The Impact of Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation on Seafarers’ Rights

The situation of seafarers stranded in the Strait of Hormuz highlights their longstanding vulnerability to human rights abuses at sea. The widespread use of flags of convenience in the shipping industry not only exacerbates their exposure to such abuses but also impedes access to effective legal remedies. Against this background, this article examines the extent to which mandatory human rights due diligence frameworks may contribute to the protection of seafarers’ rights, focusing on shipping companies and cargo-owning companies.

 

A. Why Are Seafarers’ Rights a Matter of Concern?

Seafarers[1] engage in a demanding occupation, as the sea is inherently a harsh and unpredictable environment.[2]Moreover, working on board entails prolonged periods of isolation at sea and seafarers do not have a home to which they can return at the end of each working day. For them, the vessel serves both as a workplace and as a place of residence. Thus, while situations amounting to human rights abuses may arise in any workplace, seafarers, unlike land-based workers, have extremely limited opportunities to escape or protect themselves when exposed to such abuses. For these reasons, seafarers have long been particularly vulnerable to exploitation. Indeed, the situation of seafarers stranded in the Strait of Hormuz underscores a recurring reality within the shipping industry, namely that seafarers often face the most severe human consequences of geopolitical and operational disruptions, as was demonstrated during the COVID-19 crew change crisis.

This structural vulnerability is further exacerbated by the widespread use of flags of convenience. A vessel sailing under a flag of convenience operates under the legal and fiscal regime of a state other than that of its home country, typically in order to reduce costs.[3] Although this phenomenon can be traced back to earlier historical periods, the post–Second World War era marked a critical turning point in its modern development. Since the 1980s, their use has increased steadily.[4] In this regard, globalization has been one of the principal structural factors driving the expansion of flags of convenience in the shipping sector, as shipowners seek to reduce costs and enhance their competitiveness.[5]

Recent statistics published by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) indicate that the majority of vessels engaged in global maritime trade operate under flags of convenience. Although more than half of the world’s ship capacity is owned by owners in developed economies, the majority of that capacity is registered under flags of developing economies.[6] Based on UNCTAD data, the three largest flag states in the world are currently Liberia, Panama, and the Marshall Islands. However, a different ranking emerges when ship ownership is considered, with Greece, China, and Japan ranking as the top three ship-owning countries.[7]

Against this background, the advantages accruing to shipowners through the use of flags of convenience underpin the structural causes of adverse impacts on seafarers’ rights. As noted by the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF), seafarers working on such vessels may be exposed to unsafe living and working conditions, excessive working hours, and even abandonment.[8]  Furthermore, modern slavery represents a significant and widespread risk for workers in the shipping industry.[9]  Within this framework, vessels flying flags of convenience may be likened to “sweatshops at sea,” a term commonly associated with poor labour conditions on land.[10] The practice of flags of convenience not only renders seafarers particularly vulnerable to human rights abuses but also hinders their ability to access effective legal remedies. Access to remedies in open-registry states is significantly constrained for affected seafarers due to both factual and legal impediments.[11]

 

B. Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence as a Tool for the Protection of Seafarers’ Rights

Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), business enterprises are required to carry out a human rights due diligence (HRDD) process to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights.[12] In this regard, HRDD constitutes the core of the corporate responsibility to respect human rights.[13]  Since the adoption of the UNGPs, states have increasingly moved towards adopting mHRDD legislation at both regional and national levels. While these legislative frameworks differ in a number of respects, particularly in terms of the material scope, the personal scope, the type of obligations, enforcement mechanisms and sanctions, they pursue similar objectives.[14]

These instruments typically impose obligations on business enterprises irrespective of the sector in which they operate.[15] Given the significant role of the shipping industry in global trade, the maritime domain is of critical importance to the business and human rights agenda. Accordingly, the shipping industry both constitutes a component of the global value chains of other enterprises and has its own distinct value chains specific to its operations.[16] In other words, maritime transport may be embedded within the value chains of virtually all sectors. Consequently, adverse impacts on the human rights of seafarers may fall within the scope of the HRDD processes of both shipping companies and cargo-owning companies.[17]

Shipping companies subject to mHRDD legislation are required to carry out human rights due diligence. In this regard, the UN Human Rights Council has encouraged business enterprises in the global maritime industry to meet their responsibility to respect human rights, including by conducting an HRDD process.[18] The mandatory nature of such legislation may be regarded as a significant step towards ensuring respect for human rights within the shipping industry.Accordingly, adverse human rights impacts affecting seafarers fall within the scope of the HRDD process undertaken by the relevant shipping company. In particular, actual and potential adverse human rights impacts arising from seafarers’ working and living conditions should be considered as part of the HRDD process required under the legal framework.[19]

Furthermore, adverse human rights impacts arising from maritime transport at the logistics stage are covered by the HRDD process undertaken by the relevant cargo-owning companies. In this respect, the UNGPs recognize that business enterprises may adopt a risk-based approach to HRDD. Hence, where business enterprises have a large number of entities within their value chains, it may be impractical to undertake due diligence for adverse human rights impacts across all of them. In such circumstances, business enterprises should identify the main areas where the risk of adverse human rights impacts is most significant, whether this stems from the operating context of certain suppliers or clients, the nature of particular operations, products or services or other relevant considerations, and give priority to these areas within their HRDD processes.[20] Similarly, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive requires companies to conduct risk-based HRDD.[21] Accordingly, where it is not feasible to prevent, mitigate, bring to an end or minimise all identified adverse impacts simultaneously and to their full extent, companies are required to prioritise identified adverse impacts. Such prioritisation shall be based on the severity and likelihood of the adverse impacts.[22] Against this backdrop, maritime transport within value chains may be regarded as a high-risk area, particularly where vessels operate under flags of convenience, which are often associated with weaker regulatory oversight and enforcement.[23] In such contexts, salient human rights risks affecting seafarers are more likely to arise and may therefore warrant prioritisation within HRDD processes.

 

Conclusion 

As globalization has expanded, flags of convenience have become widespread in the shipping industry, with shipping companies seeking to reduce costs and enhance competitiveness. While seafarers have long been exposed to exploitation, the use of flags of convenience further exacerbates this problem. In this context, this phenomenon not only heightens the risk of human rights abuses but also limits seafarers’ access to effective legal remedies. Against this background, mHRDD legislation may constitute a significant regulatory framework for the protection of seafarers’ rights through mandatory HRDD processes and enhanced accountability mechanisms. As maritime transport may be embedded within the value chains of virtually all sectors, adverse human rights impacts affecting seafarers’ rights fall within the scope of the HRDD processes undertaken by both shipping companies and cargo-owning companies.

Note: This article is based on my presentation entitled “The Effect of mHRDD Legislation on Flags of Convenience in the Shipping Industry: A New Approach to an Old Problem?”, delivered at the 2026 Conference of the Global Business and Human Rights Scholars Association and the Teaching Business and Human Rights Forum. My participation in the conference was supported by the ITC Conference Grant funded through COST Action CA23103– Life, Liberty and Health: Ensuring Universal Protection of Human Rights at Sea (BlueRights).

 

Suggested citation: B. Karagedik, ‘The Impact of Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence Legislation on Seafarers’ Rights’, NOVA BHRE Blog, 25 June 2026

 

References:

[1] “seafarer means any person who is employed or engaged or works in any capacity on board a ship to which this Convention applies”, Maritime Labour Convention (signed 23 February 2006, entered into force 20 August 2013) 2952 UNTS 3, art. 2.1.f.

[2] Human Rights at Sea. (2022). The Geneva Declaration on Human Rights at Sea. Accessed at https://www.humanrightsatsea.org/sites/default/files/media-files/2022-02/GDHRAS_Jan_2022_Final_online_version_sp%20%281%29.pdf, p. 5.

[3] Cambridge Dictionary. Flag of Convenience. Accessed at https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/flag-of-convenience.

[4] Vuillemey, G. (2023). Evading Corporate Responsibilities: Evidence from the Shipping Industry. Social Science Research Network. Accessed at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4363353, p. 20.

[5] Couper, A. (1999). Voyages of Abuse Seafarers, Human Rights and International Shipping. UK: Pluto Press, p.2.

[6] UN Conference on Trade and Development. (2024). 2024 Review of Maritime Transport Navigating Maritime Chokepoints. Accessed at https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-2024, p. 50.

[7] UN Conference on Trade and Development. (2025). 2025 Review of Maritime Transport Staying the Course in Turbulent Waters. Accessed at https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/rmt2025_en.pdf, p. 50-51.

[8] International Transport Workers’ Federation. Flags of convenience. Accessed at https://www.itfglobal.org/en/sector/seafarers/flags-convenience.

[9] Usynin, M. (2024). Modern Slavery in Liner Shipping: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Disclosures. The International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations, 40(1), 1-36.

[10] Kates, M. (2019). Sweatshops, Exploitation, and the Case for a Fair Wage. The Journal of Political Philosopy, 27(1), 26-47.

[11] See also: Khaliq, U. (2015). Jurisdiction, Ships and Human Rights Treaties. H. Ringbom (Ed.), Jurisdiction over Ships Post-UNCLOS Developments in the Law of the Sea in (324-360. pp.). Leiden, Boston: Brill Nijhoff, p. 359.

[12] UN Human Rights Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework’ (21.03.2011) UN Doc A/HRC/17/31, Principle 15.

[13] McCorquodale, R. (2024). Business and Human Rights. UK: Oxford University Press, p. 123.

[14] Krajewski, M., Tonstad, K. and Wohltmann, F. (2021). Mandatory Human Rights Due Diligence in Germany and Norway: Stepping, or Striding, in the Same Direction? Business and Human Rights Journal, 6(3), 550-558.

[15] UNGPs, Principle 14.

[16] Ulfbeck, V. (2022). Maritime Value Chains and Liability for Work Injuries. CEPRI Studies on Private Governance, 7, 1-24, p. 23.

[17] See also: UN Global Compact Network Australia and Maritime Union of Australia. (2022). Modern Slavery within Maritime Shipping Supply Chains Guidance for Australian Businesses in Identifying, Managing and Mitigating Modern Slavery Risks within Maritime Shipping. Accessed at https://unglobalcompact.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Modern-Slavery-within-Maritime-Shipping-Supply-Chains.pdf.

[18] UN Human Rights Council, ‘Promoting and protecting the enjoyment of human rights by seafarers’ (16.06.2024) UN Doc A/HRC/RES/56/18, para. 8.

[19] See also: The Institute for Human Rights and Business, The Danish Institute for Human Rights and The Rafto Foundation for Human Rights. (2019). The Ship Lifecycle: Embedding Human Rights from Shipyard to Scrapyard. Accessed at https://ihrb-org.files.svdcdn.com/production/assets/uploads/briefings/Shipping_Lifecycle_June_19.pdf.

[20] UNGPs, Principle 17, Commentary.

[21] Directive (EU) 2024/1760 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 on corporate sustainability due diligence and amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulation (EU) 2023/2859, art. 5/1.

[22] Ibid., art. 9/1, 9/2.

[23] International Transport Workers’ Federation. (2023). ITF Human Rights Due Diligence Guidance Respecting The Human Rights of Seafarers in Global Supply Chains. Accessed at https://www.itfglobal.org/sites/default/files/node/resources/files/ITF-HRDD_Guidance.pdf, p.11.