Context

The report assesses how globally listed companies impact and depend on biodiversity, reflecting growing investor concern about nature-related financial risks. It analyses 2,369 companies, mainly from the MSCI All Country World Index, representing around 85% of global equity markets. The findings support investor initiatives such as Nature Action 100 and align with frameworks including the TNFD, PBAF and EU biodiversity measurement guidance.

Approach and considerations

A collaborative multi-tool biodiversity footprinting approach is used. Four tools assess biodiversity impacts and two assess dependencies on ecosystem services. Impacts are measured using Mean Species Abundance and Potentially Disappeared Fraction metrics, normalised on a 0–100 scale. Dependencies are assessed across 26 ecosystem services using ENCORE-based models. Results are estimates, relative across the assessed universe, and not location-specific. Impacts and dependencies are analysed by company, industry, driver of loss and value chain scope.

Analysis of impacts

Biodiversity impacts are highly concentrated. Around 67% of total estimated impact is attributable to the top 250 companies, 49% to the top 100, and more than 15% to the top 10. Company size, industry and value chain position strongly influence results, with nearly 50% of total impact arising from scope 3 activities.

Across all companies, the main drivers of biodiversity loss are climate change (34%), pollution (31%), land use (23%) and water use (12%), although their importance varies by industry and scope. Rankings differ depending on whether absolute impact or impact intensity (impact per unit of revenue) is applied, leading to different engagement priorities.

The food products industry shows the highest impact under both approaches, largely driven by land use in scope 3. Oil, gas and consumable fuels rank second, driven mainly by climate change, and chemicals rank third, driven largely by pollution. These three sectors dominate the highest-impact company rankings. The analysis shows that focusing only on climate change would fail to capture companies with high impacts from land use, pollution or water use.

Analysis of dependencies

All companies depend on ecosystem services to some degree, but dependencies are more evenly distributed than impacts. The most critical services are surface and groundwater provisioning, followed by regulating services such as erosion control, filtration, flood and storm protection, and water flow maintenance.

Food products and beverages show the highest dependencies. Nine of the ten most dependent companies operate in food products, with dependencies largely occurring upstream in scope 3 rather than in direct operations. High dependency does not inherently represent financial risk; risks arise when ecosystem services decline or become scarce, potentially disrupting production or supply chains. The report highlights that dependency assessment methods are less mature than impact assessments.

Recommendations

The report recommends using the results as a prioritisation tool rather than for formal reporting. Financial institutions should begin with industry-level screening to identify priority sectors, then deepen analysis at the company and, where possible, location-specific level. Engagement should focus on companies with high absolute impacts, high impact intensity, or material dependencies that could translate into nature-related risks.

Investors are encouraged to consider entire value chains, given the significance of scope 3 impacts and dependencies, and to combine footprinting data with spatial tools and improved corporate disclosures aligned with TNFD, ESRS and GRI standards.

Looking ahead

The study is positioned as a starting point for further assessment and engagement. Biodiversity footprinting remains an evolving field, with further work needed on location-specific data, dependency metrics, and incorporation of mitigation actions and positive outcomes. Continued collaboration among investors, companies, data providers and tool developers is essential to improve decision-useful biodiversity data and support effective nature-related investment strategies.