e-ISSN 2518-1181
DOI 10.33146/2518-1181
Online Media ID R40-06293
← Back Published: 30.09.2026

Decision-Useful Nature-Related Reporting: Biological Asset Accounting, Biodiversity Disclosure and ESG Accountability

Authors

Marilene van Biljon STADIO (Pty) Ltd, South Africa ORCID 0000-0003-3995-1543

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33146/2518-1181-2026-3(113)-5-18

Abstract

Nature-related information is increasingly reported through financial statements, sustainability and integrated reports, ESG datasets, biodiversity-finance instruments, and conservation disclosures. This reflects the growing recognition that biological assets, ecosystem dependencies, biodiversity loss, and nature-related risks can affect valuation, stewardship, regulation, capital allocation, and cash-flow stability. However, greater reporting visibility does not necessarily produce decision-useful information. Biological assets may be measured without transparent valuation assumptions, biodiversity disclosed without ecological baselines or measurable outcomes, and ESG metrics presented as comparable despite weak links to the entity's specific ecological exposure. This article develops a conceptual framework for determining when nature-related reporting becomes decision-useful across biological asset accounting, biodiversity disclosure, and ESG accountability. It adopts a qualitative, interpretive design based on thematic synthesis of 155 published and institutional sources. Peer-reviewed journal articles formed the analytical core, supported, where relevant, by methodological literature, standards, frameworks, working papers, and reports. The analysis integrated research on IAS 41, biological asset valuation, biodiversity and conservation disclosure, ecological measurement, ESG and integrated reporting, biodiversity finance, governance, assurance, and disclosure analytics. The findings identify four mutually reinforcing conditions for decision usefulness. First, measurement credibility is required when reported values depend on biological transformation, fair-value judgment, inactive markets, valuation models, or biodiversity-risk estimates. Second, ecological validity is necessary where disclosures claim to represent biodiversity impacts, dependencies, conservation activities, or restoration outcomes. Third, governance, assurance, and regulatory anchoring are required to address managerial incentives, uncertain reporting boundaries, scientific complexity, and verification constraints. Fourth, analytical accessibility and stakeholder-use alignment are necessary to ensure that information is comparable, interpretable, and connected to actual decision needs. The article reframes nature-related reporting as a decision-usefulness conversion problem. Nature-related information becomes useful not merely when it is disclosed, measured, or standardized, but when biological and ecological phenomena are translated into credible, ecologically grounded, governed, and accessible knowledge. The framework supports future empirical research, reporting-quality assessment, assurance-readiness evaluation, and standard-setting.

Keywords

biological assets, biodiversity disclosure, decision-usefulness, ESG accountability, IAS 41, nature-related reporting, sustainability reporting
References
  1. Abdelmoneim, Z., & El-Deeb, M. S. (2024). BOD characteristics and their impact on the link between ESG disclosure and integrated reporting disclosure quality: A study of Egyptian non-financial firms. Future Business Journal, 10, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-023-00297-y
  2. Abdullah, Z., Qaderi, S. A., Mohd Ariff, A. H. B., Chandren, S., & Abdul Latif, R. (2023). CEO, CFO, and board attributes’ effect on fair value agriculture disclosure. Cogent Business & Management, 10(3), Article 2275867. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2275867
  3. Ackers, B. (2019). Accounting for rhinos: The case of South African National Parks (SANParks). Social Responsibility Journal, 15(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1108/SRJ-10-2017-0198
  4. Adeniran, T. E., Adeoti, A. I., & Arowosegbe, T. (2026). IAS 41-biological asset disclosure and financial reporting quality: Evidence from Nigeria. International Journal of Research and Scientific Innovation, 13(4), 12–26. https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2026.1304000002
  5. Alfarisyi, N., Diantimala, Y., Yahya, R., & Saleh, M. (2022). Biological assets and firm value: Do fair value measurement and disclosure matter? Jurnal Dinamika Akuntansi dan Bisnis, 9(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.24815/JDAB.V9I2.24694
  6. Almas, M. J., Widiyanti, N. W., & Wardhaningrum, O. A. (2025). Disclosing biological assets: A catalytic role in enhancing financial performance of agricultural companies. Journal of Accounting and Investment, 26(3), 1105–1123. https://doi.org/10.18196/jai.v26i3.25583
  7. Appio, F. P., Benlemlih, M., Ouadghiri, I.E. & Peillex, J. (2025). International evidence on the financial performance of biodiversity investing. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124640
  8. Arbidane, I., & Mietule, I. (2018). Problems and solutions of accounting and evaluation of biological assets in Latvia. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(1), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2018.6.1(1)
  9. Aruga, K. (2026). Investor preferences for biodiversity conservation and disaster risk reduction in sustainability bonds: Evidence from Japan. Journal of Climate Finance, 16, Article 100090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclimf.2026.100090
  10. Bassen, A., Buchholz, D., Lopatta, K., & Rudolf, A. R. (2024). Biodiversity management and stock price crash risk. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(5), 4788–4805. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3725
  11. Bassen, A., Buchholz, D., Lopatta, K., & Rudolf, A. R. (2025). Assessing biodiversity-related disclosure: Drivers, outcomes, and financial impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 29, 311–329. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13596
  12. Bispo, T., & Lopes, A. I. (2022). Exploring the value relevance of biological assets and bearer plants: An analysis with IAS 41 revision. Custos e @gronegócio Online, 18(1), 61–84. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10071/25871
  13. Bohušová, H., & Svoboda, P. (2016). Biological assets: In what way should be measured by SMEs? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 220, 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.469
  14. Bohušová, H., & Svoboda, P. (2017). Biological assets: Impact of measurement on financial position and performance of SMEs. Forum Scientiae Oeconomia, 5(1), 19–31. Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/75594304/Biological_Assets_Impact_of_Measurement_on_Financial_Position_and_Performance_of_SMEs
  15. Campos-Llerena, P., Arias-Pérez, M., Toscano-Morales, C., & Barreno-Córdova, C. (2025a). Biological assets in agricultural accounting: A systematic review of the application of IAS 41. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 18(7), Article 380. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm18070380
  16. Campos-Llerena, L. P., Arias Pérez, M. G., Vayas López, Á. H., & Barreno Córdova, C. A. (2025b). Valuation of biological assets and reasonableness of financial information: A systematic review of empirical evidence in the agricultural sector. Sapienza: International Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, 6(3), e25051. https://doi.org/10.51798/sijis.v6i3.1105
  17. Cavalheiro, R. T., Gimenes, R. M. T., Binotto, E., & Fietz, C. R. (2019). Fair value of biological assets: An interdisciplinary methodological proposal. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 23(4), 543–563. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-7849rac2019180254
  18. Chan-Lau, J. (2026). Biodiversity linked bonds: An option pricing based valuation approach. Finance Research Open, 2(1), 100086. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.finr.2025.100086
  19. Christiansen, J., Irvine, Broque, A., Dempsey, J., Nelson, S., Shapiro-Garza, E., Bigger, P. & Islar, M. (2025). Off the charts? Reasons to be skeptical of the growth in biodiversity finance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 75, Article 101544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2025.101544
  20. Clement, A., & Grenon, G. (2025). Mapping biodiversity risk metrics in finance: A comparative analysis of MSCI and LSEG using the ENCORE framework. Journal of Sustainable Finance and Accounting, 7, Article 100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.josfa.2025.100020
  21. Coqueret, G., Giroux, T., & Zerbib, O. D. (2025). The biodiversity premium. Ecological Economics, 228, Article 108435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108435
  22. Cosma, S., Cosma, S., Pennetta, D., & Rimo, G. (2025). Does biodiversity matter for firm value? Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions & Money, 105, Article 102240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2025.102240
  23. Di Tommaso, C., Foglia, M., & Pacelli, V. (2025). The impact of biodiversity score on the European firm’s performance. International Review of Financial Analysis, 106, Article 104460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.104460
  24. Dong, B., Chen, S., Zhang, Y., & Xie, B. (2026). Biodiversity disclosure and capital market pricing efficiency: Evidence from stock price synchronicity. Journal of Cleaner Production, 551, Article 147957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2026.147957
  25. Doorasamy, M., Rotimi, M. E., Rajaram, R., & Kebbi, M. J. (2022). Accounting and valuation of bearer plants in Cameroon. EuroEconomica, 1(41), 67–75. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361490572_Accounting_and_Valuation_of_Bearer_Plants_in_Cameroon
  26. Dutta, P., & Dutta, A. (2024). Does corporate environmental performance affect corporate biodiversity reporting decision? The Finnish evidence. Journal of Applied Accounting Research, 25(1), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-06-2022-0148
  27. Elliot, V., Jonäll, K., Paananen, M., Bebbington, J., & Michelon, G. (2024). Biodiversity reporting: Standardization, materiality, and assurance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 68, Article 101435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2024.101435
  28. Gao, Z., Zhao, Y., Li, L., & Hao, Y. (2025). Nurturing nature: The role of green finance in reviving urban biodiversity. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 102, Article 102005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2025.102005
  29. Garel, A., Romec, A., Sautner, Z., & Wagner, A. F. (2024). Do investors care about biodiversity? Review of Finance, 28(4), 1151–1186. https://doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfae010
  30. Gedam, A., Sharma, A., & Gupta, N. (2026). A critical review of environmental, social and governance (ESG) disclosure practices and their environmental implications. Journal of Environmental Biology, 47(2), 349–355. https://doi.org/10.22438/jeb/47/2(SI)/SI-05
  31. Grunewald, K., Zieschank, R., Förster, J., Hansjürgens, B., & Wildner, T. M. (2024). The future of economic reporting: Ecosystem services and biodiversity in government and corporate accounting. One Ecosystem. 9, e131326. https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.9.e131326
  32. Hao, J., Guan, Y., Chen, R., & Wu, J. G. (2026). Bank expansion and corporate biodiversity risk exposure: Evidence from China. International Review of Financial Analysis, 109, Article 104815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.104815
  33. He, L., & Jiang, J. (2026). A study on the impact of ESG performance on earnings management of agriculture-related companies. Sustainability, 18(9), Article 4569. https://doi.org/10.3390/su18094569
  34. Hinke, J., & Stárová, M. (2014). The fair value model for the measurement of biological assets and agricultural produce in the Czech Republic. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00338-4
  35. Hlaváčková, P., Fialová, J., & Schneider, J. (2025). Forest as a biological asset: An accounting and tax perspective in the Czech Republic. Journal of Forest Science, 71(7), 336–346. https://doi.org/10.17221/31/2025-JFS
  36. Hoinaru, R., Buda, D., Subic, J., & Jansen, A. (2023). Financial and non-financial disclosures for agriculture: Is there any connection in between GRI 13 and IAS 41? Review of International Comparative Management, 24(2), 158–172. https://doi.org/10.24818/RMCI.2023.2.158
  37. Ika, S. R., Farida, F. N., Asih, S. N., Okfitasari, A., & Widagdo, A. K. (2024). The impact of biological asset disclosures and economic sustainability on firm value: Evidence from agricultural companies in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1297, Article 012069. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1297/1/012069
  38. Ika, S. R., Susetyo, R., Pribadi, A., Dwiwinarno, T., & Widagdo, A. K. (2022). Factors influencing biological asset disclosures in agricultural companies in Indonesia. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 1114, Article 012074. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1114/1/012074
  39. Kalhoro, M. R., & Ahmed, K. (2025). Dynamic linkages and spillover effects of biodiversity risk in socially responsible investment and commodity markets. Journal of Environmental Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.124144
  40. Kashyap, S., Abela, C. M., Blum, V., & Crona, B. (2025). Business and finance on a path towards meaningful biodiversity reporting? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 77, Article 101588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2025.101588
  41. Kljajić, M., Kilibarda, N., Jovanović, M., & Mizdraković, V. (2025). Biological assets in financial statements: Challenges and applications of IAS 41 in Serbia. The European Journal of Applied Economics, 22(2), 59–69. https://doi.org/10.5937/EJAE22-57230
  42. Kopnina, H., Zhang, S. R., Anthony, S., Hassan, A., & Maroun, W. (2024). The inclusion of biodiversity into Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework: A strategic integration of ecocentric extinction accounting. Journal of Environmental Management, 351, Article 119808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119808
  43. Kurniawan, R., Mulawarman, A. D., & Kamayanti, A. (2014). Biological assets valuation reconstruction: A critical study of IAS 41 on agricultural accounting in Indonesian farmers. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 164, 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.11.052
  44. Lang, Q., Li, C., Wen, L., & Wu, H. (2025). Biodiversity risk and agricultural futures markets. International Review of Financial Analysis, 104582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.104582
  45. Lestari, R. M. E., Zarkasyi, W., & Farida, I. (2020). The influence of biological asset accounting policies and corporate governance practices on the financial performance: Moderating role of knowledge about renewable energy. International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, 10(5), 615–622. https://doi.org/10.32479/ijeep.10240
  46. Liu, J., Li, P., & Shahzad, U. (2025a). Corporate biodiversity risk exposure and performance aspiration deficit. International Review of Economics & Finance, 104, 104626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2025.104626
  47. Liu, W., Cheng, Z., Li, J., Li, G., & Pan, N. (2025b). Assessment of ecological asset quality and its drivers in Agro-pastoral Ecotone of China. Ecological Indicators, 170, Article 113072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2025.113072
  48. Maroun, W., & Ecim, D. (2024). Biodiversity reporting by United Kingdom (UK)-listed companies: A review of extent, content and readability of disclosures. Business Strategy and the Environment, 33(8), 7800–7824. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3866
  49. Miranda-Quibot, H. D., & Ohe, Y. (2024a). Factors influencing the accounting practices for biological assets: The case of selected agritourism farms in the Philippines. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development, 15(1), 157–165. https://doi.org/10.32115/ijerd.15.1_157
  50. Miranda-Quibot, H. D., & Ohe, Y. (2024b). The recognition, measurement and disclosure of biological assets of selected agritourism farms in Region IV-A, Philippines. Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting Studies, 6(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.32996/jefas.2024.6.2.1
  51. Moikwatlhai, K., Yasseen, Y., & Omarjee, I. (2019). ESG reporting and the institutional shareholder base: A quantitative study of listed companies on the JSE. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research, 21, 31–46. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339167853_ESG_reporting_and_the_institutional_shareholder_base_A_quantitative_study_of_listed_companies_on_the_JSE
  52. Naifar, N. (2025). Biodiversity finance, green bonds, and tokenized carbon: A Quantile-on-Quantile connectedness analysis. Finance Research Letters, 85(B), Article 108009. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.108009
  53. Norizan, S., Kadri, M. H., Bakar, Z. A., & Amin, J. M. (2022). Examining the accounting practice for biological assets among Malaysian listed companies: The case of aquaculture. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 12(3), 741–749. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARAFMS/v12-i3/15271
  54. Patel, R. (2026). Connectedness of biodiversity finance assets with equity, bond, commodities, cryptocurrency and currency: Implications for portfolio diversification and hedging. Studies in Economics and Finance, 43(1), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEF-03-2025-0186
  55. Potgieter, L. J., Cadotte, M. W., Dong, X., Midgley, G. F., & Richardson, D. M. (2026). Nature-based solutions: A double-edged sword for biological invasions? Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 41(7), 638–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2026.04.006
  56. Roberts, L., Georgiou, N., & Hassan, A. M. (2023). Investigating biodiversity and circular economy disclosure practices: Insights from global firms. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 30(3), 1053–1069. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2402
  57. Economy, 7(1), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.36956/rwae.v7i1.2502
  58. Samkin, G., & Schneider, A. (2010). Accountability, narrative reporting and legitimation: The case of a New Zealand public benefit entity. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 23(2), 256–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513571011023219
  59. Samkin, G., Schneider, A., & Tappin, D. (2014). Developing a reporting and evaluation framework for biodiversity. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(3), 527–562. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-10-2013-1496
  60. Samkin, G., & Wingard, C. (2021). Understanding systemic change in the context of the social and environmental disclosures of a conservation organisation in a developing country. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 34(5), 1275–1304. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-05-2019-4010
  61. Schimanski, T., Colesanti Senni, C., Gostlow, G., Ni, J., Yu, T., & Leippold, M. (2024). Exploring nature: Datasets and models for analyzing nature-related disclosures (Swiss Finance Institute Research Paper No. 24-95). Swiss Finance Institute. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4665715
  62. Schneider, A., & Samkin, G. (2012). A biodiversity jigsaw: A review of current New Zealand legislation and initiatives. e-Journal of Social & Behavioural Research in Business, 3(2), 10–26. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261367324_A_biodiversity_jigsaw_A_review_of_New_Zealand_legislation_and_initiatives
  63. Schneider, A., Samkin, G., & Davey, H. (2014). Biodiversity reporting by New Zealand local authorities: The current state of play. Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal, 5(4), 425–456. https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-10-2013-0043
  64. Scholtz, H., & Kieviet, S. (2018). Board size and board composition: Does it really matter? Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research, 20(1), 29–41. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365196728_Scholtz_H_and_Kieviet_S_2018_Board_size_and_board_composition_does_it_really_matter_Southern_African_Journal_of_Accountability_and_Auditing_Research_201_pp29-42
  65. Senanayake, M., Harymawan, I., Dorfleitner, G., Lee, S., Rhee, J. H., & Ok, Y. S. (2024). Toward more nature-positive outcomes: A review of corporate disclosure and decision making on biodiversity. Sustainability, 16(18), Article 8110. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188110
  66. Seidl, A., et al. (2024). Investing in the wealth of nature through biodiversity and ecosystem service finance solutions. Ecosystem Services, 66, Article 101601. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2024.101601
  67. Silva, R. L. M., & Nardi, P. C. C. (2023). IAS 41 and biological assets in Brazil: Is the information really useful? Revista Catarinense da Ciência Contábil, 22, Article e3365. https://doi.org/10.16930/2237-7662202333651
  68. Sklavos, G., Zournatzidou, G., Ragazou, K., & Sariannidis, N. (2025). Green accounting and ESG-driven eco-efficiency in European financial institutions: A two-stage DEA–CRITIC-TOPSIS evaluation. PLOS ONE, 20(10), Article e0334882. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0334882
  69. Smit, S., Scholtz, H., & Mans-Kemp, N. (2018). Assessing the extent of application of integrated reporting guidelines by South African banks. Southern African Journal of Accountability and Auditing Research, 20, 57–69. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329207505_Assessing_the_extent_of_application_of_integrated_reporting_guidelines_by_South_African_banks
  70. Sun, H., Yan, X., Zhang, X., Zhang, J., Feng, T., Qiao, R., Yao, S., Ren, Y., & Chen, Q. (2026). Long-term evolution of land resource assets and liabilities in Poyang Lake Basin based on ecological footprint and ecosystem service value perspectives. Ecological Informatics, 95, Article 103730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2026.103730
  71. Tanaka Nakasone, G., & Castillo, C. (2023). Implementation of IAS 41 (Agriculture): The case of a Peruvian SME. Contabilidad y Negocios, 18(35), 14–38. https://doi.org/10.18800/contabilidad.202301.007
  72. Toušek, Z., Hinke, J., Gregor, B., & Prokop, M. (2025). Does biological assets’ tangibility matter from the profitability and cost of debt perspective for agricultural firms? Agris on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, 17(2), 95–106. https://doi.org/10.7160/aol.2025.170207
  73. Van Wilgen, N. J., Dopolo, M., Symonds, A., Vermeulen, W., Bester, E., Smith, K., & McGeoch, M. A. (2013). An inventory of natural resources harvested from national parks in South Africa. Koedoe, 55(1), Article 1096. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v55i1.1096
  74. Vermeulen, W., Van Wilgen, N., Smith, K., Dopolo, M., Swemmer, L., Annecke, W., Bezuidenhout, H., Durrheim, G., Hanekom, N., Hendricks, H., McGeoch, M., Ngubeni, N., & Symonds, A. (2019). Monitoring consumptive resource use in South African national parks. Koedoe, 61(1), Article a1516. https://doi.org/10.4102/koedoe.v61i1.1516
  75. Visentin, G. A. (2026). Financial risks of biodiversity loss: A review. International Review of Economics and Finance, 106, Article 104894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2026.104894
  76. Wang, F., Wang, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2025). The effect of green finance on corporate biodiversity risks. International Review of Financial Analysis, 108(B), Article 104718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.104718
  77. Warsini, Ferina, I. S., & Relasari. (2024). The fair value measurement of biological assets, disclosure of biological assets and financial performance: The moderating effect of managerial ownership. Eduvest: Journal of Universal Studies, 4(11), 11098–11116. https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v4i11.49956
  78. Willis, J. (2026). Biodiversity finance: What has been achieved and where is it heading. Ecological Economics, 240, Article 108713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108713
  79. Wu, L., Wang, X., Kai, H., Yang, C., Lyulyov, O., & Pimonenko, T. (2023). Chinese companies’ transparency under sustainable development goals: The role of asset impairment and biological assets in audit. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, 36(2), Article 2182808. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2023.2182808
  80. Wu, W., Liu, Y., Fang, J., & Gozgor, G. (2026). The impact of biodiversity risks on corporate default rates: Evidence from China. Economic Analysis and Policy, 92, 133–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eap.2026.05.018
  81. Xin, W., Grant, L., Groom, B., & Zhang, C. (2025). Noisy biodiversity: The impact of ESG biodiversity ratings on asset prices. Ecological Economics, 236, Article 108662. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108662
  82. Yang, L., Chen, T., Zhang, L., Lee, T.-M., & Fan, P.-F. (2024). Overlap between priority conservation areas and natural assets appeals to a shared responsibility for global primate conservation. Global Ecology and Conservation, 54, Article e03124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2024.e03124
  83. Zhang, J., Zhang, W., & E, J. (2025). The Impact of Biodiversity Regulation on Audit Pricing – A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on the Green Shield Program. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 103, Article 102038. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2025.102038
  84. Zhao, F., Han, Z., & Wang, L. (2024). Digitization path to improve ESG performance: A study on organizational perspectives. PLOS ONE, 19(12), Article e0313686. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313686
  85. Zhou, C., Chen, Y., Ji, Q., & Zhang, D. (2025). Does public attention to biodiversity matter to stock markets?. International Review of Financial Analysis, 98, Article 103925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irfa.2025.103925