Part 5: Creating a Common Language for Nature

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

For years, the climate movement has had a powerful North Star: ‘net zero.’ Nature, for all its complexity, is lacking a similar, unifying goal. The Nature Positive Initiative was created to change that. As a coalition of the world's leading conservation organizations and business networks, its mission is to define and champion what "nature positive" truly means. I sat down with Gavin Edwards, the Initiative's Executive Director, to discuss the ambitious push for a common set of metrics, why business should care, and how the lessons learned from the climate movement are shaping the future of nature.

‍

What is the state of our ‘Nature Positive’ goal today?

We can’t gloss over the fact that we’re a long, long way from where we need to be. All the major indicators—from the Living Planet Index to deforestation rates—are still heading in the wrong direction, and climate change is adding immense pressure to systems that are already losing their resilience. While there are progressive companies taking action, no large company is at the gold standard yet. A big part of the problem is that without a common way to measure progress towards the goal, it’s difficult to verify any claims. That’s why the second, crucial step is creating a common approach to metrics.

‍

The field is crowded with frameworks and standards. How is your work on a common set of metrics designed to bring clarity rather than add to the noise?

The goal is to move from a world of hundreds of potential indicators to a small handful that are both scientifically credible and practical for businesses to implement. We believe we’ve found the right balance with a few core indicators focused on the actual state of nature which are primarily: ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition, and species extinction risk. We’re currently pilot-testing these in 32 countries, and aim to finalise them based on the learnings. We will publish the metrics and accompanying guidance in early 2026. The aim isn't to create a new, competing standard, but to develop a common measurement approach that can be embedded in all the existing frameworks companies are already (or should be) using. To ensure that integration is successful, those key framework organizations – TNFD, GRI, and others – are deeply engaged as partners in our pilot programme. They aren't just waiting for the outcome; they are helping us test and refine the metrics to ensure they are practical and can be seamlessly adopted.

‍

We've heard from Juliette Pugliesi at BSR and others that the biggest challenge is balancing scientific rigor with corporate practicality. How are you ensuring these metrics strike that balance?

That’s the central balancing act. A single metric would oversimplify the problem, but hundreds are unusable for most businesses. We started from a simple principle: nature is nature. A forest or a river doesn't care if it's being impacted by a mining company, a farm, or a fashion brand. To truly recover a landscape, all those actors need a common approach to measurement. That’s why we’ve focused on a small, core set of state-of-nature metrics that are universal. The good news is that the cost of data is dropping, its resolution is increasing, and new AI tools are emerging to make this kind of analysis more accessible, which is especially important for the small and medium-sized enterprises deep in the supply chains.

‍

a declining state of nature isn't just an environmental issue; it's a direct business risk.

‍

You’ve said the metrics focus on the fundamental question: is nature recovering or declining? I understand why a conservationist cares about that, but why should a business care about measuring the state of nature, rather than just their own impacts and dependencies?

Because every business is fundamentally dependent on nature. Whether it’s for raw materials, clean water, or a stable climate, the health of natural systems is a core business interest. Therefore, a declining state of nature isn't just an environmental issue; it's a direct business risk. You can measure your own impacts and dependencies all you want, but if you aren't measuring the actual health of the ecosystem you rely on, you have no way of knowing if you are successfully managing that risk. These metrics focus on that fundamental question of nature’s health, which can no longer be ducked.

‍

It’s impossible for any business to talk about its contribution to halting nature loss without understanding where its materials come from

‍

That brings up a crucial challenge: many companies don't know exactly where their materials come from. How can these metrics apply to a company that lacks that granular, spatial data?

It’s true that for many companies, this is a major transformation, and there's no quick fix. But it is absolutely inescapable. It’s impossible for any business to talk about its contribution to halting nature loss without understanding spatially where its materials come from. It requires a systematic effort to build supply chain transparency over time, much like the EU's deforestation regulation is already driving companies to do. We’re not offering a quick fix for tomorrow; we’re talking about a necessary system change and helping build the tools for this change.

‍

With technology like AI, eDNA, and bioacoustics advancing so quickly, is there a risk that these metrics will be outdated in a few years?

That’s an excellent question, but the answer is no. Our focus is on what we measure, not how we measure it. The fundamental question—is nature recovering?—and the core indicators like ecosystem condition will remain the same. What will change is the precision, cost, and accessibility of how we gather that data. New technologies will simply allow us to answer those same fundamental questions with greater accuracy and at lower cost. Whether you're using satellite imagery, eDNA samples, or bioacoustic sensors, you're still ultimately measuring the health of the ecosystem. The technology is the tool; the metric is the constant.

‍

There’s a lot of talk about integrating climate and nature work. What’s your perspective on that?

I've been in this field long enough to remember when nature restoration was the "older brother". Climate action was the "little sister” and was not garnering sufficient attention. But then climate concerns took over, and important (though far from sufficient) progress led to critical commitments to slash emissions. Over the last two decades, companies have built up a deep literacy on carbon. Nature is now where climate was 20 years ago, and companies are going through that same, steep learning curve. They are building their capacity to grapple with nature risks. It’s time to catch up. My recommendation is that companies need to build up their specific understanding of nature first before rushing to integrate with their existing strategies on climate. While there are many synergies, nature is a distinct and complex challenge requiring focus and understanding. If you integrate too soon, you risk it getting lost in the more mature climate agenda.

‍

We need to collectively ask ourselves: how do we build for a world where every company can act?

‍

Finally, what is your key piece of advice for the broader ecosystem of tech providers and consultants trying to support this transition?

Prioritize standardization over differentiation. The conservation sector has a long history of creating brilliant pilot projects that never sufficiently scale to address the scale of the problem. To get to that scale, we need all actors in the economy engaged. That means we have to lower the barriers to entry. For technology providers, this means aligning with a common framework so your tools can serve 100% of the market, not just a few bespoke clients. We need to collectively ask ourselves: how do we build for a world where every company and organization can act, not just the ones with the biggest budgets in the more regulated economic sectors? That's how we unlock the potential to truly halt and reverse nature loss at scale – for the benefit of people, prosperity and planet alike. A nature-positive, net zero and more equitable world.