In February 2022, a car carrier named Felicity Ace caught fire in the Atlantic. What followed was not just a safety incident, but a total loss. The vessel sank with an estimated $155 million worth of cargo for car manufacturers. Three years later, in June 2025, the Morning Midas saw a fire break out mid-voyage, forcing its crew to abandon ship.
The common factor in both incidents was lithium batteries. Both incidents escalated rapidly beyond the capacity of onboard firefighting systems. Both also highlighted a deeper issue that continues to challenge the maritime industry.
The safe transport of hazardous goods has long depended on accurate declarations submitted at the start of a shipment’s journey. That model is under strain. With demand for consumer electronics, electric vehicles and energy storage accelerating, the lithium battery market is expected to grow by more than 30 per cent annually through 2030. As volumes rise, so does risk exposure, placing increasing pressure on a system that relies on the accuracy of what is declared.
Reducing misdeclaration requires a shift in approach. It calls for moving from self-declared cargo information towards certification data that is verified at source and shared across the supply chain in a way that is consistent, traceable and usable.
Rising Risks of Misdeclaration
Lithium batteries are now embedded across modern trade flows. They power consumer electronics, electric vehicles and energy storage systems, and they are increasingly shipped in different forms, including new, used, damaged and end-of-life units. Each category presents a different risk profile, but these distinctions are not always clearly reflected in shipping documentation.
When lithium batteries are exposed to thermal stress, mechanical damage or improper handling, they can trigger a chain reaction that leads to thermal runaway. Once initiated, these fires are difficult to contain and can spread rapidly across a vessel, releasing toxic gases that are dangerous to the crew.
As volumes grow, the variability and uncertainty associated with these shipments grow alongside them. This places increasing pressure on existing processes, particularly those that rely on the accuracy of information provided at the point of declaration, which cannot fully mitigate the risks associated with improper handling.
Misdeclaration sits at the centre of this challenge. In some cases, it reflects a lack of clarity or understanding. In others, it arises from fragmented processes or inconsistent standards across jurisdictions. Regardless of the cause, the result is the same. Hazardous cargo moves through the supply chain without being fully recognised or managed according to its risk.
Fragmented Data Flows Limit Verification at Scale
Despite ongoing digitisation efforts, the management of hazardous goods remains heavily dependent on manual workflows. Cargo declarations are often supported by documentation that exists in static formats, which limits the ability of downstream stakeholders to verify or reconcile information in real time.
The structure of data exchange contributes to this limitation. Information is typically shared between adjacent parties, with each participant holding a partial view. There is no shared layer that enables consistent validation of data across the entire chain. As a result, discrepancies can persist undetected across multiple handovers.
Verification itself is also constrained. Certificates may be submitted as part of the booking process, but confirming their authenticity or relevance often requires manual review. At scale, this becomes impractical. It introduces delays, increases operational burden and creates opportunities for errors to pass through unnoticed.
A further challenge lies in how emerging cargo types are governed. Existing guidelines for used, damaged, defective or waste batteries often lack explicit or operationally realistic parameters. This makes it difficult to apply them consistently across different stakeholders and environments, particularly when conditions such as temperature and cargo handling vary widely in practice.
These limitations highlight a deeper issue in the system, where information is distributed but not aligned. As a result, key participants depend on processes originally designed for a far less complex environment than the reality we face today.
Redefining Risk Management in Practice
To address the shortcomings of current processes, the industry has long recognised the need for more consistent and universal protocols for the handling of hazardous cargo. That need has become more apparent as the risk profile of shipments evolves. Despite this broad acknowledgement, universal standards have not fully materialised in practice. Instead, different organisations have introduced their own approaches to monitoring and governing temperature-sensitive cargo.
These efforts reflect a necessary shift in mindset, but they also introduce new complexities. Variations in how protocols are defined, applied and enforced can lead to inconsistent handling across the supply chain. In environments where temperature fluctuations can significantly affect cargo stability, these inconsistencies can themselves become a source of risk. What is intended to improve safety can, in certain conditions, create gaps in how that safety is maintained from origin to destination.
The problem is not merely that the rules differ. It is that different parties across the supply chain may view the same cargo in very different ways. The challenge is the absence of a common and reliable way to interpret and act on the available information.
Safe Transport Certificates play an important role in this context. They are designed to confirm that hazardous cargo meets the required safety conditions for transport. In theory, they provide assurance that the necessary testing and compliance checks have been completed. In practice, however, they are often embedded in a document-based workflow. Certificates are issued, transferred and reviewed as static files, which limits their ability to inform decisions beyond initial submission. Questions around authenticity, completeness and relevance are not always easy to resolve, particularly at scale.
An emerging direction is the move towards enriched certification. This involves expanding the scope beyond a simple pass or fail outcome. Instead, it can be structured as a set of data attributes that provide a more detailed view of the cargo. For lithium batteries, this may include information on condition, classification and compliance with relevant standards, as well as technical indicators that influence risk. Crucially, enriched certification links this information directly to the underlying test data and the issuing laboratory. It allows certification to reflect the actual state of the cargo, rather than serving as a detached layer of documentation.
When certification is both enriched and structured, it becomes more than a record. It gives carriers, terminals and regulators information they can actually use, rather than simply a record to file away. Carriers can reference it during the booking process. Terminals can use it to guide handling and storage. Regulators can rely on it for audit and oversight.
Verify at Source
To support this shift, attention has turned towards how certification data is created and shared. One area of development involves connecting carriers more directly with accredited testing laboratories through a shared digital infrastructure, an approach that is beginning to take shape through GSBN’s blockchain-enabled platform and its ongoing collaboration with a network of laboratories accredited by the China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment (CNAS).
This enables certification to be issued at source and accessed downstream in a consistent format.
In practical terms, this model changes how information flows. Traditionally, a shipper would obtain a certificate, attach it to booking documentation and submit it through multiple intermediaries. Each party would review the information independently, often relying on manual checks and limited context. This creates duplication of effort and introduces the possibility of errors or inconsistencies going undetected.
By contrast, when certification data is retrieved directly from the issuing laboratory, it carries a clearer point of reference. Its origin is known, its content is structured, and its integrity can be maintained across systems. Collaboration with accredited laboratories, including those recognised under the China National Accreditation Service for Conformity Assessment, has begun to demonstrate how such a model can work in practice. By linking to a network of these laboratories, carriers can access certification data that is more consistent and easier to validate, without relying on repeated document submission.
The impact of this shift is not limited to efficiency. It supports a more reliable understanding of cargo risk, grounded in information that can be traced back to its source.
Rethinking Trust at Scale
Looking ahead, this direction can be extended further through the concept of a certification pool.
A certification pool is a shared repository of validated certification data contributed by accredited laboratories. In this model, laboratories issue and maintain certification data within a common framework. Carriers and stakeholders access that data as needed, rather than managing individual certificates independently for each shipment. The focus moves from handling documents to interacting with a shared dataset.
Such an approach introduces several advantages. It reduces duplication by eliminating the need to repeatedly submit and verify the same information. It improves consistency by ensuring that all participants refer to a common set of data. It also enhances traceability, as certification can be linked back to its origin and maintained throughout the lifecycle of a shipment.
For laboratories, it provides a way to extend the reach of their assessments beyond the point of issuance. For carriers, it offers access to certification data that is more readily available and easier to interpret. For the wider ecosystem, it creates the conditions for aligning how risk is evaluated across different stages of the supply chain.
At its core, this represents a shift in how the industry approaches trust. Instead of depending on the transfer of documents between parties, it depends on the ability of participants to access and rely on information that has already been established and validated at source.
Implications for Ports and Terminals
For ports and terminals, access to verified and structured cargo data changes the way operations can be planned and executed.
Greater clarity on the nature of incoming cargo allows decisions to be made earlier. Storage and handling requirements can be aligned more closely with the actual risk profile of the cargo. This reduces the likelihood of incompatible goods being placed together and supports safer yard operations.
The availability of reliable data also plays a role in incident response. When information on cargo characteristics can be accessed quickly and with confidence, it can inform how a situation is assessed and managed. This becomes particularly important in cases where conditions escalate rapidly.
There is also a broader impact on compliance and reporting. Verified data creates a clearer record of what has been transported and under what conditions, supporting both regulatory oversight and internal risk management.
The result is a shift from operating with partial and sometimes inconsistent information to operating with a more complete view of cargo risk.
Data Transition: An Industry Imperative
The risks associated with hazardous cargo are unlikely to diminish, particularly as demand for lithium batteries continues to grow. What can change is how those risks are understood and managed.
Improving outcomes will depend on the ability of the industry to work with information that is accurate, consistent and available where it is needed.
This requires more than incremental improvements. It requires alignment on how data is created, validated and shared across the supply chain.
The transition towards verified and shareable data provides a foundation for this shift. It enables earlier identification of risk, clearer accountability and more consistent decision-making.
Progress will depend on coordination across stakeholders, as well as continued development of the infrastructure that supports trusted data exchange.
The movement of goods has always depended on coordination. Increasingly, coordination will depend on the ability of participants to rely on the same set of facts, established at source and shared with confidence.