IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v12y2022i4p186-d995316.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rise and Fall of the Materiality Matrix: Lessons from a Missed Takeoff

Author

Listed:
  • Tiziana De Cristofaro

    (Department of Economic Studies, “G. d’Annunzio” University, 65127 Pescara, Italy)

  • Domenico Raucci

    (Department of Economic Studies, “G. d’Annunzio” University, 65127 Pescara, Italy)

Abstract

After a long period of the inclusion of materiality matrices within standard setters documents and non-financial reports, the Global Reporting Initiative officially abandoned the materiality matrix in 2021 after the GRI 3 standard release. To bridge the detected gaps in the literature, this article aims to investigate approaches to and arguments for the matrix until the issuance of GRI 3. The two-step research strategy adopted gives the same level of attention to the opposite positions found. Phase 1 (approach-oriented) reviews the materiality matrix presentation in the 2014–2020 non-financial reports of a sample of worldwide sustainability-oriented companies. Phase 2 (argument-oriented) performs qualitative content analysis on feedback for the GRI 3 preparatory works. The findings show that, besides the staunch adopters, a core of non-adopters persisted and prevented the takeoff of the matrix. Moreover, further insights into possible drivers both in favour of and against these approaches are provided. The final discussion both considers the lessons learnt, overlapping with policy implications, and suggests future research avenues.

Suggested Citation

  • Tiziana De Cristofaro & Domenico Raucci, 2022. "Rise and Fall of the Materiality Matrix: Lessons from a Missed Takeoff," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-25, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:12:y:2022:i:4:p:186-:d:995316
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/12/4/186/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/12/4/186/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chiara Mio & Marco Fasan, 2014. "The determinants of materiality disclosure in integrated corporate reporting," Working Papers 09, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    2. Doris M. Merkl-Davies & Niamh Brennan, 2007. "Discretionary disclosure strategies in corporate narratives : incremental information or impression management?," Open Access publications 10197/2907, Research Repository, University College Dublin.
    3. Jones, Michael John, 2011. "The nature, use and impression management of graphs in social and environmental accounting," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 75-89.
    4. Michael John Jones, 2011. "The nature, use and impression management of graphs in social and environmental accounting," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 75-89, June.
    5. Maura Campra & Paolo Esposito & Rosa Lombardi, 2020. "The engagement of stakeholders in nonfinancial reporting: New information‐pressure, stimuli, inertia, under short‐termism in the banking industry," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 1436-1444, May.
    6. Jouko Kuisma, 2017. "Managing Corporate Responsibility in the Real World," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-319-54078-8, December.
    7. Nicola Bellantuono & Pierpaolo Pontrandolfo & Barbara Scozzi, 2016. "Capturing the Stakeholders’ View in Sustainability Reporting: A Novel Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-12, April.
    8. Selena Aureli & Mara Del Baldo & Rosa Lombardi & Fabio Nappo, 2020. "Nonfinancial reporting regulation and challenges in sustainability disclosure and corporate governance practices," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 2392-2403, September.
    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. 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. Renato Camodeca & Alex Almici & Umberto Sagliaschi, 2018. "Sustainability Disclosure in Integrated Reporting: Does It Matter to Investors? A Cheap Talk Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-34, November.
    2. Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez & Cristina‐Andrea Araújo‐Bernardo, 2020. "What colour is the corporate social responsibility report? Structural visual rhetoric, impression management strategies, and stakeholder engagement," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(2), pages 1117-1142, March.
    3. Chaidali, Panagioula (Penny) & Jones, Michael John, 2017. "It’s a matter of trust: Exploring the perceptions of Integrated Reporting preparers," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-20.
    4. Perkiss, Stephanie & Bernardi, Cristiana & Dumay, John & Haslam, Jim, 2021. "A sticky chocolate problem: Impression management and counter accounts in the shaping of corporate image," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    5. García-Sánchez, Isabel-María & Suárez-Fernández, Oscar & Martínez-Ferrero, Jennifer, 2019. "Female directors and impression management in sustainability reporting," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 359-374.
    6. Hazianti Abdul Halim, 2016. "Visual Representations Strategies in Chairperson’s Statement in Malaysia: An Analysis of Impression Management," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 6(12), pages 245-255, December.
    7. Kanbaty, Majid & Hellmann, Andreas & He, Liyu, 2020. "Infographics in corporate sustainability reports: Providing useful information or used for impression management?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 26(C).
    8. Claudia Arena & Saverio Bozzolan & Giovanna Michelon, 2015. "Environmental Reporting: Transparency to Stakeholders or Stakeholder Manipulation? An Analysis of Disclosure Tone and the Role of the Board of Directors," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 346-361, November.
    9. Tuvana Cüre & Emel Esen & Arzu Özsözgün Çalışkan, 2020. "Impression Management in Graphical Representation of Economic, Social, and Environmental Issues: An Empirical Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, January.
    10. Grougiou, Vassiliki & Leventis, Stergios & Dedoulis, Emmanouil & Owusu-Ansah, Stephen, 2014. "Corporate social responsibility and earnings management in U.S. banks," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 155-169.
    11. Konstantinos Evangelinos & Stefanos Fotiadis & Antonis Skouloudis & Nadeem Khan & Foteini Konstandakopoulou & Ioannis Nikolaou & Shaun Lundy, 2018. "Occupational health and safety disclosures in sustainability reports: An overview of trends among corporate leaders," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 961-970, September.
    12. Jennifer Martínez‐Ferrero & Oscar Suárez‐Fernández & Isabel‐María García‐Sánchez, 2019. "Obfuscation versus enhancement as corporate social responsibility disclosure strategies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 468-480, March.
    13. Mäkelä, Marileena, 2017. "Environmental impacts and aspects in the forest industry: What kind of picture do corporate environmental reports provide?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 178-191.
    14. Breeda Comyns & Frank Figge & Tobias Hahn & Ralf Barkemeyer, 2013. "Sustainability reporting: The role of “Search”, “Experience” and “Credence” information," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(3), pages 231-243, September.
    15. Corrigan, Lawrence T., 2018. "Budget making: The theatrical presentation of accounting discourse," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 12-32.
    16. Justyna Dyduch & Joanna Krasodomska, 2017. "Determinants of Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosure: An Empirical Study of Polish Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-24, October.
    17. Shaio Yan Huang & Tung-Hsien Wu & An-An Chiu & David C. Yen, 2015. "Measurements of mislead threshold of company graph distortion," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(5), pages 1111-1132, October.
    18. Laura Bini & Francesco Giunta & Rebecca Miccini & Lorenzo Simoni, 2023. "Corporate governance quality and non-financial KPI disclosure comparability: UK evidence," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 27(1), pages 43-74, March.
    19. Hrasky, Sue, 2012. "Visual disclosure strategies adopted by more and less sustainability-driven companies," Accounting forum, Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 154-165.
    20. Sidney J. Gray & Niclas Hellman & Mariya N. Ivanova, 2019. "Extractive Industries Reporting: A Review of Accounting Challenges and the Research Literature," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 55(1), pages 42-91, March.

    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:jadmsc:v:12:y:2022:i:4:p:186-:d:995316. 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.