Advertisement

Clarity in Diversity: How the Sustainability Standards Comparison Tool and the Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative Provide Orientation

  • Friederike Sorg
  • Jens Kahle
  • Niklas Wehner
  • Max Mangold
  • Silke PetersEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Natural Resource Management in Transition book series (NRMT, volume 2)

Abstract

For many years, concern about the environmental and social consequences of global production and trade was not very high on the public agenda. The collapse of once abundant natural resources, such as the Grand Bank cod fishery in 1992, the disaster at Rhana Plaza in April 2013 that led to the deaths of more than one thousand workers in the garment industry, and many other examples have increased awareness among consumers and industry. They have realised that global production and trade have unintended environmental and social effects that need to be controlled. Sustainability standards are broadly accepted as an instrument to mitigate or avoid these effects. The compliance with certain standards has become, in many sectors, a de facto ‘licence to operate’. Thus, it is not a surprise that environmental and social standards ‘pop up’ all over the world and in nearly every sector: as of October 2019, the Ecolabel Index lists 463 ecolabels in 25 industry sectors, around two thirds of which emerged in the last decade (Poynton 2015). They are set by different organisations, build on different system architectures, and often reflect individual histories. On the demand side, the need for transparent and secure value chains has become so high that a completely new business segment has developed: the offer for certification, auditing, and consultancy services around standard implementation has developed into a highly competitive and steadily growing market.

References

  1. BMWI – Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Energie (2016) Innovation Policy. https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/innovation-policy.html. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  2. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (1995) Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF). FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  3. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2009) Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Marine Capture Fisheries, Revision 1. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/i1119t/i1119t.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019Google Scholar
  4. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011a) Guidelines for Ecolabelling of Fish and Fishery Products from Inland Capture Fisheries. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/ba0001t/ba0001t00.htm. Accessed 31 Jan 2019Google Scholar
  5. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2011b) Technical Guidelines on Aquaculture Certification. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i2296t.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019Google Scholar
  6. FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2016) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016. Contributing to food security and nutrition for all. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a-i5555e.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. GFSI – Global Food Safety Initiative (2015) GFSI Guidance Document, Sixth Edition, Version 6.4, November 2015. GFSI, Issy-les-Moulineaux. https://www.cgcsa.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/GFSI_Guidance_Document_2015.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  8. GSSI – Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (2015) GSSI Global Benchmark Tool, Version 1.0, October 2015. https://www.ourgssi.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/GSSI-Global-Benchmark-Tool-V.1-October-2015.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  9. GSSI – Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (2016) GSSI Charter, Version 2, April 2016. http://ourgssi.org/assets/RESOURCES/GSSI-Charter-April-2016.pdf. Accessed 31 Aug 2019
  10. GSSI – Global Sustainable Seafood Initiative (2019) GSSI Recognized Certification Schemes. http://ourgssi.org/benchmarking/recognized-schemes/. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  11. IRFF – Iceland Responsible Fisheries Foundation (2015) IRFF Technical Committee (TC) revision of IRFM standard. Work Plan 2015/2016 (Revision 1). https://www.responsiblefisheries.is/files/tc-work-plan-standard-rev-1.1.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  12. James Sullivan Consulting (2012) Smart Fishing Initiative: Comparison of Wild-Capture Fisheries Certification Schemes. World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Gland. http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_report_comparison_wild_capture_fisheries_schemes.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  13. OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2009) Round Table on Eco-Labelling and Certification in the Fisheries Sector, 22–23 April 2009, The Hague, The Netherlands: Proceedings. http://www.oecd.org/tad/fisheries/43356890.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  14. OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018) Public procurement. http://www.oecd.org/gov/public-procurement/. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  15. Potts J, Wilkings A, Lynch M, McFatridge S (2016) State of Sustainability Initiatives Review: Standards and the Blue Economy. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), Winnipeg, MB. http://www.iisd.org/sites/default/files/publications/ssi-blue-economy-2016.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  16. Poynton S (2015) Beyond Certification. Dō Sustainability, Oxford. http://www.scottpoynton.com/beyond-certification. Accessed 30 Aug 2019
  17. Ragoussis A (2016) Government Agoraphobia: Home Bias in Developing Country Procurement Markets. Discussion Paper 5/2016. Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik, Bonn. https://www.die-gdi.de/uploads/media/DP__5.2016.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  18. Schmieg E (2014) The role of voluntary standards in German Development Policy. In: Schmitz-Hoffmann C, Schmidt M, Hansmann B, Palekhov D (eds) Voluntary standard systems: a contribution to sustainable development. Natural Resource Management in Transition, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 115–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schrader U, Liedtke C, Lamla J, Arens‐Azevêdo U, Hagen K, Jaquemoth M, Kenning P, Schmidt‐Kessel M, Strünck C (2013) Verbraucherpolitik für nachhaltigen Konsum – Verbraucherpolitische Perspektiven für eine nachhaltige Transformation von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Stellungnahme des wissenschaftlichen Beirats Verbraucher‐ und Ernährungspolitik beim BMELV. Bundesministerium für Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Verbraucherschutz, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Thoeresen V, Didham RJ, Martinez-Roca C, Mimica LF, Rutivi C, Kalkan S, Pierre F, Abbas K, Cruypenninck H (2015) Pathways to Sustainable Lifestyles: Global Stocktaking Report, Published Draft. The 10-Year Framework of Programmes on Sustainable Consumption and Production (10YFP), United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.oneplanetnetwork.org/sites/default/files/draft_pathways_to_sustainable_lifestyles_-_global_stocktaking_report.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  21. VZBV – Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverwand (2016) Infografik: nachhaltig produzierte Lebensmittel. Repräsentative Umfrage von TNS Emnid im Auftrag des VZBV, Januar 2016. https://www.vzbv.de/infografik/infografik-nachhaltig-produzierte-lebensmittel. Accessed 31 Jan 2019
  22. Washington S, Abbabouch L (2011) Private standards and certification in fisheries and aquaculture: current practice and emerging issues. Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 553. FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1948e/i1948e.pdf. Accessed 31 Jan 2019

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Friederike Sorg
    • 1
  • Jens Kahle
    • 1
  • Niklas Wehner
    • 1
  • Max Mangold
    • 1
  • Silke Peters
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Programme of Sustainable Value Chains and Standards, Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbHEschbornGermany

Personalised recommendations