A template for identifying and prioritising supplier-related adverse human rights and environmental impacts under CSDDD Articles 8 and 9.
Use it to separate commercial supplier risk from impacts on people and the environment, then record the evidence and stakeholder input behind each score.
Structured answer sets in this page tree.
Cited legal and guidance references.
This CSDDD supplier scoring template is built around adverse impacts, not supplier convenience, spend, or contract value. Each record should describe the supplier activity in the chain of activities, the people or environment that may be affected, the severity and likelihood basis for prioritisation, and the evidence that supports the next due diligence measure.
Start each scoring row by fixing the CSDDD boundary. Article 8 covers the company's own operations, subsidiaries, and business partners where their activities are related to the company's chain of activities. The directive defines that chain to include upstream activities such as design, extraction, sourcing, manufacture, transport, storage and supply, and downstream distribution, transport and storage when carried out for or on behalf of the company.
Do not score a supplier as high risk merely because it is strategic, expensive, or hard to replace. Score the actual or potential adverse impact linked to a defined activity, site, product, service, sector, geography, or operating context.
Use this template to connect supplier impact records with Article 8 identification, Article 9 prioritisation, stakeholder input, and evidence for follow-up measures.
Use Article 8 as the intake structure. First map broad areas where adverse impacts are most likely and most severe. Then run deeper assessment only for the supplier activities, locations, products, or services where that mapping shows the strongest impact signal.
The evidence column should combine quantitative and qualitative information where available. Supplier questionnaires alone are not enough when complaints, worker interviews, trade union input, independent reports, or credible in-country sources point to a different impact picture.
Article 9 prioritisation applies when it is not feasible to address every identified impact at the same time and to the full extent. The score should therefore rank impacts by severity and likelihood, then show which impacts will move first into prevention, mitigation, corrective action, remediation, or monitoring.
Use a short numeric scale only if every number has a written reason. A useful row explains who may be harmed, how serious the harm is, how hard it would be to restore the affected people or environment, how likely the impact is, and which evidence would change the score.
The completed template should produce an impact register, not a supplier scorecard. Each high-priority row needs a linked due diligence action: prevention or mitigation for potential impacts, corrective action for actual impacts, remediation where the company caused or jointly caused an actual impact, and stakeholder engagement where the action may affect workers or communities.
Before using disengagement or suspension as an output, record why other measures are insufficient and assess whether the adverse impacts of ending the relationship could be manifestly more severe than the original impact. Keep that reasoning attached to the impact row.
"Meaningful engagement with stakeholders"
"business relationships include relationships beyond contractual"