Insights Archives – Water Revolution Foundation

EU Sustainability Rules Are Changing: What It Means for Yachting

by Awwal Idris | 7 Mar 2025 | Insights

Author: Awwal Idris, Environmental Expert at Water Revolution Foundation

Update as of 18 April 2025

On 3 April 2025, the European Parliament approved the first part of the EU Omnibus Package, voting by a large majority to delay the application of new corporate sustainability reporting (CSRD) and due diligence (CSDDD) requirements. This “Stop-the-Clock” directive postpones CSRD reporting for the second and third wave of companies by two years, and delays the due diligence obligations under CSDDD by one year. The directive now requires formal publication and must be transposed by EU member states into national law by 31 December 2025. The focus will now shift to the second stage of the Omnibus Package, which aims to further simplify and revise the scope and content of sustainability reporting rules.

The EU sustainability regulations strongly revised in 2025

The European Commission (EC) is scaling back sustainability reporting rules with two new proposals: Omnibus Simplification Package I and II, focusing on sustainability regulations for businesses in the European Union. With these proposed amendments, fewer companies will need to report under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) — 80% fewer, to be exact. The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) is also being relaxed. Now, companies only need to monitor direct suppliers instead of their full supply chain, and checks will happen every five years instead of annually. These and many other changes made to the original reporting rules are yet to be presented before the EU parliament for further review and negotiations.

Short summary of the proposed amendments

Deadlines have been pushed back:

Large EU companies now report in 2028 instead of 2026. Previously, the CSRD applied to companies with 250+ employees, but now only those with over 1,000 employees – with either a turnover of above €50 million or assets of € 25 million – are required to comply. Companies with 500-999 employees are now excluded from mandatory reporting.
Listed SMEs also get an extension, with mandatory first reports now due in 2028 (FY 2027). The new deregulation completely removes them from mandatory reporting after that, meaning they will not have to report at all unless they choose to opt in voluntarily.
Some due diligence rules under CSDDD have been delayed by a year. EU Companies with 5,000+ employees and €1.5 billion turnover will now comply from July 2028 instead of 2027. Those with 3,000+ employees and €900 million+ turnover will start in 2029 instead of 2028. The timeline for other in-scope companies is unclear but if the pattern holds, it could be pushed to 2030. Under the new deregulated rules, the CSDDD, which would have originally applied to almost 50,000 EU companies, will now only apply to around 6,000 large EU companies and some 900 non-EU companies.
For non-EU companies, the reporting deadline remains: under the CSRD, non-EU parent companies with a large EU branch or subsidiary must report in 2029 based on their activities in 2028. Under the original regulation, this applies if the whole group turn over €150 million or more in the EU. The new rules would raise this threshold to €450 million, so fewer companies would need to report. There is no 1,000-employee rule for EU branches or subsidiaries of non-EU companies. Instead, EU turnover is the main factor because most employees of non-EU companies work outside the EU.

The EC expects these changes to reduce administrative burdens by 25% overall and by 35% for SMEs by the end of its mandate, enabling competitiveness for EU companies and simplify investment programs.

What This Means for Yachting and EU-based Marine Industry

For the European-based superyacht industry, this will mean less pressure to comply… or an opportunity to redirect our efforts from compliance to solving the true issue: the industry should look beyond regulations to drive progress. Climate change and environmental degradation remain existential threats to Europe and the world, and deregulations do not change the scientific reality. The need to reduce environmental impact has not disappeared, and businesses will still need to track progress, set targets and work toward long-term climate neutrality by 2050, whether they are in scope of reporting or not.

Opportunity for an own target-oriented approach

Water Revolution Foundation thus calls on the industry to be pro-active and lead the way towards better future business. This opportunity to define a common goal is the basis of our cooperative Roadmap 2050, driving companies, stakeholders, and organizations to take collective responsibility towards net-zero environmental impact in the superyacht sector by 2050. At the same time, the roadmap aims to also promote the regenerative approach—going beyond reducing harm to creating a positive environmental impact. As regulations loosen, this roadmap becomes ever important as a guide to help the industry meet its targets.

Beyond compliance, these new changes create an opening for self-regulations and industry-led standards. A long-standing complaint in the yachting industry has been that regulation doesn’t account for yachting’s unique characteristics: now with less regulatory pressure, the industry can take charge, setting its own sustainability benchmarks that truly reflect its needs. Instead of waiting for restrictive policies, when these are weak or evolving, scientific data and best practices become the guideposts towards ensuring credibility and competitiveness in a market that increasingly values transparent sustainability. To stay ahead, companies should collaborate to:

Develop and rely on best sustainability science and practice to ensure meaningful progress
Engage with industry groups to create shared standards that suit yachting while meeting or surpassing global environmental expectation
Leverage independent review mechanisms that make sure sustainability claims and investments are credible and actually contribute to positive environmental change.

Staying Ahead

A future tightening of rules is probable if we are to meet the climate targets and environmental ambitions set by 2050. These deregulation actions by the EU may reinforce the perception that sustainability reporting is an administrative burden and overhead cost for businesses, but those able to prioritize environmental responsibility see real benefits:

Lower risk and better efficiency over time: compliance takes effort at first, but costs drop as businesses improve their systems
Stronger trust from investors and customers
Future-proofing against new regulations and market shifts.

Future-proof yachting depends on sustainability

Looking at sustainability as just a regulatory headache is short-sighted – beyond rules, it’s a growing demand from clients, investors, and the industry itself. Clients, especially the new generation cohorts expect more eco-friendly options, and voluntary sustainability efforts can boost reputation and business appeal. Furthermore, a generational shift is also underway—those poised to take over key roles in the industry are far more committed to sustainability and will likely remain engaged in yachting only if environmental responsibility is embedded in its core values. If the industry hopes to attract and retain the next generation of talent, regressing on sustainability efforts is not the way forward. Instead embedding sustainability into the core of the industry will ensure its long-term relevance and vitality in a changing world.

Don’t Wait—Lead

The yachting industry has a unique opportunity to lead by example, proving that economic strength and sustainability go hand in hand. If simplification is pursued purely as means to reduce compliance costs, there is a risk of weakening any needed and essential sustainability progress and/or innovations that can drive accountability and long-term industry resilience. Sustainability isn’t just about ticking boxes – it improves decision-making and competitiveness, and overall protection of the environment our industry depends on. Thus the industry should not look to only comply with regulations: they should lead and define the future of the industry.

Click here for the official European Commission article.

HVO: The New Fuel for Yachts

by Awwal Idris | 25 Feb 2025 | Insights

Author: Awwal Idris, Environmental Expert at Water Revolution Foundation

Highlights

HVO offers up to a 90% reduction in CO₂ emissions (well-to-wake) compared to fossil diesel; the CO₂ produced during HVO combustion is biogenic in origin and reabsorbed in the carbon cycle, unlike diesel that adds “new” CO₂ to the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.
HVO is a drop-in fuel fully compatible with existing diesel engines and requires no modification. Most leading engine manufacturers in yachting have certified their diesel engines for HVO use.
HVO also reduces harmful local air pollutants, including particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOₓ), while containing no sulphur or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
Sustainable sourcing and certifications like ISCC or REDcert ensure HVO is produced responsibly, minimizing environmental impact and supporting a circular economy.
Disclaimer: HVO is a valuable resource in reducing emissions. However, we encourage reducing onboard energy demand first and foremost; avoiding just switching fuel type for reduced emissions only.

Demystifying Hydro-treated Vegetable Oil (HVO): An immediate solution for significantly reducing yachts’ environmental impact

Internal combustion engines, mostly powered by fossil fuels, are still the primary energy source for many industries, including boating and yachting.

But as our society evolves and the scientific community reliably measures the impact of our reliance—its significant pollution and greenhouse gas emissions—our industry is at the forefront of responding to the urgent need for new technology and policy changes.

This article explores HVO as one opportunity for transition, its potential role in reducing emissions within the superyacht industry, including specific examples for superyachts.

Phasing out diesel

In Europe and worldwide, diesel engines are widely used for their greater efficiency, which allows them to produce 10–40% less CO2 than gasoline engines. However, diesel engines struggle to meet strict emissions standards, such as the International Maritime Organization Tier III, which sets limits on nitrogen oxide (NOₓ) emissions from marine diesel engines. For yachts, this challenge arises from the unique operational hours of yachts, which often involve prolonged periods at low engine regimes. As a result, emissions control systems like selective catalytic reduction (SCR)—which need to attain a high temperature for efficacy (240-450°C)—are less effective in reducing NOₓ and particulate pollution. Most yachts with engines above 130 kW would need a modern SCR system to meet Tier III regulations when operating in designated Emission Control Areas (ECAs), where strict NOx limits apply. Plant-based biofuels offer a promising way to reduce emissions. Biodiesel, often called FAME (fatty acid methyl esters), a first-generation biofuel, is the most common alternative to regular diesel. It’s made from crops like soy or rapeseed using a process called transesterification. Biodiesel helps reduce pollutants like carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbon (HC), and particle emissions. However, it has drawbacks: it breaks down more easily, performs poorly in cold weather, and can damage fuel system parts. Due to these issues, the EU limits biodiesel blends with regular diesel to a maximum of 7%.

Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil (HVO)—a paraffinic fuel made from diverse bio-based feedstocks (second generation), such as plant oils, animal fats, and waste materials—avoids many of biodiesel’s problems. Made by treating vegetable oils with hydrogen, HVO produces fuel similar to regular diesel but without sulphur or other pollutants. Making HVO is also cheaper than making biodiesel, and it works easily in standard diesel engines without any modifications required. Most prominent engine manufacturers active in yachting have recently certified most of their engine models for HVO. In fact, HVO can be mixed with diesel in any amount or even used 100% on its own without major engine adjustments. Many research studies [1,2] have highlighted the potential advantages of HVO with respect to FAME and regular diesel.

What is HVO (Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil)?

Hydrotreated Vegetable Oil, commonly known as HVO, is a renewable fuel produced from feedstocks like vegetable oils, waste fats, and animal fats. HVO is created through a process that treats these feedstocks with hydrogen in the presence of a catalyst, removing oxygen and producing hydrocarbons similar to those in traditional diesel. The resulting fuel has properties that closely resemble fossil diesel but lacks sulphur and other harmful compounds like polycyclic aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), which are present in fossil diesel. HVO has a much lower carbon footprint over its entire lifecycle because it uses renewable resources and emits fewer greenhouse gases (GHGs).

Key benefits of HVO

One major advantage of using HVO as fuel is the significant reduction in CO₂ emissions it offers. Here is an example: let’s assume a superyacht operated for about 1,500 hours and consumed 300 litres of fuel per hour. If this superyacht runs on conventional diesel, its CO₂ emissions would be around 1,205,380 kg CO₂. This is roughly equivalent to the emissions of 903 average European new passenger cars or the annual carbon footprint of about 166 European citizens.

Check here for all calculations.

It’s important to note that these emissions account only for diesel combustion in the yacht’s engines used for propulsion and do not include the generators for the “hotel power”—essentially the non-propulsion needs onboard, such as heating, cooling, lighting, and appliances, all of which are vital to the comfort and functionality of the vessel. If we were to factor in both propulsion and hotel power, the total emissions would, on average, double. When viewed in the context of the global superyacht fleet, these emissions highlight the importance of pursuing solutions that can mitigate emissions.

HVO offers a promising solution for reducing these emissions, with up to a 90% reduction in CO₂ emissions compared to fossil diesel over its entire lifecycle. This includes emissions from sourcing and production (well-to-tank) to combustion in the engine (tank-to-wake). The exact reduction percentage can vary based on factors such as feedstock type, production process, and specific supply chain emissions.

While HVO and diesel release comparable amounts of CO₂ during combustion, the key difference lies in the source of the carbon. HVO emits biogenic CO₂, which comes from plant-based materials that absorbed CO₂ during their growth. This creates a short-term carbon cycle, where the CO₂ released is reabsorbed through natural processes like photosynthesis. In contrast, the CO₂ from diesel combustion comes from fossil sources—carbon that has been locked away for millions of years. Once released, this “new” CO₂ remains in the atmosphere, adding to the long-term carbon load and contributing to climate change.

HVO’s lower carbon intensity is particularly evident in the well-to-tank stage, especially when sustainable, waste-based feedstocks are used.

By switching to HVO with a conservative 80% CO₂ saving (well-to-wake), this example superyacht could save approximately 964,300 kg of CO₂—a reduction equal to the yearly emissions of about 133 EU citizens. This saving is also comparable to the emissions from around 723 average new European passenger cars.

The potential reduction in CO₂ emissions achieved by transitioning to HVO demonstrates the significant positive impact low-carbon fuels can have on the yachting fleet industry’s overall carbon footprint. As more vessels adopt HVO, this shift could play a crucial role in advancing the sector’s decarbonization efforts.

Renewable and Sustainable Feedstocks: HVO is produced from renewable sources, primarily waste oils and fats, which significantly reduces our reliance on fossil fuels. It’s important to differentiate between primary (or virgin) feedstocks, like soybean or palm oil, and byproducts from waste materials. Virgin feedstocks require considerable land, water, and energy to produce, often leading to environmental concerns such as deforestation and competition with food crops. In contrast, byproducts like Used Cooking Oil (UCO) and animal fats are often discarded; using these materials not only minimizes waste but also reduces the need for new resources. This approach helps achieve greater carbon savings, as waste-derived feedstocks typically have lower lifecycle emissions. By prioritizing these more sustainable options, HVO production supports a circular economy. Yet the secondary status of the feedstock is critical for this to work as such.

Less Emissions. When used in diesel engines, HVO produces much less air pollution compared to regular diesel. HVO can cut carbon dioxide emissions by up to 90% (W-T-W, depending on its feedstock and production), reduce particulate matter by 40-80%, and lower nitrogen oxides (NOₓ) by an average of up to 8% without any engine modification [3]. Additionally, it contains no sulphur or PAH compounds, making it a cleaner alternative overall.

Compatibility with Diesel Engines: HVO can be used in existing diesel engines without modification, making it an immediately applicable solution for reducing emissions across the superyacht industry. This is particularly advantageous for the existing superyachts in the fleet, where environmental upgrades to onboard systems can add cost and complexity. HVO might come at an upcharge in some countries, but more adoption will result in lower costs. The yachting community can pioneer the uptake of HVO for the larger society to benefit from increased availability and more competitive pricing.

Certification is crucial

The Renewable Energy Directive (RED), introduced by the European Commission in 2008, sets mandatory sustainability standards for biofuels, including HVO. These standards establish minimum requirements for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and guidelines for assessing the risks of Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) associated with different feedstocks.

When first-generation biofuels are produced from crops grown on existing farmland, the demand for food and feed crops doesn’t disappear. This can lead to increased food production in other areas, potentially resulting in land use changes, such as converting forests into agricultural land, with deforestation, significant release of CO2 emissions, and biodiversity loss as a result. For second-generation biofuels such as HVO, these are produced from non-food sources, like agricultural waste, wood chips, and other residual biomass. Since they do not rely on food crops, they typically have a lower impact on food supply and are less likely to drive land-use change for agriculture. However, if second-generation biofuel production scales up significantly, it could still indirectly influence land use by increasing demand for certain waste products or residuals, but this is still generally less impactful compared to first-generation biofuel.

Certification for first-generation biofuel verifies that feedstocks are responsibly sourced, minimizing competition with food crops and reducing negative land-use impact like deforestation. It also verifies that the biofuel meets required GHG savings. For second-generation biofuels, certification guarantees that feedstocks come from non- food, waste, or residual sources, helping avoid land-use changes related to food production. It ensures transparency and traceability in the supply chain, proving that materials are sustainably sourced.

To verify that biofuels (both first and second generation) are truly a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels, RED II outlines specific criteria for the sourcing and environmental impact of biofuels sold in the EU. The key requirements under RED II are:

Transport biofuels must achieve a greenhouse gas (GHG) savings of at least 65% compared to diesel.
Biofuels used for electricity, heating, and cooling need to have a GHG savings of at least 80%.

Biofuel producers must obtain certification from an independent third party to demonstrate compliance with these standards. This certification process includes auditing the entire supply chain to ensure that sustainability and sourcing criteria are met. Additionally, producers and suppliers are required to submit regular reports to confirm ongoing compliance to the certification requirements and RED II regulations.

What does it mean for me as a superyacht owner or operator?

For superyacht owners and operators looking to purchase HVO fuel, it is essential to know what questions to ask suppliers when ordering HVO. Below are some key considerations for due diligence that yacht owners and operators should keep in mind or inquire about when sourcing HVO fuel:

Ask for a certification scheme recognized by the EU RED: There are several certification organizations that comply with RED II regulations and criteria. Some of the most well-known include the International Sustainability and Carbon Certification (ISCC), REDcert, and the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials (RSB). These certifying bodies not only adhere to the standards set by RED II, but they also engage independent third parties to conduct audits and certify compliance with both RED II and their own certification schemes. By choosing certified suppliers, you can ensure a thorough audit of the supply chain that aligns with regulations and contributes to real CO2 savings.

Request impact assessment documentation: More biofuel-producing companies are now focused on calculating the actual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across their entire supply chain using a full lifecycle assessment (LCA) approach. This allows them to effectively communicate their environmental footprint to stakeholders and customers, as lower emission-intensity fuels are increasingly advantageous for business owners. By reviewing this information, one can gain insight into the GHG savings associated with their biofuels, as well as the potential Indirect Land Use Change (ILUC) impacts linked to their supply chain. A low ILUC risk suggests that the production of biofuels did not interfere with food production or encroach on ecologically sensitive areas like forests.

As we work towards the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, the operation of yachts is evolving. Using HVO can offer an immediate and significant reduction in emissions and is therefore highly recommended to be adopted widely by the international yachting community as the new fuel for yachts.

As we work towards the goal of net-zero emissions by 2050, the operation of yachts is evolving.
Using HVO can offer an immediate reduction in emissions and thus needs to be adopted widely by the industry.

References: please click here

Image Credit: Burgess

De-Constructing the Environmental Impact of Superyacht Construction Materials

by Awwal Idris | 10 Jul 2024 | Insights

Highlights

Superyacht construction heavily relies on non-renewable resources and materials
Steel and aluminium production are CO₂ and energy-intensive
Production process of these materials affect soil, water and air quality
Opportunities for reducing impact include sourcing from suppliers that adopt breakthrough technologies to save resources and emissions, adopting energy systems powered by zero carbon electricity, and shifting to high grade recycled aluminium and steel

Introduction
The leisure boating industry is a cornerstone of the blue economy, generating €28 billion in revenue annually and supporting around 234,000 jobs[1]. With 36 million individuals owning or chartering leisure boats including superyachts in Europe alone [2], the industry’s thriving growth is paralleled by a growing responsibility to reduce its environmental impact.

While much of the focus is on the environmental impact during a yacht’s operational life, it’s essential to consider the entire lifecycle, including construction and end-of-life phases. This is why Water Revolution Foundation adopts a holistic approach that encompasses the entire lifecycle of yachts and its onboard components, to help understand and manage environmental risks or identify opportunities associated with environmental impact reduction within the superyacht industry.

Focusing on the construction phase, superyachts require large volumes of non-renewable materials like steel, aluminium, composites and synthetics, each with a substantial environmental footprint from production to end-of-life. Despite the yachting industry’s efforts to integrate eco-friendlier materials, the sheer size and complexity of superyachts make this transition challenging.

Steel and aluminium, in particular, have considerable environmental impacts due to their hazardous emissions and high energy consumption during production and construction. Given their dominance in the build phase of large yachts, this article explores the environmental implications of using these materials and identifies opportunities for reducing their impacts.

Steel
The iron and steel industry has revolutionized transportation and infrastructure, enabling the development of railways, bridges, roads and automobiles. Steel, a crucial material in yacht construction, is primarily produced from iron ore extracted from earth’s crust. Iron, despite being an abundant resource, is non-renewable and requires extraction, concentration, and processing to create usable steel.
Due to its mechanical strength and corrosion resistance when alloyed with certain elements, shipyards use steel for various parts of a yacht, such as the hull and superstructure. However, the activities involved with steel processing generate considerable environmental risks, including emissions and the deposition of pollutants and toxic waste.

Steel manufacturing consumes large quantities of water for processing and cooling purposes, releasing contaminated wastewater containing an array of contaminants, particularly trace metals such as Mn, Zn, Br, Sr, Cu, Pb, etc[3]. Particles from the blast furnace also release trace element of heavy metals via atmospheric process and particle emissions[4]. Aside that, the extraction and processing stages of steel production releases CO, SOx, NOx and Particulate Matter (PM2).

Although improvements have been made to reduce trace metals from waste products using physicochemical and biological treatment techniques[3], the technology’s efficiency is limited, allowing volatile trace metals to enter the environment. These trace particles can affect the quality of soil used by residents for recreational or agricultural purposes[5] and pose public health risks. In fact, many studies have corroborated heavy metal contamination in soils near steelmaking sites in agricultural lands; see example [6] [7].

According to the World Steel Association, the steel industry consumes 5.9% of global energy and emits 7-9% of global CO2 emissions, doubling the carbon output of the entire African continent (4% global emissions). The EU alone is responsible for 4.7% of the total emissions, amounting to 182 million tons of CO2 [8].

Aluminium
After steel, aluminium is the second most highly produced metal. In yacht manufacturing, aluminium is widely utilised for its lightweight properties, especially in hull construction. This allows for lighter vessels that enhance fuel efficiency, speed, and increased range of navigation in shallow waters. Aluminium also boasts natural corrosion resistance, reducing the need for extensive anti-corrosion measures and maintenance costs over the vessel’s lifespan. These advantages establish aluminium as a critical material in yacht construction.

However, like steel, aluminium production is highly CO2 and energy-intensive, albeit to a slightly lesser extent. The aluminium industry produces 0.42-0.5 Gt of CO2 equivalent emissions per year, translating to 2.5% of global CO2 emissions[10]. The industry also accounts for 1% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions [11].

The production of aluminium involves various processes and materials, including bauxite and alumina extraction, along with the production of chemicals like calcined lime, cathode carbon, aluminium fluoride, pitch, and petrol coke. These activities collectively contribute to several adverse environmental impacts.

One major concern is acidification potential (AP), which measures the acidifying effects of nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and ammonia (NH3) on the environment. These emissions originate from various stages of aluminium production, including electrolysis, refining, casting, and mining. Acidification harms aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, affecting marine species, plant growth, and human food supplies.

Emissions from aluminium production also contribute to eutrophication, leading to excessive levels of nitrogen and phosphorous in water bodies. These nutrients promote rapid growth of aquatic plants, particularly algae, which depletes oxygen levels, harms aquatic species, and diminishes water quality.

Another significant impact is water scarcity, as large amounts of freshwater are consumed for the mining, refining, smelting, and cooling processes in primary aluminium production. The energy-intensive refining processes further deplete fossil energy resources.

Opportunities for Improvement
The environmental impact of steel and aluminium presents significant sustainability challenges across various industries, superyachting included. Yacht manufacturing’s resource-intensive nature, coupled with the non-renewable origins of these materials, underscores the urgency to improve its practices.

The superyacht industry can significantly reduce impacts by using steel produced with advanced technologies like Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF) and Induction Furnaces (IF). EAF technology melts recycled scrap steel using electrical energy, which can come from renewable sources, thus lowering CO2 emissions from energy use and the need for new steel production from raw materials. Utilising green hydrogen and renewable energy sources in EAF process have proven to emit less than 600kg of CO2eq per ton of crude steel [12] [13]. This process is highly efficient and flexible, making it ideal for sustainable steel production. Similarly, IF technology is also extremely energy-efficient as it does not rely on fossil fuel and produces fewer emissions. It uses electromagnetic induction to heat and melt clean scrap steel, resulting in high-quality steel with minimal impurities. By sourcing steel made with these breakthrough technologies and energy systems powered by zero carbon electricity, shipyards can cut down their environmental footprint. Central to this would be integrating sustainability criteria in the selection process. Shipyards should prioritise suppliers who demonstrate a commitment to environmentally friendlier production methods.

According to the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS), it is claimed that 90% of all steel in the world is transported by ship. Geographical location and transportation logistics are critical factors contributing over 50% of total carbon emissions in construction projects [15]. Shipyards should thus look into sourcing from local steel producers or ensure that producers farther use alternative fuels when transporting their steel to shipyards.

To address the environmental impact of aluminium production, shipyards have several opportunities. They can take advantage of circular economy principles to ensure that aluminium materials are recycled and reused efficiently. However, upgrading recycling methods for aluminium that would allow recycled ingots to be used for high-purity wrought materials would be vital to decreasing emissions and promote a sophisticated resource-recycling industry. This may require shipyards to establish partnerships with recycling facilities and research institutes on such methods. This would also require that yacht designers and builders work together to encourage design and build for recycling, where yachts are designed with easier disassembly and recyclability in mind. Designing products that use fewer alloys or coatings can simplify the recycling process and increase the yield of high-quality recycled aluminium. The industry should also promote the economic and environmental advantage of using recycled aluminium over primary aluminium. Furthermore, when sourcing for primary aluminium, shipyards should procure from suppliers that have transitioned to low-emission power sources such as green hydrogen in their production and adopted breakthrough technology that significantly reduces the environmental footprint. As an example, the use of innovative methods like application of pure argon gas with AI control system in the melt processing of aluminium greatly reduces harmful substances like chorine and fluorine, leading to decreased pollution and perfluoro carbons [16] .

Shipyards can also leverage certifications and standard compliance grounded in the Life Cycle Approach (LCA) as mechanisms to ensure the most sustainably produced materials are used. It is crucial that shipyards integrate in their material selection process environmentally-friendlier production methods, so that suppliers who are committed to these sustainable practices are prioritised.
While steel and aluminium offer durability and performance advantages, their production processes contribute to pollution, resource depletion, and greenhouse gas emissions. Implementing measures to increase the use of recycled materials and adopt energy-efficient technologies are thus essential steps to reducing the industry’s environmental footprint.

References

How to compare non-comparable indicators: Finding the Ecopoint

by Dilan Sarac | 23 May 2024 | Insights

They say last but not least… We know you will enjoy this conclusion to our 5-part series guiding you through Environmental Indicators relevant to a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology (find Part One to Four of our Series starting here).

The Ecopoint represents the total potential environmental load of a product or solution: it is a cumulative, more holistic value that includes the impacts on human health, the ecosystem and resource diversity. The single numerical score of Ecopoint represents the overall impact of a product or solution, and is an aggregated result of the 10 previous indicators discussed until now. This score can be interpreted as a measure of sustainability performance, where lower scores indicate lower environmental impact.

Therefore, the Ecopoint allows us to group the nine environmental indicators in three different categories of damage: (1) Human Health, (2) Ecosystem quality and (3) Resources. This way, obtaining a single score representing the total environmental impacts during the product’s life cycle is possible.

Human Health and Ecosystem Impact

The Ecopoint index factors in the impact on human health and ecosystems, how a product’s life cycle may affect human well-being including health risks related to exposure to pollutants, and how it may impact ecosystems, including biodiversity and habitat disruption.

Resource Diversity

This takes into account the diversity and availability of natural resources, as well as the potential depletion of non-renewable resources and the consequences for future generations.

Four important factors are combined to assess a product’s environmental impact using the Ecopoint measure:

Characterization Factors (CA): These are like scores that show how harmful a substance or emission can be for the environment.
Damage Assessment Factors (DA): They include different types of harm, like global warming or air pollution.
Normalization Factor (NO): This gives you a way to compare the impact to an average or reference value.
Weighing Factor (WE): This helps decide how much importance to give to each type of harm.

The Ecopoint index is essentially a form of multi-criteria assessment that allows decision-makers to weigh different environmental and sustainability factors. It acknowledges that environmental issues are interconnected, and a single value can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the trade-offs and impacts associated with a product.

Learn more

Get in touch with us at info@waterrevolutionfoundation.org to find out more about the scientific methodology used within our programmes and how you can get involved.

The impact of EU Green Claims legislation for the superyacht industry

by Water Revolution Foundation | 27 Mar 2024 | Insights

Authors: Awwal Idris (Environmental Expert, Water Revolution) & Nikos Avlonas (President, Center for Sustainability & Excellence)

It’s increasingly common for buyers to encounter advertisements promoting products as sustainable or eco-friendly. Such claims, often referred to as “green claims,” are being noticed in the yachting industry as well. With numerous producers, manufacturers, and suppliers eager to gain a marketing edge by labeling their products as green or sustainable, the new Green Claims Directive will influence how companies, also in the superyacht and maritime sectors, can communicate about the environmental credentials of their products or services. This new directive seeks to eliminate the deceptive practice known as greenwashing.

Addressing greenwashing with the Green Claims Directive

Greenwashing is a trend where companies deceive consumers with exaggerated or misleading environmental claims to influence their purchasing decisions. To address this issue, the European Union has introduced the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices (Directive 2005/29/EC). This legal framework aims to safeguard consumers from deceptive green marketing tactics, and would also impact the superyacht industry in a number of ways.

Many EU member states have already integrated the provisions of the Green Claims Directive into their national laws and regulatory frameworks related to consumer protection and advertising standards. However, the extent to which these laws are enforced and the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms can differ between countries.

How it could impact the superyacht industry

Clarity in Advertising: The directive would require that any environmental claims made by superyacht manufacturers or sellers be clear, accurate, and substantiated. This means that vague or exaggerated claims about a yacht’s environmental friendliness would be prohibited, reducing the potential for greenwashing.

Increased Accountability: Superyacht companies would need to provide evidence to support any environmental claims they make about their products. This could include data on emissions, fuel efficiency, use of sustainable materials, or any other eco-friendly features. This increased level of accountability would prevent companies from engaging in greenwashing.

Consumer Protection: The directive aims to protect consumers from being misled by false or exaggerated environmental claims. Superyacht buyers would have more confidence that the environmental benefits touted by manufacturers are genuine, leading to better informed purchasing decisions.

Reputation Management: Superyacht companies found to be engaging in greenwashing could face damage to their reputation and credibility. With increased scrutiny and regulations in place, companies would be incentivized to ensure their environmental claims are accurate to maintain trust among consumers and stakeholders.

Shift towards Genuine Sustainability: The directive could drive a shift towards genuine sustainability efforts within the superyacht industry. Companies may invest more in environmentally friendly technologies, materials, and practices to differentiate themselves in the market without resorting to greenwashing tactics.

Moving forward

Overall, the Green Claims Directive will likely have a positive impact on reducing greenwashing in the superyacht industry by promoting transparency, accountability, and genuine environmental stewardship. Third-party proofing of claimed sustainability credentials will shape the communication practices of the superyacht industry in 2024 and beyond, and all communication experts in Europe may need to attend courses in order to educate themselves on the legal risks of greenwashing.

Assessing environmental impact through water scarcity footprint

by Dilan Sarac | 5 Mar 2024 | Insights

When we talk about footprint, do you think carbon? We tell you all about the Water Scarcity Footprint which is also used to assess a yacht’s environmental impact, in Part 4 of our Environmental Indicators series! (find Part One to Three of our Series starting here).

Water stands as one of the planet’s most precious resources, serving as an indispensable element vital for sustaining life. It plays a pivotal role in supporting human existence and maintaining biodiversity, crucial ecosystem functions, upon which we all rely. Therefore, it is imperative to measure water consumption in product manufacturing to identify processes that utilise significant amounts of water and to explore solutions for ensuring its efficient use.

The water scarcity footprint helps assess how particular water use contributes to or exacerbates water scarcity in a given area. We assess this impact by considering the quantity of water consumption and the water stress index (WSI) of the region from where the water is extracted, to determine the impact of freshwater consumption in view of its deprivation potential.

Water Stress Index for yachting

In yacht manufacturing for example, water consumption is significantly high for the extraction and production of materials. The amount of water consumed when producing yacht-building material is more than double than during the operating phase of the yacht. Further, hull construction requires water in various stages such as composite-moulding process, curing resins, and more. While these stages do not use large volumes of water individually, they become high over the course of yacht production. The water stress index can thus be an important metric in quantifying how much water is consumed and identifying hotspots where efforts to minimise water use can be implemented.

The Water Stress Index takes into account factors like available water resources, population, and industrial demand for water in that area. Of course, water resource exploitation may have a different impact depending on the extraction area.

Water scarcity impact

If the water scarcity impact is high, it indicates that your product or solution is exerting considerable strain on an already water-stressed region. Consequently, it may be prudent to explore more sustainable water sourcing or conservation measures to mitigate one’s heightened environmental damage. Conversely, if the water scarcity impact is low, it suggests that your product or solution exercises a relatively minor impact on water scarcity in that region, which can be a positive indicator of sustainability.

The indicators for WSI reflect the cumulative amount of direct and indirect emissions to help us understand how a product or solution’s water use might impact water shortages.

Learn more

Get in touch with us at info@waterrevolutionfoundation.org to find out more about the scientific methodology used within our programmes and how you can get involved. Stay tuned to hear about the remaining indicator: the EcoPoint!

« Older Entries

Hull Vane

Ecopoint

Photochemical Oxidation

Global Warming

Ozone Layer Depletion

Acidification

PM10

Water Scarcity Footprint

Eutrophication

NOx

SOx

Explore E8 & E9

Hempaguard X7

Giraglia 633 Extra & Magellan 630 Extra

RecondOil

Awlgrip HDT

Fendaskin

Marine Inverter Air Conditioning with Direct Refrigerant Expansion

Permanent Washable Air Filters

Air Vortex

Via Maris Njørdal

Reflow Marine

Slimline 5