As environmental pressures – climate instability, habitat degradation and the loss of ecosystem services – continue to accelerate, organizations around the world are rethinking their sustainability strategies. Although regulatory As expectations for environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosures in key markets shift or are postponed, measuring and managing nature-related impacts and dependencies is becoming a key element of the long-term resilience of businesses.

Biodiversity is not just an externality, but is fundamental to value creation, community stability, resource security and supply chain stability. Despite its importance, biodiversity has remained inconsistently assessed and poorly integrated into corporate decision-making compared to, for example, carbon or energy metrics. Global standards have been lacking to help companies identify and manage these dependencies.

Value and Risk Management Framework

A newly developed standard bridges this gap ISO 17298 entitled „Biodiversity – Integrating biodiversity into the strategy and operations of organizations – Requirements and guidance“. This operational standard, developed by experts from over 60 countries, can be seen as a structured, globally recognised framework. It helps organizations in several key steps: identifying direct and indirect dependencies on ecosystems, assessing potential impacts, integrating findings into strategy and risk management, and finally demonstrating credible actions to stakeholders.

ISO 17298 works in conjunction with established environmental management systems, such as ISO 14001, to create a holistic approach to sustainability. It also provides businesses with a powerful tool to align with global initiatives such as the Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and Target 15 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. TNFD aims to redirect global financial flows away from outcomes that harm nature.

Dependency Mapping: Double Significance

The basis for implementing ISO 17298 is a set of key questions that a business must ask itself, which are based on the best available scientific knowledge:

1. What ecosystem services does the business depend on for continued business and future growth? (Section 6.2)
2. Which stakeholders (investors, distributors, consumers, regulators) have an interest in reducing the impact of business on ecosystem services? (Section 4.3)
3. What is the geographical scope and extent of these dependencies? (Sections 6.2 and 6.3)
4. How severe and likely are the current impacts on ecosystem services? (Section 6.3)
5. What acute and chronic risks arise from ongoing impacts, and what economic opportunities arise from reducing impacts? (Section 6.4)

Basically it's about mapping operations and value chains to link dependencies between ecosystem services and business components. The standard clearly forces businesses to identify not only the risk of their business to nature, but also risks arising from nature (i.e. double significance).

Challenge: Nuances of biodiversity and scientific expertise

While in theory companies should be able to develop a credible biodiversity strategy for investors and regulators, scientifically meaningful implementation requires consultation with scientists. The standard uses a broad definition of „biodiversity“ taken from the 1992 UN Convention, which includes diversity within species, between species and within ecosystems.

This broad definition provides conceptual space, but accurately capturing biodiversity can be challenging. The standard requires measuring biodiversity as a combination of ecological indicators, but does not offer explicit guidance on which metrics are most appropriate for a given environmental context. Poor choice of metrics, even within the LEAP TNFD framework, can lead to scientific scrutiny and accusations of greenwashing.

The standard adds complexity by focusing on how biodiversity affects ecological function (speed of movement of energy and nutrients) and ecosystem services (processes useful to humans). The relationship between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning is complex and depends on the environmental context. It is this shift to focus on the relationship between biodiversity and ecosystems that makes this standard useful to the scientific community, but it also requires the expertise of scientists who understand the nuances of this relationship.

Combining strategy and ecology

Successful compliance with ISO 17298, which benefits both the planet and businesses, will require ongoing input from strategic experts and environmental scientists. Risk managers should involve environmentalists in the planning process to help identify problem areas, develop risk scenarios, and turn risks into economic opportunities.

Long-term business sustainability requires an assessment of all assets essential to the business. With increasing demands for compliance from shareholders and stakeholders, ecosystem services – and the biodiversity that underpins those services – cannot be ignored.

Implementing ISO 17298 is like navigating an unfamiliar area: businesses need not only a map of their financial goals, but also an environmentalist's compass to show them how their path relates to the invisible but vital natural currents that sustain their entire operation. JRi