How to Make Materiality More Inclusive – Without Losing Focus

Alison Taylor • February 12, 2024

Alison Taylor, Clinical Professor, NYU Stern School of Business and author of the newly released Higher Ground: How Business Can do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World, shares the key steps for ensuring a strategic focus while leading an inclusive materiality assessment across stakeholders.



Materiality assessments have traditionally been approached like any other top-down organizational change initiative. They focus on senior leaders and influential external stakeholders, but do not tend to consult the wider workforce. And, because there is a tendency to treat sustainability initiatives as reputational risk management, many corporations end up with a laundry list of sustainability “stuff” that fails to differentiate between risk, innovation opportunity, and impact.

 

Today, there are two important imperatives. The first imperative is to consider the rise of employee voice and activism. If you do not consult your workers on priorities, you risk setting off conflict and opening yourself up to demands on dozens of issues. Even more importantly, young employees are more likely to feel passionately about sustainability, and to be informed about risks, priorities, and emerging trends than senior leaders.

 

The second is to be more strategic and focused about what problems you will take on and where you have leverage. This is tricky, not least because if you open up the process to more voices, you will inevitably invite an even broader range of ideas as to what should be a priority.

 

Here’s how to approach this being more inclusive, without becoming overwhelmed and losing direction.


Consult your workforce on prioritization


When you gather internal stakeholder insights, don’t restrict yourself to the C Suite. You’ll collect the most comprehensive insights if you combine an internal survey with detailed internal and external interviews. Inside the company, it’s important to talk to leaders in all key functions. However, anticipate that leaders of specific divisions and functions will make selections that reflect their own obsessions and agendas. Defensive politicking is common.

 

It’s therefore smart to gather the views of the full workforce, and to also give consideration to how you impact gig and contract workers. While conducting focus groups with staff in a range of regions and functions is ideal, a survey can be a good alternative. Relatively junior employees might focus more on pet concerns, but are also likely to care less about status, loyalty, and reputation. In fact, when feedback from the workforce differs significantly from the leadership team’s views, you will have unearthed a good indicator of latent frustration or misalignment.

 

These conversations will teach you much about internal sources of pressure, enthusiasm, pain, and tension. You will better understand what employees expect and value. You may identify people who can lead initiatives and make decisions. In short, you’ll be positioned to get something done once the assessment is complete.


Prioritize Ruthlessly



Once you comprehend the landscape of relevant issues and gather stakeholder opinions, you must prioritize ruthlessly. You will have identified a broad range of relevant issues and may be tempted to think they should get equal priority for balance and consistency. Without clear choices, though, you’ll wind up stuck in a swamp of undifferentiated virtue signaling.

 

This has become even more challenging as EU regulations weigh towards a more compliance led, and less strategic approach. While EU regulation promises to bring a seriousness and rigor to the process, as well as budget and senior strategic attention, there is a risk that the breadth and specificity of requirements overwhelms and concerns compliance teams, who themselves may have a very limited knowledge of sustainability. This necessitates far more cross-functional outreach for the sustainability team and means it is more important than ever that sustainability professionals are able to think strategically and help the whole organization prioritize.

 

When prioritizing, companies often face pressure to escalate some issues and downplay others that might draw negative attention. It is easy to wind up trapped between external critiques and internal resistance. That’s how a process that starts with materiality ends up as checking a box. An independent voice in the room can help, but only if that voice has internal credibility.


Most important is the top right quadrant of your materiality matrix. Here, you’ll see the environmental and social issues deemed critical by both internal and external observers. Each issue in this quadrant is likely to be multidimensional; it presents risks and opportunities and ethical and commercial imperatives.

 

In this quadrant, you’ll find the areas where close, ongoing dialogue with key external experts and other stakeholders will be most valuable. If you look for connections among these issues, you might see that they all relate to the same root cause (such as climate change or worker rights). This is the time to engage in robust debate in order to shape a distinctive position aligning rhetoric and action. Ultimately, these questions should be treated with the same seriousness as any corporate strategy imperative. It’s best if you can confidently select a single area of focus. Choose more than three issues, and you will be biting off more than you can chew.

 

If you’ve conducted your analysis rigorously, priority issues will include those that are critical—even existential—for your core business model. If your company manufactures medicines, you’ll see product liability and safety. If it makes clothing, there’s no avoiding questions of environmental impacts and worker rights in your supply chain. It’s common to view these issues solely as risks or problems, but you should be mindful that they may present significant opportunities for innovation and strategic advantage.

 

Clear prioritization makes developing a strategy less excruciating. You’ll be less inclined to put a range of incompatible issues into that bucket of ESG stuff or to concentrate on messaging over substance.

 

Once you’ve identified your priorities, you can get down to considering how to incentivize innovation, better manage risk, and/or establish ethical oversight. While you might want to look at what competitors are doing and saying, your objective is differentiation, not mimesis. Sam Hartsock, who runs qb, a sustainability consultancy, and whose clients include Bumble and Ben & Jerry’s tells me: “We explore whether specific issues present operational risks, ethical imperatives, or impact/innovation opportunities. This helped drive deeper reflections, before jumping to solutions.”

 

If your focus is sharply strategic, and you clearly see the challenges and opportunities each issue presents, you’ll find it much easier to incentivize the core business to focus on these issues. Even more critical, you’ll know what expertise your sustainability team (and board) needs. A failure to focus will mean that instead of recruiting for deep expertise managing your high priority material issues, your sustainability team’s job will default to data gathering, coordination, and impression management. General Motors is a good example of a company that adopted a focused strategy on a root-cause issue: climate change.

 

Developing a sharp strategic focus does not let you ignore other issues. At the very least, you’ll need to report and disclose information about all the issues on your materiality map. A materiality process helps identify areas where your organization has considerable impact on stakeholders but is unfocused or unprepared to act. It will also help you identify key operational priorities you are simply expected to get right. Being equipped with this nuanced understanding of issues and stakeholder pressures will enable you to proceed confidently.

About the Author:

Alison Taylor
Clinical Professor, NYU Stern School of Business
Author,
Higher Ground: How Business Can do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World


Adapted from Higher Ground: How Business Can Do the Right Thing in a Turbulent World by
Alison Taylor. Copyright 2024 by Alison Taylor. All rights reserved.


Photo: PxHere

Read perspectives from the ISSP blog

By Professor Ioannis Ioannou June 17, 2025
Professor Ioannis Ioannou , A leading expert in sustainability leadership and corporate responsibility, Professor Ioannou's research provides valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities organizations encounter when developing sustainable business models. His award-winning academic work on strategic ESG integration, coupled with his focus on the investment community and financial markets, has established him as a thought leader in the field. Who Gets to Tell the Story of ESG? For more than a decade, ESG rapidly evolved from a specialized investor consideration into an elaborate global infrastructure of standards, metrics, taxonomies, and disclosure frameworks. Investor attention soared, corporate sustainability teams grew exponentially, and ESG vocabulary— climate risk, fiduciary duty, and double materiality—became firmly embedded in corporate boardrooms and regulatory discussions globally. Yet, despite ESG’s impressive institutional and technical advancements, the narrative meant to support it remained remarkably fragile. While ESG developed sophisticated standards, disclosures, and metrics, it never invested in the narrative infrastructure to explain its purpose, build public understanding, or secure legitimacy beyond institutional circles. Without the broader stakeholder engagement and effective storytelling that would connect ESG to people’s lived realities, it became vulnerable. Critics didn’t need to challenge carbon accounting or materiality frameworks; instead, they recast ESG as a job killer, an elite agenda, or an unwelcome intrusion into everyday life. The backlash caught many ESG professionals off guard, though the warning signs were visible. ESG’s rapid adoption by investors and regulatory bodies created an illusion of momentum, but this obscured a deeper structural gap. ESG rarely connected meaningfully with those directly affected by ESG-driven transitions—workers facing disruption, small business owners adapting to shifting expectations, and communities, particularly in vulnerable regions, confronting real and immediate climate risks. For these groups, ESG often seemed abstract, distant, and disconnected from their daily concerns. Narrative infrastructure might sound like an unusual concept, but it's foundational to widespread support. It connects people and institutions, conveys meaning, and determines whether ESG is seen as genuine leadership or merely corporate branding. Robust narrative infrastructure ensures resilience under political pressure; without it, initiatives can rapidly lose whatever public approval they may have had. Constructing narrative infrastructure requires explicitly recognizing storytelling— and who contributes to that storytelling—as integral to ESG strategy, not simply a communications exercise. Effective narratives generate trust precisely because they emerge from transparent dialogue, clear accountability, and inclusive stakeholder engagement. By contrast, greenwashing uses storytelling deceptively, aiming to conceal poor performance, and deflect scrutiny. Strong narrative infrastructure, unlike greenwashing, strengthens credibility and legitimacy by openly connecting ESG commitments to shared realities, tangible actions, and measurable outcomes. It is a fundamental strategic asset for ESG success. Importantly, narrative infrastructure also concerns who gets to tell these stories. Over the last decade, the central narrators of the ESG story have largely been institutional actors: executives, investors, sustainability professionals, academics, and regulators. Their contributions have been invaluable, driven by expertise, rigor, and genuine commitment. Yet these narrators also represent a relatively narrow perspective, shaped by institutional backgrounds and professional incentives. Many important voices have remained largely excluded from shaping ESG narratives: indigenous people whose lives are often fundamentally changed by corporate activities, workers whose livelihoods are directly impacted by ESG transitions, young people deeply invested in future outcomes, small businesses continuously adapting to new ESG-related requirements, and especially communities—particularly in the Global South —directly facing the worst of climate disruptions. While these stakeholders' experiences occasionally appear within ESG reporting, they seldom influenced strategy or shape decisions in a substantial way. This exclusion poses significant, practical risks. Stakeholders naturally resist initiatives perceived as imposed from above or disconnected from their lived realities—not necessarily because they oppose ESG’s goals, but because they feel unheard and invisible within such ESG narratives. The resistance appears as political backlash, active public scepticism, or disengagement, all severely undermining ESG’s legitimacy, effectiveness, and public support. Addressing this critical weakness requires deliberately building ESG’s narrative infrastructure through inclusive, collaborative, and ongoing engagement. Practically, companies should move beyond occasional or reactive consultations toward sustained processes where stakeholders actively shape strategies. This can involve establishing community advisory boards with real decision-making power, participatory scenario planning that integrates diverse local perspectives, and internal cross-functional councils that ensure workers, communities, and youth voices directly influence ESG outcomes. Such sustained, authentic collaboration bridges the gap between institutional intentions and genuine public legitimacy. Within companies, narrative stewardship should not be limited to corporate communications or sustainability departments alone. Effective ESG storytelling depends on regular, structured collaboration across multiple functions—including strategy, human resources, procurement, product development, and finance—to ensure ESG commitments align authentically with core business decisions and reflect real-world stakeholder experiences. Companies can institutionalize this collaboration by creating dedicated cross-functional ESG committees tasked with integrating diverse internal perspectives, monitoring stakeholder feedback, and ensuring ESG initiatives clearly connect to tangible social outcomes. At an institutional level, building ESG narrative infrastructure involves establishing platforms that broaden participation in ESG discourse. It requires supporting initiatives that improve public understanding of ESG standards and practices, funding research that evaluates public perceptions of ESG alongside traditional financial metrics and ensuring ESG disclosures transparently reflect diverse stakeholder concerns. ESG narrative legitimacy grows stronger when diverse perspectives genuinely shape how ESG commitments are determined and communicated, implemented, and monitored—not merely as token inclusions, but as integral, strategic components of ESG itself. Regulators have an essential role in shaping ESG narrative infrastructure. Current ESG disclosure standards typically prioritize technical accuracy and financial materiality, mostly targeting investor needs. Broadening these frameworks to explicitly incorporate public legitimacy could significantly enhance ESG’s impact. For example, regulators could introduce clear criteria assessing whether companies effectively communicate their ESG strategies to diverse stakeholders and evaluate how these communications influence brand value and reputational risk—approaches already emerging in Europe’s Green Claims Directive and the CSRD/ESRS focus on double materiality. Additionally, policy evaluations could systematically measure whether ESG initiatives are genuinely perceived as fair, inclusive, and beneficial by the communities they affect. Public support and trust require deliberate and continuous effort; they cannot be assumed or taken for granted. Fortunately, inspiring examples of effective ESG narrative infrastructure already exist. Companies like Patagonia have openly integrated supplier and worker voices into their ESG narratives, transparently highlighting labour practices and sourcing standards, significantly enhancing their credibility. Unilever’s inclusive “living wage” campaigns have similarly leveraged stories from frontline workers to connect ESG metrics with tangible social outcomes, strengthening stakeholder trust. Industry-specific initiatives, such as the Bangladesh Accord in apparel, demonstrate how authentically incorporating diverse stakeholder experiences—including employees, unions, and community representatives—into ESG reporting can reinforce accountability and legitimacy. These examples highlight how inclusive storytelling, grounded in genuine stakeholder participation, can transform ESG commitments from abstract promises into credible actions with real-world impact. ESG professionals now face an exciting strategic opportunity: intentionally building a narrative infrastructure that's genuinely inclusive, collaborative, and resilient. Yes, involving diverse stakeholders means navigating complexity, dialogue, and occasionally tough compromises. It also means embracing participatory processes that might feel messier or less predictable. But it's exactly this diversity of voices and collective authorship that generates persuasive, robust narratives—ones that not only resonate widely but can confidently withstand shifts in politics, culture, and public sentiment. Beyond strengthening ESG's narrative infrastructure, it's important for ESG professionals to step back and consider sustainability more broadly. By explicitly linking ESG narratives to overarching sustainability objectives—such as respecting planetary boundaries and enabling a just transition—professionals can better illustrate how financial markets, corporate strategies, and policy frameworks actively support broader ecological and social well-being. Making these broader connections explicit can deepen trust, enhance engagement, and ensure the interconnected ESG-sustainability story resonates meaningfully with all those whose futures depend on it. We stand at a turning point, facing a critical opportunity to strengthen ESG’s narrative foundations. While ESG’s narrative fragility has been clearly exposed, this moment also offers an inspiring chance to intentionally build a more inclusive, credible, and resilient narrative infrastructure. The future of sustainability depends not only on rigorous metrics or detailed disclosures, but ultimately on whether those whose lives are impacted recognize themselves clearly in its story. By authentically amplifying diverse voices, explicitly connecting ESG initiatives to broader sustainability goals, and developing narratives rooted in real-world experiences, we can foster the trust, legitimacy, and collective commitment necessary for meaningful and lasting progress.
By Alex Smith June 4, 2025
Join the ISSP Programming Committee: Shape the Future of Sustainability Learning! Are you passionate about sustainability and eager to help professionals grow their skills and leadership? The International Society of Sustainability Professionals (ISSP) is seeking volunteers to join our 2026 Programming Committee! What’s Involved? Collaborate with a diverse team to plan impactful webinars and interactive working sessions. Help select topics, speakers, and resources that empower sustainability professionals worldwide. Commit to two monthly Zoom meetings (one 90-minute working session and one 60-minute full committee meeting). Spend 2-5 hours monthly researching ideas and contributors. Why Volunteer? Make a meaningful impact in the sustainability field. Gain hands-on experience in program development and nonprofit leadership. Connect with a network of like-minded sustainability professionals. Receive recognition for your valuable contributions. Key Dates: Application Deadline: June 23, 2025, 8am ET Meetings begin August 2025 (all virtual via Zoom) Ready to help shape sustainability education and make a difference? Sign up here to join a community dedicated to advancing sustainability worldwide!
By Antoinette de Crombrugghe May 15, 2025
I belong to a generation raised in the shadow of the climate crisis. But it wasn’t something we were taught in school. It wasn’t part of our curriculum, our standardized tests, our childhood vocabulary. We came across it slowly, in fragments, through social media, activism, panic headlines, and documentaries. We educated ourselves. We connected the dots. And still, many of us are figuring out how to carry this knowledge and how to live with it without being crushed by it.
More blog posts