidence in a PSC inspection.Also, as discussed previously, the evidence is a crucial part of commer
cial dispute resolution. For example, if there is any dispute regarding cargo damage or demurrage,
proper maintenance of evidence with respect to cargo operations will be critical in defending or
supporting commercial claims.
On the contrary, in many shipping organisations, compliance management is done for the pur
pose of the compliance record only, rather than for the sake of good business. For example, many
ships deploy the method of ‘double bookkeeping’, by which they prepare two separate sets of doc
umentation, one real and one false (Zhang, 2016). By doing so, the crew aim at tricking inspectors
or other parties into believing that the relevant requirements have been properly complied with
onboard. However, all these activities could not serve the real purpose of compliance management.
According to Zerafa & Farrugia (2020), compliance management is not only about having docu
mented policies and procedures but is also about ensuring that employees carry out their functions
in a compliant manner.
Notes
1 The Samoan registry was initiated by the government of Samoa with the adoption of the Samoa Shipping
Act 1998.The maritime laws of Samoa were aligned with many changes in ship registration, financing and
seafarers licensing and documentation, which had occurred in the shipping industry (Flagadmin, 2020).
2 Flag-hopping is the practice of repeated and rapid changes of a vessel’s flag for the purposes of circumvent
ing conservation and management measures or provisions adopted at a national, regional or global level or
of facilitating non-compliance with such measures or provisions (Nordquist et al., 2019).
Chapter 9
Looking forward
Globalisation, connectivity, transparency and enhanced information technology are all phrases used
to explain the changes that we see in today’s world.The business environment and workplace are
very different today from that of decades ago.There are fundamental changes in methods of work
ing and the workplace itself (Best et al., 2007).The future of business continues to face a variety of
challenges, such as the impact of pandemics; trade retaliations; frequent economic sanctions; and
strict governance in health, safety and environmental protection. The economic new normal has
become a necessary stage of global business development.The new normal of management is on
its way, and with that, new opportunities arise.
The maritime shipping industry has various unique features. It can be described as a complex
system composed of relatively independent parts that constantly search, learn and adapt to their
external environment (Caschili & Medda, 2012). Ship management is a fundamental activity of the
world’s maritime business. It is an area that requires integrative knowledge that spans across mul
tiple disciplines and needs varied experiences.Thus, ship managers will continue to play a key role
in the future of the maritime infrastructure.The need to have an ability to identify and neutralise
threats, to manage risks and to make decisions that will optimise costs and contribute to perfor
mance improvements is ever pressing (Visvikis & Panayides, 2017). In their management practice,
to normalise the new normal is both a challenge and an opportunity for maritime organisations.
Therefore, knowledge has remained vital, never more so than in today’s knowledge economy.
This concluding chapter has two purposes. First, this chapter draws together the key issues
and challenges underpinned by the quest for good practices of ship management. It also suggests
ways to reconcile the conflict between best practices and suitable practise for ship management
companies. Second, this chapter looks into the future of ship management. In particular, it consid
ers the impact of digitalisation on future ship management, including the benefits and obstacles of
digitalisation and the issues related to cybersecurity.
Drivers for improvement in ship management

As discussed in the previous chapters, one of the ship manager’s main obligations is to provide man
agement services as per best practices of the ship management industry.This requirement is pre
scribed in both the BIMCO SHIPMAN 2009 Standard Ship Management Agreement and Crewman
2009 Standard Crew Management Agreement. According to SHIPMAN 2009, the managers shall
arrange crew insurance ‘in accordance with the best practice of prudent mangers of vessels’.Also,
the standard forms specify that the managers undertake to use their ‘best endeavour’ to provide
the management services in accordance with ‘sound ship management practice’.
However, the BIMCO’s standard agreements provide no explanations regarding what is con
sidered a ‘best practice’ or ‘sound practice’. Neither is there a generally accepted understanding of
DOI: 10.4324/9781003081241-9
LOOKING FORWARD 127
these terms. The phrase ‘best practices’ has become a buzzword. It is used in many industries to
signify a method that establishes a standard way of doing things as a means of driving higher perfor
mance, success, ideal behaviour or ethics (Labi, 2020).The meaning of ‘best practices’ varies greatly
in different situations. It is a term that can be employed widely and across a range of industries. In
the commercial world, the term is used in connection with issues from quality control to employee
treatment to explain the most efficient approach of conducting a business task. Best practices, in a
specific industry, can also be used as a benchmark, where an organisation can share actionable solu
tions with other companies (Kenton, 2019b). Ko & Fink (2010) consider it ‘an industry accepted
way of doing something that works’. Generally, it includes a set of ideas, ethics or guidelines that
represent the most effective and efficient course of action in a given business sector (Bretschneider
et al., 2005).These may be developed and established ‘by authorities, such as regulators or govern
ing bodies, or they may be internally decreed by a company’s management team’ (Kenton, 2019b).
The term best practices has emerged relatively recently in discussions about ship management
and operations.According to GL (2013), the term is defined as ‘all approaches, procedures, business
models or tools that ship managers are using to do their business smarter, safer and greener, i.e., to
be on top of competition’. For example, with the adoption of the International Safety Management
(ISM) Code came the requirement for an approach to use measurable benchmarks and commu
nicate ways to rapidly implement new standards of excellence across a company by identifying
non-conformities, analysing their frequencies and consequences, developing solutions and supervis
ing the implementation of those solutions to ensure they solve the problems effectively.
While it is used in the industry as a guiding principle or methodology for consistency and to
drive the greatest outcomes, the term best practices can be ambiguous and potentially misleading
(Labi, 2020). First of all, it is doubtful whether best practices exist in the ship management industry
at all (Levison, 2010).There is no universal way of doing things, and a practice may only be the best
fit in a specific context.What works for an organisation in a specific scenario may not necessarily
work for another organisation with a different situation (Barthélemy, 2018).Therefore, on a risk-
adjusted basis, an organisation needs to evaluate its business position and take measures to reduce
the risk of adopting the wrong best practices (Reda, 2019).
Nevertheless, the maritime industry has developed a set of standards of excellence which have
proven to be effective and efficient. Many of these standards are considered the benchmark of good
practices and used to determine a level of compliance with the business requirements and assess
whether it is acceptable for delivery.These requirements can be commonly found in the issues relat
ing to safety and security, treatment of seafarers, corporate social responsibilities, energy efficiency
and risk management. For example, after the loss of a British cargo ship MV Grainville in December
1981 (Lettens, 2008), the British government issued Merchant Shipping Notice 1424 in 1990 entitled
‘Good Ship Management’ (Anderson, 2015).This notice was followed by the ISF and ICS publication
‘Code of Good Management and Practice in Safe Ship Operation’ (ICS, 1982).As discussed in Chapter
6, the ISM Code is another response by the industry to the loss of a British ferry, MS Herald of Free
Enterprise. In recent years, the practice of ship management has changed dramatically in many aspects,
including new regulations and disruptive technologies.As a result, ship managers continue to face new
challenges, and they need to respond quickly to changes or innovations in their unique business.They
are under increasing pressures in many aspects to drive improvement in ship management practices.
One major driver is economic pressure. As mentioned earlier, freight rates are driven down
by overcapacities and weak end-user demand. Meanwhile, it becomes harder or more expensive
to obtain financial resources at times of economic downturn. Ship owners and operators are often
exposed to substantial operational business risks which result from large swings in freight rates
and voyage and operating costs. Cost cutting has therefore been identified as a major motivation
for ship owners and operators to introduce appropriate measures to achieve economic benefit by
managing their ships more efficiently and safely.
128 LOOKING FORWARD
As a result of economic pressure, performance optimisation has become a crucial approach

for ship managers to improve ship efficiency. According to Petersen (2018), making a ship efficient
should come from firstly designing an efficient ship, and secondly by keeping the ship technically fit
through ensuring maximum hull and propeller performance. Many ship management firms rely on a
vessel performance optimisation (VPO) system to pursue the best performance from the ships under
their management.The key components of a VPS system normally include maintenance optimisation,
procurement optimisation, crew optimisation, commercial optimisation and optionality and so on.
Also, the increasing stricter regulatory environment significantly increases operation costs and
imposes additional pressures and risks.Today’s maritime regulatory regime is becoming increasingly
more demanding and multifaceted, such as the introduction of the Maritime Labour Convention,
2006 and its amendments (MLC, 2006); Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sed
iments (BWM); IMO 2020; and so on. With the growing environmental concerns in world trade,
shipping companies urgently need to cope with challenges in a way that does not undermine their
business growth, while, at the same time, adds economic and environmental benefits to the global
shipping chain (Panayides, 2017). For example, the introduction of ‘green’ management practices by
companies engaged in ship operation and management is crucial for achieving optimal performance
and gaining an advantageous position in the competitive market (Lirn et al., 2014; Lun et al., 2016).
Another source of pressure is from the human resources aspect. Maritime shipping is tradi
tionally capital intensive, but it relies heavily on its people to make the business viable, reliable and
efficient.The unique features of the maritime business underline the importance of effective human
resource management (HRM). Such characteristics relate to the differences between shipboard and
onshore personnel in the companies. In recent years, clear trends which have been recorded to
impact the human aspect of management are also highlighted in the maritime industry.These trends
include globalisation, workforce shortage, declining of skills, influence of new technologies, lack of
responsiveness and quality of service. Shipping companies are competing with each other in the
context of an increasing shortfall in terms of quality and a competitive workforce.The multidimen
sionality of human resource pressures which are present in shipping poses significant challenges to
ship operation and management (Mitroussi, 2013).At the same time, there exist the requirements
in terms of quality and safety of operations, corporate social responsibilities, fair treatment of sea
farers, maritime security and so on.
While these sources of pressures have been discussed in the previous chapters, it is worth
mentioning that they are interrelated. Maritime shipping is a safety-critical industry. The advance
ment of technologies has played a key role in improving the safety and efficiency of ship operations.
Shipping companies need to access and make use of technologies developed by third-party service
providers. However, at the same time, it is increasingly recognised that human error underlies
the majority of maritime accidents. HRM is thus at the core of ship management, and good HRM
practices may offer a competitive advantage. No wonder, in recent years, that there is a shift in the
management focus from technical matters onto the human element. Meanwhile, implementation
of international standards increases ship owners’ operation costs, but proper compliance will also
improve safety and quality operation of ships and reduce maritime accidents. As such, all these
sources of pressure work together to drive improvements in ship management practices.
The main challenges of ship management in the future

As discussed earlier, the future of ship management will continue to face various challenges.These
challenges are associated with a number of factors, such as human resources, regulations, technol
ogies and so on.To maintain their competitiveness, ship managers have to find ways to add value to
the shipping supply chain rather than being just a service provider.
LOOKING FORWARD 129
One of the major challenges is the shortage of qualified maritime labour. Since the 1990s, the
BIMCO/ISF Maritime Manpower Survey has been consistently reporting a current, as well as a pro
jected future, shortage of seafarer officers in the global labour market (BIMCO & ICS, 2015; BIMCO/ISF,
1995, 2000, 2005, 2010).Though some researchers have challenged the methodology of the BIMCO/
ISF survey (Leggate, 2004; Li & Wonham, 1999), it has become an industry consensus. Some anecdotal
evidence (e.g., some companies have resorted to poaching officers; some are unable to release officers
on time, as they are unable to find replacements) does indicate its veracity. Nevertheless,Tang & Zhang
(2021) and Leong (2012) suggested that the shortage is more likely to be experienced in senior ranks
(e.g., chief officer and second engineer) and in special ship sectors (e.g., gas carriers).
The shortage has been aggravated by the difficulty in attracting young people to join maritime
jobs and the decline of seafaring skills. According to Caesar et al. (2015), unfavourable working
conditions onboard ships have led to low job satisfaction and dwindling interest in the seafaring
profession, as it is negatively affecting the attraction and recruitment of young people into the sea
faring career.To attract young people into the maritime industry, there is a need for improvement
in working conditions onboard ships in order to meet the expectations of the current generation
of job seekers. Measures used for both the hiring and retention of seafarers must focus on moti
vating seafarers to stay longer at sea, as well as improving the working conditions onboard ships.
Also, crew welfare needs to be improved through the refinement of organisational policies that are
discriminatory towards seafarers. Furthermore, better management of the relationship between
ship owners and seafarers is needed to improve retention.
The future of ship management will also continue to face the challenges of sustainable devel
opment. According to Irvine (2016), the maritime shipping industry can influence both positively
and negatively the UN’s 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the associated Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), which are associated with economic growth, social inclusion and the
environment (UN, 2015). As part of the United Nations family, the IMO has taken measures to
promote its 2020 World Maritime Theme of ‘Sustainable Shipping for a Sustainable Planet’ (IMO,
2018). For example, atmospheric emissions from ships are strictly regulated globally, and the IMO
has designated a number of emission control areas (ECAs) in which more stringent regulations
apply. Several options are available for merchant ships to meet sulphur emissions requirements.
These include switching to low-sulphur oil when visiting ECAs, installing a scrubber system and
converting the vessel to use alternative fuels, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG). Each option has
its advantages and is applicable for different cases. Selecting an inappropriate method of reducing
sulphur emissions may incur a large amount of unnecessary cost; thus, the key stakeholders need to
understand the characteristics of all available methods of reducing sulphur emissions (Wang, 2020).
The regulations on decarbonisation and emissions from ships are more challenging.The IMO’s
future emission strategy aims to decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by at least 50 per
cent by 2050.While there is no consensus on the route to achieving this target, some operational
measures have been taken, such as slow steaming, route optimisation, reduction of ballast, optimum
use of ocean currents, shore power supply in ports and training present and future employees.To
sum up, ship managers of the future will have to face the conflict between providing sustainable and
affordable services, while contributing to preserving common resources (Madaleno, 2017).
The impact of digitalisation on ship management

in the future
Previously, the shipping business was basically an analogue operation that relied greatly on tradi
tional ways. The maritime industry is built on a conservative culture with a limited appetite for
innovation. It operates within stringent protocols and a hierarchy to ensure order and adaptability
130 LOOKING FORWARD
to change, thus taking time to incorporate new technology into the system (Yang, 2019). However,
this has changed over the last few years. Significant changes have occurred, with the increased
advancements in technology affecting virtually every industry.The international maritime industry
is no exception, even if it has adopted these much later as compared to other industries. In recent
years, it seems that the industry has taken up new technologies and digitalised the system to keep
up with other sectors of the world economy, and it is changing at a much faster rate than ever
before.
Benefits of digitalisation
With the development of new technologies such as the internet of things (IoT), big data analytics
(BDA), artificial intelligence, blockchain and autonomation, significant changes have taken place in
the maritime sector.These technologies have helped the key stakeholders capitalise on the existing
resources and processes, thus creating more business opportunities, greater competitive advan
tage, operational competences and connectivity for the maritime business to make better resolu
tions (Splash, 2018). The innovations also have significant potential opportunities and benefits to
the industry, and among them is the reduction of maritime risks and driving the industry towards
the SDGs.
According to UNCTAD (2020), the maritime industry has a fleet of over 98,000 ships that
carry more than 80 per cent of the global trade.This means that massive data are generated in the
process, and maintaining these large volumes of data can be challenging when using traditional data
management systems. In addition, the global economy is moving much faster than it was moving a
decade ago; therefore, to manage such large volumes, the maritime industry needs to digitalise its
system so that it can keep up with the other industries that are its primary suppliers.The digital
isation of the maritime industry has led to the connection to the IoT and the increased analysis of
the data generated in the sphere, thus allowing for the exponential growth of the field through the
automation of processes (Zaman et al., 2017).
The combination of enhanced digital data analysis and physical connectivity has helped the
ports, carrier companies and intermodal transport system integrate their systems, thus offering
an improved quality of services, building global supply chain networks and offering better visibility
of the shipments at any given time (Inkinen et al., 2019). This is made possible with the artificial
intelligence technology that has been incorporated into the industry and the different systems, thus
helping in the analysis of the continuously growing volumes of data generated from the automated
systems.These systems include the GPS network that is mostly used for navigation by the carriers
and the cargo tracking systems, among others, that are necessary for the smooth operation of the
industry (Sarabia-Jácome et al., 2019).
The maritime industry has increased its productivity due to digitalisation, including improved
efficiency in the navigation routes, and also the port processes, as most of them are becoming
automated. Digitalising the port call process and optimising a vessel’s speeds and navigation routes
have also reduced the carbon footprint by the maritime industry (Ellingsen & Aasland, 2019). At
the same time, digitalisation has led to the extension of new business opportunities like the cargo
tracking and capacity management, maritime waste management and crew recruitment necessary
for the optimisation of maritime processes. As a result of digitalisation, there is an increased eco
nomic growth, as geographical distance has become less relevant in the international maritime
business. Labour costs have also reduced significantly through digitalisation, as most processes are
automated and thus there is an increased demand for the maritime services (Gkerekos et al., 2019).
Ship managers need to be prepared for the changing interoperability and improvement of
global maritime standards.The digitalisation of the industry has given policymakers in the industry
a chance to promote interoperability of the data-driven processes that have become necessary in
LOOKING FORWARD 131
the industry with the increase in international trade. Before digitalisation, different companies used
different packaging systems and dimensions that made it difficult to manage cargo using different
routes. However, the system has changed, as digitalisation has helped in the standardisation of the
containers used in shipping. The standards for data management are also important (Pan et al.,
2019). An example of this is the application of blockchain technology, as the shipping lines have
over the past few years started to develop innovations with the world-leading information tech
nology and companies. Initially, the formulation of policies in the maritime industry took years to
be adopted, but with digitalisation and standardization, policymaking is accelerating exponentially
(Fruth & Teuteberg, 2017).
There is also improved data protection as a result of digitisation. Shipping companies, container
providers and intermediaries compete for a share of the stake in the industry. For all these entities
to benefit in the digitalised industry, they have to comply with the rules and regulations that govern
data management and ownership (Feibert et al., 2017).This means that digitalisation has led to fair
services in the industry, as the government can control all the entities in the industry. Data sharing
is also promoted, as companies and different entities in the industry share information, thus improv
ing the services they offer. One of the essential commodities of the 21st century is information,
and the digitalisation of the maritime industry has led to an exponential increase of information
generated (Ellingsen & Aasland, 2019).Additionally, the analysis power has also improved; therefore,
the industry can analyse the information generated to help in decision-making and improving the
services offered.
Digitalisation has also led to sustainable development in the shipping industry. It has led to
increased optimisation of maritime processes, hence, reducing the amount of energy used in these
processes.This means that there is a significant reduction in the carbon footprint in the industry.
There is also reduced accidents in the port and at sea (Kitada et al., 2018). Furthermore, digitalisa
tion has streamlined the system, hence contributing to sustainable development all over the world.
The improvements that have been made in the industry due to digitalisation have also led to a
reduction in the costs and time traders have to wait for their cargo to arrive at their destinations.
There is also improved transparency, as the new system has led to improved data management, thus
reducing the risk of small traders losing their cargo during transit (Sanchez, 2020).
Also, there is a benefit related to maritime security.The maritime industry has, for a long time,
been a victim to pirates, and traders have lost their cargo in so many cases.The reason for this is
because the traditional system lacked a perfect system to track the ships for the extended period
they spend in transit.With digitalisation, shipping companies can track every ship in real time and
maintain communication at all times (Baldauf et al., 2018). Information is also relayed with ease even
in transit; thus, in the case of bad weather and possibility of pirate attacks, ships can be warned and
thus change their navigation routes to a much safer route. In the case of attacks or problems at
sea, ships can get assistance with ease, as compared to a few years ago, when ships ended up being
stranded at sea for months (Kim & Gausdal, 2020).The data analysis systems also use the informa
tion and data provided by other industries like the security sector to predict the risk and thus make
important decisions regarding their navigational routes and the probability of risk.
Obstacles of digitalisation
While the rapid development of technology has enabled ships to garner the benefits of digital
systems, IoT, cloud data, automation and so on, it also has brought various challenges in industrial
systems that need to be addressed in the current scenario (Siarry et al., 2021).The common chal
lenges related to digitalisation in the ship management industry are cybersecurity, technical issues,
data privacy, legal framework and cost. Data standardisation and collaboration among stakeholders
are also vital to address the obstacles of digitalisation in the maritime industry.
132 LOOKING FORWARD
In recent years, cyberattacks on ship systems and networks have been witnessed in the indus
try and have raised many concerns. Cyberattacks are generally a newly introduced threat both
globally and in the shipping industry, and usually these attacks are kept hidden to exploit the
compromised vessel for a longer period and achieve greater profits (Jones et al., 2016). Cyberat
tack threats in the maritime industry usually include business disruption, financial loss, damage to
reputation, damage to goods and environment, etc. According to Mash (2014), most cyberattacks
were driven by attempts to obtain personal or financially sensitive data. However, many companies
have begun to experience highly sophisticated and complex cyberattacks aiming to inflict damage
to property and operations by taking control of victims’ systems.
Mash (2014) reported that significant weaknesses have been identified in the cybersecurity of
essential systems used to aid navigation in ship operations.These include the electronic chart dis
play and information system (ECDIS), global positioning system (GPS) and automatic identification
system (AIS). For example, the IMO requires every vessel to have an AIS, which should exchange
information regarding a vessel’s type, indemnity, position, course, speed, navigational status and
other safety-related information. However, the AIS does not have an inbuilt mechanism to encrypt
or authenticate signals, thus making it a vulnerable target for cyberattacks.
To address these issues, IMO (2017b) adopted Resolution MSC.428(98) on Maritime Cyber
Risk Management in Safety Management System. According to the guidelines, cyber risk manage
ment is defined as ‘the process of identifying, analysing, assessing and communicating a cyber-related
risk and accepting, avoiding, transferring or mitigating it to an acceptable level’. The resolution
stated that an approved SMS should take into account cyber risk management in accordance with
the objectives and functional requirements under the ISM Code.The guidelines state that there are
additional systems installed onboard ships that are vulnerable to cyberattacks, including but not
limited to the following items:
●● Cargo handling and management systems;
●● Bridge systems;
●● Access control systems;
●● Propulsion and machinery management and power control systems;
●● Passenger servicing and management systems;
●● Passenger-facing public networks;
●● Communication systems;
●● Administrative and crew welfare systems.
Many of these systems are required to be installed by ships in order to comply with international
standards and flag administration requirements. IMO (2017b) recommends that all ship owners
adopt a cyber risk management plan including five elements.The first one resolves around defining
personnel roles and responsibilities and identifies the systems that, when exploited, could pose risks
to ship operations. In the case of cyberattack, ship owners and personnel should be able to imple
ment risk control processes and measures to protect against the attack and ensure that shipping
operations can continue normally. Detecting a cyberattack in a short time enables the company to
act accordingly to assess the issue. In case of a cyberattack, ship managers should be able to respond
and restore the necessary systems for shipping operations or services affected by the cyber-event,
thus developing and implementing activities and plans to accomplish resilience is an important pro
cess that should be followed. Finally, quickly recovering after a cyberattack could help the company
minimise their damages, and for that reason identifying the necessary measures to back up and
restore cyber systems is equally an important step that ship companies should consider.
At the same time, some maritime associations adopted the Guidelines on Cyber Security
Onboard Ships to keep aligned with the IMO’s Resolution MSC.428(98) on Maritime Cyber Risk
LOOKING FORWARD 133
Management (BIMCO, 2018).The associations participating in the drafting of the guidelines include
the BIMCO, International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), International Association of Dry Cargo
Shipowners (INTERCARGO), Oil Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF), International
Association of Independent Tanker Owners (INTERTANKO), International Union of Marine Insur
ance (IUMI), InterManager and World Shipping Council (WSC).The guidelines provide comprehen
sive instruction to ship managers, ship owners and operators on how to assess their operations
and develop procedures to strengthen cyber-resilience onboard their ships. It will continue to be
updated regularly to mirror the evolution of cybersecurity threats and to outline new measures to
mitigate dynamic cyberthreats (Jorgensen, 2018).
Also, it is noteworthy that cyber risks create issues that many insurers may wish to exclude
under their standard policies. These exclusions have attracted widespread criticism, with many
seeing it as too broad and draconian (Banner, 2019). One of the widely accepted market clauses for
cybersecurity is the Institute Cyber Attack Exclusion Clause (CL380):1
In no case shall this insurance cover loss damage liability or expense directly or indirectly
caused by or contributed to by or arising from the use or operation, as a means for inflicting
harm, of any computer, computer system, computer software programme, malicious code,
computer virus or process or any other electronic system.
The CL380 covers any loss or damage (including business interruption and consequential loss) or
liabilities attributable to a breakdown of a computer system. However, if the loss, damage or liability
was caused by either directly or indirectly use of a computer or its associated system or software,
such damage, loss or liability will be excluded from coverage (Chatfield, 2018). Some cyberattacks
can have devastating consequences. Ship owners and managers need to be aware that they might
not be able to recover any loss under the CL380 in case of a cyberattack (Mash, 2014).
Furthermore, the large-scale data sets generated from shipping activity in terms of navigational
and ship performance information create technical challenges concerning both the quality and
quantity of data handling (Perera et al., 2016). Nita & Mihailescu (2017) support this argument and
add that these large and complex data sets require a scalable architecture for efficient storage,
manipulation and analysis.The lack of structure and a system in the collection of operational data
from various data sources impairs data quality and can cause data inaccuracy (Lambrou et al., 2019).
From the ship owner’s perspective, the total cost of ownership (TCO)2 associated with acquiring
software and electronic systems is a key consideration, and it must be considered in the cost–
benefit analysis in terms of integrating and managing the increasing level of digitalisation in shipping
(Wojnarowicz & Fagerhus, 2013).
In addition, the lack of a legal framework, which is uniformly applied in the maritime industry
concerning digitalisation, is among the major challenges. The first legal hurdle in the maritime
context arises from the fact that shipping companies in many cases are transnational businesses,
and there is a national fragmentation in the law (Koskenniemi, 2014). For example, the adoption of
the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which entered into force in 2018, is expected to
harmonise the legal fragmentation for data protection throughout the EU. It is applicable to ships
that are owned by a European ship owner located in the EU. However, its application is disputable
when the ships are flagged in any of the non-EU popular and largest flags, such as Panama, Liberia,
Hong Kong or Marshall Islands (Ford & Wilcox, 2019).The maritime regulatory framework needs
to be set out globally in the interest of the future of digital shipping. Due to the challenges posed
in the maritime sector by the introduction of digitalisation, according to Späth (2017), it is essential
to develop matching and structured systems and to create standards that will help establish a mar
itime digital landscape enabling the efficient sharing and utilisation of information for the benefit
of all stakeholders.
134 LOOKING FORWARD
Notes
1 Other exclusion clauses include the Cyber Loss Absolute Exclusion Clause (reference: IUA 09–081) and
Cyber Loss Limited Exclusion Clause (reference: IUA 09–082).
2 The TCO includes the purchase price of a particular asset, plus operating costs over the asset’s life span.
Looking at the TCO is a way of assessing the long-term value of a purchase to a company or individual
(Twin, 2020).
Bibliography
Abdullah, N. S., Indulska, M., & Shazia, S. (2009). A study of compliance management in information
systems research. ECIS 2009 Proceedings. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2009/5
Abdullah, N. S., Sadiq, S., & Indulska, M. (2010). Emerging challenges in information systems
research for regulatory compliance management. International Conference on Advanced
Information Systems Engineering, pp. 251–265.
ACAS. (2007). GovCon_OperatingFinancialReview_1.pdf. https://archive.acas.org.uk/media/186/The
DTIs-Draft-Regulations-on-Operating-and-Financial-Review-reports/pdf/GovCon_
OperatingFinancialReview_1.pdf
ACCC. (2005). Guide to Corporate Trade Practices Compliance Programs [Text]. Australian Competition
and Consumer Commission. www.accc.gov.au/media-release/
guide-to-corporate-trade-practices-compliance-programs
Acejo, I. (2021). The experience of being a Filipino seafarer on a multinationally crewed ship. In The
World of the Seafarer (p. 99). Springer.
Acheson, T. W. (1972). The national policy and the industrialization of the Maritimes, 1880–1910.
Acadiensis, 1(2), 3–28.
Acqnotes. (2018). Technical Performance Measurement (TPM). AcqNotes. http://acqnotes.com/
acqnote/careerfields/technical-performance-measurement
ACSNI. (1993). ACSNI Human Factors Study Group: Organising for Safety. Third Report. H.M. Stationery
Office.
Ademun-Odeke. (2005). An examination of bareboat charter registries and flag of convenience
registries in international law. Ocean Development & International Law, 36(4), 339–362. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00908320500308726
Adler, N. J., & Gundersen, A. (2007). International Dimensions of Organizational Behavior. Nelson
Education.
Adolf, K. Y. N. (2012). Container liner shipping, port development and competition. In Maritime
Logistics. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Aguinis, H., & Pierce, C. A. (2008). Enhancing the relevance of organizational behavior by embracing
performance management research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(1), 139–145. https://
doi.org/10.1002/job.493
Alderton, T., Bloor, M., Kahveci, E., Lane, T., Sampson, H., Zhao, M., Thomas, M., Winchester, N., &
Wu, B. (2004). The Global Seafarer: Living and Working Conditions in a Globalized Industry.
International Labour Organization.
Alderton, T., Lane, T., Bloor, M., Kahveci, E., Obando-Rojas, B., Sampson, H., Thomas, M., & Zhao, M.
(2001). The Impact on Seafarer’s Living and Working Conditions of Changes in the Structure of the
Shipping Industry. International Labour Office.
Alderton, T., & Winchester, N. (2002). Globalisation and de-regulation in the maritime industry.
Marine Policy, 26(1), 35–43.
Alexander, Y., & Richardson, T. B. (2009). Terror on the High Seas: From Piracy to Strategic Challenge.
Praeger Security International.
Alexandrou, G., Gounopoulos, D., & Thomas, H. M. (2014). Mergers and acquisitions in shipping.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 61, 212–234. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.11.007
136 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexopoulos, A. B., & Sambracos, E. (2018). Flag state policies and labour dynamics in the shipping
industry. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 8(3), 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1504/
IJASS.2018.096117
Alhouli, Y. (2011). Development of Ship Maintenance Performance Measurement Framework to Assess
the Decision Making Process to Optimise in Ship Maintenance Planning [PhD Thesis]. The
University of Manchester. www.research.manchester.ac.uk/portal/files/54505525/FULL_TEXT.
PDF
Aljazeera. (2012). Timeline: Sanctions on Iran. www.aljazeera.com/economy/2012/10/17/
timeline-sanctions-on-iran
Alkhafaji, A. (2003). Strategic Management: Formulation, Implementation, and Control in a Dynamic
Environment. Psychology Press.
Anastasiou, J. (2017). Crew operations management. In I. D. Visvikis & P. M. Panayides (Eds.),
Shipping Operations Management (pp. 73–97). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-62365-8_4
Anderson, P. (2015). ISM Code: A Practical Guide to the Legal and Insurance Implications (3rd ed.).
Informa Law from Routledge.
Andonov, S. (2016). Quality-I Is Safety-ll: The Integration of Two Management Systems. CRC Press.
Antonsen, S. (2017). Safety Culture: Theory, Method and Improvement. CRC Press.
Aquinas, P. G. (2009a). Organization Structure & Design: Applications and Challenges. Excel Books
India.
Aquinas, P. G. (2009b). Human Resource Management: Principles and Practice. Vikas Publishing
House.
Armstrong, M. (2011). Armstrong’s Handbook of Strategic Human Resource Management. Kogan Page
Publishers.
Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2020). Armstrong’s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice.
Kogan Page Publishers.
Ashmore, J. (2019). Trade War: US-China Prompts Major Shifts in Goods Flows. https://afloat.ie/port
news/port-and-shipping-news/
item/42902-us-china-trade-war-prompts-major-shifts-in-goods-flows
Asuquo, M., Coward, I., & Yang, Z. (2014). Modeling selection of third party ship management
services. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 2(1), 28–35.
Athuraliya, A. (2019, August 2). What is a business contingency plan | A step-by-step guide. Creately
Blog. https://creately.com/blog/business/business-contingency-plan-templates/
Atkin, B., & Brooks, A. (2009). Total Facilities Management. John Wiley & Sons.
ATSB. (2011). Final Independent Investigation into the Grounding of the Bulk Carrier. Shen Neng 1 at
Douglas Shoal, Queensland on 3 April 2010. http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2478832/mo2010003.
pdf
Azhar, K. (2002). Business Policy and Strategic Management (2nd ed.). Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
Badawi, E., & Halawa, A. (2003). Maritime Communication: The Problem of Cross Cultural and
Multilingual Crews. https://docplayer.net/29968632-Maritime-communication-the-problem-of
cross-cultural-and-multilingual-crews-abstract.html
Badiru, A. B., & Racz, L. (2013). Handbook of Emergency Response: A Human Factors and Systems
Engineering Approach. CRC Press.
Bagoulla, C., & Guillotreau, P. (2016). Shortage and Labor Productivity on the Global Seafaring Market,
p. 15.
Baldauf, M., Kitada, M., Mehdi, R., & Dalaklis, D. (2018). E-navigation, digitalization and unmanned
ships: Challenges for future maritime education and training. Proceedings of the 12th
International Technology, Education and Development Conference, Valencia, Spain.
Banner, S. (2019). England & Wales: IUA Publishes Two New Model Cyber Exclusions | Lexology. www.
lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6dff4159-b703-4ebb-8c31-7e00124755fa
Barnes, D. (2018). Operations Management. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Barth, S. C., & Hayes, D. K. (2006). Hospitality Law: Managing Legal Issues in the Hospitality Industry.
John Wiley & Sons.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 137
Barthélemy, J. (2018). Why best practices often fall short. MIT Sloan Management Review. https://
sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-best-practices-often-fall-short/
Bartłomiejski, R. (2010). Multicultural crews in global shipping industry. Cultural Diversity, 247.
Baskind, E., Osborne, G., & Roach, L. (2016). Commercial Law. Oxford University Press.
Bauer, P. J. (2008). The Maritime Labour Convention: An adequate guarantee of seafarer rights, or
and impediment to true reforms development. Chicago Journal of International Law, 8(2),
643–660.
Bayer, D., Aydın, O., & Celik, M. (2018). An ICOR approach towards ship maintenance software
development. International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 160, 11–19.
BBC. (2019, December 9). Six charts that show how hard US sanctions have hit Iran. BBC News.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-48119109
Beaverton. (2018). Categories of Emergencies | Beaverton, OR: Official Website. www.beavertonoregon.
gov/824/Categories-of-Emergencies
Bebić, D., Stazić, L., & Komar, I. (2019). Ships Shore Service Optimization Using the Queueing Theory.
https://doi.org/10.2507/ijsimm18(4)488
Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. (2001). The HR Scorecard: Linking People,
Strategy, and Performance. Harvard Business Press.
Behfar, K., Kern, M., & Brett, J. (2006). Managing challenges in multicultural teams. Research on
Managing Groups and Teams, 9, 233–262.
Belov, A. (2015). Did ancient Egyptian ships have keels? The evidence of Thonis-Heracleion Ship 17.
International Journal of Nautical Archaeology, 44(1), 74–80.
Belyh, A. (2019). Operations management: Definition, principles, activities, trends. Cleverism.
www.cleverism.com/operations-management-definition-principles-activities-trends/
Ben-Daya, M., Duffuaa, S. O., Raouf, A., Knezevic, J., & Ait-Kadi, D. (2009). Handbook of Maintenance
Management and Engineering. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bennett, H. (2014). Principles of the Law of Agency. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bennett, J. M. (2008). On becoming a global soul: A path to engagement during study abroad.
Developing Intercultural Competence and Transformation: Theory, Research, and Application in
International Education, 13, 31.
Benton, G. (2005). Multicultural crews and the culture of globalization. International Association of
Maritime Universities (IAMU) 6th Annual General Assembly and ConferenceWorld Maritime University.
Berg, N., Storgård, J., & Lappalainen, J. (2013). The Impact of Ship Crews on Maritime Safety, p. 48.
Berman, H. (2012). Statement by reepresentative Howard Berman’s on Tuvalu’s decision to
deregister Iranian ships. Iran Watch. www.iranwatch.org/library/government/united-states/
congress/members-letters-reports-statements/
statement-representative-howard-bermans-tuvalus-decision-deregister
Bernfeld, J. S. (2007). States, Ships, and Secondary Registers: Examining Sovereignty and Standards in
a Globalized World. Cardiff University.
Berti, A. (2020, April 2). The impact of Covid-19 on global shipping: Part 1, system shock. Ship
Technology. www.ship-technology.com/features/impact-of-covid-19-on-shipping/
Best, R., Valence, G. de, & Langston, C. (2007). Workplace Strategies and Facilities Management.
Routledge.
Bettley, A., Mayle, D., & Tantoush, T. (2005). Operations Management: A Strategic Approach. SAGE.
Bhardwaj, S. (2013). Challenges and Potential of Technology Integration in Modern Ship Management
Practices.
Bhattacharjee, S. (2020). A guide to merchant Navy officer ranks. Marine Insight. www.marineinsight.
com/careers-2/a-guide-to-merchant-navy-officer-ranks/
Bhattacharya, S. (2009). The Impact of the ISM Code on the Management of Occupational Health and
Safety in the Maritime Industry, p. 355.
Bhattacharya, S., & Tang, L. (2013). Fatigued for safety? Supply chain occupational health and safety
initiatives in shipping. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(3), 383–399.
Biegelman, M. T., & Biegelman, D. R. (2010). Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Compliance Guidebook:
Protecting Your Organization from Bribery and Corruption. John Wiley & Sons.
138 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bielić, T., Mandžuka, S., & Tomas, V. (2011). Model of ship management in emergencies. Promet
Traffic&Transportation, 23(6), 471–483.
BIMCO. (2005). BIMCO’S view on the importance of co-assurance. ITIC. www.itic-insure.com/our
publications/intermediary/bimcos-view-on-the-importance-of-co-assurance-2806/
BIMCO. (2018). The Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships. www.bimco.org/about-us-and-our
members/publications/the-guidelines-on-cyber-security-onboard-ships
BIMCO. (2020). Shipping KPIs. www.bimco.org/ships-ports-and-voyage-planning/
shipping-kpi-system
BIMCO & ICS. (2015). Manpower Report: The Global Supply and Demand for Seafarers in 2015.
Executive Summary.
BIMCO & ICS. (2020). BIMCO and ICS Prepare for New Seafarer Workforce Report. www.bimco.org/
news/priority-news/20200824-seafarer-workforce-report
BIMCO/ISF. (1995). The Worldwide Demand for and Supply of Seafarers: Main Report. Institute for
Employment Research.
BIMCO/ISF. (2000). BIMCO/ISF Manpower 2000 Update: The Worldwide Demand for and Supply of
Seafarers: Main Report. Institute for Employment Research.
Bistričić, A., Jugović, A., & Kuzman, Z. (2011). The role of ship management in business activities of
shipping companies. Pomorstvo, 25(1), 29–44.
Blas, J. (2012, August 21). Iran Forced to Reflag Oil Tankers. www.ft.com/
content/386c28e0-eb97-11e1-9356-00144feab49a
Blokdijk, G. (2008). Problem Management Best Practice Handbook: Building, Running and Managing
Effective Problem Management and Support. Art of Service.
BMRC. (2019). Global Container Shipping Market Size, Application, Type, Demand, Share & Forecast to
2025. https://brandessenceresearch.biz/Heavy-Industry/Global-Container-Shipping-Market
Size/Summary
Bockmann, M. (2020a, October 15). Shipping tells US its sanctions policies are a “kiss of death”.
Lloyd’s List. https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1134275/
Shipping-tells-US-its-sanctions-policies-are-a-kiss-of-death
Bockmann, M. (2020b, October 27). Tanzania de-flags tankers for “illicit transfers” of Iranian crude.
Lloyd’s List. https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1134420/
Tanzania-de-flags-tankers-for-illicit-transfers-of-Iranian-crude
Bockmann, M. (2020c, November 10). First Iran-linked tanker reflags to Samoa. Lloyd’s List. https://
lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1134624/
First-Iran-linked-tanker-reflags-to-Samoa
Boczek, B. A. (2005). International Law: A Dictionary. Scarecrow Press.
Boczek, B. A. (2013). Flags of Convenience: An International Legal Study. Harvard University Press.
Bourgeois, D., & Bourgeois, D. T. (2014). Chapter 6: Information systems security. In Information
Systems for Business and beyond. Published through the Open Textbook Challenge by the Saylor
Academy. https://bus206.pressbooks.com/chapter/chapter-6-information-systems-security/
Boxall, P. F. (2014). The future of employment relations from the perspective of human resource
management. Journal of Industrial Relations, 56(4), 578–593. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022185614527980
Boxall, P. F., & Purcell, J. (2003). Strategy and Human Resource Management. Palgrave Macmillan.
Boxall, P. F., & Purcell, J. (2010). An HRM Perspective on Employee Participation. Oxford University
Press. https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/9134
Boxall, P. F., & Purcell, J. (2015). Strategy and Human Resource Management. Macmillan
International Higher Education.
Boxall, P. F., Purcell, J., & Wright, P. M. (2007). The Oxford Handbook of Human Resource
Management. Oxford University Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 139
Brahmachary, A. (2018). ITIL technical management | ITIL tutorial | ITSM. CertGuidance. www.
certguidance.com/technical-management-itil-itsm/
Branch, A. E. (2007). Elements of Shipping. Routledge.
Branch, A. E., & Robarts, M. (2014). Branch’s Elements of Shipping. Routledge.
Brand, U. (2006). Order and regulation: Global Governance as a hegemonic discourse of
international politics? Review of International Political Economy, 12(1), 155–176. https://doi.
org/10.1080/09692290500049748
Bretschneider, S., Marc-Aurele, F. J., & Wu, J. (2005). “Best practices” research: A methodological guide
for the perplexed. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 15(2), 307–323.
Brewer, E. C. (1878). The Political, Social, and Literary History of France. Jarrold.
Broekhuizen, E. (2020). Poten & Partners: Global tension has limited impact on tanker market (so
far). Riviera. www.rivieramm.com/opinion/opinion/
poten-amp-partners-global-tension-has-limited-impact-on-tanker-market-so-far-55613
Brooke, K. (2004). Sharing Information between Public Safety and Transportation Agencies for Traffic
Incident Management. Transportation Research Board.
Brown, C. S. (2005). The Sustainable Enterprise: Profiting from Best Practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1998). Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos.
Harvard Business Press.
Bruton, G. D., & White, M. A. (2011). Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation. South-
Western Cengage Learning.
Bullock, J. A., Haddow, G. D., & Coppola, D. P. (2013). Introduction to Emergency Management.
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bumgarner, J. B. (2008). Emergency Management: A Reference Handbook. ABC-CLIO.
Burnette, M. (2020, July 24). Three tenets of information security. LBMC Family of Companies. www.
lbmc.com/blog/three-tenets-of-information-security/
Caesar, L. D., Cahoon, S., & Fei, J. (2015). Exploring the range of retention issues for seafarers in
global shipping: Opportunities for further research. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 14(1), 141–
157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-015-0078-0
Cariou, P., & Wolff, F.-C. (2011a). Outsourcing Ship Management: Implications for the Logistics Chain.
https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00593742/document
Cariou, P., & Wolff, F.-C. (2011b). Ship-owners’ decisions to outsource vessel management.
Transport Reviews, 31(6), 709–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.587907
Caschili, S., & Medda, F. R. (2012). A review of the maritime container shipping industry as a complex
adaptive system. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex Systems: Scientific Journal, 10(1), 1–15.
Celik, M., & Topcu, Y. I. (2013). A decision-making solution to ship flagging out via administrative
maritime strategies. Maritime Policy & Management, 41(1), 112–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/030
88839.2013.780310
CFI. (2019). Outsourcing: Learn about the advantages and disadvantages. Corporate Finance
Institute. https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/strategy/outsourcing/
Chakraborty, S. (2020). Dry Docking of Ships: Understanding Stability and Docking Plan. www.
marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/dry-docking-ships-understanding-stability-docking
plan/
Chan, S., Hamid, N., & Mokhtar, K. (2016). A theoretical review of human error in maritime
accidents. Advanced Science Letters, 22, 2109–2112. https://doi.org/10.1166/asl.2016.7058
Chatfield, C. (2018). Cyber exclusion clauses: Are they fit for purpose? Kennedys. https://
kennedyslaw.com/thought-leadership/article/cyber-exclusion-clauses-are-they-fit-for
purpose/
Chen, P. Y., & Cooper, C. (2014). Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide, Work and Wellbeing. Wiley.
Chen, S. (2011). Modelling and Forecasting in the Dry Bulk Shipping Market [PhD Thesis]. Shanghai
Maritime University.
Chiarini, A. (2011). Japanese total quality control, TQM, Deming’s system of profound knowledge,
BPR, Lean and Six Sigma: Comparison and discussion. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma,
2(4), 332–355. https://doi.org/10.1108/20401461111189425
140 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic
choice. Sociology, 6(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/003803857200600101
Chirea-Ungureanu, C., & Rosenhave, P. E. (2011). A door opener: Teaching cross cultural
competence to seafarers. International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation, 6(4), 527–532.
Choe, J., & Dayna, N. (2015). Necessity of intercultural training program in MET. Annual Fall
Conference Proceedings, p. 3.
Christensen, C. R. (1982). Business Policy: Text and Cases. R.D. Irwin.
Christodoulou-Varotsi, I. (2008). Maritime Safety Law and Policies of the European Union and the United
States of America: Antagonism or Synergy? Springer Science & Business Media.
Christodoulou-Varotsi, I., & Pentsov, D. A. (2007). Maritime Work Law Fundamentals: Responsible
Shipowners, Reliable Seafarers. Springer Science & Business Media.
Cigolini, R. D., Deshmukh, A. V., Fedele, L., & McComb, S. A. (2009). Recent Advances in Maintenance
and Infrastructure Management. Springer Science & Business Media.
Clarke, M. A., Hooley, R. J. A., Munday, R. J. C., Sealy, L. S., Tettenborn, A. M., & Turner, P. G. (2017).
Commercial Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford University Press.
Clarksons Research. (2019). World Fleet Register. www.clarksons.net/wfr/vesselregisters
CMI, BIMCO, FONASBA, & GCBS. (1980). Chaterparty laytime definitions 1980. Journal of Maritime
Law and Commerce, 12(4), 421–426.
Collier, D. A., & Evans, J. R. (2009). Operations Management. Cengage Learning.
Corn, S. (2020). COVID-19: Contingency plan and guidelines for seafarers. Bluewater.
www.bluewateryachting.com/blog/covid-19-contingency-plan-and-guidelines-for-seafarers-318
Cullinane, K. (2010). International Handbook of Maritime Business. Edward Elgar.
Daily, C., & Dollinger, M. (1992). An empirical examination of ownership structure in family and
professionally managed firms. Family Business Review. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/
abs/10.1111/j.1741-6248.1992.00117.x
Dales, K. (2016). What is a Designated Person Ashore (DPA)? Bluewater. www.bluewateryachting.
com/blog/what-is-a-designated-person-ashore-dpa-156
Damilola, O. (2016). The role of a ship manager in ship operations and management. LinkedIn.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/role-ship-manager-operations-management-damilola-b-l-aciarb-uk-/
Das, S. S. (2011). To partner or to acquire? A longitudinal study of alliances in the shipping industry.
Maritime Policy & Management, 38(2), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2011.556677
Datt, R. (2006). Krishna’s Organisational Structure & Personnel Management. Krishna Prakashan Media.
Davidson, I. C., Scianni, C., Minton, M. S., & Ruiz, G. M. (2018). A history of ship specialization and
consequences for marine invasions, management and policy. Journal of Applied Ecology, 55(4),
1799–1811. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13114
Davis, B. (2019). 5 Principles of Great Management. Ashford University. www.ashford.edu/online
degrees/business/5-principles-of-great-management
DBW. (2020). Commercial Management for Construction Businesses [Definition; Guidance]. www.
designingbuildings.co.uk. www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Commercial_management_for_
construction_businesses
De, D., Song, W.-Z., Xu, M., Shi, L., & Tan, S. (2013). Chapter 1: Advances in real-world sensor
network system. In A. Hurson (Ed.), Advances in Computers (Vol. 90, pp. 1–90). Elsevier. https://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-408091-1.00001-4
Deb, T. (2009). Managing Human Resource and Industrial Relations. Excel Books India.
DeNisi, A. S. (2000). Performance appraisal and performance management: A multilevel analysis. In
Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in Organizations. Jossey-Bass.
Deris, S., Omatu, S., Ohta, H., Kutar, L. C. S., & Abd Samat, P. (1999). Ship maintenance scheduling
by genetic algorithm and constraint-based reasoning. European Journal of Operational Research,
112(3), 489–502.
DeSanctis, G., & Jiang, L. (2005). Communication and the learning effectiveness of multinational
teams. Advances in International Management, 18, 97–123.
DeSombre, E. R. (2006). Flagging Standards: Globalization and Environmental, Safety, and Labor
Regulations at Sea. MIT Press.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 141
DeSombre, E. R. (2009). Voluntary agreements and the shipping industry. In Voluntary Programs: A
Club Theory Perspective (pp. 133–156). MIT Press.
Devaney, E. (2014). The 6 Building Blocks of Organizational Structure [Diagrams]. https://blog.hubspot.
com/marketing/organizational-structure-building-blocks
Devaney, E. (2019). 9 Types of Organizational Structure Every Company Should Consider. https://blog.
hubspot.com/marketing/team-structure-diagrams
DeWitt, A. M. (1991). Surface Ship Maintenance Planning Process. Naval Postgraduate School.
Dhir, N. (2021). Integration of Marine Management Systems (ISM, ISO 9001, 14001, 18001, 50001).
www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6759518283797471232/
Dickie, J. W. (2014). Reeds 21st Century Ship Management. Bloomsbury.
Dimitrova, D. N. (2010). Seafarers’ Rights in the Globalized Maritime Industry. Kluwer Law
International B.V.
Dobreva, J., Alaverdov, E., & Yıldırım-Şahin, E. (2020). Geopolitics, Discrimination, Gender, &
Immigration. Ijopec Publication.
Dorfman, M. S. (2002). Introduction to Risk Management and Insurance. Prentice Hall.
Downard, J. (1987). Managing Ships. Fairplay. https://scholar.google.com/scholar_
lookup?title=Managing%20ships&publication_year=1987&author=J.%20Downward
Downes, J., & Goodman, J. E. (1991). Dictionary of Finance and Investment Terms (3rd ed.). Barron’s.
Dransfield, R. (2000). Human Resource Management. Heinemann.
Drezner, D. W. (2019). Economic statecraft in the age of Trump. The Washington Quarterly, 42(3),
7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2019.1663072
Dugdale, D., & Lyne, S. (2010). Budgeting Practice and Organisational Structure. Elsevier.
Durgut, İ. A., & Çetin, İ. B. (2018). Outsourcing the Ship Management Function: A Study on Turkish
Shipowners’ Attitudes towards Third Party Ship Management Companies ☆, p. 11.
Dyer, W. G. (2009). Cultural Change in Family Firms: Anticipating and Managing Business and Family
Transitions. Wiley.
Dzimbiri, L. B. (2008). Industrial Relations in a Developing Society: The Case of Colonial, Independent
One-Party and Multiparty Malawi. Cuvillier Verlag.
EC. (2020). Restrictive measures (sanctions) [Text]. European Commission: European Commission.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and-finance/international
relations/restrictive-measures-sanctions_en
Edwards, P. (2009). Industrial Relations: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Egan, G. (2009). The Skilled Helper: A Problem-Management and Opportunity-Development Approach to
Helping. Cengage Learning.
EIA. (1999). EIA-632 “Processes for Engineering a System”. Electronic Industries Alliance. www.
acqnotes.com/Attachments/EIA-632%20%E2%80%9CProcesses%20for%20Engineering%20
a%20System%E2%80%9D%207%20Jan%2099.pdf
Ellekjaer, H. (2018, August 31). 3D printing from shipping parts to sending files [solution].
Wilhelmsen. www.wilhelmsen.com/maritime-innovation-lab/3d-printing-from-shipping
parts-to-sending-files/
Ellingsen, O., & Aasland, K. E. (2019). Digitalizing the maritime industry: A case study of technology
acquisition and enabling advanced manufacturing technology. Journal of Engineering and
Technology Management, 54, 12–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2019.06.001
English, J., & Lindquist, E. A. (1998). Performance Management: Linking Results to Public Debate.
Institute of Public Administration of Canada.
Etkin, D. (2016). 6: Disaster models. In D. Etkin (Ed.), Disaster Theory (pp. 193–228). Butterworth-
Heinemann. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800227-8.00006-5
Etman, E., & Halawa, A. (2007). Safety culture, the cure for human error: A critique. Dmitriy Zhukov,
p. 115.
EU. (2020). EU Sanctions Map. www.sanctionsmap.eu/#/main?checked=1,2,4,7,9,46,10,47,11,12,14,
15,16,17,18,19,21,22,23,43,42,25,28,8,48,20,26,27,29,30,31,34,32,5,6,33,49,37,36,35,38,44,39,40
The Eurasian Dream. (2002). PAPERA TRADERS CO. LTD. AND OTHERS v. HYUNDAI MERCHANT
MARINE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER (THE “EURASIAN DREAM”) [2002] EWHC 118 (Comm). www.i-law.
com/ilaw/doc/view.htm?id=150812
142 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Evans, M. (2007). A Management Information System for Ship Repair (Version 1). [Computer Software].
Exarchopoulos, G., Zhang, P., Pryce-Roberts, N., & Zhao, M. (2018). Seafarers’ welfare: A critical
review of the related legal issues under the Maritime Labour Convention 2006. Marine Policy,
93, 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.04.005
Falcon. (2020). Effective Commercial Management Skills Training Course. https://falconbury.co.uk/
product/details/276/effective-commercial-management-skills
Fei, J. (2018). Managing Human Resources in the Shipping Industry. Routledge.
Feibert, D. C., Hansen, M. S., & Jacobsen, P. (2017). An integrated process and digitalization
perspective on the shipping supply chain: A literature review. 2017 IEEE International Conference
on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM), pp. 1352–1356.
FEMA. (2006). Principles of Emergency Management. DIANE Publishing.
Finkelstein, L. S. (1995). What is global governance? Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism
and International Organizations, 1(3), 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-001-03
90000007
Flagadmin. (2020). Samoa: Flagadmin.com. https://flagadmin.com/samoa-en.html
FMA. (2002). Knowledge: Facility Management Association of Australia. www.fma.com.au/knowledge
Foot, M., & Hook, C. (2008). Introducing Human Resource Management. Pearson Education.
Ford, J. H., & Wilcox, C. (2019). Shedding light on the dark side of maritime trade: A new approach
for identifying countries as flags of convenience. Marine Policy, 99, 298–303.
Forss, K. (2002). Finding Out about Results from Projects and Programmes Concerning Democratic
Governance and Human Rights a Study Commissioned by Sida. https://publikationer.sida.se/
contentassets/fe1b0b804ac145329e24aa89557134d1/finding-out-about-results-from-projects
and-programmes-concerning-democratic-governance-and-human-rights_787.pdf
Forwood, G., Nordin, S., & Vangenechten, M. (2020). Global Investigations Review: The Guide to
Sanctions. https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/guide/the-guide-sanctions/first-edition/
article/eu-restrictive-measures
Foster, N. R. (1999). The seaworthiness trilogy: Carriage of goods, insurance, and personal injury.
Santa Clara Law Review, 40(2), 473–510.
Frankel, E. G. (1982). Ship management systems developments. Maritime Policy and Management,
9(2), 135–143.
Frankel, E. G. (1989). Shipping and its role in economic development. Marine Policy, 13(1), 22–42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-597X(89)90039-0
Friend, L. (2019). What is the meaning of organizational structure? Small Business: Chron.Com.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/meaning-organizational-structure-3803.html
Fruth, M., & Teuteberg, F. (2017). Digitization in maritime logistics: What is there and what is
missing? Cogent Business & Management, 4(1), 1411066.
Furnival, D., & Crispe, J. (2017). Technical operations management. In I. D. Visvikis & P. M.
Panayides (Eds.), Shipping Operations Management (pp. 99–128). Springer International
Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62365-8_5
Gandhare, B. S., & Akarte, M. (2012). Maintenance strategy selection. Ninth AIMS International
Conference on Management, pp. 1330–1336.
Gani, A. (2017). The logistics performance effect in international trade. The Asian Journal of Shipping
and Logistics, 33(4), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2017.12.012
Gard. (1996). Gard News Marine Insurance. Assuranceforeningen Gard.
Gard. (1997). Co-assurance. Gard. www.gard.no/web/updates/content/53238/co-assurance
Gard. (1999). ISM Code: Status of implementation and a comparison with . . . Gard. www.gard.no/
web/updates/content/51571/
ism-code-status-of-implementation-and-a-comparison-with-other-certification-schemes
Garni, A. (2016). Understanding Commercial Management. www.linkedin.com/pulse/understanding
commercial-management-abdulkhaleg-al-garni-ccm/
GBO. (2007). Service Strategy. The Stationery Office.
Gekara, V. O., Acejo, I., & Sampson, H. (2013). Re-imagining global union representation under
globalisation: A case of seafaring labour and the Nautilus international cross-border merger.
Global Labour Journal, 4(3), 167–185.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 143
Gekara, V. O., & Sampson, H. (2021). The World of the Seafarer. Springer Nature.
Gerstenberger, H. (2002). Cost elements with a soul. Proceedings of International Association of
Maritime Economists-International Conference, pp. 13–15.
Gibbs, J., & Gibson, C. B. (2016). Making virtual teams more innovative through effective communication.
In Contemporary Organizational Behavior: From Ideas to Action (pp. 331–339). Pearson.
Gibson, P. (2006). Cruise Operations Management: Hospitality Perspectives. Routledge.
Gillikin, J. (2019). Advantages & disadvantages of divisional organizational structure. Small Business:
Chron.Com. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-divisional
organizational-structure-611.html
Gilmore, S., & Williams, S. (2013). Human Resource Management. Oxford University Press.
Gjelsten, G., & Hanevold-Sandvik, N. (2018). Who’s Liable Anyway?: Allocation of Liability in Maritime
Environmental Law. www.wr.no/en/news/publications/green-shipping/
whos-liable-anyway-allocation-of-liability-in-maritime-environmental-law/
Gkerekos, C., Theotokatos, G., Bujorianu, L. M., Boulougouris, E., Vassalos, D., Carballedo, B.,
McCluskey, S., Coats, T., & Sloan, R. (2019). Digitalisation in the UK maritime sector: A
stakeholders’ pulse check. Marine Industry 4.0.
GL. (2013). Best Practice Ship Management Study. Germanischer Lloyd SE. http://docshare02.
docshare.tips/files/23639/236395448.pdf
Glen, D. (2008). What do we know about the labour market for seafarers?: A view from the UK.
Marine Policy, 32(6), 845–855.
Goel, G. D., & Murari, K. (1990). Two-unit cold-standby redundant system subject to random
checking, corrective maintenance and system replacement with repairable and non-repairable
types of failure. Microelectronics Reliability, 30(4), 661–665.
Goulielmos, A. M., Giziakis, K. V., & Pallari, B. (2011). Advantages and disadvantages of managing
own ships by a third party ship management company: An empirical investigation. International
Journal of Shipping and Transport Logistics, 3(2), 126–150.
Governatori, G., Milosevic, Z., Sadiq, S., & Orlowska, M. (2007). On compliance of business processes
with business contracts. ITEE Technical Report. The University of Queensland.
Grabosky, P. N., & Braithwaite, J. (1993). Business Regulation and Australia’s Future. Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Grammenos, C. Th. (2013). The Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business. Taylor & Francis.
Grammenos, C. Th., & Papapostolou, N. C. (2012). US shipping initial public offerings: Do
prospectus and market information matter? Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 48(1), 276–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2011.07.009
Grant, R. M. (1991). Porter’s “competitive advantage of nations”: An assessment. Strategic
Management Journal, 12(7), 535–548.
Green Ship. (2019). The Opportunity SPAce of 3D Print in the Maritime Industry. https://greenship.org/
wp-content/uploads/2017/01/The-maritime-opportunity-space-of-3D-print.pdf
Gregory, D., & Shanahan, P. (2017). Being Human in Safety-Critical Organisations: How People Create
Safety, What Stops Them and What to Do about It. Tso.
Griffin, R. W., & Moorhead, G. (2011). Organizational Behavior. Cengage Learning.
Gritsenko, D. (2017). Regulating GHG emissions from shipping: Local, global, or polycentric
approach? Marine Policy, 84, 130–133.
Gritsenko, D., & Roe, M. (2019). Quality standards in polycentric systems: A case of shipping.
Geoforum, 103, 138–147.
Guirdham, O. (2017). Communicating across Cultures at Work. Macmillan Education.
Gustin, J. F. (2008). Safety Management: A Guide for Facility Managers. Fairmont Press.
Haines, F., & Gurney, D. (2004). Section 1: Regulatory conflict and regulatory compliance: The
problems and possibilities in generic models of regulation. In Regulation: Enforcement and
Compliance. Australian Institute of Criminology.
Haldemann, U. (2015). Should Oil Trading Companies Possess Their Own Tankers? Haute école de
gestion de Genève.
Halid, E., & Genova, B. (2011). Cultural factors involved in maritime communication. Nautical &
Environmental Studies, I(2), 26-30.
144 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hall, E. T. (1959). The Silent Language. Doubleday.

Hamblin, K. (2019). Technical management: Library. Pink Elephant United Kingdom. https://
pinkelephant.co.uk/library/technical-management/
Hampden-Turner, C., & Trompenaars, F. (2020). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity
in Global Business. Hachette.
Hand, M. (2017, June 9). Shipping facing a more serious shortage of senior officers than it expects.
Seatrade Maritime. www.seatrade-maritime.com/asia/shipping-facing-more-serious-shortage
senior-officers-it-expects
Hansen, K. (2013). Analysis of Estimations, Quotations and Actual Costs Related to Dry-Docking [MSC,
Vestfold University College]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/52121605.pdf
Hantho, A., Jensen, L., & Malterud, K. (2002). Mutual understanding: A communication model for
general practice. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care, 20(4), 244–251. https://doi.
org/10.1080/028134302321004926
Happold, M., & Eden, P. (2016). Economic Sanctions and International Law. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hartley, S. (1998). Flag choice-a comparative study. International Journal of Shipping Law, 12–26.
Hasanspahić, N., Vujičić, S., & Mišković, D. (2018). Effect of multicultural awareness and
communication on safety onboard a vessel. International Conference on Transport and
Engineering (ICTTE), p. 319.
Hattendorf, J. B. (2007). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Maritime History (Vol. 4). Oxford University Press.
Havedahl, M. (2006). The Maritime Labour Market. University of Gothenburg.
Hayes, A. (2020). How mergers and acquisitions: M&A work. Investopedia. www.investopedia.com/
terms/m/mergersandacquisitions.asp
Hayes, R. H., & Upton, D. M. (1998). Operations-based strategy. California Management Review, 40(4),
8–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165962
Hayler, W. B., & Keever, J. M. (2003). American Merchant Seaman’s Manual: For Seamen by Seamen.
Cornell Maritime Press.
Hendrikse, M. L., Margetson, N. H., & Margetson, N. J. (2008). Aspects of Maritime Law: Claims Under
Bills of Lading. Kluwer Law International B.V.
Heskett, J. L., Jones, T. O., Loveman, G. W., Sasser, W. E., & Schlesinger, L. A. (2008). Putting the
service-profit chain to work. Harvard Business Review, 72(2), 164–174.
Hills, S. M. (1995). Employment Relations and the Social Sciences. University of South Carolina Press.
Hird, M., Sparrow, P., & Marsh, C. (2010). HR structures: Are they working? In P. Sparrow, M. Hird, A.
Hesketh, & C. Cooper (Eds.), Leading HR (pp. 23–45). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-0-230-28134-9_2
Hiriyappa, B. (2013). Strategic Management and Business Policy. Booktango.
Hodges, S. (1996). Law of Marine Insurance. Routledge.
Hodges, S. (1999). Cases and Materials on Marine Insurance Law. Routledge.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (1991). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind.
Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. McGraw-Hill.
Hollnagel, P. E. (2014). Safety-I and Safety-II: The Past and Future of Safety Management. Ashgate
Publishing, Ltd.
Honniball, A. N. (2017, July 3). Port state jurisdiction beyond oceans governance: The closure of
ports to Qatar in the 2017 “Gulf Crisis”. EJIL: Talk! www.ejiltalk.org/port-state-jurisdiction-b
eyond-oceans-governance-the-closure-of-ports-to-qatar-in-the-2017-gulf-crisis/
Horck, J. (2004). An analysis of decision-making processes in multicultural maritime scenarios.
Maritime Policy & Management, 31(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088830310001642021
Horck, J. (2005). Getting the best from multi-cultural manning. BIMCO 100 Years and GA 2005 in
Copenhagen, p. 20.
Horck, J. (2006). A Mixed Crew Complement: A Maritime Safety Challenge and Its Impact on Maritime
Education and Training. Lärarutbildningen. Malmö högskola.
Horck, J. (2010). Meeting Diversities in Maritime Education: A Blend from World Maritime University.
Malmö Högskola.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 145
HSN. (2019). The impact of sanctions on the maritime world. Hellenic Shipping News Worldwide.
www.hellenicshippingnews.com/the-impact-of-sanctions-on-the-maritime-world/
Hubbard, D. W. (2020). The Failure of Risk Management: Why It’s Broken and How to Fix It. John Wiley
& Sons.
Hufbauer, G. C., Schott, J. J., Elliott, K. A., & Oegg, B. (2007). Economic Sanctions Reconsidered.
Peterson Institute.
Huffcut, E. W. (1999). Elements of the Law of Agency. Beard Books.
Humbert, M. (2007). Technology and Workforce: Comparison between the Information Revolution and
the Industrial Revolution. University of California.
Hutchinson, S. (2013). Performance Management: Theory and Practice. Kogan Page Publishers.
IACCM. (2020). What is commercial management? IACCM: International Association for Contract and
Commercial Management. www.iaccm.com/about/commercial-management/
ICS. (1982). Code of Good Management Practice in Safe Ship Operation.
ICS. (2000). Inquiry into Ship Safety: Ships, Slaves and Competition. International Commission on
Shipping. OHCHR Library Catalogue, ICONS. http://searchlibrary.ohchr.org/record/4419
ICS. (2017). Shipping and World Trade: Global Supply and Demand for Seafarers. www.ics-shipping.org/
shipping-fact/shipping-and-world-trade-global-supply-and-demand-for-seafarers/
ICS. (2018, February 5). Global supply and demand for seafarers. SAFETY4SEA. https://safety4sea.
com/global-supply-demand-seafarers-2/
ILO. (1949). Convention C098: Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention, 1949 (No. 98).
www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C098
ILO. (2001). The Impact on Seafarers’ Living and Working Conditions of Changes in the Structure of the
Shipping Industry. www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2001/101B09_3_engl.pdf
ILO. (2011, March 22). Advantages of the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006 [Resource list]. www.ilo.
org/global/standards/maritime-labour-convention/what-it-does/WCMS_153450/lang-en/index.
htm
ILO. (2019). History of the ILO. www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/history/lang-en/index.htm
IMEC. (2003). The International Bargaining Forum (IBF). IMEC. www.imec.org.uk/grants/ibf/
IMO. (1987). IMO Ship Identification Number Scheme. 15th Session 1987 (Resolutions 596–635). IMO
Publishing.
IMO. (1994). The International Safety Management (ISM) Code. www.imo.org/en/OurWork/
HumanElement/Pages/ISMCode.aspx
IMO. (1997a). International Safety Management Code (ISM Code) and Guidelines on the Implementation
of the ISM Code. International Maritime Organization.
IMO. (1997b). Human Element. www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement
IMO. (2008). “Go to Sea!” Campaign Launched at IMO to Attract Entrants to the Shipping Industry: News.
http://maritime-connector.com/news/general/go-to-sea-campaign-launched-at-imo-to-attract
entrants-to-the-shipping-industry/
IMO. (2009). “Go to Sea”: A Campaign to Attract Entrants to the Shipping Industry. www.imo.org/
OurWork/HumanElement/GoToSea/Pages/Default.aspx
IMO. (2010). Port State Control. www.imo.org/en/OurWork/MSAS/Pages/PortStateControl.aspx
IMO. (2011). Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) and Energy Efficiency Operational
Indicator (EEOI). www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Technical-and-Operational
Measures.aspx
IMO. (2013). International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), 1974. www.imo.org/en/
About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Safety-of-Life
at-Sea-(SOLAS),-1974.aspx
IMO. (2017a). MARPOL Annex VI and NTC 2008: With Guidelines for Implementation. IMO International
Maritime Organization.
IMO. (2017b). MSC-FAL.1-Circ.3: Guidelines on Maritime Cyber Risk Management (Secretariat).pdf.
wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/OurWork/Security/Documents/MSC-FAL.1-Circ.3%20-%20
Guidelines%20On%20Maritime%20Cyber%20Risk%20Management%20(Secretariat).pdf
146 BIBLIOGRAPHY
IMO. (2018). IMO and the Sustainable Development Goals. www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/

Pages/SustainableDevelopmentGoals.aspx
IMO. (2019). International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers, 1978. www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/STCW-Convention.aspx
IMO. (2020a). Training and Certification. www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/Pages/
TrainingCertification-Default.aspx
IMO. (2020b). Registration of Ships and Fraudulent Registration Matters. www.imo.org/en/OurWork/
Legal/Pages/Registration-of-ships-and-fraudulent-registration-matters.aspx
IMO. (2021). IMO and the Sustainable Development Goals. www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/
Pages/SustainableDevelopmentGoals.aspx
Indeed. (2020a). What is management? Definitions and functions. Indeed Career Guide. www.indeed.
com/career-advice/career-development/what-is-management
Indeed. (2020b). 10 business strategy examples. Indeed Career Guide. www.indeed.com/career
advice/career-development/business-strategy-examples
Ingram, H. (1996). Linking teamwork with performance. Team Performance Management: An
International Journal, 2(4), 5–10.
Inkinen, T., Helminen, R., & Saarikoski, J. (2019). Port digitalization with open data: Challenges,
opportunities, and integrations. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity,
5(2), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5020030
InterManager. (2016). Intermanager_25 Years Celebrating the History of InterManager. http://ftp.
elabor8.co.uk/intermanager/pdf/intermanager_25.pdf
InterManager. (2018). The 5th Annual International Shipowning & Shipmanagement Summit. www.
hellenicshippingnews.com/events/the-5th-annual-international-shipowning-shipmanagement
summit/
InterManager. (2020). History of the International Ship Managers’ Association. InterManager. www.
intermanager.org/about/history/
Ion, A. (2014). Cultural Diversity on Board Ships. 2, pp. 211–215. https://old.upm.ro/ldmd/LDMD-02/
Pol/Pol%2002%2027.pdf
Irvine, M. (2016). Making the Sustainable Development Goals Meaningful for Your Business. www.dnvgl.
com/news/dnv-gl-report-for-un-global-compact-reveals-status-of-sustainable
development-goals-177645
ISMA. (1992). Code of Ship Management Standards of the International Ship Managers Association
(ISMA). International Ship Managers Association.
ISM Code. (2015). www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/SafetyManagement/Pages/ISMCode.
aspx
ISO. (2002). OECD Glossary of Statistical Terms: Quality: ISO Definition. https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/
detail.asp?ID=5150
ISO. (2008). ISO 9001:2008. Board of Quality Standards (BQS). www.b-ac.info/iso90012008.html
ISO. (2018). ISO 45001:2018 occupational health and safety management systems: Requirements
with guidance for use. ISO. www.iso.org/cms/render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/data/
standard/06/37/63787.html
ISO. (2020). ISO-ISO 9000 family: Quality management. ISO. www.iso.org/iso-9001-quality
management.html
ITF. (2020). Imagine a world if you can. ITF Seafarers. www.itfseafarers.org/en/news/
imagine-world-if-you-can
ITIC. (2020). Our history. ITIC. www.itic-insure.com/who-we-are/our-history/
Iyer, R. (2015). Practical Guide to SAP GTS Part 1: SPL Screening and Compliance Management.
Espresso Tutorials GmbH.
Jamil, G., Lopes, S., Da Silva, A., & Ribeiro, F. (2015). Handbook of Research on Information
Architecture and Management in Modern Organizations. IGI Global.
Jaques, B. (2017, March 24). Columbia-Marlow Set to Become One of “World’s Largest” Ship Managers.
Seatrade Maritime. www.seatrade-maritime.com/europe/columbia-marlow-set-become-one
world-s-largest-ship-managers
BIBLIOGRAPHY 147
Jensen, H.-J., & Oldenburg, M. (2020). Training seafarers to deal with multicultural crew members
and stress on board. International Maritime Health, 71(3), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.5603/
IMH.2020.0031
Jha, B. (2020, February 12). What are container ships: History, types and design. Marine Insight.
www.marineinsight.com/types-of-ships/what-are-container-ships/
JOCS. (1998). Merger of V ships, celtic creates world’s top ship management group. JOC.com. www.
joc.com/maritime-news/merger-v-ships-celtic-creates-worlds-top-ship-management
group_19981028.html
Johnson, J. (2017). What is compliance management & why it’s important. Tallyfy. https://tallyfy.
com/what-is-compliance-management/
Johnson, P. D. (2002). Principles of Controlled Maintenance Management. Fairmont Press.
Johnston, R., & Clark, G. (2008). Service Operations Management: Improving Service Delivery. Pearson
Education.
Jones, K. D., Tam, K., & Papadaki, M. (2016). Threats and impacts in maritime cyber security.
Engineering & Technology Reference, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1049/etr.2015.0123
Jones, P., & Robinson, P. (2012). Operations Management. Oxford University Press.
Jorgensen, R. (2018). BIMCO: The Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships. https://iumi.com/news/
news/bimco-the-guidelines-on-cyber-security-onboard-ships
Joswick, R. (2020). IMO 2020 Promises Widespread Disruption. www.petroleum-economist.com/
articles/midstream-downstream/tankers/2020/imo-2020-promises-widespread-disruption
Kachru, U. (2009). Production & Operations Management. Excel Books India.
Kahveci, E., Lane, T., & Sampson, H. (2000). Transnational Seafaring Communities.
Kalleberg, A. L., & Sorensen, A. B. (1979). The sociology of labor markets. Annual Review of
Sociology, 5(1), 351–379.
Kalyvas, C., Kokkos, A., & Tzouramanis, T. (2017). A survey of official online sources of high-quality
free-of-charge geospatial data for maritime geographic information systems applications.
Information Systems, 65, 36–51.
Kamauff, J. (2009). Manager’s Guide to Operations Management. McGraw Hill Professional.
Kandakoglu, A., Celik, M., & Akgun, I. (2009). A multi-methodological approach for shipping registry
selection in maritime transportation industry. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 49(3),
586–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.09.001
Kanjilal, J. (2020). Here’s a better way to do compliance and risk management. TechBeacon. https://
techbeacon.com/security/heres-better-way-do-compliance-risk-management
Kantharia, R. (2019, March 11). 12 main reasons seafarers quit sea jobs. Marine Insight. www.
marineinsight.com/life-at-sea/12-main-reasons-seafarers-quit-sea-jobs/
Kantharia, R. (2020). What is Safety Management System (SMS) on ships? Marine Insight. www.
marineinsight.com/marine-safety/what-is-safety-management-system-sms-on-ships/
Kapur, P. K., Singh, G., Klochkov, Y. S., & Kumar, U. (2020). Decision Analytics Applications in Industry.
Springer Nature.
Karagiannis, D. (2008). A Business Process-Based Modelling Extension for Regulatory Compliance.
Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik.
Karagiannis, D., Mylopoulos, J., & Schwab, M. (2007). Business process-based regulation
compliance: The case of the sarbanes-oxley act. 15th IEEE International Requirements
Engineering Conference (RE 2007), pp. 315–321.
Karan, C. (2020). What Is Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan? www.marineinsight.com/
maritime-law/what-is-ship-energy-efficiency-management-plan/
Kasoulides, G. C. (1993). Port State Control and Jurisdiction: Evolution of the Port State Regime. Brill
Nijhoff.
Kececioglu, D. (2003). Maintainability, Availability, and Operational Readiness Engineering Handbook.
DEStech Publications, Inc.
Kenton, W. (2019a). Useful life. Investopedia. www.investopedia.com/terms/u/usefullife.asp
Kenton, W. (2019b). What you should know about best practices. Investopedia. www.investopedia.
com/terms/b/best_practices.asp
148 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kenton, W. (2021). Organizational structure. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/

organizational-structure.asp
Khandelwal, R. (2019). Why the US imposed sanctions on Iran and why they matter. Market Realist.
https://marketrealist.com/2019/04/why-the-us-imposed-sanctions-on-iran-and-why-they
matter/
Kharbili, M., Stein, S., Markovic, I., & Pulvermüller, E. (2008). Towards a framework for semantic
business process compliance management. Proceedings of GRCIS.
Kim, B.-K., Lee, J.-W., & Kim, S.-Y. (2016). An empirical study on the effect of business environment
and competitive strategy on business performance in shipping company. Journal of Navigation
and Port Research, 40(3), 129–138.
Kim, T., & Gausdal, A. H. (2020). Leaders’ influence tactics for safety: An exploratory study in the
maritime context. Safety, 6(1), 8.
Kinthaert, L. (2017). Working with multicultural crews in shipping: Cross cultural trainer Laxmi
Chaudhry. Informa Connect. https://informaconnect.com/working-with-multicultural-crews-in
shipping-cross-cultural-trainer-laxmi-chaudhry/
Kipp, B. (2013). News 157: Compliance: PwC’s State of Compliance 2013 Survey Reveals Growing
Importance of Compliance Role in a Transnational Business Environment. http://ccab.com.ar/
newsletter_detalle.php?id=39&nota=1232
Kipp, J. D., & Loflin, M. E. (1996). Emergency Incident Risk Management: A Safety & Health
Perspective. Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kitada, M., Baldauf, M., Mannov, A., Svendsen, P. A., Baumler, R., Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U., Dalaklis,
D., Fonseca, T., Shi, X., & Lagdami, K. (2018). Command of vessels in the era of digitalization.
International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, pp. 339–350.
Klose, A. (2015). The Container Principle: How a Box Changes the Way We Think. MIT Press.
Knapp, K., Enninger, W., & Knapp-Potthoff, A. (2011). Analyzing Intercultural Communication. Walter
de Gruyter.
Knight, T. (2013). Maritime Economics: Management and Marketing. Routledge.
Knowles, J. R. (2012). 200 Contractual Problems and their Solutions. John Wiley & Sons.
Ko, D., & Fink, D. (2010). Information technology governance: An evaluation of the theory-practice
gap. Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society, 10(5), 662–674.
Kondratiev, A. I., Smirnov, I. O., & Dokuto, B. B. (2016). Methods of developing intercultural
competence in maritime English teaching. Journal of Maritime Research, 13(2).
Kongsvik, T. Ø., Størkersen, K. V., & Antonsen, S. (2014). The relationship between regulation, safety
management systems and safety culture in the maritime industry. Safety, Reliability and Risk
Analysis: Beyond the Horizon, 467–473.
Konsta, K., & Plomaritou, E. (2012). Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and shipping companies
performance evaluation: The case of Greek tanker shipping companies. International Journal of
Business and Management, 7. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v7n10p142
Koskenniemi, M. (2014). Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification
and Expansion of International Law: Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission.
Kossek, E. E., Valcour, M., & Lirio, P. (2014). The sustainable workforce. In Wellbeing (pp. 1–24).
American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118539415.wbwell030
Kostidi, E., & Nikitakos, N. (2017). Exploring the potential of 3D printing of the spare parts supply
chain in the maritime industry. Saf Sea Transp-Proc Int Conf Mar Navig Saf Sea Transp
TRANSNAV, pp. 171–178.
Kovačič, I. (1996). Subtitling Strategies: A Flexible Hierarchy of Priorities. CLUEB.
Kretschmann, L., Burmeister, H.-C., & Jahn, C. (2017). Analyzing the economic benefit of
unmanned autonomous ships: An exploratory cost-comparison between an autonomous
and a conventional bulk carrier. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 25, 76–86.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.06.002
Krieger, L. (2010). Direct Hits Toughest Vocabulary of the SAT: Volume 2 2011 Edition. Direct Hits
Publishing.
Kristiansen, S. (2013). Maritime Transportation: Safety Management and Risk Analysis. Routledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 149
Kuo, C. (2007). Safety management and its maritime application. Waterstones. www.waterstones.
com/book/safety-management-and-its-maritime-application/chengi-kuo/9781870077835
Labi, V. (2020). Buzzwords: Best practice. Comstock’s Magazine. www.comstocksmag.com/article/
buzzwords-best-practice
Ladegaard, H. J., & Jenks, C. J. (2018). Language and Intercultural Communication in the Workplace:
Critical Approaches to Theory and Practice. Routledge.
Ladewski, B. J., & Al-Bayati, A. J. (2019). Quality and safety management practices: The theory of
quality management approach. Journal of Safety Research, 69, 193–200. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.03.004
Lamb, T. (2003). Ship Design and Construction. https://repository.tudelft.nl/islandora/object/
uuid%3A784b049c-8805-4333-9ae0-7c4b48632496
Lambrou, M. (2016). Innovation capability, knowledge management and big data technology: A
maritime business case. International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (IJAC), 9(2), 40–44.
Lambrou, M., Watanabe, D., & Iida, J. (2019). Shipping digitalization management:
Conceptualization, typology and antecedents. Journal of Shipping and Trade, 4(1), 11. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s41072-019-0052-7
Landport, S. (2019, June 19). The purpose and power of routine facility maintenance. Industry Leader
in Facility & Maintenance Management Software | Landport. www.landport.net/the-purpose
and-power-of-routine-facility-maintenance/
Lavery, B. (2017). Ship: 5,000 Years of Maritime Adventure. Dorling Kindersley Ltd.
Lazakis, I., Dikis, K., Michala, A. L., & Theotokatos, G. (2016). Advanced ship systems condition
monitoring for enhanced inspection, maintenance and decision making in ship operations.
Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 1679–1688.
Leeuwen, J. van. (2015). The regionalization of maritime governance: Towards a polycentric
governance system for sustainable shipping in the European Union. Ocean & Coastal
Management, 117, 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.05.013
Leggate, H. (2004). The future shortage of seafarers: Will it become a reality? Maritime Policy &
Management, 31(1), 3–13.
Lenartowicz, T., Johnson, J. P., & Konopaske, R. (2014). The application of learning theories to
improve cross-cultural training programs in MNCs. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 25(12), 1697–1719.
Lenze, D. N., & Schriwer, D. C. (2014). Converging Regions: Global Perspectives on Asia and the Middle
East. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Leong, P. (2012). Understanding the Seafarer Global Labour Market in the Context of a Seafarer
“Shortage” [PhD Thesis]. Cardiff University.
Lettens, J. (2008). Wrecksite: Grainville Cargo Ship 1951–1981. www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?69594
Levison, M. (2010). There are no best practices. Agile Pain Relief Consulting. https://agilepainrelief.
com/blog/there-are-no-best-practices.html
Lewis, B. T., & Payant, R. (2007). Facility Manager’s Maintenance Handbook. McGraw Hill Professional.
Li, K. X., & Wonham, J. (1999). Who mans the world fleet? A follow-up to the BIMCO/ISF manpower
survey. Maritime Policy & Management, 26(3), 295–303.
Li, R., & Chen, J. (2009). The ship registration system under the property law of the people’s
republic of China. China Oceans Law Review, 2009(1), 340–349.
Liao, Y. (2020). The Prospects of Green Ship Recycling: China’s Role in the Developing Global Governance
[PhD Thesis]. University of Greenwich.
Lillie, N. (2004). Global collective bargaining on flag of convenience shipping. British Journal of
Industrial Relations, 42(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2004.00304.x
Lillie, N. (2008). The ILO Maritime Labour Convention, 2006: A new paradigm for global labour rights
implementation. In Cross-Border Social Dialogue and Agreements: An Emerging Global Industrial
Relations Framework (pp. 191–220). International Labour Office.
Lillie, N. (2013). A Global Union for Global Workers: Collective Bargaining and Regulatory Politics in
Maritime Shipping. Routledge.
150 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lin, M. (2017, September 11). Big is beautiful for shipmanagers and shipowners. Lloyd’s List. https://
lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL111333/Big-is-beautiful-for-shipmanagers-and
shipowners
Lind-Amundsen, K., & Vablum, J. (2018). Shipowners’ choice of vessel flag. Simonsen Vogt Wiig.
https://svw.no/en/insights/shipowners-choice-of-vessel-flag
Lirn, T.-C., Lin, H.-W., & Shang, K.-C. (2014). Green shipping management capability and firm
performance in the container shipping industry. Maritime Policy & Management, 41(2), 159–175.
Liu, S., Xing, B., Li, B., & Gu, M. (2014). Ship information system: Overview and research trends.
International Journal of Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 6(3), 670–684. https://doi.
org/10.2478/IJNAOE-2013-0204
Lloyd’s List. (2017). Large ship losses have halved in past decade. Lloyd’s List. https://lloydslist.
maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL110804/Large-ship-losses-have-halved-in-past-decade
Lloyd’s List. (2018, August 7). The future of shipmanagement. Lloyd’s List. https://lloydslist.
maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1123762/The-future-of-shipmanagement
Logie, C. (2011). Breaking down the barriers of culture. Nautilus Telegraph, p. 23.
Lorange, P. (2018). Corporate Planning: An Executive Viewpoint. Creative Media Partners, LLC.
Love, P. E. D., Teo, P., & Morrison, J. (2018). Unearthing the nature and interplay of quality and
safety in construction projects: An empirical study. Safety Science, 103, 270–279. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.026
Lowe, D. J. (2013). Commercial Management: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Lowe, D. J., Fenn, P., & Roberts, S. (1997). Commercial management: An investigation into the role
of the commercial manager within the UK construction industry. Status, 81, 1–8.
Lowe, D. J., & Leiringer, R. (2005). Commercial management in project-based organisations. Journal
of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 10(1), 4–18.
Łukaszuk, T. (2018). The concept of maritime governance in international relations. Intenrational
Relations. www.academia.edu/40740728/The_Concept_of_Maritime_Governance_in_
International_Relations
Luksilakul, P. (2015). Arrest of associated ship: The possibility to apply South African approach to
Thai law. Thammasat Business Law Journal, 5.
Lun, Y. H. (Venus), Lai, K. H., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2010). Shipping and Logistics Management. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Lun, Y. V., Lai, K., Wong, C. W., & Cheng, T. E. (2016). Green Shipping Management. Springer.
Luo, M., Fan, L., & Li, K. X. (2013). Flag choice behaviour in the world merchant fleet.
Transportmetrica A: Transport Science, 9(5), 429–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/18128602.
2011.594969
Lynch, R. (2018). Strategic Management. Pearson.
Machiraju, H. R. (2007). Mergers, Acquisitions and Takeovers. New Age International.
Mackenzie, L. (2004). Inaugural Ship Superintendency Forum 2004. Lloyd’s List Events.
Madaleno, B. (2017). The Role of Sustainable Development in Maritime Technical Management [MSc].
University College of Southeast Norway. www.academia.edu/36399109/
The_Role_of_Sustainable_Development_in_Maritime_Technical_Management
Mahadevan, B. (2010). Operations Management: Theory and Practice. Pearson Education India.
MAIB. (2005). Report on the Investigation of the Grounding of the Italian Registered Chemical Tanker
Attilio Ievoli on Lymington Banks in the West Solent, South Coast of England 3 June 2004. MAIB.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/547c70b9e5274a428d0000bf/Attilio_Ievoli.pdf
Man, D. (2012). Propulsion Trends in Container Vessels. MAN Diesel & Turbo. https://web.archive.org/
web/20120507192232/www.mandieselturbo.eu/files/news/filesof4672/5510-0040-01ppr_low.pdf
Mandaraka-Sheppard, A. (2013). Modern Maritime Law (Volume 2): Managing Risks and Liabilities. CRC
Press.
Mandaraka-Sheppard, A. (2014). Modern Maritime Law and Risk Management. CRC Press.
Mansell, J. N. K. (2009). Flag State Responsibility: Historical Development and Contemporary Issues.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Manuele, F. A. (2003). On the Practice of Safety. John Wiley & Sons.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 151
Marchington, M., & Wilkinson, A. (2005). Human Resource Management at Work: People Management
and Development. CIPD Publishing.
Marcura. (2015). Maritime sanctions checks: The impact on the shipping industry. Marcura. www.
marcura.com/blog/maritime-sanctions-checks-impact-shipping-industry
Margetson, N. J. (2008). The System of Liability of Articles III and IV of the Hague (Visby) Rules.
Uitgeverij Paris.
Marks, G. (1993). Structural policy and multilevel governance in the EC. In The Maastricht Debates
and beyond (Vol. 392). Lynne Rienner.
Marlow. (2020). What Are Full Technical Ship Management Services. https://marlow-navigation.com/
en/what-is-technical-ship-management-services.asp
Marten, B. (2014). Port State Jurisdiction, International Conventions, and Extraterritoriality: An
Expansive Interpretation. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3058486. Social Science Research Network.
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3058486
Mash. (2014). The Risk of Cyber Attack to the Maritime Sector. www.marsh.com/uk/insights/research/
the-risk-of-cyber-attack-to-the-maritime-sector.html
Mater, J. (2019). Exploring sanctions development, compliance and enforcement. Meridian
International Center. www.meridian.org/project/exploring-sanctions-development-compliance
and-enforcement/
Mathebekase, L. M. (2018). Critical Analysis of the Attraction and Retention of Seafarers: A Case Study
of South Africa [MSc]. World Maritime University.
Maxfield, D. (2010). Workplace safety is the leading edge of a culture of accountability-new research
makes a compelling argument for the value of safety, indicating that once accountability for
safety is reached, companies can leverage that learning to improve quality, production, cost
control and customer service. Occupational Hazards, 3(6), 39.
Mazhari, S. (2018). Competency of Merchant Ship Officers in the Global Shipping Labour Market: A Study
of the “Knowing-Doing” Gap [PhD Thesis]. Cardiff University.
MCA. (2016). How manila amendments affect seafarer training and certificates. GOV.UK. www.gov.
uk/guidance/manila-amendments-and-how-they-affect-seafarer-training-and-certificates
MCA. (2017). Human Element Guidance: Part 2 the Deadly Dozen: 12 Significant People Factors in
Maritime Safety. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/837844/MGN_520_Final.pdf
McCammon, C. W. (2020). 7 issues facing the shipping industry in the new decade. Willis Towers
Watson. www.willistowerswatson.com/en-GB/
Insights/2020/02/7-issues-facing-the-shipping-industry-in-the-new-decade
McConnell, M., Devlin, D., & Doumbia-Henry, C. (2011). The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006: A
legal primer to an emerging international regime. In The Maritime Labour Convention, 2006
(pp. i–xiii). Brill Nijhoff. https://brill.com/view/book/9789004204898/Bej.9789004183759.i
708_001.xml
McGinnis, M. D. (2011). An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: A simple
guide to a complex framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 169–183.
McLaughlin, H. (2010). D2. 1.3 Maritime Governance. WP No 2: SKEMA Consolidation Studies.
McLaughlin, H., & McConville, J. (2002). The economics of the seafaring labour market. In The
Handbook of Maritime Economics and Business (pp. 443–468). Lloyds of London Press. https://
pureportal.coventry.ac.uk/en/publications/the-economics-of-the-seafaring-labour-market
McLaughlin, S. (2009). Service operations and management. In G. Salvendy & W. Karwowski (Eds.),
Introduction to Service Engineering (pp. 295–315). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.
org/10.1002/9780470569627.ch14
Mellbye, A., & Carter, T. (2017). Seafarers’ depression and suicide. International Maritime Health,
68(2), 108–114.
Mendez, D. (2017). The Culture Solution: How to Achieve Cultural Synergy and Get Results in the Global
Workplace (Illustrated ed.). Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Merberg, B. (2017, September 2). What is workforce sustainability? Jozito LLC. www.jozito.com/
what-is-workforce-sustainability/
152 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Merkin, R. (2013). Privity of Contract: The Impact of the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999.
Taylor & Francis.
Merkow, M. S., & Breithaupt, J. (2014). Information Security: Principles and Practices. Pearson IT
Certification.
MI. (2019, March 28). 7 major blockchain technology developments in maritime industry in 2018.
MarineInsight.www.marineinsight.com/know-more/7-major-blockchain-technology-developments
in-maritime-industry-in-2018/
MIKC. (2013). General Cargo, Maritime Industry Knowlage Center. www.maritimeinfo.org/en/
Maritime-Directory/general-cargo
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (2003). Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. Stanford University
Press.
MINN. (2020). Top 10 world’s largest container ships in 2019. Marine Insight. www.marineinsight.
com/know-more/top-10-worlds-largest-container-ships-in-2019/
Mintzberg, H. (1972). Research on strategy-making. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1972(1), 90–94.
Mishra, B. (2018, September 21). Shipping registries 101. Sea News Global Maritime News. https://
seanews.co.uk/features/know-all-about-ship-registries/
MITAGS. (2019, May 3). Guide on how to recruit and retain seafarers. MITAGS. www.mitags.org/
recruit-seafarers/
Mitra, B. (1993). The Law Relating to Marine Insurance. University Book Agency. https://scholar.
google.com/scholar_lookup?title=The%20Law%20Relating%20to%20Marine%20
Insurance&publication_year=1993&author=B.C.%20Mitra
Mitroussi, D. K. (2003). Third party ship management: The case of separation of ownership and
management in the shipping context. Maritime Policy & Management, 30(1), 77–90.
Mitroussi, D. K. (2004). The ship owners’ stance on third party ship management: An empirical
study. Maritime Policy & Management, 31(1), 31–45.
Mitroussi, D. K. (2013). Ship management: Contemporary developments and implications. The Asian
Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 29(2), 229–248.
Mitroussi, D. K., & Marlow, P. B. (2010). The impact of choice of flag on ship management. Law
Explorer Maritime Law. https://lawexplores.com/the-impact-of-choice-of-flag-on-ship
management/
MLC. (2006). Maritime Labour Convention, 2006. https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/maritime
labour-convention/lang--en/index.htm
Monios, J. (2019). Polycentric port governance. Transport Policy, 83, 26–36.
Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought. SAGE.
Morton, J. C. (2005). The development of a compliance culture. Journal of Investment Compliance,
6(4), 59–66.
MSA. (1995). Merchant Shipping Act 1995 [Text]. Statute Law Database. www.legislation.gov.uk/
ukpga/1995/21/contents
Mukherjee, P. K. (2007). The ISM Code and the ISPS Code: A critical legal analysis of two SOLAS
regimes. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 6(2), 147–166.
Munday, R. (2010). Agency: Law and Principles. Oxford University Press.
Murphy, S. P. (2004). An integrated approach to U.S. Navy shipboard navigation. Oceans ’04 MTS/IEEE
Techno-Ocean ’04 (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37600). 2, pp. 802–806. https://doi.org/10.1109/
OCEANS.2004.1405553
Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M.-J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive
derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal, 28(9), 935–955.
https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.615
Nakazawa, T. (2004). Maritime English: Is this the only way to communicate? IAMU Journal, 3(1), 33–39.
Nautilus. (2018). Nautilus Telegraph Feature: Putting Words into Action to Improve Seafarer Wellbeing.
www.nautilusint.org/en/news/putting-words-into-action-to-improve-seafarer-wellbeing/
Navig8. (2019, May 17). Navig8 Group announces the merger of ship management services to
SuntechMaritime.FreightComms.https://freightcomms.com/navig8-group-announces-the-merger
of-ship-management-services-to-suntech-maritime/
BIBLIOGRAPHY 153
Neise, R. (2018). Container Logistics: The Role of the Container in the Supply Chain. Kogan Page
Publishers.
Nguyen, N. T., Tojo, S., Nguyen, L. M., & Trawiński, B. (2017). Intelligent Information and Database
Systems: 9th Asian Conference, ACIIDS 2017, Kanazawa, Japan, April 3–5, 2017, Proceedings, Part II.
Springer.
Nguyen, T. T., Ghaderi, H., Caesar, L. D., & Cahoon, S. (2014). Current challenges in the recruitment
and retention of seafarers: An industry perspective from Vietnam. The Asian Journal of Shipping
and Logistics, 30(2), 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajsl.2014.09.005
NI. (2018). Nautilus Helps Launch Free Seafarer Wellbeing Resource. www.nautilusint.org/en/news
insight/news/Nautilus-helps-launch-free-seafarer-wellbeing-resource/
Nikitakos, N., & Lambrou, M. A. (2007). Chapter 12 digital shipping: The Greek experience. Research
in Transportation Economics, 21, 383–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0739-8859(07)21012-1
Nita, S., & Mihailescu, M. (2017). Importance of big data in maritime transport. Scientific Bulletin
“Mircea Cel Batran” Naval Academy, 20(1), 556.
NoE. (2015). The North of England P&I Association, 2015. Key Performance Indicators. www.nepia.
com/media/869551/KPI-LP-Briefing.PDF
Nordquist, M. H., Moore, J. N., & Long, R. (2019). Cooperation and Engagement in the Asia-Pacific
Region. BRILL.
Novaselić, M., Schiozzi, D., & Sopta, D. (2018). Strategic management in the function of adjustment
of modern shipping companies to the market. Journal of Maritime & Transportation Science,
54(1), 11–21. https://doi.org/10.18048/2018.54.01
Nowakowski, T., & Werbińka, S. (2009). On problems of multicomponent system maintenance
modelling. International Journal of Automation and Computing, 6(4), 364.
NTSB. (1996). Allision of the Liberian Freighter Bright Field with the Poydras Street Wharf, Riverwalk
Marketplace, and New Orleans Hilton Hotel in New Orleans, Louisiana, December 14. National
Transportation Safety Board.
Oakes, J., Botta, R., & Bahill, A. T. (2006). 11.1.1 technical performance measures. INCOSE
International Symposium, 16, 1466–1474. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2334-5837.2006.tb02826.x
O’Brien, J. A., & Marakas, G. M. (2005). Introduction to Information Systems (Vol. 13). McGraw-Hill/
Irwin New York City.
Oil & Gas UK. (2008). Emergency Response and Rescue Vessel Management Guidelines. www.libramar.
net/news/emergency_response_and_rescue_vessel_management_guidelines/2017-07
16-1384
Oldenburg, M., Baur, X., & Schlaich, C. (2010). Occupational risks and challenges of seafaring.
Journal of Occupational Health, advpub, 1007160136–1007160136. https://doi.org/10.1539/joh.
K10004
Onyekwere, L. A., Nwokocha, J., & Ololube, N. P. (2019). Proactive Leadership and Global
Transformation in Organizational Policy and Management (OPM).
OpenSea. (2018). Major Advantages and Challenges of Blockchain Technology for Shipping Market.
www.opensea.pro/blog/blockchain-for-shipping-industry
Orcullo, N. (2007). Fundamentals of Strategic Management’ 2007 Ed. Rex Bookstore, Inc.
Ortiz-Ospina, E., & Beltekian, D. (2018). Trade and globalization. Our World in Data. https://
ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization
Osterby, B., & Coster, C. (1992, April). Human resource development: A sticky label. Training &
Development, 31–32.
Özçayir, O. Z. (2001). Port State Control. LLP.
Özçayir, O. Z. (2018). Port State Control. Taylor & Francis.
Pan, Y., Oksavik, A., & Hildre, H. P. (2019). Foresight future skills in digitalisation era: The role of
participatory design in simulation-based maritime education. Ergoship 2019.
Panayides, P. M. (2001). Professional Ship Management: Marketing and Strategy. Ashgate.
Panayides, P. M. (2003). Competitive strategies and organizational performance in ship
management. Maritime Policy & Management, 30(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0308883032000084850
154 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Panayides, P. M. (2017). Fundamentals of ship management. In Shipping Operations Management

(pp. 1–23). Springer.
Panayides, P. M. (2019). The Routledge Handbook of Maritime Management. Routledge.
Panayides, P. M., & Gray, R. (1997). Marketing the professional ship management service. Maritime
Policy and Management, 24(3), 233–244.
Pandey, C. (2014). Business Policy [Education]. www.slideshare.net/azadrocks/business-policy-31090132
Papadakis, K., BÉ, D., Lillie, N., Bercusson, B., Miller, D., Casale, G., Costa, I., Rehfeldt, U., Drouin,
R.-C., Sobczak, A., Gallin, D., & Tsotroudi, K. (2008). Cross-Border Social Dialogue and
Agreements: An Emerging Global Industrial Relations Framework? International Labour Office.
Papadionysiou, S. (2014). Analysis of the Economics of Valemax Vessels. https://openaccess.nhh.no/
nhh-xmlui/handle/11250/275766
Parker, B. (2019, October 1). Tankers, geopolitics and sanctions. Seatrade Maritime. www.seatrade
maritime.com/americas/tankers-geopolitics-and-sanctions
Parker, C., & Nielsen, V. L. (2011). Explaining Compliance: Business Responses to Regulation. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Parker, D. W. (2018). Service Operations Management, Second Edition: The Total Experience. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
Parraga, M., & Khasawneh, R. (2019, October 11). U.S. sanctions hit global oil fleet as traders shun
nearly 300 tankers. Reuters. www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa-sanctions
idUSKBN1WQ0JS
Pauksztat, B. (2017). “Only work and sleep”: Seafarers’ perceptions of job demands of short sea
cargo shipping lines and their effects on work and life on board. Maritime Policy & Management,
44(7), 899–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2017.1371347
Paul, S. (2008). Demand for Governance, Risk and Compliance Products on the Rise. The Hindu
Business Line.
Payne, T. (2000). Facilities Management: A Strategy for Success. Chartridge Books Oxford.
Pearson, S. (2019, January 31). What is compliance management? GetSmarter Blog. www.
getsmarter.com/blog/career-advice/what-is-compliance-management/
Pentsov, D. A. (2008). Standards of the International Labour Organization (ILO). In Maritime Work Law
Fundamentals: Responsible Shipowners, Reliable Seafarers. Springer.
Perera, L. P., & Mo, B. (2017). Machine intelligence based data handling framework for ship energy
efficiency. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 66(10), 8659–8666. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TVT.2017.2701501
Perera, L. P., Mo, B., & Soares, G. (2016). Machine intelligence for energy efficient ships: A big data
solution. Maritime Engineering and Technology III, Guedes Soares & Santos (Eds.), 1, 143–150.
Petersen, C. (2016). BIMCO/ICS Manpower Report Predicts Potential Shortage of Almost 150,000
Officers by 2025. www.bimco.org/news/priority-news/20160517_bimco_manpower_report
Petersen, J. (2018, January 15). Vessel performance optimisation: What do the experts say? VPO.
https://vpoglobal.com/2018/01/15/essel-performance-optimisation-experts-say/
Pham, T., Pham, D. K., & Pham, A. (2016). From Business Strategy to Information Technology
Roadmap: A Practical Guide for Executives and Board Members. CRC Press.
Pickford, J. (2001). Mastering Management 2.0: Your Single-Source Guide to Becoming a Master of
Management. Pearson Education.
PNEN. (2010). Maintenance Terminology. European Committee for Standardisation.
Porter, A. (2011). Operations Management. Bookboon.
Progoulaki, M., & Roe, M. (2011). Dealing with multicultural human resources in a socially responsible
manner: A focus on the maritime industry. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 10(1), 7–23.
Progoulaki, M., & Theotokas, I. (2010). Human resource management and competitive advantage:
An application of resource-based view in the shipping industry. Marine Policy, 34(3), 575–582.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.11.004
Progoulaki, M., & Theotokas, I. (2016). Managing culturally diverse maritime human resources as a
shipping company’s core competency. Maritime Policy & Management, 43(7), 860–873. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2016.1173734
BIBLIOGRAPHY 155
Puck, J. F. (2009). Training für multikulturelle Teams: Grundlagen, Entwicklung, Evaluation (Vol. 1).
Rainer Hampp Verlag.
Rahimi, M. (1995). Merging strategic safety, health and environment into total quality management.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/0169
8141(94)00074-D
Rahman, N. A., & Salleh, N. H. M. (2018). Improvement strategies for women representation in
Malaysian maritime transportation industry to support 3D jobs: Dirty, dangerous and
demeaning. Advances in Transportation and Logistics Research, 1, 796–814. https://doi.org/
10.25292/atlr.v1i1.71
Rao, C. A., Rao, B. P., & Sivaramakrishna, K. (2009). Strategic Management and Business Policy. Excel
Books India.
Ready, N. P. (1998). Ship Registration. LLP.
Reda, A. (2019). (1) HR best practices vs best fit. LinkedIn. www.linkedin.com/pulse/
hr-best-practices-vs-fit-ali-reda/
Reichenbächer, M., & Einax, J. W. (2011). Challenges in Analytical Quality Assurance. Springer Science
& Business Media.
Rizzuto, E., & Soares, C. G. (2011). Sustainable Maritime Transportation and Exploitation of Sea
Resources. CRC Press.
Robbins, S., & Coulter, M. K. (2003). Management. Prentice Hall.
Rodger, D. A. (1993). Overview of an industry at the crossroads. In International Ship Management:
The Right Product at the Right Price (pp. 3–13). Lloyd’s of London Press.
Rodrigue, J.-P. (2010). Maritime Transportation: Drivers for the Shipping and Port Industries.
International Transport Forum.
Rodrigue, J.-P., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2016). The Geography of Transport Systems (4th ed.).
Routledge.
Rødseth, Ø. J., Perera, L. P., & Mo, B. (2016). Big data in shipping-challenges and opportunities. In
Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Computer and IT Applications in the Maritime
Industries (COMPIT 2016), Lecce, Italy, May 2016, 361–373.
Roe, M. (2007). Shipping, policy and multi-level governance. Maritime Economics & Logistics, 9(1), 84–103.
Roe, M. (2009). Multi-level and polycentric governance: Effective policymaking for shipping. Maritime
Policy & Management, 36(1), 39–56.
Roe, M. (2013). Maritime Governance and Policy Making. Springer International Publishing.
Roe, M. (2015). Maritime Governance: Speed, Flow, Form Process. Springer.
Rondeau, E. P., Brown, R. K., & Lapides, P. D. (2012). Facility Management. John Wiley & Sons.
Roper, K., & Borello, L. (2013). International Facility Management. John Wiley & Sons.
Roper, K., & Payant, R. (2014). The Facility Management Handbook. AMACOM.
Rotberg, R. I. (2014). Good governance means performance and results. Governance, 27(3), 511–518.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12084
Rothblum, A. M. (2000). Human error and marine safety. National Safety Council Congress and Expo,
Orlando, FL, s 7.
Rothlauf, J. (2014). A Global View on Intercultural Management: Challenges in a Globalized World.
Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
Roughton, J., & Crutchfield, N. (2013). Safety Culture: An Innovative Leadership Approach.
Butterworth-Heinemann.
Rozkwitalska, M., Sułkowski, Ł., & Magala, S. (2016). Intercultural Interactions in the Multicultural
Workplace: Traditional and Positive Organizational Scholarship. Springer.
Ruggunan, S. (2011). The role of organised labour in preventing a “race to the bottom” for Filipino
seafarers in the global labour market. African and Asian Studies, 10(2–3), 180–208. https://doi.
org/10.1163/156921011X587022
Ryle, G. (2009). The Concept of Mind: 60th Anniversary Edition. Routledge.
Saini, P. (2017). Flags of convenience: Advantages, disadvantages & impact on seafarers. Sea News
Global Maritime News. https://seanews.co.uk/features/flags-of-convenience-advantages
disadvantages-impact-on-seafarers/
156 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sakellis, N. G. (1987). ADMIRALTY LAW-FEDERAL MARITME LIEN ACT: No MARITIME LIEN FOR
CONTAINERS SUPPLIED ON A FLEETWIDE BASIS: Foss Launch & Tug v. Char Ching Shipping
U.S.A. International and Comparative Law, 8, 23.
Salleh, N. H. M., Alias, N., Jeevan, J., Md Hanafiah, R., & Ngah, A. (2019). A Perspective of Malaysian
Marine Training Providers and Shipowners on Communication Issues Onboard Merchant Vessels ☆.
11, pp. 33–43.
Sampson, H., & Zhao, M. (2003). Multilingual crews: Communication and the operation of ships.
World Englishes, 22(1), 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00270
Sanchez, R. (2020). Oil Tankers Stripped of Flags after Breaching U.S. Sanctions to Secretly Ship Iranian
Oil. www.nbcnews.com/news/world/oil-tankers-stripped-flags-after-breaching-u-s-sanctions
secretly-n1238153
Sandermoen, K. (2017). Organisational Structure: Making Strategy Happen: Adizes Methodology in
Action. Sandermoen Publishing.
Sarabia-Jácome, D., Palau, C. E., Esteve, M., & Boronat, F. (2019). Seaport data space for improving
logistic maritime operations. IEEE Access, 8, 4372–4382. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2019.2963283
Sawhney, M. (2001). Don’t homogenize, synchronize. Harvard Business Review, 79(7), 100–108.
Sawhney, M. (2006). Defining, designing, and delivering customer solutions. In The Service-Dominant
Logic of Marketing: Dialog, Debate, and Directions (p. 365). Northwestern University.
Schmidt, T. (2009). Strategic Project Management Made Simple: Practical Tools for Leaders and Teams.
John Wiley & Sons.
Schneider, B., & White, S. S. (2004). Service Quality: Research Perspectives. SAGE.
Schwab, K. (2017). The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Penguin.
Scott, R., & Calhoun, L. T. (2006). Human Factors in Ship Design: Preventing and Reducing Shipboard
Operator Fatigue (p. 29). University of Michigan.
SeamanRepublic. (2016). China Overtakes, Has the Largest Number of Seafarers Followed by
Philippines, Russia, India, Indonesia, Ukraine. www.seamanrepublic.com/2016/07/china-has-the
largest-number-of-seafarers-followed-by-philippines-russia-india.html
Seelke, C. R. (2019). Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions. www.wita.org/atp-research/venezuela
overview-of-u-s-sanctions/
Seelke, C. R. (2020). Venezuela: Overview of U.S. Sanctions. 3.
Sekar, G. (2019). Padhuka’S Students Guide for Enterprise Information Systems & Strategic
Management (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer India Pvt Ltd.
Semark, D. (2013). P&I Clubs: Law and Practice. Taylor & Francis.
Sencila, V. (2018, October 3). The phenomenological model of a global maritime labour market. In
Proceedings of 22nd International Scientific Conference. Transport Means 2018.
Sengupta, N., & Chandan, J. (2011). Essentials of Strategic Management. Vikas. https://books.google.
com/books/about/Strategic_Management.html?id=BF5DDAAAQBAJ
Senthilkumar, S., Durai, M., Sharmila, A., & Poornima, J. (2014). Business Policy and Strategic
Management. S. Chand Publishing.
Seo, Y. J., Ha, M. H., Yang, Z., & Bhattacharya, S. (2018). The ship management firm selection: The
case of South Korea. The Asian Journal of Shipping and Logistics, 34(3), 256–265.
Shan, D., & Zhang, P. (2020). Enforcing workers’ compensation rights for Chinese seafarers in
human resource supply chains. . The Economic and Labour Relations Review. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1035304620962724. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1035304620962724
Sharif, A. M. (2002). Benchmarking performance management systems. Benchmarking: An
International Journal, 9(1), 62–85.
Shen, C., & Osler, D. (2018). Shipmanagement heavyweights ponder whether big is beautiful. Lloyd’s
List the Intelligence, 19–20.
Shuang, Z. (2006). Evaluation of Chinese Mainland Third Party Ship Management Industry [MSc]. World
Maritime University.
Siarry, P., Sangaiah, A. K., Lin, Y.-B., Mao, S., & Ogiela, M. R. (2021). Guest editorial: Special section
on cognitive big data science over intelligent IoT networking systems in industrial informatics.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 157
IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 17(3), 2112–2115. https://doi.org/10.1109/
TII.2020.3024894
Sillitoe, A. (2019). Three updated marine regulations you need to know about in 2019. Lloyd’s
Register. www.lr.org/en/insights/articles/marine-regulations-2019/
Singh, P. N. (2010). Employee Relations Management. Pearson Education India.
Skuld. (2018). Different Types of Co-Assureds and Their Access to Policy Cover. www.skuld.com/topics/
legal/pi-and-defence/different-types-of-co-assureds/
Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A., & Johnston, R. (2016). Operations Management. Pearson Education
Australia.
Sletmo, G. K. (1989). Shipping’s fourth wave: Ship management and Vernon’s trade cycles. Maritime
Policy and Management, 16(4), 293–303.
SMI. (2017). Ship Management Issue 66. https://shipmanagementinternational.com/smi_books/
SMI_66/files/assets/basic-html/page72.html
Smith, A. (2007). Adequate Crewing and Seafarers’ Fatigue: The International Perspective.
Soares, C. G., & Santos, T. A. (2018). Progress in Maritime Technology and Engineering: Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on Maritime Technology and Engineering (MARTECH 2018), May
7–9, 2018, Lisbon, Portugal. CRC Press.
Song, D.-W., & Panayides, P. (2015). Maritime Logistics: A Guide to Contemporary Shipping and Port
Management. Kogan Page Publishers.
Soyer, B. (2001). Warranties in Marine Insurance. Cavendish Publishing.
Späth, N. (2017). DNV GL: Standardisation can help enable the digital transformation of shipping.
DNV GL. www.dnvgl.com/news/dnv-gl-standardisation-can-help-enable-the-digital
transformation-of-shipping-104267
Spitzer, C., Schmocker, U., & Dang, V. N. (2014). Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Management:
PSAM 7: ESREL ’04 June 14–18, 2004, Berlin, Germany, Volume 6. Springer.
Splash. (2018, September 3). How will digitalisation impact shipping? Splash247. https://splash247.
com/how-will-digitalisation-impact-shipping/
Spruyt, J. (1994). Ship Management. Lloyd’s of London Press.
Srinivasan, A. (2020). BIMCO and ICS Prepare for New Seafarer Workforce Report. www.bimco.org/
news/priority-news/20200824-seafarer-workforce-report
Standard, C. (2019). Press Article: The Impact of Sanctions on the Maritime World: News and
Commentary-Knowledge Centre-Risk Management-Standard Club. www.standard-club.com/risk
management/knowledge-centre/news-and-commentary/2019/10/press-article-the-impact-of
sanctions-on-the-maritime-world.aspx
Starkey, D. J., & Harlaftis, G. (2017). Global Markets: The Internationalization of the Sea Transport
Industries since 1850. Oxford University Press.
Statista. (2020). Global merchant fleet: Number of ships by type 2019. Statista. www.statista.com/
statistics/264024/number-of-merchant-ships-worldwide-by-type/
Steamship. (2000). Steamship Mutual: Tonnage Measurement of Ships. www.steamshipmutual.com/
publications/Articles/Articles/Tonnage.asp
Steen, R. (2019). On the application of the safety-II concept in a security context. European Journal
for Security Research, 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41125-019-00041-0
Stephens, E., & Martin, B. (2019). Business Policy and Strategic Management. ED-Tech Press. https://
books.google.com/books/about/Business_Policy_and_Strategic_Management.html?id=
hePEDwAAQBAJ
Stopford, M. (2009). Maritime Economics 3e (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203891742
Storey, J. (1995). Human Resource Management: A Critical Text. Routledge.
STSA. (2020). Shipping: The Backbone of International Trade. https://stsa.swiss/knowledge/shipping
Sturmey, S. G. (2017). British Shipping and World Competition. Oxford University Press.
Sumali, B., Gunawan, A., & Barasa, L. (2018). The impact of the ship spare parts supply delays to the
cancelation of ships departure at Humolco Trans Inc Jakarta. International Review of
Management and Marketing, 8(6), 101–106.
158 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sun, L. (2016). Which organizational structure is right for your business? BusinessDictionary.Com.
www.businessdictionary.com/article/557/which-organizational-structure-is-right-for-your
business/
Syriopoulos, T., & Tsatsaronis, M. (2011). The corporate governance model of the shipping firms:
Financial performance implications. Maritime Policy & Management, 38(6), 585–604.
Szymanski, K. (2015, November 11). InterManager: “There is a serious oversupply of seafarers”.
Splash247. https://splash247.com/intermanager-there-is-a-serious-oversupply-of-seafarers/
Tang, L., & Gekara, V. (2020). The importance of customer expectations: An analysis of CSR in
container shipping. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(3), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-018-4062-4
Tang, L., Llangco, M. O. S., & Zhao, Z. (2016). Transformations and continuities of issues related to
Chinese participation in the global seafarers’ labour market. Maritime Policy & Management,
43(3), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2015.1043751
Tang, L., & Zhang, P. (2019). Global problems, local solutions: Unfree labour relations and seafarer
employment with crewing agencies in China. Industrial Relations Journal, 50(3), 277–291. https://
doi.org/10.1111/irj.12252
Tang, L., & Zhang, P. (2021). Human Resource Management in Shipping: Issues, Challenges, and
Solutions. Routledge.
Taprial, V., & Kanwar, P. (2018). Technical Services in Facility Management. Bookboon. https://
bookboon.com/en/technical-services-in-facility-management-ebook
Tarrazona, N. (2017). India, Philippines Compete for Global Share of Seafarers. The Maritime Executive.
www.maritime-executive.com/article/india-philippines-compete-for-global-share-of-seafarers
Teacher, Law. (2013). Claim Made as an Action. https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/
commercial-law/claim-made-as-an-action-law-essays.php
Tenold, S. (2010). So nice in niches: Specialization strategies in Norwegian shipping, 1960–1977.
International Journal of Maritime History, 22(1), 63–82.
Teperi, A.-M., Lappalainen, J., Puro, V., & Perttula, P. (2019). Assessing artefacts of maritime safety
culture: Current state and prerequisites for improvement. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs,
18(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-018-0160-5
Thanopoulou, H. A. (1998). What price the flag? The terms of competitiveness in shipping. Marine
Policy, 22(4–5), 359–374.
Theotokas, I. (2018). Management of Shipping Companies. Routledge.
Theotokas, I., & Harlaftis, G. (2009). Leadership in World Shipping: Greek Family Firms in International
Business. Springer.
Theotokas, I., & Progoulaki, M. (2005). Greek seafarers’ attitude on the issue of multicultural
working environment. 1st International Symposium on Ship Operations, Management and
Economics 2005, p. 323).
Theotokas, I., Progoulaki, M., & Iakovaki, H. (2013). Management of cultural diversity: Identifying the
training needs of seafarers and shore-based personnel in the European maritime shipping
industry. Intern Assoc Marit Econ: Annul Conference at Marseille.
TME. (2015). Anglo-Eastern and Univan merge. The Maritime Executive. www.maritime-executive.
com/article/anglo-eastern-and-univan-merge
Tranchard, S. (2018). The new ISO 31000 keeps risk management simple. ISO. www.iso.org/cms/
render/live/en/sites/isoorg/contents/news/2018/02/Ref2263.html
Trout, J. (2019). Maintenance management: An overview. Reliable Plant. maintenance-management
31856
Trunick, P. A. (1989). Outsourcing: A single source for many talents. Transportation & Distribution,
30(7), 20–23.
Turan, O., Ölçer, A. İ., Lazakis, I., Rigo, P., & Caprace, J. D. (2009). Maintenance/repair and
production-oriented life cycle cost/earning model for ship structural optimisation during
conceptual design stage. Ships and Offshore Structures, 4(2), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17445300802564220
Twin, A. (2020). Why companies use outsourcing. Investopedia. www.investopedia.com/terms/o/
outsourcing.asp
BIBLIOGRAPHY 159
UKDOT. (2015). Maritime Growth Study: Keeping the UK Competitive in a Global Market, p. 137.
UN. (2015). The sustainable development agenda. United Nations Sustainable Development. www.
un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/
UN. (2020). General Assembly Adopts Three Resolutions, One Designating World’s Seafarers, Other
Maritime Personnel as Key Workers in Context of COVID-19 Pandemic | Meetings Coverage and
Press Releases. www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12291.doc.htm
UNCLOS. (1982). United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. www.un.org/depts/los/convention_
agreements/texts/unclos/unclos_e.pdf
UNCTAD. (1988, September 7). United Nations (UNCTAD) Minimum Standards for Shipping Agents
(1988). SiSU www.jus.uio.no/sisu (this copy). www.jus.uio.no/lm/un.minimum.standards.
shipping.agents.convention.1988/doc.html
UNCTAD. (2007). UNCTAD Review of Maritime Transport 2007. United Nations. https://catalogue.
solent.ac.uk/openurl/44SSU_INST/44SSU_INST:VU1?u.ignore_date_coverage=true&rft.
mms_id=9997112577604796
UNCTAD (Ed.). (2011). UNCTAD: United Nations conference on trade and development 2011. In A
Concise Encyclopedia of the United Nations (pp. 698–705). Brill | Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1163/
ej.9789004180048.i-962.602
UNCTAD. (2018). Review of Maritime Transport 2018. United Nations.
UNCTAD. (2019). Review of Maritime Transport 2019. United Nations.
UNCTAD. (2020). Review of maritime transport 2020. Review of Maritime Transport, p. 159.
Underwood, D. (1989). A personal perspective on the growth of the ship management industry over
the past thirty years. International Ship Management: Profit or Loss from Shipping’s Revival, Lloyd’s
Ship Manager and Shipping News International Conference.
UNSC. (2020). Sanctions | United Nations Security Council. www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/
information
USDOT. (2020). Sanctions Programs and Country Information | U.S. Department of the Treasury. https://
home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/financial-sanctions/
sanctions-programs-and-country-information
Vandenborn, Y. (2018). Twenty Years of the ISM Code: We Reflect on How the Code Is Doing and What
still Needs to Be Done. www.navigateresponse.com/newsletter/response-newsletter
september-2018/twenty-years-of-the-ism-code
Ville, S. P. (1987). English Shipowning during the Industrial Revolution: Michael Henley and Son, London
Shipowners, 1770–1830. Manchester University Press.
Ville, S. P. (1993). The growth of specialization in English shipowning, 1750–1850. Economic History
Review, 702–722.
Visser, W., Matten, D., Pohl, M., & Tolhurst, N. (2010). The A to Z of Corporate Social Responsibility.
John Wiley & Sons.
Visvikis, I. D., & Panayides, P. M. (2017). Shipping Operations Management. Springer.
Votolato, G. (2011). Ship. Reaktion Books.
Walters, D., & Bailey, N. (2013). Lives in Peril: Profit or Safety in the Global Maritime Industry? Springer.
Walton, N., & Pyper, N. (2020). Technology Strategy. Red Globe Press.
Wang, Y. Q. (2020). A Critical Examination of the Economic Value of Using LNG as an Alternative Marine
Fuel [PhD Thesis]. Solent University.
Wang, Y. Q., & Gu, P. (2005). Reducing intercultural communication barriers between seafarers with
different cultural backgrounds. International Association of Maritime Universities (IAMU) 6th
Annual General Assembly and ConferenceWorld Maritime University.
Wankhede, A. (2019). How cost estimation is done for ship’s dry dock? Marine Insight. www.
marineinsight.com/guidelines/how-cost-estimation-is-done-for-ships-dry-dock/
Wankhede, A. (2020). Dry Dock, Types of Dry Docks & Requirements for Dry Dock. www.marineinsight.
com/guidelines/dry-dock-types-of-dry-docks-requirements-for-dry-dock/
Watt, E., & Coles, R. (2013). Ship Registration: Law and Practice. Taylor & Francis.
Weber, P. M., & Schneider, G. (2020). How many hands to make sanctions work? Comparing EU and
US sanctioning efforts. European Economic Review, 130, 103595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
euroecorev.2020.103595
160 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Weintrit, A., & Neumann, T. (2015). Safety of Marine Transport: Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea
Transportation. CRC Press.
Wen, M. (2004). Relocation and agglomeration of Chinese industry. Journal of Development
Economics, 73(1), 329–347.
Wendel, P. (2007). State Responsibility for Interferences with the Freedom of Navigation in Public
International Law. Springer Science & Business Media.
Werbińska-Wojciechowska, S. (2019). Technical System Maintenance: Delay-Time-Based Modelling.
Springer.
Whiteley, D. (2013). An Introduction to Information Systems. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Wijnolst, N., & Wergeland, T. (2009). Shipping Innovation. IOS Press.
Willingale, M. (1998). Ship Management (3rd ed.). LLP.
Wireman, T. (2004). Benchmarking Best Practices in Maintenance Management. Industrial Press Inc.
Wojnarowicz, K. Y., & Fagerhus, G. (2013). Total cost of ownership vs. Openness: Can we save by
adopting open technologies? BIMCO Bulletin, 108(2), 44–49.
Wood, J. T. (2012). Interpersonal Communication: Everyday Encounters. Cengage Learning.
Woodman, R. (1997). The History of the Ship. Lyons Press. http://archive.org/details/
historyofshipcom00wood
Woxenius, J. (2010, July 7). Flexibility vs. Specialisation in European Short Sea Shipping.
Wylezich, B., & Stock, A. (2020, June 24). Geopolitics dominate the oil tanker market-BIMCO.
MarineLink. www.marinelink.com/news/geopolitics-dominate-oil-tanker-market-479623
Xhelilaj, E., Lapa, K., & Prifti, L. (2011). Manning Crisis in the International Shipping: Fiction vs Reality.
https://doi.org/10.1201/B11810-117
Xiao, M. (2000). China Maritime Safety Administration in the New Millenium: Challenges and Strategies
[MSc]. World Maritime University.
Xu, T., & Zhang, P. (2016). Rethinking the concept of seafaring labor. Journal of Shipping and Ocean
Engineering, 6(4). https://doi.org/10.17265/2159-5879/2016.04.004
Xue, C., Tang, L., & Walters, D. (2018). Decoupled implementation? Incident reporting in Chinese
shipping. Economic and Industrial Democracy. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X18758175.
Yang, C.-S. (2019). Maritime shipping digitalization: Blockchain-based technology applications,
future improvements, and intention to use. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and
Transportation Review, 131, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.09.020
Yardley, R. J., Raman, R., Chiesa, J., Riposo, J., & Schank, J. F. (2006). Impacts of the Fleet Response
Plan on Surface Combatant Maintenance. Rand Corporation.
Yin, J., Fan, L., & Li, K. X. (2018). Second ship registry in flag choice mechanism: The implications
for China in promoting a maritime cluster policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice, 107(C), 152–165.
Yoder, D. (1958). Handbook of Personnel Management and Labor Relations (Vol. 1). McGraw-Hill.
Yuen, K. F., Wang, X., Wong, Y. D., & Ma, F. (2019). A contingency view of the effects of sustainable
shipping exploitation and exploration on business performance. Transport Policy, 77, 90–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.03.004
Zaman, I., Pazouki, K., Norman, R., Younessi, S., & Coleman, S. (2017). Challenges and opportunities
of big data analytics for upcoming regulations and future transformation of the shipping
industry. Procedia Engineering, 194, 537–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.182
Zarate, G. (2011). Handbook of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism. Archives Contemporaines.
Zerafa, M., & Farrugia, S. (2020). A marriage between compliance and culture: Building on solid
foundations. Ganado Advocates. https://ganado.com/insights/
publications/a-marriage-between-compliance-and-culture-building-on-solid-foundations/
Zhang, P. (2016). Seafarers’ Rights in China: Restructuring in Legislation and Practice under the
Maritime Labour Convention 2006. Springer.
Zhang, P., & Drumm, L. (2020). The flagging-out strategy: An examination of the impacts on the
decreasing German national fleet. Marine Policy, 103872.
Zhang, P., Lasith, A., & Rajagopal, S. (2020a). Challenges in the integration of Data Management
Systems (DMS) in ship operations. Maritime Technology and Research, 2(4), 187–207. https://doi.
org/10.33175/mtr.2020.237060
BIBLIOGRAPHY 161
Zhang, P., & Phillips, E. (2016). Safety first: Reconstructing the concept of seaworthiness under the
maritime labour convention 2006. Marine Policy, 67, 54–59.
Zhang, P., Shan, D., Zhao, M., & Pryce-Roberts, N. (2019). Navigating seafarer’s right to life across
the shipping industry. Marine Policy, 99, 80–86.
Zhang, P., Zhao, L., Vata, O., & Rajagopal, S. (2020b). Restructuring seafarers’ welfare under the
Maritime labour convention: An empirical case study of Greece. Maritime Business Review, 5(4),
373–389.
Zhang, P., & Zhao, M. (2017). Maritime health of Chinese seafarers. Marine Policy, 83, 259–267.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.06.028
Zhao, M., Zhang, P., & He, G. (2020). Port-based welfare services for seafarers in Chinese ports:
Their roles, changes and challenges. Marine Policy, 104190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2020.104190
Zingoni, A. (2010). Advances and Trends in Structural Engineering, Mechanics and Computation. CRC
Press.
Index
acquisition 10, 33, 37 crew changes 65, 74

agency relations 44 crew coordinator 94
arrival operations phase 66 crew insurance 99, 126
asset management 81 crew management 6, 48, 98, 99, 102
audit 48, 68, 70, 119 cross-cultural understanding 111
automatic identification system 132 cultural diversity 109
cultural misunderstanding 110
ballast water management 64, 65 cyberattack 132, 133
best endeavours 43, 46, 47, 49, 50 Cyber Attack Exclusion Clause (CL380) 133
best practice 89, 99, 126
big data analytics 6, 39, 84, 130 data management 40, 130, 131
BIMCO 47, 48, 57, 85, 86, 100, 101, 126, 129, 133 definition of compliance management 114
BIMCO/ICS Manpower Report 100 departmentalisation 30
bulk carriers 13, 14, 71 departure operations 70, 71, 72
business policies 26, 27, 28; basic policies 27, 28; designated person ashore (DPA) 31, 32, 49, 89, 90
general policies 27; specific policies 27, 28 digitalisation 10, 40, 126, 129, 130, 131, 133
business strategy 16, 24, 25, 27, 43, 97, 101, 114 document of compliance 50, 88
DPA see designated person ashore (DPA)
cargo operations 63, 67, 68, 69 duty of confidentiality 53
choice of flag 35, 37
CL380 see Cyber Attack Exclusion Clause (CL380) effective teamwork 113
class survey 6, 68, 70 electronic navigational chart 73
collective bargaining agreement 65, 104 emergency management 92
commercial management 1, 6, 10, 42, 43, 44, 53, 59 emergency response team (ERT) 62, 93, 94, 95
communication 73, 108, 110, 132 emission control areas 129
compliance culture 124 Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) 86
compliance management 114 Energy Efficiency Operational Indicator (EEOI) 86
comprehensive emergency management 92 ERT see emergency response team (ERT)
concept of ship management 9, 11 estimated time of arrival 66
concept of strategic management 24
condition-based maintenance 82 facility management 77
conflicts of interest 12, 34, 52 fiduciary duties 10, 47, 50, 53
container ships 14 flagging-out 5, 16, 36, 37
contingency plan 93 flag of convenience (FOC) 5, 16, 35, 36
contract out see outsourcing fleet superintendent 94
contractual obligations 10, 46, 54 FOC see flag of convenience (FOC)
Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) functional strategy 24, 27
88, 116
Convention on Standards of Training, Certification general cargo 4, 13, 15, 71, 72
and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 116 general cargo ships 4, 13, 15, 71, 72
corporate social responsibility 51, 106 General Data Protection Regulation
corporate strategy 24, 25, 27 (GDPR) 133
corrective maintenance 81 globalisation 126
164 INDEX
greenhouse gas 23, 95, 129 Merchant Shipping Act 79

Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships 132 Merchant Shipping (Minimum Standards)
Convention,The 1976 117
human element 10, 11, 79, 100, 128 mergers and acquisitions 20, 24, 33
human resource management 1, 10, 86, 96, 103, Minimum Standards for Shipping Agents 47, 115
105, 128 Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) 123
MoU see memorandum of understanding (MoU)
ILO see International Labour Organisation (ILO) MS&Q superintendent 94
incident management 77 multicultural crew 10, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113
industrial relations 10, 96, 97, 103, 104 multilevel and polycentric governance 22
information system 39, 40, 90, 91, 132
information systems department 91 notice of readiness (NOR) 66, 67
information technology 90
intercultural competence 111, 112, 113 objectives of HRM 97
intercultural education 113 occupational health and safety 88
International Bargaining Forum (IBF) 104 Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) 121, 122, 123
international economic sanctions 10, 120 onboard deficiency log 70
International Labour Organisation (ILO) 21, 22, open registry (OR) 16, 19, 35, 36, 102, 103
117, 119 operations management 10, 59, 60, 61, 62, 75, 76, 98
International Maritime Employers’ Council operations managers 60
(IMEC) 104 OR see open registry (OR)
International Maritime Organization (IMO) 3, 16, 22, organisational structure 6, 10, 17, 20, 24, 28, 29, 30,
23, 36 31, 32, 33
international sanctions 120 outsourcing 6, 7, 31
International Ship Managers’ Association (ISMA) 48
International Transport Intermediaries Club (ITIC) 57 performance management 10, 12, 79, 83, 84, 85
International Transport Workers’ Federation pilot boarding 66, 67
(ITF) 103 planned maintenance system 83
ISM Code 29, 31, 44, 46, 49, 70, 78, 79, 83, 88, 89, 90, port agents 65
93, 95, 99, 127, 132 Port Clearance Certificate (PCC) 71, 72
ISMA Code 48 port formalities and clearances 68, 69
port safety checks 64
key performance indicators (KPI) 85 port state authorities 120
KPI see key performance indictor (KPI) port state control (PSC) 41, 64, 68, 69, 118;
inspections 69, 75, 85, 86, 104
law of agency 44, 46, 47, 53, 123 port state jurisdiction 119
legal compliance 115, 124 port stay operations 67, 68
lifeboat drills 68, 70 pre-arrival operations 64
liquefied natural gas 14, 129 preventive maintenance 81
long-range information and tracking 73 professional ship management see third-party ship
management
maintenance management 10, 81, 83, 84
management agreement 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, quality and safety management 87
55, 56, 61, 78, 98 quality assurance 87
marine coordinator 93 quality management system 87
maritime governance 21
Maritime Labour Convention 2006 29, 117, 128 real-time information sharing 66
maritime labour market 19, 101, 102, 103, 106 reasonable care 51
maritime regulatory regime 22, 23, 79, 115, 116, 128 RightShip ratings 75
maritime security 40, 115, 128, 131 role of the ship manager 10, 43, 63
MARPOL 40, 116, 118, 123, 125
master–agent information exchange 66, 67 safety and quality 28, 93, 128
memorandum of understanding (MoU) 41, 88, 119 safety culture 88, 89, 90
INDEX 165
safety management certificate 50, 88 single-nationality crew 110

safety management system 31, 49, 50, 62, 89, 125 Standards of Training, Certification and
scope of authority 45, 51, 56, 64; actual authority 45; Watchkeeping for Seafarers (STCW) 98, 100, 112,
apparent authority 45; ratification 45, 104 113, 116, 117, 118
seafarer employment agreement 46, 54, 65, 104 strategic management 24; specialisation strategy 4;
seafarer supply countries 102 strategic choice 7, 9, 103
seafaring profession 9, 17, 19, 24, 101, 105, 106, strategy, positioning 37, 38
108, 129 Sustainable Development Goal (SDGs) 23, 106
sea voyage cycle 10, 62, 63, 64, 76
seaworthiness 10, 79, 80, 81 tankers 14
service operation 61 technical coordinator 94
service organisation 61, 77, 87 technical management 76
ship emergency management 93 technical performance measures 84
Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) 86 third-party knowledge services 125
ship manager’s liability 55 third-party ship management 5, 6, 9
ship manager’s responsibilities 45 total cost of ownership 133
ship owning 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 43, 56, 74, 78, 124 types of ships 4, 9, 13, 24
ship registration 16
ship stores and provisions 65 UNCLOS see United Nations Convention on the
shipboard hierarchy 17 Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)
Shipboard Marine Pollution Emergency Plan United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
(SMPEP) 94 (UNCLOS) 16, 79, 115, 119
Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan US sanctions 121, 122
(SOPEP) 94 US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control
shipboard organisation 78 (OFAC) 121
shipbuilding contract 16
SHIPMAN 2009 10, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 53, vessel maintenance and repairs 68, 70
54, 55, 76, 78, 98, 126 vessel performance optimisation 128
shipping market 1, 4, 7, 12, 13, 20, 24, 37
shipping market cycles 20 world fleet 2, 3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 19, 100

Ship Management - Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ship Management - Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ship Management - Theory and Practice

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For more information about this series, please visit: www.routledge.com/Routledge-Maritime-Masters/

Theory and Practice

Pengfei Zhang and Lijun Tang

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

© 2022 Pengfei Zhang and Lijun Tang

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

ISBN: 978-0-367-53278-9 (hbk)

Typeset in Gill Sans

List of tables vii

Maritime shipping and world fleet 2

Evolution of ship owning and management 4

Choice of outsourcing ship management 7

Structure of the book 9

2 Special characteristics of ship management 11

The concept of ship management 11

The main types of ships 13

General cargo ships 15

Special nature and characteristics of the ship 15

Special nature and characteristics of the seafaring profession 17

Special nature and characteristics of the shipping business 19

Special nature and characteristics of maritime governance 21

The concept of strategic management 24

Business policies of shipping companies 26

Merger and acquisition as growth strategies 33

Strategic shipping market and positioning strategy 37

Response to emerging technologies 38

The concept of commercial management 42

The role of the ship manager 43

The ship manager’s contractual obligations 46

The ship manager’s fiduciary duties 50

Duty to act for the best interest of the ship owner 51

Duty to act within the scope of authority 51

Duty to act with reasonable care, skill and diligence 51

Duty to avoid and disclose conflicts of interest 52

Management of risk and insurance 53

The concept of operations management 59

The ‘sea voyage cycle’ 62

Operations in each phase of the sea voyage cycle 64

Pre-arrival operations phase 64

Arrival operations phase 66

Port stay operations phase 67

Departure operations phase 70

Pre-departure operations phase 71

Post-departure operations phase 72

The concept of technical management 76

The concept of seaworthiness 79

Ship maintenance management 81

Quality and safety management 87

Information system management 90

7 Human resource management 96

The concept of human resource management 96

The human element in the maritime industry 100

The maritime labour market 101

Industrial relations in the maritime industry 103

Sustainable workforce development 104

The management of a multicultural crew 107

The multicultural crew in the maritime industry 107