The Implementation of Biodiversity Footprinting: Examining Supply Chains

Biodiversity is foundational to human health, economic stability, and industrial resilience, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, which is intrinsically reliant on natural ecosystems.

Over 60% of pharmaceuticals originate from biological sources, including plants, microbes, and marine organisms (World Health Organization [WHO], 2013, yet the industry’s operations often contribute to biodiversity loss through land degradation, overharvesting, pollution, and habitat destruction (Newman & Cragg, 2020; Molinari et al., 2016).

As global environmental risks escalate and regulatory frameworks such as the Global Biodiversity Framework and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) introduce new compliance obligations, businesses must evolve from climate-only metrics to holistic environmental governance (Convention on Biological Diversity 2024).

This white paper introduces Supply Chain Biodiversity Footprinting (SCBF), a science-based, spatially explicit method rooted in Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA), to quantify, disclose, and mitigate nature related risks across supply chains. Drawing on real-world examples, including a case study from Bespak, it demonstrates how SCBF can inform strategic decisions, support regulatory compliance, and advance nature-positive goals.

Aligning with major biodiversity frameworks and regulations, SCBF empowers businesses to lead in biodiversity accountability, supply chain resilience, and long-term innovation.

Nature is a Business Imperative in Pharma

The pharmaceutical industry is intrinsically linked to biodiversity. According to the WHO, over 60% of pharmaceuticals originate from natural compounds, including plant alkaloids, microbial metabolites, and marine organisms. These biological resources underpin pharmaceutical innovation and therapeutic development (Katz & Baltz, 2016).

Despite this dependence, the industry’s operations, characterized by large-scale resource extraction, intensive monocultures, and energy intensive synthesis, can cause significant harm to biodiversity (IPBES, 2019).

Activities such as deforestation to grow medicinal crops, water depletion for manufacturing, and pollution from pharmaceutical effluents all contribute to ecosystem degradation (aus der Beek et al., 2016). This ecological toll is often geographically distant from consumers but disproportionately impacts biodiversity hotspots in tropical and subtropical regions (Watson et al., 2018).

According to the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 2019, more than one million species are at risk of extinction, many within decades, primarily due to anthropogenic pressures).

These losses are not only morally and ecologically troubling but also economically and operationally dangerous for the pharmaceutical sector (Reuter et al., 2021). Biodiversity loss can disrupt research pipelines, reduce the availability of critical compounds, and increase supply chain volatility. (Molinari et al 2016).

To safeguard future innovation and supply chain continuity, businesses must move from reactive environmental compliance to a more proactive, systems-based governance model (Reuter et al., 2021).

SCBF provides a structured, science-based mechanism for assessing, quantifying, and addressing biodiversity related risks across complex value chains.

Biodiversity: What is it and Why Does it Matter to Businesses?

Biodiversity refers to the diversity of life at three interconnected levels (Convention on Biological Diversity 2024):

• Genetic diversity
• Species diversity
• Ecosystem diversity

This complexity supports the functionality of ecosystems and the services they provide, which can be categorized into four distinct services. (Figure 1).

The pharmaceutical sector has historically benefited from this broad spectrum of ecosystem services (aus der Beek et al., 2016). For example, research into soil bacteria has led to the discovery of key antibiotics, including actinomycin and erythromycin, and marine biodiversity has provided novel compounds such as ziconotide (derived from cone snails) for pain management (Katz & Baltz, 2016).

Ecosystems degradation through drivers such as deforestation, wetland drainage, marine collapse, or chemical pollution, threaten the natural materials much of the pharmaceutical sector relies upon (Newman & Cragg, 2020).

Loss of biodiversity directly threatens operational stability by limiting access to unique biological resources and increasing vulnerability to supply disruptions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the reliance on specific plant-based compounds, including those used in traditional medicine and vaccine stabilizers, illustrated the fragility of natural supply chains under environmental stress (Reuter et al., 2021).

The Importance of Environmental Compliance and Transparency for Business

As environmental pressures mount, global regulatory expectations are rising. Key applicable regulations and frameworks now demanding action and disclosure include:

• The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), particularly Target 15 on corporate disclosure.
• The UK Environment Act, which mandates biodiversity net gain.
• The EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), including Article E4 on ecosystem impact.
• The EU Biodiversity Strategy Plan for 2030.

Non-compliance with regulations can lead to regulatory fines whilst non-compliance with key frameworks may lead to restricted market access, and investor withdrawal. Conversely, transparency fosters resilience through:

• Enhanced stakeholder trust and reputational strength.
• Stronger integration of Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) principles into business operations.
• Early identification of nature-related risk and strategic opportunities.

Disclosure encourages cross-department collaboration, strategic foresight, and informed planning, making it a core business capability rather than a peripheral reporting task.

For instance, leading pharmaceutical businesses that have embedded biodiversity into ESG reporting (e.g., GSK and Roche) have been able to pre-empt regulatory shifts and secure long-term procurement contracts (Kumar & Darnall, 2023).

Public disclosure also strengthens access to green finance opportunities and nature-aligned investment vehicles. As sustainability-linked loans and nature performance bonds gain traction, transparent and science-based reporting on biodiversity footprints can provide a strategic edge in competitive capital markets (Diaz et al., 2020).

Supply Chain Biodiversity Footprints: What Are They & Why Are They Important?

While carbon accounting has become standard, it does not capture the full scope of ecological impact. Biodiversity footprinting expands the environmental lens to include:

These pressure pathways can be evaluated using LCIA models to examine the potential negative impact an activity has on global biodiversity. One key metric, or output, is the species.yr metric, which measures the potential loss of species diversity due to supply chain activities over a year (Figure 2).

The impact on biodiversity from key environmental change drivers (i.e., habitat destruction, freshwater acidification, climate change impacts, pollution, etc.) are quantified as a fraction of species affected annually. Therefore, this methodology quantifies the probability of global species extinction linked to business activities (Watson et al., 2018).

SCBF builds on these models and introduces a comprehensive method to assess upstream biodiversity impacts across the product lifecycle, from raw material extraction to distribution. Its methodological features include:

SCBF in Practice: A Bespak Case Study

Bespak, a specialist inhalation contract development and manufacturing business, has undertaken SCBF assessments at its two UK sites, Holmes Chapel and King’s Lynn, as part of its wider commitment to understanding and reducing its ecological footprint.

The primary drivers of biodiversity impact across both sites were found to be:

• Terrestrial climate change, which alters habitat conditions and species viability.
• Land use conversion, particularly the transformation of natural landscapes for agricultural or industrial supply chain inputs.
• Freshwater ecotoxicity, resulting from the release of harmful substances into aquatic systems via production processes.

Further summary of the SCBF analyses results are illustrated in Figure 4. See the full results from their Biodiversity report here.

In response to these findings, Bespak has begun implementing a site-specific suite of mitigation strategies aligned with the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy, Avoid, Minimize, Restore, and Offset.

This includes engaging high-impact suppliers to promote sustainable sourcing practices, identifying opportunities to reduce or redesign inputs that drive land use and pollution pressures, and exploring nature-positive interventions both onsite and within the wider value chain.

This case study illustrates the practical value of SCBF not only as a diagnostic tool but as a strategic enabler. By translating complex environmental data into actionable insights, results from these SCBF assessments are enabling Bespak to embed biodiversity considerations into procurement, compliance, and long-term sustainability planning.

It demonstrates a forward-looking approach to corporate biodiversity accountability, aligned with evolving global frameworks and stakeholder expectations.

Aligning with Global Frameworks

SCBF plays a critical role in enabling businesses to meet their obligations under an evolving landscape of biodiversity-related frameworks. As both voluntary and mandatory disclosure expectations continue to rise, SCBF offers a structured, science-based approach to align with key initiatives and provide credible data to support regulatory compliance, investor expectations, and strategic foresight.

SCBF supports compliance with and alignment to several major biodiversity and ESG frameworks:

SCBF Supports Compliance With and Alignment To Several Major Biodiversity and ESG Frameworks

By linking operational impacts to global goals, SCBF provides businesses with the tools to integrate biodiversity considerations into their corporate strategies.

This not only facilitates regulatory compliance and reduces legal and reputational risk but also unlocks new opportunities, such as improved access to green finance, enhanced supply chain resilience, and competitive positioning in environmentally conscious markets.

The Role of Pharma Suppliers and Collaborative Nature Responsibility

Upstream supply chain operations are often where biodiversity impacts are most concentrated (Reuter et al., 2021). Pharmaceutical businesses rely on a globally distributed and complex network of contract manufacturers, raw ingredient suppliers, agricultural producers, and logistics providers (Diaz et al., 2020).

Many of the biodiversity risks associated with pharmaceutical production originate from practices such as the overharvesting of medicinal plants, land-use change for cultivation of raw materials, wastewater discharges from chemical manufacturing, and unregulated expansion of logistics infrastructure.

Because these impacts occur beyond the direct operational control of pharmaceutical businesses, addressing them requires a collaborative, systemic approach to sustainability (Newman & Cragg, 2020).

Next Steps and Call to Action

To embed biodiversity into business resilience and regulatory compliance, pharmaceutical businesses should take a structured and proactive approach to managing their biodiversity impacts. The following steps are recommended:

By integrating these steps into business operations, pharmaceutical businesses can move beyond regulatory compliance to play an active role in ecosystem protection (Aus der Beek et al., 2016). The SCBF methodology empowers businesses to quantify, disclose, and mitigate their impacts in a science-based manner.

Works Cited

Convention on Biological Diversity. (n.d.). What is biodiversity? https://www.cbd.int/

Díaz, S., et al. (2020). Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science, 370(6515), 411–413. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe1530

Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services. IPBES Secretariat.

Katz, L., & Baltz, R. H. (2016). Natural product discovery: Past, present, and future. Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 43, 155–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-015-1688-0

Kumar, U., & Darnall, B. R. (2023). Biodiversity risk management in ESG disclosures: Corporate responses to evolving environmental expectations. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(3), 1134–1147. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3044

Molinari, A., et al. (2016). Pharmaceuticals from marine sources: Past, present and future. Marine Drugs, 14(5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/md14050098

Newman, D. J., & Cragg, G. M. (2020). Natural products as sources of new drugs over the nearly four decades from 01/1981 to 09/2019. Journal of Natural Products, 83(3), 770–803. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b01285

Reuter, J. T., Olsen, L. D., & Kennedy, M. K. (2021). Biodiversity loss and its implications for pharmaceutical supply chains. Global Environmental Change, 68, 102264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102264

Aus der Beek, M., et al. (2016). Pharmaceuticals in the environment—Global occurrences and perspectives. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 35(4), 823–835. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.3339

Watson, J. E. M., et al. (2018). The exceptional value of intact forest ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2, 599–610. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0490-x

World Health Organization. (2013). Traditional medicine strategy 2014–2023. WHO.

Morris, S. (2025). All graphics. Tunley Environmental Ltd.