Humans, as living organisms, are an integral part of biodiversity, and thus participate, whether as individuals or organizations, in the dynamics of interactions and interdependences between all living organisms and their abiotic environment. Though often unknown or unexpected, links between biodiversity and companies, whether small, medium-sized or with global reach, are diverse and numerous. Besides substantial financial or reputational risks readily cited by environmental managers, biodiversity may be important for production processes (e.g. fermentation of dairy products), the development of new technology (e.g. biotechnology) or in terms of new investment opportunities (e.g. fast rising ecotourism market). In France, a working group of approximately 20 organisations – established in 2006 and convening companies, research institutes, NGOs and public institutions -- has been working on uncovering and valuing business and biodiversity inter-relationships. This has been made possible thanks to the close cooperation between the Institut Français de la Biodiversité (IFB), Orée – Entreprises, territoires et environnement (Orée) and Veolia Environment.
Participatory science in action Coming from various communities of practice, participants of the working group have been sharing, through regular meetings, their perceptions, experience and challenges regarding the integration of biodiversity into business strategies. For instance, best practice include Séché Global Solutions’ management and restoration of biodiversity across all its waste storage sites — with a strong emphasis on blending within the surrounding agro-ecosystems and regular monitoring of key biota, such as birds and amphibians. Phytorestore’s highly innovative ‘filtering gardens’ that depollute water, soil and even air by using micro-organisms and plants is also worthy of mention.
In parallel to the gathering of best practice from member organisations, efforts have also focused on assessing the interdependency of French business sectors (1) with biodiversity against four criteria. This constitutes a preliminary step towards building a typology of positive and negative links across sectors and criteria. Feedbacks from the working group have allowed the methodology to evolve towards the Indicator of Interdependency of a Corporation to Biodiversity (IICB). Work is now underway to assess individual companies’ perceptions of their interrelationships with respect to biodiversity. Five groups of criteria are currently being used, namely ‘strategy’, ‘compensation’, ‘impacts’, ‘direct links with biodiversity’ and ‘market valuations’. This is essential to enable us to better grasp the complexity of interrelationships and suggest key areas for further analysis, so as to make biodiversity an integral building block of the firm — and not an external constraint or the mere sum of species that need to be conserved. The aim for the working group is, ultimately, to develop a guide on integrating biodiversity into business strategies, targeting both companies and their stakeholders, away from a patrimonial approach that focuses on impacts management, conservation and / or restoration of remarkable / threatened species, habitats or ecosystem services. Experiences from companies will hence reflect the integration of biodiversity as an internal component of the evolving firm, with companies constantly interacting with it and within it, being able to seize opportunities through the appropriate management of their interdependences.
Unravelling complex issues Integrating biodiversity into business strategies and practices is no easy task. At best a marginal or emerging issue within the scope of a broader corporate social responsibility agenda, the extent to which activities are linked directly and indirectly to biodiversity is very difficult to apprehend by company managers. The complexity of issues and processes embodied within the concept of ‘biodiversity’ cannot be simplified into a single variable for communication or financial purposes, in contrast to what is done for climate change (i.e. Carbon Dioxide Equivalent or CO2 Eq). Much research still needs to be undertaken to understand the links between ecosystem functions, processes and services, including the implications of temporal and spatial variability. Assessing and formalising their relevance to business activities and strategic choices is a key challenge. This seems to give weight to the proposal to further develop expertise at the international level, e.g. through the creation of an International Mechanism on Scientific Expertise on Biodiversity (IMoSEB) (2).
Nevertheless, companies — or at least multinationals — are increasingly aware of the importance of tackling biodiversity loss as a long-term strategic necessity for sustained growth. Most efforts in France tend to focus on the management of impacts of production processes on particular species or habitats, especially in industrial sectors where the license to operate is at stake. Even in the context of operationalizing engagements taken in response to stakeholder pressure, difficulties quickly emerge, notably in terms of determining realistic goals, defining the appropriate indicators with respect to varying organisational levels, or developing effective and efficient management tools. Investment in research, especially ecological engineering, should thus be actively promoted, and so should close cooperation between research institutions and business. We believe that an independent institution, jointly managed by public research and business organizations, should be created to coordinate such endeavours.
What is at stake? Looking beyond impact management or single species-driven agendas, our research framework intends to explore how companies can rethink their strategies at all levels, with biodiversity as an element of firm dynamics, whether in terms of research and development or supply chain management. We need to think beyond the frontiers of individual schools of thought, in an interdisciplinary way, linking functional and evolutionary ecology to environmental management, financial management and reporting, and strategic decision-making. To bridge differing perceptions and put words into action, it is essential to propose solutions that take into account uncertainties intrinsic to biodiversity and ensuing risks and opportunities for business — both translated in terms that are understandable to decision makers.
Our ultimate aim is to propose innovative mechanisms, away from a system of external constraints based exclusively on national or international public policies (e.g. regulatory mechanisms), towards one with reciprocal interrelationships between the evolution of ecosystems and the growth of companies. Taking into consideration existing mechanisms, we hope to analyse and construct new ones, at the level of individual firms and between companies interacting within markets and landscapes (3). These would contribute to the internalisation of environmental externalities, reshaping the value creation process.
The issue is clearly not to develop a unique or universal tool which would replace other approaches to conserving biodiversity. On the contrary, within the diverse toolbox necessary for biodiversity conservation such as protected areas and international conventions, we would argue that biodiversity can also be taken into consideration in a language of costs and benefits understandable by companies and all relevant stakeholders. Reciprocal co-evolution of business and biodiversity is an achievable vision. One we should all abide to.
Joël Houdet (
[email protected]) is Biodiversity advisor and PhD student,
Orée – Entreprises, territoires et environnement. Jacques Weber (
[email protected]) is Director,
Institut francais de la biodiversite.
(1) According to the nomenclature of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques (INSEE). (2)
www.imoseb.net (3) Spatial associations of industrial sites with respect to biodiversity needs to explored, borrowing from the field of industrial ecology.
