Mr. Lapazza Trairas is working on issues of human rights and marine sustainability at the international NGO Oxfam. In the first part, he introduced us to the system in which international NGOs that can communicate with international supply chains and local NGOs that have direct connections to the field work together to solve human rights and sustainability issues. (<Read Part 1）
In Part 2, Mr. Nakamura spoke about the content of the recommendations regarding human rights due diligence (HRDD) for Asian companies, what is necessary for Asian companies to take the first step, his advice for those involved, and his expectations for Japanese companies.
--You are releasing a policy paper on HRDD in the Asian seafood and palm oil industries in 2023. What was your objective in focusing on the Asian seafood industry?
As Commissioning Manager, my objective with this paper was to link the global concepts of human rights and ocean sustainability with the realities in Asia.
The concept of HRDD is well established in the West, but in Asia, understanding has only just begun. Before even thinking about putting it into practice, it was first necessary to understand the current state of HRDD and the awareness of companies in Asia. Therefore, we first researched the current state of affairs and compiled recommendations based on that research.
- Did what you found from your research match your expectations?
A few leading companies understand the risks but have yet to make any real commitments, which was to be expected, but there were discoveries to be made about the cost and reward structures for companies to make the move.
First, they need industry-wide change to start taking action. Even if one company wants to change, it is difficult to do so alone without the support and incentives of buyers and business partners.
New initiatives incur costs. They are complex, so collaboration is necessary to create synergy and distribute the load. And the advantages of taking the lead in making a move and external evaluations need to be visible. ... I learned that a number of such factors come into play.
Overall, is there any movement happening?
The hurdles are still high. The concept itself is still new in Asia, and even industry leaders understand it, but it's not easy to get started.
That is why this paper focuses on the costs and benefits to companies. What are the benefits to business of addressing the problem, and what are the costs of leaving it unaddressed? And it also focuses on creating an environment in which companies can act quickly when they discover an inherent risk in their supply chain. The costs must be shared across the industry, and companies that act first must be recognized by others.
And the starting point for making such changes is to involve the parties in the supply chain.
--So it seems that the key is the people involved.
HRDD as a process embedded in business is essential, but the key is to reduce the burden on people in the field. To do this, it is important that the people involved are involved. Human rights cannot be treated formally, like "another certification added to the business." Research and measures are meaningless unless they are substantive and connected to the people in the field.
--You mentioned in your paper that "this is not a compliance issue." That makes sense, but it seems like it might be difficult to get companies to change their way of thinking.
Yes, but this is an important issue. Human rights issues are not just one item in certification or compliance. They are an issue of the supply chain structure in the first place, and an issue of the essential responsibility of companies. It is the essential responsibility of companies to know the impact their business has on people and to solve any problems that arise, and it is a fundamental part of corporate activities.
Human rights are integrated into the three pillars of corporate sustainability (economy, environment, and society). Companies must take responsibility for this and have mechanisms in place to quickly resolve or prevent problems from occurring.
For example, if a problem occurs at a worker's workplace, the first step is to have an internal system for immediately reporting it and leading to a solution. However, in the cases we have seen and heard about, it is not uncommon for workers on the front lines to first report the problem to NGOs or civic groups. There are no appropriate systems or contact points within the company, or even if there are, workers do not feel comfortable reporting, meaning that they are not functioning as an internal reporting system.
Our main focus is on workers on the ground, but it is companies that have the power to change the situation. Governments also have a role to play in establishing laws and regulations, but it is large international companies that can actually change the fishing industry and change the situation on the ground through the supply chain. They have the influence over the law, the power to bring about change, and the responsibility to do so.
--What do you think will be the key to change in Asia's fisheries industry?
The current problem is largely one of overexploitation of fisheries resources, caused by destructive fishing practices, overfishing and a lack of transparency. Combined with climate change, marine ecosystems are facing major changes, which are affecting the communities that depend on the sea for their livelihoods.
Changing this will require strong measures such as legislation, but it will also require collaboration among multiple stakeholders and innovative approaches.
We place importance on the sustainability of marine ecosystems because their deterioration will undoubtedly worsen human rights issues. As I have said, these two issues are strongly linked. When fish stocks decrease, fishing crews have to travel farther, which means longer working hours. In the distant ocean, it is difficult to see the working conditions. Furthermore, climate change is increasing the dangers at sea. In other words, the deterioration of the global environment will also worsen human rights issues.
--In that situation, is there anything Japanese fishing companies and other companies can do to improve the situation in Asia?
I think Japanese seafood companies as a whole have the potential to set an example of advanced initiatives. Not just one or two companies, but as a group, they can set a new standard for the seafood industry. They can demonstrate best practices for adopting HRDD processes, increasing supply chain transparency, and connecting with the parties involved in issues, and encourage other countries to follow suit.
In the US and Europe, especially in Europe, consumer awareness is changing, the retail industry is changing, and these changes are even reaching the supply chain. Meanwhile, Japan's supply chain also has strong ties with the fishing industry in Indonesia and Thailand. In that context, I would like to build a cooperative relationship in Asia.
--It would be great if Japanese companies could not only lead the way, but also work together with other Asian countries to build a new system.
That's what I think. To achieve this, we may need more opportunities for dialogue with Japanese companies and suppliers.
--It seems like there are still many challenges ahead, so do you have any advice for business people and readers who are trying to bring about change?
I would like to offer two words: one is innovation and the other is collaboration.
Seafood sustainability is a complex issue with many contributing factors, and there is not just one problem to solve. Innovation is needed to overcome these issues. We need to aim for fundamental solutions, not just through technology, but through new ways of thinking.
But innovation alone is not enough, and collaboration across positions and specialties is also essential. It is important for people with a wide range of specialties, knowledge and skills to come together and work together to create solutions.
For example, if we combine Japanese seafood companies with suppliers in Southeast Asia, and even government and retail businesses, then perhaps we will be able to see a way forward by combining such collaboration and innovation.
--Was the Asia IRB Forum, which was held in February 2025, also a forum for creating such collaboration?
That's right. Our forum cannot solve all problems. However, we play a part as a place for dialogue to find solutions by bringing together the diverse backgrounds and problems of various countries and regions.
--Finally, please let me ask you one more question. We at Seafood Legacy have set a goal of "making sustainable seafood mainstream" by 2030, but what do you think is necessary to make it "mainstream"?
This is also difficult... but it's an important question. Let me answer three questions.
The first essential thing is a strong policy framework, and the second is to embed the idea of sustainability into business operations.
And the third is the consumer. Consumers are very important players, and their behavior changes the market, which leads to changes for all players. It's not easy, but it's already happening in the West.
-- It's not easy to get your message across to consumers, is it? What's an effective way to communicate?
Even here in Thailand, seafood sustainability and human rights issues are not something consumers are aware of when they go shopping every day. To change this situation, I think it is more effective to use simple words that are directly connected to people's lives, such as "If things continue like this, we won't be able to eat fish anymore," rather than using technical terms or information like "human rights." We need to make this more persuasive with objective evidence.
--It seems that it can sometimes be difficult for companies to be aware of risks within their supply chains.
That's right. Seafood is uniquely difficult in that many of the problems actually occur at sea. That's why we place the utmost importance on getting the people involved involved and listening directly to the various parties involved. That's the first step to identifying and resolving problems. Related to this, it's also important to have a company's internal reporting system functioning properly.
--First of all, we may need to start by finding out who the people involved are and where they are.
I absolutely agree with that. To that end, instead of just listening to a small number of people, we need to listen to a variety of people on the ground, including those in the supply chain. There are sure to be risks that can only be seen after listening to them.
Rapazza Trairas
He is Private Sector Program Manager at Oxfam in Asia, where he leads supply chain work in Southeast Asia and works with civil society and NGOs on the ground to protect worker human rights and marine sustainability.
Interviewed and written by: Keiko Ihara
He was in charge of design research and concept studies at a general design office until 2002. Since 2008, he has been involved in design research at infield design, and also works as a freelance writer and translator of design-related articles.
share
Key terms and concepts to understand seafood sustainability.
