Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Analysis
  • Published:

Nature-positive goals for an organization’s food consumption

Nature Food volume 4, pages 96–108 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Organizations are increasingly committing to biodiversity protection targets with focus on ‘nature-positive’ outcomes, yet examples of how to feasibly achieve these targets are needed. Here we propose an approach to achieve nature-positive targets with respect to the embodied biodiversity impacts of an organization’s food consumption. We quantify these impacts using a comprehensive database of life-cycle environmental impacts from food, and map exploratory strategies to meet defined targets structured according to a mitigation and conservation hierarchy. By considering the varying needs and values across the organization’s internal community, we identify a range of targeted approaches towards mitigating impacts, which balance top-down and bottom-up actions to different degrees. Delivering ambitious nature-positive targets within current constraints will be challenging, particularly given the need to mitigate cumulative impacts. Our results evidence that however committed an organization is to being nature positive in its food provision, this is unachievable in the absence of systems change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Food consumption and biodiversity impacts at the college.
Fig. 2: Net changes in cumulative and annual biodiversity impacts from food, modelled for five illustrative target scenarios and a BAU scenario.
Fig. 3: Comparison of five strategies for mitigating the biodiversity impacts of food served at the college.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data on environmental impacts per food ingredient34 (dataset 1 described in Methods) is publicly available via the Oxford University Research Archive depository60. Data providing environmental values per food product linked to foodDB39 (see description of datasets 2 and 3 in Methods) is described by Clark et al. (2022)61 with an anonymized version of this dataset freely available via the Oxford University Research Archive depository62. Owing to legal constraints, non-anonymized data from the foodDB database is available under license upon request (foodDBaccess@ndph.ox.ac.uk). Datasets on food product quantities and anonymized interview responses used in this study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. For legal confidentiality reasons, financial data from the college cannot be made publicly available. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Code relating to calculations of environmental values per food product (as per Clark et al.61) is available on the Oxford University Research Archive depository62.

References

  1. Mace, G. M. et al. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nat. Sustain. 1, 448–451 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Díaz, S., et al. Pervasive human-driven decline of life on Earth points to the need for transformative change. Science 366, eaax3100 (2019).

  3. Díaz, S. et al. Set ambitious goals for biodiversity and sustainability. Science 370, 411 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Locke, H., et al. A Nature-Positive World: The Global Goal for Nature (Wildlife Conservation Society, 2020); https://library.wcs.org/doi/ctl/view/mid/33065/pubid/DMX3974900000.aspx

  5. Open-ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. First Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework CBD/WG2020/3/3 (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2021).

  6. Open-Ended Working Group on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Draft Recommendation Submitted by the Co-Chairs CBD/WG2020/4/L.2-ANNEX (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2022).

  7. Environment Act 2021 (UK) (HM Government, 2021); https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/30/contents/enacted

  8. Bull, J. W. & Strange, N. The global extent of biodiversity offset implementation under no net loss policies. Nat. Sustain. 1, 790–798 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Prendeville, S., Cherim, E. & Bocken, N. Circular cities: mapping six cities in transition. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 26, 171–194 (2018).

  10. de Silva, G. C., Regan, E. C., Pollard, E. H. B. & Addison, P. F. E. The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: understanding appetite and addressing challenges. Bus. Strategy Environ. 28, 1481–1495 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Exploring the ecological outcomes of mandatory biodiversity net gain using evidence from early‐adopter jurisdictions in England. Conserv. Lett. 14, e12820 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. McGlyn, J., et al. Science-Based Targets for Nature: Initial Guidance for Business (Science Based Targets Network, 2020); https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/resource-repository/

  13. zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges. J. Clean. Prod. 379, 134798 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Addison, P. F. E., Bull, J. W. & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability. Conserv. Biol. 33, 307–318 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Smith, T. et al. Biodiversity means business: reframing global biodiversity goals for the private sector. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12690 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Maron, M. et al. Setting robust biodiversity goals. Conserv. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12816 (2021).

  17. Newing, H. & Perram, A. What do you know about conservation and human rights? Oryx 53, 595–596 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Standard on Biodiversity Offsets (The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, 2012).

  19. Arlidge, W. N. S., et al. A mitigation hierarchy approach for managing sea turtle captures in small-scale fisheries. Front. Mar. Sci. 7, 49 (2020).

  20. Squires, D. & Garcia, S. The least-cost biodiversity impact mitigation hierarchy with a focus on marine fisheries and bycatch issues. Conserv. Biol. 32, 989–997 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Booth, H., Squires, D. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. The mitigation hierarchy for sharks: a risk-based framework for reconciling trade-offs between shark conservation and fisheries objectives. Fish Fish. 21, 269–289 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gupta, T. et al. Mitigation of elasmobranch bycatch in trawlers: a case study in Indian fisheries. Front. Mari. Sci. 7, 571 (2020).

  23. Budiharta, S. et al. Restoration to offset the impacts of developments at a landscape scale reveals opportunities, challenges and tough choices. Global Environ. Change 52, 152–161 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bull, J. W. et al. Net positive outcomes for nature. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 4–7 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Arlidge, W. N. S. et al. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature conservation. BioScience 68, 336–347 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Milner-Gulland, E. J. et al. Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth 4, 75–87 (2021).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Wolff, A., Gondran, N. & Brodhag, C. Detecting unsustainable pressures exerted on biodiversity by a company. Application to the food portfolio of a retailer. J. Clean. Prod. 166, 784–797 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief 15 Land Use and Land Cover Statistics: Global, Regional and Country Trends, 1990–2018 (FAO, 2020).

  29. Williams, D. R. et al. Proactive conservation to prevent habitat losses to agricultural expansion. Nat. Sustain. 4, 314–322 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Leclère, D. et al. Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy. Nature 585, 551–556 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  31. Springmann, M. et al. Health and nutritional aspects of sustainable diet strategies and their association with environmental impacts: a global modelling analysis with country-level detail. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e451–e461 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Clark, M. A., Springmann, M., Hill, J. & Tilman, D. Multiple health and environmental impacts of foods. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 23357 (2019).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  33. Willett, W. et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems. Lancet 393, 447–492 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987 (2018).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Wiedmann, T., Lenzen, M., Keyßer, L. T. & Steinberger, J. K. Scientists’ warning on affluence. Nat. Commun. 11, 3107 (2020).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  36. Benton, T. G. et al. A ‘net zero’ equivalent target is needed to transform food systems. Nat. Food 2, 905–906 (2021). 2021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Crenna, E., Sinkko, T. & Sala, S. Biodiversity impacts due to food consumption in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 378–391 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Bull, J. W., et al. Analysis: the biodiversity footprint of the University of Oxford. Nature 604, 420–424 (2022).

  39. Harrington, R. A., Adhikari, V., Rayner, M. & Scarborough, P. Nutrient composition databases in the age of big data: foodDB, a comprehensive, real-time database infrastructure. BMJ Open 9, e026652 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Chaudhary, A., Verones, F., De Baan, L. & Hellweg, S. Quantifying land use impacts on biodiversity: combining species–area models and vulnerability indicators. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 9987–9995 (2015).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  41. Winter, L., Lehmann, A., Finogenova, N. & Finkbeiner, M. Including biodiversity in life cycle assessment—state of the art, gaps and research needs. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 67, 88–100 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chaudhary, A. & Kastner, T. Land use biodiversity impacts embodied in international food trade. Global Environ. Change 38, 195–204 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lenzen, M. et al. International trade drives biodiversity threats in developing nations. Nature 486, 109–112 (2012).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  44. Bates, B., et al. National Diet and Nutrition Survey Years 1 to 9 of the Rolling Programme (2008/2009–2016/2017): Time Trend and Income Analyses (Public Health England & Food Standards Agency, 2019).

  45. Stewart, C., Piernas, C., Cook, B. & Jebb, S. A. Trends in UK meat consumption: analysis of data from years 1–11 (2008–09 to 2018–19) of the National Diet and Nutrition Survey rolling programme. Lancet Planet. Health 5, e699–e708 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Nielsen, K. S. et al. Improving climate change mitigation analysis: a framework for examining feasibility. One Earth 3, 325–336 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  47. Selinske, M. J. et al. We have a steak in it: eliciting interventions to reduce beef consumption and its impact on biodiversity. Conserv. Lett. 13, e12721 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hollands, G. J. et al. The TIPPME intervention typology for changing environments to change behaviour. Nat. Hum. Behav. 1, 1–9 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Marteau, T. M., Hollands, G. J. & Fletcher, P. C. Changing human behavior to prevent disease: the importance of targeting automatic processes. Science 337, 1492–1495 (2012).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  50. Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M. & West, R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement. Sci. 6, 42 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Moran, D., Giljum, S., Kanemoto, K. & Godar, J. From satellite to supply chain: new approaches connect earth observation to economic decisions. One Earth 3, 5–8 (2020).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  52. Godar, J., Suavet, C., Gardner, T. A., Dawkins, E. & Meyfroidt, P. Balancing detail and scale in assessing transparency to improve the governance of agricultural commodity supply chains. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 035015 (2016).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  53. DeFries, R. S., Fanzo, J., Mondal, P., Remans, R. & Wood, S. A. Is voluntary certification of tropical agricultural commodities achieving sustainability goals for small-scale producers? A review of the evidence. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 033001 (2017).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  54. Bull, J. W., Suttle, K. B., Gordon, A., Singh, N. J. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Biodiversity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47, 369–380 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. zu Ermgassen, S. O. S. E. et al. The ecological outcomes of biodiversity offsets under “no net loss” policies: a global review. Conserv. Lett. 12, e12664 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Waddock, S. Achieving sustainability requires systemic business transformation. Glob. Sustain. 3, e12 (2020).

  57. Travers, H., Walsh, J., Vogt, S., Clements, T. & Milner-Gulland, E. J. Delivering behavioural change at scale: what conservation can learn from other fields. Biol. Conserv. 257, 109092 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gaupp, F. et al. Food system development pathways for healthy, nature-positive and inclusive food systems. Nat. Food 2, 928–934 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Astill, J. et al. Transparency in food supply chains: a review of enabling technology solutions. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 91, 240–247 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Poore, J & Nemecek, T. Full Excel model: life-cycle environmental impacts of food drink products. Oxford University Research Archive https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:a63fb28c-98f8-4313-add6-e9eca99320a5 (2018).

  61. Clark, M., et al. Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2120584119 (2022).

  62. Clark, M., et al. Supplemental Data for ‘Estimating the environmental impacts of 57,000 food products’. Oxford University Research Archive https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4ad0b594-3e81-4e61-aefc-5d869c799a87 (2022).

  63. Bianchi, F., Dorsel, C., Garnett, E., Aveyard, P. & Jebb, S. A. Interventions targeting conscious determinants of human behaviour to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review with qualitative comparative analysis. IJBNPA 15, 102 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Bianchi, F., Garnett, E., Dorsel, C., Aveyard, P. & Jebb, S. A. Restructuring physical micro-environments to reduce the demand for meat: a systematic review and qualitative comparative analysis. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e384–e397 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Hillier-Brown, F. C. et al. The impact of interventions to promote healthier ready-to-eat meals (to eat in, to take away or to be delivered) sold by specific food outlets open to the general public: a systematic review. Obes. Rev. 18, 227–246 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. von Philipsborn, P. et al. Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 6, Cd012292 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Attwood, S., Voorheis, P., Mercer, C., Davies, K. & Vennard, D. Playbook for Guiding Diners toward Plant-Rich Dishes in Food Service (World Resources Institute, 2020); https://www.wri.org/research/playbook-guiding-diners-toward-plant-rich-dishes-food-service

  68. Garnett, E. E., Balmford, A., Sandbrook, C., Pilling, M. A. & Marteau, T. M. Impact of increasing vegetarian availability on meal selection and sales in cafeterias. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 20923 (2019).

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  69. Reinders, M. J., Huitink, M., Dijkstra, S. C., Maaskant, A. J. & Heijnen, J. Menu-engineering in restaurants—adapting portion sizes on plates to enhance vegetable consumption: a real-life experiment. IJBNPA 14, 41 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Brunner, F., Kurz, V., Bryngelsson, D. & Hedenus, F. Carbon label at a university restaurant—label implementation and evaluation. Ecol. Econ. 146, 658–667 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. McClain, A. D., Hekler, E. B. & Gardner, C. D. Incorporating prototyping and iteration into intervention development: a case study of a dining hall-based intervention. J. Am. Coll. Health 61, 122–131 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. de Vaan, J. Eating Less Meat: How to Stimulate the Choice for a Vegetarian Option without Inducing Reactance. MSc thesis, Radboud Univ. (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge and thank interview participants for their time and their helpful insights. We also thank J. Poore and the team at the foodDB project39, whose datasets underpin the analyses carried out here. This manuscript arises from research funded by the John Fell Oxford University Press Research Fund (funding to E.J.M.-G., H.M.J.G., I.T., J.B. and E.B.). M.C. and C.S. were funded by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health Programme (Livestock, Environment and People—LEAP, award number: 205212/Z/16/Z). N.G. was funded by the Crankstart Scholarship scheme.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wild Business Ltd., Kershen Fairfax, London, UK

    I. Taylor & J. W. Bull

  2. Durrell Institute for Conservation and Ecology, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    J. W. Bull

  3. Lady Margaret Hall, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    B. Ashton

  4. Department of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    E. Biggs, M. Clark, N. Gray, H. M. J. Grub & E. J. Milner-Gulland

  5. Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    M. Clark

  6. Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

    M. Clark

  7. Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Primary Care Building, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, UK

    C. Stewart

Authors
  1. I. Taylor
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. W. Bull
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. B. Ashton
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. E. Biggs
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Clark
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. N. Gray
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H. M. J. Grub
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. C. Stewart
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. E. J. Milner-Gulland
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors have provided content, reviewed, edited and approved this manuscript. I.T. coordinated the project, including conducting analyses and initial drafting of the manuscript. E.J.M.-G. supervised the project, with co-supervision provided by J.W.B. and additional project coordination provided by H.M.J.G. E.B. and N.G. provided support with data processing and impacts analysis. M.C. contributed and supported the use of datasets relating to the environmental impacts of food products. C.S. conducted and recorded participant interviews. B.A. represented and liaised with the focal college, providing underlying datasets as well as key contextual information.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to I. Taylor or E. J. Milner-Gulland.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests, but we note for transparency that B.A. is an employee of Lady Margaret Hall (the focal organization of this study).

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Food thanks Brent Loken, Kristian Nielsen and Martine Maron for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Supplementary Tables 1–3, Figs. 1 and 2, and Text 1 and 2.

Reporting summary (download PDF )

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1 (download XLSX )

Values underlying Figs. 1–3.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taylor, I., Bull, J.W., Ashton, B. et al. Nature-positive goals for an organization’s food consumption. Nat Food 4, 96–108 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00660-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • Issue date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-022-00660-2

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene