Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part E

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tre

Maritime shipping digitalization: Blockchain-based technology

T
applications, future improvements, and intention to use
Chung-Shan Yang
Department of Aviation and Maritime Transportation Management, Chang Jung Christian University, Tainan City, Taiwan, ROC

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Although a number of studies focus on using the blockchain technology (BT) in various appli-
Maritime shipping cation aspects, there is no comprehensive survey on the blockchain applications in maritime
Digitalization shipping supply chain. To fill this gap, we conduct a comprehensive blockchain applications and
Blockchain technology future improvements survey, and empirically evaluate its effects on intention to use. The results
Technology acceptance model
suggested that customs clearance and management, digitalizing and easing paperwork, stan-
Intention to use
dardization and platform development dimensions positively affected intention to use. In parti-
cular, this paper gives the maritime shipping blockchain-based digitalization also points out the
future improvement directions in the blockchain technology.

1. Introduction

With the progress of international trade and globalization, global logistics is becoming more and more important in a world
characterized by global partnerships which are deepening but also taking place in an increasingly turbulent environment (Chang and
Lai, 2017). Because shipping provides low-cost, efficient transportation services, it is currently the main global trade transportation
model. However, maritime shipping services involve complex partners and must deal with a large number of transport documents
which can slow down the process of delivering goods from one party to another (Lieber, 2017). As a result, companies involved in
international trade are looking for faster, more efficient, and lower-cost trade-related operational procedures (Lehmacher and
McWaters, 2017). Blockchain technology has been gradually applied to the global logistics of the maritime shipping supply chain to
enhance efficiency through the digitalization of maritime shipping records, including keeping real-time track of the status of cargos,
improving visibility in the global supply chain, and reducing customs clearance time, costs and risks.
Blockchain is a decentralized, shared, encrypted repository (Apte and Petrovsky, 2016), insusceptible to the alteration and
corruption of databases (Wright and De Filippi, 2015), retains copies of the entire blockchain (Önder and Treiblmaier, 2018; Luu
et al., 2016), provides the foundation for collaborative commerce (Luu et al., 2016; Kim and Shim, 2018), and allows licensees to
access trusted data in real time (Lieber, 2017). It simplifies the decision-making process at each stage by enabling simultaneous
auditing between partners and makes real-time optimization possible, thereby increasing trust throughout the supply chain (Hackius
and Petersen, 2017; Lieber, 2017). Consequently a variety of supply chains have gradually introduced blockchain technology to
improve data sharing between trading partners and to increase transparency along the supply chain (Lieber, 2017). Maersk uses
blockchain solutions to track container locations, temperatures and other detailed conditions (Jackson, 2017). UPS also joined the
Transportation Alliance Blockchain (BiTA) Forum to participate in the establishment of technical standards and educational de-
velopment. Blockchain is also being tested by retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for monitoring trade and ensuring food safety
(Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017). The implementation of blockchain technology not only signals the push forward in efforts to

E-mail address: yangcs@mail.cjcu.edu.tw.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.09.020
Received 24 July 2019; Received in revised form 10 September 2019; Accepted 27 September 2019
1366-5545/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

digitize supply lines, but also has played a significant role in reducing transportation costs and shaping global trade prospects (Li
et al., 2017). The use of blockchain applications will benefit shipping companies, port operators, freight forwarders, shipping
agencies, and other maritime shipping supply chain operators because using disruptive technologies earlier than competitors can
provide companies with advantages and a higher degree of competitiveness.
The growth of blockchain applications must be studied as soon as possible so that those who control supply chains can determine
how blockchain technology could make their operations more efficient. An excellent place to begin such a study is the maritime
shipping supply chain because it is still immature but has great potential. Empirical data is necessary for strategic decisions to be
made. This study focuses on maritime shipping supply chain company-level executives' intentions to adopt blockchain technology.
This study attempts to answer a number of research questions in this regard. The principal question being examined is: What are the
important blockchain technology applications and anticipated future improvements that are being considered by leading organi-
zations in maritime shipping in relation to blockchain technology? To answer this question this study conducts a review of relevant
literature to see what kind of blockchain applications and future improvements are being considered for adoption in the maritime
shipping supply chain. The study is organized as follows: The first part provides an overview of the study. The second part lays out the
theoretical basis of the study and proceeds with a literature discussion which reviews the most recent research on blockchain
applications as well as future improvements anticipated in the maritime shipping industry, and describes five hypotheses which the
study is designed to answer. The third part explains the research methods used in the study, including sampling, measurement, and
analytical methods. An analysis of the results of the study are presented in the fourth part. The fifth part presents the conclusions of
the research and discusses their implications for academic and maritime practice. Finally, we discuss the findings, academic and
managerial implications, and consider the study’s limitations as they relate to further research.

2. Literature review

The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is mainly used in the exploitation stage of new technologies. Based on TAM, this study
explores potential applications and future improvements to blockchain technology based on consumers’ perceived usefulness and
ease of use of the technology. Therefore, the following literature review is related to the technology acceptance model, blockchain
applications, and blockchain future improvements.

2.1. Technology acceptance model (TAM)

The TAM examines how users become willing to accept the use of new technologies. TAM assesses the intention to use new
technologies from two specific points of view, namely the perceived ease of use of the new technology and its perceived usefulness
(Venkatesh and Davis, 2000; Park et al., 2014). Perceived ease of use is related to the effort users must make when using the
technology. Perceived usefulness refers to the improvement in performance of users when using this technology (Davis, 1989). The
adoption of new technology should be a reasonable action, and TAM can operate and test better than other theoretically generated
structures because of its simplicity (Porter and Donthu, 2006). TAM is a powerful and simple model for explaining the acceptance of
new technology (Lee et al., 2003) and has been widely verified in various fields. Research on supply chain practitioners has found
that perceived usefulness affects practitioners decisions about whether to use the technology or not. Supply chain practitioners that
did decide to adopt blockchain technology believed that using blockchain technology could benefit them and improve the effec-
tiveness of the supply chain (Kamble et al., 2019). Theoretically, using the TAM model, the degree of applicability of a new in-
formation technology in the context of individuals and in organisations can be predicted and evaluated (Venkatesh et al. 2003;
Wallace and Sheetz, 2014). Blockchain application can be evaluated from a TAM perspective (Saberi et al., 2019). The use of TAM in
the analysis of blockchain technology has become widespread (Folkinshteyn and Lennon, 2016; Li, 2017; Thiruchelvam et al., 2018;
Saberi et al., 2019; Kamble et al., 2019; Queiroz and Wamba, 2019). This study builds on this prior research using an empirical survey
to examine the degree to which managers’ interest in using blockchain technology in the maritime industry has been influenced by
the degree to which they think it could be useful (perceived usefulness), and the degree to which they think it will make management
of the blockchain easier (perceived ease of use).

2.2. Blockchain application: Digitalizing and easing paperwork

Since the maritime industry deals with cross-border trade and transportation, the process involves multiple languages and in-
stitutions, and the process of digitization and standardization is slow. A variety of paperwork is involved, such as: bills of lading,
purchase orders, commercial invoices, packing lists, booking confirmations, dangerous goods declarations, certificates of origin,
inspection certificates, insurance certificates, etc. The storage of this paperwork in paper form is very cumbersome for management.
At the same time, documents with valuable transactional delivery vouchers such as bills of lading may be subject to fraud. It is
estimated that between 15% and 50% of transportation costs in the Global container shipping industry are due to the time spent on
paperwork (Groenfeldt, 2017). The Maersk shipping carrier has therefore been working hard to digitize the cargo inventory of ships
using blockchains. Since the record is immutable, even the owner or the issuing authority itself cannot change the created record to
obtain any personal benefit (Jain et al., 2018). Current terminal handling capacity can load containers within minutes. However, due
to delays caused by paperwork, these containers may be delayed for many days in ports (Groenfeldt, 2017), which hinders shipping
supply chain and logistics operations (Morabito, 2017). In addition, international trade documents such as letters of credit and bills of
lading are also easily forged or lost during the delivery process, resulting in fraudulent events (Hackius and Petersen, 2017).

109
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

Blockchain distributed ledger technology simplifies and reduces process delays and fraud and may increase global GDP by nearly 5%
(Hackius and Petersen, 2017; Dobrovnik et al., 2018; Lieber, 2017). At the same time distributed ledger technology increases supply
chain visibility, making specific transaction documents truly paperless (Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017; Kim and Shim, 2018). Thus,
it is postulated that:
H1. Blockchain applications which incorporate digitalizing and easing paperwork will be positively associated with intention to use.

2.3. Blockchain application: Tracking and tracing

Current cargo tracking practices can only be obtained through system information provided on the transportation service pro-
vider's company home page. Therefore, such information is limited to when the cargo information enters the transportation service
provider's processing system (Foerstl et al., 2017). Blockchain technology tracks a wider range of global logistics partners such as
shippers, ocean freight forwarders, shipping carriers, maritime port corporations, terminal operators, and customs offices, making it
possible to monitor and track goods much more thoroughly while at the same time providing open access to information relating to
delivery times (Dobrovnik et al., 2018; Allison, 2017). This makes the supply chain more efficient and productive (Tapscott and
Tapscott, 2016; Baker and Steiner, 2015). For example, Maritime Blockchain Labs (MBL) has embarked on the development of a
prototype that uses blockchains to address the declaration, tracking and tracing, online auditing, and processing of dangerous goods
to improve traceability and to reduce incidents. Wal-Mart collaborates with IBM to immediately track details of food handling and
factory processing processes for all supply chain partners (Hackius and Petersen, 2017). Blockchain technology can connect supply
chains more efficiently, providing time stamps to prove data exchange and visibility (Czachorowski et al., 2019); shippers can
improve traceability and transparency (Mougayar and Buterin, 2016), and customers can evaluate product sources and suppliers
(Mougayar and Buterin, 2016; Hancock and Vaizey, 2016; Hackius and Petersen, 2017; Francisco and Swanson, 2018) by tracking the
blockchain path. This feature of blockchain technology is greatly valued because the current system for recording data is susceptible
to manipulation. Thus, it is postulated that:
H2. Blockchain applications incorporating tracking and tracing will be positively associated with intention to use.

2.4. Blockchain application: Customs clearance and management

Since the global supply chain contains valuable goods, items being transported must be verified by letter of credit and bill of
lading. These letters move in time and space and therefore face the risk of being counterfeited (Hackius and Petersen, 2017; Hancock
and Vaizey, 2016; Apte and Petrovsky, 2016), stolen or fraudulently duplicated (Hackius and Petersen, 2017; Lehmacher, 2017).
Buyers in the traditional shipping supply chain are unable to determine what is in a shipping container until the goods arrive and the
container is opened. An ocean carrier can only rely on the documents provided by the shipper or freight forwarder to understand the
contents of a container. It may also be difficult for customs authorities to identify the buyers of certain imported products. Blockchain
aims to prevent unauthorized access to the data within the blockchain through the use of secured cryptographic algorithms. This
immutability makes the data tamper-proof (Jain et al., 2018). At the same time this data “allow(s) full visibility for all parties
involved with proof of work, facilitating inspections, and audits compliance” (Czachorowski et al., 2019), and ultimately helps to
improve the efficiency of cargo transportation and customs clearance (IBM, 2018). Customs and other government agencies can
improve the visibility of the status of traders’ shipments through the use of the blockchain platform. For example, TradeLens enables
shipping organizations related to the shipping supply chain to exchange cargo events and documents in real time, thereby providing
up-to-date location information and visibility about the contents being shipped which can be used to help customs authorities target
particular shipments and, by improving compliance, expedite trade.
In the customs clearance process, the consignee, the manifest sender, and the customs broker perform cross-validation of in-
formation in the blockchain. The consignee transmits the invoice, packing list and waybill information, the person handling manifest
transmission transmits the manifest information, and the customs broker transmits the customs declaration data. At present, the types
of packaging, trading countries, number of pieces, commodity names, unit prices, currency, and quantities can be cross-validated
which enables customs to validate shipments. Through blockchain technology, customs can obtain application materials and credit
data from corporate and upstream and downstream supply chain partners. It is very difficult for any company in a blockchain to
provide false information. Through the use of blockchain technology customs officers can further improve the speed of customs
clearance. With the use of blockchain technology by customs, banks and other regulatory authorities, the efficiency, legitimacy and
integrity of the supply chain is enhanced.
Through the use of blockchain technology, customs authorities will be able to quickly collect all the information they need, such
as ownership, source, authenticity and price (Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017). This will replace the product labelling practices
currently used to determine whether to allow goods to pass through the border or to block them (Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017),
thereby reducing the risk of transporting fraudulent or counterfeit goods (Hancock and Vaizey, 2016), protecting consumers, and
speeding up the customs clearance process. For example, TradeLens, underpinned by blockchain technology and supported by IBM,
Maersk, CMA CGM, MSC and other major industry players, promotes more efficient, predictable, and secure transfer trade documents
and cargo details across organizations in order to automate customs filings and clearance. An importer can now trust the information

110
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

in a declaration. Forward-thinking customs agencies are already launching blockchain-related projects, and it’s only a matter of time
before blockchain-enabled trade and customs ecosystems become commonplace among government agencies, shippers, and traders.
Thus, we postulate that:
H3. Blockchain applications incorporating customs clearance and management will be positively associated with intention to use.

2.5. Blockchain future improvements: Standardization and platform development

The current lack of globally consistent technical standards for blockchain technology is a widely experienced barrier to the
implementation of the technology (Heutger and Kueckelhaus, 2018). Since the logistics industry involves upstream, downstream, and
parallel supply chain operations, many of which involve different partners, it is necessary to be able to communicate information
quickly and accurately. Overcoming technical barriers in information transfer would be a key advantage in implementing a block-
chain technology system (Francisco and Swanson, 2018; Korpela et al., 2017). As a result, standards-related schemes have been
initiated around the world to study technical specifications for blockchains from various perspectives (Deshpande et al., 2017). For
example, a new technical committee (ISO/TC 307) of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has been established to
find a way to integrate all departments to promote draft blockchain technical standards for distributed ledgers (ISO, 2017). In general
potential negligence or malicious abuse of technology and its application is always possible (Kakavand et al., 2017). The standar-
dization and development of a common platform for blockchain technology is an area of future improvement which will increase
blockchain implementation because it will answer issues raised as a result of differing levels of digital readiness (Shermin, 2017),
sector-specific technical practices and standards, and cultural resistance (Crosby et al., 2016; Shackelford and Myers, 2017).
Therefore, it is postulated that:
H4. Blockchain future improvement incorporating standardization and platform development will be positively associated with
intention to use.

2.6. Blockchain future improvements: Business model and regulation

Digital information exchange for the purpose of easing paperwork, tracking and tracing cargo, customs clearance, and managing
maritime shipping operators are key issues to be addressed when designing blockchain-based business models. At present, govern-
ments, enterprises and consumers are still in a state of uncertainty about how blockchain technology should operate, what related
business models can be followed, and future market potential. The pain point in blockchain technology implementation will no longer
be the technology itself, but the development of an accompanying set of regulations and the development of a truly suitable business
model. Since blockchains have not been widely adopted in the maritime industry, related cost-benefit analyses are still unclear, not to
mention mid- and long-term assessments (Deshpande et al., 2017; Kakavand et al., 2017; Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017) and
analyses of returns on investment (Belle, 2017). For shipping supply chain operators, the greatest concern may be regulatory un-
certainty. Because of the distributed nature of the blockchain and its irreversible functions, the development of governance is a
central component in need of improvement (Kakavand et al., 2017; Deshpande et al., 2017). For example, when a company leaks key
information, or data is lost or stolen, or a company fails, many relevant governance and legal obligations are faced by the business
and operator (Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017). Regulatory governance (i.e. agreements, laws, and practices) may be the biggest
obstacle to blockchain implementation, and may require several years of effort (Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017). Thus, it is pos-
tulated that:
H5: The development of a business model and effective regulations will be positively associated with the intention to use
blockchain technology.

3. Methodology

3.1. Sample

This study examined the effects of blockchain applications and improvements on the intention to use blockchain applications in
the future in the context of maritime shipping. The study’s target sample was comprised of maritime port corporations, shipping
companies, shipping agencies, and shipping forwarders engaged in maritime shipping operations in Taiwan. A questionnaire was
issued to 508 respondents in October 2018. Initial issuance elicited 83 usable responses. A follow-up release was made 4 weeks later
and another 38 valid questionnaires were received. As a result, a total of 121 valid questionnaires were collected, accounting for
23.8% of the target sample.

3.2. Measures

The measures of blockchain applications, future improvements, and intentions to use blockchain technology in this study were
drawn from relevant studies (Appendix A). To ensure validity, they were discussed with a number of maritime shipping executives
and experts who included a senior technician from the Maritime and Port Bureau, a senior researcher from the Taiwan International
Ports Corporation, the chairman of a shipping agency corporation, and the junior vice president of a shipping carrier, in order to

111
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

refine the design of the questionnaire used for the main survey. These interviews resulted in minor modifications to the wording and
examples provided in some of the measurement items. After minor changes were implemented and a review had been conducted by
two maritime shipping academicians, content validity was confirmed, and the instrument was sent to the respondents in the main
sample for data collection. Appendix A presents the final measurement items. The respondents answered all questions using a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

3.3. Data analysis methods

First, descriptive statistics, exploratory factor analysis, and item total correlation analysis were used to summarize the blockchain
application, future improvement, and intention to use attributes into smaller, more manageable sets of underlying factors or di-
mensions. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine unidimensionality, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and
construct reliability. Lastly, a hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine the effects of blockchain applications (i.e. customs
clearance and management, digitalizing and easing of paperwork, and tracking and tracing) and future improvements (i.e. stan-
dardization and platform development, business models and regulations) on the respondents’ intention to use blockchain technology.

4. Analysis and results

4.1. Respondent profile

Table 1 lists the characteristics of the questionnaire respondents and the companies to which the study’s questionnaire were sent.
The figures reveal that the participants comprised vice presidents and those with higher positions (28.1%), managers and assistant
managers (34.7%), directors and vice directors (17.4%), and sales representatives (19.8%). Overall, top management, members of
boards of directors, and planning staff tend to have the most significant involvement in anchoring operations in their businesses and
to have the most influence in the strategic decision process relating to blockchain technology adoption. More than 80% of the
responses used in this study come from director/vice director or above, which supports the reliability of the survey findings. As
shown in Table 1, most respondents represented shipping forwarders (40.5%) and shipping companies (22.3%). The main depart-
ments represented by the respondents were management departments (45.5%) and sales departments (43.8%), followed by in-
formation departments (10.7%). Regarding respondent seniority, more than half of the respondents (67.8%) had more than 5 years’
experience in their companies.

4.2. Exploratory factor analysis results

The results of factor analysis from the EFA were based on principal components and a VARIMAX rotation to extract six factors
(Appendix A). The six factors were labelled customs clearance and management (CC), digitalizing and ease of paperwork (DP),

Table 1
Profile of respondents (n = 121).
Characteristics of respondents Frequency %

Job title Vice president or above 34 28.1

Manager/assistant manager 42 34.7
Director/vice director 21 17.4
Sales representative 24 19.8

Department Management 55 45.5

Sales 53 43.8
Information 13 10.7

Seniority < 5 years 39 32.2

6–10 years 21 17.4
11–15 years 18 14.9
16–20 years 15 12.4
More than 20 years 28 23.1

Company category Port corporation 24 19.8

Shipping company 27 22.3
Shipping agency 21 17.4
Shipping forwarders 49 40.5

Ownership Local firm 108 89.2

Foreign-local firm 7 5.8
Foreign-owned firm 6 5.0

Numbers of employee < 100 41 33.9

101–1000 19 15.7
1001–2000 30 24.8
Over 2000 31 25.5

112
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

Table 2
Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Latent variables Unstandardized factor loading Completely standardized factor loading Standard errora Critical Ratiob

ξ1: Customs clearance (CC) (AVE: 0.680)

CC1 1.000 0.777 –c –
CC2 1.086 0.873 0.104 10.468***
CC3 1.110 0.877 0.105 10.527***
CC4 0.953 0.780 0.105 9.094***
CC5 1.106 0.809 0.116 9.522***

ξ2: Digitalizing and ease paperwork (DP) (AVE: 0.614)

DP1 1.000 0.848 –c –
DP2 0.921 0.824 0.085 10.829***
DP3 0.736 0.701 0.086 8.556***
DP4 0.794 0.811 0.075 10.555***
DP5 0.782 0.722 0.088 8.922***

ξ3: Tracking and tracing (TT) (AVE: 0.608)

TT1 1.000 0.773 –c –
TT2 1.169 0.828 0.125 9.353***
TT3 0.924 0.792 0.104 8.899***
TT4 1.012 0.721 0.126 8.000***

ξ4: Standardization and platform (SP) (AVE: 0.651)

SP1 1.000 0.771 –c –
SP2 0.970 0.872 0.096 10.110***
SP3 0.971 0.754 0.114 8.538***
SP4 0.987 0.826 0.104 9.512***

ξ5: Business model and regulation (BR) (AVE: 0. 0.542)

BR1 1.000 0.580 –c –
BR2 1.377 0.883 0.244 5.656***
BR3 1.157 0.714 0.204 5.673***

ξ6: Intention to use (IN) (AVE: 0.793)

IN1 1.000 0.869 –c –
IN2 1.162 0.951 0.077 15.164***
IN3 1.050 0.848 0.085 12.376***

Note:
a
S.E. is an estimate of the standard error of the covariance;
b
C.R. is the critical ratio obtained by dividing the estimate of the covariance by its standard error.
*** Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level;
c
Indicates a parameter fixed at 1.0 in the original solution.

tracking and tracing (TT), standardization and platform (SP), business model and regulation (BR), and intention to use (IN). Appendix
A presents the respondents’ agreement levels with blockchain applications, future improvements, and intention to use. The results
indicated that the respondents considered BR (mean = 4.132) the most agreeable dimension, followed by TT (mean = 4.122) and IN
(mean = 4.096); CC (mean = 4.007) had the lowest agreement level.

4.3. Instrument reliability and validity

To examine the unidimensionality of the measurement items, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 20
software. Table 2 presents the CFA factor loadings. The average variance extracted (AVE) values for all constructs were higher than
0.50 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results revealed good fit according to the following model fit indices: chi-square/degrees of
freedom = 1.848 (the acceptable ratio was lower than 2.0 (Tabachnick et al., 2007)), p = 0.000, comparative fit index = 0.902 (a
value exceeding 0.90 indicated that the research model had reasonably good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999)), root mean square re-
sidual = 0.04 (a value of 0.05 or lower indicated an acceptable model (Byrne, 1998)), and root mean square error of approxima-
tion = 0.08 (a value lower than 0.08 is generally considered a good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999)).
We used a CFA to obtain convergent and discriminant validity. Convergent validity can be tested using t values that are significant
on factor loadings (Dunn et al., 1994). In the AMOS text output file, the t value is the critical ratio (CR), which represents the
parameter estimate divided by its standard errors. Furthermore, a construct with a loading of indicators of at least 0.50 (Kline, 2011),
a significant CR (CR > 1.96), or both is considered to indicate convergent validity. For our model, all factor loadings were greater
than 0.50, and all CRs were greater than 1.96, thereby demonstrating convergent validity. Finally, we verified the discriminant
validity of our instrument by comparing the AVE for each latent construct to the square of the correlation between each construct and
other constructs (Segars and Grover, 1998). The results in Table 3 confirm discriminant validity; the AVE for each construct was
greater than the level of the square of correlations involving each construct.

113
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

Table 3
Comparison of AVE and squared correlations.
Construct CC DP TT SP BR IN

CC 0.680
DP 0.281 0.614
TT 0.423 0.423 0.608
SP 0.281 0.384 0.423 0.651
BR 0.073 0.053 0.109 0.137 0.542
IN 0.303 0.410 0.360 0.533 0.144 0.793

Note: AVE are on the diagonal; square correlations are off-diagonal.

Table 4
Hierarchical regression analysis results (standardized β coefficients).
Variables Model 1 (Intention to use) Model 2 (Intention to use) Model 3 (Intention to use)

Control variables
Job title 0.032 0.171* 0.130*
Department −0.030 −0.078 −0.076
Company category 0.032 0.014 0.045

Independent variables
BT applications
CC 0.217* 0.153*
DP 0.427*** 0.276***
TT 0.195* −0.003

Future improvements
SP 0.462***
BR 0.088

F-value F(3,117) = 0.09804 F(6,114) = 20.179*** F(8,112) = 24.625***

Adj. R2 0.025 0.490 0.612
Δ Adj. R2 0.465 0.122

Note: **Significant at p ≦ 0.01.

* Significant at p ≦ 0.05.
*** Significant at p ≦ 0.001.

4.4. Hypotheses testing

We conducted a hierarchical regression analysis to test the hypotheses. As shown in Table 4, we conducted the analysis in three
stages. First, we entered the control variables, including job title, department, and company category, into the regression for intention
to use (Model 1). Second, we added the blockchain applications (i.e., CC, DP, and TT) into the regression as a block (Model 2). Third,
we added the future improvements (i.e. SP and BR) into the regression as a block (Model 3). To examine multicollinearity, we
examined the variance inflation factors (VIFs) for each regression equation. The maximum VIF within the models was 2.65, which
was well below the rule-of-thumb cut-off value of 10 (Neter et al., 1990).
Regarding the effects of CC (β = 0.153, p < 0.05) and DP (β = 0.276, p < 0.001) on intention to use (Table 4), Model 3 showed
that the coefficients were positive and significant. Thus, H1 and H2 were supported. Regarding the effects of SP on intention to use,
we predicted a positive relationship; as shown in Model 3 (β = 0.462, p < 0.001), where the coefficient was positive and significant.
Accordingly, H4 was supported. Regarding the effects of the control variables, namely job title on intention to use, the result of Model
3 indicated that the coefficients for job title (β = 0.130, p < 0.05) was significant.

5. Conclusions and implications

To provide insights into the research question, this study analysed applications, future improvements, and intentions to use a
blockchain bundling model. The study empirically tested the key factors affecting intentions to use blockchain technology that is
designed to assist maritime shipping in achieving effectiveness, efficiency and competitiveness through technological and managerial
innovation. We developed measures and conducted an exploratory analysis, a confirmatory analysis, and a hierarchical regression to
empirically test our hypotheses. Factor analysis was conducted to arrange blockchain applications, future improvements, and in-
tention to use attributes into six critical dimensions (factors): customs clearance and management (CC), digitalizing and easing
paperwork (DP), tracking and tracing (TT), standardization and platform development (SP), business model and regulation (BR), and
intention to use (IN). Hierarchical regression analysis findings indicated that CC, DP, and SP positively influenced intention to use,
and acted as key drivers to enhance intentions to use blockchain technology.

114
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

The study also echoes the TAM to identify the perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of blockchain technology for
maritime supply chain operators. In terms of perceived ease of use, this study extracted and validated standardization and platform
development (SP) as being a key factor because maritime shipping operators expect this to improve the ease of using blockchain
technology by improving opportunities for collaboration in the maritime shipping supply chain. In terms of perceived usefulness, this
study extracted and validated customs clearance and management (CC) and digitalizing and easing paperwork (DP), as being the
most urgent direction for the application of blockchain technology into the maritime shipping supply chain. Our research results
show that blockchain technology applications and future improvements are viewed as potentially having a considerable impact on
maritime-related industries and should be seen as an inevitable trend, and this is affecting the degree to which adoption is being
considered. It is recommended that managers dedicate resources to studying significant blockchain applications and determine which
of the many blockchain applications and future improvements can be incorporated into their shipping supply chain portfolio as a
value- added service, and thus contribute to competitive advantages before their competitors get ahead of them.
Regarding the effect of job title on intention to use, the results of Model 3 revealed that the coefficient was significant. This
implied that the respondents with a higher job title had less intention to use blockchain technology. The finding is not surprising
because older people in senior positions are less receptive to new technologies and tend to have a sceptical attitude about the benefits
of new technology (Mitzner et al., 2010). Blockchains could revolutionize the digitalization of paperwork (DP) and the ease with
which it can be processed, as well as expediting customs clearance and management (CC) in maritime shipping, thus upgrading and
transforming the industry. Blockchain technology also greatly enhances cross-border trade security and safety. It is worth noting that
the need for the improvement of business models and regulations (BR) has sparked extensive discussion in relation to businesses’
intentions to use blockchain technology, although these variables were not shown to be significant in the present study.
In terms of the implications of this study, three blockchain applications were universally recognized and affirmed by the maritime
shipping supply chain operators surveyed. Likewise, these distinctive blockchain applications are shown empirically to be considered
valuable in terms of enhancing efficiency and effectiveness. We believe that framing the role of blockchain application in this manner
contributes to the maritime shipping literature and future theoretical development. From a managerial perspective, this study
provides enlightening insights into the way that blockchain application that may revolutionize the underlying technology of the
maritime shipping and logistics supply chain systems, thus upgrading and digitally transforming them, which will reduce costs, save
transit time, enhance efficiency and predictability, and increase safety and security. Managers might employ these blockchain ap-
plications to exploit their relative strength as compared to their competitors, and may also wish to conduct personnel training. In
order to boost blockchain-based maritime shipping transformation, the implementation of the blockchain involves the coordination
of government regulatory systems, especially customs clearance and management, and a government support and review system
needs to be established.
Despite the benefits of using blockchain technology, newly developed technologies also present risks that cannot be under-
estimated. Due to the relatively immaturity of blockchain technology, few blockchain start-ups currently exist so that their technical
stability and the degree to which blockchain technology may be deployed on a large scale can be assessed. Although blockchain
technology has quite a number of conceptual verifications and some practical operational paradigms, the implementation of
blockchains faces continuing challenges in terms of scalability, interoperability, data management, standards, and uncertainty in
relation to government regulations. Even though many regions and industries have a high interest in using blockchains to solve
market inefficiencies, costs and delays, the immaturity of the technology and the low level of implementation so far means that it will
take time for blockchain technology to become widely applied. Just like with other new technologies, blockchain technology needs to
be subject to continuous experimentation and development if it is to realize its full potential.

6. Limitations and future research

To shed light on this emerging field, this study revealed that an awareness of maritime shipping blockchain applications and
future improvements has a significant positive effect on intention to use. It is hoped that future research can extend these findings.
Although the present study’s objectives were accomplished, several limitations that could be addressed in future studies should be
noted and suggest caution when interpreting this study’s findings. First, our research model should be applied to other industries to
verify its findings. Second, future research could apply the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) to test
empirically how users accept the use of blockchains. Third, as is the case in most empirical studies, this study took a static view with
no consideration of the evolution of maritime shipping operators’ perceptions. Blockchain applications and future improvements are
emerging and new topics are evolving all the time. We expect blockchain business models, along with governance and regulation
issues to become critical in the evolution of blockchains in the future, and important places to focus future research.

Acknowledgement

The project is funded by Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), Taiwan; Grant Agreement No. MOST-108-2410-H-309-004-
SSS.

115
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

Appendix A. Construct measurement

loading

BT – applications
Customs clearance and management (CC)
(Mean = 4.007, S.D. = 0.685, Cronbach α = 0.912, CITC range = 0.734–0.814)
Key references: Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017; Hancock and Vaizey, 2016
CC1. The movements and other related data (i.e., temperature, humidity, and lighting conditions) of cargos recorded on the blockchain through sensors 0.725
to help customs inspection and supervision.
CC2. A European Customs Organization based on blockchain technology to combat low quality and counterfeit products. 0.835
CC3. The assets that assist customs inspection recorded in blockchain cannot be altered or forged. 0.770
CC4. Blockchain anti-counterfeiting supports customs to combat piracy and increase consumer confidence. 0.832
CC5. Blockchain digital authentication helps customs to verify the credibility of self-reported data and accelerate customs clearance. 0.801
Digitalizing and easing paperwork (DP)
(Mean = 4.051, S.D. = 0.683, Cronbach α = 0.883, CITC range = 0.648–0.784)
Key references: Groenfeldt, 2017; Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017; Morabito, 2017; Lieber, 2017
DP1. Maritime shipping can use blockchain technology for digital transformation. 0.805
DP2. Blockchain technology will speed up document exchanges (e.g., commercial invoices, bills of lading) and verification related to cross-border trade. 0.745
DP3. Blockchain technology allows the ownership of digital assets, and the secure storage and transmission of digital signature files will reduce 0.768
paperwork.
DP4. Blockchain technology not only simplifies trade between countries, but also facilitates maritime shipping operations, thus eliminating paperwork. 0.816
DP5. Maritime shipping spans different languages, laws, and organizations, so there is a lot of paperwork in the supply chain. 0.659
Tracking and tracing (TT)
(Mean = 4.122 , S.D. = 0.618 , Cronbach α = 0.856, CITC range = 0.624–0.758)
Key references: Tapscott and Tapscott 2016; Allison, 2017; Hackius and Petersen, 2017
TT1. Blockchains record the private key addresses of the seller, the transporter, and the buyer, and can trace back to the past and present of any 0.793
transaction.
TT2. Blockchains can help to track cargo content, environmental conditions, location and delivery details, and verify them when necessary. 0.814
TT3. Blockchains record all the steps of delivery, ensure the traceability of the information, and avoid packet loss and false claims. 0.706
TT4. Blockchain systems are used to track goods and are especially useful for sensitive or fragile goods (e.g., food, flowers, and medical products). 0.578
BT - Future improvements
Standardization and platform development (SP)
(Mean = 4.095, S.D. = 0.732, Cronbach α = 0.882, CITC range = 0.722–0.807)
Key references: Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017; Mougayar and Buterin, 2016; Venegas and Krabec, 2016
SP1. There is a need to develop global blockchain standards in the future. 0.819
SP2. There is a need to convince shipping supply chain partners to adopt blockchain solutions and secure a common platform in the future. 0.886
SP3. There is a need to develop shipping blockchain common architectures and agreements in the future. 0.867
SP4. The combination of new technologies such as blockchain, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence (AI), and big data is necessary in the future. 0.813
Business model and regulation (BR)
(Mean = 4.132, S.D. = 0.650, Cronbach α = 0.756, CITC range = 0.508–0.700)
Key references: Lehmacher and McWaters, 2017; Mougayar and Buterin, 2016; Venegas and Krabec, 2016
BR1. There is a need to reach a consensus to loosen regulations in the future. 0.745
BR2. The biggest improvement needed for blockchain implementation in the future.is the development of innovative business models. 0.881
BR3. In the future blockchain decentralized applications have to meet the “core needs” of users more than traditional centralized applications. 0.795
Intention to use (IN)
(Mean = 4.096, S.D. = 0.753, Cronbach α = 0.919, CITC range = 0.805–0.880)
Key references: Venkatesh and Davis (2000)
IN1. I intend to use blockchain technology to speed up customs clearance and management of maritime shipping. 0.922
IN2. I intend to use blockchain technology to digitize and reduce paperwork in maritime shipping. 0.950
IN3. I intend to use blockchain technology for maritime shipping tracking and tracing. 0.911

Appendix B. Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2019.09.020.

References

Allison, I., 2017. Maersk and IBM Want 10 Million Shipping Containers on the Global Supply Blockchain by Year-End. https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/maersk-ibm-aim-
get-10-million-shipping-containers-onto-global-supply-blockchain-by-year-end-1609778.
Apte, S., Petrovsky, N., 2016. Will blockchain technology revolutionize excipient supply chain management? J. Excip. Food Chem. 7 (3), 76–78.
Baker, J., Steiner, J., 2015. Blockchain: The Solution for Transparency in Product Supply Chains. Provenance, London, UK.
Belle, I., 2017. The architecture, engineering and construction industry and blockchain technology. Digit. Cult. 279–284.
Byrne, B.M., 1998. Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts. Applications and Programming. Lawrence, Mahwah, NJ.
Chang, C.H., Lai, P.L., 2017. An evaluation of logistics policy enablers between Taiwan and the UK. Marit. Bus. Rev. 2 (1), 2–20.
Crosby, M., Pattanayak, P., Verma, S., Kalyanaraman, V., 2016. Blockchain technology: beyond bitcoin. Appl. Innov. 2, 6–10.
Czachorowski, K., Solesvik, M., Kondratenko, Y., 2019. The application of blockchain technology in the maritime industry. In: Green IT Engineering: Social, Business
and Industrial Applications. Springer, Cham, pp. 561–577.
Davis, F.D., 1989. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quart. 319–340.

116
C.-S. Yang Transportation Research Part E 131 (2019) 108–117

Deshpande, A., Stewart, K., Lepetit, L., Gunashekar, S., 2017. Distributed Ledger Technologies/Blockchain: Challenges, Opportunities and the Prospects for Standards.
Overview report The British Standards Institution (BSI).
Dobrovnik, M., Herold, D., Fürst, E., Kummer, S., 2018. Blockchain for and in logistics: what to adopt and where to start. Logistics 2 (3), 1–18.
Dunn, S.C., Seaker, R.F., Waller, M.A., 1994. Latent variables in business logistics research: scale development and validation. J. Bus. Log. 15 (2), 145–172.
Foerstl, K., Schleper, M.C., Henke, M., 2017. Purchasing and supply management: from efficiency to effectiveness in an integrated supply chain. J. Purchas. Supp.
Manage. 23 (4), 223–228.
Folkinshteyn, D., Lennon, M., 2016. Braving Bitcoin: a technology acceptance model (TAM) analysis. J. Inform. Technol. Case Appl. Res. 18 (4), 220–249.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., 1981. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 18 (3), 382–388.
Francisco, K., Swanson, D., 2018. The supply chain has no clothes: Technology adoption of blockchain for supply chain transparency. Logistics 2 (1), 2.
Groenfeldt, T., 2017. IBM And Maersk Apply Blockchain To Container Shipping. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomgroenfeldt/2017/03/05/ibm-and-
maersk-apply-blockchain-to-container-shipping/#4a2288eb3f05.
Hackius, N., Petersen, M., 2017. Blockchain in logistics and supply chain: trick or treat? In: Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL).
epubli, pp. 3–18.
Hancock, M., Vaizey, E., 2016. Distributed Ledger Technology: Beyond Block Chain, first ed. Government Office for Science, London. Available at: https://assets.
publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/492972/gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf.
Heutger, M., Kueckelhaus, M., 2018. Blockchain in Logistics. DHL, Bonn, Germany.
Hu, L.T., Bentler, P.M., 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Eq. Model.
Multidiscip. J. 6 (1), 1–55.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization), 2017. ‘ISO/TC 307: Blockchain and Electronic Distributed Ledger Technologies, Retrieved January 17, 2019,
from https://www.iso.org/committee/6266604/x/catalogue/p/0/u/1/w/0/d/0.
Jackson, B., 2017. Canada’s first commercial blockchain service could become the ‘Interac’ for digital transactions. IT World Canada. Retrieved from https://www.
itworldcanada.com/article/%20canadas-first-commercial-lockchainservice-could-become-the-interac-for-digital-%20transactions/391673.
Jain, A., Jain, A., Chauhan, N., Singh, V., Thakur, N., 2018. Seguro Digital storage of documents using Blockchain. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 5 (4), 4951–4954.
Kakavand, H., Kost De Sevres, N., Chilton, B., 2017. The blockchain revolution: an analysis of regulation and technology related to distributed ledger technologies.
Bart, The Blockchain Revolution: An Analysis of Regulation and Technology Related to Distributed Ledger Technologies (January 1, 2017).
Kamble, S., Gunasekaran, A., Arha, H., 2019. Understanding the Blockchain technology adoption in supply chains-Indian context. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (7), 2009–2033.
Kim, K.H., Shim, J.H., 2018. Application and policy direction of blockchain in logistics and distribution industry. J. Ind. Distrib. Bus. 9 (6), 77–85.
Kline, R.B., 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, third ed. The Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Korpela, K., Hallikas, J., Dahlberg, T., 2017. Digital supply chain transformation toward blockchain integration. In: Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International
Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa Village, HI, USA, pp. 4–7.
Lee, Y., Kozar, K.A., Larsen, K.R., 2003. The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Commun. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 12 (1), 752–780.
Lehmacher, W., 2017. Why Blockchain should be Global Trade’s Next Port of Call, World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/
2017/05/blockchain-ports-global-trades/.
Lehmacher, W., McWaters, J., 2017. How Blockchain Can Restore Trust In Trade. World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/
2017/02/blockchain-trade-trust-transparency/.
Li, E.Y., 2017. Integrating Innovation Diffusion Theory and the Technology Acceptance Model: the adoption of blockchain technology from business managers’
perspective. Int. Conf. Electr. Bus. 12 (4), 299–302.
Li, X., Jiang, P., Chen, T., Luo, X., Wen, Q., 2017. A survey on the security of blockchain systems. Future Generation Computer Systems. https://www.sciencedirect.
com/science/article/pii/S0167739X17318332?via%3Dihub.
Lieber, A., 2017. Trust in Trade: Announcing a new blockchain partner. [online] IBM. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/blogs/blockchain/2017/03/trust-trade-
announcing-new-blockchain-partner/.
Luu, L., Narayanan, V., Zheng, C., Baweja, K., Gilbert, S., Saxena, P., 2016. A secure sharing protocol for open blockchains. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ECM SIGSAC
Conference on Computer and Communications Security (CCS 2016), Vienna, Austria, October 24–29, 2016, pp. 17–30.
Mitzner, T.L., Boron, J.B., Fausset, C.B., Adams, A.E., Charness, N., Czaja, S.J., Sharit, J., 2010. Older adults talk technology: technology usage and attitudes. Comput.
Hum. Behav. 26 (6), 1710–1721.
Morabito, V., 2017 Business Innovation Through Blockchain: The B3 Perspective. Springer, Cham. Available at: file:///D:/Business%20Innovation%20Through
%20Blockchain.pdf.
Mougayar, W., Buterin, V., 2016. The Business Blockchain: Promise, Practice, and Application of the Next Internet Technology, first ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New
Jersey, USA.
Neter, J., Wasserman, W., Kutner, M.H., 1990. Applied Linear Statistical Models: Regression, Analysis of Variance, And Experimental Designs. Richard D. Irwin. Inc,
Boston.
Önder, I., Treiblmaier, H., 2018. Blockchain and tourism: three research propositions. Ann. Tour. Res. 72 (C), 180–182.
Park, E., Baek, S., Ohm, J., Chang, H.J., 2014. Determinants of player acceptance of mobile social network games: an application of extended technology acceptance
model. Telemat. Inform. 31 (1), 3–15.
Porter, C.E., Donthu, N., 2006. Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: the role of perceived access barriers and
demographics. J. Bus. Res. 59 (9), 999–1007.
Queiroz, M.M., Wamba, S.F., 2019. Blockchain adoption challenges in supply chain: an empirical investigation of the main drivers in India and the USA. Int. J. Inf.
Manage. 46 (June), 70–82.
Saberi, S., Kouhizadeh, M., Sarkis, J., Shen, L., 2019. Blockchain technology and its relationships to sustainable supply chain management. Int. J. Prod. Res. 57 (7),
2117–2135.
Segars, A.H., Grover, V., 1998. Strategic information systems planning success: an investigation of the construct and its measurement. MIS Quart. 22 (2), 139–163.
Shackelford, S.J., Myers, S., 2017. Block-by-block: leveraging the power of blockchain technology to build trust and promote cyber peace. Yale J. Law Technol. 19,
334–388.
Shermin, V., 2017. Disrupting governance with blockchains and smart contracts. Strat. Change 26 (5), 499–509.
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., Ullman, J.B., 2007. Using Multivariate Statistics, vol. 5 Pearson, Boston, MA.
Tapscott, D., Tapscott, A., 2016. Blockchain Revolution: How the Technology Behind Bitcoin Is Changing Money, Business, and the World. Penguin Canada, Toronto,
Canada.
Thiruchelvam, V., Mughisha, A.S., Shahpasand, M., Bamiah, M., 2018. Blockchain-based technology in the coffee supply chain trade: case of burundi coffee. J.
Telecommun. Electron. Comput. Eng. 10 (3–2), 121–125.
Venegas, P., Krabec, T., 2016. Trust Design: Balancing Blockchain Smart Contracts Utility and Decentralisation Risk. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=
2893767.
Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., 2000. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46 (2), 186–204.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., 2003. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 27 (3), 425–478.
Wallace, L.G., Sheetz, S.D., 2014. The adoption of software measures: a technology acceptance model (TAM) perspective. Inform. Manage. 51 (2), 249–259.
Wright, A., De Filippi, P., 2015. Decentralized Blockchain Technology and the Rise of Lex Cryptographia. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2580664.

117