2022 Ermgassen_Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges

Briefing Document: Corporate Biodiversity Commitments and Nature-Positive Outcomes

Introduction

The relationship between business practices and biodiversity loss is increasingly acknowledged as critical to both environmental sustainability and long-term economic stability. This briefing document summarizes the findings of a preprint publication that explores whether corporate commitments to biodiversity are capable of delivering 'nature-positive' outcomes.

Background

Recent assessments highlight that biodiversity loss poses a substantial risk to societal and economic functioning. The post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework aims to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, emphasizing the need for businesses to engage in transformative actions. As such, there is a growing push for companies to adopt 'nature-positive' strategies, which focus not merely on mitigating harm but actively enhancing biodiversity.

Definitions and Key Elements of Nature-Positive

The concept of 'nature-positive' lacks a precise definition, leading to confusion among businesses. However, the authors propose four key elements that should guide corporate biodiversity strategies:

1. Positive Biodiversity Outcomes: Companies should demonstrate improvements in biodiversity across their entire value chain.
2. Measurable Outcomes: Commitments must be against a fixed baseline and aligned with broader societal goals such as those outlined in the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.
3. Integrated Approach: Businesses should consider various components of nature, including biodiversity and climate, in their strategies.
4. Organizational Buy-In: There must be commitment at all levels within the organization to achieve nature-positive results.

Current State of Corporate Biodiversity Commitments

An analysis of the Fortune 100 companies revealed a notable increase in biodiversity commitments since 2016. However, the commitments often lack the measurable and time-bound aspects necessary for achieving nature-positive outcomes. By 2021, only 5-10% of firms had adopted SMART (Specific, Measurable, Accepted, Realistic, Time-bound) commitments, highlighting a significant gap between rhetoric and action.

Comparison of Approaches

Historically, corporate biodiversity strategies have been framed around 'No Net Loss' (NNL) and 'Net Positive Impact' (NPI). While these approaches focus on mitigating harm, 'nature-positive' strategies require a shift towards proactive enhancement of biodiversity. This includes expanding the scope of commitments to encompass supply chains and engaging in industry-wide improvements.

Key Findings

• Scope: Many companies continue to limit their biodiversity commitments to direct operational impacts, neglecting supply chain effects.
• Mainstreaming: Biodiversity considerations remain siloed, often managed by ecological teams rather than integrated into overall business strategy.
• Integration: There is a lack of coherence between climate and biodiversity strategies, risking actions that could undermine one another.
• Ambition: Existing commitments often fall short of aligning with global biodiversity recovery goals, focusing instead on compensatory measures without addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss.

Barriers to Implementation

The authors identify several barriers hindering the adoption of nature-positive strategies:

1. Metrics and Measurement: The complexity of biodiversity makes it challenging to establish appropriate metrics for assessing corporate impacts.
2. Informational Barriers: Many firms do not disclose biodiversity impacts, leading to a lack of transparency.
3. Financial Constraints: Nature-positive commitments may require substantial investment and operational changes that are perceived as economically unfeasible.
4. Operational Challenges: A lack of skills and capacity within organizations to effectively implement and manage biodiversity strategies.
5. Coordination Issues: The need for collective action across sectors to achieve broader biodiversity goals complicates individual corporate efforts.

Potential Solutions and Pathways Forward

To overcome these challenges, the authors suggest several strategies:

• Developing Robust Metrics: Establish metrics that can effectively measure the impacts of business on biodiversity while aligning with global policy goals.
• Enhancing Reporting Standards: Implement mandatory biodiversity disclosures to increase transparency and accountability.
• Financial Innovation: Explore new funding mechanisms that incentivize nature-positive investments.
• Capacity Building: Provide training and resources to equip employees across all levels with the necessary skills to implement nature-positive strategies.
• Facilitating Coordination: Foster collaborative efforts among businesses and stakeholders to ensure that individual actions contribute to collective biodiversity goals.

Conclusion

This review indicates a need for a more rapid and robust transition towards nature-positive business practices. While some progress has been made since 2016, the current pace is insufficient to meet global biodiversity targets. Companies must adopt clearer, more ambitious commitments and integrate biodiversity into their core strategies. The ongoing development of frameworks and tools for biodiversity measurement presents an opportunity for businesses to enhance their environmental stewardship and contribute effectively to nature recovery.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest. The research was supported by consulting activities related to organizational biodiversity impact quantification and strategy.