Biodiversity loss is no longer a niche issue—for companies that rely on agricultural supply chains, it is increasingly becoming a tangible business risk. At the same time, pressure is mounting from policymakers, investors, and civil society to actively invest in the protection and restoration of ecosystems. Against this backdrop, innovative financing instruments such as biodiversity credits are increasingly coming into focus—not least since they are explicitly mentioned as an instrument in the Kunming-Montreal Framework for Biodiversity.
But what is the German food industry’s actual stance on this new market tool? Is there real demand—or is it just a theory for now? That is precisely what the Global Nature Fund, Food for Biodiversity, and the IKI project “Del Campo al Plato” (From Farm to Fork, implemented by the German Society for International Cooperation GmbH) examined in a recent report.
About the Report
For the study, eight interviews were conducted with representatives of German food companies, as well as one interview with the Federal Association of the German Food Trade—the companies surveyed collectively account for a significant portion of the German food retail sector and food industry. The interviews were supplemented by an online survey of six additional companies and a workshop with about 20 industry stakeholders.
Biodiversity financing has long been a reality—but it remains fragmented
Nine of the 14 companies surveyed are already funding biodiversity-related initiatives—mostly through their own supply chain programs, direct project funding, or the purchase of certified products. In almost all cases, companies collaborate with specialized partners such as NGOs or universities. What is often missing, however, is a structured strategy and a reliable method for measuring the actual impact of these investments.
The biggest hurdles: measurability, budget, and expertise
The companies surveyed cite the measurability of biodiversity as a key challenge—one that is significantly more complex than, for example, CO₂ footprints. Added to this are limited budgets, a lack of in-house expertise, and the difficulty of communicating long-term environmental impacts both internally and externally. One interviewee summed it up: Customers often have neither the time nor the interest in complex explanations about biodiversity.
A Clear Preference: Proximity to the Supply Chain Over Offsetting
One notable finding of the study: All of the companies surveyed prefer projects that are geographically linked to their own supply chains—ideally, directly in the regions where their raw materials originate. Traditional offsetting—that is, compensating for damage elsewhere—did not play a role for any of the companies. Instead, investments are seen as a means of making one’s own supply chain more resilient (“insetting”). Smaller projects under 100 hectares, as well as initiatives focused on regenerative agriculture and pesticide reduction, are also attracting particular interest.
Biodiversity Credits: Cautious but Growing Interest
None of the companies surveyed has had any practical experience with purchasing biodiversity credits to date. The skepticism is palpable—shaped by negative experiences with voluntary CO₂ markets. 89% of respondents view greenwashing as a key risk, while 67% fear a lack of acceptance among stakeholders. Among the points of criticism are the lack of uniform standards, double counting, and the fundamental question of whether biodiversity can even be meaningfully represented in comparable units: “There is no equivalent to an orangutan,” said one interviewee.
Still, interest is growing. Five out of six companies that participated in the online survey want to learn more about biodiversity credits. Greater transparency, comparability through standardized methods, and low-threshold access to biodiversity financing are seen as the primary opportunities. One thing is particularly important to companies in this regard: a clear connection to their own supply chain (89% agreement) and a solid scientific foundation (78%).
Outlook: Complement, Not Replacement
The companies surveyed do not view biodiversity credits as a replacement for existing measures, but rather as a potential complement to them—with a realistic timeframe of three to five years until methods and standards are sufficiently developed. Large retail companies and food brands with the necessary budgets and high public visibility are considered likely pioneers.
Conclusion
The German food industry is in an early-adopter phase: Interest in biodiversity financing is growing noticeably, but market structures, knowledge, and trust in new instruments such as biodiversity credits are still in the early stages of development. For biodiversity credits to realize their potential as an additional financing tool, one thing is needed above all else: robust, transparent, and scientifically sound governance structures that do not repeat the mistakes of voluntary carbon markets.
You can find the full report, “Financing Biodiversity in Supply Chains – Biodiversity Credits and Other Innovative Financial Mechanisms,” here: CAP GNF Biodiversity Credits and Other Financial Mechanisms – Global Nature Fund
The study is part of the IKI project “Del Campo al Plato” (From Farm to Fork), implemented by the German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ) in cooperation with the Global Nature Fund and Food for Biodiversity , on behalf of the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Climate Action, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety (BMUKN).
