Double materiality has an impact and a financial dimension that interact; the assessment usually starts with impacts and also looks for risks and opportunities unconnected to impacts, such as physical risks, using qualitative considerations and quantitative thresholds. A topic is material from the impact perspective when it relates to actual or potential, positive or negative impacts on people or the environment over any time horizon, in own operations or through direct and indirect business relationships in the value chain, products and services included. Actual negative impacts are rated by severity (scale, scope and irremediable character, any one of which can make an impact severe); potential negative impacts by severity and likelihood, with severity prevailing for human rights; positive impacts by scale and scope (and likelihood if potential) and never netted against negative ones; compliance and remediation of the undertaking's own impacts are not positive impacts. Affected stakeholder engagement from due diligence is a key input, with civil society, NGOs and unions as proxies; implemented prevention and mitigation count only where they can reasonably be expected to work, remediation during the period does not reduce an actual impact, unimplemented policies do not count, and well-managed impacts may still be material to users. Investment managers acting under a fiduciary mandate without retaining risks and rewards need not assess the investments.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.