In a world where shipping is under increasing pressure to clean up its act, a new study has shed light on the environmental impacts of shipbuilding materials and the potential financial sting of the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The research, led by Bae-jun Kwon of DNV AS in Norway, and published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering (known in English as the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering), offers a sobering look at the embedded emissions in shipbuilding and the looming costs of carbon liabilities.
Kwon and his team took a deep dive into the life cycle assessment (LCA) of three common vessel types: pure car and truck carriers (PCTCs), bulk carriers, and container ships. They considered various scenarios, including different steelmaking routes, recycling rates, and regional energy mixes. The results? Structural steel, particularly grades like AH36, EH36, DH36, and A/B, is the big bad wolf of embedded emissions, accounting for the lion’s share. Aluminium and copper come in second, but their impact is highly sensitive to recycling rates and energy sources. Coatings, polymers, and yard processes also chip in, but to a lesser extent.
So, what does this mean for the maritime industry? Well, for starters, it’s a wake-up call to pay closer attention to steel sourcing and recycling strategies. As Kwon puts it, “The findings highlight the strategic importance of steel sourcing, recycling strategies, and verifiable supply chain data for reducing embedded emissions and mitigating financial risks.” In other words, it’s time to get serious about green shipbuilding.
The study also paints a picture of rising CBAM costs from 2026 to 2030, with container vessels facing the highest exposure, followed by bulk carriers and PCTCs. This is a significant commercial impact, as shipping companies may need to factor in these costs when budgeting for new builds. But it’s not all doom and gloom. The research also points to opportunities for innovation and cost savings through better materials management and decarbonization efforts.
Kwon notes that while operational emissions still dominate the life cycle, the relative importance of construction-phase emissions will grow as shipping decarbonizes. This is a crucial insight, as it underscores the need for a holistic approach to emissions reduction. It’s not just about what happens when the ship is sailing; it’s also about what goes into building it in the first place.
The study also highlights the need for harmonized methods, transparent datasets, and digital integration to support decarbonization. This is where the maritime industry can seize the initiative, investing in technologies and practices that not only reduce emissions but also improve efficiency and competitiveness.
In the end, the message is clear: the maritime industry is at a crossroads. It can either continue down the path of business as usual, facing rising carbon liabilities and regulatory uncertainty, or it can embrace the challenge of decarbonization, seizing the opportunities that come with it. As Kwon’s research shows, the choice is not just about the environment; it’s also about the bottom line. And in today’s world, those two things are increasingly intertwined.