\u201cWe wanted to see: are they reporting their impact? Are they measuring their impact? Are they setting goals and targets for their impact? And the short answer is: no, they are not,\u201d he tells Dialogue Earth.<\/p>\n
Big businesses, big impacts<\/p>\n
The list of companies Jouffray\u2019s team analysed includes: the shipping firms COSCO and Maersk, which sail massive containers vast distances every day; the cruise companies Royal Caribbean Cruises and Hurtigruten, which carry thousands of tourists across oceans; and the oil and gas giants ExxonMobil, Equinor and Saudi Aramco.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n Recommended<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n They looked at annual reports and sustainability reports from these companies and listed the impact \u201cindicators\u201d they found there, such as oil spill counts or how many whales a ship might strike.<\/p>\n For some companies \u2013 including the shipbuilding firms Huntington Ingalls Industries, China State Shipbuilding Corporation, and Naval Group \u2013 they found no indicators at all.<\/p>\n Some companies\u2019 reports yielded multiple indicators. The Norwegian seafood company Mowi ASA\u2019s reports featured 45, including energy use, seabird deaths and escaped fish. The team\u2019s audit of the cruise operator Carnival Corporation produced 27, including wastewater discharges into the sea and the responsible dismantling of ships.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat was surprising was that those who do report on it use a wide variety of indicators. In total we found 443,\u201d says Jouffray.<\/p>\n Biodiversity gaps<\/p>\n While most companies reported energy utilisations and carbon emissions, biodiversity damage was far less disclosed. The researchers\u2019 database lists 445 different entries under energy utilisation indicators, but only 77 under indicators related to the alteration of habitats and the removal of biomass and non-native species.<\/p>\n \u201cWhat is striking is that very few companies measure and set targets for their ocean-specific impact, such as noise, collision with fauna or alteration of habitat\u201d, says Jouffray. \u201cFor those who are specifically focused on biodiversity measures, not a single indicator was used by more than two companies.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n The authors\u00a0emphasise that their study does not judge companies\u2019 actual impact on the ocean, only how those impacts are reported\u00a0or not reported.<\/p>\n Following the rules<\/p>\n So, why aren\u2019t there more standards and regulations around such reporting?<\/p>\n \u201cTransparency is crucial because without it we don\u2019t have a clue as to what is happening to marine ecosystems and the life they support,\u201d says Rashid Sumaila, an ocean economist at the University of British Columbia in Canada. \u201cThis handicaps our ability to manage and ensure a sustainable and regenerative blue economy.\u201d<\/p>\n There are some nascent attempts to bring order to how companies report environmental impacts.<\/p>\n The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures has ocean-specific components in its disclosure framework. The framework<\/a> is designed to help companies and financial services to \u00a0identify, measure and monitor biodiversity risk. Another project<\/a>, the Global Reporting Initiative, includes reporting on indicators such as biodiversity waste, and water and resource usage.<\/p>\n All these moves fall under the broader term of environmental, social and governance (ESG) reporting \u2013 a term used to evaluate how companies behave beyond their financial performance.<\/p>\n A 2023 survey<\/a> of 420 institutional investors working around the world, commissioned by the French bank BNP Paribas, found that 71% worried that \u201cincomplete and inconsistent data\u201d was one of the biggest barriers to greater adoption of ESG. And in recent years, ESG has met with political pushback. Critics argue it is broad, inconsistent and burdensome for companies. In the US, for example, ESG has become highly politically charged, with some states pushing for it, others against.\u00a0<\/p>\n What are ESG standards?<\/p>\n Companies are increasingly expected to report on their environmental, social and governance impacts. These three areas aim to cover what the professional services network Deloitte defines<\/a> as: \u201call the non-financial risks and opportunities inherent to a company\u2019s day to day activities\u201d.<\/p>\n The principle behind ESG is that companies do not exist solely for the generation of profit. Every company is a collection of people who have the potential and responsibility to protect and nourish the environment, prioritise human wellbeing, and govern themselves ethically.<\/p>\n ESG reporting differs from company to company, but the relevant data is typically gathered and added to annual reports or presented as a separate sustainability report.<\/p>\n The European Union had previously stated an intention to roll out its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive between 2024 and 2026. This would require companies to disclose the impact of their activities on people and the environment, though ocean-specific impacts are not separate from terrestrial ones. In 2025, however, parts of the legislation were put on hold<\/a>, leaving only large companies required to report.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Recommended<\/p>\n <\/a><\/p>\n \u201cCompanies have privacy concerns, which is understandable, but society needs some minimum amount of information to help manage marine habitats and animals in a fashion that is regenerative and truly sustainable,\u201d says Sumaila.<\/p>\n Some nations are plotting a course to clearer reporting. In Japan<\/a>, sustainability and climate impact disclosures will become mandatory for companies that are listed on the Tokyo stock exchange prime market and have a market capitalisation of at least JPY 3 trillion (USD 19.7 billion), from the end of the 2026-2027 financial year.<\/p>\n France<\/a> requires the largest companies headquartered there to develop and publish plans addressing human rights, social, health and environmental risks. Singapore is introducing<\/a> mandatory environmental impact disclosure rules for all Singapore-exchange-listed and large non-listed companies. In 2023, India\u2019s securities and exchange board began asking<\/a> for supply chain sustainability data from the country\u2019s 250 largest listed companies by market capitalisation.<\/p>\n \u201cGovernments, customers and investors are increasingly recognising how biodiversity loss affects businesses,\u201d says Hanne Thornam, head of climate change and sustainability services for EY Nordics, the multinational professional services network. \u201cRegulations that help us reduce this impact will have major implications for the sector going forward.\u201d<\/p>\n There are international targets, too. The UN Sustainable Development Goals require member states to conserve and restore ecosystems, reduce pollution and push for the \u201csustainable use of marine resources\u201d.<\/p>\n The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework<\/a>, established in late 2022, also includes language on corporate reporting. However, research published in May suggests much ESG reporting is missing<\/a> many of the biodiversity issues that the framework is designed to address. And the High Seas Treaty<\/a> that will come into force in January also requires companies working in international waters to share information on their activities.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Dumbo-Octopus_NOAA-Office-of-Ocean-Exploration-and-Research_fbf543154c.jpg\")
\u201cDumbo octopus\u201d species like this one propel themselves through the extreme depths using fins on their mantles. Deep-sea mining activities could threaten their existence (Image: NOAA Office of Ocean Exploration and Research<\/a> \/ Flickr<\/a>, CC BY-SA<\/a>)<\/p>\n