{"paper_id":"42fe6d6a-de80-4650-bb3e-05cbe946eaff","body_text":"Biodiversity conservation by Korean corporations towards nature-positive goals | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Biodiversity conservation by Korean corporations towards nature-positive goals Yoora Cho, Jeongki Lee, Sachini S. Senadheera, Scott. X. Chang, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975048/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Overbalance of ecosystems triggers global biodiversity loss and threatens the sustainability of society by emerging financial risks from the disruption of ecosystem services. Several initiatives and international organizations have developed guidelines on biodiversity conservation to support the increasing demand for the disclosure of nature-positive business practices. However, corporations’ biodiversity-related performances have yet to undergo a comprehensive assessment, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Here we analyze the biodiversity conservation practices, or the evolution of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) management, of the top 200 corporations by market capitalization in South Korea based on their sustainability reports published 2017–2021. We show that the number of corporations issuing sustainability reports doubled in five years, and over 70% issued sustainability reports in 2021. Based on the directionality of the COP15 agreement and the consistency with the targeted ecosystems, we identified that 22% of corporations report engagement with biodiversity conservation without substantive outcomes. The methodology developed can guide major corporations for biodiversity-related disclosures, including those required by the TNFD. Biological sciences/Ecology/Biodiversity Biological sciences/Ecology/Ecosystem services Biological sciences/Ecology/Environmental economics Sustainability Ecosystem resilience Greenwashing Eco-friendliness Nature loss Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction The global challenge of climate change emerges as a complex, intergovernmental issue, casting its influence across a diverse range of ecological, environmental, socio-political, and socio-economic domains. Climate change exerts severe repercussions on a global scale, affecting agriculture and forestry, biodiversity, health, tourism, and the economy significantly(Abbass et al., 2022 ; Leal Filho et al., 2021 ). Moreover, human activities are intensifying pressure on natural ecosystems, hastening the pace of climate change. To address these issues, the Paris Agreement was formed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015 which emphasized keeping global temperature rise well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels while aiming to limit the increase to 1.5°C(UNFCCC, 2015 ). The agreement was to tackle climate change and accelerate the actions required for a sustainable, low-carbon future(Sharif et al., 2020 ; Sharma et al., 2020 ). A current estimate reveals that about 150 gigatons of carbon (GtC), which cannot be replaced, is found within natural ecosystems, encompassing intact forests, wetlands, and tundra permafrost. If lost, this carbon cannot be restored in time to achieve the 2050 net zero carbon objectives(Goldstein et al., 2020 ). Therefore, the preservation of existing carbon reservoirs and the continued facilitation of carbon sequestration within terrestrial and marine ecosystems are intrinsically dependent upon safeguarding ecological roles furnished by biodiversity, along with the underlying processes upon which they are predicated(Locke et al., 2021 ). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biological diversity as “the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, … includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems”(Nations, 1992 ). Notably, biodiversity depletion frequently originates within the larger framework of climate change(Román-Palacios & Wiens, 2020 ). In general, climate change has the potential to alter the makeup, arrangement, and operations of ecosystems, thus reshaping the distribution of biodiversity(Bjorkman et al., 2018 ; Fadrique et al., 2018 ; Pennekamp et al., 2018 ; Román-Palacios & Wiens, 2020 ; Stephens et al., 2016 ). Biodiversity is currently experiencing a rapid decline unparalleled in human history(Cameron et al., 2019 ). Over the period since 1970, there has been an alarming average global reduction of nearly 70%(WWF, 2022 ), and the challenge of assisting endangered species remains formidable for conservationists, often due to inadequate funding. This underscores the necessity of establishing priorities: How can we effectively protect the maximum number of species while minimizing costs? One approach involves the identification of 'biodiversity hotspots,' regions where there are extraordinarily high concentrations of species and where habitat loss is particularly severe(Loreau et al., 2001 ; Myers et al., 2000 ; Sala et al., 2000 ). Biodiversity loss is a significant threat to the global economy, with over 50% of the world's GDP moderately or greatly reliant on nature, making it one of the top five risks(Herweijer et al., 2020 ). In other words, biodiversity is the foundation of ecosystem functioning worldwide. Diminishing biodiversity jeopardizes nature's robustness, the global economy, and societies at large(Duffy et al., 2017 ; Venter et al., 2016 ). It is directly connected to the well-being of ecosystems and human welfare(Cardinale et al., 2012 ; Naeem et al., 2016 ; Pennekamp et al., 2018 ). Undoubtedly, it plays a crucial role in achieving the objectives outlined in each of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs)(Blicharska et al., 2019 ). Research indicates that the pace of worldwide biodiversity decline has significantly accelerated, with estimates suggesting that over 1 million species are currently at risk of extinction(Barnosky et al., 2011 ; Bongaarts, 2019 ; Tilman et al., 2017 ). On a deeper level, many of the reasons that human driven-pollution has become a significant issue have also contributed to the decline in biodiversity, resulting in the deterioration of habitats, with a significant portion of amphibians, mammals, and reptiles facing endangerment(Crooks et al., 2017 ). Ultimately, these disruptions in ecosystem functioning, including the regulation of carbon and nitrogen cycles, can contribute to the acceleration of climate change(Chen et al., 2023 ). They may result in consequences ranging from reduced biomass production to a decline in ecosystem resilience(Chen et al., 2023 ; Fraser et al., 2015 ; Lu et al., 2020 ; Reich et al., 2012 ). Governments have pledged to global accords such as the CBD to lessen biodiversity decline. Nonetheless, many of the goals set out in these agreements are encountering challenges in terms of timely attainment due to the lack of effective execution at the regional level, and corporate levels, similar to climate action's decadal carbon neutrality objectives(Geldmann et al., 2013 ; Nature, 2020 ). A \"nature-positive\" global goal is needed to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, benchmarked against 2020 conditions(Locke et al., 2021 ). This goal should guide Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and UN SDGs aiming for an equitable, carbon-neutral, and nature-positive world(Bongaarts, 2019 ; Brörken et al., 2022 ). The involvement of non-governmental entities, notably the private sector, is crucial for realizing an equitable, nature-positive, and carbon-neutral global environment. Although climate change has long been a significant focus, concerns regarding safeguarding biodiversity and conserving nature are now garnering attention within the global business sphere. Notably, efforts to evaluate, appraise, and disclose information concerning biodiversity and natural capital have experienced rapid advancements in recent times(Krause et al., 2021 ). Adaptation of supply chains and corporation practices is essential to counter nature's deterioration, mitigating substantial business risks and fostering new opportunities. Forward-thinking companies are exploring ways to achieve a \"nature-positive\" status. However, to accelerate and expand their actions, businesses necessitate enduring political stability, a well-defined ambition, and a clear trajectory, attributes that a global nature goal would provide(Business for Nature, 2023 ). Creating a supportive context for businesses entails redirecting subsidies from harmful actions that oppose the goal towards activities aligning with it. The adoption of the natural capital approach and the mitigation hierarchy offers practical avenues for businesses to enact the nature-positive objective(CapitalsCoalition, 2020 ; Milner-Gulland et al., 2021 ). Recognizing this reality, businesses are taking steps to evaluate and mitigate their impact on biodiversity, aiming to integrate these initiatives into their business practices(Gaia & Jones, 2020 ). A clear indication of their acknowledgment of biodiversity as a significant risk is demonstrated by their commitment to conducting biodiversity impact assessments, biodiversity restoration activities, and investments in biodiversity and including them in their sustainability reports(Addison & Bull, 2018 ; Boiral & Heras-Saizarbitoria, 2017 ). Enterprises increasingly acknowledge biodiversity decline as a potential hazard to their functioning, encompassing risks such as compromised operational efficiency, financial accessibility, regulation adherence, and reputation(Addison & Bull, 2018 ). Corporation accountability for biodiversity (via external disclosure of commitments, actions, and achievements) is a significant facet of organizational stewardship and credibility, a trend embraced by a growing number of businesses(Jones & Solomon, 2013 ). However, studies indicate that the practice of corporation biodiversity accountability is still in its early stages of development(Adler et al., 2017 ; Boiral, 2016 ). Existing investigations have shed light on the intricacies of the topic, ranging from strategic approaches adopted by firms in diverse markets to the challenges faced by entities expanding internationally. The pioneering work of Prof. Michael John Jones has notably contributed to these explorations. His analyses of market entry strategies, adaptive management techniques, and innovative global expansion have been instrumental in advancing our understanding(Edgley et al., 2015 ; Gaia & John Jones, 2017 ; Gaia & Jones, 2020 ; Hrasky & Jones, 2016 ; Jones et al., 2017 ). By aligning our study with these insights, we aim to delve deeper into the nuances of Korean firms' strategies in the global landscape, enhancing the existing body of knowledge(Panwar, 2023 ). We performed a preliminary examination of biodiversity commitments and initiatives of major Korean corporations. Emphasis was placed on the role of corporation engagement in addressing and alleviating biodiversity loss, an area that had not been extensively researched previously. Moreover, this study showcases how conservation science can contribute to enhancing comprehensive corporation biodiversity accountability, thereby reinforcing the integration of biodiversity considerations across various sectors(Ermgassen et al., 2022 ). However, a limited number of companies driven by intrinsic motivation have dedicated themselves to nature conservation efforts. At present, scientific literature lacks substantial empirical research on business commitments specifically focused on biodiversity conservation. Hence, this study will delve into the underlying motivations and driving forces that have prompted these corporations to prioritize biodiversity commitments. Whether driven by regulatory pressures, stakeholder expectations, ethical considerations, or genuine environmental concerns, understanding the catalysts behind these commitments is essential for comprehending the broader landscape of corporation sustainability. By identifying successful strategies and best practices, other corporations within South Korea and beyond could be inspired to emulate or adapt similar approaches, thereby fostering a more widespread culture of biodiversity conservation within the corporation sector. In summary, this study represents a comprehensive overview of the biodiversity commitments undertaken by prominent South Korean corporations. Through rigorous analysis, we aim to better understand how these corporations align their business practices with the broader objectives of sustainable development and environmental stewardship(Monroy-Gamboa et al., 2023 ; Schaltegger et al., 2022 ). Results Situation Analysis Approximately 72% of the studied corporations published sustainability reports on their performances in 2021. The percentage of reporting has steadily increased from those covering 2017, exceeding 50% for 2020. The number of corporations publishing a sustainability report has doubled in the five years from 2017 to 2021 (Fig. 1 ). The increase in the publication of sustainability reports indicates the emerging participation in ESG management of corporations and their advanced organizing of environmental management. Given that 2020–2021 was a period of global recession due to COVID-19, the largest increase during this period indicates that ESG management, including environmental issues, became a key business activity. The appearance of the biodiversity conservation issue was increased in three aspects (Fig. 2 ): the corporations that stated the biodiversity issue in their sustainability reports, selected it as a material issue of the year and disclosed the information complying with GRI 304. In all three cases, there is a year-over-year increase. The mention of “biodiversity” among the performances in 2017 revealed by the sustainability report was found in 20% of 200 corporations, and it was increased to 46% in 2021 (Fig. 2 ). Along with the increase in the number of sustainability reports published (Fig. 1 ), the awareness of the importance of biodiversity conservation was expanded. In particular, the identification of biodiversity conservation as a material issue nearly doubled from 7% in 2017 to 15% in 2021. Given the involvement of stakeholders in the selection of material issues, this suggests that biodiversity is a material issue for corporations, with the apparent demand of stakeholders to help corporations cope with biodiversity. The number of corporations reporting on biodiversity following the GRI 304 standard has sharply increased to double from 12% in 2017 to 24% in 2021. This suggests that more corporations are recognizing biodiversity's importance and taking feasible action. Notably, a higher percentage of corporations reported biodiversity performance (24%) than those that identified it as a material issue (15%). This difference suggests that even if biodiversity is not a material issue, there are corporations that are keeping on reporting it. Fulfillment of COP-15 The directionality was identified by the fulfillment of COP15-derived criteria that the distribution was significantly biased. As a comprehensive accordance, no corporation had yet met all five of the COP15-based directions that are recommended to follow in biodiversity conservation performances. Meanwhile, 13% of the reporting corporations did not achieve substantial outcomes by not fulfilling any of the directions(Fig. 3 . a). Dir. 2, derived from goal A, was the most fundamental concept of biodiversity implementation activities since all the related performances were matched(Fig. 3 . b). The biodiversity conservation performances aligned with the direction of Dir.1 had the lowest numbers. The biodiversity conservation performances are rarely forecasted to continue to the year 2050, with fewer cases that have set equivocal short-term goals. While biodiversity conservation must be a long-term endeavor, only a few know its scale and have established a plan. The indication of Dir.2 was satisfied for all performances. The activities include such as ecosystem protection, habitat protection, species management, and protection of endangered species, which are the most recognized concepts of biodiversity. However, pollution management was included in a few cases, which do not mainly focus on biodiversity conservation. Even water quality, air pollutant emission, and soil contamination management are tasks that have been controlled under the regulation of environmental pollution for a longer period. In Dir.3 and Dir.4, the list of corporations includes the business management in compliance with the Nagoya Protocol and accomplishing the RSPO (Sustainable Palm Oil Initiative) standards. Thus, activities related to the management of NCPs or nature assets (Dir.3) and benefit-sharing with indigenous communities (Dir.4) were implemented by incorporating appropriate initiatives rather than by corporations setting up their strategies. The biodiversity conservation performances towards sustainable natural assets and native community management were found to be highly initiative-dependent. For Dir.5, collaborative performance with science and technology was found in the results of specialized institutions in species management. The collaboration with scientific institutes varied in cases, with some corporations maintaining the collaboration as a relationship in the form of sponsorship to research institutes or participating in research projects without specific and direct results, as biodiversity conservation activities explained. Composition of the targeted ecosystem Biodiversity performances were dedicated to ecosystems, and the target of biodiversity was distinguished by terrestrial or marine(Fig. 4 ). The classification of ecosystems by terrestrial and marine revealed significant terrestrial ecosystem-focused biodiversity conservation performances, which were five times more concentrated on terrestrial ecosystems. Both the number and variety of performances and strategies were distinguishably higher than in marine ecosystems. They consist of plantation, forest protection, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) participation, and No-Deforestation, No-Peat, and No-Exploitation (NDPE) participation. At the same time, few marine ecosystem-specialized performances were found such as protection of whale habitat, ballast water control, and ocean plastic waste removal. However, few are directly focused on biodiversity protection. Meanwhile, 8% of corporations implemented biodiversity conservation performance considering both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Regardless of the business type, the comprehensive awareness and approach to biodiversity in the ecosystem was conducted. Among them, wildlife protection, pollution prevention, and habitat protection were executed in both ecosystems. However, a total of 19% was classified as not targeting the ecosystem in their biodiversity conservation performances. The performances were mostly covered as the employee’s education or waste treatment, less relevant to environment-based biodiversity conservation. Discussion Perspectives in disclosure The proportion of corporations publishing sustainability reports and the number of corporations disclosing their activities for biodiversity conservation have increased. It denotes that more corporations recognize the importance of biodiversity issues and implement activities to conserve and enhance. However, only 24% fulfilled the biodiversity-related disclosure of GRI (Fig. 2 ), suggesting that most corporations still need to increase their efforts on standardized management. The gap between problem awareness and the actual implementation of measures was about 22% in 2021, which the mention of biodiversity and disclosure of GIR 304 indicates. This can be seen as a case of recognizing biodiversity but not carrying out specific activities. Therefore, it will be necessary for corporations to identify the impact of their business activities on biodiversity and to recognize the importance of biodiversity to implement specific activities accordingly. From the perspective of disclosing biodiversity-related information, the number of corporations that recognize the importance of biodiversity in their business activities and make efforts to conserve it is continuously increasing. Corporations utilize natural resources as raw materials in their business activities and, at the same time, cause a significant impact on the natural environment, including the process of consumption. As the results of this study suggest, It will have a positive effect on biodiversity conservation and enhancement as more and more corporations recognize the importance of the natural environment and biodiversity, making efforts to disclose their actions in this regard. However, many corporations still merely mention biodiversity conservation without taking substantive actions. Even when companies disclose their biodiversity conservation activities through GRI 304, there is insufficient information to assess the effectiveness of these activities. Therefore, in the future, there will be a greater need for companies to actively engage in biodiversity conservation practices and provide specific information disclosures. Prospects in sustainable strategies While the awareness of biodiversity conservation is on the rise, and the number of corporations acting is increasing, the efforts still lack authenticity. The biodiversity conservation actions can be extended from an ecological approach to an aim to a broader concept as proposed at COP15. While ensuring that ecosystem services, or nature assets, are provided and maintained sustainably, biodiversity conservation performance should ensure that the benefits provided by nature are distributed fairly so that the operations of indigenous communities and major corporations are balanced and sustainable. Furthermore, even if corporations and organizations are the main actors in biodiversity conservation, the validity of all actions should be based on verifying scientific knowledge and considering the Global Biodiversity Framework. The concept of biodiversity conservation involves a multidirectional approach, and the comprehensive consideration will lead to the achievement of the nature-positive goal by 2050. Establishing a conservation strategy and targeting the specific ecosystem requires a more advanced approach to managing biodiversity. The approach can be categorized as the perspective of the impact, where the corporation's operations have caused biodiversity loss, or the perspective of the dependency, where the corporation seeks to secure natural resource that is essential to its operations. However, only a few corporations implement biodiversity conservation activities that are related to their impact and dependency on the environment, which suggests that a deeper understanding of the relationship between biodiversity conservation and corporation sustainability is needed. Meanwhile, it is expected that the disclosure of the TNFD, which provides a more systematic disclosure standard for natural assets, will lead to a better understanding of the ecosystems and specific regions(Howard et al., 2020 ) to be targeted by each corporation. Unfortunately, a significant number of corporations are addressing their implementation of performances on vague impact and dedication to biodiversity conservation. While this may be reasonable in the initial progress, the strategy cannot be expected to be authentic and tangible enough to be sustained until 2030 or 2050. However, the science-based biodiversity indicator can be adopted to overcome the uncertainty of the impact on biodiversity, which it has not yet actively applied. Specific and customized guidelines for biodiversity indicators based on scientific findings(Jung et al., 2023 ; Strassburg et al., 2020 ) can be developed to enable the regular measurement and evaluation of the outcome. It will support to overcome the difficulties of quantitative measurement of biodiversity and lead to the sustainable management of biodiversity by corporations. Therefore, biodiversity conservation must be sustained and scaled up as a long-term endeavor and produce tangible nature-positive results. Limitations of the study First, the key findings were derived through analyzing specific sustainability reports. Corporations may also disclose their relevant activities through other means, such as their websites or various media channels, which could potentially lead to undervaluation. However, issuing sustainability reports is a vital communication tool with various stakeholders, including investors. Thus, the study exclusively concentrated on sustainability reports. In the future, it will be necessary to enhance the reliability of research results by considering a broader range of aspects. Second, the evaluation was limited to assessing the current performance. However, whether such results positively impact a corporation’s sustainability, particularly its financial performance, remains unexplored due to insufficient data and a short observation period. In future research, there is a need to empirically analyze the causal relationship between these biodiversity conservation activities and financial performance. The study also has important managerial implications. The result indicates that the corporation is publicly reporting its biodiversity conservation performance through text yet disclosing the science-based precise values or appropriate results in contribution. To prevent any misconceptions of ESG-related activities as mere ‘washing’, it is essential to operate in conjunction with a universally valid reporting framework, as suggested in this study. Conclusions The efforts on biodiversity conservation by major corporations in Korea were extended with their proactive management of non-financial issues and consideration of sustainability. However, the authentic dedication to biodiversity did not meet the awareness of the importance of conservation. The comprehensive approach to biodiversity conservation performance based on the COP15 agreement and the specific ecosystem-targeted strategy is required for securing sustainable management. Nevertheless, we hope this study serves as a foundation for focusing on the major corporations in South Korea in the pioneering analysis of the science-based and accurate direction of their biodiversity activities. Thus, the evaluation will contribute to establishing sustainable strategies toward the global goal of a nature-positive future. Methods ESG performance data collection The largest two hundred Korean corporations in terms of their market capitalism (based on 2022. 12. 29 KRX) were selected as the subjects of the study. The ESG performances of those corporations reported in sustainability reports were the key source of data. Since the format of each corporation was designed uniquely and individually, they were classified by the reporting period and global reporting criteria. For example, biennial reports were sorted following the last year of the reporting period. In a few cases, the reports were released under different names as a distinct feature of the corporation, including the name of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports (Hanon Systems, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, etc.), ESG reports (LG Corp, SK Bioscience, etc.), and Corporation Citizenship reports such as POSCO holdings. Those cases were considered identical to the sustainability report as their purpose and content were within the same boundary. If the non-financial performance related to ESG complied with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard or was certified by a recognized third party, the reports were considered the same. The corporations’ environmental management was voluntarily disclosed through sustainability reports, which are devoted to major corporations(Flammer et al., 2021 ). All reports collected were publicly accessible; thus, the corporation’s internal and proprietary information on the sustainability report was not treated. Therefore, the assessment is based only on information that corporations officially disclosed to the public, even if their actual performance and activities were not included in their sustainability reports. Criteria of Biodiversity Conservation Commitment Evaluation Biodiversity-associated factors Three factors were established to investigate the current situation of biodiversity conservation activities in sustainability reports. A part of the quantitative investigation is referred from previous research by(Ermgassen et al., 2022 ), which was based on the performance of Fortune 100 corporations. First, the mention of the keyword “biodiversity” was tracked by searching the overall content. Regardless of the frequency or profitability of use, the statement of biodiversity in the report was counted, representing the corporation’s recognition of the issue. Second, the presence of biodiversity as an issue in materiality analysis was determined. The materiality analysis is an evaluation method that categorizes the materiality of ESG issues and is conducted through surveys of various stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, and academics, as well as trends in the corporation industry(GRI, 2021). The corporations select issues in high materiality and disclose their activities and performance through the sustainability report(Khan et al., 2016 ). By focusing materiality analysis on the sustainability report, the corporations nominated the biodiversity conservation activity as a material or core-material issue was identified. Those cases indicate that the corporation and its key stakeholders recognize that biodiversity is important to the corporation. The report of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 304 biodiversity disclosure standard was investigated last. The GRI 304 standard has four sub-sections. It is required to link the disclosure content with the pertinent GRI index for the organization and verify the report. Thus, the inclusion of GRI 304 biodiversity reporting was identified and the detailed corresponding performance on the report was extracted. COP 15-based directionality As the most publicly accepted standard and guidance in biodiversity conservation, the COP15 agreement of the UN biodiversity conference was adopted as the advisable criteria for evaluating biodiversity conservation performances. The COP15 set out in the official document, is based on the conclusions finalized at the Kunming-Montreal meeting in December 2022. The agreement suggests the main vision, “Living in harmony with nature,\" and four goals to achieve by 2050, and each of them was set up as individual directional criteria. It determined whether a corporation's approach to biodiversity conservation activities, regardless of the outcome of the activity, is directionally consistent with the COP15 agreement. A total of five criteria were set up from Dir.1 to Dir.5 (Table 1 ) referred from the COP15 agreement, and Dir.1 evaluates the existence of a solid and detailed plan based on the overall aims for 2050(COP-15, 2022). The criteria from Dir.2 through Dir.5 direct the main theme of each goal A, B, C, and D, respectively. Dir.2 indicates the protection and restoration of ecosystems and the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity in endangered species; Dir.3 focuses on the corporation’s recognition and sustainable management of natural assets as the concept of Nature’s contribution to people (NCP); and Dir.4 indicates the consideration of equitable distribution and rational sharing of economic benefit with indigenous communities, without exploitation, in the use of these ecosystem services. Finally, Dir.5 verifies whether biodiversity conservation activities are guided by the global biodiversity framework (GBF) and accompanied by science-based support and verification. Table 1 Five directions of the biodiversity evaluation criteria associated with the 15th Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 15) (the contents were cited by the agreement of COP15) Direction COP 15 Vision and Goals Keywords Direction 1 Plan to 2050 Long-term plan Direction 2 The preservation, interconnectedness, and durability of all ecosystems will be upheld, improved, or rehabilitated, significantly expanding the expanse of natural ecosystems by the year 2050. Ecosystem, Extinction, Genetic diversity Human-caused extinction of identified endangered species will be stopped, and by 2050, the rate of extinction and the threat to all species will be reduced by ten times, while the population of native wildlife will be increased to robust and sustainable levels. The diversity of genes within wild and domesticated species' populations will be conserved, ensuring their potential to adapt is protected. Direction 3 Biodiversity should be managed and used sustainably while acknowledging and enhancing nature's contributions to humanity, including ecosystem functions and services. Efforts must be made to value, preserve, and improve these contributions, particularly for those currently in decline, to support the attainment of sustainable development, for the benefit of both current and future generations by the year 2050. Nature’s contributions to people Direction 4 By 2050, there should be fair and equitable sharing of both monetary and non-monetary benefits stemming from the utilization of genetic resources, digital sequence information concerning genetic resources, and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, where applicable. This sharing should also extend to indigenous peoples and local communities as deemed appropriate. Simultaneously, it's crucial to ensure the adequate protection of traditional knowledge related to genetic resources, all of which contribute to the conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity under international agreements governing access and benefit sharing. Benefits Direction 5 Adequate means for implementing the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, such as financial resources, capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, and technology access and transfer, need to be secured and made accessible on a fair basis to all Parties. This includes a special focus on developing countries, especially the least developed nations, small island developing States, and countries undergoing economic transitions. The objective is to gradually reduce the annual biodiversity finance gap of $ 700 billion and align financial flows with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity. Technical and scientific cooperation, Global Biodiversity Framework Few performances were disclosed as biodiversity conservation performance but indicated the remediation of contaminated environment. While environmental pollution control fits the \"directional\" concept of biodiversity conservation as it contributes to the protection and restoration of ecosystems in a broad sense, it may yield different results on the examination and evaluation under a more systematic biodiversity conservation standard in the future. Consistency with targeted ecosystem For corporations that reported biodiversity conservation performances based on the GRI 304 standard, the subsequent classification of the targeted ecosystem was conducted under two main terrestrial or marine ecosystem categories. It is to track the performance of biodiversity conservation to the actual impacts and changes on the target ecosystem. The classification of target ecosystems brings out multiple interpretations. First, it aims to determine the extent to which conservation activities cover biodiversity loss across ecosystems. Second, the results support determining the relevance of a corporation’s industrial sector and scope of performance to the targeted ecosystems. Third, to understand what kind of and which ecosystem-based activities are conceptually or practically approached and implemented the most at the outset of a corporation's biodiversity conservation activities. The target ecosystem was classified by the biodiversity conservation performances as reported, and particularly in the case of species conservation, it is distinguished by the determination of terrestrial or marine species. Declarations Data availability All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article, and individual references are based on each website that is publically accessible. Acknowledgments This research is supported by the International ESG Association (IESGA). Junhee Park, Seongku Kwon, Jeongeun Hong, Chaehyun Kim, Yewon Lee, and Yongwoo Park conducted data verification. About 150 Korea University students in the Department of Ecological Engineering and Environmental Science helped with data collection. This work was carried out with the support of the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ01475801) from Rural Development Administration, the Republic of Korea. This study was also supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1A2C2011734) and the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2021R1A6A1A10045235). This study was also supported by the International ESG Association (IESGA). Author Contributions Statement Conceptualization, Yong Sik Ok and Yoora Cho; Supervision, Jay Hyuk Rhee and Yong Sik Ok; Visualization, Yoora Cho; Writing – original draft, Yoora Cho, Jeongki Lee, Sachini Senadheera; Writing – review & editing, Scott X. Chang, Jörg Rinklebe, Jay Hyuk Rhee and Yong Sik Ok. References Abbass, K., Qasim, M. Z., Song, H., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., & Younis, I. (2022). A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(28), 42539-42559. Addison, P. F., & Bull, J. W. (2018). Conservation accord: corporate incentives. Science, 360(6394), 1195-1196. Adler, R., Mansi, M., Pandey, R., & Stringer, C. (2017). United Nations Decade on Biodiversity: A study of the reporting practices of the Australian mining industry. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(8), 1711-1745. Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., & Maguire, K. C. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471(7336), 51-57. Bjorkman, A. D., Myers-Smith, I. H., Elmendorf, S. C., Normand, S., Rüger, N., Beck, P. S., Blach-Overgaard, A., Blok, D., Cornelissen, J. H. C., & Forbes, B. C. (2018). Plant functional trait change across a warming tundra biome. Nature, 562(7725), 57-62. Blicharska, M., Smithers, R. J., Mikusiński, G., Rönnbäck, P., Harrison, P. A., Nilsson, M., & Sutherland, W. J. (2019). Biodiversity’s contributions to sustainable development. Nature sustainability, 2(12), 1083-1093. Boiral, O. (2016). Accounting for the unaccountable: Biodiversity reporting and impression management. Journal of business ethics, 135(4), 751-768. Boiral, O., & Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2017). Corporate commitment to biodiversity in mining and forestry: Identifying drivers from GRI reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 153-161. Bongaarts, J. (2019). IPBES, 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Wiley Online Library. Brörken, C., Hugé, J., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Waas, T., Rochette, A.-J., & de Bisthoven, L. J. (2022). Monitoring biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation post-2020: Exploring ways forward. Environmental Science & Policy, 136, 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.017 Business for Nature. (2023). Retrieved 2023-12-19 from https://www.businessfornature.org/recommendations Cameron, E. K., Martins, I. S., Lavelle, P., Mathieu, J., Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M., Gottschall, F., Guerra, C. A., Hines, J., Patoine, G., Siebert, J., Winter, M., Cesarz, S., Ferlian, O., Kreft, H., Lovejoy, T. E., Montanarella, L., Orgiazzi, A., Pereira, H. M., . . . Eisenhauer, N. (2019). Global mismatches in aboveground and belowground biodiversity. Conserv Biol, 33(5), 1187-1192. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13311 CapitalsCoalition. (2020). Integrating biodiversity into natural capital assessments (Measuring and Valuing Guidance, Issue. Cardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., & Wardle, D. A. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59-67. Chen, X., Taylor, A. R., Reich, P. B., Hisano, M., Chen, H. Y. H., & Chang, S. X. (2023). Tree diversity increases decadal forest soil carbon and nitrogen accrual. Nature, 618(7963), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05941-9 Crooks, K. R., Burdett, C. L., Theobald, D. M., King, S. R., Di Marco, M., Rondinini, C., & Boitani, L. (2017). Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 114(29), 7635-7640. Duffy, J. E., Godwin, C. M., & Cardinale, B. J. (2017). Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature, 549(7671), 261-264. Edgley, C., Jones, M. J., & Atkins, J. (2015). The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach. The British Accounting Review, 47(1), 1-18. Ermgassen, S. O. S. E., Howard, M., Bennun, L., Addison, P. F. E., Bull, J. W., Loveridge, R., Pollard, E., & Starkey, M. (2022). Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering ‘nature-positive’ outcomes? A review of ‘nature-positive’ definitions, company progress and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134798 Fadrique, B., Báez, S., Duque, Á., Malizia, A., Blundo, C., Carilla, J., Osinaga-Acosta, O., Malizia, L., Silman, M., & Farfán-Ríos, W. (2018). Widespread but heterogeneous responses of Andean forests to climate change. Nature, 564(7735), 207-212. Flammer, C., Toffel, M. W., & Viswanathan, K. (2021). Shareholder activism and firms' voluntary disclosure of climate change risks. Strategic Management Journal, 42(10), 1850-1879. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3313 Fraser, L. H., Pither, J., Jentsch, A., Sternberg, M., Zobel, M., Askarizadeh, D., Bartha, S., Beierkuhnlein, C., Bennett, J. A., & Bittel, A. (2015). Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness. Science, 349(6245), 302-305. Gaia, S., & John Jones, M. (2017). UK local councils reporting of biodiversity values: a stakeholder perspective. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(7), 1614-1638. Gaia, S., & Jones, M. J. (2020). Biodiversity reporting for governmental organisations: Evidence from English local councils. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(1), 1-31. Geldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I. D., Hockings, M., & Burgess, N. D. (2013). Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation, 161, 230-238. Goldstein, A., Turner, W. R., Spawn, S. A., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Cook-Patton, S., Fargione, J., Gibbs, H. K., Griscom, B., Hewson, J. H., & Howard, J. F. (2020). Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth’s ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10(4), 287-295. Herweijer, C., Evison, W., Mariam, S., Khatri, A., Albani, M., Semov, A., & Long, E. (2020). Nature risk rising: Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and the economy. World Economic Forum and PwC. http://www3. weforum. org/docs/WEF_New_ Nature_Economy_Report_2020. pdf, Howard, C., Flather, C. H., & Stephens, P. A. (2020). A global assessment of the drivers of threatened terrestrial species richness. Nat Commun, 11(1), 993. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14771-6 Hrasky, S., & Jones, M. (2016). Lake Pedder: Accounting, environmental decision-making, nature and impression management. Accounting forum, Jones, M. J., Melis, A., Aresu, S., Gaia, S., Rombi, L., & Chaidali, P. (2017). The future of financial reporting 2017: Change, narratives, education and globalisation. Jones, M. J., & Solomon, J. F. (2013). Problematising accounting for biodiversity. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 26(5), 668-687. Jung, M., Lesiv, M., Warren-Thomas, E., Shchepashchenko, D., See, L., & Fritz, S. (2023). The importance of capturing management in forest restoration targets. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01192-8 Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383 Krause, M. S., Droste, N., & Matzdorf, B. (2021). What makes businesses commit to nature conservation? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 741-755. Leal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U. M., Balogun, A.-L., Setti, A. F. F., Mucova, S. A., Ayal, D., Totin, E., Lydia, A. M., Kalaba, F. K., & Oguge, N. O. (2021). The influence of ecosystems services depletion to climate change adaptation efforts in Africa. Science of The Total Environment, 779, 146414. Locke, H., Rockström, J., Bakker, P., Bapna, M., Gough, M., Hilty, J., Lambertini, M., Morris, J., Polman, P., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2021). A nature-positive world: the global goal for nature. Loreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., Hooper, D., Huston, M., Raffaelli, D., & Schmid, B. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. science, 294(5543), 804-808. Lu, Y., Yang, Y., Sun, B., Yuan, J., Yu, M., Stenseth, N. C., Bullock, J. M., & Obersteiner, M. (2020). Spatial variation in biodiversity loss across China under multiple environmental stressors. Science Advances, 6(47), eabd0952. Milner-Gulland, E., Addison, P., Arlidge, W. N., Baker, J., Booth, H., Brooks, T., Bull, J. W., Burgass, M. J., Ekstrom, J., & zu Ermgassen, S. O. (2021). Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth, 4(1), 75-87. Monroy-Gamboa, A. G., Álvarez-Castañeda, S. T., & Beltrán Morales, L. F. (2023). Biodiversity royalties: a different approach in bioeconomy. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1216472 Myers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A., & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853-858. Naeem, S., Chazdon, R., Duffy, J. E., Prager, C., & Worm, B. (2016). Biodiversity and human well-being: an essential link for sustainable development. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1844), 20162091. Nations, U. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Nature. (2020). The United Nations must get its new biodiversity targets right. Nature, 578, 337-338. Panwar, R. (2023). Business and biodiversity: achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity conservation through transformative business practices. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(11), 3607-3613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02575-1 Pennekamp, F., Pontarp, M., Tabi, A., Altermatt, F., Alther, R., Choffat, Y., Fronhofer, E. A., Ganesanandamoorthy, P., Garnier, A., & Griffiths, J. I. (2018). Biodiversity increases and decreases ecosystem stability. Nature, 563(7729), 109-112. Reich, P. B., Tilman, D., Isbell, F., Mueller, K., Hobbie, S. E., Flynn, D. F., & Eisenhauer, N. (2012). Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through time as redundancy fades. Science, 336(6081), 589-592. Román-Palacios, C., & Wiens, J. J. (2020). Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(8), 4211-4217. Sala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., & Kinzig, A. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. science, 287(5459), 1770-1774. Schaltegger, S., Gibassier, D., & Maas, K. (2022). Managing and accounting for corporate biodiversity contributions. Mapping the field. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(5), 2544-2553. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3166 Sharif, A., Mishra, S., Sinha, A., Jiao, Z., Shahbaz, M., & Afshan, S. (2020). The renewable energy consumption-environmental degradation nexus in Top-10 polluted countries: Fresh insights from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Renewable Energy, 150, 670-690. Sharma, R., Sinha, A., & Kautish, P. (2020). Examining the impacts of economic and demographic aspects on the ecological footprint in South and Southeast Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 36970-36982. Stephens, P. A., Mason, L. R., Green, R. E., Gregory, R. D., Sauer, J. R., Alison, J., Aunins, A., Brotons, L., Butchart, S. H., & Campedelli, T. (2016). Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents. Science, 352(6281), 84-87. Strassburg, B. B. N., Iribarrem, A., Beyer, H. L., Cordeiro, C. L., Crouzeilles, R., Jakovac, C. C., Braga Junqueira, A., Lacerda, E., Latawiec, A. E., Balmford, A., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chazdon, R. L., Erb, K. H., Brancalion, P., Buchanan, G., Cooper, D., Diaz, S., Donald, P. F., . . . Visconti, P. (2020). Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature, 586(7831), 724-729. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9 Tilman, D., Clark, M., Williams, D. R., Kimmel, K., Polasky, S., & Packer, C. (2017). Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature, 546(7656), 73-81. UNFCCC. (2015). The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement?gclid=Cj0KCQjw0bunBhD9ARIsAAZl0E3uTcZpaeoOqqMM7-yV7W20ylhoZNEYOd2aAYT42QTtWekVWRquP48aAkaBEALw_wcB Venter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P., Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., & Fekete, B. M. (2016). Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature communications, 7(1), 12558. WWF. (2022). Living Planet report 2022- Building a nature-positive society. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-3975048\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":279493236,\"identity\":\"4222a2a7-8b23-4b88-8fc2-843311c4e288\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Yoora Cho\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"International ESG Association (IESGA)\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"submittingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Yoora\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Cho\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":279493237,\"identity\":\"4da341ff-1eda-43f9-8556-9e71c926a3a1\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"Jeongki Lee\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"International ESG Association (IESGA)\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"submittingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Jeongki\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Lee\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":279493238,\"identity\":\"e0cdbbb8-f6ef-4d04-9584-661163f7bac8\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Sachini S. Senadheera\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"International ESG Association (IESGA)\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"submittingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Sachini\",\"middleName\":\"S.\",\"lastName\":\"Senadheera\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":279493239,\"identity\":\"30d15160-e5bf-4c41-8aa1-1006a2350715\",\"order_by\":3,\"name\":\"Scott. X. Chang\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Department of Renewable Resources, University of Alberta\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"submittingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Scott.\",\"middleName\":\"X.\",\"lastName\":\"Chang\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":279493240,\"identity\":\"8d32d232-bd15-4cba-a2a5-0ccd041ff938\",\"order_by\":4,\"name\":\"Jörg Rinklebe\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Wuppertal\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"submittingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Jörg\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Rinklebe\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":279493241,\"identity\":\"a5b0d648-24d7-461e-944b-a836dd8ca576\",\"order_by\":5,\"name\":\"Jay Hyuk Rhee\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"International ESG Association (IESGA)\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"submittingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Jay\",\"middleName\":\"Hyuk\",\"lastName\":\"Rhee\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":279493242,\"identity\":\"7dbcf94f-1166-4efc-91a8-169c539e78f4\",\"order_by\":6,\"name\":\"Yong Sik Ok\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"International ESG Association (IESGA)\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"submittingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Yong\",\"middleName\":\"Sik\",\"lastName\":\"Ok\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2024-02-21 09:18:53\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975048/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975048/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":52762899,\"identity\":\"78e46f00-47e6-4c1f-b167-111cf152ae12\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-03-15 12:48:53\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":1,\"title\":\"Figure 1\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":48964,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eSustainability reports published by Korean corporations (%). The range of the investigation covers the biggest 200 corporations based on market capitalization as of 29th December 2022.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"1.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975048/v1/f6e9c4db46f8de438ee29994.png\"},{\"id\":52762826,\"identity\":\"fe2f9abe-c185-4fa1-9891-3eca87694522\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-03-15 12:48:39\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":2,\"title\":\"Figure 2\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":45082,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe temporal trend of Korean corporations that mention biodiversity in sustainability reports (%). Three biodiversity-associated factors were considered to confine the appearance in sustainability reports. It includes mentioning biodiversity keywords, the selected issue in materiality analysis, and the commitment of GRI 304.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"2.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975048/v1/497749068ecfe271e8ec6db5.png\"},{\"id\":52762845,\"identity\":\"78ab1eaa-3f2a-43a2-9c11-00e301c9de08\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-03-15 12:48:40\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":3,\"title\":\"Figure 3\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":58870,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe directionality of biodiversity conservation performances of corporations by fulfilling the COP-15 associated approaches in percentage (%). The figures denote (a) the portion of biodiversity conservation reporting corporations by the correspondence with the total number of the directions and (b) the classification of each direction upon the portion of matched corporations.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"3.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975048/v1/e698fa7f189ccac51858d69a.png\"},{\"id\":52762721,\"identity\":\"0eda0e6e-fabf-407d-afd5-f40fcfa995ac\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-03-15 12:48:21\",\"extension\":\"png\",\"order_by\":4,\"title\":\"Figure 4\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"figure\",\"size\":84368,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe consistency of biodiversity conservation performances of corporations by matching the targeted ecosystems. The composition of the marine ecosystem, terrestrial ecosystem, and both ecosystem effects were illustrated along with the corporations resulting in no consistency with the ecosystem.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"4.png\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975048/v1/379ee01207d3a424e3e55a05.png\"},{\"id\":54340093,\"identity\":\"8b994959-b4e8-4c45-a2f4-861aa600e4d5\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2024-04-09 04:53:00\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":527229,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3975048/v1/e4b9ab9f-180f-4509-9832-9237122bc0de.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Biodiversity conservation by Korean corporations towards nature-positive goals\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe global challenge of climate change emerges as a complex, intergovernmental issue, casting its influence across a diverse range of ecological, environmental, socio-political, and socio-economic domains. Climate change exerts severe repercussions on a global scale, affecting agriculture and forestry, biodiversity, health, tourism, and the economy significantly(Abbass et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR1\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e; Leal Filho et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). Moreover, human activities are intensifying pressure on natural ecosystems, hastening the pace of climate change. To address these issues, the Paris Agreement was formed at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 2015 which emphasized keeping global temperature rise well below 2\\u0026deg;C above pre-industrial levels while aiming to limit the increase to 1.5\\u0026deg;C(UNFCCC, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR56\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). The agreement was to tackle climate change and accelerate the actions required for a sustainable, low-carbon future(Sharif et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Sharma et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). A current estimate reveals that about 150 gigatons of carbon (GtC), which cannot be replaced, is found within natural ecosystems, encompassing intact forests, wetlands, and tundra permafrost. If lost, this carbon cannot be restored in time to achieve the 2050 net zero carbon objectives(Goldstein et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). Therefore, the preservation of existing carbon reservoirs and the continued facilitation of carbon sequestration within terrestrial and marine ecosystems are intrinsically dependent upon safeguarding ecological roles furnished by biodiversity, along with the underlying processes upon which they are predicated(Locke et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) defines biological diversity as \\u0026ldquo;the variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine, and other aquatic ecosystems, \\u0026hellip; includes diversity within species, between species, and of ecosystems\\u0026rdquo;(Nations, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1992\\u003c/span\\u003e). Notably, biodiversity depletion frequently originates within the larger framework of climate change(Rom\\u0026aacute;n-Palacios \\u0026amp; Wiens, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). In general, climate change has the potential to alter the makeup, arrangement, and operations of ecosystems, thus reshaping the distribution of biodiversity(Bjorkman et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Fadrique et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Pennekamp et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Rom\\u0026aacute;n-Palacios \\u0026amp; Wiens, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Stephens et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). Biodiversity is currently experiencing a rapid decline unparalleled in human history(Cameron et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Over the period since 1970, there has been an alarming average global reduction of nearly 70%(WWF, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR58\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), and the challenge of assisting endangered species remains formidable for conservationists, often due to inadequate funding. This underscores the necessity of establishing priorities: How can we effectively protect the maximum number of species while minimizing costs? One approach involves the identification of 'biodiversity hotspots,' regions where there are extraordinarily high concentrations of species and where habitat loss is particularly severe(Loreau et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2001\\u003c/span\\u003e; Myers et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2000\\u003c/span\\u003e; Sala et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2000\\u003c/span\\u003e). Biodiversity loss is a significant threat to the global economy, with over 50% of the world's GDP moderately or greatly reliant on nature, making it one of the top five risks(Herweijer et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). In other words, biodiversity is the foundation of ecosystem functioning worldwide. Diminishing biodiversity jeopardizes nature's robustness, the global economy, and societies at large(Duffy et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e; Venter et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR57\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). It is directly connected to the well-being of ecosystems and human welfare(Cardinale et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e; Naeem et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e; Pennekamp et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). Undoubtedly, it plays a crucial role in achieving the objectives outlined in each of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs)(Blicharska et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Research indicates that the pace of worldwide biodiversity decline has significantly accelerated, with estimates suggesting that over 1\\u0026nbsp;million species are currently at risk of extinction(Barnosky et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2011\\u003c/span\\u003e; Bongaarts, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e; Tilman et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). On a deeper level, many of the reasons that human driven-pollution has become a significant issue have also contributed to the decline in biodiversity, resulting in the deterioration of habitats, with a significant portion of amphibians, mammals, and reptiles facing endangerment(Crooks et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Ultimately, these disruptions in ecosystem functioning, including the regulation of carbon and nitrogen cycles, can contribute to the acceleration of climate change(Chen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). They may result in consequences ranging from reduced biomass production to a decline in ecosystem resilience(Chen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e; Fraser et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Lu et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Reich et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGovernments have pledged to global accords such as the CBD to lessen biodiversity decline. Nonetheless, many of the goals set out in these agreements are encountering challenges in terms of timely attainment due to the lack of effective execution at the regional level, and corporate levels, similar to climate action's decadal carbon neutrality objectives(Geldmann et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e; Nature, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). A \\\"nature-positive\\\" global goal is needed to halt and reverse nature loss by 2030, benchmarked against 2020 conditions(Locke et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). This goal should guide Multilateral Environmental Agreements (MEAs) and UN SDGs aiming for an equitable, carbon-neutral, and nature-positive world(Bongaarts, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e; Br\\u0026ouml;rken et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe involvement of non-governmental entities, notably the private sector, is crucial for realizing an equitable, nature-positive, and carbon-neutral global environment. Although climate change has long been a significant focus, concerns regarding safeguarding biodiversity and conserving nature are now garnering attention within the global business sphere. Notably, efforts to evaluate, appraise, and disclose information concerning biodiversity and natural capital have experienced rapid advancements in recent times(Krause et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). Adaptation of supply chains and corporation practices is essential to counter nature's deterioration, mitigating substantial business risks and fostering new opportunities. Forward-thinking companies are exploring ways to achieve a \\\"nature-positive\\\" status. However, to accelerate and expand their actions, businesses necessitate enduring political stability, a well-defined ambition, and a clear trajectory, attributes that a global nature goal would provide(Business for Nature, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR11\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Creating a supportive context for businesses entails redirecting subsidies from harmful actions that oppose the goal towards activities aligning with it. The adoption of the natural capital approach and the mitigation hierarchy offers practical avenues for businesses to enact the nature-positive objective(CapitalsCoalition, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Milner-Gulland et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRecognizing this reality, businesses are taking steps to evaluate and mitigate their impact on biodiversity, aiming to integrate these initiatives into their business practices(Gaia \\u0026amp; Jones, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e). A clear indication of their acknowledgment of biodiversity as a significant risk is demonstrated by their commitment to conducting biodiversity impact assessments, biodiversity restoration activities, and investments in biodiversity and including them in their sustainability reports(Addison \\u0026amp; Bull, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Boiral \\u0026amp; Heras-Saizarbitoria, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR8\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). Enterprises increasingly acknowledge biodiversity decline as a potential hazard to their functioning, encompassing risks such as compromised operational efficiency, financial accessibility, regulation adherence, and reputation(Addison \\u0026amp; Bull, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e). Corporation accountability for biodiversity (via external disclosure of commitments, actions, and achievements) is a significant facet of organizational stewardship and credibility, a trend embraced by a growing number of businesses(Jones \\u0026amp; Solomon, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, studies indicate that the practice of corporation biodiversity accountability is still in its early stages of development(Adler et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e; Boiral, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eExisting investigations have shed light on the intricacies of the topic, ranging from strategic approaches adopted by firms in diverse markets to the challenges faced by entities expanding internationally. The pioneering work of Prof. Michael John Jones has notably contributed to these explorations. His analyses of market entry strategies, adaptive management techniques, and innovative global expansion have been instrumental in advancing our understanding(Edgley et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR18\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Gaia \\u0026amp; John Jones, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR23\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e; Gaia \\u0026amp; Jones, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Hrasky \\u0026amp; Jones, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e; Jones et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e). By aligning our study with these insights, we aim to delve deeper into the nuances of Korean firms' strategies in the global landscape, enhancing the existing body of knowledge(Panwar, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWe performed a preliminary examination of biodiversity commitments and initiatives of major Korean corporations. Emphasis was placed on the role of corporation engagement in addressing and alleviating biodiversity loss, an area that had not been extensively researched previously. Moreover, this study showcases how conservation science can contribute to enhancing comprehensive corporation biodiversity accountability, thereby reinforcing the integration of biodiversity considerations across various sectors(Ermgassen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, a limited number of companies driven by intrinsic motivation have dedicated themselves to nature conservation efforts. At present, scientific literature lacks substantial empirical research on business commitments specifically focused on biodiversity conservation. Hence, this study will delve into the underlying motivations and driving forces that have prompted these corporations to prioritize biodiversity commitments. Whether driven by regulatory pressures, stakeholder expectations, ethical considerations, or genuine environmental concerns, understanding the catalysts behind these commitments is essential for comprehending the broader landscape of corporation sustainability. By identifying successful strategies and best practices, other corporations within South Korea and beyond could be inspired to emulate or adapt similar approaches, thereby fostering a more widespread culture of biodiversity conservation within the corporation sector. In summary, this study represents a comprehensive overview of the biodiversity commitments undertaken by prominent South Korean corporations. Through rigorous analysis, we aim to better understand how these corporations align their business practices with the broader objectives of sustainable development and environmental stewardship(Monroy-Gamboa et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e; Schaltegger et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR50\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Results\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec3\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eSituation Analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eApproximately 72% of the studied corporations published sustainability reports on their performances in 2021. The percentage of reporting has steadily increased from those covering 2017, exceeding 50% for 2020. The number of corporations publishing a sustainability report has doubled in the five years from 2017 to 2021 (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e). The increase in the publication of sustainability reports indicates the emerging participation in ESG management of corporations and their advanced organizing of environmental management. Given that 2020\\u0026ndash;2021 was a period of global recession due to COVID-19, the largest increase during this period indicates that ESG management, including environmental issues, became a key business activity.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe appearance of the biodiversity conservation issue was increased in three aspects (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e): the corporations that stated the biodiversity issue in their sustainability reports, selected it as a material issue of the year and disclosed the information complying with GRI 304. In all three cases, there is a year-over-year increase. The mention of \\u0026ldquo;biodiversity\\u0026rdquo; among the performances in 2017 revealed by the sustainability report was found in 20% of 200 corporations, and it was increased to 46% in 2021 (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). Along with the increase in the number of sustainability reports published (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e), the awareness of the importance of biodiversity conservation was expanded. In particular, the identification of biodiversity conservation as a material issue nearly doubled from 7% in 2017 to 15% in 2021. Given the involvement of stakeholders in the selection of material issues, this suggests that biodiversity is a material issue for corporations, with the apparent demand of stakeholders to help corporations cope with biodiversity.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe number of corporations reporting on biodiversity following the GRI 304 standard has sharply increased to double from 12% in 2017 to 24% in 2021. This suggests that more corporations are recognizing biodiversity's importance and taking feasible action. Notably, a higher percentage of corporations reported biodiversity performance (24%) than those that identified it as a material issue (15%). This difference suggests that even if biodiversity is not a material issue, there are corporations that are keeping on reporting it.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec4\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eFulfillment of COP-15\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe directionality was identified by the fulfillment of COP15-derived criteria that the distribution was significantly biased. As a comprehensive accordance, no corporation had yet met all five of the COP15-based directions that are recommended to follow in biodiversity conservation performances. Meanwhile, 13% of the reporting corporations did not achieve substantial outcomes by not fulfilling any of the directions(Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e. a).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDir. 2, derived from goal A, was the most fundamental concept of biodiversity implementation activities since all the related performances were matched(Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e. b). The biodiversity conservation performances aligned with the direction of Dir.1 had the lowest numbers. The biodiversity conservation performances are rarely forecasted to continue to the year 2050, with fewer cases that have set equivocal short-term goals. While biodiversity conservation must be a long-term endeavor, only a few know its scale and have established a plan. The indication of Dir.2 was satisfied for all performances. The activities include such as ecosystem protection, habitat protection, species management, and protection of endangered species, which are the most recognized concepts of biodiversity. However, pollution management was included in a few cases, which do not mainly focus on biodiversity conservation. Even water quality, air pollutant emission, and soil contamination management are tasks that have been controlled under the regulation of environmental pollution for a longer period.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn Dir.3 and Dir.4, the list of corporations includes the business management in compliance with the Nagoya Protocol and accomplishing the RSPO (Sustainable Palm Oil Initiative) standards. Thus, activities related to the management of NCPs or nature assets (Dir.3) and benefit-sharing with indigenous communities (Dir.4) were implemented by incorporating appropriate initiatives rather than by corporations setting up their strategies. The biodiversity conservation performances towards sustainable natural assets and native community management were found to be highly initiative-dependent. For Dir.5, collaborative performance with science and technology was found in the results of specialized institutions in species management. The collaboration with scientific institutes varied in cases, with some corporations maintaining the collaboration as a relationship in the form of sponsorship to research institutes or participating in research projects without specific and direct results, as biodiversity conservation activities explained.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec5\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eComposition of the targeted ecosystem\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBiodiversity performances were dedicated to ecosystems, and the target of biodiversity was distinguished by terrestrial or marine(Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig5\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e4\\u003c/span\\u003e). The classification of ecosystems by terrestrial and marine revealed significant terrestrial ecosystem-focused biodiversity conservation performances, which were five times more concentrated on terrestrial ecosystems. Both the number and variety of performances and strategies were distinguishably higher than in marine ecosystems.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThey consist of plantation, forest protection, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) participation, and No-Deforestation, No-Peat, and No-Exploitation (NDPE) participation. At the same time, few marine ecosystem-specialized performances were found such as protection of whale habitat, ballast water control, and ocean plastic waste removal. However, few are directly focused on biodiversity protection.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMeanwhile, 8% of corporations implemented biodiversity conservation performance considering both terrestrial and marine ecosystems. Regardless of the business type, the comprehensive awareness and approach to biodiversity in the ecosystem was conducted. Among them, wildlife protection, pollution prevention, and habitat protection were executed in both ecosystems. However, a total of 19% was classified as not targeting the ecosystem in their biodiversity conservation performances. The performances were mostly covered as the employee\\u0026rsquo;s education or waste treatment, less relevant to environment-based biodiversity conservation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003ePerspectives in disclosure\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe proportion of corporations publishing sustainability reports and the number of corporations disclosing their activities for biodiversity conservation have increased. It denotes that more corporations recognize the importance of biodiversity issues and implement activities to conserve and enhance. However, only 24% fulfilled the biodiversity-related disclosure of GRI (Fig.\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Fig2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e), suggesting that most corporations still need to increase their efforts on standardized management.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe gap between problem awareness and the actual implementation of measures was about 22% in 2021, which the mention of biodiversity and disclosure of GIR 304 indicates. This can be seen as a case of recognizing biodiversity but not carrying out specific activities. Therefore, it will be necessary for corporations to identify the impact of their business activities on biodiversity and to recognize the importance of biodiversity to implement specific activities accordingly.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFrom the perspective of disclosing biodiversity-related information, the number of corporations that recognize the importance of biodiversity in their business activities and make efforts to conserve it is continuously increasing. Corporations utilize natural resources as raw materials in their business activities and, at the same time, cause a significant impact on the natural environment, including the process of consumption. As the results of this study suggest, It will have a positive effect on biodiversity conservation and enhancement as more and more corporations recognize the importance of the natural environment and biodiversity, making efforts to disclose their actions in this regard.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHowever, many corporations still merely mention biodiversity conservation without taking substantive actions. Even when companies disclose their biodiversity conservation activities through GRI 304, there is insufficient information to assess the effectiveness of these activities. Therefore, in the future, there will be a greater need for companies to actively engage in biodiversity conservation practices and provide specific information disclosures.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eProspects in sustainable strategies\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhile the awareness of biodiversity conservation is on the rise, and the number of corporations acting is increasing, the efforts still lack authenticity. The biodiversity conservation actions can be extended from an ecological approach to an aim to a broader concept as proposed at COP15. While ensuring that ecosystem services, or nature assets, are provided and maintained sustainably, biodiversity conservation performance should ensure that the benefits provided by nature are distributed fairly so that the operations of indigenous communities and major corporations are balanced and sustainable. Furthermore, even if corporations and organizations are the main actors in biodiversity conservation, the validity of all actions should be based on verifying scientific knowledge and considering the Global Biodiversity Framework. The concept of biodiversity conservation involves a multidirectional approach, and the comprehensive consideration will lead to the achievement of the nature-positive goal by 2050.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEstablishing a conservation strategy and targeting the specific ecosystem requires a more advanced approach to managing biodiversity. The approach can be categorized as the perspective of the impact, where the corporation's operations have caused biodiversity loss, or the perspective of the dependency, where the corporation seeks to secure natural resource that is essential to its operations. However, only a few corporations implement biodiversity conservation activities that are related to their impact and dependency on the environment, which suggests that a deeper understanding of the relationship between biodiversity conservation and corporation sustainability is needed. Meanwhile, it is expected that the disclosure of the TNFD, which provides a more systematic disclosure standard for natural assets, will lead to a better understanding of the ecosystems and specific regions(Howard et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e) to be targeted by each corporation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnfortunately, a significant number of corporations are addressing their implementation of performances on vague impact and dedication to biodiversity conservation. While this may be reasonable in the initial progress, the strategy cannot be expected to be authentic and tangible enough to be sustained until 2030 or 2050. However, the science-based biodiversity indicator can be adopted to overcome the uncertainty of the impact on biodiversity, which it has not yet actively applied. Specific and customized guidelines for biodiversity indicators based on scientific findings(Jung et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e; Strassburg et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e) can be developed to enable the regular measurement and evaluation of the outcome. It will support to overcome the difficulties of quantitative measurement of biodiversity and lead to the sustainable management of biodiversity by corporations. Therefore, biodiversity conservation must be sustained and scaled up as a long-term endeavor and produce tangible nature-positive results.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003eLimitations of the study\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eFirst, the key findings were derived through analyzing specific sustainability reports. Corporations may also disclose their relevant activities through other means, such as their websites or various media channels, which could potentially lead to undervaluation. However, issuing sustainability reports is a vital communication tool with various stakeholders, including investors. Thus, the study exclusively concentrated on sustainability reports. In the future, it will be necessary to enhance the reliability of research results by considering a broader range of aspects.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSecond, the evaluation was limited to assessing the current performance. However, whether such results positively impact a corporation\\u0026rsquo;s sustainability, particularly its financial performance, remains unexplored due to insufficient data and a short observation period. In future research, there is a need to empirically analyze the causal relationship between these biodiversity conservation activities and financial performance.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe study also has important managerial implications. The result indicates that the corporation is publicly reporting its biodiversity conservation performance through text yet disclosing the science-based precise values or appropriate results in contribution. To prevent any misconceptions of ESG-related activities as mere \\u0026lsquo;washing\\u0026rsquo;, it is essential to operate in conjunction with a universally valid reporting framework, as suggested in this study.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Conclusions\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThe efforts on biodiversity conservation by major corporations in Korea were extended with their proactive management of non-financial issues and consideration of sustainability. However, the authentic dedication to biodiversity did not meet the awareness of the importance of conservation. The comprehensive approach to biodiversity conservation performance based on the COP15 agreement and the specific ecosystem-targeted strategy is required for securing sustainable management.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNevertheless, we hope this study serves as a foundation for focusing on the major corporations in South Korea in the pioneering analysis of the science-based and accurate direction of their biodiversity activities. Thus, the evaluation will contribute to establishing sustainable strategies toward the global goal of a nature-positive future.\\u003c/p\\u003e \"},{\"header\":\"Methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eESG performance data collection\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe largest two hundred Korean corporations in terms of their market capitalism (based on 2022. 12. 29 KRX) were selected as the subjects of the study. The ESG performances of those corporations reported in sustainability reports were the key source of data. Since the format of each corporation was designed uniquely and individually, they were classified by the reporting period and global reporting criteria.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFor example, biennial reports were sorted following the last year of the reporting period. In a few cases, the reports were released under different names as a distinct feature of the corporation, including the name of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reports (Hanon Systems, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, etc.), ESG reports (LG Corp, SK Bioscience, etc.), and Corporation Citizenship reports such as POSCO holdings. Those cases were considered identical to the sustainability report as their purpose and content were within the same boundary. If the non-financial performance related to ESG complied with the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) standard or was certified by a recognized third party, the reports were considered the same.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe corporations\\u0026rsquo; environmental management was voluntarily disclosed through sustainability reports, which are devoted to major corporations(Flammer et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e). All reports collected were publicly accessible; thus, the corporation\\u0026rsquo;s internal and proprietary information on the sustainability report was not treated. Therefore, the assessment is based only on information that corporations officially disclosed to the public, even if their actual performance and activities were not included in their sustainability reports.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCriteria of Biodiversity Conservation Commitment Evaluation\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec14\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eBiodiversity-associated factors\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThree factors were established to investigate the current situation of biodiversity conservation activities in sustainability reports. A part of the quantitative investigation is referred from previous research by(Ermgassen et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), which was based on the performance of Fortune 100 corporations.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFirst, the mention of the keyword \\u0026ldquo;biodiversity\\u0026rdquo; was tracked by searching the overall content. Regardless of the frequency or profitability of use, the statement of biodiversity in the report was counted, representing the corporation\\u0026rsquo;s recognition of the issue.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSecond, the presence of biodiversity as an issue in materiality analysis was determined. The materiality analysis is an evaluation method that categorizes the materiality of ESG issues and is conducted through surveys of various stakeholders, such as employees, customers, suppliers, and academics, as well as trends in the corporation industry(GRI, 2021). The corporations select issues in high materiality and disclose their activities and performance through the sustainability report(Khan et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e). By focusing materiality analysis on the sustainability report, the corporations nominated the biodiversity conservation activity as a material or core-material issue was identified. Those cases indicate that the corporation and its key stakeholders recognize that biodiversity is important to the corporation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe report of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 304 biodiversity disclosure standard was investigated last. The GRI 304 standard has four sub-sections. It is required to link the disclosure content with the pertinent GRI index for the organization and verify the report. Thus, the inclusion of GRI 304 biodiversity reporting was identified and the detailed corresponding performance on the report was extracted.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eCOP 15-based directionality\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs the most publicly accepted standard and guidance in biodiversity conservation, the COP15 agreement of the UN biodiversity conference was adopted as the advisable criteria for evaluating biodiversity conservation performances. The COP15 set out in the official document, is based on the conclusions finalized at the Kunming-Montreal meeting in December 2022.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe agreement suggests the main vision, \\u0026ldquo;Living in harmony with nature,\\\" and four goals to achieve by 2050, and each of them was set up as individual directional criteria. It determined whether a corporation's approach to biodiversity conservation activities, regardless of the outcome of the activity, is directionally consistent with the COP15 agreement.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eA total of five criteria were set up from Dir.1 to Dir.5 (Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e) referred from the COP15 agreement, and Dir.1 evaluates the existence of a solid and detailed plan based on the overall aims for 2050(COP-15, 2022). The criteria from Dir.2 through Dir.5 direct the main theme of each goal A, B, C, and D, respectively. Dir.2 indicates the protection and restoration of ecosystems and the conservation and enhancement of the biodiversity in endangered species; Dir.3 focuses on the corporation\\u0026rsquo;s recognition and sustainable management of natural assets as the concept of Nature\\u0026rsquo;s contribution to people (NCP); and Dir.4 indicates the consideration of equitable distribution and rational sharing of economic benefit with indigenous communities, without exploitation, in the use of these ecosystem services. Finally, Dir.5 verifies whether biodiversity conservation activities are guided by the global biodiversity framework (GBF) and accompanied by science-based support and verification.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFive directions of the biodiversity evaluation criteria associated with the 15th Conference of Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP 15) (the contents were cited by the agreement of COP15)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDirection\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCOP 15 Vision and Goals\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eKeywords\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDirection 1\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePlan to 2050\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLong-term plan\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDirection 2\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe preservation, interconnectedness, and durability of all ecosystems will be upheld, improved, or rehabilitated, significantly expanding the expanse of natural ecosystems by the year 2050.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" morerows=\\\"2\\\" rowspan=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEcosystem, Extinction, Genetic diversity\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHuman-caused extinction of identified endangered species will be stopped, and by 2050, the rate of extinction and the threat to all species will be reduced by ten times, while the population of native wildlife will be increased to robust and sustainable levels.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe diversity of genes within wild and domesticated species' populations will be conserved, ensuring their potential to adapt is protected.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDirection 3\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBiodiversity should be managed and used sustainably while acknowledging and enhancing nature's contributions to humanity, including ecosystem functions and services. Efforts must be made to value, preserve, and improve these contributions, particularly for those currently in decline, to support the attainment of sustainable development, for the benefit of both current and future generations by the year 2050.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNature\\u0026rsquo;s contributions to people\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDirection 4\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBy 2050, there should be fair and equitable sharing of both monetary and non-monetary benefits stemming from the utilization of genetic resources, digital sequence information concerning genetic resources, and traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, where applicable. This sharing should also extend to indigenous peoples and local communities as deemed appropriate. Simultaneously, it's crucial to ensure the adequate protection of traditional knowledge related to genetic resources, all of which contribute to the conservation and sustainable utilization of biodiversity under international agreements governing access and benefit sharing.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBenefits\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDirection 5\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAdequate means for implementing the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework, such as financial resources, capacity-building, technical and scientific cooperation, and technology access and transfer, need to be secured and made accessible on a fair basis to all Parties. This includes a special focus on developing countries, especially the least developed nations, small island developing States, and countries undergoing economic transitions. The objective is to gradually reduce the annual biodiversity finance gap of \\u003cspan\\u003e$\\u003c/span\\u003e700\\u0026nbsp;billion and align financial flows with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTechnical and scientific cooperation, Global Biodiversity Framework\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e\\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFew performances were disclosed as biodiversity conservation performance but indicated the remediation of contaminated environment. While environmental pollution control fits the \\\"directional\\\" concept of biodiversity conservation as it contributes to the protection and restoration of ecosystems in a broad sense, it may yield different results on the examination and evaluation under a more systematic biodiversity conservation standard in the future.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec16\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003eConsistency with targeted ecosystem\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFor corporations that reported biodiversity conservation performances based on the GRI 304 standard, the subsequent classification of the targeted ecosystem was conducted under two main terrestrial or marine ecosystem categories. It is to track the performance of biodiversity conservation to the actual impacts and changes on the target ecosystem.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe classification of target ecosystems brings out multiple interpretations. First, it aims to determine the extent to which conservation activities cover biodiversity loss across ecosystems. Second, the results support determining the relevance of a corporation\\u0026rsquo;s industrial sector and scope of performance to the targeted ecosystems. Third, to understand what kind of and which ecosystem-based activities are conceptually or practically approached and implemented the most at the outset of a corporation's biodiversity conservation activities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe target ecosystem was classified by the biodiversity conservation performances as reported, and particularly in the case of species conservation, it is distinguished by the determination of terrestrial or marine species.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eData availability\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eAll data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article, and individual references are based on each website that is publically accessible.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgments\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis research is supported by the International ESG Association (IESGA). Junhee Park, Seongku Kwon, Jeongeun Hong, Chaehyun Kim, Yewon Lee, and Yongwoo Park conducted data verification. About 150 Korea University students in the Department of Ecological Engineering and Environmental Science helped with data collection.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis work was carried out with the support of the Cooperative Research Program for Agriculture Science and Technology Development (Project No. PJ01475801) from Rural Development Administration, the Republic of Korea. This study was also supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. 2021R1A2C2011734) and the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea(NRF), funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2021R1A6A1A10045235). This study was also supported by the International ESG Association (IESGA).\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor Contributions Statement\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eConceptualization, Yong Sik Ok and Yoora Cho; Supervision, Jay Hyuk Rhee and Yong Sik Ok; Visualization, Yoora Cho; Writing \\u0026ndash; original draft, Yoora Cho, Jeongki Lee, Sachini Senadheera; Writing \\u0026ndash; review \\u0026amp; editing, Scott X. Chang, J\\u0026ouml;rg Rinklebe, Jay Hyuk Rhee and Yong Sik Ok.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAbbass, K., Qasim, M. Z., Song, H., Murshed, M., Mahmood, H., \\u0026amp; Younis, I. (2022). A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29(28), 42539-42559.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAddison, P. F., \\u0026amp; Bull, J. W. (2018). Conservation accord: corporate incentives. Science, 360(6394), 1195-1196.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eAdler, R., Mansi, M., Pandey, R., \\u0026amp; Stringer, C. (2017). United Nations Decade on Biodiversity: A study of the reporting practices of the Australian mining industry. Accounting, Auditing \\u0026amp; Accountability Journal, 30(8), 1711-1745.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBarnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., Marshall, C., McGuire, J. L., Lindsey, E. L., \\u0026amp; Maguire, K. C. (2011). Has the Earth\\u0026rsquo;s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471(7336), 51-57.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBjorkman, A. D., Myers-Smith, I. H., Elmendorf, S. C., Normand, S., R\\u0026uuml;ger, N., Beck, P. S., Blach-Overgaard, A., Blok, D., Cornelissen, J. H. C., \\u0026amp; Forbes, B. C. (2018). Plant functional trait change across a warming tundra biome. Nature, 562(7725), 57-62.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBlicharska, M., Smithers, R. J., Mikusiński, G., R\\u0026ouml;nnb\\u0026auml;ck, P., Harrison, P. A., Nilsson, M., \\u0026amp; Sutherland, W. J. (2019). Biodiversity\\u0026rsquo;s contributions to sustainable development. Nature sustainability, 2(12), 1083-1093.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBoiral, O. (2016). Accounting for the unaccountable: Biodiversity reporting and impression management. Journal of business ethics, 135(4), 751-768.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBoiral, O., \\u0026amp; Heras-Saizarbitoria, I. (2017). Corporate commitment to biodiversity in mining and forestry: Identifying drivers from GRI reports. Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 153-161.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBongaarts, J. (2019). IPBES, 2019. Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In: Wiley Online Library.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBr\\u0026ouml;rken, C., Hug\\u0026eacute;, J., Dahdouh-Guebas, F., Waas, T., Rochette, A.-J., \\u0026amp; de Bisthoven, L. J. (2022). Monitoring biodiversity mainstreaming in development cooperation post-2020: Exploring ways forward. Environmental Science \\u0026amp; Policy, 136, 114-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2022.05.017\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eBusiness for Nature. (2023). Retrieved 2023-12-19 from https://www.businessfornature.org/recommendations\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCameron, E. K., Martins, I. S., Lavelle, P., Mathieu, J., Tedersoo, L., Bahram, M., Gottschall, F., Guerra, C. A., Hines, J., Patoine, G., Siebert, J., Winter, M., Cesarz, S., Ferlian, O., Kreft, H., Lovejoy, T. E., Montanarella, L., Orgiazzi, A., Pereira, H. M., . . . Eisenhauer, N. (2019). Global mismatches in aboveground and belowground biodiversity. Conserv Biol, 33(5), 1187-1192. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13311\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCapitalsCoalition. (2020). Integrating biodiversity into natural capital assessments (Measuring and Valuing Guidance, Issue.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCardinale, B. J., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Hooper, D. U., Perrings, C., Venail, P., Narwani, A., Mace, G. M., Tilman, D., \\u0026amp; Wardle, D. A. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486(7401), 59-67.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eChen, X., Taylor, A. R., Reich, P. B., Hisano, M., Chen, H. Y. H., \\u0026amp; Chang, S. X. (2023). Tree diversity increases decadal forest soil carbon and nitrogen accrual. Nature, 618(7963), 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-05941-9\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eCrooks, K. R., Burdett, C. L., Theobald, D. M., King, S. R., Di Marco, M., Rondinini, C., \\u0026amp; Boitani, L. (2017). Quantification of habitat fragmentation reveals extinction risk in terrestrial mammals. Proceedings of the national Academy of Sciences, 114(29), 7635-7640.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eDuffy, J. E., Godwin, C. M., \\u0026amp; Cardinale, B. J. (2017). Biodiversity effects in the wild are common and as strong as key drivers of productivity. Nature, 549(7671), 261-264.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eEdgley, C., Jones, M. J., \\u0026amp; Atkins, J. (2015). The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach. The British Accounting Review, 47(1), 1-18.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eErmgassen, S. O. S. E., Howard, M., Bennun, L., Addison, P. F. E., Bull, J. W., Loveridge, R., Pollard, E., \\u0026amp; Starkey, M. (2022). Are corporate biodiversity commitments consistent with delivering \\u0026lsquo;nature-positive\\u0026rsquo; outcomes? A review of \\u0026lsquo;nature-positive\\u0026rsquo; definitions, company progress and challenges. Journal of Cleaner Production, 379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134798\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFadrique, B., B\\u0026aacute;ez, S., Duque, \\u0026Aacute;., Malizia, A., Blundo, C., Carilla, J., Osinaga-Acosta, O., Malizia, L., Silman, M., \\u0026amp; Farf\\u0026aacute;n-R\\u0026iacute;os, W. (2018). Widespread but heterogeneous responses of Andean forests to climate change. Nature, 564(7735), 207-212.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFlammer, C., Toffel, M. W., \\u0026amp; Viswanathan, K. (2021). Shareholder activism and firms\\u0026apos; voluntary disclosure of climate change risks. Strategic Management Journal, 42(10), 1850-1879. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3313\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eFraser, L. H., Pither, J., Jentsch, A., Sternberg, M., Zobel, M., Askarizadeh, D., Bartha, S., Beierkuhnlein, C., Bennett, J. A., \\u0026amp; Bittel, A. (2015). Worldwide evidence of a unimodal relationship between productivity and plant species richness. Science, 349(6245), 302-305.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGaia, S., \\u0026amp; John Jones, M. (2017). UK local councils reporting of biodiversity values: a stakeholder perspective. Accounting, Auditing \\u0026amp; Accountability Journal, 30(7), 1614-1638.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGaia, S., \\u0026amp; Jones, M. J. (2020). Biodiversity reporting for governmental organisations: Evidence from English local councils. Accounting, Auditing \\u0026amp; Accountability Journal, 33(1), 1-31.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGeldmann, J., Barnes, M., Coad, L., Craigie, I. D., Hockings, M., \\u0026amp; Burgess, N. D. (2013). Effectiveness of terrestrial protected areas in reducing habitat loss and population declines. Biological Conservation, 161, 230-238.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eGoldstein, A., Turner, W. R., Spawn, S. A., Anderson-Teixeira, K. J., Cook-Patton, S., Fargione, J., Gibbs, H. K., Griscom, B., Hewson, J. H., \\u0026amp; Howard, J. F. (2020). Protecting irrecoverable carbon in Earth\\u0026rsquo;s ecosystems. Nature Climate Change, 10(4), 287-295.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHerweijer, C., Evison, W., Mariam, S., Khatri, A., Albani, M., Semov, A., \\u0026amp; Long, E. (2020). Nature risk rising: Why the crisis engulfing nature matters for business and the economy. World Economic Forum and PwC. http://www3. weforum. org/docs/WEF_New_ Nature_Economy_Report_2020. pdf,\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHoward, C., Flather, C. H., \\u0026amp; Stephens, P. A. (2020). A global assessment of the drivers of threatened terrestrial species richness. Nat Commun, 11(1), 993. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-14771-6\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eHrasky, S., \\u0026amp; Jones, M. (2016). Lake Pedder: Accounting, environmental decision-making, nature and impression management. Accounting forum,\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eJones, M. J., Melis, A., Aresu, S., Gaia, S., Rombi, L., \\u0026amp; Chaidali, P. (2017). The future of financial reporting 2017: Change, narratives, education and globalisation.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eJones, M. J., \\u0026amp; Solomon, J. F. (2013). Problematising accounting for biodiversity. Accounting, Auditing \\u0026amp; Accountability Journal, 26(5), 668-687.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eJung, M., Lesiv, M., Warren-Thomas, E., Shchepashchenko, D., See, L., \\u0026amp; Fritz, S. (2023). The importance of capturing management in forest restoration targets. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-023-01192-8\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKhan, M., Serafeim, G., \\u0026amp; Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate Sustainability: First Evidence on Materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697-1724. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-51383\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eKrause, M. S., Droste, N., \\u0026amp; Matzdorf, B. (2021). What makes businesses commit to nature conservation? Business Strategy and the Environment, 30(2), 741-755.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLeal Filho, W., Azeiteiro, U. M., Balogun, A.-L., Setti, A. F. F., Mucova, S. A., Ayal, D., Totin, E., Lydia, A. M., Kalaba, F. K., \\u0026amp; Oguge, N. O. (2021). The influence of ecosystems services depletion to climate change adaptation efforts in Africa. Science of The Total Environment, 779, 146414.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLocke, H., Rockstr\\u0026ouml;m, J., Bakker, P., Bapna, M., Gough, M., Hilty, J., Lambertini, M., Morris, J., Polman, P., \\u0026amp; Rodriguez, C. M. (2021). A nature-positive world: the global goal for nature.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLoreau, M., Naeem, S., Inchausti, P., Bengtsson, J., Grime, J. P., Hector, A., Hooper, D., Huston, M., Raffaelli, D., \\u0026amp; Schmid, B. (2001). Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. science, 294(5543), 804-808.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eLu, Y., Yang, Y., Sun, B., Yuan, J., Yu, M., Stenseth, N. C., Bullock, J. M., \\u0026amp; Obersteiner, M. (2020). Spatial variation in biodiversity loss across China under multiple environmental stressors. Science Advances, 6(47), eabd0952.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMilner-Gulland, E., Addison, P., Arlidge, W. N., Baker, J., Booth, H., Brooks, T., Bull, J. W., Burgass, M. J., Ekstrom, J., \\u0026amp; zu Ermgassen, S. O. (2021). Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework. One Earth, 4(1), 75-87.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMonroy-Gamboa, A. G., \\u0026Aacute;lvarez-Casta\\u0026ntilde;eda, S. T., \\u0026amp; Beltr\\u0026aacute;n Morales, L. F. (2023). Biodiversity royalties: a different approach in bioeconomy. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2023.1216472\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eMyers, N., Mittermeier, R. A., Mittermeier, C. G., Da Fonseca, G. A., \\u0026amp; Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), 853-858.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNaeem, S., Chazdon, R., Duffy, J. E., Prager, C., \\u0026amp; Worm, B. (2016). Biodiversity and human well-being: an essential link for sustainable development. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 283(1844), 20162091.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNations, U. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eNature. (2020). The United Nations must get its new biodiversity targets right. Nature, 578, 337-338.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePanwar, R. (2023). Business and biodiversity: achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity conservation through transformative business practices. Biodiversity and Conservation, 32(11), 3607-3613. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-023-02575-1\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003ePennekamp, F., Pontarp, M., Tabi, A., Altermatt, F., Alther, R., Choffat, Y., Fronhofer, E. A., Ganesanandamoorthy, P., Garnier, A., \\u0026amp; Griffiths, J. I. (2018). Biodiversity increases and decreases ecosystem stability. Nature, 563(7729), 109-112.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eReich, P. B., Tilman, D., Isbell, F., Mueller, K., Hobbie, S. E., Flynn, D. F., \\u0026amp; Eisenhauer, N. (2012). Impacts of biodiversity loss escalate through time as redundancy fades. Science, 336(6081), 589-592.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eRom\\u0026aacute;n-Palacios, C., \\u0026amp; Wiens, J. J. (2020). Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(8), 4211-4217.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSala, O. E., Stuart Chapin, F., Armesto, J. J., Berlow, E., Bloomfield, J., Dirzo, R., Huber-Sanwald, E., Huenneke, L. F., Jackson, R. B., \\u0026amp; Kinzig, A. (2000). Global biodiversity scenarios for the year 2100. science, 287(5459), 1770-1774.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSchaltegger, S., Gibassier, D., \\u0026amp; Maas, K. (2022). Managing and accounting for corporate biodiversity contributions. Mapping the field. Business Strategy and the Environment, 32(5), 2544-2553. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3166\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSharif, A., Mishra, S., Sinha, A., Jiao, Z., Shahbaz, M., \\u0026amp; Afshan, S. (2020). The renewable energy consumption-environmental degradation nexus in Top-10 polluted countries: Fresh insights from quantile-on-quantile regression approach. Renewable Energy, 150, 670-690.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eSharma, R., Sinha, A., \\u0026amp; Kautish, P. (2020). Examining the impacts of economic and demographic aspects on the ecological footprint in South and Southeast Asian countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 27, 36970-36982.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eStephens, P. A., Mason, L. R., Green, R. E., Gregory, R. D., Sauer, J. R., Alison, J., Aunins, A., Brotons, L., Butchart, S. H., \\u0026amp; Campedelli, T. (2016). Consistent response of bird populations to climate change on two continents. Science, 352(6281), 84-87.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eStrassburg, B. B. N., Iribarrem, A., Beyer, H. L., Cordeiro, C. L., Crouzeilles, R., Jakovac, C. C., Braga Junqueira, A., Lacerda, E., Latawiec, A. E., Balmford, A., Brooks, T. M., Butchart, S. H. M., Chazdon, R. L., Erb, K. H., Brancalion, P., Buchanan, G., Cooper, D., Diaz, S., Donald, P. F., . . . Visconti, P. (2020). Global priority areas for ecosystem restoration. Nature, 586(7831), 724-729. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2784-9\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eTilman, D., Clark, M., Williams, D. R., Kimmel, K., Polasky, S., \\u0026amp; Packer, C. (2017). Future threats to biodiversity and pathways to their prevention. Nature, 546(7656), 73-81.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eUNFCCC. (2015). The Paris Agreement. https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement?gclid=Cj0KCQjw0bunBhD9ARIsAAZl0E3uTcZpaeoOqqMM7-yV7W20ylhoZNEYOd2aAYT42QTtWekVWRquP48aAkaBEALw_wcB\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eVenter, O., Sanderson, E. W., Magrach, A., Allan, J. R., Beher, J., Jones, K. R., Possingham, H. P., Laurance, W. F., Wood, P., \\u0026amp; Fekete, B. M. (2016). Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nature communications, 7(1), 12558.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003cli\\u003eWWF. (2022). Living Planet report 2022- Building a nature-positive society.\\u003c/li\\u003e\\n\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"Sustainability, Ecosystem resilience, Greenwashing, Eco-friendliness, Nature loss, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975048/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975048/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eOverbalance of ecosystems triggers global biodiversity loss and threatens the sustainability of society by emerging financial risks from the disruption of ecosystem services. Several initiatives and international organizations have developed guidelines on biodiversity conservation to support the increasing demand for the disclosure of nature-positive business practices. However, corporations\\u0026rsquo; biodiversity-related performances have yet to undergo a comprehensive assessment, either quantitatively or qualitatively. Here we analyze the biodiversity conservation practices, or the evolution of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) management, of the top 200 corporations by market capitalization in South Korea based on their sustainability reports published 2017\\u0026ndash;2021. We show that the number of corporations issuing sustainability reports doubled in five years, and over 70% issued sustainability reports in 2021. Based on the directionality of the COP15 agreement and the consistency with the targeted ecosystems, we identified that 22% of corporations report engagement with biodiversity conservation without substantive outcomes. The methodology developed can guide major corporations for biodiversity-related disclosures, including those required by the TNFD.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Biodiversity conservation by Korean corporations towards nature-positive goals\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2024-03-15 12:45:32\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3975048/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"0aa4c024-c8d1-4657-9a1a-8c3c3ac5bfbd\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"March 15th, 2024\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":29433406,\"name\":\"Biological sciences/Ecology/Biodiversity\"},{\"id\":29433407,\"name\":\"Biological sciences/Ecology/Ecosystem services\"},{\"id\":29433408,\"name\":\"Biological sciences/Ecology/Environmental economics\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2024-04-09T04:44:52+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2024-03-15 12:45:32\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-3975048\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-3975048\",\"identity\":\"rs-3975048\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"cBFmMYwuxLRRLfASyISRj\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}