2. Background and Literature Review
“A blockchain is a distributed database, which is shared among and agreed upon a peer-to-peer network. It consists of a linked sequence of blocks (a storage unit of transaction), holding timestamped transactions that are secured by public-key cryptography (i.e., “hash”) and verified by the network community. Once an element is appended to the blockchain, it cannot be altered, turning a blockchain into an immutable record of past activity.”
2.2. Supply Chain Transparency
- Product Segregation model: certified materials and non-certified materials are not mixed (e.g., Fairtrade coffee)
- Mass Balance model: certified and non-certified materials can be mixed where segregation is very difficult or impossible to achieve (e.g., cotton yarn)
- The Book and Claim model: does not seek to have traceability at each stage in the supply chain. The model relies on the volume of the certified material produced at the beginning of the supply chain and the amount of certified product purchased at the end of the value chain. Sustainability certificates are bought via a trading platform (e.g., UTZ Certification).
2.3. How Blockchain-Enabled Traceability Applications Work
2.4. Current Blockchain-Enabled Supply Chain Traceability Applications
3. Theoretical Basis
3.1. The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology
3.2. The Concept of Technical Innovation Adoption
4. Conceptual Model
4.1. Performance Expectancy
4.2. Effort Expectancy
4.3. Social Influence
4.4. Facilitating Conditions
4.5. Behavioral Intention and Use Behavior
4.6. Technology Trust
4.7. Inter-Organizational Trust
5. Implications and Conclusions
5.2. Future Research Agenda
Does the type of product or service impact end user adoption of blockchain? For example, will industries like medicine and aviation, where products must meet very strict standards, be more impacted by blockchain? Also, will it be less impactful or demanded for component parts and commodities such as nails, grain, and lawnmowers?How does blockchain impact intra-company synergies between functions such as manufacturing, marketing, and finance? So far blockchain has been focused on inter-company transactions, but similar to other logistics and supply chain functions, blockchain may apply to both internal and external integration.How will the proliferation of the Internet of Things (IoT), a technology that can provide information inputs, and blockchain be integrated? Perhaps IoT will provide more inputs and blockchain, through applications like smart contracts, will provide more output. Such an integration model requires less reliance on human intervention.How will non-technological external factors such as regulation, company culture, and social acceptance impact adoption? The list of possibilities here are extensive.Who will lead demand for greater transparency to compel downstream adoption? This task could be led by large retailers, regulators, or consumers. Blockchain implementation in a supply chain requires the full cooperation of everyone involved—and that’s a tall order.How will a blockchain enabled supply chain operate in the context of traceability? A case study or conceptual process model of supply chains (including nodes and arcs) may be developed to better understand practitioner application of blockchain technology for traceability.What other theoretical lenses, such as diffusion of innovations, can provide enhanced conceptualization. Theoretical lenses from other disciplines may also provide new insights.What types of blockchain innovations should be developed in concert with supply chain partners? Similarly, are there blockchain applications that should be extended to the greater community such as applications of the sharing economy?How will user react to new costs and risks, including potential streamlining of job functions due to increased efficiencies and perceived less need for auditing? Blockchain is a radical departure from existing transaction processes and its impacts to society and industry are unclear.
5.3. Implications for Practice
Conflicts of Interest
- Nakamoto, S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Available online: http://www.Bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf (accessed on 2 September 2017).
- Earley, K. Supply Chain Transparency: Forging Better Relationships with Suppliers. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/supply-chain-transparency-relationships-suppliers (accessed on 2 September 2017).
- Virtual Currencies and Beyond: Initial Considerations. Available online: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1603.pdf (accessed on 5 September 2017).
- Crosby, M.; Pattanayak, P.; Verma, S.; Kalyanaraman, V. Blockchain technology: Beyond bitcoin. Appl. Innov. 2016, 2, 6–10. [Google Scholar]
- Iansiti, M.; Lakhani, K.R. The Truth about Blockchain. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2017, 95, 118–127. [Google Scholar]
- Awaysheh, A.; Klassen, R.D. The Impact of Supply Chain Structure on the Use of Supplier Socially Responsible Practices. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2010, 30, 1246–1268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skilton, P.F.; Robinson, J.L. Traceability and normal accident theory: How does supply network complexity influence the traceability of adverse events? J. Supply Chain Manag. 2009, 45, 40–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markman, G.; Krause, D. Special topic forum on theory building surrounding sustainable supply chain management. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2014, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathieson, K. Predicting User Intentions: Comparing the Technology Acceptance Model with the Theory of Planned Behavior. Inf. Syst. Res. 1991, 2, 173–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flint, D.J.; Larsson, E.; Gammelgaard, B.; Mentzer, J.T. Logistics innovation: A customer value-oriented social process. J. Bus. Logist. 2005, 26, 113–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seebacher, S.; Schüritz, R. Blockchain Technology as an Enabler of Service Systems: A Structured Literature Review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Exploring Services Science, Rome, Italy, 24–26 May 2017; pp. 12–23. [Google Scholar]
- The Bitcoin Blockchain: The Magic and the Myths. Gartner, 2016. Available online: https://www.gartner.com/doc/3278917/bitcoin-blockchain-magic-myths (accessed on 6 September 2017).
- Crowe, P. There Is a ‘Game Changer’ Technology on Wall Street and People Keep Confusing It with Bitcoin. Available online: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-is-blockchain-2016-3 (accessed on 7 September 2017).
- Hofmann, E.; Rüsch, M. Industry 4.0 and the current status as well as future prospects on logistics. Comput. Ind. 2017, 89, 23–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lamming, R.C.; Caldwell, N.D.; Harrison, D.A.; Phillips, W. Transparency in supply relationships: Concept and practice. J. Supply Chain Manag. 2001, 37, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Duhiggjan, C.; Wingfield, N. Apple Lists Its Suppliers for 1st Time. Available online: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/14/technology/apple-releases-list-of-its-suppliers-for-the-first-time (accessed on 11 September 2017).
- A Guide to Traceability—A Practical Approach to Advance Sustainability in Global Supply Chains. Available online: https://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/supply_chain/Traceability/Guide_to_Traceability.pdf (accessed on 7 September 2017).
- Provenance Has a Big Year Ahead Delivering Supply Chain Transparency with Bitcoin and Ethereum. International Business Times. Available online: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/provenance-has-big-year-ahead-delivering-supply-chain-transparency-bitcoin-ethereum-1537237 (accessed on 13 September 2017).
- Roberts, J.J. The Diamond Industry Is Obsessed with the Blockchain. Fortune. Available online: http://fortune.com/2017/09/12/diamond-blockchain-everledger/ (accessed on 13 September 2017).
- Venkatesh, V.; Morris, M.G.; Davis, G.B.; Davis, F.D. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003, 27, 425–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, M.D.; Rana, N.P.; Dwivedi, Y.K. The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): A literature review. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 2015, 28, 443–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I.; Fishbein, M. Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ajzen, I. The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 1991, 50, 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taylor, S.; Todd, P.A. Assessing IT Usage: The Role of Prior Experience. MIS Q. 1995, 19, 561–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, R.L.; Higgins, C.A.; Howell, J.M. Personal Computing: Toward a Conceptual Model of Utilization. MIS Q. 1991, 15, 124–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Bandura, A. Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory; Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Davis, F.D.; Bagozzi, R.P.; Warshaw, P.R. Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1992, 22, 1111–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lippert, S.K. Investigating postadoption utilization: An examination into the role of inter-organizational and technology trust. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2007, 54, 468–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, C.-Y.; Kao, Y.-S. Utaut2 based predictions of factors influencing the technology acceptance of phablets by DNP. Math. Probl. Eng. 2015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartlett, P.A.; Julien, D.M.; Baines, T.S. Improving supply chain performance through improved visibility. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2007, 18, 294–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swink, M.; Schoenherr, T. The Effects of Cross-Functional Integration on Profitability, Process Efficiency, and Asset Productivity. J. Bus. Logist. 2015, 36, 69–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, S.A.; Dennis, A.R.; Venkatesh, V. Predicting collaboration technology use: Integrating technology adoption and collaboration research. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2010, 27, 9–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Småros, J.; Lehtonen, J.-M.; Appelqvist, P.; Holmstrӧm, J. The impact of increasing demand visibility on production and inventory control efficiency. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist. Manag. 2003, 33, 336–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markus, M. Toward a critical mass theory of interactive media: Universal access, inter-dependence and diffusion. Commun. Res. 1987, 14, 491–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granovetter, M. Threshold models of collective behavior. Am. J. Sociol. 1978, 83, 1420–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aarts, H.; Verplanken, B.; Van Knippenberg, A. Predicting behavior from actions in the past: Repeated decision making or a matter of habit? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 28, 1355–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Davis, F.D. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 2000, 46, 186–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tseng, S.; Fogg, B.J. Credibility and Computing Technology. Commun. ACM 1999, 42, 39–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thatcher, J.B.; McKnight, D.H.; Baker, E.W.; Arsal, R.E.; Roberts, N.H. The role of trust in postadoption IT exploration: An empirical examination of knowledge management systems. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2011, 58, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chae, B.; Yen, H.R.; Sheu, C. Information technology and supply chain collaboration: Moderating effects of existing relationships between partners. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2005, 52, 440–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stanciu, D. Are current models of technology acceptance explanatory enough? An analysis of potentially underexploited psychological correlates of technology acceptance. In Proceedings of the International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Romania, 27–28 April 2017; Volume 2, p. 616. [Google Scholar]
|1||The Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA)||Ajzen & Fishbein ||TRA is used to predict individual behavior based on pre-existing attitudes and intentions|
|2||The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM)||Davis ||End user use and acceptance model|
|3||The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)||Ajzen ||TPB is the first model to mention psychological factors related to technology acceptance|
|4||A combined TBP/TAM||Taylor and Todd ||These authors added two factors (subjective norm and perceived behavioral control) to TAM which gave a more complete test of important determinants of technology usage|
|5||The Model of PC Utilization||Thompson ||A competing perspective to TRA and TPB used to predict usage behavior rather than intention to use|
|6||Diffusion of Innovation Theory (DIT)||Rogers ||DIT describes how technological innovation moves from invention to widespread useage|
|7||Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)||Bandura ||Stipulates environmental influences (e.g., social pressures) or unique personal factors (e.g., Personality) are equally significant in determining behavior|
|8||The Motivational Model||Davis ||The core constructs of the theory are extrinsic and intrinsic motivation|
|#||Proposition||Independent Variable||Moderator||Dependent Variable|
|1||Proposition 1. Performance expectancy positively impacts the behavioral intention of using blockchain technology for supply chain traceability||Performance Expectancy||N/A||Behavioral Intention|
|2||Proposition 2. Effort expectancy positively impacts the behavioral intention of using blockchain technology for supply chain traceability||Effort Expectancy||N/A||Behavioral Intention|
|3||Proposition 3. Social influence positively impacts behavioral intention to use blockchain technology for supply chain traceability||Social Influence||N/A||Behavioral Intention|
|4||Proposition 4. Facilitating conditions (i.e., technical resources and organizational support) positively impact behavioral intention to use blockchain technology for supply chain traceability||Facilitating Conditions||N/A||Behavioral Intention|
|5||Proposition 5. Behavioral intention will positively influence the use of blockchain traceability applications||Behavioral Intention||N/A||Use Behavior|
|6||Proposition 6. Trust in technology positively moderates the relationship between Performance Expectancy and Behavioral Intention||Performance Expectancy||Trust in Technology||Behavioral Intention|
|7||Proposition 7. Trust in technology positively moderates the relationship between Effort Expectancy and Behavioral Intention||Effort Expectancy||Trust in Technology||Behavioral Intention|
|8||Proposition 8. Trust in technology positively moderates the relationship between Facilitating Conditions and Behavioral Intention||Facilitating Conditions||Trust in Technology||Behavioral Intention|
|9||Proposition 9. Inter-organizational Trust positively moderates the relationship between Performance Expectancy and Behavioral Intention||Performance Expectancy||Inter-organizational Trust||Behavioral Intention|
|10||Proposition 10. Inter-organizational Trust positively moderates the relationship between Effort Expectancy and Behavioral Intention||Effort Expectancy||Inter-organizational Trust||Behavioral Intention|
|11||Proposition 11. Inter-organizational Trust positively moderates the relationship between Social Influence and Behavioral Intention||Social Influence||Inter-organizational Trust||Behavioral Intention|
|12||Proposition 12. Inter-organizational Trust positively moderates the relationship between Facilitating Conditions and Behavioral Intention||Facilitating Conditions||Inter-organizational Trust||Behavioral Intention|
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).