CARGO owners in the container trades have a quite different relationship with shipowners and operators than those in the bulk markets.

In the latter, whole ships are chartered, while beneficial cargo owners and freight forwarders in the box trades buy slots for their containers rather than hire the whole vessel.

That may be one explanation why shippers of containerised freight have been reluctant to get involved in the crew repatriation crisis that has left thousands of seafarers stuck at sea because of coronavirus-related disembarkation and travel restrictions.

They may also think that the big global container lines are in a better position to organise crew changes, with their strong local connections at key hub ports where crew changes would take place, and financial resources to organise flights for homebound and incoming personnel.

In truth, neither cargo interests in the bulk nor containerised trades emerge well from this emergency, seemingly concluding that crewing matters are not their responsibility. Their argument appears to be that they are simply the customers, and that it is up to shipowners, operators, managers, and crewing agents to find a solution.

And so, in normal times, it should be, but these are not normal times and those turning their back on the men and women at sea who make sure the global economy and international trade continue to function should think again. For they are the ones who could make a difference.

That is particularly true in the container trades, effectively the retail side of the industry, where the merchandise shipped is sold in shops, supermarkets and department stores all over the world. A few words from a high street brand name could be all that is needed.

So why is that not happening?

Those who understand the inner workings of the container trades point out that the more distant contractual relationship between shipper and shipowner than in the bulk business could be one reason, while shippers are often reluctant to get involved in politics for any number of reasons.

In the US, it may be concern about a backlash when drawing attention to the high volume of imports from China at a time of such strained relations between Washington and Beijing.

Yet cargo owners are more than happy to promote their environmental credentials when explaining to their customers — the general public — what actions they are taking to reduce transport-related pollution. So they do take a direct interest in the ocean carriers they use beyond schedule reliability and freight rates.

Furthermore, the plight of seafarers is not so much a political issue as a humanitarian one.

These big global companies have the ear of politicians and decision-makers in the way that most shipowners do not.

But if they are reluctant to speak out on an individual basis, then shipper associations and councils, which have never been shy in the past about taking a stand, should start lobbying for action.

First, though, it may be up to container lines, which have close relations with their customers even if on a different basis than in the wet and dry bulk trades, to ask beneficial cargo owners and forwarders to back industry-wide efforts to find a solution.

It is hard to see what there is to lose, but easy to recognise what there is to gain.

Seafarers who are unable to get home at the end of their contracts, and several hundred thousand more who are out of work because they have no means of joining ships, are the lifeblood of an industry that keeps trade flowing.

They are the ones who make sure vital supplies, from food, medicines, and personal protective equipment, to everyday consumer goods such as laptops, clothing, and pharmaceuticals, arrive in the shops.

Ships’ crews do not have much of a voice on the world stage, but those whose cargo is moved by sea are far more likely to be heard.

This is not somebody else’s problem, it is everyone’s problem.