Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
shift to better practices, a unit's relative ranking will increase. Third, this system
is relatively easy to implement. It is cost-effective because it does not require so-
phisticated computer modelling. Fourth, the non-numerical nature of this system
eliminates the issues of minor variances in scoring procedures greatly affecting the
final outcome. This also increases the tendency to focus on broad issues as opposed
to concern over 'grades'. Fifth, the decision rationale can be stated concisely thus
simplifying information transfer and communication with the purchasing agent.
Seafood buyers can receive a list of the preferred sources for a particular species
enabling them to incorporate this information into their purchasing decisions and
to discuss details with interested suppliers. Finally, this method does not challenge
the results of, or a company's commitment to, existing certification programmes
such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) (Chapter 4), Global Aquaculture
Alliance (GAA) (Chapter 5) or GLOBALGAP (Chapter 6). And, going one step
further, if a retailer is sourcing from numerous stocks or farms which are certified,
the Aquarium team may still be able to distinguish differences between the sources
and to continue to reward the most environmentally friendly source. But most im-
portantly, in dealing with stocks or farms that are not certified, this methodology
enables the scientific team to identify higher-ranked sources that can be identified
as preferred sources. This can result in bringing such species closer to certification
or assist the corporate partner in determining the best 'exit strategy'.
In addition to the five major DPs that are utilised to determine environmental
responsibility, there are other areas of potential interest to the corporate partners
including, social and economic considerations. While this information does not
have a formal place within the decision-ranking tool hierarchy, since it is outside
the conservation focus and expertise of the Aquarium scientists, any significant
issues or notable factors are identified and passed along to corporate partners for
their further evaluation and consideration in their own decision-making processes.
As analysts and third-party assessors of individual fisheries and farms, the
Aquarium team believes it is necessary to consider all factors and provide as much
information as possible to corporate partners so that they can be informed of cur-
rent and predicted conditions within the potential sources. Each fishery and farming
operation is individual and unique, and thus it is important to remain flexible in
evaluating individual organisations as much as it is necessary to be fair and equi-
table in evaluating individual operations. The ultimate goal of the decision-ranking
tool is to apply a rigorous and consistent methodology to each individual unit under
consideration that allows cross-comparison while remaining flexible and able to
incorporate information from multiple sources.
16.6
Expectations for outcomes
In support of the Aquarium's institutional mission to
present, promote, and protect
the world of water
, the ultimate goal of the corporate seafood advisory programme
Search WWH ::
Custom Search