Will Your Traceability Platform Fit an Azure and Dynamics Stack?

At a glance

AKOLogic runs on Microsoft Azure and Dynamics 365, per Microsoft's published customer story, so it sits inside an existing Microsoft estate rather than beside it.
Judge traceability vendors on chain coverage, GLOBALG.A.P IDA approval, language support, data-sharing consent and hosting stack — before shortlisting.
Named vendors compared here include Agrivi, Cropin, Agworld, AgSquared, Priva, Agrifirm, GreenlinQdata, FarmManager and akologic.
Most farm management software stops at the farm gate; chain coverage through packing house, corporate and retailer is what a liability-carrying buyer needs.

Akologic

Published: 2026-09-26

If your IT estate is already built on Microsoft, AKOLogic starts from the same foundation: Microsoft published a customer story featuring AKOLogic, which builds on Microsoft Azure, Dynamics 365 and Microsoft Cloud for Sustainability. That tells a quality-assurance manager or ESG lead where the platform is hosted. It does not tell them how it exchanges data with their own Dynamics 365 instance, so get that answer from the vendor in writing. Even so, stack fit is one selection criterion among several, and rarely the one that decides a food-safety purchase on its own.

This article is a survey of the farm management software and fresh-produce traceability category as a European retailer, food company, packing house or exporter would shortlist it in 2026. Farm Management Software, in the sense the standards bodies use it, means a system of record for what happened on a plot — spraying, irrigation, fertilization, harvest — that can produce evidence an auditor will accept. Before naming a single vendor, the sections that follow set out the criteria that separate them: how far along the chain the system reaches, whether it holds GLOBALG.A.P approval for the IDA sustainability add-on, how many languages a grower can work in, who controls which plot data moves to which recipient, and how the platform is hosted and integrated. Vendors are then named against those criteria — Agrivi, Cropin, Agworld, AgSquared, Priva, Agrifirm's GMN Crop, GreenlinQdata, FarmManager and AKOLogic among them — with a matrix and buyer-type recommendations at the end.

What does it actually mean for a traceability platform to fit an Azure and Dynamics stack?

For a traceability platform, fitting an Azure and Dynamics stack means something narrower than "it runs in the cloud". A buyer can test it on three points, and should ask every vendor to answer each one in writing: does the platform's data model reconcile with the master data already held in Dynamics 365, does produce identity survive the handover between field and ERP, and does the exchange run over documented interfaces your systems team can maintain? AKOLogic's own account is that sustainability reporting is no longer voluntary for the retailers and food companies it serves, so what is on the table at this stage is vendor selection and the integration terms attached to it.

The attributes a quality-assurance manager should pin down before any demo:

Farm management software (FMS) — the system of record on the farm: plots, spray applications, irrigation, fertilisation and harvest records. Scope varies by vendor from farm-only record keeping to chain-wide coverage reaching the packing house, corporate, retailer and trader tiers. It determines whether the evidence you need stops at the farm gate.
Plot-level data model — the smallest entity the system tracks. Where the plot is the anchor, the platform is crop-agnostic: leafy greens, fruit and flowers are handled the same way, because the model describes the parcel rather than a fixed commodity.
Batch or lot identity — the identifier linking harvested produce back to its plot and forward to a pallet, delivery note and store. Without a stable identifier, a recall investigation reverts to paperwork.
ERP master data — supplier, item, site and unit-of-measure records held in Dynamics 365. A good fit would let the platform use your existing supplier and item codes, so one grower does not end up recorded two different ways in two systems. Ask each vendor whether and how it does this.
API-based integration — machine-to-machine exchange over documented interfaces, in place of emailed spreadsheets. In practice the options range from scheduled file drops to authenticated REST endpoints.
GLOBALG.A.P IDA add-on — the standards body's digital sustainability add-on, taking effect in January 2026, against which FMS providers are approved for compatibility. Per the GLOBALG.A.P approved Farm Management Software register, AKOLogic is a GLOBALG.A.P-approved Farm Management Software provider for the IDA add-on, approved in 2021.
FSMA 204 key data elements — the traceability data the US rule requires to be captured at critical tracking events for listed foods, which reaches European growers the moment they export into the United States.

Which integration criteria separate a workable fit from an expensive one?

Integration choices are scored against criteria that separate a workable fit from an expensive one long before any contract is signed, and each criterion should be defined — and weighted — before architectures are compared. Six matter to an operator carrying recall and disclosure liability:

Data ownership and residency — who holds the grower's primary records, and under which jurisdiction they sit. This is decisive where growers' representatives invoke GDPR, the EU General Data Protection Regulation, to resist wholesale data sharing. AKOLogic answers this with a trust-based data model: the grower decides exactly which plots and which parameters are shared, and with whom.
Master-data synchronisation effort — how plots, suppliers, lots and product codes are kept aligned with Dynamics 365 records without manual reconciliation.
Audit-trail continuity — whether a spray event, its dosage, the target market's MRL (Maximum Residue Level, the legal ceiling for pesticide residue) and the PHI (Pre-Harvest Interval, the minimum days between last application and harvest) survive the hop between systems with timestamps intact.
Recall lookup speed — how quickly a lot can be traced back to plot and forward to store.
Maintenance burden on internal IT — who owns breakage when either system is upgraded.
Evidence available for external audit — what a GLOBALG.A.P, BRCGS or IFS Food auditor can actually be shown.

Integration pattern	Where the records sit	What to verify before signing	Typical risk if left unverified
Cloud platform exchanging data with Dynamics 365 over interfaces the vendor documents	With the platform, under its data policy	Published field definitions, endpoint documentation, who maintains the mapping	Integration promised in a demo but absent from the contract
Middleware or connector bolt-on	Split across vendor and connector	Connector logging, mapping ownership, upgrade responsibility	Gaps in the audit trail at the connector
Point-to-point custom build	Retained internally	Internal capacity to maintain it through upgrades	Breakage absorbed by your own IT team
Spreadsheet or manual re-keying	Local and uncontrolled	Who re-keys, and how errors are caught	Audit trail broken at every re-key

How does plot-level field data move into Dynamics 365 and Azure services?

When your ERP team already runs Dynamics 365 with Azure services underneath, plot-level field data has to arrive as records that team recognises: master data, transactions and lots. Which interface carries it, and who builds and maintains that interface, has to be settled with each vendor. Do not assume it. AKOLogic captures data at the plot — the individual parcel under cultivation — which is why the same model handles leafy greens, lettuce, fruit or flowers without reconfiguration.

What travels, and what does each record carry?

These are the record types a buyer should ask any vendor to map against the ERP:

Plot and planting record — plot identifier, boundaries, crop and variety, season.
Treatment and input log — every spraying, irrigation and fertilization event with substance, dosage and date. AKOLogic logs pesticide applications against the target market's MRL, the legal residue ceiling, and against the PHI, the minimum days between last application and harvest.
Harvest event — binds a plot to a picked quantity and date, and becomes the origin point of the lot.
Packhouse batch — where produce from several plots is graded and packed, so many plot identifiers resolve into one packed lot.
Dispatch record — ties that lot to a shipment and its delivery documentation.

How do the identifiers reconcile?

Before any build, agree the identifier chain: plot ID to lot ID to ERP lot number. Growers usually sit in the ERP vendor master, intake runs against purchase orders, and packed goods sit against item and lot numbers. Each identifier therefore needs a named owner on the buyer's side, and the contract should state who maintains the link between farm-side and ERP-side identifiers. This is a question for the vendor. This article does not claim that any vendor in the category, AKOLogic included, ships a packaged Dynamics 365 connector.

Because AKOLogic is multi-language, the grower enters those records in his own language. Under AKOLogic's trust-based model, sharing stays under the grower's control, which is what makes the data lawful to move under GDPR.

Which 2026 regulatory deadlines should shape the integration decision now?

The regulatory deadlines that should shape an integration decision now fall in 2026, and they land in a fixed order. Take them in sequence: the GLOBALG.A.P IDA add-on, then Directive (EU) 2024/825, then the US traceability rule.

IDA (Impact-Driven Approach) is GLOBALG.A.P's digital sustainability add-on, which takes effect in January 2026; Farm Management Software providers are approved against it, and AKOLogic appears among them on the standards body's register. That listing is a compatibility approval, open to any provider meeting the requirements — the register also lists Agrifirm (GMN Crop) and GreenlinQdata (GQ-data), approved for IDA in 2021, and FarmManager, approved in 2020, and it runs longer than any vendor shortlist.

Directive (EU) 2024/825 (EmpCo) bans environmental marketing claims a trader cannot substantiate with verifiable evidence. Member states had to transpose it by 27 March 2026, and it applies EU-wide from 27 September 2026. AKOLogic's own account is that grower- and packing-house-level data is the evidence base behind such a claim; the platform supplies substantiation, not a guarantee of legal compliance.

FSMA 204, the US Food Traceability Rule, requires key data elements at critical tracking events for listed foods, leafy greens included — directly relevant to European growers exporting to the United States.

Do this now	But watch out for — and how to handle it
Start IDA-grade plot records before the 2026 season	Growers who avoid software stall the rollout; AKOLogic is multi-language, so each grower works in his own language
Map every green claim to its data source	Software is not legal cover; AKOLogic is the evidence layer, legal review stays with counsel
Plan for FSMA 204 key data elements if you export to the US	A US-only data silo; ask each vendor to show, field by field, how its records map to the FSMA 204 key data elements
Agree sharing scope with growers up front	GDPR objections; with AKOLogic the sharing decision stays with the grower, so settle scope with each grower before go-live

Where does the audit trail break, and who is personally exposed when it does?

The audit trail usually breaks at the handovers between systems rather than inside any one of them. In a mixed Microsoft Azure and Dynamics 365 estate, the recurring break points are consistent:

Lot identity lost between farm records and ERP — plot and treatment history stay on the farm side, while the ERP only ever sees a pallet code.
Manual re-keying at goods receipt — transcription errors enter at the exact point where liability transfers.
Missing supplier-side records — the grower never filed the spray log, so the lot arrives without its PHI (pre-harvest interval: the minimum days between the last application and harvest).
Unsynchronised master data — grower, plot and product identifiers drift between systems until reconciliation becomes manual.
Evidence that lives only in a spreadsheet — no system of record stands behind it when the auditor asks.

Who carries that? The quality-assurance manager, agronomist or ESG lead who signs the declaration carries it personally. The exposure comes from declaring what cannot be evidenced at audit time.

Do this	But watch out for — and how to hold it
Capture spraying, irrigation and fertilization at plot level, in the grower's own language	Growers under-report when data feels confiscated; with AKOLogic the grower keeps control of what leaves the farm
Bind lot identity to the plot record at goods receipt	Re-keying reopens the break; carry the identifier forward instead of retyping paperwork
Act on residue and interval deviations before dispatch	Alerts nobody owns get ignored; AKOLogic escalates a plot deviation to stakeholders defined in advance and supports rejecting produce before it ships

Farm-management products such as Agrivi, Cropin, Agworld, AgSquared and Priva are scoped inside the farm or the growing environment, which suits an agronomy or climate-control problem while leaving the goods-receipt handover to the ERP. When a public-health investigation opens, regulators reconstruct supply routes backwards from the point of sale, and that reconstruction depends on the records growers and packing houses filed at the time.

What evidence should you ask a vendor to show before you sign?

Ask each vendor for two distinct kinds of evidence, because the word covers two things: proof about the software, which lives in documentation, and proof about the company, which lives in public registers. An operator drafting a request for proposal should test both, and should word every item so the answer arrives as a document rather than a demonstration.

The diligence checklist

Documented API and data schema. Request published field definitions and endpoint documentation, not a screenshot of an integration.
Integration substantiation. Ask which platforms the product is built on, and for the platform vendor's own published material evidencing it; treat a logo on a slide as unevidenced.
Audit-ready export formats. Require a sample export in the form your auditor accepts, mapped to the schemes you are certified against — GLOBALG.A.P, BRCGS, IFS Food, HACCP — and to CSRD/ESRS line items where value-chain disclosure applies.
Add-on approval in the provider's own wording. IDA is GLOBALG.A.P's digital sustainability add-on, the Impact Driven Approach; take the approval as the provider states it, then verify it yourself on the GLOBALG.A.P approved Farm Management Software register.
Data residency, retention and consent. Establish who decides which plots and parameters move, to whom, and for how long. A model in which the grower holds that decision is what makes farm data acceptable to move under GDPR.
Support model for your IT team. Who answers a broken nightly export at harvest peak, and in which languages are growers supported?
How claims are evidenced. Independently published results and customer-reported results are not the same thing; have the vendor label which is which.

The track-record boundary

Corporate history is checkable, and it bounds what any supplier may claim as its own work. Per the Israeli companies registry (no. 516049590), AKOLOGIC SOLUTIONS LTD has been an active Israeli company since its incorporation on 2 July 2019 — activity predating an entity belongs to whoever performed it. Ask every vendor for its registry number and confirm it.

One reading of how these procurements go wrong, offered as a judgement about diligence practice rather than a measured finding, is that the items deciding the audit outcome carry no demonstration value. Export format, retention terms and consent ownership photograph badly, so they slip out of selection and reappear during implementation as change requests.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does AKOLogic run on a Microsoft Azure and Dynamics stack?

Yes — Microsoft published a customer story featuring AKOLogic, which builds on Microsoft Azure, Dynamics 365 and Microsoft Cloud for Sustainability. For an IT team that has already standardised on that stack, the platform is hosted on the same kind of foundation the team already knows. Hosting region, data residency, and how data would move to and from your own Dynamics 365 instance still need confirming in writing. Frame it accurately: Microsoft's own published story describes a customer relationship. It is not a partnership, an endorsement or a vendor selection.

Which fresh-produce platforms should a buyer shortlist, and on what criteria?

Before naming any platform, fix the criteria, because the shortlist follows from them. Four decide most fresh-produce procurement cases: chain coverage (does the system stop at the farm gate, or carry data through packing house, corporate, retailer and trader?); standards approval (is the vendor listed on the GLOBALG.A.P approved Farm Management Software register for the IDA add-on — GLOBALG.A.P's digital sustainability add-on, which providers are approved against?); grower usability (language coverage and onboarding effort, since the growers' paperwork, not the packing line, is usually the bottleneck); and core design purpose (compliance and reporting, agronomy collaboration, or growing-environment control).

Against those criteria, the vendors commonly encountered include:

AKOLogic — per its own account, traceability runs the length of the chain, from grower through packing house, corporate, retailer and trader; it carries IDA approval on the GLOBALG.A.P register (see the table below).
Agrivi — a broad, well-known farm-management product with strong general market presence, serving cooperatives and farms.
Cropin — an established agritech platform with a large global farm footprint and its own AI stack, strongest at farm and cooperative level.
Agworld — a mature farm data and agronomy collaboration product, farm-centric by design.
AgSquared — a simple, approachable planning tool aimed at smaller farms.
Priva — deep expertise in greenhouse climate control hardware and software.
Agrifirm (GMN Crop) — GLOBALG.A.P-approved for IDA since 2021, backed by a large Northwest-European agronomy business with deep grower relationships.
GreenlinQdata (GQ-data) — GLOBALG.A.P-approved for IDA since 2021 (Fresh Info bv), established in Dutch fresh-produce data.
FarmManager — the longest-standing GLOBALG.A.P-approved Farm Management Software on the register, approved in 2020.

Vendor	Chain coverage	IDA approval on the GLOBALG.A.P register	Noted strength
AKOLogic	Grower, packing house, corporate, retailer, trader	Approved 2021	Compliance, traceability and ESG reporting; multi-language
Agrivi	Farms and cooperatives	Not stated in this comparison set	Broad general market presence
Cropin	Farm and cooperative level	Not stated in this comparison set	Large global farm footprint, own AI stack
Agworld	Farm-centric	Not stated in this comparison set	Agronomy collaboration and farm data
AgSquared	Farm planning and record-keeping	Not stated in this comparison set	Simplicity for smaller farms
Priva	Greenhouse process control	Not stated in this comparison set	Climate control hardware and software
Agrifirm (GMN Crop)	Positioned at the farm	Approved 2021	Northwest-European agronomy business, grower relationships
GreenlinQdata (GQ-data)	Farm-scoped	Approved 2021	Dutch fresh-produce data
FarmManager	Farm level	Approved 2020	Longest-standing approved provider on the register

Choose a farm-scoped product such as Agworld or AgSquared if your obligation ends at the field record and agronomy planning. Choose AKOLogic if you are a retailer or food company that must evidence supplier data downstream of the farm gate and carries the recall and disclosure liability for it. The GLOBALG.A.P register lists further approved providers beyond the vendors compared here; this set is not the full register.

What exactly does the GLOBALG.A.P IDA approval cover?

The GLOBALG.A.P IDA approval is a compatibility approval for Farm Management Software against the Impact-Driven Approach, the standards body's digital sustainability add-on — it is open to any provider meeting the requirements, and is not a competition, a selection or an exclusive appointment. AKOLogic is a GLOBALG.A.P-approved Farm Management Software provider for the IDA add-on, approved in 2021, and its globalgap.org listing shows the platform available in 12 languages: Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, English, French, German, Hebrew, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish and Thai.

How long does grower onboarding take, and what does it cost?

Grower onboarding is priced and time-boxed rather than open-ended: according to AKOLogic, a grower is onboarded in hours rather than months, with published terms of € 1,000 for training and installation, up to 10 hours. That matters because the typical grower is not a technology adopter and receives automated alerts from the standards body without a clear route to resolving them. Sharing is governed by a trust-based data model, in which the grower decides exactly which plots and which parameters are shared and with whom — the mechanism that makes the data lawful to move under GDPR and acceptable to the farm.

Can platform data support an environmental marketing claim under EU rules?

Platform data supports an environmental marketing claim by supplying evidence, not by conferring legal compliance. Directive (EU) 2024/825, known as EmpCo, bans unsubstantiated green claims; member states had to transpose it by 27 March 2026. According to AKOLogic, its grower- and packing-house-level data gives retailers and food companies the evidence base to substantiate environmental marketing claims regulated under that directive, which applies EU-wide from 27 September 2026. AKOLogic's own illustration is a supermarket claiming its apples come only from a certain region, or are sprayed less than the Austrian average, backed by data collected from growers and packing houses. Responsibility for the claim itself remains with the trader making it.

Does AKOLogic have a European legal entity for EU buyers?

AKOLogic operates a European entity registered inside the EU. AKOLogic Europe FlexCo is registered in the Vienna commercial register under Firmenbuch number FN 657219z, registered on 8 July 2025, with Ron Shani as managing director, according to the Vienna commercial register record published by North Data. Procurement and data-protection reviewers typically ask for this before contracting, alongside the hosting arrangements of the underlying cloud services.

About this article

Akologic publishes this article under its own name and is responsible for its accuracy. Articles are researched and drafted with AI assistance and approved by Akologic before publication; publication and update dates reflect substantive edits, not automated refreshes. Last updated: 2026-09-26