An analysis on the role of blockchain-based platforms in agricultural supply chains

Cao, Yu; Yi, Chaoqun; Wan, Guangyu; Hu, Hanli; Li, Qingsong; Wang, Shouyang

doi:10.1016/j.tre.2022.102731

Cited by 89 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A fourth research stream should revolve around the implications of DT for Business Models, Supply Chains, and broader implications at industry levels . Prior studies have highlighted how digital technologies can be used to increase the reliability of information traceability in real time for supply‐chain management without human intervention (Cao et al, 2022). Whilst such technologies have the potential to give rise to novel business models, this remains far from the de facto standard of supply‐chain management.…”

Section: Opportunities For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital transformation in operations management: Fundamental change through agency reversal

Angelopoulos

Bendoly

Fransoo

et al. 2023

J of Ops Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Opportunities For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Digital transformation in operations management: Fundamental change through agency reversal

Angelopoulos

Bendoly

Fransoo

et al. 2023

J of Ops Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Chod et al demonstrated that blockchain technology could provide enterprises access to advantageous fnancing terms at reduced signalling costs [25]. Cao et al evaluated the role of blockchain platforms in the context of limited supplier capital [26]. Tey discovered that the engagement of blockchain platforms could increase the supply chain's output and total surplus.…”

Section: Blockchain-enabled Financingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Te parameter b indicates the price sensitivity of the inverse demand function. (4) Te farmer decides the planting area based on the purchase price and fnancing cost, where the quadratic production cost function C(q) � c 1 q + cq 2 is commonly used to describe the diseconomies of scale [26,29,30], c 1 representing the input cost coefcient, c 1 q representing the cost of cultivating arable land for inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides, and c refects the coefcient of output efort cost. A bigger output efort input indicates inefciency.…”

Section: Notation List and Assumptions Parameters And Decision Variab...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Financing the Three-Tier Supply Chain: Advance Payment vs. Blockchain-Enabled Financing Mode

Hong

Xue

2023

Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Supply chain finance has shown remarkable results in alleviating the financial constraints of small and medium-sized enterprises. However, most studies have concentrated on the two-tier supply chain while ignoring the financing issues of the deep-tier supply chain. This study introduced the blockchain-enabled financing mode now utilized in the manufacturing industry and constructed a three-tier agricultural supply chain considering the farmer’s financial constraints. The main contributions of this article are (1) presenting the blockchain-enabled financing mode in the three-tier agricultural supply chain and (2) investigating supply chain decision-making in the three-tier supply chain when the tier-2 supplier is financially constrained, comparing advance payment and the blockchain-enabled financing mode. Relevant parameter estimations were realized using the data of the last ten years, and numerical analyses were conducted. The results show that when the farmer’s bank’s financing capability exceeds the acquirer’s, the farmer is motivated to select the blockchain-enabled financing mode. However, a win-win situation among the three-tier supply chain is only achievable when the transmission-fee rate falls within a particular range. In addition, if government agencies wish to promote blockchain technology by subsidizing blockchain-enabled financing, they might support the farmer in obtaining a bank loan at a cheaper interest rate. All members of the supply chain would benefit from this.

show abstract

“…For instance, the provider about the BLTS IBM sell their service by CPU hours and there is a positive relationship between it and purchasers' sales (Cao et al, 2022). In addition, a provider JD from China, they offer the buyers a service charging by the time (Digital, 2020), e.g.…”

Section: Cost-sharing and Revenue-sharing Contractmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investment strategies and coordination for green food supply chain: a further research considering the inputs of the blockchain-based traceability system

Liu

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo study these issues, the authors chose a GFSC with one producer and one material supplier as research object, the supplier will offer green material to the producer and the producer will make green food using green production technology. Then, the authors proposed that consumers' perceived value was determined by the trustworthiness levels of the related green and quality-safety information provided by the supplier and the producer. Then, considering the trustworthiness levels of the green and quality information provided by the supplier and the producer, the authors improved the demand function. Afterwards, we constructed four investment models and their income models are built and then a cost-sharing and revenue-sharing contract (hereafter, CSRS) was adopted to coordinate the GFSC.Design/methodology/approachWith the growth of consumers environmental awareness and life level, consumers' requirements for green and high quality food are growing. In recently years, to increase consumers' perceived trustworthiness on the product greenness and quality levels, stakeholders in green food supply chain (hereafter, GFSC) start to adopt the blockchain-based traceability system (hereafter, BLTS). For investors, they need to know the investment conditions and how to coordinate the GFSC.Findings(1) When the revenue-sharing coefficient is less than three-fourths and higher then a certain vaule, the cost-sharing and revenue-sharing contract can make the GFSC coordinate. (2) The investment cost threshold of the BLTS has a positive relationship with the trustworthiness improvement levels of the green and quality information, the green degree of food products and the quality of food products. (3) In the proposed four investment situations, as the growth of consumers perceived credibility coefficient about the greenness information and the quality information, chain members' revenues will increase. In addition, comparing with co-investing the BLTS, benefits of chain members are lower than them in the sole investment model.Originality/value(1) The demand function we proposed can help chain members forecast market demand to support production or ordering decisions. (2) The investment decision policies can offer a theoretical reference for chain members to use the BLTS. (3) The CSRS will offer the theoretical reference for coordinating the supply chain after using the BLTS. Furthermore, our study method can be referenced by other scholars. (4) The study method can offer a method reference for researchers who do a similar discussion in a manufacturing supply chain. Although, our research cannot guide the industrial practices, it can serve as a reference of the similar research in industry.

show abstract

An analysis on the role of blockchain-based platforms in agricultural supply chains

Cited by 89 publications

References 67 publications

Digital transformation in operations management: Fundamental change through agency reversal

Digital transformation in operations management: Fundamental change through agency reversal

Financing the Three-Tier Supply Chain: Advance Payment vs. Blockchain-Enabled Financing Mode

Investment strategies and coordination for green food supply chain: a further research considering the inputs of the blockchain-based traceability system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About