Technical information

Helping you to navigate towards excellence.

SEE ALL ARTICLES

RightShip's products and services

  • The RightShip platform
  • A clear path to improved safety
  • RightShip’s safety ecosystem
  • Working towards a zero-emissions future

The Safety Score

  • RightShip’s Safety Score
  • Methodology overview
  • Safety Score model retrain
  • Safety Score Hybrid rules; DOC Subscore Update
  • Safety Score N/A and 0
  • Vessel Rules Safety Score 1 and 2
  • DOC Scores and Resolutions
  • Safety Score 3, 4 and 5 (the Safety Score model)
  • Safety Score Rule Governance
  • Calibrating and testing the model
  • Safety Score feature: the grace period
  • Incident Category
  • Incident transparency - DOC Subscore

Dry Bulk Inspections

  • Introducing RightShip’s Dry Bulk Inspections program
  • RightShip’s Inspection Questionnaire RISQ
  • Deck and Engineer Officer Matrix
  • Minimising time spent onboard and maximizing efficiency – Hybrid and Dual Inspections
  • Close out process
  • RightShip Inspection Validity Matrix
  • Root Cause Analysis 
  • Inspection Validity Criteria
  • RightShip Inspectors

Vessel Vetting

  • Introduction to Vessel Vetting
  • Vessel Vetting methodology
  • Vessel Vetting within the RightShip Platform (TQs & FBRs)
  • The RightShip Standard and your vetting criteria
  • Vetting outcomes: acceptable or unacceptable
  • RightShip’s Safety Score and Vessel Vetting

The GHG Rating

  • RightShip’s GHG Rating
  • You and the RightShip GHG Rating
  • RightShip’s GHG Rating, EEXI and CII
  • CII insights on the RightShip Platform 

Energy Saving Devices

  • Propeller Boss Cap Fins (PBCF) Guidelines
  • Low Friction Coating Guidelines

Maritime Emissions Portal

  • How the MEP works

Crew Welfare Self-Assessment

  • Crew Welfare at RightShip
  • Our Crew Welfare Partners
  • The Code of Conduct
  • The Crew Welfare Self-Assessment Tool
  • Crew Welfare FAQs
  • The Crew Welfare Self-Assessment Status Search

Management Audit

  • How RightShip Management Audits work

The RightShip platform

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

Our 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 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
    • Screening
    • Safety Score
  • Sustainability Solutions
    • GHG Rating
    • Carbon Accounting
    • 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 transparency, fast 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 RightShip platform has several features which provide improved functionality and more streamlined communication with our experts. This means our services, such as vessel vetting, are easy to use and results can be returned faster. The advanced search tool provides a customisable, efficient search for vessels. You can also set up notifications and alerts to monitor your vessels, inspections and vetting status.

Transparency to an individual vessel’s score and to drive improvements in the industry was a design priority. In our 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.

RightShip’s safety ecosystem

At RightShip we believe that a successful voyage is one that is safe, sustainable, supports the welfare of our seafarers and is also commercially successful.

In our new platform, we combine our vast data, leading digital tools and analysis by our subject matter experts to benchmark operational performance consistently. This allows us to show “what good looks like” by highlighting best practice and supporting continuous improvement across the three dimensions below.

For the purpose of this article, we will focus on safety.

RightShip’s Safety Ecosystem

We support risk reduction and improved business outcomes for our customers by integrating, analysing, processing and assessing the many inputs to our platform using innovative technology. Our safety ecosystem due diligence process is comprised of the Safety Score, vessel vetting and inspections. All components should be evaluated together to improve the overall view of safety of your supply chain operations and pending voyages.

RightShip’s Safety Score

The Safety Score is designed to provide a composition of the world’s fleet and delivers a transparent view of best practice operations. It is intended to help our risk assessment customers gain an initial perspective on the operational performance of a 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.

This clear and consistent benchmark of historic safety performance provides a reference point for all participants at the start of the vetting process. Find out more about the Safety Score methodology here.

Our expert vetting process

While the Safety Score provides an initial indication of a vessel’s safety and performance, our vetting process provides systematic due diligence, which is performed by our experts.

Utilising RightShip’s platform, our vetting superintendents provide an assessment based on the RightShip Standard, which may be supplemented with bespoke customer criteria, and ultimately make a suitable recommendation for a vessel on a nominated voyage.

RightShip’s vessel vetting service leverages our unique data, leading technology and due diligence processes to advise whether a nominated vessel would be recommended for a future voyage, based on several factors including route, environmental impact and cargo type.

We use all data and reporting collected in the RightShip platform, including outcomes from RightShip Dry Bulk Inspections, along with the vessel’s safety and GHG emissions profile to provide the complete picture of the condition, emission profile and operational history of a vessel.

Our experts then assess the vessel against our RightShip Standard and, where applicable, use any special vetting criteria requested by our vetting customers to address their specific risk profile. This could include berth fit, terminal questionnaires or other complex, bespoke requirements to suit their marine assurance needs.

At the end of the vetting process the vet requestor will receive a recommendation, in which the vessel is deemed ‘acceptable’ or ‘unacceptable’ for the nominated voyage.

Dry bulk inspections

Physical inspections enable RightShip to provide an added assessment of onboard safety management systems, operating and maintenance standards, safety culture, standards of welfare, crew wellbeing and environmental management on board. This process factors in inspection items that go beyond the physical condition and regulatory compliance, which may materially affect the operations of the vessel.

Completing inspections provides an additional assessment of operating practices and standards onboard. Inspections may identify opportunities for improvement or confirm that corrective action has been successfully implemented onboard.

How to use complementary RightShip’s products and services to reduce risk

The data from RightShip’s Safety Score and dry bulk vessel inspections, combined with our due diligence service allows our customers to take a holistic approach to risk and safety. While you will find the Safety Score and bulk inspection outcomes useful for real time performance and quality background checks, our vessel vetting service will help you carry out your internal risk assessment and assess the suitability of a vessel for your cargo, terminal or company risk profile. When all of these products are engaged, you have a complete view of a vessel’s suitability.

During our vetting process, we consider a range of inputs and assessments, including the Safety Score, to provide a reliable recommendation.

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.

The due diligence process may also be supported by the results of a physical inspection onboard to confirm the required improvements to address historic operational performance concerns have been implemented onboard satisfactorily.

See below for a summary of these products and services to understand how they complement one another:

products-and-services

The Safety Score provides a very different view of a vessel than the Qi Predictive Risk Rating. It is not a like for like replacement and therefore cannot be used in the same way as the Risk Rating.

We recommend that all references to a minimum Risk (or Star) Rating in any commercial contracts instead be replaced with the requirement to complete the vetting process. As explained above, the vetting process is designed to consider additional factors and clarifications beyond the Safety Score to produce a clear and trusted recommendation.

Building a blueprint for operational excellence

Finally, our safety ecosystem and all the complementary parts have been developed to serve all the customers and stakeholder in the supply chain.

Charterers, regulators, financers, insurers, ports and terminals all have their role to play in supporting an improved safety culture and standards across the board. True leadership from all key stakeholders is crucial to provide the transparency and collaboration required for real progress.

This is particularly important when allocating scarce resources and identifying where operating budgets should be maintained to avoid incidents and reputational damage in the future.

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

ss5-burakowski-lg-vessel-overview-2x

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)

What data is used to calculate the Safety Score?

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.

Methodology overview

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.

ss2-pikkon-lg-vessel-overview-2x

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.

ss4-saunders-lg-vessel-overview-2x

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 model retrain

On July 31, 2024, RightShip updated its Safety Score to improve clarity, transparency, and accuracy. These enhancements were driven by continuous customer feedback and routine updates to ensure greater effectiveness. 

Since its launch in February 2021, the RightShip Safety Score has become a vital tool for stakeholders across the supply chain, providing a clear snapshot of a vessel’s safety performance. 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. 

It’s important to understand that the dynamic nature of the Safety Score may lead to changes in a vessel’s score, especially during a retrain. 

 Register here for our upcoming webinar where we will delve into the motivations behind the retraining, the processes involved, and what these changes mean.

 

2021 Model Release: Calibration and Training of the Safety Score Model  

Part One: Data Collection and Evaluation 

  1. Gathered Data: Collected data across six key aspects to evaluate vessels, using a dataset from 2016 to 2020.
  2. Ranked Vessels: Ranked over 230,000 vessels in order from highest to lowest for each of the six datasets.
  3. Applying a Normal Distribution Curve: Applied a normal distribution curve to the rankings:
    1. Designated specific percentiles to represent each Safety Score value in the future.
    2. Converted percentile levels into tangible data values (e.g., 10 PSC findings = median, 5 PSC findings = low, 15 PSC findings = high).
  4. Assigned Weightings: Added a weighting value to each dataset to reflect its importance:
    1. Incidents received a high-value weighting.
    2. Detentions received a medium-value weighting.
  5. Calculated Final Scores: For each vessel, calculated the combined weighted value of all six datasets to achieve a final score for each individual vessel.

    Part Two: Final Ranking and Safety Score Assignment 
      
  6. Final Ranking: Ranked all vessels (230,000+) based on their combined weighted value from the six data sets.
  7. Normal Distribution Application: Applied a normal distribution curve to the rankings.  
    1. Assigned vessel counts to determine how many vessels should fall into low, medium and high percentiles.
    2. Set percentile thresholds to determine when a vessel’s Safety Score would move from Three to Four to Five.
    3. Launched the model. 

Once these parameters were established, the model began to react to new data entering the system. Each event impacting a vessel is recalculated, and as a vessel’s recalculated score crosses a percentile threshold, its Safety Score is adjusted accordingly.  

 

Why Retraining the Safety Score Model is Essential  

Over time, the distribution of vessels becomes misaligned with the parameters set by the original data set. This is expected as the underlying market conditions evolve.  

As vessels experience fluctuations—whether improving or declining in various data aspects—their alignment with the original normal distribution may drift, skewing the results. This shift can occur as vessels either improve or deteriorate, while market demands fluctuate, affecting each data aspect differently. Example:  

Incidents –The industry may experience a period with decreased incidents.  

DOC –Industry performance improves and DOC Fleet performance rises  

PSC – Inspection findings might increase as Port State Controls (PSCs) globally tighten regulations.  

DETENTIONS – Detention levels might decrease as PSCs modify their rules.  

 

Indicators for Safety Score Model Recalibration  

As vessel distributions shift across each scoring area, the weighted sum scores also become skewed. This results in:  

An increase or decrease in the number of vessels allocated to each specific Safety Score than originally intended. The longer the interval between recalibrations, the more vessels drift out of alignment with the designated percentiles  

At this stage, it becomes essential to recalibrate the model to align with the most recent dataset. This process involves considering key questions, such as the current market conditions that vessels are facing across the six data sets and how these conditions compare to one another. 

Retraining the model achieves several critical outcomes. It ensures the relevance and reliability of vessel rankings against current market data, maintains the proper distribution of vessels across Safety Scores, and provides an opportunity to improve and enhance the model for greater accuracy and effectiveness. 

Analogy: Exam Grading System 

To better understand the calibration process, consider a mock exam grading system. Initially, the grading is set as follows: a score of 70% earns a C, 80% earns a B, and 90% earns an A. However, only 30% of the test-takers can achieve an A. 

If all test-takers score 90% or higher, the system needs recalibration. The new calibration settings would be: 90% earns a C, 95% earns a B, and 98% earns an A. This adjustment ensures that only 30% of the test-takers achieve an A, maintaining the intended distribution of grades. 

Similarly, in the Safety Score Model, the normal distribution curve and percentile thresholds are applied to ensure that the distribution of Safety Scores remains consistent and meaningful, even as the data evolves. 

  

Update on the July 2024 Retrain 

In our continuous effort to enhance the accuracy and relevance of our safety assessments, we have undertaken a comprehensive retraining of our mathematical model. This retraining involved incorporating the most recent historical data from 2019 onwards.   

The primary objective of this update is to ensure that our safety scores accurately reflect the latest safety performance records, regulatory changes, and operational trends. 

To ensure the scores remain meaningful and comparative, it's crucial to retrain the model periodically. Retraining recalibrates the scores, maintaining a balanced and accurate reflection of current safety performance across the fleet.

Key highlights of the Safety Score model retraining  

  1. Updated Historical Data: The model now includes data from 2019 onwards, reflecting the latest safety performance and operational trends. This update allows us to offer more accurate and relevant vessel safety scores.
  2. Refined Scores Scale: The Safety Score and its subscores, provided on a scale of 1 to 5, have been recalibrated based on the updated data. This recalibration ensures that the scores accurately represent the current safety status of each vessel and its affiliated entities, offering a clear and precise measure of their safety performance.
  3. Enhanced Reliability: The retraining process has strengthened the reliability of our safety scores. With the inclusion of the latest data, our model offers a more comprehensive view of vessel safety, ensuring that our clients receive the most dependable assessments.  

Changes due to retraining:  

Most of the changes in safety scores are attributable to the retraining process. Even if there are no major changes in the methodology, the scores still change as the thresholds and boundaries are adjusted to accommodate the latest data. Vessels may see fluctuations in their Safety Score depending on where they find themselves in relation to other vessels. 

Since all scores are benchmarked against each other, the performance of vessels naturally varies over time, with some improving and others declining. This variability causes shifts in the score distribution. 

 

Other Considerations: 

How a vessel relates to other vessels in the fleet is central to the RightShip Safety Score model. Hybrid rules override relative rankings of vessels to designate a result for a specific aspect that is considered important, but not addressed by the model. 

Safety Score Hybrid rules DOC Subscore Update

 

We have introduced several updates to enhance the visibility and management of DOC Subscores across the platform, focusing on the DOC Hybrid rules and their definitions related to Category A (Cat A) incidents. These changes are designed with the goal of ensuring fair impact on DOC Subscores across all fleet sizes, while staying true to our Zero Harm ethos.  

 

What are the hybrid rule changes? 

 We are updating the hybrid rules in the underlying model that determines a vessel’s Safety Score.  

A single incident of category C severity will no longer result in a vessel's Safety Score being reduced to a 2. Instead, the vessel’s Safety Score will be made indicative. Note: a close out of the incident is still required for vetting readiness and to remove the indicative Safety Score status. 

The criteria for reducing a vessel's Safety Score to 1 or 2, based on accumulating three incidents of category A, B, or C severity, has been revised from within 60 months to within 36 months. This applies to rules SS1-14 & SS2-15.  More information can be found here.

 

Key Updates:  

New DOC Subscore Column: A new DOC Subscore column has been added to the Companies page, positioned between the Name and Country columns. If a hybrid rule is triggered for a DOC, an icon will appear next to the DOC Subscore. Hovering over this icon will display the message "DOC Subscore rules invoked." The specific hybrid rules that can be triggered are: 

 

CAT-A 

Open 

Closed 

Applicability 

0-6 months 

Max 3/5 

Max 3/5 

All current CAT-A Incidents 

6-12 months 

Max 3/5 

Max 4/5 

12-24 months 

Max 3/5 

Max 4/5 

24-36 months 

Max 3/5 

No Limit 

Only new CAT-A Incidents entering this time window after 28th August 2024 

 

CAT-A already in these time windows are exempted. 

36-48 months 

Max 3/5 

No Limit 

48-60 months 

Max 3/5 

No Limit 


For a full list of detailed rules and resolutions click here

Improved Filtering: On the DOC Fleet page, new filters for "All Activity" and "Activity Affecting DOC Subscore" are now available, enabling users to better manage and view activities that impact the DOC Subscore. 
 

Additional Insights:  

Different Treatment of 0-24 Month and 24-60 Month Cat A Incidents: Incidents within the 0-24 month window require closeout as a prerequisite for a RightShip vetting nomination. This approach ensures that more recent and unresolved incidents are treated differently than those in the past, reflecting their potential impact on current operations. 

Steps if Your DOC is Impacted by the DOC Subscore Hybrid Rule: If your DOC is affected by this rule, conduct a thorough review of the circumstances leading to the incident. When ready, submit a comprehensive incident investigation report detailing the key findings and actions taken to prevent recurrence. For guidance, refer to our Best Practice Incident Investigations guide. 

Why Open/Closed Status Doesn't Impact the 0-6 Month Period: 

Cat A incidents are serious events often involving severe injury, loss of life, or major pollution. It’s crucial that thorough and professional incident investigations are conducted to learn from these tragedies. A rushed investigation is never acceptable, and adequate time must be taken to ensure all lessons are properly learned. 

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 (unless the vessel has valid RightShip inspection):

  • 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
  • Vessels with unknown Management Company for less than 3 months

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).

Note – as at 1 March 2022, we are actively monitoring sanctions being applied linked to the Russian conflict with Ukraine. These are being updated in our Platform daily.

Vessel Rules Safety Score 1 and 2

Safety Score 1 rules and resolutions
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 review.

Full investigation report from managers into the ILO abandonment case, to include all submittals such as:

  • Timesheet of events
  • SOF from crewmembers
  • In depth RCA and preventive measures implementation
  • Fleet circulars and lessons learnt
  • Company action plan based on lessons learnt
  • Third party reports (ILO, ITF, P&I, Crew Manning agency…)

Evidence of resolution and no other similar case within the fleet

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the Abandonment of Seafarers case

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. 

Substantial evidence by Class/Flag to support why the detention could be considered unjustified

Company action plan based on lessons learnt

OR

Detention appeal documentation available

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the PSC detention

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by previous PSC detentions

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.

Full investigation report from managers to include all submittals such as

  • Timesheet of events
  • SOF from crewmembers
  • VDR data analysis
  • In depth RCA and preventive measures implementation
  • Fleet circulars and lessons learnt
  • Company action plan based on lessons learnt
  • Third party reports (Class, Technician, Maker…)

External/independent 3rd party investigation

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the incident

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by this Cat A incident

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, High Risk or Very High Risk, or a Tokyo MoU scored flag, which is High Risk. The vessel needs to change its Flag to one that is not a Medium to High, High Risk or Very High Risk with a Paris MOU or a Tokyo MoU-scored flag, which is not High Risk.
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.

Full investigation report for each incident from managers to include all submittals such as               

  • Timesheet of events
  • SOF from crewmembers
  • VDR data analysis
  • In depth RCA and preventive measures implementation
  • Fleet circulars and lessons learnt
  • Company action plan based on lessons learnt
  • Timesheet of events
  • Third party reports (Class, Technician, Maker…)

External/independent 3rd party investigation

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the incident

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by previous incident

SS1-14 Vessel with 3 incidents (CAT-A or CAT-B or CAT-C) in 36 months The vessel will require a RightShip Inspection and provide close out of all three incidents. Vessel needs to display good performance over 36 months such that the rule will automatically resolve.

Full investigation report for each incident from managers to include all submittals such as               

  • Timesheet of events
  • SOF from crewmembers
  • VDR data analysis
  • In depth RCA and preventive measures implementation
  • Fleet circulars and lessons learnt
  • Company action plan based on lessons learnt
  • Timesheet of events

External/independent 3rd party investigation

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the incident

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by previous incident

 

Safety Score 2 rules and resolutions
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.

Substantial evidence by Class/Flag to support why the detention could be considered unjustified

Company action plan based on lessons learnt

OR

Detention appeal documentation available

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the PSC detention

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by previous PSC detentions

SS2-2 Any vessel with excessively high numbers (50) of PSC deficiencies over 24 months Send RightShip information to review severity of deficiencies. Vessel needs to display good performance over 24 months such that the rule will automatically resolve.

Class or external ISM audit report

Detailed RCA and investigation report into each deficiency, clearly describing actions taken to avoid recurrence

Evidence of fleet circulars sent to all company vessels

Company action plan based on lessons learnt

Substantial evidence from Class/Flag to support why some deficiencies could be considered unjustified

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the PSC detention

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by previous PSC detentions.

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.

Full investigation report for each incident from managers to include all submittals such as

  • Timesheet of events
  • SOF from crewmembers
  • VDR data analysis
  • In depth RCA and preventive measures implementation
  • Fleet circulars and lessons learnt
  • Company action plan based on lessons learnt
  • Third party reports (Class, Technician, Maker…)
  • External/independent 3rd party investigation

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the incident

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by this Cat A incident.

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 category A or B 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.

Full investigation report for each incident from managers to include all submittals such as

  • Timesheet of events
  • SOF from crewmembers
  • VDR data analysis
  • In depth RCA and preventive measures implementation
  • Fleet circulars and lessons learnt
  • Company action plan based on lessons learnt
  • Third party reports (Class, Technician, Maker…)
  • External/independent 3rd party investigation

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the incident

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by previous incident.

SS2-15 Vessel with 3 incidents in last 36 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 36 months such that the rule will automatically resolve. Part resolution for rule SS1-14.

Full investigation report for each incident from managers to include all submittals such as

  • Timesheet of events
  • SOF from crewmembers
  • VDR data analysis
  • In depth RCA and preventive measures implementation
  • Fleet circulars and lessons learnt
  • Company action plan based on lessons learnt
  • Third party reports (Class, Technician, Maker…)
  • External/independent 3rd party investigation

OR

Evidence that vessel changed ownership and DOC managers after the incident

Evidence describing the actions taken by new managers during vessel take over to assess the risk presented by previous incident.


 

DOC Scores and Resolutions

 

DOC Scores and Resolutions 

Rule 

Resolution Options 

DOC3-1 

Open Cat A incidents in the last 6 months 

Owner to provide RightShip with an acceptable close out to the open incident. 

DOC3-2 

Closed Cat A incidents in the last 6 months 

N/A 

DOC3-3 

Open Cat A incidents in the last 12 months 

Owner to provide RightShip with an acceptable close out to the open incident. 

DOC3-4 

Open Cat A incidents in the last 24 months 

Owner to provide RightShip with an acceptable close out to the open incident. 

DOC3-5 

Open Cat A incidents in the last 36 months 

Owner to provide RightShip with an acceptable close out to the open incident. 

DOC3-6 

Open Cat A incidents in the last 48 months 

Owner to provide RightShip with an acceptable close out to the open incident. 

DOC3-7 

Open Cat A incidents in the last 60 months 

Owner to provide RightShip with an acceptable close out to the open incident. 

DOC4-1 

Closed Cat A incidents in the last 12 months 

N/A 

DOC4-2 

Closed Cat A incidents in the last 24 months 

N/A 

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

Incidents

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.

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 vary, 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.

Detentions

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.

The grace period new feature and hybrid rule changes: Safety Score update

We are excited to announce the launch of a new Safety Score feature for RightFLEET members: the 14-day grace period for incidents. Developed in close dialogue with Safety Score users, this feature gives ship owners and managers time to assess incidents and creates more accurate and equitable scores. The incident grace period for non-members is seven days. 

What is the grace period? 
  • The grace period gives owners and managers 7-14 days to verify incident information with RightShip and prepare close-outs before their vessel’s Safety Score is affected.  
  • A vessel with an active grace period will have a clock symbol displayed next to their Safety Scores. The incident will show on the vessel timeline as normal, but without its severity category displayed. 

  • Once the grace period is over, the incident will be incorporated into the vessel’s Safety Score and DOC Subscore. Its impact will be based on its severity category. 

 

What do these changes mean for ship owners and managers? 

The grace period allows ship owners and managers to better manage incidents reporting and resolution, enhancing overall safety performance without losing their competitive position in the market.  

Incident Category

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. Proactive submission of close out will allow smooth vetting process which would otherwise stall pending submission of closeout by vessel Manager/Operator and its review by RightShip; in case an acceptable post-incident RightShip Inspection is required for positive vetting recommendation timely submission would allow time for arranging and conducting such inspection prior to vetting. 

Definitions for Incident categories

Category A incident is an event where there is either:  

  • A loss of life, a loss of a person from a ship; incidents with significant impact on health of multiple persons, including life changing events  
  • A total loss of any of the involved ships and/or marine infrastructure   
  • An incident requiring abandoning the ship  
  • Deliberate pollution, severe pollution to the environment, potential for large pollution*  
  • Crew abandonment  
  • A serious breach of law  
  • A sequence of events with aggregate impact greater than Category B.  

  
Category B incident is an event where there is either:  

  • Work related injuries with medically diagnosed condition/s or permanent disability leading to inability or limitation to be re-employed at sea under original duties  
  • Significant damage to any of the involved vessels  
  • Extensive accommodation damage  
  • Severe structural damage  
  • An event such as explosion, fire, underwater penetration of the hull, flooding  
  • A breakdown, loss of propulsion or manoeuvrability necessitating towage or shore assistance  
  • Serious pollution*   
  • any other incident classed as serious including avoidable events with causes within the control of management   
  • Sequence of events aggregate impact greater than Category C.  

  
Category C incident is an event where there is either:  

  • A Lost Time Injury except cases in Category A and B  
  • Pollution less than that of Category B*  
  • Recorded pollution of/by wash water (not covered above), MARPOL Annex VI, ballast water, garbage  
  • A breach of primary pollution containment, with no loss to the environment  
  • An event causing minor damage to vessel/s such as a contact, early contained fire or any other incident less serious than those listed in Categories A and B  
  • Slow down of main engine(s)/ propulsion limitations – depending on impact on safety of local navigation.  

  
Category D incident is an event where there is:  

  • No or negligible effect on the vessel's operations: A medical first aid case or lost time injury not related to work, minor operational leaks or near misses. These events are excluded from the Safety Score calculation.          

Category U incident:

  • "U” refers to Uncategorised, Undefined, Uncertain information received about an event, however more information or assessment is needed to determine the nature of the event, if the event should be recorded as an incident within the RightShip Platform, and if so to define the applicable category.
  • Category U events have no effect on vessel safety score or DOC subscore, however may require further assessment during vetting and/or screening.
  • Category U events are included for transparency, and where an incident and requires close out, the category will be updated. 

                                         
===========================  


* - Severity of pollution:   
Deliberate/wilful pollution – self-explanatory, including “magic” pipes;   
Severe pollution – damage to the environment which, as evaluated by the coastal State(s) affected or the flag State, as appropriate, produces a major deleterious effect upon the environment, or which would have produced such an effect without preventive action (as defined by EMSA EMSIP). Also, loss of secondary containment for gaseous cargoes. 
 Serious pollution – pollution by MARPOL Annex I, II, III, IV and/or chemicals (IBC and BCH Codes).  
 As a part of quality assurance RightShip may undertake reviews of closed incidents and may amend an incident category upon review and/or following our consideration of new information  

Impact of an incident on safety score is related to the severity of an incident. Category A is the highest, category D even has no effect. Timewise: the highest impact is during the 1st six months after the incident, decaying at 6 month and then annually from the 1st anniversary. Complete relief is after 5 years since the incident. The incident will continue to affect the DOC at the time of the incident after DOC for the vessel is changed.

Incidents which were outside of management/crew control, e. g. damages caused while moored - by colliding vessel are recorded in RightShip Platform however  are marked as having no effect on safety score. In most cases this is done after investigation report has been received. For positive vetting recommendation an investigation and analysis with preventive actions is required in any case in line with ISM Code requirement to have all non-conformities, accidents and hazardous Occurrences reported, analysed and measures intended to prevent recurrence implemented.

Once an incident of Category A, B (or C) having taken place in the last 36 (60) months is recorded against the vessel, the vessel’s Safety Score will drop to SS2/5 or SS1/5, see  https://help.rightship.com/en/articles/4676100-safety-score-1-and-2. In case Category C incident is received simultaneously with the acceptable close out, such drop on safety score may be avoided if recording the incident and its closing will be done at the same time. RightShip Platform will calculate the effect of the closed incident on the safety score. At the time of Safety Score decreasing to SS1/5 or 2/5 an activity “safety score review” will be generated.

Most of category A and B incidents* require an acceptable post-incident RightShip Inspection (SIRE for tankers) for positive vetting recommendation when closed. A number of such incidents with non-tanker vessels will require verification of preventive measures implementation onboard during RightShip Inspection to be closed in RightShip Platform.
*- which are not marked as not affecting safety score  

Failure to submit an acceptable root cause analysis, corrective and preventive measures for Category C incident may result in implementing the requirement to have an acceptable RightShip Inspection for positive vetting recommendation and/or for having the incident closed in RightShip Platform.

What to do:
Preliminary report even without close out - will credit a small positive adjustment to vessels.
When submitting close out exhaustive information and analysis will help correct categorisation from early stages and once the incident is closed will relieve from the need to revert to the event and to engage into another submissions and reviews.

When the incident is closed in RightShip Platform the Platform will initiate Safety Score review and depending on the severity/number of incidents in the last 60 months will either run the review or trigger request to RightShip Vetting Team to carry out 2-ste review. The safety score will be recalculated taking this closed incident into account together with potential credit. 

How to improve Safety Score after Category A or B or any category in case it was the third incident in the last 60 months is closed? Satisfactory close out – preferably with best industry practice quality and an acceptable post-incident RightShip Inspection including verification of recurrence preventing measures onboard during this inspection. Depending on the outcome of the Inspection Safety Score review will be processed. In case of an acceptable RightShip Inspection outcome on the border line of acceptance such Safety Score review will not be triggered.

Case studies
Loss of propulsion resulting in grounding, Category B. Pre-incident safety score 3/5, changed to 2/5 upon incident Satisfactory investigation report with supporting information received, the vessel was subjected to RightShip inspection with satisfactory outcome, Safety Score restored to 3/5 after RightShip Platform ran Safety Score review.

Collision with damages requiring immediate repairs, Category B. Pre-incident safety score 4/5, changed to 2/5 upon incident. Satisfactory investigation report with supporting information received. Acceptable RightShip Inspection, safety score increased to 3/5 after RightShip Platform ran Safety Score review.

Contact With pier, Category C incident, however 3rd in 60 months. Pre-incident safety score 3/5, changed to 1/5 upon incident. Satisfactory investigation report with supporting information received. Acceptable RightShip Inspection, 2-step safety score review was carried out by RightShip Personnel, Safety Score increased to 3/5.

Fatality Category A incident.  Pre-incident safety score 5/5, changed to 1/5 upon incident. Satisfactory investigation report with supporting information received. Acceptable RightShip Inspection, 2-step safety score review was carried out by RightShip Personnel, Safety Score increased to 3/5.

Damage to auxiliary engine/blackout/loss of propulsion Category C – third incident in the last 60 months.  Pre-incident safety score 3/5, changed to 1/5 upon incident. Satisfactory investigation report with supporting information received. Acceptable RightShip Inspection, 2-step safety score review was carried out by RightShip Personnel, Safety Score increased to 3/5.

 

Incident transparency - DOC Subscore

When a manager proactively reports an incident not already on the Platform and did not occur prior to a completed vet or inspection, the DOC Subscore will receive a relative reward. This reward is designed to acknowledge that the manager has been transparent in sharing information. The penalty assigned to the DOC Subscore for proactively reported incidents will be less severe compared to incidents not reported proactively.

 

The field ‘DOC transparency’ on the Incident Overview indicates that incidents have been transparently reported; if they were not reported proactively, the files will be blank.

 

 

Incidents are categorised according to their severity, and the severity rating determines their impact on the score. Category A incidents have a more significant impact than Category B, and Category B has a greater impact than Category C. The impact of incidents diminishes over time, with a 40% reduction in effect after six months and an additional 40% reduction every subsequent 12 months within five years.

 

The key distinction between a proactively reported (transparent) incident and a non-proactively reported incident lies in the 40% immediate reduction in impact for proactively reported incidents, while non-proactively reported incidents receive the 40% impact reduction after six months.

 

Incident transparency aims to incentivise proactive reporting and data completeness and accuracy.

Introducing RightShip’s Dry Bulk Inspections program

For more than 12 years, RightShip’s Dry Bulk Inspections have played an important role in the physical validation of vessel conditions and safety management. This is an essential component used within our desktop vetting process. 

RightShip’s Inspection Questionnaire was updated in 2021 and recognises the industry’s need for a standard for Dry Bulk Inspections, which strengthens the services our Chartering customers rely on, and supports shipowners and managers to operate vessels at best practice safety standards. The expanded Inspection’s questionnaire, the “Rightship Inspection Ship Questionnaire” (RISQ), will be used as the updated reference for the industry in our collaborative drive towards standards beyond compliance. 

RISQ has been expanded from the previous Inspections checklist in terms of its scope and coverage and includes not only regulatory requirements but also industry best practices. This means we will assess additional factors beyond existing safety expectations. These include expanded environmental, crew welfare and regulatory focus.  This is the only dry bulk questionnaire in the industry that covers all these areas.   

To assist the process where port time is limited, two new types of Inspection arrangement will be introduced - the Hybrid and the Dual. Hybrid Inspections allow the vessel managers to upload all the documentation to a microsite for review by the Inspector before he boards, leaving just the physical inspection to be completed. It is expected that this will reduce the onboard time by about 3 hours. Dual Inspections allow the Inspection task to be divided between two inspectors effectively halving the inspection time. 

RightShip is introducing a digital Inspection delivery platform, that will see tablets replace paper checklists during the inspection, to make its use and navigation easier for inspectors. 

The questionnaire digitalisation will enable RightShip to collect more granular data to help shipowner and operators perform analysis to further improve industry practices. 

To embed the new questionnaire, digital tools and ways of working, RightShip is providing a digital training solution to all Dry Bulk Inspectors used by RightShip. This means that RightShip will be training and certifying all RightShip Dry Bulk Vessel Inspectors to ensure all new RISQ Inspections are carried out consistently from the first inspection offered. You can find out more about our Inspector accreditation and certification process below. 

RightShip’s Inspection Questionnaire RISQ

The updated questionnaire has been designed to help guide and support shipowners, operators and managers in the pursuit of improvement and efficiency. And we’ve made the questionnaire freely available on our website for the betterment of the industry.   

In most parts of the questionnaire, you will find a “guide to inspection”. This assists the ship’s manager to prepare a vessel for inspection. It also supports the inspector assigned to complete the inspection report. The standardised reporting gives shipowners and managers a detailed but also easy to understand inspections outcome, which in turn helps to guide routine maintenance and preventative measures to ensure the vessel is running efficiently. The outcome of the inspection will reflect the actual condition and standard of the operation of the vessel at the time of inspection.  

We believe having a standardised inspections process implemented across the dry bulk fleet and greater transparency of outcomes will be beneficial for charterers and shipowners alike.  For shipowners, successful completion of the inspection will acknowledge their commitment to crew welfare and safe and sustainable operation. These thorough assessments will also provide charterers with more accurate vetting outcomes.  

  

Technical details of the new Inspections Questionnaire   

The questionnaire has been expanded to include more vessel type specifics, making it the most comprehensive inspections reporting tool in the dry bulk sector. The expanded scope of inspections covers statutory items as well as recommended and desirable items with reference to IMO, ISO, ILO, OCIMF, ICS, P&I Loss Prevention Bulletins, maritime publications and industry codes of practice.    

For inspection purposes, the vessels covered in RightShip’s inspections are now grouped into four categories:  

  • Bulk carriers that are carrying sold bulk cargoes other than grain  
  • Bulk carrier that are carrying grain cargoes  
  • General cargo ships that are carrying general and/or container cargoes  
  • Container ships that are carrying container cargoes  

  

Key questionnaire enhancements   

A Guide to Inspection is provided for many of the questions in the new questionnaire.  This new feature will assist owner/managers in understanding industry expectations and preparing the vessel for inspection. It will also aid the inspector when answering the questions and completing the inspection report.    

Additional benefits include:  

  • Standardised inspection procedures
  • Improved data capture for future analysis
  • More comprehensive and incisive analysis of findings
  • Enhanced overall assessment of the vessel condition.  

  

Benefits to shipowners  

The inspection questionnaire provides several benefits for shipowners, these include:   

  • Independent, standardised and enhanced assessment and verification of the onboard management and vessel condition.   
  • Improved quality of the inspection report with more comprehensive and incisive analysis of findings supported by Guide to Inspection  
  • Regular inspections help owners to increase and maintain their reputation with charterers, ports and terminals, financiers, marine insurers and others who use RightShip, resulting in higher earning potential and lower capex and opex.  
  • Shipowners who charter in additional tonnage are also able to use RightShip dry bulk inspections to inspect vessels before they take on long term charterers, to ensure they are up to the same standard as their fleet.  

  

Benefits to ship managers  

Ship managers traditionally need ways to differentiate themselves from other ship managers in a competitive sector. By using RightShip’s dry bulk inspections, they can:  

  • Use an independent assessment of onboard management to benchmark their management performance against expectation and industry standards
  • Comprehensive inspection feedback reports allow managers to showcase their higher operating standards
  • Support the on-going management and training of seafarers engaged on the vessels they manage  

  

Benefits for charterers   

It is critical that charterers avoid making use of deficient ships and minimise the key risks to which a charterer is most exposed to when goods are being transported by sea.   

RightShip recommends that, before chartering or accepting the nomination of a ship to its terminal, each charterer carefully assesses the risks involved, utilising all available sources of information, to ensure that the vessel is seaworthy and cargo worthy.  

By using vessels which have achieved a positive RightShip’s dry bulk inspections outcome, charterers can benefit from:  

  • A standardised approach and objective methodology to global dry bulk vessel inspections.   
  • A more comprehensive risk assessment process with less likelihood of findings causing delay and supply chain interruption.  
  • Reduce risk of damage to reputation.  


Download RightShip’s Inspection Questionnaire RISQ here

Deck and Engineer Officer Matrix

Instruction for Completing Document

The online Deck and Engineer Matrix should be completed and send to RightShip Dry Inspection team and the nominated inspector at least 24 hours prior to commencement of inspection. It is the responsibility of the vessel’s manager to ensure the document is properly filled out and up to date.

 

All fields of the Matrix must be completed as per below:

Rank

Use a drop-down list and select an appropriate rank as per Seafarers Employment Agreement. Please do not include the cadets in the matrix.

Gender

New Field

Nationality

Record the nationality of Officers and Engineers as per their passport.

Certificate of Competency (COC)

Use the drop-down list and select an appropriate Certificate of Competency that the deck or engine officer is holding.

Issuing Country

Record the name of the country issuing the Certificate of Competency.

Endorsement- vessel's administration

An endorsement is a document which is issued so that foreign seafarers may use foreign certificates issued by a maritime administration of a country, other than the administration of the ship’s Flag State. The Flag Administrator of the ship may allow a seafarer to serve for a period not exceeding three (3) months if a Certificate of Receipt of Application is readily available.

Radio Qualification

Select “Yes” if the officer has GMDSS certification.

Year in Service-Vessel Manager

Record the number of years that the officer has been with the vessel’s manager.

Years in Service-Rank

Record the number of years of sea service that a seafarer has been in rank on board this type of dry cargo ship as a certificated officer.

Years in Service-Dry Cargo Ships

Record the number of years of sea service that the officer has served on board dry cargo ships as a certificated officer.  

Date of joining

Record the date that the seafarer joined this vessel.

Months on board

Record the number of months the seafarer has been on board this vessel.

Years Watchkeeping

Applicable to the ranks below Chief Officer or Second Engineer- Record the number of years of sea service as a watchkeeping officer on all ship types.

English Proficiency

Please select Elementary, Limited Professional, Professional Working, Full Professional, Native/Bilingual from the drop-down list.

Minimising time spent onboard and maximizing efficiency – Hybrid and Dual Inspections

The new drive towards digitalising our inspections program enables RightShip to offer two new inspection types that facilitate different approaches to minimise the time inspectors spend on board your vessel: hybrid and dual inspections. 

 

1) The hybrid inspection

The dry bulk hybrid inspection is an initiative by RightShip to reduce the amount of time an inspector spent on board of the vessel. Unlike the conventional inspection where all questions are answered during a physical inspection; ship managers can request an advanced review of pre-selected documentation before vessel arrival. These documents have to be provided to RightShip no later than 72 hours (3 days) before vessel arrival. 
 

The benefits

The RightShip dry bulk hybrid inspection reduces the amount of time an inspector spends on board of the vessel. This: 

  1. Minimises the contact between the inspector and the crew. 
  1. Enable RightShip to perform an inspection despite having a shorter port stay. 

 

How do I request a hybrid inspection?

In the request form, simply select “hybrid” before submission.  

After submission, you will receive an email with an URL link for document submission. 

 

What documents do I need to provide to RightShip?

Click here to find out more on the list of documents needed for RightShip Dry Bulk Hybrid Inspection. 

 

2) Dual Inspections

Having a dual inspection is another way inspections could be done in ports with shorter port stay. The dual inspection is similar to the standard one only being performed by two inspectors that will split the questionnaire between themselves and execute different sections, 

 

The Benefit  

The RightShip dry bulk dual inspection reduces the overall time inspection would take by engaging two inspectors.  This enables RightShip to perform a vessel inspection despite having a shorter port stay 

 

How do I request a dual inspection? 

Currently there is no request option for a dual inspection. If during the review of your request for inspection RightShip Inspections Team believes there is not enough port stay time to perform a standard inspection the team may investigate if the 2-inspector option is suitable. During this investigation different parameters are considered, such as: 

  • The duration of the port stay 
  • The port location 
  • Availability of additional RightShip inspector in the area 
  • Additional travel cost implications, 
  • If, after the investigation, the RightShip Inspection Team believes that the dual inspection is a suitable approach they will contact you to confirm the details. 

Owners and Managers are provided 15 days from their receipt of the inspection report following the close out meeting to submit their close out report. The timeframe is provided to enable the Manager to undertake a root cause analysis and to confirm actions required to address findings. Requests to extend this timeframe are considered where Managers experience genuine difficulty in meeting the deadline.   

Upon receipt by RightShip, the Managers’ close out report is reviewed by an Inspections Superintendent. RightShip applies a fair and impartial approach to review the close out, with independent reviewers to the inspector who attended the vessel. The first reviewer examines the findings, evidence including photographs and relevant root cause analysis, amending the pre-populated grading when necessary. Then a second Inspections superintendent reviews the close out and confirms the grading of findings each as high, medium or low risk, and, where necessary, engages the first reviewer to confirm any proposed changes. The outcome from the peer review includes assessment of validity based on the matrix described in the next tab. 

RightShip Inspection Validity Matrix

To optimise consistency in the review and close out of inspections, a validity matrix is applied as referenced in the final inspection report. This matrix is a method to determine the validity of RightShip inspections based on four elements:  

1) the severity of findings  

2) the number of findings 

3) the presence of any showstopper findings 

4) the proficiency demonstrated by a meaningful root cause analysis 

RightShip acknowledges that the assessment of any single unique finding will contain an element of subjectivity given variables that exist across vessels, risk assessment, and even where such assessments are validated by highly experienced individuals. With a view to minimise impacts of subjectivity, RightShip incorporates peer review so that the elements affecting the final inspection outcome are duly assessed.   

 

Severity Levels of Findings: 

RightShip uses three definitions of levels of risk severity to determine the severity of each finding. 

Low Severity Risk*:   

Medium Severity Risk*:   

High Severity Risk*:   

 

Findings that have minimal or no immediate impact/threat to the safety of the vessel, crew, cargo, environment or operations. These issues pose a minor risk and do not interrupt operations significantly. 

 

Findings that present a potential impact/threat to the safety of the vessel, crew, cargo, environment or operations. These issues pose a moderate risk and could be viewed as weaknesses in processes, procedures, or shipboard practices that, if not addressed promptly, could result in a significant failure impacting the ship's safe operation and the company's reputation. Corrective action is necessary to prevent further escalation.  

 

Findings that pose an immediate threat to the safety of the vessel, crew, environment or operations.  These issues pose a high risk and indicate a significant lapse in the systematic and effective implementation of the ship's safety management system, necessitating immediate corrective action by the ship's management. Failure to address these issues could lead to severe incidents, detentions or legal consequences. 

 

*The severity level definitions apply to all findings whether regulatory or industry practice. 

 

Number of findings: 

RightShip considers the impact of lower or higher-than-average number of findings in its inspection review process and validity.  The table depicts the number of findings as of As of November 2024. 

table1

 Click here to view our Global RISQ BI report: https://platform.rightship.com/report/10?title=Global%20RightShip%20Inspections 

 

Show-stopper finding: 

A show-stopper finding is one that, due to its serious nature, will render the inspection as unacceptable, regardless of the severity of other findings. Examples include: 

  • Navigational or engineering personnel who lack the necessary certification or are under-certified as specified by the Flag State Administration for the ship. 
  • A ship that is understaffed and fails to comply with the Safe Manning Certificate. 
  • Recent navigation practices observed that were unsafe and could have led to a navigational accident. 
  • Incorrect procedures or inadequate onboard practices that could potentially cause injury or fatality to personnel e.g. enclosed space entry, work at height, lock out tag out. 
  • Emergency equipment such as lifeboats and multiple pieces of personal safety equipment that are inoperable. 
  • Fire detection systems, fire alarm systems, multiple firefighting equipment, fixed fire extinguishing installations, multiple ventilation valves, multiple fire dampers, and multiple quick closing devices that are inoperable. 
  • An emergency fire pump that is inoperable or defective, which could prevent remote start of the pump and fail to deliver the required pressure as per regulation. 
  • A defective pilot ladder that poses a risk of injury to the pilot. 
  • An oily water separator that is inoperable or defective, posing a potential environmental risk. 
  • A sewage treatment system that is inoperable or defective, posing a potential environmental risk. 
  • Unsafe access arrangements to cargo holds, ballast tanks, and void spaces that could result in injury to personnel. 
  • Unsafe practices during onboard cargo hold fumigation that could jeopardise the safety of shipboard personnel. 
  • Multiple defects in the hatch cover system that compromise its weathertightness. 
  • Main and auxiliary engines that are inoperable or defective, potentially impacting the safety of navigation. 
  • An emergency generator that is inoperable or defective, unable to generate load and transfer the load into the emergency switchboard. 
  • Insufficient food and potable water for the voyage to the next port. 
  • Attempted bribery of the Inspector.  
  • Any finding that exposes unauthorised alterations or missing elements of the safety devices in machinery and equipment that could compromise the safety of the equipment, machinery, personnel, ship, and could present a potential risk for fire, explosion, or personal injury. 

 

Multiple Low/Medium-Risk Findings: 

Multiple low to medium-risk findings from any one section of the RISQ indicate a gap in the relevant sections of the ship’s SMS. At this stage, RightShip is placing emphasis on:  Section 3, Navigation and Section 13, Machinery Space such that one of every four findings at low and/or medium-risk will be treated in a similar way as one high-risk finding when evaluated. 

 

 

Root Cause Analysis

A root cause analysis (RCA) that clearly addresses the cause of a finding, preventative and corrective measures and is substantiated with objective evidence supporting the action taken or planned to be taken, will positively impact the outcome of the inspection.  

  • Good RCA: RightShip considers a root cause analysis meaningful if it meets the following requirements: 
  • Clearly and precisely addresses the recorded finding. 
  • Provides an explanation in simple and clear language. 
  • Uses the system they have control over to operate the ship and identifies the cause and its effect relationship within their system. 
  • Identifies opportunities to reduce risk. 
  • Avoids blame and focuses on effective prevention measures. 
  • Aims to achieve the RISQ criteria against which the shipboard operation was measured. 
  • Uses one of the recognized root cause analysis techniques within the maritime industry. 
  • Average RCA: An average root cause analysis is one that lacks detail, depth, or clear connections between the elements, leading to a less effective solution. 
  • Poor RCA: A poor root cause analysis is often vague and incomplete, failing to address key elements in a meaningful way. This oversight frequently results in recurring findings. 

Inspection Validity Criteria

  1. Good RCA:

    12 Months Validity 

     

    9 Months Validity 

     

    6 Months Validity 

     

    3 Months Validity 

     

    Unacceptable (U) 

     

    • ≤ 23 low/medium risk findings with up to 1 high-risk finding. 
    • > 23 low/medium risk findings with 0 high-risk findings.                      

     

    • ≤23 low/medium risk findings with 2 high-risk finding. 
    • > 23 low/medium risk findings with 1 high-risk findings 

     

    • ≤ 23 findings with 3 high-risk findings. 
    • 23 low/medium risk findings with 2 high-risk findings. 

     

    • >23 low/medium risk findings with up to 6 high-risk findings. 

     

    • > 6 high-risk findings. 
    • ≥1 findings categorised as show-stopper findings. 

     

     


  2. Average RCA:

    12 Months Validity 

     

    9 Months Validity 

     

    6 Months Validity 

     

    3 Months Validity 

     

    Unacceptable (U) 

     

    • ≤ 23 low/medium risk findings with 0 high-risk finding. 

     

    • ≤ 23 low/medium findings with 1 high-risk finding. 
    • >23 low/medium findings with 0 high-risk finding. 

     

    • ≤23 low/medium risk findings with 2 high-risk findings  
    •  >23 low/medium risk findings with 1 high-risk finding 

     

    • ≤23 low/medium risk finings, with 3 high risk findings. 
    • >23 low/medium risk findings with 2 high-risk findings.  

     

    • > 23 low/medium risk findings with 3 or more high-risk findings 
    • ≥1 findings categorised as show-stopper findings. 

     

     


  3. Poor RCA: 

    12 Months Validity 

     

    9 Months Validity 

     

    6 Months Validity 

     

    3 Months Validity 

     

    Unacceptable (U) 

     

    • Nil. 

     

    • ≤23 low/medium risk findings with 0 high-risk findings. 

     

    • ≤23 low/medium risk findings with 1 high-risk finding. 
    • >23 low/medium risk findings with 0 high-risk finding 

     

    • ≤23 low/medium risk findings with 2 high-risk findings  
    • >23 low/medium risk findings with 1 high-risk finding  

     

    • >23 low/medium risk findings with 2 or more high risk findings 
    • ≥1 findings categorised as show-stopper findings. 

     

 

 

RightShip Inspector Accreditation

 

Due to increased demand for our Inspection services, we are seeking expressions of interest from suitably qualified marine personnel, experienced in undertaking risk-based ship inspections, to join our global pool of contract Inspectors. 

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.

 

vessel-vetting-92

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 vetting criteriawhich represents our minimum requirements for good operational practices. From June 2021, RightShip’s vetting criteria has been expanded from 20 to 50 items, in line with the launch of our Platform and Safety Score.  

The existing criteria 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)

 

General additions to the new criteria are as follows:  

  • The new criteria extends beyond the previous standard from 20 assessment items to 50 items, including new sections for flag and class, ship structures, mechanics, and human rights. 
  • A comprehensive review of incidents, PSC performance and operator performance in more detail.   
  • Clearer binary failings. If a vet fails on one of these hurdles, the vessel cannot be recommended at all.   
  • The new criteria removes the grey areas and explains more about the standard of where an owner needs their ships to be in order to be eligible for recommendation 
  • Where appropriate, customers can add more stringent safety or additional geographical criteria on top of RightShip’s standard. However, the new criteria provides greater clarity around the specific items that cover safety, the environment, human rights, operational excellence with the aim of having a unified standard for the industry.  

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.

You can download and review the Dry Bulk and Petroleum, Gas and Chemical vessel vetting standards against the risk profile of your organisation, and your specific customer criteria currently in place.

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.

ss2-pikkon-lg-vessel-overview-2x_0

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

The RightShip GHG Rating methodology  

RightShip’s GHG Rating compares a vessel’s designed efficiency against peer vessels of similar size and type using a speed-corrected methodology. This approach evaluates all vessels within a peer group at a common speed and focuses on the emissions in the range of a vessel’s market operating speeds, based upon a speed corrected intensity. The vessel’s GHG Rating is presented using an A-E scale, with the most efficient vessels being awarded A and the least efficient awarded E. 

GHG Rating across a ship type 

Ship types for comparison predominantly follow those in the MARPOL, Annex VI (Revised 2021) and regrouped for similar cargo type, including bulk carriers, chemical tankers, container ships, crude and product tankers, passenger and cruise ships, general cargo ships, LNG carriers, LPG tankers, refrigerated cargo ships, ro-ro vessels, and vehicle carriers. LNG tankers, LPG tankers, container ships, cruise and passenger ships, general cargo ships, refrigerated cargo ships and ro-ro vessels. Vessels are compared in size to other vessels plus or minus 10% of their DWT.  

The GHG Rating size group is based on the size score, which indicates the number of standard deviations by which a vessel varies from the average for similar sized vessels of the same ship type.

If the distribution of the size scores exactly fit a normal distribution, the score ranges would match the fixed percentiles of the data set mentioned in the below chart. The vessel’s position on the A-E scale is determined by the size score and GHG Rating key as follows:

GHG-methodoloy-page-graph

(Figure 5: GHG Rating Key)

The GHG Rating is dynamic and will almost always compare a different group of vessels - taken from within a larger sample - for each calculation made. As older vessels are scrapped, new vessels are commissioned, or retrofits/upgrades for existing vessels are verified at sea trials the relative performance of the peer group improves, and vessels are rated against a new average.

Consequently, vessels can have their Ratings upgraded by enhancing design factors which have a measurable impact on efficiency, primarily through the addition of energy saving devices (ESD). The addition of an ESD will require evidence be submitted to RightShip in order to update the vessel characteristics. 

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. 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. 

GHG-methodoloy-page-graph-2 

The incorporation of EEXI, EVDI, and EEDI   

On 17 June 2021, the IMO adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI at MEPC 76, introducing regulations 23 and 25 - the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI). This amendment requires ships to attain EEXI approval once in a lifetime and must be completed by the first annual, intermediate or renewal survey due, whichever is the earliest from 1st January 2023.

The IMO has defined designed energy efficiency for EEXI as grams of CO2 per tonne nautical mile and the IMO MEPC formulated both EEDI and EEXI as measures of a ship’s CO2 emissions. Both are calculated using characteristics of the ship at build, incorporating parameters that include ship capacity, engine power and fuel consumption.

In 2012, RightShip developed an Existing Vessel Design Index (EVDI) to work alongside the EEDI (introduced by IMO in 2013) as inputs into a Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Rating to enable comparisons of similar vessel types within peer groups for all maritime stakeholders.  

With the implementation on December 6th 2023 of the GHG 2.0 Rating system, RightShip accepts the EEXI as a similar metric overriding EVDI for existing ships. The speed corrected methodology uses EEDI, EVDI ,and EEXI and allows relative comparison of a ship’s CO2 emissions to vessels of a similar size and type. Ship types are largely consistent with those used by IMO MEPC.

Power limitation 

RightShip believes that power limitation should neither give undue advantage nor be discriminatory to vessels, while promoting vessel efficiency to cut down CO2 emissions. Therefore, the GHG Rating methodology addresses such barriers with a speed corrected approach and evaluates all vessel within a peer group (i.e., of similar size and type) at a common speed.  

This common speed is referenced from the Fourth IMO GHG Study 2020, with a reduction of 10% to allow for slowdown of world fleet due to EEXI and power limitation.  

Retrofits and upgrades 

Retrofits and upgrades such as changes to ship design, propulsion and machinery may help to improve a vessel’s GHG Rating. Any upgrade or retrofit which has been verified by a classification society can be submitted to RightShip, together with new EEXI and certificate enabling the GHG Rating to be recalculated.  

Approved enhancement measures will have a plus (+) sign adjoined to their GHG Rating as well as having the types of Energy Saving Devices deployed are featured for each respective vessel on the Platform to enable shipowners to further demonstrate their commitment to decarbonisation.  

How a ship’s GHG Rating changes to a 5-point scale 

On December 6th 2023, RightShip’s GHG Rating moved from a 7-point scale (A-G) to a 5-point scale (A-E). Broadly speaking, As and Bs under the old methodology are now As. Fs and Gs are now Es. And all ratings in between have moved one scale up.

ghg-new-ae-scale-rating

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.

RightShip’s GHG Rating, EEXI and CII

How RightShip GHG’s Rating incorporates EEXI alongside EVDI and EEDI

RightShip’s GHG Rating is the industry’s first rating to incorporate EEXI, EVDI, and EEDI, and this change has necessitated a shift in how we define a vessel’s theoretical CO2 emissions.    

GHG Rating 1.0 rated a vessel based on engine power, using characteristics of the ship at build, like capacity, engine power, and fuel consumption. This is a strong methodology, but it doesn’t allow for the efficiency variables introduced by engine power limitation (EPL), which is expected to be adopted on a large proportion of the world fleet to comply with EEXI.  

GHG Rating 2.0 addresses this issue by moving to a speed corrected methodology. This approach evaluates all vessels within a peer group at a common speed and focuses on the emissions in the range of a vessel’s market operating speeds, applying a minimum speed logic for calculating the speed corrected intensity.    

In other words: the GHG Rating 1.0 graded vessels according to their efficiency at 75% of the engine power. Rating 2.0 grades vessels according to the efficiency at a common speed.  

This change ensures that the GHG Rating remains fair and transparent when considering EEXI and continues to function as an effective relative measure of efficiency between similar vessels.  

 

The Admiralty principle and EPL

The sea trial and associated speed-power performance data is obtained within the IMO framework and guidelines to arrive at a no wind, no wave, no sea current, depth and water temperature correction. However, there is a gap, as widely known and discussed with the market, wherein sea trials are completed at ballast draft conditions, as single or few point speed trial runs, which are then extrapolated to form the whole Speed-Power curve.

Considering the above limitations, a theoretical approach based on known design principles of Naval Architecture, specifically around the ‘Admiralty Coefficient’ - sometimes referred to as propeller law - is taken to arrive at a speed corrected gCO2/tnm.  

What is RightShip’s position on the Power Limitation (EPL/ShaPoli) for the EEXI Compliance, and how will this affect vessels’ GHG Rating?  

RightShip’s GHG Rating now accepts multiple EPL/ShaPoLi, and below MPP Level 1. The use of the Admiralty principle in the new speed corrected approach will remove the influence of EPL/ShaPoLi on a vessel’s rating. Class certified EEDI and EEXI Technical files are accepted.

 

GHG Rating and CII

The RightShip GHG Rating has moved to a 5-point A-E scale primarily due to the IMO’s adoption of an A-E scale for the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) rating. CII and GHG are fundamentally different – CII measures how a vessel actually performed in the past, while GHG Rating measures the designed potential to perform. A vessel’s CII does not impact its GHG Rating. However, we believe it’s important to give stakeholders the chance to understand these two ratings in relation to each other.  

For example: A vessel rated ‘A’ GHG gets chartered out for one year. It is returned to the vessel owner after one year, but it is CII rated ‘C’ due to the way it was traded. This CII rating, which may impact the vessel’s commercial viability, does not reflect the vessel’s potential or future performance. That’s what makes RightShip’s GHG Rating so important: it ensures that vessel’s are treated fairly, on a level playing field, and are measured according to their potential, not their past performance.

From June 5th, 2024, RightShip users will see a vessel’s annual and estimated CII displayed alongside the GHG Rating.  

Why CII matters

CII is the IMO’s energy efficiency rating for vessels. The rating has flaws and is likely to undergo a major review soon, but it is now a vital metric for the industry to understand. We are introducing CII insights onto the RightShip Platform to enhance transparency, to help users to see how a vessel’s CII can be understood in relation to its GHG Rating, and to facilitate better-informed commercial conversations.   

Submit your annual CII

Users can now submit annual CII on the RightShip Platform, alongside EEXI, EEDI, EVDI, and energy-saving devices. Visit our Environmental Review instructions to learn more. Vessels with unsubmitted ratings will have their CII will greyed out after May 31st, in line with the IMO’s CII submission deadlines.  

CII, GHG Rating, and vetting

There is no relationship between a vessel’s CII and GHG Rating. The annual and estimated CII Ratings are for insight only and will not be used in RightShip’s vetting rules or Baseline Criteria.  

Platform updates: the Carbon Intensity Indicator page

  1. The annual CII rating is displayed on the vessel header as a mirror image of the GHG Rating, with identical colour coding on the A-E scale. This encourages understanding of both the design and operational aspects of a vessel.  

    If the vessel has not submitted any CII Rating or keeping in line with the regulation that each ship needs to have its CII Rating issued by 31st May of the subsequent year, the CII flag will turn grey. 

     
  2.  EEXI information is now a sub-section with the GHG Rating page. 

     

  3. The Operational Metrics page is now titled CII Rating, and hosts CII-related information. 

     

     

  4. A CII filter has been added to the Vessels page, allowing users to filter and select vessels based on CII.  

     

Estimated CII Rating graph:

An estimated CII Rating graph has also been made available in partnership with ZeroNorth. The intent in this design is to help users on the RightShip Platform be directed to the appropriate pages for further follow-up and insights from ZeroNorth. 

Below features of the graph will be helpful for its understanding: 

  1. The data in this graph is expected to appear two weeks delayed as there is a curation period involved in ZeroNorth’s model before it flows to the RightShip’s Platform. 

  2. The scatter plot refers to non-continuous weekly block i.e non-cumulative 7 days. The tooltip on the graph shows the related week’s estimated CII Rating and value, distance, average speed, and fuel consumption. 

  3. The continuous curve in the graph is cumulative week till date (YTD) with the related tooltip displaying corresponding CII Rating and value. 

  4. Since the model needs AIS data, there might be some vessels where if data is unavailable their rating may not be continuous or displayed. 

  5. This is a six-month trial period running through December 2024 during which this service will be offered at no additional charge. Further activation beyond this trial period is under review and will be updated in due course. 

More details can be obtained by reaching out to ZeroNorth contact hyperlinked on the bottom right of the graph or by reading the methodology here. 

 


A screenshot of a computer

Description automatically generated



FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS  

 

Q.1 Can a good Annual CII Rating improve a vessel’s GHG Rating or vice versa?  

A. There is no relationship between the two systems. A vessel’s CII does not affect

RightShip’s GHG Rating. The GHG Rating is a design-based peer rating system while the CII is an operational metric as per IMO defined benchmarks. However, a poor CII rating might encourage a vessel owner to invest in energy saving devices and equipment to improve its performance which can lead to an improved GHG Rating once reported to and verified by RightShip. 

Q.2 Will Annual CII Rating be used in RightShip’s vetting rules?  

A. No. RightShip believes that CII in its current structure is not suitable for vessel selection through Rightship’s vetting rules.  

  

Q.3 What is ZeroNorth’s estimated (Live) CII’s update frequency?  

A. ZeroNorth’s data is calculated at weekly level. The data based on AIS and ZeroNorth’s fuel consumption data model is curated and released with a two-week delay, hence the related graph will always be missing the latest two weeks after each weekly refresh.  

 

Q.4 If RightShip believes in CII not delivering the expectations in current structure, what purpose does hosting a live estimated CII Rating graph serve? 

A. Annual CII being a regulatory system under the IMO’s MARPOL Annex VI makes it availability as an emission metric inevitable and hence hosting it on the Platform enables its transparency. 

CII has started to be used in commercial agreements in the market, albeit only a few. This has the potential to gain more acceptance with time as IMO evolves the CII regime. This can be seen through the clauses developed by BIMCO which indicates live CII monitoring between charterer and operators in a commercial set-up. Hence, this integration promotes transparency where there is a gap between the commercial entities. 

The study on the data led to the conclusion that vessels installing PBCF will be given a 1.5% power reduction to achieve the same speed (Vref) at 75% nameplate MCR without the need to conduct a new sea trial or CFD studies. The new Vref can be derived using the formula:  

New Vref = Vref,original * {(1/0.985)^(1/3)} 

Nevertheless, if an actual sea trial or CFD study is done showing higher improvement, that will be credited upon verification. The above calculation needs to be detailed in Section 4 – Estimation Process of Speed-Power curve, of the EVDI Technical file and the adjusted Speed-Power curve needs to be presented together with the original Speed-Power curve therein at the EEDI draft by the submitter. 

Guidelines for creation of EVDI Technical file showing low friction coating improvements

 

Note: These guidelines for generation of ship-specific EVDI calculations where a low friction coating has been applied can be used only for vessels at draft as defined in paragraph 2.2.2 of the EEDI calculation guidelines where all below conditions are met: 

  1. Model test reports and Speed-Power curves (from sea trial or CFD), without the effect of low friction coating, should be as per IACS Rec 172 Rev 1 and approved by the Class.

    a. Where Speed-Power curve is unavailable and Vref,app has been approximated as specified in EEXI calculation guidelines, the procedure mentioned herein cannot be applied.

  2. Conventional anti-fouling (e.g. Self-polishing copolymer – SPC etc.) was applied while obtaining the Speed-Power curve, without the effect of low friction coating, at the as-designed condition from yard.

  3. The low friction coating application was done during the latest drydock within the last five years from the date being submitted to RightShip. This date cannot be before 1st January 2021. 

 

Where new sea trials have been conducted after application of low friction coatings, these guidelines do not need to be adhered to since the impact of such coating is inherently present in the trial record. 

 

EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES 

1. Coating Manufacturers should follow ITTC 7.5-02-02-03 – Resistance and Propulsion Test and Performance Prediction with Skin Frictional Drag Reduction Techniques - Effective Date: 2017 - Rev.00 for conducting their comparative experimental studies between a conventional anti-fouling as well as the advanced low friction coating under consideration.


  1. The baseline coating used in the experiments should be as close in similarity to conventional anti-fouling coating.

  2. The preparation of the substrate for the experiments should be representative of real-world conditions of a new shipbuilding steel with uniform and homogeneous roughness. Polished surfaces such as acrylic, plastic, polished steel etc. should be avoided.

  3. The results of these experiments together with uncertainty estimates for evaluating the repeatability of these experiments need to be approved by an IACS Class Society before the EVDI calculation is undertaken for submission to RightShip.

  4. Such experimental studies should provide the details of the surface preparation of the geometry being studied to ensure uniform, homogeneous and suitable roughness like those observed in new-built ship steel prior to coating application, and alignment and preparation of the geometry being experimented upon for verification of any misalignments and distortions which may affect the results.

  5. The Class approved experimental study must be submitted to RightShip as an appendix to the EVDI Technical file detailed in the next steps. 

 

EVDI CALCULATION AND REPORTING STRUCTURE 

The calculation in the next steps should be shown in a separate EVDI Technical file. Note that this file is like the standard EEDI/EEXI Technical file format defined by IMO’s MEPC.351(78). 

2. EVDI calculations are to be done at 75% of the original nameplate MCR of the main propulsion engine as per EEDI guidelines irrespective of any power limitations applied i.e. NOT AT MCR_lim and at draft corresponding to that defined in paragraph 2.2.2 of the EEDI Guideline. 

3. In Section 2 – Power Curve, of the EVDI technical file, mention the before (including effect of any ESD except paint) and after coating effect (including effect of any ESD) adjusted Vref speed values. Also provide curves as per the flowchart below marked with related legends. The speed-power curves to be considered for EVDI calculation should be at drafts corresponding to the EEDI/ EEXI regulations. 


  1. This graph should show a straight line at 75% MCR value cutting both the original (before the low friction coating) and the updated curves (after low friction coating and Energy Saving Device enhancement) demonstrating the corresponding Vref values.  
  2. If other energy saving devices are also being implemented together with coatings, evaluation should be done for the coatings independent of these retrofits since coating effect needs to be studied resembling the conditions of the hull as per the original speed profile whence the other ESDs were not present. Thereafter, the ESD improvement needs to be adjusted over the coating improvement. All required curves as per flowchart below should be submitted. 

     

    Below flow chart explains the process: 

 

A diagram of a process

Description automatically generated

Figure 1: Updated Speed-Power curve creation guideline at EEDI draft 

 

 

 4. In Section 4 – Estimation Process of Speed-Power curve, of the EVDI Technical file, mention the process followed to derive the revised speed-power curve at the EEDI draft. Additionally. The Cf calculation as stated in step 4.b and the table of improvement as stated in Step 5.a below should also be mentioned in this section. The detailed calculation steps described below should be added as an appendix to the EVDI Technical file. 

 

  1. Basis the approval mentioned in Step 1 of the experimental studies section above, model-scale frictional resistance coefficient, Cf, needs to be scaled to specific full-scale vessel under consideration as per ITTC 7.5-02-02-03 for both - the baseline coating representative of conventional anti-fouling and low friction coating. This scaling should include a range of ship speeds covering Vref value, therefore, extrapolation of curves where needed can be performed.

  2. The resultant Cf value from above should be calculated as per the proportion of the ship’s wetted surface area applied with different coatings (Example – 80% of wetted surface is low friction coating and 20% is conventional anti-fouling coating).  


    i. The approved coating scheme stating the percentage proportion used in this calculation should be approved by the attending Class surveyor and attached as evidence of coating application in the appendix. This approval can be performed during the Average Hull Roughness (AHR) and hull preparation standard measurements mentioned in points 6.b (iii and iv) below. This is mandatory from 1st January 2025 onwards. For coatings done prior to this date, acceptable evidence of such proportion post the coating application should be submitted as appendix to the EVDI Technical file to RightShip. 

    ii. The proportions of different coating types used and the Resultant Cf calculation as per these proportions should be present in Section 4 – Estimation Process of Speed-Power curve of the EVDI technical file. 


  3. The total resistance coefficient value (CT) for the low-friction coating scheme using the above obtained Cf values in step (c) should be determined in accordance with ITTC 7.5-02-02-03 - Effective Date 2017 - Revision: 00.
  4. For the new low friction coating as derived above in step (c) and the initial conventional anti-foul coating applied at the time of the vessel’s delivery, corresponding estimated speed-power curves should be determined according to ITTC 7.5-02-03-01.4 – 1978 ITTC Performance Prediction Method - Effective Date 2021- Rev. 05. For cases where there is no measured data for the hull roughness of the initial conventional anti-foul coating, roughness of hull surface (ks) = 150 microns can be used as mentioned in the ITTC guideline.  


5. The percentage power improvement obtained from step 4.d between the low friction and the conventional anti-foul coating at each speed shall be applied to the vessel’s Speed-Power curve at its corresponding EEDI draft to derive the final speed-power curves for the low-friction coating scheme implemented.

  1. The table including percentage power improvement and the final Speed-Power values at each corresponding speed should be included in Section 4 – Estimation Process of Speed-Power curve, of the EVDI Technical file.
  2. These final curves should be included in the EVDI Technical file as stated in Step 3 above and identified with the related legends.
  3. If there is any other Energy Saving Device (ESD) retrofit other than paints done simultaneously, and its improvement being calculated, then the improvement due to that ESD should be applied after the paint calculations described above. This ensures that the paint improvement is based on the original delivery condition state when the retrofit ESD was not present.
     


 6. In Section 5.2 - Description of Energy Saving Equipment, of the EVDI Technical file, provide below details of the coating application: 

  1. Initial sea trial stage details: 
    i. Name of original coating 
    ii. Type of original coating: SPC, low friction, etc.  

    Name of the evidence document such as coating datasheet, original vendor statement with technical details etc. of the original coating as a conventional anti-fouling or SPC can be mentioned and submitted. If such a document is unavailable, especially for ships built before 1st January 2013, submitters are suggested to contact RightShip team at Environment@rightship.com to understand the situation. 

  2. New Low Friction Coating details: 

            i. Name of the coating manufacturer,  
            ii. Low friction coating product name, 
            iii. Date of application,
             iv. Average Hull Roughness (in microns; measured post application as per NACE SP0616-2022: Standard for Hull Roughness Measurements on Ship Hulls in Dry Dock). Witness by a Class surveyor is needed, and measurements shall be done as per guidelines defined in IACS Rec 172 Rev 1 Annex -Witnessing and acceptance of measurements). This is mandatory for coatings applied from 1st January 2025 onwards.

             v. Hull preparation standard (Sa equivalent) followed for coating application and confirmed by the attending surveyor performing the AHR measurement (Reference: ISO 8501- Preparation of steel substrates before application of paints and related products — Visual assessment of surface cleanliness)). 

 

Process of submission and approval of EVDI Technical File: 

The prepared EVDI Technical file can be submitted for review and acceptance through either of two pathways: 

  1. An approval from the same IACS member Class which also approved the experimental studies mentioned in point 1-a earlier and is the main Class of the vessel for all other regulatory perspectives.
  2.  An active coating partner of RightShip’s Zero Harm Innovation PartnersProgram (ZHIP) for each coating product that has been reviewed and approved by RightShip as per the guidelines stated herein. 

 

Evaluation of accepted improvements: 

Since coatings degrade in actual operations, their effect needs to be removed over a period. As EVDI is an as-designed vessel performance metric, it is not sensitive to real world operational circumstances and therefore a model to account for the real-world degradation cannot be incorporated within these guidelines. 

However, given ships dry-dock usually every five years, the coating can be assumed to have lost its effect over a five-year period. This approach is being integrated to reset the EVDI by the RightShip’s Platform which will reset the calculation every fifth year + 3 months from the coating application date as per the before paint application Vref mentioned in point 3 above.  This 3-month window is to address situations where the drydock can extend beyond a window of 3 months of the fifth anniversary. 

RightShip will continue to review and accept submissions as per these guidelines referencing ITTC 7.5-02-02-03, the current IACS calculation method, as well as any other calculation methods approved by an IACS member Class with a view that these calculations and intended decarbonisation can be achieved by multiple pathways. 


To review the steps on how to submit the above prepared documents, click here 

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 typically provided for GHG CO2e (CO2, CH4, N20,), and air pollutants SOx, NOx, PM10 PM2.5 and VOC specifically associated with port activities.

mep-methodology

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 60,000 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’.  

 

Greenhouse gasses and core pollutants 

The MEP Methodology covers the core GHGs and 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.  
  • CH4 – Methane. A colourless and odourless gas that occurs naturally, as well as a product of fossil fuel combustion. Methane is mroe efficient at trapping radiation than carbon dioxide. It has a significantly higher global warmer potential than carbon dioxide.
  • N2O -  A colourless, non-flammable gas that is commonly known a laughing gas. It's global warming potential is approximately 298 times larger than carbon dioxide over a hundred year period. It also has the potential to contribute towards ocean acidification. 
  • 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.

Crew Welfare at RightShip

There is an urgent need to tackle the systemic challenges creating human rights and labour rights risks for seafarers worldwide. Seafarers have a right to a workplace where their rights are respected, that is safe and secure, where they have fair terms of employment that are delivered through decent living and working conditions, fair wages and social protection covering medical, employment and retirement issues.   

Ensuring that seafarers’ rights are respected is a critical element of the shipping industry’s social responsibility journey, underpinned by the need for healthy, safe and secure work environments, rewarding careers, as well as a diverse and inclusive maritime workforce. Improving attention to seafarers’ rights can also provide added benefits such as reducing risks of incidents and undesirable ship culture that could undermine productivity and staff retention. 

   

Current issues with crew welfare in the maritime industry 

Protecting and respecting seafarers’ rights was thrust into the public spotlight in 2020 when 400,000+ seafarers were stranded at sea due to crew change restrictions as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Alongside this increased public awareness of the role of seafarers and the need to support them, there is a growing demand from consumers, investors, business partners, civil society and governments for more transparent and sustainable supply chains that address social concerns including human and labour rights alongside environmental concerns. 

 

Areas for improvement in crew welfare  

Presently, there is no consistent guidance for how to manage long-term, systemic risks to seafarers’ rights. The approach taken varies across the diversity of maritime sectors, and overall, there is low awareness of seafarers’ rights throughout the industry. And the limited action which has been taken is often reactive rather than proactive, and at the same time punitive rather than focused on continual improvement. This is all compounded by limited available data on welfare commitments during voyages.  


Areas for improvement include:

Reactive 

Responses to violations take place after crew suffering has already occurred, often over a period of many months or years. This leaves both crew and charterers exposed. 


Punitive 

Focus is entirely on penalising those who violate MLC requirements and basic human rights. There is no existing measure to effectively reward the many instances of positive action being taken within the industry. 


Data 

Action on seafarers’ welfare and human rights is limited by the availability of credible data on MLC violations. Primarily received via Port State Control detention reports or high-profile events captured in the maritime press. 



Code of Conduct and Self-Assessment Tool 

Prior to the Covid-19 crew change crisis, the Sustainable Shipping Initiative (SSI) and the Institute for Human Rights & Business (IHRB), in collaboration with the Rafto Foundation for Human Rights, formed a working group with a number of SSI members to research and address human and labour rights risks throughout the maritime supply chain.  

This resulted in the joint development of an industry Code of Conduct and Self-Assessment Tool, based on international labour and human rights standards, that would enable organisations across the sector to enhance their commitments and approaches to respecting seafarers’ rights.   

You can download the Code of Conduct here.

Ready to get started? Shipowners and managers can start their Self-Assessment today

RightShip Crew welfare self assesmentShowcase your commitment to seafarers by completing the Crew Welfare Self-Assessment, for DOC holders

Our Crew Welfare Partners


The Sustainable Shipping Initiative 

The Sustainable Shipping Initiative (SSI) is a multistakeholder collective of ambitious and like-minded leaders, driving change through cross-sectoral collaboration to contribute to – and thrive in – a more sustainable maritime industry. Spanning the entire shipping value chain, SSI members are shipowners and charterers; ports; shipyards, marine product, equipment and service providers; banks, ship finance and insurance providers; classification societies; and sustainability non-profits. 

www.sustainableshipping.org | @SustShipping 

 

The Institute for Human Rights and Business (IHRB) 

Founded in 2009, IHRB is the leading international think tank on business and human rights. IHRB’s mission is to shape policy, advance practice, and strengthen accountability in order to make respect for human rights part of everyday business. 

www.ihrb.org | @ihrb 

 

The Rafto Foundation for Human Rights 

Founded in 1987, the Rafto Foundation is non-profit organisation dedicated to the promotion of human rights globally. 

www.rafto.no | @RaftoFoundation

The Code of Conduct

The Sustainable Shipping Initiative and the Institute for Human Rights and Business, in collaboration with the Rafto Foundation for Human Rights, have developed a landmark Code of Conduct - Delivering on Seafarers’ Rights. Based on international labour and human rights standards and principles, the Code of Conduct goes beyond the ILO Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) and focuses on the full spectrum of seafarers’ rights and wellbeing, from fair terms of employment and crew protection to availability and appropriate management of grievance mechanisms. 

It brings together shipowners, ship operators and charterers/cargo owners to drive positive change in the industry, through individual and collective action and increased transparency to deliver on seafarers’ rights. 

 

Purpose  

The shipping industry is required to comply with the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) and other international conventions covering the human rights (which include labour rights) of workers. Like all industry sectors, companies in the shipping sector have a responsibility to respect the human rights of seafarers, including when they are workers in their supply chain, in accordance with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs). 

This Code of Conduct seeks to reinforce compliance with the MLC and other relevant maritime conventions, but also to go beyond, focusing on valuing seafarers and the full spectrum of their human rights.  It aims to address systemic risks and impacts experienced by seafarers through: (i) emphasising rights in the MLC that are not being adequately enforced; and (ii) covering rights and issues that are important to seafarers but not currently covered in the MLC.  

The Code of Conduct deliberately does not cover more technical health and safety issues that are equally important to the rights to life and health of seafarers, as these are covered in the MLC and other more detailed conventions, regulatory requirements, standards, codes and inspections.  It assumes that the issues covered by this Code of Conduct will be integrated together with these health and safety requirements into the overall management of all aspects of shipping that affect seafarers.  

The Code of Conduct can be used by shipowners and ship operators to understand the extent to which current operations meet their responsibilities, and by charterers/cargo owners to strengthen due diligence that in turn informs chartering-related decision-making. It will be supplemented by practical Self-Assessment Tool but provides an important set of commitments as is. The Code of Conduct was developed by the Sustainable Shipping Initiative in collaboration with the Institute for Human Rights and Business and the Rafto Foundation for Human Rights.  It brings together shipowners, ship operators and charterers/cargo owners to drive positive change in the industry, through individual and collective action and increased transparency to deliver on seafarers’ rights. 

Given the rising attention to human rights, implementing this Code of Conduct is also a way of meeting the growing demands highlighted above and reducing risks through improved compliance.   

 

You can download the Code of Conduct here 

The Crew Welfare Self-Assessment Tool

Accompanying the Code of Conduct is a Self-Assessment Tool, which provides guidance on how to meet the Code of Conduct as well as how to track progress against three levels: basic, intermediate and excellent. Addressing social responsibility issues is a journey, and the Code of Conduct and Self-Assessment are not intended to be a one-time snapshot or overnight change, but rather showcase demonstrable progress over time to secure lasting and positive change for our seafarers. Naturally the earlier we all can secure the much-needed improvement and progress the better for all. 

Hosted by RightShip, the Self-Assessment Tool is free for any shipowner or manager to fill in. On completion, a Crew Welfare badge will appear on the company’s vessel page within the RightShip Platform. Ship owners and managers will be sent a pdf summary of your submission to share with clients and other interested stakeholders, and will be reminded to re-submit after a year. Having a Crew Welfare badge markets your vessel directly to RightShip’s due diligence customers in the RightShip platform and showcases your commitment to and investment in crew welfare best practices. Company self-assessments will not be made public with only anonymised, aggregated data used for progress reporting. 

The full content of the self-assessment submissions will not be visible to external parties on the RightShip platform. However, for all companies that complete a self-assessment declaration, a badge will appear on the company and vessel pages to signify your commitment to Crew Welfare. Data entered is unverified and does not affect your RightShip Safety Score, GHG Rating, Dry Bulk Inspection or Vessel Vetting outcomes. 
 

The Self-Assessment and your due diligence process 

We are reviewing how submissions could be verified as part of our vessel vetting and Dry Bulk Inspections process and welcome discussion from participants willing to collaborate. However, this is an opportunity to implement a consistent guide for long-term, systemic risks to seafarers, uniting all parties in a standardised approach to improve the working lives of all members of the maritime industry.   
 

If you are a ship owner or manager and an existing RightShip user: Once you complete the self-assessment, you will be able to log in to the RightShip platform to view your Crew Welfare badge on the company and vessel pages. You will also be able to see the status badge for other participating owners and operators. After completing the self-assessment, you will be provided a PDF summary of your submission via a confirmation email from RightShip. 
 

If you are a ship owner or manager but not an existing RightShip user: You do not need to be a RightShip user to submit or view your self-assessment. After completing the self-assessment, you will be provided a PDF summary of your submission via a confirmation email from RightShip. Should you want to see your badge on the RightShip platform please contact RightShip for a demo. 

 

Click here to get started with your Self-Assessment 

Crew Welfare FAQs

Q: What are the key updates in the latest RightShip crew welfare self-assessment? 

The latest updates to the crew welfare self-assessment tool include: 

  • Question Level Explainers: To give users better clarity on what each question is asking for, question-level explainers have been developed. These are designed to help users of varying expertise levels understand and complete the self-assessment more effectively. 
  • Simplified Self-Assessment Process: The entire self-assessment journey has been made more intuitive and less time-consuming, with the goal of encouraging broader participation. 
  • Improved User Interface: The tool now boasts a more engaging and user-friendly interface to foster positive user engagement. 
  • Additional Features: New functionalities, including chapter and section progress indicators, auto-save, internal notes, enhanced validation and error messaging and form management board have been introduced to improve the experience. 

 

Q: Why were these updates made to the crew welfare self-assessment? 

A: Updates were made to address feedback and identified deficiencies in the original tool, including concerns about complexity and length of self-assessment, insufficient support and guidance and data privacy concerns.  The aim is to position the tool as essential for operational excellence and maritime industry leadership, transcending basic compliance to enhance crew welfare and competitive advantage. 

 

CHARTERERS/CARGO OWNERS 

 

Q: Why should we adopt the Code of Conduct – Delivering on Seafarers’ Rights?  

A: As a charterer/cargo owner, by adopting the Code of Conduct, you commit to transparency by establishing targets to shift your charters to shipowners/operators who meet the Code of Conduct, publicly reporting on this progress and working actively with shipowners/operators to support implementation of the Code of Conduct.  

Adoption of the Code of Conduct shows that as a charterer/cargo owner you want to strengthen the due diligence process for informing your decision-making and the Crew Welfare platform can be used to support this. 

 

Q: How do we use the Crew Welfare platform? 

A: The full content of the Self-Assessment submissions will not be visible to external parties. Instead, a Self-Assessment completion badge will be available on each vessel and company page in the RightShip Platform.  

 

SHIPOWNERS  

Commitment and Benefits 

Q: Why should we adopt the Code of Conduct – Delivering on Seafarers’ Rights and submit a self-assessment?  

A: Adoption of the Code of Conduct shows that as a shipowner/operator, you understand the extent to which current operations meet crew welfare responsibilities. The Code of Conduct is based on international labour and human rights standards and principles, and the 52 clauses build on and go beyond the ILO Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), focussing on the full spectrum of seafarers’ rights and wellbeing.  

The Crew Welfare self-assessment expands on the Code of Conduct and is open to any shipowner regardless of where they may be on their journey to improved policies and practices.  

 

Self-Assessment Process 

Q: Do we need to record a “Yes” or check all boxes in positive response in the questionnaire to achieve a pass?  

A: Improving crew welfare is a journey and showing demonstrable progress is key.  

We don’t expect you to tick every box. Please select all answers that apply to you. By completing the self-assessment, you obtain a clear indication on where you’re positioned today based on your results. This will help you to understand what actions you need to take to improve and meet the expectations laid out in the Code of Conduct. Completing the self-assessment year-on-year enables you to measure your progress over time and plan where to focus your budgets and resources. 

 

Q: Do I need to be an existing RightShip user to self-assess? 

A: Yes, hosted by RightShip, the self-assessment tool on the Crew Welfare platform is free for anyone listed as a DOC holder to fill in. To use the tool, DOC holders are required to create an account with RightShip, a process that is straightforward and simple.  

DOC holders can download their completed self-assessment to share with clients and other interested stakeholders.  

Anonymised, aggregated data will be used for progress reporting. However, the individual answers to a company’s self-assessments will not be made public.  

 

Q: Can I sign up without having to submit a self-assessment?   

A: Yes, adopting the Code of Conduct and using the self-assessment tool will help you understand the extent to which current operations meet crew welfare responsibilities. If you do not wish to submit data on the Crew Welfare platform, it is possible to download a PDF of both Code of Conduct and self-assessment tool.  

 It is suggested that you complete the self-assessment annually, and we recommend developing a crew welfare roadmap to improve, so that you have clear goals to measure against one year later.   

 

Q: What are the obligations once we’ve completed the self-assessment? 

A: Once you have submitted your self-assessment on the Crew Welfare platform, we encourage you to work with your teams to explore the areas in which you can improve and use your results as a guide to strengthen crew welfare where gaps are found. Given that we suggest you complete the self-assessment annually, we recommend developing a crew welfare roadmap to improve, so that you have clear goals to measure against one year later.   

 

Q What does it require from us in terms of performance? Are there any metrics, standards, mandatory achievements required?   

A: This is not a ratings-based self-assessment, you are not ranked against other operators. It is up to you to establish your level of commitment and build further from where you stand. However, we expect to see increasing industry interest in crew welfare regulation in the coming years and believe those who have made early and positive strides in the protection of their crews will be viewed favourably by the industry. That said, it is also an important ethical business practice.   

 

Q: We’re already committed to crew welfare – why should we complete the self-assessment?  

A: The self-assessment provides you with an indicator of your progress and a tangible document that you can share with your organisation or external stakeholders, raising awareness of crew welfare efforts and increasing transparency. Whether an existing RightShip user or not, you will receive a download of your self-assessment following completion of the questionnaire.  

This enables you to clearly display your commitment to crew welfare. Many charterers are actively seeking owners and operators who can show their crew welfare during the due diligence process, so the self-assessment helps to highlight your efforts.    

 

Q How is the data housed?  

A: The full content of the self-assessment submissions will not be visible to external parties. After completing the self-assessment, you will be provided a PDF of your responses via an email from RightShip. Your results will be stored in the Crew Welfare platform, but the full content of the results nor data will be visible to third parties. On completion, a Crew Welfare badge will appear on the company’s vessel page within the RightShip Platform. Ship owners and managers will be sent a pdf summary of your submission to share with clients and other interested stakeholders. You will also be able to see the status badge for other participating owners and operators. Data entered is unverified and does not affect your RightShip Safety Score, GHG Rating, Dry Bulk Inspection or Vessel Vetting outcomes. 

Submitted data will be used in an anonymised, aggregated capacity to measure progress and may be included in a progress report.  You will be prompted annually via email to update your data or ensure it is still accurate.  

 

Q: Is the disclosed data reviewed, vetted, rated and/or filtered?  

A: The submitted data is not reviewed nor verified and will not affect your RightShip Safety Score, GHG Rating, Vessel Vetting process or your Dry Bulk Inspection outcomes. Anonymised, aggregated data will be used for industry wide progress reporting. 

 

Q: How much does it cost?   

A: The self-assessment tool and the Crew Welfare platform are free to use and helps support the industry improve crew welfare. 

 

 

Updates and Editing the Self-Assessment 

Continuous Improvement and Editing 

Q: Can I edit my self-assessment after I've submitted it? 

A: Yes, you can edit your self-assessment at any time after submission. We encourage you to update your assessment as your practices evolve or when you implement new measures to improve crew welfare. This flexibility ensures that your self-assessment accurately reflects your current practices and efforts in real-time, rather than waiting for the annual renewal period. 

 

Q: Why is it encouraged to edit my self-assessment before it expires? 

A: Editing your self-assessment as you make improvements or changes in your crew welfare practices allows for a dynamic and up-to-date reflection of your commitment to seafarers' wellbeing. This approach supports continuous improvement and allows you to promptly document and share advancements in crew welfare with stakeholders. It also demonstrates your proactive stance in maintaining high crew welfare standards, reinforcing your company's dedication to ethical and responsible operations. 

 

Q: How can I edit my self-assessment, and are there any limitations to the number of edits I can make? 

A: Editing your self-assessment is straightforward and can be done at any time to reflect the latest changes in your crew welfare practices. Simply log into the RightShip platform and select 'Crew Welfare' from the left menu. You will then be directed to your form management board, where you can choose the assessment, you wish to edit. We recognise that continuous improvement is a key part of crew welfare. Therefore, there are no restrictions on the number of edits you can make. This allows you to update your assessment as often as needed to accurately represent your current practices and initiatives in crew welfare. Whether it's minor adjustments or significant changes to your operations, the platform supports your ongoing efforts to enhance seafarer welfare. 

 

Q: What happens after I edit my self-assessment? Is there a review process? 

A: After editing your self-assessment, the updated information is saved and reflected immediately. There is no formal review process by RightShip for these edits, as the self-assessment is designed to be a self-reported tool. However, we recommend ensuring that any changes or updates you make are accurate and verifiable, as this information may be of interest to charterers, regulatory bodies, and other stakeholders who value transparency and commitment to crew welfare. 

 

 

For Users with Current and Expired Assessments 

Valid and Expired Assessments 

Q: What does the update mean for users with a currently valid self-assessment? 

A: Your current self-assessment remains valid until its expiration date, and we acknowledge the effort and commitment you have demonstrated towards maintaining high crew welfare standards. We encourage you to explore the enhanced self-assessment tool, which offers improved functionalities, a streamlined process, and additional support to better reflect and improve upon your crew welfare practices. Transitioning to the enhanced self-assessment tool when ready will enable you to benefit from these improvements and continue demonstrating your commitment to crew welfare. 

 

Q: My self-assessment has expired. Can I renew it using the previous version of the self-assessment? 

A: If your self-assessment has expired, renewals using the previous version of the self-assessment are not possible due to the introduction of the updated questionnaire, which includes different questions and a more user-friendly interface. You will need to start afresh with the enhanced self-assessment questionnaire. This approach ensures that your crew welfare practices are assessed against the most current standards and expectations, providing a more accurate reflection of your commitment to seafarer welfare. Starting afresh with the enhanced self-assessment tool also allows you to take full advantage of the new features and support designed to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of your crew welfare initiatives. 

 

Q: How does the enhanced self-assessment tool differ from the previous version, and why should I complete it if my previous assessment has expired? 

A: The enhanced self-assessment tool offers several key improvements, including question-level explainers for better clarity, a simplified assessment process to encourage broader participation, enhanced data privacy measures, an improved user interface, and additional features such as chapter progress indicators and auto-save functionality. These updates are designed to make the self-assessment process more intuitive, user-friendly, and effective in capturing your crew welfare practices. Completing the enhanced self-assessment ensures that your assessment reflects the latest standards and best practices in crew welfare, reinforcing your company's commitment to the wellbeing of your seafarers. 

 

 

Submission Requirements Changes 

Simplifying the Process 

Q: Why is the submission of supporting documents and comments no longer mandatory in the self-assessment? 

A: We have updated the crew welfare self-assessment process to make it more user-friendly and efficient. Recognising the importance of a streamlined approach for our users, we've removed the mandatory requirement to submit supporting documents and comments with each assessment.  

This change aims to: 

  • Reduce Complexity: Simplifying the self-assessment process enables users to complete it more quickly and with less administrative burden. 
  • Enhance User Experience: By removing these requirements, we focus on the essential aspects of assessing crew welfare practices, making the process more accessible to a wider range of users. 
  • Encourage Broader Participation: By minimising the time and effort needed to complete the assessment, we aim to encourage more companies to participate, contributing to a broader understanding of crew welfare standards across the industry. 

 

Future Directions 

Looking Ahead: The Next Phase of Crew Welfare Assessment 

Q: What future enhancements are planned for the crew welfare self-assessment tool? 

A: Future enhancements planned for the crew welfare self-Assessment tool include: 

  • Collaboration Feature: An upcoming addition that will allow users to invite colleagues to collaborate on the self-assessment tool together. This feature aims to streamline the assessment process by enabling teamwork and ensuring that all relevant inputs are considered. 
  • Scoring System: There is consideration being given to the introduction of a scoring system for the self-assessment. This system would enable companies to receive a score upon completion of the self-assessment, allowing them to benchmark their performance against industry standards and gain insights into where they stand in terms of crew welfare practices. 

 

 

 

The Crew Welfare Self-Assessment Status Search

Our seafarers are the essential workers who keep the maritime industry moving. Every person working at sea has the right to safe and secure working conditions.

At RightShip, we believe that the welfare of seafarers is paramount to ensuring the continued safe operations of ships. Once you have created an account on the RightShip platform, you will be able to check the current crew welfare self assessment status of any vessels and companies.

Use this information to help drive committed behaviour towards crew welfare and good ship management, helping us all to keep shipping safe.

Click here to start checking Crew Welfare Self-Assessment status now.

How RightShip Management Audits work

Introduction to RightShip Management Audit

RightShip provides management audits to shipowners and managers who want to demonstrate their commitment to operating at higher ESG standards and create a culture of care across their organisations.

Performing an audit allows a ship owner to measure themselves against recognised industry standards. The outcome is a comprehensive report, charting a path to excellence by benchmarking where you are today and setting clear objectives.

By carrying out an in-depth Management Audit from RightShip, shipowners and managers can benefit from an external review by an independent, non-biased and trusted company. An audit is also mark of commitment towards zero harm. The audit report can also be used to show potential investors, charterers, financiers their commitment towards ESG excellence. 

 

Management Audit Frameworks 

Companies can select from a range of industry frameworks or choose specific criteria and focus areas from within a framework to get the most out of the Management Audit.  

 

How do I book a Management Audit? 

Request a Management Audit to speak with RightShip’s Management Audit team. They will help you to pick a framework in accordance with your desired outcomes. Choose multiple frameworks or specific areas within individual frameworks to be assessed.  

Customers will need to download a self-audit form of the framework. We ask customers to work through your internal processes in advance of RightShip’s assessors' arrival, to gather the evidence and documentation to demonstrate your adoption of the framework.  

RightShip’s Management Audit team will arrange a suitable time to carry out your audit. The audit process can take up to 2 weeks, with 2 to 4 days in the office. 

 

Outcome of the report and next steps 

An audit report will be given to the ship owner, measuring your operations against all criteria of the chosen framework, and highlighting specific areas for improvement. A consultation service can be provided on request to assist with the shipowner to work through the areas.  

On completion of a successful Management Audit, all DOC holders are rewarded with a completion badge on their RightShip vessel pages, highlighting their commitments to prospective customers.  

By completing management audits regularly and in conjunction with vessel inspections and vessel screening services , shipowners are able to achieve a holistic view of their operational standards. Development plan across all areas of your business can be worked on and improved, supporting you on your continual path to excellence.