University of Vaasa - Vaasan yliopisto

660
Perhaps not surprisingly companies representing high (red) biodiversity risk
produced CR reports with greatest consideration for biodiversity and scored highest,
with a most frequent score of good (3) for each survey category, whereas amber and
green zone companies generally scored poorly (≤1). However all companies,
including those in the red zone scored poorly or failed to consider biodiversity
impacts in the supply chain or with respect to EMSs. Averaging the biodiversity
consideration scores across risk zones (Table 5, final column) also highlighted the
use of EMSs and the consideration of sustainability and landholdings as being
deficient overall (ie poor or no score). It appears that organisations placed in the red
zone are more likely to have significant landholdings than companies in other risk
zones and therefore they are probably more immediately aware of business risks
concerning biodiversity and with respect to other survey categories, compared to
amber and green listed companies.
Across all risk zones biodiversity receives the most attention under survey category
B (general consideration in CR reports). Companies often mention biodiversity as
part of the general company policy, but go no further in publishing detailed
information within the report. Although this gives the impression that the report is
giving good consideration to biodiversity, the detail is missing concerning how the
company manages the risks. It is possible that in some cases more detail on
biodiversity issues is published elsewhere.
Biodiversity Consideration in the Supply Chain
Out of the survey sample of 120 companies, 19 scored the maximum rating of 3
(Good Consideration) in survey category A - supply chain (Table 4).
Further analysis of these 19 focal companies (Table 6) showed that they were spread
evenly across the three biodiversity risk zones, and hence the consideration of supply
chain biodiversity