IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i9p3233-d168911.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approaches on the Screening Methods for Materiality in Sustainability Reporting

Author

Listed:
  • Susie Ruqun Wu

    (Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, Department of Geography, Environment and Spatial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Changliang Shao

    (Institute of Agricultural Resources and Regional Planning, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100081, China
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Jiquan Chen

    (Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, Department of Geography, Environment and Spatial Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA)

Abstract

Recent decades have seen a surge in corporate sustainability reports (SRs); their proliferation, however, does not ensure effective and consistent reporting on materiality. To improve the completeness, consistency and uniformity of SRs, this study aims at providing a review on the definition and identification of materiality and to propose screening methods for materiality assessments using publicly available resources. We found that most acknowledged standards and initiatives diverge in their definitions and approaches towards materiality. Four screening methods are proposed, including two that are directly usable: (1) Sustainability Accounting Standards Board Materiality Map™ and (2) Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Topics for Sectors; and two involving more desktop research: (3) GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database and (4) modeling from a life-cycle perspective. The second and third approaches are tested through a comparison study for the apparel and energy industries in selected regions using content analysis. The results indicate that the two approaches, with different levels of complexity, yield inconsistency in obtaining the most (i.e., the top three) material topics. The GRI’s Sustainability Disclosure Database is recommended for practitioners due to its balanced disclosure on management, economic, environmental and social sustainability themes.

Suggested Citation

  • Susie Ruqun Wu & Changliang Shao & Jiquan Chen, 2018. "Approaches on the Screening Methods for Materiality in Sustainability Reporting," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-16, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:9:p:3233-:d:168911
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3233/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/9/3233/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Waris Ali & Jedrzej George Frynas & Zeeshan Mahmood, 2017. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Disclosure in Developed and Developing Countries: A Literature Review," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 273-294, July.
    2. Silvia Cantele & Thomas A. Tsalis & Ioannis E. Nikolaou, 2018. "A New Framework for Assessing the Sustainability Reporting Disclosure of Water Utilities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-12, February.
    3. de Villiers, Charl & van Staden, Chris J., 2010. "Shareholders’ requirements for corporate environmental disclosures: A cross country comparison," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 227-240.
    4. Armando Calabrese & Roberta Costa & Francesco Rosati, 2015. "A feedback-based model for CSR assessment and materiality analysis," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(4), pages 312-327, December.
    5. Francesca Manes-Rossi & Adriana Tiron-Tudor & Giuseppe Nicolò & Gianluca Zanellato, 2018. "Ensuring More Sustainable Reporting in Europe Using Non-Financial Disclosure—De Facto and De Jure Evidence," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-20, April.
    6. Meibo Hu & Lawrence Loh, 2018. "Board Governance and Sustainability Disclosure: A Cross-Sectional Study of Singapore-Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-14, July.
    7. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Mohammad Sharif Hossain & Jong Dae Kim, 2018. "Is Green Regulation Effective or a Failure: Comparative Analysis between Bangladesh Bank (BB) Green Guidelines and Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-19, April.
    8. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Seong Mi Bae & Jong Dae Kim, 2017. "Analysis of Environmental Accounting and Reporting Practices of Listed Banking Companies in Bangladesh," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-19, September.
    9. José M. Moneva & Pablo Archel & Carmen Correa, 2006. "GRI and the camouflaging of corporate unsustainability," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(2), pages 121-137, June.
    10. Roshima Said & Yuserrie Hj Zainuddin & Hasnah Haron, 2009. "The relationship between corporate social responsibility disclosure and corporate governance characteristics in Malaysian public listed companies," Social Responsibility Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 5(2), pages 212-226, June.
    11. Simon S. Gao & Saeed Heravi & Jason Zezheng Xiao, 2005. "Determinants of corporate social and environmental reporting in Hong Kong: a research note," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 233-242, June.
    12. Giovanna Gavana & Pietro Gottardo & Anna Maria Moisello, 2018. "Do Customers Value CSR Disclosure? Evidence from Italian Family and Non-Family Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Seong Mi Bae & Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Jong Dae Kim, 2018. "A Cross-Country Investigation of Corporate Governance and Corporate Sustainability Disclosure: A Signaling Theory Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    14. Beck, A. Cornelia & Campbell, David & Shrives, Philip J., 2010. "Content analysis in environmental reporting research: Enrichment and rehearsal of the method in a British–German context," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 207-222.
    15. Unerman, Jeffrey & Bennett, Mark, 2004. "Increased stakeholder dialogue and the internet: towards greater corporate accountability or reinforcing capitalist hegemony?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 29(7), pages 685-707, October.
    16. Giovanna Gavana & Pietro Gottardo & Anna Maria Moisello, 2017. "Earnings Management and CSR Disclosure. Family vs. Non-Family Firms," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-21, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lavinia Conca & Francesco Manta & Domenico Morrone & Pierluigi Toma, 2021. "The impact of direct environmental, social, and governance reporting: Empirical evidence in European‐listed companies in the agri‐food sector," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 1080-1093, February.
    2. Inten Meutia & Shelly F. Kartasari & Zulnaidi Yaacob, 2022. "Stakeholder or Legitimacy Theory? The Rationale behind a Company’s Materiality Analysis: Evidence from Indonesia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(13), pages 1-20, June.
    3. Wilmer Rivas-Asanza & Jennifer Celleri-Pacheco & Javier Andrade-Garda & Rafael García-Vázquez & Virginia Mato-Abad & Santiago Rodríguez-Yáñez & Sonia Suárez-Garaboa, 2018. "Environmental Sustainability in Information Technologies Governance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-25, December.
    4. Antonella Senese & Massimo Pecci & Roberto Ambrosini & Guglielmina Adele Diolaiuti, 2023. "MOUNTAINPLAST: A New Italian Plastic Footprint with a Focus on Mountain Activities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-16, April.
    5. Fleming, Aysha & O'Grady, Anthony P. & Stitzlein, Cara & Ogilvy, Sue & Mendham, Daniel & Harrison, Matthew T., 2022. "Improving acceptance of natural capital accounting in land use decision making: Barriers and opportunities," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. Jonathan Morris & Edeltraud Guenther, 2024. "Can the Sustainable Development Goals support nexus thinking in companies? The case of water," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 679-691, February.
    7. Miseldra Gil-Marín & Alejandro Vega-Muñoz & Nicolás Contreras-Barraza & Guido Salazar-Sepúlveda & Sandra Vera-Ruiz & Analia Verónica Losada, 2022. "Sustainability Accounting Studies: A Metasynthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-15, August.
    8. Yining Zhou & Geoff Lamberton & Michael B. Charles, 2023. "An Explanatory Model of Materiality in Sustainability Accounting: Integrating Accountability and Stakeholder Heterogeneity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-22, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zeeshan Mahmood & Rehana Kouser & Md. Abdul Kaium Masud, 2019. "An emerging economy perspective on corporate sustainability reporting – main actors’ views on the current state of affairs in Pakistan," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 4(1), pages 1-31, December.
    2. Riccardo Torelli & Federica Balluchi & Katia Furlotti, 2020. "The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 470-484, March.
    3. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Mohammad Nurunnabi & Seong Mi Bae, 2018. "The effects of corporate governance on environmental sustainability reporting: empirical evidence from South Asian countries," Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-26, December.
    4. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Md. Harun Ur Rashid & Tehmina Khan & Seong Mi Bae & Jong Dae Kim, 2019. "Organizational Strategy and Corporate Social Responsibility: The Mediating Effect of Triple Bottom Line," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-18, November.
    5. Ovidiu-Constantin Bunget & Dorel Mateș & Alin-Constantin Dumitrescu & Oana Bogdan & Valentin Burcă, 2020. "The Link between Board Structure, Audit, and Performance for Corporate Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-27, October.
    6. Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Seong Mi Bae & Javier Manzanares & Jong Dae Kim, 2019. "Board Directors’ Expertise and Corporate Corruption Disclosure: The Moderating Role of Political Connections," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Boesso, Giacomo & Kumar, Kamalesh, 2009. "Stakeholder prioritization and reporting: Evidence from Italy and the US," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 162-175.
    8. Seong Mi Bae & Md. Abdul Kaium Masud & Jong Dae Kim, 2018. "A Cross-Country Investigation of Corporate Governance and Corporate Sustainability Disclosure: A Signaling Theory Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Hang Thi Thuy Pham & Sung-Chang Jung & Su-Yol Lee, 2020. "Governmental Ownership of Voluntary Sustainability Information Disclosure in an Emerging Economy: Evidence from Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-21, August.
    10. Ignacio J. Duran & Pablo Rodrigo, 2018. "Why Do Firms in Emerging Markets Report? A Stakeholder Theory Approach to Study the Determinants of Non-Financial Disclosure in Latin America," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    11. Giorgio Mion & Cristian R. Loza Adaui, 2019. "Mandatory Nonfinancial Disclosure and Its Consequences on the Sustainability Reporting Quality of Italian and German Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-28, August.
    12. Bianca Alves Almeida Machado & Lívia Cristina Pinto Dias & Alberto Fonseca, 2021. "Transparency of materiality analysis in GRI‐based sustainability reports," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 570-580, March.
    13. Halkos, George & Nomikos, Stylianos, 2021. "Corporate social responsibility: Trends in global reporting initiative standards," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 106-117.
    14. Bing Wang & Si Xu & Kung-Cheng Ho & I-Ming Jiang & Hung-Yi Huang, 2019. "Information Disclosure Ranking, Industry Production Market Competition, and Mispricing: An Empirical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    15. María Luisa Pajuelo Moreno & Teresa Duarte-Atoche, 2019. "Relationship between Sustainable Disclosure and Performance—An Extension of Ullmann’s Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-33, August.
    16. Marika Arena & Giovanni Azzone & Sara Ratti & Valeria Maria Urbano & Giovanni Vecchio, 2023. "Sustainable development goals and corporate reporting: An empirical investigation of the oil and gas industry," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(1), pages 12-25, February.
    17. Liu, Chengyun & Su, Kun & Zhang, Miaomiao, 2021. "Water disclosure and financial reporting quality for social changes: Empirical evidence from China," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    18. Bouten, Lies & Everaert, Patricia & Van Liedekerke, Luc & De Moor, Lieven & Christiaens, Johan, 2011. "Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture?," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 187-204.
    19. Xiao, Xinning & Shailer, Greg, 2022. "Stakeholders’ perceptions of factors affecting the credibility of sustainability reports," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 54(1).
    20. Thomas A. Tsalis & Maria Terzaki & Dimitrios Koulouriotis & Konstantinos P. Tsagarakis & Ioannis E. Nikolaou, 2023. "The nexus of United Nations' 2030 Agenda and corporate sustainability reports," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 784-796, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:9:p:3233-:d:168911. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.