Nature as a strategic business issue

Addressing nature-related pressures is increasingly viewed as a strategic investment in business continuity and development. For today’s senior leaders, managing these pressures supports long-term performance within a landscape of increasing resource constraints and rising stakeholder expectations. The global economy is fundamentally built on nature, with more than half of the world’s GDP (according to the World Economic Forum) moderately or highly dependent on nature and its services. As the footprint on nature becomes more visible, companies are moving towards a systematic, science-based approach to identify their dependencies and business exposure.

Why nature action matters now

The pressure to act on nature is rising across the business landscape due to emerging regulatory requirements, investor attention to nature-related risks, and shifting customer expectations. Nature is complex, spanning freshwater, land, and ocean systems, with impacts often lying deep within upstream supply chains. This demanding context requires companies to navigate multi-dimensional issues while meeting growing expectations to disclose impacts, act on them, and demonstrate credible progress.

What does SBTN do?

The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) provides a structured approach for companies to manage their environmental impacts and dependencies through science-based targets for nature. This framework complements the role that science-based targets already play for climate through the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi). It helps companies determine what needs to change, where, by how much, and by when. The SBTN five-step approach includes: 1. Assess, 2. Prioritise, 3. Set Targets, 4. Act, and 5. Track. Independent validation of these targets strengthens the credibility and robustness of a company’s work, ensuring that priorities are grounded in recognised scientific processes.

The business value of science-based targets for nature

Corporate interviews reveal six key areas of business value. First is protected revenue and market access, where identifying nature-related intersections helps focus action to ensure continuity. H&M Group treats nature as a business resilience and sourcing issue rather than an add-on. Second, it leads to a lower cost of credibility, with companies like Ørsted and Kering noting that third-party validation provides a stronger basis for explaining their actions to stakeholders. Third, it enables better decisions and more focused resources. Kirin Holdings and Kering (specifically in the Arno Basin) have used SBTN methods to identify the most significant impacts and prioritise resource allocation.

Fourth, companies gain greater confidence in what action is needed. Arla Foods and Tata Motors have used the process to distinguish between visible conservation projects and foundational responsibility. Fifth, it creates a common framework for stronger ownership and execution across functions such as procurement, finance, and risk. At Holcim, freshwater metrics now feed into senior leader incentive compensation. Sixth, the framework helps future-proof how the business manages nature by building a reusable foundation of data and governance that facilitates responding to evolving regulations like CSRD and TNFD.

Sector insights: what first movers are doing

In the food and agriculture sector, nature is a fundamental production issue directly affecting yield and sourcing continuity. Arla Foods and Kirin Holdings have prioritised freshwater as a critical realm, focusing on both direct operations and complex supply chains. In textiles, apparel, and retail, nature risk is often concentrated several tiers upstream. H&M and John Lewis Partnership focus on supply chain resilience and building strong supplier relationships to create long-term value. For the materials, manufacturing, and utilities sector, nature dependencies are a critical asset-performance and license-to-operate issue. Tata Motors and Holcim emphasise site-level accountability and the importance of understanding how upstream suppliers affect resilience.

Peer advice: practical lessons from company experience

A consistent finding is that perfect data is not required to begin. Several companies, including GSK and KLS Pureprint, started with incomplete information and improved their data maturity over time. Supplier engagement should be framed as a shared conversation about risk and resilience rather than a mere data request. Tata Motors found that having internal analytics capability was critical to turning fragmented information into actionable insights. Smaller companies like Musholm and Seatopia demonstrate that the entry barrier is lower than perceived, and external expertise can be used to carry the technical load.

What does it take?

Setting targets requires time, coordination, and clear ownership. Large companies typically assign a project lead for around a year to coordinate cross-functional inputs. Indicative timeframes suggest at least three months for assessment and prioritisation, one to three months for target setting, and three to four months for validation. External costs vary; startups may spend below EUR 10,000, while large companies often report consultant fees between EUR 25,000 and EUR 75,000 to complete the initial steps.

Executive takeaway

Nature action should be viewed as an investment decision that protects revenue, reduces current costs, avoids future costs, and generates new revenue. Defensive values, such as sourcing continuity and regulatory readiness, are already evident. Offensive opportunities, such as buyer preference and tender positioning (noted by Ørsted and Talawakelle), are emerging for first movers. The board-level priority is ensuring the investment is proportionate to the commercial value it protects and the future opportunities it creates.