Most organisations approach materiality as an exercise in collecting opinions.
Stakeholder surveys, perception matrices, and rankings of “what seems important” are still the norm — and yet, many teams find that once the report is written, the results don’t help them decide what to do next.
It’s not that stakeholder perspectives don’t matter — they do.
But when materiality is built primarily on perception, rather than facts, it risks missing what truly drives impact and value.
Why traditional materiality often falls short
For sustainability managers, materiality can feel like a chicken-and-egg problem.
You need impact data to assess what’s material — but you need a materiality assessment to know which impacts are important enough to measure.
When organisations begin their sustainability journey, they’re asked to define “what matters most.”
But without reliable data, those early definitions are often based on stakeholder opinion, external benchmarks, or peer comparisons. As a result, the process can become more subjective and may require extra explanation during assurance reviews.
This creates a real challenge for managers who must:
Identify which topics matter most to the company and to society,
Justify those decisions to auditors and boards, and
Translate them into actions that make sense to the business.
In theory, stakeholder engagement helps to provide direction.
In practice, stakeholders often lack detailed insight into operational realities or sector-specific risks. Their input is valuable — but partial.
A fact-based alternative: using science as the starting point
Instead of starting from ideas of what may be material, Positive Impacts begins with data.
Our approach uses the Science-based Targets Path® (SbTP) to quantify the materiality of each sustainability topic — based on actual thresholds for climate, water, nature, and social impact.
This means that materiality is rooted in measurable facts, not survey perception.
The “cut-off” for what is considered material is therefore not arbitrary — it’s directly aligned with science-based thresholds that indicate when a company is within or beyond its fair share of global sustainability boundaries.
In other words:
The scale you choose doesn’t change the outcome — because the reference point (the Science-based Targets Path® ) stays constant.
What this achieves
1. Credibility and consistency
When materiality is grounded in quantitative thresholds, the process is transparent and repeatable. Different assessors will arrive at the same conclusion, making it easier to defend outcomes during assurance.
2. Improved auditability
Auditors can review underlying data, rather than subjective rankings. This makes the entire process more reliable — making the CSRD assurance more effective.
3. Strategic focus
By knowing which topics are truly material, organisations can focus on what matters most.
That means fewer resources spent on marginal issues, and more capacity for actions that strengthen competitiveness.
4. Integration with financial materiality
Fact-based impact assessments provide a solid foundation for evaluating financial effects — connecting sustainability directly to value and risk.
How stakeholder input still plays a role
Stakeholder input remains important — but in our approach, it comes after the data.
Once we’ve established fact-based estimates for impact materiality, stakeholder perspectives help validate and contextualise the findings, as well as giving perspectives on topics that lack science-based thresholds.
This ensures engagement stays meaningful:
Stakeholders contribute insights and priorities, not the initial definition of what’s material.
Why this matters now
Der CSRD and other frameworks are changing expectations around materiality.
Companies are expected to demonstrate not only that they have identified material topics, but how they did so — and why those topics are relevant to both impact and financial performance.
Approaches rooted solely in perceptions may find it harder to satisfy assurance expectations.
A data-based, science-aligned method provides the rigour regulators and auditors now expect — while delivering insights that actually support strategy.
From compliance to competitiveness
Fact-based materiality helps companies move beyond simply “meeting requirements”.
When you know precisely which sustainability topics are significant — and can show why — you can set meaningful targets, allocate budgets efficiently, and design governance that reflects real-world impact.
It’s the difference between doing materiality und using materiality.
If you’d like to understand how to apply this approach in practice, explore our Materiality Training for Sustainability Managers — starting 12 November 2025. The six-week programme explains how to design audit-ready materiality assessments and connect them to value, risk, and strategy.
For organisations seeking tailored support, contact us here to discuss how we can help implement a data-driven materiality process.
Positive Impacts — Advancing the science of sustainability strategy.Learn more about our methodology for Wirkungs-Wesentlichkeit und Wert & Risiko.
