Vetting

Why vetting exists

Vetting is the process by which a commercial party — an oil, chemical or trading company, a charterer, a terminal — assesses a ship's suitability before entrusting it with a cargo or a nomination. It is not a legal requirement: it is a form of private due diligence the market adopted once formal compliance with the conventions proved insufficient, on its own, to guarantee real operational safety. The SIRE programme was launched in 1993, four years after the Exxon Valdez (1989). The Erika (1999) and the Prestige (2002) came later: they did not create vetting, they made it unavoidable — and, on the public side, produced the European Union's Erika packages.

Vetting, class and PSC: three different logics

It is essential not to confuse these three control systems, which answer to different parties and follow different logics:

Table 1.1 — Vetting compared with class and PSC.

The vetting ecosystem

There is no single vetting programme: each market segment has developed its own, fed by the system maturity measured through company self-assessment.

Who inspects what: the three programmes' scopes overlap, and one ship can sit in two schemes.

The three major programmes, in summary

Table 1.2 — The three main vetting programmes.

SIRE 2.0: structure and principles

On 2 September 2024 OCIMF permanently withdrew the VIQ7 questionnaire and made SIRE 2.0 the programme's only tanker inspection tool. It is not an incremental update of the old SIRE: it is a radical transformation in how tankers are assessed. The change was not sudden — the Question Library was published in January 2022 to give the industry time to prepare, the roll-out began in June 2023, and it opened to all programme users on 22 January 2024.

From a static questionnaire to a dynamic regime

The old VIQ7 offered a fixed questionnaire, with binary yes/no answers, easily «learned by heart» by the crew ahead of inspection. SIRE 2.0 reverses this approach: each inspection generates a Compiled Vessel Inspection Questionnaire (CVIQ) tailored to that ship, and every question is assessed through one or more response tools.

There are four response tools. Hardware, for questions about structure, machinery, outfitting or equipment; Process, for questions about a procedure or documented process; Human, for questions about the crew's familiarity with a procedure or with operating a piece of equipment; and Photograph Comparison, for comparing the requested photograph with what the inspector finds on board. The point most often lost is that not every question uses three: OCIMF states that each question is assigned «one or more» response tools, and a question may carry only one.

The four SIRE 2.0 response tools and when each applies: every question is assigned one or more.

Distinctive features

Table 2.1 — Distinctive features of SIRE 2.0 compared with the previous VIQ7.

The inspection life cycle

How a SIRE 2.0 inspection is built, and how it closes

Module objectiveReconstruct the SIRE 2.0 inspection cycle from HVPQ/PIQ inputs and CVIQ compilation to operator comments and publication.

The previous module said the CVIQ is tailored to the ship. This one says where the measurements come from, on what scales the inspector answers, and what the operator can do afterwards. These are the three parts of the mechanism a company has real leverage over — and also the three most often skipped, leaving people preparing for an inspection of which they know only the day on board.

The life cycle of a SIRE 2.0 inspection, from the operator's two questionnaires to report publication.

Before: the two questionnaires the operator completes

The CVIQ does not come from nowhere. Before the inspector ever steps aboard, two operator-completed questionnaires have already narrowed the field of possible questions.

Table 3.1 — The two questionnaires the operator completes before the inspection.

How the CVIQ is assembled: four question categories

Each inspection's questionnaire is compiled algorithmically from the SIRE 2.0 Question Library, drawing on vessel type, outfitting, operational history and risk ranking. The questions come from four different families, and the difference between them is why the questionnaire cannot be studied.

Table 3.2 — The four question categories the CVIQ is assembled from.

How a single inspection's CVIQ is assembled: four families of question drawn algorithmically from the Question Library.

The response scales: one per response tool

There is no such thing as «the SIRE 2.0 scale». Each response tool has its own, and depending on the question it may be binary or graduated.

Table 3.3 — The response scales of the four SIRE 2.0 response tools.

After: the fourteen days

The report does not go to publication carrying only the inspector's voice. From the day the draft is released by the company that commissioned the inspection, the operator has fourteen days to enter their operator comments against each negative observation. They can keep adding comments after publication too, throughout the twelve months the report remains accessible.

TMSA 3: management system maturity

The Tanker Management and Self Assessment (TMSA) is the tool with which the company — not the individual ship — evaluates the maturity of its management system against key performance indicators and four ascending stages. It has existed since 2004; the third edition was published on 22 August 2017 and, from 1 January 2018, became the only edition available for new self-assessments in the TMSA system. TMSA 3 remains the current edition: no fourth edition has been published.

2017 is also the year in which — from 1 February — the self-assessment tool was moved inside the SIRE application, under a single login. The detail is worth keeping straight: TMSA did not «enter SIRE» in 2017 as content — charterers had been reading it alongside inspections long before — but as software.

The 13 elements of TMSA 3

TMSA3 updated the previous structure, adding a dedicated element for maritime security and revising environmental and energy management to incorporate efficiency and emissions topics:

Table 4.1 — The 13 elements of TMSA 3, with their official titles.

The four maturity levels

Table 4.2 — The four TMSA levels: Level 1 is the minimum expectation, Levels 2, 3 and 4 are increasing best practice.

An illustrative TMSA self-assessment by element: the values are for teaching, not real data from any company.

CDI: vetting for the chemical sector

Module objectiveDistinguish the structure, scope and interpretation of the CDI 10th Edition SIR, selecting the correct Chapter 5 variant without turning the report into a score.

The Chemical Distribution Institute (CDI) is the chemical industry's non-profit organisation dedicated to the safety and quality of the maritime transport of chemical products. It operates a vetting system parallel to SIRE, historically focused on chemical tankers, LPG carriers and parcel tankers.

The 10th Edition SIR and the expanded scope

The tenth edition of the Ship Inspection Report (10th Edition SIR) has been operational since 5 February 2024 and widened the scope beyond chemical tankers and LPG carriers — which CDI already covered — adding LNG carriers, product tankers and dry bulk. Every chapter of the questionnaire is generic except Chapter 5, on cargo systems, which exists in ship-type-specific versions. With the programme for liquefied CO₂ carriers, announced on 31 October 2025 and operational from 12 November 2025, those versions now number six.

Table 5.1 — The six versions of Chapter 5 in the 10th Edition SIR (cargo systems specific to ship type).

How CDI reports the result — and why it is not a score

Unlike the response-tool model of SIRE 2.0, CDI keeps a structured questionnaire in which every question carries a category. There are four categories, not three: alongside the three that count towards the assessment sit the Non-scoring questions, collected for information only.

Table 5.2 — The four question categories in the CDI questionnaire.

CDI and decarbonisation: two different things

Since the tenth edition launched, the CDI-Marine database has offered an environmental benchmarking facility covering EEXI, EEDI and CII, letting operators and charterers compare a vessel anonymously against real fleet data. It is an analysis tool, not an inspection check. The July 2024 amendments (version 10.5) added something different: an actual question, 1.1.37, requiring vessels of 5000 GT and above to hold the Statement of Compliance for fuel consumption data verification (IMO DCS).

CDI is not only about ships

CDI-Marine is one of four schemes, and anyone working in chemicals sooner or later meets the other three as well.

Table 5.3 — The four CDI schemes.

RightShip: dry bulk vetting

Module objectiveInterpret the Safety Score, RISQ inspection and GHG Rating correctly, distinguishing indicators, vetting rules and customer criteria.

In the dry bulk and general cargo segment, the dominant reference is RightShip, with its own RISQ inspection programme and two summary indicators that guide chartering decisions: the Safety Score and the GHG Rating.

Safety Score: from risk prediction to commercial filter

The Safety Score is a score from 0 to 5 that replaced the earlier Risk Rating — the predictive star rating housed on the Qi platform — and went live alongside the new RightShip Platform on 8 February 2021. It is not a single model: values 0, 1 and 2 are assigned by binary rules — 0 identifies a sanctioned vessel, ineligible for vetting — while 3, 4 and 5 come out of a statistical model built on more than twenty safety considerations and five years of vessel, DOC, class and flag data. It is visible to all RightShip members and is the first filter in chartering due diligence.

The Safety Score: 0, 1 and 2 come from binary rules, 3, 4 and 5 from a statistical model.

A rule that is changing the market: the inspection age trigger

The mechanism is simple and blunt: a dry bulk or general cargo ship that, past a given age, has no valid RightShip inspection sees its Safety Score set to 2 out of 5 and cannot pass a RightShip vetting nomination. The original calendar — announced in October 2024 — set 12 years from March 2025 and 10 years from March 2026. After industry feedback led by INTERCARGO, RightShip published a revised four-phase timeline on 11 December 2024.

Table 6.1 — The four phases of the inspection age trigger, per the revised timeline of 11 December 2024.

GHG Rating: the other side of the coin

Alongside the Safety Score, RightShip assigns each ship a GHG Rating on a scale from A (most efficient) to E (least efficient). The old seven-point A–G scale was dropped on 6 December 2023, precisely to align with the five points of the IMO's CII scale. The comparison is relative: the vessel is measured in grams of CO₂ per tonne-nautical-mile against ships of the same type within ±10% of its deadweight. And it is a rating of design, not of operation: it is built on EEDI, EVDI and EEXI with a speed-corrected methodology, so that an engine power limitation does not distort the comparison. The rating feeds into charterers' sustainability policies and, increasingly, into chartering contract clauses.

Table 6.2 — RightShip tools and their typical commercial use.

What there is beyond the score

Reducing RightShip to the Safety Score and the GHG Rating leaves out half the platform a charterer actually works with.

Table 6.3 — RightShip's other tools.

How long an inspection is worth, and who may carry it out

The three schemes seen so far apply different criteria, but they share two questions that come up in the office every week: how long is this report still useful, and who is entitled to come aboard. These are commercial questions before they are technical ones — mistiming an inspection's expiry costs more than any observation.

Validity is not a single number

«Twelve months» is the convenient answer, and it is wrong in two cases out of three.

Table 7.1 — Report validity across the three schemes.

How long an inspection report stays valid across the three schemes.

Who may carry out the inspection

Neither of the two main schemes leaves the choice of inspector to chance, and knowing the requirements is part of controlling access to the ship.

For SIRE, Category 1 accreditation — ocean-going tankers — requires nomination by an OCIMF member that is also a submitting company, a valid officer-level STCW certificate, 60 months of sea service on vessels over 3,000 gt of which 18 months in a senior rank (master, chief officer, chief engineer, first or second engineer) on tankers, advanced dangerous-cargo training, a valid ISO/ISM auditor certification, and two accompanied inspections before the course and two after. An alternative route exists for candidates with less than 60 months' sea service who work in the marine assurance function of the nominating company. Category 3 covers barges. Renewal runs through a performance review plus refresher training, and the inspector must carry a valid SIRE accreditation card.

For CDI, inspections may only be performed by accredited inspectors appointed by the Marine Inspection Department. One further rule is worth knowing: an inspector may not carry out consecutive inspections on the same ship where technical management has not changed. Report distribution is limited to the shipowner and the charterer that commissioned the inspection.

Human factors: the 9 Performance Influencing Factors

Module objectiveUse Performance Influencing Factors as causal context for Human observations and translate them into action on procedures, organisation, ergonomics and training.

One of the most significant innovations of SIRE 2.0 is the systematic introduction of Performance Influencing Factors (PIFs): nine human and organisational factors that explain why the execution of a task was not as expected. They need handling with precision, because this is the point on which the most inaccurate material circulates: PIFs are not nine competencies to display, and they do not apply to every question. They attach to negative Human observations, and the inspector selects one to account for the observation.

The official wording is the one OCIMF published in the SIRE 2.0 Programme – Introduction and Guidance, version 1.0 of January 2022. They are not one-word labels: they are descriptions.

The nine SIRE 2.0 Performance Influencing Factors and the kind of fix each one points to.

Table 8.1 — The nine SIRE 2.0 Performance Influencing Factors, plus the «no PIF» option.

How it actually works

When the execution of a task is not as expected, the inspector records a negative Human observation and attaches the factor that, in their judgement, accounts for it. The whole value to the company sits here. The same observation — «the officer did not carry out the required check» — means something entirely different depending on whether it is attributed to factor 3 (the procedure was not accessible, or was inaccurate), to factor 5 (fatigue and time constraints) or to factor 9 (they had never had the chance to practise). The first calls for a document to be fixed, the second for work organisation, the third for a training plan. Reading a fleet's PIFs is how you tell which of the three.

Ship preparation: hardware and procedures

Module objectiveOrganise a pre-vetting review that checks physical condition, documentation and consistency between stated procedures and observable practice.

Physical ship preparation remains a pillar of inspection success, but it must be organised as a continuous management process, not a last-minute intervention. A good pre-vetting programme clearly distinguishes what to check on hardware from what to check on procedures.

Highest-impact hardware areas

Table 9.1 — Most frequently observed hardware areas.

Documentary and procedural consistency

SIRE 2.0 mainly penalises inconsistencies between documents, stated practice and observed behaviour. Effective procedural preparation checks three levels together: that the procedure exists and is up to date; that the crew knows it; that it is actually followed in daily practice, not only when an inspector arrives.

Crew preparation: real competence

With SIRE 2.0, crew preparation changes radically in nature. The old approach — memorising expected VIQ7 answers — not only no longer works, but can be counterproductive: a crew that answers a dynamic CVIQ «by rote» reveals exactly the lack of real competence the inspector is trying to verify.

From rote training to demonstrated competence

Table 10.1 — Paradigm shift in crew preparation.

An effective preparation programme

• In-depth familiarisation of every new crew member with critical procedures, not just a sign-off acknowledging they have read them.
• Periodic practical drills on high-risk operations (mooring, bunkering, cargo operations), with honest debriefs.
• Inspection simulations conducted by a superior or a peer, with unexpected, non-agreed questions.
• Reporting culture: near-misses and doubts expressed without fear of repercussions, which is what a «safety culture» PIF really observes.
• Structured post-inspection debrief, to bring lessons learned to the whole fleet, not just the individual ship.

Observation management and rejection risk

Module objectiveManage an observation from cause to effectiveness review while assessing severity, recurrence, distribution and the recipient's commercial criteria.

Every inspection generates observations. How the company manages them — not their mere existence — determines whether an inspection with observations remains a managed event or becomes a commercial problem.

From finding to commercial risk

It is not the number of observations that produces rejection, but the pattern they form: it is a conceptual model, not a numerical threshold.

Not all observations carry the same weight. An isolated observation on a minor detail rarely compromises ship acceptance; a pattern of repeated observations in the same area (for example maintenance or crew competence) instead signals a systemic problem, and that is what really alarms a sophisticated charterer.

The closure process

• Immediate analysis of the observation: cause, not just symptom (the same root-cause logic used in incident investigation applies).
• Corrective action with an owner, a deadline and evidence of completion (photo, certificate, updated record).
• Effectiveness verification: has the action really removed the cause, or does the observation risk recurring at the next inspection?
• Communication to the charterer/client, when required, with evidence of closure and not just a statement of intent.
• Sharing the lesson learned with the rest of the fleet, to prevent the same observation on other ships.

When the ship risks commercial rejection

Rejection risk grows when observations touch Statutory/critical areas (CDI), when they involve recurring human factors, or when the RightShip Safety Score falls below the threshold that particular charterer has set itself. In these cases, reaction time matters as much as the quality of the response.

Vetting KPIs and continuous improvement

Module objectiveBuild a dashboard combining quantitative and qualitative indicators without reducing SIRE, TMSA or RightShip to one number.

A good company-level vetting system does not simply react inspection by inspection: it builds a dashboard of indicators that makes it possible to see trends, anticipate problems and demonstrate credible continuous improvement to clients.

The essential KPI dashboard

Illustrative example: count and closure time must be read together with severity, recurrence and context. Fewer observations do not, by themselves, demonstrate improvement.

Table 12.1 — Company vetting KPI dashboard.

Vetting and the commercial chartering relationship

Vetting is not an isolated formality: it is an integral part of the process by which a ship is proposed, assessed and ultimately accepted or rejected for a charter. Understanding this relationship helps the vetting officer engage effectively with the company's commercial functions.

The role of vetting in the chartering process

• Pre-fixture screening: even before commercial negotiation, the charterer checks the Safety Score, SIRE/CDI history and TMSA to decide whether the ship is «on the list».
• Formal vetting: once negotiation begins, an updated inspection is requested if the existing one is no longer valid or does not cover the client's requirements.
• Contractual conditions: the charter party may include clauses making operations conditional on a valid vetting outcome for the entire duration of the charter.
• Monitoring during the charter: a serious observation during the charter period can trigger suspension clauses or a request for immediate action.

Talking to the commercial team: the right language

The vetting officer who can translate technical outcomes into terms the commercial team understands (delay risk, rejection risk, timeline for closing observations) becomes a strategic partner, not just a compliance function. A good internal vetting report always answers three questions: is the ship acceptable now? If not, when will it be? What is needed to speed things up?

Emerging trends in vetting

Module objectiveMonitor programme development while distinguishing published updates, inspection-traceability data and future hypotheses not yet formalised.

The vetting system continues to evolve, driven by digitalisation, the decarbonisation agenda and the extension of due diligence to market segments previously less commercially regulated.

Convergence between programmes

CDI's expansion beyond traditional chemical tankers (10th Edition SIR) and the tightening of RightShip thresholds in dry bulk point to a common trend: vetting programmes, born for specific segments, tend to overlap and cover an increasingly wide range of ship types. For the vetting officer this means needing to know more than one system even when operating in a single market segment.

Decarbonisation and vetting

CDI includes environmental data and checks within its scope, while RightShip keeps the GHG Rating, CII and vetting rules distinct. The commercial weight of environmental performance therefore depends on the programme and on each recipient's criteria. Any future development of SIRE should be described only once published by OCIMF.

Digitalisation and inspection traceability

SIRE 2.0 uses a vessel-compiled CVIQ, photographs and tablet records. The system records the date, time and GPS position at the start, suspension, resumption and completion of the inspection, together with observation timestamps. These data increase the traceability of inspection activity; they do not constitute continuous monitoring of the vessel. Companies that invest early in onboard data, condition monitoring and digital reporting will arrive better prepared for the next cycles of vetting programme updates.