The double materiality principle and the sustainability reporting practices of Polish listed companies from the WIG30 Index

• Authors: Macuda Małgorzata , Kobiela-Pionnier Katarzyna

Title variants

PL

Zasada podwójnej istotności a praktyki raportowania zrównoważonego rozwoju przez polskie spółki giełdowe z Indeksu WIG30

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

Purpose: The purpose of the paper is to investigate whether Polish issuers applied the double materiality principle when preparing their reports before implementation of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) became mandatory, and if so, whether they disclosed the double materiality assessment process and at what level. Methodology/approach: The research sample consists of the 30 largest Polish companies listed on the Warsaw Stock Exchange (WIG30 Index). The qualitative content analysis and document analysis of their ESG/CSR/sustainable/non-financial reports for the year 2023 were applied. Findings: Seven companies (23%) already conducted double materiality assessment in accordance with the new EU regulations. Of this group, only one company made full required disclosures, which in the case of the planned preparation of an ESG report in the digital ESEF format would also allow it to perform full tagging with the ESRS XBRL taxonomy. The remaining six companies included four out of the eight mandatory aspects in their double materiality assessment process, as specified in ESRS 2. Three companies (10%) indicated that they had started the double materiality assessment process and described what was done in 2023 and what is planned for the next year. The majority (20 companies; 67%) continued their existing approach to materiality in accordance with the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD). Research limitations/implications: The research sample was limited to the 30 largest companies listed on the regulated market in one country. Originality/value: The study contributes to the growing literature on the double materiality approach as the basis for sustainability disclosures by offering empirical insights into how Polish listed companies actually apply the double materiality principle in sustainability reporting. The analysed companies were categorised into four groups: Early birds, Seekers, Claimers, and Deadline-driven adopters. Within the first group, differences in the level of double materiality disclosures were noticed and a leading company was identified. Its disclosures were assessed in the context of the planned ESRS XBRL taxonomy.

PL

Cel: Celem artykułu jest zbadanie, czy polscy emitenci zastosowali zasadę podwójnej istotności przy sporządzaniu swoich raportów jeszcze przed obowiązkowym wdrożeniem dyrektywy w sprawie sprawozdawczości przedsiębiorstw w zakresie zrównoważonego rozwoju (CSRD), a jeśli tak, to czy ujawnili proces oceny podwójnej istotności i na jakim poziomie. Metodyka/podejście badawcze: Próba badawcza składa się z 30 największych polskich spółek notowanych na Giełdzie Papierów Wartościowych w Warszawie (Indeks WIG30). Przeanalizowano treści ich raportów ESG/CSR/zrównoważonego rozwoju/niefinansowych za 2023 rok, stosując jakościową analizę treści i analizę dokumentów. Wyniki: Siedem spółek (23%) przeprowadziło analizę podwójnej istotności zgodnie z nowymi przepisami. Z tej grupy jedynie jedna spółka dokonała pełnych wymaganych ujawnień w tym zakresie, co w przypadku planowanego sporządzania raportu ESG w cyfrowym formacie ESEF pozwoliłoby jej także dokonać pełnego tagowania taksonomią ESRS XBRL. Pozostałe sześć spółek uwzględniło w swoim procesie oceny podwójnej istotności cztery z ośmiu obowiązkowych aspektów zawartych w ESRS 2. Trzy podmioty (10%) wskazały, że rozpoczęły proces oceny podwójnej istotności oraz opisały działania zrealizowane w 2023 r. i te zaplanowane na następny rok. Zdecydowana większość badanych spółek – 20 (67%) kontynuowała dotychczasowe podejście do istotności zgodnie z dyrektywą w sprawie sprawozdawczości niefinansowej (NFRD). Ograniczenia/implikacje badawcze: Próba badawcza została ograniczona do 30 największych spółek notowanych na rynku regulowanym w jednym kraju. Oryginalność/wartość: Badanie przyczynia się do rosnącej literatury na temat podejścia podwójnej istotności jako podstawy ujawnień dotyczących zrównoważonego rozwoju, dostarczając empirycznego spojrzenia na faktyczne stosowanie zasady podwójnej istotności w praktykach raportowania zrównoważonego rozwoju przez polskich emitentów. Dokonano podziału analizowanych jednostek na cztery grupy: Early birds, Seekers, Claimers oraz Deadline-driven adopters. Dostrzeżono zróżnicowanie poziomu ujawnień w zakresie ustalania podwójnej istotności w pierwszej grupie oraz wskazano ich lidera. Dokonano oceny jego ujawnień w kontekście projektowanej taksonomii ESRS XBRL.

Keywords

EN

double materiality; sustainability reporting; Polish listed companies; Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD); European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS); ESRS XBRL taxonomy

PL

podwójna istotność; raportowanie zrównoważonego rozwoju; polskie spółki giełdowe; dyrektywa ws. sprawozdawczości przedsiębiorstw w zakresie zrównoważonego rozwoju (CSRD); europejskie standardy sprawozdawczości w zakresie zrównoważonego rozwoju (ESRS); taksonomia ESRS XBRL

• Publisher: Stowarzyszenie Księgowych w Polsce
• Journal: Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości
• Year: 2025
• Issue: 49(2)
• Pages: 63-97

Contributors

author

Macuda Małgorzata

• Poznań University of Economics and Business, Department of Management Accounting

author

Kobiela-Pionnier Katarzyna

• Warsaw School of Economics, Institute of Accounting

References

• Barker R., Mayer C. (2025), Seeing double corporate reporting through the materiality lenses of both investors and nature, “Accounting Forum”, 49 (2), pp. 259–289; https://doi.org/10.1080/01559982.2023.2277982.
• Connelly B.L., Certo S.T., Ireland R.D., Reutzel C.R. (2010), Signaling Theory: A Review and Assessment, “Journal of Management”, 37 (1), pp. 39–67; https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310388419 (Original work published 2011).
• Consolandi C., Robert G. E., Giampaolo G. (2022). How material is a material issue? Stock returns and the financial relevance and financial intensity of ESG materiality. “Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment”, 12 (4), pp. 1045–68; https://doi.org/10.1080/20430795.2020.1824889.
• Correa-Mejía D.A., Correa-García J.A., García-Benau M.A. (2024), Analysis of double materiality in early adopters. Are companies walking the talk?, “Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal”, 15 (2), pp. 299–329.
• Dechow P.M. (2023), Understanding the Sustainability Reporting Landscape and Research Opportunities in Accounting, “Accounting Review”, 98 (5), pp. 481–493.
• De Cristofaro T., Gulluscio C. (2023), In Search of Double Materiality in Non-Financial Reports: First Empirical Evidence, “Sustainability”, 15 (2), Article number 924, https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su15020924.
• Delgado-Ceballos J., Ortiz-De-Mandojana N., Antolín-López R., Montiel I. (2023), Connecting the Sustainable Development Goals to firm-level sustainability and ESG factors: The need for double materiality, “Business Research Quarterly”, 26 (1), pp. 2–10.
• Delmas M., Toffel W. (2004), Stakeholders an Environmental Managemant Practices: An Institutional Framework, “Business Strategy and the Environment”, 13 (4), pp. 209–222.
• Dragomir V.D., Dumitru M., Chersan I.C., Gorgan C., Păunescu M., (2024) Double Materiality Disclosure as an Emerging Practice: The Assessment Process, Impacts, Risks, and Opportunities, “Accounting in Europe”, 22 (1), pp. 103–140; https://doi.org/10.1080/17449480.2024.2339264.
• Driver T.R., ElAlfy A., (2023), Double Materiality: Why Does It Matter for Sustainability Reporting?, [in:] Lehner O., Harrer T., Silovla H., Weber O. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Green Finance, Routledge, Abingdon, Ox–New York, NY, pp. 41–56.
• Folke C., Biggs R., Norström A.V., Reyers B., Rockström J. (2016), Social-ecological resilience and biosphere-based sustainability science, “Ecology and Society”, 21 (3), 41; http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08748-210341.
• Förster P. (2023), The Double Materiality Principle (Article 19a NFRD) as Proposed by the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive: An Effective Concept to Tackle Green Washing?, [in:] Bäumler J. et al. (eds.), European Yearbook of International Economic Law 2022. European Yearbook of International Economic Law, 13, Springer, Cham, pp. 345–364; https://doi.org/10.1007/8165_2022_90.
• Gourdel R., Monasterolo I., Dunz N., Mazzocchetti A., Parisi L. (2024), The double materiality of climate physical and transition risks in the euro area, “Journal of Financial Stability”, 71, 101233; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfs.2024.101233.
• Huq A.M., Mohammadrezaei M. (2024), A review of ex ante and ex post materiality measures, and consequences and determinants of material disclosures in sustainability reporting, “Journal of Accounting Literature”, 47 (5), pp. 71–98; https://doi.org/10.1108/JAL-04-2024-0084.
• Jain A., Islam M.A., Keneley M., Kansal M. (2021), Social contagion and the institutionalisation of GRI-based sustainability reporting practices, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 30 (5), pp. 1291–1308; https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-06-2020-0917.
• Joof F., Samour A., Tursoy T., Ali M., (2023), Climate change, insurance market, renewable energy, and biodiversity: double-materiality concept from BRICS countries, “Environmental Science and Pollution Research”, 30 (11), pp. 28676–28689, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24068-4.
• Kulionis V., Pfister S., Fernandez J. (2024), Biodiversity impact assessment for finance, “Journal of Industrial Ecology”, 28 (5), pp. 1321–1335; https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13515.
• Lu T., Ruan L., Wang Y., Yu L. (2024), Real effects of greenhouse gas disclosures, “China Journal of Accounting Research”, 17 (2), Article number 100360, pp. 1–23; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjar.2024.100360.
• Lungu C.I., Caraiani Ch., Bojan A.M. (2024), Double Materiality Approach and Sustainable Business Model Paradigm: A Three-Fold Analysis, [in:] Patuleia M. (ed.), Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Management Leadership and Governance, 20 (1), pp. 316–324.
• Luque-Vílchez M., Cordazzo M., Rimmel G., Tilt C.A. (2023), Key aspects of sustainability reporting quality and the future of GRI, “Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal”, 14 (4), pp. 637–659; https://doi.org/10.1108/SAMPJ-03-2023-0127.
• Mezzanotte F.E. (2023), Corporate sustainability reporting: double materiality, impacts, and legal risk, “Journal of Corporate Law Studies”, 23 (2), pp. 633–663; https://doi.org/10.1080/14735970.2024.2319058.
• Miettinen M. (2024), Are materiality determination practices evolving in the wake of increasing legislation on sustainability reporting? Findings from EU pharmaceutical companies’ reports, “International Journal of Law and Management”, 66 (3), pp. 363–392; https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLMA-09-2023-0221.
• Öhman P., Svanberg J., Samsten I. (2023), Assessment of double materiality: The development of predictively valid materiality assessments with artificial intelligence, [in:] Marton J., Nilsson F., Öhman P. (eds.), Auditing Transformation: Regulation, Digitalisation and Sustainability, Routledge, London, pp. 205–227; https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003411390-13.
• Pizzi S., Principale S., de Nuccio E. (2023), Material sustainability information and reporting standards. Exploring the differences between GRI and SASB, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 31 (6), pp. 1654–1674; https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-11-2021-1486.
• Rosati F., Faria L.G.D. (2019), Business contribution to the sustainable development agenda: organizational factors related to early adoption of SDG reporting, “Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management”, 26 (3), pp. 588–597; https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1705.
• Simoni L., Bini L., Bellucci M. (2020), Effects of social, environmental, and institutional factors on sustainability report assurance: evidence from European countries, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 28 (6), pp.1059–1087; https://doi.org/10.1108/MEDAR-03-2019-0462.
• Solimene S., Coluccia D., Fontana S., Gulluscio C., Bernardo A., Carnegie G.D. (2024), Discerning the state of the art in Italy of voluntary disclosure on biodiversity and endemic species, “Meditari Accountancy Research”, 32 (6), pp. 2348–2395.
• Spence M. (1973), Job Market Signaling, “Quarterly Journal of Economics”, 87 (3), pp. 355–374; https://doi.org/10.2307/1882010.
• Suchman M. C. (1995), Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches, “The Academy of Management Review” 20 (3), pp. 571–610.
• Suhardjo I., Akroyd Ch., Suparman M. (2024), Unpacking Environmental, Social, and Governance Score Disparity: A Study of Indonesian Palm Oil Companies, “Journal of Risk and Financial Management”, 17, 296; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm 17070296.
• Szalacha P. (2024), Double materiality implementation and its impact on sustainability reporting: Findings from Polish early adopter reports, “Zeszyty Teoretyczne Rachunkowości”, 48 (4), pp. 133–154; https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0054.8692.
• Weirich T.R., Turner L. (2023), Expanding the Concept of Materiality to Environmental, Social, and Governance: Audit Issues and Implications, “Current Issues in Auditing”, 17 (1), pp. A50–A58; https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-2022-010.
• CSRD, Directive (EU) 2022/2464 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December 2022 amending Regulation (EU) No 537/2014, Directive 2004/109/EC, Directive 2006/43/EC and Directive 2013/34/EU, as regards corporate sustainability reporting, Official Journal of the European Union, L 322/15.
• Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on the annual financial statements, consolidated financial statements and related reports of certain types of undertakings, amending Directive 2006/43/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directives 78/660/EEC and 83/349/EEC.
• EFRAG (2024), ESRS Set 1 XBRL Taxonomy, Explanatory Note and Basis for Conclusions, August 2024.
• ESMA (2024), Consultation Paper on the Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) on the European Single Electronic Format (ESEF) defining marking up rules for sustainability reporting and revising the marking up rules for the Notes to the IFRS consolidated financial statements and, on the amendments to the RTS on the European Electronic Access Point (EEAP)
• European Commission (2017), COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION Guidelines on non-financial reporting (methodology for reporting non-financial information) (2017/C 215/01), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC07 05(01)
• https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017XC0705(01).
• European Commission (2019), COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION – Guidelines on non-financial reporting: Supplement on reporting climate-related information (2019/C 209/01), https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri= CELEX:52019XC0620(01)&from=EN
• European Commission (2023), COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU) 2023/2772 of 31 July 2023 supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards sustainability reporting standards, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202302772
• NFRD, Directive 2014/95/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2014 amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of non-financial and diversity information by certain large undertakings and groups, Official Journal of the European Union, L 330/1.
• Adams C.A., Alhamood, A., He H., Tian J., Wang L., Wang Y. (2021), The double-materiality concept. Application and Issues, published by the Global Reporting Initiative, pp. 1–11, https://www.globalreporting.org/media/jrbntbyv/griwhitepaper-publications.pdf.
• Chen J. (2024), Blue Chip Meaning and Examples, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bluechip.asp, updated July 09, 2024 (access 22.01. 2025).
• Chenet H. (July 31, 2023), Financial Institutions in the Face of the Environmental Emergency, working paper, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4619966 (access 7.05.2024).
• EFRAG, ESRS Set 1 XBRL Taxonomy Package, https://www.efrag.org/en/projects/esrs-xbrl-taxonomy/concluded (access 14.11.2024).
• EFRAG Implementation Guidance 3 List of Datapoints as an Excel Workbook, https://www.efrag.org/en/projects/esrs-implementation-guidance-documents (access 14.11.2024).
• Penava M. (2024), Understanding the importance of the double materiality assessment (DMA), 3Degrees, February 7 2024, https://3degreesinc.com/insights/understanding-the-importance-of-the-double-materiality-assessment-dma/ (access 7.05.2024).
• Statement of Intent to Work Together Towards Comprehensive Corporate Reporting. Summary of alignment discussions among leading sustainability and integrated reporting organisations CDP, CDSB, GRI, IIRC and SASB (2020), https://www.globalreporting.org/media/bixjk1ud/statement-of-intent-to-work-together-towards-comprehensive-corporate-reporting.pdf (access 7.05.2024).