Claiming seafood is ‘sustainable’ risks limiting improvements

Abstract

Over the past decade, the sustainability of seafood production has improved and is cause for ocean optimism. In an attempt for recognition of ongoing efforts, many producers and food retailers now claim products are ‘sustainable’. What exactly does this mean and could we limit further improvement using this claim? Here, we discuss the sustainable/sustainability dichotomy, and the problem of communicating continual improvement in terms of grand and absolute claims – that is ‘We sell 100% sustainable product.’ We believe a statement like this risks short selling the challenges at hand and removes necessary and ongoing incentives for learning, improving and innovating. We argue the best path for producers and retailers is to demonstrate and communicate the concrete actions and achievements being made towards a more resilient and healthy food system today and for the future. This requires moving away from the current practice of calling products sustainable, and to instead work towards continually improving the sustainability of the products. Focusing on measuring the impact of our actions generates a wealth of substance and establishes a direction of travel towards seafood of greater sustainability and we believe this will help educate, inform and inspire consumers to make good choices for their own and future generations benefit. In this study, ‘seafood’ will refer to both farmed and wild seafood products, and ‘sustainability’ refers to the behavior that drives economic, environmental and ethical progress towards ensuring seafood availability ‘meet(s) the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.

The role of corporate social responsibility in creating a Seussian world of seafood sustainability

“…Concern has been raised that certification can only drive improvement so far because once a fishery or farm is certified, there is no impetus for further improvement, which therefore makes sustainability a static rather than dynamic goal (Bush, Toonen, Oosterveer, & Mol, 2013;Tlusty, 2012;Tlusty & Thorsen, 2016). The lack of improvement also occurs because of over-promising to deliver a sustainable product.…”

“…This ceases further improvement because why (or how) do they improve when the product is sustainable? The mere transition to discussing "sustainability" instead of "sustainable" can promulgate continuous improvement (Tlusty & Thorsen, 2016;Tlusty et al, 2012).…”

What does popular media have to tell us about the future of seafood?

“…In addition, market-based approaches such as ecolabels and third-party certification (e.g., MSC and Aquaculture Stewardship Council) also work to influence the middle of the chain. These efforts have been critiqued for varied weaknesses concerning the nature of standards, implementation, and unintended consequences, [13][14][15][16][17] but still certification remains a major focus in the seafood industry. Tlusty and others showed that most certification approaches in aquaculture were essentially similar in their strategies and goals and therefore are wide open for innovation.…”

Certify sustainable retailers?

“…The scope of a developmental standard could reflect the need to support the capabilities of producers or communities of producers to continually improve their production rather than setting a single and 'fictitious' level or goal of sustainability (Micheli et al, 2014;Tlusty & Thorsen, 2016). In practical terms, such a standard could follow Ivarsson and Alvstam (2010) and focus on new process-oriented categories, such as the provision of technological and organizational assistance, co-innovation, human capacity building, and/or financial and administrative advice.…”