Materiality is the key principle that drives the selection of issues that companies must report on. The European Union regulation on companies’ non-financial disclosure coined a special meaning of materiality that holistically combines the two perspectives of financial and impact materiality into an overall “double materiality” (DM). The contrast detected between the early debate and the low level of empirical knowledge on DM provided by the literature on materiality disclosure gave rise to our research aim, which was to map the pioneering experiences of DM. In order to achieve this aim, we carried out an exploratory analysis on the non-financial reports of 58 companies, both European and non-European, operating in various industries (period 2019–2021). The results reveal “traces” of DM in the reports of few companies, mainly European ones. The aspects we examined, both with atomistic and summative perspectives of inquiry, highlight variety in both double materiality assessments and adoption disclosures, as well as related criticalities. This foreshadows a fragmented landscape of materiality analysis disclosure over the next few years that presently requires great attention and increased operational guidance by the international standard setters involved. The article closes by proposing implications, limitations and research perspectives.

After a long period of the inclusion of materiality matrices within standard setters documents and non-financial reports, the Global Reporting Initiative officially abandoned the materiality matrix in 2021 after the GRI 3 standard release. To bridge the detected gaps in the literature, this article aims to investigate approaches to and arguments for the matrix until the issuance of GRI 3. The two-step research strategy adopted gives the same level of attention to the opposite positions found. Phase 1 (approach-oriented) reviews the materiality matrix presentation in the 2014–2020 non-financial reports of a sample of worldwide sustainability-oriented companies. Phase 2 (argument-oriented) performs qualitative content analysis on feedback for the GRI 3 preparatory works. The findings show that, besides the staunch adopters, a core of non-adopters persisted and prevented the takeoff of the matrix. Moreover, further insights into possible drivers both in favour of and against these approaches are provided. The final discussion both considers the lessons learnt, overlapping with policy implications, and suggests future research avenues.