Nature Reporting & Sustainability in 2026: From Early Movers to Market Standard

If 2025 was the year nature moved from a “grey zone” of discourse to a business and regulatory imperative, then 2026 will be the year the question shifts from whether organisations address nature-related risk to how credibly they do so.

In 2025, the direction of travel became unmistakable. Rules became clearer. Expectations hardened. Adoption went global. And companies began to move from exploration to execution. 

In 2026, that momentum continues, but with a different dynamic. Nature reporting is no longer a leadership badge. It is becoming the market standard. At the same time, regulators, investors, and assurance providers are converging on clearer expectations for what “good” looks like.

Below are five themes shaping nature reporting and sustainability in 2026, and practical steps teams can take now to respond.

Nature Reporting Becomes a Baseline Expectation, Not a Leadership Signal

In 2025, pioneers began to treat nature risk as operational rather than theoretical. Now, in 2026, that approach is spreading beyond a handful of leaders to become baseline market expectation.

Where nature-related disclosure was once a differentiator, it is now a standard expectation for corporates. This mirrors how sustainability expectations have evolved historically in climate and ESG more broadly: what starts with leaders becomes table stakes.

What good looks like in 2026:

• Clear acknowledgement of nature risk as a business issue, not a “nice-to-have”
• Nature embedded into core disclosures, rather than separated into a standalone narrative
• Substance over aspiration: credible analysis beats broad narrative

What to do now:

• Treat nature reporting as inevitable - budget and plan for it, don’t defer it
• Build basic capacity early; don’t wait for perfect data or perfect rules
• Embed responsibility for nature topics across finance, risk, and sustainability functions

Expectations Become Clearer and Harder to Ignore

One of the most important developments in 2025 was how much signals from regulators and investors sharpened. CSRD implementation timelines crystallised for many reporters, frameworks like TNFD became widely adopted reference points, the ISSB confirmed it will draw on the TNFD framework when developing its nature-related standard, and leading investors, including the Norges Bank Investment Management, emphasised the importance of quantifying nature risk in their portfolio companies.

This trend continues: expectations are converging around not just whether to disclose, but what and how to disclose with clarity, comparability, and defensibility.

What good looks like in 2026

• Reports that are internally consistent - narrative, materiality assessment, and metrics all aligned
• Transparent articulation of assumptions, boundaries, and data sources
• Disclosure that drives decisions, rather than just fulfilling a checkbox

What to do now

• Track emerging regulatory and investor guidance regularly
• Engage with your investors early to understand their nature expectations
• Map internal expectations across teams (legal, risk, finance, sustainability)
  
  

Nature Risk is Financially Quantified

In 2025, many organisations reported operational measures of their interaction with nature — impacts and dependencies, hotspots, and qualitative risk narratives. That was necessary groundwork.

In 2026, the expectation shifts: companies will increasingly be asked to quantify the potential financial implications of nature-related risk and opportunity. That pressure is coming from multiple directions:

• The ISSB’s move towards nature-related standard setting (drawing on TNFD) is explicitly about meeting capital markets’ information needs.
• Large investors are signalling that nature exposure has financial consequences, including Norges Bank Investment Management’s focus on nature-related disclosures and risk in its portfolio reporting.

This doesn’t mean every company must produce a single definitive number. It does mean that nature risk needs to be translated into terms that risk committees, CFOs, and boards can use: ranges, scenarios, sensitivities, and exposure pathways.

What good looks like in 2026

• Clear pathways from nature drivers → business outcomes (revenue, costs, capex, insurance, supply disruption, asset impairment)
• Quantification that is decision-useful: ranges and scenarios, not false precision
• A transparent link between financial quantification and governance: who owns the risk, and what decisions change as a result?

What to do now

• Start with material risk pathways (e.g., supply disruption, water stress, land-use constraints) and quantify where it matters most
• Use scenario-style thinking: estimate plausible ranges rather than single-point forecasts
• Align finance and risk teams early so the quantification is credible, explainable, and ready for scrutiny

Location-Specific Nature Risk Becomes Non-Negotiable

A central takeaway from 2025 was the importance of identifying where nature risks are concentrated, especially in supply chains. In 2026, generic or global statements won’t be sufficient. Material nature risk is inherently place-based.

Location-specific analysis is also where nature reporting becomes operational: it helps organisations prioritise action, not just publish narratives.

What good looks like in 2026

• Clear explanation of the sites, regions, or supply segments that drive exposure
• Use of geospatial data, screening tools, or credible proxies to support analysis
• Transparent treatment of uncertainty and data limitations

What to do now

• Start prioritisation with broad mapping before investing in precise analytics
• Build internal understanding of how location influences risk profiles
• Develop a plan for progressively improving geographic detail

Data Realism Replaces Data Perfection

If 2025 was about breaking through uncertainty, 2026 will be about pragmatism in data. While data quality matters, stakeholders are showing increasing tolerance for imperfect data when it’s transparent and explainable.

The era of overly complex black-box models that aren’t clearly linked to decisions is giving way to an expectation that data must be both explainable and actionable.

What good looks like in 2026

• Transparent use of proxies and assumptions
• Clear articulation of data limitations and improvement plans
• Data that supports decision-making, not just reporting

What to do now

• Prioritise explainability and simplicity in your data approach
• Document methodologies early — don’t wait until year-end
• Build a staged roadmap for data quality improvements
  
  

Preparing for 2026: Focus Over Perfection

As 2026 unfolds, success in nature reporting will be defined not by perfection, but by focus, credibility, and transparency. Teams should be asking:

• Are we treating nature reporting as inevitable and planning for it?
• Can we explain what is material — and why — in a way that external audiences understand?
• Do we know where our most significant nature risks and dependencies are located?
• Are our disclosures aligned with evolving expectations from regulators and investors?
• Are our data choices defensible and transparent?

Looking Ahead

2025 didn’t just make nature easier to talk about, it made it operational.

In 2026, companies will be judged not on whether they address nature risk, but on how credibly they do so. That means focusing on the right topics, being transparent about assumptions, and grounding reporting in decision-useful insight, even where data remains imperfect.

The organisations that succeed will be those who report with clarity, defensibility, and impact.