.jpg)
As 2025 draws to a close, the global shipping industry finds itself far from the clean-fuel sprint that many had anticipated. Despite ambitious decarbonisation targets, the year is ending with familiar challenges: unclear regulatory pathways, uneven enforcement and a pace of change that continues to outstrip the readiness of fuel supply chains.
“Shipping has not failed on ambition,” says Philippos Ioulianou, Managing Director of EmissionLink, “What we are seeing is regulation running ahead of infrastructure and fuel availability. That gap is what owners are being forced to manage.”
In 2026, progress will be less about breakthrough fuels and more about interim compliance and commercial trade-offs. With global rules still fragmented, owners and charterers will focus on managing exposure rather than long-term transformation.
“The conversation shifts from targets to trade-offs,” says Mr Ioulianou. “Owners need to stay compliant and competitive using the tools that exist today.”
While the IMO’s net-zero ambition remains, a globally harmonised framework is still some way off. FuelEU Maritime, however, is already changing behaviour, driving tougher emissions reporting, greater use of pooling and increased reliance on digital emissions tracking.
“FuelEU is no longer something the industry is preparing for ,it is something it is actively managing,” says Mr Ioulianou. “Pooling is attractive because it reduces cost and complexity at a time when fuel pricing and supply remain unpredictable.”
Digital optimisation is also becoming central to compliance strategies. Predictive emissions tracking, supported by digital twins of vessels and voyages, is emerging as a critical tool for managing FuelEU exposure. As a result, secure, audit-ready monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) data is becoming a daily operational requirement.
“Digital emissions management has moved from ‘nice to have’ to mission critical,” says Mr Ioulianou. “If your data is not accurate, secure and audit-ready, you are already behind.”
Globally, consensus on future fuels remains elusive. Governments face growing fiscal pressure, and carbon pricing is proving an attractive revenue mechanism as public spending rises. While climate goals remain, policy design is increasingly shaped by fiscal realities, driving continued debate over credits, exemptions and fuel eligibility, including LNG and bio-LNG.
“Governments still want decarbonisation, but they also need revenue,” Mr Ioulianou adds. “That tension is reshaping policy in ways the industry needs to understand and plan for.”
Looking ahead,Mr Ioulianou believes 2026 will be about preserving flexibility. “The global rulebook is not aligned, supply chains are not ready and pricing is volatile,” he said. “The smart move is to buy optionality – through pooling, selective biofuel use, LNG where allowed, and relentless operational efficiency supported by continuous emissions monitoring.”
He also pointed to the importance of how regulatory revenues are used. “Europe is collecting significant funds through ETS and FuelEU. If that money flows back into fuel supply and retrofits, confidence in the transition will grow. If it doesn’t, these schemes risk becoming permanent cost burdens rather than enablers of net zero.”
Alternative fuels such as ammonia and methanol are unlikely to define the year ahead. Newbuild orders for alternative-fuel vessels have fallen sharply, and confidence in large-scale dual-fuel uptake is waning.
“2026 will not be the year of ammonia or methanol,” Mr Ioulianou concludes. “It will be a year of pragmatic, compliance-safe decisions by owners and charterers, while policymakers continue to debate who pays, who benefits and how global shipping’s energy transition can realistically be.”
