ESG Reporting
Double Materiality: The Point Where ESG Becomes a Finance Question
In most companies you can draw a line straight down the middle of the building.
On one side, the sustainability team collects environmental and social data, prepares disclosures and coordinates initiatives. On the other, Finance works on budgets, forecasts, costs, investments and financial performance. The two sides exchange a spreadsheet once a year, usually in a hurry, usually in the weeks before the annual report closes.
That line is becoming very difficult to hold.
Sustainability reporting is no longer asking which topics matter. It is asking what they are likely to cost.
As reporting moves towards sustainability-related risks, opportunities and financial effects, knowing which ESG topics matter to stakeholders is only half an answer. Companies also need to understand how those topics could affect the business financially: which line items, over what horizon, and how much.
A well-designed double materiality assessment is the most practical place to start, because it is the one exercise that already has both halves of the question built into it.
Beyond the materiality matrix
Materiality assessments have been part of sustainability reporting for years. Stakeholders rate the importance of topics such as climate change, employee welfare, cybersecurity, waste, responsible sourcing and community investment. Management runs a parallel assessment. The results land on a matrix, and the matrix goes in the report.
That exercise still has value. It simply answers a narrower question than the one companies are now being asked.
Double materiality widens the lens by looking from two directions at once: how significantly the company affects people, the environment and wider society; and how sustainability-related matters could affect the company’s financial position, financial performance and future prospects.
At a Glance
The Two Lenses of Double Materiality
The Company
Strategy, operations, value chain, financial position and long-term prospects
Impact Materiality
How the company affects people, communities, the environment and the wider economy
Financial Materiality
How sustainability matters affect financial performance, cash flows and enterprise value
People, Environment & Economy
Employees, customers, suppliers, communities, regulators, investors and natural resources
A topic is material when it is significant from either perspective; many sustainability matters count through both.
The second lens is the one that changes the room.
A topic is no longer significant merely because stakeholders say it is. Management starts asking a different question: what could this mean financially for the business?
And that question cannot be answered by the sustainability team alone.
The questions only Finance can answer
Finance teams hold information sustainability teams typically do not: revenue, operating costs, capital expenditure, assets, insurance, financing, margins and cash flow. They know how the company plans and budgets. Most importantly, they know how this company decides that something is financially significant.
That expertise makes a materiality assessment considerably more useful, and using it does not require turning accountants into ESG specialists. It requires asking them questions that already sit inside their day job.
What to Ask Finance
Revenue
Could this risk affect revenue?
Operating expenditure
Could it increase operating costs?
Capital expenditure
Could it require additional investment?
Assets and financing
Could it affect an asset, insurance cost or financing requirement?
Significance
How large could the financial effect become?
Time horizon
Over what period might it occur?
Precise values are not the price of entry. Where numbers do not yet exist, Finance can still set reasonable ranges, classify significance or place a risk in a band. That alone starts converting sustainability risks from statements into business issues.
From “climate change is a risk” to knowing what it means
The difference between a conventional assessment and a financially informed one is easiest to see side by side.
A Conventional Assessment Concludes
Climate change is a material topic, because stakeholders, management and regulators consider it important.
A Financially Informed Assessment Asks
Which operations are exposed to physical climate risk? Could severe weather halt production or disrupt suppliers? Could energy prices, carbon policy or new customer requirements raise operating costs? Could resilience or efficiency investment be required, and when?
Finance does not need to forecast every figure to make this worthwhile. The first move is simply establishing where a financial effect could arise and whether it could become significant. Everything more sophisticated is built on that foundation.
The same thinking travels well across other topics.
Sustainability Issue
Where the Financial Effect Shows Up
Cybersecurity
Lost revenue, recovery costs, capital investment in systems
Labour shortages
Recruitment costs, productivity, operating capacity
Supply chain disruption
Procurement costs, production interruption
Water constraints
Operating expenditure, production capacity, future capital expenditure
Climate transition
Energy costs, carbon policy exposure, resilience and efficiency capex
Read this way, ESG stops being a parallel workstream and starts connecting to how the business already manages risk and makes decisions.
A head start on IFRS S1, with one important caveat
This matters more every year, as Malaysian companies work through the National Sustainability Reporting Framework towards disclosures aligned with the IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards.
IFRS S1 concerns sustainability-related risks and opportunities that could reasonably be expected to affect a company’s cash flows, access to finance or cost of capital over the short, medium or long term. It also asks companies to explain how they identify, assess, prioritise and monitor them.
Worth Being Clear About
IFRS S1 does not require a double materiality assessment.
Its focus is financial materiality and the information needs of investors, lenders and other providers of capital.
The caveat matters, and so does what follows it.
A strong double materiality process gives a company a considerable head start anyway. If it already identifies sustainability-related risks and opportunities, weighs their significance, involves the right functions and begins testing financial implications, then much of the thinking behind future sustainability-related financial disclosure is already under way.
The company is not starting from a blank sheet of paper. That is worth a great deal in the first reporting year.
You do not need perfect numbers to begin
The most common reason companies stall is the belief that every sustainability risk must arrive fully quantified.
That is rarely realistic. Some financial effects can be estimated well. Others depend on assumptions, future events and data nobody has collected yet. Waiting for certainty means waiting indefinitely.
The workable approach is progressive.
Step 1
Locate the effect
Determine which financial areas a risk could touch, and classify how significant it might become.
Step 2
Estimate where you can
Where the information supports it, Finance produces monetary values or reasonable ranges.
Step 3
Refine each cycle
Assessments sharpen as data quality, systems and experience improve over successive reporting years.
This is also the direction sustainability-related financial reporting itself is taking, which treats qualitative and quantitative information as complementary when explaining current and anticipated financial effects.
The important step is making the connection at all.
A management tool, not a reporting task
Done properly, this stops being a reporting exercise.
The process connects Sustainability with Finance, Risk Management, Operations, Human Resources and Procurement. It helps management separate issues that are primarily impacts from those that could develop into significant business risks or opportunities. And it gives a structured basis for deciding what deserves deeper work:
- › A climate-related risk may warrant scenario analysis.
- › A supply chain issue may call for greater supplier due diligence.
- › A workforce risk may need better retention data.
- › A potentially significant exposure may belong in the corporate risk register, or on Finance’s desk for closer investigation.
The assessment becomes a starting point rather than an endpoint.
The advantage is timing
The strongest argument for doing this early has nothing to do with best practice. It is arithmetic.
Companies that wait until sustainability-related financial information is required in their annual reporting tend to discover, at the worst possible moment, that the information does not exist. Finance has not assessed the potential effects. Risk Management has not classified the issues. Operations never collected the supporting data. The sustainability team is left reconstructing a year that has already happened, against a deadline.
An earlier assessment starts those conversations while there is still time to fix the underlying processes. It gives Finance an accessible way into sustainability, gives the sustainability team a clearer sense of financial significance, and gives management a defensible view of which issues genuinely deserve attention.
For companies preparing for the next stage of sustainability reporting, that is worth considerably more than another matrix.
Double materiality should not be treated as another ESG reporting exercise. Used properly, it is the point at which sustainability starts becoming part of financial and business decision-making.
Ace CSR supports Malaysian companies with double materiality assessments, IFRS S1 and S2 advisory, sustainability and climate risk identification, climate scenario analysis and sustainability reporting.
Explore More
Ready to connect sustainability with financial decision-making?