Source: Financial Times
The story. The Marine Stewardship Council audits more than 12,000 seafood products from 100 fisheries in a scheme that is an industry standard, involving nearly 2,000 companies.
It was set up in 1997 as a partnership between Unilever and the World Wide Fund for Nature. The Birds Eye brand, then owned by the multinational fast-moving consumer goods group, made it one of the world’s biggest buyers of fish, and it was under pressure to get supplies from sustainable sources.
The challenge. Unilever had faced two hurdles in developing a sustainable sourcing strategy: it was hard to ensure the seafood really was from sustainable fisheries; and any standard developed by the company might be treated as suspect by consumers, activists and regulators.
This led Unilever to work directly with potential critics on standards that would be widely accepted. At this point the MSC partnership was formed with WWF.
When MSC became an independent organization in 1999, the challenges remained: ensuring the fish came from sources that deserved the MSC label; and ensuring consumers and interest groups saw the standards as meaningful.
The strategy. The MSC structured itself as a multistakeholder organization. As well as a board of directors, it has a stakeholder forum of representatives from a wide spectrum of groups, such as big buyers of seafood products, suppliers, scientists, activists and non-governmental organizations.
The forum sets the definition of "sustainable" fish, based on joint talks, in a process that requires participants to contend with benefits and drawbacks.
The advantages:
* NGOs want smaller catches; fishing communities want to safeguard livelihoods; and buyers want to ensure steady supply. When these groups debate the issues in public as independent actors, their differences can lead to breakdowns in relationships. But MSC finds that if all parties are involved under its auspices, they are more likely to be constructive.
* When the MSC’s initial principles were formulated, more than 300 groups took part. Standards are still disseminated and adjusted through workshops in local communities. The process is managed by MSC staff with expertise in engaging multiple stakeholders.
* Involving disparate groups builds legitimacy around the MSC label because the stakeholders are more likely to support standards they helped set. When consumers see that a wide range of groups is involved, they are more likely to trust the standard.
* A multistakeholder process forces different parties to take account of others - activists gain insight into fishing communities, for instance - which may lead to new ideas, whether in monitoring stocks or managing fisheries.
The drawbacks:
* The process is costly and time-consuming. For instance, the debate on whether the MSC should focus on fish caught in the wild or whether it should certify farmed fish has been a long, drawn-out process.
* The system is prone to domination by companies or NGOs that have staff able to engage in dialogue over technical issues.
* Standards that many parties agree on are seen by outsiders as requiring significant compromises. This was partly behind accusations that the MSC had certified unsustainable fisheries, including the Antarctica tooth-fish catch.
* When not everyone agrees on standards, the MSC has to make a trade-off between expert evidence, stakeholder interests and commercial viability. Some groups may leave, whether fishing companies who want laxer standards or activists who want freedom to campaign.
The lessons. The MSC multiple stakeholder model offers a promising example for developing and policing sustainability standards.
The advantages include: disputes are resolved within the organization; different groups gain mutual insights; and speaking with one voice helps win consumers’ trust.
However, while the multistakeholder process could suit many service sectors, they must weigh the costs, and the fact that there will still be critics.