Toward an Experimental Common Framework for Measuring Double Materiality in Companies

Christian Bux (), Paola Geatti, Serena Sebastiani, Andrea Del Chicca, Pasquale Giungato, Angela Tarabella and Caterina Tricase
Additional contact information
Christian Bux: Department of Economics, University of Foggia, 71121 Foggia, Italy
Paola Geatti: Department of Economics and Statistics, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy
Serena Sebastiani: Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy
Andrea Del Chicca: Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy
Pasquale Giungato: Department of Chemistry, University of Bari, 70126 Bari, Italy
Angela Tarabella: Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, 56124 Pisa, Italy
Caterina Tricase: Department of Economics, University of Foggia, 71121 Foggia, Italy

Sustainability, 2025, vol. 17, issue 14, 1-24

Abstract: In Europe, corporate sustainability reporting through the double materiality assessment was formally introduced with the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive in response to the European Sustainability Reporting Standards. The double materiality assessment is essential not only to determine the scope of corporate sustainability reporting but also to guide companies toward an efficient allocation of resources and shape corporate sustainability strategies. However, although EFRAG represents the technical adviser of the European Commission, there are numerous “interoperable” standards related to the assessment of double materiality, including the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), or UNI 11919-1:2023. This research intends to systematically analyze similarities and divergences between the most widespread double materiality assessment standards at the global scale, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses and trying to identify a comparable path toward the creation of a set of common guidelines. This analysis is carried out through the systematic study of seven standards and by answering nine questions ranging from generic ones, such as “what is the concept of double materiality?”, to more technical questions like “does the standard identify thresholds?”, but adding original prospects such as “does the standard refer to different types of capital?”. Findings highlight that EFRAG, UNI 11919-1:2023, and GRI represent the most complete and least-discretionary standards, but some methodological aspects need to be enhanced. In the double materiality assessment, companies must identify key stakeholders, material topics and material risks, and must develop the double materiality matrix, promoting transparent disclosure, continuous monitoring, and stakeholders’ engagement. While comparability is principally required among companies operating within the same sector and of similar size, this does not preclude the possibility of comparing firms across different sectors with respect to specific indicators, when appropriate or necessary.

Keywords: corporate sustainability disclosure; corporate sustainability reporting directive (CSRD); double materiality assessment; European sustainability reporting standards (ESRS) (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6518/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/14/6518/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:14:p:6518-:d:1702951

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().