Evaluating nature-based risk
This is the first-ever benchmarking analysis of how Australian banks and super funds are responding to the nature crisis.
In a project funded by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), PhD student Madeline Combe led research and authored the report Risky Business: How Australia’s Banks and Super Funds are Responding to the Nature Crisis (PDF).
Maddy, who is currently supervised by CBSD academic Deborah Cotton, was supported by the ACFs Nature and Business Lead Nathaniel Pelle, as well as Megan Evans and Susan Barnes who assisted with the survey design for the report.
The report found that 50% of banks and 70% of super funds have not evaluated their nature-related impacts or dependencies.
90% of super funds and 80% of banks indicated they have not set nature-related targets, and an abysmal 20% say they plan to. No bank or super fund surveyed has a policy on biodiversity offsets, and just 50% have a carbon offset policy.
Despite the overwhelming recognition by banks and super funds that nature destruction is a risk that demands their attention, just three organisations indicated they had assessed such risks and opportunities, and only 40% plan to. In the shadow of the recent Finance and Biodiversity Day COP15, it shows that most Australian financial institutions have a lot of work to do. In some ways, it should not come as such a shock considering the poor representation of the Australian finance industry in the Business for Nature and Finance for Biodiversity initiatives.
