Explore how Link can help you assess, prioritize, and reduce your company's impacts and risks related to nature.
By submitting this form you agree to be contacted by Link Nature. To opt-out of communications, please click the unsubscribe link in our emails.
You have a background as an engineer. What drew you from building industrial solutions to building voluntary standards?
I'm fascinated by the power of voluntary agreements. Most of the technical and environmental standards we use every day, from the technology that lets us have this call to the food safety in our stores, emerged from industry consensus. These best practices established by industry often lead the way for regulation, which subsequently incorporates them.
I saw this early in my career. While regulation is essential, it typically lags significantly behind innovation and market development. Regulatory measures are often implemented reactively, usually in response to issues such as financial crises or environmental disasters, and are frequently driven by political pressure. And as we see today, that regulation can also be overturned overnight by political headwinds. We at GRI, on the other hand, are independent. We aren't reliant on political wind like regulators are. We sit with all stakeholders at the table (workers, civil society, investors, and companies) and we come to a consensus on what is reasonable to ask. That is a different, more resilient kind of stability.
We see significant pushback from America, a step back in some ways. But at the same time: EU, China, India, [...] and many others are now implementing the double materiality approach.
What is GRI’s mission, and where does it stand today?
Our mission is to unlock the value of sustainability reporting, by advancing transparency of a companies’ impact on people, the environment, and the economy. We achieve this by pushing two pillars: financial reporting and impact reporting. Together, they give a complete picture of what is material and this helps leaders make better decisions. Impacts shape future financial performance!
Sustainability financial reporting is the IFRS/ISSB's focus, while GRI/GSSB focuses on impact reporting. You see the term ‘double materiality’ becoming famous lately; that is exactly what we’ve been driving for thirty years.
Today, we are at a real turning point. We see significant pushback from America, a step back in some ways. But at the same time: EU, Brazil, Taiwan, China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and many others are now implementing the double materiality approach. As GRI we are, and will stay, in active discussions with regulators, but clearly the consensus is building and we see global adoption accelerating. What started as an innovative idea (GRI guidelines) supported by innovative companies and investors 30 years ago is becoming global practice to date.
GRI covers many topics. Where does biodiversity fit in?
Biodiversity has been part of our standards for over 20 years. There has been a major update of the biodiversity standard (GRI 101) in January 2024. It used to be very focused on operational sites and locations near high biodiversity (protected) areas. Now it's a much more holistic assessment covering the entire supply chain. It now also focuses on actions taken in relation to the drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land use change, pollution and water use.
Measuring a company's full impact on nature is notoriously difficult. How does the new standard address this challenge without overwhelming businesses?
We know that very few companies are literally measuring their full impact on nature; it remains extremely difficult. So, critically, the standard allows companies to focus their efforts. A company with a thousand locations doesn't need to report on all locations for all topical standards. They’re asked to prioritize their business activities and report on the most significant impacts and locations. This ensures that their actions target the areas that matter most.
The landscape of standards has become confusing. How do you explain the different actors and their roles?
Some people argue that we have too many frameworks, but we actually see a stable set of key players now and they are not at all the same. Each player in the current landscape has its specific role. Think of it this way:
They all have different roles, but they need each other to function.
The CSRD regulation is the lowest level. It's the minimum of what you should do and extremely important to also push the companies who stay behind. [...] Any company should want to aim much higher.
I recently heard from Pedro Faria (EFRAG) that mandatory regulation is what provides stability, while voluntary initiatives should innovate. You seem to suggest the opposite.
Yes and no, as both are true. It is true that GRI being a private standards setter is able to bring in innovative elements in the reporting. 30 years ago we started as a new innovation and it has influenced mandatory regulation to where we are nowadays. But also GRI as a standard-setting body, has a primary role to be consistent and stable so companies can trust that requirements will not change overnight.
This is also why we believe that the regulation from the European Commission, the CSRD, is the lowest level. It's the minimum of what you should do and extremely important to also push the companies who stay behind. But any company should want to aim much higher and many successful companies are doing that. That is where GRI comes in. Not only in the EU but all over the world. What you will see in the new ESRS standards is that the impact reporting principles are based on or derived directly from GRI standards, which is the result of years of collaboration.
So if GRI's role is to be the stable standard-setter, where do these standards come from?
The GRI content is a direct translation of the goals that society collectively agreed upon through international instruments like the UN, OECD, and ILO. For nature, this means the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework; a pathway towards living in harmony with nature by 2050. Our job is to translate these high-level agreements into a concrete set of standards that companies can use to clearly report on their contribution to those global goals. We work in multi-stakeholder groups, to ensure that there’s consensus between businesses and investors, workers and civil society. Everyone has a seat at the table.
We are like an alphabet. If you want to speak Dutch, you need a shared alphabet. We provide that shared language for impact. That’s why when I talk to someone from Mongolia or Kazakhstan, we are speaking the same language about disclosure requirements and sustainability reporting.
Do you have any evidence that long-term reporting actually leads to strategic change?
While it is difficult to correlate change directly to GRI disclosures, there is quite some independent research done over the years which shows a correlation. We see more and more companies that have been doing GRI reporting for 20 years increasingly integrating sustainability into their core decisions.
Look at L’Occitane, a perfume company driven by biological ingredients; biodiversity has been fully integrated into their strategy for years. Or look at Schneider Electric, which is led by a passionate Chief Sustainability Officer and does above-average work. Or Ørsted, which completely pivoted to wind energy, used GRI reporting in their strategy and to demonstrate its progress.
The financial teams now responsible for the sustainability statements don't know what information already exists within their own companies or how to judge it.
I’ve asked almost every interviewee this question: What's the biggest barrier holding companies back from taking nature action today?
The biggest barrier is the translation and the disconnect inside the company.
Historically, sustainability was managed by a sustainability department. Now, we see that sustainability matters are increasingly moved to the financial department. And this is where we saw and still see a major disconnect: the financial teams now responsible for the sustainability statements don't know what information already exists within their own companies or how to judge it. This, in combination with a lack of capacity and knowledge about the importance of nature action is all together a huge challenge.
Do you have an example of this disconnect?
You have two different aggregation levels. At the reporting level, you need high-level information for decision-making. But at the operational level (for sourcing or purchasing) the detailed data already exists. I’ve seen cases where the critical information was being kept in a simple logbook even on paper by operational staff. Basically nothing wrong with that. The finance team had no idea of its existence.
But that said, we also see that the topic starts to land in boardrooms more and more. So, GRI is optimistic and this transformation shows that we are entering the next level of maturity of sustainability reporting.
Bring younger but experienced people onto the supervisory boards to [...] challenge older generations who are naturally more cautious about these new topics.
That’s a huge organizational challenge. How do you advise companies to fix that disconnect?
First, you must translate the dry, technical requirements of the standards into "human language" that a specific business unit, or a supplier can understand and act on. Software, AI, and partners like Link Nature are all part of the ecosystem that will help accelerate this process. It's a critical step.
Second, the structure has to change. The short-term, quarterly focus of a traditional finance department is the primary barrier. The solution is to make these teams multidisciplinary. You need to bring nature and biodiversity experts into the finance team. When they sit together, they start to influence each other and have a more valuable conversation based on trust and cooperation.
Finally, change the boardroom. Bring younger but also experienced people onto the supervisory boards to ensure necessary knowledge and to challenge older generations who are naturally more cautious about these new topics.
GRI recently renewed its standards on economic impact. How does this connect to the nature agenda?
This is the next step in complete transparency. In the new Monetary Flows standard we now ask companies more explicitly about where their money flows into. How much goes to shareholders? How much contributes back to society, like developing a nature park or training employees? How much is invested in projects that reduce your negative impacts on nature or water quality?
We don’t judge. If 100% goes to shareholders, that’s your choice, we simply ask to make it transparent. This brings the "impact" conversation directly into the financial sphere. It's how we move, step-by-step, toward a truly integrated balance sheet.
At a human level, it's simple: nobody wants to take their children on vacation to a beach covered in oil.
After 30 years in this space, what keeps you and GRI optimistic?
Despite all the political headwinds, there is no return. Everyone in society wants a healthier environment. There is robust research from the US, for example, showing how emission reporting contributed to a 20-30% improvement in public health outcomes. This wasn't achieved by capping emissions, but through the mechanism of transparency itself. Once companies were required to publicly disclose their toxic releases, reputational pressure and investor scrutiny drove them to voluntarily reduce emissions far beyond what was legally required. That is hard statistical proof that transparency saves lives. At a human level, it's simple: nobody wants to take their children on vacation to a beach covered in oil. There are so many people who want to do the right thing, and our job as GRI is to give them the stable, common language to make it happen.
Impact data enables companies to anticipate where today’s impacts become tomorrow’s business realities. This isn’t compliance reporting – it’s strategic foresight that provides a credible basis to scale finance toward sustainability outcomes!!
