{"id":2645,"date":"2021-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-12-01T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www-prod.greenpeace.org\/usa\/campaign-updates\/2645\/2021-tuna-retailer-scorecard-the-high-cost-of-cheap-tuna\/"},"modified":"2025-01-22T19:48:45","modified_gmt":"2025-01-22T19:48:45","slug":"2021-tuna-retailer-scorecard-the-high-cost-of-cheap-tuna","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.greenpeace.org\/usa\/2021-tuna-retailer-scorecard-the-high-cost-of-cheap-tuna\/","title":{"rendered":"2021 Tuna Retailer Scorecard: The High Cost of Cheap Tuna"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Published: 12-02-2021<\/p>\n

Download: PDF<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

INTRODUCTION<\/h2>\n

When Greenpeace USA published the first edition of Carting Away the Oceans<\/i> (CATO) in 2008, not a single company out of the 16 major US retailers ranked on seafood sustainability received a passing score. Most of the companies surveyed had hardly given a thought to sustainable seafood; many had weak or non-existent policies, and commonly stocked highly problematic species such as Chilean seabass, parrotfish, and orange roughy. Ten years and ten editions later, 90 percent of the companies surveyed in 2018 received at least a passing score. This success is a testament to a decade of hard work by Greenpeace supporters and volunteers, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), scientists, governments, retailers, and suppliers, as well as the value of corporate accountability in driving positive change.<\/p>\n

However, as scrutiny has illuminated the complex and interconnected nature of global seafood supply chains, a range of further, often poorly understood issues have emerged. From weaknesses and gaps in certification schemes and the continued prevalence of Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) fishing, to the exploitation and abuse of often vulnerable crew aboard vessels beyond the reach of authorities and regulators, seafood supply chains are rife with risk.<\/p>\n

In response to the increasingly central role that labor and human rights have come to share alongside environmental concerns in seafood sourcing, Greenpeace has expanded the focus of our retailer survey to give equal weight to how companies address human rights and environmental issues in their sourcing policies. As the most popular wild caught seafood \u2013 both in the US and worldwide \u2013 this report focuses specifically on sourcing policies for tuna, both canned and fresh\/frozen.<\/p>\n

As with the first CATO report, the results do not make for comfortable reading. Not a single company passed, with nearly half of the 17 companies contacted choosing not to complete a survey and well over one-third failing to respond at all. In light of the complexity of these issues and their potential to cause serious reputational damage, it is unsurprising that retailers with inadequate human rights policies would choose to remain silent.<\/p>\n

However, considering the example of the positive change driven by a decade of CATO reports, this report is ultimately optimistic. Ten years ago, the few companies with sustainable seafood policies were conspicuously progressive; now, the few without them look degenerate and sadly out of step with wider industry and social trends. We hope this report can provide a benchmark for improvement that, a decade from now, will help to highlight how far we\u2019ve come.<\/p>\n

SURVEY OVERVIEW<\/h2>\n

Since 2008, Greenpeace has been inviting major US retailers to complete our survey and ranking them based on their responses. Previously, these surveys have focused exclusively on retailers\u2019 environmental and sustainability policies, driving measurable change over the decade they have been employed.<\/p>\n

This year\u2019s survey involved many of the same companies, but included equal weighting for questions related to human rights aspects of their sourcing policies. While response rates for our most recent environmental survey were high, with nearly 90 percent of companies completing a survey, the addition of a human rights category appears to have made many companies uneasy. Of the 16 companies invited, 9 (56%) chose to complete a survey, while 7 (43%) did not. However, this reflects a similar pattern to the early exclusively environmental surveys, where unprepared companies chose to remain silent, reengaging a few years later once they had put their house in order. The poor response rate reflects the lack of development in this area by many companies, as we hope this will be one area where improvements will be made in future.<\/p>\n

The poor response rate also reflects other, similar surveys undertaken by different organizations, including the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC). In 2021, the BHRRC invited 35 companies from around the world to complete a survey on their human rights policies, receiving 22 (62%) responses. The BHRRC\u2019s survey included Asian, Australian, European, Middle Eastern, and North American companies; while all of the nine European companies responded, less than half (6) of the 13 US and Canadian companies responded.[1]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0While many of the larger, international brands chose to complete the Greenpeace survey, many of the smaller, US-based brands did not.<\/p>\n

Finally, this survey aims to produce a picture of the current situation and provide a contemporary benchmark against which future improvements can hopefully be measured. As a result, points were only awarded for policies and activities currently in place and did not consider future plans. There are encouraging signs amongst some retailers and we hope that these will be reflected in improved scores in future editions.<\/p>\n

Supermarkets Failing on Human Rights<\/h3>\n

Despite more than a decade since the introduction of the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights\u00a0(UNGP), as well as a series of high-profile and severe cases of\u00a0labor\u00a0and human rights abuse in tuna supply chains, the results of this survey confirm that supermarkets continue to fail on human rights. With the exception of a few standout examples of leadership in particular areas, the retail industry as a whole has taken inadequate steps to address the human rights impacts of their business operations. This is reflected in the fact that none of the retailers surveyed managed to achieve a passing grade.<\/p>\n

The results of this survey also broadly reflect the findings of other recent work to assess the human rights efforts of large companies. In 2018, Oxfam assessed 16 international supermarkets on transparency and treatment of workers, small-scale farmers, and women in their supply chains \u2013 including some of those covered by this survey \u2013 and found failure across the board.[2] <\/a><\/sup>The World Benchmarking Alliance\u2019s annual Corporate Human Rights Benchmark (WBA) report[3]<\/a><\/sup> for 2020 saw its worst results since the benchmark was first published in 2017, with nearly half of the over 200 companies surveyed failing to score any points for their human rights due diligence work. According to the WBA \u201conly a minority of companies demonstrate the willingness and commitment to take human rights seriously.\u201d\u00a0One of the key challenges identified by the Benchmark was the gulf between commitments made at an executive level and implementation at a practical level, a disparity further confirmed by the results of this survey. Finally, in 2021, the findings of a survey\u00a0of 35 global tuna brands by the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) \u2013 again including some of the companies covered in this survey \u2013 confirm \u201ca pattern of policy over practice\u201d and \u201cexpose glacial progress\u201d on issues related to modern slavery in tuna supply chains.[4]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Despite some positive signs of limited progress centered on a few progressive brands, practical and meaningful action has been largely inadequate, and details remain scarce.<\/p>\n

The findings of our survey add further weight to calls for supermarkets to do more to tackle labor and human rights abuses in their supply chains. The limited actions taken by retailers thus far have been widely considered inadequate by advocates.<\/p>\n

Survey Methodology<\/h3>\n

The survey results are based on retailers\u2019 answers to 38 questions in the following categories: tuna procurement policy, traceability, advocacy and initiatives, human rights and labor protections, current sourcing, and customer education and labeling.<\/strong> Retailers who chose not to respond to our survey were graded based on publicly available information. Responses to questions in the six categories named above were given raw point scores, which were then weighted and aggregated to provide a final percentage score. The following table reflects the distribution of raw points and percentage weighting for each category:<\/p>\n

\"\"The intention of this report is to provide an assessment of retailers\u2019 tuna supply chain policies that gives consideration to both environmental and human rights concerns. We categorized our questions in the manner described above in order to give appropriate emphasis to qualitatively distinct areas of retailer responsibility. In doing so, we hope to highlight for both retailers and customers the problems with existing supply chain policies, as well as the solutions that must be implemented to correct them.<\/p>\n

Survey Scoring<\/h3>\n

Human rights and environmental policy are complex and evolving fields that touch a broad range of issues \u2013 including domestic and global politics, socio-economics, migration, climate change, and resource management \u2013 and impact a wide spectrum of actors \u2013 from small-business owners and corporations to migrant fishers, seafood processors and western consumers. There are different, occasionally competing, schools of thought and approaches to policy with results often difficult or impossible to measure.<\/p>\n

As a result, we recognize that there is always subjectivity involved in\u00a0policy decisions\u00a0and the assessment of those decisions. With this in mind, we have endeavored to be as fair as possible and, where appropriate, give companies the benefit of the doubt, particularly where clear effort and engagement has been made.<\/p>\n

\u201cResponsive companies\u201d were those companies who chose to complete a survey themselves, a positive engagement which should be commended. In recognition of this, we have taken answers in good faith and not sought to rigorously verify statements or claims made in response.\u00a0Policies and their contents were verified \u2014 but verifying detailed, supply chain specific information is beyond the scope of this report.<\/p>\n

\u201cNon-responsive companies\u201d were those who chose not to complete their own survey and were instead scored on publicly available information. Significant efforts were made to find and reference relevant policies, but the number of companies and amount of information available mean some may have been missed. In categories requiring specific information \u2013 such as inventory and\u00a0catch methods\u00a0\u2013 educated guesses were made using online inventory searches, publicly available policies and statements, working group membership, and other factors. Again, this work was undertaken in a spirit of good faith and desire for accuracy, but would have been greatly aided \u2013 and perhaps produced more favorable results \u2013 by full engagement from more retailers.<\/p>\n

Global (Over)Fishing Industry<\/h2>\n

The scale of global capture fisheries can be difficult to fathom. In 2018 alone, nearly 100 million tons of fish were harvested from our seas \u2013 an increase of more than five percent in just three years \u2013 with a total first sale value of more than $150 billion.[5]<\/a><\/sup> That\u2019s around 22 pounds of wild caught fish for every person on the planet.[6]<\/a><\/sup> In addition, as much as 26 million tons, worth a further $23 billion, are lost to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing every year.[7]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

According to the UN, global fish stocks have been in continuous decline since the \u201870s, with around one-third now being fished at biologically unsustainable levels, a three-fold increase since 1974.[8]<\/a><\/sup>\/[9]<\/a><\/sup> However, recent historical modeling now suggests that annual global catch between 1950 and 2010 was underestimated by at least one-third, and has been declining faster than previously thought.[10]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The decline can be partly explained by the fact that the global fishing fleet has more than doubled from 1.7 million in 1950 to 3.7 million in 2015, with around 4.6 million today.[11]<\/a><\/sup>\/[12]<\/a><\/sup> Concurrently, engine power has increased significantly since the 1950s, leading to more vessels capable of going further out to sea for longer, placing greater pressure on the oceans.[13]<\/a><\/sup> Worryingly, the growth in fleet size and engine power appears to be continuing. If trends continue, it is estimated that a further one million powered vessels could be added to the global fishing fleet over the next twenty to thirty years, piling pressure onto already stressed ocean resources, increasing fuel emissions and contributing to climate change.[14]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cThe sustainability of many of the world\u2019s capture fisheries continues to be hampered by overexploitation, overcapacity, ineffective management, harmful subsidies, by-catch\u2026and illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, with ongoing habitat degradation and loss of gear creating further pressures on the marine environment.\u201d \u2013 UN World Ocean Assessment Vol I[15]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Harmful fisheries subsidies, including tax breaks and fuel subsidies, have been identified as a primary driver of continued and expanding overcapacity, as well as overfishing.[16]<\/a><\/sup> Handed out primarily by wealthy countries, harmful subsidies also inflate profitability and drive more fishing. In 2018, a total of $22.2 billion was spent on harmful fisheries subsidies, with the top 10 countries accounting for around 70 per cent of the total.[17]<\/a><\/sup> It is estimated that more than half of high seas fishing grounds would be rendered unprofitable if subsidies were eliminated.[18]<\/a><\/sup> The countries with the highest harmful subsidies are also some of those responsible for the largest proportion of global catch, including China, Russia, the USA, Taiwan, and Spain.[19]<\/a><\/sup> By fuelling overfishing, increasing competition, and distorting the true profitability of particular fishing activities, high levels of harmful subsidies are now considered to be a key contributing factor to labor abuse at sea.[20]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Finally, in addition to fishing pressures, ocean warming driven by climate change is estimated to have reduced marine catches by nearly 5 percent between 1930 and 2010 \u2013 a period of much slower ocean warming than we are currently experiencing \u2013 and has already seen a shift in the distribution of many species, including tuna.[21]<\/a><\/sup> Continued overfishing by large and largely unaccountable industrial fleets, harmful government subsidies, weak regulation, and increased demand has seen fish stocks steadily decline, while fishing has continued to increase over the same period. The result is that fishing vessels must now work twice as hard to catch the same amount as they did in the 1950s.[22]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Tuna (Over)fishing Industry<\/h3>\n

Tuna is one of the most popular and high-value seafoods in the world.[23]<\/a><\/sup> Taken together, tuna and tuna-like species represent more than ten percent of global catch, or just under eight million tons.[24]<\/a><\/sup> However, the tuna industry primarily focuses on seven species \u2013 skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye, albacore, and Atlantic, Pacific, and southern bluefin \u2013 which accounted for 5.2 million tons in 2018, or seven percent of all fish landed for human\u00a0consumption. Catch volumes for 2018, the most recent recorded year, were up more than 12 percent compared with six years earlier.[25]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Just one species \u2013 skipjack, primarily used for canning \u2013 accounts for nearly 60 percent of tuna catch, and almost five percent of all fish caught globally; in fact, skipjack has been the third most caught fish in the world for nearly ten years in a row. Together with the second most landed tuna species \u2013 yellowfin \u2013 these two accounted for over 85 percent of all tuna landed in 2018.[26]<\/a><\/sup> In the US, canned tuna is the third most popular seafood, with the average American consuming more than two pounds annually.[27]<\/a><\/sup>\/[28]<\/a><\/sup> Tuna and the industry that relies on them are valuable, with catches of the seven species netting fishers $11.7 billion in 2018.[29]<\/a><\/sup> However, the end market value of these products paid by the consumer is estimated to be worth almost four times as much at more than $40 billion.[30]<\/a><\/sup> Such large sums attract fierce competition for the biggest share, with power in the industry concentrated in the hands of a few. FCF, one of the top three tuna trading companies in the world with a history of severe labor abuses within its supply chain,[31]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0accounts for more than 500,000 tons of tuna annually and touches nearly every aspect of the global tuna supply chain.<\/p>\n

The use and value of these species varies considerably, from lower value skipjack and yellowfin for canning to more valuable bluefin species for high-end sushi and sashimi. Despite accounting for nearly 60 percent of catch volume, skipjack represents less than 40 percent of the total end value for all tuna.[32]<\/a><\/sup> Conversely, the three bluefin species \u2013 Atlantic, Pacific, and Southern \u2013 represent just 1.3 percent of total catch but more than six percent of value.<\/p>\n

Despite 2018\u2019s catch being 12 percent larger than 2012, the amount paid to fishers was half a billion dollars less, leading some to suggest that ideal catch levels for maximum economic benefit may in fact be lower than the determined maximum sustainable yield (MSY).[33]<\/a><\/sup> In addition, over capacity and excessive fishing pressure \u2013 driven by high market demand for tuna \u2013 threaten a number of important tuna species across the planet. As of 2018, stocks of eastern Pacific yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, Atlantic bigeye, Indian Ocean yellowfin, and southern bluefin were overfished, while other stocks are severely depleted and unable to sustain any further increase in fishing.[34]<\/a><\/sup> Many place the blame for this on poor management, a lack of oversight and a prioritization of short-term profits over the long-term health of fish populations.[35]<\/a><\/sup> As a result, around one third of tuna stocks are fished at biologically unsustainable levels.[36]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cStock depletion, lack of recovery, and associated loss of value are often driven by fisheries managers\u2019 prioritization of short-term profits over the long-term health of fish populations.\u201d \u2013 PEW<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Gear, Bycatch, and Wider Environmental Impact<\/h3>\n

Tuna are a vitally important species, ecologically as well as economically. Occupying the top end of the food chain, tuna are a key predator, as well as providing prey to larger species such as sharks and killer whales. As eggs, larva, and young fish they are also a vital food source for a wide range of animals, including invertebrates and other fish.[37]<\/a><\/sup> In order to protect themselves from sharks and other predators, yellowfin tuna schools are known to associate with dolphin pods. In fact, in some\u00a0fisheries\u00a0dolphins have historically been used to locate schools of tuna; nets located this way are known as \u201cdolphin sets.\u201d[38]<\/a><\/sup> Despite improved regulation of dolphin sets, the\u00a0International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) reports that three percent of tuna globally, or nearly 160,000 tons, is still caught this way.[39]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Dolphin sets are one strategy employed by purse seine vessels, which deploy massive encircling nets dropped onto schools of fish and are cinched at the bottom like a purse. More than two-thirds, or 3.4 million tons, of all tuna are still caught using this method, despite its association with high levels of bycatch. In the open ocean, where resources and shelter are scarce, often rudimentary floating rafts act as Fish Aggregation Devices (FADs), attracting animals from far and wide, alongside the target tuna. Nets are set around these FADs, capturing a host of other species with the tuna. These are known as \u201cassociated\u201d catch and account for more than one third of all tuna caught; \u201cunassociated\u201d catches set without FADs account for around a quarter of tuna caught globally.[40]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

The second most common fishing method \u2013 longlining \u2013 accounts for ten percent of all tuna caught and is also fraught with risk to other important species, including sharks, turtles, and seabirds. Thousands of baited hooks are dragged through the water on lines stretching around 30 miles long, inevitably catching other hungry animals in the process. This method is also extremely labor intensive, with many hands working many hours required to bait, set and retrieve the lines. Industrial tuna longliners \u2013 usually between 30 and 70 metres long \u2013 often stay away from their home ports for between 10 and 24 months.[41]<\/a><\/sup> Perhaps unsurprisingly, longliners have been involved in a number of serious cases of labor abuse, including those documented in a 2020 report by Greenpeace East Asia, detailing the abuse of Indonesian migrant fishers aboard\u00a0Taiwanese longliners.[42]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Tuna behavior and unselective gear make bycatch a serious problem in tuna fisheries, with an unquantified and perhaps unquantifiable ecological impact. Unfortunately, the most selective gears \u2013 pole and line, and handline \u2013 have seen catches decline by almost half in the six years from 2012 to 2018, from 9.5 percent to 5.6 percent of total catch, accompanied by a 40 percent drop in earnings.[43]<\/a><\/sup> One of the reasons cited is a reduction in the number of pole and line vessels in Indonesia \u2013 which catches most of the world\u2019s tuna \u2013 due to declining profitability.[44]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Transhipment-at-sea<\/h3>\n

Transhipment-at-sea is a key concern for both environmental and human rights protection in supply chains. In many ways, the now widespread use of transhipment enables many of the commercial fishing industry\u2019s most damaging practices, including IUU fishing and human rights abuse, and has been identified by the ILO as facilitating IUU fishing, forced labor and human trafficking.[45]<\/a><\/sup> In fact, transhipment-at-sea of tuna catches has increased rapidly over the past decade, including a 67 percent rise between 2012 and 2017 in the area managed by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC).[46]<\/a><\/sup>\u00a0Many of the same drivers of abusive labor practices \u2013 diminished stocks requiring longer, further, more expensive fishing trips and reduced profitability \u2013 are also behind an increase in\u00a0transhipments-at-sea.\u00a0By transhipping catch onto refrigerated cargo vessels (Reefers) at sea, vessels can avoid returning to port for extended periods, sometimes for years, reducing costs and maximizing fishing time.<\/p>\n

The catches of many vessels are amalgamated onto one reefer, often beyond the reach of authorities, increasing the potential for fraud and laundering of illegally caught fish. By remaining far at sea and failing to report their locations, vessels can avoid official scrutiny of their activity and transhipments. Fishers aboard these vessels, in addition to spending extremely long periods at sea, will find it difficult to report abuse, injuries, or deaths, and seek assistance.[47]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Monopoly Traders, Centralized Power and Rights Abuses<\/h3>\n

Behind the brands on the shelf is a long, complicated and largely hidden chain leading from can to catching vessel. A range of companies operate all levels of this chain, while some large companies and their subsidiaries are active throughout its entirety. The three largest tuna traders \u2013 FCF (Taiwan), Tri Marine (Italy), and Itochu (Japan) \u2013dominate the tuna supply chain, with involvement in catching, processing, distribution, and on-shelf brands. In 2020, FCF-owned Bumble Bee, Thai Union-owned Chicken of the Sea and Dongwon Industries-owned Starkist were named in a class-action lawsuit over price fixing, with Bumble Bee fined USD 25 million.[48]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

With so few companies controlling or supplying so much of the market, illegal or abusive practices in just one can spread far across the supply chain and make it very easy for tainted catch to enter global markets. FCF alone deals with over 500,000 tons of tuna annually, supplying its own brands, as well as the world\u2019s largest tuna canner \u2013 Thai Union, which produces around 18 percent of global canned tuna \u2013 as well as Thailand\u2019s other two largest tuna canneries.[49]<\/a><\/sup> FCF requires some 600 different fishing vessels to provide it with sufficient volume. An extensive investigation by Greenpeace East Asia found that a number of vessels supplying FCF were involved in IUU fishing and labor abuse.[50]<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Such a degree of centralization \u2013 with long, winding chains linking just a few companies to most of the tuna consumed in wealthier countries \u2013 increases the likelihood of fish caught illegally or under abusive conditions ending up on supermarket shelves.<\/p>\n

Forced Labor & Distant-Water Fishing<\/h2>\n

The International Labor Organization (ILO) has outlined 11 key forced labor indicators, designed to help frontline officials, NGOs, and others to more easily identify situations that may constitute forced labor. According to the ILO, the presence of just one indicator may imply forced labor, but it may also be necessary to identify several indicators in order to accurately assess the situation.<\/p>\n

\n

11 Forced Labor Indicators<\/h4>\n