SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOLFOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORSOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOLFOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

A collaboration between Conservation International, the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions,and the Coalition for Socially Responsible Seafood.
Thank you to all those who provided input and feedback.
Front cover photo: Adity Siva; back cover photo: Mumtahina Tanni.
Prepared by Conservation International.
Conservation International. 2021 Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector: A Rapid
Assessment Protocol. Available at: www.riseseafood.org

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................3
The “Monterey Framework”: From principles to practice....................................4
Conditionality of Scoring Performance Indicators.................................................8
General Scoring Guidance...........................................................................................8
Determining Unit of Assessment (UoA)....................................................................9

PRINCIPLE 1
Component 1.1
Indicator 1.1.1: Abuse and harassment................................................................12
Indicator 1.1.2: Human trafficking and forced labor;
Debt bondage in small-scale fisheries.....................................14
Indicator 1.1.2a: Human trafficking and forced labor..........................................17
Indicator 1.1.2b: Debt bondage in small-scale fisheries....................................19
Indicator 1.1.3: Child labor......................................................................................20
Indicator 1.1.4: Freedom of association and collective bargaining.............22
Indicator 1.1.5: Earnings and benefits.................................................................24
Indicator 1.1.6: Adequate rest...............................................................................27
Indicator 1.1.7: Access to basic services............................................................28
Indicator 1.1.7a: Access to basic services for worker housing/
live-aboard vessels......................................................................29
Indicator 1.1.7b: Access to basic services for small-scale fishingcommunities...................................................................................31
Indicator 1.1.8: Occupational safety.....................................................................32
Indicator 1.1.9: Medical response.........................................................................34

Component 1.2
Indicator 1.2.1: Customary use rights..................................................................35
Indicator 1.2.2: Corporate responsibility and transparency...........................38

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood SectoriPRINCIPLE 2
Component 2.1
Indicator 2.1.1: Grievance reporting and access to remedy.........................40
Indicator 2.1.2: Stakeholder participation and collaborative
management.................................................................................43

Component 2.2
Indicator 2.2.1: Equitable opportunity to benefit..............................................45
Indicator 2.2.2: Discrimination...............................................................................47

PRINCIPLE 3
Component 3.1
Indicator 3.1.1: Food and nutrition security.......................................................50
Indicator 3.1.1a: Food and nutrition security impacts of industrial
fisheries..........................................................................................50
Indicator 3.1.1b: Food and nutrition security for small-scale fishingcommmunities...............................................................................51
Indicator 3.1.2: Healthcare.....................................................................................54
Indicator 3.1.3: Education.......................................................................................55

Component 3.2
Indicator 3.2.1: Benefits to and within community...........................................56
Indicator 3.2.2: Economic value retention..........................................................58
Indicator 3.2.3: Long-term profitability and future workforce.......................60
Indicator 3.2.4: Economic flexibility and autonomy...........................................61
Indicator 3.2.5: Livelihood security.......................................................................62
Indicator 3.2.6: Fuel resource efficiency.............................................................64

GLOSSARY............................................................................................................................66
ANNEX 1: Guidance for Assessment Implementation.................................................72
ANNEX 2: Important Resources.........................................................................................74

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sectorii

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOREXECUTIVE SUMMARYTOM GRUBER

The Social Responsibility Assessment (SRA) Tool for the Seafood Sector is a riskassessment or benchmarking tool for conducting human rights due diligence inseafood supply chains. It is designed to be used to inform the development of a Fishery
Improvement Plan (FIP) workplan. In this context the SRA can be applied to:•••assess risks of social issues,
uncover critical information gaps,
identify areas in need of improvement.

However, the Social Responsibility Assessment Tool is not a certification. The
Assessment Tool enumerates existing resources in social responsibility certification, inthe case the FIP wants to proceed towards certification. This protocol is voluntary forthe time being. A FIP implementer decides whether or not she/he would like to assess
social responsibility principles. Whether or not this protocol will become compulsory
merits further discussion. This protocol was co-produced, and thus is co-owned, by
many stakeholders and organizations inside and outside of the Conservation Alliancefor Seafood Solutions. Two main documents inform most of the content and format ofthis protocol: Framework on Social Responsibility for the Seafood Sector (Opal 2018); FIP
Rapid Assessment Protocol (OSMI 2018). This document begins with a brief introduction
to the principles, components, and performance indicators of the Monterey Framework,and then gives guidance on scoring indicators and determining the Unit of Assessment.
Thereafter, it outlines the complete protocol for assessing social responsibility in a FIP.
The protocol is followed by an annex containing ethical considerations and best practices
for doing human rights and conservation research, and guidance for incorporating social
responsibility into each FIP phase. The document ends with a list of important resourceson existing standards, tools, indicators, guidance, conventions, and protocols, as well asa glossary of relevant definitions.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 1

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector© CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL/AUDRIE SIAHAINENIA

Page 2

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORINTRODUCTIONJACEK DYLAG

Over the past several decades, significant effort has been invested in determining the
key elements for environmental sustainability in fisheries and aquaculture, informing thecreation of globally recognized standards, such as the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).
However, recent media revelations about human rights violations in the seafood sector
in both developing and developed countries have placed social issues at the forefrontof conversations around seafood production. In response, a coalition of academic
institutions, industry, and nonprofit organizations (33 individuals from 21 institutions)co-created a framework encompassing a shared and comprehensive definition of social
responsibility to align efforts in this space. This framework, referred to as the “Monterey
Framework” for social responsibility (Kittinger et al., 2017), is supported by more than
two-dozen businesses and over 25 non-profit organizations, and spans issues acrosshuman rights from labor rights, access to resources, equality and equity, and livelihoodand food security. It was built on the UN FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for Securing
Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries, incorporating principles from these guidelines
together with a substantive body of social science research from the fields of humanrights, natural resource management, and development.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 3

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

The “Monterey Framework”: From principles to practice

A key step in moving the “Monterey Framework” from principles to practice is theintegration of a social responsibility framework into Fishery Improvement Projects(FIPs). This was identified as a strategic priority by the Conservation Alliance for
Seafood Solutions1 (“Conservation Alliance”) and the Coalition for Socially Responsible
Seafood2 (“Coalition”) in 2016. In this context, Conservation International, partneringwith organizations of the Conservation Alliance and Coalition, are co-developing asocial responsibility assessment tool for the seafood sector. This tool, named as “Social
Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector,” is built on the Monterey
Framework, the UN FAO’s Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable Small-Scale
Fisheries and other relevant, existing protocols and frameworks. Two key resources usedin the creation of this protocol include the Framework on Social Responsibility for the
Seafood Sector developed by the Certification and Ratings Collaboration social subcommittee (Opal 2018) and the OSMI (Oceans Seafood and Markets Initiative) FIP Rapid
Assessment Protocol (OSMI 2018). This protocol was also informed by stakeholders fromenvironmental and human rights interests at a workshop in Seattle in April 2018 and hasgone through a public revision process with input from NGOs, industry, and academia
Thus, the Social Responsibility Assessment Tool is being co-developed with input froma broad range of expertise, sectors, and interests. This diagnostic tool is salient acrossa diversity of contexts, from community oriented small-scale fisheries to industrial fleets
recruiting migrant workers, and aquaculture farms. The Social Responsibility Assessment
Tool includes three principles and six components from the Monterey Framework.
1 Conservation Alliance for Sustainable Solutions is an alliance of conservation NGOs working
with businesses along seafood supply chains globally to solve sustainable seafood’s biggest
challenges: https://solutionsforseafood.org.
Coalition for Socially Responsible Seafood is a consortium of stakeholders interested inadvancing social responsibility and human rights issues in fisheries, representing conservation,
human rights, and development NGOs, industry, and academia
2Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 4

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

PRINCIPLE 1:

PROTECT HUMAN
RIGHTS, DIGNITY,
AND ACCESS TORESOURCES

PRINCIPLE 2:

ENSURE EQUALITYAND EQUITABLEOPPORTUNITY TO
BENEFIT

PRINCIPLE 3:
IMPROVE FOOD,
NUTRITION, AND
LIVELIHOODSECURITY

Component 1.1: Fundamental human rights
are respected, labor rights are protected,
and decent living and working conditions areprovided, particularly for vulnerable and atrisk groups
Component 1.2: Rights and access toresources are respected and fairly allocatedand respectful of collective and indigenous
rightsComponent 2.1: Recognition, voice, andrespectful engagement for all groups,
irrespective of gender, ethnicity, culture,political, or socioeconomic status
Component 2.2: Equitable opportunities tobenefit are ensured to all, through the entire
supply chain

Component 3.1: Nutritional and sustenanceneeds of resource-dependent communities
are maintained or improved
Component 3.2: Livelihood opportunities are
secured or improved, including fair access tomarkets and capabilities to maintain income
generation

Each Social Responsibility principle comprises a set of Components, Performance
Indicators (PIs) (Table 1) and Scoring Guideposts (SGs). The scoring guideposts
incorporate all the scoring elements or scoring issues required at each guidepost. The
hierarchy of Principles, Components, Performance Indicators and Scoring Guideposts is
known as “Default Assessment Tree,” which is used as the basis for assessment of thefishery for compliance with the Social Responsibility Assessment Tool.
Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 5

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORTABLE 1:

Principles, components, and performance indicators for the Social
Responsibility Assessment Tool.
PRINCIPLE

1
Protect humanrights, dignity, andaccess to resources

COMPONENT PI

1.1
Human andlabor rights

1.2
Access Rights
2
Ensure equality
and equitable
opportunity tobenefit3
Improve food,nutrition, andlivelihood security

2.1
Equality
2.2
Equity1.1.1

Abuse and harassment

1.1.2aHuman trafficking and forced labor

1.1.2bDebt bondage in small-scale fisheries

1.1.3

Child labor

1.1.4

Freedom of association and collective
bargaining

1.1.5

Earnings and benefits

1.1.6

Adequate rest

1.1.7aAccess to basic services for worker housing/
live-aboard vessels

1.1.7bAccess to basic services for small-scale
fishing communities

1.1.8

Occupational safety

1.1.9

Medical response

1.2.1

Customary resource use rights

1.2.2

Corporate responsibility and transparency

2.1.1

Grievance reporting and access to remedy

2.1.2

Stakeholder participation and collaborative
management

2.2.1

Equitable opportunity to benefit

2.2.2

Discrimination

3.1.1aFood and nutrition security impacts ofindustrial fisheries

3.1
3.1.1bFood andnutrition security
3.1.2

3.2
Livelihood
security

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

Food and nutrition security for small-scale
fishing communities
Healthcare

3.1.3

Education

3.2.1

Benefits to and within community

3.2.2

Economic value retention

3.2.3

Long-term profitability and future workforce

3.2.4

Economic flexibility and autonomy

3.2.5

Livelihood security

3.2.6

Fuel resource efficiency

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 6

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORPISCORING GUIDANCE

1.1.1 Score for all fisheries/farms
1.1.2a Is the fishery/farm industrial or medium
1.1.2b scale with labor recruitment fromother countries and/or contracts with
employers likely?
1.1.3 Score for all fisheries/farms
1.1.4 Score for all fisheries/farms

PERFORMANCE INDICATOR

Abuse and harassment
If YES, score 1.1.2a Human trafficking andforced labor
If NO, score 1.1.2b Debt bondage in smallscale fisheriesChild labor
Freedom of association and collective
bargaining
1.1.5 Are workers or farmers wage workers? If YES, score 1.1.5 Earnings and benefits
1.1.6 Are workers or farmers self-employed? If NO, score 1.1.6 Adequate rest
1.1.7a Does the fishery/farm provide worker
If YES, score 1.1.7a Access to basic services
1.1.7b housing or require live-aboard vessel
for worker housing/live-aboard vessels
time?
If NO, score 1.1.7b Access to basic services
for small-scale fishing communities
1.1.8 Score for all fisheries/farms
Occupational safety
1.1.9 Score for all fisheries/farms
Medical response
1.2.1 Does the fishery/farm operate within or If YES, score 1.2.1 Customary resource use
adjascent to a customary use area?
rights
1.2.2 Does the fishery/farm constitute a single If YES, score 1.2.2 Corporate responsibility
taxable enterprise or business?
and transparency
2.1.1 Score for all fisheries/farms
Grievance reporting and access to remedy
2.1.2 Score for all fisheries/farms
Stakeholder participation and collaborative
management
2.2.1 Does the fishery/farm employ women or If YES, score 2.2.1 Equitable opportunity toother marginalized groups (i.e., migrants, benefit
ethnic, or religious minorities)?
2.2.2 Score for all fisheries/farms
Discrimination
3.1.1a Does the fishery/farm operate adjacent If YES, score 3.1.1a Food and nutrition
to or offshore of a marine/coastal
security impacts of industrial fisheries
resource-dependent community(ies)(within the country’s EEZ) and isindustrial to medium-scale?
3.1.1b Does the fishery/farm pertain to a
If YES, score 3.1.1b Food and nutrition
3.1.2 marine/coastal resource-dependent
security for small-scale fishing communities
3.1.3 community(ies)?
If YES, score 3.1.2 Healthcare
3.2.1
If YES, score 3.1.3 Education
If YES, score 3.2.1 Benefits to and withincommunity
3.2.2 Is the fishery/farm operating for
If NO, score 3.2.2 Economic value retention
3.2.3 subsistence purposes only?
If NO, score 3.2.3 Long-term profitability
and future workforce
3.2.4 Do fishers/farmers or their organization If YES, score 3.2.4 Economic flexibility and(i.e., cooperative, association, etc.) sellautonomy
their own product?
3.2.5 Is the fishery/farm contributing to local
If YES, score 3.2.5 Livelihood security
livelihood security?
3.2.6 Is the fishery/farm operating forIf YES, score 3.2.6 Fuel resource efficiency
subsistence purposes only?

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector














Page 7

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Conditionality of Scoring Performance
Indicators
Recognizing that industrial and small-scale fisheries and farms face different social issues,
some PIs and related SGs will not be relevant to certain fisheries and contexts. Similarly,
this protocol is intended to be flexible and adaptable for a diversity of situations. As such,
we provide a heuristic of potentially relevant indicators for assessing social risks inindustrial versus small-scale production systems. Please note, that we are not suggestingto ignore any performance indicators solely based on the characteristics of the fishery or
farm, but rather provide guidance, and ultimately leave conditionality of scoring indicators
up to the discretion of the expert assessor based on their in-depth knowledge of thesystem.

General Scoring GuidanceEach of the performance indicators (PIs) of the Social Responsibility Assessment Toolmust be scored following the guidance provided in this handbook, and the procedures
described in the OSMI Rapid Assessment Protocol.
The assessment should be undertaken by an evaluation team with research experiencein the social sciences, including human-rights and wellbeing protocols. The assessmentof social responsibility principles, components, and indicators, will in some cases,
require outsourcing or partnerships between environmental, development, and humanrights groups. The evaluation team should also strive to use a worker-driven approachto assessing labor conditions—workers/fishers/farmers and their representative
organizations should be involved in the evaluation themselves and subsequently
thereafter in the design of the FIP workplan (ILRF 2018).
After the evaluation team has compiled and analyzed the relevant information available(including primary and secondary sources), they shall score the Unit of Assessment(UoA) against the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISGs). Each PI is scoredon a graded scale consistent with the MSC scoring method, with levels 60, 80 and 100
defining key sustainability thresholds. These thresholds correspond to levels of quality
and certainty of fishing management practices and their probability of generating
sustainability and social responsibility.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 8

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORThis methodology uses the following scoring categories, consistent with those used on
FisheryProgress.org:<60

HIGH RISK

Red

60-79

MEDIUM RISK

Yellow

80+

LOW RISKGreen

Within the scoring categories for each indicator, there may be multiple bullet points or‘guideposts.’ By default, these bullet points are to be treated as ‘AND’ clauses, where allbullets within a category must be met to achieve that score. Otherwise the lower scoring(high risk) category should be applied. When bullets are to be treated as ‘OR’ clauses,
the OR will be explicitly mentioned in the scoring category text. For all indicators awritten rationale for the score must be provided. We do not suggest giving any specificindicators disproportionate weight, as all human rights are fundamentally regarded
as indivisible, and one human right must never be compromised to advance anotherhuman right. Rather, all high-risk categories should seek immediate attention, and when/if criminal activity is detected, the appropriate remediation channels should be activated
immediately (see ANNEX).

Determining Unit of Assessment (UoA)
In a FIP (based on MSC Principles 1,2,3) the following pieces of information are used todescribe the fishery and determine the Unit of Assessment (UoA). The UoA is defined by
the target stock(s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel
type/s) pursuing that stock, and any fleets, or groups of vessels, or individual fishing
operators or other eligible fishers that are included in this assessment. In some fisheries,
the UoA may be further defined based on the specific fishing seasons and/or areas thatare included.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Target species scientific name and common nameFishery location
Gear type(s)Catch quantity (weight)
Vessel type and size
Number of registered vessels
Management authority (the regulatory authority with fishing management
responsibilities; there may be multiple authorities where joint jurisdictional
responsibilities occur)

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 9

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

When evaluating a FIP using social principles, the UoA may be different than used ina “traditional” (environmental) FIP, as it will need to be based on social levels or scalesof organization relevant to the fishery or supply chain. Depending on what is being
evaluated, the UoA will vary accordingly.
First, the UoA will vary depending on what aspect of the supply chain is being
considered. This could include 1) the production sector, 2) pre-processing sector,3) processing sector, 4) distribution sector, or any combination. Recognizing that the
UoA may need to be bounded for feasibility and practical reasons (i.e., just looking at
the production sector), it is still important to consider the FIP UoA in the context of thelarger supply chain, where other human rights abuses may occur. As such, it should
be noted that this tool can only elucidate social risks for the specific UoA within its
respective supply chain, unless the entire supply chain is assessed for the whole sector
or commodity. Buyers or consumers should not equate low risk scores produced by thisassessment as a supply chain free of human rights abuses. Second, as the UoA is thescale at which the data are retrieved, the UoA may also vary by performance indicator.
For example, within this protocol, social data may need to be collected at the scale ofhousehold, vessel, fishery, farm, community, or processing facility. In the case of someindicators (i.e., food security, health care, education) indicators may even exist at regionalor country levels.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 10

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

PRINCIPLE 1:

PROTECT HUMAN
RIGHTS, DIGNITY,
AND ACCESS TORESOURCES

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector
ABUJA HABILA MAZAWAJE

Page 11

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORPERFORMANCE INDICATORSGADDAFI RUSLIPRINCIPLE 1: Protect human rights, dignity and access toresources

Component 1.1: Fundamental human rights are respected,
labor rights are protected, and decent living and working
conditions are provided, particularly for vulnerable and at-risk
groupsIndicator 1.1.1: Abuse and harassment3
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Sexual harassment: Behavior, including gestures, language, and physical contact, that issexually intimidating, abusive, or exploitative.
Gender-based violence: Violence directed against a person because of their gender.
Both men and women experience gender-based violence, but the majority of victims are
women and girls as it is rooted in power inequality between women and men.
These criteria on abuse and harassment are derived from SSRT, FTUSA, ASC, Clearview, RFS,
and IOBR 2013.
3

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 12

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.1.1 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.1 S0

OR - Migrant status is used as a threat or tool of coercion,

SRA1.1.1 S0

OR - There is corporal punishment, mental or physical coercion, verbal
abuse (significantly different than colloquial banter), gender-based
violence, sexual harassment, or any other form of harassment, includingexcessive or abusive disciplinary action, or fisheries observers (whenpresent) are not able to conduct duties free from assault, harassment,interference, or bribery,

SRA1.1.1 S0

OR - Workers/fishers/farmers’ families or community members are
threatened by employers, buyers, labor brokers, or organized crime,

SRA1.1.1 S0

OR - There is forced drug use, or labor and/or product is compensated forwith drugs.

SRA1.1.1 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.1 S2AND - Migrant status is not used as a threat or tool of coercion,

SRA1.1.1 S3AND - There is no corporal punishment, mental or physical coercion,verbal abuse (significantly different than colloquial banter), genderbased violence, sexual harassment, or any other form of harassment,
including excessive or abusive disciplinary action, and fisheries observers(when present) are able to conduct duties free from assault, harassment,interference, or bribery,

SRA1.1.1 S4

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers’ families or community members are notthreatened by employers, buyers, labor brokers, or organized crime,

SRA1.1.1 S5

AND - There is no forced drug use, or labor and/or product is notcompensated for with drugs.

SRA1.1.1 S6There is a written policy publicly disclosed, posted in all languages withspecial accommodations for illiteracy that prohibits physical abuse,bullying, and sexual harassment, with a disciplinary procedure in place toaddress cases of harassment, and discipline commensurate to the actions,

SRA1.1.1 S7

AND - Managers and workers/fishers/farmers are aware of and trained on
the harassment policy,

SRA1.1.1 S8

AND - Workers have grievance procedures to report harassment and do
not face retaliation for using them.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 13

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 1.1.2: Human trafficking and forced labor;4 Debt bondage
in small-scale fisheries5
Indicator 1.1.2a: Human trafficking and forced labor
Indicator 1.1.2b: Debt bondage in small-scale fisheries
Question: Is the fishery/farm industrial or medium scale with labor
recruitment from other countries and/or contracts with employers likely?
If YES, score Indicator 1.1.2a: Human trafficking and forced labor
If NO, score Indicator 1.1.2b: Debt bondage in small-scale fisheries
RELEVANT DEFINITIONSHuman trafficking: The recruitment, transportation, harboring or receipt of persons, bymeans of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud,of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control overanother person, for the purpose of exploitation (UN Trafficking Protocol 2000).
Forced labor: All work or service that is extracted from any person under the menaceof any penalty for which a person has not offered themselves voluntarily or for whichsuch work or service is demanded as a repayment of debt. “Penalty” can imply monetary
sanctions, physical punishment, intimidation, or punishment of family members, or theloss of rights and privileges or restriction of movement (e.g., withholding of identity
documents) (ILO C29).
Debt bondage: Status or condition arising from a pledge by a debtor of their personal
services or of those of a person under their control as security for a debt if the value of
those services as reasonably assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of the debt
or the length and nature of those services are not respectively limited and defined (ILO
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, 1956).
These criteria on human trafficking and forced labor are derived from FishSource, ILO C29,
ILO C105, ILO 2012, ILO General Principles and Operational Guidelines for Fair Recruitment,International Organization for Migration’s IRIS Tool, Verite’s Fair Hiring Toolkit, FTUSA, ASC, BSCI,
Naturland, RFS, Clearview, and IHRB.
4These criteria on debt bondage in small-scale fisheries are derived from ILO Supplementary
Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, 1956.
5

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 14

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORKNUT TROIM

Abuse of vulnerability: When an employer takes advantage of a worker’s vulnerable
position. For example, when a worker lacks alternative livelihood options (vulnerability),
and an employer imposes excessive working hours or withholds wages (abuse ofvulnerability). Risk of abuse of vulnerability increases the more dependent the worker ison the employer (i.e. for food, shelter, etc.).
Deception: The deliberate failure to deliver what has been promised to the worker either
verbally or in writing. This can include false promises regarding working conditions andwages, the type of work, housing and living conditions, etc.
Restriction of movement: Workers are not free to enter and exit the workplace or vesselin port (subject to certain conditions which are considered reasonable) or movement
is restricted in the workplace or on the vessel (subject to certain conditions which areconsidered reasonable).
Isolation: When workers do not have contact with the outside world. On a fishing vessel,
this can mean that all forms of communication are confiscated to prevent workers fromcontacting family or asking for help.
Physical and sexual violence: Any action intended to cause physical harm that is used asa form of punishment or to force workers to undertake tasks that were not a part of theinitial agreement. Violence can include forcing workers to take drugs as to have greater
control over them, forced time spent overboard in water, and also includes physicalabduction or kidnapping.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 15

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Intimidation or threats: an employer’s efforts to manipulate workers when they complain
about their working conditions or wish to leave their jobs. This can include threats ofphysical violence to workers or to their families, or threats in the form of loss of wages,
access to food, further deterioration of conditions, withdrawal of “privileges” such as theright to leave the workplace, or denunciation to immigration authorities. Constant verbal
and psychological abuse is also a form of intimidation.
Retention of identity documents: Confiscation by the employer of worker’s identity
documents such that workers are not able to gain access to them on demand and they
are not able to leave their job without risking their loss.
Withholding of wages: When an employer systematically and deliberately withholds
workers compensation (whether wages, benefits, or other in-kind services) as a means tocompel the worker to remain and deny him or her the opportunity to change employer.
Debt bondage (bonded labour): workers are working in an attempt to pay off an incurredor inherited debt such that it has the effect of binding a worker to an employer for anunspecified period of time and reflects an imbalance in power between worker andemployer.
Abusive living and working conditions: Work is performed under conditions that are
degrading, hazardous or in severe breach of labor law, or worker housing (live-aboard
vessels) conditions are substandard, overcrowded, dangerous, or unhealthy.
Excessive overtime: When workers are forced to work in excess of the working hours
limits prescribed by national law or collective agreement. The determination of whether
or not excessive overtime constitutes forced labor is complex. A useful rule of thumb isthat if employees have to work more overtime than is allowed under national law, undersome form of threat (e.g. dismissal), or in order to earn at least the minimum wage, this isforced labor.
From: ILO Indicators of Forced Labor
The indicators are derived from the ILO’s Special Action Programme to Combat Forced
Labour (SAP-FL). They are based upon the definition of forced labour specified in the
ILO Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29) as: “all work or service which is exacted
from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has notoffered himself voluntarily.” www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/---declaration/
documents/publication/wcms_203832.pdf

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 16

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORYELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Indicator 1.1.2a: Human trafficking and forced labor6
SRA1.1.2a S0

There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.2a S0

OR - The farm/fishery does not have a policy prohibiting the use of forced,
bonded, indentured, prison labor, slavery or trafficked labor,

SRA1.1.2a S0

OR - There are one or more indicators of forced labor in the fishery/farm(abuse of vulnerability, deception, restriction of movement, isolation,
physical and sexual violence, intimidation or threats, retention of identity
documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive living andworking conditions, excessive overtime), and the farm/fishery is not actively
implementing, tracking progress on, or reporting on a remediation plan.

SRA1.1.2a S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.2a S2AND - The farm/fishery has a policy prohibiting the use of forced, bonded,indentured, prison labor, slavery or trafficked labor,

SRA1.1.2a S3AND - There are one or more indicators of forced labor in the fishery/farm (abuse of vulnerability, deception, restriction of movement, isolation,
physical and sexual violence, intimidation or threats, retention of identity
documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive living andworking conditions, excessive overtime), but the farm/fishery is actively
implementing, tracking progress on, and reporting on a remediation plan,

SRA1.1.2a S3

OR - There are no indicators of forced labor in the fishery/farm (abuse ofvulnerability, deception, restriction of movement, isolation, physical andsexual violence, intimidation or threats, retention of identity documents,
withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive living and working
conditions, excessive overtime), but the farm/fishery does not have arobust system in place to monitor, remediate, and report on both its own
performance on recruitment and labor practice, and when applicable, theperformance and compliance of labor recruiters.

For the full suite of ILO forced labor indicators, detailed guidance on how to score this section,and suggested survey/interview questions, please see the appended Guidance Document, ororiginal citation: Hard to see, harder to count: survey guidelines to estimate forced labour ofadults and children/International Labour Office. Geneva: ILO, 2012.
6Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 17

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.1.2a S4

The farm/fishery has a policy prohibiting the use of forced, bonded,indentured, prison labor, slavery or trafficked labor, and managers andworkers/fishers/farmers are aware of and trained on the forced labour
policy with access to effective grievance procedures for reporting
violations of the policy,

SRA1.1.2a S5

AND - There are no indicators of forced labor in the fishery/farm(abuse of vulnerability, deception, restriction of movement, isolation,
physical and sexual violence, intimidation or threats, retention of identity
documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive living andworking conditions, excessive overtime), and the fishery/farm has a robust
operational system in place to monitor, remediate, and report on both its
own performance on recruitment and labor practice, and when applicable,
the performance and compliance of labor recruiters,

SRA1.1.2a S6

AND - All workers/fishers/farmers, including domestic and foreign migrants,
have written contracts in a language they understand, with extra provisions
made for illiterate workers, so that their rights and terms of recruitment andemployment are clearly understood,

SRA1.1.2a S7

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers do not pay any recruitment fees (document/
visa/passport fees excluded),

SRA1.1.2a S8

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers are paid at least monthly.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 18

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Indicator 1.1.2b: Debt bondage in small-scale fisheries
SRA1.1.2b S0

There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.2b S0

OR - The fisher/farmer is paying off debt to the cooperative, association,buyer, or permit holder (for equipment, permit fees, fuel costs, ice, etc.),
and all or most of their income (or share of catch) is used to pay back theirdebts,

SRA1.1.2b S0

OR - The fisher/farmer is paying off debt to the cooperative, association,buyer, or permit holder (for equipment, permit fees, fuel costs, ice, etc.), andtheir debt has increased over time proportional to their income (or share ofcatch),

SRA1.1.2b S0

OR - The fisher/farmer is not allowed to witness the product being weighedor graded to calculate their income (or share of catch),

SRA1.1.2b S0

OR - If applicable, interest rates charged to fishers/farmers are nottransparent or are exorbitant/predatory.

SRA1.1.2b S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.2b S2

AND - The fisher/farmer is paying off debt to the cooperative, association,buyer, or permit holder (for equipment, permit fees, fuel costs, ice, etc.), but
most of their income (or share of catch) is kept and a smaller percentage isused to pay back their debts,

SRA1.1.2b S3

AND - The fisher/farmer is paying off debt to the cooperative, association,buyer, or permit holder (for equipment, permit fees, fuel costs, ice, etc.), andtheir debt has remained stable or decreased over time proportional to theirincome (or share of catch),

SRA1.1.2b S4

AND - The fisher/farmer is allowed to witness the product being weighedor graded to calculate their income (or share of catch),

SRA1.1.2b S5

AND - If applicable, interest rates charged to fishers/farmers aretransparent and agreed upon in advance with fishers/farmers.

SRA1.1.2b S6

The fisher/farmer is paying off debt to the cooperative, association, buyer,or permit holder (for equipment, permit fees, fuel costs, ice, etc.), but aminimal percentage of their income is used to pay back their debts, andtheir debt has decreased over time proportional to their income (or shareof catch),

SRA1.1.2b S6

OR - The fisher/farmer is NOT paying off debt to the cooperative,
association, buyer, or permit holder.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 19

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 1.1.3: Child labor7
RELEVANT DEFINITIONSChild labor: Work that is inappropriate for a child’s age, affects their education, or, by its
nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or
morals of children (e.g., heavy lifting disproportionate to a person’s body size, operating
heavy machinery, using dangerous equipment, night work).
Hazardous child labor: Work which exposes children to physical, psychological or sexual
abuse; work underground, under water, at dangerous heights or in confined spaces; workwith dangerous machinery, equipment and tools, or which involves the manual handlingor transport of heavy loads; work in an unhealthy environment which may, for example,
expose children to hazardous substances, agents or processes, or to temperatures, noiselevels, or vibrations damaging to their health; work under particularly difficult conditions
such as work for long hours or during the night or work where the child is unreasonably
confined to the premises of the employer (ILO C182).
Minimum age for employment:
On-shore: 15 years of age, unless local minimum age law stipulates a higher age forwork or mandatory schooling, in which case the higher age would apply. If, however,
local minimum age law is set at 14 years of age in accordance with developing country
exceptions under ILO convention 138, the lower age applies.
Off-shore: The minimum age for work on board a fishing vessel is 16 years of age,unless the competent authority has authorized a minimum age of 15 for persons whoare (a) no longer subject to compulsory schooling as provided by national legislation,
and who are engaged in vocational training in fishing or (b) performing light work
during school holidays (ILO C188).

These criteria on child labor are derived from ILO 182, ILO C138, ILO C188, FTUSA, ASC, BSCI,
Naturland, RFS, Clearview, FOTS, IFFO RS, and GRASP.
7

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 20

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.1.3 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.3 S0

OR - There is evidence of hazardous child labor, including alongside family
members,

SRA1.1.3 S0

OR - Children below the legal age of employment are employed as waged
workers,

SRA1.1.3 S0

OR - Employment of children below the legal age of employment, even if
working alongside family members, interferes with schooling, and harms
their health, safety or morals.

SRA1.1.3 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.3 S2AND - There is no evidence of hazardous child labor,

SRA1.1.3 S3AND - Children below the legal age of employment are not employed as
waged workers,

SRA1.1.3 S4

AND - Children below the legal age of employment work alongside family
members only if this does not interfere with schooling, and on tasks which
do not harm their health, safety or morals, and do not work at night,

SRA1.1.3 S5

AND - There is no evidence of hazardous child labor, children below thelegal age of employment are not paid as waged workers, nor does thework interfere with their schooling or pose risk to their health and safety,
BUT the farm or fishery does not have a child labor policy that ensures thebest interests of the child and that the child does not end up in a worse
form of employment.

SRA1.1.3 S6There is no evidence of hazardous child labor, children below the legal
age of employment are not paid as waged workers, nor does the work
alongside family members interfere with their schooling or pose risk totheir health and safety, and the farm or fishery has a child labor policy that
ensures the best interests of the child and that the child does not end up ina worse form of employment.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 21

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 1.1.4: Freedom of association and collective bargaining8
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Freedom of association: The right to establish and join organizations of one’s own
choosing without previous authorization, and to draw up constitutions and rules, to electrepresentatives in full freedom, to organize administration and activities, and to formulate
programs, without interference (ILO C87 & C98).
Collective bargaining: All negotiations which take place between an employer, a groupof employers or one or more employers’ organizations, on the one hand, and one ormore workers’ organizations, on the other, for, determining working conditions andterms of employment; and/or regulating relations between employers and workers;
and/or regulating relations between employers or their organizations and a workers’organization or workers’ organizations (ILO C154).

These criteria on freedom of association and collective bargaining are derived from ILO C87, ILO
C98, ILO C154, FTUSA, ASC, BSCI, Naturland, RFS, and Clearview.
8

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 22

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.1.4 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.4 S0

OR - There is evidence of management or buyer interference in workers/
fishers/farmers’ rights to form organizations and bargain collectively,
or worker/fisher/farmer representatives are unable to access employer
facilities to speak with union members,

SRA1.1.4 S0

OR - The country with jurisdiction over workers/fishers/farmers restricts
union rights and the employer has not provided for another way forworkers/fishers/farmers to organize or express grievances,

SRA1.1.4 S0

OR - Human rights defenders are actively suppressed or there is a recent
record of litigation by employers or the government against human rights
defenders,

SRA1.1.4 S0

OR - There is discrimination against workers/fishers/farmers who aremembers or leaders of organizations, unions or cooperatives, including
blacklisting, or worker/fishers/farmers are dismissed for exercising theirright to strike.

SRA1.1.4 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.4 S2

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers are free to form worker organizations,
including trade unions, to advocate for and protect their rights, and havethe right to decide their own structure, policies, programs, priorities, etc.
without employer interference,

SRA1.1.4 S3AND - There are national laws protecting collective workers’ rights(including cooperatives) which are upheld and respected, or the country
restricts trade union rights but the company/fishery/farm has provided a
way for workers/fishers/farmers to organize and express grievances,

SRA1.1.4 S4AND - Human rights defenders are not actively suppressed and there is no
recent record of litigation by employers against human rights defenders,

SRA1.1.4 S5AND - There is no discrimination against workers/fishers/farmers who aremembers or leaders of organizations, unions or cooperatives, and workers/
fishers/farmers are not dismissed for exercising their right to strike.

SRA1.1.4 S6The employer or association has a written policy or by-laws (shared withworkers/fishers/farmers in relevant languages and with provisions for
illiteracy) that they respect the rights of workers/fishers/farmers to Freedomof Association and Collective Bargaining,

SRA1.1.4 S7

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers are trained by workers’ organizations on
their rights to organize and bargain collectively,

SRA1.1.4 S8

AND - Women participate in unions or cooperatives commensurate with
their representation in the workforce.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 23

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SASAN RASHTIPOUR

Indicator 1.1.5: Earnings and benefits9
Question: Are workers or farmers wage workers?
If YES, score Indicator 1.1.5: Earnings and benefits
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Living wage: Remuneration received for a standard work week by a worker in a particularplace sufficient to afford a decent standard of living for the worker and their family.
Elements of a decent standard of living include food, water, housing, education, healthcare, transport, clothing, and other essential needs, including provision for unexpected
events.
Equal remuneration: Equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equalvalue refers to rates of remuneration established without discrimination based on gender,
where remuneration refers to the ordinary, basic or minimum wage or salary and any
additional emoluments whatsoever payable directly or indirectly, whether in cash or in
kind, by the employer to the worker and arising out of the worker’s employment (ILO C100).

These criteria on earnings and benefits are derived from ILO C188, ILO C100, FTUSA, ASC,
BSCI, Naturland, RFS, Clearview, FOTS, IFFO RS, and GRASP.
9

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 24

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.1.5 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.5 S0

OR - Minimum legal requirements for income or benefits are not properly
defined in domestic labor law,

SRA1.1.5 S0

OR - Domestic law does not recognize equal remuneration for work ofequal value for men and women, and wages paid to workers/fishers/
farmers do not reflect equal remuneration,

SRA1.1.5 S0

OR - Wages or benefits are below minimum legal requirements, according
to domestic labor laws of workplace, farm, or country of flagged vessel,

SRA1.1.5 S0

OR - Overtime wages are not paid in accordance with minimum legal
requirements, based on domestic labor laws of workplace, farm, or countryof flagged vessel,

SRA1.1.5 S0

OR - Wages paid to workers/fishers/farmers are not what was promised at
the time of employment, are withheld as a form of discipline, contain illegal
deductions, are not paid on time or directly to the worker/fisher/farmer, or
workers/fishers/farmers go longer than one month without being paid,

SRA1.1.5 S0

OR - Employers use temporary laborers to avoid contracting employees
and providing necessary legal benefits and salaries,

SRA1.1.5 S0

OR - Workers/fishers/farmers are unaware of how their earnings ordeductions are calculated or their rights to benefits, or are asked to sign
contracts they don’t understand based on language barriers or illiteracy,

SRA1.1.5 S0

OR - Workers/fishers/farmers do not receive wage slips with deductions
itemized or written receipts.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 25

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.1.5 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.5 S2

AND - Minimum legal requirements for income and benefits are properly
defined in domestic labor law,

SRA1.1.5 S3

AND - Domestic law may not recognize equal remuneration for work ofequal value for men and women, however, wages paid to workers/fishers/
farmers do reflect equal remuneration,

SRA1.1.5 S4AND - Wage levels and benefits meet the minimum legal requirements
according to domestic labor laws of workplace, farm, or country of flagged
vessel,

SRA1.1.5 S5AND - Overtime wages are paid in accordance with minimum legal
requirements, based on domestic labor laws of workplace, farm, or countryof flagged vessel,

SRA1.1.5 S6AND - Wages paid to workers/fishers/farmers are what was promised at thetime of employment, are not withheld as a form of discipline, do not containillegal deductions, are paid on time or directly to the worker/fisher/farmer,
and workers/fishers/farmers do not go longer than one month without
being paid,

SRA1.1.5 S7

AND - Employers legally contract employees,

SRA1.1.5 S8

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers are aware of how their earnings ordeductions are calculated and their rights to benefits, are allowed towitness procedures used to determine earnings (weighing, grading), andonly sign contracts they understand with provisions for different languages
or illiteracy,

SRA1.1.5 S9AND - Workers/fishers/farmers receive wage slips with deductions itemized
or written receipts.

SRA1.1.5 S10Wages or earnings are higher than minimum legal wages or meet living
wage levels (includes being able to provide for family, save, or invest), andbenefits are provided beyond legal minimums,

SRA1.1.5 S11

AND - Both domestic law and practices and policies of the fishery/farm
uphold the principles of equal remuneration for men and women,

SRA1.1.5 S12

AND - The employer and workers discuss how they can improve wages
and productivity in mutually beneficial ways,

SRA1.1.5 S13

AND - There are written contracts between employer and employees in alanguage employees understand with provisions for illiterate workers.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 26

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 1.1.6: Adequate rest10
Question: Are workers or farmers self-employed?

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

If NO, score Indicator 1.1.6: Adequate rest
SRA1.1.6 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment teamis not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.6 S0

OR - There is no mechanism in place for workers/fishers/farmers to record
hours worked,

SRA1.1.6 S0

OR - Working hours exceed domestic legal limits and workers regularly
work >48 hours/week, and overtime hours are not paid at a premium asrequired by law,

SRA1.1.6 S0

OR - Rest periods are less than 10 hours in a 24-hour period, or 77 hours ina 7-day period, or legal requirements for breaks are not followed,

SRA1.1.6 S0

OR - There is forced overtime.

SRA1.1.6 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.6 S2

AND - There is a mechanism in place for workers/fishers/farmers to record
hours worked,

SRA1.1.6 S3

AND - Working hours meet the domestic legal minimum requirements, andovertime hours are paid at a premium as required by law,

SRA1.1.6 S4

AND - Workers have at least 10 hours of rest in a 24 hour period and at
least 77 hours in a 7 day period,

SRA1.1.6 S5AND - Overtime is voluntary.

SRA1.1.6 S6There is an independent, third party oversight mechanism for verification ofworking hours,

SRA1.1.6 S7AND - Onshore workers do not work more than 48 hours/week even if thelaw permits more,

SRA1.1.6 S8AND - Onshore workers do not work more than 6 days/week,

SRA1.1.6 S9AND - The workplace/farm/fishery has systems in place to anticipate peak
production needs and seasonal variation to ensure that excessive overtime
is not required,

SRA1.1.6 S10

AND - The workplace/fishery/farm has paid pre- and post-natal maternity/
paternity leave with adequate compensation.

These criteria on adequate rest are derived from FTUSA, ASC, BSCI, Naturland, RFS, Clearview,
GRASP, ILO C188, and ILRF 2018.
10

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 27

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORJESSA MARIE PEDROLA

Indicator 1.1.7: Access to basic services11
Indicator 1.1.7a: Access to basic services for worker housing/		
live-aboard vessels
Indicator 1.1.7b: Access to basic services for small-scale fishing 		communities
Question: Does the fishery/farm provide worker housing or require 			
live-aboard vessel time?
If YES, score Indicator 1.1.7a: Access to basic services for worker housing/
live-aboard vessels
If NO, score Indicator 1.1.7b: Access to basic services for small-scale
fishing communities

These criteria on access to basic services are derived from FTUSA, BSCI, Naturland, RFS,
Clearview, GRASP, ILO C188, ILO 2009, and IOBR 2013.
11

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 28

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORRELEVANT DEFINITIONSBasic standards: Accommodation on board fishing vessels that fly its flag shall be of
sufficient size and quality and appropriately equipped for the service of the vessel andthe length of time fishers live on board. In particular, such measures shall address, as
appropriate, the following issues: (a) approval of plans for the construction or modificationof fishing vessels in respect of accommodation; (b) maintenance of accommodation andgalley spaces with due regard to hygiene and overall safe, healthy and comfortableconditions; (c) ventilation, heating, cooling and lighting; (d) mitigation of excessive noiseand vibration; (e) location, size, construction materials, furnishing and equipping of
sleeping rooms, mess rooms and other accommodation spaces; (f) sanitary facilities,
including toilets and washing facilities with adequate privacy, and supply of sufficient
hot and cold water; and (g) procedures for responding to complaints concerning
accommodation that does not meet the requirements of this Convention (ILO 2007).

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Indicator 1.1.7a: Access to basic services for worker housing/			
live-aboard vessels
SRA1.1.7a S0

There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.7a S0

OR - Housing or sleeping quarters do not meet basic standards for space,
comfort, safety, or cleanliness,

SRA1.1.7a S0

OR - When present, fisheries observers are not provided adequate
accommodation appropriate to the size of the monitored entity orequivalent to that of the officers of the monitored entity,

SRA1.1.7a S0

OR - Sanitary facilities (appropriate to vessel size) with adequate privacy
are not provided,

SRA1.1.7a S0

OR - Potable water is not accessible to workers,

SRA1.1.7a S0

OR - Adequate food is not provided, or food provided is unsanitary.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 29

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.1.7a S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.7a S2

AND - Housing and sleeping quarters have adequate fire prevention andair ventilation, meet legal requirements, and meet reasonable levels ofsafety, decency, hygiene, and comfort,

SRA1.1.7a S3

AND - When present, fisheries observers are provided adequate
accommodation appropriate to the size of the monitored entity andequivalent to that of the officers of the monitored entity,

SRA1.1.7a S4

AND - Sanitary facilities (appropriate to vessel size) with adequate privacy
are provided,

SRA1.1.7a S5

AND - Potable water is accessible to workers,

SRA1.1.7a S6AND - Workers/fishers living on site or on board have access to adequate
and sanitary food at fair prices.

SRA1.1.7a S7There are separate sanitary facilities for men and women, or sanitaryfacilities can be locked from the inside,

SRA1.1.7a S8AND - There are separate sleeping quarters for men and women, or if there
is one sleeping space, men and women have separate bunks, or sharesame bunk during different shifts,

SRA1.1.7a S9AND - Sleeping quarters or sanitation facilities cannot be locked from theoutside (restriction of movement is prevented),

SRA1.1.7a S10 AND - Workers’/fishers’ representatives and management meet regularly to
discuss vessel or housing improvements,
SRA1.1.7a S11

AND - The workplace/fishery/farm provides childcare.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 30

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+) YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Indicator 1.1.7b: Access to basic services for small-scale fishingcommunities
SRA1.1.7b S0

There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.7b S0

OR - There is no access to potable water,

SRA1.1.7b S0

OR - There is no access to electricity,

SRA1.1.7b S0

OR - There is no access to sewage disposal (i.e., outhouse),

SRA1.1.7b S0

OR - There is no access to waste disposal (i.e., trash is burned at home).

SRA1.1.7b S1

There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.7b S2

AND - There is access to potable water in the community,

SRA1.1.7b S3

AND - There is access to electricity intermittently,

SRA1.1.7b S4

AND - There is access to sewage disposal (i.e., sewage containers),

SRA1.1.7b S5

AND - There is access to waste disposal (i.e., community dump).

SRA1.1.7b S6There is access to potable water in each household,

SRA1.1.7b S7AND - There is continuous access to electricity,

SRA1.1.7b S8AND - There is access to sewage treatment (i.e., community treatment
systems),

SRA1.1.7b S9AND - There is access to waste management (i.e., garbage collection andsorting of recycled materials).

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 31SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 1.1.8: Occupational safety12
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Personal protective equipment: Equipment worn to minimize exposure to workplace
injuries and illnesses that may result from contact with chemical, radiological, physical,
electrical, mechanical, or other workplace hazards (Source: US Department of Labor). It
includes any item a worker needs to wear for their own protection. PPE may include but
is not limited to clothing, footwear, eye protection, ear protection, gloves, masks, andpersonal flotation devices (Source: FTUSA).
SRA1.1.8 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.8 S0

OR - Vessels on trips over five days do not carry a crew list or provide a
copy to authorized persons ashore at the time of vessel departure (unlessself-employed),

SRA1.1.8 S0

OR - Workers/fishers/farmers/observers do not have access tocommunication equipment, or there is no radio on board for vessels over
24 meters,

SRA1.1.8 S0

OR - Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) (i.e., life jackets) is notprovided on board or in the workplace/farm,

SRA1.1.8 S0

OR - Workers/fishers/farmers are required to pay for PPE (unless selfemployed),

SRA1.1.8 S0

OR - Workers/fishers/farmers and managers are not trained in health andsafety procedures,

SRA1.1.8 S0

OR - Vessel/farm/workplace does not comply with local/national safety andhealth regulations.

These criteria on occupational safety are derived from FTUSA, ASC, BSCI, Naturland, RFS,
Clearview, GRASP, FOTS, IFFO RS, ILO C188, and IOBR 2013.
12

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 32

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.1.8 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.8 S2

AND - On large vessels, making long trips, vessels carry a crew list
and provide a copy to authorized persons ashore at the time of vessel
departure [long trips defined as 3 days],

SRA1.1.8 S3

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers/observers have access to communicationequipment, or there is a radio on board for vessels over 24 meters,

SRA1.1.8 S4

AND - Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) (i.e., life jackets) is
provided onboard or in the workplace/farm. It is provided at no cost to any
employees,

SRA1.1.8 S5

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers and managers are trained in health andsafety procedures and on proper use of PPE and safe operation of any
equipment they use (unless self-employed),

SRA1.1.8 S6

AND - Vessel/farm/workplace complies with local/national safety andhealth regulations.

SRA1.1.8 S7On small vessels (<24 meters), there is a working radio on board,

SRA1.1.8 S8AND - Workers/fishers/farmers and managers are trained in health andsafety procedures and on proper use of PPE and safe operation of any
equipment they use,

SRA1.1.8 S9AND - Workplace risks and risk areas are identified in relevant languages
with provisions for illiteracy, and workplace accidents are recorded,

SRA1.1.8 S10AND - Workplace/fishery/farm has a written health and safety policy,
properly implemented, and workers/fishers/farmers are engaged inreviewing and implementing policy,

SRA1.1.8 S11

AND - Workplace/fishery/farm has a structure or mechanism in place(i.e., occupational health and safety committee), with formal channelsof communications established, to discuss and implement protection of
workplace health and safety,

SRA1.1.8 S12

AND - There are special protections for young, pregnant, or othervulnerable workers/fishers/farmers.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 33

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 1.1.9: Medical response13
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Large vessels: Vessels equal to, or greater than 24 meters (ILO 2007).

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Long trips: Trips at sea for more than three days (ILO 2007).

13

SRA1.1.9 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.1.9 S0

OR - Medical supplies are inadequate or unavailable (i.e., there is no firstaid kit),

SRA1.1.9 S0

OR - In factories, farms, or large vessels, there is no one trained in first aid.

SRA1.1.9 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.1.9 S2

AND - Adequate medical supplies are available (i.e., there is a first aid kit),

SRA1.1.9 S3

AND - In factories, farms, or large vessels, there is a trained first aid
responder,

SRA1.1.9 S4

AND - On large vessels, making long trips, fishers have a valid medical
certificate attesting to their fitness to work [long trips defined as 3 days],

SRA1.1.9 S5

AND - Workers are provided with medical care for workplace injuries andare repatriated if necessary at employer’s expense.

SRA1.1.9 S6Injuries sustained in the course of work are subject to worker’s
compensation, lost time pay, and payment of medical expenses, if not bylaw, then by employer,

SRA1.1.9 S7

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers are trained in emergency response and first
aid.

These criteria on medical response are derived from FTUSA, RFS, GRASP, and ILO C188.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 34

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR© CRISTINA MITTERMEIER

Component 1.2: Rights and access to resources are respected
and fairly allocated and respectful of collective and indigenous
rightsIndicator 1.2.1: Customary resource use rights14
Question: Does the fishery/farm operate within or adjacent to acustomary use area?
If YES, score Indicator 1.2.1: Customary resource use rights
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Free, Prior, and Informed Consent:(Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007)
Free: There is no coercion, duress, fraud, bribery, intimidation or manipulation.
Prior: Consent is to be sought sufficiently in advance of any significant planning,
These criteria on customary resource use rights are derived from FTUSA, ASC, MSC, BAP, Thai
GAP, and UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007.
14

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 35

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

authorization or commencement of activities, and each decision making stage,
and respect is shown to time requirements of indigenous consultation/consensus
processes.

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Informed: Information is provided, in appropriate language and format, that covers
a range of aspects, including the nature, size, pace, reversibility and scope of any
proposed project or activity; the purpose of the project as well as its duration;
locality and areas affected; a preliminary assessment of the likely economic,
social, cultural and environmental impact, including potential risks; personnel
likely to be involved in the execution of the project; procedures the project may
entail; and indigenous rights under domestic and national law. All informationmust be provided free from external manipulation and with sufficient time forreview and decision-making in accordance with the laws and customs of theaffected indigenous people. This process may include the option of withholding
consent. Communities must be allowed to withhold consent. Consultation andparticipation are crucial components of a consent process.
SRA1.2.1 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.2.1 S0

OR - Resource use rights have been established by custom (informal)
or by law (formal) for certain peoples or communities, but these are notrespected by the fishery or farm,

SRA1.2.1 S0

OR - Resource use rights have been allocated to others (foreign
enterprises, politically connected entities, etc.) at the expense of customaryusers,

SRA1.2.1 S0

OR - Fishers are denied fishing rights, or their fishing rights are revoked,
due to discrimination (e.g., gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation) byauthorities and/or other communities or entities,

SRA1.2.1 S0

OR - The farm or fishery is designated in an area legitimately claimed bycommunities without their documented Free, Prior, and Informed Consent,

SRA1.2.1 S0

OR - The farm or fishery’s activities negatively impact adjacentcommunities, land, and/or water, or restrict access to vital community
resources without community approval.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 36

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA1.2.1 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.2.1 S2AND - Customary use rights have been mapped out using a participatory
stakeholder process,

SRA1.2.1 S3AND - The fishery or farm observes the legal and customary rights of local
people,

SRA1.2.1 S4

AND - Fishers are not denied or revoked of fishing rights due todiscrimination (e.g., gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation) byauthorities and/or other communities or entities,

SRA1.2.1 S5

AND - The farm or fishery is not designated in an area legitimately claimed
by communities without their documented Free, Prior, and Informed
Consent,

SRA1.2.1 S6

AND - The farm or fishery understands its impact on customary access toresources, and does not negatively impact adjacent communities, land,
and/or water, or restrict access to vital community resources without
community approval.

SRA1.2.1 S7There is an active process to establish a protocol agreement, or there is a
protocol agreement in place, with indigenous communities, or communities
with customary use rights, using Free, Prior, and Informed Consent,

SRA1.2.1 S8

AND - Customary resource users are aware of their rights, and areprotected under law and can seek recourse within the legal system,

SRA1.2.1 S9AND - The fishery or farm is actively mitigating any impacts or conflicts onaccess to resources for customary users,

SRA1.2.1 S10

AND - Communities or people with claims to the resource are strongly
involved in management of the resource, and traditional practices andknowledge are incorporated into resource management,

SRA1.2.1 S11

AND - Special attention is paid to ensure women and disadvantaged
groups are included in consultation.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 37

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 1.2.2: Corporate responsibility and transparency15
Question: Does the fishery/farm constitute a single taxable enterprise orbusiness?

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

If YES, score Indicator 1.2.2: Corporate responsibility and transparency
SRA1.2.2 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA1.2.2 S0

OR - Farm or fishery does not pay taxes,

SRA1.2.2 S0

OR - Owners, managers, fishers or farmers pay bribes to public servants togain access to resources or to avoid compliance with local regulations,

SRA1.2.2 S0

OR - The fishery/farm has no human rights policy in place (appropriate totheir size and circumstances to meet their responsibility to respect humanrights), or cannot demonstrate evidentiary compliance with their policy.

SRA1.2.2 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA1.2.2 S2AND - The fishery/farm can demonstrate compliance with all tax laws,

SRA1.2.2 S3AND - There is no evidence that owners, managers, fishers or farmers
pay bribes to public servants to gain access to resources or to avoid
compliance with local regulations,

SRA1.2.2 S4

AND - The fishery/farm has a human rights policy in place (appropriate totheir size and circumstances to meet their responsibility to respect humanrights), and can demonstrate evidentiary compliance with their policy.

SRA1.2.2 S5Farm or fishery publicly discloses their social, economic, and environmental
performance,

SRA1.2.2 S6

AND - Farm or fishery is engaged in multi-stakeholder, worker-centeredinitiatives aiming to improve social performance across the industry,

SRA1.2.2 S7

AND - Financial accounts are regularly reviewed by independent thirdparty auditors,

SRA1.2.2 S8

AND - Farm or fishery has published social responsibility andenvironmental policies,

SRA1.2.2 S9AND - The human rights policy is communicated and training is provided, ina language or medium understandable to all workers and observers on thefishing vessel and other relevant persons who assume the responsibility or
duties for the operation of the fishing vessel or its workers.

These criteria on corporate responsibility and transparency are derived from BSCI, IFFO RS,
ASC, and UNGP 2011.
15

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 38

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

PRINCIPLE 2:

ENSURE EQUALITYAND EQUITABLEOPPORTUNITY TO
BENEFIT

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector
EVGENY NELMIN

Page 39SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORTADEU JNR

PRINCIPLE 2: Ensure equality and equitable opportunity tobenefitComponent 2.1: Recognition, voice, and respectful

engagement for all groups, irrespective of gender, ethnicity,
culture, political, or socioeconomic status
Indicator 2.1.1: Grievance reporting and access to remedy16
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Grievance: A circumstance or condition that constitutes an injustice to the sufferer andgives just ground for complaint.
Grievance mechanisms: A formal, legal or non-legal (or ‘judicial/non-judicial’) complaint
process that can be used by individuals, workers, communities and/or civil society
organizations that are being negatively affected by certain business activities andoperations (SOMO).
These criteria on grievance reporting and access to remedy are derived from the UN Guiding
Principles on Businesses and Human Rights, Articles 25-31, ILRF 2018, IFFO RS, ASC, GRASP, andClearview. For worker hotline and grievance reporting services see: Issara Institute and Clear Voice.
16

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 40SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

In order to ensure their effectiveness, grievance mechanisms must be legitimate,accessible, predictable, equitable, transparent, rights-compatible, a source of continuous
learning, and based on engagement and dialogue. A grievance mechanism can only
serve its purpose if the people it is intended to serve, know about it, trust it, and are able
to use it (*for detailed information see UN Guiding Principles on Businesses and Human
Rights, Articles 25-31).
•

Legitimate: enabling trust from the stakeholder groups for whose use they areintended, and being accountable for the fair conduct of grievance processes.

•

Accessible: being known to all stakeholder groups for whose use they areintended, and providing adequate assistance for those who may face particularbarriers to access.

•Predictable: providing a clear and known procedure with an indicative time frame
for each stage, and clarity on the types of process and outcome available andmeans of monitoring implementation.

•

Equitable: seeking to ensure that aggrieved parties have reasonable access tosources of information, advice, and expertise necessary to engage in a grievanceprocess on fair, informed, and respectful terms.

•

Transparent: keeping parties to a grievance informed about its progress, andproviding sufficient information about the mechanism’s performance to build
confidence in its effectiveness and meet any public interest at stake.

•

Rights-compatible: ensuring that outcomes and remedies accord withinternationally recognized human rights.

•

As source of continuous learning: drawing on relevant measures to identify lessons
for improving the mechanism and preventing future grievances and harms.

•

Based on engagement and dialogue: consulting the stakeholder groups for whose
use they are intended on their design and performance, and focusing on dialogue
as the means to address and resolve grievances.

Blacklisting: Denying people employment for a particular reason, such as politicalaffiliation, involvement in trade union activity, gender, or a history of whistle-blowing.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 41

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA2.1.1 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA2.1.1 S0

OR - Workers/fishers/farmers do not have knowledge of or access toeffective, fair, and confidential grievance mechanisms appropriate for andcommensurate with size and scale of fishery/farm,

SRA2.1.1 S0

OR - Workers/fishers/farmers are punished for reporting workplaceviolations of human or labor rights, or corruption by public officials. This
could include, for instance, physical punishment, gender-based retaliation,
intimidation, wage deduction or withholding, job loss, and/or blacklisting.

SRA2.1.1 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA2.1.1 S2AND - Workers/fishers/farmers that pertain to a business have knowledgeof and access to effective, fair, and confidential grievance mechanisms,
or if workers/fisher/farmers are part of a cooperative, association, or
customary group, they have knowledge and access to effective and fairgrievance mechanisms (according to established protocols and by-laws oftransparency, democracy, and equal representation) appropriate for andcommensurate with size and scale of fishery/farm,

SRA2.1.1 S3AND - There is no retaliation or prejudice against workers/fishers/farmers
who submit grievances, including gender-based prejudice or retaliation.

SRA2.1.1 S4Grievance mechanisms are both procedurally and substantively effectiveat remediation of conflicts and complaints in a time-bound manner with noreoccurring grievances, and these remediation processes (corrective actionplans) are publicly disclosed,

SRA2.1.1 S5

AND - The grievance procedure includes special consideration forvulnerable populations (e.g., migrant workers, women, ethnic minorities),

SRA2.1.1 S6

AND - Workers/fishers/farmers have access to third party independent
organizations or local/customary governance body that can address
grievances and ensure effective representation.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 42SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 2.1.2: Stakeholder participation and collaborative
management17
RELEVANT DEFINITIONSYELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Stakeholder participation: The process by which an organization involves all men
and women who may be affected by the decisions it makes or in all other governanceactivities (decision making, monitoring, enforcement, conflict resolution). *An affectedstakeholder is someone who will experience consequences by the decision made (fisher/
worker/farmer, community member, women, minorities). A relevant stakeholder is anyone
who has a stake in the decision made (government, businesses, NGOs).
SRA2.1.2 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA2.1.2 S0

OR - There is no mechanism for stakeholder participation in the fishery/farm management unit (i.e., worker committees, worker-management
communication channels, advisory/technical councils, co-management
bodies, consultation processes, etc.),

SRA2.1.2 S0

OR - There is a mechanism for stakeholder participation, but it is
not representative of all affected and relevant stakeholders or somestakeholder groups are excluded from the participation mechanism (i.e.,
women, ethnic minorities, lower economic class).

SRA2.1.2 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA2.1.2 S2AND - There is a mechanism for stakeholder participation or in the fishery/farm management unit (i.e., worker committees, worker-management
communication channels, advisory/technical councils, co-management
bodies, consultation processes, etc.),

SRA2.1.2 S3AND - All affected and relevant stakeholders are represented and no
stakeholder groups are excluded based on status, class, gender, ethnicity,
etc.,

SRA2.1.2 S4

AND - Stakeholder input is considered and integrated into decisionmaking.

These criteria on stakeholder participation and collaborative management are derived from
SFW, ASC, MSC, Thai GAP, IFFO RS, BAP, FishSource, FTUSA, and GALS.
17

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 43

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA2.1.2 S5

Decisions are publicly communicated, promoted, and transparent,

SRA2.1.2 S6

AND - Decision-making processes have special consideration provided for
disadvantaged and vulnerable groups (i.e., migrant workers, women, ethnic
minorities), so that decisions are made by affected stakeholders on equalterms,

SRA2.1.2 S7

AND - All affected and relevant stakeholders are free to engage in all
aspects of fishery/aquaculture governance including decision-making,monitoring, enforcement, and conflict resolution,

SRA2.1.2 S8

AND - Participation and collaborative management between local
stakeholders and government (or between workers and management in
the case of industrial fisheries) is fostered and reinforced by civil society
organizations working to protect the interests of relevant stakeholders.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 44SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORFRANCESCA NOEMI MARCONI

Component 2.2: Equitable opportunities to benefit are
ensured to all, through the entire supply chain

Indicator 2.2.1: Equitable opportunity to benefit18
Question: Does the fishery/farm employ women or other marginalizedgroups (i.e., migrants, ethnic, or religious minorities)?
If YES, score Indicator 2.2.1: Equitable opportunity to benefit
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Benefits: Benefits in fisheries or aquaculture supply chains may include access to fishingrights, profits, medical care, social security, markets, loans, credits, subsidies, and social
protection measures, among other things.
Marginalized group: A group relegated to an unimportant or powerless position within asociety (i.e., migrant workers, women and girls, ethnic or religious minorities, etc.).

These criteria on equitable opportunity to benefit are derived from FTUSA, Human Rights at
Sea 2015, and ILO 2010 GEMS.
18

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 45

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Gender Transformative: An approach or practice where gender equality—the sharedcontrol of resources and decision-making—and women’s empowerment are central to theintervention.
Equality: The same status, rights, and responsibilities for all members of a society,group, or family; giving everyone the same resources regardless of their relative ability tobenefit.

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+) YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79) RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Equity: An equal opportunity to benefit; giving everyone the resources they need toderive the same benefits, dependent on their relative ability to benefit.
SRA2.2.1 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA2.2.1 S0

OR - There is not equal access to or opportunity to benefit from the fishery/farm based on gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, class, migrant
status, political affiliation, etc.

SRA2.2.1 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA2.2.1 S2AND - There is equal access to or opportunity to benefit from the fishery/farm regardless of gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, class,migrant status, political affiliation, etc.,

SRA2.2.1 S2

OR - There is not equal access to or opportunity to benefit from the fishery/
farm, but a strategy or policy to address inequity is in place.

SRA2.2.1 S3There is evidence of equal access to or opportunity to benefit from thefishery/farm, and marginalized groups are in leadership positions or
positions of power,

SRA2.2.1 S4

AND - Gender transformative policies and research programs are in placewhen women participate in the farm or fishery (i.e., routine data collectionof gender disaggregated data).

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 46

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

ANASTASIA PALAGUTINA

Indicator 2.2.2: Discrimination19
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Discrimination: Any distinction, exclusion, or preference made on the basis of race,color, gender, religion, political opinion, immigration status, national extraction, disability,
family responsibilities, sexual orientation, HIV/AIDS status, trade union membership, tradeunion activities, or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality ofopportunity or treatment in employment or occupation.
SRA2.2.2 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA2.2.2 S0

OR - There are different rates of pay for people in the same positions,based on e.g., ethnicity, sex, religious affiliation, etc.,

SRA2.2.2 S0

OR - There is discrimination in recruitment, promotion, access to training,access to permits, remuneration, allocation of work, termination of
employment, retirement, ability to join unions or cooperatives, or otheractivities,

SRA2.2.2 S0

OR - There is discrimination in access to benefits e.g., health care, savings
accounts, insurance, etc.,

SRA2.2.2 S0

OR - There is pregnancy testing for female workers/fishers/farmers.

These criteria on discrimination are derived from FTUSA, ASC, BSCI, Clearview, Naturland, RFS,ILO C100, and ILO C111.
19

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 47

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA2.2.2 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA2.2.2 S2AND - Workers/fishers/farmers receive equal pay for work of equal value,

SRA2.2.2 S3AND - There is no discrimination in recruitment promotion, access totraining, access to permits, remuneration, allocation of work, terminationof employment, retirement, ability to join unions or cooperatives, or otheractivities,

SRA2.2.2 S4

AND - There is no discrimination in access to benefits e.g., health care,savings accounts, insurance, etc.,

SRA2.2.2 S5

AND - There is no compulsory pregnancy testing for female workers/
fishers/farmers.

SRA2.2.2 S6There is a comprehensive and proactive anti-discrimination policy forthe fishery or farm. The policy is implemented through procedures andpractices, posted in all languages and visible to all workers,

SRA2.2.2 S7

AND - Managers and workers/fishers/farmers are aware of and trained on
the anti-discrimination policy.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 48

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

PRINCIPLE 3:
IMPROVE FOOD,
NUTRITION, AND
LIVELIHOODSECURITY

KNUT TROIM

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector
PETER HERSHEY

Page 49

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

MAJKL VELNER

PRINCIPLE 3: Improve food, nutrition, and livelihood
security

Component 3.1: Nutritional and sustenance needs of resourcedependent communities are maintained or improved
Indicator 3.1.1: Food and nutrition security20
Indicator 3.1.1a: Food and nutrition security impacts of industrial
fisheries
Question: Does the fishery/farm operate adjacent to or offshore of amarine/coastal resource-dependent community(ies) (within the country’s
EEZ) and is industrial to medium-scale?
If YES, score Indicator 3.1.1a: Food and nutrition security impacts ofindustrial fisheries
These criteria on food and nutrition security are derived from FTUSA, RSB 2012, and UN FAO(relevant links included).
20

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 50

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 3.1.1b: Food and nutrition security for small-scale
fishing communities
Question: Does the fishery/farm pertain to a marine/coastal resourcedependent community(ies)?
If YES, score Indicator 3.1.1b: Food and nutrition security for small-scale
fishing communities
RELEVANT DEFINITIONSFood and nutrition security: When all people at all times have physical, social, andeconomic access to food, which is consumed in sufficient quantity and quality to meettheir dietary needs and food preferences, and is supported by an environment ofadequate sanitation, health services and care, allowing for a healthy and active life (FAO
2013), in consideration of differences in nutritional requirements for women and children.
Suggested indicators used to complete this assessment:
Country-level food and nutrition insecurity indicator: Undernourishment Indicator –measures the share of the population which has a caloric (dietary energy) intake which is
insufficient to meet the minimum energy requirements defined as necessary for a given
population (UN FAO State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World:
www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en).
Community-level food and nutrition insecurity indicator: Food Insecurity Experience
Scale (FIES) – a list of eight questions referring to the experiences of an individual or
household associated with increasing difficulties in accessing food due to resource
constraints (UN FAO: www.fao.org/in-action/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en).
During the last 12 months, was there a time when, because of lack of money or otherresources:
1. You were worried you would not have enough food to eat?
2. You were unable to eat healthy and nutritious food?
3. You ate only a few kinds of foods?
4. You had to skip a meal?
5. You ate less than you thought you should?
6. Your household ran out of food?
7. You were hungry but did not eat?
8. You went without eating for a whole day?

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 51

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Gender-specific food and nutrition insecurity indicator: Minimum Dietary Diversity
Indicator for Women of Reproductive Age (MDDI-W) – a food group diversity indicatorthat has been shown to reflect micronutrient adequacy, summarized across 11
micronutrients, for women of reproductive age who are often nutritionally vulnerable
because of the physiological demands of pregnancy and lactation (UN FAO:
www.fao.org/3/a-i5486e.pdf).

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+) YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Indicator 3.1.1a: Food and nutrition security impacts of industrial
fisheries
SRA3.1.1a S0

There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.1.1a S0

OR - The fishery/farm is operating offshore a marine resource-dependentcommunity and fishing for the same resource (or fish stock) as the local
community (either directly as target catch, or indirectly as bycatch), and risk
mitigation has not yet occurred,

SRA3.1.1a S0

OR - The majority of the catch landed by the fishery/farm is destined forexport or distant markets, and thus not available for local consumption, andthe country or community where the fleet is operating adjacent to is food/nutrition insecure (i.e., based on % undernourished or FIES, respectively),
and risk mitigation has not yet occurred.

SRA3.1.1a S1There are reliable and transparent data available, and the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, or interviews in
a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.1.1a S2

AND - The fishery/farm is operating offshore a marine resource-dependentcommunity or fishing for the same resource (or fish stock) as the local
community (either directly as target catch, or indirectly as bycatch), but
active measures are being taken to address these impacts,

SRA3.1.1a S2

OR - The majority of the catch landed by the fishery/farm is not retained for
local consumption, or the country or community in question is food/nutrition
insecure (i.e., based on % undernourished or FIES, respectively), but active
measures are being taken to address these impacts.

SRA3.1.1a S3

The fishery/farm is not operating offshore a marine resource-dependentcommunity or fishing for the same resource (or fish stock) as the local
community (either directly as target catch, or indirectly as bycatch),

SRA3.1.1a S3

OR - The majority of the catch landed by the fishery/farm is retained for
local consumption, and the country or community in question is not food/nutrition insecure (i.e., based on % undernourished or FIES, respectively).

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 52

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Indicator 3.1.1b: Food and nutrition security for small-scale fishingcommunities
SRA3.1.1b S0

There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.1.1b S0

OR - In food/nutrition insecure countries (i.e., based on % undernourished),a participatory local food and nutrition security assessment has been done
and food/nutrition insecurity has been identified, but risk mitigation has not
yet occurred,

SRA3.1.1b S0

OR - The community is food/nutrition insecure (i.e., based on FIES) and thefishery/farm/buyer has not undertaken any actions to assess or reduce riskof their practices affecting local food and nutrition security,

SRA3.1.1b S0

OR - International or export trade agreements which affect the fishery/farmhave resulted in food/nutrition insecurity for the workers/fishers/farmers,
their families, or community members.

SRA3.1.1b S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.1.1b S2

AND - The country is food/nutrition secure (i.e., based on %undernourished), or a participatory local food and nutrition security
assessment has found low to moderate risk of food/nutrition insecurity,

SRA3.1.1b S3

AND - International or export trade agreements which affect the fishery/farm have not resulted in food/nutrition insecurity for the workers/fishers/
farmers, their families, or community members,

SRA3.1.1b S3

OR - A participatory local food and nutrition security assessment (i.e., FIES
or MDDI-W) has found food/nutrition insecurity impacts due to the fishery/farm (i.e., lack of access to marine resources for subsistence purposes) but
active measures are being taken to address these impacts.

SRA3.1.1b S4

There is no food/nutrition insecurity among workers/fishers/farmers andtheir families, nor among community members adjacent to a fishery/farm(i.e., based on FIES or MDDI-W),

SRA3.1.1b S4

OR - Where food/nutrition insecurity has been found among seafooddependent communities (i.e., based on FIES or MDDI-W), local data shows
improving food/nutrition security factors (i.e., increasing access to marine
resources for subsistence purposes),

SRA3.1.1b S5

AND - There are programs in place to ensure international or export trade
agreements which affect the fishery/farm do not result in food/nutrition
insecurity for the workers/fishers/farmers, their families, or community
members.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 53

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 3.1.2: Healthcare21
Question: Does the fishery/farm pertain to a marine/coastal resourcedependent community(ies)?

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

If YES, score Indicator 3.1.2: Healthcare

21

SRA3.1.2 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.1.2 S0

OR - The country or region has poor health indicators (e.g., life expectancy
at birth; under-five mortality—see WHO) and no local assessment ofhealthcare needs has been done,

SRA3.1.2 S0

OR - A local assessment of healthcare needs reveals poor healthindicators, but the farm/fishery has not taken any action to improvehealthcare.

SRA3.1.2 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.1.2 S2AND - The community’s (adjacent to fishery/farm) healthcare needs havebeen assessed,

SRA3.1.2 S3AND - The community’s (adjacent to fishery/farm) healthcare needs are notof concern.

SRA3.1.2 S4

The community’s (adjacent to fishery/farm) healthcare needs have beenassessed and there are resources being invested to address any needs
uncovered,

SRA3.1.2 S5

AND - Women have adequate access to reproductive healthcare including
family planning, pre- and post-natal, and maternal care,

SRA3.1.2 S6

AND - Local data shows improving healthcare.

These criteria on healthcare are derived from FTUSA, SFP 2016, and WHO.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 54

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 3.1.3: Education22
Question: Does the fishery/farm pertain to a marine/coastal resourcedependent community(ies)?

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+) YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

If YES, score Indicator 3.1.3: Education
SRA3.1.3 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.1.3 S0

OR - The country or region has poor literacy and/or schooling rates and nolocal assessment of educational needs has been done,

SRA3.1.3 S0

OR - A local assessment of education needs reveals poor education
indicators, but the farm/fishery has not taken any action to improveeducation,

SRA3.1.3 S0

OR - Girls and boys have different rates of educational attainment.

SRA3.1.3 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.1.3 S2AND - The community’s (adjacent to fishery/farm) education needs havebeen assessed,

SRA3.1.3 S3AND - The community (adjacent to fishery/farm) has adequate literacy(literacy rate among youth aged 15-24 is 90% or more), and schooling rates(less than 10% of primary school-age children are out of school) (see SFP
2016),

SRA3.1.3 S4

AND - Girls and boys do not have different rates of educational attainment.

SRA3.1.3 S5

The community’s educational needs have been assessed and there areresources being invested to address any needs uncovered,

SRA3.1.3 S6

AND - There is universal access to education through a secondary schoollevel, via remote learning where relevant, or access to a technical school,or university.

These criteria on education are derived from FTUSA, SFP 2016, and UNESCO Education
Indicators.
22

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 55

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR© USAID/KIDLAT DE GUIA

Component 3.2: Livelihood opportunities are secured or improved,
including fair access to markets and capabilities to maintain income
generation

Indicator 3.2.1: Benefits to and within community23
Question: Does the fishery/farm pertain to a marine/coastal resourcedependent community(ies)?
If YES, score Indicator 3.2.1: Benefits to and within community
RELEVANT DEFINITIONSCommunity: In this context, community is not necessarily only a spatially bound,homogeneous and organized social unit, as many fishing-dependent communities are
migrant, nomadic, or temporary. Likewise, we recognize the complexity occurring withincommunities across gender, ethnicity, class, political, and religious status, resulting indifferential access to benefits from fishing/farming.
These criteria on benefits to and within community are derived from FTUSA, Thai GAP, and
IPNLF.
23

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 56

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+) YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA3.2.1 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.2.1 S0

OR - People from within the community do not hold resource access rights
or permits,

SRA3.2.1 S0

OR - Most of the harvesting workforce is comprised of temporary migrant
workers and no consideration has been given to hiring local workers.

SRA3.2.1 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.2.1 S2AND - People from within the community hold at least some resource
access rights or permits,

SRA3.2.1 S3AND - Consideration is paid to hiring a local workforce (in the case ofindustrial vessels, some labor positions are occupied by local workforce).

SRA3.2.1 S4

The majority of the harvesting workforce is comprised of local residents,

SRA3.2.1 S5

AND - People from within the community hold the majority of resource
access rights or permits,

SRA3.2.1 S6

AND - Majority of livelihoods and economic benefits from fishery/farm are
distributed and retained locally,

SRA3.2.1 S7

AND - High employment rates of women in local jobs created by fishery/farm.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 57

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR© CRISTINA MITTERMEIER

Indicator 3.2.2: Economic value retention24
Question: Is the fishery/farm operating for subsistence purposes only?
If NO, score Indicator 3.2.2: Economic value retention
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Ratio of gross value added to turnover: A metric useful for understanding the economic
value retained by the vessel owner, worker, fisher, or farmer. This metric is calculated by
dividing gross added value by income (GAV/Income). Gross Added Value is defined as
the grand total of all revenues, from final sales and (net) subsidies in a business, which isthen used to cover expenses (wages & salaries, dividends), savings (profits, depreciation),and (indirect) taxes (SFP 2016).

24

These criteria on economic value retention are derived from SFP 2016.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 58

There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.2.2 S0

OR - The ratio of gross value added to turnover is below 47%.

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

SRA3.2.2 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.2.2 S2AND - The ratio of gross value added to turnover is between 47-57%.

SRA3.2.2 S3The ratio of gross value added to turnover is above 57%,

SRA3.2.2 S4

AND - Formalized training is provided to fishers/farmers in how to add
value to their product.

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

SRA3.2.2 S0

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 59

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 3.2.3: Long-term profitability and future workforce25
Question: Is the fishery/farm operating for subsistence purposes only?
If NO, score Indicator 3.2.3: Long-term profitability and future workforce
RELEVANT DEFINITIONSGREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

Operating profit margin: Ratio of operating profit to turnover. Operating profit is definedas the difference between the turnover and all operating costs (SFP 2016).

25

SRA3.2.3 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.2.3 S0

OR - Long-term average operating profit margin is below 11%,

SRA3.2.3 S0

OR - The average age of workers/fishers/farmers is closer to retirement
age than the average age in the country, and new workers/fishers/farmers
are not joining the workforce.

SRA3.2.3 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.2.3 S2AND - Long-term average operating profit margin is between 11%-18%,

SRA3.2.3 S3AND -The average age of workers/fishers/farmers is close to the averageage in the country, and new workers/fishers/farmers are joining theworkforce.

SRA3.2.3 S4Long-term average operating profit margin is above 18%,

SRA3.2.3 S5

AND - New workers/fishers/farmers including women are being recruited
into the workforce,

SRA3.2.3 S6

AND - Women are increasingly taking leadership roles in the supply chain
and fishing/farming communities.

These criteria on long-term profitability and future workforce are derived from SFP 2016.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 60

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 3.2.4: Economic flexibility and autonomy26
Question: Do fishers/farmers or their organization (i.e., cooperative,
association, etc.) sell their own product?

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

If YES, score Indicator 3.2.4: Economic flexibility and autonomy
SRA3.2.4 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment teamis not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.2.4 S0

OR - If applicable, interest rates charged to fishers/farmers are nottransparent or are exorbitant/predatory,

SRA3.2.4 S0

OR - Fishers/farmers do not have access to multiple buyers or are not free
to sell to whomever they choose,

SRA3.2.4 S0

OR - There is price collusion among local buyers,

SRA3.2.4 S0

OR - Fishers/farmers do not know the quality expected of the product, how
the price is calculated, or when they will be paid.

SRA3.2.4 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.2.4 S2

AND - If applicable, interest rates charged to fishers/farmers aretransparent and agreed upon in advance with fishers/farmers,

SRA3.2.4 S3AND - There is more than one local fish buyer, and harvesters are free tosell to whomever they wish without retribution,

SRA3.2.4 S4AND - There is no price collusion among local buyers,

SRA3.2.4 S5AND - Fishers/farmers know the quality expected of the product, how the
price is calculated, and when they will be paid via verbal contract withbuyers.

SRA3.2.4 S6If applicable, fishers/farmers can access loans from at least two typesof lenders at interest rates not exceeding government rates or lender’sborrowing rate,

SRA3.2.4 S7

AND - Fishers/farmers are organized into groups to better negotiate withbuyers and may be price setters,

SRA3.2.4 S8

AND - Fishers/farmers know the quality expected of the product, how the
price is calculated, and when they will be paid via written contract withbuyers (in a language understood or with provisions for illiteracy),

SRA3.2.4 S9AND - When applicable, buyers support fishers/farmers through sharing
costs of certification and training,

SRA3.2.4 S10 AND - Fishers/farmers have access to competitive credit markets or are
recipients of investment opportunities.
26

These criteria on economic flexibility and autonomy are derived from FTUSA.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 61

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORGREGORY CULMERIndicator 3.2.5: Livelihood security
Question: Is the fishery/farm contributing to local livelihood security?
If YES, score Indicator 3.2.5: Livelihood security
RELEVANT DEFINITIONS
Livelihood: A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material andsocial resources) and activities required for a means of living. It is considered sustainable
when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks, and maintain or enhance
its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural
resources base on which it relies.
Livelihoods security: Livelihood security refers to the absence of objective threats
to livelihood preservation and/or subjective fears that livelihood preservation may beundermined. It requires maintaining the conditions under which each livelihood group
can live from their activities.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 62

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+)

YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79)

RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

SRA3.2.5 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.2.5 S0

OR - Fishers/farmers/workers do not have an active license or are notrecognized as part of the legal work force,

SRA3.2.5 S0

OR - Fishers/farmers/workers only have harvesting access (formally or
informally) to only one species/species group,

SRA3.2.5 S0

OR - Fishers/farmers/workers have no resources to access fishing/farming
gear needed to fulfill livelihood responsibilities (engines, boats, gear, fuel,etc.),

SRA3.2.5 S0

OR - Fishers/farmers/workers have no alternative livelihood outside of thefishery or farm, nor does anyone in their household.

SRA3.2.5 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.2.5 S2

AND - Fishers/farmers/workers work under a license(s) or are recognizedas part of the legal work force,

SRA3.2.5 S3

AND - Fishers/farmers/workers have harvesting access (formally or
informally) to more than one species/species group,

SRA3.2.5 S4AND - Fishers/farmers/workers have access to fishing/farming gear needed
to fulfill livelihood responsibilities (ice, engines, boats, gear, fuel, bait etc.),

SRA3.2.5 S5AND - Fishers/farmers/workers, or someone in their household, havealternative livelihoods outside of the fishery or farm.

SRA3.2.5 S6Male and female fishers/farmers/workers have formal (legal) access to aportfolio of species/species groups and gear types,

SRA3.2.5 S7

AND - Male and female fishers/farmers/workers have ownership overthe fishing/farming gear needed to fulfill livelihood responsibilities (ice,engines, boats, gear, fuel, bait etc.),

SRA3.2.5 S8

AND - Male and female fishers/farmers/workers have access to
professional development training or capacity building either inside thefishery/farm, or outside (in alternative livelihoods).

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 63

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Indicator 3.2.6: Fuel resource efficiency27
Question: Is the fishery/farm operating for subsistence purposes only?

GREEN: LOW RISK (80+) YELLOW: MEDIUM RISK (60-79) RED: HIGH RISK (<60)

If YES, score Indicator 3.2.6: Fuel resource efficiency

27

SRA3.2.6 S0There are no reliable or transparent data available, or the assessment
team is not able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, orinterviews in a manner safe for assessment team or affected workers/
fishers,

SRA3.2.6 S0

OR - Ratio of true vessel fuel costs (including subsidy)/fish sales is higher
than 18%.

SRA3.2.6 S1There are reliable and transparent data available, or the assessment teamis able to collect primary data through observation, surveys, and interviewsin a manner safe for the assessment team and affected workers/fishers,

SRA3.2.6 S2

AND - Ratio of true vessel fuel costs (including subsidy)/fish sales is
between 13%-18%.

SRA3.2.6 S3Ratio of true vessel fuel costs (including subsidy)/fish sales is under 13%.

These criteria on fuel resource efficiency are derived from SFP 2016 and IPNLF.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 64

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector
THOMAS MILLOT

Page 65

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORGLOSSARY
Basic standards: Accommodation on board fishingvessels that fly its flag shall be of sufficient size andquality and appropriately equipped for the serviceof the vessel and the length of time fishers live on
board. In particular, such measures shall address,
as appropriate, the following issues: (a) approvalof plans for the construction or modification offishing vessels in respect of accommodation;(b) maintenance of accommodation and galley
spaces with due regard to hygiene and overall
safe, healthy and comfortable conditions; (c)ventilation, heating, cooling and lighting; (d)mitigation of excessive noise and vibration; (e)location, size, construction materials, furnishingand equipping of sleeping rooms, mess rooms
and other accommodation spaces; (f) sanitaryfacilities, including toilets and washing facilities,
and supply of sufficient hot and cold water; and(g) procedures for responding to complaints
concerning accommodation that does not meet therequirements of this Convention (ILO C188).
Benefits: Benefits in fisheries or aquaculture
supply chains may include access to rights, profits,
medical care, social security, markets, loans,credits, subsidies, and social protection measures,among other things.
Blacklisting: Denying people employment fora particular reason, such as political affiliation,
involvement in trade union activity, or a history ofwhistle-blowing.
Child: Any person under the age of 18 (UN).
Definition of child may vary from country to country.
Child labor: Work that is inappropriate for a child’sage, affects their education, or, by its nature or thecircumstances in which it is carried out, is likely toharm the health, safety or morals of children (e.g.,heavy lifting disproportionate to a person’s bodysize, operating heavy machinery, using dangerous
equipment, night work).
Collective Bargaining: All negotiations which takeplace between an employer, a group of employers
or one or more employers’ organizations, on the
one hand, and one or more workers’ organizations,on the other, for determining working conditions
and terms of employment; and/or regulating

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

relations between employers and workers; and/or regulating relations between employers or
their organizations and a workers’ organization orworkers’ organizations (ILO C154).
Co-management: A partnership arrangement inwhich government, the community of fishermen,
external agents (non-governmental organizations,research institutions), and sometimes otherfisheries and coastal resource stakeholders(vessel owners, fish traders, credit agencies ormoney lenders, tourism industry, etc.) share theresponsibility and authority for decision-making
over the management of a fishery (FTUSA).
Community: In this context, community is notnecessarily only a spatially bound, homogenous
and organized social unit, as many fishingdependent communities are migrant, nomadic, or
temporary. Likewise, we recognize the complexity
occurring within communities across gender,
ethnicity, class, political, and religious status,
resulting in differential access to benefits fromfishing/farming.
Contract substitution: When workers are obliged
to accept different and worse contract conditions
on arrival in the destination country to what they
had been promised before departure (ILO).
Debt Bondage: Status or condition arising from apledge by a debtor of their personal services or of
those of a person under their control as security fora debt if the value of those services as reasonably
assessed is not applied toward the liquidation of
the debt or the length and nature of those services
are not respectively limited and defined (ILO
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of
Slavery, 1956).
Discrimination: Any distinction, exclusion, orpreference made on the basis of race, color, sex,
religion, political opinion, immigration status,
national extraction, disability, family responsibilities,
sexual orientation, HIV/AIDS status, trade union
membership, trade union activities, or social origin,which has the effect of nullifying or impairing
equality of opportunity or treatment in employment
or occupation.

Page 66

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Employed: Working for another party for paymentof any kind, including indirect employment,
for instance helping an employed worker tocontribute to productivity earnings, and working
for in-kind (non-cash) payment. A child working(paid or unpaid) alongside her relative is indirectly
employed if that relative is employed. If the relative
is not employed, for instance is working on theirown farm or boat, a child working alongside that
relative not considered employed.
Equal remuneration: Equal remuneration formen and women workers for work of equalvalue refers to rates of remuneration establishedwithout discrimination based on gender, where
remuneration refers to the ordinary, basic or
minimum wage or salary and any additional
emoluments whatsoever payable directly or
indirectly, whether in cash or in kind, by theemployer to the worker and arising out of theworker’s employment (ILO C100).
Equality: The same status, rights, andresponsibilities for all members of a society, group,or family; giving everyone the same resources
regardless of their relative ability to benefit.
Equity: An equal opportunity to benefit; giving
everyone the resources they need to derive thesame benefits, dependent on their relative ability tobenefit.
Fish: A collective term that includes any species
or sub-species of aquatic (marine, freshwaterand estuarine) animal or plant. Does not include
mammals, seabirds, or reptiles (FTUSA).
Food insecure country: A country with a Serious,
Alarming, or Extremely Alarming rating on theInternational Food Policy Research Institute’s
Global Health Index.
Food and nutrition security: when all people at all
times have physical, social and economic accessto food, which is consumed in sufficient quantityand quality to meet their dietary needs and foodpreferences, and is supported by an environmentof adequate sanitation, health services and care,allowing for a healthy and active life (FAO 2013),
in consideration of differences in nutritional
requirements for women and children.
Suggested indicators used to complete thisassessment:

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Country-level food and nutrition insecurity
indicator: Undernourishment Indicator – measures
the share of the population which has a caloric(dietary energy) intake which is insufficient to meetthe minimum energy requirements defined asnecessary for a given population (UN FAO State ofFood Security and Nutrition in the World:
www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en).
Community-level food and nutrition insecurity
indicator: Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES) –a list of eight questions referring to the experiencesof an individual or household associated withincreasing difficulties in accessing food due toresource constraints (UN FAO: www.fao.org/inaction/voices-of-the-hungry/fies/en).
During the last 12 months, was there a time when,because of lack of money or other resources:
1. You were worried you would not have enoughfood to eat?
2. You were unable to eat healthy and nutritious
food?
3. You ate only a few kinds of foods?
4. You had to skip a meal?
5. You ate less than you thought you should?
6. Your household ran out of food?
7. You were hungry but did not eat?
8. You went without eating for a whole day?
Gender-specific food and nutrition insecurity
indicator: Minimum Dietary Diversity Indicator for
Women of Reproductive Age (MDDI-W) – a foodgroup diversity indicator that has been shown toreflect micronutrient adequacy, summarized across
11 micronutrients, for women of reproductive age
who are often nutritionally vulnerable becauseof the physiological demands of pregnancy andlactation (UN FAO: www.fao.org/3/a-i5486e.pdf)
Forced (Compulsory) labor: All work or service thatis extracted from any person under the menaceof any penalty for which a person has not offeredthemselves voluntarily or for which such workor service is demanded as a repayment of debt.
“Penalty” can imply monetary sanctions, physicalpunishment, intimidation or punishment of family
members, or the loss of rights and privilegesor restriction of movement (e.g., withholding ofidentity documents) (ILO C29).

Page 67

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Freedom of Association: The right to establish
and join organizations of one’s own choosing
without previous authorization, and to draw up
constitutions and rules, to elect representatives
in full freedom, to organise administration andactivities, and to formulate programmes, without
interference (ILO C87 & C98).
Gender-based violence: Violence directed against
a person because of their gender. Both men andwomen experience gender-based violence, but
the majority of victims are women and girls as it isrooted in power inequality between women andmen.
Gender transformative: An approach or practicewhere gender equality—equal rights, opportunities
and possibilities in life for both men and women—
and women’s empowerment are central to theintervention, e.g., the shared control of resourcesand decision-making.
Grievance: A circumstance or condition that
constitutes an injustice to the sufferer and gives
just ground for complaint.
Grievance mechanism: A formal, legal or non-legal(or ‘judicial/non-judicial’) complaint process thatcan be used by individuals, workers, communities
and/or civil society organizations that are being
negatively affected by certain business activities
and operations (SOMO). In order to ensure theireffectiveness, grievance mechanisms must be
legitimate, accessible, predictable, equitable,transparent, rights-compatible, a source ofcontinuous learning, and based on engagementand dialogue. A grievance mechanism can only
serve its purpose if the people it is intended
to serve, know about it, trust it, and are able touse it (*For detailed information see UN Guiding
Principles on Businesses and Human Rights,
Articles 25-31).

• Legitimate: enabling trust from thestakeholder groups for whose use they areintended, and being accountable for the fairconduct of grievance processes• Accessible: being known to all stakeholder

groups for whose use they are intended, andproviding adequate assistance for those who
may face particular barriers to access• Predictable: providing a clear and known
procedure with an indicative time frame

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

for each stage, and clarity on the types ofprocess and outcome available and means ofmonitoring implementation• Equitable: seeking to ensure that aggrieved

parties have reasonable access to sources of
information, advice, and expertise necessary
to engage in a grievance process on fair,
informed, and respectful terms• Transparent: keeping parties to a grievance

informed about its progress, and providing
sufficient information about the mechanism’s
performance to build confidence in its
effectiveness and meet any public interest at
stake• Rights-compatible: ensuring that outcomes
and remedies accord with internationallyrecognized human rights• As source of continuous learning: drawing

on relevant measures to identify lessons for
improving the mechanism and preventing
future grievances and harms• Based on engagement and dialogue:

consulting the stakeholder groups for whose
use they are intended on their design andperformance, and focusing on dialogue as themeans to address and resolve grievances

Hazardous child labor: Work which exposes
children to physical, psychological or sexual
abuse; work underground, under water, at
dangerous heights or in confined spaces; workwith dangerous machinery, equipment and tools,
or which involves the manual handling or transportof heavy loads; work in an unhealthy environment
which may, for example, expose children to
hazardous substances, agents or processes, or totemperatures, noise levels, or vibrations damaging
to their health; work under particularly difficult
conditions such as work for long hours or during
the night or work where the child is unreasonably
confined to the premises of the employer (ILO
C182).
Human trafficking: The recruitment, transportation,
harboring or receipt of persons, by means of thethreat or use of force or other forms of coercion,of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuseof power or of a position of vulnerability or of
the giving or receiving of payments or benefits
to achieve the consent of a person having
control over another person, for the purpose of
exploitation (UN Trafficking Protocol 2000).

Page 68

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Large vessels: Vessels equal to, or greater than 24
meters (ILO C188).

training in fishing or (b) performing light work
during school holidays (ILO C188).

Livelihood: A livelihood comprises the capabilities,
assets (including both material and social
resources) and activities required for a means ofliving. It is considered sustainable when it can copewith and recover from stresses and shocks, andmaintain or enhance its capabilities and assets
both now and in the future, while not undermining
the natural resources base on which it relies.

Operating profit margin: Ratio of operating profit
to turnover. Operating profit is defined as thedifference between the turnover and all operating
costs (SFP 2016).

Livelihoods Security: Livelihood security refers
to the absence of objective threats to livelihood
preservation and/or subjective fears that livelihood
preservation may be undermined. It requires
maintaining the conditions under which eachlivelihood group can live from their activities.
Living wage: Remuneration received for astandard work week by a worker in a particularplace sufficient to afford a decent standard ofliving for the worker and their family. Elements ofa decent standard of living include food, water,
housing, education, health care, transport, clothing,and other essential needs, including provision
for unexpected events. The Global Living Wage
Coalition has developed a widely-accepted
methodology for calculating living wage:
www.globallivingwage.org/about/anker-methodology.
Long Trips: Trips at sea for more than three days
(ILO C188).
Marginalized group: A group relegated to an
unimportant or powerless position within a society(i.e., migrant workers, women and girls, ethnic or
religious minorities, etc.).

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Equipment
worn to minimize exposure to workplace injuries
and illnesses that may result from contact withchemical, radiological, physical, electrical,
mechanical, or other workplace hazards (Source:
US Department of Labor). It includes any item aworker needs to wear for their own protection. PPE
may include but is not limited to clothing, footwear,
eye protection, ear protection, gloves, masks, andpersonal flotation devices (FTUSA).
Ratio of gross value added to turnover: A metricuseful for understanding the economic value
retained by the vessel owner, worker, fisher, or
farmer. This metric is calculated by dividing grossadded value by income (GAV/Income). Gross
Added Value is defined as the grand total of allrevenues, from final sales and (net) subsidies in abusiness, which is then used to cover expenses(wages & salaries, dividends), savings (profits,depreciation), and (indirect) taxes (SFP 2016).
Recruitment Fees: Any fees or costs incurred in
the recruitment process in order for workers tosecure employment or placement, regardless ofthe manner, timing or location of their imposition orcollection.

Off-shore: The minimum age for work on board
a fishing vessel is 16 years of age, unless thecompetent authority has authorized a minimum
age of 15 for persons who are (a) no longer subject
to compulsory schooling as provided by national
legislation, and who are engaged in vocational

Small-scale fishery/farm: A broad category
characterized by low-capital, low-technology,
labor-intensive harvesting methods. In wild capture,
trips are typically close to shore, with up to 5-6crew members. In farms, family ownership withno permanent workforce is characteristic. “Thesmall-scale fisheries sector tends to be firmly
rooted in local communities, traditions, and values.
Many small-scale fishers are self-employed andusually provide fish for direct consumption within
their households or communities. Women are
significant participants in the sector, particularly
in post-harvest and processing activities. It isestimated that about 90% of all people directly
dependent on capture fisheries work in the smallscale sector. As such, small-scale fisheries serve asan economic and social engine, providing food andnutrition security, employment and other multiplierSocial Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 69

Minimum age for employment:
On-shore: 15 years of age, unless local minimum
age law stipulates a higher age for work or
mandatory schooling, in which case the higher
age would apply. If, however, local minimum
age law is set at 14 years of age in accordancewith developing country exceptions under ILO
convention 138, the lower age applies.

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

effects to local economies while underpinning the
livelihoods of riparian communities” (Def. from UN
FAO Voluntary Guidelines for Securing Sustainable
Small-Scale Fisheries). Exact definitions of smallscale fisheries vary based on country.
Sexual harassment: Behavior, including gestures,
language, and physical contact, that is sexually
intimidating, abusive, or exploitative.
Stakeholder participation: the process by which
an organization involves all people who may beaffected by the decisions it makes.
Worker: Any permanent, part-time, and temporary/seasonal personnel employed on a farm orvessel, including directly contracted workers,
subcontracted workers, and those earning basedon a share of production or catch.
Young worker: Any person who has attained
the minimum age for employment, as defined
above, but is younger than 18 (or the age of legal
adulthood as defined by national law, if higher).

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 70

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector
SEBASTIAN STAINES

Page 71

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

ANNEX 1: Guidance for Assessment Implementation
Conservation Ethics and Best Practices
for Human Rights and Conservation
Research and Implementation
Here we provide important ethical considerations
and best practices for engaging in human rights
and conservation research and interventions.
Careful attention to social impact and adverse
consequences must be paid in the case of every
FIP design and implementation, whether or not
the Social Responsibility Assessment Tool is used,or social indicators are scored. This pertains toevery phase of the FIP, including in undertaking
the assessment, designing the workplan throughparticipatory inclusion of stakeholders, and in
public reporting of risk ratings and progress. In
particular, we focus on the guidance provided fromthe following critical resources:
1.

CDA’s “Do No Harm Approach”

2. Free, Prior, and Informed Consent
3.

The Conservation and Human Rights
Framework

4.

ILRF Four Essential Elements

Do No Harm Approach
The very first step necessary in the ethicalimplementation of any FIP (environmental orsocial) is to take the “do no harm approach.” Thisapproach, first defined by the CDA Collaborative,
recognizes that any intervention (i.e., conservation,
development, aid, humanitarian assistance)
has the potential to support either conflict orpeace. Thus, using a “do no harm approach”
emphasizes understanding the local context
in which the proposed FIP intends to operate,
understanding the interaction between theintervention (FIP assessment, workplan, activities,
reporting, etc.) and the local context, and acting
upon that understanding as to avoid negative
impacts and unintended consequences andmaximize positive impacts. Negative impacts
or unintended consequences can arise at any
stage of the FIP, thus critical thought needs tobe allocated to recognizing any trade-offs orconflicts that can occur as a result of the FIP, andall actions must be designed around trying toSocial Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

avoid these consequences. In some cases, it may
not be possible to proceed with a FIP withoutcausing unnecessary harm or hardship to local
communities.
Free, Prior, and Informed Consent
A second critical protocol in this context is Free,
Prior, and Informed Consent as defined by the
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
2007. In this case, “free” refers to the absenceof coercion, intimidation or manipulation. “Prior”
refers to when consent is sought sufficiently inadvance of any authorization or commencementof FIP activities and respect is shown to timerequirements of indigenous consultation/consensus processes. “Informed” refers to theprovision of information that covers a rangeof aspects, including the nature, size, pace,reversibility and scope of any proposed project or
activity; the purpose of the project as well as its
duration; locality and areas affected; a preliminary
assessment of the likely economic, social,
cultural and environmental impact, including
potential risks; personnel likely to be involvedin the execution of the project; and procedures
the project may entail. Communities must beallowed to withhold consent. Consultation andparticipation are crucial components of a consent
process.
The Conservation and Human Rights Framework
A third critical protocol informing ethical guidanceof FIP implementation is the Conservation and
Human Rights Framework - a set of agreed
upon principles that seeks to protect humanrights while conducting conservation researchand implementing conservation interventions,adopted in 2010 by a consortium of conservation
organizations is called the Conservation Initiativeon Human Rights. While we hope that the inclusionof social responsibility in FIPs will further theprotection of human rights and wellbeing in global
fisheries, FIP implementers should ensure that any
FIP activity undertaken is in accordance with thefollowing principles from the Conservation and
Human Rights Framework:
1.

Respect human rights - Respect
internationally proclaimed human rights

Page 72

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

and make sure that we do not contributeto infringements of human rights whilepursuing our mission
2. Promote human rights within conservation
programs - Support and promote theprotection and realization of human rights
within the scope of our conservation
programs
3. Protect the vulnerable - Make special
efforts to avoid harm to those who arevulnerable to infringements of their rights
and to support the protection and fulfillmentof their rights within the scope of ourconservation programs
4. Encourage good governance - Support the
improvement of governance systems thatcan secure the rights of indigenous peoples
and local communities in the context of
our work on conservation and sustainable
natural resource use, including elements
such as legal, policy, and institutionalframeworks, and procedures for equitableparticipation and accountability
ILRF Four Essential Elements
In 2018, International Labor Rights Forumpublished a report - Taking Stock: Labor
exploitation, illegal fishing, and brandresponsibility in the seafood Industry. The reportoutlines four “essential elements” for transitioning
the seafood sector to social responsibility:
1) Genuine worker representation; 2)Comprehensive and transparent risk assessment
and verification of workplace compliance; 3)Legally-binding and enforceable agreements; and
4) Change brand purchasing practices. While all
four are critical for achieving socially responsibility,
the first two are especially important during theimplementation of this rapid assessment protocol.

of legal documents, white papers, publishedresearch). Using multiple sources of data will
help in triangulation and increase the reliability
and validity of the data Importantly, interviews
and surveys with workers/fishers/farmers arelikely to give the researcher the most reliable
and trustworthy account of social conditions on
the water or in processing plants. When a FIP
implementer is collecting primary data, she/he should have prior experience doing social
science research or partner with an individual ororganization (i.e., human rights organization) thathas sufficient experience.
The report also makes several directed
recommendations to the FIP community ofpractice on the integration of human rights andsocial responsibility principles:“As industry actors, environmental organizations,and human rights organizations develop the tools
and plans needed to pilot ‘socially responsible
FIPs,’ it is vital that they place corporate respect for
fishers’ human rights at the top of the agenda To
ensure these FIPs are indeed socially responsible
and actually benefit fishers, local communities, andthe environment, the Essential Elements must be
incorporated…”“As part of this harmonization process, global
union federations such as the ITF and IUF must be
invited to join ongoing socially responsible FIPs
discussions and local labor union affiliates or othergrassroots worker organizations representing
fishers should be involved in all decisions affecting
their constituency.”

In order to achieve genuine worker representation,
it is imperative that a FIP under evaluation forsocial responsibility, includes a fisher/farmer/
worker committee (depending on position in
supply chain, or UoA) as part of the stakeholder
group that informs the workplan and future
FIP objectives and activities. To achievecomprehensive and transparent risk assessment
and verification of workplace compliance, therapid assessment protocol should include thecollection of primary data (interviews and surveys
with stakeholders) and secondary data (reviews

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 73

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTOR

ANNEX 2: Important Resources
Third Party Standards

Risk Assessment Tools

ASC: Aquaculture Stewardship Council Salmon
Standard. www.asc-aquaorg

FishSource: Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP)
tool which includes a human rights risk index.

BAP: Global Aquaculture Alliance’s Best
Aquaculture Practices standards for salmon farms.
www.bapcertification.org

SSRT: Seafood Slavery Risk Tool (developed byMonterey Bay Aquarium, Seafish, Liberty Asia andSFP). www.seafoodslaveryrisk.org

BSCI: Business Social Compliance Initiative, Codeof Conduct. www.amfori.org

Verifik8: Monitoring and verification app for
seafood supply chains (developed by FairAgora).
www.verifik8.com

Clearview: Clearview Global Labour Provider
Certification Scheme. www.clearviewassurance.com
FOTS: Friend of the Sea, Wild Sustainable Fishing
Requirements. www.friendoftheseaorg
FTUSA: Capture Fisheries Standard.
www.fairtradecertified.org
GRASP: Global GAP Integrated Farm Assurance
Aquaculture Model and Risk Assessment on Social
Practice (GRASP) add-on.
www.globalgap.org/uk_en
IFFO RS: Global Standard for Responsible Supplyof Marine Ingredients. www.marin-trust.com
International Organization for Migration (IOM).
International Recruitment Integrity System (IRIS).
https://iris.iom.int
MSC: Fishery Standard. www.msc.org
Naturland: Standards for Organic Aquaculture.
www.naturland.de
RFS: Seafish Responsible Fishing Scheme.
www.seafish.org
SFW: Monterey Bay Aquarium, Seafood Watch
Standard for Fisheries. www.seafoodwatch.org
Thai GAP: “Good Aquaculture Practices forMarine Shrimp Farm” as defined by the Thai
National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity andFood Standards, Ministry of Agriculture andCooperatives.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Stakeholder Feedback and Consultation
Tools
ClearVoice worker grievance hotline.
www.thecahngroup.com/clear-voice.html
GALS: Gender Action Learning for Sustainability(participatory assessment method).
https://gamechangenetwork.org/methodology/
galsatscale/#Participatory-Gender-Review
Issara Institute Migrant Worker Hotline, Thailand.
www.issarainstitute.org

Indicators and Guidance
FAO 2013 Food and Nutrition Security.
https://www.unscn.org/files/Annual_Sessions/UNSCN_Meetings_2013/Wustefeld_Final_MoM_
FNS_concept.pdf
Harvard University’s Gender Action Portal.
http://gap.hks.harvard.edu
Human Rights at Sea (2015) “Gender Briefing
Note: Gender and its application in the maritime
environment.”
http://seafarers-cluster.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/11/20151114-HRAS-GENDER-ANDHUMAN-RIGHTS-AT-SEA-LOCKED1.pdf
Human Rights Watch (HRW).
www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/
thailand0118_report_web.pdf

Page 74

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORIHRB, Leadership Group for Responsible
Recruitment: The Employer Pays Principle.
www.ihrb.org/uploads/news-uploads/Employer_
Pays_Principle_-_Leadership_Group_for_
Responsible_Recruitment_updated2.pdf

RSB: Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials(2012). “Food Security Guidelines.”
https://rsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/RSBGUI-01-006-01-RSB-Food-Security-Guidelines_
final.pdf

ILO: International Labour Office (2012). “Hard tosee, harder to count: survey guidelines to estimate
forced labour of adults and children.”www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_norm/--declaration/documents/publication/wcms_182096.
pdf

SFP (2016). “A Method for Measuring Social andEconomic Performance of Fisheries.”

ILO (2007). “Eliminating Child Labour: Guide for
Employers.”
www.ilo.org/asia/publications/WCMS_117863/lang-en/index.htm
ILO (2010). GEMS (Gender Mainstreaming) Toolkit.
www.ilo.org/public/libdoc/ilo/2010/110B09_193_
engl.pdf
ILO Help Desk (2009). “Factsheet No. 6: Worker
housing.”
www.ilo.ch/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/--emp_ent/---multi/documents/publication/
wcms_116344.pdf
ILRF (2018). “Taking Stock: Labor exploitation,illegal fishing, and brand responsibility in theseafood Industry.”
IPNLF: International Pole and Line Foundation(2015). “Socio-economic assessment of the tuna
fisheries in the Maldives.”
https://ipnlf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/
socio-economic-assessment-of-the-tuna-fisheriesin-the-maldives.pdf
IPNLF: International Pole and Line Foundation(2018). “Social Sustainability Manifesto for One-byOne Tuna Fisheries.”
https://ipnlf.org/social-responsibility/
Living Income Community of Practice.
www.living-income.com
Opal (2018). Framework on Social Responsibility for
the Seafood Sector. Prepared for the Certification
and Ratings Collaboration.
OSMI (2018) FIP Rapid Assessment Protocol.

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO) Education Indicators.
http://uis.unesco.org/en/home#tabs-0-uis_home_
top_menus-2
US Department of Labor’s “Comply Chain: BusinessTools for Labor Compliance in Global Supply
Chains.”www.dol.gov/general/apps/ilab-comply-chain
Verité. Fair Hiring Toolkit.
https://www.verite.org/help-wanted/fair-hiringtoolkit/
Verité. Responsible Sourcing Tool (Seafoodindustry section).
http://responsiblesourcingtool.org
World Health Organization (WHO). Global HealthIndicators. https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/
indicators/indicators-index

Conventions, Protocols, and GuidanceInternational Labour Organization Conventions(ILO)
Freedom of Association and Protection of the Rightto Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)• Right to Organise and Non-Discrimination ofUnions, 1949 (No. 98)• Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 154)
• Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)• Abolition of Forced Labour Convention, 1957
(No. 105)• Minimum Age Convention, 1973 (No. 138)
• Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention,
1999 (No. 182)
• Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951 (No.
100)
• Discrimination (Employment and Occupation)
Convention, 1958 (No. 111)

Page 75

SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR THE SEAFOOD SECTORILO General principles and operational guidelines
for fair recruitment, 2016
ILO General principles and operational guidelines
for fair recruitment & Definition of recruitment
fees and related costs. International Labour Office– Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work
Branch, Labour Migration Branch – Geneva, 2019
ILO Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188)
ILO Maritime Labour Convention 2006 (No. 186)
ILO Migrant Workers (Supplementary Provisions)
Convention, 1975 (No. 143)
ILO Recommendation Concerning the Prohibition
and Immediate Action For the Elimination of the
Worst Forms of Child Labour, 1999 (No. 190)
ILO Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of
Slavery, 1956
ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning
Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy, 2017
International Convention on the Protection of theRights of All Migrant Workers and Members ofTheir Families, 1990
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
1966
International Covenant on Economic, Social andCultural Rights, 1966
IOBR 2013. International Observer Bill of Rights- A guide to the health, safety, welfare, andprofessionalism of observers.
https://apo-observers.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.
com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/18142557/
international-observer-bill-of-rights-guide.pdf
FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries,
1995
UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ofDiscrimination against Women, 1979

UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging
to National or Ethnic, Religious, and Linguistic
Minorities, 1992
UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human
Rights, 2011
UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress, and Punish
Trafficking in Persons Especially Women andChildren, 2000
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948
CGIAR: Consultative Group for International
Agriculture Research, Research Program on
Aquatic Agricultural Systems
FAO Goodfish CodeFAO Voluntary guidelines for securing sustainable
small-scale fisheries in the context of food security
and poverty eradication, 2015
FAO Voluntary guidelines on the responsible
governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forestsin the context of national food security, 2012
FAO Voluntary guidelines to support the
progressive realization of the right to adequate
food in the context of national food security, 2004
FAO & WHO Rome Declaration on Nutrition, 2014
Oxfam (2016). “Identifying Gender Inequalities andPossibilities for Change in Shrimp Value Chains inIndonesia and Vietnam.”
SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational
Corporations). “Human rights and grievancemechanisms.”
www.somo.nl/human-rights-and-grievancemechanisms
United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime (UNODC,
2013). “Human Trafficking.”

UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1990
UN Declaration on the Right to Development, 1986
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples, 2007

Social Responsibility Assessment Tool for the Seafood Sector

Page 76