Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
of a systematic bias in the assessment and verification process, and is likely to
provide the second certification company with a strong competitive advantage in
the business of securing fishery assessment contracts. Whilst this makes good busi-
ness sense from the certifier's perspective (being able to offer a strong history of
environmental approvals), any bias in the scoring is a substantial issue for the MSC
programme. The business model implemented by the MSC-aflexible standard
verified through price-competitive assessment contracts negotiated by certifiers di-
rectly with the venture wishing to be assessed - leaves this problem as unmanaged,
and is likely to pose a significant credibility problem for the MSC ecolabel as it
grows in global product coverage. Even the highest quality standard may reach
weak outcomes and unreliable awards of the ecolabel if a low-quality verification
model is used to assess compliance with the standard.
The cost versus quality issue, and the price-based competition between certifiers
also leads inexorably to the situation where fishery and aquaculture ventures can
'shop around' for a compliant certifier who has a track record of successfully
certifying ventures that may have some sustainability issues and have marginal
performance in some decision areas. Business models, such as that of the MSC,
that encourage price competition amongst certifiers coupled with a weak verification
model and with only very limited quality control over the verification system, serve
to encourage cost cutting that may lead to quality cutting. Together with certifier
'shopping', this risks undermining the quality of assessment outcomes, increasing
uncertainty in the minds of consumers and ultimately risks the credibility of the
certification/ecolabel.
10.5.2
Grading of performance
The verification procedures of some assessment systems result in pass/fail decisions,
and in rating and guide programmes they result in three levels of performance:
purchase with confidence, purchase with caution or do not purchase (Chapter 1).
However, these are narrow performance 'bands', and there is considerable merit in
having more classes in a seafood performance grading system to secure an increased
number of ventures entering into a sustainability programme. Where there is a
range of performance in the fisheries or aquaculture ventures likely to be seeking
endorsement, the incentive for entry into the system of incremental improvement
of ecologically sustainable practices is likely to be greater in a system that offers
a range of acceptable performance levels, rather than a single pass/fail (Kaiser &
Edwards-Jones 2006).
A useful system for seafood sustainability would be a system that combined
a range of acceptable performance levels, possibly five, with a standard for each
level that defined explicitly the minimum level of performance on each decision
element in the standard that is required for the fishery or venture to be admitted
to that level of performance. Such performance levels could easily be structured to
apply to specific types of industry issues, such as seacages, bottom trawling, long
Search WWH ::
Custom Search