Full Document Text

                
The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review
Guidelines for identifying Business risks  
and opportunities arising from ecosystem Change
version 2.0

Foreword ii
Acknowledgments iii
summAry iv
chApter I: Background 1
Ecosystem change as source of business risk and opportunity 1
Introducing ecosystem services 3
Linking ecosystem services and business goals: the ESR 8
chApter II: methodology 11
Overview 11
Step 1: Select the scope 13
Step 2: Identify priority ecosystem services 14
Step 3: Analyze trends in priority ecosystem services 20
Step 4: Identify business risks and opportunities 24
Step 5: Develop strategies for addressing risks and opportunities 30
Next steps 32
chApter III: resources 33
notes 35
Additional ESR resources are available at www.wri.org/ecosystems/esr
Table of Contents

practices. The Ecosystem Services Review offers a promising 
approach for companies to manage the risks and opportuni-
ties that will emerge and, at the same time, to become better 
stewards of the environment. Our three organizations are 
committed to working with the business community to help 
this approach become standard practice.
The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes reviewii
G
lobal warming may dominate headlines 
today. Ecosystem degradation will do so 
tomorrow.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment—
the first global audit of the world’s forests, 
wetlands, and other ecosystems—found that ecosystems have 
declined more rapidly and extensively over the past 50 years 
than at any other comparable time in human history. Left 
unchecked, this degradation jeopardizes not just the world’s 
biodiversity, but also its businesses. This is because compa-
nies depend on the services healthy ecosystems provide such 
as freshwater, wood, genetic resources, pollination, climate 
regulation, and natural hazard protection.
This publication provides corporate managers with a  
proactive approach to making the connection between  
ecosystem change and their business goals. It introduces  
the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review—a structured 
methodology to help businesses develop strategies for manag-
ing risks and opportunities arising from their dependence 
and impact on ecosystems. It is a tool for corporate strategy 
development and can augment existing environmental  
management systems.
Our three organizations contributed complementary 
skills to create the Ecosystem Services Review. The World 
Resources Institute developed the methodology and managed 
the road-testing phase as part of its efforts to mainstream 
ecosystem services into private sector decision-making. 
Five member companies of the World Business Council for 
Sustainable Development—Akzo Nobel, BC Hydro, Mondi, 
Rio Tinto, and Syngenta—road-tested and provided feed-
back on the methodology. The Meridian Institute brought 
the experience and relationships developed as a core member 
of the secretariat that designed and managed the Millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment and brought its process design and 
facilitation skills to the team.
As of early 2012, an estimated 300 companies have used 
this guidance to identify and address business risks and 
opportunities arising from ecosystem change. In addition, 
new decision support tools have been introduced to help 
companies better understand and capitalize upon the specific 
business value they receive from ecosystem services, such as 
the Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation. The Corporate 
Ecosystem Services Review 2.0 has been updated to draw on 
these developments.
Global climate change and the demands of a growing 
population are likely to further degrade ecosystems in com-
ing years, increasingly challenging business assumptions and 
Foreword
Pho
t
o cour
tesy of Mondi
A Mondi gum plantation (Eucalyptus grandis) growing in the 
Tygerskloof area, South Africa.
Manish Bapna
Interim President
World Resources Institute
Peter Bakker
President
World Business Council for Sustainable Development
John Ehrmann, PhD
Managing Partner
Meridian Institute

Acknowledgments
ACkNOwLEDgmENTS iii
Authors
Craig Hanson (WRI) 
Janet Ranganathan (WRI) 
Charles Iceland (WRI) 
John Finisdore (WRI)
T
he authors gratefully acknowledge John  
Ehrmann (Meridian Institute), James Griffiths 
(WBCSD), Mikkel Kallesoe (WBCSD and 
IUCN), and Heather Lair (Meridian Institute) 
for their contributions in developing the Cor-
porate Ecosystem Services Review.
We thank Yasmina Abdelilah, Karen Bennett, Alexa Clay, 
Suzanne Ozment, Brianna Peterson, and Alison Williams  
of WRI for their research in support of this publication.
We are grateful to the following colleagues and friends 
who provided critical reviews and other valuable contri-
butions to this publication: Andrew Aulisi (WRI), Manish 
Bapna (WRI), Nicholas Bertrand (United Nations Environ-
ment Programme), Gerard Bos (Holcim), Antonio Neves 
de Carvalho (Energias de Portugal), Michael Fahy (SGS 
SA), Sara Carvalho Fernandes (Energias de Portugal), Jessica 
Fox (EPRI Solutions), Trey Gibbs (ERS Global, Inc.), Eva 
Zabey (WBCSD), Frances Irwin (WRI), Joshua Kahan (ERS 
Global, Inc.), Bruce M. Kahn (Citi Smith Barney), Ayako 
Kohno (Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd.), Robin Murphy (WRI), 
Liv Marthe Ness (Det Norske Veritas), Chris Perceval (WRI), 
Noam Ross (GreenOrder), Theo Stephens (Department of  
Conservation, Government of New Zealand), Kerry ten  
Kate (Forest Trends), Tor G. Tollefsen (Det Norske Veritas), 
Sissel Waage (Business for Social Responsibility), and Fred 
Wellington (WRI).
The authors extend special gratitude to the ESR road-test 
companies, including Karin Andersson (Akzo Nobel), Chris 
Burchmore (Mondi), Doug Burden (Mondi Shanduka), 
Peter Gardiner (Mondi), Juan Gonzalez-Valero (Syngenta), 
Klas Hallberg (Akzo Nobel), Steve Hunt (Akzo Nobel),  
Hans Johansson (Akzo Nobel), Sawatenter Khosla (Syngenta), 
Cameron Jones (Rio Tinto), Tim Lesiuk (BC Hydro),  
Mick Lovely (Rio Tinto), Dave Richards (Rio Tinto),  
Bruce Sampson (BC Hydro), Erik Widén (Akzo Nobel),  
Ian Wylie (Rio Tinto), and Douglas van Zyl (Mondi).
The publication process was helped along by WRI’s  
wonderful publications team, particularly Hyacinth Billings 
and Jennie Hommel. We thank Bob Livernash for editing 
and proofreading. We also thank the staff of Dever Designs 
for their work.
We are indebted to The David & Lucile Packard Founda-
tion, the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Royal 
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Swedish International 
Biodiversity Programme, and the World Business Council for 
Sustainable Development for their generous financial support 
for this undertaking.
This report is released in the name of the World Resources 
Institute (WRI), the Meridian Institute, and the World  
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD).  
It is the result of a collaborative effort by WRI, Meridian, 
and the WBCSD secretariat. It does not necessarily represent  
the views of WRI, Meridian, WBCSD members, or the 
publication’s funders.
This publication was updated in 2012 by Suzanne Ozment 
(World Resources Institute) and Eva Zabey (World Business 
Council for Sustainable Development). The 2nd version of 
this publication was also helped along by Robert Winterbot-
tom (WRI), Nick Price (WRI), Maggie Powell, Sylvia Song, 
and the staff at Sveconway Printing and Marketing Solutions.

E
cosystems provide businesses with numerous 
benefits or “ecosystem services.” Forests supply 
timber and wood fiber, purify water, regulate 
climate, and yield genetic resources. River sys-
tems provide freshwater, power, and recreation. 
Coastal wetlands filter waste, mitigate floods, and serve as 
nurseries for commercial fisheries.
However, human activities are rapidly degrading these 
and other ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assess-
ment—the largest audit ever conducted of the condition and 
trends in the world’s ecosystems—found that ecosystems 
have declined more rapidly and extensively over the past 50 
years than at any other comparable time in human history. In 
fact, 15 of the 24 ecosystem services evaluated have degraded 
over the past half century. The Assessment projected further 
declines over coming decades, particularly in light of popula-
tion growth, economic expansion, and global climate change.  
Left unchecked, this degradation could jeopardize future 
economic well-being, creating new winners and losers within 
the business community.
Ecosystem degradation is highly relevant to business be-
cause companies not only impact ecosystems and the services 
they provide but also depend on them. Ecosystem degradation, 
therefore, can pose a number of risks to corporate perfor-
mance as well as create new business opportunities. Types of 
risks and opportunities include:
•	Operational
 –  Risks such as higher costs for freshwater due to scar-
city, lower output for hydroelectric facilities due to 
siltation, or disruptions to coastal businesses due to 
flooding
 –  Opportunities such as increasing water-use efficiency 
or building an on-site wetland to circumvent the need 
for new water treatment infrastructure
•	Regulatory and legal
 –  Risks such as new fines, new user fees, government 
regulations, or lawsuits by local communities that lose 
ecosystem services due to corporate activities 
 –  Opportunities such as engaging governments to 
develop policies and incentives to protect or restore 
ecosystems that provide services a company needs 
Summary
The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes reviewiv
•	Reputational 
 –  Risks such as retail companies being targeted by 
nongovernmental organization campaigns for pur-
chasing wood or paper from sensitive forests or banks 
facing similar protests due to investments that degrade 
pristine ecosystems 
 –  Opportunities such as implementing and communi-
cating sustainable purchasing, operating, or investment 
practices in order to differentiate corporate brands 
•	Market and product
 –  Risks such as customers switching to other suppliers 
that offer products with lower ecosystem impacts  
or governments implementing new sustainable  
procurement policies 
 –  Opportunities such as launching new products and 
services that reduce customer impacts on ecosystems, 
participating in emerging markets for carbon seques-
tration and watershed protection, capturing new 
revenue streams from company-owned natural assets, 
and offering eco-labeled wood, seafood, produce, and 
other products 
•	Financing
 –  Risks such as banks implementing more rigorous lend-
ing requirements for corporate loans 
 –  Opportunities such as banks offering more favorable 
loan terms or investors taking positions in companies 
supplying products and services that improve resource-
use efficiency or restore degraded ecosystems.
Unfortunately, companies often fail to make the con-
nection between the health of ecosystems and the business 
bottom line. Many companies are not fully aware of the 
extent of their dependence and impact on ecosystems and the 
possible ramifications. Likewise, environmental management 
systems and environmental due diligence tools are often 
not fully attuned to the risks and opportunities arising from 
the degradation and use of ecosystem services. For instance, 
many tools are more suited to handle “traditional” issues of 
pollution and natural resource consumption. Most focus 
on environmental impacts, not dependence. Furthermore, 
they typically focus on risks, not business opportunities. As 
a result, companies may be caught unprepared or miss new 
sources of revenue associated with ecosystem change. 

SummARy v
The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) is 
designed to address these gaps. It consists of a structured 
methodology that helps managers proactively develop 
strategies to manage business risks and opportunities arising 
from their company’s dependence and impact on ecosys-
tems. It is a tool for strategy development, not just for 
environmental assessment. Businesses can either conduct 
an Ecosystem Services Review as a stand-alone process or 
integrate it into their existing environmental management 
systems. In both cases, the methodology can complement 
and augment the environmental due diligence tools compa-
nies already use.
The Ecosystem Services Review can provide value to 
businesses in industries that directly interact with ecosys-
tems such as agriculture, beverages, water services, forestry, 
electricity, oil, gas, mining, and tourism. It is also relevant to 
sectors such as general retail, healthcare, consulting, finan-
cial services, and others to the degree that their suppliers or 
customers interact directly with ecosystems. General retailers, 
for example, may face reputational or market risks if some of 
their suppliers are responsible for degrading ecosystems and 
the services they provide.
This publication describes the five steps for performing  
an Ecosystem Services Review (Table 1). It provides an  
analytical framework, case examples, and helpful suggestions  
for each step. It concludes by highlighting a number of 
resources managers can use when conducting an Ecosystem 
Services Review, including a “dependence and impact assess-
ment” spreadsheet, scientific reports, economic valuation 
approaches, and other issue-specific tools.
As of 2012, an estimated 300 companies have used the 
Ecosystem Services Review. In addition, complementary 
tools and guidance now exist to help companies more 
fully assess business risks and opportunities emerging from 
ecosystem change. For example, in 2011 the World Business 
Council for Sustainable Development released the Guide to 
Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV), which provides infor-
mation on how to quantitatively, or in some cases monetarily, 
assess risks and opportunities related to ecosystem services. 
CEV can therefore be a logical next step after undertaking 
an ESR. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010) 
highlighted new examples of the linkages between business 
and ecosystem services. The ESR remains a fundamental 
starting point for companies to assess business risks and op-
portunities related to ecosystem change. 
Global degradation of ecosystems and the services they 
provide threatens to alter the landscape in which business 
operates. The Ecosystem Services Review is a proactive ap-
proach for companies to manage the risks and opportunities 
that are emerging. Furthermore, by helping companies make 
the connection between healthy ecosystems and the bottom 
line, it will encourage not only more sustainable business 
practices, but also corporate support for policies to protect 
and restore ecosystems.
Ecosystems supply a range of services. Forests, for example, provide timber, water regulation, and recreation.

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes reviewvi
s
tep
1. 
 s
elect the scope
2. 
 Identify priority 
 
ecosystem services
3. 
 Analyze tr
ends 
 
in priority services
4. 
 Identify business 
 
risks and 
 
opportunities
5. 
 d
evelop 
 
strategies
Activity
Choose boundary within 
which to conduct the ESR 
(a specific business unit, 
pr
oduct, market, 
 
landholdings, major 
 
customer
, supplier
, etc.)
Systematically evaluate 
 
degr
ee of company’
s 
 
dependence and impact on 
mor
e than 20 ecosystem 
 
services. Determine highest 
 
“priority” ecosystem 
 
services—those most r
elevant
 
to business performance
Resear
ch and evaluate 
conditions and tr
ends 
 
in the priority ecosystem 
services, as well as the 
 
drivers of these tr
ends
Identify and evaluate 
 
business risks and 
 
opportunities that might 
arise due to the tr
ends 
 
in priority ecosystem 
services
Outline and prioritize 
 
strategies for managing 
 
the risks and 
 
opportunities
w
ho is 
 
involved 
•	
Executive managers
P
P
•	
 m
anager(s) fr
om selected scope 
P
P
P
P
•	
Analysts
P
P
P
P
•	
Consultants (optional)
P
P
P
P
s
our
ces of  
 
input and 
 
information 
•	
 In-house business managers and analysts
P
P
P
P
•	
Existing and new in-house analyses
P
P
P
•	
Local stakeholders
P
•	
 Experts fr
om universities and 
 
r
esear
ch institutions
P
•	
 m
illennium Ecosystem Assessment 
 
publications and experts
P
•	
Nongover
nmental organizations
P
P
P
•	
 Industry 
associations
P
P
P
•	
 Published 
r
esear
ch
P
P
P
•	
 Other r
esour
ces and tools*
P
P
P
e
nd 
 
pr
oduct
Boundary for ESR analysis 
List of 5-7 “priority” 
 
ecosystem services
Short paper or set of data 
 
that summarizes tr
ends for 
each priority ecosystem service
List and description of 
 
possible business risks 
 
and opportunities
Prioritized set of 
 
strategies
e
stimated 
time**
1-2 weeks
1-2 weeks
2-5 weeks
1-2 weeks
1-2 weeks
For details see:
pages 13-14
14-20
20-23
24-30
30-32
T
able 1
  
c
orporate 
e
cosystem 
s
ervices 
r
eview: 
s
ummary of 
m
ethodology
  *  
s
ee 
c
hapter 
iii
 for examples and details
.
**  
e
stimates are based on feedback from approximately 50 companies and reflect one full-time equiv
alent.
  
t
ime required to conduct an 
esr
 will v
ary based on several factors including the scope selected,
 av
ailability of information,
 and number of staff allocated to gather information 
 
      and conduct research and interviews
.
 
As a less time-intensive option,
 some companies conducted steps 2,
 4,
 and 5 in half-day workshops
.

ECOSYSTEM CHANGE AS SOURCE  
OF BUSINESS RISK AND OPPORTUNITY
What do these five stories—which cross a number of 
continents and industries—have in common?
•	 In the 1980s, mineral water company Vittel (now a 
brand of Nestlé Waters) faced a critical problem. Ni-
trates and pesticides were entering the company’s springs 
in northeastern France. Local farmers had intensified 
agricultural practices and cleared native vegetation that 
previously had filtered water before it seeped into the 
aquifer used by Vittel. This contamination threatened 
the company’s right to use the “natural mineral water” 
label under French law. The Vittel brand and business 
were at stake.
1
 
•	 Costa Rican hydropower company Energia Global 
(now Enel Latin America) faced a different crisis. In the 
1990s, it was literally losing its source of power. Land-
owners were clearing the forested slopes upstream of 
the company’s dams for livestock and agriculture. With 
the trees gone, heavy rains were causing increased soil 
erosion and river sedimentation, lowering dam reservoir 
capacity and power output.
2
•	 Unilever—an international manufacturer of food, home 
care, and personal care products with brands such as 
Lipton, Surf, and Vaseline—experienced a problem at 
sea. Cod was the main fish used in the company’s pre-
mium frozen food products. In the 1990s, however, cod 
stocks declined precipitously and collapsed altogether in 
the western North Atlantic due to overexploitation. The 
dramatic price increases that ensued reduced margins on 
Unilever’s cod-related products by 30 percent.
3
 
•	 Potlatch, a U.S.-based wood products company, did 
not encounter a threat but rather an opportunity. For 
years, the company had managed its forests for timber. 
However, its 270,000 hectares of forest in Idaho were a 
popular destination for hikers, campers, birdwatchers, 
and hunters, drawing approximately 200,000 visitor-
BACkgROuND 1
use-days per year. Recognizing an 
opportunity for a complementary 
source of revenue, the company in-
troduced user fees in 2007 to capture the 
recreational value its forests provide.
4
 
•	 Allegheny Power had its own kind of opportunity. Ear-
lier this decade, the U.S.-based electric utility wanted to 
divest its 4,800-hectare Canaan Valley property in West 
Virginia. Traditional approaches appraised the real estate 
at $16 million. Believing the property—with its pristine 
forests, marshes, and abundant wildlife—was worth 
more, the company commissioned an economic valua-
tion of the marketable environmental benefits provided 
by the site, including its ability to sequester carbon and 
its wetlands. The eco-assessment boosted the total value 
to nearly $33 million. Allegheny Power subsequently 
sold Canaan Valley to the U.S. government—which 
merged it with an existing wildlife refuge—for the tra-
ditional appraisal price of $16 million. Using “bargain 
sale” provisions in the federal tax code, however, the 
company was able to claim a charitable contribution 
of $17 million for the property’s environmental value, 
yielding several million dollars in tax-related savings.
5
All of these stories share at least one aspect: they highlight 
companies facing unexpected risks or novel opportunities 
arising from their dependence and impact on ecosystems. 
Vittel, Energia Global, and Unilever faced risks to their 
bottom lines due to the deterioration of an ecosystem upon 
which their businesses depended. Potlatch and Allegheny 
Power seized new business opportunities by tapping into the 
value of ecosystems.
CHAPTER
Background

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review2
•	 Providing guidance on developing strategies to manage 
these risks and opportunities
•	 Illustrating how companies such as Vittel, Energia 
Global, Unilever, and others successfully addressed  
ecosystem-related risks and opportunities.
The ESR was developed by the World Resources Institute 
with support from the Meridian Institute and the World 
Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 
Five WBCSD member companies “road-tested” the method-
ology and provided feedback that was incorporated into its 
design. The ESR also received input from a number of other 
companies (Box 2).
But these examples are not isolated cases. Other com-
panies face similar risks and opportunities as the world’s 
ecosystems undergo rapid change due to human pressures. 
However, many companies are not fully aware of the business 
implications of their dependence and impact on ecosystems 
and the services they provide.
The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) is  
designed to make this link and inform corporate strategy. 
The ESR is a structured methodology that helps managers 
proactively develop strategies to manage business risks and 
opportunities arising from their company’s dependence  
and impact on ecosystems. It is designed for use by sec-
tors ranging from extractive industries and agribusiness to 
manufacturing and retail. For each of these sectors, it can 
support a number of corporate decisions and processes  
(Box 1).
This publication guides business managers on how to 
conduct an ESR by: 
•	 Introducing the concept of “ecosystem services” as a 
framework for assessing a company’s dependence and 
impact on the environment 
•	 Describing a process for identifying which ecosystem 
services are “priority” services; that is, those most relevant 
to a company’s performance 
•	 Providing a structured approach for analyzing important 
trends in these priority ecosystem services 
•	 Offering a framework for identifying potential business 
risks and opportunities arising from these trends
l		 Corporate, business unit, or market strategy development 
l		 Planning processes for corporate infrastructure projects  
such as mines, wells, pipelines, plantations, and facilities 
l		 Identification of new markets, products, or services
l		 Identification of new revenue streams from corporate  
landholdings
l		 Investments in projects or companies
l		 Policy-maker engagement strategies
l		 Environmental impact assessments
l		 Environmental reporting
Box 1
   
Business decisions and processes  
the corporate esr can support
developers
l		 The world resources institute (www.wri.org) is a global, nonprofit environmental think tank that goes beyond research to find practical 
ways to protect the Earth and improve people’s lives. 
l		 The meridian institute (www.merid.org) is a nonprofit organization that helps decisionmakers and diverse stakeholders solve some of 
society’s most contentious public policy issues. meridian facilitated the millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 
l		 The world Business Council for sustainable Development (www.wbcsd.org) brings together some 200 international companies in a 
shared commitment to sustainable development through economic growth, ecological balance, and social progress.
road-test companies
l		 akzo Nobel (www.akzonobel.com) serves customers throughout the world with coatings and chemicals.
l		 BC hydro (www.bchydro.com) is one of the largest electrical companies in Canada whose purpose is to provide reliable power at  
low cost for generations.
l	  mondi (www.mondigroup.com) is a leading international paper and packaging group operating in 35 countries and is Europe’s largest 
producer of kraft paper and office paper.
l		 rio Tinto (www.riotinto.com) is a mining and exploration company with operations on every continent whose products include  
aluminum, copper, diamonds, energy products, iron ore, gold, and industrial minerals.
l	  syngenta (www.syngenta.com) is a worldwide agribusiness committed to sustainable agriculture through innovative research and 
technology.
corporate reviewers
l		 Citi Smith Barney l	 Det Norske Veritas l	 Energias de Portugal l	 ERS global, Inc.         l					 kPmg
l	 greenOrder l	 Hitachi Chemical Co., Ltd. l	 Holcim l	 SgS SA
Box 2
   
the corporate esr developers, road-test companies, and corporate reviewers
As of 2012, an estimated 300 companies have used or are using the ESR. For more information on recent applications of the ESR, 
including new case studies, visit www.wri.org/ecosystems/esr 

background 3
INTRODUCING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Ecosystems provide businesses—as well as people and 
communities—with a wide range of goods and services. 
For example, forests supply timber and wood fiber, regu-
late climate by absorbing carbon dioxide, and yield genetic 
resources for medicines. Coral reefs attract tourists, serve as 
nurseries for commercial fish species, and protect properties 
along coastlines from storm surges. Wetlands absorb waste, 
help reduce floods, and purify water. These and other ben-
efits from nature are known as “ecosystem services” (see  
Box 3 for this and other key terms).
categories of ecosystem services
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment shed light on the 
importance of ecosystem services for human well-being and 
business development.
6
 The Assessment was a four-year inter-
national audit of ecosystems that involved more than 1,360 
scientists, economists, business professionals, and other experts 
from 95 countries. Its findings provide the first state-of-the-art 
scientific evaluation of the condition and trends in the world’s 
ecosystems and the services they provide, as well as the scien-
tific basis for action to conserve and use them sustainably. The  
Assessment defined four categories of services: 
•	 Provisioning services: The goods or products obtained 
from ecosystems such as food, freshwater, timber, and 
fiber.
•	 Regulating services: The benefits obtained from an 
ecosystem’s control of natural processes such as climate, 
disease, erosion, water flows, and pollination, as well as 
protection from natural hazards. “Regulating” in this 
context is a natural phenomenon and is not to be con-
fused with government policies or regulations.
•	 Cultural services: The nonmaterial benefits obtained 
from ecosystems such as recreation, spiritual values, and 
aesthetic enjoyment.
•	 Supporting services: The natural processes such as  
nutrient cycling and primary production that maintain 
the other services.
Beneficiaries of these services can be at the local, regional, 
and/or global scale and may include future generations. 
For instance, a forest may provide local people with wild 
food, natural fibers, and fuelwood. At a regional level, it 
may prevent landslides, filter water, and offer recreation for 
inhabitants of a nearby city. At a global level, this forest may 
sequester carbon dioxide—helping to regulate greenhouse 
gas concentrations in the atmosphere—and be the home of a 
rare plant with pharmaceutical properties that benefit people 
around the world.
Table 2 lists, defines, and provides examples of the  
ecosystem services analyzed by the Millennium Ecosystem 
Pho
t
o cour
tesy of B
c
 
h
ydro
BC Hydro’s Ladore Falls Dam on the Campbell River in British Columbia, Canada.
An ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and 
micro-organism communities and their nonliving environment 
interacting as a functional unit. Examples of ecosystems include 
deserts, coral reefs, wetlands, rain forests, boreal forests,  
grasslands, urban parks, and cultivated farmlands. Ecosystems 
can be relatively undisturbed by people, such as virgin rain  
forests, or can be modified by human activity, such as farms.
ecosystem services—sometimes called “environmental 
services” or “ecological services”—are the benefits that people 
obtain from ecosystems. Examples include freshwater, timber, 
climate regulation, protection from natural hazards, erosion 
control, and recreation.
Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms within 
species, between species, and between ecosystems.
A company depends on an ecosystem service if that service 
functions as an input or if it enables, enhances, or influences 
environmental conditions required for successful corporate 
performance.
A company impacts an ecosystem service if the company  
affects the quantity or quality of the service.
A company’s priority ecosystem services are those services 
on which the company has a high dependence and/or impact 
and thereby are the most likely sources of business risk or  
opportunity to the company. 
drivers are factors—natural or man-made—that cause changes 
in an ecosystem and its ability to supply ecosystem services.
Box 3
   
key terms

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review4
Table 2  definitions of ecosystem services
Service Subcategory Definition Examples
provisioning services: The goods or products obtained from ecosystems
Food Crops Cultivated plants or agricultural produce harvested by people for 
human or animal consumption as food
•	 grains
•	 Vegetables
•	 Fruits
Livestock Animals raised for domestic or commercial consumption or use •	 Chickens
•	 Pigs
•	 Cattle
Capture fisheries wild fish captured through trawling and other non-farming 
methods
•	 Cod 
•	 Crabs 
•	 Tuna
Aquaculture Fish, shellfish, and/or plants that are bred and reared in ponds, 
enclosures, and other forms of freshwater or saltwater confine-
ment for purposes of harvesting
•	 Shrimp
•	 Oysters
•	 Salmon
wild foods Edible plant and animal species gathered or captured in the wild •	 Fruits and nuts
•	 Fungi
•	 Bushmeat
Biological 
raw  
materials
Timber and other 
wood products
Products made from trees harvested from natural forest ecosys-
tems, plantations, or non-forested lands
•	 Industrial roundwood
•	 wood pulp
•	 Paper
Fibers and resins Non-wood and non-fuel fibers and resins •	  Cotton, silk, hemp
•	 Twine, rope
•	 Natural rubber
Animal skins Processed skins of cattle, deer, pig, snakes, sting rays, or other 
animals 
•	 Leather, rawhide, cordwain
Sand Sand formed from coral and shells •	 white sand from coral and white shells
•	 Colored sand from shells
Ornamental 
resources
Products derived from ecosystems that serve aesthetic purposes •	 Tagua nut, wild flowers, coral  
   jewelry
Biomass fuel Biological material derived from living or recently living organ-
isms—both plant and animal—that serves as a source of energy
•	 Fuelwood and charcoal
•	 grain for ethanol production
•	 Dung
Freshwater Inland bodies of water, groundwater, rainwater, and surface 
waters for household, industrial, and agricultural uses
•	  Freshwater for drinking, cleaning, 
cooling, industrial processes, electricity 
generation, or mode of transportation
genetic resources genes and genetic information used for animal breeding, plant 
improvement, and biotechnology
•	  genes used to increase crop resistance 
to disease or pests
Biochemicals, natural medi-
cines, and pharmaceuticals
medicines, biocides, food additives, and other biological materi-
als derived from ecosystem for commercial or domestic use
•	 Echinacea, ginseng, garlic
•	  Paclitaxel as basis for cancer drugs
•	  Tree extracts used for pest control
regulating services: The benefits obtained from an ecosystem’s control of natural processes
maintenance of air quality Influence ecosystems have on air quality by emitting chemicals 
to the atmosphere (i.e., serving as a “source”) or extracting 
chemicals from the atmosphere (i.e., serving as a “sink”)  
•	  Lakes serve as a sink for industrial 
emissions of sulfur compounds
•	  Tree and shrub leaves trap air pollut-
ants near roadways
regulation 
of climate
global Influence ecosystems have on the global climate by emitting 
greenhouse gases or aerosols to the atmosphere or by absorbing 
greenhouse gases or aerosols from the atmosphere 
•	  Forests capture and store carbon 
dioxide
•	  Cattle and rice paddies emit methane
Regional and 
local
Influence ecosystems have on local or regional temperature, 
precipitation, and other climatic factors
•	  Forests can impact regional rainfall 
levels
regulation of water timing  
and flows
Influence ecosystems have on the timing and magnitude of wa-
ter runoff, flooding, and aquifer recharge, particularly in terms 
of the water storage potential of the ecosystem or landscape 
•	  Permeable soil facilitates aquifer 
recharge
•	  River floodplains and wetlands retain 
water—which can decrease flooding—
reducing the need for engineered flood 
control infrastructure

Sources: 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Braat, L., P. ten Brink. 2008. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Wageningen/Brussels: The European 
Commission.
TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Report for Business - Executive Summary.
BACkgROuND 5
Table 2  definitions of ecosystem services (continued)
Service Definition Definition Examples
regulating services (continued)
erosion control Role ecosystems play in retaining and replenishing soil and 
sand deposits 
•	  Vegetation such as grass and trees prevents soil loss due to 
wind and rain and prevents siltation of waterways
•	  Coral reefs, oyster reefs, and sea grass beds reduce loss of 
land and beaches due to waves and storms
water  
purification  
and waste  
treatment
Role ecosystems play in the filtration and decomposition 
of organic wastes and pollutants in water; assimilation 
and detoxification of compounds through soil and subsoil 
processes
•	  wetlands remove harmful pollutants from water by trapping 
metals and organic materials
•	  Soil microbes degrade organic waste, rendering it less  
harmful
disease  
mitigation
Influence that ecosystems have on the incidence and 
abundance of human pathogens 
•	  Some intact forests reduce the occurrence of standing 
water—a breeding area for mosquitoes—which lowers the 
prevalence of malaria
maintenance of 
soil quality
Role ecosystems play in sustaining soil’s biological activity, 
diversity and productivity; regulating and partitioning 
water and solute flow; storing and recycling nutrients and 
gases; among other functions 
•	  Some organisms aid in decomposition of organic matter, 
increasing soil nutrient levels
•	  Some organisms aerate soil, improve soil chemistry, and 
increase moisture retention
pest mitigation Influence ecosystems have on the prevalence of crop and 
livestock pests and diseases
•	  Predators from nearby forests—such as bats, toads, and 
snakes—consume crop pests
pollination Role ecosystems play in transferring pollen from male to 
female flower parts
•	  Bees from nearby forests pollinate crops
natural hazard 
mitigation
Capacity for ecosystems to reduce the damage caused by 
natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis and to 
maintain natural fire frequency and intensity 
•	  mangrove forests and coral reefs protect coastlines from 
storm surges
•	  Biological decomposition processes reduce potential fuel for 
wildfires
cultural services: The nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems
recreation and 
ecotourism
Recreational pleasure people derive from natural or  
cultivated ecosystems 
•	  Hiking, camping, and bird watching
•	 going on safari
•	  Scuba diving
ethical and  
spiritual values
Spiritual, religious, aesthetic, intrinsic, “existence,” or  
similar values people attach to ecosystems, landscapes,  
or species
•	  Spiritual fulfillment derived from sacred lands and rivers
•	  People’s desire to protect endangered species and rare 
habitats
educational and 
inspirational 
values
Information derived from ecosystems used for intellectual 
development, culture, art, design, and innovation
•	  The structure of tree leaves has inspired technological  
improvements in solar power cells
•	  School fieldtrips to nature preserves aid in teaching scientific 
concepts and research skills
supporting services: The natural processes that maintain the other ecosystem services
habitat Natural or semi-natural spaces that maintain species popu-
lations and protect the capacity of ecological communities 
to recover from disturbances
•	  Native plant communities often provide pollinators with food 
and structure for reproduction
•	  Rivers and estuaries provide nurseries for fish reproduction 
and juvenile development
•	 Large natural areas and biological corridors allow animals  
   to survive forest fires and other disturbances
nutrient cycling Flow of nutrients (e.g., nitrogen, sulfur, phosphorus, 
carbon) through ecosystems
•	  Transfer of nitrogen from plants to soil, from soil to oceans, 
from oceans to the atmosphere, and from the atmosphere 
to plants
primary 
production
Formation of biological material by plants through 
photosynthesis and nutrient assimilation
•	  Algae transform sunlight and nutrients into biomass, thereby 
forming the base of the food chain in aquatic ecosystems
water cycling Flow of water through ecosystems in its solid, liquid, or 
gaseous forms
•	  Transfer of water from soil to plants, plants to air, and air to 
rain

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review6
Assessment and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiver-
sity. It is an important resource for conducting an ESR. Box 
4 answers some frequently asked questions about ecosystem 
services. 
trends in ecosystem services 
Although buffered against ecosystem change by culture 
and technology, all people and businesses fundamentally de-
pend on the flow of ecosystem services. However, the ability 
of ecosystems to continue providing many of these services 
is in jeopardy. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment found 
that people have changed ecosystems more rapidly and exten-
sively over the past 50 years than in any comparable period 
of time in human history. For example: 
•	 More land was converted to cropland between 1950 
and 1980 than in the 150 years spanning 1700 to 1850. 
With a quarter of the Earth’s terrestrial surface now 
used for crops or confined livestock, further increases in 
agricultural output will likely have to come from more 
intensive management of existing cultivated areas.
•	 More than half of the synthetic nitrogen fertilizer ever 
used has been applied over the past two decades, con-
tributing to an increase in the number of waterways at 
risk of becoming “dead zones” for commercial fisheries. 
•	 Water withdrawals from rivers and lakes doubled since 
1960, with long-term implications for the availability 
and flow of freshwater in some regions. 
•	 Twenty percent of the world’s coral reefs and nearly a 
quarter of its mangrove forests have been lost since about 
1980, along with their capacity to buffer coastlines from 
storms.
•	 Wild marine fish harvests peaked in the 1980s and have 
since remained static, with implications for all those 
who rely on maritime resources.
7
These changes have led to the deterioration in the quan-
tity and/or quality of many ecosystem services. The Assess-
ment found that 60 percent—15 out of 24—of the ecosys-
tem services evaluated were degraded over the past 50 years 
(Table 3). Five services were rated “mixed,” increasing in 
supply or quality in some regions of the world but decreasing 
in others. Three provisioning services—crops, livestock, and 
aquaculture—were rated as “enhanced,” reflecting people’s 
focus on managing ecosystems to generate food for a growing 
population.
8
 Yet actions to increase these three provisioning 
services have inadvertently led to the degradation of many 
regulating and cultural services, most of which have no value 
in the marketplace until they are lost. In other words, there 
are often trade-offs between the services. 
why business should be concerned 
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment projected that the 
degradation of ecosystems and the services they provide will 
grow significantly worse in the first half of the 21st century, 
particularly as the global population swells toward 9.2 billion,
9
 
emerging economies increase per capita consumption levels, 
and climate change unfolds. The Assessment also warned 
that further ecosystem deterioration increases the risk that 
some services such as freshwater supply, natural hazard  
regulation, and wild foods may cross a threshold after which 
they abruptly and possibly irreversibly decline.
Is biodiversity an ecosystem service? Ecosystem services are sometimes confused with biodiversity. Biodiversity is not itself an  
eco system service but rather underpins the supply of ecosystem services. The value some people place on biodiversity for its own sake  
is captured under the cultural ecosystem service called “ethical values” (Table 2). Other ecosystem services closely associated with  
bio diversity include food, genetic resources, timber, biomass fuel, recreation, and ecotourism.
Are minerals and fossil fuels ecosystem services? minerals and fossil fuels—coal, oil, and natural gas—are examples of natural 
resources that are not ecosystem services. The quantity and quality of minerals and fossil fuels are not dependent upon the living  
component of existing ecosystems and therefore are not benefits derived from ecosystems. Although fossil fuels and some minerals  
come from organic material that was alive millions of years ago, this timeframe is not relevant for business or policy decisions.
If fossil fuels are not an ecosystem service, then why is freshwater considered one? unlike fossil fuels, freshwater is a resource 
the quantity and quality of which is often dependent upon living components of ecosystems. For instance, forests affect the quantity and 
quality of freshwater in a region by soaking up water through tree roots, releasing water vapor through leaves, and preventing siltation  
of rivers. 
what is the difference between climate change, global climate regulation services, and local climate regulation services? 
Climate change refers to any significant alteration in the Earth’s temperature, precipitation, or other climatic factors lasting for an extended 
period of time. Although climate change may result from natural factors, the term is commonly used to refer to alterations resulting from 
human activities that increase atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations such as the burning of fossil fuels or deforestation.
Global climate regulation is the influence an ecosystem has on global climate primarily by altering the concentration of greenhouse gases 
in the atmosphere. For example, trees absorb carbon dioxide when they grow and release it if they are burned. 
Local climate regulation is the influence an ecosystem has on local temperature, precipitation, or other climatic factors through effects 
such as providing shade, trapping or releasing moisture, and absorbing or reflecting sunlight.
Box 4
   
Frequently Asked Questions about ecosystem services

background 7
These trends matter to companies because business and 
ecosystems are inter-related. Businesses impact ecosystems 
through consumption, pollution, land conversion, and other 
activities. At the same time, businesses depend on ecosys-
tems. The beverage industry, for example, depends on the 
supply of freshwater. Agribusiness relies on nature’s pollina-
tion, pest control, and erosion control services. Insurance 
companies benefit from the coastal protection provided by 
coral reefs, while the tourism industry benefits from this 
ecosystem’s recreational value. Since many of these benefits 
are received for free, business often takes them for granted 
until the service becomes stressed or disappears. 
Because of these impacts and dependencies, the degrada-
tion of ecosystems can present a number of business risks as 
well as new opportunities. Types of risks and opportunities 
include:
•	Operational 
 –  Risks such as higher costs for freshwater due to scar-
city, lower output for hydroelectric facilities due to 
siltation, or disruptions to coastal businesses due to 
flooding
 –  Opportunities such as increasing water-use efficiency 
or building an on-site wetland to circumvent the need 
for new water treatment infrastructure
•	Regulatory and legal 
 –  Risks such as new fines, new user fees, government 
regulations, or lawsuits by local communities that lose 
ecosystem services due to corporate activities 
 –  Opportunities such as engaging governments to 
develop policies and incentives to protect or restore 
ecosystems that provide services a company needs 
•	Reputational 
 –  Risks such as retail companies being targeted by 
nongovernmental organization campaigns for pur-
chasing wood or paper from sensitive forests or banks 
facing similar protests due to investments that degrade 
pristine ecosystems 
 –  Opportunities such as implementing and communi-
cating sustainable purchasing, operating, or investment 
practices in order to differentiate corporate brands 
•	Market and product
 –  Risks such as customers switching to other suppliers 
that offer products with lower ecosystem impacts or 
governments implementing new sustainable procure-
ment policies
 –  Opportunities such as launching new products and 
services that reduce customer impacts on ecosystems, 
participating in emerging markets for carbon seques-
tration and watershed protection, capturing new 
revenue streams from company-owned natural assets, 
and offering eco-labeled wood, seafood, produce, and 
other products 
•	Financing 
 –  Risks such as banks implementing more rigorous  
lending requirements for corporate loans 
 –  Opportunities such as banks offering more favorable 
loan terms or investors taking positions in companies 
supplying products and services that improve resource-
use efficiency or restore degraded ecosystems.
 Degraded Mixed Enhanced
provisioning Capture fisheries
wild foods
Biomass fuel
Freshwater
genetic resources
Biochemicals, natural medicines, and pharmaceuticals
Timber and other wood fiber
Other fibers (e.g., cotton, 
hemp, silk)
Crops
Livestock
Aquaculture
regulating Air quality regulation
Regional and local climate regulation
Erosion regulation
water purification and waste treatment
Pest regulation
Pollination
Natural hazard regulation
water regulation
Disease regulation
global climate regulation  
(carbon sequestration)
cultural Ethical values (spiritual, religious)
Aesthetic values
Recreation and ecotourism
Table 3  trends in the world’s ecosystem services over the past 50 years
Source: Adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review8
LINKING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND  
BUSINESS GOALS: THE ESR
Many businesses, unfortunately, fail to make the connec-
tion between the health of ecosystems and corporate perfor-
mance. Companies often are not fully aware of the extent of 
their dependence and impact on ecosystems and the possible 
ramifications.
Likewise, environmental management systems and envi-
ronmental due diligence tools are often not fully attuned 
to the risks and opportunities arising from the degradation 
of ecosystems and the services they provide. For instance, 
many tools are more suited to handle “traditional” issues of 
pollution and resource consumption. Most focus on environ-
mental impact, not dependence. Furthermore, they typically 
focus on risks, not business opportunities. Consequently, 
companies may be caught unprepared or miss new sources of 
revenue associated with ecosystem change.
The ESR is designed to meet this business need. It is a 
methodology that helps managers identify the connections 
between a company’s impact or dependence on ecosystem 
services and potential business risks or opportunities. In this 
manner, it can inform and strengthen business strategy.
which sectors
The ESR can be useful to companies from a variety of 
sectors. It is relevant to businesses in industries that directly 
interact with ecosystems—such as agriculture, beverages, wa-
ter services, forestry, electricity, oil, gas, mining, and tourism. 
It is also relevant to sectors such as general retail, healthcare, 
consulting, financial services, manufacturing, and others to 
the degree that their suppliers or customers interact directly 
with ecosystems (Box 5). General retailers, for example, may 
face reputational or market risks if some of their suppliers are 
responsible for degrading ecosystems and the services they 
provide. Financial services firms may face similar risks due to 
their investments. 
Business benefits
Road-test experience indicates that the ESR can provide a 
number of business benefits such as: 
•	 Identifying new business risks and opportunities arising 
from a company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems 
and the services they provide. Because the framework of 
ecosystem services is a new approach for assessing the  
inter-relationship between business and the environment, 
the ESR can uncover sources of risk and opportunity that 
traditional strategy development processes miss. 
•	 Framing and giving added urgency to risks or opportuni-
ties previously identified by management. The ESR can 
yield new information that raises the profile of issues the 
company may have considered in the past but that are 
now worthy of greater attention.
•	 Anticipating new markets and influencing government 
policies that will emerge in response to ecosystem degra-
dation. The ESR can help managers identify opportuni-
ties to participate in emerging ecosystem service-related 
markets such as payments for carbon sequestration, 
mitigation banking, and eco-labeling systems. It also 
can help managers prepare for new government regula-
tions and participate in the development of new public 
policies.
•	 Strengthening existing approaches to environmental manage­
ment. The ESR can complement existing environmental 
management systems and due diligence tools in a  
number of ways. First, the ESR fills gaps by evaluating  
a suite of environmental and business issues that tradi-
tional processes and tools do not address (Box 6). Second, 
the ESR—or elements of it—can be directly integrated 
into a company’s existing environmental due diligence 
tools. Third, managers can use the ESR to screen or 
prioritize which environmental issues to evaluate with 
existing tools.
•	 Improving stakeholder relationships. Many natural 
resource conflicts that companies face relate to the fact 
that stakeholders—communities, indigenous people, 
other industry sectors, nongovernmental organiza-
tions—value different services coming from the same 
ecosystem (Box 7). The ESR can improve a company’s 
understanding of these issues and identify options for 
better managing trade-offs. 
•	 Demonstrating leadership in corporate sustainability by 
proactively addressing the degradation of ecosystem  
services. Several observers have identified this issue as 
the next big “global environmental problem” that may 
garner political attention and impact business.
10
 This 
issue is where climate change was 10 years ago and  
similarly may grow to become a preeminent concern.
“The ESR helped us to better understand 
how a number of emerging environmental 
changes are likely to affect our business  
and how our company might best position 
itself to respond to these changes.”
—Steve Hunt, Senior Vice President, Asia-Pacific,  
Eka Chemicals, a division of Akzo Nobel

BACkgROuND 9
Features
The ESR has several features to make it user-friendly:
•	 It offers a structured methodology to help companies 
understand their dependence and impact on ecosystems 
and the resulting business risks and opportunities in a 
coherent, systematic manner.
•	 It leverages existing, relevant data that companies may 
have on hand, although additional research and input 
are likely required as well.
•	 It has a simple design allowing managers to tailor it to 
meet their own needs and existing processes.
•	 It provides supporting tools and information to help 
managers throughout the review, including:
 –  A complete list of ecosystem services, definitions, and 
examples;
 –  A questionnaire and spreadsheet for assessing corporate 
dependence and impact on ecosystem services;
 –  A framework and set of questions to guide analysis of 
ecosystem service trends; 
 –  An extensive list and case examples of business risks 
and opportunities that might arise from trends in 
ecosystem services; 
 –  A framework to guide the development of strategies 
for addressing these risks and opportunities; and
 –  Suggested data sources and case studies throughout.
Pho
t
o:
 
s
tudio 
t
oiv
o 
s
teen
Akzo Nobel’s Eka Chemicals plant at the Veracel pulp mill in Brazil.
The paper and pulp industry both impacts and depends upon forests. This inter-relationship is especially prevalent in Indonesia and China, 
an emerging epicenter of global paper production. In these nations, rapid deforestation—and the associated loss of ecosystem services—
is attracting increasing international attention. This presents significant operational, regulatory, and reputational risks to the industry.
Eka Chemicals—a division of the global coatings and chemicals manufacturer Akzo Nobel—is a leading supplier of cellulose processing 
agents to the paper and pulp industry. Eka recognized that forest ecosystem-related risks to its customers could translate into risks, as 
well as new business opportunities, for itself. But what are these risks and opportunities, and what options does Eka have to manage 
them? 
To answer these questions, Akzo Nobel conducted an Ecosystem Services Review. Through a structured process, the ESR uncovered a set 
of risks Eka’s major China- and Indonesia-based customers would likely face due to ecosystem degradation. The ESR helped Eka translate 
its customers’ risks into a portfolio of risks and opportunities for itself. It also helped identify new strategies that the company could 
pursue to manage these challenges and opportunities. 
Leveraging and augmenting analyses Eka had on hand, the ESR also was able to raise the profile of a number of options that managers 
had previously discussed but which now—in light of the ESR findings—have become more timely, relevant, and worthy of a business 
response.
Box 5   Akzo nobel conducts an esr
many companies already have environmental management systems and use due diligence tools such as environmental impact  
assessments, environmental and social impact assessments, and lifecycle assessments. The ESR can complement and strengthen these 
approaches by:
l		 Evaluating corporate activities with regard to the emerging issue of ecosystem services rather than more standard issues such as  
corporate emissions and effluents.
l		 Assessing all major ecosystem services.
l		 Assessing a company’s impact and dependence on ecosystems, not just its impact. 
l		 Evaluating a company vis-à-vis the environment and what people value in ecosystems.
l		 Informing corporate strategy with information about business risks and opportunities.
Box 6   how the esr can complement other environmental management Approaches 

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review10
•	 It directs managers to a number of issue-specific tools 
and resources if more detailed analysis is required (see 
Chapter III).
•	 It has a website (www.wri.org/ecosystems/esr) where 
managers can download supporting tools and data 
resources.
what the esr is not
To set appropriate expectations and to maximize the 
value of conducting an ESR, it is important to note what the 
methodology is not:
•	 It does not identify or address every environmental issue. 
For instance, it does not provide an exhaustive inventory 
or quantification of a company’s total environmental 
footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, water effluents, or 
toxic releases.
11
 Nor does it track a company’s mineral 
or energy consumption. Rather, the ESR addresses a 
subset of environmental issues, namely, those arising 
from a company’s dependence and impact on ecosystem 
services.
•	 It is not strictly quantitative. Quantitative information 
about a company’s dependence and impact on ecosystem 
services or about trends in ecosystem services can be 
very useful when conducting a corporate ESR. However, 
quantitative information for some services is often sparse 
or nonexistent. Nevertheless, this shortcoming does not 
preclude a successful review. The road tests proved that 
qualitative analyses can be sufficient input for identify-
ing many potential business risks and opportunities.
•	 It is not dependent upon economic valuation of ecosystem 
services. The ESR does not require managers to estimate 
the economic value of each ecosystem service. As this 
publication will explain, risks and opportunities arising 
from a company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems 
can be identified through other approaches. Likewise, 
many strategies for addressing these risks and opportu-
nities—such as making internal operational changes, 
launching new products, working with governments to 
develop new policies—do not require economic valua-
tion of ecosystem services. Nevertheless, some compa-
nies may find that conducting an economic valuation 
of selected ecosystem services may be a valuable input 
to strategy development—as was the case for Allegheny 
Power. WBCSD’s Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valua­
tion is a useful resource on when and how to incorporate 
economic valuation into the ESR process.
12
•	 It does not require a long, multiyear analysis. The time 
required to conduct an ESR will vary among companies 
and is a function of the scope chosen, the availability of 
data, and the amount of staff involved in the review.
Prior to the mid-1990s, BC Hydro, a government-owned hydroelectric utility in British Columbia, found itself at odds with its regulators 
and others who relied on the waterways of British Columbia for fishing, recreation, spiritual and cultural values, and as a source of fresh-
water. In response to growing tensions among users, BC Hydro initiated discussions to seek a less adversarial way to reach resolution on 
the competing interests for water use. The province of British Columbia formally initiated a water use planning program to define suitable 
operating parameters that would balance environmental, social, and economic values. 
The water use planning process, which was voluntary in nature, took a participatory approach and included users of the various eco-
system services in the watershed, including First Nations, environmental organizations, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the government 
of British Columbia, and communities surrounding the hydroelectric facilities. with external assistance, BC Hydro developed a series of 
model-generated scenarios that illustrated how each user of the ecosystem would be affected as the company altered two operating 
variables: reservoir level and river flow rate. One scenario might yield more power generation but fewer recreational opportunities and 
less fish. Another might yield the opposite. 
Participants reviewed each scenario, discussed the trade-offs among ecosystem services, and used a value-based trade-off system to 
agree on a preferred option. That option became the operating plan for the dam. In addition, participants recommended monitoring pro-
grams to evaluate whether or not the anticipated nonpower benefits were being realized, as well as studies to collect data for issues that 
were identified but could not be resolved during the process. Participants were also asked to determine whether or not similar benefits to 
an operational change could be achieved at a lower cost by constructing a facility known as a “physical works.” Examples included build-
ing a new or upgraded boat ramp for better access to a reservoir, providing spawning or rearing habitat for fish, and installing erosion 
control features. 
Integrating considerations about ecosystem services into the planning process proved to be a success for BC Hydro. Even though the 
number of operating constraints has increased significantly, water use planning has yielded a number of benefits, including operational 
clarity and certainty, regulatory certainty, fewer lawsuits, and improved stakeholder relationships.
Box 7   Balancing competing demands for ecosystem services: Bc hydro
“The ESR helped us identify new business  
opportunities for a growing market.” 
– Madalena albuquerque, business strategy  
and Planning, syngenta

11
OVERVIEW
The ESR methodology consists of five steps (Figure 1): 
1.  select the scope. Choose the “scope” or boundary 
within which to conduct the ESR. Candidates include 
a business unit, product, market, corporate landhold-
ings, infrastructure project, major supplier, or major 
customer segment, among others.
2.  Identify priority ecosystem services. Systematically 
evaluate the company’s dependence and impact on 
more than 20 ecosystem services. Determine which of 
these are “priority” services—the ones most relevant  
to corporate performance.
3.  Analyze trends in priority services. Research and 
evaluate the condition and trends in the priority  
ecosystem services, as well as the drivers of these trends.
4.  Identify business risks and opportunities. Identify and 
evaluate the business risks and opportunities that might 
arise due to trends in the priority ecosystem services.
5.  develop strategies. Outline strategies for managing 
the risks and opportunities.
As Figure 1 illustrates, the ESR bridges ecosystem and 
business considerations by starting with an evaluation of a 
company’s interaction with ecosystems and finishing with an 
assessment of implications for business performance.
who conducts an esr?
Table 4 outlines who should be 
involved in conducting an ESR during 
each step. Note that the Ecosystem Services 
Review generates most value when managers responsible for 
corporate strategy, business operations, and environmental 
performance collaborate. Managers can use or tailor the pre-
sentation available at www.wri.org/ecosystems/esr to make 
the case to colleagues about the value of conducting an ESR 
and educate them about the methodology. Companies can 
also opt to hire consultants to apply the ESR. 
where to get information?
Managers can tap into several sources of data and input 
when conducting an ESR (Table 5). Note that relying solely 
on internal business perspectives poses the risk that the ESR 
will merely perpetuate possible corporate misperceptions 
or knowledge gaps. Complementing internal information 
sources with those external to the company is highly recom-
mended.
The following sections describe the five steps of the ESR 
in detail, introduce an analytical framework for each step, 
provide case examples, and offer some helpful hints.
CHAPTER
methodology
Figure 1   steps in a corporate ecosystem services review
1.  Select the scope
2.  Identify priority 
ecosystem services
3.  Analyze trends in 
priority services
4.  Identify business 
risks and  
opportunities
5.  Develop strategies
mETHODOLOgy

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review12
Involved in step:
Who 1 2 3 4 5 Comment
Executive managers
P P
Executive or senior managers responsible for corporate strategy and environmental 
performance need to be involved in selecting the scope and in formulating and 
approving the strategies emerging from the ESR. Their involvement encourages 
implementation of the ESR results.
manager(s) from selected 
scope
P P P P
One or more managers responsible from the selected scope—business unit, 
product line, regional market, project, etc.—should be involved in nearly every step 
since they will be responsible for implementing the strategies developed by the 
ESR.
Analysts
P P P P
In-house analysts conduct most of the research, interviews, data preparation, and 
other activities involved in an ESR. They do not need to be experts in ecosystems.
Consultants (optional)
P P P P
management consultants can conduct an ESR on behalf of a company. Alternative-
ly, consultants can be involved in selected steps, providing information, perspec-
tives, and specialized tools/models for conducting ESR-related analyses.
Table 4  who conducts an esr?
Table 5  sources of Input and Information
Relevant for step:
Source 1 2 3 4 5 Comment
In-house business managers 
and analysts
P P P P
managers and analysts may have perspectives relevant to every step of the ESR. 
One efficient way to gather their input is to host brainstorming sessions in which 
they jointly develop preliminary perspectives for the relevant ESR step. These “rapid 
assessment” sessions can help prioritize subsequent analyses, saving time. 
Existing and new in-house 
analyses
P P P
Existing in-house analyses of the company’s impact on ecosystems, assessments of 
selected ecosystem services such as water, and profiles of selected ecosystem ser-
vice trends can kick-start an ESR, even if these analyses were originally conducted 
for other purposes. Some new analyses, nevertheless, are often required to fill 
information gaps.
Local stakeholders
P
Engaging local stakeholders is highly recommended. Local stakeholders may 
include representatives from nearby communities, other companies, indigenous 
tribes, nongovernmental organizations, outdoor recreation clubs, etc. Interviewing 
or hosting meetings with stakeholders can help identify which ecosystem services 
they value. This input can help create a shortlist of services about which the com-
pany should carefully consider its impacts. A company exposes itself to potential 
risk when it impacts an ecosystem service that is valued by others.
Experts from universities and 
research institutions
P
Academics renowned for their knowledge of particular ecosystems, ecosystem 
services, or drivers of ecosystem change are often willing to share their expertise 
with businesses.
millennium Ecosystem Assess-
ment publications and experts
P
millennium Ecosystem Assessment experts and reports offer detailed information 
about the condition and trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services, as well as 
analyses of the drivers of ecosystem change.
Nongovernmental organiza-
tions 
P P P
Nongovernmental organizations typically have in-house experts and access to 
relevant research.
Industry associations
P P P
Industry associations may have in-house experts and access to topical research.
Published research
P P P
Relevant—preferably peer-reviewed—papers and studies can be accessed via the 
internet or libraries.
Other resources and tools
P P P
A number of issue-specific tools and resources can help corporate managers con-
duct more in-depth analyses. See Chapter III for more information.

Helpful Hints Step 1
•	  Be prepared to refine the scope as the ESR proceeds. For 
instance, Rio Tinto decided to narrow the boundaries of  
its review after finding the original scope too broad for 
manageable analysis. 
•	  Consider spreading out the timing of conducting an ESR  
to coincide with data availability or existing strategy  
development or environmental assessment processes.
•	  Insights gained from conducting the ESR for one division 
of the company can be applicable to another to the degree 
that these divisions are similar. For example, the results of 
the ESR for one mine may be quite applicable to another 
nearby mine. However, they may be less applicable for a site 
located in another country due to differences in surrounding 
ecosystems and trends affecting ecosystems.
STEP 1: SELECT THE SCOPE
The first step is to select the “scope” of the ESR. The pur-
pose of this step is to define clear boundaries within which to 
conduct analysis in order to keep the process manageable and 
yield more actionable results.
For a business with just one major product, service, or mar-
ket, the ESR scope could be the entire company. However, for 
a business with multiple products, services, or markets, a more 
manageable scope would be a particular portion of the com-
pany. Conducting a single ESR for the entirety of a diversified 
company would be resource-intensive and analytically complex 
because the company’s business units likely differ—sometimes 
significantly—in terms of how they interact with ecosystems. 
If such a diversified company wants to cover its entire business 
portfolio, it can do so by conducting a series of ESRs. 
three questions to ask
Three questions can help managers select an ESR scope 
(Figure 2):
1.  which stage of the value chain? An ESR could focus 
on a company’s own operations, providing insight into  
the direct implications that trends in ecosystem services 
would pose for the company. One alternative is to look  
“upstream” in the value chain. This approach would shed 
light on the implications of ecosystem service trends for  
key suppliers and the business risks and opportunities  
that these, in turn, may pose to the company conducting 
the ESR. Another alternative is to look “downstream.” 
This approach would provide insight into the implica-
tions of ecosystem service trends for the company’s 
major customers and the business risks and opportuni-
ties that these, in turn, may pose to the company. One 
helpful hint is to select a stage in the value chain where 
interactions with ecosystems are prominent since these 
interactions are the most likely sources of ecosystem 
service-related risk or opportunity. The Helpful Hints 
give other suggestions for selecting the scope.
2.  who and where specifically? If conducting the ESR 
on the company itself, then select a certain aspect of  
the business. Options include—but are not limited 
to—a particular business unit, product line, facility, 
project (such as a mine, pipeline, other infrastructure 
development), or natural asset owned by the company  
(such as forestland or other landholdings). If the ESR 
is focused on key suppliers, then choose a specific sup-
plier or category of suppliers and perhaps further narrow 
the scope by selecting a particular geographic market in 
which these suppliers operate. If the ESR is focused on 
major customers, then choose a particular customer or 
customer segment and perhaps further refine the scope 
by selecting a particular geographic market in which 
these customers are located.
3.  Is the candidate scope strategic, timely, and supported? 
Particularly for the first ESR, the scope should be of high 
strategic importance to the company. Examples include 
the company’s fastest growing market, an upcoming  
major product line, or the business unit with the greatest  
market share. The scope should offer a window of oppor-
tunity for the ESR to influence upcoming important 
business decisions. In addition, there should be sufficient 
internal management support for conducting an ESR 
within the selected scope. Be sure to secure relevant  
senior management buy-in and have staff (or consultants) 
available to conduct the interviews and analysis required 
in subsequent steps.
Box 8 profiles the scopes selected by the road-test  
companies. For the sake of simplicity, we will use the term 
“company” throughout the rest of the Guidelines to refer to  
the scope selected for the ESR.
Figure 2   considerations when selecting the scope
1.  which stage of the value chain?
2.  who and where specifically?
3.  Is it strategic, timely, and supported?
   Suppliers                                       Company                               Customers
•	which suppliers?
•	 In which geographic  
market(s)?
•	which customers?
•	 In which geographic  
market(s)?
•	 what aspect of the  
company?
–  Business unit
– Product line
– Facility
– Project 
– Landholdings
mETHODOLOgy 13

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review14
STEP 2: IDENTIFY PRIORITY  
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
The second step is to evaluate in a structured yet rapid 
manner the company’s dependence and impact on more 
than 20 ecosystem services. This evaluation will help identify 
which of these are “priority” services—the ones most likely 
to be a source of risk or opportunity for the company. These 
priority ecosystem services are the focus of analysis in subse-
quent steps; the other services are screened out. 
To identify its priority services, a company needs to  
understand its level of dependence and impact on each  
ecosystem service. This is because the ecosystem services  
that are sources of business risk or opportunity typically  
are those that the company highly depends upon and/or  
highly impacts. For instance, if a company highly depends  
upon an ecosystem service and that service becomes scarce  
or degrades, then the company may face business risk in the  
form of higher input costs or disruption to its operations.  
If a company negatively impacts an ecosystem service by  
depleting or degrading it, then the company’s actions may  
pose regulatory or reputational business risks. Conversely,  
if a company positively impacts an ecosystem service by  
supplying or enhancing it, then the company’s actions  
may give rise to possible new business opportunities or  
reputational benefits. 
evaluating dependence
Answering two questions for each ecosystem service listed 
in Table 2 (see pages 4 and 5) can help managers evaluate 
whether or not their company depends on an ecosystem 
service and, if so, by how much:
1.  does this ecosystem service serve as an input or does 
it enable/enhance conditions for successful company 
performance? A company depends on an ecosystem 
service if that service functions as an input or if it 
enables, enhances, or influences environmental condi-
tions required for successful corporate performance. For 
example, timber is an input for wood product manu-
facturers. Freshwater is an input for beverage compa-
nies and many others. Animal pollinators assist in the 
reproduction of 90 percent of flowering plants and one 
third of human food crops.
13
 By absorbing excess water 
during floods, marshes enable conditions critical for the 
success of businesses located in floodplains—and their 
insurers. The recreational services provided by coral 
reefs and estuaries enhance the economic performance 
of coastal tourism businesses. 
2.  If “yes” to question 1, then does this ecosystem 
service have cost-effective substitutes? The degree 
to which a company depends on an ecosystem service 
is a function of whether or not there is a cost-effective 
substitute for that service. If there is no such substitute, 
then the company is considered to be highly dependent 
upon that service. Beverage manufacturers and hydro-
electric facilities, for instance, are highly dependent 
upon freshwater because there is no substitute for this 
ecosystem service. Substitutes may exist, however, for 
some services. For a business located on a coast, a sea 
wall might provide the storm surge protection that a 
coral reef would have provided. Concrete or steel can 
fill in for wood in construction. Nevertheless, whether 
or not these are cost-effective substitutes will vary by 
company.
Answering “yes” to question 1 and “no” to question 2 
indicates that the company’s dependence upon the ecosystem 
service is high. Answering “yes” to question 1 and “yes” to 
question 2 indicates that the company’s dependence upon 
the ecosystem service is medium. Answering “no” to ques-
tion 1 indicates that the company has low or no dependence 
upon the ecosystem service (Figure 3).
Akzo nobel chose to apply the ESR “downstream,” assessing 
the implications of ecosystem degradation for the major China- 
and Indonesia-based customers of its pulp and paper chemicals 
business unit, Eka Chemicals. The ESR thereby contributed to 
corporate decisions regarding whether or not to enter into busi-
ness with certain prospective customers.
Bc hydro selected its Campbell River hydropower dam on 
Vancouver Island as its scope. Although one of the company’s 
smaller generation facilities, Campbell River is of strategic 
importance given its proximity to population centers and its 
fisheries resource. In addition, the facility had an abundance of 
environmental and social data already on hand.
mondi, with substantial forest holdings in South Africa and 
Russia, selected three of its South African pine and eucalypt 
plantation areas—Shanduka, SiyaQhubeka, and Tygerskloof—
for its scope. These areas were chosen for the range of physical, 
climatic, and other environmental conditions under which the 
trees are grown.    
rio tinto road tested the ESR for a prospective copper mine in 
Peru that was in the prefeasibility stage of project development. 
The ESR was timed to inform the major technical decisions 
about mine design that occur during this stage.
syngenta focused its ESR on one of its customer segments, 
farmers in southern India. By looking “downstream,” the ESR 
helped the company identify risks its customers have been fac-
ing due to ecosystem degradation and, in turn, identify oppor-
tunities for Syngenta in the form of new products and services 
that would address or mitigate these risks. Syngenta selected 
India because the country is a significant growth market for 
agriculture. given India’s geographic, demographic, agricultural, 
and climatic diversity, the company focused on the southern 
states of Andhra Pradesh, karnataka, kerala, maharashtra, and 
Tamil Nadu to keep the analysis focused.
Box 8
   
examples from the road tests (step 1) 

evaluating impact
Answering the following three questions for each eco-
system service listed in Table 2 (see pages 4 and 5) can help 
managers evaluate whether or not their company impacts an 
ecosystem service and, if so, by how much:
3.  does the company affect the quantity or quality 
of this ecosystem service? A company impacts an 
ecosystem service if it affects the quantity or quality of 
that service. For example, a forest plantation affects the 
quantity of freshwater in its watershed. A business that 
fills in wetlands in order to construct a new facility may 
affect the quantity of water runoff and aquifer recharge. 
A firm in the extractive industries may affect the quality 
of a location’s recreation services by scarring the land-
scape or otherwise disturbing an ecosystem valued by 
hikers, campers, and others.
Be sure to consider the company’s indirect impacts or 
secondary effects, as well. Roads or pipelines installed 
by an oil and gas company, for instance, increase access 
by third parties to previously inaccessible areas. The 
resulting influx of people may affect the quantity or 
quality of several ecosystem services in the region. For 
example, in-migration might lead to deforestation, 
impacting freshwater, wild foods, carbon sequestration, 
erosion regulation, and the cultural services associated 
with a pristine ecosystem.
4.  If “yes” to question 3, then is the company’s impact 
positive or negative? The impact is positive if the 
company increases the quantity or quality of the eco-
system service. For example, a forest products company 
increases the quantity of timber and wood fiber because 
its forests actually supply these services. Under the 
appropriate management regime, the company’s forest 
could increase the quality of wild game hunting and 
recreational services as well. 
The impact is negative if the company decreases the 
quantity or quality of the ecosystem service. For exam-
ple, agribusiness can reduce the quantity of freshwater 
in a watershed. By removing mangroves, a coastal hotel 
or shrimp farm can decrease the quality of shoreline 
protection.
In the context of the ESR, the terms “positive” and 
“negative” are not intended to be judgmental but 
merely reflect whether a company increases or decreases 
the quantity or quality of an ecosystem service.
5.  If “yes” to question 3, then does the company’s im-
pact limit or enhance the ability of others to benefit 
from this ecosystem service? The degree to which a 
company impacts an ecosystem service in a manner that 
might pose a business risk or opportunity for itself is 
a function of whether or not the impact limits or en-
hances the ability of others to benefit from the service. 
Beneficiaries could include indigenous people, farmers, 
local communities, other businesses, or, in the case of 
cultural services, people living on the other side of the 
world who value endangered species.
Answering “yes” to any of the following considerations 
indicates that managers should answer “yes” to  
question 5:
•	 Is the company’s impact on this ecosystem service a large 
share of the total local or regional impact? A company 
with a large contribution relative to others is more 
likely to be responsible—or perceived to be respon-
sible—for limiting (or enhancing) the ability of others 
to benefit from the service. Illustrative examples 
include a company that consumes (or replenishes) 15 
percent of the freshwater in a watershed, one that con-
sumes (or supplies) 20 percent of the nation’s wood 
fiber, or one that is solely responsible for clearing (or 
restoring) a native grassland valued for its biodiversity 
and associated cultural services. There are no hard 
and fast rules for defining what constitutes a “large 
share.” Managers will need to use their own or expert 
judgment regarding the size of impact relative to the 
appropriate spatial scale for the ecosystem service.
•	 Is this ecosystem service already in short supply relative to 
demand? A company’s impact is more likely to limit 
(or enhance) the ability of others to benefit from the 
service if that service is already supply-constrained.
•	 Could the company’s impact push this ecosystem service 
across a physical threshold that leads to scarcity of the 
service or triggers a regulatory response? A company’s 
impact is more likely to limit (or enhance) the ability 
of others to benefit from the service if that service is 
nearing a physical or regulatory threshold. In a region 
where available freshwater is on the verge of being 
tapped out, for instance, a new resort or manufac-
turing facility that consumes water—albeit a small 
amount—may push that service across a threshold. 
Water shortages might occur as demand outstrips sup-
ply or as the government imposes water restrictions.
mETHODOLOgy 15
1.  Does this ecosystem 
service serve as an input 
or does it enable/enhance 
conditions for successful 
company performance?
yes
2.  Does this ecosystem 
service have cost-effective 
substitutes?
yes
medium
dependence
Low
dependence
High
dependence
No
No
Figure 3   Questions to Ask per ecosystem service 
when evaluating dependence

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review16
Note that a company’s impact on ecosystem services and 
the affected beneficiaries may exist on a variety of spatial and 
temporal scales. See Box 9 for suggestions on selecting the 
appropriate scale.
Answering “yes” to question 3 and “yes” to question 5 
indicates that the company’s impact on the ecosystem service 
is high. Answering “yes” to question 3 and “no” to question 5 
indicates that the company’s impact on the ecosystem service 
is medium. Answering “no” to question 3 indicates that the 
company’s impact on the ecosystem service is low or negli-
gible (Figure 4).
The dependence and impact assessment can be qualitative 
and quick. Although answers to the five questions may be 
straightforward for some ecosystem services, this structured 
approach increases the likelihood of uncovering previously 
overlooked dependencies and impacts. The Dependence and 
Impact Assessment Tool that accompanies these Guidelines can 
help managers conduct the evaluation in a structured manner 
(Box 10).
prioritizing ecosystem services
After completing the dependence and impact assessment, 
determine which are the priority ecosystem services for the 
company—those most likely to be sources of business risk 
and opportunity. The results of the assessment can serve as 
good input for the prioritization process. Select five to seven 
services in order to keep the ESR analysis focused and man-
ageable going forward. The following are suggested guide-
lines for selecting the priority services:
•	 The top-tier candidates for priority ecosystem services 
are those deemed “high” in both categories—depen-
dence and impact.
Particularly during steps 2 and 3 of an ESR, it is important to select the appropriate spatial and temporal scale for the ecosystem service 
being reviewed. During step 2, managers need to determine the scale against which to assess their company’s relative dependence and 
impact on an ecosystem service. During step 3, managers need to determine how far into the future and across what spatial area to 
conduct trends analyses.
Relevant spatial scales might coincide with political boundaries, such as districts or countries, or might better fit with geographic bound-
aries, such as watersheds or forest areas that may be under the jurisdiction of several political entities. Relevant temporal scales may 
range from several years to many decades and will be company-specific.
There are no hard and fast rules for determining scale. managers will need to use their own judgment or seek the advice of experts. Sug-
gested considerations include:
l		 Recognize that the appropriate scale may differ between ecosystem services. 
l		 The spatial scale should encompass at least the specific ecosystem providing the service being considered. For example, a resort evalu-
ating trends in coral reef-based recreation and storm protection services should consider the coral reef located offshore of its property.
l		 A common spatial boundary to use is the watershed. Ecosystem services such as freshwater supply, water regulation, erosion control, 
water purification, and waste treatment are bound through hydrological processes within a watershed. Likewise, beneficiaries of these 
services are usually located within the same watershed.
l		 For ecosystem services whose beneficiaries are global, a broader international perspective may be needed. Biomass fuels can be traded 
between countries on different continents. The ethical values people derive from the biodiversity of the Amazon rain forest are shared 
by many around the world. The climate regulation service provided by forests has global beneficiaries and an emerging global market.       
l		 The temporal period should fit the company’s strategic planning timeframe. For example, a business that sets 10-year strategies would 
want to understand its dependence and impact on ecosystem services and trends in priority services over at least the next 10 years. How-
ever, impacts that manifest themselves over time periods longer than the business planning cycle may still present risks and opportunities in 
the near term if governments or nongovernmental organizations introduce policies or campaigns to ward off possible long-term problems.
l		 The temporal period should encompass at least the current beneficiaries of the ecosystem service. However, for many services it will be 
important to also consider future beneficiaries in order to avoid possible regulatory or reputational risks.
Box 9
   
what is the Appropriate scale?
•	 The second-tier candidates are those deemed “high”  
in one category and “medium” in the other. The  
dependence and impact categories should have equal 
weighting; one is not more important than the other. 
Low
impact
medium
impact
No
No
Figure 4   Questions to Ask per ecosystem service 
when evaluating Impact
Negative
3.  Does the company affect 
the quantity or quality of 
this ecosystem service?
yes
4.  Is the company’s impact 
positive or negative?
5.  Does the company’s impact 
limit or enhance the ability 
of others to benefit from 
this ecosystem service?
yes
High
Impact
Positive

•	 The third-tier candidates are those deemed “high” in 
one category and “low” in the other.
•	 If too many services are deemed “high” in the impact 
category, give preference to the ones with “negative” 
impacts. Road-test companies found that the business 
implications of negative impacts often outweighed those 
of “positive” impacts.
•	 A service deemed “high” can be screened out if the 
company has already recently reviewed business risks and 
opportunities regarding this ecosystem service. For exam-
ple, Mondi identified “timber and other wood fiber” as 
an ecosystem service upon which it had a high, positive 
impact. However, Mondi did not select it as a priority 
because managers regularly assesses the status, trends, 
risks, and opportunities associated with this ecosystem 
service since wood fiber is the firm’s core business.
•	 Those deemed “low” in both categories are not priority 
services.
Boxes 11 and 12 show the ecosystem service prioritization 
results for two road-test companies.
mETHODOLOgy 17
The Dependence and impact assessment Tool is a spreadsheet that guides managers through the five dependence and impact questions 
for each ecosystem service and automatically develops a visual summary of the results. The spreadsheet has three sections:
l		 A set of instructions for using the tool.
l		 A dependence and impact questionnaire. The questionnaire is laid out in a matrix format: Twenty-three ecosystem services, with 
definitions and examples of each, are listed vertically while the five questions regarding dependence and impact are listed horizontally. 
Tabs are provided in the response cells to facilitate answering the questions for each service. The questionnaire also provides space for 
writing in comments to explain answers given to the questions, remind managers of the rationale for their answers, or highlight where 
significant data gaps exist.
l		 A summary matrix that translates the responses provided in the questionnaire into a one-page visual chart. using easy-to-understand 
symbols, the matrix indicates whether the company’s impact and dependence on each ecosystem service is high, medium, or low and 
whether the impact is positive or negative. The summary matrix can show responses whether the selected scope is some aspect of the 
company itself, upstream suppliers, or downstream customers.
users can add and subtract features from the tool in order to tailor it to meet their own needs and preferences. To download it, visit  
www.wri.org/ecosystems/esr
Box 10   the dependence and Impact Assessment tool

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review18
mondi conducted a dependence and impact assessment for each of the three plantations in its road test. The dependence and impact 
summary matrix below profiles the results for one of the plantations.
Based on this assessment, mondi selected six ecosystem services as priorities:
l	 		 Freshwater. Pine and eucalypt plantations significantly depend upon and impact the quantity of freshwater.
l  regulation of water timing and flows. The plantation depends upon the ability of the surrounding ecosystems to help regulate the tim-
ing of water flows.
l		 Biomass fuel. As a byproduct, the plantation generates biomass residues that can be utilized as a source of energy by the company’s 
mills, local villages, or other parties. 
l	  Global climate regulation. The plantation impacts the carbon cycle since trees sequester carbon dioxide.
l	  recreation and ecotourism. given its proximity to the greater St. Lucia wetland Park, a world Heritage Site, the plantation—and the 
wetlands and grasslands it contains—have the potential to provide recreational or ecotourism benefits.
l		 Livestock. The plantation impacts the ecosystem service of livestock in that, by being a dedicated industrial tree farm, the site precludes 
surrounding villagers from using the landscape for large-scale livestock grazing. Selective controlled grazing on the wetlands and rem-
nant grasslands is, however, widely practiced.
Box 11   example from the road tests: mondi (step 2)
key:    
 
High        medium           Low         + Positive impact          – Negative impact         ? Don’t know
suppliers company operations customers
ecosystem service dependence Impact dependence Impact dependence Impact
provisioning
crops   –  
livestock   –  
capture fisheries
Aquaculture
wild foods   +  
timber and other wood fiber   +  
other fibers (e.g., cotton, hemp, silk)  
Biomass fuel   +  
Freshwater   –   
genetic resources   ?   
Biochemicals, natural medicines, and  
pharmaceuticals
  
+  
regulating
maintenance of air quality ?  ?  
global climate regulation   +  
regional/local climate regulation   +  
regulation of water timing and flows   –   
erosion control   –   
water purification and waste treatment   –
disease mitigation
pest mitigation   
pollination    
natural hazard mitigation  
cultural
recreation and ecotourism   +  
ethical and spiritual values   +  

mETHODOLOgy 19
syngenta looked “downstream” and conducted a dependence and impact assessment for one of its customer segments, farmers in 
southern India (see the dependence and impact summary matrix below).
Based on this assessment, the ESR team selected six priority ecosystem services:
l		 Freshwater. Agriculture in the region highly depends upon this ecosystem service for watering crops—on rain-fed and irrigated farms—
and for generating electricity to run some irrigation systems. At the same time, farmers can impact freshwater quantity (through irriga-
tion) and quality (through fertilizer and agrochemical runoff).
l	  regulation of water timing and flows. Southern Indian farmers are dependent on the role that wetlands and other ecosystems play in 
managing the timing and magnitude of water runoff during the monsoon season and in recharging aquifers.
l		 erosion control. Farmers depend on vegetation to retain topsoil. Poor agricultural practices are having some localized negative effects, 
but other practices such as living fences and minimum tillage are improving erosion control.
l		 pest mitigation. Southern Indian farmers rely on some native organisms to help control crop pests in integrated crop management 
systems. But farming practices such as growing monocultures, fragmenting natural habitats, and inappropriately using agrochemicals 
are eroding nature’s ability to manage pests in the region.
l		 pollination. many crops in the region benefit from pollination by bees and other animals, although a substitute practice—pollination by 
human hand—is used especially for plant breeding. Although data are limited, agriculture in southern India likely has a negative impact 
on natural pollination due to conversion of pollinator habitat.
l		 Nutrient cycling. Crops depend on nature’s processing of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, but synthetic substitutes exist. 
Poor farming practices in the region sometimes inhibit this natural process, requiring more man-made inputs to replace lost nutrients.       
Box 12   example from the road tests: syngenta (step 2)
key:    
 
High        medium           Low         + Positive impact          – Negative impact         ? Don’t know
suppliers company operations customers
ecosystem service dependence Impact dependence Impact dependence Impact
provisioning
crops   +
livestock   +
capture fisheries
Aquaculture
wild foods    –
timber and other wood fiber    –
other fibers (e.g., cotton, hemp, silk)    +
Biomass fuel    +
Freshwater    –
genetic resources    –
Biochemicals, natural medicines, and  
pharmaceuticals
   
–
regulating
maintenance of air quality    –
global climate regulation   +/–
regional/local climate regulation   +/–
regulation of water timing and flows   +/–
erosion control   +/–
water purification and waste treatment
disease mitigation
pest mitigation    –
pollination    –
natural hazard mitigation
cultural
recreation and ecotourism   +/–
ethical values   +/–
other services identified by company
nutrient cycling    –

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review20
The five to seven ecosystem services selected as priorities 
will become the focus of analysis in subsequent steps of the 
ESR. The other services are screened out, at least for the time 
being. Additional information uncovered while conducting 
the trends analysis in step 3 may lead managers to revisit step 
2 and add—or subtract—one or more services to the list of 
priorities.
The Helpful Hints offer additional suggestions for step 2, 
based on experiences from the road tests. Box 13 outlines the 
sources, inputs, and perspectives that some road-test compa-
nies used during step 2. 
STEP 3: ANALYZE TRENDS  
IN PRIORITY ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
The third step is to research and analyze the status and 
trends in the priority ecosystem services that were identified 
in step 2. The purpose of this research is to provide managers 
with a sufficient amount of relevant information and insights 
so that they can later identify business risks and opportuni-
ties that may arise from these trends. 
how to analyze
For the trends analysis, conduct research to answer the 
following five questions for each of the ecosystem services 
identified as a “priority” in step 2:
1.  what are the condition and trends in the supply 
and demand for the ecosystem service? Identify the 
present and expected future supply and demand for the 
service. When answering this question, it is important 
to determine up-front which aspects of supply and 
demand—quantity or quality—are the most relevant to 
The ecosystems surrounding a hydroelectric facility—the river, 
reservoir, and forests—provide a variety of ecosystem services. 
As part of its water use planning process, Bc hydro convened 
a number of stakeholders to determine which services they val-
ued and how the company’s dams impacted those services. The 
ecosystem services that stakeholders valued became BC Hydro’s 
shortlist of services that warranted careful consideration. Stake-
holders included:
l		 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the government department 
responsible for ensuring commercial fish species are managed 
sustainably and endangered species are protected 
l		 The government of British Columbia, which is responsible for 
licensing hydroelectric facilities and management plans
l		 First Nations—the indigenous people of Canada—who value 
salmon and other species as sources of food, income, and 
cultural heritage 
l		 Environmental organizations, representing people who place 
ethical value on the biodiversity within the forests and waters 
surrounding dams
l		 Local communities, who utilize the river system for drinking 
water and recreation.
rio tinto held a “rapid assessment” session to go through 
the questionnaire and develop a draft dependence and impact 
matrix. Participants included managers from the mine’s prefea-
sibility team, community relations, and corporate environmental 
affairs, as well as a biodiversity impact assessment consultant 
Rio Tinto had on contract. Afterwards, the company refined 
the assessment, filling in the gaps and resolving differences in 
perspectives.
To identify the priority ecosystem services for its customers in 
southern India, the syngenta team gathered input from its 
own Indian agronomists. In addition, the team interviewed sev-
eral agricultural scientists from Indian universities and represen-
tatives of nongovernmental organizations specializing in food, 
poverty, and environmental issues in the region.
Box 13   examples of sources of Input (step 2) 
Helpful Hints Step 2
l		 Avoid “getting stuck” in step 2. It is just a screening 
exercise leading to the core of the ESR. Furthermore, 
managers can revisit step 2 if they later uncover pertinent 
new information.
l		 Engage stakeholders to determine which ecosystem 
services they value. This input can help create a shortlist 
of services about which the company should carefully 
consider its impacts. 
l		 Consider not only actual impacts but also perceived 
impacts when conducting the dependence and impact as-
sessment. Stakeholder perceptions of a company’s impact 
on ecosystem services can often be just as important a 
source of reputational risk as actual, physical impacts. 
Distinguish between those that are perceived and those 
that are physical in the “comments” section of the Depen-
dence and impact assessment Tool.
l		 most road-test companies chose to exclude the “support-
ing ecosystem services” (see Table 2 on pages 4 and 5) 
when conducting the ESR. These services are so basic and 
fundamental that they manifest themselves in many of the 
provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. “Primary 
production,” for example, is the foundation of timber, 
other fibers, crops, and biomass fuel. Considering this 
supporting service could lead to “double counting” or 
“double consideration” of services. Nevertheless, compa-
nies in some sectors such as agriculture or forestry may 
find it valuable to explicitly consider one or more support-
ing services—particularly nutrient cycling—given the direct 
interaction between these sectors and this service. 
l		 Consider impacts alone, not actions to mitigate impacts. 
For example, when evaluating the effects of a prospective 
Rio Tinto mine on local biodiversity and the associated cul-
tural services, the team was tempted to incorporate into 
the assessment possible “biodiversity offset” purchases. 
Offsets, however, are a possible strategy for minimizing 
risks caused by the mine’s impact. Risk mitigation strate-
gies are considered during step 5 of the ESR.
l		 If the dependence and impact assessment becomes too 
complex, revisit step 1 to narrow the scope or split it 
into more than one ESR. The road test for Rio Tinto, for 
example, became easier once the team split the original 
scope into separate dependence and impact assessments 
for the mine site, the road, and the prospective port.
l		 Consider applying additional criteria if the first attempt 
at prioritizing ecosystem services fails to narrow the list 
to seven or fewer. Additional criteria could include the 
probability of the company having a high impact on an 
ecosystem service and the number of people affected, 
among others. 

the company. The most relevant aspect may vary  
between ecosystem services and companies. For instance,  
trends in the quantity of the ecosystem service of timber 
may be most relevant for a wood products manufac-
turer. Trends in the quality of freshwater may be most 
important for a firm in the beverage industry. Similarly, 
when answering this question it is important to select 
the appropriate spatial and/or temporal scale for the 
ecosystem service under review (see Box 9 on page 16 
for suggestions on selecting the appropriate scale).
2.  what direct drivers underlie these trends? Identify 
the “direct drivers” of trends in the priority ecosystem 
service. Direct drivers are factors—natural or man-
made—that cause changes in an ecosystem and its 
ability to supply ecosystem services. Common direct 
drivers include:
•	 Changes in land use and land cover. Examples include 
deforestation, conversion of natural grasslands to 
farms, and drainage of wetlands.
•	 Overconsumption. For instance, ecosystem services 
such as capture fisheries, wild foods, and freshwater 
can be exploited beyond their capacity to replenish 
themselves. 
•	 Climate change. Climate change is expected to alter 
the quantity, distribution, and timing of many 
ecosystem services, including crops, capture fisheries, 
freshwater, and natural hazard regulation.
14
•	 Discharge of pollution and overuse of fertilizers. Ex-
amples include toxic chemical releases and nitrogen 
and phosphorus runoff. The latter can lead to  
excessive nutrient enrichment of coastal waters and 
the emergence of “dead zones.”
15
•	 Introduction of invasive, non­native species. By crowd-
ing out native species or preying on species lack-
ing natural defenses, invasives such as the emerald 
ash borer (Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire) in North 
America, molasses grass (Melinis minutiflora) in South 
America, western corn rootworm (Diabrotica virgifera 
virgifera) in Europe, and giant African snails (Achatina 
fulica) in Asia can alter the structure and dynamics of 
an ecosystem and thereby the quality or quantity of 
ecosystem services it provides.
16
Assess these direct drivers in terms of their relative 
contribution to the trends, size of impact, location, and 
timing. In addition, be aware that these direct drivers 
can act not only in isolation but also interact at mul-
tiple geographic scales and time frames. For instance, 
climate change can lead to crop failures in one region, 
which can encourage overexploitation of ecosystems 
elsewhere. Invasive species can change land cover over 
time as they alter the species dynamics of ecosystems.
3.  what is the company’s contribution to these drivers? 
Identify how, where, and to what degree the company is 
contributing or could contribute to the direct drivers of 
ecosystem change. If a company’s strategy, operations, 
or activities impact any of these drivers, then it will 
likely impact an ecosystem and the services provided. 
Developing an understanding of the company’s role in 
relation to these drivers and trends is helpful prepara-
tion for identifying possible business risks and opportu-
nities in step 4 of the ESR.
4.  what is the contribution of others to these drivers? 
Identify who else is contributing to these drivers of 
ecosystem change. Contributors might include local 
communities, farmers, other companies, or other indus-
try sectors. Determine how, where, and to what degree 
these contributors are affecting the drivers of ecosys-
tem change and how their impact might evolve in the 
future. 
5.  what indirect drivers underlie these trends? Identify 
and evaluate the drivers that are indirectly affecting 
these trends in the priority ecosystem service. Indirect 
drivers are factors that contribute to changes in the 
direct drivers, the company, or other users of ecosystem 
services. Indirect drivers could be:
•	 Governmental (policies, regulations, subsidies, and 
incentives)
•	 Demographic (population growth and distribution)
•	 Economic (globalization and markets)
•	 Technological (new technologies)
•	 Cultural and religious (people’s choices about what 
and how much to consume).
These five questions comprise a simple framework that 
can give managers a comprehensive understanding of the 
important trends per priority ecosystem service (Figure 5). 
gathering input
Conducting interviews, reviewing existing research, or 
commissioning original analysis—where significant data gaps 
exist—are recommended approaches for answering these five 
questions. Managers can tap into a variety of information 
sources (see Table 5 on page 12). Box 14 gives examples of 
data sources used by some road-test companies.
mETHODOLOgy 21
r
ic
A
rdo L
AB
o
,
 
r
io 
t
int
o
.
 2006.
Rio Tinto’s camp at its prospective copper mine in La Granja, Peru.

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review22
Figure 5   ecosystem service trends and drivers Framework
Akzo nobel reviewed existing research published by academics and nongovernmental organizations. The company also relied on reports 
prepared by consultants addressing issues such as the economic and environmental trends in the Chinese wood fiber industry and a study 
on the state of forests and plantations for an Indonesian mill project.
Bc hydro utilized research previously conducted or commissioned by the company regarding trends affecting the watersheds where its 
dams are located. In addition, the ESR team interviewed a number of leading academics from major Canadian universities and millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment scientists who are renowned for their knowledge of the interplay between hydroelectric facilities and ecosystems. 
mondi leveraged existing in-house analyses and external research reports. To complement this input, managers interviewed two to four 
experts for each of the six ecosystem services mondi identified as priorities. Interviewees came from a variety of backgrounds, including:
l		 Forestry consulting firms with an existing working relationship with the company
l		 Regional universities such as the university of kwa Zulu Natal
l		 Regional research institutes such as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, the Plant Protection Research Institute, and the 
Centre for Environment, Agriculture, and Development
l		 millennium Ecosystem Assessment scientists with expertise in South African ecosystems
l		 Nongovernmental organizations.
syngenta complemented its in-house knowledge by consulting a range of research reports and interviewing relevant experts for each 
priority service, including:
l		 Agricultural professionals from the India Agricultural Research Center and the International Rice Research Institute
l		 Professors from the university of maryland, kerala Centre for Development Studies, and the Indian Institute of Technology in mumbai
l		 Experts from research institutions, including the International Food Policy Research Institute and the Consultative group on Interna-
tional Agricultural Research
l		 Agriculture experts from multilateral organizations including the Food and Agriculture Organization and the world Bank 
l		 Environmental nongovernmental organizations such as the world wide Fund for Nature-India, the world Conservation union, and the 
Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment. 
Box 14   examples of sources of Input (step 3)
1.  condition and trends in the ecosystem service
•	Supply and demand
•	Quantity and quality
•	Present and future
2. direct drivers
•	Changes in land use and land cover
•	Overconsumption
•	Climate change
•	Pollution
•	Invasive, non-native species
•	Other
5. Indirect drivers
•	governmental
•	Demographic
•	Economic
•	Technological
•	Cultural and religious
3. company activities
•	How
•	where
•	To what degree
4. Activities of others
•	who
•	How
•	where
•	To what degree

methodology 23
Helpful Hints Step 3
•	  Interview experts early on. A few 30-minute telephone 
interviews can save a lot of time because experts can 
quickly summarize the trends, identify the most important 
drivers, and pinpoint the most relevant data sources.
•	  Interview at least one expert per priority service.
•	  Consider hosting a meeting in which a number of experts 
share information and react to each others’ perspectives. 
•	  Be sure to consider the role of government policy as an 
indirect driver. many of the road tests found that specific 
tax provisions, subsidies, or other government policies  
often were a major factor influencing trends in ecosys-
tems and the services they provide.
•	  Note the likelihood of each ecosystem service trend. For 
those that are nearly certain to occur, the company may 
need to develop a definitive response strategy during  
step 5 of the ESR. For those that are less certain to occur, 
the company might consider developing hedging or  
“no regrets” strategies until more information becomes 
available or until the trends unfold.
•	  Leverage scientific assessments and business tools that  
are specific to particular ecosystem services (such as  
freshwater) or drivers of ecosystem change (such as 
climate change). See Chapter III for suggestions. 
•	  If little information is available about a particular  
ecosystem service, consider researching a case example  
to at least get an indication of status and trends.
1. Where possible, support answers to these questions 
with quantitative data. The availability of numeric data 
varies by ecosystem service, driver, and geography. For in-
stance, quantitative information often exists for provision-
ing services that have formal markets—crops, livestock, 
aquaculture, capture fisheries, and timber, among oth-
ers—or for services that many governments measure and 
monitor such as freshwater. Quantitative information also 
may be available for some drivers, such as land use change, 
climate change, and  
pollution.
However, quantitative data can be difficult to access or 
may not even exist for some of the regulating services, cul-
tural services, and drivers. In these situations, using qualita-
tive information and expert advice can be sufficient and yield 
valuable insights.
While conducting the trends analysis, it is helpful to 
record relevant findings and to summarize any interviews. 
It is also helpful to prepare a short paper or presentation for 
each priority ecosystem service once the analysis has been 
completed. The summary facilitates sharing results with col-
leagues and can serve as a helpful reference for later steps in 
the ESR (Box 15). The Helpful Hints offer other suggestions 
for conducting step 3.
mondi conducted a trends analysis for each of its six priority ecosystem services. The figure below provides a high-level summary of the 
key trends and drivers for one of these services, freshwater. The ESR team developed a longer PowerPoint presentation with all the details 
in order to synthesize the research and to present the findings to colleagues during a progress review at the end of step 3.
Box 15   example from the road tests (step 3)
3. company activities
•	 Reduce water quantity  
due to tree species used 
(eucalypt, pine)
•	 Increase water  
quantity via wetland 
and riparian area 
preservation, grassland 
management practices, 
and invasive species 
eradication
1.  condition and trends in the ecosystem service
•	 water in 6 of 7 subcatchment areas where mondi 
plantations are located were overallocated by 2000
•	 water in all 7 subcatchment areas projected to be  
in deficit by 2025
2. direct drivers
•	 Overconsumption of water resources
•	 Climate change reducing regional rainfall levels and 
soil moisture content
•	 Spread of thirsty, invasive, non-native species 
4. Activities of others
•	 South African water usage  
by sector:
 – Irrigation: 62%
 – urban: 27% (fast growth)
 – Rural domestic: 5%
 – Non-forestry industry: 3%
 – Forestry industry: 3%
•	 many farms using  
inefficient irrigation  
practices
5. Indirect drivers
•	 government grants water entitlements to each sector. 
unclear who will be curtailed in areas of water stress
•	 Projected population growth of 0.4% / year 
•	 Projected economic growth of 5.0% / year 

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review24
STEP 4: IDENTIFY BUSINESS RISKS  
AND OPPORTUNITIES
The fourth step is to evaluate the implications for the 
company of the trends in the priority ecosystem services.  
The purpose of this step is to identify the business risks and 
opportunities that might arise due to these trends.
types of risks and opportunities
Changes in the quantity or quality of priority ecosystem 
services can pose five general types of business risks and op-
portunities: 1) operational, 2) regulatory and legal, 3) reputa-
tional, 4) market and product, and 5) financing (Table 6).
1.  operational risks and opportunities relate to the day-
to-day activities, expenditures, and processes of the 
company. Examples of ecosystem service-related risks 
include:
•	 Increased scarcity or cost of inputs. In 2001, water 
shortages in the U.S. Pacific Northwest impacted 
the price and availability of two major inputs for 
Anheuser-Busch, the world’s largest brewer of beer. 
Barley prices increased in response to reductions in 
the amount of water available for irrigation. Mean-
while, the availability of aluminum for cans dropped 
as smelters—which rely on low-cost power from 
hydroelectric dams—reduced output when electric-
ity prices spiked during the drought.
17
 Competition 
for a resource that provides more than one ecosystem 
service can lead to higher costs as well. For instance, 
European renewable energy targets are increasing 
global demand for wood fiber for fuel, which in turn 
threatens to drive up prices of wood fiber for paper.
•	 Reduced output or productivity. Deforestation in 
the Agno River basin in the Philippines has led to 
such extensive river and reservoir siltation that the 
100-megawatt Binga hydroelectric facility can only 
operate intermittently.
18
 Similarly, the productivity of 
almond, avocado, and melon growers in California 
has been under threat in recent years as the popula-
tion of bees—important pollinators—has declined 
precipitously.
19
•	 Disruption to business operations. Years of removing 
wetlands and re-engineering river flows can exacerbate 
flooding by limiting nature’s ability to absorb excess 
water.
20
 These ecosystem changes from the past can 
pose risks to companies today. A case in point is the 
1993 flood of the Mississippi River and its tributaries, 
the results of which were far-reaching. The Sante Fe 
Railroad had to close its main route from Chicago to 
Kansas City for 25 days; Amoco’s oil pipeline to one 
of its refineries was disrupted when a pumping plant 
in Illinois became flooded; and Hubinger’s corn pro-
cessing plant in Iowa shut down for a month because 
of the high water.
21
 Examples of ecosystem service-related operational  
opportunities include:
•	 Increased efficiency. The Ingenio El Potrero sugar facto-
ry in Mexico invested in a more efficient cooling sys-
tem that cut freshwater consumption by 94 percent.
22
 
Mitsubishi Semiconductor America, Inc. invested in 
water-saving technologies that reduced water use by 
70 percent and wastewater effluents by 75 percent.
23
 
Both of these investments had two-year paybacks.
•	 Low­impact industrial processes. Wetlands are known 
for their ability to clean water, absorb waste, and 
breakdown some pollutants. Recognizing this feature, 
DuPont built a wetland to help treat water coming 
out of its Victoria, Texas manufacturing plant after 
the local community started expressing concerns 
about the deep well injection process the company 
Not Exhaustive
type risk opportunity
operational •	Increased scarcity or cost of inputs
•	Reduced output or productivity
•	Disruption to business operations
•	Increased efficiency
•	Low-impact industrial processes
regulatory and legal •	Extraction moratoria
•	Lower quotas
•	Fines
•	user fees
•	Permit or license suspension
•	Permit denial
•	Lawsuits
•	Formal license to expand operations
•	New products to meet new regulations
•	Opportunity to shape government policy
reputational •	Damage to brand or image
•	Challenge to social “license to operate”
•	Improved or differentiated brand
market and product •	 Changes in customer preferences (public sector, 
private sector)
•	New products or services
•	markets for certified products
•	markets for ecosystem services
•	 New revenue streams from company-owned or 
managed ecosystems
Financing •	Higher cost of capital
•	more rigorous lending requirements
•	 Increased investment by progressive lenders and 
socially responsible investment funds
Table 6  types of risks and opportunities Arising from trends in ecosystem services 

25
had been using. After being routed through an on-
site biological treatment facility, wastewater is now 
released into the wetland for further cleaning before 
returning to the Guadalupe River.
24
2.  regulatory and legal risks and opportunities relate to 
the laws, government policies, and court actions that 
can affect corporate performance. Examples of ecosys-
tem service-related risks include:
•	 Extraction moratoria. China imposed a logging ban on 
forests in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River and 
the middle and upper reaches of the Yellow River after 
the devastating 1998 floods. Rampant logging con-
tributed to the disaster by reducing the forest’s ability 
to control erosion and regulate water flows during 
heavy rains. The ban had significant implications for 
forest product companies buying from China.
25
•	 Lower quotas. Over the past decade, the European 
Union has been tightening fishing quotas on cod, 
hake, plaice, and other species in an effort to curb the 
depletion of wild fish stocks.
26
•	 Fines. In 2008, Union Pacific was fined $102 million 
for liabilities in a California forest fire. The U.S. Dis-
trict Court found Union Pacific not only responsible 
for the cost of firefighting and lost timber, but also for 
the economic damages to  soil, wildlife, habitat, and 
recreational uses.
27
•	 User fees. Responding to increased scarcity of freshwa-
ter, Mexico’s National Water Commission raised the 
fee companies pay for water rights 17-fold between 
1990 and 1993.
28
•	 Permit or license suspension. In 2004, the state govern-
ment suspended the permit of a Coca-Cola bottling 
plant in Kerala, India due to concerns over the plant’s 
impact on local freshwater levels and quality.
29
•	 Permit denial. In 2004, the UK government denied  
Associated British Ports planning permission for 
a port expansion at Dibden due to its potential 
encroachment on nearby coastal ecosystems that were 
valued for their biodiversity and associated cultural 
services. As a result, Associated British Ports had to 
write off £45 million it had spent on the proposal and 
its share price dropped 12 percent the week immedi-
ately following the permit denial.
30
•	 Lawsuits. In 2003, indigenous Ecuadorians filed 
suit against ChevronTexaco in an Ecuadorian court, 
charging the company with dumping toxic oil waste-
water into 350 open pits as well as into Amazon- 
basin wetlands and rivers that the tribes rely upon for 
drinking, bathing, and fishing.
31
 Examples of ecosystem service-related regulatory  
opportunities include:
•	 Formal license to expand operations. In some situa-
tions, restoring or protecting an ecosystem can help a 
business make the case to regulators that it should be 
allowed to expand activities elsewhere. For instance, 
International Paper converted more than 2,000 hect-
ares of its land in Georgia into a conservation bank for 
the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides 
borealis), allowing the company to legally expand 
its operations in other forests of lower conservation 
value.
32
•	 New products to meet new regulations. New regula-
tions to prevent the transport of invasive species via 
ship ballast water have been set by the International 
Maritime Organization and will take effect in 2009. 
Aquatic species transported from one ecosystem 
to another by ship can have a devastating effect on 
marine life and local economies. To help ship owners 
meet the new requirements, Alfa Laval developed and 
launched PureBallast, a ballast water treatment system 
that removes unwanted marine organisms without 
additives or chemicals.
33
•	 Opportunity to shape government policy. The tourism 
industry in Australia benefits from the recreational 
and ecotourism services provided by the Great Barrier 
Reef. In 2003, tourism industry associations engaged 
the Australian government to expand the network of 
marine sanctuaries within the reef in order to protect 
and increase the ecosystem’s ability to sustain the in-
dustry into the future. Their efforts paid off. In 2004, 
the government implemented a new zoning plan that 
expanded the “green zones”—where commercial and 
recreational fishing are banned—from 5 percent to 
nearly 33 percent of the reef.
34
3.  reputational risks and opportunities relate to the com-
pany’s brand, image, or relationship with customers, 
the general public, and other stakeholders. Examples of 
ecosystem service-related risks include:
•	 Damage to brand or image. Protests against firms such 
as Home Depot and B&Q in the 1990s affected their 
reputation among some customer segments.
35
 These 
campaigns were triggered by the impact suppliers of 
these do-it-yourself chains were having on old-growth 
forests, a rare ecosystem valued by many people for 
its rich biodiversity and myriad ecosystem services 
beyond timber. Similarly, the forestry company Mac-
Millan Bloedel suffered reputational damage when 
Greenpeace and others protested against the firm for 
clear-cutting forests. In response to the protests, Scott 
Paper and Kimberly-Clark in the United Kingdom 
stopped sourcing from MacMillan Bloedel, causing 
the latter to quickly lose 5 percent of its revenue.
36
“The ESR helped BC Hydro clarify  
its dependence on several key  
ecosystem services, an important factor  
in establishing our long-term goal of  
No Net Environmental Impact by 2024.”
—Ray Stewart, Chief Safety Health and  
Environment Officer, BC Hydro
mETHODOLOgy

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review26
•	 Challenge to social “license to operate.” In 1995, Cana-
dian aluminum manufacturer Alcan sought to divert 
a river to generate hydropower for one of its smelters. 
However, local indigenous communities objected 
since the river was a source of freshwater, fish, and 
cultural services for them. With little accumulated 
goodwill with indigenous communities, Alcan was 
unable to receive consent to operate and ultimately 
abandoned the project, losing $500 million in up-
front investment.
37
 Examples of ecosystem service-related reputational  
opportunities include:
•	 Improved or differentiated brand. Fetzer Vineyards—a 
division of Brown-Forman, the seventh largest wine 
manufacturer in the United States—is differentiating 
its brand in the competitive wine industry by seeking 
to become the “sustainable” wine producer. For in-
stance, the company uses cover crops to improve ero-
sion control and attract natural predators to manage 
pests, has a pond to naturally treat winery wastewater, 
and implements other approaches that leverage ser-
vices provided by ecosystems—and publicly profiles 
these practices.
38
4.  market and product risks and opportunities relate to 
product and service offerings, customer preferences, 
and other market factors that can affect corporate per-
formance. Examples of ecosystem service-related risks 
include:
•	 Changes in public sector customer preferences. In 2004, 
the UK government revised its wood procurement 
policies. Government-purchased timber now has 
to be legally logged and, where feasible, come from 
suppliers offering timber from “sustainable” sources. 
This revision had significant implications for Travis 
Perkins, the country’s largest supplier of building 
materials. With nearly 20 percent of its timber sales 
going to government building projects, the company 
faced the risk of losing a sizeable share of its business 
if it failed to meet these new customer preferences.
39
Pho
t
o cour
tesy of Mondi
An extensive wetland found on Gilboa Estate, a Mondi Shanduka plantation.
“The ESR methodology effectively draws on  
expert advice, stakeholder views, and company  
strengths to identify and quantify emerging 
business risks and systematically determines a 
range of solutions and opportunities.”
—Peter Gardiner, Natural Resources Manager, Mondi

•	 Changes in private sector customer preferences. Wal-Mart, 
the world’s largest retailer, announced in 2005 that it 
would purchase only farmed shrimp certified to sus-
tainability standards established by the Global Aqua-
culture Alliance.
40
 The company followed up in 2006 
by pledging to source all of its wild-caught fresh and 
frozen fish for North American stores within the next 
three to five years from fisheries certified by the Marine 
Stewardship Council.
41
 Suppliers of seafood that want 
to retain Wal-Mart as a customer face significant risks 
if they fail to meet the company’s new preferences.
 Examples of market and product opportunities include:
•	 New products or services. In 2005, AgraQuest Inc. 
introduced Serenade
®
, a fungicide that is nontoxic to 
natural predators and other nontarget organisms. The 
product helps alleviate human pressure on nature’s 
pest regulation services.
42
 Other products can help 
customers adapt to scarcity of an ecosystem service 
such as freshwater. For instance, the British firm 
Halma manufactures instruments to help water utili-
ties detect leaks in underground water pipes.
43
•	 Markets for certified products. Markets continue to 
grow for wood products, seafood, and other goods 
that are certified as grown and harvested in a manner 
that sustains an ecosystem’s ability to provide a variety 
of services. For instance, the global market for wood 
and paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council 
exceeded $5 billion in 2006, a 67 percent increase 
over three years.
44
 The market for Marine Stewardship 
Council-certified seafood is growing as well. For the 
year ending March 31, 2007, the global retail value of 
Marine Stewardship Council-labeled seafood was $509 
million, more than double that of the previous year.
45
•	 Markets for ecosystem services. Companies can be buy-
ers, suppliers, or brokers in markets for ecosystem 
services that are beginning to emerge in some regions 
of the world (Box 16). U.S.-based power company 
AES Corporation, for instance, invested in a 10,000 
hectare reforestation project in Brazil in order to 
generate greenhouse gas emission offsets or credits 
that it could apply against its own emissions or trade 
in voluntary or mandatory greenhouse gas emissions 
trading markets.
46
U.S. federal law mandates that developers who destroy 
wetlands must replace them by purchasing credits or 
shares in wetland mitigation banks—typically located 
in the same watershed—to offset ecological damage. 
Recognizing an opportunity, ChevronTexaco received 
approval in 2005 to convert a tapped-out drilling site 
in Louisiana into a 2,800-hectare wetland to gener-
ate credits for the U.S. wetland mitigation banking 
market. At an expected market price of $50,000 to 
$62,000 per hectare, the company could earn more 
than $150 million selling the credits to developers.
47
To support these ecosystem service markets, a whole 
new suite of innovative businesses are emerging, 
including water traders, mitigation bank developers 
and brokers, carbon sequestration project developers 
and brokers, and ecosystem restoration/management 
consulting firms. 
carbon sequestration markets: Forests and other ecosystems can absorb and sequester carbon dioxide (CO
2
) from the atmosphere. 
Ecosystem-based sequestration is eligible as a CO
2
 emission offset or credit in several greenhouse gas emissions markets, including: 
l		 The Clean Development mechanism of the kyoto Protocol
l		 Regional greenhouse gas Initiative of the Northeastern united States (2009 onward)
l		 California’s proposed greenhouse gas market (2012 onward) 
l		 The Chicago Climate Exchange 
l		 Voluntary greenhouse gas markets
water-related markets: Healthy ecosystems can regulate the timing of freshwater flows, improve water quality, and prevent soil ero-
sion within a watershed. In some circumstances, governments, companies, developers, and others are paying landowners to ensure the 
supply of these services through markets such as: 
l		 u.S. wetland mitigation Banking 
l		 Nutrient trading and total maximum daily load markets in the united States
l		 Hunter River Salinity trading scheme in Australia 
l		 Payment for watershed services scheme in mexico 
l		 Payment for forest services scheme in Costa Rica 
Biodiversity-related markets: Biodiversity is the foundation of ecosystem services, including the cultural benefits people derive from 
the existence of a multitude of species. Several markets are emerging to reflect the importance of biodiversity, including: 
l		 Endangered Species Banking in the united States 
l		 Australian Biodiversity Offset Programs 
l		 Voluntary biodiversity offsets 
For more information about these and other markets for ecosystem services, visit http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com
Box 16
   
emerging markets for ecosystem services
mETHODOLOgy 27

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review28
•	 New revenue streams from company­owned or man­
aged ecosystems. Companies can capture new revenue 
streams by recognizing that their environmental assets 
may provide more than one good or service. For 
instance, Inland Empire Paper Company introduced 
user fees—$65 per year for families, $40 per year for 
individuals, $10 for a one day permit—for hikers, 
mountain bikers, hunters, and others who use its 
46,000 hectares of forestlands in Washington and 
Idaho, essentially creating a revenue stream from the 
forest’s recreational services.
48
5.  Financing risks and opportunities relate to the cost and 
availability of capital from investors. Operational, regu-
latory, reputational, and/or market risks (and oppor-
tunities) can impact a company’s cash flows, which in 
turn can affect its credit quality. As a result, a business 
may face a higher cost of capital or more rigorous lend-
ing requirements as the financial sector becomes more 
attuned to the implications of ecosystem degradation 
for borrowers or clients. Alternatively, managers may 
find some lenders and socially responsible investment 
funds becoming more interested in investing in their 
companies. For example:
•	In 2011, the World Bank Board approved new  
International Finance Corporation (IFC) perfor-
mance standards that screen for ecosystem service 
risks and impacts. This indicates that the IFC will 
no longer support projects that significantly degrade 
ecosystem services.
49
•	 Dutch-based ABN AMRO has committed to avoid 
financing projects or operations that extract resources 
from virgin or high-conservation-value forests.
50
 
High-conservation-value forests provide myriad 
ecosystem services, including watershed protection, 
carbon sequestration, recreation, and ethical value—
they host a wealth of biodiversity.
•	 Global investment banks such as Citigroup are 
beginning to assess the degree to which large listed 
companies are exposed to risks and opportunities 
associated with freshwater scarcity and quality. Sec-
tors that rely on water as an input into production 
processes or that release wastewater as an output are 
coming under greater scrutiny by banks. On the other 
hand, companies that provide solutions for water sup-
ply, treatment, and demand management are gaining 
more investment attention.
51
•	 Goldman Sachs has expressed interest in investment 
opportunities in markets for water, biodiversity, and 
forest-based ecosystems.
52
Note that these five types of risks and opportunities are 
not mutually exclusive; one type can feed another. A regula-
tory risk, for instance, could translate into a financing risk; a 
company on the verge of facing new regulations might find 
its bank implementing tighter lending policies. A reputa-
tional risk could evolve into a market risk; a company experi-
encing reputational damage might find some of its customers 
changing their buying patterns.
process for identifying risks  
and opportunities
There are many ways to identify possible business risks 
and opportunities arising from trends in a company’s priority 
ecosystem services. One method that proved useful to ESR 
road-test companies was to begin by holding a structured 
brainstorming session. Start by summarizing the company’s 
dependence and impact on one of its priority ecosystem ser-
vices (step 2) and then briefly review the trends in that service 
(step 3). All of the relevant facts will therefore be fresh in the 
minds of the session’s participants. Armed with this informa-
tion, participants proceed to brainstorm possible business 
risks and opportunities these trends might pose for the com-
pany. To help trigger ideas, managers could consider each type 
of risk and opportunity outlined in Table 6 (see page 24). 
Once completed, managers move on to the next priority 
ecosystem service and go through the same process, continu-
ing until all priority services have been covered. The brain-
storming exercise might span more than one meeting.
Desk research can supplement the results of the brain-
storming session. Questions to consider that might uncover 
additional risks and opportunities include:
•	 What risks and/or opportunities have other businesses 
in the company’s industry faced due to these ecosystem 
service trends?
•	 What risks and/or opportunities have these trends posed 
to other businesses outside the company’s industry?
The end product of step 4 of the ESR is a list of risks 
and opportunities the company might face due to trends in 
priority ecosystem services. Managers can identify risks and 
opportunities per priority ecosystem service (Table 7) or per 
type of risk and opportunity (Table 8). The Helpful Hints 
provide other suggestions for step 4.
Helpful Hints Step 4
•	  manage the brainstorming session so that one person does 
not dominate the discussion and idea generation.
•	  To increase the likelihood of novel ideas being considered, 
include one or more outside experts or representatives of 
nongovernmental organizations during the brainstorming 
session.
•	  Look for opportunities to provide new products/services that 
help others either mitigate their impact on ecosystems or 
adapt to declining ecosystem services.
•	  Be sure to consider government policy not only as a source 
of business risk but also a potential opportunity to gain 
competitive advantage or “level the playing field.”
•	  If the company has internal expertise in certain aspects of 
ecosystems, consider providing for-profit consulting services 
to other firms. 
•	  Look for ways to monetize ecosystem services the company 
already provides without compensation.
•	  Find opportunities to build on corporate initiatives already 
under way.
•	  After brainstorming risks and opportunities per priority 
ecosystem service, identify risks and opportunities that might 
arise due to the interplay between services.

priority ecosystem  
service
potential risks potential opportunities
type of risk/ 
opportunity
Freshwater •	 Increased water scarcity due to:
 –  Invasive alien species  
proliferation
 –  Increasing demand among 
nearby, inefficient water users 
(farmers)
 – Climate change
•	 Internal efficiency improvements 
in freshwater use
•	 (Co)financing water efficiency 
improvements of nearby  
landowners
Operational
regulation of water  
timing and flows
•	See above
Biomass fuel •	 New biomass-to-energy markets 
for plantation residues
market and product
global climate regulation •	 Emerging markets for carbon 
sequestration
market and product
recreation and ecotourism •	 Ecotourism or recreation-based 
revenue streams from company-
managed wetlands/grasslands
market and product
livestock •	 Reduced plantation productivity  
due to increasing grazing  
pressures
Operational
•	 Increased scrutiny from nearby 
stakeholders for perceived  
“under-utilization” of mondi 
land set aside as wetlands/ 
grasslands
Reputational
Table 7  risks and opportunities summary:  mondi
type risk opportunity
operational •	Increased wood fiber scarcity •	 Increase mineral filler content in paper as a fiber 
replacement strategy
regulatory and legal •	 Scarcity of wood due to increased government 
scrutiny of and actions against companies that use 
illegally sourced wood
•	 Lack of water due to increased government restric-
tions on water usage in areas where heavy pollution 
leads to declining water availability
•	 Voice support for national, u.S., and Eu  
government measures to curb illegal logging
•	 work through industry association initiatives to 
combat illegal logging
•	 Supply company’s water purification products to 
developing markets
reputational •	 Increased scrutiny by purchasers and  
nongovernmental organizations of unsustainable 
forest management practices
•	 Support industry initiatives for customers to 
implement Forest Stewardship Council-oriented 
sustainability policies
•	 Partner with customers who invest in sustainable 
forestry and plantation development 
market and product •	 Competition for fiber as raw material for various 
end-uses (e.g., power generation, biofuels, paper 
pulp, cellulose products)
•	 Supply chemicals and engineering know-how for 
processing of cellulose byproducts
Financing     
Table 8  risks and opportunities summary:  Akzo nobel
mETHODOLOgy 29

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review30
An additional activity is necessary for 
man agers who chose a supplier or customer as 
the scope of the ESR. For these managers, all 
of the research and the risks and opportuni-
ties identified up to this point have been with 
respect to the selected supplier or customer. 
These findings will need to be converted into 
risks and opportunities for the business con-
ducting the ESR, as Syngenta did during its 
road test (Box 17). 
STEP 5: DEVELOP STRATEGIES  
FOR ADDRESSING RISKS  
AND OPPORTUNITIES
The fifth step is to develop and prioritize 
strategies for minimizing the risks and maximizing the 
opportunities identified during step 4. Once the fifth step 
has been completed, managers will have a prioritized set of 
strategies to implement, which in some cases can be a good 
time to undertake corporate ecosystem valuation. 
categories of strategies
Strategies for responding to ecosystem service-related risk 
and opportunities fall into three broad categories (Figure 6):
1.  Internal changes. Companies can address many of the 
risks and opportunities listed in Table 6 (see page 24) 
through changes in operations, product/market strate-
gies, and other internal activities. Potlatch, for instance, 
developed a strategy to establish a new revenue stream 
from its forests through visitor user fees. Unilever 
reduced its exposure to declining cod stocks in part by 
switching to other—albeit less profitable—species.
53
 
Examples of other internal changes include increas-
ing the efficiency of using ecosystem-based resources, 
launching new products or services, supplying or 
buying sustainably certified products, and reducing the 
impact of corporate operations on ecosystems to avoid 
regulatory risks.
2.  sector or stakeholder engagement. Companies can 
also address some of these risks and opportunities by 
partnering with industry peers, collaborating with other 
sectors, or structuring transactions with stakeholders. 
Vittel, for instance, addressed its water contamination 
problem (see Chapter I) by paying farmers in the wa-
tershed to switch to more sustainable land use practices 
and restoring the ecosystems surrounding the springs. 
The strategy worked; water purity returned and Vittel 
is now one of Nestlé Waters’ top selling brands.
54
 As 
an additional response to its fish supply crisis, Unilever 
collaborated with the World Wide Fund for Nature and 
Figure 6   categories of strategies
Industry peer collaboration
Cross-sector collaboration
NgO collaboration
Transactions with  
stakeholders
Etc.
sector or 
stakeholder 
engagement
Operations
Product strategy
market strategy
Procurement strategy
Land management
Etc.
Internal
changes
Tax incentives
Subsidy reforms
Protected areas
Zoning
Etc.
policy-maker
engagement
syngenta chose one of its customer segments, farmers in southern India, as the scope for its road test. The ESR identified a number of 
risks to farmers in this region arising from the degradation of several ecosystem services. Risks included:
l		 Reduced availability and quality of freshwater for irrigation
l		 Loss of topsoil due to clearance of native vegetation, failure to implement erosion control measures, and other poor farming practices
l		 Potential loss in yields of some fruits, vegetables, and spices due to a decline in the number of pollinators
l		 Lower yields due to a decline in the ability of natural predators to contain pest outbreaks
l		 Reduced soil fertility due to poor management practices.
These risks indirectly affect Syngenta by threatening to reduce the number of viable farmers in the region and by shifting crop prefer-
ences, thereby requiring the company to adapt its seeds or crop protection products. At the same time, the company identified a number 
of possible opportunities to help farmers either reduce their impacts on ecosystems or adapt to ecosystem change. Examples include: 
l		 Based on the company’s experience in other regions (e.g., Operation Bumblebee in the united kingdom), lead an initiative to increase 
pollinators in the region through selling natural seed mixes, selling bees, or offering assistance through extension services
l		 use the company’s in-depth knowledge of plants to offer farmers an improved integrated pest management system
l		 Develop and offer seeds and crop protection products that use less water, have better built-in resistance to disease and pests, and are 
more tolerant of dry or salty soils, among other traits
l		 Strengthen the company’s approach to the market and its training services to offer farmers best management practices that restore 
natural ecosystem functions
l		 Engage the company’s foundation and external research institutions to fill gaps in information about the status and trends in ecosys-
tem services critical to agriculture in the region.
Box 17
   
translating customer risks into Business risks and opportunities

a range of stakeholders to create the Marine Steward-
ship Council.
55
 Energia Global made payments to a for-
est protection fund that paid landowners upstream of 
its dams to conserve or re-establish tree cover, thereby 
reducing siltation of the rivers.
56
3.  policy-maker engagement. Not all ecosystem service-
related risks and opportunities can be successfully 
addressed through internal corporate activities alone or 
through sector and stakeholder engagement. Some re-
quire changes in government policy. Many ecosystems 
providing services valued by a company are controlled 
by governments. Others stretch across numerous pri-
vate owners, making engagement inefficient or nearly 
impossible. Moreover, poor public policies are often 
a key indirect driver of the degradation of ecosystem 
services. Therefore, a productive corporate strategy for 
addressing some ecosystem service-related issues can be 
to engage policy-makers and government agencies to 
establish good policies. Companies can voice support 
for (or provide input to) incentives or effective  
rules for sustainable management of ecosystem services.  
In 2007, for instance, leaders of six multinational 
companies—The Coca-Cola Company, Levi Strauss 
& Co., Läckeby Water Group, Nestlé S.A., SABMiller, 
and Suez—pledged to work with governments and 
policy-makers to address pressing issues regarding 
freshwater availability and quality.
57
Box 18 highlights some of the strategies identified by one 
of the road-test companies.
Identifying and prioritizing strategies
Each company has its own specific processes for developing 
and prioritizing strategies to address identified business risks and 
opportunities. This publication does not attempt to reinvent 
these approaches. Rather, ESR road-test experience suggests that 
the following activities can complement existing processes:
•	 Brainstorm and discuss possible strategies for addressing 
each of the ecosystem service-based risks and opportuni-
ties identified in step 4. This exercise can immediately 
follow the brainstorming session conducted for step 4, 
while the issues are fresh in the minds of participating 
managers. Several road-test companies took this ap-
proach. Or the session could occur at a later date, when 
managers themselves may be more refreshed.
•	 Involve in the brainstorming session the team that 
conducted the ESR, the business manager(s) who may 
be responsible for implementing the strategies, and rep-
resentatives from corporate government relations.
•	 Follow up the exercise with research to provide more 
detail on the candidate strategies. For example, if a 
strategy involves developing new revenue streams from 
a company-owned ecosystem, then managers may want 
to conduct an ecosystem service economic valuation 
study (see Box 19). If the strategy involves working with 
national policy-makers to create incentives for more 
sustainable management of selected ecosystem services, 
then managers may want to research possible policy op-
tions and determine which policy-makers to approach.
•	 Look at other companies facing similar ecosystem 
service-based risks and opportunities to help trigger 
additional ideas. Identify the strategies they are imple-
menting to address these issues. 
Through its ESR road test, mondi identified several strategies for managing the risks and opportunities it identified, including:
Internal changes
l		 implement additional internal water efficiency improvements. The company can reduce risks associated with growing freshwater scar-
city by implementing a series of water-use-efficiency practices such as more aggressively clearing invasive species, better matching tree 
species to site conditions, utilizing water-efficient strains as they become available, and more frequently conducting prescribed burns 
on its grasslands.
l		 start using invasive species as biomass fuel. mondi can combine its interest in removing competition for water and in tapping into the 
growing market for biomass fuel by starting to use the invasive species cleared from its plantations as feedstock for power and/or heat 
generation. Potential end users of the feedstock are mondi’s own mills or a new biomass pellet manufacturer located not far from one 
of the plantations.
sector or stakeholder engagement 
l		 obtain additional water entitlements by (co)financing water efficiency improvements of upstream landowners. many farmers operating 
near mondi’s plantations use inefficient irrigation systems but lack a financial incentive or ability to upgrade. mondi could engage se-
lected farmers and offer to (co)finance irrigation system upgrades in return for a share of the recipient’s water entitlements—the share 
could be negotiated and based on the amount of projected water savings. These entitlements could, through an afforestation license 
procedure, result in additional water rights for plantations.
l		 promote coppiced woodlots for biomass fuel. Leveraging the company’s forestry expertise, mondi could help nearby private land-
owners and villages establish woodlots on degraded land for growing biomass fuel on coppiced rotations. mondi could provide  
seedlings, offer extension services, and purchase the wood to use either in its own mill or sell to a nearby wood pellet manufacturer. 
These woodlots would provide additional revenue for villagers and thereby strengthen mondi’s reputation and stakeholder relationships.
policy-maker engagement
l		 engage policy-makers to improve freshwater resource use policies. mondi could explore voicing support for stronger policies that 
encourage water-use efficiency in South Africa and, leveraging its expertise in water management, provide input into policy design. 
(Specific policy recommendations identified during the ESR are confidential at this stage.)  
Box 18
   
example from the road tests (step 5)
mETHODOLOgy 31

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review32
•	 Prioritize the suite of strategies based on commonly used 
parameters such as return on investment, net present 
value, relative ease of implementation, urgency of the 
risk or opportunity, or other criteria. 
The Helpful Hints offer additional suggestions for step 5. 
NEXT STEPS
The ESR concludes with the identification and prioritiza-
tion of strategies to address ecosystem service risks and op-
portunities. But what comes after these strategies have been 
advanced? 
Building on the experience of implementing an ESR in one 
part of the company, managers can extend the methodology 
to additional divisions, markets, customers, suppliers, or other 
aspects of their business. Managers can also incorporate the 
ESR—or elements of it—into their existing environmental 
management and due diligence systems or into their corporate 
strategy development processes in order to augment them.
In both cases, the ESR is a promising approach for com-
panies to strengthen their ability to respond to a growing 
global environmental crisis. By accounting more fully for 
the dependence and impact of their business on ecosystem 
services, managers can better address the associated risks and 
opportunities. In addition, by helping companies make the 
connection between healthy ecosystems and the bottom line, 
the ESR can stimulate more sustainable business practices 
and support for public policies that protect and restore the 
ecosystems upon which we all depend. One thing is abun-
dantly clear: “business as usual” is no longer an option.
Helpful Hints Step 5
l	 		 keep track of possible strategies throughout the entire ESR 
process. managers or interviewees may identify good strate-
gic options during any one of the ESR steps. keep a running 
list and review them in a structured manner during step 5.
l		 Recognize that some strategies may address more than one 
risk or opportunity.
l		 Be willing to engage nongovernmental organizations and 
other noncorporate stakeholders when developing and even 
executing the strategies.
l		 Articulate the context—the trends in the relevant priority 
ecosystem service—when presenting the set of strategies to 
executive management for approval.
l		 Post the ESR results and supporting documentation on the 
company intranet to facilitate knowledge transfer.
l		 Involve at least one person from the first ESR team in subse-
quent corporate ESRs to ensure lessons learned are shared 
and to avoid “reinventing the wheel.”
l	 If economic valuation of ecosystem service-related risks and 
opportunities is helpful for strategy development, refer to 
wBCSD’s Guide to Corporate ecosystem valuation.
Ecosystem valuation assigns quantitative values to ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, recreation, and watershed protection, 
in order to improve decision-making. Conducting an ecosystem valuation may be a particularly useful activity for some companies during, 
or as a result of, step 5 of the ESR (strategy development).
wBCSD’s Guide to Corporate ecosystem valuation is a useful framework for conducting an ecosystem valuation study in step 5 of the 
ESR. The guide is a framework to help managers make better-informed business decisions by explicitly valuing both the costs of ecosys-
tem degradation and the benefits received from ecosystem services. It has five steps:
The Guide to Corporate ecosystem valuation can inform a number of business purposes, such as communicating the value of ecosystem 
services, comparing the costs and benefits of an investment in ecosystem restoration or protection, and identifying possible market values 
or revenue streams from an ecosystem service. Some companies have also used the guide to measure the societal value of ecosystem 
services in order to engage stakeholders and policymakers.
Box 19
   
step 5 and corporate ecosystem Valuation
Stage 1 — Scoping:
This stage helps a company 
define the scope for the valuation 
exercise, using a checklist of 
questions. Only brief responses 
are required, and the process may 
involve numerous iterations.
Stage 5 — Embedding:
The final stage is to embed 
the CEV approach within 
company processes and 
procedures.
Stage 4 — Application:
This stage involves companies 
using and communicating the 
valuation results to influence 
internal and external decision-
making.
Stage 3 — Valuation:
This stage involves the actual 
valuation, which may be qualitative, 
quantitative and/or monetary. It begins 
by fully defining the company aspect 
to be valued, and ends by subjecting 
the results to a sensitivity analysis.
Stage 2 — Planning:
This stage develops a suitable 
plan to undertake the valuation 
effectively. The plan should be 
more specific in terms of detail 
as compared to stage 1.
PREPARATION POST VALUATIONVALUATION
1
Scoping
3
Valuation
5
Embedding
4
Application
2
Planning
source: world Business council for sustainable development (wBcsd). 2011. Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation. online at: http://www.wbcsd.org.

resources 33
The ESR website (www.wri.org/ecosystems/esr) provides 
a number of tools and resources to help business managers, 
analysts, and consultants conduct a Corporate Ecosystem 
Services Review. Some key resources are listed below as well.
esr tools
Managers can download materials and tools designed 
specifically for the ESR, including:
•	 An electronic version of these guidelines in pdf format 
available in English, French, Spanish, Portuguese,  
Chinese, and Japanese
•	 A spreadsheet containing the Dependence and Impact 
Assessment Tool (see Box 10 on page 17 for details about 
the tool) available in English, French, Spanish, Chinese, 
and Japanese
•	 Short presentations to communicate the business case 
for an ESR, explain the five steps of the process, and 
build support for conducting a review
•	 Case studies on how companies are using the ESR and 
are responding to business risks and opportunities aris-
ing from their dependence and impact on ecosystems
•	 Other internet-based options for sharing ESR experiences 
and for obtaining answers to questions about the ESR
•	ESR training materials including videos, step-by-step 
PowerPoint presentations and exercises, and detailed 
ESR case studies.
scientific assessments
The website includes profiles and links to several scientific 
assessments that can be helpful when conducting the ecosystem 
service trends analysis (step 3), including:
•	 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which provides 
a state-of-the-art scientific audit of the condition and 
trends in the world’s ecosystems and ecosystem services, 
as well as a review of the drivers of ecosystem change
•	 Reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, which provide the latest scientific and technical 
assessments of human-induced climate change, including 
its observed and projected impacts 
on the world’s ecosystems and eco-
system services such as freshwater
•	 The Intergovernmental science-policy 
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services 
(IPBES) is designed to be an interface between the sci-
entific community and policy makers, and aims to build 
capacity for and strengthen the use of science in policy 
making. Like the IPCC, IPBES assessments could also 
be very valuable to business.
economic valuation 
The website includes information and links regarding 
economic valuation of ecosystem services, including:
•	The Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation, a process 
to help managers make better-informed business 
decisions by explicitly valuing both the costs of 
ecosystem degradation and the benefits received from 
ecosystem services.
•	The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Re­
port for Business is designed to draw attention to 
the global economic benefits of biodiversity and 
ecosystem services, to highlight the growing costs of 
biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and to 
draw together expertise from the fields of science, 
economics, and policy. 
•	Other ecosystem service valuation tools can 
sometimes be used to help quantify the physical 
quantity and quality of ecosystem services, their 
location, and their economic value. Tools—including 
InVEST, ARIES, ATEAM, EcoMetrix, and the 
Ecosystem Portfolio Model, among others—are 
continually being tested and refined. Managers 
should be sure to understand the assumptions 
underlying the models they use and check results 
against the company’s specific circumstances.
CHAPTER
Resources

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review
Issue-specific tools
The website includes descriptions and links to a number 
of tools and resources that may assist with in-depth analysis 
of particular ecosystem services, drivers of ecosystem change, 
or business strategies to manage risks and opportunities. The 
website provides guidance on when these tools may be most 
relevant in the ESR process.
The website also includes guidance on incorporating eco-
system services into business performance systems, such as:
•	Nature in Performance (2012), a WRI report that pro-
vides initial guidance on how to incorporate ecosystem 
services into corporate environmental management, 
reporting, and due diligence systems. 
•	The Global Reporting Initiative’s Approach for Reporting 
on Ecosystem Services (2011), which provides guidance 
on incorporating ecosystem services into an organiza-
tion’s performance disclosure.
sector-specific tools
The website also provides an overview and links to tools 
and resources that may help companies in particular industries 
assess their dependence and impact on ecosystems, business 
risks and opportunities, and strategies for managing them. 
It identifies the ESR steps where these tools may provide the 
most assistance.
The resources website will be updated as new support 
tools become available.
professional networks 
There are also several professional networks focusing on 
business and ecosystem services that connect managers, con-
sultants, and ecosystem experts to share lessons learned and 
promote collaboration. For example: 
•	The Ecosystem Services Experts Directory includes 
a wide range of noted experts on ecosystems and 
ecosystem function willing to provide specific guidance 
on particular ecosystem trends or environmental 
management practices. 
34

background 35
1 
Perrot-Maître, D. 2006. The Vittel Payments for Ecosystem 
Services: A “Perfect” PES Case? London: International Insti-
tute for Environment and Development.
2
 Malavasi, E.O. and J. Kellenberg. 2003. Program for Pay­
ments for Ecological Services in Costa Rica. Available at: http://
www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcec/special/lr_ortiz_kellenberg_ext.pdf
3
 ISIS. 2004. Is Biodiversity a Material Risk for Companies? 
London: ISIS Asset Management plc.
4 
Maughan, R. “Potlatch Corp. to Charge Fees for Access to 
N. Idaho Forests” Seattle Post­Intelligencer. October 4, 2006.
5
 Bayon, R. “Making Money in Environmental Derivatives” 
The Milken Institute Review. March 1, 2002; Powicki, C.R. 
“Eco-Solutions Plays Key Role in Landmark Conservation 
Deal.” EPRI Journal Online. February 25, 2002; Lashley, D. 
2003. Market Based Case Studies Involving Eco­Asset Manage­
ment On Non­Mined Lands. GreenVest LLC.
6 
For more information about the Millennium Ecosystem 
Assessment, see www.maweb.org.
7
 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and 
Human Well­being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
8 
The other ecosystem service rated as “enhanced” is global 
climate regulation (carbon sequestration). According to the 
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, forests and soils were a 
net source of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) emissions over the past 
two centuries. Approximately 40 percent of CO
2
 emissions 
came from land use change, primarily through deforestation, 
while terrestrial ecosystems absorbed approximately only a 
third of all CO
2
 emissions during that time period. During 
the 1980s and 1990s, however, terrestrial ecosystems were 
a net CO
2
 sink. They were the source of about 20 percent 
of CO
2
 emissions—fossil fuels accounted for the rest—but 
absorbed approximately a third of total CO
2
 emissions dur-
ing that time period. Therefore, the ability of ecosystems to 
sequester carbon in the 1980s and 1990s was “enhanced” 
relative to the past two centuries. Nevertheless, deforesta-
tion is still a major source of man-made CO
2
 emissions and 
efforts to curb deforestation would help reduce greenhouse 
gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Source: Millennium 
Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbe­
ing: Current State and Trends. Washington, DC: Island Press.
9
 United Nations. 2007. World Population Prospects –The 
2006 Revision: Executive Summary. New York: United Na-
tions, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Popula-
tion Division.
10
 See Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems 
and Human Well­being: Opportunities and Challenges for Busi­
ness and Industry. Washington, DC: World Resources Insti-
tute; ISIS. 2004. Is Biodiversity a Material Risk for Companies? 
London: ISIS Asset Management plc.
11
 For guidance on how to measure corporate greenhouse 
gas emissions, see World Resources Institute and WBCSD. 
2004. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol: A Corporate Accounting 
and Reporting Standard (Revised Edition). Washington, DC: 
World Resources Institute and WBCSD.
12
 World Business Council for Sustainable Development 
(WBCSD). 2011. Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation. 
Available at: http://www.wbcsd.org.
13
 Buchmann, S.L. and G.P. Nabhan. 1996. The Forgotten 
Pollinators. Washington, DC: Island Press.
14
 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 
2007. Climate Change 2007 – Impacts, Adaptation and Vul­
nerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth 
Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
15
 Dead zones are vast regions of oxygen-depleted waters that 
stress aquatic ecosystems. Dead zones can lead to fish kills, 
ecosystem collapse, and economic damage to shellfish, recre-
ational fishing, and other industries.
16
 United States Department of Agriculture. National 
Agriculture Library, National Invasive Species Information 
Center. Available at: http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/
animals/eab.shtml; The Nature Conservancy. Available at: 
http://www.nature.org/earth/grasslands/coverstory.html; 
Hungarian Ministry of Environmental Protection and Water 
Resources. 2003. Invasive Alien Species in Hungary. Budapest; 
The World Conservation Union. Global Invasive Species Da-
tabase. Available at: http://www.issg.org/database/. Cornell 
University estimates that non-native invasive species cause 
economic losses of $1.4 trillion per year worldwide, $137 
billion in the United States alone, and $49 billion in Brazil 
alone. Source: Environmental News Service. 2005. “Brazil 
Struggles to Control Invasive Animals and Plants.” October 
6, 2005. Available at: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/
oct2005/2005-10-06-07.asp
Notes
NOTES

The CorporaTe eCosysTem serviCes review36
17
 Global Environmental Management Initiative. “Anheuser-
Busch Inc.—Exploring Water Connections Along the Supply 
Chain.” Case study for module 1 of Connecting the Drops 
Toward Creative Water Strategies—A Water Sustainability Tool. 
Available at: http://www.gemi.org/water/anheuser.htm
18
 International Rivers. 2001. Dams in the Cordillera. Avail-
able at: http://internationalrivers.org/files/021214.corddams.
pdf
19
 Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America, 
National Research Council. 2007. Status of Pollinators in 
North America. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.
php?record_id=11761
20
 Potter, K. W. 1994. “Estimating Potential Reduction Flood 
Benefits of Restored Wetlands.” Water Resources Update, 
University Council on Water Resources 97: 34-38; U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. 2006. Wetlands: Protecting Life 
and Property from Flooding. EPA843-F-06-001. According to 
the Environmental Protection Agency, restoring the 100-
year flood zone of the upper Mississippi five-state watershed 
would allow ecosystems to store an additional 39 million 
acre-feet of floodwater—the volume of the Great Flood of 
1993—and save more than $16 billion in projected flood 
damage costs.
21
 Feder, B.J. “Winners as Well as Losers in the Great Flood 
of ’93.” New York Times. August 15, 1993.
22
 Miranda-da-Cruz, S. 1997. “Success Stories from Latin 
America and the Caribbean: Rationalization of Water Use at 
a Sugar Mill.” Vienna: United Nations, Industrial Develop-
ment Organization. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/
earthsummit/mex.htm
23
 Business for Social Responsibility. 2003. “Water Issues 
Issue Brief.” Available at: http://www.bsr.org/insight/issue-
brief-details.cfm?DocumentID=49620#leadership (Accessed 
February 15, 2008.)
24
 Global Environmental Management Initiative. “DuPont: 
Managing Strategic Risk through Innovative Wastewater 
Treatment.” Available at: http://www.gemi.org/water/du-
pont.htm
25 
Durst, P.B., T.R. Waggener, T. Enters, and T.L. Cheng, 
eds. 2001. Forests Out of Bounds: Impacts and Effectiveness 
of Logging Bans in Natural Forests in Asia­Pacific. Bangkok, 
Thailand: Food and Agricultural Organization, Regional Of-
fice for Asia and the Pacific.
26
 BBC. “Fish Quotas Aim to Halt Decline.” December 
19, 2003. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/eu-
rope/3333395.stm
27
 Thompson, D. “Union Pacific To Pay $102 Million for 
Forest Fire.” The New York Sun. July 22, 2008.
28
 Miranda-da-Cruz, S. 1997. “Success Stories from Latin 
America and the Caribbean: Rationalization of Water Use at 
a Sugar Mill.” Vienna: United Nations, Industrial Develop-
ment Organization. Available at: http://www.un.org/esa/
earthsummit/mex.htm
29
 BBC. “Cola Companies Told to Quit India.” January 
20, 2005. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_
asia/4192569.stm
30
 ISIS. 2004. Is Biodiversity a Material Risk for Companies? 
London: ISIS Asset Management plc.
31 
Amazon Watch. “ChevronTexaco Faces Trial in Ecuador for 
Rainforest Destruction.” May 6, 2003. Available at: http://
www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=6691; Forero, J. “Texaco 
Goes on Trial in Ecuador Pollution Case.” The New York 
Times. October 23, 2003. Available at: http://www.nytimes.
com/2003/10/23/business/texaco-goes-on-trial-in-ecuador-
pollution-case.html
32
 Finn, M., G. Rahl, and W. Rowe, Jr. 2006. Unrecognized 
Assets: Think of Your Land, Water, and Pollution Controls as 
Sources of Value, not as Costs. Strategy + Business.
33 
SET Corporation.  “Alfa Laval to Launch Ballast Water 
Treatment System Today.” Press release. December 15, 
2006. Available at: http://www.setcorp.ru/main/pressrelease.
phtml?news_id=13498&language=english
34
 Hodge, A. “Tough Bans to Save Reef—Fishermen and 
Shipping Shut Out.” The Australian, NSW Country Addi-
tion. June 2, 2003; BBC. Australia Life-line for Barrier Reef.” 
December 3, 2003. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/
asia-pacific/3286707.stm
35 
Preston, J. “Home Depot Says It Aims to Save Ancient For-
ests.” Reuters. August 26, 1999; Hodson, C. “Plywood with 
a Pedigree.” CNN.com. Available at: http://www.rainfor-
estrelief.org/documents/CNN_on_Lauan_Logging.pdf
Notes

resources 37
36
 Willard, B. 2002. The Sustainability Advantage: Seven 
Business Case Benefits of a Triple Bottom Line. Gabriola Island, 
British Columbia: New Society Publishers.
37
 Esty, D. and A. Winston. 2006. Green to Gold. New Haven 
and London: Yale University Press.
38
 Wine Business Monthly. “Top 30 U.S. Wine Companies 
of 2004.” February 2005. Available at: http://www.wine-
business.com/wbm/?go=getArticle&dataId=36564; Fetzer 
Vineyards. 2007. Sustainability Brochure. Available at: http://
www.fetzer.com/sustainability.aspx
39
 ISIS. 2004. Is Biodiversity a Material Risk for Companies? 
London: ISIS Asset Management plc.
40
 Center for Environmental Leadership in Business. “Wal-
Mart Commits to Sustainable Seafood Procurement.” July 
20, 2006. Available at: http://www.conservation.org/sites/
celb/fmg/articles/Pages/072006_walmart_commits_to_sus-
tainable_seafood_procurement.aspx. The Global Aquaculture 
Alliance (GAA) is an international, nonprofit trade associa-
tion dedicated to advancing environmentally and socially 
responsible aquaculture. GAA promotes Best Aquaculture 
Practices standards and facility certification for sustainable 
aquaculture. For more information, visit www.gaalliance.org.
41
 Wal-Mart Stores. “Wal-Mart Takes Lead On Support-
ing Sustainable Fisheries.” February 3, 2006. Available at: 
http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/5638.aspx. The 
Marine Stewardship Council is an international nonprofit 
organization that was set up in 1997 to promote solutions to 
the problem of overfishing. The MSC runs the only widely 
recognized environmental certification and eco-labeling 
scheme for wild capture fisheries. For more information, visit 
www.msc.org.
42
 AgraQuest. “AgraQuest Introduces Serenade® Garden 
Concentrate.” Press release. January 31, 2005. Available at: 
http://www.agraquest.com/news-media/archived.html (Ac-
cessed February 15, 2008.)
43
 Available at: http://www.halma.com/our-companies/key-
products.aspx
44
 ABN AMRO. 2001. ABN AMRO Risk Policies: Forestry 
and Tree Plantations. Amsterdam: ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
45
 Marine Stewardship Council. Annual Report 2006­07. 
Available at: http://eng.msc.org
46
 Finn, M., G. Rahl, and W. Rowe, Jr. 2006. Unrecognized 
Assets: Think of Your Land, Water, and Pollution Controls as 
Sources of Value, not as Costs. Strategy + Business.
47 
Kenny, A. “Chevron Opens Mitigation Bank in 
Paradis(e).” Katoomba Group. Available at: http://ecosys-
temmarketplace.com/pages/article.news.php?component_
id=4255&component_version_id=6132&language_id=12
48
 Landers, R. “Timber Companies Charging Fees.” Spokes­
manReview.com. September 13, 2007. Available at: http://
www.spokesman.com/stories/2007/sep/13/timber-compa-
nies-charging-fees/
49
 International Finance Corporation. 2011. Performance Stan­
dard 6 – V2 Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Manage­
ment of Living Natural Resources. Available at: http://www.ifc.
org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/Content/Performance Standard6
50
 ABN AMRO. 2001. ABN AMRO Risk Policies: Forestry 
and Tree Plantations. Amsterdam: ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
51
 Kerschner, E.M. and M. Geraghty. 2008. Water Worries. 
New York: Citigroup Global Markets.
52
 Goldman Sachs. 2005. “Environmental Policy Frame-
work.” Available at: http://www2.goldmansachs.com/
53
 ISIS. 2004. Is Biodiversity a Material Risk for Companies? 
London: ISIS Asset Management plc.
54
 Perrot-Maître, D. 2006. The Vittel Payments for Ecosystem 
Services: A “Perfect” PES Case? London: International Insti-
tute for Environment and Development.
55 
Marine Stewardship Council. “History of MSC.” Available 
at: http://www.msc.org/html/content_470.htm. (Accessed 
February 15, 2008.)
56
 Malavasi, E.O. and J. Kellenberg. 2003. Program for Pay­
ments for Ecological Services in Costa Rica. Available at: http://
www2.gsu.edu/~wwwcec/special/lr_ortiz_kellenberg_ext.pdf
57
  United Nations Global Compact. “CEOs Issue Global 
Call to Action on Water Crisis.” Press release. July 6, 2007. 
Available at: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/NewsAndE-
vents/news_archives/2007_07_05e.html
NOTES

ABOUT WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE
The World Resources Institute (WRI) is an environmental think tank that goes beyond research to create practical ways  
to protect the Earth and improve people’s lives. Our mission is to move human society to live in ways that protect Earth’s 
environment for current and future generations. Our program meets global challenges by using knowledge to catalyze public 
and private action to:
•	 Reverse damage to ecosystems. We protect the capacity of ecosystems to sustain life and prosperity.
•	 Expand participation in environmental decisions. We collaborate with partners worldwide to increase people’s access to 
information and influence over decisions about natural resources.
•	 Avert dangerous climate change. We promote public and private action to ensure a safe climate and sound world economy.
•	 Increase prosperity while improving the environment. We engage the private sector to grow while improving environmental 
and community well-being.
For more information, visit www.wri.org
ABOUT WORLD BUSINESS COUNCIL FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
The World Business Council for Sustainable Development is a CEO-led organization of forward-thinking companies that gal-
vanizes the global business community to create a sustainable future for business, society and the environment. Together with 
its members, the council applies its respected thought leadership and effective advocacy to generate constructive solutions and 
take shared action. Leveraging its strong relationships with stakeholders as the leading advocate for business, the council helps 
drive debate and policy change in favor of sustainable development solutions. 
The WBCSD provides a forum for its 200 member companies - who represent all business sectors, all continents and a com-
bined revenue of more than $7 trillion - to share best practices on sustainable development issues and to develop innovative 
tools that change the status quo. The Council also benefits from a network of 60 national and regional business councils and 
partner organizations, a majority of which are based in developing countries.
www.wbcsd.org
ABOUT MERIDIAN INSTITUTE
The Meridian Institute helps decision-makers and diverse stakeholders solve some of society’s most contentious public policy 
issues. Meridian works with all involved parties to create the right conditions for creative, practical solutions, and mutually 
beneficial agreements that can be effectively implemented. Meridian’s experience encompasses environment, natural resources, 
agriculture, sustainability, science and technology, and security. We work at the local, national, and international levels. 
For more information, visit www.merid.org
For more information about the corporate ecosystem services review, visit www.wri.org/ecosystems/esr
Copyright © World Resources Institute
January 2012, update of version 1.0 (March 2008)
ISBN 978-1-56973-785-9
Printed in USA
Suggested citation: Hanson, C., J. Ranganathan, C. Iceland, and J. Finisdore. 2012. The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for 
Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change. Version 2.0. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.

world resources institute – wri
10 G Street, NE (Suite 800), Washington DC 20002, United States
Tel: +1 202 729 76 00, Fax: +1 202 729 76 10 
Web: www.wri.org 
meridian institute
PO Box 1829, 105 Village Place, Dillon CO 80435, United States
Tel: +1 888 775 83 40, Fax: +1 970 513 83 48 
Web: www.merid.org
 
world Business Council for sustainable Development – wBCsD
4, chemin de Conches, 1231 Conches-Geneva, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 839 31 00, Fax: +41 22 839 31 31 
Web: www.wbcsd.org ISBN-978-1-56973-785-9