How connecting ecosystem conversion and biodiversity reporting can protect nature at scale

By Elodie Chêne, GRI Standards Senior Manager; Leah Samberg, Lead Scientist, Accountability Framework initiative, Rainforest Alliance; and Niall Robb, Technical Manager, Accountability Framework initiative, Rainforest Alliance

Diverse natural ecosystems are the bedrock of resilient livelihoods, sustainable food production, and quality of life. From the forests that absorb over 2.6 billion tons of CO₂ annually to the pollinators with a crucial role in the health of crops worth $235 billion worldwide, nature’s services form the foundations we depend on most.

Yet the very ecosystems that sustain life are being systematically dismantled and converted into farms and plantations to meet the world’s ever-increasing demand for food and raw materials. The consequences are far-reaching: conversion of forests and other ecosystems for agriculture and forestry is associated with at least 10% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and one-third of terrestrial biodiversity loss.

For companies that produce or source agricultural commodities, understanding and addressing ecosystem conversion is essential to protecting nature and maintaining the resilience of supply chains. However, current sustainability reporting often fails to capture the full scale of these impacts. As a result, one of the biggest drivers of biodiversity loss remains largely invisible in many corporate disclosures.

Bridging the gap with the GRI Standards

When companies can clearly link actions to reduce ecosystem conversion with biodiversity outcomes, it strengthens accountability, improves transparency and creates stronger incentives to protect nature.

This is the intention behind the alignment between the GRI 13 Agriculture, Aquaculture, and Fishing Standard with the recently released GRI 101 Biodiversity Standard. Together, these standards support companies and their stakeholders in making clearer connections between deforestation-free supply chain action and biodiversity goals, without duplicating effort or taking on new disclosure requirements.

Standards alignment is a meaningful step forward, but it is not sufficient on its own. What matters most is that companies use these tools to move from fragmented box-ticking toward reporting that genuinely reflects their impacts on nature and the steps they are taking to reduce them.

From operations to supply chains: disclosing biodiversity impacts

Most biodiversity disclosure frameworks were built with industries like mining and infrastructure in mind — sectors where companies operate from a small number of known, fixed locations, and where damage to nature, while serious, is often site-specific and unavoidable.

Agricultural supply chains are different. A single company may source from tens of thousands of farms across many countries. Pinning down specific biodiversity impacts can be a challenge, and addressing impacts on a site-by-site basis is generally not a practical use of company resources even when individual sites are known.

GRI 101 responds to this reality by setting expectations that are ambitious but proportionate. For a company’s own operations, it calls for site-level disclosure: the specific drivers of biodiversity loss, such as land conversion or pollution, and the resulting changes to ecosystems and the services they provide. For sourced commodities, it takes a wider lens, focusing on biodiversity impacts at country or jurisdiction level.

GRI 13: bringing ecosystem conversion into focus

While GRI 101 looks at biodiversity impacts broadly, GRI 13 focuses on what drives those impacts in agricultural supply chains.

Every hectare of forest, savannah, or wetland cleared to make way for crops or livestock represents a choice, and one with largely irreversible consequences for nature. GRI 13 reflects this by shifting the focus from managing conversion to preventing it altogether.

In practice, this means companies are asked to answer a straightforward question: are the commodities you produce or source free from deforestation and conversion of other ecosystems?

While the question is simple, finding the answer is not. Companies need systems and policies that allow them to understand the risks in their supply chain and identify conversion that may be linked to their business. This requires significant investment in risk assessment, traceability, and monitoring systems. However, because GRI 13 and GRI 101 are aligned, companies can link these disclosures directly to biodiversity outcomes, ensuring companies can use the same set of tools to communicate their largest impacts on nature. What is reported about deforestation and ecosystem conversion in supply chains connects explicitly to what is reported about biodiversity loss.

This makes it possible to demonstrate that tackling deforestation and protecting biodiversity are not separate agendas — they are fundamentally part of the same challenge.

Streamlining reporting to drive action on nature

Companies navigating the sustainability landscape often face a complex web of reporting expectations. But in the agriculture sector, addressing ecosystem conversion is central to meeting most sustainability goals.

The Accountability Framework provides the global reference for what good practice looks like in agricultural and forestry supply chains — covering deforestation, ecosystem conversion, and respect for human rights. It is also the authoritative reference underpinning GRI disclosures on ecosystem conversion and sits at the heart of other widely used tools companies may already be reporting against, including CDP, the Science Based Targets initiative, and the Science Based Targets for Nature. In other words, companies already working toward these frameworks are likely closer to meeting GRI expectations than they might think.

Nature cannot wait

Protecting nature cannot happen in silos. When deforestation and biodiversity loss are reported as separate issues, the connection between them gets lost, and so does the urgency to act.

The alignment between GRI 13 and GRI 101, and in turn how these standards are integrated with other global frameworks and disclosure norms, helps close that gap. By connecting ecosystem conversion disclosures with biodiversity impacts, companies can present a clearer picture of how their actions affect nature.

This is what integrated reporting should look like: a clear story about what companies are doing, why it matters, and what difference it is making on the ground.

The forests, savannahs, and wetlands that underpin our food systems are running out of time. The tools to protect them — and to account for that protection transparently — now exist.

Organizations can begin by exploring the GRI Standards and considering how their reporting can help drive real progress, for the benefit of nature and society. To deepen your understanding, the GRI Academy biodiversity reporting course offers practical guidance on applying GRI 101 effectively.