Advertisement

REVERSING MATERIALITY: From a Reactive Matrix to a Proactive SDG Agenda

  • Rob van TulderEmail author
  • Laura Lucht
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Sustainable Business In Association with Future Earth book series (PSSBAFE)

Abstract

Sustainability-oriented innovation strategies are often based on assessments of what is ‘material’ for companies in the short run. Materiality assessments are increasingly used as the basis for sustainability strategies. Extant practice, however, often leads to reactive approaches that might be less innovative than required for the sustainability issue at stake and even lead to window dressing (‘talk but not walk’). Leading companies can fall prey to the ‘incumbent’s curse’—the failure to adequately adapt to changed circumstances. The adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provides an alternative frame for materiality assessments that has the potential to overcome the curse. Consequently, the corporate challenge becomes how to make the SDGs (more) material for the corporate innovation strategy. This paper makes the argument for ‘reversing materiality’ through the adoption of the SDGs—as a proactive way to escape the incumbent’s curse. Examples of emerging practices of leading companies are given.

References

  1. Accenture, UN Global Compact. 2016. “Agenda 2030: A window of opportunity.” The UN Global Compact-Accenture Strategy CEO survey. Accessed July 23, 2018. https://www.accenture.com/t20161216T041642Z__w__/us-en/_acnmedia/Accenture/next-gen-2/insight-ungc-ceo-study-page/Accenture-UN-Global-Compact-Accenture-Strategy-CEO-Study-2016.pdf#zoom=50.
  2. AccountAbility. 2006. “The materiality report: Aligning strategy performance and reporting.” Accessed July 23, 2018. http://www.accountability.org/publication/materiality-report-aligning-strategy-performance-reporting/.
  3. AccountAbility. 2015. “Beyond risk management—Leveraging stakeholder engagement and materiality to uncover value and opportunity.” Accessed July 23, 2018. http://www.accountability.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Beyond-Risk-Management-Stakeholder_Engagement_and_Materiality.pdf.
  4. Bouten, Lies, and Sophie Hoozée. 2015. “Challenges in sustainability and integrated reporting.” Issues in Accounting Education 30 (4): 373–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowers, Tom. 2010. “From image to economic value: A genre analysis of sustainability reporting.” Corporate Communications 15 (3): 249–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Business & Sustainable Development Commission (B&SDC). 2017. “Better business, better world.” Accessed July 23, 2018. http://report.businesscommission.org/.
  7. Calabrese, Armando, Roberta Costa, Nathan Levialdi, and Tamara Menichini. 2016. “A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process method to support materiality assessment in sustainability reporting.” Journal of Cleaner Production 121: 248–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ceres. 2017. “Lead from the top: Building sustainability competence on corporate boards.” Accessed July 23, 2018. https://www.ceres.org/resources/reports/lead-from-the-top.
  9. Chandy, Rajesh K., and Gerard J. Tellis. 2000. “The incumbent’s curse? Incumbency, size, and radical product innovation.” Journal of marketing 64 (3): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins, Jenny. 2005. “Corporate responsibility: The communication challenge.” Journal of Communication Management 9 (2): 108–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Geus, Arie. 2002. The living company: growth, learning and longevity in business. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  12. Eccles, Robert G. 2016. “Sustainability as a social movement.” CPA Journal 86 (6): 26–31.Google Scholar
  13. Eccles, Robert G, Michael P. Krzus, Jean Rogers, and George Serafeim. 2012. “The need for sector-specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards.” Journal of Applied Corporate Finance 24 (2): 65–71.Google Scholar
  14. Edgley, Carla. 2014. “A genealogy of accounting materiality.” Critical Perspectives on Accounting 25 (3): 255–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Edgley, Carla, Michael J Jones, and Jill Atkins. 2015. “The adoption of the materiality concept in social and environmental reporting assurance: A field study approach.” The British Accounting Review 47 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ernst & Young. 2016. “Sustainable Development Goals What you need to know about the Sustainable Development Goals and how EY can help.” Accessed July 23, 2018. https://www.ey.com/au/en/services/specialty-services/climate-change-and-sustainability-services/ey-lets-talk-sustainability-issue-7-the-sustainable-development-goals-what-role-can-companies-play.
  17. GRI, UN Global Compact and WBCSD. 2015. “SDG compass—The guide for business action on the SDGs.” Accessed July 23, 2018. https://sdgcompass.org/.
  18. Hengelaar, Gerbert. 2017. “The pro-active incumbent: Holy grail or hidden gem?” PhD diss., ERIM: RSM Erasmus University.Google Scholar
  19. Holmberg, John, and Karl-Henrik Robert. 2000. “Backcasting—A framework for strategic planning.” International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 7 (4): 291–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. International Integrated Reporting Council (IIRC). 2013. “Materiality Background Paper for <IR> .” Accessed July 23, 2018. http://integratedreporting.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/IR-Background-Paper-Materiality.pdf.
  21. Jones Peter, Daphne Comfort, and David Hillier. 2016. “Sustainability in the hospitality industry: Some personal reflections on corporate challenges and research agendas.” International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 28 (1): 36–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. KPMG. 2014. “Sustainable insight: The essentials of materiality assessment. KPMG International. Sustainable insight: The essentials of materiality assessment.” Accessed July 23, 2018. https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/cn/pdf/en/2017/the-essentials-of-materiality-assessment.pdf.
  23. Lawrence, T., and R. Suddaby. 2006. “Institutions and institutional work.” In Handbook of organization studies, edited by S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence, and W. R. Nord. 2nd ed., 215–54. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Manetti, Giacomo. 2011. “The quality of stakeholder engagement in sustainability reporting: Empirical evidence and critical points.” Corporate Social—Responsibility and Environmental Management 18 (2): 110–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mio, Chiara. 2010. “Corporate social reporting in Italian multi-utility companies: An empirical analysis.” Corporate Social—Responsibility and Environmental Management 17 (5): 247–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MoEA (Ministry of Economic Affairs). 2016. “Transparency benchmark 2016 the crystal.” Accessed July 23, 2018. https://www.transparantiebenchmark.nl/sites/transparantiebenchmark.nl/files/afbeeldingen/transparantiebenchmark_eng.pdf.
  27. Murninghan, Marcy, and Ted Grant. 2013. “Corporate responsibility and the new ‘materiality’.” Corporate Board 34 (203): 12–17.Google Scholar
  28. PrC (Partnerships Resource Centre). 2015. “The state of the partnership report-2015.” Rotterdam: RSM. Accessed July 23, 2018. https://www.rsm.nl/fileadmin/Images_NEW/Faculty_Research/Partnership_Resource_Centre/CSO_Can_partnerships_provide_new_venues.pdf.
  29. PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers). 2015. “Make it your business: Engaging with the Sustainable Development Goals. Accessed July 23, 2018. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/services/sustainability/sustainable-development-goals/sdg-research-results.html.
  30. United Nations, General Assembly. 2015. “Transforming our world: The 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development.” A/RES/70/1.Google Scholar
  31. Van Tulder, Rob, with Alex Van Der Zwart. 2006. International business-society management: Linking corporate responsibility and globalization. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Van Tulder, Rob, Rob Van Tilburg, Mara Franken, and Andrea Da Rosa. 2014. Managing the transition to a sustainable enterprise. London: Earthscan/Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Van Tulder, Rob, and Nienke Keen. 2018. “Capturing collaborative challenges: Designing complexity-sensitive theories of change for cross-sector partnerships.” Journal of Business Ethics 150 (2): 1–18.Google Scholar
  34. Van Tulder, Rob. 2018. Getting all the motives right. Driving international corporate responsibility to the next level. Rotterdam: SMO books. https://smo.nl/publicatie/getting-all-the-motives-right-driving-international-corporate-responsibility-icr-to-the-nextlevel/.Google Scholar
  35. WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development). 2015. “Reporting matters—Redefining performance and disclosure.” Accessed July 23, 2018. http://wbcsdpublications.org/project/reporting-matters-2015/.
  36. Zhou, Yining, and Geoff Lamberton. 2011. “Stakeholder diversity versus stakeholder general views: A theoretical gap in sustainability materiality conception.” In Proceedings 1st World Sustainability Forum 1–30 November 2011, Basel Switzerland, edited by Julio A. Seijas and Maria del Pilar V. Tato. Basel: MDPI.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Partnerships Resource CentreRSM Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations