The ambition was right. The practice never caught up 

​

If you look across organisations that are genuinely trying to do better, a pattern emerges. There always seems to be one P that is less present. 

​

In circular economy, it tends to be People — the social dimension often neglected in favour of material flows and resource efficiency. In social innovation and NGOs, it is often Profit - the revenue streams needed to sustain operations - making impact difficult to scale and harder to survive. And Planet, when it does appear, is too often reduced to a narrow carbon focus: measurable, reportable, and comfortably distant from the deeper questions. As such, it does not fundamentally shape decisions. 

​​

​

The silent P

​

Let’s focus on Planet. Not because it matters more than People or Profit, but because it reveals the underlying problem most clearly. Nature is not completely absent from strategy. It is present, but it has no voice. 

​

It appears as a risk to be managed, a constraint to work around, or a set of ESG indicators to report on. It sits at the edge of decision-making, not at its center. Nature rarely enters the room as a stakeholder whose interests need to be represented. 

​

That distinction matters. Stakeholders shape decisions. Constraints do not. 

​​

​​

The signals are clear — but our response isn’t 

​

The signals are not subtle: more than half of global GDP – USD 44 trillion of economic value creation - directly depends on nature [3]. At the same time, we have already crossed seven of nine planetary boundaries [4]. Nature underpins economic value yet remains largely invisible in how that value is defined and measured. Financial markets are beginning to recognize this dependency, but struggle to translate it into decision-making. Nature continues to be undervalued, underpriced and underfinanced, even as its degradation creates growing systemic risk.

 

The disconnect is clear. What remains unclear is why it persists. 

​

Part of the answer is simple. Nature rarely has a voice in the decisions that affect it most. Does it sound idealistic to suggest it should? Perhaps. But this discomfort is telling. We are simply not used to listening. 

​​

​

What changes when nature becomes a stakeholder 

​

Treating nature as a stakeholder is not an abstract idea. It has very practical consequences. 

​

It changes how strategy is defined. Instead of focusing primarily on minimizing harm, organizations begin to consider how value is created within and alongside natural systems. Strategy becomes less about reducing harm and more about shaping outcomes. 

 

It shifts the direction of innovation. The focus moves beyond efficiency gains toward solutions that restore and regenerate natural systems. Innovation is no longer about doing less damage, but about creating positive contributions. And it changes how capital is allocated. Environmental impact is no longer treated as an externality. It becomes part of the core decision-making logic, influencing risk, return, and long-term value creation.

 

This is where impact, strategy, and capital begin to align. ​​​