Business and finance on a path towards meaningful biodiversity reporting
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12962001 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Shruti Kashyap (0000-0001-7914-2084, Uppsala University, corresponding author), Charles Mario Abela (Doshisha University), Véronique Blum (0000-0003-3018-5141, Institute of Public Finance), Beatrice Crona (0000-0003-1617-4067, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences) |
| Year | 2025 |
| Volume | 77 |
| Pages | 101588-101588 |
| Publication date | 2025-11-06 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1877-3435 • E-ISSN: 1877-3443 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.cosust.2025.101588 |
| OpenAlex | W4415960679 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 46 |
Corporate biodiversity reporting is critical for assessing planetary health and meeting biodiversity targets, yet current frameworks and practices remain insufficient. This paper reviews 51 academic articles, along with additional policy and legal sources, and evaluates 30 biodiversity assessment tools to examine the state of biodiversity reporting. The analysis identifies three interlinked challenges of complexity, conceptualization, and governance. These challenges arise from gaps in knowledge, methods, and data, and are reinforced by the dominance of financial logics over ecological realities. Collectively, these challenges limit the reliability of reporting and the usefulness of existing tools for decision-making and risk mitigation. The paper concludes that meaningful biodiversity reporting requires closer integration of ecological knowledge and clearer alignment with the best available science. Important research and policy steps towards meaningful biodiversity reporting include establishing mandatory, standardized corporate disclosures of impact data linked to the five drivers of biodiversity loss, and stronger coordination across legal, accounting, and scientific domains on issues of materiality, risk, and valuation. • Biodiversity reporting is crucial for corporate sustainability and accountability. • Stronger scientific basis is vital for credible biodiversity impact reporting. • Complexity, conceptualization, and governance issues impact reporting and assurance. • Financial logics can limit biodiversity risk integration in reporting. • Legal, accounting, and scientific alignment strengthens biodiversity reporting
Biodiversity · Corporate governance · Dominance (genetics · Global biodiversity · Measurement of biodiversity · Sustainability · Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting · Environmental and Social Impact Assessments · Environmental Conservation and Management
Bending the curve of terrestrial biodiversity needs an integrated strategy
Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries
Increased transparency is needed for corporate science-based targets to be effective
Deepening the Conversation on Systemic Sustainability Risks
The Regulatory Dynamics of Sustainable Finance
From Values to Value
Bridging the Understanding of Sustainability Accounting and Organizational Change
Essential environmental impact variables
A prototype Earth system impact metric that accounts for cross-scale interactions
Biodiversity conservation threatened by global mining wastes
Translating Earth system boundaries for cities and businesses
Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss
The transformative potential of eDNA-based biodiversity impact assessment
Transformative governance of biodiversity
Taking climate change seriously
Biodiversity disclosure in the European finance sector
Multi-model ensembles in climate science
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2026 - 2026 (1) |
| Highly cited | No |