Kampung Makmur Pig Farm Sdn Bhd
Risk-first follow-up questionnaire generated from the Impact Vision DD checklist, anchored to Founder pitch narrative. Send the Information Request section below to the founder / sponsor as the next DD step.
Key risk areas
Categories ranked by severity (count of high-priority gaps, then coverage percentage). These are the areas to interrogate first in the DD call.
Information request (questionnaire to send)
Ordered first by severity, then by the natural DD sequence (Thesis → ToC → What → Who → How-much → Contribution → Risk → Measurement → Governance → Sector → Exit). Each question lists the supporting documents to request alongside the answer.
55 Priority 1 — Ask first
Impact thesis & mission 3
- Audited or management financial statements
Theory of change 1
- Theory-of-change diagram or written logic model
What — intended outcomes 3
- Live KPI / metric dashboard export (last 12 months)
Who — stakeholders & beneficiaries 2
How much — scale, depth, duration 3
- Live KPI / metric dashboard export (last 12 months)
Contribution / additionality 1
Impact risk 3
Negative impact / do-no-harm 1
Measurement & management systems 1
Stakeholder voice 1
- Stakeholder survey instrument + anonymised results
Financial sustainability 2
- Audited or management financial statements
- Exit / sustainability plan memo
- Audited or management financial statements
Team & capability 1
Market context 1
Product / service design 2
Supply chain 1
Sector — Agriculture 1
Sector — Construction 2
- Certification / accreditation certificate
Sector — Education 2
Sector — Energy 2
Sector — Fintech 3
- Formal policy document (e.g. ESG, safeguarding, data-privacy)
Sector — Health 3
- Certification / accreditation certificate
Sector — Ict 2
Sector — Manufacturing 2
- Third-party audit / verification letter
- Third-party audit / verification letter
Sector — Media 1
Sector — Mining 3
Sector — Professional Services 1
Sector — Retail 1
Sector — Tourism 2
- Audited or management financial statements
Sector — Transport 2
Sector — Waste Management 2
- Third-party audit / verification letter
60 Priority 2 — Ask in follow-up
Who — stakeholders & beneficiaries 2
- Stakeholder survey instrument + anonymised results
How much — scale, depth, duration 2
- Exit / sustainability plan memo
Contribution / additionality 3
- Peer / sector benchmark analysis
Impact risk 1
Negative impact / do-no-harm 1
Measurement & management systems 3
- Stakeholder survey instrument + anonymised results
Governance & ESG 5
- Board / impact-committee charter and minutes
- Exit / sustainability plan memo
- Audited or management financial statements
Stakeholder voice 2
Exit & long-run sustainability 3
- Exit / sustainability plan memo
Financial sustainability 3
- Audited or management financial statements
Team & capability 3
Market context 3
- Formal policy document (e.g. ESG, safeguarding, data-privacy)
- Peer / sector benchmark analysis
Product / service design 2
Supply chain 2
Investor alignment 3
- Audited or management financial statements
Sector — Agriculture 4
- Formal policy document (e.g. ESG, safeguarding, data-privacy)
Sector — Construction 1
Sector — Education 3
Sector — Energy 3
Sector — Fintech 2
- Audited or management financial statements
Sector — Health 2
Sector — Ict 1
Sector — Manufacturing 1
Sector — Media 1
Sector — Professional Services 1
Sector — Retail 1
Sector — Transport 1
Sector — Waste Management 1
Evidence & document gaps
Consolidated list of supporting documents the founder should provide. Each row aggregates all questions that need the same class of evidence, so you can request them in a single email.
| Document / evidence | # questions | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Audited or management financial statements e.g. “Is the impact embedded in the core business model, or is it peripheral/CSR-adjacent?” | 8 | |
| Exit / sustainability plan memo e.g. “What is the company's revenue model and path to financial sustainability?” | 4 | |
| Stakeholder survey instrument + anonymised results e.g. “Does the company have a formal mechanism for stakeholders/beneficiaries to provide feedback?” | 3 | |
| Formal policy document (e.g. ESG, safeguarding, data-privacy) e.g. “Does the company have an over-indebtedness prevention policy for its borrowers?” | 3 | |
| Third-party audit / verification letter e.g. “What worker health and safety measures are in place, and what is the injury/incident rate?” | 3 | |
| Live KPI / metric dashboard export (last 12 months) e.g. “Does the company track outcome-level data, or only activity/output metrics?” | 2 | |
| Certification / accreditation certificate e.g. “What green building standards or certifications does the company follow (LEED, BREEAM, EDGE)?” | 2 | |
| Peer / sector benchmark analysis e.g. “How does the company's approach compare to existing alternatives or competitors in delivering impact?” | 2 | |
| Theory-of-change diagram or written logic model e.g. “Does the company have a clearly defined theory of change that links its activities to intended outcomes?” | 1 | |
| Board / impact-committee charter and minutes e.g. “Does the board or leadership include impact expertise or oversight?” | 1 |
Coverage snapshot
Where the submitted document already answers the checklist. Full category breakdown is further below.
Overall coverage
5.7% of 122 checklist questions addressed · avg evidence level 1.6/5.
Coverage by category
Worst-covered categories with high-priority gaps float to the top.
| Category | Addressed / Total | Coverage | % | High-priority gaps |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impact thesis & mission | 0/3 | 0% | 3 | |
| How much — scale, depth, duration | 0/5 | 0% | 3 | |
| Sector — Fintech | 0/5 | 0% | 3 | |
| Sector — Health | 0/5 | 0% | 3 | |
| Sector — Mining | 0/3 | 0% | 3 | |
| Impact risk | 1/5 | 20% | 3 | |
| What — intended outcomes | 1/4 | 25% | 3 | |
| Financial sustainability | 0/5 | 0% | 2 | |
| Product / service design | 0/4 | 0% | 2 | |
| Sector — Construction | 0/3 | 0% | 2 | |
| Sector — Education | 0/5 | 0% | 2 | |
| Sector — Energy | 0/5 | 0% | 2 | |
| Sector — Ict | 0/3 | 0% | 2 | |
| Sector — Manufacturing | 0/3 | 0% | 2 | |
| Sector — Tourism | 0/2 | 0% | 2 | |
| Sector — Transport | 0/3 | 0% | 2 | |
| Sector — Waste Management | 0/3 | 0% | 2 | |
| Who — stakeholders & beneficiaries | 1/5 | 20% | 2 | |
| Theory of change | 0/1 | 0% | 1 | |
| Contribution / additionality | 0/4 | 0% | 1 | |
| Stakeholder voice | 0/3 | 0% | 1 | |
| Team & capability | 0/4 | 0% | 1 | |
| Market context | 0/4 | 0% | 1 | |
| Supply chain | 0/3 | 0% | 1 | |
| Sector — Agriculture | 0/5 | 0% | 1 | |
| Sector — Media | 0/2 | 0% | 1 | |
| Sector — Professional Services | 0/2 | 0% | 1 | |
| Sector — Retail | 0/2 | 0% | 1 | |
| Negative impact / do-no-harm | 1/3 | 33% | 1 | |
| Measurement & management systems | 2/6 | 33% | 1 | |
| Governance & ESG | 0/5 | 0% | — | |
| Exit & long-run sustainability | 0/3 | 0% | — | |
| Investor alignment | 0/3 | 0% | — | |
| SDG alignment | 1/1 | 100% | — |
Questions already addressed (appendix)
Audit-trail of what the auto-matcher picked up, grouped by NESTA evidence level. Inspect if you want to sanity-check any match before approving.
Level 3 2 · Outcome data measured (pre/post, surveys, tracked KPIs)
| Question | Category | Confidence | Keywords |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the current state of the target stakeholders before the company's intervention (baseline)? | Who — stakeholders & beneficiaries | 30% | baseline |
| What is the evidence risk — how strong is the evidence that the claimed impact actually occurs? | Impact risk | 50% | verified, third-party |
Level 1 5 · Narrative / anecdotal only (self-reported, no data)
| Question | Category | Confidence | Keywords |
|---|---|---|---|
| What specific UN SDGs does the company claim to contribute to, and at the goal or target level? | SDG alignment | 60% | SDG, target |
| How important are these outcomes to the stakeholders experiencing them? | What — intended outcomes | 30% | demand |
| What metrics or indicators does the company currently track? Are they aligned with IRIS+ or other standards? | Measurement & management systems | 43% | IRIS, GRI |
| Has the company engaged third-party evaluators or auditors for impact verification? | Measurement & management systems | 75% | third-party, audit, independent |
| Does the company have a grievance mechanism or way for affected stakeholders to raise concerns? | Negative impact / do-no-harm | 50% | grievance, mechanism |
Evidence level reference
NESTA Standards of Evidence — used to grade every matched question.
| Level | Description |
|---|---|
| 1 | Narrative / anecdotal only (self-reported, no data) |
| 2 | Output data (quantified activities, e.g. # served, # trained) |
| 3 | Outcome data measured (pre/post, surveys, tracked KPIs) |
| 4 | Controlled comparison (quasi-experimental, benchmarks, cohort studies) |
| 5 | Rigorous evaluation (RCT, independent audit, causal attribution) |