Scientific Validation

Most supply chain mapping and product tracking efforts – even those supported with backbone technologies that uphold data integrity – are reliant on accurate data capture and input, which can be prone to user error, fraud, or other gaps. Approaches such as microbiome testing or use of satellite imaging can provide a check on – or complementary validation information to – supply chain mapping and product tracking findings already surfaced by other methods.

How can Scientific Validation help combat forced labor and child labor in supply chains?

Gaps or inaccuracies from other traceability methods mean that some workplaces in supply chains – and therefore the conditions for workers there – may remain hidden. In some cases, unauthorized subcontracting or unreported/undocumented input or procurement may introduce additional risk to supply chains that is not disclosed to downstream customers. Most means of providing Scientific Validation are not means of tracing products through a supply chain or gaining insight into supply chain actors. Instead, they offer an opportunity to triangulate, validate, or confirm previously surfaced information. They can act as spot-checks that help close knowledge gaps around mapping or product tracking methods. The assurances provided via these methods can help strengthen claims about responsible sourcing made to external stakeholders such as government regulators, advocates, and consumers. They can also help downstream companies identify places where their traceability and due diligence systems may need strengthening or adjustments.

This section discusses three primary types of forensic analysis & testing for the purposes of supply chain traceability: isotopic testing, microbiome testing, and DNA testing.

Isotope testing: Living things, like plants or animals, have inherently occurring isotopic ratios that can be used to create unique fingerprints which vary based on their geographic area. Isotopic testing approaches can analyze these fingerprints, allowing for verification of the geographic origin of that material. For example, cotton grown in Australia has a different isotopic fingerprint than cotton grown in Egypt. If a garment manufacturer is seeking to fill an order for a multinational company to produce t-shirts made with Australian cotton, that manufacturer could potentially utilize isotopic testing to confirm that the textile inputs it procures match with the isotopic fingerprint of Australian-grown cotton. This testing requires a reference library containing samples of relevant materials as a benchmark for comparison so in this case, reference samples of Australian cotton would be required to facilitate testing. The results of that isotope testing could then be offered to the manufacturer’s clients, offering supportive evidence of compliance with their specifications.

Microbiome testing: Similarly, different areas of the world have different microbes that create unique microbiome fingerprints. When any type of material transits through an area, it picks up some of that microbiome fingerprint, often in the form of trace surface material like dust. Whereas isotopic testing can only be used to confirm the origin of plants or animals, microbiome testing can be used with any type of material and can confirm transit points as well as origin. In the supply chain traceability context, that microbiome fingerprint can be tested to confirm the locations in which a material or a batch of materials was produced, processed, or otherwise present. For example, a multinational company may want to confirm that a shipment of sneakers was manufactured in facilities in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico, as claimed by the supplier. By testing the microbiome present on the sneakers themselves – as well as any packaging – and comparing it to the microbiomes known to be present in Guanajuato, the downstream company can confirm the suppliers’ claims. If the microbiome found on the shipment of sneakers is not found to match the microbiome fingerprint of Guanajuato, the customer may wish to further evaluate whether their supplier is engaging in unauthorized subcontracting and production in other geographic regions. This type of analysis is known as microbiome testing. As with isotopic testing, microbiome testing requires the collection of a reference library of microbiomes found in target locations.

DNA testing: In addition to isotope testing and microbiome testing, two types of DNA testing can provide Scientific Validation of supply chain information: inherent and applied DNA testing.

Inherent DNA testing: A third type of scientific testing utilizes the inherent DNA of a plant or animal to confirm the species or other characteristic of the material. This type of inherent DNA testing is primarily used to confirm the type of species of a plant or animal sourced. For example, inherent DNA testing has been used to confirm the fish or meat species procured by downstream food retailers and to confirm the type of cotton in a shipment. While the focus of inherent DNA is on species/type, there is also a use case for inherent DNA in confirming the source regions of some materials because different varieties or species of some crops, like cotton, are found in different geographies.

Additive DNA testing: In this approach, a unique DNA marker is added to the product at specific supply chain nodes. This allows a backwards look at the geographic history of a good. However, this additive approach differs from the other methods discussed here in a critical way: it requires proactive engagement with upstream suppliers at key supply chain points so that they are able to apply the material, and therefore is often utilized in Identity Preservation Product Tracking approaches. This specific approach is covered in more detail in the Additive Tracers section of the Technology Page.

The methods outlined above are typically backwards looking; they enable downstream supply chain actors such as upper tier manufacturers or multinational companies to identify the origin and/or geographic transit points of a specific physical good or batch of goods.

These methods are most efficient at confirming sourcing claims; that is, they rely on samples from a known origin or species to be used as comparison against the tested sample. Unless a catalogue of known samples from around the world is available, these methods cannot reliably provide an initial identification of a geographic point of origin or transit. Therefore, these methods are most efficient when they are used alongside other means of supply chain tracing. These methods have gained attention as companies seek methods to offer proof that imported goods or materials were not produced or processed in regions known to have extremely high labor or human rights risk.

These methods can be helpful not only in “screening in” – clarifying exactly where a product or material is from or has passed through, but also in “screening out” – confirming where a product or material is NOT from or has NOT passed through. The latter scenario can be helpful if certain origin locations are known to be high risk.

How can Forensic Analysis & Testing help combat forced labor and child labor in supply chains?

What are some examples of Forensic Analysis & Testing that could be used to combat forced labor and child labor in action?

• Timber traceability using isotope analysis
• Tracing Organic Cotton from Farm to Consumer Pilot Project

What supply chain characteristics would support the use of Forensic Analysis & Testing?

• The production of a good occurs in a number of geographies, with highly differing labor risk profiles.
• There are high-risk production areas in a context where remediation is not feasible – like situations of state-sponsored forced labor – motivating companies and suppliers to want to definitively eliminate procurement from those geographies.
• Supply chains where companies are already implementing other traceability methods – such as product tracking and supply chain mapping and/or there is a lack of confidence in mapping or tracking information already collected – either in terms of origin or downstream processing/manufacturing.
• Downstream companies lack relationships or the ability to engage with upstream suppliers due to the nature of sourcing/procurement arrangements.
• Consumer/regulator demand for assurances is tied to the physical product; forensic testing allows companies to make claims regarding origin or transit points for a specific physical product or batch of products.

What tools and technologies can support Forensic Analysis & Testing?

In the context of supply chain traceability, geospatial analysis refers to the use of geographical information systems – including satellite imaging – to validate information relevant to the location (the WHERE) of worksites. This is directly relevant to labor rights due diligence when there may be suspicions that a supplier is engaging in unauthorized and undisclosed sub-contracting – thereby obscuring the worksites of many workers. For example, imaging can be used to determine whether suppliers are present at the location reported in voluntary disclosures. Similarly, geospatial data can be used to verify the approximate size of a supplier – and estimated production capacity based on size – allowing for triangulation against volumes of goods delivered.

Satellite imaging can also be used to support assessment of the degree to which business practices are impacting workers and their communities; for example, whether mining operations have contributed to deforestation and livelihood disruption in a target area, leaving workers vulnerable to risky forms of work. Geospatial data may also come via the use of satellite enabled transponders that can provide insight as an object or worksite moves through space. For example, AIS transponders are used to visualize geographical movements of fishing vessels.

How can Geospatial Analysis help combat forced labor and child labor in supply chains?

What are some examples of Geospatial Analysis that could be used to combat forced labor and child labor in action?

• Identifying forced labor risk on fishing vessels using machine learning and satellite data
• Brick kiln monitoring using satellite imaging

What supply chain characteristics would support the use of Geospatial Analysis?

• Lack of confidence in information regarding geographic footprint of suppliers/facilities already collected, particularly when other indicators point to unauthorized subcontracting or otherwise obscured points of production of processing.
• Raw material production or the presence of other supplier types in supply chain is likely to have a detrimental impact on local communities, particularly when indicators of impact are likely to be visible on a large scale – for example, deforestation, destruction of local communities, desertification, highly intensified migrations, etc.

What tools and technologies can support Geospatial Analysis?