IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/bstrat/v35y2026i3p4510-4520.html

A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Comparability Between Corporate Biodiversity Impact Accounting Tools

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Stimpson
  • Sarah Raymond
  • Joseph Bull
  • E. J. Milner‐Gulland

Abstract

Integrating corporate biodiversity impacts into investment decisions can direct investments toward nature‐positive firms, creating a market signal. The strength of this signal is a function of how closely investments align. This alignment depends on the comparability (the degree of similarity and difference) of tools used to account for biodiversity impacts. Yet, whether and why such tools are comparable remains poorly understood. Here, we develop a framework to discern and explain comparability by introducing two analytical perspectives: an input‐based view (similarity in metrics and methods) and an output‐based view (similarity in results). Expanding on the input‐based view, we review 20 widely used tools, enabling 11 input‐comparability assessments: five showed strong comparability, two moderate, and three low, with one unable to assess because of limited information. We then demonstrate how evidence from both perspectives can be integrated, revealing opportunities for future research, and discuss the implications of comparability for users and tool quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Stimpson & Sarah Raymond & Joseph Bull & E. J. Milner‐Gulland, 2026. "A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Comparability Between Corporate Biodiversity Impact Accounting Tools," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(3), pages 4510-4520, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:35:y:2026:i:3:p:4510-4520
    DOI: 10.1002/bse.70404
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.70404
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/bse.70404?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:bstrat:v:35:y:2026:i:3:p:4510-4520. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1099-0836 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.