New research by the University of Oxford and the Stockholm Resilience Centre at Stockholm University has found that most biodiversity commitments made by large, influential companies are not precise enough to let society evaluate whether they are actually making progress. The results are published in One Earth.
Researchers identified 180 large transnational “keystone” corporations across sectors with significant environmental impact and outsized influence over the biosphere. Although 79% had made some form of biodiversity pledge, only 13% reported commitments detailed, transparent and specific enough to allow others to assess whether targets had been met — a basic prerequisite for accountability.
“Companies must be both ambitious and practical: meaningful commitments go further than just pledging to actions required by law, but also must consider clear implementation plans.”
Dr Sophus zu Ermgassen, senior author, University of Oxford
Among commitments judged not robust, the researchers found recurring problems: vague or unspecific language, contradictory or loosely defined terms, and selective use of evidence to justify inaction. In one example, an agrochemical company cited an analysis it had itself commissioned to argue that pesticides are not a major driver of insect decline.
Commitment quality varied sharply by sector. Eighteen of the 23 companies with at least one target meeting all criteria were in agriculture and farming; within the cocoa sector, all five assessed companies made commitments, four of them robust, while five of six major soybean companies made robust commitments. By contrast, biodiversity commitments were sparse among animal pharmaceutical and oil and gas firms — half of the ten animal pharmaceutical companies studied had no biodiversity commitments at all, and of 13 companies with no public reports, six were national oil companies.
The researchers point to several barriers, including misalignment with commercial interests, reputational risk from falling short of targets (“greenhushing”), limited guidance on setting commitments, and gaps in data on supply-chain biodiversity impacts. They suggest mandatory reporting requirements, closer business-science collaboration, sector-wide sustainability initiatives, and pressure from stock exchanges and financiers as ways to close the accountability gap.
Publication
The study, “Evaluating the Biodiversity Commitments of Earth’s Keystone Corporations,” was published in One Earth on July 13, 2026 (DOI: 10.1016/j.oneear.2026.101747).