In the episode, we explored domestic and global regulations related to biodiversity, as well as the unavoidable tasks facing companies. Katalin Sipos and Katalin Szomol\u00e1nyi discussed why we cannot save nature unless other sectors\u2014such as agriculture or spatial planning\u2014integrate conservation considerations into their own operations, what challenges companies face in assessing their real impacts on nature and drought risks within their supply chains, and what inspiring, strategy-integrated corporate examples we can see in Hungary, such as wetland restoration or regenerative agriculture.<\/p>\n
This episode addresses the lack of meaningful cross-sector social dialogue, the differences between high-sounding PR activities and real, risk-based conservation actions, and why understanding our own environmental exposure and building open partnerships form the most reliable foundation for future business survival.<\/p>\n
SZK
\nIn recent years, major regulatory packages have followed one another, such as the Kunming\u2013Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework or the EU Nature Restoration Law. What has triggered this sudden wave of regulation?<\/p>\n
SK
\nThere has been meaningful public dialogue about climate change for 10\u201315 years, and the topic of biodiversity is now beginning to catch up. At the same time, there is a strong sense of urgency and frustration: biodiversity agreements and various deadlines have existed since the 1970s, yet we have repeatedly failed to meet these targets to halt the loss of wildlife.<\/p>\n
SZK
\nThe Nature Restoration Law is a binding EU directive. How can it be successfully implemented in practice so that it does not become just another box-ticking regulation?<\/p>\n
SK
\nIf it remains merely a sectoral, conservation-focused regulation, the game is lost. Nature can only be protected if all relevant sectors\u2014from agriculture through forestry and water management to urban planning\u2014embed ecosystem services and conservation considerations into their operations. This kind of cross-sector integration is precisely the biggest task for the next 10\u201315 years.<\/p>\n
SZK
\nCompanies have also begun to familiarize themselves with the new expectations, such as double materiality assessments. What fundamental difficulties do they face when trying to assess their own impacts on nature and related risks?<\/p>\n
SK
\nThe biggest challenge is that what we observe as an impact in nature is the cumulative result of many actors and land-use practices. A company finds it difficult to link its own land use or emissions to the decline of a specific species. Moreover, if a company wants to implement meaningful habitat development to reduce environmental vulnerability\u2014such as drought\u2014it cannot do so alone within the boundaries of its own facilities. It must step beyond its own scope and collaborate with municipalities, water authorities, and conservation organizations.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.fenntarthatofejloves.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/siposkatalin.webp\")
<\/p>\n
Katalin Sipos
\nKatalin Sipos, Director of WWF Hungary, has been working at the forefront of nature conservation for more than 30 years. She began her career at the Danube\u2013Ipoly National Park Directorate. She has been leading the WWF Hungary team since 2015. Under her leadership, the organization has successfully won and advanced several nationally significant conservation cases. With her presentations on biodiversity, she is a regular participant at major Hungarian green finance and ESG conferences.<\/p>\n
SZK
\nThe term \u201cnature positive\u201d is becoming increasingly popular among companies. What does it actually mean, and where do we currently stand in Hungary?<\/p>\n
SK
\nIn theory, \u201cnature positive\u201d means that in the course of my operations I not only avoid taking anything away from natural systems, but actively enhance them. In reality, however, if we look at a map of Hungary, the volume of habitat restoration projects financed by companies is still almost invisible to the naked eye. Another issue is proportionality: even if a company does something positive somewhere, it is very difficult to measure how this negligible positive step compares to the company\u2019s total resource use or its past, indirect negative impacts.<\/p>\n
SZK
\nCan you mention any Hungarian corporate examples where structured and consistent steps are already being taken to restore nature?<\/p>\n
SK
\nI can highlight two good examples that operate at a strategic level. As a major water user, Coca-Cola finances projects that improve natural habitats in proportion to the water it withdraws for production; for example, they have participated in the revitalization of side branches along the Drava River, which increases the landscape\u2019s water retention capacity. The other example is Nestl\u00e9, which encourages the transition to regenerative agriculture within its supplier network. This approach, by avoiding soil disturbance and ensuring soil cover, increases the soil\u2019s water retention capacity, making production much more resilient to drought.<\/p>\n
SZK
\nFinally, what message would you give to companies that are only now recognizing the severity of the ecological crisis and want to take meaningful action?<\/p>\n
SK
\nFirst, they need to accept that the future will be very different from the present; business models will undergo radical transformation, and minor adjustments to current technologies will not be enough. To find solutions, this vast problem must be broken down into small steps. The first step is for the company to recognize that it is affected by the problem\u2014especially if it uses water or agricultural raw materials. Since the necessary complex knowledge is rarely available in-house, it is worth involving expert teams and initiating an internal dialogue that reaches the highest levels of management, embedding environmental security into long-term business thinking.<\/p>\n
The full conversation can be watched on our YouTube channel and listened to on Spotify.<\/p>\n