WBF2026-1006, updated on 10 Mar 2026
https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-1006
World Biodiversity Forum 2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Oral | Thursday, 18 Jun, 15:15–15:30 (CEST)| Room Schwarzhorn
From the IPBES Business and Biodiversity report: Approaches for measurement of business dependencies and impacts on biodiversity
Michal Kulak, Sharon Brooks, Bruna Fatiche Pavani, Clément Feger, Eerson Augusto Zanetti, Francesca Verones, Heera Lee, Mark van Oorschot, Stephan Pfister, David Nemecek, and Jacob Bedford
Michal Kulak et al.
  • 1Chair of Ecological Systems Design, Institute of Environmental Engineering, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

Chapter 4 of the IPBES report “Business and Biodiversity Assessment” is called “Approaches for measurement of business dependencies and impacts on biodiversity” and is addressing and summarizing the existing approaches for measuring business dependencies and impacts on biodiversity. Based on extensive analysis of existing work and intense discussions in the working group, five method families for measuring business-biodiversity interactions have been identified: participatory methods, location-based observations, spatial analysis, life-cycle approaches, and ecological-economic modelling. There is no universal tool for businesses, as the most appropriate method depends on decision context (from portfolio to site level assessments) and purpose, with inherent trade-offs between coverage, accuracy, and responsiveness, which requires explicit acknowledgment.

While important first steps, current biodiversity metrics remain incomplete and uncertain. This work analysed different metrics and their use for business and biodiversity assessment, including species-assemblage metrics, ecosystem extent/condition metrics. While top-down approaches such as life-cycle assessment (LCA) and Environmentally Extended Multi-Regional Input–Output (EE-MRIO) models support corporate decisions, they sacrifice accuracy and omit local specificities and social values, and specifically Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLC) aspects. Bottom-up methods (observations, participatory approaches) excel at local planning but is not applicable for large scale corporate assessments. The chapter also addresses some cross-cutting issues, such as scenario assessment and highlights the challenges and needs for such assessments.

Finally, we identified important knowledge gaps and implementation hurdles / drivers and conclude that Integrating metrics and values of nature in business accounting and reporting systems is crucial.

In summary, the presentation will disclose the key message that are provided by chapter 4 and will highlight and discuss the most important findings. Within the wider session on the IPBES report, which covers Chapters 1–6 and cross-cutting synergies / trade-offs, Chapter 4 focuses on what measurement methods exist, what they can and cannot capture, and where key knowledge gaps remain. 

How to cite: Kulak, M., Brooks, S., Pavani, B. F., Feger, C., Zanetti, E. A., Verones, F., Lee, H., van Oorschot, M., Pfister, S., Nemecek, D., and Bedford, J.: From the IPBES Business and Biodiversity report: Approaches for measurement of business dependencies and impacts on biodiversity, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-1006, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-1006, 2026.