Int. J.

Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Production Economics

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijpe

Blockchain technology and the sustainable supply chain: Theoretically

exploring adoption barriers
Mahtab Kouhizadeh, Sara Saberi *, Joseph Sarkis
Robert A. Foisie School of Business, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Blockchain technology has gained global attention with potential to revolutionize supply chain management and
Supply chain management sustainability achievements. The few applied ongoing use cases include blockchain for food, healthcare, and
Sustainability logistics supply chains have emphasized blockchain’s untapped potential. Potential support for supply chain and
Blockchain
sustainability issues include improving efficiency, transparency, and traceability in addition to billions of dollars
Barrier analysis
DEMATEL
in corporate financial savings. Given its promise, the adoption of blockchain technology, although hyped for
Technology-organization-environment years, has not seen rapid acceptance. In this study, the technology-organization-environment framework and
framework force field theories are utilized to investigate blockchain adoption barriers. Using various literature streams on
technology, organizational practices, and sustainability, a comprehensive overview of barriers for adopting
blockchain technology to manage sustainable supply chains is provided. The barriers are explored using tech­
nology, organizational, and environmental – supply chain and external – framework followed by inputs from
academics and industry experts and then analyzed using the Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory
(DEMATEL) tool. The results show that supply chain and technological barriers are the most critical barriers
among both academics and industry experts. We further determine the similarities and differences among aca­
demics and practitioners in perceiving the barriers. This exploratory study reveals interesting relative importance
and interrelationships of barriers which are necessary, theoretically and practically for further adoption and
dissemination of blockchain technology in a sustainable supply chain environment. It also sets the stage for
theoretical observations for understanding blockchain technology implementation in sustainable supply chains.
A series of research propositions and research directions culminate from this exploratory study.

1. Introduction occurring? Are there any barriers that impede organizations from
investing and adopting this technology? How are these barriers con­
Blockchain technology has recently gained significant attention and nected and how do they relate to each other? Should companies address
hype as a disruptive technology. Its potential benefits have stimulated a barrier to mitigate the effect of others? These questions are the main
organizations to consider adopting this technology. Several promising drivers for this study.
benefits have been posited including cost-savings, enhanced Blockchain technology’s characteristics such as reliability, trace­
traceability-transparency, and sustainability improvement (Kshetri, ability, data immutability and smart contracts are giving rise to trustless
2018). While 82% of Fortune 100 companies have explored blockchain,1 environments with less need for intermediaries (Iansiti and Lakhani,
the investment rate in blockchain has – surprisingly – decreased2 in 2017). There are many blockchain use applications, one of the foremost
2019. A recent study investigated the influence of blockchain on the is supply chain sustainability (Saberi et al., 2019b).
circular economy by analyzing various case studies from different in­ The question arises; ‘why supply chains’? And the answer is simple,
dustrial sectors and found that none of these cases are in full imple­ there is an increase in complexity because of global supply chain net­
mentation phase but stuck at demonstration and pilot study stage works (Lambert and Enz, 2017). This complexity makes it difficult to
(Kouhizadeh et al., 2019b). A very basic question is why is this make efficient transactions, trace products and data, and assess this

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Kouhizadeh), [email protected] (S. Saberi), [email protected] (J. Sarkis).
1
- https://medium.com/altcoin-magazine/blockchain-to-become-a-commonplace-for-fortune-100-companies-3a302526d8eb.
2
- https://cointelegraph.com/news/amid-rising-adoption-funding-for-blockchain-startups-dries-up.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107831
Received 16 September 2019; Received in revised form 27 May 2020; Accepted 8 June 2020
Available online 20 June 2020
0925-5273/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

information (Ivanov et al., 2019b). consumption. High computational power required for important “proof-
Blockchain is defined as decentralized ledgers that contain trans­ of-work” consensus systems consumes many hundreds of megawatts of
actions as data blocks; with blocks linked to their predecessors by a energy (Fairley, 2017). High energy consumption also means higher
cryptographic pointer. The chain continues to the originator, first, block. carbon emissions. Decentralized ledgers also need higher computational
Every time a new block is introduced to the system it gets linked to its power and resources for maintaining the security of data and entries that
predecessor (Dinh et al., 2018). Distributed consensus, secure, traceable, are duplicated, which ultimately lead to greater energy consumption.8
verified, and transparent information are all critical characteristics These are only sustainability downsides, but as we shall see in our study
(Crosby et al., 2016). These characteristics motivated many companies there are many other barriers that exist for the adoption of this tech­
including Walmart3 and Glencore4 to integrate blockchain technology nology from a SSCM perspective. In addition, switching to a new
into their supply chains to improve the efficiency and performance. A disruptive technology such as blockchain involves disruptive changes
recent survey from Deloitte confirmed that blockchain maturity has for a company within the context of technical and non-technical prac­
increased 18% over the last year in the eyes of many executives and tices including internal and external ones (Kurpjuweit et al., 2019;
decision makers – representing a major shift in blockchain momentum Rugeviciute and Mehrpouya, 2019), that can be difficult to justify.
(Insights, 2019). This fact will be another motivation for this study that Even with the promises of blockchain technology, the adoption has
prompts us to find important factors (including both barriers and been slow. Most of the use cases discussed in the literature are stalled at
drivers) which expedite blockchain adoption. the pilot and planned use stage. We seek to investigate how this tech­
Supply chain sustainability has increased in importance over the past nology with so much economic, social, and environmental promise has
three decades and become a major driver for demand and customer stalled. Thus, we need to recognize the possible challenges and obstacles
loyalty.5 Sustainability has been defined as a balance of environmental, – barriers – that firms might face with implementing this technology.
social and business dimensions, also known as the triple-bottom-line Using the technology, organization, and environment (TOE) and
(Seuring et al., 2008). There are social, competitive, and regulatory force field theoretical lenses, we examine the barriers and relationships
reasons for championing sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) amongst barriers that have limited implementation of blockchain tech­
(Saberi et al., 2018). Consumers seek to verify their products for sus­ nology. The barriers derive from a comprehensive literature review of
tainability and require an accessible information portal for their product technology and sustainability adoption practices and the organizational
information (Nikolakis et al., 2018). This situation has put pressure on adoption barriers they face.
suppliers to become sustainable on global and local levels as a prereq­ Addressing all barriers simultaneously is practically infeasible. De­
uisite for participation in some supply chains. Currently there are in­ cision making approaches may be suitable for evaluating the importance
formation and auditing sustainability certification systems in place for and ranking of various barriers. The Decision Making and Trial Evalu­
supply chains. For example, there is the Business Social Compliance ation Laboratory (DEMATEL) methodology is chosen because of its
Initiative database that certifies audits of supplier sustainability (Asif ability to identify important barriers while capturing their in­
et al., 2019). However, these systems are voluntary databases which terdependencies. Other methodologies focusing on decision-making fail
means that their credibility and validity can be questioned (Kouhizadeh to reflect causal relationships and overall influence of factors on each
and Sarkis, 2018). Blockchain technology can support these sustain­ other for empirical theoretical analyses. We use the DEMATEL meth­
ability certifications that flow deep into the supply chain. odology to identify the critical barriers and their relationships to each
Blockchain has the potential to revolutionize supply chain sustain­ other. The study utilizes responses from supply chain, sustainability and
ability. Use cases show companies seeking to implement blockchain into blockchain experts to investigate these barriers. This paper is one of the
their supply chain operations for traceability of products, as in the case first to broadly investigate blockchain technology and adoption for
of Maersk (Popper and Lohr, 2017), Provenance (Baker and Steiner, SSCM barriers based theoretical frameworks and expert perspectives.
2015), Walmart (Kshetri, 2018), and recently in Mongolia for enhancing There are five main research questions that we address in this study as
the sustainability of cashmere.6 Some organizations use it for food follows:
safety, as in the case of Chipotle Mexican Grill (Casey and Wong, 2017).
Minimizing counterfeit products has also been a goal of some blockchain 1. Why has blockchain technology not been considerably implemented
applications (Ferna �ndez-Caram� es and Fraga-Lamas, 2018; Singh and in supply chains for sustainability purposes?
Singh, 2016). These examples are for safety, security, and environ­ 2. Can the barriers be examined theoretically and placed within TOE
mentally sound supply chain practices, all of which are elements of and force field frameworks?
supply chain sustainability. Despite the many potential blockchain 3. What are the levels of importance and relationships amongst the
benefits for improving sustainability in a network, the number of use barriers?
cases applying blockchain for sustainability are very limited while 4. Is there potential for sequencing and overcoming these barriers to
companies continue to struggle with the more holistic aspects of sus­ accelerate blockchain implementation?
tainability.7 As mentioned earlier, the investment in the technology – 5. How do two study groups – scholars and practitioners – perceive the
with some exceptions – is decreasing. importance and relationships among the barriers? What are the
New technology has both advantages and disadvantages. A major similarities and differences in their perspectives?
sustainability concern of blockchain technology is in its energy
The contributions of this study include:

� Understanding the barriers that impede blockchain adoption for

3
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/biserdimitrov/2019/12/05/how-walma sustainable supply chain management and evaluating their
rt-and-others-are-riding-a-blockchain-wave-to-supply-chain-paradise/#1ca interrelationships
81b127791. � Using theory to further explain the barriers of blockchain technology
4
- https://cointelegraph.com/news/blockchain-supply-chain-platform-gains- adoption for sustainable supply chain management while extending
metals-giant-glencore-as-member.
5 theoretical underpinning to barriers analysis of organizational
- https://www.cgsinc.com/en/infographics/CGS-Survey-Reveals-Sustaina
innovation adoption
bility-Is-Driving-Demand-and-Customer-Loyalty.
6
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2019/1
2/28/un-pilot-in-mongolia-uses-blockchain-to-h
8
elp-farmers-deliver-sustainable-cashmere/#1e1b48c017d9. - https://www.valuewalk.com/2020/01/progress-of-blockchain-technolo
7
- https://hbr.org/2019/12/the-top-sustainability-stories-of-2019. gy:-economic-barriers-investment-tips-and-more/.

2
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

� Evaluating differences and similarities of barrier perceptions are noted as some general challenges preventing the diffusion of
amongst two research stakeholder communities – academics and blockchain technology across industry (Chang et al., 2019). A compre­
practitioners hensive examination of challenges that limit blockchain adoption for
� Providing insights into how DEMATEL methodology can be used for supply chain management is a recognized research gap (Queiroz et al.,
theory extension and development by informing causal relations for 2019).
research Proposition development Emergent literature also highlights the role of blockchain technology
to support supply chain sustainability (Di Vaio and Varriale, 2019;
There are both theoretical and practical implications in guiding or­ Kamble et al., 2019b). However, the challenges supply chains face as
ganizations, managers and policy makers in prioritizing their effort for they seek to integrate blockchain technology for supporting sustain­
resolving barriers to blockchain adoption generally in supply chains and ability remain relatively under-investigated. A study by Saberi et al.
more specifically for sustainability in supply chains. This study is the (2019b) presents an overview of such challenges that stem from intra-
first that offers a road map for effective blockchain adoption in sus­ and inter-organizational supply chain resources, technological limita­
tainable supply chain by identifying the critical barriers and assessing tions, and external relationships outside supply chains. Our current
their interdependence. study utilizes these barriers. We further advance that study by intro­
For the remainder of this paper, in Section 2 we review the literature ducing two compelling theories, Force Field Theory and TOE, to theo­
relating to supply chain management, sustainability and blockchain. In retically support the identified barriers and the need for barriers
this section, we also identify different blockchain and SSCM adoption analysis. The barriers to adoption research is also extended by evalu­
barriers, borrowing from force field and TOE theoretical perspectives. ating the relative importance and the interdependence of the critical
The methodology is described and sampling is explained in Section 3; barriers to SSCM blockchain adoption.
study results appear in Section 4. This section is followed by a discussion Previous barriers analysis studies in blockchain-enabled supply
of the results in section 5 and managerial implications in Section 6, chains have lacked theoretical underpinning. Some studies have utilized
which presents a number theoretical and research propositions. The theories to examine the intention to adopt and adoption of blockchain
paper concludes with a summary of findings, study limitations, and technology, rather than seeking to understand the barriers and chal­
future research directions in Section 7. lenges. Theories include those introduced by Schmidt and Wagner
(2019) that examined the influence of blockchain technology on supply
2. Background chains from a transaction cost theory lens and highlighted the reduction
in opportunistic behavior, uncertainty and transaction costs in a
2.1. Blockchain technology: an overview of the current research blockchain-based supply chain. The technology acceptance model,
theory of planned behavior, technology readiness index, and unified
Blockchain technology was popularized by Nakamoto (2009) theory of acceptance and use of technology, are some example theories
through the cryptocurrency Bitcoin. Although this initial focus was on that have been used to explain and describe adoption of blockchain
cryptocurrencies and financial-oriented applications (Crosby et al., technology in supply chains (Kamble et al., 2018; Queiroz and Wamba,
2016), the transformative features of blockchain motivated 2019). None of these studies have theoretically examined the limitations
non-financial sectors to move toward this “game changer” (Johnson, and barriers in this environment.
2018). The literature has introduced blockchain technology applications Any supply chain innovation adoption will face barriers and require
to address a variety of issues. Exemplary applications include healthcare careful planning. Many studies have sought to identify and explore
management (Angraal et al., 2017; Dwivedi et al., 2019; Jayaraman barriers for adopting various supply chain management innovations.
et al., 2019; Mettler, 2016; Yue et al., 2016; Zhang et al., 2018), the Effective supply chain management (Fawcett et al., 2008); sustainable
energy sector (Ahl et al., 2020; Andoni et al., 2019; Burger et al., 2016; practices (Chkanikova and Mont, 2015; Gold et al., 2017; Gorane and
Mengelkamp et al., 2018b), and e-government (Hou, 2017; Navadkar Kant, 2015; Govindan and Hasanagic, 2018; Movahedipour et al., 2017;
et al., 2018; Ølnes et al., 2017; Pilkington et al., 2017; Sullivan and Sajjad et al., 2015); circular economy (Mangla et al., 2018; Tura et al.,
Burger, 2019). In addition to these applications, there has been growing 2019); and information systems (Heeks, 2006; Jharkharia and Shankar,
literature on blockchain technology as an enabler for supply chain 2005; Peng and Nunes, 2010) are some examples of supply chain in­
management. Table 1 provides an exemplary summary of the current novations facing barriers. Many of these studies utilize DEMATEL
literature on blockchain supply chain management application. methodology for investigating supply chain innovation adoption bar­
The majority of scientific articles examining blockchain technology riers (Dinh et al., 2018; Iansiti and Lakhani, 2017; Kaur et al., 2018).
potential to support supply chain management represent four main However, these studies have been atheoretical – with deficiencies in
topics-themes (Pournader et al., 2019); trust (Meng et al., 2018), trade theoretical frameworks as a foundation for barrier analyses. Force field
(Mengelkamp et al., 2018a), technology (IoT, RFID) (Ben-Daya et al., theory and TOE provide a substantive theoretical framework that in­
2019), and traceability/transparency (Kshetri, 2018). corporates motivations and barriers for adopting innovations.
A study by Chang et al. (2019) presented an overview on how the In the blockchain technology literature, a recent study utilizing as­
growing literature addresses how blockchain technology can alleviate pects of DEMATEL evaluates the relationship among the enablers of
global supply chain issues including improving transparency, dispute blockchain technology in the agriculture supply chain (Kamble et al.,
resolution, compliance, integrity, and stakeholder management. 2019c). Another study applies DEMATEL to determine interrelation­
Another recent study by Hughes et al. (2019) delved into the informa­ ships amongst barriers to adopting blockchain technology in industry
tion management literature and delineated the potential for achieving and service sectors (Biswas and Gupta, 2019). The barriers identified by
United Nations Sustainability Development Goals. Transparent infor­ Biswas and Gupta (2019) did not include blockchain adoption in the
mation that traced origin of materials and products, participating supply supply chain domain or for sustainability. They focused on external and
chain members, and processes and operations shared on blockchain systems issues in a public blockchain setting and cryptocurrencies.
ledgers can enhance product provenance, chain of custody and Although both studies – Kamble et al. (2019c) and Biswas and Gupta
authenticity (Montecchi et al., 2019). (2019) – can inform our study, their perspective evaluations do not
The current literature has primarily focused on the potential and capture private blockchain and especially SSCM concerns. Our study
benefits of supply chain management blockchain solutions; few studies further contributes to the literature by introducing blockchain as a novel
address blockchain adoption barriers that may play important roles in technology that requires significant and potentially diverse attention
blockchain’s slow adoption rate. Technological challenges of blockchain and development from both scholarly and practitioner viewpoints. How
technology, interoperability, lack of trust and standards, and legal issues these study groups perceive barriers – in addition to group similarities

3
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Table 1
Related literature on blockchain technology for supply chain management.
Stream Summary Focus Theory Empirical Source
Content-
Methodology

Supply chain Specified the role of blockchain technology Benefits Case study Kshetri (2018)
objectives in achieving supply chain objectives.
Blockchain can help reduce cost and risk and
improve quality, flexibility, speed and
sustainability
Blockchain project Developed guidelines to design a mindful Adoption Case study Hoek (2019)
design pilot project for adoption of blockchain
technology. Supply chain companies need to
select a specific supply chain objective that
they seek to achieve through blockchain
adoption
Understanding Perceived benefits and challenges of Benefits and Sensemaking Theory Interviews with Wang et al. (2019b)
blockchain for blockchain adoption in a general supply challenges supply chain
supply chain chain executives
management
Traceability of food Introduced and modeled blockchain as a Benefits Case study, (Behnke and Janssen, 2019;
supportive solution for traceability of food simulation Bumblauskas et al., 2019)
and agriculture
Agriculture supply Determined the interrelationship among Benefits Experts’ opinion- Kamble et al. (2019c)
chain enablers of blockchain technology for DEMATEL
agriculture supply chain
Adoption behavior Analyzed the behavioral intention to adopt Adoption Technology Acceptance Model Empirical data (Kamble et al., 2018;
and the perception of the usefulness of (TAM), Technology Readiness Karamchandani et al., 2019)
blockchain technology in supply chain Index (TRI) and the Theory of
management. Planned Behavior (TPB)
Supply chain Investigated the role of blockchain Benefits Conceptual (Ivanov et al., 2019a); (
operations technology in leveraging variety of supply Martinez et al., 2019); (Min,
chain operations such as demand forecasting 2019); (Wu et al., 2017a)
and inventory management, order
management, resilience and risk
management and supply chain distribution
Literature review Systematically reviewed the papers that Adoption, Conceptual- (Chang et al., 2019; Macrinici
address the blockchain technology benefits and review et al., 2018; Pournader et al.,
application in SCM challenges 2019; Queiroz et al., 2019;
Wang et al., 2019a)
Theoretical framework Developed a theoretical framework to Adoption Principal Agent Theory (PAT), Conceptual- Treiblmaier (2018)
of the literature present relevant topics in supply chain Transaction Cost Analysis review
management and logistics for integration of (TCA), Resource-Based View
blockchain technology (RBV) and Network Theory
(NT)
Adoption guidelines Examined various blockchain case studies to Adoption, Case studies Azzi et al. (2019)
delineate what supply chain issues can be benefits and
resolved using blockchain, and developed challenges
guidelines to build a blockchain-based
supply chain.
Challenges of Determined the interrelationships among the Challenges Experts’ opinion- Biswas & Gupta (2019)
blockchain general barriers of blockchain adoption in DEMATEL
technology for the industry and service sector
industries and
services
Blockchain for The potential of blockchain in enhancing Benefits and Conceptual Saberi et al. (2019b)
supporting environmental, social, and economic challenges
sustainability in dimensions of sustainability
supply chains

and differences – are explored in our study. seeks to examine how supply chain academics and practitioners perceive
The DEMATEL-based analysis in our study is further differentiated the barriers.
from previous studies due to a theoretical focus for barriers analysis –
especially by introducing force field theory and TOE as explanatory
2.2. The case for blockchain within sustainable supply chain management
theoretical lenses, which have never been used in the previous
DEMATEL-oriented studies. Theoretical underpinning is lacking in many
Blockchain – a disruptive technology – can enhance SSCM. Block­
previous DEMATEL studies that investigate relationships amongst fac­
chain could bolster confidence in product sustainability authenticity by
tors (e.g. Bai and Sarkis (2013); Bhatia and Srivastava (2018); Kaur et al.
keeping close and accurate track of their flows in supply chains (Saberi
(2018); Lin (2013); Su et al. (2016); Wu and Lee (2007)). Our study fills
et al., 2019b). Blockchain technology can track social and environ­
this gap and aims to examine the barriers that impede blockchain
mental conditions which may be threats to environmental concerns, in
adoption for integrating sustainability in the supply chains; with theo­
addition to social issues such as health and safety of others (Adams et al.,
retical observations that form research propositions to advance key
2018). This capability can add to social, environmental and business
theories in the supply chain management context. The present study also
sustainability.

4
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Public/permissionless and private/permissioned are two popular literature. This proposed theory can explain the nature and behavior of
blockchain technology environments (Ølnes et al., 2017; Pilkington, challenges that organizational entities may face when they adopt any
2016). In a public blockchain network, any entity can join the network, type of innovation; not just blockchain technology.
access the data, and use blockchain ledgers. Bitcoin and other crypto­ Force field theory (Lewin, 1951) describes the essence of organiza­
currencies are examples of public blockchain. A private blockchain tional transformation and change. Lewin’s theory of change in­
serves only those users that are granted access to the blockchain. A corporates three steps: unfreezing, change, and refreezing. The
hybrid of public and private blockchain can also exist to address specific emergence of technologies and innovations unfreezes the organization’s
business needs. Most practically proposed supply chain use cases adopt a present state. These innovations can move organizations toward the
private blockchain environment where known users with restricted ac­ change, which happens to be adopting and implementing technology,
cess can exchange information (Kshetri, 2018). and refreezes their state with the new technology. This theory is widely
Blockchain technology can be instrumental in changing sustain­ used within the change management field and the classic paradigm of
ability management as well. There are examples about its application change management (Schein, 2010; Waddell et al., 2007). Although
apart from the supply chain. The energy market is always under scrutiny some researchers have argued that the three step of change suggested by
for its sustainability. Blockchain has found its way to make it more Lewin is overly simplistic and fails to reflect the today’s complex envi­
sustainable to share energy (Park et al., 2018). There are applications for ronment (Child, 2015; Clegg et al., 2015), this theory is regarded as a
reduced waste and management of waste in circular fashions (Zhang, strong tool for building change management among practitioners and
2019). Linkage to the internet of things and geotracking can help in academics (Cummings et al., 2016; Hendry, 1996; Levasseur, 2001).
management deep into the supply chain (Heinrich et al., 2019). The However, for this change to occur, overcoming resistant forces, barriers,
technology can also be used for blockchain enabled emissions trading is necessary.
schemes and carbon trading (Fu et al., 2018; Manupati et al., 2019). Resistance forces may stem from variety of internal and external
Blockchain can reduce information asymmetries that may socially and factors at different individual levels and broader organizational levels
financially deprive small organizations and farmers (Charlebois, 2018). (Alvesson and Sveningsson, 2015; Lewin, 1946). A number of identified
Reduction in unethical, corrupt and counterfeit practices also help barriers and resisting forces in this study are also relevant to other
blockchain contribute to social supply chain sustainability (O’Dair, organizational theories adopted to understand supply chains – for
2016). example, the resource-based view theory, relational view, and institu­
There are many other examples on how blockchain technology could tional theory.
affect the triple-bottom-line sustainability apart from supply chain ap­ There are many blockchain motivations and driving forces we have
plications (e.g. see (Di Vaio and Varriale, 2019; Kouhizadeh and Sarkis, identified. The role of relationships between barriers derived from this
2018; Kouhizadeh et al., 2019a; Manupati et al., 2019; Nikolakis et al., study can help advance these theories for blockchain adoption. We re­
2018). turn to this theory, and linking it to TOE, to formulate a number of
research propositions that are reinforced by our exploratory study
2.3. Force field theory and blockchain adoption findings.
Force field theory provides an overarching theoretical lens that ac­
Blockchain technology can have disruptive and revolutionary im­ counts for the entire resisting forces, rather than a narrow set of resisting
plications for supply chain processes. Digital technologies and supply forces. These resisting forces and barriers we identify utilize the TOE
chain information systems, e.g. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP), theoretical framework.
continue to play important roles in the supply chain. Traditional systems
are not able to meet many complex and dynamic issues facing modern 2.4. TOE and blockchain in sustainable supply chains barriers
supply chains. Many of these systems fail to provide updated, secure,
real-time supply chain data (Brody, 2017; Di Vaio and Varriale, 2019). The popular and research literature are replete with blockchain
Blockchain technology includes numerous capabilities to support mod­ implementation advantages, and often for SSCM. Blockchain technology
ern supply chains. Full transparency and verifiability, enhanced trust can support the supply chain, but significant barriers to adoption exist.
and security of information, and disintermediation are some exemplary New technology adoption is brimming with challenges; blockchain is
drivers for blockchain adoption (Saberi et al., 2019a). not exempt. Technology can reap fruits only when various challenges
However, blockchain adoption also faces various challenges. The are overcome. The participating parties need to profoundly understand
challenges organizations face are defined as resisting forces according to these challenges and plan accordingly.
force field theory (Lewin, 1946). These resisting forces freeze the In this section, we utilize the TOE theoretical lens (Baker, 2012;
transformation, counteract the driving forces and capabilities of block­ Oliveira and Martins, 2011; Tornatzky et al., 1990) to identify various
chain technology, and impede successful changes within organizations challenges and barriers for blockchain technology adoption, especially
and supply chains. within the SSCM context. TOE is a theoretical framework that broadly
Force field theory serves as a theoretical framework for this study, in characterizes aspects that relate to adoption of technological in­
addition to TOE theory. The barriers and challenges that obstruct suc­ novations (Kuan and Chau, 2001; Zhu et al., 2002). According to TOE,
cessful adoption of blockchain within SSCM represent strong forces to technology adoption by a firm is influenced by three major elements; the
stop change. technological (T), organizational (O), and environmental (E) contexts
Although force field theory is a classic framework in change man­ (Baker, 2012; Tornatzky et al., 1990). The technological context in­
agement literature (Sonenshein, 2010), it is an overlooked theory in corporates the characteristics and availability of a technological inno­
supply chain management literature. A few studies have found that vation. The organizational context refers to the firm’s structure, as well
incorporating force field theory, in addition to other theories, can be as the resources and intra-firm communications. The environmental
valuable in explaining lack of adoption based on various barriers to context presents the characteristics of markets, industries, and the reg­
effective collaboration between supply chain partners in supply chains ulatory environment.
(Fawcett et al., 2008, 2010). That this theory has not gained additional Blockchain is a technological innovation and, factors influencing
traction given the innovations and lack of adoption – many examples blockchain adoption can follow the TOE framework. The blockchain
already given in this section – is surprising. barriers include technological (T), organizational (O), and environ­
The present study contributes to adopting force field theory as a mental (E) barriers. The first two groups of factors are endogenous to the
significant theory to address barriers research. It can serve as an excel­ technology or organizations. We expanded the environmental element
lent theoretical backbone for barrier analysis within supply chain to include two exogenous dimensions including inter-organizational

5
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

barriers, and a broad category including barriers external to supply requirement for sustainable supply chains; the unethical perception of
chain and organization barriers. the blockchain technology hinders its application where ethical
The technological barriers include basic challenges that are present behavior is central to acceptance.
with blockchain technology like security, accessibility and immaturity
of technology. Organizational dimensions include management 2.4.2. Organizational barriers
commitment, policies and culture. The supply chain (inter-organiza­ The organizational context encompasses factors and issues related to
tional) view encapsulates challenges like information disclosure, prob­ internal focal firm concerns (Tornatzky et al., 1990). Blockchain tech­
lems with collaboration and lack of awareness. The final barrier nology requires hardware and software, with maintenance, to sustain it.
grouping includes government policies, and general normative, and The cost associated with additional investments increases with larger
ethical practices. implementation (Marsal-Llacuna, 2018). New technology will be costly
The barriers – resisting forces – were initially determined using for the organization and the system partners, not only for the technology
relevant literature in supply chain information systems and technology, but supporting people and process infrastructure (Mougayar, 2016). For
SSCM, and blockchain technology. Expert input helped confirm the sustainability this also means cross-disciplinary participation such as
barriers, definitions, and associated categories. These experts are active corporate social responsibility, public relationships, and environmental
in the blockchain-supported supply chain area. management personnel depending on the sustainability concern to be
Table 2 summarizes the TOE elements and the underlying barriers. addressed by the technology.
The four barrier dimensions we now present consider both general and The lack of commitment from top or middle management creates
SSCM issues that may arise. problems. Their support is essential for blockchain technology imple­
mentation (Mangla et al., 2017). This barrier exists for risk-averse
2.4.1. Technological barriers companies, where the risks of new technology can affect the organiza­
The technological context incorporates technical capability, tion. In addition, if the supply chain sustainability is the goal for this
complexity, difficulty, and availability of the innovation that is consid­ technology, management may not view the blockchain application as
ered for adoption (Rogers, 1995). For blockchain adoption this category core to its values and mission.
includes barriers stemming from blockchain technology limitations. In organizations there is a lack of comprehensive blockchain un­
Blockchain technology is immature. Thisimmaturity creates technical derstanding impeding its implementation (Mougayar, 2016). Adding the
challenges including scalability, usability, and interoperability (Casino need to fully understand and manage sustainability in this context
et al., 2018; Swan, 2015; Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). The technology still makes it a greater knowledge and expert organizational need. This
suffers from latency and throughput issues (Swan, 2015). With lower discomfort with the new technology, applied to a relatively new orga­
throughput rate and higher latency, blockchain technology still requires nizational practice such as sustainability, negatively affects the
development (Mendling et al., 2018). These issues indicate that imple­ perceived ease of use (Kamble et al., 2019a).
mentation of blockchain in supply chain could mean lower transaction There are challenges in adoption of blockchain technology in supply
numbers, and the transaction times would be higher. When seeking to chains due to lack of standardization (Morkunas et al., 2019). Internal
monitor environmental and social practices, the type, location, and organizational changes for new standards, both blockchain and in sus­
volume of information required make it extremely difficult to manage. tainability, would lead to difficulty in establishing connections via
Blockchain technology has been introduced as a secure technology blockchain between firms as the systems may vary in architecture.
that utilizes a unique decentralized structure with various computa­
tional algorithms that make it difficult to hack or crash. Yet, a number of 2.4.3. Environmental barriers – the supply chain inter-organizational view
hacks and system attacks, especially in the cryptocurrency environment, The environmental elements include factors related to the regulatory
have raised questions about the vulnerability of blockchain (Yli-Huumo environment, industry characteristics, market competition and the
et al., 2016). Another challenge that raises question on blockchain ap­ linkages among firms (Tornatzky et al., 1990). In a blockchain-based
plications involves disagreements among blockchain communities and setting, the environmental context may contain two categories: supply
actors that leads to “blockchain split”. This issue separates blockchain chain barriers and broader external barriers – broader external barriers
into two or more paths in a public blockchain setting (Islam et al., 2019). are discussed in the next section. Inter-organizational supply chain
There are also blockchain accessibility concerns; is the IT infra­ barriers refer to external barriers occurring outside the boundaries of the
structure accessible for all blockchain participants (Abeyratne and firm; and the technology. Although the environmental context some­
Monfared, 2016)? To access pertinent information the type of block­ times only focuses on institutional factors, in this study we utilize a
chain system in place – open or permissioned – needs consideration broader perspective that incorporates relation-specific issues in the
(Morabito, 2017). Whether all blockchain participants need access to all supply chain across organizations.
supply chain information is an application concern (Gorane and Kant, The most challenging dimension of supply chain concerns arises at
2015). the nexus of technical and sustainable practices supply chain integra­
Data immutability is one of the blockchain technology characteris­ tion. Customer lack of awareness about blockchain technology in sus­
tics. Immutability means that data or the information is unchanged. tainability may arise, usually due to ineffective communication and
Immutability is a potent feature that ensures reliability and authenticity collaboration among the partners with different goals and priorities
of information. However, an issue that arises with immutability is that (Mangla et al., 2018; Oliveira and Handfield, 2019). Organizations often
previous data and errors within the records are permanent, as they will lack sustainability knowledge aid fail to adopt sustainable practices
continue to live with the blockchain (Palombini, 2017). For example, a across the supply chain; blockchain technology only adds to the
poor environmental or social record could exist forever, even though the complexity and potential confusion (Luthra et al., 2016).
latest data seeks to correct such information. There is often a question about data confidentiality and privacy in
The last point is blockchain technology’s public image and percep­ inter-organizational systems (Sarkis and Talluri, 2004; Sayogo et al.,
tions. This characteristic is not strictly technological, but image plays a 2015). Organizations are skeptical about sharing their information as
large role in eventual adoption. The public perception may be negative they see information as a competitive edge (Wang et al., 2019b).
due to the ‘dark web’ of money-laundering and other illegal activities Blockchain technology makes information transparent and data pro­
through blockchain anonymity; although in permissioned block chains tection and privacy could be provided via encrypted blockchain (Hughes
this may not be an issue. Over time this perception may change as et al., 2019). There are questions about lack of information sharing
greater adoption of blockchain occurs (Swan, 2015). The concern is that policies, which could address how much and what type of information
social and environmental issues need to be at a higher ethical should be shared. The participants are willing to share the information if

6
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

it adds value towards their customers and their proprietary information explore the barriers and concerns.
is not disclosed (Sayogo et al., 2015). Sustainability information is
exceptionally sensitive due to legal and ethical concerns that could not 3. Research methodology
only result in poor public image, but fines and even criminal pro­
ceedings. This situation makes the barriers even larger. This section describes the DEMATEL methodology, the sample and
It is a challenge to integrate supply chain processes with sustainable participant information.
practices and blockchain technology. Business process reengineering is
required. The processes must be jointly developed and improved to 3.1. DEMATEL methodology
support additional sustainable practices, especially if supply chain
members are not well-versed on these issues (Kaur et al., 2018; Sarkis Analyzing a large number of barriers or factors that are interrelated
and Zhu, 2018). Organizations are slow to respond to improving sus­ can be overwhelming. Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) meth­
tainable performance due to absence of resources (Govindan et al., odologies and structural modeling approaches provide ways to define
2014). Due to the complex nature of the sustainability the technology relationships and priorities of multiple factors. The analytic hierarchy
needs proper strategic implementation to achieve better quality and process (AHP) (Saaty, 1988) and interpretive structural modeling (ISM)
processes (Mangla et al., 2017). (Mandal and Deshmukh, 1994) are two well-established approaches that
Cultural and geographical differences among the supply chain part­ have been used by SCM scholars to structure and evaluate a number of
ners can impede the implementation of blockchain technology. These defined barriers or factors. However, these two methodologies have
differences often hamper the adoption of uniform performance tools and some limitations. AHP fails to address the interactions amongst the
system across the supply chain (Sajjad et al., 2015) and sustainability, barriers, and ISM is unable to calculate the total influence of each factor.
especially social sustainability with its heterogeneous global and cul­ DEMATEL – Decision Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (Fontela
tural definitions making these differences a significant barrier. and Gabus, 1976) – has been recognized as a superior methodology that
addresses these issues (Biswas and Gupta, 2019; Tzeng et al., 2007).
2.4.4. Environmental barriers – the external view DEMATEL evaluates the complex interrelationships among variables
Our external barriers are associated with governments, industries, and factors, classifies them into cause and effect clusters, and provides a
institutions, communities, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). hierarchical structure for effective solutions (Yang et al., 2008).
Lack of governmental policies, market competition and uncertainty, and DEMATEL is utilized in numerous research investigations related to
lack of external stakeholder involvement in adopting sustainability and sustainability, operations, and supply chain management. Examples
blockchain are some exemplar external barriers. The category delves include renewable energy resources selection and green supplier selec­
into barriers arising from external stakeholders, governments and in­ tion (Hsu et al., 2013; Su et al., 2016), green supply chain management
stitutions. Altogether we are focusing on units who are not viewed as practice evaluation (Lin, 2013), remanufacturing (Bhatia and Srivas­
direct participants in the supply chain. Organizations and supply chains tava, 2018), strategic competitive advantage (Wu et al., 2017b), busi­
have faced significant sustainability pressures, driving their need for ness process management (Bai and Sarkis, 2013), and blockchain
sustainable practices. Although many pressures exist, a lack of standard adoption in industries and services (Biswas and Gupta, 2019).
policies and frameworks for sustainability and lack of engagement is DEMATEL explores the causal dependency structure among a set of
preventing the advancement of integrated systems, and blockchain identified factors and utilizes pairwise comparisons to visualize direct
standards are even more difficult to pin down (Mangla et al., 2018). and indirect relationships amongst these factors. DEMATEL is a good
Government regulations are still not fully in support of the block­ methodology for mind-mapping studies. Causal relationships are hard to
chain technology given the novelty of the technology (Kamble et al., capture through other methodologies, especially techniques that focus
2019a) hampering adoption in the supply chain. Gaps in government on correlation such as multivariate regression analysis. DEMATEL is
oversight on what and how to measure further impede the move towards valuable when exploring research questions about significance and
blockchain systems and sustainability. Governmental incentives to causation.
support the adoption of sustainable practices (Govindan et al., 2014) The DEMATEL methodology helps to structure the causal relation­
may be substantial barriers, organizations seeking to embrace block­ ships among the identified barriers and identifies each barrier’s prom­
chain technology may view the lack of additional supporting incentives inence (Fu et al., 2012; Lee et al., 2010). The analysis includes the
barrier especially true for smaller and distributed suppliers in less following steps:
developed countries.
Governments, acting as public agents that, seek ethical and safe Step 1- Aggregate results (average) and establish pairwise direct-
practices (Luthra et al., 2016), have furthered the adoption of sustain­ relation matrix
able practices and blockchain in the supply chain. Also NGOs working Step 2- Determine the initial influencing matrix (N) by normalizing
on environmental issues wish involvement (Mangla et al., 2017). There Step 3- Calculate the total relation matrix (T)
are concerns from supply chain partners due to conflicting or multiple Step 4- Determine row and column sums from the total relation
stakeholder requirements, which lead to impediments in sustainable matrices
practices with blockchain technology. It is not uncommon to see busi­ Step 5- Determine the overall prominence and net effect values of
nesses fearing introduction of new sustainable products in the market factors
due to market demand uncertainty and lack of market information Step 6- Draw the DEMATEL prominence/effect diagrams – only
(Mangla et al., 2017, 2018) further impeding the need for blockchain mapping those relationships above a threshold value
technology. Whether blockchain technology can contribute to economic
sustainability and profitability is a concern. Each step incorporates multiple mathematical evaluations. The
For clearer understanding for successful implementation of the prominence and net effect values of each factor are DEMATEL analysis
blockchain in SSCM, it is important to search these barriers and in­ outputs. The final prominence value ranks the factors. Additional details
teractions. Our exploratory research can support strategic plans on the DEMATEL methodology and the calculations appear in the
including organizational, supply chain, technology developers, and Appendix.
other stakeholder plans to deal with them. It could be possible that some
of these factors require less attention, whilst others would need years of 3.2. Data collection
involvement. To realize SSCM integration with blockchain technology,
exploratory insight is a vital need. We now describe the methodology to The novelty of blockchain technology and a scarcity in actual SSCM

7
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

blockchain implementation limit a broad-based study. Thus, we selected aggregated DEMATEL for each group. We compared the barrier outcome
a convenience sample of respondents that includes academics and rankings for the twenty-two barriers that fell over the four major barrier
practitioners knowledgeable in blockchain and sustainable supply groups. The prominence score for each barrier was calculated by
chains to help evaluate the barrier relationships. multiplying the prominence score for the barrier group to the promi­
We utilized the barriers identified in (Saberi et al., 2019b) and nence score ranks for each barrier. We used a non-parametric rank
further expanded and integrated them with the most recent literature. correlation statistic – Kendall’s Tau-b statistic – to determine if the
The barriers were then grouped based on two theoretical lenses, Force rankings were correlated between the respondent groups. The results
Field theory and TOE; see Table 2. The list of barriers and the underlying revealed that the ordinal ranks are not significantly correlated (p > .05)
categories were further examined, refined, and confirmed by six supply using a two-tailed test. This result further validated our initial conjecture
chain management experts involved – for a minimum of three years – in that academics and practitioners may perceive barriers differently.
blockchain technology research projects. These experts were mainly Given these differences, the analysis will compare and contrast the re­
university professors conducting and publishing research on the appli­ sults of DEMATEL analysis between two respondent groups; academics
cation of blockchain for supply chain management. Further validation vs practitioners.
occurred during the data acquisition phase for the DEMATEL analyses.
We asked each respondent if there were any comments concerning the 4.1. Relationships of main barrier categories
barriers. There were no direct significant comments concerning the
barriers which provided further validation of the barriers selected. The main barrier categories relationship diagram displays the re­
A DEMATEL survey captured respondent inputs using pair-wise lationships amongst the main categories between academics and prac­
comparison matrices. The matrices include barriers at the general – titioners (see Fig. 1). The connecting arrows only include relationships
organizational, inter-organizational, technology, and external – and between the main categories that met the threshold value.
more specific level of categories for each of the general categories. Each Fig. 1 shows that supply chain barriers (M2) and technological bar­
matrix includes four to seven barrier factors. This smaller set of factors riers (M3) received the highest prominence values from both academics
and multiple matrices helps keep DEMATEL data acquisition more and practitioners. Both stakeholder groups believe that technological
tractable for data gathering. A hierarchical matrix factor set is used; with barriers impact supply chain barriers and organizational barriers (M1).
the general factor groups representing the highest level and the sub- Supply chain barriers are affected by external barriers (M4) as well.
matrices representing elements within each general factor grouping. Academics highlighted supply chain barriers category as the most
This process was clearer and results in less respondent fatigue when prominent; practitioners highlighted technological challenges. The
completing the matrices than if all sub-factors were included in a single practitioners appear more technology-oriented, who are more con­
matrix. We asked the participants to evaluate the influence of each cerned about the technology itself, rather than the other general issues.
factor on one another using pair-wise comparisons. Table 3 presents an For practitioners, technological barriers, external barriers, and
exemplary pairwise comparison table used in the survey instrument. The organizational barriers significantly influence supply chain issues. Ac­
table was designed to assess the interrelationships among the barrier ademics believe that the effects of organizational barriers on supply
categories. The major factors and the sub-factors were each clearly chain barriers is not as significant.
defined for participants. A complementary set of definitions for each Overall, both academics and practitioners agree that addressing
pairwise comparison matrix was also provided. Table 4 provides an technological issues of blockchain technology and obtaining complete
example definition table for barriers categories for Table 3 factor matrix. support from external sources such as governments, industries, and
A linguistic scale was utilized to convert the strengths of the influence external stakeholders relate to reducing supply-chain related barriers; a
relationships amongst factors to a numerical scale – as shown in Table 5. prominent barriers category.
A summary of the results includes:
3.3. Sample and respondent information
� Supply chain and technological barriers are the barrier categories
Experts in blockchain and SSCM were invited to participate in this with the highest prominence and may require special attention.
study. 47 responses were obtained. Our respondents were from � Technological barriers and external barriers need to be initially
academia (35) and practice (12). addressed to harness supply chain obstacles for adopting blockchain
Academics in the sample were active researchers in blockchain and/ in SSCM.
or sustainable supply chain management and were mostly university � Technological barriers require initial attention to address organiza­
professors. The average work experience of academics were 13.83 years tional obstacles for adopting blockchain in SSCM. This attention is
with a standard deviation of 10.08 years. Practitioners were mostly in likely to result in decrease of supply chain barriers.
consulting and leadership positions and involved in sustainability and/
or blockchain-oriented projects. Practitioners had 18.55 years of work 4.2. Technological barriers prominence and relationships
experience on average with a standard deviation of 9.79 years. Both
study groups had an acceptable level of knowledge on blockchain and/ Technological barrier relationship diagrams for academics and
or sustainable supply chain management. Table 6 presents the respon­ practitioners are shown in Fig. 2. Security challenge (T1), the negative
dent information and profiles. perception toward technology (T3), and immaturity of technology (T5)
have the highest prominence values for both academics and practi­
4. Results tioners. There are also significant relationships across these three bar­
riers that require attention.
The resulting outputs of the DEMATEL methodology are relationship Both academics and practitioners view immaturity of technology as
diagrams. The x-axis presents prominence values and y-axis shows the the obstacle that impacts security challenge and the negative perception
net influence value. Each barrier has a corresponding prominence (x) toward technology. Immaturity of technology controls the negative
and net influence (y) value on the diagram. The arrows connect points perception toward technology directly and indirectly with an arguably
and displays the direction of the relative significant influence between mediating relationship. Security challenge acts as the mediator. To fully
two factors. Only significant influences are included. address the negative perception toward technology, mediator barrier,
Two major respondent groups evaluated the barriers; academics and security challenge, and immaturity of technology need to be tackled.
practitioners. To determine if the main categories – barrier groupings – The practitioners highlight that access to technology (T2) is also rela­
had different perspectives we separated the responses and completed the tively important. They consider that this challenge can affect the

8
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Table 2
TOE framework and blockchain barriers in sustainable supply chains (Saberi et al., 2019b).
TOE View Barrier Description Reference

Technological context T1- Security challenge There are concerns that data and information may be open (Biswas and Gupta, 2019; Casino et al., 2018; Hou,
to security concerns such as hacking, inaccurate 2017; Sayogo et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019a,
information dispersal and access to sensitive information. 2019b; Yli-Huumo et al., 2016)
T2- Access to technology Internet and IT infrastructure are important resources for (Abeyratne and Monfared, 2016; Morabito, 2017)
blockchain adoption. In some cases IT infrastructure of
organization is poor or technology access is impractical.
T3- The negative perception toward Individuals may associate blockchain technology Swan (2015)
technology primarily with cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin. These
developments might be perceived as malicious activities.
Therefore, organizations may hesitate adoption of general
blockchain technology.
T4- Immutability challenge of Immutability proposes that records cannot be deleted (Biswas and Gupta, 2019; Kamble et al., 2019a,
blockchain technology from ledgers. But, if an incorrect record entered in to the 2019c; Palombini, 2017)
blockchain can be updated with additional information,
the history of the erroneous record will always be in the
blockchain.
T5- Immaturity of technology Challenge of scalability of blockchain is an example (Biswas and Gupta, 2019; Hackius and Petersen,
technical issue that stem from immaturity of blockchain. 2017; Lindman et al., 2017; Mendling et al., 2017;
In fact, blockchain technology would have issue with Mougayar, 2016; Pilkington, 2015; Swan, 2015;
handling large numbers of transactions. Also, storage of Wang et al., 2016)
increasing size of blocks is a challenge, encountering big
data in real use (called “bloat” problem in Bitcoin). These
are some immaturity of technology examples.
Organizational O1- Financial constraints Information collection through supply chain and (Angraal et al., 2017; Biswas and Gupta, 2019;
context converting to new systems impose costs on organizations. Hughes et al., 2019; Marsal-Llacuna, 2018; Patel
Also, adopting sustainable practices is costly. et al., 2017; Sayogo et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2019b)
Organizations are limited in financial resources to adopt
this technology.
O2- Lack of management Some managers fail to have long-term commitment and (Crosby et al., 2016; Guo and Liang, 2016; Mangla
commitment and support support of sustainability practices through SCM processes et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2016)
and adopting disruptive technology.
O3- Lack of new organizational Organizations need to define new policies to adopt (Lacity, 2018; Mendling et al., 2017; Wang et al.,
policies for using blockchain blockchain technology (what is the proper usage of the 2019a)
technology technology, for example where and when).
O4- Lack of knowledge and Lack of technical expertise and knowledge about (Angelis & da Silva, 2019; Kamble et al., 2019a;
expertise blockchain technology and sustainable supply chains. Lacity, 2018; Mangla et al., 2017; Mougayar, 2016;
Sayogo et al., 2015)
O5- Difficulty in changing Adopting blockchain technology changes or transforms (Gorane and Kant, 2015; Mangla et al., 2017;
organizational culture current organizational culture. Organizational culture Mendling et al., 2017)
consists of guidelines of work culture and appropriate
behavior through organizations.
O6- Hesitation to convert to new Adopting new systems would require altering or replacing (Angelis & da Silva, 2019; Govindan et al., 2014;
systems legacy systems. This issue may cause resistance and Michelman, 2017; Saberi et al., 2018)
hesitation from organizations and industries.
O7- Lack of tools for blockchain Lack of standards and appropriate methods, tools, metrics (Andoni et al., 2019; Govindan et al., 2014; Mangla
technology implementation in and techniques for blockchain technology et al., 2017; Morkunas et al., 2019)
sustainable supply chains implementation and measure sustainability performance
within organizations.
Environmental SC1- Lack of customers’ awareness Lack of understanding by customers about blockchain (Chkanikova and Mont, 2015; Hughes et al., 2019;
context (Supply and tendency about sustainability technology for supply chain sustainability practices. Luthra et al., 2016; Mangla et al., 2017)
chain view) and blockchain technology
SC2- Problems in collaboration, Lack of collaboration, communication, and coordination (Behnke and Janssen, 2019; Caro et al., 2018; Gorane
communication and coordination in among supply chain partners with different and and Kant, 2015; Kamble et al., 2019c; Kshetri, 2018;
the supply chain sometimes contradictory operational incentives/ Wang et al., 2019b)
objectives and priorities; other reasons that impede
collaboration.
SC3- Challenge of information Supply chain participants might have different privacy (Hughes et al., 2019; Pournader et al., 2019; Wang
disclosure policy between partners needs and different policies related to information and et al., 2019b)
in the supply chain. data used in sustainable supply chains and for blockchain
technology. Confidentiality, privacy and economic value
of data may be concerns.
SC4- Challenges in integrating Combining conventional supply chain processes with (Govindan et al., 2014; Luthra et al., 2016; Mangla
sustainable practices and sustainability practices and blockchain is challenging. et al., 2017; Morkunas et al., 2019)
blockchain technology through SCM Also, technology, materials and processes development
are needed to support sustainable practices. For example,
facilities and machines need to be updated to be
connected to the internet of things or information
gathered from them for blockchain technology and
sustainability purposes.
SC5- Cultural differences of supply Different geographical or organizational culture of supply (Caro et al., 2018; Patel et al., 2017; Wang et al.,
chain partners chain actors and partners that can impede blockchain 2019b)
technology acceptance.
E1- Lack of governmental policies (Biswas and Gupta, 2019; Govindan et al., 2014;
Hughes et al., 2019; Kamble et al., 2019c; Mangla
(continued on next page)

9
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Table 2 (continued )
TOE View Barrier Description Reference

Environmental Governments might be reluctant to direct blockchain et al., 2017; Morkunas et al., 2019; Wang et al.,
Context (External technology adoption and sustainable supply chain 2019b)
view) practices.
E2- Market competition and Applying sustainable practices and blockchain technology (Biswas and Gupta, 2019; Mangla et al., 2017; Wang
uncertainty is time-consuming. It may affect the market et al., 2019b)
competitiveness of the organization and provide
competitive risks. Uncertainty about market demands of
sustainable products, customers’ behavior and future
sales are examples.
E3- Lack of external stakeholders’ Lack of involvement and conflicting objectives of related (Mangla et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2019b)
involvement NGOs and communities to support sustainable practices
and blockchain technology.
E4- Lack of industry involvement in Lack of industry leadership in ethical and safe practices in (Hughes et al., 2019; Luthra et al., 2016)
blockchain adoption and ethical and sustainability and blockchain technology.
safe practices
E5- Lack of rewards and incentives Problem in promoting sustainable practices and (Luthra et al., 2016; Wang et al., 2019b)
blockchain technology; or lack of reward systems to
ensure the integrity of data and incentivize these practices
by government and professional organizations.

negative perception toward technology. Alternatively, academics did technology adoption in generating financial returns, but this result is
not consider T2 as an important and influential barrier. only likely to occur after implementation, when barriers mitigation
occurs.
4.3. Organizational barriers prominence and relationships
4.4. Supply chain barriers prominence and relationships
Net effects and overall prominence of organizational barriers appear
in Fig. 3. Although some nuances are discernible, both academics and Supply chain barriers relationships appear in Fig. 4. Academics
practitioners have relatively similar opinions on barrier prominence. suggest that cultural differences of supply chain partners (SC5) affects
Lack of management commitment and support (O2), hesitation to the other issues in the supply chain category. Alternatively, practitioners
convert to new systems (O6), and lack of knowledge and expertise (O4) posit that lack of customer awareness and tendency (SC1) for adopting
are the leading prominent barriers for both academics and practitioners. blockchain and sustainability significantly influences the other hurdles.
For academics, the next top three prominent barriers are lack of new For academics, mediation is observed amongst cultural differences of
organizational policies (O3), difficulty in changing organizational cul­ supply chain partners, challenge of information disclosure policy be­
ture (O5), and lack of tools for BC and SSCM (O7), respectively. How­ tween partners (SC3), and challenges in integrating SSCM and block­
ever, practitioners ordered these latter barriers differently – O5, O7, and chain technology (SC4). SC5 influences SC3 and SC3 influences SC4.
O3, respectively. There is also a direct relationship between SC5 and SC4. This mediation
Lack of management commitment and support has the highest effect shows that value systems will drive practices that can impede
overall organizational barrier prominence and is a significant precursor adoption; whether such mediation exists in blockchain and SSCM calls
to the other barriers. Although blockchain has gained notice in the for further research.
business lexicon, managers may still have limited knowledge on the Both academics and practitioners attest that problems in collabora­
technology. This lack of knowledge makes managers hesitant to adopt tion, communication and coordination in the SCs (SC2), SC3 and SC4 are
the technology. Blockchain is a disruptive technology and integrating prominent and important barriers to consider. Practitioners also propose
with or replacing their legacy systems with blockchain is likely a major that SC1 is very prominent, even more than SC3.
concern. Relatedly, financial constraints, lack of management support, Overall, problems in collaboration, communication and coordination
and lack of knowledge and expertise influence hesitation to convert to in the SCs, challenge of information disclosure policy between partners
new systems. A mediated relationship among lack of management in the SCs and challenges in integrating SSCM and blockchain technol­
commitment and support, lack of knowledge and expertise, and hesi­ ogy are three barriers with the highest prominence values. Supply chain
tation to convert to new systems is represented in the academic rela­ integration, which can be addressed with blockchain technology and
tionship diagram. some SSCM practices, can occur only after adoption. This paradox is a
Both study groups provide relatively similar pictures for causation major concern.
relationships. A careful comparison reveals that practitioners highlight The prominent barriers are largely influenced by cultural differences
that lack of knowledge and expertise may prevent the development of of supply chain partners, according to the academics, and lack of
tools and instruments for integrating blockchain and SSCM. In addition, customer awareness and tendency, according to practitioners. Cultural
practitioners do not observe a significant relationship between lack of differences and lack of customer awareness about the blockchain and
management commitment and support and lack of knowledge and SSCM point to the fact that customers and supply chain partners may
expertise. have different mindsets that impede blockchain integration and trans­
Surprisingly, financial constraints, a typical resource barrier in parency in the supply chain. These barriers affect the most important
adopting new information systems, has a low relative prominence and critical barriers in this category and require significant attention.
compared with the other barriers; but this may due to lack of influences
on this barrier. It may also suppose that blockchain is perceived to be an 4.5. External barriers prominence and relationships
inexpensive technology that does not require significant financial re­
sources due to availability of public platforms. However, financial re­ Net effects and overall prominence of external barriers appear in
sources still need to be addressed to mitigate other challenges. The other Fig. 5. Academic expert results reveal lack of industry involvement (E4),
potential relationship that did not appear is the influence of blockchain lack of external stakeholder involvement (E3), and lack of rewards and

10
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Table 3
DEMATEL influence table/matrix for barriers categories.
Organizational Barriers Supply Chain Inter-Organizational Barriers Technological Barriers External Barriers

0
Organizational Barriers
0
Supply Chain Inter-Organizational Barriers
0
Technological Barriers
0
External Barriers

Table 4
Barriers categories definitions.
Organizational Barriers Organizational barriers are internal to the organizational boundaries, such as financial constraints, lack of management commitment and
support, lack of new organizational policies for using technology, and lack of knowledge and expertise.
Supply Chain Inter-Organizational This category mainly includes supply chain partners’ relationship barriers. Lack of customers’ awareness and tendency about sustainability and
Barriers blockchain technology, problems in collaboration, communication and coordination in the supply chain, and challenge of information
disclosure policy between partners in the supply chain are some examples.
Technological Barriers This category incorporates technical issues of blockchain technology that impede its application for business purposes, such as security
challenge, access to technology, and immaturity of blockchain technology.
External Barriers External barriers are challenges stemming from governments, industries, institutions, communities, and NGOs, such as lack of governmental
policies, market competition and uncertainty, and lack of external stakeholders’ involvement.

incentives (E5) as the most prominent external barriers. Practitioners the barriers, but to determine why such a divergence occurs. This issue
propose that lack of industry involvement (E4), lack of external stake­ may also relate to the potential disconnect between academic and
holder involvement (E3), and lack of governmental policies (E1) are the practitioner world views and how these differences may take research in
most prominent barriers. There is some similarity in opinion on these directions that practitioners may not find useful. The results also
factors. portend that different stakeholder groups may view various practical
Both academics and practitioners agree that lack of governmental questions, especially, in this case technology adoption, from differing
policies and lack of external stakeholders’ involvement influence lack of perspectives.
industry involvement. Academics also propose that lack of rewards and The overall results show academics feel supply chain barriers are
incentives mediates the relationship between E1 and E4. most important, while technological issues are prominent for practi­
Overall, lack of external stakeholder involvement and lack of tioners; although supply chain barriers are not too far behind. The
governmental policies for adopting blockchain are the major external practitioners seem to have a bias toward the technology side of exper­
barriers requiring adopting blockchain technology for SSCM. Lack of tise; with lesser supply chain and sustainability experience. Their
governmental regulations and external stakeholder involvement make practical concern is driven by the blockchain technology itself. Alter­
industries unwilling to use blockchain technology for sustainability natively, academics provide a more holistic view that takes into account
purposes. Stakeholder roles are especially pertinent for many corporate both blockchain technology, sustainability, and supply chain contexts.
sustainability programs. Given these divergent perspectives, many instances of similarities
remain. Scholars view blockchain as a disruptive technology that can
5. Discussion and analysis address SSCM complexities and relationships.
Stakeholder theory posits that any entity who is affected by an or­
In this section, we parlay the initial results and findings from our ganization can be a stakeholder (Donaldson and Preston, 1995). Ac­
exploratory study into a series of general and specific research propo­ cording to this theory, the long-term success of a company relies on how
sitions. These results not only provide some insights into specific well the company would reflect and satisfy the needs of their stake­
blockchain and SSCM adoption concerns, but also may inform general holders. Stakeholder theory indicates that evaluation of barriers may
theoretical perspectives. We attempt to identify consensus patterns, vary between the groups of decision makers, given heterogeneous per­
although many nuances do exist throughout these results, in most cases spectives, background, and experience concerning a situation (Zhang
we only present select consensus and harmonious observations. et al., 2005). In the present study, academics and practitioners are
In our evaluation of the barriers to blockchain adoption for SSCM, we different stakeholders that have variations in perceived barriers to
separated the respondents into two major stakeholder groups. We found blockchain technology. Their institutional fields are not completely
some significant differences based on initial DEMATEL results. Thus, we aligned yet in terms of blockchain and SSCM adoption considerations
were motivated not only to determine absolute relationships amongst and barriers. The complexity of concerns increases as SSCM is also
incorporated.
Given the TOE framework for barrier categorization in this study;
Table 5
Linguistic term and equivalent numerical value for pair- implications arise for this theoretical perspective to understanding
wised comparisons. technological change and adoption in organizations. Various stake­
holder perspectives and expectations do create nuances in TOE and
Linguistic Term Numerical Value
affect the relative relationships of these factors. This relative importance
None 0 may not only be evident in stakeholder experts but stakeholder users of
Very Little 1
the technology. Thus, we arrive at a general theoretical Proposition.
Moderate 2
High 3 Proposition 1. Stakeholder theory can expand the usability and
Very High 4

11
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Table 6
Respondent information.
Number Academic/ Position Type of Organization/Department Years of Work Experience/
Practitioner Research

1 Practitioner Supply Chain Management Consultant 32

2 Practitioner Research Fellow Energy and Climate Policy Institute 13
3 Practitioner Supply Chain Management Consultant Food Supply Chain 4
4 Practitioner Vice President Development Programs and Financial Institution 12
Business Support Services
5 Practitioner Senior Operations Consultant - CEO Manufacturing For Heavy Equipment - Blockchain Startup For 10
Supply Chain and Logistics
6 Practitioner Researcher Sustainable Operations Projects 25
7 Practitioner Senior Vice President Sustainability of Forests 30
8 Practitioner CEO 29
9 Practitioner
10 Practitioner Senior Business Control Strategic Finance 7
11 Practitioner Consultant Federal/State Government 24
12 Practitioner Marketing Director Container Shipping and Logistics 18
13 Academic Assistant Professor Operations Management and Supply Chain Management 3
14 Academic Assistant Professor 5
15 Academic Professor 5
16 Academic Associate Professor
17 Academic Assistant Professor with Prior Experience 19
18 Academic Junior Scholar
19 Academic Full Professor 29
20 Academic Professor Supply Chain Management 20þ
21 Academic Research Associate Supply Chain Management
22 Academic Junior Scholar 1
23 Academic Chair Professor Purchasing and Supply Chain Management 9
24 Academic Professor and Associate Head Industrial and Systems Engineering 6
25 Academic Professor 25
26 Academic Professor 20
27 Academic Junior Scholar þ practical experience Environmental Management and Policy 4
28 Academic Lecturer Operations Management 1.5
29 Academic Senior Researcher 5
30 Academic Junior Scholar 2
31 Academic Professor Logistics and Supply Chain Management 20
32 Academic Senior Lecturer Operations Management 6
33 Academic Professor Business and Management 25
34 Academic Professor 20
35 Academic Junior Scholar 4
36 Academic Assistant Professor with Prior Experience 17
37 Academic Junior Scholar 10
38 Academic Professor 22
39 Academic Professor 15
40 Academic Professor Business School 20þ
41 Academic Professor Freight and Logistics Systems 30
42 Academic Professor and Director 30þ
43 Academic Professor 20þ
44 Academic Lecturer and Researcher Supply Chain Management and Logistics 31
45 Academic Professor and Chair Logistics 20þ
46 Academic Chair Professor Operations Management 25
47 Academic Senior Lecturer

understanding of the TOE framework. Different stakeholders will perceive in SSCM environments (Zhu et al., 2012). Therefore, the organizational
underlying factors differently especially in emergent and complex techno­ barriers can have an intervening effect and clarify the relationship be­
logical and organizational relationships. tween technological and supply chain challenges (Soroor et al., 2009);
initial results also point this is especially true in blockchain and supply
The results of this study indicate technological barriers affect the
chain environments (Francisco and Swanson, 2018). We now posit our
supply chain challenges for adopting blockchain technology for SSCM.
second Proposition:
Practitioners suggest that technological issues might affect the organi­
zational challenges, which also result in influencing supply chain bar­ Proposition 2. Organizational barriers mediate the relationship between
riers. There is a mediating effect of organizational barriers between the technological barriers and supply chain barriers in blockchain adoption for
relationship between technological and supply chain barriers. For sustainable supply chain management.
example, the immaturity of blockchain technology, which is a techno­
The TOE framework argues that accessibility and availability char­
logical issue, can be a concern for managers and affect their commitment
acteristics are important for innovation acceptance (Tornatzky et al.,
and support of blockchain technology for their supply chains. Thus,
1990). The results of our analysis show that accessibility to blockchain
there is a broader technological concern affecting a specific organiza­
technology is important. Blockchain accessibility affects the negative
tional concern, which in turn has implications for the broader inter-
perception toward using blockchain, especially in complex SSCM envi­
organizational acceptance.
ronments. Immaturity and security challenges influence the negative
Addressing blockchain in SSCM immaturity and characteristic con­
perception toward blockchain technology; especially given the sensitive
cerns may enhance management organizational support. Management –
nature of SSCM information (Hofmann et al., 2014). Technology
organizational – support drives inter-organizational collaboration and
immaturity and the negative perception toward technology is mediated
coordination, especially in the case of internal and external relationships

12
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Fig. 1. DEMATEL main barriers categories relationships for academics and practitioners.

Fig. 2. DEMATEL technological barriers relationships for academics and practitioners.

Fig. 3. DEMATEL organizational barriers relationships for academics and practitioners.

by blockchain technology security challenges. Thus, information sharing Lack of management commitment and support, hesitation to convert
risk avoidance plays an important aspect in managing adoption barriers. to new systems, and lack of knowledge and expertise are top three
Information sharing risk, given the environment of supportive infor­ prominenet barriers for both study groups. Companies initially need to
mation sharing for supply chain coordination and collaboration, still address lack of management commitment and support and financial
requires detailed investigation (Colicchia et al., 2019). constraints, according to practitioner and academic opinions. These two
Therefore, to fully address negative blockchain perception, imma­ organizational barriers largely influence the majority of other organi­
turity and security challenges of blockchain both need to be addressed. zational barriers.
The technological barriers analysis highlights the presence of inter- Organizational challenges relate to the resource-based view (RBV) of
relationships among the constructs of technological dimension within the organization. RBV proposes that a firm’s capabilities stem from its
the TOE framework, including technology accessibility and character­ valuable, rare, inimitable, and non-substitutable resources (Barney,
istics. Here we arrive at the third Proposition: 1991). Firms can build competitive advantages through developing their
organizational resources and following a path of capabilities develop­
Proposition 3. - Blockchain and SSCM accessibility is reduced through
ment (Dierickx and Cool, 1989). Building organizational knowledge is a
maturity and security concerns within the technology TOE dimension. Lack of
central factor in dynamic capabilities. This can help firms survive in a
accessibility reduces blockchain in SSCM adoption.
competitive environment (Wu, 2010) and successfully embed new

13
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Fig. 4. DEMATEL supply chain barriers relationships for academics and practitioners.

Fig. 5. DEMATEL external barriers relationships for academics and practitioners.

technology. competitive capabilities shift from a firm level to an inter-firm rela­

Financial resources, was seen as less prominent by both academics tionship level. The relational view stipulates that a firm’s competitive
and practitioners. Financial resources are typically viewed as tangible advantages are often inter-linked to the competitive capabilities of the
resources within RBV. Management support and the need for knowledge network of relationships. The strength of the links are relational rents.
and expertise are considered intangible resources effecting adoption of Information sharing, collaboration, and coordination among supply
blockchain technology for SSCM. These latter resources are important in chain partners for implementing blockchain technology in SSCM are
this context. The results of our analysis show that blockchain and SSCM critical factors that can strengthen network organizational capabilities
adoption appears to need more focus on the intangible resources, rather and improve supply chain relational rents. Incorporating customer, and
than tangible resource requirements. This focus on the need for intan­ other stakeholder concerns can also help build relational rents. These
gible resources for building stronger competitive advantages has also aspects may be used to build necessary motivations and pressures that
been supported by the recent literature e.g. (Kamasak, 2017; Khan et al., can help disconfirm current security and accessibility risk barriers –
2019; Molloy and Barney, 2015). Here we arrive at the fourth which, as posited by Lewin’s force field theory and theory of change
Proposition. (Lewin, 1947, 1951), can encourage adoption of technology and change.
Here we arrive at the fifth Proposition:
Proposition 4. - Blockchain adoption in supply chains requires tangible
and intangible resources. However, intangible resources play a more impor­ Proposition 5. - Blockchain adoption for sustainable supply chains will
tant role in successful adoption. positively relate to relational rents and serve as motivation to decrease supply
chain barriers. Relational rents are influenced by building sustainability-
Supply chain issues include problems in collaboration, communica­
based relation-specific assets, improved knowledge sharing routines, build­
tion and coordination and the challenge of information disclosure policy
ing complementary sustainable supply chain resources, and embedding
between partners in the supply chains. These elements have the highest
effective sustainability governance structures.
prominence values amongst the other supply chain related barriers.
Academics suggest that cultural differences of supply chain partners – External pressures cause firms to adopt socially responsible practices
related to values differences –influences the most prominent barriers in to gain social legitimacy (Hirsch, 1975). Firms respond to isomorphic
this category. Practitioners highlighted customer perspective as the most institutional pressures by transforming their processes and aligning
influencing factor. them with social expectations. Institutional theory can inform how
The relational view theory can help explain these supply chain companies address an innovation, e.g. sustainability, from external
relationship complexities (Borgatti and Cross, 2003; Dyer and Singh, pressures (Jennings and Zandbergen, 1995).
1998). The relational view suggests that critical resources may extend Three types of isomorphic drivers exist: coercive, normative, and
firm boundaries. Critical resources may be a combination of resources mimetic (DiMaggio and Powell, 1983). First, coercive isomorphic drivers
existing in different supply chain partners (Takeishi, 2001). As firms stem from powerful sources. Governmental regulations, requirements, and
operate within a network of interdependent relationships, the policies for preserving the environment, taxing the environmental

14
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

damages, and imposing fines are coercive pressure examples. Normative These findings suggest preparing the organization and its partners and
market, consumer, and community pressures drive companies to employees for blockchain implementation. Blockchain technology
implement sustainability practices to form legitimization (Ball and application in supply chains typically relies on other technologies – such
Craig, 2010). Mimetic pressures cause companies to imitate competitor as the Internet of Things (Kim and Laskowski, 2018) – to track, trace and
success paths and practices (Zhu and Liu, 2010). integrate the information of goods and products flow in the supply
External barriers to blockchain technology adoption for sustain­ chain. This reliance requires aligning internal – legacy – information
ability in supply chains can be viewed from an institutional lens; but also technology processes, simplifying, and digitizing the processes. It also
represent important pressures based on Lewin’s force field theory requires building internal technical expertise before blockchain adop­
(Lewin, 1947). Lack of industry involvement in adopting blockchain tion can occur. Blockchain technology is very immature and needs time
technology is a critical barrier. Industry involvement in blockchain for development; for organizations to prepare themselves for security as
adoption can be a mimetic pressure that affects successful adoption of well. Given the lack of expertise and immature technology, organiza­
blockchain especially for SSCM. For blockchain and sustainability tions are likely to rely on external technical developers to advance
standards to be effective, a critical mass of organizations need to favor blockchain technology development and solve many of these barriers.
adoption (Economides, 1996). For organizational barriers lack of management commitment and
A number of industries have formed consortiums to link companies support acts as an important antecedent for other barriers. Defining the
that seek to adopt blockchain technology. In the automobile industry, blockchain technology value propositions for a supply chain would
BMW, Ford, General Motors, Renault are example companies that have alleviate the hindrance from upper level management. Overcoming this
already formed consortiums to apply blockchain technology (Allison, barrier calls for revisiting the business model and integrating the
2018). BiTA9 is another consortium for blockchain adoption in trans­ blockchain values into the current business value Proposition (Morkunas
portation in which FedEx, UPS, BANSF, and other transportation com­ et al., 2019; Nowin � ski and Kozma, 2017).
panies participate. These consortiums have been developed to define the For specific supply chain barriers, problems in supply chain collab­
models, standards, and reliable governance structures for utilizing oration, communication and coordination, information disclosure policy
blockchain technology. They also include ethical and sustainability as­ between supply chain partners challenges, and challenges in integrating
pects and may be the first motivational pressure to overcome the SSCM and blockchain technology have the highest prominence. These
resistance pressures. obstacles can be alleviated by developing corporate cultures toward a
Governmental regulations and pressures are an example of a coercive collaborative ecosystem for technological advancement. Finding the
force, while external stakeholders’ involvement like NGOs can be seen right collaborators to build effective governance structures (Korpela
as a normative pressure. Lack of governmental regulations and external et al., 2017) is necessary for successful adoption of blockchain. Clear
stakeholders’ involvement make industries unwilling to involve in using disclosure policies, that allow for protection of some proprietary and
blockchain. Therefore, in order to increase industry involvement in sensitive information will be necessary. The initial stages of adoption, to
using blockchain, governments and external stockholders need to sup­ enhance greater acceptance, should be sharing less sensitive informa­
port blockchain adoption. Here we arrive at the final Proposition: tion, such as good sustainability practices – rather than information on
poor or critical sustainability practices. Another approach might be in­
Proposition 6. - In the blockchain technology setting, when companies
formation sharing and collaboration on developmental, continuous
integrate blockchain in their supply chains, coercive and normative pressures
improvement, information for better environmental and social prac­
can affect mimetic forces; to overcome resistant forces to adoption of
tices. These more positive practices and collaborations with this type of
blockchain in SSCM.
information sharing may help more companies gain competitive
advantage; building a positive improvement experience from SSCM in­
6. Implications and managerial insights
formation sharing using blockchain.
For the external barriers, lack of industry involvement is the most
The four different barrier categories investigated in this study for
prominent barrier while lack of governmental policies is also a major
blockchain adoption in sustainable supply chains are initial and
concern. The result implies that governments can be involved early on in
exploratory; but, they do provide supply chain managers and decision
blockchain implementation by encouraging innovations around and
and policy makers with timely information to initiate addressing ob­
investments in blockchain via regulations and flexible policies. Through
stacles and organizing plans to resolve obstructions related to block­
government support businesses may test markets for new blockchain
chain technology adoption.
solutions inside regulatory frameworks for the sake of all user safety
Overall, we found supply chain and technological barriers had the
(Ølnes et al., 2017). Setting up a blockchain sandbox controlled and
greatest prominence. Our findings are compatible with the latest global
managed by governments will create a safe harbor for supply chains to
blockchain survey from Deloitte (Insights, 2019) in which joining con­
inexpensively demonstrate this technology and provide the opportunity
sortia or networks and forming blockchain-based supply chains were
for governments to support change, rather than to react and match to
identified as the biggest challenges for adopting blockchain technology
systems established by others. Standards can be cooperatively developed
for supply chains. The result informs managers that they need to recruit
by both industry and government to advance blockchain technology.
partners in their supply chains to have greater and more effective
These areas are currently occurring through groups such as ISO and
blockchain adoption. Convincing, incentivizing, and finding creative
IEEE; but both are at relatively early stages of setting these blockchain
approaches to encouraging partners – both upstream and downstream –
technology standards, many having SSCM implications.
to join consortia or co-operate, is necessary. Contractual, preferred se­
lection, and supporting blockchain learning and partner development
7. Conclusion and future research directions
could be ways to support these adoption efforts.
Both academics and practitioners found that security challenges, a
In this study, we examined blockchain technology application in a
negative perception toward technology, and immaturity of the tech­
sustainable supply chain environment. Blockchain technology enables
nology have the highest prominence values and share a mediating
transparent, secure, decentralized ledgers, smart contracts and reliable
relationship. It is evident that risk and acceptance are critical initial
networks for sustainable supply chain management. It can improve ef­
concerns for this emergent technology and its application to SSCM.
ficiencies by replacing some intermediaries. Given these potential ben­
efits, the adoption rate of these technologies has not been
overwhelming.
9
https://www.bita.studio/. We investigated the barriers adoption of blockchain technology for

15
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

SSCM. A comprehensive set of barriers were identified based on two practitioners might be related to this nascent technology status, subject
theories including TOE and Force Field theories and literature on to personal opinions of respondents, and/or the characteristics of our
disruptive technologies and organizational practices such as green and respondents. Thus, further and broader longitudinal studies are needed
sustainable supply chains. The TOE framework helped inform the cat­ to determine the evolution of these barriers and how much they shift in
egories to include – technological, organizational, and environmental terms of prominence and relationships. Additional external stakeholders
barriers – the latter barrier included supply chain and external barriers. such as governmental regulators and NGOs may provide different val­
One of main objectives of this study is to understand the relationships uations and relationships. Longitudinal studies trace the level of block­
and prominence of barriers. To do this we utilized DEMATEL to explore chain adoption effect on enhancing efficiency, transparency and
the relationships using inputs from academic and professional experts. traceability of sustainable supply chains.
The findings can facilitate decision-making process for policy makers Another future research direction is to consider these factors
and policy planners involved in this process. The first fundamental together rather than as a hierarchy. Exploratory and confirmatory factor
outcome of this exploratory study is that we investigated the barriers via analyses can help further validate the identified barrier categories.
causality and prominence. Our study results allow organizations to Comparing the interdependencies of the sub-factors is necessary to
prioritize effort helping to manage both time and resources. further identify more nuances and barriers evaluation. Assigning
Secondly, this research develops several propositions suggesting different weights to the respondent groups and analyzing the sensitivity
important links between organizational, technological, and external of the results is another approach that captures the nuances in the re­
concepts for blockchain adoption. Many of these propositions are sults. Lastly, each Proposition suggests promising areas of inquiry for
informed by various organizational theories including force field, researchers; therefore, empirically investigating the propositions would
stakeholder, resource-based view, relational and institutional theories. disclose the hidden projected links between blockchain implementation
We interpret and extend these theories for organizational change and and four categories of barriers and factors inside each category.
adoption of blockchain that not only influence an organization, but Overall, blockchain technology as an application to SSCM shows
supply chains as well. The research propositions suggest a number of promise. However, both these organizational practices are in their in­
promising areas for further research inquiry. Thirdly, this is the first fancy. Understanding their roles and management is critical not only for
work that attempts to systematically investigate and prioritize the bar­ organizational and supply chain competitive advantages, but also for
riers to blockchain technology adoption in sustainable supply chains social and environmental benefits overall. There is much more to
from the lens of two groups of stakeholders. investigate in this emergent field.
The limitations commonly associated with exploratory research also
apply to our study. We only looked at a snapshot of a convenient sample Acknowledgement
of respondents. Given the relative novelty of blockchain technology and
sustainable supply chains, a broad based study is not feasible when This research was funded by grant #227940 from the Association of
seeking to delve into the level of detail needed for these complex re­ Supply Chain Management and by grant #19020005 from the Alfred P.
lationships. The differing complementary opinions of academics and Sloan Foundation and the Environmental Law Institute.

Appendix A

This section provides additional detail on the DEMATEL methodology and results.
DEMATEL (Fontela and Gabus, 1976) is an exploratory methodology that aims to develop a structured network that portrays and simplifies the
interrelationships and the prominence or strengths of factors under investigation.
DEMATEL methodology forms pairwise comparisons matrices to assess the relationships between the factors. Then, a measurement scale is
established to convert the linguistic terms to the numerical values. In this study our measurement scale that was utilized to assess the strength of the
relationship between two given factors was divided into 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4, which respectively represented none, very little, little, high, and very high
relationship. The following steps form the DEMATEL analysis (Lee et al., 2010):

Step 1- Aggregate results (average) and establish a pairwise direct-relation matrix

A survey instrument composed of matrices and containing pairwise comparisons of the barriers is completed by experts. We aggregated the expert
evaluation by calculating the average scores and form aggregate direct relation matrices.
When the number of factors is n, the pairwise comparisons matrix, X, is n � n. Each element within this matrix, xij, represents the level of the
influence of the factor i on a factor j. The influence of each factor on itself that forms the diagonal of the direct-relation matrix is set to zero. A general
pairwise direct-relation matrix is presented in expression (E1).
2 3
0 x12 x1n
⋯
6 x21 0 x 2n 7
X¼4 ⋮ ⋱ ⋮ 5 (E1)
xn1 xn2 ⋯ xnn

Step 2- Determine the initial influencing matrix (N) by normalizing

The aggregate direct-relation matrix (X) is normalized to calculate the initial normalized influence matrix (N) using expressions (E2) and (E3)
(Wu and Lee, 2007):
N ¼ k*X (E2)

1
k¼ �P � (E3)
n
max j¼1 xij
1�i�n

16
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Step 3- Calculate the total relation matrix (T)

The total relation matrix that determines the relationship between factors can be calculated from expression (E4):
X
∞
T ¼ N þ N2 þ N3… ¼ N i ¼ NðI NÞ 1
(E4)
i¼1

where I is the identity matrix.

The total relation matrices for the academics and practitioners’ assessments of the main barriers categories is summarized in Table A-1. The total
relation matrices for the academics and practitioners’ evaluations of technological barriers, organizational barriers, supply chain barriers, and
external barriers are presented in Tables A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5, respectively.
Step 4- Determine row and column sums from the total relation matrices
Given tij is the comparison variable of the factor i on the factor j in the total relation matrix, T, where i,j ¼ 1, 2, …, n, the row (Di) and column (Rj)
sum for each row i and column j can be obtained using expressions (E5) and (E6).
X
n
Di ¼ tij 8i (E5)
j¼1

X
n
Rj ¼ tij 8j (E6)
i¼1

Step 5- Determine the overall prominence and net effect value of factors
The overall prominence (Pi) denotes the overall value that a factor is being influenced by and the influence on other factors. The net effect value
(Ei) indicates the difference between the impact that a factor has on others and received by others. Pi and Ei can be calculated, respectively by
expressions (E7) and (E8).
� � �
Pi ¼ Di þ Rj �i ¼ j (E7)
� � �
Ei ¼ Di Rj �i ¼ j (E8)

The overall prominence and net effect values of the main, technological, organizational, supply chain, and external barriers for the two
respondent groups are summarized in Table A-6.
Step 6- Draw the DEMATEL prominence/effect diagrams – only mapping those relationships above a threshold value

The last step is the graphical representation for each factor of the calculated prominence and net effect values on a two-dimensional axis. The x-axis
represents the prominence value and the y-axis is the net effect value of factors.
The inter-relationships between barriers can be captured by directed arrows. To clarify the visualization, we defined a threshold that sets the cut-
off point for relationships between factors. Therefore, those values in the total relation matrix that are greater than the threshold would depict the
arrows in the final DEMATEL diagrams. The threshold value θ (Fu et al., 2012) is defined by expression (E9).

θ ¼ meanðTÞ þ SDT (E9)

where average of all tij values within the total relationship matrix is (mean(T)) and the standard deviation of all tij values is (SDT). The tij values that are
greater than the θ indicate a significant relationship between the two factors and correspond to arrows on DEMATEL diagrams. Those values that are
above the thresholds are highlighted in each of the total relation matrices.
Table A-1
The total-relation matrix for main barriers categories among academics and practitioners

Academics Practitioners

M1-A M2-A M3-A M4-A M1-P M2-P M3-P M4-P

M1-A 1.478 1.935 1.476 1.289 M1-P 1.653 2.134 1.812 1.727
M2-A 1.745 1.705 1.537 1.359 M2-P 1.847 1.834 1.802 1.692
M3-A 2.066 2.302 1.574 1.606 M3-P 2.134 2.402 1.844 2.020
M4-A 1.984 2.213 1.748 1.343 M4-P 1.945 2.216 1.917 1.615

Table A-2
The total-relation matrix for technological barriers among academics and practitioners

Academics Practitioners

T1-A T2-A T3-A T4-A T5-A T1-P T2-P T3-P T4-P T5-P

T1-A 0.766 0.810 1.168 0.819 0.844 T1-P 2.367 2.497 2.681 2.279 2.564
T2-A 0.795 0.562 0.956 0.654 0.725 T2-P 2.521 2.251 2.640 2.223 2.520
T3-A 0.717 0.657 0.702 0.605 0.656 T3-P 2.472 2.402 2.389 2.173 2.459
(continued on next page)

17
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Table A-2 (continued )

Academics Practitioners

T1-A T2-A T3-A T4-A T5-A T1-P T2-P T3-P T4-P T5-P

T4-A 0.824 0.676 0.966 0.537 0.677 T4-P 2.216 2.119 2.315 1.813 2.215
T5-A 1.068 0.923 1.240 0.837 0.732 T5-P 2.631 2.555 2.803 2.357 2.441

Table A-3
The total-relation matrix for organizational barriers among academics and practitioners

Academics Practitioners

O1-A O2-A O3-A O4-A O5-A O6-A O7-A O1–P O2–P O3–P O4–P O5–P O6–P O7–P

O1-A 0.326 0.560 0.553 0.543 0.521 0.654 0.557 O1–P 0.376 0.675 0.652 0.683 0.658 0.796 0.778
O2-A 0.523 0.504 0.685 0.649 0.662 0.775 0.636 O2–P 0.542 0.649 0.815 0.779 0.820 0.922 0.874
O3-A 0.365 0.471 0.400 0.501 0.501 0.596 0.496 O3–P 0.385 0.565 0.486 0.587 0.606 0.687 0.664
O4-A 0.393 0.540 0.566 0.423 0.542 0.651 0.551 O4–P 0.483 0.735 0.756 0.598 0.758 0.857 0.854
O5-A 0.365 0.484 0.510 0.482 0.380 0.591 0.470 O5–P 0.429 0.676 0.676 0.642 0.551 0.759 0.725
O6-A 0.384 0.505 0.526 0.508 0.515 0.476 0.512 O6–P 0.463 0.694 0.686 0.666 0.698 0.646 0.749
O7-A 0.361 0.470 0.491 0.477 0.462 0.573 0.371 O7–P 0.397 0.556 0.548 0.551 0.567 0.650 0.515

Table A-4
The total-relation matrix for supply chain barriers among academics and practitioners

Academics Practitioners

SC1-A SC2-A SC3-A SC4-A SC5-A SC1–P SC2–P SC3–P SC4–P SC5–P

SC1-A 0.787 1.241 1.245 1.290 0.845 SC1–P 2.089 2.556 2.556 2.539 2.053
SC2-A 0.948 1.080 1.285 1.311 0.851 SC2–P 2.093 2.162 2.356 2.340 1.881
SC3-A 0.954 1.305 1.080 1.327 0.853 SC3–P 2.011 2.293 2.083 2.265 1.824
SC4-A 0.800 1.083 1.074 0.934 0.728 SC4–P 2.145 2.372 2.364 2.160 1.899
SC5-A 1.072 1.469 1.444 1.462 0.821 SC5–P 2.111 2.396 2.373 2.338 1.747

Table A-5
The total-relation matrix for external barriers among academics and practitioners

Academics Practitioners

E1-A E2-A E3-A E4-A E5-A E1-P E2-P E3-P E4-P E5-P

E1-A 1.323 1.613 1.824 2.091 1.947 E1-P 1.637 1.857 1.899 2.131 2.082
E2-A 1.237 1.212 1.559 1.768 1.607 E2-P 1.759 1.616 1.842 2.072 1.994
E3-A 1.439 1.548 1.563 1.983 1.831 E3-P 1.918 1.949 1.797 2.223 2.152
E4-A 1.338 1.443 1.641 1.654 1.712 E4-P 1.863 1.869 1.950 1.961 2.111
E5-A 1.280 1.410 1.635 1.849 1.497 E5-P 1.359 1.426 1.469 1.677 1.440

Table A-6
Prominence and net effect values for barriers as evaluated by academics and practitioners

Academics Practitioners

Barriers Prominence (Pi) Net Effect (Ei) Barriers Prominence (Pi) Net Effect (Ei)

Main Barriers Categories M1-A 13.452 1.094 M1-P 14.906 0.252

M2-A 14.502 1.808 M2-P 15.761 1.412
M3-A 13.882 1.214 M3-P 15.775 1.025
M4-A 12.886 1.689 M4-P 14.748 0.640
Technological Barriers T1-A 8.577 0.236 T1-P 24.596 0.181
T2-A 7.319 0.066 T2-P 23.979 0.330
T3-A 8.370 1.697 T3-P 24.723 0.934
T4-A 7.131 0.229 T4-P 21.522 0.166
T5-A 8.433 1.166 T5-P 24.987 0.588
Organizational Barriers O1-A 6.432 0.996 O1–P 7.692 1.544
O2-A 7.969 0.901 O2–P 9.949 0.850
O3-A 7.059 0.401 O3–P 8.597 0.640
O4-A 7.250 0.084 O4–P 9.546 0.535
O5-A 6.863 0.301 O5–P 9.115 0.197
O6-A 7.743 0.890 O6–P 9.920 0.717
O7-A 6.798 0.388 O7–P 8.941 1.375
Supply Chain Barriers SC1-A 9.970 0.848 SC1–P 22.243 1.344
SC2-A 11.653 0.703 SC2–P 22.609 0.949
SC3-A 11.648 0.609 SC3–P 22.208 1.257
SC4-A 10.942 1.706 SC4–P 22.581 0.700
SC5-A 10.366 2.170 SC5–P 20.370 1.561
External Barriers E1-A 15.415 2.179 E1-P 18.142 1.071
(continued on next page)

18
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Table A-6 (continued )

Academics Practitioners

Barriers Prominence (Pi) Net Effect (Ei) Barriers Prominence (Pi) Net Effect (Ei)

E2-A 14.609 0.157 E2-P 18.000 0.568

E3-A 16.585 0.143 E3-P 18.996 1.081
E4-A 17.134 1.557 E4-P 19.818 0.310
E5-A 16.264 0.922 E5-P 17.148 2.410

References Colicchia, C., Creazza, A., No�e, C., Strozzi, F., 2019. Information sharing in supply
chains: a review of risks and opportunities using the systematic literature network
analysis (SLNA). Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-01-
Abeyratne, S.A., Monfared, R.P., 2016. Blockchain ready manufacturing supply chain
2018-0003.
using distributed ledger. IJRET: Int. J. Renew. Energy Technol. 5 (9), 1–10.
Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., Kalyanaraman, V., 2016. Blockchain technology:
Adams, R., Kewell, B., Parry, G., 2018. Blockchain for good? Digital ledger technology
beyond bitcoin. Applied Innovation 2, 6–10.
and sustainable development goals. Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science
Cummings, S., Bridgman, T., Brown, K.G., 2016. Unfreezing change as three steps:
Research. Springer, pp. 127–140.
rethinking Kurt Lewin’s legacy for change management. Hum. Relat. 69 (1), 33–60.
Ahl, A., Yarime, M., Goto, M., Chopra, S.S., Kumar, N.M., Tanak~ a, K., Sagawa, D., 2020.
Di Vaio, A., Varriale, L., 2019. Blockchain technology in supply chain management for
Exploring blockchain for the energy transition: opportunities and challenges based
sustainable performance: evidence from the airport industry. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
on a case study in Japan. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 117, 109488.
Dierickx, I., Cool, K., 1989. Asset stock accumulation and sustainability of competitive
Allison, I., 2018. BMW, Ford, GM: world’s largest automakers form blockchain coalition.
advantage. Manag. Sci. 35 (12), 1504–1511.
from. https://www.coindesk.com/bmw-ford-gm-worlds-largest-automakers-form-b
DiMaggio, P.J., Powell, W.W., 1983. The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism
lockchain-coalition.
and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Socio. Rev. 147–160.
Alvesson, M., Sveningsson, S., 2015. Changing Organizational Culture: Cultural Change
Dinh, T.T.A., Liu, R., Zhang, M., Chen, G., Ooi, B.C., Wang, J., 2018. Untangling
Work in Progress. Routledge.
blockchain: a data processing view of blockchain systems. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data
Andoni, M., Robu, V., Flynn, D., Abram, S., Geach, D., Jenkins, D., Peacock, A., 2019.
Eng. 30 (7), 1366–1385.
Blockchain technology in the energy sector: a systematic review of challenges and
Donaldson, T., Preston, L.E., 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts,
opportunities. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 100, 143–174.
evidence, and implications. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1), 65–91.
Angelis, J., da Silva, E.R., 2019. Blockchain adoption: a value driver perspective. Bus.
Dwivedi, A.D., Srivastava, G., Dhar, S., Singh, R., 2019. A decentralized privacy-
Horiz. 62 (3), 307–314.
preserving healthcare blockchain for iot. Sensors 19 (2), 326.
Angraal, S., Krumholz, H.M., Schulz, W.L., 2017. Blockchain technology: applications in
Dyer, J.H., Singh, H., 1998. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of
health care. Circulation: Cardiovascular quality outcomes 10 (9), e003800.
interorganizational competitive advantage. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23 (4), 660–679.
Asif, M., Jajja, M.S.S., Searcy, C., 2019. Social compliance standards: Re-evaluating the
Economides, N., 1996. The economics of networks. Int. J. Ind. Organ. 14 (6), 673–699.
buyer and supplier perspectives. J. Clean. Prod.
Fairley, P., 2017. Blockchain world-Feeding the blockchain beast if bitcoin ever does go
Azzi, R., Kilany, R., Sokhn, M., 2019. The power of a blockchain-based supply chain.
mainstream, the electricity needed to sustain it will be enormous. IEEE Spectrum 54
Comput. Ind. Eng.
(10), 36–59.
Bai, C., Sarkis, J., 2013. A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., Fawcett, A.M., 2010. Mitigating resisting forces to achieve
management critical success factors. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 146 (1), 281–292.
the collaboration-enabled supply chain. Benchmark Int. J. 17 (2), 269–293.
Baker, J., 2012. The technology–organization–environment framework. In: Information
Fawcett, S.E., Magnan, G.M., McCarter, M.W., 2008. Benefits, barriers, and bridges to
Systems Theory. Springer, pp. 231–245.
effective supply chain management. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 13 (1), 35–48.
Baker, J., Steiner, J., 2015. Provenance blockchain: the solution for transparency in
Fern�andez-Caram�es, T.M., Fraga-Lamas, P., 2018. A review on the use of blockchain for
product. Provenance. org.
the internet of things. IEEE Access 6, 32979–33001.
Ball, A., Craig, R., 2010. Using neo-institutionalism to advance social and environmental
Fontela, E., Gabus, A., 1976. The Dematel Observer. battelle geneva research center,
accounting. Crit. Perspect. Account. 21 (4), 283–293.
geneva, switzerland, 10, 0016-3287.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J. Manag. 17 (1),
Francisco, K., Swanson, D., 2018. The supply chain has no clothes: technology adoption
99–120.
of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Logistics 2 (1), 2.
Behnke, K., Janssen, M., 2019. Boundary conditions for traceability in food supply chains
Fu, B., Shu, Z., Liu, X., 2018. Blockchain enhanced emission trading framework in
using blockchain technology. Int. J. Inf. Manag.
fashion apparel manufacturing industry. Sustainability 10 (4), 1105.
Ben-Daya, M., Hassini, E., Bahroun, Z., 2019. Internet of things and supply chain
Fu, X., Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2012. Evaluating green supplier development programs at a
management: a literature review. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (15–16), 4719–4742.
telecommunications systems provider. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 357–367.
Bhatia, M.S., Srivastava, R.K., 2018. Analysis of external barriers to remanufacturing
Gold, S., Kunz, N., Reiner, G., 2017. Sustainable global agrifood supply chains: exploring
using grey-DEMATEL approach: an Indian perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 136,
the barriers. J. Ind. Ecol. 21 (2), 249–260.
79–87.
Gorane, S., Kant, R., 2015. Modelling the SCM implementation barriers: an integrated
Biswas, B., Gupta, R., 2019. Analysis of barriers to implement blockchain in industry and
ISM-fuzzy MICMAC approach. J. Model. Manag. 10 (2), 158–178.
service sectors. Comput. Ind. Eng. 136, 225–241.
Govindan, K., Hasanagic, M., 2018. A systematic review on drivers, barriers, and
Borgatti, S.P., Cross, R., 2003. A relational view of information seeking and learning in
practices towards circular economy: a supply chain perspective. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56
social networks. Manag. Sci. 49 (4), 432–445.
(1–2), 278–311.
Brody, P., 2017. How Blockchain Is Revolutionizing Supply Chain Management.
Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., Haq, A.N., 2014. Barriers analysis for green
Digitalist Magazine.
supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic
Bumblauskas, D., Mann, A., Dugan, B., Rittmer, J., 2019. A blockchain use case in food
hierarchy process. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 147, 555–568.
distribution: do you know where your food has been? Int. J. Inf. Manag.
Guo, Y., Liang, C., 2016. Blockchain application and outlook in the banking industry.
Burger, C., Kuhlmann, A., Richard, P., Weinmann, J., 2016. Blockchain in the Energy
Financial Innovation 2 (1), 24. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-016-0034-9.
Transition. A Survey Among Decision-Makers in the German Energy Industry. DENA
Hackius, N., Petersen, M., 2017. Blockchain in logistics and supply chain: trick or treat?.
German Energy Agency.
In: Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL).
Caro, M.P., Ali, M.S., Vecchio, M., Giaffreda, R., 2018. Blockchain-based Traceability in
Heeks, R., 2006. Health information systems: failure, success and improvisation. Int. J.
Agri-Food Supply Chain Management: A Practical implementation.2018 IoT Vertical
Med. Inf. 75 (2), 125–137.
and Topical Summit on Agriculture-Tuscany (IOT Tuscany).
Heinrich, M., Scotti, F., Booker, A., Fitzgerald, M., Kum, K.Y., L€obel, K., 2019.
Casey, M., Wong, P., 2017. Global supply chains are about to get better, thanks to
Unblocking high-value botanical value chains: is there a role for blockchain systems?
blockchain. Harv. Bus. Rev. 13, 1–6.
Front. Pharmacol. 10, 396.
Casino, F., Dasaklis, T.K., Patsakis, C., 2018. A systematic literature review of
Hendry, C., 1996. Understanding and creating whole organizational change through
blockchain-based applications: current status, classification and open issues.
learning theory. Hum. Relat. 49 (5), 621–641.
Telematics Inf.
Hirsch, P.M., 1975. Organizational effectiveness and the institutional environment. Adm.
Chang, Y., Iakovou, E., Shi, W., 2019. Blockchain in global supply chains and cross
Sci. Q. 327–344.
border trade: a critical synthesis of the state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities.
Hoek, R.v., 2019. Developing a framework for considering blockchain pilots in the
Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1651946.
supply chain–lessons from early industry adopters. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J.
Charlebois, S., 2018. How Blockchain Technology Could Transform the Food Industry.
Hofmann, H., Busse, C., Bode, C., Henke, M., 2014. Sustainability-related supply chain
RETAIL INSIDER.
risks: conceptualization and management. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23 (3), 160–172.
Child, J., 2015. Organization: Contemporary Principles and Practice. John Wiley & Sons.
Hou, H., 2017. The Application of Blockchain Technology in E-Government in
Chkanikova, O., Mont, O., 2015. Corporate supply chain responsibility: drivers and
China.2017 26th International Conference on Computer Communication and
barriers for sustainable food retailing. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 22 (2),
Networks (ICCCN).
65–82.
Hsu, C.-W., Kuo, T.-C., Chen, S.-H., Hu, A.H., 2013. Using DEMATEL to develop a carbon
Clegg, S.R., Kornberger, M., Pitsis, T., 2015. Managing and Organizations: an
management model of supplier selection in green supply chain management.
Introduction to Theory and Practice. Sage.
J. Clean. Prod. 56, 164–172.

19
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Misra, S.K., Rana, N.P., Raghavan, V., Akella, V., 2019. Mangla, S.K., Govindan, K., Luthra, S., 2017. Prioritizing the barriers to achieve
Blockchain research, practice and policy: applications, benefits, limitations, sustainable consumption and production trends in supply chains using fuzzy
emerging research themes and research agenda. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 49, 114–129. Analytical Hierarchy Process. J. Clean. Prod. 151, 509–525.
Iansiti, M., Lakhani, K.R., 2017. The truth about blockchain. Harv. Bus. Rev. 95 (1), Mangla, S.K., Luthra, S., Mishra, N., Singh, A., Rana, N.P., Dora, M., Dwivedi, Y., 2018.
118–127. Barriers to effective circular supply chain management in a developing country
Insights, D., 2019. Deloitte’s 2019 Global Blockchain Survey. Blockchain Gets Down To context. Prod. Plann. Contr. 29 (6), 551–569.
Business. Deloitte. Manupati, V.K., Schoenherr, T., Ramkumar, M., Wagner, S.M., Pabba, S.K., Inder Raj
Islam, A.N., M€ antym€aki, M., Turunen, M., 2019. Why do blockchains split? An actor- Singh, R., 2019. A blockchain-based approach for a multi-echelon sustainable supply
network perspective on Bitcoin splits. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 148, 119743. chain. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–20.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., 2019a. The impact of digital technology and Industry Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L., 2018. Future living framework: is blockchain the next enabling
4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (3), network? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 128, 226–234.
829–846. Martinez, V., Zhao, M., Blujdea, C., Han, X., Neely, A., Albores, P., 2019. Blockchain-
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., Sokolov, B., 2019b. The impact of digital technology and Industry driven customer order management. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag.
4.0 on the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–18. Mendling, J., Weber, I., Aalst, W.V.D., Brocke, J.V., Cabanillas, C., Daniel, F., Dustdar, S.,
Jayaraman, R., Saleh, K., King, N., 2019. Improving opportunities in healthcare supply 2018. Blockchains for business process management-challenges and opportunities.
chain processes via the internet of things and blockchain technology. Int. J. Healthc. ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS) 9 (1), 4.
Inf. Syst. Inf. 14 (2), 49–65. Mendling, J., Weber, I., van der Aalst, W., Brocke, J.v., Cabanillas, C., Daniel, F.,
Jennings, P.D., Zandbergen, P.A., 1995. Ecologically sustainable organizations: an Dustdar, S., 2017. Blockchains for Business Process Management-Challenges and
institutional approach. Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (4), 1015–1052. Opportunities arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.03610.
Jharkharia, S., Shankar, R., 2005. IT-enablement of supply chains: understanding the Meng, W., Tischhauser, E.W., Wang, Q., Wang, Y., Han, J., 2018. When intrusion
barriers. J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 18 (1), 11–27. detection meets blockchain technology: a review. IEEE Access 6, 10179–10188.
Johnson, S., 2018. Beyond the bitcoin bubble. N. Y. Times 16. Mengelkamp, E., G€ arttner, J., Rock, K., Kessler, S., Orsini, L., Weinhardt, C., 2018a.
Kamasak, R., 2017. The contribution of tangible and intangible resources, and Designing microgrid energy markets: a case study: the Brooklyn Microgrid. Appl.
capabilities to a firm’s profitability and market performance. European Journal of Energy 210, 870–880.
Management and Business Economics 26 (2), 252–275. Mengelkamp, E., Notheisen, B., Beer, C., Dauer, D., Weinhardt, C., 2018b. A blockchain-
Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A., Arha, H., 2018. Understanding the Blockchain technology based smart grid: towards sustainable local energy markets. Comput. Sci. Res. Dev.
adoption in supply chains-Indian context. Int. J. Prod. Res. 1–25. 33 (1–2), 207–214.
Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A., Arha, H., 2019a. Understanding the Blockchain technology Mettler, M., 2016. Blockchain Technology in Healthcare: the Revolution Starts here.2016
adoption in supply chains-Indian context. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (7), 1–25. IEEE 18th International Conference on E-Health Networking, Applications and
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Gawankar, S.A., 2019b. Achieving sustainable Services (Healthcom).
performance in a data-driven agriculture supply chain: a review for research and Michelman, P., 2017. Seeing beyond the blockchain hype. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 58 (4),
applications. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 17.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Sharma, R., 2019c. Modeling the blockchain enabled Min, H., 2019. Blockchain technology for enhancing supply chain resilience. Bus. Horiz.
traceability in agriculture supply chain. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 62 (1), 35–45.
Karamchandani, A., Srivastava, S.K., Srivastava, R.K., 2019. Perception-based model for Molloy, J.C., Barney, J.B., 2015. Who captures the value created with human capital? A
analyzing the impact of enterprise blockchain adoption on SCM in the Indian service market-based view. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 29 (3), 309–325.
industry. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Montecchi, M., Plangger, K., Etter, M., 2019. It’s real, trust me! Establishing supply chain
Kaur, J., Sidhu, R., Awasthi, A., Chauhan, S., Goyal, S., 2018. A DEMATEL based provenance using blockchain. Bus. Horiz. 62 (3), 283–293.
approach for investigating barriers in green supply chain management in Canadian Morabito, V., 2017. Business Innovation through Blockchain. Springer International
manufacturing firms. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (1–2), 312–332. Publishing, Cham.
Khan, S.Z., Yang, Q., Waheed, A., 2019. Investment in intangible resources and Morkunas, V.J., Paschen, J., Boon, E., 2019. How blockchain technologies impact your
capabilities spurs sustainable competitive advantage and firm performance. Corp. business model. Bus. Horiz. 62 (3), 295–306.
Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 26 (2), 285–295. Mougayar, W., 2016. The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice, and Application of the
Kim, H.M., Laskowski, M., 2018. Toward an ontology-driven blockchain design for Next Internet Technology. USA John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
supply-chain provenance. Intell. Syst. Account. Finance Manag. 25 (1), 18–27. Movahedipour, M., Zeng, J., Yang, M., Wu, X., 2017. An ISM approach for the barrier
Korpela, K., Hallikas, J., Dahlberg, T., 2017. Digital supply chain transformation toward analysis in implementing sustainable supply chain management. Manag. Decis. 55
blockchain integration. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference (8), 1824–1850. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-12-2016-0898.
on System Sciences. Nakamoto, S., 2009. Bitcoin: a peer to peer electronic cash system. Available at: htt
Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., 2018. Blockchain practices, potentials, and perspectives in ps://bit.ly/2PIMJLw.
greening supply chains. Sustainability 10 (10), 3652. Navadkar, V.H., Nighot, A., Wantmure, R., 2018. Overview of blockchain technology in
Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., 2019a. At the nexus of blockchain technology, the government/public sectors. International Research Journal of Engineering and
circular economy, and product deletion. Appl. Sci. 9 (8), 1712. Technology 5 (6), 2287–2292.
Kouhizadeh, M., Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., 2019b. Blockchain and the circular economy: Nikolakis, W., John, L., Krishnan, H., 2018. How blockchain can shape sustainable global
potential tensions and critical reflections from practice. Prod. Plann. Contr. 1–17. value chains: an evidence, verifiability, and enforceability (EVE) framework.
Kshetri, N., 2018. 1 Blockchain’s roles in meeting key supply chain management Sustainability 10 (11), 3926.
objectives. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 39, 80–89. Nowi� nski, W., Kozma, M., 2017. How can blockchain technology disrupt the existing
Kuan, K.K., Chau, P.Y., 2001. A perception-based model for EDI adoption in small business models? Entrepreneurial Business Economics Review 5 (3), 173–188.
businesses using a technology–organization–environment framework. Inf. Manag. 38 O’Dair, M., 2016. The Networked Record Industry: How Blockchain Technology Could
(8), 507–521. Transform the Consumption and Monetisation of Recorded Music.
Kurpjuweit, S., Schmidt, C.G., Kl€ ockner, M., Wagner, S.M., 2019. Blockchain in additive Oliveira, M.P. V.d., Handfield, R., 2019. Analytical foundations for development of real-
manufacturing and its impact on supply chains. J. Bus. Logist. time supply chain capabilities. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (5), 1571–1589.
Lacity, M.C., 2018. Addressing key challenges to making enterprise blockchain Oliveira, T., Martins, M.F., 2011. Literature review of information technology adoption
applications a reality. MIS Q. Exec. 17 (3), 201–222. models at firm level. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Eval. 14 (1), 110.
Lambert, D.M., Enz, M.G., 2017. Issues in supply chain management: progress and Ølnes, S., Ubacht, J., Janssen, M., 2017. Blockchain in government: benefits and
potential. Ind. Market. Manag. 62 (Suppl. C), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing. Govern. Inf. Q.
indmarman.2016.12.002. 34 (3), 355–364.
Lee, Y.-C., Li, M.-L., Yen, T.-M., Huang, T.-H., 2010. Analysis of adopting an integrated Palombini, M., 2017. The Other Side of Blockchain: We Choose what We Want to See
decision making trial and evaluation laboratory on a technology acceptance model. from. https://beyondstandards.ieee.org/blockchain/side-blockchain-ch
Expert Syst. Appl. 37 (2), 1745–1754. oose-want-see/#.
Levasseur, R.E., 2001. People skills: change management tools—lewin’s change model. Park, L., Lee, S., Chang, H., 2018. A sustainable home energy prosumer-chain
Interfaces 31 (4), 71–73. methodology with energy tags over the blockchain. Sustainability 10 (3), 658.
Lewin, K., 1946. Behavior and Development as a Function of the Total Situation. Patel, D., Bothra, J., Patel, V., 2017. Blockchain exhumed.2017 ISEA Asia Security and
Lewin, K., 1947. Frontiers in group dynamics: concept, method and reality in social Privacy (ISEASP).
science; social equilibria and social change. Hum. Relat. 1 (1), 5–41. Peng, G.C., Nunes, M.B., 2010. Barriers to the successful exploitation of ERP systems in
Lewin, K., 1951. Field Theory in Social Science. Chinese State-Owned Enterprises. Int. J. Bus. Syst. Res. 4 (5–6), 596–620.
Lin, R.-J., 2013. Using fuzzy DEMATEL to evaluate the green supply chain management Pilkington, M., 2015. Blockchain technology: principles and applications. Browser
practices. J. Clean. Prod. 40, 32–39. Download This Paper.
Lindman, J., Tuunainen, V.K., Rossi, M., 2017. Opportunities and Risks of Blockchain Pilkington, M., 2016. 11 Blockchain technology: principles and applications. Research
Technologies–A Research Agenda. handbook on digital transformations 225.
Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Xu, L., Diabat, A., 2016. Using AHP to evaluate barriers in Pilkington, M., Crudu, R., Grant, L.G., 2017. Blockchain and bitcoin as a way to lift a
adopting sustainable consumption and production initiatives in a supply chain. Int. country out of poverty-tourism 2.0 and e-governance in the Republic of Moldova.
J. Prod. Econ. 181, 342–349. Int. J. Internet Technol. Secur. Trans. 7 (2), 115–143.
Macrinici, D., Cartofeanu, C., Gao, S., 2018. Smart contract applications within Popper, N., Lohr, S., 2017. Blockchain: A Better Way to Track Pork Chops, Bonds, Bad
blockchain technology: a systematic mapping study. Telematics Inf. Peanut Butter, p. 4. New York Times.
Mandal, A., Deshmukh, S., 1994. Vendor selection using interpretive structural
modelling (ISM). Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 14 (6), 52–59.

20
M. Kouhizadeh et al. International Journal of Production Economics 231 (2021) 107831

Pournader, M., Shi, Y., Seuring, S., Koh, S.L., 2019. Blockchain applications in supply Takeishi, A., 2001. Bridging inter-and intra-firm boundaries: management of supplier
chains, transport and logistics: a systematic review of the literature. Int. J. Prod. Res. involvement in automobile product development. Strat. Manag. J. 22 (5), 403–433.
1–19. Tornatzky, L.G., Fleischer, M., Chakrabarti, A.K., 1990. Processes of Technological
Queiroz, M.M., Telles, R., Bonilla, S.H., 2019. Blockchain and supply chain management Innovation. Lexington books.
integration: a systematic review of the literature. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. Treiblmaier, H., 2018. The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: a theory-based
Queiroz, M.M., Wamba, S.F., 2019. Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: an research framework and a call for action. Supply Chain Manag.: Int. J. 23 (6),
empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 545–559.
46, 70–82. Tura, N., Hanski, J., Ahola, T., Ståhle, M., Piiparinen, S., Valkokari, P., 2019. Unlocking
Rogers, E.M., 1995. Diffusion of Innovations, p. 12. New York. circular business: a framework of barriers and drivers. J. Clean. Prod. 212, 90–98.
Rugeviciute, A., Mehrpouya, A., 2019. Blockchain, a panacea for development Tzeng, G.-H., Chiang, C.-H., Li, C.-W., 2007. Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning
accountability? A study of the barriers and enablers for Blockchain’s adoption by programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL.
development aid organizations. Frontiers in Blockchain 2, 15. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (4), 1028–1044.
Saaty, T.L., 1988. What is the analytic hierarchy process?. In: Mathematical Models for Waddell, D., Devine, J., Jones, G.R., George, J.M., 2007. Contemporary Management. Mc
Decision Support. Springer, pp. 109–121. Graw Hill Irwin.
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., 2018. Blockchain technology: a panacea or pariah Wang, H., Chen, K., Xu, D., 2016. A maturity model for blockchain adoption. Financial
for resources conservation and recycling? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 130, 80–81. Innovation 2 (1), 12.
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., 2019a. Blockchains and the supply chain: findings Wang, Y., Han, J.H., Beynon-Davies, P., 2019a. Understanding blockchain technology for
from a broad study of practitioners. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1109/ future supply chains: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Supply
EMR.2019.2928264. Chain Manag.: Int. J. 24 (1), 62–84.
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., Shen, L., 2019b. Blockchain technology and its Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J., Rit, M., 2019b. Making sense of blockchain technology:
relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (7), how will it transform supply chains? Int. J. Prod. Econ. 211, 221–236.
2117–2135. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1533261. Available at: Wu, H., Li, Z., King, B., Ben Miled, Z., Wassick, J., Tazelaar, J., 2017a. A distributed
Sajjad, A., Eweje, G., Tappin, D., 2015. Sustainable supply chain management: ledger for supply chain physical distribution visibility. Information 8 (4), 137.
motivators and barriers. Bus. Strat. Environ. 24 (7), 643–655. Wu, K.-J., Tseng, M.-L., Chiu, A.S., Lim, M.K., 2017b. Achieving competitive advantage
Sarkis, J., Talluri, S., 2004. Evaluating and selecting e-commerce software and through supply chain agility under uncertainty: a novel multi-criteria decision-
communication systems for a supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 159 (2), 318–329. making structure. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 190, 96–107.
Sarkis, J., Zhu, Q., 2018. Environmental sustainability and production: taking the road Wu, L.-Y., 2010. Applicability of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views under
less travelled. Int. J. Prod. Res. 56 (1–2), 743–759. environmental volatility. J. Bus. Res. 63 (1), 27–31.
Sayogo, D.S., Zhang, J., Luna-Reyes, L., Jarman, H., Tayi, G., Andersen, D.L., Wu, W.-W., Lee, Y.-T., 2007. Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy
Andersen, D.F., 2015. Challenges and requirements for developing data architecture DEMATEL method. Expert Syst. Appl. 32 (2), 499–507.
supporting integration of sustainable supply chains. Inf. Technol. Manag. 16 (1), Yang, Y.-P.O., Shieh, H.-M., Leu, J.-D., Tzeng, G.-H., 2008. A novel hybrid MCDM model
5–18. combined with DEMATEL and ANP with applications. Int. J. Oper. Res. 5 (3),
Schein, E.H., 2010. Organizational Culture and Leadership, vol. 2. John Wiley & Sons. 160–168.
Schmidt, C.G., Wagner, S.M., 2019. Blockchain and supply chain relations: a transaction Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., Smolander, K., 2016. Where is current research
cost theory perspective. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 25 (4), 100552. on blockchain technology?-A systematic review. PloS One 11 (10), e0163477.
Seuring, S., Sarkis, J., Müller, M., Rao, P., 2008. Sustainability and supply chain https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163477.
management–an introduction to the special issue. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), Yue, X., Wang, H., Jin, D., Li, M., Jiang, W., 2016. Healthcare data gateways: found
1545–1551. healthcare intelligence on blockchain with novel privacy risk control. J. Med. Syst.
Singh, S., Singh, N., 2016. Blockchain: future of financial and cyber security.2016. In: 40 (10), 218.
2nd International Conference on Contemporary Computing and Informatics (IC3I). Zhang, D., 2019. Application of blockchain technology in incentivizing efficient use of
Sonenshein, S., 2010. We’re changing—or are we? Untangling the role of progressive, rural wastes: a case study on yitong system. Energy Procedia 158, 6707–6714.
regressive, and stability narratives during strategic change implementation. Acad. Zhang, J., Dawes, S.S., Sarkis, J., 2005. Exploring stakeholders’ expectations of the
Manag. J. 53 (3), 477–512. benefits and barriers of e-government knowledge sharing. J. Enterprise Inf. Manag.
Soroor, J., Tarokh, M.J., Keshtgary, M., 2009. Preventing failure in IT-enabled systems 18 (5), 548–567.
for supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 47 (23), 6543–6557. Zhang, P., Schmidt, D.C., White, J., Lenz, G., 2018. Blockchain technology use cases in
Su, C.-M., Horng, D.-J., Tseng, M.-L., Chiu, A.S., Wu, K.-J., Chen, H.-P., 2016. Improving healthcare. In: Advances in Computers, vol. 111. Elsevier, pp. 1–41.
sustainable supply chain management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL Zhu, K., Kraemer, K., Xu, S., 2002. A cross-country study of electronic business adoption
approach. J. Clean. Prod. 134, 469–481. using the technology-organization-environment framework. ICIS Proceedings 31.
Sullivan, C., Burger, E., 2019. Blockchain, digital identity, E-government. In: Business Zhu, Q., Liu, Q., 2010. Eco-design planning in a Chinese telecommunication network
Transformation through Blockchain. Springer, pp. 233–258. company: benchmarking its parent company. Benchmark Int. J. 17 (3), 363–377.
Swan, M., 2015. Blockchain: Blueprint for a New Economy. O’Reilly Media, Inc, Zhu, Q., Sarkis, J., Lai, K.-h., 2012. Examining the effects of green supply chain
Sebastopol, CA, USA. management practices and their mediations on performance improvements. Int. J.
Prod. Res. 50 (5), 1377–1394.

21