Part 7: What actually works? Practical Advice for Corporate Nature Action

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

In the world of corporate sustainability, pledges are easy but on-the-ground projects are hard. To dive into the details of this disconnect, I sat down with Michael Wironen, Director of Corporate Engagement for Food & Water at The Nature Conservancy (TNC). As a key architect of partnerships with some of the world’s biggest companies—from Walmart to McDonald’s—Michael has a good view of what actually works. We talked about the hard truth of corporate motivation, the danger of “analysis paralysis,” and his powerful final advice for a tech space that too often solves the problem it wishes companies had, not the one they actually do.

‍

Michael, you’re at the center of TNC's collaborations with some of the world's largest companies. What is TNC's unique role in this ecosystem?

Our team manages about 75 strategic relationships with companies we see as critical to our mission. These are the players with supply chain footprints so significant that without shifting them toward improved sustainability performance, we simply won't achieve our global goals. Our focus is on larger, deeper partnerships with them that not only advance their sustainability goals but also create a template that we can then scale across an entire industry. We tend to stay away from the more "cookie-cutter" compliance work; as a nonprofit, our mission requires us to have a broader impact, so we structure our engagements to ensure the solutions can be shared.

‍

A recurring theme in this series is that companies don't want to work alone on big challenges, especially at a landscape level. How do you get them to invest?

You're right, they don't want to do it alone, especially if it adds cost. That’s why we’ve shifted towards creating co-investment platforms, like our global foodscapes program. We pool philanthropic capital, corporate investment, and other funding into specific landscapes to drive change at a much larger scale than any one company could achieve on its own. It's a model that allows multiple actors to share the cost and the benefit of building a more resilient sourcing region.

‍

I’ve seen very few companies that have said, "we will do this because we care about nature".

‍

What is it that really motivates a company to sign a check for one of these large-scale nature projects?

To be slightly provocative, I’ve seen very few companies that have said, "we will do this because we care about nature". In the US, the conversation has shifted dramatically towards resilience. A company that needs a specific grade of wheat that only grows in a water-stressed region is motivated to invest in a landscape water solution because they see a direct threat to their supply chain. That resilience narrative has far more business value than simply "doing the right thing."

‍

Does that motivation change based on a company's position in the supply chain? For instance, how does a company that's many steps removed from the farm, like a large retailer, think about this differently than a food processor with more direct supplier relationships?

The biggest difference we see is with companies that have highly specialized needs. If you’re buying a widely traded commodity like soybeans, you can often find an alternative source. But if you need a specific type of perennial crop that only grows in certain regions, or wheat with a specific protein content, your supply chain risk is much higher. Those are the companies that are often most motivated to invest in landscape-level solutions, because they recognize they can’t solve the problem on their own.

For companies more distant from the landscapes they depend on, like a large retailer, the challenge is greater, but the solution is similar: partnership with direct suppliers. Those suppliers often serve multiple large customers with the same sustainability goals, creating a powerful, collective leverage point where action can be scaled effectively.

‍

There’s a growing number of frameworks in the nature space. From your perspective, how do these frameworks actually play a role in your work of turning corporate pledges into real projects?

I worry about "analysis paralysis." Every new iteration, every new system can become an excuse for a company to hire someone to do another study, and at the end, nothing on the ground changes. You can spend a few million dollars on corporate feel-good projects, but you’re not necessarily having an impact. True change rarely comes out of the sustainability shop alone. It comes from the supply chain team, the strategy team, the core business functions. We believe it's far more impactful to mobilize those forces to deliver sustainability outcomes than to focus on small projects funded by a PR budget.

‍

In every company, there are people outside the sustainability team who genuinely care about these issues.

‍

If change comes from the core business rather than from an isolated sustainability team, what are the most effective strategies for actually mobilizing those teams?

There are a few that have proven successful. The first is to go in with a sense of humble curiosity. Instead of acting like the outside expert with all the answers, we try to understand their core business: How do decisions get made? Where do they invest in innovation? This co-learning process often reveals unique assets and capabilities the company has that can be leveraged for the solution.

The second is to elevate their internal champions. In every company, there are people outside the sustainability team who genuinely care about these issues. Finding them, making them part of the success story, and reaffirming their leadership is incredibly valuable. They become your trusted allies who can make the case internally.

Finally, it’s about internal communication. Sharing the story of your work through town halls and other employee engagement channels is crucial. It helps leadership get the "license to operate" from their own workforce and can be a real differentiator in recruiting talent.

‍

I recently spoke with the Nature Positive Initiative about their global push to standardize around a core set of biodiversity metrics. What’s your take on this evolving metric landscape, and how big a challenge is measurement in your day-to-day work?

It's huge. The cost of measurement is a constant complaint; sometimes the MRV (monitoring, reporting, and verification) can eat up a major portion of a project's budget. But the bigger issue is the massive gap between the scientific push for high-quality data and methods and the reality of what businesses are actually using.

On the one hand, the standards community is debating the accuracy of soil carbon measurements at a hectare level and their relevance to corporate reporting. Meanwhile, a major food company might be using a generic emission factor for its Brazilian soybeans that was generated in the Midwest in the 1980s. The gap between the problem we think we’re solving and the reality in practice is enormous. Frankly, progress might involve using national data from Brazil from the 2010s, which would be a massive improvement. The point is that methods and technologies should meet companies where they are to be effective. 

‍

So what’s your advice for the innovators and tech providers trying to build nature technology?

Ask your customers—in this case, corporates—one simple question: "What do you need to know to make what decision, and why does that decision matter?"

Too often, people get really excited about cool datasets and analytical capabilities without having a validated use case. I’ve seen it happen in the NGO sector: a huge grant for a data platform, but no clear answer on who would use it or what decision it would help them make. You have to get as close as possible to the people who will actually use the tool and understand the problem they are trying to solve. Does a company that buys potatoes to make chips really care about eDNA? Maybe, but you have to make that connection to their business explicit. Does it help them secure a more resilient potato supply? Does it de-risk their brand? It sounds so fundamental, but it staggers me how often this step is skipped in the rush to build something cool. 

You have to solve the problem the customer actually has, not the one you wish they had.

‍