The global shipping industry has reached a critical turning point.
The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) recently agreed emissions deal has been hailed as a milestone in maritime decarbonisation – signalling long-overdue progress in regulating one of the world’s most polluting industries. But this breakthrough has been overshadowed by a stark omission: the United States’ decision to walk away from negotiations.
The US’s withdrawal raises serious questions about the enforceability and cohesion of the agreement. The IMO’s regulatory model relies on flag states to enforce compliance. If more nations opt out or water down their commitments, enforcement becomes inconsistent, and a two-tier shipping system could emerge: one made up of operators bearing the cost of compliance, and another of those operating under weaker or unenforced regimes.
More worryingly, it risks triggering a wider trend of regulatory fragmentation – with significant consequences for manufacturers, logistics providers and supply chains around the world.
Why is this a setback for companies?
For global businesses, consistency and predictability in regulation are critical. Fragmentation in maritime decarbonisation policy disrupts both. Without a unified global standard, companies must navigate a patchwork of national or regional rules – each with different timelines, thresholds and enforcement regimes. This not only creates legal and operational uncertainty but also increases the cost and complexity of compliance.
Companies that rely on international shipping, especially manufacturers, exporters and retailers, may be forced to choose between higher-cost compliant carriers or risk reputational and regulatory exposure by engaging non-compliant operators. Those costs will not be evenly distributed.
Firms operating across multiple markets may find themselves juggling multiple emissions reporting systems, carbon pricing mechanisms and verification requirements. For small and mid-sized businesses in particular, these added burdens could squeeze margins and dampen competitiveness.
There are also strategic risks. A lack of coherence in shipping policy makes long-term supply chain planning more difficult. For example, businesses that have invested heavily in decarbonisation may now hesitate to go further if they perceive competitors, especially in markets with looser regulation, are gaining an unfair advantage. This could stall progress not just in shipping, but across adjacent sectors that depend on it, from automotive to consumer goods.
The US’s decision to walk away from the IMO negotiations weakens the political legitimacy of the agreement and signals to others that opting out is a viable path. In doing so, it undermines the collective action needed to decarbonise global trade routes. The result is a business environment marked by growing divergence – where resilience is replaced by reactivity and climate ambition is undercut by regulatory uncertainty.
How can companies turn this into a strategic advantage?
While the policy landscape remains uncertain, companies can still take practical steps to prepare for change. Carbon pricing is beginning to influence shipping costs in some markets, and businesses that assess the potential impact early may be better placed to respond. This includes reviewing freight strategies, factoring potential carbon levies into budgeting and setting clearer sustainability expectations for suppliers.
Some organisations are already exploring options to reduce emissions within their supply chains, such as selecting carriers that use alternative fuels like LNG, biofuels or methanol. Manufacturers are responding too, choosing greener carriers, shortening transport routes and investing in digital tools to track and report emissions.
Moreover, embedding sustainability into core decision-making – rather than treating it as a separate or reactive issue – will help companies manage regulatory risk, meet stakeholder expectations, and identify areas for operational improvement. This not only helps them build more resilient supply chains but also aligns with rising customer expectations and investor pressure for greater environmental accountability.
Businesses must not only adapt to regulation but engage constructively in the development of future standards. By contributing insights and maintaining dialogue with industry groups and policymakers, businesses can play a role in shaping a more coordinated, transparent framework for decarbonising global shipping.
Looking ahead
The carbon divide is set to disrupt global trade. As nations diverge in their approach to maritime decarbonisation, companies will increasingly find themselves navigating a fragmented landscape that distorts competition and complicates compliance. But fragmentation doesn’t have to mean paralysis.
By preparing now, engaging constructively, and embedding sustainability into supply chain strategy, businesses can not only mitigate risk but also help shape more stable and predictable conditions for global trade.
- Sustainable Procurement