An AI ESG assessment agent reads the policies, reports, certificates and questionnaire answers a supplier provides and sorts each statement under your ESG criteria for environment, labour, human rights and governance.
Agent selects ESG criteria for the category.
Agent sends the questions to the supplier.
Agent reads answers and attached policies.
Agent compares answers to the stated criteria.
Lead judges the result and sets actions.
Improvement actions are stored with dates.
It distinguishes between commitments, practices with evidence and statements with no support, and marks which of your criteria have no evidence at all.
It highlights topics that matter most for the supplier's category and location, such as labour practices for manufacturing or data ethics for software, and drafts a summary.
ESG claims are easy to make and hard to verify, and the topics that matter vary a great deal by the type of supplier.
Policies state intentions without any measurable evidence.
Each supplier reports differently, so comparison is slow.
A generic questionnaire asks about issues that do not apply and misses those that do.
Risk may sit with the supplier's own suppliers, which a single review does not reach.
Teams do not know how much a gap should matter for a given purchase.
The agent proposes criteria that apply from the supplier's category, location and spend.
Policies, reports and certificates are read and statements are extracted.
Each statement is sorted as evidenced, claimed only or missing.
Gaps on the topics most relevant to the supplier are put first.
A plain summary with sources goes to the sustainability or procurement reviewer.
Bring a small sample and watch Flo work through it.
| Aspect | By hand | With the agent |
|---|---|---|
| Relevance | Every supplier gets the same ESG form. | Agent selects criteria that fit the category and location. |
| Evidence | Claims are accepted without evidence. | Agent notes which answers have a supporting document. |
| Comparison | Responses are hard to compare. | Answers are mapped to common criteria. |
| Gaps | Missing answers hide in long forms. | Agent lists unanswered criteria. |
| Actions | Improvement asks are lost. | Actions are recorded with owners and dates. |
| If | Then | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| an answer has no supporting evidence | mark it as self-declared | Sustainability lead |
| the category involves heavy labour or materials | add labour and sourcing criteria | Sustainability lead |
| the supplier operates in a higher-risk region | add due diligence criteria | Sustainability lead |
| a policy is dated far in the past | ask for a current version | Buyer |
| the answers conflict with news or reports on file | flag the conflict | Sustainability lead |
| answers meet the criteria | draft a result for confirmation | Sustainability lead |
The agent notes the absence and suggests a lighter route. The sustainability lead decides whether informal practice is enough.
The agent maps what it can and shows unmatched items. The lead decides how to treat them.
The agent flags claims without support and points to missing evidence. The lead decides how to respond.
The agent records the requirement and the gap. The lead decides how the supplier is handled.
Talk it through with the team. We will map it to your steps and show where a person stays in control.
Agree which criteria apply by category.
Assess a few strategic suppliers.
Review mapping against human views.
Extend to wider supplier groups.
It shows how much of what you care about is backed by evidence. Read it alongside the importance of the missing criteria.
Quick answers to what people ask most about ESG assessment.
Book a demoIt is an evaluation of a supplier's environmental, social and governance practices against your standards. An AI agent can read the evidence, map it to criteria and flag gaps for people to judge.
It can tell whether a claim has supporting evidence in the documents provided. Verifying that evidence is true is a task for reviewers or independent auditors.
It proposes relevant criteria from category, location and spend, and a person confirms them.
It can organise results against your criteria. Any scoring method and the weight of each criterion are set by your team.
A supplier credit risk check is the step of assessing how likely a supplier is to fail financially or default on its obligations, using credit reports, payment history and public records.
→A conflict of interest check is the step of finding out whether anyone involved in selecting or managing a supplier has a personal, financial or family connection to it.
→A supplier financial health check is the step of judging whether a supplier is stable enough to deliver and to keep trading over the life of the contract.
→Supplier tiering is the practice of grouping suppliers into levels, such as strategic, preferred or transactional, so that oversight matches importance and risk.
→Bring a small sample of real items. We will show what Flo handles on its own and where it hands over to your team.
