RightShip Greece Forum 2026: Data, Collaboration & the Evolution of Risk Management​

Risk management in shipping is becoming increasingly data-driven — but the industry is still grappling with what meaningful action actually looks like in practice. Inspection histories, PSC outcomes, GHG ratings, and operational reporting now provide more visibility than ever before. Yet as this panel explored, greater visibility does not automatically lead to stronger alignment or better decisions.

Moderated by Kostis Antonopoulos, Associate Director, Eastern Mediterranean at RightShip, the discussion brought together perspectives from across ship management, ownership, and maritime technology:

• Capt. Leonid Zalensky, Group Chief Operating Officer, Columbia ShipManagement
• Dimitris Patrikios, Managing Director, V.Ships Greece
• Marlon Grech, Chief Product Officer, RightShip
• George Thanopoulos, Chief Executive Officer, Neda Maritime Agency

The conversation examined how organisations are evolving their approaches to risk management — and why challenges around consistency, transparency, and trust continue to shape operational decision-making across the industry.

From reactive reporting to proactive risk management

One of the strongest themes throughout the discussion was the industry’s gradual shift from reactive incident response toward more proactive risk management.

Capt. Leonid Zalensky described how Columbia ShipManagement has started analysing near misses differently — not simply recording events, but examining whether outcomes were avoided through effective safeguards or “just by pure luck.” The conversation highlighted how organisations are increasingly trying to identify patterns earlier, strengthen preventative barriers, and move beyond relying solely on historical incidents as indicators of risk.

Dimitris Patrikios reinforced that improving risk management is a continuous process that depends on collaboration across the maritime ecosystem. Reflecting on decades in shipping, he emphasised that managing risk extends across every aspect of vessel operations and stakeholder interaction, while also stressing the importance of viewing training as a long-term investment rather than a cost.

Panellists also acknowledged the operational complexity ship managers face in balancing commercial pressures, charterer expectations, regulatory obligations, and fragmented assurance requirements — often simultaneously.

Why consistency matters more than volume

The discussion also focused heavily on the difference between collecting data and being able to apply it consistently and meaningfully.

George Thanopoulos, Chief Executive Officer of Neda Maritime Agency, noted that data has little value without confidence in its quality and interpretation. Speaking from an engineering perspective, he observed that there is no point in having a data point without understanding its uncertainty — reinforcing the need for greater consistency in how maritime risk signals are interpreted across stakeholders.

This becomes particularly important when assessing vessel performance across different inspection regimes, authorities, and reporting frameworks, where the same findings can often be interpreted differently depending on context.

Marlon Grech highlighted the importance of benchmarking operational data against peer vessels and operating environments, explaining that inspection findings only become meaningful when viewed with sufficient context. The panel also explored how technology can support more consistent interpretation at scale, including RightShip’s work toward AI-supported severity classification for PSC deficiencies.

Importantly, the discussion reinforced that these tools are intended to support — not replace — professional judgement, helping transform large volumes of operational data into insight that is more actionable, explainable, and trusted.

Reducing burden without reducing transparency

Another recurring theme was the growing operational burden associated with inspections, reporting requirements, and repetitive administrative processes.

Root cause analysis, close-out documentation, and overlapping assurance requests all require significant effort from crews and shore teams — often involving similar information being entered repeatedly across multiple systems.

Rather than reducing transparency, the panel explored how smarter use of technology could help reduce unnecessary administrative workload while keeping focus on activities that genuinely improve safety outcomes.

Marlon Grech shared examples of how automation and AI are beginning to support this shift, including extracting operational data directly from uploaded documentation instead of relying on manual entry.

The discussion also highlighted that transparency alone does not automatically create trust. Dimitris Patrikios reflected that when “transparency is penalised,” organisations can lose the psychological safety needed to encourage openness and learning internally. The panel acknowledged that transparency is most effective when it supports continuous improvement rather than compliance-driven responses.

Trust remains central to collaboration

The session also took a pragmatic view of collaboration within a commercially competitive industry.

George Thanopoulos observed that collaboration tends to work best when stakeholders are aligned around shared outcomes — particularly around preventing casualties, detentions, and environmental harm. At the same time, the discussion recognised that commercial realities inevitably shape the limits of what organisations are willing to share.

Capt. Leonid Zalensky also pointed to the challenge of fragmented assurance and vetting frameworks, noting that even where common standards exist, interpretations can still vary significantly across organisations and stakeholders.

Ultimately, the discussion reinforced that meaningful collaboration depends not only on technology and standards, but also on trust — trust in data, trust in how information is interpreted, and trust that transparency will support better outcomes rather than simply redistribute risk.

Looking ahead

While the maritime industry now operates with greater access to data and operational insight than ever before, the discussion made clear that the bigger challenge lies in creating confidence in how that information is applied.

Stronger alignment, more consistent standards, and smarter use of technology will all play an important role in improving how risk is managed collectively across the maritime ecosystem. But as the panel repeatedly acknowledged, better outcomes will also depend on operational realism, collaboration, and systems that support both transparency and trust.

Watch the full panel discussion to hear the perspectives shared by leaders from across ship management, ownership, and maritime technology.

This article was generated with the assistance of AI and may contain inaccuracies.