Skip to main content
All CollectionsWork on your CSRD reportingDouble Materiality
Financial Materiality: Step-by-step Methodology
Financial Materiality: Step-by-step Methodology

An overview of Greenly's methodology for conducting a financial materiality assessment

Support @Greenly avatar
Written by Support @Greenly
Updated over a week ago

Introduction

In the realm of corporate sustainability, understanding how environmental and social issues impact financial performance is crucial. Financial materiality, a component of the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), addresses this by evaluating how sustainability matters influence a company's cash flows. This article explores the concept of financial materiality, its significance, and the steps involved in conducting a financial materiality assessment. By the end, readers will be equipped to independently perform these assessments using Greenly’s tools and methodologies.

1. What is Financial Materiality?

Definition

Financial materiality focuses on identifying sustainability issues that can significantly affect a company’s financial performance. This involves assessing how environmental, social, and broader sustainability trends impact the company’s cash flows, thereby creating risks or opportunities. Financial materiality considers two main aspects:

  1. Resource Dependency: How reliant a company is on natural and social resources.

  2. Stakeholder Reactions: How stakeholders, such as investors, customers, and regulators, are likely to react to the company's sustainability performance.

Importance

Financial materiality is essential for several reasons:

  • Informs Investment Decisions: Helps investors understand potential financial risks and opportunities related to sustainability.

  • Enhances Risk Management: Identifies financial vulnerabilities and areas where sustainability issues could impact cash flows.

  • Ensures Compliance: Meets regulatory requirements under the CSRD, ensuring the company adheres to established sustainability reporting standards.

  • Builds Stakeholder Trust: Demonstrates a proactive approach to managing sustainability risks and opportunities, fostering trust among stakeholders.

2. The Financial Materiality Assessment Process

Step-by-Step Guide

Step 1: Evaluating Stakeholder Reactions

Assess the expected reactions of various stakeholders to the company’s sustainability performance. This includes evaluating how negative impacts might trigger adverse reactions or how positive impacts might lead to favorable responses. Key stakeholders to consider include:

  • Investors

  • Customers

  • Suppliers

  • Regulators

  • NGOs

  • Broader society

Each stakeholder's reaction is scored based on severity and likelihood.

Step 2: Assessing Resource Dependency

Examine the company’s dependency on natural and social resources. This involves identifying key resources and evaluating how changes in their availability or quality could impact the company’s financial performance. Factors to consider include:

  • Quality Degradation: How deterioration in resource quality affects operations.

  • Availability Reduction: The impact of resource scarcity.

  • Regulatory Changes: How tighter regulations could increase costs.

  • Price Increases: The financial implications of rising resource costs.

Step 3: Scoring and Prioritizing

Compare the scores from the stakeholder reactions and resource dependency assessments to determine the overall financial materiality score for each sustainability matter. The final financial materiality score for the sustainability topic will be the highest of the two. This helps prioritize issues that pose the greatest financial risks or opportunities.

Practical Example

Consider a beverage company evaluating its dependency on water resources and stakeholder reactions to its water usage practices.

Resource Dependency Assessment

  1. Quality Degradation: If the quality of water used in production deteriorates, the company might face increased purification costs and potential product quality issues.

    • Score: 3 (Moderate impact on operations).

  2. Availability Reduction: Water scarcity could disrupt production, leading to significant operational downtime and increased costs for sourcing water from alternative suppliers.

    • Score: 4 (High impact due to water scarcity).

  3. Regulatory Changes: New water usage regulations could impose stricter limits on water withdrawal, necessitating investment in water-efficient technologies and compliance costs.

    • Score: 4 (Significant cost increase due to new regulations).

  4. Price Increases: Rising water prices could increase production costs, affecting the company’s profit margins.

    • Score: 2 (Moderate impact on operational costs).

Stakeholder Reactions Assessment

  1. Investors: Concern over water usage practices and associated risks could lead to adverse reactions, potentially affecting investment decisions.

    • Score: 3 (Moderate adverse reaction).

  2. Customers: Negative perceptions about the company’s water usage could affect brand loyalty and sales, especially if customers are environmentally conscious.

    • Score: 2 (Low to moderate adverse reaction).

  3. Suppliers: Suppliers may impose higher costs or stricter terms due to the company's water usage practices, especially if they are also under regulatory scrutiny.

    • Score: 2 (Moderate adverse reaction).

  4. Regulators: Strict regulatory oversight and potential fines for non-compliance could have significant financial implications.

    • Score: 4 (High adverse reaction).

  5. NGOs: Environmental groups could campaign against the company, leading to reputational damage and increased scrutiny.

    • Score: 4 (High adverse reaction).

  6. Broader Society: Public outcry over water usage practices could lead to boycotts and negative media coverage, impacting sales and brand reputation.

    • Score: 4 (High adverse reaction).

Final Score Determination

To determine the final financial materiality score, we take the highest scores from the resource dependency and stakeholder reactions assessments. In this case, both highest scores are 4, so the final financial materiality score for the topic of water consumption for this company is 4.

3. Integrating Financial Materiality into CSRD Reporting

Framework and Compliance

The CSRD framework requires companies to report on both financial and impact materiality. For financial materiality, companies must disclose how sustainability issues affect their financial performance and what measures they are taking to manage these impacts. This ensures comprehensive sustainability reporting and aligns with EFRAG guidelines.

Using Greenly’s Tools

Greenly offers a structured platform for conducting financial materiality assessments. The platform includes forms and surveys to gather qualitative data, scoring systems to evaluate materiality, and guidelines to ensure compliance with CSRD standards.

Conclusion

Financial materiality assessments are essential for transparent and effective sustainability management. By systematically evaluating how environmental and social issues impact your company's financial performance, you can enhance decision-making, ensure regulatory compliance, and build stakeholder trust. Greenly provides robust tools and methodologies to support your financial materiality assessment process, ensuring your reporting is thorough, accurate, and compliant with EFRAG guidelines. Embrace this approach to make informed sustainability choices and demonstrate your commitment to responsible business practices.

Did this answer your question?