MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biodiversity disclosure in the European finance sector

2024· article· en· W4404168846 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcological Economics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityBusinessFinanceEconomicsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the significant environmental, social, and economic consequences of biodiversity loss become more clearly recognized, biodiversity management has become an increasingly important issue for the financial sector. According to the Global Risk Report 2023, biodiversity loss will be the fourth most significant risk worldwide over the next ten years. The financial sector plays a crucial role in supporting and financing business activities that impact biodiversity. Financial institutions can help ensure that biodiversity is protected as they strongly influence management activities and practices in the economy through capital allocation. Based on institutional theory, this study aims to illuminate a disclosure level on biodiversity (risks) in the financial sector. Using content analysis, we empirically investigate non-financial reports by the European financial industry. To evaluate drivers, we present and compare specific disclosure standards and regulations concerning biodiversity. Overall, the disclosure quality differs in scope and level across the sampled companies. The results show the relevance of evolving disclosure frameworks like the EU taxonomy, Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation, and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. This study contributes to improving biodiversity management and disclosure by presenting a better understanding of biodiversity activities and risks within the financial sector as a mediating agent. • Current requirements and initiatives for biodiversity disclosure in financial sector. • Empirical research by content analysis of non-financial report for 24 financial institutions. • Research and practice on biodiversity reporting in financial sector is in an early stage. • Identification of recommendations for enhancing the quality of biodiversity reporting. • Institutional theory is evident for a sustainability transition in financial sector.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.164 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it