Suppliers with significant negative social impacts where improvements were agreed
Measurement answer
What this metric measures
Source-reported percentage of suppliers identified with significant actual or potential negative social impacts where improvements were agreed after assessment, without treating the agreement as implementation, remediation or a verified outcome.
Specification
Metric specification
- Result format
- Structured table
- Unit
- Identified social-impact suppliers with improvements agreed (%)
- Reporting basis
- Reporting period or measurement date declared by the source method
- Aggregation
- Do not sum or arithmetically average reported percentages, rates, ratios, or averages; consolidate only from compatible component observations under a disclosed method.
- Pillar
- Social
- Topic
- Supplier social assessment
- Controlled domain
- Supply chain and value chain
- Entity type
- Metric
Reporting boundary
Source-reported percentage only. Social impact categories can overlap. Current GRI 414 improvement-agreement rows do not merge with proposed future actions taken after identified labor-rights incidents.
Cross-library identity
Library mappings and variants
These links compare quantity, population, boundary, period, unit, denominator, aggregation, dimensions, and method edition. Partial relationships are navigation aids only and never authorize observation reuse.
- Related but distinct metricPartial relationship; observations remain separate.High-severity labour findings per audited apparel supplier site
- Related but distinct metricPartial relationship; observations remain separate.Verified remedies per apparel supplier labour finding
Verified source occurrences
Framework coverage
This is one canonical metric. The bindings below show every verified framework occurrence without creating duplicate metric pages. Edition, disclosure, role, and relationship remain source-specific.
- Adopting DisclosureSource evidence
GRI Standards
- Publisher
- Global Reporting Initiative
- Edition
- 2016 edition
- Requirement
- Not Specified
- Relationship
- Defines Disclosure
- Mapping outcome
- Direct Evidence
- Source locator
- effective date and rights PDF pp1-2; management guidance p7; Disclosure 414-1 p8; Disclosure 414-2 p9; supplier and supplier-screening definitions p12
Value structure
Dimensions and units
- Unit
- Identified social-impact suppliers with improvements agreed (%)
- Reporting basis
- Reporting period or measurement date declared by the source method
Unit meaning: A source-reported percentage using suppliers with improvement agreements as numerator and the compatible identified social-impact supplier cohort as denominator.
Table fields and units
- Social impact category
- Actual, potential or combined source state
- Significance method
- Supplier type, tier and location
- Assessment method and date
- Reported value
- Identified social-impact suppliers with improvements agreed (%)
- Measurement-source edition
- Assurance status
Published dimensions
- Social impact category.
- Actual, potential or combined source state.
- Significance method.
- Supplier type, tier and location.
- Assessment method and date.
- Agreement date.
- Improvement type.
- Reporter versus supplier responsibility.
- Component availability.
- Deduplication.
- Reporting boundary and period.
- Source edition.
- Estimate, rounding and assurance status.
Calculation method
Formula information
- Status
- Specified
- Formula type
- Percentage
Formula
P = (N ÷ D) × 100Use the source-defined numerator and denominator for the same population, period, boundary, and method; do not infer an unstated denominator.
Variables
| Symbol | Variable | Definition | Unit |
|---|---|---|---|
N | qualifying numerator | Qualifying observations within the qualifying population and boundary defined for Suppliers with significant negative social impacts where improvements were agreed. | Dimensionless |
D | declared denominator | Complete compatible denominator for the qualifying population and boundary defined for Suppliers with significant negative social impacts where improvements were agreed. | Dimensionless |
Verified sources
Evidence and status sources
Sustopedia checked each record-specific claim directly against primary publisher material. Labels distinguish current measurement authority from future compatibility and corroborative, legal, edition, or method status context. Corroborative evidence can support a stated limitation but cannot establish the core measurement by itself.
Measurement evidence
- Measurement evidenceChecked 15 August 2026
GRI 414: Supplier Social Assessment 2016
- Publisher
- Global Reporting Initiative
- Edition
- 2016 edition
- Locator
- effective date and rights PDF pp1-2; management guidance p7; Disclosure 414-1 p8; Disclosure 414-2 p9; supplier and supplier-screening definitions p12
Supports: Supports the measurement definition, boundary, and source-reported fields for Suppliers with significant negative social impacts where improvements were agreed.
Open official source
Use with context
Interpretation boundaries
Method disclosures required
Source-edition basis: GRI 414: Supplier Social Assessment 2016 — 2016 edition. Retain the exact source edition on every observation; later editions require a separate method profile.
- Social impact category.
- Actual, potential or combined source state.
- Significance method.
- Supplier type, tier and location.
- Assessment method and date.
- Agreement date.
- Improvement type.
- Reporter versus supplier responsibility.
- Retain the exact measurement-source edition with every observation.
- A source-reported percentage using suppliers with improvement agreements as numerator and the compatible identified social-impact supplier cohort as denominator.
Record-specific limitations
- An agreement does not establish implementation, closure, worker remedy, effectiveness, absence of retaliation or improved working conditions. The measure is not a supplier compliance score.
Interpret this metric with the stated reporting boundary, period convention, value shape, and unit. Results prepared with different boundaries or conventions may not be directly comparable.
Measurement evidence supports the core record-specific claims described above. Corroborative evidence can support limitations, while compatibility and status sources provide their separately labelled context. None of these cards by itself determines an organisation's legal applicability, filing readiness, assurance status, or compliance conclusion.