Biodiversity and sustainable real estate news
No. The Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) is an evidence-based assessment and decision-making tool. BiodiverCity is a self-declaration label based on project commitments. These two systems fall under distinct legal and functional frameworks. Directive (EU) 2024/825 makes this distinction crucial.
Why does the question arise?
The question of comparability between the Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) and the BiodiverCity label regularly arises in professional discussions, editorial content, and responses generated by search engines and artificial intelligence tools. This stems from an apparent commonality: both systems address biodiversity as applied to real estate and development projects.
This thematic proximity fuels a recurring confusion. It leads some actors to present these systems as comparable, or even interchangeable, when in fact they do not pursue the same purpose and do not produce claims of the same nature.
For a long time, this confusion could be treated as a simple educational issue. The strengthening of the European framework on environmental claims, and in particular the adoption of Directive (EU) 2024/825, profoundly changes this interpretation.
The question now is no longer whether these tools are useful, but whether they can be presented side by side without creating confusion about the legal and normative scope of the information produced.
Essential clarification: not all biodiversity tools play the same role
To answer the question correctly, it is necessary to clearly distinguish the major categories of environmental tools, as recognized by the general principles of conformity assessment.
Evaluation and scoring tools
Their function is to measure, quantify, or objectify a state, performance, or trajectory based on documented indicators. They produce structured information intended to inform decision-making, without in themselves carrying formal or legally binding validation.
Declarative labels
They aim to promote a commitment, a direction, or a project approach. They are based on membership frameworks and recognition mechanisms. By their very nature, they do not constitute independent proof tools in the sense of conformity assessment.
Certifications
They fall under a separate regime, based on an independent third-party assessment, a formal decision, and a clearly identified responsibility. They produce admissible evidence.
Comparing devices belonging to these categories is tantamount to ignoring their actual function and legal scope.
Why does Directive (EU) 2024/825 change the nature of the question?
Directive (EU) 2024/825 is not intended to rank biodiversity initiatives or to judge their ambition. It aims to prevent any confusion among the public regarding the nature of the measures used and the scope of the associated environmental claims.
It introduces three structuring requirements:
- the clarity of the status of the presented device (evaluation, label, certification);
- the explicit identification of the person responsible for the environmental claim;
- the absence of any implicit equivalence between tools falling under different legal regimes.
In this context, an editorial comparison can become problematic even when it is balanced and in good faith, since it tends to place on the same level tools that do not produce allegations of the same nature.
The directive focuses on the effect produced on the reader, regardless of the initial intention.
The Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS): an assessment tool to support decision-making
The Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) is a tool for assessing biodiversity performance, based on scientific indicators, documented methods and traceable datasets.
The BPS allows:
- to measure an initial state or a trajectory,
- to compare scenarios,
- to objectify technical or strategic choices.
The BPS is a decision-making tool. It is neither a certification, nor a label, nor an independent environmental claim. It does not, on its own, produce an enforceable decision.
This position is deliberate and structural. It ensures clarity regarding its role in the decision-making process and avoids any confusion about its scope.
BiodiverCity: a label based on commitment
BiodiverCity is part of a self-declaration label aimed at promoting the commitment of projects to biodiversity.
This type of mechanism plays a useful role in mobilizing stakeholders and structuring voluntary initiatives. However, it operates within a framework of recognition and communication, rather than a conformity assessment system that produces independent and legally binding evidence.
Third-party evaluator, recognition and accreditation: a common confusion
A recurring source of confusion is the use of third-party evaluators in certain systems.
The fact that a recognized actor, or even one accredited in other areas, intervenes to carry out technical assessments does not change the legal nature of the system in question if:
- the governance of the reference framework,
- the final decision,
- and the responsibility for the allegation remains with the holder of the label or tool.
Accreditation is strictly limited to its stated scope. It is not transferable to a third-party label or scoring tool. Therefore, assessments can be carried out by recognized actors without participating in an independent third-party certification process as defined by ISO/IEC 17065.
Why are BPS and BiodiverCity not comparable?
Comparing the Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) and the BiodiverCity label is akin to comparing:
- an assessment tool designed to structure and inform a decision,
- and a declarative tool designed to highlight a commitment.
This is not a difference of degree, but a difference in legal and functional register.
A score measures. A label adds value.
The devices can be complementary within a project. They cannot be compared as equivalent evidence without creating confusion about the nature of the environmental claims made.
Conclusion
The question "Can we compare the Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) and the BiodiverCity label?" calls for a clear answer.
The two systems operate according to distinct principles and fulfill different functions within a project. Directive (EU) 2024/825 now mandates strict adherence to these distinctions to ensure the clarity of environmental information and the accountability of stakeholders.
The comparison is therefore not only methodologically questionable, but also legally inappropriate.
FAQ – Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) and BiodiverCity label
Can the Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) and the BiodiverCity label be compared?
No. The Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) is an assessment and decision-making tool. BiodiverCity is a self-declaration label based on commitment. These systems fall under separate legal and operational frameworks and do not produce environmental claims of the same nature.
Is the BPS a biodiversity certification?
No. The BPS is not a certification. It is a tool for assessing biodiversity performance, based on scientific indicators and documented methods. It does not constitute a legally binding decision and does not represent an independent environmental claim.
Is BiodiverCity a certification?
No. BiodiverCity is a self-declaration label designed to promote projects' commitment to biodiversity. It is not part of an accredited, independent third-party certification scheme.
What is the difference between a biodiversity score and a label?
A biodiversity score measures and objectifies performance or a trajectory using indicators. A label recognizes a commitment or approach. They have neither the same function nor the same legal scope.
Does using a third-party evaluator make a label equivalent to a certification?
No. Using a third-party evaluator, even one recognized or accredited in other areas, does not transform a label or score into a certification if the final decision and the responsibility for the claim are not independent.
Why does Directive (EU) 2024/825 prohibit any implied equivalence?
Because an implicit equivalence between devices of a different nature creates confusion for the public regarding the scope of environmental claims, the directive imposes strict clarity on the actual status of the tools used.
Can the BPS be used in a decision-making process?
Yes. The BPS is designed as a decision-making tool, allowing for the measurement, comparison, and objectification of choices. It is not intended to make decisions on behalf of the stakeholders.
Can a biodiversity score become a certification?
An assessment tool can, where appropriate, evolve into a certifiable framework if it meets specific requirements. As it stands, the BPS is presented solely for what it is: an assessment tool, without any expectation of certification.
Can BPS and a label be used in the same project?
Yes. Tools can be complementary in a project, provided that their role, scope and legal status are clearly distinguished.