10 1108 - Jeim 02 2021 0094 PDF

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1741-0398.htm
Leveraging blockchain technology Blockchain

technology for
for circularity in agricultural circular
economy
supply chains: evidence from a
fast-growing economy
Rohit Sharma Received 17 February 2021
Revised 19 April 2021
Operations and Supply Chain Management, Jaipuria Institute of Management Noida, 28 June 2021
Noida, India and Accepted 26 August 2021
Operations Management, National Institute of Industrial Engineering,
Mumbai, India
Taab Ahmad Samad
Indian Institute of Management Kashipur, Kashipur, India
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour

Emlyon Business School, Ecully, France, and
Mauricio Juca de Queiroz
Business Administration, FIA College of Business Administration, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Abstract
Purpose – The authors originally explore the factors for blockchain technology (BCT) adoption in agricultural
supply chains (ASCs) to enhance circularity and understand the dependencies, hierarchical structure and
causalities between these factors.
Design/methodology/approach – Based on an extant literature review and expert opinion, the present
study identified ten enablers for adopting BCT to leverage the circular economy (CE) practices in the ASCs.
Then, using an integrated interpretive structural modeling and decision-making trial and evaluation
laboratory (ISM-DEMATEL) approach, hierarchical and cause–effect relationships are established.
Findings – It was observed that traceability is the most prominent enabler from the CE perspective in ASCs.
However, traceability, being a net effect enabler, will be realized through the achievement of other cause
enablers, such as seamless connectivity and information flow and decentralized and distributed ledger
technology. The authors also propose a 12 Rs framework for enhancing circularity in ASC operations.
Research limitations/implications – The paper identifies enablers to BCT adoption that will enhance
circularity in ASC operations. The ISM hierarchical model is based on the driving and dependence powers of
the enablers, and DEMATEL aids in identifying causal relationships among the enablers.
Practical implications – The study’s findings and proposed 12 Rs framework may help the practitioners
and policymakers devise effective BCT implementation strategies in ASCs, thereby empowering sustainability
and circularity.
Originality/value – This study enriches the literature by identifying and modeling enablers for BCT
adoption in ASCs. The study also proposes a new 12 Rs framework to help enhance ASC circularity.
Keywords Blockchain, Agricultural supply chain, Circular economy, Sustainable supply chain, Industry 4.0,
Emerging technologies
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Climate change and global warming are the primary global concerns that the planet is
grappling with over the past decades. Carbon dioxide levels in the air are at their highest in
Journal of Enterprise Information
The authors would like to acknowledge the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments for Management
improving the quality of the manuscript. © Emerald Publishing Limited
1741-0398
Funding: There was no funding associated with this work DOI 10.1108/JEIM-02-2021-0094
JEIM 650,000 years, and 17 of the 18 warmest years are on record since 2001 (NASA, 2018). Global
warming is primarily attributed to greenhouse gases (GHGs) due to anthropogenic emissions.
GHG emissions from the agricultural sector account for nearly 24% of global emissions
(Pachauri et al., 2014). Studies have also reported that the current agricultural production
systems need to boost up food production by two-thirds to feed the projected population of 8.5
bn by 2030 (World Economic Forum, 2017), worsening the situation even more on the
sustainability front. One possible solution in tackling the above challenges is the
development of circular economy (CE) practices using disruptive Industry 4.0 technologies
(de Sousa Jabbour et al., 2018). Using such technologies, tracking the products and assets
along the agricultural supply chains (ASCs) will become easier, thereby enabling the CE
principles of recycling, reducing, reusing, redistributing, refurbishing, remanufacturing and
repurposing the product lifecycle.
Activities in the ASCs range from farm to fork and cover land cultivation, crop production,
harvesting, processing, storing, distributing and retailing (Sharma et al., 2020; Tsolakis et al.,
2014). Prior research (see Despoudi, 2020; Read et al., 2020; Verghese et al., 2015) has
highlighted that significant food losses occur across the different phases of the ASCs;
therefore, there is a need to minimize food losses by utilizing the waste streams and turning
them into valuable inputs, thereby closing the loop and bringing in circularity. Disruptive
information and communication technologies (ICTs) have forced the supply chain
management (SCM) organizations to reconfigure their practices to stay competitive in
today’s dynamic business environment (B€ uy€uk€ozkan and G€oçer, 2018; Goldsby and Zinn,
2016). Blockchain technology (BCT), connected initially with the cryptocurrencies such as
Bitcoin, Ethereum (Tapscott and Tapscott, 2017), is garnering much interest from academia
and practitioners (Kamble et al., 2020b) because of its applications in agriculture (Chen et al.,
2018, 2020; Sharma et al., 2018), SCM (Tian, 2017; Yadav et al., 2020b), healthcare (Tanwar
et al., 2020; Yue et al., 2016), finance (Chen and Bellavitis, 2020; Tapscott and Tapscott, 2017)
and in government sectors (Ølnes, 2016; Warkentin and Orgeron, 2020). BCT uses a shared,
distributed, decentralized database network wherein the records/assets can be dynamically
shared among various stakeholders (Saberi et al., 2018b). It helps remove costs associated
with multiple stakeholders and lessens the risk of fraud and tampering (Kshetri and Voas,
2018). The popularity of BCT is attributed to the fact that it helps applications function
without the need of a trusted intermediary (Kosba et al., 2016) and ensures cybersecurity
(Hasanova et al., 2019; Kshetri, 2017). BCT is anticipated to improve SCM operations (Wang
et al., 2019) as it encourages the notion of digital supply chains that improves supply chain
visibility (Aste et al., 2017; Korpela et al., 2017), sustainability (Bai and Sarkis, 2020) and
increases transparency in business transactions (Ivanov et al., 2018).
The current ASCs face many challenges and are under pressure due to fierce competition for
natural resources and environmental issues (Govindan, 2018). Despite the implementation of
various technological interventions at every stage in ASCs, there is a drastic imbalance between
the demand and supply of agricultural commodities due to information asymmetry among
stakeholders (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; Antonucci et al., 2019). Lack of coordination
among supply chain echelons in the ASCs makes them inefficient as they function in silos
(Chauhan et al., 2019; Marucheck et al., 2011). Improper coordination among various stakeholders
in the agri-value chains leads to quality and quantity losses of crops (Chauhan et al., 2018; Shukla
and Jharkharia, 2013). Adding to it, the low level of industrialization in agriculture, inefficiencies
in SCM practices, lack of managerial skills and fragmented information flow lead to poor supply
chain visibility in the ASCs (Mangla et al., 2018). Responsible sourcing and adoption of
sustainable practices is also an issue of concern in the current ASCs (Kamble et al., 2020b).
As the global economic practices of take-make-use-dispose (Maaβ and Grundmann, 2018) are
shifting towards the CE model of grow-make-use-restore (Casarejos et al., 2018), the agriculture
sector is not an exception to it (Barros et al., 2020). The CE practices in the ASCs offer immense
opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and induce closed-loop systems that work synchronized Blockchain
towards achieving sustainability goals (Winkler, 2011). CE initiatives in the ASCs can help reap technology for
the benefits of developing efficient, nutritious and sustainable food systems (World Economic
Forum, 2017), albeit the CE practices in ASCs have previously been used with different
circular
nomenclatures such as agroecology (Dumont et al., 2020), circular bioeconomy (Zabaniotou and economy
Kamaterou, 2019) and agro-industrial ecology (Fernandez-Mena et al., 2016). Table 1 presents
select studies that have explored the possibility of diffusing CE practices in ASCs. These studies
have focused on topics such as green performance measurements of ASCs in the CE context
(Kazancoglu et al., 2021), maturity stages of CE adoption in ASCs (Sehnem et al., 2020) and
diffusion of CE practices in the wheat supply chain (Dossa et al., 2020). While these studies have
enriched the body of knowledge on enhancing the circularity of ASCs, they have not explicitly
touched upon Industry 4.0 technologies. However, Kamble et al. (2020a) and Kamble et al. (2020b)
suggest that the Industry 4.0 technologies such as BCT, artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of
Things (IoT) and Internet of Services (IoS) are capable of enhancing the decision-making
capabilities and are expected to improve ASC performance. We observe that only a handful of
studies (e.g. Kouhizadeh et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2021) have explored how Industry 4.0
technologies can enhance ASC operations’ circularity and have presented prescriptive
recommendations to implement BCT in ASCs.
In the current study, we contribute to the literature by exploring the factors for BCT
adoption that may help enhance the circularity in ASCs. The adoption of BCT would be
essential as it will contribute towards bringing vital advancements in the level of
accountability, transparency and traceability by establishing an information power
equilibrium across all supply chain channels (Carbonell, 2016; Wolfert et al., 2017). Putting
into practice a data management system grounded on BCT will support the management of
land records (Thakur et al., 2020), purchase details of farm products (Antonucci et al., 2019),
pesticides, weedicides and other agricultural inputs, traceability and auditability of financial
transactions across the ASCs (Maru et al., 2018; Tripoli and Schmidhuber, 2018), thereby
enhancing the redistribution, recycling and repurposing aspects in the ASCs. Improved
sustainable practices are an expected result of these benefits, and BCT can act as the digital
platform to provide trustworthy and reliable information related to the provenance of farm
Author(s) Study type Objective
Kazancoglu et al. System dynamics modeling The study explored the green performance
(2021) and case study measurements of reverse logistics activities in a food
supply chain in a circular economy context
Sehnem et al. Case study The study explored how the maturity stages of the
(2020) adoption of circular economy practices are related to
business models in the agribusiness industry
Dossa et al. (2020) Case study The study explores the diffusion of circular economy
practices in the wheat supply chain using the
dimensions of transaction cost economics
Farooque et al. Multicriteria decision-making The study identifies the cause–effect relationships
(2019) technique between barriers to adopting circular economy
practices in China’s food supply chains
Kumar Sharma Multicriteria decision-making The study identifies and evaluates the challenges to
et al. (2019) technique and case study the adoption of circular economy practices in food Table 1.
supply chains Select studies that
Irani and Sharif Review The study presents a strategic planning perspective explore the diffusion of
(2018) on food supply chains in a circular economy context CE practices in ASCs
JEIM and agricultural products (Ge et al., 2017). The present study tries to address the following
three questions:
RQ1. What are the key enablers in adopting BCT in ASCs?
RQ2. What are the hierarchical structure and cause–effect relationships among the
identified enablers in the ASC context?
RQ3. How the identified enablers can add circularity in ASC operations?
We investigate the above research questions through the lens of the ReSOLVE CE
framework. In developing economies, BCT is an emerging and relatively newer technology
and thus the ASC practitioners need to identify the factors for adopting and implementing
BCT efficiently. Using BCT for enhancing circularity in ASC operations is a topic that
connects two supergiants, namely, sustainability and digitalization (B€ockel et al., 2021). Once
the enablers and their applicability in CE practices are understood, these enablers can help
mitigate and overcome the sustainability challenges associated with the current ASCs.
In this study, we carried out an extant literature review and identified ten enablers for
adopting BCT to leverage circularity in ASC operations in conjunction with experts’ opinions.
As the studied issue pertains to be multi-criteria decision type, a combined interpretive
structural modeling (ISM) and decision-making trial and evolution laboratory (DEMATEL)
methodology was used as an appropriate methodology (Mangla et al., 2018). ISM helps
investigate the contextual relationships between the identified enablers and establish the
enablers’ hierarchical levels and relationships. Additionally, DEMATEL helps in
categorizing the identified enablers into cause and effect groups. The study’s findings
suggest how the adoption of BCT can act as a driver of leveraging circularity in the ASCs and
how policymakers and practitioners must take necessary initiatives for implementing real-
time data-driven ASCs.
The remainder of the study is structured as follows: Section 2 highlights the literature
review (for identifying the BCT enablers) and theoretical underpinnings. Section 3 delves into
the research methodology adopted for this study. Section 4 presents the data collection and
analysis. The implications, conclusions and limitations of the study are presented in Section 5,
respectively.
2. Theoretical underpinnings and literature review

This section discusses the theoretical background of BCT, ASCs in India, BCT and ASCs, and
CE theoretical frameworks.
2.1 Blockchain technology (BCT)

Without the presence of a reliable intermediary, BCT authorizes stakeholders to transfer
value, or assets, between each other (Filimonau and Naumova, 2020; Rana et al., 2021). While
each transaction is called a block, the transaction’s running history is called the blockchain.
This information exchange is recorded in a ledger, which is shared by all stakeholders of that
blockchain network. All stakeholders depend on this shared, or “distributed,” ledger to
provide a transparent view into the asset details, including the ownership of the asset, as well
as descriptive information details such as quality or geographic location. Figure 1 highlights
the BCT schema. BCT can provide robust cybersecurity solutions that allow a high privacy
protection level (Schutzer, 2016). Another feature for ensuring a high level of security in the
blockchain is the provision of multi-signature protection, wherein the users are required to
have more than one secure key for authorizing a transaction (Kshetri, 2017). With
advancements in ICTs, BCT has emerged as the potential game-changer that can uplift the
Blockchain
technology for
circular
economy
Figure 1.
BCT schema
ailing agribusiness scenario, especially in emerging economies like India. Also, studies (see
B€ockel et al., 2021; Kouhizadeh et al., 2020) have advocated that BCT can be one of the key
enabling technologies in overcoming the challenges towards realizing a CE. They further
highlight that developing and investing in data-driven supply chains can reduce information
distortions and lead to supply chain transparency, thereby improving circular resource flows
and reducing wastages.
In the present study, an extant literature review was carried out to identify the factors
aiding BCT adoption in the ASCs. Relevant literature was searched in pertinent databases
using appropriate keywords; the search keywords included: distributed ledger technologies,
blockchain, fresh-food supply chain, perishable supply chain, agriculture food chain,
agriculture supply chain, agro-food, CE, circularity, agroecology, agro-industrial ecology,
ReSOLVE framework and Rs framework. These keywords were used independently and in
combination with each other. The identified enablers, along with brief descriptions, are
presented in Table 2.
2.2 Agricultural supply chains in India: challenges and opportunities

More than 50% of the Indian population is engaged in the ASCs in one form or another as
agriculture is a prominent contributor to India’s gross domestic product (GDP) (Government
of India, 2018). The chief stakeholders in Indian ASCs are farmers (producers), traders and
middlemen (distributors), and a wide network of organized and unorganized retailers
(Chauhan et al., 2019). The traditional ASCs are a vast network of supply chains operating
haphazardly (Patidar et al., 2018) and are rendered ineffective due to heterogeneous
participants’ presence (Sharma and Parhi, 2017). Some of the prominent factors that hamper
the competency of ASCs are the low literacy level of the stakeholders, poor infrastructure,
high involvement of middlemen, low margins to farmers, unorganized agricultural sector and
lack of adequate support from the government (Kumar and Kansara, 2018). The ASCs are
further complicated by the amalgamation of different products and processes at different
stages. The inefficiencies result in deterioration of crop quality and quantity, thereby
reducing the market value of crops, stockouts, food losses, energy waste and food insecurity
(Chauhan et al., 2018; Shukla and Jharkharia, 2013). Lack of adequate post-harvest
infrastructure, high volatility in global food prices and growing consumer concerns for safe
JEIM Enabler(s) Definition Reference(s)
Decentralized and BCT comprises an open database Arslanian and Fischer (2019), Glaser
distributed ledger enabling a distributed, decentralized et al. (2018), Liu et al. (2019), Wright
technology (DDLT) and a secured ecosystem. The data are and Filippi (2015), Zheng et al. (2018)
stored on multiple servers distributed
over several computers, which are
known as nodes. A decentralized and a
distributed database helps in creating
enhanced trust among the stakeholders
in the BCT network
Ensures traceability BCT can offer traceability solutions in Behnke and Janssen (2020), Creydt
the agricultural supply chains with and Fischer (2019), Kamble et al.
trusted information by gathering, (2020b)
transferring and sharing accurate data
in agribusiness operations. The unique
timestamp helps in tracing any
information to its block of origin or
provenance
Ensures accountability BCT has a unique feature that allows for Marsal-Llacuna (2018), Pinno et al.
analyzing the posterior activities in the (2017), Salmon and Myers (2019)
blockchain network. This property of
the blockchain enables it to register
information about permission or denial
of access to a particular asset. The BCT
network can establish and maintain an
authoritative record capturing trade
data and information, thereby allowing
the organizations to inspect and check
bills of payments and other trade
invoices, hence increasing
accountability and efficiency
Ensures transparency It is the inherent mechanism of BCT Chod et al. (2020), Hwang et al. (2017),
that coordinates different users who do Min (2019)
not trust each other. This helps in
providing process transparency. The
consensus mechanism in a blockchain
network leads to higher authenticity,
thereby enhancing transparency
Reduces transaction Usage of BCT removes the need for a Hughes et al. (2019), Morkunas et al.
costs and time (RTCT) trusted intermediary, thereby helping in (2019), Reyna et al. (2018), Schmidt and
reducing the transaction costs. With Wagner (2019), Tapscott and
features such as a cryptographic Tapscott (2017)
signature, decentralized database,
protection, the BCT network reduces
transaction costs. BCT enhances the
rate of transactions based on algorithms
and high-speed data networks, thereby
reducing transaction times
Auditability of records Facilitating the auditability of Maesa et al. (2019), Pal et al. (2020),
transactions is a unique feature of the Wijaya et al. (2017)
BCT. With features such as a secure
decentralized database, invoices and
bills of payments can be reconciled at
any moment, thereby enhancing trust,
Table 2. accountability and auditability
BCT enablers in
the ASCs (continued )
Enabler(s) Definition Reference(s)
Blockchain
technology for
Enhanced cybersecurity With advanced cryptographic Banerjee (2018), Dorri et al. (2017), circular
algorithms, BCT can keep cyber-attacks Kshetri (2017), Taylor et al. (2020)
at bay. BCT has the features of economy
cryptographic signature, which
protects it from cyber-attacks and
malware
Effective risk BCT can provide decentralized and Falcone et al. (2019), Fu and Zhu
management tamper-proof ledgers for data-driven (2019), Min (2019), Montecchi et al.
autonomous organizations, thereby (2019), Zhu and Kouhizadeh (2019),
enhancing the risk management Zsidisin and Henke (2019)
practices. Effective risk management
also enhances trust among the BCT
stakeholders
Data privacy and BCT has a privacy-preserving Gai et al. (2019), She et al. (2019), Zhang
anonymity cryptographic signature framework and Lin (2018)
that allows enhanced information
security and protects the network from
cyber threats
Seamless connectivity BCT facilitates the seamless Banerjee (2018), Mudliar et al. (2018),
and information flow connectivity between the users in a Munir et al. (2019), Shrestha and Nam
(SCIF) blockchain network. The IoT platform (2019), Unal et al. (2020)
enables high mobility, low latency and
seamless connectivity. This can also be
attributed to the decentralized and
distributed database system in BCT. All
the participants in a blockchain
network have access to the relevant
information on a real-time basis Table 2.
and quality food (accompanied by stringent food safety standards) pose a threat to farmers’
participation in market-oriented agri-food systems (Chen et al., 2015; FAO, 2012).
The ASCs are controlled mainly by numerous intermediaries governing the system
unsustainably and inefficiently in terms of time and money. As a result, the farmers incur
heavy losses or reap minimal profits. The study by Apte and Viswanathan (2000) highlighted
that about 30% of the total costs were incurred during the crops’ distribution process. The
most distressing factor in the ASC is the lack of credit and loan availability for the produce’s
transportation and logistics as the farmers have to travel long distances to bring their
produce to the nearest hubs (mandis) to sell it. In this process, the farmer incurs many costs
such as produce holding cost, transportation cost, storage cost and other additional costs,
leaving the farmer with minimum profit realization (Patidar et al., 2018). The unorganized
participants in the ASCs, such as farmers and small-scale processors, are the most affected in
the absence of necessary financial, technical and infrastructural support. However, it is
estimated that most of these challenges hampering the competency of the ASCs can be
overcome through holistic development of agri-value chains by bringing together various
stakeholders, such as farmers, traders, aggregators, processors, exporting bodies,
certification agencies and financial institutions (Chen et al., 2015).
Applications of ICTs hold immense potential in transforming the traditional ASCs. It can
lead to numerous factors such as enhanced responsiveness (Smith et al., 2015), cost savings
(Badraoui et al., 2019; Handayati et al., 2015), higher profitability (Flores et al., 2019),
transparency (Pappa et al., 2018), traceability (Kamilaris et al., 2019), reduced wastage (G€obel
et al., 2015) and effective risk management (Rueda et al., 2017), which will help in the holistic
JEIM development of the ASCs. As most of the operations and processes in an ASC are time-critical
and highly risk-prone, timely tracing and tracking of the agricultural produce is significant.
The ICT tools help trace and track the agricultural produce in a timely and accurate manner
(Gunasekaran et al., 2016). Research studies in the past have reported that the adoption of
novel electronic traceability systems helps track the produce, maintain purchase, sales and
inventory data, thereby laying the foundation for good SCM practices in the agricultural
sector (Mandarino et al., 2019; Patel and Cassou, 2015). This further enhances the efficient
management of resources and leads to sustainable practices (Kamble et al., 2020a). Upcoming
disruptive technologies such as blockchain-enabled by IoT platforms effectively help in
solving the challenges faced by ASCs.
2.3 Blockchain technology in agricultural supply chains

BCT, as an emergent technology, holds much promise in the area of SCM (Staples et al., 2017).
Adoption and execution of BCT in the SCM can lead to enhanced supply chain visibility and
transparency by removing issues related to stakeholder trust and credence (Kamble et al.,
2018; Kamble et al., 2020b; Queiroz and Wamba, 2019). Transparency and traceability are the
critical factors for enhancing SCM organizations’ operational efficiency and sustainability
(Garcia-Torres et al., 2019; Meng and Qian, 2018; Saberi et al., 2018a), as lack of visibility was
the major challenge faced by traditional supply chains (Maghsoudi and Pazirandeh, 2016).
The current ASCs also face similar efficiency and transparency-related problems that pose
continuous threats to stakeholders across the ASCs (Alexander et al., 2017; Gokarn and
Kuthambalayan, 2017; Porter and Reay, 2015). There lies an evident disengagement between
consumer demand and agricultural production patterns owing to the participation and
presence of heterogeneous stakeholders in the ASCs (Sharma and Parhi, 2017). There are also
problems associated with safe sourcing, product traceability and data inconsistencies, which
hamper the visibility and interoperability of the ASCs (Wang and Yue, 2017). The majority of
the agricultural production systems in developing economies are heavily weather-dependent
and deal with unforeseen circumstances of climate change, such as plant diseases and pest
outbreaks, leading to an urgent need for proactive risk mitigation and control mechanisms for
sustaining the production capabilities. Other notable problems faced by the ASCs comprise
high transaction settlement times and lack of financial inclusion of poor and marginal
farmers (Pingali et al., 2005), which lowers the economic development and hence obstructs the
farmers in catering to the demand for food surplus in order to feed an ever-growing
population. If all the pivotal links between the producers, markets and consumers in the ASCs
are consolidated efficiently, the ASCs can generate higher incomes and lead to the farming
community’s capacity development (Sanghera, 2018).
Produce tracing and aiding real-time transactions, which are a characteristic feature of
BCT, are expected to bring about remarkable improvements in food traceability, thereby
impacting food safety, quality and sustainability (Galvin, 2017; Kim and Laskowski, 2018;
Lin et al., 2017; Lu and Xu, 2017). By enabling trust between the ASC stakeholders, risks and
uncertainties can be effectively alleviated (Galvez et al., 2018). The provision of smart
contracts will provide an equal opportunity for market participation to all small and marginal
farmers (Nissen et al., 2018). All processes and transactions can be integrated and monitored
on a real-time basis using BCT.
2.4 The circular economy

CE is relatively a nascent field of research (i.e. a concept and a practice still in development)
(Murray et al., 2017; Genovese et al., 2017), yet it has captured much attention from
practitioners and academia in a short period (Ghisellini et al., 2016; Oliveira et al., 2021). It is a
regenerative and restorative industrial system aimed at achieving sustainable development
(EMF, 2015). CE’s primary goal is to extract maximum value and recover the system’s Blockchain
resources while eliminating inputs from nonrenewable resources (Donia et al., 2018; Korhonen technology for
et al., 2018). Due to its ability to reduce waste, close the resource circles and change the
existing business models, the CE promises immense potential on a sustainable development
circular
front (Geissdoerfer et al., 2017). Studies have also highlighted that the recent technological economy
advancements (such as the Fourth Industrial Revolution) are advancing and enabling a CE
through the adoption of disruptive business models (MacArthur and Waughray, 2016; K€ uhl
et al., 2020).
From a systems perspective, CE can be regarded as a microsystem (considering product
level changes and consumer preferences), mesosystem (considering CE at regional levels/eco-
industrial parks) and macrosystem (considering CE at global levels/overall industry structure)
(Kirchherr et al., 2017). CE in agriculture is governed by three key principles: (1) the importance
of extracting benefits from natural processes while controlling external (hazardous) inputs, (2)
focusing on resource-efficient processes that promote efficient cycling of water, nutrients and
energy and (3) minimizing food losses by converting waste streams into valuable inputs for the
ASCs (Bianchi et al., 2020). The CE business models are an innovative way to represent CE
concepts in the real-world scenario. In the present study, we use the ReSOLVE framework
(EMF, 2015) and the 12 Rs framework [1] for guiding the ASCs to implementing the CE
principles. These business models can be considered new frontiers in sustainability (Chen,
2020). The ReSOLVE framework defines a set of business strategies to achieve greater
efficiency by regenerating, sharing, optimizing, exchanging, virtualizing and cycling materials
(Gower and Schr€oder, 2016; Sehnem et al., 2019). This framework has six business actions that
governments and business entities should take for transitioning towards CE, namely,
regenerate, share, optimize, loop, virtualize and exchange. Each of the business actions is
compatible with the underlying principles of CE [2]. In addition to the ReSOLVE framework, the
product service system (PSS) framework focuses on supply chain circularity based upon the
product, use and result orientation (K€ uhl et al., 2020). Practitioners and academia have used the
various Rs framework business models in CE for decades (see Table 3). The study by Blomsma
and Brennan (2017) reports that the novel conception of CE is grounded in conventional
thinking, and it is not easy to trace the starting point (specific article) for these frameworks (Yan
and Wu, 2011). The various Rs frameworks form the “how-to” of CE and therefore are
considered a core principle (Reh, 2013; Zhu et al., 2010). These various Rs can be considered
strategies or actions to enhance the circularity (Potting et al., 2017) and the 3 Rs, namely recycle,
reduce and reuse, form the crux of CE (Rehman Khan et al., 2021). The present study builds
upon the 10 Rs framework as given by Kirchherr et al. (2017).
3. Research methodology
The present study uses an integration of ISM and DEMATEL decision-making techniques.
Table 4 presents select studies that have applied ISM-DEMATEL methodology. The
overview of the research roadmap adopted in this study is depicted in Figure 2.
3.1 ISM
Developed by Warfield (1974), the ISM methodology’s primary objective is to decompose an
ill-structured, complex system into smaller subsystems and develop a multi-level structural
model by extracting the subject matter experts’ domain knowledge (Rana et al., 2019). ISM
has been used to study varied problems that include identifying enablers for BCT in
sustainable supply chains (Yadav and Singh, 2020) and factors for sustainable supply chain
practices in lean-agile supply chains, to name a few. While ISM methodology has seen
widespread application across various domains to model structural variables, the possibility
JEIM Business model Description Author(s)
3 Rs Reduce, recycle, reuse Ranta et al. (2018)

4 Rs Reduce, reuse, recycle, recover Allwood et al. (2011)
5 Rs Reduce, reuse, refurbish, repair, recycle Lacy and Rutqvist
(2015)
6 Rs Resynthesize, remanufacture, refurbish, repair, reuse, Sihvonen and
repurpose Ritola (2015)
9 Rs Remanufacture, redefine, redefine, reuse, reform, recycle, Van Buren et al.
recover, refuse, rethink (2016)
10 Rs Remanufacture, redefine, repair, reform, refuse, rethink, reduce, Kirchherr et al.
reuse, recycle, reclaim (2017)
12 Rs* Regenerate, remanufacture, redefine, repair, recover, reform, Present study
refuse, rethink, reduce, reuse, recycle, reclaim contribution
Table 3. ReSOLVE Regenerate, share, optimize, loop, virtualize, exchange EMF (2015)
Summary of R Product service Product-oriented, use oriented, result oriented factors K€uhl et al. (2020)
strategies system (PSS)
ISM-DEMATEL application area Reference(s)
Identification of barriers to sustainable transportation in India Trivedi et al. (2021)

Identification of big data analytics implementation in manufacturing supply chains Raut et al. (2021)
Identification of sustainability parameters in a diamond supply chain Shanker and Barve
(2021)
Identification of enablers for IoT-based coordination system in food supply chains Yadav et al. (2020a)
Identification of barriers to sustainable online consumption Song et al. (2020)
Table 4. Identification of enablers for maintaining efficiency in agricultural supply chains Chauhan et al. (2019)
Literature on ISM- Identification of blockchain technology adoption barriers in Indian agricultural Yadav et al. (2020b)
DEMATEL supply chains
of the influence of personal biases cannot be completely ruled out because the methodology is
mainly dependent on the subjective judgment of the subject matter experts (Kannan et al.,
2009). According to Dwivedi et al. (2017), the following steps are involved in the ISM
methodology:
(1) Reviewing the extant literature and consulting domain experts to identify and
validate the variables that directly or directly influence the system.
(2) Preparation of a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) based on expert opinion for
establishing contextual relationships among the validated variables.
(3) Transforming the SSIM into the initial reachability matrix (IRM) and evaluate IRM
for transitivity. If the rule of transitivity is not satisfied, the SSIM is reviewed and
modified.
(4) The final reachability matrix (FRM) is developed and processed to extract the
associated structural levels and draw a digraph. The transitive relationships are
removed from the digraph, and the contextual relationships obtained in the IRM are
established again.
(5) Finally, the variable nodes are interchanged with the statements to convert the
digraph into a finalized ISM model, which is checked for conceptual consistency and
is modified, if necessary.
Blockchain
technology for
circular
economy
Figure 2.
Research roadmap
3.2 Integrating DEMATEL methodology with ISM

Although ISM successfully presents the visualization of complex systems and identifies
relationships between variables, it does not shed much light on the severity of these
interrelationships as the strength of relationships shared by the variables may range between
low, moderate and strong (Bhosale and Kant, 2016). To overcome this weakness of ISM and
gain better insights into the interrelationships among the variables, this study integrates the
DEMATEL methodology as it helps reveal the strength of these interrelationships by using a
combination of matrices and graphs (Shieh et al., 2010).
The DEMATEL technique analyses complex problems by establishing interrelationships
among the factors and resolving the cause and effect relationship among the evaluation
criteria (Kumar and Dixit, 2018). An influence relations map, a graphical representation of
interrelationships within the factors, is the resultant output obtained from the DEMATEL
method. In line with the suggestions of Shieh et al. (2010), the procedure of integrating
DEMATEL methodology on the IRM obtained from ISM is as follows:
3.2.1 Computing the initial average direct influence matrix. In this step, the existing
relationships in the IRM obtained from the ISM method are scored by the experts as per the
influence. The diagonal elements of the IRM are reset to zero, and the respondents are then
asked to score the existing relationships (which are denoted by 1 in the ISM’s IRM).
JEIM Each relationship is scored by allotting 0, 1, 2 or 3 (where, 0 5 “no influence”, 1 5 “low
influence”, 2 5 “moderate influence” and 3 5 “high influence”). If there are m number
of respondents, we get m initial relation matrices. The average direct influence matrix
A (A 5 [ dij] ) is prepared by incorporating the responses of all m experts using the following
equation:
Xm
A ¼ 1=m ½xrij : (1)
r¼1
where [xijr] is a matrix developed for every expert respondent r.

3.2.2 Normalization of average direct relation matrix. In the next step, the matrix A is
normalized to obtain a normalized direct-relation matrix (N), using the following equation:
N ¼ A 3 Z; (2)
1P
where Z ¼ m .
max1≤i≤m dij
j¼1
3.2.3 Computing the total relation matrix. The following expression is used to develop the
total relation matrix (T):
T ¼ N ðI NÞ−1 : (3)
where I is the identity matrix.

3.2.4 Obtaining the causal influence and digraph diagram. This step consists of three sub-
steps, as presented below.
3.2.4.1 Calculating the sum of rows (ri) and columns (dj). In the matrix T, for each row (i)
and column (j), the sum is obtained as follows:
Xm
ri ¼ Tij ∀ i (4)
j¼1
X
m
di ¼ Tij ∀ j (5)
i¼1
3.2.4.2 Calculating overall prominence (Pi) and the net effect (Ei). The overall prominence (Pi)
and the net effect (Ei) are obtained as follows:
P i ¼ ri þ d j ∀ i ¼ j (6)
Ei ¼ ri dj ∀ i ¼ j: (7)
The values of Pi indicate the overall prominence (i.e. the visibility, importance and influence)
of the factor in the overall system. If Ei > 0, then factor i is termed as the net cause or the
influencing factor. These factors can be understood as the foundation for other factors. If
Ei < 0, then the factor i is termed as the net effect or the resulting factor (Bai and Sarkis, 2013).
Each factor’s Pi and Ei are then plotted on a two-dimensional axis (Tzeng et al., 2007).
3.2.4.3 Plotting the digraph. Plotting the digraph is the final step of the DEMATEL
methodology. To filter out the relatively negligible results, a cut-off value (α) needs to be set
(Liou et al., 2007). If Tij ≥ α, then factor i is considered a causal factor for factor j, and a directed
arrow is incorporated into the analysis.
3.3 Applying the integrated ISM-DEMATEL approach to examine BCT enablers in ASCs
This section demonstrates the application of ISM and the DEMATEL approach.
3.3.1 Applying ISM. 3.3.1.1 BCT enablers for ASC. Based upon an extant literature review, Blockchain
15 BCT enablers were initially identified, and these were then presented to the group of technology for
experts for discussion and validation. The panel of experts consisted of 12 members from
relevant backgrounds. The details about the composition of the expert group are provided in
circular
Appendix. The size of the expert group chosen for this study satisfies the size requirements, economy
as suggested by Murry and Hammons (1995) and Robbins and Coulter (2012). The discussion
resulted in eliminating some factors and merging a few related factors into broader
categories. Finally, based on the experts’ validation, ten factors were selected for this study
(see Table 2). The questionnaire used in this study is highlighted in Appendix.
3.3.1.2 Establishing contextual relationships among the factors. For the BCT enablers in
the context of logistics, this study uses a “helps to achieve” type of contextual relationship
structure. This relationship structure means that one BCT enabler “helps to achieve” another
BCT enabler.
3.3.1.3 SSIM development. For SSIM development, the contextual relationships among the
variables were defined by the consulting experts using one of the four assigned symbols (V,
A, X, O) as per the following guideline: If BCTEi helps to achieve BCTEj, assign V; if BCTEj
helps to achieve BCTEi, assign A; if BCTEi and BCTEj help to achieve each other, assign X;
and assign O, if there is no relationship among BCTEi and BCTEj. The developed SSIM is
presented in Table 5.
3.3.1.4 IRM development. The SSIM is now converted into IRM, which comprises binary
elements (0 and 1). The IRM is presented in Appendix, and the transformation rules for IRM
development are as follows:
(1) If the relationship in SSIM in a particular cell (i, j) is denoted by “V,” the cell (i, j) in the
IRM is given a value of “1” and the cell (j, i) is allotted a value of “0”.
(2) If the relationship in SSIM in a particular cell (i, j) is denoted by “A,” the cell (i, j) in the
(3) If the relationship in SSIM in a particular cell (i, j) is denoted by “X,” the cell (i, j) in the
(4) If the relationship in SSIM in a particular cell (i, j) is denoted by “O,” the cell (i, j) and
the cell (j, i) in the IRM are allotted a value of “0”.
3.3.1.5 FRM development. In this step, we evaluate the IRM for the rule of transitivity for
establishing the level partitions, i.e. for any variables P, Q and R, if P affects Q and Q affects R;
then P necessarily affects R. Table 6 presents the FRM, and Table 7 shows the established
partition levels, respectively. These partition levels are then used to draw a digraph. The ISM
hierarchical model is presented in Figure 3. The detailed iterations for level partitions can be
found in Appendix.
3.3.1.6 ISM-MICMAC analysis. The values of driving and dependence power of each BCT
enabler are presented in Table 6. Based on these values, the BCT enablers are classified into
four quadrants (see Appendix). The description of these four quadrants is as follows:
(1) Autonomous variables: This quadrant relates to the enablers that have weak driving
and dependence power. These enablers have no significant influence on the adoption
of BCT for enhancing the circularity in ASC operations. Our findings suggest no
autonomous enabler, and all the enablers in our study have a significant role in
enabling the adoption of BCT in the ASCs.
(2) Dependent variables: This quadrant relates to the variables that have strong
dependence power but weak driving power. In our study, five enablers, namely
ensures traceability (BCTE10), ensures transparency (BCTE4), effective risk
JEIM
Table 5.
interaction
matrix (SSIM)
Structural self-
Enablers BCTE 10 BCTE9 BCTE8 BCTE7 BCTE6 BCTE5 BCTE4 BCTE3 BCTE2 BCTE1
BCTE1 V X V V V V V V V
BCTE2 V A X A V V V V
BCTE3 V A A A A X A
BCTE4 V A A A V V
BCTE5 V A A A A
BCTE6 V A A A
BCTE7 V A V
BCTE8 V A
BCTE9 V
BCTE10
Note(s): BCTE1 5 Decentralized and distributed ledger technology (DDLT); BCTE2 5 Enhanced cybersecurity; BCTE3 5 Ensures accountability; BCTE4 5 Ensures
transparency; BCTE5 5 Auditability of records; BCTE6 5 Effective risk management; BCTE7 5 Data privacy and anonymity; E8 5 Reduces transaction costs and time
(RTCT); BCTE9 5 Seamless connectivity and information flow (SCIF); BCTE10 5 Ensures traceability
Source(s): Prepared by authors
Enablers BCTE1 BCTE2 BCTE3 BCTE4 BCTE5 BCTE6 BCTE7 BCTE8 BCTE9 BCTE10 Driving power
BCTE1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
BCTE2 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7
BCTE3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3
BCTE4 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 5
BCTE5 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3
BCTE6 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 4
BCTE7 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 8
BCTE8 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 7
BCTE9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
BCTE10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Dependence power 2 5 9 6 9 7 3 5 2 10
economy
circular
technology for
Blockchain
Final reachability
Table 6.
matrix (FRM)
JEIM Iteration Enabler Reachability set Antecedent set Intersection set Level
1 BCTE10 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 10 I
2 BCTE3, BCTE5 3, 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 3, 5 II
3 BCTE6 6 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 6 III
4 BCTE4 4 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 4 IV
5 BCTE2, BCTE8 2, 8 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 2, 8 V
6 BCTE7 7 1, 7, 9 7 VI
7 BCTE1, BCTE9 1, 9 1, 9 1, 9 VII
Note(s): BCTE1 5 Decentralized and distributed ledger technology (DDLT); BCTE2 5 Enhanced
cybersecurity; BCTE3 5 Ensures accountability; BCTE4 5 Ensures transparency; BCTE5 5 Auditability
of records; BCTE6 5 Effective risk management; BCTE7 5 Data privacy and anonymity; E8 5 Reduces
Table 7. transaction costs and time (RTCT); BCTE9 5 Seamless connectivity and information flow (SCIF);
Iterations for level BCTE10 5 Ensures traceability
partitions Source(s): Prepared by authors
management (BCTE6), ensures accountability (BCTE3) and auditability of records

(BCTE5), were found to be the dependent enablers. The findings suggest that these
five enablers are the top considerations for the ASC organizations while determining
to implement BCT for leveraging CE in their operations.
(3) Linkage enablers: This quadrant relates to the variables that are considered unstable
enablers due to their strong dependence and driving power. Our study did not find
any variables falling in this category.
(4) Independent enablers: This quadrant relates to the variables that have strong driving
power and weak dependence power. In our study, there are five enablers, namely
decentralized and distributed ledger technology (BCTE1), seamless connectivity and
information flow (BCTE9), data privacy and anonymity (BCTE7), reduces
transaction costs and time (BCTE8) and enhanced cybersecurity (BCTE2), are
identified as driving enablers. These five enablers are likely to be the possible starting
points for implementing BCT in the ASCs.
3.4 Applying DEMATEL

3.4.1 Average direct influence matrix. DEMATEL methodology was deployed to gain a better
understanding of the cause and effect relationships among the factors. The inputs for
DEMATEL are taken from the same expert panel that was used for the ISM. The experts were
asked to evaluate the relationships between BCT enablers by allocating integer scores
ranging between 0 and 3, where 0 means “no influence,” and 1, 2 and 3 stand for “low
influence,” “moderate influence” and “high influence,” respectively. The resultant average
direct influence matrix (A), presented in Appendix, was computed using Equation (1).
3.4.2 Normalization of average direct-relation matrix. In this step, the normalization of the
average direct influence matrix was done using Equation (2), and the normalized initial direct-
relation matrix (N) was obtained, as presented in Table 8.
3.4.3 Obtaining the total relation matrix. We obtained the total relation matrix (T) using
Equation (3), as shown in Table 9.
3.4.4 Obtaining the causal influence and digraph diagram. As explained in Section 3.2.4,
this step consists of three sub-steps, as presented below.
3.4.5 Calculating the sum of rows (ri ) and columns (dj ). The row (ri) and column (dj) sums
for all rows and columns are obtained using Equations (4) and (5). The (ri) values indicate the
total of direct and indirect influences of enabler i on the other enablers. Whereas (dj) values
Blockchain
technology for
circular
economy
Figure 3.
ISM based hierarchical
model for BCT
enablers
indicate the total of direct and indirect influences on enabler j from other enablers. For each
enabler, values of (ri) and (dj) are presented in Table 10.
3.4.6 Calculating overall prominence (Pi ) and the net effect (Ei ). The overall prominence (Pi)
and net effect (Ei) values were obtained using Equations (6) and (7), as presented in Table 10.
Based on (Ei) values, the factors are classified into cause enablers and effect enablers (for
Ei < 0: effect; for Ei > 0: cause).
3.4.7 Drawing the digraph. Each factor Pi and Ei are then plotted on a two-dimensional
axis, as presented in Figure 4. To filter out negligible relationships, we computed the
JEIM
Table 8.
matrix (X)
direct relation
Normalized initial
Enablers BCTE1 BCTE2 BCTE3 BCTE4 BCTE5 BCTE6 BCTE7 BCTE8 BCTE9 BCTE10
BCTE1 0.0000 0.1137 0.1301 0.1220 0.1301 0.0976 0.0732 0.0813 0.0651 0.1382
BCTE2 0.0000 0.0000 0.1303 0.0815 0.1220 0.0976 0.0000 0.0651 0.0000 0.1301
BCTE3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0732 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1382
BCTE4 0.0000 0.0000 0.0813 0.0000 0.0815 0.0894 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1303
BCTE5 0.0000 0.0000 0.1382 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1301
BCTE6 0.0000 0.0000 0.0893 0.0000 0.0894 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1220
BCTE7 0.0000 0.0651 0.0732 0.0894 0.0813 0.1382 0.0000 0.0651 0.0000 0.1301
BCTE8 0.0000 0.0813 0.1301 0.0894 0.0894 0.1301 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1220
BCTE9 0.0732 0.0976 0.1301 0.1381 0.1301 0.1301 0.0732 0.0976 0.0000 0.1301
BCTE10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
BCTE1 BCTE2 BCTE3 BCTE4 BCTE5 BCTE6 BCTE7 BCTE8 BCTE9 BCTE10 ri
BCTE1 0.0048 0.1340 0.2324 0.1586 0.2151 0.1579 0.0783 0.1019 0.0654 0.2875 1.4358
BCTE2 0.0000 0.0053 0.1788 0.0878 0.1589 0.1145 0.0000 0.0654 0.0000 0.2096 0.8202
BCTE3 0.0000 0.0000 0.0102 0.0000 0.0739 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1493 0.2334
BCTE4 0.0000 0.0000 0.1027 0.0000 0.0970 0.0894 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1680 0.4571
BCTE5 0.0000 0.0000 0.1396 0.0000 0.0102 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1507 0.3006
BCTE6 0.0000 0.0000 0.1027 0.0000 0.0970 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.1488 0.3484
BCTE7 0.0000 0.0707 0.1321 0.1014 0.1287 0.1633 0.0000 0.0697 0.0000 0.2159 0.8818
BCTE8 0.0000 0.0817 0.1810 0.0966 0.1342 0.1474 0.0000 0.0053 0.0000 0.2063 0.8526
BCTE9 0.0735 0.1211 0.2389 0.1751 0.2208 0.1915 0.0789 0.1170 0.0048 0.2891 1.5108
BCTE10 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
dj 0.0783 0.4128 1.3185 0.6195 1.1359 0.8640 0.1572 0.3593 0.0701 1.8251
economy
circular
technology for
Blockchain
matrix (T)
Table 9.
Total relation
JEIM Ranking Net
Prominence Ranking based Net effect based on net cause/
ri dj ri þ dj on prominence ri – dj effect effect
BCTE1 1.4358 0.0783 1.5141 4th 1.3575 2nd Cause

BCTE2 0.8202 0.4128 1.2330 6th 0.4074 5th Cause
BCTE3 0.2334 1.3185 1.5519 3rd 1.0850 9th Effect
BCTE4 0.4571 0.6195 1.0766 9th 0.1623 6th Effect
BCTE5 0.3006 1.1359 1.4365 5th 0.8353 8th Effect
BCTE6 0.3484 0.8640 1.2124 7th 0.5155 7th Effect
BCTE7 0.8818 0.1572 1.0390 10th 0.7245 3rd Cause
BCTE8 0.8526 0.3593 1.2118 8th 0.4933 4th Cause
BCTE9 1.5108 0.0701 1.5809 2nd 1.4406 1st Cause
BCTE10 0.0000 1.8251 1.8251 1st 1.8251 10th Effect
Note(s): BCTE1 5 Decentralized and distributed ledger technology (DDLT); BCTE2 5 Enhanced
cybersecurity; BCTE3 5 Ensures accountability; BCTE4 5 Ensures transparency; BCTE5 5 Auditability
Table 10. of records; BCTE6 5 Effective risk management; BCTE7 5 Data privacy and anonymity; E8 5 Reduces
Prominence and net transaction costs and time (RTCT); BCTE9 5 Seamless connectivity and information flow (SCIF);
cause–effect of BCT BCTE10 5 Ensures traceability
enablers Source(s): Prepared by authors
Figure 4.
DEMATEL digraph
threshold value (α) by calculating the mean of the matrix (Shieh et al., 2010). In the drawn Blockchain
digraph, the effects that are greater than the threshold value of 0.0684 are shown. The arrows technology for
are drawn from the net cause enablers (Ei > 0) to the net effect enablers (Ei < 0).
circular
economy
4. Results and discussion
The study identified ten factors that enable BCT deployment for enhancing the circularity in
ASC operations. Although BCT is in its nascent stages, it holds vast potential as a driver for
change in ASCs. The stakeholders and agribusiness organizations need to overcome
institutional (market volatility and business processes), technical (scaling, throughput and
latency) and regulatory (regulatory and governance) challenges for successfully adopting
BCT in ASC operations. The present study offers insights into BCT adoption factors for
enhancing circularity to enhance sustainability in the ASCs.
4.1 Managerial implications

The findings highlight those practitioners lay focus on ensuring traceability and
transparency of the produce while implementing BCT in their operations. The
practitioners perceive BCT as an essential driver for sustainability in the ASCs. It is
implied that practitioners are inclined to have a traceability system of repute so that their
ASC produces high-quality, safe products while optimizing resource and energy usage,
enhancing the brand image and recognition of their organization. Practitioners believe that
BCT implementation can help ASCs realize provenance and produce transparency and
traceability by collecting and disseminating real-time information of the agriculture produce
through all the phases such as processing, transportation, shipment, storage, retailing and
distribution enabled by the data-driven BCT platform, which will further give a push in the
transition towards CE. Our findings are in line with the study carried out by Figorilli et al.
(2018), wherein they highlighted wood traceability along the whole supply chain. The
findings from the study also support the findings of Upadhyay et al. (2021) wherein they
highlight how BCT can contribute to the CE by reducing transaction costs and enhancing the
supply chain performance. With BCT, the practitioners will be able to constitute a direct farm
to fork link between primary food producers and end consumers. To ensure transparency and
traceability throughout the ASCs, the findings reveal the need for a strong requirement for a
robust, shareable, decentralized platform enabled by smart contracts. The digital product
record stored in the BCT network will carry important product-related information such as
batch number, expiry date, storage condition, among others, which will help reduce food
wastage and ecological footprint (Ahmed and ten Broek, 2017).
The ASC organizations can utilize ReSOLVE and the 12 Rs frameworks for implementing
CE in their operations. The CE practices will result in a regenerative economy in the natural
environment (Sehnem et al., 2020). Product provenance features in the BCT can help in
combating food frauds and enhance the efficiency in proactively responding to the recall of
contaminated food products (Bumblauskas et al., 2020). Practitioners can use BCT as a
supplier credit evaluation tool for strengthening the efficiency of management and
supervision of their ASCs (Kamilaris et al., 2019). Thus, BCT can also help add CE’s social
benefit through the financial inclusion of small landholders. It can further bring about much-
required market transparency and enhance market information sharing for strengthening
food security.
With technologies such as IoT and big data platforms transforming the agricultural
landscape (Pham and Stack, 2018), BCT, in collaboration with big data and IoT, can lead to
tremendous impacts on the ASCs. Together, these can help optimize farm operations by
utilizing insights through visual analytics and big data (Janssen et al., 2017), thereby creating
JEIM an ecosystem for data-driven agriculture and aid data-driven decision-making in ASCs
(Kamble et al., 2020a). As the farmers form an integral aspect of the ASCs, the adoption of
BCT will act as a significant boost for the farmers. BCT can help the farmers secure their legal
property rights as BCT-enabled immutable and traceable land registry records can protect
the farmers from land frauds and corruption (Thakur et al., 2020). BCT will help empower
farmers and thereby assist in removing the intermediaries through the availability of real-
time information. BCT will help save the farming data on a single platform for enhanced
information dissemination to farmers and increase productivity.
Implementation of BCT will bring information power symmetry to all the stakeholders
in the ASCs (Carbonell, 2016; Wolfert et al., 2017). BCT implementation will further enhance
and promote farmers to undertake transactions in an untrustworthy environment and help
remove the transaction and credit delays (Antonucci et al., 2019). BCT is expected to ensure
secured payments and a smooth flow of trade finance with a reduction in transaction
settlement times. The smart contract feature of BCT will ensure the financial inclusion of
small and marginal farmers and micro small and medium enterprises (MSMEs). BCT
network is expected to help build a digital identity for the smallholders and MSMEs, further
enhancing their creditworthiness for accessing financial services (Tripoli and
Schmidhuber, 2018). Value-added services along the ASCs, such as farm credit, loan and
finance facility availability, play a decisive role in reducing stakeholders’ risks and help
them in being financially secure. As majority of the Indian farmers have small and marginal
land-holdings, BCT can be a pivotal contributor to the financial inclusion of small farmers
and thereby enhance the competence and efficiency of the ASCs. The smart contract
empowered services on BCT can facilitate stakeholders through minimal human
interventions, thereby reducing unnecessary product and payment delays in the ASC.
Implementing BCT will enhance data integrity, security, anonymity and visibility
throughout the ASC. Overall, the adoption of BCT in the ASCs will lead to enhanced
farmer social sustainability and empowerment to adopt sustainable agricultural practices.
4.2 Theoretical implications

As suggested in Dossa et al. (2020), the present study advances the knowledge by identifying
the enablers for BCT adoption, which will improve the circularity in ASC operations.
Moreover, as ASCs are highly resource-dependent, energy recovery from various processes is
likely to play a significant role in transitioning towards CE practices. BCT-enabled CE
practices will be helpful along all the strategic focus areas in the ASCs (Nandi et al., 2021). It
will be effective for product use and manufacture, extending the product lifespan and
recovery of energy. As a theoretical contribution from the study, the 12 Rs framework is
highlighted in Table 11.
4.3 Policy implications

For policymakers, BCT can be used for monitoring the international and national
certifications relevant to ASCs, such as Fairtrade, Organic Produce Certification, to name a
few (Kamilaris et al., 2019; Tripoli and Schmidhuber, 2018). The government should
incentivize the ASC organizations for smooth adoption of BCT, which will further lead to
effective CE practices in the ASCs (Moktadir et al., 2018). BCT-enabled produce traceability
mechanisms can help regulators ensure food safety, quality and integrity via BCT-based
certifications (Lucena et al., 2018) as the ASC processes will be tamper-proof and
accountable. High data integrity will enhance the agriculture value-added services, such as
farm insurance, credit and loan facilities, throughout the ASCs. Traders can be brought
under the regulatory framework for evaluating their credibility based upon transactions
and credit evaluations on the BCT network via smart contracts (Kamilaris et al., 2019).
Strategy focus R strategy Description
Blockchain
technology for
Effective product use and Refuse Preventing the usage of excessive raw material in the circular
manufacture processes
Rethink Ensuring enhanced product sharing economy
Reduce Reducing excessive usage of natural resources/raw materials
Extended lifespan of Reuse Extensive product sharing
product and parts Reform Reforming the product for other functional uses
Redefine Reusing the product for a different purpose
Recycle Reusing and processing materials after their operational use
Repair Maintenance and repairs of defective/obsolete products
Remanufacture Utilizing the parts of disposed products in new products with
the same functionality
Energy recovery Regenerate Regeneration of energy by converting organic waste into
sources of energy indicating a transition towards renewable
energy and materials Table 11.
Reclaim Reclaiming and recovering energy from various processes The proposed 12 Rs
Recover Recovering energy in various processes framework
Other regulatory applications include protecting and preventing exploitation of labor and
employment relationships in agriculture using BCT-based smart contracts (Pinna and Ibba,
2019). On the sustainability forefront, BCT can act as a platform for reporting of country
commitments on sustainable development goals (sustainable goal number 2 to end hunger
and enhance food safety), millennium development goals and essential climate change
agreements. BCT-based trading platforms can be used for carbon trading as these provide
enhanced transparency in carbon accounting and offsetting (Shakthi, 2018). Further, BCT-
based applications for mitigating climate change can significantly benefit from features
such as efficiency, accountability and transparency offered by the BCT. BCT can act as the
base/platform technology and can accommodate, integrate and cooperate with other
disruptive technologies, such as IoT, fog computing, AI and additive manufacturing
technologies (such as cloud-based manufacturing, 3D printing) for realizing data-driven
ASCs. BCT will help create a transparent ecosystem for the distribution and delivery of
financial services and agricultural products in the ASCs, which will lead to an overall
reduction in fraudulent activities across the ASCs. With these technologies’ help, the
sudden variations in the demand-supply patterns, food safety norms and sustainability
measures can be managed effectively in the ASCs (Verdouw et al., 2016; Wang and
Yue, 2017).
5. Conclusion, limitation and scope for future work

The present study identified the enablers for the successful adoption of BCT for leveraging
circularity in ASC operations. One of the biggest technical challenges which BCT faces is the
development of public and private blockchain networks. These networks have their system
requirements which pose a challenge to blockchain scalability. Another aspect is the
ownership, accessibility and control of data, as BCT for ASCs has to ensure transparency and
inclusivity for the stakeholders. Due to the BCT’s newness, certain regulatory and
institutional challenges need to be dealt with effectively while implementing BCT in ASCs.
Provision of adequate connectivity and infrastructural requirements will also hold key for
successfully adopting and implementing BCT in ASCs.
The study’s implications will help develop robust technical associations and partnerships
with prominent BCT service providers and system integrators to build traceability and
JEIM Applications in creating circular ASCs (based on ReSOLVE
Enabler(s) framework and the 12 Rs business model)
Decentralized and distributed ledger The transition towards CE is enabled by enhanced data sharing and
technology (DDLT) collection from all the ASC stakeholders. DDLT would enable
enhanced data collection and sharing across the stakeholders in the
BCT network
Ensures traceability Traceability will help inform about the beginning of the life of the
asset/product, thereby enabling the stakeholders to recycle,
refurbish and remanufacture, and thus close the loop
Ensures accountability Accountability will optimize the ASCs enabled by the BCT and other
supporting technologies, such as BDA, IoT
Ensures transparency The enhanced transparency induced by BCT will help in
redistribution, recycling, refurbishing and remanufacture of the
assets in the ASCs. Overall, enhanced transparency will lead to
effective resource utilization
Reduces transaction costs and time The reduced transaction costs and time will facilitate the financial
(RTCT) inclusion of the small landholders. RTCT will strengthen the social
aspect in the CE, which was missing in earlier studies
Auditability of records Auditability of records will improve the asset/product origin
assurance and enhance resource optimization in the ASCs
Enhanced cybersecurity Enhanced cybersecurity would safeguard the details/information
about the dematerialized assets/products enabled by the
virtualization strategy
Effective risk management Incorporating BCT in the ASCs will help mitigate the risks compared
to traditional ASCs and enhance the sustainability in the ASCs
Data privacy and anonymity Data privacy and anonymity will help secure the product design and
redesign data, thereby facilitating digital right management of
Table 12. products/assets in ASCs
Mapping BCT enablers Seamless connectivity and In the BCT network, SCIF enables enhanced resource sharing (based
with proposed 12 Rs information flow (SCIF) on sharing economy perspective) while maintaining the asset/
framework product traceability throughout the ASC
provenance capabilities for ASC organizations. The use of disruptive technologies in ASCs
such as AI, IoT and big data analytics will further enhance information sharing in the ASCs
through real-time data collection and increase circularity. Features such as immutability,
enhanced cybersecurity and auditability of the BCT network help these technologies
generate, store and use reliable data. BCT overcomes IoTs challenges and drawbacks such as
decentralization, anonymity and security (Bermeo-Almeida et al., 2018). The data gathered by
the IoT devices throughout the ASCs can be harnessed for deriving valuable insights for
promoting data-driven decision-making (Tsang et al., 2018). Overall, BCT will lead to
enhanced operational efficiency and visibility, which will help realize CE in ASCs (see
Table 12 for mapping BCT enablers with the proposed 12 Rs framework).
This study found out ten factors that enable the deployment of BCT in agribusiness
organizations. To develop robust ASCs, BCT can act as the driver for change and enhance the
efficiency of agricultural operations. As this study pertained to Indian and developing
countries, similar studies can be conducted for different countries, and the outcomes can be
compared for drawing essential inferences. The current methodology involved ISM and
DEMATEL; therefore, it can be inferred that the chosen experts’ personal preferences and
biases may have influenced the outcomes of this study, although authors took enough care to
minimize the biases. Further, partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM)
modeling and other such techniques can be used for empirically testing the results on
this topic.
Notes Blockchain
1. The author team reviewed all the Rs framework that have been used for operationalizing CE ranging technology for
from the 3 Rs framework (Ranta et al., 2018); the 4 Rs framework (Allwood et al., 2011); the 5 Rs
framework (Lacy and Rutqvist, 2015); the 6 Rs framework (Sihvonen and Ritola, 2015); the 9 Rs
circular
framework (Potting et al., 2017; Van Buren et al., 2016); and the 10 Rs framework (Kirchherr et al., economy
2017). We thereby propose a 12 Rs framework as a contribution from this study (see section 4 for
detailed discussion on the proposed framework).
2. Three underlying principles of CE: Preservation and enhancement of natural capital; Optimizing
resource efficiency at all times within the biological and technical cycles through circulation of
materials and products to highest levels of utility and value; reducing the negative effects of
production systems by promoting system effectiveness (EMF, 2015).
References
Ahmed, S. and ten Broek, N. (2017), “Blockchain could boost food security”, Nature, Springer Science
and Business Media LLC, Vol. 550 No. 7674, p. 43.
Alexander, P., Brown, C., Arneth, A., Finnigan, J., Moran, D. and Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2017), “Losses,
inefficiencies and waste in the global food system”, Agricultural Systems, Elsevier BV, Vol. 153,
pp. 190-200.
Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J. (2012), World Agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision,
doi: 10.22004/ag.econ.288998.
Allwood, J.M., Ashby, M.F., Gutowski, T.G. and Worrell, E. (2011), “Material efficiency: a white paper”,
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 362-381.
Antonucci, F., Figorilli, S., Costa, C., Pallottino, F., Raso, L. and Menesatti, P. (2019), “A review on
blockchain applications in the agri-food sector”, Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
Wiley, Vol. 99 No. 14, pp. 6129-6138.
Apte, U.M. and Viswanathan, S. (2000), “Effective cross docking for improving distribution efficiencies”,
International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, Informa UK, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 291-302.
Arslanian, H. and Fischer, F. (2019), “Blockchain as an enabling technology”, The Future of Finance,
Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-14533-0_10.
Aste, T., Tasca, P. and Matteo, T.D. (2017), “Blockchain technologies: the foreseeable impact on society and
industry”, Computer, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 50 No. 9, pp. 18-28.
Badraoui, I., van der Vorst, J.G.A.J. and Boulaksil, Y. (2019), “Horizontal logistics collaboration: an
exploratory study in Morocco’s agri-food supply chains”, International Journal of Logistics
Research and Applications, Informa UK, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 85-102.
Bai, C. and Sarkis, J. (2013), “A grey-based DEMATEL model for evaluating business process management
critical success factors”, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 146 No. 1, pp. 281-292.
Bai, C. and Sarkis, J. (2020), “A supply chain transparency and sustainability technology appraisal
model for blockchain technology”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 58 No. 7,
pp. 2142-2162.
Banerjee, A. (2018), “Blockchain technology: supply chain insights from ERP”, Advances in
Computers, Elsevier, Vol. 111, pp. 69-98.
Barros, M.V., Salvador, R., de Francisco, A.C. and Piekarski, C.M. (2020), “Mapping of research lines on
circular economy practices in agriculture: from waste to energy”, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, Elsevier BV, Vol. 131, 109958.
Behnke, K. and Janssen, M.F.W.H.A. (2020), “Boundary conditions for traceability in food supply
chains using blockchain technology”, International Journal of Information Management,
Elsevier BV, Vol. 52, 101969.
Bermeo-Almeida, O., Cardenas-Rodriguez, M., Samaniego-Cobo, T., Ferruzola-Gomez, E., Cabezas-Cabezas,
R. and Bazan-Vera, W. (2018), “Blockchain in agriculture: a systematic literature review”, in
JEIM Valencia-Garcıa, R., Alcaraz-Marmol, G., Del Cioppo-Morstadt, J., Vera-Lucio, N. and Bucaram-
Leverone, M. (Eds), Technologies and Innovation, CITI 2018, Communications in Computer and
Information Science, Vol. 883, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-00940-3_4.
Bhosale, V.A. and Kant, R. (2016), “An integrated ISM fuzzy MICMAC approach for modelling the
supply chain knowledge flow enablers”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 54
No. 24, pp. 7374-7399.
Bianchi, F., van Beek, C., de Winter, D. and Lammers, E. (2020), “Opportunities and barriers of circular
agriculture”, available at: https://www.nwo.nl/sites/nwo/files/documents/1.%20Circular%
20agriculture_full%20paper.pdf.
Blomsma, F. and Brennan, G. (2017), “The emergence of circular economy: a new framing around
prolonging resource productivity”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Wiley Online Library, Vol. 21
No. 3, pp. 603-614.
B€ockel, A., Nuzum, A.-K. and Weissbrod, I. (2021), “Blockchain for the circular economy: analysis of
the research-practice gap”, Sustainable Production and Consumption, Vol. 25, pp. 525-539, doi:
10.1016/j.spc.2020.12.006.
Bumblauskas, D., Mann, A., Dugan, B. and Rittmer, J. (2020), “A blockchain use case in food
distribution: do you know where your food has been?”, International Journal of Information
Management, Elsevier BV, Vol. 52, 102008.
B€ uk€ozkan, G. and G€oçer, F. (2018), “Digital supply chain: literature review and a proposed
uy€
framework for future research”, Computers in Industry, Elsevier BV, Vol. 97, pp. 157-177.
Carbonell, I.M. (2016), “The ethics of big data in big agriculture”, Internet Policy Review, Internet Policy
Review, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, Vol. 5 No. 1, doi: 10.14763/
2016.1.405.
Casarejos, F., Bastos, C.R., Rufin, C. and Frota, M.N. (2018), “Rethinking packaging production and
consumption vis-a-vis circular economy: a case study of compostable cassava starch-based
material”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier BV, Vol. 201, pp. 1019-1028.
Chauhan, A., Debnath, R.M. and Singh, S.P. (2018), “Modelling the drivers for sustainable agri-food
waste management”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Emerald, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 981-993.
Chauhan, A., Kaur, H., Yadav, S. and Jakhar, S.K. (2019), “A hybrid model for investigating and
selecting a sustainable supply chain for agri-produce in India”, Annals of Operations Research,
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 290 Nos 1-2, pp. 621-642.
Chen, C.-W. (2020), “Improving circular economy business models: opportunities for business and
innovation: a new framework for businesses to create a truly circular economy”, Johnson
Matthey Technology Review, Johnson Matthey, Vol. 64 No. 1, pp. 48-58.
Chen, H.-C., Irawan, B. and Shae, Z.-Y. (2018), “A cooperative evaluation approach based on
blockchain technology for IoT application”, Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in
Ubiquitous Computing, Springer International Publishing, pp. 913-921.
Chen, K.Z., Joshi, P.K., Cheng, E. and Birthal, P.S. (2015), “Innovations in financing of agri-food value
chains in China and India”, in Dr Kevin, Z., Chen, D.S.F. and Babu, D.S.C. (Eds), China
Agricultural Economic Review, Emerald, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 616-640.
Chen, Y. and Bellavitis, C. (2020), “Blockchain disruption and decentralized finance: the rise of
decentralized business models”, Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, Vol. 13,
e00151.
Chen, Y., Li, Y. and Li, C. (2020), “Electronic agriculture, blockchain and digital agricultural
democratization: origin, theory and application”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier,
Vol. 268, 122071.
Chod, J., Trichakis, N., Tsoukalas, G., Aspegren, H. and Weber, M. (2020), “On the financing benefits of
supply chain transparency and blockchain adoption”, Management Science, Institute for
Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS), Vol. 66 No. 10, pp. 4378-4396.
Creydt, M. and Fischer, M. (2019), “Blockchain and more – algorithm driven food traceability”, Food Blockchain
Control, Elsevier BV, Vol. 105, pp. 45-51.
technology for
de Sousa Jabbour, A.B.L., Chiappetta Jabbour, C.J., Godinho Filho, M. and Roubaud, D. (2018),
“Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: a proposed research agenda and original roadmap for
circular
sustainable operations”, Annals of Operations Research, Vol. 270 No. 1, pp. 273-286. economy
Despoudi, S. (2020), “Challenges in reducing food losses at producers’ level: the case of Greek
agricultural supply chain producers”, Industrial Marketing Management, Elsevier.
Donia, E., Mineo, A.M. and Sgroi, F. (2018), “A methodological approach for assessing businness
investments in renewable resources from a circular economy perspective”, Land Use Policy,
Elsevier BV, Vol. 76, pp. 823-827.
Dorri, A., Steger, M., Kanhere, S.S. and Jurdak, R. (2017), “Blockchain: a distributed solution to
automotive security and privacy”, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 55 No. 12, pp. 119-125.
Dossa, A.A., Gough, A., Batista, L. and Mortimer, K. (2020), “Diffusion of circular economy practices in
the UK wheat food supply chain”, International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications.
doi: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1837759.
Dumont, A.M., Gasselin, P. and Baret, P.V. (2020), “Transitions in agriculture: three frameworks
highlighting coexistence between a new agroecological configuration and an old, organic and
conventional configuration of vegetable production in Wallonia (Belgium)”, Geoforum, Elsevier,
Vol. 108, pp. 98-109.
Dwivedi, Y.K., Janssen, M., Slade, E.L., Rana, N.P., Weerakkody, V., Millard, J., Hidders, J. and Snijders, D.
(2017), “Driving innovation through big open linked data (BOLD): exploring antecedents using
interpretive structural modelling”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 197-212.
EMF (2015), Growth within: A Circular Economy Vision for a Competitive Europe, Ellen Macarthur
Foundation, pp. 1-98.
MacArthur, E. and Waughray, D. (2016), Intelligent Assets: Unlocking the Circular Economy Potential,
Ellen MacArthur Foundation, Cowes.
Falcone, E.C., Steelman, Z. and Aloysius, J. (2019), “Risk, trustworthiness, and justice: understanding
blockchain technologies in the supply chain”, Academy of Management Proceedings, Academy
of Management, Vol. 2019 No. 1, p. 15924.
FAO (2012), Investing in Agriculture for a Better Future, Food and Agriculture Organization Rome,
available at: http://www.fao.org/publications/sofa/2012/en/.
Farooque, M., Zhang, A. and Liu, Y. (2019), “Barriers to circular food supply chains in China”, Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 677-696, doi: 10.1108/SCM-10-2018-0345.
Fernandez-Mena, H., Nesme, T. and Pellerin, S. (2016), “Towards an agro-industrial ecology: a review
of nutrient flow modelling and assessment tools in agro-food systems at the local scale”, Science
of The Total Environment, Elsevier BV, Vol. 543, pp. 467-479.
Figorilli, S., Antonucci, F., Costa, C., Pallottino, F., Raso, L., Castiglione, M., Pinci, E., Del Vecchio, D., Colle,
G., Proto, A.R. and Sperandio, G. (2018), “A blockchain implementation prototype for the electronic
open source traceability of wood along the whole supply chain”, Sensors, Vol. 18 No. 9, p. 3133.
Filimonau, V. and Naumova, E. (2020), “The blockchain technology and the scope of its application in
hospitality operations”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Elsevier, Vol. 87, 102383.
Flores, H., Villalobos, J.R., Ahumada, O., Uchanski, M., Meneses, C. and Sanchez, O. (2019), “Use of
supply chain planning tools for efficiently placing small farmers into high-value, vegetable
markets”, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Elsevier BV, Vol. 157, pp. 205-217.
Fu, Y. and Zhu, J. (2019), “Operation mechanisms for intelligent logistics system: a blockchain
perspective”, IEEE Access, Vol. 7, pp. 144202-144213.
Gai, K., Wu, Y., Zhu, L., Qiu, M. and Shen, M. (2019), “Privacy-preserving energy trading using
consortium blockchain in smart grid”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 3548-3558.
JEIM Galvez, J.F., Mejuto, J.C. and Simal-Gandara, J. (2018), “Future challenges on the use of blockchain for food
traceability analysis”, TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry, Elsevier BV, Vol. 107, pp. 222-232.
Galvin, D. (2017), “IBM and Walmart: blockchain for food safety”, PowerPoint presentation, IBM
Corporation, available at: shorturl.at/gmHO7.
Garcia-Torres, S., Albareda, L., Rey-Garcia, M. and Seuring, S. (2019), “Traceability for sustainability –
literature review and conceptual framework”, Supply Chain Management: An International
Journal, Emerald, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 85-106.
Ge, L., Brewster, C., Spek, J., Smeenk, A., Top, J., van Diepen, F., Klaase, B., Graumans, C. and de
Ruyter de Wildt, M. (2017), Blockchain for Agriculture and Food : Findings from the Pilot Study,
Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University, doi: 10.18174/426747.
Geissdoerfer, M., Savaget, P., Bocken, N.M. and Hultink, E.J. (2017), “The circular economy–a new
sustainability paradigm?”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 143, pp. 757-768.
Genovese, A., Acquaye, A.A., Figueroa, A. and Koh, S.C.L. (2017), “Sustainable supply chain management
and the transition towards a circular economy: evidence and some applications”, Omega, Vol. 66,
Part B, pp. 344-357, doi: 10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.015.
Ghisellini, P., Cialani, C. and Ulgiati, S. (2016), “A review on circular economy: the expected transition
to a balanced interplay of environmental and economic systems”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Elsevier, Vol. 114, pp. 11-32.
Glaser, F., Hawlitschek, F. and Notheisen, B. (2018), “Blockchain as a platform”, Business
Transformation through Blockchain, Springer International Publishing, pp. 121-143.
G€obel, C., Langen, N., Blumenthal, A., Teitscheid, P. and Ritter, G. (2015), “Cutting food waste through
cooperation along the food supply chain”, Sustainability, MDPI AG, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 1429-1445.
Gokarn, S. and Kuthambalayan, T.S. (2017), “Analysis of challenges inhibiting the reduction of waste
in food supply chain”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier BV, Vol. 168, pp. 595-604.
Goldsby, T.J. and Zinn, W. (2016), “Technology innovation and new business models: can logistics and
supply chain research accelerate the evolution?”, Journal of Business Logistics, Wiley, Vol. 37
No. 2, pp. 80-81.
Government of India (2018), “Economic survey 2017–18”, available at: https://mofapp.nic.in:8080/
economicsurvey/.
Govindan, K. (2018), “Sustainable consumption and production in the food supply chain: a conceptual
framework”, International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier BV, Vol. 195, pp. 419-431.
Gower, R. and Schr€oder, P. (2016), Virtuous Circle: How the Circular Economy Can Create Jobs and
Save Lives in Low and Middle-Income Countries, IDS/Tearfund, available at: https://www.
tearfund.org/-/media/learn/resources/reports/2016-tearfund-virtuous-circle.pdf.
Gunasekaran, A., Subramanian, N., Tiwari, M.K., Yan, B., Yan, C., Ke, C. and Tan, X. (2016),
“Information sharing in supply chain of agricultural products based on the Internet of Things”,
Industrial Management and Data Systems, Emerald Group Publishing.
Handayati, Y., Simatupang, T.M. and Perdana, T. (2015), “Agri-food supply chain coordination: the
state-of-the-art and recent developments”, Logistics Research, Springer Science and Business
Media LLC, Vol. 8 No. 1, doi: 10.1007/s12159-015-0125-4.
Hasanova, H., Baek, U., Shin, M., Cho, K. and Kim, M.-S. (2019), “A survey on blockchain cybersecurity
vulnerabilities and possible countermeasures”, International Journal of Network Management,
Wiley, Vol. 29 No. 2, e2060.
Hughes, A., Park, A., Kietzmann, J. and Archer-Brown, C. (2019), “Beyond Bitcoin: what blockchain
and distributed ledger technologies mean for firms”, Business Horizons, Elsevier BV, Vol. 62
No. 3, pp. 273-281.
Hwang, J., Choi, M., Lee, T., Jeon, S., Kim, S., Park, S. and Park, S. (2017), “Energy prosumer business
model using blockchain system to ensure transparency and safety”, Energy Procedia, Elsevier
BV, Vol. 141, pp. 194-198.
Irani, Z. and Sharif, A.M. (2018), “Food security across the enterprise: a puzzle, problem or mess for a Blockchain
circular economy?”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Emerald Publishing.
technology for
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A. and Sokolov, B. (2018), “The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on
the ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics”, International Journal of Production Research, circular
Informa UK, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 829-846. economy
Janssen, S.J.C., Porter, C.H., Moore, A.D., Athanasiadis, I.N., Foster, I., Jones, J.W. and Antle, J.M. (2017),
“Towards a new generation of agricultural system data, models and knowledge products:
information and communication technology”, Agricultural Systems, Elsevier BV, Vol. 155, pp. 200-212.
Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A. and Arha, H. (2018), “Understanding the blockchain technology adoption
in supply chains-Indian context”, International Journal of Production Research, Informa UK,
Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 2009-2033.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A. and Gawankar, S.A. (2020a), “Achieving sustainable performance in a
data-driven agriculture supply chain: a review for research and applications”, International
Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier BV, Vol. 219, pp. 179-194.
Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A. and Sharma, R. (2020b), “Modeling the blockchain enabled traceability
in agriculture supply chain”, International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier BV,
Vol. 52, 101967.
Kamilaris, A., Fonts, A. and Prenafeta-Bold, F.X. (2019), “The rise of blockchain technology in
agriculture and food supply chains”, Trends in Food Science and Technology, Elsevier BV,
Vol. 91, pp. 640-652.
Kannan, G., Pokharel, S. and Kumar, P.S. (2009), “A hybrid approach using ISM and fuzzy TOPSIS for
the selection of reverse logistics provider”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 28-36.
Kazancoglu, Y., Ekinci, E., Mangla, S.K., Sezer, M.D. and Kayikci, Y. (2021), “Performance evaluation
of reverse logistics in food supply chains in a circular economy using system dynamics”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 71-91.
Kim, H.M. and Laskowski, M. (2018), “Toward an ontology-driven blockchain design for supply-chain
provenance”, Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, Wiley, Vol. 25 No. 1,
pp. 18-27.
Kirchherr, J., Reike, D. and Hekkert, M. (2017), “Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of
114 definitions”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier BV, Vol. 127, pp. 221-232.
Korhonen, J., Nuur, C., Feldmann, A. and Birkie, S.E. (2018), “Circular economy as an essentially
contested concept”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier BV, Vol. 175, pp. 544-552.
Korpela, K., Hallikas, J. and Dahlberg, T. (2017), “Digital supply chain transformation toward
blockchain integration”, Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences (2017), Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi: 10.24251/hicss.
2017.506.
Kosba, A., Miller, A., Shi, E., Wen, Z. and Papamanthou, C. (2016), “Hawk: the blockchain model of
cryptography and privacy-preserving smart contracts”, 2016 IEEE Symposium on Security and
Privacy (SP), IEEE. doi: 10.1109/sp.2016.55.
Kouhizadeh, M., Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2020), “Blockchain and the circular economy: potential tensions
and critical reflections from practice”, Production Planning and Control, Taylor and Francis,
Vol. 31 Nos 11-12, pp. 950-966.
Kshetri, N. (2017), “Can blockchain strengthen the internet of things?”, IT Professional, Vol. 19 No. 4,
pp. 68-72.
Kshetri, N. and Voas, J. (2018), “Blockchain in developing countries”, IT Professional, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 11-14.
uhl, C., Bourlakis, M., Aktas, E. and Skipworth, H. (2020), “How does servitisation affect supply
K€
chain circularity? – a systematic literature review”, Journal of Enterprise Information
Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 703-728, doi: 10.1108/JEIM-01-2019-0024.
JEIM Kumar, A. and Dixit, G. (2018), “An analysis of barriers affecting the implementation of e-waste
management practices in India: a novel ISM-DEMAT approach”, Sustainable Production and
Consumption, Vol. 14, pp. 36-52.
Kumar, R. and Kansara, S. (2018), “Information technology barriers in Indian sugar supply chain: an
AHP and fuzzy AHP approach”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Emerald, Vol. 25
No. 7, pp. 1978-1991.
Kumar, S., Raut, R.D., Nayal, K., Kraus, S., Yadav, V.S. and Narkhede, B.E. (2021), “To identify
industry 4.0 and circular economy adoption barriers in the agriculture supply chain by using
ISM-ANP”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier, Vol. 293, 126023.
Lacy, P. and Rutqvist, J. (2015), “The product life-extension business model: products that are built to
last”, Waste to Wealth, Palgrave Macmillan, London, doi: 10.1057/9781137530707_6.
Lin, Y.-P., Petway, J., Anthony, J., Mukhtar, H., Liao, S.-W., Chou, C.-F. and Ho, Y.-F. (2017), “Blockchain:
the evolutionary next step for ICT E-agriculture”, Environments, MDPI AG, Vol. 4 No. 3, p. 50.
Liou, J.J., Tzeng, G.-H. and Chang, H.-C. (2007), “Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model”,
Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 243-249.
Liu, K.H., Chang, S.F., Huang, W.H. and Lu, I.C. (2019), “The framework of the integration of carbon
footprint and blockchain: using blockchain as a carbon emission management tool”, in Hu, A.,
Matsumoto, M., Kuo, T. and Smith, S. (Eds), Technologies and Eco-innovation Towards
Sustainability I, Springer, Singapore, doi: 10.1007/978-981-13-1181-9_2.
Lu, Q. and Xu, X. (2017), “Adaptable blockchain-based systems: a case study for product
traceability”, IEEE Software, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 34
No. 6, pp. 21-27.
Lucena, P., Binotto, A.P., Momoda, F.S. and Kim, H. (2018), A Case Study for Grain Quality Assurance
Tracking Based on a Blockchain Business Network, ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1803.07877.
Maaß, O. and Grundmann, P. (2018), “Governing transactions and interdependences between linked
value chains in a circular economy: the case of wastewater reuse in Braunschweig (Germany)”,
Sustainability, MDPI AG, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 1125.
Maesa, D.D.F., Mori, P. and Ricci, L. (2019), “A blockchain based approach for the definition of auditable
access control systems”, Computers and Security, Elsevier BV, Vol. 84, pp. 93-119.
Maghsoudi, A. and Pazirandeh, A. (2016), “Visibility, resource sharing and performance in supply
chain relationships: insights from humanitarian practitioners”, Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, Emerald, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 125-139.
Mandarino, R.A., Barbosa, F.A., Lopes, L.B., Telles, V., Florence, E.d.A.S. and Bicalho, F.L. (2019),
“Evaluation of good agricultural practices and sustaintability indicators in livestock systems
under tropical conditions”, Agricultural Systems, Elsevier BV, Vol. 174, pp. 32-38.
Mangla, S.K., Luthra, S., Rich, N., Kumar, D., Rana, N.P. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2018), “Enablers to
implement sustainable initiatives in agri-food supply chains”, International Journal of
Production Economics, Elsevier BV, Vol. 203, pp. 379-393.
Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L. (2018), “Future living framework: is blockchain the next enabling network?”,
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier BV, Vol. 128, pp. 226-234.
Maru, A., Berne, D., Beer, J.D., Ballantyne, P.G., Pesce, V., Kalyesubula, S., Fourie, N., Addison, C., Collett, A.
and Chavez, J. (2018), Digital and Data-Driven Agriculture: Harnessing the Power of Data for
Smallholders, Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation (GFAR), available at: https://
cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/92477/GFAR-GODAN-CTA-white-paper-final.pdf.
Marucheck, A., Greis, N., Mena, C. and Cai, L. (2011), “Product safety and security in the global supply
chain: issues, challenges and research opportunities”, Journal of Operations Management,
Wiley, Vol. 29 Nos 7-8, pp. 707-720.
Meng, M.H. and Qian, Y. (2018), “A blockchain aided metric for predictive delivery performance in
supply chain management”, 2018 IEEE International Conference on Service Operations and
Logistics, and Informatics (SOLI), IEEE. doi: 10.1109/soli.2018.8476723.
Min, H. (2019), “Blockchain technology for enhancing supply chain resilience”, Business Horizons, Blockchain
Elsevier BV, Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
technology for
Moktadir, M.A., Rahman, T., Rahman, M.H., Ali, S.M. and Paul, S.K. (2018), “Drivers to sustainable
manufacturing practices and circular economy: a perspective of leather industries in
circular
Bangladesh”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 174, pp. 1366-1380. economy
Montecchi, M., Plangger, K. and Etter, M. (2019), “It’s real, trust me! Establishing supply chain
provenance using blockchain”, Business Horizons, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 283-293.
Morkunas, V.J., Paschen, J. and Boon, E. (2019), “How blockchain technologies impact your business
model”, Business Horizons, Elsevier BV, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 295-306.
Mudliar, K., Parekh, H. and Bhavathankar, P. (2018), “A comprehensive integration of national
identity with blockchain technology”, Presented at the 2018 International Conference on
Communication Information and Computing Technology (ICCICT), pp. 1-6.
Munir, M.S., Bajwa, I.S. and Cheema, S.M. (2019), “An intelligent and secure smart watering system
using fuzzy logic and blockchain”, Computers and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 77, pp. 109-119.
Murray, A., Skene, K. and Haynes, K. (2017), “The circular economy: an interdisciplinary exploration
of the concept and application in a global context”, Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, Vol. 140
No. 3, pp. 369-380.
Murry, J.W. and Hammons, J.O. (1995), “Delphi: a versatile methodology for conducting qualitative
research”, The Review of Higher Education, Project Muse, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 423-436.
Nandi, S., Sarkis, J., Hervani, A.A. and Helms, M.M. (2021), “Redesigning supply chains using
blockchain-enabled circular economy and COVID-19 experiences”, Sustainable Production and
Consumption, Vol. 27, pp. 10-22.
NASA (2018), “Climate change evidence: how do we know?”, Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet,
available at: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence (accessed 6 April 2021).
Nissen, B., Pschetz, L., Murray-Rust, D., Mehrpouya, H., Oosthuizen, S. and Speed, C. (2018),
“GeoCoin”, Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
ACM. doi: 10.1145/3173574.3173737.
Oliveira, M., Miguel, M., van Langen, S.K., Ncube, A., Zucaro, A., Fiorentino, G., Passaro, R., Santagata,
R., Coleman, N., Lowe, B.H. and Ulgiati, S. (2021), “Circular economy and the transition to a
sustainable society: integrated assessment methods for a new paradigm”, Circular Economy
and Sustainability, pp. 1-15.
Ølnes, S. (2016), “Beyond bitcoin enabling smart government using blockchain technology”, in Scholl,
H.J., Glassey, O., Janssen, M., Klievink, B., Lindgren, I., Parycek, P., Tambouris, E., Wimmer, M.,
Janowski, T. and Sa Soares, D. (Eds), Electronic Government, EGOV 2016, Lecture Notes in
Computer Science, Vol. 9820, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-44421-5_20.
Pachauri, R.K., Allen, M.R., Barros, V.R., Broome, J., Cramer, W., Christ, R., Church, J.A., Clarke, L.,
Dahe, Q., Dasgupta, P. and Dubash, Dubash (2014), “Climate change 2014: synthesis report”, in
Pachauri, R.K. and Meyer, L. (Eds), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, p. 151.
Pal, S., Rabehaja, T., Hitchens, M., Varadharajan, V. and Hill, A. (2020), “On the design of a flexible
delegation model for the internet of things using blockchain”, IEEE Transactions on Industrial
Informatics, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 16 No. 5,
pp. 3521-3530.
Pappa, I.C., Iliopoulos, C. and Massouras, T. (2018), “What determines the acceptance and use of
electronic traceability systems in agri-food supply chains?”, Journal of Rural Studies, Elsevier
BV, Vol. 58, pp. 123-135.
Patel, P. and Cassou, D. (2015), “Enabling high-level application development for the Internet of
Things”, Journal of Systems and Software, Elsevier BV, Vol. 103, pp. 62-84.
Patidar, R., Venkatesh, B., Pratap, S. and Daultani, Y. (2018), “A sustainable vehicle routing problem
for Indian agri-food supply chain network design”, 2018 International Conference on
JEIM Production and Operations Management Society (POMS), IEEE. doi: 10.1109/poms.2018.
8629450.
Pham, X. and Stack, M. (2018), “How data analytics is transforming agriculture”, Business Horizons,
Elsevier, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 125-133.
Pingali, P., Khwaja, Y. and Meijer, M. (2005), “The role of the public and private sectors in
commercializing small farms and reducing transaction costs”, Global Supply Chains, Standards
and the Poor: How the Globalization of Food Systems and Standards Affects Rural Development
and Poverty, CABI, pp. 267-280.
Pinna, A. and Ibba, S. (2019), “A blockchain-based decentralized system for proper handling of
temporary employment contracts”, in Arai, K., Kapoor, S. and Bhatia, R. (Eds), Intelligent
Computing, SAI 2018, Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, Vol. 857, Springer,
Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-01177-2_88.
Pinno, O.J.A., Gregio, A.R.A. and Bona, L.C.E.D. (2017), “ControlChain: blockchain as a central enabler
for access control authorizations in the IoT”, GLOBECOM 2017–2017 IEEE Global
Communications Conference, IEEE. doi: 10.1109/glocom.2017.8254521.
Porter, S.D. and Reay, D.S. (2015), “Addressing food supply chain and consumption inefficiencies:
potential for climate change mitigation”, Regional Environmental Change, Springer Science and
Business Media LLC, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 2279-2290.
Potting, J., Hekkert, M.P., Worrell, E. and Hanemaaijer, A. (2017), Circular Economy: Measuring
Innovation in the Product Chain, PBL Publishers, The Hague, available at: https://dspace.
library.uu.nl/handle/1874/358310.
Queiroz, M.M. and Wamba, S.F. (2019), “Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: an empirical
investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA”, International Journal of Information
Management, Elsevier BV, Vol. 46, pp. 70-82.
Rana, N.P., Luthra, S., Mangla, S.K., Islam, R., Roderick, S. and Dwivedi, Y.K. (2019), “Barriers to the
development of smart cities in Indian context”, Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 21 No. 3,
pp. 503-525.
Rana, R.L., Tricase, C. and De Cesare, L. (2021), “Blockchain technology for a sustainable agri-food
supply chain”, British Food Journal, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print, doi: 10.1108/BFJ-09-
2020-0832.
Ranta, V., Aarikka-Stenroos, L., Ritala, P. and M€akinen, S.J. (2018), “Exploring institutional drivers
and barriers of the circular economy: a cross-regional comparison of China, the US, and
Europe”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier, Vol. 135, pp. 70-82.
Raut, R.D., Yadav, V.S., Cheikhrouhou, N., Narwane, V.S. and Narkhede, B.E. (2021), “Big data
analytics: implementation challenges in Indian manufacturing supply chains”, Computers in
Industry, Elsevier BV, Vol. 125, 103368.
Read, Q.D., Brown, S., Cuellar, A.D., Finn, S.M., Gephart, J.A., Marston, L.T., Meyer, E., et al. (2020),
“Assessing the environmental impacts of halving food loss and waste along the food supply
chain”, Science of The Total Environment, Elsevier, Vol. 712, 136255.
Reh, L. (2013), “Process engineering in circular economy”, Particuology, Elsevier, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 119-133.
Rehman Khan, S.A., Yu, Z., Sarwat, S., Godil, D.I., Amin, S. and Shujaat, S. (2021), “The role of block chain
technology in circular economy practices to improve organisational performance”, International
Journal of Logistics Research and Applications. doi: 10.1080/13675567.2021.1872512.
Reyna, A., Martın, C., Chen, J., Soler, E. and Dıaz, M. (2018), “On blockchain and its integration with
IoT. Challenges and opportunities”, Future Generation Computer Systems, Elsevier BV, Vol. 88,
pp. 173-190.
Robbins, S. and Coulter, M. (2012), Management, Pearson Education, New Jersey.
Rueda, X., Garrett, R.D. and Lambin, E.F. (2017), “Corporate investments in supply chain
sustainability: selecting instruments in the agri-food industry”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Elsevier BV, Vol. 142, pp. 2480-2492.
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M. and Sarkis, J. (2018a), “Blockchain technology: a panacea or pariah for Blockchain
resources conservation and recycling?”, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier BV,
Vol. 130, pp. 80-81. technology for
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J. and Shen, L. (2018b), “Blockchain technology and its relationships
circular
to sustainable supply chain management”, International Journal of Production Research, economy
Informa UK, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 2117-2135.
Salmon, J. and Myers, G. (2019), Blockchain and Associated Legal Issues for Emerging Markets,
International Finance Corporation, Washington, District of Columbia.
Sanghera, A. (2018), “How adoption of blockchain technology will revolutionise agriculture”, Inc42
Media, 17 January, available at: https://inc42.com/resources/blockchain-technology-agriculture/
(accessed 8 April 2021).
Schmidt, C.G. and Wagner, S.M. (2019), “Blockchain and supply chain relations: a transaction cost
theory perspective”, Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, Elsevier BV, Vol. 25 No. 4,
100552.
Schutzer, D. (2016), CTO Corner: What Is a Blockchain and Why Is It Important? FSRoundtable,
Vol. 16, FS Roundtable, Washington, District of Columbia, Tech. Rep.
Sehnem, S., Campos, L.M.S., Julkovski, D.J. and Cazella, C.F. (2019), “Circular business models: level of
maturity”, Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 1043-1066.
Sehnem, S., Ndubisi, N.O., Preschlak, D., Bernardy, R.J. and Santos Junior, S. (2020), “Circular economy in the
wine chain production: maturity, challenges, and lessons from an emerging economy perspective”,
Production Planning and Control, Taylor and Francis, Vol. 31 Nos 11-12, pp. 1014-1034.
Shakthi (2018), Veridium to Use IBM Blockchain Technology to Create Social and Environmental
Impact Tokens, 17 May, available at: https://thequill.in/2018/05/17/veridium-to-use-ibm-
blockchain-technology-to-create-social-and-environmental-impact-tokens/ (accessed 8
April 2021).
Shanker, S. and Barve, A. (2021), “Analysing sustainable concerns in diamond supply chain: a fuzzy
ISM-MICMAC and DEMATEL approach”, International Journal of Sustainable Engineering,
Informa UK, pp. 1-17.
Sharma, R., Kamble, S.S. and Gunasekaran, A. (2018), “Big GIS analytics framework for agriculture
supply chains: a literature review identifying the current trends and future perspectives”,
Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Elsevier BV, Vol. 155, pp. 103-120.
Sharma, Y.K., Mangla, S.K., Patil, P.P. and Liu, S. (2019), “When challenges impede the process: for
circular economy-driven sustainability practices in food supply chain”, Management Decision,
Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 995-1017, doi: 10.1108/MD-09-2018-1056.
Sharma, R., Kamble, S.S., Gunasekaran, A., Kumar, V. and Kumar, A. (2020), “A systematic literature
review on machine learning applications for sustainable agriculture supply chain performance”,
Computers and Operations Research, Elsevier, Vol. 119, 104926.
Sharma, R. and Parhi, S. (2017), “A review on use of big data in warehousing to enhance accessibility
of food”, 2017 2nd International Conference on Communication and Electronics Systems
(ICCES), IEEE. doi: 10.1109/cesys.2017.8321162.
She, W., Gu, Z.-H., Lyu, X.-K., Liu, Q., Tian, Z. and Liu, W. (2019), “Homomorphic consortium
blockchain for smart home system sensitive data privacy preserving”, IEEE Access, Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 7, pp. 62058-62070.
Shieh, J.-I., Wu, H.-H. and Huang, K.-K. (2010), “A DEMA℡ method in identifying key success factors
of hospital service quality”, Knowledge-Based Systems, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 277-282.
Shrestha, R. and Nam, S.Y. (2019), “Regional blockchain for vehicular networks to prevent 51%
attacks”, IEEE Access, Vol. 7, pp. 95033-95045.
Shukla, M. and Jharkharia, S. (2013), “Agri-fresh produce supply chain management: a state-of-the-art
literature review”, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Emerald,
Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 114-158.
JEIM Sihvonen, S. and Ritola, T. (2015), “Conceptualizing ReX for aggregating end-of-life strategies in
product development”, Procedia Cirp, Elsevier, Vol. 29, pp. 639-644.
Smith, K., Lawrence, G., MacMahon, A., Muller, J. and Brady, M. (2015), “The resilience of long and
short food chains: a case study of flooding in Queensland, Australia”, Agriculture and Human
Values, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 45-60.
Song, W., Zhu, Y. and Zhao, Q. (2020), “Analyzing barriers for adopting sustainable online
consumption: a rough hierarchical DEMA℡ method”, Computers and Industrial Engineering,
Elsevier BV, Vol. 140, 106279.
Staples, M., Chen, S., Falamaki, S., Ponomarev, A., Rimba, P., Tran, A.B., Weber, I., Xu, X. and Zhu, J.
(2017), Risks and Opportunities for Systems Using Blockchain and Smart Contracts. Data61,
CSIRO, Sydney.
Tanwar, S., Parekh, K. and Evans, R. (2020), “Blockchain-based electronic healthcare record system
for healthcare 4.0 applications”, Journal of Information Security and Applications, Elsevier,
Vol. 50, 102407.
Tapscott, D. and Tapscott, A. (2017), “How blockchain will change organizations”, MIT Sloan
Management Review, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
Vol. 58 No. 2, p. 10.
Taylor, P.J., Dargahi, T., Dehghantanha, A., Parizi, R.M. and Choo, K.-K.R. (2020), “A systematic
literature review of blockchain cyber security”, Digital Communications and Networks, Elsevier
BV, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 147-156.
Thakur, V., Doja, M.N., Dwivedi, Y.K., Ahmad, T. and Khadanga, G. (2020), “Land records on
blockchain for implementation of land titling in India”, International Journal of Information
Management, Elsevier BV, Vol. 52, 101940.
Tian, F. (2017), “A supply chain traceability system for food safety based on HACCP, blockchain and
Internet of things”, 2017 International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management,
IEEE, pp. 1-6.
Tripoli, M. and Schmidhuber, J. (2018), Emerging Opportunities for the Application of Blockchain in the
Agri-Food Industry, Vol. 3, FAO and ICTSD, Rome and Geneva, Licence: CC BY-NC-SA.
Trivedi, A., Jakhar, S.K. and Sinha, D. (2021), “Analyzing barriers to inland waterways as a
sustainable transportation mode in India: a dematel-ISM based approach”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Elsevier BV, Vol. 295, 126301.
Tsang, Y.P., Choy, K.L., Wu, C.H., Ho, G.T.S., Lam, C.H.Y. and Koo, P.S. (2018), “An Internet of Things
(IoT)-based risk monitoring system for managing cold supply chain risks”, Industrial
Management and Data Systems, Emerald, Vol. 118 No. 7, pp. 1432-1462.
Tsolakis, N.K., Keramydas, C.A., Toka, A.K., Aidonis, D.A. and Iakovou, E.T. (2014), “Agrifood supply
chain management: a comprehensive hierarchical decision-making framework and a critical
taxonomy”, Biosystems Engineering, Elsevier, Vol. 120, pp. 47-64.
Tzeng, G.-H., Chiang, C.-H. and Li, C.-W. (2007), “Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning
programs: a novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMA℡”, Expert
Systems with Applications, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1028-1044.
Unal, D., Hammoudeh, M. and Kiraz, M.S. (2020), “Policy specification and verification for blockchain
and smart contracts in 5G networks”, ICT Express, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 43-47, doi: 10.1016/j.icte.
2019.07.002.
Upadhyay, A., Mukhuty, S., Kumar, V. and Kazancoglu, Y. (2021), “Blockchain technology and the
circular economy: implications for sustainability and social responsibility”, Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 293, 126130.
Van Buren, N., Demmers, M., Van der Heijden, R. and Witlox, F. (2016), “Towards a circular economy:
the role of Dutch logistics industries and governments”, Sustainability, Multidisciplinary Digital
Publishing Institute, Vol. 8 No. 7, p. 647.
Verdouw, C.N., Wolfert, J., Beulens, A.J.M. and Rialland, A. (2016), “Virtualization of food supply chains Blockchain
with the internet of things”, Journal of Food Engineering, Elsevier BV, Vol. 176, pp. 128-136.
technology for
Verghese, K., Lewis, H., Lockrey, S. and Williams, H. (2015), “Packaging’s role in minimizing food loss
and waste across the supply chain”, Packaging Technology and Science, Wiley Online Library,
circular
Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 603-620. economy
Wang, J. and Yue, H. (2017), “Food safety pre-warning system based on data mining for a sustainable
food supply chain”, Food Control, Elsevier BV, Vol. 73, pp. 223-229.
Wang, Y., Singgih, M., Wang, J. and Rit, M. (2019), “Making sense of blockchain technology: how will
it transform supply chains?”, International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier BV,
Vol. 211, pp. 221-236.
Warfield, J.N. (1974), “Developing subsystem matrices in structural modeling”, IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Vol. 1, pp. 74-80.
Warkentin, M. and Orgeron, C. (2020), “Using the security triad to assess blockchain technology in
public sector applications”, International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, Vol. 52,
102090.
Wijaya, D.A., Liu, J.K., Suwarsono, D.A. and Zhang, P. (2017), “A new blockchain-based value-added
tax system”, in Okamoto, T., Yu, Y., Au, M. and Li, Y. (Eds), Provable Security, ProvSec 2017,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 10592, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-68637-
0_28.
Winkler, H. (2011), “Closed-loop production systems – a sustainable supply chain approach”, CIRP
Journal of Manufacturing Science and Technology, Elsevier, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 243-246.
Wolfert, S., Ge, L., Verdouw, C. and Bogaardt, M.-J. (2017), “Big data in smart farming – a review”,
Agricultural Systems, Elsevier BV, Vol. 153, pp. 69-80.
World Economic Forum (2017), “The system initiative on shaping the future of food security and
agriculture”, available at: https://data.worldbank.org/ (accessed 11 January 2020).
Wright, A. and De Filippi, P. (2015), “Decentralized blockchain technology and the rise of lex
cryptographia”. doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2580664.
Yadav, S., Garg, D. and Luthra, S. (2020a), “Development of IoT based data-driven agriculture supply
chain performance measurement framework”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management,
Emerald Publishing.
Yadav, S. and Singh, S.P. (2020), “An integrated fuzzy-ANP and fuzzy-ISM approach using blockchain
for sustainable supply chain”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Emerald, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 54-78.
Yadav, V.S., Singh, A.R., Raut, R.D. and Govindarajan, U.H. (2020b), “Blockchain technology adoption
barriers in the Indian agricultural supply chain: an integrated approach”, Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, Elsevier BV, Vol. 161, 104877.
Yan, J. and Wu, N. (2011), “Technology supporting system of circular economy of mining cities”, 2011
Asia-Pacific Power and Energy Engineering Conference, IEEE, pp. 1-5.
Yue, X., Wang, H., Jin, D., Li, M. and Jiang, W. (2016), “Healthcare data gateways: found healthcare
intelligence on blockchain with novel privacy risk control”, Journal of Medical Systems,
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 40 No. 10, doi: 10.1007/s10916-016-0574-6.
Zabaniotou, A. and Kamaterou, P. (2019), “Food waste valorization advocating circular bioeconomy –
a critical review of potentialities and perspectives of spent coffee grounds biorefinery”, Journal
of Cleaner Production, Elsevier BV, Vol. 211, pp. 1553-1566.
Zhang, A. and Lin, X. (2018), “Towards secure and privacy-preserving data sharing in e-health
systems via consortium blockchain”, Journal of Medical Systems, Springer Science and Business
Media LLC, Vol. 42 No. 8, doi: 10.1007/s10916-018-0995-5.
Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H.-N., Chen, X. and Wang, H. (2018), “Blockchain challenges and opportunities:
a survey”, International Journal of Web and Grid Services, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 352-375.
JEIM Zhu, L., Zhou, J., Cui, Z. and Liu, L. (2010), “A method for controlling enterprises access to an eco-
industrial park”, Science of the Total Environment, Elsevier, Vol. 408 No. 20, pp. 4817-4825.
Zhu, Q. and Kouhizadeh, M. (2019), “Blockchain technology, supply chain information, and strategic
product deletion management”, IEEE Engineering Management Review, Institute of Electrical
and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 36-44.
Zsidisin, G.A. and Henke, M. (Eds) (2019), Revisiting Supply Chain Risk, Springer Series in Supply
Chain Management, Vol. 7, Springer, Cham, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-03813-7_10.
Appendix
The Appendix contents are available in online for this article.
Corresponding author
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour can be contacted at: chiappettajabbour@em-lyon.com
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

10 1108 - Jeim 02 2021 0094 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1108 - Jeim 02 2021 0094 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Leveraging blockchain technology Blockchain

Author(s) Study type Objective

2. Theoretical underpinnings and literature review

2.1 Blockchain technology (BCT)

2.2 Agricultural supply chains in India: challenges and opportunities

2.3 Blockchain technology in agricultural supply chains

2.4 The circular economy

3 Rs Reduce, recycle, reuse Ranta et al. (2018)

ISM-DEMATEL application area Reference(s)

Identification of barriers to sustainable transportation in India Trivedi et al. (2021)

3.2 Integrating DEMATEL methodology with ISM

where [xijr] is a matrix developed for every expert respondent r.

where I is the identity matrix.

management (BCTE6), ensures accountability (BCTE3) and auditability of records

3.4 Applying DEMATEL

BCTE1 1.4358 0.0783 1.5141 4th 1.3575 2nd Cause

4.1 Managerial implications

4.2 Theoretical implications

4.3 Policy implications

5. Conclusion, limitation and scope for future work

You might also like