Climate-biodiversity nexus in transnational climate governance: variation across net zero initiatives

Abstract

The Glasgow Climate Pact recognizes the importance of biodiversity protection for climate action. While climate and biodiversity governance processes remain separated at the intergovernmental level, transnational initiatives may provide opportunities to better integrate these two important issues. If linkages between the two cannot be well managed in transnational action, we might be running the risk of achieving a net zero economy at the expenses of nature. How do transnational governance initiatives understand and address the linkages between climate change and biodiversity protection? We tackle this question by assessing the targets on biodiversity identified by 25 partner initiatives of the Race to Zero – a UN-backed campaign with clear criteria to rally non-state and subnational action for achieving net zero by 2050. Our study shows variation within the campaign: 28% of its partner initiatives did not consider biodiversity at all, whilst 36% of the partner initiatives have identified detailed commitments and action plans to ensure no harm on biodiversity. Overall, more than two-thirds of the partner initiatives had mentioned the role of biodiversity in climate action. Considering possible explanatory factors of the variation observed, we suggest that the target sector and engagement with environment-oriented organizations are likely to lead transnational governance initiatives to consider biodiversity alongside emission reductions in net zero strategies and commitments. The study sheds light linkages between climate mitigation and biodiversity protection in the recent net zero movement and proposes policy recommendations for transnational initiatives to better integrate climate and biodiversity targets.

Keywords:

• Biodiversity
• climate change
• net zero
• non-state actors
• transnational
• governance

Introduction

Since the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, policy practitioners and scholars have called for strengthened efforts to build synergies between climate action and other Sustainable Development Goals [1,2]. Such calls underscore that policies and actions designed to advance one set of global goals must not undermine, and ideally, should advance the other. Among many sustainability challenges, biodiversity protection is an area where synergetic effects with climate action have been widely considered and explored such as through nature-based solutions [3–5]. As climate action has been increasingly taken up by a wider range of actors across the globe, measures need to be taken to ensure that our net zero transition for the implementation of the Paris Agreement aligns with the global goals on biodiversity identified in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. In fact, such climate-biodiversity linkages have been already widely recognized by the international community. For instance, the Glasgow Climate Pact agreed at the UN Climate Change Conference in 2021, recognizes ‘the critical role of protecting, conserving and restoring nature and ecosystems in delivering benefits for climate adaptation and mitigation’ [6]. More recently, Target 8 of the Global Biodiversity Framework also underscores the need of ‘minimizing negative and fostering positive impacts of climate action on biodiversity’ [7].

While this consensus is likely to open the door for the international community to build direct linkages between climate action and biodiversity protection, the governance of climate change and biodiversity at the intergovernmental level remains in a rather siloed approach. Therefore, more opportunities seem to exist in the transnational arena consisting of non-state and subnational actors to build synergies between climate action and biodiversity protection. Over the last two decades, the rise of transnational governance initiatives (TGI) have been one of the most important phenomenon in global climate politics, which complement state actions [8,9]. By sharing information, setting additional rules, and building capacity of various actors, these initiatives can support national governments’ effort and advance global ambition [10]. As these initiatives are not controlled by multilateral processes, they should have more flexibility to pursue co-benefits with biodiversity protection in their action on climate change mitigation and adaptation. However, despite a burgeoning literature on transnational climate governance, the extent to which biodiversity goals are considered and embedded in climate action of non-state and subnational actors at different scales remain largely unknown [11,12].

At the same time, the concept of climate-biodiversity nexus has received increasing attention of researchers of climate and environmental governance. Broadly speaking, ‘climate-biodiversity nexus’ refers to the repertoire of interactions and feedback loops between the climate and biodiversity [13]. While the restoration and preservation of both natural and modified ecosystems can offer advantages to both climate action and biodiversity, not all climate actions harness co-benefits with biodiversity and many can even be counterproductive [5,14]. Hence, climate governance initiatives neglecting the climate-biodiversity nexus may cause ecological harm, and further exacerbate negative climate feedback upon intact ecosystems and increase risks of irreversible environmental changes.

At present, existing climate governance literature has yet to explore how TGIs address the climate-biodiversity nexus, and its associated co-benefits as well as the risk of problematic consequences upon ecosystems in the pursuit towards net zero emissions. But pledges and actions toward net-zero emissions may ignore the concerns over negative feedback patterns upon biodiversity and intact ecosystems. In response to this research gap, we aim to answer the following question: how do different transnational climate governance initiatives address concerns over biodiversity loss and build synergies between climate action and biodiversity protection? We address this question by scanning various ways in which the climate-biodiversity nexus is considered in transnational net zero governance initiatives. In addition to comparing different TGIs, we also consider if some key characteristics of each intiative are associated with their approach to addressing the climate-biodiversity nexus.¹

Since the Paris Agreement, ‘net zero’ has quickly become a mainstream principle for climate action across the globe so an increasing number of states, regions and cities, and companies have adopted net zero targets [15]. At the same time, researchers of sustainable development have expressed the concern that the prioritization of achieving net zero emissions may have adverse impacts on nature and society if actors prioritize emission reductions with little or no consideration of other important goals [2,16,17]. Our study contributes to this debate by examining the ways in which major TGIs for net zero pursue synergies between climate action and biodiversity protection.

Empirically, we assess how partner initiatives of the Race to Zero (RtZ) feature the issue of biodiversity protection in their mission statements and requirements for member actors and compare the approaches taken by different initiatives. Launched in June 2020, the RtZ is an UN-backed global campaign, convened by the UN High-level Climate Champions, to rally non-state actors – including companies, cities, regions, financial and educational institutions – to take rigorous and immediate action to halve global emissions by 2030 and deliver a healthier, fairer net zero world in time.² In other words, the RtZ constitutes a meta-governance initiative for the recent net zero movement in the transnational arena. To join the RtZ, partner initiatives need to follow the RtZ’s minimum requirements and are encouraged to adopt leadership practices. Hence, the RtZ is likely to represent the most ambitious initiatives governing non-state and subnational action on climate mitigation, and the ways in which TGIs participating in the RtZ address the climate-biodiversity nexus would have important implications for the impacts of net zero transitions on biodiversity.

To explore variation across the RtZ’s partner initiatives, we scanned the ways in which each TGI in our sample consider climate-biodiversity nexus and developed an index to classify initiatives’ approach to promoting co-benefits between climate action and biodiversity protection. We then coded each TGI against our index using their official documentation (see details on our methodology in ‘Methodology’). Based on the variation observed from our coding results, we considered key features of TGIs (including their target sector, base country, and engagement with environmental organizations) and consider if they are associated with the pursuit of co-benefits on biodiversity in transnational climate governance. But we only intend to inductively identify potential hypotheses explaining the variation observed, we call for future research to systematically test the effects of these factors.

We proceed as follows. We first review the recent trend in transnational action on net zero emissions. We then introduce our methodology, including our system to code and rank different TGIs. In ‘Empirical findings’, we report our findings and consider potential explanatory factors of the patterns observed. We conclude by considering dynamics in addressing the climate-biodiversity nexus in transnational governance.

Transnational net zero movements and their possible impacts on biodiversity

Over the last few years, net zero emissions have quickly become a new focus of climate policy for a range of state and non-state actors at different scales [15]. According to Net Zero Tracker, to date entities with net zero targets account for 88% of the global emissions, 92% of the global GDP, and 89% of the global population.³ For its literal meaning, ‘net zero’ refers to a state in which the greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere are balanced by their removal out of the atmosphere [18]. Yet it has now become more than just a scientific concept or specific technically determined targets, but instead, ‘a frame of reference through which global action against climate change is increasingly structured and understood’ [16, p. 15]. As a result, countries, regions and cities as well as companies and other organizations have increasingly made net zero pledges when setting their own emission targets. This trend has become especially salient since 2019 when countries were planning to update their nationally determined contributions while scientific evidence shown by the IPCC special report had affirmed a shrinking window of opportunity to achieve the 1.5 degrees goal identified by the Paris Agreement [19].

Observing the rapid emergence of net zero pledges made by various actors, researchers have expressed concern about greenwashing due to the lack of credibility of many net zero targets [20]. This is especially an issue for voluntary commitments made by non-state actors, which tend to be vague in terms of scope, use of offsets and interim targets [21]. For instance, an assessment of the climate strategies of 25 major multinational companies finds that their headline pledges are often ambiguous with very limited commitments for emission reduction and over two-thirds of these companies plan to offset their emissions from carbon removals and sequestration from forestry and other biological-related sources – the so-called ‘nature-based solutions’ [22]. Such net zero pledges raise significant integrity problems not only because of the contentious use of offsetting, but also the lack of attention to climate-biodiversity nexus.

To rally the efforts of different actors on net zero emissions and improve their credibility, the UN high-level Climate Champions who represented the UNFCCC COP 25 and 26 presidencies launched the Race to Zero (RtZ) campaign in 2020. Building on the Climate Ambition Alliance launched by Chile – the host country of COP 25, the RtZ mobilizes actors outside of national governments (including regions, cities, companies, and investors) to meet the Paris goals by committing to achieving net zero emissions by 2050. The RtZ was designed as an umbrella campaign where transnational networks of non-state and subnational actors can join as partner initiatives if their members meet the relevant criteria. The RtZ developed a set of criteria to steer actors towards achieving credible net zero alignment – the so-called five ‘P’s (pledge, plan, proceed, publish and persuade, see details below).

Figure 1 displays this umbrella campaign as a diagrammatic hierarchy. Whilst partner initiatives are each considered their own entity, there is no specific restrictions outlined defining how many initiatives an individual member might be associated with. Furthermore, initiatives may also create linkages between one another, by borrowing climate action guidelines or standards from one another to employ within their own initiative. For example, several RtZ partner initiatives’ guidelines have drawn on the relevant framework developed by the Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi) and at the same time, the SBTi itself is also a partner initiative of the RtZ.

Figure 1. Hierarchy in the Race to zero.

Note: for example, the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) is a partner initiative of the RtZ consisting of over 130 banks around the world committed to financing climate action in line with the relevant criteria. Its members include major global banks such as BNP Paribas, Citi and UBS.

Once a TGI has joined the RtZ, its members automatically become members of the RtZ and must fulfill their net zero commitments in line with the RtZ’s criteria. To ensure the credibility of the commitments made by its members and the transparency of their members’ action, the RtZ have developed, at the time of its launch, four meta-criteria that define procedural steps for all members (also called ‘starting line criteria’), which are known as four ‘P’s, namely ‘pledge’ (making ambitious pledges aligned with the Paris goal), ‘plan’ (disclosing a transition plan with interim targets), ‘proceed’ (taking immediate action consistent with the interim and final targets) and ‘publish’ (report progress publicly in a standardized, open format, minimum annually) with which all members must comply; in addition to these criteria for every member, the RtZ also identified three areas of leadership practices (i.e. scope, sinks and credits, and empowerment and equity) where partner initiatives must at least reach the current frontier of best practice and indicate how their leaders can push beyond it [23].⁴

Every TGI interested in joining the Race must submit an application to demonstrate how it can manage and monitor its members to meet the criteria, which will be reviewed by a panel of independent experts, and the UN High-level Climate Champions will make a decision based on the review results. Overall, this institutional design and the relevant criteria help the RtZ ensure the rigor of its members’ commitments, so the RtZ’s partner initiatives are likely to represent the TGIs taking the most ambitious actions to pursue net zero emissions.

While the focus of the RtZ is on emission reductions, the actions taken by its members to achieve net zero can have large implications for other environmental issues such as biodiversity protection. Efforts to pursue net zero emissions might affect biodiversity in at least two inter-related mechanisms. First, some measures of carbon dioxide removal, such as large-scale afforestation and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, can produce negative impacts on terrestrial and marine ecosystems [24,25]. For instance, the introduction of exotic tree species can bring risks to native ecosystems and fertilization of dedicated lignocellulosic bioenergy crops could affect coastal as well as freshwater eutrophication [25]. Given these risks, it is important to carefully regulate these measures and avoid unnecessary use or overreliance of certain carbon capture and removal projects, especially at scale.

Second, nature-based solutions (NbS) through protection, sustainable management, and restoration of natural ecosystems can be a good method to support net zero transitions as they preserve and expand carbon sinks [3,26]. NbS therefore hold the promise to achieve co-benefits for both climate mitigation and biodiversity protection. Actors who cannot avoid all of their emissions may also resort to offsetting by purchasing credits generated by NbS in order to achieve net zero. That said, some measures that are claimed as ‘nature-based solutions’ do not follow science-based biodiversity targets and can inadvertently impact nature [4]. For instance, research has shown that the misuse of nature-based solutions by emphasising afforestation rather than ecosystem protection and restoration can harm biodiversity especially when low-diversity commercial plantations of non-native species replace native forests, grasslands, moorlands and peatlands [5,27]. Therefore, to avoid net zero efforts undermining other socio-ecological objectives, it is crucial to ensure that all NbS are explicitly designed to provide measurable benefits for biodiversity.

For the above-mentioned reasons, transnational initiatives governing net zero action are expected to play a crucial role in ensuring co-benefits between reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and protection of biodiversity. If existing TGIs in the climate space can provide and strengthen support for the pursuit of global biodiversity goals, they will build new networks involving thousands of non-state and subnational actors across the globe to govern biodiversity beyond intergovernmental processes (i.e. Convention on Biological Diversity). In other words, these governance initiatives can accelerate the development of a global biodiversity action agenda – as suggested by some scholars – to support national governments’ efforts on biodiversity protection [28]. For this reason, it is necessary to assess the ways in which TGI targeting net zero emissions address the issue of biodiversity. To do so, we zoom on to the partner initiatives of the RtZ.

Methodology

The focus of our study is on the biodiversity-related criteria set by TGIs pursuing net zero emissions. Therefore, our unit of analysis is the transnational initiative governing net zero action. We choose the RtZ partner initiatives as our sample because, as explained in ‘Transnational net zero movements and their possible impacts on biodiversity’, these initiatives represent the most rigorous governance efforts in the emerging field of net zero. While the ultimate actions will be taken by individual members of the RtZ (e.g. regions, cities, companies, financial institutions, or universities) belonging to these initiatives, each partner initiative have the authority to identify broad goals and specific requirements for their members. Therefore, assessing how these TGIs understand and address the climate-biodiversity nexus will help us understand the extent to which non-state and subnational actors’ efforts to reduce emissions are likely to strengthen or undermine biodiversity protection.

To conduct our study, we look at how or if not at all each RtZ partner initiative considers biodiversity in the commitments and targets required for their member entities. We developed a system to systematically code each initiative’s strategy to address the climate-biodiversity nexus and then rank them in terms of their requirement to protect biodiversity (see more details about our methodology below in the subsection ‘coding and ranking’). Broadly speaking, the most direct link between net zero and biodiversity lies in the use of carbon sinks and credits. In fact, one of the leadership practices in the RtZ’s 2.0 criteria stated that members should ‘ensure that any credits achieve robust outcomes for additionality, permanence, and accounting, and do not undermine social justice or harm biodiversity’ [23].⁵ However, this is only a leadership practice, which means it is not a criterion that each member must comply with. Additionally, the reference to cause no harm on biodiversity remains very broad without further specifications. This arrangement therefore leaves space for partner TGIs in the RtZ to interpret and set more specific requirements regarding biodiversity. At the same time, it also means that partner initiatives have no obligation to make commitment on biodiversity protection. It is therefore worth exploring if there is any variation in biodiversity consideration across the RtZ’s partner initiatives.

In our analysis, we define a ‘consideration’ of biodiversity as whether some keywords related to biodiversity (e.g. ‘biodiversity’, ‘nature’, ‘ecosystem services’, and ‘natural habitat’ and see the whole list of keywords used in Appendix) are included in the ambitions, targets, commitments, description, background, or visions of a TGI. Our research involved analysis of internet-based documentation and webpages provided by each partner initiative (see details in the subsection ‘coding and ranking’). We used content analysis to capture the meaning of the text related to climate-biodiversity nexus. We also record data on key characteristics of each TGI including the target year of reaching net zero,⁶ location of their headquarters, and the sectors targeted by the partner initiative.

Our study covers the initiatives who have been in the RtZ by June 2022. At that time, 26 initiatives were listed under Race to Zero partner initiatives [29]. Although the intention was to include all 26 listed partners for the scope, ultimately 25 were chosen for the study (see Table A2 in Appendix for their short descriptions and websites). This is because one initiative – Japanese Climate Initiative – had most of its available information in Japanese. To remain free from bias and assumptions in data collection without thorough investigation of available documentation, we decided to leave any conclusions made on this initiative out of the final dataset. Official documents and digital media from each RtZ partner initiative served as the data source. This consisted of documents and media accessible from the initiatives and their members respective websites, reflecting the official views put forth into the public domain. Such documents and media included mission statements, commitment reports to net zero, annual reports, press releases, and public relations material. Documents that were not publicly accessible were not included in the analysis.

Coding and ranking

We built our dataset by extracting all available text from the websites and online documents of the selected RtZ partner initiatives. To process the data of each initiative, we used keywords searches to identify the content that may be related to the climate-biodiversity nexus. All keywords used in our study are listed in Table A1 in Appendix. We then coded the text identified from the searches to note actions committed by each initiative to support biodiversity protection in the context of emission reductions towards net zero. The main purpose of our coding is to inductively categorize different types of action seeking to address the climate-biodiversity nexus, instead of counting the number of times certain concepts or terms are mentioned. One author was responsible for conducting keyword searches and the other conducted random checks to ensure consistency. The two authors then coded the relevant text separately and assigned each initiative into a rank according to the criteria explained below.

Following our coding, we established a ranking system to classify the context under which biodiversity was mentioned. Our analysis created four levels. The baseline level initiatives (Rank 0) did not include any considerable mention of biodiversity or ecosystem preservation at all. Rank 1 initiatives had non-committal mentions. During our coding, it was observed multiple initiatives has mentioned biodiversity but without any emphasis on action towards protecting biodiversity nor any commitment or goals towards mitigating biodiversity loss, such as through active conservation, management or even biodiversity offsetting. In the context of the climate-biodiversity nexus, details were lacking from these initiatives on any achievable co-benefits with biodiversity and acknowledgement of interrelations between planned climate action and biodiversity or ecosystems was absent. In other words, Rank 1 initiatives acknowledge the concerns faced by an ecological crisis, but prioritises efforts into alternative, carbon-centric net zero approaches, such as emissions reductions or avoiding emissions. Thus, they follow an approach where a general ‘vision’ of supporting biodiversity in achieving net zero is included, but with no express targets nor action plans made to achieve measurable output towards the said vision. Regardless of the intention of these initiatives, this approach implies a high risk of greenwashing.

In comparison, some RtZ initiatives take detailed action and express commitments towards biodiversity and ecosystem services, and therefore were ranked higher. Among these initiatives we further differentiated two levels. Rank 2 includes the description or express mention of NbS or other mitigation actions that can produce biodiversity co-benefits in the process of obtaining net zero emissions. It therefore represents an approach that acknowledges the relationship between climate and ecosystems, and the possibility of achieving mutual benefits in the strategy towards net zero. Finally, Rank 3 initiatives outlined a detailed commitments and the actions required to meet specific targets relating to biodiversity, whether this was in the form of actively protecting biodiversity, mitigating biodiversity loss, or both. Initiatives in this category either described their achievements in terms of climate-biodiversity co-benefits or made specific plans to pursue such co-benefits. Additionally, during our inductive coding, we observed that no initiatives have mentioned counterproductive or problematic effects of their climate action upon biodiversity. This raised the question of whether RtZ partner initiatives have performed any risk analysis with respect to climate-biodiversity nexus. Therefore, although Rank 2 and 3 refer to positive win-win scenarios between climate and biodiversity action, such as the protection or restoration of carbon-rich natural habitats, they do not describe full consequences or risks. Table 1 shows our ranking system with exemplar statements.

Table 1. Biodiversity-oriented climate commitment index: ranking of biodiversity-oriented net zero governance initiatives.

Rank	Biodiversity Commitments	Examples of Key Words
Rank 0	Biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, or words to their equivalent effect, are not mentioned at all by the Race to Zero initiative.	[…] commits to support the goal of net zero greenhouse gas (‘GHG’) emissions by 2050, in line with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5 °C (‘net zero emissions by 2050 or sooner’). – Net Zero Asset Managers
Rank 1	Biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, or words to their equivalent effect, are mentioned but lack in substance relating to specific biodiversity-oriented actions, commitment, or ambition.	We exist to raise awareness across the business sector of the imperative to accelerate action to address climate change, biodiversity loss and social injustice: the imperative to future proof every business by balancing profits with people and ethics, to live within planetary boundaries. – Business Declares
Rank 2	Biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, or words to their equivalent effect, are mentioned or recommended in relation to nature-based solutions for reaching net zero targets, carbon neutrality, carbon offsetting and/or biodiversity offsetting plans outlined. No specific details or requirements are offered about how biodiversity should or will be enhanced, or how biodiversity loss is to be mitigated.	Nature-based climate solutions should promote measures to protect, improve management and restore forest and other biomes aligned with the Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) mitigation hierarchy. Initiatives should strive to achieve positive impacts on biodiversity and contribute to food security, livelihoods, and other ecosystem services. – Business Ambition for 1.5 °C
Rank 3	Biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, or words to their equivalent effect, are mentioned, and detailed commitment, actions, or ambitions are described towards avoiding or mitigating any harm to biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and/or detailed commitment and action towards specific measures for enhancing and protecting biodiversity are described.	We compiled a practical report for members that detailed the research and best practices that IWCA member wineries have undertaken to promote soil health and vineyard carbon sequestration. These practices include regenerative farming techniques that create a wide range of environmental benefits and can potentially capture and sequester carbon within vineyard soils (e.g. conservation tillage, composting, cover cropping, crop diversity, animal and insect integration, enhancing biodiversity on planted and unplanted lands) – International Wineries for Climate Action

We must add several caveats to our methodology. First, despite thorough exploration of the documentation available within the public online domain, we could not examine plans and actions of the selected TGIs that have not been shared online. Second, while the commitments between members of an initiative may differ in the extent to which they intend to incorporate NbS into their net zero agendas, such variation is beyond the scope of our study, which focuses on the level of TGIs. Third, we did not measure nor compare either the quality or quantity of these TGIs’ achievements in NbS, emissions reduction, or protection of biodiversity and ecosystems. In fact, we acknowledge that the statements made by the TGIs covered by our study do not always reflect the final outcomes of their commitments. That said, we believe our ranking index is useful by differentiating initiatives making only unsubstantial commitments lacking actionable agendas (Rank 1) from those citing detailed ambitions and actionable steps taken, particularly if there is evidence supporting the claims made by any member (Rank 3).

To classify the TGIs included in our study, the two authors individually coded the relevant paragraphs and sentences identified by keyword searches. Each coder then assigned an overall rank to an initiative using the highest rank detected in the text describing that initiative.⁷ Using the Percent agreement, our intercoder reliability score is 84%, which shows a relatively high degree of consistency.⁸ For the initiatives that were not received the same coding results (N = 4), the two coders went through the raw data together and exchanged their ideas. In the end, we were able to reach agreements on these cases. Our full dataset including all coding results are shown in the supplementary materials.

Empirical findings

In this section, we first report the ranking results of the RtZ partner initiatives using our index developed above. We then consider the variation across these initiatives and identify factors able to influence transnational climate governance initiatives’ consideration of climate-biodiversity nexus.

Ranking results

From the 25 initiatives studied, 18 (72%) included biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, NbS, or words to that effect in their commitments. Here, we detail the 18 partner initiatives that include biodiversity and related terminology and analyse their stated commitments according to the ranking system created for this research. Our ranking results are reported in Table 2, which also displays the proportion of partner initiatives in each rank.

Table 2. Biodiversity-oriented climate commitment ranking of 25 RtZ partner initiatives.

Rank	Biodiversity Commitments	Number (proportion)	Initiative Names
0	Biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, or words to their effect, are not mentioned at all by the Race to Zero initiative.	7 (28%)	Sports for Climate Action Pledge To Net Zero CBN Expert SME Net Zero Community SME Climate Hub The Climate Pledge Paris Aligned Investment Initiative Net Zero Asset Managers
1	Biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, or words to their effect, are mentioned but hold little substance relating to action, commitment, or ambition.	2 (8%)	Tech Zero Taskforce Business Declares
2	Biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, or words to their effect, are mentioned in relation to nature-based solutions for reaching net zero targets, carbon neutrality, carbon offsetting and/or biodiversity offsetting plans outlined. No specific details or requirements are offered about how biodiversity should be enhanced or how biodiversity loss is to be mitigated.	7 (28%)	Planet Mark Cities Race to Zero Science Based Targets Initiative-Financial Sector Project Business Ambition for 1.5 °C B Corp Climate Collective Net Zero Insurance Alliance Net Zero Asset Owners
3	Biodiversity, ecosystem services, nature, or words to their effect, are mentioned and detailed commitment or action are described towards avoiding any harm to biodiversity and natural ecosystems, and/or detailed commitment and action towards specific measures for enhancing and protecting biodiversity are described	9 (36%)	International Wineries for Climate Action Scotch Whisky Association Exponential Roadmap Initiative Water UK Race to Zero for Universities & Colleges ICLEI’s Climate Neutrality Framework Under 2 Coalition Health Care Without Harm Net Zero Banking Alliance

Of the 25 TGIs included in our study, 7 (28%) did not mention biodiversity (or words to its effect) at all in their net zero commitments, whereas the other 18 (72%) initiatives included some consideration on biodiversity. Of those which discussed biodiversity, 7 initiatives have expressed detailed commitments to enhancing and protecting biodiversity (Rank 3), whilst 9 initiatives have planned for NbS towards reducing emissions, but lacked in concrete details as to the actions through which these might be achieved (Rank 2). Two partner initiatives, ‘Tech Zero Taskforce’ and ‘Business Declares’, mentioned biodiversity in some text without specifying any actions, plans or targets. As a result, we considered their commitments to biodiversity to be non-substantive (Rank 1).

Considering the differences among those initiatives under Rank 1-3 shows varying approaches to biodiversity taken by RtZ partner initiatives. Tech Zero Taskforce – an initiative composed of technology companies collectively making climate action plans and developing technology to encourage customers to live more sustainably – serves as an example of making non-substantive commitments on biodiversity-oriented climate action or NbS. According to its Toolkit 2022, its members are only directed towards resources and partnering services that can help companies measure, reduce, or offset carbon emissions, such as carbon removal purchasing processes. Examples of carbon removal processes and avoided emissions are provided, with explanations of what these processes often entail, but these examples are not listed as requirements to be achieved by its members. For instance, its listed ‘short term carbon removal’ processes include ‘tree planting’, soil enhancement, and ecosystem restoration’, but details on whether these processes should be sought or how they should be achieved are not specified [30]. Business Declares is another case classified in Rank 1. While the initiative highlights biodiversity loss as one of the problems it aims to address, it has not set any specific requirements or targets on biodiversity for its members.⁹

Around a third of the TGIs studied are classified under Rank 2, making this category a popular rank for the RtZ partner initiatives. Initiatives under this rank usually mention protection of biodiversity or nature, or nature-based solutions in their visions or pledges, but do not provide specific guidance on biodiversity-related action nor identify clear criteria to measure progress on biodiversity protection. One example is the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance convened by the United Nations Environment Programme. While this alliance asks its signatory companies to commit to supporting the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework including nature-based solutions to climate change, it hasn’t identified detailed requirement on such support nor best practices for nature-based solutions [31]. In short, the initiatives under Rank 2 have made statements on the importance of nature and biodiversity in the process of net zero transitions without actionable detail regarding how this will or should be achieved.

Lastly, at the higher end of the spectrum, 9 initiatives within Rank 3 reveal detailed actions and standards required of members to adhere to. A typical example is the International Wineries for Climate Action (IWCA), a transnational network of wineries committed to net zero emissions, which has listed some biodiversity enhancing activities undertaken by its members (e.g. planting native species and insectary cover crops) and have sought to promote such activities as part of the initiative’s industry-specific net zero guidelines. For instance, in 2021, the IWCA published a practical report on regenerative farming and carbon sequestration to identify best practices on soil carbon sequestration that can increase biodiversity and enhance ecosystem services at the same time [32]. As such, initiatives classified as Rank 3 are likely to take more concrete action to promote biodiversity protection and pursue co-benefits between nature and climate change.

Possible explanations of variation across RtZ partner initiatives

Our ranking results discussed above show variation across RtZ partner initiatives in their approach to address the climate-biodiversity nexus. What may explain such variation? We look at some key features of TGIs and consider if they can influence initiatives’ strategy on biodiversity protection. As indicated in the introduction, we only aim to inductively identify some possible factors shaping TGIs’ approach to the climate-biodiversity nexus, and do not seek to provide any robust explanation of the variation detected.

First, taking into account issue linkages, one can expect that the types of sectors or actors targeted by an initiative can create its incentives to seek co-benefits between climate action and biodiversity protection [5,33,34]. For instance, initiatives focusing on primary industries, tend to rely more heavily upon natural resources and land, and therefore are likely to display higher interest in protecting biodiversity or avoiding harm towards biodiversity. After mapping out the primary target sector or actor of each initiative, we can see that a few initiatives representing some primary industries – such as International Wineries for Climate Action and Water UK – were prevalent within the higher levels of biodiversity-oriented commitments. This pattern can be explained by the existence of co-benefits between climate and biodiversity action for the relevant industries. It is also worth noting that initiatives gathering education institutions (i.e. Race to Zero for Universities & Colleges) and subnational governments (i.e. ICLEI Climate Neutrality Framework, Under 2 Coalition, and Cities’ Race to Zero) tend to rank higher in our index. This pattern seems to suggest that initiatives having close connections to communities and people are likely to pay more attention to biodiversity issues.

However, as shown in Table 3, no conclusive evidence links other industries with a higher or lower rank, as many partner initiatives include mixed industry members. Additionally, the ranks of the initiatives representing the financial sector also vary: some financial actors such as Net Zero Banking Alliance and Net Zero Asset Owner Alliance made relatively strong references to biodiversity (Rank 3) whereas others like Paris Aligned Investment Initiative and Net Zero Asset Manager Initiative did not mention biodiversity at all in their mission statements or targets (Rank 0). Further research is needed to explain such variation and the factors able to drive further action on biodiversity protection in the financial sector.

Table 3. Sectors targeted by partner initiatives.

Biodiversity-oriented climate commitment index	Initiative Sectors	Number of Initiatives per Sector	Number of Initiatives with Primary Industry members	Number of Initiatives with Environmental Advocacy/ENGO affiliations
Rank 3	Primary Industry	3	3	5
	Education	1
	Finance	1
	Health	1
	Government (local or subnational)	2
	Business Sector (Mixed Industry)	1
Total	9
Rank 2	Finance	3	4	7
	Government (local or subnational)	1
	Business Sector (Mixed Industry)	3
Total	7
Rank 1	Technology Industry	1	1	2
	Business Sector (Mixed Industry)	1
Total	2
Rank 0	Finance	2	3	3
	Sport	1
	Business Sector (Mixed Industry)	4
Total	7

Note: mixed industry may include members from multiple sectors, including primary industry, services, or others.

Second and relatedly, one can also expect spill-over of an initiative’s ambition on net zero to their ambition on other related issues such as protection of biodiversity or nature. The rationale of this hypothesis is that TGIs having set ambitious net zero targets may also aim high with respect to other sustainability issues in order to strengthen their leadership position – a phenomenon suggested by some literature on corporate sustainability strategy [35,36]. Hence, we consider whether initiatives’ net zero ambition – measured by their expected year to achieve net zero – is correlated with their biodiversity-related commitments. However, as shown in Table 4, no distinguishable relationships can be detected between an initiative’s target year to achieve net zero and the stringency of its commitments on biodiversity protection.

Table 4. Ambition level of Rank 2 and 3 members.

Ambition level	Net zero commitments	Names of Initiatives
Minimum	Committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050 at the latest (required by Race to Zero)	Business Declares Total: 1
Medium	Committed to achieving intermediary targets for 2030, halving carbon emissions by 2030 (recommended by IPCC) the key findings of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, which highlights the need for a 50% global reduction in GHG emissions by 2030)	Under 2 Coalition ICLEI’s Climate Neutrality Framework Exponential Roadmap Initiative International Wineries for Climate Action Health Care Without Harm / Health Care Climate Challenge Net Zero Asset Owners UN-Convened Net Zero Banking Alliance UN-convened Net Zero Insurance Alliance Cities Race to Zero Business Ambition for 1.5C Science Based Targets Initiative-Financial Sector Project (SBTi) Planet Mark Tech Zero Taskforce Total: 13
High	Committed to achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2040, 2030, or earlier.	Race to Zero for Universities & Colleges Water UK B Corp Climate Collective Scotch Whisky Association Total: 4

For instance, the three initiatives have relatively low ambition on net zero in terms of the time needed to achieve net zero (i.e. only committed to reaching net zero before the required deadline of 2050) are in either Rank 2 (B Corp Climate Collective and Business Ambition for 1.5C) or Rank 3 (Water UK). More specifically oth the B Corp Climate Collective and Business Ambition for 1.5C promote the use of NbS to their members as a key strategy for achieving net zero, without specific details of how this should necessarily be achieved, and Water UK has planned for afforestation schemes in the UK, which have to follow credible national and international standards (e.g. the Woodland Carbon Code or the Gold Standard, among others). Accordingly, there is no clear evidence on the relationship between initiatives’ targets on net zero and biodiversity protection.

That said, we acknowledge that this might be caused by our blunt measure of net zero ambition. Further research is needed to look at some specifics in initiatives’ net zero targets such as criteria on the use of offsets, the scope of targets and the existence of specific targets for reduction of methane or other GHGs. Additionally, we acknowledge that in the new criteria of the Race to Zero published in June 2022, protecting nature has been identified as a leadership practice in the category of ‘pledge’.¹⁰ This update is likely to generate some ambitious initiatives to make stronger commitments to biodiversity, hence generate potential spill-over of net zero ambition into biodiversity ambition.

Third, the size and composition of each initiative may also influence their position and pledges on biodiversity protection. On size, it is reasonable to expect that the bigger the size of an initiative is, the more difficult is to reach consensus on pledges and targets on a new issue among its members. In other words, all else being equal, initiatives with fewer members are more likely to make commitments on related issues other than net zero, such as biodiversity protection. We hence counted each initiative’s membership to see if it has an impact on its rank in our index on biodiversity commitments. No clear pattern can be observed in Table 5 between the size of initiatives and their biodiversity commitments. For example, some initiatives ranked highly in our biodiversity index have well over a thousand members such as Race to Zero for Universities & Colleges and ICLEI’s Climate Neutrality Framework, whereas many initiatives with relatively few members have not yet expressed a strong interest in biodiversity. That said, the lack of observed effect of the size variable may be due to the interference of other variables such as target sector or actor type. Future research can use data from other sources such as interviews with practitioners are needed to investigate if or to what extent large initiatives indeed face challenges to add commitments on non-climate issues.

Table 5. Detailed biodiversity-oriented net zero commitment index of ranked one to three initiatives.

#	Name	Commitment Rank	Sector	Ambition	Base country (headerquaters)	Number of signatories	Environment-oriented organizations as key stakeholders	Targeting primary industry	Website
1	Under 2 Coalition	3	Subnational governments	Medium	London, UK	270	Yes	No	https://www.theclimategroup.org/under2-coalition/
2	ICLEI Climate Neutrality Framework	3	Local governments	Medium	Bonn, Germany	1750	Yes	No	https://iclei.org/en/Climate_neutrality.html
3	Race to Zero for Universities & Colleges	3	Education	High	Cheltenham, UK	1108	Yes	No	https://www.educationracetozero.org/home
4	Water UK	3	Primary industry	High	UK	33	No	Yes	https://www.water.org.uk/netzerowater
5	Exponential Roadmap Initiative	3	Mixed industry (inclusive of primary industry)	Medium	Stockholm, Sweden	70	Yes	Yes	https://exponentialroadmap.org/
6	International Wineries for Climate Action	3	Primary industry	Medium	US	13	Yes	Yes	https://www.iwcawine.org
7	Health Care Without Harm / Health Care Climate Challenge	3	Health	Medium	A global initiative with regional offices in Brussels, Manila and Washington DC	13	Yes	No	https://noharm.org/
8	Net Zero Asset Owners	2	Finance	Medium	Geneva, Switzerland	73	Yes	No	https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-alliance/
9	UN-Convened Net Zero Banking Alliance	3	Finance	Medium	Geneva, Switzerland	26	Yes	No	https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-banking/
10	UN-convened Net Zero Insurance Alliance	2	Finance	Medium	Geneva, Switzerland	25	Yes	No	https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-insurance/
11	B Corp Climate Collective	2	Mixed industry (inclusive of primary industry)	High	London, UK	1844	Yes	Yes	https://www.bcorpclimatecollective.org
12	Business Ambition for 1.5C	2	Mixed Industry	Medium	New York, USA	69	Yes	No	https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org
13	Science Based Targets Initiative-Financial Sector Project (SBTi)	2	Finance	Medium	New York, USA	3134	Yes	Yes	https://sciencebasedtargets.org/sectors/financial-institutions
14	Cities Race to Zero	2	Government	Medium	New York, USA	1049	Yes	No	https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/cities-race-to-zero/
15	Planet Mark	2	Mixed Industry	Medium	Cardiff, UK	523	Yes	Yes	https://www.planetmark.com
16	Scotch Whisky Association	3	Primary Industry	High	Edinburgh, UK	92	No	Yes	https://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/insights/sustainability/
17	Business Declares	1	Mixed Industry	Minimum	London, UK	112	Yes	Yes	https://businessdeclares.com/
18	Tech Zero Taskforce	1	Tech Industry	Medium	UK	327	Yes	No	https://techzero.technation.io/
19	Net Zero Asset Managers	0	Finance	Medium	Shared by several organizations around the world	301	Yes	No	https://www.netzeroassetmanagers.org
20	Paris Aligned Investment Initiative	0	Finance	Medium	Shared by several organizations around the world	56	Yes	No	https://www.parisalignedinvestment.org
21	The Climate Pledge	0	Mixed Industry	High	Seattle, USA	410	No	No	https://www.theclimatepledge.com/
22	SME Climate Hub	0	Mixed Industry (inclusive of primary industry)	Medium	New York, USA	6076	No	Yes	https://smeclimatehub.org
23	CBN Expert SME Net Zero Community	0	Mixed Industry (inclusive of primary industry)	Medium	London, UK	36	No	Yes	https://www.futurenetzero.com/
24	Pledge to Net Zero	0	Mixed Industry (inclusive of primary industry)	Minimum	UK	165	Yes	Yes	https://www.pledgetonetzero.org/
25	Sports for Climate Action	0	Sport	High	Bonn, Germany	150	No	No	https://unfccc.int/climate-action/sectoral-engagement/sports-for-climate-action/participants-in-the-sports-for-climate-action-framework

We also considered if some other features of TGIs, such as their base country (also see Table 5), can influence their consideration of climate-biodiversity nexus. However, almost all RtZ initiatives are based in the Global North, especially UK, US and European cities hosting UN agencies (e.g. Geneva and Bonn). The UK hosts the most RtZ partner initiatives probably because the RtZ was developed during the UK’s COP presidency and the UK High-level Champions was a key driver behind the RtZ. However, even among the UK-based TGIs, there is significant variation in their commitments on biodiversity action. Hence, the location of headquarters seems to have little influence on their approach to climate-biodiversity nexus.

With respect to the composition of initiatives, one can expect that the existence of stakeholders, including founding organisations, funders and partners, with a strong environmental focus, such as environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities or research institutions, are likely to generate initiatives’ incentives to take further action on biodiversity protection. Accordingly, we investigated whether initiatives closely engaging with environmental-focused organisations including international organisations (e.g. the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)), NGOs (e.g. the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF)), and think tanks (e.g. the World Resource Institute (WRI)), and universities and research institutions, have made strong commitments on biodiversity. Table 5 shows that TGIs having environment-oriented organizations as key stakeholders (e.g. founding organizations, funders or partners) have considered biodiversity in their agendas. Only two out of the eighteen initiatives that considered biodiversity did not have actively engaged with environment-focused stakeholders (i.e. Water UK and Scotch Whisky Association), but both of them focus on primary industries having close links to natural resources and biodiversity.

In summary, commitments on biodiversity protection vary significantly across 25 partner initiatives of the RtZ, and many initiatives have yet to build strong synergies with climate mitigation and nature. Several factors that can potentially trigger initiatives’ interest in biodiversity. Our preliminary assessment suggests that the target sector and active engagement with environment-oriented stakeholders are likely to incentivize TGIs to consider biodiversity along with their net zero agenda. In other words, initiatives created by organisations with a strong focus on environmental and natural protection or with members having higher stakes in biodiversity as a result of the nature of their industry would have more interest in paying attention to biodiversity protection in conjunction with action to mitigate climate change. That said, our basic analysis cannot demonstrate any causal relationships and more careful assessment is needed in the future to rigorously test these hypotheses of different explanatory factors of variation in biodiversity commitments across transnational net zero initiatives.

Conclusion

Over the past decade, the importance of climate-biodiversity nexus has been increasingly recognized by researchers and practitioners of climate change. Accordingly, many calls for action have been made to pursue co-benefits between emission reductions and biodiversity protection. However, until now, we still know little about the extent to which biodiversity goals are considered in climate action across the globe, especially nonstate and subnational actions, which are now a key driver of the global effort towards the Paris goals. To bridge this knowledge gap, our study provides a snapshot on the linkages between net zero action and biodiversity protection in transitional climate governance. To investigate transnational initiatives’ approaches to addressing the climate-biodiversity nexus, we developed an index to rank the extent to which biodiversity and ecosystems are considered in each initiative’s net zero commitments. We then used this index to examine biodiversity commitments made as of May 2022 by 25 partner initiatives of the RtZ – a UN-backed global campaign representing the most robust voluntary net zero action in the transnational arena. Our findings show that TGCIs’ consideration of biodiversity varies within the RtZ and 28% of the RtZ partner initiatives have yet to consider biodiversity issues at all. At the same time, 36% of the RtZ initiatives have identified detailed commitments and action plans to ensure no harm on biodiversity.

We then considered if the observed variation within the RtZ is driven by some characteristics of TGIs. Simple correlational analysis suggests that the initiative’s target sector and the engagement with environment-oriented stakeholders are likely to be associated with RtZ partner initiatives’ consideration of biodiversity issues in their net zero strategies and commitments. While our exploratory approach cannot generate any conclusive findings on the drivers of TGIs’ commitments to address climate-biodiversity nexus, the study sheds light on the linkages between climate mitigation and biodiversity protection in the recent net zero movement, and shows the remaining gaps in building synergies between emission reductions and nature protection and restoration through transnational governance. TGIs supporting climate action need to better recognize climate-biodiversity nexus and identify clear strategies and targets in pursing synergies between climate mitigation and adaptation on one hand and biodiversity protection on the other. Looking ahead, net zero action should be further enhanced through detailed, science-based ambitions focusing on climate-biodiversity co-benefits in order to achieve transformative governance; otherwise, calls for rapid net zero transition may run the risk of harming nature [11,13].

Through the lens of climate-biodiversity nexus, we hope our study can trigger more research to carefully assess risks and opportunities of rising net zero commitments [15] and generate timely policy recommendations for transnational climate and biodiversity governance. As a major limitation of our study, we cannot examine TGIs’ achievements in pursuing synergies between climate action and biodiversity protection, particularly as some initiatives’ targets have not yet been actioned or put forth into agenda. We also recognise that how TGIs choose to frame themselves may incorporate their own biases and may not truly reflect their actual action on biodiversity protection. Future research should therefore investigate the implementation of biodiversity-related targets by TGIs and assess how synergies between climate mitigation and biodiversity protection are actually pursued in different contexts such as through NbS. In particular, time-series studies examining the output or efficacy of TCGIs upon achieving NbS or improving biodiversity would provide much needed evidence of the extent to which biodiversity ‘promises’ are kept by achieving pledged commitments, not only to net zero but additionally to biodiversity targets. As NbS has increasingly gained traction internationally and technological advancement can further improve their efficiency, future research should also pay attention to novel NbS approaches and study their contributions to net zero transitions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article and its supplementary materials.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council Standard Research Studentship for Natalie Page (EP/P000640/1).

Notes

1 Our primary aim is to identify variation in efforts to address climate-biodiversity across TGIs in the RtZ. Beyond this, we also consider the influence of TGIs’ key characteristics on the variation observed, but leave robust examination of drivers of such variation out of the scope of our study.

2 More information can be found on the official website of the campaign: https://racetozero.unfccc.int/system/race-to-zero/.

3 See the data collected by Net Zero Tracker as of July 2023, available at https://zerotracker.net/.

4 In 2022, the RtZ began a consultation process to revise and upgrade its criteria through public consultations and the new criteria were approved in June 2022. The new criteria include “Persuade” as the 5^th “P”, which requires members to align external policy and engagement, including membership in associations, within 12 months of joining, to the goal of halving emissions by 2030 and reaching global (net) zero by 2050. See the details of the new criteria at https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Race-to-Zero-Criteria-3.0-4.pdf.

5 In the RtZ’s new criteria (3.0) in force from 15 June 2022 for new applicants and 15 June 2023 for existing partners, biodiversity has become more prominent. Two leadership practices explicitly focusing on nature, which are pledging to halt deforestation and protect biodiversity and integrating the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies. The RtZ’s 3.0 criteria are available at https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Race-to-Zero-Criteria-3.0-4.pdf.

6 Although the requirement set by RtZ to achieve net zero by 2050 was universal, it was observed that several partner initiatives and their members had pledged to achieve net zero at earlier target dates, by 2030 or by 2040.

7 Most initiatives have been consistent in their approach to climate-biodiversity nexus across documents they published. But if different texts published by the same initiative were coded as different ranks, we categorize that initiative into the highest rank. Our rationale is that initiatives may not be able to mention all details of their actions or plans for climate-biodiversity nexus in all their communications.

8 We also tried to use other ways to measure intercoder reliability and got similar results. For example, using Cohen’s kappa and assuming that 10%–15% of expected agreements were reached by chance, the intercoder reliability is still 75–82%.

9 Members are required to publicly declare the Climate and Ecological Emergency on their website and social media, and also set targets and take action on net zero. But no biodiversity-related action is required or recommended to companies willing to join the initiative. See details on the website of Business Declares: https://businessdeclares.com/apply.

10 See the details of the new criteria at https://climatechampions.unfccc.int/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Race-to-Zero-Criteria-3.0-4.pdf.

Appendix

The following keywords were used in the search of each document and inductive coding was used which analysed the context around which the keywords were used, especially what action will be taken to address the climate-biodiversity nexus.

 

 

 

Table A1. Keywords used to identify the text for coding.

Biodiversity	Biodiverse	Biome
Ecosystem	Ecology	Ecological
Nature	Natural	Nature-based solutions
Species	Organism	Plant
Animal	Forest	Habitat
Conservation

Table A2. Short description of the initiatives included in the study.

Name	Short description	Website
Under 2 Coalition	Community of state and regional governments committed to ambitious climate action in line with the Paris Agreement. Representing governments for more than 1.3 billion people and 43% of the global economy.	https://www.theclimategroup.org/under2-coalition
ICLEI’s Climate Neutrality Framework	A network of more than 2500 international local and regional governments committed to sustainable urban development.	https://iclei.org/en/Climate_neutrality.html
Race to Zero for Universities & Colleges	A campaign run in partnership with The Alliance for Sustainability Leadership in Education (EUAC), Second Nature, and UNEP. EAUC are the secretariat.	https://www.educationracetozero.org/home
Water UK	UK trade association for the water industry. Represents companies across the UK committed to achieving net zero on operational emissions, and carbon neutrality across all emissions by 2050.	https://www.water.org.uk/netzerowater/
Exponential Roadmap Initiative	An initiative designed for innovators, transformers and disruptors acting in line with 1.5 °C.	https://exponentialroadmap.org/
International Wineries for Climate Action	A collaborative working group of environmentally conscious wineries focused on a science-based approach to reducing carbon emissions across the wine industry.	https://www.iwcawine.org
Health Care Without Harm / Health Care Climate Challenge	International NGO working on transforming health care worldwide to reduce its environmental footprint, becoming a community anchor for sustainability, and a leader in the global movement for environmental health and justice.	https://noharm.org/
Net Zero Asset Owners	Asset Owner Alliance is convened by UNEP’s Finance Initiative and the Principles for Responsible Investment.	https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-alliance/
UN-Convened Net Zero Banking Alliance	An industry-led, UN-convened banking alliance representing over 50 banks and almost a quarter of global banking assets, expressing commitment to align lending and investment portfolios with net-zero emissions by 2050.	https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-banking/
UN-convened Net-Zero Insurance Alliance	UN-convened insurance alliance, and a group of some internationally leading insurers, representing more than 14% of global premium volume.	https://www.unepfi.org/net-zero-insurance/
B Corp Climate Collective	A sustainability certification program for companies to act on the climate emergency.	https://www.bcorpclimatecollective.org/
Business Ambition for 1.5C	Non-profit coalition working with businesses and policy actors to halve global emissions by 2030 and transition to global net-zero by 2050 in line with a 1.5 °C pathway.	https://www.wemeanbusinesscoalition.org/
Science Based Targets Initiative-Financial Sector Project (SBTi)	A global body encouraging businesses to set ambitious emissions reductions targets in line with up-to-date climate science.	https://sciencebasedtargets.org/sectors/financial-institutions
Cities Race to Zero	Community of cities signed onto RtZ by pledging to net-zero in the 2040s or sooner, or by 2050 at the latest, in line with global efforts to limit warming to 1.5C.	https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/cities-race-to-zero/
Planet Mark	A sustainability certification programme for various types of organisations, e.g. real estate and products. This certification recognises continual improvement, encourages action, and builds a network for individuals striving to make a difference in sustainability	https://www.planetmark.com
Scotch Whisky Association	Scotland’s first trade association, and first UK food and drink trade association, to be recognised as an RtZ partner.	https://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/insights/sustainability/
Tech Zero taskforce	A taskforce of tech companies aiming to decarbonise the tech sector as fast as possible, accounting for almost 3% of global GHG emissions.	https://techzero.technation.io/
Business Declares	A not-for-profit formed by leaders with experience from SME, B Corp companies, and FTSE100 sectors. It exists to raise awareness and prompt action across the business sector in addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and social injustice.	https://businessdeclares.com/
Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative	An international group of asset managers committed to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner by supporting investing aligned with net zero emissions.	https://www.netzeroassetmanagers.org/
Paris Aligned Asset Owners (PAAO)	A global group of asset owners, mainly pension funds, committed to aligning their portfolios with the goals of the Paris Agreement.	https://www.parisalignedinvestment.org/
The Climate Pledge	A pledge commitment for large companies with international reach to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 and promote cross-sector collaboration.	https://www.theclimatepledge.com/
SME Climate Hub	SME Climate Hub provides tools and resources to enable SMEs to make climate commitments and measure progress towards emissions reductions.	https://smeclimatehub.org
CBN Expert SME Net Zero Community	Provides businesses the tools and insight needed to calculate, measure and track carbon footprints.	https://www.futurenetzero.com/
Pledge To Net Zero	An environmental sector programme to halve carbon emissions by 2030. Those in the environmental sector are to demonstrate leadership and take strong actions to mitigate impacts of climate change.	https://www.pledgetonetzero.org/
Sports for Climate Action	Partnership convened by the UNFCCC, working toward a clear trajectory for the global sports community to combat climate change. Viewing sports as a unifying tool to federate and create solidarity among global citizens for climate action.	https://unfccc.int/climate-action/sectoral-engagement/sports-for-climate-action/participants-in-the-sports-for-climate-action-framework