Great Eastern Shipping

GE Shipping has not set emissions reduction targets. The company only expressed its support for the IMO targets. The IMO is currently targeting a 40% reduction in shipping emissions intensity by 2030 and a 50% reduction by 2050 compared to 2008. GE Shipping needs to disclose its shipping emissions intensity in 2008 and in the last 5 years to allow any meaningful assessment of its progress. The company needs to express a firm commitment to its targets and set intermediate targets at gaps of no more than five years that will incentivise near-term actions towards longer-term goals.

No evidence was found that GE Shipping has a transition plan. The company demonstrates climate awareness and is implementing several energy-saving measures. However, it should develop a robust plan with clear financial commitments, that outlines how it will transition to a low-carbon economy in the long-term. GE Shipping should undertake 1.5°C-aligned scenario analysis and integrate the results into its transition planning.

GE Shipping does not explicitly state who is responsible for oversight of climate change. GE Shipping does not incentivise low-carbon performance through executive compensation and continues to incentivise carbon-intensive activities such as generating revenue from drilling and offshore support services performed by deploying rigs and support vessels under contracts with customers. The company can improve the likelihood of a successful low-carbon transition by aligning its incentives with its decarbonisation commitments.

GE Shipping does not report sufficient freight transport activity and emissions intensity data to assess its decarbonisation performance. Without this data, it is not possible to assess the company’s past emissions trends. As a result, the assessment could not evaluate whether the company is projected to reduce its emissions intensity at a rate required by its 1.5°C pathway or whether it will remain within its future carbon budget. The company’s recent and planned additions of second-hand ships suggest the company’s emissions intensity might be increasing.

GE Shipping has not set any emissions reduction targets. The company only expressed its support for the IMO climate strategy for 2050 along with associated industry targets.

GE Shipping has not developed a transition plan. The company is exploring investments in alternative technologies and fuels, however, it has not made any financial commitment toward decarbonisation. The company has not analysed climate risks and has not undertaken climate scenario analysis.

GE Shipping implemented several fuel-saving measures. In May 2022, the company successfully completed India’s first trials of a 20% biofuel blend on a medium-range tanker. In 2021, GE shipping added two second-hand (9 and 16 years old) vessels to its fleet. This might have a negative impact on the company’s emissions intensity since older ships are generally less efficient and generate higher emissions.

GE Shipping does not disclose sufficient data to assess its performance in the recent past or make projections with respect to the company’s alignment with its 1.5°C pathway. The average age of the company’s fleet is 12.5 years (among the oldest in the sample) and another 16-year-old crude tanker will be added in 2023.

GE Shipping supports IMO climate strategy but lacks a transition plan, emission reduction targets, financial commitments and historical data. This suggests that the company is unlikely to achieve decarbonisation in line with its 1.5°C pathway. The company does not plan to reduce its reliance on high-carbon shipping and oil exploration.

No evidence was found of the company’s commitment to social dialogue or of the categories of stakeholders the company engages with on a just transition. Furthermore, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s ongoing social dialogue and meaningful engagement with affected stakeholders.

No evidence was found of the company undertaking low-carbon transition planning to mitigate the social impacts of the transition on workers, affected stakeholders and its business relationships. Additionally, no evidence was found to demonstrate the company’s engagement in social dialogue and engagement with stakeholders in its just transition planning.

No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to create and support access to green and decent jobs as part of the low-carbon transition. Moreover, no evidence was found of the company’s action to promote these jobs in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups. Additionally, no relevant disclosure was found of the company’s assessment of employment dislocation risks.

No public commitment by the company was found stating its intention to reskill- and up-skill workers displaced by the transition to a low-carbon economy. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company re- and up-skills workers in a way that ensures gender balance and inclusion of vulnerable groups.

No relevant disclosure was found to show if the company identifies impacts of the low-carbon transition on social protection for workers and affected stakeholders, nor how it contributes to social protection. Additionally, no evidence was found that the company expects its business relationships to contribute to the social protection of their workers and affected stakeholders.

No relevant disclosure was found to show how the company identifies any misalignment of its lobbying activities with policies and regulations that support the just transition, nor of the measures it takes to address misalignment. Furthermore, no evidence was found that the company lobbies for policies and regulations for green and decent job creation; retention, education and reskilling; and social protection for workers.

No evidence in policy documents was found of a company commitment to respecting human rights or the ILO fundamental rights at work. Furthermore, it can strengthen its disclosure on its human rights due diligence process and engagement with affected stakeholders. The company does, however, have a grievance mechanism available to workers and external stakeholders.

No evidence in policy documents was found of a company commitment to respecting worker health and safety, nor was evidence found of a company commitment to gender equality and women’s empowerment. Additionally, the company can increase disclosure on its living wage and working hours practices and its collective bargaining and workforce diversity fundamentals.

While the company has a grievance mechanism available to stakeholders to report bribery and corruption concerns, no evidence in policy documents was found of the company’s anti-bribery and anti-corruption policy. Furthermore, the company can increase disclosure regarding its global tax strategy, lobbying and political engagement policy and commitment to protecting personal data.