Marine stewardship practices and environmental management

MSC

Roles and Pitfalls in the Marine Stewardship Council

Unilever's role in the Marine Stewardship Council was as a direct industry leader, providing direct financial incentives to commercial fishing operations for incorporating sustainable and environmentally sound fishing practices into their activities. As the leading purchaser of commercial fish in the world market, Unilever was in a unique position where action was required of them in order to change the world's fishing situation. This also put Unilever in a better position to effect change than any other company or organization, and though its buying practices and funding of research and marketing campaigns the conglomerate aimed to do exactly that. In general, Unilever's role in the joint Marine Stewardship Council venture with the World Wildlife Fund can be seen as one of direct practicality and economic impact in its influence over the fishing industry (Radler 2000).

The World Wildlife Fund, meanwhile, brought its experience and its legitimacy to the partnership, providing an authoritative and compelling voice to final consumers and other environmental regarding the better practices that went into catching fish that carry the MSC label. The World Wildlife Fund also has significant funding operations, of course, but they pale in comparison to Unilever's financial clout, and of course the Wildlife Fund does not purchase or distribute commercially caught fish. it's role in the Marine Stewardship Council was therefore of a less directly practical nature, and was more intangible in nature. The legitimacy and clarity of purpose that the WWF's partnership in the MSC created is essential to the success of the MSC's mission and the acceptance of the organization in the fishing industry, among consumers, and in the environmental movement (Radler 2000).

The major pitfall that both of the partners in the Marine Stewardship Council face is one of a loss of legitimacy and stature, from which it would be difficult for either to recover. For Unilever, this loss of legitimacy should the MSC fail will be compounded by a loss of the commercial supply of the world's fish, which will create a major loss of profits for the company. It would also greatly hurt the company's image with both consumers and environmentalists, as well as with their suppliers in the fishing and other industries. This last could be of incredible detriment to the company; if the policies it encourages its suppliers to adopt and implement ultimately lead to their failure, the level of trust between Unilever's many suppliers and the international food and consumer product will be hugely diminished, likely irrevocably. This will make it highly difficult for Unilever -- and possibly any other large company -- to engage in similar projects in the future.