The Implementation of Biodiversity Footprinting: Examining Supply Chains – Pharmaceutical Executive

Report on Corporate Biodiversity Accountability and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: The Regulatory and Strategic Imperative for SDG Alignment

An evolving global regulatory landscape, including the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the EU Biodiversity Strategy Plan for 2030, mandates that corporations address their ecological impacts. This aligns directly with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 14 (Life Below Water), and SDG 15 (Life on Land). Non-compliance presents significant financial and market risks, while transparent reporting on Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) principles offers strategic advantages. Proactive disclosure and integration of biodiversity metrics are core business capabilities that support long-term resilience and contribute to global sustainability targets.

• Enhanced stakeholder trust and reputational strength.
• Stronger integration of ESG principles into business operations, supporting SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
• Early identification of nature-related risks and strategic opportunities, crucial for achieving SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure).
• Improved access to green finance and sustainability-linked investment vehicles.

Supply Chain Biodiversity Footprints: A Tool for Measuring SDG Impact

While carbon accounting is established, it fails to capture the full scope of ecological impact. Supply Chain Biodiversity Footprinting (SCBF) provides a comprehensive methodology to assess upstream biodiversity impacts across a product’s lifecycle. This is essential for businesses to accurately report on their contributions to SDG 14 and SDG 15.

Methodology and Metrics

SCBF utilizes Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) models to evaluate how business activities contribute to environmental pressures like habitat destruction, climate change, and pollution. The key metric, species.yr, quantifies the potential loss of species diversity annually due to supply chain activities, providing a direct measure of impact on global biodiversity. This methodology quantifies the probability of global species extinction linked to business operations, offering a science-based tool for corporate accountability and SDG reporting.

Case Study: Bespak’s Application of SCBF for SDG Contribution

Bespak, a contract development and manufacturing business, has implemented SCBF assessments to understand and mitigate its ecological footprint, demonstrating a commitment to SDG 12. The assessments identified the primary drivers of biodiversity impact across its UK sites.

Key Findings and SDG Linkages

1. Terrestrial Climate Change: Directly impacts SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land) by altering habitat conditions.
2. Land Use Conversion: The transformation of natural landscapes for supply chain inputs undermines SDG 15.
3. Freshwater Ecotoxicity: The release of harmful substances into aquatic systems negatively affects SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 14 (Life Below Water).

Mitigation Strategies and Long-Term Planning

In response, Bespak is implementing a site-specific mitigation strategy aligned with the “Avoid, Minimize, Restore, Offset” hierarchy. This includes engaging suppliers on sustainable sourcing and redesigning inputs to reduce land use and pollution. By translating complex environmental data into actionable insights, Bespak embeds biodiversity considerations into its procurement and sustainability planning, creating a forward-looking approach to corporate accountability that aligns with global frameworks and stakeholder expectations for achieving the SDGs.

Aligning with Global Frameworks to Advance the SDGs

SCBF provides a structured, science-based approach for businesses to meet obligations under major biodiversity and ESG frameworks. This alignment is critical for providing credible data to support regulatory compliance and demonstrate progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.

• EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): SCBF provides the data needed to report on ecosystem impacts under Article E4.
• EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: The methodology helps companies align their actions with continental conservation goals.

By linking operational impacts to global goals, SCBF facilitates regulatory compliance, reduces risk, and unlocks opportunities such as improved access to green finance and enhanced supply chain resilience, thereby supporting SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).

The Role of Pharmaceutical Suppliers in Achieving SDG 3 and SDG 12

The pharmaceutical industry’s complex global supply chains are often where biodiversity impacts are most concentrated. Risks originate from practices such as overharvesting of medicinal plants, land-use change for raw material cultivation, and wastewater discharges. Addressing these upstream impacts is vital for ensuring the sustainability of the sector, which is foundational to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and requires a collaborative approach to achieve SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

Call to Action: A Roadmap for Proactive Biodiversity Management

To embed biodiversity into business strategy and contribute meaningfully to the SDGs, pharmaceutical businesses should adopt a structured, proactive approach.

1. Conduct SCBF Assessments: Quantify and identify biodiversity hotspots within the supply chain to establish a baseline.
2. Set Science-Based Targets: Develop measurable targets for reducing biodiversity impacts, aligned with global goals like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
3. Engage Suppliers: Collaborate with suppliers to promote sustainable sourcing, traceability, and regenerative practices, fostering partnerships as outlined in SDG 17.
4. Integrate and Disclose: Embed biodiversity considerations into corporate governance and report progress transparently using frameworks like the CSRD.

By implementing these steps, pharmaceutical companies can move beyond compliance to actively contribute to ecosystem protection and the broader Sustainable Development Agenda.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The article’s core theme is promoting corporate responsibility within the pharmaceutical industry’s supply chain. It emphasizes the need for companies to understand and reduce their ecological footprint through methodologies like the Supply Chain Biodiversity Footprint (SCBF) and to report on their impacts through frameworks like the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) principles.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The article explicitly identifies “terrestrial climate change” as a primary driver of biodiversity impact in its case study. It discusses how climate change alters habitats and species viability, directly linking corporate supply chain activities to climate-related environmental degradation.
• SDG 14: Life Below Water: The issue of “freshwater ecotoxicity, resulting from the release of harmful substances into aquatic systems via production processes” is highlighted. This pollution from land-based industrial activities directly impacts aquatic ecosystems, which is a key concern of SDG 14.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire discussion revolves around measuring, mitigating, and reporting on biodiversity loss. The text points to key drivers like “habitat destruction,” “land use conversion,” and the “overharvesting of medicinal plants” as major threats to terrestrial ecosystems originating from pharmaceutical supply chains.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article advocates for a “collaborative, systemic approach to sustainability” and calls for engaging with “high-impact suppliers.” It highlights the importance of aligning with global frameworks and fostering partnerships across the value chain to address biodiversity impacts that occur beyond a single company’s direct control.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):
  • Target 12.6: “Encourage companies, especially large and transnational companies, to adopt sustainable practices and to integrate sustainability information into their reporting cycle.” The article directly supports this by discussing the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the value of embedding biodiversity into ESG reporting, as exemplified by companies like GSK and Roche. The SCBF methodology is presented as a tool to generate this sustainability information.
• Under SDG 13 (Climate Action):
  • Target 13.2: “Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning.” The article discusses this at a corporate level, where companies like Bespak integrate mitigation strategies for climate-change-driven biodiversity loss into their business operations and long-term sustainability planning.
• Under SDG 14 (Life Below Water):
  • Target 14.1: “By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities…” The article’s identification of “freshwater ecotoxicity” from production processes as a key driver of biodiversity loss directly relates to this target, as industrial wastewater and pollution from land-based activities are major sources of marine pollution.
• Under SDG 15 (Life on Land):
  • Target 15.5: “Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats, halt the loss of biodiversity and, by 2020, protect and prevent the extinction of threatened species.” The article’s entire premise is built around this target. It introduces the SCBF as a method to quantify impacts like “land use conversion” and “habitat destruction” and discusses mitigation strategies to “halt the loss of biodiversity.”
  • Target 15.9: “By 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into… planning, development processes… and accounts.” The article promotes the corporate equivalent of this target by advocating for businesses to embed biodiversity considerations into their “procurement, compliance, and long-term sustainability planning” using tools like SCBF.
• Under SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals):
  • Target 17.17: “Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships…” The article calls for a “collaborative, systemic approach” and emphasizes “engaging high-impact suppliers” to address biodiversity risks across the entire value chain, reflecting the multi-stakeholder partnership model promoted by this target.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Explicit Indicator:
  • The article explicitly introduces the “species.yr metric,” which it defines as a measure of “the potential loss of species diversity due to supply chain activities over a year.” This metric directly quantifies the probability of global species extinction linked to business activities, serving as a powerful indicator for measuring progress towards SDG 15 targets (specifically 15.5).
• Implied Indicators:
  • Adoption of Sustainability Reporting: The article implies that the number of companies adopting and reporting under frameworks like the CSRD and integrating biodiversity into ESG disclosures is a key indicator of progress. This aligns with SDG Indicator 12.6.1 (“Number of companies publishing sustainability reports”). The mention of GSK and Roche as leaders serves as an example.
  • Implementation of SCBF Assessments: The use of the Supply Chain Biodiversity Footprint (SCBF) methodology itself can be seen as an indicator. The number of companies or sites (like Bespak’s two UK sites) that conduct such assessments indicates a commitment to measuring and managing biodiversity impacts.
  • Quantification of Impact Drivers: The article identifies and quantifies the primary drivers of biodiversity impact for Bespak: “Terrestrial climate change,” “Land use conversion,” and “Freshwater ecotoxicity.” The measured contribution of each of these drivers to the overall biodiversity footprint serves as a set of indicators to guide mitigation strategies.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: pharmexec.com