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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Florian Berg & Julian F Kölbel & Roberto Rigobon, 2022. "Aggregate Confusion: The Divergence of ESG Ratings [Corporate social responsibility and firm risk: theory and empirical evidence]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 26(6), pages 1315-1344.
    2. G. Andrew Karolyi & John Tobin‐de la Puente, 2023. "Biodiversity finance: A call for research into financing nature," Financial Management, Financial Management Association International, vol. 52(2), pages 231-251, June.
    3. Ralph Adler & Mansi Mansi & Rakesh Pandey, 2018. "Biodiversity and threatened species reporting by the top Fortune Global companies," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 31(3), pages 787-825, March.
    4. repec:eme:aaaj00:aaaj-03-2016-2490 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Aaron K. Chatterji & Rodolphe Durand & David I. Levine & Samuel Touboul, 2016. "Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(8), pages 1597-1614, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Oehler, Andreas & Neuss, Charlotte, 2025. "ESG disclosure vs. ESG ratings: Consistent information value?," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    2. Cauthorn, Thomas & Dumrose, Maurice & Eckert, Julia & Klein, Christian & Zwergel, Bernhard, 2023. "Rating changes revisited: New evidence on short-term ESG momentum," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    3. Liu, Xiangqiang & Yang, Qingqing & Wei, Kai & Dai, Peng-Fei, 2024. "ESG rating disagreement and idiosyncratic return volatility: Evidence from China," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(PB).
    4. Ajithakumari Vijayappan Nair Biju & Snehith Jacob Kodiyatt & P. P. Nithi Krishna & Geetha Sreelekshmi, 2023. "ESG sentiments and divergent ESG scores: suggesting a framework for ESG rating," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(12), pages 1-21, December.
    5. DiMaria, charles-henri, 2024. "ESG principles: the limits to green benchmarking," MPRA Paper 120410, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2024.
    6. Anthony Goerzen & Ari Assche & James X. Zhan & Lifang Zhang, 2025. "From the editors: Global sustainability reporting standards and the future of international business," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(2), pages 125-136, June.
    7. Muck, Matthias & Schmidl, Thomas, 2024. "Comparing ESG score weighting approaches and stock performance differentiation," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 67(PB).
    8. Kurbus, Barbara & Rant, Vasja, 2025. "A legal origins perspective on ESG rating disagreement," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    9. Kevin Birk & Stefan Jacob & Marco Wilkens, 2025. "What attracts sustainable fund flows? Prospectus versus ratings," Journal of Asset Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 26(2), pages 216-237, March.
    10. Huang, June & Lu, Shirley, 2025. "Gender diversity performance and voluntary disclosure: Mind the (gender pay) gap," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    11. Lou, Zhukun & Li, Sujie & Tong, Jingyi & Zhao, Jing, 2025. "ESG rating disagreement and the cost of equity capital," Global Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    12. Francesco Cesarone & Lorenzo Lampariello & Davide Merolla & Jacopo Maria Ricci & Simone Sagratella & Valerio Giuseppe Sasso, 2023. "A bilevel approach to ESG multi-portfolio selection," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 1-23, December.
    13. Luo, Deqing & Shan, Xun & Yan, Jingzhou & Yan, Qianhui, 2023. "Sustainable investment under ESG volatility and ambiguity," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    14. Darendeli, Alper & Fiechter, Peter & Hitz, Jörg-Markus & Lehmann, Nico, 2022. "The role of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information in supply-chain contracting: Evidence from the expansion of CSR rating coverage," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2).
    15. Weiwei Yang & Yingying Hei, 2024. "Research on the Impact of Enterprise ESG Ratings on Carbon Emissions from a Spatial Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-20, May.
    16. Wang, Lei & Sha, Yifan & Li, Yue & Wang, Tongyu, 2025. "The double-edged effects of the ESG rating on analyst forecast performance," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    17. Hu, Xinwen & Hua, Renhai & Liu, Qingfu & Wang, Chuanjie, 2023. "The green fog: Environmental rating disagreement and corporate greenwashing," Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    18. Xiao, Zhongyi & Shum, Wai Yan & Lai, Fujun & Xiang, Cheng, 2025. "How do firms respond to divergent ESG ratings? The perspective of green innovation," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    19. Cini, Federico & Ferrari, Annalisa, 2025. "Towards the estimation of ESG ratings: A machine learning approach using balance sheet ratios," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 73(PB).
    20. Bassen, Alexander & Kordsachia, Othar & Lopatta, Kerstin & Tan, Weiqiang, 2025. "Revenue alignment with the EU taxonomy regulation in developed markets," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).

    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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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.