Navigating Decarbonization: Real-Time Emission Accounting and Its Role in Strategic Maritime Decision-Making

Abstract

The maritime transport sector is currently under substantial pressure to mitigate its carbon emissions, contributing approximately 3% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This necessitates a robust and accurate approach to measuring emissions, as the existing methodologies often fall short. Traditional accounting practices are typically characterized by their static nature, infrequent updates, and lack of actionable insights, leading to a considerable gap between the industry’s net-zero objectives and its actual capabilities. This paper systematically reviews the imperative transition from conventional, retrospective emission estimates to dynamic, real-time accounting methodologies. A critical examination of both top-down and bottom-up models reveals their inherent limitations, underscoring the need for more sophisticated frameworks. Key advancements in Near Real-Time (NRT) accounting and the application of Digital Twins leverage high-frequency data inputs from Automatic Identification Systems (AIS), onboard sensors, and sophisticated weather models. Furthermore, the integration of machine learning techniques within these frameworks demonstrates significant potential for the precise prediction and monitoring of vessel emissions. This transition facilitates a paradigm shift where carbon intensity is transformed from a mere historical compliance indicator to a vital, real-time operational parameter. The discussion elaborates on how the utilization of real-time data can enhance strategic decision-making, particularly in terms of voyage planning, speed optimization, and overall fleet efficiency. Additionally, the role of integrated digital platforms, exemplified by the Remedium Network, is critically analyzed in the context of managing these complex data ecosystems. The paper concludes with strategic recommendations for stakeholders in the maritime sector, emphasizing the crucial importance of implementing real-time emission accounting to address the multifaceted challenges posed by maritime decarbonization.

Keywords: Maritime Decarbonization; Real-Time Emission Accounting; Digital Twin; Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII); Strategic Decision-Making; Machine Learning; Emission Accounting.

1. Introduction

The maritime transport industry is a vital component of global trade, accounting for more than 80% of the world’s merchandise. However, this essential service has notable environmental impacts. As a significant source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the sector accounts for about 3% of the world's yearly human-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. In 2018, maritime transport emitted 1,076 million tons (Mt) of GHG, with CO2 making up 1,056 Mt of that amount [1]. A thorough analysis of historical data reveals a consistent correlation between emissions and growth in seaborne trade. This pattern was only briefly disrupted during major global crises, such as the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic. Following these events, emissions have recovered, with a notable 5% rise in 2021, returning to pre-pandemic levels. This trend highlights the significant challenge of distinguishing economic growth in maritime trade from its environmental impacts. Projections suggest that, without substantial actions, shipping emissions could increase by as much as 50% compared to 2018 levels by 2050 [2, 3].

In light of these pressing challenges, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the specialized agency of the United Nations focused on maritime shipping, has intensified its regulatory initiatives significantly. As shown in Figure 1, IMO introduced the 2023 IMO GHG Strategy, marking a pivotal shift towards decarbonization and establishing the ambitious goal of achieving net-zero GHG emissions from international shipping by or around 2050. A framework of interim targets underpins this long-term objective: a reduction of at least 20% in emissions by 2030, with aspirations for a 30% reduction, and a further reduction of at least 70% by 2040, aspiring for 80%, all benchmarked against 2008 levels. This strategic framework signifies a resolute and irreversible direction for the maritime industry, evolving the discourse from the necessity of decarbonization to practical considerations of its implementation and verification.

Figure 1: IMO timeline [2]

Despite the clarity of these ambitions, a profound disconnect exists between the industry's stated goals and its current capabilities in emissions measurement and management. A comprehensive 2021 survey of 1,290 organizations across nine major industries revealed that while 85% of organizations are concerned about reducing their emissions, a mere 9% are able to measure their full scope of emissions comprehensively. This measurement gap is a critical roadblock; the same survey found a direct correlation between the quality of measurement and the ability to reduce emissions, with organizations that measure comprehensively being nearly twice as likely to achieve significant reductions as those with only partial measurement [4].

A reliance on outdated and inefficient accounting practices exacerbates the problem. An overwhelming 86% of companies still manually record and report their emissions using spreadsheets, a method that is both labor-intensive and prone to error. This practice results in infrequent, retrospective reporting—often on a quarterly or annual basis, which provides a historical snapshot of performance but offers no actionable insight for real-time operational management. This "data latency" gap means that by the time emissions data is compiled and analyzed, the operational decisions that generated it are long past, rendering the information useless for immediate course correction. The core challenge, therefore, has evolved. Initial regulations focused on static, design-based standards that were verifiable at the point of construction. However, the new generation of rules, such as the IMO's Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) and the EU's Emissions Trading System (ETS), are centered on dynamic operational performance that varies with every voyage [5]. This fundamental shift requires a new form of evidence: continuous, granular, and auditable data that can demonstrate compliance and drive optimization in real-time. In this new paradigm, high-accuracy emissions data is no longer just a compliance burden but a strategic commercial asset.

Decarbonizing maritime operations requires a shift from static emission estimates to accurate, real-time accounting. This paper reviews the flaws in conventional methods, the technological advancements that enable this transition, and their implications for the industry. By utilizing high-frequency data and advanced analytics, the maritime sector can turn emissions into a manageable variable. The review concludes with actionable recommendations for industry stakeholders to enhance decarbonization, emphasizing that this technological shift is crucial for informed decision-making in a rapidly changing regulatory and economic environment.

2. The Evolving Regulatory and Economic Landscape of Maritime Decarbonization

The path to net-zero is being paved by a complex and rapidly evolving web of international and regional regulations. These frameworks are fundamentally reshaping the economic calculus of shipping operations, creating a multi-layered financial risk profile for every vessel. A ship's profitability is no longer solely a function of freight rates and fuel costs; it is now directly impacted by its real-time carbon performance, the lifecycle intensity of its fuel, and the prevailing market price of carbon. Understanding this new landscape is critical for strategic planning.

2.1. Analysis of the IMO's Regulatory Framework

The IMO has moved decisively from design-centric regulations to those that scrutinize the operational efficiency of the global fleet. This progression represents a significant increase in the complexity and immediacy of compliance requirements for ship operators.

• Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI): This regulation serves as a one-time certification that extends the principles of the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) to the existing fleet. It establishes a technical baseline for energy efficiency that all cargo vessels over 400 GT must meet, often requiring retrofits or engine power limitations to achieve compliance [2]. While important, EEXI is a static measure of a ship's technical capability.
  
  

• Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII): In contrast, the CII is a dynamic, operational measure that rates ships annually on a scale from A (major superior) to E (inferior) based on their actual carbon intensity, calculated as the grams of CO2​ emitted per cargo-carrying capacity and nautical mile. This regulation applies to vessels of 5,000 GT and above and has profound commercial implications. A ship rated D for three consecutive years or E for a single year is required to develop and implement a corrective action plan under its Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP). More significantly, a poor CII rating can directly impact a vessel's commercial viability, making it less attractive to charterers who are themselves under pressure to manage their supply chain (Scope 3) emissions.
  
  

2.2. The Impact of Regional Carbon Pricing Mechanisms

While the IMO sets the global stage, regional bodies, particularly the European Union, are accelerating the transition with direct carbon pricing. The EU's "Fit for 55" package introduces two powerful, complementary mechanisms that create direct financial liabilities for emissions.

• EU Emissions Trading System (ETS): The EU ETS extends its established cap-and-trade system to the maritime sector. It places a direct, market-driven price on each tonne of CO2​ emitted. The scope includes 100% of emissions on voyages between EU/EEA ports and 50% of emissions on voyages between an EU/EEA port and a non-EU/EEA port. The financial liability is being phased in, covering 40% of emissions in 2024, 70% in 2025, and 100% from 2026 onwards [6]. This transforms GHG emissions from an environmental externality into a direct and volatile operational cost that must be managed and passed on through the value chain.
  

Figure 2: Overview of assessment findings on maritime EU ETS [6]

• FuelEU Maritime: This regulation complements the ETS by targeting the GHG intensity of the energy used onboard ships, assessed on a comprehensive well-to-wake lifecycle basis. It mandates progressively stricter limits on the GHG intensity of marine fuels, starting with a 2% reduction in 2025 and reaching an 80% reduction by 2050. This introduces a new layer of complexity, requiring operators to look beyond their own operational emissions (tank-to-wake) and account for the emissions generated during the fuel's production and transportation (well-to-tank). Non-compliance results in penalties, creating a strong incentive to adopt advanced biofuels, e-fuels, or other low-carbon energy sources [7].
  

Figure 3: Annual average carbon intensity reduction compared to the average in 2020 [8]

These regional measures also aim to mitigate the risk of "carbon leakage," where operators may alter their routes to evade carbon pricing (e.g., by calling at a nearby non-EU transshipment port). The regulations include provisions to monitor and potentially expand their scope to counter such evasive practices.

2.3. Economic Drivers and Disincentives

These regulations create a clear system that rewards high-performing vessels and punishes those that do not meet performance standards. The direct costs are clear: operators must purchase carbon allowances under the EU ETS and face penalties for non-compliance with FuelEU Maritime, turning carbon into a tangible line item on the voyage P&L statement [5].

The indirect costs, however, may be even more significant. A vessel with a poor CII rating or one that cannot use low-intensity fuels will become increasingly difficult to charter, effectively reducing its revenue-generating potential. Contrarily, vessels with superior, verifiable performance data can command a "green premium" in the market. They can also more easily access benefits from voluntary schemes, such as Port Incentive Programs (PIPs), which offer reduced port fees or preferential berthing to greener ships [9]. Real-time, auditable data is the key to unlocking these incentives, as it provides the proof of performance that ports and charterers require. This dynamic creates a clear business case for investing in the technologies and practices necessary for high-accuracy emissions accounting. The following table summarizes the key features of these transformative regulations.

Table 1: Summary of the key features of maritime transformative regulation

Regulation	Mandating Body	Metric	Scope of Application	Compliance Mechanism	Key Strategic Implications for Operators
EEXI	IMO	Technical energy efficiency (Attained vs. Required EEXI)	Existing cargo vessels > 400 GT	One-time certification; may require technical retrofits or power limitation.	Capital investment decision to achieve baseline technical efficiency.
CII	IMO	Operational carbon intensity (gCO2​ / capacity-nm)	Vessels > 5,000 GT	Annual A-E rating; corrective action plan required for poor ratings.	Continuous operational optimization to maintain a commercially viable rating.
EU ETS	European Union	Absolute CO2​ emissions (tonnes)	Voyages to/from/within EEA ports for vessels > 5,000 GT	Purchase and surrender of carbon allowances (EUAs) to cover emissions.	Emissions become a direct, variable operational cost requiring active financial management.
FuelEU Maritime	European Union	Well-to-wake GHG intensity of energy used (gCO2​e/MJ)	Energy used on voyages to/from/within EU ports for vessels > 5,000 GT	Compliance with progressively stricter annual GHG intensity limits; penalties for non-compliance.	Strategic fuel procurement and adoption of low/zero-carbon fuels to manage lifecycle emissions.

3. Foundational Deficiencies in Conventional Maritime Emission Accounting

The shift towards a performance-based regulatory framework highlights significant shortcomings in the maritime industry's conventional approaches to emission accounting. These traditional systems are not only lacking in precision but are also fundamentally unsuited to meet the needs of contemporary operational management. Rather than viewing emissions as a dynamic variable that can be actively managed, these legacy methods treat them as historical data to be reported, limiting their effectiveness in addressing current environmental challenges.

3.1. Top-Down vs. Bottom-Up Methodologies

Historically, maritime emissions have been estimated using two primary methodologies, each with distinct principles and limitations.1

• Top-Down (Fuel-Based) Approach: This method calculates emissions at a macro level, typically for a nation or region, by using total marine fuel sales data and applying generic emission factors [10]. While useful for high-level inventories compiled by bodies like the International Energy Agency (IEA), this approach lacks the granularity to be meaningful at the individual vessel or voyage level. It cannot account for variations in operational efficiency, vessel type, or route, making it unsuitable for driving specific decarbonization decisions.
  
  

• Bottom-Up (Activity-Based) Approach: This method represents a significant improvement in accuracy by calculating emissions from the specific activities of individual vessels. It leverages data on ship characteristics (e.g., engine power), operational parameters (e.g., speed, engine load), and voyage duration. The advent of the Automatic Identification System (AIS) has greatly enhanced this approach by providing high-resolution data on vessel movements [11]. This methodology forms the basis for modern regulatory systems like the IMO Data Collection System (DCS). However, even within bottom-up approaches, significant uncertainty persists, with different inventories showing variations of up to 20% in total emissions estimates, highlighting the sensitivity to underlying assumptions and data quality [12].

  
  

Table 2: A structured comparison of these foundational methodologies.

Methodology	Principle	Data Requirements	Resolution	Accuracy/Limitations	Key Examples
Top-Down	Calculation based on aggregate fuel sales data for a region or country.	National/regional fuel sales statistics, generic emission factors.	Low (Regional, Annual)	Highly aggregated; cannot distinguish between vessel types or operational efficiencies. Prone to misallocation of fuel sales data.1	IEA Fuel Statistics
Bottom-Up	Calculation based on the sum of emissions from individual vessel activities.	Vessel technical data, activity data (speed, time in mode), fuel consumption data, AIS data.	High (Vessel, Voyage, Hourly)	More accurate and granular, but highly dependent on the quality and completeness of input data and the sophistication of the underlying models.	IMO DCS, STEAM Model

3.2. The Limitations of Static Emission Factors and Manual Reporting

The core of the accuracy problem in many bottom-up systems lies in the over-reliance on generalized inputs and manual processes. A survey of industry executives revealed an estimated average error rate of 30-40% in their own emissions measurements, a staggering figure that undermines the credibility of any reported data [4]. A primary source of this error is the use of static, non-specific emission factors. These factors, which relate the quantity of a pollutant to an activity, are often derived from generic engine tests or national averages and fail to capture the real-world variability of a specific vessel's performance under different operational conditions (e.g., engine load, fuel quality, state of maintenance).

An operational burden compounds this data integrity issue. The widespread practice of using spreadsheets for manual data collection is both inefficient and fraught with risk. This process can consume 3-4 weeks of work for 1-2 engineers each quarter, diverting skilled resources from value-added analysis to tedious data aggregation [13]. This batch-processing model is fundamentally misaligned with the principles of modern operational management, which rely on continuous data flows for process control and optimization [14].

Effective management requires a comprehensive view; however, conventional accounting often focuses narrowly on the most readily accessible data points. The GHG Protocol categorizes emissions into three scopes: Scope 1 (direct emissions from owned or controlled sources), Scope 2 (indirect emissions from purchased energy), and Scope 3 (all other indirect emissions in the value chain). While many shipping companies have begun to tackle their Scope 1 emissions (fuel combustion), a significant blind spot remains for Scope 3. A staggering 66% of companies do not report any external emissions, despite these emissions accounting for up to 90% of a typical company's total carbon footprint [4]. This failure to measure exhaustively represents a significant strategic risk, as pressure from customers and regulators to report on full value-chain emissions continues to grow. The inability to access granular primary operational data and reliable emission factors for these upstream and downstream activities is a key barrier that current systems fail to address.

4. A Paradigm Shift: High-accuracy Emission Monitoring through Real-Time Data Integration

To overcome the deficiencies of conventional accounting, a new model is emerging from the literature and in practice, built on the fusion of high-frequency, heterogeneous data streams and sophisticated analytical models. This approach transforms emission monitoring from a periodic, error-prone task into a continuous, high-accuracy process that provides an accurate digital reflection of a vessel's performance.

4.1. The Technological Enablers: Fusing Heterogeneous Data Streams

The foundation of this new paradigm is the ability to integrate multiple, disparate data sources into a single, coherent analytical framework. Each data stream provides a unique and essential piece of the performance puzzle [14].

• Automatic Identification System (AIS) Data: Transmitted every 3-5 minutes, AIS data provides the core of the system. It delivers precise, real-time information on a vessel's identity, position, speed over the ground, and course, allowing for the continuous tracking of its operational activity [10].
  
  

• Onboard Sensor Data: Installed directly on the vessel's machinery, sensors provide the "ground truth" of performance. With update intervals as frequent as 15 minutes, they deliver granular data on actual fuel consumption rates, engine parameters (e.g., RPM, load), vessel draft, and trim. This direct measurement is crucial for training and validating predictive models.
  
  

• Meteorological Data: High-resolution weather forecast data, such as that provided by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), is layered onto the vessel's route. This includes critical information on environmental conditions, such as wind speed and direction, wave height and period, and ocean currents, that directly impact vessel resistance and the required engine power.

  
  

The following table details the key data inputs that form the foundation of these advanced frameworks.

Data Source	Key Parameters	Typical Frequency/Resolution	Role in Model
AIS	Position, Speed Over Ground, Course	3-5 minutes	Core tracking of vessel activity.
Onboard Sensors	Fuel Flow Rate, Engine RPM/Load, Draft, Trim	15 minutes	Ground truth for fuel consumption; validation of physical models.
ECMWF Weather	Wind Speed/Direction, Swell Height/Period, Sea Current Speed/Direction	1-hour / 0.25° grid	Input for calculating added resistance from environmental forces.
Voyage Reports	Cargo Load, Displacement, Reefer Count	Daily (Noon Report)	Contextual data for calculating carbon intensity metrics (e.g., CII).

4.2. The Analytical Engine: The Role of Machine Learning

The fusion of these rich data streams creates a dataset that is both complex and powerful. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) provide the analytical engine necessary to unlock its value. By training ML models such as Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), Gradient Boosting models (e.g., XGBoost), or Random Forests on historical performance data, it is possible to create highly accurate predictive models for fuel consumption.

These models learn the intricate, non-linear relationships between a vessel's operational settings (speed, draft, trim), the environmental conditions it faces, and its resulting fuel burn. This creates a system that is greater than the sum of its parts; it builds a causal, predictive model that can disentangle the complex interplay of factors affecting emissions. Where a traditional noon report might show high fuel consumption without a clear cause, an ML model can precisely attribute the deviation to its root cause, for example, determining that emissions are 15% above plan due to a combination of unexpected adverse currents and a sub-optimal trim setting. This level of diagnostic insight is transformative, enabling targeted and effective operational interventions.

A critical capability of this approach is its robustness. Case studies have demonstrated that once trained, these ML models can predict voyage emissions with remarkable accuracy even when direct sensor data is temporarily unavailable, using only AIS and weather data as inputs. One such study found a maximum cumulative error of just 5.83% over a vessel's most extended voyage, showcasing the resilience and reliability of the predictive framework [10].

4.3. The Digital Twin Framework

The ultimate expression of this data-driven approach, as identified in recent research, is the Digital Twin [15]. A Digital Twin is more than just a predictive model; it is a dynamic, virtual representation of the physical vessel, continuously updated in real-time with the data streams described above. This framework typically consists of three integrated components:

1. A Data-Driven Model: Ingests and processes the real-time data from AIS, sensors, and weather feeds.

   
   

2. A Physical Model: Uses principles of naval architecture and hydrodynamics to simulate the vessel's resistance and required power under the given conditions.

   
   

3. A Compliance Prognosis Model: Leverages the outputs of the other models to forecast future performance and, crucially, calculate the probability of complying with regulations like CII over the course of a voyage.

   
   

The Digital Twin allows operators not only to track past and present performance with high accuracy but also to run "what-if" scenarios to optimize future voyages. This proactive, simulation-based capability represents a fundamental leap beyond the reactive nature of traditional emission monitoring.

Figure 3: Components of the digital twin approach

5. Translating Real-Time Data into Strategic Maritime Operations

The true value of high-accuracy, real-time emission accounting lies in its ability to inform and enhance decision-making across the entire spectrum of maritime operations. By making carbon performance a visible and controllable variable, this new paradigm empowers stakeholders to move beyond mere compliance and actively pursue operational excellence.

5.1. Dynamic Voyage Optimization

The most immediate application of a Digital Twin framework is in voyage optimization. Traditional routing software typically optimizes for the shortest distance, lowest fuel cost, or fastest time. A Digital Twin, however, can optimize for a more complex objective: maximizing the probability of regulatory compliance. For example, the system can simulate multiple route options, forecasting the CII impact of each based on predicted weather conditions. An operator might then choose a slightly longer route that avoids a patch of adverse weather, thereby consuming marginally more fuel but significantly improving the vessel's carbon intensity rating for that voyage. This enables a holistic optimization that balances fuel costs, voyage time, and the increasingly important commercial value of a strong compliance record.

5.2. Proactive Regulatory Compliance Management: "Live CII"

Real-time accounting transforms the CII from a lagging, annual indicator into a leading, dynamic Key Performance Indicator (KPI). The concept of a "Live CII," as proposed in recent studies, allows for the calculation of a cumulative carbon intensity rating that is updated at the end of each voyage, or even more frequently. This provides the vessel's crew and shoreside managers with constant visibility of their performance against the annual A-E rating thresholds. Instead of discovering a poor rating at the end of the year when it is too late to correct, operators can make minor, incremental adjustments on each voyage—such as minor speed reductions or trim adjustments—to ensure they remain on track to meet their compliance targets. This proactive management approach dramatically reduces regulatory risk.

5.3. Enhancing the Port-Vessel Interface

The benefits of real-time data extend beyond the open sea to the critical interface between the vessel and the port. Accurate, continuously updated Estimated Times of Arrival (ETAs) derived from dynamic voyage optimization models are a key enabler for "just-in-time" or "virtual" arrivals. By coordinating with ports, vessels can slow down well in advance, avoiding costly and high-emission periods spent waiting at anchor for a berth to become available \[16\].
Furthermore, real-time accounting addresses a fundamental weakness of many current Port Incentive Programs (PIPs): the lack of reliable data verification. These programs, which offer rewards for superior environmental performance, have often been ineffective due to the difficulty of proving that a vessel has actually performed better than its peers \[9\]. A real-time accounting system, such as Remedium, provides ports with an auditable, high-accuracy digital record of a vessel's emissions and efficiency. This allows for the design of more effective, data-driven incentive schemes that reward verifiable performance improvements. The role of Port State Control (PSC) can also evolve, shifting from simple document checks to conducting random audits of this digital data stream, ensuring the integrity of the entire system.

5.4. Strategic Fleet Management

When aggregated across an entire fleet, high-accuracy performance data becomes a powerful tool for strategic management. Operators can conduct robust, like-for-like benchmarking to identify underperforming assets. A vessel that consistently shows higher fuel consumption than its sister ships under similar conditions can be flagged for technical investigation or maintenance, such as a hull cleaning to address biofouling.
This data also provides a strong empirical foundation for long-term capital allocation decisions. By understanding the real-world performance drivers of their existing fleet, companies can more accurately model the return on investment for retrofitting vessels with energy-saving technologies. Perhaps most importantly, this deep performance insight can inform the design specifications for newbuilds, ensuring that future fleet investments are optimized to meet the increasingly stringent compliance standards of the coming decades. This data-driven approach to fleet management is also crucial for resolving the traditional "split incentive" problem between shipowners and charterers. In a typical time charter agreement, the charterer who pays for the fuel often dictates the vessel's speed for commercial reasons, while the owner bears the responsibility for the vessel's technical efficiency and its resulting CII rating. This can create a conflict of interest. A real-time accounting system creates a transparent, shared source of truth, allowing both parties to see the precise CII and cost implications of any operational instruction in real-time. This enables more sophisticated "green charter" agreements that can align the incentives of both parties toward a shared goal of maximizing both commercial and carbon efficiency.

6. Operationalizing Real-Time Accounting: The Role of Integrated Digital Platforms

While Near Real-Time frameworks and Digital Twin models provide powerful analytical capabilities, their practical value is only realized when they are embedded within a robust digital platform that can manage the end-to-end process of data ingestion, processing, visualization, and reporting. Digitalization is the essential foundation that transforms complex data science into actionable business intelligence, bridging the gap between models and operations. This represents a crucial cultural and organizational shift, elevating carbon management from a siloed compliance function to a core component of integrated business operations.

6.1. A Practical Framework for Carbon Management: The Remedium Network Case Study

The services offered by platforms such as the Remedium Network provide a clear illustration of how such a system functions in practice, addressing the key pain points of traditional carbon accounting \[17\].

• Data Collection & Emissions Baselining: The platform automates the collection and fusion of the disparate data sources—AIS, sensor feeds, weather models, voyage reports—into a single, unified system. It establishes an accurate, auditable emissions baseline, eliminating the weeks of manual effort and potential for human error associated with spreadsheet-based methods.
  
  

• Analysis & Reduction Strategies: By providing intuitive dashboards and analytical tools, the platform makes the outputs of the underlying ML models accessible to non-specialist users. Operations managers can quickly identify high-emitting vessels or voyages and use the platform's simulation capabilities to model the impact of potential reduction strategies, directly supporting the dynamic optimization applications described previously.
  
  

• Climate Risk Management & Policy Alignment: The platform connects granular operational data to high-level corporate strategy. It helps companies manage climate-related risks and ensure that their operational policies are aligned with their public decarbonization commitments and the evolving regulatory requirements.
  
  

• Streamlining Disclosure: A key function of the platform is to generate audit-ready documentation and reports. By creating a single source of truth, it dramatically simplifies the complex and burdensome disclosure requirements for regulations such as the EU ETS, as well as for other stakeholders, including financiers, insurers, and customers.

  
  A critical feature of these integrated platforms is their focus on data integrity and security, often demonstrated through certifications like ISO 27001\. This builds the trust necessary for the data to be accepted by regulators, auditors, and, crucially, commercial partners. Once this trust is established, the verified emissions data generated by the platform becomes a monetizable asset.
  Companies can trace the verified, granular carbon intensity of a specific voyage directly to the cargo it carried. This allows them to provide their customers with the accurate Scope 3 upstream emissions data they increasingly demand for their own sustainability reporting. Furthermore, this capability is the key to unlocking "green premium" opportunities. A company can verifiably prove that a specific product, such as a cargo of Green LNG, was transported with a lower-than-average carbon footprint, potentially allowing it to command a higher price in the market. The digital platform provides the immutable, auditable record required to substantiate such claims, turning superior environmental performance into tangible financial value.1 This cross-functional visibility fosters a holistic view of performance where carbon efficiency is treated with the same operational and financial gravity as fuel cost or vessel uptime, thereby embedding decarbonization into the core of the business.
  

7. Conclusion and Recommendations

This review has synthesized evidence demonstrating an indisputable link between the quality of emissions measurement and the effectiveness of decarbonization management. The maritime industry's journey from inaccurate, latent data generated by conventional methods to the high-fidelity, real-time intelligence produced by Digital Twin and NRT frameworks is the single most critical enabler of meaningful progress. In the new maritime paradigm, operational efficiency and carbon efficiency are inextricably linked, and carbon performance has become a critical variable in the calculus of profitability and commercial viability. The literature strongly supports the conclusion that a paradigm shift to real-time accounting is not an incremental improvement but a foundational necessity for any operator seeking to navigate the complexities of the net-zero transition and secure a sustainable competitive advantage.
Based on the findings of this review, a set of strategic recommendations is proposed to accelerate the industry's decarbonization journey. These recommendations are directed at various stakeholders, including ship owners, operators, charterers, regulators, and technology providers.

• Accelerate the Adoption of Digitalization and Real-Time Accounting: Ship operators and owners should prioritize investment in integrated digital platforms that automate data collection and provide real-time emissions insights. Moving beyond manual, spreadsheet-based systems is the first and most critical step to transforming carbon from a retrospective reporting metric into a manageable, real-time operational KPI. This enables proactive decision-making and unlocks the operational efficiencies detailed in this review.1
  
  

• Foster Cross-Industry Collaboration and Data Standardization: The effectiveness of advanced analytical models is contingent on the quality and volume of data. Regulators, class societies, and industry associations should collaborate to establish standardized data formats and sharing protocols. This would facilitate the creation of larger, more robust datasets, leading to more powerful and universally applicable predictive models. Furthermore, enhanced data sharing between ports and vessels is crucial for enabling just-in-time arrivals and optimizing the port-vessel interface.1
  
  

• Develop Holistic, Lifecycle-Based (Well-to-Wake) Regulatory Frameworks: Regulators, particularly the IMO, should continue to advance policies that assess emissions on a full lifecycle basis. A "well-to-wake" perspective, as adopted by the EU's FuelEU Maritime regulation, is essential to prevent the shifting of emissions upstream and to create a level playing field for alternative fuels. This holistic view ensures that decarbonization efforts are genuine and comprehensive.
  
  

• Mitigate risk Investment in Alternative Fuels and Infrastructure: The transition to low- and zero-carbon fuels faces significant investment and infrastructure hurdles. Policymakers and financial institutions must establish a stable and predictable regulatory environment to mitigate the risks associated with long-term investments. Revenue generated from carbon pricing mechanisms, such as the EU ETS, should be reinvested into the industry to fund R&D, subsidize first-movers, and co-finance the development of bunkering infrastructure for fuels like green ammonia and methanol.
  
  

• Integrate Carbon Performance into Commercial Agreements: To overcome the "split incentive" problem, owners, charterers, and cargo owners must integrate carbon performance into their commercial contracts. The adoption of "green charter" clauses, enabled by transparent, real-time data from a shared digital platform, can align the financial and environmental incentives of all parties. This ensures that the responsibility and rewards for operational efficiency are shared equitably, fostering a collaborative approach to decarbonization.
  
  

References

1. Deng, S., & Mi, Z. (2023). A review on carbon emissions of global shipping. *Marine Development*, *1*(1), 4\. 2. Joung, T. H., Kang, S. G., Lee, J. K., & Ahn, J. (2020). The IMO initial strategy for reducing Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions, and its follow-up actions towards 2050. *Journal of International Maritime Safety, Environmental Affairs, and Shipping*, *4*(1), 1-7. 3. Sun, R., Abouarghoub, W., Demir, E., Potter, A., 2025\. A comprehensive analysis of strategies for reducing GHG emissions in maritime ports. Marine Policy 171, 106455\. 4. BCG, 2021\. Use AI to Measure Emissions Exhaustively, Accurately, and Frequently. BCG Gamma. 5. Karyoti, M. (2023). *Carbon pricing options for maritime emissions* (Master's thesis) 6. Kotzampasakis, M. (2025). Maritime emissions trading in the EU: Systematic literature review and policy assessment. *Transport Policy*. 7. Sarantopoulos, F. (2024). Decarbonizing the Shipping industry through Innovative Technologies. *Artificial Intelligence and New Regulations. Master’s Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA*. 8. European Council. (2023). FuelEU Maritime initiative: Provisional agreement to decarbonise the maritime sector. Retrieved from https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/fit-for-55-refueleu-and-fueleu/ 9. Masodzadeh, P. G., Ölçer, A. I., Ballini, F., & Dalaklis, D. (2024). The contribution of ports to shipping decarbonization: An analysis of port incentive programmes and the executive role of port state control. *Transport Economics and Management*, *2*, 191-202. 10. Deng, S., & Mi, Z. (2023). A review on carbon emissions of global shipping. *Marine Development*, *1*(1), 4\. 11. Deniz, C., Kilic, A., & Cıvkaroglu, G. (2010). Estimation of shipping emissions in Candarli Gulf, Turkey. *Environmental monitoring and assessment*, 171(1), 219-228. 12. Li, Z., Fei, J., Du, Y., Ong, K. L., & Arisian, S. (2024). A near real-time carbon accounting framework for the decarbonization of maritime transport. *Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review*, *191*, 103724\. 13. van Groeningen, T. J., Pruijn, J., Witvoet, M., Milatz, B., & Maritime, J. Linking operational decision making to vessel emissions. 14. Thiebaut De Kergret, M. (2023, October). Digitalization as the Key Enabler to Unlock New Carbon Value Streams. In *Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference* (p. D031S092R005). SPE. 15. Wei, Q., Liu, Y., Dong, Y., Li, T., & Li, W. (2023). A digital twin framework for real-time ship routing considering decarbonization regulatory compliance. *Ocean Engineering*, *278*, 114407\. 16. Issa-Zadeh, S. B., & Garay-Rondero, C. L. (2025). Decarbonizing Seaport Maritime Traffic: Finding Hope. World, 6(2), 47\. 17. “Remedium.” Remedium.sa, 2025, remedium.sa/landing. Accessed 12 Aug. 2025\.