The Next Chapter of Deforestation-Free Supply Chains: What Comes After Traceability?

For much of the past decade, the conversation around deforestation-free supply chains revolved around one central ambition: achieving traceability. Companies invested heavily in mapping suppliers, monitoring land use and strengthening data systems, while retailers, consumer brands and civil society organizations pushed the market toward greater transparency. The underlying assumption was straightforward. If supply chains could be traced more effectively, companies and other value chain actors would be better equipped to eliminate deforestation and conversion from their supply chains.

That ambition has largely reshaped the market. Today, the question is no longer whether traceability is possible. The industry has made remarkable progress, with technologies maturing, satellite monitoring becoming commonplace, data integration improving dramatically and traceability evolving from a niche capability into an operational expectation. As Will recently observed, ‘Before the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) passed in early 2023, I endured years of hearing that traceability simply wasn’t possible for soy. Today, those same companies now say they have 100% traceability, both in their direct and indirect supply chains.’ The SCF’s experience illustrates this broader evolution: its DCF monitoring and reporting now cover more than 200 million hectares across the Cerrado. Whether every claim withstands the same level of scrutiny is another discussion, but there is little doubt that the industry has made remarkable progress.

Ironically, it is this very success that has exposed the sector’s next challenge. As more companies report increasingly sophisticated traceability results, the real question is no longer whether data exists, but whether different claims can actually be compared. The conversation has fundamentally shifted from Can we trace soy? to What exactly do we mean when we say soy is deforestation- and conversion-free? And perhaps more importantly, are we all measuring the same thing?

This may sound like a technical distinction, but its implications extend well beyond reporting. Comparability is rapidly becoming the foundation upon which credibility, regulatory compliance and investment decisions depend. Without it, even the most advanced traceability systems risk producing numbers that cannot be meaningfully interpreted outside the organizations that generated them.

The path to this new reality was not driven by a single actor. Retailers played a decisive role in creating demand for more sustainable supply chains, translating consumer expectations into corporate commitments and making deforestation-free sourcing a strategic priority across global markets. Those commitments mattered because they established a clear direction of travel for the sector. Yet voluntary commitments alone were never enough to transform implementation across increasingly complex global supply chains.

As Will puts it, “Retail created the demand signal. EUDR completed the business case.” The European Union Deforestation Regulation has accelerated a transition by making supply chain transparency a matter of market access and regulatory compliance. What was once considered good sustainability practice has increasingly become a business and market-access requirement. Companies now need robust evidence to demonstrate compliance and manage commercial risk.

The challenge is no longer collecting information; it is ensuring that information is generated, interpreted and verified in ways that allow meaningful comparison across companies and markets.

This distinction is increasingly important because the sector does not suffer from a shortage of data. If anything, the opposite is true. Companies now generate enormous volumes of information through satellite imagery, supplier registries, farm polygons, risk assessments and verification processes. Yet despite this abundance of information, stakeholders often struggle to answer what should be a relatively simple question: if two companies both report 98% deforestation- and conversion-free soy, are those figures actually comparable?

In many cases, the answer remains no. Different reference dates. Different definitions of conversion. Different approaches to indirect suppliers. Different risk methodologies. Different assurance processes. Each of these choices may be technically defensible within their individual business contexts, but together they create a landscape where apparently similar claims can represent fundamentally different realities.

That is why traceability alone is no longer enough. As traceability becomes more widespread, comparability is becoming the next critical frontier. “Claimed traceability without comparability has limited value,” Will argues, capturing perhaps the most significant evolution in the sustainability conversation over the past decade.

This does not mean traceability has become less important. On the contrary, robust traceability remains the essential foundation for credible DCF claims. What has changed is our understanding of what traceability is meant to achieve. The ultimate objective is not simply to know where soy came from. It is to generate information that markets, regulators, financial institutions and downstream companies can interpret with confidence.

Achieving that objective does not require every company to adopt the same digital platform or technological solution. This is another misconception that continues to surface in discussions around harmonization. Traceability systems should remain tool agnostic. Companies will continue to use different technologies, whether blockchain applications, proprietary databases, satellite platforms or internally developed systems, reflecting differences in business models and operational needs.

Instead, Will puts the basic need for today succinctly: “systems may be different. Methodologies for claiming verified supply chains should not be.” This does not mean that companies need to adopt identical systems, targets or KPIs. Companies would continue to pursue their own individual DCF targets and KPIs, while using methodologies to measure, verify and communicate DCF performance that could provide a consistent basis for comparison. The distinction is crucial. Innovation should continue to flourish at the technological level, while convergence should occur at the methodological level. Shared definitions, common assurance principles and harmonized reporting methodologies create a common language without limiting innovation or requiring companies to abandon existing systems.

This is precisely why sector-wide initiatives such as the Soft Commodities Forum provide an example of how this challenge can be addressed. Rather than prescribing a single traceability system, the SCF has focused on developing a common methodological framework for reporting and verifying DCF performance, using shared definitions, common verification protocols and independent assurance. The result is a greater ability to compare outcomes using a consistent methodology rather than attempting to reconcile fundamentally different approaches after the fact.

That role is likely to become even more important as sustainability reporting continues to evolve. Investors increasingly seek comparable information to assess climate change and nature risks on the long term viability of company assets in producing nations, as well as transition risks within these countries to mitigate or adapt to the changing world. Regulators need confidence that reported outcomes reflect consistent standards. Downstream companies require greater certainty when making sourcing decisions. Producers benefit from clearer expectations instead of navigating an ever-expanding patchwork of methodologies that often ask similar questions in different ways.

Perhaps most importantly, harmonization allows the sector to redirect its energy. Too much time has historically been spent debating whose methodology is better rather than improving outcomes on the ground. As Will notes, “Shared methodologies eliminate wasted conversations.”

Of course, important challenges remain. Indirect supplier traceability continues to evolve, particularly in landscapes where commodities pass through multiple intermediaries before reaching exporters. Risk methodologies require further refinement, including approaches that can evolve to assess DCF risks across different biomes and contexts, such as the Amazon. Methodological convergence should never be confused with methodological stagnation. Continuous improvement remains essential. Claims of 100% DCF performance without acknowledging these challenges can create confusion and undermine perception of progress, even where companies have made genuine advances.

Ultimately, this is not simply a discussion about reporting frameworks or technical methodologies. The sustainability performance of commodity sectors is increasingly judged collectively rather than company by company, and public confidence depends on whether industries can demonstrate measurable progress through approaches that are transparent, consistent and widely understood.

“If the sector still has deforestation,” Will reminds us, “the whole sector is demonized.” That observation captures the broader challenge facing commodity supply chains today. The next phase of the DCF agenda will not be defined by who has the most sophisticated traceability platform or the largest volume of data. It will be defined by whether the sector can move beyond individual systems and embrace a common methodological language that makes progress deliverable in a way that is transparent, comparable and credible.

Will Schreiber is Co-Founder of 3Keel and has advised businesses, governments and civil society on sustainable supply chains for nearly 20 years. He is a recognized expert in sustainable commodities, environmental due diligence and deforestation- and conversion-free (DCF) supply chains, and serves as technical advisor to the Retail Soy Group (RSG).
–
The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Soft Commodities Forum, its members or WBCSD.