Major Corporations’ Biodiversity Promises Lack Transparency and Accountability, Say Scientists

A groundbreaking new study published in One Earth reveals a stark disconnect between corporate biodiversity pledges and the ability to hold companies accountable for their environmental impact. Researchers from the University of Oxford and the Stockholm Resilience Centre meticulously analyzed 180 transnational “keystone” corporations—entities wielding outsized influence over global ecosystems—and found that while 79% claim to have biodiversity commitments, only 13% articulate these commitments with the clarity and precision necessary for external evaluation.

The study unpacks a critical accountability gap. True progress tracking depends on commitments that specify targets in terms of what biodiversity aspects are addressed, geographic scope, timelines, baselines, and metrics for assessment. Most companies fall far short, offering vague or inconsistent pledges that obscure actual contributions to biodiversity conservation. The research highlights troubling tendencies such as ambiguous language, misuse of technical terms, and selective evidence that undercuts environmental ambition.

Agriculture-related sectors showed comparatively stronger commitment frameworks, with companies in cocoa and soybean markets often specifying measurable goals. Conversely, industries like animal pharmaceuticals and oil and gas exhibited scant biodiversity strategies, with many firms failing to report any biodiversity-related information publicly. Alarmingly, none of the studied corporations released dedicated biodiversity reports, a key tool for transparency.

According to Dr. Sophus zu Ermgassen of Oxford’s Department of Biology, these findings demonstrate the challenge companies face in balancing ambition with feasibility. “Biodiversity commitments must transcend legal compliance and incorporate concrete implementation plans, allowing stakeholders to trace genuine progress,” he emphasizes. Complementing this view, co-author Dr. Thomas White underlines the transformative potential of clear, science-informed targets for corporations to act as genuine stewards of the biosphere.

The researchers also caution against “greenhushing,” where companies remain silent to avoid reputational risk if their efforts fall short. Barriers include limited harmonization of corporate goals with commercial interests, data gaps about global supply chain biodiversity impacts, and insufficient guidance on robust target-setting.

To overcome these challenges, the study advocates integrating mandatory reporting standards, fostering collaborations between businesses and scientific communities, and strengthening sector-wide sustainability initiatives. Additionally, heightened pressure from investors and regulatory bodies could incentivize transparency and more ambitious goal setting, particularly by embedding biodiversity criteria into stock exchange listings.

This research marks a pivotal step in defining the responsibilities of powerful corporations regarding biodiversity preservation. By establishing a clear framework to evaluate commitments, it lays the groundwork for improved accountability essential in halting and eventually reversing the accelerating global loss of biodiversity.

Subject of Research: Corporate biodiversity commitments and accountability
Article Title: Evaluating the biodiversity commitments of Earth’s keystone corporations
News Publication Date: Monday 13 July 2026
Web References: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2026.101747
References: Criteria include commitment scope, timeframe, baseline, measurement, and quantitative targets
Keywords: biodiversity, corporate accountability, keystone corporations, environmental commitments, sustainability reporting, biosphere stewardship

The concept of SDGs was introduced by the United Nations in 2015 as a global framework aimed at addressing the world’s most pressing challenges, including poverty, inequality, climate change, environmental degradation, peace, and justice. As various stakeholders pressure corporations to align their practices with these goals, understanding the factors that affect SDG disclosures becomes paramount. This study provides valuable insights into how diverse ownership structures impact the robustness and authenticity of sustainability reports, thereby shedding light on the broader implications for corporate responsibility.

Ownership structures vary widely among companies, influenced by factors such as shareholder concentration, the presence of institutional investors, and family ownership. This variability has consequential effects on how organizations approach sustainability reporting. The research team utilized comprehensive empirical analysis to correlate different ownership types with the quality and extent of SDG disclosures. Their methodology incorporated a well-defined framework that analyzed data from diverse European firms, reflecting a wide array of ownership structures.

One of the pivotal findings of the study indicates that firms with concentrated ownership structures tend to provide more extensive SDG disclosures. This can be attributed to the accountability mechanisms that arise in environments where a smaller number of shareholders control a significant portion of shares. When ownership is concentrated, shareholders often demand higher levels of transparency, as their investments are more directly at risk. Consequently, firms are incentivized to disclose detailed sustainability information, ensuring that investors are well-informed regarding their corporate practices.

Conversely, when ownership is dispersed among a large number of shareholders, the incentive to provide comprehensive sustainability information diminishes. Companies with a broad base of minority shareholders may not feel the same pressure to disclose, as individual shareholders possess limited influence over corporate practices. This insight raises vital questions about the efficacy of current regulations governing sustainability reporting in contexts where ownership dilution might adversely affect transparency.

Furthermore, the role of institutional investors emerged as a significant theme in the findings. These entities typically advocate for higher standards of corporate governance, including robust sustainability disclosures. Companies that catered to the interests of institutional investors witnessed an uptick in the quality of their reports. Such investors often integrate ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) factors into their investment decisions, underscoring the need for companies to align their disclosures with global sustainability standards.

The research also contemplates the implications of family-owned businesses, which have a unique approach to sustainability disclosure. Family firms often emphasize long-term value creation over short-term financial returns, resulting in more substantial commitments to sustainability. However, these businesses may struggle with transparency due to a desire to maintain control over sensitive information. The nuances of family ownership thus present a double-edged sword, as these companies may be both more inclined towards sustainability and hesitant to disclose their initiatives fully.

Alongside these ownership nuances, the study examined the regulatory landscape of European sustainability reporting. The researchers argue that legislative frameworks play a crucial role in shaping the quality of SDG disclosures. Enhanced regulations could push companies to adopt more rigorous reporting practices, providing stakeholders with the transparency they require. European directives and guidelines, such as the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD), further reinforce this ideology by mandating companies to divulge relevant sustainability information, thus aligning corporate behavior with global sustainability frameworks.

However, legislative measures alone may not suffice. The research emphasizes that fostering a culture of sustainability within organizations is equally important. Leaders must champion sustainability initiatives, permeating values throughout the company’s structure. This cultural shift can spur employees at all levels to prioritize SDGs, resulting in a ripple effect that enhances the overall quality of sustainability disclosures. The study provides a framework that organizations can utilize to evaluate their current practices and embed sustainable values deeply within corporate culture.

Moreover, the study reveals the critical need for transparency beyond mere compliance. Companies that view sustainability disclosure as a strategic advantage can differentiate themselves in competitive markets. By being ahead of the curve in SDG reporting, firms not only fulfill regulatory obligations but also build a reputation that can attract both investors and customers. This multifaceted approach to sustainability emphasizes the necessity of genuine commitment over superficial compliance.

In a global economy grappling with unprecedented challenges, the interplay between ownership structure and sustainability reporting emerges as a vital area of study and action. As organizations strive to align themselves with the SDGs, understanding the implications of ownership dynamics offers valuable insights into enhancing transparency and performance. The study by Meqbel et al. stands as an influential piece of scholarship that calls for continued examination of this relationship within the corporate world.

The implications of these findings extend beyond the academic realm, urging businesses to reassess their strategies in sustainability reporting. As more organizations recognize the significance of clear, honest disclosures regarding their sustainability practices, the momentum towards achieving the SDGs will gather steam. This research ultimately signals that, for companies operating within Europe and beyond, aligning ownership structures with sustainability goals is not just the right thing to do but also represents a strategic business imperative.

Through this lens, the analysis by Meqbel, Dwekat, and Mardawi serves as a clarion call for tighter integrations of ownership frameworks with social responsibility. As the demand for corporate accountability escalates, stakeholders will be keenly observing those companies that rise to the occasion. In a rapidly evolving sustainability landscape, the research’s insights will play a crucial role in guiding organizations toward effective, impactful, and responsible business practices.

Subject of Research: The relationship between ownership structure and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) disclosure in European sustainability reporting.

Article Title: Ownership structure and SDGs disclosure in the context of European sustainability reporting.

Article References:

Meqbel, R., Dwekat, A., Mardawi, Z. et al. Ownership structure and SDGs disclosure in the context of European sustainability reporting.
Discov Sustain 6, 829 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-01783-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s43621-025-01783-9

Keywords: Ownership structure, Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainability reporting, European firms, Transparency, Corporate governance.