Abstract
Market‐based instruments of fishery governance have been promoted in the past two decades on the basis of two widespread expectations: that complying with sustainability standards will lead to environmental benefits; and that certifications will not discriminate against specific social groups, countries or regions. This paper assesses whether these assumptions hold through the analysis of how the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) label for capture fisheries has managed ‘supply’, ‘demand’ and ‘civic’ concerns in the market for sustainability certifications. The MSC has created and now dominates the market for ‘sustainable fish’, but success has been accompanied by serious challenges. The MSC has so far failed to convincingly show that its certification system has positive environmental impacts, and it has marginalized Southern fisheries, especially in low‐income countries. As an institutional solution to the global fishery crisis, the MSC seems to be better tuned to the creation of a market for ‘sustainable fish’ rather than ‘sustainable fisheries’.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
