Pacific International Lines (PIL):

The last one of the twelve largest liners on environmental reporting

The last one of the top twelve largest container carriers is quite easy to select: Pacific International Lines (PIL), a shipping company headquartered in Singapore. It receives only one out of five stars. Why could we be so conclusive in our assessment? The simplest of the reasons: PIL did not release a Sustainability Report for 2019, and it has never released any sustainability report. In other words, PIL stands out like a spot among its other eleven peers because it is the only one that is not reporting on environmental issues. Not all those eleven companies have detailed and robust reports, indeed, but at least they have made an institutional effort to report on sustainability issues. We value such action strongly since the maritime industry, compared to other sectors, has arrived late to environmental reporting; that is why, just for releasing a sustainability report, each of the other companies will start already with more than one star.

It is regrettable that a shipping company that transports more than 1% of the total container cargo globally and has a fleet of about 120 vessels (almost 60% owned) lacks a sustainability report. And the problem is compounded because if PIL included some environmental reporting on its latest Annual Report, we could have taken the information from there. However, PIL has not published annual reports for the last years at its website, either.

PIL's lack of formal reporting is a pity because, on its website, there is some information about what the company is doing on the environmental front. In the section called: "Caring for the environment," which is subdivided into three sub-sections: a) operational efficiency, b) eco-efficient technologies, and c) water pollutant emissions, PIL describes very briefly twelve measures that the company is taken for some of its vessels. The types of actions obviously match what we have found for other liners because all companies confront the same technologies. PIL, for instance, claims: "A lower carbon footprint is achieved with slow steaming and the use of advanced route optimisation systems," but no additional information or any figure for slow steaming is provided. PIL also claims: "All potentially hazardous materials are listed on board so there will be no risk of exposure to dangers such as asbestos, PCBs, TBTs and others."

Given the paucity of information, one has the impression that in some cases, PIL is merely listing the standard measures that one would find in an environmental manual. For instance, regarding computational fluid dynamics, it says: "Using CFD to identify an optimal hull and rudder design will help to form the basis of building an energy efficient vessel." However, how should one interpret that sentence when there is no information about newbuilds that joined the company or vessels in the orderbook? Something similar happens with this other comment about deck cargo cranes and winches: "These fully electric deck machineries are regenerative. They produce power when lowering their loads and this power is used for the ship's electrical grid. Hence, power demand is reduced and hydraulic leakages are eliminated. Energy consumption is reduced up to 50% during operations." The text is more pertinent for a manual by a crane manufacturer than for a shipping company reporting on the number of vessels equipped with such cranes and winches.

What is significant is the comment regarding cold ironing: "Most of PIL vessels are capable of cold-ironing or shore power. This means this ship is able to generate electrical power even though its main auxiliary engines are turned off. With this alternate marine power, PIL vessels can reduce fuel consumption during the generation of electricity when in port, thereby reducing emissions." Here, PIL claims that most of its vessels are equipped with cold ironing; if that is the case, and despite the word "most" could range from 51% to about 80-90% of its vessels (if more than 90%, the website would have used the words “almost all” rather than most), it would reflect a significant step in the right direction.

In summary, PIL lags behind its other eleven peers due to its lack of environmental reporting. All that is available are some paragraphs on its website, which, by the way, we do not know if they were published this year, one year ago, two years ago, or even earlier. We hope that next year PIL will produce a sustainability report.

Gliese Foundation, October 1st, 2020