We analyzed the DMA methodologies of major firms and found a pattern of needless complexity. We built our method on a simple principle: A DMA should be easy to use, or it’s useless.
The Complexity Dilemma
Shared pain point
Sustainability leaders and teams want to implement data-driven initiatives, aiming to bend sustainability into strategic action within their organisation.
But when they look at the “how,” they’re faced with a wall of complexity:
- Ambiguous guidance on the DMA report
- Vague processes that hinder cross-departmental coordination
- And worst of all, the laborious and tedious task of endless data entry, typically in spreadsheet workshops.
The current DMA report: Process Over Purpose
While the DMA report is meant to identify strategic sustainability topics for the CSRD, the Big4’s current process completely misses the point.
Their reports are often dense, their methodologies are opaque, and their process is daunting for any company that just wants to do the right thing while finding its strategic focus.
The truth
But does it have to be this hard? We don’t think so. We scientifically analyzed the common DMA patterns and compared them to the method we used for clients like Veljekset Toivanen.
The conclusion is simple: Complexity is a choice, not a requirement. We chose a simpler, easier path.
The Analysis: What We Learned from Deconstructing the “Hard Way”
We didn’t just have a feeling; we did the research. We dug through hundreds of reports done by the Big4 in different fields and sectors, analyzing DMA sections from top-tier firms.
We weren’t looking for flaws, but for patterns. The pattern was clear.
The Big4 Pattern (The way it has been done till now):
Pain Point 1: Needless Jargon.
The language is built for auditors, not managers. We found reports that intentionally avoid standard language, making them impossible to compare or benchmark.
Pain Point 2: The “Everything” Approach.
This massive ‘survey everyone’ strategy bombards stakeholders with excessively long, arduous surveys and interviews, an exhaustive process that leaves them feeling annoyed and burdened rather than heard. Worse, they can rarely see how their feedback is actually implemented in a real-world business setting, making the entire exercise feel hollow.
Pain Point 3: The ‘Black Box’.
The scoring—how a topic becomes ‘material’—is often a proprietary, complex formula. It’s a secret process you have to trust, not a clear human-centered decision you can understand. Worst of all, this process is almost always subjective, with key figures assigned based on arbitrary or undisclosed criteria.
Introducing “Our Method”: The Easy, User-Friendly Alternative
Our DMA process was designed to be the antidote to this complexity. We believe a DMA’s power comes from its usability. If your executive team can’t understand and act on it in one meeting, it has failed.
Benefit 1: A Guided & Focused Methodology
We replace massive, unfocused data-gathering with a guided, workshop-based approach.
We bring all key stakeholder grouups together through a simple, short, and gamified participation process that gets straight to the core issues. This method is faster and produces more honest, relevant data than traditional, drawn-out interviews.
Benefit 2: A Visual Clarity & Strategic Approach
We move beyond static, flat PDF reports. We deliver a dynamic, interactive dashboard that transforms the final matrix (like the one for Veljekset Toivanen) from an eye chart into a powerful decision-making tool.
This format cut through the noise, allowing you to instantly spot major risks and opportunities without wading through dense text. It offers the best of both worlds: a clarity overview for the Board, and actionable toolkit for the Sustainability Leads to execute the work.
It’s designed for instant recognition, we turn a process that usually causes months of hesitation into a clear roadmap – understood in seconds and actionable immediately.
Benefit 3: A Transparent & Simple Method
We have no ‘black box.’
Our scoring is simple and transparent, making the report easy to defend, understand, and audit.
There is no magic formula that determines materiality; the figures serve only as a guide for decision-making. We don’t pretend this process is purely objective; rather, each decision is based on both numbers AND careful deliberation.
Head-to-Head: The “Hard Way” vs. The “Easy Way”
| Feature | The “Big4” Method (The Hard Way) | “Our” Method (The Easy Way) |
|---|---|---|
| Main Goal | Compliance & Assurance | Strategy & Action |
| Process | Complex, consultant-led, “black box” | Simple, collaborative, transparent |
| Stakeholders | Annoyed and burdened by the ‘Everything’ approach | Efficient engagement with clear stakeholder influence |
| Deliverable | Lengthy material with complicated language | Material with Visual Clarity & Ready to Execute |
| Usability | Hard to understand, built for auditors | Easy to use, built for manager, CEOs |
Conclusion: A Tool, Not a Tombstone
Your Double Materiality Assessment should be a tool, not a tombstone. It’s not a document you file away to prove you did your homework. It should be a living, simple guide that helps you make better decisions every day.
As we analyzed our own Veljekset Toivanen report, we confirmed that our focus on simplicity isn’t a shortcut; it’s a strategic advantage. It forces honest conversations and leads directly to action.”
Stop dreading your DMA. See how our simple, user-friendly process can turn your compliance burden into your biggest strategic asset. [Link to the Veljekset Toivanen case study]