How can companies contribute to global biodiversity goals? A recent Biodiversa+ webinar explored what “nature positive” really means, the gaps between science and corporate decision-making, and how innovation can help turn knowledge into action. The discussion was hosted by Lars Dinesen, business lead at Biodiversa+, and featured Pippa Howard (Nature Metrics) and Camille Le Guen (TotalEnergies), both contributors to the IPBES business and biodiversity assessment.
Supporting nature-positive outcomes
“Nature positive” is a global objective. While no single company can achieve it in isolation, businesses can take meaningful actions that support these broader outcomes:
- Model transformation: Aligning with nature-positive objectives, particularly for extractive industries, requires fundamental changes to business models rather than superficial adjustments.
- Landscape perspective: Companies should move beyond isolated site-level initiatives to consider impacts across entire value chains and landscapes.
- Evidence-based progress: Success should be measured through quantitative ecological gains, not just qualitative policy commitments.
- Double materiality: It is essential to understand both a company’s impact on nature and its operational dependencies on healthy ecosystems.
Bridging the gap between science and business
The primary challenge is often not a lack of knowledge, but the difficulty of translating science into operational decisions. The discussion identified several critical mismatches:
- Scale and granularity: Scientific assessments often focus on global trends, whereas businesses require high-resolution, asset-level data to manage local impacts.
- Policies vs. outcomes: Current corporate reporting often focuses on management policies, such as “no deforestation” pledges, rather than actual ecological outcomes like species recovery or improved ecosystem condition.
- Static vs. dynamic data: Scientific data is often collected periodically, but companies benefit from dynamic, real-time information that can influence day-to-day operations.
- Internal integration: Biodiversity expertise is often siloed in sustainability teams. It must be translated into the language of risk and resilience used by CEOs, legal teams and CFOs.
The role of innovation and technology
New technologies are making biodiversity monitoring faster and more cost-effective, though the discussion emphasised that technology must be paired with organisational commitment. The discussion highlighted a few key innovations:
- Environmental DNA (eDNA): Providing rapid, high-resolution insights into species presence.
- Autonomous Marine Survey Vehicles: Facilitating biodiversity monitoring in challenging offshore environments.
- AI-driven Nature-tech: Synthesising complex data into actionable indices.
Enabling conditions for systemic change
To move from “pockets of excellence” to systemic change, the discussion highlighted several enabling factors:
- Standardised metrics: A consensus on biodiversity metrics and “net gain” protocols is needed to provide a level playing field for global operations.
- Regulatory alignment: While frameworks like TNFD, CSRD and the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) are emerging, businesses benefit when these “soft laws” are aligned and integrated into consistent national regulations.
- Incentivising intention: Beyond better data, there must be a shift in intention, driven by consumer demand, shareholder expectations, and internal KPIs that link biodiversity to executive performance.
Looking ahead
In the next five years, the goal is for biodiversity considerations to move beyond individual projects and into corporate portfolios. This involves recognising that “nature positive” is an integrated challenge encompassing climate, water, and soil health, where improvements in one area cannot compensate for degradation in another.
Watch the full webinar recording to explore these cases in detail.
