Transnational companies have substantive impacts on nature: a hallmark of living in the Anthropocene. Understanding these impacts through company provision of information is a precursor to holding them accountable for nature outcomes. The effect of increasing disclosures (of varying quality) is predicated on 'information governance', an approach that uses disclosure requirements to drive company behaviour. However, its efficacy is not guaranteed. We argue that three conditions are required before disclosures have the possibility to shape nature outcomes, namely: (1) radical traceability that links company actions to outcomes in particular settings; (2) developing organizational routines, tools and approaches that translate strategic intent to on-the-ground behaviour; and (3) mobilizing and aligning financial actors with corporate nature ambitions. While disclosure is key to each of these conditions, its limits must be taken into account and it must be nested in governance approaches that shape action, not just reporting.This article is part of the theme issue 'Bringing nature into decision-making'.

The United Nations Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development 2021-2030 (the 'Ocean Decade') is poised to stimulate new cooperation for ocean science, but makes no mention of conflict or peace. We contend that this is a missed opportunity, and use an environmental peacebuilding typology to review how ocean science has historically contributed to peace. Such considerations are timely in the context of an increasingly complex and multidimensional ocean risk landscape, due among other things to unprecedented growth in the extent and intensity of ocean uses, and increasing conflict potential as the ocean becomes a more crowded and coveted place. We conclude by proposing the Ocean Decade Implementation Plan be appended to include an eighth intended outcome: 'A Peaceful Ocean'.

Swedens legacy as a global leader in the push to put climate and the environment at the heart of government decision-making may have come to an end on 18 October 2022. The first casualty of the countrys new right-wing government was the Ministry of the Environment, eliminated on Day 1. A key question is the extent to which this change derails progress made toward building a sustainable nation and world.

Marine protected areas (MPAs) are increasingly being promoted as an ocean-based climate solution. However, such claims remain controversial because of the diffuse and poorly synthesized literature on climate benefits of MPAs. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a systematic literature review of 22,403 publications spanning 241 MPAs and analyzed these across 16 ecological and social pathways through which MPAs could contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that marine conservation can significantly enhance carbon sequestration, coastal protection, biodiversity, and the reproductive capacity of marine organisms as well as fishers’ catch and income. Most of these benefits are only achieved in fully or highly protected areas and increase with MPA age. Although MPAs alone cannot offset all climate change impacts, they are a useful tool for climate change mitigation and adaptation of social-ecological systems.

The biosphere crisis requires changes to existing business practices. We ask how corporations can become sustainability leaders, when constrained by multiple barriers to collaboration for biosphere stewardship. We describe how scientists motivated, inspired and engaged with ten of the world’s largest seafood companies, in a collaborative process aimed to enable science-based and systemic transformations (2015–2021). CEOs faced multiple industry crises in 2015 that incentivized novel approaches. New scientific insights, an invitation to collaborate, and a bold vision of transformative change towards ocean stewardship, created new opportunities and direction. Co-creation of solutions resulted in new knowledge and trust, a joint agenda for action, new capacities, international recognition, formalization of an organization, increased policy influence, time-bound goals, and convergence of corporate change. Independently funded scientists helped remove barriers to cooperation, provided means for reflection, and guided corporate strategies and actions toward ocean stewardship. By 2021, multiple individuals exercised leadership and the initiative had transitioned from preliminary and uncomfortable conversations, to a dynamic, operational organization, with capacity to perform global leadership in the seafood industry. Mobilizing transformational agency through learning, collaboration, and innovation represents a cultural evolution with potential to redirect and accelerate corporate action, to the benefit of business, people and the planet. 

Synthetic chemicals and biologically engineered materials are major forces in today's food systems, but they are also major drivers of the global environmental changes and health challenges that characterize the Anthropocene. To address these challenges, we will need to increase assessment activity, promote alternative production practices with less reliance on such technologies, and regulate social campaigns and experiments. 

Corporations are perceived as increasingly powerful and critically important to ensuring that irreversible climatological or ecological tipping points on Earth are not crossed. Environmental impacts of corporate activities include pollution of soils, freshwater and the ocean, depletion of ecosystems and species, unsustainable use of resources, changes to air quality, and alteration of the global climate. Negative social impacts include unacceptable working conditions, erosion of traditional practices, and increased inequalities. Multiple formal and informal mechanisms have been developed, and innovative examples of corporate biosphere stewardship have resulted in progress. However, the biosphere crisis underscores that such efforts have been insufficient and that transformative change is urgently needed. We provide suggestions for aligning corporate activities with the biosphere and argue that such corporate biosphere stewardship requires more ambitious approaches taken by corporations, combined with new and formalized public governance approaches by governments.

Plastic pollution has caused significant environmental and health challenges. Corporations that contribute to the manufacture, use, and distribution of plastics can play a vital role in addressing global plastic pollution and many are committing to voluntary pledges. However, the extent to which corporations’ voluntary commitments are helping solve the problem remains underexplored. Here, we develop a novel typology to characterize voluntary commitments to reduce plastic pollution made between 2015 and 2020 by 973 companies, including the top 300 of the Fortune Global 500. We find that 72% of these companies have made some form of commitment(s) to reduce plastic pollution. About 67% of companies participating in voluntary environmental programs (VEPs) and 17% of non-VEP participants made measurable and timebound commitments. However, rather than tackle virgin plastics, most companies target packaging and general plastics and frequently emphasize recycling-related efforts. Growing commitments on plastic pollution are made by large and important companies, but significantly more efforts beyond plastic recycling are required to effectively address plastic pollution challenges.

Research on pathways to reducing plastic pollution often concludes that greater action is needed by the private sector. Yet the private sector is not a monolithic or homogeneous entity. We compiled a novel library of 2,317 corporate reports from the world's 200 largest companies, by revenue, over a ten-year period (2010–2019) and used text mining tools to identify pronounced regional and sectoral variability in the extent to which plastic waste and pollution is of material importance to corporate operations. The results show a dominant focus on recycling, with far less attention to the other stages of the life cycle of plastic. While green clubs have emerged in recent years to mobilize voluntary actions by companies seeking to position themselves as leaders in this context, we see regional and sectoral gaps in green club membership, as well as a tendency for members to be those companies that already had a history of reporting on plastics issues. This analysis provides a starting point for a more nuanced consideration of the private sector's role in addressing plastic pollution, and suggests sectors and regions for prioritization by policymakers and civil society actors seeking to broaden the range of committed corporate actors.

Humanity has never benefited more from the ocean as a source of food, livelihoods, and well-being, yet on a global scale this has been accompanied by trajectories of degradation and persistent inequity. Awareness of this has spurred policymakers to develop an expanding network of ocean governance instruments, catalyzed civil society pressure on the public and private sector, and motivated engagement by the general public as consumers and constituents. Among local communities, diverse examples of stewardship have rested on the foundation of care, knowledge and agency. But does an analog for stewardship exist in the context of globally active multinational corporations? Here, we consider the seafood industry and its efforts to navigate this new reality through private governance. We examine paradigmatic events in the history of the sustainable seafood movement, from seafood boycotts in the 1970s through to the emergence of certification measures, benchmarks, and diverse voluntary environmental programs. We note four dimensions of stewardship in which efforts by actors within the seafood industry have aligned with theoretical concepts of stewardship, which we describe as (1) moving beyond compliance, (2) taking a systems perspective, (3) living with uncertainty, and (4) understanding humans as embedded elements of the biosphere. In conclusion, we identify emerging stewardship challenges for the seafood industry and suggest the urgent need to embrace a broader notion of ocean stewardship that extends beyond seafood.