Search results

Part V analyzes the details of how to assess materiality. It first tackles qualitative versus quantitative criteria and the role of professional judgment. It then analyzes the selection of quantitative threshold, to expand to the choice of benchmarks. It contrasts the whole financial statements with subaggregates, line items, and components.

Specific sections contrast IASB, FASB, SEC, and other guidance on materiality applied to comparative information, interim reporting, and segment reporting.

The section on estimates mingles complex guidance coming from accounting, auditing, and internal control over financial reporting to explain how the management can improve its assessment of materiality concerning estimates.

After explaining the techniques to move from individual to cumulative misstatements, the part tackles verification ex post, and finally summarizes the intricacies of whether immaterial misstatements are permissible and their consequences.

Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) reporting has been widely accepted as a vital tool for communicating with stakeholders on a range of social, environmental, and governance issues, but how companies define, interpret, apply, integrate, and communicate their CSR efforts and impacts in corporate reporting is anything but a straightforward task. The purpose of this chapter is to explore the concept of materiality in CSR reporting and demonstrate practical examples of good CSR and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) reporting practices. We chose the aviation industry because of its economic relevance, constant growth, and future expected changes in the aftermath of COVID-19. In addition, airlines affect many of the SDGs directly and indirectly with contending results. This chapter is timely because of the growing willingness by companies to integrate CSR and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) thinking into the corporate strategy and business operations using materiality assessment and enhancing their competitive advantage and ability to maintain long-term value and because ESG and ethical investing have become part of the mainstream investing. Thus, this chapter contributes to an understanding of the wide range of existing and new reporting frameworks and regulations and reinforces the importance of discussing how this diversity of approaches can affect the work toward worldwide comparability of CSR and sustainability reporting.

Part IV provides readers with the extant requirements for the application of materiality to recognition, measurement, presentation, and disclosure in the financial statements. This part also includes a detailed critical review of the recent Practice Statement on materiality, the FASB’s proposed ASU on the notes and the amendments to the Conceptual Framework proposed by the IASB and the FASB.

The part expands to issues that are typical of Management Commentary, including the SEC guidance on materiality in Management Discussion and Analysis.

It informs about the complexities and subtle differences between financial statements and bookkeeping and the different standards of reasonableness versus materiality.

A section moves from materiality to material misstatements and covers the application of materiality in auditing.

Another section goes in depth on internal control over financial reporting, showing the linkages between materiality and risk appetite and risk tolerance and the related application guidance.

Part III reviews the uses and effects of materiality as an accounting, legal, audit, and managerial concept. After mentioning several uses of materiality as a legal concept and explaining the FASB’s proposed direction to avoid an accounting definition, it goes in depth to the differences in the respective definitions, applications, practical interactions, and different nature of the legal and accounting views. It then draws on the differences between audit and accounting uses of materiality.

It counterbalances the interests and positions of the various stakeholders involved, such as investors, preparers, standard-setters, auditors, regulators, financial analysts, and other users of the financial statements. It shows that those who regulate, use, decide, and assess materiality are different subjects.

Finally, the part capitalizes on the author’s vast experience in industry to theorize a plethora of alternative and complementary models of materiality with their pros and cons.

Part I introduces the background of why materiality matters in financial statements. One of the main reasons for determining whether a fact is material is to check whether its misstatement overtakes the watershed which makes financial statements not comply with the relative financial reporting framework.

This part also introduces one of the themes of the book: the interaction of the views of the different subjects involved in materiality assessment, i.e., users, preparers, auditors, regulators, and the related conflicts of interest. Materiality plays a different role in this depending on who is looking at it.

The part also comprises an overview of the main projects underlying the current debate about materiality, that is, the International Accounting Standards Board’s Disclosure Initiative, the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Disclosure Framework and the SEC’s Disclosure Effectiveness Initiative, including a list of their main steps and documents issued to date.

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.

Over the last several decades, the question of the import of firms’ social and environmental responsibilities has taken center stage. While once companies’ obligations to stakeholders and to sustainability were framed as normative issues, these criteria are taking on instrumental worth. Most recently, advocates of Responsible Investment have suggested that firms’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) performance possesses critical implications for companies’ creation and capture of long-term economic value. Employing textual analysis, this chapter analyzes the accounting, rating, and reporting standards that have been developed by which companies are expected to measure, communicate, and be evaluated for their ESG performance. Drawing from literature on organizational imprinting, this chapter finds significant differences across these standards, in terms of the determination of materiality and firms’ desired stakeholder relations. The divergence present in the meaning and measure of Responsible Investment across these standards possesses important strategic implications for managers in this field who must consider the implications of each guideline for internal and external purposes.

Research in the field of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has become a trending topic in recent years. Research that is often done is related to CSR disclosure, mostly for large companies. Likewise, the current standards and guidelines ignore micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs). On the other hand, the MSME business sector in the world also impacts the economy, social, and environment, so CSR is needed. CSR activities and reporting cannot be separated from the concept of materiality due to a large amount of leeway in management’s discretion regarding topics and aspects. The purpose of this study is to analyze the issue of MSMEs materiality. The samples collected were 33 MSMEs. The research results show that the material issues for both sectors are similar, which are customer care and satisfaction (profit), employee rights, training and development (people), electricity consumption, and waste management (planet). The concept of materiality is expected to play an important role in MSMEs as a CSR strategy so that MSMEs can apply it to their business practices. Thus, MSMEs pay attention to profit, social, and environment, which is interpreted simply. The management of MSMEs can use this result to formulate CSR’s business strategies and apply them to their business practices. Thus, MSMEs can play a role in sustainability, which is expected to improve financial performance.

The research objectives of this chapter are threefold. First, we explore what is the current status of corporate water accounting tools and methodologies. Second, we develop a framework for analyzing corporate water accounting and reporting. Third, we investigate what French CAC 40 companies account for and report in relations to the water challenge.

We collected annual and sustainability reports from all CAC 40 companies as well as their water Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) responses when available. We also collected all publically available corporate water accounting methodologies to assess the international water accounting field. We coded the data according to our designed framework via qualitative data analysis software.

Although water is seen as equally important to climate change (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), 2009), French multinationals have a very immature reporting on this topic. Most still do not report to the water disclosure questionnaire of CDP in 2014 and rely on basic figures such as global water consumption. We analyzed the multiple water accounting, reporting, and risk assessment frameworks that have mushroomed since 2000, and question the impact of this fragmented field on the maturity of the water performance reporting by French companies.

The developed framework for analysis of water reporting can be used for sustainability teaching at university level.

We developed the first comprehensive analytical framework for water corporate reporting assessment. Moreover, this research is the first comprehensive study of water reporting in Europe. We therefore contribute to extend our comprehension of corporate maturity in water stewardship and water performance reporting.