Construct · 5 fields · 11 citations
One name. Different field. Different construct. One map.
● jingle · one word, five constructs Nearest construct by meaningpropertycompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to materiality is property.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are fields; dashed arcs are shared lineage. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each field appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
An omitted or misstated fact is material if there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would consider it important in deciding how to act, in the Court's words, that it would have significantly altered the total mix of information available. TSC Industries fixed the test in 1976 for proxy statements and rejected a looser "might" standard as too easy to satisfy. Basic v. Levinson extended it in 1988 to contingent events such as merger talks, weighing probability against magnitude, and refused any bright-line rule. Materiality here is a legal threshold applied by a court to a single fact, judged from the investor's side and with no number attached.[11][1][2]
Information is material if omitting, misstating, or obscuring it could reasonably be expected to influence the decisions of primary users of the financial statements, the definition in FASB Concepts Statement 8 and, in near-identical words, in the IASB framework. ISA 320 turns that into an audit planning number: the auditor sets overall materiality, usually a percentage of a benchmark such as pre-tax income, then a lower performance materiality to drive sampling, and evaluates uncorrected misstatements against it. Messier, Martinov-Bennie, and Eilifsen's 2005 review found that auditors' thresholds vary widely, that qualitative factors are applied inconsistently, and that users' thresholds are lower than auditors'. Materiality here is a quantified planning judgement about the statements as a whole.[3][4]
Two questions asked together: does a sustainability matter affect the company's financial position (financial materiality), and does the company affect people and the environment on that matter (impact materiality)? The EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive of 2022 made double materiality the legal filter for what European companies must report; GRI's standards had used impact materiality alone, and the ISSB uses financial materiality alone. Jørgensen, Mjøs, and Pedersen map the tensions between the two and argue that the inside-out view has no settled threshold and no single user to anchor it. Materiality here selects topics rather than facts, is decided by stakeholder engagement rather than a court, and can be material to the world without being material to the investor.[5][6]
Matter as an active participant in the world rather than a passive substrate awaiting human meaning. Barad's 2003 article proposed agential realism, in which phenomena are produced by intra-actions and boundaries between observer, apparatus, and object are enacted rather than given; her question is how matter comes to matter. Bennett's Vibrant Matter of 2010 argued for a vital materialism in which things (trash, metal, food, electrical grids) have a capacity to act that political theory should take seriously. Materiality here is a claim about ontology and agency, made against the linguistic turn, and it has no measure because measurement is part of what it theorises.[7][8]
The study of how objects make people as much as people make objects. Miller's 2005 volume set out a dialectical theory in which humanity and material culture constitute each other, and argued against reducing objects to symbols or to a backdrop for social relations. Ingold answered in 2007 that "materiality" had become an abstraction that hides what it names: scholars write about the materiality of things while ignoring the actual materials (stone, wood, wet clay) and their properties as they are worked. Materiality here is a relation between people and made things, contested from within, and its evidence is ethnographic and excavated.[9][10]
Next
Combine items across the materiality scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct