When transporting hazardous and dangerous goods, there may be an assumption that compliance takes care of itself – and once a label is printed and placed on a barrel or container, the job is done. But the process of making these shipments safe goes beyond this, warns Neil Baker, BIXOLON, Northern Europe.
Every day, thousands of drums, canisters and bulk containers move across borders, oceans and industries, many carrying substances that pose significant risks to health, safety and the environment.
These shipments rely on clear, durable labelling to communicate what’s inside, and what to do if things go wrong. Yet too often, the knowledge underpinning that process is fragmented, outdated, or simply missing. It’s not always a case of cutting corners, but rather of underestimating the role labelling plays in the wider regulatory picture.
Hazardous vs dangerous substances
One of the biggest factors complicating labelling in the sector is the terminology for these types of goods. “Hazardous” and “dangerous” are often used in place of one another, but they’re not synonymous. In fact, the difference between each can make a huge difference in assessing how a particular product should be handled, stored, and labelled, particularly in the context of the maritime industry and international shipping.
Hazardous materials tend to refer to substances that pose long-term health or environmental risks, such as petroleum, industrial adhesives or heavy-duty cleaning agents. Dangerous goods, on the other hand, include items that are flammable, explosive, or chemically reactive. Some materials fall into both camps, but not all.
This matters because each classification can bring with it different regulatory demands. A label that is compliant for a domestic hazardous shipment might not meet the requirements for a dangerous goods consignment bound for international waters. And if the people, shippers or carriers responsible for sourcing or specifying labels don’t understand that difference, mistakes are inevitable along the way.
Expertise missing where it’s needed most
The trouble often starts at the point of procurement. A logistics manager or purchasing officer might request 10,000 or 20,000 chemical drum labels from a print supplier. Unless someone asks the right questions about destination, temperature ranges, surface type, exposure to solvents or seawater, it’s entirely possible that a label is supplied which looks correct but isn’t actually compliant.
This isn’t a case of foul play or bad intentions. Many labelling companies are excellent at what they do, but they’re not regulatory experts. Nor should they be expected to be. The problem is when nobody is the expert: this is when assumptions are made, shortcuts taken, and the responsibility for compliance is passed invisibly from one party to the next. This is where errors and non-compliance can accidentally creep in.
A strong example for the need for strong standards can be seen in marine transport. For hazardous goods shipped by sea, labels must meet the BS 5609 standard, which includes adhesion strength and legibility after extended saltwater immersion.
It’s a stringent requirement, but with good reason: if a container goes overboard with dangerous or hazardous goods on board, those labels may be the only way of identifying the cargo. Relying on cheap adhesives or a substandard ribbon that results in poor print quality can result in the label becoming unreadable within hours. This turns what was initially a simple regulatory failure into a more serious safety risk if these goods are exposed to people, environment or the elements.
False economy of cost cutting
In many cases, keeping costs down is the main reason that businesses opt for a low-quality label or consumable. That’s understandable. But when the perceived savings come at the expense of performance, particularly in harsh conditions, the result is a false economy.
There’s a tendency in some circles to treat labels as generic consumables, interchangeable and low value. But in the context of hazardous and dangerous goods, that approach is flawed. These labels are the primary means of communication across borders, languages and emergency scenarios. Their job isn’t to look good from a graphic design perspective; it’s to be operational, functional and legal.
The focus is on getting labels printed, applied and out the door. But the more important question is: will they still be legible and intact when they arrive at their destination? And assuming the worst were to happen while at sea, will emergency services know what hazardous or dangerous goods they’re dealing with if they happen to end up at the bottom of the ocean intact in the event an accident occurs? These safeguards are of importance to the regulators, but also vitally important to protect the teams on the ground too.
Reframing labelling as safety-critical
The industry doesn’t suffer from a lack of regulation and standards but could probably benefit from an improved understanding of these regulations and standards and the relationship with labelling.
Additionally, labelling decisions in some areas are either random or left to chance, not through a lack of care or negligence, but through gaps in knowledge. Standards like BS 5609 and the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) exist for a reason. But they only work if everyone involved, from suppliers to logistics teams, knows how to apply them correctly.
Labelling should be treated as part of a robust risk management process, not as an afterthought in the procurement stage. That shift doesn’t come from technology alone. It needs better communication across the chain, from materials to application.
The responsibility is shared. And when it comes to hazardous and dangerous goods, small decisions such as choosing the right label for the surface, the appropriate thermal transfer ribbon formulation, and a compatible printer can make the biggest difference.
