What do we need to know about biodiversity in economics and business?

Purpose The purpose of this study is to comprehensively review biodiversity-related research within the realms of business, economics and management from 1993 to 2025. We assess the theoretical underpinnings, intellectual structure and evolution of the field. It aims to pinpoint crucial theoretical shifts and identify persistent research gaps, focussing on the integration of stakeholder and legitimacy theories and ecological economics within biodiversity research, while highlighting the shortcomings in addressing corporate accountability and the complexities of biodiversity financialisation. Design/methodology/approach The study utilises bibliometric mapping and systematic literature reviews to explore biodiversity research across business and economic disciplines. We extracted data from Scopus, incorporating articles, books and conference papers that focus on biodiversity challenges from economic and business perspectives. Using VOSviewer and R for bibliometric analysis, we created visual networks of the intellectual structure and thematic clusters in the field, which allowed for a detailed examination of the evolution and impact of research over time, identifying both influential studies and prominent research gaps. Findings The findings reveal an increasing alignment of biodiversity research with ecological economics, legitimacy and stakeholder theories. The research highlights a critical shift from firm-level strategies to systemic transformation needs within economic and financial frameworks, advocating for integrated approaches to biodiversity governance. However, challenges persist, notably in the areas of addressing power asymmetries and corporate greenwashing. Despite a growing emphasis on ecosystem services valuation, the market-based logic frequently overlooks crucial ecological interdependencies and socio-ecological complexities. Research limitations/implications This study, while extensive, has certain limitations. The reliance on bibliometric data from Scopus may overlook relevant research published in non-indexed journals or grey literature, potentially biasing the findings towards more mainstream and widely circulated studies. Additionally, the bibliometric and literature review methodologies, although rigorous, may not capture the critical debates within less quantifiable aspects of biodiversity research, such as ethical considerations and local indigenous knowledge that do not conform to typical academic publishing norms. Practical implications The practical implications of this study are significant for policymakers, business leaders and sustainability practitioners. By identifying gaps and trends in biodiversity research, this study provides insights into areas where business practices and policies can be aligned more closely with biodiversity conservation goals. It advocates for the adoption of integrated governance frameworks that consider ecological complexities and socio-economic factors, encouraging businesses to adopt more sustainable practices that go beyond compliance and contribute to biodiversity preservation. Furthermore, the findings can guide corporations in enhancing their corporate sustainability reports and ESG disclosures to reflect genuine biodiversity impacts and dependencies, promoting transparency and accountability in business operations. Originality/value The study contributes to the field by offering a structured, theory-driven agenda for future biodiversity research, emphasising the need for universal governance frameworks that transcend traditional firm-level approaches. It uniquely challenges the reductionist market-based logics prevalent in ecosystem services valuation. It calls for a rethinking of economic and financial paradigms to ensure the safeguarding of biodiversity as a core component of economic resilience and planetary stability. A comprehensive bibliometric approach and synthesis of theoretical advancements provide a novel perspective on integrating biodiversity considerations into broader economic and corporate frameworks.