SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Marine Science and Technology Bulletin / 2026 / Volume: 15 Issue: 3

Integrating operational emission management into SMS: A bibliometric and conceptual perspective on the ISM Code

Gizem Kodak(Istanbul Technical University, TRNC Education – Research Campuses, Polatpaşa Blv, Gazimağusa 99450 Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)0000-0002-1845-7901
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This research provides a baseline for policymakers and ship management companies seeking to align environmental performance monitoring with shipboard safety routines.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The maritime industry is undergoing a paradigm shift driven by stringent decarbonization regulations, such as the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) and Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI).
📊
Key Findings & Data:Using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided selection process, 88 core publications from the Web of Science database were analyzed using R Bibliometrix.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This research provides a baseline for policymakers and ship management companies seeking to align environmental performance monitoring with shipboard safety routines.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Climate change · Maritime decarbonization · CII

Abstract

The maritime industry is undergoing a paradigm shift driven by stringent decarbonization regulations, such as the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) and Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI). Despite the proliferation of technical solutions, a conceptual divide persists between emission compliance and the established safety management culture governed by the International Safety Management (ISM) Code. This study employs a comprehensive bibliometric analysis to examine the intellectual structure and evolution of the maritime decarbonization literature. Using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided selection process, 88 core publications from the Web of Science database were analyzed using R Bibliometrix. Results from the Gompertz growth model suggest a trend toward technical saturation in the literature, pointing to a potential shift toward operational management. Furthermore, factorial and Sankey analyses reveal a significant disconnect between emissions management and Safety Management Systems (SMS), with “human factors” and “safety culture” remaining marginalized as “niche” themes. The findings suggest that decarbonization is currently treated as an external “administrative reporting burden” rather than an organic operational routine. To bridge this gap, this study conceptualizes the pathways for integrating operational emission management into SMS from an ISM Code perspective. Rather than proposing isolated technical data fixes or validated operational software, the study illustrates how fuel inefficiencies can be conceptually evaluated within the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. This research provides a baseline for policymakers and ship management companies seeking to align environmental performance monitoring with shipboard safety routines.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kodak, G. (2026). Integrating operational emission management into SMS: A bibliometric and conceptual perspective on the ISM Code. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, Volume: 15 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.33714/masteb.1957868

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (40)

  1. Acciaro, M. (2014). Real option analysis for environmental compliance: LNG and emission control areas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 28, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2013.12.007
  2. Ampah, J. D., Yusuf, A. A., Afrane, S., Jin, C., & Liu, H. (2021). Reviewing two decades of cleaner alternative marine fuels: Towards IMO’s decarbonization of the maritime transport sector. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320, 128871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128871
  3. Argyriou, I., Sifakis, N., & Tsoutsos, T. (2022). Ranking measures to improve the sustainability of Mediterranean ports based on multicriteria decision analysis: A case study of Souda port, Chania, Crete. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 24(5), 6449–6466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01711-7
  4. Asyali, E., & Bastug, S. (2014). Influence of scientific management principles on ISM Code. Safety Science, 68, 121–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.011
  5. Baştuğ, S., Asyali, E., & Battal, T. (2021). Beyond the ISM code: A conceptual proposal for an integrated system within the Seven C’s approach. Maritime Policy & Management, 48(3), 354–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2020.1770884
  6. Baumann, J. (2023). Shifting to sustainable shipping: Actors and power shifts in shipping emissions in the IMO. Sustainability, 15(17), 12742. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712742
  7. Bouman, E. A., Lindstad, E., Rialland, A. I., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). State-of-the-art technologies, measures, and potential for reducing GHG emissions from shipping – A review. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 408–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.03.022
  8. Christensen, M., Georgati, M., & Arsanjani, J. J. (2022). A risk-based approach for determining the future potential of commercial shipping in the Arctic. Journal of Marine Engineering & Technology, 21(2), 82–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/20464177.2019.1672419
  9. Corbett, J. J., Wang, H., & Winebrake, J. J. (2009). The effectiveness and costs of speed reductions on emissions from international shipping. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 14(8), 593–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2009.08.005
  10. Daniel, H., Trovão, J. P. F., & Williams, D. (2022). Shore power as a first step toward shipping decarbonization and related policy impact on a dry bulk cargo carrier. eTransportation, 11, 100150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2021.100150
  11. Dewan, M. H., & Godina, R. (2024). Unveiling seafarers’ awareness and knowledge on energy-efficient and low-carbon shipping: A decade of IMO regulation enforcement. Marine Policy, 161, 106037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2024.106037
  12. Elkafas, A. G., & Shouman, M. R. (2021). Assessment of energy efficiency and ship emissions from speed reduction measures on a medium sized container ship. The International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 163(A3), A121–A132. https://doi.org/10.5750/ijme.v163iA3.805
  13. Fenton, P. (2017). The role of port cities and transnational municipal networks in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on land and at sea from shipping: An assessment of the World Ports Climate Initiative. Marine Policy, 75, 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.12.012
  14. Geerlings, H., & van Duin, R. (2011). A new method for assessing CO2-emissions from container terminals: A promising approach applied in Rotterdam. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(6–7), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.10.012
  15. Gu, Y., Wallace, S. W., & Wang, X. (2016). The impact of bunker risk management on CO2 emissions in maritime transportation under ECA regulation (Discussion Paper No. 2016/17). Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/nhhfms/2016_017.html
  16. Gu, Y., & Wallace, S. W. (2017). Scrubber: A potentially overestimated compliance method for the Emission Control Areas—The importance of involving a ship’s sailing pattern in the evaluation (Discussion Paper No. 2017/13). Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Business and Management Science. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/nhhfms/2017_013.html
  17. International Maritime Organization. (1993). International management code for the safe operation of ships and for pollution prevention (International Safety Management (ISM) Code) (Resolution A.741(18)). Retrieved on April 23, 2026, from https://www.imo.org/en/ourwork/humanelement/pages/ismcode.aspx
  18. International Maritime Organization. (2011). Amendments to the annex of the Protocol of 1997 to amend the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto (Resolution MEPC.203(62)). Retrieved on April 23, 2026, from https://wwwcdn.imo.org/localresources/en/KnowledgeCentre/IndexofIMOResolutions/MEPCDocuments/MEPC.203(62).pdf
  19. International Maritime Organization. (2020). Fourth IMO greenhouse gas study 2020. Retrieved on April 23, 2026, from https://greenvoyage2050.imo.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Fourth-IMO-GHG-Study-2020-Full-report-and-annexes_compressed.pdf
  20. Kanberoğlu, B., Turan, E., & Kökkülünk, G. (2023). Decarbonization of maritime transportation: A case study for Turkish ship fleet. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 22(4), 716–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11804-023-00370-6
  21. Kök, G. T., Celik, M. S., & Koc, E. (2025). Evaluating IMO 2030 strategies for environmental sustainability in maritime transportation using ANP method. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 215, 117847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2025.117847
  22. Lai, K. H., Lun, V. Y. H., Wong, C. W. Y., & Cheng, T. C. E. (2011). Green shipping practices in the shipping industry: Conceptualization, adoption, and implications. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 55(6), 631–638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.12.004
  23. Li, Y., Zhang, Y., Cheng, J., Zheng, C., Li, M., Xu, H., Wang, R., Chen, D., Wang, X., Fu, X., Zhao, Y., Wu, R., Yang, X., & Shi, L. (2022). Comparative analysis, use recommendations, and application cases of methods for develop ship emission inventories. Atmosphere, 13(8), 1224. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13081224
  24. Melnyk, O., Onishchenko, O., Onyshchenko, S., Golikov, V., Sapiha, V., Shcherbina, O., & Andrievska, V. (2022). Study of environmental efficiency of ship operation in terms of freight transportation effectiveness provision. TransNav, the International Journal on Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 16(4), 723–732. https://doi.org/10.12716/1001.16.04.14
  25. Melnyk, O., Onyshchenko, S., & Onishchenko, O. (2023). Development measures to enhance the ecological safety of ships and reduce operational pollution to the environment. Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport, 118, 195–206. https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2023.118.13
  26. Paulsen, R. T., Hermann, R. R., & Smink, C. K. (2018). Do eco-rating schemes improve the environmental performance of ships? Marine Policy, 87, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.10.006
  27. Pisani, C. (2002). Fair at sea: The design of a future legal instrument on marine bunker fuels emissions within the climate change regime. Ocean Development & International Law, 33(1), 57–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908320252796025
  28. Psaraftis, H. N., & Zis, T. (2021). Impact assessment of a mandatory operational goal-based short-term measure to reduce GHG emissions from ships: The LDC/SIDS case study. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 21, 445–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-020-09523-2
  29. Pyć, D. (2021). Ship energy efficiency measures and climate protection. International Community Law Review, 23(2–3), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1163/18719732-12341474
  30. Serra, P., & Fancello, G. (2020). Towards the IMO’s GHG goals: A critical overview of the perspectives and challenges of the main options for decarbonizing international shipping. Sustainability, 12(8), 3220. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083220
  31. Shi, Y. (2016). Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping: Is it time to consider market-based measures? Marine Policy, 64, 123–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.11.013
  32. Stopford, M. (2009). Maritime economics (3rd ed.). Routledge.
  33. Tichavska, M., & Tovar, B. (2015). Port-city exhaust emission model: An application to cruise and ferry operations in Las Palmas Port. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 78, 347–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.05.021
  34. Topić, T., Murphy, A. J., Pazouki, K., & Norman, R. (2023). NOx emissions control area (NECA) scenario for ports in the North Adriatic Sea. Journal of Environmental Management, 344, 118712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118712
  35. Tran, T. T., Browne, T., Veitch, B., Musharraf, M., & Peters, D. (2023). Route optimization for vessels in ice: Investigating operational implications of the carbon intensity indicator regulation. Marine Policy, 158, 105858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2023.105858
  36. Turgut, M., & Gürsoy, İ. (2026). An interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy set-based multi-criteria decision-making model for evaluating decarbonization criteria in maritime transport. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, Advanced Online Publication, 172–185. https://doi.org/10.33714/masteb.1924939
  37. UNCTAD. (2021). Review of maritime transport 2021. United Nations. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Retrieved on April 23, 2026 from https://unctad.org/publication/review-maritime-transport-2021
  38. Vakili, S., Schönborn, A., & Ölçer, A. I. (2023). The road to zero emission shipbuilding industry: A systematic and transdisciplinary approach to modern multi-energy shipyards. Energy Conversion and Management: X, 18, 100365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecmx.2023.100365
  39. Wang, K., Yan, X., Yuan, Y., & Tang, D. (2018). Optimizing ship energy efficiency: Application of particle swarm optimization algorithm. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part M: Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 232(4), 379–391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475090216638879
  40. Zincir, B., İnal, Ö. B., Dere, Ç., & Deniz, C. (2022). An overview on the readiness level of the Turkish maritime industry for decarbonization in shipping. Marine Science and Technology Bulletin, 11(1), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.33714/masteb.1061972