“Are we doing this again?”

When comments like these begin to surface in the meeting room about a materiality assessment, they may reflect two different kinds of fatigue that have quietly built up over time.

One is the fatigue felt by those who have already gone through careful discussions and explained the results to stakeholders.
The other is the sense, often felt by management, that the materiality themes may still not be sufficiently connected to business management or day-to-day operations.

This gap seems to be one reason why companies repeatedly return to the question of whether they need to revisit their materiality.

However, the issue may not necessarily be whether the materiality assessment itself was wrong.
It may be aligned with relevant frameworks. It may work as an external explanation. And yet, internally, it still does not seem to drive concrete action.

Behind this may be a more practical challenge: the materiality themes that have been identified have not yet been fully translated into the language of actual business operations.

Why “Correct but Inactive” Materiality Emerges

Many companies find themselves in a situation like this.

The themes have been organized. Priorities have been set to some extent. The explanation works in disclosure materials.
And yet, it remains difficult to connect those themes to concrete action inside the organization.

Why does this happen?

One possible reason is that materiality has been structured for explanation, but not yet fully structured for execution.

This is not simply a matter of individual capability or organizational awareness.
By nature, materiality tends to be organized at a relatively high level of abstraction. Frameworks such as GRI and SASB are useful for explaining a company’s position to stakeholders, but because they often frame issues as cross-functional themes, the resulting materiality topics can become quite broad.

For example: “climate change response,” “enhancement of human capital,” or “responsible supply chains.”

These are all important themes. However, when they are brought to the operational level as they are, it can become difficult for each department to understand what exactly it is expected to do.

If responsibilities remain unclear, materiality may exist in meeting materials and disclosure documents, but struggle to enter day-to-day decision-making.

This high level of abstraction also affects KPI design.

If the object of measurement remains unclear, it becomes difficult to decide which indicators should be used. As a result, companies may end up selecting indicators that are easy to disclose, or using existing data as a substitute.

Of course, that approach is not necessarily wrong in itself.

However, if things stop there, materiality may gradually become closer to a disclosure framework than a starting point for execution.

From “Redoing” to “Translating”

So what can be done?

One practical approach is to think in terms of “translation.”

Here, translation does not mean starting over from a blank slate.
Rather, it means taking the materiality themes that already exist and reviewing them through the units of business operations, organizational roles, and data. In other words, it is the process of connecting materiality to the practical questions of who acts, what they do, and at what level action should take place.

Translation is not simply a matter of rewording. It can be treated as a structured way of organizing materiality.

For example, companies can begin by asking the following questions.

First, what are the actual units of action?
How does this theme appear in practice, as a specific action or change in business conditions?

Second, what are the pathways of impact?
Where should the company intervene, and what kind of change might that create?

Third, what are the units of decision-making?
Who can make decisions about this issue, and at what level?

Take “enhancement of human capital” as an example.

If a company tries to design measures based on this theme as it is, the scope may be too broad, and the discussion can easily remain abstract.

However, if the theme is broken down into areas such as recruitment, development, placement, evaluation, and retention, the picture begins to change.

Which area currently presents the biggest challenge?
What kind of change would indicate progress?
Which departments need to be involved?

Once these questions can be asked, it also becomes easier to connect the theme to KPIs and concrete initiatives.

Even with the same materiality theme, changing the way the question is framed can make a significant difference in whether the organization can move forward.

What Translation Changes, and a Common Misunderstanding

Through translation, the nature of materiality gradually begins to change.

What was once a framework for explanation may begin to function as a foundation for decision-making.

For example, meetings may become more likely to clarify who is responsible for taking action.
KPI reviews may become more than a simple check of numbers and start to support the next decision.
Discussions about investment and resource allocation may be more likely to refer back to materiality as a basis for judgment.
And as roles become clearer, it may also help reduce the tendency for departments to shift responsibility to one another.

What matters is not creating everything again from zero.

It is about bringing what has already been developed closer to a usable state. In some cases, this may be a more realistic option than starting the materiality process all over again.

At the same time, there is one common misunderstanding.

“Translation” does not simply mean making everything more detailed.

If materiality is only subdivided into smaller and smaller items, the number of things to manage may increase, placing additional burden on the organization.

The real question is one of design:
At what layer should decisions be made?
Who should make them?
And how far should the company go in the first year?

Increasing granularity is not the goal in itself.

What matters is designing the logic that connects materiality with operations, KPIs, and decision-making.

Perhaps It Does Not Need to Be Redone Right Away

When materiality does not seem to function well, the issue is not always the materiality assessment itself. In many cases, the difficulty may lie in the fact that the subsequent connections have not been sufficiently designed.

The language used for external explanation and the language needed for internal execution are not always the same.

Without the work of connecting these two languages — in other words, translation — even carefully identified materiality themes may remain somewhat distant from actual operations.

Considering a review is not a bad thing in itself. But before doing so, it may be worth asking one more question.

Is the current materiality really wrong? Or has it simply not yet been translated into the language of execution?

Neuromagic supports companies in translating materiality into practice, designing KPIs, and connecting materiality across departments in ways that lead to execution.

If you would like to explore how to make your current materiality themes more usable, please feel free to contact us, even if you are still at the stage of organizing your thoughts.

For inquiries related to this article, please select “Materiality Review” in the contact form above.