As demand for critical raw materials accelerates, digital traceability has become central to efforts aimed at strengthening responsible sourcing, environmental, social and governance (ESG) oversight, and supply chain resilience. Yet while traceability is increasingly promoted as a key governance tool, important questions remain about its feasibility, scalability and implications for producer countries and artisanal and small-scale mining (ASM).
Commissioned by GIZ and conducted by Levin Sources and IPIS, this report analyses the rapidly evolving landscape of digital traceability systems for critical mineral value chains. The study combines desk research, a comparative mapping of 27 internationally relevant traceability systems, more than 20 interviews with solution providers, companies, governments, civil society and standard-setting organisations and selected country examples from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Zambia, Indonesia and Chile. Key findings were validated during a panel and multi-stakeholder roundtable held in February 2026 at the Investing in African Mining Indaba.
Key findings and recommendations
The study highlights that traceability should not be treated as a substitute for due diligence, but as a tool to support it. While digital systems can generate and transmit large volumes of supply chain and ESG data, responsible sourcing ultimately depends on governance, verification and how information is used to guide risk mitigation and decision-making.
The report identifies four key challenges and priorities for the future of digital traceability in critical mineral supply chains:
- The key enabler for scale is interoperability: Critical mineral supply chains differ significantly by mineral type, extraction model and trading structure, while overlapping regulations, standards and system have created a fragmented traceability landscape. Scalable traceability is therefore unlikely to emerge from a single system capable of meeting all needs, but rather from interoperability through shared identifiers, compatible data formats and secure exchange protocols across systems and jurisdictions.
- Producer-country alignment requires co-design: Many traceability approaches continue to reflect downstream compliance priorities more than upstream realities, leading producer countries to often perceive traceability primarily as an administrative burden. The report argues that shared interests should be identified early and solutions co-designed with producer-country stakeholders. One practical pathway is to promote interoperability with emerging national mineral governance platforms and administrative systems, helping align international transparency demands with domestic priorities such as regulatory oversight, revenue mobilisation and value addition.
- Pragmatic inclusion of ASM is essential: Rigid end-to-end traceability requirements risk excluding ASM producers from formal markets despite the sector supporting millions of livelihoods and contributing significantly to global critical mineral production. The report argues that scalable ASM inclusion will depend less on sophisticated digital features than on workable, context-sensitive processes that prioritise progressive improvement over binary compliance models. In practice, this may involve starting traceability at aggregation points such as cooperatives or traders, combined with complementary incentives including access to finance, fairer pricing mechanisms and investments in local infrastructure.
- Costs and benefits must be more fairly distributed: Current traceability models often place disproportionate implementation and compliance burdens on upstream actors, while downstream companies capture most benefits related to compliance, reputation and supply chain visibility. Long-term viability therefore depends on reframing traceability as shared operational infrastructure underpinning inventory management and supply chain resilience, supported through hybrid financing models and fairer cost-sharing arrangements.
The report argues that traceability holds important strategic potential, but only if embedded within meaningful due diligence processes and supported by more inclusive, interoperable and producer-country aligned governance approaches.
This research was commissioned by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH and conducted by IPIS and Levin Sources Ltd. The report is an independent assessment and product of its authors. They alone are responsible for any errors or omissions, as well as for the report’s findings and recommendations. The findings and recommendations in this report are ultimately those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of GIZ.
