Blockchain for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper focuses on the potential of blockchain technology for sustainable development, which has important theoretical and practical significance in the current context of digital transformation and sustainable development. However, the paper still needs to be revised in the following aspects before it can be accepted.

(1) The paper lacks an in-depth discussion of the limitations of blockchain technology. Although the paper mentions some challenges faced by blockchain technology, such as scalability, energy consumption, and regulatory uncertainty, the in-depth analysis of these issues is relatively insufficient. For example, in terms of energy consumption, in addition to mentioning the high energy consumption of the proof-of-work consensus mechanism, there is a lack of detailed discussion on the effectiveness and limitations of other more energy-efficient consensus mechanisms in practical applications.

(2) Although the paper regards stakeholder theory as an important theoretical foundation, in practical analysis, the exploration of complex relationships between stakeholders is not deep enough. For example, when blockchain technology is applied to supply chain management, the impact mechanism of the interests and interactions among different stakeholders (such as suppliers, manufacturers, retailers, consumers, etc.) on sustainable development can be further analyzed in depth to better reflect the application value of stakeholder theory.

(3) The case study section in the paper lacks sufficient depth of analysis. Although the paper has cited a large number of literature to support its viewpoint, there is relatively little in-depth analysis of specific cases. When introducing the application of blockchain technology in different fields, more real case studies can be added to deeply analyze the specific implementation process, problems encountered, and solutions of blockchain technology in these cases, in order to enhance the persuasiveness and practicality of the paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment 1. “The paper lacks an in-depth discussion of the limitations of blockchain technology. Although the paper mentions some challenges faced by blockchain technology, such as scalability, energy consumption, and regulatory uncertainty, the in-depth analysis of these issues is relatively insufficient. For example, in terms of energy consumption, in addition to mentioning the high energy consumption of the proof-of-work consensus mechanism, there is a lack of detailed discussion on the effectiveness and limitations of other more energy-efficient consensus mechanisms in practical applications.”

Response.

Thank you for highlighting the need to discuss blockchain limitations in greater depth. In response, we have expanded subsection 5.1 energy efficiency, to incorporate a more in-depth discussion of alternative consensus mechanisms and Layer-2 solutions. This expanded paragraph highlights both the differences in energy consumption across various blockchain technologies and the broader economic implications of choosing a more efficient protocol.

Added Paragraph in Subsection 5.1 (Energy Efficiency)

“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 1,100–1,300 kWh of electricity [126, 43], whereas Ethereum’s post-Merge PoS has slashed that figure to ≈0.03 kWh—a >99.9% reduction [41]. Permissioned or authority-based networks push the number even lower: VeChainThor, for example, verifies transactions at ≈0.000216 kWh, and off-chain settlement layers such as the Bitcoin Lightning Network operate in the milli-kWh range (≈0.015 kWh) [137, 138]. 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 ≈2,000–4,500 TPS at <0.001 kWh per transfer, but with a one-week withdrawal delay [139]. ZK-rollups reach ≈9,000 TPS with immediate validity-proof finality but require specialized hardware [140]. Bitcoin’s Lightning Network enables instant micropayments at around 0.015 kWh per transaction [141]. By significantly reducing energy usage while preserving economic utility, these solutions underscore consensus and settlement design as key to blockchain sustainability.”

Through this revision, we have addressed the reviewer request to go deeper into more energy-efficient consensus mechanisms and how they function in real-world contexts, linking their capabilities and limitations directly to environmental sustainability outcomes.

The above paragraph addresses the reviewer’s comment specifically because:

1. 
   a) We expanded our discussion beyond Proof-of-Work to cover both Proof-of-Stake and various permissioned/authority models (VeChainThor, BNB Chain, Hyperledger, etc.), clarifying their energy footprints and trade-offs.
2. b) We provide quantitative estimates of energy consumption per transaction for multiple protocols (Bitcoin, Ethereum PoS, VeChainThor, and off-chain channels like Lightning), demonstrating order-of-magnitude differences.
   
   
3. c) We explicitly link energy consumption to long-term cost structures—lower electricity usage not only supports environmental goals but can also reduce transaction fees and enhance the economic feasibility of blockchain-based marketplaces.
4. 
   d) The text now includes Optimistic Rollups, ZK-Rollups, and Lightning Network, each with distinct advantages and limitations (throughput, finality delays, specialized hardware requirements). This provides a more practical view of how high transaction throughput can be achieved without exponential energy growth.
5. 
   e) We underscore that energy-efficient protocols are essential for meeting both environmental (SDG 13) and economic (SDGs 8, 9) objectives. By recognizing energy efficiency as a facet of Economic Sustainability, we highlight how consensus choices tie directly into business models, operational costs, and the viability of sustainable blockchain applications.

In addition, we have supported this discussion with 9 post-2022 empirical studies. Thank you again for highlighting this point.

 

 

 

 

Comment 2. “Although the paper regards stakeholder theory as an important theoretical foundation, in practical analysis, the exploration of complex relationships between stakeholders is not deep enough. For example, when blockchain technology is applied to supply chain management, the impact mechanism of the interests and interactions among different stakeholders (such as suppliers, manufacturers, retailers, consumers, etc.) on sustainable development can be further analyzed in depth to better reflect the application value of stakeholder theory.”

Response.

Thank you for pointing out the need to deepen the analysis of stakeholder interactions and power dynamics in our discussion of blockchain applications—particularly in supply chain management. We agree that exploring how different actors (e.g., suppliers, manufacturers, retailers, consumers) exert influence, collaborate, or experience tensions is key to reflecting the value of Stakeholder Theory in real-world blockchain deployments. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified these dynamics by drawing upon multiple subsections that highlight stakeholder complexity, power redistribution, and collaboration challenges.

In Section 5.2.3 (Supply Chain Management), we now explicitly illustrate how blockchain changes power relations among stakeholders. For instance, dominant retailers may impose certain blockchain standards on smaller suppliers, reinforcing their existing leverage, whereas in more fragmented chains, adoption hinges on persuasion, consensus, and shared governance rather than top-down mandates.

We draw on a multi-case analysis of Italian agri-food chains (wine, beer, dairy) to show that blockchain can redistribute power by giving smaller producers access to real-time, verifiable data, thereby reducing information asymmetry and opportunistic behavior.

We emphasize that power redistribution is not automatic: achieving effective outcomes requires coordination, clear governance rules, and often a focal firm’s leadership to ensure stakeholder alignment.

This new content demonstrates the “impact mechanism of interests and interactions” among actors. Large retailers may gain additional leverage by verifying suppliers’ on-chain compliance, while smaller producers benefit from a verifiable voice in the system. We also discuss where tensions may arise, for example, if a powerful buyer enforces blockchain usage without building consensus, or if there is disagreement over cost-sharing for on-chain data entry.

We have also inserted further detail in Section 5.2.3 about “Power Dynamics and Stakeholder Coordination,” drawing from empirical agri-food blockchain studies. These additions show that blockchain can reduce information asymmetry and reshape stakeholder trust, while dominant players in the supply chain may use blockchain standards to enforce norms, and smaller actors may gain stronger negotiation positions if they can prove product quality or ethical sourcing on-chain.

By referencing these case studies, we ground Stakeholder Theory in tangible examples that demonstrate how interactions among diverse participants shape whether blockchain initiatives succeed or fail in driving sustainability.

In Section 6, our “Comprehensive Framework” (Figure 5) integrates Institutional Theory and Stakeholder Theory to indicate how external pressures (regulations, market expectations) and multi-actor demands (fair trade, transparency) intersect with blockchain’s technical features. This framework identifies stakeholder groups (suppliers, manufacturers, consumers, NGOs, regulators) and highlights the mechanisms by which they shape blockchain design and governance, including data-sharing agreements and on-chain incentive structures. We incorporate tensions such as large retailers using blockchain to reinforce brand reputation, while NGOs push for greater transparency, and smaller suppliers worry about data privacy and compliance costs.

The model underlines feedback loops: successful pilot projects, such as fair-trade coffee blockchains, may encourage wider adoption through imitation, ultimately shifting supply-chain landscapes toward more transparent collaboration.

Further, Section 7.1 (Key Challenges) describes “Resistance to Change & Adoption Barriers” as well as “Economic & Societal Implications,” both of which hinge on stakeholder readiness in terms of capital, training, and trust. In this subsection, we highlight that many SMEs and smaller producers lack the resources for sophisticated blockchain platforms and therefore may need collective funding or leadership from a focal firm. We connect these points to Stakeholder Theory by noting that co-governance structures and educational programs are essential for aligning stakeholder interests. We also underscore that open communication, capacity-building, and well-defined data-sharing frameworks are critical to avoid outcomes in which only dominant stakeholders benefit.

Overall, these revisions go beyond a purely theoretical overview by explaining how blockchain can empower smaller stakeholders (for example, smallholder farmers or local cooperatives) if governance rules are designed inclusively. They also address how dominant players may either accelerate or hinder blockchain adoption by setting standards or assuming infrastructure costs, and how stakeholder interactions—such as trust-building, contract negotiations, cost-sharing, and data governance—can amplify or dilute environmental and social benefits. We hope this expanded analysis, particularly in Sections 5.2.3, 6, and 7.1, offers a more in-depth examination of the practical application of Stakeholder Theory, demonstrating how blockchain can reshape or reinforce existing power relations in supply chains. Thank you again for drawing attention to this important aspect, as we believe that a clearer focus on stakeholder complexity significantly strengthens our discussion of blockchain-driven sustainability.

Moreover, the final paragraph of Section 2 now synthesizes empirical work on power asymmetries among farmers, manufacturers, retailers and consumers in blockchain-enabled supply chains, explicitly linking these dynamics to Stakeholder Theory and illustrating how value redistribution supports sustainable outcomes. 9 new recent references added. Methodology has been updated for this purpose.

Comment 3. “The case study section in the paper lacks sufficient depth of analysis. Although the paper has cited a large number of literature to support its viewpoint, there is relatively little in-depth analysis of specific cases. When introducing the application of blockchain technology in different fields, more real case studies can be added to deeply analyze the specific implementation process, problems encountered, and solutions of blockchain technology in these cases, in order to enhance the persuasiveness and practicality of the paper.”

Response.

We appreciate your concern about the depth of our case study discussion. In response, we have expanded our analysis of real-world blockchain implementations across multiple sections, offering specific examples that illustrate both the practical steps of deployment and the challenges encountered.

In Section 5.1.1 (Renewable Energy), we draw on evidence from Europe, India, and Australia to show how peer-to-peer (P2P) microgrids improve prosumer trust, reduce transaction costs, and speed up renewable integration. We highlight platforms such as Power Ledger and Brooklyn Microgrid, explaining how they tackle issues like regulatory constraints, grid stability, and smart-contract automation while demonstrating tangible outcomes in cutting CO₂ emissions. We also include technical details from studies using Hyperledger Fabric or innovative frameworks like Multi-Agent Systems, showing how these projects address Proof-of-Work’s high energy consumption and enhance stakeholder trust through transparent REC issuance and trading.

In Section 5.2.1 (Energy Efficiency), we further explain that consensus-layer choices (PoW vs. PoS vs. BFT-family protocols) carry broad environmental and economic implications. We discuss how specific deployments (e.g., VeChainThor, Lightning Network) push energy usage to negligible levels, reinforcing that consensus design is integral to sustainable blockchain adoption. By referencing real empirical data, we illustrate how platforms optimize trade-offs between security, throughput, and resource consumption.

In Section 5.2.3 (Supply Chain Management), we elaborate on a multi-case analysis of Italian agri-food chains (wine, beer, dairy) to illustrate how shared ledgers reduce information asymmetry and foster relationship quality. We show that dominant buyers can mandate blockchain standards, but more fragmented networks must rely on consensus-building and stakeholder learning to achieve sustainable outcomes. We also highlight how some firms integrate on-chain smart contracts and off-chain databases for ESG disclosures, emphasizing the practical steps needed to mitigate greenwashing, reduce costs, and encourage continuous eco-improvement.

In Section 5.3.1 (Equality, Social Inclusion, and Quality of Life), we discuss how educational institutions and IT firms adopt blockchain, including the importance of stakeholder training, user-friendly interfaces, and trust-building. These examples offer insight into how technical features, such as energy-efficient consensus and automated credential verification, translate into real social benefits (e.g., improved campus services, equitable access for marginalized communities).

In our new Section 5.3.4 (Sustainable Consumption and Consumer Trust), we incorporate controlled experiments in the fashion sector that examine how blockchain’s transparency, traceability, and immutability (TTI) strengthen consumer trust in eco-friendly apparel. We describe how presenting concise, layered sustainability data to consumers can raise purchase intentions while avoiding information overload. This case-based perspective reinforces the practical steps needed for successful blockchain adoption, such as designing intuitive interfaces and ensuring credible data inputs.

Finally, Section 7.1 connects these implementations to the key barriers identified in real-world scenarios, ranging from energy consumption and regulatory mismatches to adoption bottlenecks among SMEs. We show how pilot projects in renewable energy, supply chains, and consumer-facing industries overcame (or failed to overcome) these hurdles by adjusting governance rules, implementing incremental rollouts, or adopting hybrid on-chain/off-chain approaches.

Overall, these expanded discussions detail how actual practitioners design, deploy, and refine blockchain solutions to meet sustainability goals. By tracing each project’s life cycle, from initial objectives and technical setup to the problems encountered and the solutions devised, we offer a more persuasive and applicable examination of blockchain’s role in sustainable development. We trust these additions address your concern about case study depth and enhance the paper’s practical relevance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1. “Abstract: replace ‘M’ dashes; this issue appears throughout the manuscript.”

Response. All M-dashes have been replaced with commas or semicolons, and sentence structures were adjusted for readability across the entire manuscript.

Comment 2. “Introduction: provide an overview of blockchain technology before discussing its capabilities.”

Response. Introduction paragraph 2 now begins with a concise three-sentence primer on blockchain (distributed ledger, cryptographic linking, peer-to-peer replication) with citations to Kshetri 2021, Saberi 2019 and Afzal 2022.

Comment 3. “Theoretical foundations (lines 89–125) contain unsupported statements; add recent references.”

Response. 9 recent sources (2022–2025) have been added to substantiate every conceptual claim regarding institutional pressures and stakeholder engagement. The methodology section (tables and graphs) has been updated accordingly to reflect the new additions.

Comment 4. “Methodology opening needs stronger referencing.”

Response. We now cite Paul, J. & Criado, 2020 for SLR;  Tricco et al. 2018 and Page et al. 2021, explicitly linking our protocol to PRISMA best practice; the PRISMA flow diagram caption also notes compliance with PRISMA 2020.

Comment 5. “Research Discussion lacks recent references.”

Response. Twenty-eight studies published between 2023 and 2025 have been integrated into Sections 5 and 6, ensuring the discussion reflects the latest scholarship.

Comment 6. “Domain-Based Classification (lines 516-523) needs support; reconsider section order.”

Response. Six new citations now support every analytic claim in those lines, with full details provided in the notes to Table 4. Sub-sections within Section 5 have been renumbered for clarity. We retained the order Classification → Discussion because the taxonomy logically precedes its interpretation, a sequencing explicitly justified in Section 3 and consistent with recent SLRs in Sustainability.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Title & Abstract
• The title is clear and appropriate, and so needs no change, unless one desires shortening it.
• For the Abstract:
o Clarify the core contribution by explicating the novelty of the dual-framework approach.
o Add a sentence about policy and managerial implications resulting from the findings.
2. Introduction
• To enhance clarity, the research gap should be strongly highlighted alongside an explanation of how this review addresses it.
• Institutional and Stakeholder Theories should be brought in earlier to foreground your conceptualist focus.
• Be explicit about what other blockchain & sustainability reviews do not do, i.e., lack integration or are sector-specific focus.
3. Theoretical Foundations
• Make clear how the two theories complement each other and why they are selected for the study.
• Perhaps provide a limitation on the applicability of these theories to a fast-evolving technology such as blockchain.
4. Methodology (SLR via PRISMA)
• Excellent implementation of the PRISMA 2020.
• Minor recommendations:
o Expand on the reasoning behind the exclusion of non-English publications.
o Expand on the 5 points Likert scale considered for quality assessment.
o Fine-tune formatting of tables, particularly Table 2, to enhance alignment and readability.

5. Results & Frameworks

    Present visually important findings:

        Insert a figure featuring the dual conceptual frameworks developed (such as the four-layer blockchain-to-impact model).

        Insert a summary table or matrix illustrating the blockchain mechanisms for each SDG.

    Provide key statistics in-text, e.g., environmental pillar prominence or 2024 surge in studies.

6. Discussion

    Expand on:

        Challenges to blockchain integration in sustainability (e.g., scalability, energy use, regulatory barriers).

        Emerging intersections, especially with Generative AI and real-time data analytics.

    Add examples of successful applications: Everledger, Plastic Bank, IBM Food Trust, Power Ledger.

7. Conclusion & Future Directions

    More clearly summarize contributions: dual-framework model, multi-domain mapping, and systematic methodology.

    Add policy and practice recommendations, such as standardizing blockchain protocols for sustainability; governments supporting pilot programs; and cross-sectoral partnerships for implementation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language is generally strong; address the following:

• Break down overly long paragraphs for readability.

• Watch for repetitions and typographical errors.

• Ensure consistency in reference formatting and figure/table labels.

Author Response

Comment 1. “Abstract: clarify the novelty of the dual-framework and add policy/managerial implications.”

Response. The final two sentences of the abstract now state the dual-framework’s novelty and articulate both policy and managerial implications.

Comment 2. “Introduction: highlight the research gap, foreground Institutional and Stakeholder theories, and state what prior reviews miss.”

Response. Introduction paragraph 2 (i) foregrounds the two theories, (ii) explains that earlier reviews are sector-specific or single-pillar, and (iii) clearly states how our integrative review fills this gap.

Comment 3. “Theoretical Foundations: explain how the two theories complement each other and note their limitations for fast-evolving technology.”

Response. A bridging paragraph now details the complementarities (external legitimacy vs. multi-actor engagement) and acknowledges that both frameworks presume relatively stable norms, a limitation when analyzing rapidly evolving digital infrastructures such as blockchain.

Comment 4. “Methodology: justify exclusion of non-English sources; expand five-point Likert scale; improve Table 2 formatting.”

Response. We added a sentence explaining that reliable multilingual coding exceeded project resources and could introduce interpretive error; listed the five quality-assessment criteria; and reformatted Table 2 for alignment and readability.

Comment 5. “Results & Frameworks: add visual dual-framework, SDG matrix and key statistics.”

Response. The dual four-layer blockchain-to-impact model is already depicted in Figure 5; we have therefore retained that single, clear visual. A new Table 6 maps blockchain mechanisms to all 17 SDGs, and Section 5.1 now reports the 2024 surge in publications and the environmental pillar’s share of the corpus.

Comment 6. “Discussion: deepen challenges, link to Generative AI, provide concrete examples (Everledger, Plastic Bank, IBM Food Trust, Power Ledger).”

Response. Section 6 now contains a detailed challenges subsection, a paragraph on blockchain–Generative-AI convergence, and three mini-cases plus a boxed sidebar on Power Ledger, thereby fulfilling all elements of the request.

Comment 7. “Conclusion: summarize contributions and add actionable recommendations.”

Response. The conclusion now opens by restating the three principal contributions, then provides concrete policy and managerial recommendations, and finally outlines a targeted future-research agenda.

Comment 8. “English language: break long paragraphs, remove repetitions, standardize references and labels.”

Response. All long paragraphs were split; redundant phrasing removed; typographical errors corrected; and reference formatting, figure captions and table labels standardized.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has undergone extensive revisions, including addressing the concerns noted in the first review, and is much improved.