WBA benchmark logs lacklustre progress ahead of COP16 – despite mounting regulations and guidance.
New research has shown that major global companies are failing to assess and measure their impact on nature.
Using data from 2022-24, the World Benchmarking Alliance’s (WBA) latest Nature Benchmark covered 816 companies across more than 20 sectors – including food, mining and apparel – with dependencies on the natural world.
It found that the vast majority still failed to fully understand the extent to which they negatively impact and rely on nature. This means they are not sufficiently upscaling efforts to reverse nature degradation and biodiversity loss in line with commitments enshrined within the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and jurisdictional regulations such as the EU’s Nature Restoration Law.
Of all covered companies, only 5% had carried out an assessment of the impact of their business operations on nature, and less than 1% had assessed their associated dependencies.
“We haven’t seen the sea-change we hoped for in how large companies globally are considering their relationship with nature,” WBA Nature Transformation Lead Jenni Black told ESG Investor. “But assessing and disclosing nature-related impacts and dependencies is a really important first step for credible nature action.”
Widespread coverage
The WBA also assessed corporate performance across plastics, water stewardship and environmental rights.
While 43% of companies provided qualitative evidence on plastic use reduction – such as launching related programmes and initiatives – their performance dropped off significantly when the WBA looked for quantitative metrics. Just 19% could quantitatively demonstrate plastic-related progress, and only 7% had set quantitative and time-bound plastic use and waste reduction targets.
The WBA did, however, note growing awareness among companies of their role in ensuring water availability worldwide, with 29% reporting water use reduction and usage in water-stressed areas. However, only 15% disclosed metrics on discharged pollutants – with only 4% including targets to reduce them.
The majority of companies also failed to express a clear commitment to respecting Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Only 13% of companies had made pledges in that respect.
“There are examples of companies scoring well, which shows that what the benchmark is asking for is possible,” said Black. “There are pockets of leadership.”
Two industries in particular outperformed the rest – personal and household products with an average score of 26, and pharmaceuticals and biotechnology with an average score of 20. These two industries have a high percentage of public ownership, which means they are typically exposed to more pressure on environmental factors from investors and regulators.
Overall though, performance across all sectors was low, with a total average score of 15 out of 100 – this doesn’t match the level of urgency required. According to the World Economic Forum, over half of the world’s GDP is currently exposed to moderate or severe risks linked to nature degradation.
“The benchmark is a tool that investors can use to start [and inform] conversations with portfolio companies,” Black argued.
Finding remedies
Alongside the WBA’s benchmark, there are other emerging tools investors can draw on to gain insights into companies’ nature-related efforts.
These include engagement initiative Nature Action 100’s benchmark indicators, which rates companies on their ambition, assessment, targets, implementation, governance, and engagement.
In addition, there are nature target-setting and disclosure frameworks, such as the Science Based Targets Network and the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). The latter published its final recommendations for nature-related risk management and disclosure last year.
More recently, a coalition led by the World Climate Foundation pledged to mobilise tens of billions from the private sector for nature-based investments by 2030.
Meanwhile, the WBA has decided to hone its focus on nature-related engagement efforts over the next few years through the Collective Impact Coalition (CIC).
Research for the next iteration of its Nature Benchmark will commence later this year, with a publication date set for early 2026.
It is imperative for companies to work on their understanding of and actions on nature-related impacts during that time, Black insisted. “From their own operations to their value chains, they need to prioritise halting and reversing biodiversity loss.”
Governments, investors and the civil society should also hold the private sector accountable, ensuring that all large and transnational companies regularly monitor, assess and disclose their risks, dependencies, and impacts on biodiversity.
“There’s still a massive hill to climb, but it’s not insurmountable,” Black added.
