FedEx and DHL are well-known brands associated with trustworthy and efficient shipments of goods. Commercial shipping, on the other hand, the international carriage of cargo in ships, is a transport industry virtually unknown to the public – except when there is an accident.
It is not because shipping is a matter of irrelevance to the general well-being of the public; it is more the case that the goods we need to enjoy our high standard of living are expected to be where we need them when we need them. How the shoes got from Brazil to the shelves in our local store or the petrol found its way to the tank buried underneath our local petrol station is something we usually don’t worry about. We just expect things to run smoothly. And in more than 99% of all cases, things do run smoothly.
Let’s also admit that in our industry many players seem to want to keep a low profile. Flamboyance and a yearning for personal publicity is not a common trait among shipping people – with some notable exceptions. Recognising the fine line they walk between applause and criticism, especially if they risk being faced with a looming crisis or even an accident, makes them think twice before seeking publicity and exposing themselves personally in an adverse situation. While this ‘low key – keep your head down’ posture has prevailed for years, and mostly been a successful tactic, in this era of public demand for increased transparency and corporate social responsibility, avoiding the issues at stake by keeping a low profile, or even trying to feign ignorance, now involves an increasing risk that this will back-fire, with negative effects not only on the individual who made the wrong decision but also on the whole shipping industry.
What else could we expect?
Sometimes in the late 1980s we missed the boat – or to be more precise, we did not realise that the focus of public opinion had changed from the safety of ships and seafarers to the protection of the marine and coastal environments. The emergence of strong environmental NGOs, with their knack of getting media attention for their causes and thereby influencing public opinion, was for too long not taken seriously enough by the shipping industry.
The focus of this industry, including class, continued for too long to be on how to keep the water from entering the ship, not how to keep the cargo inside the ship. There were regulations designed to avoid pollution, like MARPOL, but SOLAS, ISM and STCW were foremost in our minds.
Then came the oil spills from the Exxon Valdez, Erika and Prestige. Justified, considering the shift in value norms which had taken place in Europe and the US over the preceding years, public fury was evoked and subsequently politically motivated unilateral acts were unleashed; first by the US government and then by the EU. Although responsible companies like Exxon stood up and faced the music and international shipping organisations argued that accidents were bound to happen now and then, these unilateral acts undermined the credibility of the existing regulatory regimes and even went further than what had been globally accepted through long standing international laws such as UNCLOS and the IMO’s regulatory regime of Conventions, Guidelines and Circulars.
Reactive regulations
Considering the limited political influence the maritime constituency has in most countries, regulators are bound to react to pressure from interest groups and quickly pass reactive regulations, often without societal cost/benefit evaluations or consideration of the best available technology and practices. Even the processes at the IMO, which so far has been a predominantly technical rather than political body and as such probably the UN’s most efficient regulator, are affected by this unilateralism, with political blocks being formed whose agenda and direction are set outside the IMO forum.
While the expressed strategy of the IMO is to be a pro-active regulator and, through regulations and competence sharing, improve the performance of the shipping industry, the need to respond forcefully to regional initiatives and criticism of the shipping industry draws the resources towards reactive legislation. To be on the offensive and promote the contribution shipping makes to the world economy becomes difficult in such a climate.
As an example of how the social responsibility already existing in environmental legislation in some European countries is now finding its way into regional maritime legislation, new EU regulations decree that if found guilty by a court of law, shipowners and crews are now liable, not just to pay financial compensation to the victimised parties, but also to severe criminal penalties, even for accidents for which they were only partly or indirectly responsible.
Other stakeholders in the so-called ‘chain of responsibility’ such as classification societies, insurers, charterers, cargo owners, and pilots, also face the same legal consequences if found to be involved in a polluting incident.
Image of shipping
The public image of shipping – if it exists at all – is by most sources defined as being neutral to negative. Against this background of indifference, or even scepticism, towards shipping, periodic attempts to ‘educate’ the public, politicians, the media and academia on the positive contribution that shipping makes to the public good have only had modest and invariably short-lived success. Previous efforts to build up support for our industry have failed, in our view because they:
- Did not have a clear mission statement
- Were neither sustained over time nor adequately funded
- Did not benefit from a united effort from this highly fragmented and largely media-shy industry
- Were not spearheaded by industry personalities who are publicly recognised as truly socially responsible individuals
- Were seen as PR stunts rather than soul-searching efforts to change behaviour
- Did not have any – or only a limited – identifiable constituency which could get the attention of the political decision-makers.
What does DNV want?
The management of DNV believes that action must be taken to make a major and permanent improvement in shipping’s standing and image. We realise that this means proving that shipping behaves in a way which is in line with the expectations of modern society – demonstrating social responsibility through all aspects of its activities. And not just through a campaign of good behaviour, but through sustained performance. DNV is prepared to commit major resources in the form of people and funds for at least five years to this effort provided other stakeholders in the shipping industry are also willing to make a major sustained commitment.
To this end, DNV proposes to establish a collaborative programme for the shipping industry to help to project the importance and performance of the industry to a wider audience. We must mount a sustained programme – addressing the total value chain of international commerce so that the public, the media and the politicians are aware of the positive, not just the negative, aspects of the shipping industry.
As a working title, we suggest an ambitious name like Maritime Commerce – Lifeline for the World, and a draft mission statement along the lines of:
“To inform the global community of the indispensable services that maritime commerce and the people employed therein provide for the well-being and safety of all mankind.”
What’s our message?
Shipping today admittedly sends both positive and negative messages to the world. To succeed in promoting the positive messages, we must also provide credible responses to the negative ones. We at DNV believe in quality as the key success factor. Our attention to quality has, for example, resulted in a continuous high standing on the rating lists issued by the various Port State Control regimes around the world. Profiling DNV through neutral parameters like this increases the trust our customers and other stakeholders have in DNV and leads to new assignments from both existing and new customers. Differentiating ourselves from our competitors is important, but it is critical for all of us to present convincing evidence that industry leaders are taking measures to remove substandard performers from our industry.
In light of our objective of safeguarding life, property and the environment, we have an obligation to assist the industry overall in raising the safety level, not just to protect our own interests. The introduction of IACS Common Rules for tankers’ and bulk carriers’ scantlings is such an initiative which DNV wholeheartedly supports. Creating a common basis with a heightened safety level for all new ships will assist in improving the standing of shipping, but this is not a panacea. Only continued attention to the quality of performance will in the long run raise the level of trust we need from the general public.
Where do we go from here?
DNV alone cannot change the world – but we can make a difference. Through our commitment to high-quality performance, we will prove to our audience that we share their concern for our common future and take responsibility for our actions. We will actively seek likeminded stakeholders in the commercial shipping industry and argue for a common effort to change attitudes and behaviour so that our industry is appreciated in the eyes of the world as a positive contributor to economic development in all its facets. We realise that this is not an easy challenge to set for ourselves, but with 140 years of successful adaptation to the needs of the society, we have the stamina and patience to try to achieve this.