Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Seafood businesses’ resilience can benefit from circular economy principles

Abstract

Seafood is expected to become increasingly important in future food systems and healthy diets. This transition will require the seafood sector to adapt business practices to respond to environmental and social challenges while increasing resilience. Here, we develop the circular economy-resilience framework for business models (CERF-BM) and, through exploring the current literature, apply this framework to business models in the seafood sector. We find that the majority of business models incorporate elements of circular economy and resilience in a limited way. The reviewed business models often fail to consider other supply chain actors and, instead, focus on the business itself and its customers. The CERF-BM helps to elucidate this disconnect through assessing business models against company-level actions towards circularity in combination with systems-level resilience mechanisms. To reap the synergies between the circular economy and resilience mechanisms, seafood businesses could extract more value from organic waste and dematerialize their business models.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The circular economy-resilience framework for business models.
Fig. 2: Alignment of reviewed articles against the CERF-BM.
Fig. 3: Alignment of reviewed articles against elements of resilience.

References

  1. 1.

    The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (FAO, 2018).

  2. 2.

    Avadi, A., Freon, P. & Tam, J.Coupled ecosystem/supply chain modelling of fish products from sea to shelf: the Peruvian Anchoveta case. PLoS ONE 9, e102057 (2014).

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Lam, M. E. The ethics and sustainability of capture fisheries and aquaculture. J. Agric. Environ. Ethics 29, 35–65 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Farmery, A. K., Gardner, C., Jennings, S., Green, B. S. & Watson, R. A.Assessing the inclusion of seafood in the sustainable diet literature. Fish Fish. 18, 607–618 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Drakou, E. G., Pendleton, L., Effron, M., Ingram, J. C. & Teneva, L. When ecosystems and their services are not co-located: oceans and coasts. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 74, 1531–1539 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Tendall, D. M. et al. Food system resilience: defining the concept. Glob. Food Sec. 6, 17–23 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Schipanski, M. E. et al. Realizing resilient food systems. BioScience 66, 600–610 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Palzkill, A. & Augenstein, K. Business model resilience—understanding the role of companies in societal transformation processes. uwf 25, 61–70 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Ingram, J. A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Sec. 3, 417–431 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Helfgott, A. Operationalising systemic resilience. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 268, 852–864 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    What is a Circular Economy? (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017); https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept

  12. 12.

    Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A. & Birkie, S. E. Circular economy as an essentially contested concept. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 544–552 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Calisto Friant, M., Vermeulen, W. J. V. & Salomone, R. A typology of circular economy discourses: navigating the diverse visions of a contested paradigm. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 161, 104917 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Mendoza, J. M. F., Sharmina, M., Gallego-Schmid, A., Heyes, G. & Azapagic, A.Integrating backcasting and eco-design for the circular economy: the BECE framework. J. Ind. Ecol. 21, 526–544 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Osterwalder, A. Business Model Generation: a Handbook for Visionaries, Game Changers, and Challengers (John Wiley & Sons, 2010).

  16. 16.

    Cavalcante, S. Business model dynamics and innovation: (re)establishing the missing linkages. Manage. Decis. 49, 1327–1342 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P. & Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 65, 42–56 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Eayrs, S., Cadrin, S. X. & Glass, C. W. Managing change in fisheries: a missing key to fishery-dependent data collection? ICES J. Mar. Sci. 72, 1152–1158 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Cameron, E. & Green, M. Making Sense of Change Management: a Complete Guide to the Models, Tools & Techniques of Organizational Change (Kogan Page, 2004).

  20. 20.

    Richardson, J. E.The business model: an integrative framework for strategy execution. Strategic Change 17, 133–144 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Rosa, P., Sassanelli, C. & Terzi, S. Towards circular business models: a systematic literature review on classification frameworks and archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 236, 117696 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Boons, F. & Luedeke-Freund, F. Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-art and steps towards a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 45, 9–19 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Schulze, G. Growth Within: A Circular Economy Vision For A Competitive Europe (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2016).

  24. 24.

    Veronesi Burch, M., Rigaud, A., Binet, T. & Barthelemy, C. Farnet Guide (Directorate-General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries, 2019).

  25. 25.

    Baden-Fuller, C., Giudici, A. & Morgan, M. S.Business models and value. Acad. Manage. Proc. 2017, 11635 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Campbell, L. M., Boucquey, N., Stoll, J., Coppola, H. & Smith, M. D. From vegetable box to seafood cooler: applying the community-supported agriculture model to fisheries. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27, 88–106 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Greenfeld, A., Becker, N., McIlwain, J., Fotedar, R. & Bornman, J. F. Economically viable aquaponics? Identifying the gap between potential and current uncertainties. Rev. Aquacult. 11, 848–862 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Pullman, M. E., Maloni, M. J. & Carter, C. R. Food for thought: social versus environmental sustainability practices and performance outcomes. J. Supply Chain Manage. 45, 38–54 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Bush, S. R., Toonen, H., Oosterveer, P. & Mol, A. P. The ‘devils triangle’ of MSC certification: balancing credibility, accessibility and continuous improvement. Mar. Policy 37, 288–293 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Jacquet, J. et al. Seafood stewardship in crisis. Nature 467, 28–29 (2010).

    ADS  CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Ponte, S. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the making of a market for ‘sustainable fish’. J. Agrar. Change 12, 300–315 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Commission Staff Working Document (European Commission, 2019).

  33. 33.

    Green Public Procurement (European Commission, 2020); https://ec.europa.eu/environment/gpp/index_en.htm

  34. 34.

    What is a European Standard (EN)? (CEN-CENELEC, 2020); https://www.cencenelec.eu/standards/DefEN/Pages/default.aspx

  35. 35.

    Bukenya, J. O. & Ssebisubi, M. Price integration in the farmed and wild fish markets in Uganda. Fish. Sci. 80, 1347–1358 (2014).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Leadbitter, D. & Benguerel, R. Sustainable tuna—can the marketplace improve fishery management? Bus. Strategy Environ. 23, 417–432 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Jonell, M., Phillips, M., Rönnbäck, P. & Troell, M. Eco-certification of farmed seafood: will it make a difference? AMBIO 42, 659–674 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Van Putten, I. et al. Shifting focus: the impacts of sustainable seafood certification. PLoS ONE 15, e0233237 (2020).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Blasiak, R. et al. Promoting diversity and inclusiveness in seafood certification and ecolabelling: prospects for Asia. Mar. Policy 85, 42–47 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Overland, I. & Sovacool, B. K. The misallocation of climate research funding. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 62, 101349 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Gale, N. K., Heath, G., Cameron, E., Rashid, S. & Redwood, S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 13, 117 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Smith, J. & Firth, J. Qualitative data analysis: the framework approach. Nurse Res. 18, 52–62 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the ‘Diverseafood: evaluating the potential of multi-trophic aquaculture to improve nutrition and ecosystem sustainability in the UK’ research project funded by UK Research and Innovation (grant reference BB/S014144/1) and has benefitted from the supportive and collegiate atmosphere of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research (Manchester). We are particularly grateful to S. Mander for thorough and insightful comments on a revised version of this paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

M.S. and C.A.F. conceived of, framed and designed the research. C.A.F. conducted the literature search and analysis and produced the figures. All authors jointly wrote the paper: C.A.F. led the writing and M.S. and R.S.C. contributed text and extensive comments on the structure and content of several drafts of the paper. M.S. supervised the research project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Sharmina.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Food thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Tables 1–4, Figs. 1–3, Methods, Discussion and references.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fletcher, C.A., St Clair, R. & Sharmina, M. Seafood businesses’ resilience can benefit from circular economy principles. Nat Food 2, 228–232 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-021-00262-4

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing