A new paper published in Environmental and Sustainability Indicators has offered one of the most comprehensive reviews to date of biodiversity assessment tools available to businesses. The authors of “Bridging business and biodiversity: An analysis of biodiversity assessment tools” highlighted that there was not any cohesive research to date analysing the full spectrum of SBTN-suggested tools with regards to corporate sustainability management. Having acknowledged the urgent need for action in the face of the biodiversity crisis, the research aims to address these gaps in order to help companies navigate this space.

What is the subject of the research?

The authors research the 45 biodiversity assessment tools proposed for use by the SBTN. Those tools were selected because they focus on making biodiversity assessment easier for the corporate context. The term “tools” relates to software programmes, online applications, data repositories, and method explanations. 

SBTN divides the proposed tools into 3 sections, which the authors use as a framework and later break down in their analysis:

• 1a Materiality Screening: tools for assisting the high-level screening of material pressure categories across the entire business.
• 1b (i) Value Chain Assessment – Pressure: tools used to estimate the environmental pressures caused by various economic activities, either within the company’s own operations or in its upstream supply chain
• 1b (ii) Value Chain Assessment – State: tools for assessing the condition of natural ecosystems at all locations relevant to the company’s value chain.

How are the tools analysed?

Qualitative

Each tool is analysed according to nine evaluation categories:

Methodological and Biodiversity Topics 

1. Used methods
2. Biodiversity topics covered
3. Pressure/State biodiversity aspects
4. Scope

Practical Considerations for Application

5. User interface 

6. Skill requirements

7. Accessibility

8. Map integration

9. Developer group

Using these categories, the analysis goes beyond the surface to aid companies struggling to decide which tool is best suited for their purpose. For example, understanding what skill level is required to use a certain tool, or which biodiversity topics are addressed in each tool is key to making the best informed decision. 

Quantitative

The authors then compare the tools quantitatively using multidimensional scaling (MDS). Each tool is evaluated in comparison to every other tool in its grouping (1a, 1bi, 1bii) against the 9 categories above. This was done in order to assess how similar or dissimilar all these tools are. 

The results show that the tools are pretty varied in terms of the indicators that are analysed. As far as tools could be grouped on their similarities, these were displayed in MDS graphs in the report. The authors were able to assert that there are some common characteristics across the 45 tools. These include:

• Almost half the tools require high expertise and knowledge of methods
• The majority of the tools are available for free
• Generally, tools are developed under multi-stakeholder collaboration – think NGOs, academic institutions, intergovernmental associations, and private companies 

How are the tools categorised?

1a tools remained “core” to assessing materiality, and therefore were not grouped further by the authors. 1b tools, however, were further grouped in the research as follows:

1b (i) Value Chain Assessment – Pressure Tools

1. Data Repositories

• Examples: ecoinvent, GLAD
• Provide background datasets for use in LCA software.

2. Web Applications / Software Tools

• Examples: Bioscope, Corporate Biodiversity Footprint, LandGriffon, EP&L
• Deliver pressure insights using pre-integrated data.

3. LCA Tools

• Examples: OpenLCA, GABI, Simapro
• Allow detailed, product-level impact assessments.

4. MRIO Tools

• Examples: Bioscope, EP&L
• Use global trade and sector data to estimate biodiversity pressures.

5. GIS Tools

• Examples: MapSPAM, Earthstat
• Focus on land use and spatial pressure mapping.

1b (ii) Value Chain Assessment – State Tools

1. Web Applications / Software Tools

• Examples: Global Forest Watch, IBAT, WWF Risk Filter, ReCiPe, Resource Watch
• Offer spatial and thematic biodiversity datasets, ranging from tree cover loss to endangered species risks.

2. Index Forming Methods

• Examples: Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII), Forest Landscape Integrity Index (FLII)
• Compare current state of ecosystems to a reference baseline.

3. GIS Tools

• Examples: Critical Natural Assets Map, Trends.Earth
• Focus on spatial mapping of ecosystem services and land-use changes.

4. LCA Methods

• Examples: IMPACT World+, ReCiPe
• Used within LCA tools to convert pressure indicators into impact metrics like Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) of species.

5. Unique Standing Tools

• Examples: HCV Approach, Red List of Ecosystems (RLE), GLOBIO 4
• Focus on ecosystem-level risk assessments and integrity scoring.

Case Study

The authors then introduce a hypothetical case study of how a wood-processing company would use the biodiversity tools across its European procurement sites.

Step 1: Identify Relevant Biodiversity Topics

• Tools Used: HICL, MST, ENCORE
• Findings: Key risks related to land use change, species population decline, and forest integrity.
• Added an ESRS-compliant materiality assessment to confirm relevance across procurement regions.

Step 2: Assess Procurement Site Locations

• Tools Used: BII, FLII, Global Forest Watch, WWF Risk Filter, IBAT, Protected Planet, IUCN Red List
• Approach: GIS overlays of supplier sites with biodiversity indices and protected area data.
• Insight: Identified overlaps with conservation zones and regions of high biodiversity pressure.

Step 3: Fill Data Gaps with MRIO Analysis

• Tool Used: Bioscope
• Scenario: Where geospatial data was missing, used trade data (e.g., country of origin and volume) to estimate pressure on biodiversity via PDF of species.

Step 4: Conduct Product-Level Impact Analysis

• Tools Used: OpenLCA + ReCiPe
• Focus: Assessed biodiversity impact across product life cycles.
• Limitation: Depended heavily on global averages; lacked spatial precision.

Interim Conclusion

• Tools like IBAT and Global Forest Watch were helpful for context but not reliable for business-critical decisions due to data resolution and update cycles.

Step 5: Seek Additional Biodiversity Indicators

• Source: Forest Europe
• Added metrics on deadwood, tree regeneration, and forest species diversity—often missing from standard tools.

Step 6: Incorporate Satellite Data

• Planned to use real-time, high-res remote sensing to monitor deforestation, vegetation health, and habitat fragmentation.

Step 7: Conduct On-the-Ground Biodiversity Surveys

• Methods: eDNA testing, acoustic monitoring, species sampling
• Aim: Establish baseline data and verify remote estimates at high-priority sites.

Step 8: Define Biodiversity Action Plan

• Strategy:
  • Protect high-integrity sites
  • Improve lower-integrity areas via sustainable forest management (e.g., promoting deadwood, increasing tree diversity)
• Plan: Engage suppliers and monitor progress over time using satellite and field data.

The case study illustrates the multifaceted approach a company must take when assessing biodiversity impacts and strategy.

The authors clearly emphasise that no single tool can assess the biodiversity impact of a business. With the right mix, however, companies can build meaningful biodiversity strategies. 

Why is this research important?

This research is the first to delve deep into the characteristics and traits of the 45 proposed SBTN biodiversity tools – no small undertaking! This analysis stands out by comparing each tool within its group and evaluating important, but often hard-to-define, factors for businesses, such as cost, required skills, accessibility, and user interface.

Finally, this research is important because without detailed and comparable information on tools and methods for measuring biodiversity, it is not possible to develop truly effective and comprehensive corporate nature strategies.