At ftrprf, we are change agents with knowledge about strategy, marketing, creativity, and technology. Five things make us different: we use our left and right brains, create options to make choices, work as one team, persevere until the result is realized, and see it as our mission to make the world futureproof. As part of that mission, ftrprf founded The Outside World Ⓡ, ftrprf’s research center, because we believe what happens in the outside world is the most powerful force shaping organizational strategy. And the most underestimated. The Outside World Ⓡ bridges society and tailored strategy. We analyse societal dynamics, global trends, and shifting public expectations with a multidisciplinary team of international analysts, excellent tooling, sophisticated AI, and a systems approach. We share our knowledge openly. We shape ftrprf’s understanding of developments in the outside world, enabling us to translate this knowledge into impactful strategies. We communicate our findings through articles, journals and books, always offering hopeful and different perspectives. And we bring ambitious people together through interviews, roundtables and other moments of genuine exchange. Over the past months, The Outside World Ⓡ has been writing the Impact Book. This book defines ftrprf’s vision on what it means to create positive impact, grounded in the realities of the past year. It explores what impact looked like in 2025 through the six ScEPTED lenses: sociocultural, economic, political, technological, environmental, and demographic. The book explores questions like: “Does increased online awareness of social issues lead to actual progress, or rather to polarization, and why?”, “How can we model economic value in a way that accounts for externalities such as environmental impact?” and “How do economic structures favor certain age groups over others?”. Finally, it culminates in our proprietary theory of impact: a clear framework for turning ambition into sustainable, futureproof change. But impact is never one-dimensional. It is layered, collective, and requires more than one way of seeing. In writing the book, we’ve primarily focused on the strategic side of impact so far – the left side of the brain. Now, we want to incorporate the other half as well, the creative side, so that together they form a complete whole. And we need other perspectives to bring this to life. We are commissioning young artists to translate the themes of The Impact Book into visual interpretations. The selected works will be featured as the leading visual material for the project. We invite you to respond to one or more of the six themes with your own perspective, medium, and creative voice. All mediums are welcome. Photography, illustration, mixed media, digital work, sculpture, conceptual work — we are open. In whichever medium you choose, it is important to note that the final deliverable will be high-quality still images of your work to be printed in the physical book and displayed digitally. No specific educational background is required. Selected artists will: Have their work prominently featured as imagery in both the printed and digital editions of the book, alongside; an artist statement and interview about your impact perspective and how it translates to your work; be featured in physical and online distribution and promotional materials. This is an opportunity to contribute to a publication that speaks directly to decision-makers — and to help shape how impact is understood and visualized. If your work is selected you will receive: Grant: €500 fixed fee Exposure: Your work will reach our broad international network of leaders, thinkers, and institutions. You will always be credited when your work is shown. Creative freedom: You shape the interpretation — we offer support, guidance and a platform to help your idea flourish. Connection and collaboration : Meet the fellow artists, writers, designers and experts collaborating on this project Review the concept chapters of The Impact Book at the following link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UXR_3gWILyR56bczht8eLCTdAYcmGucu/view?usp=drive_link Choose the theme(s) you want to interpret. Submit your proposal via this form: https://forms.gle/oXVQpPbVp1HQmFoG7 In the form, you will be asked to provide: A short description of your concept. This does not need to be a finished work, but rather an outline of what you intend to make. Your chosen medium Preliminary visuals or references A short bio Contact details Please note the following timeline: Submission deadline: March 29th Decision notification: March 31st Final work delivery deadline: May 4th We’d love to hear from you. Reach out anytime at: designers@ftrprf.com

Since the Industrial Revolution, the global economy has grown at an unprecedented rate (Figure 1). Technological progress, industrialisation and international trade have driven continuous increases in global gross domestic product (GDP). GDP and material wealth are now higher than ever before . This rapid economic development, however, has been closely tied to the large-scale extraction of natural resources. Fossil fuels have enabled large-scale industrial production and the transportation of goods, while timber extraction has supplied paper. Although a seemingly simple invention at first, paper facilitated legal documentation, bookkeeping, the spreading of religion and the furthering of scientific progress . Together, these developments contributed significantly to the development and expansion of the world economy. Additionally, large areas of forests have been cut down to make way for agricultural production. Crucial for the productivity of agriculture are pollinators. They can substantially increase crop yield and quality. For example, insect pollination increases the commercial value of fruits suitable for commercial sale by 92%. Figure 1: Global GDP Over the Long Run These examples illustrate a broader pattern: our economy is deeply embedded in natural capital and the extraction of natural resources. The list, showcasing how natural resources support economic growth, can go on for many pages. However, that is not the point of this article. Although our economy is thriving, the dependency on natural resources raises an urgent question. If continued overextraction leads to biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, what are the consequences for long-term economic stability and growth? This article presents arguments and examples that show biodiversity is not merely an environmental concern but a fundamental determinant of economic functioning, and that its decline poses significant risks to future economic growth and security. Many companies significantly depend on biodiversity in their operations or are significantly impacted by their proper functioning, although they may not immediately realize that. For instance, commercial fisheries depend on healthy marine ecosystems. If biodiversity declines and fish populations collapse, businesses in fishing, seafood processing, and retail lose a major source of supply. Indirectly, the companies that have invested in this branch also lose money. In the 2020 World Economic Forum (WEF) global risk report, biodiversity loss was rated as one of the top 5 greatest risks facing the global economic landscape in terms of likelihood a nd impact. A related report additionally recognized that a large amount of economic value, approximately the size of half the world’s GDP, is in some way moderately or highly dependent on the services that nature and other ecosystems provide. The relationship between biodiversity and economic activity becomes particularly clear when looking at global supply chains. Supply chains are the systems through which raw materials, energy, and labour, are transformed into finished products and delivered to consumers. Biodiversity provides fundamental resources that economic systems depend on, including raw materials used in production and woven into global supply chains such as food, timber, medicinal resources and water. Indirectly, biodiversity also sustains the system in which production takes place. These processes include pollination, water purification, and buffers against climate disruptions such as floods. Every supply chain therefore depends on biodiversity, and its degradation can have far-reaching economic consequences. One example of the impact of decaying biodiversity on supply chains is the loss of pollinators, such as butterflies and bats, or birds and bees. These significantly contribute to the crop yield in commercial agriculture. A loss of these animals therefore has significant negative consequences to g lobal food supply chains. However, understanding how these nature systems affect business is sometimes hard to quantify. Many prices and costs are often hidden and incorrectly priced in long and complicated supply chains. Indirect benefits of ecosystems are often taken for granted and therefore not taken into account in the final price of products. For instance, less than half of the companies in the sample of a study knew which raw material they source depend on pollinators. There are, however, three main ways through which the destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems creates risks for businesses: Dependency of business on nature ; when businesses depend directly on nature for operations, supply chain performance, real estate asset values, physical security and business continuity All businesses depend on natural capital assets and ecosystem services either directly or through their supply chains. For example, 60% of coffee varieties are in danger of extinction due to climate change, disease and deforestation. If this were to happen, global coffee markets that generated nearly $1500 bln in revenue in the retail and hospitality sector in 2025 would be significantly destabilized. Fallout of business impacts on nature : when the direct and indirect impacts of business activities on nature loss trigger negative consequences, such as losing customers or entire markets, costly legal action and adverse regulatory changes The negative impacts a business has on nature can create direct and indirect risks in the form of regulatory, legal, reputational, and market risks, among others. For example, consumers are increasingly aware of environmental damage a company causes which can result in reduced demand. Moreover, rating agencies have also started to include nature-related disclosures in t heir assessments of risk. Impacts of nature loss on society : when nature loss aggravates the disruption of the society in which businesses operate, which in turn can create physical and market risks The loss of nature can contribute to systemic geopolitical risk and, in some cases, destabilize the environment in which businesses operate. For example, strong links have been found between deforestation and outbreaks of animal transmitted diseases lik e Ebola. These examples show that, to be able to maintain a sustainably growing economy, businesses should take into account the impact of biodiversity. Directly, through what resources they use and how their output impacts nature. Indirectly, through how the environment in which they operate changes due to the loss of nature and ecosystems. The agricultural food sector is a line of business which is impacted through all three of the previously mentioned ways through which biodiversity can create risks for businesses. It depends on nature, directly impacts nature, and operates in a society in which nature loss can create physical and market risks. In Europe, around four in five crop and wild-flowering plant species depend, at least to some extent, on animal pollination ; the transfer of pollen from the male to female parts of the plant by creatures like insects, birds, and bats. The agricultural sector contributed approximately 1.2% to the European Union's GDP in 2024. This is approximately equal to €223.3 billion. And, around fifteen to thirty percent of the world’s food production is fertilized by pollinators such as bees, birds and bats. The benefits of pollination are therefore immensely large. Yet, the population of pollinators around the world has been declining at an alarming rate in terms of amount and diversity. A large part of them, around 16 to 40%, is already at risk of e xtinction. So, what would the supermarket look like withou t pollinators? Since around 80% of crop and wild-flowering plant species depend on animal pollination, a supermarket without pollinators would look immensely different. We would notice a very large difference in the section of fruits and vegetables, coffee and tea, toiletries, and medicine. Supply would decrease, prices rise, and diets become less diverse. For example, a fruit that many people eat, apples, are significantly dependent on bee pollination. No pollinators means no apples, unless farmers would resort to costly manual pollination. The risk that the loss of pollinators poses to the global economy is therefore substantial. Many developing countries in Asia and Africa often rely even more on agriculture for the ir GDP. As a result, they would face even greater consequences. Although biodiversity loss can substantially harm agricultural production, European economies are diversified, and rely on many other sectors for income. This significantly reduces their overall vulnerability and may prevent them from taking hard action. Services, for example, make up around 75 pe rcent of GDP. Therefore, although significantly damaging to our economy ($223.3 bln is a lot of money), European countries may be better able to absorb the economic losses. However, in countries where agriculture is a major part of just the relatively small amount of wealth those countries earn, the loss of pollinators is an even larger threat. This does not imply that European countries should not take action. The food and agriculture supply chain is only one example of the many sectors that are significantly dependent on biodiversity and ecosystems. Other examples are the fisheries, forestry, and also industries you may not expect to be dependent on them. One of them saves many human lives every day. When thinking of modern medicine it might be easy to revert to the thought of biomedical laboratories that mix many chemicals together until they find the perfect mixture. While this is of course partly correct –contemporary drugs are mostly made in such labs– chemicals are not the only compound required to produce drugs. Many of the drugs significantly depend on natural resources, such as fungi or plants. Natural products, for example, have afforded a rich source of compounds that have found many applications in cancer chemotherapy. Over 70% of anti-cancer compounds are either natural products, or natural product-deriv ed substances. There is not just one study that points this out. Other studies find that one fourth of regular medicines are derived from tropical p lants, and 50% of modern clinical drugs are of na tural origin. Besides that biodiversity significantly impacts health as a result of using nature-based solutions for medicines, this example again proves that a loss of biodiversity can significantly impact supply chains. In this case those of large pharmaceutical companies, but the consequences can extend much further. Reduced access to medicines can disrupt public health and therefore the broader economy in which many other businesses operate. Since so many drugs are significantly dependent on nature, the loss of it reduces the availability of medicinal plants and decreases the solutions that doctors and researchers have to treat sic k people. Do you still remember the three risks through which destruction of biodiversity and ecosystems can increase risks for businesses? One of them stated that natural loss can aggravate the disruption of society in which businesses operate. The loss of nature that is used to produce medicines may negatively affect public health systems and societal well-being. It is therefore notable that, although of second importance to health, the ways through which biodiversity loss impacts companies economically is not always straightforward. The impacts of biodiversity loss are not limited to producers within supply chains. Financial institutions, such as banks, investors, and insurers, are also exposed to these risks. Nature-related risks are caused by a loss of biodiversity and degradation of other natural ecosystems, and can lead to a substantial threat to financial stability and the broader economy . As nature declines, natural capital is damaged. This reduces nature's capacity to provide ecosystem services on which companies depend. These companies are either recipients of finance and investment, sources of tax revenue, and key links in supply chains. Their vulnerability to a decline in ecosystems is therefore a risk for investors, insurers, governments, and other connected companies and may therefore result in significant financial i nstability. These are physical risks. They capture the direct impacts of the loss of nature on the operation of businesses. There are also transition risks. Companies that currently have a substantial impact on nature and do not put in much effort to change could face reputational and transitional risks in the future. For example, governments can increase regulation, limiting extraction of natural resources. Businesses still heavily reliant on natural resources will then face significa nt costs. As a result, biodiversity loss not only threatens ecosystems, but also creates a serious threat to financial stability and long-term economic growth. Although biodiversity restoration is often regarded as a mere cost, it can in fact generate tangible economic returns and contribute significantly to economic growth in surrounding areas. There are many examples of nature restoration that have resulted in better biodiversity while simultaneously creating economic benefits. According to the European Commission, the return on investment of nature restoration in the EU is large; a €1 investment adds between approximately €8 and €38 in economic value, particularly in jobs, and economic growth due to tourism and a healthier envir onment to live in. An example of such an investment is the Emscher Landscape Park. In this park, located at the heart of Germany’s Ruhr area, once stood one of Europe’s largest industrialized areas. The area was dominated by large coal mines, huge furnaces for smelting iron and steel, and chemical plants. Even more shocking perhaps is the open water sewer system. Because underground sewers were difficult or nearly impossible due to the large amounts of mining in the area, waste water of these factories flowed right through co ncrete channels. When the coal and steel industry collapsed in the mid- to late 20th century in Europe, the area was faced with a major economic downturn. Factories became abandoned, unemployment rates were high, and the land was polluted due to the many years of heavy industry. To confront the heavily degraded area, the German state government of North Rhine-Westphalia, the German federal government, the European Union and several other institutions decided to make significant investments in th e area. They created a large green area that now connects 20 different cities that has resulted in healthier ecosystems, cleaner water, and many environmental benefits. Apart from the positive impact on ecosystems, water quality and urban regeneration, the project created more than 55,000 jobs in an area that was still faced with significant une mployment. It additionally created a place that is visited by approximately one million tourists every year, has raised property values and created several new places for innovation such as the Wirtschaftspark Gelsenskirchen. This has turned the place from an old industrialized decaying area to a place of innovation and a tourism hotspot with major biodiversity. The transformation is a great demonstration that nature restoration can simultaneously improve biodiversity, stimulate economic growth, and revitalize a previously declining region. This article started by stating that the world economy has thrived over the past few decades, with wealth and welfare reaching the highest levels ever seen. Yet, sustaining this progress requires companies to be engaged more actively with biodiversity. This means not only responding to disruptions caused by biodiversity loss, but also preventing further degradation and actively contributing to restoration. Also, by engaging in practices that are not damaging to biodiversity. The difficulty, however, lies in the nature of biodiversity itself. The benefits of investing in nature often extend beyond the firm that makes the investment. This results in a free-ride r problem: firms that do not contribute can still benefit from restoration efforts undertaken by others. As a result, too little investment in biodiversity occurs, leading to market failure. Addressing this challenge requires economic mechanisms that reward companies that protect natural systems and discourages practices that lead to overextraction and environmental degradation. The next The Outside World-article, which will be published in two weeks, will therefore look into the effect of companies on biodiversity and why companies should care about biodiversity. This article is part of The Outside World, ftrprf’s very own research center. As changemakers, we believe that what happens in the outside world is the most powerful force shaping organizational strategy – and also the most underestimated. To do well, organizations need to understand what’s happening in the outside world. To do significantly better, they need to be aware of what it means for their future, their relations, their strategy, and their impact. We serve as a bridge between society and tailored strategy by analysing societal dynamics, global trends, and shifting public expectations with a multidisciplinary team of international analysts, excellent tooling, sophisticated AI, and a systems approach. This article is part of Q1 2026 research focus, which centers on biodiversity. For more information, please contact theoutsideworld@ftrprf.com.