[PDF] Reporting on Human Rights - Global Reporting Initiative

<strong>Reporting</strong> on 

Human Rights 

A survey conducted by the Global <strong>Reporting</strong> Initiative TM and the 

Roberts Environmental Center (Claremont McKenna College) 

The Ams erdam Global onferen e on 

This document is available for free download on www.globalreporting.org 

GRI Research & Development Series 

Topics 

<strong>Reporting</strong> 

Practices 

Tools

p 

About GRI’s Research and 

Development Publication 

Series 

GRI’s world class research and development 

program supports a commitment to continuous 

improvement by investigating challenging issues 

around reporting and innovating new ways to 

apply the GRI <strong>Reporting</strong> Framework in conjunction 

with other standards. 

Publications in the GRI Research and Development 

Series are presented in three categories: 

Topics 


Practices 

Tools 

Research and implications on reporting 

related to subject such as biodiversity 

and gender 

Tracking reporting practices and 

implementation, and assessing future 

scenarios. 

Guidance for using the GRI <strong>Reporting</strong> 

Framework in combination with other 

standards 

Copyright 

This document is copyright-protected by Stichting 

Global <strong>Reporting</strong> Initiative (GRI). The reproduction 

and distribution of this document for information 

is permitted without prior permission from GRI. 

However, neither this document nor any extract 

from it may be reproduced, stored, translated, or 

transferred in any form or by any means (electronic, 

mechanical, photocopies, recorded, or otherwise) 

for any other purpose without prior written 

permission from GRI. 

Global <strong>Reporting</strong> Initiative, the Global <strong>Reporting</strong> 

Initiative logo, Sustainability <strong>Reporting</strong> Guidelines, 

and GRI are trademarks of the Global <strong>Reporting</strong> 

Initiative. 

© 2008 GRI 

ISBN number: 978-90-8866-010-8 

This document ‘<strong>Reporting</strong> on Human Rights’, falls 

under the <strong>Reporting</strong> Practices category. 

© 2008 GRI

Acknowledgements 

The Global <strong>Reporting</strong> Initiative 

The Global <strong>Reporting</strong> InitiativeTM (GRI) is a 

multi-stakeholder non-profit organization that 

develops and publishes guidelines for reporting on 

economic, environmental, and social performance 

(‘sustainability performance’). The GRI’s Sustainability 

<strong>Reporting</strong> Guidelines had been used by over 

1000 organizations worldwide, with many more 

organizations considering them informally during 

the preparation of their public reports. The guidelines 

are developed through a unique multi-stakeholder 

consultative process involving representatives from 

reporting organizations and report information 

users from around the world. First published in 2000 

and then revised in 2002, the guidelines have now 

entered their third generation, referred to as the GRI 

G3 Guidelines which were released in October 2006. 

Roberts Environmental Center 

Emil Morhardt, Director of the Roberts Environmental 

Center, and Roberts Professor of Environmental 

Biology at Claremont McKenna College, directed the 

REC’s participation in this study. Elgeritte Adidjaja, 

Research Fellow at the REC, directed data collection 

and designed and managed the database. Twentythree 

students, listed in the Appendix, participated 

in data collection. One student, Selene Isaacson 

did a large portion of the data collection and was 

instrumental in collecting examples from company 

texts. Sia Morhardt, Senior Consulting Fellow to the 

REC, prepared the report with support from REC staff. 

For a full list of participants see Appendix. 

Sustainability <strong>Reporting</strong> in Human Rights 

Research conducted by: 

Emil Morhardt, Roberts Environmental Center 

Elgeritte Adidjaja, Roberts Environmental Center 

Lead editors: 

Sean Gilbert, GRI 

Damir Dragicevic, GRI 

Designer: 

Tuuli Sauren, INSPIRIT International 

Communications 

1 

GRI Research and 

Development Series 


Practices

2 

© 2008 GRI

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 4 

1. Introduction 5 

2. Research Methodology 6 

3. Results and Discussion 

8 

3.1. Patterns in the Presentation of Human 

Rights Information 8 

3.2. Topics Addressed in Human Rights 

Sections of Company <strong>Reporting</strong> 9 

3.3. Human Rights Related Organizations 

Referenced in Sample Reports 10 

3.4. Frequency of <strong>Reporting</strong> on G3 Human 

Rights Topics and Performance 

Indicators 11 

3.5. Depth of <strong>Reporting</strong> on G3 Human 

Rights Topics 16 

3.6. Quantitative versus Qualitative 

Performance <strong>Reporting</strong> 19 

4. Conclusions 23 

4.1. Patterns in the Structure and 

Organization of Human Rights 

<strong>Reporting</strong> 23 

4.2. What Is and Should Be Included in 

Human Rights <strong>Reporting</strong>? 23 

4.3. Quantitative Performance <strong>Reporting</strong> 24 

4.4. Directions for Refinement of Human 

Rights Performance <strong>Reporting</strong> 24 

Appendixes 

Table A2-1: References for human rights 

organizations and guidelines and 

their key activities. 25 

Table A3-1: List of companies included in the 

study and their classifications. 26 

Table A3-2: Consolidation of sectors. 31 

Table A3.5-1: Frequency by sector of HR topics 

1-9 being reported as policy, 

action, or performance. 32 

Table A3.5-2: Frequency by region of HR topics 

1-9 being reported as policy, 

action, or performance. 33 

Table A3.5-3: Depth of reporting index scores 

by sector and region for HR topics 

1-9. 34 

People working at the Roberts Environmental 

Center on data collection 35 

List of Tables 

Table 2-1. Numbers (percentages) of sample 

companies in each sector. 6 

Table 2-2. Numbers (percentages) of sample 

companies in each region. 6 

Table 2-3. G3 Human Rights Performance 

Indicators (HR1 through HR9). 7 

Table 3.1-1. Patterns in the presentation of 

human rights (HR) information 

within companies 8 

Table 3.1-2. Companies by sector that include 

some human rights topics in 

supplier guides. 8 

Table 3.2-1. Topics reported as human rights 

that are not addressed by 

performance indicators in the 

human rights category of the GRI 

G3 Guidelines. (Arranged by G3’s 

relevant Social category or Other 

if not addressed by G3 Social 

Performance Indicators.) 9 

Table 3.3-1. Frequency with which human 

rights organizations and guidelines 

are cited in sample company reports. 10 

Table 3.4-1. Percent (numbers) of 100 sample 

companies addressing HR 

topics 1-9 by differing measures. 11 

Table 3.4-2. Numbers and percents of G3 and 

non-G3 reporters meeting specific 

G3 Performance Indicators. 13 

Table 3.4-3. Numbers and percents of companies 

by sector that discuss HR topics 1-9. 14 

Table 3.4-4. Numbers and percents of companies 

by region that discuss HR topics 1-9. 15 

Table 3.5-3. Numbers of companies assigned 

each possible depth score for HR 

topics 1-9 and average score by 

topic 17 

Table 3.5-4: Number and percent of G3 and 

non-G3 companies reporting in each 

depth category and average depth 

index scores by HR topics 1-9. 18 

Table 3.6-1: Numbers of companies by sector 

reporting performance information 

on HR topics 1-9. 20 

Table 3.6-2: List of quantitative performance 

measures reported. 20 

Table 3.6-3. Percent of performance information 

that is quantitative for G3 and 

non-G3 companies reporting on 

HR topics 1-9. 22 

List of Figures 

Figure 3.5-1. Depth of <strong>Reporting</strong> Index Scores for 

all sample companies 16 

Figure 3.5-2. Average depth of reporting index 

scored by HR topics 1-9 16 


score by sector 17 


score by region 17 


3 




Practices

Executive Summary 

The Global <strong>Reporting</strong> Initiative and the Roberts 

Environmental Center (a research institute at 

Claremont McKenna College) conducted a survey 

of corporate human rights reporting based on 

information published by 100 large companies from 

around the world. 

The survey focused on evaluating the extent to which 

performance information is reported by companies 

to describe their compliance with widely accepted 

human rights objectives. In particular, compliance 

with the GRI G3 Sustainability <strong>Reporting</strong> Guidelines on 

human rights was assessed. In addition, information 

was compiled on the range of topics dealt with as 

human rights, the kinds of information reported, and 

the organizational structure of reporting. 

Most often human rights topics were included in 

the social section of sustainability reports, but they 

were not necessarily identified as human rights. 

The most frequently addressed topics had to do 

with labor practices which were often presented 

in report sections about labor without identifying 

them as human rights. Almost all topics identified 

by companies as human rights are covered in 

the G3 Guidelines, but not necessarily under the 

category called human rights. 

When the nine topics addressed by the G3 human 

rights indicators were searched for in company 

reports, four were not mentioned at all by half or 

more of the surveyed companies. The four labor 

related topics were the most frequently reported, 

with screening of the supply chain for human rights 

compliance also addressed by more than half of the 

samples. When strict compliance with quantitative 

G3 Human Rights Performance Indicators was 

examined, fully conforming reporting was found 

in only 7% of possible cases for companies who 

declared use of G3 Guidelines and 2% for other 

companies. 

An index showing depth of reporting was 

devised to measure reporting of policy, actions, 

and performance. Only 13 companies scored at 

or above the median of possible scores, and it was 

common for policy or action information to be 

reported rather than performance. 

In an examination of performance reporting alone, 

it was found that quantitative information about 

performance was provided in 9% of possible 

cases, which was slightly over half of the time 

that any performance information was reported. 

G3 declared companies reported human rights 

performance information quantitatively in only 13% 

of possible cases, but this was roughly three times 

as often as other companies. 

In summary, the survey showed that labor practices 

are the most widely reported human rights topics 

but they are often not identified by reporters as 

human rights. Even with labor practices counted, 

very little company reporting about human rights 

provides quantitative performance information. 

Although strict adherence to G3 Human Rights 

Performance Indicators is very low, G3 declared 

companies report quantitative performance 

information more often than other companies. 

4 

© 2008 GRI

1. Introduction 

Corporate reporting about human rights is an 

increasingly important aspect of transparency. 

Annual reports, sustainability reports, social reports, 

and other publications of companies around the 

world frequently address human rights issues along 

with other social, economic, and environmental 

practices of interest to stakeholders. 

Since its founding in 1997, the Global <strong>Reporting</strong> 

Initiative (GRI) has been addressing the need for 

standardized approaches to corporate sustainability 

reporting. In 2006, GRI published Version 3.0 (G3) of 

its Sustainability <strong>Reporting</strong> Guidelines emphasizing 

Performance Indicators. The G3 Guidelines contain 

a separate section titled “Human Rights” with nine 

performance indicators (HR1-9). Many companies 

around the world adhere to the GRI Guidelines, 

including G3, but the format and content of 

reporting on human rights issues is highly 

variable. 

The Roberts Environmental Center (REC) is an 

endowed research institute at Claremont McKenna 

College, a private liberal arts college in Claremont, 

California, and a member of the Claremont Colleges. 

Using student research assistants, the REC evaluates 

transparency of corporate sustainability reporting 

using its own index (Pacific Sustainability Index) and 

publishes its results on its web site, www.roberts. 

cmc.edu, with the goal of encouraging the world’s 

largest corporations to increase transparency and 

continuously improve performance with respect to 

environmental and social issues, including human 

rights. 

GRI and REC have undertaken this project to 

evaluate the current state of human rights 

performance measurement as reported in G3 

sustainability reports, or similar reports from 

non-G3 reporters, made available on the internet by 

large companies from around the world. 


5 




Practices

2. Research Methodology 

As a preliminary effort to understand the variety 

of ways in which human rights issues are reported, 

the REC did an initial qualitative evaluation of 

60 sustainability reports from Fortune Global 

500 companies. This led to the quantitative 

survey methodology applied in this study, and 

to the collection of information about the format 

of human rights reporting, the human rights 

organizations and standards cited, and the extent to 

which topics related to each of the nine G3 Human 

Rights Performance Indicators is addressed by each 

of 100 companies covered by the final study. 

GRI randomly identified 100 companies (reflecting 

the overall pool of GRI reporters) for evaluation. 

Each company was assigned to one of six regions 

based on the location of its headquarters, and to 

one of six consolidated industry sectors. Fiftynine 

of the companies have declared themselves 

to be users of the G3 Guidelines, according to GRI 

records. Forty-one of the companies use other 

guidelines, their own criteria, or portions of the G3 

Guidelines. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 show the numbers 

(percentages) of companies in each sector and 

region, respectively. Classification categories are 

used to present study results. Appendix Table A3-1 

lists the companies alphabetically and gives each 

of their classifications. The consolidation of sector 

categories is presented in Appendix Table A3-2. 

The most recent (as of June 2007) English language 

sustainability report published by each company 

on its web site or available over the internet 

was collected. Widely recognized human rights 

guidelines and initiatives pertaining to businesses 

also were collected and those cited by companies in 

their reporting were tabulated. 

Firstly, all company report sections titled Human 

Rights were examined for the issues they included 

and the nature of reporting. The full reports of 

companies with extensive human rights material 

were examined to determine the format and 

structure in which the information was presented. 

Also, a search was made for topics not covered by 

the G3 Human Rights Performance Indicators but 

included in company report sections titled Human 

Rights. 

Secondly, subject matter relating to each of the G3 

Human Rights Performance Indicators was gleaned 

from each company’s reporting material. These 

indicators are listed in Table 2-3. This report uses 

the term “topic” to refer to information relevant 

to a G3 Performance Indicator but not necessarily 

meeting the specifications stated in the G3 

Guidelines. For example, the topics of corporate 

investment, procurement, and employee training 

are grouped by the G3 Guidelines under an Aspect 

called Investment and Procurement Practices. Each 

of the three topics has a Performance Indicator 

specifying quantitative information that should be 

reported. For employee training, total hours and 

percentages of employees trained are called for in 

the Performance Indicator (HR3), whereas we refer 

to the “topic” as employee training. All other G3 

Human Rights Aspects have a single Performance 

Indicator, meaning that our use of the term “topic” is 

synonymous with “Aspect”. 

Table 2-1. Numbers (percentages) of sample companies 

in each sector. 

Sector 

Banks 18 

Energy Utilities 10 

Extractive 16 

Manufacturing 33 

Service 20 

Transportation 3 

Total 100 

N 

Table 2-2. Numbers (percentages) of sample companies 

in each region. 

Region 

North America 17 

Latin America 5 

Europe 53 

Oceania 5 

Asia 17 

Africa 3 

N 

6 

© 2008 GRI

Table 2-3. G3 Human Rights Performance Indicators (HR1 through HR9) 

HR1 

HR2 

HR3 

HR4 

HR5 

HR6 

HR7 

HR8 

HR9 

Percentage and total number of significant investment agreements that include human rights clauses or that have 

undergone human rights screening. 

Percentage of significant suppliers and contractors that have undergone screening on human rights and actions taken. 

Total hours of employee training on policies and procedures concerning aspects of human rights that are relevant to 

operations, including the percentage of employees trained. 

Total number of incidents of discrimination and actions taken. 

Operations identified in which the right to exercise freedom of association and collective bargaining may be at significant 

risk, and actions taken to support these rights. 

Operations identified as having significant risk for incidents of child labor, and measures taken to contribute to the 

elimination of child labor 

Operations identified as having significant risk for incidents of forced or compulsory labor, and measures to contribute to 

the elimination of forced or compulsory labor. 

Percentage of security personnel trained in the organization’s policies or procedures concerning aspects of human rights 

that are relevant to operations. 

Total number of incidents of violations involving rights of indigenous people and actions taken. 

Each company’s treatment of each human rights 

topic was evaluated for presence, absence, or 

statement of non-relevance; for fully, partially, or 

not meeting the requirements of the specific G3 

Performance Indicators; for depth of reported 

information; and for presence of performance 

information, both quantitative and otherwise. 

The information reported in Section 3.4 was collected 

first at a very general level, tabulating any report 

discussion relevant to a G3 human rights topic, 

and second at a very specific level, searching for 

information explicitly addressing G3 Human Rights 

Performance Indicators. If more than one type of 

information was required by the G3 indicator, such as 

risks and actions, the designation “partial” was used if 

only some of the information was given. 

Depth of reporting on each human rights topic, 

as described in Section 3.5, was addressed by 

evaluating information pertaining to three 

categories: policy, actions, and performance. These 

categories were based largely on GRI’s Disclosure(s) 

on Management Approach items, which are intended 

to address an organization’s approach to managing 

sustainability topics. Policy includes statements of 

a company’s commitment or its goals or guidelines 

related to a human rights issue: actions cover 

initiatives and monitoring used to implement policy: 

and performance describes the extent to which 

policy has been implemented and situations in which 

implementation has failed (violations). Companies 

were given a score of 1 for each category containing 

information, either qualitative or quantitative, so 

that the greatest depth of reporting on any given G3 

human rights topic would be represented by a score 

of 3. 

In the performance category, a distinction was made 

between qualitative and quantitative information 

reported. Section 3.6 discusses how frequently 

quantitative information was included in describing 

company’s performance. 

Data were compiled for the 100 companies 

combined, by sector, by region, and by G3 versus 

non-G3 declared reporters. 


7 




Practices

3. Results and Discussion 

3.1. Patterns in the Presentation of 

Human Rights Information 

Most companies that prepare sustainability reports 

include three main sections reflecting the triple 

bottom line: economic, environmental, and social 

related issues, with human rights topics addressed 

mainly in the social section, and not necessarily 

identified as such. Table 3.1-1 summarizes patterns 

found by our survey in the presentation of human 

rights information within corporate reporting. 

section on human rights. However, these social 

chapters usually addressed at least some issues 

frequently associated with human rights. 

Human rights issues are frequently addressed in 

portions of corporate reporting either in addition 

to, or instead of, a sustainability report. For 

example, 13 of the companies surveyed addressed 

human rights topics in their annual reports, and 26 

in their Code of Conduct. 

Table 3.1-1. Patterns in the presentation of human rights (HR) 

information within companies 

Portion of reporting containing HR 

Information 

Twenty-two of the reports surveyed had a 

dedicated section on human rights. Sustainability 

reports without any human rights discussion 

sometimes provided links to their corporate web 

site for materials addressing human 

rights (16 cases). Several companies 

provided links to web sites of human rights 

organizations (5 cases), particularly to 

provide more detailed information on their 

policy or commitment to human rights 

issues. 

% of 100 sample 

companies* 

Social chapter of CSR 48% 

Stand alone HR chapter of CSR 22% 

Links to web from the CSR 16% 

Links to HR Organizations from the CSR 5% 

Annual Report 13% 

Code of Conduct** 26% 

Supplier guide** 16% 

CSR=Corporate Sustainability Report 

* One company could include HR in more than one report 

** Code of conduct or Supplier guide could be part of CSR or a stand alone 

document 

Some companies addressed human rights 

topics in their supplier guides, usually 

in addition to reporting on their own 

operations. Whereas performance was 

normally addressed in a sustainability 

report, the topic, especially regarding 

policy, was also found in supplier guides in 

16 of the companies we examined. Table 

3.1-2 shows the frequency of human rights 

information in supplier guides by sector. 

Although Manufacturing had the highest 

number (7) of reporters in this group, it 

was also the largest sector, bringing the 

percentage (21%) close to that of Banks 

(22%). It seems likely that supply chain 

human rights are at greater risk in the 

Manufacturing sector than in Banking, 

but in all cases, the extensions of human rights 

performance into the supply chain is important. 

It is addressed by G3 Human Rights Performance 

Indicator 2 (HR2). 

Table 3.1-2. Companies by sector that include some human rights 

topics in supplier guides. 

N 

Sector 

Companies with HR in supplier 

guides 

number % 

33 Manufacturing 7 21 

18 Banks 4 22 

The remaining 78 reports contained 

information related to HR, but did not have 

a dedicated section. 

20 

16 

10 

Service 

Extractive 

Energy Utilities 

2 

2 

1 

10 

13 

10 

Forty-eight of the 100 companies in our 

3 Transportation 0 – 

sample included a social chapter in their 

sustainability reports that did not contain a specific 

8 

© 2008 GRI

3.2. Topics Addressed in Human Rights 

Sections of Company <strong>Reporting</strong> 

The GRI G3 Sustainability <strong>Reporting</strong> Guidelines 

break Social Performance Indicators down into 

four categories: Labor Practices and Decent Work, 

Human Rights, Society, and Product Responsibility. 

Collectively, these four categories include almost all 

of the topics found in company’s reporting sections 

on human rights, but it was common for issues 

identified as human rights in company reports 

to fall in the G3 Guidelines categories of Labor 

Practices and Decent Work, Society, or even Product 

Responsibility. Similarly, topics assigned by the 

G3 Guidelines to the Human Rights category were 

not necessarily addressed by reporters under that 

heading. Most of the topics discussed, however, 

could be linked to existing GRI categories. 

Table 3.2-1 presents a general list of topics not 

included in the G3 Guidelines category of Human 

Rights (pertaining to HR1-9) but that were found in 

human rights sections of corporate reports. 

Table 3.2-1. Topics reported as human rights that are not addressed by performance 

indicators in the human rights category of the GRI G3 Guidelines. (Arranged by 

G3’s relevant Social category or Other if not addressed by G3 Social Performance 

Indicators.) 

Labor Practices and Decent Work 

Health and safety of workers including industrial hygiene 

General working conditions and labor practices such as maternity leave, working 

hours, fair compensation, grievance procedures, and sexual harassment 

Improvement of workplace diversity, including advancement of women 

Society 

Community issues other than indigenous rights which is HR9 

Anti-corruption policies and actions 

Product Responsibility 

Product safety and sustainability 

Other* 

Stakeholder involvement in company policy and initiatives (Profile disclosure 4.12) 

Support of government or international initiatives related to health, education, 

poverty, etc. (Profile disclosures 4.12 and 4.14-17) 

Support of cultural amenities such as music and art (Economic Performance 

Indicator EC-1) 

Employee volunteerism 

Finding local suppliers (Economic Performance Indicator EC6) 

Employee and community trust in the business with respect to fairness and ethics 

Privacy of employee information 

* Parenthetical information references portions of current GRI G3 Guidelines where the 

topic might be reported. 

The list uses G3 category headings to indicate 

which portions of G3 reporting would address these 

topics. The heading ‘Other’ indicates that the topic 

is not listed under any category of the Social section 

of current G3 Guidelines. However, as indicated in 

Table 3.2-1, some topics appear in other sections of 

the G3 guidelines. 

It was common for companies to report the Labor 

Practices listed in Table 3.2-1 as human rights 

topics, and similarly, topics related to G3’s HR4-7 

(discrimination, collective bargaining, child labor, 

and forced labor) were often reported in sections 

identified as Labor Practices (or similar) rather than 

Human Rights. Also, labor practices clearly apply to 

the work place, whereas some other rights are more 

in the domain of government. 

All but the last of the topics under ‘Other’ in Table 

3.2-1, Privacy of employee information, might be 

consistent with performance indicators under the 

G3 category Society (part of the Social section) 

but, currently, most are 

found within the Economic 

section, or as Profile 

disclosures. The last topic 

might fit in the category of 

Labor Practices and Decent 

Work, which, like Human 

Rights, falls in the G3 

section titled Social. 

Many reports included 

initiatives to promote 

various human rights 

causes, such as the 

elimination of hunger, 

reduction of infant 

mortality, improvement of 

educational opportunity, 

etc., even if these efforts 

are not some sort of 

mitigation for adverse 

impacts their operations 

might be having, such that 

they would be considered 

by the G3 Society 

Performance Indicators. 


9 




Practices

It was common for these types of corporate 

initiatives, and other good-neighbor policies, to be 

highlighted in human rights sections of reporting. 

3.3. Human Rights Related Organizations 

Referenced in Sample Reports 

Table 3.3-1 lists the number of companies in our 

sample of 100, that reference different human 

rights organizations, standards, or guides that 

include human rights topics. These are arranged 

in descending order of frequency. The references 

primarily indicated that the companies adopted the 

principles of the relevant organizations. 

Table 3.3-1. Frequency with which human rights 

organizations and guidelines are cited in sample 

company reports. 

Human Rights Organizations 

Frequency 

Global Compact, United Nations 66 

ILO Core Conventions 41 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 28 

OECD Guidelines for Multi-National Enterprises 23 

Transparency International 10 

Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights 8 

Millennium Development Goals 8 

SA8000, Social Accountability International 8 

Voluntary Principles on Security & Human 

Rights 7 

Global Sullivan Principles 4 

Danish Institute for Human Rights 2 

The United Nations Global Compact (UNGC) 

is widely recognized and was cited by 66% of 

our sample group. It is a set of ten principles 

in the areas of human rights, labor standards, 

environment, and anti-corruption, that “The Global 

Compact asks companies to embrace, support, 

and enact, within their sphere of influence…” 

Almost all of the companies citing UNGC, state 

their adherence to the ten principles but less than 

half list the principles and describe how they are 

incorporated into company practices. 

The UNGC Principles 1 and 2, listed under 

Human Rights, are general in nature, calling on 

businesses to “support and respect the protection 

of internationally proclaimed human rights” 

(Principle 1), and “make sure that they are not 

complicit in human rights abuses” (Principle 2). 

The UNGC Principles 3-6, listed under Labour 

Standards, cover the same topics as G3’s HR4-7 

under the heading of Human Rights Performance 

Indicators. Many companies include crossreferencing 

tables to various guidelines. 

Example: ABN AMRO Holding includes the UNGC 

logo and the relevant principle number to show the 

company’s implementation of the ten principles 

in various sections of their report; then, in the GRI 

Context Index ABN, AMRO includes a column for 

the UNGC principle number that corresponds to 

and corroborates the company’s adherence to each 

specific GRI indicator that is listed in an adjacent 

column. 

Example: Norske Skogindustrier ASA devotes 

a full page of its 2006 sustainability report to 

its commitment to advancing the UNGC. They 

list and define each of the principles, and give 

corresponding GRI Performance Indicators 

and page numbers of their report for finding 

information on each principle. 

The International Labour Organization’s (ILO) Core 

Conventions were the next most frequently cited 

standard related to human rights, with 41% of 

sampled companies referring to it. Most companies 

referring to the ILO did so in short passages 

espousing their adherence to the objectives stated 

in ILO conventions and other related standards such 

as the 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of 

Human Rights (UDHR), which was cited separately 

by 28 surveyed companies. 

Example: Citigroup’s website Statement on 

Human Rights says “We support the protection and 

preservation of human rights around the world and 

are guided by the fundamental principles of human 

rights, such as those in the United Nations Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights and the International 

Labour Organization (ILO) Core Conventions. Our 

support for these principles is reflected in our policies 

and actions towards our employees, suppliers, clients 

and the countries where we do business.” 

10 

© 2008 GRI

Example: Barclays includes the following reference 

to the ILO in its Group Statement on Human 

Rights, a supplement to its sustainability report: 

“Although there is no definitive consensus on the 

boundaries of corporate responsibility in respect of 

human rights, we need to ensure that we are not 

involved in human rights violations, either directly 

or indirectly and that we operate in accordance with 

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 

and take account of other internationally accepted 

human rights standards, eg: the International Labour 

Organisation (ILO) Core Conventions.” 

Topics addressed in ILO standards are covered by 

the G3 Guidelines categories Labor Practices and 

Decent Work and Human Rights. 

Each of the remaining 8 human rights related 

references listed in Table 3.3-1 were referenced 

under a quarter of the 100 companies included in 

our study. 

3.4. Frequency of <strong>Reporting</strong> on G3 Human 

Rights Topics and Performance Indicators 

Topics related to at least some of the nine G3 

Human Rights Performance Indicators were found 

in all of the 100 company reports examined. 

However, there was wide variation in the amount of 

attention given to the different topics. Table 3.4-1 

lists each HR topic and describes two measures. 

First, numbers of companies (a) discussing the 

topic, (b) claiming only that it is not relevant to 

their business, or (c) not mentioning it at all, are 

listed. Second, the numbers of companies (a) fully, 

(b) partially, or (c) not at all meeting the specific 

requirements of the G3 Performance Indicator are 

given. 

Full compliance with a G3 Performance Indicator 

means that each measure, such as “percentage” 

and “total number” was given if there is more than 

one required. If, for example, only the “percentage” 

was given, the indicator was scored as partial. Also, 

partial was assigned for responses referring to 

“most” (meaning more than 50%) rather than to a 

particular number or percentage. Full was assigned 

if an indicator requiring a percentage or a total 

number was reported as “all”, meaning 100%. For 

HR5-7 which do not require percentages or total 

numbers, full credit was given if all the operations 

and actions (or measures) required were addressed. 

HR4, non-discrimination, was addressed by 97% 

of sample companies; the highest of all G3 human 

rights topics. None of the companies claimed that 

it was not relevant to their business, but a few 

(3%) omitted it altogether. In spite of the high 


Table 3.4-1. Percent (numbers) of 100 sample companies addressing HR topics 1-9 by differing measures. 

Indicator 

(a) 

Discussed 

General 

Topic 

(b) Claim 

NR 

(c) No 

Mention 

Compliance with G3 Performance Indicator 

(d) Full (e) Partial (f) Unmet 

1 Investment in HR 16 15 69 – 9 91 

2 

Suppliers/contractors 

HR screening 54 10 36 1 24 75 

3 HR Training 40 5 55 2 15 83 

4 Non-discrimination 97 – 3 9 31 60 

5 

Freedom of association 

and collective 

bargaining 79 7 14 9 31 60 

6 Child Labor 71 8 21 11 25 64 

7 

Forced and 

compulsory labor 67 8 25 6 26 68 

8 Security practices 29 10 61 2 8 90 

9 Indigenous rights 35 9 56 5 11 84 

11 




Practices

incidence of reporting, only nine companies fully 

met requirements of the G3 Performance Indicator, 

which specifies giving the total number of incidents 

of discrimination and the actions taken. Thirty-one 

companies provided part of this information, and 

the remaining 60 did not provide any of it. 

HR5, freedom of association and collective 

bargaining, was the second most widely discussed 

at 79%, with another 7% stating that it was 

not relevant. However, only 9% of companies 

fully complied with the quantitative measures 

prescribed by the Performance Indicator, requiring 

identification of those operations where such 

freedoms are at risk and describing the actions 

taken to support those freedoms. The fact that this 

topic was often addressed under labor relations 

rather than human rights headings did not affect 

the survey results because all portions of the 

reporting were given equal weight. Whereas 

virtually any discussion, however limited, was 

sufficient for a company to be counted as having 

addressed the General Topic, compliance with the 

G3 Performance Indicator was applied very strictly. 

Example: Australian Ethical Investments reports 

that it “does not have operations in sectors or 

geographical areas that constitute a risk to the right 

to exercise freedom of association…” but it is unclear 

as to whether or not the company has taken actions 

to support its employees’ rights to freedom of 

association and collective bargaining. They were 

rated as “partial” in their G3 compliance on this 

Performance Indicator. 

It was also common for companies to address 

topics covered by HR6, Child Labor (71%), and 

HR7, Forced and Compulsory Labor (67%), if only 

to claim that the topic was not relevant to their 

business (8% in each case). Once again, however, 

only 36% of companies met the G3 Performance 

Indicator for child labor either partially or fully, and 

only 32% for forced labor. These percentages may 

actually be inflated by the fact that companies were 

given “full” compliance credit if they stated that 

there was no child labor or forced labor associated 

with their operations because such a statement 

is a quantitative measure even though risks and 

preventive actions may not have been addressed. 

It is probably no coincidence that HR4-7, all relating 

to labor practices, are the most widely reported 

of the G3 Human Rights topics. As described in 

Section 3.3 above, these labor related human rights 

topics are included in ILO declarations and in the 

UNGC by reference to the United Nations Universal 

Declaration of Human Rights, which dates back to 

1948. In our sample, these are the two most widely 

cited human rights related documents. 

The least addressed of the G3 topics was HR1, 

regarding investment agreements. Only 31% of 

companies mentioned it at all, with about half 

of the mentions (15) stating only that it was not 

relevant to their business. No company achieved 

full compliance with the G3 Performance Indicator, 

and partial compliance was only 9%. This indicator 

is meant to be a measure of the extent to which 

human rights are integrated into an organization’s 

economic decisions, such as partnerships or 

significant capital investments. Many large 

businesses make these types of investments on 

a regular basis, and most, if not all, evaluate risks 

associated with their investments. It is likely 

that the potential for exposure to human rights 

violations through an investment is one of the 

factors considered in decision-making. Thus, 

it is likely that the reason for non-compliance 

with this indicator is less its irrelevance than 

a misunderstanding of what it applies to, the 

reluctance to reveal information that might be 

considered confidential, or the absence of formal 

procedures. 

Example: Enel has a Code of Ethics that includes 

human rights assurances. “The clause concerning 

Enel’s Code of Ethics is currently included in most of 

the Company’s agreements. Since 2006, we have 

inserted this clause and other obligations previously 

specified HR1, HR5, HR6, HR7, and HR8 comments 

in all agreements regarding the purchase of CERs 

(Certified Emission Reductions).” Although Enel 

clearly is moving in the direction of having all 

investment agreements include human rights 

12 

© 2008 GRI

clauses, their performance so far is measured by 

“most”, implying more than 50% and was scored as 

in partial compliance with HR1. 

Two human rights topics that address training also 

had low frequencies of reporting. These are the 

HR3 topic of employee training on policies and 

procedures concerning aspects of human rights 

that are relevant to operations, and the HR8 topic 

of training security personnel on policies and 

procedures concerning aspects of human rights 

that are relevant to operations. The employee 

training topic had a discussion frequency of 40%, 

while the security personnel training topic reached 

only 29%. Overwhelmingly these topics went 

unmentioned (55% and 61%, respectively), rather 

than being described as non-relevant (5% and 10%, 

respectively). 

HR 

Because most companies have employee training 

that almost certainly addresses at least nondiscrimination 

and other fair labor practices, the 

reporting numbers for training topics seem low. 

Furthermore, the threshold for being counted as 

discussing this topic for this portion of our survey 

was very low, and the topic was searched for in 

all portions of sustainability reporting materials 

including labor practices sections. Training for 

security personnel might be especially low because 

companies without this need do not think about 

reporting it as non-relevant, or because companies 

with security personnel do not necessarily account 

for their training separately from that of other 

employees. 

Table 3.4-2 shows how the 59 companies declared 

as using the G3 reporting guidelines compare 

Table 3.4-2. Numbers and percents of G3 and non-G3 reporters meeting specific G3 Performance Indicators. 

Indicator 

Full Partial Unmet 

G3 Non-G3 G3 Non-G3 G3 Non-G3 

1 Investment in HR 6 3 53 38 

2 Suppliers/contractors HR screening 1 16 8 42 33 

3 HR Training 2 11 4 46 37 

4 Non-discrimination 8 1 18 13 33 27 

5 

Freedom of association and collective 

bargaining 7 2 18 13 34 26 

6 Child Labor 8 3 13 12 38 26 

7 Forced and compulsory labor 5 1 14 12 40 28 




HR 

Indicator 

Full Partial Unmet 

G3 Non-G3 G3 Non-G3 G3 Non-G3 

1 Investment in HR 0% 0% 10% 7% 90% 93% 

2 Suppliers/contractors HR screening 2% 0% 27% 20% 71% 80% 

3 HR Training 3% 0% 19% 10% 78% 90% 

4 Non-discrimination 14% 2% 31% 32% 56% 66% 

5 


bargaining 12% 5% 31% 32% 58% 63% 

6 Child Labor 14% 7% 22% 29% 64% 63% 

7 Forced and compulsory labor 8% 2% 24% 29% 68% 68% 

8 Security practices 2% 2% 10% 5% 88% 93% 

9 Indigenous rights 7% 2% 15% 5% 78% 93% 

Average 7% 2% 21% 19% 72% 79% 

13 




Practices

to the 41 other companies in meeting the strict 

requirements of the G3 Performance Indicators. 

An average of only 7% of G3 Performance Indicators 

was fully met by G3 declared companies, versus 2% 

for non-G3 declared companies. Partial compliance 

was closer, at 21% and 19% respectively. 

The greatest differences in fully meeting the 

indicators were for the labor practice topics HR4-7, 

suggesting that for these highly reported topics, 

G3 declared companies found and reported the 

specific information called for in the G3 Guidelines 

whereas other companies reported policy or 

monitoring procedures rather than performance. 

Another of the larger differences in fully meeting 

the Guidelines was on the topic of indigenous 

rights (HR9), where 7% of G3 declared companies 

fully met the Performance Indicators versus 2% 

of others. This may show simply that more G3 

declared companies paid attention to the issue and 

achieved full compliance by having no violations to 

report. 

A few notable differences in human rights reporting 

occurred among sectors. Table 3.4-3 shows that 

the Extractive, Manufacturing, and Service sectors 

scored 8 to 31 percentage points higher than Banks, 

HR 

Table 3.4-3. Numbers and percents of companies by sector that discuss HR topics 1-9. 

Indicator 

N = 18 10 16 33 20 3 

Total 

Banks 

Energy 

Utilities 

Service 

1 Investment in HR 16 3 1 2 5 4 1 

2 


HR screening 54 7 6 7 22 10 2 

3 HR Training 40 5 3 11 14 7 

4 Non-discrimination 97 18 8 16 33 20 2 

5 



bargaining 79 12 7 16 26 15 3 

6 Child Labor 71 10 7 14 24 15 1 

7 

Forced and 

compulsory labor 67 8 6 13 24 15 1 


9 Indigenous rights 35 3 2 11 10 7 2 

HR Indicator Total Banks 

Energy 

Utilities 

Service 

Extractive 

Manufacturing 

Transportation 

Extractive 

Manufacturing 


1 Investment in HR 16 17% 10% 13% 15% 20% 33% 

2 


HR screening 54 39% 60% 44% 67% 50% 67% 

3 HR Training 40 28% 30% 69% 42% 35% 0% 

4 Non-discrimination 97 100% 80% 100% 100% 100% 67% 

5 



bargaining 79 67% 70% 100% 79% 75% 100% 

6 Child Labor 71 56% 70% 88% 73% 75% 33% 

7 

Forced and 

compulsory labor 67 44% 60% 81% 73% 75% 33% 

8 Security practices 29 28% 10% 63% 27% 20% 0% 

9 Indigenous rights 35 17% 20% 69% 30% 35% 67% 

Average by Sector 44% 46% 69% 56% 54% 44% 

14 

© 2008 GRI

Energy, and Transportation in their reporting of G3 

human rights topics overall. The Extractive sector 

had the highest incidence (69%) of addressing 

human rights topics overall, 13 points above the 

second highest which was Manufacturing (56%), 

and they were the only sector to have more than 

one human rights topic dealt with by all companies 

in the sector sample. These topics were nondiscrimination 

(HR4) and freedom of association 

(HR5). Together, Extractive, Manufacturing, and 

Service companies make up 69% of the 100 

companies sampled, and they include some of the 

largest companies in the sample with the most 

HR 

widely spread global operations where labor issues 

must be a major concern. 

Data compiled by region (Table 3.4-4) show Oceania 

at the top with an average of 67% for reporting 

across all nine human rights topics, followed by 

Europe with 57%. The lowest value is 37% for Africa. 

Asia, Latin America, and North America all hold 

the middle ground at 49 or 50%. Asia, Europe, and 

North America probably are the only regions with 

a sample size large enough to be meaningful and 

they all have values that are fairly close together 

(49%, 57%, and 50%, in the above order). 

Table 3.4-4. Numbers and percents of companies by region that discuss HR topics 1-9. 

Indicator 

N = 3 17 5 53 5 17 

Total Africa Asia Oceania Europe 

Latin 

America 

1 Investment in HR 16 1 2 12 1 

North 

America 

2 


HR screening 54 7 3 34 3 7 

3 HR Training 40 2 7 3 18 2 8 

4 Non-discrimination 97 3 16 5 52 4 17 

5 



bargaining 79 2 13 4 44 4 12 

6 Child Labor 71 1 13 3 41 3 10 

7 

Forced and 

compulsory labor 67 1 12 3 38 3 10 




HR Indicator Total Africa Asia Oceania Europe 

Latin 

America 

North 

America 

1 Investment in HR 16 33% 0% 40% 23% 20% 0% 

2 


HR screening 54 0% 41% 60% 64% 60% 41% 

3 HR Training 40 67% 41% 60% 34% 40% 47% 

4 Non-discrimination 97 100% 94% 100% 98% 80% 100% 

5 



bargaining 79 67% 76% 80% 83% 80% 71% 

6 Child Labor 71 33% 76% 60% 77% 60% 59% 

7 

Forced and 

compulsory labor 67 33% 71% 60% 72% 60% 59% 

8 Security practices 29 0% 12% 60% 34% 20% 29% 

9 Indigenous rights 35 0% 29% 80% 32% 20% 47% 

Average by region 37% 49% 67% 57% 49% 50% 

15 




Practices

3.5. Depth of <strong>Reporting</strong> on G3 Human 

Rights Topics 

A company’s reporting on human rights topics 

sometimes reflects different types of efforts, from 

statements of policy or goals, through various 

actions such as initiatives or monitoring, to 

performance as measured in a variety of ways. 

Our Depth of reporting survey examined each 

company’s reporting with respect to each of the 

nine G3 human rights topics to determine whether 

or not information was included on policy, actions, 

and performance, irrespective of whether or not 

specific G3 performance indicators were addressed. 

These three categories of information were used to 

compile an index describing the depth of company 

reporting on G3 human rights topics. Figure 3.5-1 

shows how the scores of the 100 sample companies 

were distributed using an index from zero to three. 

A score of zero would apply to a company with no 

information on policy, actions, or performance, 

on any of the G3 human rights topic. A score 

of three would be awarded to a company with 

information in each of the three categories (policy, 

actions, performance) for every one of the nine 

G3 human rights topics. Appendix Tables A3.5-1 

and A3.5-2 show results of study counts by sector 

and by region for the information that was used to 

calculate index scores. 

Company scores ranged from 0 to 3. The 

average score of all companies across all human 

rights topics was 0.79. Only three companies 

scored 2.0 or above, including one company 

that scored a 3, and only 13 companies scored 

at or above 1.5, the median of possible scores. 

Considering that full credit was given for both 

qualitative and quantitative information in each of 

the categories, depth of reporting as measured by 

this index seems low. 

Figure 3.5-2 examines index scores by each of the 

G3 human rights topics, and Table 3.5-3 lists the 

numbers of companies achieving each possible 

score for each of the nine topics. Figure 3.5-2 

demonstrates that information provided by 

companies was particularly weak with respect to 

topics HR1, investment practices (index score 0.26), 

and HR8, security practices (index score 0.36). As 

discussed in Section 3.4, these topics had a very 

low incidence of reporting at any level, which 

resulted in a depth index score of 0 from 80 of the 

sample companies for HR1, and 76 of the sample 

companies for HR8. Very few of the companies 

had a depth index score of 2 or 3 for either of these 

topics, so there was no reporting of great enough 

depth to offset the large number of 0’s. 

HR4, non-discrimination, had the highest depth 

index score (1.71), roughly one half point above 

the next highest, which was HR5, freedom of 

association and collective bargaining (1.13). These 

two topics also had the highest incidence of being 

discussed, as reported in Table 3.4-1. In the case of 

HR4, non-discrimination, 23 companies 

Depth of HR <strong>Reporting</strong> Index 

2.75 2 - 3.00 

1 

2.50 2 5 - 2.74 2 0 

2.25 2 - 52.49 

0 

2.00 2 - 2.24 2 2 

1.75 1 - 1.99 

4 

1.50 1.5 - 1.74 1 

6 

1.25 1 - 1.49 

5 

1.00 1 - 1.24 1 

7 

0.75 0 - 50.99 

24 

0.50 0 50 - 0.74 0 

16 

0.25 0 - 50.49 

20 

0 - 00.24 

0 

15 

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 

Numbers of of companies at at each each level 

Figure 3.5-1. Depth of reporting index scores for all 

sample compnies 

Indigenous rights HR9 

Security practices HR8 

Forced and compulsory labor HR7 

Child Labor HR6 

Freedom of association and 

collective bargaining HR5 

Non-discrimination HR4 

HR Training HR3 


HR screening HR2 

Investment in HR HR1 

0.36 

0.26 

0.43 

0.54 

0.83 

0.87 

1.01 

1.13 

1.71 

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 

Figure 3.5-2. Average depth of reporting index scores by 

HR-topics 1-9 

16 

© 2008 1 1 GRI

Table 3.5-3. Numbers of companies assigned each possible depth score 

for HR topics 1-9 and average score by topic 

HR Indicator 0 1 2 3 

reported 22.50 5 - 22policies, 74 0 actions, and performance, giving 

2 

them a depth index score of 3, and 36 companies 

2 2 2 2 

scored 1175 75 a 1 9 9This is perhaps not surprising given 

44 

the widespread 1150 50 1 .74 presence 66 

of legal systems and the 

prevalence 11 25 5 - - 114 

49of these 5as 5 HR issues. However, the few 

high 1scores 0 1.2 1 2 were offset 7 by 11 companies that had 

no discussion qualifying as policies actions, or 

5 7 

11 

performance 0025 25 0 49 49 (score of 0), and 30 companies 

20 0 

with 

qualifying 0 - - 00.24 

discussion in only one 15 15 category (score 

of 1). Thus, the 00 highest 55 average 10 10 115 depth 2 of 0 reporting 25 25 3 

score for any of the Numbers human s o o co rights compa pan topics ies a t eeac was h levelonly 

slightly above the median of possible scores (1.71 

versus 1.5). 

Average 

Index 

Score 

HR1 Investment in HR 80 15 4 1 0.26 

HR2 Suppliers/contractors HR screening 52 19 19 10 0.87 

HR3 HR Training 69 14 11 6 0.54 

HR4 Non-discrimination 11 30 36 23 1.71 

HR5 


collective bargaining 31 35 24 10 1.13 

HR6 Child Labor 35 37 20 8 1.01 

HR7 Forced and compulsory labor 41 38 18 3 0.83 

HR8 Security practices 76 14 8 2 0.36 

HR9 Indigenous rights 73 15 8 4 0.43 

468 217 148 67 0.79 

Total Total Total Total Average 

ep of R R or o ng dex 

F g ne 

e 

Figure 3.5-3 shows 

average depth of 

reporting index scores 

by sector, with Extractive 

at the top with an 

average score of 0.97. 

Banks score the lowest, 

at 0.57. Energy (0.80), 

Manufacturing (0.81), 

Service (0.83), and 

Transportation (0.74) 

all fall close together 

in the middle ground, 

differing slightly from 

the groupings apparent 

in Table 3.4-3 that counts 

companies only for 

whether or not they 

discuss 004 

43 the nine G3 

human 

Sec S 

rights 

urt t p 

topics 

acti t c es HR 

8 

In Table 4-3, Energy was 

36 

close to the bottom ranked sectors, showing 

d d l b HHR7 

that when depth of reporting was considered, its 

ChC l L R 

position reedom of of improved 

ssociatio an an 

Figure NNo 

3.5 di iscriminatio 4 shows in ion Haverage HR4 4 depth of reporting 1 71 index 71 

scores by region HR HR raining Tra n ng with HHR3 

3 Oceania at the top having 

5 

an Sup average S ppliers/contractors 

score rac o s of 1.18 and Latin America second 

best with an R average ree c eeni ng g HR2 H score 2 of 0.98. Asia and Africa 

share the I Investment bottom, i in H each HR H with 0026 

a score of 0.52, and 

in the middle, Europe 0(0.89) scores 05 5 1considerably 

1 1.5 1 5 

higher than North America (0.66). Appendix Table 

Fg u r e o r n s b p o 

A3.5-3 gives the breakdowns in depth index scoring 


Sector averages 

1.2 

1 

0.8 

0.6 

0.4 

0.2 

0 

0.57 

Banks (N=18) 

0.80 


(N=10) 

0.97 

Extractive 

(N=16) 

0.81 0.83 

0.74 

Manufacturing Service (N=20) Transportation 

(N=33) 

(N=3) 

Sector r averages a 1.4 

1.2 

1 

008 

006 

00. 

4 

0 2. 

0 

0.52 

0.52 0 5 

1.18 1 

0.89 0 8 

0.98 

0.6 

Figure 3.5-3. Average depth of reporting index score by 

sector 

Figure 3.5-4. Average depth of reporting index score by 

region 

17 

GRI 40% Research and 

50% <strong>Reporting</strong> 

60% 

Development Series Practices

y sector and region according to each of the 

human rights topics. 

Finally, Table 3.5-6 compares depth of reporting 

index scores on each of the G3 human rights topics 

for the 59 G3 declared companies versus the 41 

non-G3 declared companies. Overall, G3 companies 

had an average depth index score of 0.88 versus 

0.67 for non-G3 companies, which is roughly 

30% better. Some, but not all, of that strength 

comes from the higher frequency of credits given 

for information on performance. Performance 

was reported in 21% of all possible cases by G3 

reporters and only 11% of possible cases by non-G3 

Table 3.5-4: Number and percent of G3 and non-G3 companies reporting in each depth category and 

average depth index scores by HR topics 1-9. 

Indicator 

G3 (N=59) 

Policy 

Action 

Avg. 

depth 

index 

score 

Non-G3 (N=41) 

Policy 


Avg. 

depth 

index 

score 

HR1 Investment in HR 12 5 3 0.34 3 2 1 0.15 

HR2 


HR screening 31 18 10 1.00 15 7 6 0.68 

HR3 HR Training 18 14 10 0.71 3 7 2 0.29 

HR4 Non-discrimination 44 32 28 1.76 35 20 12 1.63 

HR5 



bargaining 35 16 23 1.25 23 10 6 0.95 

HR6 Child Labor 33 16 12 1.03 25 9 6 0.98 

HR7 

Forced and compulsory 

labor 28 12 9 0.83 23 7 4 0.83 

HR8 Security practices 11 7 6 0.41 4 5 3 0.29 

HR9 Indigenous rights 14 9 10 0.56 6 3 1 0.24 

Average 25.11 14,33 12.33 0.88 15.22 7.78 4,56 0.67 

Indicator 

G3 (N=59) 

Policy 


Avg. 

depth 

index 

score* 

Non-G3 (N=41 

Policy 


Performance 

Performance 

Performance 

Performance 

Avg. 

depth 

index 

score* 

HR1 Investment in HR 20% 8% 5% 11% 7% 5% 2% 5% 

HR2 


HR screening 53% 31% 17% 33% 37% 17% 15% 23% 

HR3 HR Training 31% 24% 17% 24% 7% 17% 5% 10% 

HR4 Non-discrimination 75% 54% 47% 59% 85% 49% 29% 54% 

HR5 



bargaining 59% 27% 39% 42% 56% 24% 15% 32% 

HR6 Child Labor 56% 27% 20% 34% 61% 22% 15% 33% 

HR7 


labor 47% 20% 15% 28% 56% 17% 10% 28% 

HR8 Security practices 19% 12% 10% 14% 10% 12% 7% 10% 

HR9 Indigenous rights 24% 15% 17% 19% 15% 7% 2% 8% 

Average 43% 24% 21% 29% 37% 19% 11% 22% 

18 

© 2008 GRI

eporters. Because this is the emphasis of the G3 

Performance Indicators, the result, although small, 

is in the expected direction. Policy was reported in 

43% of all possible cases for G3 reporters compared 

to 37% for others. Action was reported in 24% 

of all possible cases for G3 reporters compared 

to 19% for others. For both policy reporting and 

action reporting, the difference between G3 and 

other reporters was smaller than for performance 

reporting. 

3.6. Quantitative versus Qualitative 

Performance <strong>Reporting</strong> 

G3 Human Rights Performance Indicators 

emphasize quantitative information for reporting 

performance, and yet, as seen in Section 4.5 (Table 

3.5-6) depth of performance, which includes any 

information reported on a topic, reporting is 

low even for G3 declared companies. Table 3.6-1 

gives the numbers of companies by sector and 

human rights topic that report any performance 

information compared to the number that include 

quantitative performance information, whether or 

not it is specific to the G3 Performance Indicator. 

Performance reporting was considered qualitative 

rather than quantitative when a performance 

topic was mentioned but no numerical values 

were given. For all companies and all human rights 

topics, performance information is discussed only 

17% of the time. In other words, for 100 companies, 

each with the opportunity to report performance 

on nine human rights topics, perfect fulfillment 

would be 900 performance discussions. The actual 

total was 153, or 17%. The total of 84 counts for 

quantitative performance information is only 11% 

of the possible maximum, but this shows that 

quantitative information is present more than half 

of the time that performance is reported. Table 

3.6-2 lists the types of quantitative information that 

were reported. 


19 




Practices

Table 3.6-1: Numbers of companies by sector reporting performance information on HR topics 1-9. 

All sectors 

(100) 

Banks 

(18) 


(10) 

Extractive 

(16) 

Manufacturing 

(33) 

Service 

(20) 


(3) 

Indicator All Qtn % All Qtn All Qtn All Qtn All Qtn All Qtn All Qtn 

Investment 

in HR 4 2 50 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 

Suppliers/ 

contractors 

HR screening 

16 5 31 1 0 2 0 1 0 8 4 4 1 0 0 

HR Training 12 6 50 2 0 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 

Non-discrimination 

40 26 65 6 5 8 7 5 3 8 4 11 5 2 2 

Freedom of 

association 

and 

collective 

bargaining 29 17 59 5 3 1 1 8 6 7 4 6 2 2 1 

Child Labor 18 9 50 4 3 0 0 3 2 4 2 6 1 1 1 

Forced and 

compulsory 

labor 13 6 46 3 2 0 0 2 1 2 1 5 1 1 1 

Security 

practices 9 5 56 0 0 0 0 4 2 4 2 1 1 0 0 

Indigenous 

rights 12 8 67 1 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 

0.17 0.09 52.6 23 15 15 12 29 18 40 21 37 11 9 7 

Average 

All = number reporting performance information 

Qtn = number including quantitative performance information 

Sum 

Topic 

Investment in human rights 

Supplier/contractors HR 

screening 

Human rights training 

Table 3.6-2: List of quantitative performance measures reported. 

Examples: 

– All supplier contracts exceeding 5 MSEK have undergone human rights screening 

– Number of violations 

– Number of audits and non-compliance issues 

– Percentage of the contract staff having received training in human rights in the security 

services facilities 

– Percentage of purchases from approved suppliers on the basis of vendor compliance* 

* Vendor compliance = purchase from approved suppliers/ (purchases from approved 

suppliers + purchases with competitor suppliers) 

– Number of social audits in six years 

– Percentage of corporate security personnel receiving human rights training 

– List of number of hours, number of employees trained in human rights 

– All security personnel in corporate headquarters 

– Average overall training hours per employee for a number of selected countries 

– Average hours dedicated to training per person, related to human rights, through the 

course of business ethics and risk prevention courses. 

20 

© 2008 GRI

Topic 

Non-discrimination 


collective bargaining 

Child labor 

Forced and compulsory labor 

Security practices 

Indigenous rights 

Advancement of women 

Maternity leave 

Fair compensation of employees 

Examples: 

– Percentage of women and/or men in total and/or in various management grades 

– Percentage of ethnic minorities in total and/or in various management grades 

– Percentage of disabled employees in total and/or in various management grades 

– Percentage of employees by age, broken down by categories (under 25, aged 25-29, aged 

30-49, aged 50+) 

– Percentage of female workers 

– Percent increase/decrease of women in management 

– Number of discrimination incidents on the grounds of race, color, sex, religion, political 

opinion, national extraction or social origin 

– Turnover rate for men and women 

– Turnover rate broken down by age group 

– Number of females added to management level positions 

– Ratio of women’s remuneration to men’s by subsidiary and country 

– Number of accidents or violation involving rights of indigenous people in a mining 

operation 

(* all incidents reports found are reporting no violations) 

– Number of operations that constitute a risk to the right to exercise freedom of association 

– Percentage of unionized workers or members of unions 

– Number of collective bargaining cases 

– Percentage of workforce covered by collective bargaining agreements at operated sites 

and offices 

– Number of employees covered by collective agreements, broken down by geographic 

areas 

– Number of areas in need of improvement, related to freedom of association 

– Number of employees covered by executed labor contracts at operating sites 

– Zero or no awareness of violation to freedom of association 

– Number of operations that would endanger the right of freedom of association and 

collective bargaining 

– Percentage of employees that are members of trade unions 

– Number of violations reported 

– Number of union organizations associated with the workforce 


– Number of violations or non-compliance 

– Number of risks of child labor identified in the chain of business analysis 

– Zero tolerance or total ban of child labor 

– All (100%) employees above the legal employment age in the country of employment 


– Number of violations or non-compliance incidents 

– Number of risks of forced labor identified in the chain of business analysis 

– Zero tolerance or total ban of forced labor 


– Percentage or all (100%) of security personnel trained in human rights, including third 

party organizations 

– Number of managers completing the safety/security training 

– Zero indication of violation or illegal security practices 


– Number of violations or non-compliance incidents 

– Zero or no awareness of such cases 


– Percentage of women in workforce, commanding positions and senior positions 

– Number of parental leaves over the last 5 years 

– Number of minimum absolute local wage of the company in US$ broken down by region 


21 




Practices

Interestingly, the highest percentages of 

performance information that is quantitative 

are for HR4, non-discrimination (65%), and HR9, 

indigenous rights (67%). These two topics have 

very different scores for depth of reporting, with 

HR4 being the highest at 1.71, and HR9 being 

near the bottom at 0.43. This may be explained 

by the fact that the G3 Performance Indicators 

for these two topics, and only these two, require 

reporting the numbers of incidents or violations. 

In most cases, violations probably are interpreted 

as accusations upheld in a court of law, and 

most companies are happy to report that there 

are none — a quantitative response. Thus, one 

company might report policy and actions as 

well as quantitative performance on the nondiscrimination 

topic and get a high score of 3 for 

depth, whereas another company might say little 

about indigenous rights except that there were 

no violations, leading to a score of 1 for depth, but 

both companies would be counted equally for 

providing quantitative information. 

The lowest percentage of performance information 

that is quantitative is for HR2, suppliers/contractors 

screening, with only 31% of performance 

reporting including quantitative information. 

Again, this contrasts with the fact that depth of 

reporting is above average (0.87) for this topic. 

The performance indicator for HR2 requires 

that information be reported as a percentage 

of suppliers/contractors screened. Most of the 

quantitative responses are that all supplier/ 

contractors are screened. Rather than giving some 

portion or percentage, a company is likely to state 

that it is in the process of screening, or setting up 

screening procedures, which is not quantitative 

information. The average depth of reporting 

index score of 0.87 on the HR2 topic, although 

fourth highest, is a long way from a perfect score 

of 3, and was achieved by several companies 

providing information on policy, on actions, or on 

performance, and seldom on all three. 

Finally, as shown in Table 3.6-3, on average G3 

companies provided performance information 

on human rights topics only 12.7% of the time. 

Non-G3 companies reported performance in only 

4.3% of possible opportunities. The percentages 

of reporting using quantitative information were 

even lower, at 7.6% for G3 companies and 1.8% 

for others. Although a poor showing, G3 declared 

companies reported performance at almost triple 

the rate of other companies. 

Table 3.6-3. Percent of performance information that is quantitative for G3 and 

non-G3 companies reporting on HR topics 1-9. 

G3 (59) Non-G3 (41) 

Indicator All Qtn % All Qtn % 

Investment in HR 3 2 67 1 0 0 

Suppliers/contractors HR screening 10 2 20 6 3 50 

HR Training 10 5 50 2 1 50 

Non-discrimination 30 21 70 10 5 50 


bargaining 23 16 70 6 1 17 

Child Labor 12 7 58 6 2 33 

Forced and compulsory labor 9 5 56 4 1 25 

Security practices 6 3 50 3 2 67 

Indigenous rights 11 7 64 1 1 100 

Average 12.67 7.56 55.97 4.33 1.78 43.52 

All = number reporting performance information 

Qtn = number including quantitative performance information 

* = incidents reported as “all” include any information about performance, whether it is qualitative, quantitive, or both. 

% = percent of all performance information that is quantitative 

22 

© 2008 GRI

4. Conclusions 

4.1. Patterns in the Structure and 

Organization of Human Rights <strong>Reporting</strong> 

Most of the companies selected for our sample have 

had at least some experience with sustainability 

reporting. Even with this common starting point, 

there were large differences in where and how 

human rights issues were reported, and in which 

topics typically were labeled as human rights topics. 

Differences in the ways that human rights are 

reported are discussed here in relation to the 

GRI G3 Sustainability <strong>Reporting</strong> Guidelines. 

The G3 Guidelines list Performance Indicators 

under the major section headings of Economic, 

Environmental, and Social, and these elements 

of sustainability reporting are widely accepted, 

sometimes being referred to as the three pillars, 

or triple bottom line. However, the subheadings, 

called categories, that GRI uses in the Social 

section (Labor Practices and Decent Work, Human 

Rights, Society, and Product Responsibility) are not 

interpreted in a uniform manner. 

The most common example of this is that the 

G3 Guidelines include non-discrimination (HR4), 

freedom of association and collective bargaining 

(HR5), abolition of child labor (HR6), and abolition 

of forced and compulsory labor (HR7), in their 

Human Rights category, whereas the UNGC, cited 

by two-thirds of our sample companies, lists 

these principles as Labour Standards. The ILO 

declares these as “fundamental rights” that their 

entire membership has an obligation to protect 

— essentially defining them as human rights, but 

certainly associating them with labor practices. 

4.2. What Is and Should Be Included in 

Human Rights <strong>Reporting</strong>? 

Our survey of topics addressed by sample 

companies under the human rights heading 

showed that almost everything already was, or 

could easily be, placed in social sustainability 

reporting sections. This also includes company 

support for governmental or international initiatives 

related to health, education, and some other basic 

human rights, which sometimes appear under the 

human rights heading in company reports but does 

not have an existing place in G3. 

The extent to which companies addressed the G3 

human rights topics differed considerably among 

the topics, as discussed in Section 3.4. Some of 

the main differences might be attributed to the 

length of time that the topics have been of general 

concern and the extent to which they have been 

incorporated into law and embedded into business 

practices. The labor practices topics, HR4-7, are 

the prime examples of this. They are the most 

widely reported human rights topics and many 

legal systems require their enforcement. Failure to 

report on these topics may result mainly from the 

assumption that they go without saying. 

HR1, investment and procurement practices, is at 

the other end of the spectrum. This focuses on 

applying human rights standards when considering 

investments and on incorporating human rights 

standards into agreements. There may be different 

reasons for not widely reporting on this indicator 

including non existence of relevant clauses or 

confidentiality. 


Several of the G3 Human Rights Performance 

Indicators spill over into Labor Practices and 

Decent Work Performance Indicators. For example, 

LA10-12 relate to employee training, as do HR3 and 

HR8. HR4, which requires reporting incidents of 

discrimination, mirrors LA13 and LA14 which are 

measures of diversity. The Society Performance 

Indicator, SO1, covering community impacts, would 

in many cases address indigenous rights, which 

is the subject of the Human Rights Performance 

Indicator, HR9. 

HR2, applying human rights through the supply 

chain, is treated by companies similarly to HR1. 

<strong>Reporting</strong> on HR2 was much more common than 

on HR1, probably reflecting the fact that the 

potential for supply chain human rights abuses 

has been publicized for long enough to be well 

understood. 

23 




Practices

4.3. Quantitative Performance <strong>Reporting</strong> 

The extent to which company reporting in our 

sample included quantitative information is 

reflected in three different sections. Section 3.4 

includes information about how often companies 

were partially, fully, or not at all meeting G3 Human 

Rights Performance Indicators. Section 3.5 explains 

results from an index that was developed to score 

depth of reporting on G3 topics, and Section 3.6 

looks at how frequently performance reporting 

includes quantitative information. 

Very few companies fully met the requirements 

of the G3 Performance Indicators, ranging from 0 

for HR1 to 11 for HR6. Clearly, no single company 

achieved full compliance with the G3 Performance 

Indicators, and average full compliance across 

all topics reached only about 5%. In fact, all 

performance reporting on G3 topics (irrespective of 

how strictly it complies with G3 indicators) is low, 

at only 17% of what is possible, and quantitative 

reporting on those topics is even lower, at only 9% 

of what is possible. 

Where available, the G3 indicators rely on legal 

measures and require reporting of violations. In 

some other cases they require identification of risks 

and description of actions taken to avoid the risks. 

Much of the quantitative information reported is in 

statements about not having any violations or risks. 

Although this kind of reporting is quantitative, it 

does not, by itself, indicate policies or actions that 

may have been implemented to achieve the desired 

result. 

The depth of reporting index was developed 

partly to address this shortcoming of the simple 

quantitative measures. This need is also addressed 

by GRI’s Disclosure on Management Approach 

items which include goals and performance, policy, 

training and awareness, monitoring and follow-up, 

and additional contextual information. 

Depth of reporting index scoring was done 

generously, counting any information provided 

on policy, actions, or performance toward a 

total possible index score of 3. By this measure, 

average depth of reporting on G3 human rights 

topics had an index value of 0.79, or only 26% 

of possible depth as measured by the index. 

Nevertheless, this is a little better than the 17% 

of reporting opportunities found to contain any 

performance information at all, and better still than 

measurements based on strict adherence to the G3 

Performance Indicators to which full compliance 

occurred in only 5% of possible cases. 

4.4. Directions for Refinement of Human 

Rights Performance <strong>Reporting</strong> 

The case for the G3 Guidelines focusing on 

performance is that policy and procedures are 

intended to ensure a positive result, but that 

performance, and improving performance, are what 

matters. 

Both of these types of deviations from exclusively 

dealing with performance information, respond 

to the stakeholders’ need to be reassured that the 

company is doing something proactive about the 

potential problem rather than just being lucky or in 

denial. Thus, there is a good case for sustainability 

reporting disclosures to include policy, actions, and 

performance. 

Sustainability reporting is probably only about a 

decade old, and was preceded by environmental 

reporting. Even though human rights have been 

well defined at an international level for more than 

50 years, their application to business practices 

and inclusion in transparent company reporting 

is much more recent. More quantitative results 

and performance oriented indicators are needed 

to measure the effectiveness of policies and 

actions that a company implements to ensure 

human rights. We hope to achieve this through 

the continuing efforts of GRI, the REC, and similar 

organizations. 

24 

© 2008 GRI

Appendixes 

BLIHR 

Table A.2-1: References for human rights organizations and guidelines and their key activities. 

Organizations 

Danish Institute for Human Rights 

Global Compact, United Nations 

Global Sullivan Principles 

ILO Core Labor Standards 

Millennium Development Goals 

OECD Guidelines for Multi-National 

Enterprises 

SA8000, Social Accountability International 

Transparency International 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights 

(UDHR) 

VPSHR (The Voluntary Principles on 

Security & Human Rights) 

Descriptions 

Business Leaders Initiative on Human Rights is a program to help lead and 

develop the corporate response to human rights, based in U.K. , founded in 2003, 

www.blihr.org 

The Danish Institute for Human Rights is an independent, national human rights 

institution modeled in accordance with the UN Paris Principles, based in Denmark, 

founded in 2002, www.humanrights.dk 

The Compact is a platform for encouraging and promoting good corporate 

practices and learning experiences in the areas of human rights, labor, and 

environment., based in U.S., founded in 2000 , www.unglobalcompact.org 

Global Sullivan Principles are to support economic, social and political justice by 

companies where they do business; to support human rights and to encourage 

equal opportunity at all levels of employment, including racial and gender 

diversity on decision making committees and boards; to train and advance 

disadvantaged workers for technical, supervisory and management opportunities; 

and to assist with greater tolerance and understanding among peoples; thereby, 

helping to improve the quality of life for communities, workers and children with 

dignity and equality, based in U.S., founded in 1999, www.thesullivanfoundation. 

org 

Since 1919, the International Labour Organization has maintained and developed 

a system of international labor standards aimed at promoting opportunities for 

women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in conditions of freedom, 

equity, security and dignity. In today’s globalized economy, international labor 

standards are an essential component in the international framework for ensuring 

that the growth of the global economy provides benefits to all, www.ilo.org 

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and 

quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions. It 

formed a blueprint agreed to by all the world’s countries and all the world’s 

leading development institutions. They have galvanized unprecedented efforts 

to meet the needs of the world’s poorest. http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/ 

index.html 

The Guidelines (www.oecd.org/daf/investment/guidelines) are recommendations 

addressed by governments to multinational enterprises operating in or from 

adhering countries. They provide voluntary principles and standards for 

responsible business conduct in a variety of areas including employment 

and industrial relations, human rights, environment, information disclosure, 

combating bribery, consumer interests, science and technology, competition, and 

taxation. www.oecd.org 

The SA8000 standard and verification system is certification system to assure 

decent working conditions throughout the supply chain, based in U.S., founded in 

1996, www.cepaa.org. 

A global non-governmental organization dedicated to fighting corruption, based 

in Germany, founded in 1993 , www.transparency.org 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (abbreviated UDHR) is a declaration 

adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, founded in 1948 by the United 

Nations, http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html 

A partnership between International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) and Business 

for Social Responsibility (BSR) to engage governments of the United States, the 

United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Norway, companies in the extractive 

and energy sectors (“Companies”), and non-governmental organizations 

(“NGOs”) dialogue on security and human rights, founded in 2004, www. 

voluntaryprinciples.org 


25 




Practices

CompanyName Report Name Sector Region 

ABB ABB Annual Report 2006 

Sustainability Review: Power and 

productivity for a better world 

ABN AMRO Holding 

ABN AMRO Holding Sustainability 

Report 2006 

Accor S.A. 

Human Resources: Accor’s men and 

women are its most important asset 

Adidas Group 

Adidas Group: The Integration of our 

Social and Enviromental Programmes 

in 2006 

Advantest Corporation 

Advantest Corporation Corporate 

Social Responsibility Report 2007 

Aegon 

Aegon Corporate Responsibility 

Report 2006 

Air Products and Chemicals 

Incorporated 

Aisan Industry Co Ltd 

Table A3-1. List of companies included in the study and their classifications. 

We are Air Products: Corporate 

Responsibility Annual Report 2007 

Aisan Industry Co Ltd Environmental 

and Social Report 2006 

G3 

Status 

Manufacturing Europe Non-G3 

Banks Europe G3 

Service Europe Non-G3 


Service Asia Non-G3 


Manufacturing 

North 

America 

Non-G3 

Manufacturing Asia Non-G3 

Anritsu Corporation Anritsu CSR Report 2007 Service Asia Non-G3 

Architectural Services Department Architectural Services Department; 

Dimensions of a Sustainable Future, Service Asia Non-G3 

Sustainability Report 2005 

Australian Ethical Investment Ltd Australian Ethical Investment Ltd 


Banks Oceania G3 

Aviva Aviva plc. CSR Report 2007 Banks Europe Non-G3 

Banarra Sustainability Assurance and 

Advice 

Banarra Sustainability Report 2006 Service Oceania G3 

Barclays 

Barclays Corporate Responsibility 

Report 2006: Responsible Banking 

Banks Europe Non-G3 

Barloworld Ltd 

Barloworld Limited Annual Report 

2006 

Manufacturing Africa Non-G3 

Bayer AG 

Science for a Better Life: Bayer 

Sustainable Development Report Manufacturing Europe Non-G3 

2006 

Beiersdorf AG 

Beiersdorf AG OUR RESPONSIBILITY 


Manufacturing Europe G3 

BHP Billiton 

BHP Billiton Responsibility <strong>Reporting</strong> 

2006 

Extractive Oceania G3 

BMW Group 

BMW Sustainable Values Report 

2007-2008 


BNP Paribas 

BNP Paribas Environmental and Social 

Report 2006 


BP 

BP Sustainability Report 2006 and 

Human Rights Guidance Note 

Extractive Europe G3 

Brown and Forman Brown and Forman CSR 2007-2008: 

Our Long-Term Perspective 

Catalyst Paper Corporation Catalyst Paper Corporation 2006 

Sustainability Report Fresh Thinking 

on Paper 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

North 

America 

North 

America 

G3 

G3 

26 

© 2008 GRI

Cemex SA DE CV 


Cemex 2006 Sustainable 

Development Report 

Manufacturing 

Latin 

America 

G3 

Status 

Cemig Cemig Sustainability Report 2006 Energy Europe G3 

ChevronTexaco 

ChevronTexaco 2006 Corporate 

North 

Responsibility Report: Investing in Extractive 

America 

Human Energy 


China Mobile Ltd 

China Mobile Ltd Corporate 

Sustainability Report: Sincerity, 

Service Asia Non-G3 

Responsibility, Harmony 

China National Petroleum Corporation Energize Harmonize Realize Corporate 

Social Responsibility Report 2006 

Extractive Asia Non-G3 

Citigroup 

North 

Citigroup Citizenship Report 2006 Banks 

America 


CLP Holdings Limited 

CLP Holdings Limited 2006 Social and 

Environmental Report 

Transportation Asia G3 

Cognis 

The Cognis Sustainability Report 

2006: Strategy Nature 


ConocoPhillips 

ConocoPhillips: Performing Today. 

Preparing for Tomorrow. Sustainable 

Development Report. 

DaimlerChrysler 

DaimlerChrysler, 360 Degrees: Facts 

on Sustainability 2007 

Dassault Systemes 

Dassault Systemes Corporate Social 

Responsibility 

De Beers SA 

De Beers SA: Report to Stakeholders 

2005/6 Performance Update 

Dexia Group 

Dexia Group Sustainable 

Development Report 2006: no 

achievement without commitment 

DNV 

DNV annual report 2006: Balancing 

the needs of business and society 

Duke Energy Corporation Duke Energy Corporation: 2006/2007 

Corporate Sustainability Report, Our 

Path Forward 

E.ON 

E.ON: Changing Energy: Corporate 

Social Responsibility 2006 

Ecolab Inc 

Ecolab Inc 2006 Corporate 

Sustainability Report 

Extractive 

North 

America 

G3 






Service Europe G3 

Energy 

North 

America 

G3 

Energy Europe G3 

Manufacturing 

North 

America 


Edison SpA Edison SpA Sustainability Report 2006 Energy Europe Non-G3 

Endesa Chile SA 

Endesa Chile 2007 Sustainability 

Latin 

Energy 

G3 

Report 

America 

Enel Enel Sustainability Report 2006 Energy Europe G3 

Exxon Mobil 

Ford Motor 

Fortis AG/NV 

Exxon Mobil 2006 Corporate 

Citizenship Report 

Ford Motor: For a More Sustainable 

Future, Connecting with Society Ford 

Motor Company Sustainability Report 

2006/07 and Code of Basic Working 

Conditions 

Fortis AGNV Corporate Social 

Responsibility Report 2006 

Extractive 

Manufacturing 

North 

America 

North 

America 


G3 



27 




Practices

France Telecom SA 

Gas Natural SDG SA 

General Electric 

Groupe Carrefour 

Grupo BBVA 


Hanwha Chemical Corporation 

Henkel KGaA 

Hess Corporation 

Hewlett-Packard 

France Telecom 2006 Corporate 

Responsibility Report 

Gas Natural SDG SA: Corporate 


GE 2007 Citizenship Report: Investing 

in a sustainable future 

Groupe Carrefour Sustainability 

Report 2006 

BBVA Corporate Responsibility Report 

2006 

Caring for Tomorrow: Hanwha 

Chemical Sustainability Report 2007 

Henkel KGaA Sustainability Report 

2006 

Hess Corporation 2006 Corporate 

Sustainability Report 

HP FY06 Global Citizenship Report 

and web pages 

G3 

Status 


Transportation Europe G3 

Manufacturing 

North 

America 

G3 



Manufacturing Asia G3 


Extractive 

Manufacturing 

North 

America 

North 

America 

Iberdola Iberdola Sustainability Report 2006 Energy Europe G3 

IMPSA Argentina 

IMPSA Sustainability Report 

Latin 

Energy 

2006-2007 

America 


Indra Sistemas SA 

Indra Sistemas SA Corporate 

Responsibility 2006 


KBC Group NV 

KBC Group NV Corporate 



Korea Expressway Corporation 

Korea Expressway Corporation 


Service Asia G3 

Korea National Housing Corporation Korea National Housing: KNHC 

Sustainability Report and GRI G3 Service Asia G3 

Guideline 

Lloyd TSB Group plc 

Llyod TSB Group Corporate 

ResponsibilityReview 2006: Building Banks Europe Non-G3 

long-term relationships 

McDonald’s Australia McDonald’s Oceania 2005-2006 

Corporate Sustainability Report, Service Oceania G3 

Moving Forward 

Mittal Steel South Africa Ltd 

Mittal Steel South Africa Ltd 

Corporate Sustainability Report 

Extractive Africa G3 

Nedbank Nebank 2006 Sustainbility Report Banks Africa G3 

Nestlé 

Nestlé Corporate Business Principles 

and Corporate Sustainability Report 


Nike Inc 

Nokia 

Norske Skogindustrier ASA 

OHL Group 

Nike FY05-06 Corporate Responsibility 

Report: Innovate for a Better World 

Nokia Corporate Responsibility Report 

2005 

Norske Skog sustainability report 

2006: Steady Improvement. 

OHL Group 2006 Corporate Social 


Manufacturing 

North 

America 

G3 

G3 





28 

© 2008 GRI

Oxiana Limited 

Petrobrás 

PetroChina Ltd 


Oxiana Limited Sustainability Report 

2006 

Petrobrás Social and Environmental 

Report 2006 

PetroChina Ltd Corporate Social 


Extractive Oceania G3 

Extractive 

Latin 

America 

G3 

Status 

G3 

Extractive Asia Non-G3 

Peugeot Peugeot Corporate Social Report 2006 Manufacturing Europe Non-G3 

Pfizer 

Pfizer 2005 Corporate Citizenship 

North 

Manufacturing 

Report 

America 


POSCO POSCO Sustainability Report 2006 Extractive Asia G3 

ProLogis 

North 

ProLogis 2006 Sustainability Report Service 

America 

G3 

Reliance Industries Limited 

Reliance Industries Limited Corporate 

Sustainability Report 2005-06 My Extractive Asia G3 

Reliance. My Life. 

Repsol YPF 

Repsol YPF Corporate Responsibility 

Report 2006 


Royal Bank of Scotland 

Royal Bank of Scotland Corporate 



Sabaf SpA 

Financial, Social, and Environmental 

Performance Annual Report 2006 


Samsung Electronics 

Samsung Electronics 2006 Samsung 

Electronics Environmental and Social Manufacturing Asia Non-G3 

Report 

Santander Central Hispano Group Sustainability Report 06: Corporate 

Social Responsibility at Santander 


Shell The Shell Sustainability Report 2006: 

Meeting the Energy Challenge 


Showa Denko KK Showa Denko KK CSR Report 2007: 

Relations with Society/Environmental Manufacturing Asia Non-G3 

and Safety Efforts 

Société Générale SA 

Société Générale SA: History and 

Profile of Société Généra le 


Sodexho Alliance SA 

Sodexho Alliance Act as a corporate 

citizen report 2005-2006 


Sonae Industria SGPS SA 

Sonae Industria 2006 New 

Perspectives 


Sony 

Sony 2006 Corporate Sustainability 

Report 

Manufacturing Asia Non-G3 

Storebrand ASA 

Action Plan Corporate Responsibility 

2007/2008 


Suez 

Suez 2006 Activities and Sustainable 

Development Report 

Energy Europe Non-G3 

Technip 

Annual and Sustainable Development 

Report 2006 requirements in concrete 

terms. They cover safety, health, 

the environment, quality, human 

rights, employee standards, and anticorruption 

policies. 


TECO Energy Inc 

TECO Energy 2006 Corporate Social 


Energy 

North 

America 

G3 


29 




Practices


Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson Ericsson Corporate Responsibility 

Report 2006. Driving Change and 

Building Trust. 

Telefónica 

Telefónica Corporate Responsibility 

Report 2006 

The Daegu Bank Ltd The Daegu Bank Ltd 2006 

Sustainability Report: Drive Global 

Best 

The SAS Group 

SAS Group Annual Report and 


Vodafone 

Vodafon 2007 CSR: The potential of 

communications 

Volkswagen 

Volkswagen Sustainability Report 

2005/2006, Moving Generations 

Votorantim Celulose Paper SA 

Votorantim Celulose Paper SA: 

Sustainability Annual Report 2006 



Banks Asia G3 

Transportation Europe G3 



Manufacturing 

Latin 

America 

G3 

Status 

G3 

30 

© 2008 GRI

Sector 

Banks 



Extractive 

Extractive 

Extractive 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Manufacturing 

Service 

Service 

Service 

Service 

Service 

Service 

Service 

Service 

Service 

Service 



Table A3-2. Consolidation of sectors. 

Industry classification 

Banks, Insurance, and Diversified Financials 

Energy 

Utilities, Gas, and Electric 

Metals 

Mining, Crude-Oil Production 

Petroleum Refining 

Aerospace and Defense 

Building Materials 

Chemicals 

Computer, Office Equipment, and Services 

Consumer Food, Food Production, and Beverages 

Diversified Industrial 

Electronics, Semiconductor, and Peripherals 

Forest and Paper Products 

Homebuilders 

Household and Personal Products 

Motor Vehicles and Parts 

Pharmaceuticals 

Computer, Office Equipment, and Services 

Engineering 

Entertainment 

Food Services 

Government Institutions 

Hotels, Casinos, and Resorts 

Information and Technology Services, Internet 

Real Estate 

Support Services 

Telecommunications, Network, and Peripherals 

Railroads 

Transportation and Logistics 


31 




Practices

Table A3.5-1 : Frequency by sector of HR topics 1-9 being reported as policy, action, or performance. 

Policy N 18 10 16 33 20 3 

HR Indicator Total Banks 

Energy 

Utilities 

Service 

Extractive 

Manufacturing 


HR1 Investment in HR 15 4 0 3 5 2 1 

HR2 

Suppliers/contractors HR 

screening 47 4 7 5 20 9 2 

HR3 HR Training 21 2 2 6 8 3 0 

HR4 Non-discrimination 81 12 6 13 30 18 2 

HR5 


collective bargaining 58 9 6 12 21 9 1 

HR6 Child Labor 59 7 5 12 21 14 0 

HR7 


labor 52 8 5 8 19 12 0 

HR8 Security practices 15 2 1 6 4 2 0 

HR9 Indigenous rights 21 1 1 9 6 3 1 


HR 

HRIndicatorName 

Total Of 

Count- 

Ofaction 

Banks 

Energy 

Utilities 

Service 


HR2 


screening 25 2 6 2 8 6 1 

HR3 HR Training 21 1 2 6 8 4 0 


HR5 



HR6 Child Labor 26 1 4 4 12 5 0 

HR7 


labor 19 2 2 2 7 6 0 



Performance 

HR 

HRIndicatorName 

Total Of 

Nperf 

Banks 

Energy 

Utilities 

Service 

Extractive 

Manufacturing 


Extractive 

Manufacturing 



HR2 


screening 16 1 2 1 8 4 0 

HR3 HR Training 12 2 2 3 3 2 0 


HR5 



HR6 Child Labor 18 4 0 3 4 6 1 

HR7 


labor 13 3 0 2 2 5 1 



32 

© 2008 GRI

Policy 

Table A3.5-2. Frequency by region of HR topics 1-9 being reported as policy, action, or performance. 


Latin 

America 

North 

America 


HR2 


screening 47 0 6 4 27 3 7 

HR3 HR Training 21 2 2 3 10 2 2 


HR5 



HR6 Child Labor 59 1 11 3 31 2 11 

HR7 


labor 52 1 10 3 28 2 8 





Latin 

America 

North 

America 


HR2 


screening 25 0 2 0 18 2 3 

HR3 HR Training 21 1 3 2 10 2 3 


HR5 



HR6 Child Labor 26 0 1 1 17 3 4 

HR7 


labor 19 0 2 1 11 2 3 



Performance 


Latin 

America 

North 

America 


HR2 


screening 16 0 0 0 12 1 3 

HR3 HR Training 12 0 0 1 8 2 1 


HR5 



HR6 Child Labor 18 0 0 1 13 2 2 

HR7 


labor 13 0 0 1 11 0 1 




33 




Practices

Indicator 

Table A3.5-3 Depth of reporting index scores by sector and region for HR topics 1-9. 

Banks 

Energy 

Utilities 

Extractive 

Service 

Manufacturing 


Average 

Investment in HR 0.28 0.10 0.25 0.30 0.15 1.00 0.35 


screening 0.39 1.50 0.50 1.06 0.95 1.00 0.90 

HR Training 0.28 0.60 0.94 0.58 0.45 0.00 0.47 

Non-discrimination 1.56 1.80 1.50 1.70 2.05 1.33 1.66 


collective bargaining 1.06 1.10 1.50 1.12 0.90 1.33 1.17 

Child Labor 0.67 0.90 1.19 1.06 1.25 0.33 0.90 

Forced and compulsory labor 0.72 0.70 0.75 0.82 1.15 0.33 0.75 

Security practices 0.11 0.10 1.06 0.36 0.20 0.00 0.31 

Indigenous rights 0.11 0.40 1.00 0.30 0.35 1.33 0.58 

Average 0.57 0.80 0.97 0.81 0.83 0.74 0.79 

Indicator Africa Asia Oceania Europe 

Latin 

America 

North 

America 

Average 

Investment in HR 0.33 0.06 0.40 0.36 0.40 0.06 0.27 


screening 0.00 0.41 0.80 1.08 1.20 0.76 0.71 

HR Training 1.00 0.29 1.20 0.53 1.20 0.35 0.76 

Non-discrimination 1.67 1.24 2.00 1.85 1.60 1.71 1.68 


collective bargaining 1.00 0.88 1.40 1.28 1.40 0.76 1.12 

Child Labor 0.33 0.65 1.00 1.13 1.40 1.00 0.92 

Forced and compulsory labor 0.33 0.65 1.00 0.94 0.80 0.71 0.74 

Security practices 0.00 0.24 1.00 0.40 0.40 0.24 0.38 

Indigenous rights 0.00 0.24 1.80 0.42 0.40 0.35 0.53 

Average 0.52 0.52 1.18 0.89 0.98 0.66 0.79 

34 

© 2008 GRI

People working at the Roberts Environmental Center on data collection. 

Elgeritte Adidjaja 

Research Fellow, Roberts Environmental Ctr. 

Tiffany Chum Claremont McKenna College, ‘08 

Elliott Vander Kolk Claremont McKenna College, ‘06 

Selene Isaacson Claremont McKenna College, ‘09 

Melissa Itsara Claremont McKenna College, ‘08 

Brittany Nunnink Scripps College ‘09 

Marie-Ana Follett Pomona College ‘09 

William P. Alston Pitzer College, ‘09 

Kathleen M. Harris Scripps College, ‘09 

Kathryn Ann Baxendale Scripps College, ‘09 

Jason Clark Pomona College, ‘09 

Ata Kahn Claremont McKenna College, ‘08 

Meredith Brooke Stechbart Claremont McKenna College, ‘07 

Eleanor Estebanéz Claremont McKenna College, ‘09 

Caitrin Elise O’Brien Claremont McKenna College, ‘10 

Cameron Hanson Claremont McKenna College, ‘10 

Samantha Kanofsky Pomona College, 09 

Quirina Mitchell Claremont McKenna College, ‘10 

Alexander Chapman Claremont McKenna College, ‘08 

Philip R. Trapp Claremont McKenna College, ‘09 

Maureen Shulamith Golan Scripps College, ‘11 

Ashley Scott Claremont McKenna College, ‘11 

Kyle Block Claremont McKenna College, ‘10 

Meghan Wilson Scripps College, ‘09 


35 




Practices


Topics 


Practices 

Tools 


Topics 


Practices 

Tools 

The A 

GRI Research & Development 

Topics 

Trends 


Topics 


Practices 

Tools 

Sustain 

Tools 

Global <strong>Reporting</strong> Initiative 

PO Box 10039 

1001 EA Amsterdam 

The Netherlands 

Tel: +31 (0) 20 531 00 00 

Fax: +31 (0) 20 531 00 31 

www.globalreporting.org 

This document is available for free download on www.globalreporting.org

[PDF] Reporting on Human Rights - Global Reporting Initiative

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?