Discussion/ IT

Blockchain technology-enabled supply chain systems and supply chain performance: a

resource-based view Madhavi Latha Nandi

College of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, USA

Santosh Nandi Division of Business and Economics, University of South Carolina Sumter, Sumter, South Carolina, USA

Hiram Moya College of Engineering and Computer Science, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, USA, and

Hale Kaynak College of Business and Entrepreneurship, University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, Edinburg, Texas, USA

Abstract Purpose – Using the resource-based theoretical view of the firm, this paper aims to explore how firms’ efforts to integrate blockchain technology (BCT) into their supply chain systems and activities enable certain supply chain capabilities and, consequently, improve their supply chain performance. Design/methodology/approach – Using an abductive research approach, a qualitative content analysis was conducted on 126 cases of firms attempting to implement a blockchain technology-enabled supply chain system (BCTeSCS). These firms spanning across multiple industries were identified using the Nexis Uni database. Findings – Findings reveal that present BCTeSCS efforts are more-oriented toward improving operational-level capabilities (information sharing and coordination capabilities) than strategic-level capabilities (integration and collaboration capabilities). These operational and strategic-level capabilities alongside BCTeSCS deliver several supply chains performance outcomes such as quality compliance and improvement, process improvement, flexibility, reduced cost and reduced process time. However, outcomes may vary by industry type based on their uncertainties. Research limitations/implications – Given the nascent state of BCT, accessibility to primary data about ongoing BCTeSCS efforts is limited. The presented framework is based on 126 cases of secondary information. Within this constraint, the paper finds scope to future empirical research by proposing a resource-based framework of BCTeSCS and related propositions. Practical implications – The results and discussion of this study serve as useful guidance for practitioners involved in BCTeSCS integrations. Social implications – The paper creates a BCTeSCS scenario for stakeholders to assume its potential socio-economic and socio-environmental pressures. Originality/value – This paper is one of the initial attempts to examine BCTeSCS efforts across multiple industries, and thus, promises a broad future research scope.

Keywords New technology, Technology, Supply-chain management, Resource-based view, SCM framework, SCM performance, Blockchain, Supply chain performance, Supply chain integration

Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction

During the past two decades, supply chains have become complex because many firms rely on outsourcing their various value transformation processes to other firms and/or setting up their production or service facilities in low-cost regions (Gereffi and Lee, 2012). In this vein, firms face significant challenges in the management of material, information and financial flows

due to the presence of numerous entities participating in the overall value transformation processes (Power, 2005). This phenomenon highlights the importance of supply chain management (SCM) in dealing with the integration and management of these three flows and, subsequently, improving the performance of supply chains (Mentzer et al., 2001). Several past SCM studies have pointed out that the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in supply

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/1359-8546.htm

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal 25/6 (2020) 841–862 © Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 1359-8546] [DOI 10.1108/SCM-12-2019-0444]

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Received 12 December 2019 Revised 5 May 2020 27 May 2020 Accepted 28 May 2020

841

chain processes plays a key role in developing supply chain capabilities (Prajogo and Olhager, 2012). However, some large companies (e.g. Chipotle Mexican Grill) still suffer from a lack of sufficient capabilities to monitor their suppliers in real-time (Casey and Wong, 2017). This lack of capabilities is largely attributed to fragmented supply chain processes and ICT systems including smart devices and data security issues (Yee and Oh, 2013). As we move toward an “economy of things” by extracting value from the “internet of things (IoT),” recent discussions on blockchain technology (BCT)-enabled supply chains have gained traction in both the academic and practitioner-oriented press (Casey and Wong, 2017; Cottrill, 2018; Kshetri, 2018). As an emerging technological artifact, BCT-enabled supply chain systems (BCTeSCS) are expected to resolve some of the supply chain problems that are built around human-social context, particularly in industries associated with high risks concerning the governance of contracts and processes, supply chain information and/or product counterfeiting (Reijers et al., 2016; Cottrill, 2018; Garrett, 2017; Kshetri, 2018; Shanley, 2017). However, recent reviews on BCT integration in supply chains point at the scarce literature on BCT and SCM and voice to conduct an inter- organizational theory-based systematic inquiry to understand BCT’s impact on supply chains and the larger picture (Treiblmaier, 2018; Wang et al., 2019). Therefore, the main focus of this study is to extend the literature by offering an integrated inter-organizational theory-based framework that identifies the capabilities of BCTeSCS and demonstrates how they improve supply chain performance. The first objective of this study is to identify BCT-enabled

supply chain capabilities and performance outcomes. The second objective is to integrate the identified capabilities and performance outcomes into a coherent framework. The third objective is to understand the impact of industry type on the relationship between the identified capabilities and their performance outcomes. More specifically, this study fills the gap in blockchain and SCM literature by responding to the following research questions:

RQ1. What are the BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities?

RQ2. What are the performance outcomes of BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities?

RQ3. What is the impact of industry type on the relationship between BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities and their performance outcomes?

We investigate these research questions from the lens of the “resource-based view” (RBV), which posits that a firm’s capabilities are crucial to derive desired performance outcomes from its resource base. In this background, we build upon SCM literature that uses the RBV in the context of information systems, to identify ICT-enabled supply chain capabilities. We then conduct a content analyzes of industrial literature on BCT to relate these capabilities in the context of BCTeSCS and the corresponding performance outcomes. The RBV of a firm suggests that the distinctive ways that a firm adopts to manage and deploy resources create the potential for both the temporary and sustained competitive advantages (Barney, 1991; Wernerfelt, 1984; Wu et al., 2006). In other words,

“while resources are the source of a firm’s capabilities, capabilities are the main source of its competitive advantage” (Grant, 1991, p. 119). In SCM literature, ICT has often been recognized as an important resource that can provide distinctive capabilities for a firm and its supply chain (Wu et al., 2006). As a form of ICT resource, BCT promises to streamline deficiencies of inter- and intra-organizational business processes by making them immutable, decentralized, secure, transparent and operational-efficient (Falazi et al, 2019). Our study contributes to the development of the BCTeSCS

theory and facilitates future empirical research by offering an integrated conceptual model and corresponding research propositions. Additionally, the study is relevant to practitioners because the proposed model uncovers some unique insights about the relationship between BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities and supply chain performance. We organized this paper into five sections. In Section 2, we

present the theoretical background of the study. In Section 3, we explain the methodology used to achieve the research objectives of the study including the data collection method, the development of guiding frameworks for content analysis and the data analysis methods. In Section 4, we discuss the findings of the analysis for each research objective and related propositions. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper with a discussion on the study’s theoretical and managerial contributions, limitations and directions for future research.

2. Theoretical background of blockchain technology, supply chain management and the resource-based view

2.1 Blockchain technology BCT has been widely acknowledged as an upcoming disruptive technology, especially in the realm of SCM (Casey and Wong, 2017; Korpela et al., 2017; Kshetri, 2018). The concept of blockchain, which evolved from the paper published by Satoshi Nakamoto (2008), hinges upon two basic characteristics, namely, distributed ledger system and cryptographic tools (Nakamoto, 2008). The distributed ledger system is the mechanism for verification of transactions using a predefined consensus mechanism among the participating entities thus avoiding the need for intermediary auditing entities such as Central Banks, notaries and other governmental institutions (Sikorski et al., 2017; Yarmack, 2017). Cryptographic tools refer to those mechanisms that enable maintaining data security and integrity of the blockchain. For example, blockchain uses a hash function, which is a type of cryptography that transforms data into a hexadecimal code of a fixed length and cannot be inverted to recover the original input (Yarmack, 2017). An elaborate discussion on technical and functional aspects of BCT is provided in Appendix [1].

2.2 Blockchain technology and supply chain management In the context of the supply chain, some of the positive attributes of BCT include faster transaction approvals through decentralized consensus mechanisms, the ability to track the history of transactions, instantaneous information access and data security. While industry reports, news articles and conference proceedings profoundly discuss blockchain’s role in

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

842

SCM, scholarly literature in peer-reviewed journals is gradually gaining momentum. The blockchain phenomenon representing a set of technological

artifacts and human interactions together is expected to have a bearing on supply chains, environment and societies in general. As suggested by Reijers and Coeckelbergh (2018) from the science and technological studies standpoint, these technological artifacts are situated in a human-social context, and therefore, they shape and continue to get shaped by the social realities surrounding them. Recent literature reviews (Wang et al., 2019; Treiblmaier, 2018; Cole et al., 2019) proposed to conduct systematic research using relevant management theoretical cases for a better understanding of these shaping processes of BCT in the SCM context. Such theoretical cases include (but not limited to) transaction cost economics, principal-agent theory (PAT), RBV and social capital theory. Present academic literature on blockchain-based supply chains lacks both theoretical and methodical rigor, such that they are either too abstract or too technical in their essence. A handful of recent peer-reviewed journal articles inclined toward supply chains side issues such as supply chain architecture prescriptions (Sikorski et al., 2017; Gao et al., 2018), supply chain user attitudes (Kamble et al., 2019), supply chain sustainability (Gausdal et al., 2018), supply chain resilience (Min, 2019) and supply chain performance (Hald and Kinra, 2019). Another set of peer-reviewed journal articles focus heavily on BCT-side issues related to supply chain systems, including BCT proposals to improve processing efficiency (Leng et al., 2018), data privacy (Wu et al., 2017) and the like. We also noted a recent spike in literature reviews addressing blockchain trends in the general supply chain context (Cole et al, 2019; Gurtu and Johny, 2019; Hald and Kinra, 2019; Queiroz et al., 2019). Table 1 summarizes available BCTeSCS literature in peer- reviewed journals by article, the scope within the supply chain, applied context and key contribution/s.

2.3 Blockchain technology-enabled supply chain system In this paper, we define BCTeSCS as a supply chain system that uses BCT tools and infrastructure to support planning and/or managing supply chain activities. The extent of the usage of BCT tools and infrastructure may vary from limited participation on external BCT networks for sharing operational information to the deployment of a private BCT network for carrying out critical supply chain activities. For example, a firm can simply use a public BCT network to carry out and settle financial transactions, and thus, leverage on the faster transaction approval process of the BCT networks. Yet, another firm may use secure smart contracts on a BCT network for automatic procurement of required products. While others, having an advanced BCT-enabled supply chain, may host a private BCT network to integrate their information systems and smart devices across its supply chain. Some firms may also be using complex smart contracts to exchange business-critical information and collaborate with their suppliers. BCT is an emerging technology, especially in the realm of

SCM and encapsulates several positive features that can potentially resolve several SCM problems (Casey and Wong, 2017; Korpela et al., 2017; Kshetri, 2018). Several innovative firms across the industries are taking the first leap into developing and using this technology to manage their supply chain activities, while several others are still struggling to

understand the technical and functional aspects of BCT and its implications. The BCT-enabled supply chain infrastructure and the know-how expertise are expected to serve as unique and valuable resources for these innovative firms experimenting with the technology. However, several studies in the past have shown that merely possessing technical and knowledge resources of advanced ICT by the firms does not automatically translate into supply chain performance improvements (Fawcett et al., 2011; Trkman et al., 2007; Wu et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2011). Rather, the ICT resources facilitate the creation of firm-level and supply chain level capabilities, which thereby create differential returns based on their unique value and inimitability (Bharadwaj, 2000; Zhang et al., 2011). In this backdrop, we adopt RBV of the firm as the theoretical perspective for our study and posit that the impact of the BCT- enabled supply chain on supply chain performance is mediated by the presence of supply chain capabilities.

2.4 The resource-based view of blockchain technology- enabled supply chain system Rooted in management strategy literature, the RBV of the firm describes, explains and predicts how a firm can achieve sustainable competitive advantage through acquisition of and control over its bundles of “unique” resources and capabilities (Bharadwaj, 2000; Barratt and Oke, 2007; Wernerfelt, 1984). These unique resources and capabilities offering a competitive advantage to the firm are valuable, rare, difficult to imitate, non-substitutable by other resources and are heterogeneously distributed among firms within an industry (Barney, 1991; Bharadwaj, 2000). A firm’s resources refer to those assets, both tangible (e.g. information technology (IT) infrastructure) and intangible (e.g. information or process knowledge), possessed by the firm that enables the production and delivery of goods and services (Barratt and Oke, 2007; Grant, 1991). Capabilities, in contrast, refer to a firm’s approach to resource utilization; that is how resources in combination with organizational processes are deployed to produce the desired outcome (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993; Liu et al., 2016). RBV is theoretically apt in explaining how a firm can achieve a competitive advantage by transforming its unique resources into capabilities through the systematic building, integrating and reconfiguring its resources into its organizational processes and routines (Fawcett et al., 2011). For example, Sears failed to capture the shifting buying behavior of shoppers, as the dawn of the internet in the 1970s, despite being a major retailer in the USA for decades. In this case, Walmart persisted to efficiently organize its existing cataloging systems, warehouses and suppliers into a unique capability in the form of a business design logic that serves both online and in-store shoppers. Therefore, according to RBV, when a firm possesses BCTeSCS as a unique resource, it must also apply systematic reconfigurations and/or upgrades of the BCTeSCS to develop unique capabilities so as to gain leverage over its present and future competition (Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). Several studies investigated the different supply chain

capabilities enabled by ICT resources such as ebusiness, electronic data interchange and radio-frequency identification systems (Angeles, 2009; Bi et al., 2013; Devraj et al., 2007). Our study extends upon this literature by focusing on the supply chain capabilities that are relevant to BCTeSCS and the

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

843

possible supply chain performance outcomes resulting from these capabilities. Our study is expected to address this gap in SCM literature. As stated earlier in the introduction section, Treiblmaier (2018) and Wang et al. (2019) in their reviews of the literature on BCT called for conducting a theory-based systematic inquiry on the potential impact of the BCT on supply chains, industries and the wider society, using the existing inter-organizational theories. Our study is a response to their call for more BCT research in the supply chain context.

Through this study, we aim to add to the scarce literature on BCT and SCM by analyzing a large data set of case-studies of BCTeSCS developments around the world using the RBV theoretical perspective.

3. Research methodology

To reiterate, the purpose of this study is to explore and identify BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities, their consequent

Table 1 Summary of BCTeSCS literature

Article Scope within the supply chain Applied context Key contribution/s

Wu et al. (2017) Architecture of BCT-based supply chain system – supply chain privacy

Chemical, pharmaceutical and other high-end product supply chains

Proposes an add-on (public) blockchain system that makes enterprise (private) supply chain systems accessible to supply chain partners upon granting permission

Sikorski et al. (2017) Architecture of BCT-based supply chain system – supply chain transaction settlement

Chemical industry Proposes a BCT-based trading system that enables secure machine-to-machine interactions for automated transaction settlements

Gao et al. (2018) Architecture of BCT-based supply chain system – information processing and data storing

General supply chains Proposes a two-layered BCT-based supply chain system address processing and storing issues of large volumes of “decentralized” supply chain transactions

Leng et al. (2018) Architecture of BCT-based supply chain system – supply chain reliability and efficiency

Agricultural supply chains Proposes a double chain architecture BCT-based supply chain system to enhance the credibility and overall efficiency of the system

Kamble et al. (2019) Behavioral aspects of BCT-adoption in the supply chain)

Supply chain managers in India Suggests supply chain managers lean toward BCT adoption for perceived ease of use and usefulness

Gausdal et al. (2018) Economic and physical aspects of BCT-adoption in supply chain

Maritime/offshoring industry in Norway

Describes adoption drivers (e.g. cost reduction, regulation) and barriers (e.g. implementation cost, internet speed, innovation diffusion) for BCT-based supply chain systems

Saberi et al. (2018) Potential value of BCT for supply chain sustainability

Global supply chains Examines the role of BCT and smart contracts in supply chain sustainability in eliminating nefarious activities of supply chain agents and enabling easy mechanisms for product source verification and quality standards

Kshetri (2018) Potential value of BCT for supply chain performance

Multi-industry BCT deployments in supply chains

Discusses the role of BCT in achieving supply chain performance objectives

Treiblmaier (2018) Impacts of BCT-based supply chain systems

Theories previously used for supply chain research

Calls to investigate implications of BCT for supply chains, using established economic theories, namely, PAT, transaction cost analysis, RBV and network theory

Wang et al. (2019) Influence of BCT in supply chain practices and policies

Academic databases and practice literature of supply chain

Reviews present (nascent) state of academic research and industry efforts for BCT inclusion in supply chains

Min (2019) Potential value of BCT for supply chain resilience

Supply chains order fulfillment process

Discusses ways to apply BCT and smart-contracting to manage supply chain risk in the context of the order fulfillment process

Cole et al. (2019) Potential value of BCT for operations and SCM and research

General supply chains Reviews academic and industrial literature to identify potential uses of BCT in operations and SCM, research themes and management theories that can be applied to study BCT impact on SCM including social capital theory, transaction cost economics theory and agency theory

Gurtu and Johny (2019) Potential use of BCT in SCM General supply chains Reviews academic literature to identify industrial trends in the usage of BCT for supply chain activities

Hald and Kinra (2019) Impact of BCT on supply chain performance

General supply chains Reviews academic research to identify enabling and constraining effects of BCT on supply chain performance

Queiroz et al. (2019) Impact of BCT on supply chain integration

General supply chains Reviews academic literature to identify potential applications of BCT in supply chain integration disruptions and challenges due to BCT adoption

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

844

performance outcomes and the influence of industry type on the relation between BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities and the corresponding supply chain performance outcomes. We adopt an abductive research approach to achieve the study’s research objectives. An abductive research approach is a process of reasoning in

which explanations to a real-life phenomenon are formed and evaluated iteratively moving back and forth between existing theory on the phenomenon and the real-world data (Dunne and Dougherty, 2016; Magnani, 2011). It allows the researcher to anchor the findings to an initial theory, which is then developed and refined as the data collection and analysis progresses (Karatzas et al., 2017; Kovacs and Spens, 2005). Theory development, data collection and analysis are symbiotically linked in the abductive approach. We consider the abductive approach to be an apt research approach for our study for several reasons. First, the phenomenon being investigated in this study pertains to the potential implications of the enormous investments in BCT systems development made by firms for improvements in supply chain performance. As the phenomenon is nascent, complex and inaccessible, it is not suitable for drawing inferences using pure deductive or inductive approaches (Krippendorf, 2004). Second, the research questions of the study are oriented more toward theory development; that is they are aimed toward analyzing and refining the existing theory on supply chain capabilities in an emergent technological context rather than inventing a new theory (Dubois and Gadde, 2002). These questions are suited for drawing inferences abductively by examining a body of text describing the phenomenon (Krippendorf, 2004). Third, the expected output of the study is a set of propositions corroborated by both theoretical and empirical evidence (Lin et al., 2013). These propositions are expected to create new knowledge that could be used by practitioners and researchers for further theory refinement and evaluation. We conducted a qualitative content analysis following the

logic of abduction as depicted in Figure 1. Sample data for the study comprise industry reports on BCT use-cases and development efforts by various firms across the world. Supply

chain problems that have been or are expected to be resolved by BCT systems and their corresponding performance outcomes are identified from the data and matched with guiding frameworks developed from the existing academic literature. These guiding frameworks of supply chain capabilities and performance outcomes evolved as we progressed through the analysis and simultaneously served as a theoretical guideline throughout the analysis. In this way, the analysis is neither constrained by theory nor overwhelmed by data and the output is reinforced both by theory and empirical data in a balanced way (Dubois and Gadde, 2002; Karatzas et al., 2017).

3.1 Data collection We obtained data for the study from a leading business news database, Nexis Uni database (2020), which covers all prominent newspapers, professional magazines and business wire news across the world. We searched the database using the combination of the keywords “blockchain” and “supply chain.” We limited the search to news and wire news articles during the time period 2016–2018, as significant BCT developments happened during this timeline. News articles pertaining to general discussions on BCT and cryptocurrencies, announcements of BCT focused symposiums and conferences and repetitive content on industrial efforts were screened out. After the screening, the final data set was comprising 118 news articles discussing 126 industry efforts by firms across the globe. The industry efforts – henceforth referred to as “sample- cases” –, included BCT-enabled supply chain solution deployments and developments including green papers, white papers, proofs-of-concept, prototyping, pilot testing, beta testing and other efforts that involve the commitment of investment by firms.

3.2 Guiding frameworks for data analysis We developed a guiding framework for identifying BCT- enabled supply chain capabilities by referring to the academic papers that focused on supply chain capabilities enabled by various types of ICT resources. Similar supply chain capabilities are grouped and labeled based on the definitions and measurement items used in these academic papers. The framework of capabilities as presented in Table 2 –included two operational supply chain capabilities – information sharing and coordination capabilities and two strategic supply chain capabilities – integration and collaboration capabilities. Operational capabilities allow a firm to make a living in the present by facilitating the performance of its day-to-day operational activities (Fainshmidt et al., 2016; Teece, 2014). Strategic capabilities allow a firm to confer a competitive advantage by altering the resource base, constantly improving operational capabilities and/or initiating change in its external environment (Fainshmidt et al., 2016; Teece, 2014). Using a similar method, we developed a guiding framework

to identify supply chain performance outcomes resulting from BCTeSCS and capabilities. Supply chain performance outcomes refer to the measurement metrics that enable quantification of the overall effectiveness and efficiency of supply chain processes. The guiding framework presented in Table 3 contains six performance outcomes – cost reduction, quality improvement and compliance, process time reduction, process improvement, flexibility and innovativeness.

Figure 1 Research methodology

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

845

3.3 Data analysis Data analysis for the study involved a non-linear path between data, data sources and theory. Content for each sample-case is carefully examined and matched with guiding frameworks independently by three authors. The authors independently coded all the sample-cases into three categories; namely, “less likely,” “not sure” and “more likely,” based on their assessment of each industrial effort’s potential to enable the capabilities listed in the guiding framework. In several instances, the authors consulted other data sources for attaining a complete understanding of the concepts being discussed in the sample- case content. For example, to understand how BCT smart contracts are used in different scenarios, the authors consulted literature covering supply chain contracts and concepts of smart contracts. Similarly, for understanding the mentioned

implications of BCT on the IoTs, the authors reviewed academic literature on the issues with IoTs implementations in the present scenario. Overall, academic papers of various disciplines have been reviewed by the authors, including computer engineering, SCM, information systems and industrial engineering, to ensure thorough analysis and reliability of the research output. Disagreements among the three authors are resolved by the fourth author by referring to the text data of the sample-case and relevant academic papers. The interrater agreement among the coding authors is 91.8%. A similar procedure of coding and analysis is followed for

identifying supply chain performance outcomes relevant for BCTeSCS and capabilities. The interrater agreement among the coding authors for supply chain performance outcomes is 94.9%. To explore the influence industry type, sector-wise

Table 2 Guiding framework of supply chain capabilities

Supply chain capability Definition Source(s)

1. Information sharing capabilities

Operational capabilities that enable a firm to share information and knowledge within its organizational units, as well as its supply chain partners in an effective and efficient manner

Bi et al. (2013), Fuchs et al. (2018), Sanders (2008) and Wu et al. (2006)

2. Coordination capabilities

Operational capabilities that enable a firm to coordinate transactional-related activities with its functional units and supply chain partners from order-taking to order follow-up

Bi et al. (2013), Sanders (2008) and Wu et al. (2006)

3. ntegration capabilities

Strategic capabilities that accrue from the strategic alignment of a firm’s activities with its upstream and downstream supply chain partners

Angeles (2009), Bi et al. (2013), Bruque-Camara et al. (2016), Devraj et al. (2007),Hong et al. (2010), Li et al. (2009), Paulraj and Chen (2007), Paulraj et al. (2008), Rai et al. (2006), Wu et al. (2006) and Yu et al. (2017)

4. Collaboration capabilities

Strategic capabilities that accrue from long term supply chain relationships that enable supply chain partners to jointly deal with the market demand, planning business activities and chalking out mutual short-term and long-term goals

Fawcett et al. (2011), Kim and Lee (2010), Peng et al. (2016) and Sanders (2008)

Table 3 Guiding framework of supply chain performance outcomes

Supply chain performance outcome Definition Source(s)

1. Cost reduction Reduction in material costs, processing costs, information costs, distribution costs, overhead costs, cost per operation hour, risk costs and other intangible costs

Cho et al. (2012), Gunasekharan et al. (2004), Shepherd and Gunter (2006) and Zhang et al. (2011)

2. Quality compliance and improvement

Customer product and service expectation fulfillment, reduction in process and products errors, quality differentiation, reduction in data errors

Cho et al. (2012), Gunasekharan et al. (2004); Shepherd and Gunter (2006), Zhang et al. (2011)

3. Process time reduction

Reduction in product/service delivery time, supplier lead time, pre-sale and after-sale service time, supply chain process cycle times, product development cycle time and transaction times

Cho et al. (2012), Gunasekharan et al. (2004); Shepherd and Gunter (2006), Zhang et al. (2011)

4. Process improvement

Increased capacity, inventory utilization and resource utilization

Cho et al. (2012), Shepherd and Gunter (2006) and Gunasekharan et al. (2004)

5. Flexibility Response to changes in customer demands and environmental challenges, delivery flexibility, service systems flexibility, supplier risk-sharing initiatives and supply chain agility

Cho et al. (2012), Gunasekharan et al. (2004), Kim and Lee (2010), Shepherd and Gunter (2006) and Zhang et al. (2011)

6. Innovativeness Product innovation, process innovation and exploration of new market opportunities by supply chain firms

Zhang et al. (2011) and Shepherd and Gunter (2006)

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

846

analysis of the identified supply chain performance outcomes is conducted.

4. Study findings and propositions

4.1 Blockchain technology-enabled supply chain capabilities In this section, we present the findings for the first research question that deals with the identification of BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities. The analysis of sample cases revealed that BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities include all four supply chain capabilities present in the guiding framework, namely, information sharing, coordination, integration and collaboration capabilities. However, the enabled supply chain capabilities differed in the sample-cases based on the type of BCT application that is being developed or deployed and the type of supply chain problems that are being addressed. It is observed that BCT-enabled supply chain efforts at present mainly enabled operational supply chain capabilities, which are information-sharing capabilities and coordination capabilities. Strategic supply chain capabilities, namely, integration capabilities and collaboration capabilities, are observed in a comparatively fewer number of sample-cases as shown in Figure 2. Statistically, out of 126 sample-cases of BCT applications, 125 (99%) of the sample-cases enabled information-sharing capabilities, 102 (81%) enabled coordination capabilities, 26 (21%) enabled integration capabilities and 11 (9%) enabled collaboration capabilities.

4.1.1 Information sharing capabilities Information sharing capabilities refer to the ability of a firm to share information and knowledge within its organizational units, as well as its supply chain partners in an effective and efficient manner. A firm can be more proactive in identifying and mitigating potential problems if it has knowledge of the location and status of its products downstream or its raw materials upstream in the supply chain (Kaynak and Carr, 2012; Stenger, 2011). One of the key challenges for the present supply chain information systems is to incorporate and make accessible information on the status of orders, inventories and products outside the firm (Kaynak and Carr, 2012; Stenger, 2011). This information needs to come from a credible source and in an adequate format (Wu et al., 2006). BCTeSCS are

expected to effectively resolve the information gaps at the inter- firm links. Details of the issues resolved by BCTeSCS that emerged from sample-case analysis are presented in Table 4. For better comprehension, the issues are detailed in supply chain system scenarios with and without BCT. Among 126 sample-cases of BCT efforts, 99% of the efforts are oriented toward resolving information gaps across the supply chain links and enabling information sharing capabilities of supply chain firms. Information sharing issues in the sample-cases are resolved by addressing concerns with as follows: � interoperability of enterprise resource planning (ERP)

systems; � interoperability concerns of IoTs; � information security; and � non-inclusion of supply chain entities at downstream and

upstream ends.

4.1.1.1 Interoperability of enterprise resource planning systems. Present-day supply chains can be likened to an uprooted tree- like structure comprising numerous networks of firms participating in upstream and downstream value transformation activities (Lambert and Cooper, 2000). In the majority of supply chains, information flows among the participating firms are hindered by information systems functioning in disparate technological and operational environments (Yee and Oh, 2013). Achieving interoperability among these systems requires expensive integration and standardization efforts, which may not be affordable by all the participating firms (Kembro and Selvaridis, 2015; Tenhiäläa and Helkiö, 2015). In BCTeSCS, blockchain serves as an independent layer linking participating ERP systems enabling communication of information on a real-time basis. The information is verified by the BCT network for its authenticity and is readily accessible to all the relevant entities that are part of the network. Efforts of leading ERP vendors to integrate BCT with their core ERP and other enterprise products is a major milestone in realizing seamless information flows among interoperable systems in BCTeSCS (Bjorlin, 2017; Bloomberg, 2017). For example, Oracle joined the Hyperledger consortium to take advantage of the consortium’s blockchain policies, and thus creating a highly advanced and differentiated distributed ledger-based cloud platform for its enterprise customers (Jacobsen, 2017). Likewise, SAP organized the SAP BlockChain Consortium with its technology partners and customers to tackle business challenges related to information sharing and digital verification (SAP ICN, 2019).

4.1.1.2 Interoperability of the internet of things. Another important issue affecting interoperability among the supply chain information systems pertains to a lack of standardized operational practices and data formats for effective data exchange between smart devices and supply chain systems (Yee and Oh, 2013). During the past three years, several industry consortia such as BiTA, AdLedger, BankChain and Trusted IoT Alliance, comprising firms in logistics, advertising and banking, respectively, have been created to develop common industrial processes and data exchange formats for BCTeSCS (Andrews, 2018; Commendatore, 2018; Dua, 2017; Trusted IoT Alliance, 2017). BCTeSCS are expected to resolve a major concern in IoTs communication related to information security (Khan and Salah, 2017; Kshetri, 2018). Development of

Figure 2 Analysis for BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

847

micro-technology devices such as “crypto anchors” and “crypto seals” by IBM and Chronicled are expected to further enhance IoTs communication in BCTeSCS (Chronicled, 2016; Mearian, 2018b). Pilot tests on supply chain traceability carried out by firms in different sectors, especially in the food, logistics and financial sectors, show-case the possibility of seamless information flows and inclusion of upstream and downstream supply chain entities by overcoming the interoperability and integration issues with BCTeSCS.

4.1.1.3 Information security. Apart from interoperability issues, information flows among firms are also hindered by concerns on information security, especially for organizations in the health care, utility and government services sectors (Yee and Oh, 2013). Cryptographic tools, which are an inherent part of BCTeSCS, are expected to effectively address these information security concerns (Korpela et al., 2017). The chaining of a transaction with its precedent transactions ensures data integrity and enables traceability of events. Thus, BCTeSCS can play a key role in ensuring availability, accessibility and credibility of the information necessary for supply chain processes (Casey and Wong, 2017). The initiative by Estonian eHealth Foundation to develop a keyless signature infrastructure and other similar efforts clearly point out the potential of secure information sharing using BCTeSCS (Frost and Sullivan, 2017). By addressing concerns of interoperability and data security, BCTeSCS also facilitate firms to achieve end-to-end visibility of supply chain that otherwise is a challenge in the present supply chain systems without BCT (Sithole et al., 2016). The reasonable costs of setting up a BCT infrastructure are yet another boosting factor to enable the active participation of the supply chain entities in information sharing.

4.1.1.4 Non-inclusion of all supply chain entities. In a traditional supply chain scenario, it is commonly observed that all supply chain entities are not included to avoid further

technical complexity related to information sharing limitations discussed in the above sub-section. In a BCTeSCS, the distributed ledger system allows for the participation of downstream and upstream supply chain entities of a blockchain to access, record, verify and update the entire database of transactions independently and without the need for reconciliation with each other’s internal records (Sikorski et al., 2017; Casey and Wong, 2017). This enablement of information transparency and real-time response across the supply chain facilitates firms to include the farthest level of customers to last-mile suppliers in a BCTeSCS. In our analysis, we found multiple evidences to support this information sharing capability. For example, Travel Ezee – a travel portal firm – provides a BCT integrated mobile app that can handle claim settlements of travelers such as flight delays by multiple carriers from the insurer – Bajaj Allianz General Insurance. In another instance, JD.com, a Chinese online retailer that can provide next-day delivery for its products ranging from fresh food and apparels to electronics and cosmetics, initiated a BCT-based pilot project that can track all sourcing and transporting information related to its shipment of beef products procured from the producer in Australia (HW Greenham and Sons Pty Ltd). Based on our common understanding of information sharing capabilities illustrated in the above four sub-sections, we present our first proposition as follows:

P1. BCTeSCS are more likely to develop information- sharing capabilities than supply chain systems without BCT.

4.1.2 Coordination capabilities Coordination capabilities enable a firm to coordinate transaction-related activities with its functional units and supply chain partners from order-taking to order follow-up

Table 4 Information sharing capabilities in BCTeSCS (sample-cases: 99%)

Scenario without BCT Scenario with BCT Reference from sample-cases

Interoperability of ERP systems

Information silos due to issues with interoperability of ERP systems of supply chain firms

Seamless information sharing with BCT linking the ERP systems of the supply chain firms

� SAP integrating BCT into their core ERP products � Industry consortium alliance BiTA formed to set up common standards and practices for BCTeSCS in the logistics industry

Interoperability of IoTs

Interoperability and data security concerns of IoTs

Interoperability and data security ensured with BCT linking the IoTs

� Pilot project by JD.com to track transport and storage conditions of meat products using BCT

� Deployment of IoTs systems integrated with BCT by ABB for effective and secure information sharing among utility system devices

� Development of BCT compatible micro-computer technology devices called ‘crypto anchors

� Information security

Security concerns in sharing sensitive data

Cryptographic tools are an integral part of BCTeSCS ensuring the security of information

� Development of BCT-based keyless signature infrastructure by guardtime and Estonian eHealth Foundation for secure retrieval of patient records

Non-inclusion of all supply chain entities

Non-inclusion of supply chain entities on the far ends of value- chain that is a customer on the downstream end and raw material supplier on the upstream end, due to technical complexities

Easier integration of customers and suppliers enabling information transparency and feedback

� BCT integrated mobile app “travel ezee” developed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance for easier claims settlements in case of flight delays

� Pilot project by JD.com involving HW Greenham and Sons Pty Ltd. to track source, transport and storage information of meat products using BCT

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

848

(Bi et al., 2013; Wu et al., 2006). Coordination capabilities are an integral part of supply chain governance to achieve optimal performance across the supply chain partners by reducing opportunism, conflict, market uncertainties and increasing cooperation (Lumineau and Henderson, 2012; Xue et al., 2007). These capabilities can be achieved by bringing in information transparency across the supply chain and by effectively designing and executing supply chain contracts (Kanda and Deshmukh, 2008). Among the sample-cases analyzed, efforts in 81% of the cases are oriented toward enhancing coordination capabilities. These efforts, as shown in Table 5, contribute to the enhancement of coordination capabilities in the following ways: � reduce time delays of document verification processes at

the hand-off points of the physical material flows; � shorten cross-border financial settlements; � provide platforms for supply chain entities to connect and

transact; and � increase the scope for supply chain process automation

using smart contracts and integrated IoTs.

4.1.2.1 Document verification processes at the material hand-off points. Several BCT efforts are underway by firms to smooth the verification and transaction processes at the hand-off points of the physical supply chain, especially for international shipments. Presently, these processes involve numerous third- party intermediaries and paper documents owing to a lack of reliable information and regulatory compliances (Mearian, 2017). By including the necessary third-party service providers and government entities as nodes on BCT networks, the

required information for verification and compliance processes can be easily communicated thus eliminating paper documents and time delays (Sahoo, 2017). The pilot project carried out by the consortium led by Maersk and IBM is a good example for representing the utility of BCT-enabled systems in coordinating process flows at the hand-off points. The international shipping process being piloted involved 30 intermediary entities and 200 pieces of information exchange. All, the concerned entities participated as nodes on the BCT platform in the pilot project. The project results indicated significant improvements in terms of reduced process-span and wastage of perishable goods (Mearian 2018a; Sahoo, 2017). Encouraged by the results of this pilot project, several other firms are following the suite by testing the potential of BCT- enabled systems to improve international shipping processes (Ngai, 2018; Silkchain, 2018).

4.1.2.2 Cross-border financial settlements. On the payment side, numerous consortia comprising financial institutions across the globe are developing BCT-enabled payment platforms to address the time-delays in cross-border payments. For example, the consortia led by J. P. Morgan developed and launched the largest BCT-enabled payment network interbank information network (IIN) can reduce the cross-border payment settlement processes from weeks to hours, thereby reducing costs associated with resolving payment delays (Mearian, 2018b).

4.1.2.3 Supply chain platforms. Numerous firms and consortia in various industries are developing BCT-enabled platforms for trading products and supply chain finance. These

Table 5 Coordination capabilities in BCTeSCS (sample-cases: 81%)

Scenario without BCT Scenario with BCT Reference from sample-case

Document verification processes at the material hand-off points

Time delays due to cumbersome document verification processes (bills of lading, letter of credit, etc.) at the supply chain hand-off points

Instantaneous access to trustable information, with the inclusion of government entities and third- party service providers as nodes in BCTeSCS

� Pilot project of BCT-enabled supply chain system by the consortium Maersk, IBM, EU Commission services, US Dept. of Homeland security, US customs and border protection to eliminate time delays in the information verification processes

� Development of BCT-enabled platform “petrobloq” dedicated for oil and gas industry by Petroteq Energy Inc, predominantly to enable peer-to-peer transactions, ensure transparency of transactions and auditable trail for regulators

Cross-border financial settlements

Time delays in cross-border financial settlements due to longer cross-border remittance processes of banks

Faster cross-border remittance processes with banks and other financial firms participating in BCT- enabled payment platforms

� Development of the largest BCT-enabled payment network IIN) by J.P. Morgan

Supply chain platforms

Involvement of third party intermediaries in trading products and services due to lack of platforms that connect the supply chain entities

BCT-enabled supply chain platforms enable supply chain entities to connect with each other and trade for the required products and services using smart contracts

� Launch of BCT-based primary issuance and secondary trading platform for illiquid real estate securities and properties by Silver Portal Capital LLC

� Development of BCT-enabled platform “petrobloq” dedicated for oil and gas industry by Petroteq Energy Inc, predominantly to enable peer-to-peer transactions, ensure transparency of transactions and auditable trail for regulators

Supply chain process automation

Limited automation in inter-firm and intra-firm workflows due to information security concerns

Scope for automation using IoTs and smart contracts to coordinate inter-firm and intra-firm workflows in BCTeSCS

� Venture by Sun Pacific Holdings to use BCT-enabled system to monitor energy grid, handle load balancing, asset management and billing processes

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

849

platforms are expected to facilitate trading and transactions by connecting the required entities and eliminating reliance on third-party intermediaries (BW Online Bureau, 2018b; XinFin FinTech, 2018). For example, Silver Portal Capital LLC, a real estate investment and merchant bank, launched a BCT-based trading platform that provides blockchain-enabled verified transactions in terms of primary issuance and secondary trading of illiquid real estate securities and properties (BW Online Bureau, 2018b) Through this BCT-based real-estate trading platform, the firm created added liquidity and ease of access to the previously constrained aftermarket real-estate transactions, thus, significantly improving upon its coordination capabilities with its complex network of real estate sponsors, inter-dealer brokers and registered investment advisers and issuers.

4.1.2.4 Supply chain process automation. BCTeSCS can facilitate process automation by effective integration with IoTs and self-executing smart contracts. For instance, the venture by Sun Pacific Holdings to use a BCT-enabled system to monitor the energy grid, handle load balancing, asset management and billing processes show-cases the utility of BCTeSCS in process automation (Mearian, 2018b). Further, BCT-enabled systems are widely recognized by firms for their potential to facilitate internal and external process audits by providing information trails of the transactions (BW Online Bureau, 2018a). Hence, we present our second proposition as follows:

P2. BCTeSCS are more likely to develop coordination capabilities than supply chain systems without BCT.

4.1.3 Integration capabilities Integration capabilities are strategic capabilities that accrue from the tactical alignment of a firm’s activities with its upstream and downstream supply chain partners (Wu et al., 2006). These capabilities are achieved by the integration of informational, financial and physical flows among the supply chain partners as part of a firm’s business strategy. Such integration enables firms to reduce the negative effects of variations in supply and demand (often referred to as bull-whip effect), improve overall supply chain process efficiencies, improve product designs by effectively interpreting customer needs and offer customized services to the customers (Li et al., 2009; Rai et al., 2006). Supply chain integration capabilities are indicators of high levels of process

maturity and are crucial for achieving sustainable supply chain performance. They hinge upon the strategic orientation of supply chain processes and the commitment of resources by participating in supply chain partners (Trkman et al., 2007). Among the 126 sample-cases analyzed, efforts in 21% of the cases are found to be contributing to the development of integration capabilities. As presented in Table 6, these efforts contribute to integration capabilities in the following ways: � provide scope for comprehensive supply chain systems by

linking supply chain partners’ information systems; and � allow supply chain partners to effectively engage in the

design and execution of supply chain processes.

4.1.3.1 Comprehensive supply chain systems. With their potential for interoperability, BCTeSCS allow for building comprehensive supply chain systems by integrating concerned supply chain partners’ information systems. These comprehensive supply chain systems synergistically allow executing the business processes spanning across the supply chain partners in a seamless manner. An exemplary BCT effort relevant to such an integration effort is the implementation of a comprehensive BCT-enabled coffee bean procurement system by Coda Coffee and its supply chain partners (Vu, 2018). This system developed by Bext 360 involves a BCT platform linked with mobile apps, mobile robots and cloud-based IT applications thus enabling the farmers and other intermediaries to actively engage and participate in the supply chain processes. The process begins with farmers recording their identities using mobile robots. The coffee bean produce is then submitted to mobile robots for quality assessment. Based on the quality report generated by mobile robots, a fair price for the product is negotiated between the buyers and farmers using the system’s mobile app. Transactions are then completed using BCT-enabled digital wallets. As the coffee beans move along downstream, supply chain intermediaries trace the product information and conduct transactions using the BCT-enabled cloud application plug-ins (Vu, 2018). Overall, this comprehensive system leverages on artificial intelligence, information visibility and data security.

4.1.3.2 Supply chain partners’ engagement. Leveraging on enhanced data security features offered by BCTeSCS, some of the firms operating in highly regulated and information risky environments are exploring the possibility of engaging with their supply chain partners by securely exchanging sensitive

Table 6 Integration capabilities in BCTeSCS

Non-BCT scenario BCT scenario Reference from sample-cases

Comprehensive supply chain systems

Technology constraints for strategic coupling of information systems of supply chain partners’ systems

BCT systems are easy to couple with supply chain partners’ systems and smart devices

� Coda Coffee and its supply chain partners’ implementation of a comprehensive BCT-enabled coffee bean procurement system developed by Bext 360 that links with mobile apps, mobile robots and cloud-based IT applications to integrate the physical, informational and financial flows in coffee-bean procurement processes

Supply chain partners’ engagement

Less scope for engaging and empowering supply chain partners

More scope for engaging and empowering supply chain partners, with ensured data security by cryptographic tools and enhanced access security on permissioned BCT networks

� Pilot project of BCT-enabled system called VeriPart by ST Aerospace and Moog Inc. to enable secure digital distribution of three-dimensional print files of critical aircraft parts as part of aftermarket services (Moog Inc, 2018)

Note: Sample-cases: 21%

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

850

information. One example of such engagement enabled by BCTeSCS is the VeriPart system developed by the flight control systems company Moog Inc. with support from ST Aerospace and the National Center for Manufacturing Sciences. Veripart system is a BCT-based digital SCM system specifically designed for the additive manufacturing environment. In a pilot project, ST Aerospace purchased a digital design from Moog and then three-dimensional printed the part at its manufacturing facility in Singapore. Moog securely exchanged the digital design with ST Aerospace and completed the transaction instantaneously using a smart contract while meeting the required trade compliance regulations. The effort associated with the Veripart system is expected to bring about greater efficiency and security in aftermarket services for three-dimensional printed parts catering to both military and commercial aerospace markets. BCTeSCS in these cases serves as a resource for enabling integration capabilities and contributes to achieving the supply chain’s overall performance outcomes. Hence, we present our third proposition as follows:

P3. BCTeSCS are more likely to develop integration capabilities than supply chain systems without BCT.

4.1.4 Collaboration capabilities Collaboration capabilities refer to the strategic capabilities accrued from long term relationships that enable supply chain partners to jointly deal with the market demand, planning business activities and chalking out mutual short-term and long-term goals (Kim and Lee, 2010; Sanders and Premus, 2005). Firms possessing these capabilities usually have cooperative and more exclusive relationships with their partners, compete in markets jointly rather than as individual firms, and therefore, share market risks and performance rewards (Gunasekharan et al., 2004). Firms aspiring to possess these capabilities tend to build and maintain mature IT systems that are compatible with each other and effectively use them for planning and executing their supply chain activities (Kim and Lee, 2010). Among the sample-cases analyzed, efforts in 9% of the sample-cases are found to be augmenting shared objectives of the supply chain partners. As presented in Table 7, these efforts typically involved the synergistic collaboration of the supply chain partners in business activities and economic benefits to all the partners. The BCTeSCS in these sample cases contributes to collaboration capabilities by supporting long-term strategic relations of supply chain partners without compromising on confidentiality of business-critical information.

4.1.4.1 Long-term strategic relations of supply chain partners. An example industry effort show-casing the facilitating role of BCT systems in developing collaborative capabilities is the deployment of a BCT-enabled production system platform for receivable financing by the consortium comprising MonetaGo, Reserve Bank of India, Receivables Exchange of India Limited, M1xchange, Axis bank and Mjunction (MonetaGo, 2018). This system provides a common platform to securely and confidentially share information and conduct transactions pertaining to receivable financing. The platform provides a competitive marketplace for small businesses to obtain required finances through discounting of invoices from corporate organizations, government departments and public-sector undertakings. The security attributes of the BCT platform help in mitigating risks arising from multiple financing of the same bills across the platforms (MonetaGo, 2018). The success of the system involves the collaboration of all the entities in the design and execution of the supply chain processes and is not controlled by any one entity. In this background, we present our fourth proposition as follows:

P4. BCTeSCS are more likely to develop collaboration capabilities than supply chain systems without BCT.

4.2 Supply chain performance outcomes In this section, we present the findings for the second research question section that deals with the identification of supply chain performance outcomes resulting from BCTeSCS and capabilities. The findings of the sample-case analysis along with the specific metrics representing the performance outcomes are presented in Table 8. Our sample-case analysis revealed that BCTeSCS and capabilities supported achieving both effectiveness and efficiency- oriented performance outcomes. Quality compliance and improvement and flexibility are the predominant effectiveness- oriented performance outcomes that are quoted in 69% and 46% of the sample-cases. In regard to the efficiency-oriented performance outcomes, process improvements, cost reductions and process time reductions are cited in 60%, 27% and 19% of sample-cases, respectively. Innovativeness is the least likely performance outcome that is cited in 4% of the sample-cases. BCTeSCS, with their inbuilt cryptographic tools, linked

transactions and decentralized structure help in mitigating process risks, information risks and counterfeiting risks (Mearian, 2018a). Consequently, they are expected to have the greatest impact on quality-related outcomes such as information security, assurance of regulatory compliance, trusted verification processes and avoidance of fraudulent activities in the supply chain. Kodak, for example, is developing

Table 7 Collaboration capabilities in BCTeSCS

Scenario without BCT Scenario with BCT Reference from sample-cases

Long-term strategic relations of supply chain partners

Lack of platforms that enabled collaborative interactions due to technical and security concerns

BCT systems provide trustable platforms for engaging in collaborative and confidential interactions among the participants with their easy coupling and enhanced security

� Deployment of BCT-enabled production system platform for receivable financing by the consortium comprising of MonetaGo, Reserve Bank of India, Receivables Exchange of India Limited, M1xchange, Axis bank and Mjunction

Note: Sample-cases: 9%

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

851

a BCT-enabled image rights management platform to create an encrypted, digital ledger of rights ownership for photographers (Rogers, 2018). This platform helps in verifying the authenticity of imagery licenses and eliminating fraud by easily detecting unlicensed imagery usage. In regard to the outcome of process improvement, BCT platforms help in connecting information systems of the supply chain firms and enable direct interactions among the firms thus eliminating the need for intermediaries that broker these interactions (Rogers, 2018). The interoperability of BCTeSCS with IoTs and other systems and smart contracts helps in process automation and

elimination of information bottlenecks thus enhancing process efficiencies (Kshetri, 2018; Mearian, 2017). Enabling information transparency across the supply chain is yet another major benefit of the BCTeSCS. Information transparency helps supply chain firms to be more responsive to customer demands and environmental conditions through easier identification of abnormal conditions and managing the response to such conditions. For example, one of the motivations for firms in the food and beverage industry to develop BCTeSCS is to be able to track the conditions of food products as they move along the supply chain, identify any

Table 8 Supply chain performance outcomes resulting from BCTeSCS and capabilities

Supply chain performance outcome (% sample-cases) Measurement metrics in the guiding framework Measurement metrics from sample-cases

Cost reduction (27) Reduction in material costs, processing costs, information costs, distribution costs, overhead costs, cost per operation hour, risk costs and other intangible costs

Reduction in overall costs, information risk costs, intermediary costs, product wastage costs, administrative costs, global financial and infrastructural deficit, transaction fees, holding and transport costs, carbon assets development costs; avoidance of legal costs, fraud costs

Quality compliance and improvement (69)

Customer product and service expectation fulfillment, reduction in process and product errors, quality differentiation, reduction in data errors

Improvement in information security, integrity, exchange, access, quality; improved billing accuracy, service quality, verification processes, safety, trust, customer service experience, process stability and control, self-sufficiency, accountability, product tracking, supply chain connectivity; avoidance of fraudulent practices, counterfeit products; reduction in counterparty risk; assurance of regulatory compliance, fair payment, intellectual property confidentiality

Process cycle time reduction (19)

Reduction in product/service delivery time, supplier lead time, pre-sale and after-sale service time, supply chain process cycle times, product development cycle time and transaction times

Reduction of time delays in documentation and approval processes, transaction settlement, business registration times, contract management processes, pre-lease diligence, transfer of land ownership, administrative procedures, turn-around time, product investigation and recall, payments using cryptocurrencies and product delivery

Process improvement (60)

Increased capacity, inventory utilization and resource utilization

Reduction in number of process intermediaries, manual processes, paperwork, payment times using cryptocurrencies, process complexity and time, work stoppages due to lack of funding, process bottlenecks, task duplication; improvement in capacity planning, information tracking; Handling large work volumes, ad campaign reconciliation, productivity, inventory management; Process automation using smart contracts; Effective measurement tools, planning of inputs, process flows and process standards; Information collection and visibility enabled by interoperability with IoTs and other supply chain information systems; Simplification of processes; Ease of liquidizing assets

Flexibility (46) Supply chain firms to responding cooperatively to customer demands and environmental challenges, delivery flexibility, service systems flexibility, supplier risk-sharing initiatives and supply chain agility

Real-time information; transparency; audit trail for regulators; avoidance of power black-outs; supply chain visibility

Innovativeness (4) Product innovation, process innovation, invent/ implement new process technology, exploring new market opportunities by supply chain firm consortia

Development of a tool to assess the life-cycle impact of all inputs and outputs of animal protein production, collaborative tools on permissioned BCT; incentivizing customers for healthy behaviors; Facilitation for the data collection on effects of Cannabis of different types and potency for medicinal research, the collaboration of life sciences organizations through the drug development, secure data- sharing between health care providers and suppliers on use and effects of nutritional supplements

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

852

incidences of contamination and recall the contaminated products before they are consumed by the customers (Vestvik- Lunde, 2018). Performance outcomes pertaining to cost reduction and process

cycle time reduction are other important performance outcomes that have been cited in a fairly good number of sample-cases. The quoted cost reductions are derived mainly from eliminated process intermediaries, avoided legal costs or avoided fraud costs (Mearian, 2018a). The reduction in process cycle times mainly corresponds to the reduced number of intermediaries, paperwork and information latency[2]. The performance outcome of innovativeness has been quoted in less than 5% of the sample- cases. These sample-cases represent efforts to create a novel tool or solution specific to their industry using BCT platforms and involve active engagement and commitment of their customers or supply chain partners to achieve the goal (Frost and Sullivan, 2017). At present, a majority of BCT efforts in the industry are pointed at resolving typical supply chain issues at operational and tactical levels rather than creating something novel by using the BCT platforms. Thus, innovativeness is a less likely outcome that firms target to achieve in their present efforts of BCTeSCS. Hence, we present our fifth proposition as follows:

P5. BCTeSCS and their capabilities are more likely to result in process improvements, product/service quality improvements, flexibility, cost reductions and process time reductions than those without BCT.

4.3 Impact of industry type on the relationship between blockchain technology-enabled supply chain capabilities and their outcomes In this section, we present the findings for the third research question that deals with assessing the impact of industry type on the relationship between BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities and their outcomes. We present the sector-wise analysis of BCT sample-cases and their supply chain performance outcomes in Table 9. From the analysis, it is evident that firms from all the sectors are exploring the potential of BCTeSCS. However, firms belonging to industrial, health care, financial and consumer staple sectors are clearly dominating the list of BCT supply chain efforts. The analysis also reveals several insights related to the

influence of industry context on the firms’ anticipated performance outcomes from their BCT-enabled supply chain efforts. BCT originated from crypto-currencies, and thus, the dominance of financial sector firms in BCT efforts comes as no surprise. Several banks and payment firms have deployed BCT- enabled platforms for payment settlements and reconciliations. Information and process risks are main concerns for industries in the financial sector. Firms in this sector are counting on BCT- enabled systems to enhance process efficiencies without compromising on information security. Firms in the industrial sector, especially those in the transportation industry, are faced with process risks and inefficiencies arising from document work at the hand-off points, interfaces with numerous government and local intermediaries and difficulty in the tracking of information on shipment conditions. BCTeSCS are expected to reduce information processing costs and eliminate process-related frauds and losses. The anticipated performance outcomes for this sector, therefore, are an increase in process efficiencies, quality compliance and improvement, cost reduction and flexibility. On the other hand, delivering high-quality products and

services, while ensuring information security and authenticity of information access, is a major concern for firms in the health- care sector. BCT-enabled tools and platforms are expected to mitigate the information and counterfeit risks and enable secure coordination and collaboration among the health-care supply chain partners. Consequently, quality compliance and improvement and increase in process efficiencies are the most cited performance outcomes by firms belonging to this sector. One worthy point to note is that some of the firms in this sector are also able to achieve innovativeness by securely collaborating on BCT platforms to conduct health-related research. Sample- cases in the consumer staples sector are dominated by firms in the food and beverage industry. The quality and safety of food products have gained much attention after numerous health- related incidents due to contaminated food products. Firms in the food and beverage industry, therefore, are implementing BCTeSCS primarily to ensure the quality and safety of the food products along the supply chain and be able to respond to any violations in the safety conditions of the food products. Based on the findings of this analysis, we posit that the supply chain performance outcomes from BCT-enabled supply chain

Table 9 Sector-wise analysis

Sector Predominant industry Sample-cases C Q T PI F I

1. Energy Oil, gas and consumable fuels 3 3 2 1 3 3 0 2. Materials Metals and mining 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 3. Industrials Transportation, capital goods 25 11 18 4 19 11 0 4. Consumer discretionary Advertising, publishing 12 6 9 2 7 7 0 5. Consumer staples Food and beverage 16 1 13 1 3 12 0 6. Health care Pharmaceuticals, health care providers and services 25 1 21 2 14 7 5 7. Financials Banking and diversified finance 18 3 8 7 15 6 0 8. IT Technology, hardware and equipment, software and services 8 0 3 1 7 2 0 9. Real estate Real estate management and development 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 10. Utilities Electric utilities, independent power and renewable electricity producers 4 2 3 0 3 2 0 11. Government Government departments 7 2 4 5 3 3 0

Note: C – cost reduction; Q – quality compliance and improvement; T – process time reduction; PI – process improvement; F – flexibility; I – innovativeness Source: Adapted from global industry classification standard industry taxonomy

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

853

capabilities vary with industry type. Hence, we present our sixth proposition as follows:

P6. The relation between BCT-enabled supply chain resources and capabilities and supply chain performance outcomes is influenced by industry type.

5. Discussion and conclusions

5.1 Study summary In this study, we aimed to understand how BCTeSCS impacts supply chain performance. We contended that BCTeSCS positively impacts supply chain performance through BCT- enabled supply chain capabilities using the RBV theoretical lens. We sought to identify the BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities and the relevant supply chain performance outcomes. Using abductive research methodology, we conducted a content analysis of news articles on BCT industry efforts using guiding frameworks of supply chain capabilities and performance outcomes developed from the existing theory. We also sought to explore the influence of industry type on the relation between BCT supply chain capabilities and performance outcomes. An integrated framework of the study’s propositions is shown in Figure 3 and the observations from the analyzes are summarized below. First, supply chain capabilities relevant to many BCTeSCS

include information sharing, coordination, integration and collaboration capabilities. However, we note from the analysis that the operational capabilities of information sharing and coordination are more prevalent in BCTeSCS than are the strategic capabilities of integration and collaboration. Second, supply chain performance outcomes relevant to BCTeSCS and capabilities include improved process efficiencies, product/ service quality and flexibility, reduced cost and reduced process time. The supply chain performance outcome of innovativeness has been observed in relatively fewer cases. Third, the relation between BCTeSCS and their capabilities and supply chain performance outcomes is influenced by the industry type. Sector-wise analysis of supply chain performance outcomes revealed that the anticipated outcomes from BCTeSCS and capabilities varied with the types of risks faced by different industries.

5.2 Study implications to theory and practice In this paper, we developed an integrated framework along with a set of propositions that contemplates how BCT can help firms

increase their supply chain capability and performance outcomes. Some of the key implications to theory and practice are discussed below. This study has several implications for current scholars on

BCT and SCM. First, it presents an exhaustive overview of BCT, which is a recent technological phenomenon touted to transform the facet of SCM. The overview includes in-depth functional details of BCT and ongoing industry efforts of using this technology for various supply chain activities. Second, it contributes to the SCM theory by focusing on the emergent concept of BCTeSCS. At present, very few studies exist touching upon this concept. The study identifies BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities and performance outcomes based on 126 sample-cases of BCT efforts. In doing so, it provides a rich description of the identified capabilities by comparing and contrasting these capabilities in non-BCT and BCT scenarios. Third, the comparison is further corroborated by providing relevant empirical evidence from the current industry efforts. Fourth, the study provides specific metrics for measuring supply chain performance outcomes pertinent to BCTeSCS. It delineates the outcomes based on the industry type as well. Fifth, our study proposes an integrated framework along with a set of propositions that researchers can consider for empirical validation and further extension. As BCT-enabled supply chain applications mature in the future, we encourage future research studies to adapt and test the proposed framework in different real-world settings. A major concern for supply chain practitioners is the

identification of problems they want to solve for their organizations and environments using ICT. Under such a managerial predicament, our study offers several implications to practice. First, and foremost, the study presents to the managers with the present scenario of BCT applications in SCM that is based on 126 sample cases from different industries. Supply chain managers could readily use our case findings to their respective industry context. More specifically, our paper exposed the need for a different kind of BCT-based supply chain efforts in different industries. This exposition could guide supply chain managers on how to position their BCT-based efforts according to their industry requirements. For example, the BCT efforts in aligning the supply chains in the health industry are focused on securing strategic level communications of patient care data. Likewise, the food industry’s BCT efforts are presently concerned in resolving their multi-layered supplier communication and logistics issues. Second, our study also offers clarity to managers on

Figure 3 Integrated research framework

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

854

supply chain capabilities and performance outcomes that they can achieve through BCT at intra- and inter-organizational levels. Third, it is easy to adapt modern-day managers to a simple theoretical perspective such as RBV and how it can be applied to make better managerial decisions related to resources and capabilities both in the organizational and supply chain contexts. Therefore, supply chain managers can objectively use our proposed RBV-based integrated framework as a managerial tool to guide firms on how to develop and organize BCT enabled supply chain capabilities across their supply chains. We anticipate that the conceptual and analytical insights contributed through this study would benefit both researchers and practitioners to comprehend the future developments of BCT applications in the domain of SCM.

5.3 Study limitations and scope for future research As is the case with any research endeavor, our study has some limitations. The first limitation is related to the nascence and complexity of the phenomenon being studied. The study’s results are based on the early developments of BCT applications, which at present are showing positive results. However, the success of full-blown implementations of BCTeSCS is dependent on synchronized efforts of all the supply chain entities, governments, technology firms and BCT networks. Achieving this convergence may take long periods of preparation and negotiation. Therefore, the findings of the study must be interpreted in light of this limitation. As time progresses and BCTeSCS developments continue, we expect future research studies to come out with strong theoretical descriptions of various tenets of successful and failed implementations of BCTeSCS. Future studies may further explore unique capabilities that BCT integration in supply chains can create, and their resulting competitive advantage at the firm-, supply chain- and environment-levels. The study finds that the motivation to implement BCTeSCS, the forms of BCTeSCS, the implementation processes and the desired outcomes may vary by industry type. In this backdrop, future research studies can delve into the impacts of specific industry characteristics on BCTeSCS developments. The second limitation of this study relates to the

methodology being used. As mentioned earlier, BCTeSCS is still an emerging concept and accessibility to primary data on the ongoing BCT efforts is limited. Therefore, the study is constrained to rely on secondary data (i.e. the news content on BCT efforts). Even though utmost care is taken in collecting, coding and analyzing the content, the study findings should be treated as tentative. This limitation, however, leaves the scope for future studies to test the proposed framework using primary data and further contribute to the body of knowledge in the domain. The third limitation relates to the study’s theoretical scope,

which is limited to explicating the impact of BCTeSCS on supply chain performance using the RBV theoretical perspective and identifying the BCT enabled supply chain capabilities. Developing capabilities is contingent upon several conditions such as possessing the required technical capital, human capital and social capital. As pointed out earlier in this section, BCT is essentially a network-based technology and achieving positive results from BCTeSCS requires the active participation of the supply chain network, BCT network and

other entities such as government and financial institutions (Cole et al., 2019). In this scenario, the supply chain’s social capital in terms of its structure, shared knowledge and relations is expected to play an important role in the development of BCT enabled capabilities (Chakkol et al., 2018; Chisolm and Nielsen, 2009; Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998). We anticipate future research studies to delve deeper into these areas and contribute to the body of knowledge on BCTeSCS. As the fourth limitation, this study does not cover the role of

trust that has a major influence on the success of supply chain performance. In this regard, future researchers may reconceptualize the notion of trust within and outside BCTeSCS. The BCT system, as an underlying technological and economic system, functions as a trust-free system by transferring the trust from third-party intermediaries to computer algorithms (Cole et al., 2019; Hawlitschek et al., 2018). However, the BCT system requires algorithmic trust to function as a truly trust-free system. For example, in the case of BCT smart contracts, trust can be established based on factors such as the robustness of the algorithms, their comprehensibility and institutional legitimacy of the contractual conditions (Lustig and Nardi, 2015). Apart from algorithmic trust, the design of trusted interfaces is yet another key antecedent to the successful implementation of BCTeSCS (Hawlitschek et al., 2018). These interfaces are required to support the complex social interactions facilitated by BCTeSCS, involving the sharing of the key assets and resources. The trusted interfaces may also vary with the type of BCT network of BCTeSCS that is permissioned or permission-less and public or private. We expect future research to focus on these areas of trust, which are critical for the user and firm adoption of BCTeSCS and subsequently achieving the supply chain performance. In our understanding, the field of SCM is most likely to be among

the initial ones that would get transformed by BCT. We anticipate that insight offered in this study serves as the basis for several other future studies in the area, especially in regard to conceptualizing and operationalizing BCT-enabled supply chain capabilities and corresponding supply chain performance outcomes.

Notes

1 Please refer to Appendix for an elaborate discussion on technical and functional aspects of BCT.

2 Information latency is the amount of time taken for messages to traverse the system.

Data references

Nexis Uni database (2020), available at: https://advance-lexis- com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/bisacademicresearchhome? crid=15afc225-67b3-4946-a38f-53f9780e20ab&pdmfid= 1516831&pdisurlapi=true

References

Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J.H. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

855

Andrews, C. (2018), “Can blockchain solve advertising’s supply chain transparency issues?”, ADWEEK, available at: www.adweek.com/digital/can-blockchain-solve-advertisings- supply-chain-transparency-issues/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Angeles, R. (2009), “Anticipated IT infrastructure and supply chain integration capabilities for RFID and their associated deployment outcomes”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 219-231.

Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.

Barratt, M. and Oke, A. (2007), “Antecedents of supply chain visibility in retail supply chains: a resource-based theory perspective”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1217-1233.

Bharadwaj, A.S. (2000), “A resource-based perspective on information technology capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 169-196.

Bi, R., Davison, R.M., Kam, B. and Smyrnois, K.X. (2013), “Developing organizational agility through IT and supply chain capability”, Journal of Global Information Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 38-55.

Bjorlin, C. (2017), “SAP’s blockchain strategy to build on supply chain base”, ITPro Today, available at: www.ioti. com/industrial-iot-iiot/sap-s-blockchain-strategy-build-supply- chain-base/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Bloomberg (2017), “Blockchain pumping new life into old- school companies like IBM”, ITPro Today, available at: www.itprotoday.com/premisecloud/blockchain-pumping-new- life-old-school-companies-ibm/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Bruque-Camara, S., Moyano-Fuentes, J. and Maqueira- Marin, J.M. (2016), “Supply chain integration through community cloud: effects on operational performance”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 141-153.

BW Online Bureau (2018a), “Blockchain yields strong potential in global supply chain management”, BW CIO WORLD, available at: http://bwcio.businessworld.in/article/ Blockchain-Yields-Strong-Potential-in-Global-Supply-Chain- Management/29-01-2018-138503/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

BW Online Bureau (2018b), “How blockchain is reshaping the real estate industry: JLL”, BW DISRUPT, available at: http://bwdisrupt.businessworld.in/article/How-Blockchain- is-Reshaping-the-Real-Estate-Industry-JLL/13-03-2018- 143213/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Casey, M.J. and Wong, P. (2017), “Global supply chains are about to get better”, Harvard Business Review, available at: https://hbr.org/2017/03/global-supply-chains-are-about-to- get-better-thanks-to-blockchain/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Chakkol, M., Finne, M., Raja, J.Z. and Johnson, M. (2018), “Social capital is not for sale: a supply network perspective on mergers and acquisitions”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 377-395.

Cho, D.W., Lee, Y.H., Ahn, S.H. and Hwang, M.K. (2012), “A framework for measuring the performance of service SCM”, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 801-818.

Chronicled (2016), “Chronicled launches CryptoSeal for packaging, physical assets, and supply chain blockchain- registered, tamper-evident adhesive seal strip”, CISION PR Newswire, available at: www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ chronicled-launches-cryptoseal-for-packaging-physical-assets- and-supply-chain-300364192.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Cole, R., Stevenson, M. and Aitken, J. (2019), “Blockchain technology: implications for operations and supply chain management”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 469-483.

Commendatore, C. (2018), “Blockchain: are there trucking benefits to early adoption?”, FleetOwner, available at: www. fleetowner.com/technology/blockchain-are-there-trucking- benefits-early-adoption/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Cottrill, K. (2018), “The benefits of blockchain: fact or wishful thinking?”, Supply Management Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 20-25.

Devraj, S., Krajewski, L. and Wei, J.C. (2007), “Impact of eBusiness technologies on operational performance: the role of production information integration in the supply chain”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 1199-1216.

Dua, A. (2017), “Banking on blockchain. Business today”, available at: www.businesstoday.in/magazine/the-hub/indian- companies-blockchain-solutions-ledger-technology-digital- cryptocurrency-bitcoin-axis-bank-icici-bank/story/265689.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Dubois, A. and Gadde, L.E. (2002), “Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 553-560.

Dunne, D.D. and Dougherty, D. (2016), “Abductive reasoning: how innovators navigate in the labyrinth of complex product innovation”, Organization Studies, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 131-159.

Eisenhardt, K.M. and Martin, J.A. (2000), “Dynamic capabilities: what are they?”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10/11, pp. 1105-1121.

Extance, A. (2015), “The future of cryptocurrencies: bitcoin and beyond”, Nature News, Vol. 526 No. 7571, pp. 21.

Fainshmidt, S., Pezeshkan, A., Frazier, M.L., Nair, A. and Markowski, E. (2016), “Dynamic capabilities and organizational performance: a meta-analytic evaluation and extension”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 53 No. 8, pp. 1348-1380.

Falazi, G., Hahn, M., Breitenbücher, U. and Leymann, F. (2019), “Modeling and execution of blockchain-aware business processes”, SICS Software-Intensive Cyber-Physical Systems, Vol. 34 Nos 2/3, pp. 105-116.

Fawcett, S.E., Wallin, C., Allred, C., Fawcett, A.M. and Magnan, G.M. (2011), “Information technology as an enabler of supply chain collaboration: a dynamic-capabilities perspective”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 38-59.

Frost and Sullivan (2017), “Convergence of blockchain with emerging technologies set to disrupt the healthcare industry by 2025”, CISION PR Newswire, available at: www. prnewswire.com/news-releases/convergence-of-blockchain- with-emerging-technologies-set-to-disrupt-the-healthcare-

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

856

industry-by-2025-300482979.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Fuchs, C., Beck, D., Lienland, B. and Kellner, F. (2018), “The role of IT in automotive supplier supply chains”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 64-88.

Gao, Z., Xu, L., Chen, L., Zhao, X., Lu, Y. and Shi, W. (2018), “Coc: a unified distributed ledger based supply chain management system”, Journal of Computer Science and Technology, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 237-248.

Garrett, R. (2017), “How blockchain is transforming the supply chain”, Supply & Demand Chain Executive, available at: www.sdcexec.com/home/article/12328904/how-blockchain- is-transforming-the-supply-chain/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Garzik, J. and Donnelly, J.C. (2018), “Blockchain 101: an introduction to the future”, in Chuen, D.L.K. and Deng, R. (Eds), Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Vol. 2, Academic Press, pp. 179-186.

Gausdal, A., Czachorowski, K. and Solesvik, M. (2018), “Applying blockchain technology: evidence from norwegian companies”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 1985-2001.

Gereffi, G. and Lee, J. (2012), “Why the world suddenly cares about global supply chains?”, Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 48 No. 3, pp. 24-32.

Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage: implications for strategy formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-135.

Gunasekharan, A., Patel, C. and McGaughey, R.E. (2004), “A framework for supply chain performance measurement”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 87 No. 3, pp. 333-347.

Gurtu, A. and Johny, J. (2019), “Potential of blockchain technology in supply chain management: a literature review”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 9, pp. 881-900.

Halaburda, H. and Sarvary, M. (2016), Beyond Bitcoin: The Economics of Digital Currencies, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.

Hald, K.S. and Kinra, A. (2019), “How the blockchain enables and constrains supply chain performance”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 49 No. 4, pp. 376-397.

Hawlitschek, F., Notheisen, B. and Teubner, T. (2018), “The limits of trust-free systems: a literature review on blockchain technology and trust in the sharing economy”, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 29, pp. 50-63.

Hong, P., Tran, O. and Park, K. (2010), “Electronic commerce applications for supply chain integration and competitive capabilities: an empirical study”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 539-560.

Jacobsen, E. (2017), “Oracle cements interest on blockchain: joins hyperledger”, Oracle Cloud Platform Blog, available at: https://blogs.oracle.com/cloud-platform/oracle-joins-hyperledger- consortium (accessed 31 March 2020).

Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A. and Arha, H. (2019), “Understanding the blockchain technology adoption in supply chains - Indian context”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 2009-2033.

Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2008), “Supply chain coordination: perspectives, empirical studies and research

directions”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 316-335.

Karatzas, A., Johnson, M. and Bastl, M. (2017), “Manufacturer-supplier relationships and service performance in service triads”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 7, pp. 950-969.

Kaynak, H. and Carr, A.S. (2012), “The role of information sharing and coordination in managing supply chain relationships”, International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 246-271.

Kembro, J. and Selvaridis, K. (2015), “Exploring information sharing in the extended supply chain: an interdependence perspective”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 455-470.

Khan, M.A. and Salah, K. (2017), “IoT security: review, blockchain solutions, and open challenges”, Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 82 No. 1, pp. 395-411.

Kim, D. and Lee, R.P. (2010), “Systems collaboration and strategic collaboration: their impacts on supply chain responsiveness and market performance”, Decision Sciences, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 955-981.

Korpela, K., Hallikas, J. and Dahlberg, T. (2017), “Digital supply chain transformation toward blockchain integration”, Proceedings from the 50th HI International Conference on System Sciences, Waikola, HI, available at: https://scholarspace. manoa.hawaii.edu/bitstream/10125/41666/paper0517.pdf/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Kovacs, G. and Spens, K.M. (2005), “Abductive reasoning in logistics research”, International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 132-144.

Krippendorf, K. (2004), Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Kshetri, N. (2018), “Blockchain’s roles in meeting key SCM objectives”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 80-89.

Lai, R. and Chuen, D.L.K. (2018), “Blockchain - From public to private”, in Chuen, D.L.K. and Deng, R. (Eds), Handbook of Blockchain, Digital Finance, and Inclusion, Elsevier Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, pp. 145-177.

Lambert, D.M. and Cooper, M.C. (2000), “Issues in SCM”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 65-83.

Leng, K., Bi, Y., Jing, L., Fu, H.C. and Van Nieuwenhuyse, I. (2018), “Research on agricultural supply chain system with double chain architecture based on blockchain technology”, Future Generation Computer Systems, Vol. 86, pp. 641-649.

Li, G., Yang, H., Sun, L. and Sohal, A.S. (2009), “The impact of IT implementation on supply chain integration and performance”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 120 No. 1, pp. 125-138.

Lin, C., Kuei, C.H. and Chai, K.W. (2013), “Identifying critical enablers and pathways to high performance supply chain quality management”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 347-370.

Liu, Y., Srai, J.S. and Evans, S. (2016), “Environmental management: the role of supply chain capabilities in the auto sector”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-19.

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

857

Lumineau, F. and Henderson, J.E. (2012), “The influence of relational experience and contractual governance on the negotiation strategy in buyer-supplier disputes”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 383-395.

Magnani, L. (2011), Abduction, Reason, and Science: Processes of Discovery and Explanation, Springer Science & Business Media.

Mearian, L. (2017), “Blockchain in the real world: 3 enterprise use cases”, COMPUTERWORLD, available at: www. computerworld.com/article/3243700/emerging-technology/ blockchain-in-the-real-world-3-enterprise-use-cases.html?upd= 1524774158457/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Mearian, L. (2018a), “Maersk, IBM create world’s first blockchain-based, electronic shipping platform”, COMPUTERWORLD, available at: www.computerworld. com/article/3247758/emerging-technology/maersk-ibm-create- worlds-first-blockchain-based-electronic-shipping-platform.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Mearian, L. (2018b), “What is blockchain? The most disruptive tech in decades”, COMPUTERWORLD, available at: www.computerworld.com/article/3191077/ security/what-is-blockchain-the-most-disruptive-tech-in-decades. html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Mentzer, J.T., DeWitt, W., Keebler, J.S., Min, S., Nix, N.W., Smith, C.D. and Zacharia, Z.G. (2001), “Defining SCM”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 1-25.

Min, H. (2019), “Blockchain technology for enhancing supply chain resilience”, Business Horizons, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 35-45.

MonetaGo (2018), “Indian factoring exchanges and MonetaGo launch blockchain network to prevent fraud”, CISION PR Newswire, available at: www.prnewswire.com/ news-releases/indian-factoring-exchanges-and-monetago- launch-blockchain-network-to-prevent-fraud-300622934.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Moog Inc (2018), “Moog signs agreement with the national center for manufacturing sciences (NCMS) to perform co- funded work supporting adaptation of blockchain technology for additive manufacturing”, available at: www.moog.com/ news/operating-group-news/2018-2017/ewrfwerwe.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Nakamoto, S. (2008), “Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system”, Unpublished manuscript, available at: https:// bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Ngai, S. (2018), “Singapore’s PIL, PSA international, IBM complete blockchain trial”, JOC.com, available at: www.joc. com/technology/singapore%E2%80%99s-pil-psa-international- ibm-say-blockchain-trial-success-sign-mou_20180227.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Olnes, S., Ubacht, J. and Janssen, M. (2017), “Blockchain in government: benefits and implications of distributed ledger technology for information sharing”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 355-364.

Paulraj, A. and Chen, I.J. (2007), “Strategic buyer-supplier relationships, information technology and external logistics integration”, The Journal of Supply Chain Management, Vol. 43 No. 2, pp. 2-14.

Paulraj, A., Lado, A.A. and Chen, I.J. (2008), “Inter- organizational communication as a relational competency: antecedents and performance outcomes in collaborative

buyer–supplier relationships”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 45-64.

Peng, J., Quan, J., Zhang, G. and Dubinsky, A.J. (2016), “Mediation effect of business process and SCM capabilities on the impact of IT on firm performance: evidence from Chinese firms”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 89-96.

Power, D. (2005), “SCM integration and implementation: a literature review”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 252-263.

Prajogo, D. and Olhager, J. (2012), “Supply chain integration and performance: the effects of long-term relationships, information technology and sharing, and logistics integration”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 135 No. 1, pp. 514-522.

Queiroz, M.M., Telles, R. and Bonilla, S.H. (2019), “Blockchain and supply chain management integration: a systematic review of the literature”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 241-254.

Rai, A., Patnayakuni, R. and Seth, N. (2006), “Firm performance impacts of digitally enabled supply chain integration capabilities”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 225-246.

Reijers, W. and Coeckelbergh, M. (2018), “The blockchain as a narrative technology: investigating the social ontology and normative configurations of cryptocurrencies”, Philosophy & Technology, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 103-130.

Reijers, W., O’Brolch�ain, F. and Haynes, P. (2016), “Governance in blockchain technologies & social contract theories”, Ledger, Vol. 1, pp. 134-151.

Rogers, C. (2018), “Gimmick or game-changer? Behind the hype of bitcoin and blockchain”, Marketing Week, available at: www.marketingweek.com/2018/04/09/bitcoin-blockchain/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M. and Sarkis, J. (2018), “Blockchain technology: a panacea or pariah for resources conservation and recycling?”, resources”, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 130, pp. 80-81.

Sahoo, S.K. (2017), “IBM, maersk first for cross-border supply chain on blockchain”, Voice & Data, available at: www. voicendata.com/ibm-maersk-first-for-cross-border-supply-chain- on-blockchain/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Sanders, N.R. (2008), “Pattern of information technology use: the impact on buyer-suppler coordination and performance”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 349-367.

Sanders, N.R. and Premus, R. (2005), “Modeling the relationship between firm IT capability, collaboration, and performance”, Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 1-23.

SAP ICN (2019), “Consortium and co-innovation”, SAP Innovation Center Network, available at: https://icn.sap. com/consortium (accessed 31 March 2020).

Shanley, A. (2017), “Could blockchain improve pharmaceutical supply chain security?”, Pharmaceutical Technology, available at: www.pharmtech.com/could- blockchain-improve-pharmaceutical-supply-chain-security/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

858

Shepherd, C. and Gunter, H. (2006), “Measuring supply chain performance: current research and future directions”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 55 Nos 3/4, pp. 242-258.

Sikorski, J.J., Haughton, J. and Kraft, M. (2017), “Blockchain technology in the chemical industry: machine-to-machine electricity market”, Applied Energy, Vol. 195 No. 1, pp. 234-246.

Silkchain (2018), “Silkchain goes live: ITDC to reshape global trade with blockchain-based trading system”, CISION PR Newswire, available at: www.prnewswire.co.uk/news- releases/silkchain-goes-live-itdc-to-reshape-global-trade-with- blockchain-based-trading-system-678710733.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Sithole, B., Silva, S.G. and Kavelj, M. (2016), “Supply chain optimization: enhancing end-to-end visibility”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 159, pp. 12-18.

Staples, M. Chen, S. Falamaki, S. Ponomarev, A. Rimba, P. Tran, A.B. Weber, I. Xu, X. and Zhu, J. (2017), “Risks and opportunities for systems using blockchain and smart contracts”, Data61 (CSIRO), Sydney, available at: https:// research.csiro.au/data61/wp-content/uploads/sites/85/2016/08/ Blockchain-RisksandOpps-PDF.pdf/(accessed 31 March 2020).

Stenger, A.J. (2011), “Advances in information technology applications for SCM”, Transportation Journal, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 37-52.

Teece, D. (2014), “The foundations of enterprise performance: dynamic and ordinary capabilities in an (economic) theory of firms”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 328-352.

Tenhiäläa, A. and Helkiö, P. (2015), “Performance effects of using an ERP system for manufacturing planning and control under dynamic market requirements”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 147-164.

Treiblmaier, H. (2018), “The impact of the blockchain on the supply chain: a theory-based research framework and a call for action”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 545-559.

Trkman, P., Stemberger, M.I., Jaklic, J. and Groznik, A. (2007), “Process approach to supply chain integration”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 116-128.

Trusted IoT Alliance (2017), “Newly launched ‘trusted IoT alliance’ unites the industry to further a blockchain-based internet of things”, CISION PR Newswire, available at: www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/newly-launched-trusted- iot-alliance-unites-the-industry-to-further-a-blockchain-based- internet-of-things-300521935.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Vestvik-Lunde, J. (2018), “DNV GL launches My storyTM - the blockchain based solution to tell the product’s full story”, available at: www.dnvgl.com/news/dnv-gl-launches-my- story-the-blockchain-based-solution-to-tell-the-product-s-full- story-113549/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Vu, K. (2018), “Bext360 and coda coffee release the world’s first blockchain-traced coffee from bean to cup”, GlobeNewswire, available at: https://globenewswire.com/ news-release/2018/04/16/1472230/0/en/bext360-and-Coda- Coffee-Release-The-World-s-First-Blockchain-traced-Coffee- from-Bean-to-Cup.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Wang, Y., Han, J.H. and Beynon-Davies, P. (2019), “Understanding blockchain technology for future supply chains: a systematic literature review and research agenda”, Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 62-84.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A resource-based view of the firm”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171-180.

Wu, F., Yeniyurt, S., Kim, D. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2006), “The impact of information technology on supply chain capabilities and firm performance: a resource-based view”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 493-504.

Wu, H., Li, Z., King, B., Miled, Z.B., Wassick, J. and Tazelaar, J. (2017), “A distributed ledger for supply chain physical distribution visibility”, Information, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 1-18.

XinFin FinTech (2018), “Singapore-based XinFin unveils blockchain-powered TradeFinex platform with India’s largest trade organization assocham”, CISION PR Newswire, available at: www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ singapore-based-xinfin-unveils-blockchain-powered-tradefinex- platform-with-indias-largest-trade-organization-assocham- 668776153.html/ (accessed 31 March 2020).

Xue, X., Wang, Y., Shen, Q. and Yu, X. (2007), “Coordination mechanisms for construction SCM in the internet environment”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 150-157.

Yarmack, D. (2017), “Corporate governance and blockchains”, Review of Finance, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 7-31.

Yee, J.T. and Oh, S.C. (2013), Technology Integration to Business: Focusing on RFID, Interoperability, and Sustainability for Manufacturing, Logistics, and SCM, Springer-Verlag, London.

Yu, W., Jacobs, M.A., Chavez, R. and Feng, M. (2017), “The impacts of IT capability and marketing capability on supply chain integration: a resource based perspective”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 55 No. 14, pp. 4196-4211.

Zhang, X., van Donk, D.P. and van der Vaart, T. (2011), “Does ICT influence SCM and performance? A review of survey-based research”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 31 No. 11, pp. 1215-1247.

Further reading

Wood, A. (2018), “Chinese retail giant to use blockchain to track beef, prove food safety”, Cointelegraph, available at: https://cointelegraph.com/news/chinese-retail-giant-to- use-blockchain-to-track-beef-prove-food-safety (accessed 31 March 2020).

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

859

Appendix

Basics of blockchain BCT is an upcoming area of research and practitioner interest having implications in multiple domains. While this topic is currently getting sufficient exposure in the news, many readers may not be fully aware of its technical know-how. The purpose of this section is to provide readers with a basic understanding of the key concepts and terms of BCT through a brief literature review.

Characteristics of blockchain A blockchain may be described as a distributed, tamper-proof ledger shared within a network of entities where the ledger holds a record of transactions between the entities (Lai and Chuen, 2018). The concept of blockchain, which evolved from the paper published by Satoshi Nakamoto (2008), hinges upon two basic characteristics, namely, distributed ledger system and cryptographic tools (Nakamoto, 2008). The distributed ledger system is the mechanism for verification of transactions using a predefined consensus mechanism among the participating entities thus avoiding the need for intermediary auditing entities such as Central Banks, notaries and other governmental institutions (Sikorski, Haughton and Kraft, 2017; Yarmack, 2017). All, participants of a blockchain have access to the entire database of transactions and can verify the records of the transaction partners directly, without relying on the intermediary entities (Sikorski et al., 2017). This type of ledger system eliminates single-party control on the database while resolving the problems of disclosure and accountability between multiple entities involved in a transaction (Halaburda and Sarvary, 2016). Data can be updated in real-time without

the need for reconciliation with each other’s internal records thus eliminating effort, time lag and associated costs of each entity involved in the transaction approval process (Casey and Wong, 2017). Cryptographic tools are another significant mechanism

associated with blockchain that enables maintaining data security and integrity. Blockchain uses hash functions, which is a type of cryptography that transforms data into a hexadecimal code of a fixed length and cannot be inverted to recover the original input (Yarmack, 2017).

How does a blockchain work? This section describes the functioning of a decentralized public blockchain. A public blockchain is a decentralized ledger comprising a chain of “blocks” arranged in chronological sequence with hash functions. The ledger is available to all the participant nodes and is managed by them (Garzik and Donnelly, 2018). Each block contains a group of transactions, the hash of itself, the hash of the previous block, the Merkle root of constituent transactions, a nonce, which is a critical component for miners’ proof-of-work (POW) and the timestamp (Yarmack, 2017). Details about these components and other key terms related to BCT are presented in Table A1 and a sample block is shown in Figure A1. A typical block bundles up to 1 MB volume of transactions from the network and, currently, a new block is created approximately every 10 min. For a given asset, the path of all its associated transactions can be traced by a string of alphanumerical code. The identities of entities associated with the transactions are masked and secured by this alphanumerical code. Also, the blockchain records every transaction indefinitely and each transaction is linked to the

Table A1 Key components and terms associated with blockchain

Key term Details

1. Blockchain Chain of “blocks” arranged in chronological sequence using hash functions. Blockchain acts as the ledger, containing all the transactions that occur within the network

2. Block Group of transactions bundled together up to a size limit. Comprises of a hash of itself, the hash of the previous block, the Merkle root of constituent transactions, a nonce and the timestamp

3. Genesis block The first block in the ledger. Does not contain a hash pointer to the previous block 4. Node A participating entity in the blockchain network 5. Transaction A mutual contract struck between any set of entities in the blockchain network is generally termed as a transaction. Every transaction

is associated with a hash along with other necessary details. Referred to as smart contracts when the utility of the transaction is extended by specifying complex conditions in the input and output scripts

6. Hash function A type of cryptography that transforms data into a hexadecimal code of fixed length, which cannot be inverted to recover the original input

7. Hash pointer A hash pointer is a pointer that also has a hash of what it points to. It is used both to look up the transaction and to verify that the transaction retrieved has not been tampered with, as it was stored

8. Merkle tree Hierarchical system of hash pointers. The tree is constructed by hashing paired data (the leaves), then pairing and hashing the results until a single hash remains, which is the Merkle root

9. Nonce A nonce is a random number, which, when added to the other information in a block, generates a hash with a certain number of leading zeroes. Integral part of the mining process

10. POW The purpose of POW is to create distributed trustless consensus and solve the double-spend problem. It is a piece of data, which is computationally difficult (costly, time-consuming) to produce for the first time but easy for others to verify thereafter. POW deters hackers from attempting to update the blockchain with fraudulent data

11. Turing completeness

Refers to the programming feature of the blockchain that allows us to write “smart contracts” incorporating their own rules for ownership, transaction formats and state transition functions. While Bitcoin blockchain network is turing incomplete, other blockchains developed in the recent times claim to be Turing Complete including Ethereum and Hyperledger

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

860

previous transaction. With this linking of transactions, each transaction can be easily traced back and audited (Garzik and Donnelly, 2018). As shown in Figure A2, the journey of a block to the

blockchain starts when a node in the network makes a transaction specifying the asset to be transferred and the recipient address, which is a string of 26 to 35 alphanumeric characters that is publicly shared. Asset, in the context of blockchain, refers to a digital token corresponding to a physical asset or a cryptocurrency unit that is registered on the blockchain. The transaction along with a signature are then broadcasted to the network. The signature consists of the sender’s private alphanumeric key and the receiver’s address. The sender’s private key is mathematically linked to the prior

transactions of the asset, and therefore, serves as a proof of the sender’s ownership of the asset. The transaction along with other transactions in the queue

are randomly picked up by the miner nodes. A miner bundles a group of transactions into a block and verifies the legitimacy of the associated assets. The verification is followed by adding the timestamp and reference to the previous block and generating the Merkle root of the constituent transactions. The miner along with other miners then proceeds to solve a computationally intensive hash puzzle posted by the system to complete the “POW” (Halaburda and Sarvary, 2016). The puzzle relates to finding the “nonce” that hashes with the new block by “hit and try.” The first miner that solves the puzzle publishes its hash to the network, which is verified by other

Figure A1 Sample block

Figure A2 Functioning of decentralized ledger system – how a transaction is added to the blockchain

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

861

miners. Upon successful validation, the block is appended to the ledger. The miner then gets an incentive for the successful completion of POW and appending the block to the blockchain. In cases when more than one miner solves the hash puzzle at

the same time, the blockchain may “fork” leading to parallel chains. Such a scenario is eventually resolved by the miners picking the longest chain (Lai and Chuen, 2018; Sikorski et al., 2017). The competitive hash puzzle-solving associated with POW is often referred to as “mining,” and the level of difficulty of hash puzzles and incentives associated varies with blockchain networks. The POW process resolves an important challenge of the decentralized ledger keeping system that is the possibility of double-spending (Extance, 2015; Garzik and Donnelly, 2018). The transactions carried out on blockchain are tamper-proof, as the hashtags contain timestamps of all the constituent transactions and the precedent blocks. A minor difference in any of the input values results in a major difference in the generated hashtag thus allowing easy identification of the tampered block.

Types of blockchain Different variants of blockchain networks are available or can be created based on the accessibility of the network for conducting transactions and participation in mining as shown in Figure A3. A blockchain network can be classified as a public or private blockchain based on its accessibility for

conducting the transactions (Olnes, Ubacht and Janssen, 2017). A public blockchain is open to all the entities to register as a node and transact using the network. A private blockchain, on the other hand, imposes restrictions on who can access and transact on the network. Based on access to mining, a blockchain can be permissioned and permissionless. Any registered node can participate in the mining process in a permissionless blockchain, while registered nodes in permissioned blockchain require authentication to participate in mining activity (Olnes et al., 2017). Public blockchain offers network power and resiliency to

handle greater volumes of transaction approvals. However, these blockchain networks may not be dependable in terms of consistent technical performance and customized transaction procedures required for the operations of business firms. Business firms, therefore, are exploring ways to design other variants of blockchain mentioned earlier by allowing predetermined authorized entities to access the network and/or mining activity (Lai and Chuen, 2018). Firms are also exploring various types of POW procedures to suit their industry and business requirements (Staples et al., 2017).

Corresponding author Santosh Nandi can be contacted at: nandisan@uscsumter. edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

Figure A3 Types of blockchain

Supply chain systems

Madhavi Latha Nandi et al.

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal

Volume 25 · Number 6 · 2020 · 841–862

862