For decades, maritime shipping has operated under a paradox: it moves 90% of global trade yet accounts for roughly 3% of global anthropogenic CO₂ emissions—a figure projected to rise to 17% by 2050 without intervention (IMO, 2023). With the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) revised 2023 strategy mandating a net-zero target by or around 2050, and the EU’s FuelEU Maritime regulation imposing binding greenhouse gas intensity limits starting in 2025, the pressure on liner operators and their logistics partners has shifted from voluntary ambition to operational accountability. Against this backdrop, the February 2026 announcement of Hapag-Lloyd and DSV’s expanded Ship Green framework agreement—securing 18,000 tonnes of CO₂e emission reductions on a well-to-wake basis using second-generation biofuels—is far more than a corporate sustainability milestone. It is a high-stakes field test of the book-and-claim mechanism’s viability as a near-term decarbonization lever in an industry where physical fuel infrastructure lags behind regulatory timelines by at least a decade.
The Book-and-Claim Imperative: Why Physical Allocation Isn’t Feasible (Yet)
Unlike road freight or aviation, where fueling infrastructure can be centrally managed and route-specific, container shipping operates on complex, dynamically optimized networks spanning dozens of ports, with vessels frequently re-routed due to congestion, weather, or commercial demand. A 15,000-TEU vessel may call at 12 ports across three continents in a single voyage, burning over 300 tonnes of marine fuel per day. Mandating that a specific cargo consignment be physically powered by biofuel would require either full-vessel biofuel bunkering (prohibitively expensive and logistically unscalable today) or granular fuel tracking across thousands of containers—a technical impossibility given current vessel monitoring systems and port fuel certification standards.
This reality has catalyzed the rapid adoption of book-and-claim systems—digital, auditable mechanisms that allocate verified emissions reductions to customers based on aggregated, verified biofuel consumption across a carrier’s fleet, irrespective of which vessel carried which container. Under Hapag-Lloyd’s Ship Green program, every tonne of certified second-generation biofuel consumed—whether in the North Atlantic, the Suez Canal, or the Port of Shanghai—generates verifiable CO₂e credits traceable via blockchain-enabled chain-of-custody protocols. Crucially, the agreement specifies that only emissions avoidance from biofuel already used in Hapag-Lloyd’s owned and operated fleet is allocated to DSV. This eliminates greenwashing risks associated with forward-contracted ‘future fuel’ promises—a growing concern flagged by the European Union’s upcoming Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) audit guidelines.
The strategic advantage is clear: DSV gains immediate, auditable Scope 3 inventory coverage for its ocean freight emissions without waiting for port-by-port biofuel availability. For Hapag-Lloyd, it transforms sustainability investment into a revenue stream—biofuel premiums currently range from USD 400–800 per tonne above conventional VLSFO—while de-risking capital expenditure on alternative fuel retrofits. But this model also reveals structural tensions. According to IndexBox’s 2025 Global Biodiesel Market Report, global production of second-generation (waste- and residue-based) marine biofuels stood at just 1.2 million tonnes in 2025, representing less than 0.4% of total marine fuel demand. Even if all of it were deployed exclusively in deep-sea container shipping—which it is not—the sector would cover only ~3.5% of its annual CO₂e footprint. Book-and-claim thus functions not as a substitute for infrastructure, but as a critical bridge—enabling early-mover shippers to meet ESG targets while scaling supply chains for future fuels like green methanol and ammonia.
Second-Generation Biofuels: Scalability vs. Certification Realities
Hapag-Lloyd’s explicit commitment to waste- and residue-based feedstocks (e.g., used cooking oil, animal fats, tall oil pitch) reflects a hard-won industry consensus: first-generation biofuels derived from food crops (soy, palm, rapeseed) are no longer viable in the EU or major export markets due to ILUC (indirect land-use change) concerns and tightening sustainability criteria under RED III. The EU’s delegated act on renewable fuels of non-biological origin (RFNBOs) and advanced biofuels now requires minimum 80% GHG savings on a well-to-wake basis—a threshold achievable only by advanced pathways.
Yet scalability remains constrained by three interlocking bottlenecks:
- Feedstock availability: Global UCO collection stands at ~5 million tonnes annually—barely enough to supply 15% of current advanced biodiesel demand; competition from aviation (SAF mandates) and road transport intensifies pressure.
- Production capacity: Only 12 refineries globally produce EN 15940-compliant hydrotreated vegetable oil (HVO) at scale; none are purpose-built for marine-grade blending specifications, leading to costly batch certification delays.
- Bunkering logistics: Biofuels must be blended with conventional fuel at precise ratios (up to 30% v/v for most Class-approved engines) and stored separately to avoid cross-contamination—a challenge at 80% of the world’s top 50 ports lacking segregated tank infrastructure.
Hapag-Lloyd’s 2024 expansion into biomethane—a gaseous fuel requiring liquefaction (LBM) and cryogenic storage—further underscores the complexity. While offering higher GHG reduction potential (>90%), biomethane’s energy density is 60% lower than diesel, demanding larger storage volumes and limiting adoption to short-sea routes unless engine redesigns accelerate. In contrast, HVO-based marine biofuels offer drop-in compatibility with existing dual-fuel engines, enabling rapid fleet-wide deployment. This pragmatic prioritization explains why biofuels remain the only commercially scalable zero-carbon option for deep-sea container shipping before 2030, according to Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping’s 2025 Technology Readiness Assessment.
DSV’s Role: From Freight Forwarder to Decarbonization Orchestrator
DSV’s procurement of 18,000 tonnes of CO₂e reductions is not merely a carbon offset purchase—it is a deliberate market-shaping intervention. As one of the world’s largest third-party logistics providers, DSV handles freight for over 12,000 clients across 100+ countries, many of whom face stringent Scope 3 reporting obligations under CDP, SASB, and the forthcoming ISSB S2 standard. By aggregating demand across its client base, DSV achieves volume leverage impossible for individual shippers: a single Fortune 500 retailer might procure 500 tonnes of CO₂e reductions annually; DSV’s 18,000-tonne contract represents the equivalent of ~36 such enterprises acting in concert.
This aggregation model delivers three strategic advantages:
- Pricing stability: Long-term, fixed-price contracts insulate clients from volatile biofuel premiums, which spiked 42% YoY in Q4 2025 amid UCO shortages.
- Certification efficiency: DSV handles the complex documentation required for ISCC EU, RSB, and REDcert Chain of Custody compliance—reducing administrative burden for end-customers by up to 70% (per DSV internal benchmarking).
- Data integration: Emission reductions are automatically mapped to client-specific shipment data via DSV’s MySupplyChain platform, enabling real-time ESG dashboarding aligned with GRI 305 and TCFD reporting frameworks.
Crucially, DSV’s approach avoids the pitfalls of fragmented, ad-hoc biofuel procurement. A 2025 MIT study found that shippers purchasing biofuels independently achieved only 38% average utilization of contracted volumes due to route mismatches and scheduling delays—whereas DSV’s portfolio-level allocation ensures >95% utilization. This operational discipline transforms sustainability from a cost center into a value driver: clients report 12–18% higher ESG scores in supplier assessments when leveraging DSV’s verified biofuel solutions.
Net-Zero Timelines: Alignment, Tension, and the Accountability Gap
The divergence between Hapag-Lloyd’s net-zero fleet operations by 2045 and DSV’s net-zero across operations and value chain by 2050 appears harmonious—but masks a profound accountability gap. Hapag-Lloyd’s target applies solely to emissions from vessels it owns or charters, covering ~65% of its total Scope 3 upstream emissions. It does not extend to emissions from subcontracted carriers, inland haulage, or terminal operations—segments where DSV retains significant influence. Conversely, DSV’s 2050 target encompasses all Tier 1–3 emissions, including those from Hapag-Lloyd voyages, creating a circular dependency: DSV needs Hapag-Lloyd’s verified reductions to meet its goal, while Hapag-Lloyd relies on DSV’s volume commitments to justify continued biofuel investment.
This interdependence exposes a systemic flaw in current decarbonization architecture: no globally harmonized methodology exists to allocate responsibility for shared emissions across multi-tiered logistics value chains. The GHG Protocol’s Scope 3 Standard permits multiple calculation approaches (market-based vs. location-based), resulting in up to 35% variance in reported emissions for identical shipments (Carbon Trust, 2025). Without standardized attribution rules—currently under negotiation at IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC)—book-and-claim risks becoming a compliance arbitrage tool rather than a transformational instrument.
That said, the Hapag-Lloyd/DSV partnership sets a vital precedent. By anchoring claims to retrospectively verified fuel use, enforcing strict feedstock criteria, and publishing annual verification reports through DNV GL, it establishes a transparency benchmark against which peers will be measured. As Maersk’s recent decision to halt its own biofuel book-and-claim program (citing insufficient supply chain traceability) demonstrates, credibility—not volume—is the new currency of maritime decarbonization.
Conclusion: Beyond the 18,000 Tonnes—A Blueprint for Systemic Change
The 18,000 tonnes of CO₂e secured by DSV is quantitatively modest—equivalent to removing ~3,900 gasoline-powered cars from roads for one year. Yet its significance lies in its architecture: a rigorously governed, operationally embedded, and commercially viable application of book-and-claim that treats decarbonization as a core logistics service—not a CSR add-on. For shippers, it proves that credible emissions reduction is attainable today, without waiting for fuel infrastructure parity. For carriers, it validates sustainable fuel investment as a competitive differentiator with tangible ROI. And for regulators, it provides empirical evidence that market-based mechanisms, when anchored in physical fuel use and third-party verification, can drive real-world abatement while infrastructure scales.
Yet this model cannot stand alone. Its long-term success hinges on parallel investments in port infrastructure, harmonized global certification standards, and policy incentives that reward actual fuel displacement—not just paper-based claims. As the IMO prepares its 2026 GHG Strategy review, the Hapag-Lloyd/DSV agreement serves as both a progress report and a challenge: the shipping industry has the commercial will and technical pathways to decarbonize. What remains is the collective political and financial resolve to build the ecosystem that makes it inevitable.
Source: IndexBox, “Hapag-Lloyd and DSV Expand Decarbonization Partnership with Biofuel Agreement,” February 2026. Available at https://www.indexbox.io/blog/hapag-lloyd-and-dsv-expand-decarbonization-partnership-with-biofuel-agreement/
