Businesses, cities and other organisations depend on healthy ecosystems for raw materials, clean water, fertile soils, pollination, and other ecosystem services. Yet biodiversity continues to decline, raising risks across many sectors. To help organisations, especially companies, to better respond, the CircHive project has launched two new resources: the biodiversity footprinting guidance and the biodiversity footprinting decision tree.
Biodiversity footprinting is a way of measuring how an organisation’s activities affect nature, similar to how a carbon footprint measures climate impact.
Three approaches, one starting point
The biodiversity footprinting guidance introduces three main approaches: Input-Output (IO) models, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), and Natural Capital Accounting (NCA).
IO and LCA use information and data from organisations, such as monetary spending or physical volumes of resource use, to estimate the likely impacts on biodiversity.
NCA measures ecosystem data via satellite imagery or field surveys to assess changes in biodiversity on the ground.
These approaches help organisations identify their biodiversity impacts, prioritise where action will have the greatest effect, compare products or suppliers, track progress over time, and support credible sustainability reporting. Here are some examples with key biodiversity footprinting approaches:
| Question answered | Data requirement | Result type | Typical effort | |
| Input-Output (IO) | Where are our biggest biodiversity impacts across our supply chain? | Spend data by sector/country | Modelled (estimated) impact | Small (2–8 weeks) |
| Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) | Which products/materials have the lowest potential biodiversity impact? | Product data, life cycle data | Modelled (estimated) impact by life stage | Medium (2–6 months) |
| Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) | Is the ecosystem/landscape we operate in improving or degrading? | Site data, satellite imagery, field surveys | Measured impact (on-the-ground change) | Large (3–12 months) |
Source: Understanding key approaches in biodiversity footprinting (2026, page 11)
No single “best” approach
Not every approach covers all situations. The guidance focuses on approaches to help organisations understand the landscape before selecting a specific method and tool. That is where the decision tree comes in: a step-by-step tool that walks organisations through selecting the method and approach best suited to their context.
In the Biodiversity Decision Tool, users can find an assessment approach suited to their organisation, purpose and area of focus:
How far are you in your biodiversity mainstreaming journey?
- Starting
- First steps
- Developing
- Maturing
- Comprehensive
What is your overall purpose?
- Screening
- Reporting / Disclosure
- Tracking changes in pressure/reliance
- Comparing options
- Target setting / Performance monitoring
- Observing change in biodiversity
- Ecosystem service (dependence) assessment
Background music: PaulYudin, Pixabay
The guidance draws on an in-depth review of 45 existing biodiversity footprinting methods. It was developed by the CircHive project in collaboration with its research and case study partners, which include EFI.
EFI coordinates the BEEHive platform, a community where businesses, researchers, and policymakers can exchange the latest thinking on biodiversity footprinting and natural capital accounting. It brings together stakeholders from across various hubs, including biomaterials, food, retail, finance, and green cities.
Help shape the guidance
CircHive is inviting organisations to test the biodiversity footprinting guidance and decision tree and share feedback to help refine them. If you’d like to get involved, please contact johan.olausson@ri.se.
