As supply chain transparency tools grow more advanced, expectations of what technology can deliver are rising fast. Priscillia Moulin of MosaiX examines how traceability tech can help tackle deforestation and exploitation – while warning of blind spots, overreliance and the gap between digital in

Over the past decade, there has been a huge amount of progress in supply chain traceability and sustainability across the food industry and before I get to my reservations with technology, it’s important to recognise just how useful satellite monitoring platforms are, and the positive forces that are driving adoption.

Tech has proven to be an invaluable tool for delivering positive change and supporting organisations, with dozens of sustainability tech platforms launching every year – driven largely by increasing demand from food businesses. The industry is focusing more on sustainability and making No Deforestation, No Peat and No Exploitation (NDPE) commitments, because of ever-increasing consumer demand for transparent supply chains and sustainable food.

At the same time, the introduction of government legislation, like the upcoming European Union Deforestation Legislation (EUDR), is ensuring that organisations across the supply chain take their impact seriously.

Satellite data platforms are enabling businesses to track deforestation in near real-time. Land ownership mapping combined with AI tools can immediately spot patterns and trends that can help us stop deforestation and prevent land conversion, while protecting the rights of people, and holding those responsible to account.

Used in the right way, technology platforms can be incredibly powerful ways to help food and drink businesses improve traceability and sustainability. But technology is only one part of the solution, and we’re increasingly seeing platforms being oversold as a silver bullet for all things sustainability.

However, the idea that you can track and prevent forest loss and protect smallholders, while monitoring forest loss, carbon emissions, biodiversity and wildfires, all without ever setting foot in the country affected, is a pipe dream.

Rubbish in and rubbish out – Data Quality Issues

Tech platforms are only as good as the data they depend on – and getting high-quality, accurate data related to deforestation and social sustainability is very hard!

Deforestation is a great example of this. Every satellite monitoring and deforestation tracking platform out there can tell you where and when deforestation is happening. The issue is that they cannot tell you why it’s happening, who is doing the deforestation, or who owns the land, let alone how this deforestation relates to relevant buyers.

This is because many platforms depend entirely on open-source data, which is often of poor quality. Data quality in high-risk areas of the world for deforestation is notoriously low, especially for important information like land ownership, supply chain relationships and corporate ownership.

This data is often out of date, inaccurate, and disconnected. To get hold of all the information needed to paint an accurate picture, you need to get data from multiple systems, in multiple formats. There will inevitably be significant gaps as well. All this undermines the ability of tech platforms to provide an accurate, easy-to-understand picture of what is happening on the ground.

What most customers get from these platforms is only an illusion of supply chain visibility and control. To get an accurate picture, you need local knowledge and experts on the ground who can verify and contextualise the data.

Relying entirely on tech platforms like this can do more harm than good. Technology misses deforestation that’s happening in their supply chain and provides false alerts that aren’t relevant to their operations.

For food businesses (or their investors), depending on poor outputs like this is a risk, in terms of both non-compliance with legislation and potentially, reputational damage when the reality of deforestation and exploitation in the supply chains is exposed.

Interpreting deforestation data and what to do with it

Technology like AI is amazing at spotting patterns, but it cannot tell you the real story. For example, your tech platform might provide a deforestation alert – but it can’t tell you whether it’s intentionally conducted by your suppliers, or illegal encroachment by a third party.

To draw conclusions and take action, you need to understand the local context and how the individual commodity supply chain works. This means filtering the raw data through a complex web of social dynamics, cultural norms, customary land rights, specific legal frameworks and laws and regional regulations. No tech platform can do this.

To complete the picture, you need an expert to interpret the data, understand its nuances, and verify the findings locally with a team on the ground.

Another huge gap is what to do with the data you get from a platform. Tech platforms aren’t going to call the right decision maker at the palm oil or soya plantation to help stop deforestation!

Resources, expertise and relationships are essential here. Companies don’t just need to know who they need to speak to at their suppliers when they get a deforestation alert. They also need to know how to engage with companies constructively.

Staying compliant

In Europe, we’re seeing lots of sustainability legislation come into force, including EUDR, the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The introduction of similar legislation in the UK looks inevitable. All these pieces of legislation underline the importance of accurate data and due diligence for food businesses.

To comply with EUDR, for example, food businesses need to prove that 7 forest risk commodities (palm oil, soya, cocoa, coffee, rubber, cattle, timber) are deforestation-free. This includes providing precise geolocation data for plots of land in their supply chain. Companies also need to have a due diligence process in place, backed up by traceable, defensible data and auditable processes.

Fail to comply with EUDR, and they will face a range of consequences, including fines of up to 4% of EU turnover, to expulsion from the entire market!

Tech platforms can be extremely beneficial in meeting these compliance requirements, but there are real risks to overreliance.

The dreaded greenwashing

Across the food industry, we’re seeing an ever-growing number of businesses making claims about the quality of their sustainability and traceability programmes based on their use of technology. Website sustainability pages and policies are becoming peppered with buzzword phrases like “AI-powered”, “satellite monitored” and “blockchain enabled”.

When companies hide behind their use of tech, without the right experts, proper processes and any genuine accountability or verification systems in place, it’s a form of greenwashing.

These claims aren’t just disingenuous; they can be risky for businesses as well. It creates a false sense of security. On the surface, these businesses may be able to show an illusion of sustainability and compliance – but if anyone looks closely, they will be quickly exposed.

Apart from the potential fines, the reputational damage can be significant, as food businesses need to face up to consumer backlash, and investors steer well clear!

The message for food businesses that are looking at traceability tech platforms is simple – ensure you have the right support, from the right people, both inside your business, and at your technology provider.

Identify the key commodities your business uses and choose a tech platform provider that has real expertise in the specific sector, backed up by accurate land plotting information, and with local teams on the ground.

Technology can help us to create truly sustainable supply chains in the food industry, but we need to use it responsibly. This requires accepting its limitations, mitigating associated risks, and integrating it thoughtfully with human expertise.

sight and on-the-ground reality.