Material impact evidence worksheet
Connect each proposed impact statement to the evidence that supports it, the facts still missing and the decision it is ready to inform. This worksheet helps a reporting team prepare a reviewable record before an impact is grouped into a material topic. A concern can deserve attention while its extent or cause remains unresolved.
The seven-page pack contains instructions, four reusable blank sheets and two fictional worked pages. The editable DOCX and matching print PDF have no formulas, scores, automated validation, reminders or transmissions. The worksheet records human judgments; it does not calculate materiality, supply a reporting threshold or replace the organisation’s selected assessment method.
Download the editable material impact evidence worksheet (DOCX).
Download the print material impact evidence worksheet (PDF).
Write a statement that can be examined
Give the record an impact ID. Describe the activity, the effect being considered, the people or environmental resource concerned, the location and the relevant time. A label such as “community” does not identify an effect. Keep the statement narrow enough that another reviewer can ask what evidence would support or contradict it.
Separate an observed condition from a reported experience and an inference. A locked gate is an observation; someone reporting a long detour is an account; concluding that every resident lost access is a further claim. These distinctions describe the evidence. They do not replace any impact classifications required by the selected assessment method.
Record the relationship between the organisation and the activity as a question when it is not established. Identify the responsible operator, source and dates rather than assuming that a nearby event was caused by the organisation. Keep a record of the earlier statement when better evidence narrows or changes it.
Read sources for the exact proposition
Use one evidence row for each relevant source version and locator. State what that item establishes and what it cannot establish. Include the period, location, population and method where relevant. A photograph may show a condition at one time without establishing how long it lasted or how many people experienced it.
Record whether two items genuinely disagree. A daytime inspection and an evening complaint can both be accurate. Before choosing one as the “better” source, compare the questions, timing and scope. Keep the disagreement open where the evidence cannot resolve it, with a precise next request.
OECD’s due-diligence guidance explains that information about possible adverse impacts can prompt further assessment before complete verification. This provides narrow context for retaining an open concern; it does not prescribe this worksheet or determine reporting materiality.
Keep sensitive underlying records in their authorised location. The worksheet should use role or group descriptions and controlled references where possible. A coded identifier does not guarantee anonymity. An urgent access, safety or rights concern needs the appropriate immediate response route; it should not wait for a reporting workshop.
Test a route claim against different times
All organisations, people, routes and records in this example are fictional. Elm Court Services is examining whether temporary construction arrangements restricted pedestrian access at the East passage. Record IM1 v1 initially says that all residents lost access throughout September. The available evidence cannot support that broad statement.
Route notice RP1 v1 designates R1 through gate G1 as the step-free pedestrian route and states availability from 06:00 to 22:00. Gate log LG1 records G1 locked from 18:00 on 8 September until 06:00 the next day, and again over the same hours on 9 September. These entries establish two recorded closure intervals, not a month-long closure.
Input IN1 reports finding G1 closed and taking a detour on those two evenings. It contains no measured distance or count of affected people. Inspection I1 records G1 open at 14:00 on 9 September. That daytime observation does not contradict a closure beginning at 18:00. Treating it as proof that the evening account is false would compare different times.
Manager account M1 says another gate, G2, provides an alternative. No retained route assessment establishes G2’s opening hours or suitability for the people concerned. The worksheet records that account and the missing evidence. It does not call G2 usable or unusable, and it makes no engineering, accessibility-certification or legal conclusion.
IM1 v2 therefore records a possible restriction of step-free access during evening construction arrangements, with two documented G1 closure intervals. The number affected, alternative-route suitability and wider duration remain unresolved. Version 1 is retained as superseded because its “all residents throughout September” scope exceeds the evidence.
Keep evidence sufficiency separate from significance
On the assessment sheet, identify the selected method, edition, criteria and decision authority. Record the rationale against those criteria using the evidence IDs. This pack intentionally supplies no universal weights or numerical cut-off. Evidence quantity, reporting convenience and the confidence of a speaker are not substitutes for an explained judgment.
If the organisation uses a particular reporting framework, the responsible reviewer must bring its current requirements and applicable sector context to the assessment. Keep the final topic decision linked to that wider process. Completing an evidence sheet for one impact cannot establish that every relevant impact has been identified or compared.
In the fictional review, D1 retains IM1 v2 for the wider impact assessment and routes the opening-hours mismatch to the site owner. The known mismatch is sufficient to request prompt investigation; the packet does not provide the selected materiality criteria or the wider impact population. Significance ranking and final topic selection therefore remain pending.
The reviewer records three distinct follow-ups: confirm the operating arrangements with the site owner, obtain appropriate evidence about the alternative route, and seek further affected-user input through an authorised process. A request is not a completed investigation. The example supplies no result from those actions and does not declare the concern resolved.
Preserve the decision when the evidence changes
Use a new dated review event when the impact statement, supporting record or interpretation changes. Identify the previous decision and the exact source versions reconsidered. State whether the change affects the statement, an evidence gap, the significance rationale or the proposed topic. These changes need not all happen together.
Before handing the worksheet over, trace one sentence back to its source. Check that the recorded times and affected scope survive in the summary. Then remove a key source and ask which conclusion would fail. In the case, removing RP1 removes the basis for the posted route-hours mismatch; removing LG1 leaves the evening closures as reported accounts rather than documented gate-log facts.
Use the stakeholder engagement record for the contributions and responses behind the worksheet. Use the material-topic collection guide after a topic decision has been agreed and translated into evidence requests. This pack supplies the reusable impact-level evidence record between those activities; it does not duplicate an engagement log or a disclosure gap register.
Source checked 15 October 2026: OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, question 22, printed page 65. © OECD 2018.
Version 1.0. Original Nitium Advisory forms, diagram and fictional case. This working aid supplies no prescribed materiality method, legal determination, certification or independent assurance. No source organisation endorses it. A completed worksheet does not authorise publication or sharing.
Comments