Disclosure focus
This disclosure asks an organisation to explain how much of its security workforce has been trained on the organisation’s human rights policies or procedures. In practice, the focus is on whether the people providing security understand the human rights expectations that apply to their work, and how widely that training has been delivered across the relevant security personnel.
The practical question is coverage: has training reached all security staff, or only certain teams, sites, or contractors? A useful report will make clear the scope of the security personnel included, whether the training applies across operations or only at selected locations, and how the organisation knows the training has been completed.
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
＋ Show GRI 410-1 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
Check whether the same training expectations are applied when security staff are supplied by an outside provider.
Record the share of security staff who have completed formal instruction on the organisation’s human rights rules or related procedures, including how to use them in security work.
How to prepare it
1Set the reporting boundary first: decide which security staff are in scope for the figure, and whether any outsourced security providers are included in the same check.
2Define what you will count as formal training for this topic, using one clear internal rule so the same test is applied to everyone in scope.
3Gather support for the percentage, such as training records, attendance logs, completion certificates, or other internal evidence that shows who has been trained.
4Calculate the share of covered security personnel who meet the training test, and present the result as a percentage with the correct unit.
5State separately whether your training rule also covers external security suppliers, so readers can see if the same expectation applies beyond your own employees.
6Before finalising, compare the draft against the official source, and note any exclusions, boundary changes, or assumptions so the reported figure can be traced and reviewed.
Request the data
Request the security training evidence
Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.
What share of our security workforce has completed training on our human rights policy and the related security procedures, and does that training expectation also cover any outsourced security providers?
Use your organisation’s own terms first, then map them to the disclosure. For example, if you call this team ‘site protection’, ‘guarding’, ‘contracted security’ or ‘front-of-house security’, keep that language in the request and only translate it later for reporting.
Weak request
Please provide the GRI 410-1 data showing the percentage of security personnel trained in human rights policies or procedures, and confirm whether third-party security personnel are included.
Why it fails: This uses framework language only, so the owner may not recognise which team, system, or local training record to check. It also does not specify the period, boundary, counting basis, or the organisation’s own names for the training and security groups, so the response may be incomplete or inconsistent.
Better request
Please send the security training evidence for [reporting period]: the number of guards / patrol staff / control-room staff in scope, how many completed the human rights or security conduct module, the percentage calculation, and whether contracted security teams are covered by the same training expectation. Use your own team labels and source system names, and include any exclusions or assumptions.
Industry examples
Draft your disclosure
Notes that turn data into a disclosure
LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.
Method note
State how you defined the security workforce, what counted as formal instruction, and whether the figures include only the organisation’s own staff or also contracted providers.
Context note
Explain what the percentage says about how far rights-related training has been embedded across the security function and whether the same expectations extend to external providers.
Fluctuation statement
If the figure changed from the prior period, note whether the movement reflects more people being trained, changes in the security workforce, or a wider use of external security providers.
Content index entry
GRI 410-1 Security personnel trained in human rights policies or procedures 8 — [location / page] / [notes]
Download Centre
Preparation tools & forms
Professional preparation tools for GRI 410-1 — free with an LRA Community membership. Register once (it's free) and every download unlocks, together with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
Free · Community members
Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
Evidence pack to prepare
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.
Common gaps
Mistakes to avoid when collecting the data
Wrong data owner
The request goes to the wrong team, so the people who hold the training records and contractor lists are never asked for the source data.
Framework language only
The ask is written in disclosure jargon instead of the organisation’s own terms, and the operational team cannot map it to their training logs or security roster.
Scope left vague
No one states which security workers are in scope, so site staff, head-office guards, and outsourced teams get mixed together by mistake.
Wrong time basis
The count is pulled from a different period than the one being reported, so the training status no longer matches the reporting window.
Mixed counting method
Some records are counted as individual people while others are counted as training events, which makes the percentage unusable.
Source labels stripped out
The original tags from the training system and contractor files are lost during extraction, so the team cannot trace each figure back to its source.
Populations merged too early
Employees and third-party guards are combined before checking whether the same training rule applies to both groups, which hides a real difference in coverage.
Evidence trail incomplete
The file set has numbers but no supporting metadata, so dates, version history, and document origin cannot be checked later.
No review sign-off
The draft is passed on without a named reviewer confirming the figures, so there is no clear trail showing who checked the data before disclosure.
Where judgement is often needed
Set the population before calculating the percentage
Decide which security staff sit in scope for the period, then calculate the share trained from that same defined group and explain any exclusions, such as people who joined or left during the year.
State how contractors are treated
If outside security providers are included in your training rule, say so clearly and use the same treatment in the percentage and the yes/no answer; if they are not included, explain that boundary.
Use one country rule where local definitions differ
Where local law or internal practice uses different labels for security roles or training content, map those differences to one organisation-wide approach and disclose the basis used.
Be clear on timing for new starters and leavers
Choose whether the figure reflects training completed by the reporting date, during the year, or another cut-off, and explain how people who were hired, transferred, or exited are handled.
Explain whether the figure is exact or estimated
If the percentage is built from system records, manual logs, sampling, or a mix of sources, say which method was used and note any estimate or judgement behind the result.
Round consistently and keep the yes/no answer aligned
Apply one rounding rule to the percentage and make sure the separate answer on third-party security providers matches the same scope used for the numeric figure.
Protect personal data when the team is small
If naming or breaking down trained security staff could identify individuals, aggregate the data and explain the privacy-driven grouping while keeping the percentage internally consistent.
Explain changes after acquisitions, disposals, or outsourcing
If the security workforce changed because sites, teams, or contracts were added or removed, disclose the boundary used for the period and whether prior-year figures were restated or left as reported.
Examples
Illustrative examples
Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Utilities
*Synthetic illustration only.* We trained 184 of our 200 security staff on our human rights rules and the site-level steps they must follow when working on access control, patrols, and incident response, which is **92%**. - The same training requirement also covers the 3 external security providers we use; all 24 of their guards assigned to our sites completed the same programme. - We treat this as a group-wide rule for both our own personnel and contracted security teams, and we check completion before deployment and during refresher cycles.
This example shows how to report the share of security staff who have completed relevant human rights training, and whether the same expectation is extended to contracted security providers.
Illustrative (synthetic) example — Food manufacturing
*Synthetic illustration only.* In our factories and distribution centres, 57 of 60 in-house security officers finished training on our human rights policy and the practical instructions for applying it in day-to-day security work, giving a result of **95%**. - The training rule also applies to outside guarding firms: 18 of 20 contracted guards working for us were required to complete it, and 18 did so. - We apply the same onboarding check to both internal and external security teams before they are allowed to work on our sites.
This example shows how to disclose the proportion of security personnel trained in relevant human rights policies or procedures, and whether third-party security suppliers are included in the training requirement.
Company reports
How companies report GRI 410-1
Real reports where this topic is disclosed. These are report practice, not exact disclosure templates to copy.
Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL
Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil · 2024
Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL’s 2024 Integrated Report provides specific data on whistleblowing, noting 434 reports registered in 2024 through a third-party company ensuring anonymity (p.97). The report also mentions responsibility for disseminating information to contracted companies in relation to security personnel training on human rights policies (p.265). However, details on the percentage of security personnel trained or further specifics on training programs related to human rights are not clearly provided.
Firstsource Solutions Limited
Professional Services · India · 2025
Firstsource Solutions Limited’s ESG Report FY 2024-25 includes a reported percentage value related to security topics on page 247, indicating some quantitative disclosure (p.247). The report provides partial narrative context on cybersecurity threats and training, noting annual training programs for privacy and cybersecurity on page 69 and security briefings with reporting protocols on page 67, but lacks a clear headline value or comprehensive narrative on overall cybersecurity performance (p.59, p.67, p.69). Notably, the report does not clearly present detailed metrics or outcomes related to cybersecurity effectiveness, leaving some aspects of the disclosure incomplete or unclear.
Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.
Home Building · Japan · 2025
Sumitomo Forestry Co., Ltd.'s Sustainability Report 2025 includes a specific percentage value related to security personnel trained in human rights policies or procedures, as noted on page 536. The report also provides narrative information about relevant training and the revision and enforcement of fire prevention management procedures on page 344. However, details on the scope of personal information management and broader human rights policies are mentioned but not clearly quantified or elaborated, such as on pages 73 and 398.
✓ 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.
TryHow do I prepare GRI 410-1?What data do I need to collect?Where can I see a real-report example?What mistakes should I avoid?
1 free answer
Check your understanding
Scenarios to work through
A warehouse operator uses in-house guards at the main gate and a contractor team at the night entrance. The HR team has records showing that 18 of 20 guards completed the organisation’s human rights briefing and the site search procedure, while the contractor’s supervisor says their staff were briefed but has no attendance log.
QHow should you decide whether the percentage and the yes/no point can be supported for this site?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Count only the guards for whom you can show formal learning on the organisation’s human rights rules or the related security procedure. In this case, the in-house records support 18 out of 20, which is 90%. For the contractor team, you also need evidence that the same training expectation applies to them; a verbal statement alone is not enough on its own.
Why this matters · Use documented evidence for both the trained headcount and whether outside security providers are covered by the same training expectation.
A logistics depot has 12 security staff. Ten completed an online module on human rights and use-of-force guidance, one completed a classroom session on the same topics, and one new starter is booked onto training next month but has not yet attended.
QDo you include the new starter in the trained percentage, and what is the right way to treat the other 11 people?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑Do not count the new starter as trained yet, because the person has not completed the learning. The other 11 can be counted if their records show they have already received formal instruction on the organisation’s human rights policy or the relevant security procedure and how to apply it in practice. That would give 11 out of 12, or 91.7%, if all 11 records are valid.
Why this matters · Only include people who have already completed the training, not those merely scheduled to attend.
A retail chain has 40 guards across five stores. The central compliance team has a spreadsheet showing 34 completed the annual human rights refresher, but two stores use a local guarding firm and the spreadsheet does not say whether those guards were included in the training programme.
QWhat should you check before using the 34 out of 40 figure in the disclosure?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑First confirm that the 40-person total really covers everyone providing security at the stores, including any outsourced guards. Then check that the 34 trained people are all within that same population and that the training was on the organisation’s human rights policy or the security procedure linked to it. If the contractor guards are part of the security workforce, you also need evidence that the training expectation extends to them.
Why this matters · Make sure the numerator and denominator cover the same security workforce, including any outsourced personnel if they are in scope.
A manufacturing site has a training matrix showing 15 security officers completed a session on respectful search procedures and escalation rules. The site manager wants to report 100% because all officers attended a toolbox talk, even though only 15 of 18 have formal training records and the remaining 3 only signed a daily briefing sheet.
QWhich attendance evidence is enough, and what figure should be used?
Reveal model answer →Hide answer ↑A toolbox talk or daily briefing sheet is not enough unless it shows formal training on the organisation’s human rights policy or the specific security procedure and how to use it. Based on the records described, only 15 of 18 can be counted, which is 83.3%. The three people with only a briefing sheet should not be included as trained.
Why this matters · Use formal training evidence, not informal briefings, when calculating the trained share.
Framework references
Related framework references
How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.
Primary
Related & explore
FAQ
Questions this page answers
For GRI 410-1 Security Practices, what data do I need to collect before I start drafting the disclosure?+−
The page says to prepare two datapoints: trained security share and contractor training coverage. Use the step-by-step preparation section to work out what you need, then build the draft from those figures and the supporting evidence pack.
How do I use the step-by-step 'how to prepare' section for GRI 410-1 Security Practices?+−
Use it as a practical checklist to move from scope and ownership through to data collection, evidence and draft output. It is designed to help you prepare the disclosure rather than to act as a formal standard.
Who should own the GRI 410-1 Security Practices data in practice?+−
The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the person or team that can confirm the training data and evidence. The workbook is there to help you assign and track those responsibilities.
What evidence should I keep for GRI 410-1 Security Practices to be assurance-ready?+−
The page includes an evidence pack with five items for assurance readiness, plus five assurance claims to verify with their related risk and evidence. Use those items to build a clear audit trail for the figures you report.
What are the common mistakes to avoid when reporting GRI 410-1 Security Practices?+−
The page lists common reporting gaps and mistakes so you can check for missing scope, weak evidence, or unclear methodology before finalising the draft. It is meant to help you spot issues early rather than after review.
How do I turn the GRI 410-1 Security Practices data into a draft disclosure?+−
The page provides draft-output support, including visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. Use those to turn the prepared data and evidence into a first draft for internal review.
Can I use the synthetic example on the GRI 410-1 Security Practices page as a template for my own disclosure?+−
Yes, as a worked illustration only. The example is synthetic and internally consistent, so it can help you see how the datapoints and table might look, but you still need to replace it with your own company data.
What does the GRI 410-1 Security Practices workbook help me do?+−
The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. It is there to support preparation, evidence tracking and assurance readiness, so you can organise the disclosure work in one place.
What is the printable Library Card for GRI 410-1 Security Practices used for?+−
The Download Centre also includes a printable Library Card in .pdf format. Use it as a quick reference alongside the workbook when you are preparing the disclosure and checking what needs to be evidenced.
Does the GRI 410-1 Security Practices page give an ESRS, CSRD or ISSB mapping I can rely on?+−
No. The page says there is no one-to-one ESRS or IFRS equivalent asserted, so it should be used as a practical guidance page for this disclosure rather than as a framework mapping source.
More questions this page can help with
GRI 410-1 Security Practices checklist for ESG managersHow to collect trained security share data for GRI 410-1How to calculate contractor training coverage for GRI 410-1GRI 410-1 evidence pack for assuranceGRI 410-1 common reporting gaps and mistakesHow to use the GRI 410-1 workbook downloadGRI 410-1 draft narrative startersGRI 410-1 content index line exampleGRI 410-1 security practices synthetic exampleWho should own GRI 410-1 data collectionGRI 410-1 assurance claims to verifyGRI 410-1 preparation steps
Free · LRA Community
Get your GRI 410-1 tools — free
Your preparation tools are free for LRA Community members and students. Register once (it's free) and your download starts right away — plus the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant.
✓
You're in — your download is starting
Your file is downloading now. Your Community Cabinet — with the Disclosure Library, templates and the LRA AI-assistant — is ready too.
Open your Cabinet →