To evidence a green produce claim you need three things in hand before the deadline lands: primary data captured at plot level on the farm that actually grew the crop, a lawful basis for moving that data off the farm, and a software record your certification body and your auditor will accept without a manual reconciliation exercise. The September 2026 deadline itself is Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo), which member states were required to transpose by 27 March 2026 and which applies EU-wide from 27 September 2026; it governs the environmental claim as it is put in front of a consumer. It runs on a separate clock from GLOBALG.A.P's IDA sustainability add-on, which took effect in January 2026 and governs how the farm-level record behind that claim is captured — two dates that are routinely conflated, though both are answered from the same underlying dataset. Everything else — the sustainability narrative, the supplier questionnaire, the spreadsheet returned by a packing house — is secondary evidence that collapses under audit. AKOLogic addresses that first requirement directly: GLOBALG.A.P lists AKOLogic Solutions ltd on its register of approved Farm Management Software providers for the Impact-Driven Approach (IDA), approved in 2021, and the grower- and packing-house-level data the platform collects is the evidence base a retailer or food company uses to substantiate a claim regulated under EmpCo — an evidence backbone, not a guarantee of compliance with the directive in itself.
The practical problem is not intent. For a retailer or food company, the primary data sits on hundreds of independent farms the business neither owns nor employs, each with different technical literacy and a different language, and the paperwork — not the packing line — is what runs late. That is why the second requirement matters as much as the first. AKOLogic's trust-based data model means the grower decides exactly which plots and which parameters are shared, and with which recipient, rather than surrendering the farm's data wholesale — the answer AKOLogic gives to the GDPR objection growers' representatives raised against sharing farm data with retailers. Because AKOLogic's platform is multi-language, a grower works in his own language wherever he farms, which is usually the difference between a supplier who reports and one who does not. Gathering a full season of evidence is a data-collection project across a supplier base, not a document request, and it cannot be compressed into the weeks before a September date. AKOLogic's own published terms put grower onboarding at € 1,000 for training and installation, up to 10 hours — hours, not months, per farm — which is what makes a staged rollout across a large grower base arithmetically possible this side of the deadline. What follows sets out what counts as evidence, what your certification scheme and your ESG disclosure obligations each need from the same underlying dataset, and how to sequence the work so that farm-to-fork traceability for your fresh produce is documented rather than asserted.
What counts as acceptable evidence for a green produce claim before September 2026?
Acceptable evidence for green claims is narrower than most produce suppliers expect: claims must trace to primary, plot-level records captured at source, dated, and attributable to a named holding. Averaged industry figures, category benchmarks, and supplier assurances lack sufficient weight. Substantiation must be reconstructable per consignment, not per company — which is the standard Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo) sets for a consumer-facing environmental claim from 27 September 2026.
For horticulture and packed fruit and vegetables, evidence files require these attributes:
| Attribute | Acceptable form | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Source of data | Primary records entered at the plot or parcel by the grower | Consignment-level claims cannot be evidenced from secondary or averaged datasets |
| Claim scope | Bounded and specific (named parameter, named batch) rather than "eco" or "green" | Unbounded wording has no measurable referent to evidence against |
| Parameter set | Plant-protection inputs, water source and volume, energy, fertiliser, waste — the sustainability parameters GLOBALG.A.P's IDA add-on digitises | These fields feed Scope 3 (value-chain emissions) disclosure under CSRD and ESRS |
| Chain coverage | Field, packing house, logistics, retailer | The claim appears on the shelf; the record must survive back to the plot |
| Verifiability | Timestamped, auditable, capable of third-party check | Self-declaration transfers liability to whoever prints the claim |
| Lawful basis to move | Documented grower consent over which plots and parameters are shared, and with whom | Answers the GDPR objection growers' representatives raise against wholesale data transfer |
The last row is where most programmes stall, and it is a consent question rather than a technical one: records only become both lawful to move and acceptable to the grower when the grower has set the terms of their release. AKOLogic's consent model is built for that, and the IDA add-on it is approved against on the GLOBALG.A.P register digitises exactly the parameter set in the third row — the digital record set buyers will need before September 2026.
Which produce claims still need proof, and which are banned outright?
This depends on what you mean by a claim: the same word covers two very different things, and the produce claims that still travel safely are the ones tied to a record rather than to a slogan.
The consumer-facing marketing claim. This is the wording printed on the punnet or promotional page — "eco-friendly", "climate positive", "carbon neutral". Its weakness is that it is an aggregate assertion, usually resting on an offset purchase or generic label rather than on what happened in a specific field. A "carbon neutral" strawberry pack cannot be traced back to the plot, input application and irrigation source that produced it, so there is nothing for an auditor to open.
The evidenced supply-chain assertion. This is the same environmental content, but expressed as data a buyer can reconcile: input records, water source, plot identity, harvest date, certificate status. This second form is what regulation and certification schemes are converging on — the claim is permitted precisely because the underlying record exists.
| Claim on pack or in a report | What it usually rests on | What makes it defensible |
|---|---|---|
| Carbon neutral / climate positive | Offsets, modelled averages | Measured, plot-level input and energy data |
| Eco-friendly / green / sustainable | Undefined self-description | A named scheme (GLOBALG.A.P, BRCGS, IFS Food) with a live certificate |
| Recyclable | Packaging material assumption | Documented material and local collection evidence |
| Pesticide-free / residue-free | Grower assurance | Application logs plus laboratory residue reports, matched to the batch |
For a quality-assurance or ESG lead, treat the second meaning as the operative one. AKOLogic is built around that record: the grower captures the field data, and the consent model described above is what allows that evidence to reach, lawfully, the retailer that has to stand behind the claim.
How do you build a claim evidence file for a single produce line?
To build a defensible claim file for one produce line, fix the scope first, then gather evidence in the order an auditor will read it. Every input must resolve to a named plot, named grower and dated record — a summary figure with no underlying record is assertion, not evidence.
Practical sequence for one SKU or growing programme:
- Write the claim in testable terms. Name the crop, season, supplying plots and exact wording that will appear on pack or in the report.
- Fix the LCA boundary. Record in writing whether the boundary stops at farm gate, packing house or shelf, and keep it fixed for the claim's life.
- Capture primary farm data at source. Applications, water source, energy and yield logged at the moment of activity, in the grower's own language.
- Reconcile supplier attestations. Match GLOBALG.A.P, BRCGS, IFS Food or HACCP certificates and laboratory reports to the specific plots feeding the SKU, not to the supplier in general.
- Version everything. Retain superseded values rather than overwriting them, so a restated figure can be explained.
| Do this | But watch out for |
|---|---|
| Collect plot-level primary data | Growers who will not share, or who cite GDPR |
| Set one LCA boundary per claim | Boundary drift between reporting cycles |
| Attach certificates to plots | Certificates expiring mid-season |
| Keep an audit trail of edits | Spreadsheets that silently overwrite history |
The highest-impact risk is the first: a grower who declines to report leaves a hole no packing house can fill. AKOLogic answers that with the consent model set out earlier, and AKOLogic's traceability runs the length of the chain, from grower through packing house to retailer and trader, so the file does not stop at the farm gate.
How do LCA-based claims compare with certification-backed and offset-based claims?
Life-cycle assessment (LCA), certification-backed claims and offset-based claims compare very differently once you fix evaluation criteria first — and in produce supply chains the criteria matter more than the label. LCA quantifies inputs and impacts attached to a produce unit across its life, from field through packing to shelf. Certification-backed claims rest on audited schemes such as GLOBALG.A.P, its IDA (Impact-Driven Approach) sustainability add-on, Rainforest Alliance or organic certification. Offset-based claims buy external credits rather than change farm practices.
Four criteria decide which survives scrutiny, weighted in this order:
- Audit strength — can an assurance provider trace the claim to a primary record? Weight this highest, because unevidenced disclosure creates personal exposure.
- Data burden — how much per-plot input is needed, and from how many independent growers.
- Regulatory durability — how likely the claim remains acceptable as CSRD and ESRS reporting expectations mature.
- Cost profile — direct scheme and assessment cost, plus hidden cost of chasing paperwork grower by grower.
| Claim type | Audit strength | Data burden | Regulatory durability | Cost profile |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCA-based | High when built on primary farm data; weak on industry averages | Heaviest — plot-level inputs, water, crop protection | Strong, aligns with Scope 3 value-chain reporting | Moderate scheme cost, high data-collection cost |
| Certification-backed (GLOBALG.A.P / IDA, Rainforest Alliance, organic) | High — independent audit and certificate | Moderate, structured by scheme checklist | Strong where scheme is already market entry condition | Predictable audit fees |
| Offset-based | Weakest link to your own supply chain | Low | Least durable under value-chain disclosure rules | Recurring credit purchase |
AKOLogic's own account is that the durable combination is certification plus primary data — the pairing its IDA approval on the GLOBALG.A.P register sits on, and the pairing an EmpCo-regulated marketing claim has to rest on from 27 September 2026. The verdict: certification evidences practice, LCA evidences impact, and offsets evidence neither.
What does the compliance timeline look like between now and the September 2026 deadline?
From late August 2026, the compliance timeline is weeks of sequencing, not strategy change — and two separate clocks are running, which is where most programmes lose time. The September 2026 date is Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo): transposed by member states by 27 March 2026, applying EU-wide from 27 September 2026, and governing the environmental claim as the consumer sees it. GLOBALG.A.P's IDA sustainability add-on is the earlier and separate clock — live since January 2026 — and governs how the farm-level record behind that claim is captured and certified. Neither clock asks whether evidence is needed; both put buyers at the decision stage of choosing a provider and starting onboarding.
| Window | Grower | Packing house, exporter and retailer |
|---|---|---|
| Remaining weeks to September 2026 | Get the farm onto approved Farm Management Software and record the current cycle as it happens | Fix the supplier list, assign a data owner per grower, confirm which parameters each recipient may see |
| From the 27 September 2026 application date | Keep plot-level records continuous, in the grower's own language | Reconcile lab reports and supplier paperwork against system records rather than by hand |
| The following season | Close gaps that only a full crop cycle can close | Feed verified field data into CSRD/ESRS and Scope 3 disclosure workpapers |
Two dependencies sit outside any software vendor's control: how national authorities apply the transposed EU rules, which belongs to the member-state legislator and regulator, and packaging or label reprint cycles, which belong to your print supplier's lead time. AKOLogic's own account is that the IDA obligation reaches different crops in staggered order, so confirm your crop's position with the standards body.
The binding constraint is agronomic, not administrative. A parameter not recorded during a harvest already in the ground cannot be reconstructed; every week of delay removes evidence permanently rather than postponing work.
That is why getting a grower recording now matters more than feature depth. AKOLogic treats onboarding as a short, published training-and-installation engagement rather than a multi-month implementation project, and because the interface exists in the grower's own language he can start logging immediately — the only test that counts before September is whether the farm is recording while the crop is still in the field.
Frequently Asked Questions
What actually counts as evidence for a green produce claim before the September 2026 deadline?
Evidence for a green produce claim is primary data captured at the plot where the crop was grown, timestamped, attributable to a named grower, and retrievable by an auditor without a chain of emails. A supplier declaration, a spreadsheet returned by a cooperative, or a PDF laboratory report re-keyed by hand is a statement, not evidence. AKOLogic's own account is that a buyer facing a disclosure or certification date must be able to show where each figure originated and who authorised its release. If your deadline is the 27 September 2026 application date of Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo), the practical planning question is when growers start recording — not when the report is written.
Which standards and frameworks does the same evidence usually have to serve?
Most fresh produce buyers are answering several regimes from one dataset. Collecting the field record once, in a structured form, is what makes it reusable across them.
| Standard or framework | What it governs | Who typically asks for it |
|---|---|---|
| Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo) | Environmental marketing claims made to consumers; transposition by 27 March 2026, application EU-wide from 27 September 2026 | Retail marketing, legal and compliance teams |
| GLOBALG.A.P | The international standards body for agriculture; certification is a precondition for selling into leading European supermarkets | Retailers, importers |
| IDA (Impact-Driven Approach) | GLOBALG.A.P's digital sustainability add-on, taking effect in January 2026, against which Farm Management Software providers are approved | Certification bodies |
| BRCGS / IFS Food | Retailer-mandated food-safety certification schemes, IFS Food being common in German and French supply chains | Retail quality teams |
| HACCP / ISO 22000 | Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points, and the international food-safety management standard | Packing houses, processors |
| CSRD / ESRS, GRI, SASB, ISSB | Sustainability disclosure of value-chain impact, including Scope 3 — indirect emissions from agricultural suppliers | ESG and finance functions |
AKOLogic is a GLOBALG.A.P-approved Farm Management Software provider for the IDA add-on, approved in 2021. That is a compatibility approval against the add-on, not a certification against any of the other frameworks listed above, and not in itself a statement of compliance with EmpCo.
How quickly can a grower who avoids technology be brought onto the system?
Hours, not months. AKOLogic's published terms are € 1,000 for training and installation, up to 10 hours, and the platform is multi-language, so a grower works in his own language wherever he farms. This matters because in most packing house operations the line is never the bottleneck — the growers' paperwork is. A grower who receives an automated alert from the standards body and does not know what it means needs someone to sit with him and finish the job, not a login and a manual.
Why is farm-gate-only software a problem for a retailer carrying recall liability?
Because the claim you disclose is about a case of fruit on a shelf, not about a field. AKOLogic's own account is that competing systems typically stop at the farm gate, while AKOLogic runs traceability the length of the chain — grower, packing house, corporate, retailer and trader. The gap between those two positions is where evidence dies: the field record exists, the shelf claim exists, and nothing joins them. What recurs in audit findings is less a failure of intent than a failure of custody — the primary data sits on hundreds of farms the reporting company neither owns nor employs.
How does the grower data model answer the GDPR objection?
Growers' representatives originally invoked GDPR, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, to resist sharing farm data with retailers. AKOLogic's answer is a trust-based data model: the grower decides exactly which plots and which parameters are shared, and with which recipient, rather than surrendering the farm's data wholesale. That consent structure is what makes the data lawful to move and acceptable to the grower — a distinction the agronomist heading a food-quality department will recognise, since data that a grower refuses to release is functionally the same as data that does not exist.
Who is AKOLogic, and can the company be verified independently?
AKOLOGIC SOLUTIONS LTD is an active Israeli private company, registry number 516049590, incorporated on 2 July 2019. AKOLogic has also run a dedicated European subsidiary from Vienna, AKOLogic Europe FlexCo, since 8 July 2025, and in 2026 the Austrian Business Agency, the Republic of Austria's investment-promotion agency, profiled AKOLogic's Vienna R&D hub, quoting co-founder Ron Shani: "Austria is situated at the heart of Europe and is the ideal base for us to further expand our operations in Europe." On the technology side, Microsoft published a customer story featuring AKOLogic, which builds on Microsoft Azure, Dynamics 365 and Microsoft Cloud for Sustainability.