No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Conservation accord: Corporate incentives
... The mainstreaming of the biodiversity agenda has been led predominantly by the public sector, where guidance, tools, standards, and regulations have been developed to mandate and encourage the private sector to manage their impacts and dependencies on biodiversity (e.g., TEEB 2010; Forest Trends 2017). Bottom-up signals of mainstreaming biodiversity are also emerging; companies are recognizing biodiversity loss as a risk to their operations (e.g., threatening operational productivity, access to finance, regulatory compliance, or reputation) (Dempsey 2013;Addison & Bull 2018). A public signal of businesses identifying biodiversity as a material risk is when they make commitments to or account for their influence on biodiversity in sustainability reporting (Boiral 2016). ...
... Scientists must not underestimate the private sector's focus on risk as a reason to drive action on social and environmental issues, rather than the misconception that only companies that stand to benefit directly from the environment will take action (Addison & Bull 2018;Barbier et al. 2018). When business operations are threatened by biodiversity loss, then biodiversity becomes a material business risk. ...
Biodiversity declines threaten the sustainability of global economies and societies. Acknowledging this, businesses are beginning to make commitments to account for and mitigate their influence on biodiversity, and report this in sustainability reports. The top 100 of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies' (the Fortune 100) sustainability reports were assessed to gauge the current state of corporate biodiversity accountability. Many companies acknowledged biodiversity, but corporate biodiversity accountability is in its infancy. Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodiversity in reports, and 31 made clear biodiversity commitments, of which only 5 could be considered specific, measureable and time‐bound. A variety of biodiversity‐related activities were disclosed (e.g., managing impacts, restoring biodiversity, and investing in biodiversity), but only 9 companies provided quantitative indicators to verify the magnitude of their activities (e.g., area of habitat restored). No companies reported quantitative biodiversity outcomes, making it difficult to determine whether business actions were of sufficient magnitude to address impacts, and are achieving positive outcomes for nature. Conservation science can help advance approaches to corporate biodiversity accountability through developing science‐based biodiversity commitments, meaningful indicators, and more targeted activities to address business impacts. With the “biodiversity policy super‐year” of 2020 rapidly approaching, now is the time for conservation scientists to engage with and support businesses to play a critical role in setting the new agenda for a sustainable future for the planet, with biodiversity at its heart.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
... However, there are significant, credible business benefits from taking steps towards delivering 615 nature-positive outcomes now, such as improved risk management (Addison & Bull, 2018). The pace 616 of innovation is rapid, with numerous influential frameworks, policies and measurement tools being 617 developed for implementation in the near future (e.g. ...
There are growing calls for businesses to implement ‘nature-positive’ strategies. Convergence around a precise definition is now needed. We review definitions of ‘nature-positive’, highlight differences between ‘nature-positive’ and previous iterations of organizational biodiversity strategies (e.g. net positive impact) and propose four key elements for ‘nature-positive’ strategies: 1) demonstrating positive biodiversity outcomes across the entire value chain (“scope”); 2) buy-in throughout the entire organization (“mainstreaming”); 3) integrated consideration of different components of nature (e.g. both biodiversity and climate; “integration”); and 4) measurable outcomes against a fixed baseline aligned with overall societal goals (e.g. post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework; “ambition”). We analyse trends in biodiversity commitments of the Global Fortune 100 companies and firms that have made recent ‘net impact’ commitments, evaluating alignment with these elements and where possible assessing their evolution since 2016. Uptake of biodiversity commitments has increased since 2016, but with limited progress towards adopting measurable, time-bound commitments (an increase from 5 to 10/100 Fortune 100 firms from 2016 to 2021). We review barriers to business implementation of strategies that can deliver socially equitable and ‘nature-positive’ outcomes. Major improvements are needed in data availability and transparency, regulation and sector-wide coordination that creates level playing fields and prevents impact leakage. Transformative action is required to create production and consumption systems that actively enhance nature.
... Another key benefit comes from improved risk management (Addison & Bull, 2018). Working towards nature-positive outcomes can help address physical and transition risk facing industries and companies. ...
There are growing calls for businesses to implement ‘nature-positive’ strategies. Convergence around a precise definition is now needed. We review definitions of ‘nature-positive’ and propose four key elements for ‘nature-positive’ strategies: 1) demonstrating positive biodiversity outcomes across the entire value chain; 2) measurable outcomes against a fixed baseline aligned with overall societal goals (e.g. post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework); 3) integrated consideration of different components of nature (e.g. both biodiversity and climate); and 4) buy-in throughout the entire organization. We extend previous work to review biodiversity commitments of the global Fortune 100 companies, evaluating alignment with these elements and assessing their evolution since 2016. Uptake of biodiversity commitments has increased since 2016, but with limited progress towards adopting measurable, time-bound commitments (an increase from 5-10/100 firms from 2016-2021) necessary for ‘nature-positive’ outcomes. We review barriers and potential solutions to implementing business strategies that deliver socially equitable and ‘nature-positive’ outcomes.
... The Convention on Biological Diversity is also focused on net outcomes: it put forward "no net loss by 2030 in the area and integrity of freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems" as one of the five goals for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework 3 . Setting goals based on net outcomes aligns with separate calls for a global mitigation hierarchy to deliver no net biodiversity loss, or even net gains, and accommodate both conservation and development goals [4][5][6] . ...
One proposal for the Convention on Biological Diversity’s post-2020 strategic plan is ‘zero loss’ of natural habitats. However, the feasibility of zero loss was questioned during the Trondheim Conference for Biodiversity, and it was suggested that biodiversity losses are instead balanced by compensatory efforts (that is, ‘no net loss’). The focus on net outcomes is echoed by separate calls for a global mitigation hierarchy to deliver no net biodiversity loss and accommodate both conservation and development goals. Here we show that ‘no net loss’ is not the same as ‘zero loss’. We use a delayed differential model of nonlinear habitat dynamics to demonstrate how applying the mitigation hierarchy for net biodiversity outcomes will lead to biodiversity declines by midcentury. Delayed compensation of human impacts reduces ecological resilience and causes prolonged biodiversity losses. These effects are greatest when impacts are large and compensation delays are long. Our results support the use of fixed targets, rather than net outcomes, as part of the post-2020 biodiversity framework. Modelling nonlinear habitat dynamics shows that delayed compensation of human impacts (‘no net loss’) will lead to biodiversity declines by the middle of the century. Instead, the authors recommend fixed targets (such as ‘zero loss’) as part of the post-2020 biodiversity framework.
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to re-kindle debate about finding a conceptual and pragmatic basis for accounting and accountability researchers and to incorporate biodiversity management into the internal practices, routines and communication of organizations.
Design/methodology/approach
A qualitative interplay of theories, particularly structuration theory, applied to an interdisciplinary, communitarian and eco-centric perspective will be used to demonstrate the need for change: for researchers and practitioners to interact with other disciplines and adapt their professional, institutional and governance practices to incorporate biodiversity management and reporting within organizational structures.
Findings
Collective community action can be undertaken by aligning physical biodiversity and its setting with the interrelationship between external information structures, accountability and internal information structures, agent behaviour and the reporting of outcomes. This should assist in reducing the loss of species and richness triggered by unsound economic decision-making.
Practical implications
This is perhaps one of the few accounting studies which discuss theoretical frameworks for the integration of accounting/accountability systems and biological diversity information through a conceptual rethinking.
Social implications
This should assist in reducing the loss of species and richness triggered by unsound economic decision-making.
Originality/value
This paper re-opens the debate regarding the need for an alternative conceptual approach through which biodiversity management can be incorporated into the complexities of business interactions, and the social and natural systems, by using management accounting as a primary vehicle. This is perhaps one of the few accounting studies which discuss theoretical frameworks for the integration of accounting/accountability systems and biological diversity information through a conceptual rethinking.
The World Economic Forum has identified biodiversity loss as an increasingly significant and impactful risk facing business. However, businesses themselves can negatively impact on biodiversity. Recognizing this, a number of companies have developed their own biodiversity commitments, including those to achieve a no net loss (NNL) or net positive impact (NPI) on biodiversity by balancing or outweighing any negative impacts through mitigation activities. We reviewed corporate‐level NNL and NPI commitments over the last two decades to establish the extent of their adoption, retraction, and scientific foundation. Between 2001 and 2016, 66 companies had made NNL/NPI environmental commitments. Thirty three of these 66 companies made specific biodiversity commitments. The numbers of companies making commitments increased in that period. However, some commitments were retracted, or their status became unclear, leaving only 18 companies with active NNL/NPI biodiversity commitments in 2016. Added to this, many of the commitments are lacking science‐based criteria that would allow more transparent and systematic assessment of corporate activities. Thus, although commitments are being made, they may not be delivering as intended. To secure real biodiversity gains, we recommend advancing methods to assess biodiversity risks to businesses, and using science‐based criteria to deepen corporate commitments and actions. Concerted effort from all sectors is needed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and the “biodiversity policy super‐year” of 2020 is the perfect moment for business to deliver through well‐framed and implemented commitments to biodiversity NPI.
Ongoing biodiversity decline threatens ecosystem stability and reflects an overarching planetary boundary being breached. It undermines enabling conditions for sustainable development and posits alarming risks to the global economy. All business entities are dependent to biological diversity and the planetary spectrum of ecosystem services either directly or indirectly and there is a strong debate on why and how the private sector can effectively contribute to ecologically sustainable societies. In this context, corporate biodiversity accounting and reporting seeks to capture information relevant to biodiversity management by employing a certain set of comprehensive, valid and credible quantitative as well as qualitative indicators. This paper seeks to contribute to this direction by providing a critical evaluation of what business entities of mega-diverse countries report on biodiversity conservation and management through widely-accepted performance metrics disclosed in their sustainability reports along with underlying determinants. The assessment relies on a composite disclosure index devised to investigate the comprehensiveness of reported performance on biodiversity management and conservation. By employing Poisson and Gaussian Bayesian regression modeling, potential associations of biodiversity indicators with national specificity, organizational size and industrial affiliation are examined. Crucially, the constructive role of biodiversity accounting and reporting in communicating performance and discharging accountability towards relevant stakeholders is investigated, under the scope of an ecologically sustainable society. Most important predictors of biodiversity indicators disclosure pertain to spatial characteristics (i.e. country effects), along with the industry affiliation of the organizations. In contrast, organizational size does not seem to have a significant effect on the disclosure of biodiversity indicators. In particular, Brazilian, Bolivian and Malaysian enterprises exhibit the highest disclosure levels in biodiversity indicators, whereas the lowest levels are observed for those from Philippines. In terms of differences according to the business sector the sample reporters pertain to, we find biodiversity indicators are mostly reported by enterprises of the materials, energy, industrials, consumer staples and utilities sectors. Comparatively lowest levels are observed for the health care and information technology sectors. Considerable variation among companies, sectors, countries as well as individual indicators is evident. The analysis derived from the study suggests that performance indicators of biological diversity, as part the firm's broader management accounting system, are still underreported and in most cases confined to generic and/or vague statements, with quantitative data and narratives on managing biodiversity being sporadic and limited.
Efforts to conserve biodiversity comprise a patchwork of international goals, national-level plans, and local interventions that, overall, are
failing. We discuss the potential utility of applying the mitigation hierarchy, widely used during economic development activities, to all negative human impacts on biodiversity. Evaluating all biodiversity losses and gains through the mitigation hierarchy could help prioritize consideration of conservation goals and drive the empirical evaluation of conservation investments through the explicit consideration of counterfactual trends and ecosystem dynamics across scales. We explore the challenges in using this framework to achieve global conservation goals, including operationalization and monitoring and compliance, and we discuss solutions and research priorities. The mitigation hierarchy’s conceptual power and ability to clarify thinking could provide the step change needed to integrate the multiple elements of conservation goals and interventions in order to achieve successful biodiversity outcomes.
An international movement is calling for at least half of the Earth to be allocated for conservation. A global study now reveals that, in many ecoregions, enough habitat exists to reach this goal, and ideas are proposed for the next steps needed.
We question whether the increasingly popular, radical idea of turning half the Earth into a network of protected areas is either feasible or just. We argue that this Half-Earth plan would have widespread negative consequences for human populations and would not meet its conservation objectives. It offers no agenda for managing biodiversity within a human half of Earth. We call instead for alternative radical action that is both more effective and more equitable, focused directly on the main drivers of biodiversity loss by shifting the global economy from its current foundation in growth while simultaneously redressing inequality.
We question whether the increasingly popular, radical idea of turning half the Earth into a network of protected areas is either feasible or just. We argue that this Half-Earth plan would have widespread negative consequences for human populations and would not meet its conservation objectives. It offers no agenda for managing biodiversity within a human half of Earth. We call instead for alternative radical action that is both more effective and more equitable, focused directly on the main drivers of biodiversity loss by shifting the global economy from its current foundation in growth while simultaneously redressing inequality.</p
Insufficient focused attention has been paid by the conservation community to conservation of biodiversity outside of protected areas. Biodiversity mainstreaming addresses this gap in global conservation practice by “embedding biodiversity considerations into policies, strategies and practices of key public and private actors that impact or rely on biodiversity, so that it is conserved, and sustainably used, both locally and globally” (Huntley and Redford, 2014). Biodiversity mainstreaming is designed to change those policies and practices that influence land uses outside of protected areas as well as to change economic and development decision-making by demonstrating the importance of conserving biodiversity for achieving development outcomes. The practice of mainstreaming is tied to implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and is practiced with billions of dollars of investment by development agencies, national government agencies, and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and its implementing organizations as well as other donors. It is essential for the long-term survival of biodiversity inside and outside protected areas. However, it is virtually unheard of in the main conservation science field. This must change so as to bring careful documentation, analysis, monitoring, publishing, and improvement of practices—all things that conservation science should provide as partners to practitioners of biodiversity mainstreaming. The situation is ripe for informed coordination and consolidation and creation of a science-driven field of biodiversity mainstreaming.
Increased recognition of the business case for managing corporate impacts on the environment has helped drive increasingly detailed and quantified corporate environmental goals. Foremost among these are goals of no net loss (NNL) and net positive impact (NPI). We assess the scale and growth of such corporate goals. Since the first public, company-wide NNL/NPI goal in 2001, 32 companies have set similar goals, of which 18 specifically include biodiversity. Mining companies have set the most NNL/NPI goals, and the majority of those that include biodiversity, despite the generally lower total global impact of the mining industry on biodiversity compared to the agriculture or forestry industries. This could be linked to the mining industry's greater participation in best practice bodies, high-profile impacts, and higher profit margins per area of impact. The detail and quality of present goals vary widely. We examined specific NNL/NPI goals and assessed the extent to which their key components were likely to increase the effectiveness of these goals in benefiting biodiversity and managing business risk. Nonetheless, outcomes are more important than goals, and we urge conservationists to work with companies to both support and monitor their efforts to achieve increasingly ambitious environmental goals.
Metrics can inform investors wary of “green washing”
Several international initiatives, including the World Economic Forum (WEF), aim to constitute biodiversity loss as a material risk to the ‘bottom line’ calculations of investors and insurers. The WEF claims that while no sector ‘escapes untouched by some form of biodiversity risk’, such risks can be transformed into opportunities, and ideally, profit. I trace the key actors, reports, and methodologies producing ‘biodiversity loss as risk’, and outline some of the challenges, paradoxes and implications of this transformation. In particular, I show how biodiversity loss is a difficult to transform into an individuated risk that can cause firms to act otherwise. However, new calculative devices are emerging to help individuate and calculate biodiversity risks for firms. In this paper I focus on two of such devices, the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) and the Corporate Ecosystem Service Review (CESR). Both tools aim to render biodiversity loss legible in the language and metrics of financial risk. These tools devised to produce biodiversity risk, I argue, have effects. They are changing the way that conservation knowledge is produced, producing new spaces for investment and disinvestment, and are also re-defining the very subject of conservation.
There is evidence that pollinators are declining as a result of local and global environmental degradation [1-4]. Because a sizable proportion of the human diet depends directly or indirectly on animal pollination [5], the issue of how decreases in pollinator stocks could affect global crop production is of paramount importance [6-8]. Using the extensive FAO data set [9], we compared 45 year series (1961-2006) in yield, and total production and cultivated area of pollinator-dependent and nondependent crops [5]. We investigated temporal trends separately for the developed and developing world because differences in agricultural intensification, and socioeconomic and environmental conditions might affect yield and pollinators [10-13]. Since 1961, crop yield (Mt/ha) has increased consistently at average annual growth rates of approximately 1.5%. Temporal trends were similar between pollinator-dependent and nondependent crops in both the developed and developing world, thus not supporting the view that pollinator shortages are affecting crop yield at the global scale. We further report, however, that agriculture has become more pollinator dependent because of a disproportionate increase in the area cultivated with pollinator-dependent crops. If the trend toward favoring cultivation of pollinator-dependent crops continues, the need for the service provided by declining pollinators will greatly increase in the near future.
- E D Minin
E. D. Minin et al., Biol. Conserv. 206, 56 (2017).
- H M Pereira
H. M. Pereira et al., Science 339, 277 (2013).
- F T Wetzel
F. T. Wetzel et al., Biodiversity 16, 137 (2015).
- S H M Butchart
S. H. M. Butchart et al., Conserv. Lett. 8, 329 (2015).
Listed domestic companies, total
- The World
- Bank
The World Bank, "Listed domestic companies, total"
(2017); https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/CM.MKT.
LDOM.NO.
10.1126/science.aat7724
- K H Redford
K. H. Redford et al., Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 1 (2015).
- C J Vörösmarty
C. J. Vörösmarty et al., Science 359, 523 (2018).
- B Büscher
B. Büscher et al., Oryx 51, 407 (2017).
- W N S Arlidge
W. N. S. Arlidge et al., Bioscience 68, 336 (2018).
- G Ceballos
- P R Ehrlich
- R Dirzo
G. Ceballos, P. R. Ehrlich, R. Dirzo, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
U.S.A. 114, E6089 (2017).
- B Worm
B. Worm et al., Science 314, 787 (2006).
- E Dinerstein
E. Dinerstein et al., BioScience 67, 534 (2017).
To move Paris Accord forward, bring cities and companies on board
- D C Esty
- P Boyd
D. C. Esty, P. Boyd, "To move Paris Accord forward, bring
cities and companies on board" Yale Environment 360
(2018); https://e360.yale.edu/features/to-move-parisaccord-forward-bring-cities-and-companies-on-board.
Make half of the world more nature friendly by 2050, urges UN biodiversity chief
- J Watts
J. Watts, "Make half of the world more nature friendly by
2050, urges UN biodiversity chief," The Guardian (2018);
- H Österblom
H. Österblom et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 9038
(2017).
10.1126/science.aau1746
REFERENCES
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6394/1196#BIBL
- R Vignola
R. Vignola et al., Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 211, 126
(2015).