Protect nature. Protect people. Enable better outcomes

Protecting nature is no longer seen as just an environmental challenge, it’s a social one. Our recent work moves the discussion from interconnectedness to consequence, showing why social impacts are increasingly central to success.

When we first introduced Just Nature, we wanted to be clear: protecting nature will not work if people are left behind. Biodiversity [1] loss and social inequality are closely connected, yet biodiversity strategies have often overlooked their impacts on people, even though these social factors can make or break delivery. The real question is no longer whether nature and people are connected, but how those connections shape decisions, risks and outcomes on the ground.

Social impacts determine whether biodiversity strategies deliver or break down through delays, disruption or loss of trust. What has changed most is that this shift is now expected to be increasingly enforced by outside companies themselves, as policy, regulation and market expectations increasingly align. Companies are now expected to demonstrate how nature-related transitions affect workers, communities, suppliers and consumers, and how those impacts are managed in practice.

The real question is no longer whether nature and people are connected, but how those connections shape decisions, risks and outcomes on the ground.

Regulation is raising the stakes

Regulation is turning these expectations into requirements.

New and approaching measures – from deforestation-free supply chain rules to due diligence regimes – increasingly expect companies to manage environmental and social impacts together, including through regulation that reflects the Just Nature philosophy by requiring fair access to, and benefit‑sharing from, biological resources – bringing fairness into the heart of biodiversity regulation. Treating them separately is no longer credible.

This is shifting where risk sits.

As biodiversity strategies move from commitments to decisions – like sourcing, land use, or product design – social impacts become operational and legal risks if they’re not anticipated early. Requirements around traceability, lawful land use, stakeholder engagement and access to remedy are now part of biodiversity strategies themselves.

All round, the lesson is clear: ignoring social impacts doesn’t remove risk; it moves it, delays it, or makes it worse.

Where 'Just Nature' matters most

Our recent work has helped us see more clearly where the links between nature and people matter most in practice.

While Just Nature is relevant across sectors, it matters most where impacts on nature and people are closely linked, and where how changes are carried out directly affects cost, business continuity and trust.

This is particularly the case in sectors such as:

In these sectors, biodiversity strategies are delivered through real-world decisions — how land is used, how water is managed, where materials are sourced, and how ecosystems are restored.

These decisions shape not only environmental outcomes, but also people’s livelihoods, access to land and resources, and local economic opportunities — making social impacts a key risk to successful delivery.

An example of this is changing agricultural sourcing practices, setting aside land for conservation, or tightening standards for natural raw material production:

1. Workers may experience changes to roles, skills and health and safety profiles as nature strategies are implemented.
2. Communities can be affected where conservation, extraction or restoration decisions alter access to land, water or culturally important sites.
3. Supply chains are exposed where new biodiversity standards increase costs or data requirements without adequate support.
4. Consumers may face higher prices, reduced access or confusion where changes are poorly anticipated or communicated.

Why this matters for stewardship

From a stewardship perspective, Just Nature has become financially material because it highlights a very real risk: plans that look good on paper can break down in practice. When biodiversity strategies fail to account for social impacts, the consequences can be immediate: project delays, supply disruption, litigation and reputational damage.

We’re already seeing this, for example, when companies introduce deforestation-free sourcing requirements without adequate support for small suppliers, those suppliers can be pushed out of the market leading to exclusion, shipment delays and legal or civil society challenge.

As regulatory and due diligence expectations tighten, moving from commitment to compliance, the focus for investors is also changing. It is no longer enough to assess environmental ambition in isolation; companies must demonstrate not just environmental ambition, but how impacts on people are identified, governed and managed across operations and value chains.

We therefore believe that a Just Nature lens on stewardship helps distinguish between biodiversity strategies that are likely to deliver in practice and those that risk unravelling during implementation. It shifts the focus from what companies say they will do, and towards how decisions are made, risks are managed, and trade-offs are handled in reality.

Looking ahead

The core insight of Just Nature still holds: biodiversity action that overlooks people is less likely to succeed, proving less durable and less effective over time. Integrating social considerations does not dilute ambition on nature; it strengthens it by improving execution, resilience and long-term credibility.

As biodiversity commitments continue to translate into real-world decisions, the importance of how they are delivered is becoming increasingly evident. Social impacts are a key part of that delivery, shaping outcomes, risks and long-term value. For stewardship, this reinforces the need to look beyond stated ambition and towards implementation in practice. A Just Nature lens provides that perspective, helping to assess the resilience and credibility of biodiversity strategies as they move from plan to execution.

[1] In this piece, nature refers to the natural world and ecosystems as a whole, including biodiversity, land, water and ecosystem services. Biodiversity refers more specifically to the variety of life within ecosystems. We use nature where the focus is on system‑level impacts and dependencies, and biodiversity where referring to specific strategies, targets or regulatory frameworks.

For professional investors only.  This material is not suitable for a retail audience. Capital at risk. This is a financial promotion and is not investment advice. Past performance is not a guide to future performance. Reference to any security is for information purposes only and should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell.

The value of investments and any income from them may go down as well as up and is not guaranteed. Investors may not get back the amount invested. Portfolio characteristics and holdings are subject to change without notice. The views expressed are those of the author at the date of publication unless otherwise indicated, which are subject to change. Forward looking statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties. Actual outcomes may be materially different from those expressed or implied.