Introduction

From 1 January 2025, climate-related disclosures became mandatory under AASB S2 in Australia, marking a shift in sustainability reporting priorities. While focus on climate (‘E’) issues has intensified, social (‘S’) topics have received less attention. This report analyses how ASX100 and large private companies report on social factors using the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework.

Corporate social reporting remains largely voluntary. In 2024, 97% of ASX100 firms reported on sustainability, but only 79% addressed social risks, a decline from 84% in 2023. Most disclosures were qualitative. The report evaluates reporting quality, coverage, and scope, identifying opportunities for improvement based on both quantitative and qualitative evidence.

While early corporate social responsibility focused on social issues, emphasis shifted to environmental matters from the 1980s. The lack of standardised frameworks for ‘S’ topics has contributed to inconsistent reporting. However, rising interest—particularly in sectors like finance—suggests growing relevance for social impact measurement.

The research reviews ASX100 and 19 top private companies (with available sustainability reports) using GRI’s 40 ‘S’-related indicators. It assesses the topics prioritised, the quality of disclosures, and their categorisation across Scope 1 (internal), Scope 2 (supplier interface), and Scope 3 (broader value chain). GRI’s double materiality approach supports reporting not only on business impacts but also on societal outcomes.

Our analysis: ASX100 reporting on the ‘S’ in ESG

Focus and quality
ASX100 companies disclosed on average 55.4% of GRI ‘S’ topics (22 out of 40). Most reported indicators included diversity (97.85%), training and education (91.4%), community engagement (89.25%), employment turnover (83.87%), and occupational health and safety (83.87%).

However, community engagement (GRI 413-01) often lacked depth, focusing mainly on charitable giving rather than structured impact assessments.

Least reported topics included incidents of non-compliance with product labelling (11.83%), socio-economic compliance (13.98%), marketing practices, and health and safety impacts of products. Only 22.58% of firms included human rights clauses in investment agreements.

Private company comparison
Private firms reported on 35.4% of the GRI indicators. Like listed companies, they prioritised Scope 1 topics such as employment, safety, and training. However, they placed more emphasis on local community engagement. Reporting on risk-focused topics like hazard identification and compliance was less frequent.

Scope of reporting
Both public and private companies focused heavily on Scope 1 disclosures. Scope 3 topics, such as human rights in the supply chain or socio-economic compliance, were underreported. Scope 2 disclosures were also limited, showing a narrow internal focus in most social reporting practices.

Gaps and opportunities in reporting on ‘S’ factors

Comparison with global frameworks (e.g. HEC Paris and S&P Global Ratings) confirms that diversity, inclusion, and employee health and safety are consistently prioritised. However, socio-economic compliance remains underreported, despite being a mandatory GRI disclosure.

Standardisation remains a key challenge. The development of frameworks such as the EU Social Taxonomy and Australia’s Sustainable Finance Taxonomy aim to create consistent definitions and metrics for measuring social impact. Public sector efforts, including the “Measuring What Matters” framework, may further guide future disclosure practices.

Identified gaps include the lack of standardised metrics and assurance processes for ‘S’ topics. Most social disclosures are qualitative and not externally verified. Companies are encouraged to expand reporting to include Scope 2 and 3 impacts, develop baseline data systems, and apply consistent methodologies to improve accountability and comparability.

Conclusion: From ESG to holistic social impact

Lessons from climate-related reporting offer a model for advancing ‘S’ disclosures. ASX100 companies currently focus on internal workforce metrics, with limited reporting on broader social impacts. To achieve meaningful social impact, firms must shift toward a Corporate Social Impact (CSI) model—embedding social value across business operations and the full value chain. This requires clearer definitions, better data systems, and external assurance mechanisms to support more robust and transparent reporting.