Biodiversity is rising on the corporate agenda, but accountability is lagging behind

A large proportion of the world’s most influential corporations have started to engage with biodiversity as part of their sustainability strategies. However, most biodiversity commitments to date are not yet precise enough to measure progress or allow stakeholders to assess whether companies are meeting their goals.

That is the finding of a new study published in One Earth, which assessed the biodiversity commitments of 180 large transnational “keystone” corporations – companies with significant environmental impacts and disproportionate influence over the biosphere.

Jean-Baptiste Jouffray, Centre researcher and co-author of the study, says:

“A serious biodiversity commitment should make clear what is being targeted, where, by when, and how progress will be assessed. Without that, it is little more than a statement of good intentions. Regulators, investors, scientists, and civil society need information they can use to identify risks, assess ambition, and track progress over time.”

Promising signs of corporate engagement

The study found that 89 per cent of corporations in the sample published some kind of publicly available report, and 79 per cent had made at least one biodiversity commitment.

The researchers describe this as an important sign that biodiversity is rising on the corporate agenda. But they also found that only 13 per cent of companies reported commitments that were sufficiently detailed, transparent, and specific to allow others to assess whether targets had been met — a fundamental prerequisite of accountability.

Senior author Dr Sophus zu Ermgassen at the University of Oxford says:

“There is real potential for keystone corporations to take on a stronger leadership role in halting biodiversity loss and moving toward nature recovery. Many companies have started to make biodiversity commitments, which is encouraging. The next step is to consider clear implementation plans and go beyond pledging actions required by law.”

The researchers assessed whether commitments specified: the aspect of biodiversity targeted; the scope of the commitment; the environmental pressure addressed; the timeframe; the baseline; how the commitment is measured; whether there was a quantitative target; and whether progress was reported.

Some sectors are leading

Commitment robustness varied substantially across sectors. Agriculture and farming sectors performed comparatively well, with 18 of the 23 companies having at least one robust commitment.

Within the cocoa sector, all five assessed companies — representing 56 per cent of global processing and grinding — made commitments. Four of them had robust commitments meeting all criteria, while the fifth met most criteria. A similar pattern was seen in the soybean sector, where five of six companies — controlling 42 per cent of global sourcing — made robust commitments.

In contrast, biodiversity commitments were sparse in sectors such as animal pharmaceuticals and oil and gas. Among animal pharmaceutical firms — ten companies representing 81 per cent of the global market — half had no biodiversity commitments. Of the 13 companies for which no reports were found at all, six were national oil companies.

From pledges to leadership

Among commitments that were not deemed robust, the researchers identified recurring issues: vague or non-specific language; selective use of evidence to justify limited action or ambition; and contradictory or incorrectly defined terminology.

The study also highlights potential barriers that may make stronger commitments difficult, including commercial incentives, fear of reputational risk if targets are missed (so-called ‘greenhushing’), limited guidance on biodiversity target-setting, and data gaps across complex supply chains.

The researchers suggest that stronger corporate biodiversity leadership could be supported through mandatory reporting requirements, business-science collaboration, sector-wide sustainability initiatives, increased participation in voluntary frameworks, and pressure from stock exchanges, financiers, and other stakeholders.

Keystone corporations and biosphere stewardship

The study builds directly on research pioneered at the Stockholm Resilience Centre on “keystone actors” and biosphere stewardship. In a landmark 2019 paper, Folke and colleagues showed that a small number of transnational corporations hold disproportionate influence over the systems shaping the biosphere.

This new research expands that analysis by updating market concentration across sectors and developing a methodology to assess whether corporate biodiversity commitments are specific enough to support accountability.

Centre founder Carl Folke says:

"It is rewarding to see our work on keystone corporations and biosphere stewardship being taken forward in this exciting way. That is the kind of research needed to move the field from identifying influence to assessing responsibility. Accelerated leadership by transnational corporations – where companies publicly disclose their data and progress, and welcome knowledge exchange with peers and with science, can help make corporations credible change agents for a thriving biosphere.”