On 17 January, the High Seas Treaty (Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction, BBNJ) entered into force, aimed at protecting the ocean and managing maritime activities in international waters on behalf of present and future generations.
By enabling the establishment of marine protected areas and other spatial planning tools for economic activities in waters not subject to national jurisdiction, the Treaty may facilitate the achievement of the 30% ocean protection target by 2030 set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
Conserving natural systems and protecting the benefits that the ocean provides to humanity, however, will be difficult, as there are still serious gaps in corporate reporting on the impacts of maritime activities on the ocean, making it incomplete, inconsistent and non-transparent.
The report on blue economy
A study published in the journal Nature analysed the sustainability reports and annual reports of 75 of the largest companies operating in the blue economy (cruise tourism, shipbuilding and equipment, offshore oil and gas, offshore wind energy, port activities, seafood products, shipbuilding and repair, and container transport), examining which impacts are reported, whether they are measured quantitatively, and whether or not companies have set short-, medium- and long-term mitigation targets. The analysis reveals that the largest maritime companies disclose only limited data on the impacts of their activities on biodiversity and marine ecosystems and that the data reported by the various businesses are not comparable with each other.
“The biggest problem is how narrow the current scope of ocean reporting impact is,” explains Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre in the University of Stockholm, Sweden, and first author of the study, to Renewable Matter. “Companies primarily mention their energy use and emissions, but they rarely measure or set targets for more ocean-specific impacts like habitat alteration, overfishing, underwater noise, or collision with fauna. Companies also rely on a wide array of indicators (we found 443 different ones in our sample), limiting comparability and highlighting the absence of common standards. Notably, less than one-third of companies reported on biodiversity impacts, and no single biodiversity indicator was used by more than two firms.”
Shared benefits, but not responsibilities
The study reveals that there are currently no specific frameworks for ocean reporting, indicating that “although the ocean economy exists conceptually, it describes a set of industries that share benefits but not accountability.”
The authors note that it is becoming increasingly common for companies to include sustainable development goals (SDGs) in their public reports. Nevertheless, these indicators are not sufficient to guarantee the conservation of marine ecosystems and ensure that maritime activities are conducted in a sustainable manner. The 2030 targets agreed upon by the parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in the context of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework 2022 would instead provide a more holistic basis for achieving this goal.
In particular, Target 15 requires countries to create rules that ensure large transnational companies and financial institutions regularly assess and disclose the impacts and risks of their activities on biodiversity, aiming to reduce damage and promote sustainable production models. A wider range of information reporting, say the authors, will also be necessary for the effective implementation of the High Seas Treaty.
The EU has relinquished its role as a champion of transparency
Nature's article cites five examples of environmental reporting frameworks, including the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), each with its own strengths and limitations. “We don't endorse or recommend a particular framework. We are highlighting several prominent ones and arguing for better tailoring of these existing frameworks to the ocean," explains Jean-Baptiste Jouffray.
Until last December, the EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) was the only mandatory framework. But with the European Parliament's vote on 16 December 2025 and the Omnibus I agreement, the EU has backtracked on sustainability, abandoning its leading role as a promoter of transparency at the international level.
“Before the first Omnibus package, Europe’s sustainability reporting rules set the global benchmark for transparency, including on the responsible management of marine resources (i.e., gravels, deep-sea minerals, seafood) and the negative impacts of pollution,” explains Mariana Ferreira, Head of Sustainable Finance Policy at the WWF European Policy Office, to Renewable Matter. “By removing more than 70% of mandatory data points, much of the depth and clarity companies once had to provide is stripped away, particularly on ocean impacts.”
“Raising the threshold for companies reduces the number of companies in the seafood sector required to comply with due diligence obligations,” continues Ferreira. “Marine issues are no longer clearly framed or explicitly prioritised, reduced instead to scattered references and high-level objectives. This makes it far harder to assess corporate pressures on marine ecosystems and undermines global commitments such as the Global Biodiversity Framework and the High Seas Treaty. Without explicit and measurable disclosures, meaningful corporate accountability for ocean sustainability becomes increasingly out of reach.”
The lack of data is a problem for investments
“Regulations could play a major role in moving from generic, largely voluntary disclosure to mandatory, geolocated, ocean-specific reporting. They can incentivise better practices and ensure not just transparency but also accountability,” explains Jean-Baptiste Jouffray. “Ultimately, someone needs to act on that reporting, be it the regulators or the financiers of these companies.”
According to an analysis carried out by Duke University's Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment & Sustainability, in which Jouffray also participated, the global financial services sector could potentially promote a more sustainable ocean economy by encouraging maritime companies to invest in, finance and insure only activities that are not harmful to biodiversity and marine ecosystems. Nevertheless, the researchers caution that this is not feasible in practice, as the information required to understand the ecological impact of the activities carried out by individual companies using ocean resources is not available.
Ocean and human rights
Obligations for companies to report on their maritime activities already exist in international law, albeit indirectly derived from the obligations of states. “States have due diligence obligations with regards to the protection of human rights and the prevention of significant environmental harm. In these areas, due diligence can be exercised through many means, including undertaking environmental impact assessments, which require analysis on the impacts of an activity and monitoring and reporting”, explains Michelle Bender, legal advisor and head of ocean rights at Ocean Vision Legal, an international law firm specialising in ocean protection and its interconnections with climate and human rights, to Renewable Matter.
Bender recalls that the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) recently confirmed that the duty of due diligence also extends to implementation and enforcement, including through administrative oversight of public and private actors. This means that “these State obligations extend to private actors,” explains Bender. Recently, the Special Rapporteur on the human right to a healthy environment, Astrid Puentes Riaño, published a report outlining specific obligations relating to the oceans, which further highlights the responsibilities of businesses in the context of human rights. In paragraph 88, the report notes that “businesses must implement human rights and environmental due diligence, including assessing the actual and potential environmental and human rights impacts of their activities or those directly linked to their operations, products or services and disclosing that information publicly. Businesses must also provide adequate redress when their actions affect human rights and cause environmental harm.”
In collaboration with Ocean Vision Legal and the Gallifrey Foundation, Bender works to recognise the intrinsic rights of the ocean through the Ocean Rights movement. “Under an Ocean Rights framework, Ocean protection is the norm, not an option,” continues Michelle Bender. “I could imagine a system in place similar to what is required in order to protect and ensure human rights. States, and by extension private actors, would have the obligation to ensure their actions do not infringe upon the Ocean's rights. Companies may need to disclose how their activities affect the Ocean’s ability to exist, thrive, regenerate, and maintain ecological integrity (i.e., the Ocean’s inherent rights) and how they avoid, minimise, restore, and remediate rights infringements, even if those impacts are not material financially. Additionally, environmental impact assessments would become a framework for environmental protection, rather than one that facilitates development through economic trade-offs.” Together with other partners, Ocean Vision Legal is developing Blue Governance models for corporate responsibility towards the ocean. A first model is expected to be available by the end of the year.
Cover: photo Envato