Written by Dr Luan Ho, Science Team Co Lead & Quality Assurance Manager at Tunley Environmental
A Double Materiality Assessment (DMA) is the structured process through which an organisation determines which environmental, social and governance topics are genuinely significant to its business. It examines materiality from two perspectives: the impacts a company has on society and the environment, and the financial risks and opportunities those same topics create for the organisation itself. When done properly, a DMA provides a clear, defensible basis for sustainability decision-making.
For many organisations, DMAs are first encountered through regulatory requirements such as the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). However, its value extends well beyond compliance. A robust DMA helps businesses understand where sustainability issues intersect with strategy, operations and long-term value creation. It allows organisations to prioritise what matters most, rather than spreading effort thinly across a long list of disconnected topics.
This is why companies are increasingly investing time and resource into getting DMA right. Investors use materiality assessments to evaluate risk and resilience. Regulators use them to assess the credibility and completeness of sustainability reporting. Internally, leadership teams rely on DMA outcomes to guide strategy, allocate capital and inform governance. At its best, a Double Materiality Assessment is not a reporting exercise, but a decision-support tool that connects sustainability to the realities of running a business.
Understanding Double Materiality Beyond Definitions
At its core, a Double Materiality Assessment helps organisations identify and prioritise Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) topics that matter most, both in terms of their impact on society and the environment, and their financial implications for the business. This dual perspective goes beyond traditional risk assessments by revealing how external impacts can translate into future financial risk or opportunity. As a result, double materiality enables organisations to anticipate regulatory change, stakeholder pressure, and market changes earlier, providing a more complete, forward-looking basis for strategic decision-making and credible sustainability action.
While CSRD has elevated DMAs from good practice to regulatory expectation, the relevance of a DMA extends far beyond compliance timelines. As reporting requirements continue to tighten over the coming years, DMAs are valuable tools for organisations to:
- Strengthen existing reporting obligations, such as carbon, biodiversity, or social disclosures
- Voluntarily expand reporting scope in a structured and credible way
- Align sustainability priorities with business strategy and decision-making
In this sense, double materiality is less about preparing for regulation and more about preparing for reality.
Why DMAs Matter Now More Than Ever
Organisations today are under unprecedented scrutiny. Investors, regulators, customers, employees and communities are all asking more sophisticated questions about how businesses manage risk, generate long-term value, and contribute to, or detract from, societal goals.
A robust DMA responds to this complexity by enabling organisations to:
- Identify the ESG topics and sub-topics that genuinely matter to their operations and value chain
- Improve transparency and accountability in sustainability reporting
- Prioritise sustainability initiatives based on evidence, not assumptions
- Anticipate regulatory expectations rather than react to them
In short, DMAs provide the structure needed to separate what is truly material for a particular type of business from what is merely fashionable. This means that companies can take decisions to make impacts on the environmental and social areas which are important for their businesses.
What Investors Really Expect from a DMA
For investors, a DMA is not an abstract sustainability exercise. It is a decision-making tool. Increasingly, investment decisions hinge on how well companies understand and manage ESG-related risks and opportunities.
First and foremost, investors expect financial relevance. A DMA should clearly articulate how sustainability topics influence cash flows, capital costs, asset values and long-term resilience. If a topic is identified as material, investors want to understand why it matters financially and what the implications are for future performance.
Secondly, investors expect strategic alignment. A credible DMA reflects the company’s business model and strategy. For example, if an organisation operates in, or invests heavily in, the water sector, water availability, quality and governance cannot be peripheral topics. Investors want to see a clear narrative linking material topics to strategic priorities and growth plans.
Thirdly, investors are looking for forward-looking insight. Historical performance alone is not sufficient. A DMA should demonstrate how material topics have evolved over time and how they may develop in the future. This forward-looking perspective enables investors to assess resilience under different scenarios and tailor their investment strategies accordingly.
Finally, credibility matters. Investors need confidence that the DMA is robust, methodologically sound and free from selective disclosure. Weak assumptions or poorly justified conclusions undermine trust and ultimately influence capital allocation decisions.
Regulatory Expectations: Governance, Diligence and Traceability
Under CSRD and the European Sustainability Reporting Standard (ESRS), regulators are not interested in whether a Double Materiality Assessment has been completed in principle. They are interested in how it was done, who was involved, and whether the conclusions can be justified.
Governance is a starting point. Regulators expect clear ownership of the DMA process and evidence that outcomes have been reviewed and challenged at board or senior management level. This reflects the intent of CSRD: sustainability risks and impacts should be managed through existing governance structures, not treated as a separate reporting exercise.
Diligence in the methodology is equally important. Organisations are expected to explain how topics were identified, how impacts and risks were assessed, and how thresholds for materiality were applied. Under ESRS, this includes being transparent about scoring approaches, assumptions, and any weighting applied to different criteria. A well-documented methodology allows regulators and auditors to understand the logic behind the assessment, not just the final list of material topics.
Traceability underpins both governance and diligence. Companies must be able to show why a topic was assessed as material and, just as importantly, why others were not. This means keeping clear records of data sources, stakeholder input, expert judgement, and internal decision-making. Without this audit trail, materiality conclusions are difficult to defend.
Finally, regulators expect DMAs to be evidence-based. CSRD and ESRS explicitly point to the use of data, internal expertise, and stakeholder engagement to inform materiality judgements. Over-reliance on desk-based research or generic sector assumptions increases the risk of challenge. In practice, credible assessments reflect how the business actually operates, where its impacts occur, and how risks may realistically crystallise over time.
Public Expectations: Trust, Transparency, and Accountability
For the public, a Double Materiality Assessment is less about technical compliance and more about whether the organisation appears honest, credible, and willing to take responsibility for its impacts.
A key expectation is that DMA reflects tangible impacts, not just business risks. Communities, employees, customers, and civil society organisations expect companies to acknowledge where their activities may contribute to environmental harm or social pressure, even when those issues are uncomfortable or difficult to address. Assessments that focus only on positive contributions or future opportunities are often seen as selective and risk undermining trust.
There is also an expectation of follow-through. From a public perspective, material topics should lead to visible action, such as clear commitments, targets, or changes in how the business operates. When DMA results are disclosed without any indication of how they will influence decisions or priorities, they can appear disconnected from reality and lose credibility.
Who is consulted matters as much as what is concluded. For social and human rights topics in particular, public trust is stronger when affected stakeholders are meaningfully involved in the assessment process. Engaging workers, suppliers, communities, or representative organisations helps ensure that materiality reflects lived experience, rather than internal assumptions.
Finally, transparency is judged by clarity rather than volume. Public-facing disclosures should explain why certain topics are considered material in plain language, avoiding unnecessary technical detail. Clear explanations build understanding and confidence, while vague or opaque statements can raise concerns about greenwashing or box-ticking.
From Compliance to Leadership
What unites investors, regulators and the public is a shared expectation that DMAs should drive better decisions. Materiality is not about reporting more. It is about reporting what matters and acting on it.
Organisations that treat DMAs as a strategic instrument rather than a regulatory burden gain a significant advantage. They are better equipped to anticipate risks, allocate resources effectively, stand out from competition, implement tangible initiatives to improve the environment, and navigate a rapidly evolving sustainability landscape.
As sustainability expectations continue to rise, leadership will belong to those who use Double Materiality Assessments not just to comply, but to lead with clarity, credibility and purpose.