McDonald’s. Hilton. IKEA. Each of these corporate titans enjoys an enormous customer base, but what most of their customers might not realize is that these companies are leaders in ocean stewardship: They all sell sustainable seafood.
This is an important precedent — but it is not enough.
When it comes to harvesting and selling seafood, “sustainable” is not just an empty label. It represents accountability throughout the value chain, beginning the moment a fish leaves the water, to ensure that the entire process is conducted in a way that enables fisheries — and the ocean ecosystem — to continue to thrive.
The sustainable seafood movement has grown rapidly. Just 20 years ago, sustainability was a niche concept in the seafood industry. Hardly anyone in the business talked about it. Most companies failed to recognize the long-term business consequences of overfishing, let alone place a high priority on conservation.
At that time, the environmental groups that advocated for sustainable seafood were met with suspicion, if not outright rejection. A 1997 cover of Seafood Business magazine asserted that seafood companies should not “crawl under the covers with greenies.”
Much has changed in the past 20 years.
Consumers all over the world increasingly expect that the seafood they purchase — whether at a grocery store or a five-star restaurant — qualifies as sustainable. The Marine Stewardship Council’s iconic blue product label is now found in nearly 100 nations, illustrating the increasing demand for sustainably sourced products.
People are becoming more engaged in their food choices and their habits are evolving. We expect our food, which we share with our children, to be safe and nutritious. We also increasingly expect the companies whose products we consume not to contribute further to the overfishing, warming waters, and pollution that are putting pressure on the oceans. We express those expectations in how we spend our money.
However, equally important, attitudes among industry leaders are also shifting.
Many are now engaging with marine conservation groups to address how to help exhausted fisheries recover and keep healthy ones thriving. This partly reflects their desire to satisfy their customers, but as much as shifting demand and weakening brand loyalty are bad for businesses, nothing is worse than exhausted supply.
Companies now realize that it is impossible to sell fish if there are not any left and it takes only a few companies to make a difference.
Seafood may be consumed by millions around the world, but it is traded by just a handful of firms. Relatively small changes on the part of a few entities would therefore go a long way toward protecting the future of the entire industry.
This effect is compounded when major players work together to tackle issues in the seafood supply chain. Already, collaborative efforts among industry leaders, such as the Seafood Business for Ocean Stewardship (SeaBOS) initiative, have played a major role in propelling progress on sustainability.
Until recently, international seafood companies might have had one-on-one partnerships with conservation non-governmental organizations, but they were not collaborating with one another. SeaBOS changed that.
A science-based initiative, SeaBOS has engaged the chief executives of 10 of the largest seafood companies, with the goal of stimulating transformative change toward sustainable seafood production that supports a healthy ocean, but the sustainable seafood movement’s work is far from done.
If we are truly to safeguard the future of fish, even more seafood businesses must commit to sustainability. For those that already have, the imperative is to recruit their counterparts around the world — from Japan to China to Chile — to join the effort.
Moreover, at a time when pressure on the oceans is intensifying rapidly, advocacy groups and scientists must work equitably with small fisheries and the communities that depend on them to ensure that they can manage the challenge of implementing sustainable practices, while a larger share of consumers must be even more resolute in demanding a transparent seafood supply chain and supporting sustainability with every purchase.
By choosing the ethically sourced Pacific cod over the discount mystery fish, consumers drive real change.
Technology can support this emerging international commitment to sustainability, including by facilitating data collection and ocean management. Before long, artificial intelligence may be able to tell fishers exactly where they can catch the most fish of the needed size, while minimizing adverse effects on ecosystems.
Perhaps even sooner, consumers would be able to glimpse a fish’s entire journey from the sea to the local grocery store, simply by scanning a QR code with their smartphone.
However, the ultimate hope is for the “sustainable” label to be so commonplace and legitimate that consumers one day are more surprised by its absence than its presence. The default expectation — among seafood companies, fishery managers, conservation groups and consumers — will be that all seafood is harvested sustainably.
We are hopeful that sustainability becomes the norm soon — in a matter of years, not decades.
Teresa Ish is a program officer at the Walton Family Foundation Environment Program. Henrik Osterblom is a professor and science director at the Stockholm Resilience Center at Stockholm University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In a summer of intense political maneuvering, Taiwanese, whose democratic vibrancy is a constant rebuke to Beijing’s authoritarianism, delivered a powerful verdict not on China, but on their own political leaders. Two high-profile recall campaigns, driven by the ruling party against its opposition, collapsed in failure. It was a clear signal that after months of bitter confrontation, the Taiwanese public is demanding a shift from perpetual campaign mode to the hard work of governing. For Washington and other world capitals, this is more than a distant political drama. The stability of Taiwan is vital, as it serves as a key player
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
The fallout from the mass recalls and the referendum on restarting the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant continues to monopolize the news. The general consensus is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been bloodied and found wanting, and is in need of reflection and a course correction if it is to avoid electoral defeat. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has not emerged unscathed, either, but has the opportunity of making a relatively clean break. That depends on who the party on Oct. 18 picks to replace outgoing KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫). What is certain is that, with the dust settling
RSS