Swedish firms talk biodiversity but rarely put money behind it
A study of 196 Swedish company reports finds biodiversity commitments are increasingly visible but mostly superficial—with few financial mechanisms actually funding conservation. The gap between stated environmental goals and concrete investment mirrors earlier research on zombie AI projects: companies succeed at appearing responsible without generating real-world impact.
Originaltitel: Corporate biodiversity accountability in Sweden: reporting challenges and financial mechanisms for conservation
Svenska företag rapporterar allt mer om biologisk mångfald, men engagemanget är ofta ytligt och fokuserat på att bygga trovärdighet snarare än att åstadkomma verklig förändring. En analys av 196 årsredovisningar från 2019–2023 visar att företag använder tre rapporteringsnivåer: perifera (minimala åtgärder), operationella (konkreta initiativ) och strategiska (djupgående åtaganden). Företag i miljöbelastande branscher redovisar mer påtagliga åtgärder, medan övriga nöjer sig med breda hållbarhetslofte. Finansiella mekanismer riktas huvudsakligen mot klimatfrågor—direkta biodiversitetsfinansiering är sällsynt. Trots växande intresse för rewilding och bevarandeprojekt återstår omfattningen begränsad. Gapet mellan kommunicerad och faktisk ansvar förklaras genom legitimitetsstrategier. För CFO:er och riskanalytiker utgör biodiversitetsrapportering en växande regulatorisk och reputationsmässig risk som kräver återbesök av finansieringsstrategier och målmätning.
Purpose This study examines how large Swedish companies construct, communicate and legitimise biodiversity protection in their reporting. Design/methodology/approach The study is based on a qualitative content analysis of 196 annual, sustainability and integrated reports published between 2019 and 2023 by Swedish companies. Keywords related to biodiversity, rewilding and financial mechanisms were used to identify and code relevant passages in NVivo, and the material was interpreted through legitimacy theory. Findings Biodiversity is becoming more visible in corporate reports, but the quality of information still varies. The analysis identifies three levels of corporate engagement with biodiversity, peripheral, operational and strategic, reflecting a gradual shift from symbolic to more substantive accountability. Companies in industries with direct ecological impact report more concrete actions, while most others stay with broad sustainability goals. Financial instruments mainly target climate issues, with few examples of direct biodiversity finance. Despite a growing interest in rewilding or conservation work it is still rather limited. Reporting mainly reflects a search for pragmatic legitimacy, though some companies show early signs of substantive commitment. Originality/value The paper introduces a three-level model of corporate engagement with biodiversity, peripheral, operational and strategic, and connects biodiversity reporting with finance and rewilding practices. It contributes to the debate on how legitimacy theory can explain the gap between symbolic and real accountability.