Where Is Human Resource Management in Sustainability Reporting? ESG and GRI Perspectives

Abstract

Addressing the needs of society and the environment has become vital for organizations’ survival in the current business context. Stakeholders increasingly demand ethical practices, environmental responsibility, and a commitment to social well-being as integral components of sustainable business strategies. The study aims to explore and analyze Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM) practices within the context of sustainability reporting measures, specifically Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). By identifying and categorizing best practices in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and SHRM, the study intends to highlight the role of HRM in sustainability reporting and give actionable insights for organizations to improve their reporting strategies and integrate HRM more effectively into sustainability frameworks. The methodology adopted is bibliometric analysis, as it enables the identification of connections between various studies, authors, and topics across a large body of research. Concerning SHRM and ESG, 932 papers were analyzed, while 442 papers were considered for SHRM and GRI. The main findings reveal a lack of specific studies on SHRM within the ESG and GRI reporting, highlighting the need to include topics directly related to human resources in these reports to enhance the relevance and comprehensiveness of sustainability reports for various stakeholders. These results contribute to a deeper understanding of trends in integrating sustainable practices into human resource management and highlight the need for future academic studies to incorporate the analysis of HR-related components—both in terms of processes and their impact on stakeholders—within sustainability reporting. This reinforces the idea that ESG and GRI reporting should not be viewed solely through environmental or financial lenses but as comprehensive measures encompassing social and human capital dimensions, prompting a rethinking of traditional approaches.

1. Introduction

Companies seek a balanced relationship between environmental and social development while focusing on profitability. This approach forms the foundation of the concept of sustainable management, known as the Triple Bottom Line [1]. In this regard, the concept highlights that results should not be the sole focus of organizations; they must also consider the influence of their actions on the environment and society at large.

The Triple Bottom Line is defined by the three Ps of sustainability [2,3]. The first, people, refers to the social responsibility companies must uphold toward individuals directly or indirectly connected to them, including employees, customers, and society in general. This dimension ensures good working conditions and promotes internal and external social well-being. The second, planet, emphasizes that companies should adopt sustainable production practices that contribute positively to the environment, including actions to reduce or eliminate the negative environmental impacts caused by their operations. Finally, the profit dimension encompasses careful expense management, stressing the need for businesses to adopt more sustainable financial practices.

Transparency and the disclosure of pertinent information are important foundations for companies to meet and materialize their responsibilities regarding shareholders and stakeholders, reinforcing ESG’s importance (environmental, social, and governance factors) [4,5]. Both practical and academic prominence of ESG has been growing, emphasizing the need for solutions to industry-related challenges. In this context, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) launched the first global sustainability reporting framework in 2000 [6]. Since then, various versions have been developed to guide companies in creating sustainability reports; nowadays, GRI remains the most used standard for sustainability reporting, incorporating economic, environmental, and social aspects [7]. However, within these two typologies of reporting the role of Human Resource Management (HRM) remains underexplored and often lacks explicit representation. This study addresses this gap by examining Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM) practices within the context of sustainability reporting, aiming to uncover how HRM contributes to corporate sustainability and social responsibility efforts.

The objectives of this study are centered on exploring and analyzing Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM) practices identified within the framework of sustainability reporting measures, specifically Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). By identifying and categorizing best practices in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and SHRM, the study intends to highlight the role of HRM in sustainability reporting and give actionable insights for organizations to improve their reporting strategies and integrate HRM more effectively into sustainability frameworks. To achieve this, a bibliometric methodology is employed to map and analyze the existing literature.

By employing a bibliometric methodology, this research maps the existing literature to identify key trends and best practices that integrate sustainability into HRM. Understanding these dynamics is crucial, as HRM plays a fundamental role in fostering workplace sustainability, shaping ethical labor practices, and promoting employee well-being—all of which are essential components of a robust ESG strategy [8,9]. The findings of this study not only contribute to the academic discourse on SHRM but also provide actionable insights for organizations seeking to enhance their sustainability reporting practices. By strengthening the alignment between HRM and GRI and ESG reporting, this research aims to advance both theoretical understanding and practical implementation of sustainability in the workplace.

After the introduction, the paper has a theoretical framework that outlines key concepts and relevant literature, followed by a detailed explanation of the methodology. The results are then presented and discussed, leading to the conclusion, which highlights key findings, implications, and directions for future research.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Sustainability

Firms face increasing pressure to implement Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) initiatives throughout the organization, which often requires fundamental changes of current unsustainable business practices [10,11,12]. In the context of contemporary global changes, CSR extends beyond economic and structural factors to encompass environmental and social considerations [13,14]. Sustainability refers to the ability of a human system to endure or adapt to endogenous or exogenous changes indefinitely. Meanwhile, sustainable development represents an intentional process of transformation and improvement that preserves or enhances this system’s resilience while addressing the needs of the present population [15,16]. From an initial perspective, sustainable development serves as the strategic pathway toward achieving sustainability, positioning sustainability as the ultimate, long-term objective [17,18].

According to the Triple Bottom Line (TBL) concept, sustainability is achieved by balancing three fundamental pillars: environmental, economic, and social [1]. The expectation that corporations should progressively contribute to sustainability arises from the recognition that businesses require stable markets and must possess the technological, financial, and managerial capabilities necessary to facilitate the transition toward sustainable development [1]. The TBL framework has been widely adopted by scholars as a conceptual approach to explaining sustainable development [1,3]. However, its application extends beyond theoretical descriptions. Businesses are decisive in demonstrating commitment to societal well-being, environmental stewardship, and economic stability. Additionally, the TBL framework serves as an effective tool to assist organizations in integrating sustainability into their operations [19]. The flexibility of the TBL model makes it a suitable instrument for corporations, nonprofit organizations, and governmental agencies to assess sustainability performance in alignment with their specific objectives [19,20].

Sustainability is a fundamental principle in Human Resource Management (HRM) and unfolds into two key elements: (1) the contributions of sustainable HRM practices to financial performance and organizational goals, considering employee satisfaction, commitment, and well-being, and (2) the sustainable nature of these processes, which enable the maximization of corporate results while minimizing operational failures such as undesirable side effects [21,22,23]. Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM) can be defined as the implementation of HRM strategies and practices that facilitate the achievement of financial, social, and ecological objectives, impacting both internal and external organizational environments over the long term [24,25,26]. The consolidation of SHRM practices contributes to shaping corporate identity, thereby enhancing transparency in values, actions, and established standards, which are validated by social actors and recognized by society. This, in turn, strengthens the organization’s legitimacy. Moreover, adopting these practices allows for effective risk control and the identification of business opportunities, enabling both the company and its value chain to integrate strategies and tools aligned with socially responsible management [27,28].

Organizations must be willing to bear the necessary costs to implement sustainable practices and technologies. However, many business leaders remain primarily focused on immediate profits, neglecting the long-term impacts and potential losses associated with unsustainable practices. This short-term perspective often overlooks the strategic advantages of sustainable development for the organization itself [29,30]. One of the most significant benefits of sustainability-driven management is the reutilization of raw materials, which reduces dependency on resources, lowers production costs, and contributes to environmental conservation, fostering economic stability [31]. In parallel, the adoption of innovative reuse techniques enhances material distribution efficiency, optimizes resource allocation, and expands business opportunities, potentially driving the emergence of new enterprises in the sustainability sector. This, in turn, allows existing companies to penetrate new markets and explore novel business ventures. Ultimately, organizations that prioritize sustainable development not only strengthen their own economic resilience but also contribute to human development by increasing purchasing power, expanding consumer access to goods and services, and stimulating market demand for sustainable products [11,32,33].

Sustainability and CSR are interconnected concepts [34,35]. Sustainability underlines the importance of impact assessment, reflecting an ongoing concern with the effects of business practices on the environment, society, and overall corporate performance. CSR incorporates ethical and social concerns, recognizing that companies must account not only for financial profits but also for their impact on people and the planet. The next section will explore the CSR concept and implications.

2.2. Corporate Social Responsibility

The concept of CSR can be understood in multiple ways. For some, it is associated with legal obligations, while for others, it represents ethical and socially responsible behavior [36,37,38]. Additionally, some perceive it as a voluntary social contribution aligned with a specific cause [10,39]. CSR is the obligation of organizations to use their resources in a way that benefits society, enhancing collective well-being, regardless of any direct financial returns for the company; companies are expected to acknowledge and address the social and environmental impacts of their operations, beyond merely complying with existing legal frameworks [11,12,40,41]. One of the primary objectives of CSR is the voluntary integration of social, environmental, and economic strategies into an organization’s business model [42,43,44].

CSR entails recognizing the interdependence between individuals and the ecosystem. In the context of organizations, exercising responsibility requires commitment and accountability toward stakeholders, which extends beyond mere awareness [45]. A company may be fully aware of its environmentally harmful actions yet choose not to act upon this knowledge. Therefore, awareness alone does not necessarily translate into ethical decision-making or a willingness to change [12,46]. CSR encompasses a broad commitment to society taking various forms, such as environmental protection, educational initiatives, community organization, equal employment opportunities, and social services, all of which are typically aligned with the public interest [47,48,49,50]. Furthermore, organizations must integrate external environmental factors—including social, political, and economic aspects—into their decision-making processes [11].

2.3. Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM)

SHRM is structured around practices that enable the achievement of organizational objectives—encompassing financial, social, and environmental goals—while simultaneously establishing a long-term foundation by managing the effects of these practices on both individuals and the organization itself [22,51]. The role of CSR in HRM comprises integrating socially responsible practices into HR policies and procedures. This involves, for example, guaranteeing fair working conditions, endorsing diversity and inclusion, supporting community development, and implementing ethical practices across all aspects of people management. In parallel, the role of sustainability in HRM extends beyond CSR, integrating a long-term perspective. Sustainability in HRM includes implementing practices that boost energy efficiency, reduce waste, consume sustainable materials, and adopt environmental awareness among employees. Furthermore, sustainability in HRM may contain the promotion of a healthy lifestyle and employee well-being, identifying their importance for productivity and the long-term success of the organization.

A fundamental theoretical framework in the discussion of SHRM practices is the AMO theory (Ability, Motivation, Opportunity), which emphasizes the significance of employees’ skills in performing their tasks, their motivation to contribute, and the opportunities provided for participation within the organization. This framework aims to enhance employee performance and, consequently, improve organizational outcomes [52,53]. Accordingly, HRM influences employees by fostering their skills and capabilities, ensuring they meet expected performance levels, and assisting the organization in defining and reinforcing its strategic goals [54]. Additionally, HRM plays a pivotal role in increasing employee motivation through performance management and reward programs, while also facilitating opportunities for employees to engage in organizational activities through various participatory practices [21,55].

2.3.1. Ability

SHRM encompasses recruitment practices that prioritize the identification of employees who exhibit empathy and impartiality toward stakeholders, aligning with sustainable management expectations. Once integrated into the organization, these employees should be trained to leverage their competencies in achieving both market-driven organizational objectives and broader environmental, social, and ecological imperatives [25].

Key SHRM practices include continuous training and development, fostering positive labor relations, employment retention (minimizing layoffs), systematic workforce planning, and valuing employees’ experiences and contributions. These elements collectively highlight the role of HRM in sustainability by mobilizing employees, facilitating coordinated actions, and driving transformations in work processes and behavioral dynamics [28,29,56].

From a sustainability perspective, HR managers play a pivotal role in strengthening workplace relationships. In this regard, certain strategic assumptions should be emphasized [29,56,57]: organizations must promote continuous learning and career development, even in times of crisis, reinforcing the necessity of ongoing workforce qualification: organizations should systematically adapt their infrastructure and operate at individual, organizational, and societal levels to sustain long-term strategies for employees with varying levels of expertise. So, investment in workforce qualification, addressing both present and future challenges, is a cornerstone of SHRM [29,58,59].

2.3.2. Motivation

For an organization to be attractive compared to its competitors and to maintain employee motivation, it must implement practices that foster an engaging and challenging work environment, promote cultural and gender diversity along with equal opportunities, enhance the company’s reputation as socially responsible and reliable, support work-life balance, and develop appropriate reward systems [22].

Organizations require a healthy and motivated workforce; therefore, they must implement measures that promote workplace health and safety, prevent and mitigate stress, appropriately align the workforce with job demands, and create ergonomic working conditions that ensure employee well-being and support work-life balance [60,61,62]. SHRM practices should incorporate both intrinsic and extrinsic incentives centered on employees and guided by altruism, as individual and altruistic incentives are essential for employee motivation and the effectiveness of HRM strategies [25]. By adopting these SHRM practices and addressing employee needs, organizations can enhance job satisfaction and commitment, ultimately leading to increased productivity and profitability [63,64,65].

2.3.3. Opportunity

The opportunity to participate in decision-making is a key factor in achieving positive HRM outcomes, relying on four fundamental elements. First, employee autonomy and the necessary resources to act are essential, as voluntary effort is constrained without autonomy. Second, effective communication across departments and employees ensures that problem-solving and improvement initiatives are grounded in multidisciplinary knowledge. Third, autonomous teams directly engaged in the production process contribute to operational efficiency. Finally, problem-solving or quality improvement teams, which are not directly involved in production, play a decisive role in organizational development [52,53,54]. To foster employee capabilities, organizations should implement participation and engagement activities, reinforcing their role within the company.

2.4. GRI, ESG, and CSR Relationship

The assessment of organizational performance, particularly in the context of corporate sustainability, encompasses various methodologies and initiatives, including the measurement of sustainability principles, sustainable accounting, and sustainability reporting [66]. However, this measurement presents significant challenges due to the dynamic and multidimensional nature of sustainability [67]. The selection of the most appropriate performance indicators requires a comprehensive evaluation of multiple factors, such as the type of organization, industry sector, company size, proximity to environmentally sensitive markets, external regulatory frameworks, and corporate culture [68,69]. Consequently, the chosen indicators must be precise, context-specific, and aligned with the organizational environment and customer expectations, ensuring an accurate assessment that meets both strategic and operational requirements [66,70,71].

Among the various initiatives aimed at promoting sustainability measurement and reporting, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) stands out as one of the most widely recognized. The GRI establishes a comprehensive set of economic, environmental, and social indicators designed primarily for performance evaluation and reporting to stakeholders. It provides structured guidelines for the development of sustainability indicators across these three dimensions [72,73]. Integrating GRI reports offers organizations greater transparency and benefits various areas such as the environment, production, marketing, finance, decision-making, and human resource management [74]. Despite its widespread adoption, the GRI framework presents challenges for organizations, particularly due to its primary focus on external sustainability reporting rather than internal management and decision-making processes. This external communication emphasis can limit its effectiveness in performance measurement and strategic decision-making. Moreover, GRI indicators predominantly assess qualitative and positive aspects of sustainability performance, often overlooking non-compliance issues, associated costs, or potential losses [6,72,73,75].

The Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) indicators serve as key criteria for companies aiming to be socially responsible, environmentally sustainable, and well-governed [5]. The ESG score is considered a multidimensional index, as it integrates the three pillars—environmental, social, and governance [76,77], and bring several benefits including increased value, improved image, and risk reduction [78]. An organization’s ESG philosophy plays a key role in its long-term growth and is increasingly important for businesses to gain benefits like cost savings, brand image, and risk management [79]. Consequently, many companies regularly disclose their ESG approaches through annual reports, integrated reports, CSR reports, environmental reports, sustainability reports, and official websites [80]. Organizations should perceive ESG factors not only as a tool for risk assessment but also as an opportunity to capitalize on emerging global trends [5].

The environmental dimension pertains to a company’s actions concerning ecological and sustainability issues. It encompasses factors such as the environmental impact of products and production processes, carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, resource management, pollution control policies, waste treatment, energy consumption, and the use of renewable energy sources [73,76].

The social dimension is linked to CSR, which entails a company’s accountability to all stakeholders regarding its operations and activities [81]. CSR reflects a company’s ethical commitment to economic development and its efforts to improve the quality of life of employees, local communities, and society as a whole [82]. This dimension includes aspects such as data privacy and security, health and safety, human rights, inclusion, and diversity—ultimately representing the corporate values of the organization [3,83]. The governance dimension focuses on corporate governance policies, addressing issues such as executive compensation policies, board diversity, shareholder rights, and transparency. It is structured around three internal mechanisms—ownership concentration, board of directors, and executive compensation—along with an external mechanism, the organizational market control [5,83].

3. Methodology

This exploratory study intends to map the scientific production on Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM). A bibliometric analysis was chosen due to its ability to identify patterns, trends, and gaps in the existing literature [24], providing a solid foundation for understanding sustainability and social responsibility practices in human resource management. This approach not only enabled the systematization of accumulated knowledge but also facilitated the identification of future research areas that could contribute to the development and enhancement of SHRM practices aligned with ESG and GRI standards. The study aims to explore and analyze SHRM practices within the context of sustainability reporting measures, specifically Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). By identifying and categorizing best practices in Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and SHRM, the study intends to highlight the role of HRM in sustainability reporting and give actionable insights for organizations to improve their reporting strategies and integrate HRM more effectively into sustainability frameworks.

The Web of Science database, an internationally recognized academic source [84,85], was used for this research, with article selection being a necessary decision based on the quality and relevance of the analyzed data. Two key sustainability measures, Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), were examined in detail to assess their impact, particularly in their implementation within human resource management practices, highlighting their essential role in promoting organizational sustainability. The keywords applied for this systematic review on ESG and GRI are detailed in Appendix A and Appendix B, ensuring that the scope of the research is well-defined, detailed, relevant, and accessible. By exploring the relationship between ESG and GRI in connection with previously mentioned key concepts, the study analyzes how companies measure their sustainability footprint and translate these metrics into concrete actions, particularly in human resources.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria were explicitly established to determine the eligibility of studies, ensuring the quality and accuracy of the review. Inclusion criteria encompassed scientific articles in English with a primary focus on “Management”, “Economics”, and “Sociology”, within the research areas of “Business Economics”, “Social Issues”, and “Women Studies”, while studies were excluded if they were not scientific articles or were published in a language other than English. The time frame for the research was limited to work published before May of 2024.

The article selection for this study followed a two-step process. First, articles were analyzed based on keywords, and subsequently, inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to determine whether they met the initially established requirements, with the PRISMA flowchart illustrating the results of this phase for each of the reporting measures in Figure 1 (ESG) and Figure 2 (GRI). The second phase of the selection process involved extracting data from each article.

The process began with an analysis of the keywords from all articles using VOSviewer software version 1.6.19 [86] by selecting the “co-occurrence of all keywords” option. Criteria were established requiring a minimum of four co-occurrences for both GRI and ESG among keywords, resulting in the identification of 31 relevant terms for the GRI metric and 30 for the ESG metric, representing the most significant elements in this analysis. During the keyword analysis, similarities between some terms were identified, leading to a unification process where related expressions were grouped into a single concept.

4. Results Presentation and Discussion

4.1. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)

Table 1. Most cited authors, ESG.

Authors	Citations
Jensen, Mc	29
Adams, Rb	23
Issa, A	23
Eagly, Ah	17
Giannarakis, G	17
Post, C	16
Hambrick, Dc	15
Velte, P	15
Fama, Ef	14
Galbreath, J	14

presents a synthesis of the 10 most cited authors in articles related to the field of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG), highlighting those whose contributions have been widely recognized and referenced in the literature. This analysis aims to provide a deeper understanding of the key academic voices shaping the discourse in this specific domain, offering a solid foundation for a more in-depth appreciation of notable trends and contributions in the field. Among the 10 countries that emerge as leading contributors in terms of article citations, Italy stands out as the country with the highest number of articles and citations (

Table 2. Most cited countries, ESG.

Countries	Number of Papers	Citations
Italy	11	367
France	3	207
Brazil	1	202
Mexico	1	202
Australia	2	189
Norway	1	126
USA	7	101
Germany	3	88
Netherlands	1	85
India	2	81

).

The most prominent keywords in the sample are “impact”, “responsibility”, and “corporate governance” (Figure 3). These keywords exhibit substantial frequency within the sample, a finding further supported by the data presented in

Table 3. Sustainability Impact.

Key-Words	Frequency
responsibility	21
impact	20
corporate social responsibility	16
esg	11
financial performance	10
esg performance	7
sustainable development	7
corporate sustainability	4
esg scores	4

,

Table 4. Transparency.

Key-Words	Frequency
corporate governance	20
gender diversity	11
esg disclosure	6
management	6
board of directors	5
disclosure	5
responsibility disclosure	5
sustainability	5
esg controversies	4

,

Table 5. General ESG.

Key-Words	Frequency
performance	16
directors	13
diversity	11
firm	11
ownership	8
environmental	7
governance	4
social	4
social-responsibility	4

and

Table 6. Women in Management.

Key-Words	Frequency
women	13
board gender diversity	11
firm performance	9

. So, the graphical representation (Figure 3) shows that some keywords are more relevant than others, allowing an understanding of the trends in scientific production on this subject. The colors presented in Figure 3 represent the relationship among certain terms (note that the colors do not have any specific meaning and are used solely for visual purposes). To better understand the relationships among these terms, they were grouped into four clusters (Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6), which helps us see how certain terms are connected. Clusters were assigned names based on the keywords within them, leading to a more effective organization of the main areas of study by categorizing them into specific dimensions.

The red cluster (Table 3) has been designated as “Sustainability Impact”, as the high frequency of the keywords “responsibility” and “impact” reflects the increasing emphasis on corporate responsibility regarding social, environmental, and governance-related impacts. CSR, including environmental and social accountability, is essential for business longevity and resilience [43], as was mentioned previously [87]. Companies that incorporate sustainable practices can achieve long-term competitive advantages, as such strategies contribute to stronger brand recognition, improved stakeholder relations, and superior financial performance [11,88]. CSR should not be confined to legal obligations but should also encompass ethical and social considerations, recognizing that businesses must account not only for financial profits but also for their impact on people and the planet [89,90].

The sustainability-oriented approach emphasizes the importance of impact assessment, reflecting an ongoing concern with the consequences of business practices on the environment, society, and overall corporate performance. The Triple Bottom Line (TBL) framework highlights environmental and social impact alongside financial outcomes as a measure of business success [2]. The significant presence of CSR-related terms underscores the importance of ethical and socially responsible corporate actions [87]. Organizations can achieve sustainable competitive advantages by proactively addressing social and environmental concerns, not merely complying with regulations but also anticipating and responding to stakeholder expectations regarding corporate responsibility [6,47,91].

The blue cluster (Table 4), labeled “Transparency”, is characterized by the predominance of the term “corporate governance”, reflecting concerns about the structures, processes, and responsibilities organizations implement to ensure effective and ethical decision-making [92,93]. Corporate governance plays a pivotal role in promoting transparency and accountability, as an effective governance system is essential for protecting shareholder interests and fostering market confidence [94,95].

The significant emphasis on “gender diversity” highlights the growing awareness of the importance of the topic in governance structures and its relevance to sustainable human resource management [94,95]. A diverse and competent board of directors is fundamental for overseeing disclosure practices and ensuring that organizations fulfill their commitments to sustainability and corporate responsibility [96,97]. Firms that voluntarily disclose sustainability-related information are generally perceived more favorably by investors, which can enhance their competitive standing in the market [98,99].

The green cluster (Table 5) is categorized as “General ESG”, with the keyword “performance” signifying a focus on evaluating corporate outcomes in the context of ESG practices. This highlights the need for a comprehensive assessment of how sustainability strategies influence efficiency and effectiveness [76,83]. A strong emphasis on diversity—including gender, ethnicity, and skills—emerges as an integral component of ESG-driven human resource management, showcasing the benefits of diverse perspectives in fostering innovation and effective decision-making [82]. Addressing corporate responsibility across all ESG dimensions necessitates a holistic approach to management, one that considers stakeholder concerns and promotes sustainability [100].

Moreover, leadership plays a critical role in shaping a company’s commitment to social and environmental responsibility. The integration of sustainability values into executive decision-making can serve as a catalyst for effective organizational change toward sustainability [101,102].

Companies that adopt ESG-aligned strategies tend to exhibit stronger long-term financial performance, benefiting from risk reduction, enhanced reputation, and increased access to sustainable investments. Effective ESG management is thus a key competitive factor in markets that are increasingly prioritizing sustainability [77]. Furthermore, board diversity fosters more comprehensive decision-making, leading to better outcomes for both companies and their stakeholders. As such, diversity is considered a cornerstone of effective governance and responsible management [103,104].

The yellow cluster (Table 6) focuses on the theme of “Women in Management”, highlighting the classic concern for gender diversity and inclusion in leadership roles [105]. The analysis underscores the importance of female representation in executive positions, linking it to various leadership roles and positive contributions to organizational performance [106]. The emphasis on gender diversity in corporate boards reflects an ongoing push for equitable representation and inclusion in decision-making processes [103]. The correlation between female leadership and organizational performance invites further investigation into how gender diversity influences business outcomes, with research indicating that companies with more diverse leadership teams tend to exhibit stronger financial performance [104,106].

Generally, several important results arise from the keyword analysis of the collected papers in the bibliometric search. Firstly, an increasing emphasis on corporate responsibility regarding social, environmental, and governance impacts, shows that CSR is indispensable for business longevity and resilience. Secondly, corporate governance is important in promoting transparency and accountability, protecting shareholder interests, and improving market confidence. At the same time, the significant focus on gender diversity emphasizes the increasing awareness of its importance within governance structures and to SHRM. Thirdly, the need of a comprehensive evaluation of how sustainability strategies affect organizational efficiency and effectiveness is highlighted. Additionally, the role of reporting strategies in guaranteeing transparency and effective communication of ESG-related initiatives is highlighted, as they give to stakeholders’ clear insights into CSR efforts. And finally, the importance of female representation in leadership positions and its positive contributions to organizational performance are underlined. In summary, companies that apply strategies aligned with ESG principles tend to achieve greater long-term financial performance [4], benefiting from risk reduction, improved reputation [77,107], and bigger access to sustainable investments [108].

Although the keywords used to collect papers for the bibliometric search (Appendix A) cover HRM practices across the AMO spectrum in detail, the closest topic found when analyzing the papers’ keyword clusters is the “Women in Management” cluster (Table 6). This is a classic topic in management and HR [98,101], but none of the other traditional HRM topics (such as recruitment, training, rewards, or voice), nor contemporary themes (such as flexibility, well-being) emerge. So, HRM practices in the AMO framework or otherwise, are absent.

4.2. Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)

The most frequently cited authors in research related to Human Resource Management (HRM) and the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) include Deegan, Gray, and KPMG.

Table 7. Authors most cited, GRI.

Authors	Citations
Deegan, C	264
Gray, R	243
KPMG	214
Adams, Ca	170
Cho, Ch	166
GRI	161
Kolk, A	151
Global Reporting, Initiative	137
Cormier, D	136
Clarkson, Pm	129

provides a summarized overview of the 10 most cited authors in the articles analyzed in the study on the Global Reporting Initiative. Regarding the geographical distribution of the most cited articles, Canada stands out as the leading country, followed by England, Australia, and the United States (

Table 8. Countries most cited, GRI.

Countries	Artigos	Citations
canada	26	3984
england	43	3218
australia	45	3141
usa	51	3090
spain	47	2433
italy	45	1677
new zealand	20	1184
france	23	1006
people r china	24	898
indonesia	27	530
india	20	437

).

The analysis illustrated in Figure 4 clearly highlights the key terms within the examined sample. Among the most prominent keywords are “corporate social responsibility”, “global reporting initiative”, and “performance”. These findings are further supported by the data presented in

Table 9. Sustainability Reporting.

Key-Words	Frequency
global reporting initiative	201
sustainability reporting	94
management	73
environmental disclosure	67
legitimacy	54
information	45
social-responsibility	42
content analysis	39
accountability	35
sustainable development	31
impression management	28
stakeholder engagement	26
framework	25

,

Table 10. Transparency in CSR.

Key-Words	Frequency
corporate social responsibility	230
disclosure	98
determinants	95
sustainability	92
governance	87
impact	67
financial performance	51
environmental performance	36
companies	31
corporate governance	31
voluntary disclosure	29
firm	26
ownership	24

,

Table 11. Performance and Stakeholders.

Key-Words	Frequency
performance	127
stakeholder theory	25

and

Table 12. Quality.

Key-Words	Frequency
quality	54
assurance	50

.

In the red cluster (Table 9), the term “Global Reporting Initiative” emerges as the most prominent keyword, leading to its designation as the “Sustainability Reporting” cluster. The GRI is widely recognized as a benchmark for standardizing and guiding sustainability reports. Its guidelines provide a structured framework for organizations to transparently and consistently communicate their economic, environmental, and social performance [75].

The adoption of sustainability reporting is fundamental to enhancing transparency and corporate accountability concerning social and environmental impacts [109]. However, most companies that choose to disclose sustainability-related information report doing so with the objective of integrating such disclosures into their core business model, making them a central component of their annual reports. Furthermore, sustainability reporting contributes to the identification and mitigation of risks associated with environmental, social, and governance (ESG) issues. By maintaining a comprehensive overview of their sustainability practices, organizations can proactively anticipate and manage potential risks more effectively [110,111].

The legitimacy of sustainability reports is critical for ensuring their acceptance, relevance, and credibility among stakeholders. This is achieved through adherence to transparency principles, compliance with recognized standards, independent verification, stakeholder engagement, consistency in disclosure practices, and a strong corporate reputation. The integration of these elements collectively ensures that sustainability reports are both reliable and widely accepted [6,80,91].

The green cluster (Table 10) has been designated as “Transparency in CSR”, as the high frequency of the keyword “corporate social responsibility” reflects the emphasis placed on corporate disclosure and CSR practices. The communication of CSR values and practices can be conveyed through various channels, with annual reports being the most prevalent. These reports function as repositories of information, consolidating a wide range of relevant data for diverse audiences into a single document, thereby offering a comprehensive overview of the organization’s position [112].

The determinants of CSR disclosure encompass multiple factors that influence corporate decisions regarding the reporting of social and environmental practices. These determinants may range from regulatory and stakeholder pressures to strategic benefits such as enhanced corporate reputation and improved access to capital [90,113]. Sustainability reports illustrate the efforts undertaken by companies to achieve their objectives in this domain, addressing a variety of issues related to environmental responsibility, social accountability, and economic considerations [11,91].

The yellow cluster (Table 11) has been designated as “Performance and Stakeholders”, as corporate performance is intrinsically linked to sustainability and transparent accountability regarding the social, environmental, and economic impact of business operations [68]. Performance reporting enables companies to communicate their sustainability efforts and outcomes, providing valuable information to stakeholders and society at large [80].

Environmental performance pertains to the practices and initiatives implemented by a company to minimize its environmental footprint. Sustainability reports that adhere to GRI guidelines frequently detail these aspects, presenting both quantitative and qualitative data on the environmental impact of corporate operations [74]. Social performance encompasses initiatives and practices that generate positive impacts on employees, communities, and society. This may include corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, community development projects, equal opportunity policies, occupational health and safety measures, and fair working conditions [63].

The stakeholder theory posits that companies have responsibilities beyond their shareholders and must consider the interests of all affected parties. Within the context of sustainability reporting, the effective identification of stakeholders is imperative for ensuring the relevance and credibility of disclosed information. This perspective also highlights the importance of addressing the social expectations of groups such as employees, customers, and the broader society, which can foster greater stakeholder commitment and loyalty [110,114,115].

The blue cluster (Table 12), designated as “Quality”, highlights two key terms essential for understanding the development of sustainability reports: “quality” and “assurance”. The quality of sustainability reports is essential to ensuring the credibility, relevance, and utility of the disclosed information. High-quality reports are characterized by accuracy, transparency, and compliance with established standards and guidelines, such as those set forth by the Global Reporting Initiative [80]. Sustainability reports of superior quality must be clear and highly comprehensible, written in a manner that enables all stakeholders to understand them, regardless of their background. This aspect is vital for ensuring information accessibility and fostering broader engagement [75,116]. The external verification of reports, conducted by auditors or independent parties, enhances stakeholder trust and confidence in corporate sustainability disclosures. This verification process strengthens credibility, facilitates the formulation of conclusions, and provides assurance to readers regarding the methods employed—especially when these are based on regulatory criteria [112].

Furthermore, external assurance supports companies in ensuring their reports’ compliance with recognized norms and standards, such as those established by the GRI. This process not only enhances report quality but also enables comparability with other companies adhering to the same standards [100,117].

Based on the GRI clusters, several contemporary trends can be identified. GRI is widely acknowledged as a benchmark for standardizing and guiding sustainability reporting, offering a structured framework for organizations to transparently and reliably communicate their economic, environmental, and social performance. The implementation of sustainability reporting is indispensable for improving corporate transparency and accountability [74]. However, reporting strategies in HRM-related sustainability efforts remain tenuous, as HRM is often overlooked in ESG and GRI reporting frameworks. At the same time, CSR communication is progressively important, and can be disseminated through various channels, with annual reports being the most common [6]. It is important to note that the quality of these reports is central to guaranteeing the divulged information’s credibility, relevance, and utility. Finally, corporate performance is inherently linked to sustainability and transparent accountability [68], yet the integration of HRM into sustainability reporting remains fragmented.

As when analyzing ESG, to study GRI academic publications’ relation to SHRM, the keywords used covered the same wide range of HRM practices within the AMO spectrum for the bibliometric search (Appendix B). The clusters obtained highlight the absence of HRM practices in the AMO framework or otherwise. The clusters obtained highlight the absence of HRM practices in sustainability reporting frameworks and the lack of a structured approach to incorporating HRM into CSR disclosures. While this study expected to identify and categorize best practices in CSR and SHRM, it was not possible to identify well-defined approaches that explicitly connect HRM with sustainability reporting.

5. Conclusions

This paper presents an analysis of Sustainable Human Resource Management (SHRM), focusing on sustainability practices and corporate social responsibility (CSR), specifically through Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) metrics. By examining SHRM practices through the lens of ESG and GRI metrics, this study sheds light on how HRM is integrated within these sustainability frameworks.

Regarding the geographical distribution of the most cited articles, ESG is more cited in Italy, followed by France, Brazil, and Mexico; GRI is most cited in Canada, followed by England, Australia, and the United States. This geographical variation may be related with regional regulatory frameworks, corporate governance traditions, and levels of institutional commitment to sustainability, with European and Latin American countries showing a stronger academic focus on ESG, while GRI reporting aligns more with countries that have stronger reporting cultures, such as Canada, England, Australia, and the United States. The bibliometric analysis revealed a notable absence of keywords directly associated with human resources, indicating a gap in the literature concerning ESG and GRI reporting in HR management. This finding shows the need for greater emphasis on HRM in sustainability reporting and underscores the importance of integrating SHRM more effectively into CSR strategies.

Despite the broad range of HRM topics covered in the literature search, the findings merely reveal classic HRM themes, such as gender diversity in leadership, which remains a key area of focus. Gender diversity is essential for fostering more inclusive and effective leadership, representing an important aspect of CSR. However, the data analysis suggests that, despite the increasing emphasis on sustainability within HR management, this field does not feature prominently in ESG and GRI research. Furthermore, reporting strategies related to HRM and sustainability remain tenuous, lacking strong frameworks for successfully integrating HRM into sustainability disclosures.

The AMO model (Ability, Motivation, and Opportunity) posits that individual and organizational performance is driven by the interaction of these three factors. In the context of collaborative sustainability, this model gains further relevance as it underscores the importance of workplace environments that promote employee well-being and inclusion. By integrating the AMO model with SHRM practices, organizations can create a mutually beneficial cycle, wherein investment in employee well-being and inclusivity enhances productivity and innovation, while also strengthening the organization’s commitment to social, economic, and environmental responsibility. A systematic search for AMO-related keywords in the literature yielded no significant results, despite existing evidence supporting the alignment of sustainable HRM with the AMO framework. Sustainable HRM practices—such as continuous training and development (enhancing employee abilities), intrinsic and extrinsic incentives (boosting motivation), and opportunities for active participation in sustainability initiatives—contribute to improved workforce engagement and long-term organizational sustainability. Therefore, the AMO model provides a valuable framework for understanding and promoting sustainable HRM in a collaborative manner. By investing in employee ability, motivation, and opportunity, organizations can cultivate a more sustainable workplace environment, benefiting both the company and its stakeholders.

The findings of this study highlight the necessity of integrating sustainable HRM practices into CSR frameworks, particularly regarding internal social responsibility (in addition to external CSR initiatives) within sustainability reporting. The theoretical framework further emphasizes that employee-centered sustainability measures, such as promoting well-being and fostering inclusive work environments, are essential [118]. Prioritizing employees not only enhances organizational performance but also reinforces a company’s commitment to sustainability and CSR, creating a virtuous cycle that benefits both organizations and their stakeholders [88].

To enhance transparency and relevance in sustainability reporting, this study advocates for the explicit inclusion of SHRM measures in the studies of sustainability reports. Integrating SHRM practices into CSR frameworks is essential for promoting long-term organizational sustainability. Sustainable HRM guarantees that companies assume ethical labor practices, promote employee well-being, and boost diversity and inclusion, all of which have an impact and potentially make a more resilient and socially responsible workforce. By inserting these practices into CSR strategies, organizations can develop employee engagement, attract talent, and intensify their corporate reputation. Furthermore, sustainable HRM supports global sustainability standards such as the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), facilitating transparency and accountability in reporting CSR performance. This incorporation supports regulatory compliance and develops the strategic value of CSR initiatives by guaranteeing that social responsibility goes beyond external stakeholders to internal human capital. Consequently, a structured approach to sustainable HRM within CSR frameworks is fundamental for getting holistic sustainability and long-term business success.

Given the significant gap in the literature on ESG and GRI in HRM, future research should expand the scope of analysis by incorporating additional sustainability indicators and examining data from diverse databases. Furthermore, a more in-depth understanding of sustainability reporting processes could be achieved through interviews with professionals involved in sustainability reporting, spanning multiple industries, geographic regions, and organizational scales. Additionally, investigating the role of emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), in sustainable HRM practices could provide valuable insights into how these technologies enhance efficiency and facilitate sustainability initiatives. These research directions would not only broaden the existing knowledge base on sustainability reporting but also offer practical guidance for organizations in structuring their sustainability reports, as well as for policymakers and regulatory bodies involved in the development of corporate sustainability guidelines.