Ocean-based industries play an increasingly important role in the global economy, but their sustainability disclosures remain uneven. Most companies report on energy utilization and pollution—categories supported by well-established metrics and regulatory frameworks. More than 90% of firms track these impacts, and many have measurable targets. By contrast, disclosure falls sharply for issues such as habitat alteration, biomass removal, and species interactions. Fewer than half of firms report on these categories, and almost none translate them into concrete targets.
This reporting bias reflects a structural imbalance. Carbon and energy indicators are familiar to investors, standardized by international protocols, and relatively easy to measure. Biodiversity-related impacts, by comparison, are complex, location-specific, and lack uniform methodologies. The result is a disclosure landscape that looks comprehensive on the surface but neglects critical ecological risks.
Differences between sectors further illustrate this divide. Seafood and offshore oil and gas companies account for the largest number of sustainability indicators, shaped by sustained regulatory pressure and NGO scrutiny. Cruise tourism and container shipping follow at a distance, while ports and shipbuilding remain notable laggards. Despite their central role in global trade, these industries report very few indicators, leaving material risks outside the scope of accountability frameworks.
The distribution at the firm level is even more uneven. A handful of leaders, including Equinor, Mowi, and Thai Union, disclose more than 30 indicators and are beginning to incorporate broader ecosystem considerations. The majority of companies, however, report fewer than ten, often confined to greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and waste. This creates a dual-speed system: a small number of firms moving toward comprehensive sustainability strategies, while most remain narrowly carbon-focused.
Seafood illustrates both progress and gaps. Leading firms have expanded disclosure to cover feed sourcing, labour practices, and traceability, demonstrating how investor and consumer pressure can drive transparency. Yet across the industry, challenges remain. During my time at FCF Co. Ltd., I observed how difficult it is to extend sustainability frameworks across distant-water fleets and globally dispersed processing operations. Progress was made on ESG structures such as human rights and food systems reporting, but biodiversity and ecosystem indicators remained underdeveloped. This reflects broader structural challenges facing the industry: fragmented supply chains, inconsistent regulation, and the absence of global standards for marine biodiversity disclosure.
For investors and policymakers, the implications are clear. A carbon-centric view of ocean sustainability is insufficient. Focusing narrowly on emissions risks overlooking ecosystem degradation, invasive species, and habitat loss—all of which can create material long-term risks for operations and supply chains. The absence of biodiversity targets also limits accountability, leaving firms vulnerable to reputational and regulatory shocks.
The priorities for action are threefold. First, disclosure frameworks must move beyond carbon to systematically include biodiversity and ecosystem integrity. Emerging initiatives such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) provide a pathway. Second, measurement must be tied to time-bound, sector-specific targets. Without targets, sustainability reporting risks remaining a compliance exercise rather than a performance driver. Third, lagging sectors—particularly ports and shipbuilding—require greater attention from regulators and investors to close material gaps in the blue economy.
Ocean industries have made genuine progress in measuring energy and emissions, but the current imbalance in disclosure risks creating blind spots for investors, regulators, and companies themselves. A shift toward systemic stewardship—where carbon and biodiversity are integrated into a single framework—is essential. Without it, industries risk achieving net-zero on paper while leaving ecosystems at net-loss, undermining both economic and environmental resilience.
Leave a Reply