Why the Ocean Economy Would Benefit from More Transparency

The ocean economy—spanning shipping, seafood, offshore energy, tourism, and more—is booming, generating between $2 and $3 trillion in annual economic activity.

Yet as this blue acceleration takes hold, a new study co-authored by an international group of scholars*, including professor Dan Vermeer of Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, highlights a surprising gap: most of the world’s largest ocean-dependent companies share little about how their operations affect the seas.

In the paper, Identifying and closing gaps in corporate reporting of ocean impacts, published in Nature Sustainability, the researchers show that while large firms routinely track energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, they rarely measure or set targets for more ocean-specific risks like oil spills, habitat destruction, or invasive species.

“Businesses have been getting better at reporting carbon and climate impacts,” Vermeer said. “But when it comes to the ocean, the level of transparency is strikingly thin. That gap creates risks—not just for ecosystems, but for investors, regulators, and communities that depend on a healthy ocean.”

The ocean industry’s reporting blind spot

Some companies publish sustainability reports to share information about their environmental impact. When they don’t issue such reports, they may—or not—disclose similar information in their mandatory, annual financial documents.

The researchers investigated both sustainability and financial reports of 75 of the world’s biggest players across eight industries tied to the ocean—from container shipping to cruise lines. They found that 96% of firms mentioned energy use and 92% mentioned pollution in their reports. But fewer than half mentioned issues like habitat alteration, and just 11% acknowledged risks of vessel collisions with marine animals.

This mismatch reflects a broader challenge, Vermeer said: most environmental disclosure frameworks have focused on climate, leaving biodiversity and ocean health behind.

“If companies don’t even recognize these impacts in their reporting, it’s nearly impossible to manage them effectively,” he said.

Too many indicators, too little clarity

Even when companies do measure ocean impacts, the picture lacks consistency, Vermeer said.

The study found that firms used 443 different indicators to describe their environmental performance—most related to energy and emissions; only 16% addressed biodiversity issues such as biomass removal or invasive species.

This patchwork of metrics makes it nearly impossible to compare companies and hold them accountable, Vermeer said.

“We’re drowning in data points that are very hard to compare,” he said. “Investors and policymakers need clear, comparable numbers. Without that, reporting becomes more of a branding exercise than a tool to help external oversight.”

Why oceans matter for business

As the ocean economy is growing, so are the stakes, Vermeer said. Industries that depend on the ocean for shipping routes, fish stocks, or coastal tourism are vulnerable to degraded ecosystems. Ecosystem disruption can trigger financial losses, legal liabilities, and reputational damage.

“If companies ignore their impacts on the ocean, they’re ignoring risks to their own supply chains and long-term profitability. Ocean health is not altruism—it’s a core business imperative,” he said.

From voluntary to mandatory

Currently, most disclosure of ocean impacts is voluntary, but some policymakers around the world are tightening rules: the European Union has mandated reporting requirements through its Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. International agreements like the UN’s Global Biodiversity Framework also call for more rigorous monitoring.

For Vermeer, these changes represent both a challenge and an opportunity: “Companies that start building credible ocean reporting now will be ahead of the curve. Those that don’t may miss opportunities with ocean-interested stakeholders or find themselves scrambling when regulators or investors demand the data.”

Towards shared accountability

The study concludes with a call for shared accountability: as more policymakers embrace the goal of a sustainable ocean economy, progress will depend on stronger regulations, standardized metrics, and capacity building for firms to measure and disclose ocean-specific impacts, the authors write.

“Now we have a baseline of the ocean impacts that companies report, so we’re hoping that this can provide a good starting point for wider transparency in how companies affect marine biodiversity” said John Virdin, director of the Ocean Policy Program at Duke’s Nicholas Institute for Energy, Environment and Sustainability, and a co-author on the paper.

Better reporting won’t just protect marine ecosystems, Vermeer said. It could also help companies lower their risks, attract sustainable finance, and maintain public trust.

“The ocean economy is growing fast,” he said. “The question is whether it grows in ways that destroy the very ecosystems it depends on—or in ways that sustain them. Transparency is the first step toward making sure we get it right.”

----

*The paper, Identifying and closing gaps in corporate reporting of ocean impacts is co-authored by Jean Baptiste Jouffray of Stanford University, Duke University’s John Virdin, Jan Bebbington of Lancaster University, Robert Blasiak of Stockholm Resilience Centre, Daniel Erich Prosi of European University Institute, Duke University’s Andrea Dunchus, Marta Lo Presti, Jeremy Pare, Juan Pablo Quintero, R. Rosenthal, and OECD’s Piero Tortora.