Introduction

There is growing importance of and interest in aquaculture. As aquaculture will play a major role in achieving global food security (Godfrey et al. 2010), issues of sustainable development and animal ethics arise (Kalshoven and Meijboom 2013). The conceptual core of sustainable development is the idea of inter- and intra-generational justice in the face of decreasing natural resources, the ecosystems’ limited capacity to absorb human emissions, and ongoing environmental destruction. Briefly stated, the concept of sustainable development implies that humans are obligated to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to live a self-determined and good life. In this endeavour, moral agents should proceed in such a way that the natural basis necessary to live such a life is at least retained (and in the best case extended) for all contemporary and future humans (Meisch 2014a). Consequently, sustainable development is about nature protection and human development. Along these lines, a more sustainable aquaculture would have to develop in such a way that its natural basis is maintained (e.g. by preserving mangroves in the tropics, preventing overuse or prohibiting certain chemicals) and that it contributes to human development by providing safe food but also by allowing all participants in the production chain to live a life worthy of dignity (Meisch 2014b).

This raises questions with regard to the moral status of aquaculture animals. Even if one does not agree that they are members of the moral community so that they would demand direct moral obligation, they are still subject to important moral consideration. It can be argued, for instance, that for prudential reasons aquaculturalists take care for their animals because it is in their own best interest. However, more importantly, moral interests of aquaculture animals also deserve consideration to the degree by which they are sentient beings feeling pain or fear (Meijboom and Bovenkerk 2013; Huntingford et al. 2006). It appears that the issue of welfare of aquaculture animals is developing (cf. Röcklinsberg 2014). With regard to fish, there is consensus that they are sentient beings and do feel pain (Braithwaite et al. 2013). This cannot be said about invertebrates in general. While it seems that they do not feel pain sensu stricto (Braithwaite 2010; Fiorito 1986), there are doubts with regard to crustaceans and higher molluscs (Barr et al. 2008; Elwood and Appel 2009; Elwood 2011). In line with the emerging ethical debate, the need for further research into the physical conditions of aquaculture species is recognised. This relates to issues such as finding and measuring animal welfare indicators and specifying them to aquaculture production systems (e.g. Martins et al. 2012; van de Vis et al. 2003; Kiessling et al. 2012; Lupatsch et al. 2010).

Besides moral reasoning on sustainable development and animal welfare (but still related to both), there is a vivid debate on the appropriate governance mechanisms to achieve both aims (Meisch 2014c). While there are different mechanisms (competition, negotiations, hierarchy, deliberation and cooperation), usually two models are confronted with each other: governance by the state (hierarchy) or the market (competition). This paper cannot enter the debate on the preferability of one model (cf. e.g. Meisch 2014c; Gulbrandsen 2006). Rather, it deals with an issue specific to the market model and its idea of critical consumerism. Basically, the model attributes consumers the power to bring about different production patterns. If they want more sustainable or animal friendly products, they can achieve change by buying and supporting goods produced under conditions conforming to their values (foot or dollar voting). Producers would react to this demand by offering more of these products. This exchange on markets would conform more to personal freedoms of consumers and producers than regulative state action—and would therefore be preferable.Footnote 1

With regard to food consumption, this model is challenged on many grounds (cf. e.g. Gulbrandsen 2006; Aerts 2013; Horne 2009; Meisch 2013; Grunwald 2010). The paper here focuses on certification of organic aquaculture. Certificates are meant to facilitate purchase decisions by providing information on those goods that conform to specific consumers’ values and preferences. Certification of aquaculture activities and products has been criticised for serving economic interests of the Global North at the expense of people in the Global South (Belton et al. 2011) as well as being ineffective in dealing with moral dilemmas (Kalshoven and Meijboom 2013) or in solving problems of non-sustainable development on a global scale (Kalfagianni and Pattberg 2013). Our paper casts some doubt on an understanding that overemphasises consumers. In order to bring about organic aquaculture, it is argued that consumers’ choices alone are not sufficient and that successful transformation to sustainable aquaculture also has to consider values and preferences of producers.

Taking into account ethical challenges can influence the direction of standard development as a critical public might e.g. demand stricter standards in the light of changed moral perceptions of a specific animal’s welfare. However, for certifiers, it is important to understand whether critical consumers do really care about fish welfare and whether this interest translates into the willingness to pay more for aquaculture products. So far, academic literature provides a mixed picture (Kupsala et al. 2013; Martins et al. 2012; Bunte et al. 2007). This creates tensions when it comes to convincing aquaculturists to pay more attention on issues of sustainable development and fish welfare.

In the following, aspects of certification that emerge with regard to sustainable aquaculture will be discussed. Most prominently, this is the role of certifiers in bringing together the values of producers and consumers. This qualitative reflection is based one of the author’s (Stefan Bergleiter’s) personal experience in the field of aquaculture certification since the late 1990s, in about twenty countries and with most aquaculture animal species. Since there are several sets of organic aquaculture standards (e.g. particularly by the EU regulation and by the private certification programmes in different countries), it must be noted that the following reflections refer to Naturland standards. In several criteria, they go beyond the requirements of national and EU organic regulations and therefore regard these regulations only as a minimum level.Footnote 2

Organic Customer is King… How About the Farmers?

Over the last decades, the development of markets for certified organic and other eco-labelled food has been overall impressive, indicating the huge potential of products that come with a particular ‘informative value’. These products appeal to consumers’ taste buds but also to their values with regard to their own and their families’ health, protection of the environment, animal welfare, fair-trade etc. Along with the growth of this relatively young market, research was carried out on preferences and behaviour of typical ‘organic consumers’ in different, though mainly Western countries and on factors influencing their purchasing decisions. Usually, there is the implicit assumption underlying such studies that if the attitude of consumers could be shifted towards a stronger preference for organic food, this would increase the volume of the organic market, motivate more farmers to convert to organic production methods, and thus create a positive impact on the natural and cultural environment towards more sustainable development (Aertsens et al. 2009; Schösler et al. 2013).

Today, however, the world market prices (also for conventional, i.e. not certified organic) agricultural commodities are steadily and (at times) rapidly rising. Farmland is already among the highest rate investments. Meanwhile, generous subsidies for growing conventional corn as ‘bio’-fuel put further pressure on farmland in general and on organic food production in particular. Such circumstances started to cause a general gap between demand for and supply of certified organic products. For instance, in 2012 the German organic market grew by 6 %, but the domestic production only by 2.6 % (BÖLW 2013). This gap was compensated by two developments. First, there were increased imports of organic products, especially from the Global South. Second, the German market absorbed organic products that could then not be sold on markets still depressed by the financial crisis (such as the UK; Soil Association 2013).

With regard to the general trend, consumers’ preferences alone are not enough of a mechanism to convince significantly more farmers to convert a farm to organic management, to undergo a third-party certification procedure, and to try finding adequate marketing strategies and channels. The relative weakness of this extrinsic incentive is aggravated in globalised markets with one and the same farming operation producing for and exporting to several countries with very different emphasis e.g. on organic quality.Footnote 3 Thus, the intrinsic drivers derived from the farmers’ own values will probably have to play a greater role for future growth of organic production.Footnote 4

A simplistic ‘The organic customer is king’—approach easily neglects the role of producers,Footnote 5 who do not just wait for orders and react to the specifications from the other side of the supply chain. They have their own set of values and—other than their ‘citizen-consumers’ counterparts—their sturdy personal experiences with e.g. disease control, crop failures, yield calculations or price trends. Often, they already have first practical experiences with organic aquaculture that can be supported by the certification process (Hensler and Bremer 2013; The Fish Site 2013). For a successful development of the organic market, it is important to consider the values and the resulting attitudes on both sides of the market chain. Even more so, since organic consumers and farmers are both striving for sustainability of one and the same the farming operation (Aertsens et al. 2009; Schösler et al. 2013).

Empathy with the farmers’ situation and mind-sets is not only relevant for the economical practicalities of the organic sector, e.g. regarding the adequate price premium for a certified organic product or alternative marketing models such as organic veggie subscription boxes. Considering and, as far as possible, bringing together the values on both sides of the market chain is a vital aspect for the setting of certification standards that are defining in detail what the consumer expects from the farmer in order to be called an organic and sustainable producer. In consequence, the technical and financial implications of the standards are crucial for the farmers’ decision to go organic or not. On the other side of the market chain, the certification standards communicate the ‘informative value’ of an organic product to the consumer in a credible and convincing way.

These mechanisms shall be illustrated by the example of organic aquaculture. This is in many ways an interesting and challenging example. Organic aquaculture is an only some 15 years young, but very promising initiative within the global organic movement (as for instance represented by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements, IFOAM) that has started to sprout in four continents and more than twenty countries. It also raises challenging questions with regard to global justice and animal welfare (c.f. Kalshoven and Meijboom 2013; Bremer et al. 2013; Belton et al. 2011; Huntingford et al. 2006).

The Role of Aquaculture for World’s Seafood Supply

The seafood market is highly globalised. Countries of the Global North import a major share of their consumption (e.g. 88 % for Germany in 2011; Fisch-Informationszentrum 2013). This is true for both products from capture fisheries, i.e. derived from e.g. wild fish stocks, and from aquaculture, i.e. cultivated in ponds, net-cages, tanks, mussel lines. While world’s capture fishery yield is stagnating on a long years’ trend, the production volumes of aquaculture are steadily increasing. Actually, nearly half of all fin- and shellfish entering human food consumption stems from aquaculture.Footnote 6 Today, there are species that are nearly exclusively produced in aquaculture (e.g. Atlantic salmon, trout, carp, mussels, oysters, and several tropical shrimp species). Other economically important fish species (e.g. herring, mackerel, hake, skipjack tuna) are exclusively derived from capture fishery. A few (e.g. turbot and blue fin tuna) are available from both, aquaculture and capture fishery. Aquaculture of cod, a central species for Northern fisheries, became nearly abandoned after the recovery of wild stocks, whose previously precarious situation motivated several companies to invest in its breeding in captivity (FAO 2014).

An important aspect is the dominance and the overwhelming growth of aquaculture in Southern, particularly Southeast Asian, and often low-income countries. The industry’s scenario in these countries is quite different from aquaculture in the Global North. Producers in the Global South tend to grow herbivorous or omnivorous species (e.g. carp, tilapia, and shrimp) in low-intensity, often traditional systems, little demanding in terms of machinery and feedstuff. Agriculture in the Global North, however, mainly focuses on carnivorous, high-prized species (e.g. salmon and sea bream) in large, industrialised operations that are demanding considerable investments and an—equally globalised—network of supplying industries (ibid.).

Meanwhile, aquaculture became the fastest growing sector of food industry. It is celebrated as the ‘Blue Revolution’ and possible solution to overfishing. Yet, it also reveals problematic aspects, which are questioning its contribution to sustainable development and thereby endangering acceptance by critical consumers (The Economist 2003a, b). Such (potential or already substantiated) weaknesses of contemporary aquaculture refer to a broad range of issues as different as residues of antibiotics in the final product, devastation of mangrove forests for construction of shrimp farms, overuse of marine resources for production of fishmeal for aquaculture feed, animal welfare in super-intensive stocking densities, transmission of salmon diseases from farms to wild populations, neglect of neighbouring stakeholders’ interests, long-distance transport of goods, or even deception of investors believing in huge return rates from futuristic aquaculture start-ups that in fact never even reach break-even (Brojo and Vogl 2013, 2011; Wedekind 2008).

Setting Standards for Sustainable Aquaculture

In the 1990s, public awareness of this problematic context increased to the extent that it started to threaten general acceptance of aquaculture products and therefore to hamper the development of this young and promising industry (The Economist 2003a, b; cf. Nash 2011). This motivated several attempts to formulate international certification standards for aquaculture, aiming to address the concerns of NGOs and scientists as well as to satisfy the demands of critical consumers. These certification (‘labelling’) initiatives aimed for more or less specific concepts of sustainable or responsible aquaculture and reflect the interests of their particular background, such as industry associations, environmental and political NGOs, or the Organic agriculture movement (Kalfagianni and Pattberg 2013; Gulbrandsen 2006; Belton et al. 2011). The assumed mechanism of certification programmes as well as less formalised systems (e.g. ranking of retail chains for their sourcing policy or guides for seafood buyers) is to enable informed purchase decisions on the consumers’ level that subsequently create a motivation for aquaculturists to adjust their production methods in accordance to the underlying principles.

It is obvious, however, that this process is more complex. The effectiveness of certification depends first on the requirements, criteria, and verification methods stipulated by the certification systems and second in how far those correspond with the expectations, needs, and realities of both sides of the seafood product chain. For developing a standard, standard setters mostly use a kind of multi-stakeholder approach, meaning that the different parts of the supply chain should have an equal say. That includes producers as well as NGOs, scientists, and the certifying organisation with its specific background (the public and consumers). While in so-called conventional labelling schemes there is usually more flexibility for setting requirements, limits, positive lists for inputs etc., the organic certification programmes have more rigid, in case even statutory provisions, e.g. regarding the prohibition of GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) in livestock and feedstuff. While the former may facilitate access for greater parts of the industry, without setting the bars too high, the latter has clearly a better recognition value, the customers ‘know what they get’, and the market for the certified products is already better developed. Nevertheless, in the case of certified organic aquaculture products, the animal species, culture systems, standard issues, logistics of the supply chain (e.g. deep frozen products from overseas) were all novel, so that the organic market did not embrace seafood from the beginning and acceptance and confidence of critical organic consumers first had to be carefully established (Bergleiter et al. 2009).

Converging and Diverging Values and Their Impact on Certification Success

If the values of consumers and producers are converging—because a strength or even an USP (Unique Selling Point) of a particular aquaculture enterprise is matching the expectations of his customers—a positive feedback loop may be created around the certified product. Market success might then motivate and economically enable the aquaculturist to further elaborate, deepen, or amplify this aspect on the production level. However, if the values, concerns, and expectations of the consumers are not sufficiently addressed by the certification programme, they will not prefer the certified product to a—possibly cheaper—alternative, and no market incentive is created. If, on the other hand, the standards are too difficult and expensive to meet, or they deviate too much from the aquaculturist‘s own concepts and values, even a price premium may not compensate, and (s)he may seek other, less demanding markets.Footnote 7

A frequent reason for diverging values, particularly in aquaculture, is the mere—geographical, informational, socio-economical—distance between consumers and producers (Beckert 2005; Joas 2000). With ‘the consumers’ we refer to consumers in countries of the Global North, with a ‘Western’ set of values (Aertsens et al. 2009; Schösler et al. 2013),Footnote 8 with little direct contact to fishery, farming, or food processing and with information about seafood and aquaculture from non-scientific media (Kupsala et al. 2013; The Fish Site 2013). To a certain degree, the same might be said about the diverse group of producers. For instance, a small-scale aquaculturist in a country of the Global South may not know about or have limited empathy for the wishes and concerns of his customers in the North.

Certifiers such as Naturland e.V. regard it their task to bring together the different value sets of consumers and producers. That entails food safety and health, nature protection, animal welfare but also the opportunity of farmers in the Global South to live a good and self-determined life. These issues will be dealt with in the following.

Problematic Substances in Aquaculture Production

The use of problematic substances (e.g. hormones, antibiotics, biocides) is a very prominent issue in aquaculture that both producers and consumers are well aware of. There have been several large scandals with traces of antibiotics in shrimp from Southeast Asia (cf. Spiegel online 2002), and still every shipment of shrimp is being tested for such residues on a routine. Over the last decade, Atlantic salmon aquaculture has decreased the use of antibiotics drastically. The industry’s aim was to get rid of a negative image created when farmed salmon was treated and loaded with chemicals like malachite green and chloramphenicol, which are all legally banned today in many countries.

In organic aquaculture, the use of hormones, chemical ‘antifouling’ substances on net cages, antibiotics and other allopathic veterinary medicine in invertebrates, synthetic antioxidants in feed etc. are prohibited. This constitutes a very important driver for the organic consumer. Even for Southern countries that have not developed a particular organic market so far, the concept of safe, clean agriculture and aquaculture products seems to be a good entrance point for the organic movement, due to generally weak law enforcement and subsequent severe food scandals (e.g. the hazardous practice to preserve seafood with formaldehyde in Bangladesh; Kibria 2007).

In general, aquaculture producers join this view on the importance to work without problematic chemicals, and they are often proud of offering a very clean product to the world market. Therefore, many aquaculturists explicitly welcome strict certification standards and tend to distrust ‘conventional’ standards as being too vague in this respect (e.g. many conventional standards do just prohibit ‘illegal’ substances, thus leaving open loopholes). Interestingly, pilot projects with organic shrimp farming in the late 1990s could even prove that an organic pond management, lowering the stress levels of the animals and balancing the microbiology, is much more efficient against the prevailing viral diseases than any application of expensive antibiotics (e.g. Araneda et al. 2008; Kautsky et al. 2000).

A possible divergence is created by standards that are too strict even on relatively unproblematic substances in critical circumstances (e.g. quicklime for combating algal blooms in the ponds), and that are not giving viable alternatives. Even for an attractive organic price premium, no farmer can jeopardise the health and survival of his fish.

Stocking Density

Another crucial issue with regard to animal welfare is stocking density. Conventional, industrial farming is criticised because animals do not have enough space and are suffering from confinement. This is not only critically discussed by academia and the public (e.g. Brojo and Vogl 2013; Huntingford et al. 2006; Bovenkerk and Meijboom 2012) but also relates to the intuitions of ethical consumers who regard being physically restricted and not able to move freely as a very unpleasant situation. Unsurprisingly, there are calls for farming systems granting sufficient space to each animal. Accordingly, an important element of organic farming is to care for animal welfare, particularly by defining and demanding stocking densities that are lower than what would be still technically feasible or legally allowed (e.g. European Community 2009).

From a (market-)liberal viewpoint, limiting the number or the biomass of animals per space by law or other rule restricts the farmer’s freedom of being able to use his or her resources, land, personnel, legal production licence, scientific know-how, technical infrastructure, to the fullest capacity, and to produce as many animals as possible on the available land. This particularly applies to aquaculture where free-swimming animals can be housed spatially in all three dimensions, and where stocking densities can be raised up to several hundreds of kilograms per cubic meter of water. Such intensive systems are common where supply of oxygen is not a limiting factor, either by application of liquid oxygen (e.g. in rainbow trout or tilapia) or in species that are able to breathe atmospheric oxygen (e.g. in African catfish or eel).

Feed costs or the external bought-in feed can be an important driver for limiting stocking density. Similar as in terrestrial livestock (e.g. the famous free-ranging ‘pata negra’ pigs, feeding mainly on acorns in oak plantations), carp and shrimp that are feeding exclusively or in big parts on the natural productivity of the ponds (plankton, diatomic algae etc.), show an overall better product quality than those fed with mainly external feed, e.g. with a lower fat content, firmer meat texture, and a superior taste. In addition, the farmer is saving on the feed costs, in many systems easily exceeding 50 % of the total production costs. Even if the yield per area is typically lower in such extensive systems, the overall economics can be more robust, with less capital costs for pre-financing the production. From an environmental perspective, there is an additional advantage, since extensive systems are not releasing any excessive nutrients into the environment. In fact, they may even serve as ‘nutrient traps’, utilising the nutrients naturally contained in the incoming water.

Other aquaculture systems, however, do not offer the possibility to produce such natural feed, e.g. marine net-cage farms, indoor recirculation tanks, or generally the production of carnivorous species. In such systems, lower stocking densities will not decrease the production costs per kg of fish harvested, but on the contrary increase them, because of the costly infrastructure that is not utilised at maximum capacity. For this reason, there are sectors of aquaculture that are more difficult to convert into organic production with limited stocking density (e.g. tilapia aquaculture, shrimp in Central America), than others (e.g. carp aquaculture, shrimp in Southeast Asia, mussels).

Besides these cost-related arguments, aquaculture farmers usually raise the point that it is illegitimate and anthropomorphic to assume that animal welfare is generally better at lower stocking densities. Due to phylogenetic relationship, social proximity and cultural narratives, the needs of mammals and birds appear to be more accessible and comprehensible to humans, than this is the case with finfish or aquatic invertebrates (Braithwaite et al. 2013; Röcklinsberg 2014; Joy 2013, 72–76).Footnote 9 While the negative effects of inadequate stocking densities in mammals and birds are often clearly visible (e.g. technopathies, stereotype behaviour), this is less obvious the case in aquaculture species. Only carnivorous fish with sharp teeth and territorial habits and/or a voracious feeding behaviour do show visible technopathies from mutual mutilation (frequently seen in rainbow trout and char, with pectoral and caudal fins often bitten off to stumps or completely amputated). In other aquatic species, usually no physical damage or abnormal behaviour is observed, even if kept at very high densities (e.g. mussels).

Farmers will usually accept density limits constituted by robust instrumental arguments, such as visible damage or suffering of fish, increased mortalities, problems with water quality or the like, but tend to disagree with limits obtained by approximations, arbitrary transfer of density limits from other species or the like. For numerous aquatic species, however, it has been possible to identify density limits that well coincide with both scientific-ecological findings and the farmers’ own perception of what is a ‘good’ density, leading to prime physical performance of the fish (e.g. a salmon of highest quality grade, even in conventional market, may not show any missing scales or fin injuries), robust health condition, but also to a satisfactory food conversion and balance of production costs (e.g. for Atlantic salmon, c.f. Turnbull et al. 2005).

Origin of Feedstuff (e.g. Agriculture GMOs, Animal By-products, Fishmeal)

To care about the whole production chain and to cover all input in details is an undisputed constituent of organic farming. The major input in animal husbandry is feed. Most systems of contemporary aquaculture rely to a certain amount on bought-in feed materials, often imported from long distances. Organic aquaculture standards require that agricultural feedstuff (cereals, soy, vegetable oils) are sourced from certified organic agriculture farms, so that the organic supply chain remains unbroken and is not indirectly spoiled by feed derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), pesticides or chemical fertilisers.

In many cases, this requirement is constituting the most critical obstacle in conversion towards organic management, not only for the higher prices (in fact, the raw material for organic aquaculture feed has often to be purchased from organic food market, due to the lack of cheaper feed-grade offers in certain products), but also for the challenge to identify suitable sources and transport logistics to the remote aquaculture regions without an existing organic infrastructure (e.g. Bangladesh, Vietnam).

Similar challenges are prevailing in sourcing non-agricultural feed ingredients that are suitable for organic aquaculture diets, such as fishmeal (from trimmings of fish processed for human consumption, avoiding industrial fishmeal harvesting) and natural anti-oxidants (avoiding the use of ethoxiquin, a quite critical chemical used in conventional feed).

The issue of feedstuff is crucial for certifiers. On the one hand, it can be assumed that consumers would support strict controls of the whole production chain and appreciate full transparency. On the other hand, it is likely that they have little knowledge on this specific field that greatly determines the price of the organic product. As prices do matter for critical consumers, lacking knowledge might negatively influence their purchase decision (Bunte et al. 2007). This problem is aggravated by the fact that conventional labelling schemes are dealing with these feed issues in a much more generous way, thus ‘making life easier’ to the farmers and taking advantage of the unconscious consumers. In consequence, the organic movement still has a great job to do with sufficiently communicating its undisputed achievements regarding safety and sustainability of not only food, but also feed origins.

The Certification Procedure (Traceability, Documentation, Control Systems)

Another typical element of contemporary organic market is the independent (third-party) inspection and certification, even made mandatory by EU regulation. The inspection consists of an annual visit, supplemented by spot checks, of a trained inspector. On the base of this visit, an inspection report is written and sent to a certification committee. At the end of the (successful) procedure, a certificate will be issued, often accompanied with conditions, corrective measures that future certification is subjected to.

Consumers welcome this procedure as it ensures that standards are really maintained by producers and that the higher price for the organic products is truly justified. On the one hand, consumers are prepared to pay more for products that pay attention to concerns of sustainability and animal welfare. On the other hand, certainty of shared values cannot be presupposed with growing distance between consumers and producers (Beckert 2005; Aertsens et al. 2009). Here, a procedural approach can build trust for both sides.

A small aquaculture farm in Germany such as a trout farm with connected hatchery and slaughter facilities requires one day for inspection plus another half for report writing. For very large aquaculture operations such as a cooperative of several hundreds of small shrimp farmers in Indonesia, the inspection activity may require more than the equivalence of one man-year.Footnote 10 Sometimes, if one aquaculture farm is delivering to different markets with different labelling requirements, there is the need to undergo several inspection visits per year, executed by different inspection bodies. For the aquaculturist, these inspections are not only costly, but—sometimes more relevant—time consuming, since usually the inspectors have to be accompanied by someone familiar with the quality management of the operation. Furthermore (and this is often a severe obstacle for small farms), the certification procedure forces to implement and maintain a high level of documentation, e.g. on purchased feed, management measures or applications of veterinary medicine. In consequence, certifiers are easily blamed by the farmers for being too bureaucratic or too acquisitive in selling their services. This indicates difficulties in communicating the need for such formalised, routine checks, no matter how small the operation or how limited the economic benefit from organic certification may be. This might be in conflict with the farmer’s own values (Bremer et al. 2013).

The EU regulation on organic labelling (European Community 2007), prescribing such dense and frequent certification protocols, has certainly lead to a better protection of the organic market from fraud, and it has also improved the consumers’ and the retailers’ trust in organic quality. Nevertheless, there are also farming operations that would make good candidates for organic certification, but are deterred by these requirements. The challenge for the organic movement consists in (a) further elaborating adequate certification procedures for different types of producers, including alternative schemes for local markets, (b) creating better synergies with the farmers’ tools for general quality management, instead of running a ‘parallel’ quality scheme only for organic certification, and (c) improving the consumers’ insight and familiarity with organic farming. The latter could help to shift the consumers’ mindset and focus from ‘mistrust’ or ‘control’ to ‘understanding’ or ‘pursuing common goals’ (Beckert 2005).

Small-Scale Farming Versus Large Aquaculture Companies

Consumption of organic food is often linked with sympathy for a lifestyle that can be described as ‘natural’, ‘basic or ‘less materialistic’ (Schösler et al. 2013). Even if the majority of organic consumers is living in Global Northern cities with very limited chances to run such a ‘basic’ life themselves, this desire still causes a preference for certain food attributes such as ‘little processed’, ‘hand-made’ or ‘artisanal’. This set of expectations does not only describe tangible properties of the products (e.g. not containing colorants), but also refers to the socio-economical or cultural background of production. Thus, organic consumers may in general find a small, family run farm more authentic and credible as an organic producer, than a large farming company, even if both are well respecting the organic standards.

Some small-scale farms have the chance to turn this characteristic even into a competitive advantage. In Global Northern countries, small farmers are usually supplying regional markets, where regionality is considered a central important element of sustainability. In Global Southern countries, small-scale farmers tend to be poor, so that they may seek to supplement their certified organic status by a fair-trade scheme, indicating both ecological with socio-economical sustainability. Such scenarios are prevailing in Southeast-Asian shrimp aquaculture, where certified organic groups or cooperatives of small farms (typically around one hectare total area, with half of this being pond surface, the other half subsistence gardening, house, and often mangrove reforestation; Townsley 2013; Bremer et al. 2013). So far, no aquaculture operation has been certified under an explicit fair-trade scheme, but this is already in preparation.

On a broader view and on a longer run, however, this special promotion of and preference for small-scale enterprises is challenging, for two major reasons: Firstly, the globalised seafood market—with countries like Germany importing a lion’s share of their consumption—is demanding a very stable supply, both in terms of quality and quantity, matching the complex, more or less centralised processing and distribution logistics, from the remote production sites to the urban centres of consumption. In the case of the small-scale shrimp farmers in Vietnam, Indonesia, Bangladesh, or India, the big processing and exporting companies are resuming the difficult task to organise a multitude of farms, to maintain an ICS for organic quality management, to organise the harvest, to collect, and to transport the shrimp to the processing plant. This system has proven effective in Naturland certified organic operations for more than 10 years. However, in other countries (e.g. in Latin America), probably due to socio-cultural reasons, such a robust small-scale aquaculture scenario never developed, and also the organic farms are large operations, with several hundreds of hectares managed by one company. Also in marine finfish aquaculture as salmon, due to the costly requirements for infrastructure (the sea-cages, their anchoring, maintenance, feed transport etc.), small-scale production is not viable. Even within Germany, a hot spot of organic consumption and preference for regional products, the small size of trout or carp farms is making it difficult to build up certified organic supply from domestic aquaculture. Therefore, a part of the demand for these products has currently to be covered by larger organic aquaculture companies in other European countries.

Secondly, it is questionable if small-scale aquaculture farmers really perceive their situation as preferable over the employment in a larger company, without their family’s existence permanently and directly threatened by animal diseases, or fluctuations in prizes and feed costs. There is an apparent divergence between what consumers may consider an ‘ideal’ organic farmer (small family farm, manual labour, life in the countryside etc.), and the circumstances he would typically prefer for his own life (employment in a company, brain work, urban life).Footnote 11 Of course, this divergence is most striking regarding Southern countries with insufficient social security, or lack of basic infrastructure in remote areas.

The organic movement is placing strong emphasis on strengthening small-scale farmers, who play a central role in world’s food supply, but are often marginalised by politics and global business structures. There are numerous cases where organic certification and fair-trade labelling have succeeded in improving livelihood, alleviating poverty, and leading to political empowerment of small-scale farmers. And there are also strong indicators that sustainability in the food sector goes along with decentralisation and regionalisation, linked with downsizing of production units. Nevertheless, such goals or processes have to be rooted in the farmers’ values, and cannot be imposed unilaterally, or even ‘top-down’ by the consumers (Hensler and Bremer 2013; Bremer et al. 2013; Belton et al. 2011).

Conclusion: Certification as an Instrument for Bringing Together Values

The attitudes of consumers and farmers, leading to their decisions to purchase organic food or to run a farm organically, depend on their personal moral maxims. These arise from the complexity of socio-demographic factors, emotions, experiences, and values (Aertsens et al. 2009; Beckert 2011; Joas 2000). As shown above, the value-derived attitudes on both sides of the product and market chain may harmonise well, but there may be also issues of substantial divergence. The risk of such divergence increases with the socio-economical and geographical distance between producer and consumer in a highly fragmented and globalised market.

Foot or dollar voting is often regarded as a central mechanism for enabling civil society to improve industry’s attitudes in the desirable direction and to create commitment to sustainability beyond the legal minimum requirements (Johnston 2008). In case of success, these purchase decisions will lead to a boosting feedback on organic agriculture or aquaculture. The apparent and evident weakness of this ‘pull strategy’ is that the core group of strictly organic consumers constitutes only a tiny minority on the global scale. This means that (a) a small share of the industry is able to satisfy the demand of this group, and the effect on the other companies remains limited, and (b) that the organic market segment is not critical for an individual company, and there are plentiful alternatives.

Consumers’ purchase decisions might be influenced by different values. As consumer ethics are usually not written down, they are not directly accessible by companies trying to meet them. Furthermore, they are in a constant transformation because of scandals, TV reports or NGO campaigns, making it difficult to adjust for producers.

On the other side of the supply chain, food producers might often have an explicit company ethic (Noll 2002). The wording of these value statements, however, can often be very vague and general (e.g. ‘our aim is to produce the best quality seafood to achievable prices’). Needless to say that such a vague announcement will hardly pass the inquisitive eyes of a critical consumer.

In this difficult communication scenario, the role of an organic certification programme is to improve the level of information both on circumstances of food production and of consumer expectations, to supply technical data on options to improve ecological, social, and economical sustainability, and to create mutual emphasis between the different parties along the value chain. In a way, certifiers have to create a space of mutual learning. This is—as an underlying guideline—usually done in the form of a mission statement (e.g. Naturland 2013). In concrete and tangible terms, the certification standards are telling how these guidelines are being applied to specific agriculture or aquaculture operations (e.g. Naturland 2012).

The organic movement is challenged to build organic supply chains from both sides, increasing awareness and acceptance in consumers outside the organic core group, but also to persuade the farmers that organic production is matching their own technical needs and ethical values. Once the latter is succeeding, the farmers will switch to a ‘push strategy’. In this scenario, farmers convert to organic management more or less independently from the specialised organic market demand, and organic supply becomes so robust and dominant that it represents the logical choice and the mainstream, no longer a market niche.