Aquatic animal welfare has shifted from an ethical concern to a material financial and operational risk for seafood companies, according to the 2026 Coller FAIRR Seafood Index, which ranks the sustainability performance of the world’s largest listed seafood producers. While awareness of welfare issues is growing, most of the industry demonstrates substantial gaps between stated commitments and actual outcome measurement, with poor welfare practices creating tangible operational and reputational consequences.
The assessment reveals that 35 million salmon deaths on Scottish farms within three years have prompted regulatory authorities to mandate disclosure of inspection reports, demonstrating how welfare failures escalate into regulatory risk requiring transparent public accounting. Poor animal welfare directly generates operational challenges, including high mortality rates, disease outbreaks, reliance on abrasive chemical treatments, reduced product quality, and increased costs — establishing aquatic welfare as a genuine operational resilience indicator rather than a discretionary sustainability concern.
“Poor welfare can lead to high mortality rates, disease or parasitic outbreaks, higher reliance on abrasive chemicals or treatments, reduced product quality, and increased costs,” according to the FAIRR analysis. “As a result, it is important that investors view aquatic animal welfare as an indicator of operational resilience.”
Gap Between Commitments and Outcomes
While companies achieved varying scores on animal welfare governance, a consistent pattern emerged: companies excelled at describing welfare management but struggled to demonstrate that practices improved actual welfare outcomes. The sector averaged just 26 out of 100 on animal welfare performance — the lowest-scoring topic across the index — despite multiple companies publishing comprehensive welfare policies.
Mowi achieved the highest score at 63/100, reflecting the breadth of publicly disclosed governance framework, including welfare policies, monitoring processes, governance structures and implementation measures. Bakkafrost scored 55/100 and SalMar scored 51/100, both disclosing detailed fish health policies, staff training programs, facility inspections and welfare monitoring systems. Salmones Camanchaca scored 48/100 despite publishing operational welfare procedures covering stocking density, oxygen levels, temperature, and handling protocols.
However, strong disclosure did not necessarily indicate effective welfare implementation. Analysis showed that companies received higher scores for policies and risk assessments, but implementation and outcomes remained deficient. The distinction underscored the importance of outcome-focused reporting rather than governance description alone.
Among the four highest-scoring companies, critical gaps persisted. None reported live transport mortality or stun-to-kill effectiveness rates. Disclosure on cleaner fish welfare was minimal. Although all companies disclosed sea lice counts, none demonstrated a consistent three-year decline in lice levels — a key welfare and production indicator.
Mortality Data and Operational Risk
Mortality data illustrated continuing welfare challenges across the sector. In 2023, one million fish died at a Mowi-operated Scottish farm, with the company attributing losses to warming waters — a risk expected to increase with climate intensification. Diseases accounted for 44% of Mowi’s reported mortalities in 2025, demonstrating disease management challenges underlying welfare concerns.
Salmones Camanchaca reported seawater mortality increasing by 35% in Atlantic salmon and 79% in Coho salmon during 2025. The company was the sole participant disclosing its proportion of fish culled for welfare or health reasons, indicating an industry-wide reluctance to report on forced culling practices.
The concentration of disease-related mortality across major producers suggests systemic welfare management challenges rather than isolated incidents, positioning aquatic welfare as a material financial risk affecting production costs and profitability.
Regulatory Oversight and Data Reliability
Regulatory scrutiny is intensifying following inadequate industry oversight. Between 2021 and 2025, only two welfare inspections were carried out in England and Wales despite widespread operations. In Scotland, just 19 inspections were conducted over the same period despite a sharp rise in welfare complaints to regulators. Scotland’s Rural Affairs Committee has called for stronger regulation, greater oversight and improved transparency, noting the Scottish Government had not accepted recommendations to address high farmed fish mortality.
Recent investigations raised questions about the reliability of company disclosures. Animal Equality found that Bakkafrost misreported a farm as fallow — a critical biosecurity measure — and understated fish remaining on site, illustrating how incomplete welfare data creates regulatory and investor risk. Without accurate mortality, sea lice and antibiotic use data, investors may miss early signals of disease, production losses and regulatory risk that increase costs and weaken profitability.
Recommendations for Industry Evolution
For seafood producers, strengthening governance represents an essential first step. Companies should establish formal welfare policies supported by measurable targets, clear implementation processes and regular public reporting on welfare outcomes — moving beyond governance disclosure toward actual outcome verification.
Retailers and food service companies have an important role to play, as well. While many adopted animal welfare commitments for land-based animals and sustainable seafood policies, integrating aquatic animal welfare into existing policies represents a natural next step in responsible sourcing. A range of Edinburgh restaurants recently removed farmed salmon from their menus due to welfare concerns, demonstrating how poor practices can translate to business losses when reputation is affected.
Certification and rating schemes incorporating welfare into frameworks further represent an important step toward improving animal welfare. The integration of welfare data into existing seafood traceability systems — such as Global Dialogue on Seafood Traceability — would enable welfare information to travel alongside other traceability data throughout supply chains, improving buyer access to welfare performance indicators.
For investors, the financial materiality of aquatic welfare warrants inclusion in investment due diligence. Investor engagement asking companies to evidence welfare implementation through quantitative indicators — rather than policy descriptions alone — creates accountability pressure as regulatory scrutiny and stakeholder expectations increase.
