I am rather puzzled by the purpose of this list. The ICS states that it is to encourage ship owners to provide decent working and living conditions on the registered ships and yet it has no criteria for compliance with UNCLOS which specifies this in Article 94. It also specifies that the company and flag state should have genuine link. If these criteria had been included, then most of the states would have a red square in this section. The compliance with the Vienna convention is not mentioned either probably for good reason.
The heading of ratification of conventions is meaningless. Many of the flag states ratify these conventions without the slightest intention of compliance.
A benchmark of attendance at the IMO is again rather pointless.
A more meaningful one of compliance with the IMO conventions would have more relevance. Indeed, it may be better if many of these flag states avoided attendance and then so many good legislative proposals would not be blocked.
The Chamber also claims that this document is to encourage ship owners to put pressure on their flag administrations to effect be any improvements that may necessary, especially in relation to safety of life at sea.
The fact that we still have safety equipment so out of date and not fit for purpose and seafarers dying in enclosed spaces without any legislation shows that the ship owners are well versed in putting such pressure on, unfortunately in the wrong direction.
It is regrettable that the ICS has not made more use of its facilities to make a serious attempt to deal with the flagrant abuse of the flag state system by many countries that now sell their registrations like postage stamps with no intention or ability to comply with their responsibilities. You have the feeling that the document is designed to allow their members to feel more comfortable about the flag states they have registered their ships in. It will do nothing to improve safety or improve conditions for those at sea.