Nature in the boardroom: who can legitimately speak on behalf of Nature in organizations?
Increasingly, different stakeholders are making the case that Nature should have a seat in the boardroom. But who should this seat be entrusted to? And does Nature need a spokesperson in organizations? There are already some examples we can look at, including the French digital services company Norsys, a pioneer in the field, and Patagonia, a manufacturer of outdoor clothing and equipment, whose founder transferred his shares to a trust making Earth their only shareholder in 2022.
04/22/2025
6 min
Share
In November 2024, the digital services company Norsys chose to give Nature a seat on its board of directors. Inspired by the rights of Nature and deep ecology movements, such initiatives aim to recognize Nature as a player, influencing strategic decisions.
“This innovation will allow Nature to sit on the company’s board of directors. In concrete terms, the representative of Nature will have the right to vote and will be consulted on any strategic project likely to have an environmental impact,”
emphasizes Thomas Breuzard, director of Norsys, a company with 600 employees.
But this move raises a crucial question: who can legitimately speak on behalf of Nature? Should this responsibility be entrusted to scientists? NGOs? Indigenous communities? Autonomous legal entities?
Moreover, does Nature need a spokesperson, or can it “express itself” through the environmental crises we are witnessing today?
A stakeholder like any other?
The stakeholder approach is historically anthropocentric and excludes Nature as a fully-fledged stakeholder. So, why should Nature be recognized as a stakeholder?
Nature exerts a form of coercive and utilitarian power over companies, particularly through the impacts of climate change and natural disasters. It imposes physical and ecological constraints, directly influencing the sustainability of economic models. With the European CSRD (for Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) Directive, large companies are obliged to assess their financial materiality – how environmental issues influence their financial performance – and their impact materiality – how the company affects the environment. This is a paradigm shift that includes Nature at the heart of their strategy.
If Nature is a stakeholder, then the question becomes: who can represent it and influence decisions on its behalf? Who can legitimately speak for Nature?
Ventriloquism
The governance of an organization is not just about written rules, such as an organizational chart or a board of directors. It is constantly transformed by the way people communicate within the organization. When a board of directors gives a seat to a representative of Nature, it engages in a form of ventriloquism as, in essence, it gives a voice to a silent entity.
So, who can speak on behalf of Nature, and how?
• Scientists offer a rational and measurable approach, but may lack local and social vision.
• Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have environmental legitimacy but are sometimes criticized for their dependence on private funding.
• Indigenous communities have ancestral ecological knowledge, but their inclusion often remains marginal.
Nature represented by an external expert
On March 13, Nature took place in its first Norsys board meeting, and was represented by Frantz Gault, organizational sociologist and author of the publication “La Nature au travail.”
“In concrete terms, the seat will be taken by Frantz Gault. He will have the right to vote and the right of veto and will be consulted in advance on any strategic project likely to have an environmental impact,”
explains Sylvain Breuzard, CEO of Norsys and former director of Greenpeace France.“It is important that it is a person from outside the company, and therefore independent, who is appointed and contributes their knowledge,”
says Marine Yzquierdo, lawyer and member of the NGO Notre Affaire à Tous.
And Nature has its say on strategic decisions such as external acquisitions or new customers. Following the appointment of Frantz Gault, it will be represented in all the company’s organizational bodies: the ethics council, the mission committee, and the social and economic committee. These representatives will be brought together in a High Council for Nature, which will play a coordinating role within the group.
Patagonia, Earth is ‘our only shareholder’
The integration of Nature into corporate governance does not only transform decisions, it changes the very identity of companies. An organization is defined by the way it answers the question “who are we?” When Nature becomes a stakeholder, this has several effects: an adjustment of corporate values, and in terms of organizational culture and a strategic external repositioning.
The case of Patagonia is a good example. In September 2022, its founder Yvon Chouinard announced that the company would henceforth be owned by a set of trusts/Non-profits dedicated to protecting the planet. “The Earth is now our only shareholder,” he wrote in an open letter. This strategic choice is not limited to superficial environmental commitment. It makes Nature a direct stakeholder, influencing the company’s financial and operational decisions.
All of Patagonia’s shares are being transferred to two new entities. The Purpose Trust will hold 2% of the company and all voting shares; it will be guided by the Chouinard family, who will elect the board of directors.
The Holdfast Collective, which aims to combat the environmental crisis and protect Nature, holds 98% of the company as well as all the non-voting shares. In addition, every dollar not reinvested in Patagonia will be distributed as a dividend to protect the planet.
Ecosystem of legitimate voices
It is not enough simply to include new “players” on the board. Following the discourse on open strategy, the newly included stakeholders must be mobilized and given real power to challenge the dominant logic and bring about fundamental change. If we apply this approach to integrating Nature, it makes it possible to go beyond a fixed representation. It is not simply a question of appointing a single spokesperson who would embody an absolute truth about the interests of Nature, but rather of creating an ecosystem of legitimate voices, who provide the ideas, insights and inputs necessary for decision-making.
The central question is: how can the representatives of Nature rely on a diversity of voices to fully play their role? A scientist will provide data on the state of ecosystems, an NGO will be able to translate environmental issues into concrete strategies, while a local community affected by an ecological crisis will share a more grounded and immediate understanding of the situation.
This is what the organisation Corporate Regeneration in Belgium is proposing by currently supporting six companies in Brussels and Wallonia by setting up regenerative councils. These usually consist of about ten people: half from within the company, often in charge of sustainability, and the other half from outside – selected for their environmental expertise.
Another key point is that the voice of Nature varies according to who embodies it. Perhaps the real question is not “who speaks for Nature?”, but “who should speak for it at this given time?” This means that representation must be adapted to the context and the objectives pursued.
Who can speak for Nature?
The idea of giving Nature a seat on the board of directors is no longer a utopian one. Emerging models integrate Nature as a strategic stakeholder and organizational actor. Here are three ways to structure this representation:
• Institutionalize the representation of Nature, drawing inspiration from the rights of Nature. Rights have already been given to certain ecosystems such as the Whanganui River in New Zealand, or the Amazon in Ecuador, by granting them a legal status.
• Develop hybrid governance practices, combining scientific, legal and ecological approaches, avoiding the monopoly of a single type of voice through an open strategy approach.
• Foster a cultural transformation, by anchoring these changes in corporate identity.
To transform the way companies interact with Nature, a diversity of opinions/views and expertise must be embraced. Depending on the profile of the guardians who take seats – lawyers, scientists, artists – the approach to “Nature” can evolve, making this model lively, adaptive and inclusive. This dynamic aims to establish a true coexistence between the natural world and the business world. But are we ready to redefine our relationship with the living world in economic decisions? The question is no longer “Should we speak on behalf of Nature?”, but “How can we give it a legitimate and effective voice?”
David Montens, IÉSEG School of Management.
This is the English version of an article originally published in French on the Conversation France, which is available here.
