Part 1 of this series examined how carbon pricing transformed emissions from a reporting metric into a financial variable embedded in trade. Part 2 focuses on what happens next.
Carbon exposure is not a single risk. It combines price volatility, counterparty risk, and regulatory liability. When carbon is priced, it does not merely affect margins. It creates new exposure. Under CBAM, intermediaries increasingly find that carbon exposure is tied to legal responsibility, cashflow timing, and counterparty solvency. The invisible ledger is no longer theoretical, it is beginning to reconcile.
A joint piece by FDR and Navaris
The insolvency gap: Joint & several liability in practice
One of the most consequential shifts under Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism [CBAM] sits with the role of the Indirect Representative. CBAM requires imports to be handled by an authorised CBAM declarant where a non-EU importer has no EU establishment. Non-EU importers typically relying on indirect representatives to fulfil this role. Customs brokers acting as Indirect Representatives typically assume this role in the Netherlands. Crucially, this position can carry joint and several liability, depending on national implementation.
If an importer fails to surrender sufficient CBAM certificates, authorities may pursue the authorised declarant instead. This fundamentally alters the intermediary role. Forwarders and brokers are no longer operating solely as administrative facilitators. Instead, they are assuming contingent carbon liabilities tied to the behaviour and solvency of their clients.
While the existence of liability is clear, enforcement practices, penalties, and escalation pathways are not applied uniformly across jurisdictions. This introduces an additional layer of uncertainty for intermediaries operating across borders.
This creates an insolvency gap. CBAM certificates must be purchased at a future price linked to the EU Emissions Trading System [EU-ETS], while reimbursement from the importer may be delayed or may not arrive at all. Yet, the liability in relation to the authorities remains.
In financial terms, this is credit risk layered on top of carbon price risk. These risks interact in practice: ETS price volatility determines the cost of certificates, delayed or failed client payments convert that exposure into counterparty risk, and verification or surrender failures ultimately crystallise it as regulatory liability. It is a form of exposure that traditional trade and logistics frameworks were not designed to absorb, and it remains largely uncharted territory for intermediaries.
The emergence of carbon reconciliation
In 2026, reconciliation is the central challenge. The issue is no longer simply whether emissions have been reported, but whether different carbon-related variables align financially. Default values must be reconciled with verified emissions data. Forecasted EU-ETS prices should be compared to actual settlement prices, and freight-level carbon surcharges need to align with regulatory liabilities. It is also essential that client payments arrive in time to meet certificate surrender obligations.
The complexity has shifted from simply disclosing emissions to actively managing the financial flows, risks, and timing related to carbon pricing and compliance. This is no longer a sustainability reporting workflow. It is a financial control process.
Forwarders are now required to understand their aggregate carbon exposure across CBAM-covered imports, how sensitive that exposure is to ETS price volatility, and where counterparty risk sits if clients delay or fail to pay. Carbon costs must be clearly itemised, tracked, and matched against regulatory obligations, with sufficient financial safeguards in place to manage timing and default risk.
Carbon exposure is moving out of compliance functions and into treasury discussions. This mirrors developments already seen in maritime carbon regulation, where EU-ETS exposure on shipping activities and FuelEU Maritime compliance is increasingly managed within financial and commercial functions rather than treated as standalone compliance exercises.
Data indemnity and upstream pressure
One emerging response to CBAM risk is the inclusion of “data indemnity” clauses in supplier contracts. Importers seek contractual protection if suppliers fail to provide verified emissions data. In theory, such clauses shift responsibility upstream. However, in practice, enforceability across jurisdictions is complex. Verification requires accredited bodies, and data transparency may conflict with commercial sensitivities. Thus, the more profound shift is not legal, it is commercial: Suppliers who cannot provide reliable carbon data risk exclusion from the EU market.
Unbundling carbon costs in freight contracts
Another structural shift is emerging around cost transparency. As carriers begin embedding EU-ETS‑related costs into freight rates, often through carbon surcharges, forwarders are increasingly required to separate different sources of carbon exposure within a single shipment. Transport‑related carbon costs linked to EU-ETS and FuelEU Maritime sit alongside product‑related carbon costs arising under CBAM. These costs are connected, but they are not interchangeable.
This distinction matters because transport‑linked and product‑linked carbon costs sit with different obligations, timelines, and counterparties.
While the regulatory frameworks themselves do not result in legal double payment, a lack of clarity can blur margin allocation and complicate client communication, leading to increased likelihood of double payments. As a result, the market is already moving toward more granular presentation of carbon charges within freight invoices.
Clients will increasingly expect to see how carbon costs are constructed, how they relate to transport and cargo, as well as where responsibility sits. Over time, carbon pricing components are likely to become standardised and visible as bunker adjustment factors or currency clauses. Transparency, in this context, becomes a commercial necessity rather than a compliance exercise.
Financial security mechanisms: An emerging market
In response to the insolvency gap and cashflow timing mismatches, the Dutch market is beginning to explore financial security structures. Rotterdam being the largest port in Europe is a testing ground that offers scale. Structures being tested include segregated carbon reserve accounts, escrow-like mechanisms, surety bonds, and bank guarantees. For many firms, this is already prompting a rethink of internal controls — from credit terms to exposure limits — even though there is no established standard yet.
There is no standardised solution yet. But one trend is clear: CBAM is introducing carbon-linked financial guarantees into logistics and brokerage. The result? Carbon enters the domain of financial risk transfer.
The strategic inflection point
2026 will be remembered as the year carbon pricing became embedded in trade finance. The forwarders, brokers, and insurers who continue to treat CBAM as paperwork will experience volatility, margin compression and credit exposure. Those who treat it as carbon cost intelligence, who model exposure, understand ETS price sensitivity, and integrate carbon into financial decision-making, will create stability and competitive advantage.
The invisible ledger is becoming visible, and in 2026, it will reconcile. The question is not whether carbon will affect trade economics. It already does. The question is whether the industry understands its exposure, before the reconciliation arrives. For maritime and logistics stakeholders, understanding how CBAM interacts with existing shipping-related carbon frameworks will be critical in navigating this transition.
