Biodiversity breaking into boardrooms

Standing room only at last week’s first Global Business of Biodiversity Conference, indicating that perhaps companies are beginning to sit up and take notice of nature’s value.

No tree-huggers here. Rooms were full of suits debating why biodiversity is important, what to do about it, and how on earth to communicate this complex issue in a coherent way.

Until now – and, specifically, Pavan Sukhdev’s ground-breaking report on The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) – biodiversity has lagged far behind climate change on the corporate agenda. It is, as Rio Tinto CEO Tom Albanese remarked, “the forgotten dimension of sustainability”. A recent study by PWC backs this up: just 2% of chief execs recognise it as a strategically important issue.

The main problem is a lack of understanding. Biodiversity is confusing, and its importance for business – in terms of risks and opportunities – is not always clear. What’s more, there are no quick and dirty metrics for measuring its loss or protection.

Notable exceptions include extractives companies and agribusiness, who rely heavily on Earth’s resources and at the same time have a massive impact upon nature. They know all too well what happens when they ignore biodiversity (think of Nestlé and palm oil, for instance) – and many have good programmes in place to minimise their footprint.

But all manner of companies rely and impact indirectly upon biodiversity (in ways too intricate to go into here), and this is where Sukhdev’s main challenge lies. These are the businesses that tend to ignore the issue, and the people he needs to persuade. His ‘TEEB for Business’ summary, launched at this conference, is a step in the right direction. Also useful is a new UNEP report that asks, “Are you a green leader?”.

So, what next for nature? Well, many are hopeful of markets for ecosystem services. Caroline Spelman MP, giving her maiden speech as the new UK Secretary of State for the Environment, noted that the global carbon market grew to $140 billion in six years. Could the same be true for biodiversity? If so, it won’t be long before the issue is seen on a par with CO2.