As you reflect on your sustainability priorities this summer, consider the growing importance of nature-based reporting and the Capitals Coalition’s new Beta Framework for Integrated Decision-Making.  

If your business is contemplating these opportunities, we’d love to help you craft clear, compelling messaging that highlights your commitment to natural capital and sustainability in 2025.  

Recognising the importance of nature in business decision-making is more relevant than ever, especially in a country like Aotearoa New Zealand, where our economy is deeply tied to the land. 

Even though most of us live in cities, ours is largely an agricultural economy. Most of our exports (~82%) come from the land in some form or other, whether it is protein converted from grass by cows in our employ or is a nice crop of avocados. 

We rely on natural features, which we call harbours, to dock large ships and send around $57bn of food and fibre away to foreign customers each year. And we also rely on the land, this ‘clean and green’ country, for a significant chunk of earnings from in-bound tourism.   

So, nature is critical to this country for its long-term economic and social sustainability. Without nature, we really don’t have very much to keep us going as a viable nation state. 

It’s obvious therefore that we need to look after our nature and protect it for the many generations to come. 

It's true that, by some indicators, New Zealand enjoys better environmental health than many other developed nations. Some of that performance is down to pioneering regulation, such as the fisheries Quota Management System and the Resource Management Act, which is being reformed yet again.  

On the other hand, our record on nature is also partly due to the fact we remain lightly populated compared to most other countries. Only Australia, Iceland, Canada and Norway have more sparse populations and for obvious and very different reasons. 

But when you look at many indicators, from biodiversity to water and air quality to greenhouse gas emissions, we punch well below our weight. It is not an exaggeration to say we are running out of indigenous species faster than any other country in the world. ‘Clean and green’ – not so much. 

So, we have work to do and part of that work is to improve the quality and detail of reporting on how our agricultural and commercial activities impact our natural environment. 

We are leading the world with the broadest climate-related financial disclosure regime. This past year was the first to see mandatory climate disclosure statements from our largest listed companies and financial institutions.  

Reporting is not just a box ticking compliance exercise. Measuring, tracking and reporting emissions over several years does result in those companies achieving absolute GHG reductions, according to Forsyth Barr’s recent Carbon & ESG Ratings Report into 61 listed companies. 

Would a mandated regime of nature-related financial disclosures have the same impact?  

Given only one local organisation, the Lyttelton Port Company, has made the effort to voluntarily produce a nature disclosure statement, the idea of a mandatory regime similar to the External Reporting Board’s New Zealand Climate Standards may be a bridge too far. 

But is it? The precursor to the New Zealand Climate Standards was the Task Force for Climate-related Financial Disclosures – the TCFD, which many in New Zealand really only became aware of five or six years ago. 

According to the Forsyth Barr report, at least six companies have committed to adopting the Taskforce for Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) soon. 

Using the TNFD framework and working with its consultant, Nature Positive, Lyttelton Port (LPC) assessed the impacts of the Port activities on four drivers of nature change – land/freshwater ocean use change, resource use, pollution, and invasive species. 

Why did the LPC take the leap into nature reporting? LPC’s board and management recognised early there was a need to focus on more than greenhouse gas emissions by identifying the areas where LPC makes a specific impact on nature – and how it depends on nature. It had spent $850m on rebuilding after the Canterbury earthquakes, recognised its impact on the harbour habitat and was keen to establish productive relationships with iwi and other Whakaraupō/Lyttelton Harbour stakeholders. 

LPC used the TNFD initiative to build on the positive actions the company already undertakes and apply a standardised framework to managing business risk over the long term. 

The development of the frameworks for businesses (the TNFD and the Science-based Targets) have assisted LPC’s journey towards a standardised approach to reporting impacts and dependencies on nature. 

In some respects, the LPC was also getting ahead of the game as it and several local listed companies expect global markets to require emissions and TNFD ratings. 

Hats off to LPC. By going first, LPC is in an advanced position to track its initiatives to protect local biodiversity and joins with other like-minded operators around the world.