What are the main corporate reporting frameworks on biodiversity?
The nature reporting market is still fragmented.
The market for corporate environmental reporting disclosure has traditionally been very fragmented, as highlighted by data from Baker Tilly (collected in 2023 and based on a sample of 135 European companies). Rather than a single solution, companies have been relying on various reporting frameworks tailored to different needs.
Source: Baker Tilly - What ESG frameworks do you use? N= 135
Specifically, when it comes to biodiversity and nature reporting, the most relevant frameworks appear to be the ones displayed below (non-exhaustive list):
Source: darwin - Leading corporate biodiversity reporting framework
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD): new EU regulation replacing the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). It mandates companies to use the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), ensuring consistent and comparable sustainability information across the EU for companies > 250 FTEs. One of those ESRS (E4) is specifically dedicated to Biodiversity & Ecosystems.
Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD): provides a nature risk mitigation framework for businesses and financial institutions to assess and report on their dependencies and impacts on nature, akin to the TCFD for climate change. The framework is structured around the Locate, Evaluate, Assess & Prepare (LEAP) methodology, with structurally a strong focus on location-based assessments. Additionally, it is really about disclosing to financial stakeholders risks and opportunities, learning from dependencies and impacts, an approach which is very attractive to financial institutions which therefore strongly support the framework.
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP): set of questionnaires self-submitted by the company and subsequently scored externally. While initially focused on climate change, CDP has significantly expanded its scope to include water security and deforestation, making it a crucial tool for biodiversity management as well. Over 20,000 companies reported environmental data through the CDP disclosure platform in 2023.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): offers a broad sustainability reporting framework that includes standards for reporting on biodiversity impacts among other ESG topics. There is a a specific biodiversity standard (GRI 101) which was updated in 2024; it includes location-specific reporting on impacts, and delivers full transparency across direct operations and supply chain. It builds upon the TNFD and the SBTN frameworks.
International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) Sustainability Standards: developed by the ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board), those standards aim to provide a global baseline for sustainability-related financial disclosure. More specifically, IFRS S1 covers general requirements and IFRS S2 covers climate-related disclosures: while IFRS S1 and S2 do not directly mandate biodiversity disclosures, they provide a structure where biodiversity-related risks and opportunities can be reported if they are financially material to the company. It has announced further incorporation of nature-related issues into the global reporting baseline, drawing on the work of the TNFD.
The Science Based Target Network (SBTN): provides guidance for setting measurable, science-based environmental targets that align with planetary boundaries. It aims to extend the Science-Based Target setting approach (SBTIs), well-established in climate, to other aspects of environmental impact, including biodiversity. As mentioned in one of our other articles around target settings, Biodiversity has a dedicated pillar which is the less advanced at this stage. Discussions are ongoing to merge the biodiversity pillar within each realm (Land, Freshwater & Ocean).
Yet nature reporting is evolving at pace.
Nature reporting has long struggled with a lack of standardized disclosure requirements, leading to widely varying levels of sustainability maturity across regions and companies. However, this is changing rapidly. In Europe, a key driver is regulation, with the CSRD now coming into force. Meanwhile, the TNFD adopters' community is expanding quickly worldwide, supported strongly by the financial sector. As nature-related risks become increasingly material—both due to regulatory pressures (such as Article 29 in France and nature risk scenarios by central banks) and potential financial losses—there is growing momentum for more consistent and comprehensive nature reporting.
Additionally, there seems to be a rapid convergence of the different frameworks mentioned above, most of them sharing the following methodological similarities:
The "double materiality" approach, which considers both financial materiality (how nature impacts a company) and impact materiality (how a company impacts nature), leading to the assessment of both impacts and dependencies on nature.
An initial materiality assessment step to identify priority sites and key business activities.
A dual perspective on biodiversity that considers both ecosystem integrity and species extinction risk.
A focus on IPBES biodiversity pressures as the foundation for quantifying biodiversity impacts.
Comprehensive coverage of the entire value chain (Scope 3).
The use of location-specific information in assessments (site-based assessment).
Engagement with rights-holders and local communities.
As a result, the frameworks become interoperable, focusing on the same indicators, and mapping tables are being gradually released such as the one published by the TNFD and EFRAG last June. This rapid frameworks convergence is good news as it will streamline the reporting landscape and encourage broader, more consistent adoption.
At darwin, we can help you navigate this evolving regulatory environment, ensuring your clients align with these frameworks and achieve their sustainability goals effectively.
