Due diligence vs Certification

In my previous job, due diligence was a hot-button for a particular collection we housed. The collection contained films for which the production houses have long since dissolved or been bought out, which made searching for copyright information practically impossible when added to a cultural and language barrier that mocked the Great Wall. When we wanted to show any of these films, or allow these films to be researched, technically all we (as the housing facility) had to do was "show due diligence"... but when it comes to matters of copyright, archivists can become very nervous very quickly if the rules are not laid out cleanly.

If we wanted to allow access to any of these films, the act of merely "showing due diligence" was not well defined: what kind of documentation must be kept on file in order to show that appropriate due diligence was exercised? It's assumed that such documents would have to be maintained in perpetuity by the housing facility; however what qualifies as a document: is it enough to keep the post-it notes that contained various international phone numbers (drafts) as well as a one-sheet in-house memo which quite simply compiles the information from these post-its with the added header "here's who we tried calling but only got disconnected phone lines"?

Again, due diligence has come up in my new (temporary?!) line of work: the forestry industry in British Columbia. Arguably one of the penultimate regions in North America where forestry is taken to the highest level of legislation and regulation. Today, it was discovered that the certification for Faller Supervisor is not actually required if an individual's certification has already been successfully issued and then expired - IF that individual can show due diligence to their effort to keep updated on the requirements of a Faller Supervisor. In fact, on-site audits are activity/performance based, and have nothing to do with checking certification of forestry workers on the job. The potential for exploitation of this little loophole bugs me. I see it as a money-grab pure and simple, but debate within the office suggests otherwise. One Faller Supervisor feels it's a good thing - that if he takes it upon himself to keep current and well-trained/informed, he can show due diligence if his certification comes into question.

The problem I see is that the verification of certification would not normally come into play until something goes wrong - at which point, the conflict arises primarily between the contracted faller and the company that hired said faller. Again, the issue is lack of clarification as to what sufficient documentation is with respect to showing due diligence. In an audit sense, that may be just an interview or conversation which proves the faller's knowledge; in a legal sense, documentation would be required to prove the process by which a faller performed due diligence.

So what? Among other implications and applications which extend beyond my own corporeal form, for me I've now been on both sides of the due diligence argument and have learned something very important from the two perspectives. When the cause was access to information, I'm all for due diligence. When the affect is the safety of workers, I'm not for due diligence.