Mammut sets the green bar high for carriers

Swiss outdoor gear brand Mammut has set the bar very high for shipping lines keen to move its products.

Mammut has made an industry-leading climate commitment, saying it will transition to zero-emissions shipping vessels by 2030, and will shift business to carriers that have adopted slow steaming — deliberately slowing the speed of cargo ships to reduce fuel consumption — to help reduce carbon emissions in the interim.

To date, this ranks among the most far reaching green shipping demands of any big brand. Others are expected to follow suit.

Mammut will transition to zero-emissions shipping vessels by 2030

“Mammut’s industry-leading climate commitment sets the bar in the fashion industry for a rapid and necessary transition to zero-emissions maritime shipping. The latest IPCC report warns we are at code red for humanity, and illustrates the urgency with which we need polluting industries like fashion and shipping to clean up their acts,” commented Gary Cook, global climate campaigns director at NGO

“Mammut’s commitment shows that companies have the power to end their maritime freight pollution. Now we are calling on Mammut’s competitors VF Corporation and Patagonia — as well as cargo shipping giants IKEA, Target, Amazon, and Walmart — to take similar steps to clean up their ocean shipping footprint,” said Madeline Rose, climate campaign director for another NGO, Pacific Environment.

Sam Chambers

Starting out with the Informa Group in 2000 in Hong Kong, Sam Chambers became editor of Maritime Asia magazine as well as East Asia Editor for the world’s oldest newspaper, Lloyd’s List. In 2005 he pursued a freelance career and wrote for a variety of titles including taking on the role of Asia Editor at Seatrade magazine and China correspondent for Supply Chain Asia. His work has also appeared in The Economist, The New York Times, The Sunday Times and The International Herald Tribune.


  1. The IPCC report is, at best, ambivalent and riddled with inconsistencies. It claims to have been peer reviewed. It needs to be reviewed by an entirely independent, impartial and objective group rather than just peer reviewed. . The IPCC document is a mammoth tome (nearly 4000 pages plus supporting documents….unkind to trees?) and is a very challenging and at time incomprehensible read. Modelling assumptions are not clear. They need to be together with details of the internal workings of any models used. Data Time series and the veracity of this also needs to be scrutinized

    1. Dear Phil, pray tell why all the models have been surprisingly accurate and not all wrong as the fossil fuel shills et al have been claiming for years?
      So who would thia “entirely independent, impartial and objective group” comprise? Exxon. Koch. Peabody, Spencer, Soon et al? You are aware that the WMO is an “entirely independent, impartial and objective group” aren’t you?
      “(nearly 4000 pages plus supporting documents….unkind to trees?)” What a pathetic thing to post. Presumably you want the WMO to break the law and not produce hard copy papers? Or possibly not produce papers at al?
      Why don’t you leave the science and the thinking to the grown ups Phil?
      Fun Fact. Flat Earth, ID, Creationist and YEC cultists and most anti-vaxxers are also AGW & ACC deniers and now Covid-19 deniers too.

Back to top button