Whistleblowing and Anonymous Reporting of Non-Conformities
A seafarer dismissed after reporting a safety concern directly to the US Coast Guard without first informing their employer led to a change in company policy: protection from retaliation is not a minor detail.
Operational Explanation
Whistleblowing on board consists of reporting non-conformities, unsafe practices or breaches of the Safety Management System, often anonymously or under protection, when the ordinary reporting channels (Near Miss Reporting, direct complaints) are not perceived by the reporter as sufficiently safe or effective. MLC 2006, Regulation 5.1.5, explicitly protects seafarers from victimisation for filing a complaint in good faith, including legal safeguards against dismissal, blacklisting or other unfavourable treatment.
The ongoing revisions of the ISM Code implementation guidelines (an IMO process expected to run until 2028) include recommendations to introduce a complaint procedure for reporting non-conformities, strengthen the Master's authority to escalate breaches with protection, and address the prevention of violence and harassment on board with clear reporting procedures and protection from retaliation.
Regulatory Reference
MLC 2006, Regulation 5.1.5 protects seafarers from victimisation for complaints filed in good faith; seafarers also have the right to report directly to a PSC inspector in port under Standard A5.2.2. The revision of the ISM implementation guidelines (ongoing until 2028) envisages strengthening reporting procedures and protections against retaliation.
Scope of Application
Every Company and ship subject to the ISM Code and MLC 2006, with the Company responsible for providing accessible reporting channels, including anonymous ones, and for ensuring no retaliation against good-faith reporters.
Procedure / How to Complete It
- Provide a channel for reporting non-conformities distinct from the ordinary channels (Near Miss Reporting), allowing anonymity when requested by the reporter.
- Clearly communicate to the crew, on joining and periodically, the existence and access arrangements of the whistleblowing channel.
- Guarantee in writing protection from retaliation for good-faith reporters, in line with MLC 2006 Regulation 5.1.5.
- Instruct the crew on the right to report directly to a PSC inspector in port, when internal channels are not perceived as accessible or effective.
- Investigate every report received with a structured process, regardless of whether it was submitted anonymously or by name.
Practical Example
Example: a crew member anonymously reports, through the company whistleblowing channel, an unsafe maintenance practice tolerated on board; the Company launches a structured investigation into the report, guaranteeing in writing that there will be no retaliation against the entire crew of the ship during the investigation period.
Real Cases
Common Mistakes Mistake Library
| Mistake | Consequence | How to avoid it |
|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing channel not distinguished from ordinary reporting channels (Near Miss, direct complaints to a superior) | The reporter does not perceive a safe alternative when ordinary channels are inadequate | Provide a distinct reporting channel that explicitly allows anonymity when requested |
| Protection from retaliation not clearly communicated to the crew or not formalised in writing | Underuse of the reporting channel for fear of consequences, even where it formally exists | Explicitly and periodically communicate protection from retaliation under MLC 2006 Regulation 5.1.5 |
| Report received but not followed by a structured, documented investigation | Loss of trust in the reporting system and risk of external escalation (e.g. reporting directly to an authority) | Investigate every report with a structured, documented process, regardless of how it was submitted |
PSC Observations
Operational Tips
- Communicate the whistleblowing channel as an alternative to ordinary channels, not a replacement for them: both must remain accessible.
- Formalise protection from retaliation in writing, don't leave it to an informal understanding: this is what MLC 2006 requires.
- Always investigate every report with a structured process: a channel that receives reports without concrete follow-up rapidly loses the crew's trust.
Checklist
- Whistleblowing channel distinct from ordinary reporting channels, with an anonymity option
- Protection from retaliation explicitly communicated and formalised in writing
- Crew informed of the right to report directly to a PSC inspector in port
- Structured investigation process for every report received
- Updates on the ongoing ISM revision (until 2028) monitored for implications on reporting procedures