Marine sustainability has long been top of the agenda for many in the industry but it continues to face challenges, both from within and as a result of outside factors. Recently, there was the October 2025 vote against adopting the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) Net-Zero Framework. This was then followed by the outbreak of the conflict in the Middle East, which has had the effect of shifting marine sustainability off the top of the agenda but has also brought into sharp focus the impact of the continued global reliance on fossil fuels.
Here, we delve into the October 2025 vote and the effect the conflict in Iran will have on sustainability in the shipping industry.
Regulatory update: The IMO defers Net-Zero Framework adoption to 2026
Following a failure to vote to adopt its flagship Net-Zero Framework in October 2025, the IMO announced a one-year delay, with the decision now rescheduled for October 2026. The framework is intended to introduce binding carbon-reduction targets for vessels over 5,000 gross tonnes, establish a global fuel standard, and implement the first carbon pricing mechanism for the maritime sector.
The IMO insists the 2030 greenhouse gas(GHG) reduction goal remains a firm target, but the clock is ticking: global regulations introducing major emissions cuts need to take effect by 2027–2028 to realistically achieve a 20–30% reduction by 2030. Every 5 years, the IMO reviews its GHG strategy; the next comprehensive review is due in 2028. In 2028, the IMO will take stock of technology developments and may set out major regulatory change if they are committed to their 2030 targets.
Despite this, in October 2025 when the proposal came to be passed, there was ultimately not enough member state support. The vote was narrowly decided, with 57 members supporting the delay, 49 opposing, and 21 abstaining. This outcome reflects deep divisions and a desire to allow more time for consensus-building.
Several factors contributed to the postponement:
- Geopolitical resistance: The United States, supported by Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing nations, opposed the framework, arguing that a global carbon levy would act as a “green tax” on shipping, increasing consumer costs and distorting trade flows.
- Economic considerations: Many states requested additional time to agree on fair revenue-sharing arrangements for the proposed Net-Zero Fund, concerned about disproportionate impacts on developing economies.
- Technical and procedural challenges: Delegates highlighted the need for further work on (i) Incentives for zero-emission fuels; (ii) clear emissions accounting standards; and (iii) governance structures for fund distribution.
What does this mean for the industry?
The postponement extends regulatory uncertainty and pushes back the anticipated implementation timeline, previously targeted for 2027.
It highlights the complexity of achieving global agreement on decarbonisation measures and leaves shipping companies navigating a fragmented regulatory landscape, with regional schemes such as the EU Emissions Trading System continuing to advance.
The move towards shipping decarbonisation has accelerated in recent years as the IMO and EU (amongst others) have set ambitious targets and demands on the industry. While the vote in October 2025 serves as stark reminder of how external influences can affect the progress, that momentum seems set to continue, heightened by the recent conflict.
This ambition means the industry should continue to be alert to the various changes and challenges ahead.
Iranian conflict - how will it affect marine sustainability?
The world consumes around 100 million barrels of oil each day. Of that total, approximately 20 million barrels pass through the Straits of Hormuz every single day. The US-Israel/Iran conflict has caused a near‑total standstill in tanker traffic travelling eastwards out of the Straits. As a result, oil prices surged, with Brent crude trading at nearly US$115 per barrel at the end of March (up from US$65 in January), and Goldman Sachs predicting that prices could rise as high as US$200 should the conflict persist.
This is yet another example of how global energy supply is inherently intertwined with geopolitical events. The question now is whether this will finally be the straw that breaks the camel’s back and forces governments to ensure that they have a wide range of alternatives to fossil fuels.
There are already signs that the tide may be turning. On 10 March 2026, Europe pivoted its nuclear strategy after decades of closing nuclear power plants. Ursula von der Leyen pledged a €200 billion guarantee for private investment in innovative nuclear technologies and acknowledged that reducing the share of nuclear energy in Europe’s power supply had been a “strategic mistake”. In addition, Dan Jørgensen, the EU’s Energy Commissioner, announced a €75 billion clean‑energy investment strategy.
On the first day of the US/Israel offensive against Iran, the Chinese government stated that China should accelerate its transition to renewable energy, reconsider its energy supply routes, and place greater emphasis on nuclear power.
One thing is clear: countries that are less reliant on imported fossil fuels have been less affected by the supply disruptions caused by the Iran conflict. This may prove to be the wake‑up call the world has needed. That said, a transition to a renewable‑energy‑based economy will require significant time and resources – and a willingness to agree and adopt meaningful regulation. However, those countries that successfully make this transition are likely to be far more insulated from future geopolitical events that disrupt the global supply of oil.
Lessons for the future
Both of these events have certainly been bumps in the road for marine sustainability. However, the result of the October vote has had the benefit of drawing out many concerns which were then debated further at a meeting in London in early May. At this meeting, it was decided that the existing draft framework would remain the basis for further discussion – despite proposals to the contrary from the US and UAE. Equally, the Iranian conflict has shown the vulnerabilities arising from the industry’s traditional reliance on fossil fuels and subsequent stifling of world trade, such that investment into greener alternatives becomes even more attractive.
In the next article in this series, we will look at the timeline for marine sustainability – both to date and looking to the future, examining what the industry can expect in coming years.
Many thanks to Thomas Bell for contributing to this article.
