Accounting for nature – biodiversity reporting and accountability in public sector

Purpose This study investigates biodiversity reporting and accountability by public sector reporting entities using New Zealand regional councils as a case study. This study specifically examines the nature of biodiversity reporting, the benchmarks used to report on biodiversity and the factors/constraints affecting biodiversity accountability. Design/methodology/approach This study adopted a two-stage analysis model. This study first examined the regulatory framework for biodiversity accountability and then used content analysis to examine the annual reports of all 11 regional councils, from 2021 to 2024. Then, the authors conducted in-depth interviews with representatives from the New Zealand regional councils that are on the frontlines of biodiversity reporting and accountability. The analysis was evaluated through a public accountability theoretical perspective. Findings New Zealand regional councils are mandated to report on their biodiversity initiatives. However, the regulatory framework does not specifically stipulate the content requirements for these reports or the targets to be achieved, which weakens accountability. Theoretically, this study identifies limitations of supply driven accountability in biodiversity reporting, which leads to compliance-oriented reporting, non-comparable biodiversity disclosures and constraints on the effective public financial management of biodiversity resources. This study also found very limited engagement with broader stakeholders, such as rate payers and indigenous Maori/iwi groups, indicating that demand driven accountability is weak, potentially undermining public accountability for biodiversity. Originality/value The study contributes to accountability theory by demonstrating how accountability regimes can become dominated by supply-side pressures when demand-side scrutiny and applicable reporting framework are weak. In such contexts, organisations may produce increasingly extensive disclosures, yet the absence of clear accountability criteria and stakeholder engagement, limits the extent to which reporting supports meaningful evaluation of biodiversity related performance and resource commitments. The study findings contribute to the international debate on biodiversity accounting and accountability as it provides insights through the New Zealand context into factors that can lead to better accountability for biodiversity outcomes in other jurisdictions.