ESG due diligence document request list
Use this request list to turn an agreed ESG review scope into specific records to obtain, named custodians and a reviewable response trail. Its practical output is a controlled list showing what was requested, what arrived, what was examined and what still needs a decision. A populated data room is not the same as an answered management question.
The nine-page download includes scope instructions, ten selectable document-family prompts, a repeatable request card, a receipt-and-review card and a three-page fictional exchange. The DOCX contains editable ordinary text and tables; the matching PDF is for printing. There are no formulas, automatic ratings, transmissions or access checks. Adapt the list rather than issuing every prompt unchanged.
Download the editable ESG due diligence document request list (DOCX).
Download the print ESG due diligence document request list (PDF).
Select documents around the agreed review
Start with the decision, entity, locations, business relationships and period. Record who commissioned the work and the information cut-off. Separate the date records are requested from the date management needs a review outcome. A tight decision timetable does not make an incomplete response sufficient; it makes the unresolved limitation important to explain promptly.
The document-family prompts cover operating context, governance, permissions, environmental records, inspections and actions, workforce arrangements, concern processes, conduct controls, business relationships and public statements. They are a starting menu, not a universal legal or sector checklist. Select a family only after writing the question it serves. Record why another family is excluded or deferred, and who approved that choice.
OECD’s 2018 guidance describes risk-based due diligence addressing adverse impacts through an ongoing process. A document collection exercise is only one limited contribution to that work.
For a selected item, specify the document or extract, its coverage and the fields needed. Asking for an inspection-action index is different from asking for every investigation file. A current policy can describe today’s arrangement while leaving the earlier review period unanswered. An entity-level report may not identify the site, activity or population in the request.
Make the request usable for its custodian
Give the request a stable ID and version. State the purpose in language the custodian can act on, identify the accountable owner and distinguish an agreed response date from a date merely requested. Ask for a short document index with title, version, coverage and location. Where one record serves several questions, ask once and keep a precise link to each use.
Offer honest response routes: supplied, partly supplied, not located, not held, restricted, clarification needed or proposed not applicable with a reason. These descriptions help plan the next step. They are not ratings of the business, and they do not turn an unavailable document into proof that the activity never happened or that a requirement was breached.
Use a separate recipient copy containing only approved request wording and instructions. Internal priority assessments, speculative concerns and reviewer notes may not belong in it. Keep the issued copy with its actual send record. If a later request changes the entity, purpose, period or audience, retain the earlier version and obtain the appropriate approval for the change.
Resolve access before treating a record as reviewed
A location reference may point to an inaccessible file. Record whether the authorised reviewer can actually inspect it, and keep the access decision separate from the question outcome. A custodian’s proposal for controlled viewing or a limited extract is useful, but remains a proposal until the responsible information owner agrees the arrangement.
The pack does not ask for unrestricted personnel files, personal complaint narratives or credentials. Where sensitive material is relevant, the review needs an appropriately authorised process and suitable expertise. Record the minimum useful description in the general request list. Do not move an entire restricted archive merely to turn a tracker row green.
Work through three different response positions
Every organisation, role, record and date in the download is fictional. Wren Cartons is preparing an initial review concerning Birch site for April to September 2026. Sponsor S selects three first-round requests. The other seven document families remain deferred to a later scope review; they are not deemed irrelevant or complete.
R01 obtains ORG02 v2, a period-specific operating-context record identifying the site, activity and responsible roles. Reviewer V examines it and records Q01 Answered within scope. That outcome describes the supplied context record. It does not establish that an independent team inspected every operation or that the service arrangement should be extended.
R02 asks for the April–September inspection-action index, closure references and the referenced closure records or authorised access. AX03 v1 arrives with a July–September heading. Its two miniature rows label A7 Open and A9 Closed, with CL09 named as a closure reference. No April–June segment or CL09 record is supplied. R02 is Partly received and Q02 is Partly answered; the Closed label does not demonstrate effectiveness.
The linked follow-up R02a asks for the missing period or a documented unavailable response, and for CL09 or its availability explanation. It keeps the original request and scope visible. Sending another copy of AX03 would not answer those points. The example deliberately supplies the record headings and rows so the reader can repeat this conclusion without imagined attachments.
R03 asks for the current concern-handling process and a non-identifying account of its escalation route. The custodian responds that the source is restricted and proposes controlled viewing. At the cut-off, the information owner has not approved that route and no process description has been supplied. R03 is Access unresolved and Q03 remains Unresolved. Receiving the restriction message is not receiving the requested evidence.
Close the exchange without inventing a conclusion
The handover names each current request and question state, the exact records examined and the next owner. Three responses occurred in the case, but they do not become three completed requests. Nor does a completed request automatically become a positive ESG finding. Keep the substantive limitation in the management summary as well as the detailed card.
If a record is later supplied, add the actual receipt and examination dates rather than retroactively changing the earlier review. If a request is withdrawn or merged, retain its reason and replacement reference. Withdrawal describes a scope decision; it does not answer the original question. Escalate a potentially urgent concern through the appropriate route while evidence gathering continues.
Use the question-led diligence guide to plan a staged review and the findings guide to write the conclusions from examined evidence. The supplier request checklist serves a different pre-send collection purpose. This download adds reusable document-family selection, custody and access instructions, and response-to-question reconciliation for an agreed diligence review.
OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, pages 16–17. © OECD 2018. Checked 15 October 2026.
Version 1.0. Original Nitium Advisory forms, prompts, artwork and fictional case. This is a document-collection and review-recording aid, not a compliance audit, technical investigation, investment recommendation, independent assurance conclusion or declaration that due diligence is complete. No source organisation endorses it.
Comments