Skip to content
GT
⚖️ Double Materiality
Back to course
Running the Materiality AssessmentLesson 3 of 43 min readEFRAG IG1 Section 3.3; ESRS 1 Section 3.2

Step C: Assessing and Determining Material IROs

What Is Step C?

Step C is the ruthless mathematical gauntlet. The company takes the massive, unfiltered Long List of IROs generated in Step B and subjects every single item to the stringent thresholds of Double Materiality.

Items that survive this brutal filtering process are officially declared material. They will form the absolute legal basis of the final sustainability report.

Step C executes three aggressive operations:

  1. The Impact Materiality Assessment
  2. The Financial Materiality Assessment
  3. The Consolidation of the Two Dimensions

The Ultimate Rule of Consolidation: A matter is legally declared material the exact second it crosses the threshold for either impact materiality or financial materiality. It does not need to cross both.

1. The Impact Materiality Assessment

The company mathematically interrogates every single impact on the Long List using the ESRS severity criteria.

The Criteria Checklist:

  • Actual Negative Impacts: Judged entirely by Severity (Scale, Scope, Irremediable Character).
  • Potential Negative Impacts: Judged by heavily multiplying Severity against Likelihood. (Critical exception: For potential human rights abuses, severity violently overrides likelihood).
  • Actual Positive Impacts: Judged by Scale and Scope.
  • Potential Positive Impacts: Judged by Scale, Scope, and Likelihood.

Establishing the Legal Threshold

The ESRS explicitly forces the company to establish quantitative and qualitative thresholds to define exactly what constitutes a "material" severity score. The company cannot guess. EFRAG intensely commands that these thresholds must be anchored in supportable, objective evidence.

2. The Financial Materiality Assessment

Simultaneously, the company attacks the Long List to uncover financial threats. The company targets impacts that have mutated into risks, as well as isolated dependencies (e.g., relying heavily on fragile coastal infrastructure).

Every identified risk and opportunity is aggressively scored against two factors:

  1. Likelihood of Occurrence
  2. Potential Magnitude of Financial Effects (Cash flow destruction, massive CAPEX spikes, soaring cost of capital across the short, medium, and long term).

If a massive financial effect (Magnitude) is highly probable (Likelihood) to breach the company's quantitative financial thresholds, it is instantly flagged as financially material.

3. Consolidating the Reality

The company merges the data streams. Any IRO that triggered an alarm on the Impact radar, the Financial radar, or both, is isolated and consolidated into the final, definitive List of Material IROs.

A massive corporate instinct is to hide material risks that the company has no plan to fix. The ESRS specifically destroys this tactic. EFRAG explicitly mandates that if an IRO crosses the materiality threshold, you absolutely must publicly disclose it, even if executives are terrified of it and have zero policies or action plans to mitigate it. You simply disclose the material risk and explicitly state that you currently lack any policies to manage it. You cannot delete a risk from the report just because it is politically inconvenient.

The Legal Burden of Proof

Step C is not a casual corporate exercise; it is an auditable legal process.

The ESRS rigidly demands that companies comprehensively document exactly how they designed their scoring thresholds and precisely how they mathematically executed the assessment. When independent auditors attack the sustainability report, Step C provides the ironclad mathematical defense justifying why exactly 14 topics were disclosed and 86 topics were legally ignored.

Key Takeaways

  • 1Step C applies the mathematical thresholds to filter the Long List into a definitive list of Material IROs
  • 2A matter is legally material the moment it crosses either the impact threshold or the financial threshold - it does not need both
  • 3Impact assessment uses severity criteria (scale, scope, irremediable character) with the human rights exception overriding likelihood
  • 4Financial assessment scores each risk on likelihood of occurrence and potential magnitude of financial effects
  • 5You must disclose material IROs even if you have zero policies or action plans to address them - you cannot delete inconvenient risks
  • 6Step C is an auditable legal process requiring comprehensive documentation of scoring thresholds and methodology

Knowledge Check

1.Under ESRS 1, how do the assessment criteria differ for actual negative impacts compared to potential negative impacts?

2.ESRS 1 paragraph 42 requires undertakings to apply appropriate thresholds when assessing materiality. Which statement best describes these thresholds?

3.EFRAG IG1 paragraph 26 addresses what happens when an undertaking has identified material IROs but has not yet taken any actions to address them. What does it require?

3 of 4