A business model that prizes growth over nature is not only unsustainable but could drive species — and economies — toward collapse if not reversed.
That warning comes from the “Business and Biodiversity Assessment Report” published by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), a global research body representing more than 150 governments. The first-ever assessment aimed to reframe the often destructive relationship between commerce and the natural world, showing how businesses both damage and depend on biodiversity and how nature underpins people’s well-being.
“This is the first time in history that scientists and businesses have come together,” said Ryo Kohsaka of the University of Tokyo, who coordinated the report with experts from 35 countries. He stressed that businesses cannot exist without biodiversity, yet many are depleting “the basis for our daily life” and undermining nature’s contributions to people.
The report highlights clear examples of dependence: fruit and other crops rely on pollinators that are declining, and fisheries suffer as coral reefs and marine habitats degrade from pollution and climate change. “Better engagement with nature is not optional for business — it is a necessity,” said Ximena Rueda, co-chair of the assessment and a researcher at Universidad de los Andes. She argues companies have a critical role in environmental stewardship that is “vital for their bottom line [and] long-term prosperity.”
Business-as-usual financing fuels biodiversity loss
To reverse unsustainable activity, the report says private and public finance flows that support nature-negative businesses must be addressed. In 2023, roughly $7.3 trillion (€6.2 trillion) of finance — about two-thirds from private sources — went to enterprises with direct negative impacts on nature. Most government subsidies supported fossil fuels and agriculture. Only about 3% of this finance, roughly $220 billion, was invested in biodiversity conservation.
This imbalance aligns with UN analysis showing “harmful investments” that damage nature outpace funding for protection by around 30 to 1. The IPBES authors call such support for destructive activities “perverse incentives” that perpetuate the status quo and hamper efforts to halt biodiversity decline.
No accountability for business impacts
The assessment also flags weak accountability: businesses are generally not held responsible for biodiversity impacts, partly because reporting is largely voluntary. Fewer than 1% of publicly reporting companies reference their effects on biodiversity. IPBES points to an absence of adequate rewards and penalties to motivate firms to stop biodiversity loss. Short-term priorities — “ever-increasing material consumption and an emphasis on reporting quarterly earnings” to satisfy shareholders — keep the cycle going.
Even from a business-risk perspective, the current path is unsustainable. The last IPBES assessment (2019) noted agricultural production value grew by about 300% since 1970, yet by 2019 up to $577 billion in annual global crop output was at risk from pollinator declines and land degradation.
Tools and pathways for change
Highlighting risk is one motivation for change, but the report stresses that companies are not always knowingly destructive. It presents tools and methods enabling businesses to operate for their own benefit while supporting biodiversity and society, including improved data and knowledge to quantify impacts and dependencies.
The assessment seeks to create an “enabling environment” for sustainability by aligning five core business components:
– policy, legal and regulatory frameworks
– economic and financial systems
– social values, norms and culture
– technology and data
– capacity and knowledge
With more than 100 concrete actions across these areas, the authors call for collaboration among governments, consumers, businesses, NGOs, Indigenous peoples and local communities. Such cooperation can help transform incentives, strengthen accountability, and scale investments in nature protection and restoration.
“Better stewardship of biodiversity is central to managing risk across the whole of the economy and throughout societies — it’s not some distant environmental issue, but a core challenge now in every boardroom and cabinet-room,” said Stephen Polasky, ecological and environmental economist at the University of Minnesota and co-chair of the assessment.
Edited by: Tamsin Walker