Business must lead on biodiversity or risk extinction

Female speaker in plenary session, with IPBES EXPERT sign and orange desk flag in front, plus male panelist in background. — Hosted by the UK Government, IPBES12 was held in Manchester, England, February 2026 — Image credit: *Anastasia Rodopoulou*

As society finds itself at a fork in the road when it comes to biodiversity impact and loss, an authoritative new report says business faces a fundamental decision: either lead transformative change, or risk extinction.

There are no exceptions — every business depends on biodiversity, and every business impacts biodiversity.

The growth of the global economy has however been at the cost of immense biodiversity loss, which now poses a critical and pervasive systemic risk to the economy, financial stability and human wellbeing.

These core findings and urgent warning together form the key takeaways from a landmark new study published this month by the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).

Importantly, though, the overriding message is not all doom and gloom; rather, it is an urgent call to action.

Each and every business can become a positive agent of change — and the report sets out more than 100 specific actions for companies, governments, financial actors and civil society to take together.

No opt-out box to tick

Even companies that seem far-removed from nature or that do not see themselves as nature-based are nevertheless implicated and affected — there is no opt-out box that any business, large or small, can tick.

All of them rely, directly or indirectly, on material inputs, regulation of environmental conditions — such as flood mitigation and water supply — and non-material contributions such as tourism, recreation, education, and spiritual, aesthetic and cultural values. However, businesses often bear little or no financial cost for their negative impacts and many cannot currently generate revenue from positive impacts on biodiversity.

The IPBES Methodological Assessment Report on the Impact and Dependence of Business on Biodiversity and Nature’s Contributions to People was approved by representatives of the more than 150 member Governments of IPBES, during the 12th session of the IPBES Plenary, hosted in Manchester, UK. The text had been prepared over three years by 79 leading experts from 35 countries and all regions of the world, drawn from science and the private sector, in consultation with Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Known as the Business and Biodiversity Report, it finds that businesses are central to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, but also that many often lack information to address their impacts and dependencies, as well as the risks and opportunities relating to biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people.

At a glance, key statistics and numbers from the Report look like this:

At least 8: Number of countries (along with the European Union) in which central banks have analysed their financial institutions’ exposure to dependencies on biodiversity;
$1.18 trillion-$130.11 trillion: Growth of the global economy between 1820 and 2022 (in 2011 dollars);
+100% vs -40%: Average per capita increase in human produced capital since 1992, versus reduction in stocks of natural capital;
$7.3 trillion: Global public and private finance flows in 2023 with directly negative impacts on nature, of which private finance accounted for $4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies of about $2.4 trillion;
$220 billion: Global public and private finance flows directed in 2023 to activities contributing to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity;
<1%: Publicly reporting companies that mention biodiversity impacts in their reports;
60%: Share of Indigenous lands globally threatened by industrial development;
25%: Share of Indigenous territories under high pressure from resource exploitation.

Enabling environment for benefit

Executive Secretary Dr Luthando Dziba at IPBES 12, Manchester, February 2026 — Image credit: Anastasia Rodopoulou

The Report explains that the current conditions in which businesses operate are not always compatible with achieving a just and sustainable future, and that such conditions also perpetuate systemic risks.

The mix of challenges often faced by businesses is extensive and might include: inadequate or perverse incentives; barriers that hinder efforts to reverse nature’s decline; an institutional environment with insufficient support, enforcement and compliance; as well as significant gaps in data and knowledge.

These issues combine with business models that result in ever-increasing material consumption and an emphasis on reporting quarterly earnings, to contribute to the degradation of nature around the world.

The Report makes the point that fundamental change is possible and necessary to create an enabling environment to align what is profitable for business with what is beneficial for biodiversity and people.

It tells a tale of both risk and opportunity, says Matt Jones, one of three Co-chairs of the Assessment:

“This is a pivotal moment for businesses and financial institutions, as well as Governments and civil society, to cut through the confusion of countless methods and metrics, and to use the clarity and coherence offered by the Report to take meaningful steps towards transformative change.

“Businesses and other key actors can either lead the way towards a more sustainable global economy or ultimately risk extinction — both of species in nature, but potentially also their own.”

Twisted reality of business-as-usual

In terms of the typical context for commercial action, current conditions unhelpfully perpetuate business-as-usual and do not support the transformative change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

For example, large subsidies that drive losses of biodiversity are directed to business activities with the support of lobbying by businesses and trade associations. In 2023, global public and private finance flows with directly negative impacts on nature, were estimated at $7.3 trillion, of which private finance accounted for $4.9 trillion, with public spending on environmentally harmful subsidies of about $2.4 trillion.

In contrast, $220 billion in public and private finance flows were directed in 2023 to activities contributing to the conservation and restoration of biodiversity, representing just 3% of the public funds and incentives that encourage harmful business behaviour or prevent behaviour beneficial to biodiversity.

Priorities are skewed and must change, argues Professor Stephen Polasky, Co-chair of the Assessment:

“The loss of biodiversity is among the most serious threats to business. Yet the twisted reality is that it often seems more profitable to businesses to degrade biodiversity than to protect it.

“Business as usual is not inevitable — with the right policies, as well as financial and cultural shifts, what is good for nature is also best for profitability. To get there, the Report offers tools for more effective measurements and analysis.”

Less than 1% report on biodiversity

The Report finds that a wide range of methods, knowledge and data exist for measuring business impacts and dependencies, which can already inform decisions and action, but that more is understood about applying methods for assessing impacts than for measuring dependencies.

The application and uptake of methods is low and uneven across and within business sectors and locales, with less than 1% of publicly reporting companies mentioning impacts on biodiversity in their reports.

Clarity is key to helping companies cut through complexity and competing demands, explains Prof Polasky:

“The Report helps to decipher which methods, metrics and policy tools are appropriate, helping bring clarity and coherence to how businesses measure and report on their interactions with nature. We are moving the conversation from voluntary sustainability pledges to a science-based roadmap for system change.”

Whilst there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the Report proposes three overarching characteristics that can be used to assess which methods are most appropriate for any business, of any size or sector:

Coverage — geographic as well as the extent of impacts and dependencies included;
Accuracy — degree to which results correctly describe what they are designed to measure; and
Responsiveness — ability to detect changes that can be attributed to actions and activities of business.

Decisions at operational level require site-specific information, generated through ‘bottom-up’ approaches including location-based observations, participatory monitoring and mapping, plus spatial analysis.

Responses more appropriate at the portfolio, corporate and value chain levels include ‘top-down’ methods such as lifecycle approaches and macro-scale environmental economic models.

Indigenous Peoples and local communities

Another key Report finding is that business could improve the measurement and management of impacts and dependencies through appropriate engagement with science, plus Indigenous and local knowledge.

Data and knowledge are too often siloed, says Professor Ximena Rueda, Co-chair of the Assessment:

“Scientific literature is not written for businesses and a lack of translation and attention to needs has slowed uptake of findings. Among business there is also often limited understanding and recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as stewards of biodiversity and holders of knowledge on conservation, restoration and sustainable use.”

Industrial development threatens 60% of Indigenous lands around the world and a quarter of all Indigenous territories are under high pressure from resource exploitation, but Indigenous Peoples and local communities often find themselves inadequately represented in business research and decision-making.

There is clear win-win to be had here for commerce and community, adds Prof Rueda:

“Respectful collaboration resulting in the sharing and better use of data, information, scientific insights, Indigenous and local knowledge can translate into better management of business risks and realisation of opportunities.”

Priorities and 100+ options for action

The Report explores both actions that can be taken by businesses themselves and ‘signalling’ actions that can publicly influence and inspire action by others. Actions of each type can be pursued by businesses across four decision-making levels: corporate; operations; value-chain; and portfolio.

While there is a large existing knowledge base to guide business action, there are also important gaps that constrain the ability of all actors to fully understand and effectively manage business activities.

The Report groups these knowledge gaps as follows: business-relevant data; data accessibility and transparency; completeness of evidence; adoption of methods and applicability of methods. It then proceeds to suggest five sets of actions to address these priorities — offering solutions, not just flagging problems.

Another central message of the Report is that businesses cannot, by themselves, deliver the scale of change needed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Collaboration, collective and individual actions are essential to create an enabling environment where businesses contribute to a just and sustainable future.

Five specific components are identified for enabling: policy, legal and regulatory frameworks; economic and financial systems; social values, norms and culture; technology and data; and capacity and knowledge.

In total, the Report provides more than 100 specific examples of concrete actions that can be taken, across each of these five components, by businesses, governments, financial actors and civil society.

This joined-up guidance will be key to achieving shared goals, concludes Chair of IPBES Dr David Obura:

“This first-ever fast-track IPBES Assessment Report was delivered with urgency, at the request of Governments, as a vital contribution to efforts by businesses, governments, financial actors and society to meet the goals and targets of the Global Biodiversity Framework, the Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.”

IPBES is an independent intergovernmental body comprising more than 150 member Governments. Established by Governments in 2012, it provides policymakers with objective scientific assessments about the state of knowledge regarding the planet’s biodiversity, ecosystems and the contributions they make to people, as well as the tools and methods to protect and sustainably use these vital natural assets.

Further Reading: