In October 2025, the agreement surrounding the IMO’s Net Zero Framework collapsed. The framework had otherwise been on track to become the first global framework capable of genuinely regulating the climate impact of shipping through both binding requirements and economic consequences. This does not change the objective of climate-neutral shipping, as the IMO’s overall strategy remains in place. However, it does affect the pace, predictability and risk profile across the entire maritime value chain.

What the collapse means in practice

The biggest issue is uncertainty. When shipowners, equipment manufacturers and fuel suppliers cannot rely on a single global direction, investments are, unsurprisingly, postponed or scaled back. This particularly affects major decisions such as newbuilds, retrofits, engines designed for dual use, and the scaling up of green fuels. Without a clear global demand signal, it becomes more difficult to reach final investment decisions, and the transition risks being delayed.

There is also a competitive dimension. Danish and European companies are at the forefront of technologies for energy efficiency and alternative fuels. When global regulation is postponed, competitors are given more time to catch up. For frontrunners, this means that the advantage of being first can be diluted, even though the need for the solutions does not disappear.

Why did it end this way?

The negotiations were driven largely by geopolitics rather than technical considerations. Pressure from the United States played a significant role, and several countries that could, in principle, see themselves in an agreement became more hesitant.

At the same time, it became clear how vulnerable a global process can be when domestic considerations, coalition-building and shifting alliances take over. When an agreement is interpreted as power politics, compromises become harder to reach and uncertainty increases.

The consequences for Blue Denmark

For Blue Denmark, the challenge is twofold. On the one hand, there remains strong demand for solutions that reduce fuel consumption and emissions. That demand does not disappear, as it is also linked to operations, efficiency and the bottom line. On the other hand, the postponement particularly affects those parts of the industry that are built to deliver rapid leaps in the green transition, because customers find it harder to plan and prioritise.

It may also affect shipbuilding activity. When regulation and incentives become unclear, it becomes more attractive to wait. This can delay orders for vessels capable of operating on alternative fuels and create a more uneven fleet renewal curve.

The global risk: more rules, less clarity

When the global framework fails to deliver, the likelihood of more regional and national initiatives increases. EU regulation can help maintain pressure on the transition, but a patchwork of requirements makes global shipping more costly and complex to operate. This increases the risk of overlap, administrative burdens and distorted competitive conditions. At the same time, it becomes harder to bring the world together around a single common solution at a later stage.

How do we move forward?

In practice, there are three possible paths. One is to attempt to adopt the Net Zero Framework again in its current form after the intended one-year pause. Alternatively, a more phased approach could be chosen, where ambition levels and pace are adjusted to bring more countries on board. Or the process could restart with a new compromise. Regardless of the path, two factors will determine the outcome: diplomacy and clarity.

It is therefore critically important that work on the technical details continues uninterrupted, so that countries can see how measurement, certification, enforcement and incentives will actually function. The more uncertainty there is, the easier it becomes to undermine support. The clearer it becomes what the agreement means in practice, the harder it is to reject it out of convenience or fear.

The transition continues, but predictability is under pressure

The green transition of shipping has not been put on hold, but it has lost some of its predictability. This places greater demands on cooperation, clear communication and political leadership, both within the IMO and at regional level.

For Blue Denmark, the task now is to maintain momentum, strengthen competitiveness and ensure that Danish maritime strongholds are not eroded by uncertainty and delays. A global agreement remains the best and most effective way forward. The task, therefore, is not to lower ambitions, but to create the clarity and common foundation needed to bring the world along. Across Blue Denmark, sleeves have been rolled up to make this happen, and there will be no compromise on ambitions.