2025 in review:

What held up, what didn’t, and what actually matters going into 2026

By the end of 2025, it was clear that this wasn’t a year defined by any single crisis. It was defined by an accumulation of (often overlapping) crises. Geopolitics, regulation, supply chain disruption, cyber risk, workforce pressure… none of these were new in isolation. What changed was that they all landed at once, and they stayed. 

For most businesses, the challenge wasn’t whether they could respond to one disruption, but whether their organisations were structured to absorb continuous uncertainty without losing control (and losing control often of the basics).

The companies that coped best weren’t necessarily the biggest or the most aggressive adopters of new technology. They were the ones with clearer data, fewer internal contradictions, and a better understanding of what actually drives outcomes across a fleet or a business. 

In other words, strength in 2025 didn’t come from bold moves: it came instead from discipline.

When risk became operational, not theoretical 

The events in the Red Sea and surrounding regions brought a familiar lesson back into sharp focus: geopolitics is not an external factor for shipping. Routing decisions, insurance exposure, bunker planning, and charter commitments all shifted in real time. As such, long detours and tighter operating windows became normal rather than exceptional. 

What stood out to me was how unevenly prepared organisations were. Those with fragmented systems struggled to answer basic questions quickly. Those with a single operational picture (even if imperfect) were able to make decisions, reassess, and move on. In other words speed followed clarity, not the other way around. 

 “There’s no shortage of ideas in shipping- there a lots of very clever people here.  More often, what is missing is discipline. The companies that held up in 2025 weren’t chasing everything new - they were clear on what they already had, what it was telling them, and what actually mattered.” 

Decarbonisation: Less ideology, more maths 

By 2025, decarbonisation had largely moved out of the abstract and into the tangible (often accompanied by cries of ‘Oh- what do I need to do now?’). CII, emissions reporting, and long-term fuel uncertainty forced uncomfortable conversations about asset life, capital allocation, and commercial viability. 

As a result, there was less appetite for grand narratives and more demand for evidence. Operators wanted to understand how specific vessels behave under real operating conditions, how weather and routing affect fuel use, and where efficiency investments would genuinely pay back. The risk of stranded assets stopped being theoretical and became something boards were actively modelling. 

From the edges of these conversations, it struck me that simple compliance was no longer the end goal; instead, we saw people investing effort to understand the situation. 

 “Decarbonisation stopped being a values discussion this year and became a maths problem. People want to know how real vessels behave, under real conditions, over real time and what that means for investment decisions.” 

Supply chains under stress exposed old assumptions 

Port congestion, unpredictable turnaround times, and climate-driven constraints like Panama Canal restrictions exposed how brittle some planning assumptions still are: schedules built for stability don’t survive volatility. 

The operators who adapted best weren’t those with the most detailed plans, but those who had the management capability and capacity to manage change as it was needed. As part of this, scenario-based thinking moved from contingency to necessity, and tools like Helix helped the seriously impacted businesses we work with perform best. Being able to test “what if” questions quickly (and trust the answer) became a competitive advantage. 

Cyber risk grew up fast 

2025 was also the year cyber risk stopped being treated as a specialist concern. Incidents affecting vessel systems, operational technology, and shore-based infrastructure made it clear that cyber resilience is inseparable from safety and continuity. 

This forced a more grown-up conversation, one where technology alone isn’t enough. Training, access control, process discipline, and clarity of responsibility matter just as much. Like safety management, cyber only works when it’s embedded, not bolted on. 

The human constraint remained the hardest one to beat 

Despite all the technology discussion, the most persistent constraint remained people. Skilled seafarers are in short supply, the administrative burden continues to grow, and mental health pressures haven’t eased. 

One of the quieter lessons of 2025 was that digital systems only add value when they remove friction. If they increase paperwork, duplicate effort, or shift complexity onto crews, they fail - regardless of how advanced they look on paper. 

“For all the talk about digital transformation, people are still the hardest constraint. If a system makes life harder for crews or operators, it doesn’t matter how advanced it is- it’s failed.” 

Software vendors aren’t watching from the sidelines 

There’s a tendency to talk about “the market” as something operators endure, and vendors respond to. That distinction feels increasingly artificial. 

Software companies face many of the same pressures: regulatory change, rising expectations, shorter technology cycles, and the need to prove value continuously. Customers want faster releases and better integration, but they also need stability, continuity, and systems that will still be there in ten years. 

Speed alone isn’t a virtue in this environment. Maritime software doesn’t get judged in demos; it gets judged in month-end close, vetting inspections, audits, incidents, and bad weather. 

 “Software vendors don’t sit outside this pressure. We feel it too — from regulation, from customers, from technology moving faster every year. The difference is that our responsibility is to absorb that complexity, not pass it on.” 

AI: Useful, overhyped, and easy to get wrong 

AI featured heavily in 2025 conversations, often in ways that said more about marketing than substance. The reality is simpler: AI is just another tool. It’s valuable when it’s embedded properly and dangerous when it’s treated as a shortcut. 

In maritime, context matters. Data without domain understanding leads to confident but wrong answers. The real value of AI is in quietly helping people spot patterns, flag anomalies, and make better-informed decisions -  not in replacing judgement, or creating black boxes no one trusts. 

 “If you have to keep telling people you’re using AI, you’re probably using it in the wrong place. The best technology is the kind that does its job quietly and earns trust over time.” 

What carries into 2026 

If 2025 taught us anything, it’s that uncertainty is no longer intermittent, instead, it's continuous, and structural. 

Going into 2026, the focus is narrowing: fewer systems, better data, clearer accountability with tools that reflect how shipping actually operates, not how someone imagines it should. 

The companies we work with that succeed best in this environment won’t be the ones chasing every new idea: they will be the ones that understand their own operations well enough to decide what not to chase.

Ready to talk? Get in touch today ...

John Wills

COO Shipnet