Aiding sustainability reports prepared under S1 and S2 and the ISSB work plans by incorporating research on biodiversity, extinction and ecology Open Access

Biodiversity encompasses the diverse range of species that contribute to the maintenance of healthy ecosystems, hence ensuring the long-term sustainability and survival of the human population (Hassan et al., 2022). It is widely acknowledged that biodiversity loss is one of the greatest hazards to the planet today (Rimmel, 2021; Cuckston, 2018a,2018b; Jones and Solomon, 2013). Although stakeholders have given some thought to biodiversity, the critical role of these stakeholders in holding multinational corporations, governments and other organizations accountable for their contribution to the biodiversity crisis has received almost limited recognition or appreciation (Powell and McGuigan, 2023; Rimmel, 2021; Cuckston, 2018a,2018b). Our planet is currently experiencing the sixth period of mass extinction of species, which is believed to be more severe than previous periods in geological time and, unlike previous mass extinctions, appears to be largely caused by human activity (Rimmel, 2021; Cuckston, 2018a,2018b; 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-centered values. Biodiversity provides a direct source of human needs such as food, clothes 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 utilized 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 organizations rarely include issues like biodiversity loss and habitat destruction in their budgets or cost estimates. The environmental services that are made possible thanks to biodiversity are crucial to a thriving economy. On a deeper level, though, it is crucial to humanity’s very existence. 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 vantage point, the worth of nature is not contingent on its utility to humans.

Going by the importance highlighted above, academics, accounting standard-setters, policymakers, practitioners and regulators have paid increasing attention to biodiversity over the past decades. In academics, biodiversity research has covered three major concepts, among others – biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. Despite acknowledging the importance of biodiversity as indicated by attention, existing literature has reported limited evidence on the value and relevance of biodiversity accounting quality, its effectiveness and the level of compliance with biodiversity regulations, particularly in the public sector (Singh and Bharti, 2023; Hinkes and Peter, 2020).These gaps in the biodiversity literature, in addition to the recognition of the importance of biodiversity, extinction and ecological accounting in today’s world and for future generations, suggest there is a need for more and better biodiversity, extinction and ecological reports prepared by organizations and further standards that will aid comprehensive and similar reports by organizations.

In this context, the contemporary academic discourse on these biodiversity concepts (biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting) has been busy exploring different topics that may assist in improving biodiversity, extinction and ecological accounting and reporting. However, there has been a large gap in terms of what conventional wisdom (Milne, 1996) suggests will be accounted for and reported and what is actually accounted for and reported. The contents, structure and indicators of frameworks/standards developed through conventional wisdom appear to suggest that organizations will account for and report all the sustainability issues with regard to their operations and practices (Global Reporting Initiative, 2024; Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, 2024). However, research findings have challenged the conventional wisdom by showing that organizations (both listed and non-listed) have not adequately reported on biodiversity, extinction and ecological issues, with a majority of organizations reporting only on general issues that affect their organizations the most (Ackers and Adebayo, 2024; Sun and Lange, 2023; Husin et al., 2018). In this regard, we are motivated in this study to understand:

Thus, responding to Meditari Accountancy Research Journal’s call for papers on the International Sustainability Standards Board: Evaluating and Informing work efforts in the interest of sustainable development, focusing on the topic: How academic research on issues like biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting can be incorporated practically into sustainability reports prepared under S1 and S2 and/or be adapted by the ISSB when it develops further standards. We answered this question deductively to contribute to improving sustainability reporting (especially with regard to biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting) and the development of further sustainability standards with regard to biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. Using literature synthesis (Jaakkola, 2020), we conceptually locate our empirical work in the context of the contemporary academic discourse on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. We focused on the three biodiversity concepts—biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting—as obtained in the contemporary academic discourse. To inform our recommendations, we conceptually drew insights from a content analysis method that involved making sense of findings from previous studies.

The literature synthesis we used in this study seeks to achieve conceptual integration across multiple literature streams (accounting, business, ethics, management, sciences and others). Delbridge and Fiss (2013) note that synthesis paper represents a form of theorizing that emphasizes narrative reasoning that seeks to unveil “big picture” patterns and connections rather than specific causal mechanisms. This tends to differentiate a synthesis paper from a systematic literature review (SLR) paper, which only tends to identify gaps in the extant research. A definitive differentiation exists between a literature synthesis study and the SLR study (Jaakkola, 2020). A well-executed literature review comprehensively assesses the current state of a certain topic and offers significant insights into its progress, range, or future possibilities. However, it confines itself to the established conceptual or theoretical frameworks and only describes existing knowledge without exploring new frontiers. In the context of a conceptual paper, the literature review serves as an essential instrument, although it is not the ultimate goal. In a literature synthesis study, the literature review aims to analyze and dissect the various aspects of a concept or phenomenon, such as biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. Thus, we have not focused on themes such as study year, theory used, publication outlets and others commonly used in SLR.

Our paper makes four contributions. The first responds to calls for further research into the International Sustainability Standards Board: Evaluating and informing work efforts in the interest of sustainable development by assessing how academic research contributes in this regard. The second provides a comprehensive literature synthesis of the contemporary academic discourse on the three biodiversity concepts, ensuring that we have a good grasp of the literature and aiding our recommendations. The third develops and provides recommendations for improving sustainability reporting and the development of further relevant sustainability standards. For the fourth, theoretically, we advance legitimacy theory, which is the most applied theory in biodiversity, extinction and ecological accounting and reporting and is well established in the broader social and environmental accounting (see Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022; Roberts et al., 2021). Organizations are rife in disclosing information to gain legitimacy (Roberts et al., 2021). Legitimacy theory, which originates from Suchman (1995), offers support for empirical findings that all organizations impact nature directly or indirectly and disclosure is presented to meet societal demands and expectations. As such, the development of improved standards, revision of existing standards, or the merging of existing standards to better guide biodiversity, ecological and extinction accounting and reporting disclosures/reporting will more likely command positive responses from organizations that want to be accepted by society at large and gain social legitimacy.

Following the introduction (Barney, 2018), this paper proceeds by presenting a brief literature review on ISSB, the work the organization has done in terms of standards and future work plans and where our study comes in. Thereafter, the paper presents the methodology in Section 3. Following these, the paper conceptually presents an analysis of the data gathered from the literature synthesis. The paper then presents recommendations in Section 5. The research implications and recommendations are presented in Section 6 before concluding and identifying areas for further research in Section 7.

We concentrate on three biodiversity concepts: biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting, as these appear to be the three main areas in which the contemporary academic discourse on biodiversity has been explored. This idea also finds support in the call for research on ISSB and biodiversity by the Meditari Accountancy Research Journal, in which these three areas are highlighted. While they have been used interchangeably in the contemporary academic discourse on biodiversity, they appear to be slightly different, acknowledging that biodiversity is the umbrella that anchors extinction and ecological accounting in terms of reporting and disclosure, as has been seen in the contemporary academic discourse. According to Weir (2019), ecological accounting brings to the fore the potential role of accounting in delineating measures and responsibility for promoting biodiversity based on an intensification of existing governance schemes by providing performance targets, culminating in biodiversity reporting/disclosure. It is often represented through crucial performance indicators that are used to set benchmarks for ideal conservation levels and often extends to the continuous monitoring of wildlife and habitats as captured. Extinction accounting, on the other hand, is another form of biodiversity-related accounting (Powell and McGuigan, 2023; Weir, 2018) that is typically linked to biodiversity accounting, featuring measures used to track progress in meeting biodiversity performance targets; particularly relating to goals of corporate biodiversity (Weir, 2018).

Despite the early call that there should be international standards of ecological accounting (Schaltegger, 1997), it is surprising that there is still no such international standard. Another surprise is that there is also a paucity of academic research on biodiversity/extinction/ecological standards, with the studies of Schaltegger (1997) and Elliot et al. (2024) appearing to be the only studies in this context, as illustrated in Table 1. Further, in this context, it is recognized that some independent organizations have come up with biodiversity/extinction/ecological standards/frameworks, especially with biodiversity/extinction/ecological disclosure. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has been exceptionally active in this regard; in addition, other bodies, such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB), have also developed relevant disclosure frameworks, with the CDSB now part of the ISSB. It is in this spirit that the ISSB has been actively consulting for the purposes of developing international biodiversity/extinction/ecological standards, which may eventually result in fulfilling Schaltegger’s (1997) call for the importance of having such international standards in place.

The ISSB was formed in November 2022 (de Villiers et al., 2024; Reinstein et al., 2024). Its formation has resulted in the quest for the development of universally accepted sustainability reporting standards. There is so much optimism in the aftermath of the formulation of the ISSB that observers and commentators have been monitoring the progress of Integrated Reporting following the formation of the ISSB (de Villiers and Dimes, 2023). Prior to the formation of the ISSB, many competing voluntary reporting frameworks have been in place. The purpose of these frameworks is to encourage mandatory sustainability reporting (de Villiers et al., 2024).

The Value Reporting Foundation (VRF) was formed in 2020 when the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the preeminent advocate for Integrated Reporting and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) amalgamated. The six “capitals” that organizations utilize to produce, preserve and destroy value—financial, human, manufactured, natural, social and intellectual—are reported on in Integrated Reporting, a unified reporting style. The purpose of integrated reporting (IR) is to tell stakeholders how a company has created value (de Villiers et al., 2024). Developed in 2011 with an eye toward meeting the information needs of investors, the SASB now advocates for comprehensive sustainability reporting standards. Critics claimed that investor interests had finally “captured” IR after hearing news of the VRF’s founding, which meant that two organizations with conflicting missions and responsibilities had joined forces. In 2021, a year after the VRF was established, the IFRS Foundation—the organization responsible for establishing international financial reporting standards—announced the establishment of a new standard-setting organization, the ISSB, which would be subordinate to the IFRS Foundation.

The VRF and the Climate Disclosure Standards Board (CDSB) merged to form the ISSB. An international coalition of businesses and environmental NGOs, the CDSB’s mission is to ensure that mainstream annual corporate reports include relevant and usable information about the environment for investors (de Villiers et al., 2024; Climate Disclosure Standards Board, 2021). Following the consolidation of the VRF into the IFRS Foundation, the IR Framework was taken up by the IASB and the ISSB (International Sustainability Standards Board, 2024a). The IFRS Foundation joined the field of sustainability standard-setters with the acquisition of the VRF and the establishment of the ISSB. This arena already included established standard-setters like the GRI, which has extensive experience in developing sustainability reporting guidelines.

The ISSB has emerged as a known sustainability reporting standards setter. The ISSB introduced IFRS S1 and S2 reporting standards as part of its first assignment. These standards have gained global attention, with many jurisdictions adopting them and others discussing adoption. It is envisaged that the successful implementation of the S1 and S2 standards will ensure the development of further standards, which may further promote the recognition and sustainability of the ISSB. On June 26, 2023, the ISSB released IFRS S1 (General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information) and IFRS S2 (Climate-related Disclosures), which became effective on January 1, 2024. Organizations that report their finances using IFRS are now required by these standards to include sustainability-related data. Global standard-setters like the Securities and Exchange Commission, Financial Stability Board, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive and International Organization of Securities Commissions will be influenced by these standards in their discussions. The new standards should still be accepted by each country’s standard-setters. Initially made optional until January 1, 2024, and then mandatory until January 1, 2026, Brazil was the pioneer in this move. Complete adoption has been announced by Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria (Reinstein et al., 2024; International Financial Reporting Standards, 2023a, 2023b).

While the new standards do not have any binding authority on companies that use US GAAP, they do lay out principles to help with voluntary sustainability reporting and may even serve as a roadmap for the SEC and other US standard-setters to follow when they create new reporting requirements.

For opportunities and risks connected to sustainability, IFRS S1 establishes reporting and disclosure requirements; for risks and opportunities related to climate, IFRS S2 is applicable. The goal of these items is to assist users of the entity’s general-purpose financial reports in making decisions on the allocation of resources. Consequently, the organization is required to provide details regarding climate-related opportunities and hazards that may have an impact on its cash flows, financing availability, or cost of capital in the near, medium, or distant future. An entity must use its best judgment to determine what information is important to disclose to accurately portray its sustainability-related risks and opportunities if no applicable IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standard is available. This determination should be based on the entity’s review of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) Standards, specifically the disclosure themes and related measures. They can also look at the sustainability reporting standards set out by the European Union or the GRI. Users of general-purpose financial reports should be able to grasp the following with the help of the disclosures, especially IFRS S1, given its more general applicability:

• The governance processes, controls and procedures the entity uses to monitor, manage and oversee sustainability-related risks and opportunities;

• The entity’s strategy for managing sustainability-related risks and opportunities;

• The processes the entity uses to identify, assess, prioritize and monitor sustainability-related risks and opportunities;

• The entity’s performance in relation to sustainability-related risks and opportunities, including progress toward any targets the entity has set or is required to meet by law or regulation;

• The methods, controls, procedures and strategies used by an entity to monitor climate-related risks and opportunities, as well as how these are integrated into the entity’s overall risk management process;

• The level of performance an entity has in relation to its climate-related risks and how well it’s doing at meeting its own or legally mandated climate-related goals;

• The governance processes, controls and procedures the entity uses to monitor, manage and oversee climate-related risks and opportunities; and

• The entity’s strategy for managing climate-related risks and opportunities;

Regardless of size, sector, or location, all entities following IFRS are subject to IFRS S1. All information relevant to an entity’s financial performance, status and impacts that pertain to sustainability must be reported under this umbrella. The scalability and adaptability of the standard enable companies to customize their reporting according to their unique situations, all the while maintaining transparency and comparability. IFRS S1 provides a set of principles to guide entities in the preparation of a set of sustainability reports, including fair presentation, materiality and connected information. The IFRS S1 also highlights the core components that require an entity to report on: sustainability governance, strategy, risk management, metrics and targets (Reinstein et al., 2024; International Financial Reporting Standards, 2023a).

On the other hand, the disclosure of information regarding “climate-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect the entity’s prospects” (i.e. potential impacts on cash flows, financing availability and cost of capital in the near, medium and distant future) is a primary goal of IFRS S2. Management should disclose its strategies to allow general-purpose financial statement users to understand how it plans to manage climate-related risks and opportunities, including climate risks and opportunities, current and anticipated effects of climate risks and opportunities, effects of climate risks and opportunities on decision-making and effects on financials, as well as business strategy and model to ensure climate resilience. In addition, the IFRS S2 also expects management to disclose information regarding its governance body (e.g., its board of directors) or individuals responsible for oversight of climate-related risks and opportunities, the governance processes, controls and procedures used to monitor, manage and oversee climate-related risks and opportunities; as well as, in identifying climate-related risks and opportunities, disclose their climate-related scenario analysis, including Scopes 1, 2 and 3. Emissions from vehicles that are either owned or controlled by the company in question are included in Scope 1. The use of purchased energy in a roundabout way by a company’s manufacturing activities results in Scope 2 emissions. Emissions attributed upstream from suppliers and downstream from the usage of the entity’s products/services after the sale are included in Scope 3, not the company’s own emissions nor those from assets it owns or controls directly (Reinstein et al., 2024; International Financial Reporting Standards, 2023b).

In addition to these standards, the ISSB, as part of its 2024–2026 work plans on IFRS Sustainability Projects, is exploring information about sustainability-related risks and opportunities associated with biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services (BEES) (International Financial Reporting Standards, 2024). In this context, the ISSB noted that efforts to preserve, conserve and restore BEEs can help manage risks or give opportunities for companies, arguing that the risks and opportunities are of reasonable importance in terms of their effects on a company’s prospects as described in IFRS S1. Thus, we expect that this current research will contribute to the ISSB efforts on this sustainability project (BEES) plan. Aside from the BEES project work plans that directly relate to our study, the ISSB is also busy with other sustainability projects, including enhancing the SASB standards and human capital (International Sustainability Standards Board, 2024b).

To answer the research question, as indicated in Section 1, we conducted a literature synthesis (Jaakkola, 2020) on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting to document the findings that could assist us in discussing how academic research on issues like biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting can be incorporated practically into sustainability reports prepared under S1 and S2 and/or be adapted by the ISSB when it develops further standards. This enabled us to conceptually use the findings to provide recommendations on the subject matter as presented in Sections 4 and 5.

To recap, the literature synthesis we used in this study seeks to achieve conceptual integration across multiple literature streams (accounting, business, ethics, management, sciences and others). With the expectation that the study will offer a new or enhanced view of biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting by linking unconnected or incompatible pieces in a novel way (Jaakkola, 2020). Thus, we are able to contribute by using the summary and integrating existing knowledge of the concepts under study to provide our recommendations. Delbridge and Fiss (2013) note that synthesis paper represents a form of theorizing that emphasizes narrative reasoning that seeks to unveil “big picture” patterns and connections rather than specific causal mechanisms. This tends to differentiate a synthesis paper from a systematic literature review (SLR) paper, which only tends to identify gaps in the extant research.

Thus, a definitive differentiation exists between a literature synthesis study and the SLR study (Jaakkola, 2020). A well-executed literature review comprehensively assesses the current state of a certain topic and offers significant insights into its progress, range, or future possibilities. However, it confines itself to the established conceptual or theoretical frameworks and only describes existing knowledge without exploring new frontiers. In the context of a conceptual paper, the literature review serves as an essential instrument, although it is not the ultimate goal. In a literature synthesis study, the literature review aims to analyze and dissect the various aspects of a concept or phenomenon, such as biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. This process may involve eliminating or excluding parts that cannot be compared or measured against one another. An absence of refinement arises when authors endeavor to amalgamate distinct research concepts through a succession of “minireviews” instead of focusing on a single conceptual issue—the status of biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting—in our particular situation (Cropanzano, 2009). For instance, a literature review aiming to incorporate several research viewpoints (which is typically the challenge with SLR) may instead present a summary of each perspective in distinct sections/chapters, discussing their respective contributions to the notion.

We conducted an all-year search by entering the three themes (biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting) into the advanced search section of an institutional library journal database (containing all the subscribed journals) search at once using the following keywords/search terms: “biodiversity reporting”, OR “extinction accounting” OR “ecological accounting”. We filtered the results from the source, downloading only relevant articles (as presented in Table 1) that touch on the three concepts – biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting (Roberts et al., 2021). Thus, our inclusion criteria are articles that specifically focus on the three keywords that are peer-reviewed and published online. As part of our exclusion criteria, we filtered out articles that are not in English Language, conference proceedings, editorials, newspaper articles, reports and working paper series. Also, we did not include articles that do not specifically consider accounting and/or reporting on biodiversity, ecology and extinction. We then extract the purpose/objective/question and the findings in these studies to inform our conceptual analysis and develop our recommendations (as contained in the supplementary file). We read all the articles contained in Table 1 (focusing particularly on literature, findings and conclusions) to gain a better understanding of the state of research on the three themes and how this could inform the ISSB’s future work, especially with regard to the ongoing plans on biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services (BEES). Thus, we have used the summary of the contemporary academic discourse on the three themes to provide recommendations for the ISSB.

An analysis of the extant literature on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting indicates that the literature may be grouped into five different categories. The first is on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standards. This deals with studies that call for biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standards or studies on actual biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standards (e.g., Schaltegger, 1997). The second is on accounting methods/measurement/measures of biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. Studies here deal with biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting methods/models and/or measurement methods/models (e.g., Rambaud, 2024; Saud et al., 2020). The third category is on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting review studies. These are studies that have conducted a review on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting (e.g., Bebbington et al., 2023; Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022). The fourth is on general/unclassified biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. Studies here deal with general aspects of biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting; thus, they do not fall neatly into any of the other classified categories (e.g., Agyemang et al., 2024; Hassan et al., 2021). The fifth is on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting disclosure/reporting. Studies here deal with actual reporting/disclosure in reports, factors affecting reporting/disclosure and the development of reporting frameworks (e.g., Zhao and Atkins, 2021; Samkin et al., 2014).

We structure this section using the five categories discussed above in Section 4.1. As indicated in the supplementary file, there are 69 studies in the extant literature on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. Most studies, as indicated in Table 1, on accounting methods/measurement/measures for biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting, closely followed by biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting disclosure/reporting. While we lay the foundation of the discussion and what has been discussed in this section with reference to the objective of this study, the discussion in the next section builds on this section, noting what may contribute to the work efforts of the ISSB in developing an international biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standard(s), how issues on these three themes may be incorporated into sustainability reports prepared under the IFRS S1 and IFRS S2 standards, as well as what future research may contribute in this and other regards.

Perhaps the starting point in this kind of study should be on current biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standard(s). In this context, as highlighted in Section 2.1, it is surprising that there is still no internationally accepted and adopted biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting, even though there are standards/frameworks that are voluntary and are being used in disclosing/reporting biodiversity, extinction and ecological practices. In one of the only two studies on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standards, about three decades ago, Schaltegger (1997) investigated how regulations to report environmental impacts, such as those defined by the European Environmental Management and Eco-Audit System, the Danish regulations on Green Accounting or the US Toxic Release Inventory, influence the costs and quality of information for external stakeholders. Following the study and due to the disparities in the frameworks, the author concludes that international standards of ecological accounting are necessary to guarantee a minimal level of information quality and to reduce uncertainty about the provided information quality. In the second study, which is more recent, Elliot et al., (2024) examine the evolving landscape of biodiversity reporting standards, describe their underlying rationale and anticipated effects and highlight unresolved issues that impede the provision of “good” information to markets and other report users. They noted that while a variety of reporting regulations exist, these reporting regulations do not point to a common ground for reporting. They address different aspects of corporate biodiversity impact and adopt different conceptions of assurance and materiality. They conclude that as a result of the early stage of this field, further research is needed on what best practice informational governance may entail. Taken as a whole, the conclusions by these authors appear to confirm the importance of the ISSB’s efforts in developing international biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standards in the aftermath of its BEE project work plans.

A majority of the previous studies are in this category. Thus, many accounting and measurement/measures methods have been documented. In this context, as contained in the supplementary file, there are more than a dozen different accounting and measurement/measures methods for biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting, recognizing that some are on different categories (e.g., Ben et al., 2024; Saud et al., 2020; Hayden, 2014; Oncioiu, 2012). Ben et al. (2024) collate data using ecological product value accounting. According to the authors, ecological product value accounting is a key method for companies to promote green transformation. The ecological footprint is another indicator (Saud et al., 2020). Saud et al. (2020) note that the ecological footprint (EF) indicator is a comprehensive environmental accounting tool that has streamlined input-output environmental assessments. The EF indicator helps to determine the amount of pressure humans put on the environment and how it relates to the planet’s potential to regenerate. The approach measures human demand in terms of global hectares, which are biologically productive areas with productivity on par with 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 that the EF uses to quantify the demand that humans place on the environment. Oncioiu (2012) presented how ecological accounting can be reflected at fair value in the annual financial statements. In a similar study, Hayden (2014) assessed how the double-entry accounting system may be applied to climate change remediation. This author argued and demonstrated that accounts for ecological impacts can be added to traditional double-entry accounts to demonstrate the environmental impact of particular corporate activities. Further, Mel’nik (1984) presented how accounting for ecological indicators may be used in solving economic problems. The author argued that the amount of work time or quantity of labor expended should be the basic measure of pollution’s cost to the economy since “work time,” as Karl Marx pointed out, “is the living manifestation of labor and, at the same time, the immanent criterion for it.”

Boiral (2016) demonstrates the use of Naturalization Techniques. The author then shows that mining organizations use four main techniques of neutralization when they explain their impact on biodiversity. When they address stakeholders, they defend their social legitimacy and environmental responsiveness using one of the four techniques:

1. they claim a net positive or neutral impact on biodiversity;

2. they deny that they have a significant impact;

3. they distance themselves from the impact of their actions; and

4. they play down their responsibilities.

In a similar study, Wackernagel et al., (1999) presented a simple framework for national and global natural capital accounting (see also Ogilvy et al., 2022). In a similar study, Turner and Tschirhart (1999) present a model that accounts for both market and non-market income flows from natural capital. Further, Jones (2010) developed a multilayered theoretical model to underpin environmental accounting and reporting (severe environmental dangers, corporate responsibility, new relationship between industry and environment, measuring industry’s impact and disclosing and reporting impact). In a similar study, Jones (1996) developed a natural inventory model. The author noted that there are three stages. In stage one, an organization’s acreage and habitats would be established, and one of six levels of natural inventory would be undertaken. In the second stage, the organization’s non-critical habitats would be valued either at a market or at an amenity valuation, complemented by an ecological grading. Finally, in stage three, the results will be aggregated and published in summary form in the organization’s annual report. Levels 1, 2 and 5 of natural inventory are applied to an actual real-world organization. Atkins et al., (2018) developed an extinction accounting framework, extending the GRI guidelines relating to species identified by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Red List as under threat of extinction (see also Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Jones and Solomon, 2013). Jin et al. (2023) demonstrated the extended exergy accounting (EEA) method. This method, as demonstrated by the authors, may be used for extended exergy analysis to trace the flows of resources, labor, capital and environmental remediation exegetics.

Feger and Mermet (2017) propose a new ecological-issues-centered accounting research agenda at the crossroads of accounting research and conservation science. The authors argue that the use of new information systems centered on organized collective action for biodiversity conservation should be regarded as a new type of accounting for the management of ecosystems, complementary to organization-centered biodiversity accounting and ecosystem accounting at the national scale. In this context, Holland (2003) assesses the usefulness of the ecological footprinting accounting tool alongside other management tools for assessing the environmental performance of commercial organizations. The author demonstrated the use of ecological footprint methodology.

Bebbington et al. (2023) reflect upon how European Accounting Review (EAR) has conceived of environmental accounting (and to some extent social/sustainability accounting work) over its 30-year history, with the aim of discussing ways in which environmental accounting research can further develop, both within and beyond the journal. The authors, after outlining the broader social and ecological context from which environmental accounting has emerged (and noting that this context is evolving in substantive ways), provide an overview of the types of research published in EAR. They combine these elements to identify three themes that they argue are critical for the direction of future research: the financial materiality of ecological issues and the impact this has on risk, how environmental accounting practices are constructed and how a new relationship between nature and society may affect accounting practices. They finally conclude by envisioning a future of environmental accounting research that dovetails with the sustainability ambitions that can be drawn from an examination of the detailed targets that underpin the Sustainable Development Goals. Blanco-Zaitegi et al., (2022) analyze the intellectual structure of the biodiversity accounting and management discipline through a systematic literature review, along with bibliometric techniques based on a co-word analysis of the main keywords included in 63 publications. The authors noted that their results reveal five thematic clusters: one motor cluster (sustainability), two transversal clusters (biodiversity reporting, corporate biodiversity management) and two isolated clusters (environmental protection, emancipatory accounting). In addition, the content of the selected papers is analyzed, and promising research paths are found, such as the need for more robust quantitative analyses or the development of new forms of emancipatory accounting. Roberts et al., (2021) present the first systematic literature review (SLR) on biodiversity and species extinction accounting publications. The authors note that descriptive results show research contributions peaked in 2018, with most publications appearing in the Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal. Results show legitimacy theory is the most applied theoretical framework, with global studies and developed country-specific research receiving the greatest attention. In addition, content analysis is identified as the preferred research methodology. Additionally, through synthesizing and analyzing literature, the authors provide potential opportunities for future research that is underexplored.

As previously identified, general/unclassified studies do not fall neatly into the other four main categories. However, they have contributed immensely to the extant literature on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. Atkins et al., (2023) broaden the agenda for environmental and ecological accounting research across several dimensions, extending the form of accounting by encouraging research into its historical roots and developing a definition of accounting that can address the severe environmental and ecological challenges of the 21st century. By analyzing the earliest ecological and environmental “accounts” recorded by humans at the dawn of human consciousness and considering a wide array of subsequent accounts, the authors demonstrate that rather than being a secondary, relatively recent development emerging from financial accounting and reporting, environmental and ecological accounting predated financial accounting by tens of thousands of years. This research also provides a wealth of perspectives on diversity, not only in forms of account but also in the diversity of accountants, as well as the broadness of the stakeholders to whom and to which the accounts are rendered.

Agyemang et al., (2024) assess the link among environmental accounting information disclosure (EAID), environmental performance index (EPI), board attributes and profitability of publicly traded mining companies in China. The findings revealed a mixed conclusion between board attributes and EAID. Moreover, the findings posit that both EADI and EPI have a positive slope connection with the profitability of the mining firms. Their findings offer a detailed understanding to stakeholders and highlight the beneficial impact of how environmental accounting can influence ecological and financial performance in the mining industry. In a similar study, Cho et al. (2022) reflect on and provide insights into the environmental implications of post-COVID-19 economic recoveries. More specifically, to highlight the connection(s) between the environment and the COVID-19 crisis, in particular, the intertwined links between Mother Nature and the virus. The authors contend that the current accounting and accountability mechanisms employed in economic stimulus programs, as well as traditional environmental accounting approaches, are inadequate and limited to achieving long-term sustainability change. Hassan et al. (2021) study mirrors that of Cho et al., (2022). The authors identify the gap in the literature about the lack of business awareness of non-financial activities, especially biodiversity, which can be responsible for crises like COVID-19, which can adversely affect the global economy. They recommend that companies should implement/adopt the Circular Economy concept for sustainable business models and report on biodiversity and extinction accounting in a more structured and mandatory way via producing an Integrated Report to create value in short, medium and long terms.

In a study similar to Agyemang et al., (2024), Haque and Jones (2020) examine how board gender diversity is associated with biodiversity disclosures of a firm and whether the GRI and the EU biodiversity strategy reinforce this relationship. They found that board gender diversity is positively associated with the disclosure of biodiversity initiatives (DBI) and biodiversity impact assessment (BIA) of a firm and that the GRI framework and the EU biodiversity strategy positively moderate this relationship. Moreover, the GRI framework and the EU strategic plan show a positive relationship with the DBI rather than the BIA. Altogether, evidence suggests that corporate boards with a higher proportion of female directors are more sensitive to the concerns of institutional pressures and respond to those concerns by increasing attention to biodiversity issues disclosures. Wang (2019) analyzes the historical evolution of the institutional context in relation to schemes like the National Ecological Accounting and Auditing Scheme (NEAAS) and further deciphers the ideological underpinnings that have shaped the context. The findings indicate that the significance of NEAAS goes far beyond environmental protection in that the scheme constitutes a fundamental institutional reform that the Communist Party of China seeks to conduct. In a similar study, Weir (2018) explores the state of extinction accounting and the motivations for its use in the UK public sector. The authors reported that interviews reveal a number of common uses and applications of extinction accounting across the three councils. Practices are used to generate reports on species loss and recovery within each region and to facilitate planning for species protection and recovery. However, in attempting to use this information, key trade-offs emerge between satisfying economic and ecological criteria, and even trade-offs are created regarding the development of protection schemes. This leads to a subversion of extinction accounting.

This category is perhaps one of the most important of the five categories. The endpoint of concerted efforts on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting is that organizations disclose their practices in a transparent manner. In this context, VAvan Liempd and Busch (2013) suggest that companies have ethical reasons to report biodiversity issues, arguing that philosophically, it is shown that biodiversity preservation and reporting is an ethical issue, even on the assumption that biodiversity does not possess intrinsic value.

Husin et al., (2018) analyze, 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 of top Malaysian companies is still fairly low, with companies that fall under the high biodiversity risk industry tending to provide more disclosure. Other explanatory variables tested, i.e. companies’ profitability and leverage, have no significant influence. In a similar study, 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 an increased but heterogeneous engagement with biodiversity among EU-listed companies, with limited relevance given by the companies to standard and quantitative performance indicators and a strong influence on reporting of factors such as the companies’ country of origin and the companies’ 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. Treepongkaruna (2024) explores whether the universal demand laws (UDLs) have any effect on corporate biodiversity reporting in the USA. Supporting short-termism, risk aversion and agency hypotheses, the authors found that an exogenous decline in the threat of derivative litigation, reducing the chance for shareholders to file a lawsuit against top management and intensifying agency costs, economically and significantly decreases a corporation’s biodiversity reporting by 87%. When the disciplining effect of shareholder litigation drops, the self-interest manager may want to live a quiet life and disclose less information about biodiversity impact. A proactive business strategy to mitigate litigation and reputational risks is to voluntarily disclose more biodiversity-related information. Regulators around the world should also promote rigorous reporting requirements to reverse biodiversity loss and save humanity, the author argues (see also Rimmel and Jonäll (2013), who provide an account of the quantity, location and intentions behind companies’ biodiversity disclosure).

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. In a similar study, Gaia and John Jones (2017) explore the use of narratives in biodiversity reports as a mechanism to raise awareness of biodiversity’s importance. By classifying biodiversity narratives into 14 categories of biodiversity values, they investigate whether the explanations for biodiversity conservation used by UK local councils are in line with shallow, intermediate, or deep philosophies. They reported that UK local councils explained biodiversity’s importance mainly in terms of its instrumental value, in line with shallow philosophies such as human welfare ecology and resource conservation. UK local councils sought to raise awareness of biodiversity’s importance by highlighting values that are important for the stakeholders that are able to contribute toward biodiversity conservation, such as landowners, residents, visitors, businesses and industries. The authors also found that local councils’ biodiversity strategies were strongly influenced by 2010, the International Year of Biodiversity.

Further, Maroun and Atkins (2018) developed a dynamic form of corporate reporting designed to deal with the threat posed by the mass extinction of species, which they applied to make sense of biodiversity reporting. They found that no single company dealt with each of the disclosure themes or elements discussed in Section 3.2 of the paper. They argued that this is to be expected given the still emergent nature of integrated reporting and, more specifically, biodiversity reporting. However, there are some glimpses of what emancipatory extinction accounting could look like. Emancipatory accounting entails a critical social analytical appreciation of accounting that is a particular rendering of the categories of critical thought that can help in engendering change, contributing to the building of a more liberated, democratic and happier society (Gallhofer and Haslam, 2019; Atkins and Maroun, 2018). Zhao and Atkins (2021) analyze an extensive sample of Chinese-listed companies in a high ecological impact sector to assess the extent to which their biodiversity disclosures are dominated by impression management to identify any elements of the reporting that could be interpreted as emancipatory extinction accounting. Findings suggest that despite a strong tendency for companies to reveal impression management and self-interest in their disclosures, there are examples of emancipatory extinction accounting, where they appear to be eliciting genuine transformation in their conservation behaviors and activities. Further, the authors identify species-specific, species-centric reporting as a significant element of extinction accounting, demonstrating the way in which emancipatory extinction accounting is growing and evolving in practice. Samkin et al., (2014) illustrate the development of a biodiversity reporting and evaluation framework. The application of the framework to an exemplar organization identifies biodiversity-related annual report disclosures and analyses changes in the nature and levels of these over time. The paper established whether the disclosures made by the exemplar are consistent with a deep ecological perspective, as exemplified by New Zealand conservation legislation (see also, Smirnow and Deng, 2024; Hassan et al., 2022; Husin at al., 2021; Gaia and Jones, 2020; Schneider et al., 2014).

Sun and Lange (2023) explore the biodiversity reporting by the largest dairy company in China (the Yili Group). A gradual improvement is noted in the Yili Group’s biodiversity reporting over time, while the need for improvement remains as the Yili Group matures in its reporting. The company tends to report symbolic disclosures rather than substantive ones and is motivated more by external pressures and/or incentives than by morality and/or stakeholder accountability; this pushes the company toward more dominant symbolic biodiversity disclosure practices. In a similar study, Barut et al. (2016) illuminate the disclosure of biodiversity material contained in the reported information of 151 local government authorities (LGAs) in New South Wales, Australia. The results reveal marked differences in the reporting of biodiversity issues. In fact, LGAs in the state of New South Wales (Australia) have been, at best, lukewarm in their disclosure of strategic information relating to biodiversity, particularly in their strategic goals and plans. Maroun et al. (2018) examine biodiversity reporting by South African food producers and retailers. It not only draws attention to the disconnect between reporting on an important environmental issue and the sense of commitment to environmental responsibility but also shows that, over time, organizations are becoming more proactive about biodiversity reporting. Consistent with an organized hypocrisy framework, the research finds that several companies rely on corporate reporting to emphasize actions and internal management strategies that are already producing favorable results. In contrast, mission statements, firm policy commitments and forward-looking analysis are avoided. There is, however, evidence to suggest that the gaps between corporate reporting and action may be giving companies the time to reform their practices and align biodiversity disclosures with genuine corporate (see also Ackers and Adebayo, 2024, who conducted a study to explain how South African state-owned enterprises and conservation NGOs active in South Africa report on their collaboration engagements; Adler et al., (2017), who explore the biodiversity reporting practices and trends of the top 50 Australian mining companies before and after the United Nations (UN) declared the period 2011–2020 as the “Decade on Biodiversity.” Adler et al. (2018), conducted a similar study on the top 150 Fortune Global companies; and Mansoor and Maroun (2016), examined to what extent South African companies listed on the local stock exchange in the mining and food producer and retail sectors including biodiversity-related issues in their integrated and sustainability reports).

Velte (2024) addresses the relationship between corporate biodiversity reporting (CBR) and earnings management as well as the moderating impact of board gender diversity (BGD). Results align with these assumptions and prior research on similar relationships. Moreover, several endogeneity checks support the main results. In a similar study, Dutta and Dutta (2024) examine whether there exists any relationship between corporate biodiversity reporting decisions (CBRD) and corporate environmental performance (CEP). The authors found that firms with a higher propensity to consume water and generate waste are inclined to release biodiversity-related information. The findings support legitimacy theory, suggesting that firms with inferior environmental performance may decide on reporting biodiversity information for legitimation purposes. Yook et al., (2017) examine whether the amount of costs disclosed as relating to environmental controls is associated with environmental performance in terms of carbon-based eco-efficiency and whether any relation supports voluntary disclosure theory or legitimacy theory arguments. Further, to determine whether the relations differ across the initial Kyoto Protocol period. The results indicate a negative relation between disclosed levels of environmental control costs and eco-efficiency performance measures, and, for two of the three eco-efficiency metrics, this is more pronounced over the Kyoto Protocol period (see also Hossain, 2017, who explore biodiversity reporting of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority (MDBA), an Australian public sector enterprise).

As indicated earlier in Section 4.2.1, Schaltegger’s (1997) early call for an international standard appears to have yielded little positive results up to this point. Thus, the work efforts by the ISSB in this regard, as exemplified by the BEES, are a step in the right direction. As we have identified above, academic research may positively contribute to the ISSB’s work plans. An important factor that should be considered, to which previous and current standards/frameworks on biodiversity—especially on disclosure—have suffered, is ensuring that developed standards are concise and have clear interpretations. In this regard, in attempting to encourage incorporating biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting into the sustainability reports prepared under the S1 and the S2, it is critical that the ISSB, in proposing or updating the S1 and S2 in this regard, ensure that only those items that are key are required to be documented/reported by organizations. In this context, more than 95% (as seen in the supplementary file) of studies on biodiversity reporting/disclosure have found that organizations do not adequately disclose/report biodiversity practices. A tension in this regard is that there have been arguments in the contemporary academic discourse on this topic that part of why low disclosure/reporting have been recorded is that reporting indicators of standards/frameworks usually contain many requirements (reporting/disclosure indicators) that may not be applicable to the organizations or that they may not easily interpret (Dutta and Dutta, 2024). Thus, while some are of the opinion that all organizations should attempt to disclose everything (indicators) contained in the standards/frameworks, others are of the opinion that organizations should only disclose/report on the indicators that affect their operations. Perhaps a way forward appears to be to ensure that standards are developed to address disclosure/reporting by different sectors. Only then will it be possible to properly and easily determine where there is adequate reporting/disclosure or otherwise. It is thus recommended that the ISSB consider developing standards for different sectors, using relevant indicators for each sector mirroring their activities and practices.

In addition to the above is the issue of materiality; a majority of the existing standards/frameworks do not have materiality thresholds for key indicators, leaving organizations to decide when the outcome of an indicator is material and be reported/disclosed (Bebbington et al., 2023; Ruiz-Lozano et al., 2022; Ngu and Amran, 2021). These also tend to result in low disclosure/reporting. In this context, the ISSB should consider specifying materiality (both financial and impact materiality (Elliot et al., 2024), where applicable) thresholds for certain key indicators for different sectors as part of their work on the BEES and in possible revision to the IFRS S1 and IFRS S2. Caution should be taken in doing so especially since Ferrero-Ferrero et al. (2020) appear to have suggested that prioritization of certain aspects of sustainability materiality matrices may skew environmental performance results.

As indicated in Section 4.2.2, many accounting and measurement/measures methods have been documented. This is encouraging considering that different methods may be applied to biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. In incorporating biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting into the sustainability reports prepared under the S1 and the S2 and in developing new standards, it is critical that the ISSB, in proposing or updating the S1 and S2, ensure that, as suggested above, those standards should address different sectors. It is also key that accounting and/or measurement methods align with the needs of different sectors. In this context, the ISSB may have to take stock of the various accounting/measurement methods that have been used/demonstrated/discussed (refer to the supplementary file) by academics working in this field and then formulate or come up with similar accounting/measurement methods that will fit the ISSB’s purposes and provide clear applicability (Blanco-Zaitegi et al., 2022). This is necessary, considering that some of these accounting/measurement methods are similar and need to be consolidated. In this context, it is also advised that the applicability of the accounting/measurement methods is both detailed and concise to ensure that their applicability and use are understood with little effort. This is important in ensuring adoption and compliance.

Also, considering that many accounting and measurement/measures methods have been documented, the ISSB may also look into consolidating these accounting measurement/measures methods and incorporating those that fit certain categories of disclosure and sectors. This will go a long way in unpacking the numerous accounting and measurement/measures methods and encourage a standardized set of accounting and measurement/measures methods for which users may converge.

In line with the discussion above, one important thing that the extant literature review identified (as highlighted in Section 4.2.3) is that content analysis is the main methodology that is being used in biodiversity and species extinction accounting research. This information is key in assisting the ISSB in updating the S1 and S2 and in developing new standards. As previously noted, standards should be detailed and concise; it is also important that the five different clusters identified by Blanco-Zaitegi et al., (2022) be taken into consideration. The authors contend that sustainability, biodiversity reporting, corporate biodiversity management, environmental protection and emancipatory accounting. A close look at some of the existing frameworks/standards, especially the GRI 101—Biodiversity 2024, contains indicators on the four relevant of these five clusters. Perhaps some of the things that the ISSB may focus on in developing standards following its BEES project work plans that have not been adequately considered in the existing frameworks/standards are: the financial materiality of ecological issues and the impact this has on risk; and how to document the relationship between nature and society (Bebbington et al., 2023).

Perhaps of utmost importance are the three critical areas noted by Bebbington et al., (2023). To recap, these are the financial materiality of ecological issues and the impact this has on risk, how environmental accounting practices are constructed and how a new relationship between nature and society may affect accounting practices. The discussion on materiality under subsection 5.1 is applicable in considering the financial materiality of ecological issues. The ISSB, taking into account the idea behind how environmental practices in accounting are constructed, may be able to come up with other social factors for which reporting/disclosure may be sourced. In this context, the ISSB may also consider developing standards for ocean and marine accounting, which is a new area that accounting scholars should also look into (Perkiss et al., 2022). In this context, the ISSB may look into the social accounting side of social and marine accounting as part of a broader biodiversity reporting framework. Also, with regard to how a new relationship between nature and society may affect accounting practices, the ISSB may include indicators to gauge organizational activities in promoting a new relationship between nature and society. Including such an indicator will not only encourage organizations to engage in such activities but will also add a reporting innovation to organizational reporting.

As highlighted in Section 4.2.4, the general/unclassified studies are studies that do not finely fall into the other four categories but in which a close look indicates that they have documented important insights. These studies have shown that the ISSB, in incorporating biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting into the sustainability reports prepared under S1 and S2, and in developing new standards, takes note of other important concepts/variables that may further ensure that standards address everything they should address. Weir (2019), in their study examining the use of contemporary biodiversity accounting practices in the public sector, noted that attempts to develop biodiversity accounting are affected by the presence of competing institutional logics. In this specific case, the paper highlights the economic/ecological value conflict in council biodiversity accounting. In this context, it is important that the ISSB revisits the historical roots of ecological and environmental accounts (Atkins et al., 2023; Wang, 2019; Weir, 2018) to ensure that important details in the past are not missed and contribute to the developed standards. Further, Agyemang et al., (2024), Cho et al., (2022) and Hassan et al., (2021) have shown that an account of the environment should also include indicators for reporting on issues like pandemics, such as the recent COVID-19 and its effect on nature. Not only this, Agyemang et al., (2024) and Haque and Jones (2020) have noted that variables like board attributes and board gender diversity appear to affect attention on biodiversity practices and biodiversity disclosure. Thus, the ISSB, in developing its standards, should take note of such variables, which may be included as part of disclosure/reporting indicators.

While it may be argued that corporates are the targets of environmental accounting on a broad level, it is also key that the ISSB, in its work plans on BEES and in possible revision to the IFRS S1 and IFRS S2, consider disclosure implications for the various public sector organizations. While it may be argued that a majority of the indicators may not be applicable to these public sector organizations, their disclosure indicators may be formulated around disclosing/reporting on policy and governance issues related to biodiversity, ecology and extinction for the purposes of this study.

As argued in subsection 4.2.5, the end product of concerted efforts on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting is that organizations disclose their practices in a transparent manner. Thus, the recommendations in the above four subsections are applicable here. Perhaps the main thing here, as suggested in subsection 5.2, is incorporating biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting into the sustainability reports prepared under the S1 and the S2, and in developing new standards, is to ensure that the indicators are tailored to different sectors. This will ensure that it is easy to document the organizations that have adequately reported/disclosed and otherwise. This will also assist in conducting meaningful comparative analysis. In this instance, comparative analysis will be informed by similar indicators and thus ensure that similar sectors are compared. In addition to these, the ISSB may also take a close look at other frameworks/standards that have been used by academics in conducting disclosure and reporting studies, such as the EU biodiversity strategy, the GRI and the TNFD frameworks/standards. Perhaps one or more insights may be obtained with the view to developing a more comprehensive but concise international standard with relevant indicators.

Further, aside from developing a new standard, for reasons that standards with different requirements come out from different jurisdictions, appearing to complicate the non-financial reporting landscape as a whole; it would be good that the ISSB also consider interoperability with some of the existing standards, as seen in the case of the TCFD, the TNFD may also be brought into ISSB.

This study has implications for research, policy, theory and practice. It synthesizes the extant contemporary academic discourse on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. As seen in the supplementary file, researchers have covered a lot of grounds and different relevant topics. Although some topics have not been covered as indicated in Section 7 below, the research convergence on the three biodiversity-related themes must be lauded. One thing that research convergence, especially on the biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting reporting/disclosure category has shown is that even though prior theory (with which organizations have set or formulated standards/frameworks) appears to suggest that organizations will endeavor to report on all the biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting as it impacts their operations, findings from relevant studies suggest this is not so. Thus, the ISSB may, in the formulation of standards based on its BEES work plans, do things differently in this regard. As indicated earlier, one of the ways in which this may be done is to develop standards for different sectors. Aside from the likelihood of ensuring improved organizational reporting/disclosure, it will also improve research in terms of comparability of similar sectors as indicated by the indicators in the standards, which appears not to be the case currently. The Climate Disclosure Standards Board (2022) has exemplified this in its Biodiversity and Water Reporting Templates, which clearly detail relevant reporting indicators for three different sectors: coffee production (Ogilvy et al., 2022), mining and energy. This may serve as a guide for the ISSB in developing standards based on its BEES project work plans.

The discussion so far also has implications for policy and practice. While the recommendations have been largely tailored to the ISSB, other standard-setters may also benefit from this study. In addition, policymakers (both at the national and international levels) may also benefit from this study, as the recommendations in some instances are general and may be used in the formulation/development of frameworks/standards or in updating existing ones. Further, as we have identified earlier, the recommendations and discussion (especially when standards are developed based on the recommendations) will ease the work of practitioners, especially with regard to reporting biodiversity/extinction/ecological issues. In this context, as we have repeatedly argued, existing standards/frameworks appear to be too cumbersome for many organizations to adopt in reporting/disclosing biodiversity/extinction/ecological issues. Thus, there is the expectation that future standards/frameworks will be less cumbersome and easily applicable. In addition, the development of biodiversity/extinction/ecological standards by the ISSB following its BEES project work plans will finally deliver the long-awaited biodiversity/extinction/ecological international standard as envisaged by Schaltegger (1997).

It may be argued that the ISSB, in exploring the recommendations, may face certain implementation challenges. Perhaps the most critical thing is that the ISSB engages with relevant stakeholders, including practitioners, community stakeholders, academics, as well as public and private sector role players in ensuring that developed or revised standards take into account all available and relevant information. This in itself may constitute an issue as it may not be possible to satisfy the requests of all stakeholders. Part of the trade-offs will be to assess all available relevant and key information and assess the pros and cons of all available relevant information. The ISSB may then evaluate the impact of this information as a way of assessing those that will constitute key indicators and those that may be dropped.

We respond to Meditari Accountancy Research Journal’s call for papers on the International Sustainability Standards Board: Evaluating and Informing work efforts in the interest of sustainable development, focusing on the topic: How academic research on issues like biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting can be incorporated practically into sustainability reports prepared under S1 and S2 and/or be adapted by the ISSB when it develops further standards. In this context, we posed the question:

We answered this question deductively to contribute to improving sustainability reporting (especially with regard to biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting) and the development of further sustainability standards with regard to biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. Using literature synthesis, which differs from the SLR in terms of focus (we have not focused on themes such as study year, theory used, publication outlets and others commonly used in SLR, but have used the synthesis literature review to analyze and dissect the various aspects of the studied concept or phenomenon), we conceptually locate our empirical work in the context of the contemporary academic discourse on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting. We focused on the three biodiversity concepts—biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting—as obtained in the contemporary academic discourse. To provide recommendations, we conceptually drew insights from a content analysis method that involved documenting findings from previous studies.

Our analysis resulted in recommendations on how the ISSB may incorporate findings from the contemporary academic discourse in promoting sustainability reports prepared under S1 and S2 on issues such as biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting and/or be adapted by the ISSB when it develops further standards, especially with regards to formulating standards following its BEES project work plans. We discussed findings in terms of five categories that conceptually emerge from the review synthesis that we believe the discussion under the categories may influence the ISSB’ in developing further standards on biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting and that may be incorporated practically into sustainability reports prepared under S1 and S2 and/or be adapted by the ISSB: standard(s), accounting methods/measurement/measures, review findings, general/unclassified studies and reporting/disclosure studies. We used these categories in structuring our discussion, recommendations and avenues for further research. Thus, after documenting what has been done under each of the five categories, we provide recommendations to the ISSB based on the findings from previous studies. In providing the recommendations, we move beyond the findings in previous studies conceptually using our subject matter knowledge.

Our main recommendation under the biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standards category is that the ISSB consider developing standards for different sectors, using relevant indicators for each sector mirroring their activities and practices. Our main recommendation under the accounting methods/measurement methods/measures of biodiversity accounting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting category is that the ISSB takes stock of the various accounting/measurement methods that have been used/demonstrated/discussed (refer to the supplementary file) by academics working in this field and then formulating or coming up with similar accounting/measurement methods that will fit ISSB’s purposes and provide clear applicability. We argue that this is necessary considering that some of the accounting/measurement methods are similar and need to be consolidated. In this context, it is also advised that the accounting/measurement methods’ applicability is detailed and concise to ensure that their applicability and use are understood with little effort. This is important in ensuring adoption and compliance. Our main recommendation under the biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting review studies category is that the ISSB, in formulating standards or in encouraging incorporating biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting issues into sustainability reports prepared under S1 and S2, may focus on additional indicators that have not been adequately considered in the existing frameworks/standards: the financial materiality of ecological issues and the impact this has on risk; and how to document the relationship between nature and society (Bebbington et al., 2023). The importance of the latter to the ISSB work plans has also been documented by de Villiers et al., (2024). Our main recommendation under the general/unclassified biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting category is that the ISSB, in developing its standards, should take note of variables such as the effects on pandemics, board gender diversity and other relevant board and non-board attributes (Schneider et al., 2014), which may be included as part of disclosure/reporting indicators. Our main recommendation under the biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting disclosure/reporting categories is that, in addition to the relevant recommendations under the previous four categories, the ISSB may also take a close look at other frameworks/standards that have been used by academics in conducting disclosure/reporting studies, such as the EU biodiversity strategy, the GRI and the TNFD frameworks/standards. Perhaps one or more insights may be obtained with the view to developing a more comprehensive but concise international standard. Overall, we have also recommended that developing standards to cater to different sectors is key to encouraging comparable disclosures/reporting.

Our paper’s first contribution is responding to calls for further research into the International Sustainability Standards Board: Evaluating and informing work efforts in the interest of sustainable development by assessing how academic research contributes in this regard. Thus, our comprehensive conceptual synthesis is timely and may likely interest academics and practitioners, including standard-setters and policymakers. The second provides a comprehensive literature synthesis of the contemporary academic discourse on the three biodiversity concepts, ensuring that we have a thorough grasp of the literature and aiding our recommendations. The third develops and presents recommendations for improving sustainability reporting, improving existing frameworks/standards and developing further relevant sustainability standards. The fourth extends the legitimacy theory as has been applied in biodiversity, ecological and extinction accounting and in broader social and environmental accounting, arguing that standards improved standards may result in improved disclosure/reporting and thereby improved organizational acceptance.

For our practical contribution, the paper provides relevant information for practitioners, standard-setters and policymakers, especially the ISSB. The availability of many different standards/frameworks on the subject matter and on sustainability reporting appears not to be ideal, with Schaltegger (1997) calling for a recognized international standard. In this context, de Villiers et al., (2024) have also highlighted that key observers are pessimistic about the continued existence of some sustainability reporting initiatives. Hence, the ISSB standards and its work plans, especially for the purposes of this study, the BEES project work plans, are projecting the ISSB as a mainstay in sustainability reporting initiatives, and we have provided key recommendations in supporting its work in this paper.

Studies of this nature are never without limitations, resulting in avenues for further research. While we are optimistic that our coverage of secondary data is enough to answer our research question and document our contributions (de Villiers et al., 2024), insights from interviews may have also contributed to furthering our recommendations. In light of this, we encourage future researchers to contribute to this topic by documenting primary insights from primary data, particularly through interviews and surveys, where applicable. Under the biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting standard(s) category, future research may be conducted on how to develop international standards, owing to the fact that we document a paucity of research in this category with only one study. Under the accounting methods/measurement methods/measures of biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting category, future studies may explore how to harmonize various similar methods/measures to form a recognized method/measure for different biodiversity issues. In particular, in this context, the ISSB may consider developing a database to store company sustainability information in both qualitative and quantitative forms. This will encourage not just qualitative measures but also quantitative measures (from indicators captured in quantitative formats) in line with the materiality highlighted earlier. This will also ensure a necessary shift from the content analysis method to other relevant quantitative methods, such as the archival method. Under the biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting review studies category, further research should be conducted to review the current landscape. Considering that the current review study was conducted in 2021, many studies have appeared in the contemporary academic discourse after that year. Under the general/unclassified biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting category, further research may explore other variables/concepts/indicators that may be included in reporting frameworks/standards. Under the biodiversity reporting, extinction accounting and ecological accounting disclosure/reporting categories, further studies may explore how to encourage organizational reporting/disclosure on biodiversity issues, even when this reporting/disclosure is not mandatory.

The country column in the supplementary file appears to suggest that, in terms of geographical or contextual coverage, the current research base does not adequately represent global perspectives on biodiversity, ecological and extinction accounting/reporting. Thus, there is a need for more studies in developing countries, especially in Africa. Accounting scholars and scholars in other disciplines interested in these research areas are encouraged to respond accordingly.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.