A failed vote on the IMO's Net-Zero Framework in October would not remove carbon pricing from shipping — it would fragment it into a patchwork of surcharges that cost freight buyers more, according to Tom Isler, ESG and innovation director at Baxter Freight, writing for Splash247. Isler warned that freight buyers are watching the vote as a shipowner story, but they are the ones who will pay either way.
Why a single global rule matters
The Net-Zero Framework, negotiated under the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), would apply one set of rules on greenhouse gas intensity and carbon pricing to ships covering almost all global tonnage, according to Splash247. It was approved in principle in April 2025 and was meant to be adopted that October. Instead, the session adjourned by 57 votes to 49 under heavy political pressure. A year of guideline work has narrowed some technical gaps but has not settled the politics, Splash247 reported. If it passes now, the earliest it would bite is 2028.
According to Isler's analysis, a global standard would give freight buyers one carbon cost, calculated one way, across every carrier and every lane. That makes a quote interrogable: shippers could benchmark two carriers on the same shipment and see whether the gap in the carbon line reflects genuine efficiency or just a different accounting choice. It also lets them put a number in a 2028 budget and defend it, Splash247 reported. None of that makes decarbonisation free — the cost will show up in rates — but a cost that can be read, forecast and challenged is cheaper than the same money arriving as an unexplained surcharge.
What a failed vote would mean
A failed vote would not take carbon pricing out of shipping. EU ETS maritime and FuelEU are already in force and already appear on invoices, according to Splash247. What a failure would do is make it far more likely that other jurisdictions keep building their own versions of carbon pricing, because the alternative to a global rule has been no rule. For freight buyers, Splash247 reported, that means several surcharges on one shipment, calculated on different bases and applied differently by different carriers. Carbon cost would be driven by routing and port call rather than by what was shipped. Administrative work would be pushed down the chain to shippers and forwarders, and emissions reporting would not reconcile between schemes — a real problem for companies with CSRD obligations or Scope 3 targets to evidence. Pricing would also be harder to question, because complexity is easier for a carrier to pass through than to explain.
A patchwork does not make carbon cheaper for buyers. It makes the same money harder to see and harder to argue with.
The questions from customers
Isler wrote that Baxter Freight is already having these conversations with customers. Customers bring in a surcharge that their finance team has queried and nobody internally can explain, according to Splash247. They ask which schemes apply to which of their lanes, and the answer is usually wider than they expected. Procurement treats the issue as a rate problem; sustainability treats it as a reporting problem. Isler said it is the same problem, and few organisations have joined the two functions up.
Four no-regret moves before October
Splash247 listed four actions that freight buyers can take before the October MEPC session, none of which depend on the result:
- Map which schemes already touch your lanes. Most buyers cannot say.
- Require carbon cost to be itemised in tenders, with the methodology stated, so you can compare like with like.
- Get your emissions data collection working now. Every version of the next five years demands it.
- Model both outcomes into your 2027 and 2028 budgets rather than waiting to be told which one you got.
The bill either way
The October vote will be reported as a win or a loss for shipping, but the businesses paying the freight bill will face the cost in either scenario, Splash247 reported. The table below summarises how the outcomes differ for freight buyers, based on Isler's analysis:
| Impact for freight buyers | If the Net-Zero Framework passes | If the vote fails |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon charges per shipment | One carbon cost, calculated one way | Several surcharges on one shipment |
| Basis of calculation | Consistent across every carrier and lane | Different bases, applied differently by different carriers |
| Cost transparency | Quote is interrogable; can be benchmarked | Pricing harder to question; complexity passed through |
| Emissions reporting | Reconciles under one scheme | Will not reconcile between schemes |
| Budget planning | A number can be put in a 2028 budget | Costs hidden in unexplained surcharges |
According to Splash247, Isler's bottom line is that a patchwork does not make carbon cheaper for buyers — it makes the same money harder to see and harder to argue with. The vote in October will decide which version of that bill arrives.
Sources:
