Just found and analyzed: NABU & BCG – The institutionalization of greenwashing in the name of biodiversity

Institutionalized greenwashing: The bitter truth behind “business in harmony with nature”

When Germany's largest nature conservation association and one of the world's most powerful strategy consultancies join forces, it initially sounds like a pragmatic alliance between ecology and economics. However, a deeper analysis of the partnership between NABU and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) reveals a disturbing dynamic: the colonization of nature conservation by pure management logic.

The joint study "Economic Activity in Harmony with Nature" (2020) does not mark a breakthrough in species conservation, but rather a watershed moment in the way we talk about ecological crises. Instead of treating the destruction of habitats as an existential threat, nature is monetized here, broken down into "assets," and assigned a price tag of up to 190 trillion dollars. What was intended as a strategic enhancement of biodiversity, on closer inspection, turns out to be "institutionalized greenwashing": It provides corporations with the appropriate vocabulary to continue their destructive core business while simultaneously celebrating their "nature positivity" in glossy brochures.

The conflict of interest behind the scenes is particularly serious: While BCG provides NABU with nature conservation strategies, in 2025 the company will still be advising globally operating oil and gas companies on optimizing their fossil fuel business models. The following analysis reveals why this alliance not only suffers from a paradox of competence but also structurally leads to radical ecological necessities being transformed into watered-down management tasks – to the detriment of NABU's credibility and, even more importantly, to the detriment of irreplaceable ecosystems.

The sell-off of nature conservation: Why the NABU-BCG alliance is a dangerous dead end

The partnership between the German Nature Conservation Association (NABU) and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) for the creation of the study “Business in Harmony with Nature” (2020) reveals a structural problem that goes beyond this single cooperation: the colonization of nature conservation knowledge by management consultancies that primarily understand ecological phenomena as business problems and thus systematically defuse them.

1. The Competence Paradox: Why BCG is the Wrong Institution

BCG is a management consultancy specializing in strategy, business optimization, and organizational development—not in ecology or biodiversity. The study itself reveals this fundamental competence gap through its methodology: it monetizes biodiversity as “ecosystem services” allegedly worth 170–190 trillion US dollars annually. This figure is derived from the Costanza method (1997) and TEEB reports, not from original BCG biodiversity research.

The crucial problem

Monetization transforms an ecological phenomenon into an economic optimization problem. A rainforest is no longer understood as an irreplaceable ecosystem, but as a "carbon storage asset" with a calculable value. This subsequently enables precisely the logic that conservationists fight against: if the rainforest is worth X billion dollars and a plantation generates Y billion dollars in profit, the question becomes a calculation rather than a categorical prohibition.

NABU could have carried out this work with institutions that possess genuine ecological expertise (Max Planck Institute for Ecology, Senckenberg Society, universities). Instead, they chose a company whose core competency is framing all problems as management tasks.

2. The structural conflict of interest: BCG and the oil and gas industry

The fundamental credibility crisis of this partnership arises from BCG's portfolio:

BCG works intensively with oil and gas companies. In 2025, BCG published its third annual "Oil and Gas Benchmarking Study" with 28 global energy companies and advises them on "Low-Carbon Solutions". At the same time, BCG produces studies on "Decarbonization Leaders in Oil and Gas" and supports ExxonMobil, Petronas, and other energy giants in developing "Low-Carbon Hydrogen" projects.

This is not a minor issue: The oil and gas industry is one of the main causes of biodiversity loss due to:

• Land conversion and habitat fragmentation
• Oil spill risks in sensitive ecosystems
• Methane emissions (indirectly, since climate change = biodiversity loss)

The paradox

BCG says at the same time:

• Regarding oil companies: "You can build low-carbon business models and remain profitable."
• Regarding NABU: “The economy is essential for biodiversity protection”

This is not a contradiction in BCG's logic – it is perfect coherence: Both messages tell corporations that they can continue their core business while they "transform." This is greenwashing in the classic sense.

Our EU and Germany expertise in business development, sales and marketing - Image: Xpert.Digital

Industry focus: B2B, digitalization (from AI to XR), mechanical engineering, logistics, renewable energies and industry

More about it here:

• Xpert Business Hub

A topic hub with insights and expertise:

• Knowledge platform on the global and regional economy, innovation and industry-specific trends
• Collection of analyses, impulses and background information from our focus areas
• A place for expertise and information on current developments in business and technology
• Topic hub for companies that want to learn about markets, digitalization and industry innovations

3. The reframing of the nature conservation problem as a management problem

A key flaw in the study is its implicit thesis: “60% of biodiversity loss is caused by economic activity, but economic activity is also the solution.” This statement is logically coherent, but it conceals a redefinition of the problem:

Previously (classic nature conservation)

Biodiversity is being lost because of our economic practices and the way we conduct business. Solution: Less use, restoration, wilderness.

Afterwards (BCG framing)

Biodiversity is an externality that can be internalized through better management decisions in value chains. Companies must measure and disclose their "nature positivity".

The “6 levers for protecting biodiversity” in the study are symptomatic:

• Integrative land use models
• Regulation + economic incentives
• Voluntary self-commitment of companies
• Innovation and collaboration
• Information campaigns
• Empowering local actors

These are all management concepts. None of them calls for substantial economic transformation. None of them says: “Certain activities (e.g., palm oil monocultures, deep-sea mining) are incompatible with biodiversity protection and must be stopped.” Instead: “We need to create better governance structures and innovation ecosystems.”

4. The NABU confidence crisis: Financial dependence and strategic compromises

Unlike Greenpeace, NABU is not 100% funded by donations. According to available analyses, NABU accepts some government funding and project grants that may be indirectly linked to economic interests. This creates structural vulnerabilities

• A single BCG study probably costs six- to seven-figure sums
• For an organization like NABU, which is financed through donations and membership fees, such project funding is attractive
• However, it creates implicit obligations – those who cooperate with BCG will not aggressively criticize BCG clients

This is not a moral accusation, but a structural reality: institutions under financial pressure become systematically more defensive towards their funders.

5. Greenwashing on a meta-level: The NGO as a source of legitimacy

A profound irony of the partnership is its function as a legitimacy machine:

• Corporate problem: Oil, gas, agricultural and mining companies need credibility for their “sustainability”
• Proposed solution: BCG is developing a study with NABU that states "The economy is essential for biodiversity protection"
• Result: Every company can now say: “We follow the NABU-BCG recommendations for regenerative transformation” – and thus has a nature conservation stamp of approval

This is not speculation. It's a fact: BCG is promoting the study to clients as a framework for their sustainability communication. And NABU? It's losing credibility, becoming a tool of corporations, without this having happened in a formal legal way.

6. The Ignorance of Tipping Points: A Methodological Blindness

Ecologically, what matters are not average biodiversity losses, but tipping points. A forest with 60% forest cover can reproduce itself; at 40%, it tips into a savanna. The study does not address this irreversibility – instead, it presents average values ​​and ecosystem values.

This is no coincidence. Management logic works with optimizable variables (reduce consumption, increase efficiency). It cannot work with categories like "this process is irreversible and must therefore stop, no ifs, ands, or buts." Such logics are structurally inaccessible to management consultants.

7. The historical context: How management consultancies domesticate problems

The NABU-BCG phenomenon is not isolated. It follows an established pattern:

• Climate change (2006): The Stern Review frames the climate crisis as an economic optimization problem. Result: 20 years of "low-carbon strategies" by oil companies, while absolute emissions increased
• Biodiversity (2020): BCG frames species extinction as an ecosystem services problem. Result: Corporations can communicate “nature-positive strategies” while habitats shrink

Management consultancies aren't evil – they're structurally incapable of thinking about problems that don't have a management solution. Therefore, they pathologize all phenomena until they can be "sustainably optimized.".

The Comedy of Hypocrisy

Their initial intuition was correct: When NABU brings a capitalist on board to study biodiversity, it's not just unusual – it's structurally absurd. It's like Amnesty International discussing the optimal cell layout with a prison corporation while claiming that prisons are "essential for the protection of human rights.".

The profound irony: The study was commissioned to portray companies as solutions to what they have caused. And every side wins:

• BCG: New consulting areas, legitimacy boost, green facade for oil clients
• NABU: Funding, media presence, the feeling of being "constructive"
• Corporations: A scientific document that says they are the key to salvation

The rainforest loses. The coral reef. The insects. They are not saved – they are categorized, monetized, and turned into management objects. This is not nature conservation. This is institutionalized greenwashing.

• NABU-BCG study, 2020
• BCG Oil & Gas Benchmarking Study, 2025; – Decarbonization Leaders in Oil and Gas
• Pugnalom.io, “Corporate Interests in Green Clothing”, 2025
• NABU website, “For companies”

☑️ Our business language is English or German

☑️ NEW: Correspondence in your national language!

Konrad Wolfenstein

I would be happy to serve you and my team as a personal advisor.

You can contact me by filling out the contact form or simply call me on +49 89 89 674 804 (Munich) . My email address is: wolfenstein ∂ xpert.digital

I'm looking forward to our joint project.

☑️ SME support in strategy, consulting, planning and implementation

☑️ Creation or realignment of the digital strategy and digitalization

☑️ Expansion and optimization of international sales processes

☑️ Global & Digital B2B trading platforms

☑️ Pioneer Business Development / Marketing / PR / Trade Fairs

Benefit from Xpert.Digital's extensive, fivefold expertise in a comprehensive service package | R&D, XR, PR & Digital Visibility Optimization - Image: Xpert.Digital

Xpert.Digital has in-depth knowledge of various industries. This allows us to develop tailor-made strategies that are tailored precisely to the requirements and challenges of your specific market segment. By continually analyzing market trends and following industry developments, we can act with foresight and offer innovative solutions. Through the combination of experience and knowledge, we generate added value and give our customers a decisive competitive advantage.

More about it here:

• Use the 5x expertise of Xpert.Digital in one package - starting at just €500/month