Companies that manage their relationship with nature do not do so merely for reputation; they do it for resilience, risk management and opportunity. From the collapse of pollinators to the depletion of resources, the impacts on biodiversity are increasingly visible, and corporate dependencies on ecosystems are becoming harder to ignore. This Insight presents the key concepts, methodological frameworks and instruments that are shaping this transition toward a more living form of accounting for nature.
Biodiversity and natural capital: a critical connection
Natural capital is defined as the set of natural resources —renewable and non-renewable— that together sustain ecosystem functioning and provide goods and services. In other words: it is nature’s “stock” that enables the flows of benefits we enjoy as a society.
This link can be understood at three levels:
- Stock: the natural capital available (e.g., forests, soils, species).
- Flows: the ecosystem services generated (e.g., pollination).
- Value: the benefits obtained by companies and society (e.g., food production).
Within this natural capital, biodiversity represents its living dimension. It is the variety of life at the genetic, species and ecosystem levels, and it plays a key role in generating, maintaining and stabilising the benefits provided by nature. These benefits are known as ecosystem services and include everything from the provision of resources such as water and food, to climate regulation, pest control and cultural values such as landscape beauty.
The more biodiverse a system is, the greater its capacity to deliver benefits and adapt to change. Biodiversity loss entails not only ecological impacts, but also a reduction in nature’s ability to sustain the economy and human well-being.
From theory to practice: key action frameworks
Knowing that integrating biodiversity into corporate analysis is essential, the next question is: how can this be done in a structured way, useful for decision-making and aligned with reporting requirements?
In recent years, several reference frameworks have emerged with precisely this aim: translating the concepts of natural capital and biodiversity into practical and comparable methodologies. These frameworks are not mutually exclusive; in many cases they complement one another and help organisations guide their assessments, set priorities and respond to growing expectations for transparency and robust management.
TNFD and the LEAP approach
At the centre of the existing frameworks, methods and tools is the LEAP approach developed by the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures), which translates their underlying principles into a single process explicitly focused on risk management and transparency:
- Locate: identify relevant locations where the organisation interacts with nature.
- Evaluate: analyse dependencies and impacts.
- Assess: evaluate risks and opportunities.
- Prepare: prepare disclosure and strategic action.
The TNFD does not replace existing frameworks: it builds on them and translates them into the language of financial risk and corporate reporting, while aligning with standards such as ISSB and the European sustainability reporting frameworks.
Indicators and metrics
Integrating biodiversity into corporate strategy requires clear and operational indicators that can translate complex biodiversity relationships into data that support informed decision-making. In this regard, the TNFD highlights that analysis should begin with recognising the pathways of impacts and dependencies that enable organisations to identify:
- Impact drivers and external factors (e.g., water resource use, greenhouse gas emissions).
- Changes in the state of nature (e.g., reduced water flow leading to sediment accumulation and longer periods of drought).
- Changes in the availability of ecosystem services (e.g., reduced water flow and quality lowering the provision of clean water).
Impact drivers are grouped into the five levers of nature change, adapted from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), to account for both negative and positive impacts:
Possible metrics that can be used to measure impact drivers:
Similarly, possible metrics are also proposed to describe the state of nature:
It is increasingly common to find these indicators grouped into integrated tools and approaches, such as the biodiversity footprint. This metric makes it possible to estimate and compare impacts on biodiversity across supply chains, products or territories, facilitating their integration into purchasing, design and investment decisions.
However, unlike climate change —where CO₂e functions as a single reference metric— biodiversity lacks one universally accepted indicator. For this reason, current recommendations favour approaches that combine multiple indicators. It is also essential to rely on spatial tools that allow activities to be geolocated, so that local context and area-specific sensitivity can be properly considered.
Regulation, targets and expectations in motion
The growing interest in integrating biodiversity as a key factor for understanding the environmental performance of an activity is not accidental: it reflects a new generation of regulatory frameworks, standards and international agreements that are raising the bar of expectations. For example:
- Global commitments: at the international level, the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework requires the private sector to assess and reduce its negative impacts on biodiversity and increase its positive contributions before 2030.
- Regulation and reporting: frameworks such as the CSRD and ESRS already include indicators on biodiversity and ecosystem use within the mandatory reporting requirements in the EU. Initiatives such as the ISSB are also incorporating nature into the financial materiality perspective.
- Science-based corporate targets: the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) provides its own methodology for companies to set quantifiable targets related to nature, starting with climate, water and land systems.
- Transparency and risk: frameworks such as the TNFD aim to align nature-related risk reporting with global financial standards, promoting a more integrated view of sustainability, governance and finance.
This new context marks a turning point: companies will not only need to account for their impacts but also demonstrate how they actively contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss. Those who start moving now will be better positioned to anticipate risks, meet rising expectations and build far more resilient strategies.
At Baisma, we help companies and regions identify and assess their impacts/pressures and dependencies on ecosystems. We apply indicators and metrics aligned with leading reference frameworks, enabling the development of strategies with measurable actions.
Interested in bringing this approach to your organisation? Get in touch.
Insights sugeridos
Global Circularity Protocol v1.0: What it is and how it applies to business
Circular economy indicators: basics, frameworks and how to apply them
Material passports: a key to digital and regulatory sustainability
