Only 9% of major companies use biodiversity indicators, study finds

Lund University

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

Biodiversity indicators can help companies make more sustainable decisions. But only nine per cent of the world’s largest companies in sectors with a major impact on biodiversity use such indicators, according to a new study from Lund University. The researchers also show that different indicators can lead to different conclusions and present seven recommendations for how they should be used.

Researchers from Lund University reviewed sustainability reports from 89 of the world’s largest companies operating in the sectors with the greatest impact on biodiversity: food, beverages, tobacco, apparel, chemicals, construction, energy and mining. Eight of the companies reported using biodiversity indicators to inform their decisions. However, only two of the eight reported using more than one indicator, something the researchers can now show is of great importance.

“Different indicators measure different aspects of nature. Our results show that no single biodiversity indicator provides a complete picture. Companies that rely on only one indicator may therefore make decisions that protect one biodiversity value while damaging another,” says William Sidemo Holm, one of the researchers behind the study.

In the new study, the researchers conducted analyses comparing four different indicators. The results show that the indicators often differ in their assessments of how important a geographical area is for biodiversity. A company that uses only one indicator risks concluding that an area is of little importance for biodiversity, even though it may be highly valuable from perspectives that the particular indicator does not capture.

“If companies want to understand and report their impact on biodiversity accurately, they need to use several indicators rather than a single measure. Indicators can play a crucial role in informing decisions that affect biodiversity, but there is still considerable room for improvement in how they are used today,” says William Sidemo Holm.
 

The researchers’ recommendations for future development and application of biodiversity indicators:

1. Use multiple biodiversity indicators to capture different aspects of biodiversity and avoid overlooking important values.
2. Use more than one indicator per biodiversity aspect when possible, reducing bias from specific datasets or methods.
3. Use composite indicators cautiously, mainly as an initial screening tool; rely on individual indicators for important decisions.
4. Assess biodiversity at the ecoregion level, not only globally, to recognise important biodiversity in less species-rich ecosystems.
5. Develop new indicators for underrepresented biodiversity dimensions, such as genetic diversity and ecological connectivity.
6. Improve taxonomic coverage, especially for plants, fungi and invertebrates, which are currently underrepresented.
7. Combine biodiversity indicators with assessments of future human pressures, such as projected land-use change, to better inform business decisions.

---

Journal

Journal of Cleaner Production

DOI

10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.149032

Article Title

Biodiversity at risk when businesses rely on narrow indicators