In this analysis, we overview recent industry engagement on key biodiversity policies. InfluenceMap tracks developments in corporate engagement with biodiversity policy in real time on the LobbyMap database.
The Trump administration is pursuing a deregulatory agenda that seeks to weaken or repeal many key environmental regulations. This directly contradicts scientific guidance for nature-related policy from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), which recommends “fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic and social factors,” including effective government policy to halt biodiversity loss.
In the spirit of this anti-environment agenda, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced in March that it would revise the Waters of the United States rule (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act, narrowing its definition and removing federal pollution protections for many water bodies. The decision follows Executive Order 14219, which dictated that regulations deemed unlawful in recent Supreme Court decisions must be reviewed or repealed. Narrowing the jurisdiction of WOTUS could increase the risk of unregulated industrial chemicals and nutrient discharge polluting US waterways via wetlands.
Key industry associations—including the US Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)—have expressed support for this decision, citing “greater economic growth” and “regulatory onslaught” as key factors, respectively. This reaction is unsurprising: InfluenceMap has identified consistent advocacy to weaken WOTUS from the US Chamber, NAM, American Farm Bureau Federation, American Forest and Paper Association, and the Fertilizer Institute leading up to the EPA’s revision of the rule. These associations have long pushed the narrative to policymakers that permitting-related regulations that establish protected areas like WOTUS are too burdensome and pose obstacles to infrastructure projects.
Many of these same oppositional US industry associations appear to be extending their advocacy into the EU—calling for deregulation and employing similar economic narratives to those that they used to target WOTUS.
Industry advocacy is evident on the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CS3D). The CS3D sets more robust requirements for companies to identify, address, and prevent adverse impacts on human rights and the environment throughout their operations and supply chains. However, in April, the EU voted to delay the implementation of the CS3D as part of an Omnibus simplification package. The US Chamber welcomed the delay, claiming it is an opportunity to avoid “extraterritorial overreach” and advocating for additional revisions to remove the extraterritorial application of CS3D to US companies. The US Chamber and NAM’s opposition towards CS3D predates the EU’s decision. In 2023, NAM called it an “overreaching and costly burden,” and in December 2024, the US Chamber described it as “a red rag for Donald Trump,” suggesting that the EU should “anticipate retaliatory action” from the United States unless the omnibus package significantly reduces the scope and ambition of CS3D.
European industry associations have used similar narratives to push for deregulation. Key contributors include Europeche, BusinessEurope, the Federation of German Industries, and Eurometaux, with engagement dating back as far as 2020. These associations claim that CS3D will put the EU at a competitive disadvantage compared to regions with weaker due diligence requirements, risking economic losses for European companies. This advocacy is not aligned with IPBES guidance, which emphasizes that “improved understanding and systematic reporting are important for promoting accountability and transparency” to “support the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.”
US associations are not limiting their engagement on EU policy to the CS3D. Since 2024, the American Forest and Paper Association—alongside European associations Copa-Cogeca and the Confederation of European Paper Industries—has advocated to delay and dilute the EU’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). Following this advocacy, in late 2024, the EU voted to delay the implementation of the EUDR by one year.
InfluenceMap’s analysis finds that these industry groups do not represent the positions of all major corporations on the policy. In October 2024, European consumer staples companies, including Nestlé and Unilever, supported the EUDR and explicitly opposed any delay to implementation or reopening the regulation for further negotiations. Advocacy by these companies, which face stricter requirements under the EUDR, directly contradicts industry association narratives that the regulation threatens European competitiveness. Scientific guidance is clear that unless drastic action is taken to establish comprehensive and robust nature-related policies, biodiversity will continue to decline at an alarming