New Study Explores Whether Ecolabels Can Remain Credible Under Climate Uncertainty

• #Climate Change
• #Research Article

• Share it:

The study, entitled “Can ecolabels survive climate uncertainty? A game-theoretic perspective on fishery certification”, has been published open access in the Journal of Environmental Management. The research was conducted within the framework of the SMART-FOODPRINT project by Ana Espinola-Arredondo, Sandra Ceballos-Santos, Pere Fullana-i-Palmer and Alba Bala.

Certification in a changing climate

Climate change is creating new challenges for global fisheries. Rising ocean temperatures, marine heatwaves, ocean acidification and harmful algal blooms are affecting fish stocks, altering their geographical distribution and disrupting fishing operations. Many species are already moving towards the poles or into deeper waters, making fisheries management increasingly complex—particularly when stocks cross international boundaries.

Against this background, the study investigates two central questions: Does uncertainty about environmental conditions influence a fisher’s decision to seek certification? And could monitoring become less necessary when adverse climate events are more likely?

To answer these questions, the researchers developed a game-theoretic signalling model that represents the strategic interaction between fishers and monitoring authorities. The model identifies when certification can provide reliable information about compliance with sustainability standards and when additional monitoring is necessary.

When does certification remain a credible signal?

The results show that certification costs, expected economic benefits, subsidies and environmental conditions all influence the reliability of ecolabels.

Certification costs can range from approximately US$15,000 to US$120,000, depending on the complexity of the fishery, data availability and stakeholder participation. When these costs are moderate, certification can act as an effective screening mechanism: efficient fishers choose to certify, while those less likely to comply do not. However, when certification is inexpensive and expected benefits are high, all types of fishers may seek certification, weakening its value as a signal and increasing the need for monitoring.

The analysis also reveals an important trade-off associated with subsidies. Financial support can make certification more accessible, particularly for small-scale fisheries. For example, the MSC-certified Mexican red rock lobster fishery has received governmental support through fuel subsidies and infrastructure improvements, while the Normandy and Jersey lobster fishery acknowledged that certification would not have been possible without public funding.

Similarly, in 2022, the MSC Ocean Stewardship Fund awarded nearly US$1 million to 22 projects, many of which were located in developing regions. Nevertheless, the study indicates that subsidies may also encourage less efficient fishers to pursue certification, potentially increasing the monitoring burden if these support mechanisms are not carefully designed.

Towards more adaptive certification systems

The findings demonstrate that certification systems cannot remain static in a changing climate. Regulators and certification bodies need to adapt certification costs, incentives, penalties and monitoring strategies to evolving environmental risks.

Although the model focuses on fisheries, the analytical framework can be adapted to other sectors in which certification serves as a signal of sustainability under uncertain conditions, including agriculture, forestry, renewable energy and ethical manufacturing.

The study therefore provides a flexible tool for identifying where monitoring efforts should be prioritised and for designing more credible, adaptive and climate-responsive certification systems.

The open-access article is available here.

This research is part of the project PID2022-137023OB-C32, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033/FEDER, EU.