Blockchain for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Blockchain technology (BT) is increasingly recognized as a transformative digital infrastructure for advancing environmental, economic, and social sustainability. However, academic research on its sustainability potential remains fragmented, with limited integration of theoretical models, sector-specific applications, and system-level impacts. This study addresses these gaps by conducting a systematic literature review of 131 peer-reviewed articles published between 2015 and early 2025, guided by the PRISMA 2020 framework. The analysis is structured around the three pillars of sustainability, exploring the mechanisms through which blockchain enables transparent governance, ethical consumption, resilient infrastructure, and inclusive development. Anchored in Institutional and Stakeholder theories, the review develops an integrative dual-framework that overlays four technical components of BT (data, network, consensus, and application) onto institutional pressures and stakeholder-engagement dynamics. The framework shows how BT enhances resource efficiency, supply-chain traceability, and social inclusion across sectors such as renewable energy, agriculture, healthcare, education, and logistics. The study makes two principal contributions. First, it unifies previously dispersed findings into a holistic model that links BT’s technical capabilities with organizational and societal conditions. Second, it provides actionable guidance: policymakers should harmonize cross-border standards and incentivize energy-efficient consensus protocols, while managers should co-design stakeholder-inclusive pilots to scale sustainable BT solutions. Collectively, these insights map a research and practice agenda for leveraging blockchain to accelerate progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Introduction

A timeless question was raised by the Brundtland Commission in 1987: how can nations pursue better living standards while preserving the planet’s finite resources and avoiding environmental harm? The answer, sustainable development, or development that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own, remains a guiding principle in global-policy discourse. The global urgency to achieve sustainable development has intensified amidst mounting environmental degradation, economic disparities, and social inequities. While sustainability requires balanced attention to environmental stewardship, economic viability, and social responsibility [1,2], addressing these interconnected dimensions presents persistent challenges, including issues of transparency, traceability, accountability, and efficient resource management [3,4]. Technological innovations, particularly blockchain technology (BT), have recently emerged as promising solutions due to their distinctive features, such as decentralization, transparency, security, and immutability [5].

BT is a distributed ledger that stores transactions in cryptographically linked blocks, replicated across a peer-to-peer network. Because every node maintains the same encrypted record, altering any entry requires agreement from the entire network, making the data effectively immutable and tamper-resistant [6,7]. These properties enhance information sharing, transparency, traceability, and authenticity, leading scholars to regard BT as one of the most significant recent digital innovations [8].

However, despite its transformative potential, several critical gaps remain in the scholarly understanding of how blockchain effectively integrates with sustainable development initiatives [9].

First, existing reviews are sector specific and tend to focus on a single sustainability dimension (environmental, economic, or social), often neglecting a comprehensive assessment of blockchain’s integrative impacts across all three domains [10,11]. Secondly, although numerous studies highlight blockchain’s theoretical advantages, empirical evidence detailing its practical implications and challenges within specific sustainability contexts remains limited and fragmented [12]. Lastly, while scholars have recognized challenges such as scalability, energy consumption, and regulatory uncertainty, strategic solutions for overcoming these barriers within sustainable frameworks are inadequately explored [13].

This study addresses these gaps by systematically reviewing and synthesizing the literature from 131 scholarly articles published between 2015 and 2025, specifically examining blockchain’s potential and practical applications across environmental, economic, and social sustainability domains. By employing a rigorous PRISMA framework for systematic review, the study evaluates blockchain mechanisms that enhance sustainability practices, identifies critical barriers to blockchain integration, and proposes strategic insights for effective implementation. The research further contributes by developing a comprehensive theoretical framework, explicitly illustrating blockchain’s multifaceted contributions and their interrelationships within the sustainability triad. Through this integrative and analytical approach, the paper provides valuable, actionable insights for policymakers, practitioners, and academics, significantly advancing the theoretical and practical discourse on blockchain-enabled sustainability.

The remainder of this article is structured as follows. First, the methodology section outlines the systematic literature review process conducted using the PRISMA framework, ensuring transparency and replicability. Subsequently, the article delves into a detailed thematic analysis and synthesis of the existing literature, examining blockchain’s implications across the environmental, economic, and social dimensions of sustainability. Following this, the paper critically evaluates the major challenges associated with blockchain implementation in sustainable initiatives and proposes strategic solutions to address these barriers effectively. The study then presents a conceptual framework that clearly illustrates blockchain’s multifaceted contributions to sustainability. Finally, the article concludes with insights, strategic recommendations, and future research directions aimed at harnessing blockchain technology’s full potential for sustainable development.

2. Theoretical Foundations

To explain how BT advances economic, social, and environmental sustainability, we combine Institutional Theory and Stakeholder Theory, two perspectives that reveal the external forces and multi-actor dynamics that support our understanding of how blockchain enables, constrains, or reshapes sustainability outcomes in practice.

Institutional Theory: Organizations gain legitimacy and resources by conforming to coercive regulations, normative expectations, and shared cognitive scripts [14]. In sustainability contexts, these pressures include mandatory ESG disclosure, carbon-accounting rules, and industry codes of conduct. Firms, therefore, adopt BT not only for efficiency but also to satisfy rising stakeholder demands for real-time transparency and verifiable ESG data [15,16]. Cross-country studies show that regulatory uncertainty, weak standards, and uneven digital infrastructure slow diffusion, whereas clear guidance accelerates uptake [13,17]. Once early adopters demonstrate legitimacy benefits, mimetic isomorphism encourages followers to replicate BT solutions, especially in carbon-intensive industries, signaling compliance with ISO 14001 and similar schemes [18].

Stakeholder Theory: Freeman’s seminal framework argues that firms must balance the interests of all stakeholders, not just shareholders [19]. BT’s immutable ledger, smart contracts, and open-data architectures give stakeholders unprecedented visibility into provenance, labor conditions, and environmental impacts [20,21]. Empirical evidence from agri-food, apparel, and fisheries chains shows that such traceability improves farmer remuneration, curbs counterfeiting, and boosts consumer trust [22,23,24]. By lowering information asymmetry and embedding inclusive governance rules, BT applications advance SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) [3,8,25].

Integrating the lenses. Institutional forces create the need for verifiable ESG evidence, while stakeholder engagement determines the design and success of BT solutions. Case studies show that projects delivering the greatest sustainability impact align robust on-chain data architectures with participatory governance and supportive policy regimes [26].

Together, these theories provide a rigorous basis for analyzing the drivers, constraints, and enabling ecosystems that shape inclusive, scalable, and resilient blockchain-enabled sustainability transitions.

3. Methodology

Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRs) play a crucial role in consolidating existing research, offering a comprehensive understanding of various topics. SLRs are widely used to provide a holistic perspective on a given subject, enabling scholars to systematically compare findings and identify key research gaps. By synthesizing the existing literature, SLRs contribute to the development of new theoretical frameworks, helping advance academic discourse and guide future research directions. The structured and rigorous approach employed in SLRs ensures reliability, making them indispensable tools in academic research.

Building on the classification of SLRs by [27] Paul and Criado (2020), which categorizes them as domain-based, theory-based, or method-based, this study is best characterized as a framework-based review of the SLM. It aims to develop a structured synthesis of consumer behavior in the SLM, integrating insights from multiple theoretical perspectives.

To ensure methodological rigor, transparency, and reproducibility, this study adheres to the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020) framework [28,29]. The PRISMA Checklist is provided as Supplementary File.

The review process follows four key stages—Identification, Screening, Eligibility, and Inclusion and Synthesis—ensuring a systematic and unbiased approach to analyzing the existing literature on the SLM (

Table 1. PRISMA framework for systematic review.

Stage	Description
Identification	Databases Searched: Web of Science
	Search Strategy: (“sustainability” AND “blockchain” AND “SDGs”) AND PUBYEAR > 2015 AND PUBYEAR < 2025
	Time Period Covered: Studies published from 1 January 2015 to 30 March 2025
	Language: English only
Screening	Inclusion Criteria:
	- Peer-reviewed articles
	- Focus on blockchain and sustainability
	- Empirical studies or theoretical frameworks
	- Full-text availability
	Exclusion Criteria:
	- Non-academic publications (books, editorials, blogs)
	- Studies unrelated to BT, sustainability, and SDGs
	- Studies outside the 2015–2025 time range
Eligibility	Selection Process:
	- Records identified: 188 articles
	- Title and abstract screening: 32 articles excluded
	- Full-Text Review: 156 articles assessed, 34 removed due to lack of methodological rigor
	Snowballing: 9 articles added
	- Final Selection: 131 articles
	Independent Reviewers: Two researchers independently reviewed studies; discrepancies were resolved through discussion
Inclusion & Synthesis	Final Analysis Covered:
	- Thematic analysis of blockchain and sustainability
	- Categorization of studies based on research methods, sustainability pillars, and key findings

Source: Adapted from Page et al. and PRISMA (2022) [29,30].

).

3.1. Identification

The literature search was conducted using Web of Science, a widely recognized academic database that provides extensive access to peer-reviewed research. To ensure comprehensive coverage of the literature, a keyword-based search strategy was employed, incorporating Boolean operators to retrieve relevant studies. The search terms used included “blockchain” and “sustainability”. The initial search query was TS = (blockchain AND sustainability AND (“sustainable development goals” OR SDGs OR “UN SDGs” OR “sustainable development”)).

The search was limited to articles published between January 2015 and 30 March 2025, ensuring the inclusion of recent studies while capturing the long-term trends of the topic. This timeframe was carefully selected to examine the BT applications trends and impact on sustainable development. Only articles published in English were considered, and the search was applied to the title, abstract, and keywords of articles. We restricted the review to English-language articles because translating and reliably coding domain-specific terminology across multiple languages would exceed available resources and risk introducing interpretive errors.

3.2. Screening

To ensure the relevance and academic rigor of the selected studies, inclusion and exclusion criteria were established (

Table 2. Inclusion and exclusion search criteria.

Criteria	Inclusion	Exclusion	Rationale
Publication Type	Scholarly articles (peer-reviewed)	Non-academic (books, blogs, editorials, reports)	Ensure academic credibility and rigor
Relevance	Articles directly addressing blockchain applications for sustainable development	Articles not directly addressing blockchain in sustainability context	Ensure relevance and specific focus on blockchain technology and sustainability
Peer-reviewed	Articles from peer-reviewed academic journals	Non-peer-reviewed abstracts, conference proceedings, dissertations, theses, editorials, and magazine articles	Maintain academic rigor and quality
Accessibility	Articles readily accessible with full-text availability	Articles not fully accessible or without full-text availability	Ensure availability for detailed review
Research Methodology	Empirical studies or theoretical frameworks clearly outlining blockchain’s role in sustainability	Studies employing insufficient methodological rigor or lacking clear frameworks	Ensure methodological robustness and conceptual clarity
Publication Year	Articles published between 1 January 2015 and 30 March 2025	Articles published before or after specified time range	Provide current and relevant insights within defined scope
Language	English-language articles only	Non-English-language articles	Standardize review based on universally accessible research

Source: Authors’ own creation.

). Articles were included if they were peer-reviewed, focused on blockchain and sustainability, and employed empirical methodologies or theoretical frameworks. Additionally, only studies that provided full-text access were considered for inclusion. Excluded from the review were non-academic sources, such as books, editorials, blog posts, dissertations, and industry reports. Articles that primarily examined BT, sustainability, and SDGs were also omitted, ensuring a focused review of the literature specific to blockchain and sustainability. Studies with weak empirical rigor or inadequate methodological reporting were further excluded from consideration.

3.3. Eligibility

The eligibility assessment was conducted through a multi-step screening process. The articles underwent a thorough title and abstract screening, during which 32 studies were excluded due to a lack of direct relevance to sustainability. The remaining 156 articles were subjected to a full-text review, where each study was assessed for its methodological rigor, data transparency, and contribution to understanding blockchain and sustainability. Following a detailed quality evaluation, 34 articles were excluded due to insufficient empirical rigor or a lack of a substantial theoretical contribution. Using a snowballing technique, we added 9 articles to capture key studies that were not retrieved in the initial database search.

To enhance reliability and minimize bias, the selection process was independently reviewed by two researchers. Discrepancies in study selection were resolved through discussion and consensus. The study-selection process followed the PRISMA 2020 framework, ensuring systematic identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and the inclusion of relevant studies. This process is visually represented in Figure 1.

3.4. Inclusion and Synthesis

The final dataset of 131 papers underwent a structured qualitative synthesis. A data-extraction process was implemented to categorize each study based on key attributes, including the author(s), year of publication, geographical context, research methodology, and key findings related to blockchain and sustainable development. The selected studies were analyzed thematically, focusing on identifying the key drivers of sustainability using blockchain technology. To ensure the inclusion of high-quality studies, a systematic quality assessment was conducted based on five criteria: (1) clarity of research objectives, (2) definition of research questions, (3) transparency of data sources, (4) methodological rigor, and (5) relevance of findings to blockchain and sustainability. Each study was evaluated using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = weak, 5 = strong). Studies scoring below 3 on two or more criteria were excluded from the final synthesis. The quality assessment ensured methodological consistency and reliability in the selection process.

By following the PRISMA 2020 approach, this systematic literature review ensures a rigorous, transparent, and replicable methodology. The structured process enhances the reliability of the findings and contributes to a comprehensive understanding of blockchain and sustainability.

3.4.1. Articles’ Distribution by Source

Table 3. Publications by source.

WoS Rank	Source Title	No. of Articles	(%)
Q1	BUSINESS STRATEGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT	6	4.6
Q1	JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION	6	4.6
Q1	TELECOMMUNICATIONS POLICY	4	3.1
Q1	TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE	4	3.1
Q1	MARINE POLICY	3	2.3
Q1	RESOURCES, CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING	2	1.5
Q1	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS RESEARCH	2	1.5
Q1	JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT	2	1.5
Q1	CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT	2	1.5
Q1	COMPUTERS & INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING	2	1.5
Q1	TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIETY	2	1.5
Q1	SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION	2	1.5
Q1	IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT	2	1.5
Q1	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS	2	1.5
Q1	FOOD CHEMISTRY	1	0.8
Q1	COMPUTERS AND INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING	1	0.8
Q1	FUTURES	1	0.8
Q1	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION RESEARCH	1	0.8
Q1	JOURNAL OF PURCHASING AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT	1	0.8
Q1	RENEWABLE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY REVIEWS	1	0.8
Q1	BUILDING AND ENVIRONMENT	1	0.8
Q1	SCIENTIFIC REPORTS	2	1.5
Q1	ENERGY REPORTS	1	0.8
Q1	ROBOTICS AND COMPUTER-INTEGRATED MANUFACTURING	1	0.8
Q1	ONE EARTH	1	0.8
Q1	ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE	1	0.8
Q1	APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING	1	0.8
Q1	JOURNAL OF RETAILING AND CONSUMER SERVICES	1	0.8
Q1	SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT	1	0.8
Q1	ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-POLITICS AND SPACE	1	0.8
Q1	IEEE INTERNET OF THINGS JOURNAL	1	0.8
Q1	JOURNAL OF INNOVATION & KNOWLEDGE	1	0.8
Q1	INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ECONOMICS & FINANCE	1	0.8
Q1	IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SUSTAINABLE COMPUTING	1	0.8
Q1	FINANCE RESEARCH LETTERS	1	0.8
Q1	ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATION AND SOCIETAL TRANSITIONS	1	0.8
Q1	ENERGY STRATEGY REVIEWS	1	0.8
Q1	INTERNET RESEARCH	1	0.8
Q1	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	1	0.8
Q1	COMPUTERS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING	1	0.8
Q1	DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS	1	0.8
Q1	JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING	1	0.8
Q1	EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS	1	0.8
Q1	JOURNAL OF BUSINESS LOGISTICS	1	0.8
Q1	JOURNAL OF PURCHASING AND SUPPLY MANAGEMENT	1	0.8
Q1	APPLIED ENERGY	1	0.8
Q2	SUSTAINABILITY	22	16.8
Q2	IEEE ACCESS	5	3.8
Q2	PROCESSES	1	0.8
Q2	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY	1	0.8
Q2	BRITISH FOOD JOURNAL	1	0.8
Q2	ELECTRONIC COMMERCE RESEARCH	1	0.8
Q2	FRONTIERS IN SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS	1	0.8
Q2	BUSINESS PROCESS MANAGEMENT JOURNAL	1	0.8
Q2	HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCES COMMUNICATIONS	1	0.8
Q2	HELIYON	1	0.8
Q2	RAIRO-OPERATIONS RESEARCH	1	0.8
Q2	ENTERPRISE INFORMATION SYSTEMS	1	0.8
Q2	PLOS ONE	1	0.8
Q2	INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS IN OPERATIONAL RESEARCH	1	0.8
Q2	PEER-TO-PEER NETWORKING AND APPLICATIONS	1	0.8
Q2	SENSORS	1	0.8
Q2	ENVIRONMENT DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY	1	0.8
Q2	SUSTAINABLE ENERGY TECHNOLOGIES AND ASSESSMENTS	1	0.8
Q2	SYSTEMS	1	0.8
Q2	JOURNAL OF ENTERPRISE INFORMATION MANAGEMENT	1	0.8
Q2	INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT & DATA SYSTEMS	2	1.5
Q2	SUSTAINABLE ENERGY, GRIDS AND NETWORKS	1	0.8
Q2	JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC POLICY REFORM	1	0.8
Q2	APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL	1	0.8
Q2	MANAGEMENT DECISION	1	0.8
Q2	SYMMETRY	1	0.8
Q2	INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC SECTOR MANAGEMENT	1	0.8
Q3	JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY	1	0.8
Q3	FRACTALS	1	0.8
Q3	KSII TRANSACTIONS ON INTERNET AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS	1	0.8
Q3	ENERGIES	1	0.8

Source: authors’ creation.

shows the sources where the included articles were published. The sources with the highest number of publications in this review demonstrate a strong academic interest in the intersection of blockchain and sustainability across multidisciplinary domains. Notably, Sustainability leads with 22 articles (16.8%), followed by Business Strategy and the Environment and the Journal of Cleaner Production, each contributing 6 articles (4.6%), and IEEE Access contributed 5 articles (3.8%). Both Telecommunications Policy and Technological Forecasting and Social Change published 4 articles (3.1%) each, while Marine Policy contributed 3 articles (2.3%). Several other reputable journals published 2 articles (1.5%) each, including Resources, Conservation and Recycling, the Journal of Business Research, the Journal of Environmental Management, Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Technology in Society, Sustainable Production and Consumption, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, and the International Journal of Production Economics. This distribution indicates that scholarly attention is concentrated in high-impact journals focused on sustainability, environmental management, and the technological transformation of industries.

A total of 56.5% of the articles selected for this study were published in journals ranked in the first quartile, indicating high academic rigor and a quality standard in the research sources used [31].

3.4.2. Articles’ Distribution by Publication Year

Figure 2 illustrates the yearly distribution of published articles related to blockchain and sustainability from 2016 to early 2025. No publications were included from 2015. While initial contributions were minimal—with only one publication each in 2016 and 2017—research activity began to increase modestly in 2018 and 2019, with two articles each year. A steady upward trend emerged in 2020 (6 articles), gaining momentum in 2021 (14 articles) and stabilizing in 2022 (14 articles). However, scholarly interest surged dramatically in 2024, with 55 articles, marking the highest publication count in the entire review period. Although only 13 publications have been recorded for 2025 so far, this number is expected to increase as more data become available.

The exponential growth in 2024 can be attributed to multiple factors. Firstly, blockchain has matured from a speculative technology to a practical tool for sustainability applications across industries such as energy, supply chains, and finance. Secondly, and most notably, the integration of Generative AI (GenAI) tools like ChatGPT, Bard, and other large language models has significantly accelerated production of the literature and research dissemination. GenAI has enhanced researchers’ ability to synthesize vast amounts of the literature, automate systematic reviews, generate code for simulations, and improve writing quality—all contributing to higher publication rates. This technological augmentation has reduced the time required for research cycles and has increased interdisciplinary collaboration, especially in fast-evolving fields like blockchain and sustainability.

Overall, this rapid growth underscores the urgency and global relevance of sustainable innovation and the pivotal role these emerging technologies, including GenAI and blockchain, are playing in reshaping the research landscape.

3.4.3. Methods Overview

Figure 3 provides a detailed breakdown of the specific methodologies used by the papers. The most prevalent methodology is empirical research (38 articles), emphasizing the field’s growing reliance on data-driven insights. A significant number of studies (23) focus on conceptual-framework development, reflecting the maturing theoretical landscape of blockchain and sustainability. SLRs and reviews combined (42 articles) underline a strong interest in consolidating and evaluating the current body of knowledge. The mixed methods approach (15 papers) suggests an increasing integration of theory and practice, enhancing validity through methodological triangulation.

4. Research Discussion

Building on the gaps identified in Section 1 and guided by the theoretical underpinnings presented in Section 2, this section synthesizes the findings of our systematic review (detailed in Section 3) to demonstrate how blockchain’s technical attributes translate into sustainability benefits. By integrating data integrity, automation, and equitable governance into a single cohesive infrastructure, blockchain has the potential to address longstanding challenges that arise from insufficient transparency, fragmented accountability, and inequitable resource management [20]. As elaborated below, this discussion not only clarifies the mechanisms by which blockchain’s features foster positive economic, social, and environmental outcomes but also fulfills the research aim set out in Section 1—namely, to evaluate blockchain’s role in advancing sustainable development.

4.1. The Interplay Between BT and Sustainability

Blockchain technology (BT) has evolved significantly since its inception in 2008 as the foundational mechanism for Bitcoin. While initially associated with digital currencies, BT is now adopted by both public and private organizations, extending into sectors such as supply-chain management, carbon markets, social inclusion, and, increasingly, ESG assessments [16,20,32,33]. At its core, blockchain functions as a decentralized and secure ledger that promotes peer-to-peer transactions without intermediaries, thereby enhancing data integrity, reliable automation, and equitable resource distribution [16].

Simultaneously, the sustainability imperative highlights the need to meet current societal demands while preserving the environment and social equity for future generations. This triple-bottom-line framework spans environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic viability [1,2], demanding innovative solutions to address climate change, resource depletion, socioeconomic inequality, and pollution [7,10]. Against this backdrop, BT’s features, such as immutability, smart contracts, and decentralized consensus, have drawn significant interest due to their potential to improve transparency, traceability, and accountability across various sustainability endeavors [18].

Recent empirical investigations illustrate how these blockchain features can help stakeholders bridge information gaps, optimize resource allocation, and strengthen collaborative governance structures [10,34]. For instance, in food-supply chains, BT enables farmers, distributors, and retailers to trace goods in real time, ensuring authenticity and ethical sourcing [23]. In carbon trading and renewable-energy projects, smart contracts automate compliance with emission standards, reducing transaction costs and mitigating fraudulent reporting [5]. Moreover, as blockchain-based tools begin to merge with third-party ESG- (Environmental, Social, and Governance) rating processes, scholars have begun to propose more flexible, dual-dimensional indexes for corporate sustainability [16]. Such indexes make use of smart contracts and crypto tokens to automate the assessment of ESG “depth” (performance quality) and “width” (coverage of ESG disclosures). By verifying authenticity, enhancing traceability, and aligning decentralized stakeholders around shared objectives, blockchain helps organizations and communities adopt more sustainable and inclusive practices.

In sum, BT has evolved from niche financial technology into a versatile sustainability toolkit. By virtue of its resistance to data tampering (immutability) and self-executing governance rules (smart contracts), blockchain holds promise for addressing the systemic and interconnected issues—ranging from greenwashing and carbon accounting to equitable-value distribution in supply chains—that lie at the heart of sustainable development [9,20].

4.2. Mapping Blockchain Attributes onto Sustainability Capabilities and Impacts

Drawing on the extensive literature base (Section 3) and aligning with the research questions, we developed a four-layer diagram (see Figure 4) that clarifies how blockchain’s core attributes lead to actionable sustainability benefits [28]).

The top layer, Core Blockchain Attributes, comprises immutability, smart contracts, and decentralized consensus [5]. Each of these attributes is purely technological in nature and, together, they provide a tamper-proof ledger (immutability), self-executing governance rules (smart contracts), and distributed authority among multiple nodes (decentralized consensus).

Building directly on these core attributes, BT can perform a number of functions. Some are system-level or structural (Security of Data; Policy Tracking; Reduced Carbon Emissions and Resources) while others are actionable functionalities that stakeholders deliberately perform, including (Track Flows; Validate Products; Source Ethically). System-level functions such as the security of data derive from underlying cryptographic protocols and require minimal direct-user intervention [9], while actionable functionalities involve explicit tasks in daily operations performed by stakeholders [23]. Track flow enables a logistics manager to consult the ledger to verify a product’s real-time location and condition; a retailer may scan QR codes to confirm authenticity to validate products to combat counterfeiting, and a procurement officer may consult supplier ESG data to ensure ethical sourcing and supplier compliance with sustainability standards [23]. By contrast, policy tracking operates in the background, allowing smart contracts to monitor compliance with sustainability rules automatically [28], and reduced carbon emissions and resources largely unfold because of the removal of intermediaries or consolidating processes [16].

When these functions are interconnected, organizations build capabilities (what BT enables in terms of business values) such as authenticity, traceability, and transparency capabilities. Authenticity arises from combining validated products with secure data to confirm genuineness [23]. Traceability is built upon “track flows” and policy-driven oversight, offering real-time, end-to-end visibility for supply chains (IBM Food Trust). Transparency emerges if stakeholders can “source ethically” and reduce resource usage in a decentralized model, facilitating open data and reducing greenwashing [9].

These capabilities ultimately lead to sustainability impacts, generating measurable benefits across economic, social, and environmental fronts [16]. Enhanced traceability curbs unethical practices and fosters fair trade, authenticity reduces counterfeiting and elevates consumer trust, and transparency lowers carbon footprints while strengthening ESG reporting. Empirical studies indicate these impacts can reduce logistical CO₂ emissions [20], verify carbon offsets, and promote circular economy models [9,16].

In concrete applications, platforms like Everledger uses blockchain to record ethically sourced diamonds (For details see: Everledger—Making the commercial case for blockchain diamond tracking. Available at: https://everledger.io/making-the-commercial-case-for-blockchain-diamond-tracking/, Accessed on 30 March 2025), the IBM Food Trust secures food provenance data, and on-chain smart contracts embed sustainability clauses for automatic compliance [28]. Meanwhile, shifting to decentralized consensus (e.g., Proof-of-Stake) can lower carbon footprints [5] and enable resource optimization through real-time data integration [5,9].

5. Domain-Based Classification of Articles

The selected articles were categorized into Environment, Economic and Social domains (

Table 4. BT articles by domain.

Domain	Sub-Domain	Description	Relevant SDG(s)	References
Environment	Renewable Energy	Research discusses peer-to-peer energy trading, secure data management, certificate tracking, optimization of electricity distribution, carbon-footprint reduction	SDG 7—Affordable and Clean Energy; SDG 9 -Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure; SDG 13 -Climate Action)	[35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45]
	Climate Change Mitigation	Studies on mitigating climate change (carbon tracking, emissions reduction, sustainability reporting, tokenizing carbon credits, real-time GHG monitoring across supply chains)	SDG 13—Climate Action; SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities	[46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54]
	Environmental Conservation	Research focused on resource management, data integrity, biodiversity initiatives, tamper-proof environmental compliance, ecosystem conservation	SDG 14—Life Below Water SDG 15—Life on Land	[46,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70]
Economic	Sustainable supply-chain management	Research related to BT integration to enhance supply-chain management, lower costs, and achieve a competitive edge	SDG 7—Affordable and Clean Energy	[13,32,56,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96]
	Fair trade	The role of BT on enhancing transparency within fair trade practices	SDG 8—Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG 12—Responsible Consumption	[32,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104]
	Employment and Income Distribution	The influence of BT on employment and income distribution	SDG 9—Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure	[105,106]
Social	Equality, inclusion, quality of life	Research that discusses equality and social inclusion	SDG 5—Gender Equality, SDG 10—Reduced Inequalities	[107,108,109,110,111,112]
	Secure identity verification	Research-related	SDG 16—Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	[108,113,114]
	Responsible corporate governance	Research-focused	SDG 12—Responsible Consumption and Production	[12,33,34,65,75,87,90,101,109,115,116,117,118,119,120,121]

Source: authors’ own work.

). The Environment domain includes articles related to (a) renewable energy, focusing on blockchain’s role in sustainable energy management and transactive energy markets; (b) climate change mitigation studies addressing blockchain applications for carbon accountability and emissions reduction; and (c) environmental conservation exploring blockchain’s effectiveness in ecological preservation and data security. The Economic domain includes articles related to (a) energy efficiency; (b) promoting fair trade; (c) sustainable supply-chain management; and (d) employment and income distribution. The Social domain includes articles related to (a) equality, social inclusion, and quality of life, (b) secure identity verification; and (c) business ethics and responsible governance.

Some articles are classified in more than one domain. For example, Afzal et al. [43] examine blockchain-enabled renewable-energy trading, directly contributing to improved energy efficiency, market decentralization, and economic cost savings.

5.1. Blockchain and Environmental Sustainability

Environmental sustainability, as outlined in UN-SDGs, calls for the responsible use of natural resources to maintain ecological balance while ensuring intergenerational equity. BT has increasingly emerged as a critical enabler of environmentally focused innovations, supporting efforts to promote transparency, accountability, and efficiency across energy, climate, and conservation domains. This section examines three major environmental applications of blockchain: renewable energy, climate change mitigation, and environmental conservation.

5.1.1. Renewable Energy

In the renewable-energy sector, blockchain facilitates decentralized energy markets by enabling peer-to-peer trading, real-time data tracking, and transparent certification processes. Recent empirical reviews show that blockchain-enabled peer-to-peer (P2P) microgrids raise prosumer trust, lower transaction costs, and accelerate renewable integration; case evidence from Europe, India, and Australia confirms that immutable ledgers permit autonomous price-setting while still giving grid operators full visibility—yet new governance rules remain essential to protect system stability [121,122]. Building on these findings, blockchain platforms such as Power Ledger and Brooklyn Microgrid illustrate how real-time data tracking, transparent certification, and smart-contract automation can cut CO₂ emissions and widen energy access [43]. Studies have shown that blockchain-based systems enhance trust in energy transactions by improving traceability and accountability. For example, the integration of blockchain in peer-to-peer trading platforms allows decentralized energy exchange, as demonstrated by projects like Power Ledger and Brooklyn Microgrid, which collectively reduced CO₂ emissions and increased energy accessibility [37,43]. Moreover, blockchain enhances grid optimization by securely managing distributed power generation and smart metering systems [40,41]. The technology’s ability to issue and verify Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) ensures authenticity and prevents double counting, thus fostering stakeholder trust in low-carbon transitions [35,36]. Moreover, blockchain can support renewable integration by addressing high energy consumption in grid operations and Proof-of-Work (PoW). The authors of [69] propose a consortium-based Advanced Metering Infrastructure on Hyperledger Fabric (PBFT consensus, SHA-512, ECDSA) that avoids PoW’s overhead. Tested with Fabric 1.4 on an i7 VM, it achieves ~75 tps at ~1.33 s latency, well under the <15 s AMI threshold, and reduces a 30% hash-power attack success rate to <3%, bolstering dynamic pricing and green tariffs. Alofi et al. [109] similarly mitigate PoW’s footprint through a self-adaptive MAPE-K loop, disabling high-carbon miners with a multi-objective genetic algorithm, cutting energy by ≥55% and CO₂ by ≥70%, while retaining ~96% decentralization. Their Pareto analysis suggests that stake-based protocols or real-time renewable forecasting can further reduce PoW’s carbon impact without sacrificing trust [120]. BT increasingly supports green-energy trading and clear carbon accounting. Zuo [36] developed a full-stack prototype on Multichain to tokenize Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) as detailed, unique digital assets. This system manages the entire REC lifecycle, from issuing certificates on the blockchain to securely trading and finally retiring them, effectively preventing double-counting [36]. The blockchain’s energy use is very low (under 0.1 kWh per transaction) due to round-robin mining, making it suitable for sustainability-focused markets. After an REC is used, its token is permanently retired by sending it to a non-spendable address, ensuring each renewable credit is valid only once. With quick confirmation times and minimal transaction fees, this blockchain system provides a practical and eco-friendly alternative to traditional PoW platforms, supporting transparent and efficient environmental compliance [36].

Beyond renewable certificates, advanced methods like multi-agent systems and game theory further enhance low-carbon energy trading. Zulfiqar et al. [123] introduce a framework combining Multi-Agent Systems (MAS), a two-layer Trust-Management System (TMS), and blockchain-based Proof-of-Cooperation. Households act as prosumer agents trading energy through an Aggregator, minimizing energy loss and boosting renewable use. Trust scores detect fraud, while a cooperative game strategy encourages long-term collaboration. PoC’s low-energy blockchain validation and off-chain data storage ensure efficiency and privacy. Simulations demonstrate higher cooperation and reduced fossil-fuel dependency, effectively promoting a circular economy through secure and transparent renewable-energy trading [123].

Enterprise-grade BFT ledgers show that energy-lean consensus is already powering real-world micro-grid pilots. Performance tests on the Tendermint engine record ≈ 438 TPS with deterministic finality of 3.45 ± 0.99 s [124], while Hyperledger Fabric 2.5 reaches ≈ 3000 TPS and sub-second commit times when blocks are cut every 2s. This makes BFT blockchains an attractive backbone for peer-to-peer energy markets and advanced metering infrastructures, complementing the Hyperledger-based AMI and REC tokenization solutions discussed above.

These advancements directly contribute to the goals of SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

5.1.2. Climate-Change Mitigation

Blockchain technology (BT) plays a growing role in climate-change mitigation by enhancing carbon accounting, supporting renewable-energy systems, strengthening ESG reporting, and facilitating climate finance. As global CO₂ emissions reached 36.8 billion tons in 2022, with China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan leading in contributions [125], the limitations of existing mitigation frameworks—such as data opacity, greenwashing, and fragmented tracking—have become increasingly evident. Blockchain offers a decentralized, tamper-proof infrastructure capable of embedding transparency, traceability, and accountability into climate-action strategies.

Several applications demonstrate BT’s practical impact. The Toucan Protocol, for instance, has tokenized over 25 million tons of carbon credits, while Power Ledger has facilitated more than 250 GWh in green-energy trading, avoiding an estimated 180,000 tons of CO₂ emissions. These platforms exemplify blockchain’s potential to close accountability gaps and incentivize low-carbon behavior by ensuring reliable emissions data and automating compliance mechanisms aligned with the Paris Agreement and SDG 13 (Climate Action).

Multiple studies have highlighted blockchain’s role in streamlining carbon accounting and reducing emissions. Arshad et al. [46] and Khan et al. [47] underscore how decentralized platforms support real-time emissions monitoring and enhance data integrity. Truby et al. [48] discuss the use of digital tokens to reward sustainable behaviors, while Wang [126] and Fu et al. [50] demonstrate blockchain’s capacity for GHG tracking across supply chains. Tokenizing carbon credits, as proposed by Yao et al. [52] and Zhu et al. [53], further promotes transparent offsetting and facilitates ESG alignment. Alotaibi et al. [54] show how blockchain frameworks automate supply-chain emissions tracking, reinforcing environmental governance.

Closely related to these initiatives is the issuance, exchange, and retirement of carbon credits on blockchain, as examined by Sipthorpe et al. [60]. These mechanisms reduce fraud and duplication, thereby encouraging investment in verified emissions-reduction programs. The secure ledger design ensures each carbon credit corresponds to a legitimate reduction, supporting transparent and accountable carbon markets.

Blockchain also contributes to sustainable transportation by integrating electric vehicles (EVs) into decentralized energy systems. Research by Fu et al. [50], Wang [126], and Khan et al. [47] illustrates how BT optimizes EV charging infrastructure and enables smart-grid coordination. The Mobility Open Blockchain Initiative (MOBI) exemplifies this application by registering EV data and usage to promote low-emission mobility solutions under SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Beyond energy and transport, blockchain supports climate-conscious innovation. Studies by Olivier et al. [51], Truby et al. [48], and Arshad et al. [46] highlight blockchain’s ability to incentivize sustainable practices, enable transparent climate finance, and monitor emissions in real time. These capabilities extend blockchain’s contribution to broader environmental goals, including SDGs 11, 13, and 15, by fostering resilient cities, ecosystems, and biodiversity protection.

Quantifiable impacts are evident across several domains. For example, blockchain has reduced fraud in African climate-finance programs by up to 60% [127], has improved ESG reporting accuracy by 20–30% [128], and has enabled food-supply chains to cut waste by 40% through enhanced traceability [119]. Projects like Plastic Bank [100] and Everledger [117] demonstrate blockchain’s role in sustainable product verification and circular-economy initiatives (For more details see: Everledger—Sustainable sourcing through blockchain transparency. Available at: https://everledger.io/).

As summarized in

Table 5. Quantifiable contributions of blockchain to climate-change mitigation.

Blockchain Use Case	Climate Impact/Benefit	Quantified Outcome	Source
Carbon Credit Tokenization & Trading	Improves transparency and trust in voluntary carbon markets	25+ million tons CO2 tokenized on-chain (Toucan, KlimaDAO)	[129]
	Reduces fraud and double-counting	Blockchain can cut transaction fraud and duplication by 30–50%	[128,130]
Peer-to-Peer Renewable Energy Trading	Decentralized local energy exchange lowers grid emissions	1.6 tons CO2 reduction per household annually (Brooklyn Microgrid)	[131]
	Increases access and efficiency of clean energy markets	250+ GWh of green energy traded, 180,000 tons CO2 avoided (Power Ledger)	[132]
Supply Chain Traceability	Tracks emissions across food and product lifecycles	Up to 40% reduction in food waste, improved logistics energy efficiency (Read more about the Greenhouse Gas Protocol: Scope 3 standard developed by World Resources Institute (2023) Available at https://ghgprotocol.org)	[133]
	Measures and reduces Scope 3 emissions	Scope 3 = 70%+ of corporate footprint, better tracked via blockchain	[134]
ESG Reporting & Climate Finance	Increases data integrity in sustainability-linked financial instruments	ESG reporting errors reduced by 20–30% in pilot studies	[128]
	Enables transparent climate-resilient financing	Loan fraud reduced by 60% in African blockchain climate finance programs	[127]
Sustainable Product Verification	Ensures ethical sourcing and lifecycle documentation of materials	Supports premium pricing and consumer trust in low-carbon goods	[117]
Circular Economy (Waste Tokenization)	Incentivizes recycling and reuse through tokenized systems	Used in projects like Plastic Bank to reduce plastic waste & CO2	[71]

, these use cases underscore blockchain’s ability to operationalize climate goals by improving emissions traceability, fostering inclusive energy access, and securing climate-related transactions. With its potential to enhance trust, efficiency, and resilience, blockchain can play a pivotal role in advancing global decarbonization targets.

5.1.3. Environmental Conservation

Environmental conservation represents a third key area where blockchain contributes to sustainability goals. By enabling secure data recording and real-time traceability, blockchain enhances transparency in supply-chain management, supports biodiversity protection, and promotes ecological integrity. Research highlights how blockchain systems have been deployed to track product movements from origin to consumption, thereby ensuring compliance with sustainable sourcing practices and reducing environmental violations [5,17,45,135]. In water-resource management, blockchain improves fairness and efficiency by documenting extraction, purification, and distribution activities [58]. These applications align closely with SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Similarly, in green construction, blockchain is used to monitor sustainable building materials and practices, offering immutable records that verify adherence to environmental standards and contribute to urban sustainability goals [57,59,61]. Blockchain also supports public engagement in conservation efforts by facilitating tokenized investment in reforestation, biodiversity protection, and habitat restoration through platforms such as Earth Token [37,38,39]. Moreover, smart contracts have been utilized to automate policy compliance and manage environmental incentives or penalties [32,55,63].

In summary, blockchain enhances environmental sustainability by addressing key challenges such as data opacity, accountability gaps, and resource mismanagement. Its applications in renewable-energy systems, carbon markets, sustainable supply chains, and environmental monitoring illustrate its potential to achieve outcomes aligned with SDGs 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. As the field advances, the adoption of energy-efficient consensus mechanisms such as Proof-of-Stake (PoS) represents a significant step toward minimizing blockchain’s own environmental footprint [48,54]. Continued policy support, standardization, and stakeholder collaboration will be critical to harness blockchain’s full capacity as an enabler of environmental transformation.

5.2. Blockchain in Economic Sustainability

Economic sustainability, as emphasized in the UN-SDGs, involves promoting long-term economic development that ensures the efficient use of resources without compromising future generations’ needs [126]. Key targets such as SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production) require integrated strategies that promote transparency, innovation, and inclusivity. In this context, blockchain technology (BT) emerges as a transformative tool capable of addressing information asymmetries, automating processes, and enhancing security across multiple economic functions.

5.2.1. Energy Efficiency

One of the most prominent applications of BT in this domain lies in improving energy efficiency. Blockchain enables decentralized energy systems by verifying, automating, and securing energy transactions without intermediaries [41]. Studies have shown that smart contracts can reward energy-saving behaviors and streamline peer-to-peer trading, supporting both SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action) [40]. These decentralized mechanisms lower operational costs and promote the integration of renewable sources, contributing to environmental and economic co-benefits. Beyond infrastructure design, the consensus layer itself has become a decisive lever for both environmental and economic sustainability. Current empirical studies show that a single Bitcoin PoW payment still absorbs on the order of 1100–1300 kWh of electricity [47,127], whereas Ethereum’s post-Merge PoS has slashed that figure to ≈ 0.03 kWh—a >99.9% reduction [44]. Permissioned or authority-based networks push the number even lower: VeChainThor, for example, verifies transactions at ≈ 0.000 216 kWh, and off-chain settlement layers, such as the Bitcoin Lightning Network, operate in the milli-kWh range (≈ 0.015 kWh) [136,137]. These order-of-magnitude gaps illustrate that choosing an energy-lean consensus protocol is not just a climate imperative but a hard-nosed economic decision: lower electricity demand translates directly into reduced operating expenditure for validators, cheaper transaction fees for users, and a more resilient business model for decentralized energy marketplaces. For this reason, energy efficiency is treated under the wider banner of Economic Sustainability, because it directly affects the long-term cost structure and value-creation potential of blockchain-enabled systems. Layer-2 solutions decouple throughput from on-chain energy consumption. Ethereum’s optimistic rollups (e.g., Arbitrum, Optimism) batch thousands of transactions off-chain, achieving ≈2000–4500 TPS at <0.001 kWh per transfer, but with a one-week withdrawal delay [138]. ZK-rollups reach ≈9000 TPS with immediate validity-proof finality but require specialized hardware [139]. Bitcoin’s Lightning Network enables instant micropayments at around 0.015 kWh per transaction [140]. By significantly reducing energy usage while preserving economic utility, these solutions underscore consensus and settlement design as key to blockchain sustainability.

Beyond infrastructure, blockchain-based financial solutions also offer socioeconomic advantages by bridging financing gaps in rural areas and supporting resource-poor economies [32]. For instance, Bosona and Gebresenbet [87] demonstrate how blockchain-enhanced agricultural finance platforms strengthen rural supply chains, advancing SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 12.

5.2.2. Promoting Fair Trade

Another key area of blockchain’s contribution to economic sustainability is the promotion of fair trade through enhanced traceability and accountability. Ecolabels, which indicate ethical sourcing and sustainability, require robust verification systems to maintain consumer trust. Blockchain’s immutable ledgers provide a technological foundation for self-verifying ecolabels that reduce dependence on external certifiers [100,101,102]. These systems foster consumer confidence, ensure fair wages, and allow for premium pricing of ethically produced goods. However, successful adoption is contingent on organizational readiness and inter-organizational cooperation. Public–private partnerships in this domain often face transparency and accountability issues, which blockchain can help resolve by clearly defining roles and fostering trust. Hsieh et al. [86] note that improved traceability throughout the value chain contributes to greater supply-chain equity and reinforces consumer loyalty.

5.2.3. Supply-Chain Management

Sustainable supply-chain management forms a cornerstone of economic growth by promoting efficiency, reducing waste, and maintaining social and ecological standards. Blockchain plays a pivotal role here, offering a decentralized, immutable ledger to track goods from production to delivery [5,7,17,21,98,135]. This real-time visibility mitigates counterfeit and gray-market risks [135], fosters environmentally friendly production methods, and automates sustainability agreements [23]. By meticulously documenting product lifecycles [135], blockchain undergirds circular economy frameworks.

Numerous studies attest to BT’s cost-saving and risk-management capabilities in global supply chains, whether through real-time data sharing [13,56,72,73] or immutable transaction records [74,75,76]. Consensus mechanisms reduce reliance on traditional intermediaries [77,78], while token-based incentives and trust-enabling platforms broaden stakeholder participation [79,80,81,98,115]. Furthermore, enhanced traceability improves risk assessment, fortifies brand reputation, and meets evolving regulatory demands [77,84]. As emphasized by Spanaki et al. [85] and Qian et al. [26], integrating blockchain can optimize supply-chain finance, paving the way for more resilient and competitive networks. These benefits can be further augmented through integration with Industry 5.0 technologies, which emphasize human-centric design, real-time data processing, and resilience in organizational reporting [15]. In specific sectors, such as agriculture, blockchain drives transparency, resource efficiency, and equitable market access. A major advantage is real-time traceability throughout the agri-food supply chain, helping eliminate fraud and enhance food safety [89]. In parallel, smart contracts and IoT-integrated blockchain frameworks streamline transaction efficiency and quality control for agricultural inputs [91,94,141]. This automation cuts waste, lowers operational costs, and promotes data-driven farm practices [87,92]. By sharing agronomic insights through collaborative digital platforms, producers can coordinate logistics and adopt climate-smart interventions for soil health and pest management [95,96,104].

Multi-case analysis of Italian agri-food chains (wine, beer, dairy) demonstrates that smart-contract automation and shared ledgers reduce information asymmetry and elevate relationship quality, yet power redistribution depends on market structure: dominant buyers can mandate standards, whereas fragmented chains rely on consensus-building to avoid new tensions [22].

Simply recording large-scale data on blockchain platforms does not guarantee sustainable outcomes; organizational learning and adaptive decision-making are equally important. Hua et al. [142] find that Chinese manufacturing firms combining blockchain adoption with robust supply chain learning (SCL) achieve greater environmental and social benefits. In their approach, smart contracts and automated alerts trigger swift, collaborative interventions (for example, “supplier–buyer workshops”) when anomalous waste or emissions levels arise. However, organizational inertia can hinder progress by preventing firms from turning raw blockchain data into genuine eco-design and supplier-development initiatives [142].

Blockchain’s broader influence also affects inter-platform competition and product greenness. Hsieh et al. [76] use a three-stage Stackelberg model to show that, although BC-powered eco-verification can boost trust, high blockchain fees may diminish profitability and limit green product design. Beyond supply-chain traceability, blockchain’s credibility effect is also transforming competitive strategies and green pricing. Ma and Dai [92] model a duopoly in which an eco-friendly (EF) retailer certifies its products on-chain while a non-eco (NE) rival does not. When the share of “green consumers” (α) exceeds 0.5 and blockchain credibly boosts trust (γ), price competition relaxes in favor of the EF firm; below that threshold, profitability hinges on who controls BC transaction fees. Their exogenous- versus endogenous-fee analysis underscores how governance of permissioned consensus (e.g., PBFT or PoA) can determine whether on-chain eco-certification is economically viable. By embedding carbon disclosures in smart-contract events and IPFS logs, the framework also deters greenwashing, aligning cost competitiveness with authentic sustainability claims. Furthermore, ESG-focused blockchain approaches strengthen sustainability metrics: Liu et al. [16] introduce a dual-index rating system linking the quality (“depth”) and coverage (“breadth”) of corporate disclosures to token issuance, and Liu et al. [143] apply Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA-2) on Hyperledger Fabric to rank textile/apparel firms. Although maintenance costs on-chain can exceed centralized databases, these immutable ESG records mitigate greenwashing and enhance stakeholder trust [16,143]. Blockchain also accelerates modular ESG scoring and fosters circular-economy principles. Hasan et al. [144] develop an Ethereum–IPFS architecture with dedicated KPI smart contracts (e.g., Packaging, Production Process, Consumer Use) and registration/assurance modules. Each KPI update—such as a change in greenhouse-gas intensity or recycled-material ratio—triggers an on-chain Sustainability Index Score (SIS) recalculation. Off-loading full audit files to IPFS while hashing them on-chain conserves gas; typical KPI transactions cost just USD 0.58–1.17, and a Slither audit validates contract robustness. Because every revision is instantly immutably logged, producers are nudged toward continuous eco-improvement, embedding cradle-to-cradle metrics into supply-chain governance and incentivizing greener value chains. Overall, technical excellence, secure smart contracts, scalable consensus, and organizational enablers, such as collaborative governance and cost-sharing, are essential for turning blockchain’s supply-chain transparency into tangible sustainability gains.

5.2.4. Employment and Income Distribution

Blockchain further contributes to economic sustainability by influencing employment structures and income distribution. On the one hand, technology facilitates the emergence of new job roles in blockchain development, auditing, and compliance. On the other hand, automation through smart contracts and decentralized systems may displace workers in intermediary-heavy roles, especially in logistics and financial services [92]. This dual impact underscores the importance of strategic reskilling and technological literacy to support workforce transitions. Nazir and Fan [93] emphasize that blockchain also promotes financial inclusion by lowering transaction costs and improving cross-border payments, especially in unbanked and underbanked regions. These applications align with SDG 9 (Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), while highlighting the need for proactive policy measures to ensure equitable transitions.

Overall, blockchain supports economic sustainability by enhancing energy efficiency, promoting fair trade practices, increasing supply-chain transparency, and fostering inclusive employment structures. While technology offers significant opportunities to transform economic systems, its full potential depends on the alignment of infrastructure, regulation, and stakeholder engagement. Coordinated efforts from governments, industries, and civil society are critical to ensure that blockchain adoption not only advances efficiency and innovation but also promotes equity, resilience, and long-term economic well-being.

5.3. Blockchain for Social Sustainability

Blockchain technology significantly impacts social sustainability by addressing systemic inequities and promoting a more transparent, inclusive, and resilient society [111]. Aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), blockchain enhances quality of life by improving service access and strengthening institutional trust [145,146]. This section synthesizes the relevant literature and applications across key themes, demonstrating blockchain’s transformative role in equitable resource distribution and the development of inclusive societal infrastructures.

5.3.1. Equality, Social Inclusion, and Quality of Life

Blockchain plays a crucial role in democratizing access to vital services, especially in education. AlShamsi et al. [108] emphasize how decentralized credential-verification platforms expand opportunities for marginalized groups, helping dismantle barriers to participation and promoting SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Its inherent transparency and decentralization provide structural remedies to embedded social inequalities. The authors use a combined theoretical framework to show that satisfaction and trust significantly influence blockchain acceptance on university campuses, accounting for 68% of its success. Technically, energy-efficient consensus methods and smart contracts simplify administrative processes, reducing costs and carbon emissions. However, if systems become difficult to use, adoption can stall. Thus, educational institutions should prioritize user-friendly interfaces and sustainable operations to ensure the long-term success of blockchain implementations [108].

To explore the mechanisms behind the BT impact on social sustainability, Dadhich et al. [111], focusing on IT firms, examined the relationships among blockchain adoption, social networks, trust, and social sustainability. Their findings indicate that blockchain affects social sustainability only indirectly, through strengthened networks and increased trust.

Financial inclusion is another domain where blockchain demonstrates high impact. By facilitating peer-to-peer transactions and removing the need for traditional financial intermediaries, blockchain reduces costs and increases access for unbanked populations. Cerchione et al. [109] discuss how decentralized finance (DeFi) and blockchain-based micro-payment systems benefit rural and underserved communities, contributing to SDGs 1 (No Poverty), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and 10 (Reduced Inequalities). Platforms such as BanQu illustrate these benefits by enabling identity-linked financial access for refugees and disenfranchised individuals [110].

Blockchain also provides secure-ownership documentation in regions where land registries are informal or nonexistent. This functionality protects vulnerable populations from dispossession, supporting property rights and social stability. In parallel, BT empowers marginalized entrepreneurs, including smallholder farmers, by offering direct access to markets and reducing reliance on centralized platforms. Cerchione et al. [109] show that these disintermediation mechanisms strengthen SDG 8 (Decent Work) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

Moreover, blockchain contributes to environmental and urban social sustainability [32] through transparent supply chains and lower ecological footprints. Almasri and Ying [71] link BT to improved urban living, consistent with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities). In the energy sector, blockchain facilitates peer-to-peer trading and decentralized energy access, as exemplified by the Brooklyn Microgrid project, supporting SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy).

5.3.2. Secure Identity Verification

Blockchain enables secure and tamper-proof digital identity systems that are essential for access to education, health care, and financial services—particularly for undocumented or displaced individuals. Blockchain-based academic credentialing indirectly supports broader identity-verification systems, aligned with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) [8].

Verifiable credentials issued on blockchain platforms promote academic and professional mobility while reducing fraud. These digital certificates improve global recognition, social mobility, and employment prospects, supporting both SDG 4 and SDG 8 [8]. Initiatives such as MIT’s Digital Certificates illustrate blockchain’s potential in enabling lifelong learning and more efficient job-application processes.

Blockchain enables secure and tamper-proof digital identity systems that are essential for access to education, health care, and financial services—particularly for undocumented or displaced individuals. Authors highlight how blockchain-based academic credentialing indirectly supports broader identity verification systems, aligned with SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) [108].

Verifiable credentials issued on blockchain platforms promote academic and professional mobility while reducing fraud. AlShamsi et al. [94] demonstrate how these digital certificates improve global recognition, social mobility, and employment prospects, supporting both SDG 4 and SDG 8. Initiatives such as MIT’s Digital Certificates illustrate blockchain’s potential in enabling lifelong learning and more efficient job-application processes.

Moreover, blockchain-based identity frameworks are critical in humanitarian contexts. Böckel et al. [112] and Venkatesh et al. [113] show how BT addresses documentation gaps caused by natural disasters or displacement, thereby enabling access to essential services. These systems foster inclusivity by ensuring individuals can claim healthcare, education, and financial services based on a verifiable identity, ultimately reinforcing social equity and institutional trust.

5.3.3. Business Ethics and Responsible Corporate Governance

Blockchain reinforces business ethics through traceable and accountable transactions. Sustainable practices are achieved through ethical sourcing and real-time verification in corporate operations [95]. The literature on corporate governance also affirms that ethical transparency is positively correlated with firm performance and sustainability outcomes [114,115].

Decentralized governance models built on blockchain further enable secure civic participation. Platforms like Voatz exemplify blockchain’s use in secure digital voting systems, advancing democratic engagement and institutional legitimacy. These systems are particularly impactful for marginalized groups who face voting barriers. Nevertheless, Bernards et al. [72] caution that, without equitable regulatory frameworks, blockchain could reinforce existing power imbalances. Despite this concern, BT contributes significantly to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions) through its potential for institutional integrity and participatory governance.

A pan-European survey of 165 government pilots found that most projects focus on tamper-proof registries that heighten transparency and citizen trust, yet relatively few experiment with full co-governance models such as voting DAOs, highlighting an emerging tension between oversight gains and unchanged decision rights [137].

Supply-chain visibility is a key area where blockchain strengthens ethical business conduct. BT ensures the traceability of materials and labor conditions across production networks, aligning with SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). Balzarova et al. [101] emphasize its role in verifying fair labor standards, while Almasri and Ying [71] and Aslam et al. [75] underscore blockchain’s capacity to optimize logistics transparency in circular supply chains. Organizations like Fairfood International use blockchain to validate labor practices and ethical sourcing.

Research shows that immutable ledgers empower both producers and consumers by documenting every transaction from origin to retail [88,90,118]. This transparency promotes premium pricing models for verified sustainable products [87]. Further, studies highlight how blockchain deters counterfeiting and reinforces trust in sustainability claims [71,112].

Further, blockchain incentivizes responsible consumption through mechanisms such as waste tokenization and smart contracts in supply chains. Projects like Plastic Bank reflect blockchain’s potential in circular economy models. Almasri and Ying [71] and Alofi et al. [120] describe how blockchain facilitates energy efficiency and materials reuse in alignment with SDGs 11, 12, and 13. Studies support these claims with evidence on supply-chain traceability and efficiency [75,109]

Real-world examples reinforce these dynamics: IBM Food Trust and BeefLedger trace food provenance; LVMH’s AURA verifies luxury goods’ authenticity [25]; Chronicled combats pharmaceutical fraud; Verisart authenticates digital art; BMW applies BT in automotive traceability; and Lavazza uses blockchain for consumer empowerment [88,113].

5.3.4. Sustainable Consumption and Consumer Trust

In the fashion and apparel industry, consumers often doubt eco-friendly claims due to greenwashing or insufficient data. Blockchain technology helps reduce uncertainty by enhancing transparency and building trust [24,98,115]. The authors highlight that consumers value clear sustainability details, such as material origin, energy use, and carbon footprints. Their research involved testing a blockchain-based mobile app interface with 282 European consumers. The results showed that increased blockchain transparency significantly improves consumer trust (β = +0.578, p < 0.001) and satisfaction (β = +0.244, p < 0.01). Higher satisfaction reduces uncertainty about product sustainability (β = −0.261, p < 0.001), although excessive information can negatively impact satisfaction [24].

Further exploring blockchain’s benefits, Hina et al. [147] focus on blockchain’s core features—Transparency, Traceability, and Immutability (TTI)—combined with consumer values. Their study, involving 295 participants, found that TTI primarily enhances trust and information clarity. These factors fully mediate the relationship between TTI and green purchasing intentions. Functional convenience was less influential compared to trust and clarity. The authors suggest concise blockchain-based disclosures, like layered information or “carbon badge” formats, to avoid overwhelming users and to effectively promote eco-friendly apparel purchases [24].

5.4. Challenges and Solutions to Enhance Sustainability-Driven Blockchain Impact

Despite blockchain’s growing prominence in sustainability initiatives, tangible adoption remains uneven across geographies and sectors. As multiple studies emphasize [13,56], technological infrastructure, regulatory alignment, and user acceptance are central barriers to more extensive implementation. Moreover, even if blockchain’s internal functionalities, such as immutability, smart contracts, and decentralized consensus are sound in theory (see our four-layer framework in Section 4), achieving sustainability benefits in real-world contexts requires a careful alignment with external enablers and constraints (as elaborated further in Section 6). This alignment often proves elusive when frameworks focus too heavily on organizational advantages and underemphasize stakeholder collaboration and end-user adoption.

One key challenge lies in bridging the gap between blockchain’s functions (for example, “Track Flows,” “Validate Products,” or “Policy Tracking”) and the regulatory, social, and institutional environment that shapes actual usage. Technology-focused solutions, though critical, can falter if policies remain fragmented, users lack awareness, or market players resist altering legacy systems [148]. This tension mirrors our paper’s twofold conceptual approach: (1) the internal, technology-centered four-layer framework (Section 4), and (2) the more comprehensive, externally oriented model (Section 6) that highlights institutional and stakeholder-driven factors.

Scalability and security remain crucial concerns. Although core blockchain attributes such as immutability and decentralized consensus offer strong assurances, higher transaction volumes can diminish performance and drive-up costs [10,21]. Simultaneously, emerging cyber threats can erode confidence in the technology [20], especially where regulatory frameworks lag behind rapid technological evolution (see Section 6 on broader institutional gaps).

Energy consumption represents another significant barrier. Blockchains reliant on PoW require substantial computational power, which clashes with sustainability goals emphasizing a reduced environmental impact [13,119]. While more efficient consensus models, such as PoS, align better with the aims of the four-layer framework detailed in Section 4, their broader adoption also hinges on policy support and stakeholder cooperation (see Section 6).

Regulatory and ethical complexities arise from the transnational character of blockchain, which complicates compliance with divergent legal standards [149]. Although the four-layer model underscores how traceability and authenticity can bolster ethical sourcing, external considerations—including privacy legislation and global anti–money laundering norms—can impede seamless implementation without proactive regulatory alignment [128].

Resistance and adoption hurdles often stem from a mismatch between blockchain’s theoretical potential (elaborated in Section 4) and actual stakeholder readiness (explored in Section 6). Many small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) lack the requisite training or capital to adopt blockchain technologies [102,148], indicating that purely technical solutions may stall unless they are bolstered by education, funding, and collaborative governance structures.

Economic and societal implications can be both transformative and disruptive. Blockchain has the capacity to redistribute economic power by minimizing intermediaries and enhancing transparency, yet it also risks displacing traditional employment sectors. As the second framework in Section 6 highlights, achieving equitable value distribution calls for inclusive policy measures such as job retraining and microfinancing, aimed at mitigating potential inequalities [13,21].

Collaborative strategies for overcoming challenges must, therefore, integrate external institutional variables with the internal design features described in the four-layer framework. For example, transitioning to consensus mechanisms like PoS or Proof-of-Authority, together with regulatory harmonization and targeted incentives [10], can significantly reduce energy consumption and stimulate broader adoption. Streamlined cross-border regulations can enhance compliance, broaden the scope of applications, and raise public trust in decentralized networks [149]. A focus on stakeholder acceptance, achieved through user-friendly interfaces and transparent data logs, can extend blockchain’s societal footprint—particularly in consumer-oriented domains.

Our domain-based examination underscores both the potential of blockchain across environmental, economic, and social spheres and the multi-faceted challenges it faces. Building on these insights, Section 6 presents a more holistic conceptual model that situates blockchain adoption within Institutional and Stakeholder Theories, capturing how external pressures, stakeholder demands, and internal enablers converge to drive or constrain blockchain’s sustainable impact.

6. Comprehensive Framework for Sustainable Impact

While Section 4’s four-layer framework illustrates how blockchain’s core attributes translate into tangible sustainability outcomes, it does not fully capture the broader social, regulatory, and institutional context shaping adoption. To address this gap, we present here a more encompassing conceptual model (Figure 5) that integrates Institutional Theory and Stakeholder Theory. This second framework highlights how external institutional pressures (e.g., regulatory mandates, cultural norms) and diverse stakeholder expectations (e.g., ethical sourcing, transparency) influence the uptake of blockchain’s technical features and functional capabilities. It also accounts for major challenges—such as scalability, energy consumption, and regulatory complexity—and identifies internal enablers, such as human expertise and digital capacity. By merging these external and internal elements, this framework offers a holistic view of how blockchain adoption unfolds and, ultimately, advances sustainability goals across environmental, economic, and social domains.

Recent scholarship underscores both the need for a holistic socioeconomic theory integrating human well-being, environmental protection, and social equity. This is proposed by sustainalism with a six-principle (6S) model [150] and the nascent, yet promising, attempts by industrial sectors to adopt blockchain for circular economy objectives, spanning manufacturing, construction, and large-scale waste management [64]. While the sustainalism framework highlights regenerative practices and resource efficiency, practical implementations of blockchain still face major impediments, such as high energy consumption, interoperability challenges, and fragmented regulations, that hinder scale-up. This dual perspective aligns with our second framework’s emphasis on how external institutional pressures (e.g., policy mandates, stakeholder demands) intersect with blockchain’s internal mechanics to produce meaningful, long-term sustainability outcomes.

In this model, blockchain capabilities function as mediators that translate institutional and stakeholder pressures into concrete sustainability outcomes. Specifically, the framework shows how blockchain can benefit environmental initiatives (e.g., carbon footprint monitoring, renewable energy markets,), drive economic gains (e.g., fair trade, efficient supply chains, financial inclusion), and support social objectives (e.g., product authenticity, traceability, responsible governance). Simultaneously, it outlines how blockchain’s sustainable features (transparency, decentralization) intersect with critical obstacles such as regulatory compliance and scalability. This dynamic creates a feedback loop wherein successful sustainability outcomes further reinforce blockchain adoption and spur ongoing innovation.

Unlike the four-layer model in Section 4, which dissects the internal logic of blockchain’s attributes, sub-capabilities, and derived impacts, the framework in Figure 5 broadens the scope by incorporating Institutional Theory (pressures, norms, cultural-cognitive factors) and Stakeholder Theory (demands for ethical sourcing, fair trade, transparency). These theories explain why organizations feel compelled to adopt blockchain, as well as how diverse stakeholder groups steer its design and deployment. By highlighting both external pressures and internal complexities, this second framework paints a more comprehensive landscape of blockchain’s sustainable impact—one that balances technical potential against real-world challenges.

Taken together, the two frameworks presented in Section 4 and Section 6 provide a dual perspective on blockchain’s sustainability potential. The first model elaborates how blockchain’s technical features progress into practical sustainability outcomes, offering a granular view of the technology’s internal mechanisms. The second situates blockchain adoption within a broader socio-institutional context, encompassing stakeholder demands, regulatory mandates, and technical considerations. In the subsequent sections (7 and 8), we build on this integrated understanding to propose future research directions and policy recommendations aimed at maximizing blockchain’s transformative role in sustainable development.

7. Challenges and Solutions to Enhance Sustainability-Driven Blockchain Impact

Building on the insights from the four-layer framework in Section 4 (which details how core blockchain attributes yield sustainability outcomes), the domain-based classification in Section 5 (which highlights blockchain’s applications in environmental, economic, and social sustainability), and the comprehensive conceptual framework in Section 6 (which integrates the Institutional and Stakeholder Theories), this section examines the key obstacles hindering blockchain’s broader adoption for sustainable development. It also proposes multi-level strategies—spanning technical, regulatory, and socio-economic spheres—to address these challenges and unlock blockchain’s full potential for sustainability.

Despite blockchain’s growing prominence in sustainability initiatives, tangible adoption remains uneven across geographies and sectors. As multiple studies emphasize [13,56] technological infrastructure, regulatory alignment, and user acceptance are central barriers to more extensive implementation. Moreover, even if blockchain’s internal functionalities—such as immutability, smart contracts, and decentralized consensus—are sound in theory (see the four-layer framework in Section 4), achieving sustainability benefits in real-world contexts requires a careful alignment with external enablers and constraints (as elaborated further in Section 6). This alignment often proves elusive when frameworks focus too heavily on organizational advantages and underemphasize stakeholder collaboration and end-user adoption.

One key challenge lies in bridging the gap between blockchain’s technical functions (for example, “Track Flows”, “Validate Products”, or “Policy Tracking”) and the regulatory, social, and institutional environment that shapes actual usage. Technology-focused solutions—though critical—can falter if policies remain fragmented, users lack awareness, or market players resist altering legacy systems [148]. Although blockchain’s internal functionalities promise significant sustainability benefits, real-world outcomes depend on alignment with external enablers and domain-specific requirements. Failure to reconcile these internal and external factors can lead to partial or stalled implementation. For instance, functionalities such as flow tracking products’ validation require not only robust on-chain protocols but also supportive regulations for digital signatures and active stakeholder cooperation in data sharing. When these elements are misaligned, pilot projects may prove theoretically sound but practically unworkable.

7.1. Key Challenges

Scalability and security remain critical concerns. Although core blockchain attributes such as immutability and decentralized consensus offer strong assurances, high transaction volumes can increase costs and degrade network performance [10,21]. Simultaneously, emerging cyber threats erode confidence in technology [20], especially where regulatory frameworks lag its rapid evolution. This issue directly impacts the reliability of traceability and authenticity features that underpin both the four-layer (Section 4) and comprehensive (Section 6) frameworks. An illustrative example is large retailers reverting to centralized databases for food provenance after encountering high fees and slow speeds on PoW blockchains.

High energy consumption poses another significant barrier. While blockchain can enable greener operations through peer-to-peer energy trading or carbon tokenization (Section 4 and Section 5), networks using PoW consume substantial computational power, which clashes with sustainability goals for a reduced environmental impact [13,118]. Though PoS and similar alternatives show promise, broader adoption still hinges on policy support and stakeholder cooperation (see Section 6). Bitcoin’s PoW mechanism, for instance, has been criticized for an energy footprint comparable to that of entire nations.

Regulatory and ethical complexities arise because blockchain solutions often require cross-border collaboration, yet legal standards differ significantly among jurisdictions [149]. Data privacy can become problematic when sensitive supply-chain or personal information is stored on-chain [6], while AML and KYC requirements remain challenging for decentralized ecosystems. As highlighted by the four-layer model, blockchain can bolster traceability and authenticity for ethical sourcing, but compliance with regionally variable privacy laws and anti-money-laundering rules can stall progress without proactive regulatory harmonization [128]. A multinational food producer seeking end-to-end blockchain traceability might, for instance, struggle with contradictory data-protection regulations in each operating region.

Resistance to change and adoption barriers persist where businesses or individuals lack the resources, training, or trust to adopt decentralized technologies [102,148]. SMEs, which form the backbone of many global value chains (Section 5.2), often do not have the capital or internal expertise to implement blockchain-based systems. This scenario undercuts stakeholder-driven adoption logics in Section 6, as even well-designed solutions may fail to scale without comprehensive education, funding, and governance structures.

Economic and societal implications can be transformative and disruptive. Blockchain reduces reliance on intermediaries and enhances transparency, yet it also threatens certain job sectors. For equitable value distribution, inclusive measures like microfinancing and workforce retraining [13,21] become essential, echoing Stakeholder Theory’s call to address the interests of all affected groups (Section 6). Automated contracts can indeed lower operational costs but can also displace intermediary roles, creating tension between increased efficiency and potential unemployment.

Consumer-centric needs and physical-world tracking call for reliable IoT sensors, tamper-proof data inputs, and intuitive interfaces. Many sustainability applications rely on real-time data, particularly in environmental monitoring and supply-chain traceability. These demands directly affect track flows and validate products (Section 4) and require collaborative governance (Section 6) to ensure complete end-to-end trust. A coffee cooperative that aims to certify fair-trade beans on-chain, for example, needs accurate farm-level data, IoT sensors to track shipments, and user-friendly apps to convey authenticity to consumers.

Table 6. Challenges and strategies for blockchain integration for sustainable solutions.

Challenge	SDG	Strategy	Key Stakeholders
Scalability & Security	SDG 9: Industry, Innovation,	Implement layer-2 solutions (e.g., sidechains, sharding, off-chain transactions) to improve throughput; strengthen cryptographic methods and threat modeling for enhanced security.	Technology providers, R&D institutions, public agencies
High Energy Consumption	SDG 7: Affordable & Clean Energy; SDG 13: Climate Action	Transition from PoW to energy-efficient consensus mechanisms (e.g., PoS, Proof-of-Authority); provide subsidies and support for green-energy blockchain deployments.	Energy regulators, policymakers, blockchain developers
Regulatory & Ethical Complexities	SDG 16: Peace, Justice & Strong Institutions	Develop harmonized international regulations; establish clear data-privacy and anti-money-laundering guidelines; create robust compliance frameworks to govern decentralized networks responsibly.	National governments, global regulatory bodies, NGOs
Resistance to Change & Adoption Barriers	SDG 8: Decent Work & Economic Growth	Launch targeted education and training programs to reduce knowledge gaps; establish public-awareness initiatives to communicate blockchain’s societal benefits; integrate user-friendly design on blockchain platforms.	SMEs, industry consortia, educational institutions
Economic & Societal Implications	SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities; SDG 1: No Poverty	Promote inclusive finance and microfinancing through blockchain; support job retraining and skill development; enforce transparent impact assessments (e.g., carbon footprint, fair labor conditions) to ensure equitable benefits distribution.	Labor ministries, multilateral organizations, private sector
Consumer-Centric Needs & Physical-World Tracking	SDG 12: Responsible Consumption	Develop robust IoT-based tracking systems to complement blockchain’s virtual capabilities; design consumer-oriented interfaces that offer transparency and ethical sourcing information; incentivize consumer engagement through reward schemes or certifications.	Tech start-ups, consumer advocacy groups, retailers

below consolidates these central challenges and strategies to address them. Each strategy is linked to specific SDGs, reflecting blockchain’s potential role in global sustainable development, and highlighting the key stakeholders—policymakers, industry consortia, NGOs, and end-users—needed to guide blockchain toward more equitable and environmentally responsible outcomes.

7.2. Moving Toward Integrated Adoption

Addressing these challenges calls for multi-level coordination. From a technological standpoint, blockchain developers must refine consensus algorithms and interoperability protocols to handle diverse sustainability scenarios. On the institutional side, governments and regulatory agencies should align data-privacy and environmental policies with blockchain’s decentralized ethos. Stakeholder acceptance is equally critical: broad education and training programs, particularly for SMEs and marginalized communities, can demystify blockchain and foster equitable participation (Section 5.2 and Section 5.3). To reliably integrate physical assets and on-chain data, organizations also need robust IoT infrastructure and consumer-engagement mechanisms. To fully realize its social benefits, policymakers should invest in training and foster trust-based stakeholder networks [111].

Although blockchain’s inherent attributes hold promise for advancing environmental, economic, and social sustainability, real-world uptake hinges on addressing scale, energy usage, institutional readiness, stakeholder buy-in, and physical–digital integration. By proactively implementing the solutions outlined above and by using the frameworks from Section 4 and Section 6 as strategic roadmaps, policymakers, industry leaders, and civil society can collectively ensure that blockchain becomes a catalyst for long-term, broad-based sustainable development.

8. Limitations and Future Research Directions

Despite the breadth of studies reviewed, three structural limitations remain.

First, scalability versus decentralization remains unresolved. Most empirical evidence is drawn from PoW networks even though newer consensus mechanisms such as PoS, Byzantine Fault Tolerance variants, and layer-2 roll-ups promise higher throughput and lower energy use. Robust, comparative data on how these architectures affect carbon intensity, transaction finality, and governance inclusiveness are still scarce.

Second, regulatory fragmentation hinders generalizability. Jurisdictions differ widely in how they classify tokens, recognize smart contracts, and apply data-protection or energy-efficiency rules. As a result, case findings drawn from one country may not translate to another, and firms operating across borders face compliance uncertainty that can stall investment.

Third, organizational adoption barriers persist. High up-front costs for infrastructure integration, limited in-house cryptographic expertise, and cultural resistance to transparent ledgers constrain deployment, especially among SMEs [13,20]. Existing studies rarely quantify how these factors moderate the sustainability pay-offs of blockchain projects.

To move the field forward, researchers should conduct longitudinal, cross-jurisdiction trials that benchmark PoS, BFT, and roll-up architectures against PoW on environmental and governance metrics; assess how regulatory sandboxes and policy harmonization shape blockchain diffusion and impact; model the cost-benefit dynamics of adoption in resource-constrained organizations; and explore emerging intersections such as blockchain Generative-AI convergence [99], digital justice frameworks, and ethical governance.

Table 7. Future research directions for blockchain and technology.

Domain	Future Research Directions
Environmental	- Exploring blockchain’s effectiveness in incentivizing sustainable behaviors (e.g., tokenization, recycling, renewable-energy adoption);- Investigating blockchain applications in biodiversity conservation and climate governance (e.g., tracking endangered species, protected areas, or habitat restoration);- Evaluating long-term impacts of blockchain-driven circular economy models on resource efficiency and stakeholder engagement;- Studying environmental footprint reduction via scalable consensus mechanisms (e.g., PoS);- Integrating blockchain with GenAI for ecosystem monitoring, predictive analytics, and sustainability reporting;- Exploring blockchain’s effectiveness in incentivizing sustainable behaviors through tokenization and reward mechanisms (e.g., recycling, renewable energy adoption).
Economic	- Studying blockchain’s role in reshaping market dynamics, competition, and inclusion through decentralized platforms;- Examining the regulatory implications and economic impact of central-bank digital currencies (CBDCs);- Evaluating blockchain’s effectiveness in enhancing transparency, anti-corruption practices, and fiscal accountability;- Quantifying gains in trade and logistics efficiency through blockchain-based platforms;- Conducting cross-national studies on regulatory sandbox experiments and institutional adaptation.
Social	- Investigating blockchain’s potential to bridge digital divides and expand access to essential services (e.g., education, finance, identity);- Longitudinal analysis of financial inclusion outcomes and social mobility impacts;- Assessing the ethical and privacy risks of blockchain-based digital identity systems, particularly in the Global South;- Exploring blockchain’s application in democratic governance, transparent elections, and humanitarian aid;- Analyzing the impact of blockchain-based credentialing on labor markets, workforce equity, and social trust;- Embedding digital justice frameworks into blockchain design and governance models.

summarizes specific research questions for each sustainability domain (environmental, economic, and social) and highlights promising, yet under-explored, avenues. Collectively, these directions call for interdisciplinary, longitudinal, and impact-oriented studies capable of testing blockchain’s contribution to inclusive, scalable, and ethically grounded sustainability transitions.

In the environmental domain, research is needed to explore the effectiveness of blockchain-based tokenization systems in incentivizing pro-environmental behaviors, including recycling, resource efficiency, and renewable-energy adoption. Studies should assess the long-term behavioral impacts of such reward mechanisms and their integration within circular economy models. The scalability of blockchain platforms and their environmental footprints, especially in relation to consensus mechanisms such as PoS, remain critical areas of inquiry, particularly amid increasing scrutiny over the energy consumption of PoW systems. Another pressing challenge involves assessing the robustness of blockchain-enabled biodiversity monitoring and carbon markets, and their integration with global environmental governance frameworks. The future will also see increasing value in cross-disciplinary studies merging blockchain with GenAI for climate data analysis, ecosystem simulation, and predictive sustainability modeling.

In the economic domain, deeper empirical investigations are required to understand how blockchain reconfigures market structures, including competition, decentralization, and economic inclusion. This includes analyzing peer-to-peer platforms, tokenized economies, and the role of BT in reducing entry barriers for marginalized producers. Beyond markets, blockchain’s implications for monetary governance—such as the development of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs)—merit further exploration, especially in the context of macroeconomic stability and policy autonomy. Transparency in financial auditing, corruption reduction, and fiscal accountability are often touted as benefits of blockchain, yet more real-world, longitudinal studies are necessary to validate these claims. Comparative studies across regulatory sandboxes in different countries could offer key insights into legal harmonization, institutional readiness, and governance innovation.

Within the social domain, blockchain’s potential to promote digital equity, access to services, and institutional trust remains underdeveloped in the literature. Key priorities include examining how decentralized platforms can reduce digital divides and improve access to education, healthcare, and finance. The ethical and privacy implications of blockchain-based digital identities must be scrutinized, with attention to data ownership, surveillance risks, and algorithmic exclusion. Another promising research frontier lies in blockchain’s application in democratic governance, civic participation, and humanitarian aid, especially in fragile or conflict-affected contexts. Additionally, blockchain’s integration into education and labor markets through verifiable credentials should be studied for its impact on social mobility, employability, and workforce inclusion. Future research should explore digital-justice frameworks to ensure these innovations do not inadvertently reinforce social hierarchies or institutional asymmetries.

Collectively, these research directions emphasize the need for interdisciplinary, longitudinal, and impact-oriented studies that evaluate blockchain’s role in fostering inclusive, scalable, and ethically grounded sustainability transitions.

9. Conclusions

This systematic review maps how BT can advance all three pillars of sustainability and clarifies the conditions under which those benefits materialize. By integrating a four-layer technical model with an institutional–stakeholder perspective, the study explains, simultaneously, how blockchain creates value and why organizations decide to adopt it. The analysis of the selected articles reveals a growing body of evidence spanning environmental, economic, and social domains. Environmentally, blockchain underpins renewable-energy trading, emissions tracking, and circular-economy supply chains; economically, it promotes financial inclusion, streamlines trade logistics, and supports decentralized finance; and socially, it facilitates fair-labor verification, secure digital credentials, and transparent governance.

The findings show that blockchain’s transparency, traceability, decentralized governance and secure automation help stakeholders verify environmental metrics, broaden access to inclusive financial services and strengthen social trust.

Nevertheless, three persistent obstacles limit large-scale impact: trade-offs between scalability and energy consumption, fragmented regulation across jurisdictions, and organizational capability gaps. Addressing these issues demands both policy and managerial action. Regulators can harmonize token classifications, formally recognize smart contracts, and incentivize energy-efficient consensus mechanisms. Governments and development banks can de-risk pilot projects through regulatory sandboxes and targeted green-innovation funds, while firms should form cross-sector consortia, invest in workforce up-skilling, and co-design user-centered interfaces with suppliers and end-consumers.

The review also identifies priority directions for future research. Scholars should conduct longitudinal, cross-jurisdiction evaluations that benchmark alternative consensus protocols in live settings, measure long-term social and economic outcomes, and explore emerging convergences between blockchain, generative AI, and digital frameworks. Further work is needed to understand how blockchain can support biodiversity monitoring, transaction privacy, and equitable access while avoiding unintended social hierarchies.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that blockchain can catalyze transparent, equitable, and resilient systems, provided that technical choices, regulatory frameworks, and stakeholder collaborations evolve in harmony. The dual-framework and evidence map offered here equip academics, policymakers, and practitioners with a roadmap for turning blockchain’s promise into measurable progress toward the SDGs.