Exploring how transnational environmental governance and the operation of global value chains (GVCs) intersect is key in explaining the circumstances under which mandatory disclosure can improve the environmental footprint of business operations. We investigate how the governance dynamics of the tanker shipping value chain (a major emitter of greenhouse gases) limits the effectiveness of the European Union (EU) monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) regulation, which mandates the disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions for ships calling at EU ports. Although MRV seeks to help shipowners and ship managers save fuel and reduce emissions, it does not address the complexity of power relations along the tanker shipping value chain and currently cannot disentangle how different actors influence the design, operational, commercial, and ocean/weather factors that together determine fuel consumption. In particular, the EU MRV neglects to reflect on how oil majors exert their power and impose their commercial priorities on other actors, and thus co-determine fuel use levels. We conclude that, in its current form, the EU MRV is unlikely to lead to significant environmental upgrading in tanker shipping. More generally, we argue that regulators seeking to facilitate environmental upgrading need to expand their focus beyond the unwanted behaviors of producers of goods and providers of services to also address the incentive structures and demands placed on them by global buyers.

This article examines private standards that aim to mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in shipping. These have emerged against a backdrop of regulatory inertia and the exclusion of international shipping from the Paris Climate Change Agreement. They are a product of complex governance arrangements and they have addressed areas of market failure that have held back fuel efficiency advances that are made possible by technological innovations. These private standards hold considerable promise but suffer to different degrees from certain weaknesses, notably a lack of transparency, a low level of ambition and concerns about data reliability. This article examines these deficiencies together with the reasons for them, and assesses the role that law could play in addressing them. It argues that the conditions may be present for the mitigation of shipping’s GHG emissions to become a site of ‘hybrid’ governance, combining private standards and state/supra-state law in a productive way.

The United Kingdom (UK) shipping industry is facing calls to set out more robust decarbonisation plans. In light of the economic challenges facing the country, including the cost-of-living crisis and energy security considerations, the UK government has outlined plans to spearhead several ‘green’ developments. It is of paramount importance to understand how best to integrate the domestic maritime sector into this process by promoting the adoption of low-carbon marine fuels such as hydrogen and ammonia. However, there is a limited understanding of what are the most suitable locations for the early adoption of such fuels in the UK. The sustainability transitions literature offers interesting insights into how marine fuel transitions can unfold, by combining the study of market factors with various non-market socio-technical forces. Previous academic work has shown the importance of location and proximity in facilitating alternative marine fuel transitions. This paper builds onto that work by applying a socio-technical transitions framework to develop a set of indicators to ascertain the suitability of potential locations for the early adoption of hydrogen and ammonia as marine fuels in the UK. This paper explores these dynamics by combining evidence from documentary sources, a UK ship voyages database, and interviews with key stakeholders. Furthermore, three specific case studies are analysed in detail to outline key drivers for the adoption of hydrogen and ammonia. The findings show that there is a significant difference across the UK in regional viability for the early adoption of hydrogen and ammonia, with some of the best suited sites being in the north of Scotland (Orkney), south of England (the Solent-Isle of Wight), and east of England (Felixstowe-Harwich).

The maritime shipping sector needs to transition towards a low- or zero-emission future to align with the 1.5 °C temperature goal and the recently adopted and revised greenhouse gas (GHG) strategy at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). A significant research gap exists in understanding how socio-economic and socio-political processes can lead to the adoption of alternative marine fuels that will be essential in meeting the aforementioned goals. The aim of this paper is to use a case study of an existing transition to understand how diffusion takes place, specifically how the adoption of liquified natural gas (LNG) in Norway has unfolded and what lessons can be learnt from this process. To answer this question, a combination of semi-structured interviews with key maritime stakeholders and documentary evidence was collected covering the period from 1985 to 2015. The collected data were analysed through a content analysis approach applying the multilevel perspective (MLP) as a heuristic. The qualitative results paint an interesting picture of the changing attitudes towards LNG as a marine fuel in Norway. In the early years, the adoption of LNG was primarily driven by air pollution and political considerations of using Norwegian natural gas, which over time, evolved into a more focused maritime paradigm painted through the lens of the Norwegian maritime industry under wider regulatory developments such as emission control areas (ECAs). By the 2010s, these drivers were superseded by GHG considerations such as methane slip concerns and a less favourable natural gas market leading to a slowdown of LNG adoption. These findings provide valuable insights for understanding future adoption dynamics of alternative zero-emission fuels, particularly in relation to the role of strong technology champions, institutional modification requirements, and starting conditions for a transition.

Aligning the shipping industry with a 1.5°C temperature increase trajectory requires a dramatic decrease in shipping emissions on the one side, and of the shipping demand for fossil fuels commodities on the other side. Those two requirements lead respectively to stranded assets supply-side risk for carbon intensive ships ; and stranded assets demand-side risk for fossil fuels carriers. This paper aims at providing an understanding the scale of the threat of stranded assets in the international shipping industry. To do so a quantitative assessment of the committed emissions and committed oil shipping work supply carried by the existing and ordered fleet is conducted. We find a large supply-side risk, with more than 40% of committed emissions in excess of the shipping carbon budget. Demand-side risk is more contained with only 16% of the oil shipping supply exceeding the oil shipping demand aligned with a 1.5°C temperature increase target.

This article presents a structured and holistic analysis of key climate-related transition risks facing the global shipping industry. As maritime transport undergoes decarbonization, it is confronted with a range of interdependent challenges, which can be ordered in five primary categories: litigation, policy, contractual, technological, and social risks. These risks interact in complex ways, giving rise to cascading effects that can amplify operational, legal, and financial vulnerabilities throughout the maritime supply chain. Drawing on a targeted literature review and legal doctrinal analysis, this study develops an analytical framework to identify, categorize, and understand these interconnected risks. Rather than offering an exhaustive inventory, the article illustrates how different categories of risk may reinforce one another, highlighting the limitations of siloed approaches to risk management. The paper emphasizes the importance of coordinated regulatory frameworks, adaptive contractual arrangements, and proactive industry engagement to mitigate risks effectively. By mapping the selected risks and their interactions, the article contributes to ongoing academic debate and supports more informed decision-making in the shipping sector’s transition toward a low-carbon maritime future.