Banking on Biodiversity: The Next Imperative in ESG Strategy

Photo courtesy of Freepik, for illustration purposes only

While many large corporations have made commendable progress in measuring and mitigating their greenhouse gas emissions, a critical environmental issue remains largely unaddressed: the rapid degradation of nature. From excessive freshwater use to deforestation and biodiversity loss, the ongoing depletion of natural capital poses a profound threat not only to ecological stability but also to global economic resilience.

Scientific analyses, including the Planetary Health Check by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, present compelling evidence of this crisis. Of the nine planetary boundaries essential for sustaining life, six—including those governing freshwater availability, land use, pollution, and biosphere integrity—have already been exceeded. This places the global economy squarely in the "danger zone," beyond the safe operating space for humanity.

In economic terms, the stakes are significant. Over half of the world’s GDP is highly dependent on nature—through access to clean water, fertile soil, minerals, metals, and stable ecosystems. The World Economic Forum estimates that continued degradation of natural capital could result in a $2.7 trillion loss in global economic growth by 2030.

 

Defining the Role of Banks in Nature Target Setting

Financial institutions, particularly banks, can play a pivotal role in reversing nature loss by influencing corporate behavior through investment strategies and lending policies. Yet many still face challenges in establishing the kind of science-based, measurable pathways that have become standard in climate-related initiatives.

The starting point for any institution is to identify "nature hot spots"—areas where their operations or investments have the most significant impact on ecosystems, especially in terms of biodiversity.

Generally (may vary across sectors), there are three primary drivers of biodiversity loss:

• Land use change
• Freshwater consumption
• Pollution

While the mechanisms of nature degradation are relatively well understood, there remains a lack of consistent data and transparency around corporate contributions to these issues—and, crucially, the specific actions needed to reverse them. For instance, while deforestation is a well-recognized issue tied to agriculture and mining, clear, sector-specific and actionable targets for halting and reversing it are still rare.

 

Leveraging Global Frameworks for Nature-Positive Action

Banks are not starting from zero. A number of international frameworks provide valuable guidance for setting nature-related targets. The Planetary Health Check helps assess how far we are from a sustainable trajectory, allowing companies and financial institutions to reverse-engineer their goals to help return natural systems to safe operating zones.

Other critical frameworks include:

• The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)
• The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) land and freshwater guidance
• The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)
• The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) sector-specific recommendations

One tangible example comes from the Planetary Health Check, which suggests reducing freshwater withdrawal in water-stressed regions by 1.5% per year. This aligns with guidance from the SBTN and illustrates how global recommendations can translate into measurable corporate targets.

In Europe, new regulatory instruments such as the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS)—part of the broader Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)—are emerging as practical tools for data collection and reporting, offering a useful model for banks and regulators elsewhere.

However, many of these frameworks are broad by design, and global standards must be translated into national policies to be operationally meaningful for banks and businesses. So far, 46 countries have adapted the GBF into national-level standards, but major nature-impacting nations such as the United States, Indonesia, Malaysia, Russia, and several in Africa have yet to follow suit.

 

Focusing on High-Risk Sectors: Taking Mining and Food Systems As Examples

To illustrate how banks can set effective nature targets, let’s examines two high-impact sectors: mining and the food value chain, which includes agriculture, food processing, and beverage industries.

Within these sectors, banks should prioritize three critical areas:

1. Freshwater consumption
2. Land use change
3. Pollution

Setting meaningful targets begins with identifying robust metrics to assess progress and operational readiness. Regulatory pressure is intensifying, prompting some financial institutions to adopt short-term goals focused on reducing negative practices like deforestation and promoting positive interventions such as biodiversity monitoring and land rehabilitation. However, long-term goals focused on broader ecological restoration remain limited.

We categorize nature targets into three key types:

1. Practice-Based Targets
   These encourage or discourage specific activities, such as promoting organic farming or restricting deforestation. While many banks already incorporate such targets into financing policies and client engagement strategies, these often lack clear measurement of outcomes and overlook broader ecological impacts.
2. Impact-Based Targets
   These measure and reduce specific environmental harms, such as water withdrawals or nutrient pollution, with quantifiable outcomes. For example, setting annual water reduction goals in stressed areas or aligning fertilizer use with global industry standards or guidelines. Banks should prioritize these targets to create measurable environmental benefits.
3. State-of-Nature Targets
   These aim to restore the health of ecosystems, focusing on outcomes like biodiversity restoration or watershed health. Though more complex and harder to quantify, they represent the most ambitious and meaningful form of environmental commitment.

 

A Call for Sector-Focused, Science-Based Action

Just as banks began their climate risk management journey—largely in response to regulatory pressure via BNM Climate Risk Management and Scenario Analysis —their approach to nature must now evolve beyond broad commitments toward impact-based targets that are science-aligned, sector-specific, and measurable. This shift is essential for embedding nature into core financial decision-making processes.

Incorporating nature targets into banking practices is not merely an act of environmental stewardship—it’s a critical business strategy. Aligning financial activities with planetary boundaries helps ensure long-term economic viability and strengthens resilience against systemic environmental risks.

Ultimately, nature target setting represents a global call to integrate ecological considerations into financial and economic systems. Achieving this requires robust metrics, enforceable timelines, and coordinated action across industries and geographies.

 

All views and opinions expressed on this site are by the author and do not represent any particular entity or organisation