Search results

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 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.

The objective of this chapter is to analyze the relationship between the perception and practice of environmental and corporate governance issues of insurance companies in Brazil, in the context of the global sustainability agenda. The implementation and dissemination of sustainable corporate actions demonstrates the organizations' responsible behavior and legitimizes their actions in relation to society. Based on the guiding actions of the Principles for Sustainability in Insurance, the sector has been sensitive to global challenges, including climate change and demographic change. However, the effective operationalization of an environmental action plan still shows itself as intermediate to incipient, evaluated by the coefficient of priority created for the various themes, considering the high risk management potential that characterizes the sector.

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.

Part VI illustrates different approaches concerning the processes and methods that an entity can establish to determine materiality. Given the highly subjective nature of materiality assessments, proper processes, systems, and methodologies are at the forefront of the recent and future developments in this area.

The part divides the processes analyzed into four groups: (1) those that derive from accounting approaches, including the recent IASB’s four-step approach; (2) audit-derived models, generally elaborated from techniques to detect material misstatements; (3) risk-based approaches employed in risk management or in internal control over financial reporting; and (4) approaches derived from larger models involving financial, management, environmental, and corporate responsibility factors.

Finally, two sections deal with the disclosure of materiality determination, one concerning the process employed by an entity, and the second concerning general model disclosures of material matters.

This exercise provides comprehensive coverage of audit materiality, assessing inherent risk, and allocating tolerable misstatement appropriate for an undergraduate auditing course. The Delphi method could be an appropriate tool in any accounting setting where the learning goals involve judgment, consensus, or learning through group interaction.

This chapter describes a classroom exercise that required students to establish planning materiality, assess inherent risk associated with balance sheet accounts, and allocate tolerable misstatement using a modified application of the Delphi method. Additionally, the exercise calls attention to group processing skills and the role played by professional judgment in planning an audit. We assigned students to five-person audit teams and through a series of Delphi rounds asked them to establish planning materiality and assess the inherent risk associated with each balance sheet account for a fictitious company. Students prepared a matrix, both individually and as a team, that compared each statement account to every other account to determine which account in each pairing they viewed as having higher inherent risk. As a final step, they allocated tolerable misstatement mathematically for each account based on pairing results.

The result was a consensus of opinion and an early attempt at forming professional judgment. The students’ responses to a debriefing questionnaire and the results of a pre-/post-test suggest that the learning objectives of the exercise were met.

The specific learning objectives of the exercise were to help students understand the concepts of tolerable misstatement and planning materiality, the elements of inherent risk, the Delphi method for reaching group consensus, the need to work as a team, and the importance professional judgment plays in the audit process. The result was a consensus of opinion and an early attempt at forming professional judgment. The students’ responses to a debriefing questionnaire and the results of a pre-/post-test suggest that the learning objectives of the exercise were met.