Biodiversity and animal testing. Analysis of European listed large-sized companies

In the last decade, accounting for biodiversity has been variously defined by some scholars and it is largely explored in different topics (Gray, 1992; Jones, 1996; 2010; Jones and Matthews, 2000; Jones and Solomon, 2013; Atkins et al., 2014; Bebbington et al., 2019). Its evolution in accounting for extinction species is becoming a relevant field for preserving biodiversity and species (Atkins and Atkins, 2016; Atkins and Maroun, 2018; Maroun and Atkins, 2018; Atkins et al., 2018). Conceptual and empirical papers about biodiversity and accounting extinction species have been carried out by some scholars (Adler et al., 2018; Husin et al., 2018; Adler et al., 2017; Olivier, 2016; Rimmel and Jonall, 2013; van Liempd and Busch, 2013) but there is a need to explore in-depth this topic in a large geographical context through quantitative analysis (Hassan et al., 2019). In particular, we opted for the large-sized capitalisation companies included in STOXX® Europe Large 200. Such index covers the following countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. We collected just secondary data mined from ASSET4, with respect to ESG information, and Factset, for accounting-based information. Our analysis covers a period from 2010 to 2018. The key independent variables are the disclosure and the processes put in place for biodiversity impact reduction, the reporting of initiatives brought forward for restoring or protecting native ecosystems, the direct or indirect firm’s involvement in animal testing, the taking up of animal testing guidelines, and the promotion of programs to reduce, phase out or substitute for animal testing.