VesselBot

“𝗗𝗼 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗮𝗹𝗹 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝘀?”
That was one of the central questions Constantine Komodromos, CEO and Founder of VesselBot, raised during VesselBot’s discussion with Bart A. De Muynck, former VP Analyst at Gartner, at the webinar 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗔𝗙 𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗕𝗼𝘅: 𝗡𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗘𝗿𝗮 𝗼𝗳 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗿𝘂𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

It is a useful financial exercise because most organizations underestimate how much 𝗕𝗔𝗙 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 accumulates across carriers, trade lanes, and contract periods, and how directly it impacts the income statement.

𝗕𝘂𝘁 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗼𝗻𝗹𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗼𝗶𝗻𝘁.

The discussion examined what becomes possible when shippers can benchmark fuel surcharge exposure against an 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 built from 𝘃𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲𝗹-𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹𝘀, 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹 𝘃𝗼𝘆𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗲𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀, 𝗿𝗼𝘂𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿 and 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗹-𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗯𝘂𝗻𝗸𝗲𝗿 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀

Not only to understand exposure, but to act on it:
• in procurement discussions
• in carrier negotiations
• in financial planning and cost governance

The webinar also explored how to 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹, and what changes operationally when procurement and finance teams move from 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝘂𝗲𝗹 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 to 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝘀𝘀𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺.

🎙️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗲𝗯𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗼𝗻 𝗱𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗱: https://app.livestorm.co/p/bbc35f06-d40c-472d-bbc1-0e750b05bc7b?utm_source=LinkedIn+&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=BAF+Webinar+on+demand

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗼𝗹’𝘀 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝘆 𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿: 𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘅𝗶𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗿 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘂𝗴𝗵.

The draft 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 introduces three reporting statements alongside the existing Physical GHG Inventory:
· 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 covers instruments such as SAF and biofuel certificates.
· 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 is designed to quantify the impact of specific decarbonization actions.
· 𝗡𝗼𝗻-𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 cover supporting metrics not expressed in CO₂e that may influence decarbonization decisions.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀 is that both the 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁 𝗕𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗜𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘆 and the 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 depend on the Physical GHG Inventory as their reference point.

𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗮𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝗰𝗼𝗽𝗲 𝟯 𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲.

The issue with spend-based methodologies, supplier averages, and proxy data is not only precision. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁 𝗮 𝗰𝗼𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗮𝗹.

Claiming an emissions reduction in a 𝗚𝗛𝗚 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 (from a carrier switch or a routing change) requires demonstrating what emissions would have been without that action.
𝗗𝗮𝘁𝗮 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱 𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗵𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗴𝗲𝘀 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝘀𝗲.

A formal public consultation on the draft standard is planned for Q3 2027.
The final standard is expected by end of 2028.

𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 for companies whose Scope 3 data infrastructure still depends on approximations.

𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗰𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀. The companies building 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻-𝗴𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗲 𝗲𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 now will be materially better positioned than those waiting for compliance requirements to force the transition.

Bunker Adjustment Factors (BAF) surcharges are based on internal carrier calculations. 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗺 to assess whether what shippers are charged reflects the actual fuel cost surcharges of their shipments.

On 𝗠𝗮𝘆 𝟭𝟯, Constantine Komodromos, CEO and Founder of VesselBot, and Bart A. De Muynck, Head Thinker of Better Supply Chains / ex-VP Analyst at Gartner, will examine how this can change.

Specifically, whether an 𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝘂𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻, that combines vessel-specific fuel consumption models, ex*****on patterns, and real-time fuel prices, can provide a 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗕𝗔𝗙.

𝗥𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲 https://app.livestorm.co/p/bbc35f06-d40c-472d-bbc1-0e750b05bc7b to join the discussion.