The world needs more seafarers – let’s think carefully about criminalising the ones we have
When something goes wrong at sea, it’s vital that there is accountability. However, our CEO, Chris Goldsworthy, questions whether prosecuting seafarers has become the default response. In the aftermath of several high-profile cases, he explores whether more emphasis should be placed on the systems that support those at sea.
Seafarers operate in a demanding environment where safety is critical, and no one goes to sea intending to have an incident. This is reflected in the fact that most goods are delivered unnoticed, safely, and on time by hardworking people – no mean feat considering that global shipping carrying over 80% of total world merchandise (according to the official UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Review of Maritime Transport 2025). These same seafarers are often supporting family networks at home, meaning their safety is paramount to them.
When incidents do occur, there must be accountability. However, the question is often: ‘what did the master do?’, ‘what did the chief engineer do?’, and ‘were their actions negligent’? Whilst these are important questions, I believe they are not the only ones we should be asking.
From an engineering perspective, a ship is not a standalone entity. It is part of a wider system that includes owners, managers, charterers, equipment suppliers, regulators and commercial pressures. Decisions made ashore about scheduling, maintenance budgets, spare parts provision, and crewing levels have a direct impact on what happens on board.
If a piece of equipment fails, it is not enough to ask whether it was operated correctly. We should also consider a wide range of other factors. For instance, was the equipment maintained properly? Were the correct parts available? Was there pressure to prioritise schedule over maintenance? Furthermore, did these decisions lead to knock-on consequences that led to difficult choices for those onboard?
One historical reason for this is structural. In the insurance and claims processes, categorising an incident under ‘crew negligence’ can simplify liability pathways, which, over time, has led to the seafarer becoming the default point of accountability.
But this can have devastating consequences for those involved. A single incident can lead to a seafarer losing their Certificate of Competency, which takes away their livelihood overnight and has far-reaching consequences for them and their dependents.
Shipping already faces a challenge in attracting and retaining skilled professionals, with significant shortfalls in qualified seafarers projected for the coming years. It would be interesting to know how the risk of criminalisation affects the career choices of those considering becoming mariners.
Seafaring involves long periods away from home, and, in some regions, such as the Strait of Hormuz, heightened security risks. If we add that working in the maritime industry could lead to a criminal record, it stands to reason that fewer people might choose this path.
Of course, seafarers should not be exempt from accountability. My argument is that accountability should be proportionate and informed by a full understanding of the system in which people operate.
For me, this means examining the entire chain rather than focusing on the final mistake. To be very clear, I’m not an expert in accident investigation, and I have no access to current maritime investigations. But, looking at the outcomes, it seems that we need to look beyond the vessel itself.
I spent 16 years as a seafarer, and the industry has given me an enormous amount back, professionally and personally. I wouldn’t hesitate to recommend it as a career, but we need to give the next generation the confidence that the response will be fair and proportionate if things go wrong.
