· 8 min read
The case for investing in nature has never been stronger, yet the money still isn’t flowing. The global economy depends on stable ecosystems, but research puts the nature finance gap at roughly $700 billion a year — the difference between what is needed to safeguard natural systems and what is currently being invested. That shortfall poses risks to supply chains, food security, public health, insurance, and capital markets themselves.
Why finance isn’t flowing towards nature
While funds towards climate action and ESG have increased, investment has predominantly concentrated on mitigation and the energy transition. Biodiversity, water, soil and ecosystems remain underfunded, undervalued and underpriced.
For Eva Zabey, chief executive of advocacy platform Business for Nature, the problem is structural.
“The core reason this finance gap exists in the first place is that nature isn’t fully recognized – and valued – in mainstream business, economic and financial systems,” she says.
She explains that undervaluation is reinforced by perverse subsidy flows saying,
“Governments continue to spend an incredible amount of money, at least $2.6 trillion a year, on subsidies that harm nature, often unintentionally. We cannot close the finance gap if finance is still flowing to the very things that cause it.”
It’s clear that the economy exists within nature, with GDP growth often driven by the extraction of nature, whether that's in agriculture, forestry, fisheries, or mining, yet the value of these ecosystems is rarely accounted for until they are degraded or lost.
Zabey argues that ending harmful subsidies, requiring nature-related disclosures through frameworks like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, and creating credible sectoral pathways would make hidden risks visible, shift capital allocations, and reward resilience.
“By requiring companies and financial institutions to report on their dependencies and impacts on nature, we make it a core business issue, not an optional one,” she explains. “As a result, capital will naturally flow away from companies with high environmental risk and toward those that are more resilient.”
The policy foundations are in place. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commits governments to protect 30% of land and ocean by 2030, mobilize at least $220 billion a year, and reform $500 billion in harmful subsidies. Biodiversity protection is also embedded in the Paris Agreement, the EU Sustainable Finance Framework, the African Union’s AFR100 Initiative, and emerging taxonomies across Latin America and ASEAN.
The finance community is not blind to the risks either. PwC analysis in 2023 estimated that over half the world’s GDP — worth $58 trillion — is moderately or highly dependent on nature.
Why finance alone has stalled
Yet acknowledgement of the problem has not yet translated into flows of capital. Efforts to create tradable biodiversity instruments remain fragmented, poorly standardized, and often rest on the flawed assumption that ecosystems are fungible. Instead of true markets, there is a patchwork of pilots and outcome units that are not liquid or interoperable.
Voluntary corporate pledges, while numerous, often lack enforcement or alignment with core business models, leaving them vulnerable to charges of greenwashing. Meanwhile, ESG reporting frameworks remain carbon-centric, measuring CO₂ with relative precision but only partially capturing natural capital dependencies like water, soil health, or ecosystem integrity. This creates an asymmetry where investors can price carbon risk but lack comparable, decision-useful metrics for nature.
Until accounting, disclosure, and incentives evolve to reflect nature’s location-specific and non-fungible value, finance for biodiversity will remain underdeveloped. But how to get those systems to evolve?
For Hari Balasubramanian of EcoAdvisors, a founding partner of The NAT, part of the issue is communications.
“Nature itself, while foundational and underpinning to the global economy and human existence, has not necessarily been directly targeted within the ESG narrative,” he says. Too often resourcing nature has been “viewed as a cost that increases financial outflows, but is really an investment that can reduce risk and generate more value.” His blunt assessment, “Nature needs a publicist.”
A cultural reframing of value
This is the theory behind The NAT, an initiative launching at Climate Week in New York in September 2025. Conceived as both a cultural movement and an organizing platform, it is designed to coordinate action at scale, not only channeling investment, but aligning all aspects of strategy and execution needed for a nature-positive future consistent with the Biodiversity Plan. Its purpose is to make nature culturally relevant and consistently visible, creating the conditions under which finance can expand and accelerate. As Gail Gallie, co-founder of The NAT and former lead on the UN Sustainable Development Goals, explains:
“The NAT is the anchor for nature, and therefore offers a business bridge to a more successful future.”
The argument rests on the idea that markets move fastest when norms shift. Culture influences attitudes, which drive behaviors, which ultimately shape demand and capital allocation.
“It is hard to quantify, but it is clear when a vibe shift has happened within a given issue or industry, and once that shift has happened, actions and transactions move faster,” Gallie says.
Social tipping point research supports the logic, from smoking bans to renewable energy adoption, norms often change nonlinearly once they cross a threshold. Business history shows the same. The wellness economy grew into a $5 trillion industry less through subsidies than through aspiration. Plant-based food exploded because it became fashionable, and people perceived it as cruelty-free, healthy and climate friendly, not because it was mandated.
Behavioral economics also suggests that capital flows respond not only to risk–return calculations, but also to social legitimacy and narrative momentum. Without cultural alignment, financial mechanisms for nature may remain niche. With it, protection can move from compliance to social expectation.
Becoming nature’s publicist
The NAT’s founders argue that financial levers alone cannot close the gap. Their strategy is to combine cultural visibility with financial design. At its first gala, The NAT will honor Sylvia Earle and Stella McCartney, signaling legitimacy beyond conservation circles. While it will be providing funds to groups such as UNICEF, Conservation Now and Open Planet, it has enlisted the support of brands including Deloitte, Spotify, Bank of America, Salesforce, The Climate Pledge by Amazon and ServiceNow.
For these companies, participation is not just philanthropy but a bet that cultural engagement builds reputational resilience and long-term market value. Gallie explains,
“Cultural legitimacy gives a collective voice to the reality that nature underpins everything. It drives public interest, consumer behaviour, and, eventually, the decisions of corporate and investment executives.”
That legitimacy can reduce downside risks, from accusations of greenwashing to stranded assets tied to degraded ecosystems, while simultaneously creating upside in the form of reputational resilience, consumer trust, and access to new markets.
Its short-term focus is raising funds for restoration, communication, and education projects, with 85% of proceeds directed to Conservation International, 10% to Open Planet, and 5% to UNICEF. In the longer term, it aims to mobilize $100 million by 2025 and convene investors to co-design scalable instruments such as blended finance platforms and nature-linked bonds.
“The opportunity of The NAT platform is to scale the multi-billion-dollar solution set from the past decade into a multi-trillion-dollar underpinning of the global economy,” Balasubramanian explains.
Cultural reframing also requires authentic storytelling. As Rebecca Swift, Global SVP of Creative at Getty Images, notes,
“Visuals have become the universal language that everybody can understand. If you want to differentiate yourself, don’t put out generic imagery. Put out what you are really doing, make it specific, and make it honest.”
Can culture accelerate policy and disclosure?
Cultural leadership is not a substitute for policy and finance. Zabey emphasizes that without mandatory disclosure, subsidy reform, and sectoral pathways, culture risks being a sideshow. But she acknowledges that narrative matters: culture can accelerate recognition, ensuring disclosure is not just compliance but expectation.
For corporate leaders, culture is not “soft.” It shapes demand, reputation, and regulatory trajectories. Just as sustainability moved from CSR to risk management to core strategy, cultural alignment may prove to be the accelerant that pulls nature finance into the mainstream.
Of course a culture-first approach has risks. Campaigns can be commodified or lose legitimacy if not tied to real action. And fear of greenwashing can silence companies at the moment visibility is most needed.
“We’re at this weird inflection point where it could be something that loses momentum because of the concern about getting it wrong,” Swift warns.
Gallie acknowledges the tension but defends the approach.
“Spectacle is visible, and therefore important. But it is not the point. The point is to create sustained attention that channels into measurable investment.”
In other words, culture alone won’t deliver policy change, but it might help create the public and market expectation that makes disclosure meaningful and accelerates finance toward nature.
The strategic imperative
The cost of capital may become the clearest signal for executives to watch. Zabey is unequivocal saying,
“This isn’t just about ‘green’ practices; it’s about a fundamental shift where the health of nature is a prerequisite for financial stability and long-term value creation.”
Companies that fail to manage their nature dependencies will face tougher borrowing, insurance, and operational costs. In contrast, those that integrate nature resilience into their core strategy are likely to see improved risk profiles and stronger valuations.
But financial metrics alone don’t capture the full picture. Cultural legitimacy is playing an increasingly relevant role: firms perceived as aligned with societal expectations on nature gain reputational resilience, consumer trust, and market access, while those that fall behind face not only rising capital costs but also the risk of consumer backlash.
Culture will not close the $700 billion finance gap on its own. Yet without cultural reframing — without norms that make investing in nature a social and market expectation — policy and finance are likely to stall. If finance is the engine, culture may be the ignition switch. The challenge will be turning sparks into momentum and sustained flows of capital.
This article is also published on Forbes. illuminem Voices is a democratic space presenting the thoughts and opinions of leading Sustainability & Energy writers, their opinions do not necessarily represent those of illuminem.
Curious how major companies measure up on climate? On illuminem’s Data Hub™, explore verified emissions data, net‑zero targets, and sustainability performance of thousands of firms — from industry leaders to emerging innovators.
