Australia’s seafood industry has long benefited from a strong international reputation for premium, clean and sustainable products. As global consumers increasingly seek low-impact, ethically sourced seafood, many Australian producers have leaned heavily on branding that positions their catch as “clean and green”. But while these positioning claims can elevate market value, they also introduce a complex mix of intellectual property, consumer law and regulatory risks if misused or overstated. Understanding how to protect a seafood brand—and avoid misleading conduct—is essential for operators seeking to maintain trust, secure export approvals, and avoid regulatory penalties.

Understanding “Clean & Green” as a Marketing Claim

The phrase “clean and green” has become synonymous with Australian food production more broadly. For seafood producers, it signals environmental stewardship, low chemical inputs, and robust regulatory oversight. However, legally speaking, such claims are far from benign and must be supported by objective evidence.

Australian regulators consider environmental and sustainability-related statements to be claims that can influence purchasing decisions. This means seafood businesses must be careful not to overstate their environmental performance or imply certification or environmental qualities they cannot substantiate.

Key issues include:

• The phrase “clean and green” is not a protected certification or regulated term, but its use is subject to truth-in-advertising rules.
• Any claim about sustainability, water quality, or environmental impact must be supportable with evidence.
• Export markets may have their own interpretation of what “clean and green” means, heightening the risk of regulatory scrutiny overseas.
• Misrepresentation can occur both by making false statements and by omitting material facts.

Intellectual Property and Brand Protection

Building a strong brand requires protecting the intellectual property that underpins it—including names, logos, slogans, and visual elements. Aquaculture and wild-catch businesses increasingly rely on distinctive branding to differentiate their products in competitive domestic and export markets.

Effective brand protection ensures operators can prevent unauthorised use of their brand assets and maintain control over their reputation.

Key considerations include:

• Registering trademarks for business names, logos, and product lines to prevent misuse by competitors.
• Ensuring that packaging, labelling, and slogans are original and do not infringe on existing registered trademarks.
• Considering international trademark protection where exporting, particularly in markets such as China, Japan, and the EU where IP infringement is common.
• Avoiding branding elements that are too generic or descriptive, which may not be registrable as trademarks.
• Licensing arrangements for co-branding or certification labels must clearly allocate IP ownership and usage rights.

The Rise of Sustainability Branding in Seafood

As global markets increasingly value ESG performance, sustainability branding has shifted from optional marketing to a competitive imperative. For seafood operators, this includes claims relating to traceability, carbon footprint, responsible aquaculture practices, and the health of marine ecosystems.

But sustainability branding carries heightened legal risk, particularly under Australian consumer law’s prohibition on misleading or deceptive conduct.

Important themes include:

• Claims about emissions, habitat protection, or environmental certification must be backed by evidence and updated regularly.
• Use of sustainability icons, imagery of clean water, or terms like “eco-friendly” may be scrutinised as implied environmental claims.
• Consumers and regulators are now highly attuned to “greenwashing”, increasing the likelihood of complaints and investigations.
• Sustainability branding must align with actual operational practices—audits, record-keeping and monitoring are essential to support claims.

Risks of Misrepresentation Under Australian Consumer Law

Consumer law is the central legal framework governing marketing representations. Under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), businesses must not mislead or deceive consumers, or make claims that are false, vague, or impossible to substantiate.

For the seafood sector, this risk is especially high because consumers rely heavily on environmental representations when choosing products.

Common misrepresentation risks include:

• Claiming seafood is sustainably harvested without meeting recognised sustainability standards.
• Using unverified terms such as “chemical-free”, “low-impact” or “carbon neutral”.
• Suggesting environmental certification when none has been granted.
• Highlighting selective facts while omitting negative environmental impacts.
• Using imagery that suggests pristine environments inconsistent with actual production areas.

Regulatory Enforcement Trends and Greenwashing Crackdowns

Across Australia and internationally, regulators are increasingly targeting greenwashing in food and commodity sectors. Seafood producers, given the environmental sensitivity of their operations, are a particular focus.

Recent enforcement examples show that even well-intentioned sustainability claims may breach consumer law if not carefully managed.

Enforcement trends include:

• ACCC investigations into environmental claims across food and agricultural products.
• Increased scrutiny from export regulators where sustainability claims are used to justify market access.
• Demand from international buyers for independent verification of environmental performance.
• Class actions and civil claims against companies that misrepresent environmental credentials, especially in ESG-focused industries.
• Greater willingness by regulators to issue fines, court undertakings and public correction notices.

Certification Schemes and Accreditation Labels

Many seafood operators rely on certification schemes to validate sustainability claims—such as MSC, ASC, or government-backed origin labels. While these certifications can enhance credibility, they also introduce their own legal obligations.

Businesses using certification marks must ensure they comply with the rules, standards, and audit requirements associated with each scheme.

Key points include:

• Certification marks are regulated intellectual property requiring strictly controlled use.
• Misuse of a certification label can lead to loss of accreditation and potential legal action.
• Certification schemes often require regular audits and data verification, which may increase administrative burdens.
• Export markets differ in what certifications they recognise, creating inconsistent labelling obligations.
• Operators must ensure their marketing aligns with the specific certification granted—not a broader or more general implication.

Geographical Indications and Country-of-Origin Claims

Country-of-origin branding is central to the “clean and green” narrative. Many seafood producers rely on “Product of Australia” frameworks and geographical references to reinforce quality and trust. However, these claims must meet strict legal requirements.

The rules ensure that origin claims are not misleading, especially when seafood has undergone processing overseas or involves imported components.

Issues to manage include:

• Meeting the requirements for “grown in”, “produced in”, and “made in” Australia claims.
• Ensuring that any foreign processing does not invalidate an Australian origin claim.
• Avoiding geographical references that imply a false connection (e.g., naming a product after a region where it was not caught).
• Understanding international country-of-origin labelling requirements for specific export markets.
• Protecting geographic branding through trademarks or certification systems where possible.

Export Market Considerations and Cross-Border Risks

For export-focused operators, branding risks extend beyond Australia. Many countries have their own consumer protection laws, environmental marketing rules, and labelling regulations. Claims that comply with the ACL may still breach foreign laws.

Cross-border risks include:

• Stricter sustainability labelling regulations in the EU, UK, and US.
• Foreign regulators assessing both packaging and online marketing materials, including social media.
• Translation issues where environmental claims are misinterpreted.
• Different environmental standards that may require stronger substantiation.
• Cultural differences in how consumers understand “clean” or “green”, increasing the risk of perceived misrepresentation.

Managing Risk: Practical Steps for Seafood Businesses

To maintain strong branding while avoiding legal exposure, seafood operators should adopt clear internal processes for claim verification and IP protection. This helps ensure consistency, compliance, and readiness for regulatory scrutiny.

Practical steps include:

• Conducting legal reviews of marketing materials before release.
• Maintaining evidence files for each environmental or sustainability claim.
• Registering trademarks for brand names, logos, slogans, and region-specific identifiers.
• Verifying eligibility before using certification marks or accreditation labels.
• Ensuring staff are trained in consumer law obligations.
• Auditing packaging and online content for outdated or overstated claims.
• Keeping accurate environmental monitoring data to support claims about water quality or emissions.
• Reviewing export labels for alignment with foreign regulations.

Balancing Branding Opportunity with Legal Compliance

The demand for clean, green and sustainable seafood is only set to grow. Authentic and well-supported branding can significantly enhance value, secure market access, and strengthen customer trust. But the risks of overstatement, ambiguous language, or implied representations are equally significant.

Seafood businesses must strike a balance between marketing ambition and legal compliance—protecting their brand while ensuring that all environmental claims can be substantiated. With strong intellectual property strategies, rigorous evidence management, and ongoing legal oversight, operators can confidently promote the strengths of Australian seafood without exposing themselves to allegations of greenwashing or misleading conduct.

Conclusion

The “clean and green” label is powerful, but it is also legally sensitive. For Australian seafood businesses, the challenge is to harness this branding advantage while avoiding misrepresentation and managing intellectual property effectively. By understanding the regulatory landscape, strengthening claim verification, and protecting brand assets, operators can build trusted, resilient and legally compliant brands that support both domestic and international growth.