Shipping has always depended on interconnected decisions. A chartering choice made ashore affects a master onboard. A reporting framework designed in one organisation can shape workloads across an entire vessel operation. And when something goes wrong, the consequences rarely sit neatly with a single stakeholder.
Against that backdrop, the final panel of the RightShip Greece Forum examined how risk, responsibility, and resilience are evolving across the maritime value chain — and why stronger alignment remains difficult even when industry intentions are broadly shared.
Moderated by Andrew Roberts, Executive Director, EMEA & Americas at Rightship, the panel featured:
The session explored how organisations are navigating increasing operational complexity, growing volumes of data, and rising expectations around transparency and safety — while also confronting the practical realities of commercial pressure, fragmented standards, and the demands being placed on crews across the system.
One of the clearest themes throughout the discussion was that risk may be shared across the maritime ecosystem, but it is often interpreted through very different operational and commercial lenses.
John Cotzias observed that while “risk is shared in reality,” it often remains “separated in behaviour.” Owners focus on operational continuity, charterers on cargo and reputation, insurers on claims exposure, and brokers on marketability and commercial disruption. Too often, he suggested, those perspectives only converge once problems emerge rather than earlier in the decision-making process.
That fragmentation was repeatedly linked back to operational complexity onboard vessels. Laure Baratgin reflected that despite significant industry progress over recent decades, there remains a need to “lighten the backpack of the seafarers” by reducing duplication, improving standardisation, and simplifying how assurance activities are managed across stakeholders.
The discussion also reinforced that safety outcomes cannot be separated from crew experience. Eric Aboussouan acknowledged the progress shipping has made, while cautioning against complacency. As he noted, the industry must continue to “reward the best” while also remaining willing to challenge behaviours and practices that undermine safety outcomes.
Across the session, panellists repeatedly returned to the idea that stronger collaboration depends not only on better frameworks, but also on greater operational realism — particularly in recognising the pressures crews face within increasingly data-intensive systems.
While data transparency featured heavily throughout the forum, this discussion focused less on data availability and more on whether organisations genuinely trust the information shaping operational decisions.
For the panel, “trusted data” was not defined by volume. Instead, it was described as data that is accurate, comparable, explainable, and usable under operational pressure.
Laure Baratgin reflected that trusted data is ultimately data that enables organisations to “take decisions, save lives” and respond effectively when situations escalate. That requires not only reliable information, but also transparency around how data is measured, interpreted, and independently assessed.
John Cotzias warned that increasing volumes of information can quickly become counterproductive when organisations struggle to distinguish signal from noise. From a broker’s perspective, he described the growing challenge of processing overlapping reports, fragmented frameworks, and operational information that is often difficult to compare consistently across stakeholders.
The panel also explored the growing role of AI and digital tools in helping transform large datasets into more actionable insights. While speakers acknowledged the value of AI in improving speed and efficiency, several emphasised that technology alone cannot replace human judgment.
John Cotzias remarked that while AI is “here to stay,” maritime decision-making still depends heavily on “human intelligence,” particularly when operational context and experience remain critical to understanding risk.
While collaboration is widely discussed across the industry, panellists acknowledged that achieving genuine alignment remains considerably harder in practice.
Several panellists noted that organisations often continue to operate within separate standards, reporting structures, and assurance frameworks — even when they broadly share the same safety objectives.
Laure Baratgin pointed to the importance of moving from discussion toward implementation, arguing that standardisation only becomes meaningful when organisations are prepared to “walk the talk” and collectively adopt common frameworks, even where those frameworks continue to evolve.
The conversation also highlighted how repetitive reporting and duplicated assurance processes continue to create unnecessary burden onboard vessels. One audience question referenced crews completing multiple noon reports containing largely identical information for different stakeholders — a practical example of how fragmentation directly affects operational workload.
Panellists stressed that reducing duplication does not mean lowering standards. Instead, the discussion focused on creating greater alignment around shared approaches, trusted frameworks, and interoperable systems that allow stakeholders to rely more confidently on common information.
Eric Aboussouan noted that better technology, better standards, and better data are ultimately only “means to an end.” The real measure of progress, he argued, is whether the industry delivers fewer incidents, safer operations, and a more sustainable working environment for seafarers.
The session closed with a pragmatic but optimistic reflection on what progress could look like over the next several years.
Panellists acknowledged that maritime risk will continue to evolve alongside changing trade patterns, geopolitical pressures, regulatory expectations, and technological transformation. But they also reinforced that the industry already possesses many of the tools needed to improve outcomes — provided stakeholders can align more consistently around how those tools are applied.
The discussion reinforced a broader theme from across the forum: resilience is not built through data alone. It depends on trust in how information is shared, interpreted, and acted upon across the value chain.
Watch the full panel discussion to hear the complete perspectives shared by leaders from across chartering, cargo ownership, and maritime brokerage.
This article was generated with the assistance of AI and may contain inaccuracies.