Knowledge centre

The RightShip platform

The RightShip team is pleased to launch its new platform – here you’ll find all of our products in one place.

Our improved platform has been designed to provide you and your team with an improved and more transparent experience. The enhanced offering is an amalgamation of our comprehensive data sets, advanced analytics and the technical expertise of RightShip staff.

All RightShip services are now available through the RightShip platform, and we aim to provide greater transparency, faster responses and seamless communication between all industry participants. With just a click of a button, you can request vets, book vessel inspections, fill out terminal questionnaires, close out incidents and verify your GHG Rating all in one place. We have also improved connectivity of our platform, allowing our customers to get closer to the action. You will receive requests for information and have the option to upload the required content directly in the platform, allowing you to stay connected to our industry experts. This means our services, such as vessel vetting, are easier to use and results can be returned faster.

Through RightShip’s new platform technology, you can access these business solutions:

  • Safety Solutions
    • RightShip vessel Inspections
    • Vessel vetting
    • Safety Score
  • Sustainability Solutions
    • GHG Rating
    • Carbon Accounting - online tool coming soon!
    • Maritime Emissions Portal

Optimised workflows

With enhanced cloud-based servers, plus mobile and tablet-friendly options, the platform has increased stability and provides more versatility for you, our customer. We aim to provide greater transparency, faster responses and seamless communication between RightShip and our customers. You can also respond to RightShip requests for information directly in the platform, allowing you to upload vessel information and certificates anywhere, while on the go.

In addition, you’re able to check the status of vets, request inspections and benchmark all vessels' Safety Score and GHG emissions from the same vessel page.

The new RightShip platform has several new features, which provide improved functionality and more streamlined communication with our experts. This means our services, such as vessel vetting, are easier to use and results can be returned faster. The improved advanced search tool provides a customisable, more efficient search for vessels. You can also set up notifications and alerts to monitor your vessels, inspections and vetting status.

Improved transparency to an individual vessel’s score and to drive improvements in the industry was a design priority. In our enhanced platform offering, you’ll find more information about the Safety Score and the GHG Rating, including how the vessel has been scored or rated as well as benchmarking each vessel within its peer group. This helps you to clearly understand where the vessel sits versus similar type and size vessels.

A clear path to improved safety

Through our platform, we provide an easier way for RightShip and ship owners and managers to communicate so that those in charge can take actionable steps to improve safety standards for that vessel.

Vessels found to have incidents or detention which has not been closed out with RightShip, will have alerts clearly displayed. By contrast, vessels with an acceptable RightShip inspection, achieved in the past 12 months, will be rewarded with the RightShip inspection badge.


1) Safety Score

At each stage in the Safety Score, customers can clearly see where they can improve their score.

Rules that govern if a vessel has a SS1 and SS2 are clearly highlighted on a vessel’s page and vessel owners are provided with the required action to release the vessels from these scores.

Customers can see a clear and concise explanation of the elements that factor into the Safety Scores model, which provides scores of 3 - 5, and how they contribute to their overall score.


2) Vetting

RightShip’s new platform is easy to use, taking the confusion and stress out of the vetting process. Within the platform you can request a vet directly from the vessel page. This immediately lands in our vetting team’s workflow and gives you instant access to RightShip’s staff. Improved vetting services included:

Vet status transparency

Track your vet from within the platform – including the status, requests for additional information or if an inspection is required.

Real time notifications

You’ll receive real time notifications from RightShip superintendents. These notifications will include instructions outlining your next steps and allow you to upload required information directly into the platform.


3) Inspections

Inspection requests are now processed digitally – linked directly to the vessel page and our vetting services. If a vessel needs an inspection as part of the vetting process, all parties will be informed through the platform’s communication tools.

RightShip provides an inspections badge on a vessel’s page to reward vessel owners who are committed to investing in best safety practices for their fleet.

Customers can request an inspection simply by filling out the required forms located within the platform. This request will be immediately added to our inspections team’s workflow. Any additional requests for information will be made through the platform.

Working towards a zero-emissions future

We encourage all vessel owners to view their ratings on the GHG Rating summary page and the GHG Rating factors page, which outlines each criterion in the GHG Rating equation. With industry support, we can ensure the data is verified and the ratings are calculated as accurately as possible.

The GHG workflow in the new RightShip platform has been built with you in mind. We’ve listened to your feedback and implemented the following workflow enhancements:

Reward for positive actions

We’ve highlighted energy saving equipment, so vessel owners who invest in efficiency are easily recognised and charterers have greater insight into these measures when selecting vessels.

We understand sustainability measures require investment and we value owners who proactively make efficiency improvements. In turn, we now reward those owners with recognition for their efforts – they’re front and centre for potential charter.

Fast-tracked GHG verification workflow

In an effort to reduce emails, we’ve built direct communications tools into our platform. You can now talk to us directly, using the Request a GHG verification button. This will help you to verify a vessel’s GHG Rating and energy saving equipment quickly and easily.

Here you will complete a questionnaire that is tailored to your vessel requirements, rather than sending several emails to our team.

Improved GHG transparency

You’ll now receive greater insight into the individual factors that make up your vessel’s GHG Rating and have full access to data sources. This bolsters transparency for both the owner and charterer, in turn ensuring more accurate ratings.

Best practice GHG benchmarking

RightShip’s new platform provides comprehensive analysis of the make-up of your fleet, and a comparison of the world fleet’s efficiency, so you gain comparative context. It also provides owners with verification status of their vessels, so they’re well placed to determine where work is needed.

Get the job done in one place

You can now complete GHG verification requests, receive outcomes and communicate with our team in one location within the RightShip platform. With GHG Ratings and vetting housed within the platform, you’ll experience a seamless, holistic vetting process.

RightShip’s Safety Score

What is RightShip’s Safety Score?

Since 1991, RightShip has provided due diligence and risk management tools for the maritime industry. As technology and marketplace requirements have evolved, so has our capability to measure, monitor and describe safety standards.

The Safety Score benchmarks the historical operational performance of the world’s fleet. It is intended to help our risk assessment customers gain an initial perspective on the operational performance of a potential vessel as part of a comprehensive due diligence process, while simultaneously encouraging shipowners to invest in improved processes and technologies that make the entire supply chain safer.

Today the RightShip Safety Score has three main objectives which combine technology advancements, expert review and industry feedback:

  • Transparent: The Safety Score has been designed to provide a clear and concise explanation of the elements that factor into the score and outcome.
  • Explainable: The model has been carefully designed to make it simple to identify changes in ratings
  • Useable: It provides a much clearer view of both the positive and negative performance of a vessel in the due diligence process. Ship owners are provided with actionable steps to improve safety and to benchmark against other vessels in the world fleet

How does the Safety Score work?

The RightShip Safety Score incorporates various maritime data sets, industry standards, expert review and statistical model into one easy to understand score, which provides an indication of a vessel’s safety performance today. The Safety Score is calculated through the following process:

First, every vessel is checked against a series of industry standard safety performance rules, which, if triggered, provide a vessel with a Safety Score of N/A, zero, 1 or 2. Each rule has a specific “road to resolution”, which is reviewed RightShip’s internal governance department. Once the vessel is provided with a positive review, or if no rule is triggered, the vessel is scored by the Safety Score model. Depending on the vessel’s historical performance, vessels can achieve a score of three, four or five. A 5 out of 5 indicates best practice attention to safety over the last five years.

Which vessels receive a Safety Score?

All cargo carrying commercial vessels (>1,000 DWT):

  • Dry bulk vessels
  • Tanker vessels (inc. Bunkering, FSO)
  • Container Vessels
  • LNG, LPG and Multigas vessels
  • General cargo vessels (inc. Vehicle carriers)

Safety Score data

RightShip’s Safety Score model is built on a foundation of cleaned and verified data, which comes from several sources including maritime analytics associations and government institutions. We gather information contributed by our customers, source our own first-hand data and utilise dedicated data stewardship experts to deliver comprehensive and accurate results.

As there is no one golden record of data in the maritime industry, RightShip is required to collect data from multiple sources, which can occasionally show conflicts. In order to combat this, RightShip data is cleansed through automated processes and expert analysis, which constantly refines the data. The data that contributes to a vessel’s Safety Score is clearly made available on a vessel’s activity timeline.

Safety events included in each vessel’s Safety Score

To drill down into the specific safety incidents and events which are included in the Safety Score, you can click on a vessel’s activity timeline. Here you can see all the incidents and port state control inspections. Where possible, all deficiencies and detentions for each PSC inspection will be listed. You can also see the severity grading of each incident.


Safety Score methodology

The Safety Score is calculated through a combination of industry standard rules and statistical modelling, including expert review of vessels. It has been designed to ensure that RightShip correctly identifies the vessels that are N/A, zero, 1 and 2 using a standard set of rules and to provide a prospective resolution for those vessels, on their continuous path to improvement.

We believe results coupled with actionability helps us to better service our due diligence customers and the shipping community. We recommend charterers use the Safety Score as an initial indicator when considering which vessels to put forward for vetting, taking into account the information available about the vessel on the platform, the overall score, sub scores, inspection status and GHG rating.

For vessel owners, the platform provides details as to why a vessel has achieved a specific score as well as actionable mechanisms to improve maritime safety.

Safety Score Rules (Safety Scores of N/A, 0, 1 & 2)

The Safety Score rules focus on what is already accepted as “good” industry practice. These binary rules are resolutions-focused and support the industry’s position on good operations. We aim to support all ship operators on their path to optimal safety and performance.

The Safety Score rules represent an initial risk assessment and present the first step in our customers’ due diligence process before submitting vessels for vetting. The rules also provide a heuristic check to ensure vessels currently identified as Safety Score N/A, zero, 1 or 2 are correctly identified. Each rule also has a definitive resolution, providing clear actions to resolve each of the rules and release vessels from being scored one or two. These resolutions are described next to each Safety Score rule.

Vessels can trigger multiple rules, with the lowest Safety Score rule set as the vessel’s overall Safety Score. The lowest Safety Score rule triggered needs to be resolved before it can be moved to a higher score. For example, if a vessel has triggered a SS1 and a SS2 rule, the SS1 rule will need be resolved before the vessel can achieve an overall score of 2, which in turn must be addressed before the vessel can achieve a score of 3 to 5.

The Safety Score model (Safety Scores of 3, 4 & 5)

If all Safety Score rules have been resolved, or no rules have been triggered, the vessel’s Safety Score is calculated by the Safety Score model. The model is made up of six sub-scores and more than 20 safety considerations, providing indications of historical safety performance. Each has been chosen to encourage all participants in the supply chain to work towards the highest standard in maritime safety practices.

It is calculated from a vessel’s five-year historical performance, with various risk factors considered at the vessel, DOC, Class and Flag level. The output is a score between three and five, where a vessel which has achieved a five out of five indicates best practice attention to safety over the last five years.

After listening to the industry, we have removed size, type and builder. Age is also not included in the Safety Score model, however only dry bulk vessels over 14 years old with a valid RightShip inspection are included. with the result is a model which is centred on safety performance indicators that operators can affect. Shipowners can see which sub scores they need to improve and benchmark their safety procedures against the industry’s best performers.

What does a vessel’s Safety Score mean?

Through extensive industry consultation, RightShip’s safety products have evolved from a passive indicator to being the initial step in risk assessment. The Safety Score provides distinct and clear lines as to the operational performance of a vessel for our due diligence customers, however any vessel with a Safety Score between one and five could be recommended by RightShip after completing the whole vetting process satisfactorily:

  • SS N/A: Vessels which are out of scope for the Safety Score. In some cases, these vessels may receive an “acceptable” recommendation once the vetting process has been completed.
  • SS 0: Vessels which have been flagged as sanctioned. These vessels cannot receive a positive vetting outcome therefore the “request a vet” button is disabled for these vessels.
  • SS1 & 2: Vessels which need improvement to achieve the industry agreed standards of “good” operations. These vessels may be recommended by RightShip’s vetting superintendents but will require investigation and more information from the vessel’s manager.
  • SS3 – 5: Vessels which are working towards best practise in safe operations. In order to complete the full RightShip due diligence process, customers must complete a vet for these vessels. The outcome includes a timestamped recommendation based on the vessel’s specification, particular cargo and determined voyage.

Ship owners can easily see the areas required for improvement for each rule triggered or sub-score below five out of five and the action they need to take to improve their overall score.

Benchmarking the Safety Score

The RightShip platform provides a full break down of every vessel’s Safety Score and benchmarks a vessel’s score across the industry. This provides a transparent view of the score’s distribution and helps you understand where that vessel is placed in its peer group. This will help members create comparisons of similar performance and rank best practices.

Moreover, the distribution shows that very few vessels can achieve the highest Safety Score, and there is often room for improvement. We support the entire industry in their continued path towards outstanding operational standards.

For our due diligence customers, this means that vessels at the lower end of the distribution may be suitable for your risk requirements. However, we recommend that you vet each vessel to receive a recommendation based on your safety and sustainability profile.

Safety Score N/A and 0

Vessels with a Safety Score N/A

Sometimes we are unable to provide a vessel with a Safety Score, in which case we will highlight this. There are many reasons we why may be unable to provide a score.

Vessel types not included in the Safety Score:

  • Small, light pleasure craft such as motorboats
  • Tugs and barges
  • Ferries, RORO
  • Vessels under Government Service or within the U.S Reserve Fleet
  • Pleasure craft such as Cruise
  • Offshore supply, construction and platform vessels

Vessels types over a certain age do not receive a Safety Score:

  • LNG, CNG, CO2 & Combination Gas Tankers> 40 years
  • Dry Bulk (including Lakers), Container Ships, General Cargo, Ro-Ro> 35 years
  • Chemical Tankers, Product Tankers, LPG Tankers, Bunkering Vessels, FSO's and Well Stimulation Vessels, Combination Carriers> 30 years

Other vessels include:

  • Vessels no longer in service or still under construction.
  • Smaller vessels, less than 1,000 DWTs
  • Any other vessels not currently supported under the Safety Score

Rule for vessels with a Safety Score of zero

Sanctioned vessels will have a Safety Score of zero and users will be clearly informed of the sanctions, in order to meet regulatory requirements.

RightShip collects sanctions information from several sources. We identify any vessel or company with associations to a sanctioned country by checking their DOC, technical manager, beneficial owner, registered owner, commercial manager, vessel operator and Flag on a best endeavours basis.

We maintain lists of vessels and companies flagged as being sanctioned by the European Union (EU), Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) and the United Nations (UN).

Safety Score 1 and 2

Safety Score 1 rules and resolutions

Rule Rule Resolution options
SS1-1 Open Abandonment of Seafarers case at the vessel level Vessel needs to be removed from ILO list of abandoned seafarers, once removed RightShip to reviewView more details
SS1-3 Vessel on the Paris MOU banned list Vessel needs to be removed from Paris MOU banned list, once removed RightShip to review
SS1-4 Vessel on the AMSA banned list Vessel needs to be removed from AMSA banned list, once removed RightShip to review
SS1-5 Vessel on the USCG banned list Vessel needs to be removed from USCG banned list, once removed RightShip to review
SS1-6 Vessel on the RightShip Vessel Restriction list Vessel is removed from RightShip’s proprietary vessel restriction list
SS1-7 Company on the RightShip Company Restriction list Change of Company association or the company is removed from RightShip proprietary Company Restriction list
SS1-8 Any vessel with 3 PSC detentions in the last 24 months Send RightShip information to review severity of detention and RightShip may suggest a RightShip Inspection. Owner may appeal to the MOU with backing of Flag or Class. Vessel needs to display good performance over 24 months such that the rule will automatically resolve.View more details
SS1-9 Vessel with CAT-A incident in 12 months The vessel will require a RightShip Inspection & close out of incidents before rule release. Vessel needs to display good performance over 12 months such that the rule will automatically resolve.View more details
SS1-10 Any vessel with an unacceptable last RightShip inspection The vessel will require a RightShip Inspection.
SS1-11 Any vessel flagged with a Paris MOU scored flag which is Medium to High or High Risk The vessel needs to change it’s Flag to one which is not a Medium or High / High Risk with Paris MOU
SS1-12 Any vessel flagged with a Paris MOU scored flag which is on their Blacklist, and combined with Low or Very Low performing Class Society Change of Flag which is not on the Paris MOU Blacklist or flag to change status with Paris MOU .
SS1-13 Vessel with 2 incidents (CAT-A or CAT-B) in 36 months The vessel will require a RightShip Inspection and provide close out of both incidents. Vessel needs to display good performance over 36 months such that the rule will automatically resolve.View more details
SS1-14 Vessel with 3 incidents (CAT-A or CAT-B or CAT-C) in 60 months The vessel will require a RightShip Inspection and provide close out of all three incidents. Vessel needs to display good performance over 60 months such that the rule will automatically resolve.View more details

Safety Score 2 rules and resolutions

Rule Rule Resolution options
SS2-1 Any vessel with 2 PSC detentions in the last 24 months Send RightShip information to review severity of detention and possible a RightShip Inspection. Vessel needs to display good performance over 24 months such that the rule will automatically resolve. Owner may appeal to the MOU with backing of Flag or Class.View more details
SS2-2 Any vessel with excessively high numbers (50) of PSC deficiencies over 24 months RightShip to review the PSC records and potentially ask for an Inspection if required.View more details
SS2-4 Vessel with CAT-A incident in last 12 months, which already has an acceptable RightShip Inspection, and incident close out Vessel needs to display good performance over 12 months such that the rule will automatically resolve. Part resolution for rule SS1-9.View more details
SS2-5 Vessel over 14 years and over 8000 DWT without a satisfactory RightShip inspection in last 12 months(excl tankers) RightShip Inspection must be completed
SS2-6 Vessel over 25 years and less than 8000 DWT without a satisfactory right inspection in the last 12 months RightShip Inspection must be completed
SS2-7 Any vessel with an open detention over the past 2 years and is still with same DOC or current DOC unknown Owner to provide RightShip with an acceptable close out to the open detention.
SS2-8 Any vessel with an open incident over the past 2 years and is still with same DOC or current DOC unknown Owner to provide RightShip with an acceptable close out to the open incident.
SS2-9 Any vessel whose classes is not an IACS Member Change Class
SS2-11 Any vessel with an unknown class for more than 3 months Provide Class information
SS2-12 Any vessel with an unknown flag for more than 3 months Provide Flag information
SS2-13 Any vessel with an unknown DOC for more than 3 months Provide DOC information
SS2-14 Vessel with 2 incidents in last 36 months (CAT-A or CAT-B), which already has an acceptable RightShip Inspection and incident close Out Vessel needs to display good performance over 36 months such that the rule will automatically resolve. Part resolution for rule SS1-13.View more details
SS2-15 Vessel with 3 incidents in last 60 months (CAT-A or CAT-B or CAT-C), which already has an acceptable RightShip Inspection, and incident close Out Vessel needs to display good performance over 60 months such that the rule will automatically resolve. Part resolution for rule SS1-14.View more details

Safety Score 3, 4 and 5 (the Safety Score model)

If no rules are triggered against the vessel, the vessel has received a positive Safety Score rule review, the Safety Score model will calculate the vessel’s score, providing a score between 3 and 5.

The Safety Score is made up of six sub-scores, providing indications of historical safety performance. Each has been chosen to encourage all participants in the supply chain to work towards the highest standard in maritime safety practices and focuses on various risk areas which are weighted and combined to create the overarching Safety Score in a “balanced scorecard” approach. Incidents and the performance of the DOC holder have the highest impact on the Safety Score, while the performance of flag and class has the lowest overall impact of the six sub-scores.

The six sub-scores

Highest Impact on the Safety Score model


The Safety Score is calculated from the total number of incidents a vessel has had over the past five years and make note of how recent those incidents were. Incidents are defined as activities that occurred on the vessel that affected the condition of the ship or endangered the safety or environment for passengers and crew.

The type of incident can also indicate the level of safety practices on board a vessel. Therefore, each incident is categorised by the severity of each incident which is based on the damage to the vessel and the environment, as well as its effect on crew welfare. Category A incidents have the highest impact on the vessel’s overall score.

Incident Categories

  • Category A incident: Where there is a loss of life, total loss or another incident classed as very serious
  • Category B incident: Where there is significant damage to the vessel or an event that renders the ship unseaworthy, such as underwater penetration of the hull, immobilisation of main engines, serious fires and pollution or any other incident classed as serious.
  • Category C incident: Where there is not significant damage to the vessel or the ship remains seaworthy, such as contained fires and pollution or any other incident classed as non-serious.
  • Category D incident: Any event not meeting the definition of an incident considered by the Safety Score, typically non-marine casualty events. These are excluded from the Safety Score calculation.

The vessel's DOC Holder

RightShip develops an average score for a typical vessel’s safety performance under each DOC holder through four key risk areas: the number of detentions, PSC deficiencies* and incidents along with the severity of these incidents.

The DOC sub score focuses only on events that occurred when vessels were under the management of the current DOC holder. This includes vessels currently and or previously managed by a DOC. However, if a vessel had an incident, PSC deficiency or detention before moving to a new DOC, they will not impact the new DOC sub-score.

The size of the DOCs fleet is also factored into the Safety Score model calculation to ensure small and large DOCs are handled fairly – and that the number of detentions, PSC deficiencies*, and incidents along with their severity are standardised against the size of the DOC fleet at the time they occurred.

Medium Impact on the Safety Score

Vessel PSC deficiencies

The number and recency of a vessel’s deficiencies will have an effect on a vessel’s safety score. However, the regional practices of Port State Control variy, which may result in a higher number of deficiencies* reported on certain trade routes. The model mitigates the risk of vessels working on specific routes being penalised by comparing each PSC Inspection against the average for that location.


Instances in which vessels are detained by Port State Control in response to serious deficiencies will impact the Safety Score. The model will tally the total number of detentions over the past five years and how recent they were. A period without detentions will improve the score.

Lower Impact on the Safety Score

The vessel's Flag State

The Flag State Performance Table from the International Chamber of Shipping is used to measure the performances of each flag state. If a large number of positive indicators are shown as being absent, this might suggest that performance is unsatisfactory.

The vessel's Classification Society

Only IACS Classification Societies are included in the Safety Score model. However, safety standards vary from one Classification Society to another. We measure the safety standards of each class across detentions and deficiencies to determine a vessel’s Safety Score. This provides an overall score for a Classification Society’s historical performance, divided by the fleet size, to get an average per vessel in their fleet.

Similar to the DOC, the Class sub-score focuses only on events that occurred to vessels when they were under the current Class. If a vessel had a detention before moving to a new Class, that detention will not impact the score of the Class, and a detention on a vessel after it has passed to a new Class will not impact the previous Class.

Where a vessel is a member of multiple class associations, we will select one of the Classes for use in the Safety Score calculation.

*PSC Deficiencies

The Safety Score includes PSC deficiencies when reviewing the operational performance of the vessel, DOC holder and Classification Society. The number and type of PSC deficiencies can vary between port state authorities. To avoid penalising a vessel for frequently visiting specific ports, the model takes into account the average number and type of PSC deficiencies for each place of inspection.

If the port of inspection is unknown or there are less than 100 inspections in total for that port, the model considers the average number of PSC deficiencies for the country of inspection. If the country of inspection is unknown or there are less than 100 inspections in total for that country, PSC deficiencies are relative to the port state authority of inspection.

Where vessels have not been inspected during a 12-month period, their performance is assumed to be “average” for that time period. If the vessel was not inspected in the last five years, the overall score will be a 3 which represents “average”. This is to provide fairness and to ensure vessels with limited PSC exposure are not scored unfairly nor penalised for having an inspection with stricter inspection rules.

Indicative scoring

Indicative Scores are generally used to notify or caution our customers of the following:

  • The vessel’s rating may need to be less reliable due to a lack of data, such as trading behaviour not exposing the vessel to normal levels of inspection/reporting. In these cases, there is potential for the Safety Score to be higher than it would be had the same vessel been more active or trading in an area with higher levels of inspection/reporting.
  • There is outstanding vessel information that should be reviewed by a vetting superintendent as part of the due diligence vetting process.
  • Notify vessel operators that there is outstanding or missing information for their vessel that could limit their ability to achieve their best Safety Score.
  • Identify riskier vessels through RightShip management or those companies associated with abandonment cases. This is to deliver on our commitment to safety and welfare.

Safety Score Rule Governance

To ensure that vessels are achieving the right score and that companies can progress from Safety Score 1 and 2 to Safety Score 3 to 5, RightShip’s expert superintendents review the “resolution” of some rules within the RightShip platform.

The RightShip platform includes full systematic governance, where all correspondence, certificates and decisions are recorded within the RightShip platform and are fully auditable.

When each vessel triggers a Safety Score rule, the RightShip platform automatically places a notice on the vessel page highlighting the rule which has been triggered.

To resolve the rule, and achieve a score of 3 to 5, ship owners can request to have the Safety Score reviewed. The review process will require written justification and any associated documentation such as a Root Cause Analysis (RCA) or Corrective Action Plan (CAP). You can find the required resolution for each rule in the Safety Score methodology.

Each resolution must undergo a multi-approval process. This means that every review is escalated for a second review, undertaken by a second superintendent. The review cannot be completed until a second review of the evidence has taken place.

RightShip makes no guarantee that a vessel’s Safety Score will improve as a result of the review or the Safety Score rule will be removed from the vessel. There may be cases where insufficient evidence is provided to demonstrate that the rule can be cleared and for the model to score the vessel at 3 to 5. Furthermore, as a result of any review and subsequent investigation a vessel’s Safety Score may also decline.

Calibrating and testing the model

In our process, we have combined advanced analytics with our 20-year industry expertise, focusing on what will drive positive action in the industry. This means the RightShip Safety Score has been optimised through sophisticated use of data science and reviewed by RightShip’s subject matter experts.

The model consistently weighs more recent incidents, detentions, deficiencies as having a larger impact on the Safety Score, while measuring the action taken by the vessel owner/ operator in response to any incidents, detentions and deficiencies in closing out incidents on the RightShip platform.

As safety standards improve and there is a greater need to review sustainability and social welfare practises as part of a robust due diligence process, RightShip reserves the right to, from time to time, add, amend or remove Safety Score rules as part of RightShip’s continuous effort to improve the RightShip’s Safety Score and as the evolution of our offering.

The Safety Score model design has been tested against its main objective to change behaviour in the industry towards operational excellence. The Safety Score is validated across various KPIs for each of the six sub scores and five objectives, such as transparency, fairness and accuracy.

Testing of the Safety Score occurs every day as new data is added into the system and vessel’s trigger and resolve Safety Score rules.

Industry FAQs

The Safety Score data

Is Paris MoU data still excluded from RightShip Safety Score system?

We are using Paris MOU data in our safety score calculations, but may need to approach the owner for updated information during the vetting process.

Could you provide examples of data sources other PSC data?

RightShip’s Safety Score model is built on verified data, which comes from a variety of different sources.

We have partnerships with other maritime analytics associations and government institutions.

We also assess information provided by our customers; source our own first-hand data; and utilise data governance with the goal of creating the most comprehensive and accurate data set possible.

Where does RightShip get its incident data from, and what incidents are captured?

RightShip receives incident information from our data providers, the largest of which is IHS. Incidents are also entered by our vetting team based on media reports, PSC inspection results, Terminal Feedback, RightShip Inspections and proactive reporting.

What is the source of information for vessel incident, considering that incident records rely heavily on voluntary reporting by the vessel managers? Some transparent vessel managers could be penalised in comparison to managers who are not so transparent.

We receive the majority of our incident data from IHS. When receiving incident information that has been reported proactively, we take the approach that if it is not a Category A or B incident with higher severity, it is not included in the Safety Score. This is to encourage proactive reporting and avoid penalising manually created incidents. In the more severe cases we must still include the incident in the Safety Score but will credit the Managers for proactively reporting.

If a vessel is involved in an incident for which the operator / crew are not at fault (i.e. ship loader collapsing on vessel), does that impact the Safety Score in any way?

If the incident can be demonstrated and documented to not be the fault of the operator this will be reviewed and removed from the score.

If an operator does not voluntarily report an incident, how will RightShip obtain information regarding the incident?

We are building our vetting process and models to support transparency, and part of this is incident categorisation so that the impact will not directly affect the Safety Score unless it is a major incident. It’s important to remember the role of the vetting process in assessing the overall safety profile of a vessel.

Is there any definitive time period for reporting an incident, irrespective of its severity?

Any incident within the last 5 years will be considered in in the Safety Score. We encourage the pro-active submission of incidents and incident investigations and will credit a small positive adjustment to vessels with proactively supplied incident closeouts.

Is there any defining pattern for categorising the incidents?

Category A, being the most severe, covers pollution, loss of life, missing persons, fire / explosion or a total loss.

Category B includes where there is structural damage that rendered the ship unseaworthy, such as underwater penetration of the hull, immobilisation of main engines, extensive damage.

Category C is anything not covered above.

The Safety Score model

Will the Safety Score be determined on a percentile basis, or can any number of vessels achieve a score of 5/5?

There is no fixed ratio. Any vessel is capable of being 5 / 5 provided they demonstrate the required level of safety performance.

What is the rationale behind categorising incidents as high, medium, and low impact on the model?

Given the varying severity of incidents received by RightShip we feel it is fairer to operate tiered severity gradings with different levels of impact in the Safety Score for each. For example, a collision leading to loss of life is not comparable to a small hydraulic leak on deck during cargo operations.

Some PSC detentions could be severe – it is counter-intuitive to look at this as low-impact?

Detentions are recorded in the vessel detention sub score and would have a medium impact on the overall Safety Score. The performance of the Flag of the vessel has a low impact.

Do minor PSC deficiencies affect the Safety Score?

Minor PSC deficiencies still impact the safety score calculation, however it may not reduce the overall Safety Score.

How does adverse terminal feedback impact the safety score?

This does not affect the safety score directly, however it will be considered during the vetting process.

Do nil deficiency PSC reports give a positive score adjustment to the vessel, to encourage vessel to perform better?

Nil deficiency PSC reports will give a positive score to the vessel if a nil deficiency report is better than expected at that port. For example, if Port X normally averages 5 deficiencies and a vessel receives 0 deficiencies, this would be rewarded. However, if the Port always gives 0 deficiencies, a vessel receiving 0 deficiencies is meeting expectations for that port – so, in that case the inspection would have a neutral effect on the Safety Score.

How are minor incidents and negative operational vessel feedback from terminals weighted for scoring?

Minor incidents, if entered manually in our system will have no impact on the Safety Score. This also includes Terminal Feedback Reports, however it will be used in our due diligence vetting process to assess the risk the vessel presents. We took this approach as given the level of reporting of minor incidents and feedback reports we receive from just a small number of ports, the Safety Score for vessels trading in these regions would be skewed quite heavily due to the higher level of reporting.

How will DOC be evaluated? In cases where a certain management company shows good performance at cape size bulk carrier level, and poor performance with Handymax vessels, will the DOC evaluation be averaged?

At the moment the performance of the DOC is averaged across all the vessels under the DOC, regardless of type. RightShip would like to see improvements in the safety operations of all vessel types, and believe that scoring the DOC in this way and introducing greater benchmarking capabilities will encourage improvements in performance.

If a poorly maintained vessel changes her management from a poor operator to better operator, will her safety score be positively impacted with immediate effect? Is there a transition and verification process?

A change to a better manager will result in an improvement in the Safety Score the change itself is not penalised, a Management of Change (MOC) questionnaire may be required to be completed to verify details of the transfer.

If the vessel is sold, will the impact of its past detention continue to impact the DOC score?

Yes, performance whilst the vessel is under a DOC remains with the same DOC for the 5-year modelling period, regardless of if the vessel is sold or transferred. The detention will not however affect the new DOC the vessel has been transferred to.

How is operational feedback incorporated into the Safety Score calculation?

At this time, operational feedback does not feature in the Safety Score calculation, and will instead be reviewed as part of the due diligence vetting service provided by RightShip.

Upon receiving corrective action, how long does it take for the safety score to be updated?

There are no system downgrades to ratings whilst awaiting corrective action. Instead the vessels current Safety Score is displayed at all times and any updates as a result of updating or closing a PSC or Incident will be visible within a few minutes.

In critical eyes, the under-reporting of incidents could be the way to keep your safety score in check. Is there incentive for transparent reporting?

We are continually seeking ways in which to reward transparency and have considered this in the design of the Safety Score. We would love to hear your suggestions on how we can achieve this consistently.

Will a 5-star vessel achieve a Safety Score of 5 after the transition to the new model?

The new Safety Score and Qi Risk Rating are not compatible, as the inputs and the calculation methods are different. Therefore, a vessel’s Safety Score may not be the same as its Risk Rating.

Vetting, Risk Rating and charter party agreements

Can the impact of an unjust PSC detention be removed or limited from the safety score of the vessel?

During the screening process, our vetting superintendents review incidents & PSCs, along with many other factors. As all superintendents have a seafaring and senior officer background, the severity & importance of the deficiencies is assessed manually. In the case of unjustified detentions, the RighShip team will be able to exclude it from the Safety Score if appropriate.

What is the co-relation between existing Risk Rating in RightShip Qi & the Safety Score?

There is no relation between the Qi risk rating and the new Safety Score.

Could you expand on why RightShip does not support the use of the Safety Score in contracts & charter party agreements?

RightShip has never supported the use of its Risk Rating in any charter party clauses. This is one of our policies on our website. This is the same for the Safety Score. You can read more in the Safety Score Knowledge Centre.

Do we know what the port authority or shippers will accept as a minimum safety score?

We do not recommend a minimum Safety Score and are working with Port Authorities to encourage a sensible approach to their own requirements – particularly during the transition from the Risk Rating to the Safety Score.

Are we going to be able to see our DOC score, including a breakdown that will allow us to improve on areas of weakness?

RightShip customers will be able to see the Safety Score and all sub-scores. Please email to discuss subscription options with our team.

If a vessel with a Safety Score of 5 changes DOC, how will this impact the Safety Score?

The new Safety Score will be dependent on the performance of the DOC the vessel has transferred to. If the new DOC is operating at a high level, there may be no change in Safety Score.

How do you categorise the severity of PSC deficiencies? Is there a standard risk model?

At this stage there is no categorisation of PSC deficiencies – only incidents are grouped in terms of their severity.

The number of incidents reported to the OCIMF repository remains low. Many operators are concerned that pro-active reporting may get them into hot water and penalise the prospects of the ship. Is there an incentive for reporting all incidents to RightShip?

Our Safety Score and vetting process is designed to reward transparency. We usually get data on all significant incidents through various channels. Less severe incidents will have a limited effect on the safety score.

Size, age, type and inspections

Is it correct to say that a good Safety Score can be awarded on an older vessel, even if there is no current physical inspection? Or any historical physical inspection?

Age is not a factor in the Safety Score, and therefore will not count against an older vessel. It is possible to get a Safety Score of 5 / 5 up to the maximum scorable age of the vessel. However, RightShip will still require inspections on vessels over 14 years of age. Inspection validity and the date of the last inspection will be clearly shown on our new platform.

How does a RightShip inspection affect the Safety Score?

The results of physical inspections are not being used in the model, as the new Safety Score measures all vessels in terms of their operational performance across all types. This creates a level playing field for vessels achieving the maximum 5 out of 5 Safety Score. In addition, this considers vessels that can’t have a RightShip inspection.

A RightShip Inspection remains a valuable tool in the due diligence process, and allows for an assessment of the latest physical condition of the vessel, as well as the current safety management standards being practised.

The results of the inspection do not directly contribute to the Safety Score, but the presence of an inspection is clearly identified on the vessel page to promote shipowners who are taking proactive steps to put their vessels forward for inspection.

Are the requirements for a physical inspection remaining the same?

Yes, requirements for physical inspections remain the same.

Will RightShip release their inspection checklist to the public?

We intend to make our inspection checklist available before the end of the year to support preparation.

Will a ship over 14 years of age be displayed in the RightShip platform?

A dry bulk vessel over the age of 14 will have a small alert to show they are in need of an inspection. If the vessel has a valid RightShip inspection, this will also be shown on the vessel page to highlight the investment made by the operator.

Would carrying out an office DBMS audit improve the sub-score for DOC?

At this stage the DBMS is in its first draft and is available for industry consultation. It is not a finalised standard and no audits are available at this time. Therefore, no decision has been made for it to affect the DOC score.

Will benchmarking be available for dry and wet vessels separately?

Each vessel will only be benchmarked against other vessels of the same type and size.


Is your product endorsed by any flag state administrations or class societies?

We have received positive feedback from flag state administrations and class societies.

Social responsibility

RightShip is taking keen interest in checking on crew welfare on board. Is it limited to MLC compliance or the best practices of industry?

We start with compliance with MLC Part A as a baseline. However, we feel that in many situations this does not adequately address wellness – therefore we have a pilot project looking into how we can support those operators who invest more in this area to enhance safety and wellbeing.

What are demonstration vessels

As part of the launch of the Safety Score, our analysts have provided an overview of the impacts of the Safety Score on three demonstration vessels. These vessels have been designed to show the effects of the Safety Score rules and various model sub scores, and how the Safety Score can change based on the historical operational performance of a vessel, its DOC holder, flag and class.

The Allen

Let’s start with an example vessel with a Safety Score of ONE

This vessel has triggered a Safety Score 1 rule and a Safety Score 2 rule. As the rule with the lowest Safety Score needs to be resolved first, this vessel’s overall score is ONE.

On the vessel overview page, a customer can request a review of the Safety Score rules or can click on the methodology link to see the rule resolutions which have been triggered.

Vessels which have a SS1 or SS2 are governed by the Safety Score rules. The Safety Score model sub-scores, which are used to produce Safety Scores of 3 – 5, are not available for this vessel.

And when benchmarked, you can see the number of vessels of this size and type which have triggered Safety Score rules of 1 and 2, and how many have achieved a score of 3 – 5, as scored by the Safety Score model.

The Latchford

Let’s now look at an example of a vessel with a Safety Score of THREE.

In this example, the vessel has had an apparently very good safety record and has not triggered any Safety Score rules. Therefore, the vessel has achieved a Safety Score of three, as scored by the Safety Score model.

The vessel scores well across Incidents, PSC deficiencies, detentions, Flag and Class.

However, the DOC has performed poorly with a sub-score of one. This identifies that other vessel’s managed by this DOC have performed very poorly and this could create an associated risk factor for this vessel.

On the plus side we can see that this vessel is in possession of a valid and acceptable RightShip Inspection which gives confidence the latest physical condition of the vessel has been verified as well as the current Safety Management Standards onboard.

As we look at this vessel’s activity timeline:

It has a relatively good safety record, with no incidents and multiple clean PSC’s.

There are three PSC inspections with deficiencies, however upon closer look, the most one recent in September 2019 had just one deficiency.

There are two deficiencies in mid 2017 and mid 2016, both of which are no longer recent enough to impact this vessel’s overall Safety Score.

Despite this vessel having strong performance in many categories, the DOC performance has contributed to this vessel’s overall Safety Score being a three.

And when benchmarked, its peers are a Safety Score of four indicating that it is below those vessels of the same type and size.

The Burakowski

Let’s look at an example: The Burakowski - a vessel with a Safety Score of FIVE.

This vessel has an excellent safety record and has not triggered any Safety Score rules. The vessel has achieved with an overall score of five, as scored by the Safety Score model.

Looking further into its sub-scores, both its incident and DOC performance, which have the highest impact on the overall Safety Score, have been exemplary with both sub-scores receiving a five.

Of medium impact on this vessel’s Safety Score, is the vessel’s PSC deficiency performance and detention performance, which are a four and five respectively. Despite the vessel’s deficiency performance being a four, a vessel can still achieve an overall Safety Score of five provided that the deficiencies were low and relatively minor – which we will see shortly when we examine the vessel’s activity timeline.

And although of lower impact, this vessel’s Flag and Class both received excellent sub-scores of five.

Let’s examine the specific safety events included in each vessel’s Safety Score in its activity timeline.

We can observe the severity grading of each incident, where RightShip grade severity with Category A, B and C – With category A being the most severe.

We can also see the specific PSC inspection, including where and when it occurred, as well as the number of deficiencies and whether the vessel was detained.

In this example, this vessel received a sub-score of five for incidents, as it had zero incidents in the last 5 years.

Additionally, the Activity Timeline shows us the vessel had multiple clean PSC inspections, however there were two inspections with three deficiencies. The first inspection was within the last 12 months, occurring on the 9th of Sep 2019 which resulted in three deficiencies. The second inspection was in late 2017 also with three deficiencies

Together, these inspections affected this vessel’s PSC deficiency sub-score.

We also provide visibility on benchmarking, where you can compare this vessel against those of a similar size and type.

This helps to indicate where a vessel is in comparison to its peers, and in this particular case the vessel outperforms its peers.

FO D06 Inspection and Assessment Report For Dry Cargo Ships Rev 12

April 2019 revision for the Inspections and Assessment Report for Dry Cargo Ships.


Description of Revisions
Rev 02: Address on form amended
Rev 03: Change of logo and new address
Rev 04: Major Revisions to content
Rev 05: Redesigned format
Rev 06: Clarify Section 7 (ISM Implementation)
Rev 07: Add bookmarks and amend questions to read yes for positive response
Rev 08: Sections 1.1,2.2, 3.2,3.6, 4.1,4.3, 4.4, 5.2, 6.2, 6.3, 8.1
Rev 09: New questions 2.1.2, 2.5.3, 5.4.14, 7.1.2, 8.1.3. Corr’n to wording 6.2.10, 6.2.19
Rev 10: Coding errors
Rev 11: Full update – cyber security, ECDIS, moorings, Lube & Fuel sampling, passage planning

Introduction to Vessel Vetting

RightShip is the world’s largest third party maritime operational due diligence organisation. Our vessel vetting service is used for thousands of voyages, to assess the suitability of a nominated vessel for safe cargo transportation. The practise of vetting upholds global standards for safety, environmental and social welfare practices and is at the core of RightShip’s drive towards standards beyond compliance.

Primarily developed for stakeholders needing to move cargo, vetting is an in-depth and bespoke method of verifying a vessel’s suitability for your specific risk profile. Customers work with RightShip to build on the RightShip standard, which represents the minimum requirements for a RightShip recommendation, against which all vessels are assessed to check their safety, risk, sustainability and social welfare standards. Through vetting, customers can add their additional bespoke criteria, such as berth fit requirements.

Our vessel vetting takes place within the RightShip platform, harnessing the latest technology to deliver reliable, timely recommendations. The sophisticated vetting rules engine searches and returns the required data from RightShip’s proprietary database, while our in-built communication channels make automated requests for additional information and documentation as required. Our vetting superintendents use their expertise to analyse the information and documentation gathered to provide an ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ recommendation for the specific vessel and voyage under consideration.

Customers request vets directly on the vessel page and can track their vet status and outcome in real time. All vet request outcomes are stored with your RightShip account, date and time stamped when your vet is complete, and cannot be altered

Vessel Vetting methodology

RightShip’s experienced global vessel vetting team uses the unique data collected from all of our products services, in conjunction with leading technology and due diligence processes.

By drawing on all data collected in the RightShip platform, vetting can be combined with RightShip’s other products including our dry bulk inspections, GHG Rating and Safety Score. This ensures a holistic view of a vessel’s suitability for use.

A confirmed vetting outcome, marked with an ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ recommendation will be logged in RightShip’s platform and an email notification will be sent to the vet requestor.

Vessel Vetting within the RightShip Platform (TQs & FBRs)

RightShip’s vetting process is delivered through our innovative digital platform. The vetting criteria is housed in the RightShip vetting rules engine. The rules engine searches and retrieve the RightShip standard against our proprietary data; and our inbuilt communication channels will automatically send out Requests for Information (RFIs) when the vet is first triggered. All of this information is gathered for both the RightShip Vetting Superintendent and the vet requester in real time, allowing the requester to monitor the vet’s progress.


Terminal Questionnaires (TQs)

Terminal Questionnaires help to improve safety and ensure transparency. Some terminals use a Terminal Questionnaire (TQ) as part of their ship scheduling and nomination process. The TQ is administered by the terminal and facilitated by RightShip.

Every ship scheduled to enter their port is required to submit an online terminal questionnaire containing specific vessel information around mooring configuration, loading and deballasting rates and helicopter suitability prior to berthing.

As part of the ship scheduling and nomination process the ship’s master or their nominated agent will receive an email from RightShip on behalf of the terminal. The email will share a link to an online Terminal Questionnaire (TQ) containing pre-populated data from the RightShip Platform. The recipient of the email is required to complete and submit the TQ.

Vessels must have an acceptable, validated electronic TQ or they may be refused entry to the terminal. If information submitted in a TQ is found to be incorrect, the vessel may be deemed not suitable to load or to return to the terminal and the vessel may be denied future nomination acceptance.

Click here to learn how to submit a Terminal Questionnaire in the RightShip platform


Feedback Reports (FBRs)

Feedback Reports (FBRs) can include a dry berth or tanker terminal feedback report, which are submitted in the RightShip platform after a vessel has called at the port.

The information in these reports provides RightShip with an operational history of the vessel, which is taken into account when assessing the suitability of the vessel in future vets.

RightShip will pursue any issues or negative feedback with the vessel operators until a satisfactory close-out has been received.

Click here to learn how to create a Feedback Report in the RightShip platform



The RightShip Standard and your vetting criteria

RightShip assesses all vessels against our RightShip Standard, which represents our minimum requirements for good operational practices. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Incident review, performance and resolution
  • PSC performance review, performance and resolution – inclusive of targeting activity and bans
  • Certification and compliance status
  • Class records (conditions, status)
  • DOC performance (ISM)
  • Prior RightShip history and database
  • Physical validation (RightShip Inspections)
  • Special vetting criteria (customer-specific rules and checks)

We acknowledge that each customer may have their own special vetting criteria, which is applied on top of the RightShip standard. Additional vetting criteria is based on customer risk appetite and can be designed around a specific location or risk factors for that trade. A vessel which does not meet the RightShip standard will not be eligible for an ‘acceptable’ recommendation from RightShip, regardless of the vessel’s performance against additional customer vetting criteria.

When a new customer signs up for vessel vetting, our vetting superintendents will provide in depth information about RightShip’s vetting standard and discuss any additional bespoke vetting criteria if required.

Vetting outcomes: acceptable or unacceptable

RightShip employs a global team of vetting superintendents, with varied experience and background by ship type and trade, who fully understand ship operations, compliance and risk. They are located strategically across RightShip’s offices to cover all time zones and share expertise in order to provide an ‘acceptable’ recommendation that meets our standard criteria.

The superintendent team will review all open items, including detentions, deficiencies and incidents. Where there are performance gaps, additional checks will be undertaken. Unless the necessary corrective actions are completed by the operator, to the satisfaction of the RightShip vetting superintendent, RightShip will not be in the position to make a recommendation on that vessel for the voyage under consideration.

A vessel that receives an ‘acceptable’ recommendation may exhibit the following operational performance standards:

  • High standard of close-outs into any incident, PSC, detention or adverse report
  • No on-going abandonment cases
  • Not appearing on any PSC MoU banned lists
  • No overdue surveys or conditions of class
  • No history of being Dis-Classed or Class suspended as a result of performance or failure to complete class requirements
  • Vessels with a valid ‘acceptable’ RightShip dry bulk inspection

Once all the checks are complete, with all data and responses reviewed, the RightShip vetting superintendent provides a recommendation on the vessel under consideration. Each vetting recommendation is specific to the vet requestor and is only valid at the time of recommendation for the nominated vessel and voyage under consideration. A new vet will be required to consider a new vessel for the same voyage, or once the original recommendation expires.

RightShip’s Safety Score and Vessel Vetting

Our vetting process involves a range of inputs and assessments, in addition to the Safety Score, to establish whether your chosen vessel is a suitable partner, based on our vetting standard and your bespoke vetting criteria.

RightShip can vet any vessel with a Safety Score between one and five. Provided the vessel meets RightShip’s minimum vetting standard and the customer's additional criteria, the vessel could receive an ‘acceptable’ recommendation.

Indicative scores

Additional checks are carried out for vessels with an indicative Safety Score. These types of scores are provided to customers as an indication that further data or investigation is needed. Examples of vessels with an indicative Safety Score include vessels with a lack of historical data, such as its trading behaviour, inspection and reporting. There could be outstanding information that needs review by a vetting superintendent. Alternatively, indicative scoring can be used to identify riskier vessels associated with abandonment cases.

Safety Score N/A and Zero

Vessels which are marked N/A are out of scope for the Safety Score. In some cases, these vessels may receive an “acceptable” recommendation once the vetting process has been completed.

However, vessels with a Safety Score of zero have been flagged as sanctioned. These vessels cannot receive a positive vetting outcome therefore the “request a vet” button is disabled for these vessels.

Safety Score 1 and 2

In the case of lower performance at the vessel and / or DOC levels, our vetting process includes additional checks that will be performance to support the recommendation of the vessel. This takes place before the final recommendation. These final risk mitigation steps could include:

  • Full review of the Safety Score
  • Request the close out report for PSC deficiencies
  • Request for an up to date Class and Statutory Survey Status
  • Additional review on the vessel technical manager/ DOC holder
  • Close out reports for any open incidents
  • Valid RS inspection if vessel is showing unsatisfactory performance

Safety Score 3 - 5

These vessels have been highlighted as working towards best practise in safe operations. In order to complete the full RightShip due diligence process, customers must complete a vet for these vessels. The outcome includes a timestamped recommendation based on the vessel’s specification, particular cargo and determined voyage.

RightShip’s GHG Rating

We’re steering the shipping industry to a sustainable future with our GHG Rating – reduce your emissions to gain a competitive advantage in a carbon constrained market.

The GHG Rating

RightShip’s GHG Emissions Rating was developed in response to the growing trend of global CO2 emissions and the industry demand to improve efficiency. It offers a systematic and transparent means of comparing the relative efficiency of the world’s shipping fleet.

Each vessel is provided with an individual GHG Rating, allowing customers to compare a ship’s theoretical CO2 emissions relative to peer vessels of a similar size and type. We use an easy-to-interpret A – G scale, with A being the most efficient rating.

The focus on supply chain emissions is growing with the environmental performance of many large corporations coming under increased scrutiny. This has a top-down impact through supply chains and operators with superior GHG Ratings are experiencing a competitive advantage in the market.

Working towards a zero-emissions future

As RightShip moves to its new digital platform, you’ll see several enhancements that strengthen our safety and sustainability ecosystem. This includes improvements to the ways the GHG Rating is calculated and incorporated with our vetting products and services.

The GHG Rating was a market-leading sustainability tool when we launched it in 2012, and in order to remain at the forefront of emissions reductions, we must continue to evolve.

How has the GHG Rating changed?

In the new platform, you’ll see the following additions and changes to our GHG Rating:

  • We’ve included vessels with non-standard propulsion to their peer groups, which mainly impacts LNG vessels.
  • The data we obtain from IHS is better integrated to automatically apply some correction factors to vessels, as per the IMO guidelines. Previously this process was completed manually as part of vessel verification.
  • Our calculation formula has been updated to align with more recent developments to the IMO’s EEDI guidelines, such as the revised ice-class calculation.

Why these changes are important

We’ve expanded the scope of the GHG Rating to include more vessel types. By applying to a diverse range of vessels (such as LNG carriers with non-standard propulsion), our GHG Rating and Carbon Accounting Tool will drive significant market change.

The automatic application of correction factors strengthens our ratings, particularly for unverified vessels. Having the relevant correction factors applied prior to verification will close the gap between an unverified and verified rating, making the unverified ratings more robust.

When it comes to sustainability, we can’t afford to be complacent and must continuously improve our systems and processes. This is why we ensure our GHG Rating and EVDI calculations are updated to align with the IMO guidelines, which evolve over time based on market feedback and new research.

The RightShip’s GHG Methodology

How ships are compared

Rather than adopting a ‘one size fits all’ approach, the GHG Rating compares the theoretical CO2 emissions of a peer group of vessels, across similar size and type.

Ship types for comparison align with the IMO’s guidelines for calculation of EEDI reference lines. The peer groups for comparison include bulk carriers, chemical tankers, containerships, crude & product tankers, cruise & passenger ships, general cargo ships, LNG tankers, LPG tankers, refrigerated cargo ships and ro-ro cargo ships.

Vessels are compared in size to other vessels plus or minus 10% of their DWT.

Efficiency indexes

RightShip’s GHG Rating utilises one of two sources when determining an individual vessel’s efficiency. We consider the EVDI (Existing Vessel Design Index), or the EEDI (Energy Efficiency Design Index).

The EVDI and EEDI provide an indication of a vessel's design efficiency, representing grams of CO2 per tonne nautical mile, and can be used interchangeably.

GHG Ratings across a ship type

The GHG Rating compares the relative efficiency of a ship using the EVDI (or EEDI as applicable).

This means that a vessel is assigned a rating based on how it’s EVDI compares to the average EVDI score for vessels of a similar type and size.

The rating is designed to place an average vessel in the middle of the D rating band, generally following a normal peer distribution, or bell curve. Vessels which are more efficient than the average are given a higher rating, while vessels which are less efficient are provided with a lower rating.

In general, the ratings for a vessel’s peer group fit the following fixed percentages. When we look at the distribution of ratings across a vessel type, the largest portion of vessels are D rated and only a small number are A or G rated vessels. However, this may vary depending on the makeup of the fleet.

Size Score

A vessel’s size score represents where it sits within a GHG Rating band. The size score is displayed along the bottom of the bell curve below. You can see that a vessel with a size score of 1.3 is B-rated, where as a size score of -1.3 is a F-rated vessel. The ratings are dynamic and subject to change as the peer group changes, therefore it is common for a vessel’s size score and GHG Rating to slowly change over time.

DNV GL GHG Rating Methdology Review

Executive Summary

On request from RightShip, DNV GL conducted a review of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Rating, involving a comparative assessment of RightShip’s Existing Vessel Design Index (EVDI)TM and its relation, and difference, to the International Maritime Organisation’s EEDI. DNV GL also assessed RightShip’s use of EVDITM/EEDI in their GHG Emissions Rating methodology, both of which form part of RightShip’s online risk management assessment platform, the Ship Vetting and Information System (SVISTM).

This review references the relevant International Maritime Organisation (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) resolutions related to EEDI, European Union Energy Efficiency Directive and the IMO GHG Studies of 2009 and 2014.

This summary of the GHG Emissions Rating review provides an overview of the analysis undertaken, the results, conclusions and recommendations, and suggestions for further work.

The first focus was the difference between the EVDITM and EEDI, including the impact of RightShip’s handling of this information when comparing vessel design efficiency in the GHG Emissions Rating. DNV GL used corresponding EVDITM and EEDI data to highlight any differences.

Utilising a representative dataset of over 10,000 vessels from RightShip’s SVISTM database, DNV GL replicated the method for rating vessels from A-G based on their EVDITM/EEDI, using the approach outlined in RightShip’s May 2013 Whitepaper, “Calculating and Comparing CO2 Emissions from the Global Maritime Fleet”. A review of the definition and use of peer groups was also undertaken, including an examination of some special cases and the A-G rating scale’s relationship to the EU Energy Efficiency Directive 2010/30/EU.

Assessments were carried out on the statistical methodology used by RightShip to position the vessels and their respective EVDITM/EEDI data into a normally distributed data set that affects the GHG Emissions Rating of the vessels. This includes to what degree their use of weighting improves or reduces the robustness of the rating. The definition and use of peer groups was also assessed, including analysis of some special cases.



The EVDITM as a design efficiency index was found to generally yield a somewhat higher value than the EEDI (referencing the aim for vessels’ is to emit less CO2 per tonne transport than their peers). This was supported by analysis of a sample dataset for bulk carriers, where it was observed that the median difference of EVDITM to EEDI was 5% (thereby EVDITM being more conservative), which is enough to give an average improvement of A-G rating by over 1 rate, i.e. more than one A-G letter. Thus as noted in RightShip’s Whitepaper, there exists an incentive for interested parties (e.g. ship owners / managers) to update (‘verify’) EVDITM values to remove any uncertainty that may exist between ‘verified’ and ‘non-verified’ ratings.

In its assessment, DNV GL found the GHG Emissions Rating methodology achieved what it was intended to do. It altered the data basis into a normally distributed data set, enabling a relevant comparison of a vessel’s EVDITM/EEDI, including the use of peer groups for comparison and purpose and effect of weighting.


Conclusions and Recommendations

The following conclusions were drawn from the review, including recommendations for RightShip’s future consideration. These are suggested to further strengthen the application of the GHG Emissions Rating:

  • It was noted there is a trend for the number of A-rated vessels to increase with younger vessel age. This observation, that there seems to be a correlation between year of build and A-G rating, and not only DWT, further strengthens the case of robustness for the scheme.
  • RightShip should continue to encourage interested parties (e.g. ship owners / managers) to update (‘verify’) their respective EVDITM values to remove any uncertainty that may exist between ‘verified’ and ‘non-verified’ EVDITM values.
  • The review undertaken into potentially ‘misaligned’ cases yielded no conclusive results. However to further enhance transparency and credibility it is recommended that RightShip develop and implement automatic checking of the GHG Emissions Rating for potentially ‘misaligned’ cases on an ongoing basis. Additionally, a periodic manual check of the affected vessels / peer groups is recommended.
  • Visually display specific information related to the basis for the ship’s GHG Emissions Rating in RightShip’s Whitepaper for RightShip’s clients to further enhance transparency and credibility of the methodology.


Contact Details
Kris Fumberger
Sustainability Manager

You and the RightShip GHG Rating

Verifying your vessel's GHG Rating

On the RightShip platform, we display if a vessel’s GHG Rating has been verified by the shipowner. An unverified rating provides an indication of vessel performance as it is based on vessel specific IHS inputs, IMO assumptions and sister vessel data.

To help gather accurate data in the GHG Rating, RightShip provides all shipowners with the ability to submit documentation to confirm the inputs used in the calculation. Once checked through by our Sustainability team, the vessel is shown as having a verified GHG Rating on the vessel page.

Owners will benefit from verifying their vessels because the GHG Rating can be used as part of RightShip’s due diligence and risk assessment vessel vetting service. Our online vetting process notifies the owners of unverified vessels when the GHG Rating of their vessel is impacting the outcome of a vet. However, the delay associated with obtaining the relevant verification documents from the owner means that there is a commercial incentive for vessel owners to pro-actively verify their vessel’s ratings.

A fully verified vessel, which meets customer’s vetting criteria for the GHG Rating, passes through the vetting process in a seamless manner. This positions a verified vessel at competitive advantage over peer vessels that are unverified.

Incentivising new build designs

Our overarching goal is to improve sustainability standards in the maritime industry. To achieve this goal, we aim to reward owners who have prioritised efficiency with superior design, consideration of engine performance and build of their vessels.

Our GHG Rating aims to shine a light on the top tier of vessels operating in a segment, which will enable charterers, banks and shipowners to have more transparency in their decision making.

We understand that some of the biggest efficiency gains can be had at the design stage of a vessel. Therefore, we work with shipowners by providing pre-assessments of GHG Ratings prior to the final build stage, insights into efficient shipyards to build vessels, as well as benchmarking of previous vessel performance.

Continual improvement over a vessel’s life

RightShip also recognises the huge need to promote those who invest in sustainability advances in their current fleet. By investing in energy saving equipment, existing vessels can improve their efficiency and move up the GHG Rating bands.

Vessels that have been upgraded with energy saving equipment to operate more efficiently than designed are recognised through the rating. A vessel’s GHG Rating may improve and/or a plus sign (+) will appear next to the GHG Rating. The plus sign (+) increases visibility of a vessel among its peers. It also allows owners to clearly display the actions they have taken to improve their vessels environmental performance and then market them accordingly.

How can I improve my GHG Rating?

Steps to improve a vessel's EVDI/GHG Rating

  1. Verify your vessel's GHG rating by requesting a GHG verification. Customers can submit a GHG verification request via the GHG Rating tab on a vessel page within the RightShip platform. Non-customers can initiate a GHG verification by emailing 
  2. Speak to a class or a qualified third party about the most appropriate energy saving equipment for your vessel.
  3. Consult RightShip for a pre-assessment of GHG Rating change by email
  4. Provide RightShip with the appropriate documentation, detailing the improvement to the EVDI.

There are various energy saving equipment options for shipowners to consider in terms of improving the GHG Rating. The energy saving equipment will need to have a positive effect on one or more of the elements contained in the EEDI/EVDI equation. (See guidelines). For example, the speed of the vessel, engine size, specific fuel consumption, etc. so that the vessel is operating more efficiently than first designed.

The main energy saving equipment categories that can lead to a GHG Rating improvement include:

  • 'Major conversion' (e.g. alter ship dimensions, cargo carrying capacity or engine power)
  • 'Mechanical/electrical measures' (technological measures for improved energy efficiency e.g. propulsion improvements),

Note: The benefits from ‘operational measures’ such as low friction paint, cannot usually be isolated from the EVDI equation and will generally not improve the GHG Rating. They may however qualify your vessel for a plus (+) symbol next to the GHG Rating, to signify that it is operating more efficiently than designed.

For us to include this improvement in your vessel's rating, we require documentation from class or a qualified third party detailing the improvement to the vessel. This can take the form of a re-sea trial or CFD modelling. It needs to be vessel specific and outline how the energy saving equipment improves the efficiency of the vessel under EEDI/EVDI conditions e.g. the Vref at 75% main engine MCR at summer load draught.

Most common vessel energy saving equipment

Energy Saving Equipment Graph

What is Carbon Accounting?

RightShip provides a platform for charterers, ship owners and banks to account for the GHG emissions along their supply chain and deliver solutions for reducing emissions where required.

The Carbon Accounting tool factors in the GHG emissions associated with transportation of goods. To do this, we utilise voyage data and our unique vessel specific database to generate a clear picture of the emissions performance of a specific vessel, voyage, cargo type or location over a specific time.

Scope 3 emissions often represent the largest source of a company's GHG emissions, and in some cases can account for up to 90% of the total carbon impact. As such, the pressure on shippers to address the GHG emissions associated with shipping activities continues to increase. But RightShip’s Carbon Accounting tool makes it easy for a company to understand the emissions associated with their supply chain as well as to develop reduction strategies.

With this tool in place, you can understand baseline emissions, set reduction targets and measure your progress. In turn, you’re able to reduce the emissions within your supply chain and your environmental impact.


Why reducing maritime emissions matters

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has set a strategy to reduce GHG shipping emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. However, we are experiencing the market move towards a low-carbon environment much faster.

Increasingly, we are seeing a strong demand from charterers and banks to deliver services with transparent GHG emissions reporting and management.

The benefits of Carbon Accounting are environmental, and business driven. First, a commitment to a reduction in carbon emissions helps us work towards a shared industry sustainability goal. Second, it enables charterers to meet shareholder expectations and manage public perception. 

Having a clear emissions reduction road map, delivered through Carbon Accounting, provides a competitive edge.

Carbon Accounting methodology

A standardised and transparent approach

RightShip’s Carbon Accounting methodology has been developed in-line with the European Standard EN16258:2012 – Methodology for calculation and declaration of energy consumption and GHG emissions of transport services (freight and passengers).

This standard sets out the requirements for calculating and reporting energy consumption and GHG emissions in transport services. The methodology considers all vessels (vehicles) used to perform transport services, including the fuel refining and consumption, and loaded and ballast legs.

The calculations are based on the specific characteristics of the transport service, for example the route, vessel particulars, cargo information, fuel type, and associated ballast leg, which lend to more accurate results.

Irrespective of the complexity of the activity – for example, single voyage to multi-load – the standardised and transparent approach ensures the emissions are fully allocated to a vessel's cargo. This ensures companies can assess how the supply chain emissions footprint changes over time, in line with the delivery of products or services

The methodology developed by RightShip has been externally verified by Pangolin Associates Pty Ltd, and incorporated in to RightShip’s Quality Management System.


Methodology parameters

To calculate voyage GHG emissions, our Carbon Accounting methodology uses fuel use data, or where this is unavailable, our unique database of vessel specific theoretical emissions profiles and voyage details.

The calculation considers the following parameters:

  • Fuel consumption (where available)
  • Voyage details (load and discharge ports)
  • Emission factors and fuel types
  • Cargo details
  • Vessel capacity
  • Load Factor and Ballast leg (empty distance).


We understand that emissions calculations are only as strong as the data behind them. Our approach to emissions reporting allows us to assess the quality of the data inputs by overlaying the fuel use information provided with our vessel specific theoretical emissions calculations, which leads to more robust outcomes.


Our Carbon Accounting methodology assesses the emissions linked to the operation of vessels as well as the extraction, transportation and refining of fuel used. The total energy chain – commonly referred to as Well-to-Wheel/WTW – is the sum of all operational and upstream figures.

This figure is derived by quantifying the following processes:

  1. Final energy consumption and vessel (vehicle) emissions from cargo transportation, including ballast leg/s (= operation; Tank-to-Wheel/TTW)
  2. Upstream energy consumption and upstream emissions (energy provision, production and distribution; Well-to-Tank/WTT)


RightShip’s Carbon Accounting methodology applies to ocean-going, cargo carrying vessels across various cargo types including dry bulk, break bulk, liquefied bulk products, gas products and containerised cargo.

As per the standard in the shipping sector, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), are the gases most commonly assessed in our Carbon Accounting practice. Therefore, the relevant CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions factors have been utilised in the methodology.

The total GHG emissions are expressed in terms of tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalence (CO2-e).

Sea Cargo Charter and RightShip

The Sea Cargo Charter is a framework that promotes the disclosure of fuel use dataGHG emissions performance and climate alignment by charterers. Signatories commit to reporting annually on their emissions performance against trajectories to meet the IMO’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. The framework promotes increased transparency among charterers and provides signatories guidance on their path to success. 

RightShip welcomes the Sea Cargo Charter as an additional tool to assist charterers on their journey towards decarbonisation. While the Sea Charter Cargo does not include all ship types or cover the complete lifecycle of fuel use (i.e. fuel extraction), the Sea Cargo Charter alignment and methodology can easily be met using RightShip’s Carbon Accounting service.  

The Sea Cargo Charter encourages signatories to have their GHG emission estimates and reports calculated by a third party, as the ‘preferred method’. RightShip is well equipped to provide this service in addition to the current Carbon Accounting offering.  


Sea Cargo Charter signatory reporting requirements

The Sea Cargo Charter requires the following data points to be calculated and reported to meet the charter obligations:

  • Total annual activity climate alignment of a signatory’s eligible chartering activities reported as a +/- percentage.
  • Vessel category climate alignments (defined by ship type and size) of a signatory’s eligible chartering activities reported as a +/- percentage. 
  • Percentage of eligible chartering activities non-reporting. 
  • Percentages of the chartering activities for which the preferred and allowed pathway tracks were used. 
  • Percentages of eligible chartering activities for which measured and estimated data were used and the source for estimated data. 
  • A list of the names of the third parties used, if any, to complete the calculations and the associated verification statement / report. 


Public reporting requirements

The following outcomes must to be reported annually:  

  • Signatories to the charter must publish their climate alignments in their sustainability reporting. 
  • The Sea Cargo Charter Association publishes total climate alignment scores and alignment scores by categories of Signatories on its website on the 15th of June annually.  


How RightShip can assist

If you nominate RightShip as your third-party reporter, the following will be provided in the Carbon Accounting reporting package:  

  • report and excel sheet that stipulate the Sea Cargo Charter requirements for each quarter (as outlined above in section: Sea Cargo Charter signatory reporting requirements).  
  • An annual report containing all details to be submitted to the Charter. 
  • A verification statement to confirm we have undertaken the calculations as required by the Sea Cargo Charter.  
  • Climate alignment deltas will be included in the spreadsheet and the presentations. 
  • Percentage of eligible chartering activities for which measured and estimated data were used and the source of estimated data will be included. ‘Estimated data’ applies for example, where the ballast emissions were calculated using the distance and not the fuel use data. 
  • Percentages of the chartering activities for which the preferred and allowed pathway tracks were used. 

What is the MEP?

Sustainability in all industries is becoming an increasingly important business consideration. At RightShip, we believe the word sustainability encompasses so much more than just emissions reductions.  

We need the entire industry to improve its operations so that the sector’s prosperity continues. This means providing safety and crew wellbeing initiatives, as well as seeking out holistic efficiency measures that sustain the industry as a whole. 

RightShip was established in 2001 and have over 300 customers worldwide. For two decades, we have been collecting data to develop the most comprehensive ship specific database available in the industry. Covering the global fleet, we house detailed energy efficiency information on over 50,000 ocean going vessels, (from 500 DWT up to the largest vessels) and over 200,000 maritime companies. 

Our bespoke service offerings enable ports, shipowners, charterers, banks and supply chain partners to make data-driven decisions and gain insights into efficiency benchmarks. We apply a ‘data for good’ philosophy, meaning we take the information we have collected to improve sustainability and efficiency in order to measure, benchmark and reduce supply chain emissions. 

No other business in the shipping industry is working to achieve a holistic approach to sustainability like RightShip. Our team is comprised of 70 highly experienced staff on four continents, working to develop innovative solutions in shipping safety and sustainability. The Maritime Emissions Portal (MEP) has been designed to provide ports with visibility and improve knowledge of air emissions associated with shipping activities in port.  

How the MEP works

The easy-to-use online tool provides ports with readily available emissions inventory data, combined with analytic tools to report on and extract the inventory that can be used to manage the local air quality in a more informed way.  

The MEP leverages RightShip’s ship-specific emissions methodology, unique vessel database, and when combined with Automatic Identification System (AIS), delivers an estimation of ship-sourced emissions.  

The emissions inventory is provided for CO2, SOx, NOx, PM10 PM2.5 and VOC specifically associated with port activities.  


Emissions inventory methodology 

The MEP is built on leveraging established technologies, validated data and proprietary emissions methodology to generate detailed emission inventories per vessel.  


Vessel Tracking – Satellite (AIS) data  

The Automatic Identification System (AIS) is an automated tracking system which is extensively used in the maritime industry for the exchange of navigational information.  

AIS data defines the vessel entry and exit from the port boundaries, together with detailed movement and vessel speed. AIS data is reported every three minutes while the ship is moving and every 20 minutes when stopped.  

A vessel call is determined by a ship entering and leaving the port boundary. During a call, each operating mode is calculated for each vessel and the vessel location data is also utilised to calculate speed. The AIS data is linked with RightShip’s unique database to determine ship characteristics that are required for calculating emissions.  


Port mapping 

The port boundary is ‘geo-fenced’ to define the project boundary. The subsequent terminals, anchorages, points of interest are also defined.  

Once the port areas are mapped, each ship mode is modelled per emissions profile: 

  • Anchorage: anchored within the port boundary,  
  • Transiting: transiting within a ship channel or open ocean,  
  • Manoeuvring: approaching a berth or terminal, and  
  • Alongside: loading or unloading a cargo 


Vessel particulars 

RightShip’s vessel database includes more than 50,000 ocean going vessels, and the various tugboats, offshore support vessels and port specific vessels which operate across the globe. We utilise the various vessel specific particulars including deadweight, main engines, auxiliary engines, boilers, etc. to enable the calculation of vessel emissions.  

RightShip’s database allows the application of specific vessel data, rather than applying generic estimates or assumptions. The application of vessel specific data significantly improves the accuracy of the emissions estimations.  

The MEP methodology covers the following vessel types: 

  • Ocean going vessels: bulk carriers, crude & product tankers, LPG tankers, LNG tankers, general cargo, containerships, cruise & ferry and ro-ro cargo ships.
  • Offshore support vessels: vessels that specifically serve operational purposes such as oil exploration and maintenance / construction work on the open ocean. 
  • Tugboats: used to manoeuvre other vessels by pushing or pulling them either by direct contact or by means of a tow line, also used for towing barges. 
  • ‘Other port specific vessels’: vessels usually based within (or routinely visiting) the port area that provide specific services.  


Vessel emission calculations 

RightShip’s proprietary emissions methodology leverages AIS tracking technology and validated vessel specific data to generate a detailed emission inventory. 

The methodology is based on industry standard methods including USEPA, California Air Resources Board, ENTEC (Entec UK Limited), and IMO guidance documents. 

The approach offers reduced uncertainties and data burden on ports whilst increasing the accuracy of the emissions inventory. Displayed securely online, ports can explore their emissions data quickly and simply via the custom-built user-interface.  

This ensures that the most robust approach can be applied for each specific air pollutant and reflects specific industry regulations that have been introduced over time to curb certain pollutants.  

A peer review of the methodology was conducted by independent scientists to ensure that the technical work products developed are correct, consistent, and based on the highest quality science.  

Overall, the independent peer review found that ‘the scientific and technical work product used high-quality science in its assessment and was found to be in line with existing guidelines and conducted in a rigorous, appropriate, and defensible way’.  


Core pollutants 

The MEP Methodology covers the core air pollutants associated with shipping activity.  

  • CO2 – Carbon Dioxide. A colourless and odourless gas that is naturally present in the atmosphere but also enters through burning fossil fuels that contribute to climate change.  
  • SOx – Sulphur Dioxide. A gas formed by fossil fuel combustion that can impact human health, biological processes, and form acid rain. 
  • NOx – Oxides of Nitrogen. A gas that is formed by fossil fuel combustion that can impact human health and can form acid rain. 
  • PM2.5 – Particulate matter including and less than 2.5 microns in diameter. Produced from a wide range of industrial processes including fuel combustion. The particles can impact visibility and once inhaled, can cause serious health effects. 
  • PM10 – Particulate matter including and less than 10 microns in diameter.  Produced from a wide range of industrial processes including fuel combustion. The particles can impact visibility and once inhaled, can cause serious health effects. 
  • VOCs – Volatile Organic Compounds. Grouping of a wide range of organic chemical compounds. They contribute to photochemical smog, react with nitrogen to produce ozone, and can cause serious health effects. 


Close Close dialog icon

Subscribe to our news

Stay up to date with RightShip’s projects and innovation

* Required