About the data
The WBA Nature Benchmark measures and ranks the world's most influential companies on their efforts to protect the environment and its biodiversity, tracking how companies are reducing their negative impacts on nature and contributing to the protection and restoration of ecosystems, aligned with the goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework. The 2026 edition assessed 750 companies across multiple sectors including agro-food, forestry, building, tourism and the blue economy. The benchmark is developed in close collaboration with an Expert Review Committee and partners including GRI, SBTN, and TNFD, with a methodology designed to incentivise companies to understand where nature-related risks are highest and act to halt damaging trends, while keeping human rights and social impacts at its core.
More information can be found here.
More information can be found here.
Methodology
When companies seek to acquire or lease land for their business activities, it can lead to
relocation and loss of shelter or livelihoods for communities or individual households (IFC, 2012). In
countries where national governance and land administration are weak, local and Indigenous
communities are more exposed to rights violations and displacement (WRI, 2017). Indigenous peoples
are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts associated with land development projects,
including risk of impoverishment and loss of culture, identity and natural resource-based livelihoods
(IFC, 2012). Protecting and securing Indigenous peoples’ rights has been recognised as crucial to
advancing conservation, restoration and climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies (WRI,
2019).The company must disclose an explicit commitment to respect the ownership and use of land and natural resources and related legitimate tenure rights as set out by either:
The [Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGTs](https://www.fao.org/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/)), or
The [International Finance Corporation (IFC) performance standards](https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2012/ifc-performance-standards)
This element goes beyond a commitment to Indigenous land rights as it is relevant for every population or community, including urban communities or communities relying on resources that are not on land (e.g. coastal and marine). It is not sufficient to follow local applicable laws around land rights, as many countries have insufficient systems in place to secure land tenure rights.
The commitment must:
Be a publicly available policy statement (e.g. human rights policy/standards; code of conduct). A statement in a sustainability report is insufficient.
Use sufficient commitment language. The wording used in the commitment must be unequivocally clear that the company strongly commits to respect rights related to the ownership and use of land and natural resources. Language that is ambiguous, vague or weak will be considered insufficient to qualify as a clear expression of commitment. For more guidance, please refer to [The Methodology for the 2026 Social Benchmark | World Benchmarking Alliance](https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/research/the-methodology-for-the-2026-social-benchmark/).
The policy should be applied consistently across all locations regardless of law. A commitment to or compliance with local/national laws alone is not accepted. When conflicting with local/national laws, the commitment must explicitly adhere to the highest possible standard.
The policy should cover the company’s own operations and supply chain, or the whole value chain. If the commitment is extended directly to other business relations, the compliance must go beyond an ‘expectation’ or an ‘encouragement’
relocation and loss of shelter or livelihoods for communities or individual households (IFC, 2012). In
countries where national governance and land administration are weak, local and Indigenous
communities are more exposed to rights violations and displacement (WRI, 2017). Indigenous peoples
are particularly vulnerable to the adverse impacts associated with land development projects,
including risk of impoverishment and loss of culture, identity and natural resource-based livelihoods
(IFC, 2012). Protecting and securing Indigenous peoples’ rights has been recognised as crucial to
advancing conservation, restoration and climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies (WRI,
2019).The company must disclose an explicit commitment to respect the ownership and use of land and natural resources and related legitimate tenure rights as set out by either:
The [Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGTs](https://www.fao.org/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/)), or
The [International Finance Corporation (IFC) performance standards](https://www.ifc.org/en/insights-reports/2012/ifc-performance-standards)
This element goes beyond a commitment to Indigenous land rights as it is relevant for every population or community, including urban communities or communities relying on resources that are not on land (e.g. coastal and marine). It is not sufficient to follow local applicable laws around land rights, as many countries have insufficient systems in place to secure land tenure rights.
The commitment must:
Be a publicly available policy statement (e.g. human rights policy/standards; code of conduct). A statement in a sustainability report is insufficient.
Use sufficient commitment language. The wording used in the commitment must be unequivocally clear that the company strongly commits to respect rights related to the ownership and use of land and natural resources. Language that is ambiguous, vague or weak will be considered insufficient to qualify as a clear expression of commitment. For more guidance, please refer to [The Methodology for the 2026 Social Benchmark | World Benchmarking Alliance](https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/research/the-methodology-for-the-2026-social-benchmark/).
The policy should be applied consistently across all locations regardless of law. A commitment to or compliance with local/national laws alone is not accepted. When conflicting with local/national laws, the commitment must explicitly adhere to the highest possible standard.
The policy should cover the company’s own operations and supply chain, or the whole value chain. If the commitment is extended directly to other business relations, the compliance must go beyond an ‘expectation’ or an ‘encouragement’
License
Topics
Framework Mappings
Value Type
Category
Options
Yes
No
Assessment
Steward Assessed
Report Type
Aggregate Data Report