Inclusive certification: how to prepare small-scale producers, artisans, and communities for new markets
Certifications play an important role in supply chains. They can strengthen trust between suppliers and buyers, support compliance processes, standardize production practices, and facilitate access to certain markets.
However, there is a challenge that becomes increasingly relevant when we examine the reality of small-scale producers, family farmers, artisans, cooperatives, and traditional communities: how can we raise the standards and credibility of supply chains without turning certification itself into a barrier to entry? The issue is not about lowering standards or relaxing essential requirements, but rather about recognizing that different stakeholders operate from very different starting points in terms of structures, resources, and levels of maturity.
For many small producers, the challenge begins even before the certification process. It starts with understanding the system. Certification, accreditation, audit, verification, declaration of conformity, certification body, chain of custody, due diligence, voluntary standard, and regulatory requirement are familiar concepts to compliance and international trade professionals, but they may be far removed from the reality of those focused on production. This raises a seemingly simple question: “Which certification do I need?”
The answer, however, may depend on the industry, the product, the raw material, the production process, the country of origin, the destination market, and even a buyer’s specific requirements. In some cases, there is a regulatory requirement; in others, certification is voluntary but commercially relevant. There are also situations in which no specific certification is required, but certain documents, tests, or declarations must be submitted.
This complexity reveals a significant information asymmetry. A large company can hire consulting firms, maintain legal teams, stay abreast of international regulations, and establish departments dedicated to quality, sustainability, and compliance. A small producer may need to make the same decisions without having any of these structures in place. Therefore, when we simply say that a particular supplier needs to “get certified,” we may be imposing a requirement without offering a path forward.
Democratizing access to certification begins with democratizing understanding of it: explaining what is required, why it is required, who can go through the process, what evidence will be required, how long it may take, and what steps need to be taken.
After the initial information, a second barrier arises: the cost of compliance. Certification may involve changes to processes, document management, audits, technical assistance, technology, training, travel, additional controls, and periodic maintenance of requirements. These investments can yield significant benefits, but their impact is not proportionally the same for everyone.
For larger organizations, certain costs are built into the operational structure. For a small business or community, they can represent a significant portion of disposable income. The challenge, therefore, should not be to choose between rigor and inclusion. It should be to find ways to maintain the credibility of the standards while creating conditions that allow smaller actors to evolve until they can meet them.
There is yet another key point: the absence of structured documentation does not necessarily mean a lack of knowledge, best practices, or responsibility. A craftsman may have a deep understanding of a natural fiber, its origin, and the appropriate techniques for working with it.
A community may possess knowledge accumulated over generations about a particular territory. A family farmer may understand production cycles, climatic conditions, and soil characteristics without ever having transformed that knowledge into a technical report. The problem arises when this information needs to circulate within formal market systems. What is known within the community must, in certain situations, be converted into records, documents, and evidence that can be understood by buyers, auditors, certifiers, and other actors in the supply chain.
This is where technology and inclusion must go hand in hand. Digitization cannot simply mean shifting the responsibility of filling out increasingly complex systems onto small-scale producers. A truly inclusive solution must take into account connectivity, language, training, digital experience, and the availability of support.
In some contexts, a guidance or technical assistance center can be just as important as the platform itself. Technology should bridge the gap between the realities of production and formal compliance systems, rather than creating a new layer of difficulty for those who already face limitations in accessing information, credit, and infrastructure.
It is also important to recognize that certification should not be evaluated solely on the basis of cost. When properly implemented, compliance processes can generate management benefits, improve controls, organize documents, increase knowledge about the supply chain itself, and strengthen relationships with buyers.
For small family businesses, enhancing the value of their activities and improving their economic prospects can even help create better conditions for passing the business down through generations. This relationship, however, is not automatic: family succession depends on income, opportunities, infrastructure, identity, and various other factors. Certification can contribute to this environment, but it should not be presented as a guarantee of continuity.
The economic dimension must also be part of the discussion. An environmentally responsible supply chain is not necessarily sustainable if the people who sustain it remain in a vulnerable economic situation. A decent income, adequate compensation, access to markets, and bargaining power must be taken into account.
A community can meet excellent environmental standards and still remain highly dependent on a single buyer. In this scenario, there is a clear vulnerability: if that buyer reduces demand or terminates the business relationship, the entire supply chain could be affected. Diversifying markets, increasing visibility, and creating new business connections are also ways to build resilience.
That’s why we may need to move beyond a simple “dictionary of certifications” toward a smart preparation process. Imagine a small producer providing information about what they produce, where they produce it, and which market they intend to sell to. Based on this information, a system could help them understand which requirements may apply, which are mandatory or voluntary, which certifications make sense for that category, which organizations are involved in the process, which documents are already available, and what evidence still needs to be gathered.
Instead of presenting dozens of acronyms and standards, the technology could break down this complexity into a single path: product → industry → region → target market → requirement → evidence → compliance → certification, when necessary → market readiness.
This perspective also helps reposition traceability itself. Recording the origin is important, but progressively organizing information about producers, materials, processes, batches, territories, and documents can help build a body of evidence even before a specific requirement arises. When the time comes to seek certification, respond to an audit, or evaluate a new market, part of the product’s history is already structured. The process no longer has to start from scratch every time a new demand arises.
It is from this perspective that SUIDChain works with the digital identity of products. The goal is not to certify what falls under the purview of competent authorities, nor to replace audits or accreditation processes. Rather, it is to help organize information on origin, territory, authorship, materials, processes, batches, documents, and evidence, creating a framework that can track the product throughout its lifecycle and support its adaptation to different needs and markets.
The future of inclusive certification may not lie in lowering standards, but in better preparation. Establishing rigorous standards remains necessary, but building bridges so that small producers, artisans, and communities can understand them, provide evidence, and thrive within these systems is equally important.
Because sustainability should not mean selecting only those who already have the resources to demonstrate it. The challenge is to develop mechanisms so that best practices can be identified, structured, verified, improved, and recognized, enabling more stakeholders to be prepared to participate in increasingly transparent supply chains and increasingly demanding markets.
