"Data released by CDP suggests that nearly 70% of companies disclosing data through CDP did not assess the impact of their value chain on biodiversity in?2022." And these firms were actively requested to release data by CDP. More representative may be figures from a study by the German Environment Agency of ???? companies that indicates 96% reporting little or nothing on biodiversity (while the Living Planet Index fell by +69% since 1970). The World Economic Forum reported in 2020 "half??of world’s GDP [is] moderately or highly dependent on nature". In my view a massive underestimate. Up to this day 100% of the economy and society operate within the confines of system ??. Add impacts on #biodiversity and #ecosystems to that with: ?? construction firms that seal hectar after hectar in the name of providing families with oversized homes, ?? electronic firms sourcing minerals from biodiversity hotspots like the Congo, ?? pig farmers importing animal feed from - you guessed it - Brazil, and ?? energy firms burning "sustainable" woodchips from Sweden. Impacts and dependencies on nature are likely significant for majority rather than a minority of firms. And it doesn't stop there. Financial market firms should also take note. Not just because via the value chain perspective they have some form of connection to high impact firms. Also from an operational point of view banks, insurers and investors must not overlook the significant dependencies and thereby financial risk exposure to increasingly failing ecosystem services that are spread across portfolios. Even more so, if you agree that given the rapidly deteriorating state of nature we need to start thinking about residual impacts too (see here: https://lnkd.in/ecmqSEZ2). So, why is there such a mismatch? I believe it is because of the way materiality assessments have been conducted to date. If you consider using those stakeholder engagement surveys and workshops with scores getting aggregated, averaged, mapped and prioritized on rather useless charts, then think again. It is unlikely that you will understand whether and how nature is material to you. MESSAGE TO FIRMS: If expensive consultants don't know, go elsewhere. Most don't have an inkling on biodiversity (just ask them to define the term). Start yourself. Use materials on the priority sectors by #TNFD, consult #ENCORE or the #BiodiversityRiskFilter of the WWF. But please, do not ask random questions to random stakeholders that know nothing about the topic you are asking them about. That is a waste of your precious time and money. Invest it wisely and don't brush #ESRSE4 away just because some people equate biodiversity with frogs and snails. #spreadtheword #globalbaselineESRS Delphine GIBASSIER Louisa L?sing Steffen Müller ??Nicolas P. Alexandre Rambaud Clément Surun #csrd Christoph T?pfer
I had a conversation on this issue just yesterday. I think the root problem is somewhere we do not yet look at: over the last 50 or so years, the economy demanded - and rewarded - people with any sort of finance/administrative background. Generations of young people chose a ?traditional“ business education, in many cases because it simply was deemed to pay off materially. However, we now face the issues we face. But who is to assess those information? Pysicist, biologist, chemicists, engineers. But where shall we get those experts from? Just think about the amount of corporations falling under ESRS. Depending on size, they would actually need inhouse biodiversity experts, so reported information would be scientific and credible. But biodiversity isnt even a homogenous field. Maritime and onshore biodiversity are as different as night and day, marches differ fundamentally from woods. I think one, if not ?the“, root cause for non-disclosure is inability to assess the required data reliably. It is good that we start the journey, of course, but we should slow down in expecting benchmarkable information, at least for the next few years. We first need to built the expertise (talking society wide - so get young people into MINT).
If you don’t know where to get started, WBCSD – World Business Council for Sustainable Development has published a guidance to help companies (regardless of sector) get started in their nature-positive journey, and sector specific guidance for companies in the agri-food, built environment and energy sector. Following the "how to" guidance in the Roadmaps, companies can learn to: Conduct a robust value chain materiality screening; Identify priority actions to systematically avoid and reduce negative impacts; Determine the best restoration and regeneration approaches; Set related science-informed targets; Prepare for initial voluntary and required disclosures. https://www.wbcsd.org/Imperatives/Nature-Action/Nature-Positive/Roadmaps-to-Nature-Positive
Indeed. And why? Because the whole ESG framework is misguided from its foundation. It was built wrong, and now it's impossible to go back. Reporting should be done from a set of universal, scientific, global challenge areas and impact standards. But ISSB went backwards, GRI is stuck in the 80s with their voluntary standards, and the new ESRS is built on both. I hope to see a new standard arising soon. There are some on their way, but small levels op adoption so far.
I absolutely agree with you that asking random questions to random stakeholders is pointless. First of all, those surveys may not result in too many answers as customers and suppliers seem fatigued by all those questions. Even if you get some responses, most of them are probably subjective and lack relevant knowledge or experience. And yes, if you don't want to work with expensive consultants, go elsewhere. Besides the external sources that you listed, you can also look inside your organization, and check in with people in your procurement, finance and sales departments. Since they are in daily contact with your customers, suppliers, etc., they probably have great insight. You could also take a deeper look at the processes and data you already have inside the company. You might be surprised by what you find there! Btw I've just published an interview on my feed about objective, data-driven, and fact-based alternatives to stakeholder surveys. PS: The couple in the comic definitely needs therapy. We need to keep double materiality out of our bedrooms! ??♀?
I do wonder if it would be better to report and focus more on the actions taken to be restorative, regenerative, and what a company has done for biodiversity and nature, rather than the amount of time, money and energy spent in reporting the harms, (for which nothing much beneficial happens). I.e. focus on solutions. (I know that we also need to do reports etc, but many companies have amazing reports but you do wonder if they then carry on regardless).
Many mistake impact materiality assessments with surveying stakeholder opinions. That’s nonsense. Impact, inside-out, is data-driven. That’s what digital/ data solutions can support. To understand which data to look for, what insights to gain from it, and what to do with that insight - that’s what professionals can help you with.
[1/2] I fully agree with you Philippe that we shall be very careful both with CDP data &?#TNFD?celebrations and drawing?#TCFD?parallels as we might have witnessed another example of '?????? ???????????????????? ???????? ???????????????????????? ?????????? ???????? ???? ?????????????????? ????????????????????' (??Simon Mundy,?Financial Times see full quote in 2/2 below ] ). ?#TCFD?was instrumental in waking up the?#corporate/?#finance?world to the dangers (#risks) of the?#climatecrisis. This was a late awakening, but at least and last it happened. I have been observing a Deny, Delay & take the Driver’s seat feature re. climate (in)action and?#biodivesityloss. In both cases also claiming?that ‘#Disclosure' is either a panacea.. or the required long-duration stepping stone to ‘market solutions’, such as?#nature?#monetization?/?#biodiversity?and/or?#carboncredits?to address finally, long ignored?#externalities. The?#biodiversity?-?#crisis?/?#biodiversityloss?has been around longer than the fast accelerating?#globalwarming?triggered shocks. Neither of them could be managed trough?#disclosures?(the primary aim of?#TNFD?and?#TCFD) and none of them could be solved with 'market solutions' such as?#monetization?of?#nature?/?#GHGs.
Sustainability needs peace ??
1 年Here the sources of what I am referring to: CDP: https://www.cdp.net/en/articles/media/new-data-shows-companies-recognising-biodiversity-risks-but-majority-not-turning-commitments-into-action Study from the German Environment Agency: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/umweltberichterstattung-forschungsergebnisse#undefined Living Planet Report by WWF: https://www.wwf.org.uk/our-reports/living-planet-report-2022