advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/7/3/eabc8041/DC1

Supplementary Materials for

The Ocean 100: Transnational corporations in the ocean economy

J. Virdin*, T. Vegh, J.-B. Jouffray, R. Blasiak, S. Mason, H. Österblom, D. Vermeer, H. Wachtmeister, N. Werner

*Corresponding author. Email: john.virdin@duke.edu

Published 13 January 2021, Sci. Adv. 7, eabc8041 (2021)

DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abc8041

The PDF file includes:

Tables S1 to S4 Section S1 Figs. S1 to S4 References

Other Supplementary Material for this manuscript includes the following: (available at advances.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/7/3/eabc8041/DC1)

Data file S1

Supplementary Materials

Table S1. Detailed information on the ten largest TNCs within the eight core industries of

the ocean economy. * indicate publicly listed companies that are majority state-owned. Note that

some private companies can be joint ventures (e.g., Ocean Network Express) or fully-owned

subsidiaries (e.g., Disney Cruise Line) of publicly-listed parent owners.

Company Revenues

(USD billion

in 2018)

Headquarters Ownership Main stock

exchange

Number of

Subsidiaries

Offshore oil & gas (USD 830 billion)

Saudi Aramco 91.3 Dhahran,

Saudi Arabia

Public* Saudi Stock

Exchange

128

Petrobras 45.7 Rio de

Janeiro, Brazil

Public* Brasil Bolsa

Balcão

130

National

Iranian Oil

Company

44.9 Tehran, Iran State-owned NA 5

Pemex 39.3 Mexico City,

Mexico

State-owned NA 63

ExxonMobil 38.8 Irving, USA Public New York

Stock

Exchange

648

Royal Dutch

Shell

36.9 The Hague,

Netherlands

Public London

Stock

Exchange

1,264

Equinor 36.1 Stavanger,

Norway

Public* Oslo Stock

Exchange

233

Total 33.4 Paris, France Public Euronext

Paris

1,300

BP 28.0 London, UK Public London

Stock

Exchange

1,596

Qatar

Petroleum

26.9 Doha, Qatar State-owned NA 148

Marine equipment and construction (USD 354 billion)

Hyundai

Engineering

and

Construction

15.0 Seoul, South

Korea

Public Korea Stock

Exchange

77

TechnipFMC 12.6 London, UK Public Euronext

Paris

331

Saipem 9.8 Milan, Italy Public Borsa

Italiana -

MTA

(Mercato

Telematico

Azionario)

119

Wartsila 6.0 Helsinki,

Finland

Public Nasdaq

OMX -

Helsinki

108

Subsea 7 4.1 Sutton, UK Public Oslo Stock

Exchange

96

Hitachi Zosen 3.5 Osaka, Japan Public Tokyo Stock

Exchange

164

Dredging,

Environmental

and Marine

Engineering

3.1 Zwijndrecht,

Belgium

Private NA 124

Royal

Boskalis

Westminster

3.0 Papendrecht,

Netherlands

Public Euronext

Amsterdam

253

Aker

Solutions

ASA

2.9 Fornebu,

Norway

Public Oslo Stock

Exchange

76

Van Oord 2.1 Rotterdam,

Netherlands

Private NA 25

Seafood (USD 276 billion)

Maruha

Nichiro

7.5 Tokyo, Japan Public Tokyo Stock

Exchange

148

Nippon Suisan

Kaisha

6.2 Tokyo, Japan Public Tokyo Stock

Exchange

179

Dongwon

Industries

4.8 Seoul, South

Korea

Public Korea Stock

Exchange

56

Mowi ASA 4.5 Bergen,

Norway

Public Oslo Stock

Exchange

92

Thai Union

Group

4.1 Samut

Sakhon,

Thailand

Public Stock

Exchange of

Thailand

54

Mitsubishi 3.6 Tokyo, Japan Public Tokyo Stock

Exchange

924

OUG

Holdings

2.9 Osaka, Japan Public Tokyo Stock

Exchange

26

Austevoll

Seafood

2.8 Storebø,

Norway

Public Oslo Stock

Exchange

14

Trident

Seafoods

2.5 Seattle, USA Private NA 63

Kyokuyo 2.3 Tokyo, Japan Public Tokyo Stock

Exchange

36

Container shipping (USD 156 billion)

A.P. Møller-

Maersk

28.4 Copenhagen,

Denmark

Public Nasdaq

OMX -

Copenhagen

882

Mediterranean

Shipping

Company

25.1 Geneva,

Switzerland

Private NA 204

CMA CGM 22.9 Marseille,

France

Private NA 358

COSCO

Shipping

16.2 Tianjin, China Public* Hong Kong

Stock

Exchange

139

Hapag-Lloyd 11.5 Hamburg,

Germany

Public Frankfurt

Stock

Exchange

179

Ocean

Network

Express

10.9 Singapore,

Singapore

Private NA 20

Evergreen

Marine

Corporation

5.6 Taipei,

Taiwan

Public Taiwan

Stock

Exchange

97

Yang Ming

Marine

Transport

4.5 Keelung,

Taiwan

Public Taiwan

Stock

Exchange

112

Pacific

International

Lines

4.5 Singapore,

Singapore

Private NA 177

Hyundai

Merchant

Marine

3.7 Seoul, South

Korea

Public Korea Stock

Exchange

91

Shipbuilding and repair (USD 118 billion)

China State

Shipbuilding

Corp Ltd

16.6 Beijing, China State owned NA 79

Hyundai

Heavy

Industries

11.7 Seoul, South

Korea

Public Korea Stock

Exchange

48

Daewoo

Shipbuilding

& Marine

Equipment

8.6 Geoje, South

Korea

Public* Korea Stock

Exchange

22

General

Dynamics

8.5 Reston, USA Public New York

Stock

Exchange

523

Huntington

Ingalls

Industries

8.2 Newport

News, USA

Public New York

Stock

Exchange

97

China

Shipbuilding

6.6 Beijing, China State owned NA 86

Industry

Company Ltd

Fincantieri

Group

6.3 Trieste, Italy Public* Borsa

Italiana -

MTA

(Mercato

Telematico

Azionario)

112

Samsung

Heavy

Industries

4.7 Seongnam,

South Korea

Public Korea Stock

Exchange

23

Naval Group 4.1 Paris, France State owned NA 27

BAE Systems 3.8 Farnborough,

United

Kingdom

Public London

Stock

Exchange

592

Cruise tourism (USD 47 billion)

Carnival

Corporation

18.3

Miami, USA Public New York

Stock

Exchange

268

Royal

Caribbean

Cruises

9.4

Miami, USA Public New York

Stock

Exchange

168

Norwegian

Cruise Line

Holdings

5.8 Miami, USA Public New York

Stock

Exchange

34

MSC Cruises 3.1 Geneva,

Switzerland

Private NA 77

Genting Hong

Kong

2.3 Hong Kong,

China

Public Hong Kong

Stock

Exchange

37

TUI Cruises 1.1 Hamburg,

Germany

Private NA 11

Disney Cruise

Line

1.0 Celebration,

USA

Private NA NA

Hurtigruten 1.0 Tromsø,

Norway

Private NA 29

Silversea

Cruises

0.7 Fontvieille,

Monaco

Private NA 13

Viking

Cruises

0.6 Basel,

Switzerland

Private NA 4

Port activities (USD 38 billion)

DP World 5.7 Dubai, UAE State-owned NA 124

Shanghai

International

Port Group

5.6 Shanghai,

China

Public Shanghai

Stock

Exchange

157

CK Hutchison

Holdings

4.5 Hong Kong,

China

Public Hong Kong

Stock

Exchange

77

APM

Terminals

4.1 The Hague,

Netherlands

Private NA 0

PSA

International

3.0 Singapore Private NA 33

Tianjin Port

Holdings

1.9 Tianjin, China Public Shanghai

Stock

Exchange

54

Bolloré Group 1.8 Puteaux,

France

Public Euronext

Paris

482

Hamburger

Hafen und

Logistik

1.5 Hamburg,

Germany

Public Frankfurt

Stock

Exchange

52

International

Container

Terminal

Services

1.4 Manila,

Philippines

Public Philippine

Stock

Exchange

33

China

Merchants

Port Group

Company

1.4 Shenzhen,

China

State-owned Shenzhen

Stock

Exchange

26

Offshore wind (USD 37 billion)

Ørsted 4.7

Fredericia,

Denmark

Public* Nasdaq

OMX -

Copenhagen

248

E.ON 2.4

Essen,

Germany

Public Frankfurt

Stock

Exchange

895

Vattenfall 2.1

Solna, Sweden State-owned NA 106

Longyuan

Power

1.9

Beijing, China Public Hong Kong

Stock

Exchange

185

Innogy 1.8

Essen,

Germany

Public Frankfurt

Stock

Exchange

1,000

Macquarie

Capital

1.5

Sydney,

Australia

Public Australian

Securities

Exchange

2,093

Northland

Power

0.9

Toronto,

Canada

Public Toronto

Stock

Exchange

18

Stadwerke

Munchen

0.9

Munich,

Germany

Municipally-

owned

NA 72

Iberdrola 0.9

Bilbao, Spain Public Bolsa de

Madrid

614

Siemens 0.9

Munich,

Germany

Public Frankfurt

Stock

Exchange

1,700

Table S2. Geographic distribution of the ocean economy revenues based on location of the

Ocean 100’s main headquarters.

Country Sum of total revenue (USD

billion)

Percentage of Ocean 100

revenue

USA 132.9 12%

Saudi Arabia 91.3 8%

China 85.1 8%

Norway 77.6 7%

France 64.5 6%

UK 57.6 5%

South Korea 48.5 4%

Brazil 45.7 4%

Iran 44.9 4%

Netherlands 43.9 4%

Mexico 39.3 4%

UAE 38.7 3%

Japan 37.2 3%

Italy 36.6 3%

Denmark 33.1 3%

Switzerland 28.2 3%

Qatar 26.9 2%

Singapore 22.0 2%

Germany 18.8 2%

Malaysia 17.2 2%

India 16.9 2%

Thailand 10.4 1%

Taiwan 10.1 1%

Nigeria 8.6 1%

Australia 8.2 1%

Azerbaijan 8.1 1%

Angola 8.0 1%

Russia 7.4 1%

Indonesia 6.2 1%

Finland 6.0 1%

Spain 5.0 <1%

Venezuela 4.9 <1%

Vietnam 4.0 <1%

Bahrain 3.7 <1%

Israel 3.3 <1%

Belgium 3.1 <1%

Austria 2.8 <1%

Canada 2.6 <1%

Total 1,109.4 100%

Table S3. SDG 14 targets whose achievement can be directly affected by the operations of ocean economy industries. See data file S1 for

data sources and references. SIDS: small island developing states; LDCs: least developed countries; UNCLOS: United Nations Convention on the

Law of the Sea.

14.1

Prevent

and

reduce

marine

pollution

14.2

Manage

and protect

marine and

coastal

ecosystems

14.3

Minimize

and address

the impacts

of ocean

acidification

14.4

Effectively

regulate

fish

harvesting,

end

overfishing,

illegal,

unreported

and

unregulated

fishing

14.5

Conserve

at least

10

percent

of

coastal

and

marine

areas

14.6

Prohibit

certain

forms of

fisheries

subsidies

14.7

Increase

economic

benefits

to SIDS

and

LDCs

14.A

Increase

scientific

knowledge,

develop

research

capacity,

transfer

technology

14.B

Access

for

small-

scale

fisheries

14.C

Implement

intl. law

per

UNCLOS

Offshore oil and

gas X X X X X

Marine

equipment and

construction

X X X X

Seafood X X X X X X X

Container

shipping X X X

Shipbuilding

and repair X X X X

Cruise tourism X X X X

Port activities X X X

Offshore wind X X X X

Table S4. Data sources used to identify the largest TNCs in each ocean economy industry and their annual revenues.

Industry Identification of largest companies Evaluation of revenue and market share

Offshore oil and gas (68) (68)

Marine equipment and construction (69– ) 72 (6 ) 9

Seafood (73, 74) (73, 74)

Container shipping (75) (75)

Shipbuilding and repair (69, 76– ) 80 (6 , , 7 ) 9 70 6

Cruise tourism (81) (81)

Port activities (82, 83) (84–86)

Offshore wind (72, 87, 88) (7 , 8 , 8 ) 2 6 9

Section S1. Detailed description of main data sources for each ocean industry.

Offshore oil and gas

We used data from Rystad Energy (68), an independent energy research and business intelligence

company, to identify the largest offshore oil and gas TNCs in 2018 based on gross revenue by

field, aggregated by field owner company, as well as to identify the total offshore oil and gas

industry revenue (USD 830 billion in 2018). Number of subsidiaries, ownership, and main stock

exchange (for publicly-listed companies) were extracted from Orbis (6 ). 3

Marine equipment and construction

To identify potential keystone actors in the marine equipment and construction sector, we relied

primarily on Balance Technology’s list of major European maritime shipbuilding supply chain

companies (69). This report provided a comprehensive overview of maritime supply chain

companies by sector and country, and helped us ensure that our findings concerning total industry

revenues and company primary activities were accurate. We also utilized an in-depth report by

Credit Suisse which identified major suppliers in the offshore wind supply chain because these

companies’ operations often extend beyond the offshore wind market (72). Finally, a study by

Rabobank (71) helped identify top marine dredging companies, considered to be an important part

of this sector. We restricted the analysis to TNCs whose activities were entirely within the marine

equipment and construction sector, thereby omitting large corporations such as Siemens, or

Schneider Electric, among others, that are more diversified and for whom it was not possible to

isolate ocean-linked revenues (i.e., revenues solely from marine equipment and construction,

rather than terrestrial equipment for example). We used Orbis (63) for revenues, number of

subsidiaries, and main stock exchange for each of the publicly traded companies. When Orbis

(6 ) data was not available, we used company annual reports for revenues. To ensure that we 3

were not missing large TNCs in our database, we collected data on TNCs until the additional

revenue of the smallest TNC was at or below 0.05% of total industry revenues in this sector. In

this way, a total of 43 TNCs were included in the database. For total industry revenues, we

included those TNCs that also have terrestrial operations, e.g. Siemens or Schneider Electric, to

ensure that total revenues were over- rather than underestimated (USD 354 billion, rather than

USD 82 billion if only revenues from TNCs operating solely in maritime equipment and

construction were used). Hence, the market concentration estimated for this sector is likely

conservative.

Seafood

We relied on a market industry report from Undercurrent News – one of the most widely

recognized independent media outlets specialized in seafood – listing the hundred largest

companies involved in producing, harvesting, farming, trading or processing seafood (7 ). The

estimated 2018 revenues represented seafood-related turnover and did not include any substantial

fishmeal- or feed-related revenue (73). Ownership and number of subsidiaries were retrieved from

Orbis (63). Total revenue for the seafood industry is notoriously difficult to estimate. While the

combined revenues of the 100 largest seafood companies amounted to USD 106 billion in 2018,

and the global seafood trade was valued at USD 166 billion ( ), the total first sale value of

fisheries and aquaculture production in 2016 was estimated at USD 362 billion, of which USD

176 billion came from inland aquaculture (91). For the sake of this analysis, we used the 2012

global value of seafood production reported by Österblom et al. (20) and adjusted it for inflation

from 2012 to 2018 using CPI Inflation Calculator (6 ) to reach USD 276 billion. This assumes

relatively constant production volumes and prices, which seems justifiable given that the FAO

reported total seafood production from the ocean was 104.8 million tonnes in 2011 and 108

million tonnes in 2016 (3% increase).

3

90

5

Container shipping

The world’s largest container shipping companies were identified based on data from Alphaliner

(75), which provided a ranking of the 100 largest container operators based on their transport

capacity in twenty-foot equivalent units (i.e., the maximum number of twenty-foot shipping

containers a company can transport). While ocean shipping includes other cargo types than

containers (e.g., oil and gas, dry bulk, car carrier/RORO, and ferry/ROPAX), container shipping

is by far the largest sub-sector and the only one for which we were able to find an estimate of total

revenue in 2018 (USD 156 billion) (9 )2 . The other sub-sectors (oil and gas cargo, dry bulk cargo,

car carrier/RORO and ferry/ROPAX) include a number of TNCs that operate across sub-sectors

and for whom it is difficult to avoid double-counting across these sub-sectors. We used annual

and financial reports (2018) for each company to specifically extract revenues associated with

container operations. Ownership and number of subsidiaries were retrieved from Orbis (6 )3 .

Focusing solely on container operators means we are missing some large TNCs involved in other

types of shipping, such as Mitsui OSK, NYK, K Line, Hyundai Glovis, Grimaldi and Oldendorff,

which are important corporations in the ocean economy.

Shipbuilding and repair

To identify the largest shipbuilding and repair companies, we relied on multiple reports in the

public domain (6 , , 7 – ). We cross-referenced the names of companies, removed duplicates,

and arrived at 48 unique TNCs. We used Orbis (63) for revenues, number of subsidiaries, and

main stock exchange for each of the publicly traded companies. When Orbis (63) data was not

available, we used company annual reports for revenues. In the case of two shipbuilding TNCs

where we found conflicting data about revenues on the web, we used Orbis data for consistency

(6 ). To ensure that we were not missing large TNCs in our database, we collected data on TNCs

until the additional revenue of the smallest TNC was at or below 0.05% of total industry revenues

9 70 6 80

3

in this sector. In this way, a total of 42 TNCs were included in the database, and the sum of their

revenues used as a proxy for total industry revenues.

Cruise tourism

We used data from Cruise Market Watch (81) to identify the largest TNCs in the ocean cruise

industry based on their 2018 revenues, as well as the total worldwide industry revenue (estimated

at USD 46.6 billion in 2018). Ownership and number of subsidiaries were retrieved from Orbis

(6 ). 3

Port activities

To identify the largest port operator companies, we first searched for reported revenues and

throughput data in the annual reports of companies identified as top ten global port operators by

Lloyd’s List Maritime Intelligence (8 , 8 ). To ensure that Lloyd’s List Maritime Intelligence’s

list of top ports was comprehensive, we compared it with all other available lists of top global

ports. These lists included AAPA (8 ), UNCTAD (8 ), and Port of Rotterdam (8 ). A review of

these sources showed that UNCTAD (86) and Port of Rotterdam (84) were largely similar to

Lloyd’s List Maritime Intelligence (8 , 83), while AAPA (8 ) listed top ports in terms of raw

freight tonnage, rather than solely as containerized cargo (TEU). We then searched for revenues

and production data through port authority websites and company annual reports of any company

operating at least one terminal at any large marine port. To ensure that we did not exclude port

operator companies which might not have containerized cargo operations, such as port operators

focused on bulk or roll-on/roll-off operations, we searched for companies operating terminals at

top ports by freight tonnage, according to the AAPA’s list (8 ). Once we assembled a

comprehensive list of ports and port operator companies, we attempted to match the TEU

throughput of specific companies to the ports where they operate. This process revealed that the

largest port operator companies account for the vast majority of TEU throughput at the world’s

2 3

5 6 4

2 5

5

top ports. Moreover, the total combined TEU throughput of the port operator companies which

we identified was similar to secondary estimates of global TEU throughput (8 –8 ). This

provided a high degree of certainty that we were not missing major port operator companies, with

the exception of perhaps some non-containerized cargo port operators. We used Orbis (63) for

revenues, number of subsidiaries, and main stock exchange for each of the publicly traded

companies. When Orbis (63) data was not available, we used company annual reports for

revenues. In any instances where we found port operator TNCs with conflicting data about

revenues on the web, we used Orbis data for consistency (6 ). To ensure that we were not missing

large TNCs in our database, we collected data on TNCs until the additional revenue of the

smallest TNC was at or below 0.05% of total industry revenues in this sector (with the exception

of Terminal Investment Limited and Taiwan International Ports – Kaohsiung City, for whom

revenue data were not available). In this way, a total of 25 TNCs were included in the database,

and the sum of their revenues used as a proxy for total industry revenues.

4 6

3

Offshore wind

Three sources provided the background to estimate the size of the global offshore wind industry,

as well as the relative share of the largest operators: (i) the Global Wind Energy Council reported

that in 2018, the total offshore wind production globally was 23,140 MW, of which 18,278 MW

was in Europe, 4,832 MW was in the Asia-Pacific, and 30 MW was in the Americas (89); (ii)

Wind Europe (88) detailed the European portion of offshore wind production as well as the share

of the 22 largest operators as a proportion of total European production, with Ørsted occupying

the top position with 16% (62); (iii) Ørsted’s 2018 Annual Report provided disaggregated data on

offshore wind production revenues of DKK 30.6 billion (8 ). Using a historical exchange rate of

1 USD = 6.52 DKK (December 21, 2018), and calculating Ørsted’s revenues as based on 16% of

European production, we identified a proxy revenue of USD 1,605,456 per MW of offshore wind.

7

Using this proxy, we estimated the share of the 22 identified companies in Europe, and the value

of the global offshore wind industry (USD 37.15 billion). Individual web searches were then

initiated to explore whether large offshore wind operators in 2018 were located in Asia. We found

that only China appeared to have substantial offshore wind production. Using data from

4COffshore (9 ), a total of 38 Chinese offshore wind installations in operation in 2018 were

identified, with a total production of 4,574 MW. Only China Longyuan Power Corporation was

big enough (1,197 MW) to be among the world’s 10 largest offshore wind farm operators.

3

Figure S1. The non-oil and gas Ocean 100. The hundred largest TNCs in the ocean economy

(excluding offshore oil and gas) by annual revenues in 2018. Only revenues that could be

explicitly linked to the ocean economy were included (see details in Materials and Methods).

Figure S2. Geographic distribution of TNCs in the ocean economy (excluding offshore oil

and gas). Revenues (2018 USD) are aggregated based on the location of the non-oil and gas

Ocean 100’s main headquarters. (A) all industries combined; (B-H) within each industry. See data

file S1 for exact values and a list of countries.

Figure S3. Ocean 100 and the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project). Percentage of the Ocean 100

reporting to the CDP, by industry, and by category of reporting: A or A-, leadership level; B or B-

, management level; C or C-, awareness level; D or D-, disclosure level; F, failure to provide

sufficient information to be evaluated (56).

Figure S4. Non-oil and gas Ocean 100 and the CDP (Carbon Disclosure Project). Percentage

of the non-oil and gas Ocean 100 reporting to the CDP by industry, and by category of reporting:

A or A-, leadership level; B or B-, management level; C or C-, awareness level; D or D-,

disclosure level; F, failure to provide sufficient information to be evaluated (56).

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. C. S. Colgan, Measurement of the ocean economy from national income accounts to the sustainable

blue economy. J. Ocean Coast. Econ. 2, 12 (2016).

2. OECD, The Ocean Economy in 2030 (OECD Publishing, 2016), p. 256.

3. N. J. Bennett, A. M. Cisneros-Montemayor, J. Blythe, J. J. Silver, G. Singh, N. Andrews, A. Calò, P.

Christie, A. D. Franco, E. M. Finkbeiner, S. Gelcich, P. Guidetti, S. Harper, N. Hotte, J. N. Kittinger,

P. L. Billon, J. Lister, R. L. de la Lama, E. M. Kinley, J. Scholtens, A.-M. Solås, M. Sowman, N.

Talloni-Álvarez, L. C. L. Teh, M. Voyer, U. R. Sumaila, Towards a sustainable and equitable blue

economy. Nat. Sustain., 991–993 (2019).

4. J. J. Silver, N. J. Gray, L. M. Campbell, L. W. Fairbanks, R. L. Gruby, Blue economy and competing

discourses in international oceans governance. J. Environ. Dev. 24, 135–160 (2015).

5. J.-B. Jouffray, R. Blasiak, A. V. Norström, H. Österblom, M. Nyström, The Blue Acceleration: The

trajectory of human expansion into the ocean. One Earth. 2, 43–54 (2020).

6. M. Voyer, G. Quirk, A. McIlgorm, K. Azmi, Shades of blue: What do competing interpretations of

the Blue Economy mean for oceans governance? J. Environ. Policy Plan. 20, 595–616 (2018).

7. D. J. McCauley, M. L. Pinsky, S. R. Palumbi, J. A. Estes, F. H. Joyce, R. R. Warner, Marine

defaunation: Animal loss in the global ocean. Science 347, 1255641 (2015).

8. J. S. Golden, J. Virdin, D. Nowacek, P. Halpin, L. Bennear, P. G. Patil, Making sure the blue

economy is green. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 1, 0017 (2017).

9. P. Cohen, E. H. Allison, N. L. Andrew, J. Cinner, L. S. Evans, M. Fabinyi, L. R. Garces, S. J. Hall, C.

C. Hicks, T. P. Hughes, S. Jentoft, D. J. Mills, R. Masu, E. K. Mbaru, B. D. Ratner, Securing a just

space for small-scale fisheries in the blue economy. Front. Mar. Sci. 6, 171 (2019).

10. H. Österblom, C. C. Wabnitz, D. Tladi, Towards Ocean Equity (World Resources Institute, 2020), p.

33.

11. C. Knott, B. Neis, Privatization, financialization and ocean grabbing in New Brunswick herring

fisheries and salmon aquaculture. Mar. Policy 80, 10–18 (2017).

12. L. M. Campbell, N. J. Gray, L. Fairbanks, J. J. Silver, R. L. Gruby, B. A. Dubik, X. Basurto, Global

oceans governance: New and emerging issues. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 41, 517–543 (2016).

13. United Nations Economic and Social Council, Special Edition: Progress Towards the Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations, 2019), p. 39.

14. G. G. Singh, A. M. Cisneros-Montemayor, W. Swartz, W. Cheung, J. A. Guy, T.-A. Kenny, C. J.

McOwen, R. Asch, J. L. Geffert, C. C. C. Wabnitz, R. Sumaila, Q. Hanich, Y. Ota, A rapid

assessment of co-benefits and trade-offs among sustainable development goals. Mar. Policy 93,

223–231 (2018).

15. C. Folke, H. Österblom, J.-B. Jouffray, E. F. Lambin, W. N. Adger, M. Scheffer, B. I. Crona, M.

Nyström, S. A. Levin, S. R. Carpenter, J. M. Anderies, S. Chapin III, A.-S. Crépin, A. Dauriach, V.

Galaz, L. J. Gordon, N. Kautsky, B. H. Walker, J. R. Watson, J. Wilen, A. de Zeeuw, Transnational

corporations and the challenge of biosphere stewardship. Nat. Ecol. Evol., 1396–1403 (2019).

16. H. Österblom, C. Cvitanovic, I. Putten, P. Addison, R. Blasiak, J.-B. Jouffray, J. Bebbington, J. Hall,

S. Ison, A. LeBris, S. Mynott, D. Reid, A. Sugimoto, Science-industry collaboration: Sideways or

highways to ocean sustainability? One Earth 3, 79–88 (2020).

17. J. Jacquet, D. Frank, C. Schlottmann, Asymmetrical contributions to the tragedy of the commons and

some implications for conservation. Sustainability 5, 1036–1048 (2013).

18. G. Gereffi, Global value chains in a post-Washington Consensus world. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 21, 9–

37 (2014).

19. R. Blasiak, J.-B. Jouffray, C. C. C. Wabnitz, E. Sundström, H. Österblom, Corporate control and

global governance of marine genetic resources. Sci. Adv. 4, eaar5237 (2018).

20. H. Österblom, J.-B. Jouffray, C. Folke, B. Crona, M. Troell, A. Merrie, J. Rockström, Transnational

corporations as ‘keystone actors’ in marine ecosystems. PLOS ONE 10, e0127533 (2015).

21. World Benchmarking Alliance, World Benchmarking Alliance names the most influential 2000

companies for a sustainable future (2020);

https://assets.seafood.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/app/uploads/2020/01/WBA-SDG2000-

pressrelease.pdf.

22. P. Dauvergne, J. Lister, Big brand sustainability: Governance prospects and environmental limits.

Glob. Environ. Chang. 22, 36–45 (2012).

23. C. Folke, H. Österblom, J.-B. Jouffray, E. F. Lambin, W. N. Adger, M. Scheffer, B. I. Crona, M.

Nyström, S. A. Levin, S. R. Carpenter, J. M. Anderies, S. Chapin III, A.-S. Crépin, A. Dauriach, V.

Galaz, L. J. Gordon, N. Kautsky, B. H. Walker, J. R. Watson, J. Wilen, A. de Zeeuw, An invitation

for more research on transnational corporations and the biosphere. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 494 (2020).

24. InfluenceMap, Corporate Capture of the International Maritime Organization: How the shipping

sector lobbies to stay out of the Paris Agreement (2017), p. 38.

25. O. R. Young, G. Osherenko, J. Ekstrom, L. B. Crowder, J. Ogden, J. A. Wilson, J. C. Day, F.

Douvere, C. N. Ehler, K. L. McLeod, Solving the crisis in ocean governance: Place-based

management of marine ecosystems. Environment 49, 20–32 (2007).

26. N. J. Bennett, H. Govan, T. Satterfield, Ocean grabbing. Mar. Policy 57, 61–68 (2015).

27. C. Béné, B. Hersoug, E. H. Allison, Not by rent alone: Analysing the pro-poor functions of small-

scale fisheries in developing countries. Dev. Policy Rev. 28, 325–358 (2010).

28. K. L. Nash, J. L. Blythe, C. Cvitanovic, E. A. Fulton, B. S. Halpern, E. J. Milner-Gulland, P. F. E.

Addison, G. T. Pecl, R. A. Watson, J. L. Blanchard, To achieve a sustainable blue future, progress

assessments must include interdependencies between the sustainable development goals. One Earth

2, 161–173 (2020).

29. V. Kostakis, M. Bauwens, V. Kostakis, M. Bauwens, in Network Society and Future Scenarios for a Collaborative Economy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2014), pp. 59–69.

30. M. Hadjimichael, A call for a blue degrowth: Unravelling the European Union’s fisheries and

maritime policies. Mar. Policy 94, 158–164 (2018).

31. A. Fung, D. O’Rourke, Reinventing environmental regulation from the grassroots up: Explaining

and expanding the success of the toxics release inventory. Environ. Manag. 25, 115–127 (2000).

32. FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020—Sustainability in Action (Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020), p. 244.

33. IRENA, Future of wind: Deployment, investment, technology, grid integration and socio-economic

aspects (A Global Energy Transformation paper) (International Renewable Energy Agency, Abu

Dhabi, 2019); https://www.irena.org/-

/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2019/Oct/IRENA_Future_of_wind_2019.pdf.

34. D. Etzion, Corporate engagement with the natural environment. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 493 (2020).

35. H. Österblom, J.-B. Jouffray, C. Folke, J. Rockström, Emergence of a global science–business

initiative for ocean stewardship. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 9038–9043 (2017).

36. J. Lubchenco, E. B. Cerny-Chipman, J. N. Reimer, S. A. Levin, The right incentives enable ocean

sustainability successes and provide hope for the future. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 14507–

14514 (2016).

37. E. Chrun, N. Dolšak, A. Prakash, Corporate environmentalism: Motivations and mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Env. Resour. 41, 341–362 (2016).

38. J. Bebbington, H. Österblom, B. Crona, J.-B. Jouffray, C. Larrinaga, S. Russell, B. Scholtens,

Accounting and accountability in the Anthropocene. Account. Audit. Account. J. 33, 152–177

(2019).

39. J.-B. Jouffray, B. Crona, E. Wassénius, J. Bebbington, B. Scholtens, Leverage points in the financial

sector for seafood sustainability. Sci. Adv. 5, eaax3324 (2019).

40. M. Nyström, J.-B. Jouffray, A. V. Norström, B. Crona, P. S. Jørgensen, S. R. Carpenter, Ö. Bodin,

V. Galaz, C. Folke, Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem. Nature 575, 98–108

(2019).

41. J. McCarthy, Norway pledges to divest from ocean-polluting companies with $1 trillion fund, Global Citizen (2018); https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/norway-wealth-fund-ocean-pollution/.

42. World Ocean Initiative, How 2020 can be the year to build a truly ‘blue’ economy: World Ocean

Initiative supplement (2020); https://worldoceansummit.economist.com/ocean-supplement-

download/?utm_source=EM1660_Email_NL_5_jan&amp;RefID=EM1660_Email_NL_5_jan.

43. R. Blasiak, C. C. C. Wabnitz, Aligning fisheries aid with international development targets and

goals. Mar. Policy 88, 86–92 (2018).

44. International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), Global Fund for Coral Reefs (2019);

https://www.icriforum.org/Global-Coral-Reef-Fund.

45. M. Landon-Lane, Corporate social responsibility in marine plastic debris governance. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 127, 310–319 (2018).

46. Global Ocean Forum, Assessing Progress on Ocean and Climate Action: 2019. A Report of the

Roadmap to Oceans and Climate Action Initiative (2019);

https://rocainitiative.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/roca-2019-progress-report-1.pdf.

47. J. Otto, C. Andrews, F. Cawood, M. Doggett, P. Guj, F. Stermole, J. Tilton, Mining Royalties: A Global Study of Their Impacts on Investors, Government and Civil Society (World Bank, 2006).

48. N. H. Barma, K. Kaiser, T. Minh Le, L. Vinuela, Rents to Riches? The Political Economy of Natural Resource-led Development (World Bank, 2012).

49. E. Havice, Rights-based management in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean tuna fishery:

Economic and environmental change under the Vessel Day Scheme. Mar. Policy 42, 259–267

(2013).

50. K. Van’t Veld, M. J. Kotchen, Green clubs. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 62, 309–322 (2011).

51. M. Potoski, A. Prakash, Green clubs: Collective action and voluntary environmental programs.

Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 16, 399–419 (2013).

52. United Nations, The Ocean Conference: Registry of Voluntary Commitments (2020);

https://oceanconference.un.org/commitments/.

53. B. Neumann, S. Unger, From voluntary commitments to ocean sustainability. Science 363, 35–36

(2019).

54. UN Global Compact, Sustainable Ocean Principles (2019);

https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/publications/Sustainable%20Ocean%20Principles.pdf.

55. Poseidon Principles, Poseidon Principles: A Global Framework for Responsible Ship Finance

(Poseidon Principles, 2019), p. 58.

56. Carbon Disclosure Project, Corporate data (2020); https://www.cdp.net/en/data.

57. A. V. Norström, C. Cvitanovic, M. F. Löf, S. West, C. Wyborn, P. Balvanera, A. T. Bednarek, E. M.

Bennett, R. Biggs, A. de Bremond, B. M. Campbell, J. G. Canadell, S. R. Carpenter, C. Folke, E. A.

Fulton, O. Gaffney, S. Gelcich, J.-B. Jouffray, M. Leach, M. L. Tissier, B. Martín-López, E. Louder,

M.-F. Loutre, A. M. Meadow, H. Nagendra, D. Payne, G. D. Peterson, B. Reyers, R. Scholes, C. I.

Speranza, M. Spierenburg, M. Stafford-Smith, M. Tengö, S. van der Hel, I. van Putten, H.

Österblom, Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nat. Sustain. 3, 182–

190 (2020).

58. M. Sutton, L. Wimpee, in SEAFOOD Ecolabelling (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2009), pp. 403–415.

59. J. Lubchenco, S. D. Gaines, A New Narrative for the Ocean (American Association for the

Advancement of Science, 2019).

60. T. B. Rudolph, M. Ruckelshaus, M. Swilling, E. H. Allison, H. Österblom, S. Gelcich, P. Mbatha, A

transition to sustainable ocean governance. Nat. Commun. 11, article 3600 (2020).

61. C. S. Colgan, Climate Change and the Blue Economy of the Indian Ocean, in The Blue Economy Handbook of the Indian Ocean Region, V. N. Attri, N. Bohler-Muller, Eds. (Africa Institute of South

Africa , 2017), pp. 349–371.

62. A. M. Cisneros-Montemayor, U. R. Sumaila, A global estimate of benefits from ecosystem-based

marine recreation: Potential impacts and implications for management. J. Bioecon. 12, 245–268

(2010).

63. Bureau van Dijk, Orbis Database, Orbis: Powering the Business of Certainty (2019);

https://www.bvdinfo.com/en-us/our-products/data/international/orbis.

64. Privco, Privco Database (2020); www.privco.com.

65. Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator (2020);https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.

66. C. C. Wabnitz, R. Blasiak, The rapidly changing world of ocean finance. Mar. Policy 107, 103526

(2019).

67. T. Thiele, L. R. Gerber, Innovative financing for the High Seas. Aquat. Conserv. 27, 89–99 (2017).

68. Rystad Energy, Rystad database (2020); https://www.rystadenergy.com/.

69. BALance Technology Consulting, Shipyard Economics, MC Marketing Consulting, Study on New

Trends in Globalisation in Shipbuilding and Marine Supplies—Consequences for European

Industrial and Trade Policy (European Commission, 2017), p. 179.

70. L. Brun, S. Frederick, Korea and the Shipbuilding Global Value Chain (Duke University, 2017);

https://gvcc.duke.edu/wp-

content/uploads/Duke_KIET_Korea_and_the_Shipbuilding_GVC_CH_4.pdf.

71. Rabobank, Dredging: Profit Margins Expected to Remain Fairly Healthy until 2018 (2013);

www.dredging.org/documents.

72. Credit Suisse, Global Offshore Wind (2017); https://research-doc.credit-

suisse.com/docView?language=ENG&format=PDF&sourceid=em&document_id=x769734&serialid

=%2FK8kb8bP79ransN2Mwoggg%3D%3D.

73. Undercurrent News, World’s 100 Largest Seafood Companies 2018 (2019);

https://www.undercurrentnews.com/report/worlds-100-largest-seafood-companies-2018/.

74. OECD, Globalisation in Fisheries and Aquaculture: Opportunities and Challenges (OECD

Publishing, 2010).

75. Alphaliner, Top 100 (2020); https://alphaliner.axsmarine.com/PublicTop100/.

76. BRS Brokers, 2018 Annual Review: Shipbuilding (2018); www.brsbrokers.com/BRS-

Review_2018.pdf.

77. Shipbuilding History, U.S. Builders of Large Ships (2019);

http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/shipyards/large.htm.

78. Korea Offshore & Shipbuilding Association, Member Companies (2019);

http://www.koshipa.or.kr/eng/koshipa/koshipa3/companies01_1.htm.

79. E. Hayashi, “The quiet king of Japanese shipbuilding expands its empire,” Nikkei Asian Review;

https://asia.nikkei.com/Editor-s-Picks/Japan-Update/The-quiet-king-of-Japanese-shipbuilding-

expands-its-empire.

80. OECD, Peer Review of the Japanese Shipbuilding Industry (OECD Press, 2016), p. 46.

81. Cruise Market Watch, Statistics (2019); https://cruisemarketwatch.com/.

82. Lloyd’s List Maritime Intelligence, Top 10 Box Port Operators (2018);

https://lloydslist.maritimeintelligence.informa.com/LL1125032/Top-10-box-port-operators-2018.

83. Lloyd’s List Maritime Intelligence, One Hundred Ports 2018 (2018);

https://transportationstore.informa.com/wp-content/uploads/woocommerce_uploads/2018/09/LL-

Top-Ports-sampler.pdf.

84. Port of Rotterdam, Port Statistics: A Wealth of Information (2015); www.portofrotterdam.com.

85. AAPA, World Port Rankings 2016 (American Association of Port Authorities, 2016);

http://aapa.files.cms-plus.com/Statistics/WORLD%20PORT%20RANKINGS%202016.xlsx.

86. UNCTAD, Review of Maritime Transport 2018 (United Nations Conference on Trade and

Development, 2018); https://unctad.org/en/pages/PublicationWebflyer.aspx?publicationid=2245.

87. Ørsted, Annual Report (2018); https://orstedcdn.azureedge.net/-

/media/Annual_2018/Orsted_Annual_report_2018.ashx.

88. Wind Europe, Offshore Wind in Europe: Key Trends and Statistics (2018);

https://windeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/files/about-wind/statistics/WindEurope-Annual-

Offshore-Statistics-2018.pdf.

89. Global Wind Energy Council, Global Wind Report 2018 (2018); https://gwec.net/global-wind-

report-2018/.

90. OECD/FAO, in OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2019–2028 (2019);

www.fao.org/3/ca4076en/ca4076en.pdf.

91. FAO, The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018—Meeting the sustainable development

goals (2018); http://www.fao.org/state-of-fisheries-aquaculture.

92. AlixPartners, Global Container Shipping Outlook (2018);

https://www.alixpartners.com/media/14480/ap_global_container_shipping_outlook_apr_2018.pdf.

93. 4COffshore, 4COffshore (2020); https://www.4coffshore.com.