Part 2: Getting Gast the Noise with Brian Shaw on Systems Thinking and the Corporate Mindset

This interview is part of 𝐅𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐇𝐨𝐧𝐞𝐲, a series of weekly interviews with fresh takes on biodiversity in business.

In the world of corporate sustainability, there’s a story companies tell, and then there’s what’s actually happening. To get past the noise, I sat down with Brian Shaw. He co-developed the very first science-based target for nature at Metabolic and now strengthens the Nature Food team at Systemiq. He brings a rare, unfiltered view from the corporate frontline that teaches us how CEOs think and act. Backed up by quotes from his experience inside the boardroom, he offers a blunt diagnosis of the problem and a hopeful perspective on the path forward.

‍

‍

Brian, you work with some of the largest organizations in the world. From your perspective, what’s the real story on corporate sustainability budgets and priorities right now?

There's a clear regrouping happening. The initial wave of investment driven by CSRD compliance, which unlocked big reporting budgets, is over. Now, it's a fight for the same, or shrinking, budgets. The conversation has shifted from the Nature Director to the Chief Sustainability Officer, who is trying to build a broader narrative. If there’s one narrative that’s winning, it’s risk and resilience. Unfortunately less about taking action for nature just for nature's sake..

‍

Big reporting budgets are over. Now, it's a fight for the same, or shrinking, budgets.

‍

Can you give me an example of how nature risk is being reframed?

I see two strategies being applied. The first strategy is to build a coherent narrative around systemic risk, using the findings from all the initiatives that were part of the CSRD process: the double materiality assessments, as well as the deep-dives on climate, nature, water and human rights. This bigger, integrated topic is more likely to get attention and budget. The second, and related, strategy is to reframe nature work specifically as a direct business risk, translating ecological insights into financial terms to make a convincing case to leadership. In both cases, the goal is the same: secure budget in uncertain times where topics like tariffs and inflation are top of mind for leadership.

‍

Companies reframe nature work as a direct business risk, translating ecological insights into financial terms

‍

There’s a lot of talk about integrating climate and nature. What makes companies all of a sudden interested?

From what I see, focusing on nature and food systems, it often starts with practical efficiency. When most of your impacts are in the value chain, you need your suppliers to help you make progress. If you have a joined-up approach to climate and nature, you’re coming to them with one ask, not two separate, complicated narratives. That’s always a better starting point.

Beyond that, the strongest business case is that "taking action for nature is taking action for climate." We are learning how to catch two birds with one stone. The most common integration areas are where the overlaps are clearest. Deforestation and conversion for example: it's both a primary driver of ecosystem loss (an important nature metric) and a huge source of carbon emissions (the climate metric). Overuse of synthetic fertilizer use is another key one-it degrades soil and has a massive, embedded carbon footprint. As well of course as being cheaper for the farmer if they have to pay for less inputs. Strategically, by linking nature to the more established and better-funded climate agenda, it bring more credibility and openness to the topic.

‍

To make these changes in the value chain, who do you typically need at the table, and what does that engagement look like?

Internally, the procurement team is the most critical partner, as they hold the commercial levers. Once you have that alignment, the strategy splits. For some companies, the easiest lever is simply to change suppliers—it’s a procurement decision, not a transformation program. For sectors with less substitutable or more localized supply chains, like dairy or cocoa, that’s not an option. They have to engage directly with their value chain and farmers to improve practices. That’s where you see real investment in change, because there’s simply no other choice.

By working together, sectors can spread both the cost and risk of raising the floor.

‍

How do they do that? And can this sector be an example for the rest of the world?

Collaboration is the key. Many companies want to move forward but don’t want to do it alone and put themselves at a competitive disadvantage. A great example is the Future Fit Dairy Initiative (FFDI). Five leading companies in the dairy value chain Arla Foods, Danone, dsm-firmenich, FrieslandCampina, and Rabobank, are together on a mission to scale regenerative agriculture, and inspire action globally. By working together, sectors can spread both the cost and risk of raising the floor. Sustainability becomes less about the competitive edge of one company over the other and more about collectively managing the resilience of the sector and supply chains, as well as securing their license to operate into the long term.

‍

What's the biggest mindset challenge you see that prevents such progress?

It’s a failure to think in systems. This shows up in two critical ways. The first is the struggle to move from a narrow, value-chain perspective to a broader, landscape one. For example, we recently helped a company set a science-based target on pollution in one of their critical sourcing regions. A massive reduction in their share of pollution was needed to stay within the ecosystem's limits. The company’s experts looked at the target and said it was "not physically possible" with any available technology. They hit a wall because they were only looking at the problem through their own value chain. To deliver what nature needs, you can't just tweak your own operations; it requires a fundamentally different, collaborative sourcing model that involves the company, its farmers, local intermediaries, and even government.

The second mindset I see preventing progress is the "efficiency trap." A CEO of a large multinational once told me their carbon footprint per kilogram of product had been decreasing for years. "Good business is good sustainability," he said. What they missed was that total production had risen sharply over the same period, meaning a net increase in overall emissions. This focus on relative improvements ignores absolute impacts and can create damaging trade-offs, like intensifying agriculture in a way that cuts emissions per tonne but destroys soil health and biodiversity.

We are confronted with the fact that business as usual won't cut it. To me, that's a thrilling prospect

‍

So, if the core problem is a failure of systems thinking, how do you help leaders to see the bigger picture?

You have to start with the basics and build a compelling case. First, use established approaches like TNFD and SBTN to uncover what’s really driving risks and impacts in their business. Next, build an evidence base for why this constitutes a real business risk, whether it's reputational, potential supply shocks, or something else. And put numbers on the cost of action versus inaction! The 2006 Stern Review did this brilliantly for climate, showing that investing 1% of GDP now was an insurance premium against paying at least 5% later. It was a simple, effective, no-brainer argument.

Once you have that, you turn it into a narrative and duke it out with the business stakeholders to get them on board. Then, of course, you have to figure out what needs to happen and how to pay for it all, but that’s a conversation for another day.

The best part of this job is that people really do care. They want to make meaningful change. We are collectively trying to operationalize solutions to some of the most critical challenges of our time. And that confronts us with the fact that business as usual won't cut it. To me, that's a thrilling prospect. Despite all the saddening things going on in the world, change is coming, it's inevitable, and in this moment, we can shape things towards a more sustainable and equitable future.