Table of contents:
When it comes to developing a safe container terminal environment, simply publishing rules and expecting compliance isn't enough. It requires a sophisticated process that begins with risk awareness, continues with the formalisation of safety procedures, and only becomes truly effective when these procedures are integrated into daily practice.
Step 1: Create risk awareness
The foundation of any safety system is the ability to identify potential failures. This requires:
Step 2: Translating awareness into safety procedures
Once risks are identified and analysed, structured safety procedures are created for them. This formalises knowledge into instructions, making safety repeatable and verifiable. This includes:
Step 3: Embedding procedures into daily practice
The deciding factor for a procedure is not whether it's written down, but whether it's consistently followed in real-life operations. Integrating procedures requires:
Beyond compliance: Towards a safety mindset
Safety procedures must not be abstract documents; they must become lived habits that guide daily work. To achieve this, awareness, procedures, and practice must be aligned.
Employees must view safety not as externally imposed rules, but as an integral part of their operational excellence and professional pride. If this cultural shift is successful, risk awareness will become sustainable resilience.
Container terminals are among the most dangerous workplaces. Every day, vast quantities of containers are lifted, stacked, and transported in confined spaces using huge, powerful equipment. The combination of heavy machinery, unpredictable weather, high stacking heights, and constant time pressure makes container terminal safety procedures imperative.
Despite continuous efforts and improvements in facility design and safety culture, fatal accidents still occur with alarming frequency. According to the Severe Risks Dashboard of the International Cargo Handling Coordination Association (ICHCA), more than 500 fatalities of cargo handling workers were recorded worldwide between 2000 and mid-2024 (1).
For terminal employees, dangers don't just come from the most visible sources, such as cranes or heavy vehicles; they also lurk in the quieter corners—in the air they breathe, the surfaces they walk on, and even the pressure of the work itself.
The most immediate dangers, however, are clearly physical in nature. A fully loaded container can weigh up to 30 tons; if it falls from a great height, it can be deadly, even if you're not standing right next to it. Or consider the interaction between vehicles and people: Collisions, whether caused by poor visibility, distraction, or simply misjudgment, remain among the greatest risks. Slipping and tripping on wet or oily surfaces can also have far-reaching consequences.
Risks can also be chemical or polluting. Containers also transport hazardous cargo that can leak and react if mishandled (often caused by incorrect declaration). This frequently leads to fires or explosions. Toxic gases can build up in containers, which can become deadly traps for workers without the right equipment. The daily noise from engines, alarms, and machinery impairs hearing, while exhaust fumes and dust can damage the respiratory system. Heatwaves pose the risk of dehydration and heatstroke, storms can reach wind speeds that destabilise crane lifting operations, and lightning strikes pose a particular threat to tall metal structures on the quayside.
Not all risks are spectacular; many build up gradually through repetition. The sometimes strenuous physical work puts strain on muscles and joints, leading to chronic injuries. Even screen-based work, such as remotely operating cranes from control rooms, brings with it stress, eye fatigue, and cognitive overload.
A compounding factor behind all these risks is time pressure, which can tempt employees to compromise on safe procedures, sometimes with fatal consequences. Training gaps, especially among temporary or contract workers, increase the likelihood of unsafe practices. Language barriers in international workforces complicate communication. Long shifts increase the risk of accidents caused by physical and mental fatigue.
This spectrum of risks highlights why container terminals are generally considered high-risk environments. The hazards range from immediate and dramatic to insidious and long-term. Overcoming these challenges requires robust equipment and effective procedures, as well as vigilance, a safety-conscious corporate culture, and constant adaptation.
Safety at container terminals is based on structured, evidence-based procedures that translate known hazards into clear practices. These procedures should combine global safety principles with site-specific adaptations to ensure their effectiveness and practicality.
The hierarchy of controls
This internationally recognised approach forms the basis for risk reduction by providing a framework for selecting the most effective safety controls:
This framework highlights a critical point: not all controls are equal, and over-reliance on behavioural or individual safeguards is less effective than redesigning the system itself. The interplay between people, technology, and the environment is clearly reflected here. Theoretical models such as James Reason's "Swiss cheese model" of accident causation remind us that safety depends on multiple layers of defence. Each layer—facility design, operating procedures, supervision, and training—presents potential vulnerabilities.
Another key principle is the role of systemic design in shaping safe behaviour. Workers do not act completely independently; their decisions are strongly influenced by their environment. Practice ("work as done") often differs from theory ("work as intended"), so practices must also allow for a certain amount of flexibility that takes into account human adaptability, variability, and judgment under pressure.
Finally, leadership commitment, trust between management and staff, and open communication channels also play a significant role. Without them, even well-designed procedures risk remaining on paper and being ignored or bypassed in the face of operational pressure.
Now let us take a closer look at the dangers that pose the greatest danger, and what can be done to mitigate them:
ICHCA's Severe Risks Dashboard includes data on over 500 fatalities of dockworkers, contractors, visitors, and third parties that occurred worldwide between 2000 and July 2024. Approximately 75% of these incidents occurred during cargo handling operations—such as loading, unloading, and the movement of goods—both onshore and onboard.
Crush-by-cargo incidents (27% of the incidents)
Definition: Occurs when containers or cargo fall over, shift, swing, rotate, or otherwise become unstable, causing people to become trapped underneath or between the cargo.
Containment: Enforce "no person under load" rules, maintain cargo securing standards, implement exclusion zones, and monitor mechanical integrity of container handling equipment (CHE) and lifting gear.
Vehicle/pedestrian impact (23%)
Definition: Fatal collisions between mobile equipment (trucks, straddle carriers, forklifts, terminal tractors) and workers on foot.
Containment: Segregate pedestrian walkways from vehicle routes, enforce access controls, apply speed restrictions, and use proximity sensors and fleet management systems to reduce blind spots and human-machine interactions.
Confined/enclosed space (14%)
Definition: Deaths resulting from entry into oxygen-deficient, toxic, or flammable atmospheres in containers, tanks, holds, or other confined areas.
Containment: Restrict access without permits, conduct gas testing and continuous monitoring, ventilate spaces before entry, and ensure trained standby personnel and rescue plans are in place.
Fall from height (10%)
Definition: Workers falling from containers, ladders, walkways, cranes, or other elevated areas.
Containment: Minimise work at height, provide guardrails, certified access platforms, and fall arrest systems; enforce use of harnesses and safe access protocols.
Fall into water (8%)
Definition: Fatalities from workers falling into docks, berths, or alongside vessels, with drowning risks exacerbated by poor visibility and rapid water movement.
Containment: Secure quayside edges, provide guardrails where feasible, ensure personal flotation devices are worn in high-risk areas, and maintain rapid rescue capabilities.
Struck (6%)
Definition: Workers struck by moving equipment, swinging loads, unsecured tools, or lashings.
Containment: Establish exclusion zones, tether tools, enforce safe lashing and unlashing practices, and enhance signalling and communication between machine operators and ground staff.
Explosion (4%)
Definition: Fatal incidents caused by the uncontrolled release of energy from hazardous cargo, fuel, or equipment malfunctions.
Containment: Enforce IMDG Code requirements, segregate and correctly store dangerous goods, conduct regular inspections, and maintain emergency protocols for explosive materials.
Fire (3%)
Definition: Fatalities due to the ignition of flammable cargo, fuels, or equipment, often spreading rapidly in terminal environments.
Containment: Implement fire detection and suppression systems, maintain safe storage practices for hazardous goods, and provide firefighting training and emergency drills.
Overturn (2%)
Definition: Fatal incidents when mobile equipment such as straddle carriers, forklifts, or trucks overturn due to instability, uneven surfaces, or operator error.
Containment: Enforce equipment maintenance and inspection, provide operator training, implement speed limits, and ensure ground conditions are suitable for heavy vehicle operations.
The Severe Risks Dashboard makes one thing clear: Terminal safety is predictable. We know which events are most likely to be fatal, and we know the measures that can prevent them. The challenge lies in consistency—embedding these mitigation measures into procedures and actually applying them in daily operations. By systematically addressing these nine fatality categories with robust, layered protection measures, container terminals can transform high-risk environments into controlled workplaces where employees are protected from the worst accident consequences.
Digitalisation and automation have become an integral part of the reality and plans of container terminals. Let's take a look at how this trend is becoming a decisive factor in safety. A key factor here is the removal of people from dangerous environments. Let's look at their impact on the top 9 risks:
Cargo crushing
Automated lifting systems and remotely controlled CHE reduce the time workers spend near suspended loads. Automated twistlock handling prevents employees from standing under containers. Less manual intervention means fewer crushing injuries (see also: Unreported container damage)
Vehicle/pedestrian collision
Automated guided vehicles (AGVs), driverless straddle carriers, and traffic control integrated into the Terminal Operating System (TOS) drastically reduce mixed traffic flow. Geofencing and automated routing digitally keep pedestrians away from machine operation zones. Where human-driven trucks enter, intelligent gate systems register them and safely integrate them into the controlled ecosystem.
Confined/enclosed spaces
Automated reefer container monitoring, container inspection drones, and gas detection sensors reduce the need for physical entry into enclosed containers. Remote monitoring warns employees before unsafe conditions develop, preventing unnecessary entry and minimising exposure to confined spaces.
Fall from height
Automation keeps employees away from container stacks and cranes. Remote crane control allows operators to work from elevated cockpits in control rooms. Where access is unavoidable, fall arrest sensors provide additional safety checks.
Fall into water
Automated anchoring systems, such as vacuum or magnetic anchoring, reduce the dependence on workers handling heavy ropes near quaysides. Remote monitoring of gangways and automated alarms ensures safe transfers without constant human presence in high-risk areas along the waterline.
Collision
Automated stacker cranes (ASCs) and collision detection systems prevent uncontrolled movements or unsafe operator actions that could affect nearby personnel.
Explosion
Automation supports dangerous goods management by ensuring compliance with IMDG segregation regulations through digital planning. Automated inventory and monitoring systems such as optical character recognition (OCR), track dangerous cargo, detect anomalies early, and initiate isolation procedures without relying solely on manual checks.
Fire
Sensors integrated into refrigerated container monitoring systems and equipment detect overheating, electrical faults, or smoke before fires escalate. Automated fire suppression systems, including water cannons and remote alarms, are activated faster than human intervention alone and can contain incidents early on.
Overturn
Driverless vehicles and automated stacking systems are programmed to adhere to stability limits, speed limits, and safe turning circles. This eliminates human errors that often lead to overturns. Condition monitoring systems monitor vehicle stability in real-time, preventing unsafe operations before accidents occur.
Automation reduces the dependence on administrative controls and personal protective equipment at terminals—the weakest levels of the security hierarchy. Instead, risks are addressed at the engineering and elimination level, where security is built into the system itself. This shift transforms security from a matter of compliance to a matter of design: people are simply kept out of harm's way.
Founded in 1952, ICHCA is a non-profit, independent organisation dedicated to improving safety, efficiency, and sustainability in cargo handling worldwide. It brings together stakeholders from ports, shipping companies, logistics service providers, regulators, and safety experts to:
ICHCA is not a regulatory body, but the guidelines it produces are recognised and used by terminal operators and international organisations to evaluate safety practices.
The Severe Risks Dashboard, cited in the article, is a publicly accessible resource developed by ICHCA to provide data-driven insights into the most serious hazards in cargo handling. Its goal is to identify patterns and trends in fatal workplace accidents and help terminals focus on areas of greatest risk. It analyses over 500 fatal accidents worldwide between 2000 and mid-2024 and categorises them by type (e.g., crush injuries caused by cargo, vehicle-pedestrian collisions, falls, and confined-space accidents).
The goals are:
The facts show that safety in ports is not an undefined mystery, but a matter of implementing internalised measures. The same risk patterns, such as crushes, falls, and collisions, are repeated around the world. Proven prevention methods exist for all of them, and thanks to automation, more and more of the most dangerous tasks are no longer performed directly by humans.
The decisive factor, however, remains corporate culture. A terminal becomes truly safe not only when procedures are documented in writing, but when they are lived every day by employees, supervisors, and managers.
By aligning awareness, procedures, and practices, and embedding safety in operational planning, container terminals can move from purely responding to accidents to building a culture of resilience—where protecting human life is not a duty, but a shared value and professional standard.
Delve deeper into one of our core topics: Port automation
The Swiss Cheese Model, developed by psychologist James Reason, is a risk management framework illustrating how accidents result from multiple, often latent, system failures rather than a single mistake. It likens safety barriers in complex systems to slices of Swiss cheese, each with holes (weaknesses). Accidents occur when holes in several layers align, allowing hazards to pass through all defences. The model distinguishes between active failures (human errors) and latent conditions (organisational or systemic flaws), emphasising that preventing accidents requires addressing both types of weaknesses. (2)
"Work as intended" refers to how tasks are envisioned or prescribed by planners, managers, or those who write procedures—often assuming ideal conditions, no errors, and full compliance. In contrast, "work as done" describes what workers actually do in real-world environments, adapting to demands, constraints, unforeseen events, and practical realities. The gap between these perspectives is pivotal in safety management, as unrecognised differences may introduce risks or cause policies to misalign with frontline operations. (3)
References:
(1) https://ichca.com/ichca-severe-risks-dashboard
(2) Reason, James (1990). Human Error. Cambridge University Press.
(3) Dekker, Sidney (2014). The Field Guide to Understanding' Human Error'. CRC Press.
Note: This article was partly created with the assistance of artificial intelligence to support drafting.