IMO's Net-Zero Framework Delay: The Procurement Implications
The International Maritime Organization's decision to delay its Net-Zero Framework (NZF) by one year introduces a new layer of uncertainty for procurement leaders playing their part in global supply chains.
A landmark vote on maritime decarbonisation has been postponed until 2026 after a motion tabled by Singapore and advanced by Saudi Arabia narrowly passed on the final day of the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s extraordinary session in London.
The result was 57 in favour and 49 against, with 21 abstentions – a tight margin that sends mixed signals to C-level executives attempting to strategise for future logistics costs and environmental compliance.
The session is now adjourned for 12 months, during which negotiations are expected to continue.
In his closing remarks, IMO Secretary General Arsenio Dominguez said: "I always look for the silver linings in things. Even though you have difference of opinions, you all spoke in support of the work of this organisation. I will ask you to reflect on this session. The outcome is your decision."
"Now, you have one year; you will continue to work on several aspects of these amendments. You have one year to negotiate and talk and come to a consensus that you make reference to."
The net-zero framework
The delayed framework is an important piece of regulation that would apply from 2028 to ships over 5,000 gross tonnes.
For procurement departments, its core components represent a tangible future cost.
The NZF establishes binding targets to reduce the carbon intensity of marine fuels and creates a market-based mechanism involving credits and penalties. Under the proposed rules, ships exceeding emission limits would be required to purchase “remedial units”.
In contrast, low-emission vessels could earn and trade surplus credits. The revenue generated would be directed into an IMO Net-Zero Fund.
The fund is intended to support the adoption of clean fuels and assist developing countries in a just transition.
The delay now gives procurement teams more time to model these potential costs, but clouds the timeline for implementation.
Geopolitical pressure and regulatory headwinds
According to the Global Strategic Communications Council, momentum appeared strong for the framework in April when 63 countries backed the package against 16 opposed.
This support wavered as the October vote approached amid intense geopolitical pressure. Delegations from some developing countries cited “undiplomatic” pressure from the US, including threats of tariffs if they supported the framework.
The US position hardened publicly when President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: “I am outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global Carbon Tax.”
His post framed the NZF as a Global Green New Deal Tax on Shipping and stated that the US would not adhere to it, urging other member states to vote 'no'.
Future-proofing procurement strategies
An 11 August submission from the US argued that the NZF would establish a de facto global carbon tax, potentially causing inflationary effects for consumers.
It also highlights that zero- and near-zero fuels are not yet commercially available at the required scale and that the framework's GHG Fuel Intensity metric could penalise transitional fuels like liquefied natural gas (LNG).
The latest IMO vote represents a critical juncture for procurement leaders whose organisations may have already invested in such transitional technologies.
For both procurement and supply chain executives, a one-year pause changes project timelines but not the fundamental direction of the industry, with the regulatory trajectory continuing to point towards carbon pricing and lifecycle fuel assessments.
Procurement teams should still operate on the assumption that Scope 3 emissions from ocean freight will carry a rising cost, even if the exact start date remains uncertain. Companies with diversified fuel strategies and robust efficiency programmes could maintain a competitive advantage when credit markets are eventually established.
Charterers and their procurement departments would be wise to use this additional year to tighten contract clauses that allocate carbon price and performance risk.
Similarly, logistics partners, including ports and third-party logistics providers (3PLs) investing in infrastructure for methanol, ammonia and shore power, have another 12 months to align capital expenditure with the likely shape of the final regulations.
The core challenge of balancing climate goals with affordability in a sector that handles 80% of global trade remains, with the industry now watching to see if the extra time will lead to consensus or conflict.
