Reframing Business and Biodiversity beyond a single metric, a single impact and a single value
User offline
Last seen 28/10/2022
Joined 13/11/2020
- The requirement for a single metric/system is a diversion. There exists an entire world of conservation plans and priorities, of BMPs and biodiversity databases that provide alignment and overlay opportunities for private sector lands management. A framing shift needs to happen to re-focus corporate and NGO concerns from the creation of a single, credible metric (which will never happen) towards the acceptance of the adaption and adoption of tools that already exists.
- Business has long accepted the Scopes 1-3 emissions model for GHG and such an approach should be promoted for biodiversity. As long as companies can use the lack of materiality as a reason for lack of action, biodiversity risk remains undetermined and unaddressed. Every sector has an impact from site of extraction through manufacturing, transportation and use. Looking at the sector impact is important but addressing the value chain impact makes practical/logistical sense because industry is already seeking to reduce other ESG risks along the chain.
- The relative impacts of business and biodiversity (negative and positive) are also important. Understanding the different impacts to nature and people’s relationship with nature can move the discussion from areas of high biodiversity value as defined by the conservation community to encompass areas of high natural value to people from communities where industry operates whether urban, suburban or rural.