Anecdotes and Lessons of a Decade - SEAFOOD Ecolabelling: Principles and Practice - page 423

little if the standard is set at a low level. While such measures are good indicators
of market penetration, none of these provide consumers with the assurance that
their purchase of an ecolabelled product is actually going to be better for the ocean
ecosystems or fish stocks (Rotherham 2005). However, at this stage, none of the
current certification or ecolabelling programmes widely advertise or promote the
successes of ecolabelling in terms of achieving better fish stocks or improvements
to ocean ecosystems.
In the marketplace of the future, informed seafood consumers and opinion leaders
will demand to be better informed about the various ecological issues and expect
to be provided with robust information about the extent to which the various forms
of certification, ecolabelling and product endorsement actually support improved
ocean ecosystems and fish stocks. The crucial information will revolve around the
type and extent of environmental improvements that the ecolabel or certification
system has actually caused, either directly or indirectly, through the application of
the sustainability standard.

21.5 The business of certification

21.5.1 Business models
The 'business model' of a certification and ecolabelling programme refers to the
way in which the processes of the programme are arranged and managed, including
the way in which the various internal financial systems operate. In financial terms,
some ecolabelling programmes are maintained and supported by governments (such
as the Blue Angel - a successful ecolabel operating in Europe), while others (MSC,
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)) are more complex and supported by donations,
grants and small amounts of money generated from licensing of the ecolabel.
The 'business model' also refers to the way in which the various structures within
the programme operate and their internal and external relationships. In the MSC
programme, certifiers engage in contractual arrangements with fishery clients to
undertake various parts of the pre- and full assessment process, including surveil-
lance audits. These contracts are commercially confidential, and both the terms of
the contract and the price are normally not disclosed to the MSC or made public.
This is a specific element of the MSC programme designed to enhance competi-
tion amongst certifiers and to keep costs of assessments down. Unfortunately, this
approach may also have an impact on the quality of assessments. Assembling an
expert team of international standing for a detailed MSC assessment is expensive,
and it is cheaper to hire local specialists and less-skilled experts to fill the assess-
ment team role. Certifiers competing on price to sign up fishery clients may be
very tempted to use less-experienced and cheaper assessment teams, leading to
low-quality assessments.