Asia’s largest seafood companies are pledging to trace the origins of their fish, but few have the digital systems, audits or concrete plans needed to curb illegal fishing, overfishing or human rights abuses in their supply chains, according to a new investor-focused review.
The second phase of the Seafood Traceability Engagement, led by food sector investor risk non-profit FAIRR, assessed seven global seafood majors with a market capitalisation of US$146 billion and found that four firms – Japanese players Maruha Nichiro and Mitsubishi, and Thai firms Thai Union and CP Foods – now have what investors consider robust group-level traceability commitments, an improvement on the previous study.
Corporate action is critical as Asia dominates global seafood production, processing and trade, yet the region is home to some of the most complex and opaque supply chains – and destructive practices. Asean countries experience over US$6 billion in annual economic losses from illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing, with Indonesia and Vietnam the hardest hit.
The challenge for Japanese companies in particular is that they source so many species – but lack a fundamental understanding of what many of these species actually are.
Laure Boissat, manager, research and engagements, oceans, FAIRR
Corporate seafood commitments generally acknowledge the role traceability plays in addressing environmental and social risks – from IUU fishing and overfishing to habitat conversion and labour abuses – and in some cases reference alignment with the Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability (GDST), a mechanism for improving sustainability through digital traceability. Two companies now explicitly cite GDST standards in their commitments, up from just one last year.
But despite stronger pledges, reporting on how these commitments will be implemented remains limited. No company provides a comprehensive, time-bound roadmap for rolling out full-chain digital traceability, finds the report, which was compiled in collaboration with conservation group WWF-US, United Nations Environment Finance Initiative, the World Benchmarking Alliance and Planet Tracker.
Progress is often patchy and limited to specific species. Thai Union has detailed plans for tuna and shrimp, while Mitsubishi is starting with tuna before expanding. Maruha Nichiro has pledged electronic traceability for selected species by 2027, but without a disclosed plan. Others – including Nissui, Marubeni and Nomad Foods – still lack robust traceability commitments altogether, relying heavily on certifications.
How do the world’s top seafood companies fare against FAIRR’s traceability framework? Source: FAIRR analysis of company disclosures, including annual and sustainability reports, press releases and webpages.
Digital traceability lags behind commitments
Across the industry, adoption of GDST-aligned digital systems is still low. Companies cite the same structural barriers: fragmented datasets, product mixing during handling, a largely paper-based documentation culture, and in Asia’s mature seafood industries, an ageing workforce that slows digital uptake.
Sustainable finance nonprofit Planet Tracker estimates that only 29 per cent of global seafood production can currently adopt full traceability systems under existing governance and sustainability conditions. Even where companies commit to traceability, the majority do not disclose how they will achieve interoperability with other data frameworks or ensure the quality and veracity of data.
Independent verification also remains rare. Only two companies have engaged in third-party audits of their traceability systems beyond certification-related checks. Most companies verify only through sustainability certifications, which provide limited “one step up, one step down” assurance but not end-to-end visibility.
What should real seafood traceability look like?
Traceability systems should have the following traits, according to FAIRR’s assessment of the current literature:
• Scope: Cover 100 per cent of seafood, including feed ingredients in the case of fish farming.
• Depth: “Full chain”, meaning that the products can be traced through the value chain back to the vessel, farm, or feed source.
• Breadth: Collect sufficient data about seafood products at each stage of the value chain and align with standards such as GDST.
• Form: Use data in a format that is digital and interoperable, so actors in the supply chain have full access.
Source: Seafood Traceability Engagement
Every company in the engagement uses sustainability certifications such as Marine Stewardship Council (MSC), which certifies wild-caught fish, or farmed fish certifier Aquaculture Stewardship Council (ASC), and the report notes that their traceability-related standards are improving.
ASC’s TraceASC platform digitally tracks certified seafood batches using GDST-aligned data, while MSC has been a GDST partner since 2024 and is working toward a fully digital chain of custody system by 2030.
However, certification coverage varies widely, and companies emphasised that certification demand in Asian markets remains weak, although a recent study by MSC signalled growing demand for sustainable fish in Singapore and Malaysia. For many product lines – including squid and marine feed ingredients – certification remains difficult or commercially impractical. Investors caution that certifications should complement, not substitute for, robust digital traceability.
Japanese firms lead without full traceability
Japanese companies are frontrunners in adopting the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), with four firms publishing TNFD-aligned reports.
These disclosures help identify biodiversity risks at species or site level, but companies still lack the full supply chain traceability needed to verify sustainability claims. Marine resource surveys used by Maruha Nichiro and Nissui cannot replace independently verified supply chain data, and Nissui continues to source critically endangered species, the report said.
Laure Boissat, manager, research and engagements, oceans, FAIRR, noted that Japanese companies like Nissui source more than 300 marine species, but about 17 per cent of this catch – which is mainly used for fish meal and fish oil – cannot be identified.
“The challenge for Japanese companies in particular is that they source so many species – but lack a fundamental understanding of what many of these species actually are,” she told Eco-Business.
With Europe, the US and Japan tightening biodiversity and due-diligence rules, companies without verifiable supply chain data face risks to both market access and financial performance, the report noted.
“Traceability is a financially material issue for the seafood sector. Beyond its environmental and social importance, robust seafood traceability is essential for safeguarding assets, ensuring continued market access, and sustaining investor and consumer trust,” it said.
