Resilience at sea: the overlooked sustainability leader

Given its long exposure to physical and financial risk, the maritime industry was compelled to develop robust risk-mitigation approaches well before ESG frameworks became mainstream, argue Silje Bareksten and Morten Elvekrok of KPMG Norway in an article exploring the mechanisms driving the maritime sector toward a more sustainable future.

The overlooked leader

The maritime industry’s role in global sustainability is often overshadowed by scrutiny. We argue the sector deserves recognition for its sustainable leadership and striking progress, especially given the fragmented nature of global shipping. While the complexities of securing a full consensus on the IMO Net Zero Framework are often reported as setbacks, the continuous convening of MEPC sessions is a testament to the sector’s commitment. 

Resilience rooted in risk management

The maritime industry has always been defined by physical and financial risk. This reality compelled the sector to pioneer sophisticated risk mitigation measures long before modern ESG frameworks existed. These innovations include:

• Joint-stock companies for distributing cost and risk.
• Mutual insurance companies (“Clubs”) tracing their origins to 17th-century gatherings like Lloyd’s Coffee House.
• Third-party assurance by auditing bodies known as “Classification Societies.”

The logic is simple: ships are expensive assets. Insurance allows multiple parties to pool capital and share the risk of financial ruin, making financing feasible. Crucially, a trusted third party verifies seaworthiness and crew competency before capital is committed. Because the open seas fall outside a single government’s jurisdiction, these private, relationship-based solutions became the norm.

We observe that these financially motivated mechanisms have consistently been powerful drivers of sustainability, improving safety, working conditions, and pollution reduction for centuries.

Tragedies as catalysts: The global framework

Private agility is vital, often proving new standards. Yet, a challenging truth remains: tragedy often serves as a catalyst for sweeping, mandatory global change. Maritime is no exception.

The Titanic sank in 1912; just two years later, nations established a unified response: SOLAS (The International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea). This remains the most critical instrument ensuring minimum safety standards for global trade. Later, the formation of the IMO following World War II established a shared regulatory framework that stands as a rare example of universal governance.

A proactive track record

Since its inception, the IMO has been an effective coordinator, continuously tightening environmental and safety standards. This structure exists alongside crucial private initiatives. The industry’s commitment is highlighted by major conventions:

• MARPOL Convention (1973): The primary convention addressing environmental issues. Its mandate, expanded through annexes, often follows major disasters. The Net Zero framework is currently being integrated as an amendment to Annex VI (Air Pollution).
• Hong Kong Convention: Now officially in force as of June 2025, it regulates safe and environmentally sound recycling, a crucial step toward genuine circular economy principles.
• STCW Convention: Ensures global, uniform competency for the world’s crew, linking professional standards directly to operational safety.
• The ISM Code: Establishes international standards for safe management and operation through mandatory Safety Management Systems (SMS).

Private innovation beyond bureaucracy

While global conventions are crucial, we must highlight the sector’s capacity for proactive, private-led achievements. Many ambitious leaps originate from internal drive, independent of regulatory pressure.

In Norway, companies are leading the way: Wallenius Wilhelmsen is moving forward with the development of their wind-powered vessel Orcelle concept, while also investing in their methanol dual fuel shaper class vessels. Höegh Autoliners is investing heavily in the ammonia value chain, while Solvang and Wärtsilä are piloting onboard carbon capture despite regulatory uncertainty. Global initiatives such as the Neptune Declaration, the Poseidon Principles, Sea Cargo Charter, and the Getting to Zero Coalition are all evidence of private commitment to seafarers and the environment.

These efforts are driven by organic risk management, technological innovation, and market demand. Crucially, much of this progress is achieved without the overly complex, prescriptive reporting mechanisms favored by regional bodies.

We argue that the sector’s historical success, built on private assurance, is a powerful counter-narrative to the belief that change must be compelled by excessive bureaucracy. The EU’s CSRD framework, for instance, imposes granular reporting demands that risk suffocating small and medium-sized enterprises.  Maritime demonstrates that profound change can be achieved through effective industry mechanisms without the weight of twenty-seven different standardized reports.

Beyond compliance: A constructive future

The complexity of maritime regulations is unparalleled. Yet, this history of developing global standards – often self-imposed – proves the sector is uniquely equipped to tackle decarbonization.

While regulatory pressure like FuelEU Maritime and the EU ETS drives compliance, the real leap occurs when market forces and private innovation are unleashed; the same engines that created P&I Clubs and Classification Societies.

The takeaway is clear: the maritime industry does not lack commitment; it simply operates on a scale where global consensus is required. 

When we see the proactive adoption of methanol fleets and the pursuit of zero-emission corridors, we see an industry not waiting for a directive but actively charting its own course. We remain constructively optimistic that the sector’s DNA for risk management and global governance will deliver the most resilient transformation of any global industry.
 

The views presented are only those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of SAFETY4SEA and are for information sharing and discussion purposes only.

source : safety4sea