Recent analysis from the global think tank InfluenceMap presents detailed evidence of broad public support within the shipping and fuels sectors for a climate agreement at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). Nonetheless, differing advocacy positions regarding key elements of the framework—specifically the carbon price, fuel standard, and the methodology for accounting for fuel emissions—pose a risk to the integrity of the proposed framework as negotiations recommence this month. These discussions will take place ahead of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 85), scheduled to begin on 30 November in London, and the resumed adoption session on 4 December.
InfluenceMap, a non-profit organisation that provides objective, evidence-based analysis of corporate and financial institution impacts on climate and biodiversity crises, has identified significant support for the IMO Net Zero Framework (NZF) from 13 prominent companies and industry associations. These stakeholders have underscored the importance of a global framework to ensure regulatory certainty during the industry’s energy transition and have reaffirmed their commitment to the IMO as the global regulatory body.
The International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), representing over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, and the World Shipping Council (WSC), which accounts for 90% of global liner shipping capacity, have urged governments to endorse the NZF as a “carefully balanced regulatory package.”
Similarly, the European Shipowners Association (ECSA) has emphasised that global regulation is critical for advancing the energy transition in international shipping. Other companies and associations expressing support include CMA CGM, COSCO Shipping, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Company, FuelsEurope, Ipieca, Renewable Fuels Association, Shell, and SEA-LNG.
Concerns about a less ambitious deal
In recent months, however, industry support for the Net-Zero Framework has become increasingly cautious. Following the postponement of the adoption originally scheduled for October 2025, leading shipping associations, including the ICS and WSC, have adopted a more restrained approach, refraining from specifically naming the framework while encouraging governments to “consider all options.”
This softer messaging raises concerns about the potential for a less ambitious deal. There remains a significant risk that the IMO may produce an agreement that undermines the global shipping industry’s capacity to achieve decarbonisation, with proposals that might stray from the net-zero trajectory outlined in its 2023 GHG Strategy, which calls for net-zero emissions by or around 2050, alongside interim reductions of at least 20% by 2030 and 70% by 2040.
The NZF has two linked parts, a fuel standard that tightens over time and a carbon price on ships that miss it, both resting on life-cycle rules for counting each fuel’s emissions. InfluenceMap found engagement on these key elements from 4 industry associations: ICS, WSC, Ipieca and SEA-LNG. WSC supported all three elements. ICS broadly supported a carbon price but pushed for a weaker fuel standard ahead of the NZF’s approval in April 2025. Since then, Ipieca and SEA-LNG, representing oil and gas and LNG interests, have opposed strict greenhouse gas (GHG) life-cycle rules.
Carbon Pricing: The ICS prefers a carbon price of $10–20 per tonne of CO2e for fuel emissions, while WSC advocates for $74 per tonne by 2030. Both have been quiet on this since April 2025.
Fuel Standard: WSC supports a stronger fuel standard, while ICS aims for a 30% reduction in GHG intensity by 2040. SEA-LNG opposes minimum GHG thresholds.
Accounting Rules: Ipieca and SEA-LNG seek to reduce emissions counted from fossil fuels, while WSC wants stricter rules and certificates for clean energy to ease compliance for LNG vessels.
Sectors’ different approaches
The most significant divide is between sectors. Shipping associations support the framework’s core elements, while oil and gas groups support the NZF while pushing for rules that categorise fossil fuels, especially LNG, as cleaner. These accounting rules are essential for the framework’s effectiveness and will be discussed when the IMO’s working group meets from 23 November to 27.
Research from InfluenceMap indicates that support for the NZF often undermines existing regional regulations. ICS, WSC, SEA-LNG, and the ECSA have leveraged their support for a global framework to challenge the FuelEU Maritime regulation and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS), despite these regulations being crucial for EU climate targets.
“As member states reconvene for MEPC 85, certain governments will invoke corporate interests to justify opposing an ambitious IMO climate deal. This is directly at odds with the industry’s own advocacy. While industry’s top-line support is clear, its ambition for how far GHG regulations should go leaves much to be desired,” said Emily Zhang, Analyst at InfluenceMap.
“It is critical that the framework remains grounded in science-based policy and targets already agreed upon at the IMO, rather than being directed by industry preference. The next round of negotiations risks hollowing out a hard-fought multilateral achievement and losing the best opportunity we have to drive the shipping sector’s energy transition,” Zhang added.
