Operational Guide · Registers & Logbooks

# 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.

whistleblowing anonymous reporting MLC retaliation

## 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

1. Provide a channel for reporting non-conformities distinct from the ordinary channels (Near Miss Reporting), allowing anonymity when requested by the reporter.
2. Clearly communicate to the crew, on joining and periodically, the existence and access arrangements of the whistleblowing channel.
3. Guarantee in writing protection from retaliation for good-faith reporters, in line with MLC 2006 Regulation 5.1.5.
4. 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.
5. 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

In a case involving a major shipping operator, the US Department of Labor conducted an investigation after a seafarer was dismissed for reporting a safety concern directly to the US Coast Guard without first informing their employer: the outcome led the operator to change its reporting policy for employees, a concrete example of how the absence of protected, well-communicated reporting channels exposes Companies to legal and reputational consequences.

## 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

PSCOs, under MLC Standard A5.2.2, are required to receive direct reports from seafarers in port; inadequate internal reporting channels can emerge indirectly when a seafarer chooses to report directly to the authority rather than internally.

## 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

## FAQ

What distinguishes whistleblowing from Near Miss Reporting?
Near Miss Reporting typically concerns operational safety near-incidents; whistleblowing concerns the broader reporting of non-conformities, unsafe practices or SMS breaches, often when ordinary channels are not perceived as sufficiently safe or effective.
What does MLC 2006 provide on protection from retaliation?
Regulation 5.1.5 protects seafarers from victimisation for filing a complaint in good faith, including legal safeguards against dismissal, blacklisting or other unfavourable treatment by the shipowner.
Can a seafarer report directly to an external authority without going through company channels?
Yes: under MLC Standard A5.2.2, seafarers have the right to report directly to a PSC inspector in port; if company channels are not perceived as accessible, seafarers can also turn to independent whistleblowing organisations.
🎬 Additional photos, videos and interactive diagrams for this topic will be available in a future version of the platform.

## Related Topics

Near Miss Reporting Handling Seafarer Complaints (MLC 2006)

### Leave feedback

Help us improve the platform during the beta -- it takes thirty seconds.

How useful do you find the platform so far?
Comment (optional)
Sign me up for the newsletter
Role