LAYER 2: LANDSCAPES & JURISDICTIONS
Assessment & Verification
Building credible landscape claims – the tools, criteria, and guidance that separate genuine engagement from greenwashing.
In 30 Seconds
Landscape claims without verification are greenwashing risk. Of 309 landscape and jurisdictional disclosures assessed by CDP in 2023, 50% failed credibility criteria. The problem isn't engagement – it's evidence.
The Challenge
Companies claim “landscape engagement” but can't demonstrate scale, governance, collective action, or monitoring.
The Solution
Structured assessment frameworks, third-party verification, and clear criteria that separate credible claims from vague statements.
Key insight: Verification isn't just about avoiding criticism – it's about knowing whether your engagement is actually working. The same criteria that satisfy external scrutiny also tell you if you're creating real impact.
Where This Fits
This page covers the evidence layer for landscape claims – how to assess initiatives, verify engagement, and build defensible claims. Related pages cover the underlying methodology and engagement pathways:
Landscape Approaches
The methodology – ISEAL Core Criteria, governance models
Jurisdictional Programmes
Government-aligned models – LTKL, PCI, REDD+ nesting
Corporate Engagement
How companies participate – coalitions, sourcing, investment
Disclosure Data
Reporting frameworks – CDP, CSRD, TNFD
The Credibility Challenge
Landscape engagement claims are growing – but so is scrutiny. The gap between claimed engagement and verifiable action creates risk for companies and credibility problems for the entire landscape movement.
The 50% Failure Rate
CDP assessed 309 landscape and jurisdictional disclosures in 2023. Half failed basic credibility criteria.
67%
Scale
Not landscape-level boundaries
69%
Multi-Stakeholder
No genuine governance platform
64%
Collective Goals
Only sourcing objectives
80%
Monitoring
No credible collective tracking
Why It Matters for Companies
- • Greenwashing accusations – NGOs, media, regulators increasingly scrutinise claims
- • Regulatory exposure – EU Green Claims Directive requires substantiation
- • Investor concern – ESG ratings and PRI signatory expectations
- • Wasted investment – engagement without impact doesn't create value
Why It Matters for the Movement
- • Credibility erosion – weak claims undermine strong initiatives
- • Regulatory backlash – greenwashing drives restrictive rules
- • Buyer confusion – hard to distinguish genuine from performative
- • Impact dilution – resources spread to ineffective programmes
The Verification Gap
Most landscape initiatives lack independent verification. Companies report their own engagement; initiatives self-assess their progress. Without third-party assessment against agreed criteria, claims are inherently unverifiable. The tools exist to close this gap – but adoption remains limited.
The 4 Core Criteria
In October 2024, 20 leading organisations agreed on four essential criteria for “mature” landscape initiatives. This ISEAL-led consensus represents the closest thing to an industry standard for credible landscape engagement.
Signatories: ISEAL Alliance, CDP, Proforest, WWF, Gold Standard, Tropical Forest Alliance, LandScale (Rainforest Alliance + Verra + Conservation International), SourceUp, IDH, Consumer Goods Forum Forest Positive Coalition, and others.
This is industry self-regulation through consensus – influential through adoption, not enforcement.
Scale
Does the initiative operate at landscape level?
Requirements:
- • Defined geographic boundaries at landscape scale (typically 100,000+ hectares)
- • Boundaries aligned with ecological, administrative, or social unit
- • Coverage beyond individual farms, concessions, or supply chains
Common failure: Companies claiming landscape engagement for individual supplier programmes
CDP 2023: 67% of disclosures failed
Multi-Stakeholder Governance
Is there a platform with diverse participation?
Requirements:
- • Governance structure including multiple stakeholder groups
- • Government, private sector, civil society, communities represented
- • Genuine voice in decision-making, not just consultation
Common failure: Corporate-only coalitions without community or government participation
CDP 2023: 69% of disclosures failed
Collective Goals & Action
Are goals beyond individual sourcing objectives?
Requirements:
- • Shared goals that benefit the landscape as a whole
- • Conservation, livelihood, and governance objectives
- • Not just individual actors' supply chain interests
Common failure: Calling supply chain programmes "landscape approaches"
CDP 2023: 64% of disclosures failed
Monitoring & Reporting
Is there credible collective tracking?
Requirements:
- • System for tracking progress against collective goals
- • Transparent reporting accessible to stakeholders
- • Independent verification or third-party assessment
Common failure: Company-level reporting without landscape-level metrics
CDP 2023: 80% of disclosures failed
Using the Criteria
These criteria work for both assessment and design. Before engaging with a landscape initiative, assess it against these criteria. When designing your own engagement, build to meet them from the start. The criteria don't just help you avoid greenwashing – they indicate whether the initiative is structured for impact.
Assessment Tools
Several tools exist to assess landscape initiatives and track progress. The leading frameworks share common principles but serve different purposes.
LandScale
Rainforest Alliance + Verra + Conservation International
Comprehensive assessment framework for landscape sustainability. Measures performance across four pillars with maturity scoring.
Four Pillars:
Ecosystems: Natural capital, biodiversity, ecosystem services
Human Wellbeing: Livelihoods, food security, health, equity
Production: Agricultural practices, yields, resource efficiency
Governance: Institutions, tenure, stakeholder engagement
Best for: Comprehensive landscape assessment, baseline setting, progress tracking
SourceUp
IDH Platform
Digital platform connecting buyers with producing regions. Enables formalised compacts with defined KPIs and progress tracking.
Key Features:
Compacts: Formal buyer-region agreements
KPI Tracking: Standardised metrics and reporting
Stakeholder Registry: Who's engaged in each landscape
Progress Dashboard: Transparent status and updates
Best for: Buyer-region coordination, structured engagement, public commitments
CDP Disclosure
Forests Questionnaire
Annual disclosure system covering forest-risk commodities. Includes landscape and jurisdictional engagement questions with credibility assessment.
Assessment Elements:
Credibility Matrix: Against ISEAL 4 criteria
Commodity Coverage: Palm, soy, timber, cattle, cocoa, coffee, rubber
Scoring: A to D- based on disclosure and action
Public Data: Responses available for comparison
Best for: Investor communication, peer benchmarking, annual reporting
| Tool | Primary Use | Verification Type | Public Data |
|---|---|---|---|
| LandScale | Landscape-level assessment | Third-party assessment option | Assessment reports (opt-in) |
| SourceUp | Buyer-region coordination | Self-reported with KPIs | Compact database, progress |
| CDP Forests | Corporate disclosure | Self-disclosure, scored | Full responses searchable |
| CDP States & Regions | Jurisdictional disclosure | Government self-report | Public dashboard |
Tool Selection
Different tools for different purposes. Use LandScale for comprehensive landscape assessment and baseline setting. Use SourceUp for structured buyer-region engagement with public commitments. Use CDP for investor communication and peer benchmarking. The tools are complementary, not competing.
Making Credible Claims
ISEAL and partners have published guidance on making defensible landscape claims. The principles: be specific, be verifiable, acknowledge shared responsibility.
Defensible Claims
✓ We participate in [named initiative] covering [region]
Specific, verifiable, bounded
✓ We invest in landscape programmes alongside [other actors]
Acknowledges collective action
✓ We source from jurisdictions meeting [specific thresholds]
Linked to measurable criteria
✓ We contribute to collective monitoring via [platform]
Traceable commitment
✓ [X%] of our sourcing comes from verified landscape programmes
Quantified, auditable
Greenwashing Risks
✗ We engage in landscape approaches
Vague, unverifiable, meaningless
✗ We support sustainable landscapes
What support? Which landscapes?
✗ Our supply chain is landscape-certified
No such certification exists
✗ We transformed [region]
Overstates single company impact
✗ Zero deforestation through landscape action
Outcome claim without evidence
The Claims Checklist
Before making a landscape claim, verify you can answer these questions:
Which initiative?
Named, with public presence
Which geography?
Defined boundaries
What evidence?
Verifiable data or assessment
What governance?
Multi-stakeholder structure
What collective goals?
Beyond your sourcing objectives
What monitoring?
How progress is tracked
EU Green Claims Directive
Regulatory risk is rising. The EU Green Claims Directive will require companies to substantiate environmental claims with recognised scientific evidence and independent verification. Vague landscape claims will become legally risky, not just reputationally damaging. Building claims infrastructure now prepares for future requirements.
Future Directions
Verification standards are evolving rapidly. Multiple developments will shape how landscape engagement is assessed and communicated in coming years.
SBTN Landscape Targets
Science Based Targets Network is developing guidance on landscape engagement targets – science-based criteria for corporate participation in landscape sustainability.
- • Over 150 companies preparing targets (Dec 2025)
- • Step Up for Nature initiative launched Oct 2025
- • Water and land targets in development
- • Will connect landscape engagement to science-based thresholds
Standards Convergence
The landscape of standards is consolidating. ISEAL's Core Criteria have been adopted by CDP, referenced by TNFD, and are shaping certification scheme evolution.
- • ISEAL 4 criteria becoming de facto standard
- • CDP, TNFD, GRI alignment on landscape disclosure
- • Certification schemes developing jurisdictional pathways
- • Interoperability between assessment tools increasing
Technology Integration
Satellite monitoring, AI analysis, and digital platforms are making landscape assessment more objective and continuous.
- • Near-real-time deforestation monitoring
- • AI-powered analysis of satellite imagery
- • Digital MRV reducing verification costs
- • Platform integration (SourceUp, CDP, registries)
Regulatory Tightening
Multiple regulatory developments are increasing pressure for substantiated claims and verified outcomes.
- • EU Green Claims Directive requiring substantiation
- • EUDR creating traceability requirements
- • CSRD demanding verified environmental data
- • ISSB/IFRS S2 requiring climate transition credibility
The Direction of Travel
From self-reported to verified. From vague to specific. From voluntary to mandatory.The era of unsubstantiated landscape claims is ending. Companies that build verification infrastructure now – proper assessment, credible monitoring, defensible claims – will be positioned for a regulatory environment that demands evidence.
The Pandion View
The 50% failure rate on CDP disclosure tells you everything you need to know: most companies haven't figured out how to make credible landscape claims. This creates both risk and opportunity.
The risk is obvious – greenwashing accusations, regulatory exposure, wasted investment. The opportunity is differentiation. Companies that actually meet the criteriawill stand out in a landscape of vague claims. Getting assessment and verification right creates competitive advantage, not just compliance.
There's also a deeper point: verification reveals whether engagement is working.The same criteria that satisfy external scrutiny tell you whether your programmes are creating impact. Assessment isn't just about communication – it's about effectiveness. Companies that treat verification as a learning tool, not just a reporting requirement, will improve faster than those focused only on optics.
We help organisations navigate both dimensions: designing engagement strategies that meet credibility criteria from the start, implementing assessment frameworks that track real progress, building claims infrastructure that survives scrutiny, and using verification insights to improve programme effectiveness. The goal isn't just to look credible – it's to be credible.
Where To Go Next
Corporate Engagement
How companies participate – coalitions, sourcing, investment strategies.
Landscape Approaches
The methodology – ISEAL Core Criteria, governance models, what works.
Impact Evidence
Additionality, permanence, attribution – proving real impact.
SBTN & Science-Based Targets
Where landscape engagement connects to science-based thresholds.