Biodiversity research: a systematic literature review and direction for future research

We respond to calls to expand research on social and environmental accounting (SEA) (Zhao and Atkins, 2021; Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Cuckston, 2018a, b) by reviewing literature on biodiversity, conservation, emancipatory, environmental and extinction accounting (hereafter, collectively referred to as biodiversity) and generally into the emerging field of biodiversity accounting (Büchling and Maroun, 2021; Cuckston, 2018a, b; Rimmel, 2021; Weir, 2018; Jones and Solomon, 2013). From both human and non-human viewpoints, biodiversity is a valuable resource (Jones and Solomon, 2013). Biodiversity is important for the health of the earth and its human inhabitants because of its human-centred values. Biodiversity provides a direct source of human needs, such as food, clothing, and medicine. Indirectly, it helps with things like pollination, food production, and climate stability; therefore, it is really important. It is well established that humans have utilised various aspects of nature for their own profit (McBride et al., 2023). Although biodiversity has long been viewed as a “free good,” it is becoming increasingly apparent that this is not the case (Jones and Solomon, 2013). For instance, governments and organisations rarely include issues like biodiversity loss and habitat destruction in their budgets or cost estimates. The environmental services enabled by biodiversity are crucial to a thriving economy. On a deeper level, though, it is crucial to humanity's very existence (Chen et al., 2025). The intrinsic value of biodiversity, when viewed from a perspective that is not anthropocentric, is likewise of the utmost moral and ethical significance. From a truly green perspective, the value of nature is not contingent on its utility to humans.

Given the importance highlighted above, there has been increasing attention to biodiversity over the past decades from academics, standard-setters, policymakers, practitioners, and regulators. Recent evidence shows biodiversity disclosure is increasingly demanded by institutional investors and incorporated into capital allocation decisions (Ali et al., 2024; Layman et al., 2024). Despite acknowledging the importance of biodiversity as indicated by attention, existing literature has reported limited evidence on the value and relevance of biodiversity accounting (biodiversity accounting and reporting; biodiversity disclosure/reporting as used interchangeably in this paper in terms of context) quality, its effectiveness, and the level of compliance with biodiversity regulations, particularly in the public sector (Singh and Bharti, 2023; Hinkes and Peter, 2020). Prior studies indicate disclosure quality is strongly shaped by corporate governance structures and institutional pressures (Hambali and Adhariani, 2024; Uyar et al., 2025). Also, despite the increasing number of empirical works on biodiversity, current review papers in this field need to be updated. Firms are also using biodiversity reporting proactively to mitigate litigation and reputational risks and embed sustainability into strategy rather than merely complying with regulations (Treepongkaruna, 2024; He et al., 2025). These gaps in the biodiversity literature, in addition to our recognition of the importance of biodiversity accounting in today's world and for future generations, are among the main reasons to undertake this comprehensive systematic review of the existing biodiversity research in the private, public, and hybrid sectors (Keckel et al., 2025).

Therefore, given the growing research interest in biodiversity, it is important to mark this landscape to encourage and guide future convergence in research. Hence, the primary objective of the present review is to provide stakeholders with an authoritative and exhaustive landscape of the existing biodiversity literature, and to identify its limitations and gaps to establish and guide a future research agenda. An important general benefit of this type of review study is that it helps readers, especially academics, policymakers, practitioners, regulators, researchers, and students, gain a concise understanding of the current state of research in a particular field by drawing on a handful of notable sources.

Thus, we aim to contribute to existing research by improving, extending, and supplementing limited reviews of biodiversity by reviewing a larger number of studies spanning the private, public, and hybrid sectors in developed and developing countries over a longer period. Acknowledging seven previous reviews of the literature on biodiversity ((1) Singh and Bharti (2023), (2) Hinkes and Peter (2020), (3) Russell et al. (2017), (4) Jones and Solomon (2013), (5) Bebbington et al. (2023), (6) Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022), and (7) Roberts et al. (2021)), our study builds on the limitations and timing of these studies, such as not explicitly categorising biodiversity literature, and others (as described under the methodology) by providing a comprehensive review of biodiversity research in peer-reviewed journals. To address limitations in previous review studies and update them, we review the most comprehensive biodiversity studies to date, from 1984 to 2025. The review comprises 122 private, public, and hybrid sector studies published between 1984 and 2025 (although we conducted an all-year search, our review captured articles between 1984 and 2025) in 40 top journals. As distinct from previous review studies, in particular, we divide the sampled studies into six categories based on our analysis of the review results: (1) biodiversity practices and characteristics; (2) determinants of biodiversity; (3) socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity; (4) compliance with regulations on biodiversity; (5) proposed index/framework or model/reporting and measurement methods on biodiversity (hereafter proposed index/reporting and measurement methods); and (6) disclosure/reporting on biodiversity. This emphasis is consistent with recent international evidence documenting rapid growth in biodiversity reporting practices across sectors and jurisdictions (Maroun and Ecim, 2024; Roberts and Elamer, 2025). The process of inductively developing the six categories, including after a series of iterations and consultation with top academics and practitioners in the biodiversity field, makes us optimistic that the six themes are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive of the topics in biodiversity accounting covered in the review. Consequently, despite our multidisciplinary focus (Di Vaio et al., 2024), we examine the development of a wide range of theoretical perspectives rather than focusing on only a few, and highlight emerging theories in this field of research. In addition, this review focuses on various aspects of biodiversity research covered by previous studies and identifies and discusses future research opportunities in these areas.

In summary, our review extends current reviews of biodiversity by covering more studies (122) over a longer period and across a wider range of contexts than any previous review. In addition, we have introduced a new categorisation (six thematic areas combined with sector analysis) to structure the discussion. In line with this, we have categorized the studies as private, public, and hybrid (combining public and private) to better delineate the landscape, document the state of research in each category, and propose avenues for further research based on the coverage and limitations identified. We believe that these categorisations are necessary to properly demarcate biodiversity research and to easily guide future convergence.

Recent systematic reviews in accounting increasingly aim not only to summarise prior literature but also to develop explanatory frameworks and forward-looking agendas (Adjei-Mensah et al., 2024; Adu et al., 2025). Following this direction, this study moves beyond enumerating biodiversity accounting studies to construct an integrative thematic model that explains relationships among methods, disclosure practices, and socio-economic consequences.

We organise the remainder of our study as follows: In Section 2, we describe the methodology used in conducting the review. In Section 3, we present the systematic literature review process that resulted in 122 studies. Section 4 discusses the literature gaps and research agenda. Section five concludes by discussing the study's implications, summary, limitations, and conclusions.

We commenced this study by identifying seven previous reviews of the literature on biodiversity: (1) Singh and Bharti (2023), (2) Hinkes and Peter (2020), (3) Russell et al. (2017), (4) Jones and Solomon (2013), (5) Bebbington et al. (2023), (6) Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022), and (7) Roberts et al. (2021). These review studies appear to have some limitations. For instance, Hinkes and Peter (2020) conducted only a literature review to develop a framework for deforestation-free supply chains applied to soy certification. As such, this review is tailored only to a conservation aspect and does not holistically cover the other biodiversity areas described earlier. The same may be said of the study by Singh and Bharti (2023), whose review paper focused on the trend of development based on geographical indication and rural sustainable development. Again, this study suffers from the same coverage limitation as the study by Hinkes and Peter (2020) described above, and the same applies to Bebbington et al. (2023), who focused only on publications in the European Accounting Review. Perhaps a more comprehensive study is that of Russell et al. (2017). These authors reviewed and synthesised academic research in environmental accounting and demonstrated its shortcomings. A key aspect of their study is that environmental accounting should move away from the main focus on identifying, measuring, counting, and monetising “environmental costs and benefits” and instead focus on other social elements. A major limitation of this study is the generalisation of environmental accounting. Perhaps this is because the main focus of the review appears to be to set a research agenda for accounting for nature, which is only one of the themes in our study. The closest studies to ours among the previous reviews are Jones and Solomon (2013), Roberts et al. (2021), and Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022). In order to develop an understanding of the current state of biodiversity and the role that accounting can and “should” play in the future of biodiversity, in a study which is already a decade old, Jones and Solomon (2013) reviewed the literature on biodiversity from a wide range of disciplines, including anthropology, biodiversity, ecology, finance, philosophy, and accounting. Roberts et al. (2021), which appears to be the first review paper, conducted a systematic review, and more publications have appeared since this study, considering the number of studies covered in the current review (122), compared to 40 covered in that study. In this context, Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022) have updated the previous review study by covering 63 publications a year later. They conducted an all-year study, whereas Roberts et al. (2021) focused on 2013–2020. We address the limitations of this current study.

To improve reproducibility, we augmented the description above with the full search protocol and screening procedure. Specifically, we executed structured searches in Scopus, Web of Science, and an institutional aggregated database (Liverpool John Moores University advanced search panel) between inception and 31 December 2025 using the following sample search string (titles/abstracts): (TI:(“biodiversity” OR “biodiversity accounting” OR “biodiversity disclosure” OR “conservation” OR “extinction accounting” OR “nature disclosure” OR “ecosystem services” OR “natural capital”) OR AB:(“biodiversity” OR “biodiversity accounting” OR “biodiversity disclosure” OR “conservation” OR “extinction”)). The final search string used for each database is reported in  Appendix 1 (Search Strategy and Database Coverage). See Section 2 for a complete list of the additional search keywords used. We followed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) reporting guidelines and constructed a PRISMA flow diagram showing (1) records identified, (2) duplicates removed, (3) records screened, (4) full-text assessed for eligibility, and (5) studies included (see  Appendix 2). (Moher et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021). To reduce selection bias, three coders (A, B, C) independently screened titles/abstracts and coded full texts. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and, where necessary, by majority vote. We report inter-coder reliability as Cohen's kappa (κ) for the final sample (κ = 0.78 for theme assignment; see  Appendix 3 for the screening procedure), indicating substantial agreement (Cohen, 1960).

We settled on the results from the institutional aggregated database, as it returned more useful results than those from Scopus and Web of Science searches. Our methodological approach follows recent systematic review practices within accounting scholarship. In particular, we structured the screening and coding procedure in line with guidance from recent accounting literature reviews that emphasise transparency, replicability, and explicit research agendas (Adjei-Mensah et al., 2024; Adu et al., 2025). These studies highlight the importance of clearly documenting search criteria, coding reliability, and analytical synthesis rather than limiting systematic reviews to descriptive aggregation. Accordingly, our review extends beyond catalogue-style synthesis and incorporates an integrative analytical framework linking thematic domains.

We downloaded 122 articles. The articles were published in different subject categories contained in the AJG 2021 Journal Quality Guide, including accounting, business, ethics, and others. This AJG guide assigns a ranking to each journal, ranging from 1 (indicating the lowest quality) to 4* (indicating the greatest quality). The articles cover all the AJG rankings, from 1 to 4*. Of the listed AJG 2021 journals, 40 contain articles on the above-mentioned themes. To carry out our systematic literature review, we adhere to the guidelines proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) and updated in Denyer and Tranfield (2009), which outline a methodology for conducting a systematic review in the field of management. Awad Ibrahim et al. (2022) have successfully used and documented their process of utilising the systematic methodology described by Tranfield et al. (2003). The methodology proposed by Tranfield et al. (2003) outlines a three-stage process for conducting a review study, which we have employed in this research: (1) formulation of a review plan; (2) execution of the review; and (3) documentation and distribution of the findings. We acknowledge that Denyer and Tranfield (2009) updated this to five steps: question formulation, locating studies, selecting and evaluating studies, analysis and synthesis, and reporting and using the results. Our description of methodology and the review protocol (see Figure 1) indicates that we have adhered to the five steps in this review. Our review strategy also mirrors the ten steps for conducting a systematic literature review in accounting ((1) write a literature review protocol; (2) define the questions that the literature review is setting out to answer; (3) determine the type of studies and carry out a comprehensive literature search; (4) measure article impact; (5) define an analytical framework; (6) establish literature review reliability; (7) test literature review validity; (8) code data using the developed framework; (9) develop insights and critique through analysing the dataset; and (10) develop future research paths and questions) detailed by Massaro et al. (2016).

The initial phase of the planning process entails a deliberation by the three researchers on the underlying rationale for conducting this review. Upon a thorough examination of the literature on biodiversity, seven review studies were identified (excluding those that reviewed specific themes as part of their studies, such as Maroun and Atkins (2021) and Dick et al. (2014)), each with coverage limitations. Also, of the two systematic reviews on the topic, the latest review study (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022) is more than two years. This indicates a necessity for an updated systematic evaluation of the current body of knowledge. Table 1 presents a comparative analysis of our study and the four existing review studies to identify both commonalities and disparities. The fact that the current review covered 59 additional studies (122–63) compared to the latest review (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022) appears to confirm the importance of this study.

The first stage of the initial planning phase involves formulating a review protocol (Awad Ibrahim et al., 2022). Tranfield et al. (2003) note that the protocol serves as a strategic framework that safeguards objectivity by providing clear, specific instructions for the necessary actions. Consequently, a six-step strategy is devised, as depicted in the second box in Figure 1.

The second stage involves generating a comprehensive list of pertinent biodiversity keywords. To start with, we included the keywords used in the previous reviews on biodiversity (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Roberts et al., 2021); biodiversity accounting, reporting, or disclosure, extinction accounting, reporting, or disclosure, and threatened species reporting (Roberts et al., 2021); biodiversity account, extinction account, ecosystem account, and disclosure/report (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022). We then included additional keywords we believe will improve coverage. The compiled inventory has many components including “nature reporting, nature disclosure, nature analysis, nature information, nature regulation, nature implementation, nature index, nature dissemination, nature contribution; “biodiversity reporting, biodiversity disclosure, biodiversity analysis, biodiversity information, biodiversity regulation, biodiversity implementation, biodiversity index, biodiversity dissemination, biodiversity contribution; environmental reporting, environmental disclosure, environmental analysis, environmental information, environmental regulation, environmental implementation, environmental index, environmental dissemination, environmental contribution; extinction reporting, extinction disclosure, extinction analysis, extinction information, extinction regulation, extinction implementation, extinction index, extinction dissemination, extinction contribution; conservation reporting, conservation disclosure, conservation analysis, conservation information, conservation regulation, conservation implementation, conservation index, conservation dissemination, conservation contribution; emancipatory reporting, emancipatory disclosure, emancipatory analysis, emancipatory information, emancipatory regulation, emancipatory implementation, emancipatory index, emancipatory dissemination, emancipatory contribution” (See  Appendix 1 for the core search keywords). The aforementioned keywords are frequently used in the existing body of research and scholarly literature on biodiversity. Additionally, we thoroughly examine the reference lists provided at the conclusion of the reviewed studies to identify any pertinent studies that the initial search stage may have missed or that may contribute to our discussion (Watts, 2017), a form of forward citation tracking. Subsequently, we conducted a thorough exploration of 122 pertinent articles identified across 40 journals using the predetermined search list's recognised keywords.

The third stage of the planning phase involves establishing selection criteria to identify the research to be included. In this regard, a set of five criteria has been formulated and subsequently implemented. Firstly, it is imperative that the study place significant emphasis on biodiversity accounting (including the other three aspects of conservation, emancipatory accounting, and extinction accounting, as indicated in Section 1). Emancipatory accounting entails a critical social-analytical appreciation of accounting as a particular rendering of the categories of critical thought, which can help engender change and contribute to the building of a more liberated, democratic, and happier society (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2019; Atkins and Maroun, 2018). Extinction accounting is the provision of information on how a company is protecting/restoring habitat, enhancing biodiversity, and taking a dynamic approach to conservation, which could potentially lead to ecological and environmental improvements (McBride et al., 2023; Zhao and Atkins, 2021). Our keywords took care of this. Furthermore, it is imperative that the research study be disseminated through publication in an online research journal. We controlled this in the advanced search panel of the institutional library database. It is important to note that publications included in this category do not encompass online-published papers, e-theses, or studies available on SSRN. The search results returned 1,643 articles. This was reduced to 1,144 after applying the “peer-reviewed Journals” filter. Furthermore, it is imperative that the study's target audience be academic, whether the study is written by academic or non-academic authors. The results were reduced to 916 after filtering the results to exclude non-academic articles. Additionally, it is imperative that the study be documented in English. The results were reduced to 710 after applying the “English Language” filter. As indicated earlier, to uphold the standards of the review studies, we exclusively select studies published in accredited journals included in the AJG 2021 Journal Quality Guide. The 710 articles were screened by the three authors for relevance, especially for AJG 2021 Journal Quality Guide journals, having applied the other filters earlier. Each of the three authors compiled a list of relevant studies and met twice to reconcile minor discrepancies, mostly by reshuffling their individual lists to include or exclude studies (Cuozzo et al., 2017). We then downloaded the 122 relevant articles.  Appendix 2 contains further details on the study identification and screening process. To recap, this AJG guide assigns a ranking to each journal, ranging from 1 (lowest quality) to 4* (highest quality). It is important to note that both the rankings of 4 and 4* have equal weight in our selection process. These criteria have been established to ensure a thorough, high-quality evaluation of research and development studies. Our primary emphasis is on scholarly articles published in academic journals.

The second phase of the research process involves conducting a thorough, methodical review. This entails implementing a systematic, comprehensive search strategy; carefully selecting relevant studies; evaluating their quality; and extracting valuable insights from them, as described in the first paragraph of Section 2. We were eager to locate and retrieve the complete text of each chosen study and store it within a designated directory (Mendeley and Excel Spreadsheet). The concluding phase of the review process was the reporting and dissemination step, as depicted in Figure 1.

The results of the systematic evaluation are presented in the following sections according to seven factors: (1) classification of studies; (2) trend of biodiversity research; (3) research impact; (4) biodiversity disclosure/reporting method; (5) theories employed; (6) country of study; and (7) study outcomes (thematic discussion). To ensure a comprehensive literature review coverage, we have presented our findings in two main categories: preliminary findings, which have described the research area landscape in general (Sections 3.1–3.6, i-vi), and the study outcomes (Sections 3.7, 4, and 5), in which we have elaborated more and presented outcomes of study-specific objectives.

Table 2 presents the studies categorised into three categories and six distinct themes. A total of 122 papers, which were published in 40 academic and English journals, met the screening criteria for this review. The research conducted can be categorised into three primary groups: (1) investigations pertaining to the private sector; (2) examinations focused on the public sector; (3) investigations based on hybrid studies combining both the private and public sectors. The idea for the private/public/hybrid classification stems from Awad Ibrahim et al. (2022), who conducted a similar study and discussed their results under two categories, financial and non-financial institutions. We believe that discussing our findings under these three categories provides a clear reference point for researchers, practitioners, and students working in biodiversity. A significant proportion of research, namely 65.5%, focuses on the analysis of hybrid biodiversity. This comprises 70 of the 122 studies. The second-highest number of studies, at 24.2% (26 articles), explores biodiversity in the private sector. Conversely, the remaining 10.3% of studies (11 out of 122) investigate biodiversity in the public sector. The classification of each group is determined by dividing them into sub-groups according to the study aims and subjects of the investigations.

To demonstrate that the six themes emerged inductively from the data (rather than being imposed), we present an evidence trail of the coding process. Initially, open coding of a 20% random sample of included articles produced 72 distinct codes (e.g. “disclosure instrument”, “ecosystem service valuation”, “regulatory driver”, “biodiversity index construction”). These codes were then iteratively clustered by two authors into higher-order categories using axial coding and consensus meetings. Following three rounds of refinement and blind re-coding of a further 30% of articles, the clusters stabilised into the six themes reported in Table 2. A condensed example of open codes → axial codes → final theme mapping is provided in  Appendix 4 (coding excerpt). This material evidences inductive development and builds confidence that themes are grounded in the literature rather than predetermined.

The three study types mentioned above are further categorised into six distinct topics according to their objectives. In grouping the studies in line with topics, our review indicates that biodiversity studies focus on several areas of research, leading to the grouping, including: (1) biodiversity practices and characteristics; (2) determinants of biodiversity; (3) socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity; (4) compliance with regulations on biodiversity; (5) proposed index/reporting measurement methods of biodiversity; and (6) disclosure/reporting on biodiversity. The first category of study, biodiversity practices and characteristics, focuses on biodiversity practices in general and their characteristics (Bebbington et al., 2020; Tashakor et al., 2019). Country-level institutional environments and regulatory maturity have been identified as major cross-national determinants of disclosure adoption (Roberts and Elamer, 2025). The second category of studies, determinants of biodiversity, deals with how biodiversity should be constituted, the need for biodiversity accounting, and how biodiversity came into being (nature and history) (Atkins and McBride, 2022; Descalzo-Ruiz, 2022). Empirical evidence also links biodiversity disclosure to greater transparency in environmental information following regulatory shocks (Chen et al., 2025). The third category of studies, socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity, examines the socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity practices and of organisations' disclosure or reporting (Arjalies and Gibassier, 2023; Usher and Maroun, 2018; Denedo et al., 2017). The fourth category of studies, compliance with biodiversity regulations, concerns organisational compliance with biodiversity regulations (Adler et al., 2021). The fifth category of studies, proposed index/reporting and measurement methods, deals with established and proposed measurement tools/index for making sense of biodiversity disclosure/reporting (Maroun and Atkins, 2021; Samkin and Wingard, 2021); and the last category of studies, disclosure/reporting on biodiversity, deals with mostly empirical studies on biodiversity disclosure/reporting (McBride et al., 2023; Sun and Lange, 2023). However, transparency concerns remain, with firms sometimes engaging in impression management when reporting negative biodiversity impacts (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2024). Financial-sector research increasingly emphasises classification-based metrics and portfolio-level biodiversity indicators (Azizi et al., 2025; Layman et al., 2024).

Figure 2 depicts the entirety of the research in the initial chart (Figure 2), the combined private, public, and hybrid studies; in the second chart (Figure 3), the private sector studies; in the third chart (Figure 4), the public sector studies; and hybrid studies in the last chart (Figure 5). The initial chart shows that almost 33% of the total number of studies (40 out of 122) focus on the proposed index and reporting methods for biodiversity.

This is followed by 9 studies out of 122 (almost 24%) that specifically investigate disclosure or reporting on biodiversity. Furthermore, 18% of studies focus on the practices and characteristics of biodiversity (22 out of 122). This was followed by 15.6% of articles that reviewed (19 out of 122 studies) the determinants of biodiversity. In addition, 9.0% of the studies (11 out of 122) specifically investigate the socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity.

Lastly, one article, representing 0.8% of the 122 studies, explored compliance with biodiversity regulations. According to the second, third, and fourth charts, a majority of studies (62.9%; 22 of 35 articles) in the private sector focused on biodiversity disclosure/reporting.

Further, a key point to note is the paucity of research in both the private and public sectors on the socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity and compliance with biodiversity regulations, as indicated in Figures 2 and 3. Furthermore, about 43% of hybrid studies focused on the proposed index, reporting, and measurement methods, as indicated by Figure 5.

This result appears to mirror the total number of public sector studies that also explored the same theme (36.4%). The same percentage of studies explored biodiversity practices and characteristics (36.4) in the public sector. In contrast, only 11.4% of the private sector studies explored proposed index, reporting, and measurement methods. Taken as a whole, this is the theme that has received the most research attention, as indicated by Figure 2. The reason for this appears to be the understanding that the field is still in development, with many researchers documenting and demonstrating different methods for different aspects of biodiversity reporting/disclosure. Research attention to this theme may wane over time, with greater focus on other aspects of biodiversity disclosure (Azizi et al., 2025). Thus, this suggests that scholars have thoroughly investigated the proposed measurement index relative to the other themes in our review, indicating that further studies may focus on other important themes. This gap is particularly notable in public and state-owned organisations, where partnerships with conservation NGOs may enhance disclosure credibility (Ackers and Adebayo, 2024). Perhaps a key point here is that most of the articles on the proposed index extensively focus on developing a framework that has not been used in contemporary academic discourse on biodiversity.

Figure 6 shows a punctuated growth pattern: biodiversity accounting/research is sparse through the 1980–2000s (only 2 studies in 1984–1986, then a seven-year lull in 1987–1993, and no studies in 2004–2009), before shifting into sustained growth from the mid-2010s onward. This acceleration is most visible in the most recent years covered, where output concentrates in 2020–2021 (24 studies) and 2022–2023 (22 studies)—together 46 studies, or roughly 38% of the full sample (122)—indicating that the literature's “centre of gravity” is now recent and rapidly expanding rather than incremental.

The thematic overlay in Figure 6 reinforces that the growth has been driven more by tool-building and reporting architecture than by outcome-focused explanation. The largest stream is indices/methods (39 studies), followed by disclosure/reporting (25) and practices/characteristics (19), whereas explanatory and downstream work remains thinner (determinants: 14; socioeconomic consequences: 9; compliance: 1). Put differently, the surge appears to be expanding the “measurement and reporting base” faster than it is testing what drives biodiversity performance or what consequences follow, leaving clear scope for more causal and impact-oriented designs.

Figure 7 shows a clear sectoral skew in the biodiversity literature: hybrid studies dominate the evidence base (76 of 122; 62.3%), far exceeding private-sector studies (35; 28.7%) and public-sector studies (11; 9.0%). This pattern implies that the field has developed primarily through cross-sector or mixed-setting designs, while single-sector public evidence remains thin. Even within the public stream, the peak is concentrated in 2020–2021 (4 studies) and does not increase in the most recent window (2022–2023: 3 studies), suggesting that recent growth is being carried disproportionately by hybrid (and, secondarily, private) research rather than a sustained expansion of public-sector work.

Two methods are used to evaluate the impact of the reviewed papers on future research. The Chartered Association of Business Schools' (CABS) Journal Quality Guide (AJG 2021) is first used to assess the publication in which the paper appears. Second, we utilise a measure based on Google Scholar citation counts for all papers as of a certain period in 2025.

Table 3 displays 122 papers from 40 journals, with quality ratings ranging from 1* (lowest) to 4* (highest). Out of 122 studies, only one is published in a 4* journal (Accounting, Organization and Society), while one is published in a 4-rating journal (Contemporary Accounting Research – 4* and 4 are combined), 65 studies are published in 3* rating journals, 24 are published in 2* journals, and 31 are published in 1* journals (representing 55%, 19%, and 26%, respectively). Based on these numbers, we may infer that 59 out of the 122 review studies were published in highly regarded journals (4*, 4, and 3*). The highest number of these is 38 studies published in the Accounting, Auditing, and Accountability Journal (AAAJ). This is consistent with the findings of Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022), who noted that 27 of the 63 studies reviewed appeared in AAAJ, and with Roberts et al. (2021), who documented that 19 of the 28 studies appeared in AAAJ. Roberts et al. (2021) note that this might have been due to a special issue in AAAJ. Nine studies were published in SAMPJ, eight in the Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, six in the Accounting Forum, four each in the Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Journal of Cleaner Production, Ecological Economics, and Meditari Accountancy Research, three in the Critical Perspectives on Accounting, and seven in the Business Strategy and the Environment. Two each in the British Accounting Review, Asian Review of Accounting, Managerial Auditing Journal, Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, and South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences. In summary, only six journals account for 67% of all study publications (68 studies).

Table 3 further indicates that of the 24 articles published in 2* journals, a majority (nine) appeared in SAMPJ, indicating that this is another top outlet for biodiversity research in the 2* rank journals. These nine studies represent 38% of the studies in the 2* rank. It also indicates that, aside from AAAJ, which accounted for 31% of the total studies, SAMPJ accounted for 7%. In this regard, it is also important to note that the Social and Environmental Accountability Journal (SEAJ) contributed most of the studies (eight) under the 1* rank, representing 26% of the studies (31) under the 1* rank and 7% of the total studies considered (122). Taken together, three of the 40 journals (AAAJ, SAMPJ, and SEAJ) accounted for 54% of the studies, with the remaining 7 journals accounting for 46%.

While acknowledging that 10 studies appeared in 2017 (e.g. Gaia and Jones, 2017; Powell and Tilt, 2017; Russell et al., 2017), quick checks indicate that the year 2013 appears to be the breakthrough year for biodiversity research appearing in the AAAJ, which has the total highest number of studies in our review as indicated earlier. In that year, seven articles appeared in the journal (e.g. Freeman and Groom, 2013; Cuckston, 2013; Jones and Solomon, 2013; Rimmel and Jonäll, 2013). Roberts et al. (2021) note that this might have resulted from a special issue in AAAJ. Further checks indicate that, not surprisingly, five (Freeman and Groom, 2013; Cuckston, 2013; Jones and Solomon, 2013; van Liempd and Busch, 2013) are on the fifth theme, proposed index/reporting and measurement methods, of which four are hybrid studies, with one a private sector study (van Liempd and Busch, 2013). This is not surprising, given that we noted earlier that the proposed index/reporting and measurement methods address established and proposed measurement tools/indexes to make sense of biodiversity disclosure and reporting; thus, the studies are important for understanding biodiversity reporting by corporations and public establishments alike. The study by Rimmel and Jonäll (2013) is on theme six, biodiversity disclosure and reporting, and the study by Tregidga (2013) is on theme one, biodiversity practices and characteristics.

Among the nine studies published in SAMPJ, the journal with the second-highest number of studies, the first study appeared in 2017 (Yook et al., 2017). The year 2020 saw the highest number of studies (Hinkes and Peter, 2020; Ogilvy et al., 2022; Raar et al., 2020; Schneider et al., 2014). Surprisingly, all four studies are on theme six, biodiversity disclosure and reporting. It appears that, following the earlier years, on the established and proposed measurement indices of biodiversity, as suggested by earlier AAAJ studies, authors are now better equipped with resources and information to conduct biodiversity disclosure and reporting research. For the eight studies published in SEAJ, the earliest appeared in 2018 (Cuckston, 2018a). Further checks indicate that five of the eight studies appeared in 2021 (e.g. Büchling and Maroun, 2021; Maroun and Atkins, 2021; Zhao and Atkins, 2021). As in the case of AAAJ described above, a majority (three) of the five articles published in this journal in 2021 are on theme 5, proposed indexing, reporting, and measurement methods (Büchling and Maroun, 2021; Rimmel, 2021; Maroun and Atkins, 2021). The study by Cuckston (2021) is on theme two, determinants of biodiversity, and the study by Zhao and Atkins (2021) is on theme three, biodiversity disclosure and reporting.

We have used citations as part of articles' research impact, especially in the academic space, noting that highly cited papers do not necessarily imply the most conceptually and practically influential papers that have informed policy and practice. While Google Scholar provides citation data, this alone is insufficient to gauge the significance of the reviews under consideration. Studies published in earlier years tend to be cited more frequently than those published later. CPY = Citations/(2025-publication year) is used to account for the passage of time. The computed CPY appears reasonable, as more recent publications receive a larger CPY than older studies with the same number of citations. Software based on this algorithm is called “Harzing's Publish or Perish” and may be found at https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish. In 2022, CPY was calculated using the same formula as Awad Ibrahim et al. (2022) and Dumay et al. (2016). Table 4 displays the number of citations, citation years, and citations per year (CPY) for each work as reported by Google Scholar on December 31, 2025. Studies are listed in descending order of CPY in Table 4. With a total of 11,851 citations spread across 1,016 citation years, the 122 studies have an average total CPY of 21.6. In this context, hybrid studies have the highest average number of citations (14.7), followed by private-sector studies (12.0), and, lastly, public-sector studies (7.0).

In terms of total citations, Panel A of Table 4 (private sector studies) indicates that the three most cited studies include Jones (1996), with a total of 231 citations; Rimmel and Jonäll (2013), with a total of 243 citations; and Haque and Jones (2020), with a total of 282 citations. These three studies accounted for 32% of citations in private-sector studies and 6% of total citations (across all three sectors). Panel B (public sector studies) indicates that the three most cited studies are: Weir (2018), with 72 citations; Gaia and Jones (2020), with 87 citations; and Schneider et al. (2014), with 58 citations. These three studies contributed 54% of the public sector studies and only 2% of the total studies combined. Panel C (hybrid studies) indicates that the three most cited studies are: Wackernagel et al. (1999), with 2,948 citations; Jones (2010), with 501 citations; and Saud et al. (2020), with 540 citations. The three studies accounted for 44% of the total hybrid studies and 33% of the total studies. A key takeaway is that public sector studies are the least cited (402 citations), suggesting a paucity of research in this sector. Overall, the most frequently cited study under the private sector (Panel A), Jones (1996), as indicated earlier, investigated biodiversity in the context of accounting for a natural capital inventory. The most cited study under the public sector (Panel B), Weir (2018), investigates the current status of extinction accounting and the factors that have led to its adoption by the public sector in the United Kingdom and states that the crucial finding is that a focus on biodiversity is used to provide regional reports on loss of species as well as species recovery to aid in the planning necessary to ensure the survival of endangered species. The most cited hybrid study (Panel C) by Wackernagel et al. (1999) presented a simple framework for national and global natural capital accounting.

Table 4 also illustrates the CPYs for the various sectors. Note that not all of the nine studies with the highest total number of citations described above under the three sectors fall into the category of the three studies with the highest CPY; this indicates the effect of time (years) in our CPY calculation, showing the studies that have amassed high citations in a relatively short period of time. Panel A (private sector studies) indicates that the three studies with the highest CPYs are: Haque and Jones (2020), with a CPY of 56.4; Adler et al. (2018), with a CPY of 30.1; and Azizi et al. (2025), with a CPY of 25.0. The most cited study here, Haque and Jones (2020), investigate if the GRI and the European Union's strategy on biodiversity strengthen the connection between board gender diversity and a company's biodiversity disclosures and find that gender diversity on boards is associated with improved disclosure of biodiversity initiatives (DBI) and biodiversity impact assessments (BIA) and that this relationship is moderated in a favourable way by the GRI framework and the EU biodiversity plan. There is a favourable correlation between the DBI, the GRI framework, and the EU strategic plan, but not the BIA.

Panel B (public sector studies) indicates that the three studies with the highest CPYs are: Gaia and Jones (2020), with a CPY of 17.4; Weir (2018), with a CPY of 10.3; and Büchling and Maroun (2021), with a CPY of 9.0. In the most cited study in this regard, Gaia and Jones (2020) explored biodiversity reporting by 351 English local councils using a disclosure index and tests. Findings indicate that disclosures are generally sparse and insufficient for stakeholders. Higher reporting is linked to larger populations, environmentally oriented councillors, local environmental NGOs, poorer biodiversity management, and council visibility, consistent with agency, stakeholder, legitimacy, and institutional explanations.

Panel C (hybrid studies) indicates that three studies with the highest CPYs are: Saud et al. (2020), with a CPY of 108.0, and the highest of all the studies in the review; Wackernagel et al. (1999), with a CPY of 113.4; and Bebbington et al. (2020), with a CPY of 55.0. The study with the highest CPY (Saud et al., 2020) notes that the ecological footprint (EF) indicator is a comprehensive environmental accounting tool that has streamlined input-output environmental assessments. The EF indicator helps determine the pressure humans place on the environment and how it relates to the planet's capacity to regenerate. The approach measures human demand in terms of global hectares, which are biologically productive areas with productivity comparable to the global average. These areas are essential for producing resources and assimilating trash. Agricultural land, fisheries, urban areas, forests, and grazing areas are the five bio-capacity components the EF uses to quantify the demands humans place on the environment.

The majority of the methodology has been qualitative, particularly content/thematic analysis and textual analysis. This is consistent with the findings by Roberts et al. (2021) and Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022). This suggests a need for both quantitative and mixed-methods biodiversity research (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022). Moreover, despite the majority of research being qualitative, only a handful of studies have employed interviews or a combination of interviews and content/thematic analysis (Roberts et al., 2021). Future research should also examine sector-specific contexts such as tourism and cruise industries, where biodiversity reporting faces unique empirical challenges (Di Vaio et al., 2024). There is thus a need for more studies using interviews, extending beyond contents/themes in orgainsations publications.

Figure 8 depicts the distribution of studies based on the various biodiversity disclosure/reporting methods used. We divided the studies into different biodiversity disclosure/reporting methods, as reported by the authors. While some authors used a single disclosure/reporting method (e.g. thematic analysis), others have used a combination of disclosure/reporting methods (e.g. reporting index and interviews). As indicated in Figure 8, in all, 29 studies used a disclosure/reporting method. Only three hybrid studies were conducted on disclosure/reporting (Ackers and Adebayo, 2024; Corvino et al., 2021; Husin et al., 2021). In addition to the two hybrid studies, out of the 29 studies that used a disclosure/reporting method, four are in the public sector (e.g. Gaia and Jones, 2020) and 22 are in the private sector (e.g. Marco-Fondevila and Álvarez-Etxeberría, 2023). In terms of the actual disclosure/reporting methods used by these studies, interpretive textual analysis (4), textual analysis (4), disclosure index (4), thematic analysis (3), content and/or statistical analysis (3), and statistical analysis (3), and contributed the most (21), representing 72% of the total disclosure/reporting methods used (21 out of 29). Azizi et al. (2025) assess biodiversity disclosure in Europe's financial sector using institutional theory and content analysis of 28 non-financial reports from 24 Global 500 institutions (2021). Disclosure quality varies; many reports are generic and risk-focused. The study maps the EU Taxonomy, SFDR, and CSRD drivers and offers recommendations to strengthen biodiversity reporting. Using thematic analysis, McBride et al. (2023), a public-sector study, examine the potential benefits of transitioning from transparency-oriented to accountability-driven accounting in the context of biodiversity reporting. It examines a historical business case of extinction management using Atkins and Maroun's (2018) extinction framework. Also, Ogilvy et al. (2022), a private-sector study, used thematic analysis to identify and discuss various methodologies for gathering farm-level data needed for environmental performance and sustainability reporting systems. The study presents natural capital accounting and environmental performance statistics for two wool producers in Eastern Australia's grassy woodland biome. Due to the different historical origins and management styles of various manufacturers, there were significant differences in their environmental performances. Zhao and Atkins (2021), in a study conducted in the private sector, address the lack of research on companies' extinction accounting in developing economies. They focus on Chinese listed companies in a high-ecological-impact sector and use thematic analysis to examine the extent to which their biodiversity disclosures are influenced by impression management (see also Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2024). The goal is to identify any reporting elements that could be interpreted as attempts to hide or downplay the negative impact on biodiversity. Perhaps a key thing to note about the studies utilising thematic analysis is that they are very recent, with the oldest, Zhao and Atkins' (2021) study, published in 2021. This appears to indicate that this is one of the main methods for making sense of biodiversity accounting, disclosure/reporting.

Using statistical analysis, Dutta and Dutta (2023), a private-sector study, investigated a sample of 442 firm-year observations spanning 13 years (2008–2020) for 34 publicly traded Finnish companies. The objective was to assess the potential association between the decision to report corporate biodiversity (CBRD) and corporate environmental performance (CEP). Further, Yook et al. (2017), a private-sector study focusing on Japanese firms over the period from 2002 to 2012, also used statistical analysis to estimate disclosed environmental control costs (capital expenditures and operational costs) and to calculate eco-efficiency indicators based on carbon emissions. The relationships were assessed by employing regression models while accounting for other potential confounding factors. Using content and statistical analyses, Husin et al. (2018) analyse, within the context of legitimacy theory, factors that determine the extent of biodiversity reporting among top publicly listed companies in Malaysia. The findings provide evidence that the extent of biodiversity reporting by top Malaysian companies remains fairly low, with companies in high-biodiversity-risk industries tending to provide more disclosure. Other explanatory variables tested, i.e. companies' profitability and leverage, have no significant influence.

Barut et al. (2016), a public sector study, employed a method termed biodiversity indicators to shed light on the presentation of biodiversity data. Among the data provided for analysis are reports from 151 local government bodies (LGAs) in New South Wales, Australia. Schneider et al. (2014), a public sector study, used a dichotomous analysis method to find out how much biodiversity information is reported by looking at different types of sources of data, including websites of local government bodies, official documents on accountability, reports on the environment, as well as strategies, plans, and policies related to the management of the environment and biodiversity. They wanted to find out if New Zealand's local governments report biodiversity information and how they do so.

Hummel et al. (2022), a private-sector study, used textual analysis to investigate the extent to which reports directly discuss specific corporate CSR topics, including those related to biodiversity. Adler et al. (2017), a private-sector study that utilises reporting indexes and interviews, undertakes a comparative examination of the magnitude and type of biodiversity disclosures presented by the top 50 metals and mining businesses listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. This investigation covers the period preceding and following the United Nations' proclamation of the “Decade on Biodiversity” in 2010. Adler et al. (2018), a study conducted in the private sector, employed a disclosure score and statistical analysis to investigate the inclusion of evidence on biodiversity and threatened species in the annual reports, sustainability reports, and company websites of the top 150 Fortune Global firms at fiscal year-end 2014. Sun and Lange (2023) conducted a study in the private sector that used a disclosure index and interviews. The study focused on analysing the subjects and tone of the Yili Group's stand-alone biodiversity reports from 2017 to 2019. The text analysis is enhanced by a series of interviews conducted to provide additional insights into the Yili Group's biodiversity reporting.

Using level analysis, Jones (1996) explored the concept of a natural inventory in a private-sector study. Recall our discussion earlier on the proposed or established measurement index, where we noted that the method of the natural inventory model appears to be the only established biodiversity model. This natural inventory model uses a method known as level analysis, as described by Jones in this study (Jones, 1996).

When Rimmel and Jonäll (2013) conducted a study of the private sector, they used thematic analysis and interviews to provide a comprehensive picture of how much biodiversity-related information organisations share, where they share it, and why. Similarly, Hinkes and Peter (2020), a private sector study, employed a thematic analysis to develop a conceptual framework for assessing certification systems, which was applied to 16 soy certification systems. Also, Raar et al. (2020), a study conducted in the private sector, employed theoretical and conceptual analysis to integrate biodiversity management into organisations' internal operations, routines, and communication. This study aimed to revive the conversation about establishing a conceptual and practical foundation for academic research on accounting and accountability. Husin et al. (2021) and Maroun and Atkins (2018) used interpretive textual analysis to explore biodiversity reporting/disclosure in Malaysia and South Africa, respectively. A key takeaway from the findings here, consistent with those of Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022) and Roberts et al. (2021), is that content/thematic analysis is the most commonly used method in biodiversity reporting studies.

Regarding the theoretical approach, the study reveals that the majority of publications cite theories relevant to their studies, suggesting no difference in theoretical application across the three sectors. The papers take either a particular or a multi-theoretical approach. This finding differs from that of Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022), who reported that half of the studies they reviewed did not mention theories. Perhaps authors are now delving into aspects of biodiversity that theories could explore, or they are starting to recognise the significance of theoretical foundations.

Forty-four theories are represented in Figure 9 from the review studies, which appear a total of 222 times across the 122 studies. A majority of the studies linked their research to theories, especially stakeholder and legitimacy theories, as indicated in Figure 9. As shown in Figure 9, 29 studies (27%) have used stakeholder theory alone or in combination with another theory (e.g. Sun and Lange, 2023; Atkins and McBride, 2022; Gaia and Jones, 2017). In this regard, van Liempd and Busch (2013) confirmed the popularity of stakeholder theory in this research field by noting that, generally speaking, the assertion that much research in social and environmental accounting coalesces around an under-specified form of accountability remains accurate. Twenty-six studies (25%) have used legitimacy theory alone or in combination with another theory (e.g. Yook et al., 2017; van Liempd and Busch, 2013). This is consistent with Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022), who also noted that the main theories applied are legitimacy and stakeholder theories, with Roberts et al. (2021) arguing that this is expected, as businesses frequently divulge information to appear legitimate and please stakeholders. With regards to legitimacy theory, Yook et al. (2017) investigate whether there is a correlation between the amount of costs reported as relating to environmental controls and environmental performance measured in terms of carbon-based eco-efficiency, whether this correlation lends credence to arguments made in favour of either the voluntary disclosure theory or the legitimacy theory, and also seek to ascertain if the relationships change during the first Kyoto Protocol era. Findings lend credence to a legitimate theory (as opposed to a theory based on voluntary disclosure) to explain the connection between environmental control cost disclosure and carbon-based eco-efficiency.

It is not surprising that stakeholder and legitimacy theories were the most used theories in making sense of biodiversity issues. These theories tend to focus more on the social issues that companies, especially for-profit companies, must address to be seen as socially responsible and environmentally friendly by stakeholders. Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022) conclude that voluntary environmental disclosure results from organisations seeking to be legitimate towards their stakeholders, but this reputational motivation sometimes leads to the use of non-genuine techniques. Twelve studies (11%) have used institutional theory alone or in combination with other theories (e.g. Haque and Jones, 2020). Nine studies (or 8%) have used the resource dependency theory alone or in combination with other theories (e.g. Haque and Jones, 2020) In a study described earlier, Haque and Jones (2020) use institutional theory and resource dependence theory to investigate whether the GRI and the EU biodiversity plan support the link between gender diversity on boards and biodiversity disclosures. Their research shows that companies comply with the GRI guidelines and the EU policy guide, documented in 2020, by making seemingly rather than thoroughly biodiversity disclosures.

While legitimacy and stakeholder theories dominate the corpus, this dominance should itself be interpreted as a theoretical constraint rather than a neutral fact. The prevalence of organisation-centric explanations risks occluding structural drivers of biodiversity loss, including market logics, political economy, and historical injustices that are better addressed by political ecology and related critical perspectives (Robbins, 2012). We therefore situate our findings in the context of debates on the “financialisation of nature”, which question whether translating nature into tradable assets and accounting metrics may commodify ecosystems and reinforce extractive dynamics rather than halt loss (Loftus and March, 2015; Smith, 2021). We recommend that future empirical and conceptual work explicitly test whether accounting/valuation instruments enable conservation outcomes or primarily facilitate monetisation and offsetting logics that perpetuate damage.

Seven studies used or made special mention of voluntary disclosure theory, grounded theory, the labour theory of value, and actor network theory, bringing the total to 28 studies. Drawing on voluntary disclosure theory and legitimacy theory, Dutta and Dutta (2023) examine the relationship between corporate environmental performance (CEP) and corporate biodiversity reporting decisions (CBRD). According to the study, companies that use more water and generate more waste are more likely to share information about biodiversity. The results corroborate legitimacy theory, indicating that companies with subpar environmental performance may choose to provide biodiversity data to gain legitimacy. Grounded theory has been used in the majority of studies that applied it to help them derive meaning from their findings (Weir, 2018, 2019; Ferreira, 2017). In order to provide a socio-ecological account of the role that agroecology plays in supporting the sustainable livelihoods of a co-operative of smallholder coffee farmers, where very little value is created at their end of the coffee commodity chain, Lanka et al. (2017) combined the science of agroecology with the labour theory of value as a theoretical framework. According to these authors, since cooperative members can utilise fewer outside inputs, an agroecological strategy promotes sustainable livelihoods while supporting agricultural biodiversity. Ferreira (2017) argued that actor network theory helps describe and comprehend biodiversity's agency; its features and behaviours are disruptive components that entangle economic items and models with actual nature. Biodiversity becomes a political actor in its own governance, rejecting relocation for the sake of the market's efficiency, and this is due to more than the fact that it is difficult to measure and quantify, or that the knowledge base to do so remains ambiguous. Additionally, structuration theory was cited in six different papers. Raar et al. (2020), used structuration theory to argue that researchers and practitioners need to engage with other disciplines and modify their institutional, professional, and governance practices to incorporate reporting and biodiversity management within organisational structures. Five studies each referenced agency theory, political economy theory, and the theory of planned behavior. Hossain (2017) noted the importance of political economy theory in biodiversity studies, noting that organisational, social, and environmental actions can be better understood with the aid of political economy theory, which asserts that the socio-political context in which a corporation operates must be factored into any meaningful analysis of the firm's economic activities. Tashakor et al. (2019) analyse data from a survey of Australian cotton farmers using the theory of planned behaviour (TPB) to develop a structural model and use the partial least squares (PLS) technique to investigate the relationship between belief-based factors (attitude, subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioural control (PBC)) and environmental management accounting (EMA) practices.

Signalling theory and emancipatory accounting theory were each used or mentioned in four papers. Sun and Lange (2023) use signalling theory, legitimacy theory, institutional theory, and stakeholder theory to understand why the Yili Group, China's biggest dairy corporation, discloses biodiversity data. Atkins and McBride (2022) extend the nature and relevance of examining the historical roots of social and environmental accounting by examining an account that documented and made visible pollution in 17th-century London. They do this by using emancipatory accounting theory as a theoretical lens to interpret Evelyn's social account. They pointed out that John Evelyn's Fumifugium (1,661) is defined as an external social account that, in particular, problematises intentionality, much like modern external accounting. Discourse theory, organised hypocrite theory, and social theory were each mentioned or utilised in three different research studies. According to Van Limpd and Busch (2013), accounting theory has advanced several arguments supporting the need for firms to disclose their ethical obligations, including those related to the environment and, consequently, biodiversity. Common-pool resources theory, neoinstitutional theory, and social studies of finance theory were each cited in two studies. Finally, Figure 9 shows that 23 theories have been used or mentioned in the review studies just once, singly or in combination with other theories, such as the Dynamic Conflict Arena Theory (Russell et al., 2017), the Environmental Stewardship Theory (Horner and Davidson, 2020), the Global Warming Theory (Wildavsky, 1994), the Greenwashing Theory (Dutta and Dutta, 2023), and the Island Theory (Atkins and Maroun, 2018).

While acknowledging that a number of important theories emerged in the review, it is key to note that Herbohn and Herbohn (1999) and Ferger and Mermet (2017) used the Political Economy of Accounting Theory and the Politics of Nature Theory, respectively, in their studies. These authors sought to highlight the importance of politics in biodiversity issues. In this context, Herbohn and Herbohn (1999), writing on the Political Economy of Accounting Theory, noted that a key tenet of this view is that socioeconomic events cannot be understood outside of the broader political, social, and institutional context in which they occur. It may be argued that these other theories are useful and point to relevant research areas in biodiversity. The paucity of research on them opens the door for future researchers to advance biodiversity studies by utilising these underutilised theoretical frameworks.

Regarding the distribution of theories across the three sectors, the findings indicate no difference in theoretical application among them. Studies in the three sectors referenced the top theories identified in the study, including stakeholder, legitimacy, institutional, and resource dependency theories. However, it's important to note that most of the emergent and less referenced theories were used in hybrid studies. With regard to the six themes, the theoretical applications are the same, with the top theories referenced across all six themes, especially in studies on disclosure and reporting (theme 6) and in proposed index/framework/model/new disclosure/reporting measurement methods for biodiversity (theme 5).

Table 5 displays the breakdown of biodiversity studies between developed and developing nations. These distinctions and categorisations were made using data from the 2022 United Nations World Economic Situation and Prospects. Biodiversity has been examined 237 times in 92 countries. As illustrated in Panel A (developed countries) of Table 5, biodiversity is examined 107 times (45%) in 28 developed countries, and as depicted in Panel B of Figure 8, 130 times (55%) in 64 developing countries. Additionally, Panels A and B of Table 5 indicate that biodiversity research encompasses 70% of developing nations (64 out of 92) and 30% of developed nations (28 out of 92). Second, as shown in Panel A of Table 5, only four developed countries account for 43% (47 out of 107) of all biodiversity research conducted across developed countries: the United Kingdom (22 times, 21%), Australia (11 times, 10%), New Zealand (7 times, 6.5%), and Canada (6 times, 5.5%). Considering that the remaining 57% is spread among 24 developed countries, means that these four countries, especially the UK, have been properly researched. Examples of studies in the UK include Gaia and Jones (2017) and Weir (2019). Examples of studies in Australia include Tashakor et al. (2019) and Hossain (2017). Examples of studies in New Zealand include Schneider et al. (2014) and Samkin et al. (2014). Examples of studies in Canada include Hummel et al. (2022) and Adler et al. (2018).

Panel B (developing countries) mirrors almost the same situation as in Panel A. Here, five developing countries account for 31% (40 out of 130) of all biodiversity research conducted across developing countries: China (13 times, 10%), South Africa (12 times, 9%), Malaysia (8 times, 6%), India (7 times, 6%). As in Panel A, the remaining 71% is spread across 122 countries, suggesting that these developing countries have been adequately researched, especially China and South Africa. Examples of studies in China include Sun and Lange (2023) and Zhang and Noronha (2023). Examples of studies in South Africa include Büchling and Maroun (2021) and Samkin and Wingard (2021). Examples of studies in Malaysia include Khan (2014) and Siddiqui (2013), and lastly, examples of studies in India include Lanka et al. (2017) and Adler et al. (2018).

Panel A further indicates that the European region is the leader in biodiversity research among developed countries, with five countries (the UK, Italy, Sweden, Norway, and Spain) accounting for 42% (45 out of 107) of studies. Panel B also shows that the Asian region is a leader in biodiversity research among developing countries, with China, India, and Malaysia accounting for 22% (28 out of 130) of the total studies. In summary, several studies have examined biodiversity issues across many countries. In this regard, Adler et al. (2018) examine the biodiversity and endangered species reporting practices of the top 150 Fortune Global companies. Hummel et al. (2022) investigate the possible distinctions in subject-specific corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure between companies operating in liberal market economies and coordinated market economies (see also Saud et al. (2020), who focused on 49 countries – mostly Asian countries, and Haque and Jones (2020), who focused on 13 European countries). Our findings are partly consistent with those of Roberts et al. (2021) and Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022), who documented that, in developed countries, the UK has the highest number of studies, and in Africa, South Africa has the highest number.

Here, we provide a thematic analysis of the 122 studies in our review, which are grouped into six sub-themes (shown in Figure 2 and Table 2) for easier discussion. At the end of each section, we highlight the limitations of the topic at hand and suggest directions for future research.

Biodiversity practices and characteristics (theme 1) focus on biodiversity practices in general and their characteristics (Bebbington et al., 2020; Tashakor et al., 2019). Determinants of biodiversity (theme 2) deal with how biodiversity should be constituted, the need for biodiversity accounting, and how biodiversity came into being (nature and history) (Duho et al., 2024; Atkins and McBride, 2022; Descalzo-Ruiz, 2022). Socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity (theme 3) deal with the socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity practices as well as the socioeconomic consequences of disclosing/reporting by organisations (He et al., 2025; Arjaliès and Gibassier, 2023; Denedo et al., 2017). Compliance with biodiversity regulations (theme 4) concerns organisational compliance with these regulations (Adler et al., 2021). Proposed index, reporting, and measurement methods (theme 5) deal with established and proposed measurement tools and indexes for making sense of biodiversity disclosure/reporting (Maroun and Atkins, 2021; Samkin and Wingard, 2021). Biodiversity disclosure/reporting (theme 6) primarily focuses on empirical studies (McBride et al., 2023; Sun and Lange, 2023).

To move beyond descriptive counts, we propose an integrative heuristic that links the six themes and suggests causal relationships. For instance, Theme 5 (proposed indices/methods) often precedes Theme 6 (disclosure/reporting): methodological innovations (e.g. natural capital metrics) enable disclosure formats that, in turn, condition regulatory and investor responses (Theme 4: compliance/determinants). Similarly, Theme 2 (determinants) informs Theme 3 (socioeconomic consequences) by identifying drivers that shape social outcomes. We present a schematic ( Appendix 5) that positions Theme 5 as enabler, Theme 6 as translator (method → public statement), and Themes 3–4 as outcome and governance feedback loops. This framing encourages researchers to test directional hypotheses (e.g. whether improved indices lead to more substantive management change or merely improved reporting).

Twenty-two separate studies, examining different aspects of biodiversity across the private (four), public (one), and hybrid (seventeen) sectors, are grouped here. The summary is shown in Table 2.

As indicated in Table 2, there are only four private-sector studies on biodiversity practices (e.g. Herbohn and Herbohn, 1999; Tashakor et al., 2019). Herbohn and Herbohn (1999) investigate the possible effects of the new forestry accounting strategy on the accounting procedures of Australian forestry firms in the public and private sectors. Their research is based on Discussion Paper No. 23 (DP 23), “Accounting for Self-Generating and Regenerating Assets.” Tashakor et al. (2019) examine the relationship between belief-based components such as attitude, subjective norm (SN), and perceived behavioural control (PBC) and environmental management accounting (EMA). The findings indicate that, whereas farmers' intentions to adopt EMA practices are directly influenced by attitude and PBC, SN also has a significant indirect effect on farmers' EMA conduct through these factors. These studies primarily focus on generic biodiversity practices and characteristics, which align with our description. Table 2 indicates that only one study examines public-sector biodiversity practices and characteristics (Convery and Kaufman, 2022). Convery and Kaufman (2022) use a case study to illustrate the impact of state logic through regulatory (and deregulatory) actions on hybrid organisations and institutionally complex settings.

Table 2 indicates that seventeen studies explored biodiversity in the hybrid sector (e.g. Tregidga and Laine, 2022; Atkins and Maroun, 2020; Wildavsky, 1994; Bebbington et al., 2020; Wilson, 2010). Ferreira (2017) examined the dynamics behind the emergence and subsequent death of a market for biodiversity offsets in the United Kingdom. The implications of this market's failure to catch on as a mechanism of governance are analysed, along with the factors that contributed to its demise. The case study shows that a biodiversity offset market was piloted to change UK planning. To provide a socio-ecological account of the role that agroecology plays in supporting the sustainable livelihoods of a co-operative of smallholder coffee farmers, where very little value is created at their end of the coffee commodity chain, Lanka et al. (2017) combined the science of agroecology with the labour theory of value as a theoretical framework. According to these authors, since cooperative members can utilise fewer outside inputs, an agroecological strategy promotes agricultural biodiversity while supporting sustainable livelihoods. Tregidga (2013) examined the rationales and practices of biodiversity-offsetting accounting. Accounting as a government technology through biodiversity offsetting should be evaluated, and its consequences examined. The research shows how accounting for biodiversity offsetting rationales and practices reinforces power dynamics in favour of certain parties and promotes discipline. Criticising accounting's role in biodiversity assessment and trading problems exacerbates biodiversity offsetting. Diversity offsetting enabled by accounting techniques may lead to greater accountability and biodiversity protection, or it may justify or hide species and habitat destruction. These factors may be taken into account by future studies to address this void in the biodiversity literature.

The convergence on this theme suggests that, by all indications, research in this field may have fulfilled its purposes, at least given that it entails biodiversity practices and characteristics in general, which are detailed. However, because the world in itself is dynamic, this dynamic nature is also present in biodiversity. Thus, several aspects remain unaddressed. The convergence needs to extend to exploring advances in biodiversity accounting and emerging trends that differ from what has already been documented. Our review suggests that a particular outlet for such research is the Social and Environmental Accountability Journal. An important aspect of this proposed research is to bring more relevant insights from social and environmental research into biodiversity, which may add to current knowledge of biodiversity practices and characteristics and has been left out in previous studies.

Table 2 indicates that 19 studies, examining different aspects of biodiversity in the private (3), public (2), and hybrid (14) sectors, are grouped here.

Following the above, two of the major questions that research in this theme seeks to answer are: first, how to improve environmental research in accounting; and second, the history and nature of biodiversity accounting. In this regard, Powell and Tilt (2017) sought to shed light on the inner workings of a failed organisation that sought to enhance environmental outcomes within a for-profit framework, drawing attention to the roles of power and politics. They noted that power and politics are among the key players during a time of transition, revealing an intense struggle for corporate survival between two management groups: the founding “environmentalist” managers who got the company ready for listing on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), and the newly introduced “economic rationalist” managers who led it through the post-listing phase. Problems arose, and the organisation may have ultimately failed because it was unable to smoothly transfer control of resources, decisions, and meanings from the old to the new managers. The importance of constructing and establishing shared understandings was stressed as one such lesson. To become more self-sufficient, a company should stop relying on external sources of income.

Table 2 lists two public-sector studies. In answering the first question highlighted above, Weir (2018) investigates the current status of extinction accounting and the factors that have led to its adoption by the UK government (see Maroun and Ecim, 2024, for a study on listed companies). The interviews show that the three different councils utilise extinction accounting in similar ways and for similar purposes. Planning for the protection and recovery of species is made easier through practices that generate information on species loss and recovery in each region. However, there are important trade-offs that arise when attempting to use this knowledge, including trade-offs surrounding the construction of protection schemes that attempt to satisfy both economic and ecological objectives. As a result, extinction statistics are distorted. With regard to the second question highlighted above, Atkins and McBride (2022) extend the nature and relevance of examining the historical roots of social and environmental accounting by examining an account that documented and made visible pollution in 17th-century London. They do this by using emancipatory accounting theory as a theoretical lens to interpret Evelyn's social account. They pointed out that John Evelyn's Fumifugium (1,661) is defined as an external social account that, in particular, problematises intentionality, much like modern external accounting.

Regarding the second question studies on determinants of biodiversity seek to answer, history and nature, Cuckston (2021) noted in an editorial that the goal of nature conservation is to preserve ecological processes and biological variety, and this is accomplished through the coordination of socio-ecological systems. Similarly, Descalo-Ruiz (2022) appeared to have highlighted that humans are both threats and custodians of the environment. In this context, Atkins and Maroun (2018), highlighting the impacts of humans and businesses on nature, use a multidisciplinary strategy by incorporating scientific evidence and theory into corporate reporting and disclosure in order to show connections between extinction, business practices, accounting, and responsibility and to lay the groundwork for creating a framework for narrative disclosure focused on halting extinction.

Authors should be commended for their research efforts on this theme. In particular, research under this theme has shown that power and politics influence biodiversity decisions, suggesting that humans are both threats and custodians of the environment. Further, it is made clear that the goal of nature conservation is to preserve ecological processes and biological variety, which may be accomplished through the coordination of socio-ecological systems. In this context, it is suggested that planning for the protection and recovery of species is easier when using practices that create information on species loss and recovery in order to show connections between extinction, business practices, accounting, and responsibility, and to lay the groundwork for creating a framework for narrative disclosure focused on halting extinction. Despite this coverage and knowledge, several avenues for further research remain. While we know a bit about the history and nature of biodiversity accounting, we know less about its constituents. We know that humans and businesses pose a threat to nature and the environment, but we do not know much about how this came to be. This paucity may be linked to the limited case study research on this theme. As observed in theme 1, most studies are conceptual qualitative studies. Authors interested in or working in this biodiversity research theme should consider this avenue for further research.

Table 2 indicates that 11 studies, examining different aspects of biodiversity in the private (2), public (none), and hybrid (9) sectors, are grouped here.

Perhaps an important question this theme addresses is the social and economic implications of biodiversity accounting and disclosure/reporting. What do corporations stand to gain by disclosing their biodiversity practices, and what are the social implications? In this context, as indicated in Table 2, a few hybrid studies have attempted to answer these questions. An important study on this theme is that of Arjalies and Gibassier (2023). These authors explain why nature's financialisation is nearly impossible using a four-mechanism model. Thus, it may be sensible to consider the argument of these authors. Gibson (2000), by comparing modern accounting practices to those of a hunter-gatherer society, has shown how inadequate those practices are for ensuring social accountability in the context of biodiversity. Aside from these studies, an area of research on this theme explored by authors is taxation for biodiversity purposes. Here, van Wyk (2010), in the context of South Africa, set out to answer several questions about the tax and non-tax incentives available to Western Cape landowners for conservation. These included quantifying the maximum potential revenue loss to the National Treasury resulting from these tax breaks, identifying and discussing alternative policy instruments to encourage conservation, and examining landowners' perceptions of the tax and non-tax incentives currently available. According to the research, the maximum amount of lost tax money should constitute a very small fraction of the overall expected revenue income for the 2008/2009 fiscal year, and potential future losses may likewise be rather small. Similarly, Swift (2010), in light of the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) concerns, highlights key tax-planning difficulties for persons contemplating conservation easement agreements.

Research on this theme has shown that biodiversity practices are associated with socioeconomic benefits. In particular, studies have examined the tax implications of biodiversity practices, including gains and losses (Ali et al., 2024). In addition, it has been argued that without key relevant tax education and guidance, tax planning for conservation purposes may be difficult. Thus, while research efforts in this field must be lauded, there are avenues for further research. As observed in the studies by van Wyk (2010) and Swift (2010), taxation of biodiversity-related issues is important. It has been 13 years since these two studies were conducted, indicating a serious paucity of research. While there may not be many case studies or data to further explore this theme, conceptual qualitative studies may be key in reintroducing this topic and calling for further research convergence in this area. Further, as indicated in Table 2, there is a paucity of research on this theme in the private and public sectors. Again, there is a need for conceptual qualitative studies to highlight the importance of this research theme on biodiversity accounting and disclosure/reporting. Even though a few studies are available across the two sectors (hybrid), we need research convergence in the private and public sectors on the socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity research. Again, a clear picture must be painted, outlining the key socioeconomic indicators that may be useful for advancing this research theme.

Table 2 indicates that only one study (a hybrid) explored this theme. This is not surprising, given that biodiversity encompasses various aspects, including conservation and extinction, which lack internationally recognised regulations aside from a few national regulations in some countries (Adler et al., 2021). Adler et al. (2021) referenced Pakistan's wildlife laws in their discussion of the threatened extinction of the houbara bustard. They noted that, even though the Pakistan Wildlife Laws do not allow hunting these birds, as part of its “soft” foreign diplomacy approach to prop up the country's shaky economy, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs allowed affluent Arabs to hunt the houbara bustard.

While Adler has noted the possibility of national biodiversity frameworks/standards, they may be limited in scope and enforcement compared to international frameworks/standards. Acknowledging that there may not be widely recognised international laws and regulations on biodiversity issues, national research that refers to national laws, such as that by Adler et al. (2021), may be encouraged while focusing on the development of international regulations. This is necessary in theorising the movement towards internationally recognised laws and regulations on the various aspects of biodiversity. Aside from this, research convergence on this theme will also pave the way for recognising sound national biodiversity laws and regulations that countries contemplating biodiversity law may adapt in their entirety or with little adjustment. Again, this is important because stringent laws and regulations would have undergone many iterations (Adler et al., 2021), so adopting nations do not necessarily have to pay the negative prices they would have paid during those iterations. Thus, these factors should be taken into consideration in encouraging future studies on compliance with biodiversity regulations and/or on biodiversity laws and regulations.

Table 2 indicates that 40 separate studies, examining different aspects of biodiversity across the private (four), public (four), and hybrid (thirty-two) sectors, are grouped here. Research on this theme may be broadly categorised into two groups: those that address proposed measurement indexes or methods, and those that address established measurement methods or indexes.

In the private sector, Atkins et al. (2018) modified the GRI framework to develop a possible framework for extinction accounting that expands and improves upon the current GRI guidelines for species listed as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List. Burritt and Cummings (2002) address measurement issues in environmental accounting, specifically regarding methods for assessing threatened and endangered animals, through a case study. To identify biological asset value in financial statements, Australian Accounting Standard AASB 1037, Self-Generating and Re-Generating Assets (SGARAs), was issued. From 1995 to 2001, Earth Sanctuaries Ltd., a listed conservation company in Australia, was the subject of this study's examination. Using the conceptual framework and the qualitative characteristics of relevance and dependability, the study examines these values. The study concludes that attempts to legitimise the environmental cause are hampered by the Commonwealth policy against trading in wildlife, and that there are concerns regarding the surrogate measurement base used to assess the assets. Morrison et al. (2022) study how statistics affect corporate environmental reporting. Number and accounting histories are examined to understand the ontological meanings of enumeration in nature. Distancing and control are significant themes in these histories. The study reveals that quantifying nature creates a metaphorical gap between the firm and nature, eroding the link associated with genuine caring for nature. Corporate action harms the environment, making these results crucial. While presented as a method to reduce environmental damage, the reports tacitly perpetuate it.

Regarding public sector studies on proposed index/reporting and measurement methods, Samkin and Wingard (2021) utilise a framework of systemic change to comprehend the stakeholder, social, political, cultural, and economic context factors that contribute to the social and environmental narratives of a conservation organisation undergoing transformation. In a study on established measurement methods and indexes, Hossain (2017) examined the biodiversity reporting practices of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), an Australian public sector enterprise, using the natural inventory methodology developed by Jones (1996). In a similar vein, Rimmel (2021) explains how IUCN classifications and extinction accounting might enhance biodiversity disclosures for a conservation organisation, and how and when to use them based on IUCN categories to prevent extinction. This study focuses on Sweden's lone Nordic zoo, which is the only one in Europe dedicated solely to the preservation of threatened species. This study demonstrates that IUCN classifications are useful for disclosing biodiversity information about species extinction risks. IUCN classifications are used by organisations that implement conservation programming as a means of stakeholder communication. According to the study, biodiversity information is included in legitimate conservation reports.

As highlighted above, several studies have examined proposed index/reporting and measurement methods in the hybrid sector. As indicated earlier, most of these studies may be grouped under those that deal with proposed measurement index/methods and those on established measurement methods/index. Freeman and Groom (2013) illustrate that using typical environmental accounting practices to estimate long-term discount rates may lead to the rejection of biodiversity-sensitive projects in the name of the greater good. At about the same time, Cuckston (2013) analysed the impact of including the conservation of a tropical forest ecosystem in corporate financial reporting by developing a greenhouse gas emissions offset product for sale on the voluntary over-the-counter carbon markets and the resulting protection of the ecosystem's biodiversity. The results show that there are significant accounting hurdles to overcome before a global calculative mechanism to aid in financing the conservation of all remaining tropical forest species can be built. Jones and Solomon (2013) problematise the concept of “accounting for biodiversity” and lay out a framework for assessing and understanding the role of accounting in the maintenance and improvement of biodiversity on Earth. They reported that philosophy and science, accountability, technical accounting, and accounting practice are the four main areas where difficulties arise in accounting for biodiversity. Horner and Davidson (2020) examine the practicality of applying Jones' (1996) natural inventory model (NIM) in biodiverse wildlife corridor plantations, with a focus on non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The results show that using the present NIM is not practical for a low-budget NGO. However, by adding scientifically grounded parameters, the NIM can be adjusted to account for plants in biodiverse wildlife corridors.

Powell and McGuigan (2023) seek to create an accounting pedagogy that builds larger ecocentric narratives by rewilding accounting education, considering posthumanist and ecofeminist philosophy. Educators in the field of accounting can help with crisis management by developing new teaching strategies that significantly impact how future accountants are prepared for their careers. Sullivan and Hannis (2017) investigate and contrast ecological and natural capital accounting methods used in the UK to produce uniform, numerical economic values for elements of the natural world that are not inhabited by humans. Another objective is to compare the underlying ontological and ethical presumptions of these numerical methods for ecological accounting to those of fractal geometry and Pythagorean nature-numbering practices. They argued that values that can't be quantified in money are ignored, and they noted that the natural capital accounts and biodiversity offsetting accounting practices they discussed provide nature-signalling statistics that are fought over and challenged, rather than standardised and clarified.

Review results under this theme suggest that a majority of the themes used in practice are not intended for biodiversity but are part of a larger reporting framework, especially sustainability reporting. In this context, our review, as discussed under the three sectors, indicates that the natural inventory model developed by Jones in 1996 appears to be the only model/framework specifically designed for biodiversity accounting. This model/framework has been in use for 27 years. The other models proposed or developed are less popular and are not used as widely as Jones' (1996) model. This partly explains the reason why this model is the most widely used.

The absence of recognised models explains why biodiversity scholars are often involved in modifying other established frameworks, such as the GRI and the IUCN, to gauge biodiversity disclosure, which suggests what may be applicable in practice too, as companies tend to use generic sustainability reporting frameworks to disclose biodiversity practices. The aftermath is that the modified models may not cover all the essentials, and companies' use of sustainability frameworks for biodiversity often omits key information.

Thus, while recognising that reasonable research has been done in this thematic area, there appear to still be avenues for further research. It was noted previously that studies in this theme may be broadly grouped into those on proposed index/methods and those on established index/methods. It may be argued that streamlining these frameworks to account for biodiversity may be problematic compared to developing a tailor-made framework/model for biodiversity reporting, as in Jones (1996). Thus, there is a need for further research to develop useful and applicable biodiversity accounting frameworks/models.

Table 2 shows that 29 studies examining different aspects of biodiversity in the private (22), public (4), and hybrid (3) sectors are grouped here.

Our discussion in Section 3.4 suggests that most studies are qualitative, with a few mixed and quantitative studies. It may even be argued that most studies that employed statistical analysis are best classified as mixed rather than core quantitative studies. It is not surprising that the majority of studies are in the private sector (19; 76%), with the remaining 6 studies (24%) distributed across the public sector (16%) and hybrid (8%). While all 25 studies here are important, discussing them all would mean we are reinventing the wheel, since we have already briefly discussed some of them in Section 3.4 regarding the methods used. Thus, we will discuss the most recent three and the earliest three in terms of the private sector studies, all three of the four public sector studies, and the two hybrid studies. However, the studies discussed earlier will be revisited in a different light, with the topic highlighted.

Following the above, Jones (1996) has contributed greatly to biodiversity research. This 1996 article appears to have ushered in the most developed biodiversity accounting model, which has been used by several authors (Hossain, 2017; Horner and Davidson, 2020). Yook et al. (2017) examine if there is a correlation between the amounts of costs reported as relevant to environmental controls and environmental performance measured in terms of carbon-based eco-efficiency, and whether this correlation lends credence to claims made in favour of either the voluntary disclosure hypothesis or the legitimacy theory. Further, Adler et al. (2017) investigate the biodiversity reports from the top 50 Australian mining corporations both before and after the UN declared 2011–2020 to be the “Decade on Biodiversity.” The 2010 fiscal year, which preceded the UN declaration, and the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years that followed had a notable increase in diversity reporting, they observed. According to the statistics, there appears to be a wide range in biodiversity reporting, with some firms reporting notable increases and others reporting little or no increase. While smaller organisations did not show a statistically significant rise in biodiversity reports from 2010 to 2013, larger corporations in the sample did. Despite interviewees claiming their organisations were more transparent and open, the data they provided on biodiversity prevented outside parties from assessing the businesses' biodiversity performance.

In our review, the most recent private sector studies on this theme are by Dutta and Dutta (2023), Marco-Fondevila and Álvarez-Etxeberría (2023), and Sun and Lange (2023). The studies by Dutta and Dutta (2023) and Sun and Lange (2023) have been described in Section 2.4. Sun and Lange (2023) examine the Yili Group, China's largest dairy company, and its reporting on biodiversity. The authors use institutional theory, stakeholder theory, signalling theory, and legitimacy theory to explain why the Yili Group reports biodiversity disclosures. They stated that although the Yili Group's reporting on biodiversity has improved over time, there is still room for improvement as the group continues to grow. The company is driven more by external pressures and/or incentives than by morality and/or stakeholder responsibility, and it chooses to make symbolic disclosures rather than substantive ones. This preference for symbolic disclosures drives the organisation towards more dominant symbolic biodiversity disclosure practices. Marco-Fondevila and Álvarez-Etxeberría (2023) assess the companies' actual engagement with the EU biodiversity strategy and the factors influencing the relevance and quality of their disclosure indicators. Findings highlight increased but heterogeneous engagement with biodiversity among EU-listed companies, with limited relevance given to standard and quantitative performance indicators, and a strong influence on reporting factors such as the companies' country of origin and sector/activity. All of which suggests different approaches to biodiversity within the private sector and insufficient corporate action to meet the EU biodiversity strategy goals.

The earliest public-sector study on theme 6 in our review is Schneider et al. (2014), which is described in Section 2.4. These authors examine whether local governments in New Zealand disclose information about biodiversity and the mechanisms by which it is shared. Barut et al. (2016) examined the disclosure of biodiversity content in the reported data of 151 local government organisations (LGAs) in New South Wales, Australia. The results demonstrate notable differences in how biodiversity-related concerns are reported. Further, McBride et al. (2023) investigated the reporting of the Russian American Company (RAC) from 1840 to 1863. Trading in fur, as well as corporate anxieties about animal extinctions from a monetary standpoint, led to early extinction reporting practices. The application of the framework to the RAC's collection of reports suggests that this is a viable idea for extinction management development, providing a reporting tool for a for-profit firm.

This theme is one of the most important, if not the most important, in this review. Perhaps the most important thing in biodiversity accounting is to ensure that organisations, whether public, private, or hybrid, disclose/report, and communicate their biodiversity practices. This partly explains the importance of this theme. Results from various studies on this theme are mixed regarding organisations' actual biodiversity disclosure performance. While it makes sense to continue exploring biodiversity disclosure/reporting, it is important for researchers in this field to also explore ways to improve biodiversity reporting/disclosure in organisations. This takes us back to a point made earlier: to improve biodiversity disclosure/reporting, there must be internationally recognised biodiversity disclosure frameworks tailored to different biodiversity areas. It is imperative that researchers work with practitioners to develop internationally recognised biodiversity reporting/disclosure frameworks that may improve and standardise biodiversity reporting.

Three hybrid studies were covered in the review (e.g. Husin et al., 2021; Corvino et al., 2021). Husin et al. (2021) explore the existence of institutional isomorphic forces that facilitate changes in the legitimacy strategies used and the volume of biodiversity-based information reported by Malaysian plantation companies. They found strong evidence of the growing presence of coercive forces during the 5-year study period, consistent with the growing volume of biodiversity information reported and the growing popularity of companies that strategise their legitimacy by adhering to society's values and acknowledging biodiversity risks associated with their operations (Bassen et al., 2025). Corvino et al. (2021) explore how extinction accounting and accountability (EAA) is able to reflect ex post the company's business strategy and, at the same time, influence ex ante its formulation by easing the prevention of deforestation risk and addressing the issue of credibility through specific actions. The findings highlighted the first attempt to carry out qualitative research on the management of forest issues. Companies tend to report advantages arising from the use of forests, but this kind of disclosure is too generic without providing evidence of the ecosystem services forests produce. Moreover, firm size affects the quantity and the quality of disclosure.

Perhaps this theme represents the most important of all six themes. The end goal of biodiversity practices is to be seen as engaging in practices that ensure biodiversity conservation. The first point of call to establish this is through corporate sustainability disclosure/reporting. This suggests why this theme has the second highest number of studies, following theme 5, which is a related theme. Considering the exploratory nature of biodiversity research, especially in the field of accounting, management, and ethics, most of the studies and methodologies that have been conducted and used, respectively, are qualitative, with a few mixed and quantitative studies. The main limitations in these studies and methodology are the use of conceptual and subject matter knowledge in developing disclosure/reporting frameworks, facilitated by the absence of internationally recognised biodiversity disclosure and reporting frameworks, which may not accommodate the frameworks/standards with which different companies have reported/disclosed biodiversity frameworks.

While this constitutes a major limitation, scholars should be lauded in terms of their efforts to “do something” and engage in biodiversity disclosure/reporting gauging research, which is better than doing nothing. However, key issues abound. The first is that in the absence of a recognised biodiversity disclosure/reporting framework, companies are frequently using different frameworks, especially the GRI and the UNGC frameworks. Thus, it is likely that in gauging the reports/disclosure of companies using indexes developed based on these frameworks, results of companies that used these frameworks in preparing their biodiversity reports/disclosure will more likely be higher than those that have applied other frameworks, thus skewing results in favour of the former set of companies, which may not necessarily mean that they have disclosed/reported better than the latter companies. Secondly, there is an extensive focus on studies using binary models of whether or not there is a disclosure/report. This results in a low focus on the extent of attention on qualitative issues, especially with studies where authors have been unable to gather qualitative data through interviews and have to focus on secondary data as contained in corporate reporting documents. Thirdly, there is a paucity of comparative studies. There appears to be a wide gap in terms of biodiversity disclosure/reporting in the public and private sectors. This partly explains the low research convergence on hybrid studies under this theme. The scholarly convergence on this theme has not detailed the dimensions with which comparative disclosure/reporting studies involving public and private sector entities may be compared, which is an important research agenda currently being inhibited by the available reporting/disclosure frameworks and a better focus on biodiversity practices by corporate companies. Thus, there is a need for further research convergence to explore avenues of mitigating these limitations.

Consistent with emerging expectations that systematic reviews should generate theory-building insights rather than descriptive catalogues (Adjei-Mensah et al., 2024; Adu et al., 2025), we propose a research agenda centred on causal explanation, interdisciplinary integration and outcome-based accountability rather than incremental expansion of disclosure studies. Given the predominance of “hybrid” studies (65.5% of the sample), we re-examined this label to avoid analytical oversimplification (see  Appendix 6: Secondary Classification of Hybrid Studies (classification table)). For each hybrid article we applied a secondary classification capturing (1) primary empirical focus (predominantly private/predominantly public/balanced), and (2) comparative intent (cross-sector comparison vs single-sector analysis using mixed samples). We report these secondary codes in Table 3 and use them in sector-sensitive analysis so that claims about private vs public behaviour are not conflated by mixed samples. This approach preserves the original tri-partite classification while enabling targeted insight extraction for each sector.

Our Consistent with emerging expectations that systematic reviews should generate theory-building insights rather than descriptive catalogues (Adjei-Mensah et al., 2024; Adu et al., 2025), we propose a research agenda centred on causal explanation, interdisciplinary integration and outcome-based accountability rather than incremental expansion of disclosure studies. To clarify how this study advances prior syntheses, we systematically compare its scope, analytical approach and theoretical outputs against existing biodiversity-accounting reviews (see  Appendix 7: Comparative Contribution to Prior Reviews (comparative table)). This comparison demonstrates that earlier reviews predominantly catalogue disclosures, whereas the present review develops an explanatory integrative framework linking methods, governance drivers and societal outcomes.

Our study provides a comprehensive overview of biodiversity accounting research and highlights several important gaps. We identify key voids and propose targeted ways to address them. There is a need to document emerging trends that move beyond previously explored topics. In contrast to Roberts et al. (2021), who emphasised concentration in a single sector, our review shows a large share of hybrid-sample studies. Although private-sector studies individually outnumber public-sector studies (28.7% vs 9%), 62.3% of articles draw on hybrid samples, complicating simple public/private comparisons. Notably, empirical evidence on the socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity accounting remains scarce: only nine studies (9.0% of the sample) directly examine these outcomes, making it the second-least represented theme. This distribution suggests an urgent need for focused empirical work on sector-specific socioeconomic impacts and the effectiveness of accounting interventions.

With regard to sector-wide research, there is a need to increase convergence on public-sector studies on biodiversity. Compared to private and hybrid studies, biodiversity research in the public sector is fairly recent, with the earliest paper (Schneider et al., 2014) only appearing in 2014. This is to be expected, considering that the contemporary academic discourse appears to have taken it as a given that corporate activities negatively impact biodiversity the most. Thus, most studies focus on corporate activities. In addition, this has highlighted that some research (such as comparing disclosures between the public and private sectors) may skew results in favour of the private sector; thus, such comparisons are not attempted. This has also affected citations in this field, with the lowest average CPY (7.0) among the three sectors covered in our review. Although, as highlighted earlier, there is an understanding in some quarters that biodiversity accounting is more of a private sector affair, Weir (2018) has attempted to detail the purposes, promises, and compromises of biodiversity accounting in the public sector, using the UK as a case study. Taken together, we encourage more biodiversity research in the public sector, which is important in documenting the state of biodiversity accounting in public sector organisations, including agencies, parastatals, and state-owned enterprises. Ackers and Adebayo (2024) have attempted to develop a research agenda in this context. The extent to which the different sectors fare on biodiversity disclosure/reporting requirements remains a significant area of study, suggesting that research on compliance with biodiversity norms and regulations is scarce. In this regard, none of our review studies comparatively explored biodiversity reporting. Thus, future studies could investigate the quality of biodiversity disclosure across the sectors considered in this study, especially between the private and public sectors. In addition, the field of biodiversity might greatly benefit from an empirical comparison of biodiversity practices and characteristics across private, public, and hybrid sectors, which would shed light on the efficacy of various biodiversity policies applicable to these sectors, at least at the national level.

Despite our exhaustive research, only one study (Adler et al., 2021) looked at compliance with biodiversity regulations. Even though we argued earlier that this may be justified on the grounds that there are no internationally recognised tailor-made frameworks, concerted research on national regulations will quicken the development of international frameworks. Similarly, our review confirms that there appears to be no internationally recognised biodiversity accounting framework, although some national and international sustainability standards are beginning to incorporate indicators for biodiversity reporting that require disclosure of various aspects of biodiversity, including extinction and conservation. We find that scholars rarely investigate the possibility of issuing similarly comprehensive international accounting frameworks, or even of extending the GRI, UNGC, and the like to cover biodiversity accounting and disclosure/reporting. Thus, it may be concluded that this is a major gap requiring urgent research convergence on the frameworks to be proposed. In this context, proposing an internationally recognised framework for biodiversity accounting standards could pave the way for additional studies to investigate how standard-setters, other regulators, corporate managers, stock market participants, and other stakeholders view the proposed biodiversity framework that accounts for all categories of biodiversity (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022). In this context, qualitative research methods (such as interviews and qualitative surveys) could be implemented to explore such research. In line with the determinants of biodiversity and the socioeconomic implications of biodiversity accounting, it would be interesting to examine the potential demand (Layman et al., 2024) and supply aspects of biodiversity disclosure/reporting in annual reports. Prospective research might also examine how people in different countries feel about specific aspects of biodiversity disclosure. In this instance, we recommend that future studies investigate whether the voluntary nature of biodiversity disclosure/reporting policies has been successful in enhancing biodiversity disclosure/reporting quality.

Our results show that 45% of biodiversity studies focus on developed nations. However, only a small number of developed countries (28) have been studied, compared to developing countries (64), contributing 55% of studies. Further, as noted earlier, 43% of all biodiversity research is conducted or partially sampled in only four developed countries: the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Considering that the 57% is spread across 24 developed countries, it suggests that these four countries, especially the UK, have been properly researched. Panel B mirrors almost the same situation as in Panel A. Here, five developing countries account for 31% (40 out of 130) of all biodiversity research conducted across developing countries: China, South Africa, Malaysia, and India. These indicate that certain less-researched and biodiversity-relevant countries should be targeted by researchers for further research in this field.

Also, despite the obvious connection between biodiversity accounting and the need to engage various stakeholders in achieving effective biodiversity accounting, in this regard, other relevant theories, such as the theory of philanthropy, have not been used in the development of biodiversity-related research propositions/questions, as we found 44 theories that have been applied to explain biodiversity accounting-related issues, of which only a dozen of them have been used five or more times, especially stakeholder and legitimacy theory, which is consistent with the findings by Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022) and Roberts et al. (2021). In light of this finding, it seems reasonable to expect that future researchers will take into account novel theories that have been infrequently applied, such as the identified philanthropy theory and other relevant theories, to provide new insights and theoretical advances.

Furthermore, in the review of the papers under theme 6, a problem in the biodiversity literature is that there appears to be no developing literature on biodiversity measurement units for different aspects of biodiversity. Even though it may be argued that there is no indication that this will improve in the near future, considering that it may be contingent on the development of relevant frameworks/regulations that may direct us along these lines, it remains to be seen whether the International Sustainability Standards Board will address this in developing its biodiversity standards, based on its ongoing work plans in this area. As a result, most studies evaluate biodiversity procedures according to their degree of openness rather than their actual quality. Developing a valid and consistent metric for the biodiversity quality index would be an exciting way to expand the biodiversity accounting literature. Extending the governance-biodiversity literature might also involve studying how different characteristics of CEOs—their horizon, tenure, experience, salary, age, risk-orientation, gender, and so on—influence biodiversity accounting and disclosure/reporting. As of this writing, it appears that no research covered in our review has examined whether these factors affect biodiversity disclosure/accounting quality. Thus, researchers are further encouraged to investigate fields (including management, economics, and related areas) to develop ways to make biodiversity quality measurement easier and more accurate, which they can communicate to standard-setters in the development of biodiversity regulations/frameworks.

Lastly, despite its significance, the literature on the effectiveness of disclosing internal issues influencing biodiversity is scarce (Uyar et al., 2025). Further investigations into the link between strong internal controls and reliable financial statements/reports and biodiversity risk disclosures are needed (Orazalin et al., 2024). In addition, an empirical study is required to investigate the many aspects of biodiversity accounting that have been mostly unexplored to date. Falling in this category is a key research area on tax implications of biodiversity practices introduced by two papers in the last decade, which appears to be currently undeveloped, and that may have meaningful implications for biodiversity research, policy, and practice.

In conclusion, our review extends current reviews of biodiversity by covering more studies (122) over a longer period and across a wider range of contexts than any previous review. In addition, we have introduced a new categorisation (six thematic areas combined with sector analysis) to structure the discussion. In line with this, we have categorized the studies as private, public, and hybrid (combining public and private) to better delineate the landscape, document the state of research in each category, and propose avenues for further research based on the coverage and limitations identified.

Our in-depth analysis has several implications for various stakeholders. In this context, Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022) noted that there are several ways academics can help with biodiversity accounting. Thus, we believe that our review has implications for theory development (e.g. we have identified several underutilised good theories, which, if extended in future studies, will yield new findings and theoretical understanding). In addition, our review has implications for guiding policy and/or standard settings (e.g. we have highlighted below the need for international biodiversity accounting frameworks, among other suggestions for policy and practice). Further, we are optimistic that our review may assist practitioners (e.g. companies or public agencies in better understanding biodiversity disclosure practices, including with regard to methodology and the available frameworks and standards as described in this review. These and other implications are further discussed below. Also, our review will assist academics, other researchers, and students focused on biodiversity in gaining a better understanding of the current biodiversity research landscape and in identifying potential areas of convergence.

As we have shown, there has been a dearth of studies in the private and public sectors on four themes: biodiversity practices and characteristics, determinants of biodiversity, socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity, and compliance with biodiversity regulations. In this context, as highlighted earlier, several important topics remain unexplored, and unanswered questions remain. There is ample room for further research on the socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity, especially in the public and private sectors, where we identified no studies in our review. Recall that this theme is very important because it partly addresses the socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity accounting and of disclosing and reporting biodiversity. The paucity of research here suggests that academics have not made much progress in raising organisations' awareness of the socioeconomic benefits of biodiversity accounting and disclosure.

Secondly, our review also has implications for standard setters and regulators. In the first place, it stresses that the national regulations, which appear to be the order of the day (Olatunji, 2017; van Liempd and Busch, 2013), may be limited in scope and subject to different interpretations by companies operating in particular jurisdictions and may be expected to account for their biodiversity practices (Atkins and Maroun, 2018). In this regard, as also highlighted by Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022), we believe there is a need for recognised international biodiversity frameworks/regulations, a call that has been advocated by several authors (e.g. Tregidga, 2013). In this context, attention should be paid to existing national and international frameworks (such as the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), the GRI 101 (Biodiversity 2024), and the EU's European Sustainability Reporting Standards) and how these may be improved and consolidated to come up with an intentionally recognised framework. In this regard, Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022) advise that this may be done by incorporating biodiversity-related indicators into new and established sustainability reporting frameworks, such as the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group's (EFRAG) sustainability reporting framework. As a result, stakeholders will have a more level playing field in terms of biodiversity knowledge and disclosure, which may have positive socioeconomic effects on biodiversity. Studying the advantages of biodiversity for stakeholders and disclosing corporations would be useful for informing regulators and standard-setters. This helps policymakers and standard-setters evaluate biodiversity benefits and costs more thoroughly. It is encouraging that the International Sustainability Standards Board is thinking in this direction through its current 2024–2026 work plans on sustainability projects, which explore sustainability-related risks and opportunities associated with biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem services (BEES).

Our findings have intriguing implications for business leaders, which brings us to our third point. In this instance, Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022) argued that alignment of scholars and practitioners towards better biodiversity conservation practices could greatly benefit both parties. The findings of this review suggest that both theorists and empiricists agree on the importance of high-quality biodiversity accounting and disclosure (for instance, to inform stakeholders about organisations' biodiversity activities). Thus, managers should be aware of the various opportunities presented by the dissemination of comprehensive biodiversity information in reporting channels, especially annual/integrated reports. They should make it a top priority to detail all the dangers they face in the biodiversity narratives in their annual reports. They should keep the language simple and avoid using generic biodiversity statements in the annual reports. They must employ simple tactics to educate stakeholders on the dangers their businesses and existence face and the steps taken to mitigate them (Treepongkaruna, 2024).

Fourth, governance regulators can help raise biodiversity standards by making mandatory biodiversity disclosure standards and frameworks part of corporate governance regulations (Hambali and Adhariani, 2024). Directors must outline in their annual reports the key areas in which their operations are affected by biodiversity issues or in which biodiversity issues affect their operations. Both national and international disclosure standards, such as those from the GRI and the UNGC, should be specifically tailored to biodiversity disclosure/accounting, as has been done in some instances for sustainability reporting. This is important in the context of developing countries, as highlighted earlier, given the large number of studies from these countries indicating the importance of biodiversity conservation. Attention should be paid to national and international settings in developing biodiversity disclosure regulations/frameworks/standards (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Hummel et al., 2022; Roberts et al., 2021). As indicated earlier, differences in development levels may be an important factor in such an exercise.

As a whole, managers should acknowledge the value and relevance of biodiversity accounting and disclosure and endeavour to provide high-quality biodiversity accounting and reporting. Similarly, standard setters should also set standards/frameworks/regulations that will assist managers in providing and communicating high-quality biodiversity information in a clear, easy-to-understand manner. Further, academics should endeavour to operate between managers and standard setters, working closely to ensure their input into the development of standards, rather than focusing solely on whether organisations have complied with standards/regulations/frameworks. Closely related to this point is the need to encourage more practical, rather than necessarily theoretical, studies in this research field. A narrow focus on theoretical contributions, with less emphasis on practical ones, may lead to the loss of meaningful insights into biodiversity.

A pressing research and policy agenda is to test whether biodiversity disclosures and accounting interventions produce measurable ecological outcomes (e.g. improved species status, habitat restoration, connectivity). We propose that future studies use mixed-methods (longitudinal corporate disclosure data + independent ecological indicators or case-study metrics) to assess the substantive impact of reporting versus its symbolic value. Policymakers should prioritise (1) disclosure standards that require outcome-based indicators and third-party ecological validation and (2) capacity building for ecological assurance (interdisciplinary assurance teams combining ecological science and accounting).

This article provides an extensive review of contemporary academic discourse on biodiversity accounting research. This review differs from others in that it considers theoretical and empirical studies, as well as those involving the private, public, and hybrid sectors. The research examines seven facets across 122 studies published in 40 scholarly journals between 1984 and 2025, as illustrated in Figure 2. Based on their goals, the studies are organised into six categories (developed inductively by the three authors after a series of iterations and consultation with top academics and practitioners in the biodiversity field): (1) biodiversity practices and characteristics; (2) determinants of biodiversity; (3) socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity; (4) compliance with regulations on biodiversity; (5) proposed index/reporting and measurement methods; and (6) disclosure/reporting on biodiversity. The primary goals are to examine the various facets of existing biodiversity research, identify research gaps, and contribute to the development of a future biodiversity research agenda by pinpointing promising areas of study. We have gathered 122 studies after applying five screening criteria (as indicated in the “develop a review protocol” box in Figure 1). Each study appears in a peer-reviewed journal included in the AJG 2021. A majority of the 122 articles (59 studies) appeared in 4*, 4, and 3* journals. Taken together, three of the 40 journals (AAAJ, SAMPJ, and SEAJ) accounted for 51% of the studies, with the remaining 30 journals accounting for 49%.

Ten studies appeared in 2017, but quick checks indicate that 2013 was the breakthrough year for biodiversity research in the AAAJ, which has the highest total number of studies in our review, as noted earlier. In that year, six articles appeared in the journal, which was boosted by a special issue on biodiversity. In terms of study categorisation by developed and developing countries, biodiversity is examined 106 times (46%) in 28 developed countries (Panel A of Table 5) and 126 times (54%) in 64 developing countries (Panel B of Table 5). Additionally, 44 theories were used in the reviewed investigations; stakeholder (29) and legitimacy (26) theories were the most used. In terms of the evolution of biodiversity studies, 71% (76 out of 122) of all research has been conducted between the years 2017 and 2023.

The findings of this review open up numerous avenues for further study. To begin, there is a need for additional study into how people understand biodiversity standards and how rules affect biodiversity accounting. Second, there is an urgent need for research to identify various classes of biodiversity to develop frameworks/regulations for each and every category of diversity, which may or may not differ from those developed for accounting for biodiversity generally. Third, the socioeconomic viability of biodiversity across different sectors (private, public, and hybrid) could be studied in future research. This is expected to provide further insights into the pros and cons, as well as the importance of biodiversity accounting and disclosure, which may vary across sectors. As a fourth point, research into biodiversity should also focus on both developed and emerging nations, especially those with shaky governments and where regulations may not be adhered to. Adler et al. (2021) gave an insight into this in their study of the houbara bustard in Pakistan. Fifth, when contemplating theories of potential environmental biodiversity concerns, researchers should consider other theoretical formulations beyond the mainstream and lesser-known theories, some of which were used or referenced in the studies in our review and discussed earlier. Sixth, in the future, studies should evaluate the impact of managerial qualities and/or orientation on biodiversity accounting and on the quality of disclosure and reporting. This sort of study will be meaningful when conducted comparatively, focusing on the three sectors discussed here (where possible). Finally, there is a need for greater study into the determinants and socioeconomic consequences of biodiversity.

Here are several caveats/limitations to our analysis: To begin, even though we conducted an all-year search and described the steps we followed, our review included only articles published between 1984 and 2025. While we do not anticipate having left out any studies, should this occur, it should be considered machine, not human, error. Second, screening criteria excluded some biodiversity publications from the review sample. The review does not include, for instance, biodiversity works posted on SSRN or presented at conferences. Third, only journals with an ABS ranking as contained in AJG 2021 were reviewed. There is a large gap in the quality of different journals, yet all articles are assigned the same weight. Fourth, our research focused only on published papers. As identified by Blanco-Zaitegi et al. (2022) and Roberts et al. (2021), including publications such as conference papers, books, and book chapters may lead to different conclusions. Furthermore, by restricting our scope to only journals in the AJG 2021 list, we might have excluded relevant studies in non-AJG journals or other disciplines. We acknowledge this and other trade-offs and encourage future research convergence on this topic to address them. We acknowledge that using the AJG 2021 list to delimit journals creates a business/management discipline focus and may exclude relevant interdisciplinary work (e.g. ecology/Geography). This is deliberate, the review aims to consolidate accounting and management literature but readers should interpret findings accordingly.

We have included only articles in English, filtering out articles in other languages. In addition, we have focused on peer-reviewed articles, filtering out other publications such as book chapters, conference proceedings, industry reports, and legislative documents. This may suggest that we have omitted some practical developments in biodiversity accounting. We expect that future research convergence proceeds along the lines of converging on these. Also, Second, our review results indicate a geographic skew in the literature, suggesting that future research convergence should target less-researched countries. This is especially important considering that while it may be argued that most of the well-researched countries (e.g. UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and a few developing countries like China, South Africa, Malaysia, India) with large research convergence are rich in biodiversity, that other regions rich in biodiversity (e.g. Latin America or Southeast Asia) have been less studies appears to suggest that many studies may have been sampled based on exposure and/or convenience. This means that the summary of contemporary academic discourse is limited in scope, coverage, and depth, as evidenced by Roberts and Elamer's (2025) finding that multinational enterprises headquartered in countries with weaker legal systems and higher corruption levels provide more extensive biodiversity disclosures. Thus, we expect future research to converge on this.

Furthermore, the strong convergence on stakeholder and legitimacy theories at the expense of other potentially relevant theories (e.g. philanthropy, ecological economics, etc.) may suggest that rich insights are currently not documented. In particular, this constitutes both a finding and a limitation in the field of biodiversity. It is more of a limitation, as it may have constrained the literature by omitting important questions requiring urgent answers and by narrowing the focus to well-established topics.

While the review spans 1984 to 2025, it may not have captured all 2025 studies. We encourage further research, including a biodiversity review, to commence in 2025. Our discussion of citation counts and citations per year as measures of research impact for the 122 studies is for information purposes only and, although informative, should be cautiously interpreted. Relying on citation metrics has obvious limitations as a way to gauge a study's importance, because while a study might be highly relevant in the academic space, it may not have informed/impacted policy and practice.