BPS vs Global Biodiversity Score (GBS)

GBS and BPS share a common goal: measuring the relationship between economic activity and biodiversity. But they do not speak the same language — GBS models global pressures, while BPS measures verified ecological performance in the field.

Two biodiversity assessment tools, but two scientific and institutional logics

Companies, investors and local authorities now seek to measure their impact on biodiversity. Two approaches coexist: the Global Biodiversity Score (GBS), developed by CDC Biodiversité, and the Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS), designed by IRICE. Both reflect the ambition to integrate biodiversity into economic decisions. But their status, method and scope are radically different. GBS is a macro-economic reporting tool, based on pressure modelling. BPS is a scientific measurement tool, based on field ecological evidence and standardised performance monitoring.

1. The Global Biodiversity Score: a global impact reporting tool

GBS, launched by CDC Biodiversité and supported by the French Ministry for Ecological Transition, aims to quantify the biodiversity footprint of organisations. Its logic is that of scope:

calculating direct and indirect impacts (value chain, supply, energy, land use),
expressing them as a synthetic indicator, the MSA.km² (Mean Species Abundance),
aggregating the results to estimate a net biodiversity footprint.

GBS fits within the SBTN, TNFD, CSRD and EU taxonomy frameworks. Its use is primarily strategic: it helps companies understand their dependencies and prioritise their risks. But it relies on sector data and global models, rarely on actual ecological surveys. It helps to steer, not to certify.

2. The Biodiversity Performance Score: a scientific field-measurement tool

The Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS), developed by IRICE, meets a complementary need: measuring the actual ecological performance of a site, project or asset. Where GBS aggregates pressures at the macro scale, BPS observes effective biological functionality at the micro scale — that of the field.

BPS is based on an assessment protocol structured around five themes:

Soil preservation,
Development of plant heritage,
Support for local wildlife,
Reduction of the project's impacts,
Ecological management of the site.

The result is a quantified score (from 0 to 100), expressing the verified ecological performance of the site. BPS is designed to be certifiable: it feeds directly into the Effinature standards and may, in time, be submitted for accreditation.

3. Two scales of reading: macro vs. micro

Dimension	Global Biodiversity Score (GBS)	Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS)
Developed by	CDC Biodiversité	IRICE
Type of tool	Macro reporting indicator	Scientific performance indicator
Scale	Organisation, portfolio, supply chain	Site, operation, real estate asset
Nature of data	Modelled, sector-based	Measured, verified on site
Objective	Reporting and CSR strategy	Ecological assessment and steering
Framework of use	SBTN, TNFD, CSRD	Effinature certification, ESG financing
Enforceability	No, self-assessment tool	Yes, tool backed by certification
Calculation method	MSA.km² (mean species abundance)	Ecological performance score (0–100)
Purpose	Understanding impact	Demonstrating performance

GBS informs on the footprint. BPS demonstrates performance. The first helps to steer CSR policies; the second, to certify the actual ecological value of a site.

4. A strategic complementarity

The two tools are not opposed. GBS structures environmental accounting on a large scale; BPS translates that ambition to the operational scale of the field and the project.

GBS: a global reporting and risk-analysis tool.
BPS: a fine-grained assessment and performance-steering tool.

An investor can therefore use GBS to assess the biodiversity footprint across an entire portfolio, then BPS to audit and enhance the most ecologically performant assets. This articulation links corporate strategy to scientific field evidence.

5. Scientific and institutional status

BPS was developed within an applied-research framework with ecologists, engineers and accredited auditors. It is interoperable with the Effinature and HVE standards, and aligned with the World Economic Forum's 21 High-Level Principles. It is currently the only ecological measurement tool backed by an independent certification.

GBS, for its part, remains a corporate reporting initiative, not governed by an accredited body. Its usefulness is strategic and forward-looking, but not normative.

6. In conclusion

GBS and BPS pursue the same ambition: reconciling economy and ecology through measurement. But their logic differs.

GBS models the global impacts of activities.
BPS measures the actual ecological results in the field.

Their complementarity opens a new path: GBS for corporate strategy, BPS for operational evidence. It is this articulation — between ecological accounting and the certification of living systems — that turns biodiversity into a genuine indicator of sustainable performance.