Integrated Reporting and Materiality Process Disclosure in European Sustainability Oriented Companies

  • Tiziana De Cristofaro
  • Carmela GulluscioEmail author
Part of the CSR, Sustainability, Ethics & Governance book series (CSEG)


Even though materiality is a critical principle in a context of companies increasingly embracing Integrated Reporting (IR), the link between companies’ IR orientation and their disclosure about their materiality determination process (MDP) is still under-investigated. Starting from this consideration, the chapter contributes to the empirical branch of IR research focusing on materiality in IR contexts. This study aims to verify to what extent companies’ IR orientation is associated with their attitude toward disclosing information about their MDP. To this aim, we analysed websites and reports of 108 European top companies included in the 2016 RobecoSAM Sustainability Yearbook. After the selection of two sets of predictors—i.e. regarding respectively IR orientation and MDP disclosure—the z-scores of the extracted principal components for each set were tested with Chi Square and Cramer’s V associations. Although the analysis returned interesting results for IR (e.g. the prominence of sustainability-based reporting) and MDP (e.g. generalised lack of materiality in tables of contents) as well as on variables not associated, the most striking result is the unexpected very weak connection between IR orientation and MDP disclosure attitude. Both these results and the study’s limitations suggest further research on the evolution of the link addressed.



Tiziana De Cristofaro wrote Sects. 14.1, 14.2.2, 14.3, 14.4.2, 14.5.2, 14.5.3 and 14.6 and Carmela Gulluscio wrote Sects. 14.2.1, 14.4.1, 14.5.1 and the introduction to Sects. 14.2 and 14.5. The authors are grateful to Eugenia Nissi, associate professor of statistics at the University of Chieti-Pescara (Italy), for her support with the statistical analysis.


  1. AccountAbility. (2006). Guidance note on the principles of materiality, completeness and responsiveness as they relate to the AA1000 assurance standard. Retrieved from
  2. AccountAbility. (2008a). AA1000 Accountability principles standard 2008. Retrived from Google Scholar
  3. AccountAbility. (2008b, October 24). Introduction to the revised AA1000 assurance standard and the AA1000 AccountAbility principles standard 2008. London: AccountAbility.Google Scholar
  4. Adams, C. A. (2013, March 25). Materiality: Financial reporting, sustainability reporting and integrated reporting.
  5. Black Sun & the International Integrated Reporting Council. (2014). Realizing the benefits: The impact of integrated reporting. Retrieved from
  6. Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Busco, C., Frigo, M., Quattrone, P., & Riccaboni, A. (2013). Towards integrated reporting: Concepts, elements and principles. In C. Busco, M. L. Frigo, A. Riccaboni, & P. Quattrone (Eds.), Integrated reporting. Concepts and cases that redefine corporate accountability (pp. 3–18). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Levialdi, N., & Menichini, T. (2016). A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121, 248–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chong, H. G. (2015). A review on the evolution of the definitions of materiality. International Journal of Economics and Accounting, 6(1), 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Druckman, P. (2016). Foreword. In C. Mio (Ed.), Integrated reporting: A new accounting disclosure. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. (2010). One report: Integrated reporting for a sustainable strategy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Eccles, R. G., & Krzus, M. P. with Ribot, S. (2015). The integrated reporting movement. Meaning, momentum, motives, and materiality. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ.Google Scholar
  13. Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., & Watson, L. A. (2012a). Integrated reporting requires integrated assurance. Q Finance. Retrived from
  14. Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., Rogers, J., & Serafeim, G. (2012b). The need for sector-specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 24(2), 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EC-European Commission. (2017, June 26). Communication from the commission. Guidelines on non-financial reporting (methodology for reporting non-financial information). Available at
  16. Edgley, C. (2014). A genealogy of accounting materiality. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(3), 255–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ernst & Young. (2013). The concept of ‘materiality’ in integrated reporting. Integrated reporting update. Retrived from
  18. Fasan, M. (2013). Annual reports, sustainability reports and integrated reports: Trends in corporate disclosure. In C. Busco, M. L. Frigo, A. Riccaboni, & P. Quattrone (Eds.), Integrated reporting. Concepts and cases that redefine corporate accountability (pp. 41–57). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. FASB. (1975, March). Discussion memorandum: An analysis of issues related to criteria for determining materiality. Stamford, CT: FASB.Google Scholar
  20. Forstater, M., Zadek, S., Evans, D., Knight, A., Sillanpää, M., Tuppen, C., & Warris, A. M. (2006). The materiality report. Aligning strategy, performance and reporting. London: AccountAbility.Google Scholar
  21. Frías-Aceituno, J. V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & García-Sánchez, I. M. (2013a). Is integrated reporting determined by a country’s legal system? An exploratory study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 44, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frías-Aceituno, J. V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Garcia-Sánchez, I. M. (2013b). The role of the board in the dissemination of integrated corporate social reporting. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 20(4), 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frías-Aceituno, J. V., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Garcia-Sánchez, I. M. (2014). Explanatory factors of integrated sustainability and financial reporting. Business Strategy and the Environment, 23(1), 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. García-Sánchez, I. M., Rodríguez-Ariza, L., & Frías-Aceituno, J. V. (2013). The cultural system and integrated reporting. International Business Review, 22(5), 828–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gelmini, L., Bavagnoli, F., Comoli, M., & Riva, P. (2015). Waiting for materiality in the context of integrated reporting: Theoretical challenges and preliminary empirical findings. In L. Songini & A. Pistoni (Eds.), Sustainability disclosure: State of the art and new directions (pp. 135–163). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. GRI. (2006). G3 sustainability reporting guidelines. Retrived from
  27. GRI. (2011). G3.1 sustainability reporting guidelines. Retrived from
  28. GRI. (2013a). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines—Reporting principles and standard disclosures. Retrived from
  29. GRI. (2013b). G4 sustainability reporting guidelines—Implementation manual. Retrived from
  30. GRI. (2016a). Defining what matters do companies and investors agree on what is material? Retrived from
  31. GRI. (2016b). GRI sustainability reporting standards. Retrived from
  32. Havlováa, K. (2015). What integrated reporting changed: The case study of early adopters. Procedia Economics and Finance, 34, 231–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hespenheide, E. J., & Koehler, D. A. (2013, July 18). Disclosure of long-term business value. What matters? Deloitte University Press. Retrived from
  34. Hsu, C. W., Lee, W. H., & Chao, W. C. (2013). Materiality analysis model in sustainability reporting: A case study at Lite-On technology corporation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 142–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. IFAC. (2015, November). Materiality in <IR>. Guidance for the preparation of integrated reports. New York, IIRC.Google Scholar
  36. IIRC. (2013a, March). Materiality. Background paper for <IR>. New York: IIRC. Retrived from
  37. IIRC. (2013b, April). Consultation draft of the international framework. New York: IIRC. Retrived from
  38. IIRC. (2013c, December). The international <IR> framework. New York: IIRC. Retrived from
  39. Jensen, J., & Berg, N. (2012). Determinants of traditional sustainability reporting versus integrated reporting. An institutionalist approach. Business Strategy and the Environment, 21(5), 299–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. KPMG. (2014, September). Bridging the gap between integrated and GRI G4 reporting. Retrived from
  41. Krzus, M. P. (2011). Integrated reporting: If not now, when? Zeitschrift für Internationale Rechnungslegung, 6, 271–276.Google Scholar
  42. Lai, A., Melloni, G., & Stacchezzini, R. (2016). Corporate sustainable development: Is ‘integrated reporting’ a legitimation strategy? Business Strategy and the Environment, 25(3), 166–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lydenberg, S. (2012). On materiality and sustainability: The value of disclosure in the capital markets. Initiative for Responsible Investment Hauser Center for Non-profit Organizations at Harvard University. Retrived from
  44. Messier Jr., W. F., Martinov-Bennie, N., & Eilifsen, A. (2005). A review and integration of empirical research on materiality: Two decades later. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 24(2), 153–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mio, C. (2013). Materiality and assurance: Building the link. In C. Busco, M. L. Frigo, A. Riccaboni, & P. Quattrone (Eds.), Integrated reporting: Concepts and cases that redefine corporate accountability (pp. 79–94). Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mio, C., & Fasan, M. (2013). Materiality from financial towards non-financial reporting (Working paper series no. 19). Venice: Università Ca’ Foscari.Google Scholar
  47. Mio, C., & Fasan, M. (2014). The determinants of materiality disclosure in integrated corporate reporting (Working paper no. 9/2014). Venice: Ca’ Foscari University of Venice.
  48. Moroney, R., & Trotman, K. T. (2012). Differences in auditors’ materiality assessments when auditing financial and nonfinancial reports (Working paper). Monash University.Google Scholar
  49. Murninghan, M. (2013). In T. Grant (Ed.), Redefining materiality II: Why it matters, who’s involved, and what it means for corporate leaders and boards. London: AccountAbility.Google Scholar
  50. Paternostro, S. (2013). The connectivity of information for the integrated reporting. In C. Busco, M. L. Frigo, A. Riccaboni, & P. Quattrone (Eds.), Integrated reporting. Concepts and cases that redefine corporate accountability (pp. 59–77). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Paternostro, S., & Quarchioni, S. (2013). Il percorso verso il report integrato. Tre prospettive a confronto. Rome: Aracne.Google Scholar
  52. RobecoSAM & Global Reporting Initiative. (2015). Defining materiality: What matters to reporters and investors. Do investors and reporters agree on what’s material in the technology hardware & equipment and banks & diverse financials sectors? Retrived from
  53. SASB-Sustainability Accounting Standards Board. (2013). Conceptual framework. Retrived from Google Scholar
  54. Sierra-García, L., Zorio-Grima, A., & García-Benau, M. A. (2015). Stakeholder engagement, corporate social responsibility and integrated reporting: An exploratory study. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 22(5), 286–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thurm, R., & De Ruiter, N. (2014). The sudden materiality shock. Retrieved from
  56. Turcu, R. D. (2015). Integrated reporting: The next step ahead for a sustainable society. European Journal of Business Science and Technology, 1(1), 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. UNCTD-United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Guidance on Corporate Responsibility Indicators in Annual Reports. (2008). Retrived from
  58. Unerman, J., & Zappettini, F. (2014). Incorporating materiality considerations into analyses of absence from sustainability reporting. Social and Environmental Accountability Journal, 34(3), 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wee, M., Tarca, A., Krug, L., Aerts, W., Pink, P., & Tilling, M. (2016). Factors affecting preparers’ and auditors’ judgements about materiality and conciseness in integrated reporting. Retrieved from
  60. Zadek, S., & Merme, M. (2003). Redefining materiality. London: AccountAbility. Retrieved from
  61. Zadek, S., Tuppen, C., & Evans, D. (2006). The materiality report. Aligning strategy, performance and reporting. A briefing. London: AccountAbility.Google Scholar
  62. Zhou, Y., & Lamberton, G. (2011, November 1–30). Stakeholder diversity versus stakeholder general views: A theoretical gap. In Sustainability materiality conception, 1st world sustainability forum proceedings. Basel: MDPI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-PescaraChietiItaly
  2. 2.Unitelma Sapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations