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
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS