EUDR & Traceability tools
Navigating a crowded market
The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) does not, perhaps surprisingly, use the word "traceability". Yet for any company placing relevant commodities on the EU market, traceability to the plot of harvest is, in practice, unavoidable. Understanding why — and then choosing the right tools to achieve it — is one of the more pressing practical challenges companies are currently grappling with.
Why traceability is required in all but name
The EUDR requires operators to collect the geolocation of all plots of land where relevant commodities were produced. For timber, cattle, cocoa, coffee, soy, palm oil, and rubber — and derived products — this means being able to link each shipment back to specific, mappable areas of production. Article 9 sets out detailed information requirements: coordinates or polygon data, volumes, country of origin, and evidence that the product is deforestation-free. Article 10 requires a risk assessment against that data.
Critically, the regulation also requires operators to demonstrate that commodities have not been mixed with non-compliant material. Together, these requirements make plot-level traceability — the ability to track material from a known origin through each step of the supply chain to the point of placing on market — operationally necessary, even if the text stops short of mandating it explicitly.
A proliferating market of tools
The regulatory push has triggered significant growth in the digital traceability sector. A wide range of software-as-a-service (SaaS) platforms now offer supply chain mapping, geospatial data mapping, deforestation monitoring, and due diligence documentation analysis. Some have been built specifically around EUDR requirements; others are commodity-specific tools that have been around for years and have expanded their functionality in response to EUDR-driven demand. A number of platforms are already well established, including Interu (iov42), Agridence, Osapiens, LiveEO, 11Foundry and Radix Tree, among others. With a broad array of new companies continuing to enter the market.
Here’s an overview of some of the tools on the market today, drawing from painstaking research conducted by Preferred by Nature - see the link to their Traceability Tools Guide and Traceability Navigator below too!
| Tool name ↕ | Provider ↕ | HQ ↕ | Founded ↕ | Commodities |
|---|
Source: Preferred by Nature, Guide on the Use of Digital Tools for Responsible Sourcing (DD-16, v1.1, May 2025). Non-exhaustive; information drawn from publicly available sources, not verified with each provider.
With the number and diversity of traceability tools out there it can be difficult for companies to navigate. Tools differ substantially in their approach to supply chain data collection, the level at which geospatial data is captured, use of AI for document checks, how deforestation assessments are conducted and against which reference datasets, and how the resulting information can be shared or used to support due diligence statements. Many make ambitious claims, not all of them credible.
How do companies choose?
For companies that have not previously needed plot-level traceability — or that relied on certification alone to manage supply chain risk — the question of which tool to adopt is not straightforward. The right answer depends on the commodity, the structure and geography of the supply chain, the company's position within it, existing digital infrastructure, and the level of customisation required. A large trader with complex multi-origin supply chains has very different needs from an importer with a single, well-mapped source.
There is also the question of what comes before the tool. A traceability platform cannot compensate for an absence of supplier engagement, unclear data requirements, or an underdeveloped due diligence system. Here are just some of the questions I recommend companies ask when interviewing potential platform providers:
On cost and commercial terms: what does the pricing model actually look like in practice? Many platforms charge per user, per volume of data, or per supply chain entity onboarded — costs that can escalate significantly as a supply chain is mapped in full. Ask for a realistic cost projection based on your actual supplier numbers and transaction volumes, not a headline figure. Also establish who owns the data held on the platform, what happens to it if you switch providers, and whether data can be exported in a usable format.
On interoperability: most companies already have procurement, ERP, or accounting systems generating supply chain data. A traceability platform that cannot connect to those systems or that requires all data to be re-entered manually creates both inefficiency and the risk of errors. Ask specifically whether the platform has API connections with common ERP systems, whether it can accept bulk data uploads from spreadsheets, and whether it has any existing integrations with certification scheme databases such as those operated by FSC or RSPO. The PbN guide below is spot-on to flag that traceability tools should fit within an organisation's wider digital ecosystem.
On supplier-side requirements: a traceability system is only as good as the data suppliers are willing and able to provide. A common problem is garbage in > garbage out. Ask how the platform handles supplier onboarding. Is there a portal suppliers can access directly, is it available in relevant languages, and what level of technical literacy does it assume? Suppliers in timber-producing countries in Southeast Asia or Central Africa may face very different practical constraints to those closer to consumer markets. Platforms that are difficult for suppliers to use reliably will produce unreliable data.
On geospatial capability: since plot-level geolocation is the core requirement driving most of this demand, it is worth probing exactly how the platform handles it. Can it accept polygon data as well as point coordinates? Which coordinate reference system does it use, and can it handle data from a range of input formats? If suppliers cannot provide geospatial data directly, what is the process for collecting it — and does the platform have experience doing this in the specific geographies relevant to your supply chain?
On the deforestation assessment: if the platform offers built-in deforestation monitoring, establish clearly which forest reference datasets it uses, what cut-off date it applies, and how it defines forest. The EUDR uses specific definitions that do not align with all available datasets. A tool using a different forest definition may produce results that look reassuring but do not actually address the regulatory requirement. For timber specificially, does the platform provide any assessment of forest degradation? And for rubber, cocoa and other agroculture commodities grown outside of large plantations, how reliable are the datasets for distinguishing between forest and agri/ tree crops? And what are the limitations and issues or detecting deforestation in mixed-use landscapes, such as for jungle rubber in Indonesia.
What to watch out for
The growth of this market has attracted some excellent digital solutions providers with deep expertise. It has also attracted a number of less credible ones, and the sales pitch can look similar from the outside. A few things are worth treating as red flags:
Be wary of any provider that tells you their tool makes you EUDR compliant. No tool does this on its own. Compliance requires a due diligence system — of which a digital tool may be one component and ultimate responsibility rests with the operator, not the software. Providers that overclaim on this point either do not understand the regulation or are being deliberately misleading.
Probe how the platform handles data integrity. Many traceability systems rely almost entirely on self-declarations from suppliers, with limited or no independent verification. Self-declaration is not inherently problematic but the platform should at minimum have mechanisms to flag inconsistencies, manage the risk of mixing, and support document uploads as evidence of trade. If the answer to questions about data verification is simply "suppliers confirm the information is accurate", that is worth noting.
Ask to see case studies or references from clients operating in comparable supply chains. A platform with a strong track record in textile traceability may not have tested its approach in tropical timber supply chains in high-risk jurisdictions. The principles are the same but the sectors are very different, and experience matters. If a provider cannot point to existing deployments with a meaningful track record, understand why.
Be cautious about platforms that foreground blockchain as their primary integrity mechanism. As the PbN guide notes, blockchain does not resolve the fundamental challenge of ensuring that data entered into a system accurately reflects reality –– it simply makes that data harder to alter once recorded. Blockchain can be a legitimate part of a system design, but it is not a substitute for robust data collection and verification processes.
Finally, consider the provider's longevity and stability. This market has grown rapidly, and a number of the platforms in it are relatively young businesses. Assess whether the provider has the financial backing and client base to be a credible long-term partner, because switching platforms mid-compliance cycle is costly and disruptive.
Two essential resources from Preferred by Nature
For companies working through these questions, Preferred by Nature has developed two particularly useful resources.
The Guide on the Use of Digital Tools for Responsible Sourcing (DD-16) provides a structured framework for evaluating traceability and forest monitoring tools. It sets out detailed questions to ask providers across five areas: general provider profile and solution type; approach to supply chain visibility and traceability; approach to deforestation monitoring; legality and sustainability data collection; and data sharing. It also includes a comprehensive appendix listing over 100 existing supply chain mapping and traceability service providers, as well as a separate list of forest monitoring tools — a useful starting point for any procurement process.
The Traceability Tools Navigator is a complementary interactive resource that allows companies to search and filter tools by commodity, functionality, and other criteria. It offers a practical way to begin shortlisting options before entering deeper evaluation.
Both resources reflect Preferred by Nature's substantial experience working across forest and agricultural commodity supply chains, and are freely available.
Getting the process right
Choosing a traceability tool is an important decision, but it is one step in a broader compliance process. Companies that are clear about their data requirements, supplier engagement strategy, and risk assessment methodology will be better placed to select a tool that genuinely supports compliance — rather than one that creates the appearance of it.
If you would like support in thinking through your approach to EUDR compliance and traceability, get in touch.
EUDR Services
We offer a targeted service package to support companies in achieving and maintaining compliance with the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), whether you need support developing an EUDR-aligned due-diligence system, tracing supply chains, engaging suppliers, satellite monitoring or risk assessment and mitigation. Our practical training and advisory support helps embed compliance and strengthen deforestation-free sourcing commitments