From ocean to table: examining the potential of Blockchain for responsible sourcing and sustainable seafood supply chains

Figures & data

Table 1. Examples of stakeholders in the seafood industry.

Stakeholder	Description
Coastguards	The group responsible for maritime security, vigilance, and patrol over a country’s territorial waters.
Regulatory bodies	Law enforcement agencies, food safety organisations, and port authorities.
Middlemen	Exporters, packing, and freight forwarders transport agents.
Infrastructure providers	Boat rentals, chartered logistics providers, and vessel service and maintenance providers.
Seafood Experts	Aquaculture professionals, practitioners, researchers, and scientists.
Insurance service providers	Trawling bulk carriers, smaller vessels, and fishing boats.
Coastal communities	Fisherman, socio-cultural governance structures and practices, and environmental groups, and residents whose livelihoods and cultural practices are closely tied to the marine.
Consumers	For people worldwide where seafood serves as their primary source of protein.

Table 2. Leveraging the TOE framework in tech-driven SCM.

Aspect	Summary
Technology	Blockchain technology is an innovative solution for improving traceability, transparency, and sustainability in the seafood supply chain. Previous research has applied the TOE framework to understand the nuances of implementing blockchain in various supply chain contexts such as agriculture and cocoa (Bai, Quayson, and Sarkis 2022; Oguntegbe, Di Paola, and Vona 2022). Existing studies have foundational roots in the TOE theory for Blockchain-enabled SCM (Clohessy and Acton 2019; Ghaleb et al. 2021; Orji et al. 2020).
Organisation	The intricate dynamics and challenges of Blockchain adoption and implementation in organisations necessitate a comprehensive analytical framework. The TOE framework has been frequently employed to delineate the internal and external factors that play pivotal roles in the adoption and effective integration of new technologies (Bai, Quayson, and Sarkis 2022; Kalaitzi and Tsolakis 2022; Orji et al. 2020; Wong et al. 2020). Emphasis is on the understanding of the synergy between TOE elements for the successful rollout of novel technological solutions.
Environment	The seafood supply chain is characterised by a multifaceted network of stakeholders, including but not limited to fishermen, processors, wholesalers, and retailers (Bailey et al. 2016) For the adoption of innovative technologies, there is an indispensable requirement for organisations to be in sync with their external environment.

Figure 1. SAP-LAP framework (adopted from Sushil 2019).

Table 3. Selected works on SAP-LAP as an inquiry model.

Studies	Domain	Description
Chauhan, Sharma, and Singh (2021)	Industry 4.0 and circular economy	The integration of industry 4.0 and circular economy to achieve sustainability in SCM and business processes.
Sushil (2019)	Disaster management	Provide an understanding of issues and challenges in disaster management and relevant solutions to overcome the problems.
Kabra and Ramesh (2015)	HSCM	HSCM requires strategic and proactive planning and support from the Government.
John and Ramesh (2012)	HSCM	Multiple elements are essential in enhancing HSCM, such as central authority, SCM professionals, and resources management.
Kanda, Deshmukh, and Arshinder (2007)	SCM in an automotive company	Organisations must be able to organise the dependency among SCM elements. Agility and flexibility are essential capabilities in managing the SCM elements
Garg and Deshmukh (2010)	SCM in an automotive maintenance facility	Direct attention to the organisational resources and management philosophy should be made to facilitate better SCM
(Thakkar, Kanda, and Deshmukh 2008b)	SCM in SMEs	Various factors in SCM are critical, such as inadequate owner support, opportunistic suppliers, increasingly tough competition, and government policies. In addition, the interaction between actors in SCM must be carefully managed.
(Thakkar, Kanda, and Deshmukh 2008a)	IT Adoption in SMEs	IT adoption in SMEs could be triggered by internal and external drivers. Internal drivers include a positive attitude towards IT implementation and use, whereas external drivers include inter-firm competition and IT penetration in the industry.

Table 4. Description of interviewees.

Code	Interviewee role	Affiliation	Expertise	Experience in years	Country	Interview period
Phase 1
IC1	Senior Researcher	Non-Governmental Organisations working in the development of seafood and coastal business development areas	Seafood, Aquaculture and Ocean Studies	10	India	Aug-20
IC2	Chief Operating Officer	Blockchain Firm specialising in enterprise Blockchain applications	Technology operations for Blockchain and strategic initiatives	15	India	Sep-20
IC3	Professor	IT Program, University	Blockchain, cryptocurrencies, Business intelligence, and big data analytics	20	USA	Aug-20
IC4	Chief Technology Officer	Blockchain Firm specialising in enterprise Blockchain applications	Blockchain and peer-to-peer technologies and contributions to Hyperledger Fabric, Ethereum, and Interplanetary File System	10	India	Aug-20
IC5	Director	Blockchain R&D Lab	Blockchain adoption in agriculture, dairy farming supply chain	18	Australia	Sep-20
Phase 2
IC6	Fishermen	Self-business fishing companies	Fishing	30	Denmark	October 2020 – June 2021
IC7	Manager	Auction house	Fish auction	20	Denmark	Feb-21
IC8	Manager	Development company of Blockchain applications	Blockchain application development	13	Denmark	Mar-21
IC9	Manager	Distributor	Seafood distribution	9	Denmark	Feb-21
IC10	Manager	Supermarket	Seafood sales	11	Denmark	May-21
IC11	Consumer	N.A.	Seafood consumers		Denmark	May-21

Table 5. Axial coding scheme.

Code	SAP-LAP code	TOE code	Status
SI-T	Situation	Technology	As-Is
SI-O	Situation	Organisation
SI-E	Situation	Environment
AR-T	Actors	Technology
AR-O	Actors	Organisation
AR-E	Actors	Environment
PR-T	Process	Technology
PR-O	Process	Organisation
PR-E	Process	Environment
LN-T	Learning	Technology	To-Be
LN-O	Learning	Organisation
LN-E	Learning	Environment
AN-T	Action	Technology
AN-O	Action	Organisation
AN-E	Action	Environment
PF-T	Performance	Technology
PF-O	Performance	Organisation
PF-E	Performance	Environment

Table 6. Existing business process elements.

SAP-LAP–TOE matrix	Questions	Elements of seafood industry supply chains	Matrix code	Local (L)/ Global (G)
Situation-TOE	What-Existing?	Increasing number of supply chain susceptibilities and blind spots worldwide.	SI-E	G
		Inadequate infrastructure for seafood SCM in third world economies.	SI-E	L
		Poorly regulated intermediaries and unequal distribution of power.	SI-O	L
		Global growth in demand for seafood exceeds the supply, leading to overexploitation of fishing grounds.	SI-E	G
		Absence of, or poor use of, technology (sub-standard, fragmented, and siloed).	SI-T	L
		Poor coordination between international regulators.	SI-E	G
		Inefficient, lack of trusted and transparent support systems such as insurance, leasing, and financing.	SI-E	L
		Unethical fishing practices	SI-E	L
		Environmental severe costs are often overlooked due to the overwhelming demand in the seafood market.	SI-E	G
		Inadequate sustenance for aquaculture and lack of a feasible and rewarding alternative to overfishing in the developing economies	SI-O	L
Actor-TOE	Who – is involved?	Coastguards.	AR-O	L
		Universal law is enforcing bodies, food safety administrations, and port authorities.	AR-O	G
		Intermediaries (exporters, packers, shippers/transport management).	AR-O	L
		Fishermen and supporting infrastructures such as vendors, boat rentals, and service maintenance providers.	AR-E	L
		Insurance companies and agents for bulk, smaller vessels and boats.	AR-O	L
		Culinary and Hospitality industries.	AR-O	L
		Fishing societies.	AR-E	L
		Consumers worldwide for whom fish is a primary basis of protein.	AR-E	G
Process-TOE	How – happening?	Predictive process (from historical and real-time data of fishing).	PR-E	G
		Protective process (quality controls at major ports check various quality metrics and import clearances for seafood consignments).	PR-E	L
		Inadequate prevention procedures (appropriate post-capture preservation, sterilised packaging areas, controlled transportation environment, accurate labelling).	PR-O	G
		Delayed response and recovery process (In case of any quality violation, the entire product batch requires integrity and authenticity verification. Delays result in decay for many seafood supplies lots).	PR-O	L

Table 7. Intended business process elements.

SAP-LAP – TOE matrix	Questions	Supply chain components	Matrix code	Local (L)/ Global (G)
Learning-TOE	Why?	Cognizance of all the parties involved throughout the supply chain	LN-E	G
		Enhanced visibility and transparency between exporters of first-world economies and sub-contractors in the third-world countries	LN-E	G
		Technology-enabled vigilance needed to prevent regulation escapism and bureaucratic corruption	LN-T	L
		Knowledge about the implications of investment costs (capital expenditures/CAPEX and operational expenditures/OPEX) associated with technology-platform migration and digitisation in the seafood supply chain	LN-T	G
		Striking a balance between the business and science of the seafood industry. The balance will foster amicable collaboration with research institutions and fishing companies in understanding the restrictions.	LN-O	G
Actions-TOE	How?	Collate data from several unorganised players, including exporters in third-world economies. The collation can facilitate a radical shift to being an organised supply chain and leverage governmental regulations.	AN-T	G
		Blockchain platform for validating and monitoring the transactions executed between supply chain partners.	AN-E	G
		Ensure that the platform can create value and bring about sustainability in operations for all its stakeholders.	AN-T	G
		Bring all stakeholders together on a global platform and provide access and visibility to all required information.	AN-O	G
		Design appropriate algorithms to validate confirmation that the data collected is free of any bias	AN-T	G
		Create appropriate infrastructure to support the operationalise this platform	AN-T	G
		Map the fishing environment to facilitate digital replication.	AN-E	L
		Incentivize stakeholders to enable data sharing and knowledge dissemination throughout the seafood supply chain.	AN-O	L
Performance	What-Intended?	Process reliability and robustness measurement through audit trail of seafood supply chain transactions.	PF-O	L
		All-in-one information dashboard with analytics by means of creating a digital thread for supporting informed decision-making.	PF-T	G
		Degree of seafood supply chain optimisation using smart contracts and digitised processes.	PF-T	G
		The extent of tamper-proof data verification through an immutable ledger throughout the seafood supply chain process owners	PF-T	G
		Information symmetry and single shared source of truth by automated reconciliation of seafood supply chain data.	PF-E	L

Table 8. Key benefits, strategies, and challenges of Blockchain based SCM adoption and implementation.

Aspect	Description/Value
Potential Impact and Benefits	Profound transformations in business processes; enhanced data efficiency; sustainability; integration across the value chain
Critical Factors	Precise data management Stakeholder cooperation Regulatory adherence Standardisation Trustworthiness Effective quality control
Implementation Considerations and Strategy	Interoperability Cost-effectiveness Cybersecurity Consumer education Sustainability Uniform data capture and sharing
Blockchain Applications and Benefits	Secure transaction documentation; seafood tracking from capture to consumption; rigorous traceability; preventing fraud; environmental and social responsibility
Challenges, Solutions, and Key to Adoption	Challenges: Deceptive practices, counterfeit products Solutions: Secure transactions, improved transparency, stakeholder buy-in

Table 9. Matrix of findings.

SAP-LAP model	Technology	Organisation	Environment
Existing (As-Is) business processes
Situation	Primitive, Incongruent	Disorganised, Disparity, Escapism, Corruption, Non-regulated	Vulnerable, Unfavourable infrastructure, Ambiguous
Actor	Unaware, Sceptical, Reluctant	Conservative, Fragmented	Susceptible, Exploitative
Process	Incoherent, Immature	Unstandardized, Disorganised, Reactive, Unresponsive	Inefficient, Unproductive
Intended (To-Be) business processes
Learning	Curiosity, Necessity, Digitisation, Integration.	Inclination, Harmony, Collaboration	Cognizance, Visibility, Transparency, Vigilance
Action	IoT, RFID, Consensus Mechanisms, Analytics Dashboard, Collation, Value-creation, Infrastructure	Incentives, Universal Access.	Digital Mapping, Verified and Optimised
Performance	Smart Contract, Permissioned Blockchain, Vulnerability Scanner, GS1 standards.	Reliability, Robustness, Trustworthiness.	Information symmetry, Single source of truth, Compliance.

Figure 2. Framework for Blockchain-enabled seafood SCM platform.

Table 10. Tangible and non-tangible impacts of Blockchain-enabled SCM on firms, customers, and regulatory bodies.

Implication for practice	Impact on firms	Impact on customers	Impact on regulatory bodies
Digitalisation and Automation in Supply Chain	Tangible Impact Opportunity for technological upskilling. Enhanced efficiency in supply chain operations. Non-Tangible Impact Cultural shift towards technology acceptance. Enhanced firm reputation.	Tangible Impact Receive products/services with a reduced delay. Transparency in product origin. Non-Tangible Impact Increased trust in the company. Sense of being part of a progressive ecosystem.	Tangible Impact Easier oversight due to digitised operations. Improved compliance monitoring. Non-Tangible Impact Strengthened public trust in regulatory systems. Enhanced global reputation for fostering innovation.
Globalisation and Blockchain Efficiency	Tangible Impact Access to global markets and expanded business avenues. Reduction in corruption and inefficiencies. Non-Tangible Impact Strengthened global partnerships. Elevated brand perception globally.	Tangible Impact Greater product variety and assurance of authenticity. Non-Tangible Impact Enhanced confidence in global products. Feeling of being part of a global community.	Tangible Impact Clear rules and predefined requirements can be set. Efficiently address issues related to taxes, red tape, and other regulations. Non-Tangible Impact Perception as forward-thinking and global-friendly. Stronger international collaborations.
Transparency and Security in Supply Chain	Tangible Impact Improved trust among stakeholders. Enhanced security against traditional cybercrime. Non-Tangible Impact Strengthened stakeholder relationships. Increased brand integrity and loyalty.	Tangible Impact Increased confidence in product quality and source. Non-Tangible Impact Peace of mind regarding product safety. Enhanced trust in suppliers.	Tangible Impact Efficient enforcement of regulations, such as against overfishing and poaching. Non-Tangible Impact Recognition for ensuring consumer safety. Improved stakeholder trust in regulatory enforcement.
Flexibility and Crisis Management	Tangible Impact Agile response to supply chain disruptions. Cost savings due to reduced losses in crises. Smoother collaboration with other stakeholders. Non-Tangible Impact Enhanced organisational resilience. Improved stakeholder trust in firm’s agility.	Tangible Impact Consistent product availability even in disruptions. Non-Tangible Impact Sense of security and reliability associated with the firm. Appreciation for the firm’s adaptability.	Tangible Impact Rapid and transparent oversight during crises. Efficient deployment of resources where needed. Non-Tangible Impact Enhanced public confidence in times of crises. Perception of proactive and agile governance.
Integration of Blockchain in the Seafood Supply Chain	Tangible Impact Reduction in downtime and supply chain disruptions. Enhanced efficiency and data-driven operations. Skilled workforce due to training programs. Non-Tangible Impact Improved internal cohesion and understanding of processes. Strengthened public image.	Tangible Impact Seamless experience due to fewer disruptions. Assurance of product quality. Non-Tangible Impact Increased brand loyalty. Enhanced trust in the supply chain.	Tangible Impact Easier monitoring due to standardised processes. Proactive addressing of potential issues due to data insights. Non-Tangible Impact Elevated status as a progressive regulatory body. Increased trust from industry stakeholders.
Future proofing with Technology Advancements	Tangible Impact Stay ahead in the market with timely technology adoption. Efficient data analysis leading to predictive insights. Non-Tangible Impact Organisational readiness for future challenges. Fostered culture of innovation.	Tangible Impact Benefit from the latest technological features. Non-Tangible Impact Anticipation of consistent technological improvements. Sense of being served by cutting-edge firms.	Tangible Impact Stay updated with the latest tech advancements. Ensure that regulations are aligned with the latest technological standards. Non-Tangible Impact Enhanced reputation for staying ahead of the tech curve. Confidence in adapting to future challenges.

Bai, C., M. Quayson, and J. Sarkis. 2022. “Analysis of Blockchain’s Enablers for Improving Sustainable Supply Chain Transparency in Africa Cocoa Industry.” Journal of Cleaner Production 358: 131896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.131896

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oguntegbe, K. F., N. Di Paola, and R. Vona. 2022. “Behavioural Antecedents to Blockchain Implementation in Agrifood Supply Chain Management: A Thematic Analysis.” Technology in Society 68: 101927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101927

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clohessy, T., and T. Acton. 2019. “Investigating the Influence of Organizational Factors on Blockchain Adoption.” Industrial Management & Data Systems 119 (7): 1457–1491. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2018-0365

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ghaleb, E. A. A., P. D. D. Dominic, S. M. Fati, A. Muneer, and R. F. Ali. 2021. “The Assessment of Big Data Adoption Readiness with a Technology–Organization–Environment Framework: A Perspective towards Healthcare Employees.” Sustainability 13 (15): 8379. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158379

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Orji, I. J., S. Kusi-Sarpong, S. Huang, and D. Vazquez-Brust. 2020. “Evaluating the Factors That Influence Blockchain Adoption in the Freight Logistics Industry.” Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 141: 102025. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2020.102025

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kalaitzi, D., and N. Tsolakis. 2022. “Supply Chain Analytics Adoption: Determinants and Impacts on Organisational Performance and Competitive Advantage.” International Journal of Production Economics 248: 108466. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108466

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Wong, L.-W., L.-Y. Leong, J.-J. Hew, G. W.-H. Tan, and K.-B. Ooi. 2020. “Time to Seize the Digital Evolution: Adoption of Blockchain in Operations and Supply Chain Management among Malaysian SMEs.” International Journal of Information Management 52: 101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.08.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bailey, M., S. R. Bush, A. Miller, and M. Kochen. 2016. “The Role of Traceability in Transforming Seafood Governance in the Global South.” Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 18: 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.06.004

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sushil. (2019). “Theory Building Using SAP-LAP Linkages: An Application in the Context of Disaster Management.” Annals of Operations Research 283 (1–2): 811–836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-017-2425-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chauhan, C., A. Sharma, and A. Singh. 2021. “A SAP-LAP Linkages Framework for Integrating Industry 4.0 and Circular Economy.” Benchmarking: An International Journal 28 (5): 1638–1664. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-10-2018-0310

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kabra, G., and A. Ramesh. 2015. “Analyzing ICT Issues in Humanitarian Supply Chain Management: A SAP-LAP Linkages Framework.” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management 16 (2): 157–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-014-0088-3

 Google Scholar

John, L., and A. Ramesh. 2012. “Humanitarian Supply Chain Management in India: A SAP‐LAP Framework.” Journal of Advances in Management Research 9 (2): 217–235. https://doi.org/10.1108/09727981211271968

 Google Scholar

Arun, Kanda, S.G., Deshmukh, Arshinder, (2007). Supply Chain Coordination Issues: An SAP‐LAP Framework.Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 19(3), 240–264. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850710772923

 Google Scholar

Garg, A., and S. G. Deshmukh. 2010. “Engineering Support Issues for Flexibility in Maintenance.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 22 (2): 247–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13555851011026980

 Google Scholar

Thakkar, J., A. Kanda, and S. G. Deshmukh. 2008b. “Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) of IT‐Enablers for Indian Manufacturing SMEs.” Information Management & Computer Security 16 (2): 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1108/09685220810879609

 Google Scholar

Thakkar, J., A. Kanda, and S. G. Deshmukh. 2008a. “A Conceptual Role Interaction Model for Supply Chain Management in SMEs.” Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development 15 (1): 74–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/14626000810850856

 Google Scholar