Once viewed as optional, ESG disclosure is now becoming a strategic necessity — driven by binding legislation, investor scrutiny, and the growing urgency for sustainable transformation.
As the maritime industry charts its course through the unrelenting tides of climate change, regulatory transformation, and stakeholder expectations, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) reporting has emerged as a critical compass.
Sustainability in shipping is no longer a vague aspiration; it’s a measurable requirement. Investors, regulators, customers, and employees now demand transparency on how companies manage both risks and opportunities associated with climate change, biodiversity, social equity, and ethical governance.
Well-executed ESG reporting provides a true and fair view of a company’s sustainability performance. It allows maritime stakeholders to answer complex questions from multiple stakeholders within a single, verifiable document.
Well-executed ESG reporting provides a true and fair view of a company’s sustainability performance. It allows maritime stakeholders to answer complex questions from multiple stakeholders within a single, verifiable document.
However, the challenge lies in balancing legislative requirements with industry-specific priorities — while ensuring the data is relevant, comparable, and digestible.
Boards and senior leadership teams must now take the helm in overseeing ESG strategy, recognizing that this isn’t just a compliance issue but a business opportunity. According to McKinsey, companies leading in ESG show higher momentum when they embed ESG into growth strategies, link executive incentives to ESG metrics, and maintain central ESG teams to coordinate efforts across the organization.
At the heart of this shift is the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), effective from January 2023. Affecting approximately 50,000 companies, the CSRD introduces mandatory sustainability information in annual reports, requires external assurance, and mandates the use of standardized European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS).
Key features include:
Compliance deadlines are phased: large EU companies must report by 2024, listed SMEs by 2026, and large non-EU firms with significant EU operations by 2028. Non-compliance risks are steep — including penalties up to 5% of global turnover, as seen in France’s enforcement model.
Also vital is the EU Taxonomy Regulation, which establishes a classification system for environmentally sustainable economic activities. With six environmental objectives — from climate change mitigation to biodiversity protection — the Taxonomy provides a framework for defining what “green” really means in shipping.
The Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDD), still in draft, and upcoming eco-design regulations will further broaden the scope of ESG expectations in the near future.
To navigate this complex regulatory landscape, shipping companies can turn to a range of reporting frameworks and standards that complement mandatory EU laws:
Despite the availability of robust standards, implementation remains complex. For instance, the BIMCO ESG network, during its January 2025 meeting, highlighted how incorporating human rights due diligence — especially for small suppliers — remains a significant reporting challenge. Supply chain complexity, lack of standardized customer questionnaires, and inconsistent data availability continue to impede accurate social disclosure.
Additionally, there is growing pressure to report on biodiversity impacts, marine pollution, and resource circularity — themes not historically prioritized in shipping but gaining traction under the EU Taxonomy and TNFD.
Still, with challenge comes opportunity. According to Will Beer, CEO of Tunley Environmental, the CSRD and other regulations are acting as catalysts, driving innovation in alternative fuels, energy-efficient technologies, and digital transformation across the sector.
ESG success in maritime hinges on leadership. McKinsey’s research reveals seven traits that differentiate ESG leaders, including:
Shipping companies aspiring to lead must integrate these traits — not just to satisfy compliance, but to build long-term resilience and stakeholder trust.
A leading example is AP Moller-Maersk, which in 2023 became the first shipping company to have its emissions targets validated under the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) Maritime Guidance. Maersk aims to reach net-zero GHG emissions by 2040, with interim milestones aligned to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C pathway. Their strategy covers Scope 1, 2, and 3 emissions, including value chain activities — setting a high bar for the industry.
Selecting a reporting framework is not a one-size-fits-all exercise. Maritime stakeholders should base their decisions on:
Many companies may adopt a hybrid model — using CSRD and EU Taxonomy to ensure compliance, while leveraging GRI or SASB for more detailed, voluntary disclosures.
ESG reporting in the maritime industry is no longer about ticking boxes. It is a dynamic process of risk management, stakeholder engagement, and strategic growth.
ESG reporting in the maritime industry is no longer about ticking boxes. It is a dynamic process of risk management, stakeholder engagement, and strategic growth.
Companies that view ESG as a regulatory burden risk falling behind. Those that see it as an opportunity to lead will enhance their reputation, attract capital, and future-proof their operations.
By embracing robust reporting frameworks, investing in ESG governance, and committing to transparency, maritime stakeholders are well-positioned to lead the next wave of sustainable innovation
