117

1 INTRODUCTION

Amid the shifting currents of global trade and maritime

regulation, Malaysia Maritime Week (MMW) has established

itself as a pivotal forum for shaping national maritime

discourse. Convened under the leadership of the Ministry of

Transport Malaysia and supported by key maritime agencies

and industry stakeholders, MMW functions not merely as an

annual event but as a deliberate mechanism for coordinated

strategic engagement. It brings together public authorities,

private sector leaders, academic institutions, and

international collaborators. Each actor contributes a distinct

yet interdependent perspective to address common concerns.

The critical issues on the agenda include current accelerating

digital transformation, meeting decarbonisation imperatives,

aligning fragmented regulatory regimes, and strengthening

the maritime talent pipeline [1], [2]. In this context, MMW is

more than a platform for dialogue; it is a catalyst for systemic

realignment within Malaysia’s maritime ecosystem

Malaysia’s geographic advantage along the Straits

of Malacca, a critical artery in global maritime trade,

grants it more than mere logistical relevance. It

positions the nation as a central actor in shaping

regional maritime policy, advancing port

infrastructure, and fostering excellence in maritime

education and training. This is not a passive role

assumed by circumstance but a strategic posture

backed by deliberate national policy. Official data from

the Ministry of Transport affirms that the maritime

sector constitutes a substantial contributor to

Malaysia’s gross domestic product. This contribution is

reinforced by sustained governmental efforts to elevate

port competitiveness, streamline logistics systems, and

uphold full alignment with international maritime

conventions established by the International Maritime

Organization. The evidence points to a country that is

not content with being a waypoint in global shipping,

but one that seeks to lead through policy innovation,

institutional capacity, and operational excellence [3].

The concept behind MMW is aligned with best

practices in maritime governance, which emphasize

Toward a Human-Centric and Collaborative Maritime

Future: A Thematic Synthesis of Malaysia Maritime

Week 2025

A.S. Kamis, A.F. Ahmad Fuad, S.A. Ali, W.N. Wan Mansor, S.Z.A. Syed Ahmad &

M.F. Ali Akhbar

University Malaysia Terengganu, Terengganu, Malaysia

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a thematic synthesis of panel discussions held during Malaysia Maritime Week

2025, a national platform convened to address the evolving challenges in maritime transformation. Using a

thematic analysis approach, the study discovered four interdependent themes namely People, Technology, Policy

and Regulation, and Collaboration and Ecosystem, each explored through multiple subthemes that reflect both

empirical insights and normative direction. The findings reveal a sector in transition, digitalization,

decarbonization, and workforce realignment, while striving to embed psychological safety, inclusive training,

equitable compliance, and regional cooperation are at the heart of maritime governance. This paper contributes

to the evidence base for policy reform, strategic innovation, and shared talent development, offering a roadmap

for maritime stakeholders to co-author a resilient and sustainable future.

http://www.transnav.eu

the International Journal

on Marine Navigation

and Safety of Sea Transportation

Volume 20

Number 1

March 2026

DOI: 10.12716/1001.20.01.13

118

inclusive, cross-sectoral platforms to co-create

solutions in complex and high-risk environments [4].

Internationally, forums such as Singapore Maritime

Week and Nor-Shipping serve similar roles,

reinforcing the importance of stakeholder convergence

in times of regulatory uncertainty and technological

disruption. In this regard, MMW reflects an

understanding that maritime transformation cannot be

siloed. Those sustainable outcomes demand

coordinated strategies across technology adoption,

skills development, policy frameworks, and

institutional cooperation [5].

This paper synthesizes the key insights from MMW

2025 through a thematic analysis of panel

contributions, with a view to capturing emerging

consensus, practical tensions, and policy implications.

In doing so, it contributes to the evidence base for

maritime policy reform, innovation adoption, and

workforce transformation in Southeast Asia and

beyond [6].

2 RESEARCH AIMS

This paper synthesizes the panel discussions through a

thematic lens, identifying interrelated themes through

thematic analysis. Thematic analysis is widely used for

identifying and interpreting patterns of meaning in

qualitative data, especially in policy and governance

research. The approach developed by Braun and

Clarke emphasizes flexibility and researcher

reflexivity, making it particularly suitable for

exploratory, complex topics such as maritime policy

reform [7]. Each theme is unpacked into subthemes

that capture the empirical depth and strategic direction

of the dialogue, offering a structured overview of the

collective maritime thinking that emerged from MMW

2025. In doing so, this synthesis contributes not only to

documenting the event but to informing ongoing

reform, investment, and governance efforts across the

maritime sector in Malaysia and beyond.

3 METHODOLOGY

This study adopts a qualitative content analysis

methodology to examine the thematic insights

emerging from the MMW 2025 panel sessions as shown

in Figure 1. The objective was to capture, categorize,

and critically evaluate the key ideas, concerns, and

recommendations presented by speakers from various

segments of the maritime ecosystem, including

government agencies, shipping companies, training

institutions, international organizations, and

technology providers.

3.1 Data Collection

The core empirical material for this research is drawn

from transcripts recorded during the speeches and

discussions held on Day 1 of Malaysia Maritime Week

2025. These included keynote addresses, moderated

panel conversations, and high-level industry

dialogues. In total, four individual speeches and one

panel discussion were examined. The content

addressed a range of strategic themes, including the

development of maritime human capital, the

integration of emerging technologies, the reform of

policy frameworks, and the dynamics of cross-sectoral

collaboration. The selected data reflects both the

breadth and depth of stakeholder perspectives,

offering a grounded foundation for thematic analysis.

3.2 Thematic Coding Framework

A deductive-inductive hybrid approach was employed

to construct the thematic framework. Four high-level

themes namely, People, Technology, Policy &

Regulation, and Collaboration & Ecosystem, as shown

in Table 1 were derived deductively based on pre-

existing literature on maritime transformation [8].

Subthemes within each domain were then identified

inductively through iterative close reading and coding

of the transcripts.

3.3 The process followed these steps:

Figure 1. Process flow

3.4 Empirical Synthesis

To ensure neutrality and consistency, panellist

statements were not treated as individual opinions but

were synthesized into collective thematic narratives.

The analysis emphasized empirical statements,

including policy recommendations, descriptions of

operational challenges, and reported practices or

initiatives. Where possible, references to data (e.g.,

workforce shortage projections, training program

gaps, system failure examples) were extracted and

contextualized as qualitative evidence.

3.5 Validation and Triangulation

Findings were triangulated using secondary sources

such as industry reports, academic literature, and IMO

policy documents to validate alignment between

MMW discussions and global maritime trends. This

step enhanced the external validity and relevance of

the conclusions drawn.

119

Table 1. Thematic table of the day 1 MMW 2025

Panel background

People

Technology

Policy &

Regulation

Collaboration

& Ecosystem

Keynote speaker and moderator for the forum is an experienced Vice President

from one of Malaysia’s foremost maritime logistics providers

√

Panel 1 is the Marine Director of a prominent international tanker association.

√

Panel 2 is the Managing Director of a global maritime safety forum.

√

Panel 3 is the Chief Executive Officer of an internationally recognised marine

contractor’s association

√

Panel 4 is the Chief Executive of a leading maritime academy in Malaysia

√

Abbreviations:

TR - Training and Reskilling

PS - Psychological Safety and Gender Diversity

CT - Career Transition

DD - Digital Divide

HA - Human–Automation Balance and Cybersecurity

HD - Human-Factor Design

OF - Operational Fit & Realism

CF - Compliance & Funding Equity

IA - Industry-Academia Synergy

TL - Shared Talent Responsibility and Regional Capacity Leadership

4 DISCUSSION

4.1 People

The first major theme identified through the discourse

analysis of Malaysia Maritime Week 2025 (Day 1) is

People, reflecting the growing consensus that maritime

sustainability, resilience, and innovation are

inextricably linked to the condition, development, and

empowerment of the workforce. As the global

maritime industry contends with intersecting

pressures such as technological disruption,

environmental regulation, and demographic change,

there is an increasing recognition that human capital

must be placed at the core of strategic planning and

policy design.

Three key subthemes emerged within this domain

namely, 1) Training and Reskilling 2) Psychological

Safety and Gender Diversity, and 3) Career Transition

Taken together, these subthemes illustrate a

paradigm shift in maritime human resource

development. From a narrow focus on technical

proficiency toward a broader, more integrated

approach that considers psychosocial well-being,

inclusivity, and long-term career viability. The panel

discussions emphasized that without deliberate and

sustained investment in people, not only as labor but

as strategic assets.

4.1.1 Training and Reskilling

The panel collectively emphasized that training and

reskilling must be redefined as strategic imperatives,

not discretionary activities, in the face of technological

transformation and sustainability demands within the

maritime industry. As the sector accelerates toward

decarbonization, digitalization, and automation, the

workforce must be equipped not only to adapt but to

lead these transitions. This includes acquiring new

competencies in alternative fuel handling such as LNG,

hydrogen and ammonia, in addition to digital

navigation systems, predictive analytics, and

integrated shipboard technologies. This need for

workforce transformation is echoed in research

highlighting that digitalization and decarbonization

are reshaping seafaring roles and driving major

training demands [9], [10], [11].

The panel noted that emerging fuels and smart ship

technologies introduce complex safety, compliance,

and operational challenges, requiring targeted

upskilling programs. Without proactive training

investment, there is a risk that portions of the existing

workforce, particularly those trained under traditional

systems, will become obsolete or excluded from next-

generation operations. This issue is particularly

pronounced among small and medium-sized

enterprises (SMEs), many of whom lack the

infrastructure or capital to sustain long-term training

initiatives. Studies confirm that automation is

increasing demand for digital skills while risking

displacement of traditional maritime roles—especially

without proper retraining initiatives [12].

Empirical data reinforced these concerns. One

speaker shared that 52% of offshore incidents in the

past year were classified as line of fire incidents,

frequently caused by insufficient hazard awareness

and short safety training cycles. In many cases, new

entrants receive just one week of preparatory training

before undertaking complex offshore assignments

which can exposed them to high-risk environments.

The panel advocated for continuous professional

development (CPD) systems and lifelong learning

models, noting successful cases such as a CPD app that

supports 9,000 Dynamic Positioning officers in real-

time skill enhancement. Academic literature supports

the need for lifelong and modular learning in maritime

education, particularly as operations become more

technologically complex [13].

Training was also positioned as a critical enabler of

decarbonization goals. The panel cited that recent

emissions reductions, up to 31% compared to IMO

baseline, were achieved through technical measures

supported by seafarer training in energy management,

voyage optimization, and operational efficiency. This

aligns with research showing digitalization and crew

training as pivotal in achieving decarbonization targets

in shipping and port operations [14], [15].

However, a cautionary note was raised, success in

emissions reduction must not come at the cost of

120

eroding human judgment. Case studies were presented

where digital over-reliance led to missed navigation

cues, underscoring the importance of balanced training

that cultivates both digital and situational awareness.

Supporting research underscores the importance of

maintaining situational awareness in increasingly

automated environments to avoid cognitive over-

reliance on digital systems [16].

The need to embed training reforms into regulatory

frameworks was another recurring theme. The panel

called for revisions to the STCW Convention to include

training modules on green energy systems, AI-

supported operations, and integrated data

management. Such inclusion would ensure global

alignment, reduce costs for individual seafarers, and

improve equity across flag states. Research proposes

new maritime engineering education curricula on

autonomous ships, alternative fuels and hybrid

systems aligned with the STCW convention [17].

The importance of simulation-based learning and

modular curriculum designs was also highlighted as a

strategy to enhance flexibility and accessibility for both

new and experienced personnel. Studies suggest that

simulation-based and flexible modular programs are

crucial for preparing crews for a digital and automated

maritime environment [18].

Addressing regional imbalances, the panel

highlighted Malaysia’s potential leadership in

standardizing maritime workforce training across

Southeast Asia. Government-backed programs such as

Perbadanan Tabung Pembangunan Kemahiran (PTPK)

loans and hybrid Department of Skills Development

certification models [19], were cited as promising

mechanisms for improving access to reskilling,

particularly among underserved communities and

SMEs. This is consistent with research advocating for

education systems that address generational and

regional gaps while supporting maritime sustainability

goals [20].

Finally, the panel emphasized that training cannot

be effective without systemic support. Time and

financial constraints remain significant barriers,

particularly for employers operating under tight

margins. Therefore, workforce development should be

co-financed through industry-government-academia

partnerships, with training institutions serving as

strategic platforms for both upskilling and regulatory

compliance. This model of public-private-academic

collaboration is increasingly supported in research on

maritime workforce resilience and industry

sustainability [21].

In summary, the panel concluded that training and

reskilling represent the cornerstone of a sustainable

and future-ready maritime sector. The challenge is not

merely to catch up with change, but to prepare the

workforce to lead the transformation, ensuring safety,

operational excellence, and industry competitiveness

in an increasingly complex global environment.

4.1.2 Psychological Safety and Gender Diversity

The panel underscored that psychological safety

and gender diversity are foundational to human-

centered maritime operations, not peripheral concerns.

Both are critical to ensuring that every individual,

regardless of rank, background, or identity, can

engage, communicate, and contribute without fear of

ridicule, punishment, or exclusion. This is supported

by studies showing that inclusive work environments

and attention to gender equity positively influence

organizational culture and workforce engagement in

maritime contexts [22], [23].

A recurring theme in the discussion was that

maritime safety and operational resilience depend on

more than technical competence; they depend on an

inclusive culture where crew members feel safe to

express concerns, admit limitations, and speak up

when something is wrong. The panel collectively

acknowledged that such safety is not merely physical

or procedural, it is psychological and cultural. This

reflects broader research which finds that

psychological safety is a critical factor for team

effectiveness and proactive safety behaviors, especially

in high-risk fields like maritime operations [24], [25].

The evolution toward behavioral-based safety

culture was recognized as a major step forward. Today,

more organizations empower crew to stop unsafe

operations and report concerns without fear of

retribution, a practice that contrasts sharply with the

punitive norms of previous decades. However, the

panel emphasized that these improvements are not

universal. In many regions and organizations,

psychological safety remains fragile, especially for

junior officers, cadets, or underrepresented groups,

who may feel pressured to remain silent in hierarchical

or culturally rigid environments. Supporting evidence

shows that women and minority groups often report

lower psychological safety, especially when

organizational strategies downplay diversity rather

than actively supporting it [26], [27].

In this context, the issue of gender diversity

emerged as a mirror of broader representational and

psychological barriers. A particularly telling moment

came when a speaker described using AI to generate

maritime-themed images. The initial result depicted an

all-male crew, only after explicitly prompting the

system to include women did a more balanced image

emerge. This anecdote served as a metaphor for the

industry’s systemic blind spots where even our digital

tools replicate the gendered assumptions embedded in

our institutions and cultures. This insight aligns with

research emphasizing that the maritime industry

continues to struggle with entrenched male-dominated

norms, and that increasing women's visibility remains

a challenge [28], [29].

The panel agreed that such perceptions, whether

human or algorithmic, are not trivial. They reflect,

reinforce, and sometimes silence the experiences of

women and other minority groups in maritime spaces.

The lack of representation in imagery, leadership, and

training content signals to women that they are

outsiders in an industry still dominated by male

norms. This affects not only recruitment and retention

but also the ability of women to feel psychologically

safe, heard, and respected on board ships or in

operational settings. This point is echoed by studies

showing that gender underrepresentation in maritime

education, leadership, and training limits women’s

sense of belonging and professional growth [30], [31].

Addressing these dual challenges requires systemic

change. The panel advocated for inclusive training

environments that normalize diverse perspectives and

121

actively dismantle discrimination or tokenism;

leadership development programs that emphasize

empathy, listening, and accountability; and policy

design that integrates gender equity and mental health

safeguards. These recommendations are consistent

with research advocating for structural and policy-

level diversity management in maritime institutions to

ensure both mental health and gender equity are built

into operational design [29], [32].

Importantly, psychological safety was not framed

as the responsibility of the individual to self-regulate,

but as the responsibility of systems and leadership to

foster through culture, communication, and design. A

psychologically safe and gender-inclusive workplace is

one where mistakes are treated as learning

opportunities, where feedback flows across ranks and

identities, and where every person feels valued, not

because of their differences, but because of them.

Scholars have similarly stressed that long-term

organizational safety and equity depend on

leadership-driven change in culture—not just

individual adaptation [33].

In conclusion, the panel affirmed that sustainability,

safety, and diversity are interdependent goals. An

industry that ignores gendered experiences or

suppresses psychological expression cannot truly

claim to be resilient or future-ready. True

transformation will come not from new rules alone, but

from inclusive cultures that empower every seafarer to

thrive mentally, professionally, and equitably.

4.1.3 Career Transition

The panel acknowledged that the maritime

industry must confront a hard truth, seafaring is no

longer a lifelong career for many. Changing

generational expectations, increased psychological

strain, regulatory complexity, and post-pandemic

workforce attrition have made career longevity at sea

increasingly unsustainable for a significant portion of

the workforce. Several studies support this shift, with

findings showing that younger seafarers often plan

short-term sea service before transitioning ashore,

citing personal and professional reasons such as family

life, social isolation, and lack of long-term development

opportunities [34], [35].

The discussion revealed that many experienced

mariners are exiting the profession earlier than in

previous decades, while younger entrants increasingly

view seafaring as a stepping stone rather than a

destination. Research has shown that clearly structured

career paths from sea to shore can help retain expertise

and boost job satisfaction by recognizing maritime

experience as valuable across the sector [36], [37].

One significant concern raised was the lack of

formal mechanisms to support career transition. Many

seafarers are left to navigate this shift on their own,

without structured upskilling pathways or recognition

of their onboard experience in shore-side employment

markets. The importance of stackable qualifications

and modular certifications for both sea and land roles

has been highlighted in literature as a critical strategy

to support maritime talent mobility [38], [39].

The integration of Continuous Professional

Development (CPD) was presented as a successful

practice. Tools such as competency frameworks and

real-time skills apps which already been used by

thousands of DP officers, can serve not just to maintain

certification, but to position seafarers for new career

directions. However, studies emphasize the need for

these systems to expand into soft skills, leadership, and

sustainability domains to align with future shore-

based demands [38].

Financial and cultural barriers were also

highlighted. Many seafarers hesitate to invest time or

money in post-sea career development due to

uncertainty, lack of guidance, or fear of reduced

income during the transition. This issue is particularly

prevalent in developing maritime nations, where

contract work dominates and institutional support is

limited [40].

Importantly, the discussion situated career

transition within the broader sustainability discourse.

If the industry wants to attract new generations while

retaining institutional knowledge, it must offer long-

term, humane career models, not just physically

demanding roles with limited future planning. This

includes preparing cadets not only for their first sea

job, but for an entire arc of career possibilities,

including in maritime law, ESG compliance, smart

shipping, or port digitalization [41], [42].

The panel concluded that career transition is not a

sign of exit or failure, but a strategic redeployment of

maritime talent. It allows for the retention of

experienced personnel, diversifies the leadership

pipeline, and strengthens shore-based functions with

real-world operational insight. Moving forward, the

industry must formalize this pathway, ensuring that

every seafarer who steps ashore brings with them not

only experience, but renewed value and purpose.

4.2 Technology

The second core theme identified in this study is

“Technology”, which emerged prominently across

keynote speeches and technical panels as both a driver

of transformation and a source of structural challenge

within the maritime industry. While the sector

increasingly embraces digitalization, automation, and

emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence

(AI), remote operations, and alternative propulsion

systems, the discourse highlighted that the

technological transition is not value-neutral. It has

profound implications for workforce readiness,

operational risk, and the design of maritime systems.

Panel discussions revealed that technological

innovation in the maritime domain is occurring across

two interrelated axes: (1) the digitalization of maritime

operations, encompassing smart navigation systems,

predictive analytics, real-time monitoring, and

automated port logistics; and (2) the transition to low-

and zero-carbon technologies, including alternative

fuels (e.g., LNG, hydrogen, ammonia), energy-efficient

ship designs, and emissions tracking mechanisms

mandated by international regulation.

Within this broader context, two subthemes were

distilled, namely, 1) Digital Divide 2) Human-

Automation Balance and Cybersecurity.

Taken together, the technology-related discussions

demonstrated that while digital tools and energy-

efficient innovations are indispensable to maritime

122

sustainability and competitiveness, they also create

new categories of risk and exclusion. Successful

integration of technology will therefore depend not

only on hardware deployment or regulatory

compliance, but also on human-centered design,

training adaptation, and equity in technological access.

The maritime sector must evolve toward a digital

future that is not only intelligent and efficient but also

inclusive, ethical, and operationally resilient.

4.2.1 Digital Divide

The panel emphasized that the digital divide within

the maritime industry has emerged as a significant

barrier to inclusive innovation and sustainable

workforce development. While digital transformation

is widely recognized as essential to enhancing

operational efficiency, regulatory compliance, and

environmental performance, the unequal distribution

of digital access, infrastructure, and literacy presents

persistent structural challenges.

Panelists discussed how large companies and port

authorities are rapidly adopting smart technologies

such as automated port systems, predictive analytics,

and remote monitoring, while many SMEs and

maritime training institutions, especially in the Global

South, lag behind. Research confirms that SMEs face

compounded digital disadvantages due to lack of

infrastructure, limited technical capacity, and

underdeveloped training programs [43].

The panel observed that this digital gap is not only

structural but also generational. Experienced seafarers

accustomed to analog systems often struggle to adapt

to new technologies, while younger recruits, though

more digitally fluent, lack integrated, practical digital

training. This divide is well-documented in other

sectors, where older workforces face digital

marginalization and younger workers lack sufficient

training scaffolding [44].

Empirical evidence shared during the panel

suggested major limitations in current maritime

education systems, particularly regarding

cybersecurity, electronic navigation, and digital fleet

management. Research supports this concern: gaps in

tailored digital training and lack of infrastructure for

SMEs perpetuate systemic inequality in technology

adoption [45].

Panelists also recounted real-world cases where

insufficient training in advanced systems, like weather-

routing software, led to operational failures. This risk

of “automation without understanding” echoes

broader research findings that digital deployments

without parallel workforce preparation often fail to

deliver benefits and can increase safety risks [43].

To bridge this divide, the panel advocated for

stronger investment in infrastructure, curriculum

updates that prioritize digital skills, and financial

mechanisms to help SMEs onboard digital

technologies. These recommendations align with

scholarly calls for multi-stakeholder interventions,

government, academia, and industry to tackle digital

inequality and enable inclusive technological

transitions [46].

In conclusion, the panel framed the digital divide

not merely as a technology lag but as a threat to

equitable progress and long-term sector viability.

Bridging it is essential to ensuring operational

resilience, safety, and inclusive access to the benefits of

maritime digitalization.

4.2.2 Human–Automation Balance and Cybersecurity in

the Age of AI

The convergence of automation and artificial

intelligence in the maritime domain presents both

unprecedented opportunities and complex risks. The

panel discussion on these interlinked subthemes;

Human–Automation Balance and Cybersecurity & AI

Bias, revealed a nuanced understanding that

technology cannot be evaluated in isolation from the

people who operate, interpret, and are ultimately

accountable for it. Across the dialogue, there was

consensus that while automation can reduce human

error and increase efficiency, it also introduces new

forms of cognitive strain, system dependency, and

ethical vulnerability.

To support this perspective, research in adjacent

domains confirms that automation shifts human roles

from active operators to passive monitors, raising risks

like attention drift and interface misinterpretation.

These effects are well-documented in high-stakes

environments such as military and healthcare systems,

and similar risks are emerging in maritime contexts

[47]. Moreover, studies on automation bias underscore

how even experienced operators can be over-

influenced by AI-generated suggestions, especially

under pressure or in complex environments [48].

In examining human–automation balance, panelists

warned against both overreliance on automated

systems and outdated assumptions about human

infallibility. The transition toward algorithmically

supported decision-making, ranging from voyage

optimization to collision avoidance and predictive

maintenance, has fundamentally changed the nature of

maritime work. Rather than eliminating the human

element, it has shifted it into a monitoring, verification,

and exception management role, requiring higher-

order thinking, digital literacy, and scenario-based

judgment.

This raised critical questions around training and

human-systems integration. The panel called for

immediate reform in simulator-based education,

ensuring that officers are trained not only on how to

operate automated systems, but on how to intervene

when those systems fail or deliver ambiguous data.

They also emphasized the need for intuitive,

transparent system design—interfaces that clearly

communicate system status, limitations, and

underlying assumptions—to prevent cognitive

overload or misinterpretation during high-stakes

operations. Similar needs have been identified in

cybersecurity and defense sectors, where

misalignment between AI design and human

capabilities has led to operational errors [49].

Equally pressing was the concern around

cybersecurity and algorithmic bias. As vessels become

more digitally connected and reliant on AI-driven

systems, the attack surface for cyber threats expands

exponentially. Research confirms this growing threat

landscape and supports the integration of AI-based

intrusion detection systems (IDS) to enhance cyber

123

resilience in maritime operations [50]. These systems

are shown to improve real-time threat monitoring and

response capabilities, even in extreme maritime

conditions.

The panel also addressed the potential for bias and

opacity in AI systems. Concerns about biased training

data and opaque decision processes are not limited to

theory since they have been demonstrated in sectors

such as medical imaging and HR systems, where AI

tools replicated or even amplified historical inequities

[51]. The maritime industry must learn from these

cases by applying algorithmic auditing and integrating

explainability protocols into AI-supported platforms

[52].

Taken together, the panel advocated for a cautious

yet proactive stance. The maritime industry must

embrace automation and AI not as cost-saving tools

alone, but as human-augmenting systems. To do so

effectively, it must invest in crew training, cyber-

resilience, ethical safeguards, and interface design,

ensuring that technology becomes an enabler of

maritime excellence—rather than a source of new

vulnerability or disengagement.

4.3 Policy and Regulation

The third major theme identified in the panel discourse

revolves around Policy and Regulation, emphasizing

the vital role of governance in shaping a maritime

sector that is not only technologically advanced but

also socially responsive and operationally realistic. As

the maritime industry navigates the rapid tides of

decarbonization, digitalization, and automation,

regulatory frameworks are under growing pressure to

evolve in a manner that is adaptive, inclusive, and

implementable across diverse operational contexts.

Three critical subthemes emerged under this

category, namely 1) Human-Factor Design, 2)

Operational Fit and Realism, and 3) Compliance and

Funding Equity.

Collectively, these subthemes reveal the tension

between ambition and applicability in global maritime

regulation. While multilateral instruments and

classification standards seek to steer the sector toward

sustainability and resilience, they often do so without

fully incorporating the practical realities of shipboard

life, the limitations of local infrastructure, or the

diverse capabilities of maritime actors across regions

and company sizes.

The panel discussions consistently stressed that

policy effectiveness is no longer a matter of technical

precision alone. It must also reflect the lived experience

of seafarers, the economic constraints of smaller

operators, and the socio-cultural diversity of the

maritime workforce. As such, the design and

deployment of regulatory instruments must move

toward a more human-centered, context-aware, and

equity-sensitive model—where compliance is not just

a box-ticking exercise, but a meaningful contributor to

safe, inclusive, and future-proof maritime operations.

4.3.1 Human-Factor Design

The panel raised substantive concerns about the

extent to which international maritime policies and

shipboard regulations meaningfully account for the

human factor that is, the cognitive, physical, social, and

emotional realities of the people who operate,

maintain, and live aboard ships. Although the

maritime sector is governed by an array of

international conventions, codes, and standards, these

are often criticized for lacking sufficient ergonomic

sensitivity, behavioural realism, and user-oriented

design principles. This concern is echoed in research

showing that despite IMO recognition of human

factors, comprehensive crew-cantered regulatory

frameworks are still lacking [53].

Panellists argued that many existing policies tend to

approach human behaviour as either a liability or an

afterthought, rather than a central design variable. For

example, safety management systems and navigational

bridge layouts are often structured around technical

efficiency, with minimal regard for crew fatigue cycles,

communication dynamics under pressure, or the

physical constraints of shipboard environments.

Studies confirm that ship design often overlooks user

ergonomics, contributing to operational risk and

fatigue-related errors [54].

The discussion emphasized that policy

effectiveness is deeply interlinked with how well it

aligns with real-world human capabilities and

limitations. Several panellists referenced recent case

studies where crew errors were not the result of

negligence but of system design flaws that failed to

account for intuitive use, visibility, or workload

distribution. This reflects a wider consensus in the

literature that many so-called “human errors” are

actually symptoms of poorly integrated human–

system design [55], [56].

Moreover, the psychological and emotional

dimensions of seafaring—such as stress, isolation,

cultural conflict, and command hierarchy—are still

insufficiently addressed in current safety and

compliance frameworks. The need for psychosocial

and cultural factors to be better integrated into safety

frameworks has been extensively documented [57].

In response, the panel advocated for a more human-

centric regulatory paradigm, one that embeds user-

testing, ethnographic research, and operational

psychology into the policymaking process. Human-

Cantered Design approaches, particularly

participatory methods, are shown to improve usability

and safety outcomes in ship systems [58].

The discussion concluded that placing the human

factor at the centre of regulatory thinking is not a soft

consideration, but a hard requirement for operational

safety, efficiency, and ethical accountability. As ships

become more automated and globally integrated,

policies must recognize that even the most

sophisticated technologies depend on well-supported,

cognitively capable, and contextually prepared human

operators.

4.3.2 Operational Fit and Realism

A recurring concern raised by the panel was the

discrepancy between policy intent and operational

reality. While international maritime regulations are

designed to enhance safety, sustainability, and

efficiency, their practical implementation at sea often

reveals critical gaps in feasibility, clarity, and

124

contextual alignment. This disconnect, described as a

failure of operational fit, underscores the need for

regulations to be grounded not only in technical logic

but also in the lived experiences of those working on

ships and in ports. Recent research confirms that

implementation gaps are common, particularly with

decarbonization measures like the EEXI and CII

frameworks, which often outpace infrastructure

readiness and create compliance challenges for

operators in less-developed ports [59].

Studies of regulatory environments shows that

policy fragmentation and lack of systemic alignment

undermine zero-emission vessel goals, especially for

smaller maritime operators [60]. Panellists discussed

how well-meaning regulations, particularly those

related to decarbonization, digitalization, and safety

management, sometimes fall short due to their

prescriptive nature and lack of adaptability. One

example cited was the implementation of emissions

reduction protocols and energy efficiency index

requirements (EEXI and CII), which, while necessary

for environmental goals, have not always been

matched by port infrastructure readiness or real-time

fuel availability. In such cases, compliance becomes not

only difficult but, in certain contexts, operationally

disruptive.

Similarly, the panel noted that bridge equipment

standardization and mandatory documentation

systems, though intended to promote uniformity, often

vary widely in format, user interface, and

interpretation. Seafarers, especially those operating in

multinational fleets, must frequently shift between

equipment types, software systems, and procedural

expectations, leading to a fragmented and cognitively

demanding operational environment. This

misalignment between policy formulation and

onboard practicality can increase risk rather than

mitigate it. Human factors research supports this

observation, emphasizing that inconsistencies in

equipment interfaces across fleets contribute to higher

cognitive load and potential safety lapses [53].

In the training domain, panellists highlighted how

regulatory syllabus, particularly those based on the

STCW Convention, often emphasize theoretical

mastery over scenario-based competence. In many

cases, officers are examined on rule memorization

rather than contextual decision-making under duress.

As a result, training outcomes do not always translate

into effective action in real maritime operations. This is

especially problematic in emergency response, ship

handling, or unfamiliar port scenarios, where success

depends on judgement, adaptability, and tacit

experience rather than checklists alone. This critique is

reinforced by recent evaluations of STCW

implementation, which identify rote learning and

insufficient simulation-based training as barriers to

effective operational readiness [61].

The panel emphasized that regulatory realism must

also account for variance in vessel types, crewing

models, and geographic operating conditions. What is

feasible and appropriate for a modern container ship

on a scheduled Asia-Europe route may be entirely

misaligned with the needs of a small tanker or an aging

general cargo vessel operating in archipelagic waters.

Yet many international policies adopt a “one-size-fits-

all” approach, creating unintentional compliance

barriers for smaller operators and flag states with

limited capacity. Research has shown that such

uniform regulatory approaches can disproportionately

affect older or smaller vessels, especially those

operating in remote or archipelagic regions [62].

In addressing these challenges, panellists proposed

a principles-based approach to regulation, focusing on

intended outcomes rather than rigid procedures. This

would allow ship operators greater discretion in

achieving compliance through context-specific

methods, supported by risk assessments and crew

input. The development of feedback loops, whereby

seafarers, port officials, and shipowners can report

unintended consequences or implementation

difficulties, was also strongly recommended. Such

mechanisms would help regulatory bodies iteratively

improve both the relevance and realism of maritime

policies. This approach aligns with contemporary

policy recommendations that emphasize adaptive

regulation, stakeholder feedback loops, and outcome-

based standards to improve both compliance and

legitimacy [60].

4.3.3 Compliance and Funding Equity

The issue of equity in regulatory compliance

featured prominently in the panel’s discussion,

particularly in relation to how regulations are

interpreted, resourced, and enforced across different

segments of the maritime industry. While international

maritime conventions apply uniformly across flag

states and ship operators, the capacity to comply varies

widely, with significant implications for fairness,

operational continuity, and long-term industry

cohesion.

Panellists noted that compliance often comes with

hidden costs, in the form of hardware retrofitting,

software licensing, crew training, data reporting

infrastructure, or third-party audit services, which

disproportionately affect smaller shipowners,

operators in developing economies, and short-sea

shipping networks. For example, complying with data-

heavy mandates like GHG reporting, ballast water

treatment, or ECDIS maintenance often requires

dedicated personnel and IT infrastructure. These

resources are not readily available to many SMEs or

legacy fleets. This disparity has been echoed in recent

research highlighting the structural disadvantage

faced by smaller maritime actors, particularly in

developing regions, due to capital constraints and

limited digital readiness [63].

This funding asymmetry creates what several

speakers described as a "regulatory cliff", wherein only

better-capitalized operators can ascend to meet new

standards, while others are left behind or driven out of

the market. This dynamic not only threatens

competition and innovation, but also risks

concentrating maritime capacity in fewer hands and

ironically undermining the IMO’s goal of fostering

global participation in sustainable shipping. Academic

analyses support this concern, showing how flagging

out and registry competition can exacerbate global

inequality in regulatory compliance and operational

viability [64].

The panel also discussed access to compliance

support, such as technical assistance, training

125

subsidies, or infrastructure investment. Although large

shipping companies and multinational port authorities

may have internal compliance departments or access to

class societies and consultants, many smaller operators

navigate the same complex regulations with minimal

guidance or institutional support. For them,

compliance becomes not a proactive safety or

sustainability effort, but a defensive, reactive burden—

focused on avoiding penalties rather than achieving

meaningful improvement. This distinction is

supported by findings that flag state enforcement

regimes vary significantly, and small operators often

lack the institutional support required to maintain

consistent safety and compliance practices [65].

Discussions further highlighted regional and flag-

state disparities in enforcement and interpretation.

Some jurisdictions were perceived to apply regulations

stringently and transparently, while others reportedly

suffer from uneven enforcement, limited inspector

capacity, or political reluctance to impose sanctions.

This inconsistency leads to a sense of regulatory

imbalance, in which compliance is perceived as

optional or negotiable depending on geography or

registry, ultimately undermining international trust

and standards harmonization. Recent studies of flag

state safety outcomes echo this perception, showing

that vessels registered under flags of convenience often

face higher communication risks and inconsistent

enforcement environments [66].

To mitigate these disparities, the panel

recommended the introduction of differentiated

compliance pathways that consider fleet age, ship type,

and economic context. Such pathways could allow

transitional compliance plans, tiered requirements, or

access to funding pools tied to verifiable progress

metrics. The role of financial institutions, international

donors, and classification societies was highlighted as

key in co-financing infrastructure upgrades, training,

and compliance auditing, especially for operators

willing to improve but constrained by capital.

4.3.4 Regulatory Incentives for Sustainability

The transition toward a more sustainable maritime

sector, environmentally, socially, and economically,

requires more than compliance mandates; it demands

regulatory incentives that actively support and

accelerate positive change. The panel discussion

underscored that while regulations such as the IMO’s

decarbonization roadmap and MARPOL Annex VI are

setting ambitious targets, the implementation of

supportive policy instruments remains uneven and, in

many cases, insufficiently coordinated.

Panels highlighted that market-based mechanisms,

such as carbon pricing, emissions trading schemes, and

green tax exemptions, are essential tools in realigning

economic signals with sustainability objectives.

However, many national maritime administrations

have yet to develop or implement such frameworks,

often due to political hesitation, capacity constraints, or

concerns over competitiveness. Research supports this,

noting that fragmented carbon pricing regimes limit

the adoption of zero-emission vessel technologies and

delay decarbonization in the shipping industry [60]

One point of consensus was the need for financial

incentives to support fleet modernization, including

grants, green bonds, or subsidized loans for investment

in cleaner technologies such as LNG dual-fuel engines,

scrubbers, shore power connectivity, or energy-

efficient hull designs. Without such support,

compliance with emission standards may result in fleet

obsolescence or modal shift away from maritime

transport—undermining both climate goals and

supply chain resilience. A recent study confirms that

targeted subsidies can significantly improve adoption

rates of green technologies like wind-assisted

propulsion, especially when directed at shipowners

with high energy use and strong social connectivity

[67].

The panel also discussed the opportunity for

regulatory incentives in workforce sustainability,

particularly through funding for reskilling, upskilling,

and inclusion programs. For instance, subsidies for

digital and green skills training could help seafarers

and port workers adapt to automation and

decarbonization trends, while tax credits or wage

support mechanisms could make hiring young or

underrepresented workers more attractive to

employers. This approach is echoed in the literature,

which stresses that decarbonization policies should be

paired with workforce training to avoid creating new

inequalities in labor readiness [68].

A significant empirical insight presented was the

disproportionate access to sustainability incentives

across regions. While some advanced economies have

established national green shipping strategies,

including clear eligibility criteria for fiscal benefits,

others rely entirely on voluntary market action, leading

to geographical imbalances in green transition

readiness. Research supports these concerns,

emphasizing that the lack of harmonized policy and

subsidy access can stall global climate goals and widen

gaps between nations [69]

The panel stressed the importance of policy

coherence and coordination, both across domestic

ministries (transport, environment, labour, finance)

and between nations. Fragmented policy landscapes

risk sending mixed signals to shipowners and

investors, thereby slowing innovation. Instead, a

harmonized approach, linking regulatory

requirements with meaningful incentives, was seen as

a way to reward early adopters, de-risk investments,

and create a level playing field. This recommendation

aligns with calls in academic literature for better-

integrated tax and investment policies to lower barriers

for sustainable fleet investments [70].

In conclusion, the maritime sector cannot rely solely

on punitive regulation to achieve its sustainability

goals. The panel called for a proactive shift toward

regulatory frameworks that combine mandates with

targeted, equitable, and transparent incentives. These

should be designed to not only reduce emissions, but

also to support technological innovation, workforce

adaptation, and long-term competitiveness within a

just and inclusive transition.

4.4 Collaboration and Ecosystem

The final thematic area identified in the panel

discussions was Collaboration and Ecosystem, which

underscores the importance of integrated efforts across

stakeholders, governments, industry, academia,

126

classification societies, unions, and training

institutions, to future-proof the maritime sector. As the

shipping industry confronts disruptive transitions in

energy use, workforce expectations, regulatory

pressures, and digital transformation, it has become

clear that no single entity can address these challenges

in isolation.

Two interlinked subthemes emerged under this

category, namely 1) Industry–Academia Synergy, 2)

Shared Talent Responsibility, and Regional Capacity

Leadership.

Collectively, these subthemes reflect a growing

consensus that sustained progress in maritime safety,

innovation, and sustainability depends on

collaborative frameworks and ecosystem-level

thinking. Rather than relying on siloed initiatives or

institution-specific mandates, the panel advocated for

systemic coordination, mutual accountability, and

multi-stakeholder platforms to align skills, standards,

investments, and outcomes across the sector.

These discussions revealed that building a resilient

maritime workforce and governance structure requires

more than policy or technology; it requires trust, co-

investment, and the creation of shared value. As such,

collaboration is not simply a strategy—it is becoming

an operational imperative for the sector’s continued

viability and evolution.

4.4.1 Industry–Academia Synergy

The panel strongly emphasized the strategic

importance of deepening collaboration between the

maritime industry and academic institutions, viewing

this relationship as essential to resolving long-standing

skills mismatches, accelerating innovation diffusion,

and equipping future seafarers and shore-based

professionals for emerging demands. Recent studies

affirm that industry–academia partnerships are

essential for aligning curricula with technological and

regulatory developments in the maritime sector [71].

Industry–academia synergy was described not simply

as a partnership for training provision, but as a

foundational mechanism for co-developing curricula,

shaping research agendas, and embedding real-world

relevance into maritime education and professional

development.

One of the central concerns raised was the

persistent lag between classroom content and

operational reality. Several panellists noted that

graduates entering the maritime workforce often

possess strong theoretical grounding but lack exposure

to current technologies, contemporary compliance

expectations, or the social dynamics onboard modern,

multicultural vessels. This gap has also been reported

in empirical studies, which show that maritime

graduates are often underprepared for digital systems

and practical challenges related to environmental

compliance and multicultural teamwork [72]. In

particular, the gap in preparing students for digital

systems, environmental reporting tools, remote

inspections, and decarbonization protocols was

highlighted as a structural weakness that cannot be

resolved by academia alone.

The panel called for the co-creation of learning

content between industry experts and academic

faculty. Instead of industry simply advising on

curriculum, the preferred model involves ongoing

collaboration, where companies share case studies,

failure analyses, new technologies, and workforce

forecasts to inform teaching and assessment. In return,

academic institutions can contribute critical thinking,

systems design, and empirical research to support

continuous improvement in industry practices. Recent

frameworks support this approach, emphasizing

iterative curriculum design and mutual responsibility

in skills development [73].

Internship and cadetship programs were discussed

as essential but under-optimized mechanisms for

bridging theory and practice. The panel argued that

these experiences must go beyond routine onboard

placements; they should be strategically structured to

expose students to complex decision-making,

environmental challenges, digital operations, and

interdepartmental coordination. Moreover, such

programs should involve joint evaluation by both the

shipping company and academic institution, creating a

loop of feedback that strengthens both learning and

operational procedures.

Panellists also highlighted the value of research

partnerships, particularly in addressing emerging

challenges such as decarbonization technologies,

alternative fuels, mental health at sea, and autonomous

vessel integration. Rather than duplicating efforts,

institutions and companies should form joint research

centres, with shared access to vessels, simulators, and

datasets. This recommendation is reinforced by calls in

the literature to develop joint innovation platforms and

co-managed research agendas between maritime firms

and academic researchers [74].

Finally, it was noted that for synergy to be genuine

and sustainable, governance frameworks must evolve

to support shared decision-making, joint funding

mechanisms, and recognition of co-developed

qualifications or micro credentials. Such institutional

arrangements were described as critical enablers,

ensuring that collaboration is not dependent on

personal networks or project-based agreements but

embedded in the operational logic of both education

and business ecosystems.

In summary, the panel concluded that industry–

academia synergy is not a luxury but a necessity. To

meet the evolving demands of the maritime domain,

the workforce pipeline must be shaped collaboratively

with shared responsibilities, integrated systems, and

mutual accountability between education providers

and the industry they serve.

4.4.2 Shared Talent Responsibility and Regional Capacity

Leadership

In a world where maritime operations are increasingly

global but deeply affected by local capacity and

workforce dynamics, the panel called for an integrated

model that combines shared talent responsibility with

a long-term strategy for regional capacity leadership.

This dual subtheme reflects a collective recognition

that cultivating maritime talent cannot be

accomplished in isolation, either by individual

institutions or within siloed national systems. Instead,

it requires collaborative, regionally coherent

frameworks that distribute the responsibility for

training, mentoring, deployment, and retention of

127

maritime professionals across public and private

actors.

Recent studies affirm that regional coordination

and multistakeholder engagement are essential to

bridging training gaps, especially in areas with uneven

infrastructure and workforce readiness [74].

Panellists criticized the outdated expectation that

training institutions alone should produce job-ready

professionals. While these institutions remain crucial

for foundational education, the panel emphasized that

maritime workforce development is a collective

enterprise, involving shipowners, port authorities,

regulators, unions, and industry associations. The

present landscape where cadets graduate with limited

sea time opportunities, underfunded upskilling

options, and fragmented career guidance, was

described as both inefficient and inequitable. This

sentiment is reflected in empirical research showing

that overreliance on academic institutions without

industry support leads to skill mismatches and

prolonged unemployment among maritime graduates

[71].

To address this, panellists advocated for joint

responsibility mechanisms, where employers actively

engage in co-designing curriculum, hosting structured

onboard placements, funding simulators and digital

learning tools, and mentoring junior personnel.

Educational institutions, in turn, must align more

closely with evolving industry requirements by

embedding flexible, modular training and continuous

professional development options. Regulatory

agencies and governments were encouraged to create

enabling environments through fiscal incentives,

standards harmonization, and infrastructure

investments. Scholars have recommended these same

strategies, highlighting that training quality and access

improve when employer engagement and government

co-financing are built into talent development

ecosystems [73].

At a broader level, the discussion acknowledged

that such efforts must be anchored in regional

leadership and coordination, especially in diverse and

archipelagic maritime geographies like Southeast Asia.

Regional capacity leadership entails not only domestic

investment in maritime education and port

infrastructure but also cross-border collaboration in

research, seafarer mobility, mutual recognition of

competencies, and talent pooling. The idea is to move

from isolated centers of excellence to regional

knowledge and training hubs, capable of addressing

collective challenges such as green shipping

transitions, digitalization gaps, and succession

planning for senior ranks. This approach is echoed in

recent findings that call for ASEAN maritime

education harmonization to enable labor mobility and

collective innovation in sustainable shipping [72].

Moreover, panelists highlighted the need for

regional maritime leaders to champion strategic

foresight, anticipating future skills needs, mapping

labor market trends, and facilitating industry-

academia-government coordination. Without such

leadership, efforts to improve talent pipelines remain

reactive and piecemeal, often reproducing inequalities

between well-resourced and under-resourced

maritime economies. Studies support this, arguing that

proactive skills forecasting and talent planning are

critical to avoiding labor shortages and ensuring

equitable growth in maritime economies [70].

Importantly, both subthemes converged on a

common concern. If talent development remains the

responsibility of the few, the entire maritime ecosystem

risks underperformance, fragmentation, and loss of

competitiveness. Therefore, a future-ready maritime

sector must invest in systems of shared responsibility

and regional integration, ensuring that maritime

professionals, regardless of their starting point, are

supported across the full arc of their careers.

5 CONCLUSION

The panel dialogue revealed a sector in the midst of

profound transformation, grappling not only with

technical and regulatory change, but with foundational

questions about how it sustains its people, governs its

operations, and aligns for future resilience. Across the

four major themes; People, Technology, Policy and

Regulation, and Collaboration and Ecosystem, a

coherent narrative emerged in which the maritime

industry must transition from siloed, compliance-

driven models toward integrated, adaptive, and

human-centric systems.

The first theme, People, highlighted the urgent need

to realign training, workplace culture, and career

pathways to reflect the realities of modern shipping.

Without adequate investment in reskilling,

psychological safety, and inclusive talent

development, the sector risks facing a severe workforce

crisis, marked not just by numerical shortages but by

declining engagement, capability gaps, and loss of

institutional knowledge. The panel made clear that a

resilient maritime future depends on cultivating not

only competence but confidence, representation, and

well-being among seafarers and shore-based

professionals alike.

The second theme, Technology, was approached

not as an end in itself, but as a means to augment

human performance. Emerging tools, from AI-driven

analytics to integrated platforms and decision-support

systems, hold the promise of transforming ship and

port operations. However, without parallel

investments in user training, human-machine

integration, and system interoperability, technology

may simply shift complexity rather than resolve it. The

panel advocated for user-centric design,

standardization, and transparency in technological

deployment, ensuring that innovation enhances, not

replacing maritime expertise.

Under the third theme, Policy and Regulation,

discussions turned to the structural levers that enable

or constrain progress. Participants acknowledged the

necessity of regulation but stressed the importance of

operational realism, fairness in compliance, and

human-factor alignment. The current regulatory

environment often places unequal burdens on smaller

operators and emerging economies, creating a

compliance divide that may undermine global

cohesion. The panel called for graduated, context-

aware enforcement mechanisms and enhanced

funding equity to ensure that sustainability and safety

goals are achievable across the entire spectrum of

maritime actors.

128

Finally, the theme of Collaboration and Ecosystem

reinforced the belief that no single stakeholder,

whether shipowner, regulator, or academic institution

can tackle these challenges alone. The future demands

systemic cooperation, anchored in shared

responsibility for talent development, research, and

regional capacity building. By fostering synergy

between industry and academia, enabling cross-border

training initiatives, and institutionalizing joint

governance structures, the sector can avoid

duplication, mitigate fragmentation, and generate

shared value.

In summary, the panel advanced a clear

proposition: a competitive maritime sector is not one

that simply keeps up with change, but one that co-

authors its own evolution. This evolution must be

driven by people, enabled by technology, supported by

just regulation, and sustained through deliberate

collaboration. By embedding these principles at the

core of its strategic direction, the maritime industry can

move confidently toward a safer, smarter, and more

sustainable future, one in which seafarers and systems

thrive together.

FUNDING

This work was supported by Universiti Malaysia Terengganu

under grant TAPERG/2025/UMT/6053.

REFERENCES

[1] D. R. Cunha, C. B. M. Oliveira, M. de S. Porte, S. S. Cutrim,

and N. N. Pereira, “Strategies For Decarbonisation in The

Port and Maritime Sector: Key Challenges and Leading

Ports,” Rev. Gestão Soc. e Ambient., vol. 19, no. 4, p.

e011963, 2025, doi: 10.24857/rgsa.v19n4-071.

[2] E. Kostidi and D. Lyridis, “Decarbonizing Ports for a

Sustainable Future: Challenges and Strategies,” Tech.

Ann., vol. 1, no. 8, 2024, doi: 10.12681/ta.39896.

[3] L. F. Chuah et al., “Profiling Malaysian ship registration

and seafarers for streamlining future Malaysian shipping

governance,” Aust. J. Marit. Ocean Aff., vol. 13, no. 4, pp.

225–261, 2021, doi: 10.1080/18366503.2021.1878981.

[4] M. R. Othman, “A new management structure for

Malaysia Economic Exclusive Zone,” Int. J. Soc. Sci., vol.

4, no. 1, 2012.

[5] ICMaD, “Preface,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci., vol.

1367, no. 1, p. 011001, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1088/1755-

1315/1367/1/011001.

[6] N. N. Nik Hariry and M. S. Ramlan, “the Evolution of

Cargo Ships in the Malaysian Maritime Industry,” J.

Marit. Logist., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 36–44, 2023, doi:

10.46754/jml.2023.12.003.

[7] J. Thompson, “A guide to abductive thematic analysis

(How to article 17),” Qual. Rep., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1410–

1421, 2022.

[8] Y. Autsadee, J. Jeevan, M. R. Bin Othman, and N. H. Bin

Mohd Salleh, “Maritime Society 5.0: a global transition on

human economy and civilisation for maritime

sustainability,” Aust. J. Marit. Ocean Aff., vol. 17, no. 1,

pp. 1–26, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1080/18366503.2023.2287872.

[9] R. Westgarth and J. Rigby, “Future workforce and training

in the fourth maritime revolution,” in RINA, Royal

Institution of Naval Architects - International Conference

on Marine Industry 4.0, Papers, 2019. doi:

10.3940/rina.mi.2019.07.

[10] A. Sharma, T.-E. Kim, and S. Nazir, “Implications of

Automation and Digitalization for Maritime Education

and Training,” 2021. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69325-1_11.

[11] S. A. Ali et al., “The Effect of Steam Addition to the

Oxidized Nitrogen Concentration from Marine Diesel

Engine Combustion,” no. January, 2022, pp. 367–376. doi:

10.1007/978-3-030-89992-9_32.

[12] Oladapo Adeboye Popoola, Michael Oladipo Akinsanya,

Godwin Nzeako, Excel G Chukwurah, and Chukwuekem

David Okeke, “The impact of automation on maritime

workforce management: A conceptual framework,” Int. J.

Manag. Entrep. Res., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1467–1488, 2024, doi:

10.51594/ijmer.v6i5.1095.

[13] E. Demirel, “Maritime Education and Training in the

Digital Era,” Univers. J. Educ. Res., vol. 8, no. 9, pp. 4129–

4142, Sep. 2020, doi: 10.13189/ujer.2020.080939.

[14] P. Agarwala, S. Chhabra, and N. Agarwala, “Using

digitalisation to achieve decarbonisation in the shipping

industry,” J. Int. Marit. Safety, Environ. Aff. Shipp., vol. 5,

no. 4, pp. 161–174, 2021, doi:

10.1080/25725084.2021.2009420.

[15] J. Ling-Chin et al., “Research and innovation identified

to decarbonise the maritime sector,” Green Energy

Sustain., pp. 1–14, 2024, doi: 10.47248/ges2404010001.

[16] J. D. Palbar Misas, R. Hopcraft, K. Tam, and K. Jones,

“Future of maritime autonomy: cybersecurity, trust and

mariner’s situational awareness,” J. Mar. Eng. Technol.,

vol. 23, no. 3, 2024, doi: 10.1080/20464177.2024.2330176.

[17] O. B. Inal, C. Dere, B. Zincir, and C. Deniz, “Hybrid

propulsion and alternative fuels education in the course

of decarbonised shipping,” Aust. J. Marit. Ocean Aff., vol.

14, no. 2, 2022, doi: 10.1080/18366503.2021.1940475.

[18] S. N. MacKinnon, R. Weber, and M. Lundh, “The rise of

digitalisation and automation in the shipping industry

and their impacts on training and system safety,” South

African J. Marit. Educ. Train., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 83–96, 2023,

doi: 10.47348/sajmet/2023/i1a6.

[19] MQA and JPK, “CODE OF PRACTICE FOR TVET

PROGRAMME ACCREDITATION, COPTPA (Second

Edition),” 2021.

[20] I. Bartusevičienė, M. Kitada, and E. Valionienė,

“Rethinking Maritime Education and Training for

Generation Z Students,” Reg. Form. Dev. Stud., pp. 16–

29, 2023, doi: 10.15181/rfds.v41i3.2543.

[21] J. R. McKenna et al., “Maritime Workforce Training for

the New Blue Economy,” in Oceans Conference Record

(IEEE), 2023. doi: 10.23919/OCEANS52994.2023.10337396.

[22] C. B. Uche, U. Onokala, H. Okundalaiye, B. George, and

O. Oni, “WORKPLACE DIVERSITY AND

ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE IN THE NIGERIA’S

MARITIME INDUSTRY,” Unilag J. Bus., vol. 6, no. 2,

2020.

[23] P. ÖZDEMİR, “AN OVERVIEW OF STRATEGIES FOR

A SUCCESSFUL DIVERSITY MANAGEMENT IN

MARITIME,” Soc. Sci. Stud. J., vol. 4, no. 28, 2018, doi:

10.26449/sssj.1111.

[24] K. Bergheim, M. B. Nielsen, K. Mearns, and J. Eid, “The

relationship between psychological capital, job

satisfaction, and safety perceptions in the maritime

industry,” Saf. Sci., vol. 74, pp. 27–36, 2015, doi:

10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.024.

[25] S. Fan et al., “Incorporation of seafarer psychological

factors into maritime safety assessment,” Ocean Coast.

Manag., vol. 237, 2023, doi:

10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2023.106515.

[26] C. Cole, K. Jablokow, S. Mohammed, and S. Miller, “The

Impact of Gender on Individual Perceptions and Team

Psychological Safety in Engineering Design Teams in

Education,” J. Mech. Des., vol. 145, no. 3, 2023, doi:

10.1115/1.4056745.

[27] S. Smallets, A. Villafuerte, and L. P. Tost, “The

Unintended Consequences of Organizational Gender

Diversity Strategies on Psychological Safety,” Acad.

Manag. Proc., vol. 2021, no. 1, 2021, doi:

10.5465/ambpp.2021.12846abstract.

129

[28] A. MacNeil and S. Ghosh, “Gender imbalance in the

maritime industry: Impediments, initiatives and

recommendations,” Aust. J. Marit. Ocean Aff., vol. 9, no.

1, 2017, doi: 10.1080/18366503.2016.1271262.

[29] J. Horck, “The gender perspective in maritime education

and training,” WMU J. Marit. Aff., vol. 9, no. 1, 2010, doi:

10.1007/BF03195168.

[30] A. Siyana Lutzkanova, “Current trends in the maritime

leadership training approaches,” Sci. Business. Soc., vol.

4, no. 4, 2019.

[31] C. Stave, L. Levin, and P. Henriksson, “Gender Equality

Culture Measuring Attitudes Towards Gender Equality

in the Transport Sector,” Proc. Glob. Conf. Women’s

Stud., vol. 2, no. 1, 2023, doi:

10.33422/womensconf.v2i1.76.

[32] R. Dongrey and V. Rokade, “Assessing the effect of

perceived diversity practices and psychological safety on

contextual performance for sustainable workplace,”

Sustain., vol. 13, no. 21, 2021, doi: 10.3390/su132111653.

[33] Q. Colville, E. Jones, and K. Parker, “Gendering the

maritime world,” J. Marit. Res., vol. 17, no. 2, 2015, doi:

10.1080/21533369.2015.1095539.

[34] M. N. Albert, N. Lazzari Dodeler, and E. Guy, “From a

Seafarer’s Career Management to the Management of

Interwoven Sea- and Shore-Based Careers,” SAGE Open,

vol. 6, no. 1, 2016, doi: 10.1177/2158244016634146.

[35] L. Wang, C. Miao, and L. Feng, “Narrative Study on

Successful Career Transition Based on Experiences of

Chinese Vocational College Maritime Students,” Int. J.

High. Educ., vol. 12, no. 5, 2023, doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v12n5p1.

[36] Y. Choi and Y. Kim, “Applications of smart helmet in

applied sciences: A systematic review,” Appl. Sci., vol. 11,

no. 11, 2021, doi: 10.3390/app11115039.

[37] S. Zaar and K. Hammarstedt, “Promotion Campaigns in

the Maritime Sector and the Attitude of Young People

towards a Career at Sea,” pp. 1–106, 2011, [Online].

Available: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12380/158968

[38] Boedojo Wiwoho Soetatmoko Jogo and Rosmayana

Rosmayana, “Enhancing Maritime Vocational

Education : Integrating Sustainability, Employability, and

Career Pathways,” J. Kaji. dan Penelit. Umum, vol. 3, no.

1, pp. 20–39, 2025, doi: 10.47861/jkpu-nalanda.v3i1.1495.

[39] Abdul Rachman, Bambang Sumali, Susi Herawati,

Firdaus Bintang Cahyanti, Devananda Vincensius

Siregar, and Junian Budi Argo, “Enhancing Career

Pathways for Maritime Graduates through Human

Resource Management Strategies,” Green Inflat. Int. J.

Manag. Strateg. Bus. Leadersh., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 151–166,

2024, doi: 10.61132/greeninflation.v1i4.114.

[40] Ş. Şanlıer Uçak and B. Çelik Maşalacı, “An in-depth

study of factors influencing retention and career paths of

Turkish seafarers in the profession,” Res. Transp. Bus.

Manag., vol. 59, no. June 2024, 2025, doi:

10.1016/j.rtbm.2025.101299.

[41] M. Khabir, G. R. Emad, M. Shahbakhsh, and M. A.

Dulebenets, “A Strategic Pathway to Green Digital

Shipping,” Logistics, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1–33, 2025, doi:

10.3390/logistics9020068.

[42] J. Fei and L. D. Caesar, “Workforce mobility, career

pathways, and employee retention,” in Managing

Human Resources in the Shipping Industry, 2018. doi:

10.4324/9781315740027.

[43] I. Sheik, “Navigating the digital divide: exploring the

multifaceted 4IR challenges and technological disparities

encountered by SMMEs within Kwazulu-Natal, South

Africa,” Technol. Audit Prod. Reserv., vol. 5, no. 4(73),

2023, doi: 10.15587/2706-5448.2023.287784.

[44] A. R. Garuba, “The prospects of bridging the digital

divide in Africa,” Libr. Philos. Pract., vol. 2013, 2013.

[45] R. Margaretha, M. Syuzairi, and M. Mahadiansar,

“Digital Transformation in the Maritime Industry;

Opportunities and Challenges for Indonesia,” J. Marit.

Policy Sci., vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2024, doi:

10.31629/jmps.v1i1.7003.

[46] R. Heeks, “Digital inequality beyond the digital divide:

conceptualizing adverse digital incorporation in the

global South,” Inf. Technol. Dev., vol. 28, no. 4, 2022, doi:

10.1080/02681102.2022.2068492.

[47] Hendriman Putra and Budi Eko Mulyono, “Artificial

Intelligence and Humans: The Impact of AI on the

Human Role in the Military,” Indones. J. Appl. Ind. Sci.,

vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 23–30, 2025, doi: 10.55927/esa.v4i1.12718.

[48] T. Dratsch et al., “Automation Bias in Mammography:

The Impact of Artificial Intelligence BI-RADS Suggestions

on Reader Performance,” Radiology, vol. 307, no. 4, 2023,

doi: 10.1148/radiol.222176.

[49] M. C. Horowitz and L. Kahn, “Bending the Automation

Bias Curve: A Study of Human and AI-Based Decision

Making in National Security Contexts,” Int. Stud. Q., vol.

68, no. 2, 2024, doi: 10.1093/isq/sqae020.

[50] A. I. Ibokette, T. O. Ogundare, A. P. Anyebe, F. O.-O.

Alao, I. I. Odeh, and F. C. Okafor, “Mitigating Maritime

Cybersecurity Risks Using AI-Based Intrusion Detection

Systems and Network Automation During Extreme

Environmental Conditions,” Int. J. Sci. Res. Mod.

Technol., vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 65–91, 2024, doi:

10.38124/ijsrmt.v3i10.73.

[51] M. J. Gómez, J. Dabbah, and L. Benotti, “A workshop on

artificial intelligence biases and its effect on high school

students’ perceptions,” Int. J. Child-Computer Interact.,

vol. 43, no. March 2024, p. 100710, 2025, doi:

10.1016/j.ijcci.2024.100710.

[52] R. Barton, P. W. C. Prasad, I. Seher, and A. Elchouemi,

“Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Cybersecurity and

Inhibitors to AI Adoption,” in 2024 International

Conference on Intelligent Education and Intelligent

Research (IEIR), IEEE, Nov. 2024, pp. 1–10. doi:

10.1109/IEIR62538.2024.10959777.

[53] G. Praetorius, A. Kataria, E. S. Petersen, J. U. Schröder-

Hinrichs, M. Baldauf, and N. Kähler, “Increased

Awareness for Maritime Human Factors through e-

learning in Crew-centered Design,” Procedia Manuf., vol.

3, pp. 2824–2831, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.762.

[54] N. A. Costa and M. Lutzhoft, “The Values of Ergonomics

in Ship Design and Operation,” no. February, pp. 15–26,

2014, doi: 10.3940/rina.hf.2014.16.

[55] V. Rumawas, Human factors in ship design and

operation: experiential learning, no. 20. 2015. doi:

10.13140/RG.2.1.2483.2404.

[56] A. S. Kamis, A. F. Ahmad Fuad, A. Q. Anwar, and M.

Monir Hossain, “A systematic scoping review on ship

accidents due to off-track manoeuvring,” WMU J. Marit.

Aff., p. 39, May 2022, doi: 10.1007/s13437-022-00274-2.

[57] D. Andrei et al., “Assessing the determinants and

consequences of safety culture in the maritime industry A

report based on the findings of research grant

LP130100215,” 2018.

[58] N. Costa, “Human centered design for maritime safety:

a user perspective on the benefits and success factors of

user participation in the design of ships and ship

systems,” no. April 2016, p. 53, 2016, [Online]. Available:

http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/publication/232841-

human-centred-design-for-maritime-safety-a-user-

perspective-on-the-benefits-and-success-factors-of-

u%0Ahttps://trid.trb.org/view/1463204

[59] E. Czermański et al., “Implementation of the Energy

Efficiency Existing Ship Index: An important but costly

step towards ocean protection,” Mar. Policy, vol. 145, no.

July, 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105259.

[60] A. Ime Ibokette, T. Olamide Ogundare, J. Seun Akindele,

A. Peter Anyebe, and R. Obinna Okeke, “Decarbonization

Strategies in the U.S. Maritime Industry with a Focus on

Overcoming Regulatory and Operational Challenges in

Implementing Zero-Emission Vessel Technologies.,” Int.

J. Innov. Sci. Res. Technol., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 131–162,

2024, doi: 10.38124/ijisrt/ijisrt24nov829.

[61] A. E. Kristiyono, D. T. W. Wardoyo, and M. V.

Roesminingsih, “Four Factors Influencing the

Implementation of the 2010 Manila Amendment

130

Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping

(STCW) Policy,” Int. J. Soc. Sci. Hum. Res., vol. 06, no. 07,

2023, doi: 10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i7-39.

[62] G. de Melo Rodríguez et al., “Safety at sea and maritime

environment protection with special references to

training needs for the emerging new fuels,” pp. 1–10,

2024, doi: 10.5821/mt.13197.

[63] I. bagus R. Adhastyananda and F. Y. Hikmawan, “Equity

Crowdfunding As an Alternative Funding for Maritime

Infrastructure Development,” DiE J. Ilmu Ekon. dan

Manaj., vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 01–09, 2024, doi:

10.30996/die.v15i1.9718.

[64] A. S. Bergantino and P. O’Sullivan, “Flagging out and

international registries: Main developments and policy

issues,” Int. J. Transp. Econ., vol. 26, no. 3, 1999.

[65] M. Mahmood, “Flag State Exclusivity Principle:

Relevancy and Adequacy Under International Maritime

Law,” SSRN Electron. J., 2023, doi: 10.2139/ssrn.4568219.

[66] T.-O. Nævestad, “Safety in maritime transport: Is flag

state important in an international sector? -

Transportøkonomisk institutt.” Accessed: Jul. 30, 2025.

[Online]. Available:

https://www.toi.no/publications/safety-in-maritime-

transport-is-flag-state-important-in-an-international-

sector-article33899-29.html

[67] E. Romero, M. Chica, R. R. Hermann, and S. Damas,

“Targeting incentives to adopt wind-assisted

technologies in shipping by agent-based simulations,”

Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., vol. 138, no. July

2024, p. 104511, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2024.104511.

[68] A. Matveev, “Technological innovations in marine

engineering: advancing sustainable fleet management,”

Am. J. Manag. Econ. Innov., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 25–31, 2025,

doi: 10.37547/tajmei/volume07issue01-04.

[69] J. Shi et al., “Clean energy ship application to promote

carbon neutrality in global maritime industry: State

governance or international supervision ？ , ” Ocean

Coast. Manag., vol. 257, no. September, p. 107356, 2024,

doi: 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107356.

[70] J. Tvedt and T. Wergeland, “Tax regimes, investment

subsidies and the green transformation of the maritime

industry,” Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., vol. 119,

no. April, p. 103741, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2023.103741.

[71] Jaja Suparman, Imam Fahcruddin, April Gunawan

Malau, Wardoyo Dwi Kurniawan, Muhammad

Sayakfika, and Geboy Geboy, “Bridging The Gap

Between Maritime Education and Industry Needs:

Enhancing Human Resource Development,” ePaper

Bisnis Int. J. Entrep. Manag., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 33–49,

2024, doi: 10.61132/epaperbisnis.v1i4.113.

[72] Tri Cahyadi, Ahmad Ahmad, and Larsen Barasa,

“Integrating Sustainability and Digital Advancements In

Maritime Law Education: Enhancing Cadet

Preparedness,” Int. J. Law Soc., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 217–228,

2024, doi: 10.62951/ijls.v1i4.196.

[73] A. R. and S. V., “Bridging the Gap Between Industry

Needs and Student Skills for Quality Education Through

Sdgs: An Industry-Academia Collaboration in

Curriculum Development,” J. Lifestyle SDGs Rev., vol. 4,

no. 4, p. e03616, 2024, doi: 10.47172/2965-

730x.sdgsreview.v4.n04.pe03616.

[74] U. A. A. Rauf et al., “Strengthening the University-

Maritime Industry Collaborations (UMICs): Technology

Issues,” J. Appl. Eng. Technol. Sci., vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 515–

530, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.37385/jaets.v5i1.3211.