Nature-related financial disclosures (TNFD) KPIs by sector (with ranges)

Over 320 organizations across 46 countries began reporting aligned with the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework by mid-2025, yet fewer than 20% of those early adopters track more than three nature-related KPIs with sector-specific benchmarks. As regulatory momentum builds and investor scrutiny sharpens, the gap between symbolic disclosure and decision-useful measurement is widening. The KPIs organizations choose to report, and the ranges they benchmark against, determine whether TNFD adoption drives real risk management or remains a compliance exercise.

Why It Matters

Nature-related risks affect every sector that depends on ecosystem services: agriculture through pollination and soil health, pharmaceuticals through genetic resources, infrastructure through flood regulation and coastal protection, and financial services through portfolio exposure to nature-dependent assets. The TNFD framework, finalized in September 2023, provides the first globally recognized structure for identifying, assessing, and reporting on these dependencies and impacts. With the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) signaling future integration of nature into its baseline, and the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) already requiring biodiversity disclosures under European Sustainability Reporting Standard E4, organizations face converging pressure to quantify what they previously treated as externalities.

The challenge is not whether to disclose nature-related information but what metrics to track, what ranges to expect, and how to avoid vanity metrics that look comprehensive on paper but fail to inform capital allocation or operational decisions. KPIs must reflect materiality based on location-specific dependencies, sector-specific impact pathways, and time horizons aligned with both ecological cycles and investment periods.

Key Concepts

LEAP approach is the TNFD's core assessment methodology, structured across four phases: Locate the interface with nature, Evaluate dependencies and impacts, Assess material risks and opportunities, and Prepare to respond and report. LEAP provides a systematic pathway from spatial analysis of nature interfaces to disclosure-ready metrics.

Dependencies and impacts are distinct but interrelated. Dependencies describe how a business relies on ecosystem services (pollination, water filtration, climate regulation), while impacts describe how business activities affect nature (habitat conversion, pollution, resource extraction). Robust KPIs must cover both directions.

Nature-related risks follow the same categories as climate risks: physical risks (ecosystem degradation reducing input availability), transition risks (policy changes restricting nature-damaging activities), and systemic risks (tipping points in interconnected ecosystems). Each category requires different KPIs and time horizons.

Priority locations are sites where an organization's assets, operations, or value chain interfaces overlap with areas of high biodiversity importance, high ecosystem integrity, areas of rapid decline, or areas of high physical water stress. TNFD recommends disclosure at the priority location level rather than aggregated corporate averages.

KPI Benchmarks by Sector

KPI	Sector	Low Range	Median	High Range	Unit
Land use change in priority locations	Agriculture	0.5	2.1	5.0	% area converted/yr
Land use change in priority locations	Mining and extractives	0.2	1.4	4.5	% area converted/yr
Water withdrawal vs. local availability	Food and beverage	5	18	40	% of local renewable supply
Water withdrawal vs. local availability	Semiconductors	3	12	25	% of local renewable supply
Pollutant load to freshwater	Chemicals	0.8	3.2	8.5	tonnes BOD/yr per facility
Pollutant load to freshwater	Textiles and apparel	1.5	5.0	15	tonnes BOD/yr per facility
Deforestation-linked commodity volume	Consumer goods	0	8	25	% of sourced volume unverified
Species threat exposure index	Pharmaceuticals	5	15	35	number of IUCN Red List species in sourcing regions
Ecosystem service dependency ratio	Agriculture	30	55	80	% revenue dependent on ecosystem services
Ecosystem service dependency ratio	Infrastructure	10	25	50	% asset value in nature-sensitive zones
Nature-positive investment share	Financial services	1	4	12	% AUM in verified nature-positive assets
TNFD-aligned disclosure completeness	Cross-sector leaders	40	60	85	% of recommended metrics reported
Restoration area relative to impact	Mining and extractives	0.5	1.0	2.5	restoration-to-disturbance ratio
Supply chain traceability to biome	Consumer goods	15	40	75	% of Tier 1 suppliers mapped to biome

What's Working

Spatial analytics enabling location-specific disclosure. The TNFD LEAP approach requires organizations to locate their interfaces with nature at a granular level, and geospatial tools are making this feasible at scale. The Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT), developed by IUCN, UNEP-WCMC, and BirdLife International, now serves over 700 corporate users mapping operations against protected areas, key biodiversity areas, and IUCN Red List species ranges. Olam Food Ingredients used IBAT alongside satellite monitoring to map 100% of its cocoa, coffee, and hazelnut supply chains against deforestation risk zones across 58 countries. This spatial approach identified that 12% of sourcing areas overlapped with high biodiversity importance zones, triggering supplier engagement programs that reduced deforestation-linked sourcing by 34% between 2022 and 2025.

Financial institutions piloting portfolio-level nature risk screening. ASN Bank in the Netherlands became one of the first banks to measure its biodiversity footprint across its entire loan and investment portfolio using the Partnership for Biodiversity Accounting Financials (PBAF) standard. By mapping holdings to land use, water, and pollution impacts across sectors, ASN identified that 65% of its nature-related risk concentrated in just three sectors: agriculture, real estate, and energy. Robeco, the Dutch asset manager, integrated TNFD-aligned nature metrics into its sovereign bond framework, assessing 150 countries on deforestation rates, marine ecosystem health, and freshwater stress. The analysis shifted $400 million in allocation away from sovereigns with deteriorating nature indicators.

Sector-specific metric convergence around commodities. The Accountability Framework Initiative, backed by the Consumer Goods Forum, established standardized deforestation and conversion-free metrics that 600+ companies now track. Nestle reports verified deforestation-free sourcing rates for palm oil (97%), soy (95%), and paper/pulp (99%), providing investors with comparable commodity-level KPIs. Unilever publishes satellite-verified deforestation monitoring coverage for its palm oil supply chain, reaching 100% of direct suppliers and 93% of indirect suppliers by 2025. This commodity-level standardization provides the first genuinely comparable cross-company nature KPIs in the food and consumer goods sector.

What's Not Working

Aggregated corporate metrics masking location-specific risks. Many early TNFD reporters present nature metrics at the group level: total water withdrawal, total land under management, total waste discharged. These aggregate figures obscure the fact that a company withdrawing 2% of local water supply in Sweden and 40% in water-stressed regions of India presents fundamentally different risk profiles at each site. The TNFD explicitly recommends priority location disclosure, but only 25% of the 320 early adopters published location-disaggregated metrics in their initial reports. Without spatial granularity, portfolio managers cannot assess concentration risk, and operational teams cannot prioritize interventions.

Biodiversity measurement tools still lack consensus on methodology. At least 15 different biodiversity footprint methodologies compete for adoption, including the Global Biodiversity Score (CDC Biodiversite), the Biodiversity Footprint for Financial Institutions (ASN Bank/CREM), ENCORE (Natural Capital Finance Alliance), and the Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) metric (IUCN). These tools use different underlying models, scope boundaries, and reference points, producing results that can differ by a factor of two to five for the same portfolio or operation. A 2024 comparison by the Finance for Biodiversity Foundation tested six tools against the same hypothetical portfolio and found that top-risk sectors shifted ranking depending on methodology. Until convergence occurs, cross-company benchmarking of biodiversity impact KPIs remains unreliable.

Data gaps in upstream supply chains. TNFD disclosure quality depends heavily on supply chain visibility, yet most organizations lack traceability beyond Tier 1 suppliers. In sectors like textiles and electronics, the nature impacts concentrate at raw material extraction (cotton farming, mineral mining) where Tier 3 and Tier 4 supplier data is sparse or nonexistent. A 2025 CDP survey found that only 18% of responding companies could trace commodity inputs to the biome of origin. Without this traceability, organizations default to sector-average proxies that may misrepresent actual nature dependencies by 30-60%.

Key Players

Established Leaders

• UNEP-WCMC: Provides the biodiversity data infrastructure underlying IBAT and multiple TNFD-aligned assessment tools. Maintains the World Database on Protected Areas covering 270,000+ sites globally.
• Robeco: Dutch asset manager with EUR 170+ billion AUM. Pioneered integration of biodiversity and nature metrics into sovereign and corporate bond frameworks.
• Holcim: Global building materials company. Launched nature action plans at 100+ quarry sites using TNFD-aligned biodiversity assessments and restoration KPIs.
• Nestle: Swiss food and beverage company. Reports commodity-level deforestation-free sourcing rates verified through satellite monitoring and third-party audits.

Emerging Startups

• Iceberg Data Lab: French fintech providing Corporate Biodiversity Footprint scores for listed equities and bonds, used by 40+ asset managers.
• NatureAlpha: UK-based analytics firm delivering nature risk scores for 10,000+ listed companies using geospatial AI and ecological modeling.
• Restor: Swiss platform mapping ecosystem restoration projects with high-resolution ecological data, enabling verification of corporate restoration claims.
• South Pole: Swiss sustainability advisory and solutions provider offering TNFD readiness assessments and nature-based carbon credit origination.

Key Investors and Funders

• Finance for Biodiversity Foundation: Network of 160+ financial institutions with EUR 23 trillion AUM collectively committed to biodiversity integration in portfolios.
• UNDP Biodiversity Finance Initiative (BIOFIN): Operating in 40+ countries, providing governments and financial institutions with biodiversity finance planning tools.
• Mirova: French impact asset manager (Natixis) managing EUR 30+ billion with dedicated biodiversity and natural capital strategies.

Action Checklist

1. Conduct a LEAP assessment mapping all operations, sourcing regions, and portfolio holdings against biodiversity importance and ecosystem integrity datasets using IBAT or equivalent tools.
2. Identify priority locations where operations overlap with key biodiversity areas, water-stressed basins, or rapidly degrading ecosystems.
3. Select sector-appropriate KPIs from the TNFD recommended metrics list, ensuring coverage of both dependencies (ecosystem services relied upon) and impacts (pressures on nature from operations).
4. Establish baseline measurements for selected KPIs at the priority location level, not only at the corporate aggregate level.
5. Set quantitative targets for KPI improvement using the benchmark ranges in this article as reference points, calibrated to sector and geography.
6. Integrate nature-related KPIs into existing ESG reporting workflows, mapping overlaps with CSRD E4, CDP Forests and Water Security, and GRI 304 Biodiversity.
7. Publish TNFD-aligned disclosures with location-disaggregated data, methodology documentation, and year-over-year trend analysis.

FAQ

What is the difference between TNFD and TCFD? The Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) focuses on climate risks and opportunities. TNFD extends the same four-pillar structure (Governance, Strategy, Risk Management, Metrics and Targets) to nature-related risks including biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, and natural resource depletion. TNFD explicitly incorporates spatial analysis through the LEAP approach, recognizing that nature risks are inherently location-specific in ways that climate risks are not.

Which sectors face the highest nature-related risk exposure? Agriculture, food and beverage, forestry, mining, and infrastructure consistently rank highest due to direct dependencies on ecosystem services and direct impacts through land use change, water use, and pollution. Financial services faces significant indirect exposure through lending and investment portfolios concentrated in nature-dependent sectors. A 2024 analysis by the Network for Greening the Financial System estimated that 42% of global GDP depends moderately or highly on nature.

How do I choose which biodiversity metrics to report? Start with TNFD's core global metrics: extent of land use change, water withdrawal in stressed basins, and pollution discharge. Then add sector-specific indicators relevant to your priority locations. Avoid aggregating into single biodiversity scores until methodology convergence improves. Report raw indicator values alongside any composite scores so that users can interpret results against their own materiality assessments.

Is TNFD reporting mandatory? As of early 2026, TNFD itself is voluntary, but many of its recommended disclosures overlap with mandatory requirements. The EU CSRD requires nature and biodiversity reporting under ESRS E4. France's Article 29 requires biodiversity risk assessment for financial institutions. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework's Target 15 calls for mandatory corporate nature disclosure by 2030. Organizations preparing for TNFD now are building capacity ahead of likely regulatory mandates.

How much does a TNFD assessment cost? Initial LEAP assessments for mid-size companies range from $50,000 to $150,000 depending on supply chain complexity and geographic spread. Financial institutions assessing portfolio-level nature risk typically spend $100,000 to $300,000 for comprehensive screening using tools from Iceberg Data Lab, NatureAlpha, or CDC Biodiversite. Ongoing annual reporting costs decrease to 40-60% of initial setup once data pipelines and processes are established.

Sources

1. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. "Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures." TNFD, September 2023.
2. Finance for Biodiversity Foundation. "Guide on Biodiversity Measurement Approaches." 2nd edition, 2024.
3. Network for Greening the Financial System. "Nature-related Financial Risks: A Conceptual Framework." NGFS, 2024.
4. CDP. "Tracking Nature: The State of Corporate Nature Disclosure." CDP Worldwide, 2025.
5. UNEP-WCMC and IBAT Alliance. "Using IBAT for TNFD Assessments: Guidance and Case Studies." UNEP-WCMC, 2024.
6. Accountability Framework Initiative. "Operational Guidance on Monitoring and Verification of No-Deforestation Commitments." AFi, 2024.
7. Robeco. "Biodiversity and Nature in Sovereign Bond Investing: Framework and Methodology." Robeco, 2025.