What matters is how it is translated into fleet segments and fuel pathways.
Newbuilding programmes, midlife modernisation, alternative fuels and data quality.
Emission data and technical decisions must be more closely aligned.
The key question: which steps are realistic for which parts of the fleet.
A net-zero target for a fleet by 2045 initially sounds like a clear statement. In technical implementation, however, it is anything but straightforward. The central question is: which system boundaries apply? Is the measurement tank-to-wake — covering only combustion on board — or well-to-wake, which includes fuel production, transport and supply? FuelEU Maritime and the IMO framework both adopt well-to-wake, which significantly tightens the requirements.
For a fleet of, say, 400 container vessels, net zero by 2045 means in calculation: every vessel entering service in 2026 must contribute to the declining average emissions of the fleet over its entire 25-year lifespan. A conventional VLSFO vessel built in 2026 and still trading in 2051 then becomes a legacy asset burdening the entire fleet balance — unless it was planned from the outset with conversion options.
The technical building blocks for a net-zero fleet comprise: first, dual-fuel newbuildings with methanol, LNG or prospectively ammonia. Second, energy efficiency measures on existing vessels — hull optimisation, propeller modification, waste heat recovery, wind-assisted propulsion. Third, data-driven emissions management at vessel level to actively steer CII trajectories. Fourth, investment in the fuel supply chain — offtake agreements for green methanol or bio-LNG to secure availability.
A particularly critical factor is carbon intensity. From 2024, the IMO rates vessels annually according to the CII (Carbon Intensity Indicator). Vessels with D or E ratings must submit corrective action plans. The thresholds will be tightened further by 2030. An owner targeting net zero by 2045 must ensure no vessel in the fleet permanently falls below a C rating — which becomes progressively difficult for older units without modernisation.
The role of offsetting also warrants scrutiny. Some owners rely on carbon credits or insetting programmes to balance residual emissions. However, the quality and acceptance of such instruments remain contested. Regulatorily, they are not yet recognised as substitutes for physical emission reduction. Net zero therefore primarily means: driving physical emissions at fleet level towards zero, not offsetting them.
A credible net-zero roadmap requires more than a target year. It must define interim milestones underpinned by concrete measures. A typical structure features milestones for 2030, 2035 and 2040, each with specific reduction targets per fleet segment.
Resource allocation becomes the core question: how does a company distribute limited investment across newbuildings, existing-fleet modernisation, fuel procurement and data infrastructure? Experience shows that the greatest leverage in the early years lies in efficiency measures on the existing fleet, whilst from the early 2030s the newbuilding share dominates.
A frequently overlooked aspect is reporting. Net-zero targets must be demonstrable to stakeholders, investors and regulators. This requires standardised emissions reporting, verified data and transparent methodology. Without this infrastructure, a net-zero target remains a statement of intent without operational teeth.
Maersk has communicated 2040 as the net-zero target for its entire fleet — five years earlier than the 2045 horizon discussed here. To achieve this, the company is investing heavily in methanol newbuildings and has simultaneously concluded long-term offtake agreements for green methanol. CMA CGM pursues similarly ambitious targets but places greater emphasis on LNG as a bridge fuel. MSC has not yet communicated an explicit net-zero date but is investing in dual-fuel capacity through enormous newbuilding programmes.
What these examples demonstrate: even among the top three carriers, there is no uniform strategy. The pathways differ in fuel choice, timing and investment structure. For smaller operators, this means they should not orient themselves around individual role models but must understand the principles: segment, prioritise, steer with data.
For implementing a net-zero target by 2045, the following framework is helpful:
2026–2028: Prioritise efficiency measures on the existing fleet. Establish CII monitoring. Order first dual-fuel newbuildings provided fuel availability is secured.
2028–2032: Replace the first portion of the existing fleet. Take retrofit decisions for midlife vessels. Conclude fuel offtake agreements on 10+ year terms.
2032–2038: Dual-fuel newbuildings dominate in operation. Phase out conventional units progressively. Reporting and verification fully operationalised.
2038–2045: Replace or decommission last conventional units. Reduce residual emissions to a minimum. Achieve physical net zero at fleet level.
A net-zero roadmap eventually becomes a financing question, because dual-fuel newbuildings, retrofit packages and fuel offtake agreements all compete for the same capital as conventional fleet renewal. Lenders and lessors increasingly price climate performance into financing terms, which means a vessel with a weak emissions trajectory may face higher financing costs even before any regulatory penalty applies. This shifts part of the net-zero business case from a pure compliance argument to a cost-of-capital argument.
Operators should also weigh sequencing risk: committing early to a single fuel pathway locks in supply agreements and bunkering infrastructure investment before it is fully clear which fuel will dominate a given trade lane. Spreading commitments across a portfolio of vessels with different fuel readiness, rather than betting the whole fleet on one pathway, reduces exposure if the expected fuel supply chain develops more slowly than planned.
The most frequent planning mistake is treating the target year as the plan itself rather than working backwards from it. A roadmap without dated interim milestones and named responsible parties tends to remain a communications document rather than an operational one. A second pitfall is underestimating existing-fleet potential: owners sometimes focus resources on newbuilding programmes while overlooking efficiency measures on vessels already trading, such as hull and propeller maintenance, trim optimisation and speed management, that can be implemented immediately.
A third pitfall is assuming fuel availability will simply materialise when needed. Without early offtake commitments, an operator may find that competitors have already secured the limited supply of alternative fuel for the years when the fleet is meant to transition. Reviewing the roadmap regularly against actual fuel market development, rather than treating it as fixed once published, keeps the plan realistic.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting