Navigating materiality in sustainability reporting: A scoping review of single and double materiality approaches.

• Authors: Belidan Mohamed Anas , Baghad Halima

Title variants

PL

Istotność w sprawozdawczości zrównoważonego rozwoju: przegląd podejść do pojedynczej i podwójnej istotności.

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: The purpose of this analysis is to examine the theoretical foundations of materiality research within sustainability reporting, the current state of research and the legitimacy of different approaches, and to compare between different normalizations and frameworks. Methodology/approach: Employing a content analysis approach, this study used a scoping review. Over 86 related papers were analyzed. Data were extracted from Scopus and Google Scholar on April 22, 2024. Findings: Our review reveals the growing importance of double materiality in sustainability reporting research, driven by stakeholders’ expectations and regulatory demands. Theoretical frameworks like stakeholder and legitimacy theory help explain the complexities in materiality assessments, while inconsistent standards highlight the need for harmonization. We emphasize the critical role of stakeholder engagement and call for further research on standardization, sector-specific challenges, and the implementation of double materiality. Research limitations: This article has certain limitations. Methodologically, it uses a limited set of search keywords. Regarding the findings, this study shows a scarcity of papers on materiality in sustainability reporting. Practical implications: This study aims to provide managers and public policymakers with insight into the degree to which materiality and double materiality are incorporated into essential elements of organizations, such as governance, stakeholder requirements, and social impact evaluations. Originality/value: As of the date this article was written, and to the extent of our knowledge, there are no existing research papers specifically using a scoping review on materiality assessment within this scope.

PL

Cel: Celem niniejszej analizy jest zbadanie teoretycznych założeń badań nad istotnością w ramach raportowania zrównoważonego rozwoju, obecnego stanu badań i zasadności różnych podejść, a także porównanie różnych regulacji i ram koncepcyjnych. Metodyka/podejście badawcze: Stosując podejście oparte na analizie treści, w badaniu wykorzystano wybraną literaturę przedmiotu. Przeanalizowano ponad 86 powiązanych artykułów. Dane zostały pobrane z bazy Scopus i Google Scholar 22 kwietnia 2024 roku. Wyniki: Analiza ujawnia rosnące znaczenie podwójnej istotności w badaniach nad raportowaniem zrównoważonego rozwoju, napędzane oczekiwaniami interesariuszy i wymogami regulacyjnymi. Ramy teoretyczne, takie jak teoria interesariuszy i legitymizacji, pomagają wyjaśnić złożoność ocen istotności, podczas gdy niespójne standardy podkreślają potrzebę harmonizacji. Podkreślamy kluczową rolę zaangażowania interesariuszy i apelujemy o dalsze badania nad standaryzacją, wyzwaniami sektorowymi i wdrażaniem podwójnej istotności. Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: Niniejszy artykuł ma pewne ograniczenia. Z metodologicznego punktu widzenia wykorzystuje ograniczony zestaw słów kluczowych do wyszukiwania. Jeśli chodzi o wyniki, badanie pokazuje niedobór artykułów na temat istotności w raportowaniu zrównoważonego rozwoju. Implikacje praktyczne: Niniejsze badanie ma na celu zapewnienie menedżerom i decydentom publicznym wglądu w stopień, w jakim istotność i podwójna istotność są włączone do podstawowych elementów organizacji, takich jak zarządzanie, wymagania interesariuszy i oceny wpływu społecznego. Oryginalność/wartość: Zgodnie z naszą wiedzą do czasu napisania tego artykułu nie było opublikowanych prac badawczych wykorzystujących przegląd literatury na temat oceny istotności w tym zakresie.

Keywords

EN

materiality; double materiality; sustainability; sustainability reporting; sustainability disclosure

PL

istotność; podwójna istotność; zrównoważony rozwój; raportowanie zrównoważonego rozwoju; ujawnianie informacji o zrównoważonym rozwoju

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2024
• Issue: 48(4)
• Pages: 11-32

Contributors

author

Belidan Mohamed Anas

• Department of Finance Research (LAREF), The Higher Institute of Commerce and Business Administration (Groupe ISCAE), Casablanca, Morocco

author

Baghad Halima

• Department of Finance Research (LAREF), The Higher Institute of Commerce and Business Administration (Groupe ISCAE), Casablanca, Morocco

References

• Barker R., Mayer C. (2024), Seeing double corporate reporting through the materiality lenses of both investors and nature*, “Accounting Forum” (online); https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2023.2277982.
• Barney J.B. (2001), Resource-based theories of competitive advantage: A ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view, “Journal of Management”, 27 (6), pp. 643–650; https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630102700602.
• Baumüller J., Sopp K. (2022), Double materiality and the shift from non-financial to European sustainability reporting: Review, outlook and implications, “Journal of Applied Accounting Research”, 23 (1), pp. 8–28; https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2021-0114.
• Beske F., Haustein E., Lorson P.C. (2020), Materiality analysis in sustainability and integrated reports, “Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal”, 11 (1), pp. 162–186; https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-12-2018-0343.
• Bezverkhiy K.V. (2018), The Principle of Materiality and Its Practical Implementation in the Integrated Reporting of Corporate Enterprises. Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Statistics, “Accounting and Audit”, (3), pp. 16–33; https://doi.org/10.31767/nasoa.3.2018.02.
• Calabrese A., Costa R., Levialdi N., Menichini T. (2016), A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting, “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 121, pp. 248–264; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.12.005.
• Canning M., O’Dwyer B., Georgakopoulos G. (2019), Processes of auditability in sustainability assurance – the case of materiality construction, “Accounting and Business Research”, 49 (1), pp. 1–27; https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2018.1442208.
• Cerbone D., Maroun W. (2020), Materiality in an integrated reporting setting : Insights using an institutional logics framework, “The British Accounting Review”, 52 (3), 100876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bar.2019.100876.
• Dale K. (2005), Building a Social Materiality: Spatial and Embodied Politics in Organizational Control, “Organization”, 12 (5), pp. 649–678; https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508405055940.
• De Cristofaro T., Gulluscio C. (2023), In Search of Double Materiality in Non-financial Reports: First Empirical Evidence, “Sustainability”, 15 (2), 924; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15020924.
• De Cristofaro T., Raucci D. (2022), Rise and Fall of the Materiality Matrix: Lessons from a Missed Takeoff, “Administrative Sciences”, 12 (4), 186; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040186.
• Dewi A.A., Saraswati E., Rahman A.F., Atmini S. (2023), Materiality, stakeholder engagement disclosure, and corporate governance: Critical elements for the quality of sustainability reporting, “Cogent Business & Management”, 10 (1), pp. 1–22; https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2175437.
• Edgley C. (2014), A genealogy of accounting materiality, “Critical Perspectives on Accounting”, 25 (3), pp. 255–271; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2013.06.001.
• Farooq M.B., Zaman R., Sarraj D., Khalid F. (2021), Examining the extent of and drivers for materiality assessment disclosures in sustainability reports, “Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal”, 12 (5), pp. 965–1002; https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-04-2020-0113.
• Ferrero-Ferrero I., León R., Muñoz-Torres M.J. (2021), Sustainability materiality matrices in doubt: May prioritizations of aspects overestimate environmental performance? “Journal of Environmental Planning and Management”, 64 (3), pp. 432–463; https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2020.1766427.
• Freeman R.E. (2010), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Geerts M., Dooms M. (2020), Sustainability Reporting for Inland Port Managing Bodies: A Stakeholder-Based View on Materiality, “Sustainability”, 12 (5), 1726; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12051726.
• Gerwanski J., Kordsachia O., Velte P. (2019), Determinants of materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting: Empirical evidence from an international setting, “Business Strategy and the Environment”, 28 (5), pp. 750–770; https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2278.
• Göttsche M., Habermann F., Sieber S. (2024), The materiality of non-financial tax disclosure: Experimental evidence, “Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation”, 54, 100600; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intaccaudtax.2024.100600.
• Guix M., Bonilla-Priego M.J., Font X. (2018), The process of sustainability reporting in international hotel groups: An analysis of stakeholder inclusiveness, materiality and responsiveness, “Journal of Sustainable Tourism”, 26 (7), pp. 1063–1084; https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1410164.
• Guix M., Font X., Bonilla-Priego M.J. (2019), Materiality: Stakeholder accountability choices in hotels’ sustainability reports, “International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management”, 31 (6), pp. 2321–2338; https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2018-0366.
• Hewitt J.O. (1977), Developing Concepts of Materiality and Disclosure, “The Business Lawyer”, 32 (3), pp. 887–956.
• Hsu C.-W., Lee W.-H., Chao W.-C. (2013), Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: A case study at Lite-On Technology Corporation, “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 57, pp. 142–151; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.05.040.
• Jebe R. (2019), The Convergence of Financial and ESG Materiality: Taking Sustainability Mainstream, “American Business Law Journal”, 56 (3), pp. 645–702; https://doi.org/10.1111/ablj.12148.
• Jensen M.C., Meckling W.H. (1976), Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure, “Journal of Financial Economics”, 3 (4), pp. 305–360.
• Jones P., Comfort D., Hillier D. (2015), Materiality and external assurance in corporate sustainability reporting : An exploratory study of UK house builders, “Property Management”, 33 (5), pp. 430–450; https://doi.org/10.1108/PM-03-2015-0014.
• Jones P., Hillier D., Comfort D. (2016), Materiality and external assurance in corporate sustainability reporting: An exploratory study of Europe’s leading commercial property companies, “Journal of European Real Estate Research”, 9 (2), pp. 147–170; https://doi.org/10.1108/JERER-07-2015-0027.
• Jorge De Jesus M.A., Jorge S.M. (2014), From Governmental Accounting into National Accounts: Adjustments Diversity and Materiality with Evidence from the Iberian Countries’ Central Governments, “Innovar”, 24 (54), pp. 121–138; https://doi.org/10.15446/innovar.v24n54.46653.
• Jørgensen S., Mjøs A., Pedersen L.J.T. (2022), Sustainability reporting and approaches to materiality : Tensions and potential resolutions, “Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal”, 13 (2), pp. 341–361; https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-01-2021-0009.
• Karagiannis I., Vouros P., Sioutas N., Evangelinos K. (2022), Mapping the maritime CSR agenda: A cross-sectoral materiality analysis of sustainability reporting, “Journal of Cleaner Production”, 338, 130139; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130139.
• Karagiannis I., Vouros P., Skouloudis A., Evangelinos K. (2019), Sustainability reporting, materiality, and accountability assessment in the airport industry, “Business Strategy and the Environment”, 28 (7), pp. 1370–1405; https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.232.
• León R., Salesa A. (2023), Is sustainability reporting disclosing what is relevant? Assessing materiality accuracy in the Spanish telecommunication industry, “Environment, Development and Sustainability”, 26 (8), pp. 21433–21460; https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03537-x.
• Maama H., Appiah K.O., Doorasamy M. (2022), Materiality of Environmental and Social Reporting : Insights from Minority Stakeholders, “Social and Environmental Accountability Journal”, 42 (3), pp. 184–207; https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2021.2006074.
• Machado B.A.A., Dias L.C.P., Fonseca A. (2021), Transparency of materiality analysis in GRI -based sustainability reports, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, 28 (2), pp. 570–580; https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2066.
• Meutia I., Kartasari S.F., Yaacob Z. (2022), Stakeholder or Legitimacy Theory? The Rationale behind a Company’s Materiality Analysis: Evidence from Indonesia, “Sustainability”, 14 (13), 7763; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137763.
• Mezzanotte F.E. (2024), Corporate sustainability reporting: double materiality, impacts, and legal risk, “Journal of Corporate Law Studies”, 23 (2), pp. 633–663; DOI: 10.1080/14735970.2024.2319058.
• Mio C., Fasan M., Costantini A. (2020), Materiality in integrated and sustainability reporting: A paradigm shift? “Business Strategy and the Environment”, 29 (1), pp. 306–320; https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2390.
• Ngu S.B., Amran A. (2018), Materiality disclosure in sustainability reporting: Fostering stakeholder engagement, “Strategic Direction”, 34 (5), pp. 1–4; https://doi.org/10.1108/SD-01-2018-0002.
• Ngu S.B., Amran A. (2021), Materiality Disclosure in Sustainability Reporting: Evidence from Malaysia, “Asian Journal of Business and Accounting”, 14 (1), pp. 225–252; https://doi.org/10.22452/ajba.vol14no1.9.
• Özdemir Akyildirim Ö. (2024), Materiality of supplier sustainability assessment for buyer companies in a global context, “Supply Chain Forum: An International Journal”, 25 (1), pp. 28–45; https://doi.org/10.1080/16258312.2022.2164163.
• Panda B., Leepsa N.M. (2017), Agency theory: Review of Theory and Evidence on Problems and Perspectives, “Indian Journal of Corporate Governance”, 10 (1), pp. 74–95; https://doi.org/10.1177/0974686217701467.
• Papafloratos T., Markidis I., Kotzaivazoglou I., Fragidis G. (2023), Sustainability Material Topics and Materiality Analysis in the Chemical Industry, “Sustainability”, 15 (18), 14014; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151814014.
• Parmar B.L., Freeman R.E., Harrison J.S., Wicks A.C., Purnell L., De Colle S. (2010), Stakeholder Theory: The State of the Art, “Academy of Management Annals”, 4 (1), pp. 403–445; https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2010.495581.
• Phillips R., Freeman R. E., Wicks A. C. (2003), What Stakeholder Theory is Not, “Business Ethics Quarterly”, 13 (4), pp. 479–502; https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200313434.
• Pichler M., Brand U., Görg C. (2018), The double materiality of democracy in capitalist societies: challenges for social-ecological transformations, “Environmental Politics”, 29 (2), pp. 193–213; https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1547260.
• Pratoomsuwan T., Chiaravutthi Y. (2023), The interaction of corporate social responsibility (CSR) materiality and explicit assessment on willingness to invest: Perception of financial analysts, “Asian Journal of Accounting Research”, 8 (2), pp. 122–132; https://doi.org/10.1108/AJAR-01-2022-0012.
• Puroila J., Mäkelä H. (2019), Matter of opinion: Exploring the socio-political nature of materiality disclosures in sustainability reporting, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 32 (4), pp. 1043–1072; https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-11-2016-2788.
• Raith D. (2023), The contest for materiality. What counts as CSR? “Journal of Applied Accounting Research”, 24 (1), pp. 134–148; https://doi.org/10.1108/JAAR-04-2022-0093.
• Rambaud A. (2022), CARE: repenser la comptabilité sur des bases écologiques, “L’Économie politique”, 93 (1), pp. 34–49; https://shs.cairn.info/revue-l-economie-politique-2022-1-page-34?lang=fr.
• Ruiz-Lozano M., De Vicente-Lama M., Tirado-Valencia P., Cordobés-Madueño M. (2022), The disclosure of the materiality process in sustainability reporting by Spanish stateowned enterprises, “Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal”, 35 (2), pp. 385–412; https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-08-2018-3629.
• Schiehll E., Kolahgar S. (2021), Financial materiality in the informativeness of sustainability reporting, “Business Strategy and the Environment”, 30 (2), pp. 840–855; https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2657.
• Suchman, M. C. (1995), Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches, “The Academy of Management Review”, 20 (3), pp. 571–610; https://doi.org/10.2307/258788.
• Torelli R., Balluchi F., Furlotti K. (2020), The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, 27 (2), pp. 470–484; https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1813.
• Unerman J., Zappettini F. (2014), Incorporating Materiality Considerations into Analyses of Absence from Sustainability Reporting, “Social and Environmental Accountability Journal”, 34 (3), pp. 172–186; https://doi.org/10.1080/0969160X.2014.965262.
• Velte P. (2022), Does sustainable corporate governance have an impact on materiality disclosure quality in integrated reporting? International evidence, “Sustainable Development”, 30 (6), pp. 1655–1670; https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2333.
• Climate Disclosure Standards Board (2019), CDSB framework for reporting environmental and climate change information; https://www.cdsb.net/what-we-do/reporting-frameworks/environmental-information.
• Global Reporting Initiative (2016), GRI sustainability reporting standards; https://www.globalreporting.org/standards/.
• International Integrated Reporting Council (2021), International framework; https://www.integratedreporting.org/resource/international-ir-framework/.
• International Sustainability Standards Board (2022), Exposure drafts of IFRS S1 and S2; https://www.ifrs.org/projects/work-plan/sustainability-reporting/.
• Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (2018), SASB standards; https://www.sasb.org/standards/.
• Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (2017), Final report: Recommendations of the task force on climate-related financial disclosures; https://www.fsb-tcfd.org/publications/.