RESOLUTION A.1188(33)

1.1.1 The International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) was adopted by the Organization by resolution A.741(18) and became mandatory with the entry into force on 1 July 1998 of Chapter IX of the SOLAS Convention entitled “Management for the Safe Operation of Ships”. The ISM Code constitutes an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and the prevention of pollution.

1.1.2 The ISM Code requires companies to establish safety objectives as described in section 1.2 (Objectives) and, in addition, to develop, implement and maintain a safety management system that includes the functional requirements listed in section 1.4 (Functional requirements applicable to any safety management system).

1.1.3 The implementation of the ISM Code should support and encourage the development of a safety culture in the shipping industry. Factors that will determine the success of the development of such a culture that promotes safety and environmental protection include dedication, principles and convictions as well as clarity of the safety management system.

1.2.1 To ensure adequate safety and pollution prevention standards, it is necessary to properly organize management, both ashore and on board. This requires a systematic approach to management by those responsible for the management of ships. The objectives of the mandatory implementation of the ISM Code are:

• .1 ensuring compliance with mandatory standards and regulations relating to the operational safety of ships and the protection of the environment; and
• .2 ensure that the Administrations effectively implement and enforce such standards and rules.

1.2.2 The work of Administrations in ensuring effective compliance shall include verification that the safety management system meets the requirements of the ISM Code, as well as verification of compliance with mandatory standards and rules.

1.2.3 The mandatory application of the ISM Code should ensure, support and encourage the taking into account of applicable codes, guidelines and standards recommended by the Organization, Administrations, classification societies and maritime industry organizations.

1.3.1 It is the responsibility of the Administration to verify compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code and to issue documents of compliance to companies and safety management certificates to ships.

1.3.2 The Code for Recognized Organizations (RO Code) (resolutions MSC.349(92)/MEPC.237 (65)), which has become mandatory under SOLAS regulation X-1/1, and the Code for the implementation of IMO instruments (Code III), adopted by the Organization by resolution A.A.1/1 of the SOLAS Convention.(65)), which has become mandatory under SOLAS regulation X-1/1, and the Code for the implementation of IMO instruments (Code III), adopted by the Organization by resolution A.1070(28), the use of which has become mandatory under SOLAS regulation XIII/2, are applicable when Administrations formally authorize organizations to issue Documents of Compliance and Safety Management Certificates on their behalf.

Expressions used in these revised guidelines have the same meaning as those in the ISM Code.

These revised guidelines establish the basic principles for:

• .1 verification that the safety management system of a company responsible for the operation of ships, or the safety management system of the ship or ships controlled by the company, complies with the provisions of the ISM Code;
• .2 to carry out the interim, initial, annual or renewal verification of the document of compliance and for the interim, initial, intermediate and renewal verification(s) of the safety management certificate and the issuance or endorsement of the corresponding documents; and
• .3 the scope of the additional verification.

3.1.1 To meet the requirements of the ISM Code, companies should develop, implement and maintain a documented safety management system to ensure the implementation of their safety and environmental protection principles. The company’s principles should include the objectives defined in the ISM Code.

3.1.2 Administrations should verify compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code by determining:

• .1 whether the company’s safety management system complies with the requirements of the ISM Code; and
• .2 whether the safety management system ensures that the objectives defined in paragraph 1.2.3 of the ISM Code are met.

3.1.3 It may be necessary to develop assessment criteria to determine whether or not the components of the safety management system meet the requirements of the ISM Code. Administrations are recommended to avoid, as far as possible, developing criteria in the form of prescriptive management system solutions. Assessment criteria in the form of prescriptive provisions may have the effect that safety management in shipping consists of companies applying solutions developed by third parties, so that it may be difficult for a company to develop solutions that are best suited to that company, type of operations or ship. Therefore, particular operations should be ship-specific and fully reflected in manuals, procedures and instructions.

3.1.4 Administrations are therefore recommended to ensure that these assessments are based on the determination of the effectiveness of the safety management system in achieving the specified objectives, rather than on compliance with detailed requirements in addition to those of the ISM Code, in order to reduce the need to develop criteria to facilitate the assessment of company compliance with the Code.

Paragraph 1.2.2 of the ISM Code defines the overall objectives of safety management. Verification work should assist and encourage companies to achieve these objectives, which provide clear guidance to companies in developing elements of safety management systems that conform to the ISM Code. However, since the suitability of the safety management system to achieve these objectives cannot be determined beyond whether the safety management system meets the requirements of the ISM Code, they should not be used as a basis for detailed interpretations to be used to verify whether or not the requirements of the Code are met.

3.3.1 The main criterion that should govern the development of the interpretations necessary to assess compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code should be the ability of the safety management system to meet the specific requirements set out in the ISM Code with respect to the specific safety and pollution prevention standards. The specific safety and environmental protection standards are set out in paragraph 1.2.3 of the ISM Code.

3.3.2 All records that may facilitate verification of compliance with the ISM Code should be available for examination during an inspection, which may include records of delegated tasks relating to the safety management system. To this end, management should ensure that the company provides auditors with regulatory and classification records of actions taken by the company to ensure that compliance with mandatory standards and rules is maintained. In this regard, the records may be examined to confirm their authenticity and veracity.

3.3.3 Some of the mandatory requirements may not be subject to regulatory or classification surveys, for example:

• .1 the maintenance of the condition of the ship and its equipment, in the period between surveys; and
• .2 certain operational requirements.

3.3.4 In such cases, in order to ensure compliance with the ISM Code and to have the necessary objective evidence for verification, specific provisions may be required, such as:

• .1 documented instructions and procedures;
• .2 documentation of the verification of daily operations by senior officers, where appropriate, to ensure compliance; and
• .3 relevant histories of the ships being operated by the company, e.g., flag State survey reports, port State, class assignment and accident reports.

3.3.5 The verification of compliance with mandatory rules and standards, which is part of the certification provided for in the ISM Code, is neither a duplication nor a replacement of the surveys required for the issue of other maritime certificates. Verification of compliance with the ISM Code does not relieve the company, the master or any other entity or person involved in the operation or management of the ship of their responsibilities.

3.3.6 Administrations should ensure that the company:

• .1 has taken into account the recommendations of paragraph 1.2.3.2 of the ISM Code when establishing and maintaining the safety management system; and
• .2 has developed procedures to ensure that the recommendations are implemented both ashore and on board.

4.1.1 The certification process relating to the issuance of a Document of Compliance on behalf of a company and a Safety Management Certificate on behalf of a ship shall generally comprise the following steps:

• .1 provisional verification;
• .2 initial verification;
• .3 annual or intermediate verification;
• .4 renewal verification; and
• .5 additional verification.

4.1.2 These verifications are carried out, at the request of the company, either by the Administration or by the organization recognized by the Administration to perform certification functions in relation to the ISM Code, or at the request of the Administration by another SOLAS Contracting Government. The verifications shall include an audit of the safety management system.

4.2.1 Provisional certification may be issued under certain conditions specified in the ISM Code and should facilitate the implementation of a safety management system.

4.2.2 The company should request provisional certification from the Administration.

4.2.3 The process of provisional verification for the issuance of an interim document of compliance by Management would require an on-site assessment in accordance with paragraph 14.1 of the ISM Code.

4.2.4 Once the assessment of the shore-based safety management system is successfully completed, actions or planning for the assessment of the company’s relevant ships can be initiated.

4.2.5 The Administration should conduct the interim verification process of the ship to ensure that the ship has a safety management system in accordance with paragraph 14.4 of the ISM Code.

4.2.6 Upon satisfactory completion of the interim verification, an interim document of compliance should be issued to the Company and copies should be provided by the Company to all shore-based facilities and to each relevant ship in the Company’s fleet. When a ship is assessed and issued with an Interim Safety Management Certificate, a copy should also be forwarded to the company’s head office.

4.3.1 The company should apply to the Administration for certification under the ISM Code.

4.3.2 Management’s assessment of the ground management system would require an evaluation of the offices where ground management is carried out and possibly other units that can carry out the safety management system tasks delegated to them, in accordance with the company’s organization and the functions performed in the different units.

4.3.3 Once the assessment of the shore-based safety management system is successfully completed, actions or planning for the assessment of the company’s ships can be initiated.

4.3.4 Upon satisfactory completion of the assessment, a document of compliance should be issued to the Company, copies of which should be provided to each shore-based facility and to each ship in the Company’s fleet. When a ship is assessed and issued with a safety management certificate, a copy should also be forwarded to the company’s head office.

4.3.5 In the case of certificates being issued by a recognized organization, a copy of all certificates should also be sent to the Administration.

4.3.6 Safety management audits of companies and ships shall consist of the same basic steps. The objective is to verify that the company or ship complies with the requirements of the ISM Code. Such audits include:

• .1 verification that the company’s safety management system complies with the requirements of the ISM Code, with objective evidence to demonstrate that the company’s safety management system has been in place for at least three months and that a safety management system has been in place for at least three months on board at least one ship of each type operated by the company; and
• .2 verification that the safety management system ensures that the objectives defined in paragraph 1.2.3 of the ISM Code are met. This includes verification that the document of compliance of the company responsible for the operation of the ship is applicable to that particular type of ship and an assessment of the on-board safety management system to verify that it meets the requirements of the ISM Code and that it is implemented. Objective evidence should be available to demonstrate that the company’s safety management system has been effectively implemented for at least three months on board the ship and ashore, including, inter alia, records of the internal audit carried out by the company.

4.4.1 In order to maintain the validity of the Document of Compliance, annual safety management audits shall be carried out, which should include the examination of statutory and class registers submitted for at least one ship of each type to which the Document of Compliance applies to verify that they are in order. The annual verification shall cover all elements of the safety management system and activities to which the requirements of the ISM Code apply. The purpose of such audits is to check the effectiveness of the operation of the safety management system and to ensure that any modifications to the safety management system comply with the requirements of the ISM Code.

4.4.2 The annual verification shall be carried out within three months before and after each annual due date of the document of compliance.

4.4.3 Where the company has more than one shore-based unit and/or delegates tasks related to safety systems, every effort should be made to assess all of them as part of annual assessments during the period of the document of compliance.

4.4.4 During the annual verification, Administrations should verify whether the Company is operating all ship types listed in the Document of Compliance. Appropriate action should be taken if the company has ceased to operate a particular type of ship.

4.5.1 In order to maintain the validity of the safety management certificate, intermediate safety management audits should be carried out. The intermediate verification shall cover all elements of the safety management system and activities to which the requirements of the ISM Code apply. The objective of these audits is to verify the effectiveness of the operation of the safety management system and to ensure that any modifications to the safety management system comply with the requirements of the ISM Code. In certain cases, particularly during the initial period of operation of the safety management system, Management may find it necessary to increase the frequency of intermediate verifications. In addition, the nature of the non-compliance found may be a reason to increase the frequency of intermediate verifications.

4.5.2 If only an intermediate verification is performed, it should take place between the second and third annual expiration of the safety management certificate.

Renewal verifications shall be carried out prior to the expiry of the document of compliance or safety management certificate. The renewal verification shall cover all elements of the safety management system and activities to which the requirements of the ISM Code apply. The renewal verification can be carried out from three months before the expiration date of the document of compliance or safety management certificate and should be completed before that date.

4.7.1 Management may, where it has reasonable grounds, require additional verification that the safety management system continues to operate effectively. Additional verifications may be carried out following situations that fall outside routine procedures. Such situations may include port State control detentions, reactivation after cessation of operations due to a period when the ship is out of service or to verify that effective corrective actions have been taken and/or fully implemented. Additional verifications may affect the shore-based organization and/or the shipboard management system. Management should determine the scope and depth of the verification, which may vary on a case-by-case basis. Additional verifications should be completed within the agreed time frame taking into account the guidelines developed by the Organization. Management should follow up the results of the verification and take appropriate action as necessary.

4.7.2 Upon satisfactory completion of the on-board assessment, the safety management certificate should be endorsed with respect to the additional verification.

4.8.1 The procedures for safety management audits described below include all relevant steps of all verifications, even if the audit scope of the interim and additional verifications is different from that of the initial, annual, intermediate and renewal verifications.

4.8.2 In extraordinary circumstances beyond the control of the parties, such as natural disasters, war, pandemic/epidemic outbreaks, strikes, riots, crime or sudden legal changes, which preclude face-to-face auditing, even though the parties have taken all reasonable steps to conduct the audit, the use of remote auditing methods may be considered, as described in ISO 19011:2018: Guidelines for auditing management systems, and IAF MD 4:2018: IAF Mandatory document for the use of information and communication technology (ICT) for auditing/assessment purposes, in order to defer periodic audits with a view to allow the ship to complete its voyage to the port where it is to be verified, or for the follow-up of additional verifications, provided that a “case-by-case” assessment is carried out by the Flag Administration. In such circumstances, remote audits, if authorized, should be limited to the issuance of an interim certificate, if applicable, or a certificate with a validity not exceeding the time required for the audit to be carried out in person and, in any case, within a period not exceeding six (6) months.

4.8.3 Until the Organization develops guidance on remote survey assessments and applications, this “case-by-case” assessment should, at a minimum, take into account aspects such as;

• .1 the type and age of the ship, the safety and compliance record of the ship and of the company, including the assessment of safety management systems and port State control performance;
• .2 documented justification for the use of remote methods, such as the exceptional circumstances described in 4.8.2 that do not allow for the physical presence of an auditor on board the ship or in the company;
• .3 the scope of the remote audit, taking into account the safety management system (SMS) activities that could be verified remotely for compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code, in order to achieve the same level of safety assurance and compliance compared to on-site audits. Other MSS activities that cannot be verified remotely should be verified through on-site audits. Although remote audits are not likely to be an absolute alternative to auditor observations on the status and implementation of safety management system procedures, including onboard activities that are an essential part of shipboard safety management audits, the extent to which they could be applied needs to be determined;
• .4 consultation with the Flag Administration in case the audit has been delegated to a recognized organization (RO) for the review and acceptance of the RO procedure for remote audits, for the coordination of the audits and for the instructions for the execution and reporting of such remote audit and for its verification and validation by a face-to-face audit;
• .5 the requirements and availability of arrangements for the implementation of remote auditing methods, such as the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the mandatory use of two-way audio and video or other alternative means of communication, the exchange of documents that, where necessary, can ensure confidentiality and protection of information, data protection, etc.;
• .6 the roles and responsibility of the parties involved, in particular personnel involved in on-board ship audit activities, in gathering and providing evidence on the condition of the ship and on the implementation of the SMS, with due consideration of appropriate arrangements to address any potential issues of impartiality and accountability of the personnel involved. In this regard, the current liability regime governing audits between the obligations of Flag Administrations, recognized organizations and companies will remain unchanged;
• .7 the training of personnel involved in on-site audit activities on board the ship and any additional qualifications of auditors conducting remote audits;
• .8 the provision of information and evidence to the auditor to confirm the scope of the audit and compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code, such as audio and video records, photographic records, statements of the master and/or crew member(s), ship’s logbook, service providers’ reports, records, etc.; and
• .9 reporting requirements and transparency of information on the methods used in the condition of the ship, indicating that the audit has been carried out remotely.

4.8.4 Under normal circumstances, the following should apply:

• .1 for on-board audits, the use of remote audit methods for specific MSS activities may be considered in accordance with the Guidelines for conducting audits under the ISM Code to be developed by the Organization, provided that the same level of security and assurance is ensured as for on-site audits with the physical presence of an auditor. In any case, initial, intermediate, renewal and additional on-board audits should not be fully replaced by remote audits; and
• .2 in the case of company audits, consideration may be given to the use of remote auditing methods in accordance with the Guidelines for Conducting Remote Audits in the ISM Code to be developed by the Organization.

4.9.1 The company should submit an audit request to the management or to the organization recognized by the management to issue the document of compliance or the safety management certificate on its behalf.

4.9.2 The management or the recognized organization should subsequently appoint the lead auditor and, if applicable, the audit team.

To plan the audit, the auditor should review the safety management manual to check that the safety management system is adequate to meet the requirements of the ISM Code. If the review indicates that the system is not adequate, the audit should be postponed until the company has taken corrective action.

4.11.1 The auditor should review the relevant safety records of the Company and take them into account in preparing the audit plan, e.g. flag State, port State control, class assignment and accident reports.

4.11.2 The appointed lead auditor should contact the Company and develop a plan for the audit.

4.11.3 The auditor should provide working papers governing the audit to facilitate the conduct of assessments, investigations and examinations in accordance with established procedures, instructions and forms to ensure uniformity of audit practices.

4.11.4 The audit team should be able to communicate effectively with those being audited.

4.12.1 The audit should begin with an opening meeting to introduce the audit team to company management, summarize the methods used to conduct the audit, confirm that all agreed facilities are available, confirm the date and time of the closing meeting and discuss any audit-related details requiring clarification.

4.12.2 The audit team should evaluate the safety management system based on the documentation submitted by the company and on objective evidence of its effective implementation.

4.12.3 Objective evidence should be obtained through interviews and document review. Observation of activities and conditions may also be included where necessary to determine the effectiveness of the safety management system in meeting the specific safety and environmental protection standards prescribed in the ISM Code.

4.12.4 Audit findings should be documented. Following the audit of the activities, the audit team should review the objective evidence obtained. This evidence should then be used to decide which are to be reported as serious instances of noncompliance, instances of noncompliance or observations. Such cases should be reported in relation to the general and specific provisions of the ISM Code.

4.12.5 At the conclusion of the audit, and before the audit report is prepared, the audit team should hold a meeting with the company’s management and those responsible for the functions concerned. The purpose of this meeting is to present the observations so that the results of the audit are clearly understood.

4.13.1 The audit report should be prepared under the direction of the lead auditor, who is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the report.

4.13.2 The audit report should include the audit plan, the identity of the audit team members, the dates and identity of the company, and observations on non-compliance and the effectiveness of the safety management system in achieving the stated objectives.

4.13.3 The Company should receive a copy of the audit report and be advised to provide the ship with copies of shipboard audit reports.

4.14.1 It is the responsibility of the company to establish and take the necessary measures to correct non-compliance or its causes. Failure to correct non-compliance with certain requirements of the ISM Code may affect the validity of the document of compliance and the related safety management certificates.

4.14.2 Corrective actions and any subsequent audits should be carried out within agreed timeframes. For corrective actions such timeframes should not normally exceed three months. The company should request follow-up audits as agreed.

4.14.3 Failure to take appropriate corrective action in accordance with the requirements of the ISM Code, including measures to prevent recurrence, may be considered as a case of serious non-compliance.

4.15.1 Verification of compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code does not relieve the company, management personnel, those performing delegated tasks in relation to safety management systems, officers and seafarers of their obligations with regard to compliance with national and international legislation relating to safety and environmental protection.

4.15.2 The company is responsible for:

• .1 inform its relevant employees and those performing delegated tasks in relation to safety management systems of the objectives and scope of the certificates prescribed in the ISM Code;
• .2 designate specific staff members to accompany members of the certification team;
• .3 provide the resources required by the certifying persons to ensure the effectiveness of the verification process;
• .4 facilitating access and means of proof requested by the persons in charge of certification; and
• .5 collaborate with the verification team so that certification objectives can be achieved.

4.15.3 Where cases of serious non-compliance have been identified, Administrations and recognized organizations should comply with the procedures set out in the “Procedures for serious non-compliance with the requirements of the ISM Code” (MSC/Circ. 1059-MEPC/Circ.401).

The organization responsible for issuing certificates prescribed by the ISM Code is responsible for ensuring that the certification and verification process is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the ISM Code and these revised guidelines, including management control of all aspects of certification in accordance with the provisions of the appendix to these revised guidelines.

4.17.1 Verifications related to certification, regardless of whether they are carried out by a team, should be carried out by one person. The team leader should have the authority to make conclusive decisions on how to conduct the verification and on possible observations. His/her functions should include:

• .1 the preparation of a plan for the verification; and
• .2 the presentation of the verification report.

4.17.2 Personnel involved in verification work have a duty to comply with the requirements established for such work, to ensure the confidentiality of documents related to certification and to treat confidential information obtained with discretion.