THE recent decision by the International Maritime Organization to postpone a decision on the Net-Zero Framework for a year met with mixed reactions. Yet, beyond any macro factors at play, it reflects differences in perspective and a real lack of consensus among shipowners on the path ahead.

In many ways, the vote was a wake-up call. The majority of emissions from the global fleet are from larger bulk carriers, containerships and tankers that are notoriously hard to abate. As an industry, we have made astonishing progress in the past decade in developing new technologies and fuels, but the fact remains there are few real alternatives currently available to fuel oil and gas. In this context, lack of confidence in zero/near-zero fuel availability is understandable.

What happens next? In the best-case scenario, the industry gains time to rewrite a deal with a broader-based support. Yet there is a real danger that a longer delay compounds the uncertainty that has hung over the market for the past year, further delaying decisions on orders. It is in everyone’s interest to find consensus.

Decarbonisation remains a structural market shift

At Bureau Veritas, we are inclined to see the IMO vote as a setback rather than a fundamental change in direction for the maritime industry.

Through our work both as a major classification society and more broadly as a leader in testing, inspection and certification across most economic sectors, Bureau Veritas has a front-seat view of the secular trends shaping the world economy. And while we have seen a shift in the debate in 2025, we have seen no real interruption in the energy transition, and a long-term shift toward lower-carbon business models.

It is our view, then, that shipping decarbonisation will happen — but it will be more complex, and gradual, than previously anticipated.

The case for a pragmatic approach

In my book, Toward a Sustainable Blue Economy, published in June, I emphasised a need to maintain ambition but also be pragmatic. That approach is even more relevant now than it was when published. At Bureau Veritas, we see two main paths ahead.

The first relates to fuel choice. The future global energy mix will almost certainly rely heavily on natural gas, with a corresponding increase in offshore LNG infrastructure and seaborne carriers. In this context, it makes sense for the industry to capitalise on investments made and adopt LNG as fuel for newbuildings.

LNG has a proven safety record, and established standards and operating protocols. Its greenhouse gas intensity is the best of all fossil fuels, and new engines have dramatically reduced methane slip. It is also a natural stepping stone on the path to lower-carbon bio-methane and (eventually) e-methane.

At Bureau Veritas we also see pragmatic ways to scale up zero-carbon solutions in a way that makes sense for owners. Green corridors, for example, synchronise the development of ships, ports, fuels and regulatory policies to enable zero-emissions trade along defined routes. Electrification can be an attractive solution for certain vessel types and uses. Other technologies — notably nuclear — have the potential to efficiently decarbonise hard-to-abate segments in the future, even if commercial deployment is some way off.

The second path involves acting on greenhouse gas intensity at the ship level, or even the voyage level, to shift the dial on performance. This is about recognising that most of the ships that make up today’s global fleet will still be plying the oceans in 2040.

Taking the pragmatic view means analysing fuel performance at the ship level and relentlessly seeking ways to improve efficiency. That may mean adopting wind-assisted propulsion, or energy-saving devices, such as hull and propeller enhancements that reduce drag, optimise propulsion and recover waste energy. The savings that can be gained from adopting this type of approach are significant: double-digit reductions in GHG intensity and, equally importantly, fuel consumption.

However, we also need to be lucid and take a hard look at the wildly differing incentives to be found across the industry. For the fact is that while owner/operators are able reap huge returns on investment, in many other cases it is charterers, not owners, who gain the benefits from fuel savings. This gives owners little incentive to invest. We need to acknowledge that this uncomfortable fact also contributed to October’s IMO vote.

Finding the path ahead

As a long-term advocate of a more sustainable maritime world, I could not help but feel personally disappointed that the IMO meeting resulted in no firm path ahead. But fundamentally, I believe the vote reflected something we already knew; that decarbonising maritime is inherently complex.

Looking ahead, we will almost certainly need to handle a new form of complexity, with decarbonisation running at different paces in a highly globalised industry. At Bureau Veritas, we will be, as always, by our clients’ side to help them find their path.