From farm to slaughterhouse: how suppliers’ social and environmental monitoring works

Browse the content:

• Social and environmental monitoring in the value chain
• The tools that support the system
• The three pillars of supplier management
• First pillar: direct supplier monitoring
• Second pillar: indirect suppliers
• Individual Traceability Protocol
• Full-Cycle Production Systems Protocol
• Level 1 Indirect Supplier Monitoring Protocol  
• Third pillar: requalification and reintegration of suppliers into the chain
• What sets this monitoring system apart
• First fully traceable leather shipment
• Far beyond compliance

Social and environmental monitoring in the value chain

When a slaughterhouse buys a lot of cattle, it is not buying just animals—it is buying the history of everything that happened before: the farm where they were born, the properties they passed through, in production systems in which the cattle do not complete their entire cycle in a single location, the use made of the land, and the social relationships that supported this journey and are inherent to cattle raising. In a global market increasingly demanding in terms of social and environmental transparency, this origin must be proven, not merely declared.

It is in this context that the social and environmental monitoring of direct suppliers has ceased to be a voluntary initiative and become a strategic component of the operations of slaughterhouses exporting to markets such as the European Union, the United Kingdom and Asia. It is precisely in this area that Minerva Foods has built, over more than a decade, one of the most comprehensive systems in the sector.

The tools that support the system

Geospatial supplier monitoring combines data from different sources to produce a compliance assessment before each transaction. Using public databases (PRODES and DETER (INPE), Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and MapBiomas), Minerva Foods operates SMGeo—a geospatial monitoring system developed in partnership with Niceplanet Geotecnologia. The system records the georeferenced polygons of each supplying farm and automatically cross-references them with alert and compliance databases. Any irregularity detected triggers an automatic block: the property is prevented from supplying animals until the issue is resolved.

To support the tracking of the indirect chain, the company made the SMGeo Prospec app available, placing the same geospatial monitoring technology in the hands of farmers. Through the app, a direct supplier can check the social and environmental compliance of those who sell cattle to them before closing a deal—thus functioning as a risk filter that extends oversight throughout the breeding and rearing chain.

In the Amazon region, the company integrated Visipec into its system—a traceability tool that maps risks involving indirect suppliers based on Animal Transit Guide (GTA) movement data. This makes it possible to identify cattle laundering patterns by tracking each animal’s history throughout its entire chain of origin. Also known as “triangulation,” cattle laundering is a fraud involving the transfer of animals raised in illegal areas to legal ones.

The three pillars of supplier management

As the company presents in a proprietary document, supply chain management is organized around three complementary pillars:

First pillar: direct supplier monitoring

Direct suppliers are the farms that deliver animals directly to the slaughterhouse. They therefore form the most visible link in the supply chain and, for that reason, are the first target of any social and environmental monitoring system.

One point frequently underestimated in the debate over cattle traceability is that supplier monitoring is not only environmental—it is also labor-related, social and land-related. The three dimensions are checked simultaneously, before each purchase and in every supplier assessment:

• Environmental: the property may not have recorded illegal deforestation, overlap with conservation units or Indigenous lands, or appear on any environmental embargo list issued by the Brazilian Institute of Environment and Renewable Natural Resources (IBAMA).

• Labor: the producer may not appear on the Ministry of Labor’s Register of Employers, which records establishments cited for conditions analogous to slavery. In this area, Minerva Foods has been a signatory to the Federal Pact for the Eradication of Slave Labor since 2005. Compliance with this commitment is monitored annually by InPacto. Any supplying farm whose owner appears on the Ministry of Labor’s Register of Employers is automatically blocked.

• Social and land-related: the property’s location is cross-referenced with public databases related to Indigenous lands and quilombola territories. The identification of an overlap or potential territorial conflict triggers the analysis and blocking procedures provided for in the Company’s protocols, according to the status of the area in official databases and the applicable criteria. This control seeks to prevent the supply chain from being associated with the irregular occupation of traditionally occupied territories or impacts on the rights of Indigenous peoples and quilombola communities. 

The integration of these three dimensions into a single automated system, which cross-references information from multiple public and private databases, enables the company to respond quickly to new alerts, updates to official lists and changes in property conditions over time. This is therefore not a producer’s self-declaration, a one-off field visit or an assessment conducted only at the time of hiring. The process is continuous, automated and audited by third parties.

Second pillar: indirect suppliers

 As part of its progress in social and environmental monitoring, Minerva Foods has expanded the tools used to oversee indirect suppliers—properties that supplied animals, at earlier stages of the production cycle, to farms that sell directly to the Company.

Because production models and data availability levels vary among producers and regions, a single solution is not sufficient to cover the entire chain. The work therefore combines protocols, technological tools, declaratory documents, technical visits and social and environmental assessments with complementary functions:

Individual Traceability Protocol

It makes it possible to track each animal from the application of its official individual identification device. The process, conducted by certifiers accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA), includes a social and environmental assessment of the properties through which the animal passed after official identification. Before the animal is sent for slaughter, the certifier issues a document attesting to the animals’ traceability and the social and environmental compliance of the properties assessed.

Full-Cycle Production Systems Protocol

It is intended for suppliers that carry out all the stages of breeding, rearing and finishing. Under this model, the direct supplier assumes responsibility, through a letter of guarantee, for the origin of the animals intended for slaughter. Joining the protocol also involves a prior technical visit and the use of a specific checklist to verify the established criteria.

Level 1 Indirect Supplier Monitoring Protocol  

It seeks to expand visibility into the properties that supply animals directly to the Company’s supplying farms. The process uses a self-declaration submitted by the direct supplier and provides for periodic and random technical visits to verify the same social and environmental criteria applied to direct suppliers—such as the absence of illegal deforestation, overlap with Indigenous or quilombola lands, and records on environmental embargo or slave-labor lists—now extended to the previous link in the chain.

Tools such as SMGeo Prospec complement this broader indirect-supplier monitoring strategy—which combines the Individual Traceability Protocol, the Full-Cycle Protocol and the Level 1 Protocol—by supporting the consultation and analysis of social and environmental risks related to indirect suppliers. Its scope, however, depends on the availability and quality of the data used. The app should therefore be understood as one component of this broader strategy, rather than as a standalone solution for full traceability.

Together, these mechanisms increase transparency regarding the origin of animals and the ability to assess social and environmental risks across the different links in the chain. Progress in tracing indirect suppliers, however, continues to depend on a combination of public and private systems, corporate protocols, public policies, the availability of movement records and producer engagement.

Together, these mechanisms increase transparency regarding the origin of animals and the ability to assess social and environmental risks across the different links in the chain. Progress in tracing indirect suppliers, however, continues to depend on a combination of public and private systems, corporate protocols, public policies, the availability of movement records and producer engagement.

Third pillar: supplier requalification and reintegration into the chain

The third pillar of the strategy is implemented through the Reconecta program, which provides technical support and practical guidance so producers can understand the issue identified and take the necessary steps to resolve it. Supported actions may include updating the Rural Environmental Registry, addressing environmental liabilities, preparing recovery plans and regularizing the property with the relevant authorities.

Thus, when a property fails to meet the criteria of the Company’s Procurement Policy, the supplier remains blocked from new purchases but receives support to reverse its situation. Reintegration can occur only after the situation has been regularized and compliance with the applicable requirements has been verified. According to Fabiano Tito, Minerva Foods’ director of Latam cattle procurement, in an article for Brazil Journal, the objective is not to penalize noncompliant producers, but to show them how to comply with legislation and international standards. This approach is formalized in the Reconecta program: suppliers with noncompliance remain blocked from new purchases until they regularize their situation, but receive qualified technical support to address their liabilities and legally return to the supply system. In 2025 alone, more than 1,000 properties were reintegrated into the chain through the program, reinforcing the proposal to treat monitoring as a tool for producer development—and not merely punishment.

What sets this monitoring system apart

Social and environmental supplier monitoring is not exclusive to any one company, but its scope, methodology and coverage vary considerably. Several points distinguish Minerva Foods’ model:

• Full geographic coverage: in 2024, the company achieved 100% monitoring of direct suppliers in every country where it operates in South America—Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Paraguay and Uruguay—bringing forward by six years the target originally set for 2030. It is the first company in the sector to reach this level on a continental scale.

• All biomes: in Brazil, monitoring covers every biome where the company operates—the Amazon, Cerrado, Pantanal, Caatinga and Atlantic Forest—including full-cycle producers who manage the process from the birth of the calf through delivery for slaughter.

• Annual independent audit: monitoring systems undergo annual checks by independent entities. In Brazil, some of these audits are linked to public commitments and protocols established for the cattle chain in the Amazon, including processes developed under the Federal Prosecution Service. The results and reports are made publicly available by the Company. 

First fully traceable leather shipment

In 2023, Minerva Leather completed the first shipment of leather with complete traceability and certified social and environmental compliance, extending the traceability standard beyond meat to the second most important product in the cattle chain.

Far beyond compliance

The maturation of social and environmental monitoring reflects a broader transformation: sustainability is no longer treated solely as a compliance obligation and is becoming part of strategic supply chain management.

From a regulatory standpoint, requirements such as the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) increase the need for structured and verifiable information about the origin of raw materials. For cattle products covered by the regulation, operators responsible for placing them on the European market must conduct due diligence, assess risks and provide information on the geolocation of the establishments where the animals were kept, compliance with applicable legislation in the country of production and the absence of deforestation after the cutoff date established by the regulation.

In this context, companies that already have structured monitoring, traceability and data governance systems are better prepared to organize evidence, respond to requests from operators and buyers, and adapt their processes to new requirements. This does not eliminate the need for adjustment, but it reduces the need to build the entire control infrastructure from scratch.

From a financial standpoint, SARB Standard 026/2023 establishes guidelines for signatory financial institutions to incorporate illegal deforestation risk management into credit operations with slaughterhouses and cattle-processing plants. Considerations include the existence of mechanisms for monitoring and tracing direct and indirect suppliers, the adoption of social and environmental criteria and the periodic disclosure of indicators. The standard does not guarantee easier access to credit or ESG financing lines, but it demonstrates how the ability to know the origin of raw materials, assess social and environmental risks and present auditable evidence has become part of the financial system’s risk analysis and management processes.

From a commercial standpoint, buyers, customers and international markets increasingly use social and environmental information as part of their criteria for selecting, approving and retaining suppliers. Structured data and auditable processes make it possible to respond more quickly to questionnaires, audits, requests for evidence and the specific requirements of each market.

Monitoring also strengthens operational decision-making. By integrating territorial assessments into purchasing processes, the Company can anticipate risks, prevent transactions that conflict with its criteria, organize evidence and direct engagement and regularization efforts with producers.

Thus, the value of social and environmental monitoring lies not only in the amount of data available or in meeting a specific regulatory requirement, but in the ability to turn information into decisions, controls, preventive actions and mechanisms for improving the chain. It is this governance—combining technology, protocols, audits, field presence, public policies and relationships with producers—that turns monitoring and traceability into strategic assets for cattle farming.