From carbon-neutral to nature-positive higher education institutions

Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.

🔬研究者:Researchers in sustainability accounting can explore the integration of biodiversity metrics with carbon footprinting, and the role of organizational claims in driving change.

🏢実務担当者:University sustainability officers can adopt the proposed Scope 3 minimum categories and biodiversity footprinting approach for more credible environmental target setting.

🏛政策担当者:Policymakers in education and environment ministries can use the findings to develop national guidelines for HEI sustainability reporting and nature-positive strategies.

Purpose Carbon footprint assessments have been mainstreamed, but not all organizations follow international protocols when making carbon neutrality claims. Biodiversity footprinting in organizations is a new arrival, and even organizations such as higher education institutions (HEIs) are largely yet to understand how to measure and address biodiversity footprints. Biodiversity footprint assessment helps organizations to identify their impacts on nature by estimating biodiversity loss caused by the organization’s consumption. Climate change is one of the drivers of biodiversity loss, so the biodiversity footprint also includes its carbon footprint. Despite the novelty of the calculation methods and lack of data, several HEIs have pledged to become nature positive. This paper aims to examine the scopes and challenges of HEIs’ carbon neutrality and nature-positive claims and suggests opportunities for improvement. Design/methodology/approach Two expert workshops on carbon neutrality and nature-positive claims of HEIs were held in Finland. Participants were Finnish sustainability experts currently working in research universities or universities of applied sciences. The focus of the workshops was to define the Scope 3 emission categories that should be included in the HEIs’ carbon neutrality claim and to set common climate and nature goals for the Finnish HEIs. In this paper, the carbon-neutral and nature-positive claims and definitions are discussed based on the results of the expert workshops, international frameworks and literature. Findings To contribute to the global nature-positive goal, HEIs must have a measurable net positive impact on biodiversity. To fully understand their impact on nature, HEIs should transition from carbon-only to carbon and biodiversity footprint assessments. Biodiversity footprint assessment is an important first step for setting measurable environmental targets. HEIs must be careful not to dilute the terms carbon neutral or nature positive. If a carbon neutrality claim is made, it should include all Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions and most of the Scope 3 emissions categories. If specific emission categories are left out, this decision must be based on an international standard (like the greenhouse gas protocol) and communicated clearly. Based on the expert workshops, it is evident that the minimum required Scope 3 categories that should be included in the Finnish HEIs’ carbon neutrality claim are business travel, water, waste, procurement, real estate maintenance, construction, refrigerants, staff and student commuting and investments. Practical implications This study contributes to HEI’s sustainability strategies, target setting and reporting. Suggestions are given for organizational targets that contribute to the global nature-positive goal, and a new definition for Nature Positive University is proposed. Originality/value This paper encourages HEIs to lead humanity’s journey toward planetary well-being. It’s a call for action for HEIs to make measurable contributions to the global nature-positive goal while being prudent with their own organizational claims.

• openalex https://doi.org/10.1108/ijshe-06-2025-0590first seen 2026-07-07 04:40:46