Sustainability Claims: Maybe the Answer Isn’t to Say Less. It’s to Say What We Actually Mean.

One of the conversations that stayed with me after this year’s Alliance for Seafood Solutions conference was around sustainability claims.

And I understand why this has become such a sensitive topic.

Companies are operating in an environment where sustainability communications are receiving increasing scrutiny. There is concern about greenwashing, changing regulations, litigation, customer expectations, certification requirements, and whether a statement that sounds perfectly reasonable today could create problems tomorrow.

The natural reaction can be to become quieter.

Don’t make the claim.
Don’t put the commitment on the website.
Don’t talk about the work until everything is perfect.

But I don’t think silence is the answer.

I think precision, transparency, and evidence are.

Not every sustainability statement is the same kind of claim

One resource discussed during the meeting was the ISEAL Sustainability Claims Good Practice Guide and its typology of sustainability claims.

What I found particularly useful was how it separates claims into different categories.

There are certification and verification claims: this product is certified.

There are sourcing claims: 75% of this commodity came from certified sources.

There are commitment claims: we intend to source 75% from certified sources by 2030.

There are action claims: we invested in capacity building within our supply chain.

Then there are performance, contribution, and attribution claims—which require increasingly careful consideration of what actually changed and whether the company can credibly connect that outcome to its own intervention.

Those distinctions matter.

Saying “we participated in a project that contributed to an improvement” is very different from saying “our investment caused the improvement.”

Likewise, saying “94% of our sourcing met our responsible sourcing criteria” is different from saying “94% of our seafood is sustainable.”

The first can be defined, measured, documented, and explained.

The second raises a much bigger question:

What exactly do you mean by sustainable?

Start by defining sustainability

This may sound elementary after decades of sustainability work, but I think companies need to return to this question.

What does sustainability mean for your company?

Does it mean certified seafood?

Does it include fishery improvement projects?

Does it incorporate human rights due diligence?

Animal welfare?

Climate impacts?

Traceability?

Worker voice?

Responsible feed?

And what happens when one part of the supply chain performs well environmentally but still presents a social risk?

“Sustainable” can become an enormous umbrella word. If companies haven’t clearly defined what sits underneath that umbrella, it becomes very difficult to communicate their performance accurately.

That is why I would rather see a company say:

“This is how we define responsible sourcing. These are the criteria we use. This is how much of our portfolio currently meets them. These are the areas where we still fall short. And this is what we’re doing about them.”

That tells me considerably more than a sustainability slogan ever could.

Shortcomings aren’t necessarily something to hide

I also think we need to become more comfortable communicating imperfection.

There is a difference between making an unsupported statement and acknowledging that you are working toward a goal.

Companies sometimes become so concerned about greenwashing that they become reluctant to communicate sustainability efforts at all—what has increasingly been described as greenhushing.

But sustainability is inherently a process of improvement.

If 75% of your sourcing meets your responsible sourcing criteria, say 75%.

Don’t turn it into 100%.

But don’t pretend the 75% doesn’t exist either.

Explain what qualifies. Explain how you calculated it. Explain what the remaining 25% represents. And explain what you are doing next.

The real danger isn’t acknowledging that you have work left to do.

The danger is making a statement that is broader, stronger, or more definitive than the evidence behind it.

That distinction should be central to how we think about sustainability communications.

This is where an organization like CASS can play an important role

Another thought I left the conference with was that the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions does not necessarily have to become the entity that answers every technical, legal, or claims question.

Its value may instead be as a convener and connector.

Companies across the seafood sector are trying to understand increasingly complicated expectations around sustainability claims, human rights due diligence, traceability, certifications, climate disclosures, sourcing policies, and emerging regulation.

Many—particularly smaller companies—do not have an internal sustainability department, legal team, ESG specialist, and communications team sitting around the same table.

What they often need first is help understanding:

Where is our actual risk?

From there, CASS and other industry conveners could help connect companies with the right resources—whether legal expertise, claims guidance, certification bodies, NGOs, technical specialists, consultants, or peer companies that have already worked through similar questions.

That could be incredibly valuable.

Not another checklist.

Not another reporting platform.

Not another requirement companies have to figure out how to implement.

But a place where an industry participant can say:

“This is what we’re trying to communicate. This is the evidence we have. Where are the gaps, and who can help us understand them?”

Better sustainability communication may actually require more specificity, not less communication

After 16 years working in seafood sustainability, I don’t think our industry benefits if companies become afraid to talk about progress.

We should absolutely challenge exaggerated or misleading claims.

But we should also create an environment where companies can talk openly about what they’re doing, what they have achieved, and where they still have work to do.

Perhaps the question shouldn’t simply be:

“Can we make this sustainability claim?”

It should be:

What exactly are we claiming?
How are we defining it?
What evidence supports it?
What are we not claiming?
And are we being transparent about the limitations?

That is a much more useful conversation.

Because sustainability was never supposed to mean perfection.

It was supposed to mean understanding impacts, taking responsibility for them, and continuing to improve.

And if we become so afraid of saying the wrong thing that we stop talking about that journey altogether, I’m not sure we’ve moved sustainability forward at all.