
Industry influence on biodiversity policy: A pilot study demonstrating industry associations’ engagement on biodiversity-related policy and regulations
This report reveals that industry associations representing key sectors and some of the largest companies in the world are lobbying to delay, dilute, and block critically needed biodiversity policy in both the EU and US. The vast majority of engagement on specific policies and regulations is oppositional, seeking to roll back, weaken, or block policy.
Please login or join for free to read more.

OVERVIEW
This report analyses the engagement of industry associations in the EU and US to prevent and reverse the loss of biodiversity. The results indicate that the vast majority of engagement on specific policies and regulations is oppositional, seeking to roll back, weaken, or block policy. The most highly engaged associations across a range of biodiversity-related policies are AFBF and Copa Cogeca. The agriculture industry associations have significant influence on biodiversity policies.
Background
The report highlights that despite increasing awareness of the biodiversity crisis, the world failed to meet any of the UN biodiversity targets for the last decade. Biodiversity loss due to human activity is occurring globally at unprecedented rates and faster than at any other time in human history. Effective government policy is crucial in building a sustainable economy and halting biodiversity loss.
Methodology
The industry associations were analysed, scored and graded using a new methodology based on InfluenceMap’s established methodology for assessing corporate engagement on climate policy. The methodology searches for all publicly available and reliable evidence on corporate engagement with biodiversity-related policy and divides the data sources into seven categories.
Results
The report highlights that the most negatively engaged industry associations across different policies are the US Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute, and the National Mining Association. All the industry associations assessed appear to be broadly oppositional to biodiversity-related policy. The industry associations’ engagement intensity across all areas of policy is generally low.
Recommendations
- Greater transparency should be required of companies on their environmental efforts, including their contributions to the biodiversity crisis. Investors should encourage or require disclosure of lobbying practices by companies.
- Biodiversity-related policy benchmarks should be integrated into environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings to help investors identify risks and opportunities associated with biodiversity loss.
- The industry associations’ practices should be publicly scrutinised, especially by investors, as they have a significant impact on biodiversity policies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, industry associations, representing key sectors and some of the largest companies in the world, are lobbying to delay, dilute, and block critically needed policy aimed at preventing and reversing biodiversity loss in the EU and US. There is limited investor action despite growing concern within the financial community about biodiversity loss. There is significant pressure for governments around the world to show increased ambition and agree on an effective global framework to tackle biodiversity loss.