Only 9% of major companies reported using biodiversity indicators
biodiversity indicator
A number or method used to assess parts of living nature.
ecoregion
A large land area with similar natural conditions.
ecosystem integrity
How complete and healthy a natural system remains.
What happened
A Lund University study found that only 8 of 89 major companies reported using biodiversity indicators. That is about 9%. The companies came from eight sectors with large effects on nature: food, drinks, tobacco, clothing, chemicals, construction, energy, and mining. Lund University is a Swedish university. The research was published in the Journal of Cleaner Production. Lund University release Research paper
How the study worked
Researchers reviewed public sustainability reports from the 89 companies. They examined which indicators the reports named. They also compared four indicators across 846 terrestrial ecoregions. An ecoregion is a large area with similar natural conditions. Only two of the eight companies reported using more than one indicator.
Why one measure can mislead
Biodiversity indicators do not measure the same part of nature. One can estimate ecosystem integrity. Another can show the importance of an area for threatened species. The same area may score high on one measure and low on another. The study found that the indicators often had weak spatial links. Some relationships were even negative. A company using one measure might protect one natural value while missing another.
Why this matters
Companies may use environmental information when buying raw materials or choosing new business sites. A narrow measure can make an important place look less important. The study found 33 of 846 ecoregions where more than half of each assessed indicator's total value was concentrated in areas facing major habitat loss by 2050. In 10 ecoregions, the share reached at least 80%. Many of these areas are in the tropics. Farming expansion and forest clearing are the main projected pressures.
What is confirmed—and what is not
The study clearly shows a reporting gap. Most companies in the sample did not report using biodiversity indicators. The companies that did report them usually named only one. However, this does not prove the other 81 companies never used nature data. A report may leave out internal work. The research also does not identify one perfect indicator. It does not prove that a specific company damaged nature because of one measure. Its main warning is about incomplete information.
What to watch next
The researchers recommend using several indicators together. They also recommend more than one measure for each part of biodiversity. Combined scores may help with an early screening. They should not replace the separate measures in important decisions. The study also calls for regional assessments. It highlights gaps involving genetic diversity, ecological connectivity, plants, fungi, and invertebrates. Companies should also consider future land-use pressure. The next useful test is disclosure: which indicators did a company use, where, and for which decision? Better answers would make nature claims easier to check.
Only 9% of major companies reported using nature indicators
📰 Full story: Only 9% of major companies reported using biodiversity indicators
A study says companies need several measures to understand nature’s value.
biodiversity indicator
A number or method for judging parts of living nature.
ecoregion
A large area with similar natural conditions.
threatened species
Plants or animals that may disappear.
💡 The gist
- Only 8 of 89 companies reported using biodiversity indicators.
- Different indicators can rate the same place differently.
- Researchers want companies to use several indicators together.
What the study found
Lund University, a Swedish university, studied reports from 89 large companies. These companies worked in food, drinks, tobacco, clothing, chemicals, construction, energy, and mining. These industries can strongly affect nature.
Only eight companies reported using biodiversity indicators. That equals about 9 percent. Only two of those eight companies reported using more than one indicator.
A biodiversity indicator is a number or method for judging nature. Biodiversity means the variety of living things and natural places. The researchers compared four indicators. One looked at the condition of a whole natural system. Another showed places important for threatened species.
These measures did not always choose the same places. Their results often had weak links. Sometimes, the results pointed in opposite directions. One measure could protect one natural value. It could still miss another.
Why this matters
Businesses may use nature information when buying materials. They may also use it when choosing new sites. A narrow measure can hide an important place.
The study examined 846 land ecoregions. An ecoregion is a large area with similar natural conditions. In 33 regions, important nature faced major habitat loss risks by 2050. In 10 regions, at least 80 percent of a measured value was in those risky areas. Many regions were tropical. Farming growth and forest clearing were major pressures.
What we still need to learn
The study used public reports. It did not inspect every company’s private data. It also did not prove that companies ignored nature. The study did not choose one perfect indicator.
What should happen next
Researchers recommend several indicators together. They also want better data about plants, fungi, and small animals. They want companies to consider future land changes. Companies should explain which indicators they use. They should also explain where and why they use them. Clearer reporting would help people check nature claims.
How can a company count nature?
📰 Full story: Only 9% of major companies reported using biodiversity indicators
One number cannot tell the whole story about nature.
Lund University
A university in Sweden.
Lund University, a school in Sweden, read reports from 89 big companies.
Only 8 companies said they used nature numbers.
That is about 9 percent.
A nature number gives one clue about living things.
One clue may count kinds of animals and plants.
Another clue may find animals close to disappearing.
The same place can look important under one clue.
It can look less important under another clue.
So one clue can miss a special place.
Researchers compared 4 clues.
They asked companies to use several clues together.
They also studied 846 land regions.
In 33 regions, animal homes may face major loss by 2050.
The message is simple.
Nature needs more than one kind of check.