Explore the vast range of titles available.

Materiality is the key principle that drives the selection of issues that companies must report on. The European Union regulation on companies’ non-financial disclosure coined a special meaning of materiality that holistically combines the two perspectives of financial and impact materiality into an overall “double materiality” (DM). The contrast detected between the early debate and the low level of empirical knowledge on DM provided by the literature on materiality disclosure gave rise to our research aim, which was to map the pioneering experiences of DM. In order to achieve this aim, we carried out an exploratory analysis on the non-financial reports of 58 companies, both European and non-European, operating in various industries (period 2019–2021). The results reveal “traces” of DM in the reports of few companies, mainly European ones. The aspects we examined, both with atomistic and summative perspectives of inquiry, highlight variety in both double materiality assessments and adoption disclosures, as well as related criticalities. This foreshadows a fragmented landscape of materiality analysis disclosure over the next few years that presently requires great attention and increased operational guidance by the international standard setters involved. The article closes by proposing implications, limitations and research perspectives.

The purpose of this study is to examine whether or not there is a difference in the decision-making of external auditors in determining the level of audit materiality between participants who get good news followed by bad news and those who get bad news information sequences (bad news) followed by good news (good news) with a step-by-step and end-of-sequence information presentation pattern in the positive frame or negative frame. The research method used in the research is the mixed design experiment method (between and within the subject) which manipulates the independent variables of the order of evidence (good news followed by bad news and bad news followed by good news) and framing effect (positive frame or negative frame) in the presentation pattern Step by Step and End of Sequence. Participants in this study were 150 students of the Bachelor of Accounting study program at Hayam Wuruk Perbanas Surabaya University with 300 experiment data. This study uses the normality test and the Kruskall-Wallis H test. The results of this study indicate that the Step-by-step presentation pattern can cause a recency effect when receiving information with a sequence of evidence of good news followed by bad news and bad news followed by good news both in the series, with the positive or negative frame, and the results obtained if the information is presented with an End of Sequence presentation pattern with information and a sequence of evidence of good news followed by bad news or bad news followed by good news there is no difference (no order effect) either in the framing effect (positive frame and negative frame).

This thesis proposes potential material devices to transform the concerns of painting within an expanded field. It suggests that new knowledge is produced in material and subjective relationships. The research began with a propensity towards the subject of drapery and evolved into finding other material conditions that could create a new space for painting. This investigation is conducted through three distinct Creative Strategies, where each one informs methods of thinking for practice. The overarching themes of the individual strategies are: Creative Strategy 1: proposes a new theory of prosthetics to transform the physical constraints of painting. I argue that the frame is the crux for expansion and physical transformation. It is achieved through a reductive approach to the physical and material elements of painting within a spatial context. Creative Strategy 2: explores the material agency of fetish and fabric in making processes and uncovers the underlying fetishistic meaning of the materials associated with my practice. Creative Strategy 3: reveals the cultural and social significance of drapery in contemporary painting. Significantly, that desire can instigate politicised transformation in painting. The Creative Strategies provoke a series of linkages between subject and object, which progress through specific analysis on fetishism, femininity, desire and materiality. These explorations advance through the transformative effects of hybridity and multiplicity on expanded painting practices. Crucially, Estelle Barrett and Barbara Bolt's concepts concerning material practice and emergent methodologies underpin the practice-led research. Bolt's idea of a double articulation between practice and theory (2002), is further amplified through the addition of feminist empiricism and feminist autoethnographic methods. These methods are critical lenses in which to examine the research. Moreover, Elizabeth Grosz' notions on materiality structure the philosophical foundation, which evolved from an initial investigation into Gilles Deleuze's theories on non-linear thinking. These approaches allow generative and additive challenges to the construction, assumptions and principal forms of painting. Through the three Creative Strategies, this PhD delivers a progression of material thinking that will impact upon knowledge around critical modes of enquiry in relation to expanded painting. As an in-depth study of the significance of purposeful tools to enable transformations, the research examines, clarifies and highlights agency in processes and practices. While significant studies have been carried out on materiality, there are few empirical investigations from within the medium of painting with a focus on drapery and that of an expanded field. Therefore, to summarise, this research contributes to current discourse on material thinking by synthesizing three distinct modes of enquiry, which propose a new approach to contemporary painting.

The reduction Nuestra Señora del Ibitiracuá or \"Concepción\", is today an archaelogical heritage site within the town itself with materiality all around. From this past- present articulation the research proposes to study a period of regional history which presents an archaeological materiality as an element present in daily life of the local community. [...]we argue and consider a study of the archaeological materiality distributed at the historical center ofConcepción de la Sierra from an archaeological/anthropological perspective that indicates what are the means by which the social memory is reproduced. Como primer paso de investigación, nos introdujimos en el mundo de la arqueología histórica y urbana, o, en nuestro caso de estudio, en contextos de transformación urbana, para, posteriormente, articular dicho enfoque con una propuesta de patrimonio arqueológico y estudios regionales. ¿Arqueología Histórica o urbana?

PurposeThis paper aims to contribute to the emerging debate on materiality with novel and original insights about the managerial and theoretical implications related to the adoption of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) as reporting standards. Furthermore, the paper will evaluate the main drivers that favor the combination of the two standards by companies to develop new knowledge about the hierarchical relationship between financial and sustainability materiality.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on a sample of 2,046 US listed companies observed during the period 2017–2020, the research is conducted using quantitative methods. Multinomial logistic regressions are used to evaluate the differences between GRI and SASB’s adoption.FindingsThe analysis highlights that financial and sustainability materiality are driven by different purposes. In detail, SASB’s adoption is driven by factors directly related to financial dynamics, while GRI’s adoption is influenced by the existence of corporate governance mechanisms inspired by sustainable and ethical principles. Furthermore, the last analysis reveals that the combination of the two standards is characterized by the predominance of sustainability materiality.Originality/valueTo the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first empirical study on the relationship between financial and sustainability materiality.

Tomlinson discusses the impact of new EU sustainability reporting regulations, specifically the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which will affect US companies operating in Europe. The CSRD requires businesses to adopt a rigorous sustainability reporting regime, introducing the concept of double materiality--which assesses both financial materiality (impact on a company's performance) and impact materiality (the broader social and environmental effects of a company's activities). This shift reflects the EU's Green Deal, aimed at achieving sustainability and reducing carbon emissions. It calls on companies to consider their wider impacts, including those on workers, communities, ecosystems, and global stakeholders. Assessing these impacts is complex, as it requires understanding and evaluating diverse social and environmental consequences across the company's value chain. The EU's standards mandate that companies report not only on these impacts but also on their strategies to address them.

This study examines the first wave sustainability reports published by 20 European credit institutions under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), investigating their double materiality assessment approaches and reporting practices. By employing MAXQDA software, we analysed these reports, and we have identified significant consistencies in priority sustainability matters reported, with universal coverage of climate change, workforce issues, consumer impacts, and business conduct across institutions. Our research shows that while banks effectively report on impacts, risks, and opportunities (IRO), notable challenges persist in consistently differentiating between impact and financial materiality perspectives. Financed emissions has become the main environmental concern, sometimes overshadowing other sustainability issues including water resources, pollution, and biodiversity which are interconnected. This study also identifies several comparability issues, including inconsistent value chain positioning of sustainability matters, inadequate time horizon specifications, and overreliance on indirect stakeholder consultations. Regional variations between Northern and Western and Central European institutions are observed, particularly in reporting structure and depth. The implementation of EU Taxonomy disclosures and preparation for limited assurance requirements present additional challenges for these institutions. By offering insights on CSRD implementation in the banking sector and suggesting specific ways to improve the comparability and decision-usefulness of future sustainability disclosures by credit institutions, this study adds to the literature on sustainability reporting.

PurposeIntegrated reporting enhances the meaningfulness of non-financial information, but whether this enhancement is progressive or regressive from a sustainability perspective is unknown. This study aims to examine the influence of the Integrated Reporting () Framework on the disclosure of financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information in integrated reports.Design/methodology/approachUsing a disclosure index constructed from the Global Reporting Initiative’s G4 Guidelines and UN Sustainable Development Goals, the authors content analysed integrated reports of 40 companies from the International Integrated Reporting Council’s Pilot Programme Business Network published between 2015 and 2017. The content analysis distinguished between financial- and impact-material sustainability-related information.FindingsThe extent of sustainability-related disclosures in integrated reports remained more or less constant over the study period. Impact-material disclosures were more prominent than financial material ones. Impact-material disclosures mainly related to environmental aspects, while labour practices-related disclosures were predominantly financially material. The balance between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures varied based on factors such as industry environmental sensitivity and country-specific characteristics, such as the country’s legal system and development status.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper presents a unique disclosure index to distinguish between financially- and impact-material sustainability-related disclosures. Researchers can use this disclosure index to critically examine the nature of sustainability-related disclosure in corporate reports.Practical implicationsThis study offers an in-depth understanding of the influence of non-financial reporting frameworks, such as the Framework that uses a financial materiality perspective, on sustainability reporting. The findings reveal that the practical implementation of the Framework resulted in sustainability reporting outcomes that deviated from theoretical expectations. Exploring the materiality concept that underscores sustainability-related disclosures by companies using the Framework is useful for predicting the effects of adopting the Sustainability Disclosure Standards issued by the International Sustainability Standards Board, which also emphasises financial materiality.Social implicationsDespite an emphasis on financial materiality in the Framework, companies continue to offer substantial impact-material information, implying the potential for companies to balance both financial and broader societal concerns in their reporting.Originality/valueWhile prior research has delved into the practices of regulated integrated reporting, especially in the unique context of South Africa, this study focuses on voluntary adoption, attributing observed practices to intrinsic company motivations. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, it is the first study to explicitly explore the nature of materiality in sustainability-related disclosure. The research also introduces a nuanced understanding of contextual factors influencing sustainability reporting.

We live and we think inside a world of things made and found. Still, psychological science has shown little interest in understanding the exact nature of the relation between cognition and material culture. As a result, the diachronic influence and transformative potential of things in human mental life remains little understood. Most psychologists would see things as external and passive: the lifeless objects of human consciousness, perception, and memory. On the contrary, my main argument in this article is that things matter to human psychology and should be taken seriously. Although things usually pass unnoticed, they are anything but trivial. Things have a special place in human cognitive life and evolution. We think “with” and “through” things, not simply “about” things. In that sense, things occupy the middle space in between what are usually referred to as mind and matter. Material-engagement theory provides a way to describe and study that middle space where brain, body, and culture are conflated.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore how sustainability reporting managers (SRMs) institutionalise sustainability reporting within organisations.Design/methodology/approachIn total, 35 semi-structured interviews with SRMs in Australia and New Zealand were analysed using an institutional work perspective.FindingsSRMs’ institutional work can be categorised into four phases with each phase representing a different approach to sustainability reporting. Organisations transition from phase one to four as they achieve a higher level of maturity and a deeper embedding and routinisation of sustainability reporting. These include educating and advocacy work undertaken by engaging with managers (phase one), transitioning to a decentralised sustainability reporting process (phase two), transitioning to leaner, focussed, materiality driven sustainability reporting (phase three), and using sustainability key performance indicators and materiality assessment reports for planning, decision-making, goal setting, performance appraisal, and incentives (phase four). However, SRMs face challenges including their inexperience, limited time and resources, lack of management commitment to sustainability reporting and low external interest in sustainability reporting. The study identifies ten reasons why material issues are not always (adequately) disclosed.Practical implicationsThis study recommends more training and development for SRMs, and that regulation be considered to mandate the disclosure of the materiality assessments in sustainability reports.Originality/valueThis research extends the existing literature examining how sustainability reports are prepared and sheds further light on how a materiality assessment is undertaken. The study identifies ten reasons for the non-disclosure of material matters, including but not limited to, legitimacy motives. Researchers can use these reasons to refine their methods for evaluating published sustainability reports. At a theoretical level, the study provides four observations that institutional researchers should consider when examining forms of institutional work.