Assessment of SSC Labelling and Sourcing Codes

The assessment found that 89% of 80 reviewed products were sourced in alignment with the SSC Sourcing Code, and 85% of 52 products with environmental claims adhered to the Labelling Code. While SSC members generally showed high compliance, non-members were more likely to use misleading terminology or lack verifiable sourcing data. The report notes a 15% improvement in the prevalence of misleading claims since 2011, though it recommends better on-pack catch area and method information to help consumers use seafood guides.

• Of the 80 products reviewed, 71 (89%) were sourced in alignment with the SSC Sourcing Code. The nine non-compliant products included seven non-members and two SSC members, primarily due to a lack of verifiable information regarding source fisheries or farms.
• Out of 52 products featuring self-declared environmental claims, 43 (approximately 85%) met the requirements of the Labelling Code. Non-compliance in the remaining nine products was driven by incorrect terminology (five cases), lack of verifiable information (three cases), and a missing third-party chain of custody (one case).
• The proportion of potentially misleading or unverified claims dropped to 17%, representing a 15% improvement from the 32% recorded in ClientEarth's 2011 report.
• Verification of farming systems and associated accreditations was identified as particularly difficult because only general details were available to the public.
• Retailers and brands showed higher rates of environmental labelling on their own-brand products (68% and 65% respectively) compared to non-SSC members, who labelled just over half of their products.
• The report recommends that businesses provide more specific on-pack information, such as catch area and method, to enable consumers to effectively use seafood guides like the MCS Good Fish Guide.
• The consultant suggests the SSC review whether the Sourcing Code should apply to all products a company is responsible for, rather than just 'own-brand' products, to maintain the coalition's integrity.

APA

Pazderka, C. (2017). Assessment of SSC Labelling and Sourcing Codes. ClientEarth. https://www.clientearth.org/media/aqmlcit2/sustainable-seafood-coalition-report-assessment-of-ssc-labelling-and-sourcing-codes-ext-en.pdf

Chicago

Pazderka, Catherine. Assessment of SSC Labelling and Sourcing Codes. ClientEarth, 2017. https://www.clientearth.org/media/aqmlcit2/sustainable-seafood-coalition-report-assessment-of-ssc-labelling-and-sourcing-codes-ext-en.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Pazderka |first1=Catherine |title=Assessment of SSC Labelling and Sourcing Codes |publisher=ClientEarth |date=April 2017 |url=https://www.clientearth.org/media/aqmlcit2/sustainable-seafood-coalition-report-assessment-of-ssc-labelling-and-sourcing-codes-ext-en.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{pazderka2017assessment, author = {Pazderka, Catherine}, title = {{Assessment of SSC Labelling and Sourcing Codes}}, institution = {ClientEarth}, year = {2017}, month = apr, url = {https://www.clientearth.org/media/aqmlcit2/sustainable-seafood-coalition-report-assessment-of-ssc-labelling-and-sourcing-codes-ext-en.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }