Biodiversity as a project lever
Biodiversity is now a key issue in real estate projects. But assessing the extent to which it is taken into account in a project is often confusing: between self-declared scores, sector labels and independent diagnostics, not all approaches are equal. Faced with the demands of green taxonomy, CSRD and ESG investors, the issue is no longer just "doing", but being able to prove it. In this article, we offer a clear reading of the different approaches, and explain why the choice of an independent, evidence-based biodiversity diagnostic is today the foundation of a credible approach.
Why measure biodiversity in real estate projects?
Biodiversity erosion is no longer just an environmental concern: it is becoming an issue of compliance, risk management and strategic credibility for project owners. European regulations are reinforcing this dynamic: green taxonomy, CSRD extra-financial reporting, ESG requirements for lessors and investors.
But this development raises a major difficulty: how can the biodiversity performance of a real estate project be measured? Can we be satisfied with a score from a questionnaire filled in by the project operator? Or can we rely on a label issued by the players in the sector themselves? At a time when regulations require environmental claims to be "substantiated", the answer can only be demanding. Labeling is no longer enough. What's needed is proof.
Scores, labels, diagnostics: what are the differences?
Several types of tools coexist on the sustainable real estate market today:
- Scores from self-assessment grids, filled in by the project owner or its service providers (e.g. BiodivScore).
- Labels issued by networks of players, often built and governed by the professionals themselves (e.g. BiodiverCity®).
- Independent, evidence-based diagnostics carried out by a third party not involved in the project design.
Comparative table of biodiversity approaches in real estate :
| Approach | Who evaluates? | Method | Independence? | Regulatory / ESG value? |
| Score (self-assessment) | The project owner | Declarative questionnaire | No | Weak, not enforceable |
| Sector label | Label-approved assessor (often also a consultant) | Scale defined by the label network | Partial (possible conflict of interest) | Medium (marketing recognition but not always robust audit) |
| Independent diagnostics (BPS / IRICE) | Independent third-party appraiser | Naturalistic analysis, weighting, initial state, projected, realized | Yes, without dual advisory/assessment role | Strong, compatible with green taxonomy / CSRD / sustainable finance |
What distinguishes independent diagnosis is the absence of ambiguity about the role of the assessor: neither judge and jury, nor self-interested coach, but an external third party, committed to the evidence.
Measuring without bias: why proof changes everything
Many existing tools are based on a declarative logic, or on devices built by the beneficiaries themselves. The central question then becomes: who has an interest in a good score? When the evaluator is also the advisor, or when he or she depends on funding from the project owner, the risk of bias is structural. This is the fundamental difference between an approach based on conviction and one based on credibility.
The independent biodiversity diagnosis is based on several methodological requirements:
- An initial assessment of the site, based on a field diagnosis, not just on assumptions.
- Weighted scoring, differentiated by criterion (soil, vegetation, wildlife, nuisance, management).
- A three-phase analysis: initial, planned, completed.
- Full traceability of evidence: inventories, measurements, georeferenced photos, technical reports.
- The possibility of on-site checks by the independent assessor.
This requirement transforms the approach: we don't just assert that biodiversity is taken into account. We demonstrate it.
Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS): an independent, evidence-based method
The BPS, supported by IRICE, proposes a clear approach: assess, measure, prove, without confusing advice and assessment.
BPS features:
- 50 control criteria, divided into 5 main categories: soil, vegetation, wildlife, nuisance, management.
- A weighting by impact level, adapted to each site.
- A projected score (based on a file) and an actual score (verified).
- A requirement for tangible proof: ecological diagnostics, precise initial assessments, monitoring of commitments.
- A method open to all types of project: new construction, rehabilitation, development, operation.
BPS is not a certification. It's not a marketing promise. It is not a self-replicating score. It is an independent, enforceable, methodologically robust assessment, designed to meet the real expectations of investors, local authorities and demanding third parties.
Conclusion: avoid greenwashing, secure your biodiversity approach
In today's context, biodiversity is no longer a matter of window-dressing. It's a question of credibility. Owners, developers and property companies who want to align their projects with ESG expectations and green taxonomy need to be able to prove their case.
Between declarative self-assessment, industry labels and independent diagnosis, not all approaches are equal. The BPS - Biodiversity Performance Score - is part of this logic of proof, traceability and independence. It offers a clear answer to those who want to measure without simply declaring.
To find out more: https: //irice-certification.com/label-biodiversity-performance-score-bps