Aim Decision-making for conservation management often involves evaluating risks in the face of environmental uncertainty. Models support decision-making by (1) synthesizing available knowledge in a systematic, rational and transparent way and (2) providing a platform for exploring and resolving uncertainty about the consequences of management decisions. Despite their benefits, models are still not used in many conservation decision-making contexts. In this article, we provide evidence of common objections to the use of models in environmental decision-making. In response, we present a series of practical solutions for modellers to help improve the effectiveness and relevance of their work in conservation decision-making.Location Global review.Methods We reviewed scientific and grey literature for evidence of common objections to the use of models in conservation decision-making. We present a set of practical solutions based on theory, empirical evidence and best-practice examples to help modellers substantively address these objections.Results We recommend using a structured decision-making framework to guide good modelling practice in decision-making and highlight a variety of modelling techniques that can be used to support the process. We emphasize the importance of participatory decision-making to improve the knowledgebase and social acceptance of decisions and to facilitate better conservation outcomes. Improving communication and building trust are key to successfully engaging participants, and we suggest some practical solutions to help modellers develop these skills.Main conclusions If implemented, we believe these practical solutions could help broaden the use of models, forging deeper and more appropriate linkages between science and management for the improvement of conservation decision-making.

Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to “span the boundaries” between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface (“boundary spanning”) and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability.

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 outcomes 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.

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.

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.