Nature of Business
In Our Palms by Asher Jay
The issue of biodiversity loss is a complex one, and different approaches have been proposed to address it. All of the existing methodologies and modalities proposed, promoted, and pursued by financial institutions, Wall Street, and corporations, such as REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation), TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity), carbon offsets, Nature Positive (expands on the Net Zero conviction), and biodiversity offsets, aim to monetize and assign market value to biological organisms and systems. However, policy experts, conservationists, and sustainability leaders have continually expressed concerns that these mechanisms and frameworks could ultimately lead to the diminishment of the biosphere's overall integrity and intrinsic value, resulting in the inevitable destruction of living biota.
One argument against the market valuation of living organisms is that it prioritizes economic interests and business as usual over the conservation and protection of biodiversity. By placing a price on nature, we commodify its expression and begin to treat complex wholes as the sum of their functional parts and nothing more. This linear, compartmentalized approach may allow us to simplify ecological relationships and processes that transcend straightforward anthropocentric arithmetic into nothing more than a simpleton's balance sheet, treating that which cannot be quantified as a statistic, a data point, and not surprisingly as an economic resource. The parameters taken into consideration override intrinsic value and the interconnectedness of biologically dynamic networks. This unconscious and irreverent approach encourages the continued exploitation of natural resources without adequately addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss.
To effectively solve for biodiversity loss due to economic development, it is important to promote strategies that prioritize resiliency, diversity, and integrity. A more holistic approach should be adopted, one that takes stock of the interdependencies between ecosystems, species, and human well-being at every level, in every combination and permutation. What we know continues to fall short of the depth of insight necessary to preserve local and global ecosystems, which predisposes us toward formulating yet another reductive policy, program, or procedure. I have consciously opted out of attending bureaucratic gatherings that care more for capital, calculations, criteria, and commitments, than critical action, credible culture change, collaborative accountability, and coexistence. Allocations and actions that are indispensable to preventing a global ecological collapse are framed to emulate "The Monkey's Paw," expecting something in return for doing what is vital for the survival of all. We lost our capacity to stand tall as responsible, ethical guardians of this inimitable biosphere when we opted for conquest over context and reframed preserving that which we depend upon as a troubling liability instead of as a treasured inheritance.
Perhaps it is time to begin echoing nature instead of expensing her expanse and fraudulently evaluating her productivity as our net gains. The time has come for us to ask the tough questions, is merely measuring what matters and disclosing a company's nature-related risks, impacts, and dependencies enough? Are metrics helping brands set clear biodiversity goals while helping them identify ways to reduce biodiversity loss within their sphere of influence or does the nature of business itself need to change at its core?
Wild systems and networks are innately complex and dynamic, and their true value cannot be deduced merely empirically, consequently, the wonder of wild eludes the current financial paradigm, economic frameworks, and business models, as they are extractive and exploitative in character, built to maximize profit and shareholder value or through the green lens optimize the same loyalties. This lends itself to greenwashing, as we continue to layer atop a rotting foundation instead of having the courage to tear down the failing structure and start over.
Make no mistake, assigning monetary value to nature oversimplifies complexities and fails to accurately gauge the multitude of ecological processes and interactions that synergetically sustain life on Earth. Instead of prescribing perceived value to extant flora and fauna, we should prioritize the conservation and protection of wild systems based on their inalienable worth. There is no way to place a conscionable bounty on an organism's ecological importance and the services they render toward humanity and other species, as we could not afford the tally it would take to 1. replicate all of the roles it serves through and 2. restore the implicit balance it provides by being. It seems counterintuitive to spend available resources trying to recreate that which exists for free because we currently cannot relinquish profit long enough to ensure prosperity. We prefer the fiction of money to the reality of abundance, we embrace fear and scarcity over awe and contentment, and therein lies our irreconcilable disconnect with nature.
Instead of operating in ways that erode nature at the outset, only to offset nature retroactively, reactively, and redundantly maybe it's time we reconfigured how your brands embody nature. In all the corporate workshops I have conducted on biomimetic design and systems thinking, I helped brands discover the aspects of nature they were predisposed to exemplify and thus could attain greater efficiency at scale.
Nature can teach enterprises a great deal about social and environmental stewardship beyond circularity and diversity. I maintain that business needs to embody the following lessons from nature to promote long-term sustainability and positive impact. Successful implementation of these concepts will require enterprises to act with vigilant integrity and astute awareness of their role in the local and global wholes.
1. Interconnectedness: Nature demonstrates the importance of recognizing and respecting the interconnectedness of all living things. Enterprises can learn to consider the impact their actions have on various stakeholders, including local communities and the environment, and make decisions that prioritize collective well-being.
2. Resilience: Nature is incredibly resilient, adapting to change and recovering from disturbances. Enterprises can learn from this adaptability by building resilience into their operations, such as by diversifying supply chains or investing in renewable energy sources, to withstand potential social or environmental disruptions.
3. Regeneration: Nature has inherent regenerative capabilities, where waste is often reused and resources are continuously cycled. Enterprises can adopt similar principles by implementing circular economy practices, such as designing products for durability and reuse, reducing waste, and recycling materials.
4. Collaboration: Ecosystems thrive through collaboration and symbiotic relationships, where different species work together for mutual benefit. Enterprises can learn from this by fostering collaboration and partnerships that aim for shared value creation, such as collaborating with local communities or NGOs to address social and environmental challenges.
5. Time and Patience: Nature operates on longer timescales and is patient in achieving its goals. Enterprises can learn the importance of taking a long-term view when it comes to social and environmental stewardship, focusing on sustainable practices that deliver lasting benefits rather than short-term gains.
Brands can account for nature's importance, by incorporating nature's processes, relationships, motifs, and models into its core alignment. Businesses heavily depend on nature for essential resources like raw materials, water, and climate regulation. By better accounting for nature's importance and contributing to a more sustainable future, businesses can become direct stakeholders in the conservation of biodiversity they are directly and indirectly reliant on. To remain competitive and relevant, businesses must prioritize biodiversity conservation and treat it as a strategic imperative, as this increases brand appeal to both investors and consumers. In doing so, they can contribute to global biodiversity conservation, ensure the sustainable use of resources, and ultimately enhance their long-term viability.
In conclusion, while monetizing and assigning market value to biological organisms and systems may seem like a practical approach to address biodiversity loss, the valid concerns expressed by experts should not be dismissed and discounted. While it is inconvenient to change corporate trajectories, not doing so undermines the intrinsic value of nature and perpetuates a business-as-usual mentality that can only widen the chasm between business and biodiversity. A more effective solution involves mimicking nature in part and as a whole. It is essential to recognize the limitations of our current capitalistic architecture that tarnishes everything it touches by quantifying, commodifying, and valuing that which it does not possess the vocabulary or tools to comprehend, and instead focus on the preservation of our global commons for the greater benefit of all.
