Managing uncertainty in nature
In a world of tipping points, the best strategies are built for change
Why scenario planning matters
Most corporate “nature strategies” fall flat because they treat tomorrow as a straight extension of today. Real-world social, technological, and ecological forces rarely move in neat lines.
Nature-related risks are especially unpredictable. Unlike climate change, which unfolds in globally modelled patterns, nature risks often emerge from local disruptions and escalate rapidly. For example, a collapsing fishery, an invasive species, or a disrupted pollination chain can tip ecosystems past a point of return. Scenario planning is one of the few tools capable of capturing these non-linear dynamics, allowing companies to explore how nature loss might hit supply chains, operations, or stakeholder expectations in very different ways.
Scenario planning acknowledges the bends in the road. It offers a disciplined way to:
Spot the forces that could reshape your context — from new policy to sudden ecosystem tipping points.
Spin those forces into a handful of vivid, plausible futures — each internally consistent, none “right”.
Stress-test today’s strategy against every future, then design moves that stay resilient (or bounce back fast) whichever one shows up.
A few companies already use scenario planning for nature-related risks, but adoption (and rigour) is still the exception, not the rule.
What effective scenario planning looks like
A couple of years ago, the TNFD released comprehensive guidance on scenario planning for nature.
The guidance emphasises exploratory scenario analysis, recommending a 2 × 2 framework built around uncertainties tied to transition and physical risks. Later guidance also goes into detail about normative approaches — those that start by defining a desired end-state and work backwards to describe what needs to happen for that to become a reality.
Regardless of the approach being taken, companies need to decide on the granularity of their assessment. Granularity isn’t about more detail for its own sake. It’s about zooming in where it matters — and zooming out where it doesn’t. Here’s how to get that balance right:
Start with the ambition: If the goal is to guide investment decisions, shape site strategy, or manage risk in a hotspot — go deep. If it’s big-picture disclosure or early scoping, a higher-level view might be enough.
Prioritise by risk. Focus on the places, value chains, commodities, or activities where nature loss could hit hardest. It’s natural that some areas of the business requires greater attention.
Match the method to the question. Normative scenarios often demand more specificity. Exploratory ones may benefit from broader framing to catch what’s coming over the horizon, especially if there’s significant uncertainty on the path.
Don’t let data gaps dictate ambition. Use the best you’ve got now — then get sharper over time. Granularity can (and should) evolve.
Be clear on decisions that you are trying to influence. The right level of detail is the one that helps your team make better, faster, more resilient choices — not just fill out a slide deck.
A case of granularity
Let’s imagine a business that manufactures food across Europe and South America. The business produces own brand products that are sold to major supermarkets across Europe and the US.
It has decided that it wants to undertake exploratory scenario analyses and will undertake assessments at a corporate, product input, and manufacturing site level.
The figures below show what scenario analysis looks like at three levels — from a global corporate view down to a single site. Each map uses the same 2×2 framework (physical vs. transition risk) but applies it to a different part of the business. This helps ensure that the company’s overall strategy, sourcing approach, and local site plans are each resilient under a range of plausible futures.
Corporate level
At the corporate level the business wants to understand how global shifts in nature-related risk and response might reshape the company’s operating environment over the next decade. In line with TNFD recommendations the business explored macro-scale physical and transition risks through two questions:
Will nature-related impacts affect the provision of ecosystem services?
Will markets, regulators and financiers converge on clear expectations, or remain fragmented and reactive?
Corporate-level scenario analysis highlights how systemic shifts in ecosystem degradation and market expectations could reshape the company’s global operating environment. This informs long-term strategy and enterprise risk management.
Exploring futures for a high-risk, high-impact commodity
Brazilian soy is core to the company’s supply chain — used in multiple product lines across both animal feed and plant-based ingredients. But it also carries serious exposure to nature risk: land-use change, deforestation, water stress, and shifting regulation.
The team chooses to stress-test future strategy by exploring two critical uncertainties:
Will Brazil strengthen environmental enforcement — or allow nature degradation to continue?
Will global buyers (supermarkets, regulators, financiers) converge on strict nature-positive expectations — or stay fragmented and price-driven?
Zooming into Brazilian soy reveals how different futures might impact sourcing decisions — from stricter deforestation rules to shifts in consumer pressure. A critical input with high physical and reputational risk.
Exploring plausible futures for a nature-exposed production site
The company operates a major manufacturing facility in eastern Spain, a region already facing rising climate volatility and water stress. The plant is strategically important — supplying multiple markets and housing long-term equipment and workforce investments.
Will local ecosystems (e.g. water catchments, wetlands) continue degrading — or be restored and stabilised?
Will local and national governance align with long-term nature resilience — or remain fragmented and reactive?
At the site level, scenario planning surfaces localised risks like water availability and regulatory alignment. This supports decisions around capital investment, contingency planning, and site resilience.
How scenario planning supports better decisions
The true value of scenario planning isn’t in the diagrams or slide decks, but the decisions it makes possible. Done well, scenario analysis doesn’t just describe risk; it clarifies choices.
But, at different levels of granularity, the decisions it supports are different. At one end, it can help form long-term strategy for a business, while at the other it informs sourcing and site decisions.
By aligning exploratory scenarios across scales, companies can ensure their big-picture ambitions connect to local realities — and that resilience isn’t just a buzzword, but a capability embedded across the business.
Here’s how a multi-scale approach helps connect long-term strategy with on-the-ground action:
The future of scenario planning for nature
In five years, the question won’t be whether companies should use scenario planning for nature, but how well their strategies hold up across plausible futures.
As ecosystem risks intensify and stakeholder expectations evolve, leading businesses won’t treat uncertainty as an excuse to delay action. Instead, they’ll treat it as a design constraint and a way to build smarter, more resilient decisions into everything from procurement to capital planning.
Scenario planning won’t just be about risk management, but a core capability for navigating the complexity of nature-positive transformation. The pioneers will be those who go beyond compliance, who invest in imagination, and who understand that resilience doesn’t always mean playing it safe. It means preparing to adapt, fast and efficiently.
