The issue: systemic challenges cannot simply be negotiated away. The only option is to identify pain points and address them structurally to improve processes and a more stable information base.

Based on numerous one-to-one conversations and a qualitative survey of chartering professionals, we have identified and analysed the five principal negotiation pain points in a concise format. Additionally, we offer quick, practical tips for managing each of them.

1. Volatile markets undermine negotiation objectives

Market activity in chartering is highly dynamic, so the underlying dataset is constantly evolving. Parties often find themselves negotiating on a moving information foundation.

Possible consequences:

• Market shifts become the dominant driver

• New expectations from counterparties

• Little room for a proactive negotiation strategy

• Intense decision pressure

• Priorities change mid-negotiation

• Original objectives fall away, for example, “secure as many qualified fixtures as possible with minimal overhead”

2. Information arrives late, fragmented or not at all

In practice, position lists and fixture overviews are often maintained manually, which means they are updated slowly. Continuous access to reliable, up-to-date market data is frequently lacking.

Possible consequences:

• A timing gap in information

• Key knowledge does not feed into negotiations

• Delayed communication

• Loss of credibility with counterparties

• Increased risk of commercially poor fixtures

3. Concessions made too quickly under time pressure

The pressure to close a fixture ahead of competitors or within a narrow window is intense.

Possible consequences:

• The counterpart sets the pace

• Faster but not necessarily better deals

• Unnecessary concessions on rates or contract terms

• More situational and fewer strategic decisions

4. Insufficient time for due diligence and contract review

Time constraints also create risk in other areas: resources for thorough credit checks, background screening and risk analysis are often insufficient.

Possible consequences:

• Lack of transparency in partnerships

• Ambiguous contract clauses that can become costly

• Inadequate protective mechanisms

5. Too few resources for systematic follow-up

From our conversations, we know that post-fixture reviews do take place, but they typically lack structure and depth.

Possible consequences:

• Repeated mistakes

• No sustained learning process

• Failure to scale best practices

• Disorganised contract documentation

• Limited transparency around fixtures

• Inconsistent working methods across teams

• Knowledge silos held by individual staff

Essence by seabo

Time pressure, volatile markets and shifting expectations are systemic in ship chartering. The individual influence exerted through negotiating skills inevitably encounters structural limitations.

This is precisely what destabilises priorities and leaves little room for continuous learning. Nevertheless, professionals in this environment act confidently and focus on what they can influence most: the information base.

Structures and processes must enable decisions to be made on a robust, current and contextualised knowledge foundation. This is where work tools like seabo add value: centralized information delivery, reduced search time, relevance filters, and improved oversight. The result is a significant information advantage in negotiations and faster, more informed decisions.