炭素を超えて：生物多様性のESG・自然関連財務開示への主流化

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:生物多様性とESG開示の統合における測定・検証・ガバナンスの研究ギャップを整理する枠組みを提供する。

🏢実務担当者:TNFD・ISSB・CSRD対応を見据え、自然関連クレームの実質性と検証体制の構築に活用できる。

🏛政策担当者:生物多様性クレジットや自然資本会計の制度設計、先住民参画の枠組み検討に示唆を与える。

Abstract: ESG Environmental, Social, and Governance now sets the standard for measuring how sustainable companies really are. But, in practice, its ‘E’ still revolves mostly around climate change and carbon emissions. Even as scientists warn that losing biodiversity is just as urgent, this issue keeps getting sidelined in ESG assessments, annual reports, and investment strategies. This chapter digs into the changes between 2019 and 2026 examining both research and policy that connect biodiversity with ESG and nature-related financial disclosure. It covers how new global agreements, like the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, pushed companies and regulators to rethink what counts as “nature risk” and what they have to report. That includes new efforts like the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), fresh standards from the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB), the EU’s expanded Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), and experiments like biodiversity credits and natural capital accounting.When you look at the data from conservation science, accounting, and corporate finance, a real pattern emerges. Reporting frameworks and disclosure tools have expanded fast, but actual gains for nature especially measurable improvements in biodiversity haven’t kept the same pace. This gap usually comes down to unclear definitions, wildly different ESG rating systems, and, increasingly, companies making big nature claims without much substance a new kind of greenwashing. So, tacking biodiversity onto the ESG checklist won’t move the needle. Real change depends on three things: unified standards for measurement, strong and open verification systems, and governance that gives Indigenous Peoples and local communities a real seat at the table. After all, these groups take care of much of the world’s remaining biodiversity. This approach matters even more as the 2026 Global Review of the Kunming–Montreal Framework and COP17 draw near. The chapter wraps up by laying out research gaps and practical steps for policymakers, investors, corporate sustainability teams, and all others pushing to anchor biodiversity firmly within ESG practice. Keywords: biodiversity credits, corporate accountability, ecosystem services, ESG disclosure, greenwashing, nature-related financial risk

• Zenodo https://zenodo.org/records/22789968first seen 2026-09-25 04:11:43 · last seen 2026-09-29 04:11:59
• openalex https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22789967first seen 2026-09-26 04:46:59 · last seen 2026-09-26 04:47:00