Shipping Sector Backs an International Maritime Organization Climate Deal, but Not All of the Details

Key Findings

• The shipping and oil and gas industries have publicly backed a climate deal at the International Maritime Organization (IMO), amid disagreement between governments. However, some of the same industry groups have pushed to weaken the details that determine how much emissions would be reduced. Major shipping companies and associations, alongside oil and gas producers, have repeatedly voiced general support for global GHG regulations for shipping, undercutting opposing governments’ claims - who will ultimately decide the fate of any agreement - that it would harm the industry. The adoption of the previous Net-Zero Framework (NZF) was postponed in October 2025 amid disagreements between governments, and negotiations will resume at the 85th session of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 85), from November 30 to December 3, 2026.
• Industry’s support for an IMO deal has grown over time, but has become more cautious since adoption was postponed. In 2017, InfluenceMap found that key shipping associations had lobbied to delay IMO climate regulation until 2023 and to limit it to voluntary measures. By 2025, many of these same groups, including the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC), backed a binding, global deal: the Net-Zero Framework. Since its postponement, they have continued to support a deal in general terms but no longer name the framework, asking governments instead “to consider all options.”
• This general support contrasts with varied industry positions on the framework’s three main parts, which risks weakening it and undermining the global shipping industry's ability to decarbonize. These parts include a carbon price, a fuel standard requiring ships to cut fuel emissions, and rules for counting each fuel’s emissions.
  • In 2024-25, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and World Shipping Council (WSC) consistently supported a carbon price, although ICS argued for a carbon price at the bottom of the range discussed.
  • During the same period, engagement on a global fuel standard was both positive and negative, with ICS proposing smaller reductions than governments later approved, and WSC positively endorsing a standard that would measure each fuel’s emissions from production through to use on board (well-to-wake). ICS’s and WSC’s positions on carbon pricing and the fuel standard date mainly from before the framework’s original approval in April 2025.
• The oil and gas industry group Ipieca and the liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry coalition SEA-LNG have sought rules that could count LNG as lower-emitting than current rules allow. These two associations account for all 9 negative positions identified on the accounting rules. Their proposals include replacing the IMO’s conservative default emission values for fossil fuels, which use the upper end of the range of estimates, with averages of that range, and letting fossil fuels such as LNG use producers’ own emissions figures instead. This could weaken the fuel standard without changing its headline targets, and favor LNG-powered ships.
• Shipping associations have used their support for the Net-Zero Framework to oppose EU climate rules. Associations, including ICS, WSC and the European Community Shipowners’ Associations (ECSA), have called for the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and FuelEU Maritime to be reviewed or withdrawn once the framework is adopted, even though the EU rules are already in force and central to meeting EU climate targets. In April 2025, following the agreement of the NZF, the European Commission said the IMO agreement alone does not yet ensure the shipping sector’s full contribution to the Paris Agreement goals.

About This Briefing

This briefing assesses how the shipping and fuels industries have engaged with the IMO’s GHG emissions regulations ahead of MEPC 85. InfluenceMap searched its LobbyMap database for companies and industry associations that have engaged on the framework or on an IMO climate deal more broadly in the past 3 years. This includes formal IMO submissions covering positions on the framework’s carbon price, fuel standard, and rules for counting fuel emissions. InfluenceMap scores each position against science-based policy benchmarks using its LobbyMap methodology.

Overview

In April 2025 at the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC 83), International Maritime Organization (IMO) member states originally approved the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), a set of amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) designed to bring international shipping to net-zero GHG emissions by or around 2050.

Since the formal approval of this framework was delayed in October 2025, climate negotiations have reached a critical juncture, as some key member states, including the US, continue to oppose the framework despite broad corporate support for a deal. The upcoming negotiations at the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG 23) from November 23-27 and MEPC 85 from November 30 to December 3, with the extraordinary session that could adopt a suite of GHG-related MARPOL amendments due to resume on December 4, mark a crucial moment for shipping; failing to adopt a global framework now risks again delaying global climate action for shipping and prolonging investment uncertainty.

1. The Corporate Sector Communicates High-Level Support for the IMO GHG Regulations

For years, many actors across the shipping and fuels industries have made their support for IMO action on GHG emissions clear. For example, in an October 2025 joint industry letter, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC) urged governments to adopt the Net-Zero Framework as a “carefully balanced regulatory package”, and in an April 2026 joint statement, ICS, WSC, and other associations reaffirmed their support for the IMO as global regulator and for the 2023 IMO GHG Strategy. This advocacy clearly demonstrates broad top-line corporate support for an IMO climate deal, although, as Section 2 shows, positioning varies on crucial components of the framework.

Table 1: Supportive Corporate Engagement with International Maritime Organization Net-Zero Framework

While supporting the broader Net-Zero Framework, several companies also backed specific elements. For example, in 2026, Maersk called for the IMO to establish these measures in the form of a fuel standard and GHG pricing mechanism,” and in 2025, MSC stated that “there is growing consensus on the need for an economic element, in the form of a carbon pricing system to accompany the global fuel standard.”

2. Industry Positions Differ on the Net-Zero Framework’s Key Elements

InfluenceMap reviewed nearly 50 IMO submissions over the last three years from November 2023 to October 2026, alongside wider advocacy on GHG regulations, from four industry associations in its LobbyMap database:

• International Chamber of Shipping (ICS): the global trade association for shipowners and operators. Its members are national shipowners' associations from 41 countries and territories, representing over 80% of the world's merchant fleet.
• World Shipping Council (WSC): the trade association for container shipping lines. Members include CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, and the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC).
• Ipieca: the global oil and gas industry association, whose members include the oil and gas companies that produce and supply marine fuels, such as BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Saudi Aramco, and Shell.
• SEA-LNG: An industry coalition promoting LNG as a marine fuel, with members across the LNG value chain, including Shell, TotalEnergies, and the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC).

These associations are the channel through which companies most directly influence IMO negotiations. Their positions on the detailed rules, often co-sponsored with governments, typically carry more weight than individual companies’ public statements, which Section 1 covers. Other active associations, including INTERTANKO, INTERCARGO and BIMCO, are excluded because they are not currently in the LobbyMap database. LobbyMap assesses corporate and industry engagement from over 1000 companies and 350 industry associations with current, evolving, and anticipated future policies and regulations globally.

The Net-Zero Framework’s Key Elements

The NZF, approved in 2025, combines a fuel standard requiring ships to reduce fuel GHG intensity with a pricing mechanism that charges ships that fall short and rewards those using zero- and near-zero-GHG fuels.

Figure 1: The IMO Net-Zero Framework’s Key Elements

The effectiveness of any GHG framework will depend on the IMO’s life-cycle assessment (LCA) rules, which set how each fuel’s emissions are counted. This matters because a fuel that emits little on board can still generate substantial emissions during production. All three elements are now in play: governments are considering easing the fuel-standard requirements for 2029–35, the accounting rules are on the agenda at ISWG-GHG 23 in November 2026, and pricing remains one of the most contested elements ahead of the resumed extraordinary session on December 4.

Broad Corporate Support for the Net-Zero Framework, but Details are Contested

The findings show a distinction between top-line support for an IMO climate deal and varied positions on its details. The ICS has backed adopting the framework while advocating for changes that would weaken its pricing mechanism and fuel standards. WSC consistently supported a stringent fuel standard, with every target set in advance and based on full life-cycle emissions, though its public direct engagement with the IMO is lower than that of the ICS. Ipieca's detailed engagement appears to have begun after the framework's initial approval and focused largely on changes to fuel-emissions accounting. The summaries below outline each association’s engagement, with detailed advocacy evidence in the Appendix.

Figure 2: How Associations Have Engaged with the Net-Zero Framework’s Key Elements (Nov 2023–Oct 2026)

Each association has focused on different elements. ICS engaged most on carbon pricing, while WSC engaged across all three. Ipieca’s engagement has focused primarily on accounting rules, as has SEA-LNG, along with one position on the fuel standard. However, nearly all detailed industry engagement since the initial approval of the Net-Zero Framework in April 2025 has focused on accounting rules, with full advocacy details in the Appendix.

Carbon Pricing

ICS and WSC supported a global carbon price, but ICS argued for a lower price per tonne of emissions than other proposals. In 2024-25, WSC backed a fee high enough to make clean fuels competitive through a “Green Balance Mechanism”, a design it says the NZF builds on. ICS in 2024-25 favored a carbon price often at the bottom of the range discussed and charging ships only for emissions from burning fuel, not from its production. Since the postponement, both have broadly backed a deal while taking less clear public positions on a GHG pricing mechanism; an April 2026 supportive joint statement they signed did not name the NZF. Pricing remains a highly contested element ahead of MEPC 85. ICS itself accepted that rewards funded at its previously proposed rate of $10-$20 per tonne of CO2 “would not close the price gap completely” between fossil and clean fuels, the gap the NZF’s pricing mechanism is designed to close.

Fuel Standard

ICS proposed less ambitious reduction targets, and WSC has recently signaled flexibility. ICS backed a fuel standard but in 2023 proposed reduction targets short of the IMO’s 2023 GHG Strategy goals, with intermediate targets deferred. WSC, by contrast, argued in 2023–24 that every target to 2050 be set in advance and that the standard be based on full well-to-wake emission. In October 2026 its chair said it could live with a framework that “comes stepwise.” In 2025, SEA-LNG opposed treating LNG differently from other fuels under the standard. Industry’s openness to a phased approach could add weight to these proposals. If governments ease the 2029–35 requirements, as some are reportedly considering, the standard would start from a weaker point, making the IMO’s 2040 checkpoint harder to meet.

Accounting Rules

Ipieca and SEA-LNG have sought rules that would likely lower counted emissions for fossil fuels, including LNG. All nine negative positions on the accounting rules came from fuel-side groups, Ipieca and SEA-LNG, whose members’ products are directly affected by how emissions are counted. Eight of Ipieca’s ten positions are negative, including proposals to replace the IMO’s cautious default emission values for fossil fuels with averages. Citing a study it commissioned, SEA-LNG has argued that LNG’s production emissions are lower than regulators assume. WSC, by contrast, had previously supported stricter accounting mechanisms in 2024. With these rules on the agenda at ISWG-GHG 23, looser accounting rules could weaken the fuel standard by incentivizing emissions-intensive fuels like LNG without changing its headline targets.

3. Support for Global IMO Regulations Is Often at the Expense of More Stringent Regional Regulations

While the shipping sector supports the IMO’s regulatory framework, key industry groups often leverage that support to advocate against the FuelEU Maritime regulation and the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS). Entities including European Shipowners (ECSA), the International Chamber of Shipping, SEA-LNG, and the World Shipping Council have stressed the need to avoid double regulation, calling for the review, harmonization, or withdrawal of these EU-level regulations following the passage of the IMO NZF. However, EU regulations are already in force: the EU ETS has covered shipping since 2024 and FuelEU Maritime since 2025, while the NZF has yet to be adopted. The European Commission describes EU action as “an essential step in incentivizing the necessary reductions” and has said the IMO agreement “does not yet ensure the sector’s full contribution” to Paris Agreement goals.

Table 2: Support for the IMO NZF at the Expense of EU Policies

4. Implications for MEPC 85

While industry’s top-line support for the framework is clear, it stops short of the science-based policies needed to decarbonize the sector. In recent communications, ICS has proposed a lower price and a weaker fuel standard, and Ipieca has sought accounting rules that would let fossil-based fuels report lower emissions, risking the promotion of fossil-based shipping fuels.

Opposing governments’ economic arguments are not supported by the industry’s own advocacy. In comments submitted before MEPC 84 earlier this year, the United States argued the NZF would “have dire economic consequences for the shipping industry, energy producers and global consumers.” Yet many multinational shipping associations and companies have publicly backed it, as have fuel producers, including the US Renewable Fuels Association, which called the IMO program “an unprecedented opportunity for ensuring American energy dominance.”

A significant risk remains that the IMO will deliver an agreement that undermines the global shipping industry’s ability to decarbonize. Argentina, Liberia, and Panama have co-sponsored a “technical-only” deal without creating an IMO fund. However, Pacific island states have described the Net-Zero Fund as a “functional requirement” of the framework, arguing its revenues are crucial for decarbonization and to support developing countries in a just and equitable transition. With 30 member states reportedly open to easing fuel-standard requirements for 2029–35 at ISWG-GHG 22, which would reduce Net-Zero Fund revenue, less ambitious proposals could create a landing zone that moves the IMO away from the net-zero trajectory it agreed to in its 2023 GHG Strategy.

At MEPC 85, governments should base any agreement not on industry preference, but on science-based policy and the climate targets already agreed at the IMO. This includes a carbon price high enough to close the cost gap between conventional and low-carbon fuels, a fuel standard on track for the IMO’s own 2040 goal, and rigorous accounting rules to incentivize fuels that drive real-world emissions reductions.

Appendix: Detailed Engagement with the Net-Zero Framework’s Key Elements