Less than 1% of companies publish data on their biodiversity impacts today. At the same time, over 7 000 billion dollars per year continue to fuel the degradation of life.
Global biodiversity is declining at an unprecedented rate, jeopardizing the foundations of our human societies.
The latest report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)<, " Business & Biodiversity Assessment [1]<<"<, published last February and approved by representatives from more than 150 countries, was drafted by nearly 80 experts from around the world, from both scientific research, the private sector, and local populations. It presents an undeniable finding: all economic activities depend, directly or indirectly, on the proper functioning of ecosystems. Biodiversity must no longer be a variable of adjustment; it is the essential foundation of the global economy. This is the central message of the report, which analyzes in depth the links between businesses and nature, highlighting that economic activities are both dependent on biodiversity and responsible for its erosion, exposing companies to increasing risks.
What are the risks for businesses? Why do we see a delay in taking action? What tools are in place to support businesses in addressing these risks?
From raw materials to ecosystem services (global climate regulation, water quality regulation, pollination...), nature supports all value chains. Yet, this dependence remains largely invisible in economic decisions. Today, seven of the nine planetary boundaries have already been crossed<, including the one related to biodiversity erosion. This situation not only weakens ecosystems but also the stability of the global economy.
Climate change accelerates biodiversity loss, while ecosystem erosion weakens adaptive capacities (water regulation, soil fertility, carbon storage). Together, they create increasing tensions on resources and value chains.
Major risks for businesses
The 2026 report from the World Economic Forum places ecosystem degradation< and climate disruptions< among the major long-term risks: these are indeed two dynamics that are closely linked.
The degradation of biodiversity is already translating into direct and concrete risks for businesses, particularly:
Physical risks
They directly disrupt business activity: decreased agricultural yields due to droughts, water tensions for industrial sites, supply chain disruptions due to extreme weather events, or soil degradation affecting the quality and availability of raw materials.
Thus, these are more difficult-to-secure raw materials, sites more exposed to climate shocks, and problems in operations<.
Transition risks
They are related to changes in the economic and regulatory framework: new obligations (CSRD, duty of vigilance), rising costs of certain resources, increasing expectations from investors and customers regarding sustainability, particularly on transparency issues regarding purchases and practices.
Rapidly evolving regulations, rising costs, and customers or partners expecting stronger commitments.
Systemic risks
They are broader and more diffuse, concerning: biodiversity erosion, soil fertility loss, or water cycle degradation can sustainably weaken entire sectors and lead to large-scale economic imbalances.
All these environmental imbalances gradually weaken the entire value chains and make some business models less viable.
Moreover, the report highlights a worrying paradox: the sectors most dependent on biodiversity are often those that measure its risks the least.
In other words, a significant part of the economy relies on resources and ecosystem services still largely invisible in risk analyses and decisions<.
This is notably the case:
- From the financial sector<, indirectly but massively exposed through its investment portfolios
- From technologies<, dependent on metals from limited and geographically concentrated natural resources
- From the pharmaceutical industry<, where a significant part of innovations relies on molecules of natural origin
- From fashion and textiles<, closely linked to resources like cotton, natural fibers, or the ecosystems they depend on
This gap between actual dependence and effective consideration constitutes a strategic blind spot today.
This lack of extremely strategic oversight is concerning. In light of these findings, the IPBES report calls for an urgent integration of biodiversity into corporate strategies. It is no longer just about environmental responsibility, but about economic resilience<, at the level of the company, but also at the level of our entire economic system.
Measuring these dependencies and redirecting investments become essential conditions to avoid a systemic crisis. These dependencies are neither abstract nor immaterial: they rely on real functions, such as water availability, soil quality, ecosystem regulation, and access to natural resources.
Analyzing them allows for a direct connection between ecological issues and economic decisions, and to identify concrete levers for action.
Why are these sectors slow to act?
Too distant – Complex – Not visible – Disconnected – Short term
Several structural barriers explain this inertia, notably:
- A lack of visibility< – Indirect dependencies remain difficult to quantify, but the problem is often less about the absence of data than their remoteness from companies' management tools<. Too distant, too diffuse, too disconnected from traditional financial indicators, these impacts largely escape the radar of companies. Scope 3 (upstream and downstream impacts) of biodiversity is a major blind spot. For example, a financial institution may fund a mining project without precisely measuring its impact on ecosystems. The result: very real risks that are completely invisible, as they are neither integrated into financial models nor translated into decision-making signals. Even though these signals are highly strategic.
- A complexity of value chains – In a globalized economy, supply chains are fragmented, with multiple suppliers spread across several continents. This dispersion makes it difficult to identify the origin of raw materials and associated practices. This opacity limits companies' ability to assess their impacts and act in a targeted manner.
- Business models that are intrinsically built and oriented towards the short term – Many decisions remain guided by immediate profitability logic. Management horizons, often aligned with short financial cycles, are out of sync with the long timelines of ecological dynamics, which hinders the integration of biodiversity issues into strategies.
So how can we engage businesses more directly?
Companies have both a responsibility and a strategic interest to act. The report identifies 100 actionable items that are often low-cost.
Here are a few ways:
1. Assess your impacts and dependencies
To make these dependencies visible, IPBES emphasizes the need to combine two types of approaches:
- Starting from the ground through so-called "bottom-up" approaches anchored in the field that allow for direct observation of ecosystems and resources mobilized locally: participatory mapping, ecological monitoring, analysis of the state of environments around production sites. These approaches help to better understand the concrete links between human activities and biodiversity.
- Gaining perspective through so-called "top-down" global approaches that provide an overview of value chains: analyses of material flows to trace the use of natural resources, or biodiversity footprints to estimate a sector's level of dependence.
This dual local-global perspective allows for a shift from an observation to a genuine strategy rooted in activity and supply territories.
It is precisely this articulation between global analyses (Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), footprints: water, carbon, nature) and local understanding (territories, ecosystems) that makes these issues operational.
This articulation allows not only to measure impacts but also to identify the risks and vulnerabilities to which a company is exposed, in relation to the degradation of the ecosystems it depends on.
We work daily on these bottom-up and top-down approaches. They help prioritize actions: not all impacts and dependencies have the same level of criticality, and the goal is to focus efforts where the risks are most significant. For the bottom-up approach, we always work in connection with an ecosystem of expert partners. Using LCA in a footprint logic allows for characterizing the impacts associated with a company's activities in its value chain. At the same time, tools like ENCORE or ecosystem service assessments help to better understand the dependencies of an economic sector or a company on natural resources or healthy ecosystems.
Finally, a key point is not to wait for perfect data to act: despite uncertainties, it is possible – and necessary – to commit right now, adopting a progressive, iterative approach focused on continuous improvement. The use of LCA< in a footprint logic allows for characterizing impacts.
2. Set credible and effective goals, based on scientific recommendations
Planetary boundaries and the Kunming-Montreal Agreement provide a scientific framework regarding the objectives to be achieved to engage in a sustainable transition of value chains.
We support companies in the operational translation of these objectives at the scale of their activities and value chain by drawing inspiration from the Science-based targets for Nature (SBTN) approach, particularly to prioritize your issues, focusing on a pragmatic interpretation of them. We co-create strategic objectives and pillars with companies by mobilizing existing approaches to ensure robustness, but also the operational nature of these objectives.
3. Integrate biodiversity into your strategy
Integrating biodiversity is not about adding a new box to the organizational chart.
It is about asking a simple question with every key decision: what does my activity depend on in the living world, and what risks does this entail?
Supplies, products, investments: these topics are already at the heart of business management. Analyzing them through the lens of dependencies on natural resources, pressures on ecosystems, and associated risks allows us to prioritize actions where they are truly strategic<.
Transformation is not about multiplying initiatives, but about connecting issues that have been treated separately until now.
This certainly involves relying on partners and strengthening supply chain dynamics and seeking out partners. But above all, it requires adopting a new framework of understanding: placing the company within its living environment and in the long term, rather than reasoning solely in terms of short-term logics.
In other words, it is about breaking down silos and aligning strategies with the value chains and ecosystems they depend on.
We support all types of actors and sectors to translate impacts and dependencies into a simple, targeted, and unifying approach, transforming risks into business opportunities, relying on existing frameworks and professions.
4. Act on your value chain
By strengthening the traceability of products necessary for the company's activities (requiring suppliers to provide evidence of sustainable practices, auditing them, etc.), training/supporting its value chain in changing practices, and even financing the transition of its suppliers.
5. Report and improve by publishing verifiable data
View the CSRD not as a reporting constraint, but as a structuring lever to connect strategy, operational priorities, and management.
In a pragmatic logic, it is not about covering everything, but identifying the truly material issues for the company, in line with its activities, risks, and opportunities, to concentrate efforts where they create value. The IPBES report aligns with the double materiality approach, transparency, and improvement of practices imposed by the CSRD.
6. Innovate in business models
- Rethink your model< to rely less on distant and risky products, better value and anchor yourself in your territory/territories.
- Less dependence on virgin materials<, often volatile.
- Better valorize the resources already available, through circularity and reuse.<
- And to rely more on your territory: understanding its resources, constraints, and actors, to build shorter, more circular, more robust, and more understandable value chains.
These are also models that create more value: by securing supplies, strengthening ties with partners, and fostering customer loyalty around more coherent and sustainable offers. Transitioning from fragile models (prone to shocks where we suffer) and linear to more resilient, anchored, and value-creating systems, more controlled.
An opportunity to seize
Despite the gravity of the findings, the report emphasizes that swift action could generate significant benefits<: job creation, innovations, and substantial economic gains on a global scale. At the company level, taking action allows for differentiation from competitors, access to funding, new markets, and easier recruitment.
Conversely, inaction will lead to increasing costs< and irreversible risks for ecosystems and human societies.
The message from IPBES is clear: the biodiversity crisis, at the heart of the challenges of the 21st century, can only be resolved through a comprehensive, integrated, and ambitious approach, for which we have the knowledge and tools available.<
Companies that can integrate these dependencies into their decisions today will also be the ones that best secure their activity tomorrow.
Vertigo Lab supports companies and financial institutions to transform scientific knowledge into concrete and robust decisions. From identifying material impacts and dependencies to integrating biodiversity into governance, risk management, and capital allocation, we help organizations move from intention to measurable results.
Biography
- IPBES (2026). Methodological Assessment Report on the Impact and Dependence of Business on Biodiversity. Summary for Policymakers.
- World Economic Forum (2026) The Global Risks Report 2026
