Andrew Mitchell on the Business Case for a Nature-Positive Economy

For businesses and investors, understanding their relationship with nature raises practical questions about how to manage risk, develop new products and allocate capital. In The Little Book of Nature Business, Andrew Mitchell and Professor John Tobin-de la Puente set out an investment framework for identifying commercial opportunities that contribute to the protection and recovery of the natural world. Drawing on examples across eight sectors, the book explores how nature can inform innovation, strengthen business resilience and create lasting value.

In this edition of the OneStop ESG Thought Leadership Series, Andrew Mitchell, Founder and Senior Adviser to Global Canopy and Co-founder of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), shares his perspective on building a nature-positive economy. Drawing on a career spanning tropical forest conservation and sustainable finance, he examines how companies can translate nature assessments into business decisions, what makes an opportunity investable, and why credible environmental outcomes must sit alongside financial returns.

Download a free English-language digital copy of The Little Book of Nature Business from Global Canopy.

 

1. What does a focus on risk alone miss, and what would you like business leaders and investors to take away from the book?

Andrew Mitchell: Risk is only half the story. If we look at nature solely as a source of financial exposure, we miss the extraordinary opportunities that exist now, and in the future, to build businesses that not only help protect and restore nature, but use ‘nature’s technology’ in product innovation too. In The Little Book of Nature Business, produced by Global Canopy, Prof John Tobin-de la Puente and I challenge the assumption that nature-positive investment is confined to what we call “bees, trees and farmers”. We identify opportunities that today are already valued at US$280 billion across eight sectors of the economy, from food and construction to energy, water and pharmaceuticals. Think of bioplastics, vertical farming, or leather from mushrooms. The World Economic Forum estimates that a future nature economy could reach US$10.1 trillion and create 395 million jobs. The book offers a framework to realise that.

My message to business leaders and investors is that nature is not simply something to protect; it is a source of innovation, resilience and commercial growth. The transition to a nature-positive economy will require new products, technologies, business models and markets. It also requires us to rethink how we allocate capital. By recognising nature as an economic asset rather than an externality, businesses can uncover opportunities that strengthen their resilience and create value while contributing to the recovery of the natural world.

 

2. Across the sectors covered in the book, where do you see the greatest potential for commercially viable nature-related businesses to grow?

Andrew Mitchell: 30 years ago, few investors understood the potential of ‘renewable energy’ that is now transforming our dependency on fossil fuels and revolutionising our transport system. We need a similar transformation in our global food system. I call it ‘renewable food’. Because food and agriculture are the biggest cause of the loss of nature, it offers the biggest opportunity for reform. Already we are seeing important opportunities through regenerative agriculture that improves soil health, vertical farming and biodigesters that can produce food in cities. In Andhra Pradesh, over a million farmers are proving that shifting subsidies to reduce dependence on chemical inputs can strengthen resilience to drought and flooding, increase yields and improve farmer health too. And local incomes have been maintained. Businesses that help farmers make this transition can serve growing demand for more sustainable supply chains while addressing the long-term health of agricultural land.

Construction is another promising sector. Innovative materials, circular business models and approaches that reduce demand for virgin resources can create commercial value while limiting the damage associated with extraction and land-use change. Innovations like self-healing concrete that employs embedded bacteria to seal cracks in buildings and extend their life, are just emerging. Others, like constructed wetlands to prevent flooding in cities is already a US$15 billion business in China. What makes these opportunities attractive is that they address substantial existing markets rather than relying entirely on new sources of demand. Our guide's more than 80 case studies across eight sectors demonstrates the breadth of the opportunity. The challenge now is to identify successful models, prove their economics and scale them through appropriate investment, supportive policy and stronger customer demand.

 

3. For an investor or lender, what makes a nature-related business model investable?

Andrew Mitchell: It depends on what return an investor is looking for and what sector they are interested in. Short term investors may want high returns, others, such as family offices, might want an intergenerational return. Impact investors look for a reasonable ROI but a high social or environmental impact. For most of the market, nature-related business must meet the same commercial tests as any other investment. The exciting discovery from our research is that many businesses using nature-related tech are offering strong market returns. The global bioplastics market is already valued at US$13 billion. Weed-killing robots are predicted to grow at 18%, biochar-based plastic cladding is increasing a 19.5% per year and vertical farming is growing at 28% per year.

What distinguishes a nature business is the additional need to establish whether its activities deliver genuine environmental benefits. Investors should ask how those benefits will be measured, whether they can be sustained and whether the business creates unintended damage elsewhere. They should also distinguish between revenue generated directly by selling a product or service and value that depends on subsidies, carbon credits or other environmental payments. These may all have a role, but their durability must be tested. Our simple guide helps investors discover opportunities worth investigating; rigorous financial and ecological due diligence must determine which deserve capital.

 

4. For an established company that has assessed its impacts and dependencies on nature, how should that assessment inform decisions about products, suppliers and investment?

Andrew Mitchell: Assessing your DIRO (dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities) is the beginning, not the end, of the TNFD journey. Companies need to translate the knowledge gained into decisions about the products they develop, the suppliers they select, the assets they finance and the activities they expand or phase out. An assessment that produces a compliance report but leaves commercial decisions unchanged has achieved very little.

In October 2026, the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) announced that it would integrate TNFD-informed thinking into internal capability building, procurement processes, supplier engagement, and contract management. Businesses can do the same. Procurement teams can use nature-related criteria when selecting suppliers, particularly in commodities associated with deforestation, land degradation and water stress. Product teams can explore materials and production methods that reduce pressure on ecosystems. Finance teams can incorporate nature-related dependencies, risks and opportunities into capital allocation and investment appraisal. Commercial teams can identify emerging customer demand for products that deliver better environmental outcomes. Leadership must connect these functions through clear responsibilities, incentives and measurable objectives. However, nature cannot remain the exclusive responsibility of a sustainability department. A key question to ask is, does your ESG decision making hierarchy include the authority to end a project deemed unsustainable. If not, then perhaps compliance is your only true purpose, not transition.

 

5. What evidence should a company or investor look for before describing a business as contributing to a nature-positive economy?

Andrew Mitchell: In the Little Book of Nature Business, the term ‘nature business’ refers to: “investable economic activity that either sustainably uses resources from nature, avoids or reduces impacts on nature, or restores nature, and in doing so contributes towards positive outcomes for nature and for business.”

Investors should look for companies whose primary purpose is to achieve this goal and then use the term with care. A large global mining conglomerate may be using phyto-mining to glean rare minerals from its tailings waste but it cannot call itself, as a whole, a nature business, though its phyto-mining subsidiary could be classified as one.

A further simple test is that, if you removed nature from a nature business product, would you still have a product? Investors should ask, is the business producing outcomes that are both good for nature and good for business and that lead towards nature positive outcomes.

Where landscape-based projects are concerned, context matters. Protecting a hectare of habitat in one location cannot automatically compensate for destroying a different ecosystem elsewhere. Nor does reducing the environmental intensity of a harmful activity necessarily mean that overall damage is falling, particularly if the business is expanding rapidly. Companies and investors must therefore look at absolute impacts, supply-chain exposure and the full life cycle of products, alongside the positive outcomes they claim. Independent verification, transparent reporting and credible scientific methods are essential. A nature-positive contribution should mean demonstrable progress towards healthier ecosystems, not simply a relative improvement against a damaging baseline. Ultimately, the evidence must withstand scrutiny from scientists, investors, regulators and the communities affected.

 

6. Beyond individual deals, what is preventing capital from reaching these opportunities at greater scale?

Andrew Mitchell: There is a misconception here. Nature business is already big business. The case studies we showcase in our guide are projected to rise in value from US$280 billion to US$700 billion in 2030. In my view, a significant barrier is the misidentification of nature business, limiting it to sectors such as forestry agriculture and restoration. This undervalues the true role of nature in the economy. It is true that many promising nature business enterprises are small, early-stage or operating in markets where revenue models are still developing. But others, such as bioplastics or pharmaceuticals are vast and global, yet are critically dependent on nature.

A further mismatch is between the needs of nature businesses and the way finance is traditionally structured. Projects may be too small for institutional investors individually, while commercial lenders may struggle to assess unfamiliar technologies, environmental outcomes and risks. The result is a financing gap between promising innovation and commercially viable scale.

To build an investable pipeline, especially in conservation landscapes, technical assistance and better project preparation are needed. Aggregation of smaller opportunities and blended financing structures suited to different stages of business development and risk appetites, is another key step. Through blended finance models, development finance institutions and philanthropic capital can absorb some early-stage risk and accelerate what works. The objective is to build a pipeline of credible, investable businesses that can ultimately attract substantial private capital. Governments can help by establishing clear policies, predictable standards and shifting incentives to reward nature-positive outcomes while ending support for damaging activities.

 

7. Are there nature-related opportunities that commercial investment is not well suited to fund on its own?

Andrew Mitchell: Not every beneficial outcome for nature can generate a competitive commercial return. Protecting critical habitats, safeguarding endangered species and maintaining ecosystems that provide services to society may not produce revenues sufficient to attract conventional private investment looking for rapid or high returns. These are not failures of conservation; they reflect the fact that many of nature's benefits are public goods whose value is not captured by markets. In many cases these projects mature over many decades.

Investors need to recognise these limits rather than force every conservation priority into a commercial model. Public finance remains essential where benefits are shared widely, while philanthropic funding can support early-stage innovation, scientific research, local capacity and projects that markets do not yet reward. Public subsidies should also be re-directed to favour nature positive outcomes, rather than the reverse which is so often the case today. The aim should be to use each source of capital appropriately: mobilising private investment where commercial models work, whilst applying public capital to ensure that nature's wider social and ecological value is not neglected.

 

8. With CBD COP17 taking place in Yerevan in October, what would you like businesses and financial institutions to take from the discussions? Which decisions over the following year would show that nature-related opportunities are attracting investment at greater scale?

Andrew Mitchell: Three key announcements have emerged from COP 17 in Yerevan that give me hope that the tide is turning on nature action in finance. The first is that the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) released its Practice Statement on Nature for consultation. Drawing on the experience of TNFD, the Statement can be used with IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 to provide incremental nature-related disclosures. Whilst this falls short of a specific global nature standard, it offers jurisdictions the opportunity to create one, should they choose to do so.

Secondly, TNFD announced that its public adopters have now reached over 830 worldwide, with a collective AUM of USD26 trillion. TNFD released its 2.0 version of its guidance on disclosure and reporting and announced its aim to locate a final resting place within the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).

Finally, the Nature Positive Initiative announced it landmark State of Nature Indicators and Metrics Framework allowing finance business and governments to accurately align their actions with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF).

Taken together, these developments fundamentally shift the global playing field towards better recognition of the role of natural capital with economic transactions worldwide, that up to now has largely been invisible.

There is a big mountain to climb to shift the USD7.5 trillion of capital delivering nature-negative outcomes in the world but I feel steps like these are crucial and significant steps on that journey.