On this page
Separate the issue, request and evidence
An issue describes the concern. A request describes an action the issuer could take. Evidence shows whether that action happened and whether it addressed the concern. Keeping the three separate prevents an investor’s activity from being mistaken for an issuer outcome.
| Component | Example |
|---|---|
| Issue | The investor cannot assess supplier audit coverage |
| Request | Publish coverage by supplier risk tier |
| Evidence | A report with defined tier denominators and coverage figures |
| Follow-up | Ask about missing high-risk suppliers and unresolved findings |
Choose an objective that can be checked
“Improve disclosure” is difficult to assess because it leaves the requested change undefined. In this example, a clearer objective is a table showing the number of suppliers in each risk tier, the number audited and the treatment of outstanding findings. The investor can then compare the response with the request rather than count any new document as success.
Make escalation conditional on the response
Suppose the issuer agrees to provide the table at its next reporting date. A missing table, an unexplained denominator or evidence of unresolved severe findings would lead to different follow-up questions. The next action should address that particular obstacle. Collaboration, a public statement, a voting decision or a change in exposure may be available in some circumstances; they do not form a mandatory sequence for every holding.
Record the reason for continuing or closing
For the fictional case, a complete table resolves the disclosure request but does not by itself resolve the underlying supplier risk. The investor could close the first objective and open a separate objective on remediation. Record those decisions separately so a closed disclosure task is not presented as proof that all operating risks disappeared.