The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability
Open accessAbstract
Biodiversity declines threaten the sustainability of global economies and societies. Acknowledging this, businesses are beginning to make commitments to account for and mitigate their influence on biodiversity and report this in sustainability reports. We assessed the top 100 of the 2016 Fortune 500 Global companies' (the Fortune 100) sustainability reports to gauge the current state of corporate biodiversity accountability. Almost half (49) of the Fortune 100 mentioned biodiversity in reports, and 31 made clear biodiversity commitments, of which only 5 were specific, measureable, and time bound. A variety of biodiversity‐related activities were disclosed (e.g., managing impacts, restoring biodiversity, and investing in biodiversity), but only 9 companies provided quantitative indicators to verify the magnitude of their activities (e.g., area of habitat restored). No companies reported quantitative biodiversity outcomes, making it difficult to determine whether business actions were of sufficient magnitude to address impacts and were achieving positive outcomes for nature. Conservation science can advance approaches to corporate biodiversity accountability by helping businesses make science‐based biodiversity commitments, develop meaningful indicators, and select more targeted activities to address business impacts. With the biodiversity policy super year of 2020 rapidly approaching, now is the time for conservation scientists to engage with and support businesses in playing a critical role in setting the new agenda for a sustainable future for the planet with biodiversity at its heart.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Biodiversity: The ravages of guns, nets and bulldozers
Maxwell, S. L., Fuller, R. A., Brooks, T. M., & Watson, J. E. M. (2016) · Nature · doi:10.1038/536143a · Cited by 1,979 · cited 1×
“…where it is needed most: helping hone attention to operations that pose the greatest impact on biodiversity (e.g., agriculture and extractives; Maxwell et al. 2016); and direct corporate action in conservation priority areas by avoiding impacting the most threatened species and ecosystems…”
BackgroundCatastrophic Declines in Wilderness Areas Undermine Global Environment Targets
Watson, J. E. M., Shanahan, D. F., Di Marco, M., Allan, J., Laurance, W. F., Sanderson, E. W., Mackey, B., & Venter, O. (2016) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2016.08.049 · Cited by 483
Sustainability reporting among mining corporations: a constructive critique of the GRI approach
Fonseca, A., McAllister, M. L., & Fitzpatrick, P. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.050 · Cited by 292
Metadata
- Authors
- Addison, P. F. E., Bull, J. W., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J.
- Venue
- Conservation Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-10-05
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 307-318
- ISSN
- 0888-8892 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-1739
- OpenAlex
- W2883740377
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 30.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/cobi.13190
- The paper
- Addison, P. F. E., Bull, J. W., & Milner‐Gulland, E. J. (2019). Using conservation science to advance corporate biodiversity accountability. Conservation Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13190
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
