Development of a Materiality-Based ESG KPI Prioritization Framework for Industrial Organizations

Industrial organisations must monitor and report many environmental, social and governance (ESG) indicators, yet not all carry equal relevance, and low-priority data collection diverts resources from genuine gaps. This paper develops a six-criteria framework for prioritising ESG key performance indicators (KPIs). It combines impact and financial materiality, as defined under the European Sustainability Reporting Standards, with regulatory relevance, operational criticality, stakeholder relevance and data availability. Eight KPIs are scored and combined into a KPI Priority Score, giving three dashboard tiers: greenhouse gas emissions (5.00) and occupational safety (4.17) in Tier 1; energy, water and waste in Tier 2; employee diversity, anti-corruption and community impact in Tier 3. Reweighting toward double materiality leaves the top four ranks unchanged (Spearman's ρ = 0.97). Compared with verified disclosure data for a five-company Indian industrial panel, occupational safety shows the larger gap between priority and disclosed completeness. The paper closes with a dashboard architecture, an economic-sustainability guide and specific recommendations.

ESG KPI prioritisation, double materiality, multi-criteria scoring, sustainability reporting, industrial organisations

1. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The Research Act: A Theoretical Introduction to Sociological Methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Dhaliwal, D. S., Li, O. Z., Tsang, A., & Yang, Y. G. (2011). Voluntary nonfinancial disclosure and the cost of equity capital: The initiation of corporate social responsibility reporting. The Accounting Review, 86(1), 59–100. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Eccles, R. G., Krzus, M. P., Rogers, J., & Serafeim, G. (2012). The need for sector-specific materiality and sustainability reporting standards. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 24(2), 65–71. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. European Financial Reporting Advisory Group. (2023). ESRS 1: General Requirements. European Commission Delegated Regulation 2023/2772, Annex I. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Global Reporting Initiative. (2016). GRI 413: Local Communities 2016. GRI. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Global Reporting Initiative. (2021). GRI 3: Material Topics 2021. GRI. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Hwang, C.-L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. International Organization for Standardization. (2015). ISO 14001:2015 Environmental Management Systems — Requirements with Guidance for Use. ISO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 45001:2018 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems — Requirements with Guidance for Use. ISO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. International Sustainability Standards Board. (2023a). IFRS S1: General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information. IFRS Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. International Sustainability Standards Board. (2023b). IFRS S2: Climate-related Disclosures. IFRS Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Khan, M., Serafeim, G., & Yoon, A. (2016). Corporate sustainability: First evidence on materiality. The Accounting Review, 91(6), 1697–1724. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Pearson, K. (1895). Note on regression and inheritance in the case of two parents. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 58, 240–242. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Securities and Exchange Board of India. (2023). Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting (BRSR) Core: Framework for Assurance and ESG Disclosures for Value Chain. SEBI Circular. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684), 677–680. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Tata Motors Commercial Vehicles Limited. (2026). 2nd Integrated Annual Report 2025–26. Tata Motors Commercial Vehicles Limited. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Tata Steel Limited. (2026). Integrated Report and Annual Accounts 2025–26. Tata Steel Limited. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. UltraTech Cement Limited. (2026). Integrated and Sustainability Report 2025–26. UltraTech Cement Limited. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Development of an Integrated Double-Materiality and Operational Risk Assessment Framework for Industrial Organizations