Another point of view to complete the Rinaldy's article about shipping industry safety.

Abstract

This article is available in open access under Creative Common Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) license, allowing to download articles and share them with others as long as they credit the authors and the publisher, but without permission to change them in any way or use them commercially. Rinaldy’s article about shipping industry safety was very relevant [1]. The subject is delicate and critical because of the number of accidents and severe accidents among seafarers [2, 3]. The author has thus made a review of the literature. This will help for future research and to improve safety policies in the Indonesia shipping industry. However, as the author points out, the review has limitations inherent in its method: the quality of the data thus collected depends on the database, keywords, etc. But there is also another bias: using Scopus, the humanities may be underrepresented. It’s why, we would like to complete Rinaldi’s research by providing some notions from the human sciences. For example, the author highlights the importance of the literature about human error, which would be responsible for 80% to 85% of accidents. In French-language humanities, there are interesting resources for taking a step back from this type of data. On the one hand, it should be remembered that human error can sometimes be the apparent cause of an accident. The work context itself could explain that a person commits imprudence or makes a mistake. Time pressure, economic issues, fatigue, jet lag during expensive freight transport can favour this ultimate mistake made by a person. Beyond these organizational and economic aspects, there may be individual factors of human error: one person may perform less well in one task than another. In France, the current of work psychology and ergonomics have clinically studied how employees, whatever their work environment, can compensate for a disparity in performance. They could sometimes develop another way of working, in a more individual and yet just as efficient [4]. On the other hand, the literature about air transport allows having a more critical reading about the role of the human factor. Overall, two schools of thought exist. One of it defends the idea the work should be controlled strictly. It might reduce the risk of human error. The second “school” privileges an environment of work less controlled. Human is the ultimate barrier before an accident, so that he needs more freedom and autonomy in work [5]. Finally, the currents of psychodynamics and psychoanalysis of groups offer interesting tools to better understand certain reactions to rejection of safety instructions or of the wearing of protection. Depending on the work groups, it may happen that the people most respectful of the rules and safety instructions are rejected by the other members of the work team. Remembering back on safety rules can generate anxiety against to which some small groups will implement inappropriate coping strategies, such as denial [6]. Rinaldi’s article could thus be enlightened by these approaches of psychology, science of education and sociology, in order to complete the many lines of research identified by the author.