Words like care and wellbeing remain hollow without a process dimension. The maritime industry is awash with texts that write about seafarer welfare without ever becoming concrete. "We care about our crews" appears on hundreds of corporate websites. But what does that mean operationally? When a Filipino seafarer is due for relief after six months on a chemical tanker and the crew change is delayed by three weeks, no mission statement helps. What helps is a robust repatriation process with clear responsibilities.
Generic welfare language has a further problem: it signals to professional readers that the author has not truly understood the subject. Technical superintendents, crewing managers and HSQE officers immediately recognise whether someone understands the operational connections or is merely stringing together buzzwords.
Repatriation, medical access, shore leave and complaint handling – these are the terms anchored in the MLC 2006 and they carry real meaning for seafarers. If a text aims to write about welfare, it must use these terms and explain what they mean in daily operations.
Shore leave under Regulation 2.4 MLC is not a luxury but a right. In practice, it fails due to ISPS restrictions, lack of transport or simply because the port has no seafarer centre. A good text names these obstacles. Medical access means more than a medicine chest on board. It means telemedicine agreements, functioning communication for TMAS contacts and an officer who is genuinely trained in Medical First Aid, not merely certified.
The MLC 2006 is the central instrument, but not the only one. The ILO Guidelines on the medical examinations of seafarers (ILO/IMO JMS/2011/12) define minimum standards for medical fitness examinations. IMO Resolution A.930(22) addresses the provision of financial security in cases of injury or death. SOLAS Regulation V/23 and ISM Code requirements for emergency procedures also have a welfare dimension.
What many welfare texts ignore: these instruments overlap and create implementation conflicts. When a flag state interprets MLC requirements minimally but the charterer demands ESG standards that go further, a dual structure emerges. The operator must then decide which standard it actually lives – the formal one or the demanded one.
The Paris MoU and Tokyo MoU publish annual statistics on MLC-related deficiencies in Port State Control. The most common observations concern work and rest hours (Regulation 2.3), accommodation standards (Regulation 3.1) and complaint mechanisms (Regulation 5.1.5). This data shows where the industry systematically fails, and a good welfare text references this reality.
The ITF inspection service also checks MLC compliance, but from a different perspective. Whilst PSC inspectors check the formal framework, ITF inspectors ask the crew directly. The discrepancy between both findings is often revealing and demonstrates that formal compliance and actual conditions are not the same thing.
The key lies in connecting regulation with operational reality. A welfare text that merely quotes the MLC is no better than a generic one. What makes it better is the link to concrete scenarios: how does repatriation work when the vessel is in a port without a direct airport? What communication infrastructure does an effective TMAS consultation require? What happens when a complaint is filed but the master is simultaneously the only complaint recipient?
Technical readers expect precision. If a text claims shore leave is a problem, it must be able to say in which regions and under which conditions. If it writes about communication, it must be able to explain the difference between a Ku-band VSAT and a modern HTS system without turning into a technology article.
The golden rule: every welfare paragraph must contain at least one concrete process, one concrete regulatory reference or one concrete operational scenario. If none of these is present, the paragraph is generic and should be revised.
The COVID-19 crew change crisis brought the topic of seafarer welfare into public awareness. Suddenly, mainstream media also reported on seafarers stranded on their vessels for months. The IMO negotiated key worker status, the ICS coordinated vaccination campaigns, and shipowners had to publicly explain for the first time what they were doing for their crews.
The lesson for communication: generic messages were particularly conspicuous during this crisis. Companies that communicated concretely – how many crew changes they had carried out, which telemedicine systems they used, what their rotation extensions looked like – were perceived as more credible. That is the standard against which welfare content is measured today.
Anyone creating welfare content should follow this structure: first, name the regulatory foundation – which MLC regulation, which standard. Second, describe the operational reality – where does implementation fail, and why. Third, name concrete improvements – what can operators do, at what cost. Fourth, establish the economic connection – why does the investment pay off.
What should be avoided: emotionalisation without substance, blanket statements about the entire industry and conflating welfare with CSR marketing. Seafarers are skilled professionals, not charity cases. Content that treats them otherwise distorts the picture and loses the target audience.
Present welfare as part of crew stability and safe operations. A superintendent does not read a welfare article because he is interested in social justice, but because he wants to know whether poor conditions will jeopardise his next PSC audit. This is why welfare content must always have the operational reference: crew stability influences maintenance quality, error frequency and safety culture on board.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting