LAYER 2: LANDSCAPES & JURISDICTIONS
Corporate Engagement
How companies participate in landscape sustainability – coalitions, sourcing, investment, and credible claims.
In 30 Seconds
Corporate landscape engagement is how companies move beyond individual supply chain certification to participate in system-level change. Instead of just certifying your suppliers, you invest in the landscapes where they operate.
Supply Chain Approach
Certify individual suppliers. Address your footprint only. Leave systemic drivers untouched.
Landscape Engagement
Invest in the region. Address root causes. Build enabling conditions for all producers.
Key insight: Landscape engagement is about shared responsibility, not just supply chain optimisation. You're investing in the enabling environment – governance, monitoring, farmer support – that makes sustainable sourcing possible at scale.
Where This Fits
This page covers the corporate pathway into landscape action – how companies participate, invest, and build credible claims. Related pages cover the underlying methodology and verification:
Landscape Approaches
The methodology – ISEAL Core Criteria, governance models
Jurisdictional Programmes
Government-aligned models – LTKL, PCI, REDD+ nesting
Assessment & Verification
Tools & credibility – LandScale, SourceUp, CDP
Supply Chain Action
Individual supplier work – connects to landscape engagement
Why Companies Engage in Landscapes
Corporate landscape engagement has moved from “nice to have” to strategic necessity. Multiple drivers are converging to make this the expected approach for companies with significant commodity footprints.
Risk Mitigation
Supply chain resilience through systemic change
Certified pockets in degrading landscapes are vulnerable. Landscape approaches address root causes of risk.
Regulatory Compliance
EUDR and emerging requirements
EU Deforestation Regulation requires traceability and legal compliance. Well-governed jurisdictions simplify compliance.
Leakage Prevention
Address displacement effects
Improving one supply chain while degradation moves elsewhere is not progress. Landscape approaches cover entire regions.
Scale Efficiency
Shared infrastructure, lower per-unit costs
Coalition investment in monitoring, farmer support, and governance is more efficient than individual programmes.
Stakeholder Expectations
Investors, customers, NGOs
Credible sustainability claims increasingly require demonstrated landscape-level engagement, not just certification.
Positive Impact
Beyond risk to value creation
Leading companies see landscape health as strategic asset. Healthy ecosystems, thriving communities, stable sourcing.
The Strategic Shift
From “our supply chain” to “our sourcing landscapes” – leading companies recognise that sustainable sourcing requires sustainable landscapes. You can't have one without the other. This shifts the conversation from individual supplier performance to shared regional responsibility.
The Corporate Coalition Model
Pre-competitive collaboration lets companies share costs, coordinate engagement, and send stronger market signals than individual action. Major coalitions operate across commodities.
Forest Positive Coalition
Consumer Goods Forum
Coalition of major consumer goods companies committed to removing deforestation from supply chains and driving forest-positive transformation at scale.
Members: Major CGF companies including Walmart, Tesco, Kraft Heinz, Bel Group, Hormel Foods, Loblaw, and others.
Commodities: Soy, palm oil, paper & pulp fibre packaging – shared roadmaps for deforestation- and conversion-free sourcing.
Model: Pre-competitive coordination, joint landscape engagement, shared methodologies, annual progress reporting.
Soft Commodities Forum
Major Soy Traders – Cerrado Focus
Coalition of six major soy traders coordinating on deforestation- and conversion-free soy in Brazil's Cerrado region.
Members: ADM, Bunge, Cargill, COFCO, LDC, Viterra – together handling majority of Brazil's soy exports.
Approach: Farmer-first clusters – direct engagement with producers. 19+ indirect suppliers enrolled in 2025.
Partnership: Common methodology with ABIOVE (Brazilian vegetable oil association) for indirect supplier engagement.
Tropical Forest Alliance
Global Convening Platform
Multi-stakeholder partnership (170+ partners) focused on reducing commodity-driven deforestation through collective action and landscape programmes.
Role: Convenes stakeholders, facilitates pre-competitive coordination, supports landscape programmes, knowledge sharing.
Commodities: Palm oil, soy, beef, cocoa, pulp & paper – cross-commodity coordination.
Regional: Regional platforms in key sourcing geographies (Southeast Asia, Latin America, West Africa).
Cocoa & Forests Initiative
Ghana & Côte d'Ivoire
Joint commitment by cocoa companies and governments to eliminate deforestation from cocoa supply chains in the world's top producing countries.
Structure: Government-industry framework with shared implementation plans and coordinated progress tracking.
Members: Major chocolate and cocoa companies plus national governments committed to shared action plans.
Actions: Forest protection, traceability, farmer livelihoods, community engagement, policy alignment.
The Coalition Advantage
Market signals matter. When major buyers coordinate, producers and governments take notice. A single company's sourcing shift is ignorable; coalition-level commitment changes market dynamics. This is why pre-competitive coordination on landscape issues is not just accepted but expected by stakeholders.
Sourcing Region Programmes
How do companies connect procurement decisions to landscape investment? Multiple models exist, from formal compacts to embedded sourcing relationships.
| Model | How It Works | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| SourceUp Compacts | Formal agreements between buyers and producing regions via digital platform. Defined KPIs, shared monitoring. | Companies wanting structured, verifiable commitments |
| Verified Sourcing Areas | Preferential sourcing from jurisdictions meeting sustainability thresholds. Links procurement to landscape performance. | EUDR compliance, risk-based sourcing |
| Coalition Coordination | Joint buyer engagement in shared sourcing landscapes through TFA, FPC, or commodity platforms. | Shared landscapes, pre-competitive alignment |
| Direct Landscape Investment | Company funds landscape programmes in sourcing regions (farmer training, monitoring, governance support). | Strategic sourcing regions, high visibility |
| Embedded Programmes | Sustainability staff and programmes embedded in sourcing regions. Long-term relationship building. | Core sourcing regions, strategic priority |
SourceUp Platform
Digital platform connecting buyers with producing regions. Enables formalised compacts, progress tracking, and stakeholder coordination. Developed by IDH to scale landscape engagement and standardise buyer-region relationships.
EUDR & Landscape Sourcing
The EU Deforestation Regulation creates new incentives for landscape engagement. Well-governed jurisdictions offer lower risk profiles and simpler compliance pathways. Companies are prioritising sourcing from jurisdictions with strong monitoring systems.
Investment & Financing
Landscape engagement requires investment beyond procurement. Multiple financing mechanisms exist – from direct company investment to blended finance facilities.
Direct Investment
Company funds landscape programmes directly – farmer support, monitoring systems, governance capacity building.
Highest control, highest visibility
Blended Finance
Public/philanthropic capital de-risks private investment. Facilities like the &Green Fund and TLFF structure layered capital for landscape outcomes.
Catalytic capital, shared risk
Coalition Pooling
Companies pool resources through coalitions – shared monitoring, joint farmer programmes, coordinated investments in shared landscapes.
Efficiency through coordination
Carbon/Biodiversity Finance
Landscape outcomes generate carbon credits or biodiversity credits. Revenue streams support ongoing landscape activities.
Outcome-linked revenue
Supply Chain Premiums
Premium pricing for landscape-verified commodities. Transfers value to producing regions, incentivises participation.
Market-based incentive
Technical Assistance
In-kind investment: staff time, expertise, technology. Embedded sustainability teams, capacity building, knowledge transfer.
Non-financial value
The Finance Gap
Landscape programmes are chronically underfunded. Initial costs are high, revenue flows take years to materialise, and corporate budget cycles don't match landscape timelines. Blended finance and coalition pooling help – but the fundamental challenge is aligning short-term corporate finance with long-term landscape change. Companies that solve this create competitive advantage.
Making Credible Claims
Landscape engagement creates opportunities for sustainability claims – but also greenwashing risk. Of 309 landscape disclosures in 2023, 50% failed CDP's credibility assessment. How do you build claims that survive scrutiny?
The ISEAL/CDP Credibility Criteria
20 leading organisations agreed on four essential criteria for credible landscape claims:
Scale
Landscape-level boundaries, not individual farms
CDP 2023: 67% failed
Multi-Stakeholder Governance
Platform with diverse participation
CDP 2023: 69% failed
Collective Goals & Action
Beyond individual sourcing objectives
CDP 2023: 64% failed
Monitoring & Reporting
Credible collective framework
CDP 2023: 80% failed
Credible Claims
We participate in [named initiative] covering [region]
We invest in landscape programmes alongside other stakeholders
We source from jurisdictions meeting [specific] thresholds
We contribute to collective monitoring via [platform]
We support [specific outcomes] in our sourcing landscapes
Greenwashing Risks
We engage in landscape approaches (vague, unverifiable)
We support sustainable landscapes (what does this mean?)
Our supply chain is landscape-certified (no such certification)
We transformed [region] (single company attribution)
Zero deforestation through landscape action (unverified outcome)
The Claims Test
Can you point to specific, verifiable evidence? Named initiative with public reporting. Defined geography with collective monitoring. Documented governance structure with diverse participation. If you can't answer “which initiative?” “which region?” “what evidence?” – the claim isn't credible.
Corporate Approaches in Practice
Unilever
Regenerative Agriculture Focus
23 regenerative agriculture projects covering ~130,000 hectares across 11 countries, with plans to expand to 200,000+ hectares. 79% sustainable sourcing of key crops in 2024; 95% of palm, paper, tea, soy, cocoa verified deforestation-free.
Approach: Embedded programmes in key sourcing landscapes, direct farmer engagement, coalition participation (TFA, FPC).
Nestlé
Science-Based Targets
20%+ net GHG reduction by 2024 vs 2018 baseline (ahead of 2025 target). Net-zero commitment with proactive engagement on EUDR compliance. Landscape programmes across cocoa, coffee, palm oil sourcing regions.
Approach: Science-based targets driving landscape investment, traceability systems, supplier engagement programmes.
Mondelez (Cocoa Life)
Commodity Programme
$1 billion commitment (2012-2030) to cocoa sustainability. 91% of cocoa volume through Cocoa Life programme via mass balance, targeting 100% by 2025. Active in Ghana and Côte d'Ivoire cocoa landscapes.
Approach: Commodity-specific programme, landscape-level investment, government partnership via Cocoa & Forests Initiative.
Flexible Plastic Fund
Cross-Company Collaboration
£1 million fund established by Mars, Mondelez, Nestlé, PepsiCo, and Unilever to make flexible plastic recycling economically viable. Pre-competitive collaboration on shared challenge.
Model: Coalition-funded, shared infrastructure investment, non-competitive collaboration on systemic challenge.
What Works Across Cases
Long-term commitment (decade-scale, not annual). Coalition participation (pre-competitive coordination). Direct landscape presence (embedded teams, farmer relationships). Science-based targets (accountability beyond voluntary). Transparent reporting(public progress, acknowledged challenges).
The Pandion View
Corporate landscape engagement has moved from niche to mainstream – but execution quality varies enormously. The 50% failure rate on CDP credibility assessments tells the story: most companies are still figuring out how to do this well.
The companies that get it right share common traits: they treat landscape engagement as strategic infrastructure, not just compliance. They invest in relationships, not just programmes. They accept long timelinesand measure progress against realistic milestones. And they collaborate pre-competitively where shared interest outweighs competitive tension.
The risk isn't just greenwashing accusations – it's wasted investment. Landscape programmes that don't meet credibility criteria don't just fail scrutiny; they fail to create lasting change. Getting the governance, monitoring, and collective action elements right from the start is more cost-effective than retrofitting later.
We help companies design landscape engagement strategies that work: identifying priority landscapes, selecting appropriate coalition and investment models, building monitoring systems that satisfy emerging requirements, and constructing claims that survive verification. The goal isn't just to participate – it's to create measurable, credible, lasting impact.
Where To Go Next
Assessment & Verification
Tools for credibility – LandScale, SourceUp, CDP, and how to build verifiable claims.
Landscape Approaches
The methodology – ISEAL Core Criteria, governance models, what makes landscape action credible.
Jurisdictional Programmes
Government-aligned landscape models – LTKL, PCI, REDD+ nesting.
Traceability & Supply Chain Data
Evidence infrastructure – chain of custody, EUDR compliance, commodity tracking.