Discuss and analyse the following statement and evaluate the effectiveness of the ISM Code implementation.
The quotation below concluded the evaluation of the Safety Management System (SMS) presented in the casualty investigation report after the loss of cargo containers overboard from P&O Nedlloyd Genoa
“Instructions contained in safety management systems are often well considered and intentioned, but full compliance with such instructions can sometimes be difficult for staff to achieve in practice. The discrepancies found in P&O Nedlloyd Genoa’s lashing arrangements and the stow plan, suggest that while the onboard paper audit trail was being completed, in reality, the cargo officer might have been unable to fulfill his duties to the standard required by the SMS. The chief officer’s obligations to assess the cargo stowage plan, and be the ultimate checker of cargo securing arrangements, were also not achieved.
The failures to satisfactorily check the stow plan and lashings, contributed to this accident. Blue Star Ship Management, as part of its ISM internal audit regime, should check not only that their instructions are understood, but also that they are achievable with the manpower available in the turn round times allotted.”
Marine Accident Investigation Branch (2006). Report on the investigation of the loss of cargo containers overboard from P&O Nedlloyd Genoa North Atlantic Ocean on 27 January 2006. Report No 20/2006. Southampton.
Question 2: (1500 words)
Comment the following extract and discuss the issues of
• Lack of seafarers participation in Occupational Health and Safety (OHS)
• Wrong reporting and falsification
“The findings suggest that supply chain pressure generated in organizations operating a top-down management style inevitably serves to generate more ‘orders’ for the managers to pass down. As a consequence of merely following orders, workers’ valuable knowledge and experience could not be capitalized on in managing OHS. […]
Page | 1
Every officer in all four research voyages complained that they spent far too long filling in paperwork. They pointed out that such paperwork compelled them to divert their attention during watch-keeping and also took some of their leisure time away. They also complained that on many occasions they had to repeat the same entries in different log- books, checklists and work permits to facilitate inspectors’ cross-checks. […]
If safety considerations were taken more seriously, arguably, seafarers’ opinions and concerns would be attended to. After all, it is the seafarers who have the most intimate knowledge of their ships and have more reasons to safeguard themselves and their workplaces. The reality, however, is that seafarers are denied active participation in safety and health management and their concerns are not listened to. Instead, the Oil Majors effectively pass their pressure down through the ship managers to the seafarers and force them to passively and silently comply. Among the consequences are work intensification and the falsification of paperwork. The latter does nothing other than to divert seafarers’ time and energy from safety issues and add to their workload. Work intensification in turn can result in fatigue. Although seafarers keep complaining about it, it seems nobody cares to listen.
It has been repeatedly stressed by researchers (see Walters and Frick, 2000) that top-down pressures alone are more likely to force compliance than to encourage active employee participation – without which management of OHS is inevitably ineffective. Thus, in the tanker sector of shipping, fatigue and its safety consequences remain unaddressed, which in fact, ironically, is exacerbated by the supply chain pressure. ”
Bhattacharya S. and Lijun T. (2012). Fatigued for safety? Supply chain occupational health and safety initiatives in shipping. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 34(3). 383–399.
General instructions are listed below.
• Submit the assignment electronically via the TurnItIn assignment submission function in module 4
• If more than one document is to be submitted for one mark entry in the subject assessment, copy them into one file for submission (e.g. copy an Excel file into a Word file). Submit the file as many times as you wish before the deadline; a new submission replaces the previous one.
• The time of submission will be recorded and reported to the assessor.
• Submitted assignments will be scanned for plagiarism by the programme Turnitin and the results reported to the assessor.
• The answer must not exceed 3,000 words, excluding the title page, table of content, and list of references. Use either of the following fonts: Arial 11 pt. or Times New Roman 12 pt., and 1.5 line spacing, but the List of References should have single line spacing.
• Assignments submitted after the deadline will be marked down in accordance with academic policy.
Page | 2