Abstract
Sustainability reporting has evolved into a strategic governance mechanism requiring organisations to disclose not only financial performance but also their environmental, social, and governance (ESG) impacts. At the core of this evolution lies the concept of materiality, which determines the relevance and scope of reported sustainability information. However, materiality is conceptualised differently across international reporting frameworks, reflecting distinct stakeholder orientations, governance logics, and regulatory structures.
This study comparatively examines materiality approaches within the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), Integrated Reporting Framework, and the European Union Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). Using a qualitative document analysis method, official standards, regulatory guidance documents, and relevant academic literature were systematically analysed according to predefined analytical dimensions.
The findings reveal a structural transformation of materiality across reporting regimes. While GRI emphasises impact-based accountability and SASB prioritizes financially relevant risk disclosure, the Integrated Reporting Framework links materiality to long-term value creation. In contrast, CSRD institutionalises double materiality within a legally binding regulatory structure, transforming materiality from a voluntary prioritisation tool into a formal governance and risk management mechanism. The study further highlights the dynamic nature of materiality, demonstrating how sustainability impacts may evolve into financially material risks over time.
By placing diverse materiality approaches within a unified comparative framework, this study provides a structured understanding of the conceptual and regulatory evolution of materiality in sustainability reporting. The findings contribute to the ongoing debate on the integration of sustainability into corporate governance and regulatory systems.