According to EFRAG guidelines, companies set their own thresholds for financial and impact materiality based on their specific context and operational dynamics. These thresholds determine which ESG topics are significant enough to require reporting, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative assessments.

The company is responsible to define the materiality thresholds that suit best its understanding and visions about what should be the important topics and sub-topics to treat in its ESG reporting perimeter.

No mandatory guidelines are to be followed to define those thresholds, which may rely on either qualitative insights (internal opinion, agreed common sense, etc) or quantitative insights (% of revenue/EBITDA/expenses, amount of waste, number of incidents, etc).

By default, Greenly considers an activity material if either its impact or financial score exceeds 75% when scores are normalized to 100. This approach simplifies the materiality assessment, ensuring significant topics are flagged for action and reporting​. The 75% value comes from internal Double Materiality benchmark (use of past double materiality analysis carried out with other Greenly clients and public DM analysis of major companies).

Keep in mind that this value is relevant in particular for SME and small groups (under 1500 employees), and should be lower in case your company is bigger (the more a company is bigger, the bigger are the impact and risks consequences in absolute).

If necessary, the user is able to modify the thresholds in case the quantitative scores may be biased and additional adaptation is needed to represent more faithfully the material sub-topics of the company.

For more detailed guidelines, refer to the EFRAG implementation guidance.