Approaches to counter the overfishing and aquaculture production crisis include those imposed by public governing bodies, as well as those implemented by businesses and non‐governmental organizations (NGOs). In the case of the latter, private actors govern fisheries consumption and production through corporate social responsibility (CSR). In this contribution, we focus on three key tools that businesses are increasingly turning towards in an effort to meet the one particular CSR goal of sustainable seafood sourcing. In this context, the key tools of certifications, fisheries improvement projects (FIPs) and traceability are reviewed, and their potential as well as limits in contributing to continual improvement in pursuit of global seafood sustainability are analyzed. We argue that seafood CSR has created its own whimsical and fantastical world, a Seussian world, in which company image has become more important than sustainability performance. We posit four important barriers that must be overcome to bring seafood CSR back to reality. Specifically, we suggest moving away from the business case for CSR, reducing accessibility barriers for small‐scale and developing world fisheries, reconciling different labels and sustainability concepts, and better recognizing the imperative role of the state in governing fisheries and seafood.

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the seafood industry is on the rise. Because of increasing public awareness and non-governmental organization (NGO) campaigns, seafood buyers have made various commitments to improve the sustainability of their wild seafood sourcing. As part of this effort, seafood suppliers have developed their own CSR programs in order to meet buyers’ sourcing requirements. However, the CSR of these companies, many of which are mid-supply chain or vertically integrated, remain largely invisible and unstudied. In order to better understand how mid-chain seafood suppliers engage in sustainability efforts, we reviewed the CSR practices of the 25 largest seafood companies globally (by revenue) that deal with wild seafood products. Based on literature, existing frameworks, and initial data analysis, we developed a structured framework to identify and categorize practices based on the issues addressed and the approach used. We found companies implement CSR to address four key areas, and through various activities that fit into five categories: Power; Practices; Partnerships; Public policy; and Philanthropy. One of the biggest gaps identified in this study is the lack of accountability mechanisms, as well as robust and consistent accounting of impacts. Indeed, many companies express commitments without clear goals and structures in place to ensure implementation. Therefore, improvements in seafood company performance on social and environmental aspects may not only require creating a better business case for CSR, but also require ensuring that companies have the necessary processes and structures in place through public oversights and regulations.

Humanity has never benefited more from the ocean as a source of food, livelihoods, and well-being, yet on a global scale this has been accompanied by trajectories of degradation and persistent inequity. Awareness of this has spurred policymakers to develop an expanding network of ocean governance instruments, catalyzed civil society pressure on the public and private sector, and motivated engagement by the general public as consumers and constituents. Among local communities, diverse examples of stewardship have rested on the foundation of care, knowledge and agency. But does an analog for stewardship exist in the context of globally active multinational corporations? Here, we consider the seafood industry and its efforts to navigate this new reality through private governance. We examine paradigmatic events in the history of the sustainable seafood movement, from seafood boycotts in the 1970s through to the emergence of certification measures, benchmarks, and diverse voluntary environmental programs. We note four dimensions of stewardship in which efforts by actors within the seafood industry have aligned with theoretical concepts of stewardship, which we describe as (1) moving beyond compliance, (2) taking a systems perspective, (3) living with uncertainty, and (4) understanding humans as embedded elements of the biosphere. In conclusion, we identify emerging stewardship challenges for the seafood industry and suggest the urgent need to embrace a broader notion of ocean stewardship that extends beyond seafood.

In the early 2000s, the sustainable seafood movement put forward the concept of fishery improvement projects (FIP), a structured multi‐stakeholder approach to address environmental challenges in a fishery and aims to use the power of the market to incentivize change. The intent of the FIP model is to allow fisheries that currently do not meet the MSC standard to maintain market access while working on credible improvements. As such, FIPs have become a widely promoted approach to sustainable fisheries and have proliferated around the globe. Based on recent research assessing the impact of FIPs and testing various FIP attributes and their link to FIP performance, it seems that the FIP model may be delivering on its promise overall. However, the impact of FIP are at best based correlation rather than causation, with only few FIP attributes having been measured consistently over a significant period of time. In this theoretical contribution, we bring attention to one attribute of FIPs: the structure of their social network and its implication for social capital and successful collective action. We start by describing FIPs as projects located at the intersection of environmental governance networks and value chain network governance. Secondly, we demonstrate FIPs as complex social networks and the link between network attributes and FIP progress through the concept of social capital. Thirdly, we present the method of social network analysis and relevant network attributes to understand and characterize how FIPs work better. Finally, we suggest opportunities for further research and integration of this approach in planning and designing FIPs. Through this work, we wish to bring attention to one type of FIP attributes that is currently not explicitly being taken into account to current FIP practitioner and researchers. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

<p>Many disciplines study the ocean and its uses from different perspectives. Recently, there has been a growing awareness about the inseparability of the social and ecological systems and that achieving sustainable use of ocean resources will require the integration of different types of knowledge and disciplines. In this presentation, we will draw from the experience of two early career interdisciplinary scientists to present examples of the role social sciences can play in achieving sustainable oceans management, how and why it should be integrated with other ocean disciplines. More specifically, we will present how a qualitative research approaches to understanding seafood sustainability governance and community/rights-based management makes an important contribution to sustainable ocean management. We conclude that to achieve ocean sustainability, which is a societal problem, we not only need numbers but also the social sciences and their narratives.</p>

No abstract