ISEAL Alliance

Assurance integrity in a changing risk landscape: How ISEAL members are strengthening practice with the Assurance Integrity Framework

Chloe B — Mon, 18 May 2026 14:03:11 +0000

Assurance integrity in a changing risk landscape: How ISEAL members are strengthening practice with the Assurance Integrity Framework Chloe B Mon, 05/18/2026 - 14:03

The integrity of assurance depends on having sufficient accuracy and reliability of assurance results. For sustainability systems, maintaining and strengthening their assurance integrity requires a proactive and adaptive approach.

In today’s fast-changing environmental and regulatory landscape, it is more important than ever that sustainability systems adapt to ensure they can continue to deliver assurance results with confidence. By focusing on the integrity of assurance, sustainability systems can more meaningfully support change with other actors across the wider sustainability landscape, such as through corporate due diligence policies. For example, when considering whether a sustainability system can meaningfully support corporate due diligence, assurance quality and integrity criteria is one of the three main dimensions sustainability systems are assessed against.

Given the growing importance of assurance integrity, we have developed the Assurance Integrity Framework to help ISEAL Community Members assess, improve and strengthen these foundations.

What is the Assurance Integrity Framework?

The Assurance Integrity Framework supports sustainability systems through three steps:

Building organisational knowledge: it includes practical insights about what a sustainability system needs to have in place to be able to strengthen assurance integrity, from foundations to outcomes and essential activities
Identifying opportunities for improvement: it includes an online self-assessment that allows members to identify if any essential activities are missing and to measure improvement in introducing these activities over time
Defining improvement strategies: it provides further guidance and examples to help members make informed decisions about how to address any gaps identified in the self-assessment

The Assurance Integrity Framework can be used in conjunction with, or to complement, other ISEAL tools. For example, as effective risk management relies on good data, and ensuring that insights from data are used to informed decisions, using it alongside the Data Maturity Rubric can enable members to identify improvements that can enhance both their data capabilities and capacity to detect and manage integrity risks at the same time.

Building the foundations of assurance integrity

The Assurance Integrity Framework outlines two key foundations that underpin a sustainability systems’ capacity to strengthen assurance integrity:

The organisation prioritises assurance integrity

Prioritising assurance integrity, or building an assurance integrity mindset, is important because assurance integrity is impacted and dependent on decisions and activities that occur on an operational level across the sustainability system (such as data strategy, staff resourcing), as well as within other core scheme components (such as standard-setting, monitoring & evaluation).

One simple way that sustainability systems can prioritise assurance integrity is by ensuring that relevant staff across the organisation understand what assurance integrity risks are, what processes are in place, and what role they have in maintaining assurance integrity, such as gathering data on integrity risks to report back to the assurance team.

The organisation effectively manages integrity risks

The most impactful change a sustainability system can make to increase the accuracy and reliability of assurance results is to improve their risk management approach. Through more accurate detection and analysis of integrity risks such as fraud, conflicts of interest, or competency challenges, sustainability systems are better able to identify effective risk treatments and monitor this over time.

Managing integrity risks includes introducing strategies to address issues that could undermine assurance results, such as insufficient auditor competency. Global Organic Textile Standard’s (GOTS) Innovations Fund project on Continuous learning from auditors on due diligence requirements involved strengthening auditors’ understanding of GOTS’ due diligence criteria through a continuous learning approach that covered issues such as workplace pressures, gender issues and cultural awareness. This helped support auditors to better identify human rights and environmental risks when in the field.

By understanding and addressing these two key foundations, sustainability systems can strengthen the accuracy and reliability of assurance results. For ISEAL Community Members, the Assurance Integrity Framework provides a clear, actionable pathway for taking this work further.

Supported by

This work was made possible through generous funding from the Swiss Secretariat of Economic Affairs.

Building resilient supply chains in a changing world

Chloe B — Tue, 05 May 2026 15:38:52 +0000

Building resilient supply chains in a changing world Chloe B Tue, 05/05/2026 - 15:38

Climate shocks, market volatility and evolving regulation are reshaping global supply chains, placing increasing pressure on producers. The ISEAL Global Sustainability Symposium in Ghana will bring together producers, policymakers, businesses and sustainability systems to explore how more resilient and equitable outcomes can be achieved.

For producers, these pressures are already shaping day-to-day decisions, from managing climate risks to navigating price fluctuations and changing regulatory requirements. These are immediate challenges that affect livelihoods, planning and long-term security.

On 9 June 2026 in Accra, the ISEAL Global Sustainability Symposium will explore how more resilient supply chains can be strengthened amid growing uncertainty and change.

Ghana provides a strong context for this conversation. As a major producer of commodities, particularly cocoa and timber, it sits at the heart of global supply chains. At the same time, it faces many of the pressures shaping them, from climate impacts to evolving market and regulatory expectations.

Across the country, a range of initiatives and partnerships are already underway to help address these challenges, involving producers, government and supply chain actors. These include work on forest protection linked to cocoa production, progress in forest governance and legal compliance, and emerging approaches to traceability and producer data through COCOBOD’s Cocoa Management System. Together, these initiatives illustrate how resilience is already being built in practice. Holding the discussion in Ghana connects global debates to what is already happening on the ground.

Placing producers at the centre

Global supply chains depend on producers, yet they are often the least visible in how systems are designed and discussed. Building resilience starts here. It requires improving access to training, finance and markets, while addressing deeper challenges such as income and risk distribution.

The Symposium centres these perspectives, drawing on insights from Ghana and across global value chains to shape the discussion.

“In Ghana and across global supply chains, resilience is not an abstract concept, it is a daily reality for producers navigating climate shocks, price volatility and shifting demands. Policy, markets and sustainability systems need to work better together to respond to these challenges,” says Karin Kreider, Executive Director, ISEAL.

Moving beyond compliance

Much of the focus on supply chain sustainability has been on meeting certification and regulatory requirements. This has helped define good practices, but it does not address the full set of challenges producers face.

Resilience requires a broader approach, addressing root causes of risk and enabling producers to adapt to changing conditions over time. Static requirements are not enough. Credible sustainability systems are evolving accordingly, maintaining verification while placing greater emphasis on continuous improvement, risk mitigation and remediation, while enabling long-term progress.

Bridging policy and practice

The policy landscape is changing quickly. New regulations are increasing expectations on companies to understand and address risks in their supply chains, from due diligence to sustainability reporting. In this context, credibility matters. Systems need to be transparent, accountable and able to demonstrate impact if they are to support both policy goals and market expectations.

This creates both opportunity and tension. Regulation can drive progress, but it must be workable across different contexts and avoid creating unintended barriers for producers.

Sustainability standards and small-scale producers: from risk management to resilience

Chloe B — Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:57:45 +0000

Sustainability standards and small-scale producers: from risk management to resilience Chloe B Wed, 04/15/2026 - 13:57

In a complex risk landscape shaped by climate pressures, market volatility, conflict and human rights risks, understanding and addressing sustainability challenges requires deeper engagement with producers and value chain partners. Practical approaches, such as those set out in ISEAL’s Guide for small-scale producer engagement, co-developed with IISD, help strengthen strategic responses.

The traditional model of ‘supply chain management’ is reaching its limit. For years, companies have relied on top-down monitoring: periodic audits and snapshot assessments, to manage risk. Yet issues like climate vulnerability and human rights violations persist. The reason is straightforward: you cannot solve problems you do not fully understand.

To increase the effectiveness of sustainability investments, it’s time to pivot from extractive monitoring to models based on collaboration, working together towards shared sustainability objectives. This requires a fundamental shift in how companies, NGOs and Voluntary Sustainability Standards (VSS) interact with other value chain partners.

The aim is not to halt the use of certifications and audits, but to strengthen the evidence base that underpins their credibility, grounded in and shaped by the active participation of those most affected.

Seeking clarity and understanding root causes

Clarity is the primary driver for deeper engagement. When we engage meaningfully with stakeholders, we move beyond identifying symptoms to uncovering root causes. Engagement involves going further than high-level management, requiring listening, communication and adjusting actions in response.

Research from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) highlights that “VSS recognise producer engagement as a cornerstone of their efforts to promote sustainable practices and effective standard adoption”. As VSS move towards "beyond compliance" models, the depth of producer engagement becomes a defining factor in their effectiveness.

As the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) reflected in ‘Beyond Compliance: Why Audit Alone is Not Enough’, a "compliance-only" approach often drives issues underground. Conversely, when brands and VSS invest in building trust-based relationships, they can gain access to higher-quality evidence and can establish early warning signals as issues emerge. This transparency allows organisations to focus efforts where they matter most, backed by clearer information and direct insights.

Recognising producers and workers as knowledge experts

Meaningful engagement brings decision-making closer to the people most affected and requires the development of accountability mechanisms across all actors. As well as clear expectations, its effectiveness relies on providing producers with the necessary resources and support to take responsibility for agreed actions.

Organisations like Transform Trade emphasise that small-scale producers and workers are the primary experts on their own environments. Involving them in the design and delivery of programmes helps partners anticipate issues and respond faster.

This is particularly vital for VSS. Empowering producers to lead makes systems more resilient and better adapted to local realities, while shared ownership of strategies, strengthens their legitimacy.

More tools in the VSS toolbox

For VSS looking to operationalise this shift, ISEAL’s Guide for Small-Scale Producer Engagement provides practical tools. Co-developed with IISD, it supports sustainability systems to deepen and systematise producer participation.

By moving away from ad-hoc consultation towards structured engagement, VSS can ensure interventions are technically feasible and adapted to local contexts. This shift moves from recognising diverse producer perspectives and priorities to creating the opportunities for participation in decision making and sustaining long-term relationships.

This evolution is rooted in the ISEAL Credibility Principles, specifically the principles of impact and collaboration. Credibility is about demonstrating real-world improvement and ensuring that those affected by a system have a say in its operation. By aligning with these principles, VSS strengthen their models by ensuring the information they gather is grounded in reality.

The dividend of regulatory readiness

While the primary motivation for this shift is effectiveness, there is a significant secondary benefit: regulatory alignment. The global landscape, in particular, the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), is moving toward mandatory, detailed due diligence.

The businesses and sustainability systems currently succeeding are those that recognise that box checking is not enough. By the time a regulator or investor asks for proof of due diligence, these organisations already have the relationships, contextual insights and the evidence-based data in place. They aren't scrambling to meet a new law; they are reporting on the robust, collaborative systems they already use to manage their business operations.

Strengthening relationships and building an evidence base

The future of sustainability is about effectiveness and accountability. By reallocating resources toward deeper engagement and using participatory tools such as those in the ISEAL guide, we can build stronger relationships and richer information flows.

When we invest in relationships, we aren't just managing risk, we are securing the future of value chains. The most successful investments won't be in more audits, but in people and partnerships.

Sara Elder, author of the guide, summarises: ‘There is growing recognition that achieving equitable and sustainable change requires reaching small-scale producer at scale, this is the starting point for the producer engagement guide’.

Bringing living income into due diligence and responsible business conduct

Chloe B — Tue, 14 Apr 2026 14:02:10 +0000

Bringing living income into due diligence and responsible business conduct Chloe B Tue, 04/14/2026 - 14:02

As due diligence expectations rise across global supply chains, collaborative initiatives like the Living Income Community of Practice (LICOP) are helping businesses turn living income commitments into practical action. In partnership with SHIFT, LICOP has developed practical guidance to help companies identify and address living income risks as part of human rights due diligence.

For companies working across global supply chains, living income is becoming harder to treat as a voluntary add-on. As due diligence expectations evolve, attention is shifting to how it is addressed in practice.

Ensuring producers can earn a living income and achieve a decent standard of living should sit at the centre of sustainability efforts. This requires companies to move beyond high-level commitments and demonstrate how they identify, prioritise and address this as a salient human rights issue within their operations and value chains.

The challenge now is operational. Businesses are increasingly focused on how to embed living income within their due diligence systems, from identifying where risks are most severe to taking action that leads to measurable improvements in producer livelihoods.

Corporate due diligence is changing

This shift is reinforced by the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) which requires companies to identify, assess and prevent or mitigate human rights and environmental impacts across their operations and value chains. By explicitly referencing living income in its Annex, the CSDDD recognises it as part of companies’ human rights responsibilities, bringing it firmly into the scope of due diligence obligations.

Why living income matters

To understand why living income belongs in human rights due diligence, it’s important to consider its connection to internationally recognised human rights. Under the United Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGPs), businesses are expected to respect these rights. The Living Income Community of Practice (LICOP) defines living income as the net annual income a household needs in a given context to afford a decent standard of living for all its members. This includes food security, water, housing, education and a buffer for unexpected events. Without it, other human rights are harder to realise.

Where business practices contribute to persistent income gaps, companies risk undermining the right to a decent standard of living. This is why living income needs to be explicitly addressed in human rights due diligence (HRDD).

However, living income is not an end in itself. It is a stepping stone towards a decent standard of living and the reduction of poverty and a multi-dimensional concept, linked to broader social and environmental goals. This is particularly evident in agricultural supply chains, where smallholders often face significant income gaps and heightened vulnerability to shocks.

Smallholder farmers are vulnerable

According to the Fair Trade Advocacy Office (FTAO), smallholder farmers include small-scale farmers, pastoralists, forest keepers and fishers managing between one and 10 hectares. Together they supply over 35% of the world’s food, yet they are disproportionately likely to live in poverty. Many already face insecure livelihoods, tight margins and exposure to climate and market shocks, with persistent income gaps increasing vulnerability to human rights risks, including forced labour, child labour and unsafe working conditions.

For companies, this is not only a social issue but a material supply chain risk. Where producers cannot earn a living income, supply may become less stable, quality can suffer and the likelihood of disruption increases.

Integrating living income into procurement and supply chain decisions can help strengthen smallholder livelihoods and support more resilient supply chains. Increasingly, this is becoming part of a company’s licence to operate, with businesses expected to show how they address living income in a structured and credible way through procurement practices and human rights due diligence.

How companies can adopt living income due diligence

LICOP partnered with SHIFT to develop the Technical Guidance on Due Diligence for Living Income, helping companies identify human rights risks linked to low incomes and providing a practical starting point to prevent and address adverse impacts on farmers and their families. Grounded in the UNGPs, it sets out a risk-based approach that businesses of any size can use across sectors.

A first step is to identify living income as a salient human rights risk, meaning one where the potential impact is most severe in connection with company’s activities or business relationships. In practice, this involves identifying which commodities and geographies present the greatest risk.

This shifts how success is measured. The focus moves to whether company actions are helping to close income gaps in practice, through changes in business practices and behaviours, supplier relationships or collaborative initiatives. It also requires a more holistic approach, with living income embedded across corporate governance and supplier relationships.

No single actor can close the living income gap alone. It requires systemic change across multiple stakeholders, each with a role to play. Companies are expected to use their leverage, that is, their ability to influence the practices of other parties linked to adverse human rights impacts, to address income gaps and strengthen livelihoods across their supply chains. This may include supporting commitments to minimum or living income reference prices at sector level, recognising that price and purchasing practices are often key drivers of income gaps.

Putting guidance into practice

LICOP, IDH and the VOICE network convened a workshop to explore how companies can use the guidance to initiate, scale, or strengthen efforts to close income gaps within supply chains. Participants highlighted key barriers including siloed working, limited board-level buy-in, weak cross-departmental integration and regulatory uncertainty.

For this approach to succeed, living income needs to be embedded across a business, with sustainability, programme, legal, compliance and procurement teams aligned around shared goals. The workshop also highlighted differing team priorities, and the need for clearer internal business cases if companies are to prepare effectively for CSDDD implementation from 2029.

Clarifying expectations for living income in legislation

Governments play a crucial role in shaping the policy environment and embedding supportive practices in law. In February, LICOP and the FTAO convened a high-level roundtable at the European Parliament, hosted by MEP Saskia Bricmont to explore how risk-based due diligence can be reflected in corporate sustainability legislation to advance living income.

LICOP presented its guidance for companies, while FTAO launched Guidelines for a Living Income: Fair Recommendations for Living Income Guidance in the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive. The resource is intended to support the European Commission and regulators in clarifying expectations for legal compliance under the CSDDD, and underscores the need for greater coherence across legislation, corporate processes and reporting mechanisms to enable companies to navigate this transition effectively.

Looking ahead

As companies begin to apply the guidance, the next phase will focus on shared learning about what effective living income due diligence looks like in practice. Designed as a living document, it will continue to evolve, informed by practitioner feedback, including insights on gaps, emerging issues and practical examples, case studies and reflections.

The guidance is part of a broader effort to help businesses move from commitments to measurable progress, strengthen credible systems and enable more collaborative action on living income. Supporting smallholders requires systemic action and this guidance clarifies the role companies can play in improving livelihoods and enable a decent standard of living.

What makes sustainability systems credible? Learn with ISEAL in 2026

Chloe B — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:03:42 +0000

What makes sustainability systems credible? Learn with ISEAL in 2026 Chloe B Fri, 04/10/2026 - 09:03

Gain insight into how sustainability systems work and what credible practice looks like, through ISEAL’s interactive online training courses for anyone working in the sustainability sector.

ISEAL’s 2026 training programme brings together a series of expert-led courses designed to strengthen understanding of how sustainability systems function in practice.

As public and regulatory expectations on sustainability performance continue to rise, businesses, sustainability systems and civil society organisations are increasingly expected to demonstrate that their systems are credible, effective and deliver impact. This requires strong design and a clear grasp of how different elements operate and interact in real-world contexts.

Building on recent years of delivery, these training courses support a shared understanding of credible practice and help participants work more confidently within a range of sustainability systems.

Understanding sustainability systems

The training courses explore the core elements of sustainability systems and how credible approaches are applied. Delivered by ISEAL experts, each course takes place over three interactive online sessions, combining presentations, discussion, exercises and dedicated time for questions.

Participants gain a clear understanding of how different components, from standard-setting and assurance to monitoring, evaluation and learning, fit together, and how these can be applied in their own context.

The training courses also offer opportunities to engage with peers, exchange perspectives and reflect on different approaches. Participants receive access to ISEAL’s library of resources and guidance through the ISEAL Platform, along with a certificate of attendance.

The training brings together individuals from sustainability systems, business, civil society and consultancy roles.

The 2026 training programme

The future of assurance for sustainability systems

21 April, 28 April and 5 May.

Explore how assurance is evolving, including the role of data and technology, and how new approaches to risk management can strengthen credibility and trust.

Understanding sustainability systems

November 2026.

Gain a holistic view of how sustainability systems operate, how their core elements fit together, and the key principles of credible practice that underpin an effective system.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) essentials for sustainability systems

September 2026.

Learn how to assess effectiveness, measure change and embed continuous learning to strengthen organisational strategy.

Participants can join individual training courses depending on their interests and areas of focus.

Understanding the first mile: strategies and tools for first mile inclusion in traceability and due diligence systems

Chloe B — Wed, 11 Mar 2026 09:11:34 +0000

Understanding the first mile: strategies and tools for first mile inclusion in traceability and due diligence systems Chloe B Wed, 03/11/2026 - 09:11

New research offers practical approaches to strengthening traceability and supporting smallholder inclusion at the start of agricultural supply chains.

The first mile, the journey from producer to the first aggregation or processing point, is a critical yet often overlooked stage in agricultural supply chains. Across cocoa, coffee, rubber and palm oil, this stage is shaped by smallholders, informal intermediaries, and complex social, economic and logistical realities.

Understanding the first mile is essential for building traceable, inclusive supply chains that enable smallholders and informal actors to participate equitably.

In 2025, ISEAL commissioned Proforest to explore the first mile of agricultural commodity supply chains. Drawing on mapping, interviews and case studies across multiple commodities and regions, the research examines the actors, structures and traceability challenges that define this stage of the supply chain.

What emerged across commodities?

Across all commodities, the first mile is dominated by independent smallholders operating with limited resources, minimal infrastructure and often outside formal regulatory frameworks. Producers typically rely on intermediaries, including local collectors, traders and agents, for market access, transport and credit.

While these intermediaries play a vital role in enabling trade, their operations are frequently informal, undocumented and poorly integrated into traceability systems.

Formal documentation often only begins at mills or processors, making it difficult to trace volumes back to plot level. This not only increases the risk of mixing and substitution, but also of smallholders being left out of supply chain participation. Poorly designed traceability initiatives can inadvertently displace these actors, while inclusive systems have the potential to empower smallholders, improve incomes and formalise intermediary roles in ways that strengthen both equity and efficiency.

Where governance strengthens or weakens traceability

Governance and formalisation are key factors in first mile success. Countries with strong regulatory frameworks and centralised oversight demonstrate higher levels of traceability and fewer unlicensed actors.

Where governance is fragmented, informality persists within the first mile, requiring flexible, context-sensitive solutions that balance regulation with practical support for smallholders and intermediaries.

What stronger first mile traceability looks like in practice

The research highlighted several practical recommendations for building traceable systems that are resilient, inclusive and adaptable to evolving realities on the ground:

design for inclusion: through low-barrier entry points such as mobile-based registration tools, enabling group-level traceability, and recognition of intermediaries’ local networks and relationships to help connect remote producers to markets.
strengthen digital access and skills: pair digital rollouts with training and capacity building to ensure traceability tools are usable and effective. Shared access models can help bridge the digital divide.
support cooperative and group models: cooperatives and producer groups can provide aggregation, governance structures and social and environmental services, helping formalise roles without displacing local intermediaries.
balance formalisation with flexibility: use hybrid systems and phased requirements to gradually integrate informal actors. Requirements should be tailored to commodity, geography and actor type.
encourage engagement at first points of processing: mills and processors can strengthen traceability by working with intermediaries and sharing responsibility for traceable supply, including through cost-sharing mechanisms that recognise their contributions.
promote collaborative approaches: governments, companies, NGOs, sustainability systems, and producer organisations need to work together to align incentives, share data and scale successful first mile initiatives.
focus on impact over granularity: combine plot-level traceability with risk-based and landscape-level approaches to tackle systemic issues across entire regions and support inclusive supply chains.

Strengthening inclusive first mile traceability requires collaborative approaches that bring together governments, companies, NGOs, sustainability systems and producer organisations.

By combining digital tools, physical infrastructure and local expertise, supply chains can become more traceable, equitable and resilient, ensuring smallholders remain an integral part of sustainable agricultural production.

Explore the research

Full report: mapping first-mile actors, structures and traceability challenges across commodities and countries.
Executive summary: highlighting key findings and practical recommendations.
Case studies: highlighting scalable lessons from inclusive supply chains and diverse first-mile traceability approaches, from government- to producer-led systems across commodities and landscapes.

Together, these resources provide evidence-based insights for companies, governments and sustainability systems seeking to strengthen traceability, manage risk and support smallholder inclusion at the first mile.

This publication was produced by Proforest and commissioned by ISEAL. The research included in this report was made possible through funding by Walmart/Walmart Foundation and UK International Development from the UK government.

The findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report are those of Proforest Initiative alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of ISEAL, Walmart/Walmart Foundation, or the UK government.

How can sustainability systems improve accessibility through digital innovation?

Chloe B — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 09:29:29 +0000

How can sustainability systems improve accessibility through digital innovation? Chloe B Wed, 02/18/2026 - 09:29

Sustainability systems have the potential to increase their impact by designing digitally accessible standards that are easier for users to understand, navigate and apply.

Last year, we launched the ISEAL Code website to integrate user-friendly features to the ISEAL Code, increasing user understanding of requirements and improving access to supporting resources and guidance. In this blog, we highlight the need for accessibility, what users are looking for, and the role of digital solutions in achieving this.

The need for accessibility

The need for accessibility is clear when understanding the role sustainability systems play in setting ambitions to improve social and environmental performance. Users aiming to meet these ambitions rely on sustainability systems communicating clear and well-written standards that can be easily understood, consistently interpreted and applied.

When developing the ISEAL Code website, we conducted stakeholder interviews to identify the most common pain points preventing users from understanding, interpreting and applying clause requirements. We found that users were struggling to find relevant resources, understand the scope of the requirements, as well as aligning and translating technical terms, which often vary across industries.

We addressed these issues by linking our existing resources directly to relevant clauses within the ISEAL Code. Additionally, enhanced search and filter functions allow users to view and narrow down clauses by section and topics, such as due diligence, gender, integrity risks, and more. We also implemented an interactive glossary feature, that provides user definitions for key technical terms within clause requirements, and includes similar terms users may be familiar with.

Overall, these features equip users to build their own understanding of, and familiarity with, the scope of the ISEAL Code and its requirements.

What users are looking for

Sustainability systems are looking to drive meaningful change at scale, which often means reaching out to a wide range of audiences to achieve these ambitions. To do this, it is important they can communicate the value and potential use-cases for their standards to a variety of different users, including technical and non-technical users, such as businesses and policymakers.

We conducted a multistakeholder consultation during the development of the ISEAL Code – which involved over 400 stakeholders from 205 organisations, across 48 countries. Through this process,we recognised that different user groups have different entry points to engagement, and that they each required a different approach to match their user journey.

When developing the ISEAL Code website, we worked with developers at Salad to ensure that we only introduced digital enhancements that enabled users to navigate and discover relevant information in an intuitive manner. Supporting pages such as the About page and the FAQ page, allow users with varying levels of familiarity with the ISEAL Code to find relevant information tailored to their needs.

The role of digital solutions

Digital solutions play a key role in not just increasing the use and understanding of sustainability standards, but also in supporting the uptake of credible practice. Beyond the interactive features within clauses, the Resource library on the ISEAL Code website has allowed for greater discoverability of existing credibility resources on our other platforms. It demonstrates a commitment to putting in practice the Credibility Principles related to Transparency, Reliability and Continual Improvement.

Sustainability systems have an opportunity to bridge the gap between the ambitions set out in their standards, and those who will be driving the meaningful changes, by creating unique solutions tailored to the needs and priorities of their users.

Lessons from a large-scale sustainable agriculture programme in South India

Chloe B — Mon, 16 Feb 2026 09:16:34 +0000

Lessons from a large-scale sustainable agriculture programme in South India Chloe B Mon, 02/16/2026 - 09:16

In this overview, Laura Monikowska summarises key insights from a recent Evidensia blog by Dr Iris Berger and Dr Oscar Morton, which examines new evidence from South India’s Zero Budget Natural Farming programme, showing that agroecology can increase farmer profits, maintain crop yields, and support biodiversity at scale. These findings offer timely insights as sustainability systems explore how to deliver meaningful, wide-reaching outcomes.

Evidence from the world’s largest agroecological programme

In the blog, Can farmers increase profits while enhancing biodiversity and maintaining crop yields?, Berger and Morton share findings from their research on a Zero Budget Natural Farming (ZBNF) programme in Andhra Pradesh, India. The programme operates across approximately 64,000 km², roughly the size of Sri Lanka, making it the largest agroecological initiative in the world.

Agroecology offers a framework for redesigning the food system. It integrates ecological principles into farming, alongside social and political dimensions that focus on equity, diversity, and resilience. The approach already features prominently in national and international sustainability agendas. For example, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework includes a target involving upscaling agroecological practices, and the UN Food Systems Summit identified agroecology as one of the systemic levers for change.

Despite this policy momentum, rigorous evaluations of large-scale agroecological programmes remain limited, leaving uncertainty about whether they can deliver both socioeconomic and biodiversity benefits. The research discussed in the blog helps address this gap by evaluating how ZBNF compares with conventional, agrichemical-based farming systems across multiple outcomes.

Higher profits, stable yields, and gains for biodiversity

The study compared 26 ZBNF and conventional agricultural landscapes to assess farmer profits, crop yields, and bird biodiversity.

Key findings include:

farmers practising ZBNF more than doubled the profits of those using agrichemical-based systems, primarily due to lower input costs.
crop yields under ZBNF were equivalent to those observed in conventional systems.
ZBNF landscapes supported higher bird densities, including those that feed on agricultural pests.
trade-offs between bird abundance, yields, and profits were less pronounced in ZBNF landscapes than in conventional farming systems.

The research also found that most species of high conservation concern were largely restricted to nearby forest habitats, highlighting the continued importance of protecting and restoring natural ecosystems alongside agroecological farming.

What this evidence means for sustainability systems

The findings offer insights for sustainability systems seeking to understand how farm-level practices can contribute to landscape-level outcomes. In particular, they highlight the potential for agroecological approaches to deliver environmental and livelihood benefits when implemented across large programmes, rather than through small-scale or pilot initiatives.

Read the full Evidensia blog.

Find out more:

Dive into the full research paper.
Explore other research on landscape approaches in the agriculture sector.
Learn more about ISEAL’s work on sustainable landscapes.

Podcast: Traceability, transparency and trust: why they matter in business

Chloe B — Mon, 09 Feb 2026 11:23:54 +0000

Podcast: Traceability, transparency and trust: why they matter in business Chloe B Mon, 02/09/2026 - 11:23

In a world of tightening regulation and rising scrutiny, trust is built through clear evidence and accountability.

As regulations tighten and accountability expectations rise, businesses must show where materials come from and how they move through supply chains. What was once a sustainability issue is now a core business concern, shaping compliance, risk management, credibility, and a licence to operate.

In this episode, Josh Taylor, Traceability Manager at ISEAL, explains why traceability matters more than ever and how systems are evolving to meet new demands.

Listen on Spotify, YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music or your preferred podcast platform.

A pathway to prosperity: why landscape and jurisdictional approaches matter for smallholders

Chloe B — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 16:38:49 +0000

A pathway to prosperity: why landscape and jurisdictional approaches matter for smallholders Chloe B Fri, 01/16/2026 - 16:38

Across Asia, landscape and jurisdictional approaches (LJAs) are gaining traction beyond deforestation, and are now increasingly recognised for their role in supporting smallholder inclusion and improving livelihoods. In turn, these approaches are helping to address income insecurity – often a root cause driving unsustainable land use.

Putting livelihoods at the centre

Landscape approaches respond to the need for complex sustainability issues to be addressed systematically, with a holistic focus on interconnected root causes. To prevent deforestation, a key priority is improving smallholder livelihoods. In many regions, farmers still face unstable markets, weak tenure systems, climate shocks, and rising production costs.

In regions like Riau in Indonesia, more than half of forest cover has been lost since 2001, and situation is not uncommon across Southeast Asia. It's clear that in places with significant deforestation, farmers cannot earn a decent living from the land they have and pressure on forests will continue.

This reality is helping to shape landscape thinking. ISEAL’s Core Criteria for Mature Landscape Initiatives makes it clear that landscape initiatives can only succeed when environmental goals are combined with social and economic outcomes, supported by strong governance structures. In practice, this means creating conditions for:

stable and diversified incomes
secure land and tenure rights
access to services, markets, and social protection
opportunities for long-term resilience

In 2025 ISEAL identified 112 landscape initiatives worldwide with publicly declared targets related to livelihoods. Many Indonesian initiatives already focus on economic resilience, sustainable land management, and tenure, demonstrating clear momentum in this direction.

However, challenges remain. Data on livelihoods is often inconsistent and does not fully capture how rural households earn and manage income, highlighting the need for better measurement based on a shared understanding of a decent standard of living.

Landscapes create the conditions for inclusion

Inclusion is a core component of effective smallholder support and resilience in landscapes, and LJAs provide a platform to bring governments, companies, communities, and civil society together. But inclusion does not happen automatically.

ISEAL recently joined two linked events in Jakarta, Indonesia: The Pathways for Income Improvement workshop hosted by the Living Income Community of Practice, and the Landscape Practitioner Workshop hosted by ISEAL and LTKL. These events brought together governments, NGOs, research institutions, and businesses to explore how landscape collaboration can create better conditions for rural communities. Together, they demonstrated how landscape efforts can support both resilient ecosystems and thriving local economies.

Indonesia provided an ideal backdrop. With complex challenges ranging from deforestation and biodiversity loss to land rights and rural poverty, the country has become a global reference for landscape action. It is also a place where multi-stakeholder partnerships are showing what is possible when environmental, social and economic goals come together. Participants highlighted several essentials for inclusive landscape work:

Government commitment from planning to implementation, with realistic and inclusive goal setting
Strong facilitation and multi-stakeholder governance, particularly at the district and village levels
Intentional strategies to ensure indigenous communities, women, youth, and marginalised groups are not only consulted but actively shape decisions
Reliable baseline data to understand needs and track progress

Across sessions, land tenure and legalisation emerged as a foundation for improving livelihoods. Without secure rights, smallholders cannot plan, invest, or benefit fully from landscape efforts.

The role of living income in landscape approaches

While landscape initiatives increasingly recognise the importance of economic well-being, the workshops highlighted living income as a practical way to put this into practice. Benchmarks from across Indonesia show that many rural households earn far less than what is needed for a decent standard of living. No single intervention will close this gap, but a living income approach gives landscapes:

a shared economic goal alongside environmental targets
a common measurement framework for tracking income improvements
a clearer understanding of how much different factors contribute to the living income gap, helping to prioritise interventions such as crop diversification, access to finance, fairer prices, or land legality
a foundation for aligning public and private investment

During the workshops, we heard promising examples. In Aceh (one of the provinces hardest hit by the recent devastating floods in Indonesia), introducing living income benchmarks and income assessments is helping shape a roadmap for smallholder income improvement. Participants emphasised the importance of diversified livelihoods, supportive public policies, and non-financial incentives.

At the same time, they noted challenges. Indicators vary widely across landscapes and often miss important income sources. A landscape-wide living income framework could help create consistency, better target actions, and demonstrate credible progress toward closing the income gap.

Ultimately, integrating living income into LJAs could strengthen their potential to drive socioeconomic transformation, ensuring that landscape efforts lead to real improvements in people’s lives.

A new era for landscape collaboration

Across both workshops, one message stood out: landscapes are becoming platforms for rural prosperity, where environmental and economic outcomes are interconnected.

For landscape initiatives to deliver on this promise, three priorities stand out:

Strengthening inclusive governance and land rights, so communities shape and benefit from landscape decisions.
Aligning investments, policies, and private-sector action around shared goals supported by reliable data.
Embedding living income as a core objective, giving landscapes a measurable economic foundation.

There are still hurdles: uneven livelihood data, limited capacity, and financing gaps, but the shift in direction is clear.

As landscape initiatives mature across Asia and beyond, success will be measured not only by the forests they protect but by the opportunities they create for the people who steward them. Sustainable landscapes require sustainable livelihoods and living income approaches have the potential to help make this future a reality.

To support this shift ISEAL, alongside leading landscape practitioners, have developed the Core Criteria for Mature Landscape Initiatives to provide a simple and consistent understanding of the core elements needed for effective and inclusive landscape initiatives. The Core Criteria is available in English, Bahasa Indonesian, French, Portuguese, and Spanish.