Cargo owners want to improve their Scope 3 profiles.
Only those with robust evidence and clearly defined system boundaries.
Not all are looking for the same thing: hard abatement, accounting solutions or transitional products.
Precise terminology, traceable data and realistic promises.
Sustainability products in shipping can be categorised into three types. The first category encompasses products with physical emission reduction: transport on a vessel that demonstrably emits less than the industry average – for example through LNG propulsion, methanol operation, wind-assisted propulsion or optimised speed management. Here, a real reduction is achieved on the specific transport route.
The second category comprises accounting products. These include book-and-claim systems where a customer claims the emission reduction of another transport for their own balance sheet – similar to green electricity certificate trading. These products have accounting value, but they do not physically reduce emissions on the customer’s specific route. Transparency about this distinction is critical for credibility.
The third category consists of transitional products: offsetting solutions such as CO2 certificates from forest protection or efficiency projects intended to compensate for the remaining emissions of a transport. These products are most susceptible to greenwashing accusations because the quality of the underlying certificates varies considerably and additionality is frequently questionable.
For all three categories: the methodological basis must be disclosed. Which baseline is used? What system boundaries apply? How are emissions calculated – well-to-wake or tank-to-wake? What data source is employed – MRV reports, AIS data, model calculations? Without this transparency, no sustainability product is robust.
Demand for sustainability products comes predominantly from large cargo owners with their own sustainability targets and reporting obligations. Companies falling under EU sustainability reporting (CSRD) must quantify and reduce their Scope 3 emissions – transport being a significant item. For these customers, the quality of emission data is as important as the reduction itself.
Other customers are primarily interested in the accounting: they need a demonstrable reduction figure for their ESG reports, regardless of whether the reduction physically occurs on their route. For this target group, book-and-claim products are attractive, provided the methodology is recognised.
A third group consists of customers who must fulfil regulatory requirements – for example under FuelEU Maritime, where the greenhouse gas intensity of the fuel used is directly regulated. For these customers, only products that can demonstrate a recognised reduction in GHG intensity are relevant.
Maersk offers “ECO Delivery,” a product based on the use of green methanol. The customer pays a premium and receives a demonstrable emission reduction for their transport – either physically on the specific vessel or via a book-and-claim system. Transparency regarding the methodology and data basis is high, making the product attractive for demanding customers.
CMA CGM pursues a similar approach with LNG-based products, supplemented by bio-LNG options. Hapag-Lloyd offers offsetting products through verified climate protection projects. The quality differences between these approaches are considerable – and not always transparent to the customer.
The central challenge for all providers is pricing. The premium for green methanol transport is significantly higher than for a simple CO2 offset. Customers seeking maximum balance sheet impact at minimum cost therefore frequently opt for the cheaper but less substantive products. Providers who focus on quality must convincingly communicate the added value relative to the price difference.
A credible sustainability product meets four criteria. First: clear methodology – the calculation basis is disclosed, system boundaries are defined, and the emission factors used are traceable. Second: robust data – the emission calculation is based on measured or verified data, not on model assumptions. Third: honest communication – the provider clearly distinguishes between physical reduction, accounting allocation and offsetting. Fourth: independent verification – the methodology and data are reviewed by an independent body.
Those who fail to meet these four criteria risk not only greenwashing accusations but also the loss of customers who are increasingly capable of evaluating the substance behind the products. The market is maturing – and with it, the expectations of buyers.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting