The journey of accounting for nature:
A qualitative study of the strive to account for nature through translation of the TNFD
framework from a Scandinavian Institutionalism perspective
Authors:
Markus Ögren - 1999-08-02
Ulrika Ohlson - 1995-04-09
Supervisor:
Niklas Egels Zandén
Department:
Graduate School
Course:
GM0861 Master’s Degree Project in Management
June 2023
The journey of accounting for nature:
A qualitative study of the strive to account for nature through translation of the TNFD
framework from a Scandinavian Institutionalism perspective
Markus Ögren
Master of science in Management, Graduate School of
Business Economics and Law at the University of Gothenburg
Ulrika Ohlson
Master of science in Management, Graduate School of
Business Economics and Law at the University of Gothenburg
Abstract
This thesis examines how the traveling idea of accounting for nature is translated and
materialized into a standardized framework. This is interesting as there is a rising interest in
how to report on environmental issues and this interest has now expanded beyond
climate-related issues to nature more broadly. Drawing on an empirical study of the so-called
TNFD framework and theories related to translation, the thesis identifies three main results.
First, the process of translating the idea into a standardized framework is complex and
conflict-intense, with idea carriers contesting components and engaging in iterative feedback
loops through dis-embedding, packaging, and unpacking how to account for nature. Second,
the idea carriers play a crucial role in the creation of the framework, where translations
become accepted, excluded, contested, or ignored, based on what aligns with their local
translation process. Third, idea carriers constantly evaluate the credibility, salience, and
legitimacy of different frameworks. This leads to battles between alternative standardized
frameworks, as idea carriers evaluate their local translations of the TNFD framework, where
the materialization of a framework that does not align with the idea carriers’ views can lead
to the strengthening of other frameworks. In showing this, this thesis contributes to previous
research into sustainability performance frameworks by showing how the idea of nature (and
not just climate) is materialized, and how frameworks battle. Additionally, this thesis speaks
to the translation literature by showing how actors accept, exclude, contest, or ignore aspects
of the frameworks through local translation processes.
Keywords: Taskforce of Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), Translation, Travel of ideas, Idea
carriers, Accounting for nature, Calculative practices, Credibility, Salience, Legitimacy, Dis-embedding,
Packaging, Unpacking.
1
Introduction
Organizations are operating in an ever-changing business landscape, where ideas travel and
are being translated constantly (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). One of these traveling ideas
is known as sustainable development1. A way to account for this traveling idea is by
translating sustainable development into collectively created frameworks2. Within sustainable
development there is coexistence where ideas expressed in standardized frameworks unite
and resemble one another due to legitimacy pressures, and where the ideas battle by adopting
different aims and scopes (Reinecke et al., 2012). However, a challenge in this
standardization process lies in the quantification of the sustainability performance3 of
companies. The saying “what gets measured gets done” suggests that how we measure a
phenomenon is important, which is an idea argued for in research (Bhanot et al., 2017;
Trianni et al., 2017). Numerous examples exist where the idea of accounting for sustainability
within businesses has led companies, governments, and other entities to collaborate in
developing standardized frameworks. These include, but are not limited to, the Global Report
Initiative (GRI) (Labuschagne et al., 2005; GRI, 2013), the ISO 14001 standard (Qorri et al.,
2017), The Corporate Sustainability Reporting (CSRD) (European Commission, 2023), the
Taskforce on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) (O'Dwyer´ & Unerman, 2020),
and the Taskforce of Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) (Deweerdt et al., 2022).
These standardized frameworks all aim to establish a measurable approach to assess
sustainability performance.
A number of studies have been conducted discussing how ideas of climate-related sustainable
development are materialized into the business landscape by the creation of sustainability
frameworks, for example the adoption of integrated reporting (<IR>), GRI and TCFD, all of
which are climate-focused (e.g., Sonnerfeldt & Aggestam, 2022, Rowbottom & Locke, 2016,
Brown et al., 2009a, Brown et al., 2009b; O’Dwyer & Unerman 2020; Dragu & Tiron-Tudor,
2013). Previous research on the climate-related framework <IR> has found support that
political, economic, and cultural aspects are influencing the use of the framework, hence its
translation (Dragu & Tiron-Tudor, 2013). The creation of the framework <IR> unfolded as a
collaboration between different actors: voluntary initiatives from local organizations
combined with regulatory incentives from policymakers, and the enrollment of global actors
(e.g., GRI) (Rowbottom & Locke, 2016). On a local level, these actors are seen as idea
carriers who have significant importance for the co-translation of <IR> where a low
commitment can also limit the compatibility, development, and use of the framework
(Sonnerfeldt & Aggestam, 2022). Similarly, the creation of GRI shows how the inclusiveness
of stakeholders, iterative testing and self-correction assured the standardization of the idea of
including climate into the corporate agenda (Brown et al., 2009a; Brown et al., 2009b).
1 Defined as: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs” (WCED, 1987).
2 Within this master thesis the use of frameworks is interchangeable with standards as we define frameworks as “a set of voluntary
predefined rules, procedures, and methods to systematically assess, measure, audit and/or communicate the social and environmental.
behavior and/or performance of firms” (Gilbert, Rasche & Waddock, 2011, p. 24) in close alignment of what is commonly defined as a
sustainability standard within academia. However, to use the term of frameworks instead of standards is more aligned with the terminology
of the field, practitioners, and is therefore used.
3 Sustainability performance is defined as: “negative or positive bottom line of economic, environmental and social impacts of an entity
against a defined baseline” (Büyüközkan & Karabulut, 2018, p.254).
2
Furthermore, it made the standardized framework practical for organizations and meaningful
for the financial market-users (Brown et al., 2009a; Brown et al., 2009b). Compared to <IR>
and GRI, where both focus on climate emission impacts, the research about the emergence of
the TCFD, which is centered around climate-related dependencies and risks, has highlighted
several challenges regarding standardization (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2020). For example,
there are challenges with data availability, how investors interpret climate-related disclosures,
discrepancy in the understanding of the application of scenario analysis, and how the
scenarios should be interpreted by stakeholders (Chua et al., 2022). These challenges have
been partially addressed from a corporate perspective by conducting workshops and training
of company executives, to assist in the translation of the idea of accounting for climate
(O’Dwyer & Unerman 2020).
During the journey of materializing the traveling idea of accounting for climate-related
sustainable development, organizations participating in the development process of
translating the standardized framework into business practices experience resistance factors
such as increased costs, limited resources, and a lack of core actor commitment (Sonnerfeldt
& Aggestam, 2022). Misalignment between what is practical or possible to disclose for
organizations, and what is meaningful for end-users within the financial market, is another
challenge surfaced within the <IR> framework (Rowbottom & Locke, 2016). The swift
stabilization of how to account for climate using GRI gave little space for the building of
internal organizational processes and rethinking of fundamental assumptions within the GRI
framework (Brown et al., 2009a). Furthermore, organizations are still under pressure from
TCFD to understand the material risks within their supply chain, as it requires a high degree
of stakeholder involvement (O’Dwyer & Unerman 2020). The traveling idea of incorporating
nature-related sustainable development within the business landscape, expressed through the
standardization of TNFD, is yet under-explored and seldom mentioned in research. An initial
study from a global lens shows how a lack of transparency within supply chains creates
complexities in measuring nature-related risks in pharmaceutical companies (Deweerdt et al.,
2022). However, it offers a limited in-depth understanding of how actors at both global and
local levels are translating the idea of accounting for nature by either accepting, excluding,
contesting, or even ignoring different forms of the TNFD framework in heterogeneous
sectors.
Hence, the idea of incorporating sustainable development into the business landscape has
historically been focused on handling climate-related issues and risks, for example the risk of
increased greenhouse emissions (e.g., Zongming et al., 2019; 2020; Eccles & Krzus, 2019;
O'Dwyer´& Unerman, 2020). However, organizations are currently battling how to translate
the traveling idea of nature-related (e.g., biodiversity) dependencies, impacts, risks, and
opportunities (e.g., Deweerdt et al., 2022). There is an urgency to act, as half of the Earth’s
terrestrial ecosystems are depleted and exploited beyond repair (Watson et al., 2016), and that
the rate of depletion is rapidly increasing while the taken-for-granted ecosystem services are
fundamental for the survival of the economic system (Maron et al., 2018). As previous
research offers a limited in-depth understanding of how actors, both on global- and local
levels, are adapting to the traveling idea of accounting for nature, there is a need to expand on
3
this research. Furthermore, this study addresses the demand for additional research in the
field, focusing on how sustainability is evaluated, translated, and developed into standardized
frameworks (Büyüközkan & Karabulut, 2018; Searcy, 2012). By addressing these aspects,
this study aims to contribute to the expansion of sustainability performance literature. The
study will highlight various nature-related aspects, such as, how does the idea of accounting
for nature emerge, how is the idea constructed into a standardized framework, how is the
framework updated, who are the spokespersons and idea carriers of the idea, how is the
traveling idea negotiated and reframed, what are the roles of the participating organizations,
what trade-offs and challenges are experienced, and most importantly, how is the traveling
idea of accounting for nature translated into a standardized framework. By drawing on the
concept of translation from Scandinavian institutionalism, the study aims to contribute to
existing literature by expanding the understanding of the complexities and dynamics involved
in the translation process of the traveling idea of accounting for nature, which materializes
into a sustainability framework. The study therefore seeks to expand the literature on not only
sustainability performance, but also contribute to the broader field of translation research.
The study is focusing on the following research question:
- How does the traveling idea of accounting for nature translate into a standardized
framework?
The purpose of the study is therefore to move into the development of TNFD from a global
perspective, through documents studies, and local perspective, delimited to Swedish
organizations where interviews and workshops was conducted, to provide a better
understanding of how the idea of accounting for nature is translated into the TNFD
framework. The study aims to examine how businesses respond to the traveling idea, by
either accepting, excluding, contesting, or ignoring different parts of the framework, based on
their translation of it.
Theoretical framework
Scandinavian institutionalism & the translation of standardized frameworks in practice
With the purpose of the study, to demonstrate how the traveling idea of accounting for nature
becomes standardized into the sustainability framework TNFD through translations, this
paper draws upon Scandinavian institutionalism and its concept of translation, inspired by
Actor-Network Theory (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). This study moves away from
traditional institutionalism, which primarily focuses on how global actors shape social
structures through their ideas, beliefs, and norms (Meyer and Rowan, 1977), and instead
moves into the role of both global and local actors in a dynamic process of shaping and
reshaping social structures through the translation of ideas, beliefs, and norms (Czarniawska,
2008). This study is using the concept of translation as defined by Mennicken (2008, p.389):
"the relational and rhetorical work involved in making the development and spread of
scientific inventions, calculative practices or models of financial control". It highlights the
continuous effort and construction involved in the travel of ideas, resulting in the creation of
4
entities such as TNFD, which includes calculative practices and financial control, aligning
with the insights of Czarniawska and Joerges (1996).
To understand the process of shaping and reshaping ideas, it is important to explore how
these ideas are formed and travel. Drawing on the perspective of Scandinavian
institutionalism, the travel of ideas occurs when they are translatable and practically
manageable (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). Moreover, for ideas to have an impact and lead
to changes in social structures, they require support from both global and local actors
(Mennicken, 2008). This support can manifest in various ways, such as local-actors
organizing workshops and seminars to explore and demonstrate the practical value of the
idea, or global-actors engaging in lobbying efforts to secure political backing for the traveling
idea (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996).
When a traveling idea becomes materialized into a standardized framework, it is considered
effectful as it leads to action (Røvik, 1996 in Sonnerfeldt & Aggestam, 2022). However, an
idea or a de-contextualized framework can also undergo translation and acquire new
meanings in different local contexts (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). An important aspect of
what makes ideas travel or not, is the idea carriers (Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall, 2002).
Researchers, professionals, leaders, consultants, and planners are commonly recognized as
legitimate actors who frequently serve as idea carriers. Idea carriers act as change agents by
capturing translated ideas, modifying them, and applying them across various contexts to
facilitate the evolution of ideas (Sonnerfeldt & Aggestam, 2022). It is essential to understand
that the translation process is dynamic, with actors continuously entering and exiting the
process (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). Moreover, translation extends beyond human
actions and includes the contribution of texts, metaphors, and artifacts in ongoing discourse.
Ideas are translated into action and practice when actors collectively enact upon them after
reaching consensus (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). However, competing ideas can halter
materialization and prevent the ideas from being executed in practice and action (Brunsson,
1985, in Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996).
To gain deeper insights into the process of ideas traveling and materializing into social
structures, Czarniawska and Joerges (1996) propose it to be conducted in four steps. Firstly,
dis-embedding occurs as the idea is detached from its original institutional context. Secondly,
packaging involves translating the traveling idea into a distinct entity which can be
effectively translated further to other contexts. Thirdly, unpacking takes place as actors within
the new context interpret the idea and initiate a fitting process to adapt it to local business
practices. Finally, re-embedding happens when the entity is successfully translated into
business practices. One example of how accounting for nature can be translated is to quantify
it to represent indicators and metrics, often referred to as calculative practices (Miller, 2001).
Hence, to understand the standardization of traveling ideas, there is a need to move into
calculative practices. Calculative practices serve as a management tool offering evaluation,
monitoring, and decision-making support across various organizational levels (ibid.).
However, challenges arise when attempting to combine quantitative metrics (i.e., calculative
practices) and employee narratives in assessing sustainability performance due to the inherent
5
short-term focus of calculative practices compared to the long-term perspective of
sustainability (Cuganesan et al., 2014). Additionally, challenges exist in determining the
boundaries of corporate responsibility (e.g., how to accurately measure greenhouse gases)
(Hiss, 2013). Nonetheless, research has found that diverse viewpoints and interpretations can
coexist, illustrating the interplay between calculative practices and sustainability (Dumay and
Ronney, 2016). Furthermore, studies have shown how the interplay between governmental
narratives and calculative practices can generate sustainable transitions in transportation,
highlighting the interconnectedness of sustainability and calculative practices (Jensen et al.,
2017). Moreover, research supports the notion that calculative practices are essential drivers
of sustainable development, as companies are more inclined to improve sustainability
performance when it is measurable (Espeland & Sauder, 2007).
Another important aspect to acknowledge when examining the translation process of
traveling ideas which materialize into a standardized framework within the context of
sustainability, is to consider why standardized frameworks are either institutionalized or
abandoned. Research has highlighted that the institutionalization or discontinuation of a
standardized framework depends on the amount of credibility, salience, and legitimacy
created for its users and idea carriers (Cash et al., 2003; De Olde et al., 2018). These concepts
do not only shed light on the factors influencing the institutionalization or discontinuation of
standardized frameworks, but also provide insight into why firms participate in the
development process. It reveals that brand protection, reputation management (Brown et al.,
2009a), and the pursuit of credibility are significant driving forces for companies to engage in
the development of sustainability frameworks (Fortanier et al., 2011).
Credibility includes the cognitive belief, evidence, and arguments that support a framework
and its underlying assumptions (De Olde et al., 2018). Sustainability frameworks, which aim
to simplify complexity to support decision-making for actors (Meadows, 1998), face a
dilemma: increased simplification may result in decreased credibility due to the framework’s
inability to capture the full complexity. Precision, sensitivity, data availability, time, and cost
are factors influencing the credibility and use of sustainability tools (De Olde et al., 2018).
Additionally, the developer’s underlying assumptions and logic play a significant role in the
use of sustainability frameworks (Gasparatos, 2010). Salience refers to the perceived
relevance of sustainability frameworks to users and practitioners (Cash et al., 2003), where
the value that these frameworks bring to users influences their adoption. Research in the
agricultural sector suggests that perceived salience is influenced by factors such as
framework design, cost, and time investment (De Olde et al., 2016; Lynch et al., 2000; Van
Meensel et al., 2012). Furthermore, the ease of grasping the framework and its terminology
also impacts its salience (i.e., the user-friendliness) (De Olde et al., 2016). Additionally, that
the framework offers trustworthy decision-making aid which aligns with the experience of
the user by being based on similar judgment values is also vital for the experienced salience
of the framework (De Olde et al., 2016). Legitimacy involves building frameworks based on
fair beliefs, values, and considerations of opposing views and interests (Cash et al., 2003).
Hence, alignment between recommended indicators in a framework and the contextual beliefs
of users, including localized cultural beliefs, is crucial for legitimacy (De Olde et al., 2018).
6
Methodology
To answer the research question and understand how the idea of accounting for nature travels
and translates into the development of TNFD, this study has used a qualitative research
design. Qualitative methods are suitable according to previous research (Silverman, 2019), as
they allow for in-depth exploration of published documentation and firsthand accounts from
organizational members within the social context of the TNFD’s translation process.
To gain insights into how the idea of accounting for nature travels and is translated into
TNFD on a global level, this study has utilized document studies. Previous research
acknowledges the value of analyzing text to understand its reflection of reality (Silverman,
2019). Therefore, by examining documents, this study attempts to comprehend the translation
of the idea of accounting for nature by following the framework’s development from a global
perspective. Additionally, by conducting a document study the research moves into analyzing
participating actors in the creation of the documents, who are excluded, the purpose of the
documents, if there are taken-for-granted assumptions with the process of constructing the
documents and how they go about constructing the interpretation into text (Silverman, 2019).
Hence, by conducting documented studies we can understand how the idea of accounting for
nature is translated within the development of TNFD, but also the connected dynamics and
complexities can be surfaced.
To understand, on a local level, how the idea of accounting for nature is translated by
engaging in the TNFD framework a multiple case study design was used providing
opportunities to understand the social accounts within a broader spectrum of case
organizations compared to single case studies (Bryman and Bell, 2011; Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007). Therefore, the multiple case study design gives opportunities to obtain
richer data by allowing more than solely one case to be studied. However, it also generates
complexities as each case has its own context which needs to be accounted for (Eisenhardt &
Graebner, 2007). However, when handling this complexity through trustworthy descriptions
of each of the settings within the organizations, it can offer conceptualized findings which are
relatable across multiple sectors (Eisenhardt & Graebner, 2007).
The setting
To research how ideas of accounting for nature travels and are translated into business
practices, the TNFD framework is researched, primarily due to its nature-related focus, while
it still acknowledges the interplay of other sustainability dimensions and the climate. This
framework shifts the focus of sustainability reporting to disclosing nature-related
dependencies, impacts, opportunities, and risks, focusing on moving companies’ focus and
capital to become more nature-positive, contributing to increased sustainability (Deweerdt,
2022). The framework focuses broader than disclosing solely environmental aspects of
nature-related risks and dependencies (TNFD, 2022a). It also discloses social aspects of
impacts and dependencies that link to nature-related risks, for example impacts on knowledge
systems, culture, local communities, and indigenous people (TNFD, 2022b). Moreover, it
7
connects the additional risks, impacts, dependencies, and opportunities to how the
organization is affected by this economically. Therefore, by researching the use of the TNFD
framework, all dimensions of sustainability can be acknowledged, however with the focus on
nature-related issues.
For the conducted multiple case study, the study had access to nine Swedish companies in
heterogeneous sectors enrolled in the BioPath project (funded project), where the project has
a main aim to partake in the co-creation of developing the TNFD framework. All
participating organizations are engaged in accounting for nature by assessing the TNFD
framework, in the version 0.3 and version 0.4. Furthermore, all the company participants are
from the Swedish division of the company, hence the study applies a local perspective within
a Swedish context.
Company A is a global organization who operates in the forest products industry and has over
twenty-three thousand employees. Company B is a large energy company that operates
primarily in the areas of power generation and distribution, with operations in multiple
countries around the world and has over twenty thousand employees. Company C is a large
Swedish bank who operates on a global scale with over twelve thousand employees
worldwide. Company D is a government-owned financial institution that provides financial
solutions to support Swedish exports and investments abroad. It is a medium-sized company
with a global presence and has around three hundred employees. Company E is a large
Swedish bank who operates on a global scale with about fifteen thousand employees.
Company F is a small market research company with around fifty employees and operates
primarily in the United Kingdom. Company G is a financial institution which supports
initiatives for economic growth and environmental responsibility, and has around three
thousand employees. Company H is a small government agency with around 30 employees,
who manages substantial financial assets with a focus on responsible investments and
long-term returns. University X is a public research university and one of the oldest in
Sweden.
8
Organization Respondent Respondent Respondent Date of contact
Company A VP Sustainable
16-02-23
Finance***** Sustainability Manager* 23-02-2308-03-23
Director of International 24-02-23Company B Environmental Strategic Strategy Analyst****
Projects**** Trainee****
16-03-23
08-03-23
Company C Sustainability
21-02-23
Specialist**** 08-03-2321-04-23
Company D Sustainability Manager* 08-03-23
Company E SustainabilityController* Head of Sustainability* 08-03-23
Company F Consultant*** 20-03-23
Company G Lead BiodiversitySpecialist* 22-05-23
Chief ESG and
Company H Communication 22-05-23
Officer*
University X Researcher* Professor* 16-03-2322-05-23
Notes: This table is a summary over the respondents that this study has built its empirical findings on.. *The respondent has been present at
workshops, **The respondent has been part of interviews, ***The respondent has answered interview questions in writing, ****The
respondent has been present at workshops and interviews, *****The respondent has been interviewed and answered interview questions in
writing, ******The respondent has been present at workshops, interviews and answered interview questions in writing.
The data collection strategy
This study has used a combination of qualitative methods. These included document studies,
six semi-structured interviews, each lasting approximately sixty minutes, and two five-hour
focus group workshops involving a panel of twenty sustainability experts divided into smaller
groups. This triangulation of research methods was used to ensure the credibility of the
primary data collected (Silverman, 2019). To conduct a document study, we examined the
published documents from the Taskforce of TNFD and their webinars, published on
YouTube, which gave insights of how accounting for nature is embedded within the TNFD
from a global perspective based on each new updated version. These documents were
transcribed and later analyzed. Within document studies the sampling is of significant
importance, therefore we took inspiration based on the recommendation from previous
research to use documents valuable for answering the research question (Silverman, 2019).
Semi-structured interviews were used to gather the account and experiences of Swedish
participants, engaged on a local level, who participate in the translation of accounting for
nature using TNFD (Kvale, 2006). The interviews were conducted in a semi-structured
manner to ensure richness of each account (Charmaz, 1996), which is not given in the
structured interview format, but it also takes the advantage from having an interview-guide
which aids the researcher and sets boundaries for the relevant topic compared to the
unstructured interview (Silverman, 2019). The focus group discussions were used to gain
9
interpretative accounts of the collective experience, which is in line with Silverman’s (2019)
recommendations, to understand the translation of TNFD. Furthermore, this is an
under-researched topic, further motivating the use of focus discussions (Silverman, 2019) to
gain knowledge in the field from multiple sources in a discussion format.
The interviews and focus discussions were mainly conducted through digital meetings where
cameras were used to capture visuals to ensure interview conditions close to physical
meetings, getting all signals of communication (Archibald et al., 2019). To be able to gain
knowledge of the local translation processes of accounting for nature using TNFD, a
purposive sampling was used, incorporating only participants who were part of the translation
process (Silverman, 2019). Ensuring mutual trust and good research climate is important for
openness in interviews and focus discussions (Kvale, 2006), therefore the research was
conducted aligned with the normalized ethical standpoints of qualitative studies approved by
both parties through a consent form before the first contact (The Swedish Research Council:
2017: Silverman, 2019). The interviews were recorded and anonymized, based on the request
from respondents, both on individual and organizational level to ensure that no one gets hurt
by the research, and only relevant information was gathered following the General Data
Protection Regulation.
We used an iterative approach to update our interview guide, as new categories and insights
emerged through the coding process. By using this approach, we were able to capture
perspectives and experiences of the respondents while also allowing for flexibility in our data
collection and analysis. This approach allowed us to identify new themes and categories that
we may have overlooked if we had relied solely on our preliminary interview guide.
Moreover, the process contributed to continuously refining our research question and
ensuring that we were collecting data that directly addressed the question.
The workshops were organized through physical and digital focus group discussions.
Furthermore, in organizing these workshops, inspiration was taken from the Delphi method,
where experts unite to discuss questions in which there is a disagreement to try to share
knowledge to eventually reach a consensus (Linstone and Turroff, 1975). In practice, an
anonymized survey containing 10–15 questions regarding the experience of the TNFD
framework was sent to the respondents before the workshop. The results were later analyzed
visually to understand where there was disagreement, and these questions were discussed
during the workshop to share knowledge and reach consensus. Notes were taken during the
discussions as recording was not allowed. Therefore, the quotes that originated from the
workshops are a reconstruction based on transcribed notes.
The analytical strategy
The study is derived from an inductive approach, where we first collected data and then
identified patterns which became the fundamental guiding point for our selection of relevant
theories, taking inspiration from a grounded theory approach (Charmaz,1996). These patterns
were later condensed into themes. The patterns and themes are identified using a coding
process which consisted of three stages, taking inspiration from Charmaz (1996), with
10
first-level coding which was conducted line by line, second-level coding which was
conducted through broader categorizations, and third-level coding, which narrowed the
broader categories further, leading to the eleven categories of codes: an unanimous voice for
the need of TNFD, implementation of the framework, data limitations, stakeholders,
materiality, scenario analysis, nature-related frameworks, climate-related frameworks,
trade-offs, resource allocation and dissatisfaction with updates.
Our coding analysis revealed commonalities of the theory Scandinavian institutionalism (e.g.,
the traveling of ideas) and its concept of translation, which became suitable tools to
understand how the idea of accounting for nature is translated through the use of TNFD.
Moreover, this theory allowed us to examine how ideas, such as the concept of accounting for
nature, emerge on a global level and undergo translation as it is used in local processes
around the world. Eventually, the theoretical framework and third-level coding generated five
themes that formed the basis for our empirical findings: The idea of accounting for nature
emerges, TNFD is a materialization of the idea of accounting for nature, Swedish
organizations pick up on the idea of accounting for nature, Major challenges & Coping
mechanism, and The rise or fall of the TNFD?. The identified themes, summarized by the
table below, are the primary empirical findings of the study, which enabled a fruitful
discussion that helped us to answer the predefined research question of the study.
Thematic Summary
Themes Example quotes Explanation
The idea of accounting for Nature underpins the global economy. More than half of the world’s economic output – US$44 This quote exemplifies how the
nature emerges trillion of economic value generation – is highly or moderately dependent on nature. Our emergence of accounting for natureeconomies are embedded within nature, not external to it. Yet most corporates, investors and is derived from actors sharing a
lenders today are inadequately accounting for nature-related risks and opportunities (TNFD, common message of accounting
2022a, p. 14). for nature.
TNFD is a materialization Regarding the building blocks of the framework, the core components have a steadiness, not a lot This quote exemplifies how the
of the idea of accounting of changes, where enhancements have been made and where there’s new content. So, broadly we core components of TNFD havehave tried to keep the core components of the framework broadly steady, to enable pilot testing and remained stable between the beta
for nature for the market to not sort of constantly shifting the core components (McKenzie in TNFD, 2022q, versions
13 July 2022).
Swedish organizations pick Our purpose for joining the TNFD is to understand what we need to report for handling our nature This quote exemplifies how
up on the idea of risk. TNFD also gives us a method to cope with biodiversity. (Sustainability Manager, Company Swedish firms are engaging inD, 8 March 2023) accounting for nature by
accounting for nature translating TNFD
Fundamentally, the way that we measure biodiversity in order to assess impacts is so much more This quote exemplifies the
Major challenges & Coping difficult than for climate because we do not have that single indicator metric that everybody uses challenges of measuring nature(Director of Environmental Strategic Projects, Company B, 24 February 2023). compared to climate-related issues
mechanism
The rise or fall of the The core disclosure metrics are not functional because they only show the current state of The first quote exemplifies
TNFD? biodiversity. The core metrics are not functional, are not built on local information and are not unsolved challenges within versionfocused on how well the ecosystem is preserved in terms of ecosystem integrity, composition, and 0.4 which leads to dissatisfaction
structure (Lead Biodiversity Specialist, company G, 22 May 2023). within engaged TNFD actors.
“Biodiversity is probably the fastest growing topic in the last few years. Going from nothing to a The second quote exemplifies how
top global topic. Further TNFD is an ongoing conversation” (Chief ESG and Communication biodiversity aspects and TNFD are
Officer, Company H, 22 May 2023). ever evolving, showing how new
solutions can arise.
Notes: This table provides a thematic summary of the empirical findings; however, it does not offer a full view of the complexity of each
theme. To grasp the full complexity, please visit the chapter empirical findings.
11
Ethical reflections and limitations of the study
When exploring how the idea of accounting for nature travels and its materialization into a
framework of evaluating nature-related sustainability performance, TNFD, it is important to
acknowledge certain limitations in the research. The study has researched a group of nine
Swedish companies who are enrolled in the project BioPath, where the study is limited by
time and only accounting for the experiences within these firms. As of when this thesis is
published the TNFD framework has not yet moved into version 1.0, therefore this study
focuses solely on the Swedish local translation process from version 0.3 and version 0.4 of
the TNFD framework. The study is drawing on how ideas travel and become standardized
into the TNFD framework. However, as the TNFD framework is still in the development
phase, no organization has yet re-embedded the idea into business practice, and the study is
therefore limited to focus on how the idea travels within the phases of dis-embedding,
packaging and unpackaging (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996).
A limitation within the data collection strategy of using workshops is that the accounts are
framed from a social context of a group (Silverman, 2019). Therefore, the study is limited to
account for those individuals who chose to speak within the workshops. During the
discussion, due to the voluntary aspects of the workshop, we could not force the sharing of
everyone’s accounts. Some of the workshop attendees did not contribute with their thoughts
in the workshop, which may have resulted in potential insights lost, and which were not
possible to complement by further interviews due to limited data accessibility.
The study has an advantage of having access to companies from heterogeneous sectors. On
one hand it is an advantage that the researchable companies are enrolled in a funded project
providing higher access to the researchers, but on the other hand it can also be seen as a
disadvantage, as it can steer the expectations of the findings to contribute into the
development of accounting for nature rather than inductively disclose the most interesting
empirical findings. However, by transparently describing the limitation and our used methods
in this study, it validates the trustworthiness of the process of reaching the findings, which is
aligned with recommendation from previous research (Silverman, 2019).
In the process of conducting the thesis, our initial intention was to describe the practice of the
implementation process of the TNFD framework. However, due to a limited number of
organizations having implemented the framework, we had to adjust our focus. As our
research progressed, the traveling idea of accounting for nature, with individuals involved in
global and local processes acting as idea carriers, became the primary empirical insight of our
study. These revisions in our research process however further imposed limitations on the
timeframe of the study. Additionally, it is important to acknowledge that we as researchers
are part of the process of shaping the idea of accounting for nature by engaging in workshops,
interviews, and debating biodiversity topics. By being part of the discussions, the results of
the study may be affected. But in a positive sense, being part of the connected discussions
further validates the trustworthiness of the material gathered (Svensson et al., 2007).
12
Empirical findings
The idea of accounting for nature emerges
The idea of accounting for sustainable development has been derived from the debate of the
main aspect of business (e.g., Dyllick, T., & Muff, 2016). This debate has led to the
sustainability-related action of incorporating sustainability into the corporate agenda by the
creation of frameworks, historically in the forms of <IR>, GRI and TCFD (e.g., Rowbottom
& Locke, 2016; Brown et al., 2009a; O'Dwyer´& Unerman, 2020), which is still ongoing.
The main focus is now on new standardized frameworks, for example TNFD (voluntary) and
CSRD (mandatory and government-supported) (Baumüller & GrBenic, 2021). However, in
parallel with this development of accounting for sustainability, it has been mapped that
approximately half of the Earth’s ecosystem services have been destroyed beyond repair
(Watson et al., 2016). Furthermore, researchers are referring to this era as: “loss without
limit”, in regard to nature underpinning the rapidly increasing rate of depletion of resources
(Maron et al., 2018 in Maron et al., 2020 p.48). Scientists are warning societies of what will
happen if ecosystems, such as resources given by freshwater, and biodiversity are
taken-for-granted (Albert et al., 2021). Similarly, practitioners are acknowledging the fact that
nature and business are interlinked, which fosters the idea of accounting for nature within
business.
Nature underpins the global economy. More than half of the world’s economic output – US$44 trillion
of economic value generation – is highly or moderately dependent on nature. Our economies are
embedded within nature, not external to it. Yet most corporates, investors and lenders today are
inadequately accounting for nature-related risks and opportunities (TNFD, 2022a, p. 14).
Furthermore, local initiatives have emerged to raise acknowledgement to account for nature
in the larger debate of sustainable development. An example of such an initiative is the
BioPath project, which has increased the debate of nature-related issues within sustainable
development, surfacing important topics of biodiversity loss and how to go about accounting
for nature within a business context.
Derived from this increasing concern for nature, the idea of accounting for nature within a
business landscape is formed. The TNFD is one global attempt to materialize this traveling
idea of accounting for nature by the Financial Stability Board (FSB).
TNFD is a materialization of the idea of accounting for nature
The goal of the TNFD framework is to surface organizations’ dependencies and impacts on
ecosystem services, fundamentally relying on biodiversity, pushing organizations to account
for nature-related risks and opportunities, rather than solely understanding nature as
extractive (Deweerdt et al., 2022). TNFD helps with that by creating a common language of
disclosure, promoting consistency and comparability. Therefore, the standardized framework
strives to lead businesses to conduct more nature-positive actions and decisions (ibid.). The
TNFD framework has an open-innovation approach, meaning it is developed in symbiosis
with market participants. This involved releasing a series of prototype frameworks (version
0.1, version 0.2, version 0.3, version 0.4), where market participants and other stakeholders
13
can provide feedback and undergo pilot-testing, before the release of the last version 1.0. The
pilot-testing and feedback process facilitated trust and engagement, as well as generated new
ideas and perspectives that might not have been reached otherwise. Moreover, various
governments participated in the creation of the framework. After its launch, TNFD reached
support from governments, financial institutions, corporations, and civil society, and
individuals in high positions such as the UN secretary, presidents, and prime ministers
(TNFD, 2023b).
The TNFD framework includes recommendations for companies to disclose information
regarding the four areas of governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics and targets
(TNFD, 2022a). By using the same four pillars in both the TNFD and TCFD frameworks, it
provided a structure familiar to many companies and financial institutions who already
implemented the TCFD framework. While the specific guidance and recommendations
provided within each pillar may differ, the use of a consistent structure helps ensure that the
overall approach to sustainability reporting is coherent and consistent across different
standardized frameworks. The TNFD framework is intended to support the transition to a
sustainable economy in which nature and biodiversity are valued and protected, materializing
the traveling idea of accounting for nature within a business context. TNFD is furthermore a
standardized framework meant to help companies understand and manage their nature-related
financial risks, opportunities, dependencies, and impacts (TNFD, 2021). To help companies
work continuously with its nature-related issues, TNFD introduced a voluntary aid tool called
LEAP (acronym for locate, evaluate, assess, and prepare) (TNFD, 2022h). It is thus meant for
organizations to use LEAP by “locating” the interplay of organization and nature,
“evaluating” the dependencies and impacts on nature, “assessing” risks and opportunities,
and “prepare” by proactively handling identified nature-related risks and disclosing the
relationship between nature and organization (TNFD, 2022a).
There are two hundred organizations currently in the process of pilot-testing TNFD (TNFD,
2023), and thus voluntarily co-creating and refining the framework, and by doing so, they
have expressed their interest of accounting for nature within business, as well as their
willingness to collaborate, share their expertise and feedback to improve the framework’s
practicability. Through their active participation in webinars, consultation groups, data
catalysts, and general feedback processes, these organizations have also been able to shape
and influence the development of the standardized framework, as well as to learn from each
other and the Taskforce members.
The main idea of accounting for nature was materialized into the first version (v0.1) of the
TNFD framework and provided a high-level overview of the main aim, definitions, the four
disclosure pillars, and the key components. However, v0.1 did not cover how to fully account
for all aspects of nature, rather the second version (v0.2), released in June 2022, provided
additional guidance on the four pillars of the framework, definitions, and the specific type of
information that companies should disclose under each pillar. However, the main components
presented in v0.1 remained static. It also introduced additional information about metrics and
14
targets for companies to disclose about their impacts on nature, and emphasized the
importance of materiality assessment, assessing what is meaningful to disclose from different
perspectives (TNFD, 2022j). The feedback for v0.2 emphasized that market participants
desire more direction to interpret the TNFD framework to be able to convert the traveling
idea of accounting for nature into their business context. This includes explicit guidance for
specific sectors and biomes, as well as for financial institutions, and regarding technical
components such as scenarios, metrics, targets, and data. Further feedback was provided to
clarify the definitions of essential concepts within TNFD, the proposed disclosure
recommendations, and the LEAP approach (TNFD, 2022m).
Regarding the building blocks of the framework, the core components have a steadiness, not a lot of
changes, where enhancements have been made and where there’s new content. So, broadly we have
tried to keep the core components of the framework broadly steady, to enable pilot testing and for the
market to not sort of constantly shifting the core components (McKenzie in TNFD, 2022q, 13 July
2022).
The urgency to account for nature led to the further development of version 0.3 (v0.3),
released in November 2022, providing more guidance in how to translate the standardized
framework TNFD into business practices. The materialization of TNFD was further
developed with a special focus on data collection, metrics and analysis, and the role of
materiality analysis in the context of nature-related financial disclosures. It also provided
additional information on the integration of nature-related financial disclosures with other
sustainability-related disclosures, further acknowledging the social dimensions, and case
studies to demonstrate best practices (TNFD, 2022k).
Swedish organizations pick up on the idea of accounting for nature
Alongside the further developed framework that was in v0.3, the traveling idea of accounting
for nature reached Swedish companies, who acted upon the idea and joined the efforts of
reporting in accordance with the TNFD framework. Their interest was to gain methodological
knowledge and guidance in how to measure nature-related issues, and to understand their
nature-related risks and impacts to reverse the biodiversity crisis and thus account for nature.
Furthermore, the engagement was a way of handling the customer demands of accounting for
nature-related issues. Moreover, by making efforts to partake in the development process of
the framework, they also got opportunities to shape the standardized framework.
Our purpose for joining the TNFD is to understand what we need to report for handling our nature risk.
TNFD also gives us a method to cope with biodiversity (Sustainability Manager, Company D, 8 March
2023).
The respondents interviewed are in the translation process of accounting for nature, which is
acted upon through the engagement towards TNFD. According to the respondents,
incorporating the TNFD framework into business practices will be a gradual process,
expanding into additional sectors and product lines over time. The respondents are however
currently at different stages of the piloting process, in which two of the organizations who
15
have conducted pilot-testing, company A and company B, are in different business sectors.
Other organizations are in the process of defining the scope of their upcoming TNFD
piloting. The focus for all the organizations is on reviewing the recommendations of the
TNFD framework, and specifically examining the first two steps of the LEAP approach,
“locate” and “evaluate”, which is part of the risk management process within TNFD.
Within company A’s organization, the sustainability, risk, and finance departments work
together collaboratively towards the idea of accounting for nature through actively engaging
in the translation of TNFD into the organization, with full support from the board and
management team. The organization has a large sustainability team which consists of over
one hundred people working with sustainability topics. Among the team working with TNFD,
they have appointed TNFD spokespersons, and are using external consultants to maximize
resource efficiency. In contrast, other organizations are using consultants primarily to gather
data and close the data availability gap. A consultant’s role in the translation of the TNFD
framework is to assist organizations in the consolidation of data, identify data gaps and assist
by recommending paths forwards in contextualizing the idea of accounting for nature that is
provided by the TNFD framework.
We call them the TNFD spokespersons, so they would be the drivers together with us at a group level
to act upon this and encourage the other divisions to conduct their pilots (VP Sustainable Finance,
Company A, 16 February 2023).
In the case of company B and company C, the group involved for incorporating the idea of
accounting for nature by translating of the TNFD framework is rather condensed, comprising
two to three interconnected individuals, who collaborate internally with various departments.
Within the condensed group, there is natural dividing of roles based on competence,
experience, and working area. For company C, who is currently in the early stages of
planning the pilot-testing of the TNFD framework, the board and executive management
team have not made any significant contributions to the translation process but are
nevertheless acknowledging the need to account for nature through the TNFD framework.
They [the board and management team] have been involved with my boss. She’s a sustainability
officer, and she’s part of the executive management team. Um, but so far, I don’t think the whole board
is involved, and the executive management hasn’t contributed anymore in any sense yet than that they
know it's happening. But since we’re at this early stage, they haven’t been facing any decisions or
anything like that yet (Sustainability Specialist, Company C, 21 February 2023).
The Swedish piloting organizations have in common to have chosen a specific sector within
the company for the pilot-testing of the TNFD, primarily based on data and information
availability (e.g., knowledge about location and accessible information throughout the supply
chain). The purpose was to identify the location-specific nature-related issues from their own
and their suppliers’ perspective. The organizations preceded by prioritizing the most
significant nature-related issues within the delimited sector of the supply chain. They looked
for common denominators to narrow their focus and identified the most important suppliers
16
in terms of nature-related issues. Finally, the organizations attempted to quantify
location-specific nature-related impacts and risks by combining information from enrolled
suppliers and open data. To facilitate the translation of TNFD, organizations are trying to
employ the infrastructural and information systems already in place. Furthermore, they are
using their previous experience of reporting in accordance with GRI and TCFD to help them
in testing the TNFD framework.
Major challenges & Coping mechanism
In the pursuit of organizations trying to account for nature by incorporating v0.3 of TNFD
into their business practice, major challenges arise. Firstly, how to measure nature-related
dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities is described by the respondents to be a more
complex phenomena than climate. The measuring of nature-related aspects was described as
an issue difficult to fully comprehend, which subsequently makes it difficult to translate into
business practices and decision-making processes.
To be honest, it’s a bit tricky because you have to benchmark, but you know it’s really, it’s not like
climate matter, this is totally different (VP Sustainable Finance, Company A, 16 February 2023).
The traveling idea of accounting for nature and how to measure nature-related issues,
equivalent to that of measuring emissions in the climate context, is already widely
acknowledged and surfaced globally as a challenge.
We thought about ‘what is our equivalent of emissions’ from the climate context, what is the equivalent
for nature? And, of course, there’s going to be a lot of different impacts on nature that we want to focus
on. The simplicity of the climate agenda is that missions are measured, the metrics have been well
established as of the Montreal protocol. We don’t have any of those building blocks to work with. But
we know that there is going to be a lot more than a half a dozen gases that need to be measured
(Goldner in TNFD, 2022r, 9 November 2022).
As of this global challenge, one respondent further confirms this by describing measuring
nature in accordance with TNFD as extremely locally based with a plethora of indicators to
choose from, which makes it complicated to aggregate on a company level. Measuring
biodiversity was expressed to be more difficult than measuring climate because there is no
single indicator metric which everyone uses, rather it is subjective and decided by each
company.
Fundamentally, the way that we measure biodiversity in order to assess impacts is so much more
difficult than for climate because we do not have that single indicator metric that everybody uses
(Director of Environmental Strategic Projects, Company B, 24 February 2023).
A suggested development to improve the ability to translate accountability towards nature
into business is to use a higher degree of standardized metrics to limit the measurement
(metrics) catalog of TNFD and to develop a united target. Furthermore, to provide further
guidance regarding the quantification of the idea of accounting for nature in terms of
17
biodiversity. Additionally, regarding the accessibility of climate-related and nature-related
data, the former may be easier to find, which also becomes a delimiter in the translation of
the TNFD. When it comes to the accessibility of data related to climate and nature, the former
has been mentioned during interviews and workshops to be more readily available than data
related to nature.
I think in general, climate data is more available (Director of Environmental Strategic Projects,
Company B, 24 February 2023).
The challenge of measuring nature-related issues therefore arises from the combination of
two factors: first, the limited availability of data on nature-related impacts, and second, the
lack of a single, accepted metric for measuring those impacts.
Data is by far the single most difficult problem [...] It is hard to get there is no single metric, and I don’t
think we should strive to find a single metric, but it would be so much easier if it was (Sustainability
Specialist, Company C, 21 February 2023).
Secondly, a common understanding of methods and concepts in the TNFD was brought up as
an additional challenge in the translation process of incorporating TNFD to account for
nature. One aspect of this is that the acronym LEAP is criticized by respondents as the locate
phase is rather translated as the mapping phase within the organizations, and the “prepare”
phase is criticized due to its passive wording. A lack of common understanding is also
present regarding scenario analysis (a part of the disclosure recommendations for company
strategy in the TNFD), in terms of interpretation and the subjective nature of scenarios.
Scenarios are not necessarily predictive of what will happen, but rather a way of
understanding what could happen under certain assumptions. It was further argued that as
they do not have a complete data set when constructing scenario analysis, organizations
should, instead of viewing them as forecasts, think of them as an effective way of opening
constructive discussions and new ideas:
There’s still a lack of understanding ways of doing these scenarios and how you interpret the outcome
of these scenarios, because it’s very much a subjective thing that is a bit dangerous. Some people
actually interpret this outcome as a prognosis [...] You need to understand that a scenario is just a way
of seeing ‘OK what will happen if this particular scenario [occurs]’ and there are so many assumptions
there, and these assumptions, that’s what is really tricky with scenarios [...] You don’t have the entire
data set because as you know there are different scenarios (VP Sustainable Finance, Company A, 16
February 2023).
It is difficult to compare nature-related impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities across
companies, as different assumptions will be made within the companies. Without
standardized ways of conducting scenario analysis, it will be up to investors to make
assessments based on their own analysis. There is therefore a need for more standardized and
transparent methods for conducting scenario analysis and disclosing nature-related financial
information for future versions of TNFD. Furthermore, other respondents similarly argue that
there is a need to create a common understanding for how methods are used, and how they
18
are interpreted by stakeholders and investors. Moreover, adding to this discussion there is a
need to develop a shared understanding of the issue of sustainability and biodiversity loss
among various stakeholders, including suppliers and external parties involved in the
sustainability and biodiversity discussions.
Furthermore, there is a need to create a common understanding of the problem [sustainability and
biodiversity loss] and how to tackle it together with suppliers but also externally in the debate of
sustainability and biodiversity (Sustainability Manager, Company A).
However, when working with risk mitigation there is a need to understand if a risk is
mitigated, and whether that is a positive impact or if it is rather seen as an opportunity within
the frames of accounting for nature through TNFD. Furthermore, in the debate of
understanding sustainability contributions (e.g., the term nature positive in TNFD), there is a
need to create a common understanding and interpretation of the terms. Furthermore, the
respondents in the workshop unanimously acknowledge that depending on the lens used
when explaining nature-positive, it can be interpreted differently.
From my view of what is nature-positive, there is a big difference if we view nature-positive from an
ecosystem service perspective on a global level or if we move into a more local level. We can also view
different sectors or for example comparing agriculture and forestry. There is a sector complexity in
determining what is nature positive (Sustainability Controller, Company E 8 March 2023).
Thirdly, analyzing biodiversity in a complex system, such as a supply chain, is also a
challenge for organizations in the urge of accounting for nature. The process brings a pressure
for companies to make a comprehensive supply chain analysis and to obtain traceability
down the supply chain to meet the requirements of being aware of all their nature-related
dependencies, impacts, risks, and opportunities. To perform a detailed analysis of
biodiversity, location-specific information is necessary, which can be difficult to obtain when
dealing with multiple sites and a broad scope of inquiry. Furthermore, information about the
source of origin and location is available within some supply chains but not in others,
indicating that data availability can be a limiting factor in analyzing biodiversity and piloting
TNFD.
[...] there’s always a bit of a headache around the biodiversity area, since it encompasses a lot of
complexity. Partly, to do a very detailed analysis, you need to go down to site-specific details,
locations, and we have a lot of sites. And if we also broaden the scope to include the full supply chain
perspective, location-specific information is not available (Director of Environmental Strategic
Projects, Company B, 24 February 2023).
Additionally, a question raised was regarding who is responsible down the supply chain,
especially in the light of the lack of information and data, which often is the case. Other
respondents similarly mentioned the need for companies to have a comprehensive
understanding of their entire supply chain when considering the impacts of their business on
biodiversity in accordance with TNFD. Hence, there is a hope for additional guidance in how
to handle supply chain complexities.
19
Fourthly, companies have been battling trade-offs in terms of resource allocation as part of
the translation process of TNFD, which is a challenge. Allocation of resources concerns
several things, including, but not limited to, data collection, the multitude of nature-related
and sustainability policies, initiatives, standardized frameworks, and prioritization of
resources (i.e., what to focus on). What follows is often trade-offs among the resources within
the organization.
The trade-off right now, I would say, relates more to resources […] the trade-off is really how many
resources you can put into something (VP Sustainable Finance, Company A, 16 February 2023).
Trade-offs related to resource allocation and decision-making were mentioned during the
interviews, specifically regarding how many resources can be allocated towards biodiversity
initiatives. Prioritization must therefore be made between devoting resources to measuring
and addressing biodiversity concerns versus other priorities, regarding mandatory disclosures
framed in sustainability legislation (e.g., CSRD), where collaborations and associations are
being pursued to address it. Respondents mentioned the need to allocate resources between
new policies and initiatives, and the TNFD framework. Due to this experienced trade-off
between different policies and standardized frameworks, there is hope for further alignment
of frameworks in the future. Additionally, because of the uncertainty of the outcome of the
final TNFD version, there is a restraint to committing fully and dividing resources into it.
There is therefore a trade-off between investing in new policies and initiatives which have a
more predictable outcome, than an emerging framework not yet fully understood.
Resources must be divided between new policies and initiatives, and the TNFD framework. It is
difficult to commit when we don’t know where it will end up (Strategy Analyst, Company B, 8 March
2023).
To tackle the complexities of translating TNFD, the respondents stress the need for a holistic
view, with a focus on the supply chain in the company. Furthermore, in the process of
handling trade-offs, a holistic and pragmatic approach to the translation of TNFD gives an
understanding that companies need to cope with the demands of different stakeholders, not
only the organization itself. Additionally, the piloting of TNFD is a way to gain learnings,
building of capacity and competence to handle these issues; however, it is also vital to ensure
that this competence translates into the supply chain beyond the organizational walls.
In this process we need to build capacity and the right competence along the supply chain to help
facilitate the implementation of nature-related risks, dependencies, and impacts, but also opportunities
(Sustainability Manager, Company A, 8th of March).
Therefore, there is a need to constantly negotiate the involvement of suppliers, for example,
by using the LEAP-process as a tool to attract them by showing how applicable it is to help
gain information on biodiversity issues. Though, this negotiation also takes place during
business discussions and funding projects, where there is a need to educate and address
questions surrounding TNFD to suppliers early in the process to gain their awareness and
20
involvement. Moreover, ensuring stakeholder involvement could be through making the
engagement towards nature a part of the supplier contract. Another example of how to make a
more efficient use of resources and improve data availability is through collaboration to share
resources, knowledge, and expertise. Working with external stakeholders, through initiatives
such as BioPath, was described by several respondents.
[...] we need to improve our data availability [...] and work with external stakeholders [...] for example
through BioPath and try to decide on which metrics are most relevant to work with when it comes to
biodiversity (Sustainability Specialist, Company C, 21 February 2023).
However, in tackling the complexities within the united collaboration of BioPath, there is an
experience from some of the respondents that this new collective strive of the translation
process of TNFD is new and challenging for everyone. Similar tendencies are seen on a
global scale, where the Taskforce of TNFD is using collaborative practices to overcome
challenges.
The rise or fall of the TNFD?
The organizations who are working dedicatedly to account for nature within their business
and are using the TNFD framework, were hoping for several challenges to be resolved in the
v0.4, which is the final version it will go through before the release of version one (v1.0) in
September 2023. However, the latest version (v0.4) has kept all the core components and
structure from the previous version (v0.3), with only smaller revisions of the language in the
disclosure recommendations and scoping of the LEAP-process. The additional guidance
provided by the Taskforce of TNFD was published case studies of scenario analysis, further
information on core global metrics (excluding invasive species, based on hardships in
measuring it), and updated criteria in the “locate” phase (TNFD, 2023p). However, the global
development process has surfaced the need to embrace a learning-by-doing approach, and
refining the framework in the future, even after the v1.0 release, which is supported by
companies’ pilot-testing the TNFD.
In the focus of accounting for nature, there are however competing views regarding TNFD’s
approach to metrics in v0.4. Some organizations are seeing that the metrics provided by
TNFD gives comparability through the core disclosures, with additional flexibility in the
metrics provided beyond that. However, there are also those who see skeptically towards the
approach to metrics in TNFD, as it does not align with the main purpose of accounting for
nature.
The core disclosure metrics are not functional because they only show the current state of biodiversity.
The core metrics are not functional, are not built on local information and are not focused on how well
the ecosystem is preserved in terms of ecosystem integrity, composition, and structure (Lead
Biodiversity Specialist, company G, 22 May 2023).
Furthermore, there is also skepticism towards the validation of measurements used in the core
disclosures, where for example the use of water abstraction to measure water stress is not
21
capturing the ecosystems’ integrity, structure, and state of biodiversity over time, creating
dissatisfaction with the standardization provided to account for nature in a quantitative sense.
Additionally, the role of regulators and policymakers to drive the idea of accounting for
nature into actual change has been highlighted, arguing that without alignment with
mandatory frameworks, such as CSRD, and making policymakers part of driving the change
forward, TNFD will not be as effective to account for nature. The views of how to drive the
idea of accounting for nature through TNFD is thus not unanimous, as some argue that
flexibility for the industry is crucial, while others suggest that policymakers are essential to
force upon change.
If TNFD doesn't have the support and enforcement of regulators and policymakers, it will not move
into being a driver for change (Lead Biodiversity Specialist, Company G, 22 May 2023).
Being that TNFD was aimed for accounting for nature, researchers and organizations are
showing dissatisfaction with the framework. Rather than moving into learning by doing, they
suggest that the challenges surfaced with TNFD should be incorporated into other initiatives.
Several organizations are also shifting their focus due to dissatisfaction with the current
updates of TNFD into looking at other future options to account for nature, for example
CSRD. However, all are dedicated to account for nature regardless of which framework is
used. Furthermore, all acknowledge that biodiversity is rapidly growing and frameworks such
as the TNFD is a process.
Biodiversity is probably the fastest growing topic in the last few years, going from nothing to a top
global topic. Further, TNFD is an ongoing conversation (Chief ESG and Communication Officer,
Company H, 22 May 2023).
The participants are agreeing upon the fact that change is necessary to stop the detrimental
path of destroying the ecosystems and reversing biodiversity loss, and that all initiatives
should thus be seen as good efforts moving in the right direction, regardless of if TNFD will
become a success story within the traveling idea of accounting for nature or not. The surfaced
challenges within TNFD can hence be carried over to other standardized frameworks, leading
to improvements. Traditionally, the concern for companies has been the risks that nature
poses upon the company, rather than the risks the company poses on nature. However, to
realize the idea of accounting for nature, society as a whole must create a sense of urgency to
make companies change.
The focus [when using TNFD] is the risk for the company and not the risk on biodiversity. But if this
[TNFD] is going to be an important part of the future of biodiversity, then we have an urge to create
transition risks. Society must create an urgency for companies to change (Professor in Biodiversity,
University X, 22 May 2023).
22
Discussion
The purpose of this study is to explore how the traveling idea of accounting for nature is
materialized into a standardized framework, and how businesses adopt this framework by
their engagement of accounting for nature. The study aims to examine how companies
accept, modify, contest, or disregard various components of the TNFD framework in their
strive accounting for nature. To address this purpose and the research question, the discussion
follows the first three parts of the traveling of ideas: dis-embedding, packaging, and
unpacking, outlined by Czarniawska and Joerges (1996), which proposes how ideas travel,
are translated, and becomes materialized into standardized frameworks and business
practices.
Dis-embedding
As sustainable development has historically been centered around climate-related issues,
there was a growing need to let nature embody a larger position within this sustainability
discourse. This dis-embedding (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996) occurred as stakeholders
recognized that the current boundaries in which the sustainability discussions took place were
insufficient to fully capture the interplay between nature and finance. This can for example be
seen in the warnings from researchers, who highlight that the current sustainability discourse
is insufficient in adequately addressing the urgency of accounting for nature. The emergence
of local initiatives such as BioPath has played a significant role in raising awareness of
nature-related issues and promoting greater accountability.
Within this context, stakeholders from various sectors, including financial institutions,
corporations, governments, research projects, and civil society organizations, are supporting
the initiative and acting as idea carriers (Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall, 2002) as they began to
explore the traveling idea of accounting for nature. Through this process, the idea was
detached from its original institutional context and thus dis-embedded (Czarniawska and
Joerges, 1996), which allowed for new perspectives and approaches to emerge. Through
collaborative efforts and exchanges of knowledge, these idea carriers formed the Taskforce,
who together with other stakeholders dis-embedded the traveling idea of accounting for
nature by modifying and amplifying to enlarge its role within the sustainability discourse. By
reshaping and modifying the traveling idea of accounting for nature it gained additional
strength. This significant step later led to the packaging of the traveling idea into the
formation of the TNFD framework, which provided a standardized approach to account for
nature in financial decision-making processes. By recognizing the limitations within
sustainable development, they could open up the discussions of what to include regarding
financial disclosure, making the ideas practically manageable and thus possible to travel
(Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). The dis-embedding process opened up for a participatory
process through its open-innovation approach, giving room for a wide range of actors to
contribute with their insight and expertise. By allowing all stakeholders to become idea
carriers, as ideas must by both globally and locally supported to lead to change (Mennicken,
2008), they could encourage a world-wide spread of the traveling idea of accounting for
nature.
23
Packaging
As the idea of accounting for nature traveled among various actors, it gained momentum and
shaped the thinking into ways to standardize it into a framework, as it is considered an
effective way of leading ideas to action (Røvik, 1996 in Sonnerfeldt & Aggestam, 2022)
which promotes change. Through a packaging process (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996), the
traveling idea of accounting for nature becomes defined and materialized into the TNFD
framework. What is central in this process is addressing nature-related impacts,
dependencies, risks, and opportunities relevant to the individual companies who adopt the
framework. Furthermore, the traveling idea of accounting for nature is further developed and
becomes clearer through the disclosure recommendations that are mirroring what TNFD is
defining as accounting for all aspects of nature from a business context. When conducting
this packaging of creating a translatable entity, TNFD takes inspiration from TCFD to ensure
its credibility, salience, and legitimacy (Cash et al., 2003; De Olde et al., 2018). TNFD is
therefore a modified version of TCFD that is adapted to nature instead of climate, thus aimed
to be experienced as more relevant as it is connected to TCFD which is already established in
the market, built on similar scope, same cognitive belief and assumptions (De Olde et al.,
2016; Cash et al., 2003; De Olde et al., 2018). This action leads to translatability towards how
to account for nature in organizations who have prior been engaged in TCFD, as they are
already familiar with the framework's structures and assumptions now embedded into TNFD.
Consequently, it also provides a limited willingness to fundamentally challenge the
framework's essential components, as evidenced by empirical findings that highlight the early
versions of TNFD (v0.1 and v0.2) which were focused on maintaining the assumed core
components rather than exploring alternative perspectives. Hence, accounting for nature
within the TNFD framework, as it shares a similar structure to TCFD, includes the
responsibility of overseeing nature-related issues across the board and management
(governance pillar), as well as operational aspects and supplier engagement.
Moreover, TNFD highlights the importance of measurability, in similarity to TCFD, by
recommending the use of metrics and targets in the disclosure process to ensure effective
assessment of nature-related issues. This can also be seen as the TNFD taking advantage of
the legitimacy built by TCFD, and benefiting from the connection to TCFD, which enhances
its relevance (i.e., increased salience) (Cash et al., 2003; De Olde et al., 2018) for companies
seeking efficiency by connected reporting on climate and nature. This can be viewed as a
mechanism to strengthen the positioning of the framework in translating the idea of
accounting for nature. Accounting for nature becomes translated as to account for the
company's nature-related impacts, dependencies, risk and opportunities through the whole
company and its suppliers and to show transparency through measurability. In this sense, the
translation of accounting for nature includes calculative practices as a way for companies to
aid their decision-making process and monitor their strive to account for nature, in alignment
with other established research that focus on the use of calculative practices (Miller, 2001).
Furthermore, the measurability created by calculative practices provides legitimacy towards
that the company is engaging in accounting for nature by making their progress evident to
24
society and themselves also increases the willingness of accounting for nature (Espeland &
Sauder, 2007).
Within this materialization process of accounting for nature the additional supporting
guidance aims to aid in the packaging of the framework making accounting for nature more
defined. This is part of what makes the disclosure recommendations, which are generally
described, into translatable entities within business practices on a practical level in
connection to the packaging process (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). The supporting
guidance is derived from the practical experience from several actors involved in the
development of how to embody accounting for nature by using the TNFD framework, which
show how organizations as idea carriers provokes changes to the practical use of the
framework (Sonnerfeldt & Aggestam, 2022). However, it also shows how the changes driven
from idea carriers are translated and materialized into text as a way of enacting changes to the
framework to a broader audience, which emphasizes how the updates are a consequence of
minor micro-translation processes constantly occurring. Furthermore, the empirical findings
support feedback loops between the experience from knowledge partners, piloting
organizations and other idea carriers which show how the open-innovation approach leads to
an iterative development process of the framework. This leads to the development of
accounting for nature within the framework generating the v0.3, and to the current v0.4.
However, the packaging process is carried out mainly with the help of organization and
knowledge partners (e.g., as researchers and expertise in the field of nature-related issues).
Accounting for nature using the TNFD framework is currently voluntary, as policymakers are
not yet enforcing companies to adopt it. As a result, the decision to account for nature
through TNFD largely relies on the collaborative efforts of companies. However, the absence
of dynamic change factors facilitated by regulatory support and governmental narratives
lowers the strength of the developed standardized framework, as governmental support is
found to be critical to drive change regarding sustainability (Jensen et al., 2017). This shows
how idea carriers both on a local and global level can support the initiative which leads to
change, in close alignment with research (Mennicken, 2008), but where the strength of
driving the change is limited due to the nonexistent regulatory enforcement imposed on
companies to use the TNFD in accounting for nature.
Unpacking
Yet, organizations have attempted to unpack the idea of accounting for nature by using the
TNFD framework and adopt it into local business practices. The attempted unpacking shows
that the companies are giving recognition to the importance of biodiversity and its significant
impact on their business operations. Engaging with the TNFD framework provided a valuable
opportunity for companies to acquire knowledge and incorporate the idea of accounting for
nature into their business practices. By actively participating in the co-creation of the
framework, these organizations not only gained insights, but it also enhanced their brand
reputation as environmentally responsible organizations (Brown et al., 2009a). Through their
involvement, they took an active role as idea carriers and thus contributed to the traveling
idea (Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall, 2002) of accounting for nature. However, as the
25
unpacking process was initiated (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996) several challenges arose.
The most prominent challenges found empirically are within how to quantify and standardize
metrics of nature, hence, how to translate the idea of accounting for nature into calculative
practices, to understand it in a more graspable way (Miller, 2001). However, this is not
because there are complexities between the short-term focus of calculative practice and the
long-term focus of sustainability performance as shown by Cuganesan et al. (2014). Rather,
the challenge of quantifying nature into standardized metrics is similar to what Hiss (2013)
acknowledged, the difficulty of how to accurately measure a phenomenon of sustainability, as
the empirical findings show that measuring nature is fundamentally different to climate
because it is locally embedded. Although, this attempt is a major step in creating action
towards the idea of accounting for nature, as companies are more inclined to pursue
sustainable development if it is measurable (Espeland & Sauder, 2007). Furthermore, there
are also challenges with data availability of local information, scenario analysis, definitions
with the nature discourse, dependencies of engagement of suppliers, and overviewing the
supply chain and trade-offs of resources between policies and initiatives. It becomes evident
that there is an initiated fitting and adopting process within the unpacking (Czarniawska and
Joerges, 1996) where companies are handling a lack of guidance of translating the idea to
account for nature presented within the TNFD in a holistic and pragmatic way. Moreover,
collaborative efforts are used to seek answers of how to interpret and use the TNFD to
account for nature. However, as the companies are surfacing the local challenges of using the
TNFD, they are hoping for new guidance to emerge that will help to address and overcome
these challenges.
The update from v0.3 to v0.4 of the TNFD framework has provided additional guidance
towards the use of metrics and targets. However, these changes have resulted in a conflict
among the idea carriers with opposing opinions which risk constraining the progress, as
competing ideas can halt materialization and prevent ideas from being executed in practice
(Brunsson, 1985, in Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). The conflict that has risen is that some
companies are embracing that the development of the TNFD framework will be a process
which will continue to evolve beyond version 1.0, and therefore accepting the incompleteness
regarding metrics, but others are dissatisfied. The dissatisfaction regarding how the metrics
do not capture the true aspects of biodiversity within TNFD is a sign of declining credibility,
as the arguments and evidence that the framework builds its metric recommendation upon is
contested; this leads to lowered support for the framework within the local context (De Olde
et al., 2018). This starts a process where the TNFD is questioned, as the updates intended to
account for nature to a greater extent, are instead seen as too simplistic, which undermines
the framework's ability to effectively account for nature and lowering its credibility. This
situation can be seen in close resemblance to concerns raised by Meadows (1998), where
oversimplified approaches in standardized frameworks that are not fully addressing complex
environmental challenges instead limit the credibility of the framework. Furthermore, this
also leads to the metrics proposed not being practically relevant to capture the full complexity
of nature, which also lowers the salience, in accordance with Cash et al. (2003), of using the
framework to account for nature. However, the alignment between the indicators
recommended and the beliefs of users, vital for the legitimacy of the standardized framework
26
as shown by De Olde et al. (2018), are also lowered due to this conflict among idea carriers.
Together, this lowers the strength of the TNFD framework of being a fitting translation of
accounting for nature for businesses.
Moreover, the organizations experiencing this dissatisfaction have limited influence over the
translation process of accounting for nature within the TNFD framework due to joining the
process in v0.3. This limitation therefore arises from certain aspects of the framework already
being stabilized and taken-for-granted within the global development of TNFD, leaving little
room for significant modifications based on their concerns. In this late stage of the
development of TNFD, the companies therefore realized that their inputs do not have a
substantial impact in rethinking stabilized aspects of how to account for nature. Hence, based
on the findings of this study, participants who adopt the TNFD framework in its mid-stages,
primarily assume the role of highlighting challenges and contributing to the local translation
of the framework's methods by developing internal business practices that align with the
recommendations of the framework. Participating in the translation of accounting for nature
through the TNFD framework in its later stage can be understood metaphorically as a
double-edged sword, as it presents a trade-off dilemma. On one hand, it offers participants the
opportunity to acquire knowledge and enhance their brand reputation. But on the other hand,
they have limited influence over the framework's development due to the stabilization from
the early-stage versions of TNFD prior to the entry of the Swedish organizations.
The shared challenges faced by organizations, where the questions outnumbered the answers,
led to a shift in the discourse surrounding TNFD. The dissatisfaction regarding TNFD
includes two aspects. Firstly, organizations must invest a significant amount of resources in
obtaining locally specific data down the supply chain to meet the TNFD recommendations.
However, even after acquiring the necessary data, the second challenge emerges, the lack of
clarity, regarding valuing nature and determining appropriate metrics. Once organizations
have invested resources in obtaining locally specific data, they face the dilemma of how to
accurately measure and quantify their impact on nature. The absence of clear guidelines and
standardized metrics within the TNFD framework that account for the fundamentals of
biodiversity makes uncertainty arise, which makes it difficult to consistently assess and
compare organizations’ sustainability performance. This ambiguity hinders the ability to
effectively account for nature and undermines the credibility and usefulness of the TNFD
framework. Hence, the dissatisfied organizations began to reevaluate their ongoing
engagement with TNFD to explore other standardized frameworks. Furthermore, due to
hardships of rethinking already stabilized concepts within TNFD, in how to account for
nature, the discussion within the dissatisfied organizations shifted away from repackaging
TNFD, to instead reconsider its use and turn the attention towards other standardized
frameworks, such as the mandatory framework CSRD. Hence, the misalignment between
how organizations want to account for nature and how it is materialized and translated within
the TNFD, led companies to abandon this interpretation of accounting for nature, showing the
dynamic nature of the translation process where there are entry and exit of participants
recurrently (Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996). Furthermore, it also shows how conflicting
interpretations hinder materialization (Brunsson, 1985, in Czarniawska and Joerges, 1996) of
27
how to account for nature, where TNFD and CSRD are battling to gain support from local
and global actors to reach the possibility of materialization. As credibility, salience and
legitimacy gives insights in if a standardized framework is institutionalized or abandoned
(Cash et al., 2003; De Olde et al., 2018) the empirical findings suggest that concepts are
dynamic over time and if the support for the materialization of accounting for nature through
the TNFD is lower than the alternative materializations, for example CSRD, it increases the
risk of leading to a shift in the engagement from actors. However, the shift is also due to the
fact that companies are restricted in the possibility to manage several biodiversity
frameworks simultaneously, as companies have limited resources where they need to
prioritize the standardized frameworks that provide the most comprehensive solution,
supporting what the research has shown that the design, cost, and time investment is central
to which framework is seen as relevant (De Olde et al., 2016; Lynch et al., 2000; Van
Meensel et al., 2012).
The shifting support for TNFD and the increased discussion of CSRD shows how one idea of
accounting for nature is traveling and is translated into several materialization alternatives
depending on the packaging process. However, due to the dynamic nature of the translation
process, characterized by the continuous entry and exit of participants (Czarniawska and
Joerges, 1996), it is important to recognize that local processes in different parts of the world
may have varying levels of engagement and adoption of the TNFD framework, as the idea of
accounting for nature are still in the process of being translated.
By examining the previous research of the materialized frameworks of how to account for
climate (Rowbottom & Locke, 2016; Brown et al., 2009a; Brown et al., 2009b; O’Dwyer &
Unerman 2020; Chua et al., 2022; De Olde et al., 2016; Deweerdt et al., 2022), and reviewing
the empirical findings of how to account for nature through the use of TNFD, it becomes
clear that there are similarities and differences. In the strive to account for climate the
translation of <IR> was driven by local organizations in collaboration with regulatory
initiatives (Rowbottom & Locke, 2016). Similarly, in accounting for climate through GRI, the
constant translation among key stakeholders, iterative testing, and self-correction was vital
for its materialization and adoption (Brown et al., 2009a; Brown et al., 2009b). When
accounting for nature using TNFD, similarly to GRI a collaboration of local organizations is
driving the updating of the framework which is seen as iterative testing because challenges
surfaced and were partly addressed in workshops. In contrast to the creation of GRI and
<IR>, within the traveling idea of accounting for nature, it becomes evident that frameworks
are battling for the engagement of actors. Similar to the swift stabilization and materialization
of accounting for climate within GRI (Brown et al., 2009a), the idea of accounting for nature
by using the TNFD also offers limited possibility to rethink already stabilized aspects of the
translation. Furthermore, this study offers additional support that there are similar challenges
of how to account for nature (surfaced through TNFD) as acknowledged within how to
account for climate (surfaced through TCFD) of for example data availability and interpreting
scenario analysis (Chua et al., 2022).
28
However, the study moves beyond these findings to show that when ideas are translated into
a framework, for example within the TNFD framework, the idea carriers are actively
accepting, excluding, and contesting the translation of how to account for nature, either
leading to changes in the standardized framework, or shifts the idea carriers’ engagement to
the framework. Hence, the idea carriers are vital for the translation of the idea that travels and
shapes how it is materialized, as implied by Sahlin-Andersson & Engwall (2002). However,
the study also shows how changes that idea carriers enact upon can be excluded from the
translation due to the stabilization of the translation in an earlier stage of the process. The
study shows how the surfaced challenges are translated and are either addressed by the TNFD
Taskforce or disregarded, which illustrates how the TNFD Taskforce is a vital idea carrier in
the materialization of accounting for nature. By surfacing the challenges within the
unpacking process, the study also acknowledges how the idea of accounting for nature and
accounting for climate is fundamentally different in its translation of calculative practices. A
deeper understanding is also provided regarding how conflicts can emerge between idea
carriers, further complicating the standardization process of a traveling idea. Furthermore, the
study shows complexities of how different standardized frameworks that are materializing the
same idea, for example TNFD and CSRD, is in a constant battle where the credibility,
salience and legitimacy is changing over time depending on the support from both global and
local actors, which can ultimately lead to one framework being abandoned and the other
institutionalized. This also shows the dynamic interplay of how multiple standardized
frameworks that become translated in parallel can either be strengthened or weakened by the
shift in credibility, salience, and legitimacy over time. Furthermore, by surfacing how idea
carriers are shifting its engagement, it also brings up the question of how the learnings within
one framework can be repackaged and fed into other initiatives.
Conclusion
By studying the idea of accounting for nature from a global and local perspective through the
development of the TNFD framework, this study is fulfilling the purpose of increasing the
knowledge of how ideas materialize into a standardized framework, contributing both to the
literature of translation and sustainability performance. By doing so, the study acknowledges
how idea carriers are accepting, excluding, contesting, or even ignoring different parts of the
framework based on their translation of it. The research question of this paper, how does the
idea of accounting for nature translate into a standardized framework, is answered by three
conclusions.
Firstly, we conclude that the process of materializing the idea of accounting for nature into a
standardized framework is inherently complex and conflict-intense. Idea carriers involved in
this standardization process not only contest different perspectives on how to account for
nature, but also engage in discussions and disagreements with other idea carriers. As a result,
the translation process becomes iterative, moving through the packaging phase into the
unpacking phase and back again in the form of feedback loops, allowing for continuous
improvements and updates of the framework. This dedication to improve the framework was
especially evident among idea carriers in the initial stages of their participation.
29
Secondly, we conclude that what makes the idea of accounting for nature travel is the idea
carriers, hence making them vital for the creation of the framework. If idea carriers are
experiencing that the standardized framework has become materialized with a translation that
does not align with the idea carriers’ translation of how to account for nature, they tend to
abandon the framework to seek alternative frameworks where they find alignment. As the
materialization becomes stabilized over time, the role of local idea carriers in the global
translation process of accounting for nature is lowered.
Thirdly, we conclude that the development of a standardized framework is not a process
unfolding in a vacuum. Rather, idea carriers continuously evaluate the credibility, salience,
and legitimacy of one framework and compare it to alternative frameworks. This evaluation
leads to battles between alternative standardized frameworks, as idea carriers strive to
promote their preferred translation. Furthermore, the support and influence of idea carriers
helps to shape which framework ultimately becomes institutionalized. The materialization of
a framework that does not align with the idea carrier's view of accounting for nature
regarding accounting for nature can strengthen the position of an alternative standardized
framework that better aligns with their perspective. In such cases, it creates an opportunity for
alternative frameworks to gain strength and support. Additionally, in the event of a shift from
one framework to another, idea carriers can effectively make use of the knowledge and
experience gained from the previous framework into the new framework.
These three conclusions lead the paper to suggesting the practical implication to embrace the
need for collaborative efforts among idea carriers to reach a standardized framework that
addresses the diverse perspectives and challenges involved with accounting and quantifying
nature. Moreover, the paper has three main contributions. Firstly, our study provides an
expansion to the current literature within the design, practice, and translation of sustainability
performance frameworks into business practices, by showing how an idea of accounting for
nature becomes translated and standardized into a framework. Previous literature has focused
on how accounting for climate is materialized into climate-related frameworks. Hence, this
study provides valuable insights of how nature is fundamentally different to climate, by
investigating the traveling idea of accounting for nature as it becomes translated and
materialized into a nature-related framework. However, by highlighting the differences
between nature and climate, it is our aspiration and hope that a more comprehensive and
nuanced understanding of the relationship between climate and nature can be formed.
Secondly, by showing how different frameworks are battling in gaining the support for their
translation of how to account for nature, the paper expands the research of sustainability
performance frameworks by providing another example of how sustainability frameworks
battle. Thirdly, our study contributes to the literature of translation as it expands on how
actors (i.e., idea carriers), are actively translating the idea of accounting for nature by
accepting, excluding, contesting, and ignoring parts of the TNFD framework. Therefore, the
study contributes with a more nuanced explanation to how an idea travels and is translated
into a standardized framework, in a context of accounting for nature, by the active
engagement of idea carriers. However, limited by the time constraints and the narrow focus
30
of studying a local translation process unfolding within a Swedish context, future research
could expand this by looking at multiple translation processes within different contexts and
under a longer time frame. This could lead to greater understanding of how a nature-related
idea travels through all the phases, dis-embeddning, packaging, unpacking, and
re-embedding, and gets materialized into a framework, which would also give further insight
into the global dynamics of how the idea is traveling. Furthermore, future research can
expand on researching the relationship between different frameworks and the support of idea
carriers further, developing the idea of frameworks battling.
The nature-related paradigm referred to as: “loss without limit” (Maron et al., 2018 in Maron
et al., 2020 p.48), needs to stop to ensure the survival of the nature-related environmental
assets and ecosystem services which the society is dependent upon. By our paper surfacing
how idea carriers make the idea of accounting for nature travel and becomes translated into a
framework, we urge for collaborative efforts among idea carriers to enable an
institutionalized framework which accounts for nature.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Viktor Elliot, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer at Gothenburg University, and Mari
Paananen, Professor at Gothenburg School of Business, Economics and Law, for the
opportunity to research this phenomenon. Furthermore, special thanks to our supervisor
Niklas Egels Zandén, Professor at Gothenburg School of Business, Economics and Law,
proving valuable insights throughout the thesis. Thanks to Van Cao and Andreea Neagu,
Ph.D. students at Lund University, for a valuable help along the process of this master thesis.
Thanks to Andreas Diedrich & Kajsa Lindberg, Professors at Gothenburg School of Business,
Economics and Law, for the guidance in the early stages of creating a research proposal and
constructive feedback along the process. And lastly, thanks to BioPath for the opportunity to
research this field.
31
References
Albert, J. S., Destouni, G., Duke-Sylvester, S. M., Magurran, A. E., Oberdorff, T., Reis, R. E.,
... & Ripple, W. J. (2021). Scientists’ warning to humanity on the freshwater biodiversity
crisis. Ambio, 50(1), 85-94.
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019). Using zoom
videoconferencing for qualitative data collection: perceptions and experiences of researchers
and participants. International journal of qualitative methods, 18, 1609406919874596.
Baumüller, J., & Grbenic, S. (2021). Moving from non-financial to sustainability reporting:
analyzing the EU Commission's proposal for a Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive
(CSRD). Facta Universitatis, Series: Economics and Organization, 18(4), 369-381.
Bhanot, N., Rao, P. V., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2017). An integrated approach for analysing the
enablers and barriers of sustainable manufacturing. Journal of cleaner production, 142,
4412-4439.
Brown, H. S., De Jong, M., & Lessidrenska, T. (2009a). The rise of the Global Reporting
Initiative: a case of institutional entrepreneurship. Environmental politics, 18(2), 182-200.
Brown, H. S., de Jong, M., & Levy, D. L. (2009b). Building institutions based on information
disclosure: lessons from GRI's sustainability reporting. Journal of cleaner production, 17(6),
571-580.
Büyüközkan, G., & Karabulut, Y. (2018). Sustainability performance evaluation: Literature
review and future directions. Journal of environmental management, 217, 253-267.
Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H., ... &
Mitchell, R. B. (2003). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the
national academy of sciences, 100(14), 8086-8091.
Charmaz, K. (1996). “Grounded Theory”. In: Smith JA, L VL, (eds.). Rethinking
Methods in Psychology. London: Sage.
Chua, W. F., James, R., King, A., Lee, E., & Soderstrom, N. (2022). Task Force on
Climate‐related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) Implementation: An Overview and Insights
from the Australian Accounting Standards Board Dialogue Series. Australian Accounting
Review, 32(3), 396-405.
Cuganesan, S., Guthrie, J., & Vranic, V. (2014). The riskiness of public sector performance
measurement: a review and research agenda. Financial accountability & management, 30(3),
279-302.
32
Czarniawska, B., & Joerges, B. (1996). Travels of ideas. Translating organizational change,
56, 13-47.
Czarniawska, B. (2008). How to misuse institutions and get away with it: Some reflections on
institutional theory (ies). The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism, 769-782.
De Olde, E. M., Oudshoorn, F. W., Sørensen, C. A., Bokkers, E. A., & De Boer, I. J. (2016).
Assessing sustainability at farm-level: Lessons learned from a comparison of tools in
practice. Ecological Indicators, 66, 391-404.
De Olde, E. M., Sautier, M., & Whitehead, J. (2018). Comprehensiveness or implementation:
Challenges in translating farm-level sustainability assessments into action for sustainable
development. Ecological Indicators, 85, 1107-1112.
Deweerdt, T., Caltabiano, K., & Dargusch, P. (2022). How Will the TNFD Impact the Health
Sector’s Nature-Risks Management?. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 19(20), 13345.
Dragu, I. M., & Tiron-Tudor, A. (2013). The integrated reporting initiative from an
institutional perspective: emergent factors. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92,
275-279.
Dumay, J., & Rooney, J. (2016). Numbers versus narrative: An examination of a controversy.
Financial Accountability & Management, 32, 202–231
Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a
typology from business-as-usual to true business sustainability. Organization & Environment,
29(2), 156-174.
Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. (2019). Implementing the task force on climate-related
financial disclosures recommendations: An assessment of corporate readiness. Schmalenbach
Business Review, 71, 287-293.
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and
challenges. Academy of management journal, 50(1), 25-32.
Espeland, W. N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and reactivity: How public measures
recreate social worlds. American journal of sociology, 113(1), 1-40.
Fortanier, F., Kolk, A., & Pinkse, J. (2011). Harmonization in CSR reporting: MNEs and
global CSR standards. Management international review, 51, 665-696.
33
Gasparatos, A., 2010. Embedded value systems in sustainability assessment tools and
their implications. J. Environ. Manage. 91, 1613–1622.
Gilbert, D. U., Rasche, A., & Waddock, S. (2011). Accountability in a global economy: The
emergence of international accountability standards. Business ethics quarterly, 21(1), 23-44.
Hiss, S. (2013). The politics of the financialization of sustainability. Competition & Change,
17(3), 234-247.
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), (2013). Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) 4-Reporting
Principles and Standard Disclosures. Reporting Principles and Standard Disclosures,
Amsterdam available at: https://www.globalreporting.org/
resourcelibrary/GRIG4-Part1-Reporting-Principles-and-Standard-Disclosures.
Pdf.
Kvale, S. (2006) Dominance through interviews and dialogues. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3):
480-500.
Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & Van Erck, R. P. (2005). Assessing the sustainability
performances of industries. Journal of cleaner production, 13(4), 373-385.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (Eds.). (1975). The delphi method (pp. 3-12). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S. & Watson, J. E. M. (2018). Bold nature retention targets are
essential for the global environment agenda. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1194–1195
Maron, M., Simmonds, J. S., Watson, J. E., Sonter, L. J., Bennun, L., Griffiths, V. F., ... &
Jones, J. P. (2020). Global no net loss of natural ecosystems. Nature Ecology & Evolution,
4(1), 46-49.
Meadows, D.H.,(1998). Indicators and Information Systems for Sustainable Development.
The Sustainability Institute, Hartland, Vermont.
Mennicken, A. (2008). Connecting worlds: The translation of international auditing standards
into post-Soviet audit practice. Accounting, organizations and society, 33(4-5), 384-414.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth
and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.
Miller, P. (2001). Governing by numbers: Why calculative practices matter. Social research,
379-396.
34
Neri, A., Cagno, E., Lepri, M., & Trianni, A. (2021). A triple bottom line balanced set of key
performance indicators to measure the sustainability performance of industrial supply chains.
Sustainable Production and Consumption, 26, 648-691.
O'Dwyer, B., & Unerman, J. (2020). Shifting the focus of sustainability accounting from
impacts to risks and dependencies: Researching the transformative potential of TCFD
reporting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(5), 1113-1141.
Qorri, A., Mujkić, Z., & Kraslawski, A. (2018). A conceptual framework for measuring
sustainability performance of supply chains. Journal of Cleaner Production, 189, 570-584.
Reinecke, J., Manning, S., & Von Hagen, O. (2012). The emergence of a standards market:
Multiplicity of sustainability standards in the global coffee industry. Organization studies,
33(5-6), 791-814.
Rowbottom, N., & Locke, J. (2016). The emergence of. Accounting and business Research,
46(1), 83-115.
Sahlin-Andersson, K., & Engwall, L. (2002). The expansion of management knowledge:
Carriers, flows, and sources. Stanford University Press.
Searcy, C. (2012). Corporate sustainability performance measurement systems: A review and
research agenda. Journal of business ethics, 107(3), 239-253.
Silverman, D. (2019) Interpreting Qualitative Data, 6th edition. London: SAGE.
Sonnerfeldt, A., & Aggestam Pontoppidan, C. (2022, January). The continuous translation of
the idea of integrated reporting (IR): the travel of IR to a public sector entity. In Accounting
Forum (pp. 1-29). Routledge.
Svensson, L., Ellström, P. E., & Brulin, G. (2007). Introduction–on interactive research.
International journal of action research, 3(3), 233-249.
TNFD (2021). TNFD - Nature in scope. Retrieved on 20230119 at the URL:
https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/TNFD-Nature-in-Scope-2.pdf
TNFD (2022a). The TNFD Nature-related Risk & Opportunity Management
and Disclosure Framework - Beta v0.1 Release. Gathered 20221231 at URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/executive-summary/v01-beta-release/
TNFD (2022b). Societal dimensions of nature-related risk management and disclosure:
Considerations for the TNFD framework November 2022. Retrieved 20230117 at URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/TNFD_Societal_Dimensions_Dis
cussion_Paper_v0-3_C.pdf
35
TNFD. (2022c, November). Introducing the TNFD framework. TNFD. Retrieved on
20230119 at the URL: https://framework.tnfd.global/introducing-the-tnfd-framework/
TNFD. (2022d, November). Metrics and Targets. TNFD. Retrieved on 20230225 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/disclosure-recommendations/metrics-targets/
TNFD. (2022e, November). Risk & Impact Management. TNFD. Retrieved on 20230225 at
the URL: https://framework.tnfd.global/disclosure-recommendations/risk-management/
TNFD. (2022f, November). Strategy. TNFD. Retrieved on 20230225 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/disclosure-recommendations/strategy/
TNFD. (2022g, November). Governance. TNFD. Retrieved on 20230225 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/disclosure-recommendations/governance/
TNFD. (2022h, November). The LEAP Nature Risk Assessment Approach. TNFD. Retrieved
on 20230225 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/the-leap-nature-risk-assessment-process/
TNFD. (2022i, November). Executive Summary – v0.2 of the TNFD beta framework. TNFD.
Retrieved on 20230225 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/executive-summary/v01-beta-release/
TNFD. (2022j, November). Executive Summary – v0.1 of the TNFD beta framework. TNFD.
Retrieved on 20230225 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/executive-summary/v02-beta-release/
TNFD. (2022k, November). Executive Summary – v0.3 of the TNFD beta framework.
TNFD. Retrieved on 20230225 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/executive-summary/v03-beta-release/
TNFD. (2022l). Summary of feedback received: TNFD framework beta v0.1. Retrieved on
20230410 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/provide-feedback/summary-of-feedback-received/summary-of-
feedback-on-tnfd-framework-beta-v0-1/
TNFD. (2022m). Summary of feedback received: TNFD framework beta v0.2. Retrieved on
20230410 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/provide-feedback/summary-of-feedback-received/summary-of-
feedback-on-v0-2-of-the-tnfd-beta-framework/
TNFD. (2023, March). TNFD Releases Fourth and Final Beta Framework v0.4. Retrieved on
20230410 at the URL:
https://tnfd.global/news/tnfd-releases-fourth-final-beta-framework-v0-4/
36
TNFD. (2023a). Summary of feedback received: TNFD framework beta v0.3. Retrieved on
20230410 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/provide-feedback/summary-of-feedback-received/summary-of-
feedback-on-tnfd-framework-beta-v0-3/
TNFD. (2023b). About. Retrieved on 20230529 at the URL: https://tnfd.global/about/
TNFD. (2023n). The TNFD Nature-related Risk and Opportunity Management and
Disclosure Framework Final Draft – Beta v0.4.
TNFD. (2023o). Glossary of key terms. Retrieved on 20230416 at the URL:
https://framework.tnfd.global/appendix/glossary-of-key-terms/
TNFD. (2023p, April). TNFD Forum Webinar: Introducing the fourth iteration (v0.4) of the
TNFD beta framework [Video]. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlM9rC3BKNA&t=132s
TNFD. (2022q, July). TNFD Forum Webinar: introducing the second iteration (v0.2) of the
TNFD beta framework [Video]. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_2jTSLUgqQ&ab_channel=TaskforceonNature-Related
FinancialDisclosures
TNFD. (2022r, November 9). TNFD Forum Webinar: Introducing the third iteration (v0.3) of
the TNFD beta framework [Video]. Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tez4SH5SuLQ&list=PLHoUVdsiGD5aBzH8UXYQ12
WWGN0sDxms1&index=9&t=3270s&ab_channel=TaskforceonNature-RelatedFinancialDis
closures
Trianni, A., Cagno, E., & Neri, A. (2017). Modelling barriers to the adoption of industrial
sustainability measures. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 1482-1504.
Van Meensel, J., Lauwers, L., Kempen, I., Dessein, J., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2012).
Effect of a participatory approach on the successful development of agricultural decision
support systems: The case of Pigs2win. Decision support systems, 54(1), 164-172.
Watson, J. E. M. et al. (2016). Persistent disparities between recent rates of habitat conversion
and protection and implications for future global conservation targets. Conserv. Lett. 9,
413–421.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), (1987), Our Common
Future, Chapter 2: Towards sustainable development, Chapter- The Concept of Sustainable
Development, pp 1, United Nations.
37