People often get themselves in trouble with “due to,” and it might be better to avoid it altogether.
“Due” in its most common use is an adjective, and it needs something to modify.
The delay was due to circumstances beyond our control.
This is quite all right: “due” describes “delay.”
But “due to” has replaced the equally indefensible “owing to” in American English as a set phrase at the beginning of a sentence:
Due to circumstances beyond our control, Flight 700 was delayed by three hours.
Here “due to” is sitting out there alone, not modifying anything, and feeling cold and naked. This use of “due to” to mean “because of” is ineradicable in the speech of bureaucrats and middle managers, because it avoids assigning responsibility, especially when it begins a sentence cast in the passive voice.
But you don’t have to use it. You’re better than that. In fact, you can still disclaim responsibility in the active voice:
Circumstances beyond our control delayed Flight 700 by three hours.
Actually, though, you probably come off looking better if you don’t just generically disclaim responsibility. Those grumpy passengers have heard “circumstances beyond our control” a thousand times, and they know you used it precisely because you didn’t want to tell them anything. That makes them even grumpier. Why not give them an explanation? If you’re a cynic, you can even just make one up.
We had to delay Flight 700 while we checked an anomalous reading from the on-board hurdistat. We apologize for the inconvenience, but your safety always comes first at Bargain Air.
Now the grumpy passengers are a little less grumpy. Yes, they missed their connecting flights, but, golly, they don’t want to fly in a plane with a hurdistat that’s gone all wonky. They appreciate your looking out for their safety.
Another good reason to avoid “due to” is because it’s easy to put it in the wrong place.
If action had not been taken by PennDOT, the roadway would flood again the next time there is significant rainfall due to a collapsed pipe.
This sentence actually says that rainfall is caused by a collapsed pipe. Now, we know that collapsed pipes don’t cause rainfall. We may not be sure exactly what causes rainfall, but we’re pretty sure it’s not collapsed pipes. Nevertheless, we have to read the sentence twice to get the meaning the writer meant, and that’s a failure in communication.