Ellie Besley-Gould, CEO of the Sustainable Shipping Initiative discusses aligning incentives, improving crew welfare, and scaling sustainable shipping solutions globally
To begin, could you share details of your career history and how you came to be in your current role?
I’ve spent fifteen years working across climate, international development and commercial sustainability – always in the space between where we need to move to build a sustainable and resilient future and the challenge of translating that into delivery at scale.
Shipping is one of the most extraordinary industries on the planet. It is the backbone of global trade, constantly adapting, full of people who genuinely care about getting this right. What drew me to SSI is the opportunity to work alongside that ambition and help turn it into action. That felt like exactly the right next challenge.
Why was the Sustainable Shipping Initiative created, and what impact is it having on making shipping more sustainable?
SSI started from a straightforward recognition: the transformation shipping needs is too big for any one actor. You can’t regulate your way there from one government or invest your way there from one company. The only approach that works is aligning commercial practice, financial flows and operational standards across the whole value chain together.
What we’ve learned is that the barrier is rarely ambition. Individuals and organizations want to act but the challenge is in translating intent into decisions that are commercially viable.
SSI’s job is to make that translation possible by connecting evidence, incentives and practice so that good intentions become repeatable and scalable actions. Currently our focus is on sharp execution and measurable impact across energy transition, people risk and ocean health.
Why are charterers still not commercially rewarding higher crew welfare and safety standards in vessel selection and how can they do better?
Some are – certainly those in our membership like Rio Tinto and South 32 are extremely advanced and have welfare and wellbeing considered in vetting processes.
But that isn’t widespread. Typically, welfare only enters the conversation once cost and availability are settled and by then there’s usually no space left for it to make a difference. It becomes a tiebreaker that never gets invoked.
Two things compound this. There’s no transparent, available, credible, vessel-level signal that tells a charterer which operators are genuinely above the legal minimum. Without that, even a motivated charterer is asking their procurement team to make a judgement call on data they don’t have. And any charterer who moves alone on welfare faces a cost exposure their competitors don’t. So, change will need the market to move together.
What we learned in Singapore this month, in a room with charterers, owners, managers and financiers working through what a practical system would look like, is that the appetite for solving this is real. The question now isn’t whether, it’s how. And we’re working with members and partners to build the answer.
Which crew welfare metrics should the industry be measuring consistently and how can data improve transparency and accountability?
We’ve just finished a big industry survey looking at this with seafarers, owners and charterers. What matters most for all parties is reliable pay, guaranteed shore leave, real rest (not paper rest), connectivity, the ability to raise concerns without fear, decent living conditions, mental health support and better food.
That’s not a long list. And it’s consistent across everyone being asked.
Most of this data already exists somewhere in crew management systems, port data, invoices and bills, payroll records, inspection reports. The problem is it’s fragmented and not connected to the commercial systems charterers use. The transparency opportunity isn’t about collecting new data. It’s about connecting and validating what’s already there without creating additional burdens for those on board. Once a charterer can see and reward a credible vessel-level welfare picture, operators have a commercial reason to improve. Right now, that feedback loop simply doesn’t exist across the market.
How are geopolitical tensions affecting seafarers across key trade routes and has shipping made real progress on seafarer welfare since the pandemic?
The pandemic revealed how fragile the system was. Some things genuinely improved: connectivity, mental health awareness, more organizations working on wellbeing and welfare. There has been a tangible marked upwards shift in how much these topics appear in industry discussion.
But alongside this, there is a widening gap between ambition being communicated and the status quo in most of the industry outside the first mover group leading the way. There is still a limited seafarer voice in decision-making, welfare is rarely part of commercial decisions, and the split incentive issue is largely unresolved.
Geopolitical pressure is now adding new stress onto an incompletely recovered system. Rerouting extends voyages and time away from family. Sanctions create compliance anxiety for crew who had no say in their employer’s decisions. The shadow fleet has grown, and the people on those vessels are among the most exposed in the industry.
So, progress is real but it’s also insufficient.
How can industry collaboration help close the gap between policy and practice and what role can Singapore play in raising global crew welfare standards?
Policy isn’t the only bottleneck. The MLC sets a strong baseline, and frameworks exist and amendments are incoming. But the gap between policy and practice is a transparency and incentive problem and regulatory change is slow by its nature. When we’re looking at industry-led solutions for which there is a huge appetite, collaboration helps because it solves the collective action problem: if enough of the market moves together, the incentive structure can change. That’s why this work must be multi-stakeholder.
Singapore is significant and underutilized on welfare. It handles a huge share of global traffic, hosts influential owners, charterers and financiers, and has the regulatory authority to make its signals matter globally. What we found in April is that the motivation to lead is growing.
What practical steps should the industry on seafarer welfare take over the next twelve months?
There are four aspects, which is already a lot given how much we have going on across industry.
Firstly, committing to piloting a recognition mechanism in time charter decisions. We will be working with partners including Rightship and DNV to develop this. We will need owners to put vessels forward, charterers to use the output in procurement, and inspection bodies and vetting processes to integrate welfare data into existing workflows.
Charterers have signaled an interest in further collaboration which would be game-changing. The collective action problem doesn’t solve itself but a group of major charterers agreeing to preference recognized vessels is what breaks the deadlock.
Financiers need to start asking the welfare question now. They risk having exposed portfolios if we don’t see the likes of the Poseidon Principles integrating social considerations, and we’re talking to them about what that could look like.
Bring seafarers into the design. Any mechanism without genuine input and crew representation in its governance will lack the legitimacy to drive real change.
Ellie Besley-Gould
Ellie Besley-Gould is CEO of the Sustainable Shipping Initiative, where she leads work with organizations across the maritime sector to accelerate progress on sustainability. She is responsible for SSI’s strategy, partnerships and delivery, supporting collective action that drives practical change in shipping.