The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-3574.htm

Biodiversity
Biodiversity and threatened and threatened
species reporting by the top species

Fortune Global companies

Ralph Adler, Mansi Mansi and Rakesh Pandey 787
Department of Accountancy and Finance, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

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.
Keywords Content analysis, Biodiversity disclosures, Corporate disclosures, Fortune Global 500,
IUCN Red List, Threatened species
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
A scientific analysis published by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF)[1] states that the current
species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than the natural
(non-anthropomorphic assisted) extinction rate. The main factors behind today’s loss of
species are the introduction of invasive alien species, rampant pollution, the exploitation of
Accounting, Auditing &
resources (including water, soils, and wild flora and fauna) at unsustainable levels, and the Accountability Journal
conversion of natural areas to farming and urban development[2]. The IUCN Red List now Vol. 31 No. 3, 2018
pp. 787-825
includes 79,837 assessed species. More than 80 percent of the assessed species are suffering © Emerald Publishing Limited
0951-3574
habitat loss or habitat degradation, and nearly 30 percent are under threat of extinction[3]. DOI 10.1108/AAAJ-03-2016-2490
AAAJ The IUCN Red List of threatened species published in 2015 provides estimates of the
31,3 percentage of threatened species (with lower and upper estimates) for each major animal
and plant group: cycads 63 percent (63-64 percent); chameleons 39 percent (37-42 percent);
conifers 34 percent (34-35 percent); reef-forming corals 33 percent (27-44 percent); cacti
31 percent (28-37 percent); sharks & rays 31 percent (17-62 percent); freshwater crayfishes
31 percent (25-46 percent); freshwater crabs 31 percent (16-65 percent); freshwater shrimps
788 28 percent (18-55 percent); mammals 26 percent (22-37 percent); groupers 18 percent
(12-43 percent); birds 13 percent (13-14 percent); cone snails 8 percent (6-20 percent);
pufferfishes 7 percent (6-20 percent); blennies 7 percent (6-15 percent); wrasses 4 percent
(4-18 percent); lobsters o 1 percent (0-35 percent)[4]. The IUCN Red List further reports
that amphibians continue to be one of the most threatened, with 41 percent of amphibian
species under threat of extinction. A recent study conducted by Ceballos et al. (2015)
concludes that:
The evidence is incontrovertible that recent extinction rates are unprecedented in human history
and highly unusual in Earth’s history. Our analysis emphasizes that our global society has started
to destroy species of other organisms at an accelerating rate, initiating a mass extinction episode
unparalleled for 65 million years.
Today’s rapid and accelerating rate of biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is viewed as
one of the top ten global risks (World Economic Forum, 2015). KPMG (2012) “Expect the
Unexpected” calls the current ecosystem decline one of the ten global sustainability mega
forces that will impact every business over the next two decades. In other words,
safeguarding ecosystems and promoting biodiversity is not only vital for the survival of
humankind, but it is critical to business survival as well. KPMG’s “Expect the Unexpected”
states that “more companies are realizing how dependent their operations are on the critical
services these ecosystems provide” (p. 32); and “By paying attention to biodiversity and
ecosystem health, companies can recognize the risks and opportunities, anticipate new
markets, mitigate their impacts, improve stakeholder engagement, and demonstrate
leadership” (p. 32).
PWC (2010) earlier published its own report about the negative business consequences
of biodiversity loss. Its Business Risk Report states, “This loss of biodiversity and
degradation of ecosystems has dramatic consequences for business” (p. 5). The report
includes a discussion of the “13th Annual Global CEO Survey 2010,” noting how 27
percent of the surveyed CEOs expressed concern about biodiversity loss and the
associated impact this loss would have on business growth. As such, businesses are
widely viewed as being part of today’s biodiversity problem, and they are therefore
expected to provide solutions as well[5].
Some businesses have started recognizing their responsibilities for mitigating their
environmental impacts and their need to make positive contributions to biodiversity
conservation activities[6]. They appear to understand that risks to their operations,
markets and reputation, as well as the increased likelihood of regulation, will occur if
their behavior remains unchanged (see Footnote 6). As one example, Toyota in its
sustainability report mentions its involvement in the Earth Summit, Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD), Nagoya Protocol and Aichi Targets (Toyota Sustainability
Report, 2014, p. 108). Companies such as Exxon, Glencore and Volkswagen have also
begun stating their obligations in their respective company reports and formally
accepting responsibility for how their operations affect biodiversity-rich zones and
impact the flora and fauna found on their sites of operation. For example, Glencore’s 2014
company sustainability report sates:
We own large areas of land around the world; some of our operations are in environmentally
sensitive areas. Areas identified as having high biodiversity value include a mining site belonging
 to Prodeco in Colombia, which is located near the forest reserve of Serranía de los Motilones Biodiversity
(a protected area), and Wonderfontein, a coal mining site in South Africa. Our smelting operation in and threatened
the Philippines is close to a mangrove forest. Our Australian Rolleston site is partially located in the
protected Brigalow Belt Bioregion, a semi-evergreen vine thicket, brigalow and bluegrass species
ecosystem. Our Koniambo operations in New Caledonia are located in an area of high biodiversity
value where 80% of the plant species are endemic, as well as most reptiles in the mine site area
(Glencore Sustainability Report, 2014, p. 60).
In spite of the dramatic effects businesses have had and continue to have on biodiversity loss
789
and ecosystem decline, there is a dearth of scholarly work on this topic, and none of this work
analyses the corporate disclosures related to threatened species and habitats (Van Liempd and
Busch, 2013). To date, only a limited number of studies (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017;
Boiral, 2014; Cuckston, 2013; Freeman and Groom, 2013; Van Liempd and Busch, 2013;
Rimmel and Jonall, 2013; Siddiqui, 2013; Tregidga, 2013) have exclusively analyzed the
biodiversity reporting practices of companies. While some prior studies have included the
concept of biodiversity when analyzing organizations’ environmental disclosures
(Bebbington et al., 2008; Clarkson et al., 2008; Cho, 2009; Samkin and Schneider, 2010),
these studies have not analyzed the content of biodiversity disclosures. Van Liempd and
Busch (2013 p. 835) further state:
There exist a number of studies on overall corporate environmental reporting and disclosures,
which include biodiversity, some in the accounting literature, but most in CSR, business ethics and
other business literature. However, even though these studies include biodiversity, it is but one
(general) category out of many categories of environmental reporting. In these, the focus is rarely
(if ever) on the specific contents of biodiversity disclosures.
To address this gap in the accounting literature, the present paper explores the biodiversity
and threatened species disclosure practices of the top 150 Fortune Global companies.
The choice to focus on the top 150 Global Fortune companies is quit deliberate, for these
companies make significant direct and indirect use the ecosystem. Based on the size and
scale of their effects, these companies have a responsibility to disclosure their environmental
impacts to their stakeholders as a way to close the “legitimacy gap.” Additionally, it is in
an organization’s interest to report on their fulfillment of societal expectations. As reporting
aids transparency, which has been shown to have the added advantage of reducing
agency costs, specific information about a company’s environmental practices, including its
efforts to protect flora and fauna species, should be provided to stakeholders. In other
words, the regular and detailed reporting of biodiversity information from a company to its
stakeholders should be a natural and ongoing initiative for winning stakeholders’ trust
and support.
The paper has two main objectives. The first objective explores the extent to which the
top 150 Fortune Global companies disclose information about their biodiversity and species
conservation practices, including recognition of the faunal/floral species affected by their
operations, the biodiversity losses this may cause, and the measures they are taking to
mitigate their negative biodiversity impacts. This objective will usefully shed light on which
Fortune Global companies are leaders in disclosing on biodiversity and threatened species
and which companies lag behind, as well as provide an understanding of the reporting
practices of companies operating with different biodiversity risks. The paper’s second
objective is to explore the effects of biodiversity partners and industry on companies’
biodiversity and threatened species reporting. Together these two objectives seek 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.
AAAJ The following two research questions are used to guide this study’s research:
31,3 RQ1. To what extent do the top 150 Fortune Global companies report on biodiversity
and threatened species?
RQ2. Is a company’s presence/absence of biodiversity partners and its industry
classification associated with its biodiversity and threatened disclosures reporting?
790 This paper contributes to the literature in a number of ways. First, the paper adds to the
literature on companies’ reporting of biodiversity and threatened species reporting. While
some previous 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 categories of environmental reporting. The present study’s focus is on
the specific contents of biodiversity disclosures, and therefore it is the first to systematically
analyze companies’ disclosures on biodiversity, threatened species and their habitats.
As a second contribution, the study extends Adler et al.’s (2017) biodiversity index to
include a further sub-dimension that specifically focuses on threatened species. This index
has the potential to be used in similar research settings. The high inter-coder reliability
achieved in the present study (which is at least partly a function of the instrument’s
amenability to providing clearly-defined categories that can be reliably categorized) should
serve as an encouragement for other scholars to adopt the index for their own relevant
research. The instrument also has ready applications for companies, industry groups,
non-government organizations (NGOs), governments and supranational organizations
interested in measuring and assessing reporting on biodiversity and threatened species. For
example, any of these potential users may wish to conduct a follow-up study to see if there
has been any improvement in the results reported in the present study.
As a final contribution, the paper seeks to reconcile the surprising finding that low profile
companies make more biodiversity and threatened species disclosures than companies with
medium profiles. Rimmel and Jonall (2013, p. 771), who previously reported a similar tendency,
made no attempt to offer any theoretical justification. Instead the researchers simply state,
“legitimacy theory does not necessarily correspond with the quantity of biodiversity
disclosure.” In the present paper, we suggest that low profile companies have the opportunity
to use assertive impression management techniques – which include self-enhancement, self-
promotion, ingratiation, exemplification, entitlements and enhancements – to develop
reputational characteristics (Stanton and Stanton, 2002; Ogden and Clarke, 2005). Medium
profile companies, due to their typically larger negative biodiversity impacts, have less
opportunity to adopt an assertive impression management strategy.
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next section, the literature
relating to international calls for the promotion of biodiversity and the prevention of species
extinction is discussed. This is then followed by a more specific discussion of the literature
that has focused on biodiversity accounting and reporting. The paper’s research method is
described in the fourth section, and the study’s results are presented in the fifth section.
Finally, the paper’s findings are summarized, along with a discussion of the implications
and limitations, in the final section.

2. International calls on biodiversity and the prevention of species extinction

The United Nations, IUCN, a number of national governments, and several NGOs have
sought to address the issue of biodiversity loss and species extinction. The IUCN is the
largest global conservation body committed to preserving the natural environment. It came
into existence in 1948 and has 1,300 members (both government and NGOs) and its central
mission is to conserve biodiversity. In 2003, the IUCN launched the Global Business and
Biodiversity Program, with the aim of engaging and educating business to ensure
“business practices at landscape and seascape levels are transformed to generate benefits Biodiversity
for biodiversity and natural resource-dependent livelihood” (see Footnote 6). and threatened
The United Nations has long raised the issue of biodiversity loss and the threat of species species
extinction. The UN’s 1992 CBD was a landmark call for biodiversity conservation.
The Convention states that:
The objectives of this Convention, to be pursued in accordance with its relevant provisions, are the
conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components and the fair and equitable 791
sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of genetic resources, including by appropriate
access to genetic resources and by appropriate transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account
all rights over those resources and to technologies, and by appropriate funding (Article 1, p. 3).
Article 6 of the Convention calls on nations to develop “national strategies, plans or
programmes for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity” (Article 6a,
p. 5); and “integrate, as far as possible and as appropriate, the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and
policies” (Article 6b, p. 5).
The CBD mainly discusses states’ responsibilities for the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity. Meanwhile, the private sector’s role in biodiversity conservation
has not been defined clearly. Article 10(e) of the Convention encourages cooperation
between a state’s government authorities and its private sector in developing methods for
sustainable development of biological resources.
More recently, in 2010, a conference was held in Aichi ( Japan) in which a Strategic Plan
for biodiversity (2011-2020) and Aichi Biodiversity Targets were adopted. The conference
acknowledged that despite various calls to protect and conserve biodiversity, the situation
has deteriorated drastically and immediate efforts should be put in place at the global level
to ensure biodiversity restoration. The Aichi Biodiversity Targets have five strategic goals
and 20 targets. The strategic plan for biodiversity provides an “overarching framework on
biodiversity, not only for the biodiversity-related conventions, but for the entire United
Nations system and all other partners engaged in biodiversity management and policy
development[7].” Target 4 of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets mentions businesses’
responsibilities for conservation of natural resources, stating:
By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to
achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the
impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits (CBD, 2010, p. 9)[8].
In order to build public awareness on biodiversity the United Nations declared 2010 as the
International Year of Biodiversity and the current decade (2011-2020) as the United Nations
Decade on Biodiversity. The CBD website under the “Business and Biodiversity” section
states that managing biodiversity is a significant business opportunity for businesses and
constitutes one of the more important means for mitigating business risks. The CBD is a
legally binding treaty and 196 countries are parties to it[9].
In addition to the work of the United Nations, there are six other biodiversity-related
conventions: Convention on Conservation of Migratory Species (1979), Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (1975), International
Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (2004), Ramsar Convention on
Wetlands (1971), World Heritage Convention (1972) and International Plant Protection
Convention (1952). Similar to the CBD, these conventions provide frameworks for
biodiversity conservation and advice on the sustainable use of resources.
It is worth also including mention of the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC).
The UNGC is a UN initiative to encourage companies “to align strategies and operations
with universal principles on human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption, and
take actions that advance societal goals”[10]. Although the UNGC principles do not
AAAJ specifically address biodiversity, three of its ten principles discuss businesses’
31,3 responsibilities for taking a precautionary approach to environmental challenges, to
promote greater environmental responsibility and to develop environmentally-friendly
technology (see Footnote 9).
Various countries have also taken initiatives to develop strategies for biodiversity
conservation. Canada was the first industrialized country to sign the CBD in 1992.
792 It subsequently released its “Biodiversity Strategy” in 1995, an 86 page document that
provides detailed information about the country’s biodiversity vision, species protection
goals and plans, strategic directions, ecological planning and management and its
commitment with international parties’ initiatives[11].
Australia launched a biodiversity conservation strategy in 2010, which serves as a
guiding framework to the country’s future biodiversity plan. Australia’s Biodiversity
Conservation Strategy 2010-2030 is a comprehensive, approximately 100-page document
that provides in-depth information about the country’s biodiversity status, plans and
strategies. The documents plans and strategies comprise a guiding framework for
conserving Australia’s biodiversity in the future (Natural Resource Management Ministerial
Council, 2010).
In 2011, France revised its National Biodiversity Strategy, which was originally
developed in 2004 and contained four main objectives and 10 actions plans
(National Biodiversity Strategy – France, 2011). Also in 2011, the European Union
launched its biodiversity strategy, which sets out six targets and 20 actions for protecting
biodiversity and the ecosystem[12].
Several countries in Asia have also sought to address the biodiversity and species
extinction challenges their countries face. India, in 2002, launched it Biological Diversity Act,
which empowers the central government to develop national strategies, plans and programs
for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and to integrate biodiversity concerns
into relevant sectors. China introduced its Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan in 1994 and
updated it in 2010. This plan states the country’s strategic goals and strategic tasks, and
prioritizes areas and actions for biodiversity conservation over the next two decades
(China National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan 2010, 2011-2030).
Japan, meanwhile, has made step by-step progress in formulating its National
Biodiversity Strategy. In October 1995, Japan presented its First National Biodiversity
Strategy to conserve biodiversity in line with the CBD. Japan’s Second National Biodiversity
Strategy came into effect in March 2002 and focused on the country’s three crises to
biodiversity caused by human activity and development. In 2007, the Third National
Biodiversity Strategy was passed, which was more specific than its two predecessors and
“provided an action plan which included as many targets and indicators for specific efforts
as possible so as to provide a clear path toward the implementation of the strategy”
(The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan, 2012, p. 3). In 2008, Japan adopted the Basic
Act on Biodiversity and the National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan (2012-2020). This Act
sets short-term ( for 2020) and long-term ( for 2050) goals for the conservation and
sustainable use of biodiversity.
In addition to supranational unions and states, some industry groups have also been
proactive in designing frameworks and guidelines for biodiversity conservation. For example,
the Equator Principles launched in 2003 “is a risk management framework, adopted by
financial institutions, for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk
in projects and is primarily intended to provide a minimum standard for due diligence to
support responsible risk decision-making”[13]. In 2013, a third iteration of the Equator
Principles was launched. Also in 2013, International Council of Mining and Metals (ICMM),
IPIECA (The global oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues) and
the Equator Principles Association launched a Cross-Sector Biodiversity Initiative (CSBI)
to develop good practices and tools for biodiversity conservation. The Ekstrom et al. (2015) Biodiversity
developed the Mitigation Hierarchy framework for managing risks and impacts related to and threatened
biodiversity and ecosystem services. The CSBI defines its mitigation hierarchy as: species
The sequence of actions to anticipate and avoid impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services;
and where avoidance is not possible, minimize; and, when impacts occur, rehabilitate or restore; and
where significant residual impacts remain, offset[14].
Non-government independent international organizations, such as the GRI, WWF, Flora and 793
Fauna International have also played an important role in designing reporting frameworks
and raising awareness of biodiversity conservation. The GRI is a globally accepted
framework for voluntary corporate reporting. GRI (2013) have four biodiversity indicators
(EN11-14) under the environment category. The GRI biodiversity indicators call on
companies to include information, such as location of their operations in or adjacent to
protected areas (EN11), significant impacts of companies’ operations on biodiversity in
protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value (EN12), habitats protected and restored
by companies (EN13) and total number of IUCN red list species and national conservation
listed species with habits affected by companies’ operations (EN14). The ISO 26000 (2010)
reporting framework also provides guidance (subclause 6.5.6) to businesses on protecting
the environment and biodiversity, and restoring natural habitats. The Flora and Fauna
International’s Working with Business for Conservation program was launched in 1997 to
help businesses have a long term positive impact on biodiversity conservation. Similarly,
the WWF also works with businesses to raise awareness about conservation of natural
resources and the protection of the world’s most ecologically important places.

3. Organizational biodiversity accounting and reporting

Although biodiversity reporting research has increased recently (Atkins et al., 2014), it is
still a nascent area of research. To date, only a limited number of studies (Boiral and
Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017; Boiral, 2014; Cuckston, 2013; Freeman and Groom, 2013;
Van Liempd and Busch, 2013; Rimmel and Jonall, 2013; Siddiqui, 2013; Tregidga, 2013) have
exclusively analyzed the biodiversity reporting practices of companies. While some prior
studies have included the concept of biodiversity when analyzing organizations’
environmental disclosures (Bebbington et al., 2008; Clarkson et al., 2008; Cho, 2009;
Samkin and Schneider, 2010), these studies have not analyzed the content of biodiversity
disclosures. Van Liempd and Busch (2013, p. 835) further state:
There exist a number of studies on overall corporate environmental reporting and disclosures,
which include biodiversity, some in the accounting literature, but most in CSR, business ethics and
other business literature. However, even though these studies include biodiversity, it is but one
(general) category out of many categories of environmental reporting. In these, the focus is rarely
(if ever) on the specific contents of biodiversity disclosures.
Jones and Solomon (2013) and Jones (2010) suggest that there is a need to look beyond the
traditional accounting perspective and to create a holistic accounting which combines the
ecosystem, biodiversity and environment with the main core areas of accounting. Jones
(2003) proposed an accounting system to operationalize the reporting of corporate natural
assets such as habitats, flora and fauna. According to Jones (2003) “organizations are
stewards of the natural assets. The wildlife assets represent a separate, but
distinguishable, environmental sub-system in which the individual elements are
interrelated and interdependent” (p.763). He further states that organizations have a
wide set of moral and ethical responsibilities toward the environment and society in which
they operate. They are accountable and responsible for the biodiversity of this planet as
environmental stewards.
AAAJ Deegan and Blomquist (2006) explored how the Australian minerals industry and
31,3 Minerals Council of Australia offered support for WWF Australia initiatives. They discuss
how Rio Tinto in the late 1990s assisted WWF by donating to the conservation of frogs in
Australia. They concluded that “the WWF’s initiative did not cause any form of
morphogenic change, but rather, allowed the industry to make fairly modest changes within
an existing business framework whilst winning the valuable support of WWF, and the
794 constituents they represent” (Deegan and Blomquist, 2006, p. 370).
Prior studies suggest that companies publish sustainability reports to gain, maintain and
repair legitimacy (Rimmel and Jonall, 2013; Suchman, 1995). It has also been suggested that
biodiversity information is provided as a means for reducing future costs and liabilities
arising from companies’ impact on biodiversity (Rimmel and Jonall, 2013). In a recent
content analysis based study using a sample of 148 mining companies, Boiral (2014) found
that companies are using four impression tactics which he names “four non-mutually
exclusive techniques of neutralization.” These factors include mentioning the net positive
impact (NPI) on biodiversity to reflect its seriousness, refuting any impact made on
biodiversity, and “self-proclam[ing] corporate excellence and the claim that the negative
impacts on biodiversity are non-existent or have been neutralized” (p. 9).
In 2013, a special issue on “Accounting for biodiversity” appeared in Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, which included seven papers covering topics on
biodiversity disclosure practices, integrated biodiversity accounting issues, problems in
dealing with biodiversity accounting, and biodiversity valuation and its importance for
mainstream financial accounting. Van Liempd and Busch (2013) examined biodiversity
reporting of 27 large companies listed on the Copenhagen Stock Exchange and found that
species-related disclosures inside Danish companies are almost non-existent, highly
vague and lacking in quality (Van Liempd and Busch, 2013). In another study conducted
by Rimmel and Jonall (2013) on the biodiversity reporting of 29 companies listed on the
OMXS30 (Sweden), the authors found that companies do not have clear strategies for
providing biodiversity disclosures in their annual reports because of the newness in such
reporting. They further state that biodiversity-related information disclosed by
companies is quite limited and rather general, with companies rarely revealing
in-depth information.
Rimmel and Jonall (2013) compared biodiversity disclosures of companies in three
biodiversity risk categories (red, green and amber zones) by using the F&C Report (2004).
They found that on average green-zone companies in Denmark disclosed more biodiversity
information in their annual reports compared to red- and amber-zone companies, although
the difference was not statistically significant. This finding contradicted the F&C Report’s
(2004) findings that anticipated higher reporting by red-zone companies.
Cuckston (2013), who conducted a biodiversity conservation case study in Kenya, argues
that there is a need to design and develop forms of accounting (including biodiversity
accounting) which takes into account the non-conventional features of accounting and
moves beyond the traditional themes. According to Cuckston (2013, p. 692):
Financial accounting is the language of capitalism. In order to force change in the behavior of
corporations, at the pace required by this ecological crisis, then something must be done that will
change the rules of the game of capitalism so that the scores – the net profits – of its players are
significantly affected by their interactions with nature.
Cuckston (2013) further highlights the failure of accounting to make connections between
financial decisions and their non-financial impacts, for example, he states:
People making decisions based on accounting calculations are therefore not provided with any
information about how their decisions will affect tropical forest biodiversity, or how tropical forest
biodiversity could affect the outcomes of their decisions (p. 688).
Jones and Solomon (2013) echo this call to incorporate biodiversity impact and ecosystem Biodiversity
management into financial reporting and decision making when they write: and threatened
Accounting for biodiversity can shape the way in which society perceives and understands the species
human role in species extinction. By reporting on biodiversity corporations can create a more
informed society, engender the evolution of understanding of biodiversity impact and also
transform both attitudes and behaviour in relation to biodiversity (p. 675).
795
Freeman and Groom (2013) note how biodiversity losses (such as extinction and depletion),
which arise from corporations’ activities, are most of the time irreversible. These scholars
proceed to lament how the “current financial accounting standards do not require firms to
explicitly recognise costs associated with biodiversity degradation that arise from their
activities” (p. 718).
The present study extends this prior research by conducting an in-depth analysis of the
biodiversity and threatened species disclosures made by the top 150 Fortune Global
companies. While previous studies have also analyzed sustainability reports published by
the Fortune Global companies ( Junior et al., 2014; Kim and Nam, 2012), none have examined
the fuller set of disclosures (annual report, sustainability report and website information)
provided by Fortune Global companies. Similar to prior research on biodiversity reporting
(Rimmel and Jonall, 2013), this study uses legitimacy theory (Deegan, 2002) to explain
voluntary biodiversity reporting by companies.
Legitimacy theory recognizes that organizational survival is as much a function of an
organization’s ability to uphold its social contract with society as it is about ensuring ongoing
financial success. When organizations earn society’s granting of a social contract, the
organization is said to have a license to operate (Du and Vieira, 2012). Suchman (1995, p. 574)
describes this situation as society’s willingness to accept an entity’s actions as “[…] desirable,
proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed system of norms, values, beliefs, and
definitions.” Legitimacy is likened to a “resource,” the presence of which enables
organizational survival (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; O’Donovan, 2002). As such, the theory
is connected with resource dependence theory (Dowling and Pfeffer, 1975; Pfeffer and
Salancik, 1977) and stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984).
This study argues that biodiversity and threatened species disclosures by
organizations are provided for the purpose of reassuring a community that
an organization’s operations are deserving of the community’s continued support.
Islam and Deegan (2008) argue that societal values and norms are subject to change over
time. Organizations must be vigilant to these changes and capable of adapting to
these stakeholder fluctuations. It is for these reasons that Sonpar et al. (2010) refer to an
organization’s management of legitimacy as strategic, instrumental, and active, and
why Samkin and Schneider (2010) identify the legitimizing processes of gaining
legitimacy, maintaining legitimacy, repairing legitimacy, legitimizing strategies and
impression management.
For the purposes of the present study, a holistic view of biodiversity and threatened
species is adopted. This study follows the IUCN definition of biodiversity, which is
purposely formulated to include a “[…] variety of life on Earth. Ecosystems and living
organisms, animals, plants, their habitats and their genes form the biodiversity of this
planet”[15]. In a similar way, the CBD defines biodiversity as “the combination of life forms
and their interactions with each other and with the rest of the environment that has made
Earth a uniquely habitable place for humans”[16]. Accordingly, this study adopts a similarly
holistic definition in its study of biodiversity and threatened species disclosure practices.
This approach enables a fuller understanding of the practices adopted by the top global
companies to protect flora, fauna and their associated habitats in general and endangered
species in particular.
AAAJ 4. Research method
31,3 The sample for this study consists of the top 150 companies listed on the Fortune Global 500
in 2014. Every year the Fortune Global 500 ranks the world’s largest companies in terms of
gross revenues. The top 150 firms were selected because they represent the world’s largest
businesses and are considered to be leaders in their industries. Furthermore, being the world’s
largest companies, these firms gain more attention from the general public, media, NGOs and
796 the capital markets. The reason for limiting the sample to the top 150 companies is that
biodiversity reporting is rarely undertaken by the remaining Fortune Global 500 firms.
The sample comprises companies from 23 countries, including Australia, Brazil, Britain,
China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Lexembourg, Malaysia, Mexico, the
Netherlands, Norway, Russia, South Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand and the USA. The
sample also contains a good spread of industries, from red (38.78 percent), amber (30.61
percent) and green (30.61 percent) zone sectors (F&C Report, 2004). Three companies were
dropped from the sample because reports were not available in English (PDVSA from
Venezuela and Itaú Unibanco from Brazil) and one website was not accessible due to its
being blocked for possessing malicious content (China North Industries). Accordingly, the
final sample consists of 147 of the top 150 Fortune Global firms.
A research assistant was employed to collect the biodiversity and species data of these
147 companies. The research assistant downloaded a total of 294 annual reports and
sustainability reports. Companies refer to sustainability reports by different names, such as
sustainability report, corporate responsibility report, corporate citizenship report,
environmental report, biodiversity statement and environmental policy statement. As a
result, all these reports, along with the companies’ annual reports, were searched to collect
the biodiversity-related and threatened species information. To ensure that all the
biodiversity information was captured for subsequent analysis, the authors compiled 30
keywords which encompass the wide range of biodiversity and species conservation
activities commonly undertaken. The keywords are “Ecosystem,” “Wildlife,” “Species,”
“Forest,” “Flora,” “Fauna,” “Marine,” “Wetlands,” “Threatened,” “Vulnerable,”
“Endangered,” “Extinct,” “Accident” (relating to damage or death to environment/
species), “Habitat,” “Conservation,” “Protected area/preservation/protection,”
“Rehabilitation” (land, soil, etc.), “Vegetation,” “Groundwater,” “Biodiversity corridor,”
“Biodiversity offset,” “Floral and/or faunal wealth,” and “Biological diversity.” This
keyword search confirmed that all the biodiversity disclosures were captured during the
manual content analysis previously undertaken.
Biodiversity-related information may be available anywhere in corporate communications
due to its voluntary nature (Rimmel and Jonall, 2013). We found that many companies
reported their biodiversity practices on their websites. For example, Chevron disclosed
various biodiversity information on its website, particularly how the company seeks to
minimize its impact on the ecosystem, what biodiversity initiatives it undertakes, what marine
biodiversity commitments it is involved in, and what conservation measures it has enacted to
protect vulnerable species. Meanwhile, Gazprom’s website reports that:
17 rare and declining plant and animal species were identified, among those were club moss, Siberian
aster, Alpine aster, small yellow pond-lily, common lizard, golden eagle, Tundra swan, red-breasted
goose, white-tailed eagle and others” in the area of Urengoy oil, gas and condensate field.

Gazprom also reported on its website its research funding to conserve the wild salmon
species and its habitats in Sakhalin. On many occasions, the biodiversity disclosures
appearing on the companies’ websites contained information beyond what was presented in
the companies’ annual reports and sustainability reports. As a result, a content analysis of
the sampled companies’ websites was undertaken during December 2015 and January 2016,
and these data are included as part of this study’s overall data set. The inclusion of
companies’ website disclosures is similar to the practices of other studies investigating the Biodiversity
sustainability reporting practices of Fortune Global 500 companies (see e.g. Kolk, 2010; Kim and threatened
and Nam, 2012; Jose and Lee, 2007). In sum, all biodiversity and species-related information species
contained in the annual reports, sustainability reports and on companies’ websites was used
for the purposes of the present research.
In order to capture the magnitude of biodiversity and threatened species disclosure
practices, this study utilized, and extended, a biodiversity disclosure index developed by 797
Adler et al. (2017). This 50-item biodiversity index is a comprehensive biodiversity index
that includes a wide range of biodiversity indicators which are adapted from the GRI, United
Nations Development Programs and Biodiversity and Ecosystems Global Framework.
Similar to Adler et al. (2017), this study aims to analyze voluntary disclosure beyond the GRI
disclosure requirements; for it was observed, in line with Adler et al. (2017), that some
biodiversity and threatened species issues are not included in the GRI guidelines
(e.g. a company having specific species protection/conservation goals, a company reporting
losses or damage to native floral and faunal species, a company prioritizing biodiversity in its
top management plan (vision, mission, core values, etc.), and a company creating biodiversity
awareness in the community). Also, simply exploring the GRI-based disclosures of the
companies would be a largely repetitive task of what many companies in the sample are
already doing. These large, global companies are well aware of international reporting
guidelines. In fact, the GRI guidelines have become the common framework used by these
large multinationals to report to key stakeholders on their sustainability performance. For
example, Glencore’s sustainability report contains GRI references, response and level of
reporting, and biodiversity indicators (pp. 115-133). In a similar manner, General Motors
adopts a GRI-based approach in its 2014 sustainability report (see pp. 98-106).
In this study, we extend Adler et al.’s (2017) scale by adding 12 extra items with a specific
focus on threatened species. The IUCN website, Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (Secretariat of
the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2014), Jones (1996), Samkin et al. (2014), United
Nations Development Programme (2012) and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
were the founding sources for the 12 additional index items. As a result, the final
biodiversity and threatened species disclosure index used in this study consists of 28 items
(see appendix).
Initially ten companies’ biodiversity and threatened species disclosures provided in the
companies’ annual reports, sustainability (or similar) reports and websites were
independently read by the researchers. At a meeting to discuss the content analysis
codings, some minor differences were apparent. The source of these differences was
observed to be related to differences in perception over what evidence constitutes a
disclosure. To illustrate this problem, if a company makes the following statement,
“We remain vigilant to preventing species extinction,” should this constitute a disclosure for
item 26? (see appendix.) After further discussion between the researchers, it was concluded
that a binary, “yes/no” determination was too simplistic. Instead, it was decided that each of
the 28 index items should be scored from 0 to 3. A score of “0” was awarded when the
particular index item was not mentioned at all. A score of “1” was awarded when the
disclosures relating to a particular index item were minimal, vague and/or completely
general. A score of “2” was awarded for a particular index item when disclosures contained
objective, verifiable and current data. A score of “3” was awarded when a given index item
was associated with disclosures that included all the ingredients of disclosures that were
coded as “2,” as well as providing specific information identifying the site/operating facility,
the affected species, and/or the number of affected fauna and flora; a description of specific
measures taken and/or amount of money spent; a discussion of trend information; and/or a
linking of the data presented to a company strategy, aim, performance measure, target,
incident or accident. This approach provided strong reliability and is similar to the method
AAAJ adopted by Adler et al. (2017). It is important to note that only the highest achieved score on
31,3 any given index item is recorded for each company in the sample. Therefore, repetitions,
either as the result of multiple appearances in the same source (annual report, sustainability
report or website) or across sources, were ignored.
Examples of the disclosures appearing in the study’s data set are used to illustrate the
scoring system employed. The following two examples were scored as “1:”
798 We must also protect the biodiversity cultivated in our natural environment, formed and evolved
over our long history, so that we can pass it along to the next generation (Toyota Sustainability
Report, 2014, p. 105).
Examples of community concerns that we have addressed include […] working with conservation
organizations on site and restoration projects, including reintroducing native plant life and trees
(Exxon’s Corporate Citizenship Report, 2014, p. 10).
Two examples of the disclosures that were scored as “2” are:
Toyota formulated the Biodiversity Guidelines based on Toyota’s Guiding Principles in March
2008. The Guidelines describe our fundamental approach to biodiversity-related activities and
specify three areas of activity: contribution through technology, collaboration and cooperation with
society, and information disclosure (Toyota website).
Since 2006, Shell has invested more than $100 million on Arctic science, primarily in Alaska. We’ve
developed a deep understanding of bird and mammal migration patterns, the sensitivity of aquatic
species to man-made sounds, the important patterns of biodiversity and even the colours of ships’
hulls that are least likely to disturb the whales. We also depend greatly on local knowledge: local
residents who are trained to spot species that could be impacted by our operations are on our
vessels (Shell Sustainability Report, 2014, p. 33).
An example of a disclosure that was scored as a “3” is:
By the end of 2014, we actively managed 7,200 acres of land for the benefit of wildlife at 18 of our sites
through 21 certified programs. Our newest WHC Wildlife at Work site is at our North
Houston Campus, which features 195 acres of wildlife habitat. Surveys at the campus identified
343 ecologically valuable trees, of which 213 were preserved in place. To ensure adequate plans are in
place at our sites to manage elevated biodiversity or species risks, we periodically screen the locations
of our major operating facilities against databases of the IUCN and World Protected Areas. We
confirmed an estimated 20 percent of our major operating facilities are within five kilometers of
designated environmentally protected areas (Exxon Mobil Corporate Citizenship Report, 2014, p. 26).
It is important to note that all non-pictorial data (including tables and graphs) were content
analyzed. As an example, the following table, which appeared in BP’s 2014 sustainability
report, received a score of “3” for index item 27 (Table I).
Prior to coding the remaining companies’ data, a further ten companies annual reports,
sustainability reports (or their equivalent) and websites were content analyzed by the
research assistant and one of the authors. Complete agreement was observed across all ten

Adjacent Near (between Close (between

Type of protected area Inside the boundary (within 1 km) 1 km and 5 km) 5 km and 20 km)

World Heritage Site 2 0 0 0

Ramsar site 1 2 3 3
Table I.
Major operations IUCN categories l-IV 4 3 8 16
within and around IUCN categories V-VI 3 2 5 10
a protected IUCN not reported (unassigned) 1 2 1 2
area in 2014a (Source: BP Sustainability Report, 2014, p. 45)
companies on all 28 index items. In other words, the inter-coder reliability for this second set Biodiversity
of ten companies was 100 percent. As a result, it was deemed appropriate for the research and threatened
assistant to singly code the remaining companies in the sample. Table II reports the species
reliability achieved for the combined first and second sets of ten companies analyzed.
Relatively speaking, the interrater reliabilities achieved are quite high and suggest the
collected data can be relied upon (Milne and Adler, 1999).
799
5. Findings and discussion
Biodiversity disclosures were observed to be scattered across companies’ sustainability
reports, annual reports and websites. Out of the 147 Fortune Global companies studied,
28 companies (19 percent) scored zero (did not report) on biodiversity and
threatened species. Furthermore, 58 companies (39.4 percent) scored between 0 and 10,
22 companies (15 percent) scored between 11 and 20, 11 companies (7.5 percent)
scored between 21 and 30, 13 companies (8.8 percent) scored between 31 and 40,
eight companies (5.4 percent) scored between 41 and 50, five companies scored between
51 and 60 (3.4 percent) and two companies (1.4 percent) scored above 60. Remembering
that the index’s range is 0-84, more than 90 percent of the companies scored below
the index’s midpoint.
The study’s findings and their discussion are presented in the succeeding three
subsections. The next two subsections address the first research question. While both of
these subsections follow an interpretive approach, the first subsection examines disclosure

Index Percent N N N N
item agreement Scott’s π Cohen’s κ Krippendorff’s α agreements disagreements cases decisions

1 95 0.926 0.926 0.928 19 1 20 40

2 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
3 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
4 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
5 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
6 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
7 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
8 95 0.922 0.922 0.924 19 1 20 40
9 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
10 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
11 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
12 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
13 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
14 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
15 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
16 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
17 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
18 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
19 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
20 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
21 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
22 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
23 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
24 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40
25 95 0.925 0.925 0.927 19 1 20 40
26 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40 Table II.
27 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40 Inter-coder reliability
28 100 1 1 1 20 0 20 40 for 28 index items
AAAJ practices across the entire sample of 147 companies. The second subsection provides a
31,3 detailed and more extended discussion of the sample’s top five reporters and reports on an
interview that was conducted a senior sustainability manager working at one of the top five
reporters. The third subsection addresses the second research question. A linear regression
model is used to test for associations between a company’s biodiversity and threatened
species reporting and such factors as company size, industry, country-specific
800 environmental well-being and the presence of biodiversity partners.

Content analysis of 147 companies’ disclosure reporting

Companies made the most numerous disclosures about their involvement in afforestation
activities (mean 1.15) and biodiversity assessments (mean 1.01). The two least reported
items pertained to biodiversity/species/habitat loss due to company operations (mean 0.13)
and biodiversity offsetting (mean 0.27).
As Table III shows, some index items were rarely reported by the Fortune Global
companies. For example, 135 companies (91.8 percent of the sample) did not make any
disclosures on biodiversity/species/habitat loss due to their operations, and 129 companies
(88 percent of the sample) did not disclose information about their operations with activities
in the IUCN categories I-IV protected areas. Similarly, more than 80 percent of companies in
the sample did not disclose information related to index item 2 (protection/conservation of
ecological corridors near their operations), item 4 (biodiversity offsets), item 5 (biodiversity
action plans/goals), item 9 ( floral wealth in/around operating areas), item 16 (biodiversity

Scores
Index items 0 1 2 3 Total Mean SD

1 64 26 28 29 147 1.15 1.184

2 125 8 4 10 147 0.31 0.826
3 75 16 36 20 147 1.01 1.144
4 127 4 12 4 147 0.27 0.727
5 122 4 15 6 147 0.35 0.826
6 79 21 30 17 147 0.90 1.096
7 85 14 26 22 147 0.90 1.163
8 111 11 17 8 147 0.47 0.901
9 122 13 4 8 147 0.31 0.773
10 110 19 10 8 147 0.43 0.844
11 104 7 21 15 147 0.64 1.066
12 98 14 27 8 147 0.63 0.967
13 107 11 18 10 147 0.54 0.960
14 113 4 19 11 147 0.51 0.982
15 90 20 23 14 147 0.73 1.042
16 125 9 9 4 147 0.27 0.696
17 119 7 11 10 147 0.40 0.896
18 117 14 14 2 147 0.33 0.704
19 119 9 13 6 147 0.36 0.810
20 98 20 11 18 147 0.65 1.058
21 92 22 23 10 147 0.67 0.975
22 115 15 11 6 147 0.37 0.796
23 113 10 17 7 147 0.44 0.877
24 114 12 16 5 147 0.40 0.816
25 128 3 8 8 147 0.29 0.804
Table III. 26 135 7 3 2 147 0.13 0.486
Index items and 27 129 4 6 8 147 0.27 0.781
descriptive statistics 28 116 13 13 5 147 0.37 0.786
award or any recognition from communities around), item 17 (biodiversity policy/strategy) Biodiversity
and item 25 (IUCN-listed species). and threatened
Petrobras is the only company in this study that provides disclosures on 25 out of the species
index’s 28 items. Furthermore, Petrobras provided detailed information on most of the
reported index items, such that it received a score of “3” on 16 index items and a score of “2”
on seven index items. Petrobras provides all its biodiversity information in its sustainability
report and on its website. The company includes three videos (with durations of 5:43, 4:54 801
and 4:42 minutes)[17] showing its involvement in preserving the environment. Moreover,
Petrobras is the only company that provides BioMaps, an interactive map of Brazil’s
biodiversity where Petrobras has a presence. In describing its motivation, the company
stated, “We want to share the experience of living together with and preserving species of
the Brazilian Flora and Fauna” (BIOMAPAS Petrobas).
Petrobas proceeds to reveal in its sustainability report that:
Due the improvement in the control access, we increased from 17, in 2013, to 35 the number of units
that reported the occurrence, attested by primary data, of threatened species in their influence
areas. In total, we recorded 160 species included in the Red List of Threatened Species, for
International Union for Conservation of Nature. These, 103 are classified as “vulnerable”, 46 as
“endangered” and 11 as “critically endangered” (Petrobras Sustainability Report, 2014, p. 63).
In further showing its commitments to biodiversity conservation and restoration, the
company reports:
We highlight the renewal of the agreement with the Life Institute, which has been improving its
certificate methodology. This is the first international certification for evaluation of the
effectiveness of an organization’s management regarding the results of actions focused on
conservation and recovery of the biodiversity (Petrobras Sustainability Report, 2014, p. 61).
Filling out the top five reporters (based on this study’s index score) are Gazprom (63), BHP
Billiton (58), Volkswagen (55) and Glencore (53) (see Table IV ). Three of these companies are
red-zone risk sector companies. Their high level of reporting is consistent with our expectations
and with the literature (Adler et al., 2017; Patten, 2002; Cho et al., 2010). Volkswagen is the only
green-zone risk sector company among the top five, displaying a greater biodiversity and
threatened species score than most of the sample’s red-zone risk sector companies (e.g. Total,
BP, etc.). Rimmel and Jonall (2013) also found that some green-zone risk sector companies (e.g.
ABB and Nokia) disclosed more biodiversity information than red-zone risk sector companies.
It is worth noting that these top five companies are from five different countries: Brazil, Russia,
Australia, Germany and Switzerland.
We found that some companies in the sample were aware of the current biodiversity
crisis and businesses’ responsibilities for mitigating and managing this crisis. For example
GDF Suez reported:
In terms of biodiversity, according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),
half of the species alive today could disappear in the next century. By 2050, ecosystem degradation
could account for cumulative losses of up to 7% in global GDP, according to The Economics of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study group. Well aware of these challenges, GDF SUEZ has
implemented action plans to better protect water resources and biodiversity, calling on external
partners (IUCN, FNE) and conducting life cycle and water footprint analyses, which follow
internally developed methodologies (GDF Corporate Responsibility Report, p. 24).
Meanwhile, Toyota reported:
Biodiversity delivers many benefits in the way of blessings from nature. However, some sources
say approximately 40,000 species are becoming extinct annually, possibly due to overexploitation
of rare species and destruction of ecosystems, including forests, posing a major threat to global
biodiversity (Toyota website).
 31,3

802
AAAJ

Table IV.

index score
Biodiversity and
threatened species
S.N. Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Total score

1 Walmart 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 10
2 Sinopec Group 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 6
3 Royal Dutch Shell 0 1 3 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 0 2 2 32
4 China National Petroleum 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 11
5 Exxon Mobil 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 3 2 3 3 0 0 1 1 0 3 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 37
6 BP 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 3 2 0 0 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 3 50
7 State Grid 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4
8 Volkswagen 2 3 3 0 3 1 3 1 0 0 3 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 1 3 0 3 3 55
9 Toyota 3 3 0 0 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 0 2 3 2 0 2 1 2 1 1 3 52
10 Glencore 2 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 0 48
11 Total 0 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 3 2 3 0 3 2 3 2 3 0 1 1 3 0 0 2 53
12 Chevron 3 3 3 2 0 3 2 0 0 0 3 1 3 0 3 0 0 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 36
13 Samsung 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
14 Berkshire Hathaway 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 Apple 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
16 McKesson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 Daimler 3 3 2 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 29
18 Industrial & Commer. Bank of China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 EXOR Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 AXA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 GM 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 20
22 E.On 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 13
23 Phillips 66 2 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
24 General Electric 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 7
25 ENI 0 2 3 0 3 1 3 0 1 1 0 1 3 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 1 2 1 0 34
26 Gazprom 2 3 3 2 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 0 3 2 0 2 0 3 63
27 Ford 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
28 Petrobras 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 2 0 0 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 66
29 China Construction Bank 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
30 CVS Health 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
31 Hon Hai Precision Industry 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
32 Allianz 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 13
33 AT&T 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

(continued )
S.N. Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Total score

34 Valero Energy 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 22
35 UnitedHealth Group 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
36 Agricultural Bank of China 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
37 China State Construction Engineering 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
38 Japan Post Holdings 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
39 Trafigura Beheer 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
40 Verizon 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
41 BNP Paribas 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
42 Lukoil 3 0 2 3 2 2 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 36
43 Honda Motor 3 0 2 2 0 2 3 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 3 2 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 31
44 Bank of China 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 AmerisourceBergen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
46 Pemex 3 3 2 3 0 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 0 0 0 2 2 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 3 0 54
47 Assicurazioni Generali 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
48 Societe Generale 3 0 2 2 0 2 3 0 0 0 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
49 Fannie Mae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 Rosneft Oil 0 0 2 2 0 3 2 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 3 0 2 2 31
51 Costco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
52 HP 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
53 Kroger 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4
54 China Mobile Communications 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
55 BMW 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
56 SK Holdings 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
57 Credit Agricole 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
58 Nissan Motor 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
59 SAIC Motor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
60 JP Morgan Chase 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
61 Tesco 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 6
62 Siemens 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
63 Carrefour 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 13
64 Nippon Tel. & Tel. 3 0 3 0 0 3 2 2 0 2 3 3 0 2 2 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 40
65 Express Scripts Holding 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
66 Banco Santander 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

(continued )
and threatened
Biodiversity

803
species

Table IV.
 31,3

804
AAAJ

Table IV.
S.N. Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Total score

67 Petronas 3 0 2 0 0 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 0 3 2 0 2 0 0 3 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 39
68 Enel 2 0 2 2 0 3 3 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 1 32
69 Nestlé 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 10
70 China Railway Engineering 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
71 China National Offshore Oil 3 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 27
72 GDF Suez 2 0 2 0 2 3 3 0 1 0 2 2 3 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 31
73 Prudential plc 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
74 Statoil 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 12
75 BASF 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 16
76 Noble Group 1 1 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
77 Électricité de France 2 0 3 0 2 3 2 2 0 2 0 2 1 0 3 3 3 3 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 1 2 44
78 China Railway Construction 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
79 Bank of America Corp. 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 16
80 HSBC Holdings 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 18
81 IBM 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
82 Marathon Petroleum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
83 Cardinal Health 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
84 Boeing 3 0 2 0 2 2 3 3 3 3 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 3 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 42
85 Citigroup 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10
86 China Development Bank 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5
87 Amazon.com 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
88 Hitachi 3 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 1 1 3 3 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 29
89 Wells Fargo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4
90 ING Group 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 7
91 JX Holdings 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 2 1 1 3 1 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24
92 PTT 3 0 3 1 2 3 3 0 0 1 3 2 2 0 3 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 41
93 China Life Insurance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
94 Microsoft 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
95 Ping An Insurance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
96 Metro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
97 Legal & General Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
98 Hyundai Motor 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4
99 Procter & Gamble 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9

(continued )
S.N. Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Total score

100 Home Depot 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 11

101 Deutsche Telekom 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
102 Munich Re 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
103 Archer Daniels Midland 3 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 18
104 Sinochem 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12
105 Airbus Group 3 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 0 0 3 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 24
106 China FAW Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
107 ArcelorMittal 1 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 15
108 Dongfeng Motor Group 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
109 SoftBank Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
110 Deutsche Post 3 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12
111 China Southern Power Grid 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7
112 Walgreens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
113 China Resources National 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2
114 Sony 3 0 3 0 3 2 3 2 0 1 3 2 0 0 3 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 42
115 Target 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
116 Johnson & Johnson 2 1 2 0 2 3 2 0 0 2 2 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 0 0 3 46
117 Indian Oil 3 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 28
118 Anthem 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
119 MetLife 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
120 Zurich Insurance Group 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
121 Aviva 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
122 Alphabet 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
123 Marubeni 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8
124 Banco do Brasil 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
125 State Farm Insurance Cos 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
126 Peugeot 3 0 3 0 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 2 0 0 3 2 39
127 Groupe Auchan 3 0 3 0 0 2 2 0 3 3 0 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 29
128 Pertamina 2 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
129 Panasonic 3 2 3 0 2 3 3 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 3 0 3 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 2 48
130 Mitsubishi Corp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 0 3 3 0 2 2 0 0 0 2 26
131 Freddie Mac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
132 Groupe BPCE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(continued )
and threatened
Biodiversity

805
species

Table IV.
 31,3

806
AAAJ

Table IV.
S.N. Company 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Total score

133 Comcast 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
134 Vodafone Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
135 US Postal Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
136 Nippon Life Insurance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
137 BHP Billiton 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 0 2 3 2 0 3 2 1 0 0 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 0 3 2 58
138 Telefonica 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
139 PepsiCo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
140 Dai-ichi Life Insurance 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
141 China Post Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
142 Lloyds Banking Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
143 Tewoo Group 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
144 AEON 3 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 1 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 27
145 Finatis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
146 United Technologies 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
147 Bosch 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
We observed that companies are typically not reporting on their biodiversity assessment Biodiversity
activities. Only three companies (GM, Eni and Societe Generale) have referred to and threatened
biodiversity assessment tools. For example, General Motors reported: species
We are the first automaker to use IBAT, an integrated biodiversity assessment tool that tracks
features such as threatened species, sites important for biodiversity, and wildlife hotspots near any
facility around the world (General Motors website).
Eni, in discussing its assessment of its biodiversity-related activities, stated:
807
Eni has mapped its sites using the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) developed by
the Proteus Partnership, promoted by UNEPWCMC of which Eni is a member. This mapping
activity has assessed the proximity to protected areas and endangered species and has identified
the priority sites where Eni has undertaken to define Action Plans to protect biodiversity
(Eni website).
Statoil is an example of a company that referred to its use of assessment tools without
providing any specific details. It reported:
Statoil continues to be an active participant in a joint Biodiversity Working Group of IPIECA and
the Oil and Gas Producers Association (OGP). This cooperation has resulted in the development of
specific tools and recommendations for industry best practice (Statoil website).
In a similar manner to Statoil, Exxon reported, “We continually look for new tools and
analytical methods to improve our understanding of local biodiversity conditions and
ecosystem services in our areas of operation” (Exxon Mobil website).
A substantial number of companies, 68 companies out of 147, disclosed information
about their environment/biodiversity partners and the importance they place on working
with partners. For example, Shell reported:
Shell has four main environmental partnerships with Earthwatch, the International Union for
Conservation of Nature (IUCN), The Nature Conservancy (TNC) and Wetlands International.
Working with our partners leads to improvements in our projects and operations and can help to
advance science and conservation knowledge (Shell Sustainability Report, p. 22).
The most frequently cited biodiversity partners were the IUCN and WWF. Other notable
partnerships were with Landcare, Earthwatch, the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Proteus, Chico Mendes Biodiversity Conservation Institute, National Forestry
Bureau, NatureVest, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, Yayasan Sabah, World Animal
Protection and CEMEX. Some companies have further reported their partnerships with
universities. For example, Exxon reports its association with the University of Canberra and
the University of Papua New Guinea for conservation of the pig-nosed turtle, locally known
as the Piku. Meanwhile, BP reported:
In Australia, we are working on a multi-year study of the biodiversity, marine environment
and socio-economic importance of the Great Australian Bight with the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization, the South Australian Research and Development Institute,
Flinders University and the University of Adelaide. Results from the programme will help
us to better understand potential impacts from activities and will inform development
(BP website).
In total, 31 companies made a point to discuss international conventions and guidelines to
protect biodiversity (index item 28). For example, BP, Johnson & Johnson and Peugeot
mentioned the Ramsar Convention. Toyota and Enel referenced the CBD. Eni reported that
it applies the principles of the CBD and the guidelines of the Energy and Biodiversity
Initiatives. Gazprom referred to the CITES Convention, while Nippon Tel. and Tel. cited the
MARPOL convention ( for prevention of marine pollution from ships) and the Ballast Water
AAAJ Management Convention. Only three companies Toyota, Honda Motors and BMW (all
31,3 automobile manufacturers) disclosed their biodiversity guidelines.
Focusing on the index items more specifically related to companies’ impacts on species
and the programs the companies operate, it was observed that a general lack of reporting
was occurring. For example, on index item 19, which measures reporting on native species,
only 28 companies out of 147 (19 percent), made any attempt to report.
808 Enel reported:
In 2014 the safeguarding of species and natural habitats involved 89 projects, with total coverage
of over 55,000 hectares. The projects include studies, stocktaking and monitoring plans for
sensitive species, programs to reintroduce native species, reforestation, infrastructure work such
as the insulation and replacement of electric cables which are dangerous for birds as well as
the installation on electric cables of supports for the nesting of birds of prey and migratory
species, the construction of ramps for the transit of fish near hydroelectric plant. Interventions
are planned by assigning priorities as regards ecosystems to protected areas and as regards
species to those in the “Red List” of the International Union for Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources (IUCN), but local situations which may have particular importance
for local communities are treated equally with the utmost attention (Enel Sustainability
Report, 2014, p. 127).
Index item 20 explores reporting on habitats affected/conserved/protected. The majority of
companies (67 percent) did not disclose information on habitats affected by their operations
and initiatives taken by them to protect and conserve these habitats. Only 17 companies
provided in-depth disclosures under this category. For example, Gazprom reported:
Charity support was given to a number of conservation areas being under federal protection;
Kedrovaya Pad Nature Reserve is one of the oldest in the country. It has been under special
protection since 1916, and was created with a view to protect the undisturbed forests of Primorye –
a habitat of more than 50 rare species of flora and fauna, including the Ussuri leopard;
Anyuisky National Park – a habitat of 43 animal species listed in the Red Book of the Russian
Federation, 25 species – in the Big Red Book, and 44 species being under protection of the CITES
Convention. More than two-thirds of the land is a natural habitat for the Siberian tiger;
Kirzinsky State Reserve which is short of funds – a habitat of 250 species of birds, 50 species of
mammals, 7 species of amphibians, 3 species of reptiles as well as 11 species of fish. Wetland
conditions are extremely favorable for water birds and marshy fowls during the mating season,
molting and rest between migrations (GAZPROM website).
Many companies provided only a general discussion of their impact on habitats, whereby no
specific details were given. For example, Shell reported:
Our projects can affect local natural habitats and the communities that depend on them. When we
operate in critical habitats – those that are rich in biodiversity and important to the conservation of
endangered species – we apply stringent mitigation standards (Shell website).
A similar dearth of reporting was observed on index items 21-24. Only a small percentage of
companies reported on ecosystems, wetlands and marine biodiversity affected by their
operations and the steps they have taken to mitigate/restore their companies’ impacts. For
example, Eni reported:
During the year the integrated program for the management of biodiversity in the Ural
Delta (Ural River Park Project - URPP) was completed. The program was launched by Eni under
the sponsorship of the Environment and Water Resources Kazakh Authority and aimed
to protect the environment and ecosystems in the Caspian area. In June 2014 the project
received an official UNESCO designation to be included in the Man and Biosphere Program
(Eni S.p.A. website).
Shell is the only company having a partnership with Wetlands International, an Biodiversity
organization dedicated to the conservation and restoration of wetlands. Shell reported: and threatened
Wetlands International has been a partner since 2008. We have worked together on several joint species
projects across the world, from the critical habitats in the Arctic to the peatswamp forests in Brunei.
In Iraq, Wetlands International worked with us to develop a biodiversity and sustainable livelihoods
action plan to work on the sensitive marshlands near our Majnoon project. Restoration of these
marshlands will help the environment and the communities (Shell Sustainability Report, 2014, p. 22). 809
Index item 25 measures companies reporting on the IUCN-listed species. It is surprising to
note that only 19 companies (13 percent) have reported on the IUCN-listed species. This
finding is especially surprising in light of the fact that these companies are supposed leaders
and role models for their respective industries. Of the few companies that did provide a high
quality of reporting on the IUCN-listed species, Rosneft was one of the standouts. It reported:
The areas affected by the Company’s operations are home to 139 IUCN Red List and National
Conservation List species:
• Critically endangered (IUCN): two species;
• Endangered (IUCN): two species;
• Vulnerable (IUCN): nine species;
• Near threatened (IUCN): 29 species;
• Least concern (IUCN): 14 species;
• Threat of extinction (Russia): nine species;
• Rare species (Russia): 37 species;
• Decreasing numbers (Russia): 20 species;
• Data deficient (IUCN and Russia): 17 species (Rosneft Sustainability Report, 2014, p. 129).
For the vast majority of companies, however, only very general statements, which lacked
detail, were provided. As one example, Enel reported, “Continued protection of the species
on the Red List of the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources
(IUCN) in protected areas near power plants” (Enel Sustainability Report, 2014, p. 29). Shell
reported about its environmental partnership with the IUCN, however, it did not provide
details on the IUCN-listed species in the areas affected by its operations.
Only 17 companies reported on their commitments to biodiversity/environment
conservation and environmental sustainability. These companies were Shell, BNP Paribas,
Honda Motors, Carreflour, Nippon Tel. & Tel., Enel, Nestle, Noble Group, Boeng, PTT,
Microsoft, Archer Daniels Midland, Johnson & Johnson, Aviva, Peugeot, Groupe Auchan,
Pansonic and BHP. For example, Shell reported:
We made the following four commitments in 2003 that still apply today:
• we will not explore for, or develop, oil and gas resources in natural World Heritage Sites;
• we will further improve the way we operate in International Union for Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) Category I-IV protected areas, and areas of high biodiversity value;
• we will publicly report on our activities in IUCN Categories I-IV; and
• we will work with IUCN and others to help safeguard protected areas (Shell website).
In a further attempt to understand the amount and type of description being provided about
threatened species by the companies in this sample, information was collected on numbers
AAAJ and names of species being disclosed in the companies’ reports and websites. Table V shows
31,3 that out of 147 companies, 43 companies mentioned at least one species. The total number of
species ( floral and faunal) disclosed by the sample of 147 was 236. Indian Oil disclosed the
most number of species. It reported on 25 floral species and 10 faunal species. Two
companies (Gazprom and Enel) disclosed 23 species each. As an example, Gazprom
reported:
810 Gazprom Dobycha Urengoy implemented the program for identification of rare and specially
protected species of plants and animals inhabiting the area of the Urengoy oil, gas and condensate
field. Following the results of the field survey data processing, 17 rare and declining plant and
animal species were identified, among those were club moss, Siberian aster, Alpine aster, small
yellow pond-lily, common lizard, golden eagle, Tundra swan, red-breasted goose, white-tailed eagle
and others (Gazprom website).
Overall, these findings reveal that the extent of reporting on biodiversity and threatened
species by the top 150 Fortune Global companies is quite limited, finding that is consistent
with Van Liempd and Busch (2013). Few companies (less than 15) are providing any
substantial reporting. It was further observed that even among these higher scorers there is
a lack consistent reporting across all index items. Additionally, and in line with the literature
(see e.g. Boiral, 2014), the vast majority of the companies appeared to be indulging in
impression management, whereby their reporting was vague and lacked specification about
their biodiversity and species management practices.
The results show that the least amount of reporting is occurring on biodiversity loss
(index item 26, with a sample total score of 19 and only 12 companies reporting),
biodiversity offset (index item 4, with a sample total score of 41 and only 20 companies
reporting) and companies’ involvement in the protection/conservation of ecological
corridors/hotspots (index item 2, with a sample total score of 46 and only 22 companies
reporting). The majority of the companies instead preferred to disclose their involvement in
afforestation activities (index item 1, with a sample total score of 168 and 83 companies
reporting), biodiversity assessments (index item 3, with a sample total score of 148 and 72
companies reporting), biodiversity projects (index item 7, with a sample total score of 132
and 72 companies reporting) and biodiversity partners (index item 6, with a sample total
score of 138 and 68 companies reporting).

The top five reporters’ biodiversity and threatened species reporting

In this section, we conduct a further, in-depth analysis of our sample’s top five disclosers:
Petrobras, Gazprom, BHP Billiton, Volkswagen and Pemex. One of the more strikingly
positive points to note is that all five companies include a separate section on biodiversity in
their sustainability reports. This approach creates a hope for the future, for it suggests that
these five companies have accepted the responsibility for accounting for their biodiversity
impacts. Hopefully other firms will follow this lead.
It is also positive to see that all five companies disclose information about the types of
species being protected, biological areas under conservation, the nature of their
biodiversity partnerships, and the biodiversity programs being pursued. While all five
companies are undertaking these activities, their commitment is greater on some activities
than on others. For example, Petrobras puts greater emphasis on its association and
participation with research and development institutions. It provides a list of NGOs and
the collaboration initiatives undertaken to preserve biodiversity and species. The
company specifically names the protected areas and the support provided for species
protection. Meanwhile, Gazprom focuses on land, biodiversity and soil rehabilitation
processes. It provides information about the techniques it has adopted for helping to
conserve biodiversity. Gazprom’s biodiversity and threatened species disclosures also
S.N. Company Species mentioned in the report No. of species
Biodiversity
and threatened
1 Sinopec Group Egrets 1 species
2 Volkswagen Peregrine falcons, storks, kingfishers, bee eaters, sand martins, 8
wildcats, apis mellifica (endangered bee), wolf
3 Toyota Grey-faced buzzard (vulnerable), coral reefs and mangroves, 10
Mandarin Duck (Aix galericulata), Ural Owl (Strix uralensis),
Oriental Dollarbird (Eurystomus orientalis) and Eurasian 811
Treecreeper (Certhia familiaris)), Wasps (Vespula) Shell, Pig nose
turtle, manatee (the most endangered aquatic mammal in Brazil)
4 Total Elephant, rothschild’s giraffes, shoebill 3
5 Chevron Javan Leopards, monkey 2
6 Samsung n carp, minnow,whitenaped cranes and hooded cranes 4
7 Daimler Endangered mangroves, peregrine falcons 2
8 GM Bat, duck, butterfly 3
9 Gazprom Ussuri leopard, Siberian tiger, Manchurian walnut, Japanese quince, 23
oak, acacia, ash tree, elm tree, maple, white-tailed sea eagle,
Dalmatian pelican, bumblebees, wild salmon, western grey whales,
club moss, Siberian aster, Alpine aster, small yellow pond-lily,
common lizard, golden eagle, Tundra swan, red-breasted goose,
white-tailed eagle
10 Ford White-tailed deer, red fox, wild turkeys and coyote 4
11 Petrobras Sotalia guianensis, humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), 10
black-browed albatross (Thalassharche melanophris), West Indian
manatee (Trichechus manatus), black-browed albatross, baby sea
turtles, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, green sea turtle,
green turtle (Chelonia Mydas)
12 AT&T Proteas 1
13 Verizon Sour grass, wild mulberries, white and red oaks, nine different birds, 8
snail eggs, leeches, crayfish and 16 different insects including a
number of different bees
14 Lukoil Sturgeons, Carps, whitefish 3
15 Societe Generale Acacia culiformis 1
16 Rosneft Oil Evenki Wild reindeer, Amur Tiger (world's rarest fauna species) 10
company's operation affect 139 IUCN Red List and national
conservation list species such as gray whale, sperm-whale, reindeer,
gray heron, golden eagle, otter, fresh-water turtle, sturgeon, etc.
17 HP Sun bear, wild boar, the agile mangabey, the greater grison 4
18 BMW butterfly species, Polyommatus bellargus, Colias hyale/alfacariensis, 9
the grasshopper Oedipoda caerulescens (all of these are Germany's
red list species), red helleborine orchid. Puddles and pools brim with
natterjack, yellow-bellied toads and newts
19 Carrefour Bee, fish 2
20 Nippon Tel. & Tel. Squirrels, crows, wood mice, rosy bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus), oak, 6
cherry
21 Petronas Turtles, Various species of dolphins such as the Indo- Pacific 5
Bottlenose, Long-Snouted Spinner, Pantropical Spotted and Dwarf
Spinner
22 Enel Pelecanus erythrorhynchos, Bats, Falco cherrug, Canis lupus 23
signatus, Mollusks, Poseidonia sea grass, Gallinula melanops, Oxyura
jamaicensis, Cistothorus apolinari, Neochen jubata, Caatinga, Alosa
sapidissima, Chersophilus duponti, Aquila adalberti, Crustaceans,
Alona flossneri, Galaziella murae, Phallocryptustserensodnomi
(Mongolia), Alona anastasia, Linderiella baetica, Leidigia iberica,
Leidigia korovchinskyi, Spanish wolf
Table V.
Name of species
(continued ) reported by company
AAAJ S.N. Company Species mentioned in the report No. of species
31,3
23 China Railway Tibetan antelopes 1
Engineering
24 China National spotted seal, sea turtles, whale, babylonia areolata, Sousa Chinensis, 6
Offshore Oil Chinese White Dolphin
25 GDF Suez pale St John’s wort and wood cudweed 2
812 26 Statoil Woodland caribou, marcellus 2
27 Noble Group Mule deer, bighorns 2
28 Boeing Tufted hairgrass, bulrush, willows, big leaf maple, Salmon 5
29 PTT Chestnut-flanked White-eye 1
30 Hyundai Motor Suaeda 1
31 Procter & Gamble Sugarcane, corn, bulrush and switchgrass 4
32 Home Depot Redwood, lauan wood, cedar, 3
33 Sinochem Whales and dolphins 2
34 ArcelorMittal Cephetola wingae butterfly 1
35 Sony konara oak and the Japanese clethra 2
36 Johnson & Honeybee, Miho stream, Miho Jonggae 3
Johnson
37 Indian Oil Neem, Ashoka, Jamun, Mango, Amrood, Bottle Palm, Shisham, 35
Pipal, Bogan Bail, Chandni, Safeda, Anaar, Gulmohar, Poplar, Cassia
Shamia, Kachnar, Brahmi, Rain Tree, Lime, Rudraksh, Coconut,
Coffee, Dhatura, Silver Oak, Grape Jasmine and many more. Great
Crested Grebe and the Red Crested Pochard, Barn Owl, Black
Headed Gull, Black Kite, Booted Eagle, Egyptian Vulture, Great Tit,
India Tree Pie, Jack Snipe
38 Peugeot Bee 1
39 Groupe Auchan Shark and tuna, Mediterranean bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), 8
black scabbardfish, blue ling and grenadier, teak and balau
40 Panasonic Deadwood, sawgrass, Medaka fish (oryzias latipes) and 14
hemigrammocypris rasborella, spot-billed ducks,
hemigrammocypris rasborella (a fresh water fish belonging to the
carp family) and monochoria korsakowii (a marsh plant), falcons,
grey herons and green-backed herons, raccoon dogs and foxes, goby
fish, green backed heron,
41 BHP Billiton Alerce trees, Tasmanian devil, Tasmanian wedge-tailed eagle, 7
spotted-tailed quoll, Clarence galaxias, Miena cider gum and
grassland paper daisy
42 United rabbits 1
Technologies
Table V. Total species disclosed 243

highlight the amount of funding it is providing. The company does not, however,
mention how these donations are being spent to minimize biodiversity impacts. Such a
lack of detailed information may cause stakeholders to feel that the donations are being
provided to enhance a company’s reputation rather than serve as a serious attempt to
conserve biodiversity.
Table VI reveals that significant room for improving the five companies’ biodiversity
and threatened species scores exists. This finding is demonstrated by the fact that the
company scores range from 54 to 66, when 84 is the top possible score (i.e. 28 items times a
maximum score of “3” on each). Meanwhile, Table VII shows that there are a number of
index items for which reporting is not provided. These include reporting on biodiversity
action plans or biodiversity goals/targets (index item 5), biodiversity policy/strategy
(index item 17), wetlands affected/conserved/protected/restored (index item 22),
IUCN-listed species or country specific extinct/threatened/vulnerable/endangered
species (index item 25), and biodiversity/species loss due to its operations (index item 26). Biodiversity
Accordingly, while these five companies may be leaders in disclosing information on and threatened
biodiversity and species extinction, their unwillingness to comment on the areas they are species
failing in and how they have learned from these past mistakes reinforces the idea that
these companies’ environmental impacts are underrepresented and not adequately
accounted for. Furthermore, it is both interesting and disturbing that Volkswagen and
BHP are quite willing to share their biodiversity action plans and biodiversity goals/ 813
targets, but are unwilling to report on their biodiversity/species loss due to its operations.
Such a situation lends credence to work that suggests organizations’ voluntary reporting
on their impacts on the environment is superficial, self-congratulatory and ultimately a
form of greenwash.
Our findings show that all five companies have reported on rare/threatened/vulnerable/
protected and endemic species. However, the focus and quality of the disclosures are
inconsistent. For example, Pemex focused on the promotion of biodiversity conservation
services and has named more than ten projects. The highlight of Pemex is specifying the
area (in hectares) conserved or protected for ecological wealth. Petrobras is one step ahead
and spares around 400 words in describing the species affected. It states that 210
(rare/vulnerable/endangered/ critically endangered) species are found in its areas of
operation and the company is taking necessary steps to conserve the flora and fauna.
BHP Billiton’s reporting puts greater attention on naming the conservation projects and the
rehabilitation work for biodiversity protection. Pemex’s attention is on wetlands protection,
reforestation and ecosystems protection. Volkswagen’s main focus is on the pursuit of
campaigns and initiatives to conserve biodiversity. For example, Volkswagen states:
The “Think Blue. Nature.” project, in which Volkswagen’s initial investment will be €260,000.
As well as sponsoring for the CESMO (Corridor Ecologico Sierra Madre Oriental, 4 million hectares)
biodiversity corridor, which provides a habitat for around 650 endangered species, this project also
comprises the “Eco Chavos” initiative, which was launched in April 2014 and is a joint project
between Volks wagen de México, the Mexican government and Deutsche Gesellschaft
Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Volkswagen SR, 2014, p. 106).

Company Total 3s Total 2s Total 1s Total 0s Total score

Petrobras 16 7 2 3 66 Table VI.

Gazprom 15 9 0 4 63 Summary and
BHP 13 9 1 5 58 breakdown of the top
Volkswagen 14 3 7 4 55 five companies’
Pemex 14 6 0 8 54 disclosure score

Index items with low (score of 1) or no (score of 0) reporting

Fails to report on: Petrobras Gazprom BHP Billiton Volkswagen Pemex

Item 5: biodiversity action plans or biodiversity

goals/targets 1 0 0
Item 17: biodiversity policy/strategy 0 1 0
Item 22: wetlands affected/conserved/protected/
restored 0 0 Table VII.
Item 25: IUCN-listed species or country specific Biodiversity and
extinct/threatened/vulnerable/endangered species 0 0 threatened species
Item 26: Biodiversity/species loss due to its index items with low
operations 0 0 0 or no reporting
AAAJ The five companies showed a general awareness of global attempts to protect and preserve
31,3 biodiversity. For example, Gazprom and Volkswagen report that they are aware of the
United Nations’ Decade on Biodiversity, as shown in the following disclosures:
The “Natural Classroom” at the Environment Center in Breiten- güßbach, has been named an
official project of the UN Decade on Biodiversity and is funded by the AUDI Environment
Foundation (Volkswagen SR, 2014, p. 107).
814 The United Nation declared the year 2010 the International Year of Biodiversity. Gazprom Group
made its contribution in the activities dedicated to that event. Gazprom Transgaz Tomsk
announced the year 2010 as the Year of Environmental Protection and conducted a series of
environmental events in the regions of operation (Gazprom website[18]).
These disclosures reflect that the five companies understand there is increasing public
awareness of the importance of biodiversity. These companies also appear to understand
that stakeholders want companies to participate in biodiversity protection
and conservation activities. Such stakeholder pressure, and its apparent acceptance by
the five companies, suggests that companies beyond these five can engage successfully
with stakeholders. In fact, it is risky not to, for this jeopardizes a company’s social license
to operate.
The disclosures of the top five reporters reveal that they are pursuing a wide range of
biodiversity partnerships. All five companies are associated with some international
or regulatory bodies. Petrobras is working with the Brazilian Business Council for
Sustainable Development and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development,
Volkswagen is partnering with the German Nature and Biodiversity Conservation
Union (NABU), and PEMEX is working with the National Commission for Protected
Natural Areas (CONANP). These international bodies and regulators can also
put pressure on companies to formulate strategies to minimize the latter’s
biodiversity impacts. In search of being a good corporate citizen, non-green industries
are disclosing information to justify their responsibilities and seek the public’s trust
(Deegan, 2002).
While these various findings point to an increased awareness among these five
companies about the importance of and need for biodiversity reporting, it remains evident
that the development of an appropriate biodiversity impact measurement system still lags
behind. At present, the lack of an agreed measurement system means companies have
significant discretion in how they report their biodiversity impacts, especially impacts that
have irreversible effects on biodiversity and species. It might be hoped that companies
would in the first instance focus on preventing the biodiversity and threatened species loss
rather than focusing on rehabilitation (Norton, 2009). At a minimum, companies should
signal their commitment to ensuring biodiversity impacts are minimized by developing a
comprehensive, prioritized listing of their biodiversity initiatives. These listings will provide
stakeholders with a clear understanding of any given company’s perceived urgency for
addressing its impacts on biodiversity, allowing a dialogue/negotiation to ensue between the
company and its stakeholders.
As a way to explore further what motivates these top reporters to disclose information
about their biodiversity and species extinction impacts, we conducted an interview with a
senior sustainability manager working at one of the top five companies. The interview was
conducted on the phone and ethics approval for conducting this interview was granted by
the Human Ethics Committee by the researchers’ university. The interview lasted about
40 minutes and was attended by all the researchers. The manager had worked at this same
Global Fortune 150 company for more than 15 years, and before this with another high-
profile global company. We asked questions about the biodiversity and species extinction
disclosures made by the manager’s company.
 Wanting to explore the issue of companies reporting what they want to report instead of Biodiversity
detailing the full extent of their biodiversity and species extinction impacts, we asked the and threatened
sustainability manager about the use of NPI disclosures. He/she responded: species
Specifically, we’ve steered away from using terms net loss and net positive impact at a company-
wide level; we talk about enduring benefits and we do that purely for the reason that you have just
spoken to. It’s really challenging to think about a way that you can amalgamate that at a company-
wide level when you are operating in multiple jurisdictions and multiple environment ecosystems
with very different ways […] In itself it’s quite challenging. What constitutes positive versus net
815
losses? Could be potentially quite arbitrary. At this point in time we have steered away from that
language.
This explanation raises a number of questions. Although some companies in our sample
disclose their operations that are located near environmentally sensitive areas or biodiversity
hotspots and even describe the conservation practices they are using, these companies are
often unable to estimate and account for their net local or global impact on biodiversity.
Instead these companies prefer to report the locations where a positive action on biodiversity
conservation is undertaken, and they tend not to report the areas where irreversible damage is
occurring to the environment. For example, BHP discloses that it operates in more than
70 different locations and Petrobras discloses that it operates in more than 20 different
locations. The limiting of disclosures to the identification of operating sites means
stakeholders are denied the chance to learn what a company is doing to protect its operating
sites’ biodiversity and threatened species. In fact, when reporting about their site impacts,
most companies provide only theoretical information. Rarely do companies attempt to provide
biodiversity performance indicators and their biodiversity targets for the future. As
mentioned previously, the lack of biodiversity assessment tools may be part of the problem.
We also asked the sustainability manager about his/her companies’ approach regarding
biodiversity offsetting. Our question was informed by Freeman and Groom’s (2013)
observation that biodiversity losses (such as extinction and depletion) arising from
corporations’ activities are most of the time irreversible and further guided by Norton’s
(2009) contention that companies should primarily focus on protecting biodiversity through
the avoidance of negative impacts rather than relying on offsetting or environmental
compensation to remediate their impacts. The interviewee replied:
We use the term compensatory actions and that again is acknowledging the concept of biodiversity
offsets; in its strictest sense it’s quite limiting and it’s based on an assumption that you are looking
for an offset typically as part of a greenfield project development. What we find is, because we have
got a spectrum of operations with a spectrum of age, our residual impacts are not as simple as the
greenfield biodiversity offset concept. You don’t often have affected baselines because they weren’t
required 30 years ago; you don’t often have the luxury of identifying like for like offsets in
particular regions simply because there might not be any about; because you are in a mining
province or simply there just isn’t that much available in terms of biodiversity. It’s a really
important question that you have asked, so that for all those reasons we have specifically chosen a
broader term of compensatory actions because the reality is in some of our contexts we can’t
necessarily identify offsets in that strict context.
These comments show just how difficult it can be for companies to measure and report on
their biodiversity impacts. While the particular company interviewed does not report using
biodiversity offsetting, we note that many other companies in our sample did. Recognizing
the fact that activities that are central to a company’s business are often harmful to
biodiversity and threatened species, it is not surprising to see so many companies resorting
to biodiversity offsetting. Similar to Jones and Solomon (2013), however, we too believe it is
necessary for companies to develop a new system for biodiversity accounting which sees
the environment and organizations as mutually dependent and interconnected. Companies
should focus on proactive efforts to become more sustainable.
AAAJ When asked about the company’s use of biodiversity targets and its willingness to
31,3 disclosure negative information when these targets are not met, the manager responded:
Yes, so basically our targets are specifically for five year targets. But if the target expires, so what
we said is we are looking for the previous targets, what worked, what hasn’t worked, and what do
we really want to drive in this next phase. Where we got to, we wanted to drive in the next phase
was embedding biodiversity management deeply within our operations; so that was the reason for
816 the focus around the biodiversity management plans and the incorporation of the mitigation
hierarchy […] It’s really about transparency and integrity; we’re trying to generate the document
that will be of use to us. If you were just to tell the good story all the time, it will very quickly
become an irrelevant document, which defeats the effort that we put into it. In the interest of having
something useful and meaningful, we seek to have a balanced disclosure.
Legitimacy theory proposes that companies have to meet specific requirements set by the
members of the communities in which the companies operate (Du and Vieira, 2012). This
idea is certainly being captured when the interviewee speaks about the setting of targets,
especially when referring to an evaluation of what did and did not work. The senior
manager also suggests that it is better for an organization to be frank about its negative
impacts, rather than having these discovered later by the media. While the interviewee’s
rationale for why this disclosure about negative impacts is needed, Bebbington et al. (2008)
note a paucity of such practice.
As a final question, we asked about the company’s approach to the conservation of
species. The senior manager replied:
I guess endemic national species, wherever you are, usually have high conservation status and as a
result, we need to be very cognitive of implementation and the mitigation hierarchy within the
systems of the organization. If you can’t avoid, so forth. I mean our conservation programs and our
conservation public targets are in partnership with Conservation International. It focused on areas
of global significance […] we reported a 5-year conservation area in Tasmania, which certainly
contains globally significant Australian species and our conservation services in Chile, which is a
globally recognised Chilean reserve. In summary, yes to your question and it captures three of our
standard operating practices plus three of our philanthropic efforts.
The manager’s response reveals his/her awareness of the sensitiveness of having operations
near globally or locally recognized biodiversity reserves, and the reporting that should
accompany these operations. Again, the company’s disclosures on biodiversity and species
protection are apparently being undertaken to win stakeholders’ trust. In particular, its
disclosure of its partnership with Conservation International shows the company’s interest
in leveraging this relationship to help secure its license to operate.

Organizational factors associated with biodiversity and threatened species reporting

R2 tests for associations between a company’s biodiversity and threatened species reporting
and factors such as company size, industry, country-specific environmental well-being and
the presence of biodiversity partners. These relationships were examined using the
following regression model:
BTS ¼ X 1 þ X 2 LgAssets þ X 3 EWB þ X 4 Partners þ X 5 Redzone þ X 6 Green zone þe
where BTS is the biodiversity and threatened species score, LgAssets the log of company
assets, EWB the environmental well-being, Partners the presence of biodiversity partner(s),
Red-zone the F&C asset management red-zone companies,Green-zone the F&C asset
management green-zone companies.
As previously noted, the biodiversity and threatened species score comprises integer
values ranging from 0 to 84. Company assets were log-transformed and included as a
control variable. Environmental well-being is a country-unique measure of a given
country’s sustainability. Environmental well-being scores are taken from the Biodiversity
Sustainable Society Foundation’s website. The Sustainable Society Foundation was and threatened
established in 2006 by Geurt van de Kerk and Arthur Manuel to develop the Sustainable species
Society Index[19]. It too is included as a control variable. The variable biodiversity
partners is a dummy variable and has the value of 1 when a company has one or
more biodiversity partners. And finally, the red-zone and green-zone variables derive
from the F&C Asset Management’s categorization of industries into the three groupings 817
of red (highest impact), amber (medium impact) and green (low impact). Red and green
are used in the regression equation as dummy variables. In other words, the implied
industry coefficient for amber companies is 0 for both red-zone and green-zone
dummy variables.
As shown in Table VIII, company size, as measured using assets, is significant. Such a
finding is unsurprising (see e.g. Gallo and Christensen, 2011) and was strictly included for
control purposes. Environmental well-being did not have a significant association with a
company’s biodiversity score. In other words, the location of a company’s headquarters is
not related to its biodiversity score.
Significant results were observed for both the presence of biodiversity partners and
industry. Companies with at least one biodiversity partner made on average 21 more
disclosures than firms without biodiversity partners. This finding is consistent with the
empirical findings of Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria (2017). These researchers find that
stakeholder engagement contributes to the development of new biodiversity standards and
is associated with a company’s greater likelihood to undertake biodiversity impact
assessments of their activities. This observed increase in biodiversity and threatened
species reporting is also consistent with legitimacy theory, whereby stakeholder partnering
serves to expand the number of events a company can report on and simultaneously
triggers accountability requirements.
The F&C Asset Management’s industry categories of red-zone, amber-zone and green-
zone were also significantly related to company disclosures. Red-zone companies made
11 more disclosures on average than amber-zone companies. Meanwhile, green-zone
companies made nearly eight more disclosures on average than amber companies. The
finding that red companies provide more biodiversity and threatened species disclosures
than amber-zone companies is consistent with the F&C Report (2004) report and is
supported by legitimacy theory’s expectations that high profile companies (which for the
current study are red-zone sector companies) will have the greatest need to report and, by
necessity, will be the most likely to report.
The fact that green-zone companies disclosed more than amber-zone companies, while
similar to the findings of Rimmel and Jonall (2013), would appear to be inconsistent with
legitimacy theory. Rimmel and Jonall (2013) have stated, “legitimacy theory does not
necessarily correspond with the quantity of biodiversity disclosure.” We believe such a
conclusion is premature and fails to account for the various ways an organization can seek
to legitimize its activities.

Independent Variable Coefficient SE t-statistic Significance

Company size 1.950 0.998 1.955 0.052

Environmental well-being score −0.060 0.050 −1.197 0.233
Presence of biodiversity partners 21.167 1.931 10.959 0.000
Red-zone companies 11.186 3.029 3.693 0.000
Green-zone companies 7.682 2.995 2.565 0.011 Table VIII.
Adjusted R2 0.521 Regression analysis of
Number of observations 147 biodiversity scores
AAAJ The present study’s finding that firms with high profiles, which were defined as firms
31,3 with actual (or the potential for) significant biodiversity impacts, disclosed more than
amber firms is certainly consistent with legitimacy theory. In fact, Suchman (1995)
would argue that these high profile, red-zone firms are in high need of employing a
legitimacy-repairing or defensive impression management strategy. This strategy, argues
Suchman (1995), requires substantial effort and disclosure making on the part of the
818 reporting entity.
The finding that green-zone firms disclosed more than amber-zone firms may seem to
contradict the “expected” legitimacy theory relationship between firm profile and disclosure.
However, legitimizing behaviors include not just legitimacy-repairing strategies, but also
assertive impression management techniques (Stanton and Stanton, 2002; Ogden and
Clarke, 2005). In particular, firms will seek to include self-enhancement, self-promotion,
ingratiation, exemplification, entitlements and enhancements as a way to promote their
reputations and maintain their contract with society. The firms that are most likely to avail
themselves of this technique are firms with relatively lower biodiversity impacts. Unlike
amber and red-zone firms, green-zone firms have greater opportunity to draw upon and
engage in self-promotion, for their activities are by definition less harmful than red and
amber-zone firms and, therefore, more amenable to self-promotion.
In conclusion, the strategies for managing an organization’s legitimacy would suggest
that it is far from surprising that the red- and green-zone firms should disclose more than
amber-zone firms. The former do so as a result of their need to adopt a strategy of
legitimacy-repairing or defensive impression management. Meanwhile, the latter do so
because they are employing a strategy of assertive impression management. Amber-zone
companies have less need/opportunity to adopt either strategy and, therefore, they disclose
the least.

6. Conclusion
The reporting on biodiversity and threatened species by the top 150 Fortune Global
companies is quite limited, with very few companies providing any substantial reporting.
Over 90 percent of the companies scored below the midpoint of the theoretical range of the
index used to measure companies’ reporting. In general, the companies appeared mostly
interested in reporting about their involvement in afforestation activities and biodiversity
assessment of their activities. They were much more reticent to report on biodiversity/
species/habitat loss due to their operations and the effects their operations are having on
IUCN categories I-IV protected areas. Even among the highest reporters, there was a lack of
consistent reporting across the entire set of index items. As such, the present study’s results
are consistent with the literature (see e.g. Boiral, 2014) and support the idea that for most
companies their reporting is an exercise of indulging in impression management
(Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017; Deegan and Rankin, 1996).
It was further observed that companies’ disclosures on biodiversity and threatened
species are positively correlated with the presence of biodiversity partnerships. This finding
is consistent with Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria (2017), who found that stakeholder
engagement contributes to the development of new biodiversity standards and is associated
with a company’s greater likelihood to undertake biodiversity impact assessments of their
activities. Supporting these ideas, and as just noted in the previous paragraph, companies’
descriptions of their biodiversity assessment of their activities appeared as one of the
two most popular reporting themes.
The present study also found that companies operating in high profile, red-zone
industries were more likely to make disclosures on biodiversity and threatened species than
companies operating in relatively lower profile, amber-zone industries. These findings are
consistent with legitimacy theory and F&C Asset Management (2004) assertions.
Inconsistent with F&C Asset Management (2004) assertions is the finding that Biodiversity
green-zone firms report more than amber-zone firms. While Rimmel and Jonall (2013) and threatened
noted a similar finding, we eschew their conclusion that legitimacy theory does not support species
this possibility. We suggest that amber-zone firms may report less than either red-zone or
green-zone firms because amber-zone firms do not need to engage in the same amount of
legitimacy-repairing or defensive impression management as red-zone firms, while
amber-zone firms have less opportunity to engage in self-promotion assertive management 819
techniques due to the greater negative biodiversity impacts amber-zone firms cause relative
to green-zone firms. This idea that amber-zone firms have fewer legitimizing strategies at
their disposal than either red-zone or green-zone firms could form a testable research
proposition for motivating future research.
The present study comes with the usual set of caveats. The sample represents only a
small proportion of a larger population to which it could reasonably apply. Furthermore, the
data, while exhibiting high levels of reliability, are simply representative of a point in time.
It is additionally the case that the exact time period associated with the companies’ website
data are not certain. In particular, while the data were collected during the two months of
December 2015 and January 2016, it is not known when these data were uploaded. Of course,
this limitation is common to all studies that rely on website disclosures (see e.g. Kolk, 2010;
Kim and Nam, 2012; Jose and Lee, 2007). As a further ameliorating factor, it is also the case
that the website data were only one of three sources of data, with the companies’ annual
reports and sustainability reports being the other two.
Extinction accounting is an embryonic area of research. Its emergence matches the wider
realization that biodiversity in general and the prevention of species extinction more
particularly is vital to not just people’s whimsical acknowledgment of nature, but is at the
heart of the survivability of the planet and everything it sustains. While businesses are
supposedly understood to now recognize this fact (see Footnote 6), it is apparent that they
need further prodding to demonstrate this realization and match it by a commitment to
positive company environmental actions. In fact, based on the rapidly declining state of the
planet’s biodiversity and the unprecedented rates of species extinction being experienced,
the mandate for today’s organizations to be held accountable for their environmental
impacts has never been greater.

Notes
1. This information is available at http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/
(accessed December 31, 2016).
2. This information is available at www.iucn.org/what/biodiversity/ (accessed December 23, 2015).
3. This information is available at www.iucnredlist.org/news/2015-iucn-species-highlights (accessed
January 23, 2016).
4. This information is available at www.iucnredlist.org/about/summary-statistics (accessed January
22, 2016).
5. This information is available at www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/business/bbp_aboutus/
(accessed February 10, 2016).
6. This information is available at www.iucn.org/about/work/programmes/business/bbp_aboutus/
strategy/ (accessed January 10, 2016).
7. This information is available at www.cbd.int/sp/ (accessed December 25, 2015).
8. This information is available at www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/targets/compilation-quick-guide-
en.pdf (accessed January 15, 2016).
9. This information is available at http://bch.cbd.int/protocol/parties/ (accessed January 15, 2016).
AAAJ 10. This information is available at www.unglobalcompact.org/what-is-gc (accessed November 27, 2015).
31,3 11. This information is available at www.biodivcanada.ca/560ED58E-0A7A-43D8-8754-C7DD12
761EFA/CBS_e.pdf (accessed December 15, 2015).
12. This information is available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/policy/
index_en.htm (accessed October 27, 2015).
13. This information is available at www.equator-principles.com/index.php/about-ep/about-ep
820 (accessed December 4, 2015).
14. This information is available at www.icmm.com/document/9460 (accessed November 29, 2015).
15. This information is available at http://iucn.org/iyb/about/ (accessed February 24, 2016).
16. This information is available at www.cbd.int/2010/biodiversity/ (accessed January 15, 2016).
17. Information available on these videos have not been used in this research.
18. www.gazprom.com/nature/ecosystems/
19. www.ssfindex.com/about-ssf/

References
Adler, R., Mansi, M., Pandey, R. and Stringer, C. (2017), “United Nations decade on biodiversity: a study
of the reporting practices of the Australian mining industry”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1711-1745, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-0
4-2015-2028
Atkins, J., Gräbsch, C. and Jones, M.J. (2014), “Biodiversity reporting: exploring its anthropocentric
nature chapter”, in Jones (Ed.), Accounting for Biodiversity, Routledge, London and New York, NY,
pp. 213-215.
Bebbington, J., Larrinaga, C. and Moneva, J.M. (2008), “Corporate social reporting and reputation
risk management”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 337-361.
Boiral, O. (2014), “Accounting for the unaccountable: Biodiversity Reporting and impression
management”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 135 No. 4, pp. 751-768, available at: http://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-014-2497-9
Boiral, O. and Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2017), “Managing biodiversity through stakeholder involvement:
why, who, and for what initiatives?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 140 No. 3, pp. 403-421,
available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2668-3
BP Sustainability Report (2014), available at: www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/pdf/sustainability/group-
reports/Sustainability_Report_2014.pdf (accessed June 16, 2016).
CBD (2010), “Value of biodiversity and ecosystem services”, available at: www.cbd.int/2010/
biodiversity (accessed January 10, 2016).
Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., Barnosky, A.D., Garcia, A., Pringle, R.M. and Palmer, T.M. (2015),
“Accelerated modern human-induced species loss: entering the sixth mass extinction”, Science
Advances, available at: http://advances.sciencemag.org/lens/advances/1/5/e1400253 (accessed
December 10, 2015).
China National Biodiversity Conservation Strategy and Action Plan 2011-2030 (2010), available at:
www.cbd.int/doc/world/cn/cn-nbsap-v2-en.pdf (accessed January 15, 2016).
Cho, C., Roberts, R. and Patten, D. (2010), “The language of US corporate environmental disclosure”,
Accounting, Organizations & Society, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 431-443.
Cho, C.H. (2009), “Legitimation strategies used in response to environmental disaster: a French case
study of total SA’s Erika and AZF Incidents”, European Accounting Review, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 33-62.
Clarkson, P.M., Li, Y., Richardson, G.D. and Vasvari, F.P. (2008), “Revisiting the relation between Biodiversity
environmental performance and environmental disclosure: an empirical analysis”, Accounting, and threatened
Organizations and Society, Vol. 33 Nos 4-5, pp. 303-327, available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aos.2007.05.003 species
Cuckston, T. (2013), “Bringing tropical forest biodiversity conservation into financial accounting
calculation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 688-714.
Deegan, C. (2002), “Introduction: the legitimising effect of social and environmental disclosures – a
theoretical foundation”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 282-311.
821
Deegan, C. and Blomquist, C. (2006), “Stakeholder influence on corporate reporting: an exploration of
the interaction between WWF-Australia and the Australian minerals industry”, Accounting,
Organizations and Society, Vol. 31 Nos 4-5, pp. 343-372.
Deegan, C. and Rankin, M. (1996), “Do Australian companies report environmental news objectively ?
An analysis of environmental protection authority”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 50-67.
Dowling, J. and Pfeffer, J. (1975), “Organizational legitimacy: social values and organizational
behavior”, Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 122-136.
Du, S. and Vieira, E.T. (2012), “Striving for legitimacy through corporate social responsibility: insights
from oil companies”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 110 No. 4, pp. 413-427.
Ekstrom, J., Bennun, L. and Mitchell, R. (2015), “A cross-sector guide for implementing the Mitigation
Hierarchy”, Cross-Sector Biodiversity Initiative, available at: www.csbi.org.uk/our-work/
mitigation-hierarchy-guide/ (accessed June 16, 2016).
Enel Sustainability Report (2014), available at: www.enel.com/content/dam/enel-com/governance_pdf/
reports/annual-financial-report/2014/enel_sustainability_report_2014.pdf (accessed on April 8, 2016).
Exxon Corporate Citizenship Report (2014), available at: http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/
files/corporate-citizenship-report/2014_ccr_full_digital_approved.pdf (accessed June 28, 2016).
Exxon Mobil Corporate Citizenship Report (2014), available at: http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/
media/global/files/corporate-citizenship-report/2014_ccr_full_digital_approved.pdf (accessed
June 28, 2016).
F&C Asset Management (2004), “Is biodiversity a material risk for companies? An assessment of the
exposure of FTSE sectors to biodiversity risk”, available at: www.globalnature.org/bausteine.
net/f/6645/FC20Biodiversity20Report20FINAL.pdf?fd=2 (accessed January 15, 2016).
F&C Report (2004), available at: www.businessandbiodiversity.org/pdf/fc%20biodiversity%20report
%20final.pdf (accessed March 6, 2016).
Freeman, M.C. and Groom, B. (2013), “Biodiversity valuation and the discount rate problem”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 715-745.
Freeman, R.E. (1984), Strategic Management: AStakeholder Approach, Pitman/Ballinger, Boston, MA.
Gallo, P.J. and Christensen, L.J. (2011), “Firm size matters: an empirical investigation of organizational
size and ownership on sustainability-related behaviors”, Business & Society, Vol. 50 No. 2,
pp. 315-349.
Glencore Sustainability Report (2014), available at: www.glencore.com/assets/sustainability/doc/sd_
reports/2014-Sustainability-Report-global-material-issues.pdf (accessed June 15, 2016).
GRI (2013), “G4 sustainability reporting guidelines”, available at: www.globalreporting.org/standards/
g4/Pages/default.aspx (accessed January 8, 2016).
Islam, M.A. and Deegan, C. (2008), “Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report
social responsibility information: evidence from Bangladesh”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 850-874, available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/09513570810893272
ISO 26000 (2010), “Discovering ISO 26000”, available at: www.iso.org/iso/discovering_iso_26000.pdf
(accessed February 25, 2016).
Jones, M.J. (1996), “Accounting for biodiversity: a pilot study”, British Accounting Review, Vol. 28 No. 4,
pp. 281-303.
AAAJ Jones, M.J. (2003), “Accounting for biodiversity: operationalising environmental accounting”,
31,3 Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 16 No. 5, pp. 762-789.
Jones, M.J. (2010), “Accounting for the environment: towards a theoretical perspective for
environmental accounting and reporting”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 123-138.
Jones, M.J. and Solomon, J. (2013), “Problematising accounting for biodiversity”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 668-687.
822 Jose, A. and Lee, S.-M. (2007), “Environmental Reporting of global corporations: a content analysis
based on website disclosures”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 307-321.
Junior, R.M., Best, P.J. and Cotter, J. (2014), “Sustainability Reporting and assurance: a historical
analysis on a world-wide phenomenon”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Kim, D. and Nam, Y. (2012), “Corporate relations with environmental organizations represented by
hyperlinks on the fortune global 500 companies’ websites”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 105
No. 4, pp. 475-487.
Kolk, A. (2010), “Trajectories of sustainability reporting by MNCs”, Journal of World Business, Vol. 45
No. 4, pp. 367-374.
KPMG (2012), “Expect the unexpected”, available at: www.kpmg.com/Global/en/IssuesAndInsights/
ArticlesPublications/Documents/building-business-value.pdf (accessed February 10, 2016).
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Milne, M. and Adler, R. (1999), “Exploring the reliability of social and environmental disclosures
content analysis”, Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 237-256.
National Biodiversity Strategy, France (2011), “Republique Francaise: National Biodiversity Strategy
2011-2020”, available at: www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/1_bis_-_French_
National_Biodiversity_Strategy_-_May_2011.pdf (accessed January 25, 2015).
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council (2010), Australia’s Biodiversity Conservation
Strategy 2010-2030, Australian Government, Department of Sustainability, Environment,
Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.
Norton, D.A. (2009), “Biodiversity offsets: two New Zealand case studies and an assessment
framework”, Environmental Management, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 698-706, available at: https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00267-008-9192-5
O’Donovan, G. (2002), “Environmental disclosures in the annual report: extending the applicability and
predictive power of legitimacy theory”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 344-371.
Ogden, S. and Clarke, J. (2005), “Customer disclosures, impression management and the construction of
legitimacy: corporate reports in the UK privatised water industry”, Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 313-345.
Patten, D.M. (2002), “The relation between environmental performance and environmental disclosure:
a research note”, Accounting, Organizations and Society, Vol. 27 No. 8, pp. 763-773.
Petrobras Sustainability report (2014), Available at: file:///C:/Users/manma86p/Downloads/
Petrobras_Sustainability_Report_2014%20(3).pdf (accessed June 28, 2016).
Pfeffer, J. and Salancik, G. (1977), “Organizational context and the characteristics and tenure of hospital
administrators”, Academy of Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 74-88.
PWC (2010), “Biodiversity and business risk: a global risks network briefing”, available at: www.pwc.
co.uk/assets/pdf/wef-biodiversity-and-business-risk.pdf (accessed January 26, 2015).
Rimmel, G. and Jonall, K. (2013), “Biodiversity reporting in Sweden: corporate disclosure and preparers’
views”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 746-778, available at:
https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2013-1228
Rosneft Sustainability Report (2014), available at: www.rosneft.com/upload/site2/document_file/
TnUlZT2ih4.pdf (accessed June 6, 2016).
Samkin, G. and Schneider, A. (2010), “Accountability, narrative reporting and legitimation. The case of Biodiversity
a New Zealand public benefit entity”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 23 and threatened
No. 2, pp. 256-289.
species
Samkin, G., Schneider, A. and Tappin, D. (2014), “Developing a reporting and evaluation framework for
biodiversity”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 527-562.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2014), “Global biodiversity outlook 4”, available
at: www.cbd.int/gbo/gbo4/publication/gbo4-en-hr.pdf (accessed April 4, 2016). 823
Shell Sustainability Report (2014), available at: http://reports.shell.com/sustainability-report/2014/
servicepages/welcome.html (accessed April 28, 2016).
Siddiqui, J. (2013), “Mainstreaming biodiversity accounting: potential implications for a developing
economy”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 779-805.
Sonpar, K., Pazzaglia, F. and Kornijenko, J. (2010), “The paradox and constraints of legitimacy”, Journal
of Business Ethics, Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Stanton, P. and Stanton, J (2002), “Corporate annual reports: research perspectives used”, Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 478-500, available at: https://doi.org/10.110
8/09513570210440568
Suchman, M.C. (1995), “Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches”, Academy of
Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 571-610.
The National Biodiversity Strategy of Japan 2012-2020 (2012), “Roadmap towards the establishment of
an enriching society in Harmony with Nature”, available at: www.env.go.jp/press/files/en/528.
pdf (accessed December 14, 2015).
Toyota Sustainability Report (2014), available at: www.toyota-global.com/sustainability/report/sr/pdf/
sustainability_report14_fe.pdf (accessed June 15, 2016).
Tregidga, H. (2013), “Biodiversity offsetting: problematisation of an emerging governance regime”,
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 806-832.
United Nations Development Programme (2012), “The future we want: biodiversity and ecosystems –
driving sustainable development”, United Nations Development Programme Biodiversity and
Ecosystems Global Framework 2012-2020. New York, NY.
Van Liempd, D. and Busch, J. (2013), “Biodiversity reporting in Denmark”, Accounting, Auditing &
Accountability Journal, Vol. 26 No. 5, pp. 833-872.
Volkswagen SR (2014), available at: http://sustainabilityreport2014.volkswagenag.com/sites/default/
files/pdf/en/Volkswagen_SustainabilityReport_2014.pdf (accessed June 6, 2016).
World Economic Forum (2015), “Global risk perception survey”, available at http://reports.weforum.
org/global-risks-2015/executive-summary/ (accessed January 23, 2016).

Further reading
Biological Diversity Act (2002), “The ministry of environment, forest and climate change-government
of India”, available at: www.ektaparishad.com/Portals/0/Biological%20Diversity%20Act.pdf
(accessed January 20, 2015).
Campbell, D.J. (2000), “Legitimacy theory or managerial reality construction? Corporate social
disclosure in Marks and Spencer Plc corporate reports, 1969-1997”, Accounting Forum, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 80-100.
CBD (1992), “Convention on biological diversity”, available at: www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf
(accessed March 15, 2015).
Freeman, E. (1994), “The politics of stakeholder theory: some future directions”, Business Ethics
Quarterly, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 409-421.
Parker, L.D. (2005), “Social and environmental accountability research: a view from the commentary
box”, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 842-860.
AAAJ Pittroff, E. (2014), “Whistle-blowing systems and legitimacy theory: a study of the motivation to
31,3 implement whistle-blowing systems in German organizations”, Journal of Business Ethics,
Vol. 124 No. 3, pp. 399-412, available at: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1880-2
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2010), “Global Biodiversity Outlook 3”,
Montréal, 94pp.

824 Appendix. Biodiversity and threatened species index

(1) Company reports its involvement in afforestation activities (such as seedling transplantation,
forest plantation, sustainable forestry practices or other reforestation activities).
(2) Company reports its involvement in protection/conservation of “Ecological corridors” in and
around the manufacturing plants, mines, transport infrastructure and/or other locations.
(3) Company reports “biodiversity assessment” of its activities in and around the manufacturing
plants, mines, transport infrastructure and/or other locations.
(4) Company reports implementation of “biodiversity offset” for reducing their biodiversity
impacts.
(5) Company reports biodiversity action plans or biodiversity goals/targets for coming years.
(6) Company reports biodiversity partners (both local and international organizations) helping
company in biodiversity conservation.
(7) Company reports biodiversity projects undertaken to enhance the biodiversity in and around
the manufacturing plants, mines, transport infrastructure and/or other locations.
(8) Company is involved in land management/land rehabilitation activities.
(9) Company reports floral wealth in or around its operating area (production/functional/
transportation).
(10) Company discloses the faunal wealth in or around its operating area (production/functional/
transportation).
(11) Company provided donation (or conducted philanthropic activities) which contributed to the
conservation, protection, enhancement, promotion, preservation of biodiversity.
(12) Company reports its steps taken for creating biodiversity awareness among its employees or
in the community.
(13) Company participates in biodiversity associations (external agencies, NGOs) to improve
biodiversity practices in the community.
(14) Company reports the amount spent (R&D, technologies, innovations) for biodiversity con-
servation/restoration.
(15) Company’s environment policy (or statement) values (or concerns) biodiversity.
(16) Company reports biodiversity award or recognition received for biodiversity conservation/
restoration.
(17) Company reports its biodiversity policy/strategy.
(18) Company reports biodiversity in top-level management plan.
(19) Company reports the native/indigenous/endemic species affected/conserved/protected/
restored.
(20) Company reports habitats affected/conserved/protected/restored.
(21) Company reports ecosystems affected/conserved/protected/restored.
(22) Company reports wetlands affected/conserved/protected/restored.
 (23) Company reports marine biodiversity affected/conserved/protected/restored. Biodiversity
(24) Company reports rivers, creeks, lakes, reservoirs or waterways affected/conserved/protected/ and threatened
restored. species
(25) Company reports the IUCN-listed species or country specific extinct/threatened/vulnerable/
endangered species.
(26) Company reports biodiversity/species loss due to its operations. 825
(27) Company reports operations (countries) with activities in IUCN category I-IV protected areas.
(28) Company reports on international conventions for biodiversity conservation and restoration.

Corresponding author
Ralph Adler can be contacted at: ralph.adler@otago.ac.nz

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com