Dry bulk shipping has invested heavily in procedures, reporting frameworks, and safety controls over the past decade. Yet despite that progress, serious incidents and fatalities continue to persist across the industry — particularly in high-risk operational environments where pressure, complexity, and fragmented accountability intersect.
That reality framed the discussion during the “Safety Under the Spotlight — Addressing High-Risk Issues” panel at the RightShip Forum in Greece. Moderated by Darren Ryan, Chief Operations Officer at RightShip, the session brought together operational, technical, and safety perspectives from across the maritime sector:
The conversation examined where critical risks remain concentrated, why some safety challenges continue despite stronger compliance frameworks, and what is needed to drive more consistent and sustainable improvement across the industry.
One of the strongest themes to emerge was the growing recognition that safety performance cannot be measured solely by the existence of procedures or controls. Increasingly, the challenge lies in whether those systems are practical, consistently applied, and effective under real operating conditions.
Georgios Evdaimon noted that the industry has improved safety management over the last decade through risk assessments, behavioural safety programmes, and stronger operational frameworks. However, he acknowledged that fatalities and serious incidents remain stubbornly present across enclosed spaces, mooring operations, and ship-to-shore activities.
Several panellists cautioned against responding to incidents by continually adding new procedural layers to already stretched operational systems.
Panagiotis Nikiteas questioned whether enough attention is being given to engineering controls, vessel design, and operational realities alongside procedural compliance. Apostolos Poulovassilis similarly noted that many organisations already have extensive frameworks in place, but the opportunity now lies in understanding how crews interact with those controls in practice — particularly under pressure.
The discussion reinforced that operational effectiveness depends not only on rules and documentation, but on whether crews are realistically equipped, supported, and empowered to apply them consistently onboard.
The session devoted significant attention to enclosed space entry incidents, which continue to represent one of shipping’s most persistent fatality risks.
Drawing on inspection data and operational observations across the sector, Ali Darani highlighted recurring weaknesses in the practical implementation of enclosed space controls. These included overly generic procedures, permit-to-work deficiencies, inconsistent use of gas monitoring equipment, and training that often risks becoming a “tick-the-box” exercise rather than meaningful competency development.
Importantly, the panel framed these issues not simply as isolated human errors, but as indicators of broader systemic gaps between compliance expectations and operational reality.
Panagiotis Nikiteas argued that the industry must move beyond treating enclosed space safety solely as a procedural issue. He reflected that rescue operations, staffing pressures, vessel design limitations, and fatigue all shape how safely these operations can be performed in practice.
The discussion also highlighted the importance of data quality and transparency in understanding where risks remain concentrated. Several speakers noted that inconsistent reporting and fragmented industry datasets continue to make it difficult to establish a fully aligned picture of safety performance across the sector.
Throughout the conversation, panellists repeatedly returned to a common point: reducing fatalities will require more than additional procedures. It will require systems that are operationally realistic and designed around how work is actually carried out onboard vessels.
Another major focus of the panel was the complexity of ship-to-shore interactions during cargo operations, where responsibility often spans multiple organisations, operating cultures, and commercial priorities.
Georgios Evdaimon emphasised that accountability must be both shared and clearly defined between vessels, terminals, and shore personnel. While vessel crews are responsible for maintaining safe onboard environments, terminals also play a critical role in ensuring stevedores are appropriately trained and aligned with agreed operational procedures.
However, the discussion acknowledged that in practice, accountability can become blurred — particularly when operational timelines tighten.
Several speakers reflected on the challenge masters face when raising safety concerns during cargo operations. Georgios Evdaimon noted that while masters formally retain overriding authority onboard, commercial realities can make it difficult to stop unsafe operations without concern over operational or financial consequences.
Panagiotis Nikiteas described this dynamic as “asymmetrical accountability,” where vessel crews are often expected to manage risks created elsewhere in the operational chain.
The panel also discussed the increasing demands placed on onboard personnel during port operations, where smaller crews are managing growing administrative requirements alongside intensive operational workloads.
The discussion reinforced that improving ship-to-shore safety will require stronger collaboration across the wider maritime ecosystem — including ports, terminals, operators, and charterers — rather than relying solely on vessel crews to absorb operational risk.
The relationship between workload, distraction, and risk emerged as another consistent thread throughout the session.
Panellists reflected on the cumulative effect of overlapping inspections, reporting frameworks, administrative processes, and procedural requirements placed on crews. While many of these systems are designed with good intent, the discussion questioned whether the industry has sufficiently considered their combined operational impact.
Georgios Evdaimon emphasised the need for greater alignment and simplification across inspection regimes and reporting requirements, while Torkil Eide Solstad discussed how digital tools and connected systems could help reduce repetitive reporting burdens and improve data sharing across stakeholders.
Ali Darani also stressed the importance of strengthening safety culture not only onboard vessels, but within shore organisations themselves — ensuring leadership behaviours and operational expectations reinforce practical safety outcomes rather than simply procedural compliance.
Across the panel, there was broad agreement that reducing unnecessary burden is increasingly central to improving safety performance.
The discussion highlighted that many of the industry’s most serious risks are already well understood. The challenge now is creating greater alignment between safety intent and operational reality.
That includes building systems that crews can apply consistently under pressure, improving trust and transparency across stakeholders, and reducing fragmentation that adds complexity without improving outcomes.
The panel also reinforced that meaningful progress will depend on collaboration across the maritime supply chain — particularly in creating environments where frontline personnel feel supported to raise concerns, stop unsafe work, and contribute openly to continuous improvement.
Watch the full panel discussion to hear further perspectives on critical safety risks, ship-to-shore operations, crew pressures, and the operational realities shaping safety performance across the maritime industry.
This article was generated with the assistance of AI and may contain inaccuracies.