Track Description

Sustainability reporting has moved from voluntary practice to obligation across many jurisdictions. Building on the tradition of corporate external reporting, it extends the boundaries of disclosure to encompass environmental, social, and governance (ESG) dimensions. Among its guiding principles, materiality plays a central role, as it defines which sustainability issues are relevant enough to be reported and shapes not only what is disclosed, but also how organisations prioritize issues, allocate resources and engage stakeholders. Furthermore, materiality assessments increasingly intersect with going-concern considerations, as governance structures shape how risks and impacts are integrated into strategic decision-making. As organisations transition from voluntary disclosures to more standardized regimes (e.g., CSRD/ESRS in the EU and ISSB standards globally), enduring tensions surface between impact- and financially oriented views, transparency and information overload. Heterogeneous definitions of the materiality principle create challenges for several actors among which preparers and external users, such as auditors, investors, and stakeholders (Baumüller & Sopp, 2022; Miettinen, 2024; Ngu & Amran, 2024). Sustainability disclosures on the potential impact of environmental and social issues on firm performance when making investment decisions assumed a role. Conversely, other stakeholders, primarily environmentalists, seek information evidencing the impacts of firm operations on society and the global ecosystem, thereby privileging an accountability perspective (Adams & Mueller, 2022). However, despite regulatory efforts to establish a double-materiality principle, it remains unclear whether the two sides will be reconciled (de Villiers et al., 2024; Abhayawansa, 2022; Adams & Mueller, 2022). From a practical standpoint, earlier evidence (KPMG, 2025; Ernst & Young, 2025) has shown that companies are struggling with double materiality assessments: some adopt more data-driven, evidence-based approaches, while others continue to privilege judgement-based approaches.
With these premises, this track invites contributions that interrogate and advance the theory and practice of double materiality in sustainability reporting. We particularly encourage papers on the following topics, while remaining open to other areas:

• Double materiality in practice: governance, processes, and decision rules for integrating impact and financial perspectives.
• Stakeholder salience and engagement quality: methods for identifying, ranking, and validating material topics.
• Assurance and auditability of double materiality assessments: the evolving role of assurance providers, assurance scope, and methodological challenges in verifying materiality determinations.
• Framework comparisons (e.g., GRI, ESRS, ISSB): areas of convergence and divergence, and consequences for consistency and comparability.
• Decision-usefulness versus information overload: designing concise, relevant, and verifiable disclosures and metrics.
• Digital enablers: data analytics and AI for topic mapping, materiality matrices, value-chain tracing, and assurance processes.
• Governance and incentives: board oversight, sustainability committees, remuneration links, and internal control systems shaping materiality outcomes.