Latest news with #PlanetTracker
Business Wire
2 days ago
- Business
- Business Wire
Only Four of the Largest 30 Tuna Fishing Companies Disclose Catch Data, Exposing Investors to Supply Chain Risk
LONDON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--New research from Planet Tracker reveals for the first time the actual catch of the world's 30 largest tuna harvesters despite their highly opaque disclosures. The study, Tuna Turner: Investors Must Turn Up Transparency in the Tuna Industry, trawls Global Fishing Watch data to reconstruct catch volumes by species and region for all 2,153 industrial vessels fishing tuna globally. The research attributes these details for the first time to companies and the countries they are headquartered, aiming to fill in the gaps in company disclosure. The report focuses on the 30 largest harvesters of tuna globally – the 'Tuna 30*' – accounting for 46% of global tuna catch. Only four out of 30 firms report any tuna catch volumes, with even lower transparency on species caught, location, catch methods and certification levels: just one of the 30 companies – Bolton Group – discloses this data. Without knowing what, where, how much and how companies fish, investors cannot know which of them are most exposed to sustainability risks. Whilst most tuna stocks are not overfished, tuna biomass has declined by 40% to 80%. And, major ecological damage persists in numerous tuna fisheries. The Tuna 30 overall extract 12% of their catch from stocks that are not at healthy levels of abundance or that are experiencing or might experience overfishing. Planet Tracker estimates that over 40% of the harvest from SAPMER, China National Agricultural Development Group and Maruha Nichiro comes from such stocks. Several tuna species are threatened with extinction. The research finds that Albacora, Maruha Nichiro, Dongwon, Bolton Group and Sajo are likely harvesters of these threatened species. Planet Tracker also finds that 56% of the Tuna 30's catch is 'dark', meaning it could not be associated to a company due to missing ownership information or satellite data. Further, most Tuna 30 companies may be spending more time fishing with their Automatic Identification System (AIS) switched off than on. The study estimates that better data on ownership information and eliminating these AIS gaps could improve profits and valuations in the industry by an average of 0.6% and 1% respectively within five years. Francois Mosnier, Head of Nature at Planet Tracker, said: 'Better transparency, in the form of corporate disclosure on catch and AIS usage, is crucial to help investors understand the exact risks their portfolios are exposed to. We cannot distinguish good behaviour from bad behaviour without first knowing what is actually being caught, where and how on a company-by-company basis.' Planet Tracker urges investors to demand full disclosure from tuna companies on catch data and AIS compliance as a baseline for responsible investment. Notes to editor: *Planet Tracker used Global Fishing Watch data to create a database of 736,000 'likely tuna' fishing events for the year 2022, to analyse 2,153 vessels catching tuna. About Planet Tracker Planet Tracker is an award-winning non-profit financial think tank aligning capital markets with planetary boundaries. Created with the vision of a financial system that is fully aligned with a net-zero, resilient, nature positive, and just economy well before 2050, Planet Tracker generates break-through analytics that reveal both the role of capital markets in the degradation of our ecosystem and show the opportunities of transitioning to a zero-carbon, nature positive economy.
Forbes
6 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Tuna's Hidden Catch: A Risk Investors Can't Afford To Ignore
Shrimper's catch from shrimp drag net on the beach showing shrimps, crabs and fish like sole, lesser ... More weever, mackerel caught along the North Sea coast. (Photo by: Philippe Clement/Arterra/Universal Images Group via Getty Images) Investors can't manage what they can't measure and in the $40 billion global tuna industry, they're largely flying blind. Despite accounting for nearly half of the world's tuna catch, most of the sector's biggest companies disclose almost nothing about what they harvest, where they operate, or how they fish. A new report from financial think tank Planet Tracker reveals just how much critical information is missing, and why that lack of transparency poses a growing risk to portfolios, markets, and marine ecosystems alike. Planet Tracker's Tuna Turner: Investors Must Turn Up Transparency in the Tuna Industry, reveals that only four of the world's 30 largest tuna fishing companies disclose their catch volumes, and only one, Bolton Group, goes further to reveal species-level, gear-specific, and location-based data. These 30 firms account for nearly half of the global tuna harvest. 'The tuna fishing business relies on one thing: fishing tuna,' says Francois Mosnier, head of Planet Tracker's Ocean Programme in an interview. 'By not disclosing how much tuna these companies catch and where they operate, they prevent investors from quantifying and understanding the main driver of their business success and main driver of associated risks.' By comparison, other environmentally sensitive sectors like palm oil are more advanced in disclosure. Over half of companies in the palm oil sector now publicly report mapped plantation areas, basic disclosure investors use to evaluate deforestation risks. The tuna sector, by contrast, is still operating largely in the dark. One of the most alarming findings in the report is that an estimated 56% of the tuna catch attributed to the largest companies is untraceable, a phenomenon known as 'dark' fishing. That's more than 1.3 million tonnes of fish whose origin, ownership, and method of capture are means there is no public data linking the fish to specific companies or vessels, either due to undisclosed ownership or vessels operating with their satellite tracking systems (AIS) turned off. According to Mosnier, this lack of transparency doesn't just raise environmental red flags, it could trigger serious legal, market access, and reputational risks. 'Not disclosing which vessels are owned or operated can raise suspicions that the company might be exposed to reputational, market access, and even legal risks,' he says. 'In the EU, financially supporting companies found to be engaged in illegal, unreported or unregulated fishing is a serious infringement as per Article 90(2)(h) of the revised EU Fisheries Control Regulation.' With vessels essentially disappearing from global tracking systems during fishing operations, investors are left to guess at whether their capital is tied to illicit, unsustainable, or even criminal activity. The FAO's 2025 State of World Marine Fishery Resources report, released during the UN Ocean conference, underscores the sector's fragile foundation, reporting that 35.5% of all global fish stocks are now overfished, up from just 10% in 1974. While tuna remains among the most landed species and many stocks are currently considered 'relatively healthy,' the report also notes continued negative trends in highly migratory species, and historical data shows declines of ~90% in key populations like Pacific and Atlantic bluefin tuna since the 1950s. This is especially urgent given climate drive changes to tuna migration patterns, reproduction and abundance. 'There has been a lot of improvement in the tuna sector in terms of reduced overexploitation, which needs to be celebrated,' Mosnier acknowledges. 'However, several species remain threatened with extinction. The more a company relies on these species to derive revenue, the more their long-term revenues are at risk.' Mosnier highlights companies such as Albacora, Maruha Nichiro, Dongwon, Bolton Group and Sajo as likely harvesters of these threatened species. He cites Nissui's decision to disclose its catch of threatened species as a model for others to follow. While sharing catch data poses reputational risks, Mosnier argues it also signals leadership in a sector under growing scrutiny. It's worth noting that the issue goes beyond tuna. Industrial fishing methods more broadly are responsible for large-scale collateral damage. A 2024 global synthesis estimated 38.5 million tonnes of bycatch are discarded each year, making up around 25% of total marine catch. Not only that but the IUCN estimates that 33% of sharks, rays, and marine mammals are now threatened with extinction, largely due to bycatch and overfishing. This is especially troubling given the essential roles sharks, rays, and chimaeras play in ocean health and coastal livelihoods. Some species cycle nutrients across marine ecosystems; others help sustain carbon-sequestering habitats like mangroves and seagrass beds, contributing to climate resilience. They also underpin food security and income for vulnerable coastal communities. In fact, fisheries in some developing nations report that over 80% of their revenue depends on sharks and rays. One of the big questions is why so few companies disclose their catch data or maintain active tracking. Concerns about piracy and competitive espionage are often cited. But Mosnier suggests that these fears are overblown, and that transparency actually offers a net financial benefit. 'Fears of being tracked by competitors or pirates are the main reasons we heard,' he says. 'However, piracy risk is very localised, and even by modelling a negative impact of AIS-based spying by competitors on other vessels, we modelled a small positive impact of disclosure and AIS usage on a typical company's financials.' He adds that 'ex post disclosure on catch volumes by area, species and fishing gear does not expose a company at all to increased competition or piracy risk, but makes it appear more transparent, and therefore more investable.' A quiet but growing coalition of buyers and investors is now calling for greater traceability. Groups like the Global Tuna Alliance and the Seafood Investor Action Group are pressuring the tuna supply chain to clean up its act. But meaningful progress depends on what Planet Tracker calls a "minimum disclosure standard": catch volumes, species caught, fishing method used, and area of operation. 'The industry is fragmented and underprepared for regulation,' Mosnier says. 'Companies must take voluntary action now, or face far more disruptive mandates later.' The financial upside isn't just theoretical. 'The financial benefits of transparency are mainly driven by an improved brand image that can result in preferred supplier status with some buyers, lower borrowing and/or insurance costs, and improved valuation multiples,' Mosnier explains. Planet Tracker estimates that eliminating data gaps in ownership and AIS compliance could increase profits and valuations by 0.6% and 1%, respectively, within five years. Similar financial patterns have already been demonstrated in the palm oil industry, where greater transparency aligns with improved ESG scores and market access. Mosnier adds, 'I can't see why the same should not apply to tuna, but before that, companies need to disclose better catch data.' If companies and their backers fail to act, tuna assets could become stranded. Regulatory shocks have already affected profitability, as for example limits on fish aggregating devices (FADs), which disrupted harvests for some fleets. As global pressure mounts, poorly prepared firms will be the first to suffer. 'Recent announcements at the UN Ocean Conference have shown that regulators continue to respond to pressure,' says Mosnier. 'An industry that is mostly not transparent on its catch and impact on marine ecosystems (some companies are) and relatively fragmented (30 companies control 46% of the volumes in our estimates) is not in a strong place to argue against increasing regulation requirements, even though they try.' His message to investors is the importance of full disclosure as a minimum requirement: what's caught, where, how, and how much. While the tuna industry's opaque practices may be an environmental threat, they are also a direct material risk to investment portfolios, global food systems, and regulatory compliance. Without transparency, investors can't distinguish responsible actors from bad ones, and that's a problem that can no longer be ignored.
Malay Mail
30-05-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
From greenwashing to greenhushing — Dalilawati Zainal
MAY 30 — In the race to appear green, are Malaysian companies saying too much or not enough? Sustainability is no longer a voluntary aspiration. It has become a business necessity. As climate risks, social inequalities and governance failures dominate global markets, companies face increasing pressure to show both performance and purpose. In this context, Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) reporting has emerged as a foundation of corporate transparency and investor trust. Yet, ESG's rise has also given way to two concerning practices that weaken disclosure integrity. Greenwashing refers to overstated or misleading claims about sustainability efforts, while greenhushing involves withholding genuine ESG progress to avoid external criticism. Both distort market signals, reduce ESG data credibility and impede informed decision-making. While greenwashing inflates ESG performance to attract capital or polish image, greenhushing conceals achievements, limiting corporate visibility and undermining investor confidence. Globally, regulators and investors are paying closer attention on these practices. While greenwashing inflates ESG performance to attract capital or polish image, greenhushing conceals achievements, limiting corporate visibility and undermining investor confidence. Globally, regulators and investors are paying closer attention on these practices. — Richard Bell/Unsplash pic A 2022 analysis by Planet Tracker flagged widespread issues in corporate sustainability claims, many of which were vague or unsupported. That same year, South Pole's Net Zero survey found that one in four companies working on climate targets chose not to disclose their progress. This fragmented global reporting landscape fuels both practices, making it harder for stakeholders to assess ESG risk accurately. Malaysia's ESG ecosystem is evolving, but challenges remain. Before the introduction of the National Sustainability Reporting Framework (NSRF), concerns about the quality, consistency and reliability of ESG disclosures were widespread. Organisational drivers encouraged greenwashing, particularly among companies seeking ESG-focused investment or reputational advantage. Weak enforcement mechanisms allowed such practices to continue with limited consequences. Several Malaysian companies have already faced public scrutiny for questionable ESG claims, suggesting these issues are more prevalent than acknowledged. To address these challenges, the government introduced the NSRF, led by the Ministry of Finance and the Securities Commission Malaysia. The framework aligns domestic ESG reporting with international standards such as IFRS S1 and S2 issued by the ISSB. It aims to address both greenwashing and greenhushing by introducing clearer and standardised disclosure expectations. By reducing ambiguity, promoting benchmarking and supporting future assurance requirements, the NSRF is expected to guide companies toward more data-driven ESG communication and improve overall reporting credibility. However, amid these regulatory shifts, greenhushing remains a quiet but significant risk that the NSRF alone may not fully resolve without complementary measures. Companies, especially in mid-sized or family-owned segments, may still avoid disclosing their sustainability progress out of concern that evolving targets or partial data may attract criticism. This silence reduces comparability across companies and hampers efforts to benchmark ESG maturity at a national level. The financial implications from these practices are real. Companies associated with greenwashing often face higher debt financing costs, especially smaller and non-state-owned enterprises. Markets are starting to penalise opacity and exaggeration. Meanwhile, greenhushing can block companies from accessing ESG-driven investment, as asset managers increasingly rely on transparent disclosures and third-party ESG ratings. Addressing these risks will require not only regulatory measures but also professionals who can uphold ESG reporting integrity, especially accountants. Accountants are central to governance, risk management and assurance functions. Their ESG responsibilities now include ensuring that disclosures are accurate, complete and verifiable. In Malaysia, where most ESG reports are unaudited, accountants can play a crucial role in offering independent assurance that builds trust and reduces information asymmetry between companies and stakeholders. The global momentum toward structured sustainability reporting offers Malaysian professionals a timely opportunity. IFRS S1 and S2 provide a consistent framework to enhance assurance practices. However, the current lack of local standardisation and limited adoption of ESG assurance still enables greenwashing to persist. This highlights the need for regulatory and professional bodies, such as the Malaysian Institute of Accountants (MIA), to embed ESG assurance into the national audit and ethics landscape, supported by professional development and capacity-building. To turn regulatory progress into impact, Malaysia must adopt a multi-faceted approach. First, regulators should consider mandating third-party assurance for sustainability reports, particularly for listed companies in sectors with material environmental and social risks. This would introduce a crucial layer of accountability. Second, enforcement mechanisms must be clearly defined, with real consequences for material misstatements or omissions. Stronger oversight will be vital to reducing both greenwashing and greenhushing. Third, capacity-building initiatives must target small and medium enterprises (SMEs), many of which lack internal ESG expertise or resources. Finally, alignment with international standards must be reinforced through sector-specific guidance and practical tools to ensure consistent and high-quality disclosures. Technology also holds promise. Blockchain, ESG data platforms and artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools can enhance data traceability, detect inconsistencies and strengthen transparency. These solutions benefit both report preparers and users by improving the reliability of ESG information. Public education and investor awareness are equally important. As ESG criteria continue to influence capital allocation, stakeholders must be equipped to distinguish between meaningful disclosures and mere optics. Informed investors and consumers can exert pressure on companies to uphold integrity in their sustainability claims. At its core, greenwashing and greenhushing are two sides of the same problem, which is compromised transparency. Both erode stakeholder trust, distort valuations and delay meaningful progress. For Malaysia to lead in sustainable finance and responsible business, ESG disclosures must be grounded in integrity, rigour and accountability. This shift requires collective effort. Regulators, board members, investors, auditors and accounting professionals all have a role to play in elevating ESG reporting from a compliance exercise to a driver of long-term value. In a business environment shaped by climate risk and stakeholder expectations, the message is clear. Say what you do, and do what you say. * Dr Dalilawati Zainal is a senior lecturer at the Department of Accounting, Faculty of Business and Economics, Universiti Malaya, and may be reached at [email protected] ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
