Biodiversity impact assessment - The Sustainability Management Wiki

Authors: Rune Schneider, Jendrik Luca Margowski
Edited by: –
Last updated: June 24, 2026

Executive summary

Biodiversity loss is a material business issue as well as an environmental challenge. Companies depend on ecosystem services for raw materials, operational continuity, supply chain resilience, and stakeholder trust. Emerging standards and regulations, including GRI 101, CSRD/ESRS, TNFD, and SBTN, are moving biodiversity management from voluntary reporting toward structured accountability. Organizations therefore need site-specific, transparent methods to identify where they affect ecosystems, which pressures are most significant, and how these impacts should be managed.

The article structures biodiversity assessment around the five direct drivers identified by IPBES: land- and sea-use change, climate change, pollution, exploitation of natural resources, and invasive alien species. These categories provide a common scientific foundation for corporate assessments and improve comparability across sites, activities, tools, and reports. They also help organizations connect operational activities—such as vegetation clearing, water use, emissions, runoff, or resource extraction—to biodiversity outcomes that can be prioritized and addressed.

Several biodiversity assessment tools already support corporate practice. ENCORE helps identify dependencies on natural capital, the WWF Biodiversity Risk Filter supports spatial risk screening, IBAT aggregates conservation datasets for due diligence, the Global Biodiversity Score provides a footprinting approach, and SBTN guides target setting. Each tool involves trade-offs between scientific rigor, data requirements, usability, and decision-making relevance. The tool described in the article responds to these trade-offs by offering a practical, standardized, and transparent assessment structure for organizational users.

The proposed tool follows a clear input–process–output logic. Users enter site and activity data, apply contextual factors such as biome sensitivity and temporal profiles, calculate biodiversity impact scores, and transfer significant impacts into reporting-ready outputs. The tool uses standardized dropdowns, thresholds, intensity values, reference quantities, and multipliers to improve consistency. A logarithmic calculation reduces the risk that extreme values dominate results while still allowing activities of different units and magnitudes to be compared.

For managers, the tool supports prioritization and accountability. Significant activities are linked to mitigation or offset actions, such as avoidance, reduction, containment, restoration, or offsetting. Outputs aligned with GRI 101 and dashboard visualizations help organizations identify hotspots, compare sites, monitor action status, and communicate results to internal and external stakeholders. The main limitations are the simplification required for usability, the fragmented reporting landscape, and the restricted analytical depth of a concise dashboard. Even so, the tool provides a practical foundation for integrating biodiversity into corporate governance, risk management, and performance improvement.

1 Motivation, background and reporting frameworks

Biodiversity loss is widely regarded as one of the most pressing sustainability challenges of the 21st century. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warns in its Global Assessment Report that approximately one million species are currently threatened with extinction¹. The five primary direct drivers of this loss are as follows: land- and sea-use change, climate change, pollution, overexploitation of natural resources, and invasive alien species. In contrast to climate change, which can be quantified using a single metric, such as CO₂ equivalents, biodiversity is characterized by its multidimensionality, location-specific nature, and profound interconnection with ecological contexts².

For companies, this issue is not merely an environmental concern but also a matter of economic survival. According to the World Economic Forum³, more than half of global GDP is dependent on nature and ecosystem services. A wide range of industries, including agriculture, forestry, fisheries, construction, and pharmaceuticals, are particularly exposed. A collapse of ecosystems would disrupt supply chains, increase input costs, create reputational damage, and expose companies to legal and regulatory risks. The Dasgupta Review⁴ emphasizes that the current rate of consumption of natural resources by humanity is equivalent to 1.6 Earths, leading to the steady depletion of the capital on which economic activity depends.

From a governance perspective, biodiversity is now conceptualized as a “license to operate” issue. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework⁵ stipulates that companies must assess and disclose their dependencies and impacts on biodiversity. This development indicates a paradigm shift: biodiversity reporting has transitioned from being a voluntary component of corporate social responsibility to becoming an integral element of mainstream corporate accountability.

The most central standard in this transformation is GRI 101: Biodiversity⁶, which will replace GRI 304 from 2026 onward. In contrast to the previous standard, it imposes a requirement on companies to disclose their biodiversity dependencies and impacts on a global scale, as well as on a specific local and ecosystem basis. This new spatially explicit approach requires firms to determine the specific locations of impacts, the ecosystems affected, and the nature of those impacts. This approach aligns biodiversity reporting more closely with scientific best practices and ensures consistency with the IPBES categories.

It is important to note that other frameworks complement GRI but serve different functions.

According to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the European Union’s (EU) Regulation on Sustainability Reporting (CSRD) (2023) establishes the mandatory disclosure of biodiversity information within the European Union. This requirement is grounded in the principle of double materiality, which emphasizes the consideration of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors in financial reporting.

TNFD⁷ offers a systematized approach to evaluating and disclosing environmental financial risks, which is relevant for financial institutions and investors.

SBTN⁸ provides methodological guidance for establishing science-based biodiversity targets, following the success of the Science-Based Targets initiative (SBTi) for climate.

Collectively, these standards form a multifaceted governance framework. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)⁶ defines the elements that should be incorporated into reports. The European Securities and Markets Authority enforces the disclosure requirements stipulated within the European Union. The Task Force on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD)⁷ integrates environmental, social, and governance considerations into financial risk management. The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN)⁸ establishes methodologies for setting targets. However, challenges persist. These include fragmentation, divergent terminologies, and the absence of a fully harmonized global standard, which complicate implementation (Teixeira et al., 2016).⁹

2 Impact categories in biodiversity assessment

The five direct drivers of biodiversity loss identified by IPBES¹ serve as the scientific foundation for corporate biodiversity assessments. A significant number of prominent tools and frameworks, including ENCORE, the Global Biodiversity Score, and the WWF Biodiversity Risk Filter, have adopted these categories to structure their assessments. This approach fosters consistency, comparability, and credibility in corporate biodiversity management.

• Pollution

Pollution is defined as the release of chemical emissions, nutrient overload, plastics, and other pollutants into the environment. Agricultural fertilizer runoff is a major contributing factor to eutrophication, leading to the formation of more than 400 “dead zones” in marine ecosystems worldwide. Industrial air pollution can harm both freshwater and terrestrial biodiversity. According to the planetary boundaries framework, the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles have already surpassed safe operating limits².

• Invasive alien species (IAS)

Invasive alien species, introduced primarily through trade and transport, can outcompete native species and disrupt ecosystems. Pyšek et al.¹⁰ estimate that invasive alien species are a primary driver of extinctions, particularly on islands. In the European Union alone, the annual economic cost exceeds €12 billion, largely due to agricultural and forestry damages.

• Land and sea use change

Habitat conversion has been identified as the most significant driver of biodiversity loss. From 1990 to 2020, the global forest area decreased by 420 million hectares, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations¹¹. Beyond forests, coastal ecosystems such as mangroves and coral reefs are also disappearing due to human development. The supply chains for commodities such as soy, palm oil, beef, and timber have been identified as significant contributors to deforestation. In response, the European Union has instituted regulations mandating the implementation of deforestation-free supply chains.

• Climate change

Climate change can exacerbate other drivers of change, thereby imposing additional stress on ecosystems. The IPCC¹² projects a decline of 70–90% in coral reefs even if warming is limited to 1.5°C. Alpine ecosystems demonstrate species migrating upward in pursuit of cooler habitats, resulting in the contraction of ecological niches. It extreme weather events, including floods and droughts, can transform entire landscapes within brief periods of time.

• The use of natural resources for personal or commercial gain.

The practices of overfishing, unsustainable logging, and mining have been identified as significant contributors to the erosion of biodiversity. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization in 2022¹³, 35% of global fish stocks are overexploited. Mining operations have been shown to have harmful effects on the environment, including the destruction of habitats and the exacerbation of social conflicts and human rights concerns¹⁴.

These categories have gained widespread recognition within both scientific and practical contexts. By structuring corporate activities around them, biodiversity assessments gain both robustness and alignment with international standards.

3 Tools for biodiversity assessment

To translate these concepts into practice, companies are increasingly turning to assessment tools that operationalize biodiversity metrics.

The ENCORE tool (Natural Capital Finance Alliance) is a resource that maps the dependencies of more than 80 sectors on natural capital. The primary strength of this index lies in its capacity to illuminate financial risk exposure, rendering it a valuable asset for both investors and banking institutions. However, it should be noted that the software in question was not designed for site-level analysis.

The WWF Biodiversity Risk Filter is a web-based platform that uses over 50 risk indicators to assess both site-level and supply chain impacts. The primary strength of the approach lies in its capacity for spatial analysis; however, it offers limited guidance on how companies can effectively mitigate potential risks.

The Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) is a comprehensive data aggregation platform that consolidates information from multiple sources, including the IUCN Red List, the World Database on Protected Areas, and other relevant repositories. While its use for due diligence is pervasive, the software incurs subscription costs and is contingent upon external datasets.

The Global Biodiversity Score (GBS), a metric developed by CDC Biodiversité, calculates biodiversity footprints using Mean Species Abundance (MSA). The tool offers scientific robustness; however, it requires substantial amounts of reliable data, which makes it resource-intensive.

The Science-Based Targets Network (SBTN) has recently initiated a pilot program with prominent corporations such as Nestlé, H&M, and Tesco, focusing on the development and implementation of biodiversity targets. These initiatives illustrate the manner in which biodiversity objectives can be incorporated into the fundamental operations of corporations, notably through the restoration of natural habitats, the tracking of supply chains, and the implementation of regenerative agricultural practices.

Despite their differences, these tools face common challenges, including the trade-off between scientific rigor and usability. Highly detailed models are often inaccessible to practitioners without significant expertise, while simplified approaches risk oversimplification¹⁵. Nevertheless, the alignment of these elements around the five IPBES drivers ensures comparability and increases acceptance in corporate practice.

4 Description and application of the tool

4.1 Purpose, scope and design principles

As part of this course, this group was assigned the task of developing a practical tool on the topic “Biodiversity Impact Assessment”. In line with the module requirements, the tool is designed to provide practitioners with a structured and transparent way of assessing the impact of corporate activities on biodiversity. The following part focuses on the specific design and functionality of the tool we developed.

The overall aim of the tool is to capture, evaluate, and compare the sustainability impacts of corporate activities, with a specific emphasis on biodiversity. Many companies already collect data on environmental and social aspects, yet these are often fragmented or inconsistent. The tool addresses this gap by consolidating the relevant information into a single structure and applying a standardized calculation logic.

The primary target users are sustainability and environmental managers who require a decision-making basis for prioritizing measures. Simultaneously, the tool is pertinent for site managers and project leads, as it translates their operational actions into transparent biodiversity impact assessments.

The development was guided by three core design principles. First, standardization is paramount. Dropdown menus and predefined intensity levels ensure consistent inputs and comparable outputs. Second, transparency: every impact score can be traced back to the underlying factors, making the assessment comprehensible and verifiable. Third, the system’s adaptability allows new categories, thresholds, or metrics to be added to the Lists sheet in the future without altering the rest of the structure.

4.2 Data flow and architecture of the sheets

The tool has been constructed in a modular fashion, with each worksheet serving a distinct function within the overall architecture. They constitute a unified data flow that progresses from the initial stage of input through calculation, reporting, and visualization.

Lists: This database serves as the central repository for all relevant information. It contains all dropdown values, thresholds and intensity levels that are referenced throughout the tool, ensuring consistency and comparability.
Sites: This system is designed to capture information on corporate sites, including their operational status, biome and site type. This allows for geographically differentiated analyses.
Activities: Corporate activities must be recorded to ensure that any potential impacts on biodiversity can be identified. Each activity is linked to a specific site.
Factors: It holds contextual parameters, such as sensitivities, which adjust the impact calculation for site- or activity-specific conditions.
Impact: This sheet performs the actual biodiversity impact calculations based on the defined inputs and multipliers.
Actions: This sheet provides details of mitigation and offset measures, including their category (avoid/reduce, treat/contain, restore/offset), status, and expected effectiveness.
GRI_101_Output: The results are prepared in reporting-ready formats that align with established sustainability standards.
Dashboard: Provides an overview of the outcomes, highlighting hotspots, rankings, and trends for decision-making.

The architecture therefore follows a clear input–process–output principle: standardized data entry, structured calculation, and reporting-ready outputs. This approach not only ensures transparency but also enables flexible adaptation to different analytical or reporting contexts.

4.3 Master logic of scales, thresholds and intensities

A fundamental component of the tool is the logic of thresholds and intensities embedded in the Lists sheet. These definitions ensure that biodiversity impacts can be quantified in a manner that is both scientifically sound and practically applicable.

To assess biomes, a combination of qualitative categories and numerical intensity values is employed. The qualitative categories comprise: “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” and “Low”. The numerical intensity values range from 0.4 to 1.0. This two-level approach combines the intuitive clarity of descriptive labels with the precision of quantitative multipliers. The selected range is indicative of two factors: firstly, a minimum value of greater than or equal to zero is necessary, given that even “Low” sensitivity implies a certain degree of ecological relevance. Secondly, 1.0 represents the maximum degree of sensitivity.

The selected thresholds have been found to strike an optimal balance between granularity and usability. On the one hand, they facilitate meaningful differentiation between sites and activities. On the other hand, they avoid pseudo-precision that would not be feasible to assess in practice. The use of standardized thresholds is instrumental in ensuring the comparability of results across users.

The following example illustrates the logic: wetlands or marine/coastal biomes are categorized as “Very High” with an intensity of 1.0, given that disturbances in these ecosystems often result in severe and irreversible effects on biodiversity. By contrast, urban/artificial areas are classified as “Low” with an intensity of 0.4, since additional impacts here are relatively limited. Consequently, the scale provides a monotonic representation of ecological significance, whereby higher values are indicative of higher biodiversity sensitivity.

The tool also accounts for the temporal dimension of impacts. It is evident that categories such as “Pulse”, “Chronic”, and “Seasonal” are associated with multipliers of 1.2, 1.0, and 1.1, respectively. These phenomena are indicative of the duration and persistence of impacts: acute disturbances can have particularly severe effects, continuous pressures form the baseline, and seasonal influences fall in between.

Activities and pressure types are mapped to impact categories, including land/sea-use change, climate change, pollution, exploitation of natural resources, and invasive alien species. Each category is linked to standardized reporting units (e.g., ha, t, m3, or t CO₂e). This approach ensures that results can be aggregated and reported in a manner consistent with established sustainability frameworks.

In summary, the scales and thresholds defined in the Lists sheet were deliberately chosen to ensure that the tool is transparent, reproducible, and scientifically robust while remaining practical for corporate use.

4.4 Input layer – Sites and activities

The input layer of the tool consists of the Sites and Activities worksheets. These sheets capture the contextual and operational data that is subsequently used in the calculation of biodiversity impact.

The Sites sheet is where the essential characteristics of each location under consideration are recorded, including operational status, biome, and site type. These parameters directly influence the sensitivity of the site to biodiversity pressures. To illustrate this point, consider a site located in a Mediterranean woodland biome with “High” sensitivity (intensity 0.8). This site will be weighted more strongly in the calculation than a site in an urban/artificial biome, which is classified as “Low” (intensity 0.4). The incorporation of such distinctions enables geographically and ecologically differentiated analyses.

The Activities sheet records the concrete actions undertaken at a site that are relevant to biodiversity. Each activity is linked to a specific pressure type, such as “Vegetation clearing” or “Stormwater runoff,” and is measured in an appropriate reporting unit. The tool ensures consistency and comparability across different users by linking each activity to the predefined dropdown lists in the Lists and Factors sheets.

4.5 Calculation logic – Factors and impact

The core of the tool consists of the Factors and Impact sheets, where biodiversity impacts are calculated.

The Factors sheet provides a comprehensive overview of the reference quantities designated for each distinct pressure type. These reference values serve as normalization constants to scale the raw input data. For instance, vegetation clearing is standardized to one hectare, groundwater abstraction to 10,000 cubic meters, and greenhouse gas emissions to 10 tonnes of CO₂e. This approach ensures that impacts across a range of units and magnitudes can be meaningfully compared.

The calculation of the raw impact follows a logarithmic transformation:

Raw Impact=Intensity×log(1+(Reporting Value)/(Reference Quantity) )

This formula reflects two significant methodological decisions. Firstly, the use of a logarithm serves to prevent large values from dominating the results in an imbalanced manner, thereby avoidinging distorted outcomes caused by extreme activities. Secondly, the formula ensures diminishing marginal impacts: doubling an activity does not double its impact, which is consistent with ecological thresholds where additional pressures beyond a certain point do not linearly translate into additional damage.

It is evident that, in addition to the raw impact, the calculation is subject to adjustment by multiple contextual multipliers. The weights assigned to biome sensitivity and intensity ensure that activities in ecologically critical regions are assigned a higher score than those in less sensitive environments. Temporal profiles function as multiplier mechanisms, thereby capturing the persistence of an activity’s impact: acute pulses are multiplied by 1.2, seasonal impacts by 1.1, and chronic pressures remain at 1.0. Further contextual parameters include, for example, the location of the site in relation to a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA), where a multiplier of 1.2 is applied, or whether the site is in a water-stressed location, where a multiplier of 1.15 is used.

The Impact sheet combines all these factors to calculate the final impact score for each activity. At this stage, the tool also determines significance. Activities with an impact score above the predefined threshold of 0.4 are classified as significant. Only these activities are transferred to the GRI_101_Output sheet for further reporting. This filtering mechanism ensures that the tool focuses on material impacts, avoiding the unnecessary complexity of minor or negligible activities.

4.6 Mitigation, reporting and visualization

The final stage of the workflow appears in the “Actions,” “GRI_101_Output,” and “Dashboard” sheets. The Actions sheet documents the mitigation and offset measures associated with significant activities. Each action is linked to its status (planned, in progress, or completed) and type (e.g. noise abatement, water efficiency, or habitat restoration). This systematic structure enables the effectiveness of interventions to be directly linked to the calculated impacts.

The GRI_101_Output sheet summarizes significant activities and presents them in a format ready for reporting. By aligning the output with recognized units and categories, the tool ensures compatibility with established sustainability standards, such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). This makes the results useful both internally and for communicating with stakeholders.

Finally, the dashboard provides a visual overview of the results. Key features include identifying hotspots (e.g. the top three activities with the greatest biodiversity impact), making comparisons across sites and analyzing trends over time. Mitigation actions can also be monitored to display the proportion of planned versus completed measures. This visualization allows decision-makers to quickly identify priorities and track progress over time.

The tool includes a dashboard with a graphical representation summarizing the distribution of impacts across categories. This visualization enables users to swiftly identify the dominant pressures and activities impacting biodiversity in a given scenario. Providing a consolidated chart alongside the tabular overview improves accessibility and facilitates communication with non-technical audiences.

5 Challenges

Biodiversity assessments face several persistent challenges that have shaped the development of this tool. One issue is the fragmentation of reporting frameworks. As previously mentioned, companies are increasingly required to navigate overlapping requirements from GRI, ESRS, TNFD, and SBTN. Although these initiatives share similar overall objectives, their divergent terminologies and methodological emphases create implementation barriers and reduce comparability across firms.

A second challenge lies in striking a balance between scientific complexity and practical usability. Although tools such as the Global Biodiversity Score and Mean Species Abundance models are scientifically robust, they require substantial amounts of high-quality data and methodological expertise. This renders them inaccessible to many companies in practice. While simplified approaches, such as the one presented in this work, improve usability and accessibility, they inevitably involve a certain degree of methodological reduction.

Finally, the structure of our tool itself introduces limitations. The calculation process is designed to filter out non-significant activities and aggregate the remaining ones into a concise output. This ensures that managerial attention is directed toward material impacts. However, this also means that the numerical output is relatively modest. Consequently, the range of possible visualizations is restricted and the dashboard can only provide a limited set of charts. While this improves clarity and interpretability, it limits the potential for extensive data exploration.

6 Outlook

The incorporation of biodiversity into corporate governance is still in its nascent stages, but the trend is evident. The mounting regulatory pressure, particularly in the European Union through the CSRD and ESRS, will obligate a growing number of companies to report on their biodiversity. Financial markets are beginning to integrate nature-related risks, and investors are increasingly demanding transparency. Digitalization, remote sensing, and geospatial data integration will significantly improve the precision of biodiversity assessments.

Companies that act promptly can establish themselves as leaders in their respective fields, thereby acquiring reputational advantages and mitigating risk exposure. In the context of a resource-constrained world, biodiversity is evolving into a pivotal element of competitiveness, going beyond mere compliance.

References

1
IPBES. (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages. ↩︎
2
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. Macmillan Publishers Limited, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden ↩︎
3
World Economic Forum. (2020). Nature risk rising: Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and the economy. In World economic forum and price waterhouse coopers. World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Nature_Economy_Report_2020.pdf, (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
4
Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury, London. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review, (latest review: 13.09.25) ↩︎
5
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). (2022). COP15 Decision 15/4. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf, (latest review: 13.09.25) ↩︎
6
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2024). GRI 101: Biodiversity. Amsterdam: GRI. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/publications/documents/english/gri-101-biodiversity-2024-english/ , (latest review:13.09.25) ↩︎
7
TNFD. (2023). Recommendations of the taskforce on nature‐related financial disclosures. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. Available at: https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations-of-the-Taskforce-on-Nature-related-Financial-Disclosures.pdf?v=1734112245 , (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
8
Science Based Targets Network (SBTN). (2020). Science-based targets for nature: initial guidance for business. Available at: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Science-Based-Targets-for-Nature-Initial-Guidance-for-Business.pdf, (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
6
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2024). GRI 101: Biodiversity. Amsterdam: GRI. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/publications/documents/english/gri-101-biodiversity-2024-english/ , (latest review:13.09.25) ↩︎
7
TNFD. (2023). Recommendations of the taskforce on nature‐related financial disclosures. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. Available at: https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations-of-the-Taskforce-on-Nature-related-Financial-Disclosures.pdf?v=1734112245 , (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
8
Science Based Targets Network (SBTN). (2020). Science-based targets for nature: initial guidance for business. Available at: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Science-Based-Targets-for-Nature-Initial-Guidance-for-Business.pdf, (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
9
Bansal, P. & Song, H.-C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105–149. Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110 Valhalla, NY 10595, USA. ↩︎
1
IPBES. (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages. ↩︎
2
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. Macmillan Publishers Limited, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden ↩︎
10
Pyšek, P., Hulme, P. E., Simberloff, D., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Carlton, J. T. et al. (2020). Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biological Reviews, 95(6), 1511–1534. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. ↩︎
11
FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: https://www.fao.org/interactive/forest-resources-assessment/2020/en/, (latest review: 13.09.25) ↩︎
12
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2023. ↩︎
13
FAO. (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en. ↩︎
14
Sonter, L. J., Ali, S. H. & Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Mining and biodiversity: Key issues and research needs in conservation science. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287(1929), 20200434. Sonter LJ, Ali SH, Watson JEM. 2018 Mining and biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conservation science, The Royal Society Publishing ↩︎
15
Mace, G. M., Barrett, M., Burgess, N. D., Cornell, S. E., Freeman, R., Grooten, M. & Purvis, A. (2018). Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability, entre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK 1(9), 448–451. ↩︎

Biodiversity_Impact_AssessmentTool_-_Schneider,_Margowski,_Torbecke Herunterladen

1
IPBES. (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages. ↩︎
2
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. Macmillan Publishers Limited, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden ↩︎
3
World Economic Forum. (2020). Nature risk rising: Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and the economy. In World economic forum and price waterhouse coopers. World Economic Forum. Available at: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Nature_Economy_Report_2020.pdf, (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
4
Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury, London. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/final-report-the-economics-of-biodiversity-the-dasgupta-review, (latest review: 13.09.25) ↩︎
5
Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). (2022). COP15 Decision 15/4. Convention on Biological Diversity. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf, (latest review: 13.09.25) ↩︎
6
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2024). GRI 101: Biodiversity. Amsterdam: GRI. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/publications/documents/english/gri-101-biodiversity-2024-english/ , (latest review:13.09.25) ↩︎
7
TNFD. (2023). Recommendations of the taskforce on nature‐related financial disclosures. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. Available at: https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations-of-the-Taskforce-on-Nature-related-Financial-Disclosures.pdf?v=1734112245 , (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
8
Science Based Targets Network (SBTN). (2020). Science-based targets for nature: initial guidance for business. Available at: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Science-Based-Targets-for-Nature-Initial-Guidance-for-Business.pdf, (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
6
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). (2024). GRI 101: Biodiversity. Amsterdam: GRI. Available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/publications/documents/english/gri-101-biodiversity-2024-english/ , (latest review:13.09.25) ↩︎
7
TNFD. (2023). Recommendations of the taskforce on nature‐related financial disclosures. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. Available at: https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations-of-the-Taskforce-on-Nature-related-Financial-Disclosures.pdf?v=1734112245 , (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
8
Science Based Targets Network (SBTN). (2020). Science-based targets for nature: initial guidance for business. Available at: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Science-Based-Targets-for-Nature-Initial-Guidance-for-Business.pdf, (latest review: 13.09.25). ↩︎
9
Bansal, P. & Song, H.-C. (2017). Similar but not the same: Differentiating corporate sustainability from corporate responsibility. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 105–149. Summit Lake Drive, Suite 110 Valhalla, NY 10595, USA. ↩︎
1
IPBES. (2019): Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. 56 pages. ↩︎
2
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475. Macmillan Publishers Limited, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, Kräftriket 2B, 10691 Stockholm, Sweden ↩︎
10
Pyšek, P., Hulme, P. E., Simberloff, D., Bacher, S., Blackburn, T. M., Carlton, J. T. et al. (2020). Scientists’ warning on invasive alien species. Biological Reviews, 95(6), 1511–1534. published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society. ↩︎
11
FAO. (2020). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2020. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at: https://www.fao.org/interactive/forest-resources-assessment/2020/en/, (latest review: 13.09.25) ↩︎
12
IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021 – The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press; 2023. ↩︎
13
FAO. (2022). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2022. Towards Blue Transformation. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc0461en. ↩︎
14
Sonter, L. J., Ali, S. H. & Watson, J. E. M. (2020). Mining and biodiversity: Key issues and research needs in conservation science. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 287(1929), 20200434. Sonter LJ, Ali SH, Watson JEM. 2018 Mining and biodiversity: key issues and research needs in conservation science, The Royal Society Publishing ↩︎
15
Mace, G. M., Barrett, M., Burgess, N. D., Cornell, S. E., Freeman, R., Grooten, M. & Purvis, A. (2018). Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability, entre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, University College London, London, UK 1(9), 448–451. ↩︎