Why should (or should not) a fishery get MSC certified?

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is one of the most widely recognized organizations offering certification for sustainable fishing practices. Founded in 1997, the MSC standard is based on three key principles: sustainable fish stocks, minimal environmental impact, and effective fisheries management. Fisheries that meet these criteria can display the iconic blue MSC ecolabel, signaling to consumers and retailers that their seafood is responsibly sourced.

Over the years, MSC certification has gained global traction, with thousands of products carrying the MSC label. The certification is not only a mark of environmental responsibility, but also a strategic business asset in a competitive and increasingly eco-conscious market. For fisheries navigating evolving market expectations and regulatory landscapes, aligning with a standard like MSC can help secure access to premium buyers and long-term viability.

However, MSC is not without its controversies. Critics have questioned the rigor of some assessments and the consistency of the certification process, especially in mixed fisheries and regions with limited enforcement. For any fishery, the decision to pursue MSC certification must be weighed carefully, balancing tangible benefits with potential trade-offs.

Market Access and Commercial Advantages

One of the most compelling reasons for pursuing MSC certification is improved access to high-value markets. Many large retailers, particularly in Europe and North America, now require MSC or equivalent certification for their seafood supply chains. Being MSC certified can therefore be a key factor in unlocking contracts with major supermarket chains, food processors, and hospitality groups.

Beyond access, MSC certification can also support premium pricing. While the price differential varies, certified fisheries may benefit from better price stability, lower market volatility, and preference among buyers prioritizing sustainability in procurement. In some cases, it can even be a deciding factor in tender processes, especially for public institutions and large-scale buyers with sustainability mandates.

That said, not all markets value MSC certification equally. In regions where sustainability awareness is lower or where certification schemes are less understood, the commercial benefits may be minimal. For fisheries serving local or price-sensitive markets, the return on investment might not justify the costs.

Building Consumer Trust and Brand Credibility

Sustainable fishing certification, and particularly the MSC label, plays a growing role in influencing consumer behavior. In today’s transparency-driven economy, more consumers want to know not just what they’re eating, but how it was sourced. The MSC label provides a third-party verification that seafood meets defined sustainability criteria, fostering trust and loyalty among ethically minded buyers.

For fisheries seeking to build long-term relationships with consumers or partners, this credibility is crucial. A strong sustainability narrative can also elevate the brand’s positioning, attract media attention, and differentiate it from competitors in crowded markets. MSC certification is often seen as a badge of responsibility, particularly among millennials and Gen Z consumers driving demand for ethical products.

However, consumer awareness of MSC varies significantly by region. In some markets, particularly in developing countries, the MSC label may carry little weight with end consumers. This raises a critical question: is the certification appealing primarily to corporate buyers, or does it resonate where the fishery sells its product?

Environmental Accountability and Ecosystem Health

At its core, MSC certification is about protecting marine ecosystems and ensuring that fisheries operate within ecological limits. By adhering to MSC standards, fisheries commit to minimizing bycatch, avoiding overexploitation, and reducing habitat destruction—actions that are vital to the long-term health of our oceans.

This framework encourages a proactive approach to environmental management. Fisheries often implement more robust monitoring systems, improve gear selectivity, and collaborate with scientists and NGOs. These practices not only align with international conservation goals, but also reinforce the fishery’s license to operate in sensitive or contested waters.

Yet, some fisheries argue that they already implement sustainable practices without needing third-party validation. Others express frustration at the one-size-fits-all nature of MSC criteria, which may not accommodate the nuances of artisanal, small-scale, or culturally specific fisheries. In such cases, certification can be perceived as an external burden rather than a meaningful enhancement.

Operational and Financial Costs of Certification

Achieving and maintaining MSC certification is neither simple nor inexpensive. The process involves extensive audits, documentation, and potentially major operational adjustments. Certification can take months or even years, and fisheries may need to invest in new data collection tools, training, or monitoring systems.

These upfront and ongoing costs can be especially challenging for small-scale or community-based fisheries. While MSC has programs to support accessibility, the reality is that certification remains more viable for well-resourced or export-oriented operators. The financial burden can also deter renewal when economic conditions tighten.

Moreover, some stakeholders argue that the MSC model favors industrialized operations, creating a sustainability divide between large and small producers. Without structural reforms or funding mechanisms, there’s a risk that well-intentioned sustainability goals inadvertently lead to exclusion rather than inclusion.

Governance, Transparency, and Trust in the System

Trust in any certification system hinges on the integrity of its governance. MSC operates with a multi-stakeholder model and uses third-party auditors for assessments. However, critics have raised concerns about conflicts of interest, inconsistencies in application, and pressure to certify borderline fisheries due to commercial interests.

These issues have led to periodic controversies, especially around certifications granted to fisheries with known environmental or compliance concerns. Such cases risk undermining the overall credibility of the MSC label and create confusion for consumers and buyers trying to make responsible choices.

Still, MSC continues to evolve in response to feedback, with periodic updates to its standards and a growing emphasis on transparency and stakeholder engagement. For fisheries considering certification, understanding the governance model—and choosing accredited, reputable auditors—is key to navigating the process effectively.

Social Responsibility and Community Dynamics

Sustainability is not just ecological—it’s also social. MSC’s standard includes limited provisions for labor rights, community involvement, and social equity, but many believe these dimensions remain underdeveloped. Critics argue that certification doesn’t always reflect local realities, especially in traditional or indigenous fisheries.

On the other hand, MSC certification can offer social benefits indirectly. It may catalyze more inclusive stakeholder engagement, improve working conditions, and bring visibility to underrepresented fisheries. In multi-stakeholder dialogues, the certification process can help give voice to smaller actors who would otherwise be marginalized.

Nonetheless, the social legitimacy of MSC remains a complex issue. For certification to be truly meaningful, it must address not only how fish are caught, but who benefits—and who bears the cost. Fisheries operating in sensitive socio-political environments may find certification to be a double-edged sword.

Innovation and Long-Term Resilience

Fisheries that pursue MSC certification often report long-term gains that go beyond initial commercial returns. The process can drive internal innovation, from better stock assessment tools to advanced data analytics and digital traceability systems. These investments can improve not just sustainability, but also operational efficiency and business resilience.

Certification can also attract investment, grants, or partnerships, particularly from ESG-conscious investors or development programs. In regions where development finance institutions operate, MSC can act as a quality signal that unlocks new opportunities and funding.

Still, these benefits tend to materialize over time and are more accessible to well-structured operations. Fisheries must weigh whether the long-term strategic value justifies the short-term effort and whether their organizational culture supports this kind of continuous improvement.

Alternatives and Complementary Standards

While MSC is dominant, it’s not the only player in the field. Other certification schemes like Fair Trade USA, Friend of the Sea, or regional eco-labels offer alternative or complementary approaches. Some focus more on social equity, while others are tailored to local ecosystems or smaller operations.

For some fisheries, a blended approach—or even a locally driven certification—may offer a more contextually appropriate path to recognition. These options may be more affordable, community-oriented, or culturally sensitive, particularly in regions with unique social and ecological dynamics.

However, none match the global market recognition of MSC. Choosing an alternative requires careful consideration of market expectations, buyer requirements, and the visibility of each label in target countries.

Final Verdict: Strategic Choice or Symbolic Gesture?

At the end of the day, MSC certification is a strategic choice, not a moral imperative. For many fisheries, especially those targeting export markets or seeking investment, certification can open doors and drive positive change. For others, the process may feel disproportionately burdensome, particularly if the benefits are unclear or the certification fails to reflect their reality.

Fisheries considering MSC certification must assess not only the technical requirements, but also the strategic fit with their market position, values, and long-term vision. Certification should serve the fishery’s goals—not the other way around. Transparency, stakeholder dialogue, and thoughtful planning are essential to ensure that it is a tool for empowerment, not just a label.

Ultimately, MSC certification is neither a silver bullet nor a box to check. It’s a complex, evolving framework that, when used wisely, can help responsible fisheries stand out in a crowded and demanding global market.