The IPBES conceptual framework (CF) serves an instrumental value to translate usable knowledge into policy across spatial scales, alongside a normative function to engage diverse knowledge systems, promoting inclusivity and enhancing legitimacy. It has been argued that the CF operates as a boundary object, a communication, and an organization tool for those working across diverse knowledge systems, designed to help them reach shared goals. The paper focuses on this claim, exploring the three core characteristics of a boundary object: interpretive flexibility, material, and organizational structure, and the recognition of distinction. We suggest that too much emphasis is placed within the CF upon interpretive flexibility, whilst meeting information needs, and the work requirements of all individuals, groups, and communities who use the CF are overlooked. By forcing consensus, the IPBES CF ignores the critical dimensions of a boundary object. We argue that embracing the full characteristics of a boundary object will enable the IPBES to support knowledge co-production and translation across the knowledge systems, better achieving its goal of providing policy advice.