GRI 404: Training and Education 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 404-3
Percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews
Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Open official GRI source
↗ Share
Reviewed by
Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer
To prepare this disclosure
3 datapoints ↓
4 claims to verify ↓
5 evidence areas ↓
3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to report what share of its employees had a regular review of their performance and career development during the reporting period. In practice, it is about showing how widely these reviews are used across the workforce, rather than simply saying that a review process exists.
The main focus is coverage: whether the organisation applies these reviews across its operations and employee groups, or only in certain parts of the business such as head office or flagship sites. A useful report will make clear the basis of the percentage, so readers can understand who was included and how complete the process is.
* This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.
Before you start
A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.
Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
| Datapoint | What to capture | Evidence hint | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | The gender groups used for reporting, with the wording and categories taken from the organisation’s own employee records or self-identification fields. | HRIS employee profile fields, workforce reporting extract, and the internal category definitions used for the period. | HR / People Analytics |
| Employee grouping | The employee groups the organisation uses to classify its workforce for this disclosure, using the same definitions applied in internal reporting. | HR policy or reporting dictionary, workforce segmentation report, and the source extract from HRIS or payroll. | HR / People Analytics |
| Review coverage rate | The share of all employees who had a regular performance and career discussion during the reporting period, calculated against the correct total employee population for the same period. | Performance review tracker, HRIS headcount extract, and the calculation showing reviewed employees divided by total employees. | HR / Performance Management |
Show GRI 404-3 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
- Identify the employee group being reported on.
- State the workforce split by gender.
- Show what share of all employees had a routine review of performance and career progress in the reporting period.
LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source
How to prepare
- Set the reporting boundary first: decide which workforce population you will include in the disclosure, and keep that scope consistent across the figures and any narrative.
- Define the categories you will use for the breakdowns, using gender and employee groupings that match your internal records so the data can be traced back cleanly.
- Pull together the supporting records for the period, including the evidence behind the headcount split and the performance-and-career review information.
- Calculate the share of employees who had a regular review during the period, making sure the percentage is based on the total employee population you have chosen to report on.
- Prepare the disclosure text or table so it shows the gender split, the employee-category split, and the percentage result in a clear and consistent way.
- Record any exclusions, scope changes, or data limitations, then check the final output against the official source to confirm the wording, coverage, and figures still align.
Request the review coverage data from HR / People Analytics
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What share of our workforce had a routine performance-and-development conversation during the reporting period, split by gender and employee group?
Use your organisation’s own labels first, then map them to the reporting categories. For example, if you talk about appraisal, check-in, talent review, development conversation or one-to-one review internally, use those terms in the request and only translate them afterwards for reporting.
Weak request
Can you send the GRI 404-3 data showing the the evidence needed for GRI 404:GRI 404-3, split by gender and employee category?
Why it fails: It uses reporting-framework language first, which can force the owner to translate before they can recognise their own data. It also leaves out the population, source, counting basis, and the internal name of the review process, so the result may be hard to verify or reconcile.
Better request
Can you send the review coverage extract for [reporting period] from [system/file]? Please show, for each internal employee group and gender, how many people were in scope, how many had a routine performance/development conversation during the period, and the resulting percentage. Include the population rules, exclusions, counting method, and extract date. I’ll map your terms to the reporting categories after I receive it.
Formal email template
Subject: Data request for [reporting period] review coverage Hi [name/team], I’m preparing a sustainability reporting data pack and need your help with the review coverage figures for [reporting period]. Please send a table showing, for the employee groups you use internally, how many people were in scope and how many had a routine performance and development conversation during the period, split by gender and employee category. Please also include the percentage covered. Could you return the data with the following details: - the period covered - the employee population included and any exclusions - the internal name of the review process used - the source system or file - the counting method used - the date the extract was run - any notes on data quality, gaps, or assumptions Please use your own internal terms in the extract, and I will map them to the reporting categories afterwards. A possible LRA training template is attached for reference only; please adapt this to your organisation and check the official source before sign-off. Thanks, [preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name/team] — could you send the [reporting period] review coverage data? I need the headcount in scope, the number who had a routine performance/development conversation, split by gender and employee group, plus the % covered. Please include the source system, population rules, and any exclusions. Use your internal terms and I’ll map them afterwards. Thanks.
Industry examples
Retail
Context. Store-based workforce with seasonal staff and a separate head office population.
Adapted request. Please send the review coverage data for [reporting period] for store colleagues and head office staff, split by gender and the employee groups you use internally. Include permanent and fixed-term staff only, exclude agency workers, and show how many people were in scope, how many had an appraisal or development check-in, and the percentage covered.
Example response. Store colleagues: women 1,200 in scope, 960 reviewed, 80.0%; men 800 in scope, 600 reviewed, 75.0%. Head office: women 300 in scope, 270 reviewed, 90.0%; men 200 in scope, 180 reviewed, 90.0%. Source: performance system export; extract date: 5 Jan 2027.
Manufacturing
Context. Shift-based workforce with production and engineering job families, plus office staff.
Adapted request. Please provide the [reporting period] review tracker from HRIS for production, engineering, and office teams. Show the number of employees in each internal group, split by gender, who had a formal performance and development discussion during the period, plus the percentage covered. Please note whether contractors and agency labour are excluded.
Example response. Production: women 150 in scope, 120 reviewed, 80.0%; men 850 in scope, 680 reviewed, 80.0%. Engineering: women 40 in scope, 36 reviewed, 90.0%; men 260 in scope, 234 reviewed, 90.0%. Office: women 90 in scope, 81 reviewed, 90.0%; men 110 in scope, 99 reviewed, 90.0%. Source: HRIS and appraisal tracker; exclusions: contractors and agency labour.
The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.
Draft your disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
State how you defined the employee groups and the review measure, and note whether the percentage is based on headcount or another agreed workforce basis for the reporting period.
Context note
Explain that the figures show how widely formal development conversations were used across the workforce, and that differences between groups can point to uneven access or inconsistent practice.
Fluctuation statement
If the figures moved materially from the prior period, link the change to practical drivers such as changes in workforce mix, coverage of the review process, or timing of the assessment cycle.
Content index entry
GRI 404-3 Percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Professional preparation tools and forms for GRI 404-3. Each download includes a concise “How to use” guide.
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
| Claim | Risk | Evidence to check |
|---|---|---|
| We prepared the coverage figure by splitting the workforce into the relevant people groups we use internally, so the number reflects the categories applied in our reporting system rather than a broad headcount only. | The assurer may test whether the grouping logic is consistent, whether any staff were placed in the wrong bucket, and whether the reported figure could be distorted by inconsistent category definitions across sites or systems. | Workforce classification policy or reporting instructions; HR system extracts showing the category fields used; mapping between internal people-group labels and the reported figure; reconciliation from source records to the published number; review notes showing any reclassifications or exceptions. |
| We built the disclosed figure from the employee set we treated as in scope for the period, using our normal employment records to decide who counted and avoiding double counting where someone moved between roles or locations. | The assurer may probe whether the scope was applied consistently, whether joiners, leavers, transfers, part-time staff, or temporary workers were handled correctly, and whether the same person could have been counted more than once. | Population definition used for the period-end or average calculation; payroll/HR extracts; joiner-leaver and transfer logs; reconciliation between source population and the published figure; controls over duplicates and manual adjustments; sign-off showing the scope decision was reviewed. |
| For the review-rate figure, we used the records of employees who had a formal performance and development discussion during the year and checked the underlying logs before publication to confirm the count was complete and correctly calculated. | The assurer may test whether the review records are complete, whether the timing window was applied correctly, whether the numerator and denominator were built from the same employee base, and whether the percentage was calculated accurately. | Performance review tracker or HR system reports; evidence of the review cycle dates used; employee population used as the denominator; calculation workbook showing the percentage formula; sample review records or manager attestations; management review and approval evidence; checks for missing, duplicate, or late-recorded reviews. |
| The reporting boundary used for this disclosure is documented. | Coverage exclusions or late scope changes are not evidenced. | Boundary memo, entity or site list, and sign-off record. |
Evidence pack to prepare
- The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
- A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
- Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
- The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
- Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
Common reporting gaps
- A percentage is stated without the underlying counts (numerator and denominator).
- The denominator — what the figure is a share of — is not explained.
- Partial scope is reported as if it were complete coverage.
- One-off activities are counted as if they were ongoing programmes.
- Boundary or period changes that move the figure are not flagged.
- Exclusions from the reported scope are not listed or explained.
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
- Wrong owner
The data request goes to HR alone when the review records sit with line managers, payroll, or local business leads, so the team never gets a complete source set.
- Framework language in the ask
People are asked for a GRI-style metric instead of the organisation’s own review-cycle terms, and they return the wrong extract or a partial one.
- Scope left vague
No one states which parts of the business, worker groups, or locations are in scope, so different teams count different populations.
- Boundary not fixed
The collector does not say whether to include only current staff, leavers, or other worker groups, which leads to inconsistent inclusion and exclusion decisions.
- Wrong time basis
The team pulls records from the wrong review cycle or a different cut-off date, so the figures do not match the reporting period being used.
- Mixed counting basis
Headcount, full-time equivalent, and individual review counts are blended together, which makes the percentage impossible to reconcile.
- Source labels lost
The original file names, field names, or system tags are stripped out during consolidation, so nobody can trace each number back to its source.
- Groups merged too early
Gender and employee group breakdowns are combined before checking the source data, which hides gaps that should have been kept separate.
- Evidence trail missing
The team keeps the final spreadsheet but not the supporting extracts, date stamps, or reviewer sign-off, so the calculation cannot be checked later.
Where judgement is often needed
- Acquisition and disposal cut-off
Set a clear cut-off for joining or leaving teams during the period, apply it consistently to the headcount used in the percentage, and explain any business changes that affect the comparison.
- Different local review cycles
Where countries or business units use different review calendars or naming conventions, map them to one internal rule for what counts as a regular review and disclose that rule.
- People on the boundary of the employee pool
Decide up front whether to include workers who are on leave, probation, fixed-term assignment, or otherwise partly active in the period, then explain the inclusion rule used.
- Part-year service and timing basis
Choose whether the measure is based on the position at period end or on everyone employed at any point in the period, use that basis consistently, and state it clearly.
- System records versus manual checks
If the review status comes from HR records, manager logs, or sampled checks rather than a full count, say so and explain any estimation or reconciliation used.
- Rounding and percentage presentation
Round the result using one consistent method, make sure the rounded figure still reflects the underlying count, and note the rounding approach if it could affect interpretation.
- Privacy-driven grouping
When small teams or locations could identify individuals, combine categories to protect privacy, and explain any grouping so readers understand the level of detail shown.
- Mixed employee categories
If your workforce includes different internal categories, define which ones sit inside the total for this measure and disclose any exclusions or separate treatment.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
UK retail banking · synthetic · written by LRA
This example shows how to describe coverage of regular review conversations using a simple narrative, while splitting the result by gender and by employee level. The figures are internally consistent and illustrative only.
Synthetic illustration only. During the year, we completed formal performance-and-development conversations for 1,260 of our 1,400 employees, equivalent to 90% of the workforce.
- By gender, 92% of women and 88% of men had a review.
- By job level, the figures were 94% for senior leaders, 91% for managers and 89% for other staff.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA
This example demonstrates a second way to present the same disclosure, using different sector language and a different employee grouping. The numbers are made up for training purposes and remain mathematically consistent.
Synthetic illustration only. We carried out annual development reviews for 735 of our 900 people, which is 82% overall.
- By gender, 84% of women and 80% of men were covered.
- By employee group, 90% of supervisors, 83% of skilled operatives and 75% of office staff received a review.
Draft output & visualisation ideas
How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.
Suggested visuals
- Review coverage by gender and employee group — stacked bar: How the share of people who had a formal review is split across gender and employee category, allowing side-by-side comparison of coverage across workforce segments.
- Coverage rate by employee category — bar: The proportion of employees who received a review in each employee category, making it easy to compare participation across job levels or groups.
- Coverage rate by gender — bar: The proportion of employees who received a review for each gender group, highlighting any difference in review coverage between genders.
- Review coverage matrix — table: A cross-tab of gender against employee category with the review percentage shown for each combination, useful where the reporter wants a precise breakdown.
From a number to a disclosure
What separates a figure from a disclosure.
Basic
We reported that 78% of our employees had a regular performance and career development review during the period.
Better
We reported that 78% of our employees had a regular performance and career development review during the period, split by gender and employee group.
Best
We reported that 78% of our employees had a regular performance and career development review during the period, covering all staff and split by gender and employee group; the figure was unchanged from last year because our review cycle and coverage stayed steady.
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 404-3 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.
| Company | Sector · Country | Year | Match | Page | Report | Assurance | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
Re Sustainability Limited | Solid Waste Management Utilities · India | 2025 | Exact | p. 340 →p. 349 →p. 90 → | Re Sustainability Integrated Annual Report FY 2024-25 → | ey | ||||||||||||
Evidence in Re Sustainability Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Re Sustainability Limited’s 2025 report provides data on employee demographics by age and gender, including detailed breakdowns for those under 30 years old (p.90). It also includes information on employee benefits such as paternity and maternity leave entitlements (p.91), and reports the percentage of employees receiving regular performance and career development reviews (p.349). However, the report does not clearly present comprehensive data on broader workforce diversity metrics or detailed sustainability-related employee programs beyond these points.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
Grupo Cibest S.A. | Banks / Diverse Financials / Insurance · Colombia | 2025 | Partial | p. 7 →p. 184 →p. 190 → | Management Report 2025 → | PwC | ||||||||||||
Evidence in Grupo Cibest S.A.’s reportWhat the report shows Grupo Cibest S.A.'s 2025 Management Report provides detailed data on gender distribution and salary differences, showing that senior management is 39% female with an average monthly salary 4.29% below that of men (p.183). The report also includes information on performance evaluations by gender and job category, indicating 100% of men and women received evaluations (p.190), and references salary weighting by employee category, grade level, and gender (p.329). However, the report does not clearly present comprehensive data on other diversity categories or a full breakdown of salary gaps across all employee levels.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
Thai Beverage Public Company Limited | Food and Beverage Processing · Thailand | 2024 | Partial | p. 176 →p. 177 →p. 185 → | Sustainability Report 2024 → | LRQA | ||||||||||||
Evidence in Thai Beverage Public Company Limited’s reportWhat the report shows Thai Beverage Public Company Limited's Sustainability Report 2024 provides detailed data on workforce composition, including gender distribution with 81.25% male and 18.75% female employees, and nationality breakdown showing 12.5% Thai and 87.5% Singaporean on page 141. The report also covers employee hires, turnover, and benefits for full-time employees on page 186, and includes gender-disaggregated percentages of employees receiving regular performance reviews on page 177. However, the report does not clearly present comprehensive data on employee training outcomes or detailed diversity metrics beyond gender and nationality.
Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict. Datapoint coverage
Source trail
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Check your understanding
A people team has headcount records for the year and a review tracker showing which staff had a scheduled performance-and-development conversation during the reporting period. Some workers joined late in the year, and a few were on long leave, so the team is unsure whether to count them in the total.How should the preparer decide who sits in the denominator, and what evidence should support the percentage reported?
Model answer. Use the organisation’s total employee count for the period as the base, then calculate the share of that group who had a regular review during the year. Keep supporting records that show both the employee count and which individuals had a review, so the percentage can be traced back to source data.
Why this matters. The percentage should be built from a clear employee total and traceable review records, not from an informal estimate.
A business has separate employee groups: permanent staff, fixed-term staff, and a small number of interns. The HR system can show review completion for each group, but the team is unsure whether the disclosure should be split by gender and employee category or presented only as one overall figure.What breakdown needs to be prepared alongside the overall percentage?
Model answer. Prepare the overall percentage for all employees, and also break the information down by gender and by employee category. The disclosure is not complete if it only shows the combined figure, because the data also needs those two views.
Why this matters. Report the overall result and the two required breakdowns, so the picture is not hidden inside one total.
At year-end, the HR team finds that some managers held annual review meetings, while others used mid-year check-ins and informal coaching notes. They want to count all of these as the same thing because each employee had some form of development discussion.What judgement should be made about which conversations count toward the reported percentage?
Model answer. Only include employees who received the organisation’s regular performance-and-career review process during the period. Casual coaching, ad hoc check-ins, or other one-off conversations should not be counted unless they are part of that regular review process and can be evidenced as such.
Why this matters. Count only the organisation’s normal review process, not every type of development conversation.
A preparer has calculated that 84 out of 120 employees had a regular review during the year, which gives 70%. The same dataset shows 50 of 60 women and 34 of 60 men received reviews, but the team is unsure whether the subgroup figures need to align with the overall total.How should the preparer check the numbers before sign-off?
Model answer. Check that each subgroup is internally consistent and that the combined employee counts do not exceed the total workforce. In this example, 84 out of 120 equals 70%, and the gender split also adds up correctly because 50 plus 34 equals 84, while 60 plus 60 equals 120.
Why this matters. Before sign-off, make sure the subgroup counts reconcile to the overall workforce and the overall review total.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports
See how companies actually report GRI 404-3 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS S1
Own Workforce — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Questions this page answers
How do I use the GRI 404-3 page to draft the disclosure from scratch?
Start with the plain-language explainer, then work through the step-by-step preparation section, the datapoints to prepare, and the draft-output section. The page is designed to help you turn source data into a draft narrative, a content-index line, and supporting visuals. ↑ section
What data do I need to collect for GRI 404-3 on training and education?
The page highlights three datapoints to prepare: gender, employee grouping, and review coverage rate. Use those as the core inputs when you are gathering data for the disclosure. ↑ section
How should I set the scope for GRI 404-3 training and education data?
Use the page’s step-by-step preparation guidance and the employee grouping datapoint to decide which workforce groups are included in your dataset. Keep the scope consistent across the data table, narrative, and evidence pack. ↑ section
Who should own the GRI 404-3 data collection and sign-off process?
The page is useful for a sustainability/ESG manager, HR or data owner, and assurance reviewer, so ownership should sit with the person who can gather the source data and maintain the evidence pack. The workbook and assurance section are there to support that handover and review. ↑ section
What evidence should I keep to make a GRI 404-3 disclosure assurance-ready?
The page includes an evidence pack with five items and four assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk, and evidence angle. Use those to build a file that shows how the figures were prepared and checked. ↑ section
What are the common mistakes to avoid when reporting GRI 404-3?
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes, so it is a good check against missing scope, weak evidence, or unclear methodology. Review those before finalising the draft so the narrative, data table, and supporting documents line up. ↑ section
How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 404-3?
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format, which is meant to support preparation and assurance readiness. Use it alongside the page’s step-by-step guidance, evidence pack, and draft-output section. ↑ section
What can I take from the synthetic example disclosure for GRI 404-3?
The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure can be presented. Treat these as examples only and use them to shape your own draft structure and wording. ↑ section
How do I turn my GRI 404-3 data into a draft narrative and content index line?
The draft-output section gives visualisation ideas, narrative starters, and a GRI content-index line. Use those outputs to convert your prepared data into a first draft that is easy to review and update. ↑ section
Can I reuse my GRI 404-3 data for ESRS S1 Own Workforce reporting?
The page notes ESRS S1 (Own Workforce) as the closest correspondence, so the data may be reusable across frameworks. That does not mean the reporting requirements are identical, so check the other framework separately before relying on the same dataset. ↑ section
More questions this page can help with
- GRI 404-3 training and education workbook download how to use it
- GRI 404-3 evidence pack what should be included
- GRI 404-3 review coverage rate how to calculate and explain
- GRI 404-3 employee grouping data collection guidance
- GRI 404-3 gender split reporting example synthetic
- GRI 404-3 common mistakes in training and education disclosure
- GRI 404-3 assurance claims evidence risk claim table
- GRI 404-3 draft narrative starter wording
- GRI 404-3 content index line example
- GRI 404-3 from company reports examples where disclosed
- GRI 404-3 plain language explainer training and education
- GRI 404-3 ESRS S1 own workforce data reuse
✓ LRA AI Assistant · human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure
Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.
Try
Sources, status and disclaimer
This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.
