Over the past decade, corporate investors have increasingly recognized that responsible environmental and social practices are essential to long-term financial success. Despite growing interest, corporate practices remain largely unchanged, and planetary trends are deeply concerning. This review applies a systems analysis lens to understand how financial sector structures and actors influence sustainability outcomes, often in counterproductive ways. Key barriers include the lack of science-based metrics, poor integration of environmental risks, and limited capacity to evaluate complex system dynamics. Current financial practices frequently miss or misinterpret systemic sustainability risks. We identify three critical areas where collaboration between sustainability science and finance is urgently needed: (1) translating scientific insights into financial decision contexts, (2) supporting science-based corporate sustainability reporting, and (3) strengthening environmental impact assessment. Systems thinking helps clarify where financial leverage can drive meaningful, cross-scale change—an essential step toward aligning capital flows with long-term ecological resilience and sustainability goals.

Financial investments will be affected by ecological regime shifts through the loss of natural resources underpinning the dependencies of most economic sectors. We suggest one possible pathway to link industry and products to the likelihood of ecological regime shifts. The challenges and opportunities are discussed at each step, including datasets, methods, and metrics. To this end, we identify recent large-scale, state-of-the-art literature that can link land-based company activities to regime shifts. The estimation of investment exposure to regime shifts is possible, but higher resolution in company trade data, as well as spatially explicit datasets of commodity production, is needed to improve estimations. This will require a coordinated effort from the scientific community, businesses, and the policy sector.

Cities and companies have great potential to reduce pressures on Earth system boundaries. Science-based target setting has emerged as a powerful tool to help achieve the potential, but its uptake has been limited. Moreover, cities and companies usually develop their targets separately, even though many are co-located. Focusing on the top 200 cities and 500 companies by greenhouse gas emissions, we analyse the current state and potential of adopting science-based targets for climate. Of these key actors, 110 cities with existing net-zero targets and 22 companies with existing science-based targets could together eliminate up to 3.41 GtCO₂e of annual emissions. We argue that this reduction potential could increase by as much as 67% (to 5.70 GtCO₂e) if the cities and companies that already have targets bring their co-located counterparts on board to keep abreast of their ambitions. Using freshwater as another example, we discuss entry points for addressing interrelated Earth system boundaries through city–company collaborations. Our findings elucidate previously untapped potentials that could accelerate transformations for operating within Earth system boundaries.

Aligning investments with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has been a longstanding ambition for many private investors. The assessment of corporate impact on the SDGs is not a trivial task, and most present-day attempts often overlook SDG interactions, and lack scientific anchoring and transparency. We present an evidence-based review approach for investors to assess sector-level impacts on individual SDGs, and score these using a traffic-light system. Our initial review documents impacts of 81 economic sectors on SDGs 1-16. Results show that environmental SDGs are impacted negatively by most economic sectors, and that primary sector activities negatively impact the highest number of SDGs. Using the agricultural sector as a case, we draw on Causal Loop methodology to illustrate spillovers resulting from SDG interactions. Our findings point to three key considerations of relevance for sustainable investment strategies; the necessity to capture ‘impact shadows’, spillovers across SDGs, and the hierarchical nature of the SDGs.

Despite numerous pledges to the contrary, corporate activities are inflicting environmental harm and are pushing the Earth system toward and beyond planetary boundaries. Several sustainability accounting frameworks exist, designed to track corporate environmental impacts through corporate reporting, and there is currently a push toward standardization of these. However, most sustainability accounting frameworks still fail to fully capture the connections between corporate activities and impacts, as they depart from what is important for the companies (materiality assessments) and often rely on relative metrics. Here, we propose 15 essential environmental impact variables (EEIVs), applicable to all sectors, based on absolute metrics and what is essential for staying within the planetary boundaries. We argue that standardization must rather depart from these underlying premises. By designing EEIVs for seven primary industries with large environmental footprints and demonstrating the operationality via the aquaculture sector, we show how EEIVs efficiently identify the most important corporate impact information while increasing transparency between companies and stakeholders, thus enabling external assessment of corporate sustainability.

Operating within safe and just Earth system boundaries requires mobilizing key actors across scale to set targets and take actions accordingly. Robust, transparent and fair cross-scale translation methods are essential to help navigate through the multiple steps of scientific and normative judgements in translation, with clear awareness of associated assumptions, bias and uncertainties. Here, through literature review and expert elicitation, we identify commonly used sharing approaches, illustrate ten principles of translation and present a protocol involving key building blocks and control steps in translation. We pay particular attention to businesses and cities, two understudied but critical actors to bring on board.

Diverse and inclusive marine research is paramount to addressing ocean sustainability challenges in the 21st century, as envisioned by the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development. Despite increasing efforts to diversify ocean science, women continue to face barriers at various stages of their career, which inhibits their progression to leadership within academic institutions. In this perspective, we draw on the collective experiences of thirty-four global women leaders, bolstered by a narrative review, to identify practical strategies and actions that will help empower early career women researchers to become the leaders of tomorrow. We propose five strategies: (i) create a more inclusive culture, (ii) ensure early and equitable career development opportunities for women ECRs, (iii) ensure equitable access to funding for women ECRs, (iv) offer mentoring opportunities and, (v) create flexible, family-friendly environments. Transformational, meaningful, and lasting change will only be achieved through commitment and collaborative action across various scales and by multiple stakeholders. 

Blue foods, sourced in aquatic environments, are important for the economies, livelihoods, nutritional security and cultures of people in many nations. They are often nutrient rich1, generate lower emissions and impacts on land and water than many terrestrial meats2, and contribute to the health3, wellbeing and livelihoods of many rural communities4. The Blue Food Assessment recently evaluated nutritional, environmental, economic and justice dimensions of blue foods globally. Here we integrate these findings and translate them into four policy objectives to help realize the contributions that blue foods can make to national food systems around the world: ensuring supplies of critical nutrients, providing healthy alternatives to terrestrial meat, reducing dietary environmental footprints and safeguarding blue food contributions to nutrition, just economies and livelihoods under a changing climate. To account for how context-specific environmental, socio-economic and cultural aspects affect this contribution, we assess the relevance of each policy objective for individual countries, and examine associated co-benefits and trade-offs at national and international scales. We find that in many African and South American nations, facilitating consumption of culturally relevant blue food, especially among nutritionally vulnerable population segments, could address vitamin B₁₂ and omega-3 deficiencies. Meanwhile, in many global North nations, cardiovascular disease rates and large greenhouse gas footprints from ruminant meat intake could be lowered through moderate consumption of seafood with low environmental impact. The analytical framework we provide also identifies countries with high future risk, for whom climate adaptation of blue food systems will be particularly important. Overall the framework helps decision makers to assess the blue food policy objectives most relevant to their geographies, and to compare and contrast the benefits and trade-offs associated with pursuing these objectives.

Corporations are responsible for a significant portion of observed impacts on the Earth system, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also water extraction, landuse change and other pressures on nature. These nature-related impacts are essential to consider and capture because they have local impacts on a range of ecosystem functions on which companies and economies depend, but they also fundamentally affect our ability to mitigate and adapt to a changing climate. Furthermore, climate, land and water interact and affect each other in various ways, such that climate change can be exacerbated by degraded ecosystems, which in turn are dependent on water. This paper tests a novel metric developed to capture corporate Earth system impact (ESI) beyond merely direct GHG emissions and explores how such a tool could be used to improve assessments of corporate environmental impacts and support decisions on where to direct public and private investments. We use the mining sector as a test case to illustrate the applicability of the ESI score and examine the impact of the the five largest (by market cap) mining companies in the precious metal mining sector and the top five in the non-precious metal mining sector. We find that many of the mining assets have non-negligible impacts on land and water, and we show that the ESI metric identifies a different set of asset for targeted action than conventional carbon intensity scores would do.