Shipping's zero emission fuel transition is falling behind 2030 targets: what procurement and supply chain teams need to know

New research has found that the shipping sector is falling behind the pace needed to meet its 2030 climate targets, with demand for zero emission fuels weakening, orders for compatible vessels declining, and international regulatory frameworks still unresolved, according to reporting from Edie. Shipping accounts for a significant share of global trade emissions, and for companies with complex international supply chains, the sector's decarbonisation trajectory is a material factor in Scope 3 category 4 and category 9 calculations under the GHG Protocol. A sector falling behind its own targets creates compounding problems for buyers who have made supply chain emissions commitments based on assumptions about maritime decarbonisation progress.

The combination of weakening fuel demand and declining vessel orders is structurally concerning because the two are deeply linked. Shipowners are reluctant to order zero emission capable vessels without confidence that compliant fuel will be available at scale and at competitive cost. Fuel producers and infrastructure investors, in turn, are reluctant to commit capital without sufficient vessel demand to guarantee offtake. This classic transition coordination problem is playing out at exactly the moment when action is most needed, with 2030 only a few years away and long lead times for both vessel construction and fuel infrastructure.

For procurement leads managing supply chain Scope 3 emissions, the practical implication is that emission factors for international freight by sea are unlikely to improve at the rate that many supply chain decarbonisation roadmaps had assumed. Companies that included maritime decarbonisation as a lever in their Scope 3 reduction strategies may need to revisit their assumptions. Under ESRS E1, companies subject to CSRD are required to disclose their Scope 3 material categories and the actions they are taking to address them, which means relying on a sector that is itself slipping behind schedule will increasingly require explanation.

The unresolved state of international shipping regulation adds a further layer of uncertainty. The International Maritime Organization has set emissions targets, but the regulatory instruments to drive investment decisions at scale have not been finalised in a way that gives the market the certainty it needs. Procurement and supply chain teams watching this space should track IMO proceedings carefully, as the shape of eventual regulation will determine which fuels and vessel types become the viable compliance path for carriers, which in turn affects what buyers can credibly specify in supplier requirements.

Automated supplier data collection tools can help procurement teams track the emissions intensity of individual freight carriers and routes rather than relying on sector average emission factors, which are particularly poor proxies in a transition period. The gap between sector averages and actual carrier performance is widening as early movers invest in cleaner capacity while the rest of the fleet stagnates. For companies with CSRD obligations, using carrier specific data where available strengthens both the accuracy of Scope 3 disclosures and the credibility of supply chain engagement narratives. Platforms like SOMA are built for exactly this kind of granular supplier data workflow, making it easier to move beyond sector averages and toward verifiable primary data.