Consumer trust in sustainable seafood certification agencies: A comparative study across twelve markets

Résumé fourni par la source

Global seafood consumption has increased steadily over the past decade, making it the most traded animal protein worldwide. To meet growing demand, seafood production must expand. Yet, this growth poses significant environmental risks, including habitat loss, water pollution, and species depletion. Ensuring sustainable production is therefore critical, with certification schemes playing a key role in communicating sustainability to consumers. However, consumer trust in these certifications varies widely. This study investigates consumer trust in four types of certification agencies for seafood imported from developed countries: Exporting country government agencies, exporting country certification agencies, international certification agencies, and local certification agencies. An online survey (N = 12,222) was conducted across 12 markets: Australia, mainland China, Hong Kong (China), India, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, the USA, and Vietnam. The results indicated that sustainability certifications are valued across all markets, with particularly elevated importance observed in comparatively lower-income markets as indicated by GDP per capita (mainland China, India, Indonesia, Vietnam), where trust in all certification types was notably higher. Conversely, Japan and Taiwan exhibited the lowest trust levels. Within-market analysis identified three distinct trust preference groups: the Local Preference Group (Australia, Japan, USA, New Zealand, Singapore), the International Preference Group (Indonesia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam), and the Equal Preference Group (mainland China, India, South Korea). These findings offer actionable insights for seafood businesses, importers, and exporters to tailor certification strategies to market-specific trust patterns, ultimately supporting the promotion of sustainable seafood consumption globally.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.