2010:Annual report.The information regarding environmental topics was limited to general written sections about their vision, goals, and responsibility. SalMar ASA states that they are ranked as number one in Norway when it comes to reporting on GHG and carbon emissions; “SalMar ASA has been appointed as Norway’s best company when it comes to reporting, and working with, carbon
emissions and the environmental impact” (p.36). However, numbers on emissions are not presented in their annual report, and the section is therefore coded as
“Vague”. The salmon industry is, according to SalMar ASA, the most sustainable food producer both when it comes to impact on wildlife, and emissions. They state that agriculture and meat producers are more polluting industries, and that construction of hydropower plants threaten the population of wild salmon. In cases like these, we have used the code “blaming others'', and an example of this is: “According to statistics produced by the Norwegian Directorate for Nature Management (DNF), there are many factors other than fish-farming which affect and threaten wild salmon populations. These include the construction of
hydropower plants, agricultural pollution and the parasite gyrodactalus salaris'' (p.9). On the opposite end of the code scale, they admit to not having reached their goal when it comes to fish escapes. Additionally, they explained how they dealt with the issue, but without specifications and in a vague writing style; “ Unfortunately, too many salmon are still escaping from Norwegian fish farms, and SalMar experienced a mass escape of fish in February 2011. We deeply regret this, and have a clear goal of zero escapes in SalMar… We have reviewed our routines and practices once again, and will work systematically to eliminate the risk of salmon escaping” (p.9). This is therefore coded as “Coercive action type 1” and
“Admission”.
2011: Annual report. The 2011 report is very similar to their 2010 regarding length and amount of information on environmental aspects. However, only 2 different codes are used in this report; “vague” and “description”. In 3 out of 4 coded sections, these two are coded together. Instead of a neutral description, SalMar ASA provides statements of their actions in an unclear and not fulfilling manner. An example of this is: “The company’s environmental performance is reviewed on a monthly basis by SalMar’s various management teams. This practice has been implemented across the board from individual site to group management during 2011” (p.16). They do not clarify what they mean by
“environmental performance”, nor which management teams have this responsibility.
2012: Annual report.This report is very similar to their 2011 report with few codes and limited variation. The three coded segments are all coded as “vague”
and “description” and an example of this is: “ In 2012 SalMar achieved many of its objectives with regard to the external environment, working environment and personal safety. Important measures implemented in 2012 included a focus on HSE in our own SalMar Standard inspections, in addition to traditional safety inspections.” (p.26). We get the impression that the sections written about
environmental impact are copied and pasted from 2010-2012. Another example of a section coded as “vague” and “description” is: “Details of the Group’s overall HSE performance in 2012 have been collated and analysed, and form the basis for identifying new focus areas and relevant measures to be implemented in 2013”
(p.26). This is a sentence which they have written each year without any explanations of either their analysis, or identifications of new focus areas.
2013: Annual report.SalMar ASA’s 2013 report is more similar to their 2010 report than 2011 and 2012. There is a limited amount of information on their specific actions, but a wider variation of codes than the two previous years.
SalMar ASA admits that their goal of 0 escaped fish was not reached for 2013. In contrast to 2010, they now clearly and detailedly explain how they dealt with this issue, hence “Coercive action type 2” is used together with the code “Admission”.
SalMar experienced two incidents in which salmon escaped in 2013, with a total of 70 fish lost. The incidents occurred during the collection/sorting of fish in connection with the use of chartered special-purpose vessels… Given the incidents associated with vessels in 2013, SalMar will focus on close follow-up and audits of external shipowners in the time ahead, and will play an active role in joint industry projects to reduce the risk of fish escaping in connection with use of chartered vessels” (p.25).
2014: Sustainability report.This is the first year SalMar ASA has published a separate sustainability report. Together with the new GRI standard, it makes the report substantially greater and more detailed than previous years. With more information and details comes more variation in codes. The code “Description” is used 25 times during this report. 11 out of these 25 segments are coded together with “vague” and not seen as a neutral or well-described action. Additionally, 6 segments are coded as “indicating facts” which is explained as simply mentioning the existence of a negative aspect as a fact without providing explanations or justifications for it. An example from SalMar ASA’s 2014 report is: “By means of
heat exchangers, the hatchery exploits the energy from the wastewater produced by the cellulose plant MM Karton FollaCell AS, which is located right next door.
Energy corresponding to around 20 million kWh is extracted in this way. This energy is used to heat the production water used in the hatchery” (p.37). SalMar ASA does not provide any explanation of how this process affects their
surroundings, nor how much 20 million kWh is compared to their total energy consumption. The code “abstraction” is also used for the first time in their 2014 report. An example of this is: “Although Salmon farming is one of the most sustainable and environment-friendly ways of producing food, the process poses a number of environmental challenges” (p.9). This is coded together with
“admission” because they indicate that their industry potentially can harm the environment. This is the only segment where “admission” is used. Relating to the first part of the sentence, the code “subjective writing style” is also used on this segment. “Subjective writing style” is used a total of 2 times in their 2014 report.
Overall, this report is an improvement from previous years regarding the amount of information provided. However, SalMar ASA’s writing style is generally vague and they focus more on future goals and measures rather than specific actions from 2014.
2015: Sustainability report.SalMar ASA’s 2015 report uses the same GRI standard as in 2014. Compared to 2014, their 2015 report contains 13
“description” codes, but only 2 of them are coded together with “vague”. We see a decrease in the total number of codes, but more specific and well-described segments. “Indicating facts” is used 2 times during the report and one example of this is: “ From 2014 to 2015 we see a small increase in the total Co 2-emission, composed of an increase in emissions related to fuel and commuting, while we experience a reduction in electricity consumption” (p.27). This is coded in the light of information regarding their scope 3 emissions. SalMar ASA has several times stated that their biggest (indirect) source of emissions is production from their feed suppliers. However, these emissions are excluded from their reports, while it would be appropriate to include it in their numbers on scope 3 emissions.
SalMar ASA includes emissions from transport conducted by other companies in their scope 3 for the first time in 2015, which gives the impression that they exclude numbers from suppliers to “keep the numbers down”.
In comparison to the report from 2014, “blaming others” is not used in this report while it was used 2 times the year before, and the use of “marginalization”
has decreased from 3 to 1 times. This shows that they use less neutralization techniques to explain negative impacts. However, “admission” is not used in their 2015 report.
2016-2018: Sustainability reports.We have chosen to merge SalMar ASA’s reports from 2016-2018 in one section. The reason for this is the similarities in the reports. Three of the similarities are described further. In 2016 they described their actions regarding ASC certification of their sites, and stated “At the close of 2016, SalMar had a total of 18 fish farms with ASC certification, and expects to certify one more at the start of 2017” (p.30). This was coded as “description”.
However, when reading the report for the next year, 2017, the exact sentence is used. The year has changed, but the amount of sites and future predictions are the same; “At the close of 2017 SalMar had a total of 18 fish farms with ASC
certification, and expects to certify one more at the start of 2018” (p.34), without any explanations for why the prediction from 2016 was not fulfilled. Even though the sentence is the same, the section is in 2017 coded as “vague”. Another section which appears in both 2017 and 2018 is their statements about escape incidents. In their 2017 report they write: “Although there were no major incidents involving the escape of fish in 2017, seven episodes were recorded. In total, 1,950
individual fish escaped from the Group’s fish farms” (p.26). This is coded as
“description” and “marginalization”, hence their statement “no major incidents”.
Later in the report they state: “In 2017, there were no escape incidents” (p.43).
This is coded as “vague”. We can not speculate about the reason for these statements, but it indicates that SalMar ASA provides misleading information.
From our point of view it increases the impression that sustainability reporting is not the company’s highest priority. This impression increases more when they make the same “mistake” in 2018. These segments can be read on page 26 and 45 in SalMar ASA’s 2018 report, and are coded respectively as “description” and
“marginalization”, and “vague”.
Salmar conducted their first materiality analysis in 2017, and mentions impact on the external environment as one of their focus areas, hence the escape of fish, raw material ingredients, wildlife, and site environment. Climate-related emissions are also an aspect in their analysis. 2018 was the first year where SDGs
were included in the report, without perceived improvements in their reporting.
The number of codes are relatively stable throughout 2016-2018, with
“description” used 14, 15, and 17 times. The use of the code “vague” is used 7 times in 2017, 7 times in 2017, and 6 times in 2018. This shows that their 2018 report has more neutral and well-described actions seen in accordance with the higher number of “description” codes. “Coercive action type 1” is used 1 time in each report, all in connection to escape incidents. The example is identical in all three reports: “These non-conformances have been dealt with internally and remedial measures implemented” (2016, p.24; 2017, p.26; 2018, p.26). The code
“Blaming others” is used in all three reports, all regarding the same topic. An example from the 2018 report is: “Among other things, the study shows that the production of 1kg of farmed salmon generates half as many carbon-equivalent emissions as the production of 1kg of pork, and around one-seventh of the amount generated by the production of 1kg of beef” (p.32). Overall, the reports do not include many specific actions from the respective years. However, the information is generally presented with neutrality, but without much focus on their negative environmental impacts.
2019: Annual report.The 2019 report is overall quite similar to the previous 3 years, but the information about sustainability is now included in their annual report. However, the standard is the same as previous years and all information is still written in one part, instead of in a spread throughout the annual report. One of the most significant changes is the use of “marginalization” which is only used once in their 2019 report, a decrease of 3 from both 2017 and 2018. On the other side, they have used 2 other legitimation strategies in this year’s report that are not used in the two previous reports, “abstraction” and “rationalization theoretical”.
“Rationalization theoretical” is used for this section: “In 2019, SalMar worked hard to keep lice numbers under control at our facilities. Unfortunately, however, they were somewhat higher in 2019 than in 2018 (see fg.). This applies
particularly to the Fish Farming Central Norway segment, where lice levels were particularly high going into the autumn” (p.39). The legitimation strategy
“abstraction” is used to code this section: “The industry’s largest source of emissions is the production of feed, in which respect we refer to the feed producers’ reported targets and results” (p.43). This section is also coded as
“blaming others”. Another significant difference in this year’s report is the
decrease in use of “vague writing style”. While the amount of this code has remained stable in the last years between 6-7 codes, it is only used once in their 2019 report.
2020: Annual report.We immediately get the impression that SalMar ASA has made significant changes in their reporting from previous reports. The total number of codes has increased from 23 in 2019 to 40 in 2020, which shows that the report presents more information on environmental aspects. The use of the code “description”has increased since 2019, used 19 times the year before and 27 times in 2020. An example of a section coded as “description” only is: “We require our feed suppliers to ensure that the ingredients they use are certified, so we can confidently sell a product that has been sustainably produced. This means that the feed ingredients are not genetically modified, have not been produced in areas threatened by deforestation and do not depend on endangered fish stocks”
(p.30). They have used “vague writing style” 5 times, which is an increase from their 2019 report, and all of these codes are used in segments also coded as
“description”. An example of a section where these two codes are used together is: “For the first time ever, SalMar is reporting its targets and results with respect to this KPI. In 2020, SalMar performed better than in previous years” (p.31). The most noteworthy change is that they explain what they do to reduce emissions to a higher degree than they have done before. These segments are coded as
“description”, and they state: “Local harvesting and processing is an important focus area for SalMar. The processing of salmon reduces both the weight and volume of the products to be transported, which cuts transport-related carbon emissions” (p.39) and “In 2020, SalMar reduced its feed conversion ratio, which has helped to cut our greenhouse gas emissions” (p.39). There are still some use of the legitimation strategies “abstraction”, “indicating facts” and
“marginalization”. While “abstraction” is used once more in 2020 than in 2019, the amount of “indicating facts” and “marginalization” has remained stable.
Overall, the 2020 report is more informative than reports they have published earlier, with more explanations and descriptions of actions. However, there are still some improvement areas regarding full transparency.
1.1.10 Mowi (previously Marine Harvest)
2010: Annual report.Mowi presents four focus areas and “planet” is one of them.
In their annual report for 2010 the information on environmental impact is limited. The code “description” is used 12 times, whereas 7 of them are also coded as “vague”. An example of a vague description is: “All our operations and our long-term profitability ultimately depend on sustainable and environmentally responsible interactions with the natural environment. To maintain fish health, avoid escapes and minimise the environmental impact of our operations we need the best skilled people” (p.16), a well described action can be like this: “Potential negative effects on wild fsh are reduced by the establishment of a “zero
tolerance” for escapes, with increasing management focus, investments and procedures, as well as R&D projects and regulatory initiatives to reduce the potential spread of parasites and infective agents” (p.12). Even though
“description” is used for the plural of coded segments, it is very limited
information about specific actions they have conducted, and rather more focus on future goals. 3 other codes are used once each, hence “marginalization”, “blaming others”, and “praise”. The segment coded as both “blaming others'' and “praise” is the following: “From a global perspective, the three largest sustainability
challenges related to food production are emissions of greenhouse gases, use of scarce fresh- water resources and the use of feed for animal protein production.
These global challenges are mainly seen as opportunities for the salmon farming industry, as farmed salmon utilises significantly less feed and less freshwater than competing agricultural protein producers, and causes significantly lower
emissions of greenhouse gases” (p.11). When it comes to legitimation strategies, Mowi uses “Marginalization” when writing about how their business affect
biological conditions: “Marine Harvest had no ISA outbreaks in Chile in 2010 and the biological conditions in Chile were in general favourable, contributing to good growth and low mortality. The Group’s challenges related to Pancreas Disease (PD) were limited during the year. Algae blooms caused some mortality in
Canada and Chile in 2010, but the financial consequences were limited. All in all, the biological situation at the start of 2011 is good” (p.7).
2011: Annual report.Mowi is transparent and open regarding their reporting development, and states that this is an area they strive to improve. 2011 is the first year with the use of GRI reporting and this makes the report overall more
informative than in 2010. With a new reporting standard comes more information
about potential impacts Mowi has on the environment. Another change is their reporting on emissions. In this report they include numbers and explain what generates the emissions: “In 2011, we calculated our co2 emissions to be 74 883 tonnes. In 2010, the figure was 78 502 tonnes. The use of diesel, fuel oil and electricity generates most of the co2 emissions. The calculations are based on the Wri/WbcSd method. our activities generating co2 emissions will be further analysed in 2012” (p.130). This segment is coded as “description” and gives a neutral explanation of their emissions. This code is used 35 times throughout the report, whereas 10 of them are also coded “vague writing style”. The percentage of “description” codes that are also coded as “vague” is significantly lower in their 2011 report than their 2010 report.
The code “positive writing style” is for the first time used in their 2011 report, and 4 segments are coded as positive. An example of positive writing style is: “As the world’s leading seafood company, Marine Harvest puts a great deal of effort into securing a truly sustainable development of our industry. We are therefore proud to demonstrate how we have improved our performance in 2011”
(p.109). Other codes that are used for the first time are “admission” and
“indicating facts”. When explaining their policy on fish escapes, Mowi admits that they have failed to meet their goal of 0 escapes: “We try to learn from our mistakes and follow the precautionary principle. The degree to which escaped fish negatively affect wild Atlantic salmon is undetermined, but we believe that
escaped fish may likely have a negative impact on local stock” (p.120). While they admit to not have acted as sustainable as they wanted in regards to fish escapes, they have also used the legitimation strategy “indicating facts” 6 times in their 2011 report, in contrast to 0 times in 2010. An example of a statement
escaped fish may likely have a negative impact on local stock” (p.120). While they admit to not have acted as sustainable as they wanted in regards to fish escapes, they have also used the legitimation strategy “indicating facts” 6 times in their 2011 report, in contrast to 0 times in 2010. An example of a statement