Ship Universe is designed for maritime stakeholders: lower costs with data-backed decisions. Mobile-friendly but designed for desktop research. Data is fluid, verify critical details before acting.
Global shipping is entering a high-stakes transition. A wave of new maritime regulations is rolling in faster, broader, and more complex than ever before. These rules aren’t just red tape. They’re reshaping the economics of vessel ownership, fuel choices, and trade routes.
Some companies will capitalize. Others will fall behind. This report breaks down five of the most significant regulatory changes on the horizon, explaining in plain terms what each one is, who stands to benefit, who could be at risk, and what you can do to stay ahead.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has approved a landmark regulatory package aiming to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by or around 2050. This framework includes mandatory emissions limits and a carbon pricing mechanism designed to accelerate the shift towards cleaner fuels. The regulations specifically target ocean-going vessels over 5,000 gross tonnage, which account for approximately 85% of the sector's CO₂ emissions.
Implementation Timeline:
October 2025: Formal adoption of the regulations.
2027: Entry into force for ships over 5,000 gross tonnage.
2050: Target year to achieve net-zero emissions.
Key Concerns & Challenges
Fuel Availability & Infrastructure: The transition to alternative fuels like green ammonia, hydrogen, or methanol requires significant investment in global bunkering infrastructure. Current availability is limited, posing challenges for widespread adoption.
Cost Implications: Implementing new technologies and fuels can be costly, especially for smaller operators. The financial burden may lead to market consolidation, affecting competition.
Regulatory Enforcement: Ensuring consistent enforcement across international jurisdictions is complex. Variations in compliance monitoring and penalties could lead to uneven playing fields.
Technological Readiness: Many zero-emission technologies are still in developmental stages. Relying on unproven solutions may pose operational risks and uncertainties.
Market Dynamics: The introduction of carbon pricing may lead to increased freight costs, impacting global trade dynamics and potentially leading to shifts in supply chains.
Winners Table – IMO Net-Zero Emissions Regulation
Who
Why
Long-Term Advantage
Green Fuel Producers
Fleet demand for ammonia, methanol, and hydrogen will surge under the regulation’s emissions thresholds.
Secure position in future marine fuel markets.
Early-Adopting Shipowners
Upgrading now means fewer future compliance costs and better access to top-tier charter agreements.
First-mover cost savings and long-term charter preference.
Shipyards & Retrofit Firms
Retrofitting and newbuild demand will increase as fleets move to dual-fuel engines and cleaner systems.
Sustained pipeline of modernization contracts through 2035.
Maritime Tech Providers
Operators will require emissions monitoring, fuel optimization, and compliance tracking tools.
Become embedded in digital compliance ecosystems.
ESG-Aligned Investors
Green regulations will direct capital to climate-aligned fleets and infrastructure.
Early access to sustainable finance and regulatory incentives.
Note: These winners are projected based on the IMO’s 2027 implementation timeline and market adaptation expectations through 2035. Specific gains will vary by region, fleet size, and compliance strategy.
At-Risk Table – IMO Net-Zero Emissions Regulation
Who
Why
Long-Term Risk
Older Fleet Operators
Vessels without fuel flexibility or modern engines will face rising compliance costs and limited port access.
Higher OPEX, regulatory fines, and early obsolescence.
Small/Regional Shipping Firms
Limited capital makes it difficult to retrofit or replace vessels at pace with larger competitors.
Loss of competitiveness and potential market exit.
Heavy Fuel Oil Suppliers
Demand for traditional bunker fuels will sharply decline as cleaner alternatives become mandatory.
Stranded assets and declining revenue in marine fuel markets.
Non-Compliant Charterers
Chartering vessels without verified low-emissions profiles may incur carbon penalties or lose access to green corridors.
Higher cost per voyage and reputational exposure.
Ports Without Green Bunkering
Lack of alternative fuel infrastructure may deter future vessel calls.
Loss of relevance in future trade routes.
Note: At-Risk players are projected based on their exposure to legacy systems, limited capital adaptability, or infrastructure gaps. Some risks may be mitigated through proactive upgrades or strategic partnerships.
Pinpoint vessels most vulnerable to compliance risks and prepare upgrade timelines accordingly.
Invest in Dual-Fuel Conversions
Gives flexibility in fuel sourcing and keeps older hulls viable under evolving emissions thresholds.
Secure Fuel Contracts Early
Avoid future supply shortages and pricing volatility as demand spikes post-implementation.
Align with Green-Ready Ports
Ensure bunkering access and operational priority by partnering with ports already investing in clean infrastructure.
Adopt Emissions Monitoring Platforms
Enables transparent reporting, supports ESG strategies, and preempts digital compliance mandates.
Review Route Exposure
Assess which trade lanes align with compliant fuel access and future carbon cost structures.
Note: These recommendations are based on projected cost trends, fleet readiness levels, and implementation targets through 2027–2035. Effectiveness may vary based on vessel type, region, and access to capital.
🌐 Global Readiness Score – IMO Net-Zero Emissions Regulation
Score: 6.5 / 10
Clear direction, but pricing and enforcement mechanisms are still evolving.
Global green fuel infrastructure remains limited outside of key hubs.
Large carriers are preparing early; smaller fleets may struggle.
Monitoring and digital compliance tools are mature and deployable now.
Regional variation in adoption could create an uneven competitive field.
2️⃣ EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Extension (2024–2026)
The European Union has expanded its Emissions Trading System (ETS) to include maritime shipping as of January 2024. Under the regulation, ships over 5,000 gross tonnage calling at EU ports must purchase and surrender carbon allowances for their emissions. Initially focused on carbon dioxide (CO₂), the regulation will gradually cover methane (CH₄) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) as well.
Emissions are regulated on 100% of voyages between EU ports and 50% of voyages between EU and non-EU ports. The system is designed to incentivize emission reductions, encourage cleaner fuel use, and align shipping with the EU’s broader Green Deal objectives.
Implementation Timeline:
January 2024: Coverage begins at 40% of reported CO₂ emissions.
January 2025: Coverage rises to 70%.
January 2026: Full 100% coverage of CO₂ emissions begins; CH₄ and N₂O added.
Key Concerns & Challenges
Carbon Cost Volatility: The price of EU carbon allowances (EUAs) fluctuates based on market supply and demand, creating budget uncertainty for operators, particularly on long-haul voyages.
Administrative Complexity: Accurate emissions tracking and reporting under the EU MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification) framework require advanced systems and dedicated compliance teams—potentially straining smaller firms.
Competitive Disadvantage for Smaller Operators: Large shipping lines can absorb and hedge carbon costs more easily. Smaller or regional operators may face disproportionately higher per-voyage costs.
Port-Specific Exposure: Fleets with heavy exposure to EU ports must comply, while similar non-EU routes may avoid the regulation entirely—introducing regional disparities in operating costs.
Limited Green Fuel Access: Even for compliant operators, the lack of widespread availability of alternative fuels in many EU ports limits decarbonization options and reinforces dependence on carbon credit purchases.
Winners Table – EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Extension
Who
Why
Long-Term Advantage
Carbon Market Traders
Increased demand for EU carbon allowances boosts trading volume and volatility-based opportunities.
Higher trading fees, consultancy demand, and EUA-related instruments growth.
Green Fuel Suppliers
Operators seek low-emission fuels to reduce exposure to carbon costs.
Secure long-term supply contracts and growing regional market share.
Digitally Equipped Operators
Fleets with strong MRV tools and emissions reporting platforms meet compliance with lower friction.
Faster auditing, risk avoidance, and reputational trust with cargo owners.
EU-Based Ports with Alt Fuel Access
Clean bunkering capability and policy alignment attract compliant vessels.
Gain traffic, berth preference, and long-term carrier relationships.
Advanced Voyage Optimizers
Software platforms that help carriers reduce carbon per mile gain strategic relevance.
Essential partners for emissions efficiency and performance-linked contracts.
Note: Winners are based on market positioning and early preparedness for EU ETS integration. Impacts may shift with carbon price volatility and future regulatory phases.
At-Risk Table – EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Extension
Who
Why
Long-Term Risk
Smaller Vessel Operators
Lack of internal compliance teams or digital systems makes ETS participation more burdensome.
Shrinking margins and potential exit from EU-linked routes.
Fleets Dependent on HFO
Carbon-intensive fuel consumption leads to high emissions costs unless offset or reduced.
Ongoing carbon penalty exposure and retrofit pressure.
Non-EU Carriers with EU Stops
Operators with occasional EU port calls now face full compliance despite limited EU exposure.
Increased voyage costs and routing reevaluation.
Fuel Traders Focused on HSFO
Demand shifts away from high-sulfur fuel oil as carriers seek to reduce carbon cost burden.
Loss of marine market share and stranded inventory risk.
Operators Without MRV Systems
Lack of proper monitoring and reporting tools leads to compliance failures or penalty exposure.
Reputation damage and regulatory scrutiny from EU authorities.
Note: These at-risk groups face increased compliance costs or structural disadvantages under the ETS unless proactive adjustments are made.
Strategic Considerations – EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Extension
Action
Expected Impact
Model Emissions Exposure Per Route
Quantify CO₂ liabilities based on voyage patterns and port calls to budget and plan accurately.
Secure EUAs Strategically
Hedge against price volatility by planning carbon allowance purchases across contract periods.
Invest in MRV and Digital Compliance Tools
Ensure accurate monitoring and avoid penalties through robust data tracking and reporting systems.
Evaluate Fuel Switching or Blending
Reducing reliance on HFO can significantly lower ETS-related operating costs.
Train Crew on Emissions Efficiency
Operational habits (speed, routing, load management) directly affect CO₂ output and cost under ETS.
Review EU Port Dependencies
Identify where routing or transshipment adjustments could reduce regulatory exposure.
Note: These actions are based on phased ETS implementation through 2026 and assume average EUA pricing and enforcement based on current EU guidance.
🌐 Global Readiness Score EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) Extension
Score: 7 / 10
Regulatory framework is already in effect and backed by enforceable EU law.
Larger operators are actively trading carbon allowances and integrating compliance tools.
Smaller firms face steep learning curves and financial strain from EUA pricing.
Infrastructure for MRV systems is available, but expertise is uneven across the market.
Regional carriers with minimal EU exposure are still at risk of surprise cost spikes.
3️⃣ FuelEU Maritime Regulation (2025)
The FuelEU Maritime Regulation, effective from January 1, 2025, is a cornerstone of the European Union's "Fit for 55" initiative, aiming to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the maritime sector. This regulation mandates a gradual decrease in the GHG intensity of energy used by ships over 5,000 gross tonnage calling at EU ports, regardless of their flag. The targets are ambitious: a 2% reduction by 2025, escalating to an 80% reduction by 2050, compared to 2020 levels.
A key feature of FuelEU is its "well-to-wake" approach, assessing emissions throughout the entire fuel lifecycle—from production to consumption. Additionally, from 2030, passenger and container ships will be required to connect to onshore power supply (OPS) while at berth in major EU ports, with this obligation extending to all EU ports equipped with OPS infrastructure by 2035.
Implementation Timeline:
August 2024: Monitoring plans (Articles 8 and 9) come into effect.
January 2025: Full application of the regulation begins.
2030: OPS requirement for passenger and container ships at major EU ports.
2035: OPS requirement extends to all EU ports with available infrastructure.
2050: Target year to achieve an 80% reduction in GHG intensity.
Key Concerns & Challenges
Alternative Fuel Availability: The demand for renewable and low-carbon fuels is set to rise sharply, but current supply chains are underdeveloped. This scarcity may lead to increased fuel costs and competition with other sectors, such as aviation.
Infrastructure Readiness: The requirement for ships to connect to OPS necessitates significant investments in port infrastructure. Many ports may not be equipped in time, posing compliance challenges for shipping companies.
Compliance Complexity: The "well-to-wake" assessment demands comprehensive tracking of emissions across the entire fuel lifecycle. This complexity increases the administrative burden on ship operators, especially smaller entities.
Economic Impact: The transition to low-carbon fuels and the associated infrastructure upgrades are capital-intensive. Smaller operators may face financial strain, potentially leading to market consolidation.
Regulatory Enforcement: Ensuring uniform enforcement across all EU member states is challenging. Disparities in implementation could lead to an uneven playing field and potential legal disputes.
Winners Table – FuelEU Maritime Regulation (2025)
Who
Why
Long-Term Advantage
Biofuel and E-fuel Suppliers
FuelEU creates mandatory demand for renewable and low-GHG fuels across all EU-bound voyages.
Early mover advantage in a rapidly expanding market segment.
Operators with OPS Capability
Ships that can connect to onshore power at berth could meet 2030/2035 mandates with no additional retrofits.
Preferred port access and reduced emissions profile.
LNG and Methanol-Ready Fleets
Alternative fuels like LNG and methanol offer lower lifecycle GHG scores under FuelEU standards.
Fuel cost savings and easier compliance through 2035.
Emission Lifecycle Consultants
Complex "well-to-wake" calculations require verification, modeling, and reporting expertise.
High demand for technical advisory services in compliance workflows.
Green Infrastructure Ports
Ports with OPS systems and fuel flexibility will attract compliant vessels and preferred carrier contracts.
Increased traffic and long-term relevance in the decarbonized supply chain.
Note: These winners are projected based on FuelEU Maritime’s phased implementation and demand shifts in EU-regulated trade lanes. Long-term benefits may evolve with technology and fuel availability.
At-Risk Table – FuelEU Maritime Regulation (2025)
Who
Why
Long-Term Risk
Fleets Without Fuel Flexibility
Ships running solely on HFO or MGO face penalties due to high GHG intensity and no path to compliance.
Ongoing emissions surcharges, reduced charter demand, and potential phase-out.
Ports Without Onshore Power
Lack of shore power infrastructure may lead to vessel avoidance or reduced berth eligibility from 2030 onward.
Traffic loss and diminished status in regional port networks.
Small Operators with Legacy Vessels
Lack of capital for retrofits or alternative fuel adoption increases exposure to compliance penalties.
Rising operating costs and limited fleet viability by 2030.
Non-EU Shipowners Using EU Ports
Ships making occasional EU port calls must comply fully with lifecycle emission tracking and OPS mandates.
Unexpected compliance costs and routing disruptions.
Operators Without Lifecycle Tracking Tools
FuelEU’s “well-to-wake” methodology requires precise upstream and onboard data collection.
Compliance failure risk and limited access to low-emissions trade partnerships.
Note: These risks reflect operational, financial, and infrastructure gaps under FuelEU Maritime enforcement. Some may be mitigated through early retrofitting, partnerships, or digital upgrades.
Methanol, LNG, or biofuels can immediately reduce GHG intensity scores and help meet compliance targets.
Plan for OPS Compliance
Retrofit or build vessels to connect to shore power by 2030–2035 to meet berthing requirements in EU ports.
Integrate Lifecycle Emissions Tracking
Set up fuel procurement and emissions reporting systems that account for upstream and onboard emissions ("well-to-wake").
Evaluate Long-Term Fuel Contracts
Secure supply agreements for compliant fuels ahead of post-2025 demand spikes and regional shortages.
Engage Ports with Green Infrastructure
Prioritize calls at EU ports with alternative fuel bunkering and OPS systems to streamline compliance.
Model Compliance Scenarios
Use simulation tools to estimate fuel mix outcomes and identify risk points across multiple trade routes.
Note: Recommendations reflect FuelEU’s GHG intensity reduction roadmap through 2050. Execution depends on port readiness, vessel age, and available financing.
🌐 Global Readiness Score FuelEU Maritime Regulation (2025)
Score: 6 / 10
Regulation is adopted and deadlines are set, but many technical procedures are still being interpreted by operators.
Infrastructure for onshore power supply (OPS) is inconsistent across EU ports.
Alternative fuel availability remains limited and regionally concentrated.
Larger carriers are testing compliant fuels, but full-fleet readiness is rare.
Smaller operators risk falling behind due to high upgrade costs and reporting complexity.
The Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) is a measure introduced by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to assess and rate the energy efficiency of ships. It evaluates the operational carbon intensity of a vessel, calculated as the grams of CO₂ emitted per cargo-carrying capacity and nautical mile. The CII rating system categorizes ships from A (best) to E (worst), with ratings to be determined annually. This initiative aims to encourage continuous improvement in energy efficiency and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions across the global fleet.
Implementation Timeline:
January 1, 2023: CII rating system comes into effect.
Annually (2023–2030): Ships receive CII ratings based on the previous year's performance.
2026: First review of the CII mechanism by the IMO to assess effectiveness and make necessary adjustments.
2030: Target year for achieving at least a 40% reduction in carbon intensity compared to 2008 levels, as per IMO's Initial GHG Strategy.
Key Concerns & Challenges
Data Accuracy and Reporting: Accurate data collection is critical for determining CII ratings. Inconsistencies or inaccuracies in reporting can lead to incorrect ratings, affecting a ship's marketability and compliance status.
Operational Constraints: Achieving better CII ratings may require operational changes such as speed reduction or route optimization. These adjustments can conflict with commercial schedules and contractual obligations.
Retrofit and Technological Investments: Improving a vessel's energy efficiency to attain higher CII ratings might necessitate significant investments in retrofitting or adopting new technologies, posing financial challenges, especially for older ships.
Market Implications: Charterers and cargo owners may prefer vessels with higher CII ratings, potentially impacting the demand and revenue for ships with lower ratings. This market preference could lead to a devaluation of less efficient vessels.
Regulatory Enforcement: Ensuring consistent enforcement of CII requirements across different jurisdictions can be complex. Variations in interpretation and application may create an uneven playing field for ship operators.
Newer ships with optimized hull designs and efficient engines score higher in CII evaluations.
Stronger charter appeal and regulatory headroom through 2030.
Operators with Voyage Optimization Tools
Using routing software to reduce fuel burn per mile directly improves CII scores.
Lower emissions and improved profitability from efficiency gains.
ESG-Driven Charterers
Charterers committed to low-carbon shipping prefer vessels with A or B ratings.
Better contracts and access to green corridors and incentives.
Efficiency Consultants & Data Providers
CII tracking requires technical assessments and data analysis across voyages.
Increased demand for services through 2030 and beyond.
Shipowners with Green Financing Goals
CII performance is emerging as a KPI in ESG-linked loans and capital access.
Better rates and easier access to sustainability-linked investment capital.
Note: Winners are based on early alignment with IMO efficiency goals and market demand for low-emissions shipping. Impacts may vary depending on enforcement and CII recalibration in 2026.
Ships built before modern energy efficiency standards often receive D or E ratings.
Decreased marketability, higher OPEX, and eventual forced phase-out.
Charterers Using Poorly Rated Vessels
Clients increasingly demand A/B-rated ships for ESG compliance and brand reputation.
Loss of premium clients and restricted cargo opportunities.
Operators Without Emissions Optimization Tools
Lack of route and speed optimization can lower ratings even on otherwise capable vessels.
Avoidable emissions penalties and missed efficiency gains.
Smaller Carriers with Limited Retrofits
Upgrades to improve ratings may not be affordable, putting compliance out of reach.
Gradual decline in competitiveness by 2026–2030.
Operators in Tight Time-Charter Markets
Inability to reduce speed (slow steaming) may hurt efficiency scores under real-world operating conditions.
Structural disadvantage when ratings are used for charter selection.
Note: These risks are based on current CII scoring thresholds. IMO may review and adjust criteria in 2026, which could shift exposure across different vessel classes and trades.
Lower fuel burn through optimized routing, speed control, and weather integration directly improves CII scores.
Track CII Trends Monthly
Ongoing monitoring helps identify underperforming vessels before annual ratings are locked in.
Retrofit Older Vessels Strategically
Target low-hanging upgrades such as propeller polishing, hull coatings, and engine tuning for quick efficiency wins.
Slow Steam Where Possible
Reducing average speed significantly lowers carbon intensity — particularly on longer voyages.
Educate Chartering Teams
Commercial staff should understand CII implications when negotiating voyage terms and charter agreements.
Use CII as a Value Signal
Highlight A/B ratings in marketing and ESG reporting to build reputation with shippers and finance partners.
Note: These actions are based on current IMO guidance for CII tracking and annual performance-based scoring. Ratings may influence access to charters, financing, and trade lanes through 2030.
🌐 Global Readiness Score Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) Ratings
Score: 7 / 10
The regulation is already active and applies globally across IMO member states.
Most major carriers are actively tracking CII performance and reporting data.
Smaller fleets may lack tools or expertise to interpret and act on CII scores.
Ratings can vary significantly by trade route, leading to confusion and inconsistency.
The 2026 review may reset thresholds, creating uncertainty for long-term planning.
5️⃣ Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) (2023)
The Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) is a technical measure introduced by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to assess the energy efficiency of existing ships. It applies to all cargo and passenger vessels above 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages. The EEXI evaluates a ship's design efficiency based on factors such as engine power, ship speed, and hull design, aiming to ensure that existing ships meet minimum energy efficiency standards comparable to new vessels. This initiative is part of the IMO's broader strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping by at least 40% by 2030, compared to 2008 levels.
Implementation Timeline:
January 1, 2023: EEXI regulations come into effect.
By the first annual International Air Pollution Prevention (IAPP) survey after January 1, 2023: Ships must demonstrate compliance with EEXI requirements.
2026: IMO plans to review the effectiveness of EEXI and other short-term measures.
Key Concerns & Challenges
Retrofit Requirements: Achieving EEXI compliance may necessitate technical modifications such as engine power limitations, propulsion system upgrades, or hull modifications. These retrofits can be costly and technically challenging, especially for older vessels.
Operational Impact: Implementing measures like engine power limitations to meet EEXI standards can affect a ship's speed and scheduling, potentially leading to delays and impacting service reliability.
Data and Verification: Accurate data collection and reporting are essential for EEXI compliance. Ensuring the reliability of data and the consistency of verification processes across different jurisdictions can be complex.
Financial Implications: The costs associated with retrofitting and potential operational inefficiencies may place a financial burden on shipowners, particularly those operating older fleets or with limited access to capital.
Regulatory Alignment: Aligning EEXI requirements with other regulations, such as the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII), and ensuring a harmonized approach across various regulatory frameworks is necessary to avoid conflicting obligations and optimize compliance strategies.
Winners Table – Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI)
Who
Why
Long-Term Advantage
Shipowners with Recently Built Vessels
Modern ships are likely to meet or exceed EEXI benchmarks without modifications.
Avoid retrofit costs and maintain full operational flexibility.
Fleet Managers Using Power Limitation Systems
Engine power limitation (EPL) is a low-cost compliance method for many vessel types.
Meets regulations with minimal capital expense.
Efficiency Tech Suppliers
Retrofitting needs boost demand for propeller upgrades, air lubrication systems, and hull optimization tools.
Strong order books through 2026 as upgrades ramp up.
Shipyards Offering Retrofit Packages
Yards offering turnkey EEXI compliance packages are well-positioned for growth.
New revenue channel and long-term fleet service contracts.
Charterers Seeking Efficient Tonnage
Charterers prefer compliant vessels that avoid performance disruptions and regulatory risk.
Expanded access to time-sensitive or premium contracts.
Note: Winners are based on alignment with 2023 EEXI thresholds and market demand for efficient, compliant ships. Impacts may shift as IMO reviews the regulation in 2026.
At-Risk Table – Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI)
Who
Why
Long-Term Risk
Older Bulk and Tanker Vessels
Often fall short of EEXI benchmarks without significant retrofits or speed limitations.
May face early phase-out or limited marketability.
Shipowners Without Upgrade Capital
Compliance often requires costly retrofits that may not be viable for cash-strapped operators.
Risk of stranded assets and non-compliance penalties.
Charterers Using Non-Compliant Tonnage
Charterers may face reputational risk or voyage delays if vessels are flagged for non-compliance.
Contract termination risk and loss of ESG-aligned clients.
Technical Managers Without EPL Systems
Engine power limitation (EPL) is one of the easiest paths to compliance; lacking this hinders retrofitting options.
Higher compliance cost and lower efficiency ratings.
Operators in Speed-Sensitive Trades
Reducing engine power can cause schedule disruptions on time-critical voyages.
Loss of competitiveness in high-frequency lanes.
Note: These risks reflect exposure under current 2023 EEXI enforcement standards. Vulnerability may shift if benchmarks are revised during the IMO’s 2026 review.
Strategic Considerations – Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI)
Action
Expected Impact
Install Engine Power Limitation (EPL)
Provides a low-cost method for many ships to meet EEXI targets without full retrofits.
Use Simplified EEXI Calculation Tools
Streamlines technical file preparation and helps identify compliance gaps early.
Coordinate Upgrades During Scheduled Dockings
Avoids downtime by integrating retrofits with regular drydock cycles.
Engage Class Societies Early
Ensures EEXI calculations, verification, and approvals are aligned before survey deadlines.
Monitor IMO Review Developments
Anticipate changes to EEXI metrics after the 2026 review to inform investment strategy.
Promote EEXI Compliance in ESG Reports
Enhances transparency and improves stakeholder trust in sustainability practices.
Note: These recommendations are aligned with IMO's current technical guidance on EEXI and are intended to reduce disruption and compliance risk through 2026.
🌐 Global Readiness Score Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI)
Score: 7 / 10
Regulation is already active and required at the next IAPP survey for all applicable vessels.
Most major fleets have installed engine power limitation (EPL) systems or completed calculations.
Some operators still face delays due to class society backlog or unclear technical documentation.
Smaller and older vessels remain at a disadvantage due to retrofit costs.
Overall compliance is progressing, but enforcement quality varies between flags and regions.
The next five years will test the adaptability, resilience, and foresight of the global shipping industry. As decarbonization efforts accelerate through overlapping frameworks like the IMO’s CII and EEXI, and the EU’s ETS and FuelEU Maritime, shipowners and operators must make strategic decisions with long-term impact. These regulations aren’t isolated—they’re interconnected, and they reward those who act early, invest wisely, and align operations with evolving standards.
Success won’t come from compliance alone, but from seeing regulation as a signal: an opportunity to modernize fleets, build smarter routes, and stay competitive in an increasingly carbon-conscious market. Now is the time to act—not just to keep up, but to lead.
