Navigating the academic debate on materiality in sustainability reporting: framing and future research directions

Few concepts in sustainability reporting ^[1] are as pervasive – and yet as contested – as that of materiality. Originating in the field of financial reporting, materiality acts as a filter to determine which information is relevant, significant and, therefore, necessary to disclose (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014). Since the 2000s, sustainability reporting standards and guidelines have progressively incorporated materiality as a foundational principle of disclosure, such that today almost all large international companies (G250) conduct a materiality assessment as part of their sustainability reports (KPMG, 2024).

Despite such diffusion and relevance, materiality remains an ambiguous and contested concept – defined differently by standard setters, interpreted selectively and sometimes strategically by preparers and applied inconsistently across organisations. This generates a paradox: a principle designed to guarantee accountability and transparency of information may itself become a source of opacity, contestation and symbolic compliance (Correa-Mejía et al., 2024; Farooq and de Villiers, 2019).

Difficulties surrounding materiality stem, first, from the absence of a shared definition and from the coexistence of multiple and sometimes conflicting purposes embedded within the concept (Wang et al., 2025). Over the past two decades, different standard setters have advanced alternative definitions reflecting distinct audiences and institutional logics, fuelling institutional fragmentation and regulatory complexity. Impact materiality, promoted by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), focuses on the organisation’s external environmental and social impacts. Financial materiality, embraced by bodies such as the IFRS Foundation, privileges information relevant to investors that affects the firm’s financial performance. Finally, double materiality, introduced by the European Commission and codified in the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), integrates both impact and financial perspectives.

Beyond the challenges arising from the coexistence of multiple conceptualisations, materiality is also characterised as being a socially constructed concept, whose meaning and practice are continuously shaped and redefined within specific organisational and institutional contexts (Lai et al., 2017). This socially constructed nature amplifies the challenges surrounding its application, as implementing and disclosing materiality are not merely matters of technical alignment with reporting standards but rather involve a highly interpretive and subjective process through which internal and external actors negotiate what counts as relevant (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014; Puroila and Mäkelä, 2019). Consequently, the negotiated and context-dependent nature of materiality makes it particularly difficult to understand and operationalise materiality in practice and to transparently disclose it within sustainability reports.

The ambiguity and practical relevance of materiality have made it a central topic in the academic debate on accounting and sustainability reporting. Over the past decade, the research corpus has expanded substantially, producing a vast yet fragmented body of studies. Some contributions have questioned the conceptualisation of materiality and its theoretical underpinnings (Edgley et al., 2015; Abhayawansa, 2022); others have shed light on the role of standard setters and regulators in shaping, and reshaping, its meaning and practical implementation (Baumüller and Sopp, 2022; Carungu et al., 2025a); others have observed how, from a practical standpoint, materiality often remains a formal rather than substantive exercise, with reporting practices frequently anchored in strategic and legitimising logics rather than aimed at accountability and transparency (Guix et al., 2019; Lakshan et al., 2022; Dragomir et al., 2025).

The growing academic interest in materiality has also stimulated three literature reviews analysing the materiality concept. Fiandrino et al. (2022) provide the first comprehensive systematic literature review on sustainability materiality, mapping its theoretical foundations, research methods and academic themes. Huq and Mohammadrezaei (2024) extend this work by focusing on how materiality is measured – distinguishing between ex ante and ex post approaches – and discussing material disclosures’ determinants and consequences. More recently, Oll et al. (2025) review and analyse materiality conceptualisations in the non-financial domain to distinguish between conceptual confusion and essential contestation.

Nevertheless, despite these valuable contributions, existing reviews have focused on thematical (Fiandrino et al., 2022), methodological (Huq and Mohammadrezaei, 2024) and conceptual (Oll et al., 2025) aspects in isolation. To fill this gap, this study provides a longitudinal analysis of the evolution of the academic debate by jointly examining the development of research topics – including methodological aspects, determinants and effects – and different materiality perspectives over time. By reconstructing how the research on materiality perspectives and topics has jointly evolved, this study allows identifying relevant phases of the academic debate on materiality, offering a new comprehensive picture of the state of the art, key critiques and potential future research avenues.

Following the structured literature review (SLR) methodology proposed by Massaro et al. (2016), this study addresses three main research questions:

To address these questions, the review is based on an original analytical framework that combines descriptive dimensions (publication year, journal, ranking and field, geographical context, research method and data collection technique and theoretical background), with the different materiality perspectives adopted in the literature (impact, financial, double, single, impact vs financial and double vs single) and the research topics investigated (conceptualisation, regulation, stakeholder engagement, implementation, disclosure and determinants/effects). Moreover, materiality perspectives and research topics were cross-tabulated to map what aspects of materiality have been investigated, but also to examine how these aspects have been framed within an alternative perspective of materiality. This intersectional analysis is complemented by a time-based reading of the literature, which allows the evolution of the academic debate to be examined and to identify the main phases of its development.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the institutional background of materiality; Section 3 describes the research methodology; Section 4 presents the review insights and critiques; Section 5 outlines future research directions, while Section 6 concludes the review.

Materiality is a multifaceted and evolving concept that shapes corporate reporting (Bernstein, 1967; Messier et al., 2005). The origins of the concept are traditionally traced back to financial reporting, where “[a]n item should be regarded as material if there is reason to believe that knowledge of it would influence the decisions of an informed investor” (AAA (American Accounting Association), 1957, p. 8). Following the emergence of sustainability reporting, the concept has progressively expanded and adapted to encompass environmental, social and governance issues. In this broader context, materiality is often described as a filter that determines which information is relevant and, therefore, should be disclosed, and which is not (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014). However, in the sustainability context, the concept presents greater complexity (Lai et al., 2017). While the general purpose of materiality remains consistent – to determine which information should be disclosed in sustainability reporting – over time, standard setters and regulators have adopted different materiality perspectives. These perspectives differ in terms of the underlying logics, the intended users of the information and the processes used to identify material issues (Fiandrino et al., 2022; Lai et al., 2017). As a result, materiality has become a contested and complex notion, characterised by ambiguity in both its conceptualisation and practical application (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014; Edgley et al., 2015; Puroila and Mäkelä, 2019).

To frame the evolution of research on materiality in sustainability reporting, it is therefore necessary to trace its development as articulated by key standard setters that have shaped the discourse on this topic and influenced how materiality is conceptualised and implemented in practice. Accordingly, this section outlines the contributions of the main institutions that have played a central role in defining and operationalising materiality, namely the GRI, the International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC), the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB), the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG) and the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) established by the IFRS Foundation. Table 1 summarises the most recent definitions of materiality provided by the above-mentioned entities.

GRI was the first to introduce the concept of materiality in its sustainability guidelines and standards (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014). The perspective adopted by GRI is evident in the organisation’s mission statement: “helping organisations be transparent and take responsibility for their impacts, thereby supporting the creation of a sustainable future”. In line with this mission, the GRI has traditionally adopted the so-called “impact materiality approach”, according to which a sustainability issue is material if it has a significant impact on the economy, environment or society (Cooper and Michelon, 2022; GRI, 2021). This materiality approach, which follows an inside-out perspective, focuses on the information needs of a broad range of stakeholders to ensure comprehensive and transparent disclosures (de Villiers et al., 2022).

Although materiality was introduced in the 2006 GRI G3 Guidelines, a significant turning point occurred with the 2011 GRI G3.1 Guidelines, which were the first to emphasise materiality as a fundamental principle focusing on the quality rather than the quantity of information disclosed (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014). As the adoption of sustainability reports expanded and GRI established itself as the leading reporting framework (KPMG, 2013), various standard-setting entities, such as the IIRC and SASB, began to gain prominence by providing standards that embraced a “contrasting” perspective: financial materiality (Perera-Aldama, 2023).

The IR Framework, developed by the IIRC, provides a comprehensive set of principles to assist organisations in preparing an integrated report. The primary objective of an integrated report is to explain to providers of financial capital how an organisation creates value over time, offering a single, concise document that consolidates financial and sustainability information (Lakshan et al., 2022). According to the framework, a matter is material if it “substantively affects the organisation’s ability to create value over the short, medium and long term” (IIRC, 2021, p. 29). The SASB Standards, first published in 2017, support organisations in providing industry-specific reports on material sustainability-related risks and opportunities that are “reasonably likely to have material impacts on the financial condition or operating performance of companies in an industry” (SASB, 2017, p. 9). In response to the emergence of other standard setters, the GRI first released the updated G4 Guidelines and, in 2016, introduced the first sustainability reporting standards, replacing the previous guidelines. These standards reaffirmed the importance of materiality as a guiding principle in reporting and reinforced the GRI’s commitment to the impact materiality perspective (Zharfpeykan and Akroyd, 2023).

Meanwhile, in Europe, the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (NFRD) was enacted, requiring large listed companies to disclose information “to the extent necessary for an understanding of the undertaking’s development, performance, position and impact of its activity, relating to, at a minimum, environmental, social, and employee matters, respect for human rights, and anti-corruption and bribery matters” (European Parliament and Council, 2014). However, the directive did not explicitly define materiality, nor did it explicitly embrace a specific materiality perspective. Consequently, when searching for a definition, prior regulation had to be considered (Raith, 2023). It was only in 2019 that the European Commission’s non-binding guidance clarified that the Non-Financial Reporting Directive embraces a double materiality perspective – requiring the joint consideration of impact and financial materiality (Baumüller and Sopp, 2022). Nevertheless, since the NFRD neither introduced binding reporting standards nor mandated the application of double materiality, most European companies continued to rely on the GRI Standards, reinforcing the predominance of the impact materiality approach (de Villiers et al., 2022). The NFRD soon proved inadequate for achieving the EU’s sustainability objectives (European Parliament and Council, 2022; Directive Consideration 13). In 2021, the European Commission proposed the CSRD, formally adopted in 2022, which explicitly established double materiality as the cornerstone of European sustainability reporting (Correa-Mejía et al., 2024).

In recent years, several key institutional developments have further reshaped the global sustainability reporting landscape. In 2021, the IIRC and SASB merged to form the Value Reporting Foundation, which was subsequently consolidated into the IFRS Foundation in 2022 (IFRS Foundation, 2023). Following this restructuring, the ISSB was established as the IFRS Foundation’s sustainability standard-setter. In 2023, the ISSB issued its inaugural IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards (IFRS S1 and S2). These standards adopt a financial materiality perspective specifically oriented toward investors and capital markets (ISSB, 2023).

In parallel, after the CSRD’s adoption, the European Union pursued an ambitious regulatory agenda to ensure that companies would be ready for the first reporting cycle in 2025. In 2023, it released the first set of European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), and throughout 2024, several guidance documents were issued to support the consistent implementation of the Directive, including one specifically dedicated to double materiality assessment (EFRAG, 2023; EFRAG, 2024). However, in early 2025, as large listed European companies were adopting the CSRD for the first time, the European Commission introduced the Omnibus Package to simplify the regulatory framework and enhance interoperability among reporting standards, while also reigniting the debate surrounding the very meaning and necessity of double materiality (European Commission, 2025). In the meantime, the GRI continues to uphold its traditional impact materiality approach, remaining the most widely adopted sustainability reporting standard worldwide (KPMG, 2024).

After more than two decades of conceptual and regulatory evolution, it is clear that, despite growing institutional efforts, achieving a unique perspective on materiality remains challenging.

This SLR adopts the rigorous approach proposed by Massaro et al. (2016), which provides “a method for studying a corpus of scholarly literature to develop insights, critical reflections, future research paths, and research questions” (Massaro et al., 2016, p. 676). Following this rigorous approach, the review process was conducted through several sequential steps.

The first step involved defining the literature review protocol, which serves as a guide for developing a reliable and repeatable research framework that ensures the robustness of the SLR outcomes (Massaro et al., 2016). The protocol, based on the steps proposed by Massaro et al. (2016), establishes the research questions, the methods employed and the process for locating, appraising and synthesising prior research (Petticrew and Roberts, 2008). A graphical representation of the literature review protocol is illustrated in Figure 1, and its elements are further described in the following sub-paragraphs.

The second step required defining the research questions, which enabled the researcher to analyse the current state of knowledge and identify future research needs (Dixon-Woods, 2011). Drawing on Alvesson and Deetz (2000) and Massaro et al. (2016), three overarching research questions were formulated to explore the development (RQ1), insights and critiques (RQ2) and future directions (RQ3) for materiality research in sustainability reporting (see Section 1).

A well-defined search strategy was employed to ensure comprehensive coverage of the relevant literature. Hence, we first established the search perimeter by identifying sources, specifically journals ranked in the Academic Journal Guide (AJG) Ranking 2024 (Garanina et al., 2021). Using the Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus databases, scientific articles published in journals listed in the AJG 2024 Ranking were identified. The search included papers containing the word “materiality” in the title, abstract and/or keywords and at least one of the following sustainability-related terms in the abstract “sustainab*”, “ESG”, “environ*”, “social”, “integrat*”, “non*financial” together with at least one of the following disclosure-related terms: “report”, “disclos*”, “non*financial information”. The search was conducted in July 2025.

The search, limited to English-language articles, yielded a total of 558 articles – 270 from WOS and 288 from Scopus. After removing 197 duplicates, 361 unique articles remained. Of these, 116 papers were excluded because they were not published in journals included in the AJG ranking, leaving a total of 245 articles. A further screening of abstracts – and, where necessary, full texts – was conducted to assess alignment with the review’s objectives. This led to the exclusion of 164 articles: 158 papers mentioned materiality only in a generic sense (e.g. as “relevant information”) or in a marginal way, 4 were themselves literature reviews and 2 were unavailable in full text. The final data set comprises 81 articles, published between 2014 and 2025, which provide the empirical and conceptual foundation for this SLR. Notably, the year 2014 did not represent a predetermined starting point but rather emerged from the selection process. This outcome is consistent with the broader context, as 2013 marked the publication of both the GRI G4 guidelines and the IR Framework, which clearly amplified scholarly and practical interest in materiality within the realm of sustainability reporting. Portable Document Format (PDF) versions of all articles were downloaded and stored in the Zotero database with complete referencing details.

Citation analysis was conducted to assess the impact of each article, serving as a proxy for quality (Massaro et al., 2016). The analysis focused on the total number of citations to date (CI) and citations per year (CPY) (Florio, 2024; Massaro et al., 2016). To obtain these metrics, Harzing’s Publish or Perish software, based on Google Scholar data, was used as it offers comprehensive coverage, including citations from non-peer-reviewed sources (Dumay, 2014). As of September 2025, the 81 selected articles had been cited 7,348 times. Given that almost 50% of these papers were published in the last three years, the CPY metric provides a particularly insightful measure of their influence. The average CPY for the data set is 24.54. Notably, several high-CPY papers differ from those with the highest total citations, reflecting the rapidly growing importance of materiality research. Table 2 presents citation data for the top 10 articles.

The ten most cited articles show that the debate on materiality is wide-ranging, encompassing conceptual, financial, normative, methodological and socio-political perspectives. In particular, Grewal et al. (2021) is the most cited article with 430 citations, providing compelling evidence of the financial relevance of sustainability information by testing that reporting financially material information improves stock price informativeness. Close behind, Baumüller and Sopp (2022) are rapidly gaining influence with over 400 citations and the highest CPY in the data set (135.33), reflecting the growing interest in double materiality and its normative development in the European context. Torelli et al. (2020) also have a significant impact, particularly through their focus on the relationship between materiality assessments and stakeholder engagement, where they highlight how industries and accounting standards influence disclosure practices. Fasan and Mio (2017) contribute to this trend by examining the determinants of materiality disclosure and demonstrating the importance of management variables, such as board size and diversity. Calabrese et al. (2016) contribute to advances in the methodological discussion by introducing a hierarchical fuzzy analysis process to support structured assessments of materiality, which are particularly important for companies with limited resources, such as SMEs.

To conduct the SLR, it is necessary to define the units of analysis, i.e. the specific elements observed, measured and analysed (Krippendorff, 2013). These units are not predetermined but emerge from the critical analysis of articles and are shaped into an analytical framework (Krippendorff, 2013; Hart, 1998). To define the final analytical framework, we adopted five common research units (i.e. publication year; journal, ranking and research field; geographical location; research method and data collection technique; and theoretical background) used in previous SLRs (Massaro et al., 2016), to which we added three further literature-specific units that were inductively identified during the analysis (i.e. materiality perspective; research topic; and phase of the academic debate). In particular, in the initial phase, two authors read abstracts and full texts of a sample of papers, identifying preliminary units and making preliminary classifications that were discussed among the researchers until an agreement was reached (Broadbent and Guthrie, 2008). The complete coding of the articles was finally performed by a single author, who consistently applied the jointly defined criteria to the entire set of papers included in the review (Kotb et al., 2020).

The resulting analytical framework therefore comprises eight units:

1. publication year;

2. journal, ranking and research field;

3. geographical location;

4. research method and data collection technique;

5. theoretical background;

6. materiality perspective;

7. research topic; and

8. phase of the academic debate.

The first unit focuses on the publication year, allowing us to analyse the temporal evolution of the literature. The second criterion concerns journal analysis, examining the outlets in which the papers were published to assess the prominence and distribution of materiality research across academic venues, as well as the research field to which each paper belongs, following the classification provided by the AJG Ranking (2024). The third unit explored the geographical context, providing insights into regional variations and the global scope of materiality research. Next, the research method and data collection technique employed in the studies were analysed to reveal the diversity of research approaches. Then, the theoretical background of the studies was reviewed, offering an understanding of how various frameworks underpin the investigation of materiality. The materiality perspective unit was applied to classify the articles according to the specific perspective of materiality they adopt. We identified six main categories according to how authors categorise (or not) materiality:

1. impact materiality, including articles focused on impact materiality, drawing based on the definition provided by the GRI Standards;

2. financial materiality, including articles adopting the financial materiality perspective, based on definitions proposed by SASB, IIRC or ISSB;

3. impact vs financial materiality, including articles analysing both the impact and financial perspectives;

4. double materiality, including articles focused on the concept of double materiality as defined by the European Commission;

5. single vs double materiality, including articles investigating the difference between single materiality (impact or financial approach) and double materiality; and

6. uncategorised materiality, including studies discussing materiality in sustainability reporting without categorising it within any specific reporting guidelines, framework or standards (e.g. GRI standards, IR Framework, ESRSs) or clearly adopting any specific materiality perspective (e.g. impact, financial, double).

The seventh unit was the research topic. Each topic represents a distinct yet interconnected stream of inquiry, reflecting both the contested nature of materiality and the fragmented ways in which scholarship has advanced. Six topics were inductively identified:

1. understanding and conceptualising materiality;

2. regulation of the materiality concept;

3. role of stakeholders;

4. implementation of the materiality concept;

5. disclosure of the materiality process and material issues; and

6. determinants and effects of materiality disclosure and implementation.

All the papers were allocated to the main area they addressed. Finally, the phase of the academic debate unit provides an interpretative, time-based lens through which the development of the literature can be analysed. Specifically, by considering the publication years, phases were developed inductively by cross-tabulating two units: materiality perspectives and research topics (Figure 2).

This approach allowed us to observe how different perspectives on materiality have been associated with specific areas of inquiry and how these relationships have evolved over time. Furthermore, the identification of phases of the academic debate was interpreted in light of major regulatory and standard-setting developments, which have progressively shaped both the meaning and the practical relevance of materiality. Three distinct phases were identified: “emergence”, “consolidation” and “rethinking”, interpreted in light of major regulatory and standard-setting developments that have progressively shaped both the meaning and the practical relevance of materiality.

The coding framework was developed iteratively through an initial pilot phase on a subset of articles, during which coding and framework refinement occurred simultaneously through repeated engagement with the data and discussion among the authors. In this phase, two authors independently coded the same subset of articles, allowing alignment on definitions and coding criteria before proceeding with the full analysis. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved through consensus, ensuring that data “mean the same thing for everyone who uses them” (Krippendorff, 2013, p. 267). The full coding of the data set was subsequently carried out by one author, applying the agreed framework consistently across all articles.

This iterative validation process is consistent with prior SLRs and was considered appropriate to ensure reliability without relying on formal inter-coder reliability measures (Dal Mas et al., 2019; Florio, 2024; Massaro et al., 2016; Tsalavoutas et al., 2020). Manual coding was employed to ensure that terms were “understood in their true sense and coded accordingly” (Guthrie et al., 2012, p. 71). Data were organised into an Excel spreadsheet, which was also used to generate tables and graphs for analysis.

Validity was tested at multiple levels. Internal validity was addressed through pilot testing, whereby a subset of articles was classified before applying the framework to the full set of papers (Broadbent and Guthrie, 2008). External validity was ensured by including all journals listed in the AJG ranking and cross-checking completeness through WOS and Scopus (Florio, 2024). Construct validity was assessed using citation analysis (CI and CPY metrics) as proxies for quality, consistent with prior research (Garfield, 1964; Guthrie and Parker, 2011).

This section explores the body of literature on materiality based on the 81 articles selected for this SLR and addresses the first two research questions: “How is research for materiality in sustainability reporting developing?” and “What are the main focus areas and critiques within the literature?”. The analysis highlights key aspects of the existing literature, guided by the criteria established in the analytical framework (see Section 3.5).

The number of publications focusing on materiality has increased significantly over the past decade, reflecting a growing academic interest in the subject (Figure 3).

During the first five years, the number of publications remained relatively low, not exceeding three per year. A first peak can be observed in 2019, followed by two years (2020–2021) in which the number of publications declined compared to 2019 but remained higher than in the initial period. This pattern may reflect the surge in academic attention driven by the introduction and revision of key sustainability reporting standards and frameworks in the preceding years (e.g. GRI Standards 2016; SASB Standards 2017). The subsequent slight decline may also be partially explained by the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have temporarily slowed publication processes. This upward trend has accelerated notably since 2022, where the highest peak is to be identified, likely reflecting renewed academic attention following major regulatory developments (e.g. GRI Standards 2021, International <IR> Framework 2021, the introduction of double materiality in the European context in the 2019 non-binding guidelines, followed by the CSRD proposal in 2021). The number of publications is expected to grow further, as, although data for 2025 cover only the first half of the year, the number of publications already almost matches previous peak years.

Table 3 presents the distribution of the 81 articles across journals, AJG ranking and research fields. The accounting field clearly dominates, with 48 papers (59.26%), reflecting how the debate on materiality has largely been anchored within accounting scholarship. Within this group, Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy Journal (17.28%), Meditari Accountancy Research (8.64%) and Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal (7.41%) emerge as leading outlets.

Beyond accounting, journals in ethics, CSR and management account for 12 papers (14.81%), with Management Decision as the leading outlet. Journals in regional studies, planning and environment and in social sciences both contribute 6 articles each (7.41%), led respectively by Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management (6.17%) and Business Strategy and the Environment (7.41%). Sectoral journals, such as those in tourism and hospitality, account for 5 papers (6.17%), while finance (2.47%), innovation (1.23%) and international business (1.23%) are only marginally represented. This distribution reflects the fact that research on materiality has flourished primarily in outlets dedicated to accounting and sustainability, but it has also appeared in non-traditional outlets, demonstrating its interdisciplinary nature and relevance beyond the core accounting and sustainability domain. In terms of AJG rankings, the data set covers the full spectrum, from 1 to 4*. However, although the data set includes a few top-tier outlets, the majority of research on materiality has been published in mid-to-low-ranked journals. Only five papers (6.17%) appear in 4* or 4-ranked journals. Journals ranked at level 3 contribute more substantially, with 22 papers (27.16%).

Regarding geographical distributions, most papers focus on the European context, which accounts for 32.10% of the studies analysed (Table 4), confirming its central role in shaping the debate on materiality, particularly in light of regulatory developments such as the CSRD (Baumüller and Sopp, 2022).

A further 19 studies (23.46%) are classified as “World”, as they adopt a global or comparative perspective, frequently relying on cross-country data sets. Additional contributions are distributed across other regions. Oceania accounts for 6 papers (7.41%) and North America for 5 (6.17%), the latter predominantly focusing on financial materiality within the US context. Africa and Asia both contribute 4 studies (4.94%), with African research often linked to the IR framework, consistent with South Africa’s mandatory IR. Only one paper (1.23%) originates from South America, indicating a limited engagement with the topic in this region. Finally, 16 papers in this review do not specify a geographical focus, as they are predominantly conceptual contributions that do not include an empirical analysis.

The 81 papers in the review draw on a balanced use of qualitative and quantitative methods, with a predominance of content analysis data collection techniques across both categories, reflecting the centrality of disclosure-based evidence in the study of materiality (Table 5).

Qualitative methods slightly prevail (51.85%), with a strong reliance on archival analysis (14.81%), content analysis (8.64%), case studies (8.64%) and interviews (13.58%). A smaller number of studies combine multiple qualitative techniques (4.94%). Quantitative approaches account for 48.15% of the sample, dominated by content analysis (24.69%), as well as the use of databases (6.17%), experiments (3.70%) and multiple quantitative techniques (11.11%).

Table 6 illustrates the theoretical lens adopted in the literature. Institutional perspectives, taken together, make up 7.41% of the sample, including institutional creativity, logics, reality, isomorphism and broader institutional theory. Among these, some studies illustrate how different institutional logics influence materiality practices (Cerbone and Maroun, 2020; Lakshan et al., 2022). Legitimacy theory appears to be one of the most frequently used perspectives, accounting for 4.94% of studies. Based on Suchman’s (1995) conception, this theory explains how organisations adapt their practices to societal norms to maintain their legitimacy. Research by Herbert and Graham (2022), Maama et al. (2022) and Zharfpeykan and Akroyd (2023) illustrates how information about materiality is used strategically to meet external expectations and enhance credibility, with symbolic compliance often being preferred over substantive transparency.

Stakeholder theory, which was also used in 4.94% of the studies, emphasises the key role that stakeholder engagement plays in identifying relevant topics. The works of Farneti et al. (2019) and Pizzi et al. (2024b) illustrate how effective participation can increase the credibility of sustainability reports by tailoring information to stakeholder concerns, thereby enhancing organisational accountability.

Several articles use multiple theoretical perspectives (18.52%) and combine perspectives such as legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and signalling theory to capture the diverse nature of materiality practice. For example, Beske et al. (2020) analyse the interaction between societal expectations and stakeholder engagement, while Correa-Mejía et al. (2024) use both signalling theory and legitimacy theory to explain how information attracts investors interested in environmental, social and governance issues.

Other theories, which are less represented, provide valuable insights: critical dialogic accounting highlights the interpretive and participatory dimensions of materiality (Puroila and Mäkelä, 2019); Sensemaking theory serves to understand how practitioners construct meaning (Bolt and Tregidga, 2023); and signalling theory helps explain how information dissemination is used to attract or reassure specific target groups.

Finally, nearly half of the studies (46.91%) are not explicitly grounded in an established theoretical framework, indicating a still fragmented theoretical basis. This gap could present a challenge for the future to integrate theoretical perspectives in a more comprehensive manner.

Table 7 presents the distribution of the 81 articles according to the materiality perspective adopted. Analysing the literature from this angle allows us to understand how materiality – in its inherently contested and negotiated nature – has been studied by researchers through its multiple manifestations: impact, financial and double materiality. Alongside these three main perspectives, several studies have sought to adopt or jointly analyse multiple views, sometimes comparing them or highlighting the tensions that arise between them. Accordingly, two additional categories were identified: impact vs financial materiality and single (impact or financial) vs double materiality.

The analysis reveals that impact materiality (32.10%) and financial materiality (28.40%) dominate the literature, reflecting the influence of the GRI’s stakeholder-oriented approach and the investor-focused logic promoted by IIRC, SASB and, more recently, the ISSB. A smaller but emergent share of studies (16.05%) examines impact and financial materiality jointly, highlighting the increasing scholarly interest in comparing and reconciling these two perspectives. Research explicitly addressing double materiality accounts for 11.11% of the total, mirroring the recent attention generated by the European regulatory developments under the CSRD. A few recent studies (2.47%) investigate the relationship between single and double materiality, signalling that this emerging line of inquiry has potential to increase. Finally, a limited number of papers (9.88%) discuss what we labelled as uncategorised materiality, that is, they discuss materiality without reference to a specific framework or perspective.

The largest share of studies focuses on the determinants and effects of materiality disclosure and implementation (22.22%) and on implementation practices (20.99%), followed closely by research on disclosure of the materiality process and material issues (19.75%). Topics related to stakeholders (13.58%), regulation (12.35%) and conceptualisation (11.11%) are comparatively less represented (Table 8). The following sections provide a detailed discussion of each research topic.

Nine studies examine how materiality is understood and conceptualised in the context of non-financial reporting, across different materiality perspectives. This body of research highlights that materiality is a complex and evolving construct, shaped by multiple and at times conflicting, logics as well as by the involvement of diverse actors.

Early contributions, in the nascent stage of research, framed materiality primarily as a filter for disclosure – a principle guiding what information should be included or excluded in sustainability reporting. Yet, this principle soon appeared as an essentially contested concept, subject to negotiation between organisations and stakeholders and deeply influenced by power dynamics and competing frameworks (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014; Edgley et al., 2015). The presence of multiple standard setters (e.g. IFAC, GRI, AccountAbility) further reinforced these tensions, steering definitions towards stakeholder-oriented and performative logics (Edgley et al., 2015).

Subsequent studies have reopened this perspective by showing that materiality is not merely a technical filter but a socially constructed concept, strongly linked to the understanding of preparers, to the report recipients and to the regulatory frameworks that shape its definitions. Preparers, for example, interpret materiality in relation to the expectations of audiences (Dyczkowska and Fijałkowska, 2022), with managerial priorities often outweighing stakeholder influence (Aprile et al., 2023).

Other recent studies examine how fragmented definitions across frameworks fuel conceptual ambiguity. Divergent interpretations from different standard setters and initiatives create confusion and limit the implementation of materiality for report users (Jørgensen et al., 2022). In response, scholars call for clearer definitions and greater integration across approaches, with some even proposing alternative conceptualisations – such as “single materiality”, intended to overcome the limitations of both financial and double materiality (Abhayawansa, 2022).

More recent work further expands the perspective by portraying materiality as a boundary object, one that initially facilitated collaboration across otherwise disconnected communities but has increasingly become a source of division and contestation (Wang et al., 2025). This shift illustrates how the conceptualisation of materiality is not only the result of definitional struggles but also of evolving interactions among heterogeneous actors.

Ten studies address the regulation of materiality, analysing how the concept has been shaped by different jurisdictions and regulatory developments. This literature shows that the regulatory landscape is fragmented, evolving and marked by persistent conceptual ambiguities and political forces, which in turn create implementation challenges for reporting entities.

Three contributions concentrated on the GRI, one of the first organisations to embed impact materiality into sustainability reporting. Scholars underscore both the evolution and the internal inconsistencies of GRI frameworks (de Villiers et al., 2022; Perera-Aldama, 2023), while recognising its continuing role in promoting multi-stakeholder accountability despite growing institutional competition (de Villiers et al., 2022).

Within the European context, regulatory efforts have progressively evolved from the Non-Financial Reporting Directive (Raith, 2023) to the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (Baumüller and Sopp, 2022). While the NFRD allowed for competing interpretations of materiality, the CSRD explicitly institutionalises a double materiality perspective, aiming to clarify the concept but also creating practical challenges for companies adopting it.

Research focused on the IFRS Foundation has shed light on the tensions and disagreements among stakeholders during the drafting phase of IFRS sustainability standards. Hence, the consultation process, culminating in the 2023 IFRS Sustainability Standards, revealed persistent divergences between preparers, users and regulators regarding the most appropriate interpretation of materiality (Elkins et al., 2024; Millar and Slack, 2024). Ultimately, by reaffirming a financial materiality perspective, the IFRS approach diverges from both the EU’s double materiality model and the GRI’s stakeholder-oriented logic, leaving several conceptual “points of dissonance” unresolved (Millar and Slack, 2024).

Finally, some studies have focused on the interoperability attempts promoted by the regulators described above (Carungu et al., 2025a, 2025b). However, despite ongoing interoperability efforts, materiality remains a contested concept, shaped by institutional, political and normative tensions. The absence of a shared international definition reinforces this fragmentation, leaving reporting organisations to navigate competing expectations and unresolved ambiguities.

Seventeen studies investigate the implementation of materiality in practice. This body of work highlights how implementation is shaped by the inherent ambiguity of sustainability information, organisational expertise and resources, competing institutional logics and regulatory expectations.

Early research investigated how materiality is applied by auditors in the assurance of sustainability reports. The qualitative and subjective nature of non-financial data compelled auditors to rely on intuition and professional judgment (Canning et al., 2019), often adopting conservative thresholds (Moroney and Trotman, 2016) or linking judgments to the strategic relevance of information for the company (Green and Cheng, 2019).

Other studies have focused on the preparers. Studies show that implementation is often mediated by organisational expertise. Less experienced entities – such as SMEs or companies operating in certain sectors – tend to apply materiality superficially, with limited stakeholder engagement and weak connections to corporate strategy, resulting in opaque and vague processes (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019; Guix et al., 2019; Nada and Győri, 2024). As expertise enhances, practices typically evolve from informal assessments to more structured, stakeholder-driven processes embedded in planning and decision-making (Farooq and de Villiers, 2019). Nevertheless, even companies with advanced sustainability capabilities frequently implement materiality symbolically. In these cases, the concept is used as a marketing or legitimising tool rather than as a mechanism for enhancing reporting quality and accountability (Lakshan et al., 2022; Vigneau and Adams, 2023).

More recently, particular scholarly attention has been devoted to the implementation of the “new” concept of double materiality. Despite its promise, early empirical studies show that double materiality is frequently approached as a compliance exercise rather than as a substantive process. Companies often demonstrate incomplete and inconsistent practices, failing to distinguish between financial and impact dimensions (Correa-Mejía et al., 2024; Dragomir et al., 2025). Despite regulatory efforts to provide guidance, several practical challenges remain unresolved in implementing double materiality. These include sustaining meaningful dialogue with stakeholders beyond symbolic consultation (Dragomir et al., 2025), differentiating and weighting diverse stakeholder perspectives (Dyczkowska and Szalacha, 2025) and defining thresholds for materiality judgments and scoring impacts, risks and opportunities (Bartolacci et al., 2025). Moreover, balancing financial and impact perspectives continues to generate tensions and uncertainty (Bartolacci et al., 2025; Dragomir et al., 2025).

The literature suggests that the concrete integration of materiality into strategic and operational processes remains the exception rather than the rule. Despite growing regulatory pressure, implementation remains deeply subjective, often influenced by managerial discretion, serving legitimation rather than accountability and transparency. This highlights a persistent gap between the normative ambitions of materiality as articulated by regulators and standards and its actual implementation within organisations.

Stakeholder engagement is another topic where the gap between the normative ambitions and actual implementation is evident. Eleven studies analyse the role of stakeholders in materiality assessments, emphasising that while engagement is widely acknowledged as fundamental, its enactment is often partial, selective or symbolic.

The first contributions highlighted the importance of stakeholder engagement for the credibility and quality of reporting, noting that even frameworks less oriented towards stakeholders, such as the IIRC, ultimately benefit from stakeholder inputs (Farneti et al., 2019). However, empirical evidence consistently shows that engagement strategies are frequently inadequate. Companies often fail to properly identify or involve their stakeholders (Beske et al., 2020), privileging traditional or dominant groups while neglecting minority or non-dominant voices (Farooq et al., 2021; Maama et al., 2022). This imbalance creates a systematic gap between stakeholder expectations and disclosed information, with materiality assessments at times strategically misused to legitimise corporate interests rather than reflect external concerns (Beske et al., 2020).

In response, recent studies call for a shift towards more democratic and dialogic engagement. Scholars call for approaches that are flexible, transparent and multi-directional, enabling richer stakeholder input into materiality assessments (Gromis di Trana et al., 2024; Giacomini et al., 2025; Guix et al., 2025). This evolution entails moving from one-way communication to interactive and multi-stakeholder dialogue, which can support a broader and more nuanced understanding of corporate sustainability. Emerging technologies can play a critical role in enabling this transformation. Social media platforms are increasingly used to expand stakeholder engagement beyond formal consultations to more dynamic and inclusive engagement (Pizzi et al., 2024b).

Sixteen studies examine how the materiality process and its outcomes are disclosed in sustainability and integrated reports. Disclosure serves two interconnected purposes: first, to explain the process adopted in the assessment; second, to present the material topics that are the results of that process.

Research on the disclosure of the process shows that organisations describe their assessments in highly different ways, even when using the same frameworks or standards (Steenkamp, 2018). Sector-specific and country-level studies consistently find that disclosures are often superficial or symbolic, offering limited insight into how materiality is determined (Karagiannis et al., 2019; Lubinger et al., 2019; Ruiz-Lozano et al., 2022; Pigatto et al., 2023; Milanés-Montero et al., 2025). A recurring concern is that firms rarely provide comprehensive information on how issues are identified, prioritised and validated, highlighting the need for greater methodological standardisation (Machado et al., 2021). Over time, various standard setters and frameworks have attempted to address these shortcomings by issuing new guidelines or clarifications aimed at improving the disclosure of materiality processes, with contrasting results. For instance, under the revised IR framework, South African companies displayed progress in embedding sustainability and materiality into their reports (Herbert and Graham, 2022). By contrast, studies of Australian firms adopting updated GRI standards reveal only limited improvement, with inconsistencies and signs of greenwashing persisting (Zharfpeykan and Akroyd, 2023). Despite their divergent findings, both converge on the call for stronger accountability mechanisms to ensure credible and reliable disclosures.

Research on the material issues disclosed focused on the relevance of universal issues such as human rights, climate change and environmental issues (Albuquerque et al., 2024; Arian and Sands, 2024; Demir et al., 2022; Sepúlveda-Alzate et al., 2021). Findings show that reporting has not yet achieved sufficient content convergence to meet stakeholder expectations (Demir et al., 2022). Companies tend to prioritise topics with clear operational implications, such as water management or occupational health, while broader social and environmental impacts remain underreported (Sepúlveda-Alzate et al., 2021). Calls have therefore been made for a reconceptualisation of materiality that bridges financial and social relevance and more directly incorporates broader stakeholder concerns (Arian and Sands, 2024).

The literature suggests that while materiality is increasingly recognised as fundamental to credible reporting, disclosures remain fragmented, uneven and often symbolic. Strengthening the quality, comparability and stakeholder responsiveness of these disclosures is a key challenge for scholars, regulators and practitioners.

Eighteen studies analyse the determinants and effects of materiality disclosure and implementation, with ten focusing on determinants and eight on effects. These studies examine which governance, institutional and contextual factors shape materiality and how materiality generates market, organisational and investor outcomes.

A first stream of research explores how governance and control bodies influence materiality disclosure. Board independence, board activity and the assurance of non-financial information are positively associated with more extensive and credible disclosures, whereas report readability, inclusion in sustainability indices and earnings management do not appear to exert significant effects (Fasan and Mio, 2017; Gerwanski et al., 2019; Ngu and Amran, 2024; Velte, 2025). The effects of board size and gender diversity remain mixed across studies (Fasan and Mio, 2017; Morganho et al., 2025; Ngu and Amran, 2024). Audit quality also matters: the presence of Big Four auditors, higher audit fees and carbon assurance are all associated with higher disclosure quality (Velte, 2025).

Governance structures not only affect how materiality is disclosed but also how it is conceptually framed within the organisation. Boards dominated by directors with strong financial expertise are more likely to adopt SASB standards, reflecting a financial materiality perspective, whereas stakeholder-oriented governance structures – such as CSR committees – are more frequently associated with the adoption of GRI standards and an impact materiality orientation (Pizzi et al., 2023).

A second stream of research considers the influence of financial performance on materiality disclosure. Some studies find that firms with stronger financial performance (e.g., higher Return on Assets) tend to disclose more extensively (Farooq et al., 2021), whereas others report no significant association (Ngu and Amran, 2024). These contrasting findings, observed across different jurisdictions, may highlight the moderating effect of institutional and geographical settings.

More recent contributions investigate the determinants of symbolic adoption, referring to the tendency of firms to formally adopt (double) materiality while failing to translate it into substantive organisational practices. Such symbolic behaviour appears to be influenced by governance characteristics, financial structure and industry-specific factors (Correa-Mejía et al., 2025).

Studies investigating the effects of materiality disclosure and implementation focus on diverse aspects. A first stream of works assesses the market effects of disclosing sustainability issues relevant from a financial materiality perspective. Evidence shows that disclosures of financially material information – such as topics identified by SASB – enhance stock price informativeness, whereas non-material disclosures tend to be disregarded by investors (Grewal et al., 2021; Schiehll and Kolahgar, 2021).

More recently, studies have broadened their focus beyond the market impact of disclosing financial material issues. Disclosure of the materiality process tends to increase the volume of sustainability information provided in the sustainability report but has limited influence on its accuracy and information density or on management orientation (Dewi et al., 2023). Similarly, the adoption of double materiality, although including the evaluation of risk and opportunities, has not yet yielded measurable improvements in ESG risk management, reflecting both symbolic implementation and the early stage of adoption (Panfilo et al., 2025).

Other contributions emphasise the role of alignment with recognised frameworks and issue-specific disclosures. Mandatory non-financial disclosure has been shown to attract ESG-oriented investors and stimulate research and development (Gibbons, 2024). Integrated use of GRI and SASB standards can improve analysts’ forecast accuracy, but only when accompanied by high reporting quality and ESG performance (Pizzi et al., 2024a).

These findings indicate that research on the determinants and effects of materiality disclosure and implementation remains narrow in focus, fragmented and highly context-dependent. While governance structures and institutional logics consistently emerge as key drivers, their influence varies across organisational settings, regulatory environments and materiality perspectives. Similarly, research on effects is fragmented: the application of financial materiality tends to produce positive market impacts, whereas disclosures concerning the materiality process have so far yielded weaker or inconsistent results in terms of both financial performance and report quality.

This paragraph develops a critical synthesis of how the academic debate on materiality has evolved over time (Figure 4), by considering the publication years and intersecting the dimensions of the materiality perspective (§ 4.6); and the research topic (§ 4.7). Through this interpretative analysis, this paragraph illustrates how the debate has evolved through successive waves of “emergence” (Phase 1), “consolidation” (Phase 2) and “rethinking” (Phase 3).

The Phase 1 (2014–2018), labelled “Emergence”, reflects the emergent stage of the academic debate, when only a limited number of studies addressed materiality (ten in total). These early contributions focused primarily on conceptualising materiality in the “new” non-financial context (three articles) and on its initial implementation (three articles), alongside isolated explorations of determinants and effects, regulation, stakeholder roles and disclosure. During this period, research was largely fragmented and exploratory, mirroring the emerging status of the debate. From a perspective standpoint, studies adopting the impact materiality dimension were dominant, as the GRI, first through the G3 Guidelines in 2006, and subsequently the G4 Guidelines in 2013, represented the prevailing framework. Still, some early references to financial materiality began to appear, particularly in connection with the IR Framework, drafted in 2013. However, the limited number of contributions indicates that materiality was not yet problematised or differentiated into multiple perspectives, but rather discussed as a basic principle for filtering sustainability information (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014).

The Phase 2 (2019–2021), labelled “Consolidation”, marks the onset of consolidation and diversification, with 19 contributions. Research activity broadened to include more systematic analyses of implementation (five studies), disclosure practices (four studies) and determinants and effects (five studies). In parallel, interest in stakeholder engagement gained traction, with five studies examining the quality and inclusiveness of engagement strategies. This diversification reflects the growing influence of developments in reporting frameworks that expanded empirical evidence and structured practices. During this period, financial materiality gained prominence alongside impact materiality, and the first comparative studies examining differences between these logics began to emerge (e.g., Mio et al., 2020). Notably, in this second phase, scholarship concentrated strongly on implementation, stakeholder engagement, disclosure and determinants and effects, while conceptualisation and regulatory debates were absent.

The Phase 3 (2022–2025), labelled “Rethinking”, identifies a decisive turning point, characterised by both a surge in the number of publications and a broadening of perspectives (52 contributions in total). During this period, the academic debate “reopened”, stimulated by significant institutional developments. Indeed, this phase is marked by a renewed effort to revisit and reinterpret the concept of materiality in light of evolving frameworks and new perspectives. Hence, research not only continued to address impact and financial materiality individually but increasingly examined the tensions stemming from their coexistence, exploring conflicts in objectives, audiences and implementation practices (Jørgensen et al., 2022). At the same time, the first substantial body of research on double materiality emerged, alongside contributions advocating a return to single materiality (Abhayawansa, 2022) or critically comparing single and double materiality perspectives (Carungu et al., 2025b). In this third phase, all research topics were systematically addressed. Implementation research became more comprehensive, increasingly examining organisational capabilities, governance dynamics and the risks associated with symbolic adoption (Correa-Mejía et al., 2024). Studies on disclosure practices revealed persisting gaps in transparency and standardisation (Herbert and Graham, 2022), while work on determinants and effects provided novel insights into the relationship between governance structures, regulatory contexts and financial performance and materiality disclosure. Stakeholder engagement remained a central concern, with research highlighting the selective and often monologic nature of current practices and advocating for more inclusive approaches (Gromis di Trana et al., 2024). Conceptual and regulatory debates also re-emerged, interrogating the tensions between impact and financial materiality (Jørgensen et al., 2022) and between single and double materiality (Abhayawansa, 2022), while regulation-focused studies expanded to encompass all materiality perspectives and explored the interoperability between different standards and frameworks.

Section 4 offers a systematic reconstruction of how academic research has engaged with materiality, responding to the first two research questions of this review. This final section, drawing on the insights that emerged from the literature, turns to the third and forward-looking question: RQ3. What is the future direction for materiality research in sustainability reporting? Several possible future research directions emerge when examining the field’s evolution through the lens of the six research topics and the different materiality perspectives.

First, despite the growing body of literature on conceptualisation, there is still a limited understanding of how organisations interpret the different perspectives of materiality in practice (Abhayawansa, 2022; Bolt and Tregidga, 2023; Jørgensen et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2025). Future studies should explore how companies comprehend and distinguish between impact, financial and double materiality and how the principles established by reporting standards are translated into concrete organisational processes.

Second, in relation to regulation, given the recent changes introduced by the Omnibus package, future research could shed light on the political and institutional dynamics shaping these standard-setting processes and how international regulatory decisions impact national-level regulation, also outside Europe. Moreover, further research could delve into the interoperability efforts among regulators and standard setters (Carungu et al., 2025a, 2025b).

As regards implementation, more in-depth research is needed to understand how companies conduct their assessments (Bartolacci et al., 2025; Correa-Mejía et al., 2024; Dragomir et al., 2025; Dyczkowska and Szalacha, 2025). Much remains to be learned about how organisations structure the process, allocate internal responsibilities, identify and assess impacts, risks and opportunities, collect and integrate data across group entities and manage information flows along the value chain. Future studies should also explore how thresholds are defined, how impact and financial materiality are integrated and how materiality implementation shapes corporate strategy, informing decision-making and resource allocation. In this area, qualitative and field-based research is particularly needed to understand what actually happens inside organisations. Studies on the role of governance and its impact on financial performance could prove useful in informing quantitative studies on determinants and effects, which still exhibit low consistency. Longitudinal and cross-sectoral analyses could also provide valuable insights into how practices evolve as experience grows and regulatory pressure changes.

Stakeholder engagement remains a critical challenge (Gromis di Trana et al., 2024; Giacomini et al., 2025; Guix et al., 2025; Torelli et al., 2020). Future studies should examine how firms identify and select relevant stakeholders, the tools they use to engage them, the extent to which their input influences the definition of material issues and how organisations handle contrasting opinions. It would also be relevant to explore how different materiality perspectives shape engagement practices – for instance, whether companies engage the same stakeholder groups when assessing impact and financial materiality or adopt distinct approaches, the reasons behind and the effects of such decisions. Comparative studies could reveal differences in practice, while case studies could identify examples of more inclusive and dynamic engagement under the new perspective of double materiality, also supported by emerging digital participation tools.

Regarding disclosure, the disclosure of materiality assessments remains highly heterogeneous across companies (Steenkamp, 2018). Scholars have highlighted the need for clearer regulatory guidance to enhance standardisation, credibility and transparency (Machado et al., 2021; Albuquerque et al., 2024; Milanés-Montero et al., 2025). Considering the recent implementation of the ESRS and IFRS’s Sustainability Standards, future research could assess whether these standards have succeeded in improving the quality and consistency of materiality disclosures, also comparing the two standard setters.

Finally, studies on the determinants and effects of materiality practices remain limited and often inconsistent (Farooq et al., 2021; Grewal et al., 2021; Gibbons, 2024; Pizzi et al., 2023; Velte, 2025). Future research could explore which organisational and governance characteristics influence the quality of materiality assessments and how different approaches affect both financial and non-financial outcomes, using global or cross-regional data sets to mitigate context-specific biases. While most existing studies rely on content analysis, survey-based research could provide additional insights into organisational perceptions and behavioural aspects. Further studies could also examine the financial implications of adopting impact or double materiality approaches – an area still underexplored compared to financial materiality – and investigate how the quality of disclosures and the robustness of assessment processes affect stakeholder trust and the overall credibility of sustainability reporting.

Beyond these specific topics, the recent introduction of new regulations and standards, such as the CSRD and its revision under the Omnibus Package and the IFRS Foundation’s sustainability disclosure standards, which are once again reshaping the corporate reporting landscape, is likely to reignite the debate on double and financial materiality and the tensions between these perspectives.

Moreover, future research could expand its focus to underexplored geographical contexts. The existing literature remains heavily concentrated on Europe, leaving limited attention to emerging economies. Examining how materiality is interpreted, operationalised and institutionalised in these settings could foster a more global and inclusive understanding of the concept. Moreover, emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence and digital platforms, offer a promising avenue for future research. These tools could create new opportunities to improve materiality assessment processes, ranging from identifying relevant issues to enhancing stakeholder engagement.

Finally, a broader challenge for materiality research is its lack of strong theoretical grounding. Future studies should make greater use of established theories or develop new frameworks, which could enrich the academic debate and provide a stronger basis for advancing research in this field.

This SLR has traced the evolution of materiality in sustainability reporting, identified its main focus areas and outlined avenues for future research. Drawing on the rigorous approach proposed by Massaro et al. (2016), the review systematically analysed 81 academic articles published between 2014 and 2025 in journals listed in the AJG 2024 Ranking. These contributions were classified by journals, ranking and field, geographical context, methodology and data collection techniques, theoretical grounding, materiality perspectives and research topic. By cross-tabulating materiality perspectives and research topics over time, the review also mapped how the academic debate has evolved across three phases – emergence, consolidation and rethinking.

Over the past decade, the debate on materiality in the field of sustainability has broadened considerably, but rather than converging, it has become more polyphonic, controversial and politically charged. A clear trajectory emerges: research has moved from defining and understanding materiality in a new non-financial context (emergence phase), to exploring its organisational adoption (consolidation phase), to reopening conceptual and regulatory controversies surrounding the conceptualisation of materiality (rethinking phase). This suggests that the academic debate is still far from closure and remains in its early stages. Materiality remains an evolving and contested domain, where meaning is continuously negotiated by diverse actors and shaped by evolving frameworks and regulations (Unerman and Zappettini, 2014). The coexistence of multiple standard setters promoting distinct perspectives – financial, impact and double – and pursuing different objectives generates persistent tensions, hindering the diffusion of a shared and operational materiality perspective (Wang et al., 2025). The inconsistencies between and within different standards and frameworks produce challenges when implementing and reporting materiality processes. Hence, although financial, impact and double materiality pursue different aims, they share similar difficulties in practice. The implementation often remains symbolic rather than substantive, stakeholder engagement tends to be partial and non-inclusive and disclosure practices are frequently vague, selective and vulnerable to greenwashing.

These findings open up several avenues for future research. In particular, further studies are needed to deepen the understanding of how different materiality perspectives are interpreted and operationalised in practice, to investigate the institutional and regulatory dynamics shaping materiality frameworks and to provide further evidence on implementation processes within organisations. In addition, future research should address persistent challenges related to stakeholder engagement and disclosure practices, while expanding work on the determinants and effects of materiality, particularly in relation to impact and double materiality. Greater attention to underexplored geographical contexts and stronger theoretical grounding would further contribute to advancing the field.

This review advances existing knowledge in three main ways. First, it offers an updated and comprehensive synthesis of the literature on materiality in sustainability reporting, complementing prior reviews (Fiandrino et al., 2022; Huq and Mohammadrezaei, 2024; Oll et al., 2025). Second, it develops a novel analytical framework that bridges materiality perspectives (impact, financial, impact vs financial, double and single vs double and uncategorised materiality) and research topics (conceptualisation, regulation, stakeholder engagement, implementation, disclosure and determinants and effects). This framework enables the identification of where gaps persist and how the focus of research has evolved over time. Third, by interpreting the evolution of the field through three phases, the review shows how research has moved from defining materiality in a new non-financial context, to examining its organisational adoption, to reopening conceptual and regulatory debates in light of recent normative developments.

The findings also carry practical implications. For regulators and standard-setters, the results highlight the risks of fragmentation and the limitations of current interoperability efforts, suggesting the need for greater alignment, clearer guidance and more consistent definitions across frameworks to support effective implementation. In particular, the coexistence of multiple materiality perspectives calls for more coordinated standard-setting processes to reduce ambiguity and enhance comparability. For practitioners, the findings emphasise the importance of moving beyond symbolic adoption towards more substantive implementation of materiality. This includes strengthening internal processes for materiality assessment, improving stakeholder engagement practices and enhancing the transparency and robustness of disclosures to mitigate risks of selective reporting and greenwashing.

This study is not without limitations. Its scope is restricted to journals included in the AJG 2024 ranking, potentially excluding valuable insights from journals not included in the list. Furthermore, although the review followed a systematic methodology, the coding and interpretation processes inevitably involve subjectivity.