Quest
back to: Insights & Trends

Quest joins Luxembourg Task Force on Finance for Biodiversity

At COP30 in Belém, Brazil, biodiversity once again sat at the intersection of ambition and reality. While global targets continue to multiply, the mechanisms to finance nature at scale remain fragile. Quest and our nonprofit Habitats joined the Luxembourg Task Force on Finance for Biodiversity at COP30 to help push the conversation beyond pledges and frameworks, and toward practical, financeable solutions that can deliver real biodiversity outcomes alongside climate and social benefits.

What happened at COP30?

As part of the Luxembourg Pavilion programme, the Luxembourg Task Force on Finance for Biodiversity hosted a dedicated session titled “Mobilizing Private Finance for Biodiversity: From Local Innovations to Scalable Models Delivering on the Rio Conventions’ Targets.” The session brought together financial institutions, impact investors, project developers, and biodiversity practitioners to explore how instruments such as blended finance, biodiversity credits, conservation trust funds, and payments for ecosystem services can support real-world conservation and restoration projects, while remaining credible and investable.

Alongside these discussions, the Task Force also highlighted the role of emerging tools — including AI marketplaces — in helping close the biodiversity finance gap by making biodiversity projects more visible, comparable, and investable through data, AI, and standardised metrics that better connect project developers with financiers.

Why does the Taskforce exist? 

The Luxembourg Task Force on Finance for Biodiversity was created to address a persistent gap between biodiversity goals and financial reality. Despite global commitments such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, private capital still struggles to engage due to unclear risk profiles, weak project pipelines, and a lack of shared language between finance and conservation. The Task Force exists to bridge this divide by connecting capital with high-integrity projects and translating biodiversity impact into structures that financial actors can work with.

What did we learn?

One message stood out at COP30: biodiversity finance does not fail for lack of innovation, but for lack of execution. Participants converged on the need for better project design, stronger governance, credible impact measurement, and policy environments that reduce uncertainty rather than shift risk onto ecosystems or communities. COP30 did not deliver a breakthrough deal on biodiversity finance, but it reinforced what is needed to move from pilots to scale.

What does this mean for organizations?

For organisations, biodiversity finance is quickly becoming a strategic issue rather than a voluntary exercise. Expectations are rising for companies and financial institutions to move beyond disclosure and actively contribute to nature-positive outcomes. Those that engage early — by supporting credible projects, aligning capital with real ecological impact, and building internal capacity on biodiversity risks and dependencies — will be better positioned as biodiversity becomes a core dimension of business resilience and long-term value creation.

For Quest, participating in the Luxembourg Task Force on Finance for Biodiversity at COP30 was about helping turn intention into action. The challenge now is to continue building pathways that allow capital to flow where it is most needed, without compromising ecological integrity or social equity. Biodiversity finance will only succeed if it becomes operational, scalable, and grounded in reality. That is where our work continues.

    Graine de vie logo
    Innpact logo
    Rio Impact
    Logo Cercle de cooperation
    Luxflag logo
    Logo ada
back to: Insights & Trends

Rani joins Quest

Our journey toward meaningful impact is shaped by the people behind it. With her natural ability to bring clarity, empathy, and purpose into everyday work, we’re excited to welcome Rani to the Quest team. Driven by a deep love for nature and a passion for sustainability, she joins us to help create positive impact for both people and the planet.

Rani joins Quest: new team member

Welcome Rani!

At Quest, we believe meaningful impact starts with people – how we work together, how we communicate, and how we turn intention into action. That’s why we’re excited to welcome Rani to the Quest team.

With a background in communication, project management, and customer success, Rani brings a rare combination of structure and empathy to everything she does. She’s known for creating environments where people feel seen, supported, and motivated to do their best work, because clarity and kindness are not opposites, but partners.

How did your personal and professional journey lead you to sustainability, and why does fashion sustainability resonate so strongly with you?

My journey into sustainability didn’t start as a clear career goal, it grew organically over time. I’ve always felt deeply connected to nature, and being outdoors has been a constant source of grounding and inspiration for me. But it was through my work at Yuma Labs that sustainability truly became part of how I think, work, and make decisions every day.

Working at a circular eyewear design and production agency opened my eyes to the impact the fashion industry has on the planet, but also to its potential to be a force for positive change. I saw firsthand how design, material choices, supply chains, and communication can either contribute to waste or help build more conscious systems.

In my role, I worked closely with brands that wanted to do better, not just in how they looked, but in how they operated. That experience taught me that sustainability isn’t only about products; it’s also about relationships, transparency, and long-term thinking.

Fashion sustainability, in particular, resonates with me because it sits at the crossroads of creativity, identity, and responsibility. What we wear tells a story, and I believe those stories can reflect care for both people and the planet. Over time, my passion evolved into a clear purpose: to help create systems, experiences, and collaborations that make conscious choices feel natural, accessible, and genuinely impactful.

Recycling clothes as a symbol of circular fashion and sustainable practices

What are three things your experience at Yuma Labs taught you that will shape how you work at Quest?

First, I learned how powerful clear and human communication really is.

At Yuma Labs, sustainability was embedded in every decision we made. Designing conscious, values-based client journeys taught me that transparency and clarity build trust, and trust is what turns short-term projects into long-term partnerships. I’d love to bring that same human-first approach to communication at Quest.

Second, I learned the importance of bridging people and disciplines.

My role sat at the intersection of marketing, project management, and customer success, which meant constantly aligning designers, product teams, and clients. Acting as that bridge helped ideas move smoothly from concept to reality while staying true to purpose, impact, and beauty. At Quest, I want to keep supporting collaboration in a way that feels structured, but never rigid.

And finally, I learned that systems can support mindful growth.

Using tools like Notion and Monday, I coordinated timelines, deliverables, and cross-functional work, but the real lesson was designing processes that help people work better together without burning out. Sustainable impact starts internally, and I’m excited to apply that mindset at Quest by helping create clarity, collaboration, and space for meaningful work.

Overall, my time at Yuma Labs deepened my connection to sustainability. What began as a lifelong love for nature evolved into a clear purpose: to create impact for both people and the planet, and that’s something I’m excited to continue building at Quest.

What do you like to do when you’re not working?

Outside of work, I recharge in nature as much as possible. You’ll usually find me running along the Portuguese coast, flowing through yoga, or spending time at the beach with the people I love.

Being close to nature is where I reconnect with myself, and it’s also what continues to motivate me to create positive impact for both people and the planet.

Portuguese coastline

Why does Quest feel like home for you?

Quest feels like a very natural fit for me. The mission truly aligns with my values and with how I believe work should be experienced – purposeful, human, and grounded in impact. I strongly believe that everyday work should feel good, and I see that same mindset reflected in the way Quest approaches sustainability, innovation, and collaboration.

I’m excited to bring my experience in aligning teams, strengthening communication flows, and supporting meaningful projects – always leading with empathy and intention. For me, impact isn’t just about outcomes, but also about how we work together along the way.

back to: Insights & Trends

How to prepare for B Corp Certification in 2026

Let’s not sugarcoat it. If you’re planning to certify as a B Corp in 2026 or opt B Corp recertification under the new standards, you’re not looking at a questionnaire. You’re looking at a transformation process. B Lab published its most significant overhaul in 19 years on 8 April 2025, and the message is clear: the days of gaming the points system are over. That’s a good thing, but It’s also a significant amount of work.
This is your practical guide to navigating what changed in the B Corp certification process, what it means for your organisation, and how to actually get prepared.

What changed and why does it matter? 

For years, B Corp certification worked on a points system. Score 80 or more on the B Impact Assessment across five impact areas, and you were in. The problem? A company could score poorly on environmental performance and still certify by overachieving elsewhere. It was exactly the kind of loophole that critics used to question the credibility of the whole certification.

B Lab heard it. So did the EU. With the Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT) directive tightening requirements on sustainability claims, staying with the old model wasn’t just reputationally risky, it was becoming legally untenable for companies operating in European consumer markets.

The core shift: no more points. Instead, every certified B Corp must now meet mandatory minimum requirements across seven Impact Topics, with a phased improvement roadmap stretching from Year 0 to Year 3 to Year 5. You don’t just achieve certification. You commit to getting better over time.

At a time when other leaders are stepping back, business must drive progress. This isn't merely an update; it's a complete reimagining of business impact to respond to the challenges of our time.
Clay Brown, Co-Lead Executive at B Lab Global

The new structure: Foundation Requirements + seven Impact Topics

Before you even get to the impact topics within the B Impact Assessment , you need to clear the Foundation Requirements. Think of these as the table stakes or the basic eligibility checks every business must pass before the real assessment begins.

Foundation Requirements cover three areas: eligibility (you’re a for-profit entity, operating for at least 12 months, not involved in ineligible industries like fossil fuels, tobacco, or weapons), the legal requirement to adopt stakeholder governance in your corporate documents, and a risk assessment using B Lab’s new Risk Tool (14 questions that determine whether your business model triggers additional due diligence requirements).

Once you’ve cleared those, the seven Impact Topics are where the real work lives. You can pick and choose, but instead every topic has mandatory sub-requirements, and the specific requirements that apply to your company depend on your size, sector, industry, and geography.

The phased timeline: Year 0, Year 3, Year 5

One of the most significant structural changes is the shift to continuous improvement as a certification condition. Under the old model, you could recertify every three years without any requirement to have progressed. That’s gone.

The new model uses a three-phase timeline. Year 0 is the baseline and the minimum requirements you must meet to achieve certification. Year 3 and Year 5 layer in additional obligations as your organisation matures. This isn’t only theoretical as B Lab will verify that you’ve moved the needle.

Key deadlines for 2026

  • 1

    From January 2026: All new applicants certify under the new standards

    No more version 6 certifications for first-time applicants. The new standards are the only path in.
  • 2

    2026 Recertifications: SMEs get a 12-month extension — but transition is mandatory

    The extension was automatically issued in August 2025. It buys you time, but not the option to avoid the new standards.

  • 3

    September 27, 2026: ECGT compliance deadline for EU B2C companies

    If your business communicates sustainability claims to European consumers, old certifications won’t hold up. This is a hard deadline.

  • 4

    From 2027: All recertifications under new standards, no exceptions

    Regardless of company size or classification, version 6 is fully retired.

What’s genuinely new and what’s harder?

Some requirements will feel familiar if you’ve been through B Corp before. The legal requirement, transparency commitments, and governance structures build on version 6. But several areas represent a genuine step change.

  • Human Rights as a standalone topic is entirely new. Where version 6 touched on supply chain practices, the new standards require a formal assessment of salient human rights issues across your operations and value chain as well as evidence that you’re taking action to prevent and mitigate negative impacts. For many SMEs, this will mean building due diligence processes from scratch.
  • Climate Action is more demanding at every size tier. A public Climate Action Plan is required at Year 0. For larger companies, annual third-party verification of your GHG inventory is non-negotiable from day one. The days of vague commitment language are over.
  • Purpose & Stakeholder Governance now has teeth. A public purpose statement isn’t enough. It needs to be embedded in your governance, and larger companies must conduct regular materiality assessments, formally engaging stakeholders on their most significant social and environmental impacts.
  • The verification process has changed too. All assessments are now handled externally, specifically to meet EU greenwashing regulations. This is no longer self-assessed and filed. An independent third party will verify your claims.

Is B Corp still worth it?

The short answer is yes. But only if you mean it. The new standards have done something important: they’ve made that question harder to dodge. You can no longer certify on the strength of a good HR policy and a recycling programme. You need a climate plan, a human rights assessment, governance that actually reflects your stated purpose, and a demonstrated commitment to getting better over time. For companies that have been doing the real work, that’s finally good news because the certification will actually mean something again. For companies that were coasting on the badge, 2026 is a wake-up call. B Corp has always stood for business as a force for good and the benefits of a B Corp certification are tremendous. The new standards now make sure you can back it up.

Ready to kickstart your certification process or improve your B Corp score?

At Quest, we’ve guided organisations through B Corp certification across multiple sectors and geographies. We’ll help you run your gap assessment, build your multi-year roadmap, and make sure your certification reflects the impact you’re actually creating.

Let's chat!
back to: Insights & Trends

Circular vs. Regenerative business models: Why you need both

In the quest for a more sustainable economy, two frameworks have risen to the top of the strategic agenda: the Circular Economy and Regenerative Business.

To the casual observer, they may seem like the same thing—both aim to move away from the traditional “take-make-waste” linear model. However, for the forward-thinking leader, the distinction between them is critical. One is a masterclass in resource efficiency, while the other is a blueprint for systemic health.

At Quest, we believe that understanding this nuance is the difference between a company that simply survives the transition and one that leads it.

 

Circular Economy: The logic of closing the loop

The Circular Economy is primarily a strategy for resource management. It is designed to decouple economic growth from the consumption of finite resources. The goal is to design out waste and keep materials in use at their highest value for as long as possible.

In a circular model, business success is defined by technical and biological loops. The core question of circularity is: “How can we keep this material in the system?”

  • Resource circulation: Using recycled content and ensuring products are 100% recyclable.
  • Product life extension: Moving from selling “things” to selling “services” (e.g., leasing models, repair, and refurbishment).
  • Efficiency: Minimizing the leakage of energy and materials out of the system.

Regenerative: The logic of healing the source

While circularity focuses on the flow of materials, regeneration focuses on the health of the source. You can have a circular model that is not regenerative. For example: a technical loop that uses massive amounts of non-renewable energy or relies on labor practices that don’t support human well-being.

Regeneration goes beyond the loop. It is a living-systems approach that asks: “How can our presence here make this ecosystem and this community healthier?” In a regenerative model, success is measured by Net Positive Impact:

  • Restoration: Does the business sequester more carbon than it emits?
  • Vitality: Does the sourcing of raw materials actively improve soil health and biodiversity?
  • Equity: Is the business revitalizing the local community and fostering resilience among its stakeholders?

How they differ

Instead of looking at these as the same goal, think of them as two different gears in the same machine. Here is how they compare across three critical business metrics:

  • The Primary Focus

Circular: Resource efficiency. It’s about the “Loop”— keeping materials in use and eliminating waste.
Regenerative: Systemic health. It’s about the “Source”—ensuring the ecosystems and communities that provide those materials are actually getting healthier.

  • The Definition of Success

Circular: Aiming for Zero. Zero waste, zero emissions, zero extraction of virgin materials.
Regenerative: Aiming for Net Positive. Increasing biodiversity, improving soil carbon levels, and building social equity.

  • The View of Nature

Circular: Nature is seen as a provider of biological nutrients that must be kept in a cycle.
Regenerative: Nature is seen as a living partner that requires active investment and restoration to remain resilient.

The Synergy: Circular by Design, Regenerative by Intent

The most impactful businesses today do not choose between these two; they integrate them. We call this being Circular by Design and Regenerative by Intent.

To visualize this, let’s look at a textile company:

  • A Circular approach ensures their polyester is recycled and recyclable, or that they have a “take-back” program where old clothes are turned into new fibers. It’s a closed-loop system that stops the flow to the landfill.
  • A Regenerative approach looks at the cotton fields. It ensures the cotton is grown using practices that capture carbon in the soil, restores local water tables, and pays farmers a living wage that revitalizes their village.

By combining the two, the company doesn’t just stop “taking”; it starts “giving back.” It closes the loop on waste while simultaneously “blooming” the environment it touches. As we move deeper into the era of CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) and TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures), the pressure on companies to show how they impact nature is intensifying.

Circularity is your tool for reducing your negative footprint. Regeneration is your tool for building a positive handprint.

Ready to take action?

At Quest, we help businesses navigate their circular and regenerative journeys by bridging the gap between ambitious goals and actionable design. Whether you are looking to close your material loops or restore the ecosystems your supply chain relies on, we provide the strategic blueprint for a nature-positive future.

Let's chat!
back to: Insights & Trends

TNFD: the next big thing in sustainability reporting. Here’s why.

You will have heard it here first. TNFD is about to become one of the most important acronyms in your sustainability strategy — and most businesses haven’t even googled it yet. That’s both a problem and an opportunity, depending on how quickly you move.

Let us explain.

 

From TCFD to TNFD

Cast your mind back to 2015. A voluntary framework lands quietly on the desks of sustainability teams everywhere. It’s called TCFD — the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures. Most businesses file it under “nice to know.” A handful of early movers take it seriously.

Fast forward a few years and TCFD is mandatory across the globe. The G7 commits to rolling it out across all member countries. It gets absorbed into the ISSB — the global standard-setter for sustainability reporting — and becomes the backbone of climate disclosure worldwide. What started as a voluntary task became, within a decade, one of the most consequential reporting obligations in corporate history.

Sound familiar? It should. Because TNFD is following the exact same script.

So what actually is TNFD?

TNFD stands for the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. Think of it as TCFD’s younger sibling built on the same logic, the same structure, and backed by the same institutional muscle. Where TCFD asked companies to disclose their climate risks, TNFD asks a bigger, messier and arguably more important question: what is your relationship with nature, and what happens to your business if that relationship breaks down?

Nature as in the water your factories use, the soil your raw materials grow in, the pollinators your agricultural suppliers depend on, and the stable climate that keeps your supply chain predictable. The things that don’t show up on a balance sheet; until they do, and by then it’s too late.

TNFD was launched in 2021 and at its core is the LEAP approach. A practical step-by-step guide for businesses to understand where they touch nature, what that means for their risk profile, and how to report on it credibly.

  • Locate: identify where your operations and supply chains physically interact with nature.
  • Evaluate: understand what your business takes from those ecosystems and what it gives back, mapping both your dependencies and your impacts.
  • Assess: define the risks and the opportunities
  • Prepare: turn those insights into a credible disclosure and, more importantly, an action plan that actually moves the needle.
Nature loss is accelerating, and businesses today are inadequately accounting for nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities. Nature-risk is sitting in company cash flows and capital portfolios today. The costs of inaction are mounting quickly."
David Craig, Co-chair of TNFD

This is not a distant prospect

Here’s where it gets real. TNFD already has over 620 adopters across more than 50 countries, representing over $20 trillion in assets under management. More than 500 TNFD-aligned reports have already been published. The TNFD Forum — its broader community of engaged organisations — has over 1,800 members in 71 countries.

Those are not the numbers of a niche framework. Those are the numbers of something becoming a market standard. Even the EU’s CSRD now includes nature-related disclosure requirements aligned with TNFD. 

The machinery is in motion. The question is not if — it’s when.

 

Why acting now actually matters

Here’s the thing about TNFD that makes it harder than TCFD: nature risk is location-specific. Your climate footprint is the same whether your factory is in Belgium or Bangladesh. Your nature risk is not. It depends on which ecosystems you operate in, where your suppliers source from, what water sources your business draws on. That kind of granular, supply-chain-deep understanding takes time to build.

Right now, less than 1% of companies disclose their biodiversity impacts. That number is going to look very different in five years. The window to be an early mover and to actually benefit from it is open. But it won’t stay open forever.

Ready to take action?

At Quest, we help businesses turn TNFD from an acronym into an action plan. Whether you’re starting from scratch or building on existing sustainability work, we’ll help you understand your nature dependencies, identify your risks and opportunities, and build a strategy that holds up when the regulations arrive.

Let's chat!
back to: Insights & Trends

Empathy – our core weapon: a reaction do Dr. Jane Goodall’s final message

A few days ago, I watched Dr. Jane Goodall’s final message to the world — recorded to be released only after her death. Even after a lifetime of conservation work, she chose to leave us not with despair, but with a plea for hope.

That struck a chord.

If you’ve dedicated your career to positive impact, you’ve probably felt this too, the fatigue that comes from caring deeply in a world that seems to care less. It’s easy to grow cynical. To question whether individual effort still matters.

But Jane’s message reminded us that hope is not the absence of pain — it’s the decision to act despite it.

And many of us are still doing exactly that.

Don’t lose hope. If you lose hope, you become apathetic and do nothing.
Dr. Jane Goodall,

Still in the trenches

At Quest, we continue helping organizations lead positive change rather than chase it — translating purpose into tangible strategies, products, and partnerships that make sustainability not just a value, but a competitive advantage.

And with Habitats, we’re still launching wildly ambitious nature conservation and restoration projects.

Are we sometimes idealistic? Maybe.
But I’d argue it’s actually naïve not to act.

Empathy as our core weapon

Everyone’s talking about the need to “invest in defence.” I think we should, just not the kind that relies on walls or weapons.

Our defence is empathy.

Empathy is what keeps us listening, adapting, and collaborating when things get tough. It’s what allows us to see systems, not silos. To build bridges between business and biodiversity, between purpose and performance.

When empathy becomes your core weapon, every reason to give up becomes your reason to act.

I want to make sure that you all understand that each and every one of you has a role to play. You may not know it, you may not find it, but your life matters — and you are here for a reason.
Dr. Jane Goodall,

That reason, for many of us, is to keep showing that hope is not passive.
Hope is a practice.
It’s the daily choice to believe that what we do still matters. Because it does.

So yes, it’s been a hard few years.
But we’re still here. Still building. Still believing.
And that, I  hope, would make Jane smile.

Picture credit: Jane Goodall Institute

back to: Insights & Trends

What will shape sustainability in 2026

If 2025 was the year sustainability became unavoidable, 2026 will be the year it becomes decisive. The next phase of sustainability will not be driven by new slogans, frameworks, or commitments, but by a growing mismatch between how organisations operate today and the realities they face tomorrow. Regulatory pressure, environmental limits, market expectations, and internal constraints are converging, forcing sustainability out of the margins and into the core of decision-making.

Let’s break down what we think will be key trends in sustainability for 2026.

From compliance to concrete action

One of the defining forces of 2026 will be the shift from sustainability as a compliance exercise to sustainability as a performance issue. Reporting alone does not reduce emissions, restore ecosystems, or make supply chains resilient. In 2026, organisations will increasingly be judged not on the sophistication of their reports, but on whether sustainability meaningfully influences investment decisions, procurement choices, and operational priorities. This shift is inevitable because regulators, investors, and stakeholders are now better equipped to distinguish activity from impact.

Biodiversity moves from awareness to risk

Biodiversity will emerge as one of the most underestimated forces and hot topics shaping sustainability in 2026. While climate has dominated the agenda for years, biodiversity loss directly affects land use, water availability, raw material supply, and long-term business continuity. What changes in 2026 is not awareness, but relevance: biodiversity is increasingly framed as a material risk and dependency. As nature-related risks translate into operational disruption, higher costs, and regulatory exposure, organisations will be forced to assess where they depend on ecosystems and how their activities contribute to degradation or restoration.

Integration into core functions will be non-negotiable

Another key force shaping 2026 is the integration of sustainability into core business functions. In many organisations, sustainability still operates as a parallel track, disconnected from finance, risk management, and strategy. Sustainability managers are lonely figures that no one listens to nor includes in discussions. This separation is becoming untenable. As sustainability impacts financial performance, insurance, access to capital, and long-term resilience, it can no longer sit outside governance structures. Organisations that fail to integrate sustainability into budgeting, capital allocation, and strategic planning will struggle to prioritise effectively and will increasingly face internal friction, rising costs, and external pressure.

Supplier engagement becomes imperative

In 2026, sustainability performance will increasingly be judged beyond a company’s own operations and across its entire supply chain. Customers, regulators, and investors are demanding greater transparency into where products are made, under what conditions, and with what environmental impact. This goes beyond responsible sourcing and requires businesses to ensure ethical labour practices, fair wages, and environmentally sound production across suppliers, manufacturers, and distributors. This level of transparency is only possible when suppliers are equipped to meet rising expectations. As a result, companies are shifting from enforcement to enablement by investing in training, collaboration, and incentives that build supplier capacity. Those that do will strengthen trust, reduce risk, and improve resilience. Those that do not will face growing scrutiny, reputational exposure, and regulatory pressure.

Communications will become a strategic opportunity

In 2026, sustainability communication will no longer be a branding exercise, but a strategic risk management function. As scrutiny around greenwashing intensifies, organisations are being forced to confront a simple reality: what they communicate must be defensible, traceable, and aligned with how decisions are actually made inside the organisation. Overclaiming, selective storytelling, and vague ambitions are increasingly exposed by regulators, civil society, and informed stakeholders. At the same time, saying nothing is not a viable option either. The organisations that will succeed are those that treat sustainability communication as a strategic discipline, grounded in materiality, data, and governance.

Technology will be a key enabler

Technology, including AI and data platforms, will play a growing role in sustainability in 2026, but with a more sober understanding of its limits. The initial hype around digital solutions is giving way to a more pragmatic use of technology as an enabler of better decisions rather than a substitute for them. In 2026, organisations will increasingly use digital tools to improve data quality, identify priorities, model scenarios, and connect sustainability insights to operational choices.

What this means for organizations?

These forces are not predictions based on trends alone. They are consequences of systems already in motion. Regulatory frameworks are tightening, environmental pressures are intensifying, and organisational complexity is increasing. At the same time, patience for superficial sustainability is wearing thin. The direction of travel is clear: sustainability is becoming more demanding, more strategic, and less forgiving of incoherence. Organisations that adapt early will gain resilience and credibility, while those that delay will face rising costs, growing risk, and shrinking room to manoeuvre.

For organisations, 2026 is not about doing more sustainability, but about doing it differently. Success will depend on the ability to integrate sustainability into decision-making, focus on what is truly material, and translate ambition into action. This requires leadership, clarity, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable trade-offs. At Quest, we see 2026 as a turning point. Not because sustainability suddenly becomes important, but because it becomes unavoidable.

Are you ready to take action in 2026?

We can help you on your journey!

Let's chat!
back to: Insights & Trends

Moving beyond “doing less harm” toward “doing more good”

For years, the gold standard of corporate sustainability was sustainability itself or in other words reaching Net Zero,  minimizing footprints, or achieving neutrality. But we have reached a tipping point. In a world where we have already overshot several planetary boundaries, merely sustaining a degraded status quo is no longer enough.

At Quest, we are seeing a fundamental shift in the boardroom: the move from being “sustainable” to being regenerative. But as the term gains traction, it’s vital to strip away the buzzwords and understand the strategic mechanics behind it.

What is Regeneration?

In biological terms, regeneration is the process of renewal, restoration, and growth that makes genomes, cells, and ecosystems resilient to natural fluctuations. It is how nature heals itself.

In a business context, going “regenerative” means designing your company to function like a living system. It is the intentional transition from a Degenerative model (extracting more value than you replace) to a Net Positive model, where your business operations actively return more value to the social and ecological systems they rely on.

The Three Pillars of a Regenerative Mindset

Nature as a Stakeholder

Regenerative companies don’t just “use” resources; they treat nature as a silent partner at the table. This means moving beyond carbon offsets toward insetting, in other words investing directly in the health of the soil, the local watersheds, and the biodiversity of the specific landscapes where you operate. If your supply chain relies on land, your strategy must include the restoration of that land.

Systemic Resilience

Traditional models often optimize for short-term efficiency and lean “just-in-time” supply chains. Regenerative models, however, optimize for long-term health. They recognize a hard truth: a business cannot be healthy on a sick planet. By fostering diversity, both in biological ecosystems and in supply chain partners, regenerative businesses build a buffer capacity against climate shocks and resource scarcity.

Human Wellbeing

Regeneration isn’t just “green.” A system cannot be healthy if the people within it are burning out or marginalized. This pillar focuses on restoring the social fabrics by ensuring fair wages, fostering community equity, and creating work environments where employees can truly thrive, not just survive. It is about moving from “human resources” to “human potential.”

Why it matters to you

The shift toward regeneration isn’t just a moral choice; it is increasingly a regulatory and financial imperative.

  • Regulatory landscape: Frameworks like the TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures) and the CSRD are making nature-related risks impossible to ignore. Investors are now looking for “Nature-Positive” metrics that prove a company isn’t just depleting its natural capital.
  • Risk mitigation: In an era of climate volatility, regenerative practices—such as regenerative agriculture—create more resilient crops and more stable supply costs.
  • Brand authority: As consumers become more sophisticated, they are looking past “carbon neutral” labels toward brands that can prove they are actively healing the environments they touch.

From Machine to Living System: The Journey Starts Here

Regeneration requires a shift in the corporate “operating system”, moving away from the industrial, linear logic of “take-make-waste” and toward a logic of circularity and renewal.

Step 1: Map your dependencies and impacts. Identify where your business relies most heavily on natural and social capital, and where your greatest influence lies.

Step 2: Redesign for Nature Positive. Look for opportunities where your operations can leave a positive footprint (e.g., returning cleaner water to the source than you took).

Step 3: Measure what matters. Shift KPIs from pure volume to systemic health and resilience.

Sustainability is about survival; it’s about reaching “zero.” Regeneration is about thriving. It is the realization that the most successful companies of the next decade will be those that don’t just take from the world, but build the capacity for the world to grow alongside them.

Are you ready to become regenerative?

We can help you on your journey!

Let's chat!
back to: Insights & Trends

The hidden risks lurking in your supply chain

Sustainability has finally entered the boardroom. But many companies still overlook one of their biggest blind spots: the hidden environmental and social risks buried deep within their supply chains.

It’s no longer enough to track carbon emissions at headquarters or publish a glossy sustainability report. Real impact and real risk lives further upstream: in farms, factories, forests, and freight. And unless those risks are understood and addressed, companies leave themselves vulnerable to disruption, liability, and reputational damage.

Let’s break down the most common and overlooked supply chain risks that are costing businesses more than they think.

Deforestation and Land Use Changes

Your raw materials might be driving nature loss without you knowing it. Products like palm oil, soy, leather, cotton, and rubber are closely tied to deforestation, biodiversity decline, and land rights violations. Even if you don’t source directly from high-risk regions, indirect suppliers often do. Without traceability and no-deforestation commitments, brands risk contributing to ecosystem collapse and breaching emerging EU laws like the Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).

Labor Exploitation and Poor Working Conditions

Without people, you don’t have a product nor a service. And the truth is that still today, supply chains are more often than not built on hidden human costs. Wages below living standards, excessive working hours, unsafe environments, and even child or forced labor are still widespread in many sectors. With mandatory human rights due diligence legislation rolling out across the EU, these risks are now legal liabilities, not just ethical issues.

Water Scarcity and Pollution

We are running out water and the stats are alarming. Water is a key input in agriculture, textiles, and manufacturing but most companies don’t measure their water footprint beyond direct operations. In reality, their biggest water risks lie upstream. Suppliers in water-stressed regions may be competing with local communities for access or discharging untreated wastewater into ecosystems. These risks can trigger worker revolts, reputational damage, operational halts, or NGO-led campaigns.

Climate Vulnerability and Disruption

Climate risks in supply chains are not just about carbon. Floods, droughts, wildfires, and heatwaves are already disrupting harvests, logistics, and energy supplies, especially in vulnerable regions. Companies that fail to model these risks or build diversified, climate-resilient sourcing strategies may face shortages, price spikes, or product recalls.

What can be done?

Most businesses only track Tier 1 suppliers. But the real issues such as deforestation, forced labor, or biodiversity loss usually lie in Tiers 2, 3, and beyond. Without full value chain visibility, companies can’t act on risks or validate claims. And with growing investor pressure for Scope 3 disclosures, this opacity is a ticking time bomb.

Most supply chains are complex, global, and fast-moving. But that doesn’t mean they’re unmanageable. Supply chain due diligence is an increasingly important factor in a changing world (and we can help you managing it!). You can start by:

  • Mapping your upstream and downstream risks
  • Engaging suppliers to collect better data
  • Embedding ESG performance into procurement decisions
  • Setting credible targets for forests, water, human rights, and climate
  • Aligning with frameworks like TNFD

Are you ready to take action within your supply chains?

We can help you on your journey!

Let's chat!
back to: Insights & Trends

COP30 in Review: A turning point or missed opportunity?

The 30th UN Climate Change Conference (COP30), held in Belém, Brazil, in November 2025, was pitched as the “COP of Truth” — a moment to shift from raising ambition to implementing climate action a decade after the Paris Agreement. Against the backdrop of intensifying climate impacts, record participation of Indigenous voices and civil society, and growing multi-stakeholder momentum, the world was ready for a breakthrough. But did COP30 deliver?

In this piece, we explore what we at Quest believe came out of COP30, what was missing or disappointing, and what gives us genuine encouragement moving forward.

What came actually out of it?

COP30 did not deliver headline-grabbing breakthroughs, but it did quietly reinforce the architecture of climate action. The conference strengthened the role of the Global Stocktake by formally linking it to future national climate plans, clarified expectations that upcoming NDCs must align with 1.5°C pathways, and pushed countries toward more sector-specific transition planning.

Adaptation also moved from rhetoric toward measurability, with agreement on shared indicators and reporting frameworks. A long-overdue step that brings adaptation closer to the accountability logic long applied to mitigation. On climate finance, COP30 improved transparency and tracking mechanisms and reaffirmed commitments to scale adaptation finance over time, yet once again fell short on ambition, binding targets, and delivery at the scale required. Finally, the Just Transition agenda was further embedded into the climate process, recognised as a necessary pillar of national climate strategies but remained largely conceptual, with limited funding and weak links to industrial and economic policy.

From our perspective, COP30 markets progress in process rather than progress in pace: better rules, clearer frameworks, and stronger expectation but still insufficient urgency, enforcement, and resourcing to match the reality of the climate crisis. 

What went missing?

What was most striking about COP30 was not what was said, but what was deliberately left unresolved. Despite growing consensus and explicit support from a large group of countries, the conference once again failed to agree on binding language to phase out fossil fuels. Yes, the single biggest driver of the climate crisis. Instead, the final outcomes leaned on voluntary pathways and non-committal formulations, reinforcing a system where responsibility is diffuse and accountability optional.

At the same time, updated national climate plans collectively remain far off track from what climate science requires, locking the world into warming trajectories well beyond 1.5°C. This ambition gap was compounded by geopolitical fragmentation and weak leadership from major emitters, which limited the scope for transformative agreements.

From our perspective, this is where COP30 fell short: it strengthened processes but avoided the hard political decisions, postponing the inevitable reckoning and increasing the cost (economic, social and environmental) of delayed action.

What gives us hope?

Despite its shortcomings, COP30 did offer signals that the global climate effort is slowly maturing. The conference continued a clear shift away from abstract ambition toward concrete implementation, strengthening the frameworks needed to track progress, structure finance and operationalise action (particularly on adaptation and just transition)

Beyond the formal negotiations, momentum is also increasingly coming from smaller coalitions of countries willing to move faster than the multilateral consensus allows, pushing ahead on fossil fuel phase-out and more ambitious climate pathways. Finally, hosting COP30 in the Amazon reinforced the inescapable link between climate, nature and broader systemic transformation, reminding negotiators that climate action cannot be isolated from land use, ecosystems and long-term resilience.

From our perspective, this is where cautious optimism lies: not in sweeping agreements, but in the growing capacity and willingness among some actors to act even when the global process moves too slowly. This movement cannot and will not stop.

What comes next and what does it mean for organizations?

COP30 wasn’t the decisive pivot moment that science demanded: it didn’t lock in a fossil fuel exit nor close the ambition gap. But it also wasn’t a failure. It laid important groundwork: clearer implementation frameworks, stronger expectations on transparency, and more mature tools to track progress.

At Quest, we believe real climate action will not come from a single summit, but from the persistent scaling of solutions between COPs, grounded in measurable impact, accountability and collaboration across systems.

For organisations, this marks a clear shift: the direction of travel is now unmistakable. Climate action is moving from voluntary positioning to structured expectations, embedded in regulation, finance, supply chains and stakeholder scrutiny. Waiting for perfect global consensus is no longer a viable strategy. The organisations that move now by aligning strategy, operations and investment decisions with where policy and markets are heading will be far better positioned than those that treat COP outcomes as distant political signals.

The real challenge, and opportunity, lies in turning the frameworks agreed in Belém into concrete decisions on the ground. Making the magic happen and be being part of the change.

Are you ready to take action?

Reach out to find out more!

Let's chat!