Nature-related risks are interconnected and flow through the economy into the financial system, making double materiality particularly relevant for banks. The outside-in perspective (financial materiality) considers how biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation, and climate pressures create risks for clients, sectors, and financial portfolios. These arise from physical impacts like floods or droughts, and transition drivers such as regulatory changes, new technologies, and shifting consumer preferences. The inside-out perspective (environmental and social materiality) highlights how financing decisions can worsen deforestation, overexploitation, or harm to Indigenous communities, creating reputational, legal, and regulatory risks for banks. Unlike climate change, nature-related impacts are often local and immediate, with feedback loops that expose banks to credit losses, liabilities, or reputational harm.
From a financial materiality lens, nature loss can disrupt ecosystem services, creating physical, transition, and liability risks that cascade through supply chains and economies, translating into credit, market, and liquidity risks for banks. Beyond finance, nature loss undermines food security, health, and social stability.
From an environmental materiality lens, banks influence nature through their financing, particularly in high-impact sectors like agriculture and infrastructure. Unsustainable practices can drive biodiversity loss, harm communities, and weaken ecosystem resilience. Rising regulatory and stakeholder expectations under frameworks such as TNFD, PRB, CCPT, and the GBF make environmental materiality a critical lens for banks in aligning financing decisions with sustainability.