Reporting for change: does the adoption of double materiality influence ESG risk management?

2025/05/26 by Silvia Panfilo, Francesco Scarpa, Nicolas Canestraro

paper · doi:10.1108/md-10-2024-2436

Abstract

Purpose Drawing on the theoretical distinction between substantive and symbolic sustainability reporting, this study examines whether the adoption of double materiality in sustainability reporting influences ESG risk management. Design/methodology/approach Using t-tests and OLS regression analyses, this research focuses on European companies listed on the STOXX Europe 600 index, analyzing the relationship between the use of double materiality for the financial year 2022 and ESG risk management. The dataset includes 442 companies. Findings The results suggest that the adoption of double materiality for sustainability reporting does not significantly influence the management of ESG risks. Notably, these findings hold true across various robustness checks and additional analyses. Originality/value This research contributes to the debate on the organizational implications of sustainability reporting by highlighting that the adoption of double materiality does not influence ESG risk management processes. This could be attributed to symbolic reporting practices, the presence of pre-existing robust ESG risk management frameworks or the early stage of double materiality adoption.

Related

• Corporate ESG reporting quantity, quality and performance: Where to now for environmental policy and practice?
• Materiality Assessment Is an Art, Not a Science: Selecting ESG Topics for Sustainability Reports
• ESG, Risk, and (Tail) Dependence
• Integrated reporting and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive: bridging the gap or growing apart?
• The Double Materiality for non-listed SMEs: Evidence from the EFRAG Public Consultation