Introduction

The Finance for Biodiversity (FfB) Foundation conducted a pilot study using four biodiversity footprint tools to assess the biodiversity impact of industries globally. The analysis, based on the MSCI World Index’s top 250 companies, sought to identify high-impact sectors for biodiversity and guide investor engagement. The study emphasised the urgency of reversing nature loss and highlighted gaps in corporate biodiversity data.

Key findings

• Highest impact sectors: The food, beverage, and tobacco sector recorded the highest potential biodiversity impact, accounting for 21% of the analysed impact. The materials sector followed with 18%.
• Top industries: Food products were the single largest contributor to biodiversity impact (18%), followed by oil, gas, and consumable fuels (13%) and chemicals (8%).
• Company impact: The top 250 high-impact companies represented 73% of the MSCI World Index’s biodiversity footprint, underlining the concentrated impact of a few corporations.
• Sector underrepresentation: Despite its significant impact, agriculture was underrepresented in the analysis due to data limitations, while marine sectors, construction, and transportation impacts were potentially understated.

Methodology

The study involved harmonising company data, normalising impact scores from various tools, and aggregating top contributors. Key steps included addressing data gaps, averaging scores across tools, and aligning results with GICS and SICS industry codes. However, the analysis was limited to listed companies and excluded financial institutions.

Biodiversity impact scores were calculated using models that combined revenue figures, product footprints, and sector averages. This approach enabled cross-comparison and mitigated tool-specific biases.

Multi-tool collaboration

Four tools—BIA-GBS, BFFI, CBF, and GID—were applied alongside the ENCORE sector tool. This approach captured diverse drivers of biodiversity loss across industries. However, it revealed significant data gaps, particularly in emerging markets and unlisted companies. The collaborative methodology highlighted the value of combining tools to improve the robustness of biodiversity footprint assessments.

Limitations and considerations

• The analysis was based on potential rather than actual impacts due to insufficient corporate disclosures on land use, emissions, and resource consumption.
• Geographic biases in the MSCI World Index limited the study’s global representativeness.
• Data gaps and tool limitations led to underrepresentation of certain sectors, such as agriculture and marine ecosystems.

Despite these constraints, the study provides a critical foundation for prioritising biodiversity engagement.

Recommendations

• Investor engagement: Focus on the top 250 high-impact companies to drive targeted biodiversity-positive change. Food, beverage, and materials industries should be prioritised.
• Data improvements: Enhance corporate biodiversity disclosures, particularly on scope 3 emissions and resource dependencies.
• Expanded analysis: Future studies should include emerging markets and unlisted sectors for a comprehensive biodiversity impact profile.

Next Steps

The FfB Foundation plans to refine the methodology by incorporating updated company data and advanced dependency assessments. Continued collaboration with tool providers aims to strengthen biodiversity measurement approaches. Future efforts will also address the limitations of the current analysis and support global investor initiatives like Nature Action 100.