Sample distribution
| Panel A: Distribution of the articles included in the review across the four themes in terms of publication year | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year/Themes | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Total |
| Ex ante | 2 | 1 | – | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Ex post | – | – | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 23 |
| Consequences | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | – | 3 |
| Determinants | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | – | 1 | – | 1 | 9 |
| Total | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | |
| Panel A: Distribution of the articles included in the review across the four themes in terms of publication year | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year/Themes | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | Total |
| Ex ante | 2 | 1 | – | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | – | 1 | 1 | 15 |
| Ex post | – | – | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 23 |
| Consequences | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | – | 1 | 2 | – | 3 |
| Determinants | – | – | – | – | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | – | 1 | – | 1 | 9 |
| Total | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 2 | |
| Panel B: Distribution of the articles included in the review across the main methodological approach adopted to evaluate materiality and from whose perspective materiality is evaluated | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perspective/Methodology | Auditors | Managers | Specific stakeholder(s) | No specific stakeholder | Total |
| Archival or deterministic modelling | – | 4 | 4 | 16 | 24 |
| Case study, conceptual, observational or interviews | – | – | 2 | – | 2 |
| Experiment | 2 | – | 2 | – | 4 |
| Survey | – | 1 | 1 | – | 2 |
| Mixeda | – | 5 | 2 | 4 | 11 |
| Total | 2 | 10 | 11 | 20 | |
| aSome studies have employed more than one method to evaluate materiality, for example, content analysis along with survey, interview or multi-criteria decision analysis methods. For more detail classification, please refer to Table 3 | |||||
| Panel B: Distribution of the articles included in the review across the main methodological approach adopted to evaluate materiality and from whose perspective materiality is evaluated | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perspective/Methodology | Auditors | Managers | Specific stakeholder(s) | No specific stakeholder | Total |
| Archival or deterministic modelling | – | 4 | 4 | 16 | 24 |
| Case study, conceptual, observational or interviews | – | – | 2 | – | 2 |
| Experiment | 2 | – | 2 | – | 4 |
| Survey | – | 1 | 1 | – | 2 |
| Mixeda | – | 5 | 2 | 4 | 11 |
| Total | 2 | 10 | 11 | 20 | |
| aSome studies have employed more than one method to evaluate materiality, for example, content analysis along with survey, interview or multi-criteria decision analysis methods. For more detail classification, please refer to | |||||
| Panel C: Distribution of the articles included in the review across the timing of materiality evaluation and from whose perspective materiality is evaluated | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auditors | Managers | Specific stakeholder(s) | No specific stakeholder | |
| Ex ante | 2 | 7 | 4 | 2 |
| Ex post | – | 3 | 6 | 18 |
| Panel C: Distribution of the articles included in the review across the timing of materiality evaluation and from whose perspective materiality is evaluated | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auditors | Managers | Specific stakeholder(s) | No specific stakeholder | |
| Ex ante | 2 | 7 | 4 | 2 |
| Ex post | – | 3 | 6 | 18 |
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.