Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

CiteULike is a free service for managing and discovering scholarly references - click here to get started.

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Global Business Review
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morhardt, J. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

General Disregard for Details of GRI Human Rights Reporting by Large Corporations

J. Emil Morhardt

J. Emil Morhardt is Roberts Professor and Director of the Roberts Environmental Center, Claremont McKenna College, California, USA. E-mail: emorhardt{at}cmc.edu

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

Global Business Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 141-158 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/097215090901000201


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?