There’s no doubt that nature has been one of the trending sustainability topics of the last couple of years, and this has seen a lot of high-level support for the TNFD’s ambitions. The question, however, is how rapidly — and to what extent — this is translating into real, tangible substance when it comes to corporate reporting. And where that is the case, what are the areas of strength and weakness?

To kick that debate off, we ran a quick high-level assessment of TNFD reporting. We adopted a two-stage process: first, we scanned over a million disclosure documents on the Responsible Capital database for any TNFD references. Then, using this filtered sample, we ran a more semantic assessment of the linked organisations to judge the extent to which they are currently reporting on the basis of the TNFD framework and approach.

There’s a lot more scope to really dig into the key themes and company-level results, but for now here are some initial big picture take-aways:

• Just over 150 organisations are assessed as having delivered some kind of standalone TNFD report or TNFD-aligned analysis clearly labelled within another document.
• That grows to just over 550 if you include “partial” – a broader category that allows in meaningful but incomplete application of TNFD concepts or aims, but that has to go beyond just declaring future intentions or just being a signatory.
• Strikingly— and perhaps surprisingly — Japan stands out by a mile as the biggest initiator: around half of those deemed to meet the criteria of a report, and just     over a quarter of all including partial delivery. This might reflect the fact that the nature themes resonate with Japanese organisations’ customers, or perhaps practical issues over how nature-based analysis is ‘branded’ and organised. Other countries may focus on different disclosure requirements. Either way, it’s a result that would be interesting to explore further.

• By industry, top reporters on either basis include various banking and insurance entities, metals and mining, utilities, food, and chemicals. Approaches, depth, and completeness will vary by sector types, of course.
• It should be noted that many organisations that currently do not have tangible output but have stated intentions are planning to release their first output this year. Outside of the US, these disclosures shouldn’t be expected until late summer or autumn. There will be a much clearer picture of the level and quality of uptake by the end of the year. At that point, more meaningful comparisons around reporting style and quality across different sectors can be undertaken.
• There’s ample opportunity already, though, to look into which elements or “pillars” of TNFD are currently being clearly delivered. For example, we  looked at the first pillar on governance. On this element, around one third of those deemed to have published full TNFD analysis were judged to have not delivered on the governance pillar requirements. In the main, this reflected the fact that existing governance declarations were often either too general and didn’t explicitly link to TNFD or were ‘legacy’  declarations more focused on other areas (TCFD, ethics, etc). Frequently, concrete issues like whether and how oversight of nature-related issues is reflected in the remuneration policies and outcomes for the board and senior management would be weaknesses.
• Turning to LEAP and its implementation—or at least the clarity of its implementation on a structured reporting basis—the results were also notable. The percentage of TNFD reporting that was deemed to meet the requirements of each stage tended to tail off over the sequence: Locate ~60% (or 26% including partial), Assess 45% (18%), and Prepare/Plan 30%(11%).
• Evaluate was an interesting case, as the initial assessment found the vast majority of cases “unclear.” While this could have been dialled out of the assessment with lower thresholds on valid examples, the result as it stands is perhaps more interesting. That is, it arguably is indeed very ambiguous to what extent E is a distinct element from the L and A stages of LEAP, and the results do seem to speak to some semantic ambiguity over its distinct role it plays in the process.
• This nuance aside, the overall LEAP maturity assessment does fit with the broad perception that most TNFD engagement so far has tended to focus on some     high-level locate mapping exercises, along with sometimes some selective asset-level piloting as a first stage of engagement, while lacking in the fuller assessment and strategic planning elements.

In sum, the results to date are broadly the following: the number of relatively complete TNFD reports so far is modest, with a surprising geographic bias but a more predictable sector one. Many more have some fragmented elements, and some of those will be among those planning to release more structured output this year. The early batch of reports focuses on some ofthe key high-level objectives over risk mapping but so far lacks maturity in terms of fully meeting the requirements of all the pillars. And on a LEAP basis, companies have mainly started to dip their toes into Locate without yet moving along the chain to strategic conclusions and actions.

‍