The world’s companies are putting the ax to the tree on which they sit. Let’s imagine it’s an apple tree. Scientists can calculate how quickly companies collapse, how many apples they lose and whether they could still use the shade of the tree in the summer, but they cannot make it understandable. That’s roughly what he says Report on “Business and Biodiversity Assessment” published by the World Biodiversity Council (IPBES – pronounced: Ipes) on Monday.
For three years, 79 experts from 35 countries and all regions of the world, including scientists and representatives of the private sector, worked on the report in consultation with indigenous peoples and local communities. Last week they discussed this at a conference in Manchester with delegates from 150 IPBES member states. The council acts as a link between science, civil society, business and politics – similar to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for the climate.
The most important finding of the debate: Companies often lack the data and knowledge to understand how their actions influence biological diversity – and how much they themselves depend on it. Less than 1 percent of listed companies address the impact on biodiversity in their reports.
A recent survey of financial institutions representing 30 percent of global market capitalization explains why this might be the case: access to reliable knowledge about biodiversity and the causes and context of its crisis is too poor. That’s why companies don’t communicate it more strongly – and why nature-related risks aren’t managed.
7.3 trillion against nature, 220 billion for nature
“The loss of biodiversity is one of the greatest threats to the economy,” says Stephen Polasky, an economist at the University of Minnesota and co-chair of the meeting. Even companies that believe they are independent of biological diversity are at risk. Because they needed good environmental conditions such as flood protection or water supply and intangible values ​​such as space for recreation in order to exist.
According to the report, in 2023, $7.3 trillion of public and private resources worldwide flowed into activities that harm nature. This compares to just $220 billion for protecting and restoring biodiversity.
To change that, the experts suggest 100 measures. Governments should integrate biodiversity criteria into spatial planning on land and at sea, integrating them into approval processes, public procurement and corporate governance. They should also use modern technologies to collect and provide reliable data on biodiversity. Financial institutions should take nature-related risks into account through laws and voluntary initiatives.
“It is important that the political focus is not just on reducing problems with regard to existing economic approaches,” comments Sarah Jastram, Professor of Business Administration at the Hamburg School of Business Administration. It is equally important to promote regenerative business models in order to achieve a sustainable transformation of the economy.
Scientific literature not written for companies
“The appropriate incentive systems and promotion of best practice approaches are relevant for this,” says Jastram. “In this context, it is important and right that the report emphasizes supportive framework conditions. But this must be much more focused on innovative, regenerative and transformative business models than has been presented in the report so far.”
“Data and knowledge are often isolated,” said Ximena Rueda, co-chair of the evaluation panel and an economist at the Universidad de los Andes in Bogota, Colombia. “Scientific literature is not written for companies. The lack of translation and attention to the needs of companies has slowed the uptake of scientific knowledge,” says Rueda. The apple tree is best understood by the person who planted and cared for it.