MSC and Jotun push hull care toward continuous performance management

MSC and Jotun have widened an existing relationship through an arrangement centred on keeping vessel hulls consistently clean in service rather than accepting performance decline between drydockings. The model combines advanced antifouling or hull-performance coatings with regular monitoring and planned in-water cleaning interventions. The commercial logic is clear: biofouling can materially raise hydrodynamic resistance and, depending on its extent, lift fuel consumption by roughly 10% to 40%. In the current regulatory environment, that extra burn also increases exposure to EU carbon costs and makes annual efficiency ratings harder to defend. By aiming to manage fouling continuously, the partners are effectively reframing hull upkeep from a periodic maintenance task into an operational performance discipline.

For shipowners and operators, the significance of this agreement lies less in the branding of an “always clean hull” concept than in the operating model behind it. Historically, much of the industry has treated hull condition as something addressed at coating application and then revisited at drydock or when performance visibly deteriorates. That approach was already imperfect in high-utilisation trades, but it becomes increasingly expensive under today’s regulatory framework. In container shipping especially, where schedule integrity, high steaming intensity and network reliability are commercially decisive, a gradual loss of hull performance is no longer just a technical issue. It feeds directly into bunker consumption, voyage economics and asset productivity. A vessel that accumulates fouling between dockings effectively becomes less competitive each month unless the owner actively intervenes.

This is where the link to CII, EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime becomes commercially important. CII is assessed annually, and operators know that a ship’s rating can be materially affected by the cumulative effect of small efficiency losses over the year. Hull roughness and fouling are among the more practical variables management can still influence without waiting for major retrofits. Under EU ETS, every additional tonne of fuel burned on covered voyages carries a carbon cost in addition to the fuel bill itself. Under FuelEU Maritime, degraded efficiency also worsens the greenhouse-gas intensity profile of transport work and raises the difficulty of staying within compliance pathways without buying flexibility elsewhere in the portfolio. In that sense, hull management is moving from an engineering best practice to a financial control lever. The larger the fleet, the more attractive a portfolio approach becomes, because even modest per-vessel gains multiply quickly across hundreds of ships.

There is also a meaningful operational dimension. Emergency underwater cleaning, especially when triggered after a noticeable drop in speed-power performance, is rarely the optimal point to intervene. It can be harder to schedule, more costly in practice and more disruptive to network planning than planned cleaning linked to monitoring data. A continuous-management strategy should reduce unplanned off-hire risk, support more predictable fuel budgeting and improve the owner’s ability to decide whether a drydocking scope is actually needed or can be deferred without sacrificing performance. That does not necessarily mean longer drydocking intervals in every case, but it does support more evidence-based interval optimisation. Equally important, it changes the role of coatings suppliers. They are no longer competing only on advertised paint life or application cost, but on whether they can support a measurable performance-management system that includes inspection, data interpretation and cleaning protocols. For major operators, the industry is edging toward service-backed hull assurance rather than stand-alone coatings procurement.

The strategic rationale is strong, but the model should not be romanticised. “Always clean” is an attractive phrase, yet in practice hull condition depends on trading pattern, idle time, water temperature, port restrictions, local environmental rules on in-water cleaning discharge and the actual quality of execution. Many owners still face fragmented regulation around underwater cleaning across jurisdictions, which can complicate any global standardised programme. If the cleaning window is constrained or port access is limited, the theoretical benefits may not be fully captured.

There is also a risk that the market overstates the universality of the business case. Large container lines with dense operating data, scale purchasing power and regular port calls are well placed to monetise incremental efficiency gains. Smaller owners, tramp operators or companies with older tonnage may find the economics less straightforward once monitoring systems, specialist cleaning providers and class or compliance considerations are added. The concept is directionally correct, but its value will still depend on transparent performance measurement rather than marketing language.

This agreement matters because it points to a broader change in fleet management: hull condition is becoming a continuously managed emissions-and-cost variable, not a drydock afterthought. For owners navigating carbon regulation and tight operating margins, that is a practical shift worth watching closely through the lens of repair planning, cleaning access and verified vessel performance data.