A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Comparability Between Corporate Biodiversity Impact Accounting Tools

ABSTRACT Integrating corporate biodiversity impacts into investment decisions can direct investments toward nature‐positive firms, creating a market signal. The strength of this signal is a function of how closely investments align. This alignment depends on the comparability (the degree of similarity and difference) of tools used to account for biodiversity impacts. Yet, whether and why such tools are comparable remains poorly understood. Here, we develop a framework to discern and explain comparability by introducing two analytical perspectives: an input‐based view (similarity in metrics and methods) and an output‐based view (similarity in results). Expanding on the input‐based view, we review 20 widely used tools, enabling 11 input‐comparability assessments: five showed strong comparability, two moderate, and three low, with one unable to assess because of limited information. We then demonstrate how evidence from both perspectives can be integrated, revealing opportunities for future research, and discuss the implications of comparability for users and tool quality.