Plate Nº 10 · recorded October 9, 2026
Earth & ClimateReported finding
Just 9% of Major Companies Use Biodiversity Indicators, Study Finds
Just 9% of the world's largest companies in biodiversity-heavy sectors use biodiversity indicators to guide their decisions, and most rely on only one — a Lund University study finds.
By James Calloway2 min read493 words
In brief
- Only 8 of 89 (9%) of the world's largest companies in biodiversity-heavy sectors use biodiversity indicators, according to a 2026 Lund University study.
- Of those 8 firms, only 2 used more than one biodiversity indicator.
- Researchers compared 4 widely used indicators and found they often disagreed about which geographic areas matter most for biodiversity.
- The study reviewed 89 companies across 8 high-impact sectors: food, beverages, tobacco, apparel, chemicals, construction, energy, and mining.
- The paper was published in the Journal of Cleaner Production (2026), DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.149032.
Only 9% — just 8 of 89 — of the world's largest companies in biodiversity-heavy sectors use biodiversity indicators to guide their decisions. That is the headline finding from a new Lund University study, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production.
A biodiversity indicator is a measurable metric — such as species count or ecosystem health — that helps a firm judge how its operations affect nature. The study raises concerns that single-indicator strategies can mislead business decision-making.
Why does using only one indicator fall short?
Researchers reviewed sustainability reports from 89 companies across eight sectors with the largest biodiversity footprint: food, beverages, tobacco, apparel, chemicals, construction, energy, and mining. Of those firms, only 8 reported using biodiversity indicators, and just 2 relied on more than one.
Lead researcher William Sidemo Holm compared four widely used indicators. They often disagreed about which geographic areas matter most for biodiversity.
"Different indicators measure different aspects of nature," Sidemo Holm said. "Our results show that no single biodiversity indicator provides a complete picture. Companies that rely on only one indicator may therefore make decisions that protect one biodiversity value while damaging another."
What did the indicator comparison reveal?
When the team ran four indicators against the same geographic data, the tools often produced different verdicts. A company relying on a single metric might dismiss a region as low-priority, even when the area holds significant ecological value that the chosen indicator fails to capture.
The takeaway echoes a broader pattern in environmental science: biodiversity — the variety of plant and animal life in an ecosystem — supports pollination, clean water, soil stability, and climate regulation. Misreading it carries real costs.
What should companies do?
The paper lists seven concrete recommendations:
- Use multiple biodiversity indicators to capture different aspects and avoid overlooking key values.
- Apply more than one indicator per aspect when possible, reducing bias from specific data sets or methods.
- Use composite (combined) indicators cautiously, mainly as an initial screening tool rather than a final basis for decisions.
- Assess biodiversity at the ecoregion level — a defined geographic region with characteristic ecosystems — not only globally, to recognize biodiversity in less species-rich regions.
- Develop new indicators for underrepresented dimensions such as genetic diversity and ecological connectivity.
- Improve taxonomic coverage, especially for plants, fungi, and invertebrates.
- Combine biodiversity indicators with assessments of future human pressures, such as projected land-use change, to inform business decisions.
How big is the gap?
The researchers stress that indicators, used well, can shape better corporate decisions on nature. Current practice, however, remains narrow.
"If companies want to understand and report their impact on biodiversity accurately, they need to use several indicators rather than a single measure," Sidemo Holm said. "Indicators can play a crucial role in informing decisions that affect biodiversity, but there is still considerable room for improvement in how they are used today."
The study, by William Sidemo-Holm and colleagues, appears in the 2026 volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production.
via Phys.org Biology (Source)
More from James Calloway
Nearby plates
- Zoos Rarely Rearrange Collections When Species Risk Shifts
- Colombia's First National Bee Checklist Counts 738 Species
- Small Crop Patches Draw 70% More Birds, Three-Year Study Finds
- 392 Million Records: New Database Maps Europe's Changing Food Risks
- Tracking 4,581 Animals Reveals a Hidden Human Effect on Wildlife