Interview with Eva Zabey

Given the collapse of biodiversity, Eva Zabey, CEO of Business for Nature, is calling on companies to understand their risks and dependencies on ecosystems and to adopt a strategy for nature.

Sustainability Mag : As we are faced with interconnected crises, how can businesses take responsibility and address the different challenges simultaneously?

Eva Zabey : Nature is the foundation of all our economies, livelihoods, and businesses. What we need to do is recognise and embed the true value of nature in all decision-making. For companies, this means integrating nature into their core strategies and processes, whether it's risk management, procurement, budgeting, or compensation. These everyday processes must reflect the importance of nature and the services it provides – currently for free! By adopting actions which benefit, rather than harm nature, businesses can play a vital role in taking responsibility for the interconnected crises we face and help foster a more sustainable future.

How do you picture a nature-positive world?

A nature-positive world means actively working to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, ensuring that nature is on the path to recovery, By 2030, we should have more nature than we did in 2020. To track progress, we look at species, ecosystems, and ecological processes — are populations more abundant and diverse than in 2020? This is essential for the resilience of our planetary systems – many of which have already had their boundaries breached.
This goal is aligned with the United Nations Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). Businesses must transition from being part of the problem to part of the solution. By using their influence and impact, businesses can drive change at scale and speed.

Have you seen increased awareness and involvement from companies?

Yes, awareness and action on nature have significantly increased over the past five years. Nature is now higher on the business agenda, and encouragingly, it has become a non-partisan issue, with all political sides recognising the importance of protecting, restoring and sustainably using nature. We are seeing more companies develop nature strategies. Over 30 companies including Hermès International, Ørsted, L’Occitane Group and Decathlon have shared their strategies publicly through ‘It’s Now for Nature’ – a global campaign to bring together all businesses to act on nature. More are being developed via various accelerator programs, hosted by Business for Nature’s partners who are working with and supporting companies to develop a credible nature strategy. Additionally, over 500 companies have committed to adopting the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) recommendations and 150 are preparing to set science-based targets for nature through the Science-based Target Network (SBTN). While this momentum is promising, voluntary efforts are still not enough to address the scale and urgency of nature loss.

On the positive side, as businesses mature in their nature journey, we have seen a shift. Companies are moving beyond just addressing their negative impacts on nature and are now considering their dependencies on nature’s services — like pollination, water purification, and soil health. This awareness is key, as these services are invaluable. Alongside this, businesses are starting to recognise the opportunities that nature protection and conservation presents, such as resource efficiency, circularity, competitiveness, and resilience. 

An important evolution is the shift from pilot projects to embedding nature into core business strategies. Some companies are now realising the need to account for nature properly and are starting to identify hidden risks or costs that could become material in the future.

Talking about nature-related risks, are companies aware of the different risks they are exposed to?

Unfortunately, not all companies are fully aware of the nature-related risks they face. Currently, there is limited action across the global business landscape. For example, only 5% of Fortune Global 500 companies have biodiversity targets, compared to 83% for climate change. Additionally, less than 1% of companies understand their dependencies on nature.

On a macro level, recent research highlights that more than half of global GDP is exposed to material nature risk. This presents risks but also significant opportunities. The World Economic Forum estimates that business models aimed at reversing nature loss could create millions of jobs and unlock $10 trillion in business opportunities by 2030. Awareness is rising, but there is still a large gap in companies’ understanding of both the risks and the opportunities tied to nature.

Is this lack of understanding linked to the intrinsic complexity of nature?

Yes, it is true that addressing nature-related business risks is complicated due to the intricate systems of nature, but we can’t let complexity paralyse us. While we need to simplify where possible, we also have to accept the inherent complexity of these systems.

Human-made systems, like finance and politics, often operate without considering nature’s processes, such as the timing of natural cycles or regeneration. This mismatch with business cycles is a key challenge.However, nature is inherently linked to business operations and value chains. For example, a hydropower company with a forest upstream will lose erosion control if that forest is cut down, impacting reservoir sedimentation and energy production capacity.Similarly, agribusinesses depend on pollination, soil health, and water availability.

The complexity of nature doesn’t mean businesses should shy away from it. The Science-based Targets Network has broken down nature into four realms — freshwater, land, oceans, and the atmosphere (including climate) — as well as biodiversity. Companies are already taking action in these areas, but once they see how interconnected everything is, they can develop more comprehensive nature strategies and take stronger action.

Can all companies make an impact when it comes to addressing nature loss?

Yes, every company, regardless of size or sector, needs to take action to contribute to a nature-positive future. A good place to start is through the high-level business actions on nature: assess, commit, transform and disclose. Often referred to as ‘ACT-D’, these actions provide a structured approach to help companies credibly embed nature in their decision-making, minimise their impacts, and contribute to the transformation of our economic and financial systems. Businesses need to: assess and measure their impacts and dependencies on nature; set transparent, time-bound, science-based targets; take actions to address their key impacts and dependencies; and publicly disclose performance and other relevant nature-related information.

Every sector has a role to play in this transformation, but it won't happen overnight. For instance, in the apparel and fashion industry, sustainability is achievable, but it requires advocating for systemic changes, like stopping fast fashion or making repairs cheaper than buying new products. Companies must lead by driving these changes and reshaping the rules of the system. With the World Economic Forum and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, we have developed new guidance for 15 sectors on the specific actions businesses should take to credibly contribute to help halt and reverse nature loss.

That is where it becomes more difficult and challenging…

The challenge lies in the fact that the economic and financial system doesn’t recognise or reward companies for their performance on natural and social capital alongside financial capital. There is a market failure where companies can externalise negative impacts without accounting for them. We need to shift toward a system where the true value of nature is embedded in products and services, making the most sustainable companies also the most successful.

Currently, incentives often encourage harmful actions. For example, at least $2.6 trillion in subsidies flow annually to environmentally harmful activities. These subsidies, intended to boost economic growth and support critical industries, unintentionally encourage unsustainable production or carbon-intensive consumption, the depletion of natural resources, or the degradation of global ecosystems. Subsidy reform is therefore essential to ensure that public money serves the public good by supporting, not destroying, the natural world. This means redirecting these funds toward sustainable practices.This would have a transformative impact on biodiversity, climate stability, and economic resilience.

How do you see the role of financial institutions in this regard?

The financial sector is uniquely positioned to address nature-related challenges, carrying multiple responsibilities: to reduce its own negative impacts on nature, to influence the companies it funds and by working with and advising businesses help plug the global biodiversity funding gap ($700 billion per year). Financial institutions need to build their internal capacity by ensuring their teams understand and can address nature-related risks and have the support to help create new, innovative financial markets for nature-related products. They should also develop financing policies and transition plans that favour nature, integrating strategies around issues like deforestation and pollution, while potentially excluding policies that fund negative environmental impacts.

Additionally, embedding nature into risk management systems is essential, with processes for screening new financial relationships and regularly assessing existing ones. Financial institutions should also create robust nature-related reporting systems, ensuring they have the right information, using frameworks like TNFD.
Lastly, they must engage with clients that have significant nature impacts or risks directly, offering advice and support in assessing and mitigating their biodiversity footprint and using their influence through voting and shareholder resolutions to drive positive change.

While it might be easier for financial institutions to step back due to the indirect nature of their involvement, more and more are recognising the embedded nature risks in their portfolios and taking the necessary steps to address them.

The Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted by 196 countries in December 2022. Given the level of transformation needed, is this agreement sufficient?

The Global Biodiversity Framework is a breakthrough, akin to the Paris Climate Agreement for nature. It unites society around a common plan, with businesses playing a key role in achieving its targets. Target 15 specifically calls for businesses and financial institutions to assess and disclose their nature-related impacts, dependencies, and risks, and take action to address nature loss. While this global agreement needs to be translated into national regulations, it sends a powerful political signal. Countries are developing national biodiversity strategies, some of which are incorporating business roles, and we are seeing legislation like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) reflect this. Though some of these regulations face challenges, foundations are being laid, and many companies committed to these actions will continue their efforts to level the playing field.

There is also progress in mandatory reporting, such as in China, where the three major stock markets are requiring over 400 listed companies to disclose nature-related information, and Japan where the country introduced the country’s first-ever Sustainability Disclosure Standards. Similar regulations, like the biodiversity net gain in the UK and discussions around nature repair markets in Australia, are shaping the landscape. These regulatory developments provide the political certainty businesses need to move forward and transform their businesses.

In this uncertain geopolitical context, how do you see the nature agenda evolving?

In the current uncertain international political context, I believe the commitment to nature will continue to evolve, especially when considering the interconnectedness of global challenges. Interestingly, nature is an issue that can be seen as non-partisan, and it requires collaboration and commitment across the political spectrum. Now, more than ever, it is essential to focus on the universal benefits of taking action to reverse nature loss in all parts of the world and ensure our future resilience.

There is a real opportunity to activate and motivate people to contribute to this collective priority, especially since nature is something local communities can relate to. People often feel more connected to what they see in their own backyard, and this connection can drive action.

I am confident that nature will remain on the business agenda. It continues to rise up the agenda of companies, with discussions now happening at the board level. Nature might even become the key issue that keeps many activities alive, despite the pushback that may occur from other political or economic challenges.

We are at a critical point in the transition towards a nature-positive and equitable economy. We can’t wait for a perfect solution or clear path forward because by then, it will be too late. We know the scale of the change we need to make. We have agreed on the goal, and we have a roadmap to get there. The urgent message is clear: companies of all sectors and sizes must act immediately. This is the time to prioritise nature and every business should join us on the journey.