The table is now set for the business community to play a leading role in helping correct the largest market failure on the planet: The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has released guidance for companies to begin formally measuring and reporting their impact & dependence on ecosystem services. The report (called “Approach for Reporting on Ecosystem Services”) paves the way for ecosystem services metrics to be included as part of the standard package of measures used to report on an organization’s sustainability performance. The release of this report is a bellwether of sorts, it sends a clear signal that in the corporate sustainability realm, ecosystem services are here and are here to stay. This development keeps corporate sustainability approaches on pace with recent developments in global ecological science and environmental policy, in the form of the ecosystem services framework.
Ecosystem services, simply defined, are the benefits that humans (and human society & industry) receive from natural ecosystems. An ecosystem is a piece of the natural environment that functions as a self-contained system, examples include forests, wetlands, and rivers. An ecosystem service is a benefit that an ecosystem provides to a person or group of people: for example, forests sequester carbon and provide wildlife habitat, while wetlands detoxify pollutants and can reduce flood risk. Humans have long known that ecosystems provide us with benefits (Plato discusses ecosystem services in his writings), however as ecological science improves, we are increasingly able to quantify the benefits that ecosystems provide. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (published in 2005) brought new focus and coherence to the ecosystem services framework; this global environmental audit found that over 60% of the ecosystem services that support life on earth have been degraded.
If ecosystem services continue to be degraded, the costs will increasingly be borne by society and industry. Sometimes we can replace or substitute some of what nature provides (often at great cost: it takes 40 humans 10 hours to hand-pollinate one acre of crops, which bees will do for free), while other benefits that nature provides are irreplaceable: there is simply no substitute for water or oxygen.
Ecosystem services continue to gain prominence on the corporate sustainability radar: In 2008 the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) brought a standardized, flexible and powerful methodology that helps companies understand and address how ecosystem services fit into the context of their business operations and strategy. ESR definitively connects the dots between CSR, EH&S and/or Sustainability functions and the C-Suite & balance sheet. 2010 saw the release of TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity) for Business, which provided the definitive corporate business case for biodiversity & ecosystem services (BES), along with a roadmap for addressing and integrating BES into the organization. In 2011, the Guide for Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV) gave ecosystem-aware companies fresh guidance for connecting ecosystems to the financial top and bottom line.
The GRI report furthers this momentum, by putting ecosystem services on the radar of any company that uses the GRI sustainability reporting framework. Because all too often you only manage what you measure, the inclusion of ecosystem services reporting metrics into the GRI framework will start many companies along the path of coming to terms with their relationship to natural ecosystems, thus beginning the necessary process of integrating ecosystems and biodiversity into their environmental, operational, and financial decision-making approaches.
For many companies, ecosystems are taken for granted unless the benefits they provide suddenly disappear – some sustainability programs are exemplary at managing the environmental factors at play within the four walls of the factory, while overlooking the ecosystems that lie just outside the factory door (or the mining site or the farm gate). As a company starts reporting on how it impacts and depends on critical ecosystem services, it will begin realizing how the organization depends on ecosystems to function (which we’ve found can sometimes be so obvious that it’s invisible), and also will illuminate how the company’s impact on ecosystems has ramifications on its stakeholders.
Ecosystem services is a quickly evolving field, with many leading science and policy institutions having active ES research programs underway. The GRI report looks at emerging thinking around ecosystem services and gives organizations options for reporting.
One of the key insights of the report is that ecosystems by nature are site-specific, geographically variable, and do not easily lend themselves to the types of aggregate roll-up measurements that corporate managers and analysts are used to. The guidance in this report provides a baseline for the potential future design of generally-accepted ecosystem reporting indicators, and provides an ample starting point for formulating ecosystem service recommendations for the next version (G4) of GRI’s reporting guidelines.
As ecosystem services find a place in corporate sustainability reporting, companies will increasingly understand how nature contributes to their profitability and shareholder value. As the company understands how a healthy functioning ecosystem is critical to the success of the organization, it will find a home for nature on the org chart.
Eric Landen is the founder and president of Landen Consulting, an environmental strategy consulting firm that helps organizations understand and address their strategic & financial impact and dependence on ecosystems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services. He is on the Advisory Group that contributed to the GRI report, has written a practitioner’s manual on corporate ecosystem services, and is listed in the Ecosystem Services Experts Directory. He is a member of the Advisory Group of the Water Ethics Network, which aims to include values considerations (including ecosystem service values) into public and private-sector water management policies and decisions, and he serves on the Committee that is developing a U.S. National Sustainable Agriculture Standard.









