The world’s largest seafood and aquaculture firms are failing to combat waste, and fall short on fish welfare, according to a new benchmarking assessment.

A first-ever seafood index, which was launched in May by the global investor network FAIRR Initiative, assessed 20 firms — including salmon farmers Mowi and Bakkafrost — on the social, health, and environmental impacts of their operations.

The study found that companies – which were headquartered in Europe, Asia-Pacific, North America and Latin America – fared well on social indicators such as worker representation and labour rights, but comparatively poorly on pollution, traceability, antibiotics use, and animal welfare.
 
The seafood index is a spin-off from FAIRR’s Protein Producers Index, which combined seafood and land-based animal protein producers in its assessment, and where the world’s largest salmon farmer Mowi, was previously ranked “most sustainable protein”.
 
In the new assessment, salmon giant Mowi once again had the best ranking while food products  companies Sysco Corporation and Kyokuyo Co scored lowest at 14 and 13 out of 100.

But with MOWI achieving an overall score of just 57 out of 100, Laure Boissat, Manager of FAIRR’s research and engagement team, who worked on the Coller Seafood Index pointed out there much room for progress.
 
“[Mowi is] the first, but their overall score is just above average, so we do identify areas for improvement,” she said.

Overall, companies scored poorly on being able to show evidence of implementing their own policies, and on traceability — which had an average score of just 27 out of 100 – leaving consumers “potentially exposed to mislabelled seafood”.

“The seafood industry has received far too little scrutiny and escapes a lot of national oversight,” said Jennifer Jacquet, Professor of Environmental Science and Policy at the University of Miami.

“Tools like [FAIRR’s Seafood Index] are desperately needed to compare company practices and encourage investors to invest in companies with better practices.”

The Index used publicly available company information like annual reports and press releases to score companies on different criteria – such as the presence of a net-zero commitment. Researchers then summed up the points in each topic to produce overall company scores, which also reflected the “maturity of a company’s strategic response” to risks and opportunities.

“We’re aware that the seafood and aquaculture industry, in particular, is very keen on promoting themselves as green, as sustainable, as solving food security,” said Boissat.

“The reality is more complex. Food security will not necessarily come with more salmon production.” 

A Sysco spokesperson told DeSmog it was “committed to sustainable practices and responsible stewardship” of the natural world. “Sysco is 99 percent toward meeting our aquaculture goals. Ninety-three percent of our wild-caught seafood in our US and Canada broadline services meets our wild-caught goals,” they said.

Water Pollution

The companies assessed scored especially poorly on pollution— which included organic waste from fish farms, as well as plastic from pens and fishing gear — with an average of just 19 out of 100 – the lowest score out of the categories measured.

Aquaculture companies generally scored slightly better on pollution, at 23 out of 100, compared with capture fisheries companies, which scored at 18. On fish farms, sources of water pollution include organic waste, antibiotics use, as well as uneaten fish feed – which can be as high as 50 percent of supplied feed on some farms.

Although often invisible to the naked eye, organic waste around salmon farms is increasingly recognised – in 2025, data science organisation the Sunstone Institute found that Norway’s salmon and trout farms’ pollution was equivalent to the raw sewage of a country the size of Australia. 

Reliance on Wild-Caught Fish

The index found that seafood companies scored on average 39 out of 100 for social risks, which includes company policies against modern slavery and child labour, worker representation and workforce wellbeing. Mowi, the world’s largest salmon producer, scored 69 out of 100 — the highest score out of the companies assessed.

However the index omitted the negative impact that seafood and aquaculture companies have on pre-existing local industries. 

In the Scottish Highlands, local crab and lobster fishers have linked the decline in their catch to the use of pesticides by salmon farms, which are deadly for crustaceans, while in West Africa, the export of fishmeal and oil – the cornerstone ingredient of feed for farmed seafood – has led to widespread unemployment among women fish workers.

In the Seafood Index, companies scored only 27 out of 100 for their sustainable use of marine ingredients (another term for fishmeal and fish oil). Last year FAIRR found that five of the top seven salmon companies have increased their absolute use of fish in feed by as much as 39 percent between 2020 and 2024.

Boissat describes salmon companies’ increasing use of wild-caught fish as an “impasse” for the growth of the industry.

To reduce their demand on fish oil, some companies have started to invest in novel ingredients – such as algae and canola oil. Of the companies assessed in the Seafood Index, Mowi scored highest for its use of alternative ingredients, which stood at around 4 percent of raw feed materials. 

Boissat added the caveat that “Mowi’s target still remains quite low, and the actual proportion of inclusion of novel ingredient had not increased between 2023 and 2024.” Mowi did not respond to DeSmog’s requests for comment.

In an effort to reduce reliance on marine ingredients, firms have increasingly replaced fishmeal in feed with soy protein and other crops. However this has brought new environmental challenges.

According to a 2024 study published in Science Advances, the volume of crops eaten per kilo of farmed salmon doubled between 1997 and 2017. And with the industry trebling salmon production in that period, six times more crops were used in total each year by 2017, requiring over 3.2 m² per kilo. Based on the average weight of salmon at harvest (4.5 kilos), this would equate to 14m² land per farmed salmon by DeSmog’s estimate. 

Some of the soy fed to salmon has also been linked to deforestation in Brazil. In 2020, three of the world’s four largest salmon feed producers – Cargill, BioMar, and Skretting – sourced soybeans linked to recently deforested land in Brazil, according to data compiled by the environmental group Trase. 

Skretting told DeSmog: “We are transparent that parts of the global soy supply chain remain high risk for land conversion [and we] are actively working with our suppliers to strengthen traceability and improve monitoring and verification processes.”

“Skretting is committed to going beyond deforestation-free supply chains and addressing land conversion more holistically,” they said “We are committed to sourcing conversion-free soy and palm ingredients globally by 31 December 2030. […] By the end of 2030 our raw materials will not come from areas that have been deforested after 2020.”   

Cargill and BioMar did not respond to DeSmog’s request for comment.

Paper commitments

The benchmark found that the companies overall scored poorly on the implementation of their own environmental and social policies.

“There’s a discrepancy between what’s on paper and what happens on the ground,” said Boissat from FAIRR, “It’s a lot easier to have a policy that looks good on paper rather than implementing [it].”

FAIRR’s assessment relies on the companies’ publicly disclosed information, and found transparency and traceability were poor for the top 20 seafood companies, exposing consumers to “mislabelling provenance, species and even potentially illegally caught seafood.”

“Investors and scientists need companies to provide environmental data that are comprehensive, standardized, publicly accessible, and independently verified. Currently no seafood company meets these criteria,” said Matthew Hayek, Associate Professor at New York University’s Department of Environmental Studies.

“It is ultimately up to seafood companies to provide information on their supply chain activities in order to inspire more consumer and investor confidence.”