SSI workstream - Sustainable shipping rating schemes: How to use and improve sustainability rating schemes in shipping

1. Credible Benchmarking
Work Stream
With the help of the Southampton Solent University

2. Contents
Overview and process
Background
Search and compare rating schemes
How to use rating schemes
What’s next and resources
Appendix 1 – How rating schemes create change
Appendix 2 – Case studies

3. Our challenge was to find ways of helping the
shipping industry and its customers to navigate
the growing number of beyond-compliance rating
schemes; to encourage wider adoption of rating
schemes and to improve sustainability
performance in the shipping industry.
Our aim is to provide and improve the transparency and
comparability that enables cargo owners, charterers and
ship owners to integrate sustainability considerations into
commercial decisions, and move towards a more sustainable
shipping industry.
The challenge

4. Summary of the work
stream
Over the last year we have:
• Developed a web-based tool, to help
cargo owners and charterers to
select the rating schemes that most
closely meet their needs
• Produced guidance on how to use
ratings schemes for best effect
• Compiled a series of case studies
that illustrate how rating schemes
are already being used to inform
business decisions
• Imagined what the best rating
schemes will look like in the future
and the positive impacts they could
have on the industry

5. Background

6. What the research told us
Research by Southampton Solent University identified five
barriers to uptake of sustainable rating schemes:
• Low demand from shipping industry customers, due to lack of
awareness and understanding of how to use of rating
schemes
• Perception of cost and lack of clarity over business benefits to
industry
• No critical mass in the market
• Lack of standardisation in outputs and metrics e.g. CO2, SOx
and NOx
• Lack of alignment between different parts of the shipping
industry

7. What’s important about rating schemes
We want to encourage and facilitate greater transparency of
environmental performance in shipping and promoting the
use of rating schemes supports this because:
• Benchmarking leads to better informed business
decisions and helps establish higher baselines
• Greater uptake and engagement by the shipping industry
and their customers, will lead to the ongoing
development and improvement of rating schemes
• Their effectiveness is currently limited by a number of
factors including awareness and understanding

8. How rating schemes improve business
Sustainability rating schemes are an important means of
both declaring and demanding information about a ship’s
sustainability performance.
Credible benchmarking enables customers to make
informed decisions based on the performance of shipping
lines and vessels.
The primary incentive to join or participate in a rating
scheme is to gain a commercial advantage, for example:
• Meet CSR requirements - particularly cargo owners
• Gain economic incentives – e.g. reduced port fees
• Better terms with banks and insurers

9. How rating schemes create change
The experience of other industries demonstrates how mass
uptake of rating schemes is an effective way of creating change
towards sustainability.
• LEED and BREEAM have continued to push sustainable
building performance standards beyond the regulatory
minimums for 20 years
• The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) has recognised and
rewarded sustainable fishing practices as well as raising
awareness with consumers
• The Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) promotes the
responsible management of the world’s forests
See Appendix 1 for more details

10. Search and compare rating schemes

11. The search and compare tool
The web-based tool we have developed simply helps cargo
owners, charterers and ship owners to compare and select
from the rating schemes currently available to them on the
basis of objective criteria.

12. Vessel Type
Many schemes cover more
than one vessel type, while
others specialise in rating just
specific vessel types.

13. Benchmarking scope
The scope of schemes varies.
Those included so far, rate:
• CO2
• NOx
• SOx
• Particulate matter (PM)
• Water and waste
• Chemical use

14. Transparency and
verification
Some schemes require data to
be verified by a 3rd party. Other
schemes are themselves
independently verified. Many
publish their methodology and
some also make results
available.

15. Geography
Many of the schemes are
global, some are only available
for regional operators and
others are locally specific.

16. Performance
Some ratings are based
primarily on the performance of
a ship during operation.
Others use the design
characteristics of a vessel to
predict performance.

17. Metrics and Outputs
There is a variety of rating
methodology and scoring to
choose from:
• Step ratings where ship or
service performance is
banded
• Absolute data e.g.CO2 per
tonne/km
• Scoring framework based
on a weighted averages
• Straight forward pass or fail

18. How to use rating schemes

19. Identifying schemes and how to use them
As there is no single rating scheme that is perfect for
everyone, each scheme represents a balance between
accuracy and simplicity of assessment, as well as
applicability to different sectors. To help users make
informed decisions we have developed:
• Some detailed guidance notes for cargo owners and
charterers when using and interpreting a rating scheme
• A series of case studies to illustrate how to get the most
from rating schemes

20. Understanding rating schemes
Link to Guidance for Users
Our guidance notes have been developed to help identify
the key issues when choosing a rating scheme and use the
Search and Compare tool to select the right rating scheme
for individual needs.

21. Making the most from rating schemes
More in Appendix 2 and in detailed case studies.

22. What’s next?

23. What next…
• We are exploring how to extend the uptake of rating
schemes and drive continuous improvement in standards
across the shipping industry
• We hope our independent guidance will contribute to an
increase in the uptake of rating schemes and demand for
transparency from logistics managers and charterers
• We recognise the need for leadership in this area; many
of the SSI members already use rating schemes and are
keen for others to adopt them

24. Future developments
As rating schemes develop and uptake increases we would like
to see:
• External alignment to make comparison possible by aligning
metrics, weighting and data format
• Credible metrics based on evidence that is relevant for
shipping companies and cargo owners, and better still globally
agreed
• Transparent weighting criteria is essential if impacts are to
be convincingly valued and compared
• Proper use of performance data will ensure users reward
best performance
• Reliable governance by reputable rating schemes will involve
all relevant stakeholders

25. Remaining challenges and barriers
In the short term:
• SSI members need to sign up to and use rating schemes
themselves
• The SSI has a role to play in promoting rating schemes in
principle and the online tool specifically
• All rating schemes could benefit from greater collaboration
and alignment
• There is still a lack of demand and awareness of rating
schemes among the key audiences – namely the charter
market and shipping customers/cargo owners
• We would like to see the sustainability of ships, routes, and/or
fleets incorporated into procurement decisions made by
logistics managers, charterers and shipping agents

26. Resources
Link to Search and Compare rating schemes tool
Guidance for users
Getting the most from rating schemes
Appendix 1 - How rating schemes create change
Appendix 2 - Case studies

27. Appendix 1 - How rating schemes
create change

28. Rating buildings
BREEAM and LEED are both primarily used to assess the
design of new buildings and provide an easy to understand
sustainability rating.
These two global schemes are the market leaders for
sustainability benchmarking in the built environment.
• LEED originated in the US in 1993
• BREEAM originated in the UK in 1990
Both are voluntary schemes and have been highly
successful at pushing building performance beyond
regulatory minimum levels.

29. Rating buildings
Twenty years since their inception
• There are over 250,000 BREEAM and LEED rated
buildings worldwide
• And more than 1m more planned
How do they work
• Assess building designs based on factors including
energy, water use, waste etc.
• Results are combined to give a ‘weighted average’ score
for the building – Pass, Good, Very Good and Excellent
for BREEAM, and Bronze, Silver, Gold and Platinum for
LEED

30. Lessons learned - being “Good Enough”
Similar to many of the ship rating schemes available today,
BREEAM used the tools and metrics available to them when it
launched in 1990. Some of these - including the energy
calculations – were controversial, causing some concern to
architects and engineers who considered their buildings were not
being assessed accurately. However, for the Planning
Authorities, building purchasers and occupants who wanted to
know about sustainability of their buildings, the level of accuracy
was considered sufficient for them to start demanding BREEAM
assessed buildings, thereby driving uptake of the scheme by the
industry, and forcing even reluctant developers and designers to
engage with the scheme.

31. Lessons learned – allowing for
improvement over time
Increased industry uptake of BREEAM provided the
credibility and finance for BREEAM to continue to engage
with the industry, and progressively improve metrics and
methods over time.
Had BREEAM waited until ideal metrics were in place prior
to launch, it is arguable that the scheme would have failed
to achieve the market penetration gained by meeting
market demand with a scheme that was ‘good enough’
rather than perfect.

32. Lessons learned – engaging the market
Initial demand for BREEAM was driven by Planning
Authorities who wanted a simple way of ensuring that new
buildings met a minimum standard of sustainability – and
UK Government clients, who mandated that all Government
occupied buildings would be required to achieve BREEAM
Very Good (now Excellent). This enabled demand for
BREEAM to reach beyond the ‘environment conscious’
developer, by providing the commercial incentive of access
to lucrative government contracts

33. Appendix 2 Case studies

34. Maersk and CCWG
Challenge / business need Solution
Adoption of rating scheme driven
by customers demands.
Maersk a member of the
CCWG since 2003
Uses of CCGW Benefits
Internal and external
benchmarking
Enabling customers to make
well informed decisions
Adoption of the environmental
standards defined by the CCWG.
Improvements in environmental
performance
Communication of environmental
performance to customers and
other stakeholders
Customer dialog and
collaboration

35. Thank you
With the help of the Southampton Solent University
Prepared by Polly Simpson
ssi@forumforthefuture.org
www.ssi.2040.org