Shore Leave Policy—Paving the Path to a Sustainable Career Environment for Seafarers

Abstract

In addressing the increasing challenges associated with automation, alternative fuels, and regulatory compliance within the maritime industry, the well-being of seafarers has become a critical determinant of workforce stability and career sustainability. This study investigates the impact of shore leave policies on seafarers’ well-being and turnover intention by applying the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). The study delineates four principal criteria—mental well-being, physical health, work–life balance, and organizational support—and evaluates their sub-criteria via expert assessments from two distinct cohorts, each comprising 30 participants: maritime human resource professionals and seafarers working alongside related stakeholders. The outcome designates organizational support as the most influential criterion, with shore leave flexibility and financial incentives identified as the top-ranked sub-criteria. In contrast, mental well-being has the lowest overall weight, indicating that while its significance is acknowledged, it is frequently overshadowed by structural and financial factors. The findings underscore the need for shipping companies and policymakers to formulate flexible and financially supported shore leave policies to bolster seafarer retention and overall job satisfaction. This study enhances literature concerning sustainable seafaring careers and provides strategic recommendations for optimizing the management of shore leave policies within the maritime industry.

1. Introduction

With increasing automation, the adoption of alternative fuels, and growing corporate governance demands, skilled seafarers have become indispensable to the maritime industry. They not only mitigate operational risks and ensure the effective implementation of safety protocols but also integrate into company cultures [1]. However, the global shipping industry is facing a severe shortage of experienced officers, a challenge expected to worsen in the coming years [2,3]. Studies indicate that high turnover and resignation rates significantly threaten workforce stability and business continuity [4]. This issue is particularly critical for senior officers, who require at least six years of training to become fully qualified [5]. Consequently, maritime companies must implement comprehensive recruitment, training, and career development strategies to foster a sustainable work environment, ensuring mutual benefits for both the industry and its workforce [4,5].

Seafarers operate in isolated social environments while exposed to hazardous natural conditions, leading to mental health challenges, such as emotional stress, loneliness, anxiety, and depression [6,7]. The absence of effective work–life balance policies, particularly shore leave, has been linked to higher turnover rates [8]. Although wages in the shipping industry remain competitive, financial incentives alone are insufficient to retain seafarers [9]. Thus, improving shore leave policies and overall welfare initiatives is essential for improving workforce retention and stability.

Well-being is a crucial factor influencing employee stress coping, job satisfaction, participation, and overall performance [10]. Within the framework of sustainable careers, well-being not only affects individual career stability but is also closely linked to organizational talent retention strategies’ success [11]. To retain talent, it is necessary to consider the correlation between well-being and turnover intention; this study uses shore leave as a factor of well-being to explore establishing a sustainable carrier environment for seafarers. The effort-recovery model, developed by Meijman and Mulder (1998) [12], states that people need to recover their psychological and physical well-being through participation in leisure outside of work [13]. Research shows that focusing on welfare measures that seafarers perceive as contributing to their happiness and well-being directly impacts job satisfaction and retention rates [14,15]. Shore leave is one leisure activity for seafarers, offering them the opportunity for rest, recuperation, and familial reconnection [14]. According to the Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 (MLC), seafarers are entitled to adequate leave to improve their health and well-being, including shore leave, which is critical in supporting their mental and physical health and ensuring sustainable careers. Thus, within the concept of sustainable careers, well-being is not only an individual concern but should also be integrated into maritime companies’ human resource management and career support strategies. Ensuring that seafarers maintain high performance, reducing occupational burnout, and promoting long-term retention are essential steps in enhancing the overall sustainability of the maritime industry.

Although the significance of seafarers’ well-being in mitigating turnover intention is well documented [16], current research predominantly emphasizes aspects such as compensation, working hours [17], and safety [18,19], with insufficient research on the effects of port time, the quality of shore leave, and its integration into comprehensive well-being strategies. Few studies have focused specifically on how structured shore leave policies intersect with broader career sustainability, particularly from a multi-criteria perspective. The conceptual foundation of this study rests upon well-established understandings of sustainable careers, work–life balance, and occupational well-being. Sustainable careers are typically framed as those that support an individual’s long-term health, happiness, and productivity across their working life [20]. In parallel, work–life balance is recognized as the capacity to effectively manage boundaries between professional responsibilities and personal roles, particularly in occupations with extended periods of absence from home, as highlighted in Clark’s (2000) work/family border theory [21]. Additionally, occupational well-being is often conceptualized as a multidimensional state encompassing physical resilience, mental stability, and emotional satisfaction—factors especially salient in the high-risk, high-isolation environment of maritime labor [22]. These frameworks collectively guide the selection of criteria in this study and offer a theoretical lens through which the impact of shore leave policies on sustainable career development can be interpreted.

This study employs a comprehensive methodology—specifically, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)—to ascertain and prioritize the key criteria based on which shore leave influences seafarers’ physical and mental well-being. This study incorporates four principal criteria: mental well-being, physical health, work–life balance, and organizational support. Although these criteria are grounded in established literature, their relative significance regarding shore leave and sustainable career development remains underexplored. Unlike structural equation modeling (SEM), which is suited for testing hypothesized causal relationships, the AHP allows for expert-based pairwise comparison and prioritization of multiple criteria. This makes the AHP especially appropriate for an emerging research area where theoretical models are not yet fully developed, but informed judgment is essential for practical application. Motivated by the pressing need to retain qualified seafarers amid escalating industry challenges, this study addresses the practical deficiencies in current shore leave implementation and its undervalued role in career sustainability. The primary objective is to assess the relative significance of these factors from the perspectives of both maritime management and seafaring professionals, thereby providing a balanced understanding of operational and experiential realities. By developing a structured framework grounded in expert input, this study offers pragmatic insights for policymakers and shipping companies to help them refine shore leave strategies, enhance seafarers’ welfare, and sustain long-term maritime sector workforce stability.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Understanding Seafarer Turnover: Causes, Data Challenges, and Industry Implications

Seafarer turnover is influenced by subjective and environmental determinants, which collectively influence the propensity for seafarers to depart from their employer or withdraw from the industry. (1) Subjective determinants: Salaries and welfare are principal determinants of seafarer turnover. Empirical studies have demonstrated that inadequate remuneration, delayed compensation, and restricted prospects for career advancement increase the probability of seafarers seeking positions with organizations offering superior remuneration [9,23,24,25]. Furthermore, mental health significantly influences turnover; prolonged family separation, social isolation, and excessive occupational stress can precipitate anxiety, depression, and dissatisfaction, thereby compelling seafarers to change careers. In addition, physical well-being is a substantial factor. Conditions such as chronic fatigue, sleep deprivation, and occupational health disorders diminish the long-term sustainability of careers, especially among senior officers experiencing increased workload burdens [20,26,27,28]. (2) Environmental determinants: Work conditions, technological advancements, and organizational management also significantly shape seafarer turnover. Prolonged working hours, diminished crew sizes, and automation have increased stress levels and job dissatisfaction, prompting some seafarers to reconsider their career trajectories [15,29,30,31]. The escalating incorporation of ship automation and AI-driven navigation systems has generated apprehension regarding job security and the obsolescence of skills, making some seafarers uncertain about their long-term employment viability [32,33,34]. Additionally, organizational deficiencies, including insufficient mental health support and inflexible contract structures, worsen turnover risks [35].

Regarding seafarer turnover rates, analyses from BIMCO ICS (2021) and the Drewry Manning Annual Review (2023/2024) reveal that turnover rates for certain roles are 20–30%, increasing concerns regarding the stability of the industry (BIMCO/ICS, 2021) [2,3]. Nonetheless, some research posits that despite a general surplus of seafarers, there are shortages of specific ranks, such as chief officers and second engineers [36]. However, it is undeniable that the employment structures within the maritime sector further complicate turnover analysis. Many seafarers are employed on short-term contracts or through crew management agencies (CMAs) rather than through direct employment by shipping companies, making long-term career monitoring challenging. Additionally, numerous seafarers transition to shore-based industries (e.g., port management, logistics, and maritime training) after departing sea-based roles. However, inconsistent classification across national contexts obfuscates whether these transitions represent permanent departures from the maritime sector [36,37]. Moreover, the use of flags of convenience (FOCs) exacerbates data opacity, as some flag states maintain minimal records of seafarer employment and mobility, resulting in unreliable turnover statistics. Furthermore, numerous shipping companies have hiring preferences based on nationality, influenced by considerations such as cost efficiency, linguistic proficiency, and cultural adaptability. While this approach mitigates short-term operational expenses, it potentially engenders long-term human resource shortages, particularly if principal labor-supplier nations undergo economic transformations or if younger groups are less interested in maritime careers [38]. Mitigating these issues necessitates enhanced turnover data accumulation, including longitudinal workforce tracking and standardizing employment classifications across flag states. Moreover, shipping companies should implement more adaptable human resource strategies, diversify recruitment channels, and invest in employee retention programs to alleviate labor shortages and foster enduring industry sustainability.

2.2. Sustainable Career

A sustainable career emphasizes the long-term adaptability of one’s professional path, career well-being, and organizational support, advocating for dynamic adjustments in response to industrial changes, technological innovations, and personal needs [11]. Unlike traditional career models, this approach prioritizes continuous development and adaptability to ensure that employees maintain productivity and job satisfaction [24]. The three core indicators of sustainable careers—health, happiness, and productivity—define career stability and growth [20]. Health includes physical and mental well-being, workload management, and stress regulation, all required to ensure long-term stability [24]. Happiness is associated with career satisfaction, achievement, and work–life balance, all of which enhance employee commitment [34]. Productivity focuses on individual contributions and adaptability at different career stages, securing long-term competitiveness for employees and organizations alike [36].

Beyond core indicators, sustainable career development is shaped by three key dimensions: individual, environmental, and time factors [24]. The individual dimension includes career adaptability, lifelong learning, and psychological resilience, enabling employees to remain competitive in evolving job markets [39]. The environmental dimension involves corporate policies and workplace conditions, where HRM strategies, career development programs, and flexible work arrangements reinforce career sustainability [15]. The temporal dimension highlights the dynamic nature of careers, requiring employees to adapt to market shifts and technological advancements to maintain long-term career viability [34]. These dimensions indicate that career sustainability is not solely dependent on individual efforts but also on organizational and industry-level support [40].

Career sustainability is also closely tied to well-being and leisure [35]. Employees who maintain work–life balance report better mental health and job satisfaction [41]. High well-being levels enable individuals to navigate career challenges and sustain long-term professional stability [36]. Additionally, moderate leisure activities can enhance stress resilience, ensuring consistent performance and adaptability throughout a career [35]. These findings suggest that companies should implement flexible work policies, provide mental health resources, and encourage employee leisure activities to foster sustainable careers.

Ultimately, sustainable careers require both individual career management and corporate HR strategies that support employees’ long-term professional stability. By promoting lifelong learning, flexible work environments, and mental health support, companies can enhance career sustainability, improve seafarer retention, and ensure the long-term stability of the shipping industry [24]. This study explores these dynamics to develop effective strategies for ensuring seafarer career sustainability, fostering mutual growth between companies and employees while securing the industry’s sustainable future.

2.3. Criteria Selection for AHP-Based Shore Leave Policy Evaluation

This section examines the principal dimensions considered in extant research, which form the theoretical foundation for the framework of this study.

2.3.1. Mental Well-Being

Seafarers experience prolonged periods of isolation and high-pressure occupational conditions, rendering mental well-being indispensable [14]. Psychological resilience assists them in managing stress in confined environments [6]. The primary elements influencing mental well-being during shore leave encompass the following: (1) Stress reduction—participation in leisure activities such as walking, sightseeing, or resting facilitates mental recuperation for seafarers and mitigates work-related stress [14,42]. (2) Emotional well-being—shore leave offers opportunities for relaxation, mood enhancement, and burnout prevention. Access to maritime welfare facilities (e.g., seafarer missions, religious centers) provides supplementary emotional support [43,44]. (3) Social connection—extended isolation may precipitate loneliness and depression. Shore leave enables seafarers to reconnect with loved ones, interact with others, and cultivate a sense of belonging, thus reducing burnout [28,45,46].

2.3.2. Physical Health

The physically strenuous nature of seafaring necessitates maintaining good physical health to ensure safety and forestall chronic health conditions [47,48]. Shore leave facilitates physical well-being through the following: (1) Rest and recovery—time off permits seafarers to recuperate from fatigue, diminishing the risk of injury and enhancing overall well-being [29,49]. (2) Access to healthcare—limited medical resources at sea defer treatment, a predicament exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Shore leave allows for routine check-ups and medical consultations, as mandated by the Maritime Labor Convention (MLC) 2006 [50,51,52]. (3) Fitness opportunities—fitness can promote physical health, reduce the risk of sexual disease transmission, and relieve negative emotions and promote mental health. The provision of onboard fitness facilities is limited. Shore leave offers a chance to access gyms, sports centers, and outdoor activities, fostering both physical and mental health [53,54].

2.3.3. Work–Life Balance

Prolonged absences from family and isolation at sea adversely influence the work–life balance, heightening stress and burnout risk [53]. Shore leave facilitates balance restoration through the following: (1) It confers opportunities for seafarers to reconnect with family, strengthening emotional bonds and alleviating isolation. This is especially important, as many seafarers have limited or no communication with their families while at sea. Shore leave provides a rare chance for direct interaction, offering much-needed emotional support and connection. [7,44]. (2) Personal leisure provides occasions for engaging in hobbies and self-care, diminishing stress and enhancing psychological well-being [13,46,54]. (3) Disconnection from work: Seafarers frequently encounter work interruptions, even while resting on board. Shore leave enables complete detachment, critical for mental recovery [31,54].

2.3.4. Organizational Support

Shipping companies are pivotal in influencing seafarers’ well-being through shore leave policies [55]. Organizational support comprises the following: (1) Shore leave flexibility—adaptable policies alleviate workload stress, enabling seafarers to take leave when necessary and thereby enhancing overall well-being [14,56,57]. (2) Financial incentives—allowances and travel reimbursements promote shore leave participation and support the physical and mental health of seafarers [58]. (3) Policy clarity—transparent policies ensure that seafarers understand their rights, reducing confusion and fostering trust between the crew and employers [59,60].

2.3.5. Summary

This review highlights the key criteria and sub-criteria used in evaluating shore leave policies, emphasizing their impact on seafarers’ well-being, work–life balance, and organizational support. Findings from the existing literature suggest that shore leave flexibility, financial incentives, and family time play crucial roles in improving retention and overall job satisfaction. Additionally, access to medical care, fitness opportunities, and mental health support further enhance seafarers’ quality of life. A well-structured shore leave policy, backed by transparent organizational support, is essential for ensuring both workforce sustainability and operational efficiency. These insights provide a foundation for applying AHP analysis to prioritize the most effective policy measures.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Methods

In this study, we initially employed the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate key decision criteria and their corresponding sub-factors related to shore leave and seafarers’ well-being. This methodology was further complemented by a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis to contextualize the AHP results within a strategic framework.

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), developed by Thomas L. Saaty (1980) [61], is a structured, multi-criteria decision-making methodology that helps to break down complex problems into a clear and manageable hierarchical framework. It has extensive utility and adaptability and has been extensively applied across various domains, including resource allocation, supplier selection, policy formulation, and environmental management. AHP supports decision-makers in prioritizing multiple, often conflicting criteria by comparing them in pairs. Each element within the hierarchy, ranging from an overall goal, through a series of criteria and sub-criteria, to a set of alternative solutions, can be systematically evaluated. By converting qualitative judgments into a quantifiable scale of relative importance, AHP provides a transparent and rigorous foundation for addressing intricate decision-making challenges.

The framework of this study employed the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) methodology, synthesizing theoretical insights and expert judgments to scrutinize the complex relationship between leisure, physical health, and mental well-being. To establish a systematic foundation, a hierarchical structure was devised, comprising three levels: the goal level, the major criteria level, and the sub-criteria level. The principal criteria—mental well-being, physical health, work–life balance, and organizational support—were identified as crucial dimensions impacting decision-making. These criteria encapsulate key aspects discussed in extant studies and facilitate expert-driven prioritization in domains where theoretical models are not yet fully developed, forming the basis for a comprehensive evaluation.

In implementing the AHP framework, all pairwise comparison matrices were initially constructed in Microsoft Excel, where manual input, normalization, and calculation of local and global weights were conducted. To ensure methodological rigor and result consistency, all weight vectors and consistency ratios were independently verified using Super Decisions software (Version 3.1). Only matrices with a consistency ratio (CR) below the 0.1 threshold were retained, in accordance with standard AHP guidelines. The use of two software environments allowed for the cross-validation of results, minimized computational errors, and strengthened the overall robustness of the prioritization outcomes.

In this study, the criteria used within the AHP framework were further refined through a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis. SWOT analysis was employed to identify and categorize internal and external factors relevant to the decision context, thereby ensuring that the criteria incorporated into the AHP model were strategically comprehensive and contextually grounded. By integrating SWOT insights into the hierarchy construction, the resulting AHP-based evaluation process was better aligned with the underlying organizational context, ultimately leading to more robust, informed, and sustainable decision-making outcomes.

Furthermore, the development of the AHP criteria hierarchy was not arbitrary; it was grounded in both extensive literature review and iterative consultations with maritime industry professionals. This hybrid approach ensured that the selected criteria reflected not only theoretical relevance but also practical applicability within the maritime work context. These steps collectively reinforced the validity, transparency, and replicability of the methodological framework employed in this study.

3.2. Framework

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) questionnaire was devised to assess the relative significance of factors affecting seafarers’ shore leave policies. In addition to the theoretical grounding established through the literature review, the development of the AHP hierarchy was further shaped by the author’s longstanding involvement in the maritime industry. Informal discussions with colleagues, experienced seafarers, and maritime professionals, including classmates and family members actively engaged in seafaring work, provided valuable contextual input. These real-world conversations surfaced recurrent concerns and practical priorities that informed the construction of criteria and sub-criteria. The practitioner-informed approach contributed to the face validity and contextual relevance of the resulting evaluation framework. Consistent with the methodological foundation outlined in Section 3.1, the selection of these sub-criteria was based on an integrated process involving both an extensive literature review and iterative professional feedback gathered during the pre-survey development stage. These principal criteria embodied the fundamental dimensions of this study, and the sub-criteria were selected to capture diverse perspectives and to ensure a comprehensive evaluation. The integration of SWOT insights also helped ensure that each criterion represented a strategically relevant factor within the maritime shore leave policy context.

Table 1. The criteria for enhancing the well-being of seafarers and establishing a sustainable career environment through shore leave.

Criterion	Sub-Criteria	Description	References
Mental Well-being	Stress Reduction	Opportunities to relax and decompress during shore leave	[14,42]
	Emotional Well-being	Activities or environments that promote mental peace	[43,44]
	Social Connection	Interactions with family, friends, or peers during shore leave	[45,46]
Physical Health	Rest and Recovery	Adequate rest to recover from physical fatigue	[29,49]
	Access to Healthcare	Opportunities for medical check-ups or treatment	[50,52]
	Fitness Opportunities	Access to facilities or environments conducive to physical exercise	[53,54]
Work–Life Balance	Family Time	Opportunities to reunite and spend time with family	[4,44]
	Personal Leisure	Time for hobbies, exploration, or personal interests	[13,54]
	Disconnection from Work	Freedom from work-related responsibilities during shore leave	[31,54]
Organizational Support	Shore Leave Flexibility	The extent to which the company accommodates seafarers’ shore leave needs	[14,57]
	Financial Incentives	Allowances provided for shore leave	[58]
	Policy Clarity	Transparent and fair company policies regarding shore leave entitlements	[59,60]

provides a detailed overview of the criteria and sub-criteria utilized in the questionnaire.

To mitigate potential biases and achieve comprehensive, multidimensional insights, this study enlisted 60 experts from the Asia–Pacific region, organized into two distinct cohorts. Each expert was invited to complete an anonymous AHP questionnaire, designed to assess the relative importance of factors influencing the impact of shore leave on seafarers’ well-being and turnover intention. The questionnaire was self-administered and distributed electronically to ensure independent and unbiased responses. The AHP methodology is particularly suitable for expert-based decision problems and can yield valid results with relatively small but well-qualified samples. According to the existing AHP literature, a panel size of between 10 and 30 experts per group is generally considered adequate for achieving reliable pairwise comparison matrices, especially when the respondents possess substantial domain knowledge. In this study, each cohort consisted of 30 experts with extensive experience in maritime management or seafaring practice, providing a balanced representation of both operational and experiential insights. By integrating a broad spectrum of perspectives, these questionnaire results facilitated a more substantial understanding of the complex, and occasionally contentious, issues related to the impact of shore leave on seafarers’ welfare and turnover intention.

Cohort 1: maritime HR and management experts. This cohort was involved in formulating policies and implementing management practices. The members comprised maritime human resources managers, marine managers, consultants, and strategists engaged in the decision-making process. Beyond their responsibilities in the recruitment and retention management of seafarers, these professionals typically participated in the decision-making and policy implementation of companies. Consequently, they exerted influence not only on the policies governing seafarers’ shore leave but also on the effects of seafarers on organizational practices, encompassing work–life balance and job satisfaction.

Cohort 2: seafarers and related professionals. This cohort represented a key stakeholder group in enacting policy. It included seafarers, union representatives, managers of manning agencies, organizations or NGOs advocating for seafarers’ welfare, researchers, and evaluators representing the flag state regarding enforcing the Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 (MLC). These individuals’ experiences directly impacted policy implementation or policy formulation and offered invaluable firsthand insights into the challenges and advantages associated with shore leave from the seafarers’ viewpoint. Their experiences were essential in comprehending the effects on well-being, stress, and propensity to resign.

To provide a clear and concise overview of the invited experts and their backgrounds, the compositions of the two cohorts are summarized in

Table 2. The compositions of expert cohorts in the AHP study.

	Member	Description
Cohort 1 Maritime HR and Management Experts	Maritime Human Resources Manager	Tasked with overseeing human resources and developing and executing compensation and benefits strategies.
	Marine Managers	Tasked with implementing and supervising shore leave policies and acting as the primary architects of procedures and enforcers of management protocols to ensure the organization’s compliance with the Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 (MLC).
	Consultants and Strategists	Academics, legal experts, financial experts, etc., who participate in formulating and implementing policy frameworks.
Cohort 2 Seafarers and Related Professionals	Experienced Seafarers	Serve as vessel operators and constitute the principal stakeholders in the shore leave policy, thus holding the potential to contribute personal experiences.
	Union Representatives and Managers of Manning Companies	Participate in collective negotiations with maritime enterprises to advocate for the entitlements and benefits of seafarers. The representatives have an extensive understanding of the perspectives of seafarers.
	Seafarers’ Welfare Advocates and Guardian	Includes organizations or NGOs that advocate for the welfare of seafarers, along with researchers and evaluators representing the flag state regarding the enforcement of the Maritime Labor Convention of 2006 (MLC). These entities are dedicated to the well-being of seafarers.

. This structured representation further facilitated the understanding of the multidimensional insights drawn from the expert interviews.

This study analyzed the key criteria of the shore leave policy through the AHP to quantify its impact on shipping company operations and crew management. Finally, a SWOT analysis was used to further evaluate how companies can use the policy to strengthen their competitive advantage, improve internal weaknesses, seize market opportunities, and respond to external threats. The AHP helps determine the relative importance of shore leave systems for each of the criteria, while SWOT provides strategic direction, for example, by promoting crew loyalty through flexible leave (strengths), improving the high turnover rate (weaknesses), attracting investment in line with ESG trends (opportunities), and reducing the risk of labor market shortages (threats). This combined approach provides shipping companies with a reference for building a more competitive and sustainable management strategy while balancing human resources and operational efficiency.

3.3. Data Collection

To ensure the data’s reliability, respondents living in the Asia–Pacific region were required to have a minimum of six years of pertinent experience and to have worked during the COVID-19 period, offering the study a perspective on the effects of shore leave policies on seafarers. Potential respondents were identified through recommendations from both the maritime industry and academic channels. Invitations were extended via in-person interviews, telephone calls, and email communications. Throughout the recruitment process, the research objectives and direction were articulated clearly, and measures for ensuring confidentiality were highlighted, especially considering the possibility that participants could occupy stakeholder positions. Although some candidates declined to participate due to personal considerations, this study succeeded in engaging a sufficient number of experts and professionals, ultimately reaching a total of 60 qualified respondents, evenly distributed across the two cohorts.

The questionnaire was designed based on the hierarchical framework detailed in Section 3.1 and Section 3.2, incorporating criteria developed through both academic literature and practical input. The survey distribution commenced in September 2024, and all questionnaires were collected by 31 October 2024; only responses that met AHP standards were retained for analysis. Accordingly, the final analytical sample comprised 60 valid expert responses. Each completed questionnaire underwent consistency index (CI) and consistency ratio (CR) tests, as described in Section 3.1, and only matrices with a CR below 0.1 were retained for final analysis. The results confirmed that both the CI and consistency ratio (CR) were below the 0.1 threshold, ensuring compliance with the AHP consistency standards and demonstrating strong internal consistency across individual responses.

The demographic characteristics of the sample are summarized in

Table 3. The sample’s demographic characteristics.

	Member	Gender		Average Years of Experience	Nationality *
		Male	Female
Cohort 1 Maritime HR and Management Experts	Maritime Human Resources Manager	8	2	10.7	C 3, H 2, S 3, T 2
	Marine Managers	8	2	11.3	C 3, H 2, S 2, T 3
	Consultants and Strategists	7	3	14.5	C 3, H 1, S 2, T 4
Cohort 2 Seafarers and Related Professionals	Experienced Seafarers	8	2	10.5	C 3, M 1, P 2, T 2, V 2
	Union Representatives and Managers of Manning Companies	9	1	10.9	C 3, S 1, P 2, T 2, V 2
	Seafarers’ Welfare Advocates and Guardians	10	0	13.9	C 2, J 1, H 1, K 1, S 3, T 2

* Nationality: C = China; H = Hong Kong; J = Japan; K = South Korea; M = Myanmar; P = Philippines; S = Singapore; T = Taiwan; V = Vietnam.

. The participants were divided into two cohorts. Cohort 1, consisting of 30 respondents from four countries, had an average of 12.67 years of professional experience, with seven female participants. Cohort 2, also comprising 30 respondents but from eight different countries, had an average experience of 11.77 years, with three female participants. The diverse composition of the sample ensured a broad representation of perspectives, contributing to the robustness of the AHP analysis.

4. Results

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis of Cohort 1, as shown in

Table 4. AHP-based ranking and weighting of criteria and sub-criteria for shore leave policy (Cohort 1).

Criteria	Weight (Rank)	Sub-Criteria	Local Weight (Rank)	Global Weight (Rank)
Mental Well-being	0.12 (1)	Stress Reduction	0.5 (1)	0.06 (10)
		Emotional Well-being	0.3 (2)	0.036 (11)
		Social Connection	0.2 (3)	0.024 (12)
Physical Health	0.18 (2)	Rest and Recovery	0.5 (1)	0.09 (6)
		Access to Healthcare	0.3 (2)	0.054 (9)
		Fitness Opportunities	0.2 (3)	0.036 (8)
Work–Life Balance	0.25 (3)	Family Time	0.6 (1)	0.15 (3)
		Personal Leisure	0.25 (2)	0.0625 (7)
		Disconnection from Work	0.15 (3)	0.0375 (4)
Organizational Support	0.45 (4)	Shore Leave Flexibility	0.5 (1)	0.225 (1)
		Financial Incentives	0.3 (2)	0.135 (2)
		Policy Clarity	0.2 (3)	0.09 (5)

, demonstrated that organizational support possessed the greatest weight (0.45), ranking fourth among principal criteria yet exerting considerable influence on sub-criteria prioritization. Shore leave flexibility (0.225) and financial incentives (0.135) emerged as the most vital sub-criteria, underscoring the necessity of adaptable shore leave policies and financial support in seafarers’ welfare strategies. Work–life balance (0.25) secured the third position among primary criteria and incorporated family time (0.15) and disconnection from work (0.0375) among the highest-ranking sub-criteria, thereby affirming the significance of work–life balance initiatives. Physical health (0.18) significantly contributed, with rest and recovery (0.09) occupying the sixth rank, highlighting the importance of physical recuperation. In contrast, mental well-being (0.12) was attributed the lowest weight, with its sub-criteria—stress reduction (0.06), emotional well-being (0.036), and social connection (0.024)—ranking the lowest. This implies that although mental health is recognized, it is perceived as less influential relative to organizational and work–life factors. These findings suggest that shipping companies should prioritize organizational and financial support, along with improved work–life balance policies, to enhance seafarers’ retention and overall well-being.

The AHP analysis of Cohort 2, as shown in

Table 5. AHP-based ranking and weighting of criteria and sub-criteria for shore leave policy (Cohort 2).

Criteria	Weight (Rank)	Sub-Criteria	Local Weight (Rank)	Global Weight (Rank)
Mental Well-being	0.12 (1)	Stress Reduction	0.5 (1)	0.06 (10)
		Emotional Well-being	0.3 (2)	0.036 (11)
		Social Connection	0.2 (3)	0.024 (12)
Physical Health	0.18 (2)	Rest and Recovery	0.5 (1)	0.09 (6)
		Access to Healthcare	0.3 (2)	0.054 (9)
		Fitness Opportunities	0.2 (3)	0.036 (8)
Work–Life Balance	0.25 (3)	Family Time	0.6 (1)	0.15 (3)
		Personal Leisure	0.25 (2)	0.0625 (7)
		Disconnection from Work	0.15 (3)	0.0375 (4)
Organizational Support	0.45 (4)	Shore Leave Flexibility	0.5 (1)	0.225 (1)
		Financial Incentives	0.3 (2)	0.135 (2)
		Policy Clarity	0.2 (3)	0.09 (5)

, indicated that organizational support carried the highest weight (0.45), significantly influencing sub-criteria prioritization. Shore leave flexibility (0.225) and financial incentives (0.135) ranked as the most critical sub-criteria, underscoring the necessity of policy flexibility and financial support in ensuring seafarers’ welfare and retention. Work–life balance (0.25) ranked third among the main criteria but included family time (0.15) and disconnection from work (0.0375) among the top sub-criteria, emphasizing the importance of maintaining work–life balance. Physical health (0.18) played a significant role, with rest and recovery (0.09) ranking sixth, reflecting its contribution to seafarers’ overall well-being. Conversely, mental well-being (0.12) held the lowest weight, with its sub-criteria—stress reduction (0.06), emotional well-being (0.036), and social connection (0.024)—occupying the lowest ranks. This suggests that, although mental health is acknowledged, it is perceived as less influential compared to organizational support and work–life balance. Cohort 2 consisted of seafarers and related professionals. Their perspectives provided essential insights into the real-world implications of shore leave policies, reinforcing the need for shipping companies to prioritize organizational policies, financial incentives, and work–life balance initiatives as key strategies for enhancing seafarers’ job satisfaction and retention.

5. Discussion

5.1. The Result of the AHP

This study found that the different interviewees had various perspectives on the significance of criteria pertaining to the shore leave issue. This is a common result of AHP research, where the same criterion will be given different weights from different perspectives [62]. For “Maritime HR and Management Experts”, hereinafter referred to as “Cohort 1”, the emphasis was on the imperative of corporate support for policies facilitating shore leave [63,64]. Proper shore leave, when accessible to seafarers, can validate the work–life balance indicator while simultaneously enhancing both physical health and mental well-being. In a similar vein, for “Seafarers and Related Professionals”, hereinafter referred to as “Cohort 2”, shore leave represented a critical occasion to temporarily detach from the workplace and its confined environment [44]. Achieving proximity to the work–life balance objective concurrently implies that their physical health and mental well-being receive substantial reinforcement [54].

Generally, the educational background and experience of individuals in managerial decision-making roles within an organization can shape corporate policy directions [65]. “Cohort 1” highlighted the criticality of organizational support, particularly emphasizing the sub-criteria shore leave flexibility and financial incentives, identified as the two paramount factors. The recognition and support of these policies by the company and its management decision-makers are important for shore leave policies [30]. Such support can enhance the robustness of promotional endeavors in addressing the challenges encountered throughout the process, and it can accommodate supplementary financial and managerial expenditures. Ultimately, it facilitates incorporating policies into the organizational culture, thus establishing a sustainable framework for behavior [66]. Nevertheless, employees tend to prioritize practical benefits due to their divergent perspectives from decision-makers [67]. Thus, as indicated by the research findings, “Cohort 2” placed greater emphasis on the significance of work–life balance and physical health. Consequently, provided these two major factors are fulfilled, the specific nature of policies is of negligible concern to seafarers. From a comprehensive analytical standpoint, shore leave constitutes a component of seafarers’ leisure activities [7], which have been shown to positively impact both physical and mental health [45]. At a fundamental level, seafarers require work–life balance, which, if fulfilled, can enhance physical and mental well-being. Concurrently, it is imperative for organizations to focus on, advocate for, and enact policies that foster organizational support and overall well-being.

The research identified that the criterion of physical health was important for “Cohort 2”, whereas it was deemed less significant for “Cohort 1”, as well as overall. This study posits that this discrepancy arises because seafarers tend to prioritize their physical well-being more [68], whereas HR and managers might be influenced by the healthy worker effect, as described by John A. Mancuso (1970) [69], leading them to erroneously perceive seafarers as inherently healthier, thus diminishing the perceived importance of physical health. The healthy worker effect might stem from the occupational and living conditions at sea, owing to the scarcity of medical resources and the requirement for seafarers to pass a physical examination before being assigned to duties, meaning that individuals with inadequate physical health are either precluded from deployment or compelled to exit the industry [14,70]. Furthermore, the widespread adoption of satellite communications, along with the progressive development of telemedicine and maritime emergency assistance systems [47], might have contributed to the perceived reduction in the importance of physical health.

Mental well-being was considered a less important primary criterion in this study. This may be attributed to the fact that mental health falls within the purview of another profession or due to insufficient educational emphasis on mental well-being [71]. Consequently, shipping companies often lack awareness of mental health and well-being concerns aboard vessels. The prevailing ‘ship first’ culture dictates that the company’s safety management systems prioritize reducing incidents and accidents over the overall well-being of individuals [56]. Seafarers also tend to neglect their mental health, prioritizing the safe operation of the ship above all else [4]. Nonetheless, from an alternative perspective, if shore leave affords seafarers opportunities to engage in leisure activities, and if leisure activities ultimately enhance mental well-being [43], it becomes imperative that seafarers are granted the opportunity for shore leave. Research has substantiated that work–life balance and organizational support are crucial factors contributing to the advocacy for shore leave policies. When shore leave policies are implemented robustly and effectively, they naturally lead to the enhancement of mental well-being. Therefore, when compared, the importance of mental well-being does not seem to present a problem. However, this does not suggest that mental well-being should be neglected.

To further examine the perspectives of the two respondent cohorts, a comparative visualization of global weights was carried out (Figure 1). This analysis revealed several noteworthy preference divergences. For instance, seafarers (Cohort 2) placed greater emphasis on rest-related dimensions, such as stress reduction and disconnection from work, while HR professionals (Cohort 1) ranked policy clarity and financial incentives higher. The alignment between both groups on shore leave flexibility underscores its shared strategic importance. These differentiated priorities offer valuable insights into how managerial expectations and seafarer needs may converge or diverge. Beyond operational implications, these results also warrant theoretical reflection—an issue further explored in the subsequent SWOT analysis.

The prioritization results elucidated in this study encapsulate both the operational exigencies of the maritime industry and the intricate welfare requisites of seafarers. The pronounced emphasis on organizational support, particularly pertaining to shore leave flexibility and financial incentives, aligns with broadly acknowledged management concerns related to fatigue, morale, and operational continuity [14,40]. Correspondingly, the emphasis on work–life balance accentuates the enduring challenges faced by seafarers in harmonizing occupational obligations with familial responsibilities [22,28]. Conversely, the relatively diminished weighting ascribed to mental well-being [27], notwithstanding its recognized significance in policy discourse, indicates that psychological dimensions may still be insufficiently acknowledged in practice. Some studies indicate that while emotional separation from family is indeed a central factor in seafarers’ intention to leave the profession, restricted shore leave during contract periods is not necessarily perceived as a decisive element [22]. The relative prioritization of criteria derived from the AHP analysis not only reflects operational realities but also presents a nuanced alignment—and occasional tension—with established career and well-being theories. These contrasts invite a closer examination of how theoretical ideals are reconciled with lived operational priorities in maritime employment contexts. Consequently, the results not only substantiate antecedent apprehensions regarding welfare deficits but also advocate for more intentional congruence between seafarers’ lived experiences and institutional decision-making paradigms.

These findings also contribute theoretically by reinforcing and extending sustainable career frameworks. The emphasis by industry professionals on organizational support and incentives, contrasted with seafarers’ prioritization of work–life balance and recovery, reflects the dual-level nature of career sustainability—where structural enablers must align with individual life needs. This duality echoes the foundational proposition that sustainable careers depend on both institutional and personal domains [20]. Additionally, while mental well-being ranked lower in aggregate, its inclusion as a principal criterion underscores its latent significance, especially in occupations marked by prolonged isolation and operational pressure. Prior studies have similarly noted that psychological stressors are often underreported yet strongly predictive of long-term disengagement [22]. These findings also invite a more nuanced application of the career sustainability theory in high-risk, high-mobility sectors and suggest that seafarer-specific policy design should be informed by both macro-structural and micro-experiential insights.

5.2. SWOT Analysis

Within the maritime sector, the well-being of seafarers and their propensity to exit the workforce have emerged as critical issues impacting both operational efficiency and workforce stability [54]. Shore leave is recognized as an essential mechanism for enhancing the well-being of seafarers, encompassing diverse aspects, such as mental and physical health, work–life balance, and organizational support [56]. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of shore leave policies is contingent not only upon their design but also their implementation, necessitating that shipping companies navigate internal resource allocation and external industry challenges to attract and retain talent. To methodically assess these factors, this study employed the SWOT analysis framework, integrating 12 sub-factors identified through the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This approach enabled this study to evaluate how shipping companies can leverage shore leave policies to increase competitive advantages while addressing operational deficiencies and external threats.

The SWOT analysis yielded a structured evaluation of the internal strengths and weaknesses of shore leave policies, as well as the external opportunities and threats that influence their implementation. As shown in

Table 6. SWOT analysis of shore leave policies based on AHP findings.

Strengths	Weaknesses
(1) Policy clarity; (2) Shore leave flexibility; (3) Provision of medical resources.	(1) Insufficient financial incentives; (2) Limited efficacy in rest and recovery arrangements; (3) Difficulties in mitigating work-related stress.
Opportunities	Threats
(1) Social connections; (2) Family time; (3) Health promotion.	(1) Competitors offering more appealing stress management initiatives; (2) Inadequate support for emotional well-being may affect reputation; (3) Regulatory constraints at various ports that complicate policy implementation.

, pivotal strengths encompassed policy clarity, shore leave flexibility, and access to medical resources, all of which contribute to increased employee satisfaction and workforce stability. However, insufficient financial incentives, inadequate recovery provisions, and hurdles in mitigating work-related stress emerged as significant internal weaknesses, potentially undermining the anticipated benefits of shore leave. Externally, the increasing emphasis on social connections, family time, and health promotion presents opportunities for companies to refine their policies to align with the evolving expectations of the workforce. With younger seafarers placing heightened importance on work–life balance and mental well-being, shipping companies that integrate wellness programs, digital connectivity initiatives, and increased leave flexibility may fortify their standing as preferred employers. Conversely, external threats emanating from competitors offering superior stress management programs, insufficient emotional well-being support affecting employer reputation, and regulatory constraints in certain ports can all complicate policy execution. These challenges underscore the need for adaptive and well-structured shore leave policies to sustain competitiveness and workforce engagement.

Based on the SWOT analysis, this study advocates for shipping companies to implement integrated strategies to capitalize on internal strengths and external opportunities (SO strategies). Such strategies may encompass offering more adaptable leave policies and investing in health promotion facilities, thereby reinforcing the overall well-being of seafarers and bolstering workforce stability. Additionally, companies should ameliorate internal weaknesses (WO strategies) by enhancing financial incentive programs and enriching the quality of shore leave experiences, ensuring that time off facilitates both physical recuperation and meaningful personal engagement. To counteract external threats (ST strategies), companies should broaden psychological support services, improve digital communication infrastructure, and ensure that shore leave policies remain adaptable to varying port regulations. Furthermore, by fostering cross-departmental coordination and collaboration with external stakeholders, companies can mitigate implementation barriers (WT strategies), creating a more effective and universally accessible shore leave system.

The SWOT framework presented in this study not only categorically mapped AHP-derived criteria but also revealed key tensions and opportunities for strategic policy refinement. For instance, while organizational support and shore leave flexibility were consistently ranked as high-priority strengths, the relatively low emphasis on mental well-being suggested a potential gap between institutional provision and the internal psychological needs of seafarers. This misalignment underscores the importance of not only delivering structural support but also fostering an environment that acknowledges and addresses the emotional dimension of seafaring. Furthermore, identifying policy clarity as a weakness—despite the general importance of a work–life balance—indicates that even well-intentioned frameworks may falter in implementation without coherent communication and crew-level engagement. These findings suggest that greater cross-functional integration between human resource design and shipboard policy practice is essential for maximizing the impact of shore leave strategies.

By integrating insights from AHP-based prioritization and SWOT-driven strategic planning, this study provides empirical support for shipping companies seeking to refine their shore leave policies. The findings present practical, actionable recommendations to fortify seafarers’ well-being, enhance organizational resilience, and ultimately improve long-term retention in the maritime workforce.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Summary of the Findings and Their Implications

The findings of this study highlight the pivotal role of shore leave policies in influencing seafarers’ well-being, job satisfaction, and retention. Using Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) analysis, this research identified key determinants affecting the effectiveness of shore leave, showcasing the perspectives of two distinct cohorts. The results suggest that while organizational support and financial incentives are prioritized by industry professionals, seafarers emphasize work–life balance and recuperation during shore leave. These findings offer valuable insights for policy development and strategic decision-making within the maritime sector. Shipping companies must acknowledge that shore leave is not merely a regulatory requirement but a fundamental component of workforce sustainability. Providing sufficient time off, flexibility, and financial support can substantially enhance seafarers’ commitment to their profession.

Beyond the operational considerations, this study also sought to address a broader systemic issue within the maritime industry: the historical undervaluation of human welfare in favor of economic imperatives. By empirically demonstrating that welfare policies such as shore leave are not merely regulatory obligations but strategic assets contributing to workforce resilience, this research aimed to initiate a shift in how seafarers’ well-being is perceived and prioritized. We hope that this study serves as a starting point for reimagining career sustainability through a more human-centric lens, encouraging future policy frameworks that recognize well-being as integral to organizational success [11].

Based on these findings, several practical implications can be drawn. First, shipping companies can be encouraged to implement flexible shore leave policies by developing adaptive scheduling systems that balance operational demands with the health and well-being of crew members. In some cases, shorter rotations or hybrid work arrangements may be particularly beneficial, especially for senior officers. Second, enhancing financial support mechanisms, such as providing allowances for travel, accommodation, and recreational expenses during shore leave, can encourage seafarers to make full use of their time off. In addition, performance-based incentives tied to retention outcomes could be explored to reinforce commitment.

Third, although mental well-being was ranked relatively lower in the AHP results, it remains a foundational component of long-term job satisfaction. Employers should, therefore, integrate mental health initiatives into broader crew welfare strategies, including providing onboard counseling services, mental resilience training, and psychological support. Fourth, improved communication and transparency regarding shore leave policies, such as eligibility, scheduling, and entitlements, can reduce misunderstandings and foster trust. Feedback mechanisms should also be established to ensure that policies are continuously refined based on seafarers’ lived experiences.

Finally, work–life balance support should be embedded in organizational well-being frameworks. Shore leave policies should be aligned with family engagement programs, access to communication tools, and structured recovery time, enabling seafarers to fully detach from occupational stressors and maximize recuperation. Such holistic strategies not only promote individual well-being but also serve as long-term investments in crew stability and organizational performance.

Beyond these practical implications, this study also offers several theoretical contributions. From a theoretical perspective, this study extends the application of sustainable career frameworks to the maritime sector, a domain often underrepresented in mainstream human resource and occupational psychology literature. By applying a multi-criteria evaluation approach to designing shore leave policies, the findings reinforce the relevance of health, productivity, and work–life balance as essential pillars of career sustainability [20]. Furthermore, the divergent prioritizations observed between managerial and seafaring cohorts reveal operational constraints and role-specific perceptions, offering a nuanced understanding of how theoretical models translate into practice in real-world high-risk industries. These insights contribute to a more context-sensitive understanding of how sustainable career constructs function in high-mobility, high-isolation professions.

6.2. Research Limitations and Future Directions

While this study offers valuable insights into the prioritization of factors influencing shore leave and seafarers’ career sustainability, several limitations should be acknowledged.

First, the data were collected exclusively from experts and seafarers based in the Asia–Pacific region. While this region is a major hub for maritime labor, the findings may not be fully generalizable to other geographical contexts. Future research could extend the analysis by incorporating comparative studies across different maritime regions to examine how cultural, regulatory, and institutional factors influence shore leave policies and their perceived importance.

Second, this study focused on the perspectives of current seafarers and maritime professionals. Including former seafarers who have exited the industry may yield additional insights into career discontinuity, turnover motivations, and the long-term effects of shore leave practices on retention.

Third, future research could investigate the nuanced distinction between emotional disconnection due to prolonged separation from family and the procedural limitations on shore leave during contract periods. Some studies suggest that while seafarers experience distress from social isolation, restrictions on shore leave per se may not directly influence their intention to leave the profession [22].

Fourth, although this study collected balanced samples from two distinct expert groups—maritime HR professionals and seafarers—it did not apply formal statistical testing to examine intergroup differences in priority rankings. Given the descriptive nature of the AHP method and the relatively small sample size per cohort, the analysis focused on interpreting qualitative divergence rather than testing for significance. Future studies may consider applying non-parametric statistical techniques, such as the Mann–Whitney U test or the Kruskal–Wallis H test, to determine whether differences in prioritization patterns are statistically meaningful across stakeholder groups. Such analyses could enhance the robustness of stakeholder segmentation and offer more tailored policy implications.

Finally, although the AHP method is well suited for assessing the relative importance of multiple criteria, it does not capture causal relationships or temporal dynamics. Future studies could consider integrating structural equation modeling (SEM) or adopting longitudinal designs to explore how the impact of shore leave policies evolves over time and interacts with other psychosocial or organizational variables.