Nature is now a material risk for the food sector, and companies without sound biodiversity strategies risk reputational, legal, and financial penalties. Learn how the LEAP approach can help sustainability leaders in agri-food businesses design best-in-class corporate biodiversity strategies.
For food companies, nature is now a material business risk. One that threatens operational continuity, supply chain resilience, and shareholder value.
However, despite growing recognition of the risks and need for urgency, corporate accountability on biodiversity is lagging. Fewer than 10% of agri-food companies have undertaken comprehensive assessments of their nature-related risks. Most haven’t assessed or disclosed how they impact and depend on nature either.
Regenerative agriculture is a stark example of the gap between awareness and meaningful action.
While 51% of companies reference regenerative practices in public disclosures, fewer than 10% report on optimizing fertilizer use, and only 4% disclose data on pesticide reduction.
These omissions point to significant gaps in measurement, signalling a persistent blind spot in efforts to improve biodiversity outcomes. And this is becoming material risk.
Nature-related risk exposure is becoming a key consideration in capital allocation decisions as investors and regulators consider the issue with growing urgency. Initiatives like Nature Action 100 and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) are gaining momentum. And the regulatory landscape is shifting rapidly too.
The EU Deforestation Regulation, along with emerging mandatory due diligence requirements under frameworks such as CSRD Annex II, are making biodiversity disclosure unavoidable.
Without a coherent biodiversity strategy, food companies face stranded assets, regulatory non-compliance, and, most critically, degraded supply security as vital ecosystem services erode. Biodiversity loss is a present-day business risk requiring immediate and strategic attention.
The four phased LEAP approach can help...
Given this escalating urgency and clear business implications, food companies need a structured, actionable framework to address nature-related risks.
The TNFD LEAP framework offers this. It’s a robust starting point for companies to integrate biodiversity into their core strategies. Its value lies in its alignment with climate and enterprise risk management, making it conceptually accessible for food organizations embarking on their biodiversity journey.
This framework provides much-needed structure for companies in the sector to move beyond ad-hoc actions to tackle biodiversity loss. However, each stage of LEAP must be interpreted through the lens of agricultural value chains. This is where structured guidance and technical support become essential.
The first step focuses on identifying where a company interfaces with nature, across both operations and supply chains. Specifically, this involves identifying where a company's operations or sourcing intersect with ecosystems that are either sensitive or exposed to degradation.
For agri-food firms, this involves geolocating sourcing regions and mapping them against biodiversity-sensitive areas, such as intact forest landscapes, protected zones, or threatened ecosystems. TNFD advises a tiered approach: assess the full business model and value chain (L1); screen for nature-related impacts and dependencies (L2); map spatial locations of assets and supply chains and their interface with nature (L3); and identify overlap with sensitive ecosystems (L4).
In practice, this means prioritizing locations where moderate to high biodiversity impacts or dependencies are likely. When farm-level data isn't available, companies are encouraged to use 'supply shed' models to approximate ecological interfaces across sourcing regions. The guidance also highlights the importance of understanding ecosystem condition and land-use trends in sourcing regions, particularly in biodiversity hotspots and intact forest landscapes.
Case study
A global food manufacturer conducting a geospatial analysis discovered that 30% of its dairy ingredients originated from regions experiencing severe water stress. Similarly, a company sourcing soy from Brazil conducts a geospatial analysis of the Cerrado region to identify overlaps between its supply sheds and biodiversity hotspots. This allows them to flag municipalities where land-use change and ecosystem degradation are most severe, enabling targeted intervention.
This step deepens the analysis by identifying dependencies on ecosystem services and impact drivers associated with business activities. In agriculture, this includes impacts such as land-use change, pollution, soil degradation, and water abstraction, as well as dependencies such as pollination, soil health, and water regulation.
TNFD encourages a commodity-by-commodity approach, supported by tools like ENCORE, WWF’s Biodiversity Risk Filter, and spatial overlays that identify deforestation, eutrophication, and freshwater depletion risks.
The framework also advises companies to consider the integrity of surrounding ecosystems and governance risks in sourcing regions, as poor enforcement or weak local institutions can amplify exposure.
Case study
A global fruit producer evaluates its apple orchards' dependency on wild pollinators by assessing regional pollinator decline and pesticide use, revealing critical vulnerabilities in two regions where pollination services are in decline.
This evaluation helped prioritize impacts and dependencies that will translate into business risk, as well as identify future areas for designing nature-based solutions.
This phase involves determining how these impacts and dependencies translate into business risk. TNFD outlines processes to identify risks and opportunities (A1); adjust risk frameworks accordingly (A2); measure and prioritize (A3); and conduct materiality assessments (A4).
For agri-food companies, this includes analyzing how biodiversity degradation may disrupt supply continuity, increase compliance costs, trigger reputational fallout, or expose firms to emerging liabilities. Companies are encouraged to consider both acute risks, such as failed harvests or sudden regulation, and chronic risks, including soil fertility loss and pollinator decline over time.
TNFD also emphasizes that understanding interconnections between physical, transition, and systemic risks is essential to prioritize meaningful actions, such as addressing gradual soil degradation or regulatory tightening over the next decade. TNFD’s additional guidance recommends scenario-based analysis for systemic risks, such as ecosystem tipping points or cascading failures (e.g., loss of soil health affecting multiple crops across regions).
Companies are also encouraged to consider compounding risk factors, such as exposure to weak governance, water stress, or land conflict, when prioritizing mitigation actions. This risk analysis should be embedded into core decision-making processes, rather than left siloed within sustainability functions.
Case study
A dairy company identifies a high material risk in northern India, where groundwater depletion and land degradation threaten feed production, leading to adjustments in its sourcing strategy and supplier risk assessments.
This phase focuses on strategy development, resource allocation, target setting, and disclosure.
TNFD outlines how to align KPIs and targets with global frameworks (e.g., SBTN) while integrating performance tracking into governance systems. Food companies are encouraged to establish near-term targets (e.g., deforestation-free sourcing by 2025) alongside long-term transition plans.
The guidance also encourages value-chain engagement, such as working with suppliers to set goals and improve land stewardship practices over time. TNFD-aligned disclosures should reflect location-specific risks, as well as the company’s governance, risk mitigation, and impact reduction strategies.
Overall, LEAP demonstrates that spatial context matters enormously for both TNFD reporting and assessing risk. The same commodity can have radically different biodiversity impacts depending on where and how it's produced. This necessitates connecting supply chain data with geospatial analysis to focus efforts where they'll have the greatest impact.
Companies should start with the most material risks and impacts, demonstrating progress while building capacity to tackle more complex challenges over time.
However, there are some common mistakes associated with deploying the LEAP framework.
Many companies stall due to a perceived lack of 'perfect' data. The TNFD is clear: start with the best available information and iterate. Even directional insights can inform meaningful action.
While certifications play a role, they rarely address the full spectrum of biodiversity impacts. The most effective approaches combine certification with landscape-level interventions and direct supplier engagement.
Biodiversity strategies must go beyond box-ticking. Publications showcasing isolated biodiversity projects don't constitute a strategy. Truly strategic approaches integrate biodiversity considerations into core business decisions, supplier relationships, and innovation pipelines.
At NatureMetrics, we work with food companies to apply the LEAP framework in a grounded, tailored, and scalable way. We conduct double materiality assessments and support the development of biodiversity strategies (e.g., target setting, metrics) and alignment with emerging nature-related frameworks.
A core differentiator is our geospatial screening using our in-house Geospatial Risk Assessment (GRA) tool. This proprietary technology leverages location-based data to quickly and accurately analyze biodiversity and sustainability risks across large portfolios and individual sites.
By providing high-quality, location-specific data, our GRA tool ensures thorough risk evaluation that directly supports TNFD and CSRD requirements. Furthermore, its intuitive design allows for clear communication of complex biodiversity data to stakeholders.
Our expertise helps companies not only comply with emerging reporting standards but, crucially, move beyond just reporting to drive actual, measurable impact on nature. We empower our clients to transform biodiversity risk into strategic advantage, directly addressing the concerns of CSOs, Sustainability Managers, and Heads of Agriculture by providing actionable insights for enhanced environmental leadership, streamlined monitoring, and improved agricultural outcomes.
Biodiversity strategy development is not about reinventing the wheel; it is about applying proven risk management approaches to an emerging business challenge. With the right tools, frameworks, and support, food companies can develop robust approaches that protect both nature and business value.
The journey begins with an honest assessment of where a business interfaces with nature, followed by a systematic evaluation of dependencies, impacts, and risks. From there, companies can develop targeted interventions and disclosure strategies that address their most material biodiversity challenges.
Those who move early will not only mitigate emerging risks but also position themselves advantageously as markets increasingly value nature-positive business models. The question is not whether biodiversity will impact your business; it is whether you will be prepared when it does.
Building on two previous ocean conferences in 2017 and 2022, UNOC comes at a critical time. This article explores the key outcomes from the conference with expert analysis from Dr Kat Bruce, Benjamin Barca, and Laura Plant, including: the High Seas Treaty, Marine Protected Areas, Blue Finance, Deep Sea Mining and Sustainable Fishing.
.jpg)
.png)
