World’s most influential companies make nature promises, but most lack accountability

The problem with the accountability gap

Researchers identified 180 large transnational ‘keystone’ corporations across multiple sectors with significant environmental impacts and disproportionate influence over the biosphere. Although 79% had made some form of biodiversity pledge, only 13% reported sufficiently detailed, transparent, and specific (robust) commitments¹ to allow others to assess if targets have been met – a fundamental prerequisite of accountability.

Over the past 50 years, keystone corporations have gained significant influence over the world’s resource reserves, production, and trade. Biodiversity is rising on the corporate agenda – most of the companies in the study sample made pledges – but currently these commitments are not sufficient to be fully accountable.

Senior author Dr Sophus zu Ermgassen (Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery and Department of Biology, University of Oxford) says: “Companies must be both ambitious and practical: meaningful commitments go further than just pledging to actions required by law, but also must consider clear implementation plans. Improving commitments is just the first step.”

Dr Thomas White (Leverhulme Centre for Nature Recovery and Department of Biology, University of Oxford), co-author of the study says: “Whilst it is promising to see biodiversity pledges being made by many companies, for most of these companies, we currently can’t tell exactly what the promises mean and whether actions are contributing towards global goals. With clear and ambitious goals and actions, keystone corporations could have the leverage to act as biosphere stewards and drive transformative change.”

How to spot an inadequate pledge

The research also helps to highlight how to spot a real commitment from a hollow one. Amongst commitments deemed as not robust, several issues repeatedly occurred: vagueness and lack of specificity; seemingly contradictory or incorrectly defined terminologies; and selective use of evidence to justify inaction or limited ambition.

For example, an agrochemical company cited an analysis that they themselves had jointly commissioned to make the dubious claim that pesticides are not a main driver of insect decline.

Dr Jean-Baptiste Jouffray (Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University), co-author of the study says: “A serious biodiversity commitment should make clear what is being targeted, where, by when, and how progress will be assessed. Without that, it is little more than a statement of good intentions. Regulators, investors, scientists, and civil society need information they can use to identify risks, assess ambition, and track progress over time.”

Sector differences

Commitment robustness varied substantially across sectors. 18 of the 23 companies with at least one target meeting all criteria belonged to the agriculture and farming sector. Within the cocoa sector, all five assessed companies (representing 56% of global processing and grinding) made commitments, with four making robust commitments meeting all criteria, and the fifth making commitments meeting most criteria. A similar trend was seen in the soybean sector, where five of six companies (controlling 42% of global sourcing) made robust commitments.

In contrast, biodiversity commitments were sparse in sectors such as animal pharmaceuticals and oil and gas. Among animal pharmaceutical firms (ten companies representing 81% of the global market), half had no biodiversity commitments.

89% of corporations in the sample published some kind of publicly available report, but none produced a stand-alone biodiversity report. Of 13 companies for which no reports were found, six were national oil companies.

Barriers and improvements to pledges

The researchers highlight several potential barriers to effective pledges: lack of alignment with commercial interests; exposure to reputational risk if they fall short of targets (so-called ‘greenhushing’); limitations in available knowledge and guidance on commitment setting; and data limitations on the biodiversity impacts of their supply chains.

The researchers suggest several ways of prompting improved commitments:

• Mandatory reporting requirements: address disparities in reporting.
• Business-science collaboration: facilitate knowledge exchange and provide data and guidance to support target setting.
• Sector-wide sustainability initiatives: enable pooling of knowledge and resources.
• Increased participation in voluntary initiatives: guidance to identify and address impacts, dependencies, risk, and opportunities, as well as setting clear targets
• Pressure from stock exchanges, financiers, and stakeholders: eg integrate biodiversity disclosure and target setting requirements into listing requirements.

The research marks a new milestone in efforts to identify the companies with the largest influence over the biosphere and clarify their responsibility in helping to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. By showing where current commitments fall short, the study provides a method and a foundation for stronger accountability.