Home Complaints database Environment Tasmania vs. Woolworths Group
Complaint

Environment Tasmania vs. Woolworths Group

Australian supermarket’s contribution to the endangerment of Maugean skate in Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania through its “responsibly sourced” salmon

Date filed
10 September 2025
Keywords
Countries of harm
Current status
Under review
Sector
NCP

Allegations

On 10 September 2025, Environment Tasmania filed a complaint against Woolworths Group Ltd, the largest supermarket chain in Australia, to the Australian NCP. The complaint alleges that Woolworths has not met the expectations in the OECD Guidelines regarding the company’s Own-Brand salmon sourced from Macquarie Harbour, Tasmania, which is associated with severe adverse biodiversity harms to an endangered species found nowhere else in the world, the Maugean skate, and harms to an UNESCO-recognised Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. They also claim that while Woolworths’ Own-Brand salmon is marketed as ‘responsibly sourced’, it is certified by labels that do not test relevant factors associated with the environmental harms, contrary to the available scientific evidence that states salmon farms are a “very high risk” threat with “catastrophic” consequences to the Maugean skate population’s survival.

The complainants are calling on Woolworths to align its environmental due diligence policies with the responsible business expectations in the OECD Guidelines, take immediate proactive action to cease its contribution to the endangerment of the Maugean skate population by ceasing procurement of salmon from Macquarie Harbour given the severity of harm is high, and cease labelling Macquarie Harbour salmon as “responsibly sourced” and correctly inform stakeholders and the public about the potential adverse impacts of Woolworths’ salmon supply, among other things.

Relevant OECD Guidelines

Outcome

On 2 March 2026, the Australian NCP published its initial assessment accepting the complaint and offering its good offices to the parties.

In an article published by The Australian on 7 March 2026, Environment Tasmania campaigner Jess Coughlan stated:

“We urge Woolworths to recognise their responsibility to ­ensure this World Heritage-recognised animal found nowhere else on Earth doesn’t go extinct… For too long Woolworths has outsourced their responsibility to unfit certifications despite warnings over several years that these were failing to protect the endangered Maugean skate and its only home, Macquarie Harbour.”

The Australian NCP’s comments in relation to the sixth criterion for the NCP’s initial assessment are also notable. That criterion requires the NCP to consider  whether acceptance of the complaint would contribute to the OECD Guidelines’ purposes and effectiveness.

  • While the NCP accepted that Woolworths was a ‘multinational enterprise’ under the Guidelines, the issues raised concerned its operations in Australia, the country in which it is headquartered: “Although the matters in this complaint arise in Australia and involve an Australian multinational enterprise, this does not preclude the AusNCP from accepting it, particularly where consideration would contribute to the purposes and effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines. There have been various NCP cases where an NCP has accepted a complaint regarding issues in its own country from a ‘local’ multinational enterprise.52 In addition, there is no other NCP with a relevant connection to the issues raised in this complaint. This further reinforces the importance of considering whether accepting the complaint would contribute to the OECD Guidelines’ purposes and effectiveness.”
  • In response to the NCP’s draft initial assessment, “Woolworths referred to the environmental management of Macquarie Harbour and the consumer labelling of Australian produce as matters currently managed by domestic regulators, and suggested that an AusNCP process should avoid duplicating the work of these Australian authorities.” The NCP commented: “It is correct that, where domestic regulation ensures that enterprises must act consistently with the OECD Guidelines, this can be a relevant factor in deciding whether accepting a complaint would further the purposes and effectiveness of the OECD Guidelines. However, … the relevant Australian laws and proceedings in this case do not address the OECD Guidelines nor the expectations that these place on Woolworths.”
  • On the issue of environmental certification schemes, the NCP stated: “There have been many previous NCP decisions that clarify the OECD Guidelines’ application to environmental issues, as well as some NCP statements that have helped enterprises understand their responsibilities regarding certification schemes,53 and in some instances, salmon farming itself.54 The OECD Guidelines were changed in 2023 and now include additional expectations on enterprises in relation to environmental management. This includes ‘providing for, or co-operating in, remediation as necessary to address adverse environmental impacts the enterprise has caused or contributed to, and using leverage to influence other entities causing or contributing to adverse environmental impacts to remediate them’.”

More details

Defendant
Company in violation
Complainants
Affected people

Documents