The centerpiece of this plenary is the anticipated endorsement of the Summary for Policymakers of the groundbreaking IPBES Business and Biodiversity Report. Developed over three years and involving 80 expert authors representing diverse global regions, this scientific assessment solidifies the empirical foundations for understanding how business activities impact biodiversity and nature’s contributions to humanity. It explicitly details dependencies and pressures that enterprises exert on ecosystems, while proposing robust frameworks for integrating biodiversity considerations within the corporate decision-making process. This report offers a vital evidence base to inform policymakers and guide sustainable business practices on a global scale.

The choice of Manchester as the venue resonates deeply with the thematic focus of the plenary. Historically recognized as a crucible of industrial innovation and economic transformation, Manchester symbolizes the challenges and opportunities presented by the integration of environmental concerns into business and economic development paradigms. This historic industrial city now sets the stage for pioneering discourse on reconciling economic activity with biodiversity conservation, framing an urgent call for the private sector to acknowledge and address its ecological footprint.

A record-setting IPBES Stakeholder Day preceded the formal sessions, with over 500 participants from around the world engaging in dialogues aimed at fostering collaboration and expanding the reach of IPBES’s scientific assessments. Such engagement underscores the platform’s commitment to inclusivity, recognizing Indigenous knowledge holders and civil society actors as indispensable contributors to holistic biodiversity strategies. This breadth of participation ensures that the ensuing policy frameworks are enriched by multidimensional perspectives and grounded in social as well as ecological realities.

Opening IPBES12, an artistic performance by Manchester-based groups Bionics and the Wires poignantly fused biotechnology and creative expression, utilizing bionic arms to translate plant signals into music and visual art. This innovative presentation metaphorically underscored the intricate interdependencies between humans and the natural world, highlighting the potential of interdisciplinary approaches to communicate complex scientific ideas and galvanize broader public engagement with biodiversity issues.

During the plenary’s inaugural address, Emma Reynolds MP, UK Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, articulated the mounting global momentum for biodiversity restoration and sustainable business engagement. Emphasizing the narrowing window to arrest biodiversity loss by 2030, she framed IPBES as a vital forum for amplifying collective action and international cooperation at a moment when geopolitical trends threaten to undermine multilateralism. Her address reinforced the notion that safeguarding nature is not merely an ecological imperative but one fundamental to economic security and societal well-being.

In a powerful statement delivered on behalf of His Majesty King Charles III, the monarch expressed hope that the Business and Biodiversity Assessment would catalyze tangible, long-term commitments. This royal endorsement serves to elevate the report’s profile, signaling that the interface of nature and commerce commands attention at the highest levels of leadership and governance. It also reflects a broader recognition that biodiversity underpins the resilience of economies and communities worldwide.

IPBES Chair Dr. David Obura framed the assessment in the context of emerging global risks, specifically recalling the World Economic Forum’s 2026 Global Risks Report, which identified biodiversity loss as the second most critical long-term threat to business. This alignment with prominent international risk assessments underscores the urgency for integrating biodiversity metrics into corporate risk management, investment portfolios, and strategic planning processes, thereby fostering resilience to ecological shocks and systemic disruptions.

Echoing this concern, IPBES Executive Secretary Dr. Luthando Dziba emphasized the platform’s forward-looking mandate: to generate indispensable scientific knowledge and inspiration that support not only current biodiversity goals but also shape global policy trajectories beyond 2030. The IPBES assessments are designed not merely as scientific reports but as dynamic tools to facilitate implementation of international biodiversity commitments and to guide the transition to sustainable economies.

Among the technical advancements highlighted in the report is the sophistication with which it quantifies the dependencies and impacts of diverse economic sectors on ecosystem services. Employing state-of-the-art modeling frameworks and integrative analyses, the assessment elucidates complex causal linkages that have previously been underappreciated in economic decision-making. Such innovations are essential for translating abstract biodiversity concepts into operational metrics usable by businesses and policymakers alike.

The report also advances methodologies for natural capital accounting and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria refinement, ensuring that biodiversity considerations are embedded within corporate sustainability frameworks. These methodological contributions are poised to bolster transparency, accountability, and comparability across sectors, facilitating the benchmarking of corporate biodiversity performance and enabling financial markets to better integrate ecological risks and dependencies.

The media launch of the Business and Biodiversity Report is scheduled for 9 February 2026, with a live webcast designed to maximize accessibility and engagement. Accredited media will have the unprecedented opportunity to engage directly with the report’s three co-chairs and IPBES leadership during an exclusive Q&A session, fostering robust dialogue around the implications and potential applications of this transformative work.

In conclusion, the IPBES12 plenary in Manchester represents a watershed moment in global efforts to infuse biodiversity considerations into economic systems. By articulating the scientific underpinnings of business-environment interactions and linking these findings to policy and action, the Business and Biodiversity Report advances the ambition of embedding nature at the core of sustainable development frameworks. As the world confronts the accelerating biodiversity crisis, IPBES’s role as the “IPCC for biodiversity” remains indispensable, mobilizing knowledge and international cooperation to safeguard the planet’s natural heritage for generations to come.

Subject of Research: Business Impacts and Dependencies on Biodiversity; Intergovernmental Scientific Assessments on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services

Article Title: Landmark IPBES12 Plenary in Manchester Endorses Groundbreaking Business & Biodiversity Scientific Assessment

News Publication Date: Not explicitly stated; Event occurring February 2026

Web References:

• IPBES Official Website: www.ipbes.net
• Accreditation Link for Media: https://www.ipbes.net/bba-accreditation

Keywords: Environmental policy, Biodiversity science, Business and biodiversity, Ecosystem services, Intergovernmental platform, Science-policy interface, Sustainable development, Natural capital accounting, ESG, Global biodiversity governance

The research was sponsored by the Laudes Foundation and penned by esteemed academics Dr. Emilio Marti of the Rotterdam School of Management, Dr. Kevin Chuah from the D’Amore-McKim School of Business, and Professor Jean-Pascal Gond of Bayes Business School. Their findings reveal that the approach to ESG engagement is not uniform; rather, it fluctuates drastically from one nation to another based on local contexts. This variation primarily stems from the shifting power dynamics between asset owners, asset managers, and the companies they invest in.

The authors identify two distinct chains of influence: company-centric and owner-centric. In company-centric chains, prevalent in nations like Brazil, China, and India, companies often operate with a low dependence on institutional investors. This independence allows them to be less susceptible to pressure from asset owners, leading to a scenario where active owners are either unwilling or unable to persuade firms to take significant actions concerning ESG issues. Contrastingly, owner-centric chains, as seen in the United Kingdom and France, display a heavier reliance on institutional investment. This reliance grants asset owners and managers a stronger voice to advocate for ESG initiatives, thus shifting the engagement landscape.

Upon delving into the mechanics of engagement, the report delineates a five-step process that characterizes the behavior of active owners in these two chains. Starting with structural engagement capabilities, company-centric strategies are often decentralized and carried out by a broader base of portfolio analysts with assistance from engagement specialists. In contrast, owner-centric strategies are typically centralized, allowing for a streamlined approach where specialized teams can engage directly with companies.

Next comes the setting of engagement goals. In owner-centric environments, the focus is not just on gaining ESG insights but actively influencing the behaviors and practices of companies. This delineation stresses the importance of differentiated engagement strategies, with one model seeking to enhance reporting and transparency, while the other emphasizes relationship-building with greater depth and commitment. Understanding this distinction is imperative for shareholders aiming to make an impact in diverse global markets.

Company interactions represent another crucial aspect. In company-centric chains, engagement specialists often participate in meetings that cover non-ESG related topics, facilitating the sharing of best practices in a wider scope. Conversely, in owner-centric chains, interactions delve deeper, fostering closer, more nuanced relationships with fewer companies. This depth of engagement underscores the varying expectations and interactions that stakeholders have depending on their geographical context.

The pressure exerted on companies for compliance with ESG standards paints another stark contrast. In company-centric contexts, escalation of pressure is often avoided to maintain amicable relationships, which may result in superficial engagement outcomes. However, in owner-centric frameworks, asset owners exhibit more readiness to confront dissenting companies, invoking measures such as votes of no confidence or public dissent when necessary. This propensity for action highlights the divergent paths available to active owners based on their operational environments.

Evaluation and reporting also differ significantly across these chains. In company-centric frameworks, the lack of pressure from asset owners results in minimal reporting on ESG activities, often limited to basic disclosures. On the other hand, owner-centric contexts necessitate rigorous reporting standards to maintain transparency and assure stakeholders of the effectiveness of their engagements. Some regions even impose legal requirements to uphold high reporting standards, indicating an institutional push towards accountability.

In summarizing the findings, the report offers actionable recommendations for bridging these chains of influence. Among these strategies are enabling company-centric asset managers to adopt pressure mandates akin to those utilized by their owner-centric counterparts. This cross-pollination of strategies could facilitate shared growth and understanding within the sphere of ESG compliance.

The significance of these insights extends beyond theoretical frameworks. By actively engaging in practices that embrace the varying dynamics of their respective markets, asset owners can stimulate improved interactions with businesses in their locales. This is vital in fostering a culture of accountability and progressive ESG initiatives on a global scale.

Professor Jean-Pascal Gond emphasizes the nuances of shareholder engagement across different nations, noting that what may be regarded as active engagement in one country could merely be seen as preliminary information-gathering in another. Understanding these disparities is essential for asset owners who desire effective ESG engagement, especially as globalization continues to influence local markets.

Dr. Emilio Marti adds to this perspective by highlighting how the influence of asset owners can fluctuate dramatically across different regions. Companies demonstrate varying degrees of dependence on their shareholders, which further complicates the landscape of ESG engagement. He points to pension funds, in particular, as a driving force in promoting robust ESG shareholder engagement, suggesting that their level of activity can create ripple effects throughout the broader community of active owners.

This rich tapestry of engagement practices and cultural contexts serves as a clarion call for investors striving to navigate the ever-evolving ESG landscape. The need for collaboration among diverse asset owners and managers, spanning different chains of influence, underscores the complexity of establishing uniform standards for ESG engagement globally. By leveraging local expertise while recognizing the global context, investors can forge pathways that enhance their effectiveness in driving change.

In summary, the "Chains of Influence" report serves as a critical resource for understanding the intricate dynamics of ESG engagement across different cultural landscapes. The findings underscore the importance of recognizing distinct engagement patterns and crafting tailored strategies to foster collaboration and accountability. As ESG concerns ascend to the forefront of investment discussions, the insights gleaned from this research will undoubtedly shape the future of shareholder engagement in diverse markets worldwide.

Subject of Research: ESG Shareholder Engagement
Article Title: Chains of Influence
News Publication Date: 20-Mar-2025
Web References: Chains of Influence
References: None
Image Credits: None

Keywords: ESG, Shareholder Engagement, Company-Centric, Owner-Centric, Investment Strategies, Institutional Investors, Global Markets, Accountability, Collaboration, Reporting, Power Dynamics, Cultural Contexts.