Understanding the IMO 2025 Regulations Impact

FAQ: IMO Regulations and the October 2025 Meeting:

What are the IMO 2025 regulations?

The IMO 2025 regulations are part of the International Maritime Organisation’s global decarbonisation framework. They introduce stricter measures to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships through energy efficiency standards, operational improvements, and carbon intensity benchmarks.

What happened at the IMO meeting in October 2025?

At the extraordinary session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC ES.2) in October 2025, the IMO failed to adopt the long-awaited Net-Zero Framework (NZF). The decision was postponed due to political and economic disagreements among member states, leaving the shipping industry without clear global emissions rules.

Why is the delay significant for the maritime industry?

The delay has created major uncertainty for shipowners, investors, and regulators. Companies are now unsure when or how global emissions pricing and compliance standards will be enforced, which is delaying investment in low-carbon technologies and new-build vessels.

How does this affect global shipping costs and competitiveness?

Without a unified framework, regions such as the EU and China may introduce their own rules, leading to regulatory fragmentation. This patchwork approach increases compliance costs and creates an uneven playing field between early adopters and slower-moving competitors.

What should maritime companies do now?

Despite the delay, experts recommend that companies continue investing in fuel innovation, energy efficiency upgrades, and sustainability reporting. Preparing early will give operators a strategic advantage once the IMO finalises its Net-Zero Framework.

Introduction: The Changing Tide of Maritime Regulation

As the world grapples with the realities of climate change, regulatory bodies like the IMO play a crucial role in steering industries towards sustainable practices. With the arrival of the IMO 2025 regulations meeting this past October, the maritime industry stood on the brink of transformative change. These regulations, integral to the IMO’s broader decarbonisation framework, aimed to usher in a new era of environmental stewardship, steering the global shipping sector towards ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) targets and net-zero strategies. By setting these targets, the IMO sought not only to respond to global environmental imperatives but also to prompt the maritime industry to rethink its operational paradigms.

The Foundations of IMO 2025:Building Towards Decarbonisation

The IMO 2025 regulations were the culmination of the organisation’s long-standing commitment to environmental protection and sustainability. Over the years the IMO has been instrumental in fostering international cooperation to address environmental challenges posed by maritime activities. These regulations were not arbitrary dictates, but the result of extensive deliberations and negotiations among member states, reflecting a collective resolve to address the pressing challenge of climate change. The collaborative nature of these negotiations ensured that the regulations were both ambitious and achievable, considering the diverse capacities and challenges of member countries.

The regulations were designed to align with the IMO’s Initial Strategy on the reduction of GHG emissions from ships, adopted in 2018. That strategy outlined a comprehensive pathway for the maritime sector to reduce its carbon intensity by at least 40 % by 2030, pursuing efforts towards a 70 % reduction by 2050 (compared to 2008 levels). This ambitious roadmap underscored the urgency with which the IMO was tackling climate change, setting clear benchmarks for progress. The 2025 regulations thus represented a crucial step in this journey, offering both a challenge and an opportunity for the maritime sector to innovate and lead in global environmental efforts.

The Roadmap: Targets and Technical Measures

The IMO’s decarbonisation framework was characterised by its holistic approach, encompassing a range of technical, operational, and economic measures. This comprehensive strategy acknowledged the multifaceted nature of the shipping industry, which requires coordinated action across various fronts. The framework emphasised the need for innovation in ship design, propulsion systems, and fuel alternatives, while also advocating for the optimisation of operational practices across the industry. Such innovations were essential to meet the stringent targets set out by the IMO, ensuring that the shipping industry could continue to thrive in a carbon-constrained world.

The framework was intended to facilitate a seamless transition to low-carbon shipping, thereby contributing to the global effort to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By aligning its objectives with the SDGs, the IMO was ensuring that its initiatives contributed to broader global sustainability goals, promoting environmental health alongside economic development. This alignment reinforced the idea that sustainability is not merely an environmental concern but a holistic approach to governance that integrates social, economic and environmental considerations.

The technical measures under the IMO 2025 regulations mandated the implementation of the Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) and the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII). These indices serve as benchmarks for assessing the energy efficiency and carbon intensity of ships, respectively. By providing a clear metric for evaluation, these signs empowered ship-owners to make informed decisions about upgrading and managing their fleets. Ships failing to meet the prescribed standards would be required to undertake corrective measures, including retrofitting with energy-efficient technologies or adopting operational adjustments to enhance fuel efficiency. This requirement not only incentivised compliance but also fostered technological innovation and advancement within the industry.

Mark Watts, CEO of UK Transport in Europe and former Member of the European Parliament, argues that the IMO’s failure wasn’t just procedural; it was philosophical, sharing that, “The failure to adopt the Net-Zero Framework was not about technology or ambition. It was about legitimacy; about whether people still believe in the rules-based international order that once made progress possible. For decades, multilateralism gave us confidence that shared problems could be solved through shared rules. But that confidence has faded. The crisis isn’t technical. It’s philosophical, a loss of faith in fairness, purpose, and ownership.”

Operational measures, on the other hand, focused on optimising the logistics and management of shipping operations. Strategies such as slow steaming, weather routing and just-in-time arrival were encouraged to minimise fuel consumption and emissions. These strategies highlighted the importance of operational efficiency in reducing carbon footprints, often offering immediate benefits in terms of cost savings and emission reductions. The integration of digital technologies and data analytics was also promoted to enhance operational efficiency and decision-making processes. By leveraging these technologies, shipping companies could achieve significant improvements in performance, fostering a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

The October 2025 IMO Meeting:

A Setback for Global Progress However, the October 2025 meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s extraordinary session (MEPC ES.2) marked a significant and negative turning point for the industry. The IMO had hoped to formally adopt the IMO Net Zero Framework, a mechanism to set binding rules and global pricing on emissions from international shipping. Instead, member states adjourned the decision for another year, leaving the shipping industry in regulatory limbo.

The implications of that delay for the maritime industry have been profound:

• Investment uncertainty: The postponement has disrupted investment timelines for alternative fuels and low-carbon ship technologies; companies face unclear regulatory certainty, making financing much more difficult.
• Fragmentation risk: With the global framework delayed, the risk of regional or national regulatory divergence increases, creating a patch-work of rules and compliance burdens for ship-owners operating internationally.
• Rising costs and risk: Older fleets may be retained longer, as new-build investment shifts are deferred. That heightens maintenance costs, breakdown risk and insurance exposure.
• Competitive disadvantage: With no global uniform framework now imminent, companies that had proactively aligned are left exposed, and less-prepared firms may gain undeserved advantage.
• Stakeholder disillusionment: ESG investors, charterers and insurers are increasingly frustrated at the lack of progress, raising reputational and financing risks for laggards in the shipping industry.
  

Compliance Challenges:

The implications of the IMO 2025 regulations (and now the delay) for the maritime industry are therefore more profound – and more challenging – than initially anticipated. Compliance will still necessitate significant investments in technology and infrastructure, as well as a paradigm shift in operational practices. But with the regulatory anchor now deferred, planning and strategy have become more difficult, and the competitive landscape remains increasingly uncertain.

Financial Challenges:

The financial implications are still considerable. Ship-owners and operators face the dual challenge of financing these investments while maintaining profitability in a highly competitive market – now with added uncertainty over when and how global regulation will land. This financial pressure may spur industry players to explore innovative financing solutions and partnerships that can alleviate the burden of compliance costs but also may delay action.

Operational Challenges:

Operationally, the transition to low-carbon shipping still requires a comprehensive reassessment of existing practices and processes. Companies will need to invest in workforce training and capacity building to equip their personnel with the skills and knowledge necessary to navigate the complexities of the new regulatory environment, albeit a regulatory environment now with a widened time-horizon. Moreover, companies must foster a culture of adaptability and learning to remain resilient in the face of ongoing regulatory and technological changes.

Mark Watts goes on to share that, “The commercial implications of delay are clear: uncertainty for investors, risk for innovators, and unfair competition for first movers. But this pause also offers an opportunity - a moment to rebuild on stronger foundations. We needed this wake-up call. Now that it has come, we can move forward with greater conviction, clearer purpose, and deeper legitimacy. The next framework, when it comes, can be fairer, more inclusive, and more resilient because of what we have learned.”

Charting a Path Forward

Strategic planning and proactive engagement are more critical than ever for maritime stakeholders. With the regulatory framework’s adoption stalled, companies must adopt a forward-thinking approach, leveraging the uncertainty strategically: preparing for the eventual framework, but also building flexibility into their transition pathways. By aligning their strategies with regulatory requirements once they are adopted, companies can create value not only for themselves but also for the broader ecosystem in which they operate.

Innovation remains a critical driver of success in the transition to low-carbon shipping. Companies should actively engage in research and development initiatives, exploring alternative fuels such as hydrogen, ammonia and bio-fuels, as well as advanced propulsion systems like wind-assist technologies and battery-electric solutions. These innovations remain significant opportunities for reducing emissions and enhancing operational efficiency, positioning companies as leaders in sustainable shipping, even in a delayed regulatory environment.

Sustainability must be integrated into the core business strategy of maritime companies, with clear objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) aligned with the anticipated IMO 2025 regulations (and ultimately the Net-Zero Framework). This integration ensures that sustainability remains a guiding principle in decision-making processes, influencing everything from daily operations to long-term strategic planning. Transparent reporting not only builds trust with stakeholders but also enhances a company’s reputation and competitiveness in the market.

The final thoughts here are best shared through Mark’s unique perspective: “The IMO setback was sobering, but not final. It’s a reminder that frameworks don’t create change - people do. The ships are being built. The fuels are coming online. The engineers, financiers, and policymakers are already writing the next chapter.

Now we must act, with the same resolve to tackle catastrophic climate change as we show commitment to ensuring social justice. The two are inseparable, and we cannot win one without the other. In the end, climate justice is social justice. If we forget that, we’ll lose both. We’ve had our wake-up call. Now it’s time to move - with confidence, with fairness, and with purpose. Waiting is not a plan.”

Conclusion: Weathering the Storm

The IMO 2025 regulations represent, or would have represented, a watershed moment for the maritime industry, heralding a new era of environmental accountability and sustainability. While the path to compliance remains fraught with challenges, it also offers unprecedented opportunities for innovation, growth and leadership. However, the delay in the adoption of the Net-Zero Framework at the October 2025 meeting has introduced significant uncertainty, slowed momentum and exposed the industry to risks both financial and operational. The regulations remain a call to action for the entire maritime industry, but the timeline and clarity have been disrupted.