The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0368-492X.htm

A paradigm of blockchain and Blockchain and

supply chain
supply chain performance: performance

a mediated model using structural

equation modeling
Aamir Rashid and Syed Baber Ali Received 12 April 2022
Revised 14 June 2022
Department of Business Administration, Iqra University, Karachi, Pakistan 21 July 2022
Rizwana Rasheed 10 August 2022
Accepted 15 August 2022
Department of Humanities and Basic Sciences, Military College of Signals,
National University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
Noor Aina Amirah
Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin,
Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, and
Abdul Hafaz Ngah
Faculty of Business, Economy and Social Development,
Universiti Malaysia Terengganu, Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to find the impact of blockchain supply chain on supply chain performance with a
mediating role of supplier trust, traceability and transparency.
Design/methodology/approach – Data was collected using the purposive sampling technique on a five-
point Likert scale from 150 respondents. For data analysis, IBM SPSS and Smart PLS 3.3.7 were used to test the
hypotheses by evaluating the structural equation modeling.
Findings – The blockchain supply chain found a significant effect on supply chain performance. Moreover,
there is a substantial effect of the blockchain supply chain on supply chain performance via mediators,
including supplier trust, supply chain traceability and supply chain transparency. Further, the mediation type
of all mediators was full mediation in the relationships between blockchain supply chain and supply chain
performance.
Research limitations/implications – The research findings are helpful for industrialists, supply chain
practitioners and policymakers. The practitioners can adopt blockchain technology to enhance inter-
organizational collaboration, develop trust, data visibility and traceability, and critical decisions, ultimately
bringing sustainable growth for the firm.
Originality/value – The outcomes of this research enrich the literature and share the impact of one of the
most trending technologies in the supply chain perspective. Future research can empirically test the
relationship between blockchain and supply chain sustainability.
Keywords Blockchain, Supplier trust, Supply chain traceability, Supply chain transparency, Supply chain
performance, Structural equation modeling, Mediation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
Business transactions occur every second of every day, including orders, payments, account
tracking, etc. Often, each participant has their ledger and, thus, a version of the truth that may
differ from other participants. These multiple ledgers can be a recipe for error, fraud and
inefficiency. But because members on a blockchain share a standard view of the truth, it is Kybernetes
now possible to see all transaction details end-to-end, reducing those vulnerabilities © Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
(Cottrill, 2018). DOI 10.1108/K-04-2022-0543
K New technologies are presenting promising opportunities for improvement across the
supply chain. Using blockchain in the supply chain has the potential to improve supply chain
transparency and traceability as well as reduce administrative costs. A blockchain supply
chain can help participants record price, date, location, quality, certification and other
relevant information to more effectively manage the supply chain. Blockchain is one of the
fastest-growing financial technology in business (DiNizo, 2018), which introduced a new
mode of transactions across different countries through the provisioning of an incessant
database of accounts (Masudin et al., 2021). The availability of this information within the
blockchain can also increase traceability of the material supply chain, lower losses from the
counterfeit and grey market, improve visibility and compliance over outsourced contract
manufacturing and potentially enhance an organization’s position as a leader in responsible
manufacturing (Saberi et al., 2019).
Although joining a consortium blockchain benefits all the relevant stakeholders, adopting
a new technique such as a blockchain is always a challenge to traditional industries because
of the learning curve and the cost of integrating the blockchain into the existing systems.
Negotiating the business details also takes time. In addition, the development of intelligent
contracts must consider quality attributes such as adaptability (Qinghua and Xu, 2017).

1.1 Problem statement

A supply chain typically comprises a series of links arranged to form a chain in which links
are interconnected (Tian, 2016). Each link in the chain is bottlenecked with technology gaps,
trust erosion and excessive flow of information; about 56% of firms across the globe face
severe supply chain disruptions.
The supply chain cycle is prolonged due to the gaps and increases the cost as the risk in
every supply chain link (Erik and Kotzab, 2010). One of the most significant issues in the
traditional supply chain is the lack of trust and open availability of information across the
chain, which causes several issues, including supply chain traceability, transparency and
supplier trust (Rana et al., 2021). Researchers revealed the benefits of blockchain in this
regard for firms, but companies need to overcome the barriers (Wong et al., 2020).
Blockchain was recently introduced to the supply chain, but various associated challenges
must be studied (Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). Further, research is required to investigate the
benefits of blockchain, specifically transparency and traceability for the supply chain.
As poor information sharing is determined as a significant organizational supply chain
risk. Industries these days are threatened with stakeholder pressures and related specific
problems. The enterprises do not consider traceability in operations that cause particular
problems (Bischoff and Seuring, 2021). Correspondingly, trust is also an essential element of
supply chain management that affects supply chain performance (SCP) and efficiency (Qian
and Papadonikolaki, 2020). Trust-related problems in the supply chain are immense concerns
for all the end-users and stakeholders in the supply chain (Imeri et al., 2019). The existing
literature is available on linear trust and theoretical trust-building between supply chain
partners (Fawcett et al., 2011; Akrout, 2015; Poppo et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2019). However, the
gap exists in the complex supply chain, including producers, importers, logistics, companies
and governments concerned. This paper examines the mediating role of trust in suppliers
between blockchain–SCM and SCP.

1.2 Research objectives

(1) To analyze the effect of Blockchain–Supply Chain Management (BC-SCM) on
Supply Chain Transparency (SC-Transparency).
 (2) To analyze the mediating role of SC-Transparency in the relationship between BC- Blockchain and
SCM and SCP. supply chain
(3) To analyze the effect of BC-SCM on SC-Traceability. performance
(4) To analyze the mediating role of SC-Traceability in the relationship between BC-
SCM and SCP.
(5) To analyze the effect of BC-SCM on Supplier Trust.
(6) To analyze the mediating role of Supplier Trust in the relationship between BC-SCM
and SCP.
(7) To analyze the effect of SC-Transparency SCP.
(8) To analyze the effect of Supplier Trust on SCP.
(9) To analyze the effect of SC-Traceability on SCP.
(10) To analyze the effect of BC-SCM on SCP.

2. Literature review
2.1 BC-SCM and SC-transparency
According to Chang et al. (2020), the concept of blockchain through a Hash cash method to
add blocks to a chain has already been introduced. Through blockchain, a decentralized
system can be generated for a long security chain via distributed trust features (Chang et al.,
2020) to facilitate the transactions without including third parties while reducing trading
costs and time (Abubakar and Hassan, 2018). According to Zelbst et al. (2019) and Rashid and
Rasheed (2022), there is a positive and direct impact of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID)
technology on Blockchain Technology (BT) that, in turn, positively and directly impacts
Supply Chain Transparency. As the access to and availability of information increases
continually, stakeholders ask organizations for more information regarding the inputs,
processes and products used along with the sources of their supply. Hence, increasing
transparency in the supply chain reduces business risk and improves brand value,
credibility, sustainable sourcing, business resilience and security (Kashmanian, 2017).

2.2 BC-SCM and SC-traceability

The modern supply chain is significantly benefited and streamlined due to the deployment of BT
in the Supply Chain. The study by Rejeb et al. (2019) illustrates six factors that are significantly
impacted by blockchain-based supply chain, and traceability is one of those factors. Traceability
systems enable product tracking by providing information regarding product locations,
components or originality (Qinghua and Xu, 2017). Several organizations deployed a blockchain-
based supply chain with IoT to enhance traceability. Some of such projects include a blockchain
startup in Swiss, Origin Trail in Slovenian and Everything in the UK (Rejeb et al., 2019). Biswas
et al. (2017) proposed a BT-based traceability system for the supply chain to provide security,
safety, provenance and transparency. One of the most significant features of the proposed
supply chain system is traceability, which helps trace the products’ purchase, production and
origin history in case the information is available to the public. The proposed system for the
supply chain ensures security and transparency as the blockchain-based system is immutable
and cannot make relabeling and counterfeiting successful in such a system. Further, sharing and
the transparency of data with others are major concerns of several organizations that focus on
providing intermediary services. However, it is required for organizations to understand the
opportunities and risks (Qinghua and Xu, 2017).
K 2.3 BC-SCM and supplier trust
Trust is essential in building relationships and making effective supply chain decisions.
Trust is an inter-disciplinary concept (Corazzini, 1977). Small and Dickie (1999) defined trust
as “the expectation that a person can have confidence in, or reliance on, some quality or
attribute when undertaking a business transaction” In psychology, trust refers to a belief that
others will honor obligations. It enables partners to have significant long-run relations
(Ireland and Webb, 2007), which is one of the primary requirements in supply chain
relationships (Fawcett et al., 2011), where trust is trustworthiness are considered inclusively
essential (Kujala et al., 2016). In this regard, blockchain is an increasingly effective technology
for sharing transactional and decentralized data with a participant who lacks trust.
Blockchain-based technology fulfills significant trust priorities and requirements at every
level of the supply chain. Correspondingly, Centobelli et al. (2021) conducted a study to bridge
three factors that impact blockchain technologies, including transparency, traceability and
trust, with three reverse processes of the supply chain that include re-manufacturing,
redistributing and recycling. The research outcomes show that blockchain technologies
significantly improve control over product return management and movement of waste
activities.

2.4 SC-transparency and SCP

Today, most organizations are aiming to undergo a digitization process due to the fourth
industrial revolution, known as industry 4.0. The concept of industry 4.0 promises complete
real-time transparency throughout the supply chain from suppliers to customers. Regarding
achieving industry 4.0, only production cannot help, but logistics also has a significant
impact. Kayikci conducted a study in correspondence to this in 2018. Several benefits of the
digitization of logistics operations using blockchain are highlighted as an outcome of the
study as the research articulates that digitization has a sustainable impact on logistics
(Kayikci, 2018). Moreover, Khan et al. (2019) carried out research to identify how transparency
can help improve the supply chain’s effectiveness, efficiency and performance as the supply
chain is vital in reducing disasters’ impact on product distribution (Cottrill, 2018). Investing in
supply chain transparency has an economic value for the company (Handfield and Linton,
2017). Also, companies are facing increasing pressure to ensure transparency in their supply
chain (Francisco and Swanson, 2018). The significance of supply chain transparency for its
sustainability has been highlighted through various research (Gardner et al., 2019;
Jestratijevic et al., 2020).

2.5 SC-traceability and SCP

The economic growth of a nation majorly depends on ensuring that the citizens get good
quality and safe products. In this regard, one of the most prominent issues that are commonly
faced by emerging economies is challenges in the logistics system. The safety and security of
items are a significant challenge in logistics. To cater for the issue, organizations tend to trace
the physical movement of commodities throughout the supply chain till it reaches the end
consumers. Traceability system implementation is required in this regard. Further, Ravi et al.
(2018) proposed a framework to implement a traceability-based logistics system. The impact
of quality information systems’ traceability on performance. The study’s findings show
logistics traceability’s positive and significant effect on the overall SCP. The efficiency of the
supply chain is affected due to the lack of information exchange and tracking (Gonzalez-Feliu
et al., 2018). To overcome this traceability, supply chain digitization can play a significant role
(Rueda-Velasco et al., 2019). Thus, today’s customer-driven industry needs a robust
traceability system that ensures customer trust and loyalty to the product quality
(Kittipanya-Ngam and Tan, 2020).
2.6 Supplier trust and SCP Blockchain and
Trust among the supply chain members enhances them just in time abilities. As revealed by supply chain
the literature that the full benefits of supply chain integration can be attained if supply chain
partners have trustworthy collaboration (Li et al., 2007). Trust refers to “the extent to which
performance
one believes that others will not act to exploit one’s vulnerabilities” (Morrow et al., 2004). It is a
significant factor in developing collaboration among supply chain agents (Johnston et al.,
2004). Amer et al. (2017) aimed to propose guidelines for making SCP better in terms of on-
time delivery and cost-efficiency. The outcomes of the study highlight some factors that
significantly impact the logistics performance of third-party logistics service providers. The
findings suggested that standardization, work agreements, system compliance, culture,
effective communication and trust are the prominent influencers among stakeholders.
Similarly, according to Ol!ah et al. (2017), trust and its levels among stakeholders positively
influence organizational betterment factors, including the supply chain’s performance.

2.7 BC-SCM and SCP

According to Hackius and Petersen (2017), the participants were satisfied with the benefits
they enjoyed due to the new BT in improving their logistics operations. Similarly, Perboli et al.
(2018) articulated that BT is highly effective in optimizing the overall logistics operations and
reducing logistics costs. Furthermore, the study highlights that blockchain optimizes the
inbound processes and increases supply chain transparency, reliability and efficiency.

2.8 Theoretical background

Network Perspective theory (NP theory) provides explanations and relationships of all
networks that facilitate network connections among various levels in supply chain
management. The approach described the “network as a specific type of relation linking a
defined set of persons, objects or events (Harland, 1996).” The theory helps managers and
leaders identify the key players in various clusters to receive and efficiently give the best
possible insights and information. The supply chain network is complex, and the context’s
nature is dependent upon the relation of the network members (Chang et al., 2012). The theory
is applied to the concept of blockchain as it helps in understanding interpersonal
relationships and structures that either hinder or aid the information flow (Chin et al.,
2014). The NP theory enables an organization to filter the most accurate information from the
prodigious number of inter-dependencies and interactions among various resources,
processes and organizations. As mentioned by Hakansson and Ford (2002), “networks are
seen as beneficial for every company embedded through the investments and actions of the
other counterparts involved in the process” (p; 134). In this regard, BT enables every link in
the chain to make the most accurate information available to all the end-users in real-time.
Network theory also helps managers determine the structural gaps, as does BT (F€ohl
et al., 2016).
Based on the above literature review and theoretical background, Figure 1 corresponds to
the research model that shows the effect of the BC-SCM on SCP with a mediating role of SC-
Traceability, SC-Transparency and Supplier Trust.

2.9 Research hypotheses

The research hypotheses of this study are as below:
H1. BC-SCM has a significant effect on SC-Transparency.
H2. SC-Transparency significantly mediates the relationship between BC-SCM and SCP.
H3. BC-SCM has a significant effect on SC-Traceability.
K

Figure 1.
Research model

H4. SC-Traceability significantly mediates the relationship between BC-SCM and SCP.
H5. BC-SCM has a significant effect on Supplier Trust.
H6. Supplier Trust significantly mediates the relationship between BC-SCM and SCP.
H7. SC-Transparency has a significant effect on SCP.
H8. Supplier Trust has a significant effect on SCP.
H9. SC-Traceability has a significant effect on SCP.
H10. BC-SCM has a significant effect on SCP.

3. Research methodology
A deductive approach with an explanatory research design using a quantitative research
method was used to test the study hypotheses (Rashid et al., 2021; Hashmi et al., 2020a, b).
Data were collected from 150 supply chain managers working at various manufacturing
(registered and unregistered) firms in Pakistan through the purposive sampling technique
(Hashmi et al., 2021a, b; Campbell et al., 2020). The purposive sampling technique is a non-
probability subjective sampling where the researcher relies on his judgment to select
respondents from the target population (Rashid et al., 2021). According to Rashid et al. (2021),
a sample size of 100 is adequate when performing PLS-SEM. Moreover, if the population with
regard to the evaluation of the constructs is highly homogeneous, then a large sample size is
not needed (Cochran, 1977). According to Henseler et al. (2014), the PLS-SEM is useful when
the research model has formatively measured constructs, high model complexity and
prediction orientation. Further, the analysis was performed using IBM SPSS version 22 and
Smart PLS 3.3.7 to validate the measurement model and to assess the structural equation
modeling (SEM) (Khan et al., 2022a, b, c).
The construct items were adopted from relevant literature. Four items for the construct
BC-SCM were adopted from Zelbst et al. (2019), Bischoff and Seuring (2021) and Biswas et al.
(2017). However, for SC-Traceability, four items were adopted from Salam (2017) and Cousins
et al. (2019). Further, four items of SC-Transparency were adopted from Cho et al. (2017) and
Zelbst et al. (2019). Four items for the Supplier Trust were taken from Salam (2017) and
Abdallah et al. (2017). Lastly, four items of SCP were adopted from Abdallah et al. (2017)
and Zelbst et al. (2019). A five-point Likert scale was used to measure all the exogenous
variables (Hashmi et al., 2020a, b; Khan et al., 2022a, b, c; Rashid et al., 2020; Rashid, 2016).
4. Data analysis Blockchain and
A pilot test was conducted on five respondents before data collection to confirm that the supply chain
research participants did not encounter any issues regarding the questionnaire’s wording,
design and format (Hashmi and Mohd, 2020). Pilot testing ensures that the research goes
performance
smoothly and improves the study results (In, 2017). The results of pilot testing showed that
the items fulfilled the requirements for confirming items’ reliability, and all items were
retained for analysis.

4.1 Data screening

Among various data screening and cleaning techniques and methods, DeSimone et al. (2015)
suggested that data screening and cleaning technique were followed by following a four-step
process before data analysis, i.e. (1) out-of-range values, (2) missing value analysis, (3)
univariate outliers and (4) multivariate outliers. In this regard, the study has used frequency
measures for out-of-range and missing value analysis and found zero out-of-range and
missing values among the dataset of 150 responses. Furthermore, the study has used
standardized value (Z-Score) analysis to detect univariate outliers, and as Tabachnick et al.
(2007) suggested, Z-Score should range between þ3.29 and "3.29. Therein, the study found
zero univariate outliers in the dataset; hence, the final 150 responses were used for
multivariate outliers. Lastly, the study used Mahalanobis Distance (D2) for multivariate
outliers based on the recommended threshold of D2 < 0.001 (Tabachnick et al., 2007); and the
study found nonmultivariate outliers in the dataset. Finally, the study used 150 responses for
data analysis.

4.2 Demographics
The demographic attributes of the 150 respondents were analyzed; a far more significant
proportion of firm size with less than 250 employees was (77, 30.9%) than employees size
250–500 (52, 20.9); all employees were from the manufacturing sector with different
proportionate, like, Chemical/Plastic (40, 16.1%), FMCG (38, 15.3%), Textile (32, 12.9%),
Pharmaceutical (30, 12%), Food and Beverages (29, 11.6%), Automobile (27, 10.8%),
Cement/Steel (25, 10%) and others (28, 11.2%); all the firms (Foreign-funded enterprise,
Private enterprise, Collective enterprise, Joint venture, State-own enterprise, and others)
ranged from 35 (114.1%) to 52 (20.9%). Likewise, all the employees were from managerial
positions, with a far more significant proportion of Assistant managers (70, 28.1%) than
Senior managers (59, 23.7%), Deputy managers (59, 23.7%) and Managers (61, 24.3%).
The age of the firm, in descending order of numbers, ranged from 81 (32.5%) with more
than 10 years, 74 (29.7%) with 4–5 years, 56 (22.5%) with less than four years, and 38
(15.3%) with 6–10 years; and finally, 127 (51%) ISO certified and 122 (49%) non-ISO
certified firms.
Further, Smart PLS 3.3.7 as a statistical tool was used to analyze the hypotheses. Smart
PLS is a Partial least squares (PLS) SEM software that enables users to use the PLS path
modeling method. It is a variance-based software that uses a two-step data analysis approach
(Marko and Cheah, 2019). The measurement model is the first step in evaluating the SEM,
including discriminant and convergent validity (Hashmi et al., 2021a, b). According to Hair
et al. (2017), running a normality test before proceeding with the Smart PLS is highly
suggested to ensure no high abnormality in the data. Even though SmartPLS is not a
parametric software, there are chances that the results will inflate if the data is highly
abnormal. The normality results were found that the data was not highly abnormal and
multivariate as Mardia’s multivariate kurtosis was with beta 5 652.2189 and p < 0.01, and
Mardia’s multivariate skewness was with beta 5 214.2228 and p < 0.01. Therefore, the data
fit and met the statistical assumptions (Hair et al., 2017).
K 4.3 Measurement model
Before SEM, the discriminant and convergent validity were considered for the conformity of
the measurement model. Convergent validity is said to be established when composite
reliability (CR) > 0.70, average variance extracted (AVE) > 0.50 and factor loadings >0.50
(Khan et al., 2022a, b, c; Hashmi et al., 2021a, b; Hair et al., 2013). Further, the Cronbach’s alpha
(α) values are >0.70 while indicating that the constructs are reliable and consistent (Hashmi
et al., 2021a, b). Table 1 shows that all the loadings, Cronbach’s alpha (α), AVE values, and CR
values are greater than the cutoff values; and fulfilling the test assumptions.

Constructs Items Loading α CR AVE

Blockchain Blockchain technology is used to improve the security of 0.744 0.795 0.83 0.551
Supply Chain information systems used to share information among the
supply chain partners
Blockchain technology is used to capture data and its 0.778
structure as defined throughout the supply chain
Blockchain technology is used to fulfill data requirements 0.736
regarding communication and reporting needs
Blockchain technology is used to create a distributed 0.709
architecture that eases information recording
Supply Chain The use of blockchain technology causes seamless integration 0.724 0.830 0.801 0.503
Performance of logistics activities with suppliers that enhance the overall
supply chain performance
Blockchain technology is used to reduce the costs associated 0.668
with resolving complex transactions with supply chain partners
Blockchain technology is used to increase operational efficiency 0.658
Blockchain technology enables to uniquely identify materials, 0.778
components, and assemblies
Supply Chain Frequent communication through electronic media, such as 0.829 0.749 0.865 0.617
Traceability the Internet, intranets, electronic mail or EDI systems for
tracing the inventory helps in achieving the desired
performance level
The sources of raw materials are known due to blockchain 0.796
The processes involved in producing products are traced 0.851
easily throughout the supply chain
The origins of the purchases are tracked through the entire 0.65
supply chain effectively
Supply Chain Blockchain technology is used to improve audibility and 0.612 0.822 0.849 0.588
Transparency visibility
Transparency increases the joint profits shared among 0.82
stakeholders and improves the overall supply chain performance
Information transparency in Supply Chain makes the overall 0.756
operations better by sharing the inventory information with
stakeholders
Information transparency in Supply Chain makes the overall 0.858
operations better by sharing the demand planning information
with stakeholders
Supplier Blockchain technology is used to enable a good relationship 0.771 0.747 0.84 0.571
Trust with our suppliers and/or buyers
Integrated information systems enabled via blockchain 0.87
technology help in maintaining a relationship with suppliers
Trust is required to make technology successful 0.700
The use of blockchain technology increases the level of trust 0.665
Table 1. between companies and their suppliers, which improves
Convergent validity overall performance
 Further, the discriminant validity is achieved when heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) Blockchain and
criteria are followed. The HTMT values should not exceed a threshold value of 0.9 (Henseler supply chain
et al., 2015). However, some authors suggest that HTMT values under 0.85 are preferable
(Franke and Sarstedt, 2019). Table 2 shows the HTMT values of BC-SCM, SCP, SC-
performance
Traceability, SC-Transparency and Supplier Trust are lower than the threshold of 0.85.
Therefore, the discriminant validity is established. Hence, further analysis of SEM can be
performed.
In SEM, all the hypotheses were tested based on beta values, p-values, t-values, the
direction of the hypothesis and the confidence interval (Hair et al., 2019). In comparison, the
confidence level represents the upper level (UL) and lower level (LL) values, where the values
should not straddle a zero in between both levels (Hashmi et al., 2021a, b). However, before
proceeding with this analysis, it should be ensured that there is no collinearity issue.
According to Diamantopoulos and Siguaw (2006), there is no collinearity issue if each
construct’s VIF values are less than 3. Table 3 indicates that the VIF values are less than the
threshold, and there is no collinearity issue in the research. Therefore, the analysis can
proceed with the path coefficients and hypotheses testing.
For hypothesis testing, bootstrapping with 5000 resamples is applied. The results shown
in Table 3 reveals that BC-SCM → SC-Transparency (beta 5 0.486, p < 0.00, t 5 5.970:
LL 5 0.322, UL 0.639), BC-SCM → SC-Traceability (beta 5 0.585, p < 0.00, t 5 9.296:
LL 5 0.438, UL 0.689), BC-SCM → Supplier Trust (beta 5 0.456, p < 0.00, t 5 6.545: LL 5
0.401, UL 0.666), SC-Transparency → SCP (beta 5 0.264, p < 0.025, t 5 2.245: LL 5 0.025, UL
0.489), SC-Traceability → SCP (beta 5 0.233, p < 0.034, t 5 2.122: LL 5 0.016, UL 0.453),
Supplier Trust → SCP (beta 5 0.238, p < 0.007, t 5 2.717: LL 5 0.066, UL 0.416), BC-
SCM → SCP (beta 5 0.198, p < 0.044, t 5 2.016: LL 5 0.001, UL 0.387). Hence, all seven
hypotheses (H1, H3, H5, H7, H8, H9, H10) for direct effect are supported.
In addition to the path coefficient analysis, Hair et al. (2017) suggested that the predictive
factor of SmartPLS is one of the significant reasons for which the software is used. Therefore,
the current research also assessed the predictive relevance (Q2) and coefficient of
determination (R2) using the effect size (f2) and blindfolding technique. Table 4 expresses
the R2 value of 0.553 for SCP, showing that a 55.3% change in SCP can be accounted for

BC-SCM SCP SC-traceability SC-transparency Supplier trust

BC-SCM
SCP 0.799
SC-Traceability 0.761 0.829 Table 2.
SC-Transparency 0.627 0.83 0.808 Discriminant validity:
Supplier Trust 0.551 0.684 0.475 0.666 HTMT criterion

Hypotheses Relationship Beta Se p-value p value LL UL Decision VIF

H1 BC-SCM → SC-Transparency 0.486 0.008 5.970 0.000 0.322 0.639 Supported 1.000
H3 BC-SCM → SC-Traceability 0.585 0.016 9.296 0.000 0.438 0.689 Supported 1.000
H5 BC-SCM → Supplier Trust 0.456 0.014 6.545 0.000 0.401 0.666 Supported 1.000
H7 SC-Transparency → SCP 0.264 "0.003 2.245 0.025 0.025 0.489 Supported 1.960
H8 Supplier Trust → SCP 0.238 0.007 2.717 0.007 0.066 0.416 Supported 1.456 Table 3.
H9 SC-Traceability → SCP 0.233 "0.001 2.122 0.034 0.016 0.453 Supported 2.028 Path coefficient
H10 BC-SCM → SCP 0.198 0.003 2.016 0.044 0.001 0.387 Supported 1.690 analysis
K SC-Transparency, SC-Traceability and supplier trust. The R2 value of 0.324 for SC-
Traceability shows that a 32.4% change in SC-Traceability can be accounted for BC-SCM.
The R2 value of 0.237 for SC-Transparency shows that BC-SCM explains a 23.7% change in
SC-Transparency. The R2 value of 0.208 for supplier trust shows that a 20.8% change in
supplier trust can be accounted to BC-SCM. According to Hair et al. (2017), if the predictive
relevance (Q2) value is greater than 0, then the model is said to have excellent predictive
relevance for the research. By using the blindfolding technique, it is found that the value of Q2
is 0.248 for SCP, 0.199 for SC-Traceability, 0.127 for SC-Transparency and 0.1 for supplier
trust. Since Q2 values are more significant than zero; hence, it has an excellent predictive
relevance. According to the report of Cohen (1988) and later cited by Hashmi et al. (2021a, b), if
the effect size >0.35 is a high effect, 0.15 is moderate and 0.02 is a considerably low effect.
Table 4 expresses a small effect size for all study variables. However, suppliers’ trust is the
most critical variable that explains SCP.
Table 5 indicates path coefficient and mediation analysis; Hair et al. (2017) suggested the
bootstrapping of the indirect effect to run the mediation test. The outcomes of the test show
that BC-SCM → SC-Transparency → SCP with (beta 5 0.128, p < 0.037, t 5 2.088: LL 5 0.024,
UL 0.266), BC-SCM → SC-Traceability → SCP (beta 5 0.137, p < 0.004, t 5 2.053: LL 5 0.004,
UL 0.273) and BC-SCM → Supplier Trust → SCP (beta 5 0.109, p < 0.011, t 5 5.547:
LL 5 0.027, UL 0.198) are confirming that BC-SCM has a mediation effect for all three
relationships and hence supporting the mediation-related hypotheses (H2, H4 and H6).

5. Discussion
The measurement model’s lower than threshold values of AVE, factor loadings and CR
indicated that convergent validity was achieved. Correspondingly, lower than 0.85 values of
HTMT indicated that discriminant validity was also established in the model. In the SEM
analysis, the VIF values are less than the threshold, and there is no collinearity issue in the
research. The path coefficient analysis showed that BC-SCM has a significant impact on SCP;
as mentioned by Paliwal et al. (2020), the role of blockchain is significantly positive for the
sustainable performance of SCM. The findings are consistent with studies by Hackius and
Petersen (2017) and Perboli et al. (2018). Correspondingly, the results showed a significant

R2 Q2 f2 Decision

SCP 0.553 0.248

SC-Traceability 0.342 0.199 0.06 Low
Table 4. SC-Transparency 0.237 0.127 0.079 Low
Effect size Supplier Trust 0.208 0.1 0.087 Low

Hypothesis Relationship Beta Se T value p values LL UL Decision

H2 BC-SCM → SC- 0.128 "0.002 2.088 0.037 0.024 0.266 Supported

Transparency → SCP
H4 BC-SCM → SC- 0.137 0.000 2.053 0.04 0.004 0.273 Supported
Traceability → SCP
Table 5. H6 BC-SCM → Supplier 0.109 0.005 5.547 0.011 0.027 0.198 Supported
Mediation modeling Trust → SCP
impact of BC-SCM on SCP via all three mediators (SC-Transparency, SC-Traceability and Blockchain and
supplier trust). Reja et al. (2022) said that through BT, businesses could ensure the supply chain
transparency, traceability and security that enhance growth opportunities. The current
research results are also consistent with Krings and Schwab (2021), which stated that the
performance
supply chain could be more effective if it is equipped with BT. The previous research proves
the relation of BC concerning trust, indicating that blockchain resolves trust issues by
enhancing business collaboration (Weber et al., 2016). For predictive analysis, the Q2 values
were more significant than zero, and the research model has an excellent predictive relevance
(R2). Further, all variables for SCP have a small effect size (f2).

5.1 Conclusion
Organizations aim to digitalize their operations in the contemporary world of industry 4.0 for
increased productivity and efficiency. BT is one of the most effective technological solutions,
especially for complex supply chains. In this regard, it is significant to determine whether the
blockchain-based supply chain directly impacts the overall SCP or if there are some
mediators by which the SCP is impacted significantly. The outcomes of the current research
show that there is a direct effect of a blockchain-based supply chain on SCP. However, there is
a significant impact of the blockchain-based supply chain on SCP in the presence of study
mediators: supply chain transparency, traceability and supplier trust.

5.2 Research implications

Supply chain flexibility is one of the outcomes of BT, which means firms can meet customer
demands more efficiently by enhancing their organizational performance. Thus, practitioners
should adopt this BT to enhance inter-organizational collaboration, which ultimately brings
sustainable growth for the firm. The research also highlighted that firms could be more
efficient by utilizing BT in critical decisions that will be prompted by reducing the complexity
of logistics. Further, firms can also optimize this BT in developing trust through effective
collaboration, data visibility and traceability not within the organization but also for external
customers like firms, etc. As BT provides a more transparent supply chain, the actors can
build trust by deciding how the data will be managed, what kind of data can be collected and
which type of data/information should be accessible for the system. Firms can also save
money by eliminating the traditional processing methods via intermediaries, vendors, third
parties, etc. as these processes can efficiently be carried out through BT; it also creates ease in
reporting and auditing.

5.3 Limitations and future recommendations

The study considered three variables as mediators based on the literature reviewed for the
study. Other variables may be considered in future studies that mediate the impact of
the blockchain-based supply chain on SCP or logistics performance in specific. Though the
sample size was limited to Pakistan, policy developers can use the study results as a
fundamental guideline. Furthermore, it would be advantageous for future research if the
same study could be replicated in other countries experiencing a shift in their supply chain
from conventional to the contemporary digitalized world.

References
Abdallah, A.B., Mais, I.A. and Saleh, F.I. (2017), “The effect of trust with suppliers on hospital supply
chain performance: the mediating role of supplier integration”, Benchmarking: An International
Journal, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 694-715.
K Abubakar, H. and Hassan, S. (2018), “A framework for enhancing digital trust of Quranic text using
Blockchain technology”, Journal of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering
(JTEC), Vol. 10, pp. 7-17.
Akrout, H. (2015), “A process perspective on trust in buyer–supplier relationships. ‘Calculus’: an
intrinsic component of trust evolution”, European Business Review, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 17-33,
doi: 10.1108/EBR-01-2014-0006.
Amer, J., Lenhardt, J. and Haartman, R.V. (2017), “Improving logistics performance in cross-border 3PL
relationships”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Vol. 20 No. 5, pp. 491-513.
Bischoff, O. and Seuring, S. (2021), “Opportunities and limitations of public blockchain-based supply
chain traceability”, Modern Supply Chain Research and Applications, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 226-243,
doi: 10.1108/mscra-07-2021-0014.
Biswas, K., Muthukkumarasamy, V. and Tan, W.L. (2017), “Blockchain based wine supply chain
traceability system”, Future Technologies Conference (FTC) 2017, The Science and Information
Organization, Vancouver, pp. 56-62.
Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D. and Walker,
K. (2020), “Purposive sampling: complex or simple? Research case examples”, Journal of
Research in Nursing, Vol. 25 No. 8, pp. 652-661, doi: 10.1177/1744987120927206.
Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Del Vecchio, P., Oropallo, E. and Secundo, G. (2021), “Blockchain
technology for bridging trust, traceability and transparency in circular supply chain”,
Information and Management, Vol. 2021, 103508, doi: 10.1016/j.im.2021.103508.
Chang, E.K., Guo, Y. and Xia, X. (2012), “CMIP5 multimodel ensemble projection of storm track change
under global warming”, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, Vol. 117 No. D23118, pp.
1-19, doi: 10.1029/2012JD018578.
Chang, Y., Iakovou, E. and Shi, W. (2020), “Blockchain in global supply chains and cross border trade:
a critical synthesis of the state-of-the-art, challenges and opportunities”, International Journal of
Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 7, pp. 2082-2099.
Chen, L., Miranda, B., Parcell, J. and Chen, C. (2019), “The foundations of institutional-based trust in
farmers’ markets”, Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 395-410, doi: 10.1007/
s10460-019-09923-4.
Chin, T.A., Hamid, A.B.A., Raslic, A. and Heng, L.H. (2014), “The impact of supply chain integration
on operational capability in Malaysian manufacturers”, Procedia, Social and Behavioral
Sciences, Vol. 130, pp. 257-265, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.030.
Cho, B., Ryoo, S.Y. and Kim, K.K. (2017), “Interorganizational dependence, information transparency in
interorganizational information systems, and supply chain performance”, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 185-205, doi: 10.1057/s41303-017-0038-1.
Cochran, W.G. (1977), Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed., Wiley, New York, NY.
Cohen, J. (1988), Statistical Power for the Social Sciences, Laurence Erlbaum and Associates, Hillsdale,
NJ, pp. 20-26.
Corazzini, J.G. (1977), “Trust as a complex multi-dimensional construct”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 40
No. 1, pp. 75-80.
Cottrill, K. (2018), “The benefits of blockchain: fact or wishful thinking?”, Supply Chain Management
Review, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 20-25.
Cousins, P.D., Lawson, B., Petersen, K.J. and Fugate, B. (2019), “Investigating green supply chain
management practices and performance: the moderating roles of supply chain ecocentricity and
traceability”, International Journal of Operations and Production, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 767-786.
DeSimone, J.A., Harms, P.D. and DeSimone, A.J. (2015), “Best practice recommendations for data
screening”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 171-181.
Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2006), “Formative versus reflective indicators in organizational
measure development: a comparison and empirical illustration”, British Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 4, pp. 263-282, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00500.x.
DiNizo, A.M. Jr (2018), “From Alice to Bob: the patent eligibility of blockchain in a post CLS bank Blockchain and
world”, Case Western Reserve Journal of Law, Technology and the Internet, Vol. 9, p. 1.
supply chain
Erik, H. and Kotzab, H. (2010), “A supply chain-oriented approach of working capital management”,
Journal of Business Logistics, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 305-330.
performance
Fawcett, S., Jones, S. and Fawcett, A.M. (2011), “Supply chain trust: the catalyst for collaborative
innovation”, Business Horizons, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 163-178, doi: 10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.004.
F€ohl, P.S., Wolfram, G. and Peper, R. (2016), “Cultural managers as ‘masters of interspaces’ in
transformation processes-a network theory perspective”, Zeitschrift f€
ur Kulturmanagement,
Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17-50.
Francisco, K. and Swanson, D. (2018), “The supply chain has no clothes: technology adoption of
blockchain for supply chain transparency”, Logistics, Vol. 2 No. 1, p. 2.
Franke, G. and Sarstedt, M. (2019), “Heuristics versus statistics in discriminant validity testing: a
comparison of four procedures”, Internet Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 430-447, doi: 10.1108/intr-
12-2017-0515.
Gardner, R.L., Cooper, E., Haskell, J., Harris, D.A., Poplau, S., Kroth, P.J. and Linzer, M. (2019),
“Physician stress and burnout: the impact of health information technology”, Journal of the
American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 106-114.
Gonzalez-Feliu, J., Osorio-Ram!ırez, C., Palacios-Arguello, L. and Talamantes, C.A. (2018), “Local
production-based dietary supplement distribution in emerging countries: Bienestarina
Distribution in Colombia”, in Establishing Food Security and Alternatives to International
Trade in Emerging Economies, IGI Global, pp. 297-315.
Hackius, N. and Petersen, M. (2017), “Blockchain in logistics and supply chain: trick or treat?”,
Digitalization in Supply Chain Management and Logistics: Smart and Digital Solutions for an
Industry 4.0 Environment. Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics
(HICL), Vol. 23, epubli GmbH, Berlin, pp. 3-18.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46
Nos 1-2, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2013.01.001.
Hair, J., Hollingsworth, C.L., Randolph, A.B. and Chong, A.Y.L. (2017), “An updated and expanded
assessment of PLS-SEM in information systems research”, Industrial Management and Data
Systems, Vol. 117 No. 3, pp. 442-458, doi: 10.1108/imds-04-2016-0130.
Hair, J.F., Risher, J.J., Sarstedt, M. and Ringle, C.M. (2019), “When to use and how to report the results
of PLS-SEM”, European Business Review, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 2-24, doi: 10.1108/ebr-11-2018-0203.
Hakansson, H. and Ford, D. (2002), “How should companies interact in business networks?”, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, p. 133.
Handfield, R. and Linton, T. (2017), The Living Supply Chain: The Evolving Imperative of Operating in
Real Time, John Wiley & Sons.
Harland, C.M. (1996), “Supply chain management: relationships, chains and networks”, British Journal
of Management, Vol. 7, pp. S63-S80.
Hashmi, A.R. and Mohd, T.A. (2020), “The effect of disruptive factors on inventory control as a
mediator and organizational performance in health department of Punjab, Pakistan”,
International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Policy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 122-134,
doi: 10.18488/journal.26.2020.92.122.134.
Hashmi, A.R., Amirah, N.A. and Yusof, Y. (2020a), “Mediating effect of integrated systems on the
relationship between supply chain management practices and public healthcare performance:
structural equation modeling”, International Journal of Management and Sustainability, Vol. 9
No. 3, pp. 148-160, doi: 10.18488/journal.11.2020.93.148.160.
Hashmi, A.R., Amirah, N.A., Yusof, Y. and Zaliha, T.N. (2020b), “Exploring the dimensions using
exploratory factor analysis of disruptive factors and inventory control”, Economics and Finance
Letters, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 247-254, doi: 10.18488/journal.29.2020.72.247.254.
K Hashmi, A.R., Amirah, N.A., Yusof, Y. and Zaliha, T. (2021a), “Mediation of inventory control practices
in proficiency and organizational performance: state-funded hospital perspective”, Uncertain
Supply Chain Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 89-98, doi: 10.5267/j.uscm.2020.11.006.
Hashmi, A.R., Amirah, N.A. and Yusof, Y. (2021b), “Organizational performance with disruptive
factors and inventory control as a mediator in public healthcare of Punjab, Pakistan”,
Management Science Letters, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 77-86, doi: 10.5267/j.msl.2020.8.028.
Henseler, J., Dijkstra, T.K., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Diamantopoulos, A., Straub, D.W., Ketchen, D.J.,
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M. and Calantone, R.J. (2014), “Common beliefs and reality about partial
least squares: comments on R€onkk€o and Evermann (2013)”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 17, pp. 182-209.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135, doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Imeri, A., Agoulmine, N., Feltus, C. and Khadraoui, D. (2019), “Blockchain: analysis of the new
technological components as opportunity to solve the trust issues in supply chain
management”, Intelligent Computing-Proceedings of the Computing Conference, Springer,
Cham, pp. 474-493.
In, J. (2017), “Introduction of a pilot study”, Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, Vol. 70 No. 6,
pp. 601-605, doi: 10.4097/kjae.2017.70.6.601.
Ireland, R.D. and Webb, J.W. (2007), “A multi-theoretic perspective on trust and power in strategic
supply chains”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 482-497, doi: 10.1016/j.
jom.2006.05.004.
Jestratijevic, I., Rudd, N.A. and Uanhoro, J. (2020), “Policies versus Practices: transparency of
sustainability disclosures among luxury and mass-market fashion brands”, Journal of Global
Fashion Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 99-116.
Johnston, D.A., Mccutcheon, D.D., Stuart, I.F. and Kerwood, H. (2004), “Effects of supplier trust on
performance of cooperative supplier relationships”, Journal of Operation Management, Vol. 22
No. 1, pp. 23-38, doi: 10.1016/j.jom.2003.12.001.
Kashmanian, R.M. (2017), “Building greater transparency in supply chains to advance sustainability:
building greater transparency in supply chains to advance sustainability”, Environmental
Quality Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 73-104, doi: 10.1002/tqem.21495.
Kayikci, Y. (2018), “Sustainability impact of digitization in logistics”, Procedia Manufacturing, Vol. 21,
pp. 782-789, doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.02.184.
Khan, M., Lee, H. and Bae, J. (2019), “The role of transparency in humanitarian logistics”,
Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 7, p. 2078, doi: 10.3390/su11072078.
Khan, S., Benhamed, A., Rashid, A., Rasheed, R. and Huma, Z. (2022a), “Effect of leadership styles on
employees’ performance by considering psychological capital as mediator: evidence from
airlines industry in emerging economy”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 18 No. 8, available at: https://wasdlibrary.org/download/wjemsd-
v18-n8-2022-leadership-styles-airlines-industry/.
Khan, S., Rasheed, R., Rashid, A., Abbas, Q. and Mahboob, F. (2022b), “The effect of demographic
characteristics on job performance: an empirical study from Pakistan”, Journal of Asian
Finance, Economics and Business, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 283-294, doi: 10.13106/jafeb.2022.vol9.
no2.0283.
Khan, S., Rashid, A., Rasheed, R. and Amirah, N.A. (2022c), “Designing a knowledge-based system
(KBS) to study consumer purchase intention: the impact of digital influencers in Pakistan”,
Kybernetes. The International Journal of Cybernetics, Systems and Management Sciences. doi: 10.
1108/k-06-2021-0497.
Kittipanya-Ngam, P. and Tan, K.H. (2020), “A framework for food supply chain digitalization: lessons
from Thailand”, Production Planning and Control, Vol. 31 Nos 2-3, pp. 158-172.
Krings, K. and Schwab, J. (2021), “Blockchain technology in supply chains: what are the opportunities Blockchain and
for sustainable development? (No. 2/2021)”, Briefing Paper.
supply chain
Kujala, J., Lehtim€aki, H. and Pu#ce_ tait_e, R. (2016), “Trust and distrust constructing unity and
fragmentation of organisational culture”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 139 No. 4, pp. 701-716,
performance
doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2915-7.
Li, W., Humphreys, P.K., Yeung, A.C.L. and Cheng, T.C.E. (2007), “The impact of specific supplier
development efforts on buyer competitive advantage: an empirical model”, International Journal
of Production Economics, Vol. 106, pp. 230-247.
Marko, S. and Cheah, J.H. (2019), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling using SmartPLS:
a software review”, Journal of Marketing Analytics, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 196-202.
Masudin, I., Lau, E., Safitri, N.T., Restuputri, D.P. and Handayani, D.I. (2021), “The impact of the
traceability of the information systems on humanitarian logistics performance: case study of
Indonesian relief logistics services”, Cogent Business and Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, 1906052.
Morrow, J.L. Jr, Hansen, M.H. and Pearson, A.L. (2004), “The cognitive and affective antecedents of
general trust within cooperative organizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 48-64.
Ol!ah, J., Bai, A., Karmazin, G., Balogh, P. and Popp, J. (2017), “The role played by trust and its effect on
the competiveness of logistics service providers in Hungary”, Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 12,
p. 2303.
Paliwal, R., Paliwal, S.R., Kenwat, R., Kurmi, B.D. and Sahu, M.K. (2020), “Solid lipid nanoparticles: a
review on recent perspectives and patents”, Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, Vol. 30
No. 3, pp. 179-194.
Perboli, G., Musso, S. and Rosano, M. (2018), “Blockchain in logistics and supply chain: a lean
approach for designing real-world use cases”, IEEE Access: Practical Innovations, Open
Solutions, Vol. 6, pp. 62018-62028, doi: 10.1109/access.2018.2875782.
Poppo, L., Zhou, K.Z. and Li, J.J. (2016), “When can you trust ‘trust’? Calculative trust, relational trust,
and supplier performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 724-741.
Qian, X.A. and Papadonikolaki, E. (2020), “Shifting trust in construction supply chains through
blockchain technology”, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 584-602, doi: 10.1108/ecam-12-2019-0676.
Qinghua, L. and Xu, X. (2017), “Adaptable blockchain-based systems: a case study for product
traceability”, IEEE Software, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 21-27.
Rana, S.K., Kim, H.C., Pani, S.K., Rana, S.K., Joo, M.I., Rana, A.K. and Aich, S. (2021), “Blockchain-
based model to improve the performance of the next-generation digital supply chain”,
Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 18, 10008, doi: 10.3390/su131810008.
Rashid, A. (2016), “Impact of inventory management in downstream chains on customer satisfaction
at manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, Vol. 6
No. 6, pp. 1-19.
Rashid, A. and Rasheed, R. (2022), “A Paradigm for measuring sustainable performance through big
data analytics–artificial intelligence in manufacturing firms”, SSRN 4087758.
Rashid, A., Amirah, N.A., Yusof, Y. and Mohd, A.T. (2020), “Analysis of demographic factors on
perceptions of inventory managers towards healthcare performance”, Economics and Finance
Letters, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 289-294, doi: 10.18488/journal.29.2020.72.289.294.
Rashid, A., Rasheed, R., Amirah, N.A., Yusof, Y., Khan, S. and Agha, A.A. (2021), “A quantitative
perspective of systematic research: easy and step-by-step initial guidelines”, Turkish Online
Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 2874-2883.
Ravi, S., Gupta, R. and Pathak, D.K. (2018), “Modeling critical success factors of traceability for food
logistics system”, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review,
Vol. 119 No. 1, pp. 205-222.
K Reja, K., Choudhary, G., Shandilya, S.K., Sharma, D.M. and Sharma, A.K. (2022), “Blockchain in
logistics and supply chain monitoring”, in Utilizing Blockchain Technologies in Manufacturing
and Logistics Management, IGI Global, pp. 104-121.
Rejeb, A., Keogh, J.G. and Treiblmaier, H. (2019), “Leveraging the internet of things and blockchain
technology in supply chain management future internet”, Future Internet, Vol. 11
No. 7, pp. 1-22.
Rueda-Velasco, F.J., Monsalve-Salamanca, A. and Adarme-Jaimes, W. (2019), “Methodology for the
design of traceability system in food assistance supply chains: case Bienestarina, Colombia”, in
Handbook of Research on Urban and Humanitarian Logistics, IGI Global, pp. 179-200.
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J. and Shen, L. (2019), “Blockchain technology and its relationships
to sustainable supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 57
No. 7, pp. 2117-2135, doi: 10.1080/00207543.2018.1533261.
Salam, M.A. (2017), “The mediating role of supply chain collaboration on the relationship between
technology, trust and operational performance: an empirical investigation”, Benchmarking: An
International Journal, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 298-317.
Small, M.W. and Dickie, L. (1999), “A cinematograph of moral principles: critical values for
contemporary business and society”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 18 No. 7,
pp. 628-638.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S. and Ullman, J.B. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, Vol. 5, Pearson,
Boston, MA, pp. 481-498.
Tian, F. (2016), “An agri-food supply chain traceability system for China based on RFID and
blockchain technology”, 2016 13th International Conference on Service Systems and Service
Management (ICSSSM), IEEE, Kunming, pp. 1-6.
Weber, I., Xu, X., Riveret, R., Governatori, G., Ponomarev, A. and Mendling, J. (2016), September),
Untrusted business process monitoring and execution using blockchain”, International
Conference on Business Process Management, Springer, Cham, pp. 329-347. doi: 10.1007/978-
3-319-45348-4_19.
Wong, J., Goh, Q.Y., Tan, Z., Lie, S.A., Tay, Y.C., Ng, S.Y. and Soh, C.R. (2020), “Preparing for a COVID-
19 pandemic: a review of operating room outbreak response measures in a large tertiary
hospital in Singapore”, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal Canadien D’anesth!esie, Vol. 67
No. 6, pp. 732-745.
Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S. and Smolander, K. (2016), “Where is current research on
blockchain technology?—a systematic review”, PloS One, Vol. 11 No. 10, e0163477.
Zelbst, P.J., Green, K.W., Sower, V.E. and Bond, P.L. (2019), “The impact of RFID, IIoT, and Blockchain
technologies on supply chain transparency”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 441-457, doi: 10.1108/jmtm-03-2019-0118.

Corresponding author
Rizwana Rasheed can be contacted at: rizwana.rasheed1989@gmail.com

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