The Purpose Isn't Better Data. It's Better Decisions.
A GO TRACE interview with Fleur Meerman - van den Heuvel, international moderator, facilitator and strategic sustainability advisor. Her argument is a useful corrective to the “collect more data” reflex: traceability depends less on technology than on governance, trust and a risk-based approach, and the point of better information is better decisions.
As sustainability, traceability and regulatory expectations evolve, how do you see the role of data changing within companies?
One thing I have realised over the years is that most companies already have much more information than they think.
The challenge is not collecting more data. It is connecting reliable information that already exists and understanding where important gaps remain.
I have seen sustainability teams spend years building knowledge through factory visits, audits and conversations with suppliers. At the same time, trade compliance teams hold import and export data, buying teams know which suppliers are growing, which relationships are under pressure and where quality issues keep coming back, and legal teams are preparing Forced Labour Statements or Modern Slavery Statements.
Too often, those pieces of information never come together.
As companies prepare for the Digital Product Passport and other due diligence legislation, I think they should first ask themselves one simple question.
Who in our organisation might already have this information?
Only after that should they ask what additional data they need to collect.
That requires more than investment in systems. It requires organisations to be clear about who owns different data points, who brings information together and, perhaps most importantly, who has the mandate to act when the information points to a risk.
For me, that is where the role of data is changing. It is becoming less about reporting and much more about understanding what is really happening in your supply chain and making better business decisions as a result.
Because data does not improve supply chains. People making better decisions do.
Companies often focus heavily on collecting data, but less on what happens afterwards. What do you think organisations still underestimate about turning data into meaningful decisions?
One question I increasingly ask companies is: Why are we collecting this information?
Not because the data is not useful, but because every data point should support a decision.
I have seen companies ask suppliers to report temperatures during periods of extreme heat. That is valuable information. But if it is not connected to operational decisions, it does not improve anything. Are orders being placed while extreme heat is expected? Should delivery schedules be adjusted? Should buyers and suppliers agree upfront how to protect workers during those periods?
The same applies much more broadly.
I have seen companies spend months collecting new information while someone elsewhere in the organisation already had part of the answer. Before asking suppliers for more data, it is worth asking who internally might already know something that helps complete the picture.
For me, that is the shift companies still underestimate.
Collecting data is only the first step. The purpose is not better data. It is better decisions. The real value comes when you connect information, use it to prioritise the biggest risks and let it influence the decisions people make every day.
Otherwise, you are simply becoming better at documenting problems instead of solving them.
In practice, who should “own” sustainability and traceability data inside a company? Sustainability teams, sourcing, compliance, IT, leadership… or does this require a different governance approach?
I actually think companies are often asking the wrong question.
The discussion is usually about who should own sustainability or traceability data. From my experience, the more important question is how organisations make sure the right information reaches the right people and ultimately leads to better decisions.
The challenge is not deciding that one department should own everything. It is making sure different pieces of information come together.
I recently worked with a company that had a well-developed sustainability policy, approved by the board. But once the policy had been signed off, it was not always clear who was responsible for making sure it was implemented across the organisation. Buying continued to be measured mainly on price, which is understandable because companies also need to remain competitive. The problem was that those objectives were not connected to the sustainability commitments the company had made.
That, for me, is exactly why governance matters in practice. It is not the policy that was missing. It was clarity about who owns implementation, who connects the different objectives and who has the mandate to act.
The Digital Product Passport is a good example. If companies treat it simply as a requirement to collect more information, they miss the bigger opportunity. The real question is how that information can help identify risks, improve decisions and ultimately contribute to better outcomes for workers and the environment.
That is why, before discussing new systems or new data requests, I usually ask companies five simple questions.
- Who in the organisation might already have this information?
- What decision or change are we hoping this information will enable?
- Who owns each piece of information?
- Who is responsible for bringing the different pieces together?
- And who has the mandate to act on what we learn?
For me, good governance is not about deciding which department owns sustainability data. It is about making sure the organisation can use the knowledge it already has to better understand its biggest risks and make better decisions for the business, for workers and for the environment.
Traceability is often discussed as a technical or data challenge. To what extent do you think it is actually an organisational and governance challenge?
I think we sometimes make traceability sound much simpler than it really is.
Technology plays an essential role in making information more accessible, improving data quality and connecting different parts of the supply chain. But technology alone does not tell you where to focus your efforts or what decisions to make. Before you can trace a product, you first need to understand the product itself.
What are the different production steps? Which facilities are involved? Where are the biggest environmental and human rights risks likely to occur? And if a supplier tells you where your product was made, do you understand the process well enough to know whether that answer is complete?
That is why I do not think companies should start by asking, “How do we trace everything?”
A much better starting point is, “Where do we have the highest risks, and what information do we need to better understand them?”
For a textile company, for example, wet processing may be a logical place to start because it can involve significant environmental impacts as well as risks to workers and surrounding communities. But the priority will depend on the company’s own supply chain, products and risk profile. In another context, a specific raw material, production process or geography may require more urgent attention.
And this is exactly where traceability becomes an organisational and governance challenge. Someone needs to decide where better visibility is most urgently needed, bring together the right expertise to make that assessment and be clear about who has the mandate to act on what the data reveals. Those are not technical decisions. They are governance decisions.
A risk-based approach helps companies make those choices. It allows them to focus traceability efforts where better visibility is most urgently needed, rather than trying to map everything at once.
For me, traceability is not the end goal. It is a tool that helps companies understand where their biggest risks are and focus their efforts where they can make the biggest difference.
You work extensively on facilitating discussions between companies, policymakers and other stakeholders. What tensions or recurring questions do you see emerging most often around sustainability and supply chain accountability today?
One thing that keeps coming back in the conversations I moderate is trust.
Companies want more transparency from suppliers. Policymakers expect better evidence. NGOs ask for greater accountability. But suppliers increasingly want to know why information is being collected, how it will be used and whether sharing it will ultimately contribute to a stronger partnership.
They are also often asked for similar information by multiple customers in different formats. If companies want better data, they have a responsibility to reduce duplication and make sharing information worthwhile.
That is why I believe collaboration is becoming increasingly important. No single organisation can build a complete picture of global supply chains on its own.
One of the reasons I enjoy serving on the Board of Open Supply Hub is that it demonstrates how collaboration can reduce the burden on suppliers. Instead of every brand asking for the same facility information separately, companies can build on shared facility data and spend more time understanding risks, engaging suppliers and improving conditions.
For me, meaningful supply chain transparency is ultimately built on relationships, not just on data.
Through your work moderating and structuring multi-stakeholder conversations, what have you learned about the importance of trust, dialogue and shared ownership in supply chain transparency?
One of the biggest lessons from moderating conversations between companies, suppliers, policymakers and civil society is that transparency cannot be separated from responsible purchasing practices.
Companies increasingly ask suppliers to share detailed information and invest in improvements. But if commercial decisions remain focused only on price and short-term performance, it becomes much harder to build the trust needed for meaningful collaboration.
That lesson became very personal to me early in my career.
I remember visiting a supplier in Turkey where I was explaining our responsible sourcing expectations and the investments we wanted suppliers to make. He listened carefully and then said, “Fleur, I understand exactly what you are asking from us. But if you want us to invest, I need your buying team to commit to this factory for the longer term.”
At the time, I replied, “You should discuss that with buying, not with me.”
Looking back, I realise that was the wrong answer.
He was reminding me that commercial decisions and sustainability decisions are inseparable. That conversation has stayed with me ever since.
Supply chain transparency is not built by asking for more information. It is built by creating relationships where companies and suppliers trust each other enough to solve problems together. That is when data becomes meaningful and better outcomes for workers and the environment become possible.
Looking ahead, what do you think companies should prioritise now if they want to build stronger and more credible approaches to sustainability, traceability and governance?
I would focus on three priorities.
First: stay risk-based. You do not need perfect traceability from day one. Start by understanding where your biggest environmental and human rights risks are, what information you need to better understand them and where action is most urgent. Trying to trace everything at once is a good way to make slow progress on what actually matters.
Second: invest as much in relationships as in processes. Good supply chain transparency depends on suppliers being willing to share honest information. That requires companies to be clear about why they are asking for it, how it will be used and how both sides can work together on what the information reveals. Trust takes time and consistency to build.
Third: let technology accelerate what you have already built. Once you are clear on the decisions you are trying to improve and the risks you want to address, the right technology can genuinely help. It can connect information faster, improve its reliability and make it easier for people across the organisation to act on what they learn. But technology works best when the governance foundation is already there.
Ultimately, credibility will not come from having the most data. It will come from showing that better information leads to better decisions and, ultimately, better outcomes for workers, the environment and the business.
Fleur Meerman - van den Heuvel is an international moderator, facilitator and strategic sustainability advisor who helps organisations make better decisions on complex sustainability, traceability and governance challenges. More information: www.fleurmeerman.com.