The biodiversity COP17 will take place in Yerevan from 19 to 30 October 2026 and will host the first global review of collective progress under the Kunming-Montreal framework. [1] At the time of writing, those discussions have not yet taken place. Businesses can nevertheless prepare for a question that does not need to wait for the summit: what can they demonstrate beyond their commitments?
Our argument is that trade-offs belong at the centre of a credible environmental account. Decisions affect places, resources and existing uses. Explaining the alternatives considered, the remaining impacts and the uncertainties gives people a basis for scrutiny. A broad declaration cannot show what changes in a particular community.
Separate philanthropy from operational impact
A business can support a valuable conservation project while still needing to examine its own operations. These are distinct contributions. Funding an initiative does not prove that the core business has reduced pressure on ecosystems.
Target 15 of the global framework addresses measures for businesses to assess and disclose biodiversity-related risks, dependencies and impacts. [2] It should not be presented as an identical, directly applicable corporate legal obligation in every country. Its relevance here is a way of asking what an activity depends on and what it changes, then examining the applicable requirements separately.
Begin with the place
An aggregate percentage can obscure the location where effects occur. For a factory, warehouse or supply chain, a useful explanation identifies the site, relevant ecosystems and existing uses. The purpose is to connect an assertion with a reality that can be examined.
Consider a hypothetical factory extension involving land, water and ecological continuity. A responsible presentation would explain the variants considered, modifications made and impacts that remain. Jobs and investment matter, but they do not automatically answer every question about land or resources. Different concerns deserve their own evidence.
Do not make different outcomes interchangeable
Reducing emissions, protecting a wetland and restoring a habitat are different actions. Combining them under a single positive label may make a presentation easier to read while hiding important differences in scope and timing.
A company using an overall claim should explain what is included, excluded and measured. If the method is not settled, a specific description of an action may be more credible than a claim about the whole business. Precision is especially valuable when a statement will circulate across countries where audiences may interpret the same environmental terminology differently.
Explain the alternatives that were rejected
A consultation has limited value if a project is presented as though no other option ever existed. Sharing the main alternatives and the reasons for rejecting them helps people understand the decision. It does not require publishing every design document.
A practical comparison can set out operational effects, identified pressures, missing information and mitigation options. People may understand the reasoning and still disagree. That is not necessarily a failure of dialogue. The purpose is to make disagreements more specific and to identify what evidence or changes might address them.
Supply chains require an honest account of coverage
A group’s commitments may depend on activities outside its own sites. Reporting should therefore state which parts of the chain are documented and which remain uncertain. Asking suppliers for information without providing a workable method or timetable can produce data that looks complete but is difficult to compare.
In a hypothetical agricultural sourcing programme, a business could identify the origins it knows, the gaps and the practices it wants to discuss with partners. Partial coverage should remain visible. The communications task is to explain the route from information gathering to decisions and follow-up, without turning an incomplete map into a universal assurance.
Global commitments must meet local conversations
A statement prepared at headquarters should remain consistent with what a project team can explain locally. For businesses entering France, that means connecting the corporate commitment with the particular site and the stakeholders who will live with its effects. A translated sustainability narrative is only a starting point.
Residents, local organisations and public authorities may ask different questions from investors. Communications teams can make technical studies accessible and maintain a shared record of answers. Attendance at a public meeting should not be represented as endorsement of the project. Listening and agreement are separate outcomes.
Transparency does not guarantee consensus
Publishing uncertainty can expose a business to criticism. But omitting it does not remove it. If it later appears in a technical report, the dispute may also become a question about the reliability of the original account.
Useful transparency distinguishes established facts, working assumptions and issues still under assessment. It identifies a responsible person and a date for updates. The aim is not to make every stakeholder agree; it is to allow the business to defend its choices with an account that remains accurate under scrutiny.
Keep reporting after the summit
A summit concentrates announcements. Credibility is tested later, when the organisation explains progress and revisions. It should retain the original commitments and show why a timetable or approach changed. Revision may be necessary; silently replacing the earlier promise makes evaluation harder.
We suggest a leadership review focused on four questions: which dependency is better understood; which impact changed a decision; which issue remains open; and who is responsible for the next step? This does not replace ecological expertise. It connects that expertise with governance and public explanation. COP17 is an opportunity for businesses to make environmental commitments concrete enough to examine, beginning with the places and choices that define their own contribution.
Sources and context
Read in another language
These editions address the same subjects with context adapted for their readers.