Business for Ocean  
sustainability
First edition – Focus on Mediterranean Sea
F O U N D A T I O N

CONTENTS
4	
Foreword
6	
Executive Summary
8	
Objectives of the Report
11	
Chapter 1 – High stakes on the 
Mediterranean Sea
23	
Chapter 2 – Unlocking awareness and 
activation to ensure marine sustainability 
31	
Chapter 3 – The case for hope: sustainability 
leaders exist
43	
Chapter 4 – The positive impact of 
technological innovations and organizational 
initiatives
56	
Conclusions – It is possible to change course
61	
Acknowledgements
62	
Project team
63	
Glossary
65	
Annex I – A social-ecological system 
framework for the analysis of the 
sustainability of the Mediterranean Sea
67	
Annex II – Description of the sample

4     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
FOREWORD
The ocean seems an infinite resource. The reality is profoundly different: 
growing scientific evidence shows that the health of the sea is strongly at 
risk and that marine ecosystems are already subject to extreme stress due 
to over-exploitation of natural resources, reduction of biodiversity, acidifica-
tion and pollution. This is a serious and complex problem, since the conser-
vation of the ocean is fundamental for our health and well-being. 
The ocean and the sea are a source of natural resources and eco-system 
services. They provide us with several irreplaceable benefits such as har-
vestable goods (e.g. fish, shellfish, seaweed), regulating services (e.g. atmo-
spheric heat absorption and redistribution, climate regulation), supporting ser-
vices (e.g. oxygen generation 2.5 times greater than that of the Amazon rain-
forest), as well as cultural services (e.g. recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual 
benefits), and they are crucial to address many of the global challenges of 
the coming decades, such as food security, climate change and clean energy 
generation. Therefore, the conservation of marine and coastal ecosystems is 
part of the UN Agenda 2030 directly addressed in Sustainable Development 
Goal (SDG) 14, Life below water, but it is also linked to the other SDGs.
The value of the “ocean economy” is comparable to the GDP of coun-
tries such as UK or Italy. The sectors involved include consolidated indus-
trial activities and services such as maritime and coastal tourism, commer-
cial fishing and fish processing, industrial aquaculture, shipbuilding and ship 
maintenance, offshore oil and gas extraction, port activities, shipping and mar-
itime trade. Moreover, emerging sectors, such as the exploitation of renew-
able energy (e.g. generated by waves, tides, algae, offshore wind), indus-
trial aquaculture in open marine environments, or the use of marine biodiver-
sity, yet to be mapped, for medical-pharmaceutical purposes, are destined to 
assume greater importance in the near future. Some of these sectors have 
experienced exponential growth in the last decade.
This environmental and economic wealth is threatened by direct and indi-
rect pressures exerted by production and consumption activities. Indeed, sci-
entific research suggests that the pressures generated by land-based indus-
tries exceed those directly operating on the ocean. This means that the pos-
sibility of increasing the sustainability of marine and coastal ecosystems 
depends to a large extent on the involvement and engagement of many dif-
ferent sectors and stakeholders. But more specifically, it depends on the 
engagement of industries that - only apparently - seem to have a minor impact 
on the health of our seas. This is about building awareness, diffusing knowl-
edge, and identifying possible solutions with regard to the protection of the 
ocean, similarly to the global efforts deployed to tackle climate change over 
the last two decades.

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     5 
In fact, the mission of the One Ocean Foundation is to accelerate solu-
tions to ocean issues by inspiring leaders, promoting the sustainable blue 
economy and enhancing knowledge through ocean literacy. I would like to 
personally express my gratitude to our partners, CSIC, McKinsey & Company 
and SDA Bocconi School of Management who assisted us all the way from 
the initial definitions of this study through to the execution.  
This publication comes at an important time. We will give you insights 
into the current business understanding of ocean risks and challenges and 
we will provide a first overview of the many technologies and organizational 
innovations that can be leveraged to reduce the pressures we are exerting 
on the seas and the marine environment. 
We decided to focus this research on the Mediterranean Sea and on 
companies operating mainly in this sensitive social-ecological area: due to 
its unique biodiversity, natural resources, restricted communication with the 
open ocean, high anthropization and industrialization of its coasts, in fact, the 
Mediterranean Sea is even more vulnerable to external pressures than other 
marine ecosystems. We believe that this is the first step to take in order to 
start creating awareness and engaging business organizations and other rel-
evant stakeholders on these issues. In the years to come, we aim to extend 
the project on a global level and stimulate further debate on the ocean chal-
lenges. The journey has just begun.   
Princess Zahra Aga Khan
One Ocean Foundation
President

6     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report offers a new perspective on relation between the sustainabil-
ity of the ocean and the economy, with a novel focus on business organiza-
tions’ awareness, strategies and innovative practices. It extends the tradi-
tional boundaries of analysis in order to include not only the direct, but also 
the indirect pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems, highlighting the 
contribution that innovation, both technological and organizational, can bring 
to the development of more sustainable production and consumption models.
The Mediterranean region is home to some of the world’s oldest cultures 
and it has been traditionally recognized as a crossroad of marine routes, biota 
and civilizations. At the same time, it delivers significant economic benefits, 
with estimated annual revenues of €386 billion, €205 billion of Gross Value 
Added, and 4.8 million jobs. Preserving the health of marine and coastal eco-
systems is paramount. Human activities exert both direct and indirect pres-
sures on the Mediterranean Sea.
Companies are on average aware of 35% of their industry’s potential pres-
sures on marine and coastal ecosystems. The most acknowledged issues are 
those targeted by extensive campaigns and social movements (e.g. marine 
litter and, by extension, contaminants), while awareness of indirect pressures 
or less “mainstream” problems (e.g. over-exploitation of marine resources or 
effects on biodiversity) is more limited. 
To ensure marine sustainability, it is necessary the unlocking of aware-
ness and activation. On average, companies deploy mitigating activities on 
the large majority of the pressures that they acknowledge. The analysis sug-
gests that it is first of all necessary to unlock “awareness”, thus ensuring that 
companies are aware of the actual pressures produced by their industries 
or by their specific activities on marine and coastal ecosystems. A second 
key element is unlocking the related “actions”. Through this second unlock-
ing, companies acknowledging the existence of some form of pressure on 
marine ecosystems, respond with specific actions (e.g. adoption of sustain-
able technologies, or participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives) to eliminate 
or reduce these pressures. 
According to our analysis, 34% of the companies in our sample are simul-
taneously aware and active, and we call these companies “sustainability 
leaders”. Their attention to marine sustainability is mainly driven by ethical 
and strategic motivations. On average, sustainability leaders recognize 72% 
of their pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems and are active on 78% 
of the relevant pressures. Sustainability leaders can be found in most indus-
tries, thus representing a case for hope.

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     7 
Technological and organizational innovation represent the key “actions” to 
address the challenges of the Oceans. Indeed, several clusters of technolo-
gies appear relevant for this purpose: cleaner sources of energy, new mate-
rials, and digital, automation, monitoring & control technologies.
Organizational initiatives – such as voluntary sustainability standards, 
codes of conduct and self-regulation; assessment and measurement initia-
tives; knowledge platforms and partnerships – complement technological inno-
vation, as they contribute to creating more favorable conditions for develop-
ing, sharing, and adopting new and more sustainable solutions. 
The possibility of changing course, preventing or at least mitigating the 
pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems is real, and business is expected 
to play a fundamental role in the transition to an economy where ocean and 
non-ocean-based activities operate in balance with the long-term capacity of 
the marine environment to regenerate, safeguarding the potential for usage 
and activities by current and future generations.
However, awareness is not widespread in all sectors and among all compa-
nies (awareness unlocking), and there are cases in which the attention to the 
issues is not followed by coherent business responses (activation unlocking). 
We believe that unlocking these two aspects is key for a journey towards 
ocean sustainability. In order to do so, it is paramount to raise business aware-
ness, and to incorporate protection of the seas and marine ecosystems as a 
part of the corporate sustainability agenda.

8     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT
This report offers a new perspective on the analysis of the relationships 
between the sustainability of the ocean and the economy, with a novel focus 
on business organizations’ awareness, strategies and innovative practices. 
It also provides insights into the possibility of developing and diffusing inno-
vative technologies suitable to address the many, complex and multi-dimen-
sional challenges posed by the safeguard of marine and coastal ecosystems. 
The perimeter of the study is represented by the Mediterranean Sea. For 
this reason, the majority of the information and data collected refers to organi-
zations operating in this geographic area. At the same time, the business prac-
tices examined help to understand the main trends occurring at a global level. 
In particular, this report responds to three main objectives.
First, it aims at investigating what companies are doing to address 
the many challenges facing marine ecosystems. Up until now, studies 
have been mainly focused on the ecological status of the ocean and of the 
seas, or on measuring the monetary value of the ocean economy. Building 
on these studies, this report adopts the perspective of business, investigat-
ing the level of awareness of companies regarding the pressures exerted on 
marine and coastal ecosystems, and analyzing the responses developed in 
order to address these pressures. For the purpose of this report, we consider 
as “pressure” any action that makes a change to the state of the natural envi-
ronment, whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from the 
activity of an organization, or the utilization of products or services.1 
Second, it extends the traditional boundaries of analysis in order to 
include not only the direct, but also the indirect pressures determined 
by production and consumption activities. Until now, research on ocean 
sustainability was mainly focused on investigating the pressures generated 
by the activities that take place in the ocean and the seas. These industrial 
sectors have been categorized under the concept of “blue economy”, and 
several studies have attempted to monetize the size of these businesses and 
the value associated to marine natural capital. Nevertheless, scientists have 
drawn the attention to the fact that the pressures exerted by land-based indus-
tries and activities (e.g. GHG emissions, marine litter and pollution, contam-
inants, etc.) far outweigh those of ocean-related sectors. The goal to iden-
tify medium and long-term solutions that can contribute to safeguarding the 
health of the ocean requires us to extend the boundaries of our analysis. This 
implies to consider also those actors that generate indirect pressures on the 
seas and marine ecosystems (e.g. agro-food, textile, chemical). 
1	  Cooper P. (2013), Socio-ecological accounting: DPSWR, a modified DPSIR framework, and its 
application to marine ecosystems, Ecological Economics 94 (2013) 106–115

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     9 
Consequently, ocean sustainability emerges when both in-land and marine-
based economic activities operate in balance with the long-term capacity of 
marine and coastal ecosystems to support these activities, while remaining 
resilient and healthy. 
Third, it highlights the contribution that innovation, both techno-
logical and organizational, can bring to the development of more sus-
tainable production and consumption models, aimed at positively affect-
ing the health of marine ecosystems. The possibility of combining eco-
nomic growth and the safeguard of seas and coastal environments depends 
on the ability to promote new technological and organizational solutions. 
This report provides a first overview of the current and future technologi-
cal trends (e.g. clean energy, new materials, digital, automation, monitor-
ing & control technologies, as well as cross-cutting solutions), both in terms 
of new processes and products that industries and companies are explor-
ing in order to face the challenges of the environmental status if the ocean.   
METHODOLOGY
This report is based on primary and secondary data and information, 
collected, analyzed and elaborated through qualitative and quantitative 
research methods. An extensive analysis was conducted to assess 
the value of the Mediterranean Sea from the social, economic and 
environmental perspectives. This was done by gathering and 
elaborating data and information from multiple sources (academic 
research, government reports and practitioner-based literature). In 
order to identify the most significant direct and indirect pressures exerted 
by industrial sectors – both ocean and non-ocean related ­– on marine 
and coastal ecosystems, this report builds on existing institutional 
frameworks, and scientific knowledge. The ocean pressures have 
been analyzed in connection to the 11 Good Environmental Status 
(GES) descriptors defined by the EU Marine Strategy Framework 
Directive. The evaluation of the direct and indirect pressures exerted by 
industries on the 11 GES was assessed through a thorough scientific 
review involving a panel of 34 scientific experts. 
After designing our research, an extensive panel of companies, 
business associations, NGOs, and experts were involved, through 
qualitative interviews and a quantitative online survey. The aim was to 
gather insights on the awareness of companies regarding the pressures 
exerted by their industries on marine and coastal ecosystems, and on 
the initiatives adopted to mitigate them.  
In terms of economic dimension, the sample (both qualitative and 
quantitative) represents companies with a total turnover of almost € 1 
trillion, with companies headquartered in Italy accounting for 15% of 
the Italian GDP.

CHAPTER 1 – HIGH STAKES ON THE 
MEDITERRANEAN SEA

12     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
The Mediterranean Sea is one of the most valuable 
environments in the world and a crucial economic pillar 
for its region 
The Mediterranean region is home to some of the world’s oldest cultures 
and it has been traditionally recognized as a crossroad of marine routes, biota 
and civilizations. The total population of the Mediterranean countries, span-
ning across three continents, is approximately 500 million, expected to grow 
to around 530 million by 2025. One-third of the Mediterranean population 
is concentrated along its coastal regions, mainly in the southern countries.2
It also represents an international biodiversity hotspot with many unique 
species and natural resources: even though it covers only less than 1% of the 
world’s ocean, it hosts approximately 17,000 species, including temperate, 
cosmopolitan, subtropical, Atlantic and indo‐pacific taxa, representing 4-18% 
of the world’s marine biodiversity, and 17% of the known marine mammals.3 
The Mediterranean Sea also delivers significant economic benefits, with 
estimated annual revenues of € 386 billion, € 205 € billion of Gross Value 
Added, and 4.8 million jobs (9% and 3% of world oceans, respectively).4 The 
Mediterranean is also the world’s leading tourism destination, with more than 
330 million tourists per year, mainly concentrated in the summer season. 
Due to its geographical position, the Mediterranean Sea is one of the world’s 
busiest shipping routes with about one-third of the world’s total merchant ship-
ping crossing the sea each year.5
Preserving this environmental and social-economic 
wealth is paramount
Preserving the health of marine and coastal ecosystems is paramount 
due to the many irreplaceable benefits provided by the sea, as well as the 
fact that a healthy marine environment is a habitat in which businesses can 
develop and thrive.Human activities exert pressures on the Mediterranean 
Sea. In recent decades, the degradation of marine and coastal ecosystems 
has quickly accelerated. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 
(IPCC) identified the Mediterranean as one of the most responsive areas to 
climate change (hotspots) due to high concentration of urban settlements and 
economic activities in the coastal areas, endemic water shortage, and depen-
dence on climate-sensitive agriculture. The recent Statement of the World 
Meteorological Organization (WMO) on the State of the Global Climate in 
2018 reported exceptionally high ocean and land temperatures over the past 
years, and a rise record in sea level, with a warming trend expected to con-
2	  UNEP/MAP (2012). State of the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Environment
3	  Coll M, Piroddi C, Steenbeek J, Kaschner K, Ben Rais Lasram F, Aguzzi J, et al. (2010) The Biodiversity 
of the Mediterranean Sea: Estimates, Patterns, and Threats. PLoS ONE 5(8): e11842. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0011842
4	  FAO, Eurostat Database, Rystad Energy Database, WTTC, IHS Markit, press research, McKinsey & 
Company analytic support
5	  European Environmental Agency (EEA) https://www.eea.europa.eu/soer-2015/countries/mediterranean

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     13  
Figure 1 – Economic value of the Mediterranean Sea
32
97
14
11
7
33
Shipbuilding 
& Repair
Maritime 
transport
Ports & 
warehousing
Fisheries & 
aquaculture
Offshore 
Oil & Gas
Subtotal
289
Coastal 
tourism
Total annual 
revenues
386
Gross value added, (EUR bn)
Blue economy sectors
Total value
Jobs, (Mln)
Eur 205 bn
3
6
4
23
49
13
156
4.8 mln
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
1.2
0.2
3.6
MEDITERRANEAN 
SEA
Eur 386 bn
Annual revenues, (EUR bn)
205
Total GVA EUR 
billions
Egypt4
Libya
Tunisia
Italy
Algeria
Malta
Cyprus
Greece
Albania
Slovenia
Bosnia H.
Syria
Israel
Lebanon
France2
Spain1
Turkey3
Morocco
GVA by country
0%
40%
37%
1%
1%
2%
10%
5%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0%
2%
2%
7%
0%
8%
13%
6%
1%
Croatia
Mediterranean Sea economy GVA distribution by country
Italy accounts for 
~37% of gross 
value added 
generated by 
blue economy 
activities in the 
Mediterranean 
Sea, followed by 
Spain (13%) and 
Egypt  (10%)
1 Spain: share of Mediterranean Sea coastline equals to 30% 
2 France: share of Mediterranean Sea coastline equals to 40% 
3 Turkey share of Mediterranean Sea coastline equals to 70%,  
4 Egypt share of Mediterranean Sea coastline equals to 45% 
4 Morocco share of Mediterranean Sea coastline equals to 30%

14     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
tinue.6 The IPCC predicts a decrease in annual precipitations, an increase in 
extreme waves and marine heatwaves events, and a temperature rise of 2–3 
°C in the Mediterranean region by 2050, and of 3–5 °C by 2100, with a sea-
level rise of 0.1–0.3 meters by 2050 and of 0.1–0.9 meters by 2100, with rel-
evant and likely even more severe effects on the southern regions. 7 8 
Overfishing is widely acknowledged as the greatest single threat to biodi-
versity, marine wildlife and habitats. The Food and Agriculture Organization 
(FAO) reports that more than 60% of the world’s fish stocks are now fully 
fished, overfished or depleted. Among the 16 major statistical areas, the 
Mediterranean and Black Sea have the highest percentage (62%) of unsus-
tainable fishing stocks, followed by the Southeast Pacific (61%) and Southwest 
Atlantic (59%).9 In any case, overfishing is only one of many threats weigh-
ing on the Mediterranean Sea: temperature stress, reduction in underwater 
light levels and the invasion of tropical species will endanger this area and 
the region will experience severe habitat losses by 2050 and species extinc-
tions by 2100. At the same time, the Mediterranean Sea will lose part of its 
carbon sequestration potential.10
Growth in population and in activities will drive additional and acceler-
ating pressures on the marine and coastal environment. Negative conse-
quences do not only impact on habitats and biodiversity, but also on eco-
nomic activities based on ecosystem services (e.g. fisheries, agriculture, 
etc.). Consequences are expected to affect coastal or ocean related indus-
tries, but also other sectors, such as agriculture, infrastructures and services 
such as energy, transportation, and utilities. The consequences of the dete-
rioration of the Mediterranean ecosystems could be significant from the eco-
nomic and social point of view: the EU estimates a cost of almost € 11 billion 
per year as a result of marine pollution in sectors such as fishing, aquaculture 
and tourism. It is also expected that the negative effects of climate change in 
the form of coastal flooding will reach values ​between € 12 and € 40 billion 
per year by 2050, and that it will directly or indirectly affect the lives of over 
700,000 citizens.11
6	  WMO (2019), WMO Statement on the State of the Global Climate in 2018
7	  IPCC (2013), Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to 
the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York
8	  IPCC (2019), Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.- O. Pörtner, 
D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Nicolai, A. 
Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N. Weyer (eds.)]
9	  FAO (2018), The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018 - Meeting the sustainable development 
goals. Rome.
10	 IPCC (2019), Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [H.- O. Pörtner, 
D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, M. Nicolai, A. 
Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N. Weyer (eds.)]
11	European Commission (2019), The EU Blue Economy Report. 2019, Publications Office of the EU
Deterioration of 
Mediterranean eco-
system can have 
significant eco-
nomic and social 
consequences

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     15  
THE MEDITERRANEAN ACTION PLAN (MAP) 
AND THE MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK 
DIRECTIVE
In 1974, the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) 
established its Regional Seas Programme to coordinate activities 
aimed at the protection of the marine environment using a regional 
approach. The Mediterranean Action Plan (MAP) was the first UNEP 
initiative to be developed under the program and became the model 
for other seas across the globe. MAP was approved in 1975 being a 
coherent legal and institutional framework for cooperation. It was soon 
followed by the Barcelona Convention and seven protocols addressing 
issues relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of marine and 
coastal resources. The UNEP/MAP - Barcelona Convention constituted 
the first and foremost Governance Framework for the Mediterranean. 
Recently, two initiatives have been launched to deal with marine 
ecosystem integrity while enabling its sustainable use:
•	 the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) under the 
Integrated Maritime Policy for European Union Member States with 
the basic goal to reach - in 2020 “or as soon as possible” - a Good 
Environmental Status (GES) of European marine waters
•	 the Ecosystem Approach strategy (ECAP) for all the Mediterranean 
countries under the UNEP/MAP framework
Both instruments adopt the Ecosystem Approach (EA) as the 
fundamental strategic pillar and are aimed to produce a synergistic 
approach aimed at: a) restoring the structure and the function 
of marine and coastal ecosystems; b) reducing pollution and; c) 
preventing, reducing and managing the vulnerability of the sea and 
the coasts to risk. The Ecosystem Approach (EA) is a strategy focused 
on understanding the relationship between human society and its 
activities and the ecosystems that support these activities, and how 
this can inform management decisions. 
Significant changes need to be made today to respond to pressures and 
aim to restore a Good Environmental Status (GES) for the sea, specifically 
defined by the EU through 11 key descriptors.
The Environmental Governance of the Mediterranean Sea under the 
EA strategy and the MAP architecture is the main goal for the coming 
decades responding to the central objective to achieve Good Environmental 
Status (GES) for its waters and ecosystems. In particular, GES refers 
to “the environmental status of marine waters where these provide eco-
logically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy 
and productive within their intrinsic conditions, and the use of the 
marine environment is at a level that is sustainable, thus safeguarding 
the potential for uses and activities by current and future generations”.12 
12	 European Commission (2018), Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental 
policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive)

16     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
11 Good Environmental Status descriptors
GES is defined through indicators related to 11 descriptors. As pointed out 
in the Commission Decision 2010/477/EU, the criteria for the achievement of 
GES are the starting point for the development of coherent approaches in the 
preparatory stages of marine strategies, including the determination of char-
acteristics of GES and the establishment of a comprehensive set of environ-
mental targets, to be developed in a coherent and coordinated manner in the 
framework of regional cooperation.
Figure 2 – 11 GES DESCRIPTORS
Although GES has only been introduced as a mandatory requirement 
for European Union coastal states, this approach can be applied to all 
Mediterranean coastal states. Achieving GES is the key target of the envi-
ronmental marine policy in Europe and should be considered the desired 
vision for the future of its marine waters. 
Biodiversity
Non-indigenous 
species
Commercial fish 
and shellfish
Food webs
Eutrophication
Sea-floor 
integrity
Hydrographical 
conditions
Contaminants
Marine litter
Energy incl. 
underwater noise
Descriptor 1: Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and occurrence of habitats and the 
distribution and abundance of species are in line with
Descriptor 2: Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities are at levels that do not 
adversely alter the ecosystem
Descriptor 3: Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological 
limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock
Descriptor 4: All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at 
normal abundance and diversity and levels capable of ensuring the long-term abundance of the 
species and the retention of their full reproductive capacity
Descriptor 5: Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such 
as losses in biodiversity, ecosystem degradation, harmful algal blooms and oxygen deficiency in 
bottom water
Descriptor 6: Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures that the structure and functions of the 
ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected
Descriptor 7: Permanent alteration of hydrological conditions (i.e. physical parameters of seawater: 
temperature, salinity, depth, currents, waves, turbulence, turbidity) does not affect marine 
ecosystems
Descriptor 8: Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects
Descriptor 10: Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and 
marine environment
Descriptor 11: Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely 
affect the marine environment
Contaminants in 
seafood
Descriptor 9: Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels 
established by Community legislation or other relevant standards

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     17 
Figure 3 – Direct and Indirect Pressures
Source: Authors’ elaboration
Cumulative pressure
Pressure (positive or negative, direct and indirect, long-term and short-term) arising from a range of activities throughout an area or region, where 
each individual effect may not be significant if taken in isolation. Cumulative pressures may include a time dimension, since they should calculate 
the pressures on environmental resources resulting from changes brought about by past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions
CO2
Direct impact
Indirect impact
Pressures occurred through a direct 
interaction of an activity with an 
environmental component (e.g. sea-floor 
integrity endangered by oil and gas drilling, 
sea-bed mining, fish trawling, etc.)
Pressures occurred through an indirect 
interaction of an activity with an 
environmental component (e.g. GHGs 
emissions, determining an increase of sea 
temperature and acidification)
Direct and indirect pressures are exerted on marine 
ecosystems
Direct and indirect pressures from business and consumption activities have 
consequences on marine ecosystems. Pressures occur through a direct interac-
tion with an environmental component: seafloor integrity, for example, is endan-
gered by oil and gas drilling, trawler fishing, grounding and anchoring, while con-
taminants in sea waters and in seafood enter the marine ecosystem in the form 
of hydrocarbons leaks, biocides and anti-fouling, coagulants, or anti-foaming 
directly discharged or spilled into the sea. 
On the other hand, indirect pressures can be observed through an indirect 
interaction with an environmental component: pollution and contaminants, includ-
ing heavy metals or plastics and microplastics, indirectly reach the sea through 
land-based sources of discharge such as wastewaters, dumping grounds, fluvial 
run-offs, or atmospheric deposition.
These pressures can be observed at different spatial scales: at micro 
(i.e. with a local area of impact, such as a site, a bay, a gulf), meso (i.e. a 
regional area, such as a region, or a basin) or macro (i.e. the whole ocean, 
or the atmosphere). In addition, direct and indirect pressures include cumula-
tive effects, since the pressures on environmental resources may result from 
changes determined by past, present and future actions, as well as from their 
interactions. The Table 1 below reports the results of the extensive literature 
review carried out for this project, highlighting not only the main direct pres-
sures, but also the indirect pressures exerted on the 11 GES descriptors.

18     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
 
GES 
description
Main sources of direct pressure
Main soruces of indirect pressure
Biodiversity
Multiple and cumulative pressures on biodiversity derive 
from over-exploitation of natural species, introduction 
of non-indigenous species, eutrophication, seafloor 
destruction or alteration, changes in hydrographical 
conditions, pollution, climate change
Multiple and cumulative pressures on biodiversity derive from 
land-based sources of pollution, dumping grounds, fluvial run-
offs. Major land-based pressures to biodiversity are exerted 
by inorganic pollution, fertilizers, pesticides13
Non-indigenous 
species
Natural invasion through waterways (also due to global 
warming and Sea Surface Temperature increase), 
transportation by ships, intentional or unintentional 
introduction by aquaculture, including commercial 
species, bait, aquarium trade
250 bn pieces of marine litter (including plastics and 
microplastics) floating in the Mediterranean Sea are expected 
to be potential carriers for alien and invasive species14
Commercial fish 
and shellfish
Over­-exploitation, by-catch, direct and indirect impacts 
from fishing gears and trawler fishing, pollution, 
contaminants and marine litter in sea waters are the 
main pressures on commercial fish and shellfish. 
Overfishing is the greatest single threat
Food webs
Overfishing, eutrophication, modification of 
hydrographical conditions, introduction of non-
indigenous species, pollutants and marine litter, and 
alteration of marine habitats can impact food webs and 
nutrient chains
Chemical and nutrients run-offs from rivers and land-
based activities (e.g. agriculture), as well as pollution and 
contaminants from industrial activities can exert pressure on 
marine ecosystems (flora and fauna) and alter marine food 
webs and nutrient chains
Eutrophication
Excessive emission of nutrients through coastal 
wastewater treatment plants, discharges from 
aquaculture, ships and vessels, and tourism facilities. 
The largest emissions of organic matter in coastal 
areas originate from urban/domestic and industrial 
wastewaters entering marine environments through 
direct discharges15
Organic and inorganic nutrients run-offs from rivers or 
from farming of animals, manure and fertilizers cause 
eutrophication of coastal areas
Seafloor integrity
Trawler fishing causes severe alterations of the shallow 
(e.g. sea grass meadows) and deep-water ecosystems, 
reducing the number of species and the available 
habitats. Drilling, seabed exploitation, dredging, 
grounding and anchoring exert additional significant 
threats to benthic and shallow water ecosystems16
High-density marine litter accumulation on seafloor 
(continental shelves, canyons and deep-sea-environments) is 
highly reported in the Mediterranean Sea, with plastic as the 
main marine litter component17
Hydrographical 
conditions
Local and regional direct sources of pressure relate to 
sediment resuspension, and to altered conditions in 
localized hotspots (salinity, acidity, temperature)
GHG emissions from industrial, agriculture and household 
activities influencing climate change and determining sea 
temperature rise, higher water acidity, decrease of oxygen
Contaminants
Hydrocarbons leaks and spills, biocides and anti-fouling, 
coagulants, anti-foaming agents, and heavy metals are 
all present in Mediterranean waters
Land-based sources of pollution such as wastewaters, 
discharge points and dumping grounds, fluvial run-offs, 
atmospheric deposition
Contaminants in 
seafood
Contaminants in sea waters, and especially heavy 
metals that cannot be degraded, represent a serious 
threat for marine species as well as for human 
consumption
Land-based sources of pollution, including contaminants 
and heavy metals, reach the sea through fluvial run-offs 
and atmospheric deposition and can contribute to seafood 
contamination. Recently discovered seafood contaminants 
regard microplastics
Marine litter
Plastic, wood, metal, clothing, and paper waste 
originating from coastal household and municipal 
disposal, tourism facilities, pleasure craft and 
commercial vessels, are the main sources of marine 
litter and pollution. Plastic is by far the most common 
type of litter
Plastic, wood, metal, clothing, paper run-offs from rivers and 
land-based production and consumption activities
Energy incl. 
underwater noise
Energy, heat, noise, and vibrations introduced and/or 
discharged in water from exploration and exploitation 
activities, commercial transportation and pleasure crafts 
exert an increasing pressure on the aquatic ecosystems
 
Source: Authors’ elaboration
13	 WWF Mediterranean, Randone, M. (2016), MedTrends Project: Blue Growth Trends in the Adriatic 
Sea - the challenge of environmental protection
14	 UNEP/MAP (2012), State of the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Environment
15	 UNEP/MAP (2012), State of the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Envir­onment
16	 UNEP/MAP (2012), State of the Mediterranean Marine and Coastal Environment
17	 UNEP/MAP (2018), 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report
Table 1 - Main sources of direct and indirect pressures on 11 GES descriptors

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     19 
Main direct and 
indirect pressures 
on marine 
environment are 
the ones related to 
the introduction 
of contaminants, 
marine litter and 
the effects on 
marine biodiversity
Figure 4 – REVIEW OF NEGATIVE DIRECT&INDIRECT PRESSURES OF VARIOUS SECTORS
Source: Experts scientific review, total no. = 34
Shipbuilding & repair
Ports, warehousing
Maritime transport
Fisheries & aquaculture
Manufacturing, industrial & 
engineering
Utilities
Textile & apparel
Food & beverages
Agriculture
Chemicals
Energy
Wholesale & Retail
Transport, Logistics & 
Infrastructure
Biodiversity
Non-
indigenous
species
Commercial 
fish and 
shellfish
Eutro-
phication
Sea-floor 
integrity
Hydrogra-
phical
conditions
Contami-
nants in 
seafood
Marine litter
Energy incl. 
underwater
noise
Food webs
Contaminants
Pressures are spatially and/or temporally extended, with global and/or cumulative effects determining significant or irreversible effects on ecosystems & biodiversity
No significant pressure in space and time
Pressures are limited to local areas and/or with a relative intensity, not suitable to determine irreversible alterations on ecosystems and biodiversity
Pressures are spatially and/or temporally extended, presenting an intensity which may determine significant alterations on ecosystems and biodiversity
High
No pressure
Low
Medium
According to an independent scientific review carried out for this project, 
all industries, directly or indirectly interacting with the ocean/seas, can poten-
tially exercise negative pressures on most of the 11 GES descriptors. The 
most significant pressures appear to be those related to: the introduction of 
contaminants, including their presence in seafood, and litter in marine eco-
systems; the effects on marine biodiversity, including the depletion of fish 
stocks and the alteration of food webs; and the eutrophication of waters, and 
its consequences on biodiversity conservation. 
Ocean or coastal based industries (e.g. fisheries, marine transportation, 
ports & warehousing) have long been recognized for their “direct” pressures 
on marine ecosystems. However, indirect pressures from other sectors (e.g. 
chemicals, agriculture, energy) cannot be neglected and require adequate 
business responses.

20     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Several studies suggest that the pressures exerted by land-based activities 
exceed those of direct ocean industries:
•	
80% of plastic pollution is of land-based origin. It is estimated that 
due to mismanaged processes, such as littering or dumping in uncon-
trolled landfills, one-third of plastic waste eventually enters the natural 
environment as land, freshwater or marine pollution18, and that 80% 
of plastic pollution in marine ecosystems is of land-based origin.19 
 
Studies carried out on the main types of beach marine litter report plastic, 
glass, paper, metal, polystyrene, cloth, rubber, fishing-related items, muni-
tions, wood, smoking-related items, sanitary waste, and other unidenti-
fied items, with cigarette butts, plastic and glass beverage bottles, food 
wrappers, plastic and metal bottle caps, straws/stirrers, plastic bags and 
lids being the top items found on Mediterranean beaches. Plastics are the 
predominant type, accounting for over 80% of the recorded marine litter.20 
 
Plastic is also the main component of floating and seafloor marine 
litter. The Mediterranean Sea is heavily impacted by floating litter 
items, with concentrations comparable to the 5 sub-tropical gyres, 
while densities on the seafloor seem to range from 0 to over 7,700 
items per km2. Human activities are the primary sources of the 
increased abundance of marine litter in the Mediterranean Sea.21 
 
Recent studies focusing on marine litter in the size of microplastics or 
nanoplastics22, reveal that the main types found in the Mediterranean Sea 
are hard plastics, fibers, and nylon23, deriving, to a large extent, from dif-
ferent land-based industrial and consumption sources. Primary micro-
plastics include industrial scrubbers, plastic powders used in molding, 
micro-beads adopted in cosmetic formulations, virgin resin pellets used 
by the plastic manufacturing industry, and plastic nanoparticles from a 
variety of other industrial processes. Secondary microplastics result from 
the fragmentation of larger plastic items, during the use of products such 
as textiles (e.g. fibers released into wastewater effluents due to washing 
of clothes), paint degradation and tires abrasion, or once the plastic items 
have been disposed of in the environment.24
18	 WWF and Dalberg (2019), Solving Plastic Pollution through accountability
19	 Ocean Conservancy & McKinsey McKinsey Center for Business and Environment (2015), Stemming the 
Tide: Land-Based Strategies for a Plastic-Free Ocean
20	 UNEP/MAP (2018), 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report https://www.medqsr.org/sites/default/files/
inline-files/2017MedQSR_Online_0.pdf
21	 UNEP/MAP (2018), 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report https://www.medqsr.org/sites/default/files/
inline-files/2017MedQSR_Online_0.pdf
22	 Primary microplastics, produced originally at microscopic size, or secondary microplastics, fragments 
from originally larger plastic items
23	 UNEP/MAP (2018), 2017 Mediterranean Quality Status Report https://www.medqsr.org/sites/default/files/
inline-files/2017MedQSR_Online_0.pdf
24	 GESAMP (2015), Sources, fate and effects of microplastics in the marine environment: a global assessment 
(Kershaw, P. J., ed.). (IMO/FAO/UNESCO-IOC/UNIDO/WMO/IAEA/UN/UNEP/UNDP Joint Group of Experts 
on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection)

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     21 
•	
The vast majority of GHG emissions contributing to climate 
change, and thus sea temperature rise, water acidification, and 
decrease of oxygen in the water, are land-based. Global CO2 emis-
sions increased in 2017, reaching a record of 53.5 GtCO2e, a growth 
of 0.7 GtCO2e compared with 2016.25 In terms of sector contribution, 
energy supply accounts for 29% of total GHG emissions, followed by 
transport (19%) and industry (19%), residential and commercial (11%), 
and agriculture (11%).26
•	
Contaminants also enter the marine environment through waste-
waters, discharge points and dumping grounds, or atmospheric 
deposition. Water releases are mostly related to the fertilizer indus-
try, metal industry, wastewater treatment plants, energy and chemi-
cal sector. Eutrophication of local and regional coastal marine eco-
systems derives mostly from organic and inorganic chemicals and 
nutrients run-offs from rivers and/or from farming of animals, animal 
manure and fertilizers. 
 
 
25	 UNEP (2018). The Emissions Gap Report 2018
26	 EEA https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/change-of-co2-eq-emissions-2#tab-dashboard-01

22     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     23 
 
 
 
CHAPTER 2 – UNLOCKING AWARENESS 
AND ACTIVATION TO ENSURE MARINE 
SUSTAINABILITY

24     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Companies are 
aware of 35% of 
their industry’s 
pressures on GES 
descriptors and 
deploy mitigating 
activities for 74% of 
the pressures that 
they acknowledge
Figure 5 – Companies’ awareness of the negative pressures that their industries can potentially exercise on selected GES 
descriptors - Ocean sectors vs. other sectors 
1 Maritime transport, fisheries & aquaculture, shipbuilding & repair, ports & warehousing 
Source: Experts scientific review, online survey no.=133
Ocean economy 
sectors
Transport, Logistics & 
Infrastructure
Manufacturing, indu-
strial & engineering
Energy
Chemicals
Agriculture
Wholesale & Retail
Textile & apparel
Utilities
Food & beverages
Scientific review on pressure intensity:
% of sectors companies which declare to exert a pressure: 
<10%
11-30%
30-40%
>40%
High
Medium 
Low 
None
Biodiversity
Over
exploitation 
of marine 
resources
Hydro-
graphical 
conditions
Eutro-
phication
Sea-floor 
integrity
Contami-
nants
Marine 
litter
Introduction 
of energy
% of pressures 
known by 
companies
44
41
36
35
33
29
22
20
17
17
Companies’ awareness of their negative pressures 
on coastal and marine ecosystems is higher with 
regard to pressures targeted by extensive campaigns 
and social movements. On the contrary, awareness 
of indirect pressures or on less “mainstream” 
issues is more limited, and often accompanied by 
misinterpretation
We define companies as being “aware” of the negative pressures directly 
and indirectly exerted by their activities on marine and coastal ecosystems 
when their level of acknowledgment matches the opinion of ocean science 
experts. According to our analysis, companies are on average aware of 
35% of their industry’s potential pressures on selected GES descriptors. 
The most recognized issues regard pressures targeted by extensive cam-
paigns and social movements, such as marine litter and, by extension, 
contaminants: all sectors, to different degrees, are aware of the pressures, 
directly or indirectly exerted on these two descriptors. 
On the contrary, awareness on pressures generated on less “publicized” 
issues, such as over-exploitation of marine resources, effects on biodiver-
sity, or eutrophication, is more limited.

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     25  
When we look at industries, ocean sectors perform better than the others 
on awareness. This is also due to the fact that these industries have a direct 
interaction with the marine environment, and are - probably - more used to 
dealing with the pressures exerted on the seas and coastal ecosystems. 
On average, ocean sector companies are aware of 44% of their pressures, 
with shipbuilding & repair being the most aware. Moreover, ocean sectors 
also seem more aware than others of the pressures produced on less well-
known GES descriptors, such as biodiversity and over-exploitation of marine 
resources.
Several pressures are not properly identified by respondents. Within the 
ocean sectors, for example, none of the companies belonging to ports & ware-
housing recognizes the pressures on hydrographical conditions (e.g. changes 
in depth, currents, waves, or turbidity of waters and coastal environment), 
while the fisheries and aquaculture companies involved are unaware of the 
pressures potentially or actually exerted on sea-floor integrity by their industry 
(e.g. determined by trawler fishing). Outside the ocean sectors, none of the 
agriculture companies acknowledges the pressures on eutrophication, while 
being the most aware of the consequences determined by their industry in 
terms of marine litter and contaminants, presumably misinterpreting these 
different types of issues (eutrophication vs. marine litter and contaminants). 
Figure 6 – COmpanies’ awareness of the negative pressures that their industries can potentially 
exercise on selected GES descriptors - Ocean sectors
Source: Experts scientific review, online survey no.=133
Low 
High
Medium 
None
Fisheries & 
aquaculture
Maritime 
transport
Ports, 
warehousing
Shipbuilding 
& repair
Biodiversity
Over-
exploitation 
of marine 
resources
Hydro-
graphical 
conditions
Eutro-
phication
Sea-floor 
integrity
Contaminants
Marine litter
Introduction 
of energy
% of pressures 
known by 
companies
Scientific review on pressure intensity:
% of sectors companies which declare to exert a pressure: 
<10%
11-30%
30-40%
>40%
63
40
39
13

26     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
On the other hand, there are cases in which companies report pres-
sures not considered significant by ocean scientists and experts: 50% of the 
energy companies report exerting pressures on eutrophication, and 1 out 
of 3 in the food & beverage and agriculture industries claims to be respon-
sible for the introduction of energy into marine ecosystems (e.g. light, elec-
tricity, heat, noise, electromagnetic radiation, radio waves or vibrations), pre-
sumably linking this issue to the increased sea temperature determined by 
climate change.
On average, companies deploy mitigating activities for 
74% of the pressures that they acknowledge
Considering the pressures that companies are aware of, on average 
respondents report to implementing mitigation activities in 74% of the cases. 
Although in almost 3 out of 4 cases awareness corresponds to action, there 
are still cases in which awareness does not imply response, demonstrating 
another type of misalignment: a gap between being aware of an environmen-
tal problem and responding through specific initiatives. 
Figure 7 – Rate of action on pressures acknowledged by companies
1 Includes: Fisheries & Aquaculture, Maritime transport, ports & warehousing, shipbuilding & repair 
Source: online survey no.=133
60%
81%
83%
50%
100%
80%
100%
60%
100%
100%
40%
19%
17%
50%
20%
Transport,
Logistics & Infrastructure  
Ocean1
Wholesale & retail
Manufacturing, 
Industrial & Engineering
Food & Beverage
Utilities
Chemicals
Textile & Apparel
Agriculture
Energy
% pressures targeted by
companies’ actions
% pressures not targeted
by companies’ actions
% of pressures of which 
companies are aware
44%
22%
17%
36%
29%
17%
41%
35%
33%
20%
Rate of action on pressures known by companies

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     27 
Figure 8 - Rate of action on pressures known by companies - Ocean sectors
Source: online survey no.=133
Unlocking “awareness” and “activation” allows us to 
understand the main pressures on marine and coastal 
ecosystems and to develop coherent responses to 
relevant pressures
The analysis suggests that besides unlocking “awareness”, thus ensuring 
that companies are aware of the actual pressures produced by their industries 
or by their specific activities on marine and coastal ecosystems, a second 
key element is unlocking the related “actions”. Through this second unlock-
ing, companies acknowledging the existence of some form of pressure on 
marine ecosystems, respond with specific actions (e.g. adoption of sustain-
able technologies, or participation in multi-stakeholder initiatives) to eliminate 
or reduce these pressures. 
Awareness and/or activation “gates” are found in most sectors. An example 
of awareness misalignment regards GHG emissions: several companies, from 
different sectors, are not aware of the linkages between GHG emissions and 
hydrographical conditions (i.e. GHG emissions influencing climate change and 
determining sea temperature rise, higher water acidity, decrease of oxygen). 
This implies that when they act on this specific issue (e.g. implementing solu-
tions for GHG emissions reduction), they are not aware of doing something 
that has positive indirect consequences on the marine environment. 
34% of the compa-
nies are at the same 
time aware and 
active, while 44% 
are neither aware 
nor active 
60%
51%
55%
100%
40%
49%
45%
Ports, 
warehousing
Fisheries and 
aquaculture
Maritime transport
Shipbuilding 
and repair
% pressures targeted by
companies’ actions
% pressures not targeted
by companies’ actions
Rate of action on pressures known by companies
% of pressures of 
which companies are 
aware
63%
13%
39%
40%

28     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Another example, related to the activation gate, concerns the textile and 
apparel sector and microfibers: awareness about microfibers dispersion in 
marine ecosystems is growing, and an increasing number of players are 
working to research solutions to prevent or limit this problem. Unfortunately, 
as of today, growing awareness does not correspond to credible and effec-
tive responses, due to the fact that further R&D is required to develop com-
mercially viable technological solutions, capable of tackling this challenge.  
According to our analysis, 34% of the companies in our sample are simul-
taneously aware and active (sustainability leaders), while 44% are not aware, 
and not active (laggards). The remaining 22% is equally divided between 
aware but inactive (locked-in), and unaware but active (concerned). 
In order to tackle the problem of ocean and marine ecosystem sustainabil-
ity, it is necessary to unlock both awareness and activation. Indeed, unlock-
ing activation could be more difficult than increasing awareness, and might 
require more time. On the one hand, awareness can be tackled through 
stimulating a large-scale debate on the ocean protection that engages busi-
Figure 9 - Distribution of companies according to awareness and activation (% of companies)
Source: online survey no.=133
Esistono gates di ‘Awareness’ e ‘Activation’
Locked-in
Laggards
Sustainability leaders
Concerned
Aware
Inactive
Active
Activation gate
No gates
Awareness gate
Awareness and 
activation gate
11%
34%
44%
11%
Activation
Awareness 
Unaware

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     29 
ness organizations, industrial associations, governmental agencies, and civil 
society. On the other hand, the possibility of activating responses depends 
on organizational changes, on the availability of efficient and viable techno-
logical solutions, as well as on other types of constraints (e.g. operational, 
economic, financial, and institutional impediments) that “lock-in” companies 
and prevent them from acting.

CHAPTER 3 – THE CASE FOR HOPE: 
SUSTAINABILITY LEADERS EXIST

32     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Sustainability leaders are more aware and active 
than other companies, and their attention to marine 
sustainability is mainly driven by ethical and strategic 
motivations.
On average, sustainability leaders recognize 72% of their pressures on 
marine and coastal ecosystems and are active on 78% of the relevant pres-
sures. Although representing 1/3 of the sample, sustainability leaders can be 
found in most industries, both ocean (e.g. maritime transport, ports & ware-
housing, shipbuilding & repair) and non-ocean related sectors (e.g. energy, 
utilities, transport, logistics & infrastructure, textile & apparel, chemicals, food 
& beverage, manufacturing, industrial & engineering, wholesale & retail). 
According to our analysis27, 4 main drivers are spurring sustainability 
leaders to act in order to mitigate their pressures on marine and coastal 
ecosystems: 
1.	 Moral imperative. Sustainability leaders are 1.2 times more likely to 
align their strategies with the company’s missions and ethical values 
than other companies. This means that values, beliefs and principles 
linked to sustainability translate into specific activities aimed at iden-
tifying and mapping the pressures on marine ecosystems, and drive 
the development of cleaner solutions.
2.	 Growth opportunities and awareness of dependence on ecosys-
tem services. Sustainability leaders declare themselves as 1.9 times 
more inclined than other companies to capture new growth opportuni-
ties, such as developing more sustainable use of marine resources, 
as well as new products or materials. Several companies, in particu-
lar those belonging to industries that depend heavily on ecosystem 
services – such as fishing and agriculture as well as food processing 
– have matured greater awareness of the significant consequences of 
production and consumption pressures on natural ecosystems. Driven 
by this attention, they have started to implement initiatives and pro-
grams to address some of the problems that derive from their activ-
ities. For example, they have adopted voluntary sustainability stan-
dards, or promoted knowledge platforms and partnerships aimed at 
introducing enhanced and more sustainable production practices (e.g. 
sustainable fishing, precision agriculture) in their activities. Moreover, 
in the perspective of the circular economy companies belonging to 
this cluster mentioned the opportunities linked to sustainable produc-
tion processes, such as recovering biogas (e.g. methane) from bacte-
rial breakdown of agricultural waste or water treatment facilities, and 
turning it into energy.
27	 Interviews with a panel of >50 leading players from different sectors (including large companies and 
multinationals, startups, business associations), and NGOs; questionnaires total no. = 133
Sustainability 
leaders recognize 
72% of their 
pressures on 
marine and coastal 
ecosystems and are 
active on 78%

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     33  
3.	 Market demand. Incisive campaigns, social movements and market 
demand have contributed to increasing the focus on the pressures on 
natural ecosystems. Campaigns related to climate change and ocean litter 
have been particularly effective. The case of plastic waste is worth men-
tioning, because of the speed with which this issue has become main-
stream, which is unprecedented.  Inactivity has become increasingly dan-
gerous for companies, exposing laggards to reputational risk and boycotts 
from consumers. Regarding market demand, sustainability leaders are 
1.9 times more likely than other companies to consider customers’ expec-
tations as one of the key drivers prompting ocean mitigation initiatives.
4.	 Institutional pressure and regulation. Finally, although the least signifi-
cant reason, institutional pressure and regulation nevertheless represent 
one of the drivers that require a response from companies. Interestingly, 
sustainability leaders seem less predisposed than other companies to 
considering regulatory requirements as one of the reasons to address 
sustainability, confirming their superior attitude in considering sustainabil-
ity as part of the company’s strategic orientation.
Figure 10 - Top reasons to address sustainability – Sustainability leaders vs. others
Source: online survey no.=133
49
19
14
23
60
36
27
16
Align with goal, mission    
and values
Develop new 
growth opportunities
Meet customers’ 
expectations
Respond to regulatory
requirements
% of companies
1.2x
1.9x
1.9x
0.7x
Others
Sustainability leaders

34     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
INSTITUTIONAL PRESSURE AND REGULATION 
INFLUENCING THE ADOPTION OF MEASURES 
AIMED AT MITIGATING THE PRESSURES ON 
MARINE AND COASTAL ECOSYSTEMS
The Paris Agreement and the efforts to reduce GHG emissions
The objective to reduce GHG emissions and the transition to a low 
carbon economy, are reshaping the strategies of several industries. 
In particular, the energy sector is among the most impacted. At the 
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) 
XXI climate conference (COP21) held in December 2015 in Paris, 
195 countries adopted the Paris Agreement, the global climate deal 
aimed at defining a global action plan to avoid the most dangerous 
consequences of climate change by limiting global warming to well 
below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, and pursuing efforts to limit it 
to 1.5 °C. The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to adopt their best 
efforts through nationally determined contributions (NDCs), and to 
regularly report on their emissions, and on their implementation efforts.
The EU’s nationally determined contribution, within the 2030 climate 
and energy framework strategy, is to reduce GHG emissions by at 
least 40% by 2030 compared to 1990, leveraging renewable sources 
of energy (at least 32% of share by 2030), and improving energy 
efficiency (at least 32.5% improvement). The targets for renewables 
and energy efficiency were revised upwards at the end of 2018.
The new EU Directive on single use plastics and fishing gear
On June 5th 2019 the new EU Directive 2019/904 on single use 
plastics and fishing gear, introducing a series of measures regarding 
the top 10 single-use plastics found on European beaches, as well as 
fishing gear, was definitively approved by the European Parliament 
and Council. Member States have two years (i.e. until July 3rd 2021) to 
transpose the Directive into national law.
The measures introduced, ranging from market restriction, to 
consumption reduction, separate collection, product design, extended 
producer responsibility (EPR), labelling, and awareness raising, 
depend on whether viable alternatives and separate collection and 
recycling streams exist or not. 
The Directive is aimed at reducing marine litter and it intends to ban 
selected single-use products made of plastic, for which alternatives 
exist on the market (e.g. cotton bud sticks, cutlery, plates, straws, 
stirrers, sticks for balloons, cups, polystyrene food and beverage 
containers). Moreover, it extends producer’s responsibility, asking 
producers to cover the cost of clean-up for products such as tobacco 
filters and fishing gear, and establishes a separate collection target for 
plastic bottles, with design requirements and the target of incorporating 
recycled plastic in PET and in all plastic bottles.
As regards fishing gear, three main measures are introduced: a) 
according to EPR, fishing gear producers will cover the costs of waste

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     35  
management of gear delivered to port reception facilities; b) awareness 
initiatives will be implemented regarding the available re-use systems 
and waste management options, as well as the negative impacts of 
inappropriate disposal of gear; c) Member States are required to set 
national minimum annual collection rates for waste fishing gear for 
recycling, and to monitor fishing gear placed on the market, as well 
as waste fishing gear collected, with a view to the establishment of 
binding quantitative EU-wide collection targets. 
Expected benefits of the introduction of these measures related to 
fishing gear are a decrease of 2,600 tons each year in the amount 
of fishing gear left at sea, which would generate between €2 million 
and €7 million in economic benefits for the fishing, port and tourism 
industries28.
Maritime sector-specific regulation and restrictions
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has established more 
stringent limits on pollutant emissions (SOx, NOx, PM) in ECAs 
(Emission Control Areas) and extra ECAs, with additional restrictions 
effective from 1 January 2020. In April 2018, the IMO’s Marine 
Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) adopted an initial strategy 
on the reduction of GHG emissions from international shipping, with 
the objective to reduce them by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 
2008. Additional IMO regulations relate to worldwide, legally binding 
energy-efficiency measures, setting a series of baselines for the 
amount of fuel that each type of ship burns for a certain cargo capacity, 
or the Ballast Water Management (BWM) Convention, requiring 
that ships submit ballast waters, embarked during each voyage, to 
mechanical, physical, chemical, or biological treatment processes.29 
Sustainability leaders are more active than other 
companies in addressing the identified pressures 
When we look at the focus of the efforts deployed to mitigate the pressures 
on marine and coastal ecosystems, sustainability leaders are 3.6 times more 
likely than other companies to address contaminants issues, and almost 3 
times more responsive to tackling marine litter. In addition, they are also more 
active in targeting all the other issues (e.g. biodiversity, introduction of energy 
in the sea, over-exploitation of marine resources) than less aware companies.
Beyond the distinctive features previously examined, sustainability leaders 
reveal other specific characteristics. They appear, in fact, more concerned 
about their business responsibilities, and more likely to adopt technological 
innovation and to develop organizational initiatives. 
28	 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/625115/EPRS_BRI(2018)625115_EN.pdf
29	 IMO (2004), Final Act of the International Conference on Ballast Water Management for ships, BWM/
CONF/37 and International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and 
Sediments, BWM/CONF/36. The Ballast Water Management Convention, aimed at stopping the spread 
of potentially invasive aquatic species in ships’ ballast water has entered into force on September 8th 
2017
Sustainability 
leaders are 3.6 
times more likely 
than other compa-
nies to address con-
taminants issues, 
and 3 times more 
responsive to tack-
ling marine litter

36     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Figure 11 - Focus of efforts related to selected GES descriptors – Sustainability leaders vs. others
Source: online survey no.=133
Sustainability leaders, in fact, engage employees and customers almost 2 
times more than less aware companies, for example by involving employees 
in specific education and awareness-raising initiatives, or marketing sustain-
ability related attributes of products and services, encouraging customers to 
adopt more sustainable behaviors.
They are more likely to sustainably manage their value chains, by interact-
ing with suppliers and/or distributors on ocean-related issues, selecting cer-
tified supply chain partners, adopting sustainability performance standards, 
or building traceability of materials. 
In terms of partnerships, sustainability leaders reveal a superior attitude 
in establishing collaborations with relevant stakeholders, such as industry 
peers and business associations, research centers, NGOs and civil society 
groups for awareness-raising initiatives, such as, for example, days dedicated 
to beach and coastal clean-ups. 
3
5
3
5
3
23
31
13
38
22
13
18
18
82
87
31
Hydrographical 
conditions
Biodiversity
Introduction of energy
Marine litter
Contaminants
Overexploitation 
of marine resources           
Eutrophication
Sea floor integrity
13x
6x
2.8x
4.3x
3.6x
2.4x
4.4x
3.6x
% of companies
Others
Sustainability leaders

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     37  
Figure 12 - Top activities undertaken to mitigate pressures on GES – Sustainability leaders vs. others
Source: online survey no.=133
Sustainability leaders also report a better attitude towards 
process and product innovation, aimed at reducing their 
pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems 
As regards process innovation, sustainability leaders and other companies are rela-
tively close when it comes to considering improvements in the area of energy efficiency 
devoted to reducing GHG emissions (81% vs. 84%), while the gap widens for other 
initiatives, such as the implementation of improved waste and wastewater manage-
ment, adoption of circular economy models or models inspired by industrial symbiosis.
In terms of product innovation, sustainability leaders are approximately 2 times 
more likely than other companies to assess trade-offs associated with choices of dif-
ferent materials and to design or redesign products to favor disassembling for recov-
ery or recycling, while they are more than 4.5 times more likely to develop initiatives 
that aim at extending the life cycles of their products. 
36
39
43
32
15
69
58
71
51
42
Employees 
and customers’ 
engagement
Investments 
in product innovation
Partnerships with 
relevant stakeholders
Investments 
in process innovation
Sustainable management 
of the supply chain
2.8x
1.7x
1.6x
1.5x
1.9x
% of companies
Others
Sustainability leaders

38     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Figure 13 - Main process innovation initiatives to reduce marine and coastal pressures – 
Sustainability leaders vs. others
Figure 14 - Main product innovation initiatives to reduce marine and coastal pressures – 
Sustainability leaders vs. others
Source: online survey no.=133
Source: online survey no.=133
84
66
42
16
81
84
72
38
Improve energy 
efficiency and reduce 
GHG emissions
Implement models 
inspired 
to industrial symbiosis      
Improve waste 
and wastewater 
management
Adopt circular 
economy models 
aimed at promoting 
resources recovery
% of companies
0.9x
1.7x
1.3x
2.4x
Others
Sustainability leaders
27
30
42
9
54
62
69
42
Design or redesign existing products 
in order to favour disassembling 
for recovery and  recyclability
Asses trade-offs associated with 
different choices of material
used in production
Use innovative materials 
(e.g., biodegradable 
plastics)
Extend product life cycle 
(e.g., through modular design,
product durability 
improvement, etc.)
2.0x
1.6x
2.1x
4.7x
% of companies
Others
Sustainability leaders

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     39 
LEADING COMPANIES IN THE FINANCIAL SERVICES 
AND MEDIA AND COMMUNICATIONS SECTORS HAVE 
STARTED TO INTEGRATE SUSTAINABILITY-RELATED 
ISSUES IN THEIR CORE ACTIVITIES 
The sample of interviewed companies and survey respondents involved in 
this study also included leading companies from the financial and media and 
communications sectors. While adopting the necessary measures to mitigate 
the pressures originated by their facilities and “office” activities (mostly 
related to energy consumption and efficiency, sustainable procurement, 
and recycling policies), the importance of these players is closely related to 
their capacity to raise other actors’ level of attention and commitment to the 
protection of marine and coastal ecosystems, influencing their behaviors. 
Companies concerned with sustainability within the financial services 
sector, for example, are increasingly developing investment policies 
that include the assessment of portfolio companies’ performance on 
environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues, with specific initiatives 
directly focused on climate change and ocean conservation. Recently, some 
of the world’s largest pension funds and insurers launched the Net-Zero Asset 
Owner Alliance initiative supported by UNEP FI, committing themselves to 
transitioning their investment portfolios to net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, 
consistent with a maximum temperature rise of 1.5 °C above pre-industrial 
temperatures. The Alliance, which represents more than USD 2 trillion, was 
initiated by Allianz, Caisse des Dépôts, La Caisse de Dépôt et Placement 
du Québec (CDPQ), Folksam Group, PensionDanmark and Swiss Re at 
the beginning of 2019. Since then, Alecta, AMF, CalPERS, Nordea Life and 
Pension, Storebrand, and Zurich have joined as founding members. 
Again in 2017, the European Commission, WWF, the Prince of Wales’ 
International Sustainability Unit and the European Investment Bank (EIB) 
developed the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles to raise 
awareness about the role that investors can play in developing innovative 
solutions that can mitigate the pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems. 
UNEP FI is hosting the platform, aimed at bringing together financial 
organizations, scientists, companies and civil society to raise awareness, 
share practices and develop tools to support the adoption of the principles. 
Several financial institutions and stakeholders have already endorsed the 
Sustainable Blue Economy Principles, including Boston Common Asset 
Management, The Nature Conservancy, Rockefeller Asset Management, 
SKY – Ocean Rescue Fund.
With regard to the media and communication sector, leading companies 
in sustainability are contributing to disseminating knowledge about ocean-
related pressures and the threats endangering marine and coastal ecosystems, 
through the development of extensive campaigns, dedicated information 
and content, events, sponsorships and partnership initiatives. As regards 
partnerships with industry peers, leading companies in the sector launched the 
Responsible Media Forum in 2001, a knowledge platform aimed at supporting 
their members in identifying the main sustainability-related challenges 
facing the industry, and taking action to engage relevant stakeholders.

40     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
INCREASING AWARENESS AND SUSTAINABLE 
INITIATIVES ARE EMERGING FROM LEADING 
TOURISM COMPANIES
The Mediterranean is the world’s leading tourism destination, with more 
than 330 million tourists per year, representing ~30% of total world 
arrivals, mainly concentrated in the summer season, with a forecast of 
~500 million arrivals by 2030.30 Due to the high volumes of tourist visits, 
their concentration in limited time periods, and the fact that tourism 
activities take place mainly in areas characterized by great natural 
value, the pressures generated by this sector can have considerable 
consequences for marine and coastal ecosystems. Indeed, due to the 
heterogeneous nature of tourism activities (e.g. restaurants, hotels 
and tourist resorts, cruise tourism, pleasure and recreational boating) 
significant pressures are exerted on a wide range of GES descriptors, 
such as over-exploitation of commercial fish and shellfish (e.g. due to 
the necessity to supply restaurants and tourist facilities), with effects 
on food webs and biodiversity. Marine litter and pollution are generated 
by tourism activities, while anchoring and grounding from cruises and 
recreational boating can have consequences for seafloor integrity and 
benthic ecosystems, especially in Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). 
Additional pressures come from the noise generated by powerful 
combustion engines, and contamination can occur from oil leakages, as 
well as from mismanagement of wastewaters (dark, grey, ballast waters) 
and anti-fouling paints. 
Leading players in the tourism sector are increasingly grasping the 
necessity of addressing sustainability issues in order to preserve the 
natural environment on which their activities depend heavily. According 
to the companies involved in the project, activities aimed at mitigating the 
pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems range from the development 
of more sustainable practices aimed at reducing waste (e.g. reducing use 
of single-use-plastics items), while increasing the capacity of intercepting 
and correctly disposing of waste (e.g. separate waste collection, 
recycling), also adopting a circular approach when it comes to considering 
certain categories of “streams”, such as food surpluses and unconsumed 
meals (e.g. establishing partnerships with local NGOs and charities for 
the distribution of leftovers). Additional initiatives relate to the responsible 
use of natural resources (e.g. water, energy), and the development 
of awareness and information campaigns targeting customers and 
employees, aimed at promoting more sustainable practices (e.g. related 
to waste management and separate collection, resource preservation, 
correct behaviors to be adopted in natural ecosystems). 
The companies involved in this study operating on a multinational 
scale state that they address each of these aspects according to local 
specificities, environmental characteristics, institutional and regulatory 
frameworks, and quality standards. This requires global strategies to 
be designed according to local features, collaborating and developing 
partnerships with local communities, as well as exchanging best practices.
30	 UNWTO (2011), Tourism Towards 2030 / Global Overview - Advance edition presented at UNWTO 19th 
General Assembly, and UNWTO (2019), International Tourism Highlights 2019 Edition

CHAPTER 4 – THE POSITIVE IMPACT 
OF TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS AND 
ORGANIZATIONAL INITIATIVES

44     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
3 technological 
clusters can 
bring the greatest 
benefits: Cleaner 
sources of energy, 
new materials, 
digital, automation, 
monitoring 
& control 
technologies 
Technological innovation has a prominent role in 
addressing the sustainability of marine and coastal 
ecosystems 
Several clusters of technologies have been identified with regard to ocean 
challenges. Some of these solutions are at the early stage of their techno-
logical cycle, and need further R&D activity in order to become fully viable. 
Other technologies are almost ready to scale up, while we have found more 
mature solutions that can easily be adopted by the market. Amongst the dif-
ferent types of technological innovation analyzed, the following 3 major clus-
ters can bring the greatest benefits.
1.	 Cleaner sources of energy are key to reducing the pressures on 
oceans and seas, in terms of contribution to climate change, which 
has consequences for the hydrographical conditions of waters in the 
form of increased temperature, acidification (i.e. the increase of water 
acidity due to higher concentrations of CO2 dissolved in the ocean and 
seas), and reduction of oxygen levels. The transition to a carbon-neu-
tral economy requires the development and the adoption of multiple – 
and complementary – technologies. Companies involved in the project 
showcased a number of initiatives. 
	
The energy sector is leading the way through massive investments in 
“traditional” (e.g. solar, wind, hydropower, geothermal), and “emerg-
ing” (e.g. wave and tidal energy) renewable energy sources. Some 
of these renewables are increasingly exploiting the opportunities pro-
vided by marine environments, such as offshore wind, waves and 
tides. The transition to primary sources of electricity from renewables, 
and the growth of extensive electrification, is probably the most real-
istic pathway to decarbonization, although this transition needs to be 
supported by additional technological advancements, for example in 
the field of energy storage. As of today, batteries still have low energy 
density, and their weight makes them ill-suited for a number of appli-
cations, including long-distance shipping, while electrification of short 
sea shipping may be an option, provided that the power-to-weight ratio 
makes it more feasible. 
	
While we wait for the most advanced technologies to become avail-
able, bridging solutions for both pollution and carbon intensity reduction 
are currently being implemented. In the maritime transport and ship-
building sectors, the adoption of cleaner sources of energy replacing 
Heavy Fuel Oil (HFO) or Marine Gas Oil (MGO), such as Liquid Natural 
Gas (LNG), occasionally blended with biomethane, is considered the 
short-medium term solution to address both pollution and GHG emis-
sions, while hybrid engines and full electric propulsion systems are 
expected to play a more relevant role in the future. Importantly, when 
adopted in ocean and sea environments, cleaner sources of energy

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     45 
(e.g. LNG, biofuels, electricity) also contribute to reducing the risk of 
contamination, leakages, and spills.
	
Innovative solutions dealing with cleaner energy supply are being imple-
mented or tested by port authorities. The Ports Authority of Genoa 
has implemented Onshore Power Supply (OPS) facilities connected 
to the local electricity grid, aimed at providing berthed cruise ships, 
cargo ships and ferries with the power required for loading, unloading, 
heating, lighting and other onboard activities, avoiding the need to gen-
erate this power onboard through auxiliary engines emitting CO2, air 
pollutants, and low frequency noise, propagating over long distances 
in the marine environment. The Port of Valencia is testing the possibil-
ity of using Hydrogen Fuel Cells to power heavy-duty port and logis-
tics equipment, as well as supplying hydrogen in port facilities. 
	
Other promising advancements in the field of cleaner energy, although 
not yet at scale, regard the processing of advanced biofuels (e.g. from 
waste processing, hydrogen from water hydrolysis using electricity 
from renewables), or R&D on advanced fuel cells. Further innovations, 
such as the direct conversion of CO2 into fuels and other materials 
(e.g. Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage - CCUS) are expected 
to become more viable in the future. All these options are technically 
available at various scales, but their large-scale deployment may be 
hindered by operational, economic, financial, and institutional con-
straints due to the characteristics and contexts of specific sectors and 
applications.
.	
EMERGING RENEWABLE OCEAN ENERGY 
SOURCES
Wave, tidal and other renewable ocean sources of energy are emerging, 
and starting to reach viability for commercial purposes. Ocean Energy 
Europe, the European industry association, estimates that 100 GW of 
wave and tidal energy capacity will be installed in Europe by 2050, 
out of a worldwide capacity of 340 GW, meeting 10% of the European 
electricity demand and creating 400,000 jobs along the supply chain. 
Different technologies are being developed, each with specific electricity 
production patterns: wave energy converters generate energy from the 
movement of waves, tidal stream or range turbines derive electricity 
respectively from the flow of the currents, or the difference in sea level 
between low and high tides. Other technologies, such as Ocean Thermal 
Energy Conversion (OTEC), exploit the difference of temperature 
between warm ocean surface waters and colder deep waters, while 
salinity gradient technology uses Reverse Electro Dialysis (RED) or 
osmosis to generate electricity from the different salinity between 
freshwater and saltwater.

46     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
In order to overcome operational conditions in different contexts, such 
as calmer seas in the Mediterranean, the industry is testing a wide 
range of solutions: smaller wave converters or tidal turbines for slower 
currents or near-shore areas, as well as devices that can be attached 
to harbor docks, dams, bridges and other existing infrastructure.
Energy companies, as well as startups interviewed for the project, are 
heavily investing in these technologies,whose potential will fully unfold 
in the coming years.
2.	 New materials. Marine litter and plastic pollution are probably the 
ocean-related sustainability issues that have received the most atten-
tion from the media, social movements and consumers in recent years 
– radically increasing business awareness. This is particularly the 
case for certain types of plastic packaging such as bottles, bags, pots, 
foam boxes and trays. Many of the companies involved in this project, 
belonging to different sectors (e.g. wholesale & retail, food & bever-
age), address this issue by fostering the design of solutions aimed at 
the reduction of plastics usage, increasing the percentage of recycled 
and non-virgin materials, and experimenting with substitution of new 
solutions, such as bio-based plastics derived from vegetal feedstocks, 
as well as biodegradable bioplastics.31 
	
As of today, extensive use of these bioplastics materials in a number 
of applications has not been possible due to their mechanical and 
thermal properties. New and less harmful alternatives to plastics are 
being researched from natural materials, such as algae and fungi, or 
synthesized in laboratories using advanced chemical or genetic engi-
neering processes (e.g. chemically engineered starch and other hemi-
cellulosic materials, genetically modified yeast), with the addition of 
bio-additives and bio-resins to improve the requirements of these alter-
native materials. Green chemistry, biotech and nanotechnology are 
expected to provide additional responses that prevent pollution or the 
introduction of destructive materials into the environment, investigat-
ing ways to mimic nature and to grow new solutions for more sustain-
able products.
	
Outside of plastic substitutes, new materials are also being devel-
oped and tested in ocean-related sectors, such as maritime transport, 
and shipbuilding & repair. More sustainable anti-fouling solutions, for 
example, represented by marine biocides without heavy metals (e.g. 
cuprous oxide) are being tested. They present the benefits of boost-
31	 According to European Bioplastics, the European industry association, a plastic material is defined as 
a bioplastic if it is either bio-based (i.e., derived from vegetal feedstocks such as corn, sugarcane, or 
cellulose), biodegradable (i.e., the material is convertible into natural substances such as water, CO2, 
and compost, by microorganisms existing in the environment without artificial additives), or presents 
both properties. The characteristics of biodegradability depends on the chemical structure of the 
material, and not on the vegetal feedstock used to produce it, hence 100% bio-based plastics may be 
non-biodegradable (e.g. bio-based PE, PP, or PET), while 100% fossil derived plastics can biodegrade 
(e.g. PBAT). Plastics that are both bio-based and biodegradable are PLA, PHA or PBS. https://www.
european-bioplastics.org/

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     47 
ing hard-fouling protection and significantly reducing heavy metals in 
marine environments, while improving fuel savings due to better ship 
hull performance. 
	
Further advancements in the field of new materials for enhanced 
battery storage are being researched to improve the energy density 
of accumulators, in order to extend the range of applications of elec-
tricity to sectors where these solutions cannot currently be employed. 
NEW, ADVANCED AND MORE SUSTAINABLE 
MATERIALS AIMED AT PROVIDING RESPONSES 
TO SEVERAL OF THE PRESSURES EXERTED 
ON MARINE ECOSYSTEMS ARE BEING 
RESEARCHED, DEVELOPED AND MADE 
AVAILABLE BY HIGH-TECH STARTUPS INVOLVED 
IN THIS RESEARCH PROJECT
Some of the most interesting examples relate to:
a.	 Nanoengineered graphene-based membranes for recovery of 
oil spills and wastewater treatment, able to adsorb contaminants 
faster, and more efficiently than conventional solutions. These 
solutions are useful both in the case of oil spills and close to 
offshore extraction sites (e.g. adsorbent barriers and pillows), 
or for the treatment of contaminated wastewaters – offering the 
advantage that the hydrocarbons absorbed can be recovered and 
reused.
b.	 Seaweed-based technologies to replace single-use plastics with 
edible bioplastics, offering the advantage, including compared 
with more “traditional” biomaterials requiring industrial composting 
facilities for the complete degradation, of faster and natural break 
down (i.e. in a matter of weeks), even if they accidentally end up in 
marine environments.
c.	 Plastic-free water bottles, made of a sustainably derived patented 
biomaterial (inner casing) and recycled biodegradable materials 
(recycled paper for the external coating and label, recycled steel 
for the metal capping system), which take less than a year, instead 
of a few centuries, to degrade if accidentally dropped in natural 
environments.
d.	 Advanced recycling technology for polylaminate packaging (i.e. 
made of a plastic film coupled with a metal film) such as cartons 
for drinks and packaging for liquid foods, bags for oily products, 
packaging for candy, “non-compostable” capsules for hot drinks, 
that otherwise end up in incinerators or landfills. Both in terms of 
costs and characteristics (e.g. processing and molding, possibility 
of being colored), the recycled plastic is competitive with virgin 
material.

48     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
3.	 Digital, automation, monitoring & control technologies. Digital, 
automation, monitoring & control technologies can greatly contribute to 
addressing the pressures exerted on the natural environment, including 
marine and coastal ecosystems. When applied to fishing and aqua-
culture, these technologies can significantly improve the level of sus-
tainability of these sectors, reducing the direct pressures on at least 
4 out of 11 GES descriptors (i.e. commercial fish and shellfish, food 
webs, biodiversity, seafloor integrity), with benefits that extend along 
the supply chain (e.g. food industry and retail companies demanding 
sustainable fishing certificates from their suppliers). 
	
From a technological standpoint, reported practices include high-
tech fishing gear and trawl nets designed to selectively catch spe-
cific species, reduce by-catch and prevent seabed alteration and/
or abrasion, or wild fishery monitoring leveraging video and acoustic 
technologies, such as underwater video cameras, trawl sonars and 
echo sounders, to identify the type, species, quantity and size of fish, 
with the benefit of making the capture more selective, and efficient. 
More advanced aquaculture techniques (e.g. sensors for monitoring 
the status of farmed species, in order to design the most appropriate 
feeding patterns) are also available in the aquaculture sector.
	
Similarly, the application of modern digital, automation, monitoring & 
control technologies to traditional farming enables the development 
of precision agriculture, leading to important progress in agricultural 
practices, with a significant positive effect on at least 3 out of 11 GES 
descriptors (eutrophication, food webs, contaminants). Fertilizers are, 
in fact, a relevant issue threatening marine biodiversity, causing eutro-
phication and polluting the sea. Evidences regarding the improve-
ments made possible by the adoption of precision agriculture tech-
niques are striking. The systematic development of agronomic studies 
on crop resistance, selection, appropriateness to soil characteristics 
(e.g. terrain composition, organic matter content, moisture levels) 
and spatial orientation (topography), coupled with advanced monitor-
ing and operational devices (e.g. sensors, drones, satellite-assisted 
unmanned vehicles) and data analysis (e.g. predictive models), allow 
the preservation of resources, while maintaining the output. If adopted 
at large scale, these practices can significantly reduce pressures on 
the sea: companies experimenting with these techniques reported 
using -50% fertilizers, -50% energy and -20% water in a span of 10 
years. Additional improvements can be achieved from more sustain-
able livestock breeding. The adoption of advanced and already avail-
able livestock breeding techniques have the potential to significantly 
reduce specific GHG emissions (i.e. per unit of animal bred). Such 
techniques regard the improvement in feed and nutrition (e.g. improv-
ing forage quality, dietary substitutes, and precision feeding), animal 
genetics and health, manure management (e.g. collection and storage 
facility, temperature and aeration of manure, capturing biogas from

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     49 
anaerobic process). Precision feeding, combining genetics with cus-
tomized and balanced feeding programs, has been shown to increase 
productivity and reduce the intensity of CH4 emissions (15-20%) and 
nitrogen excretion (20-30%). Additional ways of mitigating pressures 
from the livestock supply chain arise in the areas of energy manage-
ment, transportation, feed production and processing, and food waste 
management.32
	
Digital, automation, monitoring & control technologies, assisted by 
big data analysis, artificial intelligence and predictive modelling, are 
becoming almost ubiquitous: smart metering for energy consump-
tion in the energy and utility sectors, satellite-assisted solutions for 
more efficient route planning in marine transport and shipping, auton-
omous underwater vehicles for seafloor inspections, restoration and 
recovery, port authorities implementing control and decision support 
systems aimed at monitoring environmental pollutants generated by 
ships, ferries, cargos, and vehicles.
.	
EXAMPLES OF DIGITAL, AUTOMATION, 
MONITORING & CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES 
DEVELOPED BY STARTUPS FOR SUSTAINABLE 
FISHING AND PRECISION AGRICULTURE 
Among the startups interviewed in the project, interesting examples of 
digital, automation, monitoring & control technologies for sustainable 
fishing and precision agriculture have emerged: 
a.	 Innovative technologies adopting Light Emitting Diode (LED) 
devices to improve the selectivity of commercial fishing practices, 
leveraging the use of light to segregate fish of different ages and 
species are being marketed. These solutions are aimed at reducing 
by-catch by up to 90% and attracting target species, including 
fish with the desired maturity. Further advancements are being 
developed in the area of sensors that can monitor sea variables 
and provide ocean data to alert and predict eutrophication, as well 
as the preservation of seafloor integrity.
b.	 Digital, automation, monitoring & control technologies (e.g. 
sensors and smart-metering devices to monitor temperature, 
air humidity, soil moisture, rainfall and leaf wetness, Internet-of-
Things, data analysis and predictive modeling, solar powered 
electric actuators) have been integrated to provide smart irrigation 
systems, aimed at reducing water consumption by 30% along with 
the energy to power irrigation systems. Based on the data collected 
in the field and on the weather forecast, customizable algorithms 
suggest timing to irrigate, and the necessary quantity of water. 
32	 Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases (GRA) and Sustainable Agriculture 
Initiative (SAI) Platform (2014), Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from livestock: Best practice and 
emerging options

50     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Figure 15 - Main groups of technological innovation that can bring major benefits to marine and 
coastal sustainability
Cross-cutting solutions are emerging for contaminants, 
pollution, waste clean-up and treatment in the marine 
environment
Several cross-cutting solutions that build on digital, automation, monitor-
ing and control technologies, as well as on new materials, in order to target 
contaminants, pollution, waste clean-up and treatment in marine environment 
have been recorded:
a.	 Following the entry in force of the IMO BWM Convention, ballast 
water treatment systems have been developed to provide solutions to 
remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge of harmful 
aquatic organisms and pathogens. These solutions involve several 
technologies (e.g. ultrasound, UV, filtration systems using advanced 
engineered materials) and are available for new ships, as well as for 
already existing vessels (retrofit), or for ports facilities, when ballast 
water treatment cannot be performed on board.
b.	 Off shore oil and gas companies have developed technologies to mini-
mize ordinary leakages, and repair spills, in order to avoid or promptly 
Cross-cutting 
solutions are 
emerging for 
contaminants, 
pollution, waste 
clean-up and 
treatment in the 
marine environment
New 
materials 
Cleaner 
energy
Digital, 
automation, 
monitoring & 
control 
LNG
More efficient ships' 
engines (e.g. hybrid 
propulsion systems)
Advanced bio-fuels 
Massive 
electrification (from 
renewables)
Sustainable anti-fouling
Efficient route planning systems
Consolidated renewables 
(hydropower,  
solar photovoltaic, 
geothermal, onshore & 
offshore wind)
Waste-to-fuels
Cleaner sources/carriers of 
energy at scale (e.g. H2)
Carbon Capture Utilization & 
Storage (CCUS -
direct conversion of CO2 into 
fuels and materials)
Advanced bio-plastics (e.g., 
bio-based and/or bio-degradable 
materials with enhanced thermal and 
mechanical features)
Advanced fabrics and 
textiles (e.g., to reduce 
microfibers shredding)
Smart metering
Emissions control systems
Advanced materials for 
energy storage 
Positive effects on GES
Group of 
technologies
Take off
Available but to scale-up
Emerging
Bio-engineered 
materials
Emerging renewables 
(waves, tidal, thermal 
energy conversion, 
salinity gradient)
Bio-plastics (e.g., bio-
based and/or bio-
degradable)
Nano-engineered materials 
(e.g., carbon-fiber composites 
for adsorbent materials)
Fuel cells
High-tech fishing gear
Wild fishery monitoring systems
Sensors & monitoring
Big-data
Aerial imagery
Sophisticated local weather forecasts
Unmanned vehicles & 
drones
Artificial 
intelligence
IoT
Advanced forecasting 
models and decision 
support systems
Mechanical swarms
Source: Authors’ elaboration

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     51  
limit the consequences of major contaminations. Advanced solutions 
include, for example, the rapid intervention equipment designed and 
engineered for a consortium of oil companies, consisting of a rapid 
intervention platform that can be deployed by air or sea within 24/48 
hours, and enables the operation during the spill of a submarine well 
when direct vertical access is not possible (e.g. an accident similar to 
that of the Deepwater Horizon platform in the Gulf of Mexico), install-
ing containment valves that allow the shaft to be sealed temporarily 
and spills to be halted.
c.	 Several clean-up initiatives to collect floating marine litter, as well as to 
prevent litter from rivers reaching the sea, are being tested at various 
scales. In northern Italy, a 4-month pilot test conducted in 2018 on 
the Po river by the Italian National Consortium for the Collection and 
Recycling of Plastic packages and other partners, consisting in the 
installation of floating barriers, intercepted ~300 kg of waste, of which 
~93 kg of plastic, mainly represented by PE (polyethylene) coming 
from drums with a capacity greater than 25 liters, and agriculture or 
industrial packaging.33
Organizational initiatives complement technological 
innovation. Companies seem to be focusing on 
solutions aimed at raising awareness, building 
knowledge, and favoring engagement and 
transparency along their value chains 
Organizational initiatives complement technological innovation, as they 
contribute to creating more favorable conditions for developing, sharing, and 
adopting new and more adequate solutions to address the main ocean chal-
lenges. Among the different organizational initiatives reported by the compa-
nies involved in the study, 3 main groups have been identified:
1.	 Voluntary sustainability standards, codes of conduct and self-
regulation. In order to address the complex challenges facing the 
health of marine and coastal ecosystems, several initiatives have been 
developed, in the form of voluntary standards, codes of conduct or sec-
tor-specific self-regulation. These initiatives aim at voluntarily estab-
lishing requirements, as well as practices of good behavior, with the 
objective of mitigating several pressures directly or indirectly exerted 
on the marine environment. The development and the adoption of 
standards for the sustainable management of fisheries and aquacul-
ture have been reported by food & beverage companies, as well as 
fisheries and aquaculture sectors. These standards define specific 
requirements that companies must meet in order to claim that their fish 
and seafood come from well-managed and sustainable sources. The 
33	 http://www.corepla.it/news/conclusa-con-successo-la-prima-sperimentazione-di-raccolta-dei-rifiuti-sul-
po-combattere-il-mar#

52     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
most comprehensive standards are consistent with the guidelines and 
codes published by the FAO on responsible fishing, ecological label-
ing and certification of aquaculture.34 The Global Sustainable Seafood 
Initiative (GSSI), a not for profit organization representing the seafood 
value chain, companies, NGOs, governments and international orga-
nizations, including the FAO, promotes sector-wide collaboration and 
provides formal recognition of seafood certification schemes that suc-
cessfully complete a benchmark process, based on FAO guidelines.35 
	
Similarly, in the agriculture sector, the Sustainable Agriculture Initiative 
(SAI) Platform36 established in 2002 as a collaborative, pre-competi-
tive network for the food and drink industry, is aimed at investigating 
common solutions to environmental and social challenges facing the 
sector, and accelerating the adoption of more sustainable agricultural 
practices, which could also indirectly benefit marine and coastal eco-
systems (e.g. reduction in GHG emissions, decrease in the use of fer-
tilizers and nutrients potentially causing eutrophication of the marine 
environment). The SAI Platform has developed the Farm Sustainability 
Assessment (FSA) scheme, aimed at providing farmers with a tool 
to assess the sustainability of their agriculture practices. Companies 
involved in the project declared to have adopted the FSA assessment 
along their supply chain, involving suppliers and farmers in order to 
build and spread knowledge about more sustainable farming tech-
niques and technologies.
	
In the marine coastal and tourism sector, one of the world’s best-rec-
ognized voluntary eco-labels awarded to beaches, marinas, and sus-
tainable boating tourism operators is represented by the Blue Flag, 
requiring stringent environmental, safety, educational and accessibil-
ity criteria to be met and maintained. 
	
Additional voluntary initiatives, in the form of codes of conduct and 
guidelines have been recorded in sectors related to recreational and 
competitive boating (e.g. Sailors for the Sea Clean Regattas Program, 
World Sailing Guidance for Sailing Venues and Green Event Guidance, 
Royal Yachting Association & British Marine Green Guide for Sailing 
Clubs). In 2017 the Yacht Club Costa Smeralda (YCCS) developed 
the Charta Smeralda, an ethical code aimed at sharing principles and 
raising awareness among individuals, stakeholders and communities 
about the urgency need to act in order to address and start solving 
the issues facing marine ecosystems. The Charta Smeralda has so 
far been signed by more than 7,000 individuals and organizations, 
including 80 Yacht Clubs, and sailing classes.
2.	 Assessment and measurement. Several companies involved in 
this research report that they are working on the assessment and 
34	 http://www.fao.org/fishery/code/en
35	 https://www.ourgssi.org/
36	 https://saiplatform.org/

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     53  
measurement of the pressures generated by their activities on the 
natural environment. Companies in the food & beverage sector, for 
example, have adopted Life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies 
to assess the life-cycle footprint of their products (e.g. in terms of 
natural resources, including water and energy use, land occupation, 
and emission intensity), with the aim of developing scientific knowl-
edge able to support the design of more sustainable products and 
processes. The World Port Climate Initiative (WPCI), promoted by 
the International Association of Ports and Harbors (IAPH), published 
the Guidance Document on Carbon Foot-printing in 2010, a reference 
guide to promote GHG emissions inventories within the sector.37 More 
in general, internationally recognized assessment, measurement and 
disclosure platforms, in particular related to GHG emissions (e.g. the 
Carbon Disclosure Project), have been referenced by the companies 
involved in the project, from different sectors (e.g. energy, utilities, 
food & beverage, shipbuilding & repair), as a way to measure and to 
communicate internally and externally the efforts to mitigate some of 
their pressures. 
3.	 Knowledge platforms and partnerships. Several respondents have 
mentioned the development of - or the participation in - knowledge 
platforms and the importance of partnerships. As regards the food 
processing industry, in 2009 leading companies, concerned about 
the future of one of their main natural resources, tuna, promoted the 
International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF)38 together with 
scientists and environmental NGOs. The ISSF is a not for profit orga-
nization whose mission is to undertake and to facilitate science-based 
initiatives for the long-term conservation and the sustainable use of 
global tuna stocks, reducing by-catch and promoting the health of the 
tuna ecosystem. In this way, competitors in the final market decided 
to join forces and to collaborate for one common overarching interest, 
advocating for improved fishery management, promoting sound sci-
entific research investigating the maximum sustainable yields of tuna 
stocks, while committing to conservation measures aimed at improv-
ing the long-term health of global tuna fisheries. 
	
Similarly, in 2008 a group of ocean sectors companies, concerned 
about the health of the marine environment, established the World 
Ocean Council (WOC), a not for profit, cross-sector organization aimed 
at advancing the industry leadership and collaboration for sustainable 
ocean development, science and stewardship advancement. Since 
then, the WOC has launched several leading platforms and initiatives 
(e.g. the annual Sustainable Ocean Summit event, support of the UN 
2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals, the ocean investment 
platform, aimed at raising awareness on investment opportunities in 
37	 http://wpci.iaphworldports.org/carbon-footprinting/
38	 https://iss-foundation.org/

54     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
responsible economic ocean development) and focused programs 
(e.g. participation in ocean policy and governance negotiations, includ-
ing the UN Biodiversity in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction treaty39, 
the promotion of collaboration initiatives to develop cross-sectoral sci-
ence-based research programs to address operational environmental 
issues, such as biofouling and invasive species, port reception facil-
ities, introduction of noise in marine ecosystems). Recent emerging 
issues addressed by WOC relate to marine ecosystem services, ocean 
acidification, and enhancing ocean uptake of CO2.
In order to combine technological innovation and 
organizational solutions, ocean sustainability calls for 
collaboration among companies and stakeholders
Many solutions to sustainability challenges can benefit from the develop-
ment of innovation networks linking the different business organizations and 
stakeholders. Collaboration is a key enabler both for identifying technologi-
cal solutions capable of addressing ocean issues, and fostering the adop-
tion and diffusion of cleaner technologies. Some examples may help to clarify 
the concept:
a.	 Microfibers reaching the ocean are currently very difficult to inter-
cept, even through the most advanced wastewater treatment systems. 
The textile & apparel industry is progressively acknowledging this 
issue, but, apart from solutions with limited effectiveness (e.g. adop-
tion of “bags” to intercept larger microfibers when clothes or fabrics are 
washed), the technology to solve this problem is currently still lagging. 
Efforts in this field will require the involvement of all the players along 
the supply chain through collaborative platforms: suppliers develop-
ing more sustainable fabrics and textiles (e.g. possibly biodegrad-
able), fashion & apparel companies investing in new materials, appli-
ances companies developing more advanced filters for industrial and 
household washing machines, consumers investing in both advanced 
clothes and appliances.
b.	 Similarly, Tire Wear and Road Particles (TWRP) generated from the 
abrasion of tires during use on roads, is gaining increasing attention 
for the dispersion of materials in the form of microplastics in aquatic 
environments. Relevant industry players are proactively working in 
order to promote a system-based and collaborative approach to inves-
tigate the issue, and to co-design mitigation options to reduce TWRP. 
Since several factors influence the production of c (e.g. driving style, 
road surface, road curves and topology, tire design, vehicle character-
istics, weather conditions), mitigation solutions also need to involve all 
the relevant stakeholders, such as tire manufacturers, road makers, 
39	 After a long-lasting and still ongoing negotiation process, a new global international legally binding 
instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of Sea on the conservation and sustainable 
use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (BBNJ) is expected by 2020.
Ocean sustainability 
calls for 
collaboration 
among companies 
and stakeholders

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     55  
vehicle producers, and drivers.
c.	 The large-scale adoption of LNG as a cleaner source of energy in 
the transportation sector (both marine and land-based) involves the 
development of an innovative infrastructure network and investment 
in transportation, storage, regasification and terminal facilities, while 
shipping and logistics companies need to update their fleets in order 
to use the new fuel.
d.	 Ensuring sustainable fishing requires not only more advanced and 
less impacting technologies and techniques, but also precision in stock 
assessment and reliability in fishery modelling, collection or access to 
up-to-date statistics (e.g. fish catches, broken down by species, area 
and periods of catch), policies and regulations about catch limits, as 
well as the respect of spawning and reproduction periods.
e.	 The replacement of traditional plastic products with compostable bio-
plastics is often the result of choices made by the manufacturing indus-
try, food & beverage companies and large-scale retailers. These deci-
sions are usually not coordinated with utility companies, waste man-
agement facilities and regulation authorities. The separate collection 
of bioplastic materials with different characteristics within the com-
postable organic waste circuit, in fact, introduces several criticalities: 
users don’t easily understand the type of plastic (e.g. recyclable or 
recycled plastic mixed with compostable plastic), while the different 
characteristics of bioplastic products (e.g. thickness and shape, flex-
ible vs. rigid materials) and traditional organic waste, require different 
composting conditions (e.g. time, temperature and humidity). In order 
to avoid lowering the quality of separated waste collection, greater 
coordination between producers and disposal services management 
authorities, as well as end users’ awareness initiatives are required.

56     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
CONCLUSIONS – IT IS POSSIBLE 
TO CHANGE COURSE
The possibility of changing the course, preventing or at least mitigating 
the pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems is real, and business is 
expected to play a fundamental role in the transition to an economy where 
ocean and non-ocean-based activities operate in balance with the long-term 
capacity of the marine environment to regenerate, safeguarding the poten-
tial for uses and activities by current and future generations.
Sustainability leaders exist; they acknowledge the majority of the pres-
sures generated by their activities, and act in order to mitigate their pressures. 
However, awareness is not widespread in all sectors or among all compa-
nies. Moreover, there are cases in which acknowledgement of the issues is 
not followed by coherent responses aimed at mitigating the pressures com-
panies exert.
Two types of unlocking actions appear desirable: 
a.	 Companies need to become fully aware of pressures considered rele-
vant by scientific experts, while, on the contrary, in several cases they 
consider other pressures to be relevant that are judged not significant 
according to the scientific review. We call this “awareness unlocking”.
b.	 On the other hand, businesses need to act to address these pressures, 
providing coherent responses in order to eliminate or to reduce them, 
what we call “activation unlocking”
We believe unlocking these two aspects is key for a journey towards ocean 
sustainability. In order to reach these objectives, it is paramount to increase 
the business focus on ocean challenges, and to incorporate the protection 
of the seas and marine ecosystems as a part of the corporate sustainability 
agenda. Moreover, actions are required to favor the fast development and 
adoption of innovative technologies and organizational solutions that can help 
reduce the pressure on the health of the ocean. 
We have identified several actions that can help to facilitate unlocking 
awareness and/or activation. Some of these actions are intended to focus 
on the level of corporate consideration of ocean issues, others to foster 
the response in order to reduce or mitigate the pressures on the marine 
environment.
1.	 Companies need to increase consideration of their interdepen-
dence with the marine environment and eco-services, and are 
expected to build knowledge about the multi-scale nature of 
ocean pressures.
	
Overall, some efforts to raise awareness on ocean and sea conser-
vation have been made in recent years by international agencies

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     57  
and civil society. The introduction of SDG14 Life Below water within the 
UN 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development represented an impor-
tant step to focus attention on these issues. Nonetheless, most com-
panies have not included protection of the marine environment in their 
agenda. Business organizations and multi-stakeholder platforms can 
play an important role in promoting awareness campaigns on specific 
underexposed ocean issues such as eutrophication, seafloor integrity, 
introduction of sound and noise in aquatic ecosystems. Moreover, they 
can contribute by helping companies to build knowledge about the links 
between industrial activities (processes, products and supply chains) and 
the ocean and on coastal ecosystems. Similarly, they can help increase 
understanding of the business risks related to mismanagement of this 
issue.
	
Furthermore, involving and raising awareness among civil society and 
individuals is key for the development of a common and shared aware-
ness of ocean issues, and for the dissemination of more sustainable 
consumer behaviors aimed at the preservation of marine and coastal 
ecosystems.
2.	 Transparency and disclosure about actions aimed at protecting the 
seas and marine ecosystems are envisaged
	
New initiatives aiming at promoting the disclosure of data and informa-
tion on business pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems could 
favor both the increase of awareness and strategic responses. On the 
one hand, a process of standardization of metrics and indicators for mea-
suring and assessing ocean pressures and the development of specific 
guidelines would be useful. On the other hand, similarly to the initiatives 
developed to tackle climate change, water security, and forest degra-
dation, new instruments that can support the reporting of pressures on 
the ocean and business mitigation initiatives are expected to match the 
growing needs of transparency and disclosure of many stakeholders 
(e.g. NGOs and the financial community).
NEW OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY “SCORING” 
INITIATIVES CAN STIMULATE AND SUPPORT 
COMPANIES IN ADDRESSING AND MITIGATING 
THEIR RELEVANT PRESSURES
The development of new initiatives aimed at scoring the performance of 
companies regarding the sustainability of their ocean-related strategies 
can stimulate and support businesses in mitigating their relevant direct 
and indirect pressures. Such initiatives would measure organizations’ 
pressures on marine and coastal ecosystems, gathering data to facilitate 
the understanding of key performance information for businesses, while 
providing the interested stakeholders with additional insights to evaluate 
the ocean-related sustainability profile of companies.

58     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
3.	 Technological innovations for the protection of the marine envi-
ronment are expected to reach scale, while additional break-
through technologies are also developed
	
Accelerating innovation is a cornerstone to address ocean pressures. 
First, existing technological clusters (cleaner energy, new materials, 
digital, automation, monitoring & control technologies, and cross-cut-
ting solutions for the preservation of marine ecosystems) are expected 
to demonstrate their full benefits with regard to protecting the ocean. 
The broad diffusion of these solutions can be enhanced thanks to 
policy and economic measures that favor their adoption in different 
industrial sectors.
	
Second, new breakthrough advancements are expected to address 
still-unanswered problems. This means stimulating and supporting the 
development of basic and applied scientific research on ocean protec-
tion, creating and enhancing the necessary knowledge and competen-
cies. In both cases, leveraging the existing funding opportunities (e.g. 
structural funds, grants) and identifying new ways of mobilizing public 
and private resources (e.g. eco-innovation and strategic investments 
funds; blue bonds, aimed at financing specifically ocean-friendly proj-
ects; impact investing, focused on generating a social-environmental 
impact compatible with a medium-long term economic return) is key. 
Third, in order to favor the diffusion of cleaner solutions, we envisage 
the development of mechanisms promoting the growth of start-ups 
focused on opportunities linked to the ocean protection. This includes, 
for example, access to incubators and accelerators for rapid scale-
up, innovation contests focusing on blue technologies and platforms 
giving access to financial investors.
4.	 A collaborative perspective that involves all the relevant stake-
holders (private and public) is fundamental to foster sustainable 
technologies
	
Innovation systems that involve multiple stakeholders through collab-
orative dynamics and mobilize adequate technological and organiza-
tional resources are required to respond to ocean issues. The com-
plexity of the sustainability challenges requires skills and competencies 
that often go beyond the boundaries of a single business organization 
and calls for the development of partnerships among various private 
and public actors. The development of networks of innovators can help 
address the major R&D barriers related to cleaner technologies, thanks 
to knowledge sharing practices and co-operation between research 
institutions (e.g. universities and research centers) and companies. 
Moreover, networks favor technology transfer and increase the likeli-
hood that innovative solutions propagate on the market. Addressing 
the challenges facing the ocean, therefore, calls for the creation of the 
institutional and organizational context that incentivize partnerships

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     59 
and knowledge sharing throughout the different stages of technologi-
cal innovations. One specific measure, that has already proved to be 
effective with regard to other cleaner solutions, is the creation of inno-
vation hubs and innovation parks, in this case focused on the develop-
ment of sustainable technologies for the protection of the ocean and 
marine ecosystems.
5.	 Policy-makers and governments must converge and focus atten-
tion on marine environmental issues, promoting and develop-
ing clear and coherent policies, governance mechanisms and 
incentives
	
The governance of the oceans and seas is paramount to addressing 
the many challenges that we have illustrated in this study.  Just as is 
the case with other environmental problems, governments and policy 
makers are also fundamental actors as regards marine and coastal 
protection. We need clear legal frameworks for the conservation and 
the sustainable use of the marine resources to be enforced (e.g. the 
new EU Directive on single use plastics and fishing gear). Moreover, 
regulations are a powerful force to drive sustainable behaviors at the 
level of organizations and individuals. 
	
Ocean challenges cover multiple scales, both spatial/geographical and 
temporal: some of the issues are global (e.g. climate change, marine 
litter), while others have a more regional or local dimension (e.g. eutro-
phication, seafloor integrity, contaminants and pollution); some issues 
have long-term dynamics (e.g. acidification), other can be very short-
term (e.g. oil spills). Just as with any other social-ecological problem, 
such as climate change and biodiversity loss, we need governance 
that allows different and sometimes contrasting stakes to be aligned.  
	
We have discussed the importance of supporting technological innova-
tion for sustainable solutions. Policy-makers and governments should 
provide the institutional framework to favor the development of clean-
tech clusters, through the introduction of market-based instruments. 
Different types of mechanisms can be envisaged to promote ocean 
conservation: fiscal incentives to push R&D and innovation, public-
private funds, environmental taxes, direct subsidies for cleaner tech-
nologies. New mechanisms such as payment for ecosystem services 
are also promising instruments to protect common goods like ocean 
resources and biodiversity. Finally, non-market-based instruments can 
also be effective, promoting collaborative efforts among stakeholders 
and pushing consumers towards green purchasing. This can be the 
case with eco-labels and other reporting requirements and promotion 
of disclosure and transparency initiatives.

60     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
La possibilità di cambiare rotta è reale
Not aware and 
not acting
Not aware but acting
Aware
Unaware
Inactive
Active
Aware but not acting
Aware and acting
Activation
Awareness
Identify the tools that can push companies to respond to 
the ocean challenges implementing sustainable 
responses. This includes fostering technology innovation, 
adopting a collaborative perspective, promoting and 
developing clear and coherent policies, governance 
mechanisms and incentives
Align responses with 
ocean problems 
through building 
awareness and 
knowledge. This 
includes promoting 
knowledge platforms, 
measurement and 
transparency 
instruments, engaging 
companies
Source: online survey no.=133

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     61 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One Ocean Foundation would like to thank all the 200+ companies and orga-
nizations involved in the project, representing more than 10 countries. A par-
ticular thanks to the following for their participation to the qualitative interviews:
3M Company
Aigües de Barcelona S.A. 
Allianz S.p.A.
Aquafil S.p.A.
Audi Italia
Barilla G. e R. Fratelli 
S.p.A.
Bolton Food
Brandart Image Packaging 
S.R.L.
CalWave Power 
Technologies Inc.
Cargill 
Carlsberg Italia S.p.A. 
Choose Water
Confindustria
Coripet
Costa Crociere S.p.A.
Directa Plus S.p.A.
Ecoplasteam S.p.A.
Enel S.p.A.
Eni S.p.A.
ETRMA - European Tyre 
& Rubber Manufacturers 
Association
FERRERO Commerciale 
Italia S.r.l.
Fincantieri S.p.A.
Findus Italia
Four Seasons Hotel 
Milano
Assicurazioni Generali 
S.p.A.
Hera S.p.A.
Idroplan
Industria de Diseno Textil 
SA (Inditex)
Interseroh Service Italia 
S.r.l.
NatureWorks LLC
Pantecnica S.p.A
Patagonia Inc
Port de Barcelona
Porto di Genova
Prada S.p.A.
Prysmian Group
SafetyNet Technologies 
LTD
SAIPEM S.p.A.
Saras S.p.A.
Sky
Snam S.p.A
SOS LOGistica - 
Associazione per la logis-
tica sostenibile
TELESPAZIO a 
LEONARDO and THALES 
company
Tirreno Power S.p.A.
UCINA Confindustria 
Nautica
Angelo Vasino S.p.A.
WWF Mediterranean
One Ocean Foundation thanks the experts who have contributed to the sectors’ 
direct and indirect pressures review.

62     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
PROJECT TEAM
McKinsey & Company (Knowledge Partner)
Leonardo Totaro
Federico Fumagalli
Roberta Daminelli
Camilla Santicoli
Giulia Perin
SDA Bocconi School of Management
Manlio De Silvio
Francesco Perrini
Stefano Pogutz
Stefano Romito
Aristea Saputo
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
Rafeal Sardá Borroy

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     63 
GLOSSARY
Acidification – Reduction in the pH (i.e. increase in acidity) of ocean waters 
over an extended period of time, caused primarily by the uptake of carbon 
dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere
Biofuels – Any fuel (gaseous, liquid, or solid) derived from natural sources 
such as plants, algae or waste (biomass). Biofuels represent a renewable 
alternative to fossil fuels
Bioplastic – A plastic material that is either bio-based (i.e., derived from 
vegetal feedstocks such as corn, sugarcane, or cellulose), biodegradable 
(i.e., the material is convertible into natural substances such as water, CO2, 
and compost, by microorganisms existing in the environment without artifi-
cial additives), or presents both properties
Blue bond – Financial instrument aimed at financing specifically ocean-
friendly projects
Blue economy – Economic sectors whose activities take place in marine 
and/or coastal environments 
Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) – Technologies aimed at 
capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from fuel combustion or industrial processes, 
transporting it via ship or pipeline, and either using it as a resource to create 
products or services or permanently storing it underground
Contaminant – Substances (i.e. chemical elements and compounds) or 
groups of substances that are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate 
and other substances or groups of substances which give rise to an equiva-
lent level of concern
Ecosystem services – The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment defined 
ecosystem services as “the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These 
include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating 
services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural 
services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and sup-
porting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling”
Eutrophication – The process by which a body of water becomes enriched in 
dissolved nutrients (such as phosphates) that stimulate the growth of aquatic 
plant life usually resulting in the depletion of dissolved oxygen
Food web – A system of interlocking and interdependent food chains
Fuel cell – Electrochemical cell that converts the chemical energy of a fuel 
(e.g. hydrogen) and an oxidizing agent (e.g. oxygen) into electricity through 
chemical reactions

64     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Greenhouse Gas (GHG) – Gaseous constituents of the atmosphere, both 
natural and anthropogenic, that absorb and emit radiation at specific wave-
lengths within the spectrum of thermal infrared radiation emitted by the Earth’s 
surface, the atmosphere itself, and by clouds. This property causes the green-
house effect. Primary greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere are water 
vapor (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), methane (CH4), 
ozone (O3)
Hydrographical conditions – The physical parameters of seawater, such as 
temperature, salinity, depth, currents, waves, turbulence, turbidity 
Impact investing – Socially responsible investing strategy focused on gen-
erating a social-environmental impact compatible with a medium-long term 
economic return
Liquid Natural Gas – Natural gas (primarily methane) that has been lique-
fied at atmospheric pressure by reducing its temperature in order to facilitate 
its safe storage and transport
NGO – Non-governmental organization
Non-indigenous species – Species introduced outside their natural past or 
present range, which might survive and subsequently reproduce, threaten-
ing the biodiversity of an ecosystem
Overfishing – The uncontrolled catch of fish in a water course or in a sea 
area, destined to irreparably compromise its reproductive capacity
PBAT – Polybutylene adipate terephthalate, a biodegradable type of plastic 
derived from fossil raw materials
PBS – Polybutylene succinate, a biodegradable type of bio-based plastic
PE – Polyethylene, a non-biodegradable type of plastic
PET – Polyethylene terephthalate, a non-biodegradable type of plastic
PHA – Polyhydroxyalkanoate, a biodegradable type of bio-based plastic
PLA – Polylactic acid, a biodegradable type of bio-based plastic 
PP – Polypropylene, a non-biodegradable type of plastic 
Pressure – Any action that makes a change to the state of the natural envi-
ronment whether adverse or beneficial, wholly or partially resulting from the 
activity of an organization, or the utilization of products or services

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     65 
ANNEX I – A SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL 
SYSTEM FRAMEWORK FOR THE 
ANALYSIS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY 
OF THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA
A SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM FRAMEWORK 
FOR THE ANALYSIS OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF 
THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA 
2009 Nobel Prize Winner, Elinor Ostrom developed a comprehensive 
framework in order to analyze social-ecological systems (SES) and 
represent their dynamics. This framework extends the theory of 
common-pool resources and collective self-governance, to areas 
of research that are still evolving.  This approach relies heavily on 
systems ecology and the theory of complexity, and incorporates other 
aspects from theories relating to the study of resilience, robustness, 
sustainability, and vulnerability. The SES approach also incorporates 
societal concerns such as equity, wellbeing and environmental 
degradation. Recently, Philip Cooper proposed another framework to 
analyze the relations between social and ecological systems. The Driver-
Pressure-State-Welfare-Response (DPSWR) framework.  According 
to this approach, social sub-systems (humans, human capabilities 
and their activities), are <drivers> of change (D). They put <pressure> 
(P) on the natural sub-systems, (structural units and functions) that 
can alter their <states> (S) because of these pressures. This process, 
in turn, can translate into the degradation of fundamental natural 
resources used by humans (natural goods and ecosystem services), 
thus diminishing human <welfare> (W). The acknowledgement of such 
process of degradation should induce humans to develop adequate 
<responses> (R), for example policies and innovative solutions, that 
can address the ecological problems, and help restore SES resilience.
Components (structural and functional) of a social-ecological system, 
including the accountable framework for the analysis

66     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Source: adapted from Cooper P. (2013) and Sardà R. & Pogutz S. (2019) 
MEDITERRANEAN SEA
SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM
Ecosystem structural units and 
functions 
ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES
Humans, capabilities and 
activities
< PRESSURES-P >
< STATES-S >
< DRIVERS-D >
< RESPONSE-R >
< WELFARE-W >
An attribute or set of attributes of the 
natural environment that reflect the 
integrity regarding a specified issue (or 
change therein)
An initiative intended to reduce at least 
one impact (State or Welfare change)
A change in human Welfare 
attributable to a change in State
NATURAL SUB-SYSTEM
The benefits (human well-being) 
that humans obtains from 
ecosystems
Potential response
Causal relation
An activity or process intended to 
enhance human welfare
A means by which at least one Driver 
causes or contributes to a change in 
State of the natural sub-system
SOCIAL SUB-SYSTEM

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     67 
ANNEX II – DESCRIPTION OF 
THE SAMPLE
An extensive panel of companies, including startups, business associa-
tions, and NGOs were involved in the project, through qualitative interviews 
and a quantitative online survey.
More than 50 companies, startups, business associations and NGOs were 
interviewed between March and September 2019. The companies involved 
were mostly multinationals, from both ocean and non-ocean related sectors, 
with headquarters or branches in Italy or Spain, while the business associ-
ations were mainly European or Italian. The quantitative online survey was 
administered between June and September 2019. More than 3,000 compa-
nies were contacted and more than 200 questionnaires collected: we base our 
analysis on 170+ valid responses. Due to the specific characteristics of the 
financial services and media and communication sectors, the 30+ responses 
coming from these companies were processed to complement qualitative 
interviews. Qualitative interviews were also adopted to gather insights into 
Description of the sample – Number of observations by sector
Source: observations total no.=224
4
10
8
9
5
23
7
17
9
17
43
8
7
22
14
10
4
7
Fisheries & aquaculture
Maritime transport
Ports, warehousing
Shipbuilding & repair
Agriculture
Utilities
Transport, logistics & infrastructure
Textile & apparel
Chemicals
Food & beverages
Manufacturing, industrial & engineering
Energy
Wholesale & retail
Financial services
Media & communications
Tourism
Business associations & NGOs
Startups

68     BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY
Description of the sample – Geographical distribution
the tourism industry, due to the high heterogeneous nature of companies 
belonging to this “meta-sector” (e.g. restaurants, hotels, tourism agencies, 
cruise companies, etc.).
As regards the geographical distribution, 81% of the sample is represented 
by companies headquartered in Italy, and 4% in Spain. The remaining 15% 
is represented by companies headquartered in the Rest of the World, with 
operative branches in Italy. 
15%
4%
81%
Rest of the World
Spain
Italy

BUSINESS FOR OCEAN SUSTAINABILITY     69 
In terms of economic dimension, 46% of the companies in the sample 
(both qualitative interviews and quantitative survey) have a turnover of less 
than €50 million, 21% between € 50 and € 250 million, and 33% of more than 
€ 250 million. On aggregate, the sample represents companies with a total 
turnover of almost € 1 trillion, with Italian headquartered companies account-
ing for 15% of the Italian GDP.
Description of the sample – Economic dimensions in terms of turnover
46%
21%
33%
<50 million
50 - 250 million
>250 million

All the pictures are kindly provided by the photographer   
Carlo Borlenghi - www.carloborlenghi.com 
One Ocean Foundation, 2019. All rights reserved.
For information please contact One Ocean Foundation, at: 
secretariat@1ocean.org 
Tel: +39 02796145 
Via Gesù, 10  
20121 
Milan, Italy
 
To find latest One Ocean Foundation content please visit  
www.1ocean.org

D E D I C A T E D  T O  M A R I N E  E N V I R O N M E N T  P R E S E R V A T I O N
F O U N D A T I O N
F O U N D E D  B Y  T H E  Y A C H T  C L U B  C O S T A  S M E R A L D A