illumination

PREFACE
Dear Colleagues,
The main aim of this book is to collect two Master dissertations and make
those researches easy to access for students, professionals from the industry and the
academicians.
The first Thesis was submitted to Southampton Solent University upon
completion of MSc Ship and Shipping Program in 2005. Three Turkish Chemical
Tanker Companies that enlarge fleets of those were researched. Title of such work
was Case Study On Risk Management Systems Of Developing Chemical Tanker
Companies in All the Commercial and Operational Management.
Inductive and Qualitative research were conducted by using of interviews with
Operation and Safety Managers of the researched three Turkish Chemical Tanker
Companies for the collection of primary data, while related books, articles, and Major
Oil Company inspection Reports of those for the collection of secondary data.
Neither name of the researched three companies nor the interviewed managers
were indicated at such work. Instead of emphasizing the above-mentioned names, X,
Y, Z Shipping format were conducted together with Operation and Safety Manager
Titles only.
Enlarging fleet vessels always contain various risks that ought to be controlled
very carefully in order to have a well-established Risk Management System for the
elimination of serious risks that might result with damages to company good
reputation and eventually profits.
Owner’s attitude towards safety and training plays a crucial role to create a
safe and better working environment on board vessels. Moreover, the existence of
Blame Culture also seems as the most critical issue that must be solved to create a
transparent management.
Office staffs, who are nominated for various matters with restricted or none
authority, were noted having difficulties for the participation of decision-making
process for such fleet enlargement. Financial related matters were also noted as the
only primary goal instead of safety in many cases.
I strongly suggest considering the example of The Human Element Booklet of
the UK Maritime & Coastguard Agency (MCA) for the ones having difficulties to
prefer between safety and profits. Such instance was provided with “Between the devil
and the deep blue sea” article on page V of the booklet.
Although such dissertation was submitted twelve years prior the publishing of
this book, the current situation might be noted as almost the same even worse due to
the financial crisis took place in 2008. Nonetheless, I believe that there are important
lessons to bear in mind for the ones that intend to enlarge the number fleet vessels in a
specific period of time. For instance, lack of proper infrastructure and its potential
negative effects to companies never be approached by ignorance and the risk cause by
such fact should not be taken whatsoever.

The second Thesis was submitted to Middlesex University upon completion of
MBA in Shipping & Logistics Program in 2016. Title of such work was Regulation
and Inspection Regimes in Tanker and Container Shipping Sectors.
Deductive, Quantitative, Positivist, Objective and Value-Free approach were
conducted for the data collection. Primary data was collected from both Tanker and
Container Shipping Sector Professionals through questionnaire. Quantitative
methodology was used in order to compare and contrast the collected primary data in
numbers and achieve certain results. The secondary data was collected from the
related articles, books and the related web pages.
Container shipping sector is relatively new in comparison with Tankers.
Nonetheless, due to its prefect structure by transport of goods as quick and reasonable
prices upon the Containerization Revolution, the sector is noted as the fastest growing
one among all the others including Tankers.
Technological developments for both container vessels and terminals
positively contribute to achieve even better productivity. Door to door delivery of
product by the integration of other logistics are also noted as the ones that create
competitive advantage for the sector players.
Moreover, various transported goods by container vessels also include
petroleum and chemical products. Nevertheless, a serious problem appears at such
stage. Although Tanker vessels have many safety precautions for carriage of those as
the result of various regulations and third party inspections, the same could not be
emphasized for container ones.
OCIMF SIRE and CDI inspections are vital tools to increase safety and quality
understanding together with strict implementations for tankers. Moreover, Tanker
Management Self-Assessment (TMSA) creates a self-awareness process for such
sector players.
Although International Marine Packed Cargo Audit Scheme (IMPCAS) does
exist for the minimization of risks, many container-shipping companies fail to comply
with that due to Second Partly Logistics (2PL) or Third Partly Logistics (3PL)
structures of those. The logistic supply chain management appears as an important
factor for the elimination of risks cause by the above-mentioned failure.
The regulatory part of the entire picture also seems having some difficulties by
the designing of similar safety precautions for container vessels. For instance,
International Maritime Organisation (IMO) failed to adopt ECDIS devices for
container vessel by the time of writing this dissertation, although such obligation was
already in force for tankers and manoeuvrings of container vessels much more than
such types of vessels.
Public concern is noted as the critical concept for the creation and
implementation of the international regulations. Maritime history consists many ship
incidents damaging to human life, property and the environment. Such fact cannot be
indicated for container vessels yet. Nevertheless, incidents and accidents that take
place on those will be creating that concern soon. The explosion occurred at Tianjin
Container Terminal Warehouse in August 2015 might be indicated as the Exxon

Valdez of Container Shipping resulting with two Billion US Dollars claim and dozens
of deaths, although effects of that have not pushed the industry players so far.
International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code do exist to shape of
chemical transport by the vessels but it failed to happen many incidents on container
vessels as it was indicated by this dissertation. Moreover, Verified Gross Mass
(VGM) was designed and came into force by 1st of July 2016 as a SOLAS
requirement. VGM states Shipper as liable for the correct declaration of the grade to
be loaded for the elimination of risks cause by such loophole. Unfortunately, one of
the dominant shipping company’s vessel faced with fire and eventually death of four
crew members in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean, when I was writing preface of this book as
can be found by Lloyd’s List published on 20th of March 2017, page 8 and 9. Such
incident shows that the implementation of VGM still could not fully be conducted
despite passed more than eight months period of time. Additionally, ship stability
related issues might be accepted as remaining the same by the consideration of the
above-mentioned example to improper declaration of containers both for weight and
the content.
One of the most vital safety related weaknesses of the Container Shipping
Sector might be emphasized as the non-existing ruling standards for both the vessels
and terminals. Tanker vessels and Terminals are enforced to comply with the
International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals (ISGOTT) for many years
but the same does not exist for Container ones, although the function of Container
Terminals and employees are as much important as the Tankers. Many incidents take
place due to terminal workers, whom training or capabilities not known by the vessel
crew members, even such workers use the vessel cargo gears.
The last but not least serious theme that was indicated by this work was the
third party inspections for both sector vessels. Obviously, container vessels do not be
inspected like OCIMF SIRE and CDI like inspections effecting commercial future of
those due to different background of the both sectors. Moreover, oligopoly structure
of container sector creates an important barrier for the regulatory and also the
implementer bodies.
Designated Person Ashore (DPA) of tanker companies seem having more
authority and influence on the high management rather than their colleagues on
container ones by the enforcement power of Major Oil Company and CDI
inspections.
Port State, Flag State, Classification Societies and Insurance inspections of the
container vessels having various issues as those were explained by this dissertation.
Results of both primary and secondary data that were collected during the preparation
of this work show that container shipping sector regulations and eventually
inspections do not effective enough to create safe working environments and proper
implementation of the international safety regulations on board vessels. Therefore,
such sector players are kindly advised to implement non-regulatory safety practices
that exist on tankers to achieve safer and more quality fleet vessels.
I hope this book will be beneficial to its readers and create awareness about
the indicated subjects. Moreover, both the qualitative and quantitative research

methods will also be well examples to the ones that would make academic research
by using of the either method. Furthermore, the book commences with the thesis that
was submitted in 2016 due to contemporary structure of such work in comparison
with the one that was issued in 2005.
The soft copy of this book can be reached via
www.illuminationshipping.com
Finally, I would like to wish Prosperous Voyages and Operations to all the
industry players.
Cpt. Haydar Tolga Ersöz
MBA & MSc
20th
of March 2017, Istanbul

# !!(+
*

'

'

(+
*
)

(+

Middlesex University
Business Transformation Project
Project Supervisor: Dr John Astbury
Module Leader: Dr Lakshmi Narasimhan Vedanthachari
Programme Teacher: Dr Val Lencion
“Regulation and Inspection Regimes in Tanker and
Container Shipping Sectors”
Word Count: 14190
___________________________________________________
Date: 14.10.2016
Prepared by Haydar Tolga Ersöz / M00467591
he184@mdx.ac.uk

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank all my lecturers and especially dear Dr. John Astbury who is the
former Chief Executive of the UK Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA),
providing me deep information throughout MBA in Shipping and Logistics and
preparation of this dissertation education of mine.
I would also thank my parents Filiz and Mehmet Ali Ersöz for their infinite supports
during this project.
Finally, it is also vital to indicate my very deep gratitude to my dear wife, Çılga
Gizem Çil Ersöz, for providing me spiritual support and patience during the entire
MBA program.
Thank you very much.
Istanbul, 14 October 2016
Haydar Tolga Ersöz

Declaration
I declare that this project has been composed solely by myself and that it has not been
submitted any part of the work for any degree for the purpose of Middlesex
University

Abstract
Purpose: The main purpose of this study is to create awareness for vitality of industry
inspections for container vessels by comparing the existent regulations and
inspections apply for both tanker and container shipping sectors from safety concept’s
point of view.
Methodology: The empirical data was collected in a quantitative approach. The
survey was circulated through LinkedIn and email addresses of the tanker and
container industry professionals.
Findings: The current inspections that apply for container vessels are not effective
enough to increase safety understanding and implementation of the international
regulations in comparison with tanker vessels.
Limitation: Participants that failed to complete the questionnaire were using another
language rather than English as the native one. There is also a limited amount of
research related to the subject.
Keywords: Regulations, Inspections, Tanker, Container, Safety, Shipping

Table of Content
Acknowledgement
Declaration III
Abstract IV
Table of Content V
List of Figures VII
List of Tables VIII
Abbreviations IX
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review 6
2.1 Maritime Regulatory System 6
2.1.1 Regulations Apply To Tanker Shipping Industry 9
2.1.2 Regulations Apply To Container Shipping Industry 11
2.2 Maritime Inspection Regimes 15
2.2.1 Inspection Regimes Apply To Tanker Shipping Industry 23
2.2.2 Inspection Regimes Apply To Container Shipping Industry 26
3. Methodology 29
3.1. Aim of the investigation 29
3.2 The objectives of the investigation 29
3.3. Research Method 29
3.4. Inductive and Deductive Method 30
3.5. Sampling Method 30
3.5.1. Data Collection 31
3.6. Collecting and Analysing Data 32
3.6.1 Primary Data 32
3.6.2. Secondary Data 34
4. Analysis and Results 35
5. Discussion 53
6. Limitations 56

7. Conclusion and Recommendation
8. References 61
9. Appendices 67
Appendix 1: Questionnaire 67
Appendix 2: Bar Chart 71
Appendix 3: Project Proposal 81

List of Figures
Figure 1 The Maritime Regulatory System 6
Figure 2 Tianjin Port Terminal Explosion 14
Figure 3 IMDG Related Serious Incidents on Container Vessels 15
Figure 4 Paris MOU Organizational Structure 20
Figure 5 The Organization Structure of the CDI 25
Figure 6 the KPI’s Used For CDI Audits 28

List of Tables
Table 1 (Sector) 35
Table 2 (Profession in Current Organisation) 36
Table 3 (Experience in Current Organisation) 37
Table 4 (Experience at Sea) 37
Table 5 (Education) 38
Table 6 (Tanker Sector Regulations Coverage) 39
Table 7 (Tanker Sector Regulations Enforcement) 39
Table 8 (Tanker – Container Sectors Regulations Comparison) 40
Table 9 (Tanker Sector Regulations Encouragement) 41
Table 10 (Container Sector Regulations) 42
Table 11 (Verified Gross Mass) 43
Table 12 (Chemical Products Carriage) 44
Table 13 (Container – Tanker Vessels Safety Standards) 45
Table 14 (Major Oil Company Inspections on Tankers) 46
Table 15 (Commercial Futures of Container Vessels) 47
Table 16 (Port State Control Inspections) 48
Table 17 (Flag State Control Inspections) 49
Table 18 (Integration of MOC and PSC Inspections) 50
Table 19 (Total Estimated Cost Saving by PSC and Vetting Inspections) 51
Table 20 (Third Party Inspection Influences on Company Reputations 52

Abbreviations
2PL Second Partly Logistics
3PL Third Partly Logistics
BIMCO Baltic and International Maritime Council
CDI Chemical Distribution Institute
CMSA Container Management Self-Assessment
DFT Department of Transport
DPA Designated Person Ashore
EMSA European Maritime Safety Agency
EQUASIS European Quality Shipping Information System
EU European Union
FOC Flags of Convenience
FSA Formal Safety Assessment
FSCI Flag State Control Inspector
FSI Flag State Inspection
GISIS Global Integrated Ship Information System
IACS International Association of Classification Societies
ICS International Chamber of Shipping
ILO International Labour Organisation
IMDG International Maritime Dangerous Goods
IMO International Maritime Organization
IMPCAS International Marine Packed Cargo Audit Scheme
INTERTANKO International Association of Independent Tanker Owners
ISGOTT International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals
ISM CODE International Safety Management Code

KPI Key Performance Indicators
MAIB Marine Accident Investigation Branch
MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Marine
Pollution from Ships
MCA Marine and Coastguard Agency
MEPC Marine Environment Protection Committee
MIA Marine Insurance Act
MLC Maritime Labour Convention
MOC Major Oil Company
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MSC Maritime Safety Community
OCIMF Oil Companies International Marine Forum
OPA 90 Oil Pollution Act 90
PSC Port State Control
PSCI Port State Control Inspector
PSI Port State Inspection
PSSA Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas
Q Question
RO Recognized Organisation
SIRE Ship Inspection Reporting Programme
SOLAS International Convention for the Safety of Life At Sea
SRP Ship Risk Profile
STCW International Convention on Standards of Training,
Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers
TECS Total Estimated Cost Saving
THETIS The information system that supports the new Port State
Control inspection regime

TMSA Tanker Management Self-Assessment
UNCLOS The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea
USCG United States Coast Guard
VGM Verified Gross Mass

1. Introduction
The seaborne trade that was recorded as 23 per cent of total world volume in the year of 1980
was noted as increased up to 90 per cent by 2012. Both tanker vessels and containers are the key
merchant transportation vehicles to deliver goods worldwide. Such sharp expansion of the ships
during this period was noticed with various accidents and harmful damage to the environment
leading to public awareness accordingly (Caschili and Medda, 2012).
The United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) might be emphasized as the
fundamental legal base for numerous activities at sea. Three UNCLOS conferences were held
between 1958 and 1982 named as UNCLOS I, II and III and finally came into force by 1994. As
per the UNCLOS Article 94 flag states are obliged to take all the essential precautions in terms
of safety at sea including, but not limited to, seaworthiness, construction and equipment related
themes. This Article also covers manning of ships with proper training of crewmembers in
addition to all the communication and collision preventive measures (Wright, 2012).
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) that is the special agency of the United Nations
in terms of shipping is the central regulatory body. Such organization was created to make
coordination among the flag states for maritime related matters. In addition to make the above-
mentioned connection between the member states in the sense of regulation and practices, the
main aim of the IMO has also been defined as adopting the overall themes concerning maritime
safety, competence of navigation and avoidance harms cause by sea and air pollution. Wright
states the central regulatory position of the IMO stating, “Raison d’etre of the IMO is safe,
secure and efficient shipping on clean oceans” (Wright, 2012, p285).
The aim of the regulation might be emphasized at this stage as controlling people or social
behaviour through rules and limitations. Regulations at merchant shipping determine the

requested standards. The core regulatory bodies within such industry may be indicated as the
IMO as the special agency of the United Nations, Member Flag States, Classification Societies
as Recognized Organizations (RO) on behalf of the Flag State Authorities, Coastal and Port
States.
Regulation enforcement and the implementation of such regulations are the essential liabilities
of the flag states. Nonetheless; the Recognized Organizations (RO) conduct such duties due to
restricted capabilities of the flag states. Genuine link between the flag and the vessels is also
known as Flags of Convenience (FOC). FOC flags have limited infrastructure or willingness to
make sure that the vessels under registry of those fully comply with the national, the
international regulations and inspection regime requirements (Wright, 2012).
Classification Societies are the key players of the industry by considering of regulation and
inspection themes. Those are non-governmental and profitable organisations growing and
modernizing regulations as per the contemporary developments in ship design, construction and
maintenance. Hull and machinery subjects are the special regulations field of such societies. The
vessels are inspected by those with three types of surveys named as special, annual and
intermediate. Classification societies conduct duties on behalf of the flag states to verify that
such vessels sail complying both the national and the international regulations. The International
Association of Classification Societies (IACS) members cover majority of merchant fleet
vessels of the world.
When a vessel calls a port in the country that is different than the flag of such calling vessel;
such place is named as the port state. Inspection that is conducted by the port state control is one
of the key tools to identify whether the calling vessel comply with the international rules and
regulations. The vessels might be requested to rectify any determined deficiency until the next

port, or within a certain period of time or those might even not be permitted to sail unless such
deficiency is rectified accordingly. There are ten Port State Control regimes known as
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to identify and eliminate substandard vessels all around
the world. The Paris MOU that includes twenty-seven European countries together with Canada,
provides an official website to identify all the detained and targeted vessels by European Quality
Shipping Information System (EQUASIS) to public concern (Equasis, 2016).
Many accidents were observed at the merchant shipping history damaging to assets; the vessels,
human life and the environment. Those triggered various conventions for the protection of the
above-mentioned items. For instance; Titanic disaster took place in 1912 resulted with the
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) convention upon establishment of the IMO. It is the base safety
convention covering the merchant shipping worldwide. The IMO created the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) for the protection of the
marine environment cause by the operations and accidents by merchant vessels in 1954.
MARPOL rules were revised due to grounding of the tanker Torrey Canyon and polluted the
marine environment in 1967. Wright (2012) indicated that many other tanker vessel accidents
took place during the history such as Amoco Cadiz in 1970 resulted with various design related
rules (Havold, 2010). Moreover; Exxon Valdez oil pollution off Alaska in 1992 (Havold, 2010)
creating the Oil Pollution Act (OPA 90) including double-hull tanker requirements, breaking-up
and sinking of the vessel Erica in 1999 and polluting the European waters triggered the EU
regulations by the European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA) including to monitor EU waters
and MV Prestige incident caused to adopt even further precautions by the EMSA (EMSA,
2016).
A milestone of the safety related protective measure was created upon having Herald of Free
Enterprise accident in 1993. Such ship-accident resulted with the International Safety

Management (ISM) Code. The Code is designed to make sure that ship-operating company
conducts its safety related responsibilities. It also asks for Designated Person Ashore (DPA),
who has direct access to the highest management of the company; to be sure that such company
fully complies with the code (IMO, 2016).
International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for
Seafarers (STCW) and Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) Codes are also created in addition
to SOLAS and MARPOL. MLC 2006 Code was created by the International Labour
Organisation to make sure that living and working conditions of seafarers meet the requirements
(ILO, 2013).
Tanker shipping is relatively old and the conventions dominantly cover such sector in
comparison with the Container Shipping Sector, although many operations are exactly the same
like; navigation, manoeuvring of the vessels, engine operations and many others. Nonetheless;
tanker vessels are inspected by comprehensive industry players to measure the quality and
compliance with the international regulations. Port State Control, Flag State Control,
Classification Society and Insurance Company Inspections are the only third party inspections
for Container vessels. In addition to those; tanker vessels are also inspected by the CDI and
MOC Companies like BP and Shell to measure qualities of those. Moreover, Tanker
Management Self-Assessment (TMSA) is also another tool to make certain of such quality of
the tanker company by the internal assessors.
This research project aims to create an awareness regarding the obligation of the third party
inspections for Container Shipping Sector as such a system has already been existing for Tanker
Vessels under the name of SIRE, TMSA and CDI. The current issues to assess the safety
standards and identify risks on container vessels by the Port State Control (PSC) inspections,

Flag State Control (FSC) Inspections, Recognized Organizations (RO) Classifications ones and
the Insurance Inspections will also be evaluated comparison of those with SIRE and CDI
inspections. At this stage; current regulations and inspections that are applied for both tanker
and container vessels will be identified. Differences between two and effects of such variances
to safety will also be evaluated. Quantitative data from various ship accidents and inspections
will be analysed in addition to the environmental sensitivity factor. Finally; recommendations to
container companies to implement some non-regulatory approaches will also be made
accordingly.

2. Literature Review
2.1 Maritime Regulatory System
Martin Stopford states that; “In an ideal world there would be a supreme legislative body which
makes a single set of international laws, with an international court that tries cases and an
enforcement agency” (Stopford, 2009, p656). Nonetheless, the real situation of the maritime
regulatory system is quite different than the above-mentioned utopic desire. Such request of
Stopford fails due to the current structure of the global shipping regulatory bodies.
The following figure illustrates the actual global maritime regulatory bodies and positions of
those. As can be seen by the Figure one that The United Nations Convention on the Law of the
Sea, UNCLOS 1982, seems the fundamental basement of the maritime regulatory system. The
International Maritime Organization (IMO) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) are
two main regulatory bodies of the merchant shipping.
Figure 1: Maritime Regulatory System (Stopford, 2009)
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) came into existence by 1958 due to the
development of the shipping industry. Some conventions were already been developed in that
time like the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1948, the International
Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil of 1954, load lines and the

prevention of collision at sea. IMO is noted as responsible being sure that all the maritime
regulations are kept up to date in addition to developments of new conventions as per the latest
situations and needs of the industry (IMO, 2016).
IMO has Assembly, a council and the five fundamental Committees responsible for the adoption
and the implementation of conventions. Such Committees are;
• The Maritime Safety Committee
• The Marine Environment Protection Committee
• The Legal Committee
• The Technical Cooperation Committee
• Facilitation Committee in addition to Sub-Committees that were designed to assist the
work of the main committees (IMO, 2016).
It can be indicated that the above-mentioned committees of the IMO do not provide an
implementation mechanism of the regulations and an additional Committee apply for the
enforcement of such regulations would be created for such purpose only.
Adoption of a convention by the IMO follows some essential stages. Firstly, contemporary
improvement in shipping is discussed by IMO member states at the above-mentioned
committees. Necessity of a new convention or amendment for a previous one is decided at such
stage. Then, the ratified convention has to be accepted formally by the individual governments
to make that enter into force accordingly. Some lawful concepts like signature, ratification,
acceptance, approval and accession play vital roles during that process. It might be concluded
that, IMO structure should be transformed into a mechanism eliminating the slow adoption and
weak implementation of the international regulations for all shipping sectors including tanker
and the container ones.

The IMO conventions are categorized into three fundamental classifications related to; the
maritime safety, prevention of the marine pollution and liability and compensation. Ratification
and eventually implementation stage of the conventions take long period of time in many cases.
For instance, Ballast Water Management Convention that could finally be in force by 8th
of
September 2017 (IMO, 2016). Another instance to the time-consuming acceptance of the IMO
conventions might be noted as the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC) 2006. It has not been
ratified and implemented by many member states until now. Occurrences of late ratification and
the enforcement of regulations would be recovered by the IMO Enforcement Committee, if such
body was existed.
Although the IMO produces the related regulatory conventions, the critical theme seems the
enforcement of those by the member states. Some members have more restricted capabilities
than the others causing relatively weaker implementation of the international regulations on the
vessels of those. Such matter seems a critical issue affecting the proper and equal
implementation of the international regulations worldwide. The existence of loopholes within
the legal framework of the maritime industry cause improper execution from region to region.
Such fact raises the probability of accidents resulting with very serious economic costs
(Bijwaard and Knapp, 2009). It might be stated that UNCLOS 92 responses various situations
of the maritime world. Nonetheless, loopholes within the international legal structure still exist
causing serious implementation issues of the regulations.
It may also be indicated that, the existence of the weak connection between the IMO and the
member states negatively affects the proper implementation of the international regulations in
different places of the world. If the enforcement of the regulations were conducted by the IMO
instead of the member maritime authorities, efficiency of that would be achieved accordingly.
Moreover, failure to comply with the ISM Code might be eliminated by revising of such code

and delivering the auditing authority to another one rather than the Classification Societies. Such
new ISM audits could be like ISM Voluntary Flag State Audit and conducted by the
independent accredited auditors.
IMO defined the scale of casualties as very serious, serious and less serious by considering the
damage of those like entire loss of a ship, a fatality event and substantial marine pollution by
MSC Circular 953, MEPC Circular 372 (2) and amended by MSC Resolution 255(84) (IMO,
2014).
The world merchant fleet vessels that carry whole the seaborne trade commodities are liable for
more than fifty international conventions formulated by the International Maritime Organisation
(IMO) and International Labour Organisation (ILO). IMO developed a Formal Safety
Assessment (FSA) methodology as an organized progression for assessing risk in 2007 (IMO,
2007). Such audit scheme was voluntary among the member states and ultimately became
compulsory (IMO, 2009a). Nonetheless, due to the complications of FSA and restricted data
collection issue, the IMO generated Assembly Resolution a.1001 (26), the London (IMO,
2009b) for the measurement of weaknesses within the legislative framework. Such action can
also be indicated as an important accomplishment of the IMO in terms of law-making status of
that (Knapp and Velden, 2011).
2.1.1 Regulations Apply To Tanker Shipping Industry
Although some little amount of regulations were designed in a proactive way of understanding,
the majority of those were observed to come into force upon having very serious marine
accidents. Tanker shipping industry appeared a remarkable period of time in comparison with
the Container sector. Therefore, regulations that apply to tanker shipping sector are noted as
more comprehensive and covering the essential safety related precautions to keep the safety
awareness at upmost levels. One of the fundamental reasons for tanker regulations to be stricter

and being followed by the industry players might be indicated as the impact of the accidents on
public (Bijwaard and Knapp, 2009). Public concern might be noted as the key tool to create
many precautions and implementation. Tanker shipping history contains various incidents
influenced the safety and environmental related regulations due to such public concern fact.
Some examples to legislative responses to the marine accidents might be indicated as Oil
Pollution Act (OPA 90) upon having Exxon Valdez tanker vessel grounding incident and
causing very serious sea pollution and financial consequences for the Exxon Company.
Moreover, Erika (1999) and Prestige (2002) incidents at the coast of France and Spain that
causing severe damages to marine environment resulted with the design and strict
implementation of the European Union (EU) shipping legislative outline accordingly (Bijwaard
and Knapp, 2009). EU maritime legislative enforcement is one the examples to the rapid and
serious responses to the incidents influenced by the Public Concern factor.
It might also be concluded that, results of the tanker vessel incidents have been positively be
responded by the new and contemporary rules and regulations for the prevention of re-
occurrence of the similar ones, especially within the EU region waters.
The tanker shipping history consists many other accidents in addition to above-mentioned
several examples such as grounding of Torrey Canyon in 1967, Amoco Cadiz in 1978, and the
Braer incident in 1993 (Havold, 2010). IMO council had to conduct an extraordinary session
upon occurrence of the Torrey Canyon marine pollution. Such marine incident caused
appearance of the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships,
MARPOL 1973, by the consideration of the technical and legal characteristics of that incident.
The main purpose of MARPOL was noted as restraining of the marine, land and air
contamination due to the activities and incidents take place on the world merchant fleet vessels.

Moreover, another graphic tanker incident took place in 1999, the Erika, also triggered phasing-
out of single-hull tankers by the first of September 2003. Vessel design category 2 and 3 types
of single hull tankers were phased-out by 2010 (Havold, 2010). The phasing-out process of
some classified tankers due to the environmental concerns would be noted as one of the most
affective decisions of the IMO council.
2.1.2 Regulations Apply To Container Shipping Industry:
Container vessels appeared very recently in comparison with Tanker ships. The first
commercially successful container ship was SS Ideal X. She was converted from a T-2 Oil
Tanker and her first voyage was recorded from Port Newark / New Jersey to Houston on April
26, 1956. The vessel could be able to deliver her 58 containers at such historical voyage
(Stopford, 2009).
Such transportation has brought a new era to the seaborne trade called as The Container
Revolution. The carriage of commodities by container vessels is noted as more efficient way in
comparison with the others. Sharp increase of the productivity by the development of the new
related technologies both in terminals and the vessels created less expensive and efficient way of
carriage understanding cause by the containerization (Woods, 1972). Container Revolution
might be noted as one of the most significant invention of the seaborne trade directly affecting
the other shipping sectors like general cargo one.
Moreover, door-to-door delivery possibility by the development of the integrated logistics
services brought the container vessels as the fastest growing maritime transportation sector and
created a competitive advantage to the service providers accordingly. Tramp general cargo
vessels transformed into Liner Container ones as a result of such developments (Stopford,
2009).

It might be indicated that the very fast growing of the container sector brought various
difficulties in terms of applying regulations to such sector. Although the fundamental maritime
regulations like SOLAS, MARPOL, STCW and the forth pillar one; MLC also apply for not
only container sector vessels but also tankers. Some other regulations were created very recently
but the growth of such sector is faster than the related necessity of the regulations.
One of the examples to that might be indicated as the Verified Gross Mass (VGM) of packaged
containers. SOLAS Container mass verification requirements came into force by the 1st
of July
2016. The fundamental purpose of the VGM is to minimize and eliminate the risk might cause
by incorrect declaration of the handled container by the shipper. Such risks can be noted as
stowage related issues, stacking and loss of container overboard. The shipper was nominated as
responsible for the correct declaration of the cargo to be stowed on the shipping document to the
vessel’s master or his representative. Enforcement of the VGM was provided to the SOLAS
contracting governments by the IMO (IMO, 2016). Although VGM seems well and essential
regulative implementation applying the container-shipping sector, it might be evaluated that in
force date of the VGM would be earlier than the indicated time. Such late creation and
eventually execution of the VGM might be emphasized as the time-consuming structure of the
regulatory bodies for the container-shipping sector.
The related work was conducted by the Maritime Safety Committee of the IMO and circulated
with MSC.1/Circ.1548 to the industry players accordingly (IMO, 2016).
Container vessels carry numerous kinds of grades including chemical products. IMO designed
the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code to cover dangerous situations like
explosions cause by improper stowage of the chemical products (IMO, 2008). Appropriate
separation of containers include chemical products is the vital preventive factor for explosions

during the preparation of the stowage plan. Therefore, the vessel condition assessors should
focus on that potential risk accordingly.
Nonetheless, the container-shipping sector is under very dangerous situation from the quality
and transparency of data regarding cargo to be loaded on the merchant vessels. There are
examples from the industry causing serious incidents affecting many areas like human life,
property and the financial situations of the industry players in addition to reputational
difficulties. One of the instances to the severe incidents took place due to the improper data for
the cargo in containers might be illustrated the one occurred in Tianjin Container Terminal
Warehouse on 12 August 2015. More than fifty people died and above seven hundred persons
were recorded as injured in that incident (Skuld, 2015). Such incident might be emphasized as
the same serious as the grounding of the Exxon Valdez vessel in Alaska. Nevertheless, public
concern that was appeared due to Tianjin Container Terminal Warehouse explosion seems not as
much as the Exxon Valdez incident.
Moreover, the Tianjin blast creates an important insurance challenge. As per the information
published on the Lloyd’s List, the insurance claim was announced as more than USD 2 Billion.
Such explosion demonstrates the risk that the container vessels have due to the loophole in the
implementation of the related regulation (Lloyd’s List 2016).

Figure 2: Tianjin Port Terminal Explosion (Lloyd’s List, 2016)
There are many container ship incidents took place due to gap between the related regulation for
carriage of dangerous and explosive grades on board and the actual situations. Sea Elegance
incident in 2003, the blast and fire took place on Hyundai Fortune in 2006 and the explosion and
eventually fire of the vessel Zim Haifa in 2007. Self-ignition of the incorrectly declared cargoes
was shown as the fundamental reason of the fatal accidents. 34 per cent of the containers that
were inspected in eleven different countries in 2008 were identified having serious defects. Such
issue was indicated by the IMO Sub-committee on Dangerous Goods, Solid Cargoes, and
Containers examination report in 2009 (Ellis, 2011). It can be specified that Container vessels
are under extremely serious risks due to the undeclared chemical products that are stowed on the
merchant vessels.
Therefore, it is concluded that safe transportation of dangerous products by container ships
seems one of the most severe issues that such sector players face with. Carriers are delivered
such containers in a locked and invisible way preventing the ship operator to check and confirm
that such grade is the declared one (Mawson, 2003). The creation of a safety campaign by the

Port State Control regimes focusing particularly on such risks would create an awareness and
alert situation by the container ship-owners and operators.
Figure 3: IMDG Related Serious Incidents on Container Vessels (Ellis, 2011).
2.2 Maritime Inspection Regimes:
The international maritime regulations that are established by conventions are essential to be
ratified by the IMO member states for transforming those into local legal frameworks.
Enforcement of the IMO conventions by the member states, which might be indicated as the
most critical part of the whole system, can then be implemented accordingly. Flag State is the
fundamental enforcement body of the regulations within its own jurisdiction. Nonetheless;
different implementation capabilities and approaches of the conventions by the flag state
authorities are available. Such insufficient enforcements of those are conducted by the ones that
is named as the Flags of Convenience concept (Wright, 2012). Enforcement of the international
regulations ought to be conducted by the IMO rather than its members for the prevention of
different implementation levels from region to region in addition to eliminate the negative
effects of the Flags of Convenience.

One of the best examples to enforcements of the international maritime regulations might be
indicated as the United Kingdom’s one. The UK Department of Transport (DFT) is an
administrative division concerning the international obligations. Maritime Coastguard Agency
(MCA) and Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) are the two fundamental
organisations of that. MCA is liable for the proper implementation of the related maritime policy
in addition to inspecting vessels to make sure that those comply with the national and
international safety rules (Wright, 2012).
Although essential maritime regulations are created by the IMO considering the contemporary
developments and needs of the industry, insufficient enforcement of those by the flag states
seems a critical difficulty. Inadequate port state and flag state inspections directly cause vessels
to sail with critical deficiencies and consequently the marine incidents. The connection between
the IMO and the member states can be specified as weak causing discretionary implementations.
Moreover, the creation of new regulations sometimes generates a negative effect on the national
maritime administrations cause by political circumstances (Knudsen and Hassler, 2011). Thus, it
might be indicated that, such improper connection between the IMO and the member states is an
important fact causing poor implementation examples.
Merchant vessels currently are inspected during three critical stages including building,
maintenance and operations. Classification societies and insurance companies play important
roles at that period by inspecting and determining issues. Classification societies provide service
to ship-owners and also conduct duties of those on behalf of the flag state administration.
Commercial nature of the classification societies causes some difficulties during the objective
inspection and certification stage of the merchant fleets. Therefore, the flag states and
representatives of those, the classification societies that are responsible of the quality related
themes of vessels; fail to conduct transparent and efficient inspections on board vessels in

addition to company audits (Knudsen and Hassler, 2011). Nevertheless, many issues during the
inspection stages by the above-mentioned parties occur negatively influencing the safety
approaches of ship-owners.
Port State Control (PSC) mechanism is an important tool to inspect the merchant vessels all
around the world. Availability of ten Port State Control Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
conducts such duties worldwide. One of the fundamental reasons of having such MOU concept
is monitoring the vessels in a more comprehensive area rather than a restricted port or place by
sharing of information and broadcasting the inspection results through EQUASIS. The
effectiveness of the PSC inspections is vital but not enough to enforce the shipping companies
and vessels to comply with the regulatory necessities.
Additionally, there are very important problems in terms of PSC inspections. Such difficulties
might be indicated as follow;
• Conduction of the PSC inspections in a short and limited period of time
• Different PSC inspection implementations from region to region
• Existence of grievances from both the vessel-owners and the classification societies
regarding the way of approaches and attitudes of PSC inspectors (Knudsen and Hassler,
2011).
Time pressure during the inspections that are conducted by the PSC inspectors may cause
skipping and also omitting of various important items. Moreover, many examples are available
that a vessel is detained by a PSC inspection, while such vessel is permitted to sail in a different
MOU region (Knudsen and Hassler, 2010). It might be concluded that time pressure has a
negative effect on the proper assessing the inspected vessel.

Additionally, the most rational solution to eliminate different assessment of the same
conditioned vessels is to educate the PSC officers by the IMO instead of the member states. The
same way of approach and even inspection questionnaire would be created by the IMO like
SIRE Inspection Survey and the equal valuation of the vessels could be achieved all around the
world. Such training of the PSC officers would be renewed in a particular time period like two
years time.
One of the instances to the above-mentioned theme might be indicated the vessel Estonia
incident in Baltic Sea region. Disagreement between the Swedish and the Estonian Port State
Inspections on the sinking of the ferry Estonia case in 1994 resulted in the deaths of some 1000
people. As a result of such incident; designation of Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas (PSSA) for
Baltic Sea Region was developed by the IMO in 2006 (Knudsen and Hassler, 2011).
Using of discretions rather than focusing on the facts and actual situations by the port state
control inspectors are indicated an important difficulty by ship-owners. Moreover; training and
experience of PSC inspectors are also other conflict themes that affect the inspections. Such way
of approaches of the PSC inspectors have been conveyed to Paris MOU by the International
Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners
(INTERTANKO) under the concept of abuse during the inspections. Many related issues cause
by extremely enthusiastic inspectors like; bribe requisitions and also extortion were also
indicated during that information provision meeting. One of the most important issues at PSC
Inspections might be emphasized as correct targeting and eventually determining of the risky
vessels (Knudsen and Hassler, 2011). A standardisation for the equal vessel assessment
approach can only be implemented by the co-operation of the entire PSC regimes.

It can also be noted that; such issue ought to be discussed in each possible platform to identify
its hazards for the effectiveness and objectiveness of the inspections and create the best solutions
by the participation all the related industry players, especially the IMO.
Paris Memorandum of Understanding (Paris MOU) will be indicated as an example of the PSC
inspection system and target vessel determining methods of such structure. Twenty-seven
maritime participant administrations are contented by such MOU. It is in charge in the European
coast and the North American Basin from the North America to Europe. Many vessels visit the
ports that are covered by the Paris MOU. Nonetheless, the number of the PSC inspectors and
capabilities of those have a limitation. Therefore; the ships that might create more risky working
environment have to be identified among all the others. The Paris MOU uses a central computer
database named as THETIS for such purpose. European Maritime Safety Agency (EMSA)
provides the information to the national PSC authorities for the vessels are chosen and due for
the inspection. Such system also contains all the previous inspections that were conducted in
addition to ship particulars data (Paris Mou, 2016). It might be emphasized as an effective tool
to identify risky vessels. The weakness of the system may be concluded as the poor or lack of
data sharing with the other PSC regimes.
The system chooses the risky vessels by assessing of various circumstances and identifies a Ship
Risk Profile (SRP) for each vessel. Then, the vessels are categorized under the section of high
risk, standard risk and low risk ones. Some of the information that is used for the determination
of the SRP are; type of the vessel, age, flag, class, and the previous PSC inspections history for
the last thirty six months period of time and the company ISM performance (EMSA, 2016).
Additional column would be added to those assessment categories under the section of the Flag
State inspections history to achieve better understanding for both the vessels and operators of
those.

Paris MOU webpage is accessible by the public without any membership or fee. Many other
useful information is also available in a transparent way of approach. Such data contains
currently detained and banned vessels, Company, Flags (White, Grey and Black ones), ROs
performance criteria and the latest situations of those. Reporting obligations prior arrival and
departure the ports, appeal procedure for the detained vessels and useful related publications
might be noted as the other beneficial provided data on the Paris MOU webpage (Paris Mou,
2016).
Figure 4: Paris MOU Organizational Structure (Paris Mou, 2016).
IMO defines the Port State Control mechanism as “The inspection of foreign ships in national
ports to verify that the condition of the ship and its equipment comply with the requirements of
international regulations and that the ship is manned and operated in compliance with these
rules” (IMO, 2016)
Nine regional agreements on the Port State Control Memorandum of Understanding have been
signed as follow;
• Paris MOU (Covers Europe and the North Atlantic Region)

• Tokyo MOU (Covers Asia and the Pacific Region)
• Acuerdo de Vina del Mar (Covers Latin America Region)
• Caribbean MOU (Covers the Caribbean Region)
• Abuja MOU (Covers West and Central Africa Region)
• Black Sea MOU (Covers the Black Sea Region)
• Mediterranean MOU (Covers the Mediterranean Sea Region)
• Indian Ocean MOU (Covers the Indian Ocean Region)
• And the Riyadh MOU (Covers the Gulf Region)
• The United States Coast Guard (USCG Covers the US Coasts) and it is indicated as the
tenth PSC Regime (IMO, 2016).
It might be indicated that; even though there are positive examples for the efficient
implementation of the IMO regulations by the correct targeting of the substandard vessels in
some MOU regions like the Paris MOU, co-ordination between PSC regimes seems improper to
convey such information to each other. It can also be concluded that, all the PSC inspection
regimes should be integrated in one PSC inspection system to share all the PSC inspections
among the whole MOUs and deficiencies determined during inspections. Such way of
understanding would also reduce the numbers of inspections conducted in different MOU
systems and permit the inspectors to focus on substandard and risky vessels consequently.
Global Integrated Ship Information System (GISIS), which is generated by the IMO might be
used for the provision of the co-ordination between the PSC inspection regimes including a
detailed vessel deficiencies and follow ups of those.
The other important inspection type is identified as the Insurance one. Marine Insurance Act
1906 might be accepted as the fundamental baseline of the ship insurance. Meaning of the
marine insurance contract is identified as “A contract of marine insurance is a contract whereby

the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in manner and to the extent thereby agreed,
against marine losses, that is to say the losses incident to marine adventure” (Bundock, 2011,
p325)
Hull and machinery insurances are the main insurance types. The insured vessels are monitored
by the insurance company through the various databases like EQUASIS and PSC Inspection
Regimes’ public webpages in addition to accident and incident histories of ships. Such insurance
companies inspect the vessels through representatives of those in annually and identify the
critical items that might cause serious claims in the future. Nonetheless; the inspections of the
insurance companies aim to protect the interests of the insurer and such way of approach
diversifies the inspections conducted by the FSC, PSC and the ROs; classification societies.
Moreover; the insurance companies conventionally have limited amount of coverage scale and
payment of those are not usually conducted rapidly. Extraordinary situations like the explosion
occurred in Tainjin port in August 2015 might be showed a complaint theme by such
mechanism providing very important clues for the similar possible ones on especially container
vessels (Lloyd’s List, 2016).
It can be concluded that ship-owners do not duly be punished and eventually deterred by the
PSC inspection regimes cause by poor or lack of implementation of the international regulations
of those. Restricted amount of penalties and detentions of the vessels for a short period of time
are some examples to such weak punishment examples. Moreover; insurance coverage for hull,
PI and pollution related themes do also provide a limited liability and safe business
environment for the ship-owners that seek for gaps to trade in. Therefore; the punishments ought
to be more severe creating deterrence for substandard approaches in addition to the changes to
be made at the insurance coverage system supporting such discouragement accordingly.

It might be noted that; the ship-owners, who withdraws the vessels’ classes and changes of those
regularly should be determined as the risky and potential substandard ones. A policy should be
developed and implemented for such theme accordingly.
2.2.1 Inspection Regimes Apply To Tanker Shipping Industry
Tanker vessels inspection regimes are quite different than the container-shipping sector. Routine
Flag State Inspection (FSI), Port State Inspection (PSI), Recognized Organisation (RO)
Classification Society Inspection on behalf of the Flag State Authority and Insurance Inspections
are the common ones that apply for both tankers and container vessels.
Tanker vessels and marine pollutions of those caused serious public concern due to the many
incidents took place within the history of such sector. Oil Companies International Marine
Forum (OCIMF) was created in April 1970 upon having Torrey Canyon incident. OCIMF plays
an important role in terms of cooperating with governments and intergovernmental bodies with a
network spreading one hundred and five countries worldwide. The acceptance and
implementation of the new regulations by the IMO member states are quite slow. Nonetheless,
OCIMF is able to press the tanker shipping industry players for proper and effective
implementation of such regulations. Eventually safety understanding and the proper execution of
the related regulations on Tanker vessels are much faster, further and serious than the others
including the Container shipping sector (OCIMF, 2016).
Moreover; Ship Inspection Reporting Programme (SIRE) that was introduced by OCIMF in
1993 to identify substandard ships created a revolution in understanding and better
implementation of safety related themes in shipping. The SIRE inspection programme is an
exceptional risk assessment instrument of tankers that are used and monitored by the vessel
operators, charterers, and governmental organisations concerning safety related themes of such

vessels. All types of tankers are regularly be inspected by using of a common inspection
questionnaire by all the Major Oil Companies (MOC). Results of the inspection can be seen by
the member industry players and decide whether charter the inspected vessel or not. Therefore;
tanker owners pay upmost effort to succeed from SIRE inspections and sustain well commercial
relationships with charterers, the Major Oil Companies. SIRE inspections are conducted by
accredited experienced inspectors of OCIMF and such endorsements of the inspectors are
requested to renew every two years. Although minor issues are known by the tanker owners and
operators for the SIRE inspectors regarding attitude and other financial related difficulties, the
differences between SIRE inspectors and the others like PSC and FSC ones are reasonable and
cannot even be compared (OCIMF, 2016).
The OCIMF also introduced another inspection tool for tanker owners and operators to evaluate
the contemporary quality and performance situations of those and use that as a diversification
method from the others to achieve a competitive advantage accordingly. Such instrument is
named as Tanker Management Self-Assessment (TMSA) and it was created by the OCIMF in
2004. TMSA consists of various elements including safety and environmental management in
addition to emergency preparedness (Turker and Er, 2008). TMSA appears to be another
important and critical way of approach to inspect and analyze the safety understanding and
implementations of tanker vessels and operators of those by using Key Performance Indicators
(KPI), which do not apply for any other sector of the industry (Intertanko, 2008). TMSA and
KPI are very important tools assisting the quality assessment stage. TMSA should be applied to
not only the Tanker companies but also the others including the Container under another name
of such sector-specific like Container Management Self-Assessment (CMSA).
Similar inspection tool to assess the quality of tanker vessels is the one that is conducted by the
Chemical Distribution Institute (CDI). SIRE inspection is conducted by a MOC to evaluate the

vessel and decide whether to make the owner or operator of such vessel a business partner for a
specific period of time like bi-annual, annual or two years. Charterers use CDI inspection
results, which are determined as results of CDI specific inspections conducted by the authorized
CDI inspectors, and assess the vessels conditions accordingly. Upon completion of the CDI
inspection, the vessel is given a total point by the evaluation of all other parts of that and the
industry players can assess the vessel whether it is safe enough to work for a voyage or time
charter period. Moreover; CDI inspectors also inspect the terminals for the prevention of similar
explosions took place in Tainjin port in 2015. All types of tankers can be inspected by the CDI
in many areas of the world. CDI is a non-profit and non-commercial establishment created by
the chemical industry and it plays a vital role to increase the implementation of all the IMO
safety and pollution related regulations by boosting the tanker market sector players (CDI,
2016).
Figure 5: The Organization Structure of the CDI (CDI, 2014)
It might be concluded that the industry inspections like SIRE and CDI are the best possible ways
to assess the vessels objectively and contribution of such inspections to tanker safety are vital by

both increasing the safety awareness and reducing the marine incidents with proper
implementation of the international regulations. The closest sector to conduct CDI inspections
excluding the tanker one seems the container sector due to the transportation of numerous
chemical products by container vessels.
2.2.2 Inspection Regimes Apply To Container Shipping Industry
The external inspection regimes for container vessels include PSC, FSC, Class and the Insurance
ones. The issues and weaknesses during such inspections are as the indicated ones in the
previous chapters of this work.
Unfortunately, there is not such an inspection system, which directly affects the commercial
future of the ship owner or operator, apply for the container vessels like CDI, SIRE or TMSA
ones. That fact permits the container operator to comply with the current regulations as per
safety attitude and understanding level of such owner or operator. Although whole the safety
and marine pollution related risks are almost the same with tanker vessels, container ships are
managed considering the minimum requisitions of the current third party inspection parties and
the owner’s attitude factor.
Chemical Distribution Institute (CDI) states the International Marine Packed Cargo Audit
Scheme (IMPCAS) to minimize the risks that might cause chemical transportation of the
container vessels. Nature of the container transportation has some differences from the
chemicals carried on tanker vessels. While a chemical tanker loads its cargo directly from a tank
in a tanker terminal, containers reach the vessels through various parties creating non-
transparent data for the content. The logistics supply chain concept becomes a vital factor for the
prevention of that. Traditional container shipping companies operate a typical Second Partly
Logistics (2PL) permitting to transport such container by a third party during such chain.

Nonetheless, the proper implementation of the Third Partly Logistics (3PL) by the effective
execution of the supply chain management provide a safer and more secure transportation from
the very first producer to the final receiver. Eventually; such way of management will be
preventing one of the biggest issues of the container shipping, which is improper and non-
transparent data availability for the container content, and create safer working environment on
such vessels (CDI, 2014). Majority of the container shipping companies cannot implement to
entire supply chain management due to various difficulties or capabilities of those creating that
serious risk accordingly.
The Shipping Company KPI Verification Audit Process has been developed by the CDI for the
assessment of performance of the container vessel owner or operator in various themes
including safety and marine environment related ones. Although some container vessel
companies are the members of such inspection regime, it does not enforce all the others within
the sector like OCIMF does with SIRE and TMSA or the CDI inspections. Nevertheless, the
enforcement of the implementation of the similar inspection regimes can become compulsory, if
the shipper or cargo holder requests such quality measurement tools to choose the vessel to be
chartered. On the other hand, both the liner nature of the container shipping including
availability of limited amount of container ship owners and operators cause by oligopoly
structure of such sector, and the contemporary market conditions might delay of having a similar
external inspection regime in the near future. Nonetheless, it seems the only solution to sharply
increase safety understanding and the proper implementation of the international safety and
environmental related regulations for container shipping sector (CDI, 2014). It can be concluded
that, almost none of the shippers or cargo holders demand the above-mentioned self-assessment
requirements from the container companies within the market. Thus, the understanding of
quality and proper implementation of the safety related themes are not in the level on the tanker
vessels.

It might also be noted that, not only TMSA types of assessment measures but also SIRE and
CDI forms industry inspections are the most important absence safety related mechanisms for
Container shipping sector. A similar SIRE and CDI like third party industry inspections will be
compulsory for that sector but until that time relatively risky working environment will also be
sustaining. Until then, such lost generation of container vessels will be trading worldwide.
Figure 6: The KPI’s Used For CDI Audits (CDI, 2014)

3. Methodology
3.1. Aim of the investigation
The main aim of this project was to evaluate regulatory and third party assessment differences
for tanker (excluding gas) and container vessels. Moreover; effects of those on safety
understanding, implementation and commercial related themes to shipping firms were also be
investigated. Finally; recommendations for container companies to implement non-compulsory
regulations and voluntary inspections in a pro-active perspective to create a competitive
advantage by operating safer vessels were provided accordingly.
3.2 The objectives of the investigation
• Identification of the regulations and third party inspections that apply to tanker and
container vessels.
• Examining both positive and negative sides of the compulsory implementations of such
regulations and inspections.
• Analysing the effects of safety understanding in terms of financial, reputational and
quality related themes.
The researcher, tanker and container shipping professionals and academicians have been
identified as the key beneficiary parties from this project.
3.3. Research Method
This project was prepared by applying deductive and quantitative methods in addition to
positivism, objective and value-free approaches for the collection of primary and secondary data
(Wilson, 2014, p19). The fundamental reason of using the quantitative method for the collection
of both data types is gathering reliable information from the tanker and container industry

professionals. Positivist, objective and value-free ways of research approaches have been chosen
as the most suitable ones to reflect the collected data through a questionnaire for analysis.
The quantitative method of research was chosen by the researcher to be able to compare and
contrast the collected information in numbers and achieve a certain results for the researched
project.
3.4. Inductive and Deductive Method
In order to describe the qualitative and quantitative research results, the collected information
ought to be examined or improved by using of the inductive or deductive methods. “The
deductive approach moves towards hypothesis testing, after which the principle is confirmed,
refuted or modified” (Gray, 2004, p.16).
The deductive research of understanding was also indicated as beginning with “a well-known
theory” (Wilson, 2014, p12). Such approach was noted as “adoption a clear theoretical position
that it will be tested through the collection of data” (Saunders et al., 2012, p48).
Tanker shipping sector regulations and eventually inspections that apply for such sector are
more matured and comprehensive than the container shipping sector. The positive influences of
such regulations and inspections to the safety related understanding and implementations are
much further than all the other sectors including the container one. Therefore, a deductive way
of understanding was executed for the preparation of this work accordingly.
3.5. Sampling Method
A detailed questionnaire seeking relevant information, contributing to the objectives and
eventually the aim of this project was asked to both tanker and container shipping sectors

professionals. The fundamental purpose of such questionnaire is to achieve the core and reliable
data from the professionals. One of the most critical issues that could be appearing at this stage
was incorrect identification of the participants for the questionnaire. Therefore; “target
audience” was properly chosen by considering of the professional qualifications of potential
respondents both in tanker and container shipping sectors (Wilson, 2014, p186).
Sampling method was noted as the best certain data collection tool in addition to most suitable
one to the quantitative technique by such specialty of that (Allwood, 2011). Such way of
approach was used during the choosing samples in order to represent a larger relevant persons.
Random sampling was applied cause by the impossibility reaching to all related persons. One of
the other reasons using of such way of understanding by the researcher at the relevant stage was
sampling method permits selecting particular characteristics accordingly (Saunders et. al, 2012).
Additionally, a covering letter indicating the ethical principles that are followed for the
protection privacy of the participants was prepared and stated in the beginning of the provided
questionnaire (Wilson, 2014).
3.5.1. Data Collection
Gathering the data for this work achieved by using of various tools and techniques. The related
questionnaire was prepared and circulated via Survey Monkey. Participants were selected from
the Tanker and Container Shipping Sector Professionals and analysis of the collected data was
conducted by using of SPSS tool.
Such participants were noted from various places of the world including but not limited to
Turkey, United Kingdom, Australia, Greece, France, Italy, UAE, India, USA, Sweden, Norway,
Spain, Brazil, Germany, Nigeria, Morocco, Egypt, South Africa, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark,

Netherlands, Colombia, Panama, Peru, Mexico, Singapore, China, South Korea, Philippines,
Japan and the other non-mentioned ones dominantly through the Linked-In. The other selected
participants were reached and informed by emails about the link of the survey of the
questionnaire. The questionnaire was reachable by the Survey Monkey for two months period of
time.
The other data collection technique was the conduction of the literature review through the
numerous previous works. Further information for the collection and analysing of the data used
can be found under the next sections.
3.6. Collecting and Analysing Data
This project was prepared by the collection of primary and secondary types of data.
3.6.1 Primary Data
The primary source of data collection was achieved by using of survey. The fundamental reason
of using survey method is being able to collect replies from “larger sample prior” (Saunders et.
al, 2012, p417). Additionally, Primary data was also noted as the vital data to gather for the
purpose of the study to be conducted (Wilson, 2014, p149). Moreover it was evaluated as the
best possible way to collect the researched data from both tanker and the container shipping
sector professionals and examine such information consequently.
Due to the selected research methodology of this project, questionnaires was used as the primary
data gathering method through email and Internet, Linked-in.

Survey questionnaires that could completely be replied without assistance of the researcher were
implemented for the collection of the primary data. Such questionnaires were designed, analysed
and measured by using of Survey Monkey and SPSS tool (Saunders et al., 2012).
The prepared questionnaire was containing two sections named as Part A and the Part B. The
Part A of the questionnaire was covering the particular background questions of the participants
like sector, experiences in both at sea and the current position, education and the present specific
duty of such contributor. Besides, an “other” part was also added to the questions of the
structured type part of the questionnaire (Saunders et al., 2012, p433).
Part B of the questionnaire consists collecting of the primary data with the core relevant
questions with the researched project and rating of those eventually. Such way of approach
provided the researcher the opinions of the both tanker and container professionals in such
particular themes. Likert Scale, which is recognised as attitude questions, was implemented to
measure the opinions and statements of the participants by applying five rating scales (Saunders
et al., 2012, Wilson, 2014).
Five questions were asked to identify the background of the participant in the Part A, while the
numbers of those were fifteen under the section of Part B. Total number of participants were
noted as four hundred and sixty five. Two hundred and fifty seven persons were from Tanker
sectors with per cent 55.3 of the total participants, while such figure was noted as two hundred
and eight people from Container shipping sector with per cent 44.7. Nonetheless; eighty
participants did not totally complete the questionnaire from the both sectors. Thirty eight of
those from Tanker Sectors, while such figure was forty two for the Container sector participants.
Such action, which is assumed mainly cause by the English language difficulty of some
contributors, reduced the number of tanker sector participants that totally completed the

questionnaire to two hundred and nineteen, while it was noted as one hundred and sixty six for
the Container sector participants.
3.6.2. Secondary Data
The identification of the secondary data was mentioned as the one that already been available
and published for perusal of researchers and the public (Wilson, 2014). Gathering of the
secondary data was conducted by using of many resources like articles, books, journals and
shipping newspapers especially the Lloyd’s List.
Moreover; the main maritime regulatory body, the IMO webpage was used to collect various
related information for the projects. The other industry players including INTERTANKO, CDI,
EQUASIS, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), Paris MOU, European Maritime Safety
Agency (EMSA) webpages were the fundamental secondary data gathering sources in addition
to the others.

4. Analysis and Results
Q1: Sector
This section of the project illustrates the results of the questionnaire in order to show the
differences between the statements of the tanker and container shipping sectors professionals.
The survey was applied to 465 both industry professionals from different backgrounds. 257
participants were from the tanker sector with per cent 55.3, while such figure was noted as per
cent 44.7 from the container sector with 208 contributors.
Total number of the ones that did not complete the questionnaire was counted as 80 persons. 38
participants from the tanker sector and 42 ones from the container sector failed to complete the
entire survey. Therefore; 219 persons from tanker professionals and 166 participants from the
container sector professionals were noted as fully complete the whole questions. That fact
resulted with per cent 82.8 totally participations and per cent 17.2 interruptions to the
questionnaire from the both sectors.
Table 1
Q2: Profession in Current Organisation
The participants of the questionnaire from both the tanker and container sectors were divided
into seven categories to identify professional backgrounds of such contributors including
Designated Person Ashore (DPA), Operations/Technical/Crewing/Fleet Manager,
Superintendent and Other. The Other column consists many industry players related to the
sectors like marine insurers, agents, and classification society representatives. The other column

was noted as the most participants consisting one among the others with 150 from the both
sectors.
The total tanker sector participants were 257, while it was 208 from the container-shipping
sector. After the Other column, the most participant one was observed as the DPA with 105
contributors, then the others were recorded as superintendent with 80 joiners, Operations
Managers with 40, Fleet Manager with 36, Crewing Manager with 34 and the least participant
part of the questionnaire as the Technical Manager ones. Tanker sector participants seem as
equal as or slightly more than the container ones for all the categories excluding the Technical
Manager column.
Table 2
Q3: Experience in Current Position
One of the other criteria was determined as the experience in the current position of the
participant to achieve more reliable and precise information for the requested questions.
Four categories were determined to measure the experience in the current position of the
participant as 0-2, 2-5, 5-10 and 10+ years. It can be concluded that current experiences of the
participants from the both sectors are very close to each other by measuring the number of the
contributors to the total numbers.

Table 3
Q4: Experience at Sea
Another important criteria, experience at sea was chosen to achieve the better understanding of
the participants within the shipping. Therefore; such division was made as the same approach
with the question three as 0-2, 2-5, 5-10 and 10+ years. Being at sea more than 10 years period
of time was noted as almost the same percentage for both tanker and container shipping sectors.
Participants used the work at sea from the tanker sector between 2 and 5 years seem having the
least percentage of whole the criteria, when such time period is identified between 5 and 10
years experience percentage of the container shipping sector contributors are noted less than the
tanker ones.
Table 4
Q5: Education
Education measurement was also chosen to be able to critically analyse the academic
background of the participants.

Education criteria was distributed into five main groups including High School, Undergraduate,
Postgraduate, Master and Doctorate. Results of the contributors to the questionnaire provide
almost the same education levels accordingly. When the High School and Doctorate ones seem
relatively less figures, the education levels of the both sector contributors are dominantly
Bachelor or Master degree.
Table 5
Q6: I believe that Tanker Sector Regulations cover all the safety related issues for such
sector
The question was provided to measure the opinions of the both sector professionals for the
tanker sector regulations and safety related coverage of those accordingly. From the tanker and
container sectors participants’ point of view, regulations that apply for the tanker shipping are
quite enough to cover safety aspects in such sector. Positive answers from both sectors like
strongly agree and agree reaches up to per cent 78 together, containing per cent 83 from the
tanker contributors and per cent 71 from the container participants with such answers.
Only per cent 16 total neutral replies from both sectors were achieved in addition to very little
percentage opposite opinions.
Therefore; it can be concluded that both sector professionals are in common positive approaches
to the well and comprehensive regulations availability facing with the related safety challenges
for the tanker sector.

Table 6
Q7: Tanker Sector Regulations sufficiently enforce the industry players for the proper
implementation of regulations
Such question was provided to measure the further opinions of the both sector professionals for
the tanker sector regulations and the effectiveness of those for the enforcement suitability. Both
sides contributors’ approaches to such theme seem also quite positive by answering strongly
agree and agree options extent to per cent 81 together, comprising per cent 84 from the tanker
contributors and per cent 77 from the container participants with such answers.
Only per cent 14 total neutral replies from both sectors were achieved in addition to very little
percentage opposite opinions, as it was very similar on the previous question.
Consequently, again both sector professionals are in common positive understandings noting
that tanker sector regulations in a good shape adequately enforcing the players trade in such
sector.
Table 7

Q8: Due to the nature and history of the Tanker Shipping industry, regulations of such
sector are older and more comprehensive ones in comparison with the container sector
regulations
The above-mentioned question was positively responded from the tanker and container sector
professionals together. No persons were observed as replying with Strongly Disagree option and
only a small percentage of the participants negatively replied the question choosing the Disagree
option.
Nonetheless, the percentage of the participants from the tanker sector surprisingly responded the
Neutral option for the question more than the container ones. The figures were noted as per cent
24.6 with 54 contributors, while such percentage was noted as 14.4 with 24 persons for the
container sector. Total influence of Neutral response from the both sectors appeared per cent 20
only. Agree and Strongly Agree options reach to per cent 70 together from the tanker shipping
contributors, while such percentage was noted as 75 from the container professionals. Both
sector respondents make the positive figure to per cent 72 together.
The results from this question state that tanker shipping industry regulations are accepted as
quite wide-ranging due to the history of that from both sector professionals. Nevertheless, tanker
sector participants assume the applied regulations for such sector might be more covering as it
can be analysed from more Neutral responses and less agreed percentage in comparison with the
container sector participants.
Table 8

Q9: Tanker sector regulations encourage various inspection regimes in order to push the
tanker firms and vessels for the achievement of the requested safety standards
The common sense supports the statement of this question. Therefore, it was provided to the
industry professionals to confirm such declaration or indicate the opposite opinions, if any.
None of the participants chose the Strongly Disagree option and only 4 of the contributors were
Disagree for that from the both sectors. Additionally, less than ten per cent of the whole
professionals were noted opinions as Neutral.
Majority of the industry players from the both sectors re-confirm the statement of the question
by selecting Agree and Strongly Agree options. Percentage of such selection for tanker
participants was 92, while the figure was noted as 88 for the other sector one. Average agreeing
proportion was concluded as 90 with the contribution of 347 persons out of 385 from the both
tanker and container shipping sector.
Results of the answers of such question might be concluded that the effectiveness of the tanker
shipping regulations well-structured and suitable enough for the encouragement of the
inspection regimes to push the industry players of such sector for the appropriate
implementation of the regulations necessities
Table 9

Q10: From my point of view; Container Sector regulations are still failing to cover all the
safety issues of such sector
The question was replied under the relatively equal percentages with the other provided
questions. Although no persons responded to that as Strongly Disagree, 11 per cent of the
participants from the both sectors chose Disagree option with 42 participants in total.
Neutral response was elected among the others with a wide percentage with 136 persons from
the both sectors resulting per cent 35. Majority of the Neutral choosers were from the tanker
sector with 92 participants, while such figure was noted as 44 for the container.
In contrary with the above-mentioned negative and neutral responses, more than half of the
whole participants support the statement of the question with 207 Agree and Strongly Agree
responses. Strongly agree option was preferred by 44 participants as 22 persons from each
sectors. 89 contributors from the tanker sector and 74 persons from the container sector created
163 industry professionals as agree with the declaration of the question resulting with more than
per cent 42 of the entire figures.
The question ten results provide us that at least half of the both industry professionals think
container shipping industry regulations need improvement for the proper coverage of the safety
aspects of such sector.
Table 10

Q11: Verified Gross Mass (VGM) that just came into the force by 1st
of July 2016 shows
that Container Regulations are improved as per the essential safety issues and VGM will
be covering an important aspect of the sector
The question reflects the understanding of the both sector industry players for the contemporary
container regulations and impact expectation levels of those to such sector.
The total negative responses including Strongly Disagree and Disagree to the VGM question is
quite low by considering the combination of the both sectors. Nonetheless, remarkable amount
of persons from each sector participants were noted as stating the Neutral option for that.
Majority of the Neutral replies were from the tanker sector professionals with 118, while it was
38 for the container sector contributors. The final percentage of the persons that chose Neutral
option reaches up to 40 together.
It was noted that almost half of the whole participants agree with the statement of the question
and such proportion reaches to per cent 57 together with the chosen Agree and Strongly Agree
options.
The above-mentioned figures can be concluded as both tanker and container sector professionals
believe that VGM will be covering an important safety aspect of the container shipping sector.
Even a reasonable amount of the total participants were Neutral to the statement, such persons
did not chose the negative options.
Table 11

Q12: Although some small amount of chemical products are carried on container vessels,
handling and carriage of those are not as safe as on tankers
This question was issued to create an awareness of the chemical products carried in containers
and comparison with such products with the tanker vessels for safety related themes.
Answers of those were noted as follow; over per cent 60 of the whole participants are agree with
the statement by choosing the Agree and Strongly Agree options and 233 persons together. The
participants that preferred both positive options from tanker sector reaches to 137 professionals,
while such figure was noted as 96 for the container sector ones.
Neutral option electors from the both sectors are noted about per cent 20 each. Numbers create
such figure are 44 persons for tanker sector and 32 people for the container sector
representatives. All the other responses including Neutral, Disagree and Strongly Disagree can
only extent up to per cent 39 with 152 participants together.
As a result, it can be analysed that both sector professionals agree for the carriage of
transportation of chemical products on tankers are safer than on container vessels.
Table 12

Q13: A container vessel can be indicated having less safety standards in comparison with
a tanker vessel due to the non-existent regulations that already exist for tankers
This was an important contributor question to this work and results of that have been indicated
accordingly.
Total number of persons from the both sector are agree with the above mentioned statement
choosing Agree and Strongly Agree options and consequently reaching per cent 70 in total with
271 participants. Percentage of such positive responses to the statement of the question from
each sector are almost equal and create the mentioned figure.
Neither the tanker nor the container sector professionals issued a Strongly Disagree
understanding. Persons preferred Disagree option was only per cent 12 together with the both
sectors and total number of such persons are recorded as 44.
40 tanker shipping professionals selected being Neutral for that, while it was only 26 for the
container participants. Total percentage of such figures were only per cent 17.
Therefore, it can be concluded that container vessels are assessed having less safety standards in
comparison with tankers due to the unavailability of the related and proper safety regulations for
such sector.
Table 13

Q14: A Major Oil Company (MOC) inspection sharply increases the safety standards on
Tanker vessels
This question was issued to re-confirm that a Major Oil Company (MOC) inspection seriously
upgrades the safety related standards on Tanker vessels in addition to parallel understanding of
the industry players to such statement.
Results of the answers demonstrates that both sector representatives are positive with the
declaration of the question. Agree and Strongly Agree options were preferred with a number of
341 out of 385 by the contribution of the both sector professionals. Percentage of that was
recorded 89 creating the highest one among the all questions.
None of the participants made choice for the Strongly Disagree option and only 12 persons
elected the Disagree alternative out of the whole participants. Neutral option selectors were only
32 participants as 14 from tanker industry and 18 from the container-shipping sector.
The results of the questionnaire provide a certainty that Major Oil Company inspection is a
crucial mechanism to increase the tanker safety standards and such inspections play a vital role
by that speciality of those.
Table 14

Q15: Container vessels do not externally be inspected effecting commercial futures as
those are determined by MOC inspections on tankers
The knowledge of the both industry professionals was measured by the statement of the
question. Moreover, creation of awareness were also aimed by the comparison of tanker MOC
inspections accordingly.
The response figures provide a deep data for the declaration indicated by the question. None of
the contributors selected the Strongly Disagree option. The percentage of the negative replies by
Disagree option was only 9 in total with 34 participants from the both sectors. 22 of such
persons were noted for the tanker professionals, while such figure was noted as 12 for the
container sector. One out of five participants were recorded as Neutral with 88 persons in total.
Tanker sector contributors were 64, while the container ones were 24. Container sector
professionals were noted more supportive than the tanker ones by choosing Agree and Strongly
Agree options with 130 persons out of 166 and eventually creating a percentage of 78. The same
calculation for the tanker participants was noted as 133 persons in total out of 219 participants
and ultimately generating the per cent 60 figure.
Therefore, it can be analysed that both sector professionals have the common understanding by
supporting the declaration of the question. A Major Oil Company like industry inspection that
effecting the commercial future of container companies are essential to increase the safety
understanding and proper implementation of the related regulations.
Table 15

Q16: The effectiveness of Port State Control (PSC) Inspections on tankers and container
vessels show different levels. Container vessels are more negatively affected by PSC
inspections rather than tanker vessels
The question was issued for the measurement of the understanding of the both industry
professionals on effects of the PSC inspections on both types of vessels.
More than half of the whole participants positively responded the statement by choosing Agree
and Strongly agree options. Nonetheless, total percentage of the both sector professionals’
Neutral option selection is also remarkable with 30.
Per cent 17 of the both sector professionals’ choice were Disagree and only 2 per cent of those
elected Strongly Disagree option. Proportion differences between the tanker and container sector
contributors were not noted very much and such figured close to each other.
Therefore; it can be concluded that, majority of the both sector professionals agree negative
influence of the PSC inspections on container sector more than tanker vessels.
Table 16

Q17: It can be said that Flag State Inspections (FSI) on both Container and Tanker vessels
have equal contribution to safety. The important theme is the flag rather than the vessel
types for such inspections
Flag is the fundamental implementation and enforcement body of the international regulations.
Therefore, the statement was issued to achieve the understandings of the both industry players
for the flag contribution to the safety related themes.
Results demonstrates that both the tanker and container shipping professionals are agree with the
statement together with per cent 62. Agree option was selected by 213 tanker and container
sector participants, while such number was noted as 26 for the ones that selected the Strongly
Agree choice. Only per cent 24 of whole the participants were Neutral to the declaration with 92
selectors. While 58 persons preferred such item from the tanker sector, the same was chosen by
container professionals with 34 contributors.
Total negative answers of the both sectors by the selection of Disagree and Strongly Disagree
was only 54 participants creating per cent 14.
The analysis of this question might be indicating that tanker and container sector professionals
do not separate the vessels for the Flag State Inspections as an affective factor for safety more
than the vessel flags.
Table 17

Q18: Major Oil Company (MOC) and Port State Control (PSC) inspections should be
integrated worldwide for tankers
The integration of the inspections is vital to increase the proper implementation of the
international regulations by also creating transparency and data sharing among the inspection
regimes. Therefore, such integration ought to be conducted not only for tankers as it was
indicated by the statement of the item, but also for the container vessels among the PSC
inspection regimes world-wide.
The approaches of the both industry players for the tanker inspections integrations and data
sharing between the MOC and PSC ones were positively responded with about per cent 64 by
choosing Strongly Agree and Agree options together.
Total number of the Neutral persons from the both sectors were observed as 58 creating per cent
15 of the whole participants. Moreover, negative approaches from the tanker and container
sectors were also quite low level by creating per cent 21 only with the selection of Strongly
Disagree option by 28 persons and Disagree option by 54 persons together. The important point
at that stage was the total 28 Strongly Disagree participants to the statement were from only the
tanker sector representing a proportion from such sector having serious apprehensions for such
inspection integration and data sharing.
Table 18

Q19: Total estimated cost saving (TECS) from the PSC inspections between 74-193
thousand in usd, while such figure noted between 137-379 thousand in usd for Vetting
Inspections (Knapp et al., 2011). As per that statement it can be concluded that financial
benefits of the inspections are vital and contribution of those to the safety is crucial
Academically identified figures that were mentioned by the statement and the importance of
those to the safety were issued to the both sector participants.
Results show that total number of persons of the both sector choice Agree and Strongly Agree
were 260 out of 385 creating the proportion of 68 of the whole contributors. Neutral participants
were noted as 103. While 63 of such participants were from the tanker sector, such number for
the container contributors was 40 only. Nonetheless, total percentage of the both sector
professionals reach up to 27.
Negative answers were observed as 22 in total by the collection of Strongly Disagree and
Disagree options of the both sector professionals creating only per cent 5 of the entire
contributors.
The analysis of the above-mentioned figures might be conducted that the both sector
professionals have the common believe for the importance and positive influence of the PSC and
Vetting inspections in safety and eventually financial related themes.
Table 19

Q20: If a tanker fails a third party inspection, it causes more negative reputational damage
to its company rather than a container vessel
The statement was issued for the demonstration of a common understanding about such
declaration by the participation of the tanker and container shipping sector professionals.
One of the highest total positive replies was achieved from the both sector participants like per
cent 88 with 338 Agree and Strongly Agree responses together.
Only per cent 10 of the entire contributors was noted as Neutral and per cent 3 of such
participants’ choice the Disagree option. Additionally, neither the tanker nor the container sector
professionals decided to select the Strongly Disagree option for the declaration.
Therefore, the results of the statement confirm that tanker vessels more negatively influenced
from third party inspections in comparison with containers as per the understandings of the both
tanker and container shipping sector professionals.
Table 20

5. Discussion
The questionnaire that was prepared and issued to both tanker and container shipping sector
professionals provided valuable empirical data reflecting approaches and understandings of such
sector contributors to the contemporary safety related difficulties.
Majority of the tanker and container sector professionals consider that current tanker sector
regulations properly cover all the safety related problems. Moreover; such regulations are well
structured providing appropriate enforcement mechanism for the ones that are responsible of
that. Furthermore, another agreed matter of the tanker and container shipping experts might be
noted as the mature and wide-ranging structure of the regulations that apply for tankers. Only
small amount of the tanker participants were recorded as neutral by expecting more
improvements at that theme. Finally, another common understanding of the both industry
professionals might be indicated as the properly designed nature of the tanker sector regulations
by encouraging the inspection regimes for the appropriate implementation of those and
eventually creating pressure on the tanker sector industry players.
Although tanker shipping industry regulations were specified with positive approach by the both
industry professionals, such understanding shows the opposite for the container shipping sector.
For instance, more than half of the both sector contributors think that important enhancements of
the regulations that apply to container vessels are essential for appropriately coverage of those.
Verified Gross Mass (VGM) was emphasized as a critical regulation improvement for container
sector. Common understanding of the tanker and container professionals was quite positive to
VGM and expectations to solve the related safety challenges were high, despite reasonable
quantity of the entire participants were noted as neutral to that statement.

illumination

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to illumination

Similar to illumination (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

illumination