Cover: AI-generated conceptual illustration for WEFTSIGNAL, not documentary photography.
A supplier file is not a conclusion
A completed questionnaire can help organize evidence, but it does not establish that every risk has been understood or addressed. The OECD garment and footwear guidance describes due diligence as a way for enterprises to avoid and address potential negative impacts connected with their activities and supply chains. This explainer proposes questions for a sourcing review; it does not certify any supplier.
Separate capability from responsible-business evidence
Use distinct review areas for technical capability, commercial readiness and potential impacts on people or the environment. Evidence that a factory can sew a product does not settle every responsible-sourcing question. Likewise, a document addressing one topic should not be treated as proof of unrelated capabilities. Identify what each document actually covers, the entity named and the period or operations in scope.
Ask what remains unresolved
For each material claim, record its source, date, scope and any follow-up needed. Consider whether the information concerns the direct supplier or another entity. When information is incomplete, describe the gap rather than assigning a clean bill of health. A useful review can distinguish verified information, supplier statements, contradictory evidence and questions awaiting an answer.
Make follow-up an operating process
The OECD guidance is practical and emphasizes constructive approaches to complex sector challenges. A buyer’s internal review should therefore go beyond collecting files. As an editorial framework, assign an owner to each open question, record the action proposed and define how its result will be assessed. The review should also consider whether the buyer’s own decisions create pressure or uncertainty.
Avoid overstating the outcome
Write a decision note that explains what was reviewed, what was not covered and which conditions apply to the next step. Do not describe an assessment as a guarantee of future performance. Risk priorities and responsibilities depend on the circumstances, and businesses should consult the full guidance and appropriate specialists when developing their due-diligence systems.
Organize an evidence register
A practical register can contain the claim being assessed, the legal entity or facility concerned, the source, the date, the scope and the next action. Keep personal information to what the review actually needs and use appropriate access controls. A document collection should not become an indiscriminate store of worker records or confidential business information.
Separate an absent document from evidence of an adverse impact. They may require different follow-up. Equally, possession of a document should not automatically close a question about current conditions. Record the reasoning behind the decision so another reviewer can understand it.
An illustrative mismatch
Suppose a supplier submits an assessment naming a different facility from the one proposed for an order. Do not assume that the evidence transfers between locations. Ask which operations will occur at each site, how the entities are related and whether the submitted material covers the intended work.
The response may reveal an administrative naming issue or a substantive scope gap. Keep both possibilities open until the facts are clarified. The decision note should explain what was established, what remains uncertain and how the sourcing decision accounts for that uncertainty. This is a hypothetical review example, not a finding about a real supplier.
Include the buyer’s decisions
Review the instructions and commercial practices that the buyer controls. Are specifications stable? Are changes documented? Does the supplier understand the delivery assumptions? These questions should sit alongside supplier follow-up, because collecting more documents will not resolve an unclear order.
Responsible-business due diligence also concerns impacts that cannot be reduced to a purchasing checklist. The full OECD guidance should inform how a business identifies priorities, engages affected stakeholders and responds to findings. The organizational prompts here supplement that work; they do not reproduce the guidance’s complete process.
Write a decision another person can challenge
- Evidence: What information supports the current assessment, and what is its scope?
- Gaps: Which claims remain unverified or contradicted?
- Action: Who will follow up, with whom, and by when?
- Review: What new information or operational change will trigger reassessment?
Connect sourcing to operational follow-up
Carry relevant conditions into the order handoff and review them when the production location or subcontracting arrangement changes. Link the process to supply-chain visibility without claiming that a supplier map alone establishes responsible conduct.
Source and further reading
OECD — garment and footwear due diligence guidance. Source consulted 15 October 2026. The working checklists in this explainer are WEFTSIGNAL editorial frameworks; they are not presented as requirements issued by the source organization.
Continue exploring sourcing coverage and our editorial standards.