Map Nature Risks to Guide Supply Chain Action
Segura总结
Apply a location-based nature assessment to identify upstream exposure, test supplier assumptions and prioritize procurement and risk actions despite data gaps.
Key resources
Context
Ferre Segura is a family-owned small and medium-sized enterprise in the construction materials and hardware sector based in Bogotá, Colombia. While the company had sustainability and climate commitments, nature remained a blind spot. Its top-selling products depended on resource-intensive supply chains outside its direct control, making it difficult to understand where nature-related risks and opportunities were concentrated. The company needed a clearer understanding of supplier exposure to support risk management and decision-making despite limited supplier and site-level data.
Location of the initiative: Bogotá, Colombia
Solution
The company completed a location-based assessment using the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures recommendations and the Locate, Evaluate, Assess and Prepare approach (1)(2). The assessment screened two priority supplier locations and tested assumptions about where and how key materials were extracted.
The review changed how the company interpreted upstream nature-related risk. Sourcing aggregates, cement and other resource-intensive materials can create exposure to habitat disturbance, water-related impacts and ecosystem degradation associated with extraction. A detailed review showed why assumptions must be verified: one critical supplier used land-based rather than assumed water-based sand and aggregate extraction, changing the relevant biodiversity and risk context.
The company developed a scenario-tested nature-related risk register and prioritized action plan. The executive leadership team approved both outputs. The analysis is expanding the existing supplier assessment approach to include nature and biodiversity. The Procurement team is building a structured data request and scoring process that considers where materials are produced or extracted, the nature-related context and sourcing practices at those locations, alongside the sustainability criteria already used. This is being developed as a phased, risk-based process ahead of the next annual supplier review cycle, so the level of assessment can be proportionate to the supplier and category involved.
The findings were translated into a scenario-tested nature-related risk register and prioritized action plan. They are informing the expansion of the existing supplier assessment framework to include nature and biodiversity, stronger data requests, deeper due diligence and traceability for higher-risk suppliers, and consideration of lower-impact material alternatives.
Impact
Sustainability impact
Nature
Assessment finding. A location-based screening of two priority supplier sites identified 31 protected areas, 5 Key Biodiversity Areas and at least 200 threatened species within the defined assessment buffers, using company-reported supplier-location screening data (3)(4). Proximity indicates the need for further assessment and does not establish that supplier activity has caused an impact.
Figure 1. Protected-area proximity screening for the Mosquera supplier location using a 20 km buffer. Proximity is a screening indicator and does not establish impact.
Figure 2. Key Biodiversity Area proximity screening for the Alion supplier location using a 20 km buffer. Proximity is a screening indicator and does not establish impact.
Management response. The analysis is expanding the existing supplier assessment approach to include nature and biodiversity. The Procurement team is building a structured data request and scoring process covering production or extraction location, nature-related context and sourcing practices, alongside existing sustainability criteria. The process is being developed for phased, risk-based application in the next annual supplier review cycle so that the level of assessment is proportionate to the supplier and category involved.
Business impact
Benefits
Improved risk prioritization by replacing broad sector assumptions with location-specific evidence.
Expanded the supplier assessment approach to include nature and biodiversity criteria.
Identified where stronger supplier information, due diligence and traceability are most relevant.
Supported consideration of lower-impact material alternatives and earlier action on risks that could contribute to costs, delays, supply-continuity disruption, community impacts or reputational damage.
Created a scenario-tested risk register and prioritized action plan for ongoing risk management.
Costs
The initiative primarily required staff time and analytical resources; no significant capital investment was required. Resources were allocated to collect and validate biodiversity and location data, assess information gaps, and complete the nature assessment. Limited supplier and site-level data increased the effort required and made it necessary to verify key assumptions. Costs can be reduced by improving supplier data collection and integrating nature-related information into existing procurement and risk management processes.
Implementation
Typical business profile
This approach is relevant to organizations that depend on complex supply chains with limited visibility or control over upstream activities and incomplete supplier or site-level data. It is suited to businesses at an early stage of their nature-related assessment and seeking to connect analysis with supplier, procurement, product and risk decisions.
Approach
Prioritize the value chain: Identify products, raw materials, suppliers and value-chain relationships most likely to have significant dependencies and impacts on nature.
Map priority locations: Screen priority supplier locations using biodiversity and geospatial information. Define and document the screening radius, datasets and assessment date.
Identify the nature context: Review proximity to protected areas, Key Biodiversity Areas, threatened species and other ecologically sensitive features that could influence exposure.
Validate material assumptions: Confirm where and how priority materials are produced or extracted. Test assumptions where a different extraction method or site could materially change the biodiversity and risk context.
Assess dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities: Record evidence, uncertainty and data gaps, then develop and scenario-test a nature-related risk register.
Prioritize actions: Identify higher-risk suppliers and categories for stronger data requests, due diligence, traceability or consideration of lower-impact material alternatives.
Integrate into governance: Embed nature criteria into supplier assessment, procurement, product and risk-management processes. Use a phased, risk-based approach so the depth of assessment is proportionate to the supplier and category.
Review and approve: Submit the nature-related risk register and action plan for executive review and approval, then update them as supplier data improves.
Stakeholders involved
Project leadership: The Data and Sustainability teams jointly led the assessment, combining data analysis with interpretation of nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities.
Procurement: The Procurement team is developing a structured supplier data request and scoring process for a phased, risk-based rollout ahead of the next annual supplier review cycle.
Suppliers: Engagement was limited during the initial assessment. Priority suppliers and sites are expected to provide location, extraction, sourcing-practice and nature-context information as the supplier assessment expands.
Executive governance: The c-suite reviews and approves the nature-related risk register and action plan, with the CEO chairing the review.
Support network: The Nature Reporting Preparer Forum provided guidance and peer learning during application of the TNFD and LEAP approach.
Key parameters to consider
Assessment scope: Define priority products, materials, supplier tiers and locations before screening.
Data inputs: Use fit-for-purpose biodiversity, geospatial, supplier and extraction-method information, and record the date and limitations of each dataset.
Screening method: Document buffer distances and avoid treating proximity screening as proof of impact.
Primary constraint: Plan for incomplete supplier and facility-level data and establish a process to verify material assumptions.
Governance: Assign owners for the risk register, action plan, supplier data process and approval cycle.
Implementation model: Phase the supplier assessment according to supplier and category risk rather than applying the same depth to all suppliers.
Implementation and operations tips
Focus first on the most relevant locations and value-chain relationships instead of assessing everything at once.
Document data gaps and assumptions that could materially change the assessment.
Verify critical location and extraction assumptions before investing in additional analysis.
Use screening results to prioritize deeper assessment; do not present proximity to sensitive areas as evidence of impact.
Integrate new nature-related data requests into established supplier and risk-management cycles to limit additional effort.