Biodiversity and threatened species reporting by the top Fortune Global companies

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to explore the biodiversity and threatened species reporting of the top 150 Fortune Global companies. The paper has two main objectives: to explore the extent to which the top 150 Fortune Global companies disclose information about their biodiversity and species conservation practices, and to explore the effects of biodiversity partners and industry on companies’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting. Design/methodology/approach The study’s sample is the top 150 Fortune Global companies. Each company’s fiscal year ending 2014 annual report, its 2014 sustainability report, and its company website were content analyzed for evidence of biodiversity and threatened species reporting. This content analysis is supplemented by a detailed analysis that focusses on the sample’s top five reporters, including a phone interview with a senior sustainability manager working at one of these companies. Finally, a regression analysis was conducted to examine the associations between companies’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting and the presence/absence of biodiversity partners and a company’s industry F&C Asset Management industry category. Findings The reporting on biodiversity and threatened species by the top 150 Fortune Global companies is quite limited. Few companies (less than 15) are providing any substantial reporting. It was further observed that even among the high scoring companies there is a lack of consistent reporting across all index items. A subsequent empirical examination of these companies’ disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species showed a statistically positive association between the amount of reporting and companies’ holding of biodiversity partnerships. It was also observed that firms categorized as red- and green-zone companies made more disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species than amber-zone companies. Originality/value This is the first study to systematically analyze corporate disclosures related to threatened species and habitats. While some prior studies have included the concept of biodiversity when analyzing organizations’ environmental disclosures, they have done so by examining it as one general category out of many further categories for investigating organizations’ environmental reporting. In the present study, the focus is on the specific contents of biodiversity disclosures. As such, this study has the twin research objectives of seeking to illuminate the current state of biodiversity and threatened species reporting by the world’s largest multinationals and provide an appreciation for how certain organizational and industry variables serve to influence these reporting practices. These multiple insights offer companies, and potentially regulators, understanding about how to include (or extend) disclosures on biodiversity loss and species under threat of extinction.

Integrated extinction accounting and accountability: building an ark

“…Adler et al's (2018) paper, "Biodiversity and threatened species reporting by the top Fortune Global companies", provides a comprehensive review of biodiversity conservation strategies around the world as well as a critical discussion of the academic literature on accounting for biodiversity. The authors analyse an extensive sample of data from Fortune Global 500 companies spanning 23 countries, on biodiversity and species.…”

“…This finding resonates with Gray and Milne (2018) as it highlights the lack of any recognition in accounts that we need to deal with causes as well as symptoms and a lack of awareness and understanding of why this happening, primarily the human role in extinction. Similarly, Adler et al (2018)'s finding that there was an almost complete absence of disclosing corporate impacts on ecosystems, wetlands, or marine biodiversity again emphasises this lack of recognition of the enormity of the human extinction cause and the interconnectedness of species. An interesting finding is the relevance of partnerships with nature organisations/NGOs to disclosures, with those companies demonstrating such partnerships being associated with significantly more disclosures.…”

Exploring factors relating to extinction disclosures: What motivates companies to report on biodiversity and species protection?

“…The World Economic Forum, 2015 considers biodiversity loss as one of the top 10 global risks. Adler, Mansi, and Pandey () reinforces that promoting biodiversity is critical to business survival as companies have a two‐way relationship with biodiversity, including both the impact of companies on biodiversity, and the impact of biodiversity on companies. Therefore, companies must recognise that nature and ecosystems are of fundamental value either directly or indirectly linked to corporate activity (Adler et al, ; Atkins & Atkins, ; Bebbington & Unerman, ).…”

“…Adler, Mansi, and Pandey () reinforces that promoting biodiversity is critical to business survival as companies have a two‐way relationship with biodiversity, including both the impact of companies on biodiversity, and the impact of biodiversity on companies. Therefore, companies must recognise that nature and ecosystems are of fundamental value either directly or indirectly linked to corporate activity (Adler et al, ; Atkins & Atkins, ; Bebbington & Unerman, ). By paying attention to biodiversity and ecosystem health, companies can recognise the risks and opportunities, anticipate new markets, mitigate their impacts, improve stakeholder engagement, and demonstrate leadership (Bebbington & Unerman, ).…”

Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting: The Last 40 Years and a Path to Sharing Future Insights

“…Their projects have developed novel approaches to CSR reporting with the potential to be more insightful, responsive, and accountable to a wider range of stakeholders (Williams and Adams, ). The attempt to expand the range of environmental phenomena captured by reports through biodiversity accounting is one example (Adler et al ., , 2017; Jones, ; Rimmel and Jonäll, ; Tregidga, ; van Liempd and Busch, ). Another can be found in the sustainable assessment models developed by some researchers (Bebbington et al ., , ).…”