What due diligence seeks to achieve
The OECD describes a risk-based process for addressing the actual and potential impacts of business activities. In OSH, the concern is understanding where and how people may be harmed, rather than only protecting reputation or avoiding supply disruptions.
The depth of analysis depends on the context and significance of the impact. A company may need to look beyond its direct supplier when hazardous processes exist at earlier tiers. An identical questionnaire for everyone rarely distinguishes these situations.
How it differs from supplier approval and business coordination
Supplier approval helps select and assess suppliers. Coordination of business activities addresses preventive obligations when companies work concurrently under legally specified conditions. Due diligence adds a view of impacts arising from relationships and supply chains.
For example, it may examine manufacturing conditions at a supplier that never enters the purchaser’s premises. These processes may share information, but should not be confused or substituted for one another. Each retains its purpose and responsibilities.
Locate and prioritise significant impacts
Start with products, processes, locations and work with potentially serious consequences. Combine supplier information with sector knowledge, visits and participation by affected people. The absence of declared accidents does not prove that controls are sufficient.
Also examine purchasing decisions: impossible deadlines, late changes or prices incompatible with safe conditions can create pressure. Distinguish what has been observed, what has been reported and what still needs verification. Prioritising means acting first where it matters most, not indefinitely ignoring everything else.
Agree improvements and listen to people
Connect each problem with measures, responsibilities, resources and checks. A contractual requirement needs resources to become practice. The ILO highlights social dialogue and labour rights in supply chains.
Provide accessible channels for raising concerns without retaliation and check that people know how to use them. Visits and audits provide evidence, but a one-off check may not reflect shifts, subcontracting or demand peaks. Compare different sources and review conditions after intervening.
Follow-up, remediation and commercial decisions
When harm occurs, examine the appropriate response and remediation according to each actor’s involvement and the applicable framework. Do not reduce the process to closing a documentary issue. Verify that the condition causing the problem has been corrected.
Certifications can provide information, but do not automatically discharge the responsibility to analyse impacts. Nor is ending a relationship always the response that best protects people. Consider consequences and alternatives. Specific legal obligations must be checked by jurisdiction and type of company.
Hypothetical example: a supplier with hazardous tasks
A purchaser discovers that its supplier performs maintenance with guards removed to meet urgent deliveries. It checks the problem with workers and managers and reviews how its own order changes affect planning.
Technical resources, maintenance time and follow-up of actual tasks are agreed. Purchasing stops rewarding speed alone. The case is closed only after checking that the operation can be performed safely, rather than on receipt of a signed procedure.
