IMHO: Nature is the next material horizon

At WWF-New Zealand, we spend a lot of time working with organisations that are grappling with change. Climate change is usually the starting point, and rightly so. Most boards now understand that transition planning is essential to managing long-term risk and resilience in a low-emissions future.

What we are seeing, however, is a growing blind spot: nature.

Nature is often acknowledged in principle but rarely integrated into transition planning in a way that boards can actively govern. Yet for many organisations, nature is not peripheral. It underpins operating models, supply chains, infrastructure resilience, workforce wellbeing and social licence. When ecosystems degrade, those foundations weaken – sometimes gradually, sometimes abruptly.

WWF-New Zealand’s landmark report with EY, A Nature Positive Aotearoa, makes this starkly clear. We know our economy and communities are heavily reliant on nature, and this report is the first attempt in Aotearoa to value the financial costs and opportunities associated with halting and reversing biodiversity loss. Our analysis found protecting nature could save New Zealand more than $270 billion over the next 50 years.

There’s a huge opportunity here for all sectors of society. But our analysis also shows that failing to properly value nature and address ecosystem decline creates material risks for businesses, investors and government.

The question for boards is whether nature is being treated as a strategic dependency rather than an externality.

From our work across Aotearoa, one thing is clear: organisations do not transition away from nature risk. They transition through it. And boards that fail to account for this risk finding themselves planning for a future that no longer exists.

Nature transition planning is often misunderstood as a technical or environmental exercise. In practice, it is a governance discipline. It asks boards to look forward and consider how nature-related pressures, including water availability, land use constraints, biodiversity loss, regulatory change and community expectations may reshape the organisation’s operating context over time.

This is familiar territory for directors. It mirrors the logic of climate transition planning: identify material dependencies and risks, test strategy against future scenarios and make deliberate choices about direction and timing. The difference is that nature risk is often more systemic and less linear, cutting across organisational boundaries in ways that are harder to silo.

A common challenge we hear from boards is uncertainty. Nature data can feel incomplete. Impacts are harder to quantify. Cause and effect are not always straightforward. But waiting for perfect information is rarely a viable governance strategy. In our experience, the organisations making the most progress are those that start by asking better questions, rather than seeking definitive answers.

• • Where are we most exposed to nature loss, directly or indirectly?
  • Which parts of our strategy rely on ecosystems remaining stable?
  • What assumptions are we making about access to land, water, or community support that may no longer hold?

Through WWF’s involvement in the Transition for Nature working group, and through our wider conservation and policy work, we have seen that progress is possible when boards focus on sequencing and prioritisation. Nature transition planning does not require organisations to solve everything at once. It requires clarity about what matters most, and a willingness to revisit decisions as conditions evolve.

For example, in marine and freshwater systems, we consistently see that delayed action increases both ecological and economic cost. Degraded systems are more expensive to restore and less resilient to shocks. The same logic applies at organisational level. Boards that integrate nature early into strategic planning retain more options than those forced into reactive change.

Our work in Aotearoa also reinforces that nature transition is inseparable from people and communities. Organisations operate with permission, formal and informal, from the communities they affect. When nature outcomes deteriorate, trust and legitimacy often erode alongside them. Boards that understand this dynamic are better placed to navigate contested decisions and long-term trade-offs.

What does this mean in practical governance terms? It means moving nature out of the “nice to have” category and into core board conversations about risk, resilience and future readiness. It means ensuring management has a mandate to explore nature-related scenarios, not just report impacts. And it means recognising that nature transition, like climate transition, is iterative – a process of learning, adjustment and course correction.

Importantly, boards do not need to become conservation experts. What they do need is the confidence to govern uncertainty, to challenge assumptions and to align strategy with the realities of a changing natural environment.

As climate transition planning becomes more established, nature is the next material horizon. Boards that treat it as someone else’s problem will find their strategic choices narrowing. Those that engage early will be better placed to shape their future, rather than react to it.

For directors seeking to deepen their understanding of how to govern emerging environmental risks and opportunities – from nature and climate to disclosures, measurement and forward-looking strategy – WWF-New Zealand is working with Deloitte and the Sustainable Business Council on a workshop series.

Nature is already shaping the environment organisations are transitioning into, and the key governance question is whether boards are ready to plan accordingly.

Dr Kayla Kingdon-Bebb joined WWF-New Zealand as CEO in March 2023, having previously served as Director of Policy at the Department of Conservation. 

An experienced environmental policy leader, manager, and advocate, she has experience in the machinery of government and has led collaborative work programmes on a wide range of environmental policy issues. 

Kayla is also a subject-matter specialist in Treaty law, with a particular focus on the interaction between indigenous and colonial legal systems in the context of natural resource management.