CDSB Framework

Application
guidance forbiodiversity-related
disclosures

November 2021
cdsb.net/biodiversity

About the
Climate DisclosureStandards Board

3

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

The Climate Disclosure Standards Board(CDSB) is an international consortium ofbusiness and environmental NGOs. We arecommitted to advancing and aligning the
global mainstream corporate reporting model
to equate natural and social capital withfinancial capital.
We do this by offering companies aframework for reporting environmental and social
information with the same rigour as financial
information. In turn this helps them to provide
investors with decision-useful environmental
information via the mainstream corporate report,enhancing the efficient allocation of capital.
Regulators have also benefited from CDSB’s
compliance-ready materials.

Recognising that information about natural,social and financial capital is equally essential
for an understanding of corporate
performance, our work builds trust andtransparency needed to foster resilient capital
markets. Collectively, we aim to contribute tomore sustainable economic, social andenvironmental systems.
For more information, visit cdsb.net, follow us
on Twitter, LinkedIn and YouTube and subscribe
to our newsletter. Visit the TCFD Knowledge
Hub for free e-learning online courses.
We welcome your input and discussions.
If you would like to comment on this document,
please contact us at info@cdsb.net.

Copyright © 2021 Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) and CDP Worldwide.
All rights reserved.
Dissemination of the contents of this report is encouraged. Please give full acknowledgement of thesource when reproducing extracts in other published work. All information in this report is provided
without warranty of any kind, express or implied. The authors disclaim any responsibility for the
information or conclusions in this report. The authors accept no liability for any loss arising from any
action taken or refrained from being taken as a result of information contained in this report.

4

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

CDSB would like to thank the membersof the CDSB Technical Working Groupon Biodiversity-related disclosures for theirguidance and feedback on the content
of this publication.
• Robert Adamczyk, European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)• Linda Lowson, Esq., Global ESG Financial
Regulatory Institute• Thomas Maddox, CDP• Nadine McCormick, WBCSD• Samantha McCraine, Science Based Targets
Network• Jonas Aechter, WWF• Emily McKenzie, Independent Dasgupta
Review team

• Louise Amand, Capitals Coalition• Rebecca Nohl, PhD. SYSTEMIQ• Alexandra Antsuga, European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD)• Amy O’Dwyer, Davy

• Simon Armstrong, Simon Armstrong andAssociates• Matt Orsagh , CFA Institute• Ellen Osborne, Rio ESG• Faye Bennett-Hart, Rio ESG• Jo Paisley, Global Association of Risk
Professionals• Scarlett Benson, SYSTEMIQ/Food and Land
Use Coalition• Rajat Panwar, PhD, Appalachian State
University• Sam Bower, Balfour Beatty• Nicole Pasricha, Deep Science Ventures• Lyndall Bull, PhD, Independent• Tim Polaszek, Capitals Coalition• Maria Ana Campos, WBCSD• Juliette Pugliesi, Science Based Targets
Network• Rodrigo Cassola, UNEP-WCMC• Siobhan Cleary, Science Based Targets
Network (SBTN)• Jonas Rooze, BloombergNEF• Celia Cole, Sainsbury’s• Leah Samberg, Rainforest Alliance• James Dalton, PhD, IUCN

• Marta Santamaria, Capitals Coalition• Paul Dhillon, NetZero Globe Ltd• Charlie Dixon, Vivid Economics• Kim Schumacher, PhD, Tokyo Institute ofTechnology• Rosie Dunscombe, Independent• Robyn Seetal, IkTaar Sustainability• Rob Evans, Earth Active• Viera Ukropcova, CDP• John Finisdore, Point Advisory• Gabriel Thoumi, CFA, FRM, Certified
Ecologist, Planet Tracker• Charlotte Gardes, Paris II-Assas University• Oscar Sabag, Science Based Targets Network• Marcelo Gonçalves de Lima, Independent• Caroline van Leenders, The Netherlands
Enterprise Agency• Mark Gough, Capitals Coalition• Varun Vats, Syngenta Group• Annelisa Grigg, Global Balance• Yann Verstraeten, ICF• Stephanie Hime, PhD, Little Blue Research• Thomas Viegas, Independent• Joel Robert Houdet, Endangered Wildlife
Trust• Ellie Walshe, Davy Horizons• Andre Jakobs, ABN AMRO
• Gemma James, UN PRI• Johan Lammerant, Arcadis• Joanne Lee, WWF International• Lucy Watkinson, HM Treasury, UK

CDSB would also like to thank the organisations
and individuals that responded to the public
consultation.

Contents
About the Climate Disclosure Standards Board

03

Chapter 1
About this guidance
1.

Structure of the Biodiversity Application Guidance

08

2.

The CDSB Framework and background to the Biodiversity Application Guidance

09

2.1

CDSB Framework 

09

2.2

Background to the Biodiversity Application Guidance 09

3.

Mainstreaming biodiversity reporting 

10Chapter 2
Biodiversity and business
1.

The importance of biodiversity to business and society

142.

Business and biodiversity interactions 

17

2.1

Impact and dependencies 

17

2.2

Risks and opportunities 

18

3.

Key Characteristics

20

Chapter 3
Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures
1.

Reporting expectations and important considerations

24

1.1

Applying materiality 

24

1.2
		

Providing contextualised and business-specificbiodiversity-related information 

25

1.3

Disclosing information in a changing landscape

26

1.4

Reporting boundaries and period 

26

1.5

Using existing disclosures and resources, and ensuring connectivity 

272.

Roadmap and checklist for biodiversity-related disclosures

27

3.

Biodiversity Application Guidance

30

REQ-01 Governance 

30

		

1.

Governance arrangements and rationale

30

		

2.

Information flows and oversight

30

		

3.

Stakeholder engagement and cooperation

31

		

4.

Incentivisation

32

		

5.

Specificity of bioversity governance

32

REQ-02 Management’s environmental policies, strategy and targets 

33

		

1.

Providing the context for biodiversity policy, strategy, and targets

33

		

2.

Policies and strategies

39

		

3.

Management responses

40

		

4.

Targets and timelines

43

		

5.

Resourcing44

REQ-03 Risks and opportunities 
		

48

1.

Detailing risks and opportunities

52

2.

Quantification of financial risks and opportunities

53

3.

Connecting information

54

REQ-04 Sources of environmental impact 

57

		

1.

Indicators and metrics

57

		

2.

Contextualising biodiversity-related metrics

64

		

3.

Decision-useful information

64

		

4.

Disaggregation and categorisation

64

		

5.

Rationale of selection and methodological details

65

REQ-05 Performance and comparative analysis 68

REQ-06 Outlook 

71

		

1.

Scenario analysis

72

		

2.

Methods, assumptions and uncertainties

72

		

3.

Iteration and learning

73

4.

Basis for conclusions

74

Chapter 4
Appendices
1.

CDSB Framework – Guiding principles and reporting requirements 

76

2.

CDSB materiality approach77

3.

Mapping the CDSB requirements to TCFD and biodiversity reporting standards

79

4.

Definitions

80

5.

Key CDSB resources

82

6.

Common examples of biodiversity impacts drivers and changes
to the state of biodiversity

83

7.

Key initiatives

84

8.

Tools, models and frameworks supporting the assessment
and quantification of biodiversity impacts

86

9.

Databases that may be useful for identifying risk areas (REQ-03),
measuring impact (REQ-04) or monitoring performance (REQ-05)

88

10.

Mapping the Pathway approach and DPSIR framework

88Chapter 1

About thisguidance

8

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

The CDSB Framework application guidance forbiodiversity-related disclosures (the Biodiversity
Application Guidance) has been produced by
CDSB to assist companies in the disclosure of thematerial information about the risks andopportunities that biodiversity presents to anorganisation’s strategy, financial performance andcondition within the mainstream report(biodiversity-related financial disclosure).i It is
designed to supplement the CDSB Framework forreporting environmental and climate change
information to investors (CDSB Framework)1(see Appendix 1).

1. Structure of the Biodiversity
Application Guidance
The Biodiversity Application Guidanceis designed around the first six reporting
requirements of the CDSB Framework (App. 1):• Explained examples of good practice inmainstream biodiversity reporting.
In addition, the Biodiversity Application Guidance
provides an overview of the significance of
biodiversity to business, explaining the importanceof biodiversity-related business risks andopportunities, and highlighting the key
characteristics of biodiversity and their importanceto corporate reporting (see Business andBiodiversity).
To ensure connectedness and coherence between
the Biodiversity Application Guidance and existing
reporting frameworks and standards, it isimportant to align to widely accepted definitionsfor key concepts and terms. The following
definitions apply throughout the Guidance:• Biodiversity: The diversity of life in all its forms,
including the diversity of species, genetic
variations within species, and of ecosystems.2• REQ-01 Governance• REQ-02 Management’s environmental policies,
strategies and targets• REQ-03 Risks and opportunities• REQ-04 Sources of environmental impact• REQ-05 Performance and comparative analysis• REQ-06 Outlook
The first six reporting requirements set out the key
content elements for reporting material
environmental information in the mainstream
report. For each of the reporting requirements, theBiodiversity Application Guidance provides:• A checklist including suggestions for effective
biodiversity-related disclosures;• Detailed reporting suggestions and guidance inrelation to biodiversity-related issues tocomplement the CDSB reporting requirements;• A selection of external resources to assist
companies in developing their mainstream
biodiversity reporting (see Useful Resources undereach requirement and Appendices 5-9); andi Mainstream reports (e.g. general purpose financial report andmainstream financial report) are the annual reporting packages in which
companies are required to deliver their audited financial results under
the corporate, compliance or securities laws of the country in which they
operate, e.g. the annual report in the UK and the 10-K in the USA.

• Species: A group of individuals that actually or
potentially interbreed and produce fertile
offspring.3• Ecosystem: A dynamic complex of plants,
animals, and microorganisms, and their nonliving environment.4• Ecosystem services: The flows of benefits
ecosystems provide to people.5 See Box 1 forfurther discussion of the definition of ecosystemservices, including final ecosystem services.
• Natural Capital: The stock of renewable andnon-renewable natural resources (e.g. plants,
animals, air, water, soils, minerals) that combine toyield a flow of benefits to people (ecosystemservices).6• Biodiversity impact: a change in the diversity of
ecosystems and/or species that may take placebecause of business activities. Changes to thestate of ecosystems (e.g. extent and condition/
integrity) and species (e.g. habitat, population size)
can be used to signal changes in biodiversity.
• Biodiversity dependency: a reliance on or use of
biodiversity, including biological resources (e.g.
materials, liquids, genetic resources) from both

9

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

species and interactions with various ecosystemprocesses and services (e.g. pollination, water
filtration, crop pest/disease control or waterflow regulation).7• Value chain: An organisation’s direct operations,
upstream activities and downstream activities.
Direct operations cover activities over which theorganisation has direct control, upstream activities
cover the activities of suppliers and downstream
activities are those linked to the purchase, use,
re-use, recovery, recycling and final disposal of theorganisation’s products and services.ii
Appendix 4 contains the full list of definitions of
the key terms used throughout the Biodiversity
Application Guidance.
The Biodiversity Application Guidance considers
terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity at the speciesiii
and ecosystem levels, as well as the ecosystemservices underpinned by biodiversity.

2. The CDSB Framework andbackground to the Biodiversity
Application Guidance
2.1 CDSB Framework
The CDSB Framework is focused on reporting
material environmental information (seeAppendix 2) in mainstream reports to investors.
This builds directly on the International
Accounting Standard Board’s (IASB’s)
Conceptual Framework, applying financial
reporting principles to environmental andclimate change information. CDSB’s Frameworkhas evolved over time, with the first version, theClimate Change Reporting Framework, released
in 2010, focused on the risks and opportunities
that climate change presents to an organisation’s
strategy, financial performance, and condition. In
2013, CDSB’s Board agreed to expand the scopeof the Framework beyond climate change andGreenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions to encompass
environmental information and natural capital,
with this revision published in 2015. At the timeof writing, CDSB is working to further expand
the scope of the Framework to cover both
environmental and social information. The

ii Adapted from: Capitals Coalition (2016) Natural Capital Protocol.
Available from: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-protocol/iii Including both diversity within (genetic) and among species

revised CDSB Framework currently underconsultation does not substantively amend thereporting principles and requirements and nor isit expected the final version will. This application
guidance should therefore remain wholly
complementary with any potential amendments
to the CDSB Framework.
The CDSB Framework represented one of themain resources from which therecommendations of the Task Force on
Climate-related Financial Disclosure (TCFD),8
published in 2017, were drawn. Therefore, the
CDSB Framework and its reporting principles
and requirements (Appendix 1) are aligned with
the TCFD recommendations (Appendix 3).
TCFD has advanced the narrative onorganisational board-level financial and risk
management considerations of environmental
impacts to the business, particularly those likely
to result from climate change.
2.2 Background to the Biodiversity
Application Guidance
The Biodiversity Application Guidance is part ofa series of CDSB Framework application
guidance, which aims to extend the TCFD
recommendations and its core elements tonature. It is designed to support the intended
users in applying the CDSB Framework to thenatural capital elements of climate change,
water, and biodiversity. Following the guidanceon climate-related and water-related
disclosures, the Biodiversity Application
Guidance is the third CDSB Framework
supplementary application guidance documentthat is designed to enhance the quality of
disclosures for such significant matters.
Working in conjunction with the reporting
principles and requirements of the CDSB
Framework, each application guidance assists
companies to develop clear, concise, consistent,
and comparable (inter-period comparability ofthe same entity and inter-entity comparability)
disclosures, enhancing the decision-usefulnessof their mainstream reporting on sustainabilityrelated financial matters to investors. Given theinterconnected nature of environmental topics,
the application guidance documents arecomplementary with some overlapping subtopics (Figure 1).

10

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

The objective of the Biodiversity Application
Guidance is to support organisations in preparing
high-quality disclosures that enable users of
mainstream reports to assess material
biodiversity-related financial information.
By ensuring that investors are receiving thematerial biodiversity-related information(Appendix 2) needed for effective capital
allocation, the Biodiversity Application Guidance
aims to assist in driving the transition to asustainable and resilient economy. The intended
users are organisations, both single companies
and corporate groups, and those responsible forfinancial, governance and sustainability reporting.

CDSB
Framework

Application guidance
for biodiversity-related
disclosures

CDSB Framework forreporting environmental &climate change information

Biodiversity-climate nexus

Biodiversity-water nexus(e.g. habitat loss due to deforestation
and related GHG emissions; changes
in migration routes and timing duechanges in temperatures)(e.g. impacts on biodiversity due
to water scarcity, pollution, or higher
water temperatures)

Climate-water nexus(e.g. physical risks - water scarcity and sea level rise)

Application guidancefor climate-related
disclosures

Application
guidance for waterrelated disclosures

Figure 1. The relationship of the CDSB Framework for reporting environmental and climate change information, the Biodiversity Application
Guidance and other guidance in the series. The dashed lines between Application Guidance documents illustrate their interconnected natureand the presence of overlapping topics.

3. Mainstreaming biodiversity
reportingWith a growing understanding of thesignificant risks that changes to natural capitalcan pose to the stability of the financial systemand to broader society, an increasing numberof regulators are prioritising environmental
disclosure.iv Whilst most literature on financial
risks related to natural capital has focused on

iv For example, EU initiatives related to the Corporate Sustainability
Reporting Directive, to the EU Taxonomy Regulation, and to the Sustainable
Finance Disclosure Regulation, the announcement of mandatory adoptionof TCFD by national regulators (e.g. New Zealand, UK, Hong Kong,
Switzerland), or developments and publications by the IFRS and FASB.

climate change, there is a growing awareness of
the risks associated with other aspects ofnatural capital, such as water stress and the lossof biodiversity.9, 10, 11
The risks resulting from a loss of nature havethe potential to disrupt both society and thestability of the financial system, with more than
50% of global gross domestic product (USD 44
trillion) being moderately or highly dependent

11

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosureson nature and the goods and services it
provides and over 2.1 billion jobs relying on
effective management and sustainability of
ecosystems.12, 13 For example, the documented
decline in insect populations puts at risk the
USD 235 – 577 billion of crop production that isdependent on pollination;14 and deforestationand land degradation cost as much as USD 6.3
trillion a year through their impact on forest andagricultural productivity.15 As the Dasgupta
Review on the Economics of Biodiversity makes
clear, all human activity ultimately depends on
ecosystems; our economies are embedded innature, not external to it.16
The finance sector is indirectly exposed tobusiness biodiversity-related risks throughloans, investments, and underwriting
activities,17, 18 yet it also plays a key and growingrole in achieving biodiversity targets throughcatalysing behaviour changes and influencing
economic pathways, business models andpractices.19 Reacting to this, investors are
increasingly engaging with investees on
biodiversity-related risks.20, 21 For example,
many banks have enhanced due diligenceprocesses when financing assets located inprotected or sensitive areas, financial
institutions are exploring how to measure thebiodiversity impact of their portfolios22, 23, 24, 25
and rating agencies increasingly consider
environmental concerns and companies’ risk
management capabilities. As a result, corporate
biodiversity reporting is necessary to monitor
performance and demonstrate ecologicalcredentials to investors.
It has been demonstrated that disclosure on
biodiversity is currently far less prevalent thanother environmental topics, most notably
climate. CDSB’s review of 50 large European
companies’ reporting in 2020 under theEuropean Union (EU) Non-Financial Reporting
Directive (NFRD)26 found that 46% ofcompanies provided some information on
biodiversity in their reports, as compared to100% of companies for climate change. Where
disclosures were provided, they often lacked
the relative specificity and maturity of climaterelated disclosure, containing genericmanagement approaches and high-levelcommitments. Additionally, only 10% ofcompanies reported metrics on biodiversity,

compared to 100% for GHG emissions, and
90% for water. Similar analyses have echoedthese findings,27, 28 for example, KPMG’s 2020
survey of sustainability reporting found thatless than one quarter of “at-risk” companies
worldwide report risks from the loss of
biodiversity.29
Biodiversity-related corporate reporting is afast-moving, developing area, and there isongoing work to create harmonisation,
particularly related to measurement anddisclosure. For example, the Science Based
Targets Network (SBTN) has issued initial
guidance for nature prior to publishingintegrated science based targets for all aspectsof nature, including biodiversity (expected in2022), the Align project aims to support
businesses and other stakeholders indeveloping a standardised approach tobiodiversity measurement and the Transparent
project is developing a standardised natural
capital accounting and valuation methodology.
The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial
Disclosures (TNFD) seeks to provide specificsector agnostic recommendations formainstream reports like the TCFD
recommendations do for climate-related
financial risks and opportunities but is not due
to be published until 2023. The International
Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS)Foundation, in November 2021, announced theformation of a new International Sustainability
Standards Board (ISSB) to develop acomprehensive global baseline of high-quality
disclosure standards, on climate and othersustainability issues, to meet investors’
information needs, building on the work ofexisting investor-focused reporting initiatives. In
light of this announcement we expect increased
focus by the IFRS Foundation and its
constituent boards on driving complete,consistent and comprehensive disclosure ofmaterial sustainability-related information
across the mainstream report, including thefinancial statements.
Positive steps are being made by businesses,with leading organisations increasingly
committing to integrating biodiversity into theirdecision-making and operations,30 integrating
disclosures on significant biodiversity issues into
their reportingv and convening to demonstrate

v For example, Walmart has committed to help protect, manage orrestore at least 50 million acres of land and one square mile of ocean
by 2030. See: https://corporate.walmart.com/newsroom/2020/09/21/
walmart-sets-goal-to-become-a-regenerative-company

12

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresand share ambition.vi However, more work isneeded to ensure that reporting on material
information about biodiversity-related issues inmainstream reports is of sufficient quality anddetail to support decision-making by investors
and other stakeholders, as the TCFD
recommendations illustrate for climate.
Additionally, given ongoing policy, stakeholder
and industry initiatives on the interactions
between business and natural capital and therequired related corporate disclosure,vii there isclear momentum for an increase in policy
response in the shape of mandatory corporate
disclosure, including biodiversity as a corevi For example, the more than 900 businesses of the Business for Nature
initiative (with combined revenue of $4.3 trillion) are urging governments
to adopt policies on how to reverse nature loss in this decade. See: https://www.businessfornature.org/advocate
vii For example: International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) of
the IFRS Foundation, EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive andEU sustainability reporting standards, TNFD, and Science-Based Target
Network.

element and increasing standardised
assessment and reporting.31
This Guidance aims to fill the current information
gap and assist in preparing companies for new
regulations and investor demands. By illustrating
how the CDSB Framework can be applied tobiodiversity-related reporting in mainstream
reports through the integration of elements fromexisting biodiversity reporting standards andframeworks (Appendix 3) and alignment with the
TCFD recommendations, it is envisioned that thisguidance will contribute to the work of the IFRSFoundation via the establishment of the ISSB.

Chapter 2

Biodiversity
and business14

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

1. The importance of
biodiversity to businessand societyInternational initiatives, such as the Sustainable
Development Goals32 (SDGs) and Planetary
Boundaries,33 as well as The Dasgupta
Review,34 highlight biodiversity as essential
for the sustainability of natural and socioeconomic systems. Direct biodiversity-related
considerations related to the SDGs include(but are not limited to) life below water(SDG 14) and life on land (SDG 15). In addition,
biodiversity underpins many actions needed tomeet the other SDGs, for example playing apivotal role in tackling hunger (SDG 2), good
health and well-being (SDG 3), promoting
responsible consumption and production (SDG

12) and climate action (SDG 13). Biodiversity is
integral to the planetary boundary of biosphere
integrity, as well as adaptation to climatechange, land-system change and ocean
acidification.35
Biodiversity has both business and societal value.
It is integral to businesses, economies, and wider
society, being the living component of natural
capital and underpinning the ecosystem services
people receive from nature (see Box 1 and Figure2). For example, biodiversity is essential forpreserving ecosystem integrity and the supply ofservices such as providing essential resources,
providing resilience to floods and droughts andsupporting fundamental processes such as carbon
cycles, water cycles and soil formation, which arenecessary to sustain living conditions on earth.36, 37

FLOWS
Ecosystem andabiotic services

STOCKSNatural Capital

VALUE
Benefits tobusiness & society

Figure 2. Relationship between biodiversity and natural capital stocks, flows, and values. Adapted from Capitals Coalition and Cambridge
Conservation Initiative. 2020. Integrating biodiversity in natural capital assessments. Available from: https://capitalscoalition.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/10/Biodiversity-Guidance_COMBINED_single-page.pdf

15

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresBox 1: Ecosystem services and biodiversity
Ecosystem services refer to the flows of benefits that ecosystems make to people (e.g. timber,fibre, pollination, water regulation, climate regulation, recreation, mental health benefits),38 enablinghuman activities which include the operation of businesses. Ecosystem services result fromecosystem function, i.e. the flow of energy and materials from ecosystems to humans and otherecosystems.39 There are multiple definitions and classifications of ecosystem services,viii including
the common categorisation into types, for example:40• Provisioning services, such as the provision of timber, food, fibres, energy and freshwaterthat can be used for the supply of products or within business operations;• Regulating/maintenance services, including the moderation and/or regulation of natural
phenomena, e.g. air filtration, water purification, soil erosion control and flood control; and• Cultural services, such as recreational, spiritual and religious, aesthetic, cultural heritage
and tourism service.
Some also use the term nature’s contribution to people41, 42 (e.g. in the Intergovernmental SciencePolicy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Global Assessment and in the
post-2020 global biodiversity framework), which has a similar meaning to ecosystem services.43
When an ecological end-product transitions to being either an economic benefit or somethingthat can be directly used or appreciated by people, it is defined as a final ecosystem service.44, 45
For example, nursery fish population services (an ecological function that is sometimes called anintermediary ecosystem service) are generally required for the stock of fish to be available to afisher (final ecosystem service).
Biodiversity influences the functioning and productivity of ecosystems,46 acting as an enabling
asset that is essential for and underpins final ecosystem services.47 Greater biodiversity generally
results in higher quality, quantity and resilience of ecosystems and the services they provide.48
For example, species abundance, diversity, or the presence of key species in a given ecosystem
can help maintain the ecosystem functioning and resilience, and the related provision of
ecosystem services.49, 50, 51, 52 The Dasgupta Review distinguishes three features of diversity that are
significant: richness (the number of unique life forms); the flatness of the distribution of life forms(evenness); and dissimilarities in the life forms (heterogeneity).53
For corporate assessment and reporting purposes, focusing on final ecosystem services enables
greater distinctions to be made among biodiversity (stocks), ecosystem services (flows) and theirvalues. As a result, assessments and reports should have increased accuracy, helping avoid double
counting among other common inaccuracies.54, 55 The Biodiversity Application Guidance refers to
final ecosystem services throughout. However, the Guidance is still applicable and relevant to any
definition of ecosystem services an organisation chooses to adopt.

Despite the critical role played by biodiversity,
drivers from human activities (including frombusinesses) are causing an unprecedented andaccelerating loss on a global scale.56 This
includes the rate of species extinction of plants,
mammals, fish, and others being approximately
1,000 times higher than background extinction
rates57 and the total numbers of wild mammals

viii For example, existing definitions and groupings are: Millennium
Assessment, IPBES. Classification systems: CICES, National Ecosystem
Services Classification System. For additional detail, see Finisdore, J.,et al. (2020). The 18 benefits of using ecosystem services classification
systems. Ecosystem Services, 45, 101160. Available from: https://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041620301029?casa_token=XPfVCTyH4t4AAAAA:IL9cImZshq28sQ4rLmFE2bXT805-HDFEWY1w1rBxqhYF5ZfpUkcTa_bQQcTmVcRO53iBi4NFw(measured in biomass) declining by 82%
compared to historical records,58 being
described by scientists as a “biologicalannihilation” amounting to the sixth mass
extinction.59 In addition, the world’s ecosystems
have declined in size and condition by 47%
compared to estimated baselines, for example,
over 85% of wetland habitats had been lost by

16

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

the year 2000 compared to 1700.60, 61
Reflecting this, the planetary boundary of“biosphere integrity” is deemed to have beenbreached (meaning there is a high risk ofdeleterious or catastrophic environmental

change) and biodiversity loss has been ranked
as the second most impactful and third most
likely risk for the next decade.62, 63 Box 2
contains an overview of the drivers of
biodiversity loss.

Box 2: Business drivers of biodiversity loss
Aligned with the pressures on nature identified by the SBTN and the direct drivers identified by
IPBES, the main causes of biodiversity loss include, but are not limited to (Figure 3):• Land-, freshwater- and sea-use change (areas) causes habitat and ecosystem loss,
degradation and fragmentation, and can lead to the extinction of species and the loss of
ecosystem functions and related ecosystem services. Land-use change is the leading
driver of terrestrial and freshwater biodiversity loss, with agricultural expansion being themost widespread form of land-use change. The planetary boundary of land-systemchange has been deemed to be crossed.64• Resource exploitation refers to the exploitation of animals, plants and other organisms(e.g. fish stocks), as well as natural resources such as timber, soil and water (mainly throughharvesting, logging, hunting and fishing). The rate of resources exploitation often exceeds
their capacity for regeneration with ecological consequences including extinction of
species, genetic drift (a change in the gene pool of a population) and habitat degradation.
Resource exploitation is the leading driver of marine biodiversity loss.
• Climate change and its related effects (e.g. changes in temperature, precipitation patterns,
and sea levels) has both direct and indirect effects on the distribution of species, their
physiology and behaviour and on modification of habitats. Climate change increasingly
exacerbates the impact of other drivers due to compounding effects.
• Pollution, including agricultural pollutants (e.g. fertilisers and pesticides), industrial
emissions and marine plastic pollution, cause environmental change, such as modifying
the physical and chemical state of soil, air and water, resulting in the degradation of
ecosystem quality and threats to plant and animal species. Light and noise pollution,
which can result from business operations, also impacts biodiversity through modifying
species behaviour and distribution.
• Invasive species, which may be introduced deliberately or accidentally by organisations,pose a threat to ecosystems, habitats and native species, as well as human health and theeconomy through their establishment and propagation.

Influencing
factors & trends

Biodiversity impact drivers

Values & Behaviors

Land/water/sea use change

Demographic & Sociocultural

Resource Exploitation

Economic & Technological

Climate Change

Institutions & Governance

Pollution

Conflicts & Epidemics

Invasive species & others

landfreshwater
ocean

Changes to thestate of nature
Ecosystem• Extent and condition• Biotic integritySpecies• Threat of extinction• Biomass and abundance
Ecosystem services• Provision of resources• Cultural value

Figure 3. Drivers of biodiversity loss (see Box 2). Adapted from SBTN Initial Guidance and IPBES Global assessment report on biodiversity
and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available from: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SBTN-initial-guidance-for-business.pdf and https://ipbes.net/globalassessment

17

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures(Box 2 continued)
Organisations contribute to these drivers through their direct operations as well as upstream anddownstream value chain activities, with impacts including (1) decline in ecosystem extent andcondition, (2) species extinction risk, (3) changes to ecological communities (e.g. loss of naturally
abundant species), (4) changes to biomass and species abundance and (5) deterioration of theelements of nature for indigenous peoples and communities. Businesses can also positively
contribute to the mitigation of nature/biodiversity loss and degradation, and to the conservation
and restoration of natural ecosystems and biodiversity through sustainable business practices anddirecting funds to/participating in nature-positive projects.
References:• IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available from: https://ipbes.net/global-assessment• Science-based targets for nature (2020). Initial Guidance for Business. Available from: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.
org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/SBTN-initial-guidance-for-business.pdf• IUCN French Committee (2014). Corporate biodiversity reporting and indicators. Situation analysis and recommendations.
Paris, France. ONCFS, 2011. Les vertébrés terrestres introduits en outre-mer et leurs impacts: Guide illustré des principalesespèces envahissantes. Available from: https://www.iucn.org/content/corporate-biodiversity-reporting-and-indicatorssituation-analysis-recommendations

Loss of biodiversity creates significant risks
for the private sector (see Risks andopportunities)65, 66 and businesses are
increasingly experiencing significant financial
impacts associated with those risks.67, 68

Yet, businesses can play a pivotal role inmitigating biodiversity-related risks by directing
actions through their operations and/or supply
chains and fostering improvement through theircorporate biodiversity strategies and policies.

2. Business and biodiversity
interactions

population size) can be used to signal changes inbiodiversity. Impacts can be positive (a potential
gain in biodiversity, e.g. nature restoration orregenerative aquaculture) or, far more commonly,
negative (a potential loss of biodiversity). Business
impacts on biodiversity occur through impact
drivers (see Box 2) and can be direct, occurring
immediately as a result of direct actions such as
land clearing, or indirect, occurring as aconsequence of another factor with an indirectcausal link, such as GHG emissions contributing toclimate change or illegal logging occurring due tothe construction of a road in a forest. Impacts canalso accumulate due to the combined actions ofdifferent actors (e.g. other organisations,
governments, local communities), as well as otherbackground pressures and trends (cumulative
impacts). Biodiversity impacts can be caused byboth inputsx to and outputsxi from production.

2.1 Impact and dependencies
All businesses depend and impact on
biodiversity.ix
Biodiversity dependencies are defined as anorganisation’s reliance on or use of biodiversity,
including biological resources (e.g. materials,
liquids, genetic resources) from species andinteractions with various ecosystem processes
and services (e.g. pollination, water filtration,
crop pest/disease control or water flow
regulation). These dependencies are interlinked
with biodiversity impacts resulting from both
direct operations and value chain activities.
Biodiversity impacts are defined as a change inthe diversity of ecosystems and/or species that
may take place because of business activities.
Changes to the state of ecosystems (e.g. extent
and condition/integrity) and species (e.g. habitat,

ix Referred to within the context of ecosystems, species and the final
ecosystem services underpinned by biodiversity.

Biodiversity impacts are interconnected todependencies due to feedback loops, e.g. anorganisation’s operations may depend on ax Commodities such as timber, palm oil, cattle products, soy, cocoa,
coffee, rubber are among the major causes of the loss of natural
ecosystems like forests.
xi Polluting emissions (e.g. use of pesticides or fertilisers) and waste cause
degradation of natural ecosystems and consequently affect biodiversity.

18

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

particular species of fish (dependency), yet if theorganisation fishes at unsustainable fishing rates,
the population of the species may reduce(biodiversity impact) causing loss of operational
productivity and related income and/or increased
costs. Business biodiversity dependencies andimpacts vary according to sector, value chain andgeographic location, for example, sectors that
rely heavily on natural resources, such as
agriculture, forestry and fishing sectors will havesignificant direct impacts whereas tertiary sectors
are more likely to have indirect interactions
through their supply chains.69
Both dependencies and impacts generate
economic costs and benefits for businesses
and society, which consequently result inbusiness risks and opportunities that canaffect the present and/or future financial
position and financial performance of theorganisation (see Figure 4).
Financial implications include clean-up and/or
remediation costs, sanctions, developmentof plans to mitigate or remediate negative
ecological impacts, loss of revenue resulting
from reputational damage associated with poor
biodiversity management, or agricultural supply
chain disruption due to declines in populationsof species that the organisation depends on(e.g. pollinators).
2.2 Risks and opportunities
Organisations can experience different types of
biodiversity-related financial risks andopportunities, such as: physical (biological,
ecological, chemical etc.), reputational, policy andlegal (or regulatory), technological, and market.xii
Physical risks are linked to changes tobiodiversity, ecosystems and its related
functioning, including risks posed to businesses
from biodiversity impacts. Physical risks
therefore encapsulate financial implications
related to ecosystem and biodiversity loss anddegradation, and the related consequences,such as reduction in soil fertility, reduction inpollination for crop production, reduced
availability of fish stocks, as well as the increased
likelihood and severity of extreme weather
events e.g. due to erosion of coastal ecosystems(see REQ-03 for additional details and examplesof types of biodiversity-related physical,
biological, chemical and other related risks).

xii These risk categories are aligned to the TCFD risk categories.

Additionally, organisations may have financial
implications linked to the transition to abiodiversity-positive economy including:increased regulation regarding biodiversity
protection and conservation (regulatory), shifts
in market preferences (market), shifts instakeholders’ perceptions of an organisation’s
impact on biodiversity and natural ecosystems(reputational), and the impact of newtechnologies (technological). See Table 3 forexamples of financial risks.
Biodiversity-related opportunities and related
financial benefits are often linked to, for example,
improved efficiency, development of new
products and services, access to new funding
streams, operational cost-savings throughnature-based solutions and the engagement ofand collaboration with stakeholders.
Biodiversity-related risks and opportunities canbe caused by both (1) the organisation’s
specific business sector and activities,
including the activities within the value chain
and/or (2) or by the geographic context70 inwhich its activities are located, for example,
risks related to biodiversity/ecosystemmismanagement by other stakeholders,
including organisations, and to socio-economic
conditions in the areas of operations, such aslack of biodiversity governance or politicalinstability. They are connected to otherchanges to natural capital (sharing common
drivers) (see Key Characteristics). For example,
changes to biodiversity, such as changes in
species seasonal patterns, distribution andabundance, and ecosystem distribution,
composition and function71 can be associatedwith the prolonged droughts, desertification,
coastal erosion, and sea level rise72 associatedwith climate change.73 Additionally, biodiversity
plays a key role in the mitigation of andadaptation to climate change since it ensures
the resilience of major carbon sinks such as
oceans and forests. Considering suchaggregated risks, including interlinkages
between biodiversity and socio-economic risks,
is critical to drive business continuity andresilience to future scenarios.
Risks and opportunities may be directly related
to business operations or be indirectly
generated through feedback cycles resulting
from the costs/benefits experienced bysociety.74, 75 Therefore, achieving a complete

o

d
un

arie

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresschanges toBiophysical structure or process

Plan
eta

ry

B

19

(e.g. saltmarsh habitat, net primary productivity)

Function(e.g. slow passage of water or biomass)

External Factors(e.g. natural disasters,
pollutants emitted byother stakeholders)

Final Ecosystem Service(e.g. flood protection or provision of fish stocks)

impacts
on natureBusi n es s A c tiviti e s

Dependencies

Impacts

Risks
PhysicalRisks*

Transition
Risks

Opportunities• Acute• Chronic• Resource Efficiency• Products / services• Markets• Resilience• Financial incentives• Reputation• Policy and Legal• Technology• Market• Reputation

Strategic Planning
Risk Management

Financial Impact

Income Statement

Cash Flow
Statement

Balance Sheet

Revenues

Assets and Liabilities

Expenditures

Capital & Financing

Figure 4. Business impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and final ecosystem services are sources of risks and opportunities for the organisation’s
future financial position and financial performance (adapted from Recommendations of the TCFD and the Dasgupta review). *Physical risks (andopportunities) within this document includes not only physical risks (and opportunities) but also biological, ecological, chemical and other risks andopportunities (see REQ-03 for additional details and examples).

20

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

understanding of the short- and long-term
financial risks and opportunities associated withbiodiversity requires considering, not only how
nature may (positively or negatively) impact theorganisation’s immediate financial performance(“outside in”), but also current and future
significant impacts to society resulting frombusiness activities (“inside out”).76, 77
For example, lowered availability of final
ecosystem services resulting from businessactivities (e.g. water usage, deforestation)
may have implications for local stakeholders(e.g. water/timber shortages), which may leadto business risks (e.g. reputational costs, lossof social licence to operate), and ultimately
affect the organisation’s business model andability to execute its strategy.

3. Key Characteristics
The interactions between biodiversity andbusiness are characterised by key characteristics(Figure 5) that are important for organisations to
consider during the process of preparing
biodiversity-related disclosures.
1. Spatial dimension: Biodiversity dependencies,
impacts, risks and opportunities are locationspecific. The biodiversity-related geographic
context in a given location concerns not only thebiodiversity status of the area, in terms of existing
ecosystems and species, protected area status
and biodiversity value, but also in terms of(1) infrastructures; (2) social conditions, including
community traditions and livelihoods;(3) economic conditions, such as nature-related
productivity, employment, and income;(4) governance and regulation; (5) geopoliticaldimensions (e.g. in transboundary locations); and(6) ongoing cooperation initiatives. For example,
the risks associated with overfishing in an area are
specific to the level of local employment andincome that is dependent on that ecosystem, as
well the community traditions, fishing
infrastructure and techniques, regulations andcooperation initiatives (e.g. among fishingcompanies) that are in place.
Areas impacted by business activities may belarge and extend beyond the immediate vicinityof activities due to, for example, ecologicallinkages and migratory or wide-ranging species.
Areas impacted also differ depending on thedriver of biodiversity loss (e.g. GHG emissions
have a global effect whilst exploitation oforganisms may be localised).78, 79

2. Time dimension: Biodiversity impacts anddrivers of loss resulting from business activities
vary both within and across years (e.g.
seasonality of natural processes vs. seasonality ofagricultural processes, species migrations, etc.).
Future drivers and impacts can be hard to predict
and can experience time-lags. For example, there
may be a lag between the loss of biodiversity
resulting from business activities and theconsequent loss of final ecosystem services.
Equally, management efforts may take time toachieve outcomes. It is therefore important tomonitor changes in the state of biodiversity overtime. Therefore, consideration is required when
applying accounting timeframes to thesebiodiversity concepts, for example, when setting
targets, determining appropriate measurement
intervals for key performance indicators (KPIs)
and determining appropriate intervals forcomparative analysis.
3. Multi-faceted qualities: Biodiversity has varieddimensions, geographical scales and impact
groups which need to be considered. Varieddimensions include genetic diversity within
species, diversity between species and thediversity of ecosystems. The Dasgupta Review
distinguishes three features of diversity that are
significant: richness (the number of unique life
forms); the flatness of the distribution of life forms(evenness); and dissimilarities in the life forms(heterogeneity).80 Geographical scales include
biodiversity within a site, between sites andamong sites in a landscape. Varied impact groups
include, but are not limited to, risk of species
extinction, loss of ecological integrity, ecosystemloss and fragmentation, loss of genetic diversity,changes in migration timing and routes, andecosystem degradation.
4. Interconnectivity: Biodiversity loss is highlyinterconnected with other natural capitalchanges and socio-economic issues. Natural
capital changes such as land degradation, water
degradation and climate change share common
drivers with biodiversity loss, including changes inland-use (e.g. deforestation and urbanisation),
freshwater-use and sea-use, resource
consumption and pollution. Biodiversity loss isinherently connected to the climate change crisis,
which is contributing to rapid, broad-scaleecosystem system changes and exacerbating
drivers of biodiversity loss.81 However, biodiverse
ecosystems can also contribute to being a
potential solution to climate change (e.g.
ecosystems provide climate adaptation services
such as protection from storm damage).82

21

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

SPATIAL DIMENSION
location specificity, e.g. proximity to areas with high biodiversity value
TIME DIMENSION
impacts and dependencies vary with natural dynamics within and across years
MULTI-FACETED QUALITIES
varied dimensions, geographic scales and impact groups
INTERCONNECTIVITY
e.g. link with climate change, water and land degradation
ENGAGEMENT and COLLABORATION
e.g. value chain and stakeholders
METHODOLOGIES
need for different methods to cover multi-faceted qualities, methodological development
and data accessibility/accuracy

Figure 5. The biodiversity key characteristics to be considered when preparing information for the mainstream report

Biodiversity is also integral to other global issues
such as societal well-being and economic welfare.
Consequently, both the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC) and IPBES promote
the need for holistic multi-outcome, multi-action
and multi-actor environmental solutions,83
as opposed to solutions which maximise
the outcome for a single issue at the expenseof others. Developing effective and resilient
biodiversity strategies therefore requires
companies to consider many dynamic andinterconnecting systems.xiii
The interconnected nature of biodiversity loss
with other natural capital changes creates risks
around reporting accuracy and double counting.
For example, depending on how benefits aremeasured, management activities such as thepurchase of carbon offsets to mitigate emissions
may also have collateral effects on biodiversity
through activities such as reforestation or land
restoration.84, 85
5. Engagement and collaboration: Given the
globalised nature of value chains, trade andeconomic flows, biodiversity dependencies andimpacts are often most significant outside theorganisation’s direct operations, resulting fromupstream activities (e.g. land-use conversion for
agricultural commodities) or downstream
activities (e.g. water pollution from use of personalcare and household goods, or management ofplastic waste from packaging). As a result,institutional investors are increasingly asking
detailed questions about biodiversity

xiii The IPCC and IPBES both support holistic, multi-outcome and multiaction solutions, for example, balancing climate and nature solutions that
also consider spatial and social contexts.

management within value chains.86, 87, 88
This increases the importance of including
the value chain in biodiversity assessments
and strategies.89, 90
Stakeholders may have specific dependencies
on biodiversity, including local and indigenous
communities, local farmers/fishers, regulators,
financial institutions, and civil societies/experts.91
As biodiversity is “shared” with local stakeholders
in a given area, with actions of one party having
impacts for other local parties, single actions at
the operational level (e.g. to increase biodiversity
by restoring part of a wetland/forest or reduce
negative impacts by reducing polluting
emissions) do not improve the status ofbiodiversity if others within the samegeographical location are degrading theecosystems, and/or regulators are not
implementing biodiversity plans or regulating
biodiversity impacts. Therefore, engagement withstakeholders, both at the operational and value
chain level (particularly in areas with highbiodiversity value), and participation incollaborative actions is fundamental for effective
biodiversity management.
6. Methodologies: Due to the complexity of
biodiversity impacts and dependencies,
multiple measurement techniques may berequired to fully capture the various possible
changes. Whilst many biodiversity measurement
methodologies exist, some of which are widelyused (e.g. surface area metrics adjusted byecosystem condition/integrity), this is a

22

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresdeveloping and rapidly expanding area.
Approaches to measuring some areas may
currently not be fully developed or standardised,for example, assessing dependencies is currently
particularly challenging due to the indirect
nature of benefits generated by biodiversity.xiv In
addition, whilst many measurement
methodologies exist, there is currently only one
accounting approach available.92
Selecting methodologies and metrics requiresconsideration of data accessibility, availability,
and accuracy. Traditional biodiversity metrics
quantifying information, e.g. via ‘proxyapproaches’ using databases or estimates frommodels to assess the effect on biodiversity, canbe helpful to calculate biodiversity impacts andperformance based on drivers of biodiversity
loss. However, they are not always fit for purposeand may not be as accurate as direct
measurement of the state of biodiversity at abusiness’s operating locations. Yet, access toprimary data may be constrained due to being
costly and time consuming to collect. Accessing
data within the value chain may also bechallenging due to the limited control of many
companies over their supply chains.
The developing and complex nature of
biodiversity measurement and accounting
creates challenges for benchmarking andcomparing performance both within and acrossorganisations.xv, 93, 94 However, existing tools andxiv Other examples include considering certain sector specificities,
assessing value-chain interactions, measuring impacts to genetic
resources, mapping marine biodiversity (and human impacts on it),understanding positive impacts as well as negative and spatial mapping.
xv The accounting framework provided by the Biological Diversity
protocol aimed to overcome this by enabling benchmarking andperformance comparison. See: Endangered Wildlife Trust (2020). The
Biological Diversity Protocol (BD Protocol). Available from: https://www.
nbbnbdp.org/uploads/1/3/1/4/131498886/biological_diversity_protocol__bd_protocol_.pdf

guidance can be referred toxvi and work is
ongoing to create market harmonisation in thisarea, including through initiatives such as the
Align project,95 Transparent project96 and TNFD.97
The monetary valuation of biodiversity and final
ecosystem services may also be useful in thisregard, using monetary units as common units
that can be compared/benchmarked (albeit,
dependent on consistent valuation techniques
being applied, the same economic/monetaryconversion figures being used and recognisingthat the full value of biodiversity may be hidden
or missing as a result of valuation challenges,98
see Box 7 for additional details on valuation).
An additional element related to biodiversity
measurement that needs to be considered is
ecological equivalency (i.e. the notion of equity,
like-for-like) which is integral to measuring
impact, biodiversity footprint assessments,
biodiversity accounting, forming offsetting
strategies and biodiversity management
activities. Due to variability in biogeography
and types/intensities of activities, biodiversity
patterns vary significantly between different
species/ecosystems and locations. Therefore,
aggregation (during the process of impact
assessments) should consist of the same typesof ecosystems (e.g. boreal forests, mangroves)or species (e.g. koala, cayote) as far as possible
and care should be taken to achieve ecologicalequivalency as far as possible for the purposesof biodiversity offsetting.xvii, xviii

xvi For example, the Dasgupta review, BSI standard, WCMC ENCORE
tool and the development of Science-Based Targets for Naturexvii For further details on ecological equivalency, please refer to the
Biological Diversity Protocol, the BBOP Guidance Notes to the Standard
on Biodiversity Offsets, DEFRA Biodiversity metrics 3.0 – User Guide.
xviii Biodiversity offsetting should follow mitigation hierarchy principles.
See REQ-02 for further details on mitigation hierarchy.

Chapter 3

Application
guidance forbiodiversityrelated disclosures

24

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

This chapter represents the core element of the
Biodiversity Application Guidance. Firstly, it setsout reporting expectations and importantconsiderations for organisations whilst selecting
and preparing biodiversity-related information
to be included in the mainstream report.
This includes the application of materiality
to the aspects within the reporting requirements.
Secondly, it provides a checklist and roadmap
for organisations to support the processof integrating biodiversity-related informationin mainstream reports. Thirdly, following CDSB
reporting requirements from one to six, it
provides guidance, resources and examples ofpractices from mainstream reports.

1. Reporting expectations andimportant considerations
The following section illustrates the applicationof the first six reporting requirements of the
CDSB Framework to biodiversity-related
disclosures. A number of clarifications on thereporting expectations and related outcomes,
and considerations regarding the guiding
principles and remaining reporting requirementsof the CDSB Framework are provided below.
1.1 Applying materiality
Biodiversity information should be disclosed
when deemed material by the organisation(see Principle 1 in the CDSB Framework andAppendix 2 for additional details). This means
that, in practice, only the reporting practices
within the Biodiversity Application Guidance
that relate to information deemed to bematerial by the organisation should beconsidered for inclusion in the mainstream
report. When preparing such information,
report preparers should consider also
(1) the organisation’s impacts on society andthe environment that affect the company’s
cash flow over the short-, medium- and longterm (also referred to as circularity), and(2) the dynamic nature of materiality forsustainability information, i.e. information that acompany assesses to be material can rapidlychange in response to drivers such as
stakeholder pressure, consumer and investor
expectations, regulation, evolution of scienceand understanding (see Appendix 2 foradditional details).99
Assessing the materiality of biodiversity to a
specific organisation can be difficult due to thecomplex links between business andbiodiversity, and the location-specificity
and multifaceted qualities of biodiversity.
Materiality assessments should:
1. Support the understanding of biodiversityrelated risks and opportunities;
2. Support the effective selection andprioritisation of biodiversity-related information;
3. Be scientifically robust;
4. Aim to keep biodiversity disclosures concise,connected and decision-useful; and5. Ensure that the results effectively support the
management of biodiversity-related financial
risks and opportunities that have implications
for the business (i.e. operations, value chain,business model and financial results).
When approaching the materiality assessment, anorganisation should focus on biodiversity-related
information that can affect the business model andexecution of its strategy as a result of the risks andopportunities identified (considering different
categories of risks, see Table 3), as well as how theorganisation’s business model and strategy may
contribute to the risks and opportunities identified.
A prerequisite step is an assessment of theorganisation’s biodiversity dependencies andimpacts (see Assessing biodiversity dependencies
and impacts in REQ-02). This assessment allows forconsequent exploration of biodiversity-related risks(e.g. exposure or liability due to its negative impacts)
and opportunities (e.g. access to biodiversityrelated funds and loans resulting from potential
contributions to local, national or international
biodiversity targets).
The materiality assessment should focus on theareas that are most relevant to the organisation(e.g. to business continuity). For example, whenassessing ecosystems, an organisation should
consider the loss of functionality to business
operations if an ecosystem were to become lost/degraded and/or its final ecosystem service
disrupted. When assessing species,
the focus should be on species that (1) havethe potential to disrupt business operations,(2) are legally protected under laws andconventions (e.g. listed by the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild
Fauna and Flora) therefore being potential
sources of fines, and (3) play a significant culturalor economic role for stakeholders and can cause
reputational risks (e.g. hunting, harvesting,pollinating services, educational and recreational
services). Considering societal value can shed lighton risks linked to potential greater regulation,

25

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosurespressure from financial institutions and consumers
that may be caused by growing concern overbiodiversity loss from society.
Tools aimed at supporting biodiversity-relatedmateriality assessment are emerging,xix however
many are currently restricted to understanding
final ecosystem services or specific species or
habitats and do not represent the variety of species
and ecosystems, and genetic diversity. Additionally,materiality assessments of biodiversity require
knowledge of the biodiversity-related geographic
context (from ecosystems to species). To that end,
(1) public and/or private databases on, for example,
species occurrence or ecosystem integrity, can be auseful and cost-effective solution, and (2)biodiversity experts and ecologists can support theprocess (e.g. if such databases are not available,
outdated and/or incomplete).
Details on the approach applied in determining
biodiversity materiality and in the selection of thebiodiversity-related information included in themainstream report represent useful information
for investors, as well as an explanation of thereasons why specific biodiversity-related
elements have been deemed material or
immaterial (see Figure 6). This information is an
important input to an investor’s decision-making
process because it demonstrates the level ofmanagement understanding of the relevance of
biodiversity to the business and helps to identify
when biodiversity-related risks and opportunities
are significant to the organisation’s businessmodel and financial performance. This is crucial
for biodiversity, since it is an emerging area in thereporting space and it is often poorly explored
and understood, and therefore undervalued byorganisations.100 Additionally, REQ-11 of the CDSB
Framework encourages companies to include astatement of conformance, setting out the extent
that the principles and reporting requirements of
the CDSB Framework have been applied. In
doing so, companies are expected to state theoutcome of applying the relevance andmateriality principle.
1.2 Providing contextualised andbusiness-specific biodiversity-related
information and clarifying methods
Disclosures should provide the reader withsuccinct and concise contextual information
specific to the reporting organisation.

xix For example, the Technical Annexes of the SBTN Initial Guidance(available at: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/resources/) provide
guiding questions for the materiality assessment considering sector,
value chain and company’s specificities and the SBTN’s sector-specificmateriality tool and guidance will be publicly available by March 2022.

The organisation should:• Disclose business-specific biodiversity-related
information, avoiding generic considerations
and boilerplates;• Emphasise and report details on priority species,
ecosystems, geographical areas and products/
services (see REQ-02). The disclosure should
explain how an organisation is prioritising
biodiversity-related risks and opportunities
regarding such priority elements. Detailing what
it is doing differently to tackle priority
geographic areas compared to other areas canbe particularly useful. This can represent
decision-useful information for report users,
showing that an organisation has:xx• Understood the geographic-specificity of
biodiversity-related risks and opportunities; and• Screened and assessed the biodiversityrelated status and risks of relevant species,
ecosystems and areas where its operationsand value chain are located, and classified
them according to different levels of risks
and opportunities for the business (seeTools for assessing biodiversity-related
status and risks under REQ-03 for support).
The geographic detail of such disclosures should
be set according to the materiality assessmentof the organisation and can cover either regions,country, or specific sites (e.g. site-specific details
can be disclosed for big mining sites that are
significant for the overall organisation, forinstance due to productivity or reputation);• Contextualise information by clarifying theconnections to other environmental mattersdisclosed, such as climate change, water orland-use; and• Clearly describe the assessment methods used
(e.g. for risk assessment, for biodiversity
dependency and impacts measurement), as wellas assumptions and reasons for inclusion in themainstream report. Additionally, since several
biodiversity-related terms are not uniquely
defined and evolve over time, it is good practiceto provide definitions of the biodiversity-related
terms used in the mainstream report andreference to external sources.

xx Aligned with: UNEP-WCMC, Conservational International and Fauna & FloraInternational (2020). Biodiversity Indicators for Site- based Impacts. Cambridge,
UK. Available from: https://www.unep-wcmc.org/system/comfy/cms/files/
files/000/001/902/original/202102_Biodiversity_Indicators_Report_06.pdf

26

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

1.3 Disclosing information
in a changing landscapeDue to the fast-moving and developing natureof biodiversity assessment and disclosure,organisations may have uncertainty in theidentification of significant risks and opportunities(e.g. due to lacking an adequate methodology
to measure an impact or dependency).
Such uncertainties should not prevent anorganisation from disclosing. Where this is thecase, within its mainstream report, theorganisation shall disclose the limitations in theassessment and state how they are planning toresolve this for future periods (e.g. working todetermine the most appropriate measurement
technique/or proxy). This builds upon Principle 1.4of the CDSB Framework.
Some companies have already integrated
biodiversity in their business strategy whilst
others have yet to adopt substantive measuresand are only in the preliminary stages ofundertaking their journey towards biodiversity
stewardship. Where organisations are still in theprocess of understanding or forming elementsthat should be disclosed upon (e.g. establishingbiodiversity policies, targets and management
responses, or in the process of analysing impacts
and dependencies and preparing a response), thisshould be highlighted in the mainstream report.
The description should include a summary ofactions that are being taken to allow full
disclosure for future years, including timelines.
Reporting on the governance (REQ-01) and risk
management (REQ-03) of biodiversity-related
issues can be a useful basis for organisations in
the process of understanding and forming
elements, as the TCFD similarly suggests forclimate-related issues.
1.4 Reporting boundaries and period
REQ-07 of the CDSB Framework states that thematerial biodiversity-related information disclosed
should be prepared according to the reporting
boundaries used for the rest of the mainstream
report.xxi It may be, however, that biodiversityrelated information that falls outside thesereporting boundaries will be appropriate forinclusion in the mainstream report, such asxxi For additional information see CDSB (2014). Proposals for boundary
setting in mainstream reports. Available from: https://www.cdsb.net/sites/
cdsbnet/files/proposals_for_mainstream_report_boundary_setting.pdf

where significant risks or opportunities relate tosuppliers and outsourced activities within thewider value chain. Since biodiversity-related
dependencies and impacts can extend wellbeyond the immediate vicinity of an operation or
supplier site (e.g. due to wildlife migration or otherlandscape level factors), an organisation may
benefit from adopting a value chain approachxxii
and considering wider spatial boundaries.
Organisations should explain the (biodiversityrelated) value chain and spatial boundaries
considered, outlining any limitations whereapplicable, for example, which parts of thevalue chain are considered (contractual
arrangements, such as leased assets,outsourcing operations and franchises can be
included)xxiii and related areas of risk (e.g.
watershed, landscape, buffer zone).
REQ-09 suggests that the material
biodiversity-related information included in themainstream report should follow the reporting
period used in the rest of the report (i.e. at least
annually). Aligning the reporting period of thebiodiversity-related information included in themainstream report better ensures that it can beconnected with other disclosures, such as
financial performance and other environmental
data, and so enhances comparability, as
advocated by Principles 3 and 4, respectively.
Despite the focus on financial year, themainstream report considers past and forwardlooking information, e.g. in the presentation of
performance and target monitoringxxiv (REQ05 and REQ-02), risks and opportunities
assessment (REQ-03) and outlook (REQ-06).
As detailed in the different requirements in the
Biodiversity Application Guidance, identifying
biodiversity-related temporal boundaries
consists of determining appropriate timeframes
for the assessment of dependencies andimpacts and for the preparation of future
outlook and related analyses (e.g. scenario
analysis), and this selection will influence theextent to which future financial implications
need to be included (e.g. decommissioning
costs). The selection of timeframes depends on
both the goals and targets of the organisationxxii Referring to the SBTN’s value chain ‘spheres of influence’ may be
helpful during the adoption of a value chain approach.
xxiii See The Biological Diversity Protocol for details on boundaries setting(sections 2.1 and 2.2, pgs. 17-22) and on contractual arrangements (pg. 21)xxiv In the Initial Guidance for Business, the SBTN suggests that target
progress should be monitored regularly, with the frequency appropriate
for each target determined in part by the indicator. For instance, quarterly
may be appropriate for some (e.g. water use or pollution discharge), annual
for others (e.g. ecosystem intactness), and every 3-5 years for others (e.g.
species abundance).

27

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

as well as on the assessment of impacts ordependencies (see REQ-02 and REQ-04).
1.5 Using existing disclosures and resources,and ensuring connectivity
The CDSB Framework and its reporting
requirements intend to align with andcomplement existing mainstream financial
disclosures. Therefore, organisations may
already have the information to satisfy certain
aspects of the CDSB reporting requirements
and the suggestions of the Biodiversity
Application Guidance. For example, companies
may already be disclosing biodiversity-related
information that would be appropriate andmaterial for mainstream disclosure throughdifferent reporting channels, such assustainability reports, CDP submissions andindex, investor questionnaires, or natural capitalbalance sheets or income statementsxxv(see Appendix 3). Repurposing these existing
disclosures to meet the specific requirementsof the mainstream report could benefit andstreamline reporting practices. A useful
resource to understand the interoperability ofexisting frameworks and standards is the paper
Reporting on enterprise value101 which also
provides a practical example of sustainabilityrelated financial disclosure through a prototype
focused on climate. Similarly, report preparers
may be able to apply the financial accounting
standards used for mainstream reporting toreport on certain aspects of biodiversity-related
financial information.xxvi
Finally, Principle 3 of the CDSB Framework
emphasises the importance of ensuring
environmental disclosures, including biodiversity
disclosures, are connected with other mainstream
disclosures where the information is material. The
principle informs report preparers that disclosuresxxv E.g. referring to British Standard Institute (2021). BS 8632:2021
Natural Capital Accounting for Organisations.
xxvi Useful resources include the CDSB’s Uncharted waters, which
explores financial accounting standards that could aid companies in
responding to various aspects of the TCFD recommendations. IASB(IFRS® Standards and climate-related disclosures) and the IFRS Foundation(Effects of climate-related matters on financial statements) have bothpublished papers that discuss how the IFRS Standards address issues that
relate to climate-change risks and other emerging risks. Similarly, FASB
has also produced an educational paper (Intersection of Environmental,
Social and Governance Matters with Financial Accounting Standards)
that explains when applying financial accounting standards, organisations
may consider the effects of certain material Environmental, Social andcorporate Governance (ESG) matters (including “ecological impacts, suchas pollution, deforestation, and loss of biodiversity”) that have a material
direct or indirect effect on the financial statements and notes. Building on
the IASB and IFRS Foundation papers, CDSB has also developed guidance(Accounting for Climate) to support preparers on how to integrate
climate-related matters into financial reporting and could also be applied tobiodiversity-related matters, where such matters are considered material.

should be formulated and positioned in a way toallow investors to see and understand thelinkages. In developing their mainstream
reporting practices, companies should try andensure that the language and labelling used best
allows for clear understanding of theseinterconnections and avoids unnecessary
duplication or confusion of information.

2. Roadmap and checklist forbiodiversity-related disclosures
The reporting outcomes depend not only on
the materiality assessment but also on the levelof maturity of integration of biodiversity in thebusiness strategy, policy, and management of
the reporting organisation and of biodiversityrelated disclosures. Providing a clear roadmap
detailing actionable steps with measurable
targets would be particularly valuable to report
users. Figure 6 illustrates a potential approachto biodiversity-related financial disclosuresaccording to the maturity of such disclosures.
Additional support can be provided by the
Biodiversity Guidance Navigation Tool102
by the Capitals Coalition, which supports theunderstanding and assessment of biodiversity,and its inclusion into the organisation’s
management through interactive steps, that
adapt to the maturity of the specificorganisation. The tool also suggests
biodiversity-specific tools and resources.
Combining the roadmap with the checklist
provided below can support the preparation ofeffective disclosures, which need concreteassessment, governance and internal
communication, co-ordination and cooperation
among different business departments.

28

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Throughout theprocess• Inform andreceive signoff from theBoard andManagement(REQ-01)• Adopt a location-specificapproach andengage withstakeholders.
• Adopt avalue-chain
approach,considering
direct operations, andupstream anddownstream
activities

NO

Materiality* assessment preparation
1. Identify and assess biodiversity dependencies and impacts across businessactivities, the value chain, and their respective locations (REQ-02, 04).

YES

Gather the data
and determinemateriality*

2. Assess links with overall business, including management, strategy and processes(e.g. risks assessment, value creation opportunities, monitoring systems) (REQ-02).
3. Assess biodiversity-related current and future risks and opportunities and theirbusiness implications over time (REQ-03, 06).
4. Consider (REQ-03, Table 3):• different categories of risks and opportunities​;• risks from operations, value chain & geographical context.

Is biodiversity material*?

NO

Explain why
Given thedynamic
nature ofmateriality,
materiality
assessment
should be
repeated
regularly

Is your organisation measuring,
addressing and reporting on
biodiversity-related impacts
and dependencies?

YES

Explain which elements are/are not material, and why this is the case

5. Prioritise areas of strategic relevance, including identifying priority species,
ecosystems, geographic areas and products/services (REQ-02).
6. Assess company’s biodiversity-related capacity (expertise, stakeholder engagement
capacity, monitoring systems) (REQ-01, REQ-03)
7. Detail resource needs and allocation (financial and personnel) (REQ-01).

Use Table 6(Appendix 3) inthe Biodiversity
Guidance to map
your data to CDSB
Requirements

8. Define biodiversity policies, goals, contextual targets and metrics that address themain risks and opportunities and contribute to business goals (REQ-02).
9. Determine management responses using the mitigation hierarchy (REQ-02)*Information
is material if it
impacts on theorganisation’s
financialcondition andoperational
results, andits ability to
execute its
strategy –CDSB
Framework

10. Monitor performance over time (REQ-04, 05) and consider likely future effects of
biodiversity risks and opportunities (REQ-06)

Follow the CDSB Framework, Biodiversity Application Guidance and the Checklist for biodiversityrelated financial disclosures to prepare the mainstream report and then check if it:
Explains the rationale behind biodiversity-related information
Provides business-specific information and links with business strategy
Ensures the connectivity of information throughout the report
Provides a clear roadmap with actionable steps and measurable goals
Explains how external stakeholders have been engaged and how a value-chain approach has been adopted

NO

Check other CDSB requirements andprinciples (REQ-07 to REQ-12, e.g.
conformance, assurance)

Are there
disclosure gaps?

YES

Define clear steps to address the gaps
and to enhance disclosure including
measurable objectives and timeline

Figure 6. Roadmap to effective biodiversity-related financial disclosures. This flowchart illustrates a hypothetical roadmap for biodiversity-related financial disclosures.
The path depends on the organisation-specific maturity in and type of conducted biodiversity reporting (i.e. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), CDP Questionnaire) and there
can be additional intermediate paths besides the two shown in the figure. Materiality assessment can occur at different stages throughout the process (this figure is indicative).
The Biodiversity Application Guidance provides additional support (e.g. suggestions and resources) for each step and references to the specific sections of the Guidance
are included in the flow chart.

29

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

The below checklist (referenced in Figure 6)
summarises the suggestions on how to include
material biodiversity-related information inmainstream reports following the CDSB
requirements. The elements of the checklist are
not to be addressed as mandatory
requirements, but as desired disclosures thatshould be included in the mainstream report if

REQ-01 Governance
Does the disclosure:
Identify the person(s) or committee responsible
for biodiversity-related policies, strategy and information?
Explain how biodiversity-related policies, strategy
and management responses are delegated to
management?
Explain whether there are specific roles or mechanisms inplace in priority geographical areas and for priority
products/services to tackle compliance with thebiodiversity-related regulatory landscape, implementationof biodiversity management responses and engagementwith stakeholders?
Describe any systems for accountability and incentivisationof biodiversity management?
Explain whether the governance mechanisms forbiodiversity-related policies, strategies and disclosure
differ from other significant concerns and, if so, why?
REQ-02 Management’s environmental
policies, strategy and targets
Does the disclosure:
Provide context by explaining the biodiversity-related
dependencies and impacts of the organisation withadditional consideration of links to natural capital?
Summarise the biodiversity policies and strategies,
including definitions and how they support or link to theorganisation’s risks and opportunities and overall strategy?
When applicable, explain whether and how biodiversity
strategies, policies, and management are establishedthrough stakeholder engagement and connect with
relevant external societal agreements, policies and targets?
Set out targets (which, where possible, should becontextual, science-based and time bound), timelines, andindicators for delivery of biodiversity policy and strategy
with methods and baselines, including progress towards
targets?
Detail the resourcing of the delivery and management of
biodiversity policies and strategies?
REQ-03 Risks and opportunities
Does the disclosure:
Identify significant biodiversity-related risks andopportunities (including those arising from the loss ofrelated final ecosystem services) by adopting a value-chain
approach and considering different types of risk?
Explain the implications of significant biodiversity-relatedrisks and opportunities on business, value chain andproducts/services, specifying the geographical locations
and time horizons in which they will materialise?

the information is material for the organisation.
Companies that are still in the early stages of
their biodiversity reporting could take aphased approach, reporting on elements thatthey have information for currently and settingout a plan to address additional elements infuture periods (in line with Disclosing
information in a changing landscape).

Quantify biodiversity-related risks and opportunities in thecontext of the organisation’s business model and strategy,
using relevant financial and non-financial metrics and thequantification of dependencies where relevant?
Describe the systems and processes used for assessing,identifying, and monitoring biodiversity-related risks andopportunities, including whether they are integrated withexisting risk management systems and processes and arestakeholder inclusive?
REQ-04 Sources of environmental impact
Does the disclosure:
Provide a selection of relevant biodiversity impact
indicators and metrics, considering sources of significant
biodiversity impacts, changes to the state of biodiversityand valuation of impacts?
Provide relevant baselines/reference states for metrics,
and both absolute and normalised metrics where possible?
Provide explanations and contextualisation of the metrics
including the methodologies used, levels of uncertainty,
and appropriate narrative to assist understanding ofresults?
Categorise and disaggregate metrics where possible tosupport understanding and comparability?
REQ-05 Performance and comparative analysis
Does the disclosure:
Provide appropriate historical data to the results reported
from REQ-04 for significant biodiversity-related impacts
to allow for useful comparison, including details on priority
geographical areas and priority products/services?
Contextualise performance with baselines/reference
states, targets and other criteria used to assess progress?
Explain the major trends with reference to driversof change under and/or outside the control of theorganisation?
REQ-06 Outlook
Does the disclosure:
Explain the likely effect of future biodiversity-related
impacts, risks and opportunities, as well as of biodiversity
strategy on organisation performance and resilience,taking account of regulatory and market trends andenvironmental changes?
Identify and explain the time horizons used for reportingon corporate outlook?
Explain any techniques, such as scenario analysis, used to
inform the outlook including the methods, scenarios andassumptions used, and any shortcomings anduncertainties?

30

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

3. Biodiversity
Application guidance
REQ-01Governance
Disclosures shall describe the governance ofenvironmental policies, strategy and information
Disclosure checklist
Does the disclosure:
Identify the person(s) or committee
responsible for biodiversity-related policies,
strategy and information?
Explain how biodiversity-related policies,
strategy and management responses aredelegated to management?
Explain whether there are specific roles ormechanisms in place in priority geographicalareas and for priority products/services totackle compliance with the biodiversityrelated regulatory landscape, implementationof biodiversity management responses andengagement with stakeholders?
Describe any systems for accountability andincentivisation of biodiversity management?
Explain whether the governancemechanisms for biodiversity-related policies,
strategies and disclosure differ from othersignificant concerns and, if so, why?
1. Governance arrangements and rationale
Governance disclosures should demonstratetransparency and accountability for theorganisation’s oversight of biodiversity-related
matters. It is essential that the responsibility forthe disclosure of biodiversity-related information
is identified, whether it is at board-level ordelegated to specific committees, etc.
The most innovative, far-reaching, andsuccessful biodiversity strategies andmanagement plans will often require theleadership or integral support of the highest
governing bodies of an organisation.
Illustrating, whether diagrammatically or
through clear narrative, where responsibility lies
at board-level and who is driving forward suchstrategies at the management level is essential
to evidence clear accountability and provide
transparency. It assists report users inunderstanding the decision-making processes

for major strategic decisions. For instance, what
processes would allow or require governancebodies to decide to allocate capital, change
strategic direction or transform the businessmodel in response to identified biodiversityrelated risks and opportunities? If no board-level
oversight of biodiversity-related issues is inplace, the organisation should explain why and if
there are plans to change this in the future.
In setting out the governance and management
arrangements for biodiversity-related policies,
strategies, and goals, companies should ideallysummarise the rationale for such arrangements.
For example, at board-level, what qualifications,skills, or experience makes the person ormembers of a committee best suited tooverseeing the organisation’s biodiversityrelated strategy? Some boards andmanagement teams will draw on external
expert advice on general or specificbiodiversity-related issues for capacity building
and steering. For example, capacity building
sessions could be especially appropriate forcompanies approaching the assessment of
biodiversity-related risks and opportunities orusing scenario analysis to drive strategy
development. Offering details of such external,
expert advice in the mainstream reportdemonstrates proactive and responsive
oversight of biodiversity, and improves thereliability of disclosure.
If in place, the organisation may describe theresponsibilities of specific roles, capacity
building sessions, and stakeholder engagement
activities, especially in priority geographicalareas to address the high level of geographic
specificity associated with biodiversity-related
dependencies and impacts and in relation topriority products/services.
2. Information flows and oversight
Effective reporting on governance willarticulate the connections, information flows
and oversight mechanisms that exist between
the board, management, and biodiversityrelated issues. For example, report users may
wish to know by what means and how often
the appropriate board members are informedby management on biodiversity-related
performance, targets, progress, or relevantchanges to the external environment andthrough the supply chain, but also details on
the nature and reliability of the control systemused to prepare biodiversity-related information
to be disclosed.

31

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Additionally, information on how and how often
the employees (and contractors) with direct
responsibility for biodiversity topics (e.g.
employees responsible for emissions andeffluents treatment plants or land management)
are consulted about the biodiversity strategy andmanagement of the organisation would provide
further helpful context on information flows.
To demonstrate that appropriate organisational
and information systems are in place to oversee
biodiversity-related risks and opportunities,
reporting on the governance of significant
biodiversity-related issues could answer thefollowing questions:• Which corporate governance codes determine
or influence the way in which the organisationis governed?
• How often does the whole board discuss
the biodiversity strategy, consider related
developments, and assess related implications
for the business (e.g. business plans andstrategy, corporate responsibility strategy,
biodiversity action plans (BAPs), risk
management policies, innovation/researchand development (R&D) priorities, andperformance objectives)?
• How often is performance and progress inpriority geographical areas and for priority
products/services communicated to
management and/or the person/committee
responsible for biodiversity?
• How are biodiversity considerations
incorporated into governance and businessprocesses for the lifecycle of products, projects
and activities (e.g. environmental management
systems or health, safety and environment
management systems)?
• Where appropriate, are there means forresponsive strategic interventions or systems
in place to ensure resilience (e.g. prevention or
mitigation of incidents, such as polluting spills)?

decisions/capital allocations (e.g. acquisitions,divestiture, major capital expenditures,annual budgets)?
• Do biodiversity information systems exist, andif so, which are the organisational and value
chain boundaries covered by biodiversityrelated information systems?
3. Stakeholder engagement and cooperation
As impacts and dependencies related tobiodiversity are likely to be found outside thedirect operations and may result in unintendedsocial consequences on local communities, therelationship between an organisation, the actors
within its value chain and other stakeholders
plays a key role in managing and mitigating
biodiversity-related issues. A concise descriptionof existing governance mechanisms illustrating
how the organisation selects, engages, andcollaborates with stakeholders in addressing
biodiversity-related issues constitutes useful
information to investors. An organisation can
describe, for example:• Collaboration with biodiversity organisations
or experts to understand emerging trends
and good conservation practices, includingsite-level examples to demonstrate how
stakeholder concerns about potential impacts
are addressed by the organisation;• Engagement with local communities,
consideration of their perspective of theorganisation’s biodiversity conservation
planning and related activitiesxxvii andcollaboration, e.g. with smallholder farmers,
to support the implementation of agricultural
practices that do not harm natural ecosystems
and related biodiversity;• Involvement in multi-stakeholder initiatives
or partnerships aimed at improving theunderstanding of biodiversity and ecosystems,
and/or at addressing impacts to biodiversity; and• Who ensures compliance with biodiversityrelated regulatory environment?

• Partnerships with third parties to protect orrestore habitat areas distinct from where theorganisation has overseen and implemented
restoration or protection measures.

• How are biodiversity-related risks andopportunities considered in major strategic

Among stakeholders, engagement andcollaboration with actors of the value chain

xxvii E.g. the Free prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is a specific rightpertaining to indigenous peoples, recognised in the United Nations Declarationon the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), that allows them to give or
withhold consent to a project that may affect them or their territories.

32

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

is particularly important. Neglecting the value
chain may fail to identify and therefore manage
major biodiversity risks or opportunities103
while also leading to a misinterpretationof the company’s actual biodiversity exposure
or contribution to society (e.g. biodiversity
regulations and safeguards can affect the value
chain and may result in rising costs or decreasing
sales, even if the organisation itself is not directly
subject to such regulations; or impacts on the
agricultural production of raw materials caused
by losses of pollination services due to declining
bee populations104).
Relevant information on the governance of thevalue chain includes a description of existing
traceability system(s) to track and monitor theorigin of raw materials/inputs to operations andlevel of such systems (e.g. only direct suppliers
or beyond), and of collaboration with suppliers
to support and improve their capacity tocomply with biodiversity-related requirementsfrom the reporting organisation and to manage
and mitigate biodiversity risks. If not in place, itwould be useful to provide an explanation of
why this is the case and if there are plans todevelop these in the future.
4. Incentivisation
Incentivising appropriate members of the board
and management for meeting and fulfillingsignificant biodiversity-related goals and targets
is a means of fostering ownership of
performance and reporting on sucharrangements in the mainstream reportcommunicates that commitment. Equallyimportant is the reporting of the metrics orcriteria used in incentive schemes. They should
speak to the organisation’s most pertinent
biodiversity-related risks, opportunities, andstrategy. Providing ongoing disclosure aroundbiodiversity-related performance and progress
towards long-term biodiversity targets tied toremuneration is useful.
5. Specificity of biodiversity governance
Organisations’ biodiversity efforts sometimes
form part of broader, cross-cutting
environmental strategies with governance andoversight organised around these broader,interconnected environmental ambitions (e.g.
climate, land or forest policies). However,different investors can focus their attention ondifferent environmental issues when assessing
companies and reading reports. With
biodiversity escalating up the global agenda
and understanding continuing to develop

around the importance of it to business, thisspecificity is important. When significant,companies should therefore explicitly
summarise their biodiversity-related
governance as discussed in previous
paragraphs but more importantly, explain
how it is integrated into a more connectedenvironmental strategy, as well as in the wider
business strategy.
Useful Resources105
1. Step 02 of the Natural Capital Protocol
and related Biodiversity Guidance includes
suggestions on methods, resources, andfactors to consider when mapping theorganisation’s stakeholders.
2. The International Petroleum Industry
Environmental Conservation Association(IPIECA) Sustainability reporting guidance forthe oil and gas industry provides both genericsuggestions on how to map
and prioritise stakeholders, and biodiversityspecific key points to consider in theorganisation’s reporting (e.g. how are thestakeholders’ perspectives and concerns
considered in biodiversity conservation
planning and activities; including reference
to any multi-stakeholder initiatives orpartnerships the organisation joined topromote improved understanding of
biodiversity and ecosystems, or to address
potential impacts to biodiversity).
3. Some of the GRI standards provide genericsuggestions on how to assess impacts on,
engage with and disclose on stakeholders. In
particular, GRI 308: Supplier Environmental
Assessment 2016 supports organisations in
the assessment of environmental impacts intheir supply chain, in understanding how tomanage these impacts, and the preparationof related disclosures. GRI 413: Local
Communities 2016, instead, provides supportin preparing disclosures that detail theimpacts an organisation may have on local
communities, and how they manage these
impacts.

33

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Examples
1. Kering Universal Registration Document
2020 identifies the committee responsible foraddressing biodiversity-related risks andopportunities, i.e. the Board Sustainability
Committee; the CEO, the Group Managing
Director, and the Lead Independent
Directorate members of the committee (pg.
135). Kering also discloses biodiversity-related
incentives; the amount of performance sharesawarded to executive corporate officers islinked to the achievement of biodiversityrelated targets (pg. 285).

2. Ørsted Sustainability Report 2020 clearlyreports that the heads of its four Offshore
market regions are responsible for the
implementation of the Group’s policy on
biodiversity, and are supported byenvironmental specialists to do so (pg. 37).

REQ-02
Management’s environmental
policies, strategy and targets

1. Providing the context for biodiversity
policy, strategy, and targets

Disclosures shall report management’s
environmental policies, strategy and targets,
including the indicators, plans and timelines
used to assess performance
Disclosure checklist
Does the disclosure:
Provide context by explaining thebiodiversity-related dependencies andimpacts of the organisation with additional
consideration of links to natural capital?
Summarise the biodiversity policies andstrategies, including definitions and how
they support or link to the organisation’srisks and opportunities and overall strategy?
When applicable, explain whether and how
biodiversity strategies, policies, andmanagement are established throughstakeholder engagement and connect with
relevant external societal agreements,
policies and targets?
Set out targets (which, where possible,
should be contextual, science-based andtime bound), timelines, and indicators fordelivery of biodiversity policy and strategy
with methods and baselines, including
progress towards targets?
Detail the resourcing of the delivery
and management of biodiversity policies
and strategies?

3. Danone Universal Registration Document
2020 describes the board’s role in monitoring
investments in projects that have a positiveenvironmental impact, including in relation tobiodiversity (pg. 224).

The report user should be able to understandhow biodiversity and ecosystems, which
underpin and support the organisation’s ability
to succeed, are reflected in its ambitions inmeeting business goals.
1.1 Assessing biodiversity dependencies
and impacts
A prerequisite step to reporting consists ofassessing a) dependencies of the business on
biodiversity and b) impacts the organisation
has on biodiversity (REQ-04). There areinterconnections between dependencies
and impacts, and for that reason they cannot
be treated in isolation, and this requirement(REQ-02) therefore tackles both. Such a holistic
assessment, that considers both dependencies
and impacts, should consider ecosystems,
species and final ecosystem services within
the organisational and value chain boundaries
set (see Reporting boundary and period).
The identified dependencies and impacts
should be considered in the assessment of risks
and opportunities (REQ-03), as well as themateriality assessment.
When conducting such assessment,
organisations may start by identifying
biodiversity dependencies and impacts
accompanied by details on their locations.xxviii

xxviii For example, see Step 1 (Biodiversity risk screening) in UNEP-WCMC,
Conservational International and Fauna & Flora International (2020).
Biodiversity Indicators for Site- based Impacts. Cambridge, UK. Available from:https://www.unep-wcmc.org/system/comfy/cms/files/files/000/001/902/
original/202102_Biodiversity_Indicators_Report_06.pdf

34

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Secondly, measures and quantitative
assessments come into place: quantitative
information is added to the qualitative list
(i.e. inventory)xxix and metrics are calculated.
Approaches such as the pathway approach(outlined in the Natural Capital Protocol) and theDriver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR)
framework can be used to guide this process(see Box 3), from the measurement of drivers of
impacts and dependencies to valuation.
Completing a biodiversity footprint assessment
can also be useful during this step (see Box 4).

Frameworks and tools can assist with thisprocess. For example, the Natural Capital
Protocol (and associated Biodiversity
Guidance)106 provides flexible measurement andvaluation guidance and the Biological Diversity
Protocol107 provides a standardised accounting
framework for consolidated impact disclosure.
See Useful Resources for other resources andtools such as ENCORE,108 a web-based tool that
supports the exploration of dependencies onnature of the economic system and of the risks
for businesses caused by environmental change.

Box 3: Assessment approaches

Example 2

Example 1

The impact pathway approach assesses how, as a result of a specific business activity, an impact
driver results in changes to biodiversity (or natural capital) and how these changes impact
different stakeholders (see Figure 7). A dependency pathway is similar and shows how a particularbusiness activity depends upon specific features of biodiversity (or natural capital) and identifies
how changes in biodiversity affect business costs and/or benefits.

Business activities at an agri-foodcompany lead to land conversion tocreate a new agricultural area
(impact driver)

The land development leads to
the reduction or loss of pollinators
due to loss of supporting habitat(change in the stateof biodiversity)

The reduction or loss of pollination(final ecosystem services) disrupts the
productivity of pollinator-dependent
crops like almonds and the relatedorganisation’s financial performance(impact on business)

Business activities discharge polluting
water emissions (impact driver)

Aquatic ecosystems aredegraded and related biodiversity
is impacted, e.g. due to toxic
substances, reduction of oxygen
levels (change in the stateof biodiversity)

Reduction of water purification
and availability of clean water (final
ecosystem services) affects affects
financial performance of (downstream)organisations requiring clean water as
input into business operations (impact
on business)

Figure 7. Impact pathway approach (based on Biodiversity Guidance of the Natural Capital Protocol)

Figure 7 illustrates how a business activity can be a biodiversity impact driver (either throughan input, such as material used, or a non-product output, such as air or water pollution).
This generates changes in biodiversity, which in turn can affect the organisation or society. 109, 110
Dependencies are often integrated into the impact pathway due to their interconnections with
impacts (e.g. feedback loops between impacts on habitats and loss of pollinators, see Figure 7).

xxix See Biological Diversity Protocol for further details. Endangered
Wildlife Trust (2020). The Biological Diversity Protocol. Available from:https://www.nbbnbdp.org/uploads/1/3/1/4/131498886/biological_diversity_
protocol__bd_protocol_.pdf

35

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Box 3 (continued)
Once the list of impacts and dependencies has been determined, the Biodiversity Guidance toaccompany the Natural Capital Protocol outlines three steps for using the pathway approach tomeasure and value impacts and dependencies:(1) Measure impact drivers and dependencies;(2) Measure changes in the state of biodiversity; and(3) Value biodiversity impacts and dependencies.
A similar, and harmonised, approach is the Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response framework111, 112
which assumes a chain of causal links, with economic/social drivers exerting pressure on theenvironment, consequently causing changes in the state of the environment. These changes leadto business or societal impacts that may require a response. Appendix 10 maps the Pathway
approach to the DPSIR framework.
References:• Capitals Coalition (2016) Natural Capital Protocol. Available from: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-protocol/,• Capitals Coalition and Cambridge Conservation Initiative (2020). Integrating Biodiversity into Natural Capital Assessments. Available
from: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Biodiversity-Guidance_COMBINED_single-page.pdf

Box 4: Biodiversity Footprint assessment
A biodiversity footprint refers to the total impact of an organisation, project, region, service or
product on biodiversity and is one option to assess impacts. Biodiversity footprinting tools
attempt to capture the biodiversity impact of a company inclusive of its upstream anddownstream effects (along the value chain).113 This typically involves cross-linking a form of productlife cycle and/or value chain analysis to the physical locations of business activities and the various
biodiversity drivers involved.114, 115
Impacts on ecosystems are often translated into a single metric reflecting species availability,
and ideally based on surface areas adjusted for condition, such as mean species abundance per
area or potentially disappeared fraction of species per area per year. Some of the existing impact
measurement approaches measure both the positive and negative footprints. Some footprint
assessments may use ‘proxy approaches’ that consider biodiversity impacts as they relate to otherimpacts, such as water pollution. However, calls are being made for advanced methods that
capture biodiversity related impacts (and dependencies) more accurately.
The results can allow insight into potential impacts and allow for prioritisation of efforts. However,biodiversity footprints do not constitute measures of actual impact for each geographical area/
ecosystem, therefore it is recommended to use footprints in combination with other approaches,such as environmental impact assessments (EIAs).116
Adapted from references:• IUCN NL (2020). A compass for navigating the world of biodiversity footprinting tools: an introduction for companies andpolicy makers. Available from: https://www.iucn.nl/app/uploads/2021/04/a_compass_for_navigating_biodiversity_footprint_
tools_-_final_1.pdf• Hilton, S. and Lee, JM J. (2021). Assessing Portfolio Impacts - Tools to Measure Biodiversity and SDG Footprints of Financial
Portfolios. Gland, Switzerland: WWF. Available from: https://wwf.panda.org/?2898916/Assessing-Portfolio-Impacts

36

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

The assessment should be in the context of theorganisational boundary set and of wider natural
capital changes and social issues, with otherconsiderations including:• Different business units and phases of thevalue chain (from raw material extraction to
end-of-life of products, when applicable) in
relation to their locations, thus consideringboth on-site and off-site dependencies, andboth those that are under and outside thecontrol of the organisation;xxx• Aspects linked to the socio-economic context;• Interactions between biodiversity impacts
and dependencies;• Trends in external factors, outside the controlof the business, that may accentuate ormoderate impacts, or result in changes tobusiness dependencies (e.g. the degradationof a forest that currently provides flooding
protection). This may include both naturalforces and human activities, including
regulatory changes;• Dependencies/impacts that arise outside thereporting period timeframe. For example,
significant impacts from previous years thatare still ongoing (despite the activity havingceased) and future potential impacts/
dependencies; and• The need to consult with external
stakeholders to understand key biodiversity
considerations.
As organisations’ biodiversity dependencies andimpacts vary according to sector, role in the value
chain and geographic location, organisations
should consider supplementary sector-specificand location-specific guidance where possible.
1.2 Reporting material information
on dependencies and impacts
Reporting details of the impact and dependency
assessment provides report users with usefulbusiness context regarding the selection of
biodiversity-related strategies, policies andtargets. Material information about biodiversityrelated dependencies and impacts should be
disclosed and related to the context of thebusiness model where possible, including thoserelated to previous years that the organisation has
continued responsibility for. This may include
those related to ecosystems, species and/or thexxx For practical suggestions refer to the Natural Capital Protocol (e.g.
value chain in Table 3.6 and Table 5.4).

final ecosystem services underpinnedby biodiversity.
Options for summarising dependencies andimpacts include a narrative description and/orgraphical representation of the integrated
business model. Where applicable, organisations
should recognise and illustrate theinterconnected nature between impacts anddependencies, detailing how significant impacts
are connected to or arise as a result ofdependencies (e.g. degradation of forest
ecosystem — impact — due to the use of timber
during the production process - dependency).
When reporting, it is recommended tocategorise biodiversity impacts anddependencies into value chain phases (i.e. direct
operations, downstream and upstream) and/or
into different impact driver categories (see Box2) as outlined by IPBES,117 the SBTN,118 the
Natural Capital Protocol119 and the Transparent
project.120 To exemplify this, Appendix 6 contains
a table of biodiversity impacts categorised into
impact driver categories.
As biodiversity loss is interconnected to and shares
impact drivers, such as pollution, water-use andland-use change, with other changes to natural
capital (e.g. climate change, land and water
degradation) (see Key Characteristics), it is helpful
for companies to detail their dependencies andimpacts on biodiversity in the context of wider
natural capital changes and social issues affecting
the business. Graphical representations may be
helpful in this respect. This contextualisation offers
report users the opportunity to understand:• The position of biodiversity impacts anddependencies within the complex web ofnatural systems;• Risks and opportunities emerging frominterconnections and relationships between
different changes to natural capital; and• How the reporting organisation integrates
learnings from interconnections into risk
management, strategy and performance.
The thinking and guidance in the Natural Capital
Protocol,121 the Principles of Integrated Capitals
Assessments,122 British Standard Institute (BSI)’s
standard on natural capital accounting fororganisations123 and International <IR>
Framework,124, xxxi can support (1) the wider

xxxi IIRC is as of 2021 is now part of The Value Reporting Foundation.

37

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

understanding of the relationships between
natural capital and also other capitals and(2) the preparation of effective disclosures.
Finally, disclosing relevant metrics and valuations
can help report users to understand the relevanceand magnitude of dependencies and impacts (seeREQ-03 and REQ-04 for further details). Methods
to measure dependencies are a current research
gap and may be challenging (see REQ-03).
1.3 Reporting priority species, ecosystems,
geographical areas and products/services
The dependency and impact assessment(also in combination with materiality and risk
assessment) should support the identificationof species, ecosystems, geographical areas andproducts/services that are priorities to theorganisation from a biodiversity management
perspective. A concise overview of thesepriorities can provide useful context to thereport user, enabling them to determine how
they have been addressed through policies,
targets and management activities. Priority
elements reported should be within theorganisational boundaries set and should
consider the value chain, as well as future
operations that have a degree of certainty.
Table 1 contains a summary of considerations
for determining priority species, ecosystems andhabitats, geographical areas and products/
services, as well as useful details/indicators toreport for each element.

Table 1. Determining priority species, ecosystems, geographical areas and products/services - considerations and useful indicators(Adapted from: IUCN Guidelines for planning and monitoring corporate biodiversity performance and GRI 304 on Biodiversity)

Priority element

Considerations

Useful details or indicators to disclose

Species• Species commonly impacted by businessactivities (e.g. forest dependent birds
whose habitat is cleared for agriculture,marine mammals struck by vessels). Thisshould also include species impacted bydownstream value chain activities (e.g.
consumer use of products).

• List of priority species deemed toconstitute material information, including
a brief explanation linked to thegeographic context of the business.

• Threatened species within areas
impacted by business activities (whether
impacted directly or not).xxxii• Protected and extinction risk status of
species, referring to external guidance,such as the International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) Red Listof Threatened Species.

• Species that are unique to (i.e. restrictedto) or dependent on the sites or habitats
the company operates in.
• Species important for business continuity(e.g. because they are necessary for the
final ecosystem services the organisation
depends on, such as pollination).
• Species that are important for local
stakeholders (e.g. of cultural value to local
or indigenous people, or are necessary
for the final ecosystem services thatstakeholders are dependent on).
Ecosystems andhabitats• Ecosystems commonly impacted bybusiness activities (e.g. mangroves orseagrass beds being used by marine
construction companies).
• Level of threat to ecosystems that arecommonly impacted by businessactivities.
• Habitats unique to sites the company
operates in or very localised habitats (e.g.
seamounts or coastal upwellings).

xxxii For example, species classified as Critically Endangered,Endangered or Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species or
species known to be locally threatened (e.g. on a national Red List).

• List of priority ecosystems and habitats
deemed to be significant that theorganisation interacts with, including abrief explanation linked to the context ofthe business and geographical details.xxxiii• Level of ecosystem threat, with reference
to external resources, such as the IUCNRed List of Ecosystems or conserved orprotected areas.
• Extent of ecosystems and habitats,where possible.

xxxiii The IUCN Habitat Classification Scheme and IUCN Ecosystem
Typology are useful resources.

38

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Priority element

Considerations

Ecosystems andhabitats (continued)• Critical habitats and ecosystems forthreatened species.

Useful details or indicators to disclose• Key biodiversity areas and protectedareas (e.g. identified using tools such as
the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment
Tool (IBAT)).
• Habitats and ecosystems important forbusiness continuity (e.g. due to a business
dependency).
• Habitats and ecosystems important for
local stakeholders (e.g. due to providing
final ecosystem services such as water orfish or holding cultural value to local orindigenous people).
Geographical areas• Operational (or value chain) areas thatare in or within close proximity toimportant areas for biodiversity (e.g.
protected areas, community reserves,world heritage sites, key biodiversity
areas, critical habitats, biodiversity
hotspots).
• Operational (or value chain) areas
important to local stakeholders due tothe final ecosystem services provided(e.g. areas shared with local fisheries).

• List of operational (or value chain) areasthat are in, or within close proximity to,important areas for biodiversity, including(1) geographical location, (2) biodiversity
value of areas (e.g. protected area status,
world heritage site status, key
biodiversity area status, biodiversity
hotspot status), (3) description ofoperational activities in the area,
including position within the value chain,and (4) level of control over the area.
• A ‘heat map’ which informs report usersof which operational areas are the more
impactful or dependent on biodiversity
and where they are locatedgeographically.
• Extent of operational sites.
• Number of sites operated on that are ofimportance to endangered/criticallyendangered species.
• Percentage of sites located in priority
geographical areas compared to totalsites, and the corresponding contribution
to the organisation’s production and/or
revenue.

Products and/or
services• Products and/or services provided by theorganisation that are likely to have asignificant impact on biodiversity (e.g.
due to the production process or
downstream disposal).
• Products and/or services provided byorganisation that are dependent on
biodiversity and therefore likely to bematerially impacted by biodiversity loss.

• List of priority products and/or services,
including a description of the significant
dependencies and/or impacts.
• Description of whether the dependency
and/or impact is located within direct
operations, upstream, or downstream.
• Percentage of revenue attributed to the
products and/or services.

39

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

It may be helpful to aggregate some details for
simplicity. For example, details on priority
ecosystems could be aggregated into types of
ecosystems and details on priority species could
be aggregated into different taxonomic levels(such as genus or family) or ecological functions.
When reporting details on priority geographicalareas, it may be helpful to categorise and/or
aggregate areas based on their level of
biodiversity priority (e.g. according to habitat
quality scores or protected/key biodiversity area
status, using tools such as ENCORE,125 STAR,126
and IBAT127 or a combination — see REQ-04
Useful Resources for further details). An example
of a detail being aggregated is reporting thepercentage of land split into ownershipcategories as opposed to the level of control foreach individual priority geographic area.
Providing an explanation of basis, criteria, or
metrics for defining and determining priority
species, ecosystems, and geographical areas is
helpful for report users, including the considereddefinitions of classifications, such as protectedareas or areas with high biodiversity value.xxxiv

2. Policies and strategies
Organisations should outline policies, strategies
and public commitments to protect, restore orsustainably use biodiversity. Report users shouldbe able to understand how identified risks andopportunities (due to dependencies andimpacts, see REQ-03) are reflected in theorganisation’s strategic development and how
they affect biodiversity-related ambitions.
It may be beneficial to set out the reasoning
behind the adoption of policies and strategies,
explaining how they are mitigating risks andharnessing opportunities identified in the related
assessment. The description should beappropriately connected with risk management
processes and detail how biodiversity policies
and strategies are integrated in the overallbusiness strategy and management (e.g. inassessing organisation performance, overseeing
expenditure, costing, acquisitions and divestures,and in assurance processes). Since biodiversityrelated risks and opportunities vary greatly
according to location and time horizon,

xxxvi For example, the IUCN categorisation for national protected areas,international protected area designations including UNESCO World Heritage
natural and cultural sites, the Ramsar Convention wetlands sites, the UNESCO
Man and Biosphere Reserves; or Key Biodiversity Areas — sites that contributesignificantly to the global persistence of biodiversity, or other national orregional protected areas or priority sites may be relevant for the organisation.

consideration of geography and time is central
when reporting on biodiversity-related policies,
strategies and targets. For example:• Biodiversity-related regulations are more likely
to be introduced in one country compared toanother;• The nature and severity of biodiversity
changes, such as species loss and ecosystemdegradation and its implications for thesocio-economic conditions, will varysignificantly;128, 129• Risks and impacts related to biodiversity andfinal ecosystem services may extend wellbeyond the immediate vicinity of current
activities; and• Potential impacts, opportunities and management
approaches vary according to geography.
The details reported will depend on theorganisational boundary set (see Reporting
boundary and period). It is also useful to explain
if specific goals or targets and prioritising actions
are in place in priority geographical areas andpriority products/services.
It is recommended that strategies and policies
are developed in connection to important
agreements, policies or targets (e.g. SDGs,
Science-based Targets for Nature and United
Nations (UN) Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) post-2020 biodiversity framework),
national and regional regulations and goals (e.g.
EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the Leaders
Pledge for Naturexxxv, the Nature Compact
signed by G7 leaders, National Biodiversity
Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs)), and/or
sectoral initiatives (e.g. One Planet Business for
Biodiversity which focuses on agriculture, theFinance for Biodiversity pledge and therequirement for International Council on Mining
and Metals (ICMM) members to commit to net
positive impact). As stated in the CDSB
Framework, this is good practice because it
provides a basis for comparison, but therelevance to the organisation should be
explained. It is also suggested to provide detailsof compliance to laws in different jurisdictions(e.g. Brazilian forest code or EU Timber
Regulation) or mandatory standards (e.g.
Indonesian Sustainable Palm Oil standard).

xxxv 88 countries have currently signed, committing to reversing
biodiversity loss by 2030.

40

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Examples of policies include commitments(1) to avoid working in sensitive areas,(2) to eliminate conversion of natural ecosystems,or (3) to eliminate deforestation. Where possible,
these commitments should be for specificecosystems and species (e.g. a commitment to notplant on peatlands). “Biodiversity net gain” or “nonet loss” commitments and policies,xxxvi involving
mitigation hierarchy principles (see Box 5),130 are
becoming increasingly expected by regulators(often embedded within national legislation)
and are often required by financial institutions
in order to finance a project.131, 132, 133, xxxvii
Organisations should provide details of biodiversity
net gain and no net loss commitments and, where
relevant, a concise overview of performance inrelation to the commitment. It may also be helpful
to disclose how much of the value chain theorganisation has visibility over when setting out
policies/commitments.
Where biodiversity strategies/policies areincluded in or interact with other environmental
or social policies, report preparers should drawusers’ attention to potential or existing synergies
or trade-offs, explaining the benefits and/or
feedbacks (e.g. effects of climate change).
Finally, explanation would be beneficial in theevent of: (1) exclusion of geographies, facilities,
or biodiversity changes from reporting scope,(2) no stakeholder engagement, and (3) nointegration of biodiversity into the overall
organisation policy and strategy.

operations/value chain and geographic context.
Therefore, effective management responses
require both internal actions and external actions
involving stakeholder engagement. Information
on engagement and cooperation with otherstakeholders both at the operational site level
and along the value chain is useful to describe
the company’s action in tackling biodiversity
risks. For example, engagement with suppliers(first tier and beyond), local communities andsmall holders, and participation in initiatives topromote the implementation of biodiversityrelated policies and commitments are key
elements to disclose to illustrate the company’s
engagement in the mitigation of biodiversity loss
and sustainable land management.
Where relevant, organisations should provide
details of the mitigation hierarchy approach taken(see Box 5). It may be helpful for report users togroup (a selection of) management responses(see Table 2) into mitigation hierarchy categories
and outline how they contribute to “biodiversity
net gain” or “no net loss” commitments.xxxvii
Box 5: Mitigation Hierarchy
Mitigation hierarchy principles can be
useful for shaping biodiversity management
responses, as well as management strategies
and target setting (see Targets and timelines),
including along the value chain. The mitigation
hierarchy pathway is designed to address
biodiversity impacts and refers to the following
sequence of actions: 134, 135, 136

3. Management responses

1. Avoid impacts on biodiversity;

A summary of management responses should
be disclosed to concisely exemplify theorganisation’s approach to biodiversity
management. This should include details onpractices implemented to manage risks in the
short-term compared to the long-term andshould consider actions at the product, corporate
and value chain levels, as well as the operationalsite level. When applicable, this can becomplemented with a reference to more detailed
external documents (e.g. dedicated biodiversity
policy document or website).

2. Reduce biodiversity impacts as far as possible;

Exposure to biodiversity-related risks andopportunities depends on both businessxxxvi “No net loss” refers to the point at which project-related impacts on
biodiversity are balanced by mitigation measures. “Net gain” refers to where
gains are greater than losses. Reference: Refer to the Natural Capital Protocol
Biodiversity Guidance and Biological Diversity Protocol for further information.
xxxvii For example, the UK has integrated Biodiversity Net Gain into its
Environment Bill, as a requirement for new infrastructure projects.

3. Restore/remediate impacts that are
immediately reversible; and4. Offset residual impacts to achieve a desired
net outcome (e.g. no net loss or net gain).
The conservation hierarchy pathway,137
designed to be used alongside the mitigation
hierarchy pathway, provides a mechanism fordelivering additional conservation potential
beyond direct impact mitigation. The SBTN’s
Action Framework (avoid, reduce, regenerate,
restore and transform) is based on the mitigationand conservation hierarchy but has been
extended to also include transformative action.138

xxxviii Biodiversity net gain metrics (often expressed as percentages)
are still under development and need optimisation.

41

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Categorising biodiversity expenditure into levelsof hierarchy and providing percentages where
possible (e.g. 40% of biodiversity expenditure wason avoiding biodiversity impacts) can also
provide useful context.
The first stage of ‘avoidance of impacts’ is themost important, therefore if it is necessary for an
organisation to descend the sequence of actions,they should demonstrate why avoidance was
not possible. When detailing activities that aim tooffset biodiversity impacts (which should only be
performed as the last option of the sequence ofactions), organisations should provide access tooffsetting methodologies, an explanation of why
activities could not follow any of the othermitigation pathways and a statement outlining
how ecological equivalency has beenachieved.xxxix
Examples of management responses are
outlined in Table 2.

Table 2. Examples of management responses to biodiversity risks and opportunities, categorised into internal (responses related to internal policies
and business operations), external (responses related to stakeholders outside the organisational boundary), value chain phases (direct operations,
upstream, downstream), level (site, corporate, product) and possible mitigation hierarchy category.

Management response

Internal

External

Value chain
position

Level

Possible mitigation
hierarchy category

Investment in natural infrastructure (e.g. forests
for flood protection or wetlands to reduce water
treatment costs).

Directoperations;
Upstream

Site;
Corporate

Avoid; Reduce;
RestoreImplementation of projects/initiatives focused on
ecosystem restoration and protection, or
preventing ecosystem conversion, such as
deforestation.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Site;
Corporate

Avoid; Restore

Improving product design to improve longevity,
recyclability, circularity, resource efficiency or useof hazardous inputs.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Product

Avoid; Reduce

Minimising the input of virgin materials.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Product

ReduceProduction of BAPs which aim to address
identified biodiversity impacts and lead to theconservation or enhancement of biodiversity at a
local level.

Directoperations;
Upstream

Site

Reduce; Restore

Create an internal culture of learning aroundbiodiversity and sustainability.

Directoperations

Corporate

Avoid; Reduce

Training courses for employees and suppliers.

Directoperations;
Upstream

Site;
Corporate

Avoid; Reduce

Measurement and monitoring procedures in lightof risks and opportunities described in REQ-03,
including throughout the value chain.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Site

Avoid; Reduce

Measures implemented as a result of legal
proceedings or legal obligations, such aschanges to operations, processes, products or
technology.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Site;
Corporate;
Product

Avoid; Reduce

Processes used to integrate biodiversity
considerations into site and product selection
and design, including the level of ecologicalsensitivity and methods to minimise ecologicalimpacts such as soil disturbance and erosion,
storm water, waste, and wildlife habitat impacts.

Directoperations

Site;
Product

Avoid; Reduce

xxxix For further details on ecological equivalency, please refer to the
Biological Diversity Protocol, the BBOP Guidance Notes to the Standard on
Biodiversity Offsets, DEFRA Biodiversity metrics 3.0 – User Guide.

42

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Management response

Internal

External

Value chain
position

Level

Possible mitigation
hierarchy category

Using standard and certification schemes toindependently verify business activities andactions related to biodiversity (e.g. Marine
Stewardship Council or Forest StewardshipCouncil certifications).

Directoperations;
Upstream

Site;
Product

Avoid; Reduce

Implementing a biodiversity informed
procurement strategy which, for example,
sources products based on their biodiversity
dependency, with the aim of reducing operating
and financial risk.

Directoperations;
Upstream

Corporate

Avoid; Reduce

Gaining relevant biodiversity certifications for
production/sourcing of commodities withincreased risk (high dependency or impact).

Directoperations;
Upstream

Site;
Product

Avoid; Reduce

Participating in an extended producer responsibility
scheme or applying product stewardship, which
extends the producer’s responsibility for a productor service to its end of life.

Downstream

Product

ReduceEngaging in/implementing product take-backschemes to divert products and materials from
disposal.

Downstream

Product

Avoid; Reduce

Implementing agreements with third parties tofollow specific procedures when managing waste.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Site;
Corporate

ReduceWhere available, setting science-based targets
for value chain partners to achieve for their sites
and adjacent landscapes/seascapes.

Upstream;
Downstream

Site;
Corporate

Avoid; Reduce;
RestoreWhere relevant, design products that enable
customers to have more sustainable lifestyles
and behaviour.

Downstream

Product

Avoid; Reduce

Consumer engagement to raise awarenessabout sustainable consumption practices from abiodiversity perspective.

Downstream

Product;
Corporate

Avoid; Reduce

Stakeholder engagement activities aimed at
integrated biodiversity management influencing
governance within an area, and protection andrestoration of habitats or ecosystems.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Site

Avoid; Restore

Work with industry coalitions to establish andshare best practices.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Corporate

Avoid; Reduce

Implement systems that conciliate production
and restoration.

Directoperations;
Upstream

Corporate

RestoreAdvocate to support the effectiveness of
biodiversity-related actions from local andnational governments and halt similar advocacy
efforts that are detrimental to the protection of
biodiversity.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Corporate

Avoid; Reduce;
RestoreEngage in integrated multi-stakeholder planningfor natural resources at the landscape level,
including consideration of cumulative impacts.

Directoperations;
Upstream

Corporate

Avoid; Reduce;
RestoreSupport of biodiversity restoration efforts wherethese are linked to business operations, such as
funding biodiversity related projects.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Site;
Corporate

RestoreSupport species restoration activities, including
to reduce extinction risk.

Directoperations;
Upstream;
Downstream

Corporate

Restore43

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Management response

Internal

Value chain
position

Level

Possible mitigation
hierarchy category

Avoid business activities within a particulargeographical area or landscape/seascape(e.g. within internationally recognised areasof importance).

Directoperations;
Upstream

Site;
Corporate

Avoid

Avoid business activities within a particularseason or time period (e.g. not disturbing the
ground in the wet season to avoid soil
erosion, or not harvesting fish during
spawning season).

Directoperations;
Upstream

Site

Avoid

Changes to the business model, such as
moving from ownership to leasing/sharing
economy models or using digitalisation tominimise the need for materials.

Directoperations;Downstream

Corporate

ReduceMoving production to a lower impact location(following careful consideration of the risk tolivelihoods caused by the shift in business).

Directoperations;Downstream

Site

Avoid; Reduce

Organisations should include details of how
management responses relate to the policies andtargets set, as well their effectiveness, linked to
relevant biodiversity impact and performance
metrics (see REQ-04 and REQ-05). Quantitative
examples can also help to demonstrate theeffectiveness of measures, for example:• Number of species of flora or fauna transplanted;• Number of (and/or percentage of) trained
employees, number of partnerships signed by
the company with a scientific body or nature
conservation stakeholder;• Costs avoided by measures to reduce impacts;• Reduction in number of incidents of illegal orunsustainable activity; and• Reduction in number of animal strikes(e.g. by boats or turbines).
Report users should connect management
responses to the impacts and dependencies
identified, and related risks and opportunities,
ideally having a suite of linked indicators
demonstrating the effectiveness of responses.
As management efforts may take time to achieve
their outcomes, it is necessary to outline how theeffectiveness of management responses ismonitored on an ongoing basis (for example,
carrying out biodiversity impact assessments at
appropriate intervals). It is also helpful to detail(1) where actions are voluntary and/or go beyond
legal obligations, (2) differences between practices

External

and policies in terrestrial and marine areas, and (3)and the percentage of sites to which management
practices apply (if not 100%).
4. Targets and timelines
Detailed and consistent disclosure and related
timelines is especially important for the reportingof corporate targets to enable the measurementof performance against biodiversity policies andstrategies over time. The results of biodiversity
impact and dependency assessments, ecosystemservices assessments, biodiversity footprint
assessments, and risk assessments may be
helpful to inform targets. Global biodiversity
initiatives (e.g. the SBTNxl, United Nations (UN)CBD post-2020 biodiversity frameworkxli, aGlobal Goal for nature and SDGs) can be helpful
for forming targets (see Useful resources), as well
as regional, national, and subnational biodiversity
strategies (e.g. NBSAPs, Subnational Biodiversity
Strategies and Action Plans, and Regional
Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans).
The type of target and indicator, baseline/reference state, timeline, and scope should beclearly described to investors and connectedwith the addressed business risks and/or
opportunities, as well as with the overall businessstrategy. Biodiversity targets being developed for
the CBD’s post-2020 global biodiversity
framework have emphasised the need for“Specific, Measurable, Ambitious, Realistic, andTime-bound” (SMART) targets, which is also

xl Science Based Target Network. Available from:https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/
xli The current global goal for nature is to transition to nature-positive by
2030 and to live in harmony with nature by 2050.

44

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresencouraged for organisations.139 The SBTN
defines science-based targets as being
measurable, actionable, and time-bounded,based on the best available science, that allow
actors to align with Earth’s limits and societal
sustainability goals.140 Whilst defining theplanetary boundary for biodiversity ischallenging,141 the principles of planetary
boundaries142 can be useful for guiding
biodiversity target-setting within the context ofother societal risks. The National Biodiversity
Account (e.g. based on the UN System ofEnvironmental Economic Accounting (SEEA)143)
developed by the National Statistical Office canhelp organisations to define targets which are
specific for different contexts.
Targets should follow the principles set out in the
CDSB framework, with useful details to report
including:• Are the targets contextual and science-based?
• Have the baseline/reference state and target
year been defined?
• Are targets quantifiable?
• Are specific targets set for priority species,
ecosystems, geographical areas and products/
services or for areas where no biodiversity
standards exist (e.g. set by regulatory
mechanisms)?
• Are targets measured through KPIs and arethese used internally by management?
• Have targets been discussed with stakeholders?
Will they fulfil stakeholder expectations?
• Are targets aligned with international goals, and/or with regional, national, or local regulations?
• How do targets link to and contribute towardscommitments such as “no net loss” or “net gain”
and/or commitments in response to regulatory
or impact drivers?
Due to the variability of biodiversity impacts
over time (see Key characteristics), it may bebeneficial to set timelines for targets according
to how the organisation has defined the short-,
medium- and long-term in its risk and outlook
analysis. Due to the geographical variation in
biodiversity priorities, as well as differing legal
and regulatory requirements, targets mayneed to be tailored to different locations or be
specific to categories of areas based on theirrisk-ratings (e.g. specific targets for priority
geographical areas).

As an organisation progresses with its
biodiversity strategies and policies, it is beneficial
to explain its progress towards targets and what
factors have been intrinsic to achieving or
surpassing the targets. Progress towards targets
may be expressed in terms of reducing negative
impacts but also through more proactive targets.
REQ-05 contains examples of indicators. Whentargets have been or are likely to be missed, thisshould be rationalised, detailing factors that weresignificant and explaining what could have been
and could not be controlled or better managed.
Explaining how strategies will be adapted to
improve performance as a result would be ofparticular interest to report users.
Where biodiversity targets interact with otherenvironmental or social policies, report preparers
should draw users’ attention to potential orexisting synergies, explaining the benefits and/or
feedbacks (e.g. effects of climate change).

5. Resourcing
When reporting on biodiversity-related policies,
strategies and targets, companies should set out
the resourcing, both financial and personnel,
for meeting the delivery of the biodiversity
policies and strategy. Such detail in amainstream report can offer investors
reassurance of the organisation’s commitment
and effort to meeting its biodiversity ambitions.
Reporting on resourcing is especially important
if the organisation’s strategy requires significant
capital investment or operation reorganisation tomeet its ambitions. Additionally, specificresources in place in priority geographical areas
should be detailed.

45

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Useful Resources:
Biodiversity impact and dependency
assessment / footprint assessment
1. The Biodiversity Guidance to accompany the
Natural Capital Protocol offers a decisionmaking framework for completing a biodiversityinclusive natural capital assessment, allowing
organisations to identify, measure and value theirdirect and indirect impacts and dependencies
on biodiversity. The Biodiversity Guidance
Navigation Tool guides users through a
biodiversity-inclusive natural capital assessment,
following the steps in the Natural Capital
Protocol and suggesting specific tools, resources
and methodologies based on the scope/area ofthe value chain a company sits.
2. Stage 1 of the IUCN Guidelines for planningand monitoring corporate biodiversity
performance offers guidance around defining
the corporate scope of biodiversity influence,
identifying which pressures (drivers) anddependencies are the most important for acompany to tackle, based on the importance ofeach pressure and the level of control, as well as
identifying priority species, habitats, areas andecosystem services.
3. The Good Practices for the Collection of
Biodiversity Baseline Data by the Multilateral
Financing Institutions Biodiversity Working
Group & Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative
supports the implementation of biodiversityinclusive impact assessments (in particular for
Environmental and Social Impact Assessments)and management planning, by providing a
step-by-step approach (from the identificationof the area to long term monitoring) and auseful summary and checklist. This resource isalso useful for REQ-04.
4. Bioscope provides businesses with a simple
and fast indication of the most important
impacts on biodiversity arising from their
supply chain, including the potential impact ofcommodities purchased as well as the
upstream supply chain.
5. The first and the second stage of the
Biodiversity indicators for site-based impacts
methodology support the identification of sites(operations) with potentially high biodiversity
significance.
6. GRI 304 disclosure standards on biodiversity
include a disclosure on operational sites owned,
leased, managed in, or adjacent to protectedareas and areas of high biodiversity value.

7. The Biological Diversity Protocol is currently
the only existing accounting framework forbiodiversity footprint assessments. It offers an
accounting and reporting framework thatenables organisations to produce Statementsof Biodiversity Position and Performance, which
can be used to measure performance and riskover time.
8. Among other information, the Biodiversity A
to Z provides biodiversity-related data at thecountry level, such as recognised protectedareas and biodiversity designations.
9. Tools providing interactive maps can support
the assessment of dependencies and impacts:• ENCORE allows the exploration of
dependencies (on ecosystem services) and
impacts (on ecosystems) on nature ofbusinesses across all sectors. Additionally, thebiodiversity module allows users to assess thepotential to reduce species extinction andecological integrity risk of portfolios (using
the STAR metric).
• The IBAT tool provides geographic information
about global biodiversity (i.e. World Databaseon Protected Areas, IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species, and the World Databaseof Key Biodiversity Areas) that support theassessment of priority areas and impact. The
results of the assessment can indicate whether
companies might contribute towards species
extinction risk, changes to species abundance,
deterioration of indigenous peoples’ protectedareas, also through metrics such as the
Biodiversity Impact Metric (which uses theRarity-weighted Species Richness data fromthe IUCN Red List) and the STAR Metric scores
per site.
• The Global Forest Watch is a tool for exploringand monitoring forest changes and associatedbiodiversity impacts in different areas throughinteractive maps and country dashboard.
• The Ocean Data Viewer allows users to view
(and download) a range of spatial datasetson marine and coastal biodiversity that are
useful for informing decisions regarding
the conservation of marine and ocean
ecosystems.

46

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Useful Resources:
Policy, strategy and targets
10. The Finance for Biodiversity Pledge, launchedin September 2020, is a global group of 26
financial institutions committing to protect andrestore biodiversity through finance activities andinvestments. Financial institutions are encouraged
to sign and join the collective action which
includes knowledge sharing. The group released
a guide on biodiversity measurement approaches
for financial institutions.
11. Stage 2 of the IUCN Guidelines for planningand monitoring corporate biodiversity
performance offers guidance around developing
a corporate biodiversity vision, goals andobjectives, generally focused on improving thestate of biodiversity or associated benefits topeople (ecosystem services).
12. The Science based targets network provide
targets which define and promote best practicefor businesses by accounting for the five Earthsystems: climate, freshwater, land, ocean, andbiodiversity. Initial business guidance waspublished in September 2020.
13. Nature Positive’s Global Goal for Natureargues for the adoption of a Nature-Positive
Global Goal for Nature with three measurable
objectives which can be useful for shaping
corporate strategy: Zero Net Loss of Naturefrom 2020, Net Positive by 2030 and Full
Recovery by 2050.
14. Beyond ‘Business as Usual’: Biodiversity
Targets and Finance, by the UN Environment
Programme (UNEP) Finance Initiative andGlobal Canopy, sets out an initial approach toenable financial institutions to set evidencebased biodiversity targets aligned withinternational policy developments.
15. The Guidance on Biodiversity Target-setting,developed by UNEP Finance Initiative and UNEPWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC),
allows banks to take a systematic approach tosetting and achieving biodiversity targets,presenting four case studies and a how-to guide.
16. The SDG Indicators, Biodiversity Indicators
Partnership and OECD Environmental Indicators
may be helpful for setting targets, particularly
those that outline contributions to global
biodiversity goals.

Management
17. The Business and Biodiversity Offsets
Programme provides a roadmap to help users
develop and apply best practice towards
achieving no net loss and preferably a net gainof biodiversity through the application of
mitigation hierarchy principles.
18. The Mitigation hierarchy guide, preparedby the Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative,
is a cross-sector guide, providing practicalguidance, innovative approaches andexamples for supporting the implementationof mitigation hierarchy.
19. The Nature Conservancy’s Achieving
Conservation and Development offers principles
for setting mitigation hierarchy commitments.
20. No Net Loss and Net Positive Impact
approaches for Biodiversity explores theapplication of these approaches in thecommercial agriculture and forestry sectors.
21. The IUCN have published A Framework for
Corporate Action on Biodiversity and Ecosystem
Services which enables users to explore
biodiversity and ecosystem services as it relates
to their activities and corporate sustainability,with the aim of integrating them into businessactivities and engaging top management in thedevelopment, implementation and disclosure ofpolicies and practices.

47

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Examples
1. Repsol Integrated Management Report 2020
describes the context around the company’s
biodiversity-related disclosures; ecosystems ingeneral and biodiversity in particular are a key
component of its natural capital. The company
discloses potential impacts on biodiversity bydefining relevant activities, describing related
impacts and likelihood, and distinguishing
between operation phases (pg. 75).
2. Iberdrola Biodiversity Report 2018-2019
describes the main biodiversity dependencies
and potential impacts. Relevant project stages
and tools used to evaluate the impact ofactivities in different project stages are also
disclosed (pgs.35-38 — linked to REQ-04). The
company describes its biodiversity policy andaction plan (pg. 21), which includes achieving“No Net Loss” of biodiversity by 2030. It
describes that this target is based on the
mitigation hierarchy principle in all activities andcontinual improvement of biodiversity
protection standards. Management tools
adopted to implement commitments are also
disclosed (e.g. Group Biodiversity Policy, BAPs,
EIAs for new projects, etc.) (pg. 20).
Biodiversity protection and conservation
emerge as part of the Group’s overall
Environmental Management System (pg. 22).
3. Solvay Annual Report 2020 discloses thepressure points through which the company
impacts biodiversity (15 pressures; e.g. GHG
emissions, freshwater eutrophication, marine
ecotoxicity, and soil acidification) (pg.123).
Solvay discloses its commitment to reduce its
biodiversity impact by 30% by 2030 comparedto the baseline year of 2018, in areas such as
climate, terrestrial acidification, water
eutrophication, and marine ecotoxicity(calculated using the ReCiPe methodology)(pg. 123). The target was endorsed by the
Act4Nature International coalition (pg. 124).

4. Kering Universal Registration Document 2020
clearly summarises its biodiversity strategy.
It discloses its target of achieving net positive
biodiversity impact by 2025, which is supported
by quantitative commitments (e.g. protect 1
million hectares of essential and irreplaceable
habitats outside of its supply chain) (pg. 136).
Kering has joined the SBTN initiative in order tocontribute to the development of science-based
methodologies (pg. 177).
5. Firmenich Sustainability Report 2020
communicates the company’s commitment to
the CBD Post-2020 framework to reach net
positive impact by 2030. It plans on supporting
this commitment by combining the use of natural
resources with smart developments in green
chemistry and white biotechnology (pg. 49).
6. FrieslandCampina Annual Report 2020
describes the strategy it has adopted toaddress the risks resulting from flora and fauna
deteriorating in the Netherlands, threatening
the milk production of its dairy suppliers (linked
to REQ-03). The organisation recognises theextent to which its member dairy farmers
influence biodiversity, and incentivises its
protection by collaborating with farmers andproviding a higher price for sustainably
produced milk. The report clearly recognises
the shared efforts required to address
biodiversity, and states that “the financial
perspective needed to really invest in
biodiversity and make a real difference is still
mostly lacking” and that “improving biodiversity
costs money and we all are responsible for thiscost, all of society” (pg. 61).

48

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

REQ-03Risks and opportunities
Disclosures shall explain the material current
and anticipated environmental risks andopportunities affecting the organisation
Disclosure checklist
Does the disclosure:
Identify significant biodiversity-related risks
and opportunities (including those arisingfrom the loss of related final ecosystemservices) by adopting a value-chain approachand considering different types of risk?
Explain the implications of significant
biodiversity-related risks and opportunities
on business, value chain and products/
services, specifying the geographicallocations and time horizons in which they
will materialise?
Quantify biodiversity-related risks andopportunities in the context of theorganisation’s business model and strategy,
using relevant financial and non-financial
metrics and the quantification of
dependencies where relevant?
Describe the systems and processes used
for assessing, identifying, and monitoring
biodiversity-related risks and opportunities,
including whether they are integrated withexisting risk management systems andprocesses and are stakeholder inclusive?
Biodiversity-related risks and opportunities canbe complex and have distinctive features,
including (but not limited to) being subject tospatial and temporal variations, can follow
non-linear pathways, are shaped by uncertain
actions by different actors that are not always
directly manageable by the organisation, and are
influenced and often exacerbated by external
factors, such as climate change, land degradation
or water depletion. The interconnected andshared nature of biodiversity makes theunderstanding of trends in external factors, aswell as internal, critical.
Biodiversity-related risks and opportunities can behighly specific to the organisation, its sector/
activities, and each of its operational and value
chain sites, and related geographic contexts,
where the organisation has dependencies and/or
impacts on the goods and services thatbiodiversity provides/underpins. When analysing

risks and opportunities, organisations may find it
helpful to prepare an asset risk register, which
consists of a list of balance sheet assets (including
natural capital) and the associated biodiversity
risks. Biodiversity-related risks, and consequentpotential implications for the business, principally
relate to:• The reduction or loss of biodiversity-relatedresources and services that the organisation/
value chain directly depend on (e.g. timber
production or fish stocks);• The reduction or loss of ecosystem services
underpinned by biodiversity that theorganisation/value chain depend on indirectly(e.g. loss of soil fertility that benefit agribusiness as a result of soil biodiversity, or lossof protection from storms due to degradationof habitat causes by the organisation itself orby other actors);• Risks resulting from the implementation of
mitigation hierarchy principles for biodiversity
impacts (e.g. expenses/liabilities), stranded
assets (e.g. expansion of protection area
networks due to new national and international
commitments) or impairment of assets linked
to biodiversity and ecosystem services;• Socio-economic and political conditions, andregulatory regimes in the areas of operations
and throughout the value chain;• Biodiversity changes (to ecosystems, species
or final ecosystem services) caused bybusiness activities that have implications for
wider society (e.g. local communities orcustomers) consequently driving market,
reputational or financial risks linked to accessto financial resources; and• Other interconnected environmental changes
and trends such as land degradation andclimate change.
Table 3 provides an overview and examples ofsources of biodiversity-related risks andopportunities that should be considered byorganisations and the associated financial risks forthe business. Risks and opportunities are grouped
according to the categories used in the TCFD
recommendations, namely physical risks and risks
linked to the transition to a biodiversity-positive
future, including policy and legal, market,
technological, and reputational risks. The
literature on nature-related financial risks andopportunities is still emerging. Physical risks (andopportunities) within this document includes not
only physical risks (and opportunities) but also

49

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresbiological, ecological, chemical and other risks
and opportunities.144, 145, 146, 147
The included examples can originate from either
the business (e.g. sector and/or activities) orfrom external geographic context and drivers(e.g. presence of biodiversity-rich areas oreffects of climate and land-use change), andsome can fall under more than one risk categoryor result from cascading effects (e.g. physicalrisks linked to land and soil degradation can becaused by policy and legal risks, such as poor
regulations on biodiversity conservation or on
polluting emissions). When selecting which
categories to disclose, preparers need to assess
what is significant to their organisation.

Table 3. Biodiversity-related financial risks and opportunities that may guide organisations’ risks (and opportunities) assessment. Examples areclassified with BD, when they relate to changes to biodiversity and/or ecosystems, and with FES, when they relate to the loss of final ecosystemservices. The provided examples are labelled according to the origin: business-specific risks are labelled with B , and risks that may be caused byexternal geographic context and drivers are labelled with E . Additionally, links with other environmental drivers are provided: examples linked toclimate change are labelled with C , those that are linked to water changes with W , and those that are linked to land-use with L .

Sources of biodiversity-related business risks
Physicalrisks

Financial risks for the business

Acute
Degradation of biodiversity and ecosystems
and loss of their natural protection (e.g. caused
by vegetation clearance for initial clearing formining sites), which can exacerbate severity ofdamages from extreme weather events suchas cyclones, droughts, flooding and storms
B

E

C

W

E

W

FES

L

Species loss and ecosystem degradation(e.g. loss of connectivity associated withspecies ranges, impacting flyways or marine
migratory corridors) due to leaks or accidental
discharges (e.g. oil) contaminating air, soil andwater bodies by the organisation itself or byother stakeholders located in the same area
B

BD

BD

BD

Chronic
Increasing scarcity or variable productionof key natural inputs B E C W L

FES

Ecosystem degradation due to operations
leading to, for example, coastal erosion andforest fragmentation B E C W L

BD

Ocean acidification (due to industrial waste or
improper land management) causing
degradation of reef, coastal and planktonic
ecosystems and consequent losses of aquatic
biodiversity E C W

BDOverfishing and bycatch

FES

B

E

• Reduced revenue and/or increased costs due
to interruption of operations or interruption/
deterioration of supply chain as aconsequence of uncertainty of natural inputs/
raw material supply (e.g. loss of pollinators,
pests, loss of fish stocks, water), or damage
caused by natural hazards• Increased insurance premiums and potential
for reduced availability of insurance on assets

L

Disease or pests affecting the species or varietyof crop the organisation relies on, especially inthe case of no or low genetic diversity B E• Increased natural hazard costs, for example,
impaired assets due to damages resulting
from floods or cyclones, not limited to theorganisation’s property (e.g. infrastructures it
relies on)

Land loss to desertification and soil
degradation and consequent loss of soil
fertility B E C L

BDSpecies loss and ecosystem degradation due
to contamination of air, soil and water bodies(e.g. pesticides) caused by the organisation
itself or by other stakeholders located in thesame area (also cumulative) B E W L

BD

FES

• Increased capital expenditure due toadaptation (e.g. mechanical pollination,
protection against floods)• Reduced productivity and consequent
rethinking of production processes or timing(e.g. agricultural production)• Write-offs, early retirement of existing assets
and relocation of operations and suppliers,
affecting the costs of raw materials (e.g.
transportation)

50

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Sources of biodiversity-related business risks
Policyand Legal

Changes to existing legislation and/or new
legislation (e.g. creation of new protectedareas) or license fees E C W L

BD

Tighter (emerging) legislation (e.g. trades
restrictions or taxes) on activities, products
and/or services that impacts biodiversity(both species and ecosystems), and rights,
permits, and allocations on natural resources
designated to alleviate pressure on nature or
impacts on local communities (e.g. their accessto water, foraging, and hunting) E C W L

BD

Enhanced reporting obligations on biodiversity,
ecosystems and related services E

BD

Exposure to sanctions and litigation(e.g. spills of polluting effluents that damage
human and ecosystem health; or violationof biodiversity-related rights, permits orallocations; or negligence towards or killingof threatened species) B E

BD

Non-compliance with legislation on,
for example, use of natural resources/
ecosystems B

BD

Ineffective biodiversity governance in an area,
across boundaries (i.e. transboundary
governance) and cooperation resulting in
biodiversity loss and nature degradation(e.g. biodiversity-rich ecosystems crossing
national boundaries) E

BD

Stakeholder conflicts due to competition in the
exploitation of resources and ecosystems or
due to impacts on biodiversity or ecosystems(e.g. in transboundary protected areas where
no cooperation between countries is in place)

BD

E

MarketFinancial risks for the business
FES

FES

• Increased costs of operations and inputs tooperations (e.g. higher charges for extracting
groundwater, timber or for waste disposal)• Increased costs of personnel (report
preparers, biodiversity experts) andmonitoring activities required for reporting
activities (e.g. data collection campaigns)• Increased fines, penalties, compensation, or
legal costs (e.g. due to liability for natural
capital impacts)

FES• Increased capital costs or production losses
due to permit denials or delays• Reduced revenue from decreased production
capacity due to limited access to natural
resources• Fines due to violation of regulations• Increased costs and/or reduced demand for
products and services resulting from fines
and judgments

FES• Loss of revenues or stranded assets due toloss of a permit to operate from litigation and/or from direct action by the regulator towards
non-compliance• Increased compliance costs• Disruption of operations or supply due toreduced supply of natural resources causedby poor transboundary governance or poor
infrastructures

FES• Loss of licence to operate due to noncompliance• Starting delays due to permits• Increased export costs

L

Shifting customer values or preferences to
products (e.g. food, textile) with lower impacts
on biodiversity and ecosystems (e.g. lower
biodiversity footprint) E

BD

Volatility or increased costs of raw materials(e.g. biodiversity-intense inputs for which
price has raised due to ecosystemdegradation) B E C W L

BD• Increased raw material or resource costs

FES• Loss of market access

FES• Reduced demand for products and services(reduced market share)• Increased production costs• Supply disruption• Smaller customer base
• Limited or denied access to new markets

Technology

Transition to more efficient and cleaner
technologies (i.e. with lower impacts on
biodiversity) B C W L

BD

Substitution of existing products and services
with lower biodiversity footprint or cleaner
emissions options B C W L

BDLack of access to data or access to poor
quality data that hamper biodiversity-related
assessments B E

BD• Increased costs of operations and raw
materials (e.g. higher energy use) required
to achieve biodiversity-related goals

New monitoring technologies (e.g. satellite)
used by regulators EBD• Lack of access to technology developedby competitors resulting in higher
operational costs

Adaptation technologies required to cope withnew future scenarios and trends (e.g. climate
resistant crops, mechanical pollinators, water
purification, flood protection) B E C W L

FES• Expenditure for R&D of new
and alternative technologies• Capital investments in technology
development• Unsuccessful investments in technology

51

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Sources of biodiversity-related business risks
Reputational

Financial risks for the business

Shifts in consumer sentiment towards theorganisation/brand as a result of poor
biodiversity management and/or lack of
stewardship activities B E

BD

Stigmatisation of sector due to impacts on
biodiversity and ecosystems (e.g. mining,
infrastructures) B E

BDStakeholders’ (e.g. communities, activists,
stockholders) perceptions, concerns andpressure related to the organisation’s impacts
on and management of biodiversity B E

BDViolation of nature-related rights throughoperations (e.g. reduced access to timber for
local communities; degradation of biodiversityrich sites that have cultural value for local
communities, displacement of indigenous
communities) B C W L

BD

Negative media coverage due to impacts on
critical species and/or ecosystems B E

BDBiodiversity social conflicts over endangered
species, protected areas, resources or
pollution B E C W L

BD• Workers’ strike (in case of damages to natural
resources, ecosystems and their functioning
used by local communities)• Loss of licence to operate (e.g. after
community protests)

FES• Loss of social licence to operate,148
which may also result in stranded assets• Increased security costs

FES• Increased staff turnover, higher recruitment
and retention costs• Reduced loyalty of key suppliers or businessservice providers

FES

Sources of biodiversity-related opportunities
Resource
Efficiency• Reduced demand and purchase of products
and services

Financial opportunities for the businessBD
Transition to more efficient services andprocesses requiring less natural resources, energy FES
or impact on biodiversity, ecosystems and theirservices (e.g. fracking) B E C W L
Increased reuse and recycling of natural
resources (e.g. circular approach) reducing
dependencies and impacts on biodiversity
and ecosystems B E C W L

BD

Reduced waste production, effluents andemissions B W L

BD

Products,
Development of less resource-intense products
services,and services (e.g. adopting regenerativeand market agriculture that restore and preserve soil fertility
with a consequent reduction in the use offertilisers) B E C W L• Reduced operation and compliance costs• Reduced exposure to raw materials/natural
resources price volatility• Reduced reliance on natural resources andincreased resilience to potential shortages

BD• Increased resilience due to business diversification

FES• Access to new markets due to lessresource-intense products and services• Increased insurance coverage and accessto new assets that require it

Development of green solutions (e.g. naturebased solutions or biodiversity-related
insurance risk products) B E C W L

BD

Ability to diversify business activities(e.g. new business units on green
infrastructures leveraging organisation
experience on site remediation) B

BD• New revenue streams (e.g. carbon offsets, saleof surplus water rights, habitat credits)

FES• Faster access to permits• Access to public-sector incentives• Reduced costs of raw materials and inputs
to production• Reduced interest rate costs• Reduced fines and regulatory compliance costs

Financialincentives

Access to biodiversity-related and/or green
funds, bonds, or loans B E C

BDIncentives for suppliers to improve theirbiodiversity and ecosystem management

BD
B

E

• Increased access to funds and loans• Access to capital for high-risk projects

52

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Sources of biodiversity-related opportunities
Resilience

Financial opportunities for the business

Diversification of biodiversity-relatedresources (e.g. use of different plant species)
and business activities (e.g. start a new
business unit on ecosystem restoration) B

BD

Participation in programmes and adoption of
resource-efficiency, recycling and circularity
mechanisms that reduce the dependencies
and impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems

BD

B

E

C

W

• Increased business stability• Business and supply chain continuity• Reduced capital infrastructure costs• Reduced costs for damages• Improved risk mitigation via improved
understanding of the organisation’s impacts
and dependencies on biodiversity

L• Increased resilience to natural disasters

Improved biodiversity-related monitoring
activities and data availability B E

BD

Adopting a landscape approach to biodiversity
management and implement nature-based
solutions B E

BD• Improved response to regulatory changes

Investing in “green” infrastructureBD(e.g. protecting against natural hazards or
FES
improving water filtration by restoring wetlands)
B

Reputation
and relationshipwith stakeholders

E

C

W

L

Collaborative engagement with stakeholders totackle biodiversity-related challenges B E

BD• Improved reputation among stakeholders
located in areas of operations or value chain• Improved stability of operations and working
conditions

Improved conditions of biodiversity andecosystems the organisation relies on (e.g.
wetlands restoration can improve water
purification) B E C W L

BD• Improved ability to attract and retain employees

FES• Increased brand value• Improved supply chain engagement• Increased influence of government policy

When conducting a risk assessment, it is importantto adopt a broad approach by ideally considering:• Different types of potential impact drivers(e.g. resource exploitation, land-use change,
contributions to climate change; see Table 8);• Suitable spatial scales and time periods (seeKey characteristics and Reporting
expectations and important considerations);• The cumulative impact over time and of allparties that affect a given geographic area;
and• Any potential thresholds or tipping points aswell as the multiple ways in which biodiversity
has value to different stakeholders.
Like other risks and opportunities that companies
face in the modern, interconnected era, thoserelated to biodiversity require carefulconsideration, across all the locations ofoperations and value chain, different time
horizons and potential future pathways. For thisreason, risk management approaches, horizon
scanning, forecasting, sensitivity testing andscenario analysis, which is discussed further
below in relation to REQ-06, are amongst thepractical tools that can guide companies in theirassessment of risk and opportunities.

1. Detailing risks and opportunities
When disclosing material information aboutbiodiversity-related risks and opportunities in themainstream report, thoroughly describing themby specifying their key characteristics andexplaining their relevance to the organisation
offers useful information to report users. In termsof characteristics for high quality reporting, it isessential to properly account for when and where
the risk or opportunity may materialise, specifying
whether it concerns a specific business area (e.g.
priority products/services), a particular region orsite (e.g. priority geographical areas) and time
horizons, for instance.
Causes and sources of risks and opportunities
and their implications for the business (onoperations, value chain, business model andfinancial results) should be described and linked
to the dependencies and impacts identified in
REQ-02, biodiversity impact metrics (REQ-04),
and performance (REQ-05) where appropriate.

53

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Information on material biodiversity-related risks
and opportunities should include considerationsof and details on:• Methods and procedures for risk andopportunities assessment and monitoring, as
well as materiality assessments, including tools
used (e.g. geospatial monitoring tools; groundbased monitoring systems; community-based
monitoring; first-, second-, third-party
verification; see Tools for assessing biodiversityrelated risks), timeframes, risk categories,
biodiversity-related issues considered (e.g.
compliance with biodiversity-related regulations
and/or mandatory standards), stakeholders
considered (e.g. only first-tier or beyond
suppliers), frequency of assessment and on the
integration into overall business risk assessment;• Geographic specificity and influencing contextspecific elements, connected to the priority
species, ecosystems, geographic areas andproducts/services identified in REQ-02 whereappropriate, such as geography, climate, statusof biodiversity and ecosystems, regulation,
location in or proximity to (within, adjacent ornear) designated protected areas for biodiversity
conservation, and socio-economic conditions(e.g. poverty rates, employment rates,
communities traditions in relations to nature,human-wellbeing benefits), as well as
stakeholders’ biodiversity-related challenges;• Variability of risks and opportunities over short-,
medium- and long-term time horizons. It is
important for companies to explain when risks
and opportunities could be expected tomaterialise and how they may develop throughthe considered timeframes, highlighting the maindifferences compared to baseline/reference
conditions. The Biodiversity Application
Guidance does not define timeframes in order toencourage reporting organisations to consider
the most appropriate timeframes for their
specific needs (as the timing of biodiversityrelated impacts on organisations varies). It isgood practice to consider the timing of naturalprocesses the organisation depends or impacts
on in a given geographic area (e.g. seasonality,
breeding season of key species, migrationseason etc.) in combination with projections ofdifferent future climatic but also socio-economic
scenarios to convey uncertainty and possible
ranges of future impacts on biodiversity.149
Considering risks and opportunities resulting
from long-term biodiversity changes is crucial
as some may take years to manifest (e.g. theoutcomes of restoration of ecosystems such as
rainforests); and• Scenarios considered in the risk assessment,
describing which drivers that may influence thebusiness-biodiversity interactions are included,
such as regulations, socio-economic drivers, andenvironmental drivers like climate change. This
information is interconnected with scenario
analysis disclosed under REQ-06.
Where biodiversity-related risks interact withother business and environmental risks inamplifying manners (i.e. aggregate risks), it isprudent for companies to identify and explainsuch connections and feedbacks.
Finally, explanation would be useful(1) if the organisation does not undertakea biodiversity-related risk assessment or(2) if the organisation does not consider itself
to be materially exposed to biodiversity-relatedrisks and opportunities.

2. Quantification of financial risks
and opportunities
Decision-useful disclosures should illustratebiodiversity-related risks and opportunities
through descriptive indicators and financial
information which detail the financial
implications of such risks and opportunities.
Metrics reported should consider appropriate
timeframes and may be financial or
non-financial. Indicators and metrics fromother requirements, such as those consideredin the assessment of impacts (REQ- 04) andrelated to biodiversity policies, management
activities and targets, as well as priority
species, ecosystems, geographic areas andproducts/services (REQ-02) may be
repurposed to provide useful details.
This is particularly the case where aggregatedat the corporate level (e.g. percentage ofsuppliers and operational sites coveredby a sustainability certification standard
or formalised sustainable management
programme) and/or disaggregated into
regions and/or business units (e.g. biodiversity
footprint assessment metric disaggregatedinto regions).
Disclosing material biodiversity-related
financial information provides a useful
illustration of the role of biodiversity
in relation to the business model and strategy,
and for financial planning purposes.
For example, useful indicators related to risks
and opportunities include:

54

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures• Operational expenses, cost savings
and revenue associated with biodiversity
management and targets (e.g. remediation costs
or provisions in the case of accidents like polluting
spills, costs to obtain regulatory permits orlicences, costs of staff training) and theimplementation of the mitigation hierarchy (e.g.
costs saved by measures taken to avoid
biodiversity impacts and revenue frombiodiversity-efficient products and services, capitaland operation expenditures of offset
requirements), possibly broken down perbiodiversity unit (e.g. Euro or US $/hectare (ha) of
ecosystem type or taxon);• Expenses related to legal proceedings linked to
non-compliance with environmental law
influencing biodiversity or biodiversity incidents(e.g. fines in relation to water and soil
contamination and/or air emissions, or courtordered remediation costs); and• Transactions contingent to biodiversity-related
rights of access or use. For example, a fishingcorporation could disclose the financial value of its
fishing rights and the associated changes in thestate of fish stocks linked to overfishing; a forestry
company could disclose the financial value of its
logging concession rights and the associatedchanges in the state of harvested forests; and anagri-business could disclose the financial value ofits key commodities and associated changes in thestate of natural capital (e.g. soils, water resources,
as well as access-and-benefit sharing
arrangements regarding genetic resources forvarious industries such as chemistry,
pharmaceuticals etc.).
Additionally, where organisations have trade-offs
around “natural” biodiversity in addressing
biodiversity risks (e.g. replacing natural systems withcrop plantations), valuations of the externalities
generated (benefits and costs) can be helpful. The
report user should be offered the assumptions andessential figures (e.g. present value of asset orrevenue stream affected) as well as the uncertainties
for the financial figures, especially if the size of the risk
or opportunity varies largely over time.
Non-financial metrics are useful to report where they
provide context around the risk magnitude in relation
to business operations. Examples of non-financial
metrics that may be useful to disclose include:• Percentage of operational sites that are
in or near protected areas, priority sites
for biodiversity conservation and/or key biodiversity
areas (e.g. UNESCO World Heritage natural andcultural sites, the Ramsar Convention wetlands sites,

the UNESCO Man and Biosphere Reserves;
or Key Biodiversity Areas); and• Total number of IUCN Red List species and national
conservation list species with habitats located in areas
impacted by business operations by level ofextinction risk (i.e. critically endangered, endangered,vulnerable, near threatened, or least concern).
The quantification of dependencies on biodiversity,often related to the final ecosystem services
provided/underpinned by biodiversity, isparticularly useful for demonstrating the magnitudeof biodiversity risks and possible implications to its
financial position and performance. However, this isa developing area with limited methodologies
currently available. The use of valuation
methodologies can support this process(see REQ-04 for additional details).
A possible approach to disclose financial information
linked to dependencies is to connect the dependent
final ecosystem services provided (which are
underpinned by biodiversity) to the related financial
accounts, such as assets (e.g. fish stocks), revenues(e.g. sales of wild fish) and expenses. Example
indicators include the income generated from sale ofnature-dependent resources (e.g. fisheries or crops),
income generated from nature-based tourism, or
eco-efficiency ratings, such as tons of wild fish per
total revenue/sales. Non-financial metrics thatmeasure the organisation dependencies on
biodiversity are also particularly useful to investors. For
example, metrics on (1) natural resources used as
inputs to operations/production processes, such as acertain amount of water available to withdrawals,
certain agricultural area and related fertile soil, or on (2)outputs from production, such as the amount of crops
guaranteed by pollination and biological pest control.

3. Connecting information
While the CDSB Framework does not set out
specific reporting requirements, Principle 3
encourages organisations to explain whether and towhat extent biodiversity-related issues areconnected with other information and results in themainstream report, with REQ-03 explaining thatlinks should be made to the reporting of processes
and systems for risks and opportunities. For
example, report users should be able to understandhow biodiversity-related issues have been
incorporated into existing systems of risk
identification and prioritisation and whether thesystems have been adapted to accommodate thecharacteristics of biodiversity-related issues.
Furthermore, the systems used to identify
biodiversity-related risks and opportunities will

55

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresdevelop in coming years with greater
understanding of the link between biodiversity andenvironmental, regulatory, socio-economic andtechnological pathways in the different areas.
Setting out how the organisation is developing andadapting these systems (also by linking to REQ-01
and REQ-02) will demonstrate responsive andeffective management.

In addition, the mainstream report should bedesigned in a manner that allows the reader tonavigate from these risks and opportunities to thepolicies and strategies developed, and to risk
management systems, including an explanationof how the organisation considers short-,
medium- and long-term issues in linkage withdisclosures under REQ-02.

Tools for assessing biodiversity-related risks
The use of existing tools for assessing the biodiversity-related status and risks in operations,
supply, and market, can inform and support organisation materiality assessment.
1. The Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool(IBAT, see REQ-02 and REQ-04) can support
the categorisation of locations based on risk of
biodiversity loss (and consequent financial
risks): for a particular site, land management
unit, or country/province, the STAR metricshows the potential for reducing extinction risk
before investment activities start, or canmeasure the achieved impact of conservationinterventions on extinction risk over time
(ex-post measure).
2. The Agrobiodiversity Index measuresbiodiversity across nutrition, agriculture andgenetic resources, identifying risks andopportunities as well as assisting withmanagement.

3. The biodiversity module of ENCORE provides
insights on the portfolio exposure to species
extinction and ecological integrity risks, andrelated mitigation actions. These results can
support the categorisation of locations based on
biodiversity-related risks, the alignment offinancial portfolios with global biodiversity
targets, and assessment of financial risks.
4. Trase Earth Tool maps financing andownership of trading companies at scale toassess the exposure of financial institutions to
deforestation risk.
5. OHI+ uses the Ocean Health index to allow
exploration of variables influencing ocean
health at small scales where management
decisions can be made.

These tools represent useful ready-to-use resources, but companies should (1) understandthe assumptions and the methodology behind the selected tool(s), (2) combine different tools
when performing their risk assessment, and (3) integrate company-specific components andinformation in the assessment (e.g. local regulations or risks).
Examples
1. Kering Universal Registration Document 2020
lists biodiversity as one of the Group’s ‘social andenvironmental responsibility risks’ (pg. 80 and
pg. 462). For example, the loss of biodiversity
caused by intensive livestock farming, threatens
the production of high-quality raw materials.
The company recognises that more generally,
the degradation and depletion of soil, as well as
the destruction of biotopes, pose a significant
risk to the maintenance of high-quality livestockand crop farming (pg. 480).
2. Symrise Group Management Report 2020
addresses biodiversity-related risks in relation to
own operations and the value chain. It recognisesthat environmental issues such as biodiversity loss
can negatively impact the productivity of theecosystems managed by the company and its
suppliers, which threatens raw material availability
or could lead to increasing raw material prices (pg.

55). In line with REQ-02, the company discloses its
resulting risk minimisation efforts (e.g.
development of solutions for key raw materials;
reworking recipes with customers; identification ofalternative suppliers and countries for raw material
sourcing) (pg. 55).
3. Cemex Annual Report 2020 provides anexample of financial opportunities linked tobiodiversity; Quarry biodiversity conservation is
one of the KPIs included in the company’s
recently issued sustainability-linked loan (October
2021, 3.2$billion; the largest sustainability-linked
loan to-date in South America).
4. The BHP Annual Report 2021 describes thebiodiversity-related risks identified by the company.
This includes failure to identify and manage climatechange risks to communities, biodiversity andecosystems, which in turn could result in land
access restrictions or litigation, or limit thecompany’s access to new opportunities (pg. 58).

56

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Useful resources
1. UNEP-WCMC’s report Biodiversity measuresfor business illustrates probable physical,
transitional, and reputational biodiversityrelated risks, and provides forecasts on
expected national and regional regulations withbiodiversity reporting obligations.
2. The report Handbook for Nature-related
Financial Risks details transmission channels
that make nature loss a financial risk andoutlines a framework to identify nature-related
financial risks.
3. The report Guidelines for Identifying Business
Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem
Change by World Business Council for
Sustainable Development (WBCSD), theMeridian Institute and World Resources Institute(WRI), provides a structured methodology thathelps organisations to develop strategies tomanage business risks and opportunities arisingfrom their company’s dependence and impact
on ecosystems (and related services). The report
also includes case studies.
4. The report The Climate-Nature Nexus:
Implications for the Financial Sector takes apractical look at where climate- and nature-relatedrisks and opportunities do and do not overlap (seeFigure 1 on pg. 4), highlights the implications forinvestment potential of different sectors andsolutions, and offers recommendations on how theprivate financial sector can adapt its climate
approaches to address nature and be robust tonature-related risks (see Figure 2 on pg. 5, it
provides an overview of the current climate
frameworks — e.g. screening of physical risks,
impact metrics — that can be adapted to capture
nature risks and opportunities).

5. The report The pollination deficit - Towards
supply chain resilience in the face of pollinator
decline supports the understanding of risks
related to loss of pollinators risk within private
sector (agricultural) supply chains. In particular,
the report provides examples of dependencies,
risks and potential responses, some real casestudies, and a roadmap towards sustainable
pollinator management.
6. The report Indebted to nature – Exploring
biodiversity risks for the Dutch financial sector
and the working paper A “Silent Spring” for the
Financial System? Exploring BiodiversityRelated Financial Risks in France explores thebiodiversity-related financial risks of the Dutch
and French financial system, respectively. It
covers physical (through dependencies on
ecosystem services) and transition risks(through impacts on terrestrial and freshwater
ecosystems).
7. The IFC’s Guidance Note 6: Biodiversity
Conservation and Sustainable Management of
Living Natural Resources supports the risks andimpacts identification process. The
requirements of this performance standard
support the assessment of projects that
potentially impact on or are dependent on
ecosystem services over which the organisation
has direct management control or significant
influence (also useful for REQ 02).
8. Swiss Re Institute’s Biodiversity andEcosystem Services Index analysis highlights
which economic sectors are most reliant on
nature and the exposure each country has tobiodiversity and ecosystems services decline.

57

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

1. Indicators and metrics

REQ-04
Sources of environmental
impactQuantitative and qualitative results, together
with the methodologies used to prepare them,shall be reported to reflect material sources ofenvironmental impact
Disclosure checklist
Does the disclosure:
Provide a selection of relevant biodiversity
impact indicators and metrics, considering
sources of material biodiversity impacts,changes to the state of biodiversity andvaluation of impacts?

• Significant sources of biodiversity impact(i.e. impacts drivers);• Significant changes to the state of biodiversity(i.e. biodiversity impacts), including
ecosystems, species and related ecosystemservices (where relevant); andProvide relevant baselines/reference states
for metrics, and both absolute andnormalised metrics where possible?
Provide explanations and contextualisationof the metrics including the methodologies
used, levels of uncertainty, and appropriate
narrative to assist understanding of results?
Categorise and disaggregate metrics where
possible to support understanding andcomparability?

Typologies of biodiversity
metrics and indicators

As explained in REQ-02, the significant
biodiversity impacts and dependencies,
which are connected to business risks andopportunities, should drive the formation of
biodiversity-related policies, strategies andtargets. REQ-04 of the CDSB Framework
requires companies to disclose quantitativeand qualitative results to reflect significant
sources of impacts, including reporting key
indicators and metrics. When considering
biodiversity, this should be expanded to include
key indicators and metrics on:• The valuation of significant impacts to thebusiness (i.e. business impacts).
This aligns with the pathway approach(see Box 3) and can also be used within thecontext of the DPSIR framework (see Appendix
10). Figure 8 includes some example metrics
following the pathway approach (note thatthe actual metrics used will be specific to theorganisation).

Examples

Indicator
Pesticides released in
proximity (<20 km) ofprotected areas

Amount (tons) of
pesticides

Ecological integrity withinpriority geographical areas

Habitat hectares

speciesPopulation levels of IUCNRed List species in priority
geographical areas

Number of IUCN Red
List species identified
through EIA

final ecosystemservicesAmount of crops frompriority areas located withinor close to (<20 km) areasof high biodiversity value

Amount of crops (tons)(guaranteed bypollination and soil
fertility)

Income from crops frompriority areas located withinor close to (<20 km) areasof high biodiversity value

Income from crops (£)(guaranteed bypollination and soil
fertility)

Impact drivers

Changes tothe state ofbiodiversity

Metricecosystems

Valuation of impacts

Figure 8. Examples of biodiversity metrics and indicators following a pathway approach. This table includes examples only and is not an exhaustive list.

58

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

As noted in REQ-02, a pre-requisite tobiodiversity reporting is the completionof an impact and dependency assessment(see Assessing biodiversity dependencies
and impacts in REQ-02), the outcomes ofwhich may be able to be repurposed forinclusion in the mainstream report to satisfy
this requirement. In addition, it may be thatcompanies are disclosing results related tosignificant biodiversity impacts (and sources ofimpacts) in their sustainability reports, CDP
responses or index questionnaires. Suchdisclosures can be repurposed to be includedin the mainstream report (see Appendix 3).
The selection of indicators/metricsxlii included in
the disclosure should be aligned with the targets
set by the organisation. Indicators selectedshould be representative of the specificorganisation, such as those used in internalbiodiversity management and performancemonitoring, or illustrate biodiversity-related
financial impacts to the organisation.
Organisations should aim to connect theindicators with those disclosed under otherrequirements (e.g. performance against targets,management response indicators) in order tohave a linked suite of indicators connected to thesignificant impacts and dependencies identified.
Consideration should be given as to which
metrics are most suitable to measure progressagainst indicators (see REQ-05). Ideal metrics
should be consistent with industry guidelines,
recognised by existing reporting provisions
and international initiatives, and calculated inaccordance with recognised approaches, toenable comparability and benchmarking.
Quantitative metrics should be supplemented
by qualitative details and information whereappropriate.
Metrics can be applied at the product/service,project or company level. Whilst the company
level is most likely to be appropriate for disclosurein the mainstream report, highlighting product/
service or project level metrics may also beappropriate where significant risks and impacts
vary significantly between products/services,
projects and geographic locations. Appropriate
metrics depend on both sector and (location of)site. Therefore, while sectoral guidelines canprovide support, assessment of the main impacts

xlii Metrics are outcomes of a measurement process. A metric (ora group of metrics) becomes an indicator when used to support
the decision-making process of the organisation and to assess its
performance against its strategy, policy, and target.

affecting biodiversity at the operations or supplierlocations would complement the information andsupport the selection.
Where organisations have completed abiodiversity footprint assessment (see Box 4),
it is helpful to provide quantitative data on
indicators related to this analysis, such as the net
impact of the organisation. From an integrated
management and reporting perspective,
organisations should also consider reporting
productivity/efficiency ratios (e.g. business output
per unit of biodiversity impact). Methodologies
for biodiversity efficiency ratios are still evolving.
For most indicators, an explicit baseline year
and/or reference state is required to enable
report users to draw decision-useful conclusions(see REQ-05).
The following sections outline example biodiversity
metrics following the pathway approach. Metrics
reported should correspond to the selectedindicators that organisations have chosen tomeasure based on their specific biodiversity
strategies, impacts and dependencies, and targets.
1.1 Metrics: Sources of impacts (impact drivers)
Table 4 contains examples of metrics that outline
sources of biodiversity impact (i.e. impact
drivers). The exact metrics reported will dependon the organisation’s impact assessment,materiality assessment and sectoral
specifications. Organisations may find it helpful
to group impacts under the impact driver
categories outlined by IPBES,150 the SBTN151(see Box 2), the Natural Capital Protocol152 or theTransparent project.153 It may be helpful tooutline whether impact drivers impact
biodiversity directly (i.e. immediately andoccurring directly in response to actions fromthe organisation, such as land clearing) orindirectly (i.e. as a consequence of anotherfactor, for example, GHG emissions causing
climate change which consequently causes
negative changes to the state of biodiversity, or
illegal logging resulting from the construction ofa road by the organisation near a forest).

59

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Table 4. Examples of metrics outlining sources of biodiversity impacts aligned with the impact pathway approach (Adapted from: Natural Capital
Protocol biodiversity guidance; IUCN Guidelines for planning and monitoring corporate biodiversity performance).

Impact Driver

Examples metrics

Land-, water- andsea-use change xliii• Area (Ha) of forest, grassland or wetland converted due to urbanisation• Area (Ha) of degraded land converted to agricultural land
• Area (Ha) of land converted to monoculture• Area (Ha) of mangrove protected and/or restored• Area (Ha) of marine area for aquaculture (e.g. to grow mussels)

Resource
exploitation• Quantity (tons) of natural resources (e.g. leather, soy, palm oil) sourced per year
• Amount (tons) of fish caught• Number of wild species exploited for commercial purposes• Volume (tons) of timber and non-timber forest products harvested• Total volumes of water withdrawals, consumption and discharge• Percentage of sustainable fish stocks

Light and noise
pollution• Decibels of noise above normal level

Waste• Amount (tons) of hazardous waste discharged• Amount (tons) of non-hazardous waste incinerated

Soil pollution• Amount (kg) of pesticide discharged to soil
• Amount (kg) of fertilisers (and main components, e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous)
applied to soil

Water pollution• Concentrations of key pollutants in the wastewater• Amount of arsenic released to water• Amount of deleterious chemicals released to water• Refer to the Water Application Guidance

Air Emissions• Volume of CO2, sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx)and methane (CH4) emissions.
• Refer to the Climate Application Guidance

1.2 Metrics: Changes to the state ofbiodiversity (biodiversity impact metrics)
Biodiversity impact metrics should consider
changes to ecosystems and ideally also species
relative to a defined baseline/reference state.
It may also be helpful to provide metrics onchanges to the flows of final ecosystem services
that can be attributed to changes to biodiversity.xliv
As single metrics do not cover all elements of
biodiversity, disclosing a combination of relevant
metrics that provide different perspectives (e.g.
species abundance, species richness, habitat
availability, ecosystem integrity, final ecosystemservices) is encouraged, including clear
explanations of what is being measured (seeRationale of selection and methodologicaldetails). Where organisations are still in the earlyxliii The location of land should be provided as accompanying information.
xliv It is recognised that the metrics suggested here are limited in assessingchanges to marine and freshwater biodiversity.

stages of biodiversity reporting, a phased
approach to metric disclosure is encouraged.
To enrich and complement the disclosure, metrics
should be accompanied (where possible) by anarrative or categorisation detailing (1) whether
impacts are temporary (short-term or long-term),
recurrent (e.g. seasonal) or permanent, (2) the
location (also in relation to priority geographic
areas), (3) the stage of the value chain the impact
relates to and (4) whether the metric relates to an
impact in a previous period that still has ongoing
implications for biodiversity. When assessing
impacts, organisations should consider external
factors that could result in major changes in thestate of biodiversity, as these may affect thesignificance of business impacts (as well as
dependencies).xlv

xlv Refer to Natural Capital Protocol for further details. Capitals Coalition(2016) Natural Capital Protocol. Available from: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.
org/natural-capital-protocol/

60

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

1.2.1 Ecosystem metrics
Within this context, ecosystem metrics describe
the conditions and related changes of an area ofinterest for the reporting organisation (e.g. due
to its impacts or dependencies). Key ecosystem
metrics are based on the extent of theecosystem (assessed and monitored via satellite
imagery or on-site) and the condition/integrityof that ecosystem (e.g. condition rating per area,
mean species abundance per area or potentiallydisappeared fraction of species per area peryear). The most generally accepted condition/
integrity-rating methods applicable to theimpact area should be used and the same
method should be used for ecologicallyequivalent ecosystems.154
Examples of useful ecosystem metrics are:spatial mapping), both relative to a definedbaseline/reference state.
Examples of useful metrics are:
• Risk of species extinction (e.g. throughthe STAR metric — see Table 5);• Areas (ha) of critical habitat for species
in priority geographical areas;• Biodiversity impact metric, which combines
data such as mean species abundance andrarity-weighted species data (see Table 5);• Number of IUCN Red List species
and national conservation list species
within priority geographic areas;• Range of species identified througheDNA analysis;• Quality scoring or ratings of ecosystems
located in priority geographic areas, which
express the related condition/integrity and/or
intactness of ecosystems, for example, quality
hectares measured through fieldwork,xlvi
habitat hectares or hectares equivalent or
GLOBIO’s Mean Species Abundance(see Table 5);• Number of invasive alien species identified
on the organisation’s sites/impact areas;• Potentially disappeared or affected fractionof species (see Table 5);

Box 6: Direct measurement techniques• Number or percentage of sites in which thespecies richness is progressing/stable/regressing;• Ecosystem/habitat cover change, e.g. forest
area as a percentage of total land area or tree
cover loss (ha);• Range of species identified throughenvironmental DNA (eDNA) analysis; and• Ecosystem/Habitat fragmentation change (ha).
Metrics on habitat are a hybrid category
between ecosystem and species metrics,
because they refer to an area that is suitable fora species or a group of species, and, dependingon the focus, they can be classified as an
ecosystem or a species metric.
1.2.2 Species metrics
Where information about species is deemedmaterial, metrics should also be provided forspecies that assess the population status (e.g.
species abundance) and/or related proxies, suchas available habitat size (often requiring the use ofxlvi For example, Victorian Government Department of Sustainability andEnvironment (2004) Vegetation Quality Assessment Manual–Guidelines for
applying the habitat hectares scoring method. Version 1.3.. Available from:https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/91150/
Vegetation-Quality-Assessment-Manual-Version-1.3.pdf• Target species population sizes/abundancecompared to actual population sizes; and• Measurements of species populations and habitat
diversity from on-the-ground studies (see Box 6).

The most used techniques for measuring/
estimating species population numbers are
direct measurement techniques, such as
quadrats, line transects and nest searches, aswell as the use of audio/photo/video tracking.155
Direct observation of all individuals is generally
too time consuming, expensive, or not feasible,
therefore biodiversity specialists and scientists
typically estimate the population size within astudy area or region based on samples. Where
population measurement is not possible,
alternatives include the use of credible taxa
databases applicable to ecosystem types withinorganisational and value chain boundaries andcombining these with habitat extent as aproxy.156 eDNA is increasingly being used interrestrial and aquatic systems to monitor
species diversity and can be a cost and timeeffective technique to understand site levelbiodiversity which can be aggregated at a
corporate level.157, 158, xlvii
A suitable baseline/reference state for species
involves determining the target population size ofxlvii See NatureMetrics – DNA-based monitoring forexamples of environmental DNA being used in practice61

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

the species, and/or establishing the target habitat
size for species as a proxy (i.e. performing an
ecological assessment). The organisation should
ensure the most suitable population target isselected.xlviii The difference between actual andtarget population size is useful for demonstrating
to report users whether management responses
are effective (linked to REQ-02 and REQ-05).
Where target population sizes greatly differ toactual population sizes, management responses
to address this should be outlined.
Table 5 contains a summary of commonly usedmetrics, split into metrics related to ecosystems
and/or species, and Appendix 8 contains asummary of tools/frameworks that may be
helpful for the assessment and quantification of
biodiversity impacts.

Table 5. Examples of biodiversity impact metrics (References: Natural Capital Protocol biodiversity guidance; IUCN Guidelines for planningand monitoring corporate biodiversity performance).

MetricDescription

Metric classification

Species and habitat
diversity (richness andabundance)

The use of on-the-ground monitoring/measurement ofspecies and habitats (see Box 6) to determine species
richness, abundance and trends over time.

Species richness, species
abundance and/or ecosystem
condition/integrity

Mean species abundance

A metric of biodiversity intactness that considers meanabundance of species relative to abundance in undisturbed
ecosystems (i.e. reference site). A value between 0 and 1 isgiven, with 1 indicating an ecosystem similar to is naturalstate and 0 indicating complete destruction. Mean species
abundances is often estimated using the GLOBIO model(see Appendix 8).

Ecosystem condition/
integrity rating

The Habitat Hectare

A site-based vegetation assessment method thatmeasures the current condition of native vegetation
against a benchmark for the same vegetation type or
Ecological Vegetation Class. It is a product of theecosystem extent and the condition rating.159

Ecosystem condition/
integrity

The Healthy
Ecosystem Metric

Based on land-use only, this metric combines area affectedwith the impact on quantity and quality of biodiversity, soil
and water to provide the total impact on ecosystem.

Ecosystem condition/
integrity

Surface area equivalents(such as acre equivalents,
hectare equivalents,
square kilometre
equivalents or square
mile equivalents)

Surface area equivalents express the condition/integrityadjusted surface areas of impacted ecosystems. They arecalculated by multiplying the surface area of the target
ecosystem(s) by the ratio of its current condition/integrityscore over the maximum condition/integrity score. 160, 161

Ecosystem condition/
integrity

Potentially disappeared
fraction of species

Measures the decline in species richness in an area over atime period (with a focus on plants). Percentage
disappeared fraction of species is often estimated using
the ReCiPe model (see Appendix 8).

Ecosystem condition/
integrity

Potentially affected
fraction of species

It measures the fraction of species affected in an area overa time period (before they have disappeared), focusing on
the species richness of plants.

Ecosystem condition/
integrity

Risk of extinction(e.g. STAR metric)

Measure of potential reduction of species extinction risk
resulting from removal of threats in a given area. STAR isbased on IUCN Red List data and contained within IBAT
(see Appendix 8).

Species abundance

Biodiversity
impact metric

Developed by the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability
Leadership, the Biodiversity (CISL) impact metricestimates the proportion of biodiversity loss for different
land-use types and intensities using data such as global
mean species abundance combined with rarity-weighted
species richness data from the IUCN Red List.

Ecosystem condition/
integrity

xlviii Refer to Biological Diversity protocol for further detailon how to determine this. See: Endangered Wildlife Trust (2020).
The Biological Diversity Protocol. Available from: https://www.nbbnbdp.org/
uploads/1/3/1/4/131498886/biological_diversity_protocol__bd_protocol_.pdf

62

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Some metrics may be more suitable than others
depending on the specific business activities,
policies and targets. Metrics may have
limitations, for example, mean species
abundance and potentially disappeared fractionof species do not capture changes to all themulti-faceted aspects of biodiversity (such as
distinguishing different ecosystem types at the
local/regional level), therefore their use may beenhanced by combining them with additional
metrics and information (e.g. as seen within the
Biodiversity impact metric). Any limitations withmetrics should be outlined and it may be
helpful to include a clear rationale for chosen
metrics. The most relevant biodiversity metrics
and indicators vary by sector, ecosystem typeand country, therefore it is recommended tolook at sector/ecosystem/country specificguidance where available.xlix
1.2.3 Final ecosystem services metrics
Measuring (and valuing) biodiversity can becomplex and challenging. Whilst our knowledge
is constantly developing and improving, we still
do not fully understand all the ways in whichorganisations interact with (i.e. impact anddepend upon) biodiversity. Therefore, whenassessing and reporting metrics on impacts/
dependencies on biodiversity, including
information on the changes to the final
ecosystem services (underpinned by biodiversity)
is often a useful way to complement data directly
related to biodiversity itself. It can also be used tosupplement gaps in biodiversity data, where it isimpractical or impossible to provide that
information directly. Metrics related to final
ecosystem services should be used tocomplement biodiversity impact metrics andbuild a fuller picture, as opposed to an alternative.
Where business activities result in significant
impacts on final ecosystem services that areunderpinned by biodiversity, it may be helpful toprovide metrics that demonstrate these impacts.
This is a developing and challenging area162 often
requiring complex quantitative models. Useful
resources identified for REQ-04 and some of thetools in Appendix 8 can support the assessmentof final ecosystem services. A possible way toreport metrics related to final ecosystem services
is to split them into categories of (1) supply of final
ecosystem services available to the business,

xlix For example, WET-Health contains wetlands specific methods andAustralia’s Integrated Ecosystem Condition Assessment Frameworkprovides country specific guidance.

(2) delivery of final ecosystem services utilisedby the business and (3) contributions to wellbeingof both internal and external stakeholders.
For example:l• Supply: Amount of biomass available forfodder (tons), amount of carbon absorbed byvegetation (tons), pollinator abundance andpollination rates, amount of area that issuitable for nature-based tourism (ha).
• Delivery: Total production of all commercial
crops (tons), caloric content of fish landings(kcal), volume of timber harvested (tons),
marginal contribution of soils to crop production,area of avoided flood damage due to regulation
by vegetation and soils (ha), nature-based
tourism visitation rates (number of visits).
• Contributions to wellbeing: number of jobs
contributed by aquaculture, basic needs
satisfied via ecosystem service (e.g. numberof people with access to adequate water),number of people protected from flooding
and erosion due to coastal protection,
marginal contribution of pest control to foodor biofuel production, marginal contributions
to income or wellbeing of visitors.
Depending on the definition and classificationof ecosystem services selected by theorganisation (see Box 1), it may also be helpful
to categorise indicators into types of services(e.g. provisioning, regulating and cultural).
1.3 Metrics: Valuation of impacts
Where information about the valuation of impacts
is material, reporting metrics that value the impact
of changes in biodiversity to the organisation (i.e.
the related costs and benefits) can be helpful forreport users, demonstrating the relative worth orimportance of biodiversity impacts.
Valuation metrics may be quantitative,
qualitative, monetary or a combination163(see Box 7 for additional details, including why
using a combination of valuation metrics isuseful). Valuation metrics should reflect thesignificant costs and benefits that are specific tothe organisation. As well as demonstrating thesignificance of biodiversity impacts to the reportuser, valuation can also be useful incommunicating exposure to risks oropportunities (see REQ-03).

l For further detail see: Brown, C., Reyers, B., Ingwall-King, L., Mapendembe,A., Nel, J., O’Farrell, P., Dixon, M. & Bowles-Newark, N. J. (2014). Measuring
ecosystem services: Guidance on developing ecosystem service indicators.
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from: https://www.unep-wcmc.
org/system/dataset_file_fields/files/000/000/303/original/1850_ESI_
Guidance_A4_WEB.pdf?1424707843

63

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Valuing the financial consequences for thebusiness associated with biodiversity impacts
could include considering abatement costs,
costs of delay/disruption and costs associatedwith complying with legal requirements(see REQ-03 for further examples).
The context of the valuation can be business(costs/benefits to the organisation) or societal(costs/benefits to society). As noted in the
Biodiversity and Business section, costs andbenefits to wider society resulting from anorganisation’s impacts on biodiversity can affectits future financial position and financial
performance (e.g. reputational damage, fines),
therefore it is encouraged to adopt a societal
perspective as well as an economic perspective
throughout the assessment. Organisations

Box 7: Biodiversity valuation types
Within the Biodiversity Application Guidance,
valuation is defined as the process of estimating
the relative importance, worth, or usefulness of
biodiversity to people, in a particular context (e.g.
for an organisation).165 This involves determining
the consequences of biodiversity impacts anddependencies, and their related costs andbenefits, considering that biodiversity may havedifferent values to different groups of people.
Placing values on biodiversity is challenging andit is more common to apply valuation techniques
to the final ecosystem services that flow frombiodiversity. Types of valuation include:166• Qualitative valuation which is descriptive andoften includes subjective perceptions,ranking impacts/dependencies into high,medium or low.
• Quantitative valuation which assesses themagnitude of biodiversity impacts ordependencies in numerical, non-monetary
terms (e.g. areas, mass or value). It differsfrom quantitative measurement (i.e. metrics)
as it relates to the importance, worth, or
usefulness of the impact and/or dependency,
often considering geographic context andimpacted stakeholders.

should clearly specify the value perspective
they are reporting (i.e. societal value or
economic value), and limitations, uncertainties
or estimates should be disclosed to improvereport user understandability.
The assessment and reporting of valuation
metrics related to biodiversity impacts should
include consideration of changes to the final
ecosystem services underpinned by biodiversity
resulting from business activities. Example(monetary) metrics include market value of
livestock products, market value of carbon
uptake, marginal contribution of irrigation tocrop market value, avoided water treatment
costs, economic revenues derived from visits
to aesthetic areas, and marginal contribution
to real estate prices by nature-based tourism.164• Monetary valuation which uses market (i.e.
observed prices) and non-market (e.g.
revealed or stated preference) approaches toinfer the monetary value of a biodiversity
impact/dependency. Monetary values
include both financial values and externalities
that are not reflected in the final cost or
benefit.
Monetary valuations can also be used to(1) provide a common measurement unit tocompare with financial values, such as
business costs or revenues, (2) benchmark
performance across organisations, assuming
the same economic/monetary conversion
figures are used, and (3) assess andcommunicate the significance and distributionof costs and benefits amongst stakeholders
and net impacts to society.
Whilst useful for decision-making, some
aspects of biodiversity’s value cannot be
captured using monetary valuations, even if
they potentially represent a cost or benefit,
therefore monetary valuations are likely to bepartial and underestimated.167 For this reason,monetary valuations should be treated as aminimum value and should be supported byqualitative/quantitative approaches in order toprovide a more complete picture.

64

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

2. Contextualising biodiversity-related metrics
Biodiversity-related metrics should describe theorganisation’s relationship with the biodiversityrelated geographic contexts in which it operates,
including both environmental and socioeconomic conditions, as well being connected tothe information in the rest of the mainstream
report and other CDSB requirements, including
financial performance (e.g. financial
opportunities from improved biodiversity/
reduced biodiversity negative impacts).
Qualitative details and indicators on thefollowing, linked to Key Characteristics, canprovide useful contextualisation:• Spatial: Details on how metrics relate to priority
geographical areas support the understandingof the diversification and prioritisation ofmanagement actions. It is useful to state
whether the impact accrues globally (e.g.
carbon emissions), regionally or locally (e.g.
impacting a localised population of species), as
well as provide details on how it is being
managed (connected to REQ-02).
• Temporal: Details around the timeframes ofimpacts, including any time-lags, cumulative
impacts, potential thresholds and tipping
points, where minor changes in biodiversity
can cause larger changes to the ways
ecosystems function.
• Regulatory or licence requirements: Details
on how the metrics provided align with legal
requirements.
• Societal: Where information about risks related
to social impacts connected to changes inbiodiversity is identified as material (e.g. costs
resulting from reputational damage), it may beappropriate to also include social indicators
and/or metrics. This could include (1) indicatorsthat highlight the contribution of theorganisation to biodiversity-related societal
conditions and (2) indicators or details linking
biodiversity impacts to reductions/increases infinal ecosystem services, noting that there may
be a time-lag between loss of biodiversity andloss of services. For example, health impact
metrics, societal costs resulting fromeutrophication or loss of property values related
to business impacts on biodiversity, number ofpeople with access to parks/open space/recreation areas or number of people in air
quality or water quality non-attainment areas.
• External factors: Details on external factorsthat may directly or indirectly affect thesignificance of biodiversity impacts, such as
climate change or immigration.

3. Decision-useful information
When reporting results on significant sourcesof biodiversity impacts, organisations should
consider what the characteristics of decisionuseful information are — consistency,
comparability, clarity and verifiability — as set
out in Principles 4, 5 and 6 of the CDSB
Framework. In satisfying these key
characteristics, the applicability of the metrics
and indicators chosen to report on significant
sources of biodiversity impacts, such as sector
or industry and/or national or regional standards
for reporting, should be considered. In addition,
where appropriate, results should be reported inabsolute and intensity terms, with organisation
revenue and/or appropriate non-financial output
measures (e.g. a standard unit of product orservice) being used to normalise the results.
This supports comparability and benchmarkingof companies and allows investors to understandthe biodiversity implications aligned to businessstrategy.
To this aim, disclosing clear definitions of
biodiversity impact drivers, impacts andbiodiversity terms (such as species abundance or
ecosystem quality) is fundamental. Furthermore,companies should ensure that they do notconflate their results for negative significant
biodiversity impacts with possible mitigation
activities, such as restoring ecosystems and otherbiodiversity offsetting measures. The lattershould be reported where relevant and material
but accompanied with clear definitions of usedmetrics and accounting methods in a mannerthat is distinct from negative biodiversity impacts,
otherwise it may mislead the report user.
Disclosure against the mitigation hierarchy can be
helpful for guiding this process (see REQ-02).

4. Disaggregation and categorisation
To benefit comparability and understandability,
it can be helpful to disaggregate and/or
categorise results (where appropriate) to better
appreciate impact and report this alongside total
results. Results can be disaggregated into
different impact drivers and impact driver

65

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

categories, as well as direct and indirect impacts,
and phases of the value chain. Other usefuldisaggregation options include ecosystem types,
species, species broken down into levels of
extinction riskli and geographies (regional,
national or categorised into levels of biodiversityrisk). Disaggregation categories should be clearly
defined, and care should be taken not to confuse
context specific elements when aggregating/disaggregating biodiversity metrics.

5. Rationale of selection andmethodological details
It is useful to offer brief explanations to theappropriateness of reporting choices for metrics.
Given that it is common for selective reportingon corporate impact, such explanations offer
further confidence in the data disclosed.
There are many methods used for biodiversity
measurement. For example, methods formeasuring changes in the state of biodiversity
include direct measurement methods andecological survey methods (see Box 6),
estimations, which may be high-level, andecological or species modelling methods which
use equations and input data to model impacts,
such as population dynamics modelling.
Clearly stating the methodologies used will
add to the validity and usefulness of the results.
The description should provide measurement
details for the metrics reported and tools anddatabases used should be referenced where
possible. It is also helpful to outline theorganisational level the metric applies to (i.e.
global, country, region, site or project-level).
The method selected should be appropriate forits purpose considering the level of reporting
detail required, management information needs,
geographic scope, value chain boundary andavailable time and resources. Where possible,
the most generally accepted or recognised
method within a jurisdiction should be used,li For example, Total number of IUCN Red List species and national
conservation list species with habitats in areas affected by the operationsof the organisation, by level of extinction risk: i. Critically endangered ii.
Endangered iii. Vulnerable iv. Near threatened v. Least concern

the same methodologies should be used for
ecologically equivalent ecosystem types andmethods should be consistent over time to allow
comparability. When using primary data, it may
be helpful to outline the measures taken to
ensure data collected has appropriate
measurement intervals that match the ecologicaltimescale (e.g. seasonal variations) and spatial
scale of the biodiversity impact.lii Useful details
can cover: (1) tools used, (2) data used (primary
and/or secondary, geographical and/or
ecosystem specific), (3) use of proxies,
generalised relationships, and/or models,(4) assumptions made, uncertainties(e.g. sensitivity analysis) and limitations of themethods used, and (5) unit of sampling used.
Finally, where there are uncertainties and gaps
in the biodiversity data, limitations withmethodologies/data or where methods andassumptions have been amended or applied,
highlighting and offering an explanation toreport users for these differences can alleviate
confusions or misconceptions. For example:• Most measurement approaches are tailored toterrestrial use and may need to be adapted
for marine or freshwater use, therefore it isuseful to highlight any significant assumptions
made in this context.
• A possible limitation may be thatmeasurement approaches are largely focusedon changes in the extent and condition of
ecosystems and target/actual population/
habitat sizes of significant taxa. Other multifaceted biodiversity areas, such as genetic
resources and associated ecosystem services,
may not be fully considered by metrics.
• The use of model-based metrics, and/or
metrics based on global datasets, thenapplied locally may create limitations aroundaccuracy.
• Where data access is problematic in the value
chain there may be issues around data
availability, reliability or accuracy.

lii Yearly monitoring may be appropriate for measures aimed at stabilisingor improving species’ population numbers, whereas monthly monitoring
may be necessary for actions such as water quality.

66

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Useful resources
1. The EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform havepublished a series of three reports (2018, 2019,2021) on the Assessment of biodiversity
measurement approaches for businesses andfinancial institutions which may be helpful for
selecting a measurement approach, as well as
considering data and metrics, and disclosure.
Annexes in the reports include lists and short
descriptions of metrics such as mean species
abundance and potentially disappeared fractionof species (also indicating the initiatives using
the metrics), tools and frameworks such as IBAT,
Biodiversity Footprint Financial Institutions(BFFI), and Biodiversity Footprint Calculator,and measurement approaches such as the
Global Biodiversity Score and the Biodiversity
Impact Metric (see Appendix 8 and Appendix 9).
Additionally, the 2021 report introduces the
Biodiversity Measurement Navigation Wheel— a decision framework to help businesses
select the most suitable measurement
approaches for a specific business context.
2. UNEP-WCMC’s report Biodiversity measuresfor business discusses the rationale and current
business practice on biodiversity measurement,
and the related reporting and disclosures. It
provides sector-specific examples of metrics
and approaches.
3. Resources from the Capitals Coalition guideorganisations in the understanding and selectionof measurements and valuation approaches andtools. The Natural Capital Protocol provides
examples of impact drivers and dependencies(also useful for REQ-02), related indicators andmeasurement techniques (e.g. Table 7.1 onvaluations techniques); the related Biodiversity
Guidance includes examples of biodiversityspecific resources relating to measurement andvaluation (Table MV.2, Figure 6.1, and Table 6.4);
the Natural Capital Toolkit is an interactive
database that helps businesses find the right tool
to measure and value natural capital; and the
Biodiversity Guidance Navigation Tool guides
users through a biodiversity-inclusive natural
capital assessment, following the steps in the
Natural Capital Protocol and suggesting specifictools, resources and methodologies based on thescope/area of the value chain a company sits.
4. Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in
Impact Assessment by the International
Association for Impact Assessment, provides
best practice principles that are intended to
improve impact assessment outcomes.

5. The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)report Assessing portfolio impacts - Tools tomeasure biodiversity and SDG footprints offinancial portfolios provides tools andmethodologies to help financial institutions
quantify portfolio environmental impacts, witha focus on biodiversity, and identify the mostsignificant impact areas based on the nature,content, and location of their portfolios. The
report also provides examples of real casestudies.
6. The SEEA Ecosystem Accounting consistsof an integrated ecosystem accounting system
including physical terms (for the account of
ecosystem extent, condition and ecosystemservices flows) and monetary terms (for theaccount of ecosystem services flows andecosystem assets). The document describes
and provides suggestions and resources
for each type of account and illustrates how
the different accounts are interconnected
and together provide a comprehensive
and coherent view of ecosystems.
7. The Life Cycle Initiatives of the UNEP
has developed regionalised factors to conduct
an assessment of impacts related to land-use
impacts on biodiversity.
8. eDNA is increasingly used in biodiversityrelated assessments in combination withtraditional survey methods and is particularly
useful for aquatic species. The Biodiversity
Consultancy provides a briefing note illustrating
the current state of eDNA approaches, therefore
allowing practitioners (including organisations)to identify where the application of thistechnology can benefit a project and where
it will complement or enhance traditional survey
methods. Nature Metrics provides easily
accessible tools for DNA-based biodiversity
monitoring, which analyse biological data
to provide insights about soil health andecosystem quality.
9. The IUCN’s Tools for measuring modelling andvaluing ecosystem services provides guidance forpractitioners on existing tools that can be applied
to measure or model ecosystem services provided
by important sites for biodiversity and nature
conservation (e.g. Key Biodiversity Areas, natural
World Heritage sites, and protected areas).
10. Measuring ecosystem services: Guidance on
developing ecosystem service indicators by
UNEP-WCMC, besides supporting the selection

67

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresof indicators (REQ-05), provides examples of
ecosystem services indicators from CICES(Table 2, pg. 28), of decision-support andmodelling tools (Box 6, pg. 34), data sources(Table 3 and 4, pg. 35), (Box 12), and existing
ecosystem services research and monitoring
initiatives (Box 12, pg. 52).
11. The BFFI is a methodology (and related tool)
based on life cycle assessment to measure theimpact of financial institutions on biodiversity. It
consists of four steps, from the identification of
economic activities included in the portfolio to theassessment of impacts on biodiversity (expressedin Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species).
12. Tools for the assessment of ecosystemservices, such as InVEST and ARIES, provide
models to map and value ecosystem services,
assisting with balancing environmental andeconomic goals, by using production functions
to define how changes in an ecosystem’s
structure and function are likely to affect flows
and values of ecosystem services.
Metrics and indicators from other reporting
standards/frameworks
13. Many of the world’s largest companies
already disclose information and data to CDP
via their Corporate Forests Questionnaire, Water
Security Questionnaire and Climate Change
Questionnaire. CDP submissions can provide a
useful, well-structured basis for developing
mainstream disclosures in response to REQ-04
as well as other reporting requirements of the
CDSB Framework, such as on governance,
strategies and targets, and outlook
14. Sustainability Accounting Standards Board(SASB) materiality matrix and industry-specificstandards identify a base set of material
ecological impacts for each industry, providing
metrics for reporting on them in a consistent andcomparable manner.
15. GRI 304 disclosure standards on biodiversity
include a disclosure on significant impacts ofactivities, products and services on biodiversity.
Specific suggestions are included in the sectoral
standards (e.g. Oil and Gas).

Valuation
In addition to SEEA and the monetary valuation
techniques included in the summary provided
in the Natural Capital Protocol (see Table 7.1,
pg. 84), the list below includes further
resources on valuation:
16. The Environmental Valuation Reference
Inventory is a database of empirical studies on
the economic value of environmental assets.
It provides summaries including details on thespecific environmental assets being valued, themethodological approaches and the estimatedmonetary values.
17. The Ecosystem Services Valuation Database
contributes to the insights on monetaryvaluation of ecosystem and biodiversity.
It focuses on compensating the continued
intergenerational loss due to the damage inecosystem and biodiversity.
18. The IPBES guidance on Diverse Value andValuation proposes standard procedures todiversity valuation in order to assurecomparability, accountability and transparency.
It provides (1) a review of types of valuation
methodologies, (2) a preliminary guide on
diverse conceptualisation of multiple values ofnature and its benefits, and (3) a six-step
approach to valuation.
19. The The Economics of Ecosystems andBiodiversity (TEEB) Valuation Database is asearchable database of 1,310 estimates ofmonetary values of ecosystem services provided
by different ecosystems (e.g. open ocean, coral
reefs, wetlands, rivers, lakes, forests, andgrasslands).
20. The Environmental Value Look-Up is ameasuring tool to assess monetary value ofenvironmental impacts. The related database
contains indicative monetary values ofenvironmental impacts, including biodiversity(focus is on the UK).
Please also refer to Table 5 and databases
contained in Appendix 8 and Appendix 9.

68

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Examples
1. Kering Universal Registration Document
2020 summarises how the organisation
measures its biodiversity-related impact. Its
Environmental Profit & Loss Account (EP&L)
methodology quantifies the impact on natural
capital, including along the value chain (in 2019,32% of Kering’s environmental impacts related
to biodiversity and land-use, most of which wasat the level of Tier 4 suppliers). The company
reports using the Biodiversity Impact Metric,
which measures the impact of operations on
biodiversity (including along the supply chain)and provides a basis to compare impacts ofdifferent raw materials or supply regions. The
report clarifies that the CISL team is working on
improvements alongside EP&L specialists
before disclosing the Group’s impact on
biodiversity (pg. 176).
2. Solvay Annual Report 2020 describes themethodology used to measure its impact on
biodiversity - the ReCiPe method, based on

REQ-05
Performance andcomparative analysis
Disclosures shall include an analysis of theinformation disclosed in REQ-04 comparedwith any performance targets set and withresults reported in previous periods
Disclosure checklist
Does the disclosure:
Provide appropriate historical data to theresults reported from REQ-04 for significant
biodiversity-related impacts to allow for
useful comparison, including details onpriority geographical areas and priority
products/services?
Contextualise performance with baselines/
reference states, targets and other criteria
used to assess progress?
Explain the major trends with reference todrivers of change under and/or outside thecontrol of the organisation?

three factors: product environmental footprint
calculated using Life Cycle Assessment (theassessment covers the “cradle-to-gate” scopefor each Solvay product); pressure thatcomponents released into air, water, and soil
puts on the ecosystem, converted into
“biodiversity loss” or “ecosystem quality”;
product sales volume during the year inquestion (pg. 123).
3. FrieslandCampina Annual Report 2020 has
developed an indicator to measure the impactof dairy farms on biodiversity, in collaboration
with WWF and Rabobank - the Biodiversity
Monitor (pg. 60). The company’s website
clarifies that the Biodiversity Monitor uses
the following KPIs to measure a dairy farm’s
influence on biodiversity: GHG emissions,soil nitrogen balance, ammonia emission,
share of protein produced by own land,
share of permanent grassland, and shareof nature and landscape management.

Principle 2 of the CDSB Framework sets outthat disclosures should include “all informationthat is necessary for an understanding of thematter that it purports to represent and does
not leave out details that could cause
information to be false or misleading to users.”
To offer report users proper comparability
between past and present material biodiversityrelated performance, companies need to ensurethat they are offering an appropriate number ofhistorical datapoints. Narrow dataset windows
or intermittent, longer-term datasets are
unsuitable for comparison and decision-making,for instance, potentially obscuring the actual
trends. Where long-term measures andperformance are not possible, an organisation
should disclose the reasons why. In addition,clarification of boundaries considered (e.g. value
chain) should be provided.
Reporting on progress against targets offers aneffective means of providing a narrative analysis
of performance to improve biodiversity impact. In
particular, a small set of core indicators that canbe monitored across the corporate scope of
biodiversity influence and can be aggregated at
the corporate level is ideal. Additionally, in
accordance with Principle 3 of the CDSB
Framework, the set of selected indicators should(1) connect to the impacts and dependencies

69

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

identified, and related risks and opportunities,and (2) illustrate the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of management responses.
When reporting on performance in reference totargets set for significant sources of biodiversity
impacts, it is useful to restate the overall ambition
and the baseline/reference state, clarifying for thereader as to whether the targets are part of acorporate initiative or scheme, or tied to wider
national or international ambitions. Example
indicators that may be useful to report users todemonstrate progress towards targets include:• Percentage increase in the area, connectivity
and integrity of natural ecosystems within
the organisation’s impact area;• Percentage increase in the population of
threatened species within the impact area;• Non-compliance with biodiversity-related
regulation (e.g. percentage of facilities withviolations);• Membership of biodiversity initiatives (e.g.
percentage of facilities or suppliers withbiodiversity-related certifications or number ofpartnerships signed with a biodiversity-relatedscientific body, NGO, foundation or nature
conservation stakeholder);• Number of farms applying approved techniques;• Proportion of products from certified sources;• Value of fines and sanctions for non-compliancewith biodiversity laws and regulations;• Level of investment in biodiversity;• Number of employees that attended at least one
biodiversity training session; and• Percentage of entities trained in biodiversity
issues (both under and outside the control of thereporting organisation e.g. suppliers, dependingon the reporting boundaries).
Indicators can also be helpful for demonstrating
performance of delivery of strategies andobjectives. For example, a company’s objectives
can be best tracked with impact indicators (Table
4 and Table 5) whilst the strategies will require
response indicators (e.g. biodiversity impact
mitigation measures or BAPs in place). Additionally,
it would be beneficial to provide details on
performance and progress in priority geographicalareas and for priority products/services, but also inareas experiencing significant changes including
related to land-use (e.g. urbanisation ordeforestation), legislations, and population growth.

In order to show progress across the years, abaseline assessment should be performed foreach metric considered to assess performance.
Reference to an explicit baseline year and/orreference state is required to enable report
users to draw decision-useful conclusions,providing a starting point or state of biodiversity
benchmark against which changes inbiodiversity can be compared. Options include:• Comparisons to previous years (baseline year)
or an average over previous years (e.g. the year
the organisation first started to operate in a
specific area and completed a biodiversityrelated assessment). This may be most useful
where the objective is to reduce or improveorganisation’s biodiversity impact over time.
• Comparisons to the state of biodiversity ata point in time, such as a pristine baseline
where impacts are measured relative to
biodiversity in its natural state (reference
state), or a counterfactual reference state,
which is a plausible state of biodiversity thatwould occur if the business did not operate.
A counterfactual reference state is useful as
it takes into account external, non-business
impacts (e.g. climate change or otherorganisations).
Industry benchmarks, such as an industry
average, may also be useful to include as they
assist with the comparability of disclosures.liii
When explaining trends, companies shoulddraw the reader’s attention to the impacts ofenvironmental initiatives and management
actions, wider corporate developments (e.g.
changes in strategy, acquisitions ordivestments), and other drivers of change thatare internal to the organisation such as
methodological modifications (e.g. changes intargets or data coverage). For example, anincrease in biodiversity risk might be the resultof the development of new products with inputs
sourced from regions with high biodiversityrelated risks, or a new acquisition. Other naturaland human-induced factors that are outside thecontrol of the organisation (e.g. regulatorychanges) can influence such trends. Suchnarratives should try to illustrate a more holistic
biodiversity impact, clearly describing thechanges between reporting years and thedrivers, while making connections acrossdifferent aspects of the corporate report.

liii Check the work of the World Benchmarking Alliance. Available from:https://www.worldbenchmarkingalliance.org/seafood-stewardship-index/

70

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Consistency needs to be applied to techniques
used for data gathering and processing,accounting approaches, and impact assessment
methods to produce credible data over time
and to allow for aggregation of information,
proper comparability, and understanding of
performance and trends. For example, goodpractice consists of (1) applying the same
estimation method for each species andecosystem throughout the data collection
activities and across different sites as far as
possible and feasible, (2) ensuring that the
sample selected is a statistically appropriate
representation of the total population, bothin terms of size and location, and (3) recording
the methodological choices, assumptions andlimitations inherent to the selected datacollection methods (e.g. the number of visits tosample units undertaken). A concise summaryof methodological information should be
provided in the report and, if procedures deviate
from recommended practice, the organisation
should provide the basis for decision-making
and potential related implications. In many
circumstances, changes are made to improveaccuracy or meet new standards. Wherechanges are made to data collection boundary,methods, data, or any other factors affecting
biodiversity impact assessment, restatements
should be produced, as in REQ-10 of the CDSB
Framework, to draw attention to these changes
and provide an explanation.

Useful resources
1. The 2021 report Assessment of Biodiversity
Measurement Approaches for Businesses andFinancial Institutions from the EU Business @Biodiversity Platform includes a summary ofdifferent biodiversity measurement approaches,
highlighting those that support the assessmentof current performance and the tracking oftarget progress (see Figure 2, pg. 17)

5. The Biodiversity Indicators for Site-Based
Impacts methodology by UNEP-WCMC,
Conservation International and Fauna & FloraInternational sets out a methodology for
aggregating biodiversity impact andperformance data at site level to provide
indicators of biodiversity management
performance at corporate level.

2. Stage 4 of the IUCN Guidelines for planningand monitoring corporate biodiversity
performance offers guidance for choosing,defining and using a small set of core indicatorsthat can be monitored across the corporate
scope of biodiversity influence, to show progressagainst goals, objectives and the delivery ofstrategies.

6. The development and use of biodiversity
indicators in business by the IUCN, introduces
a spectrum of business applications forbiodiversity indicators, illustrating their use
in the decision-making process and in themeasurement and tracking of biodiversity
performance. This report also guides companies
in the selection of indicators (REQ-04).

3. The Biodiversity Indicators Partnership is a
global initiative promoting the development anddelivery of biodiversity indicators, linked to
global initiatives (i.e. CBD and other biodiversityrelated conventions, IPBES, the SDGs) that may
be useful for organisations when selecting anddeveloping indicators.

7. Towards Nature Positive Business: The casefor biodiversity indicators by UNEP-WCMC,
provides guidance on how biodiversity indicators
can be used to track biodiversity performanceand report progress to relevant stakeholders.

4. Measuring ecosystem services: Guidance on
developing ecosystem service indicators by
UNEP-WCMC, supports the development of
ecosystem service indicators at the national andregional level for uses including corporate
assessment, decision-making and reporting.

8. The Biological Diversity Protocol offers an
accounting and reporting framework that enables
organisations to produce Statements of Biodiversity
Position and Performance, which can be used tomeasure performance and risk over time. The
protocol also provides suggestions on how toaccurately conduct and report on data collection.
Please also refer to Table 11 in Appendix 9.

71

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Examples
1. Stora Enso Annual Report 2020 assesses
progress against responsible forestry (whichis explicitly connected to biodiversity – pgs. 3, 11
and 18) by measuring the proportion of land inwood production and harvesting owned andmanaged by Stora Enso which is covered byforest certification schemes. The report includes
the company’s target and performance against
previous years (pg. 9 Sustainability Section in
Annual Report 2020). It outlines the geographicallocation of forests, plantations, and land owned or
managed by Stora Enso, providing details on
hectares covered by each unit, and whether or
not it is covered by forest certification schemes(and if so, which one(s)) (pgs. 52-53).
2. Eramet Universal Registration Document 2020
discloses its progress against its biodiversity
objective, i.e. to achieve and maintain the ratio of
rehabilitated areas to cleared areas ≥ 1 over theperiod 2019-2023 (excluding long-term
infrastructures). The company reports on both

REQ-06
OutlookManagement shall summarise their conclusions
about the effect of environmental impacts, risks
and opportunities on the organisation’s future
performance and position
Disclosure checklist
Does the disclosure:
Explain the likely effect of future
biodiversity-related impacts, risks andopportunities, as well as of biodiversity
strategy on organisation performance andresilience, taking account of regulatory andmarket trends and environmental changes?
Identify and explain the time horizons used
for reporting on corporate outlook?
Explain any techniques, such as scenario
analysis, used to inform the outlook
including the methods, scenarios andassumptions used, and any shortcomings
and uncertainties?

current progress and past performance (pg. 295),
allowing for comparison over time. The report
also discloses the contributions of subsidiaries tothe overall result (e.g. in Gabon, in 2014, a mining
environment brigade was created, contributing to
the increase in rehabilitated areas (pgs. 296-298)).
3. Titan Integrated Annual Report 2020 discloses
various indicators (e.g. Active quarry sites withhigh biodiversity value (number); Active quarrysites with biodiversity management plans(number); Active quarry sites with biodiversity
management plans (percentage); Active quarrysites with quarry rehabilitation plans (percentage),etc.). For each, the company discloses current
performance, as well as that of the previous four
years (pg. 75 and pg. 87). Explanations behindsome of the changes are provided. For example,
a decrease in the percentage of active quarrysites with quarry rehabilitation plans was due tothe organisation acquiring a quarry in North
Macedonia which does not yet have in place aplan that meets TITAN’s standards (pg. 75).

REQ-06 of the CDSB Framework encourages
companies to provide a future-oriented summarythat enables report users to understand how
an organisation’s biodiversity-related risks,
opportunities, dependencies and impacts areaffecting, or will affect, its ability to execute its
strategy, innovate and create value across time
horizons. According to Principle 7 of the CDSB
Framework, the information provided in response
to REQ-06 should synthesise in a forwardlooking manner and build on what has been
disclosed in line with the first five reporting
requirements of the CDSB Framework. In
practice, REQ-06 should provide a full picture forinvestors of how biodiversity-related governance,
strategy, management, and current and potential
risks and opportunities will likely influence theorganisation’s performance and position.
Taking into account the timescales overwhich biodiversity-related risks will manifest,
the non-linear and potentially abrupt nature ofpossible impacts, and the multiple, interconnecting
systems that drive biodiversity-related risks andopportunities for companies, scenario analysis is aparticularly useful method for companies to better
understand potential futures, assess and build
resilience within environmental, economic andsocial systems that are in flux, and to disclose suchinformation to investors.

72

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

1. Scenario analysis
Assessing a range of future biodiversity-related
states and consequences for the business will elicit
important information for companies and report
users. Scenario analysis can be conducted throughdifferent routes including consultation with internaland external experts or scientific analysis, which
would support the understanding of complex andinterconnected biodiversity-related issues. It can bea quantitative or qualitative exercise. There is no
special or correct formula by which it is to becompleted. Instead, it is a process to analyse a suiteof potential futures, understanding the organisation,
its dependencies and strategic resilience, within the
different forces that drive each of the futures. It is anadvanced exercise because it would, ideally,
consider a set of drivers influencing the status ofbiodiversity, ecosystems and their functioning/
services in the different areas of operations andvalue chain, including drivers linked to business
operations, as well as external drivers such as
population, regulatory mechanisms, land-use
change, and climate change and its effects (e.g.
ocean acidification). Few existing practices focus on
biodiversity-related outcomes from climate-related
scenario analysis. In this analysis, a range of different
warming levels (e.g. 1.5, 2, 3 and greater than 4°C)
and transition pathways (e.g. drastic to 1.5°C,
relatively more gradual 2°C, technologicallyenabled 1.5°C) should be taken into account, as
recommended by the TCFD. Climate change is a
key driver of biodiversity loss: in particular, scenarios
characterised by greater temperature increases (e.g.
more than 3°C) should be assessed since they are
critical for biodiversity-related risks168 (e.g.
exacerbate the extinction risk in biodiversity
hotspots such as mountains, islands, and coral
reefs;169, 170 or increase of invasive species due toclimate-induced migration and consequent impacts
on pollinators and crop productivity,171 and soil
biodiversity and fertility), and related adaptation andmitigation actions. On the other hand, 2 °C or 1.5 °C
scenarios can have significant impacts due toland-use change required for the expansion of
bioenergy cropland, if bioenergy remains a major
component of climate change mitigation
strategies.172 Climate scenarios, such as thosedeveloped by the IPCC and the International Energy
Agency (IEA), can be combined with socioeconomic scenarios such as the Shared
Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) by the International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA),173
which can influence and be influenced bybiodiversity impact drivers (other than climatechange), such as land-use change and pollution.
Such scenarios can be combined with models forthe assessment of biodiversity and ecosystemservices (e.g. Globio174 and InVEST175)176 and of
economic indicators.177
The results of the scenario analysis should provide
a summary of the organisation’s future
dependencies on biodiversity and related futurerisks and opportunities, including details on current
and future areas impacted by business activities, tobe included in the outlook.
Considerations on the resilience of the organisation
to the analysed future scenarios in light of
biodiversity strategy and management should bepresented, highlighting the main plans and actions
to cope with future risks and seize future
opportunities from current strategy andmanagement (e.g. mitigation of impacts on
biodiversity, stakeholder engagement) andpotential limitations and gaps. Given the site
specificity of biodiversity risks, details on resilience inpriority geographical areas would be beneficial.
Links, synergies and trade-offs between
biodiversity-related management actions and those
implemented to tackle other natural capital changes(but also social and governance issues) should be
explained (e.g. transitioning to renewable energy
such as wind farm can impact bird habitat or
migration; or installing a mini-hydropower station
can impact fish habitat and breeding process).
The use of scenario analysis will be based on
iterative learning and development. This will allow
companies to build on findings or methods
employed previously as well as incorporate more
up-to-date understanding of biodiversity
dependencies and impacts, of other influencing
environmental systems and their interactions aswell as greater comprehension of biodiversity andclimate resilient pathways. If using scenario
analysis, then report preparers should be openwith these aspects of learning and development.

2. Methods, assumptions and uncertainties
When reporting on corporate outlook, report users
should be able to understand the different methods
that have been used to prepare the outlook,including horizon scanning and scenario analysis,
any assumptions made and the timeframes overwhich the analysis has been completed. These
different characteristics of the scenarios shouldreflect the nature of the organisation, its assets andoperations, and the scale of risks and opportunities
already identified. In addition, where external advice
or assistance on conducting scenario analysis is

73

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosuresused, it is beneficial for this to be highlighted within
the methods and inputs. In reporting theeffectiveness and resilience of the organisation’s
strategies to the potential business impacts of thedifferent scenarios, report preparers should be clear
about uncertainties but as precise as possible withhow the impacts of risks differ by geography andtime horizon. Clear articulation of the specificsensitivities to the different scenarios will allow
report users to better understand the potential
responses identified by the organisation as a resultof the exercise, whether that is no response,changes to financial planning and investment, or
reimagining the business model.

3. Iteration and learning
Biodiversity-related risks and opportunities arehighly dynamic and dependent upon changes

in complex environmental systems and political,
economic and societal arenas as well as the
exposure of the organisation or assets and its
associated vulnerabilities. The qualities anddimensions of biodiversity-related risks andopportunities for companies are likely to changeover time, whether gradually or abruptly.
Therefore, using the findings of such exercises toassess corporate outlook is an important meansof updating risk and opportunity identification
systems and refine or reformulate biodiversityrelated policies, strategies and targets. This will
better prepare the organisation in limiting andseizing biodiversity-related risks andopportunities. Including such learnings and how
they have been incorporated into systems andambitions in the mainstream report is a valuablemeans of demonstrating effective and efficientmanagement of significant biodiversity-related
matters to investors.

Assessment Tools
As for risks, existing assessment tools can
support the assessment of future scenarios andbusiness resilience to those scenarios.
Combining different tools and integratingorganisation-specific components andinformation is good practice and would provide
a more comprehensive and robust assessment.
1. The Globio model allows trends in biodiversity
and ecosystem services to be modelled under
future socio-economic development scenarios,
as well as different policy interventions.
2. The Water Risk Filter by WWF includes
TCFD-aligned future scenarios that combine
climate and socioeconomic scenarios andprovides 2030 and 2050 quantitative
projections of physical risks. Despite being
focused on water, among the physical risks
the tool includes risks also linked to ecosystemservices status considering the fragmentation
status of rivers, catchment ecosystem services
degradation level, and projected impacts on
freshwater biodiversity. The Water Risk Filter
methodology includes a description of methods,
data and sources used.

3. IUCN’s STAR tool measures the contributionthat investments can make to reducing species
extinction risk which could be used for scenario
analysis purposes.
4. The current version of ENCORE allows
exploration of future scenarios in terms of thepotential direct impacts of each commodity on
biodiversity (available for some sectors, e.g.
agriculture and mining). The description of
methods supports the understanding and theselection of scenarios and related analysis andprovides a list of models that can be coupledwith ENCORE (see Table 5, pg. 40).

74

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Useful resources
1. The TCFD Technical Supplement: The Use of
Scenario Analysis in Disclosure of Climate-related
Financial Disclosures explains the importance of
scenario analysis and offers considerable advice
on and resources for developing and applying
scenario analysis for climate issues, including
biodiversity-related issues. Additionally, the TCFD
Knowledge Hub offers a free on-line course on
the introduction to scenario analysis.
2. The IPBES Methodological assessment reporton scenarios and models of biodiversity andExamples
1. FrieslandCampina is in the process ofassessing the results of a study commissioned to
the University of Wageningen on what the dairy
industry might be like in 2030. The study looks
at a variety of scenarios based on different
considerations, including the shift towards morenature-inclusive dairy farming, or towards aworld which will require reliable, cheap, andefficiently produced food, where requirements
relating to grazing and biodiversity will disappear
due to consumers no longer being ready to pay
for this in a generic sense. The company statesthat it will take the study’s future scenarios into
consideration in its long-term strategy
development and decision-making process

ecosystem services provides guidance for the useof scenarios and existing models aimed atassessing biodiversity and ecosystem services. In
particular, it provides an analysis of best practices
for using scenarios and models in assessments.
Additionally, the report summarising the scientificoutputs of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsoredworkshop - Biodiversity and climate change
illustrates the interlinkages between and effects
of climate change scenarios and biodiversity(including reference to further useful literature).

(while the Annual Report 2020 refers to thestudy (pg. 63), further details were found on thecompany’s website and in the official study).
2. Unilever Annual Report and Accounts 2020
addresses scenario analysis in a dedicatedsection of the report (pgs. 52-54). While focusedon climate change, the report summarises
methods and assumptions, findings, impacts
and outlook for the organisation and key
commodities, and explains how the outcomes
feed into risk management and other processes.
Shifting towards sustainable agriculture (as well
as net zero deforestation requirements)
underpins the 2°C scenario, which would
translate into increased raw material prices,hence costs for the company.

4. Basis for conclusions
The content of the Biodiversity Application
Guidance has been developed and selectedaccording to the scope and aim of the
document (see About this guidance) andreflecting the fact that it is subordinated to the
CDSB Framework and is complementary toother CDSB guidance documents, such as the
Climate and the Water Guidance. The
Biodiversity Application Guidance reflects thestatus of the sustainability reporting
environment and regulation at the time ofwriting. As explained in Reporting expectations
and important considerations, materiality plays acrucial role within this dynamic space. The CDSB
reporting requirements are voluntary, unlessprescribed in guidance issued by national or
supranational government or regulator, andtherefore the reporting suggestions provided in
the Biodiversity Application Guidance arealso voluntary.

The Biodiversity Application Guidance also
reflects the status of research and scientificdevelopments on biodiversity, for example, on
biodiversity impact assessment and related
metrics and on nature-related financial risks andopportunities (see example of physical risks andopportunities in REQ-03)
The focus of the Biodiversity Application
Guidance is on disclosures and not on corporate
management and practices. For this reason,
the Guidance mentions some goodmanagement practices to provide examples
and direction to disclosures but does not go
deeper into methodological details (e.g. steps
to define biodiversity targets) and sign-posts toexternal resources that have specific focus onsuch topics in order to avoid duplicating existing
information.

Chapter 4

Appendices

76

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 1:
CDSB Framework –Guiding principles andreporting requirements
Principles
P1 Environmental information shall be
prepared applying the principles of
relevance and materiality
P2 Disclosures shall be faithfully represented
P3 Disclosures shall be connected withother information in the mainstream report
P4 Disclosures shall be consistent andcomparable

CDSB
Frameworkfor reporting environmental& climate change information

Advancing and aligning disclosureof environmental information inmainstream reports

P5 Disclosures shall be clear andunderstandable
P6 Disclosures shall be verifiable
P7 Disclosures shall be forward looking

December 2019www.cdsb.net/framework

Reporting requirements
REQ-01 Disclosures shall describe thegovernance of environmental policies,
strategy and information
REQ-02 Disclosures shall report management’s
environmental policies, strategy and targets,
including the indicators, plans and timelines
used to assess performance
REQ-03 Disclosures shall explain the material
current and anticipated environmental risks
and opportunities affecting the organisation
REQ-04 Quantitative and qualitative results,
together with the methodologies used toprepare them, shall be reported to reflectmaterial sources of environmental impact
REQ-05 Disclosures shall include an analysisof the information disclosed in REQ-04
compared with any performance targets set
and with results reported in a previous period
REQ-06 Management shall summarise theirconclusions about the effect of environmental
impacts, risks and opportunities on theorganisation’s future performance and position

REQ-07 Environmental information shall be
prepared for the entities within the boundaryof the organisation or group for which themainstream report is prepared and, whereappropriate, shall distinguish information reported
for entities and activities outside that boundary
REQ-08 Disclosures shall cite the reporting
provisions used for preparing environmental
information and shall (except in the first year ofreporting) confirm that they have been usedconsistently from one reporting period to the next
REQ-09 Disclosures shall be provided
on an annual basis
REQ-10 Disclosures shall report and explain
any prior year restatements
REQ-11 Disclosures shall include a statementof conformance with the CDSB Framework
REQ-12 If assurance has been provided overwhether reported environmental information
is in conformance with the CDSB Framework,
this shall be included in or cross-referenced tothe statement of conformance of REQ-11

77

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 2:
CDSB materiality approach
Principle 1 of the CDSB Framework offers that
information is material if:• The impacts or results it describes are,due to their nature and magnitude, expected
to have a significant positive or negative
impact on the company’s financial conditionand operational results and its ability to
execute its strategy over the short-, medium-,and long-term; or• Omitting, misstating, or obscuring theinformation could reasonably be expected toinfluence the decisions that users of
mainstream reports make on the basis of thatmainstream report, which provides information
about a specific reporting company.178
Corporate reporting on sustainability(including biodiversity) may include three
distinct, but nested lenses179 (Figure 9):
a. Reporting to all stakeholders on all sustainability
matters that reflect significant impacts on
people, the environment and the economy;b. Reporting to investors on all sustainability
matters that affect (future) financial positionand performance; andc. Reporting to investors on monetary amounts
included in the financial statements.

The scope of the CDSB Framework mainly covers
the intermediate lens (b), but there is significant
overlap in the scope of sustainability mattersaddressed in the different lenses (as shown in
Figure 9). Therefore, material information onsustainability risks and opportunities useful toinvestors can include information about theentity’s impacts on society and the environment,
and how those impacts affect its cash flows overthe short-, medium- and long-term (also referred
to as circularity).
Additionally, the materiality of sustainability
issues is dynamic on account of changing
environmental conditions and their interactions
with an organisation and the development ofinvestor, regulator and consumer expectations,for example business.180 Therefore, depending
on its materiality for a specific organisation at agiven time, sustainability-related information
falls under one of the three forms of reporting
noted above. This means that the concerns of
one stakeholder group may quickly becomematerial for financial decision-makers (Figure9). As such, disclosures based on sustainability
reporting standards and frameworks fromorganisations such as CDP, GRI, and theCapitals Coalition are important to ensure
reciprocity and responsiveness in the reporting
landscape (Figure 9). Organisations should
regularly reassess the materiality ofsustainability issues to their business and reflect
this selection in the sustainability-related
financial disclosures (and financial accounting)included in their mainstream report.

78

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Sustainability reporting
via various materiality lenses

Data structured using taxonomies and powered by technology

Reporting on all sustainability matters that reflectsignificant positive or negative impacts on people,
the environment and the economy

Dynamic
Materiality:
sustainability
topics canmove either
gradually orvery quickly

To various users with various objectives, who wantto understand the enterprise’s positive and negative
contributions to sustainable development

Reporting on those sustainability mattersthat create or erode enterprise value
To users with specific interest inunderstanding enterprise value

Already represented in
the financial statements

X

ity
ers
div
o
i
B

s
los

X

Sustainability matter:e.g. biodiversity loss

Dynamic materiality: Dynamic materiality: Sustainability matters can move
between boxes over time. For example, changes to biodiversity enters the big
box perspective as society becomes aware of biodiversity loss, the middle box
as investors start to factor in biodiversity positive transition into capital market
pricing, and the small box as financial consequences are felt in net asset values

Sustainability Reporting
E.g. Biodiversity change including
source of impacts, standards
methodologies, assumptions
and tools used to determine
contribution (destruction) tosustainable development

Enterprise value Reporting
Sustainability-related financial disclosure
E.g. Trend and scenario analysis of biodiversity change, including
sales-weighted biodiversity dependencies and impacts of products.
Companies and investors can thus understand the business levers
available to reduce/halt biodiversity loss and the likely effect ofimproving performance on the company’s enterprise value by
reducing / avoiding remediation expenses or improved reputation
thanks to the reduction of impacts on biodiversity

Financial accounting
and disclosure
E.g. Monetary impact on thestatement of profit or loss due
to remediation expenses orfines related to regulation on
biodiversity

Figure 9. Materiality of sustainability matters is dynamic, and the three forms of sustainability reporting are nested. The CDSB Framework andBiodiversity Application Guidance focus on sustainability matters that affect financial position and performance. This figure is an adapted version fromthe publication Reporting on enterprise value by CDP, CDSB, GRI, IIRC and SASB (IIRC and SASB have merged into the Value Reporting Foundation).

79

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 3: Mapping the CDSB requirements
to TCFD and biodiversity reporting standards
Table 6. International biodiversity reporting standards, frameworks, and guidelines and TCFD - mapping with CDSB requirements.

CDSB Framework
REQ-01

REQ-02

REQ-03

REQ-04

REQ-05

REQ-06

TCFD• Governance (a, b)• Risk Management (a, b, c)• Governance (b)• Strategy (b)• Risk Management (a, b, c)• Metrics and Targets (a, c)• Governance (b)• Strategy (a, b c)
• Risk Management (a, b, c)• Metrics and Targets(a, b)• Metrics andTargets (a, b)• Strategy (a, b, c)• RiskManagement (c)• Metrics andTargets (a)CDP Forest Security
Questionnaire• F4.1; F4.2; F4.3
• F6.6; F6.7

• F0.4; F0.5
• F1.1; F1.2; F1.5
• F2
• F4.5; F4.6
• F5.1• F6.1; F6.2; F6.3; F6.4; F6.5;
F6.7; F6.8; F6.9; F6.10; F6.11• F8.1• F1.2; F1.3; F1.6
• F2
• F3.1; F3.2
• F6.3; F6.6
• F8.1• F1.2; F1.3 F1.6
• F6.4• F1.1• F1.6• F6.3; F6.5
• F8.1

GRI 303 - water and effluents• REQ. 303-1 (c, d)• REQ. 303-1 (a, b, c, d)• REQ. 303-2• REQ. 303-1 (a)• REQ. 303-1 (a, b)• REQ. 303-3• REQ. 303-4• REQ. 303-5• REQ. 303-1 (a)• REQ. 303-1 (b)• REQ 304-1• REQ 304-2• REQ 304-3 (a, c, d)• REQ 304-4• REQ 304-3 (a,c, d)• Rep. Reco 2.1

GRI 304 biodiversityliv• REQ 1.1 (following GRI 103)
• REQ 304-1• REQ 304-2• REQ 304-3 (b)SASBlv(EM-MD: Oil & Gas-midstream;
F-HB: Home Builders)• Standard Application
Guidance - 5.0 (a, c)• Standard Application
Guidance - 5.0 (b, d)• EM-MD-160a.1.
• EM-MD-160a.2.
• EM-MD-160a.3.
• F-HB-160a.4• Standard Application
Guidance - 5.0 (b, d)• EM-MD-160a.3.
• F-HB-160a.3• EM-MD-160a.2.
• EM-MD-160a.3.
• EM-MD-160a.4.

• Standard
Application
Guidance - 5.0(d)• EM-MD-160a.4.

IPIECA - Sustainability
reporting guidance for the oiland gas industry(Module 4)• 4.5 | ENV-6: C4• 3.6 | CCE-1• 4.5 | ENV-3: A1, A2, A3, A4• 4.5 | ENV-3: C1, C2, C3• 4.5 | ENV-4: C1, C2• 4.5 | ENV-4: A1• 4.5 | ENV-6: C1, C3, C4• 4.5 | ENV-1: C3• 4.5 | ENV-3: A2• 4.5 | ENV-4: C1, C2• 4.5| ENV-6: C2, A1,
A2, A3, A4, A5, A6,
A7, A8• 4.5 | ENV-4: A1,
A2

The Natural Capital Protocol• Step 02• Step 01• Step 02• Step 03• Step 04• Step 05• Step 09• Step 01• Step 03• Step 04• Step 05• Step 07• Step 04• Step 05• Step 06• Step 07• Step 06• Step 08• Step 08

Biodiversity Guidance – supplement of the Natural Capital
Protocol• Step 02• Step 01• Step 02• Step 03• Step 04• Step 05• Step 09• Step 01• Step 03• Step 04• Step 05• Step 07• Step 09• Step 04• Step 05• Step 06• Step 07• Step 06• Step 08• Step 08• 2. Biodiversity impact inventory
development;• 3. Biodiversity impact
measurement and accounting(sections: 3.1; 3.2.1);• 4. Validation, verification,
reporting and disclosure(sections 4.2)

• 2. Biodiversity impact
inventory development;• 4. Validation, verification,
reporting and disclosure(sections 4.2)

• 3. Biodiversity
impact measurement
and accounting;• 4. Validation,verification, reportingand disclosure(sections 4.2)

• Principle 1 (1.1 and 1.2)
• Principle 2.1• Principle 3 (3.2, 3.3 and 3.4)
• Principle 4 (4.2)• Principle 5.1• Principle 6• Principle 7• Principle 8• Principle 9• Principle 10• Principle 2 (2.1 and 2.2)
• Principle 3 (3.1 and 3.4)
• Principle 5 (5.1 and 5.2)
• Principle 7 (7.1)• Principle 11.5

• Principle 11 (11.3 and
11.4)• Principle 12.1

• Principle 3.2• Principle 11 (11.
and 11.2)• Principle 12• Principle 11.9

Biological Diversity Protocol

Accountability Framework• Principle 4 (4.1, 4.2 and 4.4)
• Principle 10 (10.1, 10.2 and
10.3)• Principle 11.9

liv Also referenced in GRI 11: Oil and Gas Sector 2021.
lv Biodiversity is generally considered under “Ecological Impacts” (but not only, e.g. in “Poultry, Meat, Dairy” it is considered under “Animal and Feed Sourcing”)
in several of the SASB sector-specific standards. Here only the “Oil and Gas – midstream” and “Home Builders” are reported as examples. Interested parties canreview the applicable industry standard(s) to identify relevant content that could support effective disclosure on biodiversity-related matters.

80

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 4: Definitions
The definitions and associated sources for key terms used in the Biodiversity Application
Guidance are outlined below.
Table 7. Definitions of common terms used throughout the Biodiversity Application Guidance, including sources.

Term

Definition

SourceArea of highbiodiversity value(1) Habitat of significant importance to critically endangered and/or endangered species;(2) Areas of habitat of significant importance to endemic and/or
restricted-range species;(3) Habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of
migratory species and/or congregatory species;(4) Highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems; and/or(5) Areas associated with key evolutionary processes.

International FinanceCorporation

Biodiversity(or biologicaldiversity)

The diversity of life in all its forms — the diversity of species, ofgenetic variations within one species, and of ecosystems.

UN CBD, 1992

Biodiversity
dependency

A biodiversity dependency is a reliance on or use of biodiversity,
including biological resources (e.g. materials, liquids, genetic
resources) from both species and interactions with various
ecosystem processes and services (e.g. pollination, water filtration,
crop pest/disease control or water flow regulation).

Adapted from: Biological
Diversity Protocol

Biodiversity impact

A change in the diversity of ecosystems and/or species that may
take place because of business activities. This includes changes
to the state of ecosystems (e.g. extent and condition/integrity)and species (e.g. habitat, population size) that can be used tosignal changes in biodiversity. A negative impact is a potential
loss of biodiversity (e.g. decline in species number) and a positive
impact is a potential gain in biodiversity (e.g. nature restoration).

CDSB

Biodiversity-related
Financial Disclosure

Decision-useful material information disclosed by an organisation
about risks and opportunities that biodiversity presents to anorganisation’s strategy, financial performance and condition
within the mainstream report to investors.

CDSB

Biodiversity-related
financial risks

Financial risks to organisations and the wider financial system
resulting from biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation due tohuman activity that drives nature loss. This includes physical,
transition and liability risk types, aligned to the TCFD. Biodiversityrelated financial risks may include expenses/liabilities resulting
from implementing mitigation hierarchy principles for biodiversity
impacts, impairment of assets linked to biological resources andthe associated access/use right/quotas (e.g. fishing rights, forestry
concessions) and/or increased costs/decreased revenues resulting
from changes in availability of resources.

Adapted from: The
Economics of Biodiversity:
Dasgupta Review

Cumulative impact

A change in the state of biodiversity (direct or indirect) that
occurs due to the interaction of activities of different actors
operating in a landscape, not only the target organisation.

Adapted from Biological
Diversity Protocol, Natural
Capital Protocol: Biodiversity
Guidance and BBOP, 2012

Direct impact

A change in the state of biodiversity caused by a business activity
with a direct causal link.

Adapted from: Biological
Diversity Protocol andNatural Capital Protocol:
Biodiversity Guidance

EcologicalEquivalency

The principle that for impact assessment or offsetting purposes, thetypes of biodiversity lost or gained should be ecologically equivalentor like-for-like (i.e. only the same types of ecosystems or taxa shouldbe aggregated), due to biodiversity patterns varying significantly
between different species/ecosystems and locations.

Adapted from: Biological
Diversity Protocol

Ecologicalthresholds andtipping points

An ecological threshold is the point at which a relatively small change or
disturbance to a system leads to an abrupt change in ecosystem
quality, property or phenomenon.

Adapted from: Valuing
Nature Programme andGroffman, P. et al (2006)

A tipping point is a specific type of ecological threshold, referring
to a situation where accelerating change, caused by a positive(self-enforcing) feedback mechanism, drives an ecosystem to a
new state, with significant changes in biodiversity, natural capital
and/or ecosystem services. Changes in ecosystems that take place
once a tipping point has been reached can be long lasting, hard toreverse or irreversible.

81

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Term

Definition

SourceEcosystem

A dynamic complex of plants, animals, and microorganisms, andtheir non-living environment, interacting as a functional unit (e.g.
deserts, coral reefs, wetlands, and rainforests).

Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MEA), 2005

Ecosystem Services

The flows of benefits that ecosystems make to people (e.g. timber,fibre, pollination, water regulation, climate regulation, recreation,
mental health), enabling human activities which, include theoperation of businesses.

Adapted from: Natural
Capital Protocol

Final Ecosystem
Services

When an ecological end-product transitions to being either an
economic benefit or something that can be directly used orappreciated by people.

Adapted from: Finisdore, J.,et al. (2020), CICES andNESCS

Habitat

The place or type of site where an organism or population
naturally occurs.

UN CBD, 1992

Indirect impact

A change in the state of biodiversity caused by a businessactivity with an indirect causal link (e.g. indirectly caused by theclimate change GHG emissions contributed to).

Adapted from: Biological
Diversity Protocol andNatural Capital Protocol:
Biodiversity GuidanceInvasive species

Plant and animal species introduced (deliberately or accidentally)
into a natural environment, whose acclimatisation and propagation
represent a major threat to eco-systems, habitats and native species
with negative impacts on the environment, the economy andhuman health.

From IUCN FrenchCommittee.

Land-use

The human use of a specific area for a certain purpose (such as
residential; agriculture; recreation; industrial, etc.). Influenced by,
but not synonymous with, land cover. Land-use change refers toa change in the use or management of land by humans, which
may lead to a change in land cover.

IPBES; IPCC, Special Reporton Climate Change andLand, 2019

Note: In the context of this guidance, the connection to climatechange will also be considered in relation to land-use, land-use
change and forestry (LULUCF), as set out by the IPCC. LULUCF
activities have an important role to play in climate mitigation,although mitigation options can also have adverse side effects forbiodiversity and nature.

Mitigation hierarchy(biodiversity)

A sequence of actions applied to the managementof biodiversity impacts, consisting of four stages:
1. Avoid impacts on biodiversity;
2. Reduce biodiversity impacts as far as possible;

Adapted from: Business andBiodiversity Offsets
Programme (BBOP) andNatural Capital Protocol:
Biodiversity Guidance

3. Restore/remediate impacts that are immediately reversible; and4. Offset residual impacts to achieve a desired net outcome (e.g.
no net loss or net gain).

Natural Capital

The stock of renewable and non-renewable natural resources (e.g.,plants, animals, air, water, soils, minerals) that combine to yield aflow of benefits to people (ecosystem services).

Natural Capital Protocol

Nature-positive

A world with a net positive state of nature by 2030, and fullrecovery of nature by 2050.

Adapted from: SBTN and
Nature+Positive

Physical risks:
acute and chronic

Physical climate (and environmental) risks can be classified asacute when they are event driven, or chronic when they are linked
to longer-term shifts in climate (and environmental) patterns.

Recommendations of the
TCFDProtected area

A clearly defined geographical space, recognised, dedicated, andmanaged, through legal or other effective means, to achieve thelong-term conservation of nature with associated ecosystemservices and cultural values.

IUCN definition 2008, 2013

SpeciesA group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed andproduce fertile offspring.

Biological Diversity Protocol

Valuation

The process of estimating the relative importance, worth, or
usefulness of biodiversity to people, in a particular context (e.g. foran organisation).

Natural Capital Protocol:
Biodiversity Guidance

Value Chain

An organisation’s direct operations, upstream activities anddownstream activities. Direct operations cover activities overwhich the organisation has direct control, upstream activities cover
the activities of suppliers, leased assets, outsourcing operation andfranchises and downstream activities are those linked to thepurchase, use, re-use, recovery, recycling and final disposal of theorganisation’s products and services.

Adapted from: Natural
Capital Protocol; Biological
Diversity Protocol

82

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 5:
Key CDSB resourceslvi
1. CDSB (2021). Accounting for climate
Integrating climate-related matters into financial
reporting - Supplementary paper. Available from:https://www.cdsb.net/sites/default/files/cdsb_
climateaccountingguidance_2021_v4.pdf

6. CDSB and CDP (2020). The building blocks:
Connecting CDP data with the CDSB Framework
to successfully fulfil the TCFD Recommendations.
Available from: https://www.cdsb.net/
buildingblocks

2. CDSB (2021). The CDSB Framework
Application guidance for water-related
disclosures. Available from:https://www.cdsb.net/water

7. CDSB (2019). CDSB Framework for reporting
environmental and climate change information.
Available from: https://www.cdsb.net/framework

3. CDSB (2021). Decision-useful climate-related
information for investors - What, Why & How?.
Available from:https://www.cdsb.net/decision-useful
4. CDSB (2020). Accounting for climate. Available
from: https://www.cdsb.net/climateaccounting
5. CDSB (2020). Application guidance forclimate-related disclosures. Available from:https://www.cdsb.net/climateguidance

lvi These resources are mainly related to climate (and water), but they
provide technical and practical support for the preparation of sustainabilityrelated financial information and mainstream reports, which can be usefulalso in the case of biodiversity-related financial information.

8. CDSB (2018). Uncharted waters: How cancompanies use financial accounting standards
to deliver on the Task Force on Climate-related
Financial Disclosures’ recommendations?
Available from: https://www.cdsb.net/sites/
default/files/uncharted_waters_final.pdf
9. CDSB (2012). Proposals for boundary setting
in mainstream reports. Available from: https://www.cdsb.net/sites/default/files/proposals_for_
mainstream_report_boundary_setting.pdf

83

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 6: Common examples of biodiversity
impacts drivers and changes to the state of biodiversity
Table 8. Common examples of biodiversity impacts drivers (sources of biodiversity impact), with a description of each and how they contribute toor are connected to biodiversity impacts. References: Natural Capital Protocol Biodiversity Guidance; IUCN Guidelines for planning and monitoring
corporate biodiversity performance, IPBES Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Impact Driver

Description

Change in state of biodiversity

Changes in land-,freshwater- andsea-useChanges to land/sea/freshwater areas such as
deforestation, urbanisation, converting natural habitats
for agriculture or seabed destruction (e.g. due to bottom
trawling or marine construction) transforms the amount of
natural habitat available and can cause habitat
fragmentation.

Loss of habitat cover andconnectivity, degradation andfragmentation can lead to changes
to species distribution, changes tospecies migration patterns, changes
to population sizes and loss of
ecosystem function.

Resource
exploitation

Direct exploitation of organisms and natural resources(e.g. use of timber, use of water, exploitation of animals on
or close to farms).

Decrease in abundance and diversityof species, genetic drift and habitat
degradation.

Noise/light pollution

Noise or light pollution as a result of operational activities(e.g. construction noise, artificial light emissions).

Changes to species behaviourand distribution, including migration
and breeding patterns (e.g.
disruption of foraging, breedingor social behaviour).

Waste

Plastic waste or waste assimilation.

Impacts on species abundance(e.g. reduction in abundance due
to macroplastics or microplastics
along the food chain).

Soil pollution

Toxic pollution resulting from the use of agrochemicals
being up taken by plant species and ingested across thefood chain. Excessive nutrients used in agriculture
entering water networks.

Loss of abundance or diversityof species that ingest of toxic
pollutants (e.g. invertebrates,
insects) and those that feed onthem (e.g. birds). Aquatic
eutrophication resulting in
destruction of equilibrium in aquatic
ecosystems.

Water pollution

Water pollutants resulting in reduced oxygen levels within
the impacted waterway (e.g. river, lake, or stream) due to the
input of chemicals.

Reduction in number of species
present in affected area, including
both those affected by chemicals
and those that feed on them.

Air emissions

Emissions of GHGs and other air pollutants.

Decrease in air quality and climatechange resulting in loss of
ecosystem quality and changes tospecies distribution and population
sizes.

84

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 7: Key Initiatives
Table 9. Key biodiversity-related initiatives.

Initiative

Description

Key aims

Capitals
Coalition

A collaboration of leading organisations in areas including
research, science, academia, reporting, investment andbusiness. The coalition develops, advocates for andadvances the capitals approach, and has developed two
standardised frameworks for identifying, measuring andvaluing dependencies on natural capital, including
biodiversity guidance.

To work with organisations andindividuals spanning global systems,
to understand the value that flows
from the capitals, to ensure that it isincluded in decision-making and thatthe value of nature, people andsociety sits alongside financial value inthe minds of decision-makers.

TNFD

A global initiative catalysed through a partnership
between Global Canopy, UNDP, UNEP-FI & WWF. The
Taskforce consists of approximately 35 members,
including financial institutions, corporates and service
providers.

Provision of a framework by late 2023
for corporates and financial
institutions to assess, manage andreport impacts and dependencies onnature, to provide a complete pictureof environmental risks and support ashift in global financial flows awayfrom nature-negative outcomes andtowards nature-positive outcomes.

Business For
NatureA coalition comprising of companies and conservation
organisations, encouraging companies to commit and act
to reverse nature loss.

Amplifying the voice of business toencourage greater policy ambition
relating to biodiversity and nature, as
well as strengthening businessmomentum.

Partnership for
Biodiversity
Accounting
Financials

A partnership of financial institutions initiated by ASN
Bank in 2019 that work together to explore challenges andopportunities of the assessment and disclosure of the
impact on biodiversity associated with loans andinvestments.

Contribute to the development of aharmonised biodiversity accounting
approach in the financial sector: the‘PBAF Standard’.

SBTN

A network of organisations aligned through the Global
Commons Alliance focused on building upon the
Science-Based Targets Initiative across the whole Earthsystem.

Defining integrated targets for cities
and companies across all Earthsystem, defining what is necessary tostay within Earth’s limits and meetsociety’s needs, by 2022.

The Food andLand Use
Coalition

A community of partners including SYSTEMIQ, WBCSD
and WRI, working to galvanise system change relating tofood and land-use, through a series of global initiatives.

Harnessing the expertise of public,
private and research organisations toenable systems thinking on food andland-use transformation for people,
nature and climate.

EU Business@ Biodiversity
Platform

A forum set up by the European Commission, runningworkstreams with EU companies and financial institutions
to link business and biodiversity.

Working with and helping businesses
to measure and integrate the value ofnature into business practices.

The Global
Partnership for
Business andBiodiversity

Links 21 national and regional initiatives, all working
towards greater business engagement on biodiversityrelated issues, so that they can share information andgood practices, and cooperate on common projects.

Increase the number of companies
with a significantly reduced negative
impact upon biodiversity (or even a
net-positive impact) and to mobilise
and enable them to act as positive
influencers upon other entities.

Act4nature

An international alliance led by EpE under a multistakeholder steering committee. Act4nature has
CEO-level and SMART individual objectives for businesses
to sign.

Aim to accelerate business action infavour of nature and mobilise
companies to protect, promote andrestore biodiversity driven bycommitment from CEOs.

One Planet
Business for
Biodiversity

An international, cross-sectorial business coalition on
biodiversity with a specific focus on agriculture, launchedat the UN Climate Action Summit in 2019.

Drive transformational systemicchange and catalyse action to protect
and restore biodiversity within value
chains, engage institutional andfinancial decision-makers, andpromote policy recommendations.

Finance for
Biodiversity
Pledge andFoundation

A biodiversity commitment pledge launched by 26
financial institutions in 2020, which currently has 55
signatories, representing over EURO 9 trillion in assets.

Reverse nature loss to ensure
ecosystem resilience throughcommitments by global leaders to
restore and protect biodiversity
through finance activities andinvestments in the run-up to COP 15.

85

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Initiative

Description

Key aims

Finance4
Biodiversity
Initiative

A dual-purpose platform, established in 2019,
implementing its activities across five workstreams andmaking grants to support others to undertake work inthese areas.

To increase the materiality of
biodiversity in financial decisionmaking and to better align global
finance with nature conservation andrestoration.

The Align Project(Aligningaccounting
approaches fornature)Funded by the European Commission, and led by WCMC
Europe, the Capitals Coalition, Arcadis, ICF and UNEPWCMC, the Align project supports businesses, financial
institutions and other stakeholders in developing
standardised natural capital accounting practices,
including a standardised approach to biodiversity
measurement.

To accelerate the natural evolution ofnatural capital accounting
approaches, from guidance tostandardisation, by developing agenerally accepted set of methods,
indicators and criteria for corporate
biodiversity measurement tools andapproaches, sector specific guidance
for site based, value chain and financesector companies and a standardised
approach to measure corporate
impacts and dependencies on
biodiversity.

The Transparent
Project

A collaboration between The Value Balancing Alliance,
the Capitals Coalition and the WBCSD to develop a set ofenvironmental generally accepted accounting principles.

To help the private sector shift
towards a more sustainable financial
and economic system. by developinga standardised natural capital
accounting and valuation
methodology that businesses can use
in their decision-making and external
disclosure.

The Biodiversity
Finance Initiative

Initiated at the CBD COP 11 by UNDP and the European
Commission, and now present in 40 countries, BIOFIN is
working with governments, civil-society, vulnerable
communities, and the private sector to catalyse
investments in nature.

To demonstrate how nature-positive
economies can work for people andthe planet.

86

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 8: Tools, models and frameworks supporting
the assessment and quantification of biodiversity impacts
Table 10. References: Adapted from Natural Capital Protocol Biodiversity Guidance; IUCN Guidelines for planning and monitoring corporate
biodiversity performance; EU Business @ Biodiversity Platform - Assessment of biodiversity measurement approaches for businesses and financial
institutions; UN WCMC – Biodiversity Measures for Business.

Tool / Approach

Developer

Description

SectorBiodiversity andecosystem
services
guidance for theoil and gas
industry

International
Petroleum
Industry
Environmental

Sets out guidance for the oil and gas industry to assess
biodiversity and ecosystem services dependencies andpotential impacts.

Extractive industry

Conservation
Association andInternational
Association of Oil& Gas Producers

Biodiversity
Footprint
Calculator

PlansupCalculates the impact of a company’s supply chain,production processes and transport related to products.

Cross-sectoral

Biodiversity
Footprint
Financial
Institution

CREM, PRé
Sustainability

Provides an overall biodiversity footprint of investmentsof a financial institution, including the calculation ofenvironmental impact as well as the environmental
footprint of investments within a portfolio.

Cross-sectoral

Biodiversity
Indicators for
Site-Based
Impacts

UNEP-WCMC,
Conservation
International andFauna and FloraInternational

Methodology that meets the needs of extractive
companies in understanding their performance inmitigating their impacts on biodiversity.

Extractive industry

Biodiversity
Monitoring
SystemEU LIFE Food andBiodiversity

Assesses site level supply chain biodiversity impacts byprocessing aggregated data sets. Includes 35 indicators
covering the loss of biodiversity.

Food sector

Biodiversity
Intactness Index

Newbold et al.
(2016)

Modelled (or expert-derived) species population
densities in different land-use intensities, weighted by
species richness for the ecoregion.

Cross-sectoral

Maps can be downloaded from: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/
dataset/global-map-of-the-biodiversity-intactnessindex-from-newbold-et-al-2016-science

Biodiversity
Net-GainCalculator

AcadisThis accounting approach allows companies to verify
compliance with ‘No Net Loss’ and ‘Net Gain’ goals.
It aims to demonstrate the ‘Net Gain’ achieved throughinsight to the land-use related biodiversity value at site
level considering extent, condition and significance (ascore between 0 and 1 is attributed by experts throughfield survey assessments).

Cross-sectoral

Biological
Diversity
Protocol

Biodiversity
Disclosure Project
and Endangered
Wildlife Trust

Aligned with the Natural Capital Protocol, it enables
organisations to identify, manage and report on theirimpacts in a standardised, credible and comparable
way through statements of biodiversity position andperformance.

Cross-sectoral

Bioscope

PRé Sustainability,
Arcadis and CODE

Calculates supply chain impacts on biodiversity forcommodities and resources purchased from 170 sectors
for a range of impact drivers using the ReCiPe method.

Cross-sectoral

Cool Farm Tool

Cool Farm Alliance

Enables organisations to calculate the biodiversity
footprint of products and supply chains.

Agriculture sector

Corporate

Iceberg data lab

Metric of corporate biodiversity impact that reflects theextent to which ecosystems affected by a company’sbusiness have been degraded from their pristine naturalstate. The score factors in a company’s land-use, nitrogen
deposition, GHG emissions and release of toxic compounds.

Cross-sectoral

Biodiversity
Footprint

87

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Tool / Approach

Developer

Description

SectorGlobalBiodiversity
Score

CDC Biodiversité

Enables users to audit entire companies or financial
assets for their impact on biodiversity using mean
species abundance.

Cross-sectoral

GLOBIO model

PBL Netherlands
Environmental
Assessment
AgencyAims to assess scenarios of human-induced changes inbiodiversity, including impacts as well as benefits andfuture socio-economic scenarios.

Cross-sectoral

IBAT

Birdlife
International,
Conservation
International, IUCN
and UNEP-WCMC

Provides access to data from three global biodiversity
databases to provide assessments of the proximity of asite to a threatened species and important conservation
places. Utilises the STAR method.

Cross-sectoral

IFC cumulative
impactassessment

International
Finance
Corporation

Good practice handbook outlining a six-step process to
assist private sector companies in emerging markets toassess potential cumulative impacts and pressures.

Cross-sectoral

LIFE keyLife Institute

Helps organisations to identify and evaluate theirimpacts and design a strategic plan to reduce, mitigate
and compensate for them, including supply chain
impacts. The LIFE Biodiversity Estimated Impact Value
calculates and evaluates impact based on fiveenvironmental aspects.

Cross-sectoral

OPAL – Offset
Portfolio
Analyzer

Stanford
University

Quantifies the impacts of development on biodiversity
and ecosystem services, as well as the value ofprotection and identifies potential offsets.

Cross-sectoral

Product
Biodiversity
Footprint

I careOperates at a product level and uses lifecycle analysis
approaches to calculate the potential biodiversity
footprint of a product.

Cross-sectoral

ReCiPe model

RIVM, Radboud
University
Nijmegen, Leiden
University and
PRé SustainabilityLife Cycle Impact Assessment methodology used toassess environmental impacts of economic activities(through their products and/or services) using 21
indicators, including biodiversity.

Cross-sectoral

Trase

A partnership
between the
Stockholm
Environment
Institute andGlobal Canopy

A supply chain mapping approach that uses publicly
available data to consumer markets to deforestationand other impacts.

Cross-sectoral

88

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Appendix 9: Databases that may be useful for
identifying risk areas (REQ-03), measuring impact(REQ-04) or monitoring performance (REQ-05)
Table 11. Biodiversity-related databases.

Database

Developer

Description

Global Forest Watch

Partnership convened byWorld Resources InstituteOnline platform that provides data and tool for monitoring forests.

IUCN Red Lists(Threatened Species;
Ecosystems)

IUCN

Threatened Species: A comprehensive information source on the
global extinction risk status of animal, fungus and plant species,
including information on range, population size, habitat and ecology,
use and/or trade, threats and conservation actions.
Ecosystems: Evaluation of the status of ecosystems based on
scientific assessments of the risk of ecosystem collapse (i.e.
collapsed, threatened at Critically Endangered, Endangered or
Vulnerable levels, of Least Concern).

The Living Planet
Database

ZSL and WWF

Holds time-series data for over 27,000 populations of mammals,
birds, fish, reptiles and amphibian species around the world, which
are aggregated to produce indices on the state of biodiversity. Data
can be disaggregated for analysis of trends at different scales andfor different habitats.

International
Waterbird Census
Database

Wetlands International

Provides population trend data for over 800 waterbird species and2300 biogeographic populations worldwide.

Global Biodiversity
Information System

Global Biodiversity
Information Facility

Provides historical trends in the occurrence of species.

Ocean Data Viewer

UNEP-WCMC

Provides a range of spatial datasets on marine and coastal
biodiversity that are useful for informing decisions regarding theconservation of marine and ocean ecosystems.

Integrated
Biodiversity
Assessment Tool

Birdlife International,
Conservation
International, IUCN and
UNEP-WCMC

Provides geographic information about global biodiversity (i.e.
World Database on Protected Areas, IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas) that
support the assessment of priority areas and impact.

Drivers

Pressures

State

ImpactResponses

e.g. land-use
planning
restrictions,consumerdemand fornatural resources

e.g. ecosystemuse change,
resource
exploitation,
pollution, climatechangee.g. decline of
biodiversity,change to species
abundanceor ecosystem
intactness

e.g. reputationalloss, fines,
reduction inavailability ofnatural resources

e.g. management
biodiversity
strategy, habitat
restoration, useof sustainable
resources

1. Measure
impactdrivers anddependencies

2. Measurechanges inthe state ofbiodiversity

3. Valuebiodiversity
impacts anddependencies

REQ-02
REQ-04

REQ-04

REQ-03
REQ-04
REQ-06

Pathway

DPSIR

Appendix 10: Mapping of the Pathway approachand DPSIR framework

REQs

REQ-06

REQ-01
REQ-02
REQ-05
REQ-06

Figure 10. Mapping of DPSIR (Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response) framework to Pathway approach (see Box 2) and CDSB requirements. References:
SBTN Guidance Updates, the Natural Capital Protocol and Environmental indicators: Typology and overview by the European Environmental Agency.

89

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

References
1.

Climate Disclosure Standards Board (2019). CDSB
Framework for reporting environmental and climatechange information. Available from: https://www.
cdsb.net/framework

2.

United Nations (1992). Convention on Biological
Diversity. Available from: https://www.cbd.int/doc/
legal/cbd-en.pdf

3.

Endangered Wildlife Trust (2020). The Biological
Diversity Protocol. Available from: https://www.
nbbnbdp.org/uploads/1/3/1/4/131498886/biological_
diversity_protocol__bd_protocol_.pdf

4.

Reid, W. V. (2005). Millennium ecosystem assessment.
Available from: http://www.millenniumassessment.
org/en/Synthesis.aspx

5.

Capitals Coalition (2016). Natural Capital Protocol.
Available from: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/
natural-capital-protocol/

6.

Ibid.

7.

Ibid., 3.

8.

Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures(2017). Final Report: Recommendations of the Task
Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.
Available from: https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/FINAL-2017-TCFDReport-11052018.pdf

9.

Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity:
The Dasgupta Review. (London: HM Treasury).
Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.
uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/962785/The_Economics_of_
Biodiversity_The_Dasgupta_Review_Full_Report.pdf

10. UN Environment Programme, UNEP Finance Initiativeand Global Canopy (2020). Beyond ‘Business as
Usual’: Biodiversity targets and finance. Managing
biodiversity risks across business sectors. UNEPWCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from: https://www.
unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/
Beyond-Business-As-Usual-Full-Report.pdf
11.

De Nederlandsche Bank, PBL Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency (2020). Indebted
to nature - Exploring biodiversity risks for the Dutch
financial sector. Available from: https://www.dnb.nl/
media/4c3fqawd/indebted-to-nature.pdf

12. World Economic Forum (2020). Nature Risk Rising:
Why the Crisis Engulfing Nature Matters for Businessand the Economy, New Nature Economy series, World
Economic Forum. Available from: http://www3.
weforum.org/docs/WEF_New_Nature_Economy_
Report_2020.pdf
13. ILO and WWF (2020). Nature Hires: How Naturebased Solutions can power a green jobs recovery.
Available from: https://wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/
downloads/nature_hires_report_wwf_ilo.pdf
14. OECD (2019). Biodiversity: Finance and the Economic
and Business Case for Action (prepared by the OECDfor the French G7 Presidency and the G7 Environment
Ministers’ Meeting). Available from: https://www.oecd.
org/environment/resources/biodiversity/G7-reportBiodiversity-Finance-and-the-Economic-andBusiness-Case-for-Action.pdf
15. Ibid., 66.

16. Ibid., 9.
17.

Ibid., 10.

18. AXA & WWF (2019). Into the Wild: Integrating nature
into investment strategies. Available from: https://
wwfint.awsassets.panda.org/downloads/report_wwf_
france___axa_into_the_wild_may_2019__dv_1.pdf
19. Capitals Coalition and Cambridge Conservation
Initiative (2020). Integrating Biodiversity into Natural
Capital Assessments. Available from: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-content/
uploads/2020/10/Biodiversity-Guidance_
COMBINED_single-page.pdf
20. Thamotheram, R., Stewart, O. (2016). Bee colony andfood supply collapse: Could investors be the cavalry?
Chapter 9 in Atkins and Atkins, The business of bees:
An integrated approach to bee decline and corporate
responsibility. Greenleaf Publishing, Saltaire, UK, pp.
170–186. pp. 170–186. Available from: https://www.
taylorfrancis.com/chapters/
edit/10.4324/9781351283922-18/bee-colony-foodsupply-collapse-could-investors-cavalry-rajthamotheram-olivia-stewart-preventable-surprises-uk
21. Herron, A. (2019). Extraction and extinction: the role ofinvestors in ensuring the marine health of the planet.
Chapter 7 in Atkins and Atkins, Around the World in 80
Species: Exploring the Business of Extinction,
pp.146–150. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.
com/books/edit/10.4324/9780429437397/aroundworld-80-species-jill-atkins-barry-atkins
22. IPIECA, API and IOGP (2020). Sustainability reporting
guidance for the oil and gas industry. Available from:https://www.ipieca.org/media/5115/ipieca_
sustainability-guide-2020.pdf
23. IUCN (2020). A compass for navigating the world of
biodiversity footprinting tools: an introduction forcompanies and policy makers. Available from: https://www.iucn.nl/app/uploads/2021/04/a_compass_for_navigating_biodiversity_footprint_tools_-_final_1.pdf
24. Hilton, S. and Lee, JM J. (2021). Assessing Portfolio
Impacts - Tools to Measure Biodiversity and SDG
Footprints of Financial Portfolios. Gland, Switzerland:WWF. Available from: https://wwf.panda.
org/?2898916/Assessing-Portfolio-Impacts
25. The Netherlands Enterprise Agency (2021).
Biodiversity Footprint for Financial Institutions Exploring Biodiversity Assessment. Available from:https://www.government.nl/documents/
reports/2021/07/29/biodiversity-footprint-forfinancial-institutions
26. CDSB (2021). The state of EU Environmental Disclosurein 2020. Available from: https://www.cdsb.net/
nfrd2020
27. UN-WCMC (2020). Biodiversity measures for business:
Corporate biodiversity measurement, reporting anddisclosure within the current and future global policy
context. Available from: https://www.unep-wcmc.org/
system/comfy/cms/files/files/000/001/845/original/aligning_measures_corporate_reporting_disclosure_dec2020.pdf
28. Addison, P. F., Bull, J. W., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2019).
Using conservation science to advance corporate
biodiversity accountability. Conservation Biology,

90

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

33(2), 307-318. Available from: https://conbio.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.13190
29. KPMG (2020) The KPMG Survey of Sustainability
Reporting 2020. KPMG Impact. Available from:https://assets.kpmg/content/dam/kpmg/xx/
pdf/2020/11/the-time-has-come.pdf
30. Ibid., 10.
31. Vivid Economics and PRI (2020). The Inevitable Forest
Finance Response: Investor Opportunities. Available
from: https://www.unpri.org/download?ac=11981
32. United Nations (2015). The 17 Sustainable
Development Goals. Available from: https://sdgs.un.
org/goals
33. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E.,
Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., et al. (2015). Planetary
boundaries: Guiding human development on achanging planet. Science, 347(6223).
Available from: https://science.sciencemag.org/
content/347/6223/1259855
34. Ibid., 9.
35. Ibid., 9.
36. Ibid., 5.
37. Ibid., 23.
38. Ibid., 5.
39. IPBES (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity
and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental
Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity andEcosystem Services. Available from: https://ipbes.net/
global-assessment
40. Haines-Young, R. and M.B. Potschin (2018). Common
International Classification of Ecosystem Services(CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the
Revised Structure. Available from: https://cices.eu/
content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/
Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf

Nature Education Knowledge, 3(12), 8. Available from:https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/biodiversity-and-ecosystem-services-is-itthe-96677163/
48. Ibid., 19.
49. Tilman, D. (2000). Causes, consequences and ethics of
biodiversity. Nature 405, 208-211. Available from:https://www.nature.com/articles/35012217
50. Ives, A. R. & Carpenter, S. R. (2007). Stability anddiversity of ecosystems. Science 317, 58-62. Available
from: https://science.sciencemag.org/
content/317/5834/58.abstract?casa_token=Rs3F1E_
HMoYAAAAA:bP1Bpx20YuiY8HjptqKx3iMxxi3dsRBD
UcBwzW0m-TAwEAwehIKjtLOHEe82LPUSY_
NUPmaIf-ht9g
51. Brussaard, L., de Ruiter P. C., & Brown, G. G. (2007).
Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability.
Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 121,
233-244. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0167880906004476?casa_
token=vGt-dc2LE7gAAAAA:wD0TMPTlLZXM5181ril
0Q3-vVsBtAZoB0FWDwPqCo0R5sMeYwm3xyyGVZ
GWGN0Ox_TfAEDjWQg
52. Nielsen, U. N., Ayres, E., Wall, D. H., & Bardgett, R. D.
(2011). Soil biodiversity and carbon cycling: a review
and synthesis of studies examining diversity–function
relationships. European Journal of Soil Science, 62(1),105-116. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/
doi/full/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2010.01314.x?casa_token=b
yPRQ4D2mvEAAAAA%3AzVY8wuoTtvGWo66XVX
WVQgsTG5Ewhg9rL0Bxagy1-RLdN8TYDRClAOhoLyAR_K1jdSUfQzPtUie2g
53. Ibid., 9.
54. Ibid., 44.
55. Ibid., 45.
56. Ibid., 9.

41. Díaz, S., et al. (2020). RE: There is more to Nature’sContributions to People than Ecosystem Services–A
response to de Groot et al.. Available from:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351984127_
There_is_more_to_Nature%27s_Contributions_to_
People_than_Ecosystem_Services_-_A_response_
to_de_Groot_et_al

57. Pimm, S. L., et al. (2014). The biodiversity of species
and their rates of extinction, distribution, andprotection. science, 344(6187). Available from:https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/
science.1246752?sid=3f4c15ad-79f5-4eeb-a618af62e6fccef2

42. Ibid., 39.

59. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. and Dirzo, R. (2017). Population
losses and the sixth mass extinction. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences. Jul 2017, 114 (30).
Available from: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/30/
E6089

43. Ibid., 41.
44. Finisdore, J., et al. (2020). The 18 benefits of using
ecosystem services classification systems. Ecosystem
Services, 45, 101160. Available from:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2212041620301029?casa_token=XPfVCTyH4t4AAA
AA:IL9cImZshq28sQ4rLmFE2bXT805-HDFEWY1w1rBxqhYF5ZfpUkcTa_
bQQcTmVcRO53iBi4NFw
45. EPA (2015). National Ecosystem Services Classification
System (NESCS): Framework Design and Policy
Application. Available from: https://www.epa.gov/
eco-research/national-ecosystem-servicesclassification-system-framework-design-and-policy
46. Ibid., 9.
47. Wall, D. H., & Nielsen, U. N. (2012). Biodiversity andecosystem services: is it the same below ground.

58. Ibid., 39.

60. Ibid., 39.
61. Ibid., 10.
62. Ibid., 33.
63. World Economic Forum (2020). Global Risk Report2020. Available from: https://www.weforum.org/
reports/the-global-risks-report-2020
64. Ibid., 33.
65. Ibid., 14.
66. Sutton, P.C., S. Anderson, R. Costanza, and I.
Kubiszewski (2016). The Ecological Economics of Land
Degradation: Impacts on Ecosystem Service Values.
Ecological Economics 129: 182–192. Available from:91

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/
pii/S0921800915301725
67. Ibid., 10.
68. Ibid., 11.
69. Ibid., 23.
70. Ibid., 5.
71. UNEP-WCMC and BirdLife (2021). Impacts of climatechange on biodiversity and ecosystem services.
Available from: https://www.birdlife.org/projects/7impacts-climate-change-biodiversity-and-ecosystemservices
72. IPCC (2019). Sea Level Rise and Implications for
Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities. In: IPCC
Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a
Changing Climate. Available from: https://www.ipcc.
ch/srocc/;

92. Ibid., 3
93. Rimmel, G., Jonaell, K. (2013). Biodiversity reporting in
Sweden: Corporate disclosure and preparers’ views.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability 26(5), 746–778.
Available from: https://www.emerald.com/insight/
content/doi/10.1108/AAAJ-02-2013-1228/full/html
94. Atkins, J., Gräbsch, C., Jones, M.J. (2014). Biodiversity
reporting: Exploring its anthropocentric nature.
Chapter in Jones (eds.). Accounting for Biodiversity.
Routledge, UK. Available from:https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/
edit/10.4324/9780203097472-23/corporatebiodiversity-reporting-exploring-anthropocentricnature-jill-atkins-carmen-gr-bsch-michael-jones
95. Align project (2021). Available from:https://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/
business/align/index_en.htm

73. IPCC (2018). Global Warming of 1.5°C. Available from:https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/

96. Transparent project (2021). Available from:https://capitalscoalition.org/project/transparent/

74. Ibid., 5.
75. Ibid., 19.

97. Task Force on Nature-related financial disclosures TNFD (2021). Available from: https://tnfd.info/
why-a-task-force-is-needed/

76. Ibid., 5.

98. Ibid., 9.

77. TNFD (2021). TNFD – Nature in scope. Available from:https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/
TNFD-Nature-in-Scope-2.pdf

99. IFRS (2021). G20 Sustainable Finance Working Group(SFWG) - Input Paper Synergies between
sustainability and financial reporting. Available from:https://g20sfwg.org/wp-content/
uploads/2021/08/2021-IFRS-GSG.-Synergiesbetween-sustainability-and-financial-reporting.pdf

78. Ibid., 5.
79. PBAF Netherlands (2020). Paving the way towards a
harmonised biodiversity accounting approach for thefinancial sector. Available from: https://www.
pbafglobal.com/files/downloads/PBAF_
commongroundpaper2020.pdf
80. Ibid., 9.
81. Ibid., 9.
82. IUCN (2021). Crossroads blog - Tackling biodiversity
loss to achieve green, resilient, and inclusive
development. Available from: https://www.iucn.org/
crossroads-blog/202109/tackling-biodiversity-lossachieve-green-resilient-and-inclusive-development
83. IPBES, IPCC (2021). Biodiversity and climate change– Scientific outcome. Available from: https://ipbes.net/
sites/default/files/2021-06/2021_IPCC-IPBES_
scientific_outcome_20210612.pdf
84. Ibid., 22.
85. Ibid., 23.
86. Ibid., 20.
87. Herron, A. (2016). Pollinators as a portfolio risk: Making
the case for investor action. Chapter 7 in Atkins andAtkins, The Business of Bees: An Integrated Approach
to Bee Decline and Corporate Responsibility, Greenleaf
Publishing, Saltaire, UK, pp.131–150. Available from:https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/
edit/10.4324/9781351283922-16/pollinators-portfoliorisk-making-case-investor-action-abigail-herron-avivainvestors-uk
88. Ibid., 21.
89. British Standard Institute (2021). BS 8632:2021 Natural
Capital Accounting for Organisations.

100. ACCA, KPMG and Fauna & Flora International (2012).
Is natural capital a material issue? Available from:https://www.accaglobal.com/hk/en/technicalactivities/technical-resources-search/2012/november/
is-natural-capital-a-material-issue.html
101. CDP, CDSB, GRI, IIRC and SASB (2020). Reporting on
enterprise value - Illustrated with a prototype climaterelated financial disclosure standard. Available from:https://impactmanagementproject.com/structurednetwork/global-sustainability-and-integratedreporting-organisations-launch-prototype-climaterelated-financial-disclosure-standard/
102. Capitals Coalition (2020). The Biodiversity Guidance
Navigation Tool. Available from:https://capitalscoalition.org/tools/navigation-tool/
103. Whatling, D.R., Hedges, P., Brown, R., Fermor, P. (2010).
Corporate responsibility reporting of biodiversity in the
supply chain. International Journal of Innovation andSustainable Development 5(1). Available from:http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=34557
104. Atkins, J.F., Atkins, B.C. (eds.) (2016). The business ofbees. An integrated approach to bee decline.
Greenleaf Publishers, Saltaire, UK. Available from:https://www.routledge.com/The-Business-of-BeesAn-Integrated-Approach-to-Bee-Decline-andCorporate/Atkins-Atkins/p/book/9781783534357
105. The CDSB Climate Application Guidance and Water
Application guidance include other resources under
REQ-01 that can be adapted and applied tobiodiversity.
106. Ibid., 5.

90. Ibid., 3107. Ibid., 3

91. Ibid., 19.

108. UNEP Finance Initiative (2021). ENCORE tool – United

92

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures

Nations Environment. Available from: https://www.
unepfi.org/nature/exploring-natural-capitalopportunities-risks-and-exposure-encore-tool/

Conservation and Development. Available from:https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/
TNCApplyingTheMitigationHierarchy.pdf

109. Ibid., 3132. Ibid., 130.

110. Ibid., 5.

133. IUCN (2017). Global database on biodiversity offset
policies launched: Preliminary analysis shows progressin biodiversity-rich mining countries. Available from:https://www.iucn.org/news/business-andbiodiversity/201711/global-database-biodiversityoffset-policies-launched-preliminary-analysis-showsprogress-biodiversity-rich-mining-countries

111. Kristensen (2004). The DPSIR Framework.
Available from: https://wwz.ifremer.fr/dce/content/
download/69291/913220/.../DPSIR.pdf
112. European Environmental Agency (1999).
Environmental indicators: Typology and overview(Technical report No 25). Available from: https://www.
eea.europa.eu/publications/TEC25
113. Ibid., 24.
114. Ibid., 24.
115. Ibid., 25.
116. Gullison, R.E., J. Hardner, S. Anstee, M. Meyer. (2015).
Good Practices for the Collection of Biodiversity
Baseline Data - Prepared for the Multilateral Financing
Institutions Biodiversity Working Group & Cross-Sector
Biodiversity Initiative. Available from: http://www.csbi.
org.uk/our-work/good-practices-for-the-collection-ofbiodiversity-baseline-data/
117. Ibid., 39.
118. Science-Based Targets For Nature (2020).
Initial Guidance for Business. Available from:https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/09/SBTN-initial-guidancefor-business.pdf
119. Ibid., 19.
120. Ibid., 96.
121. Ibid., 5.
122. Capitals Coalition (2020). Principles of Integrated
Capitals Assessments. Available from:https://capitalscoalition.org/principles-of-integratedcapitals-assessments/
123. Ibid., 89.
124. International Integrated Reporting Council (2013).
International Framework. Available from: https://
integratedreporting.org/resource/international-irframework/
125. Ibid., 108.
126. IUCN. Species Threat Abatement and Restoration(STAR) metric. Available from: https://www.iucn.org/
resources/conservation-tools/species-threatabatement-and-restoration-star-metric127. IBAT Alliance. Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool.
Available from: https://www.ibat-alliance.org/
128. Swiss Re (2020). Biodiversity and Ecosystems Services
Index: measuring the value of nature. Available from:https://www.swissre.com/publication-form.
html?t=1715&id=fa67fe8d-0f2c-49fb-b3c6a2002906ab55#PublicationForm
129. Ibid., 108.
130. BBOP (2012). Resource Paper: No Net Loss andLoss-Gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offsets.
Available at: https://www.forest-trends.org/
publications/resource-paper-no-net-loss-and-lossgain-calculations-in-biodiversity-offsets/
131. The Nature Conservancy (2015). Achieving

134. Ibid., 130.
135. Ibid., 3.
136. Conservation Hierarchy. What is the mitigation &conservation hierarchy? Available from:https://conservationhierarchy.org/what-isconservation-hierarchy/
137. Ibid.
138. Ibid., 118.
139. OECD (2019). The post-2020 biodiversity framework:targets, indicators and measurability implications at
the global and national level. Available from:https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/0590/6ddd/
ab6b9375338ff831dcf5541d/sbstta-23-inf-03-en.pdf
140. Ibid., 118.
141. Mace, G. M., et al. (2014). Approaches to defining aplanetary boundary for biodiversity. Global
Environmental Change, 28, 289-297. Available from:https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S0959378014001368
142. Ibid., 33.
143. UNCEEA (2021). System of Environmental-Economic
Accounting—Ecosystem Accounting: Final Draft.
Available from: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/
statcom/52nd-session/documents/BG-3f-SEEAEA_Final_draft-E.pdf
144. Rosenzweig et al. (2008). Attributing physical andbiological impacts to anthropogenic climate change.
Nature 453.7193 (2008): 353-357. Available from:https://www.nature.com/articles/nature06937
145. Lewis, J. S., Farnsworth, M. L., Burdett, C. L., Theobald,
D. M., Gray, M., & Miller, R. S. (2017). Biotic and abiotic
factors predicting the global distribution andpopulation density of an invasive large mammal.
Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1-12. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep44152?error=cookies_
not_supported&code=c1abf4c8-6cd6-475a-8126004a93bd828f
146. Stohlgren, T. J., & Schnase, J. L. (2006). Risk analysis forbiological hazards: what we need to know about
invasive species. Risk Analysis: An International Journal,
26(1), 163-173. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00707.x?casa_
token=Fr0vYC5WyVEAAAAA%3ABpnMu0D
DU_Lanjm4z4QJyAiYqXAQR8ACBgbULWPTdfQngKgtktJsyLc8EIUVl_j6HmPbMfrXNWmK147. UNDRR (2021). Hazard. Available from:https://www.undrr.org/terminology/hazard
148. CERES (2019). Investors Water Toolkit - Understanding
water risks. Available from: https://www.ceres.org/
resources/toolkits/investor-water-toolkit

93

CDSB Framework | Application guidance for biodiversity-related disclosures149. IPBES (2016). The methodological assessment reporton scenarios and models of biodiversity andecosystem services. Secretariat of theIntergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Available from:https://ipbes.net/assessment-reports/scenarios
150. Ibid., 39.
151. Ibid., 118.
152. Ibid., 19.
153. Ibid., 96.
154. Ibid., 3
155. Ibid., 3156. Ibid., 3157. Deiner, K., Bik, H.M., Mächler, E., Seymour, M.,
Lacoursière-Roussel, A., Altermatt, F. et al. (2017).
Environmental DNA metabarcoding: Transforming
how we survey animal and plant communities.
Molecular Ecology, 26(21): 5872- 5895. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1111/mec.14350
158. Stephenson, P.J. and Carbone, G. (2021). Guidelines
for planning and monitoring corporate biodiversity
performance. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.
Available from: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/
library/files/documents/2021-009-En.pdf

fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems. Available from:https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
171. IPBES. Climate change and land-use impacts onpollinators and pollination. Available from:https://ipbes.net/policy-support/case-studies/climatechange-land-use-impacts-pollinators-pollination
172. Hof et al. (2018). Bioenergy cropland expansion may
offset positive effects of climate change mitigation for
global vertebrate diversity. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 115(52), 13294-13299. Available
from: https://www.pnas.org/content/115/52/13294
173. Here an example: Schipper et al. (2020). Projecting
terrestrial biodiversity intactness with GLOBIO 4.
Global change biology, 26(2), 760-771.
Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14848
174. GLOBIO (2021). Global biodiversity model for policy
support. Available from: https://www.globio.info/
what-is-globio
175. Natural Capital Project. InVEST (Integrated Valuationof Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs). Available from:https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/software/
invest176. Ibid., 149.

159. DELWP Victoria State (2004). Habitat Hectare
Assessment – Fact Sheet. Available from:https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0023/48542/Habitat-Hectare-Assessmentfact-sheet_Feb-2016.pdf

177. Johnson, J.A., Baldos, U., Hertel, T., Liu, J.,
Nootenboom, C., Polasky, S., and Roxburgh, T. (2020).
Global Futures: modelling the global economic
impacts of environmental change to support policymaking. Technical Report, January 2020.
Available from: https://www.wwf.org.uk/globalfutures

160. Ibid., 3178. Ibid., 1.

161. Houdet, J., Ding, H., Quétier, F., Addison, P., &Deshmukh, P. (2020). Adapting double-entry
bookkeeping to renewable natural capital: An
application to corporate net biodiversity impact
accounting and disclosure. Ecosystem Services, 45,
101104. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/abs/pii/
S2212041620300462?via%3Dihub

179. Ibid., 99.

162. Brown et al. (2014). Measuring ecosystem services:
Guidance on developing ecosystem service indicators.
UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. Available from:https://www.unep-wcmc.org/system/dataset_file_
fields/files/000/000/303/original/1850_ESI_
Guidance_A4_WEB.pdf?1424707843
163. Ibid., 5.
164. Ibid., 162.
165. Ibid., 5.
166. Ibid., 5.
167. Ibid., 9.
168. Ibid., 83.
169. Pörtner et al. (2021). IPBES-IPCC co-sponsoredworkshop report on biodiversity and climate change.
Available from: https://ipbes.net/sites/default/
files/2021-06/20210609_workshop_report_
embargo_3pm_CEST_10_june_0.pdf
170. Shukla et al. (2019). IPCC, 2019: Climate Change andLand: an IPCC special report on climate change,
desertification, land degradation, sustainable land
management, food security, and greenhouse gas

180. Ibid., 101.

With the contributionof the LIFE Programmeof the European Union.

This publication was fundedin part by the Gordon andBetty Moore Foundation.
Funding for this research wasprovided by UK PACT Green
Recovery Challenge Fund.

Project hosted by
CDP Europe.
Contact
CDSB Secretariat
www.cdsb.net
info@cdsb.net@CDSBGlobal