The event "Nature and Sustainable Finance" highlighted the mounting challenges in integrating biodiversity into corporate strategies and financial market frameworks. In his opening remarks, Volker Moosbrugger (FEdA Spokesman), argued that biodiversity should not be viewed in isolation but rather as part of the broader concept of natural capital, which includes air, water, soil, and life. The erosion of this capital poses a profound threat to global economic stability, with approximately half of the world’s GDP relying on biodiversity.
Bernd Hansjürgens from the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ called on policymakers and stakeholders to act now as neither business nor nature can wait. Despite sometimes insufficient data, the evidence of nature loss resulting from business activity is clear and the emerging regulatory landscape wis needed to reverse this development. At the moment, however, biodiversity considerations remain poorly integrated into corporate reporting and decision-making processes.
Current frameworks are fragmented and inconsistent, particularly between industries with varying levels of exposure to biodiversity risks. Quantifying the impact on biodiversity is fraught with difficulties due to the complexity of ecosystems and the lack of standardized metrics. Many companies fail to connect biodiversity loss with their business models, often underestimating the systemic and location-specific risks it poses.
Bringing nature in corporate reporting and decision-making
The first panel focused on Nature in Corporate Reporting and Decision-Making. Johannes Förster (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ & Value Balancing Alliance e.V.) emphasized that biodiversity, people, and the economy form one interconnected system, noting that systemic risks—such as the impact of natural disasters on production sites—highlight the need for collaborative action. Gerrit von Zedlitz (University of Mannheim) pointed out that companies’ reporting on biodiversity varies significantly, with high-risk industries focusing on quantitative metrics while low-risk industries rely more on qualitative governance targets.
Watch the Forum:
Florian Heeb raised concerns that aggregated indicators, while useful for policymakers, are often unhelpful for individual companies and suggested that disclosure alone may not address the underlying issues of biodiversity loss. Tobias Wildner (kuyua & Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ) stressed the importance of companies understanding their supply chains, comparing the lack of knowledge about biodiversity risks to the financial sector’s blind spots before the 2008 global financial crisis. Carola Menzel-Hausherr from the Frankfurt School of Finance and Management emphasized the importance of gathering data to evaluate opportunities and risks even if collecting this data simultaneously from financial institutes and real economy sector players is challenging.
Need for simplified, actionable reporting standards
Regulations such as the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) are seen as a step in the right direction, but their complexity risks overwhelming businesses with excessive data requirements. The panellists emphasized the need for simplified, actionable reporting standards to ensure that biodiversity data informs meaningful decision-making. Addressing global disparities in biodiversity management, particularly in supply chains spanning the global south and north, was also identified as a critical area for improvement.
Pathways towards implementation
The second panel featured industry leaders and discussed pathways towards implementation. Christian Heller (Value Balancing Alliance e.V.), Ralf Lütz (BNP Paribas), Ralf Frank (B.A.U.M. e.V.) and Hendrik Leber (ACATIS Investment) stressed the need for pragmatic and scalable approaches to incorporate biodiversity into corporate and financial practices. More can be found in the report and video of the event by the FEdA Research Initiative for the Conservation of Biodiversity.
Florian Heider closed the day with a call for simplicity and sufficiency: the more complex the regulation, the options for institutes to skirt the rules. So the complexity of regulation can and should be reduced to be realizable.
