Blog

Today, Ocean Institute publishes the English version of our analysis Biodiversity & Business. The report is designed to promote concrete behavioural change in the business sector and reduce pressures on the marine environment, both in the short and long term. By systematically mapping how commercial activities affect the ocean and its biodiversity, it provides companies with a stronger basis for identifying and managing the material risks associated with operating in, on or near the sea.

While the analysis draws on Danish marine waters, the intention is not to describe a uniquely Danish situation. Instead, the report uses this context to demonstrate a structured way of approaching marine systems in practice by linking activities to pressures, pressures to impacts, and these to business risks and dependencies. This approach is intended to be applicable across different marine regions, taking into account local ecological conditions, data availability and regulatory frameworks.

1. The ocean should be part of companies' risk landscape

The ocean is a living system that underpins the global economy through climate regulation, carbon storage, food production, transport routes and ecological stability. Most companies depend on these functions without directly seeing, measuring or paying for them. It is a planetary service platform without a contract, an invoice or a backup.

Biodiversity loss undermines the ocean’s ability to deliver these services and is no longer just an environmental concern. It is increasingly recognised as a factor affecting economic stability, capital flows and companies’ licence to operate. International frameworks, investors and financial actors are raising expectations for companies to document their impacts, risks and opportunities related to nature.

In Danish waters, the situation is particularly clear. None of the coastal waters achieve good ecological status, and key indicators such as eelgrass and benthic fauna show stagnation or decline. While conditions vary across regions, similar patterns of cumulative pressure and ecosystem degradation are observed globally, making these dynamics widely relevant.

2. The parameter missing from the dashboard 

In executive suites, climate impact has become a familiar language. CO₂ emissions are measured systematically across Scope 1, 2 and 3.

Biodiversity impact, by contrast, remains far less understood. International analyses show that companies operating at sea often lack a clear overview of both their impacts and dependencies. The World Benchmark Alliance’s Ocean Benchmark 2026 finds that only around 30% have addressed their impact on marine nature, and roughly 40% have conducted formal risk assessments. A 2025 article in Natureindicates that only about 7% have set concrete reduction targets.

As a result, companies operate in stressed ecosystems without a clear understanding of their role or their exposure. It is comparable to running a business without knowing one’s supply chain.

In practice, this means operating in an ocean under pressure without systematic insight into one’s position within the system. These risks are not abstract. They can have direct consequences for operations, financial performance and long-term viability.

They stem from companies’ dependence on the ocean’s ecological functions. As conditions deteriorate, this dependence can translate into physical risks such as disrupted supply chains, infrastructure damage and loss of asset value. At the same time, societal responses may create transition risks through regulation, shifting market expectations or reputational pressure. Legal risks may also arise if companies are held liable for environmental harm.

Taken together, these factors directly affect business resilience.

3. Companies can act even when measurement is difficult 

Unlike climate, where accounting methods and targets provide a shared framework, biodiversity is more complex and inherently location-specific.

The ocean is not a uniform space but a mosaic of dynamic environments. Light, nutrients and oxygen circulate continuously, while habitats such as reefs, eelgrass meadows and sandbanks each have distinct characteristics and sensitivities. The system is in constant flux and can respond even to minor disturbances, often amplified by climate change.

Impacts rarely occur in isolation. Activities that appear limited on their own can combine to create cumulative effects that weaken ecosystems or push them beyond critical thresholds. Risk is therefore shaped not only by a company’s own operations, but also by the activities of others.

In this context, pressures represent a practical and controllable entry point for action. While biodiversity status is influenced by multiple interacting drivers and natural variability, specific pressures such as underwater noise, nutrient loading or seabed disturbance can be directly linked to business activities and, in many cases, reduced through operational decisions. Focusing on pressures therefore provides a more actionable basis for setting targets and prioritising interventions.

At the same time, incomplete data should not lead to inaction. Where there is robust evidence that an activity exerts significant pressure on the marine environment, companies should act in accordance with the precautionary principle, even in the absence of complete baseline information. Assessments should be guided by the nature of the activity, its location and the ecological sensitivity of the area in which it takes place.

Understanding ocean-related risk is thus less about transferring findings from one location to another, and more about applying a consistent analytical approach. By systematically linking activities, pressures, ecological context and cumulative effects, companies can build a decision-relevant understanding of their interaction with the ocean, regardless of geography.

Because pressures accumulate across actors, reductions achieved by a single company may have limited effect if other sources dominate in the same area. Managing ocean-related risks therefore often requires coordinated efforts, including collaboration across companies, sectors and authorities to reduce overall pressure at the scale of ecologically defined areas.  The earlier impacts are addressed, the more effective and cost-efficient the response.

The question is no longer whether companies should address biodiversity, but whether they will do so before nature’s limits begin to define the boundaries of their business. Our analysis is a place to start.