--- title: Why Companies are Doubling Down on Nature description: Column: To meet global climate goals, we need annual funding for nature protection and restoration by at least $230 billion. canonical: https://time.com/6318828/why-companies-are-doubling-down-on-nature/ author: Shyla Raghav article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2023-09-29T19:00:35.000Z article:modified_time: 2026-08-04T08:02:07.158Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Why Companies are Doubling Down on Nature og:description: Column: To meet global climate goals, we need annual funding for nature protection and restoration by at least $230 billion. og:url: https://time.com/6318828/why-companies-are-doubling-down-on-nature/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltdf2f634328c43cf1/698a40d9cabb1d3803e51cd0/peatland-carbon-scotland.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: Flow Country Peatland Considered For World Heritage Status og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Why Companies are Doubling Down on Nature twitter:description: Column: To meet global climate goals, we need annual funding for nature protection and restoration by at least $230 billion. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltdf2f634328c43cf1/698a40d9cabb1d3803e51cd0/peatland-carbon-scotland.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  # Why Companies are Doubling Down on Nature > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=aa03e92c-0027-4ccb-9e71-2af452572b0b&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=aa03e92c-0027-4ccb-9e71-2af452572b0b&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=aa03e92c-0027-4ccb-9e71-2af452572b0b&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=aa03e92c-0027-4ccb-9e71-2af452572b0b&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1) ## Video: The Future of Nature-Based Carbon Offsets [Watch (HLS stream): The Future of Nature-Based Carbon Offsets](https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/gJc0XMRX.m3u8) (6:10)  _Published 2023-09-22. Corporations, startups, and nonprofits invested in the idea of offsetting emissions by preserving natural landscapes and planting trees have a problem. In recent months, a slew of media reports from outlets like Bloomberg and The Guardian have accused many prominent players in the sector of vastly overstating the purported carbon benefits of projects intending to use natural systems to compensate for human emissions. That, in turn, has increasingly called into question the validity of net zero claims from major polluters based on those kinds of offsets._ by [Shyla Raghav](https://time.com/author/shyla-raghav/) ## Shyla Raghav Sep 29, 2023 7:00 PM UTC  The Flow Country’s peatland, in Forsinard, Scotland, the largest continuous blanket bog in Europe which stores 400 million metric tons, seen here on Aug. 16, 2023. The Flow Country’s peatland, in Forsinard, Scotland, the largest continuous blanket bog in Europe which stores 400 million metric tons, seen here on Aug. 16, 2023. Jeff J Mitchell—Getty Images by [Shyla Raghav](https://time.com/author/shyla-raghav/) ## Shyla Raghav Sep 29, 2023 7:00 PM UTC _Each year, the TIME100 Most Influential Companies list recognizes businesses making extraordinary impact around the world._ [_Enter your company here today_](https://time100cos.com/?utm%5Fsource=time&utm%5Fmedium=ed%5Farticletout&utm%5Fcampaign=time100cos2024). “Even if we transition to 100% clean energy, temperatures will continue to rise unless we also address our unsustainable relationship with nature,” [wrote climate scientist Johan Rockstrom recently](https://time.com/6215338/cant-have-a-stable-climate-if-we-keep-destroying-nature/), echoing a call that reverberated across this year’s New York Climate Week. While climate action is often framed as a sacrifice of at least $2 trillion annually (mainly for clean energy), the cost of inaction on protecting and restoring nature is much higher. Consultancy PwC estimates that [over half (55%) of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP)](https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/strategy-and-business/content/sbpwc-2023-04-19-Managing-nature-risks-v2.pdf)—equivalent to an estimated $58 trillion—is exposed to material nature risks due to moderate or high dependence on nature. While sectors like agriculture, forestry, and fisheries are most exposed, PwC found every single economic sector to have nature-related risks. Nature stewardship is critical to business outcomes, for everything from drug discovery to growing materials for food, fibers, and fuel—and every sector also stands to benefit from investing in protecting and better managing waters, land, air, and wildlife, collectively known as nature-based climate solutions. The world’s top climate experts at the [IPCC](https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/) agree that we urgently need more investment to both reduce and remove greenhouse gas emissions, by protecting existing, intact stores of carbon (such as in forests, grasslands, mangroves, and peatlands), reducing nitrous oxide and methane emissions from farming, and quickly and cheaply removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through ecosystem restoration. To both meet our climate goals and reduce nature risks, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) estimates that we need to mobilize [at least $230 billion](https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/doubling-finance-flows-nature-based-solutions-2025-deal-global) in additional funding per year for nature protection and restoration—and much of that will need to come from the private sector. Currently, only 17% of the $154 billion in existing funding for nature comes from private capital; the rest is from governments. Despite [scientific proof ](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00803-6)of the critical role that nature plays as part of the climate solution, nature-based climate initiatives lost substantial corporate support over the past year. High-profile brands such as Delta and Apple have been subject to media scrutiny and even lawsuits surrounding their nature investments and claims. Vocal champions of climate action are split in their opinions of the importance of nature-based solutions. Some believe that new technologies alone—like carbon capture, modular nuclear, and fusion—hold the key to the future. This group sees nature as a weak climate solution, evaluating nature investments solely on their greenhouse gas reduction impact. In contrast, many others see nature-based solutions as a vital component of climate action. And more importantly, they see many reasons to invest in nature beyond carbon: increased biodiversity, including improved water access, higher crop yields from better soil fertility and pollinator survival, access to not-yet-discovered raw materials to improve health and treat illness, lower temperatures, and greater resilience to extreme weather. In this spirit, many companies are continuing investments in nature-based solutions, but recently often in silence. This trend has been termed “greenhushing,” whereby corporations deliberately choose to under-report or hide their sustainability work to evade public scrutiny, is increasingly common, and makes it more difficult to know the true scale of corporate investments going into nature. Last week at Climate Week NYC, held September in parallel with the United Nations General Assembly, TIME’s climate action division, TIME CO2, convened a roundtable to understand what was motivating companies to continue investing in nature, and what barriers keep them from increasing their investments. The roundtable included senior sustainability executives from companies such as Amazon, Amex, Airbnb, GSK, HP, Ingka Group (IKEA), L’Oreal, Mastercard, Rabobank, Salesforce, Unilever, and VMware, and NGOs including Conservation International and The Nature Conservancy. It was sponsored by the American Forest Foundation, Climate Impact Partners, Pachama, Space Intelligence, and Sylvera. At the roundtable, we learned that companies found that their investments in ecosystem conservation and restoration in operating areas have not just reduced supply-chain emissions but also generated tangible business value. Improving water security, potential for financial returns, and overall business resilience were cited as particularly important reasons for nature investments. These investments are often additional to other corporate initiatives focused on emissions reductions, such as carbon pricing, supplier emissions requirements, renewable energy procurement, and logistics fleet electrification. In the absence of universal climate regulation, these voluntary actions are necessary. Unanimously, these business executives pointed to the fact that corporate investments in nature-based solutions face highly critical and persistent media coverage, focusing on what has not worked, often dismissing or failing to cover the benefits. They discussed their interest in increasing transparency around corporate investments in nature-based solutions, sharing what is and is not working to increase learning from failures, as well as increase investment in areas that deserve more focus.  Participants in TIME CO2's New York Climate Week roundtable, (from left to right): Simon Henzell-Thomas (Ingka Group), Jennifer Morris (TNC), Ameet Konkar (Airbnb), Kelley Kizzier (Bezos Earth Fund and moderator of the roundtable), Allister Furey (Sylvera), Marie-Claire Franzen-Aerts (Rabobank). RJ Jaczko of Halo Creative for TIME CO2 A recurring theme was that the expectation of perfection was the enemy of actual progress, and that if we want to inspire more businesses to act on climate, we need to demand they have clear goals, a plan to achieve it, and clear, regular communication of proof of progress. To demand perfection is to scare away many from even taking their first steps on their climate journey. It’s clear that leading businesses aren’t retreating from investing in nature. In fact, they’re doubling down. Companies need to speak up—and be encouraged to do so—if we are going to see these practices become mainstream and scale. Not because of pressure from the climate and conservation community, but because it’s good business. ## Transcript Tell me jokes after the carbon Market, because that's the mechanism for companies like Amazon at 2, to deal with those residual missions. What we found, frankly is a market that is not up to standards in terms of quality. It's also very small, really small for all the talk about it that the growth potential for it is still very, very small but we have to do here. It's figure out how to drive real impact as scale carbon credits, that's a that's a tool for measuring the impact that you have, right? So first things first, you got to go dry that impacted go crate, that changed the world and then we have to do a good job measuring that impact. The fact that there's been some criticism doesn't actually take away from the fact that it's probably one of the only scalable to respect. The problem is that Operations at doing this so that they don't have to reduce their emissions. We thought that might be the case, you didn't know but people have been saying this but maybe two decades. They provided you take two groups, corporations that will happen and corporations the album. Let's look at the right that I did have a nice time and it turns out that the people that stopped for carbon credits decarbonize on average twice as fast as the ones that didn't So the positive as we've we actually launched the project last year in December with a two and a half thousand stairs with my group restoration, with the local Community Partnership to leave that as a realtor proofpoint, that you can actually get community to let it run its own it and then actually I rolled in that is funding and making sure that it through bust and then it ties into removal strategy could buy. And then I gave up taking one a lot longer to get off and running the we anticipated. It's taking a lot longer to go through Frankfurt, in tunnel, legal and Commercial considerations. So making sure that this does the robustness of bribery and Corruption. Have we gone through the right corporate legal channels and actually a load of the city of the criteria that we put on a working with a normal supplier, you count put on working with Community projects that is it a lot of learning. There's been a lot of slightly slower than anticipated. There's been a lot of fight with some foods on. Well, this is acceptable, this isn't acceptable. How do we break the barriers of those and Good news. Is that getting up and running but was still going through Manchester Pate Franklin, still going through a limiting, probably for the next 10 plus years. The basis of always be science. However, making it practical and and working with our clients, it's also very location-specific. So we should not wait for signs to be translated, maybe two to very detailed level before starting acting on it. So we really tried just to go out there. Have these conversations form coalitions with a value chain and see if based on science, we can already start acting and make things practically right there where it needs to happen. I think the science behind, could you sing goodnight to myself? Sets is already there, we've known exactly what we need to do. We know how to protect deforestation to action on the ground and you know how to make a restoration, but we do A Space in Time, reviews that the debutante like that everyday baby. Goodnight. So we can find them on the ground rules in the standards that are based. In place to develop these credit projects, they need to take advantage of the best available science and there in situations in which methodologies have been proposed and Sciences evidence is looked at. And they're like, it's not ready, you know, there's too much uncertainty. We can't verify that, you know, these activities on the ground are actually creating the kind of benefit that they purport to. So, there's a process for her wedding, the the degree of Readiness for science to enter into the font and carbon Market. What we knew to be scientific fact, 50 years ago is not necessarily the same. Now, when you create a methodology to do a carbon offset project, State-of-the-art science is included, but it's not the only science. It's also the business case you have to be able to make a business case, someone has to buy that credit to make it viable. It have to be at a certain scale in order to make it worthwhile. Southern the science might learn something new so that methodology will need to be updated. But you know any project that you do, you can start it now and say, you know, I'm going to do this and it's going to take me this much to fund it and then, suddenly two years later, that's not accurate anymore. You need a certain run away and that's why projects tend to have a timeline for being able to cry. And then at the end of that timeline, you can update them at the Dollar Tree against the new science. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/6318828/why-companies-are-doubling-down-on-nature/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/6318828/why-companies-are-doubling-down-on-nature/"},"headline":"Why Companies are Doubling Down on Nature","datePublished":"2023-09-29T19:00:35.000Z","dateModified":"2026-08-04T08:02:07.158Z","description":"Column: To meet global climate goals, we need annual funding for nature protection and restoration by at least $230 billion.","url":"https://time.com/6318828/why-companies-are-doubling-down-on-nature/","keywords":["climate change"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltdf2f634328c43cf1/698a40d9cabb1d3803e51cd0/peatland-carbon-scotland.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Shyla Raghav","jobTitle":null,"url":"https://time.com/author/shyla-raghav/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/bltdf2f634328c43cf1/698a40d9cabb1d3803e51cd0/peatland-carbon-scotland.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"Flow Country Peatland Considered For World Heritage Status","caption":"The Flow Country’s peatland, in Forsinard, Scotland, the largest continuous blanket bog in Europe which stores 400 million metric tons, seen here on Aug. 16, 2023.","creditText":"Jeff J Mitchell—Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/climate-change/","name":"climate change"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/6318828/why-companies-are-doubling-down-on-nature/","name":"Why Companies are Doubling Down on Nature"}}]},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"VideoObject","name":"The Future of Nature-Based Carbon Offsets","description":"Corporations, startups, and nonprofits invested in the idea of offsetting emissions by preserving natural landscapes and planting trees have a problem. In recent months, a slew of media reports from outlets like Bloomberg and The Guardian have accused many prominent players in the sector of vastly overstating the purported carbon benefits of projects intending to use natural systems to compensate for human emissions. That, in turn, has increasingly called into question the validity of net zero claims from major polluters based on those kinds of offsets.","thumbnailUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/v2/media/gJc0XMRX/poster.jpg?width=720","uploadDate":"2023-09-22T17:34:31.000Z","contentUrl":"https://cdn.jwplayer.com/manifests/gJc0XMRX.m3u8","embedUrl":"https://time.com/6318828/why-companies-are-doubling-down-on-nature/","duration":"PT6M10S","potentialAction":{"@type":"SeekToAction","target":"https://time.com/6318828/why-companies-are-doubling-down-on-nature/?jw_start={seek_to_second_number}","startOffset-input":"required name=seek_to_second_number"}}] ```