Shifting focus: how end-to-end supply chain traceability is moving into the boardroom

End-to-end traceability is moving out of the operations department and into the boardroom. As OpenText argues in its blog on supply chain visibility, the pressure now comes from several directions at once: tougher regulation, rising customer demands, sustainability reporting that must be evidenced, and the need to spot disruption before it spreads.

That shift is being accelerated by the Digital Product Passport, a concept that is turning traceability into a compliance requireme...

nt as well as a commercial one. A guide from Traceable Digital describes the DPP as a structured, machine-readable record that follows a product through its lifecycle, while Informatica notes that manufacturers, importers and distributors will need reliable product and operator identifiers if they are to meet emerging EU expectations and maintain interoperability. In practice, that means traceability is no longer just about knowing where a product has been. It is about proving what it is, what happened to it, and when the information changed.

The difficulty is that most supply chains are not neat, linear chains at all. They are sprawling networks of suppliers, logistics firms, manufacturers, retailers and service partners, often spread across different systems and jurisdictions. That complexity creates familiar problems: inconsistent item and batch identifiers, fragmented data ownership, uneven data quality and a lack of clear governance. OpenText says that is why promises of a simple technical fix tend to fall short. End-to-end visibility depends on data discipline, operating processes and the ability to work across an ecosystem, not on a single dashboard.

Recent industry examples suggest the model is becoming more practical. In March, Nasdaq reported that a leading grocery retailer had achieved end-to-end traceability under the US Food and Drug Administration’s Food Safety Modernization Act Section 204 requirements using automated traceability software. The point is not that every sector faces the same regulatory trigger, but that large-scale traceability is increasingly feasible when the underlying data capture is embedded into day-to-day operations rather than bolted on afterwards.

Digital Product Passports are a useful lens for understanding this. The QR code or similar consumer-facing marker is only the visible layer. Beneath it sits a much larger architecture: product master data, lifecycle events, shipping and custody records, partner integrations, content management and analytics. OpenText says the real challenge is to keep that information trusted, governed and auditable across systems and over time. If the foundation is weak, the customer-facing experience becomes unreliable, and compliance risk rises with it.

That is also why standards matter. GS1 Digital Link and 2D barcodes are increasingly important because they can connect a single product identity to several different uses at once, from regulatory information and recall instructions to authentication and consumer engagement. The same identifier can support compliance, anti-counterfeit checks and downstream service, but only if the data behind it is consistent.

Counterfeit goods and grey-market diversion are another reason companies are investing. OpenText frames them not only as security problems but also as threats to margin and brand trust. Item-level serialisation, often through QR codes, can reveal repeated scans, unexpected geography and other anomalies that point to diversion or fakes. For high-value or highly regulated goods, that makes traceability a commercial control as much as a compliance tool.

Not every product needs item-level serialisation from the start, and many firms are learning to be selective. QR codes are relatively low-cost and can support both tracking and engagement. RFID can improve throughput in controlled environments. IoT sensors matter most where temperature, shock or location conditions need to be monitored. The most effective programmes, OpenText suggests, begin with the highest-value blind spots rather than trying to instrument everything at once.

The same logic applies to recalls. The reputational damage from a poorly managed recall can easily outweigh the direct financial cost, and precise traceability can limit both disruption and waste. When a company can identify the affected items quickly and guide customers or partners to the right action, it preserves trust as well as operational control.

In that sense, traceability has become less about reporting and more about response. The real value lies in being able to trigger the right workflow at the right time: flag a suspicious shipment, update a product record, narrow a recall, or show a customer the correct information for a specific item. Visibility only matters when it leads to action.

For organisations beginning this journey, the most sensible path is usually incremental. OpenText recommends starting with a small number of high-value use cases, such as DPP readiness, counterfeit detection or recall precision, and then defining what success looks like. From there, companies can identify the critical data elements, establish ownership and governance, connect partner and internal systems, and design for exception handling rather than passive reporting. The aim is to prove value in one area before extending the model more broadly.

That pragmatic approach is increasingly important as traceability moves from aspiration to expectation. The companies that treat it as a strategic operating capability, rather than a technology purchase, are likely to be the ones best placed to meet the next wave of regulatory, commercial and customer demands.

Source: Noah Wire Services