Introduction

The report assesses how the six largest pesticide companies—BASF, Bayer, Corteva, FMC Corporation, Syngenta and UPL—are addressing biodiversity loss linked to pesticide use. These firms account for almost 80% of global pesticide production, giving them significant influence over biodiversity outcomes. Pesticides are identified as a major driver of biodiversity loss through pollution and land-use change, with particularly severe impacts from Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs), such as neonicotinoids and glyphosate, which harm pollinators, soil organisms and freshwater ecosystems.

Despite evidence that agroecological practices and lower-impact pest management can support food security, the dominant industry model continues to rely on hazardous products. The report positions investors as key actors in driving change, given regulatory, reputational and financial risks associated with continued biodiversity harm.

Key findings

All six companies produce HHPs and none has committed to fully phasing them out. UPL produces the highest number (at least 115 HHPs), while Syngenta and Bayer each produce 50 or more. Only FMC Corporation has taken partial steps to deliberately remove certain hazardous products, though without a formal phase-out commitment.

Impact assessment practices are weak. Only BASF and Bayer assess biodiversity impacts across most products, and even these assessments fail to consider location-specific impacts, downstream value-chain effects or vulnerable species adequately. Most companies focus on products in development rather than existing portfolios.

Biodiversity strategies are largely insufficient. Only Bayer has a quantified commitment to reduce environmental impact (30% by 2030), which falls short of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 7 requirement to reduce pesticide risks by 50% by 2030. No company has aligned fully with this target or committed to phasing out HHPs by 2035.

Disclosure is consistently poor. None of the companies fully align with standards such as GRI 304, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) or GBF Target 15. Key data—such as active ingredient lists, sales volumes of HHPs and use in biodiversity-sensitive locations—are not publicly disclosed.

On product innovation, all companies continue to develop products that pose biodiversity risks, often labelling them as “sustainable”. FMC performs best by embedding replacement of hazardous products into innovation practices, while others lack comparable safeguards.

Assessment framework

The assessment framework evaluates company performance against 16 expectations across five areas: product portfolio, impact assessment, biodiversity strategy, disclosure and product innovation. Expectations are aligned with international standards, including the GBF, TNFD, GRI and guidance from expert organisations such as PAN and ChemSec.

The framework emphasises that reducing biodiversity loss requires eliminating inherently hazardous products, not solely improving use practices. It also stresses the importance of assessing downstream and location-specific impacts, particularly in biodiversity-rich or vulnerable regions.

Company assessments

Performance across all companies is poor. No company meets more than two of the 16 expectations. BASF and Bayer show partial progress on impact assessment methodologies, but lack aligned targets and transparency. Corteva and Syngenta have biodiversity strategies but do not address pesticide-related risks directly. FMC demonstrates stronger innovation practices but lacks a comprehensive biodiversity strategy or disclosures. UPL performs weakest overall, with no meaningful strategies, targets or assessment frameworks related to biodiversity.

Conclusion and investor recommendations

The report concludes that urgent, systemic change is required across the sector. Investors are encouraged to engage companies to: establish targets aligned with GBF Target 7, assess and disclose biodiversity impacts across value chains in line with TNFD and GRI standards, and develop transition plans to phase out HHPs by 2035. Given the market dominance of these firms, progress by these six companies would significantly reduce pesticide-related biodiversity loss globally.