Proportion of senior management hired from the local community

Please provide the data for the disclosure about the proportion of senior management hired from the local community.

Why it fails: It uses framework language only, so the owner has to guess what population, sites, definitions, and source records are needed. It also does not ask for the underlying definitions or the calculation basis, so the result may be unusable for review.

Please send the people data for our major operating sites for [period]: the sites included, the senior leadership roles counted, how you define ‘local’, how you define the senior group, the source file/system, the counts of local-community hires and total senior leaders, and the percentage. Please use your own internal terms first, then map them for the reporting pack, and note any exclusions or exceptions.

State how you defined senior management, what you mean by local, and which operations you treated as significant for this disclosure.

Explain what the local-hiring percentage says about the organisation’s approach to recruiting senior leaders from nearby communities at the operations you included.

If the figure moved materially, describe whether the change came from a different site mix, a revised local-area definition, changes in the senior leadership group, or shifts in recruitment patterns.

Evidence pack to prepare

Common reporting gaps

*Synthetic example only.* We report on our main production sites and distribution hubs, which we treat as the places where our operations are most material because they account for most of our workforce and output. In this example, our senior leadership group is defined as the executive team and site directors, and 72% of them are recruited from the local labour market; here, “local” means the same county or a neighbouring county within roughly 50 miles of the site.

This example shows how a reporter can explain which sites are treated as the most material, define the management group being measured, and state the local area used for the calculation, alongside the share of that group drawn from nearby communities.

*Synthetic example only.* Our material locations are the two regional hubs that together handle the majority of our storage and dispatch activity, so we focus this disclosure on those sites. For this illustration, we define senior management as the country leadership team and depot managers, and we treat “local” as the same metropolitan area or an adjacent district within about 30 kilometres; 9 of the 12 people in that group are from that area, which is 75%.

This example demonstrates a different way to describe the sites that matter most, the management population included in the measure, and the local geography used for recruitment, with a consistent percentage calculation.

A group has three major sites: a head office, a manufacturing plant and a distribution hub. The reporting team has counted local hires among the site leaders, but has not yet agreed which sites are large enough to include.

A company has 20 people in its senior leadership pool across the included sites. Twelve were recruited from the surrounding area, but the HR team uses a broad regional definition of local while the sustainability team is thinking only of the town where each site sits.

At one plant, the site director and two department heads are included in the organisation’s leadership count, but the payroll system also lists several supervisors as managers. The reporting lead is unsure whether to include those supervisors in the numerator and denominator.

A multinational has operations in five countries, but only two are large enough to be treated as significant for this disclosure. In one of those countries, local hiring data for senior leaders is available; in the other, the team has only overall headcount and no breakdown by place of origin.