In an article by the Huffington Post, “sustainable seafood” has become a common industry buzzword.  Words such as “sustainably harvested” are often ambiguous and leave consumers wondering, “What does this mean?”  The term “sustainable seafood” may refer to the avoidance of fishing in depleted waters, the practice of sustainable catching or the abiding of government regulations.   However, the HuffPost argues that the seafood industry’s lack of regulation is a problem.

“There is no one unifying standard across the industry to define what sustainable seafood is.”

According to HuffPost, more than 80% of consumers surveyed responded that sustainable seafood was an “Important Issue”. However, more often than not, businesses such as WholeFoods combine several sustainable standards into one that fits with organizational values.  In such a case, is sustainable seafood truly green or a “defensive green” strategy that is used as a reactionary measure to consumer concern?

By implementing John Grant’s Green Marketing Grid, we may be able to understand how the lack of sustainable seafood regulation coincides with businesses’ Green marketing objectives [as opposed to Greener or Greenest].  The use of Eco-labels, for example, is a popular way to certify seafood as sustainable and is often used by organizations with Green marketing objectives.  However, Eco-labels such as certification by the Marine Stewardship Council have been heavily criticized for fallible standards.  In a report by the Marine Policy, 31% of MSC-certified stocks were overfished and subject to continuing overfishing.  Has sustainable seafood become a greenwashing tactic?  At present, it seems that the lack of unified, and regulated third party certification may make it so.

In a recent blog post by All About The Green, this savvy sustainability marketer examined a new model of business: buy less for more.  Although this strategy encourages the sustainable behavior by “cutting” consumption, it has been one that many businesses have been slow to adopt.  All About the Green said it best when [he/she] noted that this business model encourages consumers not to over consumer.

A business that actually doesn’t want you to consume? Isn’t that the exact opposite of everything you know?

True, the logic may seem reverse.  However, businesses such as Patagonia that sell high-quality products for a premium price adopt a value-based pricing strategy that emphasizes a response to a change in consumer culture.

Where I differ from All About the Green is [his/her] comment regarding how less consumption means less profit.  I believe, however, that value-based pricing is indeed profitable in the long-term.  What I admire about businesses that encourage value-based purchases is that it is not so much a purchase as it is an investment.  This strategy encourages all consumers to feel invested not only in the product or service, but in the brand.

By re-enforcing the long-term benefits of these products or services, businesses are likely to position themselves as trusted brands, build brand loyalty and prolong the customer’s lifetime value.  In addition, the negative stereotypes associated with retail giants such as Walmart as cheaply manufactured or ineffective have increased market share for value-based businesses.  Accordingly, although this pricing strategy may not apply to all industries, I believe that it represents a shift in consumer culture that encourages long-term sustainability.