
Efforts to address human rights issues in the fisheries industry are starting to move forward. With the entry into force of the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the strengthening of human rights due diligence in global supply chains, Japanese companies are among the players facing demands for concrete action.
In this situation, Ryusuke Tanaka* and Wakao Hanaoka discussed current conditions and the future outlook for human rights issues in Japan’s fisheries industry. Ryusuke Tanaka, who appeared on stage at Tokyo Sustainable Seafood Summit (TSSS) 2023, serves as a Programme Officer of the International Labour Organization (ILO), a United Nations specialized agency that seeks to improve working conditions and living standards for workers worldwide. Wakao Hanaoka is CEO of Seafood Legacy Co., Ltd., a company that since TSSS2024 has worked to make sustainable seafood the mainstream choice.
Ryusuke Tanaka
Born in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, Ryusuke Tanaka graduated from Keio University and holds an LLM degree from the New York University School of Law. After working as an attorney, he took his current position in 2016. Currently, he is engaged in activities aimed at the proliferation of international labor standards in the context of the SDGs, business, and human rights, and is responsible for the formulation and implementation of projects related to global supply chains. Collaborating with the Japanese government, employers and workers’ organizations, and civil society, he serves as a liaison with the embassies of numerous countries, and has also served as a member of a working group involved in the National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as a member of a study group for the Guidelines on Respect for Human Rights in Responsible Supply Chains of Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry.
Wakao Hanaoka
Wakao Hanaoka majored in marine environmental science and marine biology at a university in Florida, U.S.A. He subsequently worked on marine environmental conservation projects in the Maldives and Malaysia, and since 2007 has planned, launched, and led sustainable seafood projects at the Japan branches of international environmental NGOs. After going independent, he founded and became CEO of Seafood Legacy Co., Ltd. in Tokyo in July 2015. Setting the goal of “passing on an abundance of seafood, a symbol of the connections between marine ecosystems, economy, and society, to the next generation (legacy)” as his purpose, he is now tackling a system shift that connects domestic and overseas fisheries industries, financial institutions, governments, NGOs, academia, media, and other diverse stakeholders to ensure that mainstream seafood distribution in Asia pursues environmental sustainability and social responsibility.
Hanaoka: 2024 was a memorable year, with the Tokyo Sustainable Seafood Summit (TSSS) reaching its 10th event. What kind of year was it for you?
Tanaka: It was certainly a year of major movements. Governments, companies, and labor unions were all active in their own ways.
Hanaoka: What movements took place in the fisheries field?
Tanaka: The ILO has very few experts in the fisheries sector. Speaking honestly, I myself haven’t focused much on the fisheries industry, but from around last year, major companies have reached out and there have been more opportunities to field requests for dialogues and events concerning sustainability. I feel like I’m gradually catching up through taking part in active discussions.
Hanaoka: I think your speech at TSSS2023 was a trigger for ramping up discussion in the industry. TSSS participants listened attentively to what you said about human rights violations taking place in fisheries industry supply chains. Your comment that “this is about your markets, so nothing will change unless you not only listen but also act” left an impression. That made me feel you’re someone with the sort of convictions that draw in others.
Tanaka: What surprised me when I first took part in TSSS was its scale. I think it’s uncommon in other industries to see such a big event that involves human rights and sustainability. The sessions also have a good balance with officials from government and NGOs taking part, so all sorts of participants can express their opinions. I thought it was interesting how discussions were thrown out there, in a good way, without conclusions.
On the matter of human rights, first of all, it’s not a matter for mere study. Japanese companies tend to do all they can to gain knowledge and keep up with change, but the field of human rights in particular encompasses areas that don’t come into view just through writings and theory. The term “human rights due diligence” itself is a foreign term with a difficult sound to it, and is prone to leaving people unsure of how far to go.
Just as we all have human rights, so do all laborers involved in a company’s business. People connected in a company’s supply chain work to create better products. It’s important that potential human rights violations within that chain are felt as matters of personal involvement.
Hanaoka: Could you briefly tell us again about the ILO as an organization?
Tanaka: The ILO is a United Nations specialized agency involved in labor. It was founded in 1919 together with the League of Nations, making it the oldest specialized agency in the United Nations family. It sets treaties, recommendations, and other standards known as international labor standards.
I was originally an attorney, and joined the ILO to learn more about how international labor standards are implemented. I think a key point of the current ILO is that it offers a wide range of support in the form of development cooperation, not only setting standards but also promoting ratification of treaties, enhancing the supervisory capacity of administrators, and preparing labor-related programs and statutory policy.
Such movements can also be seen in Japan, going back several years. The Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have been funding these areas, including in the context of business support. Recently, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare has launched support for supply chains, including in agriculture and fisheries, in forms focused on business and human rights.
Hanaoka: Japan hasn’t ratified the Work in Fishing Convention treaty of the ILO (No. 188; hereinafter “Fishing Convention”). What are your thoughts on this?
Tanaka: Through ratification, a country expresses its agreement with the aims of a treaty and its intent to observe the treaty. Even if existing conditions are bad, ratification provides diverse stakeholders with incentive to make improvements and forms a start for making improvements led by the state.
What’s interesting about the ILO treaty is its characteristics. When it was adopted, hurdles were deliberately lowered. This was done to allow as many countries as possible to participate, as the ILO’s 187 member states have differing legal systems and political stances.
Hanaoka: Is that so?
Tanaka: Yes. Laws in Japan pass through the Cabinet Legislation Bureau, so in aspects including wording, consistency with other laws is carefully checked and definitions are also precise. By contrast, ILO treaties set out globally applicable core principles. As countries have a variety of legal systems, the treaties try to keep their content to abstract concepts, not something perfect that fits the circumstances of all countries. That’s something I noticed upon joining the ILO.
Hanaoka: Do the Japanese government’s reasons for not wanting to ratify the treaty have something to do with that?
Tanaka: Some wording issues are involved, but I think the main concern is over whether there would be any discrepancies with Japan’s legal system. Because the wording of the treaty is abstract, it’s open to broad interpretation. So, the Japanese government’s position is to ratify the treaty after further legislative development.
I’d personally like for Japan to ratify the Fishing Convention, but whether a country ratifies is, in the end, a matter of state sovereignty. The goals of the country also come into play, so we’re unable to apply pressure from outside. It’s an area where domestic discussion is needed.
Hanaoka: That’s why it’s important to further communicate the need for ratification to the Japanese government.
Hanaoka: Seafood Legacy works under a theory of change, hoping to make Japan’s market power a force for improving production sites and their supply chains. How can the Japanese market exert a positive impact on overseas production sites and their supply chains, similar to the impact that the EU exerts on Thailand*?
Tanaka: The standpoint of the ILO is that government, workers, and employers all need to play their roles. Companies, though, are the parties that actually import and procure vast amounts of marine products, yet the transparency of their purchasing routes remains low.
I think that sales managers in companies that effectively function as trading companies have the ability to perceive risks of human rights violations. In the end, however, business tends to come first, and there’s a considerable gap between the front lines of business and the departments in charge of sustainability and human rights. Ultimately, though, a company’s top management has to be able to provide explanations. If reports of human rights violation or human trafficking crop up at points where a company engages in sourcing, the company’s president has to take responsibility for explaining things.
Letters and other calls for action from NGOs apparently rise to companies’ upper management these days, for reasons including the publicizing of companies’ responses. At those times, a company has to be able to solidly account for its present state and issues, and its plans to deal with those. Creating the materials to do so is a difficult task for a sustainability department alone. I think it’s vital that sales staff have a human rights mindset and a sensitivity toward risk.
Tanaka: Another thing I see in Japanese companies is a tendency to disclose information only after complete preparation, a sort of full-score perfectionism.
Hanaoka: I can’t agree with you more.
Tanaka: It may be a matter of the psychology of managers, ensuring that there are no problems and therefore nothing to be seen as one’s personal mistake. But the world of human rights goes in the other direction.
I don’t think what the world wants is cleanly glossed-over information disclosure. At the end of the supply chain, where every business is connected to social issues and where government oversight doesn’t extend, forced labor and child labor are harsh realities. A company, though, may be able to make approaches toward these through its business dealings. That’s where companies have influence, and civil society wants companies to exercise that. I feel that corporate managers disclosing information only after it’s perfect goes in the opposite direction from this.
Hanaoka: It means undergoing a change in mindset to understand that it’s companies that can make approaches to areas of human rights violations and be of aid. I think this requires enhancing transparency, not hiding things.
Hanaoka: Enhancing transparency is a positive for society as a whole, as well as a risk hedge for companies. I think it also leads to enhancement of corporate value.
Tanaka: That’s right. Corporate value is generally something explained by top management, but I think it has to be considered separately from legal responsibility. The role that companies in the fisheries industry play is increasingly reaching into the realm of sustainability. As that happens, if companies want to demonstrate contribution to the SDGs aimed at a sustainable seafood economy, I think they need to take, and explain, even a single impactful step forward.
I expect that preparing an accountability structure by which top management can communicate information brought up from the field level will become a component of social responsibility. If fulfilling this responsibility comes to be seen as a strength of companies, actions to enhance transparency should move forward.
Hanaoka: Where selling fish at low prices has been the job in the past, the demands of society are now changing. Whether companies can adapt to that will affect their survival, as those that hide human rights risks will be weeded out.
Tanaka: That’s right. There are definitely areas where human rights issues are overlooked, so by holding an awareness of human rights, a company can realize that its actions could exacerbate poverty for people or conversely could change their lives for the better. I think it’s vital that light be shed on this area.
In Part II of this feature, discussion will deepen over specific approaches to the mainstreaming of sustainable seafood and the outlook for 2030.
Original Japanese text: Chiho Iuchi
Photographs: Nobuyuki Aoki