Seafood giants double traceability commitments, but the majority lack implementation plans. FAIRR-led investor engagement helps spur growth in seafood traceability commitments, but current implementation strategies are not yet sufficient to deliver on industry pledges.
- Traceability commitments have doubled in Phase 2 of investor engagement, rising to 4 of the 7 companies assessed
- More than half of the companies (5/7) still lack robust traceability implementation plans, with two disclosing no implementation strategy or milestones at all
- Only 3 of 7companies recognise traceability as a critical tool for managing overfishing and supply chain risks, leaving investors exposed to material operational and regulatory risks
The US$90 trillion backed FAIRR investor network is today publishing a report highlighting a notable gap between global seafood companies’ traceability commitments and their current implementation strategies. The findings point to a potentially sizeable financial opportunity that companies risk missing, as Planet Tracker estimates that investing just 1% of seafood sales into traceability could lift industry profitability by 60%, worth US$600 billion.
The report, Traceability in Seafood Supply Chains: An Imperative for Investors, presents results from Phase 2 of an investor engagement with seven global seafood majors*, supported by 45 investors with a combined US$9.6 trillion in assets. The engagement is led by FAIRR with the backing of Planet Tracker, The World Benchmarking Alliance, UNEP FI’s Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Initiative and World Wildlife Fund (WWF) US.
Company commitments double, but practices fall short of their pledges
The report reveals that four of seven assessed companies now have robust traceability commitments, up from two last year, as Maruha Nichiro and Mitsubishi join Thai Union and CP Foods in disclosing pledges.
However, the majority (5/7) still lack comprehensive traceability implementation plans across their seafood portfolios, casting doubt over how traceability ambitions will translate into measurable outcomes. Nissui and Marubeni have provided no evidence of traceability implementation plans at all.
Added to this, progress on traceability implementation is often species-specific. For instance, the implementation of Thai Union’s SeaChange 2030 targets is only focused on tuna and shrimp, undermining portfolio-wide outcomes.
Companies do not yet recognise the full value proposition of traceability
All seven companies acknowledge overfishing and marine habitat loss pose potential risks to their supply chains. Yet only 3/7 companies currently recognise traceability as a critical tool for identifying and mitigating these risks, suggesting that companies under-acknowledge the potential value proposition of traceability systems.
Over half of the companies (4/7) report persistent barriers to scaling traceability, including paper-based records, fragmented data, species mixing during handling and complex supply chains. To help companies address these challenges, Phase 2 of the investor engagement introduced capacity‑building sessions led by WWF‑US, focused on digitalisation, data interoperability and alignment with leading standards.
Sustainability certifications and robust traceability systems provide complementary benefits to companies, investors and the ocean
All seven companies have commitments to source at least some certified sustainable seafood, with the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) as the most widely adopted schemes.
Credible certifications, and the assurance systems behind them, play an important role in tying products sold as certified to a certified fishery or farm. But they do not provide supermarkets or consumers with full supply chain transparency for certified products. Leading certifications include ‘Chain of Custody’, which typically provides ‘one-up, one-down’ visibility to actors in the chain. However, this alone does not give any actor a full, transparent view of the end-to-end value chain. Furthermore, significant volumes of certain species, such as squid, have not yet been credibly certified. As a result, all companies remain exposed to risk from products that are neither certified nor traced.
Encouragingly, the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC) are both actively enhancing their traceability efforts to align with leading practice data standards provided by the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability (GDST).
Laure Boissat, Manager, Research & Engagements – Oceans, FAIRR, said:
“The engagement reveals that current traceability implementation plans are not fit to deliver tangible outcomes, and tools such as certifications are not yet able to plug the traceability gap. The seafood sector alone generates US$1.8 trillion per year, equivalent to 2% of global GDP. It is crucial that this globally significant industry addresses the material risks of poor traceability.”
Lucy Holmes, Senior Director, Ocean Markets & Finance, WWF-US, said:
“Improving supply chain traceability delivers benefits for people, planet and prosperity. The encouraging progress made through this initiative shows that both investors and corporates alike are beginning to understand the benefits of increased traceability, not only for a nature-positive future for the ocean but also for their own risk management and, ultimately, their profitability.”
Robert-Alexandre Poujade, Biodiversity Lead, BNP Paribas Asset Management, said:
“The case for investment in traceability systems is clear. Robust traceability is key to protecting fish stocks, safeguarding human rights, preserving nature and ensuring continued market access in the context of tightening regulation. This engagement has fostered constructive dialogues with companies to move the sector beyond pledges to practice.”
Investors are exposed to material financial risks when companies lack robust traceability systems, including:
- Operational risks: Unsustainable fishing practices and poor supply chain visibility can lead to supply volatility, increased costs and stranded assets as key fish stocks collapse or become restricted.
- Regulatory risks: Tightening global regulatory frameworks, such as the EU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Regulation and US Seafood Import Monitoring Program, requires verifiable data on the origin and legality of seafood products. Companies without robust traceability risk market exclusion, supply seizures and financing restrictions.
- Reputational risks: Links to human rights abuses, illegal fishing and opaque sourcing practices can result in loss of brand integrity, consumer boycotts, supply chain disruptions and litigation costs.
- Social risks: 68% of countries assessed by the Seafood Certification and Ratings Collaboration show evidence of forced or child labour or human trafficking in seafood supply chains, amplifying reputational and compliance risks.
The seafood industry’s approach to traceability can be strengthened by:
- Companies ensuring traceability is a core risk management tool; moving from commitments to execution by developing clear, time-bound implementation strategies; strengthening verification; and leveraging digital and cross-sector best practices.
- Investors asking for traceability systems; urging companies to adopt leading standards; supporting industry collaboration; and taking part in Phase 3 of the Seafood Traceability Engagement, which will kick off in May 2026.
Image: Pixabay