- Joined
- 8 April 2008
- Posts
- 310
- Reactions
- 3
Tasmanian salmon producer Tassal has been benchmarked as the world’s top seafood company in an international report that benchmarks the world’s top 100 companies for sustainability reporting and transparency.
ps did anybody hear what came of the senate inquiry into the environmental impact of salmon farming? -perhaps it hasn't reported yet - or more likely a storm in a tea cup, whatever its obviously missed my radar.
We are part of the community - it is part of our social licence
TASSAL has been named a finalist in the business category of the United Nations Association of Australia World Environment Day awards.
FINALIST: Tassal Operations Pty Ltd, Sustainability – It’s How We Do Business (TAS)
Its nice to see Tassal putting in some yards for their employees.
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20160603/pdf/437ny73hr938r6.pdf
I give this philosophy a big tick.
I also noted they have been nominated for another environment award.
http://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/3923222/tassal-finalist-in-un-environment-awards/
Isn't the announcement just basically saying "instead of sending out Margate production to Coles, we are now sending it to Woolworths"?
Yes, but you're racking up goodwill with the community.
And chances are there is a cost in moving operations for Woolies distribution from current location to Margate. So there would be a cost, but it's well played by management.
I don't think there will be extra costs, the Margate plant currently produces salmon portions for Coles, the coles contact has finished, so now it will continue producing portions but instead send them to woollies, not much will change that I can see.
It just frees up some capacity at the lidcome facility to pack more branded product, which would be higher margin than the Coles contract. I think losing the Coles contract was probably a strategic win, frees up Tassal salmon and production capacity for a higher value market, and handballs the low bid to a competitor.
Did anyone watch Four Corners last night? That seemed like a giant stitch up of TGR. The CEO of a company with a sketchy environmental past (that wasn't even mentioned) gets on TV and accuses TGR, WWF, ASC, the Tasmanian government and the EPA of all being cahoots and covering up an environmental disaster. I expect better from the ABC.
Or did I miss something?
I watched it and thought the exact same thing, it was laughable. None of the 'evidence' was worthwhile, nor was there any real science in it. As you mention, Huon has a history of breaching standards (see ann by TGR on 16/12/15). On top of that, she (HUO director) claims that the WWF didn't want to be associated with Huon, even if they wanted to work together on environmental issues...
Of course if you have no background on it, you'd be inclined to believe the 4corners report.
It was quite a stitch-up of Tassal. Not a balanced debate at all which is a shame because there are certainly legitimate pros and cons of the industry that would make a good debate?
There are people passionately opposed and there are real benefits from the industry.
Overall it seemed quite misrepresentative of Tassal from my research but then I’m obviously not an investigative journalist.
[...]
As far as business impact goes, some of the mud will stick – might even affect demand to some degree but economically it small bickies compared to something like the supply implications of last summer’s water temperatures.
I still think Tassal is a good responsible business - But that's probably because I'm biased.
I had a quick look at the segment through iView, and gathered the same impression: A beat-up.
Generally, I find ABC's journalism above the industry standard - think ACA, yuck!
But sometimes, their Left-leaning intellectualism can let them down and produce ludicrously imbalanced and distorted presentations. Of course, minnows like Huon recognise that and milk it to suit their ends. A bit of Social Media irresponsibility creeps into the picture. Remember the stink they created for Live Export?
At least the Internet allows you to dig for the facts, so long as you have your own bias filters under control.
The controversial report quoted research by Melbourne University’s Associate Professor Tim Dempster, which was funded by the Fisheries Research Development Corporation.
The Fisheries Research and Development Corporation (FRDC) is a co-funded partnership between its two stakeholders, the Australian Government and the fishing industry.
In the minister’s view, Four Corners is a current affairs program, not a science-based documentary.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?