Shipping’s transition towards decarbonisation is often framed as a fuel problem. In practice, the technical routes are already understood and, in some cases, actively deployed. The real challenge lies in scaling them under conditions of regulatory uncertainty, uneven fuel availability and a market that continues to prioritise short-term cost efficiency — particularly in a sector defined by long asset lives, volatile charter markets and tight balance sheet discipline.
What happens next will depend less on new technology than on whether the industry can price transition risk credibly, align regulation with investment cycles and secure customer acceptance of higher operating costs.
Where leadership is emerging
Shipping already has a broad and increasingly practical set of decarbonisation tools:
Clear leadership has emerged where companies have combined early investment with operational realism. Maersk has set the benchmark in container shipping by committing to methanol-capable newbuilds at scale, while simultaneously working with fuel producers and ports to secure supply and bunkering capability. CMA CGM has followed a similar path, pairing alternative-fuel vessels with efficiency measures across its existing fleet rather than relying on fuel switching alone.
In the RoRo and short-sea segments, companies such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen, DFDS and Stena Line have demonstrated how electrification, battery hybridisation and shore power can deliver measurable reductions when vessels operate on predictable routes with supportive port infrastructure.
In Asia, Japanese operators including NYK Line, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines and “K” Line have pursued diversified strategies across methanol, ammonia and efficiency technologies, reflecting both fleet diversity and uncertainty around which fuels will ultimately dominate.
At the port interface, the Port of Rotterdam and the Port of Singapore stand out for enabling transition at system level — investing in shore power, alternative fuel bunkering and supporting infrastructure that allows shipowners’ investments to be used in practice rather than remaining theoretical.
A reality check on net zero ambitions
Even among these leaders, expectations remain measured. Zero-emission fuels are still expensive, supply is constrained and infrastructure remains uneven.
This tension is visible in the deep-sea and tanker segments. Owners such as Höegh Autoliners have invested in vessels capable of running on alternative fuels, but continue to rely heavily on efficiency gains and transitional fuels due to limited availability and uncertain pricing of new fuels. Fuel optionality has become a commercial hedge: preserving resale value, protecting against stranded-asset risk and maintaining flexibility across charter markets that do not yet consistently reward lower-emission performance.
These choices are rational. With vessel lifetimes of 20–30 years and volatile freight markets, flexibility often outweighs early commitment.
The IMO and the cost of uncertainty
Regulatory uncertainty remains one of the most significant barriers. While the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has articulated a long-term ambition, progress on market-based measures has been slow.
In October 2025, the IMO failed to reach a consensus on a landmark "Net-Zero Framework" designed to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the global shipping sector, postponing the final decision for at least one year. The adjournment of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) session means the adoption of crucial, legally binding, mid-term decarbonization measures—including a global fuel standard and a potential carbon pricing mechanism—will now be delayed until 2026.
The absence of a clear mechanism for pricing emissions — whether through levies, fuel standards or trading — has made it difficult for owners to build robust investment cases. For listed operators and privately financed fleets alike, the question is not technical capability but capital discipline: how to justify higher capex and fuel premiums in freight markets that remain structurally cyclical.
The result is an uneven transition: a small group of first movers advancing despite uncertainty, while much of the industry waits for clearer signals.
Credibility, data and comparability
As activity increases, scrutiny is intensifying. Shipping now faces growing pressure to demonstrate that emissions reductions are real, measurable and comparable.
Differences in carbon lifecycle assumptions, reporting boundaries and charter structures continue to complicate comparisons. This is particularly challenging for operators spanning shipping, offshore logistics and port infrastructure, where emissions sit across complex value chains.
Best practice is emerging among companies that invest early in assured, vessel-level and voyage-level emissions data, linking reduction claims directly to operational and technical changes rather than long-dated targets. As accounting standards tighten — particularly around electricity procurement and lifecycle emissions — the credibility of maritime decarbonisation claims will face greater scrutiny. Comparability between fuel pathways, charter structures and port-side electricity claims will matter more than headline commitments.
What will shape the next phase
Three factors will largely determine the pace of progress:
Alternative-fuel vessels require reliable supply, storage and bunkering at scale.
Owners need confidence that today’s investments will remain aligned with tomorrow’s rules.
Lower-emission shipping will remain more expensive in the near term. Progress depends on cargo owners integrating emissions performance into procurement decisions.
What this means for operators
1. Balance sheet resilience will matter as much as ambition.
Transition strategies must be stress-tested against freight downturns, fuel price volatility and refinancing cycles — not just net zero trajectories.
2. Fuel flexibility is becoming a strategic asset.
Optionality reduces stranded-asset risk and improves charter competitiveness while regulatory and fuel pricing frameworks remain unsettled
3. Data credibility will increasingly influence commercial positioning.
Cargo owners and financiers are beginning to differentiate not only on targets, but on assured, comparable, voyage-level emissions performance.
From pockets of leadership to system change
Shipping’s transition is not a single-technology challenge, nor one that individual companies can solve alone. It sits at the intersection of global energy markets, port infrastructure, regulation and trade.
The sector has moved beyond the question of technical feasibility. It is now in an execution phase, where outcomes depend on coordination across fuel producers, ports, regulators, financiers and customers.
Leadership is already visible — in companies willing to invest early, report credibly and accept near-term complexity. The challenge now is to turn these isolated examples into a scalable, system-wide transition while the rules of the journey are still being written.