Materiality (Accounting Concept)

What is Materiality (Accounting Concept)?

IAS 1.7 defines information as material if omitting it, misstating it, or obscuring it could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of primary users. The definition replaced the previous "could influence" formulation, raising the threshold slightly. The 2018 amendment to IAS 1 and IAS 8 unified the wording across both standards and added "obscuring" as a way information can be rendered useless. That addition targeted a specific practice: burying significant disclosures inside walls of immaterial detail.

The concept operates at two levels. At the recognition and measurement level, IAS 8.5 uses the same definition to determine whether a prior-period error requires retrospective restatement. At the disclosure level, IAS 1.31 prohibits an entity from reducing the understandability of its financial statements by obscuring material information with immaterial items or by aggregating material items that differ in nature or function. That rule ties directly to accounting policy disclosure, where the same judgment determines which policies warrant a separate note. IFRS Practice Statement 2 (paragraph 8) frames this as four steps: identify potentially material information, assess whether it is material, organise it within the financial statements, then review whether the draft statements give a fair overall picture.

For the auditor, the entity's own materiality judgments about disclosure feed directly into the risk assessment. If management applies materiality too loosely, the financial statements may omit information that ISA 315.25 requires the auditor to evaluate when identifying risks of material misstatement.

Worked example: Henriksen Shipping A/S

Client: Danish maritime logistics company, FY2025, revenue €140M, IFRS reporter. Henriksen operates 12 vessels on northern European routes.

Step 1 — Identify potentially material information for disclosure

The finance team prepares a first draft of the notes containing 48 individual disclosures. The CFO asks which can be removed or condensed without breaching IAS 1. The auditor reviews the draft against IFRS Practice Statement 2.8 to assess management's materiality judgments.

Step 2 — Apply quantitative and qualitative assessment

Management uses a quantitative threshold of 5% of profit before tax (€1.9M on PBT of €38M) as a starting point. Eight note disclosures fall below this threshold. Management proposes removing four and aggregating two into existing notes. However, one of the eight is a related-party transaction of €320,000 with a company owned by the CEO's spouse. Despite falling below the quantitative threshold, IAS 24.18 requires disclosure regardless of amount because the relationship's nature could influence user decisions. The auditor flags this item as material by nature under IAS 1.7.

Step 3 — Evaluate the "obscuring" dimension

The auditor examines whether the remaining disclosures obscure material information. The revenue disaggregation note combines charter revenue (€98M) with port handling services (€42M) into a single "revenue" line. IFRS 15.114 requires disaggregation by type of service when the revenue streams have different economic characteristics. Combining them obscures the fact that charter revenue carries significantly different credit risk and contract duration profiles. The auditor requests that management disaggregate the two streams.

Step 4 — Review the overall picture

After removing four immaterial disclosures and disaggregating revenue (while retaining the related-party note), the revised financial statements contain 44 notes. The auditor performs a final read-through per ISA 720.14 to confirm the overall presentation is consistent with the auditor's understanding of the entity.

Conclusion: the materiality assessment produced a defensible set of disclosure decisions because each judgment rests on a documented evaluation of both quantitative thresholds and qualitative factors, and the "obscuring" test caught a revenue aggregation that would have breached IFRS 15.114.

Why it matters in practice

• The FRC's 2022/23 annual review of corporate reporting found that entities frequently apply materiality judgments to disclosures using quantitative thresholds alone, without considering whether the nature of a transaction (related-party dealings, regulatory penalties, contingent liabilities below quantitative thresholds, or changes in accounting policy) makes it material regardless of amount. IAS 1.7 explicitly requires both dimensions.
• Preparers sometimes treat the 2018 amendment's addition of "obscuring" as cosmetic. In practice, the FRC and ESMA have both issued findings where entities buried material uncertainties inside lengthy boilerplate disclosures, rendering them ineffective. IAS 1.30A requires that entities not reduce understandability by aggregating or disaggregating inappropriately.

Materiality (accounting) vs. performance materiality

The accounting concept asks whether users need this information. Performance materiality asks how much testing the auditor needs to catch misstatements before they aggregate to a level that matters. Confusing the two leads preparers to apply audit thresholds to disclosure decisions, which systematically suppresses qualitative disclosures.

Related terms

Frequently asked questions