Nature and construction: A symbiotic relationship for the future

The connection between improving biodiversity and building construction practices might not seem immediately obvious. With careful planning, however, companies can minimise their negative impact – and even improve biodiversity.

Morgan Taylor at the UK consultancy Greengage supports this view wholeheartedly. Taylor leads Greengage’s work on biodiversity, ecology and natural capital, and he argues that what’s needed is a new way of thinking about the natural world. “It’s not nature and us or nature versus us,” he says. “It’s us as part of nature.”  

Biodiversity is rising up the corporate agenda. When we asked business leaders in a range of countries and industries (including the building sector) which sustainability issues they were prioritising over the next year in their investment and resource allocation, ​44% cited biodiversity and natural capital – second after social impact (47%). 

Taylor sees this trend in his work with clients. “Frankly, it’s gone mad – in the last five years especially,” he says, noting that biodiversity improvements are “now the largest part of our business.” 

This is not surprising, given the increase in awareness of the impact buildings and infrastructure assets have on natural ecosystems. The issue has become a focus in industry and government policy. ​Various countries in Europe are implementing regulations that include requirements for new developments to contribute positively to biodiversity, such as the Netherlands’ updated Nature Conservation Act, France’s Loi  Biodiversité and Spain’s Biodiversity and Natural Heritage Law. These measures reflect a growing recognition across Europe of the need to balance development with environmental sustainability.  

From February 2024, new UK legislation requires all new developments in England to have a biodiversity net gain of at least 10% measured in standardised biodiversity units. 

“For every new project, there must be a measurable improvement in biodiversity,” Taylor explains. “That inevitably means high-quality green infrastructure is a highly sought-after aspect of new development now.” 

Making a biodiversity net gain will not be easy. There is far to go, as shown by the World Economic Forum’s estimate that the built environment is responsible for 30% of biodiversity loss. The built environment’s impact on nature can be felt at every stage in the building lifecycle, from materials sourcing and manufacture to the buildings’ development, use and eventual demolition.  

​​We need to start thinking about embodied nature in a material because it’s not just that carbon has been emitted to achieve that, but that nature has been lost.

But change here requires a shift in mindset, and the nature of the construction industry, which is highly fragmented, makes it more difficult to implement sustainable practices, such as resource efficiency and circularity, at scale. Adding to the difficulty are the lengthy global supply chains for both raw and manufactured construction materials, which make it tough to measure and manage the overall biodiversity impact of construction. 

​​The complex interactions between nature and the built environment affects both sides. Construction is affected by disruptions caused by nature loss: increasingly severe storms, droughts that create water shortages and ravaging wildfires that leave destruction in their wake. 

Taylor understands this well. “Every industry has a lot of different interfaces with nature and a lot of different dependencies,” he says. “But we’ve degraded nature to the point where it’s going to shoot us in the foot – because that degradation is going to affect our ability to sustain our supply chains.” 

So, how can the building industry work better with nature? The first step, Taylor says, is for companies to recognise the value that natural capital offers. This value manifests not only in a company’s operations but also in its upstream and downstream activities. 

Of course, the world’s ecosystems are wide and varied, which makes giving “neat, singular answers measured using a universal metric” difficult, if not impossible. At this point, Taylor argues, it’s time to use nature as a lens. Doing so will highlight emerging risks that may impact building companies, such as a loss of resources or emerging biodiversity policies and legislation. All of these factors are likely to impact corporate strategies. 

Companies need to act early if they are to effectively integrate biodiversity into their operations. This is particularly important in the building sector, as large developments have ​​multiple stakeholders with potentially conflicting agendas and concerns. 

“There’s always going to be conflict over the use of any land,” Taylor says. “But that’s where early engagement is a good solution. And if green infrastructure is considered early enough and in a sensible way, that should mitigate conflicts.” 

And lessons can be learned from other approaches to sustainability. In the circular economy, for example, the “take–make–dispose” cycle has been replaced by the conscious reuse of resources in the supply chain.  

Climate action and biodiversity strategies are closely linked as well. Interestingly, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework has been strongly influenced by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD). This makes sense, given the interwoven relationship between the climate and nature. The framework “encourages you to consider how changes in natural capital will influence your ability to function as a business,” says Taylor. 

It has been said that companies could take the approach seen in carbon-trading mechanisms. That is, a construction company unable to generate sufficient biodiversity net gains could buy biodiversity credits from another company with an excess of them. 

However, Taylor warns against the rush to adopt this kind of trade, as the impacts of carbon and biodiversity are very different. “Nature impacts are very different to carbon impacts at a global scale,” he says. “A tonne of carbon here in the UK is the same as a tonne of carbon in Australia. But a loss of a hectare of woodland here is not the same as the loss of a hectare of woodland in Australia.” 

Not only that, but nature is infinitely complex. It would require the knowledge of expert ecologists to turn it into a priceable, measurable commodity that could meet investor requirements – if this is possible at all. “It’s the intangibility that’s the biggest challenge,” says Taylor. 

Managing the natural capital in building operations might seem daunting. However, there are many benefits from getting it right. ​

My advice would be to view the design of greening on or around your site through the lens of ecosystem services.  

Ecosystem services are the various direct or indirect benefits healthy ecosystems offer to humans. As Taylor explains, Greengage has worked with UK property investor Landsec to develop three key principles that govern the company’s approach to the management of existing real estate assets and new developments. 

Taylor notes the benefit of these principles for companies. “It holds them to account to deliver way beyond statutory minimum standards,” he says. “And there are some really nice examples of living roofs that have been delivered on their new-build assets and enhancement of grassland and creation of meadows across some of their managed assets.” 

Greengage has been helping to improve biodiversity in the UK in other ways. At Great Portland Estates, the consultancy helped the property development and investment company to set a biodiversity net gain key performance indicator for its central London portfolio of properties. 

“If they deliver measurable biodiversity gains beyond what they have to deliver for planning, they are clearly a safer bet and should accordingly be rewarded with a better lending rate,” explains Taylor. “​​From a financial perspective, it makes better sense to lend to a borrower that acknowledges the implicit risk nature loss poses to the real estate industry.” 

Legislation and financial mechanisms can work together to improve biodiversity. Taylor believes that such a combination will accelerate biodiversity strategies in the building industry and other sectors. As he puts it, companies benefit, lenders benefit, and ultimately, “Nature wins.”

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the participants of the survey or interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of ING 

Society is transitioning to a low-carbon economy. So are our clients, and so is ING. We finance a lot of sustainable activities, but we still finance more that’s not. See how we’re progressing on ing.com/climate.