- NYK Europe cautions that overlapping regional emissions rules could harm global shipping.
- Delays in IMO’s global Net-Zero Framework are increasing the risk of fragmented regulations.
- Differences between EU and potential national fuel standards may create major compliance challenges.
- NYK is advancing fuel transition through LNG and biofuels despite regulatory uncertainty.
NYK Group Europe has warned that the growing risk of fragmented maritime emissions regulations could significantly disrupt global shipping and international trade. With delays to a unified global framework under the International Maritime Organization (IMO), regional and national authorities are increasingly introducing their own decarbonization policies, creating operational complexity for shipowners and fuel suppliers.
Rising Risk of Regulatory Fragmentation
NYK Group Europe President and CEO Carl-Johan Hagman cautioned that multiple overlapping greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions regimes could be “hugely detrimental” to global shipping if countries and regions introduce their own bunker fuel standards.
The warning follows the IMO’s decision to postpone adoption of its Net-Zero Framework by one year, amid strong opposition from certain member states. This delay has raised concerns that more countries could introduce unilateral shipping emissions policies.
EU Regulations Creating Global Ripple Effects
The European Union has already expanded its Emissions Trading System (ETS) to include shipping since 2024 and is introducing FuelEU Maritime rules on marine fuel greenhouse gas intensity from 2025.
Industry participants expect further fragmentation as countries such as Turkey and China may consider their own regional shipping emissions rules. NYK warned that such a trend could complicate global maritime operations and disrupt established international frameworks.
Conflicting Emissions Methodologies
One of the core challenges highlighted by NYK is the use of different emissions accounting systems. The EU ETS measures emissions on a tank-to-wake basis, while FuelEU Maritime uses a well-to-wake methodology.
Potential differences in default emissions factors under future IMO rules could result in the same fuel being classified differently across jurisdictions, creating significant logistical and compliance challenges for shipping companies.
NYK’s Decarbonization Strategy and Compliance
Despite regulatory uncertainty, NYK has set ambitious internal climate targets. The company aims to reduce Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions by 45% by 2030, compared with 2021 levels — a target stricter than current EU and proposed IMO rules.
NYK’s fleet includes a large number of vessels capable of using LNG, along with increasing use of biofuels, allowing the company to generate compliance surpluses under European regulations.
LNG and Biofuels as Transition Solutions
LNG remains a compliant fuel under FuelEU Maritime well into the next decade and can reduce emissions by 20–30% compared with conventional oil-based fuels. NYK plans to use surplus compliance credits generated from LNG use to balance emissions across its fleet and explore pooling opportunities with other companies.
The company has also significantly increased its use of biobunkers, becoming one of the larger buyers of marine biofuels in Europe, although supply and logistics continue to influence pricing.
Carbon Pricing and the Challenge of Scaling Green Fuels
The postponed IMO Net-Zero Framework was designed to introduce a carbon price on maritime emissions from 2028. According to NYK, such a pricing mechanism is essential to stimulate large-scale fuel offtake agreements and accelerate production of low-carbon marine fuels.
Without strong market signals, green fuels remain scarce and expensive, limiting adoption across the industry.
Limited Ability to Pass Costs to Cargo Owners
NYK highlighted the difficulty of transferring the higher costs of sustainable fuels to cargo owners, noting that most customers are unwilling to absorb additional freight costs.
As a result, shipowners and operators often bear the financial burden of decarbonization beyond what is strictly required by regulation.
Did you subscribe to our daily Newsletter?
It’s Free Click here to Subscribe!
Source: S&P Global
