Engaging for biodiversity

Investors & corporates

• Is bilateral engagement effective / efficient? Or should we move towards more collective engagement that is focused on shared long-term objectives?
• How can investors be better engagement partners without adding on additional work burden to corporate issuers?

Credit investors

• Are labelled bonds fit for purpose?

Emerging markets

• Who can investors engage with to enable preservation of biodiversity in emerging markets, particularly vis-a-vis local and indigenous communities who are often environmental stewards even as they are impacted by negative corporate impacts on biodiversity?

Standards/disclosure requirements

• Are current standards/disclosure requirements fit for purpose if the objective is to encourage corporates to reduce their negative impact?

Communities (start-ups)

• How can regenerative and community-based start-ups pursue solutions that will fit the needs of corporates? And how can investors facilitate these connections as bridge builders?
  

Policy/Regulators

• There is a current lack of clarity on how regulators define negative impact as well as a lack of consistency in regulatory approaches. If the regulation is unclear does that prohibit effective action among corporates or would more clarity be beneficial? and how?
• In Europe so far, the regulation around combatting biodiversity loss is through disclosure requirements. Are these fit for purpose if the objective is to encourage corporates to reduce their negative impact?

Additional information:

Laurent Ramsey

Managing Partner,
Pictet Group