- Which materiality benchmarks apply to manufacturing, banking, and retail entities under ISA 320.A4
- What percentage ranges are accepted for each benchmark by entity type
- How to adjust for qualitative factors when the standard benchmark produces an inappropriate result
- Why the same entity at the same revenue can produce materially different thresholds depending on the benchmark selected
Why the benchmark matters more than the percentage
ISA 320.10 requires the auditor to determine materiality for the financial statements as a whole. ISA 320.A4 provides guidance on selecting a benchmark, noting that the choice depends on the nature of the entity, the stage of its lifecycle, and what users of the financial statements focus on. The percentage you apply sits within an accepted range, but the benchmark determines the order of magnitude. Getting the benchmark wrong is a worse error than choosing the edge of an accepted percentage range.
Consider a manufacturing entity with €50M revenue and €2.5M profit before tax. Using revenue at 1% gives you €500K. Using profit before tax at 5% gives you €125K. Same entity, same year, factor-of-four difference. The benchmark decision is the materiality decision. The percentage is fine-tuning.
ISA 320.A4 does not prescribe specific benchmarks. It states that factors relevant to identifying an appropriate benchmark include elements of the financial statements, items on which users tend to focus, the nature and size of the entity, and its ownership structure. This is deliberately open. The auditor exercises judgment. But the judgment needs to be defensible, and defensibility comes from matching the benchmark to what the financial statement users actually care about.
The benchmark decision by entity type
Manufacturing entities
Users of a manufacturer’s financial statements typically focus on revenue and operating profit as measures of performance. ISA 320.A4 supports revenue as a stable benchmark for manufacturing entities because it is less volatile than profit and reflects the scale of operations.
Accepted ranges for manufacturing: revenue at 0.5% to 1%, or profit before tax at 5% to 10% (where profit is stable and positive). For asset-heavy manufacturers, total assets at 0.5% to 1% is an alternative. The ICAEW and NBA (the Dutch professional body) both reference these ranges in their practice guidance, though ISA 320 itself does not specify numbers.
When to use revenue over PBT
Revenue is the default for most mid-tier manufacturing clients because profit can swing between years on a single large contract win or loss. If your client’s profit before tax fluctuated by more than 30% in any of the last four reporting periods, revenue is the more stable benchmark. Document the volatility analysis in your materiality working paper.
Banking and financial institutions
Financial institutions do not earn revenue in the same way as commercial entities. Net interest income and total assets are the relevant benchmarks under ISA 320.A4 because these are the figures users of a bank’s financial statements monitor. Equity is an alternative when the institution’s capital position is the primary concern for its user base. Revenue as a line item is often absent or represents a mix of fee income and interest income that does not correspond to the scale of the institution’s balance sheet.
Accepted ranges for banking: total assets at 0.1% to 0.5%, equity at 1% to 2%, or net interest income at 1% to 5%. The lower percentages on total assets reflect the high degree of financial gearing inherent in financial institutions. A bank with €2B in total assets and €200M in equity serves the same community as a manufacturer with €200M in revenue, but the materiality calculation produces radically different numbers depending on which benchmark you select. Total assets at 0.25% gives €5M. Equity at 1.5% gives €3M.
The materiality calculator includes preset benchmark options for financial institutions so you don’t need to manually configure the ranges.
Retail entities
Retail users focus on revenue and gross profit margin. Retail entities operate on thin margins with high transaction volumes. ISA 320.A4 supports revenue as the primary benchmark for retail because it reflects the scale of operations that users monitor. Gross profit is an alternative when the retail entity’s margin is the primary performance indicator (discount retailers, grocery chains).
Accepted ranges for retail: revenue at 0.5% to 1% or gross profit at 1% to 2%. Profit before tax is less suitable for retail because margins are structurally thin (2% to 5% in many subsectors) and a 5% calculation on a 3% margin produces a materiality figure that may be impractically low. Most mid-tier retail audits default to revenue for this reason.
A retailer with €80M revenue and €2.4M profit before tax illustrates the problem. PBT at 5% gives €120K. Revenue at 0.75% gives €600K. The PBT-based figure would require testing precision that is disproportionate to the risk profile of a standard retail engagement. Revenue is almost always the better benchmark for retail.
When the standard benchmark fails
ISA 320.A6 acknowledges that qualitative adjustments may be necessary. Two situations arise regularly on mid-tier engagements where the standard benchmark produces an inappropriate result.
The first situation: a loss-making entity. Profit before tax is negative, so it cannot serve as a benchmark. ISA 320.A7 suggests using a normalised level of profit or, where that is not feasible, revenue or total assets instead. Document why profit is unsuitable (it’s negative) and what alternative you selected. The materiality glossary entry covers the normalisation process in detail.
The second situation: a special-purpose entity or holding company with minimal revenue but significant assets. Revenue at 0.75% on a €500K revenue holding company produces €3,750, which is not a workable materiality figure. Total assets is the correct benchmark here. ISA 320.A4’s reference to “elements of the financial statements” includes balance sheet measures when the entity’s primary function is asset-holding rather than revenue generation.
In both cases, the documentation burden is slightly higher. ISA 320.12 requires the auditor to document the amount and the benchmark selected, along with the factors considered in making that selection. When you deviate from the obvious benchmark, add one paragraph explaining why the alternative is more appropriate for this entity’s users.
Worked example: same revenue, different materiality
Scenario: You are the engagement partner on audits of Dekker Fabricage B.V. (manufacturing), Rijnmond Kredietunie (banking cooperative), and Groot & Zonen Retail B.V. (discount supermarket chain). All report approximately €45M in a top-line metric relevant to their industry. Each is a non-PIE, non-Big 4 client.
Dekker Fabricage B.V. (manufacturer)
Revenue: €45M. Profit before tax: €3.6M (8% margin, stable over four years). Total assets: €28M.
Benchmark selected: revenue. Rationale: PBT is stable and positive, but two of the prior four years showed margins between 4% and 12%. Revenue is more stable. Percentage: 0.75%. Overall materiality: €337,500. Performance materiality at 75%: €253,125.
Documentation note
Record the benchmark, percentage, calculation (€45M x 0.75% = €337,500), and rationale for selecting revenue over PBT in WP A.2.1.
Rijnmond Kredietunie (banking cooperative)
Total assets: €580M. Equity: €45M. Net interest income: €12.8M.
Benchmark selected: total assets. Rationale: users of a banking cooperative’s financial statements focus on capital adequacy and asset quality. Revenue is not a meaningful metric for this entity. Percentage: 0.2%. Overall materiality: €1,160,000. Performance materiality at 70%: €812,000.
Documentation note
Record the benchmark (total assets), the percentage (0.2%), the calculation (€580M x 0.2% = €1.16M), the rationale for selecting total assets (users focus on balance sheet strength), and the performance materiality percentage (70%, lower than default due to first-year engagement) in WP A.2.1.
Groot & Zonen Retail B.V. (discount supermarket chain)
Revenue: €45M. Gross profit: €11.7M (26% margin). Profit before tax: €1.35M (3% margin).
Benchmark selected: revenue. Rationale: PBT margin is structurally thin at 3%, making PBT an unsuitable benchmark (ISA 320.A4 notes that the benchmark should be stable and relevant). Gross profit is an alternative, but revenue better reflects the scale of operations that creditors and shareholders monitor. Percentage: 0.75%. Overall materiality: €337,500. Performance materiality at 75%: €253,125.
Documentation note
Record the benchmark (revenue), the percentage (0.75%), the calculation, the rationale for rejecting PBT (thin margin, structurally volatile), the consideration and rejection of gross profit (revenue better reflects scale for this entity’s user base), and the PM calculation in WP A.2.1.
What this shows: Dekker and Groot & Zonen arrive at the same materiality figure because both use revenue at the same percentage. But the audit risk profiles are different. Rijnmond’s materiality is three times higher in absolute terms despite serving a similar community, because total assets is the appropriate benchmark for a financial institution and the percentage is lower. The benchmark, not the percentage, drives the difference. A reviewer who sees revenue used for a bank will flag it immediately.
Practical checklist for benchmark selection
- Identify the primary users of the financial statements and what they monitor. For lenders, it’s typically balance sheet metrics. For shareholders of a trading entity, it’s revenue or profit. Document this assessment. (ISA 320.A4)
- Check profit stability. Verify whether profit before tax has been positive and stable for at least the last four reporting periods. If it swung by more than 30% in any period, or was negative in any year, default to revenue or total assets. Document the volatility analysis.
- For financial institutions, start with total assets as the default benchmark. Only use equity or net interest income if the entity’s user base focuses on those metrics specifically. (ISA 320.A4, applied to financial institutions)
- Run a dual-benchmark comparison. Calculate materiality using two benchmarks and compare. If the results differ by more than a factor of two, you need to document why one is more appropriate than the other. The materiality calculator runs this dual-benchmark comparison automatically.
- Revisit at completion. At completion, revisit the benchmark selection under ISA 320.12. If the entity’s circumstances changed during fieldwork (a major contract loss, a regulatory fine, a restructuring), reassess whether the benchmark you selected at planning is still appropriate.
Common mistakes regulators flag
- The AFM’s 2023 thematic review on audit quality found that firms auditing financial institutions frequently applied benchmarks appropriate for commercial entities (revenue or PBT) without documenting why balance sheet metrics were rejected. ISA 320.A4 requires consideration of what financial statement users focus on, and for financial institutions, that is balance sheet strength.
- The FRC flagged in its 2022–23 report that materiality was not revisited at completion in a significant proportion of files, even when circumstances had changed during fieldwork. ISA 320.12 requires reassessment. Applying the planning materiality figure to the completion-stage review without confirming it is still appropriate is a deficiency.
Get practical audit insights, weekly.
No exam theory. Just what makes audits run faster.
No spam — we're auditors, not marketers.
Related content
Frequently asked questions
Why does the materiality benchmark matter more than the percentage?
The benchmark determines the order of magnitude. A manufacturing entity with €50M revenue and €2.5M profit before tax produces €500K materiality using revenue at 1% but only €125K using profit at 5%. Same entity, factor-of-four difference. The percentage is fine-tuning; the benchmark is the materiality decision.
What materiality benchmark should be used for a bank?
Financial institutions should use total assets (0.1–0.5%), equity (1–2%), or net interest income (1–5%). Revenue is not a meaningful metric for banks. The lower percentages on total assets reflect high financial gearing. A bank with €2B total assets and €200M equity produces very different materiality figures depending on which benchmark is selected.
Why is profit before tax unsuitable for retail entities?
Retail entities operate on structurally thin margins (2–5%). A 5% calculation on a 3% margin produces a materiality figure that is disproportionately low relative to the risk profile. Revenue at 0.5–1% is almost always the better benchmark for retail because it reflects the scale of operations that users monitor.
What do you do when profit before tax is negative?
ISA 320.A7 suggests using a normalised level of profit or switching to revenue or total assets. Document why profit is unsuitable (negative) and what alternative you selected. The documentation burden is slightly higher when deviating from the obvious benchmark.
Should materiality be revisited at the completion stage?
Yes. ISA 320.12 requires reassessment if circumstances changed during fieldwork (a major contract loss, a regulatory fine, a restructuring). The FRC flagged that materiality was not revisited at completion in a significant proportion of files, even when circumstances had changed.
Further reading and source references
- ISA 320, Materiality in Planning and Performing an Audit: paragraphs 10–12 on determining and documenting materiality, and A4–A7 on benchmark selection guidance.
- ISA 450, Evaluation of Misstatements Identified during the Audit: the companion standard for evaluating misstatements against materiality.
- ICAEW, Materiality in the Audit of Financial Statements: practice guidance with worked examples and benchmark ranges.
- NBA (Dutch professional body), Practice Note on Materiality: benchmark ranges for Dutch audit engagements.
- AFM 2023 Thematic Review: findings on materiality benchmark selection for financial institutions.
- FRC Audit Quality Inspection Report 2022–23: findings on materiality reassessment at completion.