Barbara Dubach: As CEO at engageability and executive director at Innovate 4 Nature, Barbara brings decades of experience helping boards embed sustainability into corporate strategy, serving on initiatives like ESG4Boards to ensure nature has a seat at the table. 

Helle Bank Jørgensen: As founder of Competent Boards and coauthor of the TNFD guide for directors, Helle educates board members globally on ESG and nature-related risks, helping them lead with confidence in a changing world. 

Simon Berthoud: Through his work with Climate Alliance Switzerland and campaigns like the Initiative for a sustainable financial centre, Simon advocates for systemic shifts that hold boards accountable for aligning business with planetary boundaries.

‍Philipp Staudacher: Head of Portfolio at Innovate 4 Nature, he identifies nature-positive business models, typically among early-stage startups. He also lectures on innovative nature finance and is involved in an initiative called Millennials4Boards. 

‍‍

Panel Dialogue

‍

Philipp: Alright, let’s dive into the topic. We’ve heard “nature” mentioned as a theme, but that’s a broad term that can mean many different things. Simon, to ground us: when we speak about ‘nature’, what exactly are we referring to and how would you describe the current state of nature in Switzerland today?

Simon:  So indeed, I’m going to try to set the stage a little bit: what nature means and sharing some insights on the status of nature in Switzerland, which is spoiler alert not doing so well, as you might expect. But it’s still important. 

So, let’s start by defining nature. Nature is basically all living things: plants, animals, microorganisms plus their physical environment. That means water, air, land, climate. It basically includes all nine planetary boundaries that help keep the planet from going off track. 

Why we like talking about nature is that it’s much more comprehensive than just talking about climate, which is a sub-element of nature, just like biodiversity, which is also kind of a sub-element. So I mentioned those two parts: the physical environment and the living things. So first, talking about the physical environment: 

1. Switzerland has already warmed by 2.9°C compared to pre-industrial levels that’s nearly twice the global average.
2. Our lakes are heating up even faster, four times faster than the oceans. That includes major lakes like Lake Zurich and Lake Geneva, which are also significant freshwater reserves. Lake Geneva, in particular, hasn’t experienced a full winter mixing for the 13th consecutive year. Normally, when a lake’s temperature equalizes from top to bottom, the water can fully mix, bringing oxygen down to the depths. That process simply hasn’t happened, year after year.
3. And of course, we can’t talk about Switzerland without mentioning the glaciers. In just 25 years, Swiss glaciers have lost 38% of their volume. Even more alarming, in the past month alone, some glaciers have shrunk by 10 centimeters.

All of this is driven, unsurprisingly, by global warming. Of the temperature increase, 2.3°C is directly linked to fossil fuel emissions, despite international agreements and repeated pledges from both governments and corporations.

Now, looking at the living things: 

1. Globally, we’ve seen a devastating collapse in wildlife. In the last 50 years, 73% of animal populations not species, but total population sizes have vanished. That means nearly three-quarters of all living animal life on Earth has disappeared.
2. In Switzerland, the picture isn’t much better. About 35% of all animal, plant, and fungal species are now at risk of extinction. Among OECD countries, Switzerland is one of the most affected.

What can I say without completely destroying the mood in the room?

Maybe something important, especially since we’ve been talking about life on Earth. While climate change is a major factor, it’s not the main driver of biodiversity loss neither globally nor here in Switzerland. Globally, the biggest causes are agriculture especially to feed livestock and resource extraction. In Switzerland, it’s primarily habitat destruction. New housing developments, roads, and infrastructure projects fragment ecosystems, leaving many species without enough space to migrate or thrive.

There’s even a surprising detail: roads interfere with bird communication. The noise overlaps with the frequencies birds use, making it harder for them to connect with each other an impact most people never consider.

Now, is it really surprising we’ve reached this point? Honestly, no. In Switzerland, we have politicians who still don’t believe in science. To put it in numbers: 62 out of 200 members of Parliament belong to the SVP [Schweizerische Volkspartei], and their party president, in 2024, said in German that blaming humans for climate change is a “modern witch hunt.” Maybe he believes in climate change now, because he can see what’s happening out his window. But he still doesn’t accept that humans are the cause.

The second, deeper issue which we’ll explore later is our economic system. It’s built on the idea of infinite growth, and that’s at the core of many of these environmental challenges. So yes, that was my long answer on the state of nature.

Philipp: I’m not sure we should even keep talking after that. You just painted a picture of a real polycrisis, right? But it’s not the kind of crisis we usually see in the headlines at least not this year. You mentioned that 2025 brings a new layer of crisis, especially politically and economically. So I have a question for you, Barbara: When a political or economic crisis hits, it’s often sustainability that’s first to be sacrificed. So what do you think it will take to keep nature and planetary health on the agenda, even when the pressure is on and other priorities start to dominate?

Barbara: When I look outside, I’m honestly amazed that so many people are here tonight. I remember, was it six years ago, when Helle and I sat at Zurich Airport and said: “We want to bring sustainability to the board level.” Helle was very successful with Confident Boards. In Switzerland, we were less successful, and that was before this polycrisis really started. So getting sustainability onto the board agenda has always been challenging here.

We’ve tried different approaches: coaching, trainings, and now ESG4Boards. We can easily find people interested in becoming board members. But actually getting a seat on a board? That’s much harder.

There are many reasons for that. But fundamentally, in Switzerland, boards have a fiduciary duty. They must sign off on sustainability reports, so in theory, they should have this expertise. In practice, though, the know-how is dispersed, which is partly why progress is slow.

Still, I see an opportunity. After nearly 30 years in this field, I agree with what Saskia [Günther] said earlier: we have to view this as an opportunity to do better. 

That’s why we launched Innovate 4 Nature, to highlight solutions that help companies make their value chains more resilient. We just completed our second call for applications, and now we are reviewing 400+ nature-positive solutions ideas that could genuinely shift business models and systems.

We need to act on different levels. Regulation is key. As an environmental economist, I always say: it’s not just about economic growth, the real issue is that we fail to internalize external costs. That remains one of the biggest systemic gaps.

At the board level, it’s a duty of care but also a matter of urgency. You mentioned the state of nature. Just two weeks ago, Johan Rockström said we may have only two years left in our climate budget. So despite wars, elections, and political shifts, we must act now. We need companies to ask:

‍How can we build resilience? How can we become regenerative? That’s where the future lies. I’m encouraged by the people in this room tonight. And I hope we can move this forward together.

At ESG4Boards, our goal is clear: that 80% of companies integrate ESG into their core strategy.

Philipp: You just mentioned the opportunities and I think that’s something we often overlook when we talk about the role of boards. Too often, the focus is just on managing risks. Even with ESG4Boards, ESG is still typically framed as a risk lens. So Helle, my question for you is how can we help boards move beyond just risk management and start seeing the opportunities in ESG? Opportunities for innovation, long-term value, and business success?

Helle: Well, first of all, thank you very much for inviting me. And I have to start with one: Pocahontas.

There’s something about mindset. The mindset of directors. The mindset of all of us. How do we look at the world? Do we look to explore or do we look to exploit? Do we approach things by saying, “I need to own that”, or do we think, like indigenous communities going back to Pocahontas “I’m giving you a gift, and you are to pass it on”?

If you think about family-owned businesses, they don’t just think in quarters they think in generations. So how do we bring that kind of mindset into boardrooms?

Yes, seven years ago I started Competent Boards. We’ve now trained board directors and executives from 58 countries, we’ve upskilled, educated, call it what you will. But here’s the thing and I say this with all my years in sustainability: We’re still, mostly, talking to the converted. Let’s be honest. Anyone here who doesn’t think sustainability is important? Do you dare raise your hand?

That’s the issue. We need other people in the room. That’s what I’m trying to do build competencies and capabilities within boardrooms and executive teams.

Because something I’ve said for years is this: How can you make informed decisions if you’re not informed?

Right now, there are so many decisions being made without nature in the room. And yet, some companies are actually making nature a board member. As a lawyer and yes, I’m also a business lawyer and an accountant (please don’t throw tomatoes at me!) I know we can’t rely on just one person for these topics.

It’s like saying, “You know AI, so you’re the AI person,” or “You know everything about cyber,” or “You’re the geopolitics expert.” That’s not how a board should work.

We need to build the whole board so that everyone can say: “How do we understand this? Can we have a conversation about it?”

Because the board’s role isn’t to sit and dictate. It’s to ask the right questions. And you can’t ask good questions if you don’t understand the topic. One last thing. Since we’re talking about boards and companies: we were recently acquired by Board Intelligence. So now we’re going from being competent to being intelligent. I now have the joy of leading globally.

A few weeks ago, I was in Washington D.C., talking to Congress, mostly men. And I had my new business cards with me. Three different colors. I expected most of them to pick the red one but they didn’t. They chose the green one. Because at the end of the day, we all want clean water, clean air. It’s really about the basics. It’s about what you want to leave behind for your children. And when your child comes home and says: “Daddy, they said at school your company is destroying my future… is that true?” That’s the conversation we’re heading toward. 

So yes, we need knowledge. But we also need mindset. We need heart.

Before anything comes out of your mouth, ask yourself: What would nature say? What does your heart say? What would the next generation say?

That’s why I also suggest leaving an empty chair at the boardroom table, a chair that represents future generations. You don’t need someone physically sitting in it, but you do need to ask: “What would they say if they were here?”

Philipp: It’s the next generation or in sustainability, we sometimes talk about the next seven generations. That’s way beyond my horizon. I don’t even know seven generations back in my own family but maybe some of you do. You also mentioned that in the boardroom, you need to make informed decisions, and that you’re trying to achieve a goal. Traditionally, that goal has been returns, or value that’s tied to growth and that’s what drives most organizations. Now I want to turn to Simon, because you mentioned earlier that the kind of growth we see in our economy is actually fueling biodiversity loss. Maybe you could outline for us: What are some alternative metrics or models that could help both companies and the planet move toward planetary health?

Simon: I think that’s the inconvenient truth when we talk about climate and biodiversity loss it’s really about economic growth. We live in an economy that fundamentally relies on growth. Every international company is driven by one main goal: increase profit. And there are basically only two ways to do that reduce costs or increase revenue.

If you do basic math, you realize you can only reduce costs so far. But revenue growth has no theoretical limit. To grow revenue, though, you need to produce more goods, more services which leads to more CO₂ emissions and more resource extraction.

What’s interesting is that governments also benefit from growth. They collect more taxes when businesses grow, so they support growth through subsidies, infrastructure investments, and public contracts. All of this reinforces itself. At that level, it seems like everyone’s benefiting... everyone except nature.

I brought a graph with me that illustrates this:

It shows three lines:

• The orange line is global GDP.
• The dotted green line is CO₂ emissions from fossil fuels and industry.
• The blue line is the material footprint.

We’re starting to see a bit of decoupling between GDP and CO₂ emissions, which is encouraging. It suggests we can generate more revenue without proportionally increasing emissions. But there’s no decoupling with the material footprint. Every increase in GDP still means more resource extraction. This isn’t just my opinion. In 2020, 16 authors conducted the largest literature review on the connection between GDP, CO₂, and resource use. They analyzed 835 peer-reviewed studies, and their conclusion was clear: Large, rapid, absolute reductions in fossil fuel use and resource extraction cannot be achieved through the rates of decoupling we’ve observed.

In other words: If we keep growing the way we are now, we won’t hit our climate or resource targets no matter how efficient we become.

So we need to talk about sufficiency measures and enforce absolute reduction targets. Call it what you want: post-growth, degrowth, or something else but the message is: We need to move beyond growth.

Now, I get it people get nervous when we say that. What about employment? What about developing countries? Well, we need to think globally. Some countries will still need to grow. But others like Switzerland don’t need further growth.

In fact, a 2023 report by the UN Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights said that GDP growth is not a precondition for advancing human rights, reducing poverty, or tackling inequality. That’s key: We don’t need growth to meet human needs.

Now, to answer the second part of your question how do we get there?

First, at the systemic level, we need to rethink our metrics. GDP is probably the most broken metric out there. If you cut down all the trees in Switzerland tomorrow, GDP would rise but obviously, no one wants that. We need better measures, like the Genuine Progress Indicator, which includes negative externalities like pollution, crime, inequality, and so on.

Then there’s the company level and that’s more relevant for tonight. We need to question the quest for growth. Every time we talk about revenue projections or continuous growth, just stop and ask: “Is this really what we want for society, for the planet?”

Look at local businesses like your neighborhood restaurant. They might not grow by 10% every year, but they’re still thriving, sometimes for generations. So businesses don’t need endless growth to survive.

And then there’s a deeper transformation: rethinking business models entirely.

Take worker cooperatives, for example. Without shareholders pressuring for profit, employees decide: should we work more and earn more, or pause and take more time off? In many real-world examples, employees choose balance. They work less, stay productive, and the business still functions without the pressure to grow blindly.

That’s the kind of thinking we need: Companies that don’t grow just for the sake of growing.

Philipp: If I put on my corporate ears, it’s blasphemy what you’re saying. But I don’t have too much corporate experience so I want to turn to Barbara, because you’ve worked a lot with companies. Do you have any real-life examples where nature already has a voice in the boardroom?

Barbara: I’ll come to the examples, but first I really liked your graph, Simon. Because when we talk about nature or biodiversity with companies, they often don’t quite understand what we mean. Many still think it’s just about bees or maybe planting trees. But we need to link it to resource management.

When we do that, companies start to understand. That’s the first step. And that goes back to what you were saying, Helle. Before companies can rethink their business models, they need to understand what this is all about. That understanding is the foundation.

Since we’re on the topic of indicators, I also want to mention something we’re working on in Switzerland. We’re trying to develop the Swiss Impact and Prosperity Index, a new way to measure progress beyond GDP. It’s a project led by B Lab Switzerland, and I think it’s a really interesting step in the right direction.

Now, coming back to your question, what are companies doing? Some companies are starting to give nature a real voice in decision-making.

You’ve probably heard of Patagonia, they’ve built this into how they operate. Other large companies, like Holcim, Kering, and others, now have sustainability committees at the board level. Some have board members who have gone through Competent Boards training, or who bring long-term ESG experience to the table.

At ESG4Boards, a few of our members are now sitting on boards and actively trying to bring that sustainability expertise into boardroom decisions.

What’s also interesting is the regulatory angle. In Switzerland, board members are personally accountable for what goes into a company’s sustainability report. So this isn’t just symbolic, it’s legal. If a report contains false or misleading information, in theory, board members could be sued.

And Simon, something you said earlier triggered another thought. We often assume we have to keep producing more, selling more, increasing returns, but what if we rethought that incentive entirely?

For example, we had a conversation with one of our startups in Colombia, and the idea came up: What if it was just as valuable to leave the gold in the ground, as it is to extract it and put it in a bank?

Imagine a system where indigenous communities are paid to protect that gold, to preserve nature, instead of being forced to exploit it. That could completely shift the model. Of course, for business, it still has to work economically. Especially for companies, there has to be a functioning business model behind it.

So the real challenge is: How do we build new, regenerative business models that still allow companies to thrive? Can we internalize external costs, like environmental damage? Would internal CO₂ pricing help companies rethink how they operate?

Philipp: It all sounds so obvious but somehow, it’s not being done. We’re not seeing this across the boards of S&P 500 companies, or at least not in most of them. So there must be a blind spot, something that just isn’t obvious to many board members. Helle, based on your work with the TNFD and with board leaders around the world where do you see the biggest blind spots when it comes to how boards are addressing nature and climate risks?

Helle: You know, there are of course lots of blind spots, but let’s just face it.

I started in this field 30+ years ago, and yes I say “30 plus” because it’s been a while. Back then, for my master’s thesis, I wrote about how we price externalities, how we bring them into the accounts, how we put them on the balance sheet. And for those of you who understand financial reporting... how many here would say they know how to read financial accounts? (many in the room raise hands) Amazing!

Well, you know that if you put something on the balance sheet say, environmental damage you’re effectively acknowledging liability. A lawyer will quickly tell you: the second it’s on there, you’re admitting you’ll have to pay.

One idea I proposed 30+ years ago was to look at this like insurance. Think of how an insurance company comes to you every year and says: “Here’s your premium. If you don’t take care of the land, your risk increases and so does your premium.” That’s how we could start quantifying environmental risk. Back then, a lot of people were starting to look at the business case for sustainability. It shouldn’t be an afterthought and yet, here we are, still trying to make that case.

I think there are some stakeholders we haven’t talked about enough tonight. One of them is insurance.

In places like California and Florida, a lot of people thought their house was their retirement plan. They could sell it one day, live off the proceeds. But now, many of those homes are uninsurable. They’ve become stranded assets or, as some call them, golden prisons. They can’t sell, and they can’t move. So yes, the insurance industry is stepping up not out of charity, but because this is a financial risk.

And then there’s the other stakeholder, the one we often forget even though it’s all around us: Nature.

Let me ask you has anyone here ever negotiated with Mother Nature? No? You can’t. You can’t argue with her. You can’t convince her. I could start speaking Danish to you all right now and even if I started shouting, you still wouldn’t understand me. That’s what it’s like with nature. Nature doesn’t read our newspapers. She doesn’t listen to our debates. She sends invoices and they come in the form of data: floods, fires, droughts, rising temperatures. That’s her language. That’s the risk side.

But with all due respect, I think what’s still missing is the other half: Innovation in mindset.

That’s what I’m trying to work on. Because if you think about it many companies today are bigger than countries. They operate globally. They have employees, suppliers, and customers across the world. And the boardroom? In many ways, that’s where the real power sits. Yes, we can talk about politics. But boards are where so many of the critical decisions are made.

So back to your question. And I suppose this is the moment where I should say, “All the answers are in my new book" an Amazon bestseller, The Future Boardroom: How to Transform It in Turbulent Times.

But truly, what I’ve tried to do in that book and in my earlier one, Stewards of the Future, is bring together real examples from companies I work with. Not to say, “You must do this,” but to ask: “How do we change the mindset?” Because that’s what’s needed. We need to become better stewards of the future.

Philipp: Let’s imagine for a moment that the boards are on board, they’re engaged, they’re taking action, and they want to give nature a voice in decision-making. Do you think that’s enough? Is this top-down approach really what we need? We’ve known for years that action on climate and nature is urgent, and yet progress is still slow. Could giving nature a seat or voice in boardrooms really help drive systemic change? Is top-down enough?

Simon: Well, I’ll go back to science here. And I’d say, it depends on the company. If it’s a company that’s fit for a post-growth world like a train provider, an energy provider, or other businesses that can still exist within planetary boundaries, then yes, that’s the perfect place to have nature represented at the board level. It makes sense to integrate that voice and steer the company accordingly.

But for companies that I’d call not fit for a post-growth world: I’m thinking Ryanair, fast fashion companies, those kinds of businesses well, they’re just not compatible with nature. They probably shouldn’t exist in a world that respects environmental limits. In those cases, just adding another stakeholder like nature to the board isn’t going to help and might even be harmful. Harmful because it just enables more greenwashing.... 

So in my opinion, based on what I’ve seen from the inside and the data we have, what we really need beyond giving nature a voice is regulation. Because, as you said, the only thing that can truly shift business behavior is when their bottom line is affected. And that happens through regulation.

And this has already worked in the past.

• Minimum wage? That didn’t come from companies, it was a fight.
• Paid holidays? Also not something board members just handed out, it was a fight.
• Women’s right to vote in Switzerland? Not even politicians initiated that, it came from public pressure and organizing.

So we need to return to what has worked before: get organized and apply pressure where it matters. And for those of you in this room who work in the corporate world, you can try to push change from within, of course. But you can also organize collectively.

One example is der Gewerbeverein [La Fédération Suisse des Entreprises] a group of businesses coming together to promote a more progressive voice and provide an alternative to the dominant narrative. Because here’s the thing: when I speak with politicians, they often say, “The economy disagrees with you.” That came up with the highway extension debate in Switzerland. Politicians said, “The economy is in favor of this.” But when you look closer, it was only a few big construction firms with a stake in the project. Most companies didn’t agree or didn’t care. But in the media, it was shown as the whole business community speaking with one voice.

If you’re a business owner, an executive, or a board member, you have a responsibility. You can’t stay silent and let others speak on your behalf. You need to say: We’re taking a stance. We want systemic change. Because things won’t change if we just wait. So that’s my short answer.

And now, my ad moment. I don’t have a book to sell, but I do have an initiative I’d love your support on. It’s called the Initiative to Regulate the Swiss Financial Sector.

We’re trying to bring smart regulation to Switzerland’s banks, pension funds, and insurance companies. One of the key goals: ban financing or insuring new fossil fuel projects. Why does this matter?

Because the Swiss financial sector, just the banks, insurance firms, and pension funds, is responsible for 18 times more CO₂ emissions than what’s emitted inside Switzerland’s borders. That’s a huge multiplier effect. And even a small regulation here could have a massive impact. We already have support from a wide range of organizations and politicians, from every major party except the SVP. Unfortunately, it’s only open to Swiss citizens, but if that includes you, you’ll be able to sign it later.

Philipp: Very nice, thank you so much. Bringing nature onto the balance sheet is actually something Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, has also talked about. The EU is now working on a roadmap for nature credits so maybe 2025 will be the year to start investing in nature-positive solutions.

Q&A: 

Person:  I retired from the corporate world. I was responsible for emitting quite a lot of CO₂ through my activities. Since then, I’ve dedicated the rest of my life to a private charity aimed at absorbing the emissions I’ve caused since 1920, including those of my ancestors. We manage about 20 hectares of forest in Ireland, working to reforest land that was long ago cleared. It’s a challenge, but I want to leave a positive legacy for my family and the planet. I’ve done this through a range of tools and I know I’m not the only one. But I want to pose a challenge to the panel: Are you CO₂ neutral? And if you are how did you do it? If you’re not, would you be willing perhaps even tonight to make a public commitment to get there? Because I believe it starts with personal responsibility. We have to take this on ourselves first. Only then can we show others how it’s done.

Philipp: I’m CO₂ neutral, or at least I try to be. I actually use three different offsetting services and yes, I pay all three monthly, for both myself and my wife. Why three? Because I don’t completely trust any of them, so I sort of triple compensate and hope that somewhere in that equation, it actually means something. Will it work? We’ll see.

Helle: I flew here today. And one of the first questions I asked was, “Should I be here in person?” When you said yes, I told myself “Then I need to make sure my presence has a real impact.”

I’m definitely not CO₂ neutral, but I hope the work I do, the people I reach, the boards we train helps to inspire change at scale. Yes, we do plant trees and support those types of initiatives. But I don’t think that’s enough. What we really need is a mindset shift especially at the board level. That’s why I go back again and again to Pocahontas and to the indigenous principle of the seven generations:

“How will the impact of what we do today shape the world seven generations from now?”

That’s the kind of thinking we need to integrate into leadership.

Simon: I think this whole discussion actually points to what’s wrong with parts of the climate movement and it’s no coincidence. The fossil fuel industry played a huge role in popularizing the idea of the "personal" carbon footprint. It shifted the focus to individual action, rather than seeing ourselves as citizens with collective power.

Yes, we can plant trees but let’s talk about the science. Emissions happen now instantly. But a tree takes years to absorb carbon. So even if you plant one today, you’re not CO₂ neutral, at least not in the timeframe that matters.

Personally, I’ve made changes since leaving BCG: I became vegetarian, I stopped flying. And that, I believe, has real impact.

I don’t buy carbon credits, I actually think they can have the opposite effect, making people feel like they’ve offset something when they haven’t. I’d rather see that money go to train companies or systemic change. So no, the final message shouldn’t be “Buy your carbon credits and feel good about it.”

It should be: “Get organized. Speak to politicians. Influence your company. Push for actual change.” That’s where real impact happens.

Barbara: So yes, you can calculate your CO₂ footprint but that doesn’t reflect what I do every day to influence decision-makers, transform value chains, or accelerate nature-positive solutions.

I eat vegan, I invest in regenerative projects, and I do what I can to be a role model. I also try to fly as little as possible but sometimes, traveling is part of making a meaningful difference.

So I don’t think it’s just about being CO₂ neutral. There’s a great book I recommend: The New Nature of Business by André Hoffmann, who’s also president of Innovate 4 Nature. It explores exactly what we’re discussing: How can we truly integrate nature into business decision-making? That’s where I believe the real transformation lies.