Search results

This paper aims to examine the choices made by the hotel industry about what to include, and who to be accountable to, in their sustainability reports; a process defined as materiality assessment.

The paper is based on the findings of semi-structured interviews with eight sustainability managers (from eight of the world’s 50 largest hotel groups) to explore their understanding of, and use of, materiality and any barriers to its uptake and eight industry sustainability experts to assess the general industry-wide application of materiality.

Sustainability managers from large hotel groups are evasive when disclosing their materiality criteria, their decision-making processes and how they aggregate stakeholder feedback; they limit their disclosure to the reporting process. Sustainability managers are disempowered, with limited resources, time, knowledge and skills to apply to materiality assessment. Experts confirm that hotel groups are unsystematic and opaque about their decision-making and how they control their materiality assessments.

Materiality assessment is concealed from the public and may be constructed around business imperatives with high managerial capture. The hospitality industry needs to improve its sustainability reporting by examining how it defines and applies materiality and by addressing the barriers identified, if it is to demonstrate an enduring commitment to sustainability and organisational legitimacy.

This study addresses the limited knowledge of how hotel groups undertake materiality assessments. It identifies gaps in the conception and application of materiality by pinpointing barriers to its uptake and recommending areas in need of further research.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the effect of qualitative materiality factors on auditors’ assessment of materiality and the determination of the type of the auditors’ reports. This paper also analyzes whether differences in personal characteristics of auditors can influence their use of qualitative materiality factors in assessing material misstatements.

A questionnaire and experimental case studies were undertaken to determine whether differences in personal characteristics of auditors can influence their degree of reliance on qualitative factors in assessing the materiality of detected misstatements. Descriptive and statistical tests were used to analyze the data collected.

The results of this paper show that qualitative materiality factors strongly influence the auditor’s materiality judgments. However, no significant differences were found regarding the effects of auditors’ personal characteristics on the degree to which they rely on the qualitative factors in their materiality judgments. Also, in certain situations, auditors considered factors other than the income for assessing certain misstatements as material and consequently modified their audit reports.

This paper examines the influence of qualitative factors on auditors’ materiality judgments and develops a list of qualitative factors to be considered by auditors when assessing materiality. It also concludes that the nature of misstatement is the least important qualitative factor considered by auditors when assessing materiality of detected misstatements and that the existence of more explicit or standardized qualitative materiality guidelines would lead to a more uniform judgment among auditors.

The concept of materiality is becoming increasingly important for sustainability performance measurement and reporting. It is widely agreed upon that materiality matters, in the sense that companies should identify, prioritize and disclose information on sustainability issues that are considered material. There is, however, a tension at the heart of this consensus, owing to parallel approaches to materiality being used in practice. This paper aims to shed light on how and why the parallel uses of the materiality concept may cause confusion and how this tension could be resolved.

This paper takes as point of departure the tension between two approaches to materiality: based on the Global Reporting Initiative definition, which emphasizes sustainability issues that are important to stakeholders and that have significant impacts and based on the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board definition, which emphasizes sustainability issues that are financially material, i.e. likely to influence the financial performance of the company. This paper discusses the nature and consequences of the tensions between how the two definitions of materiality in sustainability reporting are used in practice, with a particular emphasis on users of information in financial markets. This paper provides empirical insight on these users’ perspectives through a survey (n = 30) and qualitative interviews (n = 6) of financial market professionals.

This study reveals tensions between different approaches to materiality in practice and how this may lead users of sustainability reports to draw unjustified conclusions on the basis of materiality assessments. Specifically, this paper demonstrates the perceived shortcomings in information availability and information quality from the perspectives of different stakeholders in financial markets with different information needs.

The users of sustainability reporting information require clarity in the communication of materiality in non-financial reports. This paper addresses how such clarity can be pursued.

Clarity about materiality in non-financial reporting is important both for investors that pursue financial return on green investments and for society at large, which relies on information about real sustainability impacts.

This paper furthers the understanding of how different materiality concepts may be problematic and how recent and ongoing developments may mitigate the risks of conflating uses of the concept.

A humanist orientation is foundational to the educational right of students with disabilities to participate in the mainstream life of schooling communities. Social science researchers, however, are increasingly questioning the limitations of the humanist position, and making the ‘posthuman’ turn within their epistemological orientations (Coole & Frost, 2010). The history of disability has complicated clear distinctions between the human and not-human. Indeed, the posthuman character of disability affirms the concept of life beyond fixed boundaries of the self (Goodley & Runswick-Cole, 2016). For inclusive education researchers, this means that school-based phenomena cannot be explained by either an empiricist logic or a social constructionist logic. A posthumanist orientation to inclusive education research recognizes human and non-human agents as entangled within arrangements emerging from particular relations with each other. It seeks to uncover inclusion as a material-discursive arrangement of people, events, ideas and things that are always in a state of flux.

The purposes of this paper are to provide a preliminary examination of the extent to which Europe’s leading commercial property companies are embracing the concept of materiality and commissioning independent external assurance as part of their sustainability reporting processes and to offer some wider reflections on materiality and external assurance in sustainability reporting.

The paper begins with an introduction to corporate sustainability, an outline of the European property market and of the drivers for, and challenges to, sustainability for property companies and a review of the characteristics of materiality and external assurance. The information on which the paper is based is drawn from the leading European commercial property companies’ corporate websites.

The paper reveals that all of Europe’s leading property companies had either reported or provided information on sustainability but that only approximately half of these companies had embraced materiality or commissioned some form of independent external assurance as an integral part of their sustainability reporting processes. In many ways, this reduces the reliability and credibility of the leading property companies’ sustainability reports. Looking to the future, growing stakeholder pressure may force more of the leading European property companies to embrace materiality and commission external assurance as systematic and integral elements in the sustainability reporting process.

The paper provides an accessible review of the current status of materiality and external assurance among Europe’s leading commercial property companies’ sustainability reporting and as such it will interest professionals, practitioners, academics and students interested in the sustainability in the property industry.

This paper aims to evaluate the extent of materiality assessment disclosures in sustainability reports and their determinants. The study examines the disclosure practices of listed companies based in the member states of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, colloquially referred to as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

First, the materiality assessment disclosures were scored through a content analysis of sustainability reports published by listed GCC companies during a five-year period from 2013 to 2017. Second, a fixed effect ordered logic regression was used to examine the determinants of materiality assessment disclosures.

While sustainability reporting rates improved across the sample period, a significant majority of listed GCC companies do not engage in sustainability reporting. The use of internationally recognised standards has also declined. While reporters provide more information on their materiality assessment, the number of sustainability reports that offer information on how the reporter identifies material issues has declined. These trends potentially indicate the existence of managerial capture. Materiality assessment disclosure scores are positively influenced by higher financial performance (Return on Assets), lower leverage and better corporate governance. However, company size and market-to-book ratio do not influence materiality assessment disclosures.

The findings may prove useful to managers responsible for preparing sustainability reports who can benefit from the examples of materiality assessment disclosures. An evaluation of the materiality assessment should be included in the scope of assurance engagements and practitioners can use the examples of best practice when evaluating sustainability reports. Stock exchanges may consider developing improved corporate governance guidelines as these will lead to materiality assessment disclosures.

The findings may assist in improving sustainability reporting quality, through better materiality assessment disclosures. This will allow corporate stakeholders to evaluate the reporting entities underlying processes, which leads to transparency and corporate accountability. Improved corporate sustainability reporting supports the GCC commitment to implement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and transition to sustainable development.

This study addresses the call for greater research examining materiality within a sustainability reporting context. This is the first paper to examine sustainability reporting quality in the GCC region, focussing particularly on materiality assessment disclosures.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief for property occupiers who look to monitor trends in sustainability reporting. The paper offers a preliminary examination of the extent to which the UK’s leading commercial property companies are embracing the concept of materiality and commissioning independent external assurance as a part of their sustainability reporting processes and some wider reflections on materiality and external assurance in sustainability reporting.

The paper begins with a review of the characteristics of materiality and external assurance and an outline of the drivers for, and challenges to, sustainability for property companies. The information on which the paper is based is drawn from the leading UK property companies’ corporate websites.

The paper reveals that approximately half of the UK’s leading property companies had embraced materiality or commissioned some form of independent external assurance as an integral part of their sustainability reporting processes. In many ways, this reduces the reliability and credibility of the leading property companies’ sustainability reports. Looking to the future, growing stakeholder pressure may persuade more of the UK’s leading property companies to embrace materiality and commission external assurance as systematic and integral elements in the sustainability reporting process.

The paper provides an accessible review of the current status of materiality and external assurance among the UK’s leading commercial property companies’ sustainability reporting. As such, it will not only interest occupiers but also professionals, practitioners, academics and students interested in sustainability in the property industry.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a preliminary examination of the extent to which the UK’s leading house builders are embracing the concept of materiality and commissioning independent external assurance as part of their sustainability reporting processes and to offer some wider reflections on materiality and external assurance in sustainability reporting.

The paper begins with a review of the characteristics of materiality and external assurance and a brief outline of house building in the UK and of the sustainability challenges the industry faces. The information on which the paper is based is drawn for the top twenty UK house builders’ corporate Websites.

The paper reveals that only a minority of the UK’s top 20 house builders had embraced materiality or commissioned some form of independent external assurance or verification as an integral part of their sustainability reporting processes. In many ways this reduces the reliability and credibility of the house builders’ sustainability reports. Looking to the future growing stakeholder pressure may force the UK’s house builders to embrace materiality and commission external assurance as systematic and integral elements in the sustainability reporting process.

The paper provides an accessible review of the current status of materiality and external assurance in the UK house builders’ sustainability reporting process, and as such it will interest professionals, practitioners, academics and students interested in sustainability in the construction industry.

An important outcome of the UK Company Law Review (CLR) involved draft regulations for a mandatory operating and financial review (OFR). The unprecedented abandonment of this mandatory OFR in November 2005 threw debate about the genuine motivations underlying the CLR into disarray. This paper seeks to reinterpret the abandonment of a mandatory OFR using interview research.

The authors conducted a series of 24 interviews with companies from the FTSE100 between May and August 2004, prior to the abandonment.

The interviews showed that the OFR was perceived as an appropriate vehicle for social and environmental reporting (SER). The interviewees considered that a mandatory OFR would provide a means of forcing SER into the mainstream and making it mandatory at a basic level. The interviews revealed that processes for the identification of material SER differ widely between organisations, ranging from embryonic to highly structured. Further, interviewees believed that directors had the final veto on inclusion of information. Despite directors' inclination to hide behind materiality as a means of avoiding SER, interviewees did not view the proposed mandatory OFR as “greenwash” but as a vehicle that would increase stakeholder confidence, as processes underlying the proposed OFR would be audited.

The research implies that abandoning the mandatory OFR represented a lost opportunity for SER.

The paper provides new evidence on the processes of materiality decision making in the SER area as well as strong endorsement of the mandatory OFR, contrary to the government turn‐around.

The international integrated reporting framework encourages organisations to disclose material information that affects their ability to create value. This paper aims to investigate the challenges and techniques preparers of integrated reports use to determine the materiality of non-financial information.

This paper uses an exploratory interpretive thematic analysis and an archival research approach. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 55 integrated reporting (IR) preparers in 12 publicly listed companies, supported by the perusal of the companies’ integrated annual reports over a three-year period.

IR preparers find materiality determination for non-financial information challenging. This study found that preparers convert challenges into opportunities by using materiality disclosures as image-enhancing marketing tools, which causes concerns regarding weak accountability and a deviation from the International Integrated Reporting Council’s objective of improving information quality. This study found that IR preparers use various techniques in conjunction to determine materiality levels, as well as whether to disclose non-financial information in their integrated reports. The institutional isomorphism lens used in the study highlighted the issues IR preparers faced in their determined efforts of IR materiality levels under mimetic and normative isomorphism pressures.

The challenges and techniques identified can contribute to the development of a framework for materiality level determination for non-financial information.

Regulators who are concerned with ensuring sufficient information to improve investor decision-making will be interested in the techniques IR preparers use to determine materiality levels for non-financial information, to improve their regulations and frameworks.

This study contributes to the literature regarding challenges with materiality level determination in integrated reports and techniques used by IR preparers. The application of an institutional isomorphism lens led to greater insight and understanding of IR preparers’ challenges and techniques in materiality determination. This paper makes a number of significant contributions to the IR literature. First, it identifies the usefulness of material information for decision-making and the influence stakeholders have on the materiality determination of non-financial information, which have not been mentioned in the prior literature. Second, the literature is silent on how organisations relate materiality to value creation for the purposes of determining the materiality content of an integrated report; this research provides empirical evidence of the use of value creation criteria in materiality determination. Third, the study highlights that materiality is a combination of efforts that involves everyone in an organisation. Further, the strategy should be linked to IR and preparers have indicated that integrated thinking is required for materiality determination.