For more science in sustainability reporting

environment, sustainability, governance. Collected under the acronym ESG, these concepts have taken the corporate world by storm in recent years. Today, there is almost no large corporation on the planet that doesn’t care – or fail to pretend to care – about them. But apart from the so-called problem Green wash (exaggerating or falsely communicating their environmental efforts to improve their image or reputation with the public). Even companies that are genuinely engaged in projects to make their operations more sustainable, or offset impacts, face the challenge of monitoring, measuring and reporting actual environmental and health impacts. Social and economic benefits obtained.

Therefore, an international group of researchers Posted this ThursdaySeptember 7, in the prestigious magazine Sciencesa discussion text proposing more comprehensive and scientific standards for monitoring and reporting on ecosystem restoration initiatives—such as promises to plant millions of trees, or restore mangroves, coral reefs, etc.—that are sponsored by companies within your ESG policies.

To do this, scientists led by Timothy Lamont of Lancaster University, UK, first analyzed sustainability reports published by 100 of the world’s largest multinational corporations, grouped into ten groups, within ten sectors: primary consumption; estimated consumption; energy; Financial; health; industrial goods; raw materials; technology; wired and wireless communication. and public services. Of these countries, 66 had ecosystem restoration projects, with a larger proportion in the energy and raw materials sectors, with nine companies each. Of the sixty-six, 44 reported the number of trees planted or the area covered by restoration projects, 12 reported the budget invested or the cost of projects, and 34 reported environmental monitoring activities, but only four reported the results of such monitoring. Moreover, none of the 100 reports provided any measurement of the social or economic impacts of the projects on the local population.

“This almost complete lack of transparency in reporting, either from an environmental or a socio-economic point of view, means that there is no way to quantify the amount of restoration that is being undertaken, or to confirm that its results are actually beneficial,” the authors critique in the text. “In short, the evidence base supporting large companies’ claims about ecosystem recovery is woefully inadequate.”

Thus, the researchers argue, project monitoring and evaluation can be improved if large companies adopt the basic principles of ecosystem restoration science when preparing their reports. They cite as a standard example of Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) – An organization dedicated to helping companies understand their environmental impacts and communicate their business in the region to the public – on this topic, it was adopted by more than two-thirds of the multinational companies analyzed. According to them, according to current standards, reports focus on mitigating operational impacts and are limited to documenting the spatial extent of projects, without the necessary details to assess their impacts on ecological systems and the social economy.

Seven scientific principles

In this way, the scientists advocate adopting seven principles for monitoring and reporting the different phases of restoration projects, allowing for a more realistic view of scale and impacts, as well as stimulating improvements in their structuring, implementation and measurement. In the case of structuring or designing projects, the first principle is the ‘mitigation hierarchy’. According to them, since restoring degraded environments is less effective than maintaining healthy ecosystems, companies should prioritize their efforts, and focus their reporting, on preserving existing habitats as a precursor to restoration projects. In project planning, another principle relates to ‘inclusive governance’, according to which companies must work together with local actors and decision makers in structuring them, with reports highlighting these partnerships with a focus on empowering traditional communities and populations.

In the project implementation phase, the first principle includes the concept of “sustainability”, according to which the project must have a long-term impact perspective. Thus, the reports should show the number of years the company has been committed to maintaining and monitoring the mentioned initiatives, as well as the survival rates and duration of previous projects. The second principle at this stage is the principle of “proportionality”, whereby restoration projects must be proportionate to the environmental damage caused by the company’s operations, with reports reporting the area and/or budget invested and showing the extent of work done.

Finally, there are three principles related to measuring and evaluating results. The first relates to oversight and transparency, under which companies that sponsor ecosystem restoration must demonstrate that their initiatives are achieving the desired environmental impacts. In addition, projects must have specific restoration goals and regular monitoring of progress, based on quantitative environmental data which must be published in freely accessible reports.

The second principle at this stage is aimed at the “external benefits” of projects, which go beyond the restoration of the targeted ecosystems. Examples of such external factors are the improvement of the quality of life of the local population, the involvement of communities in projects, education, research, training and qualification of people. In concluding the recommendations, the researchers highlighted the importance of projects that adopt a ‘reference ecosystem’. According to them, due to the fact that in many cases, the project target areas have already undergone so many environmental changes or have been degraded that it is not possible to know what they were like before the effects of human action, these “reference ecosystems” can help guide efforts to repopulate These sites are the right types that are resilient in the face of current and future threats.

Transparency challenge

More and more companies, especially large multinational corporations, are seeing that greening and sustainability are not only good for business, they can be great business. After all, in addition to ensuring natural resources and environmental services essential to the maintenance of their operations, they are able to realize financial gains, such as reduced costs and increased efficiency and image. However, for this to happen, it is essential that they organize and implement their restoration projects and communicate them transparently and credibly, say the researchers.

“Companies already have strong incentives to demonstrate the value of their take-back initiatives, and strengthening and improving reporting standards can help achieve this accountability more efficiently,” the researchers concluded. “If the world’s largest companies are managed wisely through transparent reporting, they can significantly raise the bar for ecosystem restoration, provide an evidence base from which others can learn and build, and win public recognition for their efforts. Organizations undermine their own accountability in ways that threaten the company’s credibility. The global movement to restore the ecosystem exacerbates environmental damage and generates social injustice.

César Paima is a journalist and assistant editor for Questão de Ciência.