Hapag Lloyd

Hapag-Lloyd has significantly reduced its emissions intensity over the last five years. Between 2015 and 2020, the company decreased its emissions intensity faster than required by its 1.5°C pathway. The average historical annual decrease in emissions intensity was nearly 7%. Hapag-Lloyd has achieved these reductions through energy efficiency savings. The company has optimised capacity utilisation and route planning. In 2021, Hapag-Lloyd installed a ‘feedback dashboard’ across its entire fleet to enable the crew to monitor consumption and performance. The company expects this to further improve energy efficiency.

Hapag-Lloyd has set an ambitious net-zero target for 2045 and an intermediate intensity reduction target for 2030. However, these targets do not include emissions from transport subcontractors. Although this activity accounts for a minority of the company’s overall emissions, the company should develop a target that covers all its operations. The company has not set sufficient intermediate targets. Setting regularly spaced intermediate targets incentivises near-term actions on longer-term goals.

Hapag-Lloyd has a low-carbon transition plan with a 2045 net-zero target which is aligned with its 1.5°C pathway. The plan includes details of how the company intends to achieve its target of a 30% reduction in emissions intensity by 2030. For example, the company aims to increase its use of biofuels and focus on improving energy efficiency. However, the plan lacks detail on how the company will achieve its long-term decarbonisation targets. The company can improve its transition planning by conducting climate scenario analysis and including financial commitments to strengthen the credibility of the plan.

Hapag-Lloyd has publicly opposed the European Union’s decision to include shipping in its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). No evidence was found of Hapag-Lloyd being a member of any trade associations that have climate-negative positions. However, the company does not disclose a process to monitor and review policy engagement by trade associations. The company can increase the credibility of its climate rhetoric by setting a clear position on climate policy and disclosing a policy to govern action if a supported trade association adopts climate-negative positions.

Hapag-Lloyd has set near-term targets to reduce its emissions intensity by 30% by 2030 compared to 2019 and is aiming to reach net zero by 2045. It is not clear if the company intends to use offsets to achieve these targets.

Hapag-Lloyd intends to use liquified natural gas (LNG) as a bridging fuel with lower emissions intensity than conventional bunker fuel. The company has plans to increase the use of biofuel and transition to synthetic or biological methane when it becomes viable.

Hapag-Lloyd is focused on expanding the use of LNG and biofuels. However, these fuels make up a very small proportion of the company’s total fleet, which primarily runs on carbon-intensive fuels. There is no evidence of the company investing significantly in R&D related to low-carbon technologies.

The company reduced its emissions intensity by 19% between 2016 and 2020. This reduction was achieved primarily through improvements in energy efficiency. The company’s current rate of reduction is in line with its 1.5°C pathway.

Hapag-Lloyd has set an ambitious net-zero target and has achieved significant emissions reductions over the last five years. However, the company’s long-term ambition is undermined by its lack of detailed strategy and financial commitments to the development of low-carbon vessels.

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 or 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.

The company discloses the actions it takes to provide training and education opportunities for workers and affected stakeholders. For instance, it offers digital courses to employees and provides scholarships for refugee students to take a technology course. However, no relevant disclosure was found of the company embedding equality of opportunity for women and vulnerable groups in these actions. Furthermore, no evidence was found of the company having a process for identifying skills gaps for workers and affected stakeholders or a public commitment to help workers displaced by the transition to reskill or upskill.

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.

The company commits to respecting the ILO fundamental rights at work. However, its Supplier Code of Conduct does not include an expectation that its suppliers commit to respecting all those rights. Moreover, no evidence was found of a policy commitment to respect human rights, nor of the company’s process to identify, assess and mitigate salient human rights risks in its own operations and supply chain. While the company has a grievance mechanism available to workers, no relevant disclosure was found to indicate whether a grievance mechanism is available to all external stakeholders.

No evidence was found of the company’s policy statements regarding worker health and safety and gender equality. However, the company discloses a target related to gender equality and reports that 38% of its supervisory board members are female. Additionally, the company discloses some information on collective bargaining and workforce diversity fundamentals. However, the company can strengthen its disclosure on these subjects, as well as on its living wage and working hours practices.

The company has a policy prohibiting bribery and corruption, and it includes corresponding clauses in its contracts with business relationships. However, no evidence was found of a public commitment to protect personal data or a privacy statement regarding the collection, sharing and access to personal data. Moreover, no evidence within policy documents was found regarding the company’s tax strategy or its approach to lobbying and political engagement.