OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Lloyd's Register

LR

We’re one of the world’s leading providers of professional services for engineering and technology – improving safety and increasing the performance of critical infrastructures worldwide.

Lobbying Activity

Response to Sustainable transport investment plan

4 Sept 2025

Please see attached document containing LR's response to the STP call for evidence.
Read full response

Response to EU Ports Strategy

28 Jul 2025

Please find attached Lloyd's Register's feedback to the call for evidence.
Read full response

Response to EU industrial maritime strategy

28 Jul 2025

Please find a file attached with Lloyd's Register's response to the consultation.
Read full response

Response to EU emissions trading system for maritime, aviation and stationary installations, and market stability reserve - review

8 Jul 2025

Lloyd's Register (LR) supports the maritime sector through technical expertise, risk management, and regulatory compliance, ensuring vessels meet international safety and environmental standards. Beyond classification, LR also plays a key role in the maritime energy transition, offering guidance on decarbonisation strategies, alternative fuels, and digital transformation. LR is an accredited verifier operating under EU MRV/ETS and FuelEU Maritime. The maritime sector has seen significant decarbonisation activity for shipping as a direct result of the Fit For 55 initiative. This ambitious package has played a pivotal role in setting the EU on a clear path toward decarbonisation, laying the groundwork for meaningful progress at both regional and global levels. While the inclusion of maritime transport in the EU Emissions Trading System marks a significant step toward aligning the sector with the EUs climate ambitions, its implementation has presented considerable challenges for shipping companies. The administrative complexity, cost volatility, and varying levels of readiness across Member States have created operational and compliance burdensparticularly for small and non-EU-based operators. As such LR welcomes this opportunity to provide input to the European Commission (EC). Please see attached file for our full response.
Read full response

Meeting with Kadri Simson (Commissioner) and

29 Jun 2021 · "Hydrogen Coffee" discussion on decarbonisation of maritime shipping through hydrogen

Response to European Partnership for Clean Hydrogen

15 Aug 2019

Lloyd's Register supports Option 2 for an agreed R&D programme with agreed R&D targets. We recognise that the solution readiness (technology, investment and community acceptance) of clean hydrogen as part of the future low- and zero-carbon fuel mix for shipping is currently below where it needs to be to support the introduction of zero emissions vessels (ZEVs) and allow shipping to achieve the absolute GHG emissions reduction vision and ambitions of Europe and the IMO. Shipping is a demand-side component of first-movers and critical mass for clean hydrogen. Equally, shipping is a potential part of the distribution network for hydrogen in Europe and therefore has an important role to play in the supply and value chain for clean hydrogen. An institutionalised European Partnership (Option 2) would appear to offer the most effective means of delivering on the objectives of the initiative and attracting the investment necessary to deliver an R&D programme to enhance the solution readiness of clean hydrogen. It is critical that the R&D programme undertaken as part of the initiative is developed in a consultative fashion and reflects to the fullest possible extent cross-sectorial interests in clean hydrogen. Consequently, the development of any R&D programme should exploit synergies with other EC activities, for example the alternative fuel work of DG MOVE's European Sustainable Shipping Forum (ESSF).
Read full response

Response to Amendment of common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organisations - BREXIT preparedness

11 Jul 2018

Lloyd's Register supports the statement in the section “What does the initiative aim to achieve and how” that the overall guiding purpose of the amendment is “upholding uninterrupted safety”, and we believe that this is desirable by all parties involved. We therefore support the proposed amendment, in the interests of providing greater legislative clarity for future changes.
Read full response

Response to Revision of the Shipping MRV Regulation

13 Jul 2017

Comments structured around the inception impact assessment document: A. Context, problem definition and subsidiarity check We agree that the administrative burden of possible double reporting requirements for the EU and IMO schemes is a concern if it does not bring any notable benefit in understanding and control of CO2 emissions. Alignment should be sought if the same aims can be achieved without the administrative burden. B. Objectives and policy options We note the differences outlined between the EU and IMO schemes. These can be analysed to any level of detail, but we would recommend that any comparison always takes place with due consideration of the wider purpose which EU MRV is intended to achieve. If a difference between the schemes leads to a substantive obstacle to the achievement of MRV’s objectives, then it should be assessed further. If a difference does not create any substantive obstacle, then the mere presence of the difference cannot be considered as a barrier to alignment in itself. To quote from Article 1 of the MRV regulation: “This Regulation lays down rules for the accurate monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and of other relevant information from ships arriving at, within or departing from ports under the jurisdiction of a Member State, in order to promote the reduction of CO2 emissions from maritime transport in a cost effective manner.” Therefore differences between the schemes should be assessed against whether or not they “promote the reduction of CO2 emissions from maritime transport in a cost effective manner.” Noting the truly international nature of shipping, global regulatory activity will generally be more cost effective than regional controls, especially if there is overlap. Addressing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping is a global issue therefore the international regulator, IMO, is the most appropriate and most effective forum to regulate it. The basic options for alignment which are outlined do, broadly speaking, reflect the range of options which are available, subject to the review of the EU and IMO schemes. We encourage the review to be carried out at an appropriate time when fuller details of the IMO scheme can be taken into account, including the outcomes of MEPC 71 which has just concluded. The review should consider monitoring issues but also reporting and verification issues including the data format. C. Preliminary assessment of expected impacts Both EU MRV and IMO DCS are structured around ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissons, primarily CO2. Introducing an assessment of possible reductions to NOx, SOx and other particulate matter as is mentioned here would need additional data in order to be substantiated, so this may be a distraction from the stated objectives. If the scope is changed this needs to be clearly specified and understood. D. Data collection and better regulation instruments No comments.
Read full response