Partner due diligence

The information needed depends on the proposed role. A recruitment representative, programme operator and specialist service supplier do not present identical questions. We begin with the intended activity, locations, authority and responsibilities of the proposed partner.

The engagement identifies the checks to be undertaken and the intended use of the output. A review of public registration and representation documents has a different scope from an investigation of financial condition, safeguarding practice or legal compliance.

Relevant checks can address the legal entity, trading names, registered information, accountable contacts and the authority claimed for the activity. Programme rights and representation should be traced to the organisation entitled to grant them.

Where a person speaks for several entities or offices, the relationship should be made explicit. The institution should know who would sign an agreement, invoice for a service and take responsibility for performance.

A useful review records where information came from, when it was checked and the entity or activity to which it relates. The scope may include public-register searches, document comparison, clarification requests and agreed reference enquiries.

Information that cannot be corroborated remains identified as such. An unavailable record or an unanswered request is not automatically proof of misconduct, but it may affect the institution's ability to make a decision.

Questions may concern inconsistent names, unclear authority, expired documents, missing operating information or responsibilities left outside a proposed agreement. We organise these matters so that the appropriate person can respond and the institution can decide whether further work is needed.

Where specialist legal, financial or other advice is required, that requirement should be identified. A scoped information review does not replace an appropriately qualified adviser or the institution's own approval process.

The agreed output can include:

• The entity and proposed role reviewed.
• A schedule of information requested and received.
• Sources checked and the date of each check.
• Findings limited to the agreed questions.
• Unresolved matters and recommended follow-up questions.
• A record of significant scope or information limitations.

The review does not create a permanent quality designation. Information can change after the review date, and a different appointment may require different checks.