Search results

The absence of clear guidelines as to how materiality should be judged has created problems for accountants and auditors, and resulted in risks to users of financial statements. Results of past research indicate a great lack of consensus within a judgement group (e.g. auditors) and a large degree of diversity between groups (e.g. auditors v. statement preparers), with respect to the appropriate materiality threshold. Based on past research concludes that industry, an important contextual variable in materiality judgements, may be responsible for the inconsistencies in judgements in the past. The close relationship between materiality and audit risk suggests that the type of industry may have a similar impact on risk assessments. Proposes that industry effects on materiality judgements and risk assessments be further investigated. Also suggests the need for industry‐specific guidelines for materiality and audit risk.

This paper aims to contribute to existing academic work and business practice by presenting original empirical findings and by providing insights into priority setting on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in organizations. From an academic viewpoint, it not only adds to previous work on the topic of SDG materiality (e.g. Van Tulder and Lucht, 2019) but also aims to contribute new insights into the steps that are crucial and influence the adoption of the SDGs in materiality assessments. It may also add to the literature by providing new knowledge on the strategic considerations that organizations may make and institutional dynamics that encourage organizations to implement the SDG materiality method.

By executing a national survey research in Belgium through a collaboration between academics of Antwerp Management School, Louvain School of Management (UCLouvain) and the University of Antwerp, and supported by Belgium’s Federal Institute of Sustainable Development, the authors have obtained several insights into the SDG landscape in Belgium for various types of organizations, including companies, governmental and nongovernmental organizations and educational institutions. This research builds further on a first national survey (SDG Barometer Belgium, 2018) on the adoption and implementation of the SDGs. However, an important aim of this research is to shift the emphasis to more prominent new elements, such as whether or not organizations use the SDGs in materiality assessments. While the main part of the data for this research were collected through an online questionnaire, document analyses were conducted based on the sustainability reports of BEL 20 companies, the benchmark stock market index of Euronext Brussels consisting of 20 companies traded at the Brussels Stock Exchange, and seven interviews were held to obtain additional insights.

A total of 386 organizations across sectors responded to the question “Does your organization perform a materiality analysis”, of which 210 organizations completed the question “Does your organization align the materiality analysis with the SDGs,”after an “exit route” based on a positive answer to the first question. When diving into the survey results, the authors see that no more than 12% of the 210 organizations performing a materiality analysis align their materiality analysis with the SDGs, while 14% indicate that they do not account for the SDGs at all in their materiality analyses. The results show that 41% of the organizations take into account the SDGs to a certain degree when performing their materiality analysis. Speculating on an explanation for these results, it may be the case that organizations do not yet think about coupling the SDGs to their materiality assessment, experience difficulties in practice or generally lack the knowledge for relating the SDGs to the sustainability topics that are relevant to them. This seems in line with other research (e.g. Van Tulder and Lucht, 2019), as the results of this study indicate that it seems to be difficult for organizations to relate the SDGs to the existing sustainability priorities or materiality analyses of companies.

The real contribution of this paper essentially lies in the description of the Janssen Pharmaceuticals case. The company recognized that today’s internally focused approach to goal setting is not enough to address global challenges. Hence, looking at what is needed externally from a global perspective, taking into account sustainability thresholds and setting ambitions accordingly, is needed to bridge the gap between current performance and required performance. From the Janssen Pharmaceuticals case, the authors learned that external stakeholders are an extremely useful source of information to address the required performance by using the SDG framework. For sure, SDG materiality analyses are still in an early phase of development and knowledge on how to conduct such an analysis may be lacking. Future efforts – or the lack thereof – may indicate whether or not companies consider such analyses as sufficiently relevant. Although the uptake of the SDGs is in progress, it remains to be seen which, if any, materiality method will eventually turn out as a new dominant way of defining material issues. The findings presented in this study hopefully serve as a basis for further investigation of the topic.

Part VII highlights certain accounting pronouncements that call for a specific application of materiality to certain financial statement items.

After reviewing the general debate of whether the same concept of materiality should apply evenly to financial statements or it should be standard-, entity-, or topic-specific, it considers the use of a specific unit of account for materiality considerations in revenue recognition, the object of materiality in related-party transactions, and specific items or circumstances that trigger materiality judgments,

The part includes a checklist of accounting pronouncements relating to specific materiality decisions. It also lists where, according to the IASB, each specific standard indicates the need for a specific attention of users to materiality.

To investigate possibilities for integrating recent interdisciplinary research on materiality with basic issues in consumer culture theory, this chapter discusses understandings of materiality-based concerns and concepts in consumer research and maps possibilities for the future.

A review focuses on concepts of materiality, agency, and intention that mark a shift to a relational metaphysics in consumption contexts. Drawing from design theory, digital humanities, and philosophy, notions of flickering and witnessing evoke models of relations and interactions between consumers and consumption objects.

In this chapter, a disciplinary proposition emerges: consumer research is a form of materiality studies wherein the consumer is designated an element of interest in the relationships and interactions that bring forth the world.

An awareness of the fundamental role played in consumer research by materiality-related assumptions may inspire concomitant animation and explication of a relational metaphysics, opening opportunities to recognize processes and practices at the core of consumer behavior previously obscured by prevailing interpretations governed by a singularly agentic, autonomous, and effective human subject. Power relations must not be ignored.

The chapter makes several contributions: organizes and explicates often taken for granted concepts such as materiality, materialism, and agency, connects consumer research to high-level theorizations of materiality, and synthesizes diverse discussions in consumer culture theory with the possibilities of new materialities.

Academics, practitioners, and standard setters have highlighted the importance of focusing on the relevance of nonfinancial reporting disclosures, calling for a debate on how best to develop corporative communicative skills with different stakeholders to conduct proper materiality analysis. To this end, the need for an inclusive process is widely acknowledged, where engagement and close relationships between an organization and its various stakeholders are crucial to identifying the main issues that the company should consider in a materiality analysis. In this chapter, an analysis of integrated reporting (IR) will be performed as an innovative corporate communication instrument that offers a complete picture of corporate performance and the important role of the concept of materiality. Then, the concept of the materiality process will be explored in a set of Spanish early adopters of IR, which will help us understand IR technology within the organizational realm and will shed some light on the materiality determination process as a communicative tool. The study revealed five main themes connected to the materiality determination process: materiality conceptualization, sources of evidence on materiality, prioritization of stakeholder engagement, the perceived advantages of the process, and its problems. The final section will set out the future challenges of IR engagement and the research opportunities that are associated with this innovative form of communicative reporting.

This study aims to analyse the consistency between what companies say (talk) and what they do (walk) regarding the application of double materiality in their sustainability reports.

Sustainability reports of 76 European companies that reported the application of double materiality and are listed in the Dow Jones Sustainability Index were studied through content analysis.

In total, 67% of the companies studied claim to apply double materiality but do not comply with the guidelines in this respect proposed by the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group. Therefore, these companies should be considered label adopters.

This study presents evidence of the existence of label adopters when double materiality is adopted at an early stage, meaning that regulators should seek to control compliance with the minimum requirements established for double materiality. This finding also has implications for assurers, who should consider the degree of real compliance with double materiality requirements when expressing their opinion.

The existence of label adopters in the application of double materiality endangers the sustainable development pursued through agreements such as the Green Deal and through the Sustainable Finance policy proposed in Europe.

This work contributes to the emerging literature on double materiality. Unlike previous works, empirical evidence is provided on the changes that companies present in their material issues with the application of double materiality. Moreover, it confirms the existence of label adopters in the application of double materiality.

Materiality is a critical and challenging auditing concept. To help auditors improve their materiality judgments, the authors provide examples from Judaism, primarily due to its longevity and the richness and variety of its stories. The authors show how Judaism interprets and applies materiality in many contexts. For each, the authors provide guidance on how auditors might apply these lessons to improve their materiality judgments. The authors examine five areas where Judaic examples can inform modern auditing including: (1) considering both quantitative and qualitative measures; (2) recognizing that small quantitative changes can lead to material qualitative effects; (3) understanding that ignoring small issues can become a slippery slope; (4) considering the importance of financial statement users’ needs in developing materiality criteria; and (5) prioritizing substance over form. In all examples, context is a critical factor to consider when applying materiality. These results should be of interest to auditors, financial statement users and others.

Recent interest in the multimodal accomplishment of organization has focused on the material and symbolic aspects of materiality. We argue that current literature invokes diverse “multimodal imaginaries,” that is, ways of conceiving the relation between the material and the conceptual, and that the different imaginaries support a plurality of perspectives on materiality. Using the empirical case of a large urban renewal project in São Paulo, Brazil, we illustrate three different multimodal imaginaries – the concrete, the semiotic, and the mimetic – and indicate how each imaginary determines the way in which the site in question is discursively constructed. After outlining the different approaches, we discuss their theoretical implications, advantages, and constraints, setting an agenda for future studies of materiality in organizational and institutional contexts.

This paper aims to contribute to the development of the European Union (EU) regulatory environment for sustainability reporting by analyzing how materiality is defined in the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) and Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and by examining the added value and challenges of legalizing reporting and materiality requirements from both regulatory and practical company perspectives. It provides insights on whether this is reflected by EU pharmaceutical companies and to what extent companies report information on their materiality analysis process.

Doctrinal analysis was used to examine regulatory instruments. Qualitative document analysis was used to analyze companies’ reports. The added value and challenges were examined using a governance approach. It focused on legalizing reporting and materiality requirements, with a brief extension to corporate management and organization studies.

Materiality has evolved from a vague concept in the NFRD toward double materiality in the CSRD. This was reflected by the industry, but reports revealed inconsistencies in materiality definitions and reported information. Challenges include lack of self-reflection and company-centric perceptions of materiality. Companies should explain how they identify relevant stakeholders and how input is considered in decision-making.

Managers must consider how they conduct materiality assessments to meet society’s expectations. The underlying processes should be explained to increase the credibility of reports. Sustainability reporting should be seen as a corporate governance tool.

This work contributes to the literature on materiality in sustainability reporting and to the debate on the need for a holistic, society-centric approach to enhance the sustainability of companies.