Empirical study categorizes corporate biodiversity strategies in Finland and New Zealand, indicating diverse actions required.
There is an increasing need for better understanding of firm activities that contribute to biodiversity preservation. Panwar, Ober, and Pinkse offer a valuable typology of corporate biodiversity protection strategies based on temporal and spatial dimensions, namely, the preloss (proactive) strategies of conservation and compensation, and the after‐loss (reactive) strategies of restoration and reparation. This empirical study uses Panwar's typology to categorize the biodiversity strategies of companies in Finland and New Zealand. The paper develops a framework that extends both temporal and spatial dimensions and includes the activities of land‐based producers, processors, manufacturers, and retailers across the food value chain. We find that when analyzing these strategies, focus needs to be on the specific activities and actions that companies adopt or encourage. Our study emphasizes the involvement of other actors (stakeholders) in corporate biodiversity protection efforts and activities at different stages of strategy implementation, namely, preassessment, biodiversity‐supportive action, and postaction appraisal.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scott‐Kennel et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: