Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate whether a unified understanding of materiality is possible, given that conceptual pluralism represents a key characteristic of materiality approaches in sustainability reporting.

This paper systematically reviews and examines materiality conceptualizations in sustainability disclosure research and practice, utilizing Gallie’s (1956) analytical framework of essentially contested concepts. The framework enables the separation of conceptual confusion from essential contestation. Whereas reaching conceptual consensus is possible in the former, the hurdles to conceptual agreement are insurmountable in the latter.

This paper reveals that the prevailing lack of consensus surrounding materiality is grounded in its essential contestation, not in conceptual confusion. This robustly supports the projection of conceptual plurality as materiality’s most probable future.

Building on the materiality concept’s essentially contested nature, this paper calls for future research that explicitly embraces the concept’s plural character and more interdisciplinary research.

As a unified understanding of materiality is unlikely to evolve, standard-setters should provide a clear definition of the underlying materiality concept, offer specific guidance on materiality assessment and issue joint documents that detail the similarities, differences and interconnections between their respective materiality frameworks.

Projecting plurality as materiality’s most probable future underscores the importance of users of sustainability reports understanding the materiality concept applied by the reporting entity and the respective consequences for identifying material sustainability issues.

From this paper’s novel insight that materiality is an essentially contested concept, this paper derives two overarching future research directions and offers a broad set of exemplary research questions.

Values have long guided special education services and supports for students with extensive support needs; over the past four decades, those values have been backed by research evidence demonstrating the critical nature of values related to inclusive education, self-determination, and seeking strengths and assets. In this chapter, we investigate these values and their supporting research, documenting strengths and needs in extant research. We emphasize the need to continue to embrace and maintain these values while pursuing research that addresses research gaps while centering the priorities, perspectives, and preferences of people with extensive support needs.