Access to this full-text is provided by Wiley.
Content available from Conservation Biology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Essay
Using conservation science to advance corporate
biodiversity accountability
Prue F. E. Addison ,1∗Joseph W. Bull ,2,3 and E. J. Milner-Gulland 1
1Department of Zoology, Interdisciplinary Centre for Conservation Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, U.K.
2Department of Food and Resource Economics, Center for Macroecology, Evolution, and Climate, University of Copenhagen,
Copenhagen, Denmark
3Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology, School of Anthropology and Conservation, University of Kent, Canterbury, U.K.
Abstract: 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. We assessed the top 100 of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies’
(the Fortune 100) sustainability reports to gauge the current state of corporate biodiversity accountability.
Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodiversity in reports, and 31 made clear biodiversity
commitments, of which only 5 were 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 were achieving positive out-
comes for nature. Conservation science can advance approaches to corporate biodiversity accountability by
helping businesses make science-based biodiversity commitments, develop meaningful indicators, and select
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 in playing a
critical role in setting the new agenda for a sustainable future for the planet with biodiversity at its heart.
Keywords: corporate social responsibility, development, indicators, mitigation, nature, private sector,
sustainability
Uso de la Ciencia de la Conservaci´
on para Potenciar la Responsabilidad Corporativa hacia la Biodiversidad
Resumen: Las declinaciones de la biodiversidad amenazan a la sustentabilidad de las sociedades y
econom´
ıas globales. Los negocios han reconocido esto y han comenzado a comprometerse a mitigar y a
responsabilizarse por su influencia sobre la biodiversidad y a reportar esto en informes sobre sustentabilidad.
Evaluamos los informes sobre sustentabilidad de las 100 mejores compa˜
n´
ıas del reporte Fortune 500 Global del
2016 (el Fortune 100) para estimar el estado actual de la responsabilidad corporativa hacia la biodiversidad.
Casi la mitad (49) del Fortune 100 mencion´
o a la biodiversidad en sus informes, y 31 dejaron claro sus
compromisos con la biodiversidad, de los cuales s´
olo cinco fueron espec´
ıficos, medibles y limitados por
tiempo. Se divulg´
o una variedad de actividades relacionadas con la biodiversidad (p. ej.: manejo de impactos,
restauraci´
on de la biodiversidad e inversi´
on en la biodiversidad). Pero s´
olo nueve compa˜
n´
ıas proporcionaron
indicadores cuantitativos para verificar la magnitud de sus actividades (p. ej.: ´
area del h´
abitat restaurado).
Ninguna compa˜
n´
ıa report´
o resultados cuantitativos con respecto a la biodiversidad, lo que complica la
determinaci´
on de si las acciones de las empresas fueron de una magnitud suficiente para tratar los impactos
ysiseest
´
an logrando resultados positivos para la naturaleza. La ciencia de la conservaci´
on puede potenciar
∗email prue.addison@zoo.ox.ac.uk
Article impact statement: Science-based biodiversity commitments, meaningful indicators, and activities need development to address envi-
ronmental impacts of business.
Paper submitted March 5, 2018; revised manuscript accepted July 11, 2018.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction
in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
307
Conservation Biology, Volume 33, No. 2, 307–318
C
2018 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13190
308 Corporate Accountability
los m´
etodos para la responsabilidad corporativa hacia la biodiversidad ayudando a las empresas a realizar
compromisos con la biodiversidad basados en la ciencia, desarrollar indicadores significativos y seleccionar
actividades m´
as enfocadas para tratar los impactos de las empresas. Con la r´
apida aproximaci´
on del s´
uper
a˜
no para la biodiversidad, el 2020, ahora es el momento para que los cient´
ıficos de la conservaci´
on apoyen
y se comprometan con las empresas para tener un papel significativo en el establecimiento de una nueva
agenda con la biodiversidad como n´
ucleo para el futuro sustentable del planeta.
Palabras Clave: desarrollo, indicadores, mitigaci´
on, naturaleza, responsabilidad social corporativa, sector pri-
vado, sustentabilidad
:
,
,
2016
500
100
(
)
,
(49)
,31
,
5
(
),
9
(
)
,
,
,
2020
,
,
:
;
:
:,,,,,,
Introduction
Biodiversity underpins and sustains ecosystems globally,
and declines in biodiversity threaten the resilience of na-
ture, global economies, and societies (Venter et al. 2016;
Duffy et al. 2017). International targets exist to direct
governments and inspire society to take steps toward
the conservation of biodiversity in the broader context
of global sustainable development (e.g., the Convention
on Biological Diversity [CBD] Aichi targets [CBD 2011]
and the Sustainable Development Goals [SDGs] [United
Nations 2016]). The public sector has mobilized and is
working toward the achievement of international targets;
however, efforts to conserve biodiversity are still falling
short (Butchart et al. 2010; Geldmann et al. 2013).
The international goal to “mainstream biodiversity”
(CBD Strategic Goal A) (CBD 2011) sets a vision for
shared responsibility across public and private sectors
for the conservation of nature balanced with sustain-
able development (Redford et al. 2015). The mainstream-
ing of the biodiversity agenda has been led predomi-
nantly by the public sector, where guidance, tools, stan-
dards, and regulations have been developed to mandate
and encourage the private sector to manage their im-
pacts and dependencies on biodiversity (e.g., TEEB 2010;
Forest Trends 2017). Bottom-up signals of mainstreaming
biodiversity are also emerging; companies are recogniz-
ing 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 iden-
tifying biodiversity as a material risk is when they make
commitments to or account for their influence on biodi-
versity in sustainability reporting (Boiral 2016).
Corporate biodiversity accountability (through exter-
nal disclosure of commitments, activities, and perfor-
mance) is an important aspect of organizational stew-
ardship and legitimacy, which an increasing number of
businesses are undertaking (Jones & Solomon 2013). Nat-
ural resource extraction businesses (a heavily regulated
sector for impact mitigation) are increasingly making bio-
diversity commitments (e.g., no net loss [NNL] or better),
and companies from a range of other sectors (e.g., food,
financial services, and technology) are beginning to make
similar commitments (e.g., to protect the environment
or reduce impacts on the environment) (van Liempd &
Busch 2013; Rainey et al. 2015; Adler et al. 2017). De-
spite these seemingly positive moves, accounting studies
suggest that corporate biodiversity accountability is very
much in its infancy (Jones & Solomon 2013; Boiral 2016;
Adler et al. 2017).
Redford et al. (2015) suggest that conservation sci-
entists have failed to engage with the mainstreaming-
biodiversity agenda and that there is an urgent need for
a “science-driven field of biodiversity mainstreaming,”
where conservation scientists critically analyze progress
to help support and improve current mainstreaming ac-
tivities. In parallel, science-based processes and tools
are being called for to evaluate corporate social and
environmental performance (V¨
or¨
osmarty et al. 2018). A
key requirement for tracking progress toward biodiver-
sity mainstreaming is an analysis of corporate biodiversity
accountability, as communicated through sustainability
reports. We conducted an exploratory analysis of some
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
Addisonetal. 309
of the world’s largest companies to provide a snapshot
of current global corporate commitments and actions
for biodiversity and illustrate how conservation science
could help inform more robust corporate biodiversity
accountability to support the science-driven field of bio-
diversity mainstreaming.
Biodiversity Commitments and Actions of the
World’s Top 100 Companies
To ascertain the current status of current global commit-
ments and actions for biodiversity, we turned to some
of the world’s largest companies—the Global Fortune
500. Every year Fortune generates an annual ranking of
the largest 500 corporations worldwide, as measured by
total revenue, and assesses corporate profits, assets, and
employee numbers (Fortune 2016). The analysis does
not include assessment of sustainability reporting. The
Fortune 500 allows exploration of the extent to which
companies are engaging in public disclosure of environ-
mental and social issues and assessment of the current
level of corporate biodiversity accountability.
We assessed the sustainability reports of the top 100
of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies (hereafter
Fortune 100) (Fortune 2016) to determine how biodi-
versity is being integrated into business decision making
and externally reported. We chose the top 100 compa-
nies in the Fortune 500 because these represent a cross-
sector of industries that are exposed to different levels of
biodiversity risk (as defined by F&C 2004) through, for
example, access to land, capital, or markets and relations
with regulators. Based on F&C (2004) categories of biodi-
versity risk (Supporting Information), 31 companies are
high risk (e.g., energy), 32 are medium risk (e.g., finance),
and 37 are low risk (e.g., health care) sectors. We investi-
gated which companies mention or make commitments
for biodiversity; what biodiversity-related activities are
disclosed; and whether information about biodiversity
activities or performance is being disclosed qualitatively
or quantitatively.
Online searches for the Fortune 100 sustainability re-
ports were conducted using the Global Reporting Initia-
tive (GRI) sustainability disclosure database (GRI 2016b)
(search by company name) or Google (search terms “sus-
tainability” and company name). The most recent re-
ports (dated up to 2016 and searched for in September
2017) were collated. Sustainability reports can also be
referred to as environmental, corporate social respon-
sibility, sustainability, registration reports, or financial
reports that contain non-financial information. Compa-
nies made up of multiple subsidiary companies (e.g.,
the Exor Group) were assessed only when sustainability
reporting was done for the Fortune-listed company as
a whole, not subsidiary companies. Websites were not
included in our analysis when the year of biodiversity
commitments or activities were not stated; only dated
interactive online sustainability reports were analyzed.
Reports were searched for “biodiversity”OR“nature”
OR “species”OR“ecosystem” in acknowledgment of the
broad definition of biodiversity (CBD 2017). We also
searched for terms related to biodiversity (“forest” OR
“palm oil” OR “seafood”) that are commonly used in
relation to nature-based commodities without mention
of biodiversity-related terms.
Reports were searched for concise biodiversity com-
mitments, which were commonly associated with a ded-
icated chapter or subchapter in the sustainability report
or were listed as a commitment in disclosure or materi-
ality tables of reports (e.g., Walmart: “To conserve one
acre of wildlife habitat for every acre of land occupied
by Walmart United States through 2015”) (Supporting
Information). We evaluated corporate biodiversity goals
against a subset of “Specific Measurable Assignable Re-
alistic and Time-related” (SMART) criteria (Doran 1981)
to assess whether goals were specific (element of bio-
diversity the goal relates to is articulated beyond simply
biodiversity; e.g., forest, threatened species, wetlands);
measurable (quantifiable reduction or improvement is
stated and a defined baseline is provided; e.g., 10% of
land protected compared with 2010 levels); and time
bound (goal associated with a time frame over which the
company aims to achieve the goal; e.g., to achieve . . . by
2020).
When biodiversity was mentioned in reports, we
recorded whether this was in line with the GRI (currently
the most common voluntary reporting framework used
for biodiversity; Boiral 2016; Boiral & Heras-Saizarbitoria
2017) or other relevant international conventions (e.g.,
the SDGs biodiversity related goals 14 and 15 and the
CBD). Search terms used included: “GRI”OR“global re-
porting initiative”OR“sustainable development goal”
OR “SDG”OR“convention on bio”OR“convention for
bio”OR“CBD.”
To assess the types of biodiversity activities under-
taken by companies, reports were open-coded to develop
common themes, following an inductive category de-
velopment methodology (Patton 2002). Activities were
grouped into common themes once searching of all re-
ports was complete. For each activity disclosed, we as-
sessed whether it was described qualitatively (descriptive
text provided in the sustainability report only) or quanti-
tatively (e.g., key performance indicators or metrics are
in Supporting Information).
The quantitative content analysis of all reports was un-
dertaken by P.F.E.A., and this analysis was independently
repeated by J.W.B., who coded 25% of the reports. The
coders discussed the coding of the reports to assess any
discrepancies. Inconsistencies were reconciled prior to
data analysis, to achieve a minimum intercoder agree-
ment of 80% (similar to methods used in recent sustain-
ability research [e.g., Boiral & Heras-Saizarbitoria 2017]).
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
310 Corporate Accountability
Figure 1. The Fortune 100 Global companies’ (with corresponding 2016 rankings) progress toward incorporating
biodiversity into sustainability reporting based on mentions and commitments relating to biodiversity,
sustainable forestry, or fishery in their sustainability reports (light blue, companies mentioning biodiversity; dark
blue, companies with biodiversity commitments; light green, companies mentioning sustainable forestry or fishing
only; dark green, companies with sustainable forestry or fishing only commitments; star, companies with specific,
measurable, and time-bound commitments). Company details are in Supporting Information and on the Fortune
500 Global website (Fortune 2016).
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
Addisonetal. 311
Biodiversity Mentions and Commitments
In 2016 the Fortune 100 represented 15 sectors and was
dominated by the financial and energy sector companies
(Fig. 1). Their headquarters were located in 15 countries,
with over half located in the United States and China.
In 2016 Fortune 100 companies employed 26.4 million
people and had a total revenue of US$12.6 trillion. Sus-
tainability reporting was undertaken by the majority of
the Fortune 100 companies; 86 had publicly available
sustainability reports (Fig. 1 & Supporting Information).
These reports were from 2016 (74 company reports) or
were the most recent reports available (2015, 7 reports;
2014, 2 reports; 2013, 2 reports; 2012, 1 report) (Sup-
porting Information).
Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodi-
versity or related terms, and an additional 16 companies
mentioned sustainable forestry or fishing (without specif-
ically mentioning biodiversity) (Supporting Information).
Companies from higher biodiversity risk sectors did not
make greater mention of biodiversity compared with
lower risk sectors (companies mentioning biodiversity:
high risk, 71%; medium risk, 53%; low risk, 70% [Support-
ing Information]). This suggests that the risk biodiversity
poses to business operations is not the sole driver for
inclusion of biodiversity in sustainability reports. Only 4
companies mentioned biodiversity and stated that it was
not a material risk to their operations and therefore did
notreportonitfurther(BMW,HSBCHoldings,Dong
Feng, and Banco Santander).
The 49 companies that mentioned biodiversity all used
a typical format of sustainability disclosure, which in-
cluded a predominantly qualitative narrative explaining
the importance of biodiversity and what actions they
take regarding biodiversity. Their treatment of biodiver-
sity ranged from a brief single mention in the context of
other environmental issues (e.g., climate change, water,
and waste reduction) to a dedicated biodiversity chapter,
with clear biodiversity commitments and disclosure of
biodiversity-related activities.
Twenty-four of the 49 companies that mentioned bio-
diversity made links with the biodiversity-focussed SDGs.
This is far greater than the 6 companies that acknowl-
edged the CBD. Although not intended as a reporting
framework, the SDGs resonate with the private sector and
are being used to frame their sustainability commitments
and activities.
Only 31 of Fortune 100 companies had clearly stated
commitments relating to biodiversity (Supporting Infor-
mation). Commitments most commonly related to pro-
tecting biodiversity (e.g., Volkswagen: “ . . . we promise
to support the protection of species at all locations”)
or to managing impacts on biodiversity (e.g., BP: “We
work to avoid activities in or near protected areas and
take actions to minimize and mitigate potential impacts
on biodiversity”). A higher proportion of companies from
high biodiversity risk sectors made biodiversity commit-
ments compared with lower risk sectors, but unexpect-
edly fewer companies from medium risk sectors made
biodiversity commitments compared with low risk sec-
tors (52%, 13%, and 30% in high, medium, and low risk
sectors, respectively) (Supporting Information). This pat-
tern is attributable to so few finance companies (classed
as medium risk, which include insurance, banks, and di-
versified financials) making biodiversity commitments (2
out of 23 companies).
Of the 23 finance sector companies, 12 were banks,
and 9 of these are Equator Principles Financial Institutions
(EPFIs). Eight EPFIs mentioned their adherence to the
Equator Principles (which have requirements to ensure
impacts on biodiversity are minimized [Equator Princi-
ples 2013]), but only 1 company had a biodiversity com-
mitment (BNP Paribas, which commits to “combating
loss of biodiversity”). Six EPFIs mentioned biodiversity,
but did not translate the Equator Principles (to minimize
biodiversity impacts) into a corporate commitment. One
EPFI (Banco Santander) stated that biodiversity was not
of material risk to them, justifying why no biodiversity in-
formation is disclosed further. The remaining 4 non-EPFIs
did not mention or make commitments for biodiversity.
Only 5 businesses (of 31) had commitments that could
be classified as specific, measurable, and time bound
(Walmart, Hewlett Packard, AXA, Nestl´
e, and Carrefour)
(Fig. 1 & Supporting Information). Most of these related
to commodities (e.g., Hewlett Packard: “To help protect
forests, in 2016 HP set a goal to achieve zero deforesta-
tion associated with HP brand paper and paper-based
product packaging by 2020”). By contrast, the 12 of the
16 companies that made commodity commitments (but
did not mention biodiversity) made specific, measurable,
and time-bound commitments (Supporting Information).
The only specific, measurable, and time-bound biodiver-
sity commitment made was Walmart’s (out of date) com-
mitment: “To conserve one acre of wildlife habitat for
every acre of land occupied by Walmart United States
through 2015.” Beyond Walmart’s commitment, none of
the remaining Fortune 100 had adopted quantifiable bio-
diversity commitments (e.g., NNL or better), unlike the
small but rising number of corporations outside of the
Fortune 100 (Rainey et al. 2015). The lack of specific,
measureable, or time-bound features of corporate bio-
diversity commitments has also been observed in other
recent sector-specific and nation-specific studies (e.g.,
Jones & Solomon 2013; Boiral 2016; Adler et al. 2017).
Disclosure of Biodiversity Activities
The 49 companies that mentioned biodiversity and addi-
tional 16 that mentioned sustainable forestry or fishing
disclosed a range of activities. Activities included man-
aging or preventing impacts, protecting and restoring
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
312 Corporate Accountability
(a) (b)
Figure 2. The number of companies disclosing (a) qualitative biodiversity information about activities and
(b) quantitative biodiversity information about activities. Areas of disclosure include management of impacts,
prevention of impacts, protection and restoration, monitoring, engagement, and investment.
biodiversity, monitoring biodiversity, engaging and con-
necting people with biodiversity, and investing in bio-
diversity (a much greater diversity of activities than the
GRI areas of biodiversity disclosure) (Fig. 2 & Supporting
Information). These activities were typically described
qualitatively, involving short case-study narratives or gen-
eral descriptions. Only 9 companies provided quantita-
tive performance indicators associated with descriptions.
The lack of standardized quantitative performance in-
dicators creates challenges for comparing performance
both between companies and for individual companies
through time. Although the GRI suggests performance
indicators for use alongside qualitative disclosures for
biodiversity, this is a voluntary framework (GRI 2016a),
and not all businesses report this for biodiversity (26 com-
panies reported at least 1 of the GRI areas of biodiversity
disclosure).
The most commonly disclosed qualitative informa-
tion concerned habitats protected or restored and part-
nerships formed (disclosed by 37 companies respec-
tively) (Fig. 2). Examples of disclosed activities provided
in the Supporting Information illustrate the brevity of
statements made about habitats protected or restored
(e.g., the reforestation of E.ON woods) and partnerships
formed with NGOs and government agencies (e.g., Shell’s
partnerships with the International Union for Conser-
vation of Nature [IUCN]). Other common activities in-
cluded GRI biodiversity disclosure areas (GRI 2016a),
including companies outlining the strategies or manage-
ment approaches they use to manage impacts (33 compa-
nies; e.g., Soci´
et´
eG
´
en´
erale follow the Equator Principles
biodiversity standards) and how businesses manage their
biodiversity impacts (e.g., Citigroup follow the Interna-
tional Finance Corporation Performance Standards by
avoiding impacts on critical biodiversity habitats). Three
companies discussed using natural capital assessments
to help understand their impacts and dependencies on
biodiversity (Walmart, Hitachi, and Nestl´
e) (Supporting
Information). This is likely to increase in the future with
the recent release of the Natural Capital Protocol, which
has gained considerable traction with the private sector
internationally (Natural Capital Coalition 2016).
The most commonly disclosed quantitative biodiver-
sity information also concerned habitats protected or
restored (9 companies) (Fig. 2). For example, Hitachi
reported the number of ecosystem preservation activities
implemented. The next most commonly cited quantita-
tive indicator for biodiversity related to the proportion
of commodities that have been sustainably sourced (e.g.,
Carrefour reported on the percentage increase in sales
of certified seafood) (Supporting Information). Other
quantitative information disclosed included the GRI areas
of disclosure demonstrating the avoidance of protected
areas (e.g., Glencore reported on their operations that
are located in, adjacent to, or that contain protected ar-
eas) and threatened species (e.g., Enel reported on the
number of IUCN Red List species affected by projects
in different countries of operation), but these activities
are disclosed by a very small fraction of companies, sug-
gesting the GRI areas of biodiversity disclosure are of
limited relevance to the majority of the Fortune 100. Few
companies attempted to disclose quantitative informa-
tion about the magnitude of their impact on biodiversity
versus the magnitude of the activities they undertake,
which are designed to be beneficial for biodiversity (with
the exception of Glencore, which disclosed the area of
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
Addisonetal. 313
impacted vs. rehabilitated land). Finally, no companies
reported quantitative outcomes of their activities for bio-
diversity, which makes it very difficult to verify whether
the implemented actions have any positive outcomes for
nature.
Informing Robust and Effective Corporate
Biodiversity Accountability with Conservation
Science
Our assessment of the 2016 Fortune 100 Global com-
panies has revealed that big businesses are giving biodi-
versity limited treatment in sustainability reports. These
empirical findings support accounting and accountability
research suggesting that corporate biodiversity account-
ability is in its infancy (Jones & Solomon 2013; Boiral
2016; Adler et al. 2017).
This analysis has also helped identify some critical
areas where conservation science could contribute to
the science-driven field of biodiversity mainstreaming
(Redford et al. 2015), particularly to support more ro-
bust corporate biodiversity accountability approaches.
We considered 3 critical areas where conservation sci-
ence approaches, which have been successfully applied
for decades to support environmental policy and manage-
ment, can help businesses clarify and deepen their com-
mitments to biodiversity and support the international
biodiversity mainstreaming agenda.
Making Science-Based Corporate Biodiversity Commitments
Corporate biodiversity commitments are made only by a
fraction of the Fortune 100, and these commitments often
lack clarity (Jones & Solomon 2013; Boiral 2016) (Fig. 1).
In addition, many businesses disclose information about
biodiversity actions without having a clearly stated bio-
diversity commitment (Fig. 1). An absence of clearly de-
fined corporate biodiversity commitments means that it is
impossible to measure whether businesses are genuinely
making progress in relation to managing their impacts
and dependencies on biodiversity and whether they are
contributing to international goals to halt the loss of biodi-
versity and address the underlying threats to biodiversity.
By comparison, in 2015, 80% of the world’s largest
250 companies have made science-based climate commit-
ments and disclosed information about carbon emission
reductions in their sustainability reports (KPMG 2015).
The widely accepted science-based commitments (that
are specific, measurable, and time bound) used to set cor-
porate climate commitments are a model for the general
improvement of corporate biodiversity commitments.
Such commitments include clearly defined aspects of
climate (e.g., greenhouse gas emissions), baselines, and
end dates to allow for quantitative evaluation of corporate
performance. However, it is much more challenging to
make science-based biodiversity commitments. Biodiver-
sity is a vague and complex concept, which is impossible
to capture in a single or set of indicators (Purvis & Hector
2000). The CBD’s definition encompasses all living things
from genes to ecosystems (CBD 2017). This is where
conservation science can help because many approaches
have been applied successfully for decades to help set
clear objectives to guide the management and measure-
ment of biodiversity and have informed both policy and
site-level management decisions (Table 1).
Decades of conservation science have reinforced the
need for commitments that are specific, measurable,
and time bound to guide effective conservation action
(Table 1) (Brown et al. 2015; Maxwell et al. 2015).
Decision-support frameworks, such as structured deci-
sion making (Addison et al. 2013), adaptive management
(Runge 2011), management strategy evaluation (Bun-
nefeld et al. 2011), and the mitigation hierarchy (Bull
et al. 2013; Arlidge et al. 2018), can all be useful in
guiding the development of science-based corporate bio-
diversity commitments (Table 1). These frameworks and
their associated tools can help in developing clear com-
mitments that are specific to business influence and im-
pacts; include quantifiable targets, accounting for both
biodiversity gains and losses (e.g., NNL or better); use
meaningful spatial and temporal frames of reference; and
align with international strategic goals for biodiversity
(Table 1) (e.g., reduce impacts, improve biodiversity sta-
tus, enhance benefits to society, and support and engage
in knowledge sharing [CBD 2011]).
Developing Transparent and Comparable Corporate
Biodiversity Indicators
The limited standards for corporate biodiversity disclo-
sure mean that there are no consistent approaches to
reporting biodiversity information (Fig. 2) (van Liempd &
Busch 2013; Adler et al. 2017). Some businesses disclosed
information about the activities they undertake to address
their impacts. However, few provided details of the mag-
nitude of these activities or quantified whether they are
adequate to address the scale of the negative impacts the
business is having on biodiversity (Fig. 2). In addition,
few report on the outcomes of their activities for biodi-
versity, that is, answering the question is the biodiversity
affected by the business’s direct or indirect operations
improving, declining, or being maintained? The general
failure to report on the magnitude of negative impacts
versus beneficial activities and their outcomes for biodi-
versity makes it enormously difficult for stakeholders and
shareholders to obtain a complete and transparent view
of a company’s biodiversity performance and at worst
could be camouflaging unsustainable business practices
(Fonseca et al. 2014; V¨
or¨
osmarty et al. 2018).
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
314 Corporate Accountability
Table 1. Examples of conservation science approaches (frameworks and modeling approaches) and their potential contribution to science-based corporate biodiversity commitments; transparent
and comparable corporate biodiversity indicators; and identification of additional avenues of corporate biodiversity action.
Conservation science approach
Develop science-based biodiversity
commitments
Develop transparent and comparable
biodiversity indicators
Expand and deepen corporate
biodiversity action
Decision making frameworks and
associated modeling techniques
(e.g., structured decision making,
adaptive management, and
management strategy evaluation
frameworks [Bunnefeld et al. 2011;
Runge 2011; Addison et al. 2013;
Milner-Gulland & Shea 2017]).
Develop specific commitments
relevant to business influence and
impacts on biodiversity (e.g., using
values-focused thinking and
conceptual models in structured
decision making).
Develop indicators to evaluate corporate
commitments and activities (e.g.,
using objectives hierarchies and
conceptual models in structured
decision making).
Develop actions that directly address
business impacts or influence (e.g.,
conceptual models, consequence
models, and cost-benefit analysis in
structured decision making or adaptive
management).
Prioritize areas for biodiversity action
(e.g., systematic conservation
planning).
Guide evaluation and reporting on the
effectiveness of biodiversity actions to
contribute to corporate biodiversity
commitments (e.g., using statistical
models in structured decision making
or adaptive management).
Account for uncertainty in the
effectiveness of a proposed action and
help determine the magnitude of
activity to be implemented (e.g., using
process models within management
strategy evaluation).
The mitigation hierarchy and
associated principles of
biodiversity management and
modeling techniques (Bull et al.
2013; Arlidge et al. 2018).
Develop measurable commitments
(e.g., following principles of no net
loss or net positive impact).
Develop meaningful spatial and
temporal frames of reference for
commitments (e.g., baseline or
counterfactual development).
Develop indicators that can account for
biodiversity gains and benefits and
losses and impacts.
Guide the avoidance, minimization,
restoration, and offsetting of predicted
biodiversity impacts from
development (i.e., applying the
mitigation hierarchy).
Ensure activities are new contributions
to biodiversity conservation when the
activity undertaken is designed to
offset negative impacts (i.e.,
demonstrate additionality).
Account for uncertainty in the
effectiveness of a proposed activity
and help determine the magnitude of
activity to be implemented (e.g.,
guided by multipliers).
Continued
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
Addisonetal. 315
Table 1. Continued.
Conservation science approach
Develop science-based biodiversity
commitments
Develop transparent and comparable
biodiversity indicators
Expand and deepen corporate
biodiversity action
Protected Area Management
Effectiveness Evaluation
framework and associated
modeling techniques (Hockings
et al. 2006)
Develop specific, measurable and
time-bound commitments relevant
to business influence and impacts
(e.g., use conceptual models).
Develop indicators that address the full
management process from inputs
(resources spent), to outputs
(activities undertaken), and to
outcomes (changes in biodiversity).
Guide the evaluation of and reporting on
the effectiveness of biodiversity
activities to contribute to corporate
biodiversity commitments (e.g.,
expert judgment, statistical models,
and report cards).
SMART biodiversity commitments
(Maxwell et al. 2015)
Guide the development of specific,
measurable, ambitious, realistic,
and time-bound commitments.
Essential biological variables (Pereira
et al. 2013)
Identify what components of
biodiversity are fundamentally
important and directly under their
control or influence that relate to
corporate biodiversity commitments.
Global biodiversity indicators (e.g.,
Butchart et al. 2010; Nicholson
et al. 2012)
Develop a suite of indicators that paint a
picture of pressures, biodiversity status
(i.e., outcomes), and management
responses to address biodiversity
declines.
Test the performance and sensitivity of
indicators in relation to the business
contexts within which they are
applied.
Composite indicator development
(e.g., Burgass et al. 2017)
Develop indicators that can be
aggregated from site to corporate level
that account for bias and uncertainty
through the aggregation process.
International biodiversity goals, e.g.,
CBD Aichi targets (CBD 2011) and
the Sustainable Development Goals
(United Nations 2016)
Guide understanding of the types of
priority biodiversity activities needed
to contribute to international efforts
to conserve and sustainably use
biodiversity and guide more influential
corporate biodiversity activity.
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
316 Corporate Accountability
Conservation approaches can support the develop-
ment of indicators to transparently account for biodi-
versity gains and losses and directly evaluate corporate
commitments. Protected area management effectiveness
evaluation encourages the development of indicators to
address the full process of biodiversity management from
inputs (resources spent) and outputs (activities under-
taken) to outcomes (changes in biodiversity) (Hockings
et al. 2006). Approaches used in conservation science
and policy, like essential biological variables (e.g., for
measures ecosystem structure or function, or species
persistence [Pereira et al. 2013]), global biodiversity indi-
cators (e.g., for measures of state, pressure, and response
[Butchart et al. 2010]), and scalable composite indicators
(Burgass et al. 2017) can help businesses develop indi-
cators that support quantitative evaluation of progress
toward achieving commitments. These approaches en-
courage careful consideration of components of biodiver-
sity that are fundamentally important to business opera-
tions, directly under business control or influence, and
development of indicators that account for both gains
and losses of biodiversity. Lessons from the development
of international-level biodiversity indicators (Nicholson
et al. 2012) emphasize the necessity not only to develop
and implement indicators, but also to thoroughly test the
performance and sensitivity of indicators in relation to
the contexts within which they are applied (e.g., correct
spatial and temporal resolution and sensitivity to change
in response to policy and management interventions).
Expanding and Deepening Corporate Biodiversity Action
The range of actions for biodiversity that businesses dis-
closed (Fig. 2) can help improve corporate social legiti-
macy, but may do little to genuinely address the magni-
tude of their environmental impacts (Jones & Solomon
2013; Boiral & Heras-Saizarbitoria 2017). Conservation
approaches can be used to target activities so that they
directly address biodiversity commitments and can help
businesses to predict their likely effectiveness (Table 1).
Frameworks such as structured decision making, adap-
tive management, and management strategy evaluation
and the process models used within these frameworks
will help explicitly account for the uncertainties sur-
rounding the effectiveness of activities (Milner-Gulland
& Shea 2017). The mitigation hierarchy can guide the
selection of activities to mitigate impacts and create bio-
diversity gains (Bull et al. 2013; Arlidge et al. 2018).
Going beyond undertaking activities to account for the
direct footprint of a business’s impacts, a wider question
is how are these activities contributing to global priorities
for action to conserve biodiversity? The key international
biodiversity targets (CBD Aichi Biodiversity Targets and
the UN’s SDGs [CBD 2011; United Nations 2016]) can,
and should, be used to provide an overarching framework
to guide businesses toward expanding and deepening
their biodiversity activities, so that they become part of
the international community, involving the public sector,
civil society, and private sector that works toward a more
sustainable world (Table 1).
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 en-
vironment will take action (Addison & Bull 2018; Barbier
et al. 2018). When business operations are threatened
by biodiversity loss, then biodiversity becomes a mate-
rial business risk. Only once this risk is quantified and
realized through materiality assessment will biodiversity
become more visible to the decision making departments
of corporations that manage finance and risk and will be
truly integrated into corporate accountability and main-
streamed through the private sector (Dempsey 2013).
Our study adds to the accountability literature that shows
biodiversity is yet to be consistently perceived as a mate-
rial risk across the private sector (Boiral 2016; Adler et al.
2017). Advances in quantitative risk assessment are also
needed to increase the visibility of biodiversity across
business operations and across far more sectors to drive
corporate action to halt biodiversity loss.
Advancing Science-Driven Biodiversity
Mainstreaming
The mainstreaming biodiversity agenda is designed to
engage the private sector and encourage shared respon-
sibility for the conservation of nature balanced with sus-
tainable development (Redford et al. 2015). Corporate
biodiversity accountability—where businesses make bio-
diversity commitments, disclose information about bio-
diversity related activities, and evaluate their corporate
performance in relation to their own or international
biodiversity commitments—remains in its infancy (Jones
& Solomon 2013; Boiral 2016; Adler et al. 2017). To
genuinely contribute to the mainstreaming biodiversity
agenda, businesses will need credible and robust ways
to account for biodiversity throughout the supply chain
that can be reported concisely at the corporate level and
acted upon.
What would a more accountable business need to com-
mit to and measure in order to demonstrate they are doing
their bit for biodiversity? We believe that corporate com-
mitments such as NNL or better for biodiversity can be ap-
plied with flexibility to target the species and ecosystems
that a company impacts. Such commitments should align
with existing international biodiversity policy (CBD 2011;
United Nations 2016) and be couched within a global
mitigation hierarchy to help shift business activities from
compensatory measures (remediation, offsets) to pre-
ventative measures (avoidance, minimization of impacts
[Bull et al. 2013; Arlidge et al. 2018]). Beyond objectives,
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
Addisonetal. 317
quantitative measures for biodiversity outcomes are the
ideal and should be specific to a company and its biodi-
versity risks and impacts.
What actions should a more accountable business un-
dertake? The expertise of conservation scientists will be
vital to help target corporate action where it is needed
most: honing attention to operations that pose the great-
est impact on biodiversity (e.g., agriculture and extrac-
tives) (Maxwell et al. 2016); directing corporate action in
conservation priority areas to avoid impact to the most
threatened species and ecosystems (Martin et al. 2015;
Brauneder et al. 2018); and helping conserve the last
wilderness areas (Watson et al. 2016).
Finally, where can conservation scientists and busi-
nesses start to tackle the complexities of business in-
teractions with biodiversity? The approaches outlined
here are all broadly applicable, but need to be tailored
to ensure that biodiversity risks and impacts are cap-
tured and translated into practical advice relevant to the
sector concerned. For example, some high biodiversity
risk sectors, like resource extraction (oil and gas, elec-
tricity, and mining) and agriculture, have direct impacts
on biodiversity and will require approaches that focus
business understanding of risks and impacts at site-level
operations when developing commitments, actions, and
performance measures. Other high biodiversity risk sec-
tors, like food retailers, will require approaches that trace
the biodiversity impacts of commodities through some-
times long supply chains. Finally, medium biodiversity
risk sector companies, like finance and insurance firms,
will require approaches that can capture indirect bio-
diversity impacts (e.g., through financing third parties
and projects) to address biodiversity performance (e.g.,
through risk management).
Now is a critical time for conservation scientists to
engage in order to generate a science-driven field of bio-
diversity mainstreaming. Although our analysis highlights
that the world’s biggest businesses have a long way to go
in developing and reporting on such commitments, the
scene is set for rapid improvements. If these were set in
place prior to the biodiversity policy super year of 2020,
when the international biodiversity conservation strategy
will be revisited, then businesses could truly start to play
a part in the new agenda for a sustainable future for the
planet, which has biodiversity at its heart.
Acknowledgments
P.F.E.A. is supported by the Natural Environment Re-
search Council [NE/N005457/1]. J.W.B. was funded by a
Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action under the Horizon 2020
call H2020-MSCA-IF-2014 (grant number 655497) and ac-
knowledges the Danish National Research Foundation
for funding the Center for Macroecology, Evolution, and
Climate (grant number DNRF96).
Supporting Information
The percentage of high-, medium-, and low-risk Fortune
100 Global companies with biodiversity and sustainable
forestry or fishery goals by sector (Appendix S1), the 2016
Fortune 100 companies, their ranking, and their latest
sustainability reports and source (Appendix S2), the 2016
Fortune 100 companies with biodiversity or biodiversity-
related commitments (Appendix S3), and examples of
biodiversity-related activities disclosed in sustainability
reports by the 2016 Fortune 100 Global companies
(Appendix S4) are available online. The authors are solely
responsible for the content and functionality of these
materials. Queries (other than absence of the material)
should be directed to the corresponding author.
Literature Cited
Addison PFE, Bull JW. 2018. Conservation accord: corporate incentives.
Science 360:1195–1196.
Addison PFE, Rumpff L, Bau SS, Carey JM, Chee YE, Jarrad FC, McBride
MF, Burgman MA. 2013. Practical solutions for making models in-
dispensable in conservation decision-making. Diversity and Distri-
butions 19:490–502.
Adler R, Mansi M, Pandey R, Stringer C. 2017. United Nations decade
on biodiversity: a study of the reporting practices of the Australian
mining industry. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal
30:1711–1745.
Arlidge WNS, et al. 2018. A global mitigation hierarchy for nature con-
servation. BioScience 68:336–347.
Barbier EB, Burgess JC, Dean TJ. 2018. How to pay for saving biodiver-
sity. Science 360:486–488.
Boiral O. 2016. Accounting for the unaccountable: biodiversity re-
porting and impression management. Journal of Business Ethics
135:751–768.
Boiral O, Heras-Saizarbitoria I. 2017. Corporate commitment to biodi-
versity in mining and forestry: identifying drivers from GRI reports.
Journal of Cleaner Production 162:153–161.
Brauneder KM, Montes C, Blyth S, Bennun L, Butchart SH, Hoffmann M,
Burgess ND, Cuttelod A, Jones MI, Kapos V. 2018. Global screening
for Critical Habitat in the terrestrial realm. PLOS ONE 13 (e0193102)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0193102.
Brown CJ, Bode M, Venter O, Barnes MD, McGowan J, Runge CA,
Watson JE, Possingham HP. 2015. Effective conservation requires
clear objectives and prioritizing actions, not places or species. Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112:E4342–E4342.
Bull JW, Suttle KB, Gordon A, Singh NJ, Milner-Gulland E. 2013. Biodi-
versity offsets in theory and practice. Oryx 47:369–380.
Bunnefeld N, Hoshino E, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2011. Management strategy
evaluation: A powerful tool for conservation? Trends in Ecology &
Evolution 26:441–447.
Burgass MJ, Halpern BS, Nicholson E, Milner-Gulland EJ. 2017. Navigat-
ing uncertainty in environmental composite indicators. Ecological
Indicators 75:268–278.
Butchart SHM, et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent
declines. Science 328:1164–1168.
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 2011. Convention on Bio-
logical Diversity Aichi biodiversity targets. CBD, Montreal, Canada.
Available from https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/ (accessed Novem-
ber 2016).
CBD. 2017. Article 2: Use of Terms. Available from https://www.
cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02 (accessed
March 2017).
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
318 Corporate Accountability
Dempsey J. 2013. Biodiversity loss as material risk: tracking the
changing meanings and materialities of biodiversity conservation.
Geoforum 45:41–51.
Doran GT. 1981. There’sa SMART way to write management’s goals and
objectives. Management Review 70:35–36.
Duffy JE, Godwin CM, Cardinale BJ. 2017. Biodiversity effects in the
wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature
549:261–264.
Equator Principles. 2013. The Equator Principles III. A financial industry
benchmark for determining, assessing and managing environmental
and social risk in projects.
F&C. 2004. Is biodiversity a material risk for companies? An assessment
of the exposure of FTSE sectors to biodiversity risk. F&C Asset
Management, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Fonseca A, McAllister ML, Fitzpatrick P. 2014. Sustainability reporting
among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI ap-
proach. Journal of Cleaner Production 84:70–83.
Forest Trends. 2017. State of Biodiversity Mitigation 2017: Markets
and Compensation for Global Infrastructure Development. Forest
Trends, Washington, D.C.
Fortune. 2016. The Fortune 500 Global Companies. Available from
http://beta.fortune.com/global500/ (accessed Auguset 2016).
Geldmann J, Barnes M, Coad L, Craigie ID, Hockings M, Burgess ND.
2013. Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat
loss and population declines. Biological Conservation 161:230–238.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). 2016a. GRI 304: biodiversity. GRI,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
GRI (Global Reporting Initiative). 2016b. The GRI sustainability dis-
closure database. GRI, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Available
from http://database.globalreporting.org/search/ (accessed Septem-
ber 2017).
Hockings M, Stolton S, Leverington F, Dudley N, Courrau J. 2006. Eval-
uating effectiveness: a framework for assessing management effec-
tiveness of protected areas. International Union for Conservation of
Nature, Gland, Switzerland.
Jones MJ, Solomon JF. 2013. Problematising accounting for biodiversity.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:668–687.
KPMG. 2015. Currents of change: the KPMG survey of corporate re-
sponsibility reporting 2015. KPMG International, the Netherlands.
Martin C, Tolley M, Farmer E, Mcowen C, Geffert J, Scharlemann J,
Thomas H, van Bochove J, Stanwell-Smith D, Hutton J. 2015. A
global map to aid the identification and screening of critical habitat
for marine industries. Marine Policy 53:45–53.
Maxwell SL, Fuller RA, Brooks TM, Watson JEM. 2016. Biodiversity: the
ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers. Nature 536:143–145.
Maxwell SL, Milner-Gulland EJ, Jones JP, Knight AT, Bunnefeld N, Nuno
A, Bal P, Earle S, Watson JE, Rhodes JR. 2015. Being smart about
SMART environmental targets. Science 347:1075–1076.
Milner-Gulland EJ, Shea K. 2017. Embracing uncertainty in applied ecol-
ogy. Journal of Applied Ecology 54:2063–2068.
Natural Capital Coalition. 2016. Natural capital protocol. Natural Capital
Coalition, London, United Kingdom.
Nicholson E, et al. 2012. Making robust policy decisions using global bio-
diversity indicators. PLOS ONE 7(e41128) https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0041128.
Patton MQ. 2002. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Sage
Publications, Thousand Oaks, California.
Pereira HM, Ferrier S, Walters M, Geller GN, Jongman R, Scholes RJ,
Bruford MW, Brummitt N, Butchart S, Cardoso A. 2013. Essential
biodiversity variables. Science 339:277–278.
Purvis A, Hector A. 2000. Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature
405:212–219.
Rainey HJ, Pollard EH, Dutson G, Ekstrom JM, Livingstone SR, Temple
HJ, Pilgrim JD. 2015. A review of corporate goals of No Net Loss
and Net Positive Impact on biodiversity. Oryx 49:232–238.
Redford KH, Huntley BJ, Roe D, Hammond T, Zimsky M, Lovejoy TE,
Da Fonseca GA, Rodriguez CM, Cowling RM. 2015. Mainstreaming
biodiversity: conservation for the twenty-first century. Frontiers in
Ecology and Evolution 3:1–7.
Runge MC. 2011. An introduction to adaptive management for threat-
ened and endangered species. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Manage-
ment 2:220–233.
TEEB. 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: main-
streaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach,
conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity.
United Nations (UN). 2016. Sustainable development goals. Available
from http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ (accessed Octo-
ber 2016).
van Liempd D, Busch J. 2013. Biodiversity reporting in Denmark. Ac-
counting, Auditing & Accountability Journal 26:833–872.
Venter O, et al. 2016. Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial
human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Na-
ture Communications 7:12558.
V¨
or¨
osmarty CJ, et al. 2018. Scientifically assess impacts of sustainable
investments. Science 359:523–525.
Watson JE, Shanahan DF, Di Marco M, Allan J, Laurance WF, Sanderson
EW, Mackey B, Venter O. 2016. Catastrophic declines in wilder-
ness areas undermine global environment targets. Current Biology
26:2929–2934.
Conservation Biology
Volume 33, No. 2, 2019
Content uploaded by Prue Addison
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Prue Addison on Oct 17, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
