The MSC Certification — What Does It Really Mean?

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label was created to combat unsustainable fishing. Discover the strengths and weaknesses of the MSC blue tick, and whether it means the fish you buy at the supermarket is more sustainable.

In recent years, several studies and journalistic investigations have shown a significant gap between the promises of food sustainability certifications and their practical results.^1,2 This disparity is also evident in the case of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), a non-profit certification aimed at guaranteeing the sustainability of fishing practices. The MSC's story offers valuable insights into the broader flaws and strengths of certification systems for our food.

The Origins of the Blue MSC Label

The Marine Stewardship Council was created in the 1990s by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in response to the collapse of cod stocks in Nova Scotia. Recognising that governments could not regulate fishing effectively after the collapse of the stocks under government supervision and that many people buying fish weren’t interested in how sustainable it was, the WWF wanted to convince companies to work differently.³ 

After six years of planning and extensive international consultations, the MSC was launched in 1997 in partnership with Unilever, the world’s largest producer and buyer of frozen seafood at the time, which needed to ensure it would have plenty of fish to keep selling in the future.⁴ MSC later became an independent not-for-profit organisation in 1998.³

The MSC certification is based on three core principles: 1) targeting only healthy fish stocks to ensure sustainability, 2) minimising impacts on other species and the broader ecosystem, and 3) implementing effective management practices to allow for long-term fishing.

For the MSC founders, convincing industry giants like Unilever about the importance of sustainable fishing was a significant victory, as this could make a real impact on global fish production. The MSC aimed to create a market-driven approach to sustainability, encouraging companies to fish sustainably in exchange for certification they could put on their packaging. They hoped this MSC label would appeal to the growing number of people who want to consume more sustainable food. 

MSC-certified salmon for sale in Shaw’s, USA
Photo: Boston Globe/ Getty

Has the MSC Sustainable Fishing Label Lost its Way?

Despite its noble beginnings, the MSC has faced substantial criticism over the years. 

1. Fairness and transparency - who pays for MSC certification?

One of the main issues is the financial model of the certification process. Fishing boats that want to have MSC certification undergo checks by independent contractors and continue to receive annual monitoring visits.⁵ However, these checks are expensive and - as is typically the case with certifications -  the fishing vessels getting monitored must pay the fees themselves. Fisheries can choose their certifiers from a list approved by MSC.⁶ This creates a potential conflict of interest, as certification companies and auditors are being paid by the people they are monitoring, so they may be less likely to fail or withdraw certification from paying clients. 

This system isn’t always fair for small fishing vessels in poorer regions, which struggle to afford the certification fees and meet the strict evaluation criteria applied to larger industrial operations. This imbalance means large companies are more likely to afford certification, potentially leaving smaller operations without recognition - even if they are more sustainable.⁷

Read about how organic certification costs affect small producers.

2. Relaxing definitions to meet the demand for sustainable fish

The market value of sustainable fish is projected to reach $26.05 billion by 2030, up from $16.85 billion in 2022.⁸ This redlects that more and more people care about where their food comes from, and the demand for sustainable fish is growing fast. 

There are two ways to meet this demand—either by truly making fishing more sustainable or by relaxing the definition of "sustainable" so that more fish can appeal to people who want to buy low-impact food. The risk is that by relaxing the definition too much, it can end up being less meaningful. This is already happening in some places. For example, in 2005, the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Alaska pollock fishery was certified as sustainable by MSC. However, objections were put forward by the major environmental NGOs: Oceana, Ocean Conservancy, Greenpeace and WWF, due to the long history of the fisheries’ unsustainable practices and concerns that the MSC didn’t take full account of its impact on habitats and biodiversity.^5,1

Net full of pollack being pulled onboard trawler in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, USA. Photo: Natalie Fobes/ Getty

More recently, in 2020, MSC has certified an Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery for the first time. But the MSC also admitted it might take five years until population numbers recover to healthy levels. MSC’s parent organisation, WWF, opposed the certification, saying that this sets a dangerous precedent, where instead of certifying fisheries that are already sustainable, MSC is certifying fisheries that aim for sustainability in the future.⁹ 

Giuseppe di Carlo, director of WWF initiatives in the Mediterranean, highlighted that this is a worrying indication that MSC certification is being driven by market demand, rather than scientific evidence of sustainability.⁹  In other words, back when the certification began, it was all about inspiring companies to concretely change their fishing practices to put sustainable fish on supermarket shelves. Now, this is reversing in some cases - with the demand for sustainable fish meaning fisheries could be influencing the certification to be more lenient.

3. Difficulties in objecting to certification decisions

As previously mentioned, environmental NGOs like WWF can file an objection when they think the MSC certification should not have been given. But formally objecting to the certification is expensive and not everyone can afford to do it.  

Filing an objection against an MSC certification decision involves submitting a formal "Notice of Objection" after the Final Draft Report is published, and a fee is required to help cover associated costs.¹⁰ These costs can vary depending on the complexity of the case and the region, but along with the low chances of success, the fee system can act as a deterrent to making formal objections, which might result in MSC attributing certifications without any formally filed objections, even in cases where communities or relevant organisations might think that standards for certification are not met.⁶

Protesters and police seen outside the offices of Marine Stewardship Council, during Extinction Rebellion's Animal Rebellion demonstration, London August 2021
Photo: Dave Rushen/SOPA Images/LightRocket /Getty

Raising the Standards for Sustainable Fishing Certifications

To regain public trust and truly advance sustainability, certification systems like the MSC must undergo significant reforms. This involves ensuring that certification fees do not create conflicts of interest and that sustainability standards are not diluted to meet market demands. 

In 2023, MSC launched a new version of the standards required for certification, strengthening the requirements about gear loss, shark finning, bycatch and stock health. Fisheries and vessels involved in or convicted of fraud or crimes are now also ineligible for assessment.¹⁴ This is a positive step in the right direction, but in January 2024, MSC released a statement that fisheries will have until 2026 to implement these new standards, while already certified fisheries will have until 2030.¹⁵ This announcement raised concerns. 

Kate O’Connell, senior policy consultant for the Marine Life Program at the Animal Welfare Institute, said, “This delay is a massive step backwards both for protecting endangered species and ensuring good governance in fisheries,” adding, “We fear that the council is caving to industry pressure instead of making substantive changes that are critically needed to ensure its stated goal of ‘oceans teeming with life’.”¹⁶

The Positive Side of Certification for Seafood 

It is important not to dismiss certification systems entirely. Analyses show that regions with more certified producers tend to see fewer environmental and social problems. (Though we should be careful to check who is funding these analyses, to ensure there is no conflict of interest).^11,12 

Certifications have been critical in raising awareness about sustainability issues among producers, consumers, and authorities, and the MSC label has played an important role in bringing that awareness to the mainstream and paving the way for other certifications. Today consumers are willing to pay a higher price for sustainable products than before, and sustainable certifications probably played a role in that.¹³ They have provided a framework for consumers to make more environmentally conscious choices, so the average person can start contributing to protecting wild fish populations. 

However, this approach has also contributed to a misconception that sustainability is primarily an individual choice rather than a collective political problem. Consumers may feel that by choosing certified products, they are doing their part without pushing for more stringent regulations from governments. But this can put unfair pressure on the shoulders of individual consumers, when we also need change to come from people with the most power to act - government and private companies. 

Certification is Important, But Limited in Scope

The MSC situation highlights the challenges and potential of certification systems in promoting sustainability. Despite its flaws, it has been a catalyst for raising awareness about sustainable fishing practices. And if you want to buy sustainable seafood at the supermarket, you are still probably better off buying MSC-certified seafood than non-certified, especially when buying from larger, non-local fisheries. You can also use simple tools like the Good Fish Guide or Seafood Watch to help you make more sustainable decisions about buying fish. 

Buying certified fish from healthy stocks can help show companies that we want them to do more to protect the environment, and it goes some way to ensuring the fish you buy is sustainable. However, certification alone cannot solve the complex issues surrounding seafood production.  To achieve true sustainability, we will need to change laws and fishing techniques at an international level to protect the environment, while ensuring the ocean can keep providing jobs and healthy protein to billions of people.