MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117785218 · doi:10.1111/reel.70032

The nature of nature: Why the promotion of plural values of nature could pose transition risks and influence nature‐related financial disclosure

2025· article· en· W7117785218 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul Govind, Tom Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of European Comparative & International Environmental Law · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEnvironmental law and policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPluralValue (mathematics)NormativeMainstreamLegislationPluralism (philosophy)Promotion (chess)Instrumentalism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Plural values of nature are gradually being acknowledged and promoted through international and domestic law. Value pluralism emphasises diversity and the recognition of difference, acknowledging intrinsic and relational values of nature alongside instrumental values. This article demonstrates how changes toward embracing plural values of nature in law, including under the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), could be important for burgeoning nature‐related financial disclosure regimes stimulated by the GBF and the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature‐related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). Specifically, how nature is valued is relevant to the consideration of nature‐related transition risks required as part of nature‐related financial disclosures. Regulatory, policy and legal changes to enshrine plural values of nature into international and domestic law have the potential to give rise to transition risks for organisations, which have acted in reliance on the mainstream and instrumentalist value of nature. Whilst there is momentum for change toward plural values of nature at the international law level, the soft law status of the GBF means that the extent of its normative influence is reflected through analysis and evaluation of hard law obligations and domestic legislation that are designed to give effect to it. This article suggests that, based on the experience of Australia, legal changes that promote plural values of nature are emerging. While Australia retains a highly instrumentalised value of nature, legal and policy changes aimed at implementing commitments under the GBF demonstrate a growing commitment to plural values of nature within the national context. Even though Australia continues to primarily value nature for its utility and provision of ecosystem services, efforts to embrace plural values rely on the acknowledgment and inclusion of First Nations culture, philosophy and worldviews. Further regulatory changes that advance plural values of nature could give rise to transition risks for organisations to consider when making nature‐related financial disclosures.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.315 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of European Comparative & International Environmental LawSame topicEnvironmental law and policyFrench-language works237,207