Einde inhoudsopgave
Corporate Social Responsibility (IVOR nr. 77) 2010/12.2.2.2
12.2.2.2 Integrated legislation and private regulation
Mr. T.E. Lambooy, datum 17-11-2010
- Datum
17-11-2010
- Auteur
Mr. T.E. Lambooy
- JCDI
JCDI:ADS367021:1
- Vakgebied(en)
Ondernemingsrecht (V)
Voetnoten
Voetnoten
It is the understanding that the ongoing review of 'The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity' (TEEB) will make policy recommendations that may go some way to addressing the existing regulatory gap. The final results of the TEEB study will be presented during the CBD Conference of the Parties in 2010 (CBD COP-10). The TEEB study was initiated by the European Commission and the German Federal Ministry for the Environment in 2007. The study evaluates the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the associated decline in ecosystem services worldwide, and comparing them with the costs of effective conservation and sustainable use. It is intended that it will sharpen awareness as to the value of biodiversity and ecosystem services and facilitate the development of cost-effective policy responses. See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics, accessed on 17 September 2009.
This could for instance be realised by requiring companies to report on the GRI G3 standards (including the biodiversity theme indicators), e.g. on a 'comply or explain' basis. In the Netherlands this could for example be realised through Article 2:391(1), by requiring to report in conformity with the GRI G3 as part of the annual report (or by a reference in a separate sustainability report). Another option would be through Article 2:391(5): to designate the GRI G3 as a code of conduct that has to be applied or explained. Danish and Swedish legislation can be consulted as a reference, as can Norwegian and Canadian policy documents. The French NRE (Nouvelles Regulations Economiques) also includes the mandatory disclosure of biodiversity impacts (section 116).
Although voluntary systems that sell biodiversity credits are growing in volume, they are generally not yet considered to be eligible by asset managers. The reasons for this are the perceived high risks of maintaining their value. Furthermore, these systems are mainly local. For example, New Forests, a Sydney-based firm, has established the 'Malua Wildlife Habitat Conservation Bank' in Malaysia as an attempt to raise funds for rainforest conservation. They market ' Biodiversity Conservation Certificates' to interested parties. Organisations can be interested in these certificates because investing in biodiversity offsets can help to support their brand image, and at the same time provide a way to engage in an innovative rainforest conservation project. See: www.maluabiobank.com, accessed on 17 September 2009.
A parallel can be drawn with the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) discussions that are currently ongoing concerning greater disclosures of carbon exposure.
All interviewees seemed to be in favour of more concerted governmental action vis-à-vis biodiversity.1 Both mandatory disclosure by companies and mandatory biodiversity policies were frequently mentioned.2 Not everybody seems to be in favour of mandatory disclosure, because it would take the focus away from the business case. The argument is that eventually the investors should be the ones to reward the leaders and punish the laggards.
Other types of legislation mentioned concern the protection of BES, effectively enforced through penalties for non-compliance and related damages, and enhanced by introducing biodiversity-offset compensation schemes or credit systems. A valuation of biodiversity would be required to create an offset market.3 The majority of the interviewees were in favour of international regulation on compensation and biodiversity credits. Another idea came from one of the interviewed asset managers, suggesting that stock exchanges could require listed companies to provide more information on biodiversity impacts.4