National or supranational fisheries sustainability certification schemes? A critical analysis of Norwegian and Icelandic responses

The implementation of Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification in Russia: Achievements and considerations

“…1) Market characteristics. Certification is more attractive to companies oriented to international markets, where eco-labeled products are more in demand than in domestic markets [14,15]. 2) Civil society characteristics.…”

“…2) Civil society characteristics. Strong societal concerns for sustainability are usually associated with the presence of advocacy groups that use adverse campaigns and negative publicity targeting unsustainable practices to pressure fisheries to enter the certification program [14]. 3) Regulatory and management characteristics.…”

“…5) Level of integration of fishing companies. Vertical integration and strong fisheries industry associations facilitate sharing the cost of certification among participating companies [14]. 6) Company characteristics.…”

“…Described by interviewees in the greatest detail and considered more often than the other categories, large consolidated companies with good informational support may be more likely to support third party certification. Large size facilitates certification due to reduced transaction costs associated with economies of scale [14,17,18], and their visibility and public presence expose them to more pressure from advocacy groups [14,19,20]. Companies that were highly selective of their target species were also more successful at certification [1].…”

“…According to Kvalvik and co-authors [14], focusing on one species facilitates the certification process. However in this case, the Barents Sea fisheries encompass several groundfish populations and certification went smoothly, whereas companies targeting one species, such as Alaska pollock, experienced more difficulties.…”