Initially launched in December 2022, Planet Tracker’s Seafood Database has been further expanded to analyse 300 corporates along the global seafood supply chain and consolidate information – allowing users to assess companies’ exposure to risks such as overfishing and illegal fishing.
According to Planet Tracker, the 300 companies in its database have a high exposure to seafood or account for a significant share of the seafood market.
These companies, the non-profit said, are not only engaged in upstream (fishing or aquaculture), midstream (processing), or downstream activities (wholesale, retail), but also in auxiliary activities such as fish vaccination, construction of engines for fishing vessels, manufacture of fish processing machinery etc.
Some 183 of the 300 companies covered are headquartered in high-income countries, and 297 in high-income or upper middle-income countries, defined as per World Bank’s GNI per capita criteria. This, Planet Tracker said, suggests that the global seafood supply chain is controlled by richer countries.
More than half of the 300 companies are headquartered in Japan, China, the US or Norway.
In contrast, companies in the database source their seafood from all over the world.
“There is therefore a discrepancy between where natural capital is located (globally), and who controls access to that capital (companies in richer countries),” Planet Tracker said.
There are 1,481 different species sourced by companies in the database, but only 1,005 of them are actual species (i.e., identifiable by their scientific name). The rest are either families or groups of species, commercial names, or even broader categories such as “molluscs” or “finfish” that could include many different species.
“To assess overfishing risk and other natural capital risks specific to seafood, species information needs, at the very least, to be coupled with geographic information. The same species can, for instance, be overfished in some areas, but not in others. That is why we have analysed where companies in our database source their seafood.”
Among the companies that disclose some information on species, the level of granularity is still sub-optimal, but significantly better than when the Planet Tracker Seafood Database was first launched, Planet Tracker said.
Back then, only eight companies (8%) disclosed enough information to allow Planet Tracker to determine the exact species they handle/farm/catch/sell for their entire portfolio (referred to as “full portfolio species disclosure”). That proportion is now 25% (77 companies out of 300).
Specifically, 62% of companies primarily involved in aquaculture have reached full species disclosure in their portfolios.
“While encouraging, this is also expected as companies farming seafood know exactly which species they harvest. It is also by no means easy for anyone to find species information, it often requires translating from local languages and deducing the exact species based on indicators such as farm location,” Planet Tracker said.
Within fishing, only 32% of companies reached full disclosure, with the company stating that this has repercussions throughout the supply chain, since processors, retailers and foodservice companies can only disclose as much information as they secure from their suppliers.
Moving downstream to processing companies, only 25% of companies reached full portfolio species disclosure. That proportion comes further down to 16% at wholesalers and distributors.
“Because biodiversity risk is often species-specific, this limited transparency prevents an accurate assessment of risks and opportunities for investors and lenders. They should engage with companies to improve that level,” it said.
For any assessment of seafood-related sustainability risks, knowing the species harvested or handled and their harvesting location is crucial, notes Planet Tracker, adding that unfortunately, this information is all too often unavailable.
“Without it though, investors are sailing in the dark. In addition to being unable to estimate financially material risks, they are also unable to gauge key reputational risks, such as IUU fishing, or litigation risk.”
It also points out that companies that do not have granular data on species exposure and harvesting locations are unlikely to be aligned with the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework (and in particular, its ‘Locate’ component). Nor are they likely to be able to comply with the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), the requirements of which will also apply to non-EU companies meeting a certain number of thresholds.
“Financial institutions should therefore demand greater supply chain transparency from seafood-exposed companies. In particular, this means asking corporates to disclose the ‘what’ (scientific names), ‘where’ (exact location of farming/capture), and ‘how’ (fishing gear or farming method) of their entire seafood portfolio.”
Planet Tracker also insists that for most companies it’s beneficial to be more transparent about their seafood, and that a lack of disclosure means that companies do not have the necessary data, or that they have the data but do not want to share it.
“In both cases, this shows them in a bad light, and leaves them vulnerable to multiple costly risks, including supply issues (in the case of the collapse of a fish stock or sudden ban on fishing in a given area), or reputational risk (in case of association with illegal fishing or unsustainable practices).
“The absence of data is often blamed on suppliers’ inability to provide it, and the associated costs to retrieve it. We disagree and argue that instead, there are financial benefits associated with increased disclosure. For instance, going through information shared with us by Carrefour, we estimated that increased seafood supply chain disclosure (which species, which location, which harvesting method) would generate net financial benefits equal to 3% of Carrefour’s gross profit on seafood in France.”
It continues: “The reluctance to share information about species and location is often attributed to competition concerns and confidentiality issues. We disagree again: sharing the exact species, country of harvest and harvesting method on a regular basis at the end of each month or quarter is not going to alert competing fishing vessels about the exact location of a fish school on a live basis.”
