From Words to Action: Making the ISM Code Fit for Today's Seafarers

 

The International Maritime Organization’s Maritime Safety Committee (MSC) has sent a clear message: the ISM Code is overdue for serious reform. Meeting in London for its 110th session, the Committee called for a comprehensive overhaul of the guidelines governing safe ship management—guidelines that, despite their critical importance, no longer reflect the realities of life at sea.

This follows an independent IMO study that revealed just how inconsistently the ISM Code is enforced. The findings pointed to weak oversight, poor accountability, and a glaring disconnect between documented procedures and what crews actually experience, particularly in relation to fatigue, harassment, and excessive workloads.

It’s a story the industry knows all too well. Shipping is saturated with regulations, yet the most basic rights and protections for seafarers are still routinely undermined. The problem isn’t a lack of policy, it’s a lack of commitment.

Capt. Saurabh Mahesh, Group Director Crewing (Operations) at Columbia Group, believes this revision is long overdue. “There’s no question the Code needs to evolve. But it must go beyond simply redrafting language, it has to confront the reality that compliance is often little more than a box-ticking exercise,” he said. “We need to rebuild trust by ensuring real follow-up when breaches occur, and by guaranteeing that crews are genuinely protected, not just theoretically covered.”

The MSC’s recommendations are pragmatic and necessary. They include integrating anti-harassment measures into safety management systems, providing proper support for victims, protecting whistleblowers, and strengthening rest hour rules with enforcement that is consistent and credible. But none of this will matter unless administrations and operators implement these reforms meaningfully—and are held accountable when they don’t.

One of the most pressing issues is the falsification of rest hour records. Capt. Mahesh is among those calling for biometric solutions, fingerprint or retina scans, to replace outdated paper logs that are too easily manipulated. There are also calls for more rigorous external audits, realistic safe manning assessments that reflect vessel age and trading patterns, and decisive enforcement when non-conformities are uncovered. Without these changes, little will improve.

Yet enforcement alone isn’t enough. Working conditions themselves must be adapted to the complexity and pressure of modern shipping. One-size-fits-all shift patterns are no longer acceptable. Crews need flexible rest options, especially during extreme weather or congested port calls. Vessels operating on high-intensity routes should have access to shore-based officers who can provide relief. Greater use of digital tools, consistent crew feedback, and better engagement with shore services can all help ease the strain. These are practical solutions, they just require the will to put them in place.

There is also growing concern that even well-intentioned reforms could backfire if applied without care. Capt. Mahesh warns that piling new compliance costs onto operators without adequate support or strategic planning could have unintended consequences, especially if it leads to reduced earnings for seafarers or undermines progress on diversity.

That caution is shared by Claudia Paschkewitz, Director of Sustainability, Inclusion, and Diversity at Columbia Group. “We fully support the intent behind these recommendations,” she said. “But we must ensure that, in trying to fix deep-rooted operational issues, we don’t sacrifice the equally urgent work on inclusion. If reforms are rushed or poorly designed, there’s a risk that cost-cutting measures could push diversity efforts backwards. We need standards that are enforceable, inclusive, and fair—not trade-offs between safety and equality.”

The IMO has now tasked its Sub-Committee on the Implementation of IMO Instruments (III) and the Sub-Committee on Human Element, Training and Watchkeeping (HTW) with redrafting the guidelines over the next three years. But there is a real risk that momentum will fade. The challenge is to keep up the pressure and prevent this from becoming yet another consultation exercise that produces paperwork instead of progress.

What the industry needs now is honesty: an acknowledgment that parts of the system have failed, and a commitment, not just from regulators, but from owners and operators, to do better. Not because they are compelled to, but because safety, welfare, and dignity are non-negotiable.

If the ISM Code is to regain credibility, it needs more than a refresh. It requires enforcement, investment, and cultural change.