The nature reporting market remains fragmented. According to Baker Tilly data from 2023 (135 European companies), organizations use various reporting frameworks rather than relying on a single solution. However, this landscape is rapidly evolving toward convergence.
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)
This EU regulation replaces the Non-Financial Reporting Directive, mandating companies over 250 FTEs to use European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS). One of those ESRS (E4) is specifically dedicated to Biodiversity & Ecosystems.
Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD)
The TNFD provides a nature risk mitigation framework using the Locate, Evaluate, Assess & Prepare (LEAP) methodology. It focuses on assessing dependencies and impacts on nature for businesses and financial institutions, similar to climate-focused TCFD frameworks. It emphasizes location-based assessments and financial risk disclosure to stakeholders.
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
CDP operates through self-submitted questionnaires scored externally. Initially climate-focused, it has expanded to include water security and deforestation. Over 20,000 companies reported through CDP in 2023.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)
GRI offers broad sustainability reporting including biodiversity impacts. There is a specific biodiversity standard (GRI 101) which was updated in 2024; it includes location-specific reporting on impacts across operations and supply chains.
IFRS Sustainability Standards
Developed by the International Sustainability Standards Board, IFRS S1 and S2 provide a global baseline for sustainability disclosure. While not mandating biodiversity directly, they allow reporting when financially material.
Science Based Target Network (SBTN)
SBTN guides setting measurable, science-based environmental targets aligned with planetary boundaries, extending Science-Based Target approaches from climate to biodiversity and other environmental impacts.
Convergence trends
Frameworks are increasingly interoperable, sharing methodological similarities including:
- Double materiality assessment approach (financial and impact)
- Materiality assessment to identify priority sites
- Dual perspective on ecosystem integrity and species extinction
- IPBES biodiversity pressures as a foundation
- Full value chain coverage (Scope 3)
- Location-specific assessments
- Rights-holder and community engagement
The TNFD and EFRAG released correspondence mapping documents facilitating framework alignment. Mapping tables now connect these frameworks, promoting interoperability and consistent adoption.