At a glance
- Over 1,400 companies are calling on governments to adopt policies to reach Nature Positive by 2030.
- Nature Positive means halting and reversing nature loss by 2030 and achieving full recovery by 2050.
- More and more companies are committing to the initiative, but the approaches being adopted vary greatly in quality.
- We outline six attributes that make a good Nature Positive commitment and assess how a range of companies are stacking up.
We’re engaging with companies on the steps they are taking to reduce exposure to nature-related risks
Why are corporates making nature positive commitments?
For many sectors the measurement and management of operational impacts on nature is nothing new. In many jurisdictions environmental impact assessments, habitat and species protections and water use licensing have been part of operational management for decades.
Corporates can follow the series of sequential steps outlined by the mitigation hierarchy approach to achieve nature positive outcomes (Figure 1). This best practice approach encourages corporates to begin by avoiding and minimising any negative impacts on nature, then restoring ecosystems that are unavoidably impacted, before looking to offset residual impacts. Nature Positive approaches include additional efforts to drive systemic and transformational change throughout sectors and landscapes.
There is increasing recognition around nature impacts embedded in supply chains and production systems
Figure 1: The mitigation hierarchy – comparing Not Net Loss (NNL), Net Positive Impact, and Nature Positive
Source: The Biodiversity Consultancy, June 2024
What does a good nature-positive commitment look like?
Drawing on academic research we have identified six attributes that define a robust Nature Positive commitment.
Figure 2: A summary of core principles for nature positive commitments, following Booth et al 2024, Milner-Gulland, 2022, and zu Ermgassen et al, 2022.
1. Ambitious
Historically, many nature targets have been measured against dynamic baselines, which reward corporates for degrading nature at a slower rate than otherwise is projected to have occurred. Any targets under a Nature Positive commitment should be measured against quantified, static baselines to deliver absolute rather than relative gains for nature. Approaches should also align with societal goals such as GBF or domestic targets such as National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs).
2. Wider scope
3. Integrated
There is an increasing awareness that a myopic focus on individual facets of nature can promote suboptimal outcomes and unintended trade-offs. For example, the promotion of biofuels to avoid carbon emissions can result in negative impacts on biodiversity. Nature positive ambitions should adopt integrated approaches that address impacts coherently without exacerbating other environmental or social risks. To operationalise this, we would expect corporates to track a considered portfolio of environmental and social metrics under their nature positive ambition.
4. Mainstreamed
Historically, nature targets have been operational targets that have been managed by site personnel and sustainability managers. Nature positive ambitions should be incorporated in the core business strategy with clear board and executive oversight.
5. Implemented
Nature positive ambitions should be supported by SMART targets for a comprehensive portfolio of metrics covering material impacts on and risks from nature loss. Corporates should identify the primary levers they will use to meet their targets, build a pipeline of projects under each lever, and allocate sufficient capital and resource to deliver on their strategy.
6. Evidenced
Corporates provide clear disclosures on their progress against the underlying KPIs for delivery of their nature positive target, including disclosure of data collection approaches. We would also expect a disclosure of how actions will add up to nature positive by delivering effective, additional outcomes.
How do existing nature positive commitments stack up against these principles?
Several corporates are starting to align their nature approaches with international goals. Over 180 companies disclose to CDP that they are aligning their nature commitments with the GBF and over 1,200 claim to be aligning with the Sustainable Development Goals8 . Corporates are also increasingly moving from setting dynamic nature baselines to static baselines. Through ICMM’s nature position statement miners have committed to achieve no net loss or net gain of nature by 2030 against a pre-2020 baseline for all existing operations. This is a step forward from previous mining commitments that assessed projects against dynamic baseline that projected that existing rates of nature loss would continue without the project, such as Rio Tinto’s net positive impact commitment for its ilmenite mine in Madagascar9 .
We see a more positive story on corporate progress against the “Integrated” principle. We increasingly see corporates with Nature Positive commitments tracking a balanced portfolio of KPIs that span multiple elements of nature. For example, UPM Kymmene is tracking eight biodiversity indicators to measure its progress and Nestle has established a varied portfolio of nature targets. In general, we see more scope for corporates to track social metrics within their nature strategies to embed just transition concepts from the outset, and there is a still a need for many companies to expand their nature-related targets to cover additional material components (see Figure 2).
Extractive companies commitments bake in a considerable loss of nature and rely entirely on unreliable restoration activities after asset closure that are often already mandated by regulators
Figure 3: Share of Fortune Global 500 companies with nature-related targets or acknowledgments (%), McKinsey 2023
Source: McKinsey & Company, December 2023
The challenge may not be getting nature to the upper echelons of corporate management, but rather ensuring that there is sufficient expertise at these levels to oversee nature strategies
