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

Industrial organizations face sustainability issues that affect the environment, society, operations and finances, yet conventional materiality assessments identify significant ESG topics without translating them into operational risk. GRI 3: Material Topics 2021 notes that the severity-and-likelihood assessment of an impact can be understood as risk, but it offers no quantitative model linking that assessment to enterprise risk management. This paper proposes such a model and demonstrates its behaviour on an illustrative set of eight industrial ESG topics. Impact materiality is scored from GRI 3 severity (scale, scope, irremediable character) and likelihood; financial materiality follows the effect-on-enterprise-value definition used in IFRS S1 and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS); Double Materiality is the maximum of the two, mirroring the ESRS either-lens-applies logic. An Operational Risk Score combines operational exposure, financial consequence and control effectiveness, with a residual-risk floor so that strong controls reduce risk without eliminating it. A four-quadrant matrix combines the two scores. In the illustration, business conduct and governance ranks joint-third on Double Materiality but lowest on Operational Risk, whereas supply chain disruption ranks highest on Operational Risk and joint-highest on Double Materiality. Sensitivity analysis shows that climate change and supply chain disruption stay in the Act Now quadrant under every variation tested, while the placement of borderline topics depends on the weights, control assumptions and cut-offs chosen. The scores are illustrative and not empirically validated; a reproducible scoring protocol and a Delphi validation protocol are provided for application to real organizational data

Double materiality; operational risk; GRI 3; enterprise risk management; impact materiality; financial materiality; industrial organizations; prioritisation matrix; India.

1. Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (2011) Principles for the Sound Management of Operational Risk, Bank for International Settlements, Basel. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Baumüller, J. and Sopp, K. (2022) ‘Double materiality and the shift from non-financial to European sustainability reporting: review, outlook and implications’, Journal of Applied Accounting Research, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.8–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/jaar-04-2021-0114 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Bromiley, P., McShane, M., Nair, A. and Rustambekov, E. (2015) ‘Enterprise risk management: review, critique, and research directions’, Long Range Planning, Vol. 48, No. 4, pp.265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2014.07.005 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Calabrese, A., Costa, R., Levialdi Ghiron, N. and Menichini, T. (2019) ‘Materiality analysis in sustainability reporting: a tool for directing corporate sustainability towards emerging economic, environmental and social opportunities’, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.1016–1038. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (2018) Enterprise Risk Management: Applying Enterprise Risk Management to Environmental, Social and Governance-related Risks, COSO and WBCSD. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Cox, L.A. Jr (2008) ‘What’s wrong with risk matrices?’, Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.497–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dalkey, N. and Helmer, O. (1963) ‘An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts’, Management Science, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.458–467. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.9.3.458 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. European Commission (2023) Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) Supplementing Directive 2013/34/EU as Regards Sustainability Reporting Standards, C(2023) 5303 final, Annex I (ESRS 1), Brussels, European Commission. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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

10. Guruprasad, S., Bazaz, A.B., Dubey, M., Choudhary, N., Ganapathy, V., Harshith, B.N. and Mittal, A. (2024) Business Responsibility and Sustainability Reporting in India: An Analysis of Disclosures from 150 Companies, Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bengaluru. https://doi.org/10.24943/BRSRI11.2024 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Hasson, F., Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000) ‘Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp.1008–1015. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.t01-1-01567.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. IFRS Foundation (2023) IFRS S1: General Requirements for Disclosure of Sustainability-related Financial Information, London, IFRS Foundation. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. International Organization for Standardization (2018) ISO 31000:2018 Risk Management – Guidelines, Geneva, ISO. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Kendall, M.G. (1948) Rank Correlation Methods, Charles Griffin, London. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004) ‘The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications’, Information & Management, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.15–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Panfilo, S., Scarpa, F. and Canestraro, N. (2025) ‘Reporting for change: does the adoption of double materiality influence ESG risk management?’, Management Decision, Vol. 64, No. 7, pp.2918–2944 (first published online 2025). https://doi.org/10.1108/md-10-2024-2436 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (1999) ‘The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis’, International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.353–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2070(99)00018-7 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Schmidt, R.C. (1997) ‘Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques’, Decision Sciences, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp.763–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01330.x [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Siegel, S. and Castellan, N.J. (1988) Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Stasytytė, V. and Shahid, S. (2026) ‘From sustainability to risk governance: visualizing the ESG–ERM overlap in the literature’, in Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference Business and Management, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, pp.118–125. https://doi.org/10.3846/bm.2026.2520 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Stevens, S.S. (1946) ‘On the theory of scales of measurement’, Science, Vol. 103, No. 2684, pp.677–680. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.103.2684.677 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Torelli, R., Balluchi, F. and Furlotti, K. (2020) ‘The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: a content analysis of sustainability reports’, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.470–484. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1813 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. von der Gracht, H.A. (2012) ‘Consensus measurement in Delphi studies: review and implications for future quality assurance’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 79, No. 8, pp.1525–1536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

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