Need to know
- A review of 14 popular canned tuna brands found that many sustainability claims lack credible evidence
- Tuna manufacturers that self-certify their products rated lower for credibility across the board
- The Marine Stewardship Council is calling on brands to get on board with independent third-party verification
Nearly eight out of 10 Australians check to see if the canned tuna they buy is labeled as sustainable. But new research suggests the claims of many brands are not backed by credible evidence.
A report released earlier this month, Greenwashing in the Tuna Industry, rates the claims of 14 popular canned tuna brands against the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission's (ACCC's) greenwashing guidelines. The claims of many brands fall short on credibility.
The research was conducted by the University of Tasmania (UTAS) and commissioned by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).
'Greenwashing' is when a company markets its products or services as more environmentally friendly than they actually are, a practice that's rife across many industries.
To help stamp it out, the ACCC published its Principles for Environmental Claims guide for businesses in December 2023. They're based on eight basic principles:
1. Make accurate and truthful claims.
2. Have evidence to back up claims.
3. Do not hide or omit important information.
4. Explain any conditions or qualifications on claims.*
5. Avoid broad and unqualified claims.
6. Use clear and easy-to-understand language.
7. Ensure visual elements do not give the wrong impression.
8. Be direct and open about sustainability transitions.
* Principle number four was not applied to the MSC report's scoring
Brands failing to back up claims
The UTAS researchers found that many commonly-bought brands didn't adequately support their sustainability claims, with some failing dismally.
Six of the 14 brands – Aldi, Woolworths, Greenseas, Community Co., Fish4Ever and Black & Gold – scored less than 2.5 on a scale of 5.
At the upper end of the spectrum, John West performed best in the credibility stakes, followed by Coles, John West, The Stock Merchant, Little Tuna, Walker's Tuna and Safcol.
Brands generally lacked sufficient evidence to support their environmental claims
In a statement accompanying the release of the report, the MSC didn't mince words.
"Brands generally lacked sufficient evidence to support their environmental claims. There were widespread issues with omitting key information, and broad, unqualified claims were common."
The UTAS study was the first to rate canned tuna sustainability claims against the ACCC's greenwashing guidelines. Source: Marine Stewardship Council
Call for third-party verification
The big takeaway from the report is that third-party certification by organisations such as the MSC is critical, if claims are to be believed by shoppers. The brands that scored the highest for credible claims in the research are all MSC-certified.
Anne Gabriel, the MSC program director for Oceania and Singapore, tells CHOICE that the shortcomings of self-certification are well known.
Our analysis shows that independent certification isn't just helpful — it's essential
Lead UTAS researcher Dan Daugaard
"None of this really comes as a surprise. The process and outcome of the study is just kind of underpinning some of the thoughts and perceptions that we've already had," she says.
The lead UTAS researcher, Associate Professor Dan Daugaard, says: "Our analysis shows that independent certification isn't just helpful — it's essential. Brands with verified claims are more aligned with regulatory standards and far more likely to win consumer trust."
Scores were awarded according to how claims stacked up against seven of the eight ACCC guidelines.
A high bar for MSC certification
Gabriel says fisheries go through 12 to 16 months of independent monitoring and assessment to achieve MSC certification, and the certification covers other players in the supply chain such as processors, traders, various middlemen and the canned tuna brands themselves.
"There's a really high bar and a high benchmark, so we know that as long as that fishery is MSC-certified, we can put our hand in our heart and say it's absolutely sustainable," says Gabriel. "While the MSC blue fish tick is a simple looking label on a tuna can, I can tell you that the process behind it is far from simple."
The MSC has a presence in 63 countries and is involved in 716 fisheries, 572 of which are certified. In 2023–24, about 15.5 million tonnes of marine life was caught under MSC guidelines, including about half of the commercial tuna catch around the world, around 2.8 million tonnes.
Unsubstantiated claims don't just undermine consumer trust and integrity, they also undermine all the positive sustainability work being done
MSC program director Anne Gabriel
Other seafood certification schemes operating in Australia include the Aquaculture Stewardship Council and Best Aquaculture Practices, both of which authorise certification labels for approved products.
Although neither MSC or UTAS are accusing non-MSC certified brands of greenwashing, Gabriel says greenwashing is always a possibility with self-produced ecolabels that lack third-party verification. All the non-MSC brands that were evaluated make environmental claims of their own.
"Without the independent verification, consumers just can't know if the tuna comes from healthy, responsibly managed fisheries," Gabriel says.
"Unsubstantiated claims don't just undermine consumer trust and integrity, they also undermine all the positive sustainability work being done."
Nearly eight out of 10 Australians check for sustainability claims before buying canned tuna.
Only 15% looking for verified claims
The canned tuna industry has come a long way toward greater sustainability in recent years. In 2014, around 14% of tuna brands around the world had MSC certification. That's now up to around 54%, but the expansion of the program doesn't necessarily mean consumers are making more informed decisions when buying tuna.
The UTAS research revealed that only 15% of shoppers in Australia look for independently verified canned tuna labels. Instead, many may be reassured by labels that make general claims such as responsibly caught or responsibly sourced, or by opaque language that merely suggests sustainability.
"I think this is because a shopper has so little time to be verifying, and they can't tell the difference between third-party certification claims and self-certification claims," Gabriel says.
At the same time, MSC research shows that Australian shoppers would choose third-party verification if they knew how to identify it.
Some brands 'way out in front'
Dan Daugaard of UTAS says the ACCC guidelines have an important role to play, given the inconsistency in canned tuna claims that emerged during the research.
"Some of the brands are way out in front. They've got QR codes and URL addresses so you can see what is actually supporting their claims, even down to supply chain tracking through their websites. But there's a bunch that aren't close to that yet. What surprises me is the variety of brands getting on board or not."
This doesn't necessarily mean claims should be standardised; they just need to be clear and credible on their own terms, Dauggard says.
We checked whether brands are clearly explaining what the certification means, so that you don't just put a stamp on the can, you actually guide and inform the consumer
Lead UTAS researcher Dan Daugaard
"What we've done is tested the extent to which consumers should be confident about the message being presented to them and whether the information is clear and accessible. We checked whether brands are clearly explaining what the certification means, so that you don't just put a stamp on the can, you actually guide and inform the consumer."
But even the brands with clear and credible explanations of sustainability practices failed to adequately communicate future plans toward improving them (ACCC principle number eight). Dauggard says this level of transparency remains aspirational at the moment, but that could change.
"There is likely to be demand from consumers to see a brand's future direction in terms of its sustainability practices, including the things you are not yet achieving, and that element was missing from all the brands we reviewed."
Greenwashing hard to define
An ACCC spokesperson tells CHOICE that making a case for greenwashing depends on many factors.
"When deciding if conduct is misleading or deceptive, or if a representation is false or misleading, it is necessary to consider whether the overall impression created would be misleading to the ordinary and reasonable consumer," the spokesperson says.
The omission of relevant information can in some circumstances be misleading or deceptive
ACCC spokesperson
And while businesses are not required to disclose information under consumer law, "the omission of relevant information can in some circumstances be misleading or deceptive".
When businesses make environmental claims, "the courts will factor in a range of circumstances" to determine whether greenwashing has occurred.
Something to celebrate
Anne Gabriel of the MSC is upbeat about the canned tuna industry's willingness to commit to third-party verification of sustainability claims, but it won't happen overnight.
"Over the past twelve months, we have seen so many brands come on board to MSC certification. That is an extraordinary development and something to celebrate," says Gabriel.
And whether or not shoppers are choosing independently verified claims, the increase in brands committing to them can only be good for fisheries around the world, she says.
Consumer choices absolutely drive positive change in fishing practices, and we've seen this all around the world
Marine Stewardship Council program director Anne Gabriel
"Consumer choices absolutely drive positive change in fishing practices, and we've seen this all around the world," says Gabriel. "The more consumers choose products that are certified, the stronger the market incentive is for fisheries to adopt sustainable practices and seek certification."
Dan Daugaard of UTAS believes that, despite the general absence of independent certification, the ACCC guidelines could pave the way forward.
"There is such a range in the credibility of the claims, but I am encouraged by the impact that I think the ACCC guidelines are having in getting these discussions happening out in the marketplace," he says. "I am seeing evidence of brands changing and jumping on board. I'm encouraged at the momentum that's been building around these guidelines."
We're on your side
For more than 60 years, we've been making a difference for Australian consumers. In that time, we've never taken ads or sponsorship.
Instead we're funded by members who value expert reviews and independent product testing.
With no self-interest behind our advice, you don't just buy smarter, you get the answers that you need.
You know without hesitation what's safe for you and your family.
And you'll never be alone when something goes wrong or a business treats you unfairly.
Learn more about CHOICE membership today
Stock images: Getty, unless otherwise stated.
