New report finds ESG blind spots

“Social impact isn’t just about internal culture or charitable donations,” said lead author Associate Professor Melissa Edwards. “It’s about how a company operates in society – its value chain, its customers, its communities. Without standardised metrics, we’re just counting inputs, not measuring outcomes.”

Key Research Findings

• Only 55% of social indicators are reported on by ASX100 companies, based on 22 out of 40 key criteria defined by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), the leading sustainability reporting framework.
• Reporting by ASX100 companies is heavily focused on internal metrics like diversity (97.85%) and employee training (91.40%), while broader social issues and impact remain largely overlooked.
• Community engagement is widely reported (89.25%) but typically shallow - focusing on donations over structured, outcome-based initiatives.
• Under-reported topics by ASX100 companies include:
  • Non-compliance with social laws (reported by only 13.98% of ASX100 in company reports)
  • Human rights clauses in contracts (reported by only 22.58%)
  • Product and service safety impacts (reported by only 16.13%)

The research identifies three major gaps preventing effective social sustainability reporting:

• No standardised metrics - Unlike environmental reporting, social impact lacks consistent, comparable measures.
• Limited value chain disclosure - Most disclosures cover internal operations, with little attention to supplier or community impacts.
• No mandatory assurance - Social data remains unaudited, reducing transparency and stakeholder confidence.

“We’ve seen how mandated climate reporting has transformed environmental disclosures, helping to prevent greenwashing through stronger assurance standards,” said Associate Professor Edwards. “It’s time we applied that same level of rigour to social impact. The frameworks are there; we just need to build the systems to support them.”