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.
We started this series because the regulatory landscape shifted under our feet. After listening to 14 experts, what is the biggest counterintuitive insight you’ve found?
The most striking insight came from Nadine McCormick (WBCSD). She framed nature as "the biggest supplier to your company, a supplier that has never sent an invoice, but is now becoming unreliable." It’s such a simple, powerful reframe. It shifts the conversation from "compliance" to "supplier engagement."
The most counterintuitive insight came from Benjamin Vogel, who warned us that only 2% of consumers are actually willing to pay for sustainability. This sets the stage for our reality: Companies aren't going to act just because consumers ask them to, or solely because a regulator forces them to. They are going to act because their "biggest supplier" is failing.
One of the recurring themes in the series came from Pedro Faria at EFRAG. He argued that reporting shouldn't just be a compliance exercise, it should catalyze change. Do you actually see that happening?
Pedro's interview was one of my favorites because it gave us a peek into the kitchen of how regulation is made. It helped me understand that the goal isn't just to fill out a form; it's to force a new perspective.
I look at it like health data. If I get access to detailed health data today, it doesn't mean I’m going to change my habits overnight. But having that information, knowing my cholesterol is high for example, inevitably influences the decisions I make in the future.
It’s the same for companies. Once they start collecting information, for example realizing a high percentage of their sourcing comes from water-stressed areas, it creates a lift in awareness. You can't un-see that data. Even if they don't act immediately, that new knowledge trickles down and starts to shape strategy.
A study by Morningstar Sustainalytics looked at 9,000 organizations with SBTi targets, and none had a transition plan aligned with a 1.5-degree scenario.
But awareness is not action. We see thousands of companies setting targets, yet emissions and nature loss keep rising. How do we bridge that gap?
This is the "Marathon Gap." It is always easier and more fun to commit to an inspiring outcome in the future, like running a marathon, than it is to wake up at 6:00 AM to train in the pouring rain.
The transition plan is the training. It involves trade-offs, muscle aches, and tough choices. We see this in the data: a study by Morningstar Sustainalytics looked at 9,000 organizations with SBTi targets, and almost none had a transition plan aligned with a 1.5-degree scenario.
The lesson for us, and for the software we build, is that we need to stop just helping companies "sign up for the marathon" and start acting as the coach that helps them through the training.
But Generative AI is like clay. It is strong, but it is malleable.
If we want to be that "coach," how does technology fit in? We heard a powerful quote from Nadine McCormick about "cognitive overload," that the problem isn't a lack of information but the human capacity to navigate it.
Nadine is absolutely right. Last year, my LinkedIn feed was overwhelmed with updates on CSRD, EUDR, CSDDD. It was numbing. There is so much signal out there that it becomes noise.
This is where I get really excited about the role of AI. Historically, software was rigid. It was expensive to build and inflexible, it required specific inputs to give predictable outputs. It struggled to "meet companies where they are."
But Generative AI is like clay. It is strong, but it is malleable.
It allows us to build software that creates a layer of "glue" between the rigid frameworks and the specific reality of a company. It can process that "cognitive overload," digesting thousands of pages of guidance, and serve up only the specific signal a user needs. It acts as a translator, taking complex sector-specific guidance and molding it to the user's context.
The entire biodiversity field is building everything in parallel [...]: the right indicators, regulations, technology. All at the same time because the urgency is so high.
Finally, we heard advice from Gavin Edwards of the Nature Positive Initiative: "Prioritize standardization over differentiation." What does that mean for a tech company, especially given how fast the whole field is moving?
Hearing that felt like a warm bath. Standardization benefits everyone. It gives us stability on what to build, and it helps investors and society compare apples to apples.
But there is a tension here. Just like a startup building a product while simultaneously figuring out its market, the entire biodiversity field is building everything in parallel. We are figuring out the right indicators, writing the regulations, and developing the technology all at the same time because the urgency is so high. It feels chaotic, but Gavin's advice reminds us that consolidating a good set of indicators we can all measure consistently is far better than waiting for perfect indicators that arrive too late. It’s messy, but it’s the fastest way to get there.
So, what is next for Link Nature?
We have spent the last few months listening. We know the market doesn't need more complex tools or more "noise." It needs a pragmatic coach.
We are building software that uses AI as "clay" to adapt to your specific context, grounded in standardized metrics to keep you on track. It cuts through the cognitive overload and helps you move from setting targets to doing the actual thing. Making things land. Driving change. That is what we are building. It’s a very exciting time, and we can't wait to share what's next. Stay tuned!
