The relationship between business and the natural world is a multifaceted one. Business at the same time relies upon nature but, in many cases, causes it harm. During what some scientists call the "Anthropocene" geological epoch, humans have had a greater impact on the planet than any other creature or force. Human threats to natural ecosystems and human societies have increased in recent decades, with devastating consequences. Awareness of environmental issues has increased significantly over the past century. However, institutional measures to protect nature have not been sufficient. Even well-meaning policies are often based on a divide between “we”, the human beings, and “them”, the other species. The European Environment Agency argues that this idea is inherently driving the Anthropocene and needs to be reconsidered. Recent estimates indicate that human impacts on biodiversity are: Of the total biomass of mammals, humans account for 36%, with our livestock making up 60%, while wild mammals account for only 4%. The Earth is experiencing an extraordinary and rapid loss of biodiversity. 75% of the terrestrial environment and 66% of the marine environment have been “substantially altered” by human activities.[i]
Biodiversity stripes and Climate stripes
The rapid decline in biodiversity is also closely related to climate change. In the words of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the IPCC, ‘they share underlying drivers, they interact and can have cascading and complex effects that impact people’s good quality of life and compromise societal goals’.[ii]
There are three ways in which the catastrophic collapse of ecosystems and biodiversity puts businesses at risk:
1. Business reliance on nature: when a company's operations, supply-chain efficiency, real estate asset value, physical safety, and business continuity are all directly influenced by nature
2. The fallout from business impacts on nature: when the effects of business operations on nature loss result in bad outcomes, such as losing clients or entire markets, expensive legal action, and unfavourable regulatory changes.
3. The effects of nature loss on society: when societal disruption is made worse by nature loss, this can lead to dangers in the physical world and the markets for businesses.[iii]
The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) is a collaboration of leading non-profit and mission-driven organisations around the world to provide guidance on setting science-based targets for all Earth systems. They work together to empower businesses and cities, aiming to help define a clear pathway to ensure sufficient effort is made across the value chain to address impacts and dependencies on nature.[iv]
Vogue business report that LVMH, Kering, L'Occitane and the H&M Group have joined 17 global companies piloting the first science-based nature targets aimed at orienting corporate efforts around the protection and restoration of nature. Looking specifically at fashion brands, this framework for the defence of nature suggests the following approach for the use of freshwater. Companies should aim for absolute reductions in freshwater usage and absolute reductions in nitrogen and phosphorus pollution. The latter will have a significant impact on industries with agricultural supply chains. The use of fertilisers in industrial agriculture and other common agricultural practices has led to spikes in nutrient pollution, particularly nitrogen and phosphorus levels, causing 'dead zones' in coastal waters around the world. On the land side, companies need not only zero deforestation targets but also targets that do not change other ecosystems, such as grasslands and wetlands. Transformation is essentially the reshaping of landscapes for purposes other than their natural function. An important example is the cultivation of animal feed. While it is difficult for brands to trace hides back to the farm or even the slaughterhouse, it is essential information for making zero deforestation claims. However, the crops fed to the cattle used for leather production are even more obscure. This is the supply chain history that companies most easily forget or which goes unrecognised and can be a significant part of their impact on nature.[v]
The WWF has reacted positively to the announcement. They say a science-based target for nature has several components that make it effective. First, they balance their entrepreneurial ambitions with action in times of crisis when they need it most. Second, we will build new incentive structures that put nature, people and climate at the heart of action. Science-based goals are aimed at restoring and preserving the ecological functions of landscapes, engaging communities in solutions and investing in creating the conditions for real change. This balanced approach will yield results consistent with the broader United Nations environmental and sustainable development goals. And third, science-based targets promote integrated approaches through the development of methodologies and guidelines for climate-responsive freshwater, terrestrial, marine and biodiversity, accelerating win-win solutions, as well as curbing greenwashing. Whether or not this was an explicit goal, most major companies are already contributing to nature conservation through their commitment to climate change and sustainable sourcing. Now is the time to take a more rigorous approach to making sure they are having the right impact on nature.[vi]
Natural systems (including trees and forests, wetlands, and grasslands) are protected, managed, and restored as part of nature-based solutions to social problems. Nature-based solutions, for example, concentrate on the systems that support water security rather than on water solutions at the site level, such as repairing leaking pipes. Restoring wetlands and other ecosystems, for instance, can replenish groundwater levels and lessen the risk of flooding. Healthy forests have the ability to filter water, lower the cost of water treatment, and control the rate at which water is released downstream. By thinning out overly dense woods, removing invasive species, and improving the water-retention capabilities of meadows and riparian habitats, recovering damaged ecosystems can lower the danger of wildfire. These approaches can shield companies from significant interruptions in the water supply in a way that traditional corporate water stewardship cannot. While it is admirable and perhaps vital to reduce your water footprint by 20%, doing so won't protect your company against significant water supply disruptions brought on by droughts or wildfires. A single flood or wildfire, like the 2020 wildfires that destroyed dozens of wineries and facilities in Northern California and cost the state's economy an estimated $3.7 billion, may quickly wipe millions off a company's balance sheet.[vii]
[iv] Science based targets- The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN)
[v] Vogue Business- Science-based targets for nature are here. What does it mean for fashion?
[vi] WWF- The Promise of Science-Based Targets for Nature
[vii] WRI- How Nature-based Solutions Can Protect Businesses from Water Risks
Oscar is a recent graduate with a background in earth science. He is currently studying an MSc focussing on disaster responses, emergency planning and community resilience. His postgraduate research project will assess the link between climate crisis risk perception and attitudes to green energy projects. “Adapting to the climate crisis through the pursuit of net zero requires community engagement and understanding. Zero Carbon Academy’s goals closely align with this approach and I’m excited to have the opportunity to research and communicate a variety of topics relating to our environment and sustainability”.
