UN Blockchain Talks #6: What real supply chains demand from traceability systems

By the time a product or service reaches the end user, most of the difficult work has already been done elsewhere. Someone had to collect the right data and keep it attached to the right goods. Another person had to verify it and carry it through a chain involving tens of actors. Crucially, traceability only becomes relevant when records survive the chain itself – this was the real subject of the sixth UN Blockchain Talks.

This session was valuable because it remained grounded to that reality. Three industry leaders and practitioners — Sam Lambert of zenGate Global, Mark Kaplan of Wholechain, and André Vanyi-Robin of Plastiks — spoke about the conditions that make traceability work, or fail, once systems leave the slide deck and meet the field.

The session began with the challenging process of data capture in the upstream reality, then moved on to the middle of the chain, where records need to be transferred between different parties and systems. Later on, we moved on to plastic recovery, where weak records are becoming increasingly difficult to justify to auditors and regulators. By the end of the Talk, the audience had gained a more practical understanding of what trustworthy traceability actually demands than a general case for blockchain.

The first problem is rarely technical

Sam Lambert opened with a phrase that stayed with the rest of the session: “bush to boardroom.” His point was that the people setting the rules for compliance, risk and reporting are often far removed from the people expected to collect the first data.

In agricultural supply chains, for example, traceability often begins in places with poor connectivity and manual processes. These places also have limited training and strong local systems of trust that do not automatically align with the logic of a digital compliance framework. Sam put it bluntly: “Technology isn’t a silver bullet. In fact, I think it often just exposes where the issues are.”

He also made a point that deserves to be heard beyond this session: “We’re here to design systems around people.” This may sound obvious, but much of the traceability sector still operates in the opposite way. New systems are introduced and new reporting demands are added, placing the burden on communities that were not involved in the initial design process. Sam’s remarks brought the conversation back to the ground: consent, training, workable workflows, offline functionality and field conditions are all integral to the system.

Good records are not enough if they cannot move

Mark Kaplan continued the discussion at the point where products move beyond the first mile and enter a more crowded supply chain. Here, the focus shifts to whether that data can travel with the goods in a form that can be used by others.

Even if a supply chain has portals, dashboards, audits and QR codes, it may still fall short of real traceability if the records are not tied to actual lots and transformation events. Mark described Wholechain’s approach as event-based and grounded in GS1 standards, with records that remain linked to the movement of physical goods.

That is where his remarks on fatigue landed well. When Sam spoke about farmer fatigue, Mark added another phrase to the session: “Portal fatigue.” He used this term to describe the situation where people in the middle of the supply chain are forced to work across disconnected, non-interoperable proprietary systems. Traceability improves when data can be understood by different systems without losing meaning. This is why standards were so important in Mark’s discussion.

In waste recovery, weak proof is no longer enough

André Vanyi-Robin took the session into plastic recovery, where the pressure for stronger records is no longer theoretical. He stated clearly: “There is no traceable proof of recovery. The existing standard practice are spreadsheets, which obviously don’t survive the audits.”

He described a sector where data is fragmented among recyclers, producers, and regulators, and there is no shared connection strong enough to support compliance reporting. In that setting, blockchain technology is important because it provides a continuous record. It stores proof without exposing sensitive commercial data. As he explained, “You have verifiable proof of impact without exposing sensitive data.”

André also tied this back to everyday implementation. In his view, the answer is not to force companies into yet another cumbersome platform, but rather to integrate with existing ERP and product information systems, and “not force additional complexities at the level of verification”.

The stronger lesson sat between the talk

The value of the session came from how these three perspectives met. Sam dealt with first-mile reality and the human side of system design. Mark dealt with standards, interoperability and how records stay attached to goods. André dealt with compliance-grade proof and what happens once records carry legal and financial weight.

Seen together, the message was that blockchain becomes useful only when the rest of the system is already serious about data, process and trust.

Missed our talk? Watch the recording here.  

You can also explore previous Blockchain Talks sessions in our YouTube Playlist.

Get involved

The UN Blockchain Community of Practice (CoP) works best when colleagues bring practical questions, field-tested lessons and cases that challenge easy assumptions.

For more details or suggestions, contact Ben Thompson Coon, UN Blockchain CoP Lead; ben.thompsoncoon@undp.org