TNFD Metrics and Targets: Core Global, Sector and Additional Metrics Explained

Nature data can be abundant and still fail to answer an investor's question. One team may collect hectares, litres, species records, supplier scores, fines and capital expenditure without showing which material dependency, impact, risk or opportunity each figure represents. Another team may report only the metrics that improved. Both approaches weaken comparability and create assurance risk.

A strong metric architecture begins with the nature-related issue and the decision it informs. It then selects the metric class, unit, location and boundary that represent that issue, rather than starting with whichever dataset is easiest to extract.

Figure 1. Assessment metrics support analysis; disclosure metrics communicate material information; targets convert selected metrics into accountable outcomes.

TNFD also describes metric categories that are relevant to both assessment and disclosure:

location prioritisation metrics, used to identify where nature interfaces and sensitive or material locations warrant attention;

dependency and impact metrics, which describe reliance on ecosystem services, impact drivers and changes affecting nature;

risk and opportunity metrics, which translate nature-related issues into exposure, consequence and financial or strategic significance; and

response metrics, which track actions, resources, controls, restoration, transformation and progress.

The category and the layer answer different questions. A water-stress screening score may be an assessment metric used for location prioritisation. Water withdrawal in a scarce basin may become a core or additional disclosure metric. Capital expenditure on water reuse may be a response metric. Lost production from water restrictions may be a risk metric. Keeping these roles distinct prevents one figure from being stretched beyond its purpose.

TNFD recommends the core disclosure metrics on a comply-or-explain basis. An organisation should not omit a core metric merely because performance is poor or data collection is inconvenient. A defensible explanation falls into two broad situations:

the metric has not been identified as relevant and material to the organisation; or

it is relevant and material, but the organisation cannot currently measure it because of methodological limits, data access or commercial sensitivity.

In the second situation, the explanation should identify the limitation and how the organisation plans to address it in future reporting periods. “Data unavailable” is not a complete explanation. The metric register should show the population affected, attempted sources, interim method, decision owner, remediation date and whether any qualitative disclosure remains material.

The distinction affects aggregation and narrative context.

The dependency-and-impact indicators relate to the drivers of nature change and should be considered within pathways that include the impact driver, external factors, changes to the state of nature and changes to ecosystem services. TNFD expects them to be reported at the level of the material issue. A single group total can obscure whether land conversion or water use occurs in a highly sensitive location.

The risk-and-opportunity indicators are designed to give an aggregate organisation-level view of exposure, consequences or opportunities. They still require methodology and boundary disclosure, but their reporting level is different. Preparers should not assume that every location metric should be aggregated or that every risk metric should be disaggregated to site level in the published report. The decision should follow the metric's purpose and material information needs.

Sector guidance matters because nature interfaces differ sharply. Pollution types, resource dependencies, land-use pressures, water data and opportunity metrics for food and agriculture are not identical to those for mining, power, financial institutions or biotechnology.

A sound process should:

identify all sectors and activities represented in the reporting entity and value chain;

review the applicable TNFD sector guidance rather than relying on one primary industry code;

record which core global metrics need sector-specific interpretation;

identify core sector metrics and additional sector metrics;

resolve overlapping metrics for diversified groups; and

explain the basis when a sector metric is not applied.

Sector guidance does not remove the need for entity-specific judgement. A company may have a material issue not adequately represented by the core sector list, or may operate across several activities with different locations and value-chain profiles.

Additional metrics help represent material issues more faithfully. They may cover ecosystem condition, species, ecosystem-service dependencies, supplier traceability, restoration outcomes, response effectiveness, rights-holder engagement, product impacts or opportunity performance.

The selection test should be symmetrical. Ask not only which additional metric demonstrates progress, but also which metric is needed to represent a significant negative impact, control weakness, deteriorating location or missed target. Maintain a candidate register showing why each metric was selected or rejected. This creates an anti-cherry-picking control and helps reviewers understand year-on-year changes.

Internal teams may use dozens of metrics during LEAP-style assessment: risk-screening scores, satellite alerts, habitat condition indices, supplier questionnaires, modelled water-stress values, species databases, control ratings and financial sensitivities. These support prioritisation but may not be suitable for external disclosure because they are preliminary, model-dependent, commercially sensitive or not material.

The organisation should retain them in the assessment layer with purpose, source, version and limitations. When an assessment metric becomes material information, it can be promoted into the disclosure register with a controlled definition and approval. When it remains internal, the report may still explain the assessment process without publishing the raw score.

Step 1 - start from the material issue

Link every candidate metric to a dependency, impact, risk, opportunity or response pathway. Record the relevant locations, business activities and value-chain relationships.

Step 2 - identify the metric layer and category

Determine whether the candidate is core global, core sector, additional global, additional sector, assessment or entity-specific. Then classify it as location, dependency/impact, risk/opportunity or response.

Step 3 - test applicability and material information

For core metrics, document the comply-or-explain decision. For additional metrics, test whether the metric is needed to represent the material issue faithfully, including negative results and limitations.

Step 4 - define the metric precisely

Specify numerator, denominator, unit, period, baseline, boundary, location, aggregation rules, conversion factors, estimates, restatements and treatment of acquisitions or disposals. A metric name without a data definition is not controlled.

Step 5 - design evidence and control

Identify source systems, original evidence, data owner, preparer, reviewer, calculation, reconciliation, model version, uncertainty and retention. For geospatial and supplier data, retain extraction date, dataset version, resolution and origin confidence.

Step 6 - connect the metric to targets and decisions

State whether the metric monitors a target, control, risk appetite, capital project, supplier programme, transition plan or ecological outcome. A metric without a decision use is a candidate for simplification.

Step 7 - map to disclosure and review annually

Record report location and the relevant TNFD disclosure. Reassess applicability when the business model, locations, value chain, sector guidance, data methods or materiality conclusions change.

Figure 2. A metric becomes disclosure-ready only when its definition, evidence, controls and decision use are connected.

Nature is location-specific. Aggregating water use, land conversion, pollution or restoration can conceal material differences in ecosystem condition, scarcity, sensitivity or affected people. The organisation should define when it reports site, basin, landscape, sourcing-region, biome or portfolio information and when aggregation remains meaningful.

A useful aggregation control asks:

would a group total hide a material sensitive location?

are units and methods consistent across locations?

do positive results in one location offset or obscure negative results elsewhere?

does the metric represent a stock, flow, pressure, condition or financial exposure?

is a weighted average understandable and reproducible?

are exclusions and unavailable origins visible?

Do not net unrelated ecological effects into one “nature-positive score” without a credible scientific and methodological basis.

A food group initially proposes to disclose total water withdrawal, certified commodity share, waste recycled and nature-related capital expenditure. Its assessment shows that two basins account for most operational water risk, while conversion risk is concentrated in two agricultural commodities and three sourcing regions.

The group retains water withdrawal as a core metric but disaggregates scarce-basin information and adds a basin-specific consumption and replenishment metric. It reviews sector guidance, adds traceability and conversion-free sourcing metrics for the priority commodities, and keeps a supplier screening score as an internal assessment metric. Capital expenditure is disclosed as an opportunity/response metric only where eligibility and expected outcomes are defined. The register records why several attractive but weakly evidenced “nature-positive product” metrics were rejected.

Illustrative scenario only; metric selection must follow the organisation's own materiality, methods and evidence.

Publishing only metrics with complete data. Keep a core-metric applicability register and explain material measurement gaps.

Treating sector metrics as optional decoration. Review all relevant sector guidance and document conclusions for diversified activities.

Using group totals for location-sensitive impacts. Disaggregate where aggregation would obscure material differences.

Publishing an internal score without methodology. Explain purpose, inputs, weighting, version, limitations and why the score is material.

Changing definitions to improve the trend. Apply method-change and restatement controls and explain the effect.

Reporting targets without the metric register. Link target baseline, boundary, method, owner and progress to controlled metrics.

Calling every environmental expenditure a nature opportunity. Define eligibility, causal pathway, expected outcome and financial boundary.

The accompanying TNFD Metrics, Targets and Mitigation Register includes a metric register, target register, mitigation-action tracker, disclosure mapping and readiness dashboard. It is a working aid, not a substitute for the official TNFD annexes.

SRC-01 - TNFD Recommendations v1.0: https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations_of_the_Taskforce_on_Nature-related_Financial_Disclosures_September_2023.pdf

SRC-04 - TNFD metrics resources: https://tnfd.global/metrics/

SRC-06 - TNFD Recommendations and sector guidance: https://tnfd.global/recommendations/

SRC-03 - LEAP approach guidance v1.1: https://tnfd.global/publication/additional-guidance-on-assessment-of-nature-related-issues-the-leap-approach/