In mid-2025, the GRI labor project team launched a global public comment period to gather input on the Non-discrimination and Equal Opportunity (NDEO) and the Diversity and Inclusion (DIVE) exposure drafts. Rights CoLab’s response letter appears below.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the exposure drafts for Non-discrimination and Equal Opportunity (NDEO) and Diversity and Inclusion (DIVE). Rights CoLab is conducting research to help companies in the U.S. and Europe plan and implement DEI programs that resonate with diverse consumers, employees, investors and other stakeholders; build more resilient and inclusive workplaces; and navigate today’s polarized environment and the DEI backlash. This work builds on our 2022 report, “What is DEI? Market Signals of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” in which we assessed 429 metrics across 21 influential frameworks to have a better picture of how the market defines DEI. Our current project draws on an expanded tracker of 37 frameworks and more than 650 DEI metrics to chart a path forward for companies and investors. The GRI NDEO and DIVE exposure draft metrics are included as part of the tracker, and they are among the metrics we have studied. 

The primary focus of this comment is survey question N8 on whether the two topics should be separate. Our answer is unequivocally, no: the topics are intrinsically linked, and separating them feels illogical, risks causing confusion, and undermines the integrity of both standards. 

The consultation questionnaire explains the rationale for separating the topics into different standards as follows:

This distinction is illusionary. In practice, achieving diversity and inclusion depends on measures to reduce workplace discrimination. Representation disclosures – a focus of the GRI DIVE exposure draft –  are outcomes of those anti-bias policies and procedures. The first sentence of the final paragraph in the passage above which purports to delineate the two topics actually conflates them by stating that the draft’s objective is both “more on quantitative disclosures” and “reporting information on how the organization manages and promotes diversity among governance bodies and employees.” In fact, while the DIVE standard is presented as D&I disclosures, it is the only way to report on effectiveness of the anti-discrimination standard. 

Separating the two standards also creates gaps and inconsistencies. For example, the anti-discrimination policy metric NDEO 1-a omits oversight of implementation, such as assigning senior management and board committee responsibility. Oversight appears only in the DIVE policies section, without a clear rationale. Likewise, DIVE—but not NDEO—addresses the involvement of workers’ representatives in developing policies (DIVE 1-c) and the organization’s approach to meaningful engagement with employees and non-employee workers, including how views of vulnerable and underrepresented groups are incorporated and barriers to engagement are removed (DIVE 1-d). It is unclear why such engagement would be required for D&I policies but not anti-discrimination policies, or how separating the topics into two policies is feasible. 

The consultation survey indicates that D&I metrics focus on “transparency of the organization’s representation.” But representation metrics provide an incomplete picture. While quantitative demographic targets are tempting for standard setters, our research shows emphasis on representation has been rising: in our tracker, representation metrics grew from 44.7% in 2022 to 53.4% in 2025. In contrast, there is decreasing emphasis on disclosing transparent systems and processes that foster an inclusive, equitable culture and help attract and retain diverse talent. 

Why is this a problem? Representation figures neither reveal the strengths or weaknesses of corporate culture nor illuminate power dynamics, and reliance on them can mislead. Leadership representation is often treated as a proxy for culture, but the link is weak: these metrics rarely show where decision-making authority and P&L responsibility reside. For example, counts of women or other marginalized groups in “managerial” roles may mask their concentration in functions such as marketing or HR that typically lack P&L responsibility. Moreover, who qualifies as a “disadvantaged group” is context-specific; beyond gender, there is no single “right” percentage for any worksite. Finally, oversimplified reporting fails to capture intersectionality—a limitation the DIVE Guidance implicitly acknowledges (395-396, p 13). 

It is important that the organization maintain robust governance and processes to track demographics across organizational tiers, and to explain the categories used, the frequency and methodology for reviewing the data, the management and board roles accountable for oversight, the issues identified, and the corrective actions taken. Disclosures on this framework are particularly decision-useful for investors – and more meaningful to other stakeholders – than most stand-alone representation metrics in our tracker.

Because bias persists even where discrimination is illegal, workplace anti-discrimination policies are essential. The practical way to reduce bias – and thereby build a more diverse and inclusive workplace – is to design fair, transparent, and accessible policies and procedures across the employment lifecycle (recruitment and hiring, promotion, performance management, and termination) and for compensation, care supports, paid leave, career development, and reasonable accommodations—and to communicate them clearly to all prospective and current employees.

In sum, the elements of a strong DEI standard are largely present across the two GRI drafts. Strengths include the recognition of worker inclusion in policies and processes, the inclusion of contingent workers, attention to board oversight, and regional specificity. Yet DEI and anti-discrimination are inseparable; separating them produces an illogical pair of standards that undermines both. We recommend that GRI make the following revisions to the exposure drafts:

• Create one integrated standard so that governance, management responsibility, and worker engagement requirements apply consistently to both anti-discrimination and D&I.
• Explicitly require disclosure of senior management and board oversight for anti-discrimination policy implementation (e.g., within NDEO 1-a).
• Shift emphasis from representation metrics toward disclosures on: (1) clear, transparent DEI systems and processes, their board oversight and actions taken (2) active mitigation of conscious and unconscious bias; and (3) robust detection, remediation, and continuous-improvement mechanisms tailored to the company’s context.

Photo by kate.sade on Unsplash