Perspective | Published:

Evolution and future of the sustainable seafood market


The sustainable seafood movement is at a crossroads. Its core strategy, also known as a theory of change, is based on market-oriented initiatives such as third-party certification but does not motivate adequate levels of improved governance and environmental improvements needed in many fisheries, especially in developing countries. Price premiums for certified products are elusive, multiple forms of certification compete in a crowded marketplace and certifiers are increasingly asked to address social as well as ecological goals. This paper traces how the sustainable seafood movement has evolved over time to address new challenges while success remains limited. We conclude by exploring four alternative potential outcomes for the future theory of change, each with different contributions to creating a more sustainable global seafood supply.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


  1. 1.

    Sutton, M. in Developing and Sustaining World Fisheries Resources (eds Hancock, D. A., Smith, D. C., Grant, A. & Beumer, J. P.) 726–730 (Second World Fisheries Congress Proceedings, CSIRO, 1997).

  2. 2.

    Brownstein, C., Lee, M. & Safina, C. Harnessing consumer power for ocean conservation. Conserv. Practice 4, 39–42 (2003).

  3. 3.

    Costello, C., Gaines, S. D. & Lynham, J. Can catch shares prevent fisheries collapse? Science 321, 1678–1681 (2008).

  4. 4.

    Worm, B. et al. Rebuilding global fisheries. Science 325, 578–585 (2009).

  5. 5.

    Munday, P. L. et al. Replenishment of fish populations is threatened by ocean acidification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12930–12934 (2010).

  6. 6.

    Konefal, J. Environmental movements, market-based approaches, and neoliberalization a case study of the sustainable seafood movement. Organ. Environ. 26, 336–352 (2013).

  7. 7.

    Kaiser, M. J. & Edwards-Jones, G. The role of ecolabeling in fisheries management and conservation. Conserv. Biol. 20, 392–398 (2006).

  8. 8.

    Kemmerly, J. D. & Macfarlane, V. The elements of a consumer-based initiative in contributing to positive environmental change: Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program. Zoo Biol. 28, 398–411 (2008).

  9. 9.

    Oosterveer, P. & Sonnenfeld, D. A. Food, Globalization and Sustainability (Earthscan, 2012).

  10. 10.

    Vandergeest, P., Ponte, S. & Bush, S. Assembling sustainable territories: space, subjects, objects, and expertise in seafood certification. Environ. Plann. A 47, 1907–1925 (2015).

  11. 11.

    Mason, C. F. An economic model of ecolabeling. Environ. Model. Assess. 11, 131–143 (2006).

  12. 12.

    Gutiérrez, N. L. et al. Eco-label conveys reliable information on fish stock health to seafood consumers. PLoS ONE 7, e43765 (2012).

  13. 13.

    Gudmundsson, E. & Wessells, C. R. Ecolabeling seafood for sustainable production: implications for fisheries management. Mar. Resour. Econ. 15, 97–113 (2000).

  14. 14.

    Darby, M. R. & Karni, E. Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J. Law Econ. 16, 67–88 (1973).

  15. 15.

    What is sustainable fishing? Marine Stewardship Council (2018).

  16. 16.

    Theory of change. Aquaculture Stewardship Council (2018).

  17. 17.

    Giddens, A. The Consequences of Modernity (Polity, 1990).

  18. 18.

    Parkes, G. et al. Behind the signs—a global review of fish sustainability information schemes. Rev. Fish. Sci. 18, 344–356 (2010). Review outlining the variation of private sustainable seafood mechanisms, their accuracy and precision, and potential for inconsistency and contradictory advice to consumers.

  19. 19.

    Samerwong, P., Bush, S. R. & Oosterveer, P. Implications of multiple national certification standards for Thai shrimp aquaculture. Aquaculture 493, 319–327 (2018).

  20. 20.

    Bolton, A. E., Dubik, B. A., Stoll, J. S. & Basurto, X. Describing the diversity of community supported fishery programs in North America. Mar. Pol. 66, 21–29 (2016).

  21. 21.

    Alfnes, F., Chen, X. & Rickertsen, K. Labeling farmed seafood: a review. Aquacult. Econ. Manage. 22, 1–26 (2018).

  22. 22.

    Roheim, C. A. An evaluation of sustainable seafood guides: implications for environmental groups and the seafood industry. Mar. Resour. Econ. 24, 301–310 (2009).

  23. 23.

    Hallstein, E. & Villas-Boas, S. B. Can household consumers save the wild fish? Lessons from a sustainable seafood advisory. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 66, 52–71 (2013).

  24. 24.

    Lee, J., Gereffi, G. & Beauvais, J. Global value chains and agrifood standards: challenges and possibilities for smallholders in developing countries. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 12326–12331 (2012).

  25. 25.

    Blomquist, J., Bartolino, V. & Waldo, S. Price premiums for providing eco‐labelled seafood: evidence from MSC‐certified cod in Sweden. J. Agr. Econ. 66, 690–704 (2015).

  26. 26.

    Stemle, A., Uchida, H. & Roheim, C. A. Have dockside prices improved after MSC certification? Analysis of multiple fisheries. Fish. Res. 182, 116–123 (2016). Analysis showing the complexity of attributing market signals such as price premiums as incentives for adopting sustainability certification.

  27. 27.

    Tlusty, M. F. Environmental improvement of seafood through certification and ecolabelling: theory and analysis. Fish Fish. 13, 1–13 (2012). Paper arguing the need to move beyond single threshold modes of assessing sustainability, such as certification, to multiple threshold mechanisms that reward innovation and incremental improvement.

  28. 28.

    Martin, S. M., Cambridge, T. A., Grieve, C., Nimmo, F. M. & Agnew, D. J. An evaluation of environmental changes within fisheries involved in the Marine Stewardship Council certification scheme. Rev. Fish. Sci. 20, 61–69 (2012).

  29. 29.

    Li, Y. & van’t Veld, K. Green, greener, greenest: Eco-label gradation and competition. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 72, 164–176 (2015).

  30. 30.

    Fischer, C. & Lyon, T. P. Competing environmental labels. J. Econ. Manage. Strat. 23, 692–716 (2014). Theoretical article analysing the impact of ecolabel competition in the market, where ecolabels have different standards.

  31. 31.

    Cashore, B., Auld, G., Bernstein, S. & McDermott, C. Can non-state governance ‘ratchet up’ global environmental standards? Lessons from the forest sector. RECIEL 16, 158–172 (2007).

  32. 32.

    Overdevest, C. Comparing forest certification schemes: the case of ratcheting standards in the forest sector. Socio-Econ. Rev. 8, 47–76 (2010).

  33. 33.

    Cashore, B. Legitmacy and the privatization of environmental governance: how non-state market driven (NSMD) governance systems gain rule-making authority. Governance 15, 503–529 (2002).

  34. 34.

    Sampson, G. S. et al. Secure sustainable seafood from developing countries. Science 348, 504–506 (2015). Analysis highlighting the limitations of FIPs to incentivize developing world fisheries to improve their sustainability performance in (partial) response to weak conditionality for access to international retail markets.

  35. 35.

    Auld, G. Constructing Private Governance: The Rise and Evolution of Forest, Coffee, and Fisheries Certification (Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 2014).

  36. 36.

    Bingen, J. & Busch, L. Agricultural Standards: The Shape of the. Global Food And Fiber System (Springer, Dordrecht, 2007).

  37. 37.

    Bonroy, O. & Constantatos, C. On the economics of labels: How their introduction affects the functioning of markets and the welfare of all participants. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 97, 239–259 (2014).

  38. 38.

    Shaked, A. & Sutton, J. Relaxing price competition through product differentiation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 49, 3–13 (1982).

  39. 39.

    Roheim, C. A. & Zhang, D. Sustainability certification and product substitutability: evidence from the seafood market. Food Pol. (2018).

  40. 40.

    Ponte, S. & Sturgeon, T. Explaining governance in global value chains: A modular theory-building effort. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 21, 195–223 (2014). Paper providing a theoretical framework for understanding the configuration of global value chains and their coordination by firm and non-firm actors.

  41. 41.

    Bush, S. R., Oosterveer, P., Bailey, M. & Mol, A. P. J. Sustainability governance of chains and networks: a review and future outlook. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 8–19 (2015).

  42. 42.

    Bush, S. R. & Roheim, C. A. in The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism (eds Bostrom, M., Micheletti, M. & Oosterveer, P.) 22 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2018).

  43. 43.

    Bronnmann, J. & Asche, F. Sustainable seafood from aquaculture and wild fisheries: insights from a discrete choice experiment in Germany. Ecol. Econ. 142, 113–119 (2017).

  44. 44.

    Johnston, R. J. & Roheim, C. A. A battle of taste and environmental convictions for ecolabeled seafood: a contingent ranking experiment. J. Agr. Resour. Econ. 31, 283–300 (2006).

  45. 45.

    Johnston, R. J., Wessells, C. R., Donath, H. & Asche, F. Measuring consumer preferences for ecolabeled seafood: an international comparison. J. Agr. Resour. Econ. 26, 20–39 (2001).

  46. 46.

    Uchida, H., Roheim, C. A., Wakamatsu, H. & Anderson, C. M. Do Japanese consumers care about sustainable fisheries? Evidence from an auction of ecolabelled seafood. Aus. J. Agr. Resour. Econ. 58, 263–280 (2014).

  47. 47.

    Sogn-Grundvåg, G., Larsen, T. A. & Young, J. A. The value of line-caught and other attributes: an exploration of price premiums for chilled fish in UK supermarkets. Mar. Pol. 38, 41–44 (2013).

  48. 48.

    Sun, C.-H. J., Chiang, F.-S., Owens, M. & Squires, D. Will American consumers pay more for eco-friendly labeled canned tuna? Estimating US consumer demand for canned tuna varieties using scanner data. Mar. Pol. 79, 62–69 (2017).

  49. 49.

    Wakamatsu, H. The impact of MSC certification on a Japanese certified fishery. Mar. Resour. Econ. 29, 55–67 (2014).

  50. 50.

    Carlucci, D., Devitiis, B. D., Nardone, G. & Santeramo, F. G. Certification labels versus convenience formats: What drives the market in aquaculture products? Mar. Resour. Econ. 32, 295–310 (2017).

  51. 51.

    Wakamatsu, H., Anderson, C. M., Uchida, H. & Roheim, C. A. Pricing ecolabeled seafood products with heterogeneous preferences: an auction experiment in Japan. Mar. Resour. Econ. 32, 277–294 (2017).

  52. 52.

    de Vos, B. I. & Bush, S. R. Far more than market-based: rethinking the impact of the Dutch Viswijzer (Good Fish Guide) on fisheries’ governance. Sociol. Ruralis 51, 284–303 (2011).

  53. 53.

    Asche, F., Bellemare, M. F., Roheim, C., Smith, M. D. & Tveteras, S. Fair enough? Food security and the international trade of seafood. World Dev. 67, 151–160 (2015).

  54. 54.

    Smith, M. D. et al. Sustainability and global seafood. Science 327, 784–786 (2010).

  55. 55.

    Anderson, J. L. et al. The fishery performance indicators: a management tool for triple bottom line outcomes. PLoS One 10, e0122809 (2015).

  56. 56.

    Bush, S. R. et al. Certify sustainable aquaculture? Science 341, 1067–1068 (2013).

  57. 57.

    Iles, A. Making the seafood industry more sustainable: creating production chain transparency and accountability. J. Clean. Prod. 15, 577–589 (2007).

  58. 58.

    Fulponi, L. Private voluntary standards in the food system: the perspective of major food retailers in OECD countries. Food Pol. 31, 1–13 (2006).

  59. 59.

    Roheim, C. A., Gardiner, L. & Asche, F. Value of brands and other attributes: hedonic analysis of retail frozen fish in the UK. Mar. Resour. Econ. 22, 239–253 (2007).

  60. 60.

    Helyar, S. J. et al. Fish product mislabelling: failings of traceability in the production chain and implications for illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. PloS ONE 9, e98691 (2014).

  61. 61.

    Marschke, M. & Vandergeest, P. Slavery scandals: unpacking labour challenges and policy responses within the off-shore fisheries sector. Mar. Pol 68, 39–46 (2016).

  62. 62.

    Vandergeest, P., Tran, O. & Marschke, M. Modern day slavery in Thai fisheries: academic critique, practical action. Crit. Asian Stud. 49, 461–464 (2017).

  63. 63.

    Bitzer, V. & Glasbergen, P. Business–NGO partnerships in global value chains: part of the solution or part of the problem of sustainable change? Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 12, 35–40 (2015). Review of business–NGO sustainability partnerships in global value chains outlining their inconclusive impact and need for new modes of private sustainability approaches and mechanisms.

  64. 64.

    Deighan, L. K. & Jenkins, L. Fishing for recognition: Understanding the use of NGO guidelines in fishery improvement projects. Mar. Pol. 51, 476–485 (2015).

  65. 65.

    Bush, S. R., Toonen, H., Oosterveer, P. & Mol, A. P. J. The ‘devils triangle’ of MSC certification: balancing credibility, accessibility and continuous improvement. Mar. Pol. 37, 288–293 (2013). Paper outlining the challenge of private sustainable seafood mechanisms to maintain credible standards and procedures that stimulate improvement while also remaining accessible to developing world fisheries.

  66. 66.

    Bush, S. R. & Oosterveer, P. Vertically differentiating environmental standards: the case of the Marine Stewardship Council. Sustainability 7, 1861–1883 (2015).

  67. 67.

    Mills, M. et al. Understanding characteristics that define the feasibility of conservation actions in a common pool marine resource governance system. Conserv. Lett 6, 418–429 (2013).

  68. 68.

    Micheli, F. et al. A system‐wide approach to supporting improvements in seafood production practices and outcomes. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 297–305 (2014).

  69. 69.

    Jacquet, J. et al. Conserving wild fish in a sea of market-based efforts. Oryx 44, 45–56 (2010).

  70. 70.

    The Global Benchmark Tool. Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (2016).

  71. 71.

    Roe, B. & Sheldon, I. Credence good labeling: the efficiency and distributional implications of several policy approaches. Am. J. Agr. Econ. 89, 1020–1033 (2007).

  72. 72.

    Samerwong, P., Bush, S. R. & Oosterveer, P. Metagoverning aquaculture standards: a comparison of the GSSI, the ASEAN GAP, and the ISEAL. J. Environ. Dev. 26, 429–451 (2017).

  73. 73.

    Uchida, H., Onozaka, Y., Morita, T. & Managi, S. Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: a conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels. Food Pol. 44, 68–76 (2014).

  74. 74.

    Boström, M. Regulatory credibility and authority through inclusiveness: standardization organizations in cases of eco-labelling. Organization 13, 345–367 (2006).

  75. 75.

    Miller, A. M. & Bush, S. R. Authority without credibility? Competition and conflict between ecolabels in tuna fisheries. J. Clean. Prod. 107, 137–145 (2015).

  76. 76.

    Bailey, M., Bush, S. R., Miller, A. & Kochen, M. The role of traceability in transforming seafood governance in the global South. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sust. 18, 25–32 (2016).

  77. 77.

    Lewis, S. G. & Boyle, M. The expanding role of traceability in seafood: tools and key initiatives. J. Food Sci. 82, A13–A21 (2017).

  78. 78.

    Zilberman, D., Kaplan, S. & Gordon, B. The political economy of labeling. Food Pol. 78, 6–13 (2018).

  79. 79.

    Stoll, J. S. & Johnson, T. R. Under the banner of sustainability: the politics and prose of an emerging US federal seafood certification. Mar. Pol. 51, 415–422 (2015).

  80. 80.

    Foley, P. & Hébert, K. Alternative regimes of transnational environmental certification: governance, marketization, and place in Alaska’s salmon fisheries. Environ. Plann. A 45, 2734–2751 (2013).

  81. 81.

    Kvalvik, I., Noestvold, B. H. & Young, J. A. National or supranational fisheries sustainability certification schemes? A critical analysis of Norwegian and Icelandic responses. Mar. Pol. 46, 137–142 (2014).

  82. 82.

    Foley, P. & Havice, E. The rise of territorial eco-certifications: new politics of transnational sustainability governance in the fishery sector. Geoforum 69, 24–33 (2016).

  83. 83.

    Nelson, V. & Tallontire, A. Battlefields of ideas: changing narratives and power dynamics in private standards in global agricultural value chains. Agr. Hum. Values 31, 481–497 (2014).

  84. 84.

    Rayner, J. Managing Reputational Risk: Curbing Threats, Leveraging Opportunities Vol. 6 (Wiley, Chichester, 2004).

  85. 85.

    Taylor, P. L. In the market by not of it: Fair Trade coffee and Forest Stewardship Council certification as market-based social change. World Dev. 33, 129–147 (2005).

  86. 86.

    Pelton, R. E., Li, M., Smith, T. M. & Lyon, T. P. Optimizing eco-efficiency across the procurement portfolio. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 5908–5918 (2016).

  87. 87.

    Jacquet, J. & Pauly, D. Funding priorities: big barriers to small-scale fisheries. Conserv. Biol. 22, 832–835 (2008).

  88. 88.

    Busch, L. & Bain, C. New! Improved? The transformation of the global agrifood system. Rural Sociol. 69, 321–346 (2004).

  89. 89.

    Milder, J. C. et al. An agenda for assessing and improving conservation impacts of sustainability standards in tropical agriculture. Conserv. Biol. 29, 309–320 (2015).

  90. 90.

    Kittinger, J. N. et al. Committing to socially responsible seafood. Science 356, 912–913 (2017).

  91. 91.

    Glin, L. C., Mol, A. P., Oosterveer, P. & Vodouhe, S. D. Governing the transnational organic cotton network from Benin. Global Netw. 12, 333–354 (2012).

Download references


The authors would like to thank those from the global seafood industry who we interviewed for their valuable insights, as well as the participants of a special session at 2015 NAAFE Forum in Ketchikan, Alaska, and participants of the small-scale near-shore fisheries workshop hosted by the UC Davis Coastal and Marine Sciences Institute in June 2016. We thank C. Zou for research assistance. We also thank K. Lee, S. Hogan and M. Levine who provided valuable feedback and insights throughout the project. This work was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (grant no. 2015-40719).

Author information

C.A.R., S.R.B., J.N.S., F.A. and H.U. designed the research. C.A.R., S.R.B., J.N.S., F.A. and H.U. performed the research. C.A.R., S.R.B., J.N.S., F.A. and H.U. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Correspondence to C. A. Roheim.

Rights and permissions

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.

About this article

Publication history

  • Received

  • Revised

  • Accepted

  • Published

  • Issue Date