General disregard for details of GRI human rights reporting by large corporations by J. Emil Morhardt

This article examines the web-based social responsibility reporting of the 100 largest companies in six broad industrial sectors to determine the extent to which the reporting follows the specific guidance of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) G3 Human Rights Performance Indicators (HR1–HR9). Ninety-seven of these companies have some sort of social information on their websites, and 95 of them have formal corporate responsibility reports. Seventy-one of these companies indicate that their reports were based on the G3 guidelines, and 66 of these provide a detailed index to them. The nine G3 HR guidelines can be subdivided into 17 specific items; six of them can be interpreted as requiring only that actions or measures taken be described, and these are widely followed, primarily in the form of policy statements. The remaining items, reported much less frequently, are quantitative, requiring total numbers or percentages of specific actions or incidents, or identification of operations in which such incidents are at significant risk. Thus, although the G3 guidelines for human rights reporting contemplate quantitative statements of performance, most of the reports examined for this article do not provide any, nor, for the most part, indicate why not. I argue that the reporting likely would be more informative if the guidelines were rewritten to request the nature of the processes and procedures the company is implementing for achieving the desired human rights outcomes, and the degree to which they are in place.