Learning Session 8: Nature on the Board (Co-creation with the More-than-Human sandbox)

Online learning sessions using dialogue to explore the workings, developments, (im)possibilities, and emerging insights of diverse approaches and praxes for Co-creation with the More-than-Human world. (Can’t read the full Medium article? All learning session syntheses can also be found on Substack.)

The 8th learning session of the **Co-creation with the More-than-Human sandbox in November 2025 explored [Nature on the Board](https://www.eventbrite.com/e/co-creation-with-the-more-than-human-nature-on-the-board-tickets-1799228132779?aff=oddtdtcreator)** with Brontie Ansell, co-founder and managing director of Lawyers for Nature.

Nature on the Board is a governance innovation that brings the more-than-human world directly into corporate and organisational decision-making by giving Nature a formal role at the board level. This includes appointing a legal guardian or proxy to represent Nature’s interests, with the ability to participate in discussions and, in some cases, vote on decisions. The first company to give Nature a board seat was Faith in Nature, marking a shift from treating Nature as a stakeholder to recognising it as a participant in governance.

The session explored how this works in practice: how Nature is represented in decision-making, what changes when it has a voice in the room, and where tensions emerge when ecological interests meet legal, financial, and organisational realities.

What follows is a synthesis of key questions, insights, and cross-cutting threads from the dialogue.

🌿 Learning Session 8 (November 2025) — Synthesis *Nature on the Board, with Brontie Ansell (Lawyers for Nature)*

What changes when Nature is not just considered, but given formal power in decision-making — and can this shift move beyond symbolism within existing corporate structures?

💬 1. What does it mean to give Nature a seat on the board?

From stakeholder to rights-holder “Nature on the Board” moves beyond treating nature as a stakeholder whose interests are indirectly considered, toward recognizing nature as an entity with standing in decision-making. This is not symbolic inclusion, but a structural intervention that alters how decisions are made, by introducing a voice explicitly tasked with representing ecological interests.

A legal and governance innovation The model works through formal governance mechanisms — such as appointing a Nature Director or legal guardian — embedded within existing corporate structures. This ensures that Nature’s interests are not external considerations, but part of the fiduciary and deliberative processes of the organization.

Shifting the locus of accountability By giving Nature a seat at the table, accountability expands beyond shareholders, customers, and regulators to include the ecosystems that companies depend on and impact. This reframes business decisions as relational rather than purely transactional.

🌱 Seed: Granting Nature a seat on the board is not about adding another perspective — it is about redefining who the organization is accountable to, and what counts as a legitimate interest in decision-making.

💬 2. What actually changes in the boardroom?

A shift in how decisions are framed from the outset The presence of a Nature representative does not only intervene at the point of decision-making, but already shapes how topics are introduced, what information is considered relevant, and how proposals are justified. Conversations tend to move earlier toward ecological implications, rather than treating them as downstream impacts.

The influence lies as much in questions as in formal power In practice, the most consistent impact is not through voting against proposals, but through reframing the discussion itself — asking questions that would otherwise not be asked, and holding space for considerations that are typically sidelined in corporate settings.

Behaviour changes before outcomes do Board members begin to anticipate Nature’s perspective, which can lead to adjustments in proposals before they are even formally discussed. This creates a subtle but important shift, where ecological considerations become part of the default thinking rather than an external check.

Not an oppositional or adversarial role The role of the Nature representative is not to block decisions or act as a constant counterforce, but to ensure that Nature’s interests are present, articulated, and taken seriously within the deliberation process.

💬 3. How is Nature’s “voice” determined?

Representation through an informed and accountable proxy Nature is represented by a designated guardian who draws on ecological knowledge, context-specific information, and relevant expertise. This role carries both interpretive responsibility and the need to remain grounded in evidence and lived context.

A combination of data, expertise, and situated judgement Inputs can include environmental impact data, scientific knowledge, organisational context, and consultation with specialists. At the same time, these inputs do not resolve every situation, requiring the proxy to exercise judgement in conditions that are often complex and uncertain.

Ambiguity is part of the process, not an exception There are moments where Nature’s interests are not clear-cut, or where different ecological dynamics point in different directions. Rather than eliminating this ambiguity, the process requires making it visible and working with it transparently.

The risk of projection cannot be fully removed Even with structured inputs and good intentions, the possibility remains that human assumptions shape how Nature’s interests are interpreted. The practice therefore requires ongoing reflection on how representation is constructed and justified.

📌 Practitioner takeaway: Representing Nature is less about “getting it right” and more about making ecological reasoning explicit, contestable, and accountable within decision-making.

💬 4. What happens when Nature’s interests conflict with human interests?

Trade-offs are surfaced rather than obscured One of the most immediate effects is that tensions between ecological, financial, and operational priorities become visible and must be explicitly addressed, rather than being implicitly resolved in favour of human interests.

No automatic hierarchy is introduced The model does not predetermine that Nature’s interests will override all others. Instead, it changes the conditions under which decisions are made, requiring that ecological impacts are actively weighed and justified.

Decisions become more deliberate and traceable When a decision goes against Nature’s interests, this is no longer an invisible externality but a conscious choice that can be documented, questioned, and revisited.

Complexity increases rather than decreases Situations where different parts of the natural world have competing needs — such as ecosystem-level vs species-level considerations — highlight that “Nature” is not a single, unified perspective, but a set of relationships that may not align neatly.

🌱 Seed: When Nature has a real voice in the room, trade-offs are no longer abstract — they become explicit negotiations between fundamentally different kinds of interests, forcing decisions to surface what was previously externalized or ignored.

💬 5. What has been learned through implementation?

What has proven unexpectedly effective One of the most striking outcomes is how quickly the presence of a Nature Director can shift the tone and depth of conversations. Even before formal votes are cast, the act of consistently bringing ecological perspectives into discussions changes how issues are framed, broadening the scope of what is considered relevant or acceptable.

Where the model meets friction Integrating this approach into existing corporate structures is not seamless. Legal frameworks, fiduciary duties, and ingrained business norms are not designed to accommodate non-human representation, which can create ambiguity around roles, authority, and decision-making processes.

Iteration rather than blueprint There is no fixed template that can simply be replicated across contexts. Each implementation requires adaptation — legal, cultural, and organizational — to fit the specific entity. This makes the work slower, but also more grounded in real conditions.

Learning through practice Some assumptions only become visible once the model is in operation — what seems straightforward in theory often becomes complex in practice. This requires a willingness to experiment, adjust, and learn in real time, rather than expecting a fully resolved model from the outset.

🌱 Seed: The model does not “prove itself” in theory — it evolves through practice, where its real value lies in how it reshapes conversations long before it reshapes outcomes.

💬 6. What are the main challenges and limitations?

The risk of tokenism is structurally present Without genuine commitment from the organisation, there is a real possibility that the role becomes symbolic — used to signal intent without materially influencing decisions or behaviour.

The model is highly sensitive to the individual in the role The effectiveness of Nature’s representation depends significantly on the capability, credibility, and positioning of the proxy, raising questions about consistency and robustness across different implementations.

Existing legal frameworks are not designed for this Corporate governance systems are built around human stakeholders and fiduciary duties, creating friction when attempting to introduce non-human representation in a way that carries real weight.

Translation into business realities remains challenging Integrating ecological considerations into areas such as supply chains, financial decision-making, or growth strategies requires navigating systems that are not inherently aligned with these perspectives.

💬 7. What would it take for broader adoption?

Shifts in legal and regulatory frameworks For this model to move beyond isolated cases, governance structures may need to evolve to formally recognise non-human interests and redefine fiduciary responsibilities.

Development of new professional roles and practices Scaling would require building a field of practitioners capable of acting as Nature proxies or Earth trustees, with the necessary skills, knowledge, and ethical grounding.

Organisational readiness varies significantly Purpose-driven organisations may be more open to adopting such models, while others — particularly those operating within extractive or high-pressure financial contexts — may face deeper structural resistance.

Beyond replication toward systemic change Wider uptake is not simply a matter of copying the model, but of reshaping the conditions under which governance operates, including incentives, accountability structures, and cultural norms.

📌 Practitioner takeaway: Broader adoption depends less on the model itself and more on whether the surrounding system is willing to accommodate it.

✨ Cross-cutting insight threads

Consideration → Representation Nature is no longer treated as an external factor to be considered, but becomes structurally present within governance, changing how responsibility is distributed and enacted.

Influence → Power (in transition) While the current impact is often indirect — through framing and influence — the question of how this translates into consistent, material decision-making power remains open.

Symbolism → Substance (actively contested) The model sits in a dynamic tension between symbolic gesture and substantive transformation, with outcomes depending heavily on implementation and organisational intent.

Governance → Expanded accountability Introducing Nature into governance expands the scope of accountability beyond human stakeholders, challenging existing definitions of responsibility, value, and success.

Closing

These sessions are not designed to arrive at fixed answers, but to surface how different approaches work in practice. Each conversation reveals not only how and where they hold, but also the tensions and questions that remain unresolved — and that continue to invite further inquiry.

Over time, these syntheses form a growing body of insights into what co-creation with the more-than-human world might require, across contexts and practices.

The **Co-creation with the More-than-Human sandbox** is a collaboration between The Repatterning Collective and Kincentric Leadership.

If you’d like to receive announcements of our popular monthly online learning sessions, which use live dialogue & discussion to explore different approaches and praxes for meaningful co-creation with the more-than-human (natural) world, then register here for the sandbox’s mailing list.

To receive syntheses of Learning Sessions and Field Dialogues in your inbox, find us on Substack.