Webinars series on biodiversity/nature approaches for companies

Corporate biodiversity: All these barbaric acronyms, CSRD ESRS E4, TNFD, SBTN, GRI 101 now have their solutions! The EU B@B platform published a very timely comparison and quality cross-evaluation. An early but welcome Christmas gift. See here for the report itself: the report

So let’s calm down and see how this publication could become bedside reading for anyone working in the field of the nature of business.

If you are in a hurry, read first the Comparative Overview (heading 3.3, page 62 et seq.). In summary, TNFD is the most demanding, as it requires an assessment of risks and opportunities, a transition plan, and all levels of the value chain (to be fully compliant). GRI is the least demanding and focuses mainly on impacts. Whatever you do, the TNFD’s LEAP approach and its the sectoral guidelines are useful for the other two disclosure initiatives. On the action side, the gbfkm and planetaryboundaries are important for setting targets, always structured according to the mitigation hierarchy. The devil is in the details, as the requirements for metrics differ significantly. This is very important in view of the investment involved in collecting data that correspond to specific parameters.

If you are subject to CSRD and expect biodiversity to be material, see Table 2, p.15. This highlights the synergies within CSRD standards.

If you are staggering your disclosure effort and want to start with the CSRD, see Table 9 on pages 65 ff. The feasibility of adapting the CSR work to TNFD or GRI 101 and vice versa is indicated.

If you wish to select the metrics most likely to be required by most of these initiatives, refer to Appendix 1. It gives a great overview of mandatory/voluntary metrics. This table really saves you time in defining actions and tracking them.

I find that quite proper to present frameworks for either financial or corporates. Both sectors have to collaborate to tackle the biodiversity loss and it can start by understanding the approaches of each party, before to give/ask for money. See heading 4, pages 70 ff.

So yes, the layout has not the same level of sophistication than one of its subject (e.g. the TNFD). In any case, it can be expected that the main readers of this B@B platform publication will prefer an informative content. And if this could ease regular update, what to complain about? Because not sure that all the very useful hyperlink are going to stay active for a long time 🫨

🙏 to Johan LAMMERANT
and his fellows

disclosure csrd naturepositive netpositive