IN Brief:
- Revenue-based emissions intensity fell 6% to 190.68 tonnes of CO₂e per AED1m in 2025.
- Combined Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions rose 13%, from 3.51m to 3.96m tonnes CO₂e.
- AD Ports targets a 22% reduction in reported emissions by 2034 against its 2024 baseline.
AD Ports Group reported a 6% fall in combined Scope 1, 2 and 3 greenhouse gas emissions per unit of revenue in 2025, while its total reported emissions increased by 13%. The Abu Dhabi-based ports, maritime and logistics operator generated AED20.77bn in revenue, up 20%, alongside a 3.96-million-tonne carbon dioxide equivalent footprint across its operations and value chain. The figures distinguish improvement in a financial intensity measure from a reduction in the volume of greenhouse gases attributed to the business.
Combined emissions intensity fell from 203.06 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per AED1m of revenue in 2024 to 190.68 tonnes in 2025. Absolute emissions nevertheless increased from 3.51 million to 3.96 million tonnes. Because the revenue denominator grew faster than the emissions numerator, the intensity ratio improved despite the larger footprint. The calculation cannot establish that each container, vessel call or tonne of freight generated less emissions; those physical efficiency claims would require comparable activity-based measurements across the same facilities and reporting boundary.
A group operating container terminals, commercial shipping, logistics services and industrial zones combines several very different energy demands in its consolidated emissions measure. Container equipment and refrigerated cargo connections draw electricity at ports, while vessel operations consume fuel and haulage may involve subcontracted transport. Changes to the size of a fleet or the mix of services affect both energy consumption and the number of activities represented in the total. Group-level financial intensity therefore gives a useful overall indicator but cannot identify the efficiency of an individual terminal without further data.
Maritime & Shipping accounted for roughly half the group footprint and 51% of revenue in the disclosed cluster comparison. The Ports business represented approximately 24% of emissions, Logistics 21%, and Economic Cities & Free Zones 5%. These are shares of the consolidated result, not verified savings or changes in efficiency at each operation. They also show why vessel fuel use and the handling of goods beyond quay walls cannot be ignored when evaluating a diversified port operator’s environmental performance.
The group identified operational efficiency measures, solar power, changes in marine fuel and the adoption of electrically powered vessels among its decarbonisation activities. It also reported purchases of 47,960MWh of renewable energy certificates associated with purchased electricity, heating and cooling. Certificates can affect market-based electricity emissions reporting; they do not establish that an equivalent quantity of renewable electricity was supplied physically to every site consuming energy. The reported accounting treatment and any underlying changes in energy consumption need to be considered separately.
Scope 1 emissions arise from sources an organisation operates or controls, such as fuel burned by its own vehicles and vessels. Scope 2 accounts for purchased energy, while Scope 3 can include outsourced freight, purchased materials and other upstream or downstream activities, depending on the accounting boundary. Changes in business activity, supplier information and calculation methods can affect Scope 3 estimates without a proportionate change in physical transport work. The annual headline totals do not isolate those factors, and they cannot by themselves explain which operation caused the increase.
AD Ports has set a goal to reduce Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions by 22% by 2034 against a 2024 baseline, alongside a stated net-zero ambition for 2050. Its published pathway describes 139 planned decarbonisation initiatives, including fleet changes, efficiency improvements and lower-carbon energy. These are commitments and proposed measures, not completed emissions reductions. The increase in reported absolute emissions in 2025 leaves the group needing to demonstrate a sustained change in that trajectory if its longer-term target is to be achieved.
An electric terminal tractor draws electricity instead of burning diesel while moving containers, shifting part of its emissions profile to the generating system and the equipment supply chain. Its net effect depends on operating hours, charging provision, grid emissions and the type of vehicle displaced. A vessel burning a lower-carbon fuel raises comparable questions about production and distribution of that fuel. AD Ports has identified electrification and alternative energy among its initiatives, but the consolidated annual comparison does not assign a verified emissions saving to an individual equipment or fuel project.
Business expansion complicates the comparison. A new shipping route, logistics acquisition or terminal contract can raise the total fuel and electricity demand even where the additional services have relatively efficient equipment. At the same time, freight rates, currencies and service prices affect revenue independently of the physical quantity of goods moved. A lower tonne-per-revenue ratio can consequently arise without a matching decline in emissions per container, vessel movement or tonne of cargo. Consistent physical output indicators would help separate efficiency from the effects of commercial growth.
The disclosed 2025 figures show a larger absolute climate footprint alongside improved financial emissions intensity. Subsequent reporting can be tested against both measures, particularly the maritime fuel and outsourced transport exposures that account for much of the group’s consolidated footprint. Progress towards the 2034 target will require reported reductions in absolute emissions, not merely faster revenue growth. No individual project-level abatement total has been established by the figures used in this comparison.
