Commentary on diversity and inclusion policies in publicly traded New Zealand companies: inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities

Purpose – The purpose of this commentary is to critically reflect upon not only the Global Reporting Initiative (hereafter, GRI) itself but also ‘data’ registering organisational uptake of GRI standards, or the lack thereof.

Design/methodology/approach – The approach is a narrative commentary critically reflects upon the Global Reporting Initiative (hereafter, GRI) itself and what the numbers reported in Guruge’s article say, paying attention to what we might think and do about such standards and scenarios.

Findings – This commentary does not present a definitive assessment of the GRI. This is because it is marked by undecidability. Nevertheless, it reads some of the figures, or ‘‘data’’, which register organisational uptake of GRI standards (or the lack thereof), together with other ‘‘data’’, to contrive a more stable account.

Originality/value – This commentary strives to avoid presenting a reductive reading of ‘‘data’’ and, instead, highlights the complex multifaceted dimensions of societies, sustainability, social inclusion, disability and possibilities for inclusive practices.