Ideas from the Speakers
The workshop began with the idea that the systemic “wicked” problems that plague our world today intertwine, particularly when biodiversity is considered. For example, while the extraction of ores and minerals is necessary for expanding clean energy technologies, it can also harm efforts to protect and restore biodiversity.
The speakers emphasized that biodiversity loss is exacerbated by the linear nature of the capitalist model, which encourages corporate exploitation under the assumption of unlimited economic gain. The model often overlooks the need to address the detrimental effects of biodiversity loss and to operate within planetary and humanitarian limits. Additionally, capitalism’s heavy reliance on resource exploitation often leads to social, environmental, and economic vulnerability and uncertainty.
To move beyond the limitations of capitalism, the speakers stressed the importance of redirecting and managing capital from corporate finance to accelerate the shift towards more biodiverse and sustainable economic models. They stated that change is happening, but not quickly enough.
Global funding for biodiversity has fallen short, especially in the context of the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP 15) and the Global Biodiversity Framework. The framework has been criticized for relying too heavily on greenwashing by private-sector actors, lacking adequate accountability mechanisms, and setting an unambitious target of $20 billion per annum – far below what’s needed to close the estimated $700 billion annual biodiversity financing gap.
To combat the root causes of biodiversity loss, the speakers suggested three strategies for greater efficiency and impact: science grounded in extensive data, drawing on millions of data points; expertise that translates knowledge into action; and collaborative efforts based on an ecosystem integrity approach.
Speakers even suggested replacing the current economic model with one based on circularity – specifically, servitization. This model emphasizes value creation over maximizing sales volume by treating products as services. In a servitization approach, products are not only reused but can achieve a circularity index greater than 1 by also generating profits that support biodiversity regeneration. However, the speakers acknowledged that transformative change depends on making sustainable alternatives a clear and compelling choice for consumers.
Building on this discussion, the focus moved to the perspectives of the workshop attendees to explore a deeper question: how to encourage issuers to move away from activities that cause negative impacts on the environment. Participants were divided into eight groups, with each group assigned a different aspect of this overarching question.
Insights from the Audience
Attendees suggested creating a catalogue to facilitate collaboration between nature positive startups, products, investors, and larger corporate entities. This would highlight each startup’s rights under the Convention on Biological Diversity, and would enable smaller enterprises to connect and collaborate with larger companies, helping them achieve their goals and expand their solutions. However, some expressed concern that these enterprises might be viewed as “charities” rather than legitimate business partners.
The wording “ensuring biodiversity” raised considerable concern among attendees. Biodiversity is notoriously difficult to define clearly and, even when defined, questions remain: how can investments in biodiversity be guaranteed not to compromise return on investment or other forms of socioeconomic benefit? Participants suggested using “biodiversity units” as a standardized measurement, with one biodiversity unit defined as one hectare of biodiverse land maintained for 30 days.
Participants agreed that environmental, social, and governance (ESG) data is extremely important in encouraging issuers to reduce their negative impact. However, this ESG data is currently unstandardized and largely driven by regulatory requirements. Making ESG data collection mandatory and standardized would encourage companies to report their data in a consistent, comparable manner that would ensure their data is benchmarkable and unbiased.
Moreover, attendees highlighted the need to better support investors by helping them understand the risks tied to their leverage, considering not only the environmental but also the social aspects of biodiversity investment. Providing clear metrics simplifies the system and helps investors better understand what they are investing in. Replacing jargon with clear goals is key to mobilizing private capital and promoting collective, not just bilateral, engagement.
This engagement should not be limited to investors but should include all stakeholders affected by the biodiversity loss crisis, especially Indigenous communities. These communities are often underrepresented, receiving only 2.1% of the historic $1.7 billion pledged through the UN climate fund directly.
In closing, participants called upon the government to do more by implementing mandatory regulations and data collection. Attendees noted that many corporations operate with a “minimum-compliance” mindset, so stricter regulations and clearer definitions of biodiversity could drive better performance. However, these regulations should not hinder the development of solutions.
The workshop emphasized the importance of active engagement, simplified processes, and stakeholder recognition in the transition to a greener economy.
