Maritime leaders look for clarity as risks stack up

Political instability has remained the biggest risk for global shipping for the fourth year in a row, as maritime leaders warn that cyber threats, fragmented regulation, rising compliance costs and trade barriers are increasingly feeding into one another, according to the latest International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) Maritime Barometer Report. The 2025-2026 report, published by the ICS, is based on responses from 185 senior maritime decision-makers, including shipowners, ship managers and other C-suite industry leaders. Nearly 52 per cent of respondents were shipowners, while 39 per cent were ship managers, giving the report a clear view of how the people making fleet, fuel, finance and operational decisions are reading the market. Its main finding is that shipping is no longer dealing with isolated shocks. Instead, the industry is operating in a world where geopolitical instability has become a permanent business condition, shaping routing, fuel decisions, investment planning, cyber security, sanctions exposure and the pace of decarbonisation. ICS chairman John Denholm said in the foreword that global shipping was entering a period where “uncertainty is the backdrop against which all decisions are made,” adding that geopolitical instability, economic fragmentation, shifting trade dynamics and the erosion of a global regulatory framework were not short-term shocks, but persistent forces reshaping the sector. That view runs through the report. Political instability ranked as the highest risk to business operations, followed by cyber attacks, regulations, increasing administrative burden and barriers to trade. The report said that “political instability was not simply another risk on the list, but a risk multiplier, connecting issues that were previously viewed more separately.” This is already being felt in practical terms. Conflicts, sanctions, tariffs, trade realignment and direct threats to vessels are affecting scheduling, deployment, insurance, crew safety and contractual certainty. For shipping companies, that means disruption is no longer something to be handled after it happens. It is increasingly being priced into decisions from the start. The report also points to what it calls “risk stacking”, where one pressure quickly adds to another. Political tension can lead to sanctions or trade restrictions. Those restrictions can alter routes, increase administrative checks and raise costs. At the same time, the same instability can increase cyber exposure, especially as shipping becomes more digital and more dependent on connected systems. Cyber attacks ranked as the second-highest risk in this year’s survey, although confidence in the industry’s ability to manage them has weakened. The report links this to the rapid digitalisation of shipping, including smart ships, automated systems, remote monitoring and integrated logistics platforms. Artificial intelligence is adding another layer, giving companies better tools but also giving attackers new ways to identify weaknesses, launch phishing campaigns and exploit operational systems. Regulation is another pressure point. Regulations were ranked as the greatest impact factor on business operations, followed by public funding, market-based measures, private funding and the availability of crew and trained personnel. This matters because regulation now directly shapes compliance costs, investment decisions, fuel choices and fleet renewal strategies. However, confidence is falling because the policy environment is becoming harder to read. The report points to the IMO’s delayed Net-Zero Framework discussions, the EU Emissions Trading System, FuelEU Maritime, the UK’s planned expansion of its emissions trading system to shipping and other regional measures as signs of a more fragmented regulatory landscape. For an industry that plans assets over decades, that fragmentation is not a technical detail. It affects which ships are ordered, which fuels are chosen, which routes are commercially viable and how companies calculate long-term risk. Public funding shows one of the clearest gaps in the report. It is seen as the second most important impact factor, but confidence in it is the lowest across all categories. In simple terms, maritime leaders know government support is needed for port infrastructure, alternative fuel supply, energy systems and early-stage technologies. Yet they are not confident that public support will arrive with enough scale, speed or consistency. That uncertainty is also shaping the green transition. The report does not suggest that shipping is walking away from decarbonisation. However, it does show an industry becoming more cautious, more practical and more focused on what can be deployed now. This is most visible in the fuel section. LNG and biofuels were jointly identified as the most viable fuels over the next decade, with 51.35 per cent of respondents choosing each of them. Heavy fuel oil with abatement technology came third, while methanol ranked fourth. The result shows a clear preference for fuels and technologies that already have supply chains, infrastructure or operational familiarity. LNG remains attractive because it is widely deployable and supported by bunkering infrastructure, particularly in hubs such as Singapore and across parts of Asia and the Middle East. However, the report also notes that LNG is increasingly exposed to geopolitical price volatility, chokepoint disruption and scrutiny over methane emissions. Biofuels, meanwhile, have gained ground because they can be used with existing engines and bunkering infrastructure. That gives operators a way to reduce emissions without immediately replacing fleets or waiting for entirely new fuel systems to mature. In a market where regulation is moving faster than infrastructure in some areas, that kind of flexibility matters. The continued support for HFO with technology is also telling. It does not signal a rejection of the transition, but it does show that cost, availability and operational certainty still carry huge weight. For many operators, the gap between long-term decarbonisation targets and the practical availability of alternative fuels remains too wide. Methanol continues to attract interest, supported by dual-fuel vessel orders and its place in the wider decarbonisation debate. The report said that “its position is constrained by fragmented green production, uneven policy support and uncertainty over whether supply can scale quickly enough.” Other fuels have lost ground. Ammonia fell sharply, from 30.83 per cent last year to 12.43 per cent, reflecting concerns about safety, infrastructure and whether demand will be strong enough to justify the required investment. Hydrogen also declined, with the report suggesting that it is increasingly being seen less as a direct shipping fuel and more as a feedstock for derivative fuels such as ammonia and methanol. Batteries remain important for short-sea and port operations, but not as a deep-sea solution. For shipowners, the findings are even more immediate. While their view of risk broadly matches the wider industry, they feel the pressure more directly at vessel level. Political instability is still their top risk, followed by administrative burden and cyber attacks. Administrative pressure is particularly important for shipowners because sanctions checks, visa rules, reporting obligations, port procedures and emissions compliance can all affect turnaround times, crew rotation and voyage planning. The report said shipowners experience regulation less as an abstract policy question and more as a fixed operational parameter. Rules on emissions, fuel use and reporting are already affecting routing, speed, charter negotiations and fleet strategy. The special focus section looks at the delay in the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework vote. Here, the numbers show both continuity and caution. A majority of respondents, 57.84 per cent, said they had made no change to existing plans, while 22.70 per cent said they had paused plans, 16.22 per cent said they had modified them, and 3.24 per cent said they had cancelled them. On the surface, this suggests the industry is staying on course. However, the report makes clear that the picture is more complicated. Some of those reporting “no change” may not yet have had firm plans in place and may have been waiting for the IMO framework before committing. In that sense, “no change” may not always mean active progress. It may also mean companies are still holding back until the rules become clearer. At the same time, the fact that nearly 39 per cent of respondents have paused, modified or cancelled plans shows that regulatory timing is now affecting investment decisions. Fleet renewal, fuel transition projects and port infrastructure all require large capital commitments. Without clear rules, many companies appear to be keeping their options open. This caution does not mean the transition has stopped. Rather, the report presents a sector trying to keep long-term decarbonisation plans alive while managing shorter-term pressures from geopolitics, regulation, fuel availability and finance. The conclusion is that shipping is entering a more complex phase. The direction of travel remains decarbonisation, digitalisation and adaptation. But the route is no longer expected to be uniform. Companies are likely to move through several fuel pathways, use more flexible investment strategies and rely on a mix of technologies rather than one single solution. For global shipping, the coming year will therefore be less about ambition alone and more about execution. The industry knows where it is expected to go. The harder question is how quickly it can move when regulation, finance, infrastructure and geopolitics are all pulling at different speeds.