Bridging biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement: towards an integrated paradigm for enhancing corporate biodiversity management Open Access

Global agendas increasingly advocate for biodiversity protection and sustainable resource use. Key initiatives include the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2015), specifically SDGs 14 and 15, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2011–2020) (CBD, 2020a), and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2022). Meanwhile, biodiversity loss is part of wider global environmental challenges known as the polycrisis (UNEP and International Science Council, 2024), threatening humanity (Hassan et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2021) and is recognized as one of the top three global risks for the economy (WEF, 2024). All biodiversity levels [“diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems” (CBD, 1992, Article 2)] are experiencing rapid decline, as quantified in the IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) Global Report (2019). Previous efforts to halt and reverse biodiversity loss have not been sufficient (Maney et al., 2024; Tittensor et al., 2014), with none of the past Aichi targets being fully met (CBD, 2020b). This alarming decline underscores the urgent need for transformative change across all areas of human activity. This imperative is manifested in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which advocates a “whole-of-society-approach” (CBD, 2022) to address the biodiversity crisis. This includes the realignment of economic activities to support this goal.

The economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services is significant, representing a fundamental aspect of long-term business survival (Costanza et al., 2014; Díaz et al., 2019). Estimates place this value at US$ 125 trillion annually (Costanza et al., 2014), equivalent to approximately one and a half times the world’s Gross Domestic Product (World Economic Forum, 2024). However, the value of biodiversity is multifaceted, with different societal actors assigning diverse values to nature that extend beyond mere economic considerations (Jacobs et al., 2020). This creates a significant challenge for corporates in accounting for and managing biodiversity-related risk (Grunewald et al., 2024). Stakeholders and regulatory pressures increasingly demand that corporates consider their impacts (e.g. land-use change, pollution, resource extraction) and dependencies (e.g. food, medicine, water, and energy resources, buffer function for climate extremes) on biodiversity (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017a; Hassan et al., 2020; Maroun and Atkins, 2018). To create mutual benefits for corporates and nature, corporates should establish long-term relationships with stakeholders that enhance biodiversity knowledge and incorporate pluralistic value perspectives into interconnected accounting practices (Kourula, 2010). This approach can lead to shared value for all parties involved (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c; Pascual et al., 2022).

Literature on biodiversity accounting emphasizes a need to shift from the current one-dimensional approach to a multidimensional one that incorporates the perspectives of diverse stakeholders and considers both financial and non-financial value creation (e.g. Addison et al., 2019; Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Freeman et al., 2020). Engaging stakeholders is regarded as beneficial for biodiversity accounting (Jones-Walters and Çil, 2011; Ponce Reyes et al., 2019). Despite some efforts to organize the research field (e.g. Bebbington et al., 2021; Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Cuckston, 2018; Feger and Mermet, 2021; Roberts et al., 2021), literature on corporate biodiversity accounting and management remains dispersed and often lacks theoretical framing (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022).

To address this research gap, this article employs a stakeholder accountability lens to answer the research question: “How can stakeholder engagement be integrated into biodiversity accounting to enhance corporate biodiversity management”. This study explores the current state of research on CBM by connecting the fields of biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement through the lens of stakeholder accountability. A systematic literature review serves to integrate these strands of literature, leading to the development of a conceptual framework and the identification of pathways for strengthening CBM in the future. The goal is to identify the potential benefits of engaging with stakeholders regarding biodiversity to promote its accounting and subsequent management. This approach aims to facilitate mutual learning and enhance CBM. Although some research exists in this field, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, research focusing on the connection to CBM remains scarce.

This study aims to establish several contributions. First, it integrates existing literature on biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement to develop a conceptual framework that can enhance CBM. Second, by initiating conversations on biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement within the CBM context, this investigation establishes a foundation for future theorizing processes and forms a baseline for developing theoretical contributions. Third, this study proposes a research agenda to guide future research by providing propositions on how stakeholders can be integrated into corporates’ biodiversity accounting and overall management.

This paper is structured as follows: Section 2 outlines the research framework. Section 3 presents the systematic literature review method. In Section 4, the findings are presented. Section 5 discusses the findings, proposes a conceptual framework, and identifies research propositions, which allow the derivation of implications for future research. Finally, Section 6 concludes with remarks and implementation proposals.

To promote sustainable development, it is essential to integrate environmental considerations into corporate strategies, management systems, processes, and governance structures, ensuring they are accounted for throughout the value chain. Environmental management systems help to systematically identify and assess environmental impacts arising from a corporate’s activities, products, and services, and from unforeseen events (e.g. emergencies and incidents) (Gupta, 1995). Environmental management systems should be capable of identifying current regulatory requirements, prioritizing environmental objectives and targets, and facilitating the planning, implementation, and monitoring of the system, thereby being capable of reacting and adapting to changing conditions. Environmental topics include, among others, water, soil, waste, energy, land, biodiversity, pollution, and emissions (Gupta, 1995). Biodiversity has been established as a critical environmental management topic (Laurila-Pant et al., 2015). In this context, CBM follows the notion of environmental management systems, which includes “[ …] the methodical design of processes, products and projects to ensure business success while protecting biodiversity” (Schaltegger and Beständig, 2010). This approach serves as a meaningful framework for systematically considering biodiversity concerns across a corporate’s entire value chain.

To account for corporate impacts on biodiversity, environmental management accounting plays a vital role, providing organizations with the means to measure and report their performance (Guenther et al., 2016). To evaluate progress in environmental protection measures, collecting information on corporate activities, products, and services is essential. This requires quantitative and qualitative indicators, which also apply to biodiversity (Brown and Fraser, 2006). Table 1 summarizes the main initiatives and frameworks that corporates can use to account for the impacts and dependencies of their activities on biodiversity. This helps to mitigate corporate risks and reduce harm to biodiversity. The table highlights key aspects in numerous mansagement and accounting frameworks, including the integration of various biodiversity aspects. The analysis of these selected accounting frameworks reveals a lack of transparency and appropriate indicators. These different approaches can lead to challenges in their application, resulting in insufficient practices. Accounting for biodiversity should encompass impact drivers (climate change, land/sea use change, direct exploitation, pollution, and invasive alien species) as well as levels of biodiversity (species, ecosystems, and genes) and ecosystem services. Notably, most standards require stakeholder engagement to disclose a comprehensive and relevant report for users. This underscores the relevance of connecting biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement literature to enhance CBM. Nevertheless, there are no clear recommendations on which framework is suitable for the specific information needs of different stakeholders. Furthermore, a corporate’s materiality analysis influences the decision on reporting content. If biodiversity is not considered material, stakeholder engagement may not occur. Insufficient stakeholder integration can lead to one-dimensional accounting approaches and a lack of stakeholder agency.

Integrating biodiversity into the corporate’s accounting system enables the measurement of the corporate’s progress in engaging with biodiversity, while also providing a platform for communication with stakeholders. Some scholars have already proposed suggestions on integrating biodiversity into corporate accounting systems. Cuckston (2018) outlines two distinct approaches to account for biodiversity loss: the first focuses on efforts to bring biodiversity into existing social and environmental accountability mechanisms; the second emphasizes biodiversity conservation efforts and the role of accounting in those initiatives. Feger and Mermet (2021) propose a fourfold typology of accounting for biodiversity and ecosystems, which includes corporate ecological management accounting and corporate ecological balance sheet accounting. Bebbington et al. (2021) highlight the potential of accounting research to include people-centered conservation, which emphasizes the involvement of human participants and stakeholders in conservation efforts. An overall orientation of corporate performance towards stakeholders is needed to achieve this goal.

According to Cooper and Owen (2007), accountability implies a corporate’s responsibility to account for its actions to stakeholders. Accountability should facilitate meaningful dialog between stakeholders and management (Cooper and Owen, 2007), encouraging active stakeholder participation in decision-making and reporting processes (Brown and Fraser, 2006). Thus, meaningful accountability requires mechanisms for stakeholder involvement (Brown and Fraser, 2006), providing platforms where stakeholders can share their perspectives (Cooper and Owen, 2007). This engagement, in turn, strengthens accountability itself (Cooper and Owen, 2007). In this context, stakeholder accountability illustrates how a corporation is responsible to various stakeholders who have different levels of influence. It highlights the significance of board structure, process, and culture, where multiple stakeholders’ interests can align rather than conflict (Collier, 2008). Decision-making processes should acknowledge the information rights of different stakeholders and ensure accountability to prevent the potential misuse of corporate power (Brown and Fraser, 2006).

The stakeholder accountability approach synthesizes stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984) and the accountability concept (Collier, 2008). Freeman et al. (2020) emphasize the importance of considering the stakeholders’ needs in accounting, criticizing that “[c]lassic accounting limits our perception of value to the perspective of a single stakeholder–the shareholder […]” (p. 90). Stakeholder accountability involves creating mechanisms that allow stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes (Green and Hunton-Clarke, 2003), which enhances transparency (Brown and Fraser, 2006). This implies a shift from one-dimensional accounting that primarily focuses on financial values to a more inclusive approach that considers non-financial values important to different stakeholders (Freeman et al., 2020), such as biodiversity values (Jacobs et al., 2020). Innovative approaches to accounting and accountability are needed that move beyond mere considerations of reputation and legitimacy toward more effective sustainability accounting and accountability (Russell et al., 2017; Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022).

Stakeholder engagement describes how corporates involve stakeholders in decision-making, communication, participation, and the development of models for mutual responsibility. Stakeholder engagement represents a crucial element of accountability (Bellucci et al., 2019). Friedrich (2013) distinguishes four escalating levels of stakeholder engagement that go beyond mere stakeholder information: consulting, involving, collaborating, and empowering. Consulting focuses on information exchange, such as through surveys, online feedback, materiality analysis, and dialog events, to gather information and feedback from stakeholders. Involving reflects a mutual learning process where both the corporate and stakeholders are willing to re-evaluate their positions through goal-oriented dialog formats, such as focus groups and mixed advisory committees. Collaborating includes joint decision-making and action aimed at achieving common goals realized through multi-stakeholder initiatives and partnerships. Empowering means delegating decision-making competencies to one or more stakeholders, allowing them the power to make corporate decisions and take action (Friedrich, 2013). These levels of stakeholder engagement also align with Larson and Williams (2009).

In the context of CBM, accountability problems are a central concern underlying biodiversity accounting (Feger et al., 2019; Jones and Solomon, 2013; Schaltegger et al., 2023). Engaging stakeholders can enhance internal procedures, knowledge management, and skill development, while also promoting a shared societal responsibility for biodiversity conservation in exchange for natural resource use and increased social acceptability (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017b). Thus, stakeholder engagement enables corporates to integrate diverse perspectives into their accounting systems, gain continuous feedback on biodiversity-related activities, and enhance accountability and reputational legitimacy. Therefore, it is imperative to form partnerships with stakeholders to achieve outcomes that would otherwise be unattainable (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c).

This study employs a holistic approach by addressing and connecting two core elements of stakeholder accountability: biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement. We emphasize the importance of stakeholder engagement in biodiversity accounting and propose the following CBM definition:

Consequently, CBM employs a systematic approach to analyze corporates' positive and negative impacts and dependencies on biodiversity. It incorporates structural and societal conditions, along with the perspectives of various relevant stakeholders, in order to develop strategic objectives and an effective accounting system. This can promote sustainable transformation of corporates and facilitate value transfer among corporates and their stakeholders, aiming to responsibly protect, use, and restore biodiversity through corporate action. This shift can lead to more in-depth discussions on corporates’ contributions to biodiversity and the broader societal implications of these efforts. While profit-oriented performance is an essential element to corporate survival, satisfying stakeholders’ needs is also vital to making a profit, as these are two interrelated elements of corporate strategy. Figure 1 further illustrates the relationship between the core terms stakeholder accountability, biodiversity accounting, stakeholder engagement, and CBM under this research construct.

Despite attempts to systemize the research field (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Hassan et al., 2021; Jones and Solomon, 2013; Maione et al., 2023, 2024; Roberts et al., 2021; Schaltegger et al., 2023), there remains a lack of scholarly debate on the interdependencies between biodiversity accounting and management and on stakeholder engagement as a crucial element of stakeholder accountability. To address this gap, a systematic review of biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement literatures is necessary. This study aims to establish a conceptual framework to enhance CBM with the stakeholder accountability approach and to propose future research avenues. Table 2 summarizes key insights from previous systematic reviews in this field. Previous reviews mainly analyze biodiversity accounting descriptively, without focusing on or integrating stakeholder engagement. However, several calls are for a stronger focus on accountability and interdisciplinary approaches. Scholars also emphasize the role of theoretical frameworks as a roadmap for research and practice. In response to these calls, our literature review goes further by integrating stakeholder engagement as a mechanism for biodiversity accounting and CBM.

We conducted a systematic literature review to bridge biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement literatures, aiming to create a conceptual framework that enhances CBM and outlines a future research agenda. This review followed the five-step process outlined by Denyer and Tranfield (2009): (1) defining the research question (see Section 1), (2) collecting materials, (3) selecting and evaluating relevant articles by following structural categories, (4) analyzing and synthesizing material information (see Section 4), and (5) discussing the findings (see Section 5).

The databases EBSCO Business Source Complete, Emerald Insight, Scopus, and Web of Science were used to locate literature. To identify studies on CBM with a focus on accounting, we employed the following keyword combination: [(biodiversity NEAR/3 (report* OR standard* OR measur* OR framework OR assessment OR accounting)) AND (management OR business* OR compan* OR corporat* OR firm*)]. To determine stakeholder engagement literature, we used the keyword combination [(biodiversity OR “biological diversity”) AND (management OR firm* OR compan* OR corporat* OR business*) AND (stakeholder*). Only peer-reviewed journal articles were considered (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022). Given that CBM is a management topic, we targeted journals with a management and accounting focus. This process helped us identify relevant papers on biodiversity management at a corporate level. Furthermore, our findings are based on peer-reviewed and high-impact journals, ensuring validity (Podsakoff et al., 2005). To enhance the quality of our findings, we only included accounting and management journals ranked C or higher, according to the VHB ranking. After deleting duplicates, we located 587 articles for screening.

To select relevant articles, we established exclusion criteria (see Annex I) and followed a two-step screening process: first, title, abstract, and keyword screening; second, full-text screening (Denyer and Tranfield, 2009; Newman and Gough, 2020). We excluded articles that did not focus on the corporate level, biodiversity management, and accounting or stakeholder engagement. To ensure a consistent coding behavior, circa 10% of the articles available for abstract screening were double-coded. In the first iteration, we reached an agreement rate of 84%. Conflicts and uncertainties were discussed in the team. In a second iteration, we achieved a 100% agreement. We used the software Rayyan for the screening process. Ultimately, 59 articles were included for analysis. Five additional sources were included through snowballing to enhance the final literature pool, based on expert recommendation (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Buhr et al., 2022). The PRISMA flowchart (see Annex II) illustrates details on the literature selection process. The final sample of 64 articles is presented in Annex III.

To systematically review the full texts of the final literature pool, we employed qualitative content analysis following the main categories: publication date, journal, country, sector, theory, methodology, key findings, future research, implications, and limitations. To structure the key findings, we introduced sub-categories: challenges of biodiversity accounting, current practices of biodiversity accounting, stakeholder engagement in biodiversity accounting, drivers for stakeholder engagement in CBM, and pathways of engaging stakeholders in CBM. All categories were developed through an inductive process based on the literature (Buhr et al., 2022).

We acknowledge some challenges during the research process and the limitations of the applied method. First, a central challenge was identifying articles relevant to CBM. Since the CBM terminology has only recently been implemented, it was challenging to locate studies from the sustainability management, environmental management, and corporate social responsibility literature that specifically focus on CBM. Second, we only considered articles written in English. While English is the predominant language in this research field, this restriction means that findings from non-English-speaking scientific communities were excluded. Third, a limitation is the choice of keywords, especially those focusing on stakeholders. Using the broad keyword “stakeholder” without specifying particular types (e.g. customer, supplier, investor) may have resulted in the omission of certain studies. To address this, we included further relevant articles through the snowballing technique.

This subsection presents a synthesis of the literature on the current state of corporate biodiversity accounting. Research in this field focuses on challenges and current practices.

Scholars consistently highlight the challenges associated with measuring biodiversity (Adler et al., 2018; Boiral, 2016). A substantial stream of literature addresses the measurement of corporates’ impacts (Joensuu and Sinkko, 2018; Schaltegger et al., 2023; Kennedy et al., 2022; Ruckli et al., 2021; Targetti et al., 2016) and dependencies on biodiversity (Carvalho et al., 2022; Schaltegger et al., 2023; Feger and Mermet, 2022). Effective measurability requires the availability of quantitative data (Sun and Lange, 2023). However, sufficient data is not always available (Roberts et al., 2023; Wermeille et al., 2024; zu Emgassen et al., 2022). Another challenge refers to appropriate measurement approaches, as current practices lead mostly to justification or “hiding” negative impacts (Carvalho et al., 2022; Tregidga, 2013), creating blind spots in the accounting approach. Scholars generally agree that only a few voluntarily certifiable standards adequately address biodiversity (Boiral et al., 2018; Zhu et al., 2024), resulting in limited accountability for operational impacts and dependencies (Jones and Solomon, 2013). Current measurement approaches focus on various aspects of biodiversity, such as habitats, species, or monetary values (Lammerant et al., 2019). This results in varying degrees of transparency and outcomes without integrating a holistic approach. In addition, these approaches are not embedded within a formal accounting and reporting framework, limiting their ability to demonstrate a comprehensive picture of corporate biodiversity performance (Lammerant et al., 2019). Moreover, as biodiversity standards are relatively new compared to established environmental certifications, they may not be as widely recognized by corporates and stakeholders (Boiral et al., 2018).

The lack of governmental support, regulatory deficiencies, and dominant financial logic lead to high implementation costs and a lack of knowledge in this specific area, which may discourage the adoption of standards and frameworks (Boiral, 2007; Boiral et al., 2018; da Fontoura et al., 2024; Raar et al., 2019; Targetti et al., 2016; Roberts et al., 2023; zu Emgassen et al., 2022). Institutional pressures, when not accompanied by understanding and sufficient implementation, can lead to a symbolic integration of biodiversity (Sun and Lange, 2023). Overall, there is a consensus that monitoring biodiversity and implementing reliable measurement instruments are key challenges in assessing biodiversity (e.g. Kennedy et al., 2022; Lanka et al., 2017; Maione et al., 2023; Maroun and Atkins, 2018; von Haaren et al., 2012; Targetti et al., 2016; Tregidga, 2013; Verburg and Osseweijer, 2019). To address these challenges, reliable indicators (quantitative and qualitative) in the form of mandatory reporting standards are necessary to strengthen CBM (Jones and Solomon, 2013; Targetti et al., 2016). Such standards should include narratives that encourage self-reflection and introduce measures aimed at preventing further biodiversity decline. Engaging various stakeholders can enhance the cost-efficiency of impact monitoring (Targetti et al., 2016; Winans et al., 2021), which can, in turn, trigger behavioral changes in the corporate sector (Hassan et al., 2021). Indeed, knowledge of biodiversity can be developed through stakeholder engagement, supporting the overcoming of the limitations of biodiversity management and accounting based on its interdisciplinary nature (Maione et al., 2024).

The integration of biodiversity in corporate strategy and the establishment of measurable targets remain insufficient, despite their potential to contribute to substantive change (Maione et al., 2024; Maroun and Ecim, 2024; zu Emgassen et al., 2022). Current practices in biodiversity accounting are often based on traditional financial accounting methods, such as calculating the monetary value of biodiversity (e.g. Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Lanka et al., 2017). However, evaluating natural assets is highly problematic (e.g. Jones, 2003; Lanka et al., 2017; Targetti et al., 2016; Verburg and Osseweijer, 2019; Winans et al., 2021), and there is still no consensus on whether it is appropriate to assign a monetary value to natural assets or which valuation method is most suitable. Additionally, spatial factors play a crucial role, as biodiversity costs are highly dependent on the type and location of the affected biodiversity (Verburg and Osseweijer, 2019). The monetary approach can lead to a replacement of intrinsic values, an underestimation of the corporate risks arising from biodiversity loss, and a neglect of the full value of biodiversity (Weir, 2019; Raar et al., 2019). Some scholars discuss the potential of compensation in protecting biodiversity and highlight a lack of knowledge regarding ecosystems’ functions (da Fontoura et al., 2024). Measurement approaches should expand beyond this traditional perspective and include technical, moral, social, and financial considerations (Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Maione et al., 2024).

Most of the reviewed studies provide insights into biodiversity reporting as part of biodiversity accounting and as an instrument for communicating a corporate’s biodiversity performance (e.g. Dutta and Dutta, 2024; Khan, 2014; Marco-Fondevila and Alvarez-Etxeberría, 2023; Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013; van Liempd and Busch, 2013). There is an agreement that the current quality of biodiversity reporting is poor and insufficient (e.g. Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017a, 2017b; Joensuu and Sinkko, 2018; Marco-Fondevila and Alvarez-Etxeberría, 2023; Reale et al., 2022; van Liempd and Busch, 2013; Winans et al., 2021). This aligns with the lack of appropriate measurement approaches, as corporates cannot report on issues which cannot be measured. The respective reasons identified in the literature are often limited quantitative and non-monetary information (e.g. Adler et al., 2018; Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Khan, 2014; Marco-Fondevila and Alvarez-Etxeberría, 2023; Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013; Verburg and Osseweijer, 2019), a descriptive and superficial presentation of biodiversity information (e.g. van Liempd and Busch, 2013; Reale et al., 2019; Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013), and a predominant focus on financial and reputational risks, neglecting the impact-driven perspective (Carvalho et al., 2022; Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Schaltegger et al., 2023). However, the findings show, that the expertise of senior managers and incentives influence the level of biodiversity accounting positively (Velte, 2023a). Differences in biodiversity disclosure in cross-national comparison reveal a low level of biodiversity reporting in developed countries (Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013; Jones and Solomon, 2013). Corporates often exclude biodiversity from their reports based on materiality analyses (Marco-Fondevila and Alvarez-Etxeberría, 2023). This exclusion contributes to a lack of engagement with corporates’ impacts and dependencies on biodiversity. It might also be a key reason why corporates fail to engage relevant stakeholders in biodiversity accounting. Reporting should be understood as a means to build trust and engage stakeholders through actionable disclosure (Maione et al., 2023) rather than as a rhetorical tool (Maione et al., 2024).

The scholarly debate differentiates between symbolic and substantive reporting (Maroun and Ecim, 2024; Sun and Lange, 2023; Velte, 2024). Various studies show that reputation management is the most relevant driver of biodiversity accounting (Aké and Boiral, 2022; Boiral et al., 2018; Maione et al., 2024; Marco-Fondevila and Alvarez-Etxeberría, 2023; Velte, 2024). Some corporates employ biodiversity accounting and reporting to express their ethical concerns and to signal their leadership role in CBM to influential stakeholders, highlighting the societal impact of their operations and activities (Atupola and Gunarathne, 2022; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017a). Dutta and Dutta (2024) emphasize that corporates with poorer environmental performance are more likely to report on biodiversity to mitigate legitimacy risks. Poor performance evaluation and risk assessment hinder substantive engagement with biodiversity (Sun and Lange, 2023). Treepongkaruna (2024) investigates the relationship between shareholder litigation rights and corporate biodiversity disclosure, finding that weak shareholder litigation rights led to a decrease in biodiversity disclosure.

Overall, the findings indicate that corporate biodiversity accounting seeks to capture relevant biodiversity-related information by employing a comprehensive and credible set of both quantitative and qualitative indicators (e.g. Adler et al., 2018; Marco-Fondevila and Alvarez-Etxeberría, 2023; Maroun and Ecim, 2024; Reale et al., 2022; Winans et al., 2021). However, this review indicates that the research and practice concerning corporate accounting for biodiversity are still in their infancy (Adler et al., 2018; Carvalho et al., 2022; Hassan et al., 2021; Maroun et al., 2018; Reale et al., 2019, 2022; Rimmel et al., 2013; van Liempd and Busch, 2013). Nonetheless, research suggests that reporting on biodiversity is vital in shaping corporate decision-making and strategy development (Maroun et al., 2018; Winans et al., 2021) and for ensuring long-term business survival and success (Hassan et al., 2021; Raar et al., 2019). This underscores the importance of providing relevant stakeholders with transparent and sufficient biodiversity-related information.

Despite the importance of stakeholder engagement, only a few studies address the engagement of stakeholders in biodiversity accounting (e.g. da Fontoura et al., 2024; zu Emgassen et al., 2022). For example, da Fontoura et al. (2024) call for cooperation with landowners to incentivize and support ecological restoration measures. Zu Emgassen et al. (2022) emphasize that a lack of partnerships across different sectors leads to insufficient biodiversity accounting. Corporates should take greater responsibility and account for their impacts and dependencies on local communities and indigenous people across their whole value chain to counteract the externalization of costs arising from their impacts and dependencies. Key approaches for integrating biodiversity at all governance levels are training in and on nature, transparent communication, and capacity building (zu Emgassen et al., 2022). Indeed, only a sufficient integration of both environmental costs and social impacts results in adequate risk management (Maione et al., 2023). McBride et al. (2023) call for pro-active, stakeholder-centered environmental accounting that employs an emancipatory approach. Treepongkaruna (2024) highlights that stakeholders play a vital role in pressuring corporates to contribute to biodiversity protection. Collaborative partnerships enable corporates to access valuable resources and knowledge and encourage innovation (Roberts et al., 2023). The findings show that, to a varying degree, some scholars recognize the importance of stakeholder engagement in biodiversity accounting. However, current approaches often focus on individual groups and fail to offer a holistic perspective.

In conclusion, differences in approaches, measures, strategies, industries, goals and practices can lead to tensions arising from the relationship between diffused accounting approaches and the implementation of biodiversity initiatives. To mitigate such tensions, close collaboration between stakeholders based on trust, mutual engagement, and knowledge-sharing on a corporate and individual level is crucial. Enhanced biodiversity accounting can improve corporate accountability and facilitate stakeholder engagement (Elliot et al., 2024). In the next section, we provide insights into another essential component of the stakeholder accountability approach: the importance of stakeholder engagement for CBM.

In this section, we synthesize the findings on the current state of stakeholder engagement, which is another vital aspect of the stakeholder accountability approach. We identify various motivations for corporates and current pathways to involve stakeholders in promoting CBM.

Corporates face various drivers for stakeholder engagement. First, corporates need to respond to external social pressures, such as media scrutiny and demands from stakeholders, including NGOs, financial institutions, investors, customers, and local communities. To address these pressures, corporates develop corporate biodiversity initiatives in collaboration with these stakeholders (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c; Boiral et al., 2018, 2020; Carvajal et al., 2022; Krause et al., 2021; Velte, 2023b). Second, maintaining social legitimacy is a key concern for corporates, especially in the resource extraction industries. These corporates often lack credibility to manage biodiversity themselves, so they engage stakeholders in their operations to gain the “social license to operate”, which can enhance their social and environmental image (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017b, c; Boiral et al., 2020; Cardskadden and Lober, 1998; Carvajal et al., 2022). Third, biodiversity initiatives can facilitate social exchange with stakeholders, leading to improved relationships. This collaboration can help corporates to influence regulatory developments, reduce regulatory pressures, and prevent or more easily resolve conflicts with stakeholders (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017b, c; Carvajal et al., 2022). Fourth, to navigate the complexity of biodiversity, corporates can involve stakeholders in implementing programs, procedures, and guidance on biodiversity management. This allows corporates to leverage the stakeholders’ expertise (Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c). Finally, engaging stakeholder in CBM can help corporates achieve their primary objectives. This includes preserving essential natural resources for corporate operations, improving marketing efforts to gain a competitive advantage, and realizing cost-saving potential through environmentally sensitive procedures (Cardskadden and Lober, 1998; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c).

We identify several external and internal stakeholders that play a crucial role in CBM, as summarized in Table 3.

Effective CBM is key to protecting, sustainably using, and restoring biodiversity. Achieving this requires accountability for the impact and dependencies of corporates on biodiversity, which can be assessed through biodiversity accounting. Stakeholder engagement is crucial for the successful implementation of biodiversity accounting and CBM. We apply the stakeholder accountability lens, as it supports navigating biodiversity challenges and fulfilling the corporate’s responsibilities towards stakeholders. This systematic literature review demonstrates that current accounting practices are still insufficient, evidenced by the limited application of biodiversity accounting among corporates and their tendency to overlook interconnected dependencies and risks (Carvalho et al., 2022). There is a need to further develop biodiversity accounting, including the ability to assess and measure accounting externalities such as species loss or habitat destruction (Boiral, 2016; Lammerant et al., 2021). Effective stakeholder engagement can contribute to a material and substantial biodiversity accounting (Bellucci et al., 2019). Therefore, our conceptual framework (see Figure 2) offers a pathway to integrate stakeholder engagement into biodiversity accounting with the aim to enhance CBM and ultimately promote biodiversity through the stakeholder accountability approach.

We focus on four levels of stakeholder engagement: consulting, involving, collaborating, and empowering (Friedrich, 2013; Larson and Williams, 2009). We argue that consulting and involving stakeholders can serve as a starting point for substantial stakeholder engagement in CBM. However, if corporates fail to intensify stakeholder relationships, these efforts remain symbolic in the long term. Often, the adoption of biodiversity practices arises from increased institutional pressures, leading to symbolic accounting and CBM (Adler et al., 2017; Atupola and Gunarathne, 2022; Boiral et al., 2018; Jones and Solomon, 2013). Including stakeholder feedback and entering stakeholder dialog can serve as a catalyst for addressing stakeholders’ needs in biodiversity accounting and CBM. However, to shift from symbolic to substantial biodiversity practices, collaboration and empowerment are essential.

We identify two pathways for collaboration: partnerships and capacity building through mutual learning. Due to a general lack of biodiversity knowledge (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c; Johnson and Schaltegger, 2016; Smith et al., 2019; Winn and Pogutz, 2013), external partnerships and internal capacity building are both essential (Caloghirou et al., 2004; Johnson et al., 2017). Building strategic partnerships can enhance corporates’ biodiversity practices (Cardskadden and Lober, 1998; da Fontoura et al., 2024; Roberts et al., 2022; Winn and Pogutz, 2013). These partnerships, involving internal stakeholders alongside external ones, are strategically developed to raise a corporate’s awareness of biodiversity practices, contribute to biodiversity and extinction reporting, and ultimately protect (endangered) biodiversity (Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Krause et al., 2021; Raufflet et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2022). Internal stakeholders can engage in strategic partnerships with external stakeholders for several reasons. First, they gain a better understanding of the risks related to biodiversity loss, enabling them to design sufficient risk assessment approaches. Second, the collaborative development of meaningful qualitative and quantitative measures supports multi-perspective accounting for non-financial impacts and dependencies. Third, jointly selecting an appropriate biodiversity standard could support integrating biodiversity in accounting and CBM and disclosing a meaningful report for stakeholders. Fourth, collaboration with stakeholders who possess (local) biodiversity knowledge supports biodiversity conservation, restoration, and monitoring efforts, such as biodiversity inventories and impact assessments (Cardskadden and Lober, 1998; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017b, c; Boiral et al., 2019, 2020; da Fontoura et al., 2024). Beyond its benefits for CBM, stakeholder engagement can also enhance stakeholder accountability by strengthening relationships with key stakeholders (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017b; Cardskadden and Lober, 1998) and motivating their continued or increased involvement.

Capacity building through mutual learning is a powerful pathway for collaboration. Engaging internal stakeholders in biodiversity accounting and CBM is equally important, as both managers and employees have the power to affect biodiversity strategically and in daily operations. However, employee initiatives for biodiversity often occur voluntarily, lacking support and structured strategies from corporates to develop effective biodiversity practices (Boiral et al., 2019). Boiral et al. (2018) highlight that insufficient internal biodiversity commitment often stems from a lack of biodiversity knowledge. Collaborating with external stakeholders to build the capacity of internal stakeholders, such as through workshops or training in and on nature, is a key approach to promote biodiversity awareness and enhance biodiversity knowledge and values. Mutual learning and shared knowledge are vital for integrating biodiversity in accounting practices and lead to internalizing biodiversity practices at all governance levels (Boiral et al., 2019; zu Emgassen et al., 2022). However, employee training seems underdeveloped and is rarely implemented in collaboration with stakeholders (Boiral et al., 2019; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c).

Empowering stakeholders involves delegating authority to one or more stakeholder groups who can make decisions independently of the corporate management (Friedrich, 2013). This aligns with studies that view stakeholder engagement as an instrument for mutual responsibility rather than simply for mitigating the shareholders’ expectations (Bellucci et al., 2019). Internal and external stakeholders with biodiversity expertise should be included with decision-making rights in the management board and in commissions at the operative level for target setting and process design. Participatory decision-making can lead to substantial accounting and support redefining management goals, developing biodiversity policies and incentives, and integrating nature-related and social values in biodiversity accounting and CBM. Empowering stakeholders in decision-making processes not only enriches CBM practices but also strengthens stakeholder accountability by fostering a sense of transparency and mutual responsibility in shaping biodiversity outcomes. However, this review reveals that while stakeholders appear to support the decision-making process by providing comments, knowledge and feedback, they are rarely directly engaged in corporates’ boards or commissions.

Instead of simply identifying research gaps in the traditional sense, this paper synthesizes insights from the biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement literatures to explore how CBM can be enhanced. This synthesis reveals important research needs that have received limited attention but are crucial for advancing CBM. We suggest avenues for future research based on our analysis and the proposed conceptual framework. Below, we present four key research propositions aimed at advancing the field of CBM through the stakeholder accountability lens.

The findings indicate that corporates often neglect biodiversity risks and their non-linear relationships. Our conceptual framework (see Figure 2) suggests that a mutually enhanced understanding can be developed by engaging stakeholders in decision-making processes and corporates’ involvement with local communities. This approach could support corporates in building substantive knowledge about biodiversity risks and the interconnection between various risks, as well as the relationship between these risks and corporate resilience.

Moreover, the business sector has not yet responded to biodiversity risks strategically (Carvalho et al., 2022; Khan, 2014) . This oversight creates a blind spot for long-term corporate survival, as corporates often prioritize symbolic ambitions and profit-maximization over substantial action. This lack of action often depends on a lack of knowledge and limited stakeholder engagement. Many societies and economies tend to underappreciate how nature supports human needs, and not all these functions are well understood (e.g. sensitivity to biodiversity loss and its drivers). Indeed, as a major contributor to biodiversity loss, corporates need to gain a deeper understanding of interdependencies within ecosystems and the associated risks along their value chain. This understanding can be achieved through collaboration and the empowerment of stakeholders. Thus, CBM can be enhanced through holistic risk management based on multidimensional accounting and by addressing non-linear interactions between various biodiversity risks. Responses to environmental changes can be unpredictable, and while largely unknown and unquantified risks cannot be directly incorporated into valuations, corporates can still consider these unidentified risks in their decision-making (Rising et al., 2022).

Therefore, our conceptual framework (see Figure 2) emphasizes the need for a holistic understanding of cascading risks and frameworks that effectively incorporate uncertainty and complexity. This includes system approaches that account for interactions among various sectors, actors, geophysical hazards, scenarios, and storylines (Rising et al., 2022). Corporates need to become aware of the financial and non-financial risks associated with biodiversity loss (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017a) and the opportunities arising from biodiversity-friendly operations. Corporate risk management can be clustered into technological breakthroughs (e.g. unforeseen dramatic efficiency gains, consequences of a new green revolution); governance and geopolitical reorganization (e.g. conflict, war, trade blocs); new climate regimes (e.g. unforeseen ocean circulation, ecosystem changes); funding mechanisms (e.g. green development banks, subsidies to tip the balance towards renewables); and disease outbreaks (e.g. Coronavirus, Ebola) (Rising et al., 2022). Exploring how to quantify these risks and determine the correlations between them from a systems thinking perspective can be important for future research, given the non-linear relationships among various risks. This exploration can draw from socio-ecological and organizational literatures by applying interdisciplinary approaches and involving various stakeholders.

To summarize, inter- and transdisciplinary partnerships with stakeholders and including stakeholders in decision-making are crucial for developing meaningful biodiversity accounting and risk management strategies. These strategies should integrate both qualitative and quantitative measures, along with the assessment of various biodiversity risks. In this way, stakeholder engagement supports knowledge generation and enhances CBM.

The literature review reveals that various frameworks focusing on biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement exist. However, there is a lack of guidance on how to effectively account for biodiversity impacts and dependencies while integrating stakeholder perspectives (see Table 1) and shifting to multidimensional accounting approaches. Most of the frameworks tend to focus on symbolic practices and raising awareness. Despite the common belief that ecosystem services are free of charge, the loss of biodiversity has significant direct and indirect monetary consequences for entire economies and societies. Our review indicates that corporates often emphasize their positive biodiversity impacts while overlooking their negative impacts. Furthermore, corporates typically focus on the impacts and dependencies directly affecting their financial performance. Thus, corporates neglect the social, ecological, and economic impacts of biodiversity loss on external stakeholders, such as local communities or traditional landowners. This lack of transparency reflects the inability to quantify biodiversity loss or to confirm that biodiversity outcomes are indeed beneficial (Lamont et al., 2023). Without a holistic measurement framework, policy and management efforts tend to rely on less transparent assessments, more subjective, and lack standardization across space and time dimensions (Halpern et al., 2022). Identifying appropriate measures for both positive and negative impacts and dependencies is crucial for establishing clear and quantifiable assessments of biodiversity loss (Raar et al., 2019). The holistic and participatory approaches can support corporates in making substantive contributions to biodiversity preservation and protection while demonstrating their commitment to relevant stakeholders.

The findings indicate a need for a systematic approach to addressing biodiversity and a shift towards multidimensional accounting. The proposed framework (see Figure 2) emphasizes that collaboration and the empowerment of stakeholders can lead to the development of measurement approaches with a focus on nature-related and societal values. Investments in innovative data collection methods, composite indicators, data-sharing platforms, and support for Global South nations in analytical capacities and training can help facilitate the development of assessment methods to evaluate the impact of interventions (Tittensor et al., 2014). Furthermore, a credible assessment of the physical impacts of biodiversity loss on welfare or monetary damage is not yet integrated into existing measurement frameworks. Since the impacts and dependencies on biodiversity extend beyond the boundaries of a single corporate, and given the necessity of stakeholder engagement, a holistic approach is imperative to understand the system’s complexity fully and to avoid reductionism (Schlüttler et al., 2024).

The entire interaction system involving corporates, biodiversity, and society needs to be thoroughly investigated. This includes examining the hierarchies and relationships among various stakeholders and how they influence one another in non-linear ways (e.g. how different stakeholders influence the speed and effectiveness of corporate targets and to what extent stakeholder engagement can change current practices; what stakeholder alliances are formed, and which tensions exist within these alliances). Additionally, attention can be paid to the consequences of cross-scale interactions (e.g. how individual attributes and values of the stakeholders can be leveraged to enhance corporate outcomes and their broader impact on society). This opens room for discussion about whether the solutions to biodiversity loss caused by the structures and ideologies of the current system can be found within that same system or whether a more comprehensive approach is needed to transition to a new paradigm (Schlüttler et al., 2024).

Considering corporates, biodiversity, and society as an interrelated system is a valuable discussion, particularly in understanding how corporates and society can increase their resilience by incorporating CBM (Kennedy et al., 2022). Resilient corporates require both financial returns and positive impacts on society and nature. Transparent biodiversity accounting and effective stakeholder engagement can help to address this issue (e.g. Jones and Solomon, 2013; Kennedy et al., 2022; von Haaren et al., 2012; Carvalho et al., 2022; Maroun and Atkins, 2018). Shifting towards a more holistic, impact-driven perspective can enhance CBM (Carvalho et al., 2022; Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Schaltegger et al., 2023), as measuring impact is crucial for biodiversity protection and preservation (Kennedy et al., 2022; Raar et al., 2019). Scholars can investigate what incentives drive the substantive implementation of CBM and discuss meaningful impact measurement. Rigor, consistency, transparency, and accountability are needed to ensure that corporate-led biodiversity protection and preservation deliver quantifiable, beneficial, and equitable outcomes (Lamont et al., 2023).

To summarize, developing participatory and holistic approaches to address biodiversity loss based on active stakeholder engagement can lead to substantial and multidimensional accounting and, therefore, enhance CBM. Our conceptual framework (see Figure 2) highlights the importance of involving both internal and external stakeholders and forming partnerships to create effective biodiversity accounting methods.

Translating corporate biodiversity strategies into operational targets and control mechanisms is far from trivial (Bebbington et al., 2024). Our findings indicate that analyzing biodiversity accounting practices related to sector, market, country, or corporate size can support this translation (Aké and Boiral, 2022; Carvajal et al., 2022; Feger and Mermet, 2022; Roberts et al., 2022). A better understanding and implementation of appropriate biodiversity accounting practices can promote the development of innovative business models (Feger and Mermet, 2022; Hassan et al., 2021; Kennedy et al., 2022; Schaltegger et al., 2023; Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013) and their translation into institutional innovations. This process must occur despite the challenges in understanding nature’s accounts. From an internal corporate perspective, there can be benefits in developing (even if imperfect) accounts at early stages to generate insights into nature interactions. This can initiate internal discussion and innovative approaches to action planning. However, corporate accounts should not only be established but also serve as mediating tools that facilitate and amplify innovative ideas across corporates, such as the need for biodiversity stewardship. This approach helps transform ambitions into concrete and tangible actions. Once implemented, these actions generate visibility and create routines that capture managers’ attention. Furthermore, as reporting standards influence accounting and management practices (Hassan et al., 2021), further research on innovative standards and frameworks and their implementation is desirable. Future research can also address integrating biodiversity-related indicators into management control systems (Maroun and Atkins, 2018).

More empirical studies would be advisable to provide insights into the outcomes of corporate actions aimed at achieving compliance with current regulations (Boiral et al., 2018) and to assess the predictability of accounting models in real-life contexts (Jones and Solomon, 2013). Overall, biodiversity preservation and protection appear to be most effective when an adequate knowledge base is combined with innovative institutional structures and societal behavior that facilitate the adoption of targeted instruments (Rands et al., 2010). Future studies can investigate the competencies and skills required for biodiversity accounting (Jones and Solomon, 2013). Scholars can analyze processes within corporates and examine the potential for positive spillover effects related to corporate capability and learning (Bebbington et al., 2024). This focus can include rewilding strategies and the contribution of stakeholder engagement to developing substantive approaches and innovative business models. This is especially relevant considering ongoing regulations and standardization, which serve as catalysts for reliable biodiversity disclosure. Furthermore, the effect of transparency and reliability of disclosure on stakeholder trust and credibility (Maroun et al., 2018; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017a, b, c) and the mandatory adoption of reporting standards can be of interest (Hassan et al., 2021).

Successful partnerships can enhance a corporate’s legitimacy, business strategy, and structures. There are direct benefits arising from stakeholder involvement, such as biodiversity measurement and accounting improvements, which ultimately lead to better corporate biodiversity protection and preservation. Expert knowledge from NGOs and scientists is particularly valuable in guiding and advising on leading CBM measures, considering that this topic is new for many corporates (Boiral et al., 2018; Maione et al., 2024). Mutually beneficial partnerships can also provide a foundation for innovative solutions and create value for all parties. Future research can investigate questions such as how barriers to stakeholder engagement can be decreased and how successful partnerships can be designed and strengthened (Boiral et al., 2018, 2019; Krause et al., 2021).

The findings indicate that building capacity among internal stakeholders is crucial for internalizing biodiversity practices (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c; Boiral et al., 2018; Petkovski et al., 2004). However, it remains unclear how capacity building can be effectively developed to enhance the implementation of CBM. Future research can investigate strategies that improve the involvement of internal stakeholders in CBM (e.g. Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017c; Boiral et al., 2018; Boiral et al., 2020; Carvajal et al., 2022; Krause et al., 2021; Atkin et al., 2022) and clarify how capacity building can be effectively executed to promote CBM. A systematic approach to capacity building for CBM requires comprehensive information related to activities concerning materiality, risks, and impact assessments (Tregid Stephenson and Carbone, 2021). Moreover, identifying best practices can provide benchmarks, while pioneers can inspire and guide others in their efforts (Tregid Stephenson and Carbone, 2021). Future studies can further explore employee training options and analyze the design of such training regarding its content and effectiveness.

To summarize, the proposed framework (see Figure 2) illustrates how empowering and collaborating with both internal and external stakeholders across various sectors and disciplines can catalyze the transformation from current accounting practices toward a more holistic approach that integrates systemic innovations and enhances CBM. To fully understand the significance of corporate biodiversity actions, especially from an eco-centric perspective, engaging with stakeholders and establishing strong partnerships is essential to build knowledge and capacity. Our framework calls for a broader understanding of biodiversity accounting and sufficient stakeholder engagement to guide these change processes into innovative action.

The reviewed studies highlight the need for diverse theoretical and methodological approaches in future research. The investigated articles primarily focus on qualitative research methods, while quantitative research, though valuable, presents opportunities for further investigation. Implementing larger sample sizes (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017a, b, c; Adler et al., 2018) and conducting more quantitative research can improve generalization. As there is a lack of generalization regarding the measurement of corporate biodiversity footprints across different sectors and countries, studies focusing on suitable approaches across all industries or for specific sectors could contribute to sufficient biodiversity accounting and enhance CBM (Feger and Mermet, 2022). Furthermore, future research can include more diverse and detailed sources of information, such as interviews with managers, employees, and representatives of various external stakeholder groups who participate in biodiversity actions (Boiral and Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017a, b, c; Boiral et al., 2020; Carvalho et al., 2022; Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Maroun et al., 2018; Boiral et al., 2020; Roberts et al., 2022).

Regarding theory, the scholarly discussion can shift towards a more eco-centric approach that emphasizes collective value rather than focusing solely on corporates’ value maximization, which often leads to the exploitation of communities, indigenous people, and biodiversity-rich areas (Albertsen et al., 2024). It is crucial to connect the different perspectives of various stakeholders and disciplines to create inter- and transdisciplinary approaches (Maroun et al., 2018; Maroun and Atkins, 2018). These approaches can help expand accounting and management theories, which are crucial for addressing prevailing challenges and developing innovative business models for the future. By doing so, these approaches can help integrate stakeholders’ voices into accounting practices and translate inter- and transdisciplinary knowledge into frameworks and support pathways that enhance CBM.

Understanding the impact of stakeholder engagement within biodiversity accounting is necessary for theoretical advancements. This insight can help clarify the tensions between current business practices, the rationale for implementing CBM, the tensions between corporates and their stakeholders, and the development of accounting practices that influence CBM. Furthermore, such theorizing is relevant for practical reasons, as managers and policymakers need a well-informed understanding of the field to develop and implement suitable regulations and measures that align with stakeholders’ needs.

To summarize, our conceptual framework (see Figure 2) illustrates that CBM can be constructed as a collective problem in which various stakeholders are involved and interconnected. Key stakeholders need to acknowledge their role in contributing to this collective problem. Furthermore, there is a pressing need to reach a consensus on how to collectively mitigate biodiversity loss (Albertsen et al., 2024). These complexities call for more holistic approaches, and systemic thinking can be beneficial in developing appropriate solutions. Disciplines such as psychology, sociology, or behavioral sciences can play a significant role in exploring how to enhance awareness and reflection on this matter. It is crucial to investigate how individuals, communities, and corporates can change their behaviors when they begin to value nature more highly. To address the biodiversity crisis, both corporates and individuals need to recognize that their behaviors and ambitions are not only part of the problem but also hold the potential to be part of the solution (Albertsen et al., 2024). Future research can recognize the concept of collective complicity.

This paper aims to enhance CBM by bridging stakeholder engagement and biodiversity accounting through the stakeholder accountability lens. Based on a systematic literature review, we propose a conceptual framework (see Figure 2) and outline future research avenues to promote a comprehensive integration of stakeholder engagement into biodiversity accounting, thereby enhancing CBM. The key findings reveal that biodiversity accounting remains formative and faces significant challenges related to measurement, data availability, governance, and stakeholder integration. The absence of standardized, reliable indicators and the lack of sufficient data impedes the development of transparent and holistic biodiversity accounting systems. Current corporate practices often rely on financial logic and traditional accounting approaches, resulting in limited recognition of biodiversity’s complexity and operational relevance. These issues reveal tensions in effectively addressing biodiversity. Sustainable transformation, however, needs the integration of social, environmental and financial aspects in order to achieve a purposeful profit.

While there is consensus on the importance of stakeholder engagement, only a few studies have addressed its relevance to biodiversity accounting and CBM. A potential solution can be transparent and meaningful accounting through stakeholder engagement based on a stakeholder accountability approach. Stakeholder engagement emerged as a critical enabler of biodiversity accounting and CBM. It not only addresses knowledge gaps and enhances cost-efficiency in biodiversity accounting but also supports behavioral change, builds legitimacy, and improves regulatory alignment. Collaborative partnerships grounded in trust and mutual learning can enhance the quality of biodiversity accounting and support the development of meaningful CBM practices. Furthermore, a substantive integration of biodiversity in decision-making and strategy can lead to increased accountability and credibility.

In this article, we propose a conceptual framework for enhancing CBM (see Figure 2) based on the review of the current knowledge and highlight areas that lack scientific discussion. The systematic review finds that corporates often neglect their biodiversity dependencies and risks. This leads to our first research proposition: the need to promote a better understanding of ecosystem interdependencies and risks. Furthermore, while enhanced biodiversity accounting can improve corporate accountability and facilitate stakeholder engagement, it still lacks transparency and indicators. It is, therefore, not yet widely applied in corporates. This raises our second research proposition: the need to develop a holistic accounting framework. Moreover, our findings reveal that while several stakeholders are involved in biodiversity initiatives, they are seldom actively engaged in the management boards. This supports our third research proposition: the need to better operationalize stakeholder engagement through partnerships and capacity building. Finally, the fourth research proposition advocates the need to develop further theoretical and methodological approaches to inform future CBM studies.

This study provides two core contributions. First, it proposes a conceptual framework (see Figure 2) designed to integrate stakeholder engagement into biodiversity accounting, with the aim of enhancing CBM and ultimately promoting biodiversity conservation. Second, based on the synthesis of the literature, this study outlines future research avenues for achieving a holistic stakeholder integration in biodiversity accounting.

This research offers several implications for academia, practice, and society. In terms of research implications, this review highlights the connections between biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement, emphasizing that stakeholders can positively influence corporates’ accounting practices. Most reviewed studies primarily focus on accounting approaches and often overlook stakeholder engagement. Given the importance of stakeholder accountability, stakeholder engagement is crucial for improving current accounting practices. To contribute to this scholarly discussion, a conceptual framework (see Figure 2) is proposed to illustrate potential engagement strategies in accounting and desired outcomes in CBM. Furthermore, this study offers four research propositions and thus provides pathways for future research.

This research offers practical implications for corporates and policymakers. To enhance CBM based on meaningful biodiversity accounting and stakeholder engagement, corporates can establish strategic partnerships and develop capacity through mutual learning. Policymakers can leverage our findings to strengthen regulatory requirements related to biodiversity accounting. Given that corporates may respond to stakeholder concerns with symbolic actions aimed at building legitimacy, regulators could mandate the inclusion of biodiversity experts, such as NGO or community representatives, on boards of directors. Partnerships at both local and global levels can assist policy development, while collective action can address concerns of limited generalizability as well as sector-specific or country-specific focus. Therefore, institutional support for the development of holistic and participatory approaches can contribute to enhancing CBM.

Finally, our review provides social implications. Our review highlights the critical need for mutual learning about biodiversity between corporates and stakeholders through active engagement. This collaboration and empowerment can enhance inclusivity and transparency in accounting practices, while supporting strategic objectives and robust accounting systems. Ultimately, these efforts can drive meaningful and sustainable transformations, promoting a transfer of value that aligns corporate actions with society’s expectations for environmental responsibility. This shift can pave the way for more in-depth discussions on corporate’s contributions to biodiversity protection and their implications within the broader societal context. Enhanced stakeholder accountability can create value for both stakeholders and corporates. This motivates stakeholder engagement and encourages corporates to adopt biodiversity accounting.

We hope that our conceptual framework and future research propositions will encourage the better integration and mainstreaming of biodiversity in accounting and CBM to protect, sustainably use, and restore biodiversity across the business sectors. To achieve the vision of the CBD “living in harmony with nature by 2050”, the collective efforts of academia, policymakers, corporates, and their stakeholders are essential.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.